Are you sure they weren’t asking for a nerf to those civs?
He put like 20 civs in S and A tier. In fact he effectively uses only 3 tiers and even puts the abysmal Dravidians in A tier. Vietnamese are pretty good if opponent is Bengalis, Dravidians, Koreans or some other lower tier civ. As you can see some of the civs lower on his tierlist like Turks, Bohemians, Poles, Burgundians are S tier closed map civs. Civs like Magyars, Bulgarians are quite good on Empire wars and aggressive settings. Even the worst of the lot like Dravidians are S tier on water and top-10 on niche maps like Fish n fish, golden swamp etc. Vietnamese on the other hand are average everywhere. They are the 5th least picked non-DLC civ in competitive tournaments since DE released, picked only 150 times in approximately 2000 sets played. Civs like Poles, Burgundians, Bohemians and Gurjaras which weren’t even there for 11 tournaments have a significantly higher number of picks than Vietnamese.
While I agree that Vietnamese are not “absolutely awful” like the thread title says, its certainly not a strong civ. There’s nothing bad if it gets a buff.
No they don’t need any buff. If you are from the Low Elo Legends of course you want to buff anything. Don’t judge based on your skill level. All the pros do very well with Vietnamese at any tournaments and Viper tier list is the best tier list since decades imo. It is the most accurate one ever, I won’t take low elo legend’s opinion above his opinion.
Yeah I saw them, their suggestions are more like buff instead of nerfs, they were very laughable suggestions that doesn’t make any sense at all.
Just my 2 cents. Don’t try to elo shame anyone who has a reasonable suggestion. You’re not Hera or Viper or a 2.5k+ player either. Viper puts them in A tier, Mr.Yo puts them in C tier. And Mr.Yo is not a low elo legend.
Don’t assume I’m talking from my skill level either. The data I’ve mentioned is from S and A tier tournaments which is based on the highest competitive level.
To do well with a certain civ, that civ has to get picked. You can check from tournament stats and you can see it for yourself they are one of the least picked civs across all tournament formats. If a civ is good under some setting players will pick it more often.
Unfortunately its not. If you have seen his video, he compares it with Hera’s and Mr.Yo’s and you can see how so many civs like Slavs, Huns, Poles, Bengalis, Dravidians vary between those tierlists. So their tierlists are their “opinion” based on playstyle preferences while collective stats based on a large number of competitive players is more accurate. If you’re blindly following each one of Viper’s opinion, good for you, I hope that helps you enjoy the game better but it doesn’t work out for most people who play ranked.
How about doing something positive for a change instead of being kiddish and toxic for no reason. Maybe you’re a player who is good with Vietnamese. How about making some content yourself on how to play with Vietnamese against many opponents? Some build orders, opening or mid game strategies against certain civs. Or just cast recorded games of pro players either your level or a bit higher and give your expert opinion.
This is a discussion thread based on stats and if you feel that all stats are wrong, you can give feedback on why our judgement based on these stats is wrong. Instead what you’ve been doing is just saying “you’re beginners, low elo legends, you don’t know anything”. Ultimately Vietnamese have now received a buff very similar to something suggested by someone else in this thread from a month ago. So quite a good number of people in the thread do know what they’re talking about.
Build orders and videos? 11. Watch tournaments and youtube, you will find more than enough. You said based on stats? 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11.
My friend, your stats show Goths, Burmese and Persians top 5 civs in the game and civs like Chinese, Aztecs and Burgundians and even Gurjaras have less than 50% according to “your stats”.
How many times we should say stats don’t show you the whole picture or the accurate performance?
what? what stats are you seeing my man? The original post as well as the rest of my discussion were based 1900+ 1v1 stats and S/A tier tournaments, not the stats from lower elos. Mongols, Malians, Franks, Chinese, Lithuanians most picked civs overall, Malians, Huns, Celts, Vikings, Mongols highest winrate civs overall in the last patch. As far as all tournaments combined: Mayans, Japanese, Chinese, Lithuanians, Huns are the most played and Chinese, Burgundians, Incas, Aztecs, Turks have highest winrates. And no one here even mentioned that Goths or Burmese as strong. Oh is that why you’ve been calling out everyone as low elo legends? Because you were seeing some random stats from lower elos?
Nope. He is being toxic just for the sake of being toxic. It has been said multiple times about tournaments stats and he ignored. Yo’s tier list was also mentioned where Viet is C tier and he also pretended not to see that and stuck to his god TheViper as he has put them on A tier.
Can anyone check TheViper’s record as Vietnamese in ladder and tournaments? I can’t find civ stats of a player in aoe2.net.
But the stats that I mentioned are the +1900. In the +1900 Khmer, Hindustanis, Chinese, Aztecs, Burgundians, Gurjaras have below 50%. And civs like Celts have 55% winrate and Goths 53%. Your stats show that Vietnamese actually have higher winrates than Britons & Poles, so should we buff Poles and Britons or nerf Celts & Goths? 11.
I mentioned these rates to show you stats means nothing and not a major reference to judge.
And this is the stats from last 3 patches and 2 hotfixes combined (ever since the big balance changes)
In None of these Chinese, Gurjaras have less than 50% winrate and in none of these Goths, Persians, Burmese are in the top-5. Aztecs - 1v1 Random Map | 1900+ (top 1%) - aoestats
Aztecs winrate has been 55% in the previous patch, 58% last year after xbow nerf patch. And 56% winrate, top-10 most picked civ from all S and A tier tournaments.
I agree its not 100% correlation between civ strength and ladder stats but you can see some patterns like winrate by length, win rates across multiple patches, play rates in tournaments etc. If the stats are mixed, you can probably say the civ’s relative performance varies with changes to the meta or settings. And in that case its probably best to wait for more data. But Vietnamese have been mediocre across everything, all patches, tournaments. Vietnamese - 1v1 Random Map | 1900+ (top 1%) - aoestats
They have 45% winrate or below at all different game lengths, a bottom 15 winrate across all patches, bottom 10 pick rate in all tournament formats. While all this could still mean Vietnamese aren’t necessarily the wors# ## obviously shows they aren’t strong and there’s nothing harmful in buffing an underused average civ.
Any thing for LELs is good, you can even buff Chinese for them, this would make them happy. It is really a pathetic patch. Well, let’s see if next patch will be better.
Instead of being toxic, can you take the time to read what’s being written? Where’s any reference to LEL topic. The references are 1900+ 1v1 stats and tournament stats. How is 1900+ 1v1 stats an LEL topic?
All of these make sense. Celts have high winrate in high ladder because some players pick celts and successfully doing Hoang rush which skew the data. Goths are decent in open map after getting hunt bonus. As you can see they were always beloew 50% before recent buff.
Britons were never be close to top civs especially after archer nerf. Their tournament winrate was also bad comparing their popularity. They actually receiving slight buff of getting gambeson in new PUP. Also Poles are good in closed map not in open map. They become low-tier in open map after farming nerf make sense.
So what is your evidence of Vietnamese are decent? We are talking from data but you are based on just following one of the popular pro/stremer opinion or just your feeling?
A civ that have good eco and decent tech tree why are they bad?! Vietnamese have advantages start from dark until imp, how this civ is bad? TheViper classed them A because they really deserve to be there not less. 25% hp on archery ranges units, tank elephants, eco upgrades with no wood, decent tech tree, enemy TC available in dark, wood makes gold. How civ like this is bad?
Only LELs think a civ like this needs a buff. It was a bad decision to give Vietnamese a bonus like that, there are other civs who deserve such a bonus instead of them. Also 100% faster eco techs in general is just too too much, it is a very strong bonus for a civ that doesn’t need it at all.
well maybe im a LEL, but vietnamese has always had one of the lowest overall wrs. Usually like bottom 3.
Even on nomad, where they should be very good, they dont get a 50% wr last i checked (although it was a lot higher than its avg wr so still a good map for them).
Like all the things u said are all okay, but not great, so its not surprising that they have a low wr. I dont see whats the problem is with buffing them, it’s not like they’ll be op. Even if they are S-tier in one particular elo group its not that big of a deal either.
Viper use 10 game with Viet and how many player high level play with him or under level of him.
See enemy from start aoe2 get scout did you need that ???.
Dont need wood but need food and it like still need you up to castle age or later ( but you play with maa, scout or archer feudal age) what waste time you need wait compare with other bonus???.
Like someone said above 20% HP archer different with infantry( special horse) 20% of 40hp and 20% of 160(30% of70) ??? Balance??
Skirmisher 4 damage but need resources double than otnher civil like azztec or mayya??. And get what with this update. Required bonus 1 civil need bonus better nerf 8 other civil get true location they stand on.
And so what elo rate are you play??
Don’t need elo high for looking for a civil need bonus.
And I don’t think much civil need nerf with out Gujarat, abit from Span, Mayan ( weaker after game nerf archer all, all archer civil get nerf)
