EP 1.0 balance poll #2 results: a comparison to the previous poll
EP 1.0 balance poll #2 results: a comparison to the previous poll
I added 2015 results to the results sheet and added a couple of columns (explained below)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... =889958768
Keep in mind those results are also EP 1.0, but at the very beginning. It was sort of what the community expected from the patch knowing the patch notes but not having had much opportunity to test.
First of all people's opinions seem to have grown more extreme, perhaps more confident. The average difference from the norm is significantly higher than in 2015 (+0.18 or 23%). This means that if we want to compare the results properly we need to adjust the 2016 scores up or down by that percentage. After doing that we get 2 new columns which I added: One with adjusted from norm scores, and one with the difference between that column and the "From norm" column back in 2015. The latter is the one I will base the following analysis on.
We can see Germans (+0.07), Japanese (-0.01), Azetcs (+0.11) and Portuguese (-0.03) are rated about the same as they were back then.
Russians (+0.86) and Spanish (+0.95) are rated significantly higher than last time around, which means they were either underrated before or people may have found viable ways to play them that were unexplored before. These are 2 civs to watch closely in the upcoming beta and focus on when testing!
The same goes, but to a lesser extent, for Chinese (+0.57) and French (+0.46) which are now rated 2nd and 3rd best civs. We mean to nerf these civs and will need to pay close attention to them as well. For these civs, not much has changed when it comes to how they are played so that would mean they were simply underrated before.
British (+0.35) has gone from below norm to being the norm, their score being only 0.03 from the average score. This could be due to a number of reasons, Brits may be underrated or new playstyles may have been found or perhaps it's just the maps that favour them.
Sioux (+0.31) are also rated slightly higher although they are still rated the 3rd worst civ. They have not been played much as far as I can see, so perhaps there is something there.
Indians (-0.34) have not exactly found a way to deal with strong semi-FFs yet and it shows in their rating. This is a civ that may very well have been overrated before. Or maybe they are just not being played as much because they are easily counterable but overall a decent civ.
Dutch (-1.06) and Iroquois (-0.87) are rated significantly lower. For Iro this could mean the nerf was too much, or people have not yet found (or adopted from strong players) new strong ways to play the civ. For Dutch which wasn't changed all that much in EP 1.0, it could mean they are uncomfortable with recent meta changes or perhaps it's just that Jerom takes every opportunity to say how bad they are, and the guy is everywhere
Ottomans (-1.36) are by far the saddest story of this poll. They went from being rated a top 2 civ (+1.07 from norm) to being rated 9th (-0.37 from norm). The earlier assessment by the EP team that their all in builds don't work any more and they simply lack options beyond that, seems to have been correct. It does seem to me though that new and different play styles have not been sufficiently tested yet. More people need to play this civ before we can make any sort of estimation of where they are on the balance scale.
Curious about all of your thoughts!
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... =889958768
Keep in mind those results are also EP 1.0, but at the very beginning. It was sort of what the community expected from the patch knowing the patch notes but not having had much opportunity to test.
First of all people's opinions seem to have grown more extreme, perhaps more confident. The average difference from the norm is significantly higher than in 2015 (+0.18 or 23%). This means that if we want to compare the results properly we need to adjust the 2016 scores up or down by that percentage. After doing that we get 2 new columns which I added: One with adjusted from norm scores, and one with the difference between that column and the "From norm" column back in 2015. The latter is the one I will base the following analysis on.
We can see Germans (+0.07), Japanese (-0.01), Azetcs (+0.11) and Portuguese (-0.03) are rated about the same as they were back then.
Russians (+0.86) and Spanish (+0.95) are rated significantly higher than last time around, which means they were either underrated before or people may have found viable ways to play them that were unexplored before. These are 2 civs to watch closely in the upcoming beta and focus on when testing!
The same goes, but to a lesser extent, for Chinese (+0.57) and French (+0.46) which are now rated 2nd and 3rd best civs. We mean to nerf these civs and will need to pay close attention to them as well. For these civs, not much has changed when it comes to how they are played so that would mean they were simply underrated before.
British (+0.35) has gone from below norm to being the norm, their score being only 0.03 from the average score. This could be due to a number of reasons, Brits may be underrated or new playstyles may have been found or perhaps it's just the maps that favour them.
Sioux (+0.31) are also rated slightly higher although they are still rated the 3rd worst civ. They have not been played much as far as I can see, so perhaps there is something there.
Indians (-0.34) have not exactly found a way to deal with strong semi-FFs yet and it shows in their rating. This is a civ that may very well have been overrated before. Or maybe they are just not being played as much because they are easily counterable but overall a decent civ.
Dutch (-1.06) and Iroquois (-0.87) are rated significantly lower. For Iro this could mean the nerf was too much, or people have not yet found (or adopted from strong players) new strong ways to play the civ. For Dutch which wasn't changed all that much in EP 1.0, it could mean they are uncomfortable with recent meta changes or perhaps it's just that Jerom takes every opportunity to say how bad they are, and the guy is everywhere
Ottomans (-1.36) are by far the saddest story of this poll. They went from being rated a top 2 civ (+1.07 from norm) to being rated 9th (-0.37 from norm). The earlier assessment by the EP team that their all in builds don't work any more and they simply lack options beyond that, seems to have been correct. It does seem to me though that new and different play styles have not been sufficiently tested yet. More people need to play this civ before we can make any sort of estimation of where they are on the balance scale.
Curious about all of your thoughts!
Re: EP 1.0 balance poll #2 results: a comparison to the previous poll
These are my only thoughts: Chinese are top civilization.
