The ELO ranking system is crap

[bigbarge50]

I am pretty noob at this game with like 30 games under my belt. I have a losing record and do pretty poorly online. I watch T90 and Spirit of the Law videos and can do a respectable build order, I do not have my workers walking miles to turn in resources, ...ect. I clearly am not clueless, have done the art of wars and get silver but I am no pro and again have very few games under my belt.

I just lost to some guy with about 600 games in 1 on 1 alone.

Why on God's green earth is this crap match making having me play this guy?

It is going to take me like a year of playing everyday (seeing each game is like an hour so not like I can play more than a game or two without that little thing called real life getting in the way) to get that many games. This guy was clearly way more veteran than me and nowhere near a noob.

Why am I not matched with a fellow noob? Why do I start with such a high ELO?

This game has a brutal enough entry point of learning the game, now the match making is going to have a total noob play guys with hundred of games under their belt? How on earth is this not supposed to make people rage quit rather than playing such insanely unfair match ups.

Sick of this crap.... Match similar players and stop throwing noobs like me to the wolves.

And yes I know it is based on ELO..... but I did not earn a 700 ELO, they just hand it to you. HOW DOES A GUY WITH 600 GAMES HAVE THE SAME ELO AS A GUY WITH A LOSING RECORD AND LIKE 30 GAMES. BTW according to T90, 700 is an insanely low ELO yet based on the guys I am playing 700 ELO has an insane range of skills and seemingly is based on absolutely nothing.

Also worth noting this is my first post ever on Steam ..... that is how pissed off with this crap I am.

[TheDiaper]

Cacomistle a écrit :

⚜ a écrit :

oh yea i agree for sure. I mean he clicked up to castle, but added another like 6 farms instead of waiting a min for horse collar.

He just had the resources early because he cut too many villagers, so he decided to click up.

I don't think there was any mind game.

Idk im just giving him the benefit of doubt as he claimed he has build orders.

[Moist Butt]

bigbarge50 a écrit :

Does he play like a sub 700 elo player? Like to point out he has a very large sample of games for the system to rank him very accurately.

Yes he's quite bad. Have you considered non-ranked games? I mean it seems like your not enjoying the ranked system so why not just play regular multiplayer?

[TheDiaper]

⚜ a écrit :

bigbarge50 a écrit :

Does he play like a sub 700 elo player? Like to point out he has a very large sample of games for the system to rank him very accurately.

Yes he's quite bad. Have you considered non-ranked games? I mean it seems like your not enjoying the ranked system so why not just play regular multiplayer?

Indeed, red also built terrible lumber camps, weird mining camps, buildings outside of his base in feudal for no reason. And with 4TC he only had 94 max vils. Less food than OP with slavs.

[bigbarge50]

⚜ a écrit :

bigbarge50 a écrit :

Does he play like a sub 700 elo player? Like to point out he has a very large sample of games for the system to rank him very accurately.

Yes he's quite bad. Have you considered non-ranked games? I mean it seems like your not enjoying the ranked system so why not just play regular multiplayer?

Non ranked games?? Really? Been there done that after my original post. End up playing at an even wider skill difference then ranked. Also if I need ALL THESE GAMES to get an accurate ELO, why waste my time on non ranked games. I am supposedly playing this for fun, not a full time job, so I might get a 10 games in a week at best. AOE2 stinks for getting games in, seeing its like an hour or more per game. Does not really lend itself playing a bunch of games quickly. Can get in half a dozen SC2 games in the time of 1 AOE2 game.

That guy was at a sub 700 skill? Really? Everyone has been happy to tell me how my rank is right there at the worst in the world ...... so this guy with 600 games and 333 wins in 1 on 1 is one of the worst players in human history??

[Cacomistle]

bigbarge50 a écrit :

⚜ a écrit :

Yes he's quite bad. Have you considered non-ranked games? I mean it seems like your not enjoying the ranked system so why not just play regular multiplayer?

Non ranked games?? Really? Been there done that after my original post. End up playing at an even wider skill difference then ranked. Also if I need ALL THESE GAMES to get an accurate ELO, why waste my time on non ranked games. I am supposedly playing this for fun, not a full time job, so I might get a 10 games in a week at best. AOE2 stinks for getting games in, seeing its like an hour or more per game. Does not really lend itself playing a bunch of games quickly. Can get in half a dozen SC2 games in the time of 1 AOE2 game.

That guy was at a sub 700 skill? Really? Everyone has been happy to tell me how my rank is right there at the worst in the world ...... so this guy with 600 games and 333 wins in 1 on 1 is one of the worst players in human history??

I don't know to equate skill to the elo ranking system. But, I think with just a few changes to your play that person was easily worse than you.

Also "worst players in human history" is a bit unfair. Note that you have to keep playing to get that low. A lot of the people who are worse than you probably end up quitting after losing every game, or they only play against ai. I used to play ai games with a friend of mine, and the average player we played with was easily worse than you (against the hard ai not even medium or easy, we weren't good enough to win the inevitable 2v4 against extreme).

I think this is where some of your confusion comes from. You expect there should be players worse than you. But, they all either quit or play against ai, or just rarely play. So the most common you get a worse player is someone like the person you played against, where they have hundreds of games yet somehow still are 700 elo.

[TheDiaper]

bigbarge50 a écrit :

That guy was at a sub 700 skill? Really? Everyone has been happy to tell me how my rank is right there at the worst in the world ...... so this guy with 600 games and 333 wins in 1 on 1 is one of the worst players in human history??

Problem? Ever heard of the word "talent"?

[TheDiaper]

OS ET FERRUM a écrit :

i second the matchmaking is sorta unfair...

some games, are really intense matches that last an entire hour...

other times, its just crippling hit after crippling hit, and the guy refuses to quit.... lol, at least were having fun, but in regards to the point, this is not a fair match for the guy.

i mean just obscenely countering units and killing like 50 to 1... i should not be playing a guy like that

You are in the 1000 range, ofcoz youll be facing the complete noobs who just have their first try.

[bigbarge50]

HongeyKong (Busty Girl) a écrit :

OS ET FERRUM a écrit :

You are in the 1000 range, ofcoz youll be facing the complete noobs who just have their first try.

Cacomistle a écrit :

bigbarge50 a écrit :

Also "worst players in human history" is a bit unfair. Note that you have to keep playing to get that low. A lot of the people who are worse than you probably end up quitting after losing every game, or they only play against ai. I used to play ai games with a friend of mine, and the average player we played with was easily worse than you (against the hard ai not even medium or easy, we weren't good enough to win the inevitable 2v4 against extreme).

I think this is where some of your confusion comes from. You expect there should be players worse than you. But, they all either quit or play against ai, or just rarely play. So the most common you get a worse player is someone like the person you played against, where they have hundreds of games yet somehow still are 700 elo.

And full circle again...... Why on earth do we have a system where you have to play your way down rather than work your way up? Yeah Yeah been around since the 60's and chess and yeah yeah I know. It is not the 60's and this game is not chess.

I follow all suggestions. I train. I play 8 games a day. My rank goes up to around 900-1000 ELO.... I will be back to a rank where I might be playing noob players who have no idea what they are doing? How does this make any sense ? How would that be fair to them?

[Cacomistle]

Not really sure why new players are average elo. But I don't think this has a large effect. Because if a new player is really 600 elo skill level, they'll probably drop there in like 10-20 games.

Meanwhile, there's players in that range who have hundreds of games (like the person you mentioned from the video). Because the person you played against is playing 60x as much as the average noob, you're just much more likely to hit them.

So my guess is that when you hit 1000 elo, you probably won't be playing against noobs. You'll be playing against hardstuck 1000 elo players who play 10 games per day but don't climb.

I think the issue only really occurs for your first 10 games. When you are a noob, and play the game for the first time, you're probably like some 600-700 elo pleb and you're stuck fighting 1000 elo players for 5-10 games.

I don't think that's the correct way, but the alternatives aren't great. Imagine for example new players before they're ranked start off playing against like 700 elo players. You'll get someone who has played the game a decent amount, decided to take that advice to beat the extreme ai before going into matchmaking, and they'll crush all the 700s they come across. So then 700s could be improving, could be realistically 900 elo skill level now, but they keep getting crushed by new players who came in after lots of unranked/ai experience.

