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

Age of Empires / Rise of Rome / Definitive Edition
Moderated by Suppiluliuma, PhatFish, Fisk, EpiC_Anonymous, Epd999

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.75 replies
Age of Empires Heaven » Forums » Age of Empires / Rise of Rome / Definitive Edition » Why isn't the Rookie Room a Rookie Room?
Topic Subject:Why isn't the Rookie Room a Rookie Room?
« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
(id: S_Hemlock)
posted 03-05-99 09:42 PM ET (US)         
After popping into the zone periodically over the past several months, I finally gathered the courage to join my first game. It ended up being a 3v3 in which most of the players definitely were NOT rookies. I ended up being a liability to my team, and we lost. (Did we lose *because* of me? I don't know.)

In this forum, when reading posts about games that have been played (which I really enjoy), there seems to be an attitude about 'Those stupid newbies/rookies who didn't help me at all.' As one of the aforementioned newbies/rookies, I'm almost afraid to join another game, for fear of not being good enough for my teammates or being nothing but cannon fodder in a ffa.

Do the users of this forum use the Rookie Room as a gathering place for games? If so, why? Why not use the intermediate or advanced rooms?

posted 03-27-99 11:34 PM ET (US)     51 / 75       
I agree Sergei! Rookies like me must ignore the fear of losing if we want to improve. It is nice though to find an opponent just a step or two above yourself.
posted 03-30-99 12:28 PM ET (US)     52 / 75       
Re: Rookies should lose to experts so that they can improve.

Major disagreement here. You learn absolutely nothing if you have been working hard to master your 25 minute, 6 villager tool, and have your civ wiped out by HCats, HHA and SC.

You can learn from being beaten, true, but only if its fairly close. I am a chess rookie or newbie, or something, despite having some thousand games of experience. Why? My roommate that I tried to learn from was the university's champion. Seldom did the games go over 30 minutes. Our first evening of play saw over 100 games, nearly all of them variants on Fool's Mate. We finally quit playing because I was no challenge, and in 15 moves, I never really learned anything about the game.

In order to learn by losing to an expert, you have to have at least a common frame of reference.

Keep your stick on the ice.

posted 03-30-99 12:45 PM ET (US)     53 / 75       

I disagree with you pretty close to 100% about ROR and 100% about chess.

After a Newbie/Rookie gets total creamed by an expert, they should take a look to see the layout of the victor's base. Then look at the timeline, achievments, ect.. They will never get better if they're 8 vill 28 minute tool is beating a 7 vill, half hour tooler. You have to go against better players to get better, period.

Chess is a lot easier to learn from playing an expert than ROR is. In chess you can see the entire board and each of your opponent's moves. (of course the trick is seeing 10-15 moves ahead ) The Chess Expert will have different, yet somewhat set starts (P to K4, Kn to KB3,....) depending the opponent.

The ROR expert also has different 'set starts' that depend on the terrain and the map type (vils 1-2 build house, #3 looks for berries/SF, 4 looks for food until found, ...)

A rookie/newbie can read about strategies, even memorize them. But until they are seen in action, they will not completely understand them.

As for you getting caught by the 'fool's checkmate' time after time.....ouch

posted 03-30-99 01:09 PM ET (US)     54 / 75       
True, but seeing the layout only gives a small picture of the skills necessary to make that camp. From an utter newbies position, that camp may have been made by cheating. Or UFOs.

To say that you can learn just fine from experts is just ludicrous. Why bother with that whole Kindergarden and elementary school thing if we could get the same results by just sending our kids to spend a year with an expert? You have to have some common frame of reference. Learning is not knowledge until it has been successfully assimilated.

Keep your stick on the ice.

posted 03-30-99 01:39 PM ET (US)     55 / 75       
The UFO's would have been my first guess.

You don't get the whole picture by looking at the layout of the map after all is said and done. You can, however, learn about where and why certain buildings were placed, learn by the number of villagers on a task (or standing around idle with pick axes in hand), even learn how to orient the placement of your buildings (houses, multiple military buildings, ...) they won't know the actual "how's" but the defeated rookie should get an idea of where to go, and in what timeframe.

