Which Elo is low and which good?

[Ezio]

0-1000 low?
1000-1300 fine?
1300-1500 pretty good?
i dont know :D

[FighterJet27]

If you're getting ratings off aoe2.net then here is what my experience showed me, I haven't played multi in a while, but my unranked score would have averaged around 1660, with my highest ever being about 1720 when I play everyday and nearly all day for a bit there lol.

The difference in skill for 2 people at 1200 and 1350 would be insignificant, but the difference between 2 people at 1550 and 1700 would be massive, the 1700 player would be significantly more likely to win. Its harder to gain score than it is to lose it after all, so getting that high, you gotta know how to play

THIS IS FOR UNRANKED on AOE2.net

0-1000 UBER noob or troll, would be challenged by easy ai and william wallace campaign

1000-1300 Below average, I'd say they would be comparable to moderate ai at the best of times, but they may also be new, and the score hasn't had enough time to reflect they're skill

1300 - 1400 Average, most of the time they can play, I wouldn't expect them to do anything impressive, probably not totally familiar with the game yet

1400 - 1500 Assuming they played enough games for the score to properly reflect they're score, they would know how to play well enough to be reliable and understand the games mechanics enough, in a team game they 50-50 can hold their own

1500 - 1600 Comparable to hard ai most of the time, has strategy and probably has played for long enough to have a good understanding of the games mechanics, possible even looking at the pros on youtube to learn

1600 - 1700 They're good, can beat extreme ai pretty consistently, my score was about 1600 when i finally beat extreme ai in 1v1 on gold rush, considers anyone below 1400 a noob not worth playing with sometimes lol. We used to kick anyone below 1500 because they weren't fun to play against.

>1700 Now they have studied they're aoe2, spent time to understand the game in much depth, They've watched all SpiritOfTheLaw's videos lol, probably been playing for many years, plays they would definately make the top 2% and perhaps even the top 1%. Which is why I couldn't stay there lol. Would probably even beat 3 1400 players in a 3v1. They can adapt to most situations and will know how to surprise you.

My fave surprise strat that I used was to send a little army to 1 side of the enemy base and try an give them impression that I'm committing, they would send nearly all the army to deal with it, then I would send in a large army from the other direction or perhaps even cut through trees, being unexpected is a winning strategy that >1600 use more or less, people <1550 can be very predictable for >1650. Do that to a <1500 player and that simply cannot adapt and too much damage is done to recover.

Personally, I've been playing since i was like 7, am now 25, BUT, never took it seriously until DE, I spent plenty of time just watching the pros on youtube and SpiritOfTheLaw, made friends with good players and got them to teach me and you whatever i could. I played like all day everyday for a while there.



You and whoever reads this better appreciate the length and effort of this explanation because I can't believe i typed all that for no good reason lol.

[TheDiaper]

(1) Unranked elo literally means nothing, as players can farm their way up by bashing noobs or playing with weird settings. On the other hand, top players have ♥♥♥♥♥♥ unranked elo as most of them only play among themselves.

(2) TG elo is also a bit of a lackluster as top players dont play on the ladder, as well as some "BUG" in the past which favoured stackers. So some players TG elo are somewhat inflated and need some time to adjust.

(3) Now for the 1v1 elo, as the median is roughly 1050, anyone above 1050 is above average. Having 1200 and 1400 elo makes you the top 20% and 5% on the ladder respectively. So with DEs standard, anyone above 1200 should be considered solid. HOWEVER, before DE there was a platform called Voobly, with all the top players playing on it. The median 1v1 elo for the non-noob lobby is around 1500, which is like 1250 DE. So with vooblys standard, you need at least 1400 DE to be considered solid

[Faraël]

Originally posted by FighterJet27:

If you're getting ratings off aoe2.net then here is what my experience showed me, I haven't played multi in a while, but my unranked score would have averaged around 1660, with my highest ever being about 1720 when I play everyday and nearly all day for a bit there lol.

