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.

Solution: 1 Day boot times on the 1v1 2v2 and 3v3 ladders.

What if you're ranked when your first 20 games are completed, but it's determined by start date, not end date. Stall all you want, but you don't get ranked until the first 20 games you started are completed.

Edit: And yeah the bigger problem in this case is his playing against himself, but I think everyone agrees on that, which is why more people are talking about the stalling. And stalling is more common than playing against yourself.

Edited 5/16/2016 22:46:34

1 Day boot times

*Pukes*

Even I have more of a life than that.

1 day with 4-5 days banked? I'd be fine with that.

That is a good solution using existing tools.

What if you're ranked when your first 20 games are completed, but it's determined by start date, not end date. Stall all you want, but you don't get ranked until the first 20 games you started are completed.

I love this idea. It would destroy the whole point of stalling. Then again, I would feel sorry for the people if they meet someone like Math Wolf or ACL tears in their 20th game :P

I think the RT Ladder system is still the best.

Jaymer should user voice that !

Solution: 1 Day boot times on the 1v1 2v2 and 3v3 ladders.

Why not just make all ladders Real-Time then. It's not like people need three days to bean count and try hard to get a good rating on the ladder.

@Benjamin628

1-day boot. Come to your senses. Fizzer is probably the first player who regards multi-day main game-mode here. As pointed above, rather real-time then, but not 1-day boot. I will assume there are more than few Ladder players who do have life outside Warlight actually.

If you google you can find more than 1000 "Strategy" games, where who-ever spends more time online committing orders-actions etc wins: if you prefer that style of game.

If you stall the loss, it will also expire later? So the problem seems to center with option to go for Ladder-Run, because as far as I understand once you get 1. Rank you get the Trophy automatically? Please correct me, if I am wrong in this? I do not think trophy should be give just getting to the top, but remaining there for X amount of games won being in top. This would reduce the Ladder Run issue. You´d still be first, but much harder to get the actual Trophy.

As I said previously I am not participating in Ladder so my knowledge lies in wiki and Forums that spread more lies than truths. Thank you for pointing out, that 5-ongoing games are maximum at 1v1 Ladder. Increasing this would offer so much more options to get False Elo-Rating through stalling. And again it seems Expiration is after 5th month. Ladders are more true, when all players can use maximum possible games taken, if it is increased I believe too many players won´t be able to keep up and due to inflation/deflation their rating would be slightly deviated from true score.

- Once a player quits ladder, shouldnt his ratings be removed from weighting other players? This is also kind of controversial problem?