I hate laming

If I get lamed one more time because I went random civ and got a top tier civ by chance after playing with random civs against top tiers for days I am going to quit this game. This whole civ picking and rank ladder thing ruined the community for me. People dont even say glhf anymore. I cant even play the maps i want anymore. Viper doesnt even go random civ anymore. Its all going downhill


I hate laming myself. Don’t worry though, a lot of people is pushing for something to prevent going random against people who pick civs. Hang on there, keep playing and wololo

I really hope so. T90 said he is going to also address his concerns to the devs about it. If they dont listen to us maybe they will listen to T90.


I do every time. Sometimes I get a response, sometimes I don’t. Yeah I can see that the future is the same as in Dota2 or csgo, people will just slander from the get-go lol.

1 Like

What I would love to see, out of sheer curiosity, is that whether putting an ELO multiplier on each civ according to the map (like Turks on Arabia = 5 times the ELO, but Turks on Arena = normal ELO) would make people that only care about their rank drop the meta all at once to boost their rank, or if they still wouldn’t dare stray the slightest from their habits.

Regarding the whole “glhf” thing, maybe it’s because DE attracted new people and they might not be aware of the usual salutations? In most of my games the enemy didn’t answer to my GG either, so I guess they didn’t know.


The problem is not civ picking. For beginner-intermediate players, it is normal they pick their civ given that there are only a few civs they know how to play with. Speaking for myself, I like to play celts right now, and I only play this civ on every map. I know this is not the best civ in many maps, but I don’t care, I just like them.

I think the problem is more picking a civ according to the map. This is a problem with video games nowaday, with the concept of meta, the concept of the optimal way to play. There are a lot of good players with youtube/twitch channel, et therefore it is easier to know what is the best ways to play the game. For exemple, when top players encourage everyone to pick persian for mediterannea, I think the problen reside here.


That means that people picking their civ just because they like them will only play against top civ ? This is wrong.

Wrong approach, don’t touch the ranked system, let the devs continue working on civ balance.

Civ balance is not perfect, nor will it ever be perfect, there will always be a meta.

Monthly balance patches, bugfixes, and new content from devs are supposed to keep the meta from turning stale. This is how it works in games like Dota 2 that have similar patch cycles. An evolving meta is a healthy meta.

I like the concept of civ picking in ranked (as opposed to randoming civs) because it exposes the meta, popular civ choices provide data to the developers so that they can see what civs are winning on which maps and this empirical data can be used to make balance changes on a more incremental level, thus allowing the meta to evolve more fluidly.

Not to mention, people keep trying to suggest balance changes to civs based on their 1v1 Arabia performance, and that’s not the only map we play anymore…

I like to pick civd, just because i like to play certain civs. Yes, it’s wrong, but you can always go random. Plus, there’s much more people that picks persians or Mongols than people that picks burmese or turks

I don’t expect this to be implemented at all. It’s just curiosity, to see whether it’s the rank or the familiarity of meta civs that motivate all these tryhard picks.

Except Dota and other MOBAS are all about completely redoing balance, and that they tend to make some characters superior to all others, then nerf them into the ground and make some others OP and so on. Basicall if we did the same, then only a handful of civ would be usable each month, and the next month all you’ve learnt about these civs is wasted because they aren’t viable anymore.

If DE had something like https://aoestats.io/ there would be data to analyse. And anyway, a meta+picking civs = you see the interactions of meta civs between each other. You’re not going to learn anything about the Goths vs Turks matchup by watching tryhard Persian mirrors.

Well, it’s true people often focus on this one since it’s a staple, but I think devs keep other maps in mind (that’s why Khmer lost Shipwright or that Turks haven’t been touched at all I guess)

If people could think more like this…

The last time I watched the professional Dota scene (admittedly, it was probably around 3 years ago) this was not the case, major tournaments had something like 90% of the hero pool being utilized and only a handful of underpowered heroes, if dota can do it with a hero pool of 110+, then we can do it with 35 civs.

