Some data finally.
But this data should be classified as map.
all 1vs1 data mean mongrel
Not going to lie.
Goths being picked so few times and having such a high win rate, goes against the pro opinions.
I would have never though it possible, to be honest.
3 of the best performing civs are Paladin civs, to no one’s surprise. It is the quintessential Imperial Age unit.
Persians on the 1600+
Pick rate 14%
Goths disappear between 1000-1600 ELO, but come back with avengeance in 1600+. Persians disappear at 1600+.
This likely indicates that Persians are only so dominant in lower ELOs, but with better players we start seeing Archer civs, including Indians and Mayans.
Indian = archer civ? I guess they can go mass Xbow and CA just fine, but I’m a bit surprised by this classfication. Otherwise, I found about this site about the same time this thread was created and I’ve been laughing when I’ve seen that Franks are first again for 1600+ ELO, especially knowing that everyone made them A tier cuz “melee pathing holds them back”
Well, they have Shatagini HCs, FU Skirms and FU Cav Archers. I think of them as a Camel + Archery Range civ, to be honest.
It’s true they have an archer UU too after all…
Man, both Chinese and Persian below Goths with 1600+ ELO? Even if it’s fake it will have been a fun read lmao.
I am pleasantly surprised. perhaps Goths should just go back to the February patch and they would be OK across the board.
Actually, Mayan are the only tryhard meta civ above them. Wow. To be honest this list looks real because Portuguese are always at the bottom 11. And britons are below average, Sitaux was right on this one. God this is a goldmine.
It really is, and I love every bit of it.
The top 5 civs are as much picked together than Persian are alone for 1600+ ELO… I guess they’ve got good publicity
Trashbows + Paladin is pretty strong and catches the eye, but it is clear that it does not actually win so many games that it is OP.
The addition of all 1600+ win rates is 100,01. So I at least if it’s made up the dude at least know basic maths (+ 0.01 )
Goths are still only picked by 1% only at 1600+, yea sure they placed at the top but that has probably more to do with a specific map. I’d say persians are clearly the OP civ here, no other civ even get’s picked for an 8%, while pers are 14%+ and still manage to keep that good of a winrate. So imo they still are dominant, just that overpicking them has a negative effect on winrate because some people pick it with overconfidence.
That’s atleast my interpretation on the data.
Maybe, but they have a 0.60% less winrate when compered to Goths.
i think we should just revert Goths to the February patch, and accept taht the game is mostly balanced as it is.
Maybe this is the wake-up call the community needed. The game has never been more balanced.
Turks more picked than Teutons, Lithuanian and Ethiopian… and it’s supposed to be the try-hard tier…
Was it before or after the 35% bonus was moved to dark?
It was when the 35% only applied at Feudal. The Dark Age version was on the May patch.
All the civs people keep complaining about, are actually doing fine, or are dominant. Go figure!
interesting that the pick rates, even for the top civs like persians, aren’t as high as some of the hidden-pick haters would have you believe.