You do have to learn to crawl first, then walk, run, fly, ect. That I will not dispute. (It would save a ton of money to send the kids to one year of school instead of 18)

Comparing the road from Rookie/Newbie to expert in chess/RoR to the schooling system is a little out of proportion. (well, way out actually) Some people will never be an expert, reguardless of how much effort/lessons they receive. Not everyone will join MENSA either, or get their PhD's.

The common frame of reference in both games is the rules/instruction manual.

Knowledge is the ablity to apply the information that you've learned.

posted 03-30-99 01:45 PM ET (US)     56 / 75       

Nice game synopsis. I enjoyed reading it.

One thing that is clear to me now, after reading this thread, is that the newbies and rookies today will progress much faster than I did. That is even more true for players like you, who are competitive enough and wise enough to read the forums. And, from the way you have described your game, I suspect you have read strategy guides as well.

I don't know how many others still have the original AoE strategy guides, but they certainly aren't worthy hand-me-downs. They are actually quite humurous to read. Kind of like reading "The Science of Bloodletting To Cure The Anemic", they are far outdated by experience.

I remember, with appreciation, an "expert" (if there was such a thing then) teaching me how he achieved 16-17 minute Bronze times. Obviously, this was during the game's infancy.

My point is that the newbies and rookies of today have far superior resources to improve their games in a much shorter time period than it has taken those of us who have been playing this game since it was released to get where we are today. Additionally, the qualifications for promotion from newbie to rookie probably match the intermediate players' skills of over a year ago.

Now, to address your original question as to why more experienced players play Rookie Rooms. I agree with everyone's reasons given prior to my post. That is their reasons, how can I not agree? For me, only two days I decided to move on to RoR from AoE (the obvious hacking in AoE has gotten ridiculous). But, up to that point, I played exclusively in Babylon. Actually, for the first couple of months I played in Plains, but it was always too full. So, the group that I regularly gamed with moved to Babylon because it was, at most, half full. We have stayed in Babylon ever since.

The group I play with doesn't prey on rookies and newbies though. On the contrary, we have enlisted many newbies who we liked and helped them develop their skills.

So, hopefully you can see now how my earlier point relates to your question. In truth, the rookies and newbies who aren't scared away from the Zone by lamers who prey on them, can benefit from the diversity of skill in those rooms.

Thats my 2 cents and simply another viewpoint. Take it easy on me when you become an expert.

After all, it's JustAGame

posted 03-30-99 01:56 PM ET (US)     57 / 75       
This is a great thread!

I would like to post a couple of general comments, not directed at anyone!

1. I never realized Quirinal was all levels of players, I thought it was a rookie room! doh! guess I was wrong...

2. It's pretty obvious to me, if you name a match room "Beginners Only" you will get a bunch of experts ready to slice and dice the newbies. or if the match room is named "experts only" you will get some newbies wanting to learn. either way, it's going to get people mad!

3. If you are an expert and always want expert players in the game, go the rated rooms. I am average, and lose enough in the rookie rooms, so I don't go there.

4. The way the rooms are listed on the zone could be adjusted to force people who are actually rookies to move from the top listed rooms down the page...

Well, that's it....

they who build the most peons wins most of the time...

posted 03-31-99 06:59 AM ET (US)     58 / 75       
I would like to come back briefly to Scarab's and Thorfinn's discussion about how much a rookie can learn from playing an expert. When I play on the Zone (which is not very often) I usually stick to games labeled 'rookie'. A few weeks ago, however, I entered a game in Quirinal simply labeled 1v1. The host was called Minoan_Chicken. I don't know if he is an expert, but he certainly is a 'veteran' of AoE. He agreed to play me although I admitted that I was more or less a rookie.

