59saintdane
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2014
- Messages
- 230
So I realize that there are already 2 fairly recent civ tier lists in this forum. However, this one is different because it is not based on the opinion of one person, but on the community as a whole. Your opinions that are expressed in this thread, rather than being simply accepted or rejected by the OP, will always count toward this tier list.
There are 5 tiers. Top tier, Upper tier, Mid tier, Lower tier, and Bottom tier. To contribute to the placement of the civilizations, simply state which civilizations you think belong in which tier. Being placed in the top tier by anyone gives a civ a score of +2, upper tier is +1, mid tier is +0, lower tier is -1, and bottom tier is -2. (Even though you can directly affect the rankings without justifications, feel free to discuss and debate the relative merits of the civs--after all, you may affect someone else's rating.) The ranking of a civ is based on its average score (so yes, giving a civ +0 will actually affect things!): an average of less than -1.5 is bottom tier, an average between -1.5 and -0.5 is lower tier, an average between -0.5 and 0.5 is mid tier, and average between 0.5 and 1.5 is upper tier, and an average greater than 1.5 is top tier.
You can format your rankings in any way you like, as long as it's clear where you're placing each civ. So if you're ranking a few civs, it's fine to say something like
Babylon: Top tier
or, if you're doing a lot in one post, you could just as well say
Top Tier:
Babylon, ...
You cannot vote for a civ more than once. (obviously) However, you can change your vote for a given civ--just make sure to say that you are changing your vote, and note what your previous rating was--that makes it easier to change.
You don't have to vote for every civ. If you want, you could only vote for one civ. Don't feel pressured to rate as many civs as you can, if you don't really know a civ, it's better to stay silent on it than just give it mid tier.
For those of you who are posting after this rule was implemented, please put the civs in alphabetical order within the tiers. It makes it much easier to enter the data.
If a ranking appears to be trolling the thread--that is, it deviates significantly from the average and is not supported by good reasoning, it will be investigated and potentially discounted.
I will update each civ's score frequently. I will not update the rankings as frequently, because that's a good deal harder to do. How frequently I do so will be determined by how much activity this thread gets, but the first time I will place the civs in tiers based on how you guys have rated them will be the end of the month. Until then, go ahead. Tell us how good or bad each civ is, and in a couple weeks you'll get a community created civ tier list.
Hall of Fame (Civ scores):
Civ tiers:
Top tier: These civs have excellent bonuses that are useful in all scenarios.
Upper tier: These civs are also very good, although their bonuses may be slightly weaker or luck dependent. They can perform as well as top tier civs in some circumstances.
Mid tier: These civs are solid and can generally perform well, although their bonuses tend to be mediocre or fairly situational.
Lower tier: These civs have weak bonuses and are often very situational. While they are still playable and balanced, they generally cannot hope to compete with the upper tiers.
Bottom tier: These civs are very weak and have near worthless or highly situational uniques. While they're still generally better than a generic civ, the difference often isn't very noticeable.
Changelog:
18 Oct - added a changelog; added descriptions for the tiers; made first entry in the Hall of Fame; clarified some instructions; added a rule where new entries are to be in alphabetical order.
There are 5 tiers. Top tier, Upper tier, Mid tier, Lower tier, and Bottom tier. To contribute to the placement of the civilizations, simply state which civilizations you think belong in which tier. Being placed in the top tier by anyone gives a civ a score of +2, upper tier is +1, mid tier is +0, lower tier is -1, and bottom tier is -2. (Even though you can directly affect the rankings without justifications, feel free to discuss and debate the relative merits of the civs--after all, you may affect someone else's rating.) The ranking of a civ is based on its average score (so yes, giving a civ +0 will actually affect things!): an average of less than -1.5 is bottom tier, an average between -1.5 and -0.5 is lower tier, an average between -0.5 and 0.5 is mid tier, and average between 0.5 and 1.5 is upper tier, and an average greater than 1.5 is top tier.
You can format your rankings in any way you like, as long as it's clear where you're placing each civ. So if you're ranking a few civs, it's fine to say something like
Babylon: Top tier
or, if you're doing a lot in one post, you could just as well say
Top Tier:
Babylon, ...
