You guys don’t understand that when a 10000 players on average lose/win then individual mistakes become irrelevant. Yes those 10000 low elo players would not play perfect, but if there is a problem for the majority, like a civ winning only 40% or winning 60% then it doesn’t come done to individual mistakes. It is the games balance that is broken.
Imagine feitoria got buffed a lot, still worse then villagers. Then for pros it would not make any real difference. While for ultra noobs there wouldn’t be any other civ than Portuguese feitoria eco be seen, since for their skill level nothing else makes sense. It would be a problem that needed addressing, even thought it would not touch your Holy 1% you solely want to balance around.
No, they really don’t. you’re sitting at 1k elo because you make many mistakes, you’re not macroing optimally at all, you’re not scouting properly, you aren’t microing your units well, you’re floating resources that could be doing something productive, the list goes on and on.
except no civs are winning 60% of the time, and you can easily overcome a civs shortcomings just by outsmarting your opponent or doing the unexpected, etc.
every single game i have lost, has not been due to balance. it has been because of errors i myself made. Balance had NOTHING to do with it.
go ahead and link a video of a 1k rated game and i’ll show you many things they could have done better. heck, T90 has an entire SERIES dedicated to low elo legends and he pinpoints many things they could do much better to win.
What you are forgetting is, both players should have equal low elo and should have relative same skil, both doing mistakes.
if now one players gets a civ that on average statistically gives him an advantage because the game isn’t balanced, like let’s say Britons in low elo then the game should Adress these problems instead of saying when the game is played perfect like a pro then it fine.
yes they are both making mistakes, but that means nothing about balance.
let me ask you this.
if i play as Portuguese and you play as Aztecs, and i hit you with a scout rush that you don’t scout
did i win because of balance?
or did i win because you didn’t see the scouts coming?
there is no balance reason you lost that game. none, zero, not a thing balance associated caused you to lose that game.
and at low ELO levels that is COMMONLY why you lose.
except you aren’t losing to balance, you are losing due to errors. there would be literally any number of things you could do to player better and win.
you aren’t losing because this civ is stronger then that civ.
here you go, Cumans vs Turks back in Mid December. Cumans were OP as heck back then and Turks are regarded as one of the worst civs in the game. Turks won despite all the advantages his opponent had in his favor.
Here is another. Ethiopians losing with Archers, against Teuton Champions of all things. pre teuton buff.
here’s another game, red is at 6 population, 4 minutes into the game.
Your arguments talk about single games lost due to one reason or another. That doesn’t matter to balance nor statistics.
We need to talk about 1000 games. We need to talk about statistics, likeliness and averages.
If in a thousands games of equally bad players one civ loses then its not due to individual errors.
The same amount of failed Scouting will eventually have happened in the Portuguese vs aztec match up for both civs. Every mislay that happened forcthe aztec player will some Portuguese player have made.
After thousands of games all these missplayes have averaged out and was is left is civ balance dictating the win rates.
This hold true for all elos, but the win rates can differ with elo (see feitoria example). Discarding lower elos balance problems als lack of skill won’t make those imbalance disappear.
no, these games are lost due to a multitude of reason. none of which have to do with balance.
and i’m literally showing you games of people playing at the level you say we should balance around.
were talking people who don’t even make workers constantly, people who are losing with archers against champions.
except it is very much due to errors. sorry, i’ve already shown you them making simple errors as is, simple stuff they could do with LITERALLY ANY CIVILIZATION and they would be winning more games.
agreed, both are making mistakes, the point is though, that they aren’t losing to balance.
they are losing because of those mistakes.
I’m sorry, but when you are playing as Cumans, PRE NERF, and losing to Turks, that just shows how little balance matters at low elo levels.
except those civs that you see with the better winrates? those tend to be the most friendly towards “attack moving”
look at the winrates at the very lowest levels. what do you see? https://aoestats.io/stats/RM_1v1/<1000
a bunch of civs that can easily spam out strong, attack move, melee units. the highest archer civ is Ethiopians, at 16th overall win rate.
do you really think Bulgarians are a better civ then Mayans? Mongols? Chinese?
here’s another example. blues biggest reason for losing this game? he stayed at about 50ish villagers in a 45 minute game.
is that loss due to balance?
if you’re so sure balance is why people lose even at low skill levels, show me a game where one person lost because of a bad civ.
End of the day if you’re afraid to play Goths, which some of you people clearly are after reading this thread, you can pick civs like Slavs, Japanese, Aztecs, Teutons or even Vikings for that matter. All those civs will match up very well against Goths and they all have supplies and a good eco to counter them. I suspect a lot of complaints about Goths are from people who play Huns, Mayans and even Britons for that matter which are clearly mismatches to Goths. I couldn’t stand years ago seeing Huns non-stop on Arabia. I’m glad they made changes to make other civs viable on open maps such as Goths now. Before the pre loom, the only viable way to play Goths was on closed maps or team games. Now you actually can play them on all maps.
I’ve been looking at the stats for below 1000 ELO and I bet that if Franks are so played and win so much it’s cuz of Spirit’s vids lol.
Anyway there are tons of stuff that looks completely random: Inca are supposed to be the 4th “best civ” and yet they are the one who takes the longest to win, even tho they clearly aren’t a late-game powerhouse, Britons and Mongols, who are an endless source of noob tears, are even below average, and Slavs are at the top for some reason, even tho apparently at this level no one knows siege exists (else you wouldn’t be complaining about Britons) the Boyard isn’t the best mono-spam late-game unit and the +10 faster farming must feel more like a “rebuild your farms 10% earlier” curse or something. In the end I don’t think you could do any balance of this mess.
@CactusSteak2171 what you’re missing (this is the metaphorical you by the way, not you as in you @CactusSteak2171) is that all of the top civs are ones that can mass up power attack move units. seriously, no true archer civs present until halfway down the list.
basically microless units. the only way to balance that out would be to do one of two things
reduce the power of cavalry.
(i can’t believe i’m about to say this) increase the power of the archer.
pick your poison.
BTW am i the only one who noticed the update to aoestats.io where it now shows game time played instead of real time played? all of a sudden average game length jumped from 35-40 minutes to around an hour.
That’s the deal; Boyars are far from being the best mass unit. I would expect Khmer, with their super easy to manage farming and their eles to be better, and yet they are chilling with Mongols/Brits and other “unbalanced” monsters in the below average ranks because every outcome is random for some reason. With all the outrage that the Leitis caused they could at least have made it so that Liths aren’t the neighbours of TURKS of all things, and why are Spanish so low when it’s a civ that has palas and for which going straight for UU spam is actually a good idea? The more I look at this the more cursed it get 11
which just further backs up my point that balance at low levels doesn’t matter. did you watch some of those videos i posted?
there was one where this dude was at 6 supply 4 minutes into the game.
seriously.
another had a Teuton player beating Ethiopian crossbows with champions.