Within 18 or 20 minutes into the game he was all over me with compies, STs, scout ships, etc. Game over. You could say it was a frustrating experience (and it was), because I had not the slightest chance. However, by analysing my defeat afterwards I realised:

- I didn't scout properly (my spot was separated from the rest of the map by a river and I could have walled-in easily)
- I didn't build scout ships early enough
- I reacted in a panic when his first troops arrived and I built the wrong units for defense
- I was far too slow in my development.

I don't think it does a rookie any good to experience devastating defeats like this all the time. It sure wasn't much fun for my opponent either...

But it certainly helps you understand much better what you have read before in strat guides or in Forums like these. If you are lucky you are able to identify much clearly certain aspects in your play which need improvement. In rookie games this is often not so easy to say because everybody is struggling more or less.

Therefore, I would say Scarab and Thorfinn both have their point here


posted 03-31-99 11:51 AM ET (US)     59 / 75       
I agree w/ teefax,

Thor is dead on about point of reference, if you do not look at the achievements during the just not after the game you will not have the information that gives you clues to how the heck you got creamed.

However, scarab is correct in that if you don't play better players and get creamed you don't know what strats are being employed by people that are winning, and what things are possible.

Yes forums and strat guides are important, however what is said here, and what is done in execution during the game at times differ.

What is the optimal is to watch other players of better skill. I have watched a few players and my game rapidly improved after those viewings. I have even had a few players watch me. Talk about performance fright, hehe.

By the way, I will pop in and out on the forums since I get bored at work, and I don't know enough about EQ to make comments on their message boards.

posted 03-31-99 01:00 PM ET (US)     60 / 75       

If you want to get creamed as a newbie playing Minoan_Chicken is a good idea.

Keep playing good players its the only way to get better.

Nalo n Agan
posted 03-31-99 01:06 PM ET (US)     61 / 75       
I have played the Chickens, great games
But I was a liability on my team(Phios and knights_legend) think we played twice with Haujobb, Minoan and Indigo Chicken, but still "we" won, I really enjoyed with when Minoan scout/slinger rushed me on hell with palmy, though I took revenge with my 14 min scout rush on indigo(pure luck he was bronze with yam at that time) and he was hurt bad cus of it

Nālo n'Agan

posted 03-31-99 07:10 PM ET (US)     62 / 75       
I am definitely still a rookie, so most of my zone time is spent in one of the rookie rooms. This past week I've run into both extremes in rookie rooms. First I protected an ally who made it all the way to iron before asking me why he couldn't make towers or walls. He did pretty well for a while and even tribbed me everything before resigning.
Next I joined a 3v3 with The_Archer and another guy who dropped in Bronze. Archer bronzed first and tried to hurry us up with chat messages. I was trying out some new strats gleaned from you forumers and felt major panic when Archer started yelling about having to fight against 2 opponents all by himself. I tried to send him some help but got teal & dark green mixed up on my tiny laptop overview map and went the wrong way (Med map). By the time I showed up he looked to be in pretty good shape and said he could hold off red & blue if we would jump on yellow. (Opposite corner of the map, of course!) I sent what I had at yellow and slowed him down some, then Archer went wild and started cussing us again. He tribed me some wood on his own initiative, but our other ally dropped and then just as I was rolling my first iron age wave at yellow he started cussing again and said "good luck, you suck", tribed me everything and left. I held out for maybe 10 minutes before I got buried in a sea of SCs and admitted defeat. When I checked achievements I was surprised to see I bronzed under 20 minutes and ironed under 35 . . . excellent for me! I kept thinking the whole time, this is a rookie room, what does he expect? Maybe my definition of a rookie is too low?
posted 04-06-99 04:01 AM ET (US)     63 / 75       
Quirinal is definitley not a rookie room. Many very good players come there often. And not always to slaughter rookies. If it is hard to get a game in the rated rooms, often Quir is used to get a quick game. If i dont want to play 1v1 and there are less than 200 in matty's I goto the "Quir" room. Often good players go there to play friendly friends games, to practice, or just to relax and not have to worry about points. I dont even bother warning rookies in the settings anymore, because it never worked. The only thing that works is my 1.0 starts, that helps warn off people who need 2.o get 20 peons in a half hour. And remember rookie is relative, to many i am rookie, even if it would be unfair of me to say i was. I consider my self high intermediate, working on expert. And yes, i am guilty as charged, but the convienance of all the people crammed into quir makes it attractive to get fast games, with a minimum of fuss. Seeya there..... dont forget your boom.....
posted 04-06-99 03:08 PM ET (US)     64 / 75       
Yeah, I left Esq because I couldn't bear clobbering the poor I go to Q. I am not an expert, but I am no rookie.

