I am not competitive level just middle level and I also consider Malta is S tier.
Malta F tier is really joke.
I have shown before I don’t need to main Malta which only played less than 10 times, I use Malta verse good players and just train xbow + a bit fixed gun, can have same eco Japanese and British, more units and kill the most, those my opponent players are 700 elo higher than me.
Not only me, the groups (Not only one group) I always play together, who plays Malta can always play better than other civs.
Revnak is saying competitive level but sorry I am not.
Here is no excuse for people don’t accept Malta is OP or don’t want to learn how to play Malta.
The win rates shown in statistics suggest otherwise, they show malta at best getting a 50% win rate and usually it’s like 47 or 48%, so slightly underperforming. If that was the case pre patch then with all the new nerfs it only makes sense that maltas win rate will drop further.
I don’t think malta will be F tier but at best you’re looking at a C tier civ. The change to light infantry doing less damage vs cavalry will also effect malta more negatively than other civs because they tend to use more light infantry and a lot less cavalry in general and they have zero cavalry upgrade cards. Civs with stronger, more upgradeable cavalry can better take advantage of these new changes, civs like france, germany, brit, spain, lakota, hausa etc.
It’s the same story with italy, pro level players are adamant that italy and malta are some sort of unstoppable s tier civs yet the stats showed italy with 1 of the lowest win rates across elo ranges, only portugal was usually worse. Now it may be the case that they have a high skill cap and better players are better able to exploit the strengths of these civs, unfortunately though the game can’t be balanced based on the 15 players who are over 1900 elo and their other 12 smurf accounts on the ladder.
3 Likes
You are one of denying native civs low winrate PLUS lowest pickrate and still saying they are strong. You shouldn’t take winrate as your reason.
So this is only due to the figure is good at your point this time you take it for a reason, when the figure is opposite your point then your deny it.
This situation is same as I agree Revnak saying Malta crossbow same quality as skirm but around 40% cheaper.
But disagree he said Haud is strong in competitive level when their cav is trash quality but same cost as general hussar.
If so, just nerf the competitive level way and buff their quality for people out of competitive level can play.
This is conflict speech from what he said.
im sorry thats a terrible argument, its one thing to argue that something might not be broken but then its another to say that even if it is , nothing should be done about it, its literally the gaslighter’s argument
If its broken only at a high level, steps can be take to adjust it for that level only, limiting architect number by age, toning down lombards number etc.
1 Like
I included as competitive level already, as you mentioned, I am sorry but I can’t assist more, maybe causal level it goes different, there are a lot of things go different in different levels, win loss data doesn’t have enough games and it’s far from being accurate to draw any competitive conclusion, if game is balanced according to a causal based data, Italy was under 50% win ratio last patch despite all competitive players already knowing it was broken, game can’t be balanced based on causal data alone.
After firepit nerf Lakota has no chance against civs like Italy now. Just build walls and towers and you have nothing to break this.
You are discussing from different perspectives, and both are correct, the discussion lies largely in the naming of a civ’s tier list level. And it ends up being a stupid discussion.
Malta tier S or tier F? lol
Why don’t you stick to a tier list of certain strats?
I don’t want to go over all the pros and cons of civs, we’ve already mentioned them several times.
Malta, Italy… are they tier S?
I don’t know…they have clear defects, lack of units, weak vs FF, they are rubbish in the treaty…
But.
Malta semi FF turtle strat - ##### xbows (+ high siege) + fixed gun + culverins (+hp) = OP
Italy FI turtle strat - architect towers + shipments age 4 + bersaglieri = OP
Therefore I am saying people who crying Malta and Italy F tier, doesn’t know how to play these defensive civs to reach OP period. They should play aggressive civs such as native civs those they think strong to meet their style.
solution: nerf the strats OP, buff other things
That a civ is considered tier S because of a strat does not indicate that she only deserves to nerf broken things and neither buff on other weak things.
A piece of advice, all of you could propose both the buffs and the nerfs necessary to balance, so as not to appear that you have a bias and not create silly discussions.
