...

Edited 10/14/2019 17:07:40

If turn lasts x-days I can still commit on last minute, use all vacations and bank-time. You can play your games up to last territory/army. There is no definition when one has lost or when one should surrender. Stalling is just a conception. It would be nice to surrender when its clear, but there is no rule that forces you to do that. Playing slow is quite beneficial in ladders, especially if you are after a trophy.

You may want to read following threads thorough:
https://www.warzone.com/Forum/320345-stalling-consequences
https://www.warzone.com/Forum/312443-stalling-game
https://www.warzone.com/Forum/384118-report-someone-stalling

Commiting every 24/36 hours is still pretty fast. Players have 3 days to make a move.

Also, trying to rush your opponents in chat usually gives the opposite effect.

I guess you're talking about your Dom game? He has taken pretty much all of his turns fast until now. I sometimes call people out in the chat, but only if they're stalling multiple turns and taking 2 days 20+ hours. If they just take one turn slow, I just figure something happened in their life and they haven't been able to get back to their game, or they just need a turn to mourn their loss. Calling someone out after one slow turn seems a little rude in my opinion.

Nothing wrong with a 24, 36 or even 60h turn, as Long as it doesn't add up in a lost Position.

It's normal for People who want to be successful to overthink turns and take longer for that. It's easy to make a turn in a game that you're going to win, but if you are in a bad Position, you take time to think

going up to 70 hours if stalling, right?

what if you can't help it since youre busy?

Since I´m fairly new on the ladder as well and the title of this thread is a broad one, I would like to ask if anyone knows why certain players get significantly higher rated opponents right off the bat and yet some have to grind lower rated opponents first? I could give you two examples and in both cases that has resulted in a rating spike that would not have been possible with lesser opponents. Off course they have done well to beat these but for a top player I don´t think there is too much difference whether you are playing against, say 1000-rated player or a 1500 one. You are most likely going to beat both and yet, other gives significantly more rating points, especially when your rating is also still low in the beginning. Neither of them had previous matches played on the ladder. Not sure exactly how the rating system works so feel free to clarify if I have misunderstood something.

edit: well one example at least, the other is questionable I guess.

Edited 10/14/2019 16:58:43

Since I´m fairly new on the ladder as well …

yes, you are new, but you are #1. so i would count that as really good.

i am glad having to "grind" with the lower-rated players cause I am lower-rated. There is something on the WarzoneWiki about how they match up the opponents. it is a long process. there is math involved lol.


https://www.warzone.com/wiki/How_Ladder_Games_are_Created

I read that and it still doesn´t seem to add up. This guy´s second completed match was against a 1700 player (was also back then). For comparison, my first closest to that rating was 12th game (10th completed but had still at least two earlier games going on) against a 1800 rated (was also back then). That´s quite a difference. 17 hundreds are in the top 25% of all participants so how could he be within the 30% reach of that after just 1 completed game?

This guy played only 2 games against lower than 1500 rated, I played 9. We both won all our first matches so no difference there. All games played after the end of last July so I don´t think the ratings have varied that much, some I know haven´t.

Could so drastic differences really just be a coincidence?

Didn´t mean grind in a disrespectful way. I used that word because games where you are a big favorite just often aren´t as interesting. This probably applies to everyone.

Edited 10/15/2019 04:07:49

@cloud7:

Looking over the first 2 of your ladder games I see immediately what happened. You started by playing (I guess) 5 games at a time, finished them all more or less in real time and then got paired up with the next 5 opponents. As you got paired up with the next 5 guys, you had those "worthless" victories under your belt, so you got paired up with guys having only a slightly higher rating than before.

The fastest way to climb up the ladder would be to play 1 game at a time so that each victory you get paired up with a higher ranked opponent than before.

Edited 10/15/2019 04:39:49

Not sure I understand what you mean. How does playing 5 games at a time affect things since it´s not like I finished them all at once? In the beginning I finished a few per day. So it was one victory, one rating update, one new opponent at a time, I assume.

i dont get ladder system also... i was playing vs guy Legacy 19769546 , he was stalling from very start and the game was very long... when i finished playing him i was already 2300 points and guess what happened, after win vs him i left with 2297 points lol :D

The ladder rating is calculated basically by win percentage and the average rating of your opponent. If the average rating of your opponents drops more than the winrate can make up for, your rating falls even after a win. That won't happen anymore for you since you won't get matchups with that lowly rated players

you start whit 5 opponents that you get based on a rating of 0

Edited 10/15/2019 10:11:33

ok, its clear, thanks !
btw seasonal ladder is about to start, you all rather start with 1 game , right ?

p.s.: that template seems is very likeable and a lot of good players will play.

Edited 10/15/2019 11:28:55

4 games

You don't get to chose how many games you play on the seasonal. Best is if you join from start and play your games quickly

ohh yeah i misunderstood..... do as mod says

Edited 10/15/2019 11:43:00

so, in the 1v1 ladder, is playing in 1 game at a time best?

I feel like there's a lot of partial explanations in this thread.

The rating system being used is Bayesian ELO and it works as follows:

1) The system looks for any player who has less games than the amount of games they specified they want to play. It then pairs up players (probably according to their rating, but that is Fizzer's code, not the BayesianELO program so I'm not 100% sure)

2) For any game you complete, the system takes your rating and your opponent's rating into account when calculating the new ratings. This is what happens in regular ELO as well.

3) Next, the system takes your and your opponent's rating variance into account. Your rating variance can be seen as the uncertainty of your rating. If you've played one game, the system will give you a high variance. Here's two examples to illustrate. In both you have only completed one game:

3-1) You beat the lowest rated player on the ladder. His rating is 495. The system now gives you a rating of 638. However, it also says you could be anywhere between 60 and 1216.

3-2) You beat the highest rated player on the ladder. His rating is 2302. The system now gives you a rating of 2446. However, it also says you could be anywhere between 2054 and 2830.

The more games you complete, the lower this variance gets.

4) The ladder also updates globally. It makes sure the offset rating is 1500 and takes into account how the ratings of your past opponents have changed. If someone you played has risen in rating, you will probably profit a tiny bit from this. The converse is also true.

Another note that needs to be made, is that Warlight will give you a small advantage for getting first pick. In chess, this advantage is considered to be around 33 ELO points; for Warlight it's assumed to be 10 ELO points.

ELO points are a handy tool to predict the chances of winning. If an infinite amount of games were played for all players, this would be the win chances based on ELO-difference:

Win percentage	ELO-difference
50%		0
60%		70
70%		147
80%		241
90%		382
95%		512
99%		798
99.9%		1200