What's wrong with This Rank points?

This ranking system IS NOT STRAIGHTFORWARD. I beat a platium III English as a gold III player and I get ONLY 17 points… I later LOSE to GOLD 1 english player and lose 24 points??? Then I drop down to Gold II and face the same GOLD (now) II player and lose AGAIN and lose another 22 points???

I go to AOE4world.com to check rating to make sure and I had a different of 100 rank points under the plat III player? and only 69 points above the English player that beat me the first time? There must be some civ or something else that’s influencing the point system??

Yes git gud don’t lose…but the point system should be clear how it works…


YOu lost to a really abd player so the system thinks you should be lower than you are now.

You’re not making consistent sense…Did u skip the part where I won against a better player and DIDN’T get a anything special? (17 points); also keep in mind the plat III player that I beat ONLY lost 20 points?? How come HE didn’t lose 22-24 points for losing to a really bad player in me??? 100 ranks points under him???

Clearly u don’t know what you’re talking about


It’s still based on ELO from my understanding - so you lost an appropriate ELO based on your % favorable win based on skill level. The ‘Ranks’ are just arbitrary lines at certain ELOs.

It almost always gives you less points for victory than takes away for losing.

I don’t know why it’s like that.

i believe the ranked points and elo are calculated separately. But unless confirmed it’s just speculation.

Elo is shared across the board (Ranjked and Quick Match)

Ranked points are calculated based on your position (gold silver etc) .

  • Normaly you should win more from a higher ranked and less from a lower ranked. And lose more from a lower ranked and lose less from a higher ranked. But unless confirmed …

The devs need to be transparent on how the formula works. And usually in many multiplayer games i’ve played they are not that transparent on this regard. I am very curios what formula they use.

Ex: I play Go (Weiqi) online and IRL. They have like chess on the ranked site the exact formula so after the competition you can , in real time verify how many elo points you win or lose based on your and your opponent(s) elo.

I also encoutered the same problem, so my score getting lower and lower, which is very frustrating.

There was another thread about the same subject:

If you look at the distribution there, it seems like the rating system is currently bugged and is driving everyone’s rating downwards. However, we can’t be absolutely certain as the devs haven’t commented, as far as I’m aware, on what their target distribution is.

I like a system that punishes losing more than winning bc it further legitimize higher ratings. But this point stuff doesn’t make sense to me.

You can’t punish losing more than winning, it just doesn’t work. Imagine you have only 2 players, they start at 1000 rating each, and they play each other 10 times. The winner gains 5 rating, the loser loses 10 rating. The worse player is now at 900, and the better player is at 1050. The average rating of the player base has dropped from 1000 to 975. Basically, every game played sucks 5 rating out of the system, driving the average rating lower and lower the more games are played. That’s not going to encourage people to play the game.


Sometimes you have a hidden mmr in addition to your visible ranking points. If your mmr is a lot higher or lower than it should be for that rank, you’ll lose or gain more.

The reality is actually different!! Since there are multiple players playing it is very possible a few players will farm the majority which causing the rating to unnecessarily inflate which then makes it harder for even newer players to be properly acclaimed since now the first 10 games has to guess at the proper rating offering more and more points. If the collective average stays low for example 900 points then you know a rating of say 1100 points is a significant achievement of skill.

It doesn’t matter how many players there are, what I said still applies to the average rating across all players. You can have inflation for a small number of players at the top at the same as deflation for the average across all players. The numerical levels for each rank are fixed, so if the average deflates, it becomes harder and harder to achieve each rank. It’s already pretty hard to achieve a decent rank, with just 4.5% of players in platinum, 1.5% of players in diamond, and 0.05% of players in conqueror. Just over half of players are in bronze. It’s not clear if this is intentional or not, it’s certainly very different to Rocket League, for example, where the mid-point is around the boundary between gold and platinum rather than between bronze and silver.

IMO it seems not ideal to arrange a ranking system such that a large plurality of players are massed at the bottom rank and do not see progression.