The highest picked civ is Chinese with 6.05% play rate and only 51.63% win rate. so in half your matches you will play against one of those 13 civs, in the other half of your matches you will play against ANY of the other civs in the game. elephants are a viable candidate(no clue how they currently perform in tgs) but thats about it.Īt 1650+ the top 50% of picks consist of 13(!) civs at the moment. so naturally any civ that doesnt have good knights/paladins or archers will have no place in teamgames(some UUs and CA being the exception) And this cannot be changed without ****ing up the complete 1v1 balance.
The 4 most played civs only make up 20% of all picks.Įdit: i admittedly did overlook that you were talking about teamgames, but well, even though the majority of players might prefer teamgames the game unfortunately is not made for that, simply because gold units> trash units, and besides unique units each unit that isnt a knight or x-bow being countered by these. I agree that Mayans definitely need a nerf, but besides that what are you even talking about? In those 13 civs there are 3 with an >53% win rate with Burgundians, Franks (55%) and Mayans (56%). Having said that though, I am not disagreeing with the idea that some civs could do with some changes, but I can’t take suggestions like the one from the OP serious that drastically nerf several aspects of the civs at the same time (and especially not to civs that very obviously are perfectly fine at the moment).Ĭlick to expand.at 1650+ the top 50% of picks consist of 13(!) civs at the moment. Overall I think it is amazing, that more than 25 civs seem to be considered equally playable on the highest level on the standard map of this game. You then end up with only few competitive civs because only very few civs are good at 21 pop archers without any transitions ever - if every civ was equally good at that they also needed to be equal with respect to everything else, otherwise you create imbalances again. The problem with TG is mostly that TG on most maps are very one-dimensional for the individual players. Also, it would be very weird if all civs were equally good on all maps because that would imply that no civ has strengths or weaknesses that suit a specific type of map. You can see that from the fact that there were only very few civ wins in KotD. Of course if the map was different than other civs would be better, but that doesn’t change the fact that the game was never as balanced as it is at the moment. Then if we go to arena, bf, 4 lakes,nomad, etc, the civs changes but the pattern is the same, only 4 strong civs depending on the map while the rest of the civs stand no chance, so be careful next time you claim something that can be proven wrong so easily,i used tg stats cause in case you didn't know 1x1 is only 1/3 of the total player base, while team games are 2/3, balancing should aim to the majority of the users.Ĭause if we remove drafting and banning civs, then you will only see 4-5 civs being used in 1x1 tournaments, changing completely what we have seen in the last years since that rule was implemented to circumvent awful balancing.ĭo you realize kotd4 map was a woodless wide open map right? "Balance is extremely well balanced at the moment" if that's so, why do we see the same civs all day being played all the time? tournaments are almost useless cause of the drafting/banning, ranked games are out there, last time i saw franks, mayans, britons and indians are the most used civs all day in arabia, how come that such extremely well balanced game has only 4 competitive civs in the most played map?
Age of empires 2 civs full#
Your argument is like saying after a tournament of full water, we didn't see poles or bohemians or turks so those civs seems to be weak, they need a buff. Click to expand.Do you realize kotd4 map was a woodless wide open map right?
0 kommentar(er)
