Thats clearly not true, the only thing you can say from that is that Incas are seldom picked. But if people pick them, then they perform much better than a bottom tier civ, as you can see from the stats I posted above.
Yeah I mentioned that I don't have the stats to back it up, but as I said, I would be HIGHLY surprised if more people like to play this strat than to see it nerfed into oblivion.
I thought not being fun to play against was the more compelling justification for the nerf. I have no strong opinion on whether it was actually OP or not. That pros disagreed as you say suggests to me it wasn't quite as broken as the loudest detractors said. But things can be unfun and unhealthy for a game without strictly being "OP" so I think whether it was or not should not really be that important.
Because even without hard data there was more than enough anecdotal evidence (seen by posts on fora, discussions on streams, etc.) to see the trend about how more people disliked the incan trush. The fact that no statistics exist doesn't mean you weren't able to see a general consensus about the overall opinion on the strat.Right, so you can't actually say that a majority of players wanted the nerf, because no statistic exists -- as you admit. So why say it?
If a few people do not find something a problem while the majority do then whoever is managing the game would be very dumb to not fix it.Not being fun to play against is subjective and shouldn't be the basis of buffs/nerfs. But because the game is being dumbed down for casual players, it can and is being utilized.
No such data exists, and if anything the post-nerf discussions were about the disappointment of its disappearance of it or how Inca's received no commensurate buff.
There's nothing to argue really, the utilization % speaks for itself.
Dude just stop discounting everything other people say without hard data proof while you are arguing pros are purposely screwing the win rate because they hated inca vil rushing.
I believe that with decreased gathering rate Khmer farmers are in a decent spot at the moment. I find more important areas to focus currently ( in terms of balance and the game itself ) :Can you work that same magic for Khmer farmers?
What exactly are you saying again about the 1650+ stats? Did those high level players you anecdotally saw playing a lot of Inca skew both the playrate and the winrate or just the playrate?
Inca rush never was OP. It's just such an annoying strat that when it does work it draws lot of attention. Also ladder games are totally different world to pro tourneys. When 17+ tries that cheeky strat he saw in recent major tournament he is likely just going to do it wrong and hurt his chances of winning compared to basic meta play. I believe that's the reason inca win rate actually increased after changes which objectively were nerfs.
OMFG do you even know statistics?
Just becoz the sample size being bigger doesnt mean its necessarily significant enough to accurately reflect civ balance. Heck, map pool, meming trends, and some other factors can affect the win rate of ladder games. Thats just simple logic, but I guess to some people thats rocket science.I'm sorry that the data doesn't say what you want it to.
It must be terribly frustrating.
Wow they nerfed Indians hard in patch 40874!