Disgusting players in low elo

I am a ~1200 player. Can someone explain to me why 1200 players love picking always top tier civs? Does it help them feel good when they win with Chinese or Mongols on Valley or Britons on Ghost Lake? The game needs some counterpicking system, if the opponent picks a civ with a strong boost for the map, then you should get mirror civ also.

I don’t get why low elo players (bad by definition) find it fun when the win is not due to their superior micro or decision making but due to starting with 3 extra Villagers as say Chinese (which amounts to some 1000 extra resources gathered compared to the opponent over a 20-min game).

I don’t mind playing vs top tier civs (I normally go random or some mid-tier civ I feel like playing), but when in 5 games at 1200, your opponents are Franks, Britons, Huns, Mayans and Chinese, it just feels unfun.

3 Likes

Because they’re low elo and they overestimate the impact of civilizations.

5 Likes

1200 elo is already above average, so i dont know if 1200 fit “low elo”.
Many players at that level are getting the grasp at BOs and thing like that and are mainly try to improve their skill. So they love to pick good civs. At pro level, people tend to go random, because these players have a much better understanding of the game.

2 Likes

Picking top tier civs, characters,etc isn’t unique to AOE it happens in every competitive. Its a strategy game and people like to win so it makes sense they take every advantage they can

3 Likes

Because the game has fundamentally changed from a strategy game to a tactics game. The majority of people at this point don’t play with any individual style or flare, they just poorly imitate build orders they’ve seen on youtube. They’re so desperate to win at all costs they have to pick the best scout rush civ, or best archer rush civ as that’s the way to win

7 Likes

No it hasn’t, did you forget that the game was huns wars for the longest time before hd. And this also happens in every competitive game its not a problem with aoe. And as for build orders they’re the most optimal way to play the early game thats been tested and improved for years by the pros so why would i go out of my way trying to reinvent the wheel? Also not everyone wants to spend 2 years learning the game the “right” way until they’re at a level they can play decently. And I don’t think imitating pros is necessarally bad. People want to play and have fun without having to sell their soul trying to learn the game. And most top tier civs are beginner friendly and give good results without as much effort and thats certainly more fun than fumbling around in the early game and not knowing what your doing

2 Likes

Translation:

“They’re so desperate to win at all costs they have to pick the best scout rush civ, or best archer rush civ as that’s the way to win”

Well losing certainly isn’t as fun as winning. People want to win so of course they’re going to pick the best civs. And if your such a better player than them civ picks don’t matter, especially at low elos. And calling someone desperate to win in a COMPETITIVE game is kind of silly the whole point is to win so why would i not put myself in an advantage if given the chance, especially when its so easy to do so (just picking a civ). Winning with weaker civs might be rewarding sure but most people just wanna turn on the game and have fun without having to think about every single factor that goes in to the match

5 Likes

i didn’t say i was a better player than anybody, i barely play anymore at this point as the game has become totally formulaic and repetitive to me. I just wish that people would play with more individuality rather than desperately trying to imitate the “best” strategies they’ve seen on youtube videos with the same 5 civilisations

3 Likes

So is warcraft, StarCraft any other good competitive game. Balance games relying on optimal play will always be formulaeic. Thats the point of build orders. Optimal performance and they’re are other game modes than ranked if you want something more casual. But going in a competitive game and expecting people not to tryhard is silly. What you don’t do scout or archer rushes because “they’re desperate”

I am not a good player myself (I watch many AoE2 streamers, and theoretically I have a good understanding of how the game works - based on watching it, practically I often struggle to have the impromptu decision-making necessary to win in Castle age or so, and my execution is sometimes bad which is the reason I’m low elo).

But I try to come up with fun stuff, as Viking I can open Scouts, I do Drush sometimes if I feel it can help me out in a rough matchup, I try to deny the enemy resources. Adapting and realizing when I can or can’t transition is what I try to work on the most. My opponents, in my opinion, most of the time win because I either fail to adapt or I underestimate some strat. For example, I lost recently Malians vs Huns - after doing good damage in early Feudal with a Drush, I thought I could get away with FC 3 TC boom. My opponent started massing CA for no reason (at 25% discount and Huns don’t need to gather as much wood, either) and ended up winning. Civ win? Well, when you don’t have to build houses and your CA army can be 25% larger, I wouldn’t say I couldn’t have won, but I failed to adapt fast. But the bottom line is that my opponent showed no creativity, no adaptation, it’s just pick a top 5 civ and spam a discounted unit. Meanwhile me losing is mostly due to me underestimating how many CA he can mass, but my mistake is fixable because I can get better while his isn’t because he just spams the same build order every time.

Another game that I won, it was Mayans (got it as Random civ) vs Britons on Ghost Lake. Surely Ghost Lake Britons pick isn’t random, right, with all the sheep! But even there, my opponent just did some build order and relied on spamming archers to win, I mixed in Skirms and that’s most of the reason I won the game. After being slightly behind (I got some early harass in + had a faster Castle time) he even decided to drop 3 TC AND spam crossbows. He lost and ended without even being able to afford the Crossbowman upgrade.

I don’t get what fun it is to be essentially a monkey, copying build orders and spamming some discounted early Castle Age unit, it makes you very bad at the game imo.

2 Likes

Civ wins arent a thing in low elos. It comes down to player skill and yeah sure some civs compensate the players lack of skill but thats hardly the reason they win most of the time its because the losing player doesn’t know how counter they’re strategy. And in your example with vikings. You playing scouts means your resources are not spent well long term viking stable is horrible and your much better of with man at arms or archers. And just because your “Unique” and dont pick top tier civs doesn’t make you the better player and not everyone has the same definition of fun as you

if you are ~1000 elo effective, Chinese can boost u to 1200 still.

Strong civs still enable bad players more than weak civs is the point I’m trying to make.

I’ve probably built scouts / archers less than 1% of the games i’ve played. Believe whatever you want to believe, but there are a lot of people on this game who essentially have to play against a bunch of voyeurs who spend their lives on youtube, and then come online and imitate poorly the same three tactics they’ve just witnessed. I’m getting the impression that you might be one of those people, so all i’d say is go outside and feel the sunlight

2 Likes

I can guarantee you this is not the case. Civilization are not that important before 1300-1400, bc people are still pretty inefficient in using their eco bonuses and power spikes properly.

1 Like

3 extra Chinese vills is still 3 extra vills and if you are say Tatars on Ghost Lake, you can eat Sheep forever aka no need to have a vulnerable economy because you can defend with TC.

I’d say this stuff is pretty impactful in low elo also.

~1000 elos can play chiness effectively? i doubt that i’m around 1500 and i’ve seen Chinese a total of maybe 4 times. Civ wins aren’t a thing in lower elos. If you are overall the better player you will win. I used to think like you do when i started, i hated playing against Franks scout rush because i didn’t know what to do until i realized you can just make man at arms and hits his berries and keep him in his base for 10 minutes. Just keep trying to get better and the results will speak for themselves. And if it’s fun for you to purposefully go with bad strategies with certain civs (Viking scouts) than sure go ahead but don’t be surprised when your opponent going the best strategy for his civ beats you

1 Like

bullcrap they can.
low skill players don’t know how to play chinese. go look at the bloody winrates of chinese at lower skills and tell me this statement is true.
here let me do the easy work for you.
< 1000 ELO - Chinese have a winrate of 46.86%. (7th LOWEST).

1000-1250 ELO - Chinese have a winrate of 45.72% (4th LOWEST).

1250-1650 - Chinese have a winrate of 48.44%

it isn’t until
1650 and above that Chinese become a powerhouse.

1 Like

your just showing off your superiority complex and throwing useless insults. Those “no-lifers” put more effort into winning and your surprised when they do? If you wanna play a casual game Aoe is not the game for you if you purposefully don’t do optimal plays and decisions why are you getting confused when you lose. And if “go out and see some sun” is the best argument you can put up in this kind of topic… then try harder. You just seem like a bitter player who doesn’t wanna put the time and effort as other players because you think yourself superior and don’t need to follow metas and build orders

2 Likes

Don’t talk to me about being insulting, you are one of the most patronising individuals i’ve ever encountered online. Also, i first got this game at Christmas 1999, so to insinuate i’m a casual couldn’t be much further from the truth really. I just find it tiresome what you people have turned the game into , as it used to be a whole lot more fun i can assure you