I have finally diagnosed this whole malady affecting people who want the game speed at 2.0. They time their bronze times on their stop watches....and guess what? They can bronze in a really low time on 2.0....golly, it must be better.

posted 04-06-99 04:49 PM ET (US)     65 / 75       
Here's my suggestion for rookies:
play co-op games with experts.
To play co-op, choose the same color of your ally (find a good player as your ally, not another rookie), and then you can both play in the same player, and then the rookie will watch and learn the expert's moves, and he will feel victorious too.

Last Knight

posted 04-08-99 05:50 PM ET (US)     66 / 75       
Field General:

I find myself in the same boat as you. I am clobbering newbies in Esq. When I go into Quirinal, I am getting clobbered.

A couple of zoners that recently clobbered me in Quirinal are:


Anyone know these guys?

[This message has been edited by JRohn (edited 04-08-99).]

posted 04-08-99 10:26 PM ET (US)     67 / 75       
Newbie bashers.

Die you Hittite b*****ds!

posted 04-09-99 01:20 PM ET (US)     68 / 75       
Hey remember that getting clobbered is not a bad thing. I rarely learn as much from wins as losses. Just remember to study after the game by checking the time line and economy, and the map and positions. Last and most important, find three things you did wrong and work on them.

However, be careful of your fixes. What I mean is that you can go in circles fixing one problem such as preventing a tool rush to getting clobbered by a bronzer, to preventing a bronzer, to getting clobbered by a iron enemy to preparing for iron to getting tooled.

So, if you are tooled, and died by it, lets assume your 3 areas to improve is one, recognizing if you should have run sooner instead of losing 3/4 of your peons, second should have seen him walling behind your wall so you could get out instead of losing the other 1/4 of your peons, and last learning to recognize that you have a tool threat before he hits such as achievement analysis and scouting.

If you follow this guideline, you will become a much better player rapidly and know what to look for in strat pages and forum posts to answer the questions to improve your game. Most of us plateau because we deal with the results of problems not the problems themselves.

Josh the Great
posted 04-09-99 07:04 PM ET (US)     69 / 75       
I know exactly how you feel S_Hemlock. Everytime I go into a Zone game it either packs up because of my bad ping rate or I get my ass handed to me in the tool age. What I have started doing is playing heaps against the computer. Trying things out and now I can beat 2 vs. 2 on hard mode. This has turned me into a reasonable single player player. However, I haven't played in the zone since starting this so I don't know how I'd go against a human player.

Whatever you do, stick at it. It takes time. I think a helpful article to read is the article on "Fast Bronzing" in the academy. It gets you to a fast bronze and teaches you a cool technique for getting rid of those pesky enemy villagers thus holding the enemy back in the tool age (or stone age if you're quick and they're dumb).

So what I'm saying is, the rookies on the zone sure aren't rookies. If you can't beat 'em, get better than them then beat them I hope this is helpful


[This message has been edited by Josh the Great (edited 04-09-99).]

posted 04-09-99 07:43 PM ET (US)     70 / 75       
A word of caution: Beating the computer at HARDEST does not help you. It actually teaches you habits best not learned. But beating multiple hard copmuters is a good start...

