Only invisible preasure of the crowd (community) stops people of doing that.
And a faith that Fizzer is somewhere there fairly lurking at us from digital cloud.

Stalling is bad, but not usually the end of the world.

Edited 5/18/2016 00:38:09

Lol I never said that I deserve a rating +2200 but thanks for your hate Buns.
No matter if I surrender or stall - I get hated :P

And I didn't want to play myself in the ladder.

Edited 5/16/2016 19:21:49

I never said that you said you did. Just you stalled because you wanted a rating that high, thats why you still haven't surrendered against awol.

And surrender or stall? You still haven't surrendered all your lost games.

Maybe you didn't want to play yourself, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out what could happen because of it.

can you explain why you stall against AWOL Gls AJ or Sbirulino or proelium bunny?
all of their Ratings would be more in the rating-area you belong. but you still stall against them, claiming their Rating is too low for you to surrender. you are a sore loser and should not Play the ladder at all.

of course you get no sympathy for what you do right now on the 1vs1 ladder.

I do NOT stall against Sbirulino and proelium bunny, I can still win my games against them.
Yes, I stall against AWOL.
Yes, I stall because his rating is low.
Yes, MoD, the rating area I belong is something between 1800-2000.

So why do you blame me? It's not my fault that the ladder allows poor players like me to reach the top spots. I'm also against stalling but who of the average players wouldn't do so if he has the chance to get a very high rating?

2 hours 51 minutes
0 minutes
12 hours
0 minutes
16 hours
0 minutes
9 hours
1 minute
15 hours
1 minute
2 days 19 hours
1 minute
2 days 15 hours
2 days 20 hours
2 days 23 hours
2 days 22 hours
2 days 9 hours

please....

pointing out flaws of a ladder doesn't justify cheating on it. just stop it already. claiming you are against stalling but stalling yourself anyways is so silly.

i hope most of the average Players wouldn't stall, cause a Rating reached trough stalling is worthless and deserves absolutely no respect

Such concern over this silly issue.

"I DEMAND JUSTICE!" -knyte

sigh.

Such concern over this silly issue.

"I DEMAND JUSTICE!" -knyte

sigh.

So what is easier? Sorting this single case out now, and showing that you cant cheat the ladder and get away with it. Or just letting it slide, and then maybe it becomes a bigger problem in the future.

Also why shouldn't it be a concern if you enjoy playing ladders? It ruins the fun for everyone.

(I've always assumed you're a mod, correct me if I'm wrong)

Hey, don't say that!

...

That applies to all Turtles, not just him :3

Beh, buns doesn't stalls, he plays his games pretty fast when you consider others. The turtles thinked about kicking him out of the clan bc of how fast he played!! #TheFastTurtle

I'm not on about stalling, thats a difficult one that I dont blame them (whoever sorts these things out) for leaving alone.

I was just on about multiple accounts on the ladder at once, especially when they play each other.

Why people get so furious over the Ladder? Is it really that important? As far as it seems almost half the players don´t like the settings, or was it one/third?

First of all stalling is not cheating, not even near to that. And I doubt playing two accounts on ladder neither goes under that category as well. While playing 2-accounts is against rule, stalling is just not maybe ethical in board-game sense, and it seems especially in case when some players position is hold down.

I have never played in a ladder, but as far as I have read in wiki you can determine yourself how many ladder games you want to be active, am I right?

You can, however, pick how many games you'd like to be playing at any given time.

So, just increase your ladder games and then one does not need to worry about the stalling 30-turn up to 2 month game in queue. So I really do not see how it affects your rating, when score is calculated at end. It only offers a stalling player to keep his current rating from downsize.

The Rating system is whole new topic. I am not fan of TrueSkill. I do think Bayesian-Elo is way more sensible system, but it sure hell is not perfect and definitely not for a game which is in no category Pure-Skill: warlight has many factors. But it is so much easier to criticize than offer better rating system actually. Ripple effect or "Timed Victory" dilemma? Both offer ways to manipulate. Some issues could be solved with expired games duration or players elimination from ladder if they are gone suddenly inactive?

