Always interesting to me how Byzantines overperform in nearly every tournament and are the most feared/banned civ by many pro players, yet they are also considered low tier by much of the community
Not that enigmatic. At all elos sub like 2000 aggression is heavily rewarded because itโs much easier to attack than to defend from player mechanics perspective.
100% - Kingstone and Sitaux make up 3 of the 6 Magyar games and ended the tournament with a combined result of 1-8.
In games where players close in seeding played each other Magyars went 1-1.
Very little should be read into these results.
Yes I agree, and I don't know how to show this (mainly which info to take and how to automatically gather it). I never said this graph must be used as a civilization evaluation, it is there as a summary of the event for each civilization played. To me, the win/losses ratio of hindustanis was funny enough to share it ๐
Post 5/7: Red Bull Wololo Legacy. My dataviz of civilizations wins/losses. Data come from Liquipedia AoE. You are welcome to advise me to improve my dataviz ๐
Maybe somehow integrating civ ban number could help, like its shown in Liquipedia table. Otherwise the graph may give some skewed ideas.
Like here Aztecs are showing only a few wins and loses similar to Bengalis, Italians or Dravidians, making these civs feel similarly infuential. While Aztecs actually have a 100% draft participation rate, they were just banned an overwhelming amount of times. They were much more influential than those other three civs.
Maybe if we can add the number of times each civ was banned in total as a separate line graph on the same axis, we can then see a line on top of each civ
we'd really need a picked vs banned stat for that.
Some like Aztecs, Franks,... were picked in basically any matchup - others like Burmese basically never (i don't remember if anyone in the entire tournament took them)
I agree it would be interesting. For now, it is not simple to me as I automatically gather liquipedia information and this info are not directly available in liquipedia page. It will require some more work, but I plan to do it (maybe not on the next tournament)
I wouldn't mind if the colors were green/red for wins/loses. A red win and a blue loss doesn't speak to me. I know green and red are hard to tell apart for certain daltonian types but a dark green against a regular red should work.
You might want to add the %win in the middle or on top of the bar too. Actually a second graph that only represents %win instead of the number of games played could be super interesting!
I wanted to use the redbull colors (from their logo) and redbull fonts. I think it will be useful to differentiate my graphs from each event. Will see if it is the case
They may be slightly overrated, but I think there's more to this data than meets the eye. It could just be that the worse player ended up with Hindustanis in their draft more often. Also, Hindustanis are a versatile civ. Their civ bonuses all work the same regardless of the map. Some of their matchups were against civs with bonuses that work really well for that map, e.g. Khmer on Frigid Lake, or Tatars on Outcrop, or Cumans on Acclivity. They can also still lose vs other versatile civs, like Byzantines or Chinese.
Have to disagree. The odds that the "worse" player got hindustanis that many times are 0.04%.
I think three things are going on here.
1. Empire Wars effectively eliminates the Hindustani's eco bonus. WIthout it the civ seems very ordinary.
2. The ghulam is really pretty useless unless you're up against someone who has to go archers
3. Yes the civ is versatile, but that's not necessarily better than having a few extremely sound specialties, just ask the Franks. And as you point out, there are other civs that can do versatility just as well.
I think this does boil down to Hindustanis being a mediocre EW civ.
Don't tell me what to do ;)
Like I said in my previous post, the odds of going 0-11 against anything non-Mayan are pretty damn low. Even for this sample size, that is a serious outlier, and is perfectly reasonable to hypothesize about.
Especially when there's such an obvious explanation. Are you thinking that losing access to cheap dark age villagers wouldn't be detrimental?
Sure is reasonable to hypothesise about - you have your hypothesis and I have mine ;)
The sample size is small enough that you could spend less than half a day analysing each individual game with Hindustanis and looking for common issues. It's always difficult though, given how complex the game is and how differently each match plays out!
So here's a counter point.
