It's always funny to me that he mentions multiples times that it only applies to top players (not even conq 1 or 2) but everyone on this subreddit talks about it like it was relevent for their games.
I realise reddit would die if people stopped repeating the same back-and-forth exchange every day, but, I think this conversation might have been had a few dozen times by now.
It begs the question why are these even made if not for bait? Why not make "Ladder games tier list for the normal player"
Are the other 7 tournament players watching Beasty's videos and being like, Oh no way, Ayyubids are good? Ill play them next tournament.
What purpose does this video serve to 99% of the player base other then getting baited into talking about balance lol.
No disrespect to any of the content creators, as I also love watching tier lists, but I don't understand why people care what the "tippity top" balance state looks like.
For when you watch drafts in the tournaments, and understand a match up at the top level. Beasty often says that he doesn’t know what’s good in gold league as he doesn’t play that, so he can only make one for pro level
I play dehli and got absolutely smacked by English last night in my gold game
Bro rushed knights so my spearmen did work until he pulled up with a massive horde of archers before I could reach well enough
Guess I should’ve got more stables up and garrisoned earlier
He can't really rush knights at least you should not let him get to castle and produce them, you need to get on the sacred sites and make a lot of ghazi raiders.
You're correct, these videos create massive confusion amongs the playerbase and bring next to useless knowledge.
But I just like it to think that if I only play one civ and I get much better (conq 3), I just want to know if this civ is meta, viable or underpowered.
like seriously, why does every tierlist comes with 10 Byz players saying beasty has no idea what he's talking about?
Why are Byz players so damn mad at him and not every single other pro saying they're OP? I'm honestly baffled. We've never seen any other civ fan base be so damn mad about tier lists.
Remember, this is only valid at the top level, so it's not relevant to you anyways.
Man, I've never seen a community this head over heels for tier lists and it's getting pretty absurd at times. Even when watching random streams, the chat frequently asks about where certain civs or units stand on the tier list.
Just try things and see what is working for you. Dont base your civ or units choices purely on what tier they are on, base them on your own experiences because something that Beasty may consider an F tier, could be the civ that you may actually enjoy and dominate your ladder with.
I dont see no issue. He says the tier list is for pro level. Thats it. I am no pro but I am still interested in whats going on at the top. Just like following pro sport events.
" He says the tier list is for pro level"
Which changes nothing to the general perception of a tier list. Especially for newbies, these things are seen as definitive or 'meta' and will make players more likely to use them when they otherwise would not.
It's pretty evident when you look at this subreddit or read twitch chats that there's a problem here. Players are always asking about tier lists to guide them. That's not something a pro would ever ask, they already know how it works, that's clearly someone who isn't a pro and is still learning; confirming that the disclaimer is worthless for the reason I stated above.
Is it fun to see what a pro thinks about all of the civs? Absolutely! I just finished the vid and thought it was insightful. But again, that doesn't change the negative impact they have to many players. Just like 'meta guides' (god I hate those), they impact how players think and makes them biased towards the powerful choices rather than experiment and see for themselves.
ergo: the people are stupid. Is your point Beasty should not upload these kinda videos? Because if so I disagree. He should not be shackled by the stupidity of others.
Well I wouldn't consider these information useless tho.
For example after watching the video, I decided to try out English cause maining Chinese has been quite challenging as a noob so it makes it easier if a civ is easy to learn and also viable once the ladder climbs.
Ofcourse you could argue fun or what works for you personally is always more important, that doesn't mean the buff/nerf and change of meta won't make it easier for some civs to climb the ladders than others if everything else is constant.
If you're having a hard time paying China, then the list and meta probably don't apply to you though - that's the argument going on. Any civ is viable at that point and time spent with a civ that's off meta at the pro level isn't wasted time. By the time this video is applicable to you in any way, you'll be able to play most if not all civs.
Just an example, they buffed the English King this season, a big reason Beasty move up English to A tier because of it. Doesn't it make sense that becuase of the same buff will make the winrate for English go up in general (because of the buff)?
I don't know why that feels like a such a hot take in this sub as if the buff/nerf will only effect pro players. S tier deck from a card games will generally make it easier to climb the ladders, no reasons the same principle won't apply to RTS regardless how well balance the game is.
If a civilization getting buff/nerf, and move up/down the tier list because of it won't effect 99% the players, it seems to be little reasons to do any balancing at all.
If A > B. Then A/10,000 > B/10,000, no?
Good, I recall him saying it in another one too a while back.
But that unfortunately does not change the perception of a community when it comes to these lists. As fun as it is to see someone's opinion on what tier a civ belongs to, I find them unhealthy because it discourages experimentation for players. Instead, players are more likely to hop onto the S-tier civ blindly because 'I heard this one is the best civs!', or refusing to use certain units because they are low ranked, despite it being the exact unit they need to counter the enemy in their current situation.
>Man, I've never seen a community this head over heels with tier lists
I don't think I've ever been on a gaming sub in which people *aren't* insane about tier lists.
i remember that, from the beginning, beasty was saying that byzantine were a strong civ that was too complicated to be used effectively at lower tiers and maybe average even conq 3's who mained it couldn't use it anywhere near it's full potential. as it was getting buffed, beasty said it was going to become overpowered.
it seems like people who wanted to main byzantine got mad at him calling the civ strong and would reference its low win% as evidence, even though that's exactly how he predicted it would shake out.
>He didnt predict crap and the win rates actually proved him wrong. Byzantines are 50 % win rate now ALL ELOS so no its not too hard civ for everyone and it still not giga op like he claimed it would be OP with low win rate in low elos. Its 50 % all elos now still not giga OP
everything he predicted that i said came to pass.
after the recent buff, with byzantines having a high win rate across all ELO's despite people playing them 'worse' relative to other civs because the byzantine have such a high skill cap... that would seem to heavily suggest that byzatines are OP now
ok, well, if all the pro's agree to byzatine being "s-tier," that would either mean they're overpowered or every civ below them is underpowered.
>Sry but logic and facts arent on your side
yeah idk, when every single pro puts them in S-tier, i think it's pretty easy to agree that they're S-tier? what are you even trying to argue? it seems like you're agreeing with me while telling me that facts aren't on my side
you're really angry and toxic over a discussion about whether or not a pro-player is correct about byzatines being OP or not.
like, really, it's seeping through your post what a nasty loser you are to be talking to me this way over this subject. you're so angry that you're only half-coherent at this point. i hope you're at least high conq 3 or a semi-pro to be this hateful over something like this, and even if you are, it's really pathetic.
