I heard you all like stats

The Indians literally have the highest winrate of all civs right now at 2k+ at 59.9%.

That number is inflated with the distortion I mentioned earlier, but there’s not enough of a statistical distortion to assume anything other than they’re probably a solid top 10 civ at the very least.

This is the most recent tournament on arabia.

How many times koreans and turks were played? 0, including from the infallible top player who rated them A-tier.

Indians were actually played once in that tournament, and they got an indirect buff with CA buff since the video release.

In general, while pro players have of course a very solid grasp on the game, this absolute faith in every content they release is quite absurd, since things often aren’t always figured out immediatly and expecially when they create content based on assumption and just few game played instead of massive testing and tournament performances, those assumptions not always turn out to be right.

1 Like

and yet when was the last time you saw hera pick turks or koreans on arabia in a tournament?

1 Like

That’s why i work with statistics every day. I lie so much :clown_face:

To be seriously:
I somewhere have seen some analyse which had some correction to the winrates based on the elo in a match up. Not sure where i have seen that analyses.

Making a case with these statistics is lie-ception.

I shake my head when someone suggests a top player’s opinion is more worthy than the average player’s opinion. The reality is that none of us will ever play at that level. We lack the practice time and APM. So, the average player’s opinion of a build order, civ, or strategy is much more applicable to most of us.

I love watching Hera and other professionals play. I appreciate his build order and improvement advice. But, realistically, the best civs for him are not the best civs for me.

yes and they lost to a Burgundians opponent but this is a typical example of how small data is inconclusive. Viper does well against Daut and got the win. The CA buff is good but doesn’t make Indians a top 10 Arabia civ. There are many CA civs which get good bonus for CA and have knights/arbalest and a good late game. Indians is quite mediocre.

My whole point was against @SouMexican 's initial comment about how Indians are a great civ for 1850+ elo and how only 5-7 civs are always played.
So yes, for a conversation about the games of top 1% players, the opinion of a top player obviously matters more.

That same player you were quoting made that list after tearing into the changes without testing them and saying he didn’t like the changes at all.

at 13:12 if the timestamp doesn’t work.

Literally two weeks later he puts them in D-tier as the most knee-jerkiest of knee-jerk reactions (that’s the video you listed) which if you didn’t know, Hera is famous for having really strong opinions on everything in the game, and sometimes those opinions are unfounded.

If you want a great example, in this same patch they released the Tatar free sheep bonus, something that I said was way, way over the top and shouldn’t have ever been put into the game. Hera’s reaction is at 20:36. (timestamped here)

I’d recommend you start taking what he says with a grain of salt before you die on a hill you’ll regret because he said it was a good hill. He’s got enough of a following that one or two really stupid things won’t sink him. You are not Hera, best to keep that in mind.

1 Like

I think there hasn’t been a major Arabia tournament or showmatch since then. Also he has like 15 civs in S and A tier combined. Most tourneys are like BO5 till semis or finals.
And again I’m not saying his tier list is absolutely right. Maybe Koreans and Turks are not A but B tier and Berbers, Ethiopians are A and not B tier, but there’s nothing laughable about considering those civs as A tier.
The point of showing this video was only about Indians civ, especially to show that they’re not a top tier civ and at best a below average tier civ for Arabia.
And its not just Hera, even Viper placed Indians as a B tier 1v1 Arabia civ in his tier list before the camel nerf.

Why would you think, I religiously follow Hera word-to-word. My point of showing this video was to counter the argument that Indians are a top tier civ purely based on their win rate. That a top player also considers Indians as one of the worst civs on Arabia. And its not just Hera, even Viper put them in B tier in his 1v1 arabia tierlist even before their Camels were nerfed.

Stop these kiddish personal attacks. I know I’m not Hera and I never mentioned that his tier list is 100% correct or anything to that effect. Every player have their preferences, some like archer civs, some like cav and I know the tierlist would vary a little bit for each pro-player based on that. Read all the messages above to understand the reason behind attaching that video before nitpicking flaws in it.
The whole argument was solely against concluding that Indians are a top tier civ based on their win rate on a small number of ranked games at 1850+ elo level during a particular time period. And to show that its not just the people on the forum but even pro players don’t consider it a top tier civ.

considered not considers. The tier list is approaching a year old.

My point of showing my videos was to counter your argument that Indians are a bottom-tier civ based off the argumentation of Hera.

I may have made my approach with jest, but nothing I said was there to attack you personally, and if you’ve taken it that way, possibly consider you’re getting a bit too touchy over some innocuous phrasing.

Totally in favor of not assigning god-status to a civ on the basis of winrates, especially when the data is outright flawed, as I’ve already gone over multiple times in this thread already

On the opposite side of the same coin, I think using the argumentation of a “top player” as a justification for ignoring statistics you think aren’t valid is equally bunk. Which, whether or not you’ll admit to it, is what you’ve been doing in the thread since just before I intervened with my first jab about them literally topping the win charts. Have we already forgotten that in the middle of the

“Cavalry archers are literally never worth using”

-Every Pro

Era, before any buffs, DauT won RBWIII employing them twice in grand finals against the former RBWII champion to the awe and dismay of literally everyone? I’d think this would be enough of an example for people to understand that, regardless of your skill level, the meta you play in and your personal preference harshly shapes your opinion of options in the game. “Top players” are not excused from this bias. As such, it’s best not to ignore statistics in favor of hanging off their every word. Using one as the option to ignore the other is a surefire way to have no meaningful insight whatsoever.

we literally just had Arabia invitational 2.

before the camel nerf, and before a bunch of other civs got buffed as well.

Yes, but that’s not a major tournament, just 8 invited players, 7 set of games. Most of them were 3-0. I hope KotD-4 gets announced before Dawn of Dukes release.

exactly. Now with those civs buffed, Indians look below B-tier.

almost every tournament has arabia as a map, we also just had the world desert championship

Its 6 months old but just 2 balance changes after that and that particular civ has been untouched since then. A couple of civs got nerfed, a few got buffed, 2 got added but nothing ground breaking to push a bottom tier civ to top.

Its not based off the argument of Hera. Its just quoting him to show that not JUST people in the forums but ALSO top players feel Indians are quite weak after the Camel nerf.

Lol. How is it not personal when you explicitly mention that Hera can say a couple of stupid things and get away but I’m not him and I have to keep that in mind. Anyways if it isn’t with any ill intentions lets leave this here.

Once again it was a reply to a message which sarcastically questioned why people on forums claim Indians are weak when their win rate at 1850+ is good. The person felt its just the opinion of the average players on forums and disregarded the explanation against why winrate is not a good factor on small data. So I just pointed out to one video from a 1850+ player that came out after update 42848 as an example to show that its not just the opinion of some people on forums but even some top players. Many others like Nili, Viper, Mbl mentioned it while they read through the patch notes or posted a review, I just attached this one as it was easier to find.

Once again it was to illustrate that players at 1850+ also feel Indians aren’t top tier and I wasn’t using it as a justification or counter that Indians are bottom tier because Hera said so or anything like that.

And yet just after winning, in the interview he himself said they’re bad units (at that time). Very bad to micro but he just used it to catch his opponent off guard.

Yes that is true, I said it myself - each player have their own preferences.

Yes again. If we were to see the trend continue in favor of Indians after several thousand games, I’d surely feel that’s a good evidence to show that Indians are quite good on ranked Arabia.

1 Like