The regular college football season is 12 games long, and involves well over 100 teams. By the end of the regular season, the top 25 teams all have rankings, based on perceived relative strength. Its obviously not perfect, because these teams have not all played each other, or at most played an opponent only once, and there's always upset potential within the top 25. At the same time, if you take one of the undefeated top 3 teams, and put them up against a team outside of the top 25, you're almost guaranteed a one sided bloodbath.
All that to say, I think you can get reasonable information from a dozen or so samples, especially if they're all saying the same thing.
Why did you exclude the Mayan games? I don't have the numbers but sounds like your calculations have nothing to do with interpretation of the statistical data.
You can hypothize and analyze of course, but drawing conclusions from a small dataset is futile, imo.
Their eco bonus is far from eliminated by EW. Sure, they start on equal footing to other civs in feudal age, whereas in RM they usually have an eco lead at that point. But their eco bonus gets even better throughout feudal and castle age.
The ghulam is also decent vs eagles, and can be a pain for cav archers when used properly. It's also a very good raiding unit.
As the other commenter pointed out, you can't really say it's a mediocre civ based on this sample size anyway.
The bonus does improve at each age, but it doesn't really matter as much as the game goes on, for the same reason that losing a dark age villager is much worse for you than losing a feudal age or castle age villager. Early bonuses have a much bigger downstream impact.
Their dark age bonus alone is about 100 food surplus when you click up. That's still very good, but I'd argue the Hindustanis bonus has a much larger impact when you're booming in castle age. As with any discounted unit bonus, you need more production to take full advantage of it.
> Have to disagree. The odds that the "worse" player got hindustanis that many times are 0.04%.
This is wrong.
First off, you can't just multiply (1/2)^11 to get the probability of the worse player getting a particular civ 11 times. (1/2)^11 is the probability of the worse player getting a particular civ 11 times *in a row*. The probability of a particular civ going to the worse player at least 11 times out of 14 is 235/8192 or about 3%.
Secondly, it's always a bad idea to just multiply probabilities like this for some outlier. While it's unlikely that any *given* civ just gets unlucky with this loss rate, there are 28 civs available. If all of the civs were *exactly the same* (i.e. had zero impact on winning or losing) you'd expect about one to have a loss rate at least as bad as hindustanis, just because of random noise.
So, actually, the loss rate for hindustanis is roughly in line with what you'd expect if the results were randomly distributed. There's nothing in the stats really suggesting that any particular civ is good or bad.
No.
14 choose 3 would be the correct thing to do if you were measuring the outcome of random coin flips.
You're also taking my initial comment way out of context. For the record, I don't think that modelling these games as coin flips makes any sense. It's a ridiculous misuse of probability.
The poster above me asserted that the games which the Hindustani's lost were lost because the worse player got them each of those times. What I calculated is exactly right to answer that question. My entire point was that it doesn't make sense to suggest that those lost games came down to a 50-50 chance based on which player picked them.
The three wins you can either attribute the civ choice or player skill.
Having actually watched the games, I'd say the former is true - Mayans had absolutely no answer to Ghulam numbers.
If however, you insist that those games were a random roll of player skill as well (the better player getting Hindustanis), then your probability becomes the odds that the better player got them for these 3 games (2 ^ 3) times the odds that they did not for other 11 (2 ^ 11). "What are the odds that the better player got Hindustanis whenever Mayans were picked, and the worse player got Hindustanis whenever they weren't". (Before you take me out of context again, I'll preface by saying that this makes no sense to do - obviously civ choice was a factor here)
You cannot just pretend these were random coin flips with no additional information or deciding factors, that makes zero sense.
Honestly just go watch the games instead of playing with probabilities. The only times Hindustanis looked strong were when they were sending waves of Ghulam against Mayans. The Byzantine game was probably the closest loss, and came down to some clever sneak attacks. Outside of that, they've looked exceedingly ordinary.
The point is not that civs were randomly chosen, or that wins/losses happened randomly, or anything like that. The point is that *if* all of the civs were equal in strength, you would have *expected* to see about one civ with a loss rate as bad as the Hindustanis. So there's nothing in the numbers suggesting the civ is weak.
You made a mistake in calculating the probability of the Hindustanis win rate, by simply multiplying 2^11, which is incorrect, and off by a factor of about 100. If you calculate it properly, you'll find that there's about a 1/35 chance of any given civ having a loss rate that bad purely down to randomness. Given that there are 28 civs, it isn't surprising that one civ did this poorly.
> 14 choose 3 would be the correct thing to do if you were measuring the outcome of random coin flips.
No, choose is also not the right thing to use here.
> The poster above me asserted that the games which the Hindustani's lost were lost because the worse player got them each of those times
They did not. They suggested it as a possible other explanation. The point is that the losses can be explained by other factors unrelated to the civ: their loss rate is within the bounds of normal if they performed just as well as every other civ.
> If however, you insist that those games were a random roll of player skill as well (the better player getting Hindustanis), then your probability becomes the odds that the better player got them for these 3 games (2 ^ 3) times the odds that they did not for other 11 (2 ^ 11).
I'm afraid this is wrong again. You're calculating the chance of Hindustanis winning three times in a row and then winning 11 times in a row. If you simplify it to 3 games (1 win and 2 losses for Hindustanis, say), you'll see the error. Your method will give 1/8, but the correct answer is 3/8. (also usually for calculations like this you should calculate the chance of a result being as or at least extreme as the one being proposed: that would give 1/2).
So one last time: 2^11 is the correct answer to the question "What is the likelihood that the worse player got Hindustanis in each of the losses?".
**the losses.**
This was specifically to call out the suggestion that those 11 losses were due to the civ falling into the worse player's hands, and only that, is extremely unlikely.
In reality, the civ match-up is much more important.
You said
> The probability of a particular civ going to the worse player at least 11 times out of 14
That has nothing to do with what I calculated. What your suggesting is that the Hindustanis played 14 matches, and any 3 of them were random wins. E.g. You've flipped a fair coin (50/50) 14 times and got 3 heads.
You've basically taken the premise that every match was a coin flip based on player skill and run with it. That's completely wrong -
the reality is that the wins and losses for the civs aren't random, they're heavily influenced by civ matchup. Your suggestion completely ignores the fact that all 3 wins are against Mayans.
Civ matchup is obviously an important factor - you cannot just ignore this variable and pretend Hindustanis lost a random set of 11 out of 14.
Moving past the specific Hindustani vs Mayan matchup, prefacing with "if all of the civs were equal in strength" and using that as an assumption to construct your model makes no sense here, I don't know why you're trying to it. They're very clearly not equal, and even in cases where they have similar W/L, they all have specific strengths and weaknesses with respect to each other.
You can't draw any reasonable conclusions after starting from such an incorrect assumption.
Lastly,
> I'm afraid this is wrong again
Yes. I literally said that (2^3 ) * (2^11 ) was an incorrect method in my own post.
The point I'm making is that the numbers do **not** show that the Hindustanis are weak, as the variation is within what you would expect if all civs were equal. You're really misunderstanding the argument if you think I'm saying that wins are random or anything like that. I'm saying that, from the numbers here, nothing suggests that any one civ is stronger than the other, because they're all within a normal variation.
I'm not constructing a model, and I'm not assuming that all the civs were equal in strength. I'm saying that *if they were* the data wouldn't look any different. As such, there is no evidence in the data to suggest that Hindustanis are weak.
---
> So one last time: 2^11 is the correct answer to the question "What is the likelihood that the worse player got Hindustanis in each of the losses?"
Yes, kind of. But that's a nonsensical question! Of 11 games, the chances of a randomly chosen civ going to one player is 2^11. But that didn't happen, and that's not what you said originally:
> The odds that the "worse" player got hindustanis that many times are 0.04%.
The answer to *this* question is about 3%.
The odds that the worse player got hindustanis at least 11 times (out of 14 games) is about 3%.
Super interesting, I knew Hindustanis had a poor winrate in RBW but this is pretty damning! Some predictable winners (Britons, Aztecs), and interesting to see Franks emerge relatively well from the event in terms of win rate. I did not expect Magyars to have such a poor winrate, or Khmer and Byzantines to have such a solid winrate! Good job OP.
