"Does Fizzer have a second account actually ?"

Yes, NZPhoenix (AHOL)

Whoosh

Should be suspended in some way. Latnox was. Whether intentional or not, allowing it because they 'did not know' will just result in other people saying the same thing.

I second semice. Kinda rare i do this.

I highly suggest you play out your games on AI as to not hurt those of us who beat that account. I'm not happy about this but whatever.

Edited 5/12/2016 23:20:21

You shouldn't leave the ladder with AI, you should leave it with niklas, as niklas is the account which benefited from the cheating.

What do you mean with "hurt" ? Keep in mind that I'm not familiar with playing a lot of ladder games, hence the question.

The 1v1 ladder uses a ranking system called Bayeselo which takes into account the performance of your opponents after you beat them. If Player A beats AI (or worse yet, loses to AI) and AI's rating tanks because Niklas abandons the account, then Player A's rating's going to get lower too. If AI dips by, say, 50 or 100 points, then Player A's rating's going to dip a bit too because they either pulled off what now looks like an easier win or they lost to what now looks like a significantly weaker player.

This is one of the reasons you shouldn't use multiple accounts on a ladder- you can't do this on your main account since its rating would tank, but if you decided to use an alt to get your opponents' ratings to tank while you kept your own rating up, you're pushing everyone else down a bit and potentially making your rank a lot more secure.

If AI/Niklas decides to tank AI's rating, Jefferspin gets screwed pretty hard since Jefferspin has a loss to AI.

Edited 5/12/2016 23:49:17

Well I beat AI and lost to Niklas but it still has a negative effect if he doesn't play out his remaining games on AI. A string of losses will bring AIs rating down and in turn bring down everyone else's whether they won or lost to AI.

please excuse me if i keep this game going for some days... dont worry, I will not stall like alhazi, just for a couple of days

quote from his game against AWOL GLS. He said that on 30/04/2016. Its now 13 days later and he still didn't surrender. You say you didn't know but when someone told you in private you ignored it. When it has been made public you remove the low rating account from the ladder while the other benefited from your cheating. And now you are big time stalling a long lost game. You don't deserve to get first place, cheater and a bad sport and all the sweet innocent talk doesn't change anything about your current actions. You deserved to get banned for this, so i highly suggest you surrender your lost games now and just accept that you are clearly not good enough to take first place right now

Edited 5/13/2016 15:48:42

he let his lower account loose against his higher account 2 days ago in the ladder!!

this is i believe 7 days after the worning of knyte. that means he was totally aware of that he was cheating and continued it and made it worse.

he is a total cheat and if he doesnt stop stalling and withraw himself in the 1vs1 ladder he should just be banned.

Edited 5/13/2016 16:03:30

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=11143992 the game he played 2 day ago on the ladder against himself

everybody knows how to find this name is anonym. could you please stop commenting everywhere.

95 percent of the forum will be delighted if you stop responding on the forum

Edited 5/13/2016 16:36:31

Imo its bullshit, if he wants more games where players take it serious play tournaments where you just invite the top 50.

I would say ban him, but too many players have got away with this in the past to be fair. I'm pretty sure another player did this recently where they had two accounts which overlapped, and they were top 10.

Edit: Didn't realise how high his rating is, ban him! :P

Edited 5/13/2016 16:52:41

Let's check it: http://www.strawpoll.me/10201091/r

This is what I mean about runs, look how easy it is to get an inflated rating. His true rating, on AI, over a large sample of games is 1918, around 37th. While his other account has a shot at 1st. Even without the cheating, he's so over-rated.

@Hades remember he is stalling massively and he lost a game to himself.

I still agree with you though.

Edit: He is stalling against 2 people, rated 1404 and 1822. Admits it in chat too :/

Edited 5/13/2016 18:38:19

@ hades. thats why its good the current ladder is over 5 months. if he fails (which in 98 percent will happen if his true rating is 37th) he at least has to wait 5 extra months to try again.

though his true rating is probably higher than 37th because he learned during his games.

I'd say the 5 months rule brings down the long term ladder players more. I'm still being dragged down from games 5 months ago when I wasn't taking the ladder seriously. And I guess you could also say every long term ladder player has learnt over the past 5 months and should be rated higher.

Yeah he is stalling, but he can only do that since its a run. There's probably unintentional stalling in most runs, since I think players tend to think more on games they're losing, so will play a little slower.

I'd much rather prefer an expiring rule based in games than time. Games could start expiring after 100 of those, and you can keep the time rule for old games. In addition to that, maybe 30 games should be required to be ranked in the ladder.

All of this will discourage runs and also in a smaller scale, stalling (it's harder to make 30 games without losing any, even while stalling). Also, for players that prefer to remain in the ladder and play tons of games won't be penalized, knowing that every 3 months or so (with 5 games at the time), their older games will have expired and won't drag them down anymore.

The closer the amount of games required for a rating and the amount counting towards a rating for a long term player, the fairer it will be. I guess the ideal situation is the amount of games required for a rating, is the same amount that will count towards for a long term player. Like, if the last 40 games count towards a rating, and 40 games are required to obtain a rating.

Theres problems with that, long term players will have a more volatile rating, and it will take a while for new ladder players to get a ranking. But it would atleast make it fair.