AOE2DE without inca feudal vil rush

[Elvaenor]

Which you have no way to account for objectively.

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.

 

[IYIyTh]

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.

That's not actually true, since their win % is actually down in all but 1650+ post-nerf.

Since Inca's received a pure nerf, it doesn't actually make sense their win % should increase, since they are objectively a worse civ than pre-nerf. Thus, there are likely some other things at play in that elo range, and I would argue there is moral hazard on behalf of those pro players who wanted the nerf in the first place in an attempt to justify it. There is no other reasonable explanation, except as someone pointed out -- that the strategy was actually not justifiable in being removed in the first place since it was not overpowered.

The play rate utilization is a better metric since it is expected their win % should drop, since the civilization was purely nerfed. They have objectively cratered in utilization, and since they were utilized highly post-nerf to "see," how they would fare -- it can be surmised that they are actually artificially inflated right now at the fourth least played civ in AOE2 DE this patch.

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.

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?

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.

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. That didn't stop certain meta preferring pro players from claiming the strategy was "broken," or "overpowered." It should be noted though, that several of their pro player brethren vehemently disagreed.

 

[Elvaenor]

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?

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.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

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.

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.

 

[IYIyTh]

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.

 

[EssTee]

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 argueing pros are purposely screwing the win rate because they hated inca vil rushing.

 

[IYIyTh]

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.

Can you think of a better explanation for why only the 1650+ range saw a statistically significant increase in win % after a pure civilization nerf? I'm using actual data, not conjecture. You go next!

The only other explanation is that the nerf was unnecessary, so I don't think that's the tree you want to bark up.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

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?

 

[SuperskinnyBLS]

I would like to see Incas get some eco boost ( I suggested squires discounted and affecting vills - faster farming ) to help them throughout the game. Hopefully devs will listen to me again. : )

 

[lecracheursagacite]

I would like to see Incas get some eco boost ( I suggested squires discounted and affecting vills - faster farming ) to help them throughout the game. Hopefully devs will listen to me again. : )

What change of yours did they listen to, I'm curious.

 

[SuperskinnyBLS]

What change of yours did they listen to, I'm curious.

Vietnam eco bonus

 

[lecracheursagacite]

Vietnam eco bonus

Can you work that same magic for Khmer farmers?

 

[SuperskinnyBLS]

Can you work that same magic for Khmer farmers?

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 ) :
1 ) FLEMISH FREAKING revolution having stats close to champion ( seriously? )
2 ) chopped trees visible in the fog of war
3 ) a small buff to Incas' eco
4 ) in EW civs should retrieve their dark age bonuses because current balance is total **** with 3-4 nations absolutely dominating the scene

 

[IYIyTh]

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?

Win rate fell significantly for all but the 1650+ range. In fact, it somehow not only increased, but significantly for the 1650+ range.

Given the Inca civ was undoubtedly worse off post-patch (You would always take the pre-patch civ since it was objectively better -- they are identical less the applicable blacksmith techs earlier which is a defensive buff,) the two obvious explanations are that either

1. Some mis-match/overplay by elite end of the spectrum players in the 1650+ range has caused an unexpected increase in the win % since the nerf, skewing the data. Most likely explanation is those desperate to keep the Inca's nerfed wanted to prove they were great post-nerf, but really only proved that they themselves are great players.

2. The Inca Trush strategy that was nerfed was actually holding back the civ/actually detrimental to their win rate and thus did not need nerfing in the first place, as half of those clamoring for its removal claimed it was "overpowered," and "unbeatable."

 

[HongeyKong]

Or maybe a statistics101 answer: sample size.

 

[kalkkaro]

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.

 

[IYIyTh]

Or maybe a statistics101 answer: sample size.

There are more Inca games played this patch with Inca's in that Elo range than the previous patch.

Try again.

 

[HongeyKong]

There are more Inca games played this patch with Inca's in that Elo range than the previous patch.

Try again.

OMFG do you even know statistics?

 

[HongeyKong]

There must be some 1650+ intentionally losing with incas during patch 40874 then.

 

[IYIyTh]

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.

Sure, that's fair to say -- but if that's the case, and the nerf was made primarily on a split consensus of it being "OP," or "unfun," -- and it turns out it wasn't actually OP, perhaps it shouldn't have been nerfed at all.

OMFG do you even know statistics?

I'm sorry that the data doesn't say what you want it to.

It must be terribly frustrating.

 

[nimanoe]

I think people below 1650 are losing with Incas on purpose to show that they need a boost and I have the data to back me up

 

[HongeyKong]

Wow they nerfed Indians hard in patch 40874!

 

[HongeyKong]

I'm sorry that the data doesn't say what you want it to.

It must be terribly frustrating.

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.

 

[IYIyTh]

Wow they nerfed Indians hard in patch 40874!

I love how desperate you are that you picked a patch that lasted less than 40 days as some sort of better analysis of sample size than direct pre-post patch win rates of the civ you opened a topic about.

It's amusing. Continue.

 

[nimanoe]

On a serious note: I don't think these stats from aoestats tell much about the strength of a civ, you'd have to look at tournament picks and stats for that. Given that Incas are barely picked, I think they could receive a buff.