It’s highly likely that this data is at least available to devs since ranked matches are played on official servers, I agree that it would be nice if there was a public API available for it.

The low frequency of civs like turks/goths being picked should already be an indication that the civs need a little boost in order to become viable – Similarly, the high frequency of meta civs being picked would indicate that they are bit too strong.

There’s nothing wrong with learning a meta and practicing strategies for that meta, and there’s nothing wrong with your favorite civ being driven by that meta, especially in a competitive environment, IMO.

It does suck if your favorite civ happens to be weak in the meta, but even then, civ wins are very unlikely in most matchups unless you’re playing at a pretty high level to begin with.

This would be nice. Persians Chinese and Aztecs give low elo on every map. lol

I don’t think you have to be pro to notice civ wins. Once you are at a point where you can execute build orders without idling your TC. You are going to notice civ wins. I would say anyone who is an intermediate or above will notice civ wins. For example Persians it doesnt take a lot to do good with Persians.

What level is considered “intermediate” to you? I think most wins in the 1000-1200 ELO range (the one I’m most familiar with, and probably one of the largest set of ranked players) are down to mechanical advantages as opposed to inherent civ advantages.

I would consider sub 1000 low elo legend, 1000-1250 casual, 1250-1500 Intermediate 1500-1750 expert, 1750 - 2000 pro and 2000+ Legend or God tier

So anyone above 1250+ is feeling the effect of civ wins.

According to the following chart, being 1200 already puts you at the top 20% of all players: https://thbrown.github.io/aoe2-de-rating-charts/

So I think your ranges are a little bit skewed - “Low ELO Legend” range is probably more like 600-800 range, and maintaining ELO above 1000 is already quite “above average” and not just “casual”.


I’ll have to agree with @SorryHaah atleast as a good estimate for rankings. I mean, I don’t feel like a too good player myself but those people at a 1k are really really bad, doesn’t really matter if they are 1k at HD, 1k at Voobly (not that I’d know how Voobly is, never used it) or 1k DE. There’s an influx of so many new players in the game anyways that you can’t really go and say that the over 50% increase in the population now compared to before suddenly decides the new medium to what the average player ought to be like. If you fill the game with noobs in one month, then they are all just noobs and the people who were noobs before them still are noobs, just not as bad as them.

( please note: the word noob is not used here as an insult)

Edit: why does the forum keep continuously editing my quotes away, I’ve had to do this so many times already over the past week or so.

1 Like

I think you absolutely can say this, that’s what “average” means.

Before DE, Voobly was saturated with the most dedicated players already by virtue of being a third party platform that you had to seek out as opposed to the default way to play online, as HD was.

Before DE, there was a segregation between a casual player and a dedicated competitive player, an “average” player on Voobly was probably a top tier player on HD, this separation no longer exists, a 1k ELO player on DE is far more representative of “average” than a 1600 ELO player on Voobly ever was.

I’ll be the first to admit that I absolutely do not feel like a “top 20%” player at 1200, I still make a lot of obvious mistakes in my games, I get constantly overwhelmed at various stages of the game, my builds aren’t perfect, and I constantly face players that are above my skill level.

But I think that everyone will feel this way at ANY level regardless of their ELO, unless they are literally in the top 100 and can comfortably call themselves an “Expert”.

“Pro” by definition implies that you’ve made money from tournaments, so that would be anyone in the top 16 or 32.

The numbers don’t lie, though, the graph takes into account players that have played more than 10 ranked games and are currently active on the ladder, so even though you have an influx of new players, these are players that have dedicated themselves to the ranked system, and thus shouldn’t be counted out just because they are new.

It does it to me too if I quote someone’s entire post instead of just sections, I think it’s trying to reduce the amount of redundant text on screen.


I’d understand it if your message was even long, I quoted the whole of it cause I felt the need to reply to the whole of it lol. Oh well. Atleast I can always force it back there, so take that you forum you!

1 Like

Remember my 'for fun" idea? Turns out it’s the AoE3 system lmao http://www.agecommunity.com/faq_mp.aspx#moreratings

1 Like