Well after reading this, I couldn't agree more with Buns, Hades, and Mister T. AI is a 1900-something level player. To try and manipulate the ladder system to get an inflated, unrealistic rating is ridiculous...it not only is awful sportsmanship, but it undermines all of the good competition and hard work that us other players go through. I've won around 43 of my last 50 ladder games, mostly against top 30 competition, and move up slowly from having a lot of unexpired games in the past 5 months (more losses a while back). Seeing people threaten to get the top stop with so FEW games played, mostly from beating up on low level semi-noobs, is unfair. 20 games is simply too few to be ranked on the ladder, it needs to be 40. We saw someone else do this recently, he made it to number one for a week, then lost EVERY game he played against top 10 (unlike me, who has beaten a lot of top players), and then he quit the ladder! Totally unfair.

^ +1 Buns, Hades, MisterT, HBB

I'm very disappointed in certain people now. :L

The problem is not the amount of 20 games or the fact that people make ladder runs. True it is harder to stay on top for a long time then to make a ladder run. The main problem of ladder runs is that people tend to stall games when they almost made it. IF i see someone make a clean run of 20 games and get first place i don't see any problem with that. No stalling means he deserves first place. Lots of players, like myself, make runs once in a while because we don't have time to play ladder permanently or (probably a bigger reason, at least it is for me) motivation to keep playing the same template over and over again. At the end of a 20 game ladder run i am usually bored as hell. Same reason I will never win a seasonal (assuming i would have the skill to do so if i am on top of my game) Last games i cannot bring up the motivation anymore to stay focused. So I can see why people hate ladder runs, but its because of people like nicklas that they do so

The problem is not the amount of 20 games or the fact that people make ladder runs. True it is harder to stay on top for a long time then to make a ladder run. The main problem of ladder runs is that people tend to stall games when they almost made it. IF i see someone make a clean run of 20 games and get first place i don't see any problem with that. No stalling means he deserves first place. Lots of players, like myself, make runs once in a while because we don't have time to play ladder permanently or (probably a bigger reason, at least it is for me) motivation to keep playing the same template over and over again. At the end of a 20 game ladder run i am usually bored as hell. Same reason I will never win a seasonal (assuming i would have the skill to do so if i am on top of my game) Last games i cannot bring up the motivation anymore to stay focused. So I can see why people hate ladder runs, but its because of people like nicklas that they do so

Or you lose to me :)

shut up noob! Grown ups are talking

Won't TrueSkill solve this? If you're just winning against low-level n00bs, your sigma (the range your actual skill might be in) isn't going to narrow much until you finally encounter people on your own level.

If you have TrueSkill with a sigma-based threshold (so you're ranked once the system is confident in your rating), that also helps when people drastically improve because then their sigma will widen again as their performance will no longer be consistent with where the model expects them to land.

Runs are still easier, even without the stalling. Less games mean you'll deviate more from your true rating, and you have more of a chance at getting over-rated. People do runs all the time, get 1st and cant hold it. Because they're true rating is actually not 1st, and as they play more games, they're rating converges on to its true value and they fall down the ladder. Meaning they took 1st, but didn't actually deserve it.

Stalling is an additional problem, and like I said before, I think people tend to unintentionally stall anyway, by having to think more on tough or losing games, and so taking more time.

And this isn't much of a reason, but people on runs will be more highly motivated. Each game they know is going to play a larger part in their rating and they'll take more care. Where as people in for the long run will be less motivated each game, as its just one out of several pages that count towards your rating.

MisterT's point as well, that people improve while on the ladder, and so even though they are at a certain skill now, will still be dragged down by their skill 5 months before.

If you needed 40 games to get ranked many people just wouldn't be able to be ranked because of their first games expiring before completing their 40th game. Just to make an example, in this moment on the first positions only alhazi has more than 40 unexpired games.

---

I think the problem isn't only with number of games.
The problem is the current Elo system, which has several big flaws:

• a WIN against a low rated player/team will drag your rating down until it expires
  
• a LOSS against a much higher rated player/team will bring your rating up
  
• a change to any of your past opponents' rating will affect your rating too
  
• having very few unexpired games and only play 1 or 2 new games at a time is the most efficient way to achieve and keep a high rating
  
• players can just make a run and get a high rating by just completing 20 games and delaying a few losses

How to solve: RT Ladder's TrueSkill rating system easily solves all these problems.

PROS:

• you need to play many games to achieve a high rating
  
• wins/losses affect your rating immediately as they happen
  
• TrueSkill rating and standard deviation are all that matters, your history of wins/losses doesn't affect your
  rating

CONS:

• since past games don't affect your current rating, a player's rating is going to stay the same even if they didn't play for long periods of time
  
• for the same reason, a player with high rating only needs to play the minimum amount of games not to get unranked in order to keep a high rank for as long as they want

How to solve: you only need to add a DECAY mechanic.
What's DECAY? Every player loses X TrueSkill rating every fixed amount of time (something like 50~100 TS each week for RT Ladder, the best thing is the amount is inversely proportional to the number of games played by each player in the last week).
This way a player who hasn't played the ladder for many months (or years) won't just come back and have the same rating as they had when they left; and no one can stall on top of the ladder by just playing the minimum amount of games not to get unranked.

