Ottomans Discussion Thread

[Astaroth]

Difference being that Brits are considered hard to play, ie their their performance is unsurprisingly a bit worse than their actual strength because people don't utilize their full potential.

In contrast, ottos are considered easy to play, meaning that their win % should be somewhat higher than their actual strength level, not lower.

[Kawapasaka]

Difference being that Brits are considered hard to play, ie their their performance is unsurprisingly a bit worse than their actual strength because people don't utilize their full potential.

In contrast, ottos are considered easy to play, meaning that their win % should be somewhat higher than their actual strength level, not lower.

You're overthinking it, all that's going on is that some civs are more popular with players on the lower end of the sample range (pr30+ games), some with the higher. Kaiser, Mitoe, Hazza and Rapha aren't spamming tons of games with Otto and Brit, while Bwinner and GUA are.

[zoom]

Well yeah I'm also fine with purely removing the +2 range

According to many other players, that would put Ottomans in a bad spot. Goodspeed unlikely made that change without basis. This one seems divisive. Until I see anything convincing me that (nerfed) 20 range Fortress Abuse Guns is an issue, I'd rather not change it. Splitting the range across Fortress and Industrial is an option.

The biggest issue I see with 20 range Fortress Abuse Guns, is that it makes them an even stronger counter to artillery.

I'll start by reviewing the games you quoted. Thanks!

[zoom]

Does it have low winrate?
I'd argue that it is the exact opposite. It's a civ that in theory has been nerfed significantly but in practice it wins games.

So we shouldn't nerf it any more, then.

[Hazza54321]

20 range abus to age 4 and be done with it

[[Armag] diarouga]

Age 3 abus are an issue for sure.

[bwinner]

Show hidden quotes

Does it have low winrate?
I'd argue that it is the exact opposite. It's a civ that in theory has been nerfed significantly but in practice it wins games.

According to the statistics you can find on esoc it's one of the lowest winrate yeah

I don't think you can extrapolate that much from EP statistics. You alone probably account for a very significant % of Otto games played on EP, and if you're playing often against higher ranked players (and therefore losing a higher % of games), it's obviously going to skew the results.

I am not talking about my personnal statistics, I am talking about this :
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=17978
and also there was some stats for tourney and otto also usually had bad winrate.

Yes that is also exactly what I was referring to, I mean it doesn't have to be you specifically, that was just an example of someone who has played a lot of games with a particular civ skewing the overall results because the sample size is as small as it is.
If you take those stats at face value they tell us that Brit is by far the worst civ in the game, time to give Lbows triple rate of fire and 30 damage?

Well it's not true cuz I have a good winrate with ottomans. Also even if you look at the top players who play a lot of ottomans like let's say kaiserklein, among the civs he plays, otto has the 2nd lowest winrate.
For Brit I could understand the explanation that people have which was : the civ is hard to play but it has a good potential so let's not buff it now.
But saying I am skewing the statistics alone is Imo bullshit

[Goodspeed]

People always forget that abus are supposed to beat skirms cost effectively. Their downside is that they are worse against ranged cavalry and against anything that gets up close. They are an artillery unit.
If you revert the range change, skirms will be able to trade with abus and this is not acceptable considering the many downsides of the unit.

If Age3 abus are an issue your changes should make them more specialized, not less, and this change makes them closer to being just another skirm. Why not just nerf their HP?
Another option is increasing the cost of the veteran abus upgrade, since it has a second effect now.

[zoom]

Show hidden quotes

Does it have low winrate?
I'd argue that it is the exact opposite. It's a civ that in theory has been nerfed significantly but in practice it wins games.

According to the statistics you can find on esoc it's one of the lowest winrate yeah

I don't think you can extrapolate that much from EP statistics. You alone probably account for a very significant % of Otto games played on EP, and if you're playing often against higher ranked players (and therefore losing a higher % of games), it's obviously going to skew the results.

I am not talking about my personnal statistics, I am talking about this :
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=17978
and also there was some stats for tourney and otto also usually had bad winrate.

Yes that is also exactly what I was referring to, I mean it doesn't have to be you specifically, that was just an example of someone who has played a lot of games with a particular civ skewing the overall results because the sample size is as small as it is.
If you take those stats at face value they tell us that Brit is by far the worst civ in the game, time to give Lbows triple rate of fire and 30 damage?

Well it's not true cuz I have a good winrate with ottomans. Also even if you look at the top players who play a lot of ottomans like let's say kaiserklein, among the civs he plays, otto has the 2nd lowest winrate.
For Brit I could understand the explanation that people have which was : the civ is hard to play but it has a good potential so let's not buff it now.
But saying I am skewing the statistics alone is Imo bullshit

Nonsense—your Ottomans is highly influential!

