That's not a big deal in my opinion. As long as you got your rating legitimately (without dragging out all of your losses), then the rating should be a pretty accurate representation of your strength. So it's not really a huge problem if you start dragging out your games. Yes, your rating will be somewhat slower to change, but since the rating is already reasonably accurate, there is no major issue.

The bigger issue is if someone piles up a bunch of wins while dragging out all of their losses -- then their rating can be inflated well above their actual strength. I still maintain that the system I proposed would severely curb the ability to do this.

the problem could be with anyone else getting a chance to show their relevant strength.. imagine thetop 15 players suddenly are dragging out their games to the limit so they still stay in the rankings.. then anyone that is good, would still be kept to a lower degree by always being matched up with relatively weak opponents because all the opponents of their level rarely ever get new games..

|>"imagine thetop 15 players suddenly are dragging out their games to the limit so they still stay in the rankings"

But if their ratings are relatively accurate (which they will be if we prevent dragging out all losses), they don't need to drag out their games to stay near the top of the rankings -- because they are legitimately that good! And if they do start dragging out all of their games, that will probably hurt them in the long run, anyways -- they will get rusty and probably lose ground to other rising players who are playing more games and improving their strategy.

Yeah, he's openly taking the maximum amount of time on every move, and he said sorry for it but it was his strategy. I asked him in the game chat, and he popped into the game to answer me, but didn't move. He's 2 days and 12 hours into his turn.

This is seriously killing the game for me. I paid $30 in part because I wanted to say thank you to Randy, but in part because I wanted to participate in the ladder. This is not what I signed up for. I guess the system encourages it, though. I don't know how to fix it, but I do have a problem with it.

I've had a couple games that have stalled like this - although none as badly as this. Meanwhile, I'm not stalling the games for weeks where I'm losing (like most people, I've slowed down in losing games, but not to this extreme). And he's rewarded for it as my ranking drops (because I don't get the win against him) and his keeps going up (because he never takes a loss). Meanwhile I'm only paired against other top players, which means if a couple more decide to do the same thing, I just don't get to play.

That's not what I paid for. I'd really like this to be addressed.

a banking boot time in ladder games might help address the issue.. maybe 25 hours with banking of 25%.. would still allow stalling, but would be minimal

Reason for banking, Imho, instead of just straight 25hr AB, is that sometimes there are tough turns that you want to take extra time to figure out and are not always able to as soon as you'd like.. would give you some time for those turns, while not allowing repetitive stallers to stall quite so repetitively

Personally, I'm only annoyed when people do this because it slows down the rate of new games I can get. While I obviously would love to be number 1 on the ladder, and I'm (rather inefficiently) doing everything I can to get there, I mostly just enjoy playing new games. I love 1v1's on this site, as you can readily see by how many I've played compared to team/FFA games.

When someone extremely slow-rolls a loss, when losing is inevitable, it delays how long it takes for you to get a new game, which is the most frustrating aspect for me. I know I do this sometimes as well (same reason as Duke, I think that mentality is natural) so I can't really complain too much here, but it can be annoying for sure.

i had three people delay three full days at once, leaving me with just two other games. only doushi has been doing it for a week and a half.

I know the reason for wanting a minimum number of games. What's the point though for a maximum number? Why not allow people to 'request another game' and then the system will give them another game. It will still enforce the minimum, but then if a game stalls they can get another if they want without forcing the current ones to go faster. And if the current ones are clearly won then finishing them out should be easy so it shouldn't be as much of a burden having more games going at once and doing so is still at the person's discretion. Granted they still need an opponent to play it would atleast open them up for more 'active' games if some stall. Will also help once there's a monthly membership and hopefully more people get on the ladder then there will be more people to play against.

if there were no maximum number of games then everyone would do what you're doing, and nobody would ever take a loss, so nobody would ever take a win, either. of course, not everyone is an unethical game player.

Although now that I've suggested that I realize it could make the problem worse as people would them be able to keep creating new potential winners while continuing to stall all their losses. They've got to take the hit eventually though. But I guess that would unkindly open the door for excess winning streaks unless the people they're beating counter stall them and return the favor. Hmm... tricky problem I guess. I don't like the idea of rushing people. I think part of the problem is simply that the rating system rewards it. If that were fixed then it wouldn't be as much of an issue at least. Maybe if the thing sees you're consistently stalling games it force lowers your games so you don't get any new ones until you finish your current ones? Not sure that solves it, but it atleast prevents you from then taking another game slot on someone else and stalling that one too or trying to use your non-stalled slots to continue a win streak.

and if the membership here were monthly, i'd cancel right now. this is cheating, plain and simple. sure, it's just a game, but it's a game i paid $30 to play, and your "strategy" is to cheat me out of the value of my $30 so you can get a slightly higher number next to your name.

Unethical?... I've stat/rank whored in an unethical fashion before, but that's not how I'd classify what I'm doing now. I don't think it's unethical to play slowly when you're losing. Not like you're cheating or doing any real exploitation. Just playing the system a bit. If you really want more ladder games I think there should probably be a way for you to have them. And if all you want is a game then you can just create a non-ladder one anytime with whomever you want. So it's not like it's keeping you from playing the game, just limiting your ladder play. It's pretty tricky when you have a ladder for a game where the games can take many weeks.

i didn't drag out my games to get the highest score i could, and neither did anyone else. if you'd rather not call it cheating, that's fine - but it's unethical, and you're the only one doing it. and you know it's unethical, which is why you said "sorry" to me when i asked you about it.

i get it. you want to set the record for the highest rank achieved. but i don't expect anyone to have any respect for the number you're going to have next to your name if you cheated to get it, so you're really just making me and a bunch of other people wait so you can get a number that will only be meaningful to you.

i think the answer is to get rid of the "highest rank achieved" field. the only reason you're cheating in multiple games is to try to get that number up there. i understand why that's a goal. my name doesn't say that i was #1 in the overall rankings for a while, and had a 2000 something score for a while, and i haven't whined about it. so let's just get rid of the number, and remove your motivation to do whatever it is that you're saying isn't unethical but simultaneously apologizing for and saying that we should find ways to fix the loophole for.

Clearly public shaming is the answer here.

You're right, caring about rank and rating is silly! Point proved!

"And if all you want is a game then you can just create a non-ladder one anytime with whomever you want. So it's not like it's keeping you from playing the game, just limiting your ladder play."

i'm sorry if it seems like i'm being overly harsh, but i paid money to become a member so i could play on the ladder, and you're saying, go do the stuff that non-members do, because i want to invalidate the ladder, keep you from playing it, and encourage others to do the same.

Apparently paid membership made Warlight serious business.

I'm the best, no one can touch this!

I think most of us can agree that what Doushibag is doing is not in the spirit of the ladder. The idea (in my opinion) should be to find the best players, not the very good players who are willing to stall out their losses as long as possible.

Clearly, he's not cheating, as he's not breaking any rules. But I'm sure there are a lot of us who would like to see something implemented to curb this type of behavior. I certainly stand in that camp.