Its on the list, just look bottom left :P I am counting winned games since the loss of Vinch vs Hera in Clown Cup vs Vietnamese the best civ in that tournament. BoA2 was played on the patch that had Khmer still unnerfed.just to be precise if i remember correctly ror won against pgp with khmer on grand bara so that is not a 13 win streak, so now that i think about it winning against khmer was even more impressive
this would buff halbs against eles even moreOther idea: You could have BE cost 1.5 or 2 pop space (malay could have the bonus of having them cost just 1 pop space, turning them into a "pop space efficient" themed civ)
Well, either you want to nerf eles or you don'tthis would buff halbs against eles even more
eles itself are fine, the problem is the combination for khmerWell, either you want to nerf eles or you don't
Khmer with farming bonus and saving wood on buildings must be best economy ingame. Its like 400 wood every game at minimum plus the super mega farming. And then they have ultra techtree which was enhanced when they sucked and didnt stopped sucking with best elephants in game. This civ is so overfixed over the year. Devs just buffing without design concept is dangerouseles itself are fine, the problem is the combination for khmer
eles itself are fine, the problem is the combination for khmer
You shouldnt do more than 40 elephants, they should have 2xpop for that.no.they are too strong. With every civ that has access to them. It is just a question how how hard it is to get to them, but if you get to them, they kill.
From my experience you rarly die to burmese or malay fully boomed elephantsno.they are too strong. With every civ that has access to them. It is just a question how how hard it is to get to them, but if you get to them, they kill.
With the civ with the best eco in the game ? Nice mechanic. Exodia in a 5 card deck. What should go wrong with that combination. Exodia is a bad design. There should always be counters. And there is none to 40 elephants running down everything.I dont understand the problem. A really expensive very pop efficient unit kills when fully boomed?
what ya say. that doesnt seem like a malfunction.
I dont understand the problem. A really expensive very pop efficient unit kills when fully boomed?
what ya say. that doesnt seem like a malfunction.
TG, didn't use 1v1 1650+ b/c the sample is tiny (WR very low there as well though). No idea if average or 1 player but probably doesn't matter much. Obviously a lot of "noobs" in there but it's the best we have.Looking forward to the november patch nerfing this civ back to voobly.
Also what do you mean TGs 1650+? Is it 1v1 MMR or TG (lol)? Is it all players above 1650, average above 1650, one player above 1650?
Because ladder winrates suck. Who knows what players are doing. Maybe just random disconnects, or players gging because they need to pee. You cannot interpret data that you have know clue about how the data was collected, under which conditions and how it was evaluated. I mean aoe2stats is like: I give you an excel sheet of random numbers and you should start to guess what coincidences you guess you can see out of nothing.I really like Khmer and they seem strong, but why is their WR so low? They've had a below 50% wr in 4 of the last five patches in 1v1s, 3/4 of the last patches in TGs, and 2/4 patches in TGs 1650+. I know most of these games come from players you consider noobs, but you'd think the farm thing would actually benefit noobs more (they are bad at placing farms).
That is a tiny sample. And 7% of the time they aren't even drafted, imo if a civ was OP it would be at 100%. And 11 at triple stone walls.Because ladder winrates suck. Who knows what players are doing. Maybe just random disconnects, or players gging because they need to pee. You cannot interpret data that you have know clue about how the data was collected, under which conditions and how it was evaluated. I mean aoe2stats is like: I give you an excel sheet of random numbers and you should start to guess what coincidences you guess you can see out of nothing.
View attachment 184957
Look at Kotd stats without the first two early rounds. Khmer 2nd-3rd best civ with 62% Winrate , 93% Pickrate.
And no Khmer are no problem alone by kotd stats. But their performance in tournaments in general, to be seen above, even on an aggressive open arabia where elephant civs should suck, but more so in team games where there is no comeback once the Khmer player with triple stone walls releases the river. And also the whole civ design is flawed. From every angle we can approach a civ to judge whehter they need adjustment or not gives us a ringing bell.
It is, but still way more interpretable then random numbers without you knowing the conditions. I have seen all games here, I know I can trust the numbers however small they are. I can give a million rigged numbers and that wouldnt make them better just by being more.That is a tiny sample. And 7% of the time they aren't even drafted, imo if a civ was OP it would be at 100%. And 11 at triple stone walls.
Ok, you have a good day as well if you feel a 62% WR over a 13 game sample is great evidence. I'll just say Aztecs were drafted 100% of the time they weren't banned per your stats, as were Chinese and Franks.It is, but still way more interpretable then random numbers without you knowing the conditions. I have seen all games here, I know I can trust the numbers however small they are. I can give a million rigged numbers and that wouldnt make them better just by being more.
If your "feeling" of what OP means doesnt align ok, have a nice day. If that is a whole exclusion argument then we never need to change anything. Aztecs also totally fine, they were non-drafted twice. Screw 80% winrate, because some players in ro64 ignored them