We could create an “experiment” in order to see the win rate of the civs all across the game, if we create a questionaire we could have some real usefuel data.
First the questionaire would be anonymous, but each one would have a code (that only he knows) so that we could dinstinct the subjects, and see how many participate (so to know that aren’t the same 3 people).
Second the questionaire should only taking in account games that both player choose random civs (it would give more objective data) on 1v1 games.
Basicaly after a mach the player should go to the questionaire, answer a question about if he win or lose a mach (whitout being ashemed, since it’s anonymus), and then answer the question about the civs that was randomly assigned.
Of course the results would depend upon the onesty of the player (both on giving the correct answer and on going random) and the number of subjects, but those would be better (and easier) datas to analize.
You would have to make sure people do not lie or make mistakes. I think winrates and pick rates are a far more reliable statistic, specially since the game gets a balance patch every month.
Some are saying that these stats are only on 3 weeks, and therefore are not good enough. I would agree, but you also have to consider that the game gets new balance every month, so these are as good as it gets.
For more reliable statistics, the devs would have to abandon patching for a much longer time (once every semester or year), which would indeed give us more reliable stats.
However, you would soon hear “DE is dead” or “DE is on life support” comments everywhere, and it may result in more people abandoning the ranked game.
Also I like to link here a past discussion about a potential balance/buff to the italians on pure land.
Since here nobody talk about them here for the next pach, I’ll just trow it so that maybe somebody find it intresting.
I know that some of you already participate the discussion, (myself included), but maybe other people can find it intresting too and join.
Of course it would be some datas that add on other datas, but could give a more complete picture, they wont cancel other sources.
There are ways to limit/see this, but of course (like a lot of scientific researches) we have to rely on the good faith of everyone. But if we reach an high populations, some lies/mistakes won’t hurt a lot, and I think that here most us love this game at the point that they can be onest for a good purpose.
This is not scientific at all, I am afraid. People are unreliable by nature, it is actually an evolutionary adaptation, and if you study psychology, you will find out that people lie even to themselves, all the time.
This is why human opinion is weak input, as we cannot be truly objective by nature.
I don’t just study psychology, I have a degree on Social Psychology and I’m studying for a master on Psychology on the workplaces.
So trust me when I say that most (almost all) of the scientific researches in psychology, social studies and even marketing are done this way, it’s the scientic metod that I’m using, and you can have certain informations if not in this way.
They are still based on unreliable and manipulated opinion, not results.
For example: Persians are greatly popular, but are not one of the 5 biggest winrates at higher levels. They get picked often because of teh “Persians OP” popular meme, not because tehy are actually Op, which explains why the lag behind the indians, a civ taht many complain about not being strong enough.
We don’t need the light wall, just make the fortified palisade wall available in the normal game please.
Yes, there but here we are just aking if one has win or lose on a 1v1 with random civ (even better if both have gone with random civs), and wich civ he get.
We aren’t aking for personal opinions, and since it’s anonymus, they have no reason to be ashemed even if they always lose.
Yes one could be biased toward a certain civ and favor it, but with the proper incentive, everyone could motivated toward being onest.
That’s why the questionaire should consider only random civ games, so that one doesn’t always pick the civ that knows better, or that he pick a civ because a pro has made a video about it. This way they are just civs compared across all elos, and the pick rate is random, so the win rate isn’t affected by the pick rate.
definitely not op has 14,09% pickrate on 1600+ elo 11
sure but we don’t have credibility on that website yet
Well, the pickrate shows what people believe to be the best, not that it is actually the best. That’s why on Voobly where everyone goes random you defintely can’t make a tierlist that makes sense based only of the play rates since verything is random.
It’s actually better going random, you would get better win rates.
in what world is 1600F cheap? I’ve seen people literally just pick mahouts upgrade and skip the elite because of the cost
But yet the powerful upgrade costs in AoE1 like the Heavy Catapult, Centurion, and Ballista are all 1800F each.
I recommend you stop comparing aoe2 to aoe1
In fact you almost never use them in aoe1, unless it is a deathmatch, I remember that i struggled to get them even on the campaigns.
You know the villager in Aoe3 costs twice as it in Aoe2, right?
Please revisit your way of comparison and think twice.
Yeah exactly. That’s why the prices of these upgrades in AoE1 needs to be reduced.
Ok sorry, were you suggesting a reduction cost for those in aoe1, or a increase cost for similar techs in aoe2?