well I havent quite seen the data for the December to now patch, but fwiw here is the current win rates trends
Otto (note forum aint letting me format shit, but this is elo brackets past 1k)
63.64%
55
58.65%
1226
53.87%
8500
51.01%
5689
51.05%
7518
52.09%
3653
52.08%
2114
51.50%
1897
45.81%
633
42.82%
341
52.63%
114
in plain english, the civ continues to push players up to 1500s and then it tanks. Now, i have older graphs that showed the civ would overperform by about 140 elo, then down to 100elo, meaning players playing ottoman would on avg gain 100+ elo between patches when playing ottoman compared to other civs (being the sum aggregate. While some of this is ofc player skill, over 20k plus games i think for extremely common civs like otto (often making up 15-20% of some elo brackets at its peak).
This is important as an elo system is supposed to push you towards 50% win rate. so maybe a civ is op, but if you play it long enough the civ will hit its relatively higher ceiling, making win rates around 50% no matter what assuming you dont abuse it to top of ladder. What’s impressive is that otto win rates continue to be 50% or better as the civ gets nerfed meaning its still likely overperforming but people’s ceilings aren’t as high, meaning adjustments downwards still cant push the civ to truly underperforming.
As for the source, its all based of the data from the civ grid that takes the API from every ranked game. its available on the sunbros discord, for those interested in further parsing as ofc like any statistical model there are pros and cons and I do not claim this is “full proof” but simply the data trend suggest otto still overperforms at almost all elo bands and that win rates are probably deflated from what they “should be” as players adjust.
TL:DR; otto still is easy way to leapfrog into 1500s, win rates probably a bit underrepresented as otto ######## merely top tier instead of wtf good.