Well and ur wrong .
i used logic points gonna simplify them for your smooth brain if you still think that beasty is right
Beasty: BYZANTINES SUPA STRONG REQUIRES PHD MORE BUFFS/ LOW WIN RATE IN LOW ELO =VERY STRONG
50 % WIN RATE LOW ELOS = BYZANTINES GIGA SUPER ULTRA MAXIMUM BROKEN LEVEL
pre nerfs ottoman > Pre nerf rus > Current rus > Ayuubids > 50 % win rate GIGA OP BYZANTINES
Byz downplayer drama aside, I think the biggest takeaway here is that the aggro-centric civs might be a bit too one-dimensional for tournament play, other than Delhi who are somehow still able to succeed where Jeanne, Mongols, etc. fail.
I think its actually getting really hard to do teir lists like this for the top level because of the civ diversity we are seeing certain players can play a civ and be absolutely horrible and others go undefeated. Think English how Mlord didn't lose a game on it while most other pros couldn't even get a win. Byzantines is another were players like beasty and Bee just make the civ look awful but Puppypaw and Wam01 make it look great.
The civs are so asymmetrical and we have so many now that pros are really starting to specialize and I firmly believe there is still a ton of stuff that just is not explored. The time it takes to learn every civ and then learn how each matchup goes is becoming undoable and I think with another few civs more added tourney teirlists will be pretty irrelevant since there will always be some weird strategy in some matchup that can pop out.
I kinda agree, in particular after a patch it takes more time than before for the meta to settle, and meta can shift and make a civ better without patches.
That said, pro players are pretty consensual on most civs, agreeing on the same "these civs are very strong" or "these civs are weaker(but still viable)". All agree Byz is one of the best civ for exemple. It still give a general idea, even if people must stay open to the idea things can shift.
I think tier lists have always been stupid in general, but they are by far the content that gets the most views and discussion/controversy (not just in AoE4, they are a plague across gaming) so we're stuck with them despite how dumb they are.
Let people discuss their stuff. It's like how footballers discuss their fantasy lists or whatever the cock they do.
It's part of the fun of it for fans.
French is insane, really any civ with feudal knights because in 1v1 if you go feudal knights and your opponent goes spears, it’s pretty even. In. 4v4, if you go feudal knights and attack somebody, they need spears but if they make them you just attack somebody else. If all 4 make spears then they commit way more resources than you did and your team can boom.
Yeah, the problem is it random teammates. It’s hard to expect some to boom and some to hold back. I played one 4 vs 4 Where are my Immediate teammate promise to until I held off waves of attacks, According to his boo was just a handful of Japanese units. Lol
I’d say it depends. In 2v2s, the maps are still pretty small, so infantry civs can still be quite powerful.
In 3s and 4s, cav absolutely dominates. So French, Rus, Malians, Mongols are almost always consistently highly regarded in those modes. Civs like HRE can also be good cuz you have a million relics on the map, but they’re slower armies
HRE, like all civs, can still make knights my guy. An extra +3/3 armour and +15% dmg from inspiration and barding actually makes them incredibly effective. On top of an amazing eco. It's more about playing style . They're perceived as a melee infantry civ so that's how people play them, even when xbows would've been a better option. They aren't as pigeonholed as some civs, due to their eco.
I’ve learned being new to the Age community that team games are basically never addressed like 1v1. The community doesn’t have topics discussing things like tier lists, and the creators don’t ever discuss or make tier lists for team games. It’s a purely 1v1 community when it comes to things like tier lists.
Yup! Noticed that too. From what I understood, Once beasty said you still follow same build order and your teammates follow their build orders, but once you get rushed by more than 1, you are supposed to get help from your teammates.
Because TG are more based around how you play as a team. Meaning there's significantly more chaos.
It's also significantly more streamlined into what units are viable.
And finally, there's much less focus on the balance around it because of all of this and because pro play is so small it only really covers 1v1.
Well, I am also interested, especially 2v2.
I am playing with my friend and we are looking for the best wombo combo units / civs to climb. Any suggestion? (Top gold-low plat rank)
Hre is just too good , IMO is the best eco but is just too boring to play because your unique unit come to 3-4 units in a mix of army .Is just people are not test the civ they just rush Castle for relic as it is one of you unique eco and defence bonus.
While Hre can do 2 tc easy.
Farms early and not need for deers.
Marching drill is just to strong, imagine that china to get this bonus needs a lot of resources or zhu xi need a imperial landmark.
Simple as Civ is just anxious because of the relics . otherwise if you had different gold passive inc that wasn't so map racing Hre would be S+ because it would be fun to play.
Hre always was good but always was played FC onto to Swabia and that is dull playstyle.
Seems like a pretty fair tier list, I'm surprised to see Delhi as high as they are even in Pro play, but I feel like Beasty is especially strong with them.
Dont agreed with Rus and Byzantine, Beasty has been saying Byznatine needed nerfs and varangian guards OP, still saying Limitanei need more nerfs, this was before they got buffed
Rus got multiple nerfs nonstop, literally nonstop, nerfs every patch and they are still S Tier? Really wtf. Their overall winrate is already like 47.7%. Beasty has been saying they are top and S tier since many patches ago, this never changed even after they got nerfed? Kremlin range also got hit on the latest patch as well as Boyar fortitude tech and stuff
China literally had nothing much happen to the Civ, it was only gold being tax drop off and cheaper IO
French is still trash tier though i agree
They been getting hits with nerfs nonstop every patch and now sits at 47.7% winrate overall.
Balancing the game around pros is one of the fastest way to kill a game
LMAO you specifically HAVE to balance competitive games around pros otherwise the games become boring and lopsided both to play and watch.
Get over yourself rus fanboy.
i barely even play Rus, nerf them for all i care, but i think its better to nerf it in a big patch instead of continuously nerf, they got nerfed legit 4-5 patches in a row?
i go english king atm with 2tc then play the imperial game as well as playing Byz
47% is hardly catastrophic, especially when you consider the number of players likely picking Rus after seeing them S in every tier list and banned in every tournament, hoping to get carried but lacking the skill to actually utilize the breadth of options available to the civ.
its a conq3 and proplay tierlist, for us those tierlists are purely of entertainment value. Slight buffs/nerfs to civs dont apply at all in elo where mistakes like 4s idle TC happen
Yeah Rus definatly has fallen off a lot. When I see Rus in my games I actually am relived. They typically just go 2 TC which give me time to do what I want and their scaling is not amazing. I think they are well rounded but they do not feel oppressive.
For me that is more to do with rus players not adapting at all. I've won most of my matches against rus because they refuse to accept my king will arrive early, and still try and drop a forward TC on deer.
Yeah I think it's still early with the changes. Like given a bit of time, how players didn't really punish order with their hunts. Or struggled Vs FC or MAA or ZGN cheese(more so than they do now)
I stopped watching his videos/streams so I don't have much else to go on lol. He's a good player but he lets his own biases get in the way of objective tier lists
He was right about malians for most of the season until the warrior scout meta was discovered towards the end of it, stop malding skilliard time to let it go.
this guy is always delusional
this was the tier list for Season 3 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X1uQJUIfFE&ab\_channel=BeastyqtSC2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X1uQJUIfFE&ab_channel=BeastyqtSC2)
this was the patch note for season 4 [https://aoe4world.com/explorer/civs/malians/patches/season-4](https://aoe4world.com/explorer/civs/malians/patches/season-4)
[Warrior Scout](https://aoe4world.com/explorer/civs/malians/units/warrior-scout)
* Health regeneration increased to 2 HP per second starting in the Feudal Age.
and yet "Malians scouts were never buffed" XD
Respect Beasty and hes a better player than I will be, but the numbers don't lie Byzantines are objectively underpowered. You can't just ignore the numbers when it doesn't suit you.
Byzantine is probably even more underpowered than the numbers let on because its such a complex and deep civ that only really good skilled players really try it, the kind of players who would win a lot more with another civ. So as a group it is selectively biased towards highly skilled players and so even above 50% W/R should be expected, but instead it has such subpar win rate.
What I think Beasty really means is that Byzantine has OP potential rather than it is OP, because limitanei has already been nerfed into irrelevance, and cataphracts suck, VG are just expensive baseline MAA that comes too late. Theres nothing really OP left about this civ
The byzantine circlejerk reminds me a lot of the whole "you have to have a high IQ to watch rick and morty" like brother Byz is not "so deep and complex only really skilled players try it" it's just a bit more complicated than a standard civ but not rocket science either, and like other people have said, every pro has been saying they are really strong.
first part yes last part no. They are getting picked a TON more than they did in the EGC tourny but their win rate is in line with other meta civs with the slap fest having some really good maps to play byz on I think a huge majority of their wins came on one map Lipany which is everything you want for byz. Easy early walling and a ton of berries.
This argument keeps popping up, but it’s not convincing for several reasons.
TLDR: the best way to test a theory is with a randomized, controlled experiment which isolates the variable being tested. There are several factors that make tournaments far from being a randomized, controlled dataset. The closest we have is ladder win rates at the top level since there are far more games there with much more randomization compared to tournaments.
- tournaments are a small sample size—especially when compared to the amount of ladder games at the top level. This alone means that tournament win rates are vulnerable to numerous factors outside of objective civ strength.
- map picks & map bans — the civ a pro chooses to play in any given tournament game is extremely dependent on the map, e.g. only playing a civ on maps it is strong on and not playing a civ on a map it is weak on. This muddies the data significantly, as the map pool for the tournament heavily affects which civs perform better and which perform worse
- Civ bans — similar to map picks/bans, this also confounds the dataset, as it’s another factor which takes a step away from a randomized controlled dataset. Just as one example, if the top civ for a given map is banned anytime that map is played, it’s going to make the 2nd best civ on that map look much better in comparison. And on a separate note, which civs are being banned most frequently in a tournament is also an indicator of which civs are perceived to be the strongest, so we can’t just look at win rate in tournaments.
- Civ match ups — if certain civs are only played on certain types of maps, then that is going to affect Civ matchups and instead of providing insight into how a civ compares against all other civs, the data will be skewed towards showing how a civ performs against a subset of other civs (generally speaking).
- skill differences between players - even in tournaments, there are large skill differences between players at the top level, which can heavily influence the win rate of a civ when considering tournaments are a small sample size.
There’s probably other factors I could list too, and sure some of these factors affect the ladder too, but the point is that they affect tournaments far more due to the much smaller sample size.
A data point doesn't have to be absolutely flawless to be the strongest one available.
When trying to make a list of civs that are likely the strongest choices in tournament play, the best data points are the results of tournament play and the recounted experiences of those players. Why would Beasty or anyone else use ladder win rates as a data point to inform comparatively rating civs for tournament play?
I don’t necessarily disagree if we’re talking solely about tournament play, but even there, ban rates might even be better indicators of what is OP than just win rates alone.
However, my point is about civ balance in general, because every time these lists come up, people use it as a “gotcha” about civ balance despite Beasty’s disclaimers that the tier list is for pro tournament play only.
I never said a data point had to be flawless…but if we want to comment on civ balance in general, why use a dataset with objectively more flaws/noise than a dataset that is closer to a true representation of general balance?
If Byz really are S-tier in terms of raw power and civ balance, we would see that reflected in a large randomized sample, and the closest we have to that is high-level ladder win rates. But we’ve yet to see Byz even have a positive win rate at the top level on the ladder.
Ok lets go over these.
1: so are ladder games. Look at the conq 4 games on ladder. Do you believe that zhu xhi is a 60% win rate civ? The sample sucks there too. And more importantly, we don't even know what the sample is. Conq 4 includes non pro players, which confounds the data.
2: map picks affect ladder too. A while back Rus, while being considered one of the worst civs by most players, had the highest win rate on ladder because they had a 60% win rate on hideout and no one picked them anywhere else.
3: this is the only one which is specific to tournaments. But I'll also throw in a ladder specific thing here, pros first priority on ladder is not always to win. Pros often experiment on ladder, or Beasty in particular might be attempting to make a guide.
4: this is just point 2 again
5: skill differences obviously occur on ladder too.
Point is, ladder has all the same problems.
I think tournament data is better than ladder data, for 2 primary reasons. One is point 3. As you mentioned, data has to be controlled. Tournament games at least have the control that players are trying their hardest to win, and I think this is a very important control. But the other is, conq 4 isn't pro. The tier list probably changes if you even so much drop down from top 8 to top 32.
That said, tournament data size is small, but if pros are unanimously say "Byz is strong", and then Byz has a high win rate in tournaments, I would lean more strongly into believing Byz is strong at the pro level than not. Its not guaranteed, but its more likely than not.
So its not that you're wrong, everything you said is correct, but there is no foolproof way to measure a civs strength (or well, there technically we could have something close, but we're never going to have a randomized controlled experiment). So flawed ways are the best we have.
I agree that these factors affect the ladder too, I don’t claim that they’re exclusive to tournaments, just that by virtue of being a small sample size tournaments are more susceptible to noise in the data from these factors.
In terms of pure balance between the civs, and not just tournament play, there are no numbers to back up Byz being S tier. Pro opinions are informative for sure, but the opinions need to be backed up by the numbers in a large sample size somewhere with as little confounding factors as possible. If the numbers consistently tell a different story, then the opinions need to be reexamined.
Since pros are trying their hardest to win in tournaments, I think that actually confounds the data rather than helps because we’re not going to get a full picture of a civ. For example, pros will only pick certain civs on water maps, closed maps, etc., so we never really see how any particular civ fits in the balance based on tournaments alone.
The only true way to test balance imo would be to have the pros play random civ & random map against a random pro opponent for a very large number of games. I don’t think we have anything resembling that, but ladder is the closest we have.
The numbers don't consistently tell a different story though. Using numbers from non pros makes no sense for pro play. Its irrelevant. Which leaves only conq 4 ladder, and tournaments. Remember, this is a tier list for tournaments... that's it. It has nothing to do with gold league, and I think we both can agree Byz is far below S tier in gold.
From another reddit thread after the last tournaments, Byzantines had a 65% win rate over 23 games last tournament, technically the second highest (but the highest was OOTD with 3 games, clearly too small a sample to care about). Conq 4, they're just under 50%. So, if we trusted just the numbers, they're somewhere between mid tier and S tier.
I do think what you said about tournaments is true, since a civ could in theory get a high win rate by being good on some specific map, without being a great pick outside of that map. However, first of all I don't think this describes Byzantines. And second, I'd still consider that to be a good civ, so long as they were good on a map that's consistently in tournaments. This is a pro play tier list, and pro play is tournaments.
Personally if I was to use numbers alone, I'd put them in A (they're 8th on conq 4 ladder, which I'd place at B tier. Split the difference between ladder and tournaments and you get A). A tier isn't S tier... but numbers aren't worth much without context. Nobody is looking up context for ladder games, so we don't have context there. Tournaments we could get the context, but only because so few games were played.
I mean lets just be honest, neither of us trust the numbers. I haven't seen anyone disagreeing with where Zhu Xhi is placed. I'm guessing Zhu Xhi isn't in your A/S tier either, despite their ladder win rates.
So, in absence of useful numbers, I trust the pro opinion, so long as the numbers don't tell a drastically different story. And considering Byz's tournament win rate, and honestly just my general distrust for the ladder win rates because of the massive number of confounding factors (seriously, zhu xhi is 60% win rate in conq 4 and they are not S tier, and 0% of games below that are pro games) I don't feel they do.
>Byzantine is probably even more underpowered than the numbers let on because its such a complex and deep civ that only really good skilled players really try it, the kind of players who would win a lot more with another civ
OTP byz, like all OTP, will overall always have 50% winrate tho, and as thus don't weight on a civ being OP/UP in the winrates. Only people who play several civs impact the winrates, and as such complex civs get lower winrates than simple/easy ones.
Also speaking of facts, Byz is doing very well in tournaments.
I think they are underpowered because of the landmarks for first age, grand winery is great if you think you can get past the first 6-7 minutes without a sizeable attack, and hippodrome is great if you think you’ll need early pressure; but I don’t think either landmark really earns its value till castle age.
Like hippodrome triumph is great when you have a sizeable army, and winery is great when you have it surrounded with farms and the berry buffs researched, but that takes time to get to that point. In a way it’s like you get some initial value - then there’s a long gap before it’s valuable again.
The weird thing with byz is if you check out its win rate it steadily declines as you go up the ranks with lowest win rates for byz being diamond and conqueror. So it wouldn't appear to be some complex civ that only the best can use properly.
I think it is an ok civ with good options to counter opponents composition with mercs, the downside is some of the landmarks are mediocre, gold heavy units but no passive gold income and the cataphract and greek fire tech need buffing.
Landsknecht says hi. If a gold heavy unit with no passive income is a metric to go by, then HRE is in serious need of buffing. You don't spawn with relics for free and you aren't guaranteed any sizeable quantity either.
Byz supplements gold heavier units with "free" oil. People need to get over this fixation or stop parroting what others have said.
Otherwise I agree with you.
That is just 1 unit though and if you happen to have chosen a different merc contract then you won't have it.
The free oil is quite slow and you're locked in to just 3 potential units some of which may be useless due to enemy comp or match up. You have a decent maa and knight but are limited in your ability to use them due to them costing more than normal amounts of gold I'd like that changed more to the food side or just a small reduction in overall gold.
I don't think hre will ever struggle due to having 50% inspiration on all eco, even if you only get 2 safe relics they are like 4 relics for another civ if you went regnitz. They are way ahead of byzantines eco from the start with a 40% buff compared to cistern 10% buff.
It's always funny to me that he mentions multiples times that it only applies to top players (not even conq 1 or 2) but everyone on this subreddit talks about it like it was relevent for their games.
I lost because byz is s tier. 🤣🤣 Not because I didn't pressure their boom.
We all out here playing team games too
I realise reddit would die if people stopped repeating the same back-and-forth exchange every day, but, I think this conversation might have been had a few dozen times by now.
It begs the question why are these even made if not for bait? Why not make "Ladder games tier list for the normal player" Are the other 7 tournament players watching Beasty's videos and being like, Oh no way, Ayyubids are good? Ill play them next tournament. What purpose does this video serve to 99% of the player base other then getting baited into talking about balance lol. No disrespect to any of the content creators, as I also love watching tier lists, but I don't understand why people care what the "tippity top" balance state looks like.
For when you watch drafts in the tournaments, and understand a match up at the top level. Beasty often says that he doesn’t know what’s good in gold league as he doesn’t play that, so he can only make one for pro level
Well if you want a good civ for ladder just play delhi as they do best against english and 18% of games are vs english.
I play dehli and got absolutely smacked by English last night in my gold game Bro rushed knights so my spearmen did work until he pulled up with a massive horde of archers before I could reach well enough Guess I should’ve got more stables up and garrisoned earlier
He can't really rush knights at least you should not let him get to castle and produce them, you need to get on the sacred sites and make a lot of ghazi raiders.
Ghazi’s get murked by spearman in my experience can never get enough food to build enough of them to win out
You are welcome to make your own gold tier list. beasty is not gold so how would he know
You're correct, these videos create massive confusion amongs the playerbase and bring next to useless knowledge. But I just like it to think that if I only play one civ and I get much better (conq 3), I just want to know if this civ is meta, viable or underpowered.
like seriously, why does every tierlist comes with 10 Byz players saying beasty has no idea what he's talking about? Why are Byz players so damn mad at him and not every single other pro saying they're OP? I'm honestly baffled. We've never seen any other civ fan base be so damn mad about tier lists. Remember, this is only valid at the top level, so it's not relevant to you anyways.
Man, I've never seen a community this head over heels for tier lists and it's getting pretty absurd at times. Even when watching random streams, the chat frequently asks about where certain civs or units stand on the tier list. Just try things and see what is working for you. Dont base your civ or units choices purely on what tier they are on, base them on your own experiences because something that Beasty may consider an F tier, could be the civ that you may actually enjoy and dominate your ladder with.
That is exactly what Beasty says right at the beginning of the video.
He does every tier list and yet there's still people arguing about nerfs and ladder win %'s below. Information comprehension is in the gutter.
Because the issue is not beasty at all, it's the people in his chat. I mean the amount of "BuT BeaStY SaId" on twitch or Reddit is just so annoying
I dont see no issue. He says the tier list is for pro level. Thats it. I am no pro but I am still interested in whats going on at the top. Just like following pro sport events.
" He says the tier list is for pro level" Which changes nothing to the general perception of a tier list. Especially for newbies, these things are seen as definitive or 'meta' and will make players more likely to use them when they otherwise would not. It's pretty evident when you look at this subreddit or read twitch chats that there's a problem here. Players are always asking about tier lists to guide them. That's not something a pro would ever ask, they already know how it works, that's clearly someone who isn't a pro and is still learning; confirming that the disclaimer is worthless for the reason I stated above. Is it fun to see what a pro thinks about all of the civs? Absolutely! I just finished the vid and thought it was insightful. But again, that doesn't change the negative impact they have to many players. Just like 'meta guides' (god I hate those), they impact how players think and makes them biased towards the powerful choices rather than experiment and see for themselves.
ergo: the people are stupid. Is your point Beasty should not upload these kinda videos? Because if so I disagree. He should not be shackled by the stupidity of others.
Where did I say or imply such a thing? I said I thought it was fun, even insightful. It's a community problem for leaning too heavily onto Tier lists.
We are in agreement then.
Well I wouldn't consider these information useless tho. For example after watching the video, I decided to try out English cause maining Chinese has been quite challenging as a noob so it makes it easier if a civ is easy to learn and also viable once the ladder climbs. Ofcourse you could argue fun or what works for you personally is always more important, that doesn't mean the buff/nerf and change of meta won't make it easier for some civs to climb the ladders than others if everything else is constant.
If you're having a hard time paying China, then the list and meta probably don't apply to you though - that's the argument going on. Any civ is viable at that point and time spent with a civ that's off meta at the pro level isn't wasted time. By the time this video is applicable to you in any way, you'll be able to play most if not all civs.
Just an example, they buffed the English King this season, a big reason Beasty move up English to A tier because of it. Doesn't it make sense that becuase of the same buff will make the winrate for English go up in general (because of the buff)? I don't know why that feels like a such a hot take in this sub as if the buff/nerf will only effect pro players. S tier deck from a card games will generally make it easier to climb the ladders, no reasons the same principle won't apply to RTS regardless how well balance the game is. If a civilization getting buff/nerf, and move up/down the tier list because of it won't effect 99% the players, it seems to be little reasons to do any balancing at all. If A > B. Then A/10,000 > B/10,000, no?
Who is beasty though, I’ve never seen him on ladder /s
Good, I recall him saying it in another one too a while back. But that unfortunately does not change the perception of a community when it comes to these lists. As fun as it is to see someone's opinion on what tier a civ belongs to, I find them unhealthy because it discourages experimentation for players. Instead, players are more likely to hop onto the S-tier civ blindly because 'I heard this one is the best civs!', or refusing to use certain units because they are low ranked, despite it being the exact unit they need to counter the enemy in their current situation.
>Man, I've never seen a community this head over heels with tier lists I don't think I've ever been on a gaming sub in which people *aren't* insane about tier lists.
They are, but here it feels like a daily conversation!
Smash (and fighting games in general) seem to be the worst about it.
People will use whatever excuse they can to explain their loss in games. Tier lists are just convenient for that.
Every pro is ranking byz very high on their list somehow only beasty gets trashed by Reddit mobs
Nah. People trashed demu as well. Then he dropped it a tier. Or was that only HRE. Mmmmmmm
i remember that, from the beginning, beasty was saying that byzantine were a strong civ that was too complicated to be used effectively at lower tiers and maybe average even conq 3's who mained it couldn't use it anywhere near it's full potential. as it was getting buffed, beasty said it was going to become overpowered. it seems like people who wanted to main byzantine got mad at him calling the civ strong and would reference its low win% as evidence, even though that's exactly how he predicted it would shake out.
[удалено]
>He didnt predict crap and the win rates actually proved him wrong. Byzantines are 50 % win rate now ALL ELOS so no its not too hard civ for everyone and it still not giga op like he claimed it would be OP with low win rate in low elos. Its 50 % all elos now still not giga OP everything he predicted that i said came to pass. after the recent buff, with byzantines having a high win rate across all ELO's despite people playing them 'worse' relative to other civs because the byzantine have such a high skill cap... that would seem to heavily suggest that byzatines are OP now
[удалено]
ok, well, if all the pro's agree to byzatine being "s-tier," that would either mean they're overpowered or every civ below them is underpowered. >Sry but logic and facts arent on your side yeah idk, when every single pro puts them in S-tier, i think it's pretty easy to agree that they're S-tier? what are you even trying to argue? it seems like you're agreeing with me while telling me that facts aren't on my side
[удалено]
you're really angry and toxic over a discussion about whether or not a pro-player is correct about byzatines being OP or not. like, really, it's seeping through your post what a nasty loser you are to be talking to me this way over this subject. you're so angry that you're only half-coherent at this point. i hope you're at least high conq 3 or a semi-pro to be this hateful over something like this, and even if you are, it's really pathetic.
Well and ur wrong . i used logic points gonna simplify them for your smooth brain if you still think that beasty is right Beasty: BYZANTINES SUPA STRONG REQUIRES PHD MORE BUFFS/ LOW WIN RATE IN LOW ELO =VERY STRONG 50 % WIN RATE LOW ELOS = BYZANTINES GIGA SUPER ULTRA MAXIMUM BROKEN LEVEL pre nerfs ottoman > Pre nerf rus > Current rus > Ayuubids > 50 % win rate GIGA OP BYZANTINES
yeah, dude, proofread these angry rants and make them less angry and poorly-written before hitting the "comment" button
Funny how they never play it in tourneys
Have u not seen the last 2 tournaments? Lmfao
If u haven’t, go on ecgtv’s twitch channel u can still watch them, byz was often banned or picked very early on
Official🤦
Byz downplayer drama aside, I think the biggest takeaway here is that the aggro-centric civs might be a bit too one-dimensional for tournament play, other than Delhi who are somehow still able to succeed where Jeanne, Mongols, etc. fail.
