AoEstats is “accurate” sure.
But the question that really needs answering is whether it is accurate to say that win rate depicts the state of civ balance in the game. Win rate unweighted by map or play rate or civ matchup diversity? I’d say no, using aoestats winrate does not accurately reflect the current state of balance at all, otherwise we’d be calling for buffing Saracens and Tatars, both very strong A tier civs in the meta.
You and Nheltarion both assumed the same thing because neither of you cared to clarify.
Never said Berbers were S tier. I said it was surprising that so few people think that they are S-tier, given how I firmly believe they’re an A-tier civ. From the thread you decided to read one snippet of, then infer everything I think:
Agree. Easy way to end the discussion about Inca tb and small change to Chinese taking a bit on their versatility (you’ll float less wood in mid-castle age). However, I’d assume devs would be very reluctant to swap bonuses as it might confuse some of players.
Well their ca are actually pretty good on arena because of extra range and attack, also their magyar hussar are great vs siege so they certainly are better than huns. Still not a good arena civ because you are likely die to before you have your units fully upgraded or enough castle for production so halb/siege or arb/siege is superior here.
Yeah while on arabia lower and mid elo players might at least how to open (even if execution lacks) in my experience on arena even players with decent elo oftentimes have no idea what to do or which civs are good.
Btw your list misses Teutons which are surely one of the best civs on regular (not the moa6 version) arena but you definitely got a point with these winrates. Vikings no.1 is ridiculous.
Viper also shows arena tier lists of other players somewehere in his video and 3 out 5 lists had Teutons no. 1. Just a matter of play style I guess.
… and also don’t tell anything useful if you don’t interpret them correctly. Just looking at winrates never tells how good a civ actually is, properly analyzing is so much more work than comparing one number. I mean people take a civ with 6% percent play rate and then compare their winrate with another of 1% playrate. Simply doesn’t work that way and there is many other factors.
This bonus swap? Nerf Chinese too much? It wouldn’t even be close. It’s just that a successful lame would hurt them a lot more than it does now, giving you some chance to actually hurt their early game enough to not fall behind their stacked bonuses.
Btw. another reason why I can´t imagine, the change would cause any balance problem is the fact it is a team bonus already. If any other civ would be OP with thr Chinese bonus, then we would have already seen it in teamgames. Since I never heard Magyars or any other civ to be opi combination with China, the bonus should not be a problem ar all.
Besides that, I also doubt, that China would be noticeably weaker without it. Their farming is stil slightly above average with the discount on the upgrades.
While i think this will not stop chinese from being top tier and still not help begginers with them , its a good suggestion which could be a first step for chinese and also a buff for magyars in term of eco bonus which i think as well need at least for castle age
hmm, if the leaked changes in dawn of dukes are right, the devs nerf chinese at their teambonus. but the devs plan to reduce this minor bonus a bit strange and even pointless. i would heve preferred the swap with magyars.
but i think its a rip to this suggestion…