So I wanted to ask you if you could create the same list for De single player ratings, as I’m really curious what has changed in the simple divisions like rookie or intermediate (how skilled are the players in each division) and also to put the new ratings for the divisions, as I’ve heard the elo in HD isn’t the same as in DE.
I think your friend is just wrong^^
Unless you’re talking about teamgame rating - then it might be right.
1300 in 1v1 is a pretty decent player and I would guess it should be something like 1900-2000 in HD.
It’s also hard to be precise though, because players overall are getting better and it’s getting more and more difficult to compare players from different times 1:1.
Nah I’m 1250 solo rating and 2300 teamrating and I just started some month ago with low strategy game experience.
I still do tons of mistakes and feel pretty noobish in comparison to him.
He says I still play like garbage and that he’s maybe a decent player.
Good players start at 1800 or 1900.
Also there are too many players (1500+) that are out rightly crushing me with ease.
If I was decent I would be able to defend at least for a while, wouldn’t i?
As you can see pretty clearly the only comparable elo is the 1v1 (with avg at around 1000). Teamgames are infalted as ****, bc you start at 1k , but the median player is at 1450 already (the more games you play the higher you should be, so if your teammate has double the teamgames than you, you know he will be no help at all, if he has half of the games played than you he will dominate everything…).
So we do not need a list of Newbie/noob/avg player/pro, you can see the percentiles direct in this graph
No, age is a very complicated game, someone 200 ELO higher then you will always make you look like a noob, no matter what your rating is. The viper is what, 2k4? And I think T90 is 2k2, so that’s about 200 ELO and the viper makes T90 look like a noob. If you played 1050 ELO players which is the majority of the player base you’d crush them.
Saw mbl playing a 14 x on ranked just a few days again. He was tryhard trushing him and played him very hard. He complimented the play of bis opponent quite a lot. He does not make him look like a noob. Eventhough where was some kind of sidebet involved.
They are just talkers. I have a poker backround you get a feeling when people is just bluffing. Also People who are complaing much About the game Claim to have super high elo. Overall it is not that hard to see through it in most cases.
Best is like the classic I am an average Player (1500) Elo Bluff as an open. I like that one so much guys.
@ you just did something like that too @Garpmeele also a bit more on the defensive side.
You kind of back it up with 1700 elo friend anybody should have one.
also you made a slightly adjustment on the downsite first you told like 1250-1300. Than after i told the mbl story you asked like 1250 is Nothing Special. That tells me quite smething.
There are many things different in the calculation. On HD you could be playing just 1 map, now you have the map pool. That means you need to be more allround. HD was 1 ladder for RM and DM and 1v1 and team games all together, here we have different ladders. We also have some QoL features which makes a difference for some players as well. Most of the pros werent playing on HD. At least not as tryharding. So you miss the completely pro scene at HD. All are here at DE. Players evolve, many old players came back to DE. So the list continues. So there is no real easy conversion for HD Rating to DE Rating. Only big rule of thumb, which isnt really accurate.
I think 1250 DE would have been around 1750 HD. Something like that would be my esimate.
@FinalBucket3743 also gives you a nice graph. You see mean is around 1000 on DE. This was around 1600 at HD.
You can argue that way, but it would mean only the top 1% players (actually even less, because there are a lot of players without 1v1 rating, and they’re very likely all worse than 1800) can be considered good.
If that’s the way you want to view things, you can do so. I rather think we should appreciate how much a 1300 (or 1500) player has already learned and recognize him as someone who is quite decent at what he’s doing, even though he’s making mistakes.
Not making mistakes can’t be what you need to fulfill in order to be a good player - if that was the case, there would be not good players on this planet.
It depends a lot on who you’re playing against. If I play against a 1500 he will have basically no chance to win - maybe sometimes with cheesy strategies. I will still appreciate him as someone who’s doing a lot of things right and who is easily able to make 90% of the player base look bad.
I actually would like it a lot if this forum would link the accounts to steam accounts (or at least give the option, which is more realistic^^) so we could check what ratings people have
Why are we caring about an number, in relation to skill, when the purpose of the number is to match players more evenly? I think the match making sucks personally. The less I have to wait the more often I am facing someone I will lose too. But I digress because the point I really want to make is that this mentality is part of what is making DE so much more toxic then voobly ever was. At least that is how I have experienced it. It is just a game yet we want to take it so seriously as if we are trying to be chess grand masters in russia or something.
And save yourselves the trouble of just saying that I probably suck, because i don’t care. All I want is a good game. ( And you’d be right I have a below average rating )
People get a distorted perspective at their own level. I’ve seen top 1% players in driving games describe themselves as absolute garbage, and compared to the world’s best, they are. But obviously it makes no sense to use such terminology across the whole player base, because there’s nowhere to go as you move down the ability scale. So it’s perfectly plausible that an 1800 player would see their own performance as merely “good”, and 1250 as garbage, but they’re just seeing it from their own perspective rather than having rationally examined the skill level of the whole player base. I’d equally understand if that same 1800 player mostly saw their performance in the light of how bad they are compared to 2.4k players and described themselves as terrible, it really just depends on the type of personality they have.