Three thousand elo players?

As anyone can see the team games ladder has reached 2.8k players sooner than i predicted, 3 months early, so maybe 3k elo players would arise within september or october. I read few guys said"there are not enough players for that"well the evidence suggest the opposite ■■■ there are 200 players above 2500 and 500 players above 2400 and they get higher everyday.

I think it has been enough of the high inaccurate elo team game players, it has been a stacking party, the top players are not even in the top, they are 200-300 points below, there are 1500 1x1 players in 2700, how is that accurate?

The ELO algorithm for team games should be different, players should not be winning 17 points for a 4x4, at best 8 points should be enough, giving half the points you are giving right now should stop the inflation or slow it down.

Stacking players to get higher ranks is a thing, not a conspiration against players with friends, i don’t know if it is possible but if the system detects the same players on a team or in the same party for 2 games in a row or more it should give them less points per winning match.

2600 has been the roof in aoe since its beginning, it was a number that reflexed skills and was a really hard to achieve only for top players, now it is just a clownish party, there can’t be a thousand points of difference btw a player on his 1x1 and Tg elo and right now that is real, just check the guys in top 50-200 90% of them they are 1k points above their 1x1 elo.

Please devs take some actions before reaching the 3k elo players.


If they play team games more and neglect their 1v1, how can that be inaccurate? Also, maybe they are just bad in 1v1 and good in team games? Also I can’t see why it is a problem “who’s side” has the “max rating”. They are separate. They don’t need to compare between each other, only inside themselves.

Well, some time ago a guy was complaining in here that his elo was unbelieavebly high in TG - he was 2193, IIRC. Also, he was waaay below that in 1v1, not to mention he considered himself as an “above average” player at best. I won’t call names coz i don’t remember then lol. He mentioned “the game threw me vs the best player of the world” as he reffered to an 2.2k opponent.

As for the difference in 1v1 and tg elo “because he is best in tg”, i don’t believe in - in these proportions, at least. You can beat TheViper and MBL when with a friend, but loses to an moderate AI in 1v1? (poetic license for the metaphor pls).

I believe in op, TG elo inflantion is real. Some kind of pattern always existed, keeping numbers close - even Voobly and HD elo ratings, provided you played enough, weren’t different that much.

Also, i suspect that the disparity on the speed you achieve higher elo can affect matchmaking - for low elo startes, at least - but this is based only in my guts.


This metaphor was very bad, because first of all if MBL and Viper don’t play RTG much, then why should someone worse than them NOT be higher than them in TG rating? And secondly cause anyone at 1200s RM should already be able to beat the extreme AI, its not that good in the end. So exaggerating (even metaphorically) to make an argument here gets you nowhere, and even then is besides the point because teamgames and duels are different environments. Sure teamgames have a much larger inflation but even if it was not the case, you STILL couldn’t just go and compare people between the different modes and say “oh because this-guy has his 1v1 rating better than that guy’s 1v1 rating, he must be better in team games too, even though his team rating is lower than that guy’s right now”, purely based on the rating they have.

Let’s take 2 good examples from the teamgame ladder anyways (from which I’m betting you used the 2nd place as your metaphorical example here):

#1 TG (per Modri

RM 1v1 #48 Rating: 2003 Games: 279
RM Team #1 Rating: 2813 Games: 256

#2 TG (per Putito (I’m guessing his your metaphor)

RM 1v1 #735 Rating: 1543 Games: 14
RM Team #2 Rating 2799 Games: 537

As you can already see, current world number one on team games is seemingly also good in 1v1 too. And the number 2, while only having only 1500+ 1v1, has only played 14 (!) games. And all of them wins.

Also you need to take into account that the world top on team games have almost 90% winrate, however world top on 1v1 has their winrates around the 70%. Winrate obviously has an effect on your rating.

Previously at Voobly, team ratings where lower than 1v1 ratings.
Top 1v1 was around 2.7k, while top teamgame was around 2.1k.

DE has a completely different system. You can win/lose much more points with team games than at voobly. On the other hand you start at 1000 Elo at DE, while you started at 1600 at Voobly.

Statements like ‘2600 has been the roof since its beginning’ is clearly not true. If we still would play at Voobly, you will als have 1v1 ratings of 3000 over a while. The ratings of top players did also increase over time.

I do feel team game ratings are off in general, but i dont think your point is really part of it. I made my own thread about the ratings a while ago. Have a look:

1 Like

Only 2 players(viper and jordan) reached 2.7k in old voobly ladder, after several years only 5 players were getting close to it but never got it back, the same behavior was in gaming zone(2600 the max), well there were cheaters there with 10k elo 11, but you see a pattern, while only a handful of players can reach those high elos, on DE tg ladder it seems like anyone can do it just by playing with friends(stacking), 200 players above 2500 is insane, we have never seen those numbers.

If viper and jordan could get 2.7k with only 6 players around 2500 imagine how far these 2500++ can get, plus another 200 players in 2400, the 3k is only a small number in fact they can get even higher, it is just a matter of time.

