Win rate from ranked games do not mean anything, especially if you consider all elo.
You have to look at the tournaments to know what is really strong, not at ladder where a lot of people, especially at high level, go for random civ
I basically agree with everything you said, my point is that I was expecting that these civs are not the worst also in TGs. Britons, Ethiopians, and Mayans are better flank, so I expect they are better. But this difference is much bigger than what I expected. Especially because, at least in TGs a civ like turks should close the gap a bit.
This huge difference is seen also in 1v1, involving basically the same civs. This may indicate a lot on where the next nerf/buff should go. Let us see the pick rates of kotd3, but these data (pick rate ofc) indicate a lot…
Unfortunately you completely ignore the part where the lowest picked TG civs are also the worst 1v1 civs because you’re fixated on your own point you want to get across…
I appreciate the effort. But there’s more than one way to balance a game. It doesn’t only involve nerfing. There’s a thing called buffing weaker civs…
This is also erroneous and an age old argument.
The game should never be purely balanced around competitive play ONLY.
Otherwise goths wouldn’t exist. If what you said was the only truth. Goths would’ve been heavily buffed. BUT they are an extremely successful civ to 90%+ of the community. Thus the above pick and win rate.
So obviously what you said isn’t true and the game isn’t purely balanced around competitive play…
Auto scouting wouldn’t exist either.
A big chunk of civs are commonly not even considered for use in tourney play, nevermind balanced for it…
As in, giving them 35% cheaper infantry since dark age? Of course, it was canceled after both casual and expert players complained, but it was still an attempt at immensely buffing them.
Auto scouting isn’t about balance, it’s a quality of life feature.
Recently there was the Ornlu big nomad cup, who was played with random civs only and guess what? The results (Ornlu's B I G N O M A D Cup Info Hub - Google Sheets) were mainly random/came done to each team’s skill. Which would be what aoestats would look like too if more people dared to play random more, rather than choose a civ everyone believes is better and tryhard with it.
On whether Franks are OP or not: Franks have been a top pick in TG’s since aoc days. Back then only their knights had the 20% bonus hp (meaning no scouts), they didn’t have faster foragers, and Chivalry did not exist. The two key bonuses that empower Franks are the 20% hp bonus on their knights and the free farm upgrade bonus. As long as the Franks have these two bonuses, and as long as the meta is flank archers and pocket knights, Franks will be a top pick in ladder team games. The bonuses gives Franks a streamlined playstyle that a lot of players enjoy even if it’s not objectively the best civ choice.
No Franks weren’t good until FE buff with foraging bonus and castle age UT
In AoC Franks were a dead civ. Huns did everything the Franks could do, and better.
Back in AoC the tgs pick on open maps were:
That’s it, end of AoC tgs composition
They were heavily buffed. Dude, they had their infantry discount from the dark age, then they gave them loom for free when they had to take away that discount. The fact that Goths were heavily picked is because at low elo no one fights before imp, so they con go for the spam.
The fact that 90% of the player base pick them doesn’t mean they are strong, it means they think goths are strong even tho at that level you could pick any civ and it would not matter.
There’s no such thing as “balanced for low elo”. Either a civ is balanced or it’s not, and for that you have to look at tournaments.
It’s time to stop believing that the game should be balanced around the need of 1k elo players, since they could actually win by going for the most underpowered unit in the world simply due the amount of errors them and their opponents make in a game
I thought everyone had a Spanish player to get that busted trade bonus.
As far as I remember, Spanish were more of a 1v1 civ back then, since Fast Castle into Conqs was unstoppable. It was guaranteed damage.
There were maps where spanish were picked, but mostly people went for Huns for the stable work rate.
Most of the time trade wouldn’t even kick in since the mayan player (tipically Daut in the Tyrant Legend) was slinged to imp by vikings in 21 minutes: the one with the biggest plumed mass could easily win by himself
Other common pick depending on the maps were ofc spanish (more closed maps) and persians (hybrid maps), but that’s basically it as far as i remember. Go check the War Is Coming Grand Final (Tyrant Legend vs Tyrant Warlord) if you want to know what were the best picks
Also, and I’ll stop after this with the throwback to AoC, i can still remember the players from Tyrant and their usual picks 11:
Legends:
Tyrant Warlords:
@Nheltarion I am not saying one win rate stat is the be all end all of metrics, but it is more important than pick rate. Win rate should always be looked at in different ELOs, thats why I said Franks should probably not be nerfed much, but instead have a higher skill ceiling, which would even out the high winrate in lower elos while keeping the high elo winrate roughly the same (at least once higher elos have adjusted to the change).
I think it is also important to try to balance the game for all ELOs, I agree that high level (1650+) should receive special focus, but all players want to have an enjoyable meta.
Team games in aoc had the next civs in tg, teuton, spanish, huns, franks, persians, saracens and byzantines,chinese,mongols for the camel option all of those as pkt, those are more options that now only indians, khmer and franks a little less.
Without indians and khmer ele, we could add cumans, magyars, tatars, berbers, bulgarians, lithuanians, see the difference now, imperial camel and khmer speedy ele broke the team games, there is no civ variation now.
As flank you could go vikings, byzantines again for the fast up+ram, huns because CA were also a good option without that nasty frame delay we have in DE, mongols as flank or pkt, mayans, aztks, britons, now there are more civs that shouldbe good as flank, but it is really hard to fight the briton bonus on archery ranges or the cheap archs from mayans, ethipians are good but in numbers they always loses given the other civ bonuses, so briton team bonus is a problem.
We see these levels of elitism constantly. And it doesn’t make you right just because other people say the same thing.
Its actually insulting(and incredibly inaccurate) constantly implying people are too stupid to realise which civs are better. (pickrate)
Civs most definitely do play a role in winrates for elo 1250-1650. They aren’t an overriding factor,but they are a factor.
So just by magic unicorn luck that when people specifically choose “their try hard civ” they win more with them…
Nice strawman.
And they’re consistently used in tournies like the other power civs? They’re considered a competitive civ by top players? I don’t just mean peeps saying the civ is balanced i mean actually used consistently like other tourney civs?
OR are they still considered a semi meme civ and auto loss?
You tourney advocates must get your stories straight. You say goths are balanced for tourney play, another person says goths are auto loss… 
Haven’t you heard? If you face britons it’s an auto win. Just train rams apparently
I’m joking because these guys think rams auto counter britons and can magically teleport across the map and can’t just be avoided or countered. Everyone has the skill to perfectly shield their slow rams while magically keeping the speed of their army up…
not really. unless you can use civs to the highest level possible, balance isn’t affecting you. you aren’t losing at 1400 because you got portuguese.