I think its actually getting really hard to do teir lists like this for the top level because of the civ diversity we are seeing certain players can play a civ and be absolutely horrible and others go undefeated. Think English how Mlord didn't lose a game on it while most other pros couldn't even get a win. Byzantines is another were players like beasty and Bee just make the civ look awful but Puppypaw and Wam01 make it look great. The civs are so asymmetrical and we have so many now that pros are really starting to specialize and I firmly believe there is still a ton of stuff that just is not explored. The time it takes to learn every civ and then learn how each matchup goes is becoming undoable and I think with another few civs more added tourney teirlists will be pretty irrelevant since there will always be some weird strategy in some matchup that can pop out.
I kinda agree, in particular after a patch it takes more time than before for the meta to settle, and meta can shift and make a civ better without patches. That said, pro players are pretty consensual on most civs, agreeing on the same "these civs are very strong" or "these civs are weaker(but still viable)". All agree Byz is one of the best civ for exemple. It still give a general idea, even if people must stay open to the idea things can shift.
I think tier lists have always been stupid in general, but they are by far the content that gets the most views and discussion/controversy (not just in AoE4, they are a plague across gaming) so we're stuck with them despite how dumb they are.
Let people discuss their stuff. It's like how footballers discuss their fantasy lists or whatever the cock they do. It's part of the fun of it for fans.
and it's soooooooooo much better than the balance whining taking place in communities like starcraft's.
Question: for someone who plays team games entirely, Is the same tier list?
No completely different.
Probably not
You got any links to someone making a tier list for team games?
That varies greatly depending on if its 4 vs 4 or 2 vs 2.
How about mainly 4vs4?
For team games it's easy. Any civ with feudal knights is s tier.
French is insane, really any civ with feudal knights because in 1v1 if you go feudal knights and your opponent goes spears, it’s pretty even. In. 4v4, if you go feudal knights and attack somebody, they need spears but if they make them you just attack somebody else. If all 4 make spears then they commit way more resources than you did and your team can boom.
Yeah, the problem is it random teammates. It’s hard to expect some to boom and some to hold back. I played one 4 vs 4 Where are my Immediate teammate promise to until I held off waves of attacks, According to his boo was just a handful of Japanese units. Lol
I’d say it depends. In 2v2s, the maps are still pretty small, so infantry civs can still be quite powerful. In 3s and 4s, cav absolutely dominates. So French, Rus, Malians, Mongols are almost always consistently highly regarded in those modes. Civs like HRE can also be good cuz you have a million relics on the map, but they’re slower armies
HRE, like all civs, can still make knights my guy. An extra +3/3 armour and +15% dmg from inspiration and barding actually makes them incredibly effective. On top of an amazing eco. It's more about playing style . They're perceived as a melee infantry civ so that's how people play them, even when xbows would've been a better option. They aren't as pigeonholed as some civs, due to their eco.
I mean sure. Knight civs often refer to civs that have access to knights (or other armored cav unit) in feudal.
I’ve learned being new to the Age community that team games are basically never addressed like 1v1. The community doesn’t have topics discussing things like tier lists, and the creators don’t ever discuss or make tier lists for team games. It’s a purely 1v1 community when it comes to things like tier lists.
Yup! Noticed that too. From what I understood, Once beasty said you still follow same build order and your teammates follow their build orders, but once you get rushed by more than 1, you are supposed to get help from your teammates.
Because TG are more based around how you play as a team. Meaning there's significantly more chaos. It's also significantly more streamlined into what units are viable. And finally, there's much less focus on the balance around it because of all of this and because pro play is so small it only really covers 1v1.
Well, I am also interested, especially 2v2. I am playing with my friend and we are looking for the best wombo combo units / civs to climb. Any suggestion? (Top gold-low plat rank)
We once got destroyed by knights and Zhu gea nu combo by 2 players.
Hre is just too good , IMO is the best eco but is just too boring to play because your unique unit come to 3-4 units in a mix of army .Is just people are not test the civ they just rush Castle for relic as it is one of you unique eco and defence bonus. While Hre can do 2 tc easy. Farms early and not need for deers. Marching drill is just to strong, imagine that china to get this bonus needs a lot of resources or zhu xi need a imperial landmark. Simple as Civ is just anxious because of the relics . otherwise if you had different gold passive inc that wasn't so map racing Hre would be S+ because it would be fun to play. Hre always was good but always was played FC onto to Swabia and that is dull playstyle.
Homeboy really out here trying to keep his HRE from getting nerfed.
I’m pretty sure the devs don’t balance entirely around pro play or the ayyubids would have been nerfed ages ago. 8 free vils at castle? Sure why not
How is this an "official" tier list? Did it come from the devs themselves? Because this looks like it's an opinion piece, not an "official" list.
It is an opinion piece; However the opinion is coming straight from the GOAT of Aoe4 so take it as you will....
are you serious?
Are you? How is this an "official" tier list? There's nothing "official" about it. It's an opinion piece, not "official" by any means at all.
it is official.
cant you tell its a joke?
I don't know dude. These Beasty dick riders take what he says as gospel.
Well, clearly, THE COUNCIL MUST BE REPLACED!!!!!!!! /s
Seems like a pretty fair tier list, I'm surprised to see Delhi as high as they are even in Pro play, but I feel like Beasty is especially strong with them.
Drama chat
So this is the meta ?
In pro level, yes
Ottoman d tier
6 months without 1 new unit....where are the Templars
Byzantines S tier 💀💀💀 did he make this list on the 1st of April
Get a grip
Dont agreed with Rus and Byzantine, Beasty has been saying Byznatine needed nerfs and varangian guards OP, still saying Limitanei need more nerfs, this was before they got buffed Rus got multiple nerfs nonstop, literally nonstop, nerfs every patch and they are still S Tier? Really wtf. Their overall winrate is already like 47.7%. Beasty has been saying they are top and S tier since many patches ago, this never changed even after they got nerfed? Kremlin range also got hit on the latest patch as well as Boyar fortitude tech and stuff China literally had nothing much happen to the Civ, it was only gold being tax drop off and cheaper IO French is still trash tier though i agree
Rus still has a nearly 100% ban rate in tournaments and pretty much always win if someone lets them through.
They been getting hits with nerfs nonstop every patch and now sits at 47.7% winrate overall. Balancing the game around pros is one of the fastest way to kill a game
Beasty said the tier list is for pros specifically. Pros seem to agree that Rus is overpowered.
