The steppe with its 50% increase makes each villager collect 60 gold per minute (40x 1.5= 60), while other civi with all mining technology only collect 50 per minute per villager
I think the biggest issue with mongols right now is their ability to build siege in field which is being nerfed next patch.
Once patch comes out we gotta see how that affects their win rate. Mongols had the lowest win rate on the n4c tourney so devs really need to be careful not to overnerf the civ and make it botton tier.
Also note that many other civs are getting buffs too.
I’m no statistics major, but with the number of Games Analyzed differing for each Civ, in addition to the Pick Rate, I don’t see how you can accurately compare the Civs Win Rates without them hovering around the same number of “Games Analyzed” in addition to their “Pick Rates”.
Also, those stats don’t account for match-ups. What if a certain percentage of players above +1500 only pick specific Civs? and are matching with other players that just pick 1-2 Civs? The results are different depending on which Civs are matched against one another. Fewer “Games Analyzed” of course as well, and I guess that’s where the data is missing. You don’t get an accurate painting of the whole spectrum unless the same number of Games Analyzed and Pick Rate percentages are set with a specific threshold, and then comparing that to the specific Civ vs Civ match results.
An example of what I’m trying to say. The “resolution” of the win percentage is not as “defined” when let’s say a Civ has a 50% win rate and it’s only analyzed 2 games, verses data of another Civ that has analyzed over 5k games with a 50% win rate. You can’t compare the two as one is more fulfilled and defined with number of “Analyzed Games” than the other.
There just seems to be too many factors and I would treat those number loosely, as you can’t compare which Civ is better than the other looking at this list.
A specific civ is performing so OP / poorly, what does this mean?
First of all: in the period following patches or when using narrow filters (i.e. looking at >1800 rating) the data size is small and statistically speaking not significant, so be careful before you jump to any conclusions. The data may point at different assumptions: i.e. you may be looking at a subset of the best players trailblazing new strategies or playing against people with lower ratings, or simply the new meta after a patch has not been developed yet and people are playing in ways that don’t reflect how the balance team intended them – who really knows? Generally speaking, first check the games played before your overheat your keyboard on Reddit (we take zero responsibility for you making a fool of yourself <3 )
I am at low elo.
I think the mango nerf is also a huge hit for mongols. I think we should wait a little bit more before asking for more nerf.
I play Mongol,hre as main, and I think in the season one HRE,english, abbasid, and even delhi is better than them.
Mongols winning in Castle has little to do with Redoubt. Mongol’s unit composition doesn’t balance out till Castle Age. It’s our first, “nonall-in” window. We’re also encouraged to attack at that point, because every other civ can build defenses and we cannot. Longer the game goes, more defenses we have to work through while closer to equal army numbers both sides become.