Systematically uneven selection of teams

Well you are posting graphs and you want to understand the graphs but you do not want statistics? The graphs are statistics.

Here’s some basic overview of how match making works:

the page also contains links to peer reviewed articles and whitepapers on the subject.

The primary issue here is that you have some limitations on how effective this can be:

  1. There aren’t enough players around to accurate gouge your ELO. You may be 900 ELO by the system, but in fact your true performance might be higher or lower than that. The reason is because in team games you need to play 50+ (IIRC) games with different people in order to get a baseline of that skill.
  2. There aren’t enough players to give you a balanced team in a reasonable amount of time. In reality, those systems are time boxed, so if they exceed some time thresholds, they will simply lower the the restrictions to find you a match.
  3. There are huge variations between weekends and week time. You can even observe this is games with 100k+ players, the weekend is generally a time with fast queues but very poor results, because the weekend warriors play less and their ELO is less accurate.

What you are seeing in the graphs is a combination of these factors: everyone’s ELO is a bit out of place cause there aren’t enough players to figure out (you would need around 300 players to get the ELO of a single player in 3v3 setup). Then there aren’t enough players around to satisfy everyone, so it just matches with whatever is around, so you end up with these graphs.

Remember, in team games, while it is theoretically possible to accurately get the ELO of a single player, you need a lot of players to mix and match that one player. This means that even games like call of duty or starcraft 2 have a hard time providing balanced games through ELO alone on large team based modes. This is why ELO is generally a bad argument against players with less knowledge of the game which is why I am trying to avoid (using it against you was one of the rare cases because you simply didn’t want to understand).

This is why high ranking people or people who actually care about skill will usually do lobbies and do their thing there through casual rank. I suggest you do the same, if you want quality matches. I know there’s more overhead but it is what it is.

TLDR: the quality of your match making depends on others. Nothing you or the system can do about it, it is a hard limit.

1 Like

You just contradicted yourself.

OK I understood. Group rating can only be played through the lobby. 1v1 you can only play for civilizations with a win rate of more than 50%, otherwise the elo will not accumulate. Cool. Good game.

Welcome to a game that has been dead more time than alive, the community makes due with what it has.

Where does freefoodparty get its statistics? Why is the display so strange?

As I understand it, the statistics on the last screen are normal. So why didn’t I lose points for the third fight, and didn’t get points for the previous two? In short, I don’t see any point in playing on ELO.
It’s broken.

I have to agree with @JuanTheHunter on something, the team matchmaking is pretty uneven, but it doesn’t “systematically” match you with people worse than you or against people better than you to get you frustrated.

In truth, “it is what it is”.

Most times, we don’t get much of a choice in the ranked matchmaking, in my experience, I either carried the team, or lost after doing all of the work, it’s not always fair, it’s not always epic, deal with it yo.

It pissed me off a bit too, I only got to 1310 team ELO by lucky matches where my allies didn’t quit on me, which is why instead of the ranked team games I play:

  • Casual team lobbies - This way, you or another host can decide the matchmaking, takes a bit longer, but it ensures twice as many epic fights where the best micro/macro wins.

  • Ranked 1v1 - Not only will you be ensured that you will fight someone in your skill level, you will also learn to fend for yourself in the earliest of stages, so you can return stronger into team games to carry the match.

Or just ignore the tip and keep trying your luck, it’s not like you are the only one facing the same issue :man_shrugging:
Heck, if you want to make peace with me, I can teach you to play whenever we are free.

I’m not making WAR with you LOL. If your arguments do not make the right impression on someone, it is not his fault, it is you who need to try harder.
I’m generally on this forum just to chat. :person_shrugging:

Doesn’t matter. The game is not popular not because of the setting but because it is broken. The balance between civilizations is broken, the team selection system is broken, there are not enough players, the game is not allowed for red bull. I don’t understand why they are even going to release this DLC. Lots of extra money?

Since I don’t want to play as Ottoman, USA, France, Dutch, Aztec or Japan, I don’t play 1v1.

Casual lobbies I only play Treaty for fun. I actually started playing regular games only because everyone here assured me that the balance for treaty is different from the supremacy. The only differences I noticed are that Russia can play treaty well because it need to play FI all the time, that Italy has a chance to win at age 3 rush and that Dutch always loses because It has only 60 vils. That’s the whole difference. All other problems of civilizations are the same as in supremacy.
To be honest, I didn’t even realize how broken the game really was until I got here. They should have done all ranked games with manual selection, and not just deathmatch or treaty.

I find hundreds of such players on my site. The 1v1 system does not work the same way as in a team game. Because the SYSTEM either works or it doesn’t.
A thousand games without results.

The game used to not be balanced for treaty…in 2007. Since then we had a fair share of treaty orientated balance changes. The supremacy crowd will always tell treaty is imba because the game wasn’t balanced for treaty at all. This changed in DE. Just play what you like the most. This is a game after all.

PS funny how you mentioned japan as OP in a thread about ELO.

Most casual players are sure that Japan is more OP than the USA :person_shrugging:

Challenge accepted


Not sure what to make of this, in my experience, only 1/4 games I see someone try to use the “exploits” (Otto Humbaraci mass, Portuguese organ gun mass…), so I’ve always had the liberty to use whichever civilization I want up to 1400 ELO…

I’m looking for an honest response here so think on it a little longer.

“Do you like the game @JuanTheHunter ?”

I’ve played it since the original one, it’s my favorite game, and I have to say, even with the questionable civ balance, this current iteration is the best it’s ever been.

And I’m only asking the question above since (and not trying to be mean here…) you are by far the guy who MOST complains about EVERY single aspect of the game, yet, you still play it…

It just vexes me :sweat_smile:

It’d be weird to tell you “how to enjoy the game” or “You are having fun wrong”, but I’d advice to stop going on about the statistics of other players in the so called “meta”.

