Age of Empires Forums


  advanced
in


Last post 06-04-2012, 10:23 AM by BuZz_D. 77 replies.
Page 3 of 6 (78 items)   < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last »
Sort Posts:
  •  05-31-2012, 1:57 PM 958052 in reply to 958051
    ANKUR ANKUR is not online. Last active: 09-15-2013, 1:53 AM
    Member
    INDIA
    Top 500 Contributor
    Total Posts: 596
    Last Post: 09-15-2013
    Member Since: 07-28-2011
    Subject: Re: About micro, strategy and macro
    but  still there are much more no of units at a time (never forget multi tasking too ) that even with some what less intensive micro , u need more apm and speed 

    knight_br:
    Optimal explanation .. very succinctly


    LordStefanIII:

    Unkown_Genius:
    Leave it to Age.Comm to get a thread twenty miles off topic.


    :)

    Or turn into a flame war.

  •  05-31-2012, 2:01 PM 958053 in reply to 958052
    Jerom Jerom is not online. Last active: 28 Dec 2013, 7:18 PM
    Member
    Delfgauw, The Netherlands
    Top 10 Contributor
    Total Posts: 10,000
    Last Post: 12-28-2013
    Member Since: 11-19-2009
    Subject: Re: About micro, strategy and macro
    Well its hard to call what is more and what is less. I think the very intensive micro just takes an insane amount of apm that is unreachable (not even god on steroids would be able to achieve it). I am talking about retreating skirmishers that are being shot on (and then with all of them). I think that is simply impossible so that leaves about an infinite amount of micro possibilities which means you can only play perfectly with an infinite apm.

    [N3O] Jerom_the_brave
    http://www.youtube.com/user/N3OJerom?feature=mhee

  •  05-31-2012, 2:42 PM 958058 in reply to 958053
    gs gs is not online. Last active: 29/01/2014, 11:43 PM
    Member
    NL
    Top 10 Contributor
    Total Posts: 6,840
    Last Post: 01-29-2014
    Member Since: 04-01-2007
    Subject: Re: About micro, strategy and macro

    this thread is full of biased treaty players who haven't played sup on even nearly a high enough level to make this kind of judgment. i'm not here to flame anyone just to enlighten you.

    the amount of possible micro in treaty is higher than in sup, yes. but:
    - it's less significant, since both sides have large amounts of resources so it's more about winning ground and keeping cannons alive than it is about fighting as cost effective as possible.
    - the lag doesn't allow for perfect micro.

    in sup, strong micro will win every game instantly because you will have 2x as many units left after a battle than your opponent. in sup there is no way to come back from that. 

    treaty is all about keeping that 200/200, keeping cannons alive, about knowing when to push and when to play defensively. and, of course, about making the right units. build orders are always the same so the entire base building RTS concept is pretty much gone. sure, you build a base, but it's not about managing your economy like an RTS should be, it's about doing the same thing over and over and perfecting it. your economy is fixed, it is not a variable. you can't kill someone by cutting off their income (unless they're stupid and let you break through 5 layers of walls for free), you have to slowly wear them down. the deep understanding of the game's build order counters and the best way to balance eco and military is taken out entirely in treaty, which is the main reason treaty players are so bad at sup 1v1 (in 3v3 sup the build orders are often fixed too) and why i personally can't appreciate treaty.

    as for macroing your military buildings, considering it's one of the few things you have to do after min 40 it's really not that big a deal. it's more work than in sup, but then again in sup you also have an economy to manage.

    the question "which game type requires more skill?" or "which game type has the more skilled players?" is a nobrainer. biased or not, surely everyone can see this. the best treaty players have always been bad sup players. i don't think any of them has even reached 2100 in 1v1. ryan, or H2O, was playing against top treaty players and beating them after practicing spain for maybe 20 games. the 2 game types require many of the same skills, but sup simply requires a vast knowledge about the game that treaty players just don't have, mostly because you have to know which build to do in which situation, and know how to adapt. micro also seems like a weak point, treaty players aren't used to giving a battle their 100% attention and aren't used to the tiny micro techniques that can make a difference in sup. treaty micro is all about positioning and while this is important in sup battles as well, there is much more to it than that.

