Is there a way to only match against low level

[SupaKops]

I'm trash at the game, like i'm not into the meta build, looking online for crazy build order or anything, i'm a level 10 with 5 hours trying to have fun in the game. Matchmaking puts me with/against level 200,300 even 400 who clearly knows what they are doing, resulting in just mme being destroyed and absolutly learning nothing with the added bonus oof having 0 fun.

I would appreciate some suggestionns.

[SupaKops]

I just noticed the ranked button and i was just playing quick matches, i guess that it might be a good start.

[WTC:2Planes 3Buildings SteelMelt]

Nah game mplayer designed poorly

[NoobusMaximus]

Originally posted by SupaKops:

I'm trash at the game, like i'm not into the meta build, looking online for crazy build order or anything, i'm a level 10 with 5 hours trying to have fun in the game. Matchmaking puts me with/against level 200,300 even 400 who clearly knows what they are doing, resulting in just mme being destroyed and absolutly learning nothing with the added bonus oof having 0 fun.

I would appreciate some suggestionns.

Matchmaking in all competitive games starts at average level. So you need to lose a few games to reach your level. Do some Villager rushes or something to make this pass faster and not feel as bad about losing. You can check your opponents skill level by searching for them on aoe4world.com (it's called Elo and it's on the bottom left side). 1000 Elo is average.

You can check the Elo distribution here: https://aoe4world.com/stats/rm_solo/ladder , in the second graph. For example, someone that's 800 Elo is in bottom 20% of players in terms of skill. This helps translate the Elo into something meaningful. I don't imagine you'll get many people that are complete beginners, but don't get discouraged by the level, it doesn't translate well to skill. Elo is the best for this.

[Lisccc]

Originally posted by NoobusMaximus:

Matchmaking in all competitive games starts at average level. So you need to lose a few games to reach your level.

Its weird tho isnt it. Why dont they start new players at 0...or 500?

[NoobusMaximus]

Originally posted by Lisccc:

Originally posted by NoobusMaximus:

Matchmaking in all competitive games starts at average level. So you need to lose a few games to reach your level.

Its weird tho isnt it. Why dont they start new players at 0...or 500?

I was wondering the same thing. But someone posted some math on AoE2 Reddit sub, and apparently the average Elo always converges to the starting Elo they pick.

[FloosWorld]

Originally posted by Lisccc:

Originally posted by NoobusMaximus:

Matchmaking in all competitive games starts at average level. So you need to lose a few games to reach your level.

Its weird tho isnt it. Why dont they start new players at 0...or 500?

Because then 500, 0 or whatever value you'll pick would become the new average.

Spirit of the Law, an AoE 2 YouTuber, made a video about this issue earlier this year:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx2Z7pnk17M

I'm not entirely sure how AoE 4 handles its matchmaking for new players but in AoE 2, despite the stating rating being 1000, the game will match you against players on 700-800 rating on your first few games and your Elo gain/loss is much bigger. I assume, since both games use the same matchmaking system, it will be very similar in AoE 4.

[Lisccc]

Originally posted by FloosWorld:

Because then 500, 0 or whatever value you'll pick would become the new average.
.

The average can never be 0 unless noone plays. There will be some decline in the overall rating of the population but there are ways to fix that (like giving bonus MMR gain when ppl go on winstreaks). But the closer to 0 the starting rating will be the further away from the average MMR it will be.

There will always be metrics that arent calculated when trying to pinpoint someones true matchmaking/ skillevel. Previous experience in other RTS games, talent for picking up a game, civ played etc etc.

We have to keep in mind that the role of MMR is to create even matchups. Right now it doesnt fulfil that role at 1000 rating.

[Judeo-communism]

No, not really. You should be learning from your losses, though. Watch videos, check out guides, observe top competitive players and how they play. Have a solid understanding of the game so you can self analyze your matches and have a good gameplan of what you should and shouldn't do for your civ and against enemy civ. This is a skill based game, so the only thing stopping you from beating level 500+ players is your skill. Most level 500+ players can play forever but still suck, so all you gotta do is be better than them.

[FloosWorld]

Originally posted by Lisccc:

Originally posted by FloosWorld:

Because then 500, 0 or whatever value you'll pick would become the new average.
.

The average can never be 0 unless noone plays. There will be some decline in the overall rating of the population but there are ways to fix that (like giving bonus MMR gain when ppl go on winstreaks). But the closer to 0 the starting rating will be the further away from the average MMR it will be.

There will always be metrics that arent calculated when trying to pinpoint someones true matchmaking/ skillevel. Previous experience in other RTS games, talent for picking up a game, civ played etc etc.

We have to keep in mind that the role of MMR is to create even matchups. Right now it doesnt fulfil that role at 1000 rating.

Fair point regarding 0 starting rating, however, the problem would then still persist if you use any value that isn't, let's say sub 100. It would be the same problem just with slightly different numbers.

In the older AoE 2 versions for example, the starting rating was 1600, so if you want to translate that to DE, a 1400 player roughly equals a 800 player (if my math doesn't fail me).

