Reset TG elo - a kind request

A kind request for an issue long overdue- TG elo. Frankly, I don’t even know why I should have to make a thread like this, why it hasn’t been made before, and why the devs didn’t act on their own.

Team games are a mess, we all know that. Ranked team games are an even bigger one. And the issues there stem mostly from who gets matched with who-

Disappointed for the developers
Ranked matchmaking regarding ELO
Solution to Smurfs/Elo ladder manipulation
Stop the Civ balance or blah blah blah, fix the ridiculous TG ranking

Now, the problem for this stems mostly from the elo system and premades being obviously much stronger than 4 people queuing up separately- from VC, to knowledge of their strengths and weaknesses, and better communication- an X from me to my friend at a specific time and location means enough to him, I don’t have to explain in chat what exactly I’m Xing, even in dark age.

A lot of the reasons TGs are not balanced right now though is because of how the elo used to work before, and the reason the TG elos are so inflated- I’d say 2k 1v1 elo corresponds to about 3k in TG.
I have played TGs since the start of DE, when netting a win gave you ~50 points, and losing a game deducted… ~10 points. Nowadays, you get 10 for a win, and lose 10 for a win, at least at the level I am at.
If I recall correctly, I got to 2.1k in about 10 games image
Or, the 10 games that are placements for your actual rating. Conversely, if I make a new account and play 10 placement games now, I am doubtful I will reach above 1300 rating, because every win gives you 10. If it’s your first games, make that 20, 25 at most.
From then on I will be much better than my allies and enemies at the given rate, and the game becomes a coin toss of whichever team gets more old “new” players, that are skilled more than their rate accounts for.

Next problem is, matchmaking calculations. In a 1v1 sense a 2.3k player playing against a 2.5k player will be… I’d say 70% chance for the 2.5k to win against the 2.3k player. The same can’t be said about 1.3k and 1.5k though. And when there aren’t enough players in the queue, we have all seen Hera get matched against a 1900 on stream, or when this happened - Can the 1v1 matching stop being that ridiculous?- a 1700 vs a 2300 or what was it?

The game obviously has some calculation of, for every minute that passes, increase the diapason of elo searched by 5%, give or take I assume. So after 5 minutes if you are 1000 elo, the game is searching for someone from 750-1250, and at that point it’s almost impossible to not find a player, in fact, such a matchup is impossible at such low rates. But if you are rated at 2500- it’s not out of the question to wait 8-10 minutes for a game, and get matched against a 2100.

How, how all of this relates to TG?
From the inflated TG rates before, and the fact people use smurfs with 95% win rates to push specific accounts further up, a team of average 3300 elo after waiting for 5 minutes, will get matched against a team with an average elo of 2400- this makes sense to the game and the code, because it assumes that those people aren’t too far apart. In practical terms though, this will never be a win for the team of 2400 due to how outskilled they are- we are talking, 2400 TG is about 1400 1v1 elo, and 3300 TG is… 2100 1v1 elo.
But the game has no choice, that’s the most even it can make the two teams, and it doesn’t see an issue doing so, because of how sparse the ratings up there are.
To put things in perspective:
To create a 1v1 match of 1000-1100 elo we need 2 players from a pool of 7000 (stats by Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition Rating Charts (
Easy enough.
To create a TG match of 1000-1100 elo though we need 8 players from a pool of… 6000. Even though there are more people who play TG than 1v1 at all levels, they are a lot more spaced out, between 300 and 4000 elo. For 1v1, it’s between 300 and 2500. It’s much easier to make balanced games if the people are clumped up closer together and the disparity isn’t as big- right now, a player of a certain skill can be rated at 1500, or 2500 TG rating depending on when exactly he played his placements- and, to the ones saying, “well, can’t he just climb up?”, carrying in 4v4 is a lot harder than winning in 1v1, so not really, unless he is playing with premades.

In addition to that, we can safely assume that the devs took a note from voobly and said to themselves, "okay, let’s design the system in such a way that the highest rating achieved will be about 2.5k and people will be spread with a bell curve around 1100.
In 1v1, that worked, and it will work, because the ratings there aren’t broken-

In the TG ratings though, the ladder was never supposed to have people above 2.5k, let alone have that many players above that, some approaching the 5k mark-

Does this look like a bell curve to you? Certainly doesn’t to me, and it’s why the game gets confused so with the TG ratings.

And this is why so often we see people here complain about how bad the TG matchmaking system is and how they got matched against impossible opponents. Because when those people join their games and the people against them have a better build order and have army out 1 minute sooner and have communicated their attack, at the base of the flank it’s not 1 archer and 1 scout vs 2 archers and 1 scout, it’s 1 archer and 1 scout vs 2 archers and 4 scouts- elo differences in TGs are much more terminal than in 1v1.

The fix for all of this is simple, and quick, and easy- reset TG ratings. The 1v1s are fine. But I have seen 1200s be 1600s in TG and 1200s be 2400s in TG. It’s nonsense, I can imagine how bad the people who don’t play with premade teams have it, getting matched against either players who are too bad, or who are too good, because of the small population at a given TG elo, compared to 1v1, the issue being further exacerbated by it being virtually impossible to increase your rating at the lower levels at the moment due to how much better returning players are- but instead of getting placed at 2200, they get placed at 1400 due to the new system.
Just… please. Not only that, but it will make it much easier for everyone to schedule unranked TGs, will give us more consistent metrics for how good people are when hosting lobbies, on top of giving you devs enough time to figure out how to address premades in TGs without people uninstalling the game due to how unbalanced it is, especially for casual players.



Oh, and please devs, don’t think to yourself “yeah yeah we have it planned, when we have an update to the matchmaking after 6 months, we will do it then”. No, please, just do it now. End this madness.


Smurf issue has been raised last year and become extremely serious in the past few months.
They dont fix it and leave it till even AOE4 is now launching.

Unbalance elo match up has been raised at least half year before.
They dont give a ■■■■.

Now we have hacking which cheater can stop other villages work.
I am curious how long they will stop it or ban the account to prevent this.


I’m so tired of them ignoring this

lets be realistics, teamgames are never going to be a " fair " representation of the skill of a person. Its impossible, there are so many variants.

They used to be back at voobly, if you wonder why or how, it was simple new accounts had a 15 games boost, in case of winning all they would reach like 1800 in 15 games, for each 4x4 the point distribution was 8 the standard,3x3=10 points and 2x2=11-12points, ofc more points or less points granted depending on the skill difference.

With that system stackers were getting less points per win, if a player had 2200 elo and his partner 1400 in case of beating two 1800 guys, the player on 2200 would get 2 or 3 points and the 1400 like 14 points, distribution was fair and preventing inflation caused by elo gaps btw teammates.

Just for you to have a bigger picture, suomi guys,china A, viper and the top players were actually in the top of the tg ladder, but with 2300 elo max, not 5k,not 4k, not 3k, it was slightly less than their 1x1 elo, but it was accurate, there wasn’t guys who didn’t belong there like current TG ladder here.

1 Like

Team games are a great example of the lack of -authority, resposibility, dignity. Developers compeletely abandoned it, they’re scared to make meaningful changes regarding TGs.

Inflated elo, flamers, pre-made stacks vs randoms, civ pickers, quitters, uneven matches, smurfs, boosters, and of course no solid community infrastructure such as proper lobby system and the elementary ability to add one another to friendlist.

I don’t think resetting the TG elo solves most of our issues.

If we reset it, games will be very unbalanced for a while. After that, the TG elo distribution will look pretty much identical to how it is now, except that it is shifted to the left. Starting Elo would now be closer to average Elo and to starting 1v1 Elo, which is nice, but some core problems such as bad matchmaking and smurfs will not be solved. For that, we need to change the formula that matches players together and/or the formula that distributes rating to players.

I have long argued for the matchmaking system to give higher weight to the highest rated players when matching teams together. This could be achieved by taking an exponential average instead of the average as the number that signifies the skill of a team.

On top of that, we can just subtract a couple hundred Elo from the team rating of all players to make it closer to 1v1 rating.

1 Like

Happend right now again to me team game 3v3 average rating 2907 vs 1631…
And in the end the 3.3k team ELO player tried to provoke me for playing on 5 more minutes with things like " 1100 ELO pleb" and “that is why are you so low rated”.

Please fix this weird matchmaking.

Wouldnt the most balanced way be you can only do team games if you have at least 50 1v1s and it just uses your 1v1 rating?

Maybe if they stopped trying to match of team average, and instead tried to find a 1v1 match for each person based of team game elo, and then paired everyone together to make up the numbers? I have played 1 team game and it was fair and balanced. Both teams were randomly paired as far as I could tell, and it swayed fairly for the better part of an hour before my team won. I haven’t bothered playing TGs since then. If only all games were balanced. It’s not just the devs, it’s also players who make the conscious decision to hack/smurf, and ruin the game for other people. Not sure how they find it fun. Also, if the devs made the game, they can literally do whatever they like, they shouldn’t be afraid to make a change that might be for the better.

It is not about making changes, that would be so easy, it’s about accepting failure, they thought that the algorithm would serve most of the player base, to me after 2 years they are just being stubborn, MM for the TG never worked as intended, in fact it was worse at release and during the first 6 months, they know there is a problem, but fixing it would mean going steps back with the model or ideal they are pushing, so we are not fighting a bad coded system or incomplete, we are fighting against the devs will, so that explains the lack of progress on the subject.

1 Like