What is the point of TGs?

Thats true. MMR always had the problem that it needs some time to adjust. The more rnd factors there are, the longer it takes and if this is your point, then you should rephrase the entire thread: Your problems are not bad teammates, but that it takes a few matches to reach your true elo. That is indeed a problem, and not only to you: Imagine beeing a 1k 1v1 player and getting matched up against way stronger players (and possibly yelled at by your teammates). You can now either propose solutions as to how players might reach their true elo faster for a better experience for everyone or you can rage about your teammates some more. Or you can just play 10-20 more teamgames to come close to your actual elo and solve the problem, at least for yourself :wink:

You still could not understand my opinion as well.
I have 1.8k solo ELO, 1.4k team ELO without premade team
My point is that people start with 1k elo on default, Some people must have problems if they still have 1k elo after 1k games. I am using a certain ELO as a temporary example right now because it is easier to understand. I knew the global ELO will change when everybody is getting better.

The actual rules are very poor actually. Many people include myself don’t bother to read the TOS.
There is no way to define common sense and actually plays. IMO, the player should have the will to win games at least. In my previous examples, the low ELO players with 1k+ games should clearly knew what strategies are good or bad because they are very experienced. Keep using bad strategies can only show that they don’t care about winning.

The keyword is right mindset. Not something like that I do whatever for fun, anybody else is none of my business.
TL,DR: My opinion is all about having good sportsmanship and positive gaming attitude.

buddy become a esports coach or something, I didn’t come here to ask for coaching how to climb lol, I stated early on I don’t care about TG elo, I am also aware you can climb over a large number of games, and I can’t stress this enough not everyone wants to have a “PMA” in TGs.

Oh no I understand you perfectly well. I just dont agree with you and think you are extremly wrong about pretty much everything you said so far.
At least i understand now WHY you are wrong:

From those quotes, it really seems like you have no clue what elo/mmr are.
If everyone gets better, elo would ofc not increase. Because elo is not a concrete measurment of skill. Elo is a number used to calculate your chance of beating any other opponent in the match making system. After the match, the result is used to adjust your elo (and your opponents) for better predictions in the future. To ensure elo is somewhat stable over time, there are no points given out; all the points you get are deducted from your opponents elo. Therefor, if everyone gets better, absolutly nothing changes; people keep taking elo from each other.
The absolute strength of players is not only not taken into account, it isn’t even measurable by this system.

This also means that just because one starts at 1k elo, this is not indicative of a players skill. 1k is just the average of all players; the system needs to place new players somewhere and to keep the system stable, it makes sense to place them at the average. A player may start at 1k and play like 400. He will quickly drop the ranks and be matched against weaker players, until he reaches his level. After 1k matches, his skill has risen to the point of actually beeing able to beat 1000 elo players. This does not mean he never improved; on the contrary. He started of as a very weak player and now is average. Just because you were better than 1k players when you started playing does not mean everyone was. So stop bullying them…

BTW I know that the average isn’t exactly 1k anymore, since due to bad players quitting and an influx of new players there was some inflation. Does not change anything about the general point.

You have been talking about the ELO but I am talking about the player behaviors

I already said , the ELO in my post is my temporary example. I can replace it with something else. For example, fresh player A idle TC in dark age is okay, veteran player B with 1k+ games still idle TC in dark age is not okay. I will think veteran player B does not care about the game and refused to learn if he keep doing something like this in every game.

Can you understand what I am saying now ?

This thread is home to some of the most laughable cope I have ever seen.

2 Likes

I disagree with this example. For me, nothing should force player B to actively learn the game and become better at it by watching replays & pros, or checking build orders & strategies.

I dont see why we should apply a different treatment to newcomers and veterants.

For me it is debattable whether or not we should punish people who are verbally abusive and people who refuse to help their allies (only boom/turtle for 1 hour without communicatinh).
But punishing those who do not improve fast enough should still be allowed to play. It is the job of the match making to ensure that these “bad players” are matched together and “good players” are matched together.

It is the job of the good players to do something to climb ELO and meet better players:

  • invest playtime to climb
  • find teamates and climb together
  • accept to play “poorly” until they climb: do not wall early if low elo do not rush, let a teammate die and boom, use a fast castle into castle drop at home if needed…etc… whatever is the best play considering the way of playing of the allies and opponent, and not doing what they should do against good opponents.
4 Likes

1000 games are not " not improve fast enough " it is something very extreme already. People do something 1000 times, should know it well, right ? They knew it but intended not to perform well, it is a negative attitude and bad sportsmanship. I will explain this opinion in the next quote.

Here, Let me explain it together. In my opinion, refused to help their allies is also a bad play as the
refusal of improvement. I got the idea of that we should not force players do to something, so people should be able to play badly if you think in this way. We all know that nobody can a draw a line between good and bad in order to define them in the rules.
By the way, verbally abusive should be punished absolutely, and there will be solid proof, even police will take care of it when you got insulted in real life.

I agree with you here. I was just unhappy with some players under the current mechanic. I might gonna stomp them a few times with new accounts and it will be my personal solution.

Honestly, I kinda like how you got our point now.

I am the first to admit that some players in TG can be frustrating to play with. You just initially took the wrong turn of venting your hate against them, instead of accepting that bad players (really does not matter if bad and unexperienced or bad and experienced) are what helps you climb the ranks - because you can stomp them when you play vs. them.

Whats the point of TGs?

It can be much more fun than playing solo. Especially maps like arena or nomade maps can be really refreshing because it can lead to some unique situations.

Your explaination of why you are stuck in this elo is pretty poor. It is indeed the typical “i’m stuck in elo hell” which you can read in every game with a teamrankedsystem.

