auto scouting helps lower skilled players from saving time management during scouting… Regardless of how much it does it, it still levels the playing field incrementally
not really. auto scouting is made to be inferior by default. for example it cycles your base at the start a few times and then runs off to start scouting a corner of the map no matter if its found your resources or not, and doesn’t go to scout what the opponent is doing. my recommendation to even new players is to ignore auto scout until late feudal at the earliest.
if anything auto scout is a crutch that new players SHOULDN’T RELY UPON because it makes them WORSE PLAYERS.
No, I say goths are garbage. I only said they were buffed, not that now are a good civ.
This is not elitism, it’s a fact: you can’t balance arpund low elo simply because they make too many errors in many aspects of the game.
Dude, you were the one trying to showing how strong are the goths by using as example a goth vs vikings video where Hera clearly states “this should be an impossible match up”.
And btw, just to keep on quoting pros “goths are an autoloss against everything except mayans (if they make to the castle age)”. That’s the state of the goths on open land maps
Now you can go back to your “but the game should be balanced around low elooooo”
On the topic of Britons. Hope they could change the +1 range in castle +2 in imp to
+1 damage per age starting in feudal.
Leave the UT +1 range.
this would mean they get more dps but less ridiculous range. Also buff in Feudal.
It is so frustrating when you can’t even touch them.
The extra range is offset by lacking thumb ring, which means slower fire rate abd lower accuracy
You have no data to back this up.
I feel no qualms about rebutting you with merely anecdotal evidence.
Just based on my own experience I feel like having a good civ is worth 100-200 ELO. Sure in principle I could play as if I had more ELO, and thus win with a weak civ, but the fact is I usually play at the strength indicated by my ELO.
I recently played a match with Persians after a period of playing with civs like Portuguese. Sure I can (sometimes) win with Portuguese (and I could still lose with Persians) but playing with Persians just made winning feel much easier.
2 Likes
You dont need data. Its simple truth. Thete is a bunch of things you could do better at those skill levels that turn a lost game into a won game. Show me a video and ill point out things thry could have done better
This is entirely your own opinion with no facts to back it up.
Could be any number of reasons you feel this way, but frankly once again this comes down to how YOU FEEL.
You might be more comfortable with persians. Another person is more comfortable with using an archer civ.
Another person is more comfortable with booming civs
Another person is more comfortable with knivht civs
But rhe fact is we literally see even pros make game losing mistakes with some of thd best civs in thd game.
And yourd gonna tell me someone who doesn’t have a tenth of their skill, reflexes, and judgment is playing so well the reason they are losing is balance?
You’re not getting the point are you? Peoples skill, reflexes and judgement (how well people play) is reflected in their ELO. Against an opponent of equal skill, on average you’ll make the same number of mistakes. If you made less mistakes you’d be playing better. Against an opponent who plays as well as you do (and hence makes the same number of mistakes) your civs can decide who wins.
Returning to my original claim, that a good civ is worth 100-200 ELO, of course playing well can compensate for that, because playing well is worth up to 2000 ELO.
If you say “Thete is a bunch of things you could do better at those skill levels that turn a lost game into a won game”, you’re saying “If you played as if you had 400 ELO more you could still have won”. OF COURSE. If the civ advantage is worth 200 ELO playing 400 ELO better is going to be more important than that. But people can’t consistently play as if they are better than they are.
4 Likes
Oh BTW, if you want hard data, the correct thing to look at is the average win-rates, averaged over players, on a given map.
For example I currently have a 81% win rate with Mongols and a 14% win rate with Vietnamese. These percentages need to be averaged over different players (ie consider the Mongol win rates of all players who have played with all civs at least once, and take their average), to avoid the effect where players who play with strong civs more often end up with higher ELOs and thus tougher opponents, which pushes the win-rates towards 50%.
Looking at a single map is necessary mostly to avoid water maps.
For me Portuguese currently have a 69% win rate, but I’m pretty sure that’s mostly because of the water-map Ports vs Koreans auto-wins. (This matchup happens surprisingly often and I can’t remember losing it ever.)
I don’t know whether it would be possible to access the statistic I described.
1 Like
Exactly. No idea why people would claim that civ doesn’t matter. Does it matter to choose between a gun and a knife for an unexperienced fighter?
From my own experience, playing Franks FC knights on Hideout has a significantly higher win rate than all my other 1v1 games. People (especially with lower ELOs) pick civs to practice a certain build order. And civ bonus clearly plays an important role in a build order.
1 Like
This is a good point. Several pro players do a lot of errors in tournaments, and it is basically because they are forced by a strong opponent. Viper does a lot of wrong things in tournaments that he would never do vs noobs, and that is just because he is fighting vs other pros that induce him in making mistakes.
Are we assuming that the pick rates are the same? In that case it may work, but otherwise it does not…
Currently saying that a large win rate implies a strong civ is very wrong…
1 Like
The point is that if someone is usually picking strong civs, or is a Frank-main or whatever, and he played with a game Vietnamese he’s likely to have lost that game, so thus contribute a 0%, which weighs just as heavily as the 50% of a Viet-main.
There is a difference between the win-rate averaged over matches, and the win-rate averaged over players. The 2nd one does actually tell us something about civ strength.
Expect the win-rate averaged over players to be lower than the win-rate averaged over matches across the board, but particularly for weak civs.
1 Like
I get the point, still I am more convinced that pick rates matter much more.
The strength of a civ should be defined as the probability of winning with that civ. Right?
How do you average over players?
If my win-rate with Aztecs is 100% and yours is 0%, is the result 50? Without averaging for the total number of games played per player??
1 Like
yes
Yes, after correcting for the difference in strength between the players. (Though you can also think of a civ-strength as an ELO-modifier which makes that process a little easier.)
I don’t think we should look at winrate because it seems after every new patch the civs that get nerfed have much lower winrate regardless of overall strength. Britons have 45% winrate right now and Vietnamese 39% probably as a result of the pathfinding improvements boosting cavalry civs. Yet neither of those are bad civs. Turks have 48% despite being far worse.
On the other hand high level pick rates indicate Turks, Koreans and Portuguese as the bottom 3 which seems to be rather representative. Pickrate also has flaws (doesn’t take into account which civ the players like to play regardless of strength). But if we look only at high elo it would make sense that players mostly try to win and make reasonable decisions.
Indian Camels have to be removed from the game. Devs should compensate it with giving Indians Cavaliers and EBE.
Khmer should have this civilization bonus: Battle Elephants attack +1/2 faster
Tusk Swords: Elephants move 10% faster
The Briton TB could be halved, but their extra range is balanced.
Currently the worst pick rate is for Italians, Turks and Koreans (arabia). It is very reasonable that these are the worst civs…
3 Likes
Maybe the correct way to confirm this would be simply to look at : Player elo distribution for each civ ?
Something like this (Overwatch):
(This is for Overwatch, at a time where Orisa and Roadhog were the best tanks)
Don’t forget Portuguese and Bulgarians.
2 Likes
Portuguese are the 4th worst civ:
- Portuguese
- Koreans
- turks
- italians
This is by considering the 1v1 pick rate arabia. TGs is similar, if I remember Correctly Italians are still the worst