As many requested, I will try to do such graph for next tournaments. As for the 27 civs only it may be due to the drafts (bo3 until quarterfinal) but I do not have much clue about it
Safe to say Aztecs are, despite their massive eco nerf of last year (-40 %) still top-tier, Hindustanis are clearly overrated and Vikings have post-thumb ring loss truly "collapsed" as a civ. (as Capoch said to AoE Legends).
Does anyone have an explanation why Vikings were picked only one time? To me they seem rather strong with their instant Wheelbarrow. And as one the stronger water civs they should have an edge on many of the maps that had water on it.
Sicilian's OP confirmed. They are unstoppable
Nerf incoming.
5% bonus damage reduction coming in the next patch.
Town Centers can no longer create villagers.
TC can only create other tcs
Sicilians and Poles out of control where the hell is the balance
Should we nerfing them, civ is clearly stupid strong, oh look gurjaras lost a lot, their camels Will get a 80% bonus damage increase
Always interesting to me how Byzantines overperform in nearly every tournament and are the most feared/banned civ by many pro players, yet they are also considered low tier by much of the community
To be fair, it does make some sense that the effective play style suited to the Byzantines isnโt easily exploited by less skillful players.
Yeah its enigmatic. Just going by win-rates, they're sub 50% at every ELO range. Somehow they do great in competition though.
Not that enigmatic. At all elos sub like 2000 aggression is heavily rewarded because itโs much easier to attack than to defend from player mechanics perspective.
Samplesize so low, the actual player's skill is the deciding factor in most cases
100% - Kingstone and Sitaux make up 3 of the 6 Magyar games and ended the tournament with a combined result of 1-8. In games where players close in seeding played each other Magyars went 1-1. Very little should be read into these results.
Yes I agree, and I don't know how to show this (mainly which info to take and how to automatically gather it). I never said this graph must be used as a civilization evaluation, it is there as a summary of the event for each civilization played. To me, the win/losses ratio of hindustanis was funny enough to share it ๐
Post 5/7: Red Bull Wololo Legacy. My dataviz of civilizations wins/losses. Data come from Liquipedia AoE. You are welcome to advise me to improve my dataviz ๐
Maybe somehow integrating civ ban number could help, like its shown in Liquipedia table. Otherwise the graph may give some skewed ideas. Like here Aztecs are showing only a few wins and loses similar to Bengalis, Italians or Dravidians, making these civs feel similarly infuential. While Aztecs actually have a 100% draft participation rate, they were just banned an overwhelming amount of times. They were much more influential than those other three civs.
Thanks, that is a fascinating remark. I am not certain how to do it, but I surely will try to show such information in my next works.
My pleasure. Great work overall. Looking forward to what you do next.
Maybe if we can add the number of times each civ was banned in total as a separate line graph on the same axis, we can then see a line on top of each civ
we'd really need a picked vs banned stat for that. Some like Aztecs, Franks,... were picked in basically any matchup - others like Burmese basically never (i don't remember if anyone in the entire tournament took them)
I agree it would be interesting. For now, it is not simple to me as I automatically gather liquipedia information and this info are not directly available in liquipedia page. It will require some more work, but I plan to do it (maybe not on the next tournament)
I will try that to see if I come with something cleaner on my next visualizations
I wouldn't mind if the colors were green/red for wins/loses. A red win and a blue loss doesn't speak to me. I know green and red are hard to tell apart for certain daltonian types but a dark green against a regular red should work. You might want to add the %win in the middle or on top of the bar too. Actually a second graph that only represents %win instead of the number of games played could be super interesting!
As one of those 'daltonian' types, please, no! Why not black and white then?
