So who are the stallers of the ladder and who are the cheats? Who are the fakers?

Stallers:
Pulsey (on 1v1 and 2v2)
The Great Pulsius (1v1)
Zacatron (1v1)
Killua (Seasonal)
MG (seasonal)
Belzebu (seasonal, 1v1, 2v2 ladders)
Gnuffone (1v1, 2v2 ladders)
Oliebol (1v1)
Ko (1v1)
Doushibag (1v1)
Thanathos (1v1)
Odin (1v1)

The recepient of a thrown game:
Odin (once on his main to Michael
Gnuffone (his first ladder run to Dead piggy, to himself (Dark Vengencance))
The Great Pulsius (once to Pulsey)

I am sure I missed some but I feel that this needs to be said.

Now time for my own confession: I should have been #1 one time. But not the one time I did take it. I asked Roo to leave the ladder for me when I was #2 and she left so I could take #1. I didn't deserve it the time I actually took it. Sure, I could have stalled and got it, but that's not my style. I have to admit this because I have to be honest with myself and that means being honest with the warlight community. I deserved #1 when I maxed out at #2. I would have been #1 if Belzebu had not been stalling against me. Yeah, I was a worse player in that run. But it's the time I had #1 fair and square. My second big run, I didn't deserve #1; Roo should have been #1 instead. I don't think anyone else was ever gippped out of a #1 in the way I was. I know Gnuffone took #1 the first time because Dead piggy left the ladder for him, but other than that, I've heard nothing of anyone else leaving the ladder so someone else can take #1.

Now that that is off my chest, shout out to Min and Henns! They should have been #1 on the 2v2 ladder the one day the ladders weren't updating. They deserve a trophy!

For those of you who feel you have something to prove, the only person you have to prove something to is yourself. For those of you who are assholes (Belzebu, Pulsey, some others too), fuck you.

Edited 5/28/2014 19:16:23

Someone told me they were handing out sandwiches... You can't deceive me like that, JSA :(
#stallers4eva

I game the ladder to a lesser extent, but I imagine lots more have done what I'm doing, probably too many to list. I lowered/raised the # of games I was playing on a few occasions in an attempt to make the matchmaking system give me specific opponents because I didn't want to play people who losing to would hammer my rating, and who beating would be of no real benefit to me.

right, we don't deserve the #1 because we gamed the ladder. You gamed the ladder as well but you deserve the #1 because you think you do.

oh hail JSA's flawless, unbiased and almighty logic and opinion! Hail!

you're lame but funny Jay, your first post got ridiculed and ignored so you make a new one with the exact same content but more baseless accusations.

Consider me off the forum from now until the standards of it become much higher.

See you next week.

Edited 5/26/2014 04:09:29

How does stalling affect the final outcome in seasonal ladder? Also how can rt ladder be gamed?

RT? Never join when someone you aren't sure if you can beat is your likely matchup.

As for stalling in seasonal: If you delay losses you get higher rated opponents, which then when you lose to them (if you lose) hurts your rating less than if you had surrendered the games you already lost in the first place and got worse opponents afterwards as a result.

He won't reply to any of us, but rest assured he is reading this. JSA, you've got no right to say this. There is no such thing as 'deserving' #1. You either take it or you don't - the reasons (unless actually cheating) are irrelevant. The time you took #1, you cheated with Roo's consent. The time you 'deserved' #1, you didn't take it because you couldn't win enough games in time (had you won the other potential 4 games, I'd bet you'd have taken #1 easily). Had you stayed in the ladder longer, you'd have taken the top spot assuming you could keep winning for that time - though to be honest I think you didn't because you lack the skill to win against 4 high level opponents in a row.

Tl;dr stop whinging like a little bitch

I deserved #1 when I maxed out at #2.


My second big run, I didn't deserve #1

At least he's being honest (kind of)

I'd say, he's sick of the stalling going on. ME TOO!!! JK, idrc...but if you're top 10, why do you need to stall? Put on your big boy pants and lose like a man.

