I only play Abbas
Now 120 matches 100 Abbas 
Anything critical of something about Islam means you must be Islam-hating, right?
The point you make about beautiful architecture and elephants is precisely why itâs strange to have an Islamic faction. The architecture and elephants are both Indian, and not Islamic. See how that is weird and therefore unappealing if you know your history?
Thanks, This helps to add a bit of perspective. Even here the champion win rates appear to be within that ~45%-54%, and for the majority of the ranks, the devs consider >54% as overpowered. Also keep in mind that LoL is a 10+ year old game which has had plenty of time for the meta to develop and the champions to be fleshed out.
I think based on how the win rates look today for AoE4, it would make a lot more sense for the devs to implement bug fixes and still give a bit more time to see how the meta develops before nerfing/buffing. Buggy civs are likely very influencing the pick rates and possibly win rates to a degree.
2 Likes
No itâs not Indian, itâs Persian-origin Islamic architecture style, like half the world then just copied Persia. Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire were Islamic powers.
Heard of the Taj Mahal? Red Fort? Humayunâs Tomb? The all-time superstars of Indian history are all 100% pure islamic architecture.
Half the world powers on Earth were Islamic. Ottomans, Mamluks, Delhi, Timurids, Persia, Abbasids⊠The only thing strange here, is your remark.
Thatâs why Europa Universalis 4 is so precious. Itâs authentic history.
Thatâs the perspective. Mongols are even more OP than previous OP AoE civs.
3 Likes
Technically Taj Majal, Red Fort etc was Indo-Islamic architecture which is a mixture of Persian, Turkish, Indian and Islamic architecture, but it is true that a lot of the Indian/Islamic worldâs architecture is Persian-inspired.
Large parts of India was ruled by Muslim nations from persian/turkish/islamic decent so they do have heavioly inspired architecture.
1 Like
In heroes of the storm, anything approaching 55% is overpowered, and is felt by everyone as âoverpoweredâ and is banned as such
52% will be felt as âvery strongâ
47% and under will always be felt as âvery weakâ
You might not think these small deviations from 50% matter but they do
1 Like
IIRC, the actual win increase is much higher than 55% to 45%.
For example, if Civ A wins 55% that means that out of 100 games, they win 55 and another Civ wins 45.
55/45 is 1.22 meaning that Civ A wins 22% more games than other Civs! Ideally, yes, you want to get that down closer to 51% or 52%. Even a win rate of 53% means that the Civ is winning ~13% more games, again which seem too high.
Always assuming Iâm remember my MMO balancing math⊠
2 Likes
Agree with 
Not sure if thatâs correct cause if you do math the other way, the civ with 45% winrate wins 82@ less than the other civ. Usually with MOBAs, 55-45% is the winrate people look at balancing since there so many variables with stuff like how good stuff is at certain elos.
Mongols win rate + pick rate is the most illegal thing Iâve ever saw in terms of game balance and Iâve been gaming for 15 years lmao.
2 Likes
This is a very good point. I had not been thinking of it in that manner. This is a better way to interpret the win rates, thanks.
1 Like
Iâve seen some league of legends or dota characters get mid 60s in winrates and despite having 100 characters in league, there are usually characters with 25+% winrates.
Even AOE2 has had civs like that especially on certain maps. Right now itâs considered a very well balanced game and thereâs still civs with ~56% winrate.
Winrates fluctuate, I have seen Franks slightly above 55 a couple patches ago. Also AOE4 is relatively new and Mongol and Rus winrate have slowly been trending down as people figure them out more and there is more game data.
They definitely do need balancing but 55% is definitely a very reasonable power level, especially if we are looking at specific elos. For example English, are they well balanced because they have a 50% winrate, or are they very underpowered since high elo games have them at 42%.
If you look at the game overall, the highest discrepancy winrate is Mongols at 55.3% and the lowest at 47.% which is the same as comparing the highest to lowest AOE2 civs.
Please take a look at the different elo levels
At 1500. Mongolia is as high as 62. abbasi39. You think itâs normal
I did say it needs balancing and mentioned the different elos, but there always will be big winrate discrepencies between elos with certain civs.
For example, if you check out AOE2, at higher elos, Mayans and Franks are both over 55% winrate (Mayans over 56%) While there are 6 civs between 45-42% winrate. And that is a game that has had years of balancing instead of 1 balance patch
I would also argue the >1500 and >1600 elo has small enough sample sizes to seriously consider the numbers to be accurate, there is definitely room for error there.
I think more than 1,500 is the competition of the worldâs top masters. There is little difference in their skills. On the contrary, it is very convincing. You said that there is a need for balance. But take aoe2 as an example. When most players complain, it shows that it is very problematic.
Sure, but this is a game with 1 balance patch so far. I was just commenting on someone saying that 55% was way too high of a winrate for a balanced game, which is a very reasonable number for a competitive game. Sure right now there are some civs over and underperforming right now and that should be changed.
You are ignoring pick rate like it doesnât matter. Above 1400 elo there are only 2 civs with above 50% win rate. Above 1600 elo Mongols have 65% win rate. Sorry but thatâs nowhere near aoe2 and league of legends levels coz Iâve been following their statistics for years and from lol since 2013.
Since there are only 8 civs we donât need as big of a sample size and their win rate curves by elo seems reasonably consistent for the higher picked civs.
This is a new game, many players havenât figured the game out, thatâs why their win rate in lower elo is not that high.