The Average AoE2 Player is Too Good

#Ageofempires2, #AoE2, #Hera

[MarcelVos]

If you reset the ladder every year then for a few months of the year there will be a lot of wildly one-sided matches. It also can't be much fun as a 1700 elo player to take a few months off and then suddenly have to spend a lot of time crushing people to get back up to 1700. And the other way around as well, people that found their 400 elo suddenly need to lose a lot again.

[Dawnrim]

Incidentally, I just re-watched SoTL's take on this question just a few days ago, so I have his conclusions fresh in mind - as well as his in depth explanation of how the elo system works. He suggested more placement data be used before dropping new players into the ladder, such as placement matches vs AI, data from other ladders the player might have played in (team games primarily) etc.

Personally though, I think the easiest solution would be to have an higher, but steadily dropping K value for the placement matches. Presently the 10 placement matches a new player plays through all have a K value of 100, which means if you match up against a 1000 player in your first match and lose, you'll lose 50 elo points. That will only get you to 950 obviously, so if your true elo is 500, you'll have to lose a lot of games. If the first placement match had k value 600, and then was reduced by 50 for each of the following placement matches or something like that, getting to true elo would be much quicker. Sure you might bounce to 1300 right away if you're lucky or play out of your mind somehow, but that will quickly get corrected.

[wandraak]

There are people who persevere... people who quit after initial losses...And then there is our Hero "lucaitasa" having fun at 22 elo ( o7 ) playing there for years :_D

[TerenceChiII]

Grubby, the Warcraft 3 player, would argue against your proposition. And I would agree with him. Ladder resets just make the placement matches a mess until the ladder is settled again, having more unfair matches during that time.

[injest]

Played a guy at 1050 the other day who did a perfect 2 group scout rush into good castle time with Knights all whilst full house/palisade walling his base.

[kencl]

"1300 already start doing micro and build orders."
I havent played the game in months, but to my knowledge even at 1000 people try to have perfect build orders and very good level of micro, hit and run and saving each unit in the whole army etc.

[FrogivenessACiM]

You’re mistaken, Hera. The placement matches would be hell for half of the community.

They just need to do the same system for new players that they do in chess, where new players games count for a lot more elo points up and down so that you find your elo more quickly. Or something along those lines however it works. If you open a new chess account you will be roughly around your elo after 5-10 games. Nobody loses their first 20 games in a row that way.

[julianlomba]

Hera: "1300 know the basics pretty well and begin to execute build orders"
Me at 800-900 watching my opponents getting to castle age at 14-15 minutes and wrecking me shortly after: 💀

[iwersonsch]

- Start players on a low score
- Create a lot of score out of air if they win placement games
- Keep track of how much score is in the game as a result of their account
- While there is more score from them than there should be, destroy extra score per loss (which the opponent doesn't get). While there is less score from them than there should be, create extra score per win (which the opponent doesn't lose)
That keeps the total Elo score at 1000 per player while allowing players to start at 500 Elo if they're new

[mitch]

Best solution:

1. require art of war completed before multiplayer
2. Have a selector that asks, "What would you classify yourself as?: Complete beginner, beginner, moderate, experienced"
3. That selection puts you at 500 elo / 800 elo / 1000 elo / 1200 elo respectively

[thomas]

I swear 1500 turned into 1700 overnight. I took a break for a month and now my opponents all play perfectly and I can't win at my rank anymore

[michaelharvath]

1000 Elo is indeed a bit brutal right now. I just picked up AoE2 seriously a few months ago, but i played campaigns as a kid and played Starcraft 2 ladder for quite a while all the way back in the Wings of Liberty era, so I've been around RTS for quite a while and am familiar with the importance of build orders, worker production, expansions, etc. I still ate shit against 1000 elo players for several matches. I only got down to like 800 elo before bottoming out, i can't imagine how rough it must be for someone new to RTS who loses for 20+ straight.

