I'm a relative Newb to AoM (got pretty good at aoe, but skipped aok/c almost entirely) and have been playing a bit of rated MP recently. My rating peaked around 1675 after an early winning streak (aided unwittingly by the Loki ship bug I suspect), but has since dropped back to a bit under 1600. I suspect my "real" score should be around 1630.
My question is, does it seem to anyone else that there are a LOT of smurfs on ESO? I mean, I expect an occasional game with someone much better than their rating, but my recent experience has just been GRIM.
I've had a few evenly matched games, and those are amazing. Really tense and fun But unfortunately, the vast majority of players in my range seem to be either MUCH better than me, or much worse -- neither of which makes for that interesting of a game. I guess I'd hoped that the ladder rankings would be a bit more consistant... one game I think I should be pushing for 1700, the next I feel like 1550 is optimistic. I'm sure this has been discussed to death in the past -- but it's seemed to me to get worse even over the last week or so. Are there just a lot of high-level folk trying new civs/builds right now? Have I just hit a streak of better players? or does 1650 realisticly represent a pretty darn good player? I've still got a lot to learn -- I need to learn the right balance of aggression and economy, and my micro skillz suck pretty hard -- but I guess I expected to be able to maintain a little more gain on the ratings than I have. hmmmm... this is gettin a tad long winded. Two more questions, and I'll shut up Do people think that (in general) the Ratings on ESO are an accurate reflection of Player Skill, or does smurfing substantially break the system? What, if anything, do you think should/could be done about it? danm
(boztakang on ESO)