Yes. That was the original message behind it all.
But keep seeing people in every gameforum being Stats advocate and always referring to whatever stats they can pull up and come with demands solely on those stats.
This encourages the Devs to care less about the situation on the ground and just cater to the pressiure and just do unfair changes that helps adjusting the stats to become more balanced.
The WR and PR (Pick Rate) statistics, with their appropriate readings and in favor of agreements of professional players, game technicians and developers, must be relevant so that the game is balanced and varied at the same time.
Sometimes the readings can lead to error because some metagame was hidden, but it is usually a minority. The reality is that, thanks to statistical reading and feedback from players who know, the game is more balanced today than it was months ago.
Again, if devs are being swayed by whiney forum babies, the devs aren’t very good devs and the game will not have longevity.
It simply follows from how skill based matchmaking works, you will always reach a rating where your win rate is around 50%. If your skill increases, you will transiently have a >50% win rate and your rating will increase, but this isn’t relevant to discussions of civ strength.
An exception is players at the high or low extremes of the skill spectrum, where their opponents consistently differ from their skill, due to the lack of available opponents at the same skill level, so those players have a greater or lower than 50% win rate, but again this effect is irrelevant to the question of civ strength as the deviation from 50% is due to their skill level not the strength or weakness of a civ.
For a player who chooses random civ, their skill determines their rating, as their civ strength is simply the average strength of all the civs. Their win rate with each civ will reflect the strength of the civ.
This has to assume that someone can play each civ equally well, otherwise their skill would vary depending on their skill with said civ and not reflect the civs base level strength.
I can’t remember from what statement, but I’m pretty sure the devs were/are running automated tests and check different combinations of units, matchups etc. So that they can compare their own analysis with that of the players.
But not using stats is bonkers, also your statement can be turned around. Is it better that the devs care about the feelings of certain players so that the game becomes unbalanced instead? If 1/100 players think the game is unbalanced, should the devs cater to that 1 person or the other 99? This is obviously something exaggerated.
There are a lot of factors that also change the balance over a period of time. Strategies is a good example. Also how well spread those strategies get. We’ve seen a lot of players believe something is broken or useless, to later realise it was the opposite. Statstistics help clear a bit of that puzzle.
It’s just wrong.
You can win 10 games, and lose one game against noob with counter Civ.
as 2000ELO win 9 games to get +10*9=90 ELO, and loose one game against 1700ELO with counter pick, to loose -50ELO.
WR=90%, Elo only +40.
Ok, want real example?
Easy: Hoang from aoe2. He played 15k+ games (in several accounts). In 99.9999% he picks Celts. He is the legend in aoe2 community.
His WR with 4556 is not 50%, but 57%.
So, it’s not about WR of player. It’s about how often player loose to noob with counter civ.
I never said not using stats.
I mentioned that stats are merely one set of tools out of many in ordee to create and adjust something.
My main criticism is about people who take stats to highly. And that far to often, stats become the sole main focus.
Just take a quick look on YouTube and try find how many in depth analysis there is of different functions in AoE.
Compared to performance statistics.
People love stats W/L K/D because they are simple and easy to read.
Not true, your ELO will rise the more you play…
I’m new to this game and have around 50% in 20ish ranked matches
I started with 5 wins and got to 1000
Then 5W10L and still at 1000
Didnt I literally say a 50% WR will stagnate your ELO? And you have a 50% WR and have the same ELO lol
Yes and no
I have 50% win, but my first 5 were unranked or unclassified (when you have no ELO or league, I can’t remember the exact name). I didn’t have 1000 from the 1st match but from the 5th
Once I played those first 5 games I have 41% in 22 matches, still the same ELO
50% WR will slowly push you up, 40% will keep you, at least that my expirience
