Solution: 1 Day boot times on the 1v1 2v2 and 3v3 ladders.

What if you're ranked when your first 20 games are completed, but it's determined by start date, not end date. Stall all you want, but you don't get ranked until the first 20 games you started are completed.

Edit: And yeah the bigger problem in this case is his playing against himself, but I think everyone agrees on that, which is why more people are talking about the stalling. And stalling is more common than playing against yourself.

Edited 5/16/2016 22:46:34

1 Day boot times

*Pukes*

Even I have more of a life than that.

1 day with 4-5 days banked? I'd be fine with that.

That is a good solution using existing tools.

What if you're ranked when your first 20 games are completed, but it's determined by start date, not end date. Stall all you want, but you don't get ranked until the first 20 games you started are completed.

I love this idea. It would destroy the whole point of stalling. Then again, I would feel sorry for the people if they meet someone like Math Wolf or ACL tears in their 20th game :P

I think the RT Ladder system is still the best.

Jaymer should user voice that !

Solution: 1 Day boot times on the 1v1 2v2 and 3v3 ladders.

Why not just make all ladders Real-Time then. It's not like people need three days to bean count and try hard to get a good rating on the ladder.

@Benjamin628

1-day boot. Come to your senses. Fizzer is probably the first player who regards multi-day main game-mode here. As pointed above, rather real-time then, but not 1-day boot. I will assume there are more than few Ladder players who do have life outside Warlight actually.

If you google you can find more than 1000 "Strategy" games, where who-ever spends more time online committing orders-actions etc wins: if you prefer that style of game.

If you stall the loss, it will also expire later? So the problem seems to center with option to go for Ladder-Run, because as far as I understand once you get 1. Rank you get the Trophy automatically? Please correct me, if I am wrong in this? I do not think trophy should be give just getting to the top, but remaining there for X amount of games won being in top. This would reduce the Ladder Run issue. You´d still be first, but much harder to get the actual Trophy.

As I said previously I am not participating in Ladder so my knowledge lies in wiki and Forums that spread more lies than truths. Thank you for pointing out, that 5-ongoing games are maximum at 1v1 Ladder. Increasing this would offer so much more options to get False Elo-Rating through stalling. And again it seems Expiration is after 5th month. Ladders are more true, when all players can use maximum possible games taken, if it is increased I believe too many players won´t be able to keep up and due to inflation/deflation their rating would be slightly deviated from true score.

- Once a player quits ladder, shouldnt his ratings be removed from weighting other players? This is also kind of controversial problem?

Okay, so as a consequence, I leave the ladder and I will probably come back in a couple of weeks/months with only one account.

Of course that didn't come to mind when you were not yet ranked..

Yes, I wanted to have a rank for at least one day.

Which is exactly the problem. If you left the ladder before getting ranked and getting your gamed rating, it would only be half as annoying.

Can someone explain why there s a rule forbidding multiple accounts in the ladder ? Apparently ranking is about the longest winning series which is easier to make starting from fresh account (lower ranked opponents) so Alts are created. There lies the problem for me. As soon as we agree on playing in ladder with an Alt, I cant see why we should forbid to keep playing with the original account. And in case of self 1v1, one surrenders, so what ? Its only 1 game. Knyte if you can develop how an Alt can interact with ladder competitors more than the original account ? If by that you mean say Buns has 3 accounts and he is the best in ladders so its 3 times more difficult for opponents to get top rank because they have to face him 3 times, I would answer that Buns deserves his rank by being able to beat you 3 times.

For me the real issue is allowing Alts in ladders, and even allowing Alts in WL.

Edited 5/18/2016 23:00:05

If by that you mean say Buns has 3 accounts and he is the best in ladders so its 3 times more difficult for opponents to get top rank because they have to face him 3 times, I would answer that Buns deserves his rank by being able to beat you 3 times.

Buns can also beat you 3 times, and then have 2 of those accounts surrender their next 50 games. You now have 2 losses to players rated <1000, possibly even falling losing your shot at the top 50 as a consequence.

Are you saying the rank adapts not only to your very last game (and direct opponents' very last game) but to the whole past 20 games (re taking the rank of every opponent met during those) ? Well if that's the case the ranking system is biased.

And Ok that would be cheating and easy to prove and a ban would be relevant. But nothing comparable with genuinely trying to compete in ladder with different Alt (ideally coupled with a ranking system fixed as mentioned above).

+1 Jaymer

Are you saying the rank adapts not only to your very last game (and direct opponents' very last game) but to the whole past 20 games (re taking the rank of every opponent met during those) ? Well if that's the case the ranking system is biased.

Yes, Bayeselo factors in the future performance of your non-expired opponents. If the 2000-rated player you just beat dips down to 1750, you lose points too.

Is there a reason Warlight uses this crazy system rather than just Elo or Glicko or something normal?

Also, +1 to the start date suggestion.