The difference in skill for 2 people at 1200 and 1350 would be insignificant, but the difference between 2 people at 1550 and 1700 would be massive, the 1700 player would be significantly more likely to win. Its harder to gain score than it is to lose it after all, so getting that high, you gotta know how to play

THIS IS FOR UNRANKED on AOE2.net

0-1000 UBER noob or troll, would be challenged by easy ai and william wallace campaign

1000-1300 Below average, I'd say they would be comparable to moderate ai at the best of times, but they may also be new, and the score hasn't had enough time to reflect they're skill

1300 - 1400 Average, most of the time they can play, I wouldn't expect them to do anything impressive, probably not totally familiar with the game yet

1400 - 1500 Assuming they played enough games for the score to properly reflect they're score, they would know how to play well enough to be reliable and understand the games mechanics enough, in a team game they 50-50 can hold their own

1500 - 1600 Comparable to hard ai most of the time, has strategy and probably has played for long enough to have a good understanding of the games mechanics, possible even looking at the pros on youtube to learn

1600 - 1700 They're good, can beat extreme ai pretty consistently, my score was about 1600 when i finally beat extreme ai in 1v1 on gold rush, considers anyone below 1400 a noob not worth playing with sometimes lol. We used to kick anyone below 1500 because they weren't fun to play against.

>1700 Now they have studied they're aoe2, spent time to understand the game in much depth, They've watched all SpiritOfTheLaw's videos lol, probably been playing for many years, plays they would definately make the top 2% and perhaps even the top 1%. Which is why I couldn't stay there lol. Would probably even beat 3 1400 players in a 3v1. They can adapt to most situations and will know how to surprise you.

My fave surprise strat that I used was to send a little army to 1 side of the enemy base and try an give them impression that I'm committing, they would send nearly all the army to deal with it, then I would send in a large army from the other direction or perhaps even cut through trees, being unexpected is a winning strategy that >1600 use more or less, people <1550 can be very predictable for >1650. Do that to a <1500 player and that simply cannot adapt and too much damage is done to recover.

Personally, I've been playing since i was like 7, am now 25, BUT, never took it seriously until DE, I spent plenty of time just watching the pros on youtube and SpiritOfTheLaw, made friends with good players and got them to teach me and you whatever i could. I played like all day everyday for a while there.



You and whoever reads this better appreciate the length and effort of this explanation because I can't believe i typed all that for no good reason lol.

That's a nice comment but unaccurate!

I think you might be overestimating the 1600-1700 ELO

I'm currently rated 1699 and increasing but I still can't beat the extrem AI in 1vs1 Arabia (except with the archer rush) and according to your description I'd feet in the 1500-1600 ELO.

I consider myself of being above average but not really good.

I'm not using the shortcuts, I can't quick wall or anything like that (everytime I build something I have to look at the bottom left corner to pick it manually except for the farms&houses).

So for me your description of the >1700 would be suitable for the >1900


In ranked 1vs1 games I have 1100 ELO which puts me in the top 40%

I'm ranked 12 000 out of 35 000 people

[Andy the X]

Originally posted by HongeyKong (Busty Girl):

(1) Unranked elo literally means nothing, as players can farm their way up by bashing noobs or playing with weird settings. On the other hand, top players have ♥♥♥♥♥♥ unranked elo as most of them only play among themselves.

(2) TG elo is also a bit of a lackluster as top players dont play on the ladder, as well as some "BUG" in the past which favoured stackers. So some players TG elo are somewhat inflated and need some time to adjust.

(3) Now for the 1v1 elo, as the median is roughly 1050, anyone above 1050 is above average. Having 1200 and 1400 elo makes you the top 20% and 5% on the ladder respectively. So with DEs standard, anyone above 1200 should be considered solid. HOWEVER, before DE there was a platform called Voobly, with all the top players playing on it. The median 1v1 elo for the non-noob lobby is around 1500, which is like 1250 DE. So with vooblys standard, you need at least 1400 DE to be considered solid

Yes, I agree.
Only Ranked Match ELO can tell how good a player is.
Unranked ELO tends to be dramatically higher (200 - 500) than ranked.