---

tl;dr: The current Elo system is only fit for Seasonal Ladder. All the other Ladders should use TrueSkill, and implement a DECAY mechanic to prevent stalling.

Edited 5/13/2016 22:28:45

Odi et amo

MisterT is not any less noob then 5 months ago so i have no idea how he would know anything about that :P

I think people tend to unintentionally stall anyway, by having to think more on tough or losing games, and so taking more time.

For me thats not the definition of stalling. Stalling is not surrendering a game where you know you have lost. If a game looks bad but I know i can still win if i pull of a nice trick. Yeah then i don't see what is wrong with thinking for 2/3 days. I have won a lot of games where it looked bad and took a few days to consider every possible move from me and my opponent. And true that can be more then 1 turn. So you could say 2 or 3 turns of almost 3 turns is stalling if i loose it in the end. But if i win is it stalling?

Meaning they took 1st, but didn't actually deserve it.

If someone can wrap up 20 games without stalling he is worthy to take first place if his opponents were rated good enough. Ladders are a competitive arena as it says on the wiki and in sports its not always the best or the strongest that will end up on top. But same as there we should ban cheaters from the arena. Imo its not needed to ban niklas/ai from warlight but he should be banned from the ladder for some time

Or you ask your opponent to VTE :P

First, I hate stalling too. I hate myself for stalling the game (btw buns: I don't stall against proelium bun, I just play slow, I think I can win this game).
But I relised that there is a way for me to get into the top ten or also #1 so I decided to stall... Admit it, there a lot of players who would do that.
But stalling is not against the rules

btw I know I dont deserve #1

there are 3 options I think

1. You leave me be (which wouldn't be fair)

2. You ban AI and Niklas (which wouldn't be nice)

3. You ban Niklas (who benefited from the "cheating") --> That would probably be fair

Sorry for my bad English, I hope you can understand me...

honestly I don't know why you're not banned yet, and honestly I don't know why you didn't leave the ladder yet to begin with

1. You leave me be (which wouldn't be fair)

2. You ban AI and Niklas (which wouldn't be nice)

3. You ban Niklas (who benefited from the "cheating") --> That would probably be fair

Nobody is going to ban you, Niklas, only expect to receive a warning.

Edited 5/14/2016 09:29:49

@nik in the game chat you said you were going to, and the time taken for each turn suggests that too.

Imo give up with whatever account lost to the other one, since that kind of cheating is the one which fizzer will deal with.

May God have mercy on your soul.

When I said unintentionally stall I just meant that you end up dragging out those games more which will artificially increase your rating until you finish them.

Seph, I meant the last 40 games count towards your rating INSTEAD of the last 5 months worth, not both of them.

But yah, I agree with seph and knyte, the trueskill thing would be better, making them play out a lot of games before they get a high rating.

People keep talking about whether someone "deserves" the #1 spot. I think a central question is: What do we want the #1 trophy to represent?

Currently, when I see the #1 trophy in someone's profile, I don't think they're the best player on Warlight (or ever were the best) on that template. I think they're a really good player who at least had a great run at some point. Maybe they're the best, maybe not.

But is that a bad thing? Maybe not. As it is, the #1 trophy is a more achievable goal for more players. It's still a difficult task that only top players can accomplish, but it's something that a lot of players can realistically hope for. Change it to something that only the currently best player can achieve, and it becomes irrelevant to a lot of people.

Maybe the problem is that we don't have anything to distinguish "the best" player from a really good player who has a great run. So what if they added something that does that? Maybe show the amount of time that a player held the #1 spot, and the amount of time they were in the top 10. Then I can see if someone got #1 but was only there for a day, and I know he just had a great a run. But if I see someone who held the #1 spot for months, I know they're really one of the very best.

I think any change that requires playing more than 20 games is not ideal. I personally wouldn't bother with the ladder, I don't think. I don't like to play so many games on the same template, and I assume there a lot of other players that feel the same way.

Another con of TrueSkill is that you have to deal with rating inflation/deflation over time (as players retire and take the points they've earned/lost out of the system).

A decay mechanism could reduce the sitting at the top of the ladder, but you'd have to find a way to implement it so that it that doesn't cause deflation.

Edited 5/15/2016 01:11:00

https://www.warlight.net/LadderTeam?LadderTeamID=8878

He is losing all his games now, showing he does suck and should be much lower rated :)

Still stalling against two low rated players though.


I'm pretty much bumping this, he deserves some consequence to playing himself on the ladder for a fake rating, Otherwise what is stopping anyone from doing this bs.