Go on writing your opinions as facts
Yeahā¦ my point is that currently Chinese is probably top 1 in several maps, so maybe a nerf makes sense. Actually, I do not like the idea of nerfing old civs, bit currently Chinese are very very ahead in the meta.
However, I play random civ and do not care the meta too much (If I can choose one civ would probably pick Vietnamese right now).
Balancing the meta civs is however way more difficult since it affects the play of pros, while even if Italians get free archer armor, still, none will pick them in tournaments.
So I think that it is much more important buffing weak civs than nerfing the strongest ones.
Their winrate is extremely balanced. 48% last patch 52% this patch. Not really ticking any flags.
The problem with redbull was that you get into the action like right away. Which means those 3 villagers matter
I hope that Letis will not be nerfed, but the Sotl video where he shows that they are cost effective in trash wars is very heavyā¦
1 Like
And yet they arenāt good until imperial age. Also if you nerf them lithuanians is a dumpster fire civ again.
Imo if you nerf Lithuanians you should nerf at least 5-6 civs before, especially Aztecs, Mayans, Khmer, Chinese.
I like the fact the Lithuanians are in a higher tier than beforeā¦ it is not a big issueā¦ same for teutons
None of those civs are imbalanced. The only civs on the radar right now as imbalanced are teutons and goths.
It is true, these two need to be nerfed
Imbalance with respect to what? I mean, if we are comparing Lithuanians and Teutons with Turks, Italians and Portos, okā¦ they need a nerf.
But there are still a lot of civs better than themā¦ no need for a nerf imo
You just donāt like that they are played as much as they are. Donāt lie.
1 Like
Their playrate at consistently above 6% each regardless of which patch it is, and also having a consistently 50%+ winrate for all these months, despite such a high playrate, suggests something cancerous is going on.
This, while 10 other civs struggle to get to even 1%
and 10 others which never were above 47% in winrate all this while
And yet weāve discussed buffing those civs havenāt we? Itās commonly accepted that they are considered weak. Know what happens when you nerf those civs and then buff the ones we discussed? They basically change places and then we spend the next month discussing how to balance the new weak civs
2 Likes
Yeahā¦something cancerous. Like people enjoying the meso playstyle. Heaven forbid.
And cancerous according to who? You? Obviously? Others? Maybe not.
3 Likes
My point was just that these civs are better than teutons. So teutons do not need a nerf.
Moreover touching the strongest civs is very dangerous for the meta, it is not like buffing Turks.
1 Like
Teutons are currently sitting at 58.55% winrate.
That is true, that is why I am a strong proponent for major major buffs for Turks, Portos, Tatars, Koreans, Ethiopians and Magyars
I even made a thread for so
Ethiopians and magyars are sitting between 51% and 49% winrate. They done need buffs.
That is why I think that the buffs needed for the weak civs are minor. Except Turks, I hate that civ, I hope in a big buff 11
Vietnameses and Tartars are not good civs, but they have been changed to become very enjoyable. Same for teutons and Lithuanians
That doesnt explain the consistently good winrates for Aztecs and Mayans, while 10+ other civs cannot dream to get close despite having one-sixth the playrate (and hence higher variance in recorded winrates)