In legacy AoE 3, it was even possible to get a negative rating when you keep loosing but the game didn't communicate that because it hid its ratings behind tiers (Conscript, Private, Lance Corporal etc.) that were also bound to levels as you can see in that thread: https://aoe3.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=st&fn=1&tn=29516

[Lisccc]

Originally posted by FloosWorld:

Fair point regarding 0 starting rating, however, the problem would then still persist if you use any value that isn't, let's say sub 100. It would be the same problem just with slightly different numbers.

In the older AoE 2 versions for example, the starting rating was 1600, so if you want to translate that to DE, a 1400 player roughly equals a 800 player (if my math doesn't fail me).

In legacy AoE 3, it was even possible to get a negative rating when you keep loosing but the game didn't communicate that because it hid its ratings behind tiers (Conscript, Private, Lance Corporal etc.) that were also bound to levels as you can see in that thread: https://aoe3.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=st&fn=1&tn=29516

Dont listen to youtube guys and thread creators for a second. Just use common sense.

If you change the starting MMR to 0. What type of players will u see between 0-500? Like 99% beginners. Guys with limited numbers of games played or limited skills due to various reasons.

At the current starting rating of 1000 you will see a huge skillgap almost every game. I see guys in my games soloing 3 opponents with ease. In the same games is ee guys aging up to age 2 after 8-10 minutes and not making villagers past the 30 mark. Guys with thousands of games vs guys who are playing their first online game. Due to the skillgap winning or losing teamgames is for a big part about luck.

Lets imagine we drop the starting mmr to 0. Do you really think the guys with 1000s of games who are like 1000-1200 will be 0-200 rated?

Sure there will be some deflation. But nothing that cant be fixed by adding win streak bonusses etc.

The only type of game this MMR system should be used in is a F2P game. In F2P games there are issues with smurfs flooding lower elo to troll and grief new players.

[FloosWorld]

Originally posted by Lisccc:

Originally posted by FloosWorld:

Fair point regarding 0 starting rating, however, the problem would then still persist if you use any value that isn't, let's say sub 100. It would be the same problem just with slightly different numbers.

In the older AoE 2 versions for example, the starting rating was 1600, so if you want to translate that to DE, a 1400 player roughly equals a 800 player (if my math doesn't fail me).

In legacy AoE 3, it was even possible to get a negative rating when you keep loosing but the game didn't communicate that because it hid its ratings behind tiers (Conscript, Private, Lance Corporal etc.) that were also bound to levels as you can see in that thread: https://aoe3.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=st&fn=1&tn=29516

Dont listen to youtube guys and thread creators for a second. Just use common sense.

If you change the starting MMR to 0. What type of players will u see between 0-500? Like 99% beginners. Guys with limited numbers of games played or limited skills due to various reasons.

At the current starting rating of 1000 you will see a huge skillgap almost every game. I see guys in my games soloing 3 opponents with ease. In the same games is ee guys aging up to age 2 after 8-10 minutes and not making villagers past the 30 mark. Guys with thousands of games vs guys who are playing their first online game. Due to the skillgap winning or losing teamgames is for a big part about luck.

Lets imagine we drop the starting mmr to 0. Do you really think the guys with 1000s of games who are like 1000-1200 will be 0-200 rated?

Sure there will be some deflation. But nothing that cant be fixed by adding win streak bonusses etc.

The only type of game this MMR system should be used in is a F2P game. In F2P games there are issues with smurfs flooding lower elo to troll and grief new players.

I don't listen to them which is why I used examples of AoE 2 and 3.

[NoobusMaximus]

Originally posted by Lisccc:

Originally posted by FloosWorld:

Because then 500, 0 or whatever value you'll pick would become the new average.
.

The average can never be 0 unless noone plays. There will be some decline in the overall rating of the population but there are ways to fix that (like giving bonus MMR gain when ppl go on winstreaks). But the closer to 0 the starting rating will be the further away from the average MMR it will be.

There will always be metrics that arent calculated when trying to pinpoint someones true matchmaking/ skillevel. Previous experience in other RTS games, talent for picking up a game, civ played etc etc.

We have to keep in mind that the role of MMR is to create even matchups. Right now it doesnt fulfil that role at 1000 rating.

I imagine if they choose 0 as an extreme example, everyone's rating will converge towards 0. Because you can't demote any further.

[NoobusMaximus]

https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/1g425y2/you_cannot_just_lower_starting_elo/

This is the proof apparently.

[erb]

Play at least 100 matches in whatever it is. It takes a long time for the system to balance out.

Players shouldn't expect to feel like they know what they're doing until they reach 500hrs played.

The common metric for mastering any task is 10,000 hours of experience.

[Lisccc]

Originally posted by erb:

Play at least 100 matches in whatever it is. It takes a long time for the system to balance out.

Players shouldn't expect to feel like they know what they're doing until they reach 500hrs played.

The common metric for mastering any task is 10,000 hours of experience.

That would be great if you didnt have opponents and teammates who played less than 100 games. Or less then 10 games even.

Its not about being angry since teammates where bad or opponents too good or w/e. Its about quality match ups that are somewhat even.

I watched Corvinus rated 3v3 just now (currently 2058 in 1v1). The direct opponent on his side was a max 500 1v1 rated player who was 600 rated in team games. You could guess what the outcome was.

Stuff like that isnt fun for anyone.