AOE2DE without inca feudal vil rush

[SolTou]

Tbh 53% is a crazy win rate percentage, Incas are clearly still broken. Should probably be nerfed again. I propose that Eagles be completely removed from their tech tree.

I propose

Why stop there? They are so obviously overpowered that I expect in next S tier tournament they will be picked in every important stage of the tournament 1st, given how obviously overpowered they are. I say we remove the ability to make TC's. Let's make this a proper aoe2 reddit thread.

I propose we give Franks Eagles because Eagles are just too strong, and Franks has nothing to counter them. Maybe bloodline Eagles?

 

[NuclearPasta]

I propose we give Franks Eagles because Eagles are just too strong, and Franks has nothing to counter them. Maybe bloodline Eagles?

Britons too!

 

[jetseLinkinPark]

can you imagine running into this guy at a party

I won't be at any party because I will be busy picking Incas to proof they are still fine!!!

Just forgot I am not a pro

 

[IYIyTh]

Don't worry, utilization is down amongst all elo ranges, not just pro's. Do your part!

 

[im the cookie]

 

[IYIyTh]

View attachment 194210

To be fair this entire thread is a bait thread, the lack of moderation / off-topic posts is to be expected.

 

[im the cookie]

To be fair this entire thread is a bait thread, the lack of moderation / off-topic posts is to be expected.

Agreed.

This thread has been beating a dead horse for a while. Been entertaining at some point, but it spiraled quickly out of control in the end.

 

[HongeyKong]

@robo or whoever removed my comment
Did you just google translated it directly and interpret that out of context? That was a message to my fellow hker who still tries to be a peacemaker in such a moronic phase 111

 

[nimanoe]

@robo or whoever removed my comment
Did you just google translated it directly and interpret that out of context? That was a message to my fellow hker who still tries to be a peacemaker in such a moronic phase 111

Yeah Google Translate did not help me much, but as it's an English forum it doesnt' really belong here anyway.

 

[HongeyKong]

Agreed.

This thread has been beating a dead horse for a while. Been entertaining at some point, but it spiraled quickly out of control in the end.

Indeed 11
To wrap it up

Q1.Was the nerf justified?
A1. Thats debatable, plus the premise of the nerf isnt even known.

Q2. Were Inca vil rush OP or broken?
A2. Debatable.

Q3. Is any buff needed to compensate the nerf?
A3. Debatable. There isnt even a consensus in regards to Incas position.

Q4. What are the possible reasons for the rising inca winrate in 1650+ range?
A4. Pro players intentionally boosting it could be one, simply having a small (in fact most likely even smaller than the previous patch which was the opposite of someones claim) sample size of playing is also one. Map pool rotation as well ofcoz.

Q5. What are the odds of Hera randoming 22 games of one civ out of 445 games of 37 civs?
A5. Unlikely but plausible, 2.56 SD (instead of someone making it up to 3) from the mean is like 1% or so? And as a reference the most picked civs of Viper Jordan Tatoh iyiyth are 2.49 2.59 3.80 4.143 SD from their means respectively based on the stats from aoe2.club. Read that from whatever perspective you like.

Q6. Did Hera intentionally keep picking incas to boost their winrate?
A6. No, he just picked incas at most three times out of his 14 incas games in the current patch, which he played 211 RM.

Q7. Was there a themed stream showcasing Incas post-nerf strength from Hera?
A7. No, on 5th May he played incas twice inconsecutively out of his 10 games. He did pick Incas in the first one, second one remains unknown. On 12th May he played incas three times 100% on random.

 

[HongeyKong]

Yeah Google Translate did not help me much, but as it's an English forum it doesnt' really belong here anyway.

No worries. Not that I cared nor do I want to pull a whatabotism, but I saw a lot of french and spanish on aoezone, just saying...

 

[IYIyTh]

Q8 Has Inca's play rate has plummeted into the shadow realm since the nerf
A8 Yes
Q9 Are 2 standard deviations what authors typically accept re statistical significance
A9 Yes

 

[Umdeuter]

are you actually discussing if Hera is boosting the Incas win-rate?

are you aware that you could just calculate their win-rate excluding Heras games? if he won 100% of 20 games with them, that would at this point boost their win-rate by 0,5%. you have all the numbers available, it's not complicated maths..

 

[IYIyTh]

are you actually discussing if Hera is boosting the Incas win-rate?

are you aware that you could just calculate their win-rate excluding Heras games? if he won 100% of 20 games with them, that would at this point boost their win-rate by 0,5%. you have all the numbers available, it's not complicated maths..

