How difficult is to climb

Alright, I am a noob at low elo,and I want to climb. How much should I expect from winning or losing?

In Overwatch, you win or lose around 25 elo per game. If you played well, you win 27 or 28 per victory and you lose 22 or 23 per defeat. Lets say that you are climbing with a 55% victory rate. In 100 games, you win 55 victories, and lose 45, winning a total amount of elo of around 450. That is almost one rank. So, while playing well for your rank, you need like 110 games to climb one rank.

Because of this, it is frustating to climb in overwatch. After 10 games, you will be about 45 elo higher as before, in average. 45 elo is less than 2 neat victories. But einning elo is like a yo yo, you need to aim for long term climbing.

How is aoe2 compared to this?

I dont really know anything about Overwatch, so i cant really compare. Winning / losing elo really depends on the enemy and the number of games you have played.

In your first games, you will gain / lose more, so your rating will move more quickly towards your true elo. In you first game you can win/loose around 45 elo. Every game this number became lower and lower and lower, untill it is around 15. If your enemy have slightly higher elo, it also can be a bit higher. If your enemy have slightly lower elo, it will be just a little bit lower. 15 is a good average. 15x55 - 15*45 = 150. So you will gain 150 elo as estimate over 100 games.

I dont know your elo, but ‘a noob at low elo’ feels like someone around 600-700 elo. I think you can easily climb up to 1000 by applying some rules that work for almost every RTS game:

  • Spend all your resources. There is no reason to have thousands of every resource in the bank. Spend them. Make buildings, research (useful) techs, make military, attack the enemy, …
  • Produce as much villagers as quickly as possible. Therefore reduce the idle time at the TC and have always enough food to produce villagers.
  • Have some good build orders. The game is already out for so long. There are enough build order available. Those build order will help you with above points. It is all about getting the right resources at the right time.

I have a good sources for build orders:

Tip: Dont try them all. Just focus on some of more universal build orders:

  • Scout rush
  • Archer rush
  • FC into Boom or Knights / UU

Dont border with civ specific ones, like 18 pop Mongol Scout. It is not worth trying such build order if you cant execute the basic build order for scouts for any civ. Once you get used to the universal Build orders, you can try other build orders as well.


If you talking about Ranked 1v1 ladder then 400 elo gap means a lot of difference in the skill level on AoE 2…

600 elo = Very noob.
1000 elo = Slightly below average player (still considered a “noob” by definition).
1400 elo = Close to top 5% in the world (a decent player).
1800 elo = In the list of the top 250 players in the world.

Playing 1v1 is pretty fast to reach your “true” skill level ELO (I would say 50 to 100 games). But if you talking about team games then playing solo queue team games takes a lot of time to climb, dependends too much on randomness.

In addition to the above responses, if you are much better than your current ELO, you won’t have a 55% win rate, you’ll win much more often. A 1000 ELO player won’t only win 55% of the time against a 600 ELO player, they’ll win nigh on 100% of the time. We’re talking about several minutes difference in time to execute a fast castle, for example.

I don’t know if AoE II DE’s ELO system matches this, but it says you should win 75% of the time against someone 200 ELO below you:

1 Like

Good to know. But after a while,you will play against players of your level. In that case, 55% winrate is sn indicator of your improvement.

In overwatch, if I play in my brother’s account, I have a 75% winrate, but that is because is not my level. And also is not fair for those players. That is why i was talking about playing on your level, improving little by little.

Gain or Loss:
points 10 - 20 for elo difference ~ ±50 yours (this isn’t very precise, i think might be smaller than 50)

points gained < 10 for elo difference < -50 yours
points loss > 20 for elo difference < -50 yours

points gained > 20 for elo difference > 50 yours
point loss < 10 for elo difference > 50 yours

algorithm of search:
searching for opponent around your elo…

losing streak around your elo -> increasing elo difference of search, lower side

winning streak around your elo -> increasing elo difference of search, upper side

searching failed, no player around your elo found…
increase range of elo of search

Range players:

600-1000 elo = novice

1000-1300 elo = advanced beginner

1300-1600 elo = competence

1600-1900 elo = proficient

1900+ elo = expert

(these are subjective and some might consider lowering every bracket of 100 points, for example there was a tournament that limited advanced begginer to 1200 for entry)

You need practice, game knowledge of civs and strategy (meta or newly developed by you) to increase. If your strategy is good enough, micro skills aren’t required for the novice elo nor for advanced beginner.

1 Like

Do you have a source for this one? I have never heard about this part and i also havent experienced this part. Even after a +10 streak, i didnt really felt i face stronger opponents.

This isnt accurate at all. Too vague to be useful to me.

I would say 10-20 is enough. Some will even reach there true skill level Elo already within those games. Only completely noobs or pros will have to do more games. That is all because they are just too bad or too good at the game.

Loosing your first 10 games will results in 600 elo, which is already around the lowest 5% (maybe even lower). Winning your first 10 games, puts you around 1400, which is already top 5%.

First depends on how many players are playing.

It is like that. Obviously it isn’t perfectly accurate. I’m giving an estimation.

Yeah, i know that if the search cant find a player within range, it will have a wider search and it will keep getting wider and wider and wider till it found someone. As far as i know, it just gets wider for lower and upper bound both. You claim it depends on your current streak. Can you give me a source for the dependence on your current streak?

Nah, 10-20 games you are still too subjected to randomness. Maybe getting your least favorite maps on most games and/or being put against counter civs on most games, getting laggy servers, disconnecting, being put against good players not in their real ELO yet… (or the opposite for all of above).

But I agree that most times you can reach your true ELO before 50 games, I just went for the more “safe” approach.

No i am saying that finding an opponent of much higher elo (~+100) depends on if there are players around that range playing.

Still dont know what you try to say about winning/loosing streaks and how this is connected to match making. Based on this post, it seems like there is no connnection at all.