Hi… the game is fantastic but there is something u should take care of… for example (let’s say ppl to do not say smtg worse) that are clearly smurfs or no noobs and play as if they would be even if the lobby say NOOBS… Pls do smtg like was in the previous AOE II (with a score) or something to understand if a person would be a noob or not or even the possibility to kick if they are fake noobs, because to be honest i’m tired to have my games ruined thx of this ppl (that only God knows) why they like to win against noobs players…
Hoping in a serious and official answer i wish u a nice day.
Playing ranked matches immediately solves this problem, just saying.
They differentiated between “for fun” and real games for this exact reason.
I get that you want to practice in a non-ranked setting, but that is an extremely simple and easy fix… within 5-10 games you’ll be pretty much where your ELO should be and then get better and climb back up.
People in every game like playing against noobs for varying reasons, for example I’ll join a ‘NOOBS ONLY!’ game when ■■■■ drunk, cause that’s about the level I can play at… max! Sometimes I’ll still do better than others and feel bad because they aren’t just noobs but haven’t even played campaign a little bit and have a 20 minute+ feudal time, but the game was joined with earnest intent to play on an even playing field. Others just like crushing people for fun.
I’m not a mod or dev, just thought I’d give you an idea to fix the problem before a massive game overhaul can take place!
Playing ranked in any game when you’re new is ‘scary’, but once you get past the 3rd or 4th game you’ll be comfortable picking that “start queue” button!
Goodluck friend
Also, I highly recommend SpiritoftheLaw’s Youtube series Zero to Hero. Especially focusing on Fast Castle to start out with. This helped me back when I first started playing HD to go from a total noob to an average player in under a week.
Remember, there are several noob layers. My first AoE3 mp game was a 1v1 labelled “1v1 noobs”. I crushed my enemy so damn hard i think he quit the game.
There’s a website that shows the rank of people in loobies. Give me some minutes and i will look for it, may help you.
And man, play ranked. Don’t be afraid to lose. Losing points makes you face easier enemies, thus you win. That’s my life quote.
Edit: Found it!
Check this out, tell me if it helped you, or have any questions.
Tyvm for ur answer,but im not ready to play ranked due to i dont have the skills to play it and first of all i dont like to ruin Others game with my noobness
Other answer: everyone has a different idea of what a noob is. I’ve had “noob” games where a person gets to maybe 40 population max over an hour long game and games where a guy will castle age by 15 minutes. I remember there was a thread about a guy complaining that the campaigns were too difficult and he streamed it, turns out he was maxing out at maybe 15 villagers every game.
A better way to think about “noob” games is just to assume that they’re no rush. Actual team ranked games are pretty aggressive right from the start but you can generally assume you won’t get attacked in the Dark or Feudal Age in “noob” games.
Going by the current AoE2 net ratings you generally see anyone up to 1600 join noob games. The “no noob” games I see 1600+. Honestly I don’t like the idea of just kicking anyone who has a higher rating than you (which some hosts do I’m assuming), but do whatever works for you.
Over half the lobbies are human vs ai games, you could always start with those if you’re really new.
EDIT ~ At the moment three of the “noobs” games are hosted by people over 1600, so I dunno what to tell you
Ty for all the answers,but i have a question… There are more recommended civs for beginners/noobs - intermediate and advanced or all can be used from all?
what is the benefit of not showing the rank?
There is even a seperate elo that is just hidden.
I can understand that you like playing ranked but
WHY not show something in unranked.
what makes it better? Ofc if you like smurfing it can be geat lol
Some are a bit more tricky to get working imo - mesocivs, turks, african civs and raja civs.
For begginers i usually recomend franks. Go to castle age fast and make knights - this is usually the entry point strategy for newcomers.
Also works with slavs, persians, magyars, huns (these are specially good for newcomers).
Ty for ur reply, but i’m not so sure about ur recommended civs for newcomers… for example persians….to be honest i dont think could fit newcomers due to they dont have heresy in monastery and also elephants are slow so far, so with monks or even worse missionary will be a disaster… but correct me if i’m mistaking… also i love persians but due to this problem usually i dont pick even because they need tons of resources…
Seeing ELO ranks would maybe be neat/helpful. I haven’t played a lot of online MP to know how useful it is or if people take advantage (or make fun of) the ELO fact. I’ll defer to more experienced online players. Me, personally, I think it might be cool to see, though.
I wish this thread’s title was more clear so we can avoid clicking it if it’s a topic that doesn’t interest us.
Nah elephants are not worth to use, don’t worry with then. I was reffering to their vil work rate, cav and xbows that cost no gold. And since they don’t have champions, newcomers don’t feel inclined to use longswords in castle age - a mistake a lot of people do.
Are you saying that Persian players not using longswords is a mistake? I noticed that Persians and Khmer are crippled with bad infantry (Indians also missing inf armor upgrade), presumably to encourage xbows/scorpion/hand cannon usage to deal with pikes instead?
no, opposite. I’m saying that using longswords is a mistake, and newcomers are inclined to use then because it makes more sense than an army only of archers.
