Pointing out hypocrisy isn't an insult, it's an objective observation. The post you quoted doesn't actually call any one individual out -- in fact I'm in complete agreement with Zybzy'. Franks have 667k (55% win rate btw) games played while the next closest is 428k (Mayans) Mongols are 387K. It's laughable that people say Inca's were predictable and boring when Franks are the epitome thereof.
Who wants to bet you can find 1-2 people who main Franks at a higher ELO than other players? Is that compelling or meaningful evidence that Franks need nerfed? I think it's probably obvious the answer is no -- a few data anomalies wouldn't mean anything.
Telling someone they're a piece of **** or lesser players because they play a certain civ or playstyle is an insult.
Explaining to someone why something like pointing out 1-2 people who main a civ getting a higher ELO playing them doesn't make for good balance rationale is completely different.
Who wants to bet you can find 1-2 people who main Franks at a higher ELO than other players? Is that compelling or meaningful evidence that Franks need nerfed? I think it's probably obvious the answer is no -- a few data anomalies wouldn't mean anything.
Telling someone they're a piece of **** or lesser players because they play a certain civ or playstyle is an insult.
Explaining to someone why something like pointing out 1-2 people who main a civ getting a higher ELO playing them doesn't make for good balance rationale is completely different.
Last edited: