That's a strawman argument. Just because you're hated doesn't mean you are a great spirit ^^

I don't think you know what a straw man is. It means to attack an argument your opponent did not make. I have not done that.

Ironically, you just committed a straw man. I never said what you just claimed I said.

lol get over yourself Billy

I'm getting the feeling you're not actually interested in ending stalling on the 1v1 ladder and just wanna grandstand. Can't wait to see how high you're ranked on the list of 1v1 ladder stallers. You definitely stall more than your opponents do by a significant margin, and no matter what justification you offer for it- stalling is stalling.

I would love it if my haters could take this bullshit to some other thread so we can discuss ladder stalling.

I absolutely do not stall more than my opponents. I've stalled versus one person ever. Right now I have two people stalling vs me.

I absolutely do not stall more than my opponents.

You've played 82 games to completion so far on the 1v1 ladder (on this account)- 55 wins and 27 losses. Your wins have ended after an average of 10.62 turns. Your losses, interestingly, have ended at an average of 15.15 turns- taking 4.53 more turns to end than your wins.

In terms of raw time, your wins take 1 day, 20 hours, 2 minutes, and 58 seconds to end (on average). Your losses, however, take 2 days, 11 hours, 6 minutes, and 10 seconds. That's a difference of about 15 hours, 3 minutes, and 12 seconds. On average, over the course of 82 games.

If you've only ever stalled in one of those losses, then that 15 hour difference translates to stalling in one game for 405 hours, or about 17 days (so even longer than a single max-length vacation would allow). And you must've stretched that game out for an extra 122 turns, too. On average, you have a tendency to stretch out your losses significantly longer than your opponents do.

This isn't about your haters, Billy. This is about your credibility and your sidetracking of the conversation.

I'm not stalling in those games. I already explained this. I surrender much later than most people. I try to make comebacks. And when you're trying to make a comeback from a big disadvantage, that naturally will require some thought. When I'm winning I make my decisions quickly. When I'm losing and near surrender, I'll tend to think more. That's what happened with the guy I'm stalling against. I took some time to consider my move since I was about to surrender, and he started flipping out in chat insulting me, accusing me of stalling.

Billy played the ladders in 2012 and now in 2016. Back in the days he didn't always play fair (https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=3519353), however almost anybody on this thread hasn't even heard of WarLight back then. Those were the days way before LAWLZ when the #Elite clan (grandfather of the gg clan) was farming wins against their alts.

Edited 5/29/2016 09:41:36

The prerequisites for an autoloose should be statistically ensure that no comeback is possible under normal conditions....bootrate of 3 days standart in the md games i would really not touch this setting!
If nothing gets changed in the ladder then everybody should stall the loses to ensure a fair gameplay!!! it would lead to some games finishing a lot later but who cares it would be fair...and thats the point...;D

Billy played the ladders in 2012 and now in 2016. Back in the days he didn't always play fair

Ya, I stalled then. That's why when I left the ladder I have a bunch of losses. I was stalling all of those.

I surrender much later than most people.

That's just the same thing any staller would say.

If you were taking longer in just winnable games, that wouldn't make a 4.53-turn difference in games where you end up losing.

You've played 82 games to completion so far on the 1v1 ladder (on this account)- 55 wins and 27 losses. Your wins have ended after an average of 10.62 turns. Your losses, interestingly, have ended at an average of 15.15 turns- taking 4.53 more turns to end than your wins.

In terms of raw time, your wins take 1 day, 20 hours, 2 minutes, and 58 seconds to end (on average). Your losses, however, take 2 days, 11 hours, 6 minutes, and 10 seconds. That's a difference of about 15 hours, 3 minutes, and 12 seconds. On average, over the course of 82 games.

If you've only ever stalled in one of those losses, then that 15 hour difference translates to stalling in one game for 405 hours, or about 17 days (so even longer than a single max-length vacation would allow). And you must've stretched that game out for an extra 122 turns, too. On average, you have a tendency to stretch out your losses significantly longer than your opponents do.

This isn't about your haters, Billy. This is about your credibility and your sidetracking of the conversation.

I think there are flaws with measuring it this way. Like you said before about me playing my winning games faster but loses slower, but that would be near the same for most people near the top imo.

Most of the winning games (since its not 50% wins 50% losses roughly near the top of the ladder) are against people who are rated lower, meaning you have to think less and just put in any moves. Especially in the first 20 games to be ranked, half of them all you need to do is pick safe bonuses and use delays before attacking and you pretty much get a free win. While losses normally come from other high ranked players, which you are more likely to lose to but take the full 3 days picking and also 3 days for tough turns. And I expect most players do this no matter if they have an advantage or a disadvantage.

So while Billy might be a staller, I don't think what you say is enough evidence since Billy is fairly high up.

