@Sora, I am not against you, or having this conversation. I think stalling is an important thing to discuss and talk about. As Platinum points out it does have negative consequences for the ladder. What I am speaking out against is mob justice, and singling out individual players.

As the saying goes, 'don't hate the player, hate the game.' If we don't like the way someone plays, but its within the confines of the game, its fine to work to change the game. But lets not attack individuals that play within the rules. Sora, you are trying to change the game, that's great. People attacking alexclusive, are using a mob to attack a single player. I don't believe that is okay.

Back to topic, can we take 20% or more armies (and/or)income difference and change in game play speed while losing as stalling? I remember some players writing in game chat asking why're the other team players playing slow when game is lost and some players surrender while the players who stall don't surrender. They know well what they're doing (intentionally gaming the ladder for ratings or pushing a loss for a later time), and don't worry about being respectful to others (time in this case).

Of-course "We can't force them to take turns" is the excuse used so far, but since Seasonal Ladder has a rule to avoid manipulating ratings by force finish method-other ladders should also have some sort of rule to avoid manipulating ratings.

Last thing I heard, Beren and Math Wolf were working on an algorithm to find out stalling-which apparently needs lot of data to train (probably a neural network I assume). If someone can code/make this algorithm, this will be good tool.

it is a tough topic because people have come back from serious deficits. (recently i won a 2v3 on the 3v3 ladder, which we were down 20% from the start to say the least LOL)

Ofcourse force finish is an obvious solution but it would be very bad if someone felt like they could've won a game that was force finished ebcause they ran into a stack for ex.

Maybe there is a way to weight time spent so if you're taking a long time in multiple turns its more likely to be force finished? other things to consider is comparing speeds in other games (playing fast in some games and slow in others), income and army count, and neutral territories left (so people don't try to run away with a extra-large stack)

@Njord

Better check timezones before accusing someone of lying next time. If the implemented pictures don't work, use the links.

https://pasteboard.co/HJPjJ3n.jpg
https://pasteboard.co/HJPkOhI.jpg

Edited 10/23/2018 20:03:53

Don't even try implementing any anti-stalling measures that depend on playing speed. It will simply result in everybody MathWolfing their games with 2d20h+ every turn.

Force finish based on income and armies like Tbest proposed looks like a way to go, but a difference of 5 or 20% is waaay too low, I've seen (and made) bigger comebacks than that. 10 and 50% are minimum imo.

just an FYI this thread isnt about witch hunting... try a different thread for that pls

we are here to provide an example of acceptable behavior and try to influence more sportsmanship in the community

edit: and perhaps, even, to find a solution to stalling and the consequences taht should be involved.

edit2: @rento if everyone played all their turns 2d23h it will be a very long run and take forever to finish 20 games to rank, perhaps to the extent your games will start expiring i dont understand your argument

Edited 10/23/2018 20:06:24

Maybe we could use a statistical algorithm to 'flag' players for stalling. Create some sort of time series model to predict if a player should surrender. Perhaps using variables like the per turn income difference between players, total armies controlled, turn number, ELO, some sort of regressive term based on a players past history, etc... Then use a prediction interval, if a player falls outside of that interval they can be 'flagged.' This is just the start of an idea, but I think it wouldn't be that hard to implement if it something people want.

Edit: I think interval is the wrong term, maybe more of a test.

Edited 10/23/2018 20:11:57

Better yet, implement a program to give a prediction if a player will win or lose. Than when the program is something like 95% confident a player will lose it can give a flag.

Make trophies unstallable. Should reduce stalling significantly. There have been threads that came up with several good ideas.

Honestly the easiest change is to simply change bayeselo to normal elo, like what MDL is based on. Takes care of not only stalling but ladder runs as well.

If we can't have this implemented, we won't have any other ladder change implemented either.

I came up with some punishments for stalling in my Captain Trips thread. If Alex agrees to these punishments, I think you should all put your pitchforks away and wait for the next staller (which will be me on the 3v3 ladder, I recommend you all watch my commit times closely over the next 2 weeks).

https://www.warzone.com/Forum/310703-1v1-ladder-staller-captain-trips

@Xeno

I agree with these punishments, what do we start with?^^

On the topic: I agree with Rento that a correct elo system would solve the problem, but I did quit believing that Fizzer would ever go for that. I also think that even 100% more income is too less to autofinish; for example, in a beginners game, the situation may appear that a player finishes a bonus of 5 in two turns while his opponent eats up his other two picks (MME). In this scenario, player B would have a game-deciding advantage, but player A would win due to autofinish.

So if even 100% can't be enough as a general rule, I doubt that such a setting would autofinish any interesting games because the number would need to be so high that only troll stallers (and my patented hiding strategy) would be caught by it. So I doubt that it would influence the success of tactical stalling if the number isn't set so low that it would determine a wrong winner from time to time.

Edited 10/23/2018 21:02:54

Maybe we can start with the players, that would actually know what stalling is, to not stall? The others can be told as soon as it happens. I bet that would solve some problems right?

Yeah, winning by stalling got kinda lame. Next time just ask MotD to play for you, that's what the cool boys do today.

your right.... there is something wrong with my time zones on my computer, which normally does convert to my own timezone sry.......

still i think my point still holds.....i was also thinking about stuff like that say that you only did move because you would not otherwise prevent a boot since you surrender was not accepted. you dont mention that it was a day after your teammate surrendered or that you did surrender at 2.23d, untill confronted whit it, that essentially lyeing imo.....

also "the reputed try to make him look bad and the 2d23h surrender. You should basically be able to correct the second one yourself, as you can see when which surrender happened iirc." does contradict ""The last turn happened after that discussion, don't you see that? The talk in the public chat was before I talked to Plat. Then I surrendered, and then I was forced to commit some orders to prevent a boot.

there is ofc more exsampels

Edited 10/23/2018 21:13:42

Or zbd or any other player i agree

@Njord

I comitted a lot later than I surrendered. I didn't want that turn to happen to prevent exactly this accusation.

Edited 10/23/2018 21:22:27

there is 2hours and 15 min between your move and the convo whit plat you say you surrendered after. prehaps up to 2hours is a long time out of 3 days for you.....

so i would say you lying here

Edited 10/23/2018 23:49:56

"stalling is bad etiquette"

So is harassment, condemning people without knowing the full story, and believing you are superior to strangers for no other reason than a game.

If you believe you still can call out someone in public for stalling, then you are surely a good enough person not to stirr up a shitstorm.

Pavey