I’ll concede that people have their reasons for tournaments to pick certain civs for such reasons, however for current ranked play thanks to hidden civs and other reasons which include people picking civs because they simply like them, I’m still on the side of not bringing the vote from 60% to 50% to force random on others, it should never be a forced thing, even in tournies
people are going to still pick good civs more then bad civs.
https://aoestats.io/stats/RM_1v1 all the top civs from recent tournaments? high playrates.
all the civs that went largely ignored in recent tournaments? low playrates.
The ones with higher playrates are also more popular which increases the odds of a player who knows how to play them rather than a less played civ they may not even main in might join the tournament in the first place
why are they more popular? Lithuanians for example had fairly middle of the road playrates until recently. why did they take off? oh. KotD3.
Visually seeing a civ in a large event seems to have that effect, especially if they’re easy to understand at first glance
oh, so what you’re saying is its popular because the pros are using it frequently in a large tournament?
and if the pros are using it frequently it must be a strong civ right? after all they have money on the line.
We both know why they use it, the question is why common people use it when they have less ability to exploit the strength of a civ than a pro in a tournament. They see it, they like it, they play it until they’re satisfied
yeah. if that’s the case people would be bored of playing mongols, aztecs and mayans, but here we are, 20 years later and still some of the most popular civs.
Certainly wouldn’t have anything to do with how awesome those civs look in general and how their unique units feel to play to anyone who has the pleasure of microing say, the mangudai or that the coolest campaign is the mongols
aztecs unique unit is a joke, and there you said it - how awesome the civ feels. awesome. commonly associated with strength. which is the point we’ve been making - the reason civs are popular is due to strength.
The jaguar warrior looks awesome.
and how does it perform in actual gameplay? crap. also. looks are entirely subjective.
Depends on where it’s used just like any other unit -
that’s why it sees so much use and it just had its training time reduced by 40%?
the jaguar warrior has a huge glaring weakness that prevents it from seeing use except in a few niche situations.
Same can be said about teutonic knights, doesn’t stop me from loving them
you can love what you want, but if you want to be competitive at a high level you won’t be making them in serious games except in certain situations. so how your UU looks means very little if its rarely made. point remains we’ve proven our point - there are strong civs and that makes them popular. you can like it or not but every popular civ right now pick rate wise is mostly tied to the strength of the civ.
Coming from the teutons, I respect the jaguar warrior because I fear them in a similar way I might a leitis, cataphract or samurai in large enough numbers. I try to avoid them on the open fields when I am without an advantage of some kind for a reason.
that’s why most pros when they play Teutons go cavalry. or siege based play.
like i said just because JW have a few niche situations where they are uber reliable does not mean they are a unit that sees considerable use.
It really isn’t forcing
If all the people in your team vote not random, it’s guaranteed to be not random
In 1v1 only you need to not want random
So are Civ Bans, Meaning that you have to specialize in more than just 3 civs