The main reason why voobly tg elo was lower it was because the elo distribution was way less, 8 points for 4x4, 10 points for 3x3 and 13 points for 2x2, ofc you could get more points or less depending the opponent’s elo but that was the average per match.

We start at 1000, see the 1x1 ladder as example it is only at 2300, currently 300-200 points lower than voobly ladder, but it is accurate, tg ladder is not only inflated but also isn’t a representation of skills, see BOA2 as reference, all those 2600 now 2700 being destroyed by real 2k players in 1x1, it wasn’t even a fight, the elo is not only a random number it is a rank that is supposed to reflect skills, if it doesn’t then it loses its purpose.

The HD had a chocolate ladder, no one in the competitive scene would take that ladder serious, if the devs don’t stop the inflation soon the TG ladder would have the same fate, no one is going to ever use that elo as reference of skills.

1 Like

I do agree fixing the team game ladder needs to be a priority for the devs to same the MM system for team games.


But do the ceilings of DE ratings are equivalent to be comparable to other AoE2 ratings? I.E. I remember everyone starting at 1600 on HD and I’m pretty sure the same isn’t true for DE. Nor gaining/losing rating was equal to how it is on DE now.

I don’t get why it has to be stopped, from what I can understand the values are calculated differently from game to game.

The issue is: We dont really know how the calculation in DE happens. And if we ask the devs, they dont give an answer. See following thread:


I will look through the topic later today when I get more disposed, thanks.

But we do know for sure it is different from the other iterations, right?

Yes, i know this for sure.

1 Like

The problem has been dicussed before in other threads. Sum of points gained by the winning team is often larger than the sum of points lost by the losing team. Therefore new points are created out of thin air, which violates the rules of ELO-systems. The effect is that the average rises, so inflation of the worth of ELO points and the top will get higher and higher. This does not have to affect the MM-system negatively for active players, if it’s well designed. But if a player doesn’t play for a long time and comes back, then his ELO will be too low for his skill level due to the inflation.

I already got suspicious of this fault early on: on my first 1v1 game I started with 1000 ELO, but on my first team game I started with an ELO of 1318. So likely the average at that time was 1318 and the system gives a new player in the ladder the current average ELO, which is a correct mechanism, except that the average ELO should stay on 1000.


Seriously… I’m a noob and I’m 2300+ now. I always get around +20 rating per win and -5 per loss. Some games I don’t even lose rating. It just keeps stacking higher and higher.

1 Like

BlockquoteWell, some time ago a guy was complaining in here that his elo was unbelieavebly high in TG - he was 2193, IIRC. Also, he was waaay below that in 1v1, not to mention he considered himself as an “above average” player at best. I won’t call names coz i don’t remember then lol. He mentioned “the game threw me vs the best player of the world” as he reffered to an 2.2k opponent.



This surely should be pretty easy for the devs to verify and fix?

I can understand people getting frustrated when problems like this persist for a long time, I’ve seen the same thing in Forza Horizon 4. Both games have time-locked content that keeps rolling out, while more fundamental problems remain unresolved. In FH4, they fix the colour of some bolts on one bit of one car, while leaving ranked team play in a state where someone on the losing team can just quit near the end and the game leaves everyone’s ranking points unchanged whenever any player quits. Similar thing to AoE II DE here, where there is a fundamental problem with team ELO scoring, from what you say above, yet they can still roll out gold bombard cannons etc. It just increases how infuriated people feel when unimportant issues get resolved while important issues don’t.

1 Like

Please fix this bug. As 2400 in TG you often face teams of 1200 1v1 players (with plenty of games played). Thats not a fun game for either party.

Sometimes it is deliberaty: In your first 10 games, you delta in rating for each game is much higher. Getting / loosing 40 points is quite normal.

The point is: We dont know the calculation from the devs. Elo is meant for 1v1 and must be adjusted for team games. This can be done in multiple ways. Maybe the devs choice an option in which the result is that the Elo win is not equal to the Elo lost for teamgames.

This is due to your different rankings will have influence on other rankings at the start. Lets say you are Viper and only played 1v1. Based on your 1v1, they game thinks you need to be good in team games too, and lets you start at a much higher ranking.

In the current system, you can in theory only play team games, get 2.8k. Than start playing 1v1 for the first time and after your first game, you will see you are around 2k rated or something like that for 1v1.

From one side, this link between the ratings is great. A great player dont need to go again through the 10 placer matches in the other ladders to find balanced games. On the other side, since both ladders dont follow the same rules (like 1k is average, 2k is great, 2.2k is really really good), you get issues of players who are completely wrong matched.

For a stable ranking system new players joining a ladder should start with the average ELO (1000), so having one ladder influence the starting value of the other ladder is in theory a wrong solution. However, your argument makes sense and in practice it might not be that bad since the ELO of people joining a new ladder should average out to 1000 anyway (if both ladders average at 1000).