Re: EP 1.0 balance poll #2 results: a comparison to the previous poll
In the next poll they might just be if the trend persists.
Re: EP 1.0 balance poll #2 results: a comparison to the previous poll
I think people are too quick to disregard otto. I think there are just no (and were no) otto players so they didn't know how to work around the new nerfs
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: EP 1.0 balance poll #2 results: a comparison to the previous poll
1- make sioux as they were in re patch
2- make aenna cost 100f back again
3- make otto great again
(Problem with those civs were about map screwing. So with nice map its possible to deal them
2- make aenna cost 100f back again
3- make otto great again
(Problem with those civs were about map screwing. So with nice map its possible to deal them
Re: EP 1.0 balance poll #2 results: a comparison to the previous poll
Goodspeed wrote:In the next poll they might just be if the trend persists.
Not after you ruin Forbidden Army!
:'(
Re: EP 1.0 balance poll #2 results: a comparison to the previous poll
China are top on livestock maps. But the great garja and Riki make no new livestock maps.
mad cuz bad
Re: EP 1.0 balance poll #2 results: a comparison to the previous poll
n0eL wrote:China are top on livestock maps. But the great garja and Riki make no new livestock maps.
Not after Goodspeed ruins Forbidden Army and livestock maps!
:'(
Re: EP 1.0 balance poll #2 results: a comparison to the previous poll
deleted_user wrote:1- make sioux as they were in re patch
2- make aenna cost 100f back again
3- make otto great again
(Problem with those civs were about map screwing. So with nice map its possible to deal them
I'm not a pro, but for me jan+abus still seems OP, or very good at the very least.
- britishmusketeer
- Howdah
- Posts: 1845
- Joined: Feb 28, 2015
Re: EP 1.0 balance poll #2 results: a comparison to the previous poll
ovi12 wrote:I think people are too quick to disregard otto. I think there are just no (and were no) otto players so they didn't know how to work around the new nerfs
it's not exactly a coincidence that the most boring civ in the game that you can't improve with is also the least played lol. people only played them on re for easy wins vs noobs xD
Re: EP 1.0 balance poll #2 results: a comparison to the previous poll
Dutch is rated much lower because it turned out the XP boost doesn't really help, the bank limit increase rarely does anything once people figured out you can pressure someone building 6 banks and the bank cards are still mediocre shipments for 1v1. So Dutch was basically extremely overrated on EP1.0 and only slightly overrated in the latest poll
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: EP 1.0 balance poll #2 results: a comparison to the previous poll
pecelot wrote:deleted_user wrote:1- make sioux as they were in re patch
2- make aenna cost 100f back again
3- make otto great again
(Problem with those civs were about map screwing. So with nice map its possible to deal them
I'm not a pro, but for me jan+abus still seems OP, or very good at the very least.
True that. But its the meta of the civ..
Otto doesnt have good goon units which is disadvantage for long game. And their economy is weak compare to other civs.
They only can make nice mass. If you able ti hold it right that could be best deal tbh.
Re: EP 1.0 balance poll #2 results: a comparison to the previous poll
pecelot wrote:deleted_user wrote:1- make sioux as they were in re patch
2- make aenna cost 100f back again
3- make otto great again
(Problem with those civs were about map screwing. So with nice map its possible to deal them
I'm not a pro, but for me jan+abus still seems OP, or very good at the very least.
They get worse when the map gets better. Initially the EP team judged that otto wasn't really OP in the first place, so they changed some things around but didnt nerf otto as badly as many expected. The initial polls showed otto as one of the top civs, but it seems the team judged their strength properly. I think its worth reverting some changes and leave them only with the abus reload nerf + mam nerf.
Re: EP 1.0 balance poll #2 results: a comparison to the previous poll
Jerom wrote:Dutch is rated much lower because it turned out the XP boost doesn't really help, the bank limit increase rarely does anything once people figured out you can pressure someone building 6 banks and the bank cards are still mediocre shipments for 1v1. So Dutch was basically extremely overrated on EP1.0 and only slightly overrated in the latest poll
Exactly!
Re: EP 1.0 balance poll #2 results: a comparison to the previous poll
Otto are fine IMO. Cav semi or straight eco ff is still strong with them. You can do silk road, take tps, ship wood get stagecoach and age and go into jan/huss abus. Its pretty strong, but it is still not as good as France or Germany's. They can get up so fast that making cav is kinda pointless against Japan, Brits, Sioux, China even.
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
Re: EP 1.0 balance poll #2 results: a comparison to the previous poll
Jerom wrote:pecelot wrote:deleted_user wrote:1- make sioux as they were in re patch
2- make aenna cost 100f back again
3- make otto great again
(Problem with those civs were about map screwing. So with nice map its possible to deal them
I'm not a pro, but for me jan+abus still seems OP, or very good at the very least.
They get worse when the map gets better. Initially the EP team judged that otto wasn't really OP in the first place, so they changed some things around but didnt nerf otto as badly as many expected. The initial polls showed otto as one of the top civs, but it seems the team judged their strength properly. I think its worth reverting some changes and leave them only with the abus reload nerf + mam nerf.
They don't need mam nerf tbh, it is overly overrated, mercs are op in age 3 and they are op at doing what they do best, it's stupid to think age 2 units unless heavy mass will beat them, they ofc need to be countered by equal units that is mercs for ex BR can counter mameluke.
Jerom wrote: Garja is a better player than most of us here
Jerom wrote:Please don't bump old threads, especially when all you have to say is "lol"
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests