EP6 Post-tournament Balance Poll (Jul 2019)

[SoldieR]

There's 14 civs. If you rank anything other than 1 being weak and 10 being strong, then you lack common sense.

[[Armag] diarouga]

There's 14 civs. If you rank anything other than 1 being weak and 10 being strong, then you lack common sense.

Well, Zoi rated 4 weak, 5 average, 6 strong.

[Garja]

The range you use does matter.
Let's say one guy thinks Germany is op and Aztec is weak, and an other guy think Germany is weak and Aztec is op.

The first guy rates :
Germany 10
Aztecs 1

The second guy rates :
Germany 4
Aztecs 6

In the end you have :
Germany 7
Aztecs 3.5

So what's the conclusion ? Both these guys have the exact opposite opinion, so Germany and Aztecs should be, on average, as good but the poll shows that Germany is op while Aztec is weak.

That's supposedly a perk of having larger spectrum. Then again it shouldn't really be 10 tiers imo at this point. Just too much ground for people bias to move the mean of each civ. Realistically you can place civs in in a space of 6-7 tiers max, were such large spectrum is in case you want space tiers by 2 points rather than just one.

There's 14 civs. If you rank anything other than 1 being weak and 10 being strong, then you lack common sense.

I think you lack common sense if you use any of 1 or 10. 1 is super weak, 10 is super strong. EP balance doesn't have such cases.
I pretty much always rated between 5 and 9

Anyway this is funny, lol. Tells a lot abou how formulation of surveys can manipulate the results.

[SoldieR]

Agreed. The difference in all civs imo is no more than a few numbers, like 6 to 9. I think you misinterpreted my message.

Anyway, it should all average out, what is important is the position of the civ rankings for each person.

[[Armag] diarouga]

The range you use does matter.
Let's say one guy thinks Germany is op and Aztec is weak, and an other guy think Germany is weak and Aztec is op.

The first guy rates :
Germany 10
Aztecs 1

The second guy rates :
Germany 4
Aztecs 6

In the end you have :
Germany 7
Aztecs 3.5

So what's the conclusion ? Both these guys have the exact opposite opinion, so Germany and Aztecs should be, on average, as good but the poll shows that Germany is op while Aztec is weak.

That's supposedly a perk of having larger spectrum. Then again it shouldn't really be 10 tiers imo at this point. Just too much ground for people bias to move the mean of each civ. Realistically you can place civs in in a space of 6-7 tiers max, were such large spectrum is in case you want space tiers by 2 points rather than just one.

There's 14 civs. If you rank anything other than 1 being weak and 10 being strong, then you lack common sense.

I think you lack common sense if you use any of 1 or 10. 1 is super weak, 10 is super strong. EP balance doesn't have such cases.
I pretty much always rated between 5 and 9

As I said, it's not a matter of common sense. The range is just poorly defined.
If 1 means "weakest", then there's a weakest civ so you should rate from 1 to 10. Your way also makes sense.

[Garja]

I can't access the survey anymore, but I think the survey doens't ask you to rank civs from 1=weakest and 10=strongest. It asks you to attribute a score to each civ where 1= very weak and 10= very strong.
As Soldier is trying to say (I think I got it now), there are 10 tiers and not 14. How can you rank 14 civs in 10 tiers?

[[Armag] diarouga]

I didn't even ranked from 1 to 10. Anyway, weakest means that you should rank from 1 to 10.

[Garja]

Well that's poor phrasing indeed.

[Cometk]

There's 14 civs. If you rank anything other than 1 being weak and 10 being strong, then you lack common sense.

Well, Zoi rated 4 weak, 5 average, 6 strong.

could be more like 4 slightly below average, 5 average, 6 slightly above average

[[Armag] diarouga]

There's 14 civs. If you rank anything other than 1 being weak and 10 being strong, then you lack common sense.

Well, Zoi rated 4 weak, 5 average, 6 strong.

could be more like 4 slightly below average, 5 average, 6 slightly above average

Should add 3 for weak and 7 for op. That would be much more relevant though, I agree.

[zoom]

Eh no. Port needs some unit buff but also vill cost shit revert . So unless we do both they're fine as they're since they are in line with French basically. Japan nerfs barely matter, while the shrine cost buff surprisinly help with all the no port cons builds. Japan isn't weak anyway. Russia seems in a good spot even tho rusket buff just makes rush stronger while not really helping much for the rest game of the game (unlike vill cost buff). Sioux and Iro don't need nerfs per se. Sioux design is still a bit shit and that's the thing to fix.

Just like Germans, a good example of bias, in this poll.

I do consider both civilizations relative outliers, though.

But Aztecs are not outlier, they're pretty much average.
I think that instead of questioning civs strenght per se we should start considering civ design as inter-civ balance is ok but not all civs are equally viable in terms of playability.
Aztecs are a pain in the ass to play, especially in lag. And that's cause their units have garbage side stats (speed, rr, range) but super strong base stats (dps/multipliers). Units need are rework to have them in line with EP meta which is more "soft".
Sioux have nonsense mechanics such as building teepees with infantry by default. Also teepee gathering boost is kinda nonsense, or at least is that damn colored circle (seriously just use the native circle not the indian one :S).
Otto now have interesting eco options and reasonable army strenght but their abus both have too much range in fortress and also stupid rof. Jans probably get shitted super hard by strong cav (which they kinda already did).

As you can see from my response, I don't think it's that much of an outlier, but some civilizations are inevitably at the bottom, regardless of by how much. Thus, an outlier it remains. Clearly most players find it more of an outlier than I do.

Although I agree that certain civilizations (including Aztecs) need minor reworks, I'm not at all convinced that standardizing Aztecs' units would solve anything.

I don't think I shall ever understand why you take such issue with infantry being able to construct Teepees (in fact, I think it a prerequisite to Teepees being viable, in the first place), but I'll look into your point on the aura, while I continue to investigate the options for fixing issues with current Eepees.

I fully intend to consider Ottomans, during the beta. I'd appreciate your help, then, too!

[zoom]

The thing is, these polls aren't really super accurate. I wouldn't take them as a milestone for the next EP release.
General perception of a civ depends on many factors:
-Buffs/nerfs recieved;
-Top players' opinions;
-Tournament performance, which depends on the map pool;
-General trends;
-Personal preferences
-Other

Iro literally had one crate changed from food to wood (of a shipment you won't even always send anyway) and jumped from -0.50 to +0.54. Seriously? Probably people started to play them more and realized that they were not that bad after all. Other way around for ports. This just goes to show that this kind of polls are a bit arbitrary, also because there are no guidelines on what votes should be used. Personally i used from 6 to 9, Zoi used from 4 to 6, diarouga from 3 to 9, Hazza from 4 to 10. The results of these polls are hardly relevant for the middle civs as far as i am concerned. Probably even the top/bottom civs have exaggerated numbers.
Fortunately though it seems to me that the civs are being looked at more from the in-game perspective when changes are suggested, rather than from the analystic/statistical point of view. I hope the next polls will be structured a bit differently.

Don't worry, I take them as indicators of both civilization strength, and player opinion – rather useful ones, but by no means absolute. Whether respondents use a balanced, high, or low scale doesn't matter, though, thanks to Goodspeed's formulas. The only thing that matters is the relationship between votes within a response.

[zoom]

There's 14 civs. If you rank anything other than 1 being weak and 10 being strong, then you lack common sense.

Well, Zoi rated 4 weak, 5 average, 6 strong.

could be more like 4 slightly below average, 5 average, 6 slightly above average

You know you're smart, sometimes!

[edeholland]

The thing is, these polls aren't really super accurate. I wouldn't take them as a milestone for the next EP release.
General perception of a civ depends on many factors:
-Buffs/nerfs recieved;
-Top players' opinions;
-Tournament performance, which depends on the map pool;
-General trends;
-Personal preferences
-Other

Iro literally had one crate changed from food to wood (of a shipment you won't even always send anyway) and jumped from -0.50 to +0.54. Seriously? Probably people started to play them more and realized that they were not that bad after all. Other way around for ports. This just goes to show that this kind of polls are a bit arbitrary, also because there are no guidelines on what votes should be used. Personally i used from 6 to 9, Zoi used from 4 to 6, diarouga from 3 to 9, Hazza from 4 to 10. The results of these polls are hardly relevant for the middle civs as far as i am concerned. Probably even the top/bottom civs have exaggerated numbers.
Fortunately though it seems to me that the civs are being looked at more from the in-game perspective when changes are suggested, rather than from the analystic/statistical point of view. I hope the next polls will be structured a bit differently.

Don't worry, I take them as indicators of both civilization strength, and player opinion – rather useful ones, but by no means absolute. Whether respondents use a balanced, high, or low scale doesn't matter, though, thanks to Goodspeed's formulas. The only thing that matters is the relationship between votes within a response.

What's Goodspeeds formula?

[zoom]

The conclusion is guy 1 thinks there is a large difference in civ strength and guy 2 thinks there is less of a gap in strength although he thinks a different civ is the stronger one.

It might be helpful to have standard deviation shown. That tells you where people have a large difference of opinion on certain civs.

Being poor at both mathematics and statistics, I'm pretty sure the "From mean" column is precisely standard deviation.

[zoom]

The thing is, these polls aren't really super accurate. I wouldn't take them as a milestone for the next EP release.
General perception of a civ depends on many factors:
-Buffs/nerfs recieved;
-Top players' opinions;
-Tournament performance, which depends on the map pool;
-General trends;
-Personal preferences
-Other

Iro literally had one crate changed from food to wood (of a shipment you won't even always send anyway) and jumped from -0.50 to +0.54. Seriously? Probably people started to play them more and realized that they were not that bad after all. Other way around for ports. This just goes to show that this kind of polls are a bit arbitrary, also because there are no guidelines on what votes should be used. Personally i used from 6 to 9, Zoi used from 4 to 6, diarouga from 3 to 9, Hazza from 4 to 10. The results of these polls are hardly relevant for the middle civs as far as i am concerned. Probably even the top/bottom civs have exaggerated numbers.
Fortunately though it seems to me that the civs are being looked at more from the in-game perspective when changes are suggested, rather than from the analystic/statistical point of view. I hope the next polls will be structured a bit differently.

Don't worry, I take them as indicators of both civilization strength, and player opinion – rather useful ones, but by no means absolute. Whether respondents use a balanced, high, or low scale doesn't matter, though, thanks to Goodspeed's formulas. The only thing that matters is the relationship between votes within a response.

What's Goodspeeds formula?

I don't remember. Maybe @Goodspeed would know.

If I make three posts within the space of 30 seconds, it seems there's always someone who manages to reply to one of them, before the last one is posted. It's funny!
#ESOCneversleeps

[Garja]

As you can see from my response, I don't think it's that much of an outlier, but some civilizations are inevitably at the bottom, regardless of by how much. Thus, an outlier it remains. Clearly most players find it more of an outlier than I do.

Although I agree that certain civilizations (including Aztecs) need minor reworks, I'm not at all convinced that standardizing Aztecs' units would solve anything.

I don't think I shall ever understand why you take such issue with infantry being able to construct Teepees (in fact, I think it a prerequisite to Teepees being viable, in the first place), but I'll look into your point on the aura, while I continue to investigate the options for fixing issues with current Eepees.

I fully intend to consider Ottomans, during the beta. I'd appreciate your help, then, too!

But Aztecs are not really an outlier, it's still better than bottom civs and can beat some of the top so it's midtier.
Being able to build teepees with infantry is not a prerequisite for them to be viable. First, because they're the simple compensation for no defensive mechanics (no mm, no easy firepitting, no walls, not even houses) so they're meant to be built mostly in base, by vills. Second, because there is a card for it.

[SoldieR]

The conclusion is guy 1 thinks there is a large difference in civ strength and guy 2 thinks there is less of a gap in strength although he thinks a different civ is the stronger one.

It might be helpful to have standard deviation shown. That tells you where people have a large difference of opinion on certain civs.

Being poor at both mathematics and statistics, I'm pretty sure the "From mean" column is precisely standard deviation.

What I mean is the standard deviation for each civ. Not the deviation from average overall(all civs) rating, but the deviation within the civ itself. To show voters deviation on each civ individually. Hopefully this makes sense lol

[Goodspeed]

Ah so people are complaining about the scale. What else is new?

The less of the scale you use (1-10 being the max) the less influential your opinion is. But that's by design, because if you use only 4-6 you apparently think the game is relatively balanced and your opinion has the effect of bringing the civs closer together, in other words bringing them closer to the mean. Your opinion that the game is relatively balanced is therefore reflected in the effect it has on the results.
As to differences of opinion on which point in the scale is balanced (e.g. when one player uses 5 as the average, another 7), it doesn't matter. I dug up a post where I explained this in an earlier thread:

They have the same amount of influence. This is because in addition to the civ scores, that person is also affecting the mean more than the others. The following scenario should clarify:

Say we have 3 players (A, B, C), 1 of which (A) considers score 4 balanced and the other 2 (B and C) consider 6 balanced. And say we have 3 civs (X, Y, Z).
The players vote as follows:
Player A
Civ X: 2 (-2 from balanced)
Civ Y: 4 (balanced)
Civ Z: 5 (+1 from balanced)

Player B
Civ X: 5 (-1 from balanced)
Civ Y: 6 (balanced)
Civ Z: 8 (+2 from balanced)

Player C
Civ X: 3 (-3 from balanced)
Civ Y: 7 (+1 from balanced)
Civ Z: 6 (balanced)

The mean is 5.11 (46/9)

The civ scores:
Civ X: 3.33 (10/3) which is -1.78 from the mean
Civ Y: 5.67 (17/3) which is +.56 from the mean
Civ Z: 6.33 (19/3) which is +1.22 from the mean

Ok all good right? Now let's say player B, instead of considering 6 balanced, changes his mind and now considers 8 balanced. His vote changes to:
Civ X: 7
Civ Y: 8
Civ Z: 10

The new scores would be:
Mean: 5.78
Civ X: 4.00 which is -1.78 from the mean
Civ Y: 6.33 which is +.55 from the mean (difference due to rounding)
Civ Z: 7.00 which is +1.22 from the mean

As you can see, the "from mean" scores are exactly the same as before. This because not only the civ scores changed but the mean as well. Everything went up by .66.
So we don't have to agree on which score is balanced, we just need to vote consistently.

[Goodspeed]

And @gamevideo113, below is also a quote from another thread where someone made the same point you did. Note the bolded part, and how it relates to your point about Iro.

It's interesting to see how people change their minds in the course of an event. It's also very valuable information. An important clue of a civ's position on the balance scale is how it changes from one poll to another, because trends like that are very likely to continue. Brit, for example, moved slowly upwards from poll to poll, without any changes, until it was on top.

Also, when people speculate they show where the bias is. Knowing where the bias is means we can avoid making changes based on it. This consideration has always been vital to our process. Making changes based on the whims of the community would have been detrimental. We'd end up with a patch that is different, but just as unbalanced as RE.

In short, the poll doesn't just show where the community thinks balance is at. It also shows where the bias is, and it shows trends. For me these were always the primary reasons to make these polls. To get a sense of where balance was at it seemed more prudent to simply talk to people and gather tournament data.

[bwinner]

And @gamevideo113, below is also a quote from another thread where someone made the same point you did. Note the bolded part, and how it relates to your point about Iro.

It's interesting to see how people change their minds in the course of an event. It's also very valuable information. An important clue of a civ's position on the balance scale is how it changes from one poll to another, because trends like that are very likely to continue. Brit, for example, moved slowly upwards from poll to poll, without any changes, until it was on top.

Also, when people speculate they show where the bias is. Knowing where the bias is means we can avoid making changes based on it. This consideration has always been vital to our process. Making changes based on the whims of the community would have been detrimental. We'd end up with a patch that is different, but just as unbalanced as RE.

In short, the poll doesn't just show where the community thinks balance is at. It also shows where the bias is, and it shows trends. For me these were always the primary reasons to make these polls. To get a sense of where balance was at it seemed more prudent to simply talk to people and gather tournament data.

While I agree with that, in my opinion, the balance can change without any change. Just the meta evolving can completly change the balance and I don't considere that as a bias. I think we can only balance civ according to current meta, so it makes sens to rate them according to that.

[Goodspeed]

Correct, hence the first paragraph..

[zoom]

The conclusion is guy 1 thinks there is a large difference in civ strength and guy 2 thinks there is less of a gap in strength although he thinks a different civ is the stronger one.

It might be helpful to have standard deviation shown. That tells you where people have a large difference of opinion on certain civs.

Being poor at both mathematics and statistics, I'm pretty sure the "From mean" column is precisely standard deviation.

What I mean is the standard deviation for each civ. Not the deviation from average overall(all civs) rating, but the deviation within the civ itself. To show voters deviation on each civ individually. Hopefully this makes sense lol

Absolutely. Thanks!

[Scroogie]

I think weak-ok-strong or along the lines of that is not nuanced enough. I would rate the civs accordingly to how many matches i expect them to win (across different civs and maps):
10: wins 90-100% of games
9: wins 80-90% of games
and so on

[pingiu]

there is a difference in balance between 45 to 55 or 90 to 10% winchance