thanks for the hard work bros!
Hows that āgoths have the worst imperial ageā going for you bro? ROFL āsomeone agrees with me so i must be right, thereās no room for argumentā
you guys are mimicking something yall heard on a stream somewhere and preaching like its truth, and then finally when someone gives you the stats you say its fakeā¦ until the OP appears and then suddenly its all ācan you please add this and thatā
1 Like
these stats are really useful, win rate of 38% vs 55% is not something to shy away from, there is clearly some issues that need rectifiying
sub 40% win rate for korean and porto vs 55% for the top 3 in 1000-1600 elo definitely means theres room for balance changesā¦ yes the game isnt completely broken with balance, but it doesnt mean the game should be left as isā¦
heck its as obvious as day light porto needs some kind of rework with it placing so low in every single elo bracket
I already walked that back. Goths are clearly OP, and I was the first one to accept the actual stats.
No one had any verifiable stat before, so you did not show me anything. Do not play coy, you clearly had no idea either. According to the new stats, Goths and Indians are stronger than Persians, and NO ONE was predicting this.
Well, even if we take these results at their face value, Goths arenāt above 55%, so I wouldnāt deem them OP at all. Also imo @SirWiedreich provided a good explanation as to why their score is so high compared to other less picked civs.
3 Likes
The problem with these (and I posted on Reddit as well) is that nine of the civs across all levels are being played 48% of the time. In a 1v1 matchup, that means you will likely see one of those nine civs almost every game, even if one player is going random.
If you think youāre getting accurate winrates for any kind of serious balance discussion, youāre sorely mistaken. The pick civ function of ranked DE has really distorted civ advantages. This is going to be very detrimental to the game long term if not addressed or worked around.
Any balance changes made based off of winrates in this case can have either a black swan effect (wherein a powerful civ drops completely off of the map) or a dark horse effect (where a civ that isnāt getting picked right now becomes a very powerful civ due to balance changes to the other āmore powerfulā civs).
This tool is just more justification that we need to reestablish random civ as the basis for ranked play.
4 Likes
lol @ āI was the first one to accept the actual stats.ā
Guess what? Goths have a consistens whopping 45% stats on voobly since around 2 years on 1750+. And in low tier theyāre at around 49%. Since both vooby/HD are 90% similar to DE this is pretty significant.
Also, once again you still failed to show some tournaments where Goths actually dominated. In 20 years (or even only 7 since HD was released).
source: https://aoestats.io/stats?elo=2000%2B#?orderby=win_rate
And while weāre at it: Daut vs. Mbl https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVq13KaniuQ
and Daut vs. Max https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdacmN5t5b4 (only game Iāve found yet where goths actually manage to win)
DE is vastly different from Voobly.
This is the class case for a disingenuous argument.
I fear that there is truely not enough data yet, especially after filtering by ELO. Just look at that: https://aoestats.io/civ/Persians/RM_1v1/1650+ Itās just not possible to claim that Persian have a 100% win rate vs FOUR civs, while losing 4/5 matches to Byzantine. It just makes 0 sense
Now look at this https://aoestats.io/civ/Vietnamese/RM_1v1/1650+ Itā just ridiculous, it shows they always win vs 5 civs and always lose to 5 civs. No need to do maths to see there is a problem.
(on a side note the Viet best performance without ELO filter is versus Chinese https://aoestats.io/civ/Vietnamese/RM_1v1 which is quite funny)
EDit: itās more a problem with the 1650 +filter This page https://aoestats.io/civ/Portuguese/RM_1v1/1650+ makes no sense but this one https://aoestats.io/civ/Portuguese/RM_1v1/<1000 at least looks like they played more than 2 matches
2 Likes