I don't like the reset, that just creates a couple weeks of volatility while everyone wins/loses their way back to their true elo and then we're back to status quo. I think a better solution is increasing the ego changes you get early on (ie losing your first match knocks you down 2-300 points) so that you more quickly find your level without an epic losing steak. Alternatively, you could let players sort themselves a bit with questions like "what is your experience level with RTS games" and then start them at 600, 800, 1000, or 1200. That might cause some smurfing, but with aggressive early elo settings that would only work for a few games per account.

[Dondideeda]

Here's another take: The issue is not necessarily losing several games in a row, but that there is a lack of communication between new players and experienced players.
I am at 1000-1100 elo with about 1000 games and so an average player. I'd like to know if the person I'm playing against is going through placement matches at the START of the game rather than at the end when I see how many games they played. That way I could go easy on them and rather chat with them, offer some encouraging words and ask how things are going.
I think that would be a way of helping new players feel welcome despite losing a lot in the beginning.

[elliotrost]

I really like these videos with the continuous gameplay in the background and the chill voice other. Keep up the good work and let's hope to convert some more of these campaign players someday!

[nicf]

Minor point: i think ur underestimating how many ppl play custom games, set up team lobbies w friends or simply play unranked. Like the choice is not binary bw ranked and campaigns

[sanmedina]

had this issue introducing my friends to the game, i think the ladder should start at 700 elo honestly

[risendragongames]

Watching this video has given me a lot of confidence and I do have a suggestion at the end of this comment as a potential solution. I recently (June 2024) got back into the game after 20+ years away. In those 20 years, I've become a history teacher, chess coach, and eSports coach and I've used my knowledge of chess and attempted to apply it to AoE2 through casting T90 Community Cup and AoE2 Specialist Cup games as well as participating in said Specialist Cup. When I took my talents to the ladder, I won my first game in my first game but then proceeded to lose the next 9! Your advice on having fun first is great because as a coach, that is what I stress to my students, but I often forget that for myself. This is truly a game similar to chess where you have to lose a lot of games before you win a few, so thank you for your encouraging words. One teacher to another: being a calm encouraging presence is key and you've got that!

MY IDEA: A season reset is a decent idea, but instead I'd like to see a ranking system based on chess, which uses ELO as their ranking system. In that system you'd have Classes of players akin to chess so Class F would be 0-1000 ELO, Class E would be 1001-1199, and in increments of 200 until you run out of letters and get into Master categories at 2000 ELO. Then you'd have like say Expert from 2000-2199, Master from 2200-2399, and Grandmaster from 2400 onward with Super Grandmaster around 2600. Each level has a FLOOR which can be achieved and a player cannot go below that once they achieve and retain a certain class for a certain period of time. This would also have the benefit of preventing sandbagging. No system is perfect, but this would be an interesting way to go about things I think. Again, thank you for your time and your talents!

[Taydris]

well said. been playing ranked 1v1s as long as Hera has known of me and longer even. over the years i've managed to enter a stable 900-940 elo, but that has come with so so many ups and downs a *metric shit ton* of watching everyone around me get better very quickly. these days 900 means something; 1k3 *really* means something
again, well said. good video addressing a point that often goes undiscussed

[boatman]

The solution for this is very simple: up the k-value for the first 10 matches massively, and up the k-value for a players' next 20-30 matches a decent amount. The k-value determines how "swingy" your elo is and how much rating you win/lose from a loss.

This way a noob goes from 1000 starting -> 850 -> 700 -> 600 -> 500 and stabilizes there as opposed to going 0-20 to get down to his "true" elo of 500.

Similarly experienced players with new accounts would shoot up to 1500+ quickly and not noob stomp as much.

[mormril]

I am a good chess player, not titled but honestly I am at least a national master strength on a good day. I am ranked 99.8%. Chess has two factors in the elo system ranking when you start playing. One of them is a provisional factor. If you start playing as a brand new player and demolish a 1200 player, demolish a 1700, demolish a 2200, you might be playing a 2400 player very shortly, whoever put together the elo ratings and how it evolves did an atrocious job. It would never fly in chess. If you start losing 5 guys in a rows at 1100, 900, 700, 500, 300, you might be playing like a 200 elo player after just a few losses and those last games even if you lose would not be stomps. The algorithm for rankings is just really messed up.