How about if somebody has clearly lost, it counts as a loss in their rating anyway and it counts as a win for the other person. The exact details could be worked out but something like:

If your income is less than 50% of the other persons and you have less than 50% of their armies, and you take more than 24 hours to take your turn, it counts as a loss. If you somehow make a comeback, then it would be reversed.

People would probably still game the system but it would improve things a lot and prevent people from drawing out obvious losses, artificially boosting their own rating while holding back the rating of their opponent.

People stall like 50% of the time I beat them on the ladder and it's really annoying. Sometimes it looks like I'm on a losing streak and my rating takes a dive, simply because when I lose I surrender quickly, so all my wins are in limbo and the only games ending are those I lose.

I think I got to like a bit this idea. Idk if it should be implemented in these exact settings, but I believe that should be definetly checked out as a possibility to fix the problem.

Ya the exact settings I'm sure can be improved from my example, but the general concept of some games being counted as finished when they aren't actually finished, I think would help a lot.

+1 billy!!
sooo many players delay a max even best player :(
it s awfull!

That sounds like a bit of work for Fizzer, but it seems like it would eliminate the most egregious instances of stalling. I like it.

It could show up like this:



Highlighted ones would be matches I've lost and am stalling in.

I thought you don't stall Billy ??

P.S. I don't see ladder stalling as a problem.. I've never come across anybody that does it although that could just be good fortune on my part. In my opinion if anyone is stalling to the point you suggested that the stalled game should automatically count as loss then you should just name and shame them on the forum so we can all have a good laugh and chuckle at their expense whilst we wait for them to inevitably plummet down the ladder again as they rightly deserve when their stalled games end.

I thought you don't stall Billy ??

That was just a mockup of what it could look like. I'm not actually stalling in those games.

Try using your brain, if I was somebody who abuses stalling, would I be proposing this change?

I don't see ladder stalling as a problem.. I've never come across anybody that does it

Translation: I'm a habitual staller, please don't make this change.

There is no way you don't regularly encounter stalling. Everybody does.

Edited 5/26/2016 13:16:44

A comeback, especially in earlier stages of the game can be possible, even though it meets very strict conditions on incomeA/incomeB and armiesA/armiesB. (maybe he s taking a west china turn 2 while i didnt take anyting, but will take a big bonus next turn + have triple border on west china or similar scenarios)

Also, when the game is marked as lost due to meeting the given conditions, a comeback has to be impossible, as at that point both players now know what condtions it meets and the advantage of knowledge that it may give you should never impact the outcome of the game.

therefore the conditions would have to be very strict, the only thing you may prevent by that is someone running around with a stack (maybe not even that, depending on how big his stack is)

on a postivie side, as a comeback is now impossible, instead of marking the game, you could just end it at that point.

Edited 5/26/2016 13:31:40

What's the problem, at the end the good player are on the top of the ladder. I don't see any player in the top 20 who not deserve it. So what ?

Sorry, I mean top 30, because my best was something like 28 :))

Edited 5/26/2016 14:07:09

What's the problem, at the end the good player are on the top of the ladder. I don't see any player in the top 20 who not deserve it. So what ?

Some of them probably deserve a lower ranking than they have and some a higher ranking, within the top 20. It's not like a player who should be ranked 100th is ranked 5th by stalling but it can keep a player at 5th who should be at 10th or 15th.

Edited 5/26/2016 14:09:33

I think last year june to august there was one player nr.1 and was booted about 15 times in a row. Which means about 15 times player get poinst without playing, stalling means you get your poinst later. Now what is more unfair ?????

Jenny

A player wins a game he didnt play. In africa a kid starves to death. what is more unfair?

(Hint: its probably the african kid starving, but thats not the point)

Edited 5/26/2016 14:51:04

I don't start this thread, I have no problem with both ;)
..sometimes I stalling myself... but don't tell it to anyone... :))

and I myself think the player with the 15 boots is a very fair player but this was not the point either !

Edited 5/26/2016 14:54:22

sometimes I stalling myself

No shit.

Litmus test for this thread: people who stall don't like the idea. But they don't just defend the practice of stalling, they pretend it doesn't happen or that it doesn't have an impact.

I am the queen of stalling, but it is not against the role, isn't it?

Billy do not lie. I talk with Ven a lot and he knows you are stalling that game... He won more than a week ago. You're busted, Mr "Anti-Stall Warrior".

That's different, it's not about ranking, it's because he's a dick. I didn't take my turn for like 6 hours and he starts flipping out in chat talking all this shit. If people want to stall to punish others for their behavior, that's fine. But not as a strategy to maximize your ranking.

Lol, cover up game here. He was being respectful and you reply with "calm the fuck down. There is a 99.99% chance you won, but as long as I have a 0.01% chance to win, then I will continue!" "I will punish you for your sins!" and shit like that lolol. You're a staller, just admit it :P

That is not what happened and I don't care about your opinion. As I said, it has nothing to do with rating. I'm punishing him for behaving like a child.