How to create an overtuned civ in 3 easy steps:
- Make a civ that is unusually strong in lategame in terms of military and/or eco:
It’s fine because it will be hard to get to their lategame strengths, due to lack of early eco bonuses and/or a particularly awkward midgame. - Also give that civ strong bonuses or UUs for less common maps, like water and closed maps:
It’s fine because those are niche maps anyways, so they can be more dominant there than they would be on Arabia. - Demand that the civ get early game buffs so that it can be more competitive on Arabia.
It’s fine because all civs need to be decent on Arabia.
Yes, I’m being a little hyperbolic here, but I think it’s worth mentioning to showcase what some of us are particularly trying to avoid, even though we may have some sympathy for the idea of all civs being capable of some kind of baseline performance on Arabia. (Also since I’m 99% sure this thread was precipitated by another thread about the Porto buff, so that’s the subtext I read into this discussion.) For the record, I don’t think the buff makes the Portos “broken,” or anything, but it does raise the specter of strong lategame/closed map civs “having their cake and eating it too,” by getting buffs in the interest of Arabia viability, while losing nothing that makes them dominant on those other maps. The point we’re making is that “balancing civs for Arabia” presents real tradeoffs, rather than being an absolute good, even though most of us probably think some civs could do with a little more Arabia-relevant love, and that civs having some level of viability on Arabia is a worthy consideration.
Anyways, now that I’ve ruffled some feathers, let’s try to establish some points of agreement.
I think this is a reasonable range to shoot for, and enough civs are within this range that it’s achievable. I also agree that all the civs that currently fall outside this range could probably use a buff (with some uncertainty for how small the sample size is from the latest patch). So if this the standard, it’s one I can accept. If one were to wish for a higher standard, as I suspect some do, say 47 - 53% spread, I think that would be hugely problematic.
Whatever the baseline is raised to though, my concern is that significant numbers of people will continue to use “bottom 5-10 on Arabia” as an implicit demand for a buff. Which is probably justified if the civ isn’t strong on most other maps (as Goths/Viets/Koreans are not), but is questionable if the civ is top 5-10 on several other popular maps, or at least mid-tier on almost every other map type. In that sense it’s not about Arabia at all so much as performing too well across too many maps. Arabia aside, it’s clear from the pick rates that some civs are perceived as providing much, much more overall value than others across the span of the game. As the most extreme example, Franks currently have about 10x the pick rate of Bengalis. So once a baseline of 45% WR or so is established on Arabia, I’m much more interested in reducing variation in the pick rate, which among other things, would generally mean improving weaker Arabia civs on other maps, and limiting the other maps on which strong Arabia civs excel. But it’s far from a simple or easy endeavor to be able to manipulate these kinds of outcomes via civ tweaks.