[Hazza54321]

No shit theyre supposed to beat skirms, they still do at 18 range. Its like the musk vs crossbow mechanic except the difference is 2 range instead of 4 and abus animation is instant. What abus shouldn’t be better at meanwhile is killing cav and cannons which is exactly where the range buff matters alot.

[zoom]

People always forget that abus are supposed to beat skirms cost effectively. Their downside is that they are worse against ranged cavalry and against anything that gets up close. They are an artillery unit.
If you revert the range change, skirms will be able to trade with abus and this is not acceptable considering the many downsides of the unit.

If Age3 abus are an issue your changes should make them more specialized, not less, and this change makes them closer to being just another skirm. Why not just nerf their HP?
Another option is increasing the cost of the veteran abus upgrade, since it has a second effect now.

Do you see anyone saying that the unit isn't supposed to counter ranged infantry?

The idea that changing Abuse Gun range from that of the Skirmisher makes it more like a Skirmisher, while changing it to that of the Skirmisher makes it less like one, is interesting.

[Goodspeed]

No shit theyre supposed to beat skirms, they still do at 18 range.

They only do in prolonged fights. With proper kiting skirms trade very well. This was deemed a problem in an early EP release.

[deleted_user]

Guiz, let's not forget abuse are twice as expensive (and a little more because of pop) as skirms

[Goodspeed]

People always forget that abus are supposed to beat skirms cost effectively. Their downside is that they are worse against ranged cavalry and against anything that gets up close. They are an artillery unit.
If you revert the range change, skirms will be able to trade with abus and this is not acceptable considering the many downsides of the unit.

If Age3 abus are an issue your changes should make them more specialized, not less, and this change makes them closer to being just another skirm. Why not just nerf their HP?
Another option is increasing the cost of the veteran abus upgrade, since it has a second effect now.

Do you see anyone saying that the unit isn't supposed to counter ranged infantry?

It's the result of the change, so yes, indirectly, by arguing for it.

The idea that changing Abuse Gun range from that of the Skirmisher makes it more like a Skirmisher, while changing it to that of the Skirmisher makes it less like one, is interesting.

A concept being counter-intuitive doesn't stop you from understanding it, surely?

[zoom]

No shit theyre supposed to beat skirms, they still do at 18 range. Its like the musk vs crossbow mechanic except the difference is 2 range instead of 4 and abus animation is instant. What abus shouldn’t be better at meanwhile is killing cav and cannons which is exactly where the range buff matters alot.

Actually, it seems pretty clear to me that they should. I just don't think disproportionately buffing the unit, in that capacity, is desirable.

Buffing ranged resistance, rather than range, might make sense, since it doesn't impact the unit's performance against artillery or heavy cavalry, at all.

First, I wonder whether the unit is an issue, in Fortress Age, though. I can imagine it being more of a problem in teem games.

[Kawapasaka]

Show hidden quotes

Does it have low winrate?
I'd argue that it is the exact opposite. It's a civ that in theory has been nerfed significantly but in practice it wins games.

According to the statistics you can find on esoc it's one of the lowest winrate yeah

I don't think you can extrapolate that much from EP statistics. You alone probably account for a very significant % of Otto games played on EP, and if you're playing often against higher ranked players (and therefore losing a higher % of games), it's obviously going to skew the results.

I am not talking about my personnal statistics, I am talking about this :
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=17978
and also there was some stats for tourney and otto also usually had bad winrate.

Yes that is also exactly what I was referring to, I mean it doesn't have to be you specifically, that was just an example of someone who has played a lot of games with a particular civ skewing the overall results because the sample size is as small as it is.
If you take those stats at face value they tell us that Brit is by far the worst civ in the game, time to give Lbows triple rate of fire and 30 damage?

Well it's not true cuz I have a good winrate with ottomans. Also even if you look at the top players who play a lot of ottomans like let's say kaiserklein, among the civs he plays, otto has the 2nd lowest winrate.
For Brit I could understand the explanation that people have which was : the civ is hard to play but it has a good potential so let's not buff it now.
But saying I am skewing the statistics alone is Imo bullshit

Do you have a good winrate with Ottomans against only pr30+? Regardless, it was really only an example of how easily such a small sample size could be skewed. There is so much more that needs to be controlled for, you can't just look at those statistics as they are and conclude which civs are weak and which civs are strong based off it, that's all I'm saying.

[Astaroth]

I just don't see ottos being that strong atm, maybe I am missing sth?

Otto has a few cookie cutter builds, that can be strong if you let them happen, but die really hard to proper counter builds. Eg revolt, 2rax Jan rush.

Then there is the jan/abus, which is strong in some situations, but has many exploitable flaws (any civ with dogs or disciples or Sioux pokemon should shut it down; some civs like Aztec, Iro or Russia kill it with a rush at least if there's a FB; other civs can win with a proper FF, see miggo as Spain vs Kaiser, or even the china FF vs Otto game on new England which was lost by horrible play only).

