You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

General Discussions
Moderated by Maffia, LordKivlov, JimXIX

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.15 replies
Age of Empires III Heaven » Forums » General Discussions » So what is a noob?
Topic Subject:So what is a noob?
posted 04-11-06 08:00 AM EDT (US)         
I'm starting to play online and usually host a game asking for a noob player. I'm 4 wins 8 losses and lvl 9 hc so I limit hc's to 5-15. But somtimes I'll get someone wanting to play who has a low lvl hc but is like 35 wins 35 losses or something like that. Should I boot him and wait for someone who has played a similar number of games? Or should I just take my lumps and chalk it up to experience?
posted 04-11-06 08:14 AM EDT (US)     1 / 15       
That's a strange question. I guess you can learn more by fighting against a more experienced player.

posted 04-11-06 09:05 AM EDT (US)     2 / 15       
This is a subject that I have thought about for some time now, I have played over 250 games and won 50% but as far as I am concerned I am a bad player - or a noob. A large number of my wins came pre 1.05 with a standard otto rush. I tend to look at the cuetech rankings where I am approximately 1630. I am power level 19 i think (master sergeant). The reason my ranking does not rise any higher is I only play for fun, I try new things and build units because I like them - as anyone who has faced my army of 70 imperial longbows can see. In my eyes I am a noob, I am not very good and would get murdered by your average 1750 - 1850 spanish FF. If I try to get a game with noobs (and here I mean players of a similar standard not players who have only played twice before) I spend a while getting booted from games until someone lets me stay. I dont bother hosting as people join the room, see my XP or HC level and leave again. The most success I tend to have is via the beginners chat room. Comments/ideas please.
The Bob
posted 04-11-06 09:51 AM EDT (US)     3 / 15       
go into chat and ask about who wants to play you and make sure you give specific examples of rank

"1v1 1600-1700 anybody?"

whatever you do dont spam expert chat with it though O_o

posted 04-11-06 11:42 AM EDT (US)     4 / 15       
Look out for 2k+ players who need a quick game o level sicne they are like 1k exp away and just want to stomp you. I do that now and then for a quick level.

"The lembas had a virtue without which they would long ago have lain down to die. . . . this waybread of the Elves had a potency that increased as travelers relied on it alone and did not mingle it with other foods. It fed the will, and it gave strength to endure, and to master sinew and limb beyond the measure of mortal kind."

• "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" by J.R.R. Tolkien

• Hit 2100+ cuetech rating on Sunday, April 17th, 2006

posted 04-11-06 01:13 PM EDT (US)     5 / 15       
As you climb the ladder all those below you are noobs .
posted 04-11-06 01:38 PM EDT (US)     6 / 15       
Despite the many complaints, I'm finding that Power Rating is becoming a pretty good indicator of ability. If you want to find a fun, competitive game make sure that all of the players match up in Power Rating. The only time this hasn't proven to be the case was when my teammate (Major) and I (Captain) joined a game that also had a Major and Captain. They booted us after telling us that their rating was mostly obtained from playing no rush games and thus they weren't as good as their rating indicated when playing regular supremacy.

The only exception might be if you are brand new. Then you probably want to find other players who are relatively new (have very low XP) instead of just looking for other Conscripts.

Quoted from panda234:

Or should I just take my lumps and chalk it up to experience?

The important thing is to have fun. If you can still have fun while taking your lumps then do so. But if you don't find it particularly enjoyable to get beaten badly, I suggest waiting for a better match up.

Abus Guns and Grenadiers ARE NOT ARTILLERY!
MNBob's AOE Page
posted 04-11-06 02:08 PM EDT (US)     7 / 15       
yeah lembasbread is right, I'll face anyone whos not a fair bit better than me cos its so difficult to get a game with a win % of 65, pr of 25 and a british hc of 80 I'll face anyone I think I can beat.
posted 04-11-06 02:49 PM EDT (US)     8 / 15       
Just play a few games with 2k players (non rated would be best :P) and record them, when you start finding out how you keep dying over and over use that strat and you'll start getting better

Product ID: Ossian Discontinued
Contact your network admin for more details
about this special edition of player...

