Yes, but DE now also has it with a 1 year delay.Might be wrong but isn't what you are referring to an userpatch-specific feature?
Yes, but DE now also has it with a 1 year delay.Might be wrong but isn't what you are referring to an userpatch-specific feature?
This idea would also make for some fun demo shots when armies march across the water. Tatoh would probably be hyped.I still stand by my idea: islands but with a small marsh connecting the main islands to the 2 middle islands. It makes it so u can wall the small path and still play water, but u can wayyyy more easily push late game and get some diversity in there
Also stats aside feitorias are cancer on islands and im too stubborn to be persuaded otherwise (and no not just cuz of the finals 11)
I don't see how the output of a statistic is even on the path to being objectively true when its input is the subjectivity of humans. Especially when pretending the input doesn't exist by ignoring it. Not one player is always about flawlessly executing the meta, or never about adding their own personal flair to a match. Statistics cannot quantify these moments because it can't, and not because it ignores them. This is not because I say so either. But because that's just how it works.
Well, if I can help you:If Win Rate is way above all the ther civs -> Most likely OP
If Win Rate is in the 50% range -> Most likely not OP
What am I missing?
Statistics do not say anything because they do not say anything, and this is so because it is so.Statistics cannot quantify these moments because it can't, and not because it ignores them. This is not because I say so either. But because that's just how it works.
Another point against statistics is that even though Portuguese won only 50% of the time, the argument is totally irrelevant because of one (admittedly ridiculous) game.Stats are not always the true. They way Jordan won the Island game on the finals prove the point: No pasive gaming like that should lead you to a victory. But he could research the Galleon line 30% faster than any other civ, and have cheaper/stronger ships rightaway, with faster ballistics. No other civ could have managed to do that
Yes. Or simply, maybe they should only produce gold/stone. That way, they will still be usefull in land maps, or in water maps, but not autowin like has been the case lately.Feitorias should be banned from tournaments in any water map. Other than that, islands is a fun map nowadays with all the landings.
Very hard to balance it if it only produces gold/stone though, since food/wood is most of its current production, but having it not produce wood could be an idea.Yes. Or simply, maybe they should only produce gold/stone. That way, they will still be usefull in land maps, or in water maps, but not autowin like has been the case lately.
Just for comparison, malay fishtrap gimmick is way less powerful, while the civ per se have vainilla ships, and no military bonus apart from harbors
Would be more of a "thinking ahead of trash wars". Making factoria a more land oriented bonus (since wood almost never runs out in arabia and other land maps)Very hard to balance it if it only produces gold/stone though, since food/wood is most of its current production, but having it not produce wood could be an idea.
You know that Rubenstock would pick Persians and douche every single game?What if at the start each player have 1 transport. Imagine the strats!
I wish people would rely more on stats rather than feelings when claiming something is OP.
From @Nerfox `s sheet we can see that Portuguese lost on Islands (virtually the only map where they are picked) 11 out of 20 games in the Qualifiers and 2 out of 4 in the Main Event.
Meanwhile, Italians won 5 out 10 in the Qualifiers and 3 out of 4 in the Main Event.
So how exactly are Portuguese OP?
Reminds of T90 and Dave insisting that Mayan skirms are "stupid OP" while watching a game of Skirm vs Skirm in which Mayans end up losing.
In this case, you're not looking at the right stats to make your point. These are HC4 stats where on islands, the civs in question mostly faced each other or other OP civs.
So when someone says Franks and Mayans are OP on Arabia and if you take a sample of 20 Franks vs Mayans game and say Franks won 10 times, so it's not OP because win rate is only 50%, then you're not looking at the right stats. When someone says Franks and Mayans are OP, you gotta compare their stats with other civs.
If you want to use stats to make your point that they are not OP, use a sample of 100+ islands game with cross-civ match-ups and then see which civs perform best.
The fact that these are amongst the only civs picked on Islands in HC4 is in itself enough of a statistic for someone to make a claim that they are OP on Islands.
PS - Data and facts are useful to make a point only when you're looking at the right one :P
Not trying to argue against it, but if you observe any stat site like aoestats you can learn pretty quickly that n=10 is not sufficient to base any hard conclusions on in such a manner. Even with playing with that number, maybe the odds of winning were 0.7, maybe 0.5, the probability of having that score is still very probable. The argument would be much stronger if all of those players went for the OP strat, playing for the long game where feitoria come in advance. The other game I saw besides Jordan the player went too greedy on the feitoria before it comes into play.Well, in order for you to criticize how one is trying to make a point, it would be only fair for you to first try your best to understand what exactly is the point I’m trying to make. :P
The point I was trying to make is that Portuguese - only Portuguese - are not OP on water.
The stats show a win rate of >50% for Portuguese.
The fact they faced mainly strong civs actually reinforces my position, because had they faced mainly weaker ones obviously the win rate would have been higher and then you’d be forgiven for thinking they are OP.
But if they are not consistently beating the other good civs on the map, how exactly can they be considered OP?
What’s the definition of “OP” for you?
For me it’s quite simple: it’s a civ that has no counter, assuming 2 similarly skilled players are facing off.
If Portuguese only win 50% of the games against other “OP” civs, then they clearly can be countered and therefore are not OP.
The sample size is too small? Obviously.
But the little that we have, suggest they are not OP, which means that nerfing Portuguese now would be ill-advised.
The argument would be much stronger if all of those players went for the OP strat, playing for the long game where feitoria come in advance. The other game I saw besides Jordan the player went too greedy on the feitoria before it comes into play.