No because if you understood that data youd know why people think Chinese mayans franks and britons need nerfs
1 Like
You’re not making any sense here man. Why are you talking about Mirror games? Yes I know 6*6/100 = 0.36. What does that have anything to do with civ strength?
The top 8 civs constitute 40% of the games. The remaining 31(before the current DLC) constitute 60%.
It just shows you don’t understand math at all. Standard deviation of pick rates is less than 0.8 and 6% pick rate is more than 4x standard deviation. Which is a huge outlier. And it means the civ is extremely preferred over others. Anything that’s more than one standard deviation away from mean for that matter - which are civs with pick rate of 3.3+%
2 Likes
Ah yes, and you understood the data I suppose, silly me. Way to reply, it says nothing but it’s a very easy comment.
Anyway, this discussion is pointless, the stats are there, and it’s likely the devs are looking at those rather than forum posts about how “civ X is OP” or “civ Y needs to be nerfed”.
1 Like
which is way less than you’d expect from something like the pareto principle. again popularity is not to be confused with strength. at best it is related to perceived strength.
most people just play with a civ they find fun or intuitive
yes, some civs are popular, so? that doesn’t mean they should get nerfed
so once every civ has less 3.3% pick rate, standard deviation is smaller and we need to nerf every civ with less than 2.5% pick rate? there will always be civs more than one standard deviation away from the mean, unless all civs have the exact same pickrate. you can’t just use a tool like standard deviation on something that isn’t randomly distributed
OP means overpowered, not overly popular. so unless you show these civs are overpowered they don’t need to be nerfed.
3 Likes
Ok here are stats for you - Past 5 patches included for 1v1 Arabia + Runestones + Haboob + Atacama (95% of open maps) for 1700+
You can find TG stats at ageofstatistics.com.
Stats for tournaments:
Hidden cup 4
Kotd 4
2v2 WC
Empire wars 2 duo
Funny how you mention play rates is one post and talk about winrates in another.
That’s for Team games and you’re giving the play rates for 1v1. This was my quote:
Of course yes. As long as those 7-8 keep varying across tournament formats. But some of the stay in the 7-8 list ACROSS MANY TOURNAMENT FORMATS
Once again the same example: Italians a top pick priority for Hidden cup 4 but not Kotd-4. Huns a top pick priority for Kotd 4 but not much on Hidden cup. Ethiopians a top pick for TG and RBW tournaments, not much for RM1v1. But Chinese, Mayans, Franks, Britons are everywhere. Huns were the top of this list in Aoc, they got their nerf. Then Aztecs, Vikings, Indians got their nerfs. These have got no impactful nerfs.
1 Like
Maybe because you don’t play TGs where Britons are seen 90% of the time? Maybe because Chinese is a top ban on almost every pro tournament? Ask any pro, most consider Chinese too strong.
Ahh here’s a piece of evidence, Tatars when Keshik costed 50f and had feudal sheeps too, in any ELO range the civ showed a high WR, but pros were abusing this civ (Hello BadBoy?) beyond levels to the point all were complaining how OP Tatars were. And what about Khmer, Stats never showed Khmer being OP but pros knew how OP were, especially in TGs where people even picked double Khmer as pocket, and since farm bonus the civ ONLY received nerfs, and Battle elephant was overnerfed just because of Khmer. Then go and ask why War Wagon has been recently nerfed despite Koreans being a weak civ overall (Double Castle War Wagon say hi).
1 Like
Nerfs are needed for civs with pick rates 2x standard deviation away from mean, meaning the ones with 4+% pick rates continuously across several patches. So if standard deviation drops to 0.3, nerfs will be needed to whichever new civ gets 3.1%+ pick rate across multiple patches or thousands of games from then onwards.
Popularity and civ power are strongly correlated. pre DE Khmer had a very low pick rate, were never seen in tournaments or showmatches but post the farming buff they got a high play rate. Eventually after several nerfs the play rates dropped. Many civs have followed this pattern - Tatars, Burgundians, Sicilians. I have also shared tournament stats across different tournament formats.
If all of this implies nothing to you then you’re probably under the illusion that a civ can be randomly “overly popular” in many formats without being powerful.
2 Likes
Ok, so according to AoE Pulse link you provided:
Top 10 play rate: Mayans, Mongols, Huns, Franks, Chinese, Lithuanains, Britons, Celts, Aztects.
Why are numbers 1, 4, 5 and 7 specifically in need of nerf as opposed to the rest of the top 10?
Top 10 win rate: Mayans, Berbers, Franks, Hindustanis, Celts, Huns, Gurjaras, Britons, Mongols.
The Chinese are not even here. Same question as above, why signle out these 3 (Chinese excluded) ?
And wouldn’t win rate actually be more relevant than play rate? Because a civ is OP if you win with it. Not if you play with it.
Team Games Stats:
Top 10 wins: Spanish, Poles, Koreans, Cumans, Huns, Hindustanis, Burgundians, Franks, Berbers, Portuguese.
Where is the allegedly devastating combo of Franks and Britons?
The data you provided do not back the OP claims.
As for the tournaments.
Hidden cup 4: Aztecs, Italians, Lithuanaians, Tatars, Vikings, etc more picked than the Franks & Britons.
Kotd: They were top picks but so were Aztecs, Lithuanains, Tatars, Vikings.
2vs2 World Cup: They were top picks but so were Ethiopians, Khmer and to a lesser extent but still close Hindustanis, Lithuanians, Vikings. So they are civs good both in 1vs1 and 2vs2, that doesn’t say much by itself.
2vs2 EW: They were top picks but also Ethiopians, Magyars, Vikings.