    the notion that treaty requires more apm is of course not true either. scrubs recording their apm and claiming they reached a higher one than sc2 pros is laughable. 1. sc2 seconds are 1.5x faster, and 2. sc2's APM counter actually counts actions, not keystrokes, meaning if you press whatever key 1000 times it won't register unless it actually does something in the game. on aoe you can spam any key you want and it'll register as an action. you really, really don't need 400 apm to play treaty effectively. it at least wouldn't make much difference from a treaty player with 150 apm. you might just be able to win 100 resources every minute ;). in sup, because battles are more apm-intensive and you have an economy to manage (plus your base isn't safe from raids) there is just a lot more to do. for you treaty "pros" out there who actually think they're fast with their mouses: http://www.bigfatarcade.com/full.php?id=5593 the way you compare to sc2 pros or even strong sup players at that game will be enough said.

    i may come on strong, but it's all true. i have to counteract the massive bias towards treaty shown in this thread somehow... jerom has been doing what he can but clearly wasn't willing to risk a flame war ;)


  •  05-31-2012, 2:53 PM 958059 in reply to 958058
    Jerom Jerom is not online. Last active: 28 Dec 2013, 7:18 PM
    Member
    Delfgauw, The Netherlands
    Top 10 Contributor
    Total Posts: 10,000
    Last Post: 12-28-2013
    Member Since: 11-19-2009
    Subject: Re: About micro, strategy and macro
    gs:

    i may come on strong, but it's all true. i have to counteract the massive bias towards treaty shown in this thread somehow... jerom has been doing what he can but clearly wasn't willing to risk a flame war ;)

    <3

    I agree for 100% but I've come to think that I don't want to make only enemies on agecomm because well, I don't think treaty players will ever accept what you said to be true so it'll end up in a flame war either way around Sad


    [N3O] Jerom_the_brave
    http://www.youtube.com/user/N3OJerom?feature=mhee

  •  05-31-2012, 2:55 PM 958060 in reply to 958059
    gs gs is not online. Last active: 29/01/2014, 11:43 PM
    Member
    NL
    Top 10 Contributor
    Total Posts: 6,840
    Last Post: 01-29-2014
    Member Since: 04-01-2007
    Subject: Re: About micro, strategy and macro

    well, these are different people. they could be reasonable. figured it's worth a shot


  •  05-31-2012, 2:58 PM 958061 in reply to 958058
    Lukas_L99 Lukas_L99 is not online. Last active: 01-19-2014, 5:55 PM
    Member
    Frankfurt (Germany)
    Top 500 Contributor
    Total Posts: 773
    Last Post: 01-19-2014
    Member Since: 12-28-2011
    Subject: Re: About micro, strategy and macro
    gs:

    [...] 

    - the lag doesn't allow for perfect micro.

    This sounds like every treaty game would be laggy which isn't true.

    gs:

    [...] 

    sure, you build a base, but it's not about managing your economy like an RTS should be

    Thats true with most civs but if you play for example Iro or Brits and have to manage their cow eco you have to watch out for idle vills who aren't cowing, build cows/sheep every 5 secs, change dances (with native civs) etc...


    http://www.youtube.com/user/L99Lukas/videos

    George:
    Its like trying to drink soup with a fork.
  •  05-31-2012, 3:58 PM 958064 in reply to 958058
    ANKUR ANKUR is not online. Last active: 09-15-2013, 1:53 AM
    Member
    INDIA
    Top 500 Contributor
    Total Posts: 596
    Last Post: 09-15-2013
    Member Since: 07-28-2011
    Subject: Re: About micro, strategy and macro
    gs:

    this thread is full of biased treaty players who haven't played sup on even nearly a high enough level to make this kind of judgment. i'm not here to flame anyone just to enlighten you.

    the amount of possible micro in treaty is higher than in sup, yes. but:
    - it's less significant, since both sides have large amounts of resources so it's more about winning ground and keeping cannons alive than it is about fighting as cost effective as possible.
    - the lag doesn't allow for perfect micro.