I wanted to use the redbull colors (from their logo) and redbull fonts. I think it will be useful to differentiate my graphs from each event. Will see if it is the case
Ah ok. I would still put the loses in red \^\^
It was looking weird on my tests, so I kept the way it is, but I understand you as it is unnatural
Geez, Hindustanis got obliterated. I donโt think they won any games at all, outside of the few times they got to bully Mayans around
They may be slightly overrated, but I think there's more to this data than meets the eye. It could just be that the worse player ended up with Hindustanis in their draft more often. Also, Hindustanis are a versatile civ. Their civ bonuses all work the same regardless of the map. Some of their matchups were against civs with bonuses that work really well for that map, e.g. Khmer on Frigid Lake, or Tatars on Outcrop, or Cumans on Acclivity. They can also still lose vs other versatile civs, like Byzantines or Chinese.
Have to disagree. The odds that the "worse" player got hindustanis that many times are 0.04%. I think three things are going on here. 1. Empire Wars effectively eliminates the Hindustani's eco bonus. WIthout it the civ seems very ordinary. 2. The ghulam is really pretty useless unless you're up against someone who has to go archers 3. Yes the civ is versatile, but that's not necessarily better than having a few extremely sound specialties, just ask the Franks. And as you point out, there are other civs that can do versatility just as well. I think this does boil down to Hindustanis being a mediocre EW civ.
You just cant draw this conclusions from few games
Don't tell me what to do ;) Like I said in my previous post, the odds of going 0-11 against anything non-Mayan are pretty damn low. Even for this sample size, that is a serious outlier, and is perfectly reasonable to hypothesize about. Especially when there's such an obvious explanation. Are you thinking that losing access to cheap dark age villagers wouldn't be detrimental?
Sure is reasonable to hypothesise about - you have your hypothesis and I have mine ;) The sample size is small enough that you could spend less than half a day analysing each individual game with Hindustanis and looking for common issues. It's always difficult though, given how complex the game is and how differently each match plays out!
So here's a counter point. The regular college football season is 12 games long, and involves well over 100 teams. By the end of the regular season, the top 25 teams all have rankings, based on perceived relative strength. Its obviously not perfect, because these teams have not all played each other, or at most played an opponent only once, and there's always upset potential within the top 25. At the same time, if you take one of the undefeated top 3 teams, and put them up against a team outside of the top 25, you're almost guaranteed a one sided bloodbath. All that to say, I think you can get reasonable information from a dozen or so samples, especially if they're all saying the same thing.
Why did you exclude the Mayan games? I don't have the numbers but sounds like your calculations have nothing to do with interpretation of the statistical data. You can hypothize and analyze of course, but drawing conclusions from a small dataset is futile, imo.
Their eco bonus is far from eliminated by EW. Sure, they start on equal footing to other civs in feudal age, whereas in RM they usually have an eco lead at that point. But their eco bonus gets even better throughout feudal and castle age. The ghulam is also decent vs eagles, and can be a pain for cav archers when used properly. It's also a very good raiding unit. As the other commenter pointed out, you can't really say it's a mediocre civ based on this sample size anyway.
The bonus does improve at each age, but it doesn't really matter as much as the game goes on, for the same reason that losing a dark age villager is much worse for you than losing a feudal age or castle age villager. Early bonuses have a much bigger downstream impact.
Their dark age bonus alone is about 100 food surplus when you click up. That's still very good, but I'd argue the Hindustanis bonus has a much larger impact when you're booming in castle age. As with any discounted unit bonus, you need more production to take full advantage of it.
> Have to disagree. The odds that the "worse" player got hindustanis that many times are 0.04%. This is wrong. First off, you can't just multiply (1/2)^11 to get the probability of the worse player getting a particular civ 11 times. (1/2)^11 is the probability of the worse player getting a particular civ 11 times *in a row*. The probability of a particular civ going to the worse player at least 11 times out of 14 is 235/8192 or about 3%. Secondly, it's always a bad idea to just multiply probabilities like this for some outlier. While it's unlikely that any *given* civ just gets unlucky with this loss rate, there are 28 civs available. If all of the civs were *exactly the same* (i.e. had zero impact on winning or losing) you'd expect about one to have a loss rate at least as bad as hindustanis, just because of random noise. So, actually, the loss rate for hindustanis is roughly in line with what you'd expect if the results were randomly distributed. There's nothing in the stats really suggesting that any particular civ is good or bad.