Allthough cetans are darker, did you know that if you read the word 'cetan' as a dutch word, that you get the same sound as when reading 'satan' in english.-Furby Killer
posted 04-11-06 10:32 PM EDT (US)     9 / 15       
A noob is someone who is rushed by a portugeuse player and calls the other player a cheating jerk (lol, some guy just did this to me on eso)

Sometimes, there are players with 5 million xp, who I beat senseless, having only 1.8 million myself. Sometimes the games played isn't a good indicator of skill. I'd usually watch for a combonation of things, if you want a noob player, here's what you should look for:

-Under 1-2 million xp
-<50 win %

You should start getting games that allow you to have a reasonable chance at winning.

posted 04-12-06 05:13 AM EDT (US)     10 / 15       
And that Nightfire is my exact point...

"A noob is 1-2mil XP and under 50%" - not strictly a quote I know.

I am 50% and approx 3mil XP but a bad player. I am 1630ish cuetech and dont want to play 1750/1850 Spanish FF gamges. I want to play noobs (as people keep calling it) of a similar standard to me. Maybe beginner chatroom is best as suggested earlier...

Zorba the Greek
posted 04-12-06 11:19 AM EDT (US)     11 / 15       

the ratings dont really indicate an accurate representation of a players true skill.

to me and IMO, a player who can win with any Civ, against any other civ, and this in all ages, this is a top ranked, my hat is off to player.

but the ranking as it is now is bologna, it only counts wins and losses and HC level as the ranking, this is not a true representation of player skills.

Righ now the rank and ladder climbers have only two basic strats to win, FF (fast fortress) and rushing.

once you learn how to do those two strts well you will do much better in climbing up the ranks, but like I said before, that is not a true representation of player skill, but rather how well a player can master those two strats.

When you can play the considered worst civ, against the considered best civ, and that against someone equal or even better than you and win in any age, then you have proved that you are a top player and deserving of high rank with all the kudos that go with.

your good at FF and or rushing, getting your wins before age 4? so what!

seems that you have allot of company in those who also can follow those to strats and micro with a so called worse civ, and that against player using the so called better civ, in all ages, and then you will have my respect as a really good player!

There is allot more to this game than the fortress age, prove yourself in age 4 and 5 then you are a true skilled player.

the "you" i have used, is not to the original poster but as a generalization to the now better ranked players.

if i were in this for the rankings, I would have a disire to know that I was just as good with any civ, against any other civ and this in any age, then I could brag about my rating with confidence, because I would know I could play any part of the game and still win consistantly!

so what! you are good at FF and or rushing, but are you just as good in age 4 and 5? or do you FF and rushing strats fall apart and you get owened afterwards in age 4 and 5?

winning consistantly in age 2 or 3 is one thing, winning in all ages consistantly is something else.


I have not yet began to fight!

John Paul Jones, Captain of the Bonhomme Richard.

posted 04-12-06 02:31 PM EDT (US)     12 / 15       
definitions as i think of them

noob- person who thinks they know a game but suck at it and flame you for beating them and don't take advice

rook(newb)- takes advice(unlike noobs)from other players, can decently play the game

this is my opinion not that many other peoples, i hope it helps u

*dances insanely so that i don't miss another closed thread*
This is bunny with a gun, FEAR HIM. . . . to the EXTREME!!!
(O.o )#____ * * * * *
(> < )#
posted 04-12-06 02:42 PM EDT (US)     13 / 15       
the true noobs are guys with 70%win and 6mill xp who kick me from their game without saying anything. When i look up on their cuetech theyr only 1700....
theyr the true noobs.
posted 04-13-06 05:05 AM EDT (US)     14 / 15       
I get the hump with the people that (usually) fall in between the experts and the rooks who use 'noob' as an insult at every given opportunity. i.e 'That was a noobish thing to say' or 'you f-ing noob'. I just wanna play for fun against likeminded people of a similar skill level.
P.S I got properly owned by a real rookie yesterday coz i made so many rubbish mistakes! Oh well, I never claimed to be anything but a bad player...
posted 04-13-06 05:13 AM EDT (US)     15 / 15       
I'm only about 2mil xp but I don't consider myself to be a 'noob' - I've beaten quite a few players above me -not experts, but more experienced with the game, and usually by using Ports. Anyway, experience points don't matter - cuetech does. Like someone has stated before, I rank a 'noob' as anyone below me, and anyone with a higher rank than me who plays with an overpowered civilization and strat who has under 1 million XP.
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires III Heaven | HeavenGames