I don’t usually play treaty or deathmatch, but a while ago they removed them from the ranked queue matchmaking, not sure why, didn’t bother me then…
Now we can only play a ranked treaty/DM if we go into public hosted games??
Not sure how that works, does it just pair you with whomever? Despite ELO?
I’m confused here…
Ranked search for treaty had so few people you were probably waiting 7 mins most of the time. Most treaty players use lobbies so they can separate into teams in a more fair manner and kick noobs who would waste a few minutes and require a reset (one person without a deck can totally wreck a 60min treaty game). No one really wants to lose 60 because someone doesn’t know that 700 food is a bad card etc.
For this reason I don’t think treaty mode should even exist. It is so niche and is not RTS at all. It is so easy to break balance by one player and it is like only the group of few people are actually playing it among themselves. Civs are not balanced either. It is centered around culverin micro and then civs without cukverin is screwed
Treaty mode is fine, obviously there’s enough players to keep it going and also lack of treaty was one of the main criticism of aoe4 on launch day.
Let’s not turn the forum into a treaty vs supremacy battleground. If we count balance issues, i’m sure supremacy is less balanced than treaty.
Over the last 5 years, no one has been playing ranked treaty as a team. Only bad people cheat on suckers.
Due to a bug, the team rating game will count the victory only to team 1. For 5 years no one has fixed this bug. So ranked games are played only 1v1.
Say it to the Lakota. Two years ago the win rate there was almost 70%.
No it wasn’t. Nuh uh.
Inca, Aztec or any other non european civ suffers from this. The lack of cannons makes them have a hard time vs waves of infantry mass.
It’s just unbalanced.
I’m playing treaty in Russia. Each of my battles ends with the Aztecs pushing me almost to the fence of my base, destroying forts and blockhouses. This is despite the fact that I have a limit of 210, and the infantry is built instantly.
Now, now, you don’t want to go this particular treaty rabbit hole. We have people here wanting all sorts of wacky things.
That means you are a bad player
It’s funny to hear this from people who all they can do is press buttons quickly.
It’s even more funny when this is said by a russian full instant spam infantry treaty player.
What i don’t know i can press buttons quickly. Actually i don’t have buttons maybe except on my clothes
This happens in supremacy too. Any treaty unbalancy can be moved into teamgames, and most lobbies are teamgames.
Also, it can be said in the other way, for example jagers arent an issue on treaty, but europeans getting imperial upgrades for 3-4 units by free is not too balanced in supremacy.
Or Giant grenadiers, or Ulufelis, and so on…
i mean, really should have limited the queue to 40 anyhow.
the real issue was skill cap, i went on like a 50 game streak, and out of those maybe 5 where close and fun.
You treatie players talking about skills omg…yesterday a 1300s beat juliank on stream just by picking the strong civ. You know treaty is not a good representation of aoe3 skills. Juliank will still be considered the more skilled player than that,guy (i forgot name) because his supremacy rating is much higher.
Your comment makes no sense at all.
Different game modes requires different skill and knowledge sets.
You can be a master on sup and still lose to another not-master-on-sup player on their native game mode
No the skill level in aoe3 or how good is one player in general is always measured by his supremacy rating not treaty ability
For example if juliank is 800 elo on sup and keep hisbtreaty rating he will not be considered a good player. If he is 800 elo in treaty and keep his supremacy level he is still a top player.
JulianK literally came from treaty, what is this childish nonsense you are spewing?
It shows up that being good in treaty generally makes you at least an okay player of the game.
