'fairly easily'

You see, that's what I'm alluding to: You wouldn't have beaten him easily, or maybe at all if not for you having just slightly better luck that game. You, who complain when people use risky and lucky strategies are first in line to criticize your opponent when you obviously had the upper-hand in luck.

I'm mostly commenting because you said 'He didn't seem like anything special to me'

How can you make that assumption solely based on one game in which you were luckier than him? Perhaps if we see a string of 5-6 games in which you've won, luck or not, or if we saw a case in which you just overwhelmed and outwitted your opponent it would be safe to make such an assumption.

So what you're saying is: 'Every time I beat someone based on my luck, it's a legit win and that player is worse than me. However, whenever someone beats me because of luck or riskier play, obviously that player is still worse than me.'

If everyone was worse than you, then why are there 19 players above you in ladder?

Those are just the members participating in ladder, I'm sure there's members not participating that are much better than you. I'm also sure that there's plenty of non-members better than you.

If he were some kind of great player it wouldn't matter that I might have had slightly better luck in getting my bonuses quickly, he would beat me anyway. Look at the games I've played with dead piggy. I've started very well every single time and it doesn't matter, he always finds some way to come back and win it. That's what great players do. Niko played just like any other random average player I've ever played and who is easy to beat. Probably why he is nowhere near the top of the ladder anymore.

whenever someone beats me because of luck or riskier play, obviously that player is still worse than me

If they choose a strategy that makes it so they are either going to win by turn 3 or lose, I think that is evidence they know I am better than them and they are throwing a hail mary. However I can't recall ever saying that I lost a game because I had poor luck getting my first boni - because it doesn't matter. I can win even if each 3v2 loses in turns 1 and 2. Any player who uses that as an excuse why they lost is trying to cover up their own poor play - as you are trying to do for Niko.

and so the ego inflates once again

If I remember correctly though, my list was two-fold. He was forced to attack Thailand (a smart play assuming you might have Indonesia) quite hard, losing him Iran and border balance with AA. Please, point out to me a specific move of Niko's that was 'poor play' so much so you would put him down to any random average player. I'm not trying to 'cover up for Niko', I just find that your analysis of his play is wrong. Then to say: "Well a good player will find a way to come back and win no matter the situation" is quite hilarious. No one plays perfect every game, nor do they come back and win over overwhelming odds. I have a positive record on Dead Piggy, however in no way do I say that Dead Piggy is some random average player. Dead Piggy is a great player, who during the games he's played me has either: had bad luck, or guessed incorrectly at my picks forcing him to become overcautious and giving up precious strategic territories.

Hilariously, Niko has exhibited doing BOTH of those in 1 game. What gives me enough of an advantage to beat Dead Piggy through only 1 of those scenarios, Niko has combined them in 1 game. And yet, you still say: Oh, he played like a random average player. Laughable really, considering I'd bet Niko beating you at least 7-8 times out of 10.

---

Well, I disagree about counter-picking and risky play. When you know who your opponent is, and what his tendencies are, you can sometimes just give him his 3 picks and opt into picks that would directly disrupt him. Why not? If you know that the probability of your opponent picking a certain way is something like 80-90%, does that not mean you would win 80-90% of the time? Does that seem to be a hail mary to you? Also Billy, that part of losing 3v2s is absolute bullshit. What happens when you're in South America, and your opponent is in West Africa, and he breaks Brazil because he had 9 income to your 5? You're down 1 pick, your opponent has all 3. Unless your opponent is some terrible player, they've won the game. This is only 1 case of what I mean, but having delayed income can do all sorts of issues: Losing Iran, losing Georgia, losing Brazil, losing Shaanxi, losing Hawaii, all territories absolutely necessary in some games to win or lose. So you cannot tell me without being completely made out of shit that you can win without any strategical positions, down a pick, and bleeding income.

Please, point out to me a specific move of Niko's that was 'poor play'

It's the absence of great plays. I didn't say he was bad, just nothing special. Completely average. He played predictably and lost.

nor do they come back and win over overwhelming odds.

He was not faced with 'overwhelming odds' and I don't even know that he got unlucky, I just took your word for it. At most he had one bonus delayed by a round. Big deal. Those are not 'overwhelming odds' - overwhelming odds was what he had when he surrendered. He didn't even try to overcome those odds, he just gave up. A great player wouldn't have surrendered yet. You want a bad play? There is one. He could have still win > 0% of the time if he were truly a great player.

So you cannot tell me without being completely made out of shit that you can win without any strategical positions, down a pick, and bleeding income.

That isn't what happened here and that is a rare scenario - but I'll grant you that in that very specific case, bad luck in the beginning can cost you the game. Generally speaking, and in my game with Niko, poor luck in rounds 1 or 2 doesn't matter and can easily be overcome later with good play.

you should play in the live 1v1 tournament, walsh. then you will force lolowut to admit that you are the greatest player on warlight when he analyses your game on the stream.

First I will get to #1 in the ladder.

Billy, you simply aren't good enough to get #1 in the ladder for a while. Maybe in 3 months, but I doubt it. You are a decent player, and I can see improvement in the past few weeks. But you are going to have to wait for all those losses to expire and you also have a long way to go before you are good enough to get #1.

JSA,

you simply aren't good enough to make that determination, i'm about to have a higher rating than you've ever had.

you are right about one thing though, it's going to take awhile for all of these losses to expire...

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=3384707

like you said to me, 1 game means nothing, if you want to prove you are the best, beat him again, and while your at it, try beating me once

I like Niko's style. All this herp derping and he says nothing, just sipping some wine and dipping his french fries in mayonaise.

Billy, we've already had the discussion on that game months ago I believe. I made a big mistake and if I hadn't played bad, I would have won. One game means nothing, unless you're saying 69!, who has beaten you twice is better than you.

As for you having a higher rating than I've ever had, you aren't there yet. I have no doubt you will eventually though. As you can see, I am improving though and I guarentee after a few months when I come back, I will break my personal high rating too. Not to mention, Strategic 1v1 is not my strong suit. I am more of an all around player and Medium Earth can get boring.

I like the wins though :) It shows you are getting better. 4 good wins on that list, but you also have to remember those losses you had, including 2 against below average players, jasdanmoo and darhma. They will take a while to expire.

I am interested to see how good you end up getting. You have improved a lot over the last month, but you definitely aren't one of the top guys in the game yet. But if you keep improving, maybe you will be there someday.

15 games is just too small a sample size, the ladder is basically nothing but a who's hot ranking(or whos hot + whos the best exploiter). 30 games and 6 months before expires would go a long way to improve the ladder.

Even with 30 games and 6 months though you still have the problem of ELO being very inaccurate when it comes to high ranks vs low ranks. Players who play the minimum number of games are at a huge advantage over those who play 2 or 3 times the minimum like zibik and HHH. Look at the top players who play the minimum the average rating of their opponents are way higher than the average rating of HHH's opponents.

billy doesnty need to wait for thoise losses to expire, if he plays a significant amount of games the losses will eventually become irrelevant (thats the advantage of not opting for olliebol's and zibik's strategy, many games make your losses become insignificant)

what looks strange about oliebol is that he is in the first place but hasnt yet defeated the players which currently r in 2nd and 3rd, and he isnt even playing them at the moment

Backwards HHH, theres no way Billy can become #1 with the losses he has, even if he would win another 20. There's some bad losses in there and it'd take many wins against top players to equal even one of those out.

can't we just save this for the other "Billy" thread? One is more then enough