I think people brought this up many times before, and I feel it’s important it stays in scope. Even though maybe, there are no real solution.
I think the way new players enter the ladder is very discouraging. And that’s not only it. The ladder is very discouraging for casual player just looking to have fun also. Why? Smurfing is a real issue. Try-hards with only one winning strategy are an issue. Not that try-harding with one strat should be an issue, yet it is, somehow.
So new player get thrown in at 1000elo and get destroyed and get discouraged. As a casual 1000elo player myself, 90% of the game I play are against try-hards, tower rush, fast imp turks, all in strategies, other things like that. So really I’m learning how to deal with those instead of playing a “regular” game and having fun. And I guess dealing with those is also part of the fun. But I’m 30+ and I know the depth of the game, what I did wrong, etc… and learn from it. What about new players, they’ll get instant discouraged… and go back to campaigns and then leave the game. It’s an old game, ok - maybe only 30+ are supposed to play it as nostalgia, but then we’ll turn 40+, 50+ and so on and the game will disappear.
Ok then don’t play the ladder? it’s for competition. well what then? campaigns and lobby? or quick match up. Let’s face it, the ladder’s the best way to get an even-no-so-even matchup (see above).
It’s very hard for new player to get in, and player just playing for fun to keep playing. Perhaps this will be a big issue in the long run. Don’t know what the solutions are.. but it’s a problem, ain’t it?
2 Likes
All “old” games have the issue that the skill level of the “average” player is far higher than a beginner’s level. Apparently AoE2 already tries to alleviate this issue by making the ELO range or possible opponents far greater for new player than seasoned players.
That from a certain point of skill level players try to execute known good strategies should be a given. Calling them “try-hards” just makes you sound salty that you lost to them.
The accusation that the ladder is jammed with smurfs is often made, but when one looks closer the accused players almost always show a win-lose ratio and game length on both wins and loses that typical for an everyday player.
yeah, there’s literally no reason to keep the starting elo this high.
Before anyone starts screaming “elo inflation”. say we set the starting elo to 800 instead. it would probably take years to shift the average elo by 100 points
(~40k people in ranked, means we need 40k new people to shift the overall average to 900 points. Alternatively we would need 20k people to leave and be replaced)
You’d indeed need a system to discreetely release some Elo points with time. Start at say 600 with 400 hidden and added over time, at a rate estimated to reach a 1000-level on average. By “adding” points, it would be a hidden reservoir that absorbs parts of the lost points.
For example if you’re trading 20 points with an opponent :
-
he gains the expected 20,
-
you only lose 10 visible ones and take the remaining 10 from the reserve, so long that you had points in it.
The average would stay near 1000 as reserve points are released (contrary to lowering the start level which will only kick the can down the road as it would cause a rating deflation) while putting new players at a more realistic start level.
The “farming” of new accounts would also be limited by how an Elo system works as beating a player 800 points below you probably won’t be worth your time and rising above your real level would quickly be punishing when facing real opponents.