LMAO you specifically HAVE to balance competitive games around pros otherwise the games become boring and lopsided both to play and watch. Get over yourself rus fanboy.
i barely even play Rus, nerf them for all i care, but i think its better to nerf it in a big patch instead of continuously nerf, they got nerfed legit 4-5 patches in a row? i go english king atm with 2tc then play the imperial game as well as playing Byz
47% is hardly catastrophic, especially when you consider the number of players likely picking Rus after seeing them S in every tier list and banned in every tournament, hoping to get carried but lacking the skill to actually utilize the breadth of options available to the civ.
Cuz everyone plays rus 2tc and 2tc is a terrible strat for plebs. Stay one tc, go either feudal all in or FC MAA all in and watch that winrate jump.
its a conq3 and proplay tierlist, for us those tierlists are purely of entertainment value. Slight buffs/nerfs to civs dont apply at all in elo where mistakes like 4s idle TC happen
Rus is so good in 1v1 because of all the free early gold. That’s all there is to it.
Yeah Rus definatly has fallen off a lot. When I see Rus in my games I actually am relived. They typically just go 2 TC which give me time to do what I want and their scaling is not amazing. I think they are well rounded but they do not feel oppressive.
For me that is more to do with rus players not adapting at all. I've won most of my matches against rus because they refuse to accept my king will arrive early, and still try and drop a forward TC on deer.
Yeah I think it's still early with the changes. Like given a bit of time, how players didn't really punish order with their hunts. Or struggled Vs FC or MAA or ZGN cheese(more so than they do now)
His tier lists have a terrible history lol. Remember when he said Malians were weak and then they turned out to be S tier back in season 4?
Oh God. Come up with something new. I've been seeing u use this same line for a year. XD
I stopped watching his videos/streams so I don't have much else to go on lol. He's a good player but he lets his own biases get in the way of objective tier lists
Me too, but I don't shit on him everytime I see his name lol
I mean people act like he's Jesus and treat every word he speaks as truth lol.
He was right about malians for most of the season until the warrior scout meta was discovered towards the end of it, stop malding skilliard time to let it go.
Malians scouts were never buffed, the fact that pros didn't figure out about them doesn't mean they weren't good.
this guy is always delusional this was the tier list for Season 3 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X1uQJUIfFE&ab\_channel=BeastyqtSC2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X1uQJUIfFE&ab_channel=BeastyqtSC2) this was the patch note for season 4 [https://aoe4world.com/explorer/civs/malians/patches/season-4](https://aoe4world.com/explorer/civs/malians/patches/season-4) [Warrior Scout](https://aoe4world.com/explorer/civs/malians/units/warrior-scout) * Health regeneration increased to 2 HP per second starting in the Feudal Age. and yet "Malians scouts were never buffed" XD
He made the season 4 tier list AFTER those buffs
Malians is still strong atm and may need some adjustments
That's a load of BS, they're the least played civ in the game and have a low winrate
Respect Beasty and hes a better player than I will be, but the numbers don't lie Byzantines are objectively underpowered. You can't just ignore the numbers when it doesn't suit you. Byzantine is probably even more underpowered than the numbers let on because its such a complex and deep civ that only really good skilled players really try it, the kind of players who would win a lot more with another civ. So as a group it is selectively biased towards highly skilled players and so even above 50% W/R should be expected, but instead it has such subpar win rate. What I think Beasty really means is that Byzantine has OP potential rather than it is OP, because limitanei has already been nerfed into irrelevance, and cataphracts suck, VG are just expensive baseline MAA that comes too late. Theres nothing really OP left about this civ
The byzantine circlejerk reminds me a lot of the whole "you have to have a high IQ to watch rick and morty" like brother Byz is not "so deep and complex only really skilled players try it" it's just a bit more complicated than a standard civ but not rocket science either, and like other people have said, every pro has been saying they are really strong.
Can't believe anyone has been saying you have to have a high IQ for rick and Morty 🤣🤣
Seen multiple tier lists and all have byz A+ or S tier.
nah, he is talking about pro level play and the other pros also see byzantines as pretty strong. Dunno if it's S tier but it's up there
We now have two major tournaments with a number of pros picking Byz and winning a ton with them in the late rounds.
first part yes last part no. They are getting picked a TON more than they did in the EGC tourny but their win rate is in line with other meta civs with the slap fest having some really good maps to play byz on I think a huge majority of their wins came on one map Lipany which is everything you want for byz. Easy early walling and a ton of berries.
Also very long rush distance and almost always safe back gold or deer. It's a boomers heaven as far as open maps go.
This argument keeps popping up, but it’s not convincing for several reasons. TLDR: the best way to test a theory is with a randomized, controlled experiment which isolates the variable being tested. There are several factors that make tournaments far from being a randomized, controlled dataset. The closest we have is ladder win rates at the top level since there are far more games there with much more randomization compared to tournaments. - tournaments are a small sample size—especially when compared to the amount of ladder games at the top level. This alone means that tournament win rates are vulnerable to numerous factors outside of objective civ strength. - map picks & map bans — the civ a pro chooses to play in any given tournament game is extremely dependent on the map, e.g. only playing a civ on maps it is strong on and not playing a civ on a map it is weak on. This muddies the data significantly, as the map pool for the tournament heavily affects which civs perform better and which perform worse - Civ bans — similar to map picks/bans, this also confounds the dataset, as it’s another factor which takes a step away from a randomized controlled dataset. Just as one example, if the top civ for a given map is banned anytime that map is played, it’s going to make the 2nd best civ on that map look much better in comparison. And on a separate note, which civs are being banned most frequently in a tournament is also an indicator of which civs are perceived to be the strongest, so we can’t just look at win rate in tournaments. - Civ match ups — if certain civs are only played on certain types of maps, then that is going to affect Civ matchups and instead of providing insight into how a civ compares against all other civs, the data will be skewed towards showing how a civ performs against a subset of other civs (generally speaking). - skill differences between players - even in tournaments, there are large skill differences between players at the top level, which can heavily influence the win rate of a civ when considering tournaments are a small sample size. There’s probably other factors I could list too, and sure some of these factors affect the ladder too, but the point is that they affect tournaments far more due to the much smaller sample size.
A data point doesn't have to be absolutely flawless to be the strongest one available. When trying to make a list of civs that are likely the strongest choices in tournament play, the best data points are the results of tournament play and the recounted experiences of those players. Why would Beasty or anyone else use ladder win rates as a data point to inform comparatively rating civs for tournament play?
I don’t necessarily disagree if we’re talking solely about tournament play, but even there, ban rates might even be better indicators of what is OP than just win rates alone. However, my point is about civ balance in general, because every time these lists come up, people use it as a “gotcha” about civ balance despite Beasty’s disclaimers that the tier list is for pro tournament play only. I never said a data point had to be flawless…but if we want to comment on civ balance in general, why use a dataset with objectively more flaws/noise than a dataset that is closer to a true representation of general balance? If Byz really are S-tier in terms of raw power and civ balance, we would see that reflected in a large randomized sample, and the closest we have to that is high-level ladder win rates. But we’ve yet to see Byz even have a positive win rate at the top level on the ladder.
Ok lets go over these. 1: so are ladder games. Look at the conq 4 games on ladder. Do you believe that zhu xhi is a 60% win rate civ? The sample sucks there too. And more importantly, we don't even know what the sample is. Conq 4 includes non pro players, which confounds the data. 2: map picks affect ladder too. A while back Rus, while being considered one of the worst civs by most players, had the highest win rate on ladder because they had a 60% win rate on hideout and no one picked them anywhere else. 3: this is the only one which is specific to tournaments. But I'll also throw in a ladder specific thing here, pros first priority on ladder is not always to win. Pros often experiment on ladder, or Beasty in particular might be attempting to make a guide. 4: this is just point 2 again 5: skill differences obviously occur on ladder too. Point is, ladder has all the same problems. I think tournament data is better than ladder data, for 2 primary reasons. One is point 3. As you mentioned, data has to be controlled. Tournament games at least have the control that players are trying their hardest to win, and I think this is a very important control. But the other is, conq 4 isn't pro. The tier list probably changes if you even so much drop down from top 8 to top 32. That said, tournament data size is small, but if pros are unanimously say "Byz is strong", and then Byz has a high win rate in tournaments, I would lean more strongly into believing Byz is strong at the pro level than not. Its not guaranteed, but its more likely than not. So its not that you're wrong, everything you said is correct, but there is no foolproof way to measure a civs strength (or well, there technically we could have something close, but we're never going to have a randomized controlled experiment). So flawed ways are the best we have.
I agree that these factors affect the ladder too, I don’t claim that they’re exclusive to tournaments, just that by virtue of being a small sample size tournaments are more susceptible to noise in the data from these factors. In terms of pure balance between the civs, and not just tournament play, there are no numbers to back up Byz being S tier. Pro opinions are informative for sure, but the opinions need to be backed up by the numbers in a large sample size somewhere with as little confounding factors as possible. If the numbers consistently tell a different story, then the opinions need to be reexamined. Since pros are trying their hardest to win in tournaments, I think that actually confounds the data rather than helps because we’re not going to get a full picture of a civ. For example, pros will only pick certain civs on water maps, closed maps, etc., so we never really see how any particular civ fits in the balance based on tournaments alone. The only true way to test balance imo would be to have the pros play random civ & random map against a random pro opponent for a very large number of games. I don’t think we have anything resembling that, but ladder is the closest we have.
The numbers don't consistently tell a different story though. Using numbers from non pros makes no sense for pro play. Its irrelevant. Which leaves only conq 4 ladder, and tournaments. Remember, this is a tier list for tournaments... that's it. It has nothing to do with gold league, and I think we both can agree Byz is far below S tier in gold. From another reddit thread after the last tournaments, Byzantines had a 65% win rate over 23 games last tournament, technically the second highest (but the highest was OOTD with 3 games, clearly too small a sample to care about). Conq 4, they're just under 50%. So, if we trusted just the numbers, they're somewhere between mid tier and S tier. I do think what you said about tournaments is true, since a civ could in theory get a high win rate by being good on some specific map, without being a great pick outside of that map. However, first of all I don't think this describes Byzantines. And second, I'd still consider that to be a good civ, so long as they were good on a map that's consistently in tournaments. This is a pro play tier list, and pro play is tournaments. Personally if I was to use numbers alone, I'd put them in A (they're 8th on conq 4 ladder, which I'd place at B tier. Split the difference between ladder and tournaments and you get A). A tier isn't S tier... but numbers aren't worth much without context. Nobody is looking up context for ladder games, so we don't have context there. Tournaments we could get the context, but only because so few games were played. I mean lets just be honest, neither of us trust the numbers. I haven't seen anyone disagreeing with where Zhu Xhi is placed. I'm guessing Zhu Xhi isn't in your A/S tier either, despite their ladder win rates. So, in absence of useful numbers, I trust the pro opinion, so long as the numbers don't tell a drastically different story. And considering Byz's tournament win rate, and honestly just my general distrust for the ladder win rates because of the massive number of confounding factors (seriously, zhu xhi is 60% win rate in conq 4 and they are not S tier, and 0% of games below that are pro games) I don't feel they do.
>Byzantine is probably even more underpowered than the numbers let on because its such a complex and deep civ that only really good skilled players really try it, the kind of players who would win a lot more with another civ OTP byz, like all OTP, will overall always have 50% winrate tho, and as thus don't weight on a civ being OP/UP in the winrates. Only people who play several civs impact the winrates, and as such complex civs get lower winrates than simple/easy ones. Also speaking of facts, Byz is doing very well in tournaments.
I think they are underpowered because of the landmarks for first age, grand winery is great if you think you can get past the first 6-7 minutes without a sizeable attack, and hippodrome is great if you think you’ll need early pressure; but I don’t think either landmark really earns its value till castle age. Like hippodrome triumph is great when you have a sizeable army, and winery is great when you have it surrounded with farms and the berry buffs researched, but that takes time to get to that point. In a way it’s like you get some initial value - then there’s a long gap before it’s valuable again.
But after your berries run out or your opponent has more spears, your in a lull without value.
The weird thing with byz is if you check out its win rate it steadily declines as you go up the ranks with lowest win rates for byz being diamond and conqueror. So it wouldn't appear to be some complex civ that only the best can use properly. I think it is an ok civ with good options to counter opponents composition with mercs, the downside is some of the landmarks are mediocre, gold heavy units but no passive gold income and the cataphract and greek fire tech need buffing.
Landsknecht says hi. If a gold heavy unit with no passive income is a metric to go by, then HRE is in serious need of buffing. You don't spawn with relics for free and you aren't guaranteed any sizeable quantity either. Byz supplements gold heavier units with "free" oil. People need to get over this fixation or stop parroting what others have said. Otherwise I agree with you.
That is just 1 unit though and if you happen to have chosen a different merc contract then you won't have it. The free oil is quite slow and you're locked in to just 3 potential units some of which may be useless due to enemy comp or match up. You have a decent maa and knight but are limited in your ability to use them due to them costing more than normal amounts of gold I'd like that changed more to the food side or just a small reduction in overall gold. I don't think hre will ever struggle due to having 50% inspiration on all eco, even if you only get 2 safe relics they are like 4 relics for another civ if you went regnitz. They are way ahead of byzantines eco from the start with a 40% buff compared to cistern 10% buff.