Close Topic Options

[Super.gnome]

I propose that balance isnt as bad as people think. I think the top civilizations are on top more because more people play them then inherent overpoweredness.

This leads to more innovation and more refined strategies. If you have so many more people playing so many more games with "overpowered" civilizations then better strategies will be developed as compared to the underpowered and under used civilizations.

This is the result of something called the "Bandwagon effect." I suggest it is no coiencidence that the civilizations that were predicted to be overpowered turned out to be so. People seen what civs were suppose to be overpowered and decided to jump on the bandwagon.

Then as a result of our competetive nature they played with those civilizations and proceeded to develop strategies, leading -- in part --to the descrepency in win percentages.

I suggest that if the Ports had been tagged as the new OP civilization prior to the patch that their win percentage would be greatly improved. This would happen due to social acceptance that they were overpowered and the further development of strategies in relation to the other civilizations.

Thoughts?

[Bad Omen]

So everyone believing Ports are op = they will lose to Ports??

[Crusiminator]

bandwaggon effects appear everywhere - games, sports, job etc - just somewhere there is more of it and somewhere there is less of it

im playing this game since the beginning and the bandwaggon effect was always a big part of playing and it wont change

the top civs are op by design or someone good shows how to do - the top civs in aoe3 werent those where you could develop excellent strats - they just had one op way(german ww ff, spain ff, iro ff, china ff) which was easy to execute

[Viper]

I don't agree with this Believing that ashis are UP does not make them UP.

You can understand many of the reasons behind why a civ is strong if you look at the stats of their units, and what units they get. Those are unavoidable facts - believe what you want, but they're not going to change.

There's only a certain extent to which you can innovate. If your opponent is smart enough to scout you, they'll know what you're doing. And they'll know what they need to do to counter you.

[Aspria]

explain how whenever i faced china prepatch or india this patch ia ctually had a chance of losing to someone 9 ranks lower than me i actually did lose against a china 2nd lieut thats how i know its the civ

[Xiphos]

or u just plain sucked - or is that totally out of the question ?

This post has been edited by Xiphos: May 18 2008, 11:21 AM

[SkWizZ_Ourk]

It has always been clear to me it's part of the multiple factors that determines the "OP" civs or too strong ones.

This post has been edited by SkWizZ_Ourk: May 18 2008, 01:18 PM

[Lord_Alex]

apria plays japs now so i guess he played china too prepatch ... lamers dont change xD sucks to lose a china mirror vs 2 leut

you have to believe!!!

its like with zapsters pike boom ... everybody thought it would be OP and it was

[breedi]

that would be new sig material for me ^^

[[_V_V_]milky_tea]

breedi and lord_alex, unpest me please, i know you got angry because i beat you guys once but then you pest because we go russia and iro verse your lamer combo? then when we mirror you boot and pest?

your noobiness is sig material

[Super.gnome]

Now with all do respect to some of the opinions in this thread I'd like to elaborate on my thoughts a bit further.

As for the numbers showing its overpowered, sure. I won’t argue that certain civilizations are overpowered by design. I am proposing that the level of overpoweredness is less than the civilization win percentages reflect.

The numbers I looked at recently were 59% wins for Japan at the top spot, and 38% win for the Ottomans in the 14th spot. This was among the better players (rating 38+). That’s a 21 point spread.

I simply suggest that the imbalances aren't that great, but that instead it is the mindset of the community that exaggerates said imbalances, and that that exaggeration widens this gap.

Increased confidence, or decreased confidence, is known to have an impact on how people perform. The belief that a civilization is overpowered causes a shift in ones confidence during each game, either positive or negative, depending on whether they are playing with, or against an "OP" civilization.

I suggest that confidence coupled with increased refinement of strategies, and greater innovation plays a part in the 21 point spread. I don't suggest that it the sole cause, merely a factor.

This post has been edited by Super.gnome: May 19 2008, 07:48 PM

[blade55555]

no I don't agree. When Ashi can rape xbows when you have 2 times their number I don't care what you think everyone could say Ashi are UP when they really arn't if they can do what I just said which they have done to me today.

I'm debating on not playing japan anymore.

[[_V_V_]George_uk]

There was a study that showed chinese women made aware of their ethnicity made them score better on maths test (following the stereotype that asians are gods at maths) but when made aware of their gender they scored lower.

lol.

[DAMNIT]

lol what? You mean they found Chinese women who weren't aware that they were in fact Chinese and women? Hope nobody suddenly makes me aware that I'm one too.

[spinsane]

I think the origin of OPness is exploitation. A specific mathematic advantage that an individual combs through the proto/tech/engine to find, and then utilizes this method to crush opponents. When an opponent is crushed by said method, they will typically seek to understand how and why they lost. When they compare the strategy with strategies that they already know, they realize that it is a superior approach to playing the game.

Bandwagon is a symptom of OPness, but it isn't the source.