If what u are writing is true, you should always pick pocket and should be able to win most of the games or at least enough to climb slowly. Especially on maps where u can boom as pocket(arena for example) u should have a big advantage.

Yes, there are smurfs in this game like in every other game. Yes, sometimes your mates are much worse than the enemies even tho they have the same rating…but the difference between your skill and the enemies should be enough to let u win most of the games.

The things you are describing really sound like low elo but you are telling me that it is only u who gets the “34pop fast castle poles as flank” and never the enemies?

If the skill level is too far apart one player often can carry a whole game. If you are not able to do that…maybe you are not as good in teamgames than u think u are.

The real Problem with teamgames(especially 4vs4) is that the matchmaking can be really terrible. I don’t know if its due to playerbase getting small…but if i get with a ~1.5k (non premade) team enemies with 1.9k teamrating…then i dont know why to play this game…because the result is obvious. How should i be able to beat a premade team of Sitaux with 3 people around my lvl? Thats just timewaste.

1 Like

Can’t agree more for 20 char

1 Like

idk where you read that I have difficulty climbing, I didn’t say that, my surprise was more about how much people are willing to leech off of others, I see people who are 1200 in RM allegedly, but play like 800 elo, can’t lure boar under TC, do FC with no walls and add TC 5 tiles away from starting TC (on Arabia) have 0 armor upgrades on Knights as Franks 30 min into the game… to name a few things so I was impressed because when I was a 1200 elo player, I remember having a learning experience of how to counter 2 range archers, straight MAA etc. are all things I learned, while these 1200 RM players playing TGs get defeated by 3 archers in Feudal.

Also while I wouldn’t call 1200 players good, it’s the first elo where for example people understand you must make gold units whereas these 1200s playing TGs often even will go spear skirm (which in TGs is far worse than in 1v1).

If you wanna red herring this about how I’m frustrated or unable to climb, go off tho, like I stated earlier TGs don’t interest me that much.

elo seems to have inflated in that range
with the skill of a 1200 elo player from 1 year ago you can easily make it to 1400 i reckon

I have no idea what’s going on in this thread, but can we get rid of team game elo and just match team games off of 1v1 elo?

1 Like

I dont see the point of this thread to begin with. U are crying about people being bad in low elo?

Should i make a new account play vs 1k elo players in solo and make a thread about them being bad in this game?

Is this the point of this thread? Or is the point that you think teamelo and solorating isn’t comparable?

Maybe this could be true in lower ratings…considering the fact that there was a huge inflation not long ago it might be that some people are still in the wrong elo. Most people i face in teamgames have around the same rating in solo and teamgames…and it’s not unusual that even tho player with a decent solorating might have a decent micro and macro that their decisionmaking is awful.

1 Like

I quite agree with what OP say. Team Game and 1v1 are actually two different game which share the same skin. Like football in Euro and football in Amercia which both of them use foot to play but different.

I am a 1400 TG only player and I often encounter 1600 - 1800 1v1 players which don’t have enough sense on team game and ##### by us. If the team game matching is just match with 1v1 elo I will only face those 1200 guys and I think they will have a very bad game expensive. imho the currently match making system of TG is quite good. If OP think he lose because of his bad teammate, it is because he is one of the bad teammate and cannot carry the game.

I play only for TGs. So for me the experience is different. AoE2 wouldnt really exist for me if it wasn’t for team games, mostly 4v4s. And I strongly believe AoE2 is the best RTS by far when it comes to team games. It probably comes with age, as I used to be into 1v1s as well plenty years ago. Now I don’t care about the elo at all, as long as the games are balanced. Sometimes they are not balanced, with someone even resigning early, but other times they are. I don’t mind losing a few games due to team balance until I get that long 4v4 where we fight on and on throughout the game and especially in post imp, where we try get into enemy trade or slowly push the front line. Such a game makes the day for me. I’ve had lots of trully epic games in 4v4 any of which would be a dream for any other RTS out there to achieve. Too bad lots of players skip maps like Black Forest, but there are still plenty good maps for potentially epic 4v4 teamgames (I dont consider Arabia to be one of them).
So, to conclude, in my opinion this where AoE2 shines the most: in team games. Excelent RTS design for that.

5 Likes

Totally agree with what you say. I am also a purely 4v4 player and you exactly express the pleasure I have in TG game. Thank you so much

1 Like

You need to find players at your level - at least 1500 TG elo and queue up with them. You can find them on pro player discords - Hera, Viper, Jordan, Daut, Mbl these guys have a big discord community.
Obviously if you’ve never played TG, it will be extremely difficult to get to your true TG rating and matchup with players at your level. If you don’t want to pair up with anyone, just keep playing 2v2 until you reach your true TG rating. This will be less challenging because you’ll be matching with opponents who are much weaker and more often than not, you will win easily.

1 Like

long games on big maps were basically the whole point of the game, and what differentiated it from other “zerg rush” RTS games

you got to see each era with small skirmishes leading up to imperial age, and then the civs start to become different with unique units and trade economies and raiding and fights for the limited resources on the map

but the DE ladder teamgame experience is not really AoE2. for example, arabia went from 45-minute games to 15 minute-games. it used to be the most popular map. now it’s the most-banned map.

this is mostly because of position-picking and other assorted power creep (cheaper houses, tons of free techs, pushing deer because there’s no lag, etc.). before that, the first few battles were just minor skirmishes. now the games just end instantly when one side wins an early fight because the civs are too efficient at pressing an advantage and there is no time to recover. walls are paper thin and take more time to set up. archers are attacking 2-3 minutes faster than they used to and paladins come out 5-10 minutes faster than they used to, even among low-skilled players

sometimes you can still get longer games with multiple battlefields if people are getting random civs instead of just OP civs or if there’s a decent hybid map in the pool, but those are few and far between