Can the 1v1 matching stop being that ridiculous?

The system could make the higher elo queue longer instead of randomly assign a relatively unfair games.

Look at my first post, the 500 elo difference is defintely non-sense.
and I believe the 100 elo difference in a row (7 games in total), could defeintely able to improve.

Right now. as my experience, the longer queue time you have, the weaker opponent you usually get.
When I wait over 5 mins, the opponent elo always lower than me a lot.
This shouldnt defintely able to improve by making the queue longer.

Playing a non-competitive game shouldnt be the purpose of ranked games.

3 Likes

Part of the reason is due to the lack of players at higher skill levels. Something like 95% of the playervase is sub 1650, so it’s going to have a smaller group of people to put you against.

1 Like

If queue times were longer people would just write topics like “devs suck 20 minutes and still no match found in 1v1!” instead of this.

1 Like

ya, maybe or maybe they understand their situation, to me personally I would understand and perfer the queue 's going longer instead of playing a one sided game.

It’s really like feeding and this feeling is as worse as playing against a smurf account.

1 Like

1v1 has never had lots of players in aoe2. that’s just the way it is

i would queue for 1v1 more if the maps weren’t all the same stale repetitive thing, but this month’s map pool is atrocious. you might complain about facing me too, but at least i’m easier than some of the people on this list :rofl:

i’ve already played arabia 10000 times, so i have no reason to queue for a map pool with 4-5 different versions of wall+xbow. maybe archipelago could be fun, but all my opponents will have it banned so it would be a waste of time for me to queue expecting that i would play it

the teamgame matchmaking is really really bad, but for 1v1 it should be possible to lose to people -200 and beat people +200 (it happens to me all the time). but when the maps are one-dimensional / predictable instead of being dynamic / multifaceted, then that’s less likely to happen

i don’t think you should get those games without waiting at least 10 minutes though. but if aoe2 is shrinking instead of growing (which seems likely), i don’t see the situation improving.

1 Like

I have faced ACCM (which is 2450 elo) when I was 1650 elo…

Tho I think ±100 elos are acceptable, consider that there are sometimes less than 2 people in the 100-elo brackets (you can search in AOE2.net, sometimes there are literally no 1800 games). 100 Elo means a 36% win rate for the weaker player, which is definitely do-able - sometimes I lost / win to people with 150 elos when I feel / did not feel right. I would say ±200 elos are a good range (that is, 24% win rate)

1 Like

Hey @RustyCrow6939 you’re good at taking screen shots. Show us how many maps you have banned. I reckon you’ve banned out everything you can and set the preference to Arabia and you’re paying for it.

At your elo you’re either going to get opponents who are lower elo than you or get matched with someone of higher elo - that being said, the higher elo you are the more elo you’ll gain as ‘inflated elo’ which is where you and others in the higher elo area aren’t really too far apart in actual skill but are able to gain exorbitant amounts of ‘elo’ when compared to the next lower consistent bracket. It’s similar for team-game elo at the higher end - you’re going to be matched with the higher end elos and the lower end elos will be matched with you from time to time. Similar elo opponents are rarer at the high elo areas so be glad you can still get games.

My advice - pay less attention to the elo of the opponent and relax into each game normally.
And don’t react negatively to how exorbitantly higher or lower an opponents’ elo is compared to yours. Again - at your elo it accounts for very little; you’ll either get hit back into a lower elo or stay inside the tournament of power

2 Likes

I don’t know how many times do i have to say the same, but the problem with those encounters are the waiting preference, you waited 2 mins but still got outmatched, the reason behind that is that them were waiting for longer than you did.

Is not like we don’t have enough players on those levels, simply the system aims to find games as quick as possible without any range limiter, until they don’t remove the waiting preference and add an elo range limiter, those things will never stop happening, so enjoy the ride bro, there is nothing you can do, a friend of me managed to defeat hera while he was trolling, maybe you can be the next one :wink:

1 Like

I came here for the comebacks, but stayed for the poetry.

2 Likes

i count only 3 games where difference is higher than 100 … only one game is very scandalous

1 Like

hey bro, may I know how do you get the win rate? of 36% (100 elo difference) and 24% (200 elo difference)?

There is an interesting point that as I climb higher and higher, I found that the elo is floating much more in higher elo. I found that so many people’s highest rating is getting bigger and bigger with his current one.
I wonder if the big elo difference match is one of the cause on this.

yes, I will satisfy you, keyboard fighter, I dont know why you are so hateful on things.
I use all my bans, there’s nothing wrong with that, stop being the haters, this forum is already very toxic.

image

It’s by definition of ELO: Elo Win Rate Calculator

(Granted, I think AOE uses microsoft’s TrueSkill, which has some variance in respect to the ordinary elo)

1 Like

I met you in TG before, I dont think I will match up with you in short as your elo is too high for me.

yes, TG matching is much worse, even a 8 solo players game, they can’t even distribute the elo fairly.

However, I think 10mins is very reasonable because asisgning a not “competitive” opponent, is waiting the time of both players to at least 20mins to 30 mins.

1 Like

ah alright, I thought it’s something a calculator about elo in general.

However, let’s say 1700 vs 1300, the calculator showing win rate is 9%,
But I dont know, it really feels like the win rate is much less than 9%…
at least according to my experience, I have never saw a 1300 player can beat a 1700 one before.

Also, the calculator showing 100 elo difference with still have 36% win rate for the lower one.
However, According to my own experience in my thousand games, I think these 36% is kind of too high?

that’ right…I would like a waiting preference and and elo range limit, I really dont find it’s enjoyable to play such high difference game.

1 Like

alright, around or higher of 100.

That’s right, I am kind of interested about the elo and the calculator.

I dragged my last 100 games, the stat is not big enough, however, it somehow the calculator is not accurate.

the % = the lower elo win rate
The first line is including the stack of above, that’s why even >10, the win rate of lower side is 33% only.

After summarize this stuffs, I think it’s really important to improve the system of the matching.
Getting the balance between queue time and elo differrence.

image