Congrats on ladder #1!

And thank you for your confessions ;)

Thanks manner ;)

suck it, pig!

Edited 5/2/2014 10:26:39

Fly a kite.

What if I said #1 is possible without game delaying?

I don't know what time zone the ladder is on, but I think in the next ladder update my losses expire and your reign of bullshit will end.

Has anyone ever been #1 on the ladder without game delaying or "playing slow because they have a life" *cough* boss *cought* ?

http://warlight.net/Forum/Thread?ThreadID=36399

ah well, PIggy, be that as it may. To me its not so much about topping a list or getting yellow trophies, it just satisfies my sense of achievement after spending 2 years on this game.

Edited 5/2/2014 13:14:32

I guess I'll say well done, but in order to get any kind of proper congratulations you need to surrender those games - if you're top then, I think everyone will be a lot happier. Of course it's still a great achievement though.

Not that it looks like you'll have much of a chance, piggy's rating is going to fly through the roof.

Edit: Also congrats to piggy for being the second ever player to reach the 3400s!

Edited 5/2/2014 18:56:42

Is that thread ironic or sincere Odin? If it is sincere it is proof of how rotten the community and competition has got over the past year. Congratulation on what? You can game the system that a 5-year old could game? You are being blatant with cheating? I guess it's better than denying it, but still... It seems all Gnuff should have done is make a thread called "Hi, I'm cheating", then he would still be liked by everyone... Please, just implement chronologically sorted first 20 games for 1v1 ladder, 15 for 2v2 ladder and all that crap will stop.

+10000000 on what sze posted

Exactly what i think sze.
A good rank isn't worth anything if you need to delay your losses to reach it. Just play the game for fun and give your best. If that's not enough you have to get more practise.

@Sze:

It's not completely serious and I think Pulsey understands that, but still some kind of acknowledgement. And I do think his confession was something fresh, maybe the start of a discussion about ladder ratings.

Gnuff did a lot of other things than just stall on ladders. In my opinion, that was by far the least of his sins. Had he not done that, my criticism of him would still stand. Though I would've been a lot less angry with him had he admitted his deeds before beelze exposed him, had he been less arrogant, and had he not made false statements about myself. But I digress.

The community method will never be able to make the ladder equal for everybody. It can deal with the most blatant type of cheating if the cheater reaches #1 - and thus gets attention - and if this happens only once of twice. Everything else will remain in the dark. Not to mention the arbitrariness of the community method, including false allegations.

But most importantly, I agree with you that there should be a new rating system for the 1v1 and 2v2 ladders. You made a thread about it a year ago, and I contributed to it among others. I know Fizzer says that other rating methods will have their weaknesses too, but I'm still not convinced that the current method is the best we can get. I'm not saying I know better than Fizzer, but at least I would like to have an open discussion about it with him, where the community could propose a few new systems, and Fizzer could either adopt one of them, or justify why he wants to keep the old one.

The problem isn't the system. It's the low amount of games required. I am looking at the 1v1 ladder #1's, and surprisingly, I've looked through most so far, and only 4-5 would not have #1 if they had not stalled. Out of those that did stall to get #1, only one played had the #1 spot with 20 games.

So what I'm saying is that if Fixzer makes the minimum game amount be 20, it would make skill level play a bigger part in who gets #1 and who doesn't.

I would say something but it looks like the thread has turned into another how-to-change-the-ladder thread, like the other 10 million ones Qi and Sze posted, followed by like the usual angry rants from TWM.

Edited 5/3/2014 02:40:33

@ JSA:

chronologically sorted first 20 games

Changing the ladder rating system is a big no-no because it'll make past ratings even more incompatible with present ones, I do however, fully support the minimum 20 games to enter the ladder and this'll make (everyone) happy.

Fizzer!

Sze's idea clearly makes total sense, its easy to instigate and will fix a problem that does need to be fixed.

Hello

Congrats Pulsey. I have to admit that I also like doing unsportsmanhip stuff when playing single player Civilization V. I keep pressing the reload button until I get that nice dessert start with ocean access, gold and good production. And if one of those AIs completes their World Wonder just a turn before me I reload and put more effort into completing the wonder. That way I can play at immortal level. However I would have a problem stalling in warlight since I'm playing against human players. I think those players also deserve their victory if they beat me in a fair fight.

@Green:
Changing the ladder rating system is a big no-no because it'll make past ratings even more incompatible with present ones
An Elo rating is an indicator about your playing strength compared with the other players in the playing pool. I don't think you can compare current ratings with past ratings. I don't know the exact algorithm for the 1v1 ladder but I'm pretty sure that a rating inflation will occur when many bad players join the ladder. Let's say thousand new bad players join the ladder named Lawlz_1,..., Lawlz_1000 and that those bad players never win against another player besides another one of their kind. Then these bad players drop beneath their initial rating and thus pump points to the top. The real reason nowadays the top rated players have higher ratings than in the old days isn't because they are stronger but because more bad players joined the ladder.


As for the current ladder problems I see two problems, namely
1. people gaming the system and
2. top players being punished for playing many games since this makes losses more likely

Problem two is actually not that the top players are being punished but that people with less games are often overrated if they got lucky or gamed the system. I think the easiest solution to both problems is just to lower the k-factor. That way both wins and losses would mean less and it would take your more games to reach the number 1 spot. A low k-factor is quite natural for warlight since it's luck based and a bad player can get a lucky punch against a top player what isn't possible in chess. I believe 5 games is the maximum ladder games at a time? Then you can only stall 4 games. Other solutions like "first 20 games before rating" have serious flaws. Just imagine if you have absolutely no intention of gaming the system but one of your opponents goes on vacation.