I have already said this. The correlation exists and it is much more important that everything else.
People think that the larger the win rate, the stronger the civ. Like and OP civ should have a win rate close to 100%. This is false.
If a civ were very OP, everyone would pick it, since otherwise you loose. As a consequence, its win rate would be close to 50%, since all the games would be mirror.
More importantly, the people who play with other civs would get a lower ELO, until they too have a 50% win rate. Thus both the OP civ and the other civs would have approximately 50% win rate.
The concussion is the same, that pick rate gives more information than win rate.
This mechanism suggests the pick rate in the top ELO bracket could be very telling, but I wouldnāt be sure, seeing players like huong and viper.
If we could have a map with the ārandom civā characteristic in a map pool, at least the matches on that map would give us useful statistics about win rates.
In tournaments definitely. Viper is actually one of the worst examples, since sometimes he picks bad civs even in the first stages of tournaments just for fun. He is so strong that in the past he picked old khmer in the early stages of KOTD2. But in KOTD2 everyone was picking mayans, Aztecs, Chinese, salvs (the farm bonus was stronger). By a large margin these civs were picked over the others.
Also, even if you look at the pick rates, you see something that is reasonable (Italians and Turks the worst ara civs, followed by tatars). If you look at winrates, you see absurd things, like viets the worst civā¦
In KOTD2 there was a rule to prevent players to pick always the same civ in the early stages of the tournament. He and Lierreyy (if I remember correctly) saved their best civ for later stages, having an easier time against Tatoh and MBL respectively
Yes exactly. But Khmer were clearly one of the worst civs and none picked them except viper (he was streaming that gameā¦). So a pick like Khmer, even in the early stages is quite an outlier.
If we look at picks in the later stages, it was evident that the 4 strongest civs were Aztecs, Mayans, Slavs, and Chinese. Probably now slavs are no more so powerfulā¦
weāll see how the final version of the map they are going to use is. Depending on that we could see more archers civ (drush + fc wallable map) or scouts civ (really open maps).
Probably in the most competitive series weāll see the usual aztecs, mayans, chinese + vikings, britons, franks, Khmer
Low pick rate means the percentage of people who choose to pick ārandom civā is much higher then with a civ that has a high pick rate.
Therefore the amount of players that are unfamiliar with the Civ is much higher in percentage.
For example:
I am not a Frank main but I have been playing the game for 20 years. When I am randomly given Franks I know exactly what to go forā¦
I honestly have not played more then 2 or 3 matches with Tatars (I like the Lithuanians and Bulgarians), so when I am randomly given Tatars I will have no real game plan and will probably not perform very wellā¦
Precisely. Having a low pick rate means people are unfamiliar with the civ and how best to utilize it. That will automatically make the win rate drop in a meaningful way. Random the Tatars, and itās not like randoming the Britons. Years of experience with a civ is a comfort and it ensures you donāt have to learn as you go. Having planned reactions will always make the game easier to play.
Thatās why I say the statistics do not support a push for changes to the Tatars. Itās way too early. Players simply donāt understand the civ well enough to play it effectively yet. Low pick rate doesnāt help that. And no, low pick rate doesnāt automatically mean the civ is bad. I know the rest of the thread is trying to make this pure conjecture a fact, but there is something to be considered in terms of likability of a civ. If you donāt like a civ, you wonāt play it. Not enjoying a civ is a good reason for the pick rate to fall. That, in reality, has nothing to do with the strength of the civ.
Again, because I really need to hammer down this ridiculous notion that the stats are to be glorified and make some sort of conducive point, Iāll delve. The Tatars have the lowest pick rate among all civs. Lower than the Turks, who have a higher winrate in 1650+. Lower than the Portuguese. But in general, Cavalry Archer civs in general do not see a lot of picks. Every civ reliant on Cavalry archers as a main army compliment, save the Mongols and Huns (where the mongols have the Mangudai and never actually use their HCA, and the Huns get more play because not building houses is great fun) is in the bottom half of pick rate. The Magyars are 11th and thatās the closest any Cavalry Archer civ gets to parity in pick rate, and theyāre still 30% less picked than the average civ should be.
Could it be that Cavalry archers civs are simply not as popular as civs that have a more traditional Arbalest backline which can be built up from Feudal? And that this effect, compiled with the fact that the Tatars are a new civ that still needs time to be figured out, is the reason why there would be a dip in both pick, and win rate? If you say no, I think any reasonable person would consider this discussion finished. If you say yes, Iāve made my point.
For all civ I have my opinion. Just for some civ I donāt like to play but I know they are good and for a good reason.
Tatars has their weakness that they are too dependant on their cav Archer. For castle age they are expensive and hard too mass. In general not a good option to play with even with free thumb ring. Before you are able too mass this unit u need to defend yourself first.
