Good or balanced? And fyi that site you linked has aztecs at 47%. Totally need to nerf them dont we! Winning too much!
Mayans are at 54% though
And beleive me I have been tracking the winrates after every patch, they were both always >50%, aztecs slipped only now
There will be always top civs for competitive play. Even if you change the current ones… it is way more important that there are not weak civs for casual players
Which is why I’m against nerfing unless a civ is clearly an issue. I prefer buffing.
1 Like
Yes EXACTLY, that is why I want EITHER buffs to Turks, Portos, Tatars, Koreans, Ethiopians and Magyars
OR nerfs to Aztecs, Mayans, Teutons(currently) and Mongols
WHICHEVER is more likely, I will support
Unfortunately the devs make me feel the former is very unlikely., compared to the latter
And yet you’re calling for aztecs to be nerfed too.
And how far back do those stats go? Your site literally gives us nothing on that front.
Meanwhile aoestats.io tells us exacrly where its stats come from.
3 of those civs are within the balanced range. Why do thry need nerfs?
Because Mongol(>8%), Mayan and Aztec pick rate >6% each while having >50% winrate
Pickrates really really do matter here, for Statistical significance
But i’ll explain that later to you and @JonOli12 as that is Statistics 102
Oh no. 52% winrate. Such imbalance. Oh wait no.
Aztecs don’t have >50% winrate.
FYI. A civ is considered balanced between 45 to 55% winrate.
Yes go ahead. Explain statistics. If you flip a coin 100 times and you get 53 heads does that mean tails is underpowered?
True, but when a civ’s pickrate is ridiculously high, like 10 times of many other civs, and it has 52% winrate AT THE SAME TIME, that can be cause for concern
Anyway I am more in support for (unique) buffs to Turks, Portos, Tatars, Koreans, Ethiopians and Magyars myself actually.
Not all civs should get early game eco bonuses or standard unit upgrades etc.
The buffs should make them feel more unique and with more character and flair
Or it could mean people enjoy the civs playstyle. I sure as heck prefer playing mongols over playing portuguese. Has nothing to do with balance, I just like cav archers.
Maybe.
If that is the case, I expect to see months where the Mayan and Mongol winrate drops below 50%. I am still waiting for that day though.
49% to 51% winrate for those civs. Please explain why they need buffs?
https://www.aoe-tc.com/high
Here it is below 45%
For magyars it is 40%
Maybe it is not updated sorry
In that case I WANT buffs to Turks, Portos, Tatars, Koreans and Vietnamese
according to the aoestats site
Although I am surprised with the Chinese winrate of 47%
Again I’ll ask you. Where does that site get its information? How far back does the data go?
But the point is, winrates are not a good measure of nerfing/buffing , as we collectively taught you and @JonOli12
Pickrates mattter heavily too
Civ matchups are the key in the data
You cannot generalize winrates so easily
Food for thought that website still has khmer at a 50% winrate, 6.37% winrate
Malay at a 47% winrate and 3.1% pickrate
Teutons at a 44% winrate and 0.8% pickrate
Lithuanians at 38.5% winrate and 0.87% pickrate.
Based on you using this data I got to ask, how can you seriously claim that leitis needs a nerf?
1 Like
OK OK sorry that topic i linked you was months old, it had that old site’
Chill
Back then aoestats.io didnt have the data
We all know this data have his flaws, especialy too small amount of samples. Pro maches with Liths is only 171. On Lower Level (1200-1600) is 2k matches.
Pros, of course, know game the most, but is too few of them. And timeperiod is too short.
Which is why I think one of two things needs to happen.
Either
Longer periods between balance patches.
Or
If a civ is changed in a patch, thry can’t be patched again for 3 months minimum unless something is clearly wrong
1 Like