Keep your stick on the ice.

posted 04-11-99 02:02 PM ET (US)     71 / 75       
I, personally, am not a master player, and never said I was. But I played this game a lot, and know how to play it. Sometimes I go to rookie rooms to play some funny games and open the game as 1v3. The game begins and I usually boom hard as the gamebegins. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose, but when I lose, I usually receive messages saying that they had some sexual relationships with my mom last night, and that I still had to learn the game and all. Now, If you play 1v3 and win, you have to say "good game" or something like that. And their sole purpose is to win, not to have fun. I can't really see the point of that. And it is usually because of that that I don't play rookies and don't like to play 'em when I do. And in my team, there are games when we lose, while my score is 700 or so, and my two allies are 120 or so, and they accuse me not to play good. If you are a rookie, say that you are before the game, and if teams are fair, start playing. And try to learn the game, try yo understand why you lost. And, on the other hand I have friends that I play games with, allied or enemy, who are bronzing at 18 when they try a fast bronz. So, my true purpose for not playing rookies is the fact that they are not polite, thay don't have an intention of learning. Once, in the past, I played Maimin_Matty in a 1v3 and wewon the game. I never thought of saying that he was a lamer, rather I looked at the achievements every other second, to see how he plays and I tried to learn. I, personally, never saw a really good player who is impolite, perhaps because you play well when you try to have fun in place of winning. These are my opinions, and are to be discussed. And you, I forgot your name, but I mean the one who posted that topic. You are always welcome in my games.
posted 04-12-99 03:36 PM ET (US)     72 / 75       
First at all, newbies should not feel ashamed because they lost in a 2 vs. 2 or 3 vs. 3 games, of "ruin the team".
I played many times with a partner who disconnected or left in the first 3 minutes of the game, and in most of them I lost.
I still think that rookies shouldn't enter 2 vs. 2 games in expert rooms, or at least when the words "no newbies" or "experts" are written in the settings.

Last Knight

posted 04-14-99 01:41 PM ET (US)     73 / 75       
As a total newbie, I can say that from my very much ltd exp, that I vastly prefer the not-so-rookies in the rookie zone over the true rookies.

My very first game on the zone (this past Sat, wrote up in "Do you remember the 1st time you played...." thread) was purty good. But I had quite a bit of subsequent trouble finding a decent game. I had to put up with: reveal maps; non-default res; constant taunting; a shang player who thought he was something with his 15 min rush, and bragging about his vill/fb count; a hittite dm player who resigned in 5 minutes, after I sent a few ha's to check out what he was doing (this was my first dm game vs a human); being accused of being a non-rookie (I have 1 month of playing exp, mostly against the ai); etc.

Then the other day, I finally got into a good game. The players were viper35 (Hit) my ally, and AKA_Hunter (Choson), and RedManiac (Carth). The fact that Choson and Carth were chosen in a rm game made me wonder about their level. I chose Hit, too, although in retrospect, I should have chosen a priest civ. I've heard nice things about Hit, and I wanted to concentrate on learning this civ . Anyway, I had a horrendous start (had to delete my granary), and my team lost, largely due to myself, but this was a great 1:45:00 game. The players were quite honorable, particularly my ally viper35, who gave me quite a few pointers. This was my worst online game so far w.r.t. my performance, but it was the most enjoyable and didactic.

So, in summary, better-than-rookie players are more than welcome in the rookie zone, IMHO. Just let us in your games, bear with us, and share the fun/knowledge.


posted 04-15-99 09:12 PM ET (US)     74 / 75       
Looks like I should have included the after all. Still go easy on the newbies or we won't have anyone to play with. Especially if everyone keeps on retiring.
posted 04-16-99 04:44 PM ET (US)     75 / 75       
joecho, I don't like to play vs. rookies too.
Sometimes I have a great start, I build a huge CAs army, and then I find out that my opponent is in the tool age with 15 villagers.What a waste of time...

But the worst thing is when I have horrible starts and I play vs. good players.

I remember when I was a newbie (long time ago...) I was surprised when tons of CAs destroyed my town, while I had only few axemen and bowmen. I asked the attacker how can he cheat in a MP game

Last Knight

« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires Heaven | HeavenGames