Matching is flawed. How come someone with 1000 games is at 1000 ELO?!

I get my A$$ handed by these accounts smurfing. Most have 1000 games but still at 1000 elo. They play a great game then how are they at 1000 elo. Analyzed multiple losses and seems like these guys know what they are doing and react very well.

My guess from watching Hera’s videos(road to 2k) were that people at 1000 elo does not play so competitively and around 1200 is when the minute things start to matter. This ruins the experience for new players. I can intentionally loose game and stay at 1000 elo and bash noobs. I feel the game matching should take into consideration the number of games played as well.

Match (±)300 games played around that elo only so that the experience level matches with the players.

1 Like

What you said might be true in 1v1, but TG is totally different, sometimes you really can’t carry your team.

1 Like

For 1v1s, if they’re smurfing, you can look up their player profile on a sight like aoe2insights.com, and if they have really suspicious streaks of dropping and then rising a lot of elo at a time, or a super low winrate with games lasting less than 5-15 mins with a lot of games that fall into that category, then yeah, they’re smurfing. Otherwise they probably just have some elements of their play at a decent level from experience, but are also probably have a lot of weaknesses keeping them from climbing.

3 Likes

There are a lot of players at 1000 Elo, if you look at the Gaussian level of people who learn BO (and play ranked), it’s between 880 and 950 Elo.

Being at 1000 Elo is equivalent to being an average player. And it is not abnormal to not be able to exceed this level, being at 1000 Elo = being part of 47% of players at 1000 and above, therefore the top half. Being stuck at this honorable level (despite what some very clumsily say) should not prevent you from having fun.

6 Likes

I think smurfing is highly unlikely in AoE 2. Your life must be so boring to go smurfing like that. You played vs. different ppl right? You can’t assume most of 'em are smurfs. Home maps could be a factor.

4 Likes

Smurfs definitely exist, but it’s also not likely for people to encounter them in many (if any) of their games.

90% of Smurfs are discoverable here (those via Steam Family)

Have Fun.

4 Likes

How does this work? I checked my friend’s smurf account but it cannot be detected.

2 Likes

The smurf account must have a certain amount of in-game experience (2 weeks?), and 10games ranked (1V1 or TG) and be linked to the Steam family account. Example, if you buy the game twice, it will not be detected. It’s not perfect, but it already helps a lot for “non-pro” tournaments :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Possible reasons:

  • Bad Connection (Loses games often because of this)
  • Leaves game often (Doesn’t have time to play game)
  • Plays troll strategies (TC drop)
  • Intentionally loses games
  • Plays drunk or high
  • Sucks at multitasking (attack him and he crumbles)

Thanks that makes sense. I have encountered a lot of people around 25% of my games who had played upwards of 500+ games but still at 1000 elo. My guess from watching Hera’s videos(road to 2k) were that people at 1000 elo does not play so competitively and around 1200 is when the minute things matter. This ruins the experience for new players. I can intentionally loose game and stay at 1000 elo and bash noobs. I feel the game matching should take into consideration the number of games played as well.

Match (±)300 games played around that elo only so that the experience level matches with the players.

Because the game is very hard. There is so much you have to remember and so much multi tasking. Not everybody has high enough APM and fast enough decision making to break through the rankings. Look at how many players are actually above even 1300. It’s a tiny percentage of the player base. My max is 1208 and I never stay that high. I always get my ass beat back down, often below 1100.

Hi everyone, I’m a beginner player despite having over 1000 single and team matches. In 1 vs 1 I have 780 elo and occasionally, rarely, I reach 900 for teams. Really, I don’t do it on purpose, I work hard and give my all in every match but my opponents often defeat me. from my point of view, I believe that whoever arrives and stays at Elo 1’000 (1 vs 1) really has an edge… more than me for sure!
I don’t know English, I use the translator, I hope it is understood.

6 Likes

The APM angle is overplayed. You can be a worldclass player with a genuinely low APM. You will have disadvantages against certain types of opponents, but so it is with all playstyles. Relax and enjoy the game, do not add a false pressure on your gameplay.

APM does matter in micro fights. Losing a micro battle can snowball into GG. Yes, some of the top players have low average APM. But that doesn’t mean they can’t ramp it up when they need to. Spamming hotkeys in the early game is a proven hack from StarCraft 2 which warms up your hands and improves muscle memory. Getting fast APM is not about just being fast for the sake of it. It’s about mastering the mechanical side if the game until it becomes second nature, so that it can free up your brain for other more important things like decision making and strategy. Of course being stressed is not a good state to be in. But you can be fast and decisive and still be somewhat relaxed. You can’t be too relaxed either, or you will not react fast enough to being attacked.

and up until 1500 u are basically not understanding the game yet, or don’t have the mechanical speed to carry on your understanding. lower than 1500 is very uncompetitive

1 Like

Find a Build Order not too fast, 21 or 22 population. Practice passing it in ideal timing (respecting the population ^^), when your idl TC is at zero and you arrive with 3 scouts at 12m you will be more than 1000 elo :wink:

2 Likes

The big problem is that everyone sees ranked as the first choice. Imagine if in chess, you played your first game in a tournament? You’d get slaughtered!

In real life, people play with their friends for a while, and then the BEST players go to a local tournament, and the best players THERE go on to the bigger tournaments, and so on and so forth.

IMO, that’s the sort of thing they should encourage more. Smaller group play. Coop campaigns were a good start, but too limited to really have much of an effect just yet.

Most players play singleplayer. Maybe a good way to start would be formalizing the pve matches? They’re good fun, but since you have to navigate the lobby system they can be a bit difficult to realize even exist. Adding a ‘coop skirmish’ mode would be a neat way to get players into a multiplayer environment in a low-stress way.

1 Like

I can assure you that many players have hundreds of games, maybe thousands of game, butvare still below 1000. Players all have their own reasons, some do not watch pro play or learn build orders, others have low reaction time or map awareness, other are bad at tactics (flanking, scouting, luring, diversions, raiding,…), some are hopelessly too greedy (naked FC) or too cautious (Fast feudal into mass army and towers hut not attacking), etc.

If we take into consideration number of matches played, these players will be put against players with hundreds of Elo more and get stomped most games (it only gets competitive if they get matched against each other and their level is actually the same).
I see no reason why very active players should be punished that hard.

2 Likes

I am saying take both elo and the number of games played into consideration.
Proposal match similar elo with ± 300 games played.