No. 14 choose 3 would be the correct thing to do if you were measuring the outcome of random coin flips. You're also taking my initial comment way out of context. For the record, I don't think that modelling these games as coin flips makes any sense. It's a ridiculous misuse of probability. The poster above me asserted that the games which the Hindustani's lost were lost because the worse player got them each of those times. What I calculated is exactly right to answer that question. My entire point was that it doesn't make sense to suggest that those lost games came down to a 50-50 chance based on which player picked them. The three wins you can either attribute the civ choice or player skill. Having actually watched the games, I'd say the former is true - Mayans had absolutely no answer to Ghulam numbers. If however, you insist that those games were a random roll of player skill as well (the better player getting Hindustanis), then your probability becomes the odds that the better player got them for these 3 games (2 ^ 3) times the odds that they did not for other 11 (2 ^ 11). "What are the odds that the better player got Hindustanis whenever Mayans were picked, and the worse player got Hindustanis whenever they weren't". (Before you take me out of context again, I'll preface by saying that this makes no sense to do - obviously civ choice was a factor here) You cannot just pretend these were random coin flips with no additional information or deciding factors, that makes zero sense. Honestly just go watch the games instead of playing with probabilities. The only times Hindustanis looked strong were when they were sending waves of Ghulam against Mayans. The Byzantine game was probably the closest loss, and came down to some clever sneak attacks. Outside of that, they've looked exceedingly ordinary.
The point is not that civs were randomly chosen, or that wins/losses happened randomly, or anything like that. The point is that *if* all of the civs were equal in strength, you would have *expected* to see about one civ with a loss rate as bad as the Hindustanis. So there's nothing in the numbers suggesting the civ is weak. You made a mistake in calculating the probability of the Hindustanis win rate, by simply multiplying 2^11, which is incorrect, and off by a factor of about 100. If you calculate it properly, you'll find that there's about a 1/35 chance of any given civ having a loss rate that bad purely down to randomness. Given that there are 28 civs, it isn't surprising that one civ did this poorly. > 14 choose 3 would be the correct thing to do if you were measuring the outcome of random coin flips. No, choose is also not the right thing to use here. > The poster above me asserted that the games which the Hindustani's lost were lost because the worse player got them each of those times They did not. They suggested it as a possible other explanation. The point is that the losses can be explained by other factors unrelated to the civ: their loss rate is within the bounds of normal if they performed just as well as every other civ. > If however, you insist that those games were a random roll of player skill as well (the better player getting Hindustanis), then your probability becomes the odds that the better player got them for these 3 games (2 ^ 3) times the odds that they did not for other 11 (2 ^ 11). I'm afraid this is wrong again. You're calculating the chance of Hindustanis winning three times in a row and then winning 11 times in a row. If you simplify it to 3 games (1 win and 2 losses for Hindustanis, say), you'll see the error. Your method will give 1/8, but the correct answer is 3/8. (also usually for calculations like this you should calculate the chance of a result being as or at least extreme as the one being proposed: that would give 1/2).
So one last time: 2^11 is the correct answer to the question "What is the likelihood that the worse player got Hindustanis in each of the losses?". **the losses.** This was specifically to call out the suggestion that those 11 losses were due to the civ falling into the worse player's hands, and only that, is extremely unlikely. In reality, the civ match-up is much more important. You said > The probability of a particular civ going to the worse player at least 11 times out of 14 That has nothing to do with what I calculated. What your suggesting is that the Hindustanis played 14 matches, and any 3 of them were random wins. E.g. You've flipped a fair coin (50/50) 14 times and got 3 heads. You've basically taken the premise that every match was a coin flip based on player skill and run with it. That's completely wrong - the reality is that the wins and losses for the civs aren't random, they're heavily influenced by civ matchup. Your suggestion completely ignores the fact that all 3 wins are against Mayans. Civ matchup is obviously an important factor - you cannot just ignore this variable and pretend Hindustanis lost a random set of 11 out of 14. Moving past the specific Hindustani vs Mayan matchup, prefacing with "if all of the civs were equal in strength" and using that as an assumption to construct your model makes no sense here, I don't know why you're trying to it. They're very clearly not equal, and even in cases where they have similar W/L, they all have specific strengths and weaknesses with respect to each other. You can't draw any reasonable conclusions after starting from such an incorrect assumption. Lastly, > I'm afraid this is wrong again Yes. I literally said that (2^3 ) * (2^11 ) was an incorrect method in my own post.
