Of course it's a miracle to get to top10 if you lose to players not only in top10 but even much lower ranked....

I don't know what you guys are on about with that. Nobody beats 100% of their opponents, or only loses to the very best players. This is not chess where the best player always wins. There is luck in this game. Look at the history of anybody at the top of the ladder, they all have losses to people ranked much lower.

I have beaten 3 people who have been ranked #1 so how does that work with your theory that the best player always wins?

I completely agree that it's easier to have a good rank with 30 unexpired games instead of 150.

But if youlook at the times, 1 day average time is not siper fast, but nothing to complain about. I remember when i was like number 10 with 150 unexpired games.

It wasn't possible to get higher at that point because i didn't overanalyze the games and played fast, what caused me to lose a few games vs not so high ranked players. My own fault and nothing i can blame my opponents for, as long as they don't stall. Buns does definitely not stall.

Blame the system. The player did nothing wrong since he's not stalling. 1 day average is even quite fast imo. I expected it to be slower

It's hilarious that players who are actually good nearly always give helpful responses. And players who are significantly worse than me are the ones insulting me and telling me I suck.

billy give us a promise please - if u get the first place --- u have to play 5 games at once - ok?

Since u said movin in 1 day average is to slow - hm u will have to move within 3 hours. i think this would be fast. ok?

and you would show all other players that u are the only fair player here

Edited 4/30/2016 09:58:13

I'd like to think that's what I would do. i don't know until i'm there. I could see playing a bit slower to think, like timinator said. Maybe not 5 at once. But I don't think I would just stall and camp, that would cheapen getting there. I don't have respect for Buns for being #1, he seems like he's just manipulating the system. Who wants to be #1 like that?

I have beaten 3 people who have been ranked #1 so how does that work with your theory that the best player always wins?

Perfectly fine :)

^^ You get more points the higher up you are in the top 30, which is why the theory that the top ladder players like to "stall" (in speech marks because it's not true sometimes) most of their games could be true, but I believe otherwise. Also, the longer they can attain their rank- by "stalling"- the more points they get.

I have no problems with what Buns is doing, he's almost 100 rating points ahead of 2nd and he's winning his games so he deserves to be #1, with or without "stalling".

EDIT: Corrected mistake

Edited 4/30/2016 10:43:38

I only just joined the 1v1 ladder and don't feel there's any issue with the system. I completed my first 20 games super fast to get a rank on the ladder and have now slowed down massively just like everyone else has who is serious about moving up the table. Playing many ladder games at once is a great way to lose focus and make silly mistakes.

I can't really work out if Billy is trolling or is just deluded, clearly since he's dropped from 15th to 33rd he can have no issues getting matches against better players than him.

If Buns is reading any of this I congratulate him for being a top player and i'll wait patiently for my chance to get beaten by him like all the other players ranked in the lower half of the top 50 page. For anyone else reading this thread and getting annoyed at Billy, don't worry too much; it's just a single persons opinion and I'm personally looking forward to meeting billy in the ladder... I can't guarantee i'll beat him but at least I can take 2 days 23 hours on every turn :D

i was 15th in 2012. i just got ranked for the first time again like two days ago.

Maybe it's a matter of definition. As for me I have always seen "stalling" as the semantik equivalent to "loss delaying". With this definition stalling means "to play slow for
a) an extended period of time while
b) having already ran out of options to win the game."

An overly strict definition could also include just playing out games on tendentially losing positions slower however for me this seems to narrow as long as the looser presses the surrender button once he runs out of options to win.

- With this definition Buns157 didn't stall the game Billy Walsh posted mainly because... well, he won.

- However of course it would be also wrong to call Buns157 a fair player, he does indeed has a history of stalling (= loss delaying).

Edited 4/30/2016 11:55:55

dry-clean-only, if we meet, i hope you play as bad as you did here:

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10868207

i won't play as bad as Anakin in response.

that seriously looks like a noob vs noob auto-game...

edit: before everybody gets all butthurt, i'm not saying either player is bad. they both just happened to play bad that one game. i have played bad many games. it happens.

Edited 4/30/2016 11:56:01

@dry-clean-only: well spoken

Edited 4/30/2016 12:27:20

I love how your example of a game I played badly in was one where I won against a player who's best ever rank was 7 despite it being only my 8th ladder game :)

Edited 4/30/2016 12:49:39

Again, I was not saying either player was bad. I did not go looking for a game where you played badly. I just watched one game and laughed for most of it.

He played a lot worse than you. I can't believe he attacked that neutral 2v2 and then 1v1. WTF was that? lol. And he should have broken your West China bonus at all costs. He should realized immediately that you had double or triple picked. Just lazy, he was obviously not paying much attention at all that game. Maybe due to your rating at the time, he thought it would be easy.

Please just stop picking fights.

You're embarrassing yourself; your strategic help guides/tips are much more appreciated by everyone.

I'm not picking fights. Haters are picking fights with me. You're doing it right now.

Best rating ever: 1546, best rank ever: 149th

1v1: 326 / 620 (53%)

Obviously...

Edited 4/30/2016 13:19:26

I kinda agree with billy, but I don't think its buns' fault I think its the system's fault and I believe that playing one game at a time shouldn't be allowed as it favors the high levels, so I would blame the system and no buns. :P

>Implying how bad/good I am at this game has any relevance as to how much of a dick you're being right now