For tournament including qualifiers so we get a bigger sample.
Any website where i can find that?
1 Like
I expected a better performance for dravidians in a tournament with lots of feudal battles and thin woodlines.
1 Like
I don’t.
Dravidians are a snowball civ. But that means you have to always put the foot on the gas with them cause you can’t allow the opponent to get the initiative. They are also quite one-dimensional and predictable.
On the other hand we have civs like Malians who can also dictate the pace of the game by being reactive, as they have such a versatile eco and unit roster.
Dravidians are surealy not a “bad” civ. But they especially lack against the top dogs cause it’s increasingly difficult against these civs to be always in the driving position.
1 Like
Thanks
Huns and hindustanis stood out to me as high pickrates yet low win rate. Maybe a balance issue
Khmer, vikings seem to be in a perfect spot. High pick rate and balanced
Problem is that the players don’t know how the map generation will be beforehand. I think the distribtution was something like thin woodlines and open maps are 40% of the map generations, 50% is the regular arabia, 5% super closed, 5% super open. So Dravidians are decent on 45% of the maps while terrible on 55% of them. And even on those 45% generations where they’re good, many flexible top-tier civs like Khmer, Incas, Lithuanians, Malay can match Dravidians. Maybe if there were 5 bans per player or 4 parallel bans and 2 snipes per player, Dravidians could have had more success.
Hindustanis are quite bad, not a top-20 civ anymore. Huns, like Dravidians are good on the open generations but average on the meta maps.
Why is no one looking at Chinese and Mayans - most double picked, 80% ban rate, 60% winrate archaic civs. And its been the story for a decade now.