Sorry guys for off topic post, I don't want to derail this thread. I just can't stay silent when somebody so unfairly and agressively attack my tutor.

You can't see behind the fog of this game I assume. Well, I can't either but I see Billy Walsh taking one turn longer and his opponent immediately calling him out:

"Usually I don't force anyone to surrender but here, what do you expect ? Do you want to show everybody how great staller you are ? Because all your bonuses are down while I still have quite a good income..."

Very bad gaming attitude here. No "hello", no nothing, he just started with an insult. He could have waited at least one or two extra turns to see if Billy was truly continuing the game at a 3 day speed with the army + income difference getting more and more ridiculous. However imo Billy shouldn't drag the game out now, not because of his rude opponent but for his own sake. He could find nicer opponents in the meantime but instead he has to carry this lost game with him.

Edited 5/26/2016 19:40:09

You can just place down more troops and inflate your rating...

People stall like 50% of the time I beat them on the ladder and it's really annoying.

Fun Fact: The more you complain the more they will stall.

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.

There is no difference. Stalling is stalling.

When the game will have ended, let's show everybody who was right and who started to complain first ;)
(if you may stop stalling. Thanks)

Billy's not too bad of a staller. He just takes (on average) 4.53 more turns in games where he's losing and those games tend to last about 1 day, 20 hours and 3 minutes longer than games where he's winning.

There's plenty of people worse than that. Buns takes about twice as long to finish games where he ends up losing, for example.

Edited 5/27/2016 02:10:30

Take this stupid bullshit drama to a new thread. Yes, I am stalling to punish him for behaving like a child. If you don't like that, then you should support what I am proposing here because it would have no benefit in this situation, nor when people stall for their rating.

Stalling is part of the strategie and it's legal.
I think the good players know exactly who is good because of there skills or by stalling, so I see no reason to change anything. I don't bother someone is 5th or 20th in Ladderranking !

Edited 5/27/2016 02:20:28

He just takes (on average) 4.53 more turns in games where he's losing

Yes, I don't surrender until the game is absolutely, unequivocally over. In my opinion, not the opinion of my opponent or others. The reason is that I regularly end up winning when I was in a seemingly hopeless position. Often because my opponent ends up surrendering when they shouldn't have. A lot people seem to think if I break one of their bonuses, they've lost. People also make mistakes. If I'm playing a mediocre or poor player, I can hold out hoping they'll do something dumb, like use one of their giant stacks to make a 150 blockade or something.

I don't consider that stalling at all, I'm trying to win. Just because the other person has an advantage, even a large advantage, doesn't mean I need to give up, like so many people do.

Yes, I don't surrender until the game is absolutely, unequivocally over

Fair point. You just take this practice more seriously than your opponents seem to, but not in a way that would really impact your ladder rating if it's just a 1-day difference on average (from the data points I have so far, the main range is -2 to 1 so you're not really a staller (at least not regularly).

only read about half of this, because the flaming seems mostly pointless.
the idea seems workable.. I understand that the knowledge of having met these criteria could be detrimental to the gameplay of that individual game, but if such a thing was implemented, I see no real reason why we as players need to be made aware of each situation in which a match is in the *predicted loss/victory* range.
no additional reward/penalty is necessary beyond that, if fizzer implemented a rating in which say after turn 4-5 if you have 50% greater armies and income then your rating changes as though you won until circumstances change..
he just needs to make an announcment that a system like this has been implemented, make sure it's visible on the laddder pages, and let it run.. it will keep players from falsely inflating their rating *as many players have extended their 1st place rank back in legacy* while still allowing players to continue to play if they feel they can win.
Imho many games where people say they *obviously lost* it wasn't quite so obvious yet.. the single stack run is a show that they obviously knew, but especially at lower skill levels, people may not be aware enough of the map and their opponents possibilities to realize how outgunned they are.

oh, and another mention.. when I played ladder games, I would often extend games that were -close- because I wanted to really analyze the games and put alot of focus into them, so would need time that I don't have every day.. while new games, or games I felt I was winning, I would play more by instinct.

Perhaps we could also display the following stats on someone's ladder profile (it's very tedious/time-consuming for me to scrape these since the query game API is slow):

- (avg. total start-to-finish time for games where they ended up losing) - (avg. total start-to-finish time for games where they ended up winning)

- (avg. # of turns for games where they ended up losing) - (avg. # of turns for games where they ended up winning)

- (avg. turn speed for games where they ended up losing) - (avg. turn speed for games where they ended up winning)

That way, it'd be easy to spot the worst offenders. If you're significantly positive for any of these, it means you stall harder than your average opponent.

knyte, what's the point in showing who stalls more in a ladder where you can't choose your opponents? or do you propose to make your play speed affect your rating too, in which case stalling on winning games would actually become a beneficial ploy..?

Chosing an opponent is easier than you might expect.

knyte, what's the point in showing who stalls more in a ladder where you can't choose your opponents?

Just for visibility's sake, so stallers can't deny it anymore.

Also, I think the real problem's not with stalling on the ladder but the way we control restrictions on turn speed in this game. Having 3-day-boot as the standard in a game where we don't actually want or expect people to take 3 days to make a turn doesn't make a ton of sense. There's got to be a better solution, especially since banked time is an option.

knyte visibility won't take that #1 spot off of the Impallers profile.
and you can fix visibility by throwing a bunch of matches and playing quickly in them prior/after the point in question

Unfortunately this is probably overcomplicated ti implement and I'm not sure if it's even worthwhile if the end result is to just expose players stalling and hope they stop out of public embarrassment. What you really want is to find a way that actually stops it or at least is guaranteed to reduce it. For example, reducing the boot timer is 100% effective.

Edited 5/27/2016 12:08:13

Yeah, given that most players actually finish their games in less than 6 days, we should switch to 1 day boot with 3-5 days banked for people like Math Wolf.

@Lionel: It's actually very easy to track using the data WL already stores about games.

Edited 5/27/2016 14:09:37

Grow up Billy. The ladders have 3 day boots, if you don't like it don't play in the ladders