Edited 5/29/2016 16:27:54

Your wins against lower-rated players are for your opponents losses against higher-rated players, though.

Knyte, did you find those numbers with a script? If so some other players (me!) could easily be checked to compere the numbers.

Also "This isn't about your haters, Billy. This is about your credibility and your sidetracking of the conversation."

Nope. This is about an idea to fix the ladder stalling, but we left that track long time ago :p

EDIT: My current counting losses has an avg. of 14.4 turns. Not that far away from Billy's 15.15 turn avg. Turn number itself seems nothing extraordinary after compering it to 100% of sample size. xD Ofc. Time taken is relevant too.

Edited 5/29/2016 16:49:00

Lower ranked players tend not to take the ladder as seriously as high ranked players, so they are more likely to surrender earlier and devote less time to turns.

In addition, you're more likely to continue playing in a disadvantageous position of you think you are better than the other player than vice versa, since you are more likely to be able to outplay your opponent and turn the game around.

@Knyte True, but normally (at least for me) if I'm ranked lowly on a ladder, I care less. So without caring as much I play the turns faster since I have little to lose.

Though my points could be completely wrong for most of the players.

@TBest: Yes, and I didn't write the script to single out Billy. I'm currently locally saving the ladder games so I can run the analysis on the whole ladder without taking forever (it requires a bunch of queries to the Query Game API endpoint). Just creating a ranking of people by how much longer they take to finish their losses than their wins. Avoids the more tedious and shaky analysis of how many turns people continue games after they've met some criteria since we already know which games end in a loss and which ones end in a win.

Nope. This is about an idea to fix the ladder stalling, but we left that track long time ago :p

Well, I tried to engage in that but lolnoresponse because Billy's fixated on making 3 responses to his haters. I seriously doubt he has much of an interest in the topic at hand since most of his threads seem to get derailed the same way.

My current counting losses has an avg. of 14.4 turns. Not that far away from Billy's 15.15 turn avg. Turn number itself seems nothing extraordinary after compering it to 100% of sample size. xD Ofc. Time taken is relevant too.

Not measuring loss turn count, but instead loss - win (to adjust for your normal play speed).

(46, 15, 61, 10.43, 12.13, 1.7, '2 days, 6:05:28.239130', '2 days, 17:44:15.866666', '11:38:47.627536')

So for you on TBest (not Master of Chaos, that would be a bit messy since it's got multiple people behind it) I see 46 wins and 15 losses, with 10.43 turns to win and 12.13 turns to lose- so 1.7 more turns. Your losses take 11h, 38min, and about 48sec longer than your wins (though since we're talking about stalling, it's best to measure this in terms of your average game speed- you finish about 22% of an average game during that timeframe).

4 of your games were automatically excluded from the analysis because they ended before turn 2 or ended in a boot.

@Beren/Buns: we can see that in the final data, I guess. Could also just adjust for the ratings of your opponents although right now I'm just tracking people's rank/rating as I go along so if it's a common trend among higher-rated players then I guess we'll see that too.

Edited 5/29/2016 16:58:47

Hmm that is interesting Knyte, but a few thing seems wrong to me in the way you are doing this.

Firstly, I only considered my non-expired games. Mostly because I don't care about past stalling but current, games from 3 boots* from 2014 + games from 2013 are not relevant. Besides, then I didn't take the ladder seriously. Not to mention that the ladder settings have changed over the years, which may or may not make a difference.

*Boots. I don't understand how you ended up excluding 4 boots, since ther is more then 4 involved in my games? Did you only include wins by boot, but not losses?

Your losses take 11h, 38min, and about 48sec longer than your wins

First I read this as my wins only taking 48 sec shorter then my losses :p I suppose you mean 11h+ ~39 min.

it's best to measure this in terms of your average game speed- you finish about 22% of an average game during that timeframe

This could prove very interesting when you get the big data done!

we should switch to 1 day boot with 3-5 days banked

+1: simple, available immediately. Maybe set a lower initial bank time? E.G. 2 day initial +25% for 10 turns.

Initial high banked boot sounds good... but currently this would really hurt for those who draws an inactive player and has to wait the full banked boot + normal boot time. It also sucks for all +10 turns games.

+25% for 10 turns... don't solve stalling, but encourages it since you have "earned" the time.

Ther may be some perfect boot time setting, but it is not that easy to find. 3day boot is simple and consistent at least.

How about 1 day / turn with 100% banking? Then you guarantee that no one will take more than 1 day/turn, on average - plus inactive draws end in 24 hours.

@TBest: ah, yep, I did exclude losses by Boot but not wins. Thanks for catching that! I'll also weed out expired games- that'll make this run faster.

Also derp on the Master of Chaos thing. Had you confused with TeamGuns for some reason.

Edited 5/29/2016 17:46:19