Generally, I feel people want to play standard passive greedy style, with eventual but slow age3 and are then surprised because Otto wins with Jan abus contain and 5 TPs or an all in build (aggressive FF, revolt etc).

Otto is THE civ which you can easiest counter strat by just scouting properly, but people instead wanna grab another 60f treasure and are then surprised that their passive 5 huss 20 age2 musk lose to 20 vet Jan 2 falc before they reach fortress.

Almost every single Otto win in a tournament has been due to very poor strat choice of the opponent (eg stable opening as Sioux VS 2rax Jan) or just way better micro (Kaiser).

[Hazza54321]

Actually its more of a problem in 1v1

[Hazza54321]

No shit theyre supposed to beat skirms, they still do at 18 range. Its like the musk vs crossbow mechanic except the difference is 2 range instead of 4 and abus animation is instant. What abus shouldn’t be better at meanwhile is killing cav and cannons which is exactly where the range buff matters alot.

Actually, it seems pretty clear to me that they should.

That they should what?

[Kaiserklein]

Also even if you look at the top players who play a lot of ottomans like let's say kaiserklein, among the civs he plays, otto has the 2nd lowest winrate.

Now we can also check my winrate with ottos in tourney, and see how bad of a civ it is

[bwinner]

Do you have a good winrate with Ottomans against only pr30+? Regardless, it was really only an example of how easily such a small sample size could be skewed. There is so much more that needs to be controlled for, you can't just look at those statistics as they are and conclude which civs are weak and which civs are strong based off it, that's all I'm saying.

Yes I do. Btw I didn't just look at the stats, I have provided an explanation to why it's relevant in this case : otto should have a good winrate if it was strong since it's ez to play.

Also even if you look at the top players who play a lot of ottomans like let's say kaiserklein, among the civs he plays, otto has the 2nd lowest winrate.

Now we can also check my winrate with ottos in tourney, and see how bad of a civ it is

Yeah let's make statistic with 2 games please and take them as a reference over everything else please !^^
I am not even sure you have a better winrate with otto than with any other civ in tourney still

Btw I have just checked, during the NWC which is considered as the most significant tournament so far, ottomans has been picked 52 times with only 22 victories. I won't bother checking for other tournaments, but I think we would get the same kind of number.

[Goodspeed]

No shit theyre supposed to beat skirms, they still do at 18 range. Its like the musk vs crossbow mechanic except the difference is 2 range instead of 4 and abus animation is instant. What abus shouldn’t be better at meanwhile is killing cav and cannons which is exactly where the range buff matters alot.

Actually, it seems pretty clear to me that they should.

That they should what?

Put on your thinking face, I'm sure you'll figure it out.

[Kaiserklein]

Also even if you look at the top players who play a lot of ottomans like let's say kaiserklein, among the civs he plays, otto has the 2nd lowest winrate.

Now we can also check my winrate with ottos in tourney, and see how bad of a civ it is

Yeah let's make statistic with 2 games please and take them as a reference over everything else please !^^
I am not even sure you have a better winrate with otto than with any other civ in tourney still

Well using my tourney otto winrate as an argument isn't much worse than using my casual otto winrate, like you did. It's less tourney games but they're also more relevant. So I'm just answering that.
For a long time I had 100% winrate with otto in tourneys, so yes I think it's still a good winrate atm. Might even be better than my ger, which is definitely high already.

[bwinner]

Show hidden quotes

Also even if you look at the top players who play a lot of ottomans like let's say kaiserklein, among the civs he plays, otto has the 2nd lowest winrate.

Now we can also check my winrate with ottos in tourney, and see how bad of a civ it is

Yeah let's make statistic with 2 games please and take them as a reference over everything else please !^^
I am not even sure you have a better winrate with otto than with any other civ in tourney still

Well using my tourney otto winrate as an argument isn't much worse than using my casual otto winrate, like you did. It's less tourney games but they're also more relevant. So I'm just answering that.
For a long time I had 100% winrate with otto in tourneys, so yes I think it's still a good winrate atm. Might even be better than my ger, which is definitely high already.

You almost never play them though+when you do it's only on 4+ TP map/hard counterpick while you play german whenever none of your civ has anything special for the map, so I would say if any result is biased it's this one.
Also yeah ofc your otto overall winrate is not alone a reason to say otto is bad, but that's just to answer the other guy who said it was just me lowering the overall otto winrate alone^^

[Hazza54321]

Show hidden quotes

No shit theyre supposed to beat skirms, they still do at 18 range. Its like the musk vs crossbow mechanic except the difference is 2 range instead of 4 and abus animation is instant. What abus shouldn’t be better at meanwhile is killing cav and cannons which is exactly where the range buff matters alot.

Actually, it seems pretty clear to me that they should.

That they should what?

Put on your thinking face, I'm sure you'll figure it out.

So you think abus should do more damage to hand cav and cannons?