    in sup, strong micro will win every game instantly because you will have 2x as many units left after a battle than your opponent. in sup there is no way to come back from that. 

    treaty is all about keeping that 200/200, keeping cannons alive, about knowing when to push and when to play defensively. and, of course, about making the right units. build orders are always the same so the entire base building RTS concept is pretty much gone. sure, you build a base, but it's not about managing your economy like an RTS should be, it's about doing the same thing over and over and perfecting it. your economy is fixed, it is not a variable. you can't kill someone by cutting off their income (unless they're stupid and let you break through 5 layers of walls for free), you have to slowly wear them down. the deep understanding of the game's build order counters and the best way to balance eco and military is taken out entirely in treaty, which is the main reason treaty players are so bad at sup 1v1 (in 3v3 sup the build orders are often fixed too) and why i personally can't appreciate treaty.

    as for macroing your military buildings, considering it's one of the few things you have to do after min 40 it's really not that big a deal. it's more work than in sup, but then again in sup you also have an economy to manage.

    the question "which game type requires more skill?" or "which game type has the more skilled players?" is a nobrainer. biased or not, surely everyone can see this. the best treaty players have always been bad sup players. i don't think any of them has even reached 2100 in 1v1. ryan, or H2O, was playing against top treaty players and beating them after practicing spain for maybe 20 games. the 2 game types require many of the same skills, but sup simply requires a vast knowledge about the game that treaty players just don't have, mostly because you have to know which build to do in which situation, and know how to adapt. micro also seems like a weak point, treaty players aren't used to giving a battle their 100% attention and aren't used to the tiny micro techniques that can make a difference in sup. treaty micro is all about positioning and while this is important in sup battles as well, there is much more to it than that.

    the notion that treaty requires more apm is of course not true either. scrubs recording their apm and claiming they reached a higher one than sc2 pros is laughable. 1. sc2 seconds are 1.5x faster, and 2. sc2's APM counter actually counts actions, not keystrokes, meaning if you press whatever key 1000 times it won't register unless it actually does something in the game. on aoe you can spam any key you want and it'll register as an action. you really, really don't need 400 apm to play treaty effectively. it at least wouldn't make much difference from a treaty player with 150 apm. you might just be able to win 100 resources every minute ;). in sup, because battles are more apm-intensive and you have an economy to manage (plus your base isn't safe from raids) there is just a lot more to do. for you treaty "pros" out there who actually think they're fast with their mouses: http://www.bigfatarcade.com/full.php?id=5593 the way you compare to sc2 pros or even strong sup players at that game will be enough said.

    i may come on strong, but it's all true. i have to counteract the massive bias towards treaty shown in this thread somehow... jerom has been doing what he can but clearly wasn't willing to risk a flame war ;)

    1.1st of all in the starting of the thread fuhar and me already said that sup require much more thinking process , which is more imp than skill in any rts

     2. micro in treaty is very significant , even if u micro ur cannons and do drag and hit with ski to anti-cav, this much micro alone require lotz of speed and apm to do perecftly with full pop army , and even having perfect unit placement every time with 100 pop army require  lotz of apm and speed too , its hard to think how come it can be be low in treaty (high level) , it can be low in intensity but with lotz more pop army even low intensity micro will need quite a lotz , its less in quality but more in quantity

    3. even in treaty if u micro ur army u can make ur opponent to drain twice as fast as well

    4.  "treaty is all about keeping that 200/200, keeping cannons alive, about knowing when to push and when to play defensively. and, of course, about making the right units. build orders are always the same so the entire base building RTS concept is pretty much gone. sure, you build a base, but it's not about managing your economy like an RTS should be, it's about doing the same thing over and over and perfecting it. your economy is fixed, it is not a variable. you can't kill someone by cutting off their income (unless they're stupid and let you break through 5 layers of walls for free), you have to slowly wear them down. the deep understanding of the game's build order counters and the best way to balance eco and military is taken out entirely in treaty, which is the main reason treaty players are so bad at sup 1v1 (in 3v3 sup the build orders are often fixed too) and why i personally can't appreciate treaty." ,

    boomimg is also fun if u think during booming than just following a standard boom , available resourses are different in every game , even during booming i compete with myself to beat my last highest score 

    5.managing buildings(type and placement) specially if you are running or you are facing motors , require more woork than managing eco in sup, (u just have to shift ur villi acordingly)  , also dont gorget u have to fight at many places at once and doubling with ur teammate etc , there is much more multitasking in treaty

    6.i have only seen one of the h2o treaty rec , in which his team was got owned and match was finished in 10 min after 40min , have he defeted some gud treaty players like milky, uofa etc ?