2 Likes
Let them play what they want, but keep an open mind and be fair when giving their opinion on balance
2 Likes
I’m not saying that if somethings broken it shouldn’t be fixed. There’s nothing at all broken with malta.
For example aztec used to be considered a weak civ at high level but the devs mentioned it was nerfed due to a much higher than expected win rate. That’s because it’s an aggressive/rush style civ and many players at lower levels just cannot handle raids or early pressure. At high level the civ sucked.
At different levels civs can have vastly different win rates, what may be incredible at 2k elo is a civ with a 45% win rate at lower levels like italy and to some extent malta. The amount of players that are at revnak or kynesies level is tiny when compared to the player base as a whole and balance decisions need to be made based on the majority as the devs did when they nerfed an already weak aztec.
If you have viewed the Malta post before, I have same opinion, Maltese just denied everything saying Malta is OP. They don’t want to listen anything Malta is OP that needs nerf.
1 Like
I mostly agree with you but I think a compromise can be achieved: you can nerf certain builds that are OP for the pros as long as it doesn’t “destroy” the civ at lower levels. Of course this won’t always happen, but I still think it should be taken in consideration.
2 Likes
You can indeed but let’s look at the best malta player otherwise known as bow enjoyer. He doesn’t even use german tongue or wignacourt or the fixed gun. All he does is a standard bow/pike rush which is quite fast with malta due to hospitals costing only 100 wood.
So what can you do to worsen that build? Increase hospital price for sure is a possibility but that will also effect every single malta player including those at mid or low elo.
In the current patch they nerfed everything but that build, nerfing steel bolts which he doesn’t even use and nerfing wignacourt which also isn’t used in that build. The only thing that may effect the bow enjoyer build is 2% delayed shipments.
Bow enjoyer aside I haven’t really seen many very high elo players abusing or laming malta, there’s 1 guy I can think of that likes to FI and go fixed guns but his elo isn’t that high (1700) and he does the same thing with japan and loads of walls. He also frequently loses to other civs that match the FI and ship culvs and make a couple of mortars it’s not like he has an amazing win rate doing this.
A lot of the hate for malta comes from the same vein as it does for inca in my opinion which is the hate for a turtle style civ/playstyle. Turtling is a valid strategy and whilst annoying it’s beaten by just booming and is strong and weak to the same things it is in any RTS game.
4 Likes
Turtle playstyle is fine, Inca and Malta are just horribly designed with strengths that are just stupid cheese. Exploding buildings and factory houses are just annoying and dumb. And both have half completely broken units and half useless units so they’re simultaneously S tier and F tier.
5 Likes
Malta has a ton of cool units. But no, people are obsessed with the most boring, ugly unit in the game, the xbow. I’m happy that Malta players will now be encouraged(forced) to explore Malta’s other units and strategies, of which there were many. The devs put a ton of work into making Malta very diverse and interesting, and people just latch on to one byproduct of the 2% hit point bonus (in line with Malta’s turtle type of civ design), namely the xbows. Hospitaliers, firethowers, towers with flamethrowers inside, fixed guns, lancers, operdinks, curriasiers, age 2 fort, home depots, sentinels that can build outposts, and no one is using them!! Its crazy! Don’t complain about the civ until you try other stuff, then if you don’t like it, play one of the other 20+ civs. Lakota is similar, they have one unit which is sightly too good (bow rider or Axe) and people think it is the only unit they have. Oh no, I have to actually make a counter unit vs cav instead of spamming bows!! Neither of these civs are like the truely OP civ, Sweden, which can make one unit and spam torps and win easily, now THAT is S+ tier.
There is no reason hospital is 100 wood. It is a barack and has healing ability, why is it half price of a standard barrack? It needs to be 250 wood.
3 Likes
But Hospitals also have 40% less HP when compared to Barracks. It should NOT cost 250 wood. 125-150 maybe.
2 Likes
barrack function is training unit, not wall.
1 Like