That is irrelevant to this topic. I agree that there would be good ways to avoid stalling. That idea came up before but seems not to be on fizzers immediate (if at all) roadmap

I think this is a clever solution and I would argue that you can probably be even more aggressive than 50% income/50% armies. I understand that comebacks could potentially happen from 50% in either category but from 50% in both is completely impossible.

False positives (games which were flagged as stalling but eventually turn into comebacks) aren't affected in the long run. It doesn't affect either player's rating once the game is correctly adjudicated.

False negatives (games where someone is stalling despite being within the 'comeback range') should be treated the same as the more blatant forms of stalling in my opinion.

This is a great way to take away the 'reward' of stalling. Under this system it would be a waste of both players' time rather than just the winner's.

Marking a game is pointless, as after its been marked the outcome may be effected by the information thats been handed out by marking it. Meaning you should directly end a game when it meets the conditions, which also means that a comeback should ve been impossible at that point.

To argue at what point a situation is impossible to comeback from, you first have to agree on how stupid your enemy will play.
there obviously are situations where, if the enemy plays it perfect, there is no chance of coming back, even with perfect gambling (meaning, even if you d know what moves he does, you d still lose). But that does not mean that there is no chance for you to come back, as your enemy probably wont play perfect.
Also, there is no situation (at least not on the current ladder settings) that you are guranteed to win, no matter how stupid you play. Meaning, with maximum stupid enemy, its never impossible to come back.
Therefore your enemies skill has to be set somewhere between maximum stupid and perfect before any condition could be made that completly ensures a comeback is impossible.

Edited 5/26/2016 17:01:12

I don't think bad players would realize or care wheter their game got marked. Good players know already that they lost and they won't play that badly and screw up on such a situation.

@Billy

When I wrote "I thought you don't stall Billy ??" it was a joke. It was humorous for the reasons you pointed out. I know humour might be a strange concept to you but before you lash out and insult people maybe "Try using your brain" (I think that's how you put it)


@Billy again

When I wrote "I don't see ladder stalling as a problem.. I've never come across anybody that does it". That was a fact. I'm relatively new to the ladder peaked just over 30 and am now in the 40's due to poor and slow play during the exam period. But none of these "undeserving stallers" that were ranked near me have stalled a single game yet.

So maybe before insulting me, calling me a liar and falsely accusing me of being a staller why don't you grow up and learn some manners. After all if you treat people this badly on forums then maybe just maybe some of them remember that. Maybe you encounter more stallers than me out of spite for how you treat people on forums.

Edited 5/26/2016 17:16:32

This solution seems overly difficult to implement and controversial. Who decides the criteria for a loss?

As I mentioned in another thread, I think it would be simpler if people didn't get ranked until after completing their first 20 games according to start date, not end date. Then stalling has no effect; you still have to finish the first 20 games you started before you get your ranking. That doesn't stop stalling after a person is already ranked, but... do people do that? I thought stalling was mostly just for runs.

All games should end after 10 turns, winner is player with most troops. gg.

All games should end after 10 turns, winner is player with most troops. gg.

No

So maybe before insulting me, calling me a liar and falsely accusing me of being a staller why don't you grow up and learn some manners.

There is a psychology mechanism called "projection". Long story short, if I deny my behaviours or personal attributes, I tend to see and reject them in others, too. This is why he cannot help but think like this. Ingame chat with Ven shows this clearly, too.

And considering Ven, I want tell everyone, that he is really great guy. When I came to CORP as complete noob, he agreed to help me with my game and he did so avidly, teaching me a lot of things which I would need to gain by experience. We spent a lot of time chatting and become friends, in terms of online possibilities. I absolutely back up him in this case, if income ratio is 24:5, there is no doubt who is a dick here :P

Sorry guys for off topic post, I don't want to derail this thread. I just can't stay silent when somebody so unfairly and agressively attack my tutor.

Edited 5/26/2016 19:23:28

Cute <3

Sorry guys for off topic post, I don't want to derail this thread. I just can't stay silent when somebody so unfairly and agressively attack my tutor.

You can't see behind the fog of this game I assume. Well, I can't either but I see Billy Walsh taking one turn longer and his opponent immediately calling him out:

"Usually I don't force anyone to surrender but here, what do you expect ? Do you want to show everybody how great staller you are ? Because all your bonuses are down while I still have quite a good income..."

Very bad gaming attitude here. No "hello", no nothing, he just started with an insult. He could have waited at least one or two extra turns to see if Billy was truly continuing the game at a 3 day speed with the army + income difference getting more and more ridiculous. However imo Billy shouldn't drag the game out now, not because of his rude opponent but for his own sake. He could find nicer opponents in the meantime but instead he has to carry this lost game with him.

Edited 5/26/2016 19:40:09

You can just place down more troops and inflate your rating...

People stall like 50% of the time I beat them on the ladder and it's really annoying.

Fun Fact: The more you complain the more they will stall.

That's different, it's not about ranking, it's because he's a dick. I didn't take my turn for like 6 hours and he starts flipping out in chat talking all this shit. If people want to stall to punish others for their behavior, that's fine. But not as a strategy to maximize your ranking.

There is no difference. Stalling is stalling.

When the game will have ended, let's show everybody who was right and who started to complain first ;)
(if you may stop stalling. Thanks)

Billy's not too bad of a staller. He just takes (on average) 4.53 more turns in games where he's losing and those games tend to last about 1 day, 20 hours and 3 minutes longer than games where he's winning.

There's plenty of people worse than that. Buns takes about twice as long to finish games where he ends up losing, for example.

Edited 5/27/2016 02:10:30

Take this stupid bullshit drama to a new thread. Yes, I am stalling to punish him for behaving like a child. If you don't like that, then you should support what I am proposing here because it would have no benefit in this situation, nor when people stall for their rating.

Stalling is part of the strategie and it's legal.
I think the good players know exactly who is good because of there skills or by stalling, so I see no reason to change anything. I don't bother someone is 5th or 20th in Ladderranking !

Edited 5/27/2016 02:20:28

He just takes (on average) 4.53 more turns in games where he's losing

Yes, I don't surrender until the game is absolutely, unequivocally over. In my opinion, not the opinion of my opponent or others. The reason is that I regularly end up winning when I was in a seemingly hopeless position. Often because my opponent ends up surrendering when they shouldn't have. A lot people seem to think if I break one of their bonuses, they've lost. People also make mistakes. If I'm playing a mediocre or poor player, I can hold out hoping they'll do something dumb, like use one of their giant stacks to make a 150 blockade or something.

I don't consider that stalling at all, I'm trying to win. Just because the other person has an advantage, even a large advantage, doesn't mean I need to give up, like so many people do.

Yes, I don't surrender until the game is absolutely, unequivocally over

Fair point. You just take this practice more seriously than your opponents seem to, but not in a way that would really impact your ladder rating if it's just a 1-day difference on average (from the data points I have so far, the main range is -2 to 1 so you're not really a staller (at least not regularly).