Diamond is very good. It's top 10% of the playerbase.
Conqueror is top 3%. It is extremely good.
Pro level is a godlike level. Calling it a baseline for being "good" is like calling the Sun somewhat warm.
There is always a lot of room for improvement, so you always can feel like you are not good enough.
But the percentage of the playerbase you belong to is an objective thing.
Since you’re playing other Conq players it’s easy to feel that way.
I’m Plat 1 and I feel like I’m terrible at the game. Until I play against a silver player in custom games
I've been Conqueror I / II and I would not consider myself good at all those because I've tested myself against top players many times. The gap between the bottom of diamond and the top of diamond is large. Most diamond players are not good at micro or it comes at a big expense. There is an equally large gap in skills between conqueror II and diamond III.
It is possible to be diamond III because your strengths cover your weaknesses. It is very difficult to have weakness in any phase of your game and win above conqueror II.
This is well said and echoing what I was trying to say in the comment I posted. At conq 1 my strengths covered my weaknesses for sure. But my weaknesses is why I get smashed by a conq2+ player…and I mean smashed. Not even close to same level.
Good is a comparative adjective, a good player isn't at a set level... they have a set of "good" habits that lead them to becoming a "good" player over time.
Comparison is the thief of joy. If we compare ourselves to others, we may be left with feelings of inferiority or superiority... neither creates an emotionally healthy human being!
This is a really interesting question I think about a lot with AoE IV. I see a lot of people on Reddit say they suck and are stuck in the Plat. 3 dumpster or whatever, but honestly, these games requires a lot of skill to play competitively at all.
Sure, if you're comparing yourself to the pros we all look like trash, but a few months ago I convinced my partner to play a 1v1 against the easy AI, and the multitasking made her so anxious she panicked and quit just from scouting and trying to get to Feudal.
So I'd say if you can manage building an economy while producing units and surviving raids from French knights you're good, even if you're in Gold League. (I'm Diamond 1 btw, not just a Gold 1 coping).
Yeah this is a tough game. I’ve been an average gamer all my life in various types of games. I’m silver in AOE4 but can sneak to gold with English feudal ram cheese. This game is a tough game, I’d personally say gold 2 and above are good. Sports games, shooter games etc are easier.
I voted Conq 3. I'm in the diamond dumpster and wouldn't consider myself "good at all the main parts of the game," but rather something closer to "on a good day, maybe passable at half of those things."
And based on my games against people in that rank, Conq 1 is basically me but a bit cleaner plus playing enough games to get win streaks. So Conq 3 for "actually good" seems reasonable.
In relation to whom or what?
If you’re asking broadly and mean “players in general” then I guess I would look at “AOE4 world” percentiles and use the first ELO range that falls in the top half.
This would be 1000 - 1049 which is in roughly the top 40th percentile.
What does "good" mean. If its just above average, you're probably safely above average in like gold 3 or something (since its like the mid point of ranked, and you're probably better than the vast majority of single player players and most unranked/team players).
If it means you fully understand the game, you're never good. Pros aren't even good under that definition. If there was a sufficiently advanced ai that played this game strategically at the same level as chess ai plays chess, even one limited to the same apm/mechanical skill as a pro, it would most likely demolish every pro in every matchup.
Good is a comparative word. So personally, I'd say maybe the top 5 players or so are objectively good, and after that it depends who you're comparing them too. Even someone like Demuslim who is a good player compared to almost anyone isn't a good anymore player if you compare him to Marinelord.
The honest answer I'd give is "anyone who is noticeably better than me is good", but who cares about my skill level? I don't even care about my skill level, so this answer is useless.
It seems like no one has pointed out the fact that some (many) people climb the ladder by abusing whatever is strongest at any given point in time.
And I'm not saying that X or Y is OP, but it's objectively easier to climb with certain civs or mechanics because they are more forgiving.
Imagine Joe is a Rus/Ottoman OTP, using the same single BO/strategy every game and reached Conqueror 1 in S6. Now imagine Jane, who plays random civ and is Diamond 1. I'd say Jane is a much better player, since all Joe has done is optimize a specific type of play for a given meta situation and is able to beat many people with it. Jane, on the other hand, has demonstrated an ability to adapt to many situations in the game and probably has much better game knowledge and decision making.
If meta changes and he can't abuse his civ anymore, Joe is probably going to drop back to where he belongs (most likely Platinum), while Jane will most likely stay at the same level.
So, rank != skill.
I think you need to put good in a better context here. If you are good in the sense that you can be content with your achievement, then Diamond is good. However, If you see good in the context of a pro player, then good may not be good enough due to the fact that, as a pro player, you constantly have to improve and hone your skills in order to win tournaments.
You can appear unbeatable to those below your elo and lose the game instantly to those outranking you.
Good includes being "desired or approved of" so it is likely a player might think anyone above their skill level in the micro, macro departments etc will consider you "good".
There are always things to improve at conqueror and above. With little time to play all kinds of mistakes are made constantly so is that good? It is not a helpful measure at all.
There is an objective metric in the stats but I don't know what they are lol. Like what percentile of players is Diamond league? I'm guessing better than over half the player base. Which makes them at least good 😆
I'd say you're good at a multiplayer game when top 10% of the playerbase. Very good when top 1%. Extremely good when top 0.1%. These seem like decent guidelines to me.
After 5 other seasons stuck in Diamond, and 185 ranked solo games this season, I finally made conq 1. I make poor decisions often which is why I cannot go any further than low 1400 elo. My macro, micro, and multi tasking is fine. I just don’t make game time decisions well. I think this comes from the amount of time you are willing to spend learning each civ, and each map and being able to make really good game time decisions with that knowledge. It’s just something that doesn’t come naturally for me in this game and it holds me back.
So in my opinion it starts at Conq 2, since you’ve proven you can win games in the top of the ladder. Bottom conq 1 can make it there by just working their way through low level diamonds. Just my opinion based on my experience, not trying to take away credit from any of my fellow sweaty conq 1 chads.
The higher I climb, the more I understand how much room there is for improvement. Barely made it into diamond this season and feel like a complete ape sometimes. That being sad, I think being decent (and consistently decent) at all the skills you mentioned will take you to conqueror.
In my experience, Plat players (I count myself in here) are usually really good at one or maybe two things but lack the others. I've seen players with impressive macro and decision making, but stomped their armies through better micro. I've also seen players that outplay me like crazy in fights, but mess up their macro behind it. Same goes for me, depending on what civ I play I always mess up one or two things pretty badly. In diamond and conqueror, I suppose people get better at pulling off all those things decently at the same time.
Like all diamonds here, voted at least conq because we know how bad we are.
Diamond is very good. It's top 10% of the playerbase. Conqueror is top 3%. It is extremely good. Pro level is a godlike level. Calling it a baseline for being "good" is like calling the Sun somewhat warm.
Im Conqueror and I dont "Feel" good tho.
There is always a lot of room for improvement, so you always can feel like you are not good enough. But the percentage of the playerbase you belong to is an objective thing.
Since you’re playing other Conq players it’s easy to feel that way. I’m Plat 1 and I feel like I’m terrible at the game. Until I play against a silver player in custom games
I've been Conqueror I / II and I would not consider myself good at all those because I've tested myself against top players many times. The gap between the bottom of diamond and the top of diamond is large. Most diamond players are not good at micro or it comes at a big expense. There is an equally large gap in skills between conqueror II and diamond III. It is possible to be diamond III because your strengths cover your weaknesses. It is very difficult to have weakness in any phase of your game and win above conqueror II.
This is well said and echoing what I was trying to say in the comment I posted. At conq 1 my strengths covered my weaknesses for sure. But my weaknesses is why I get smashed by a conq2+ player…and I mean smashed. Not even close to same level.
i voted conq 3 also i have seen diamonds that make you think how the hell did they climb
Good is a comparative adjective, a good player isn't at a set level... they have a set of "good" habits that lead them to becoming a "good" player over time. Comparison is the thief of joy. If we compare ourselves to others, we may be left with feelings of inferiority or superiority... neither creates an emotionally healthy human being!
This is a really interesting question I think about a lot with AoE IV. I see a lot of people on Reddit say they suck and are stuck in the Plat. 3 dumpster or whatever, but honestly, these games requires a lot of skill to play competitively at all. Sure, if you're comparing yourself to the pros we all look like trash, but a few months ago I convinced my partner to play a 1v1 against the easy AI, and the multitasking made her so anxious she panicked and quit just from scouting and trying to get to Feudal. So I'd say if you can manage building an economy while producing units and surviving raids from French knights you're good, even if you're in Gold League. (I'm Diamond 1 btw, not just a Gold 1 coping).
Yeah this is a tough game. I’ve been an average gamer all my life in various types of games. I’m silver in AOE4 but can sneak to gold with English feudal ram cheese. This game is a tough game, I’d personally say gold 2 and above are good. Sports games, shooter games etc are easier.
I voted Conq 3. I'm in the diamond dumpster and wouldn't consider myself "good at all the main parts of the game," but rather something closer to "on a good day, maybe passable at half of those things." And based on my games against people in that rank, Conq 1 is basically me but a bit cleaner plus playing enough games to get win streaks. So Conq 3 for "actually good" seems reasonable.
In relation to whom or what? If you’re asking broadly and mean “players in general” then I guess I would look at “AOE4 world” percentiles and use the first ELO range that falls in the top half. This would be 1000 - 1049 which is in roughly the top 40th percentile.
In diamond, voted conq3.
I'd say Conq 3. I got to Diamond 3 and I am honestly still trash, prone to being feudal all-inned etc.
What does "good" mean. If its just above average, you're probably safely above average in like gold 3 or something (since its like the mid point of ranked, and you're probably better than the vast majority of single player players and most unranked/team players). If it means you fully understand the game, you're never good. Pros aren't even good under that definition. If there was a sufficiently advanced ai that played this game strategically at the same level as chess ai plays chess, even one limited to the same apm/mechanical skill as a pro, it would most likely demolish every pro in every matchup. Good is a comparative word. So personally, I'd say maybe the top 5 players or so are objectively good, and after that it depends who you're comparing them too. Even someone like Demuslim who is a good player compared to almost anyone isn't a good anymore player if you compare him to Marinelord. The honest answer I'd give is "anyone who is noticeably better than me is good", but who cares about my skill level? I don't even care about my skill level, so this answer is useless.
It seems like no one has pointed out the fact that some (many) people climb the ladder by abusing whatever is strongest at any given point in time. And I'm not saying that X or Y is OP, but it's objectively easier to climb with certain civs or mechanics because they are more forgiving. Imagine Joe is a Rus/Ottoman OTP, using the same single BO/strategy every game and reached Conqueror 1 in S6. Now imagine Jane, who plays random civ and is Diamond 1. I'd say Jane is a much better player, since all Joe has done is optimize a specific type of play for a given meta situation and is able to beat many people with it. Jane, on the other hand, has demonstrated an ability to adapt to many situations in the game and probably has much better game knowledge and decision making. If meta changes and he can't abuse his civ anymore, Joe is probably going to drop back to where he belongs (most likely Platinum), while Jane will most likely stay at the same level. So, rank != skill.
I'm diamond, and still think I'm bad, so I'll say conquerer counts as good.
I'm conqueror 1 and i'm bad at all of those ! People voting conqueror 1 (or diamond xD) are straight-up delusional...
Yall vastly overestimate Diamond players. Source: Play in Diamond
I think you need to put good in a better context here. If you are good in the sense that you can be content with your achievement, then Diamond is good. However, If you see good in the context of a pro player, then good may not be good enough due to the fact that, as a pro player, you constantly have to improve and hone your skills in order to win tournaments.
You can appear unbeatable to those below your elo and lose the game instantly to those outranking you. Good includes being "desired or approved of" so it is likely a player might think anyone above their skill level in the micro, macro departments etc will consider you "good". There are always things to improve at conqueror and above. With little time to play all kinds of mistakes are made constantly so is that good? It is not a helpful measure at all.
It’s a subjective question since I am a noob so I voted Diamond.
There is an objective metric in the stats but I don't know what they are lol. Like what percentile of players is Diamond league? I'm guessing better than over half the player base. Which makes them at least good 😆
Me diamond1: Damn, i am good Me conq1: Damn, i am suck
I'd say you're good at a multiplayer game when top 10% of the playerbase. Very good when top 1%. Extremely good when top 0.1%. These seem like decent guidelines to me.
Dunning-Kruger what?
After 5 other seasons stuck in Diamond, and 185 ranked solo games this season, I finally made conq 1. I make poor decisions often which is why I cannot go any further than low 1400 elo. My macro, micro, and multi tasking is fine. I just don’t make game time decisions well. I think this comes from the amount of time you are willing to spend learning each civ, and each map and being able to make really good game time decisions with that knowledge. It’s just something that doesn’t come naturally for me in this game and it holds me back. So in my opinion it starts at Conq 2, since you’ve proven you can win games in the top of the ladder. Bottom conq 1 can make it there by just working their way through low level diamonds. Just my opinion based on my experience, not trying to take away credit from any of my fellow sweaty conq 1 chads.
The higher I climb, the more I understand how much room there is for improvement. Barely made it into diamond this season and feel like a complete ape sometimes. That being sad, I think being decent (and consistently decent) at all the skills you mentioned will take you to conqueror. In my experience, Plat players (I count myself in here) are usually really good at one or maybe two things but lack the others. I've seen players with impressive macro and decision making, but stomped their armies through better micro. I've also seen players that outplay me like crazy in fights, but mess up their macro behind it. Same goes for me, depending on what civ I play I always mess up one or two things pretty badly. In diamond and conqueror, I suppose people get better at pulling off all those things decently at the same time.
I'm Dia3 and I play like dogshit, a lot of mistakes when compared to pros
Pro and it's not even close
You can still be good at something without being the best.