I personally think the new players coming in at below average rank makes more sense. But, its also more work which is probably why they didn't do it. Like if you just set a starting elo, naturally 50% will end up below that and 50% above. So they'd have to put in a bit more thought to their matchmaking system. And more thought required leads to more mistakes, which means they could screw it up worse than you believe it already is.

[TheDiaper]

bigbarge50 a écrit :

And full circle again...... Why on earth do we have a system where you have to play your way down rather than work your way up? Yeah Yeah been around since the 60's and chess and yeah yeah I know. It is not the 60's and this game is not chess.

I follow all suggestions. I train. I play 8 games a day. My rank goes up to around 900-1000 ELO.... I will be back to a rank where I might be playing noob players who have no idea what they are doing? How does this make any sense ? How would that be fair to them?

Sigh...............

For a "standard elo system", the "average player" (1000 elo DE) will face:
(1) Noobs who just joined the game
(2) Real 1000 elo players
(3) Good players (who are either just more talented fresh players or smurfs)

The 1000 elo will indeed have one-sided games more often, but most of their games would still be somewhat fair. For the "inaccurate elo" players, after stomping or being stomped for X games, they will be matched against their own kind.


With the whatever "work the way up system" you propose, the worst players will get stomped by ♥♥♥♥ ton of new players as they are literally the worst players. And it would be even worse if the system uses "games played / won" as an indicator becoz "late joiners" would never face "experience players"

[bigbarge50]

Saladin a écrit :

This is just not how elo works. If all new players start at 700 elo instead of 1000 elo, then the average elo will just decrease. Players that are now 1000 elo, will slowly more to 800. And players that are now 700, will just become 500 elo (given there skill did not improve in the main time).

Yeah sorry ..... "Just how that works" is not a good answer. That is the answer to phenomenon out of our control. Any system of matchmaking could be made or improved upon.

[Cacomistle]

Saladin a écrit :

Cacomistle a écrit :

Not really sure why new players are average elo. But I don't think this has a large effect. Because if a new player is really 600 elo skill level, they'll probably drop there in like 10-20 games.

Meanwhile, there's players in that range who have hundreds of games (like the person you mentioned from the video). Because the person you played against is playing 60x as much as the average noob, you're just much more likely to hit them.

So my guess is that when you hit 1000 elo, you probably won't be playing against noobs. You'll be playing against hardstuck 1000 elo players who play 10 games per day but don't climb.

I think the issue only really occurs for your first 10 games. When you are a noob, and play the game for the first time, you're probably like some 600-700 elo pleb and you're stuck fighting 1000 elo players for 5-10 games.

I don't think that's the correct way, but the alternatives aren't great. Imagine for example new players before they're ranked start off playing against like 700 elo players. You'll get someone who has played the game a decent amount, decided to take that advice to beat the extreme ai before going into matchmaking, and they'll crush all the 700s they come across. So then 700s could be improving, could be realistically 900 elo skill level now, but they keep getting crushed by new players who came in after lots of unranked/ai experience.

I personally think the new players coming in at below average rank makes more sense. But, its also more work which is probably why they didn't do it. Like if you just set a starting elo, naturally 50% will end up below that and 50% above. So they'd have to put in a bit more thought to their matchmaking system. And more thought required leads to more mistakes, which means they could screw it up worse than you believe it already is.

This is just not how elo works. If all new players start at 700 elo instead of 1000 elo, then the average elo will just decrease. Players that are now 1000 elo, will slowly more to 800. And players that are now 700, will just become 500 elo (given there skill did not improve in the main time).

Yeah, I said in my post. " Like if you just set a starting elo, naturally 50% will end up below that and 50% above. So they'd have to put in a bit more thought to their matchmaking system."

But you could 100% inject new players at below the average elo. Lets just look at the simplest stupidest example. Every new player gets injected at 300 below average mmr. Obviously flawed, average mmr will decay over time and everyone will get butthurt they keep going lower, eventually new players get injected at negative mmr and feel terrible, but it would be an mmr system where new players start below average.

