Winning percentages

[NaCl_duke]

I was curious how good the new Alchemists are, and checked how often they win in duels.
A lot!! 71% of the time. Big jump from the winning percentages of other Civ's. Next best are Tinkerers with 59%
Riverfolk are neither popular nor successful....
Traders are less likely picked than any other Civ, but have a better winning percentages than 5 other civs.
The table below is for 2 player games this year with any configuration or player strength. Maybe the distribution is different for Strong and above players
Not sure if the link to the image of the table works. Difficult to make a nicely formatted post. Let me know if you cannot see the image or if it comes with weird ads. I am using "snipboard.io".

[GuidovW]

The Alchemists were fine before they were changed. New Alchemists is just plain broken. In total, they will give at least:
4 free advances (worth around 8-9 resources, but also very strong in racing for landmarks)
5-6 resources from the black die + bonus (considering you have 1 unlucky roll every so often)
8-18 VP from 1 red die roll in Age V.

Worst case that is 4 advanced worth 8 resources, 5 additional resources and 8 VP.
Best case you are looking at 4 advances worth 10-11 resources, 6 additional resources and 18 VP.

Please tell me which civ even comes remotely close to this

[sotze]

I was curious how good the new Alchemists are, and checked how often they win in duels.
A lot!! 71% of the time. Big jump from the winning percentages of other Civ's. Next best are Tinkerers with 59%
Riverfolk are neither popular nor successful....
Traders are less likely picked than any other Civ, but have a better winning percentages than 5 other civs.
The table below is for 2 player games this year with any configuration or player strength. Maybe the distribution is different for Strong and above players
Not sure if the link to the image of the table works. Difficult to make a nicely formatted post. Let me know if you cannot see the image or if it comes with weird ads. I am using "snipboard.io".

How do you get the game stats?

[NaCl_duke]

How do you get the game stats?

Its a lot of daily work. You can check out recent games from the Tapestry game page (click on the "Number of games played" link). I always wanted to find high scoring games to learn from good players. My Excel skills went up. My Tapestry ELO not so much

[NaCl_duke]

It gets worse when you just look at games with the latest adjustments:
80% wins (Marriage and Renaissance removed)
Three player games are not much better: 62% (Latest adjustments, all tap cards included). Average should be 33% win rate for 3-player games.....
Riverfolk have a much higher chance at 3 player apparently
(No filtering for player ranking)

[RichardWest]

Very surprising to see Nomads that low. They should be way higher. I guess it's probably a result of lower ranked players not knowing how to play them (making the mistake of putting too many income buildings in capital city).

[NaCl_duke]

Very surprising to see Nomads that low. They should be way higher. I guess it's probably a result of lower ranked players not knowing how to play them (making the mistake of putting too many income buildings in capital city).

I felt the same way, but when I looked at the numbers it got worse with player level. Below is for 2-player games played with the current arena settings (but not just arena games). Different tables are for minimum level of both players. If both players are "Strong" or better Nomads have the lowest wining percentage.
And not surprisingly winning percentage of Alchemists goes up with player level

[RichardWest]

Truly shocking to see Nomads that low. They are a very tactically flexible civ, but I suspect many people miss that and just go E+M. Nomads can effectively play any track combo. Should be mid tier imo.

Other surprises:
- How are Merrymakers not in the top 10 for games with expert players???
- Mystics are way higher than I would have guessed.
- Infiltrators higher than I would have guessed.

Im glad to see Inventors in the bottom half of civs. Imo they have been the most overrated civ among 400+ elo players for quite a while. Trash civ, but you get the odd game here and there with an early radio that gives people a warped view of how good they are on average.

[Lauterbuc]

Fascinating stuff. Thanks for putting in the work!

[Demonocrat]

Got back into the game after a long hiatus. The last few days were spent getting used to the official adjustments ; I do play occasionally my physical copy with these, but it's mostly 4-5 player games, with the Art track and F&F, so a very different beast. These stats are very interesting.

The Alchemists are so heavily overtuned it's not even funny, which the stats clearly show. They feel as oppressive (or even more) as 3-player base game Historians were. Is there talk of banning them in future Arena formats?

The Nomads being the worst doesn't surprise me much. Strong players can leverage their unique trait very well, I agree, but strong opponents can also shut them down through aggressive counterplay.

The Mystics and Craftsmen (among Experts) win much more than I would have expected. I should go watch a couple Experts play them, as I find them both pretty average. How much should someone focus on their unique traits?

Futurists overperforming and Renegades underperforming among Experts makes some sense to me (Futurists have potential, but require finesse, whereas Renegades are decent but have a somewhat low ceiling), although it might come from a lower sample size. Traders might also be a victim of lower sample size. I don't know what to make of them, and I would have guessed that even Experts would struggle to make them work.