Why is my ELO so low when i seem to be playing well

lumpo · Post by **lumpo** » 20 Oct 2015, 11:19

Hi all,

I am a nilla player and everytime i play well in a 3v3 and seem to be on par with good eco and unit production etc i never seem to get a good elo rating its always about 1790 to 1850 at best is it because i dont use control groups or hotkeys and stuff which would maybe give me some efficiency, i dunno well your input would be welcome

rangerxx · Post by **rangerxx** » 20 Oct 2015, 11:43

3 v 3 on nilla is more random if you lose or win, rather than decided by skill. Its mostly decided by the hunts, civ combination an by wich team has got the worse noobs in their team etc. If you wanna improve, i recommend you to play 1 v 1. The higher players you beat, the more elo you will gain from a victory. gl

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 20 Oct 2015, 12:59

It doesnt matter how well you play, elo isnt affected by your resources gathered or anything like that. Its only decided based on whether you win or lose

lumpo · Post by **lumpo** » 20 Oct 2015, 13:02

very helpful thanks

Kaiserklein · Post by **Kaiserklein** » 20 Oct 2015, 13:49

Team elo is kinda garbage anyway... I mean team is so random, because teams are rarely fair, and there is so much luck with 6 players together... Because of the map being so big, your troops have to walk for so long, so everybody makes cav and it ends up in raiding everywhere at random places ' also the map being big makes people rush less because it's harder to defend your own base from raids since your fb is so far, and your vils have to walk a longer way to build the fb... So it becomes kind of a camping party. And people don't have to mix units, which means less micro, so less skill. You should play more 1v1s really, or at least 2v2s.

About your elo, well the thing is in team you don't lose much pr but you can lose much elo. So it makes your elo go down while your pr still seems decent. Anyway, 1700-1800 elo is kinda normal for a pr 20 imo. Also don't forget that there is a lot of smurfing in team games

lumpo · Post by **lumpo** » 20 Oct 2015, 15:00

kaiserklein wrote:Team elo is kinda garbage anyway... I mean team is so random, because teams are rarely fair, and there is so much luck with 6 players together... Because of the map being so big, your troops have to walk for so long, so everybody makes cav and it ends up in raiding everywhere at random places ' also the map being big makes people rush less because it''s harder to defend your own base from raids since your fb is so far, and your vils have to walk a longer way to build the fb... So it becomes kind of a camping party. And people don''t have to mix units, which means less micro, so less skill. You should play more 1v1s really, or at least 2v2s.

About your elo, well the thing is in team you don''t lose much pr but you can lose much elo. So it makes your elo go down while your pr still seems decent. Anyway, 1700-1800 elo is kinda normal for a pr 20 imo. Also don''t forget that there is a lot of smurfing in team games

1+

pizzafreak · Post by **pizzafreak** » 20 Oct 2015, 15:37

Never forget: The higher your elo, the smaller your penis ')

yemshi · Post by **yemshi** » 20 Oct 2015, 16:33

But the higher it is the more usefull it'll be.

_DB_ · Post by **_DB_** » 20 Oct 2015, 17:45

kaiserklein is right about the fact that Elo for team game is unrealistic measure for the skill.

Your have lesser change in magnitude of Elo and PR in team games than that of 1v1.

Playing 1v1 will give more accurate PR and Elo.

lumpo · Post by **lumpo** » 20 Oct 2015, 20:20

pizzafreak wrote:Never forget: The higher your elo, the smaller your penis ')

hahaha quality post!

arriah · Post by **arriah** » 21 Oct 2015, 06:32

1700-1800 elo is normal for lt? In my experience, 2nd lts usually have at least 2000 elo. I myself have 2000 elo and just reached 18 pr this week. I went from corp with 1600-1700 elo to now in a short period. I consider 1500 elo to be that of a private, thus 1800 seems a bit low?

Wuangaga · Post by **Wuangaga** » 21 Oct 2015, 10:31

arriah wrote:1700-1800 elo is normal for lt? In my experience, 2nd lts usually have at least 2000 elo. I myself have 2000 elo and just reached 18 pr this week. I went from corp with 1600-1700 elo to now in a short period. I consider 1500 elo to be that of a private, thus 1800 seems a bit low?

Are talking about the overall Elo? Because it only would make sense then. Team and 1v1 elo are usually lower than that.

arriah · Post by **arriah** » 21 Oct 2015, 15:17

wuangaga wrote:
arriah wrote:1700-1800 elo is normal for lt? In my experience, 2nd lts usually have at least 2000 elo. I myself have 2000 elo and just reached 18 pr this week. I went from corp with 1600-1700 elo to now in a short period. I consider 1500 elo to be that of a private, thus 1800 seems a bit low?
Are talking about the overall Elo? Because it only would make sense then. Team and 1v1 elo are usually lower than that.

I am talking about strictly team elo, as that is what OP is talking about. My 1v1 elo is much lower, as I havent played one since corp.

In nilla, at least, 75% of people that join your 1v1 are Otto lamers, 24% are French (usually lamers) and almost all of them are a significantly higher pr

gibson · Post by **gibson** » 21 Oct 2015, 15:20

Team elo 2k is definitly not average for a 2nd lt lol..... I'm a 1st lt- captian on tad and my team elo max is like 2110

arriah · Post by **arriah** » 21 Oct 2015, 15:32

gibson wrote:Team elo 2k is definitly not average for a 2nd lt lol..... I''m a 1st lt- captian on tad and my team elo max is like 2110

This is interesting. Maybe it''s a difference between TAD and ''nilla? What''s your 1v1 elo? Overall?

My overall elo is only 1 point below my team elo (because the ratio of team to 1v1, I assume)

gibson · Post by **gibson** » 21 Oct 2015, 15:41

arriah wrote:
gibson wrote:Team elo 2k is definitly not average for a 2nd lt lol..... Im a 1st lt- captian on tad and my team elo max is like 2110

This is interesting. Maybe its a difference between TAD and nilla? Whats your 1v1 elo? Overall?

My overall elo is only 1 point below my team elo (because the ratio of team to 1v1, I assume)

http://aoe3.jpcommunity.com/rating2/pla ... id=137213#

arriah · Post by **arriah** » 21 Oct 2015, 15:47

http://aoe3.jpcommunity.com/rating2/pla ... dBabySouls

arriah · Post by **arriah** » 21 Oct 2015, 16:17

Also, I question how much team 'nilla kaiserklein plays, as 9/10 games people are rushing around 7 mins, and I often have to mix units. Yes, sometimes you get less hunts or a shitty team mate, but it will even out, because so does the other team. Aside from occasional very bad luck (several team mates that are bad/lag out/drop for no reason in a row-- and which your elo will return to normal in a day) my elo has closely reflected how well I play. It steadily goes up when I play better, and down when worse.

Kaiserklein · Post by **Kaiserklein** » 21 Oct 2015, 16:53

arriah wrote:Also, I question how much team ''nilla kaiserklein plays, as 9/10 games people are rushing around 7 mins, and I often have to mix units. Yes, sometimes you get less hunts or a shitty team mate, but it will even out, because so does the other team. Aside from occasional very bad luck (several team mates that are bad/lag out/drop for no reason in a row-- and which your elo will return to normal in a day) my elo has closely reflected how well I play. It steadily goes up when I play better, and down when worse.

Lol don''t worry it''s likely I played wayyy more team than you on nilla... It''s just that at ms/lieut level people tend to rush more, because they know their opponents are gonna panic. At this level, you don''t know how to hold a rush properly, which is why ms/lieuts think russia is op, for example. So yeah, in those team games it always ends up with a pike rush from dutch, a strelet rush from russia, a jan rush from otto, a fast 3 huss from french, a tower rush for german... But from capt level it''s more like always 2 cav in 3v3s and go age 3 asap, brits camping and manor booming hard, dutch spamming ruyts like dumb, french spamming goons cuirs etc. Which one is the gayest I couldn''t say, both are just crap, which is why team is overall boring

Btw 7 min isn''t even a rush

arriah · Post by **arriah** » 21 Oct 2015, 17:22

kaiserklein wrote:At this level, you don''t know how to hold a rush properly, which is why ms/lieuts think russia is op, for example. So yeah, in those team games it always ends up with a pike rush from dutch, a strelet rush from russia, a jan rush from otto, a fast 3 huss from french, a tower rush for german... But from capt level it''s more like always 2 cav in 3v3s and go age 3 asap, brits camping and manor booming hard, dutch spamming ruyts like dumb, french spamming goons cuirs etc. Which one is the gayest I couldn''t say, both are just crap, which is why team is overall boring

Btw 7 min isn''t even a rush

Do you still play ''nilla? In my experience this is untrue. No one thinks Russia is OP, we do think Otto is the "noob civ" but no one complains, I usually play cav as Dutch believe it or not, and rarely does anyone pike rush. Also, 7 mins is the late rush ') obviously I don''t know what captain level is like.

Personally, I like team games because (on top of it being near impossible to get a legit 1v1) it''s less predictable, and there can be some really funny/WTF moments, and you can play with friends.

Also, please refrain from using homophobic language.

glorious_ · Post by **glorious_** » 21 Oct 2015, 20:04

kaiserklein wrote:Team elo is kinda garbage anyway... I mean team is so random, because teams are rarely fair, and there is so much luck with 6 players together... Because of the map being so big, your troops have to walk for so long, so everybody makes cav and it ends up in raiding everywhere at random places ' also the map being big makes people rush less because it''s harder to defend your own base from raids since your fb is so far, and your vils have to walk a longer way to build the fb... So it becomes kind of a camping party. And people don''t have to mix units, which means less micro, so less skill. You should play more 1v1s really, or at least 2v2s.

About your elo, well the thing is in team you don''t lose much pr but you can lose much elo. So it makes your elo go down while your pr still seems decent. Anyway, 1700-1800 elo is kinda normal for a pr 20 imo. Also don''t forget that there is a lot of smurfing in team games

imo 1v1 elo says a bit more but not that much aswell. U can be a decent player 27-30 and get in qs always pr 35+ and u lose all the time then your elo wont reflect your skills aswell...

Kaiserklein · Post by **Kaiserklein** » 22 Oct 2015, 01:13

arriah wrote:
kaiserklein wrote:At this level, you dont know how to hold a rush properly, which is why ms/lieuts think russia is op, for example. So yeah, in those team games it always ends up with a pike rush from dutch, a strelet rush from russia, a jan rush from otto, a fast 3 huss from french, a tower rush for german... But from capt level its more like always 2 cav in 3v3s and go age 3 asap, brits camping and manor booming hard, dutch spamming ruyts like dumb, french spamming goons cuirs etc. Which one is the gayest I couldnt say, both are just crap, which is why team is overall boring

Btw 7 min isnt even a rush

Do you still play nilla? In my experience this is untrue. No one thinks Russia is OP, we do think Otto is the "noob civ" but no one complains, I usually play cav as Dutch believe it or not, and rarely does anyone pike rush. Also, 7 mins is the late rush ') obviously I dont know what captain level is like.

Personally, I like team games because (on top of it being near impossible to get a legit 1v1) its less predictable, and there can be some really funny/WTF moments, and you can play with friends.

Also, please refrain from using homophobic language.

Lol I just used "gayest" once in my text, come on...
Anyway Im a nilla player trust me... And I often smurf in pr 20-30 level team games and I can tell you its either camping with no fight before 12 min into the game or all-in lame rush. Playing with friends is nice, still it doesnt make team require skill. I like to team as well, most often to troll for fun, but for serious games its just a joke.

lukas2223 · Post by **lukas2223** » 22 Oct 2015, 01:22

if someone wins every team game regardless of their partners then u know they have the true skills

benj89 · Post by **benj89** » 22 Oct 2015, 01:32

kaiserklein wrote:
arriah wrote:
Lol I just used "gayest" once in my text, come on...
Anyway Im a nilla player trust me... And I often smurf in pr 20-30 level team games and I can tell you its either camping with no fight before 12 min into the game or all-in lame rush. Playing with friends is nice, still it doesnt make team require skill. I like to team as well, most often to troll for fun, but for serious games its just a joke.

It seems like we dont play the same team games tbh. Even tho 3v3s have inherent randomness factors attached to it, a good player in a 3v3 will still make a difference and potentially give his team a win, and I fail to see your camping/all in rush theories unless youre talking about those low pr team games on nilla.
Considering only 2v2 are worth discussing, I found in them that decision making is more important there than in 1v1 for various reasons, whereas the multitasking/game mechanics required isnt as demaning.
In the end I play this game for fun, and team game is def the most fun mode for me. Spent some great nights playing with them aoe tards

arriah · Post by **arriah** » 22 Oct 2015, 02:20

kaiserklein wrote:Lol I just used "gayest" once in my text, come on...

Why should any amount of bigoted language be ok?

kaiserklein wrote: I can tell you its either camping with no fight before 12 min into the game or all-in lame rush.

So you want players to do... What exactly?

Whats the point of smurfing? Its kind of pathetic and dickish. Was I supposed to think that makes you cool?

And yes, playing with friends IS nice... Who was talking about it taking skill?

ESOC

Top Live Streams

Legacy AoE3