A more practical example, just look at sc2. Your first game is usually against a silver player (slightly below average), its 5 games to get placed, if you win 5 you're plat and if you lose 5 you're bronze. It just finds your rank a lot faster than this game does. The actual mmr is hidden and I never bothered reading about how it actually works but it gives a better feeling of playing against noobs when you start imo. I think at least, I got placed into gold so maybe I wouldn't know.

I think this technically wouldn't be elo anymore, but who cares? I'll leave aside whether its a good solution (I really don't know), but it is 100% possible

[TheDiaper]

Saladin a écrit :

Here are some points i write down watching your game:

3. I cant see the ingame time, so it is hard to notice the moments when you hit the next age and if that would be early or late. I like to see the age. For me it is an indication if i am on schedule or not.

For 19pop + loom, perfect up time should be 8:50. And his his up time was 11:49. meaning there was 3 minute idle time (aka 7 vils).

[TheDiaper]

Cacomistle a écrit :

A more practical example, just look at sc2. Your first game is usually against a silver player (slightly below average),

Also makes good players play more noob-bashing games.

its 5 games to get placed, if you win 5 you're plat and if you lose 5 you're bronze. It just finds your rank a lot faster than this game does.

FIDE uses the following ranges:[20]

K = 40, for a player new to the rating list until the completion of events with a total of 30 games and for all players until their 18th birthday, as long as their rating remains under 2300.
K = 20, for players with a rating always under 2400.
K = 10, for players with any published rating of at least 2400 and at least 30 games played in previous events. Thereafter it remains permanently at 10.
FIDE used the following ranges before July 2014:[21]

K = 30 (was 25), for a player new to the rating list until the completion of events with a total of 30 games.[22]
K = 15, for players with a rating always under 2400.
K = 10, for players with any published rating of at least 2400 and at least 30 games played in previous events. Thereafter it remains permanently at 10.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system



DE is doing the exact same thing, just that they have a smaller K factor

[bigbarge50]

HongeyKong (Busty Girl) a écrit :

bigbarge50 a écrit :

And full circle again...... Why on earth do we have a system where you have to play your way down rather than work your way up? Yeah Yeah been around since the 60's and chess and yeah yeah I know. It is not the 60's and this game is not chess.

I follow all suggestions. I train. I play 8 games a day. My rank goes up to around 900-1000 ELO.... I will be back to a rank where I might be playing noob players who have no idea what they are doing? How does this make any sense ? How would that be fair to them?

Sigh...............

For a "standard elo system", the "average player" (1000 elo DE) will face:
(1) Noobs who just joined the game
(2) Real 1000 elo players
(3) Good players (who are either just more talented fresh players or smurfs)

The 1000 elo will indeed have one-sided games more often, but most of their games would still be somewhat fair. For the "inaccurate elo" players, after stomping or being stomped for X games, they will be matched against their own kind.


With the whatever "work the way up system" you propose, the worst players will get stomped by ♥♥♥♥ ton of new players as they are literally the worst players. And it would be even worse if the system uses "games played / won" as an indicator becoz "late joiners" would never face "experience players"

SIGH ...... UGH SIGH SIGH SIGH

So with this system it is better for noobs to get stomped in a middle rank they never earned and after getting beat down long and hard enough, they will find their proper rank and play like skilled players (which is still my point the ranks are not matching skill but I digress)

This is supposedly way better than a system like SC2 where you work your way up levels starting from the bottom. Sure really good players on a new account will dominate as they start, but would near instantly move up the ranks, leaving lower level players behind to get better playing similarly skilled players. There is a guy on youtube who was moving out of all the SC2 metal levels with limited apm... he was out of the lower levels in a matter of games, in a few hours he

Hey HongeyKong..... lets change this to baseball. Lets take brand new players, lets say 10 year olds. Drop them in College level baseball (that is about medium in rank compared to pro/minor leagues and little league). Hey after they get smacked around for like 20, 30, 50 games.... we will eventually sort it out and they will sink to little league. Does that seem to make sense? Make it just about anything sport wise, and it makes zero sense.

You can try to act all exacerbated and like I am some dummy who does not understand all you want..... the thing is I could be your high rank and I would be making all the same arguements.