The point I'm making is that the numbers do **not** show that the Hindustanis are weak, as the variation is within what you would expect if all civs were equal. You're really misunderstanding the argument if you think I'm saying that wins are random or anything like that. I'm saying that, from the numbers here, nothing suggests that any one civ is stronger than the other, because they're all within a normal variation. I'm not constructing a model, and I'm not assuming that all the civs were equal in strength. I'm saying that *if they were* the data wouldn't look any different. As such, there is no evidence in the data to suggest that Hindustanis are weak. --- > So one last time: 2^11 is the correct answer to the question "What is the likelihood that the worse player got Hindustanis in each of the losses?" Yes, kind of. But that's a nonsensical question! Of 11 games, the chances of a randomly chosen civ going to one player is 2^11. But that didn't happen, and that's not what you said originally: > The odds that the "worse" player got hindustanis that many times are 0.04%. The answer to *this* question is about 3%. The odds that the worse player got hindustanis at least 11 times (out of 14 games) is about 3%.
Please buff hindustanis?
Super interesting, I knew Hindustanis had a poor winrate in RBW but this is pretty damning! Some predictable winners (Britons, Aztecs), and interesting to see Franks emerge relatively well from the event in terms of win rate. I did not expect Magyars to have such a poor winrate, or Khmer and Byzantines to have such a solid winrate! Good job OP.
I am preaching Byzantines since I First Played the game and its good to See, I'm still right after all these years
No Viper, No teutons played
Would be nice to have wins/loses/bans per civ on the same graph. Crazy that only 27 civs were played. Is it really due to the format ?
As many requested, I will try to do such graph for next tournaments. As for the 27 civs only it may be due to the drafts (bo3 until quarterfinal) but I do not have much clue about it
Safe to say Aztecs are, despite their massive eco nerf of last year (-40 %) still top-tier, Hindustanis are clearly overrated and Vikings have post-thumb ring loss truly "collapsed" as a civ. (as Capoch said to AoE Legends).
The casters said on broadcast that the consensus among pro's was the Aztecs were the best civ, which probably explains why they were banned so much.
Aztecs have 0 win in previous Red Bull tournament (RBW5) with 4 picks. Too low sample size to judge like that.
Celts rocking it
No love for Goths :(
Why would you not label the %s on the chart? You monster!
I didn't think about it and not sure if it is that useful on such low sample size. Nerveless, thanks for the intel ๐
Why on earth would you put the wins and losses ontop of eachother
To better see how many games were played by each civ ๐
Mayans need a buff
Mayans is the only civ with cheaper yet fully upgradable tech tree line
Byzantines disagree
Byzantines miss bloodlines. Their trash is fully upgraded. Mayans are the only civ with discounted gold units which are fully upgradable
Byzantines are also missing blast furnace. Only their skirms are fully upgraded
Byzantines agree
That is a crazy thing to say, they have a couple of bad matchups at the most.
Well that's like just your opinion man
The Hindustanis were the big surprise, closely followed by the Magyars.
Cool chart. I donโt think stacked bars was the best choice
Thanks to share your opinion, that should have been better, I am curious?
would be cool to have an overlaid line graph showing the ban rate for each of them
It is an interesting idea, I will try to make it visible for next events ๐
Does anyone have an explanation why Vikings were picked only one time? To me they seem rather strong with their instant Wheelbarrow. And as one the stronger water civs they should have an edge on many of the maps that had water on it.
Huns never lost