Xbow with thumb ring is solid and a good option. But in general not the best to mass up a unit and then force to give up in late game. And then there is the Imp. Sorry but except of cav Archer you donāt have any option to play with units. They donāt have any strong unit for the late game at all. Thatās why Portuguese are still in bad state even with the descend gold bonus and flexibility.
And then there is the thing with cav Archer. They are in bad state because itās hard to micro with 1 sec attack delay. Even against slow pikeman you have to be careful not losing your unit. Mangudai or other fast moving firing unit are more preferred because of the hit and run tactics. I think buff the cav Archer by reducing attack delay would makes Tatars more attractive for sure.
And one thing about video from Hera, he thinks Tatars are stronger than Teutons and Goth. His opinion I cannot take seriously.
No, just no. The Keshik is a very strong unit in Imp. They have a very solid siege tree, missing only BBC and siege onager. Itās not a matter of opinion, you are just wrong. I donāt know how to put that nicely, so I wonāt.
Iām talking about STRONG unit. Keshiks are same level as Cavalier just more cost effective what sometimes could be difficult to mass a unit only available in castle. They are far away from Paladin level. And Iām not even talking about special ability that strength their unit like Celts extra attack speed for siege or Vikings extra HP for infantry. Ah yes and cav Archer from Magyars and Turks are better.
Missing bombard Cannon is a huge nerf, heavy scorpions are nobody playing, only siege rams could be fine. Missing siege Onager is like only having Cavalier instead of Paladin.
Archers are just stronger than CAs. So definitely this makes CA civs less appealing. But Tatars are also suffering the old miss of free thump ring imo. People remember them as weak.
However, if you look at arabia, the lowest pick rates are for the two civs which are probably the worst ones (Turks and Italians).
I would wait a bit to see if Tatars improve. I think they are in a decent position atmā¦ still if their pick rate remain so low it means that either they are boring (so they need a change since none has fun at playing them) or they are too weak (so people tend to loose with them. This may be due to the fact that a CA civ, to be good, need a strong CA bonus since CA are worse than archers).
Tatars are in sweet spot, drush and fc min 16, with strongest xbows than any other civ by that time, give that to lierey and he will crush any other top player, if you donāt see the civ winning blame the players for not trying the civ, the extra food they get with the sheeps is a really good boost to start with, after 25 xbow you should switch to CA once ur economy is better, you donāt need to ask for more bonuses, given how the UU of tatars is really cheap on gold, hussar with +7 armor piercing is another great thing, their only weakness as civ is vs IMP camel and goths army composition.
Chemistry should be upgraded in less time, so the HC could be a suitable option for several civs incluiding tatars, but 3 minutes without production after hitting imperial is mainly gg.
Alright, weāre done here. The Keshik is immeasurably better than the Cavalier. Itās so much more gold efficient than the Cavalier that you can, in practice, very often field Keshiks at a 3-1 rate over the Knight line once you factor in the gold returns.
At that rate, or even a modest 2-1 conversion, which is an unthinkably low return only possible due to horrid micromanagement, itās far and away more efficient than even the best Paladins in the game. Itās going to slaughter Paladins 2-to-1, forget about cavaliers. If youāre in the realm of impossibility with infinite resources, or in a team game with full trade, youād rather have Paladin. In a 1v1? Absolute nonsense. If you have castles to produce, Keshiks should be made. They are absurd. To claim otherwise is senseless. End of story.
Their eco is lacking for sure, but konniks are one of the most powerful units, and you can spam krepost for training them.
Also their knights and 2HS are among the best, with good siege and HCA they really have a powerful army, they donāt need a lot.
Maybe an idea could be free stone mining upgrades.
I still think that FC were an april fool jokeā¦ so no need to pay attention to themā¦
As for tartars, they are fine, silk armor already affects 3 different units, while being cheap and having a good effect.
You have really no idea from the game. Discussion with you is useless if you really think Tatars will have a chance against other top civ like Franks, Aztecs or Vikings.
Keshiks are a good support unit, nothing that carry the game. But yeah thatās it, discussion with you is really uselessā¦
Tatars can kill Franks.
IDK man, they buffed their blast radius, I think they want them to actually have situational use (like petard) and not just be a total meme. To be honest Iāve used them to win against massed Khmer EBEs on the 1v1 ladder. Not saying their amazing and useful in every situation, but I do think they have their legitamite uses 
Oh alsoā¦ they are fun as heck 
if flaming camel need no upgrade, it can be a viable unit
The Gold crown tech make it complicated
I am not sure if u have used Keshik in arena. 3 castle would be enough, 4 is perfect. They can beat paladin by numbers. If u canāt get 40 Keshik vs 30 paladins, then probably isnāt the problem of Keshik.