Maybe you should look more into how games actually play out than in your imagination.
5 Likes
I provided reasoning and, occasionally, evidence from tournaments. You meanwhile provided calling me names and belittling like this last post. If thatâs what makes you happy, sure go for it, but I wonât take you seriously.
I just wonât react to constructed arguments that donât fit the reality.
I tried to give you stats, but you basically said that for you stats donât apply.
On the other hand you say you want stuff only be balanced for the highest ranked players.
But you even arenât one of them.
This would mean you would actually need stats to build up your arguments.
But you donât, you construct some weird âatlernative metaplayâ that just doesnât fit how games actually play out at high elo and pro games.
IDK what you actually want, but your whole construct doesnât adds up. Your âargumentsâ are just made up and I am not willing to do the âfact checkerâ for you. As it would take me more time to show they are wrong than it took you to make them up.
If what you claim would be true, it would show up in the stats. But it just doesnât.
And you tra basically to argue that âbecause it doesnât shows up in the stats, the stats are wrongâ.
6 Likes
this is basically like your opinion that you donât take arguments you donât agree with.
yes and there have been cases where statistics were wrong or manipulated in the past also. I have a scientific/technical background which delves a lot in statistics. You can manipulate a lot more than you think.
Anyway not gonna read further you are so arrogant and not worth talking to.
This stuff doesnât pulls me down. But nice try.
Just be honest and you wonât have a problem with me at all.
I donât have a problem with other peoples opionions. As long as they donât try to brand it as an objective analysis.
(But ofc when you say itâs your opinion you should be prepared for others to take the other side, and respect their opinion aswell. If you canât stand other people having a different opinion than yours, you shouldnât post opinions at all. And I know that for some reason there are a lot of people of that mindset which study statistics. Cause they hate being in the wrong so much, they want everything they say to be as accurate as humanly possible. And I even think, these are probably even the best people to become statisticiansâŠ)
You actually just said that you canât be trusted.
And besides there are currently a lot of misleading statistics out there that were published out of interest: That doesnât mean that statistics in general are manipulated.
Right the opposite. The concept of statisitics was developed to get reliable results free of intent or misconceptions / missperceptions.
Itâs sad that there are so many people out there trying to abuse statistics as statistics still have the perception of being more reliable than pure opinions. But reverting this to make as if stats would be LESS reliable than pure opinions⊠Thats just absurd.
And I doubt you have that background you claim.
4 Likes
This is honestly how it feels to discuss on this forum most of the times, be it portoguese, italians or whatever the new flavour of the month looks like.
While this buff is mostly harmless on water /hybrid maps (because berries are very, very delayed), it is also a good buff on closed maps (for example, our lovely clown Dracken considered them A+ on Arena BEFORE the buff) and a very good buff on arabia, where they already had a very good mid game. Not every civ has to be good on every single maps and settings
4 Likes
I think all civs should be decent on arabia.
Because itâs just the bread and butter of AOE2.
Otherwise i just donât want one civ do completely dominate one map type (or a too limited set of civs). And I want each civ to have some kind of Identity.
And I think that most people will share this. Maybe not all and maybe other people might have further ârestrictionsâ.
I donât like if if these classifications are too strict and black/white.
And as it looks for me atm Portuguese doesnât breaks one of the points I made. May change in the future as itâs possible that people will figure out more how to play them, but atm they are fine.
There are other civs rn that are more problematic, like Bengalis.
11 Likes
And are Portuguese OP here since buff?
I think in that map Turks and Poles are truly problematic.
4 Likes
I am not reading âCasusincorrablâ anymore but I was
a) neither arrogant,
b) nor did I write anything out of the ordinary. I wrote what your picture says, that some civs deserve to be good on some maps, some on others. Portuguese donât belong on Arabia, the end. I am not sure what deep analysis, not data-driven, me fabricating facts etc. this presents. You disagree with Portuguese being an Arena civ? Thatâs fine. Then letâs remove SE from them and take 3 damage off of Organ Guns and give them even +100% bonus for all I care.
I donât hate the Porto buff, but donât really think it was necessary either. I do think itâs odd in the sense of there being at least 6-10 other civs that are eligible for similar early game buffs if weâre determined to establish a higher universal baseline for civ performance on Arabia. But the buff was given to the one civ that can get free gold and stone in Imp and has ballistic missiles.
For my purposes, I got plenty of value from Portos even from several patches ago (before even the Feitoria gold buff), mainly in casual games on closed maps or water. Iâve never needed them to be great on Arabia in order for them to be interesting or useful. If I hadnât (more or less) hung up my ranked tryhard hat a year or so ago, Iâd probably be more of an advocate for them to be better on Arabia, so that randoming them wouldnât be much of a disadvantage. So I can at least understand the people who want that. Though it would have made a little more sense to me if it either came with a small lategame CM/Water nerf, or as one of several buffs to civs with weak Dark Ages or lower winrates on open maps.
I like the sentiment, but I think some of the implications of this are troublesome, depending on how much one wants to subordinate variation to such decency. If taken to the extreme it almost becomes akin to the impossible declaration that âeveryone should be above average.â There will always be a bottom 5 civs on any given map, and the people whose world is Arabia will consider those bottom 5 bad civs, eternally in need of a buff. So I guess Iâm curious how weâd define âdecent,â and how much we weigh excellence in other maps in determining how far below average a civ can acceptably fall on Arabia (or vice versa). Frankly, having all civs perform within a fairly narrow range of each other on one map seems to limit what you should be able to do with them on other maps, so there is potential for a lot of civs to become more bland if this was not implemented very carefully.
So in spite of recognizing something appealing in that goal, I think itâs important to emphasize that there are tradeoffs and limitations to how âdecentâ all civs can be made on Arabia without potential negative interactions appearing in other aspects of the game. In any case, I donât yet have reason to believe the new Porto bonus is broken, and am hoping for other civs that generally have a low win rate across common maps to get their buffs in due course.
2 Likes