isnt this expected… civ pickers raise their elo artificially until they hit their elo cap from being civ boosted… therefore pushing their winrate closer to 50%, and stagnating at that point…
conversely randoming into franks (or picking them rarely) now gives you a super buff to your skill level, and actually pushing their winrate up…
case in point would be like coolios swapping over from veit picking to playing mayans… his elo (and winrate) would likely rise due to his skill previously being handicapped by playing a weaker civ
To me this comes down to what you want to estimate and what you want to use it for. I think both including and excluding them are valid approaches depending on what question you are trying to answer. In the case of excluding the 1-civ-pickers we are trying to get a better estimate of the “true win rate”. For example if we wanted to get some form of measure about how OP franks may or may not be its hard to do this leaving in the 1-civ-pickers as Franks WR will be quite heavily biased towards 50% thus underrepresenting how OP (or not) it is.
(at least this is my personal opinion, as always happy to listen to what others think)
Another possibility would be making a graph only with data from civ pickers.
Theoretically one civ pickers should have 50% winrate but my hypothesis is that this is not the case. A simple chi2 test could confirm this
Although maybe for that graph you should exclude civs with very few pick rate (i.e., i would keep civs with 100 or more matches)
I main vietnamese as well! We people feom the low end of winrate appreciate your efforts. Yeeeet!
Hi all, I’m currently working on the site design to improve the navigation. One thing I was wondering (as I have 0 UI/UX experience) is wether people prefer the long document format or wether you’d prefer having 2 dropdown boxes, 1 to select the cohort and another to select the plot (i.e. only 1 plot is on the screen at a time)?
This one in particular is for RM; Open Maps; >1200 Elo. Interesting to see that most civs play rates are fairly flat with exception to Chinese that are heavily played in upper Elos and Franks and Magyars whose usage drops off towards the upper Elos.
Am currently working on the UI and navigation. Its taking ages though cos, well, I am not a webdev I was planning to update the stats to the latest patch probs by the end of next week.
why chivalry? franks usually win before that moment.
Personally, what drives me nuts most of them are their cheap castle drops after an annoying knight push. But this is a personal feeling…
You cant nerf that. Both because removing it hits their identity hard (cheap castles are half of the Frank identity at the end) and because nerfing it would make it too similar to Incas.
If you nerf something, nerf their eco, or chivalry (which I wouldnt like changed because I dont see a good alternative but whatever)
Cmon, 22 attack paladin from a civ that need to work to get that bonus was “wRoNg” but 40% fast creating 192 HP paladins is fine? with the super Frankish eco and the accesibility of the tech, is not only too strong, but utterly broken for TGs (Oh but yeah, trample damage Bloodlineless and Blast Furnaceless paladins is oP ), you can’t match the franks paladin production, that alone outclasses all other paladins by a massive margin.
Spamming heavy cavalry shouldn’t be a thing never, that same reason is why in AOE 3 DE, the Thoroughbreds homecity card no longer decreases Cuirassier training time, was OP for many situations, same thing with the current Chivalry effect, if identity is importnat then give then something still related to Chivalrious French cavalry but not too volatile as the current Chivalry, like fallen Knights returning 33% of gold cost, or whatever lol.
Training time its not as good as better stats the vast majority of times (its useful but mostly in the early game or with cheap units as proven by BE performance outside TG sucking). Either way, Im fine with Franks losing Chivalry, but acting as if 192 palas are that good is dumb, the problem is the Frank eco. THey are barely better than generic against other knights. Also, the pros were complaining about Lith bonus being way too snowball-y
Dont be annoying with this kind of comments. To start: Its not OP, its super slow, but once you get to it its for sure the best Paladins against everything but Boyars or Teutons if they deal 5 blast damage. Trample Cavaliers that deal 25% or 33% of their damage would be crazy enough and probably better than paladins on melee.
Im fine if you remove Chivalry, I just have no idea what else could it do that doesnt suck.
That escalated quickly. I’d recommend DM’s from here on, for that particular subject.
Franks chivalry is an odd tech to single out, namely because it’s replaceable by more stables instead of spending the resources on the tech. It’s literally more than 1k resources, and a big chunk of that is gold. If you aren’t producing out of six stables before the tech, at a bare minimum, it’s more resource efficient to spend the resources on 3~4 stables and pocket the gold.
It actually helps franks when gold runs out to keep training gold units, but isn’t even close to be either useless or OP, 24G per Knight.
Either way this isn’t the topic to continue the whole thing though
Thats a good point.
Maybe a simple way to nerf franks is taking away the free second and third farms upgrades.
This way, their eco would be the same until late feudal, but suddenly they will need to spend resources in the farm upgrades or they risk to crave wood later.
In those cases, it would be useful to research the UT.
Although this would be a minor, minor buff. They need more
Interesting even the drop in Ethiopians and Britons, two archer civs, compared to Chinese rise instead.
Is Chinese economy bonus more valuable in expert hands?
Yes, they’re basically not played at all at low elo, and barely played at high elo.
If it wasn’t for BF/Arena and Islands they could be removed from game and nodoby would even notice it.
I was planning to update the stats to the latest patch probs by the end of next week.