You cannot vote for a civ more than once. (obviously) However, you can change your vote for a given civ--just make sure to say that you are changing your vote, and note what your previous rating was--that makes it easier to change.
You don't have to vote for every civ. If you want, you could only vote for one civ. Don't feel pressured to rate as many civs as you can, if you don't really know a civ, it's better to stay silent on it than just give it mid tier.
For those of you who are posting after this rule was implemented, please put the civs in alphabetical order within the tiers. It makes it much easier to enter the data.
If a ranking appears to be trolling the thread--that is, it deviates significantly from the average and is not supported by good reasoning, it will be investigated and potentially discounted.
I will update each civ's score frequently. I will not update the rankings as frequently, because that's a good deal harder to do. How frequently I do so will be determined by how much activity this thread gets, but the first time I will place the civs in tiers based on how you guys have rated them will be the end of the month. Until then, go ahead. Tell us how good or bad each civ is, and in a couple weeks you'll get a community created civ tier list.
Hall of Fame (Civ scores):
Spoiler :
1. Inca 2.00
2. Poland 1.86
3. Babylon 1.83
4. Korea 1.67
5. Maya 1.57
6. Aztec 1.17
7. Ethiopia 1.14
8. Arabia 1.00
9. England 0.86
10. Shoshone 0.71
11. Persia 0.67
12. Celts 0.67
13. Siam 0.67
14. Egypt 0.57
15. Huns 0.29
16. Mongolia 0.29
17. Rome 0.29
18. Brazil 0.17
19. China 0.14
20. Sweden 0.14
21. Zulu 0.14
22. Greece 0.00
23. Portugal 0.00
24. Morocco 0.00
25. Spain -0.17
26. Russia -0.29
27. Austria -0.29
28. America -0.33
29. Songhai -0.33
30. Assyria -0.50
31. Germany -0.50
32. Netherlands -0.57
33. Carthage -0.67
34. France -0.83
35. India -0.86
36. Indonesia -0.86
37. Venice -1.14
38. Iroquois -1.14
39. Polynesia -1.20
40. Byzantium -1.33
41. Denmark -1.57
42. Japan -1.67
43. Ottomans -1.71
2. Poland 1.86
3. Babylon 1.83
4. Korea 1.67
5. Maya 1.57
6. Aztec 1.17
7. Ethiopia 1.14
8. Arabia 1.00
9. England 0.86
10. Shoshone 0.71
11. Persia 0.67
12. Celts 0.67
13. Siam 0.67
14. Egypt 0.57
15. Huns 0.29
16. Mongolia 0.29
17. Rome 0.29
18. Brazil 0.17
19. China 0.14
20. Sweden 0.14
21. Zulu 0.14
22. Greece 0.00
23. Portugal 0.00
24. Morocco 0.00
25. Spain -0.17
26. Russia -0.29
27. Austria -0.29
28. America -0.33
29. Songhai -0.33
30. Assyria -0.50
31. Germany -0.50
32. Netherlands -0.57
33. Carthage -0.67
34. France -0.83
35. India -0.86
36. Indonesia -0.86
37. Venice -1.14
38. Iroquois -1.14
39. Polynesia -1.20
40. Byzantium -1.33
41. Denmark -1.57
42. Japan -1.67
43. Ottomans -1.71
Civ tiers:
Top tier: These civs have excellent bonuses that are useful in all scenarios.
Upper tier: These civs are also very good, although their bonuses may be slightly weaker or luck dependent. They can perform as well as top tier civs in some circumstances.
Mid tier: These civs are solid and can generally perform well, although their bonuses tend to be mediocre or fairly situational.
Lower tier: These civs have weak bonuses and are often very situational. While they are still playable and balanced, they generally cannot hope to compete with the upper tiers.
Bottom tier: These civs are very weak and have near worthless or highly situational uniques. While they're still generally better than a generic civ, the difference often isn't very noticeable.
Changelog:
18 Oct - added a changelog; added descriptions for the tiers; made first entry in the Hall of Fame; clarified some instructions; added a rule where new entries are to be in alphabetical order.