And 100 ELO difference is A LOT! I can not beat a player 100 ELO better than me most of the time. And I usually crush somebody 100 ELO below me.


I think the overall skill level (in 1:1 RM) is pretty high even in the midfield.
For example: My ranking usually is between 950 - 1000, so slightly below average.

I have +100 games, know buildorders, use hotkeys, and have a good general understanding of the game. I would like to say, I am decent (Still a lot of room for improvement, though).
But I am still only in the bottom half of the playerbase. So sombody new to the game has a litte bit of work to do if he wants to get anywhere near 1000 ELO i would say.

[Ezio]

ty guys

[theworld]

Originally posted by HongeyKong (Busty Girl):

(1) Unranked elo literally means nothing, as players can farm their way up by bashing noobs or playing with weird settings. On the other hand, top players have ♥♥♥♥♥♥ unranked elo as most of them only play among themselves.

Not a word of it is true.

7 out of 10 top 1v1 ranked have over 2k unranked, 2 have <2k but 90%+ winrate, and the last one has no rating at all.

"The bashing noobs" doesn't work as much in unranked, because you get either 1 point max, or even no points at all if they're around 1300 or less. And if you play weird modes, nobody worthwhile will join.

There's a guy who's #99 in unranked with 44%, think he's bashing noobs with that winrate?

[Kenvert]

Originally posted by HongeyKong (Busty Girl):

(1) Unranked elo literally means nothing, as players can farm their way up by bashing noobs or playing with weird settings. On the other hand, top players have ♥♥♥♥♥♥ unranked elo as most of them only play among themselves.

(2) TG elo is also a bit of a lackluster as top players dont play on the ladder, as well as some "BUG" in the past which favoured stackers. So some players TG elo are somewhat inflated and need some time to adjust.

(3) Now for the 1v1 elo, as the median is roughly 1050, anyone above 1050 is above average. Having 1200 and 1400 elo makes you the top 20% and 5% on the ladder respectively. So with DEs standard, anyone above 1200 should be considered solid. HOWEVER, before DE there was a platform called Voobly, with all the top players playing on it. The median 1v1 elo for the non-noob lobby is around 1500, which is like 1250 DE. So with vooblys standard, you need at least 1400 DE to be considered solid

This!
Actually I can't confirm (1) because I never played unranked, but (2) and (3) are right!

[TheDiaper]

Not a word of it is true.

7 out of 10 top 1v1 ranked have over 2k unranked, 2 have <2k but 90%+ winrate, and the last one has no rating at all.

2k is S.H.I.T when the "top unranked players" are 2k4+. Tim is the only top player with high unranked elo probably becoz hes the only one who plays a lot with the "top unranked players" in lobby (aka chinese non-top players). And hes probably one of the source of the unranked elo of "real top players". You might not know this, but the top players have their own 2k TG (voobly ofcoz) group, they will look for players when they have the mood for TGs.

"The bashing noobs" doesn't work as much in unranked, because you get either 1 point max, or even no points at all if they're around 1300 or less.

You cant farm to the very top, but you can farm to a elo higher than your real level with more or less zero risk if you cherry pick. There were also a lot of 70%+ winrate non-top players on voobly back then.

And if you play weird modes, nobody worthwhile will join.

Sometimes people dont check the settings before clicking ready, especially joining through aoe2.net. Some people just dont write all the settings in the room title.

There's a guy who's #99 in unranked with 44%, think he's bashing noobs with that winrate?

Im not saying all the "top unranked players" are ♥♥♥♥ and only farm. But how many of them are also top players on 1v1 the ladder? Close to none right? Let alone those "non-top unranked players".

