Who can beat the extreme ai?

[The_Night_Panda]

With the constant inflation of player elo it's hard to keep track of the skill level of different elo ranges. So to have some form of baseline for comparison it would be cool to know:

What's your 1v1 matchmaking elo on DE and can you beat the DE extreme ai in over 50% of 1v1 arabia games with or without the use of ai exploits like tower rush and douching?

 

[Breakfast]

I really appreciate allowing multiple options so that I can claim to be Daut at the same time as giving the real answer.

 

[i_no_english]

Think 95%+ of the people here are 1200+ so most of us will easily be able to beat the extreme AI. If you want answers from lower rated players to see from what ELO people start beating the extreme AI it's probably best to ask on the official forums and on reddit as well.

 

[The_Night_Panda]

Think 95%+ of the people here are 1200+ so most of us will easily be able to beat the extreme AI. If you want answers from lower rated players to see from what ELO people start beating the extreme AI it's probably best to ask on the official forums and on reddit as well.

I thought so as well. Wasn't sure if they have the options to make such a poll but it's worth exploring

*Edit - Apparently you can't make a poll but i've made a post asking people to write their elo and weather they can beat the ai

**Edit - Apparently you have to wait an unknown amount of time before being allowed to make a poll

 

[Deathcounter]

I think this poll is better suited for Reddit or the official forums. Because the majority of the newer players are there. Here are (mostly) the old grey-bearded player that are from voobly and overall, higher-skilled than Reddit or official forum users (no offense to anyone)

 

[Skittle]

Can you kill the AI when it piks civ or do you rage quit and report?

 

[n0brain]

With the constant inflation of player elo it's hard to keep track of the skill level of different elo ranges.

I would like to point out that Elo is not really inflating as you expect. Elo is a formula that represents a winrate based in the DIFFERENCE between two, as in 100 elo higher than opponant would be expected to get 64% of points/wins etc.

A single absolute elo is not meant or designed to represent anything. you could set starting elo to 15000, and all results would play out the same just shifted 14000 points higher than the current 1000 startpoint.

With the massive influx of players and games played over the recent two years we just get a lot better resolution at the top and low ends, resulting in a bigger overall elo range with clearer defined elos. Not to mention the top level playerskill is supposed to be increasing and higher than even just a year ago, while the low end is not. this results in a increasing top end since elo, as said above, represents winrate, not skill. People usually expect or want elo to represent a fixed level of skill, like 1600 means good buildorders, little idletime, luring boars properly or whatever, but it just doesnt and never can do that, nor was it ever supposed to.

Inflation would mean that numbers increase with reduced value, but this is not the case. The numbers increase because the winrate of top players vs low end players is increasing.

I know some of this mainly about the definition of inflation and a bit technical so sorry if it is a bit unwanted or i misinterpret ur use of inflation, but i see people usually not understanding how these rating systems work

 

[The_Night_Panda]

I would like to point out that Elo is not really inflating as you expect. Elo is a formula that represents a winrate based in the DIFFERENCE between two, as in 100 elo higher than opponant would be expected to get 64% of points/wins etc.

A single absolute elo is not meant or designed to represent anything. you could set starting elo to 15000, and all results would play out the same just shifted 14000 points higher than the current 1000 startpoint.

With the massive influx of players and games played over the recent two years we just get a lot better resolution at the top and low ends, resulting in a bigger overall elo range with clearer defined elos. Not to mention the top level playerskill is supposed to be increasing and higher than even just a year ago, while the low end is not. this results in a increasing top end since elo, as said above, represents winrate, not skill. People usually expect or want elo to represent a fixed level of skill, like 1600 means good buildorders, little idletime, luring boars properly or whatever, but it just doesnt and never can do that, nor was it ever supposed to.

Inflation would mean that numbers increase with reduced value, but this is not the case. The numbers increase because the winrate of top players vs low end players is increasing.

I know some of this mainly about the definition of inflation and a bit technical so sorry if it is a bit unwanted or i misinterpret ur use of inflation, but i see people usually not understanding how these rating systems work

I would like to point out that Elo is not really inflating as you expect. Elo is a formula that represents a winrate based in the DIFFERENCE between two, as in 100 elo higher than opponant would be expected to get 64% of points/wins etc.

A single absolute elo is not meant or designed to represent anything. you could set starting elo to 15000, and all results would play out the same just shifted 14000 points higher than the current 1000 startpoint.

With the massive influx of players and games played over the recent two years we just get a lot better resolution at the top and low ends, resulting in a bigger overall elo range with clearer defined elos. Not to mention the top level playerskill is supposed to be increasing and higher than even just a year ago, while the low end is not. this results in a increasing top end since elo, as said above, represents winrate, not skill. People usually expect or want elo to represent a fixed level of skill, like 1600 means good buildorders, little idletime, luring boars properly or whatever, but it just doesnt and never can do that, nor was it ever supposed to.

Inflation would mean that numbers increase with reduced value, but this is not the case. The numbers increase because the winrate of top players vs low end players is increasing.

I know some of this mainly about the definition of inflation and a bit technical so sorry if it is a bit unwanted or i misinterpret ur use of inflation, but i see people usually not understanding how these rating systems work

I'm aware that the inflation term is not stricly speaking acurate but i think everyone get the idea.

For me it's just as much about finding relative skill of the DE ai (Promi) compared to actual players and use that to compare the skill level of other ai's which have their own elo system

 

[n0brain]

I'm aware that the inflation term is not stricly speaking acurate but i think everyone get the idea.

For me it's just as much about finding relative skill of the DE ai (Promi) compared to actual players and use that to compare the skill level of other ai's which have their own elo system

makes sense

 

[Hoera]

With the constant inflation of player elo it's hard to keep track of the skill level of different elo ranges.

1v1 ratings are fine, they arent inflated. Only team game ratings are inflated.

The mean value of 1v1 rating is still about 1000. This is what you except. The mean value of TG ratings is 1500 (maybe even higher). That is not what you expect based from the elo system.

 

[The_Night_Panda]

1v1 ratings are fine, they arent inflated. Only team game ratings are inflated.

The mean value of 1v1 rating is still about 1000. This is what you except. The mean value of TG ratings is 1500 (maybe even higher). That is not what you expect based from the elo system.

Elo ranges does change over time as more players join the game (the main factor) and more low ranked players become inactive. Its more of a factor at the higher elo ranges but even what used to be 1400 half a year ago is now almost 1500 (the elo jump i made from not playing the game for half a year) TG elo is fairly useless for comparison though

 

[XDestroyer69]

i'm 900 elo and i can win against extreme ai without exploit but not always, it's like 50/50 and i need to rush it the fastest i can, jumpinb between his gold and his 2 woodlines with maa and scouts at first then knights + rams and/or castle drop otherwise he always beat me. Only when i do the fatslob technique + wonder on BF i can win late game but the ai is so dumb, he starts destroying my city before the wonder.

 

[dataidiot]

I got really disappointed when I tried the extreme AI in single player. Is there any decent AI to play in DE?

 

[The_Night_Panda]

I got really disappointed when I tried the extreme AI in single player. Is there any decent AI to play in DE?

Yes. While Barbarian had not been updated for DE it can still be played there if you chose extreme difficulty and skip the newest 6 civs. It will be weaker than on UP but still significantly stronger than the DE ai

 

[The_Night_Panda]

i'm 900 elo and i can win against extreme ai without exploit but not always, it's like 50/50 and i need to rush it the fastest i can, jumpinb between his gold and his 2 woodlines with maa and scouts at first then knights + rams and/or castle drop otherwise he always beat me. Only when i do the fatslob technique + wonder on BF i can win late game but the ai is so dumb, he starts destroying my city before the wonder.

Thanks for your reply. So far the polling also seems to indicate that 900 is around the lvl needed to consistently beat the extreme ai on arabia

 

[The_Night_Panda]

Combining the results so far from aoeezone and the official forums the results are:

< 900 elo:
3/8= 37,5 % claim to win

900-1000 elo
7/9= 77,8 % claim to win (100 % with trush)

> 1000 elo
125/131= 95,4 % claim to win

First of all I really wanna stress that the margin of error in these findings is so large that any conclusions drawn here are speculative at best. I think the only way to get proper data would be to individually seek out players of the relevant elo to get a proper sample size, as these players are fairly rare on both forums.

With that being said so far it seems like the elo needed to consistently beat the DE extreme ai on 1v1 arabia without trushing or douching is around the lower 900's. It seems plausable that the number could be higher among players that doesn't go for early aggresion.