It's very bad that if you start a new ladder your rating on other ladders is used

  • I (19xx) played some tgs with a irl friend who’s not very good at the game (no 1v1 played, would be way below 1000 for sure). These were placement games for him, so his tg rating soared to 16xx in just a handful of games. If he started playing 1v1 now he’d have to lose 50 games back to back to get to his true rating.
  • Indeed, every so often I ran into someone with 19xx tg rating just starting 1v1s, it’s not fun for anyone
  • It gets more ridiculous when someone with a high tg rating (3k+ or whatever) starts playing dm. Suddenly the highest rated dm player is a complete beginner who played one game (that literally happened before)
  • The big problem is of course the broken tg ladder with its super inflated ratings. But even if all the ladders had comparable ratings I don’t really see why rm tg should transfer to 1v1 dm…

Seriously, the tg ladder should be reset or something should be done to fix all this


I think the first game the person plays is still against someone around 1000 ELO. If he wins, then the system boosts him close to whatever his TG ELO is. If he loses, it should ignore his ELO.

I may be wrong. Read it somewhere, never tested.

1 Like

I can confirm this is not true. With a team ELO of 1400, I recently played 1st 1v1 ranked game, losing to a 930 ELO guy, and my starting ELO is 1256 :rofl:

1 Like

The correlation between the ladders is fine, if they had the same distribution. That is not the case and that is the real issue, because a bug in the TG calculation. That needs to be fixed.

Even if TG ELO has no issue, how do you objectively reflect a player’s 1v1 level, if all TG games he played are carried by his friends? I don’t think this dependency brings more convenience than hassle.

The starting rating is a rough estimation.

If there is no info available, then the system just assume you are probably an average players and let you start at 1000 elo, which would also be the around the average for TGs if their was no inflation.

If there is more info available, then we can use this info to adapt the starting rating. If you already have shows that your TG rating is above average, then you are more likely to be above average for 1v1 too. So you already get a boost in elo, so you are more likely to end up around your true elo on the new ladder.

For most players this adapted elo based on more info would make more sense. As result most people would play more quickly against players of their own rating. In the end you are still able to win or loose much elo in the first games, so you no matter what you will end up around your true elo pretty quickly. For most players it wont really has much impact. This connection most likely helps the bottom players and top players to reach the botton / top of other ladders as well.

For example: If TheViper or Hera didnt play any team games, but they decides to join the TG ladder, then it isnt really a bad assumption that they will be somewhere in the top as well. Given the connection between the ladders they wont have to grind their way up from 1k to the top, but just enter somewhere in the top. At least that would be the case if there was no TG issue.

1 Like

I agree the system might be useful if the discrepancy between the 1v1 and tg ladders were fixed

Though I probably wouldn’t use it to go between rm and dm, and if there is any effect that unranked rating has on the starting rating for other ladders that really needs to go obviously

I’d rather have a neutral start rating, than getting a “rough” 1256 rating after losing to a 930 player :joy:

Plausible. But what % of people only play TG with friends? TG ELO can’t really show your level because you can always be carried. 1v1 ELO on the other hand, is true skill reflected (if not ruined by basing on TG ELO)

I think new accounts should be given an option to set their elo themselves, just don’t put it on the ladder until 10 games.

People often create new accounts for some reason or the other. Imagine, “WeWinThose” (Hera) playing against a 1000 elo in his first games. The guy would be demotivated.

However it should also give a default value for those who are absolute beginners (not just new accounts).

Hilarious. Now everyone can set their ELO to be 2K7 to have a game with Hera. Given how few players there are in the top, their experience could be ruined.

We don’t need solution to this. How many times do you think a 1000 ELO guy can play Hera? I would be honored if I have this chance. If you are demotivated by a single game you shouldn’t play ranked. Not to mention that mid level players also could have fluctuating ELO. You get an evenly matched opponent ON AVERAGE. That’s enough.

The smurfing potential would be pretty dumb too, since smurfs wouldn’t even need to spend time losing games on purpose to go ruin everyone’s fun at 600 elo.

The TG ladder is currently inflated. That is the root of this issue. You mentioned being 1400 TG. That is below average. In a world without inflation, you would have a rating around 900 TG. After the lost game, this rating would decrease. So after the first game you would end up at about 850. You might even drop even more in the following game. Since you lost to a 930 elo player, you seems to agree that you are less then 900 elo. So this starting estimate make sense.

Clearly the issue is the inflated team game rating. That needs to be fixed.

You will loose or win much more elo in your first games on the ladder. So you still end up pretty quickly at your true rating.

Like i said: this mainly helps the best / worst players to get their place on the ladder more easily. For others it wont matter too much. In most games you are already around your true rating after about 10 games on a ladder.

In the end there will be always examples in which the current system wont work (after inflation is fixed), but that is a small minority.

What is the difference between a new player and a new account for an existing player. It is just a new account playing the game. Not sure how the game is able to see the difference.

Seems weird that a new player needs to sets is own rating, without knowing much about their level compared to other players.

It also opens the way for smurfs (like other already explained) and fanboys who want to play against their heros (this is also explained).

The game provides the elo as it does, until an old player with a new account changes it manually

I agree with this statement. I’m currently in the same position, I’m introduced by a couple of friends to AOE2. After a number of TG we have an ELO of about 1650. In 1v1 they have max 1250. I will probably land at 800 RM ELO but now I’ve started at 1500 and need to lose game after game, only losing 50 ELO per game… it’s not a fun way to start the RM ladder

1 Like