Developers say Near the top of the 1v1 ranked ladder are the Aztecs, who have maintained a high win-percentage since launch. At the heart of their success is an overwhelming reliance on “The Messenger” council member to quickly advance to the Commerce Age. The following changes aim to encourage more variety in early Aztec gameplay while granting greater strategic flexibility later on—as it should now be more desirable to select other Council Members and “save” The Messenger for later in a game.
People thought Aztec is bottom,and it’s not true.
We underrate because no one use Aztec.
We overrate japan because many people use japan and shrine is so annoying.
I deep agree that we all time play against japan or Sweden and not fun to play against.
If we only talk about winrate, we can say because Az is not fun to play or hardest to use and only pro and top will play it, so their winrate is higher than normal civ.
Only winrate can’t show anything to the reality.
I do agree dev should show at least noob/med/pro each level civ use percentage and winrate.
You said you are top 50 player so you think only top 30 or 50 players should discuss about balance.
This is only selfish.
Your old figure showed Lakota winrate is under average which is already totally different from dev said top winrate. Totally no reference value from your figure.
In early of this year most of guys were saying Sweden is not an issue in top player level as an excuse, they just don’t want their main civ to be nerfed and totally ignore how Sweden was mess in med/bottom level and unplayable.
So your idea for only referring top player opinion for balancing the game is not working.
Noob is not newbie. What you are talking they don’t know anti/meta or something is newbie. Noob can also have good macro, you can’t expect a 70 years old man to have good micro as young guy but sure this old man can have good macro too, this is not conflict.
I agree newbie who don’t know how is the normal game procedure and how to play against shouldn’t discuss balance.
Other levels what they said those are because they are facing those issues.
If there is only one guy saying an issue, that may be not a problem. But if there are many guys saying the same issue, sure this is already a problem.
As I was Lakota player, I was used to think Lakota was weak too, but they were OP and many guys complaint. So I didn’t say nothing and when I was trying to use other civs to play against Lakota, I also felt they are quite strong.
What I said this is because this is only personal feeling and can’t prove anything. If most of guys are already complaining an issue, just try to get what they are saying.
DE is MASSIVELY different from esoc patch, right now.
You brought completely irrelevant data, sorry.
Now you divert to personal attacks.
It would be better to just say you concede the argument, as it effectively is what happened just now, but at least you would keep people’s respect.
He is just selfish guy and uses him as a standard to talk about balance, and like a Sweden protectors when Sweden got nerfed and came out to cry Sweden was unplayable anymore due to Sweden was not top civ anymore.
Thats typically he has good micro but not has good macro.
Honestly, the only thing that should matter for balance is the data analysis, everyone has biases so data is the only thing that should be considered since it’s unbiased.
But devs are listening to people way too much IMO…I mean, they said Aztecs had a positive win rate since the release of the game…and they still buffed it heavily TWICE due to people’s complaints, how that makes any sense?
Just a bit unrelated, game knowledge by itself can get you to the top even without any mechanics, there was a top player(Boneng) that played with 80 APM and barely any micro. So stop with the excuses please, it’s not because of bad micro or slow mechanics(by itself) that we aren’t at the top.
I do not care what he is. He brough irrelevant data, got called out for it, did not know how to react (likely because he actually thinks he is smart) and lashed out because he has no idea about the game.
Without winrates, no one is reall “top” or “bottom” anything.
If you do not have actual data, just refrain from posting you do.
DE is far from the EsoC patch at this time. It basically is a whole different game.
Also, my Decks are not great, but they are competitive, as I have actually went through various competitive decks in order to make mine.
I just like thematic decks more than “win your games” decks.
Because you can’t just read the winrate but alos the skillgap. I did those stats for ESOC and it was pretty clear, aztek had one of the best winrate (~54%) but also the aztek player had an highter PR than his opponenet (overall), which is an HUGE biasis.
Kaiser is a good exemple, he played spain only vs pr35 and less, so his spain winrate was super hight (pretty much at the same % as his german, which is his main).
The win rate of the EP patch is now meaningless. It has been more than 5 months since the EP patch has been supported, and DE has been working on several more patches in the meantime. Even if they accepted the EP patch at the time of release, it is not at all now. It is pointless to evaluate civilization now with the win rate of the EP patch. What we really need right now to discuss balance is the win rate and select rate the developers have.
The shrine boom is valid and will always be valid. That’s how japan exists.
Also, both shrine boom and “numerous walls”? you do realize that the shrine boom requires quite a lot of wood. Is the initial attack coming over 20 minutes into the game?