Apart from those I mentioned, there are also other reasons making the unranked elo meaningless. It includes both 1v1 and TG, meaning some players elo might be inflated if they were playing TGs with players better than themselves all along. Free map picking is also an issue since the voobly days, a BF expert can be trash in other maps, vice versa.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[theworld]

My bubble? You were the one saying "Unranked elo literally means nothing", and now you've conceded that not many "are also top players on 1v1 the ladder". Came a long distance, haven't you?

[TheDiaper]

Originally posted by TheWorld:

My bubble? You were the one saying "Unranked elo literally means nothing", and now you've conceded that not many "are also top players on 1v1 the ladder". Came a long distance, haven't you?

So...... Your mother is female, my mother female. Is your mother my mother?

[TheDiaper]

Tim is something becoz hes highly rated in RANKED. Not becoz hes highly rated in UNRANKED, get your logic right.

[FighterJet27]

Originally posted by TheWorld:

My bubble? You were the one saying "Unranked elo literally means nothing", and now you've conceded that not many "are also top players on 1v1 the ladder". Came a long distance, haven't you?

Originally posted by HongeyKong (Busty Girl):

Tim is something becoz hes highly rated in RANKED. Not becoz hes highly rated in UNRANKED, get your logic right.

TheWorld, totally agree with you, its rather time consuming to cheese your score and most people wont want to be perceived much better than they actually are, the people that play ranked do play unranked as well you know, if they're good enough to play the more competitive ranked games then they probs have a good unranked score too, how many terrible players have a huge rating? That's rare, who could be bothered to cheese it and why? They will just lose to low ranked ppl and lose huge score.

HongeyKong, you seem to be basing your logic on the outliers, there was some guy with less than 300 or something like that, do you really think hes that bad? Or doing it on purpose? Of course it's still meaningful, but there almost 2 separate measurements, ranked being the more accurate version, doesn't make the unranked meaningless just because of some outliers at the very top.

[FighterJet27]

@Faraël

I did give a bit of leeway for people who don't fit the description exactly, unranked is the less accurate way of measuring skill. If your very selective about the settings you play on in unranked you can find a niche that give you an advantage somewhere, which is gonna inflate ratings too. a 1600 player that only plays team games can sometime rely on teammates, giving them a win they otherwise wouldn't have.

So, just assume my 1st answer being accurate, and not cheesing, or being really selective. I found it hard to find ppl willing to play water maps for example, players tend to stick to the settings that suit them best and it'll will inflate their ratings in those cases.


Reaching 1699 and not beating extreme ai? It is certainly tough and I have never been able to win consistently, BUT using the word consistently in my answer was a bit overstretching I guess, bad choice of word.

[-Dare Devil/x/]

-IMO none of the ratings are "useless". They all give a pretty good sense of skill level. Sure they'll be variance when comparing different ladders but if you view skill in the ladder you're thinking about, generally you can make the assumption that the higher elo you are the better the player is.

[TheDiaper]

Originally posted by FighterJet27:

TheWorld, totally agree with you, its rather time consuming to cheese your score and most people wont want to be perceived much better than they actually are, the people that play ranked do play unranked as well you know, if they're good enough to play the more competitive ranked games then they probs have a good unranked score too,

They could, but top players dont really play unranked with random people, so they wont.

how many terrible players have a huge rating?

Quite a lot actually, you can check the profile of top500 unranked players one by one. Maybe not "terrible" (there are a few tho), but most of them have way lower RANK in ranked than unranked.

That's rare, who could be bothered to cheese it and why? They will just lose to low ranked ppl and lose huge score.

I never said everyone are farming unranked elo intentionally, but "can".

HongeyKong, you seem to be basing your logic on the outliers, there was some guy with less than 300 or something like that, do you really think hes that bad? Or doing it on purpose? Of course it's still meaningful, but there almost 2 separate measurements, ranked being the more accurate version, doesn't make the unranked meaningless just because of some outliers at the very top.

I dont think youve really checked the unranked ladder; Tim is actually the only outlier that "DISPROVES my logic". As I mentioned, pretty much ZERO "top unranked players" are also top ranked players.