I am a little bit sarcastic over the "competitive clan" thread underlying here. Seems like the invisible pressure is too weak to change the idea of clans. There are plenty of free rating-system-software to be used in private purposes. Nothing forces players to use built-in ladder which is directed to each player. Private tournaments and ladders can be organized, CLOT etc. It does not have to be 1v1 Strategic Ladder that determines true 1. Rank in Warlight, it can be anything -(as far as community recognizes it) I think the force of invisible pressure is directed to wrong causes! Yeah Fizzer lurks in the Digital Cloud indeed, but hes too high to see who galumphs in the mud down on the earth.

Maybe publicizing this sort of data would increase the pressure to stop? I agree that it's a rampant problem on the 1v1 ladder.

Stalling could be measured a few ways:

- how many turns a player continues playing after having a disadvantage of 20%+ income, 20%+ total armies, and being in contact with their opponent

- play speed difference between turns with known losing conditions (20% thresholds + contact again) and other turns

- # of cases where a player selectively took turns in some ladder games but not in others (letting them run until the 3-day mark), perhaps expressed as a ratio (:total games played?)

@Vitrol

Does not seem that to be overkill in level abstract sense. Not even taking in consideration how NOT LIKELY AT ALL Fizzer would consider it? Although I like your idea and solution. BUT!!!

First of all in all cases players are not aware of their (dis)advantage, especially average and below average players. Secondly how you determine advantage, as we have seen armies are not exactly best measurement as well not income - although in average game it tends to be like that. Thirdly many players play selectively, why? When one ends up with easy opponent, he tends to make fast moves, few mistakes, because he knows he will win surely. Thirdly some games are just more interesting to play, some take lesser time to commit, even in comparison of ladder games.

But this is just small criticism. With slight improvements the suggested method on average should show who really stalls! The question is should they really be thrown out of Ladder? And for last, knowing the methodology I can calculate my tolerable stalling count, I do not think this would be ethical as well - although stalling would be limited by the methodology.

To be fair, i have the same slow moves:

2 days 21 hours
2 minutes
2 days 22 hours
2 days 22 hours
2 days 20 hours
5 hours 26 minutes
1 minute
4 hours 30 minutes
2 minutes
50 minutes
2 minutes

That doesn't mean i'm stalling, it just tells that i procrastinate and that i'm basically lazy.

That being said, i think AI/Niklas should leave the ladder on his highest rated account at least. Maybe both. Playing yourself on the ladder is always bad, no matter the rating. You mess up other people's rating and mess up your own rating(s). That kind of behavior shouldn't be on the ladder.

At this moment, he has completed 20 games and will get a rank he honestly doesn't deserve. Given the stalling he actually admitted to, i think he should leave the ladder as soon as possible with both. People should not stall, especially MH, who are so opposed to that.

Ok guys he did cheat but he is not a ba person, I assume. Maybe this just shows how little 5 games at a time is and that we need an option of 10 or more for people who just spam play the ladder! AI/NIKO should not repeat such a disgusting act but I can understand his determination in stalling since he wants to be strategic in a strategic game!

I'd be the first one to support a higher amount of games at once, cause i wanted to play more games than the maximum on the ladder usually. But that makes it just even more easy for cheaters (yes, stalling is cheating for me), cause you can stall 9 losses and still get ranked. So it should be only an option after like 30 games like the "1 game at once" option.

I can't stand it when people call it strategic, if you stall games. A player said that to me last seasonal. Blacklisted. Imagine everyone delayed losses cause it's obviously strategic to habe a high rating and therefore better matchups! That would mean the end of that ladder. Or at least for the part of the community that plays fair

But... if everyone was stalling losses, in turn it would actually stop giving advantage, therefore it would transcend being a bad thing and become a fair deal.

Well ladder would be extremely unenjoyable but still xD

edit: Just a random thought, don't take this post seriously

Edited 5/16/2016 22:19:50

I dont see how the focus is of him stalling games, its near impossible to prevent or punish imo.

The focus should be on multiple accounts in a ladder at once.