Instead, just try to go with what works for you mate, blast the statistics, go with whichever civilization you enjoy most, and relax as your skills slowly start to improve on their own.

(Jesus… I’m starting to sound like a Hippie… what’s with me today?..)

Do not make me laugh. I haven’t lose a single 1v1 game in Portugal either in Russia or Malta. Portugal has been at the bottom for the last two years. Even in treaty. :laughing:

It’s funny. I’ve only been discussing this game on the forum for two months to close some gaps. I like playing treaty because I choose my favorites for ranked play. I kick the Smurfs who have 80 wins and 0 losses. I kick noobs for whom they won’t give me EBO in 55 minutes of play. I constantly fight with equal opponents, learn a lot and get rank 170 of the whole world. In the same situations where the choice of opponents does not depend on me, it turns out that I am a complete noob with a rank of 4500. It’s a trap. The system purposefully does not allow you to rise from a low ELO because when you get a win streak, they give you a teammate who simply quit in the 2nd minute of the game.

In 1v1 games, the system in 50% of cases gives you an opponent on a civilization for which the battle with you is autowin.

People who have already played 500-1500 games and cannot raise their ELO by at least 100 do not use exploits?))) They use them only in every battle.

If I wasn’t a treaty player I wouldn’t play this game. And now I can imagine how many other players abandoned it after trying to play ranked games.

No, I just have a very keen eye for broken things. If something is broken, I will see it. That’s why I see a lot of problems with the civilizations I play for. Actually, my treaty main was Spain, and therefore after the DLC, Mexico. I have already spoken about Spain. About Mexico I can say that it really needs a couple of additional saloons (I don’t like playing through the Rio Grande). If a civilization has no problems, I don’t say anything about it. I’m happy with everything there as it is.
Besides, I think it’s absolutely obvious that I wouldn’t start topics if I didn’t care.

I remember deciding to reinstall the game in 2015 or so and struggling with support that I couldn’t connect to the ELO System. I played it the same way from the very beginning, but not all my life. I have many different games on Steam.

Not sure what to make of this either… you didn’t respond “textually”, but I guess you only like the game because of the treaty mode, which is… odd… no wonder you see everything as broken, since you only see a % of the REAL game…

The thing about treaty is… it doesn’t allow you to improve further because it gives you an ILLUSION of safety.

Until the treaty clock goes to 0, you are free to build your colony however you see fit, but never under pressure, so it makes players make odd decisions, like having 20 cards in age 1 and none in age 3, like… you…

This here, careful here, don’t make the mistake of thinking you are the wisest grape in the vine just because you have a high score in a seriously underplayed mode of the game, don’t fall there, don’t get egotistical, please, no more, it makes ye look bad, for real…

I do see you are making an effort to play more games other than treaty, which is great, lovin’ it, keep it up, BUT, you still have a long path ahead in the learning curve, so listen to the other forum posters, they are not ignorant, they know their stuff…

Tell you what, give me 2 weeks and I’ll get to the same treaty rank, so we may speak on equal grounds.
(I’ve started already, and it takes FOREVER, sadly, the 10 minute treaty is not in ranked options)


I’m surprised how everyone here thinks that making a deck takes years, not 2 minutes. :person_shrugging:

Where in our game with you did you see the illusion of security? And in that fight with China, where he raided him at the age of 2 without stopping. Again, the problem with your arguments is that you invented something for yourself that doesn’t actually exist, and then you discuss YOUR illusion.

I play the treaty because it is where civilizations at the peak of their imperial age show their ultimate strength. All their features and special abilities work from the very beginning of the battle. About working under pressure: I have only 1/5 of the team fights where not me the one who draging the entire noob team.

All you can answer to this is devaluation?))

I know that they are not ignorant. And I also know that they (and you too) do not play either in Malta or in Russia (because you cannot get ELO on them) and your advice has no value.
The reason for conflict-ridden communication is not that I don’t listen to anyone. The thing is, I don’t want to listen…

…people who debate only with the help of the last 4 steps of the Graham pyramid. I physically cannot accept such arguments.

ngl the forums have been more fun since juan showed up. Maybe he was the shot of antifreeze we needed to this fruit bowl we call aoe3


You used this in our fight:


At least you changed that…

Again, not trying to be mean, just asking you to stop being condescending to everyone, it’s weird.

Right after the first fight.

You did know how to put early pressure because you know how to micro your army, I didn’t expect it, but when the pressure was back on you, you folded like origami, because you are not used to it, neither was your early economy.

Jesus… words hurt you know?

Besides the risky memes, I did show you self made experiments, lists of well known tips, outside strategy examples and in-game statistics, but you, quote “Think my numbers are entirely useless, that I’m ignorant, suck at the game” and like 12 other things I don’t want to search up again.

I’ll admit deviating to the lower pyramid if you will, Hunter.

Amen to that, he sure knows how to rile up a crowd :rofl:

We are still waiting on that casted game you promised the forums btw jsjsjsjsj


its uploaded
its sometimes between this week and blizzard’s “soon” timeline
it will be out before we get a patch i fear :frowning:


Send a link when you can bro <3

1 Like

yeah, team games balance is trash, mostly because of the premade system added to the low player base issue. When you mix both factors, you end up with the most uneven/lame/trash games u can imagine.


if good players need to go to lobby to have a decent match, thats a failure of the system. ELO matchmaking should be enougth to ensure good matches overall. But the premade feature ruins everything.

The counter is without being able to play with freinds the vast majority would simply not play. Premade teams exist because fun is more important.

Ranked lobbies on legacy had issues too. So does adding a random qs like aoe2/4s. I’m not sure there is an easy answer besides learning to not take it so seriously and expect stuff like this