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

it is relevant. i already explained why. you're a hater. the good players aren't hating, they are discussing the topic.

I can offer some light on this...it is true, the top players play as slow as molasses, and usually 1 or 2 games at a time. The worst is Alhazi, who will drag a game out that he is losing until you close him out, which could take months (and does). Buns, when I played him once before, was fast and a good sport. I was the last person to beat him.

I'm also the hottest player on the ladder in the past several months, having won 40 of my last 45 games. I am in games now with Alhazi and Tyrion Lannister...have them both beat, but they are epically slow, so who knows how long it will take.

I think slow play is lousy sportsmanship, but how many games you play at a time, is totally up to you, and there is nothing wrong with playing just one if someone feels that preserves their ranking better. The best thing is to just keep winning as I am doing. I've beaten all the top guys, and just have some losses from 4 or 5 months ago holding my ranking back a bit or I would be in the top 5. Do the same....fight and win.

Buns' lack of comment on this is also a telling factor.

He was the first to comment when I made a similar thread not that long ago. He said:

I will happily carry on being a turtle on the 1v1 ladder, I don't want to play multiple 1v1 ladder games at once.

Billy- I feel it was you who started with the "hating" by trashing the #1 ranked player in 2 separate threads and claiming his speed of play is the sole or even primary reason why you are not ranked higher. I admit I may have come on a bit aggressively without fully explaining myself. I apologize for that. I don't have any reason to defend Buns at all except I find your attacks uncalled for & your complaints invalid. Also I would likely do the same if/when I take the top spot. I still have hope that you will see the light on this, so I'll stick to the topic at hand.

Your specific complaint about the speed of play seems to keep changing but the last one I saw was that the players slow down when they get to the top. You then stated you may do the same when get to the top. So, If your complaint is now something else, please state what it is.

There are valid reasons why play slows down at the top.

• Primarily, play at the bottom of the ladder is much easier and therefore doesn't require as much time. you become a target at the top and need to be aware that others can study your style of play and game it
  
• The motivation to play more games in order to increase in rank faster is removed. There's no where to go but down. You may not like it but it's a somewhat unavoidable fact. A say somewhat because players are required to continue playing in order to maintain their rank. The question is how much should they have to play. It takes a lot of time and effort to achieve the #1 rank and once there players may want some time to focus on other Warlight and/or Non-Warlight activities. More on these points below.
  

Most everyone has agreed that Buns is not "stalling" and is playing within both the rules and the spirit of the rules. If you have such an issue with the rules, you should try and get them changed. Start a uservoice or create threads focused on the rule instead of trashing the players above you. Personally, I think it's ok the way it is because I would rather have the opportunity to get to the top and stay there without having to devote my life to the 1v1 ladder, even if it means it will take me longer to get there. It's far easier to get to the top now then I think it should be. It encourages runs and alts over long term consistent play against other top players. There's no way someone should be able to get #1 by going on a 20-0 or even 19-1, 18-2 run on an alt account IMO.

You've never explained why slow play at the top is holding you back from advancing to the top so I'll have to guess you either believe that;
A) The top players will lose more games if they are forced to play more/faster.
B) You will have more opportunities to play the top ranks if they are playing in more games and therefore you can beat higher ranked players more often increasing your rank quicker.

Both ideas are hypothetically, possibly true maybe. Granted. However;
A) This is not necessarily the case, it may just mean that they have to spend more time focusing on their 1v1 ladder games instead of other things. I don't think that should be the case. Otherwise the top ranks will just end up going to the players that have the most spare time to focus on a specific ladder. Buns probably has a real life to attend to and you'll notice he is currently in 2 other ladders atm in addition to who knows what else

B) This is also not necessarily true. You are not currently ranked high enough to draw these matches consistently. Also, you are assuming you are going to beat the top players more often than not. It was a bit of hyperbole on my part when I earlier said they would beat you 9 out of 10 times but I feel strongly you will lose more often then win at this point. It's hubris on your part to assume you are better than these players. Maybe someday soon you'll get there but there's nothing in the games you've played so far or your understanding of the game displayed in the thread discussions that leads me or likely anyone else to believe you are the best player. Maybe someday you will be.

Luckily we have this ladder here where we can find out who's the best and don't have to debate it. You just need to beat the lower ranks more consistently and more often to get your ranking high enough to match up with the top. Unfortunately for you, you have a couple losses to low ranks that are going to hold you back until you can dilute them with a lot of wins or they expire.

Good luck on your climb to the top. Be patient and maybe I'll see you there

Billy, do us a favor and help prevent more clutter from filling the forums? :p

I feel it was you who started with the "hating" by trashing the #1 ranked player

One could argue that's what I'm doing. Hating works up the chain. Now all the riff raff mediocre players are taking shots at me.

If your complaint is now something else, please state what it is.

Aside from this week, I haven't played the ladder since 2012. I sense there is something wrong with the status quo, I do not know the full extent and exact details. Comments from others who have played and play at or near the top of the ladder confirm my suspicions. Read what HotBeachBum wrote. If you don't think that sounds like a fucked up situation, I don't know what to tell you. He's won 40/45, beat Buns and has #2 and #3 beat right now, and he's ranked 14th. That's a broken system.

You are not currently ranked high enough to draw these matches consistently.

I just beat #17 and moved to #25. When #18 finally surrenders, I'll go even higher. That should draw me somebody higher. When I beat them, I'll draw somebody higher. Once I draw people in the top 5-10 it will turn into a stall-fest and I'll hit a ceiling at what appears to be top 20 or so. That sucks.

Edited 4/30/2016 20:02:40

I'll play you on the 3D Cube.

No, really. You're trying to pick a fight with someone who took 1.4 days average over 8 turns, to complete a game, in an online risk-clone fórum. Sit back and think about how petty this is.

Billy, HBB did not actually agree with what you've been saying. To the contrary he said Buns was fast and cool to play with, that there is a difference between slow play/stalling and how many games people play and that he was totally entitled to play in one game at a time.

I think HBBs problem in ranking to the top despite his 40/45 run is not so much related to the speed of the top 10 but more the 200 unexpired games prior to this run. There's a bunch of losses in there that are gonna take awhile to expire and count just as much as the recent games as far as I know. So he is going to have to dilute those losses with a ton of wins against high ranking players ( which he's doing a great job of atm) or wait for those to expire. His case is more an example of why there should maybe be different expiration factors. Maybe games should expire after x # of months or x # of games. I don't know, there's probably a downside there somewhere too. In any case it doesn't seem his problem is related to your crusade.