    7. yes sup players have vast more knowledge and thinking process , which make them more flexible for any rts in compare to treaty , anyways , treaty is a special game type which is only available in aoe3 , so u cant expect treaty players to be as gud as sup players in strategy making and planning and flexibility

    8.i am still sure if you calculate apm from a high level treaty game vs apm from a high level sup game , than it will be higher in treaty (in low or medium level it will be surely higher in sup) , only way to solve this is requesting some of the treaty and sup pros to measure their apm duing a gud game  


    knight_br:
    Optimal explanation .. very succinctly


    LordStefanIII:

    Unkown_Genius:
    Leave it to Age.Comm to get a thread twenty miles off topic.


    :)

    Or turn into a flame war.

  •  05-31-2012, 4:02 PM 958065 in reply to 958059
    ANKUR ANKUR is not online. Last active: 09-15-2013, 1:53 AM
    Member
    INDIA
    Top 500 Contributor
    Total Posts: 596
    Last Post: 09-15-2013
    Member Since: 07-28-2011
    Subject: Re: About micro, strategy and macro
    Jerom:
    gs:

    i may come on strong, but it's all true. i have to counteract the massive bias towards treaty shown in this thread somehow... jerom has been doing what he can but clearly wasn't willing to risk a flame war ;)

    <3

    I agree for 100% but I've come to think that I don't want to make only enemies on agecomm because well, I don't think treaty players will ever accept what you said to be true so it'll end up in a flame war either way around Sad

    i dont think people will make you enemy becoz you express your veiws 


    knight_br:
    Optimal explanation .. very succinctly


    LordStefanIII:

    Unkown_Genius:
    Leave it to Age.Comm to get a thread twenty miles off topic.


    :)

    Or turn into a flame war.

  •  05-31-2012, 5:23 PM 958067 in reply to 958058
    LordStefanIII LordStefanIII is not online. Last active: 11/12/2013, 7:05 PM
    Member
    Top 75 Contributor
    Total Posts: 1,777
    Last Post: 12-11-2013
    Member Since: 05-28-2010
    Subject: Re: About micro, strategy and macro
    gs:

    this thread is full of biased treaty players who haven't played sup on even nearly a high enough level to make this kind of judgment. i'm not here to flame anyone just to enlighten you.

    the amount of possible micro in treaty is higher than in sup, yes. but:
    - it's less significant, since both sides have large amounts of resources so it's more about winning ground and keeping cannons alive than it is about fighting as cost effective as possible.
    - the lag doesn't allow for perfect micro.

    in sup, strong micro will win every game instantly because you will have 2x as many units left after a battle than your opponent. in sup there is no way to come back from that. 

    treaty is all about keeping that 200/200, keeping cannons alive, about knowing when to push and when to play defensively. and, of course, about making the right units. build orders are always the same so the entire base building RTS concept is pretty much gone. sure, you build a base, but it's not about managing your economy like an RTS should be, it's about doing the same thing over and over and perfecting it. your economy is fixed, it is not a variable. you can't kill someone by cutting off their income (unless they're stupid and let you break through 5 layers of walls for free), you have to slowly wear them down. the deep understanding of the game's build order counters and the best way to balance eco and military is taken out entirely in treaty, which is the main reason treaty players are so bad at sup 1v1 (in 3v3 sup the build orders are often fixed too) and why i personally can't appreciate treaty.

    as for macroing your military buildings, considering it's one of the few things you have to do after min 40 it's really not that big a deal. it's more work than in sup, but then again in sup you also have an economy to manage.

