I used to think their tech tree is broad, but it actually isnt.
They have a full blacksmith, yes, but Arbalests are basically the only relevant
unit they can fully upgrade
They lack Hussar and Paladin. They lack Siege Ram and Heavy scorpion,
they lack Squires for their Infantery.
Their tech tree really isn’t that great.
1 Like
It looks worse than it is but Malay isn’t in a bad spot, just on tournament Arabia map you really need mobility and raiding potential and Malay clearly lack of mobility. Why you should pick Malay if you can pick 20 other Civ that has better mobility?
Only Vikings are the only civ that is pick on tournament though they have bad cavalry just because of their awesome Eco bonus.
1 Like
More like lower average. Vikings are no great arena civ they lack late game hard.
Yes they were picked by Arabia players but then they got shred really much.
Well, Terror sorted civs in one tier alphabetically, so vikings being at the last spot of b-tier doesn’t mean below average. But I see your argument and I agree that they aren’t the greatest arena civ. Don’t intend to go too much into details, just saying it’s certainly not one the worst arena civs (great eco, good units as long as gold is available, few civ matchups that are bad).
loool omfg
this forum: “we use pro level play to determine which civs are balanced”
this SAME forum “malay are balanced even though pro level players arent picking them!”
ROFL
would you look at that?? heck it must be the world’s greatest coincidence that the civs us noobs pointed out as “not the best” are hardly ever picked… it cant be because we might know what we’re talking about… it must purely be a coincidence…
dude he’s used hyperbole before… this is actually a very common occurance from the amount of times we see someone with these kinds of irrational quotes… he said karambit are great when he had a super troll game with them…
3 Likes
arabia has THE HIGHEST PLAY RATE by a massive margin. the game is balanced primarily around arabia.
if a civ is garbage(insert acceptable word) on arabia… it should without a doubt be buffed so it is more viable on arabia…
how can people not understand this? this isnt higher level thinking. its basic logic.
4 Likes
Currently sitting at 43% on Arabia on ladder
I think Malay are a more difficult to balance as they have a much higher potential to break the game as compared to other civs.
They have definitely more potential in Teamgames on Arabia.
Their 2HSwordsmen are truly game winning when gold runs dry in the lategame and trade is not possible or viable.
Their uptimes are also very dangerous when combined with a sling.
If they should be buffed it has to be something that does not benefit them in the lategame / on closed maps / on hybrid maps.
No, you THINK we should balance civs based on how good they are on Arabia. We don’t. We never have, we never will. The only time we balance civs for any reason is when we think they are too good on a particular map (not necessarily Arabia) or not good enough on any map.
We didn’t nerf the Indians fisherman rate because they were fishing on Arabia. If they balanced for Arabia, they wouldn’t have been nerfed. We didn’t buff the Goths multiple times only because they were bad on Arabia, they were bad on every map.
You see a tournament where players have no map draft (meaning no choice in what strategies they want the map to encourage) and are forced to play on a single map every single game. That single map, outside of Black forest, is practically the most polarizing in the game’s map list, with it being bare and open with no reasonable confusion as to what matters on it. From that, you are claiming that every civ below (insert arbitrary threshold of use here) should be changed even though these civs would be top picks in any situation where you can actually draft the map. Persians are at 3%.
You aren’t exhibiting basic logic. You’re exhibiting projection and applying your own vague, baseless position as to how the game should be balanced with mixed justifications. You claim that I, and anyone that agrees with me on the subject to be hypocritical, claiming that we should balance at the highest level, and yet also ignoring the pro scene by not taking these results as reasons to buff and nerf. That’s ridiculous.
Have you not seen anything I’ve said about the Vikings in the thread thus far? This is a civ that is good on every map, borderline OP on hybrid maps (used as a pocket on Bog islands in the world cup, multiple times, and utterly flummoxing the opponent in every game) and they happen to be exceeding on arabia, which I think is an indication they should be tweaked.
No, I’m not looking at the F-tiers and claiming they all need to be buffed because they’re doing bad on one map. No, I don’t care that it’s the “most popular map” either. It is you who is being hypocritical. The professional scene does not play on one map. Tournaments are not generally run on one map. The map draft is an integral part of developing a strategy, especially when you are drafting to expose a player’s weakness in certain strategies on certain maps (like water for example). You are using a situation where the balance we observe is distinctly and intentionally being thrown out for a theme as the motivation for buffing and nerfing what are otherwise generally balanced civs because they don’t perform on the “most popular map”
We don’t balance for the “most popular map.” The most popular map will be played once a set, generally speaking, in every tournament. We balance for Arabia, and the other twenty or so they might play. Not even talking about custom maps that are tournament specific, like Cup/Pants, which are additionally difficult to weigh, and as of this moment, they’re doing (and will likely continue to do) a fantastic job with all factors considered. We don’t need you redefining what matters to balance, thanks.
2 Likes
Its not ultimate Arabia civ tierlist. Its ultimate KOTD3 or that much open Arabia’s civ tier list. Ranked Arabia is relatively much simpler to wall and this tierlist won’t apply there.
Anyways I don’t see why you would put arbitrary unevenly spaced cutoffs like 96, 79, 49. Also the intervals seem quite random. If you want to split the civs that were picked atleast once and/or maybe won atleast 1 game, sort them by pick+ban rate from highest to lowest (maybe u can add % played, winrate too.) So that’s 31 civs split into 5 tiers. Split tiers after every 6th.
S Tier - [Aztecs], Chinese, Vikings, Franks, [Mayans], Khmer
A Tier - Lithuanians, Celts, Mongols, Malians, Slavs, {Britons}
B Tier - Huns, Incas, Berbers, Saracens, {Goths}, {Cumans}
C Tier - [Byzantines], Indians, Ethiopians, Japanese, Burmese, {Vietnamese}
D Tier - Magyars, Malay, Portugese, Spanish, Italians, Tatars, Persians, Teutons (one digit no of games and pick+ban rates)
F Tier - Bulgarians, Turks, Koreans (never picked or banned or played)
{} - very poor win rate, maybe they’re a tier lower. []- very good win rate, maybe they’re a tier higher.
F for F tier