Not precisely. I stated that it's plausible the win rate for a civ that received a pure nerf seeing increase in 1650+ could at least in part possibly explained by overall underutilization coupled with pro's utilizing them post nerf more frequently than random, some with the intent to prove they were fine. After folks laughed that off, turns out here were at least 4 separate data sets someone came up with that indicated regardless of reason, that this was indeed happening post nerf. If happening in these instances one can't definitively prove intent, but it's not unreasonable to suggest that such a pattern likely exists throughout the range amongst high level content creators, skewing the win rate. I don't really care enough about the statement to qualify how much or find it so impossible as to need to create a peer reviewed study for testing.

Just like one doesn't feel obligated to say DE's QA is near non existent on updates and patches I do not feel the need to run anova's on game crashes or hilarious bugs.

I'm sure there is even more data to support it but I don't get paid to respond to incredulous aoezone posters who can't fathom such a possibility being true.

 

[Umdeuter]

yeah, so, whats the discussion point? calculate the "real" win-rate and you have it

no need to do weird conspiracy blahblah

"4 separate data sets" wtf are you talking about lol

btw, picked civs should always have a lower win-rate since the introduction of the ?-button. picked civs play more often against picked civs. when you get a civ on random, there's bigger chance your opponent also has random which makes its average strength lower compared to a picked civ. (given that people pick over-average civs most of the time which is surely a fair assumption). no clue though, how big this effect is as there is also plenty of random vs picked going on but there got to be some effect. I think it plays a part in Aztecs and Mongols having underwhelming win-rates while being played a lot.

 

[IYIyTh]

yeah, so, whats the discussion point? calculate the "real" win-rate and you have it

no need to do weird conspiracy blahblah

"4 separate data sets" wtf are you talking about lol

btw, picked civs should always have a lower win-rate since the introduction of the ?-button. picked civs play more often against picked civs. when you get a civ on random, there's bigger chance your opponent also has random which makes its average strength lower compared to a picked civ. (given that people pick over-average civs most of the time which is surely a fair assumption). no clue though, how big this effect is as there is also plenty of random vs picked going on but there got to be some effect. I think it plays a part in Aztecs and Mongols having underwhelming win-rates while being played a lot.

You're about six pages behind.

I know this is a novel idea, but it would be beneficial if coming into an eleven page thread you had read the remainder of it as context, especially since your first contribution to it is rehash.

 

[Umdeuter]

there was a summary and I was curious

are you telling me that you actually discussed for multiple pages if someone was manipulating a statistics, when you could have just easily calculated the correct value?

(I was reading through the thread before and it was mostly you being butthurt about losing the option to vil-rush, so I am really not inclined to read all of that in detail)

 

[iViktorius]

I was reading through the thread before and it was mostly you being butthurt about losing the option to vil-rush

Now here's a proper summary of this thread Kappa

 

[oozkan]

No worries. Not that I cared nor do I want to pull a whatabotism, but I saw a lot of french and spanish on aoezone, just saying...

This one, I agree.

 

[IYIyTh]

are you telling me that you actually discussed for multiple pages if someone was manipulating a statistics, when you could have just easily calculated the correct value?

No?

Ironically Professor HongeyKong introduced some weird data that said there was elevated utilization of Inca's over other civs. There was a lengthy discussion about that data set provided, where four instances showing 4 pro's significantly picking inca's over civs w/ a significance of over 2 std deviations.

There was never attempt to declare the precise amount the win % was being impacted, only that it was. Not simply limited to one person, or even four. First the argument it wasn't happening at all, then that changed to it wasn't happening frequently, then -- okay turns out you were right but it isn't super-significantly impacting the win rate.

All three are completely different arguments.

 

[AlBundy95]

Well, I'm surprised that in this kind of topic, there is any discussion. I would expect to have only spam of posts praising DEVs for their decision to stop this cancer. Koreans WW are next (at least i hope so).

 

[IYIyTh]

Well, I'm surprised that in this kind of topic, there is any discussion. I would expect to have only spam of posts praising DEVs for their decision to stop this cancer. Koreans WW are next (at least i hope so).

Yes, perhaps we can just start the game in post-imp for you as well.

That or just eliminate all military units except M@A, crossbow and knights.

 

[Umdeuter]

There was never attempt to declare the precise amount the win % was being impacted, only that it was.

which is dumb?

either you care about the concrete win-percentage, then you can find it out very easily, or you don't, then the whole discussion is pointless.

 

[IYIyTh]

which is dumb?

I'm not sure why it needs to be characterized as smart or dumb. Some were very vociferous that it wasn't happening at all., and the statement was never intended to be developed into a partial thesis. But it was happening, so that was a fun conversation -- especially when those most adamant that it wasn't supplied the work/effort to show that it was. Kind of like how people claimed Inca's pre-nerf were OP, yet they weren't.

 

[Umdeuter]

So what?

You actually discussed standard deviations just to prove that you were right when the whole point was utterly irrelevant to begin with?

That is so weird dude