This account was originally made as a troll account of sorts. It's "Greatest Ever" written in Chinese, its purpose was to destroy Walsh in a 1v1 and rile him up. Walsh got suspended shortly after I made it. That aside, I have since decided to level the account till it is the level needed to play on the ladder and then join the 1v1 ladder with it and attempt to take rank 1.

I've played quite a bit on the ladder in the past, but never with anywhere near the amount of success I'd like (2000 rating is not the goal, 2300+ without stalling is).

I would very much appreciate playing against anyone who's both good at the current template and willing to analyze games and critique them.

I think one of my largest issues thus far has been that I play MD games like they are RT. I rtpically don't count, I don't track leftover placement enough to know how many armies my opponent has, where their armies should be, what turn they got every bonus they have, etc. I've attempted to do this some games with limited success, but it's usually more effort than I put into MD games. I am not opposed to putting that much effort into improving though if that is what is necessary.

That's certainly not my only issue though, I definitely pick bad at times, and need to overall become more consistent.

play a game against me - if you can't defeat me there's no chance for you to reach 2300+ (even with help)
anyway I can do some analysis for you

Edited 8/1/2016 08:31:36

"play a game against me - if you can't defeat me there's no chance for you to reach 2300+ (even with help)"

I've already had ratings higher than your peak rating.

That doesn't mean I "can't" lose to you, but whether I am capable of beating you is not a question.

rouxburg defeated Buns157 11169027 5/18/2016 13:24:03 rouxburg: 1908

Were you to beat me that would mean nothing, players rated below you frequently defeat rank 1 ladder players.

That also doesn't mean you can't potentially spot flaws I make in games, I just find it silly that you suggest that if you beat me I'd be incapable of hitting 2300+.

Edited 8/1/2016 08:38:50

Using the Elo model to approximate, AI at his ladder peak should be able to beat a 2300-rated player about 12% of the time. To hit a 99% win rate at 2300, you need to go down to about 1500. So actually I'm the one who can probably say "if I can beat you, you probably aren't 2300+ good."

just invite me to a game and we'll see :D
It wasn't meant to be offense

@knyte: where do you get that 12% from?

Edited 8/1/2016 08:44:03

Elo model (might work differently for Bayeselo). A 346 point difference yields an 88% win rate for the overdog.

If you lose to a 1954 in your initial 15 game run, there's very little chance you'll be hitting 2300+ without stalling.

Thank you, that's what I was thinking :)

I rtpically don't count, I don't track leftover placement enough to know how many armies my opponent has, where their armies should be, what turn they got every bonus they have, etc.

That's what i usually do too. works for me most of the time

I think it's what most people do. I only really know 2-3 players that do calculate all of that, but I find the difference between when they do so and when they don't other doing so are huge.

ie. ZeroBlindDragon calculates all of that, and is much better at MD than RT. Summer calculates it, sometimes, and when she does, she does far far better than when she plays off pure instinct or plays RT.

fight me now

I don't think 2300+ is possible purely depending on skills. In my opinion a 1900 can beat a 2300 just by getting lucky on picks. So you need luck (or lack of unluck) to hit that sweet number. That being said, part of the problem with 2300 is the ladder system itself. When I did my run a little while ago, my picking was focused on reducing the possibility if "unluck" rather then what was the best picks. For example I tried to avoid having two territories bordering after picks.

Likely you will have a bunch of 19 and 18 hundreds opponents. What you need is to play against as many of 2k + as possible. At that rating the level of risk/reward is more in your favor. (Wins gives more, loss hurts less)

In order to get 2300+ i think you need a record of something like 27-3. (assuming same as Buns opponents) I don't think that is possible, without having luck on your side. The way I read it you have already reached top 5 on another account. So the skill is not really the issue. If you just count the games out/use custom scenario then you are already good enough to reach 2300+. (Along with many others as well. However being good enough =/= being able too :P )

DISCLAIMER: Some of the information below deals with gaming the system/cheating. If you decide to use it the wrong way, keep in mind that actual penalties exist (and have been enforced) for cheating on ladders. I strongly advise that you don't use the information below to cheat on ladders and instead use it as a toolkit to recognize when your opponents may be cheating and report them.

Recognizing when your opponent is exploiting the ladder

Pulsey's guide: https://www.warlight.net/Forum/44437-guide-ladder1-stall-boot-choose-opponent-etc

Qi's guide: https://www.warlight.net/Forum/28007-manipulate-ladder-system

Don't read them to cheat/stall, but to understand that some things is good for getting a high rating. It is not really deepening on skills.

(you are ofc welcome to prove me wrong, and get 2300+ while having more then 50 unexpired games.

Edited 8/1/2016 21:41:21

My goal is to improve. Not to get a high rating. That is a side effect. Not interested in stalling to get a higher rating than I deserve.

I can currently get top 10 without stalling, most likely rank 1 (top 3 for sure) if I do stall. That is irrelevant to me, it's not something I will ever even debate doing.

Edited 8/1/2016 21:48:16

If you lose to a 1954 in your initial 15 game run, there's very little chance you'll be hitting 2300+ without stalling

little chance only for those whose "true" rating is below 2300 and who needs luck to hit 2300. Not an issue for those whose "true" rating is 2300+.

I am way below 2300, but I know the rating dynamics around 1800. I used to change my account frequently before starting using this one. Each time I started a new run on RT ladder, my rating stabilized roughly the in same range in the long run (1700-1900). I didn't worry about not being able to reach 1700 after being booted against a <1000 in my first 15 games. It just prolong the stabilization process of my rating.

I guess the same thing can be said about 2300. Had my "true" rating been 2400, I wouldn't worry about not being able to hit 2300 after losing to a beginner in my first 15 games.

If you want to get better and again a deservedly high rating, just play the ladder.

If you want to get an undeserved high rating, stall.

Playing the ladder in fits and starts and restarting runs on different alts accomplishes neither.

Edited 8/1/2016 22:06:21

since noone really got my point.

If 2500 is perfect rating, with perfect play. Absulutely no misstakes.

Then I dont think 2500 (or 2400) can be achived. Becouse the skill level of 2150+ is so close to perfect play that your win % will never be good enogh. You can ofc get lucky and have only won games, but in the top of the ladder the misstakes are not really there. Hence luck decides.

There is a resone that stalling was a big thing on the ladders. It was the best way to get a high rating.

PS, the numbers are a bit arbitary since rating inflation and such can happen. But think of it as how often a 99% perfect player beats a 100% perfect player. It is very close to a 50/50 score between the two.

This account was originally made as a troll account of sorts. It's "Greatest Ever" written in Chinese,

*sighs* great, the guy with 94% win rate, YET claims hes the greatest ever when we all confirmed there were infact ppl with better win rate...

most likely rank 1 (top 3 for sure

then why are you asking for advice...?!?

@Good Kid aka chinese letter guy (I just assume you are the guy who argued with the great Wally Balls in his most funny thread): At first step I recommend you succeeding your 1994 peak (with neither stalling nor going for a run or "going for a run with a tini tiny bit of stalling") and as second step you can then attack a legitimate the 2300 rating.

1994 will be broken within ~48 hours.

Set to debut around 2070. And yes, that's with no stalling.

Is rouxburg a Nauz alt? I thought he was just using rouxburg's win against Buns to illustrate that you can lose to a 1900-rated player and still break 2300.