In the end, I don’t see that “These 4 civs are too OP and need to be nerfed” feel that OP tries to give. I can see that they are versatile and can be used in many different contexts, but that by itself doesn’t say much.
Based on stats, they are clearly not the creme de la creme that OP makes them out to be. They don’t have an astronomical either win rate or pick rate in top level play. Great civs? yes. OP and in need of nerf? no. Looking at other civs around them, they are nothing out of the ordinary.
And as seen in the tournaments, other civs are picked too, it’s not like these 4 make most of the game.
I see your point that they stay in the same 7-8 list across many tournaments, but so what? how does that prove they are OP?
It only proves that they are good and versatille civs. I think that equating that to OP is a congnitive bias on your part. Aztecs, Lithuanaians and Vikings are a similar story. Good in different types of scenarios.
From looking at the data you provided it seems that they are civs good both in 1vs1 and 2vs2, that doesn’t say much by itself.
4 Likes
the stats presented here are completely wrong for high-level teamgames
the moment that they let people choose whether they spawn in front or back, frank/mayan/briton started getting picked 100% of the time for open land maps at high elo
sometimes, it wouldn’t be all 3 of those, but it was almost always 2 out of 3. i even played vs a bunch of teams that did double franks (for 4v4)
before the patch that introduced position-picking, it was not like that
china already got nerfed slightly with the team bonus. and that civ is not so oppressive, because all of china’s units are fairly generic, so other civs don’t get outclassed when fighting them
the franks problem is more that the ladder is bad rather than franks being too good. DE leaks information about the map during the lobby, and then allows people to pick franks only in the situations where franks are overpowered. if ladder was set up properly and included a chance of playing maps where franks aren’t OP, then franks wouldn’t be picked in every teamgame. they might still be one of the stronger civs, but they wouldn’t be in every single game like they have been since the position-picking update
How aren’t they oppressive? I mean Hera literally say they are insane, also at Hidden Cup 4 at Mudflow Chinese was busted and banned in that map.
that is just 1v1
in 3v3/4v4 you can still play whatever you want and keep up with china. they’re not like mayans/franks/britons who can make more units than you AND have stronger versions of those units
1 Like
Ok my man. Franks and Britons are terribly weak and never seen in team games 
I wish aoepulse.com extended to TG. But aren’t you able to go to ageofstatistics.com and pick Team games open 1200 and see the win rate vs play rate plot for yourself.
You’re more likely to face one of the top picked civs because of the skewed play rates. So win rate will be reflective of relative strength against these civs instead of overall.
they were still top 10 and didn’t you notice Chinese Mayans in dark purple in all the sheets?
Yes and Ethiopians, Magyars were pushed to the bottom on 1v1/RM tournaments. But Chinese, Mayans, Franks, Britons are there everywhere.
I’m not opposed to that. Hunters work 30% faster, Cav archers attack 18% faster, Drill siege move 40% faster could be good changes too. Lithuanians relic bonus upto +2 castle age, +4 in imp, Monastery works 15% faster, Leitis food cost up to 75 food. Aztec monk hp bonus capped upto +25, Production bonus changed from military to infantry. Celts siege rof bonus from castle age UT, Stronghold becomes civ bonus, archery range becomes better instead.
These all could be interesting too.
But those 4 ubiquitous civs definitely need good nerfs.
Need Lithuanians more nerfs? The civ is kinda in a fine spot other than they are OP at hybrid maps.
Also, Leitis is like never seen in castle age so why make the food cost higher when it isn’t the case?
And Celts don’t need nerfs they are fine, such big early castle age power is balanced with the abysmal tech tree in Imperial.
1 Like
I’m just saying one or more changes like these could improve the balance without breaking the civ altogether. So if Leitis is the problem, maybe increase their food cost OR if 10+6 kts are problem limit castle age relic bonus to +2.
Likewise for celts if siege push is too strong maybe balance it out for something else as a civ bonus while keeping the rof as part of UT to keep them strong on civs like Black forest where they’re strong.
Different maps benefit from different civ bonuses. Just because Chinese bonuses benefit from the way Mudflow is usually played does not make the civ OP.
The civ has some weaknesses. Hera also recently released a video encouraging laming Chinese in dark age. Chinese also don’t have any good options vs. siege in the late game.
And? The civ has been basically the best overall, too versatile tech tree with insane eco and vill lead, plus an OP UU.
Ok so the only way to play vs Chinese is by laming, great, even he said if you don’t lame this civ, the Chinese is insane, also on Arabia getting Siege is way too slow and expensive, and being an open map means Chinese can raid you to the death.
One of the factors inflating the win rates of these civs is the fact that most people only play Arabia. Different civs are designed to be good on different maps. But, only some maps are played by everyone. I don’t think it justifies nerfing the civs.
For example, if everyone played Islands all the time, the Feitoria would have been removed immediately after the devs introduced it and Italians would get nerfed to the point they are useless on any other map. But, everyone would be okay with it because people would only be playing Islands.
Another issue is that these civs are good at playing the way most people play the game, but they have trouble when pushed outside of that.
I think you should watch Hera’s video for tips on how to beat these civs.
1 Like
Man, If a civ is deemed too strong on one setting warrant a nerf, check Bohemians (below-average on open maps but broken on closed maps) or pre nerf Persians (OP on Nomad and Hybrid Maps).
2 Likes
If you are tired of playing vs Chinese on Arabia, ban Arabia and play Arena. Chinese are not top tier on Arena due to prevalance of siege. Otherwise, lame them.
So then the only way to avoid China is banning one map to play other or do a playstyle that’s already too controversial, LMAO.