So repetitive jay.

You dont sound very Christian today though.

haha #1 is still #1 no matter if you're stalling or not :)

Edited 5/26/2014 12:39:32

Szeweningen killua delayed always the right amount to stay nr 1 or 2. Now i'm the nr one with one loss less than him but i think he will win the ladder because i was matched up with less good opponents than him. I've beaten all the top players on the seasonal ladder but my games against low ranked players who left the ladder after i beat them will cost methe win. Maybe it wouldn't have change anything if he didn't delay but there's still the chance that his matchups wouldn't be that good that he can beat my ranking with one loss more (what i think is a lot!)

Now that that is off my chest, shout out to Min and Hennns! They should have been #1 on the 2v2 ladder the one day the ladders weren't updating. They deserve a trophy!

This. Thanks for the shout out though :)

Seasonal ladder will always have small problems like that, exactly 20 games is not enough to get a reliable rating for everyone, however I don't see how your argument is valid:

He was playing better players but he got a slightly worse score than me, thus he should be rated lower? The argument about your opponents leaving the ladder thus getting penalty points and lowering your overall rating is more solid, however nothing can be done about it i think.

Edited 5/26/2014 16:36:37

Roll on the arguments.

I agree with Sirius though. Delaying is uncontrollable, you can't do anything about. So what's the points of arguing against it. Those that have delayed...be ashamed. Those that haven't live in pride, knowing you dont need to cheat(?) to win. As smple as bread and butter.

The argument about your opponents leaving the ladder thus getting penalty points and lowering your overall rating is more solid, however nothing can be done about it i think

Not true - penalty for insufficient number of games doesn't count. Rating for seasonal ladder is calculated this way:
1. Calculate elo rating for players.
2. Apply penalties.

So it's better to lose against player with 5 wins than player with 20 loses (despite 20 loses gives higher final rating)

Still, i can agree with MoD about gaming th SL with delaying lose - early lose(s) will impact your opponents average rating thus reducing chance for final success.

Edited 5/27/2014 10:37:10

I agree with Sirius though. Delaying is uncontrollable, you can't do anything about. So what's the points of arguing against it.

Also can't agree

I can see at least two solution for this:

a) by community: find stallers, announce what are doing and jointly stall against them - you can't delay your loses if everyone delay your wins. But, to be honest, amount of stallers doesn't give much hope for this solution.

b) by Fizzer - allow to commit only your longest awaiting games - you can't stall with such restriction. (maybe with exception for one/two games to reduce inconvenience - so you can commit game only if no more than one/two others game has longer awaiting time).

Awesome idea but would require some work (big ask on top of Fizzer's current projects).

I actually think I have developed an idea that could work very efficiently without changing the core of the current 1v1 and 2v2 ladders. My idea is to implement penalty points for games, however differentiate it between games.

Let's have an example on 1v1 ladder:

Suppose we have a new player with no games played yet, every player will start with 1200 penalty points. Now for every game played some of the penalty points will be removed. For chronologically 1st game, 150 will be removed, for chronologically 2nd 140 will be removed. Now, you are not ranked before you get 15 games, so if you finish your first 15 games, you will not have any penalty points, because 150+140+...+10=1200. Of course it is not ideal, but it'll definitely limit the scale with which you can stall (of course it does nothing after you finish 15 games, so stalling will be a problem, but not a big one).

I think a good middle-ground would be to have 2100 penalty points and increase the required number of games to 20 on 1v1 ladder. Similarily after finishing first game, 200 penalty points will be removed, 190 for 2nd game etc..

The main point behind my idea is that people who stall get more/less randomly those losses, so it is very likely, it'll be better for their rating to surrender their game if it was played early, rather than stall it. This gives motivation not to stall and it's relatively easy to implement.

I like that idea, Sze, but aren't top players more likely to be losing in their 10th game or so than their first, since that's when they will start playing against reasonably good players. 50 penalty points may not be enough to encourage them to accept the loss.