    the question "which game type requires more skill?" or "which game type has the more skilled players?" is a nobrainer. biased or not, surely everyone can see this. the best treaty players have always been bad sup players. i don't think any of them has even reached 2100 in 1v1. ryan, or H2O, was playing against top treaty players and beating them after practicing spain for maybe 20 games. the 2 game types require many of the same skills, but sup simply requires a vast knowledge about the game that treaty players just don't have, mostly because you have to know which build to do in which situation, and know how to adapt. micro also seems like a weak point, treaty players aren't used to giving a battle their 100% attention and aren't used to the tiny micro techniques that can make a difference in sup. treaty micro is all about positioning and while this is important in sup battles as well, there is much more to it than that.

    the notion that treaty requires more apm is of course not true either. scrubs recording their apm and claiming they reached a higher one than sc2 pros is laughable. 1. sc2 seconds are 1.5x faster, and 2. sc2's APM counter actually counts actions, not keystrokes, meaning if you press whatever key 1000 times it won't register unless it actually does something in the game. on aoe you can spam any key you want and it'll register as an action. you really, really don't need 400 apm to play treaty effectively. it at least wouldn't make much difference from a treaty player with 150 apm. you might just be able to win 100 resources every minute ;). in sup, because battles are more apm-intensive and you have an economy to manage (plus your base isn't safe from raids) there is just a lot more to do. for you treaty "pros" out there who actually think they're fast with their mouses: http://www.bigfatarcade.com/full.php?id=5593 the way you compare to sc2 pros or even strong sup players at that game will be enough said.

    i may come on strong, but it's all true. i have to counteract the massive bias towards treaty shown in this thread somehow... jerom has been doing what he can but clearly wasn't willing to risk a flame war ;)

    Lol, TL:DR. Seriously tho, I couldn't consider all of this as an accurate fact because you have no experience in TR other than a few game where people just made fun of you. I couldn't consider this anymore a better argument than jeroms because of that. You can go all day saying all the great things about Supremacy, and I'll do the same for TR. But not until one of us, or someone else actually has sufficient experience in both, will we ever be able to come to a conclusion. And no your 6 tr games doesn't count.

  •  05-31-2012, 7:23 PM 958071 in reply to 958058
    knight_br knight_br is not online. Last active: 12-26-2013, 9:16 PM
    Member
    Andes
    Top 150 Contributor
    Total Posts: 1,089
    Last Post: 12-26-2013
    Member Since: 12-08-2010
    Subject: Re: About micro, strategy and macro

    gs:
    the amount of possible micro in treaty is higher than in sup, yes. but:
    - it's less significant, since both sides have large amounts of resources so it's more about winning ground and keeping cannons alive than it is about fighting as cost effective as possible.
    - the lag doesn't allow for perfect micro.

    ryan, or H2O, was playing against top treaty players and beating them after practicing spain for maybe 20 games. the 2 game types require many of the same skills, but sup simply requires a vast knowledge about the game that treaty players just don't have, .

    yes, micro in tr is less significant than sup.. ofc. because in sup, a single mistake u can lost the game.

    But this topic is just to show that in tr, micro is also very important. By the point i can win a game with dutch (less economy) against a german, until he goes out of resources... just with micro.

     

    Another point, most of sup player doenst know what to do when game get late... 30 min +. . Simple things u see in tr can make a huge diference in those sup games.  If adapted correctly.

    gs:
    the best treaty players have always been bad sup players. i don't think any of them has even reached 2100 in 1v1.

     +1

    Surprise


    MTSP_Fuher

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gInNcSiT74w

    http://www.mediafire.com/folder/dtdqjyg99m0r8/RGs_AOE3
  •  05-31-2012, 8:53 PM 958077 in reply to 958071
    ANKUR ANKUR is not online. Last active: 09-15-2013, 1:53 AM
    Member
    INDIA
    Top 500 Contributor
    Total Posts: 596
    Last Post: 09-15-2013
    Member Since: 07-28-2011
    Subject: Re: About micro, strategy and macro
    knight_br:
     

    gs:
    the best treaty players have always been bad sup players. i don't think any of them has even reached 2100 in 1v1.

     +1

    Surprise

    gud one 

     

     

    also  http://www.mediafire.com/?yh4tmqczetm

    this is a rec of some sup noobs trying to play treaty (and this game was played when they have already played much more than 20 treaty games , just to tell gs , who think sup players can play treaty after practicing 20 games) , they had no clue what to do after 40min , they resigned in 8 min , they dont have that multi tasking ability must for treaty

    21

    i think even a descent treaty player can survive 8 min in sup , 

    i think this rec is must here as treaty players dont claim that they are better in sup than sup pros ,,,, but sup players used to have that habit(huge ego) to say that they are even better in treaty than treaty pros , 

    which is prolly wrong

    may be not strategy but u  definatly need more skill to play treaty at high level (above captain) 

     


    knight_br:
    Optimal explanation .. very succinctly


    LordStefanIII:

    Unkown_Genius:
    Leave it to Age.Comm to get a thread twenty miles off topic.


    :)

    Or turn into a flame war.

  •  05-31-2012, 9:44 PM 958083 in reply to 958077
    knight_br knight_br is not online. Last active: 12-26-2013, 9:16 PM
    Member
    Andes
    Top 150 Contributor
    Total Posts: 1,089
    Last Post: 12-26-2013
    Member Since: 12-08-2010
    Subject: Re: About micro, strategy and macro

    you cant create a hypothesis based on only one player... its diferent style.

    Samwise tried to play tr too, and fail hard... but he is a top player in general, just need more practice and some tips to play high level in tr.. or dm, or sc2, or lol.......

    Same as milky, a top tr player, who goes to sup and does a great job.

    But there are some player who are just bad... doenst matter what they play.


    MTSP_Fuher

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gInNcSiT74w

    http://www.mediafire.com/folder/dtdqjyg99m0r8/RGs_AOE3
  •  05-31-2012, 10:07 PM 958085 in reply to 958083
    ANKUR ANKUR is not online. Last active: 09-15-2013, 1:53 AM
    Member
    INDIA
    Top 500 Contributor
    Total Posts: 596
    Last Post: 09-15-2013
    Member Since: 07-28-2011
    Subject: Re: About micro, strategy and macro

    yes there is no reason why treaty players cant excel in sup and  also there is no reasom why sup players cant excel in treaty ,  

    but saying that treaty will be easy for sup player and sup will be hard for for treaty player is bs , and it is also bs if someone say top sup players have more skill than top treaty players 

    (top treaty players have equal if not more) 

     

    i think graph of skill level vs pr in sup goes linear and in treaty it goes exponential , there is steady increase in skill in sup but there is huge  difference in skill in medium and high level treaty players 


    knight_br:
    Optimal explanation .. very succinctly


    LordStefanIII:

    Unkown_Genius:
    Leave it to Age.Comm to get a thread twenty miles off topic.


    :)

    Or turn into a flame war.

  •  05-31-2012, 11:50 PM 958088 in reply to 958085
    knight_br knight_br is not online. Last active: 12-26-2013, 9:16 PM
    Member
    Andes
    Top 150 Contributor
    Total Posts: 1,089
    Last Post: 12-26-2013
    Member Since: 12-08-2010
    Subject: Re: About micro, strategy and macro

    yes, i get yout point.... but its hard to measure and compare both skills.

     gg


    MTSP_Fuher

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gInNcSiT74w

    http://www.mediafire.com/folder/dtdqjyg99m0r8/RGs_AOE3
  •  06-01-2012, 12:54 PM 958128 in reply to 958088
    BuZz_D BuZz_D is not online. Last active: 06-15-2012, 8:17 AM
    Member
    Top 500 Contributor
    Total Posts: 791
    Last Post: 06-15-2012
    Member Since: 03-20-2008
    Subject: Re: About micro, strategy and macro

    Allbinx was the best all around player in every game mode. He was a beast in death match and treaty and decent enough in sup to get solid wins vs good peeps.

    Just my opinion though.

Page 3 of 6 (78 items)   < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last »
View as RSS news feed in XML