<< Back to Ladder Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 25 of 25   
Congrats Pulsey!: 5/2/2014 09:30:46


Odin 
Level 59
Report
Congrats on ladder #1!

And thank you for your confessions ;)
Congrats Pulsey!: 5/2/2014 10:25:39

Pulsey
Level 56
Report
Thanks manner ;)

suck it, pig!

Edited 5/2/2014 10:26:39
Congrats Pulsey!: 5/2/2014 12:01:13


professor dead piggy 
Level 59
Report
Fly a kite.
Congrats Pulsey!: 5/2/2014 12:20:43


Bossss
Level 55
Report
What if I said #1 is possible without game delaying?
Congrats Pulsey!: 5/2/2014 12:33:30


UnlimitedLawlz
Level 54
Report
Congrats Pulsey!: 5/2/2014 12:39:56


professor dead piggy 
Level 59
Report
I don't know what time zone the ladder is on, but I think in the next ladder update my losses expire and your reign of bullshit will end.
Congrats Pulsey!: 5/2/2014 12:49:27


Master Potato
Level 59
Report
Has anyone ever been #1 on the ladder without game delaying or "playing slow because they have a life" *cough* boss *cought* ?
Congrats Pulsey!: 5/2/2014 12:51:56


Odin 
Level 59
Report
Congrats Pulsey!: 5/2/2014 13:12:07

Jehovah 
Level 58
Report
ah well, PIggy, be that as it may. To me its not so much about topping a list or getting yellow trophies, it just satisfies my sense of achievement after spending 2 years on this game.

Edited 5/2/2014 13:14:32
Congrats Pulsey!: 5/2/2014 16:08:29


Green 
Level 56
Report
I guess I'll say well done, but in order to get any kind of proper congratulations you need to surrender those games - if you're top then, I think everyone will be a lot happier. Of course it's still a great achievement though.

Not that it looks like you'll have much of a chance, piggy's rating is going to fly through the roof.

Edit: Also congrats to piggy for being the second ever player to reach the 3400s!

Edited 5/2/2014 18:56:42
Congrats Pulsey!: 5/2/2014 19:28:00


szeweningen 
Level 60
Report
Is that thread ironic or sincere Odin? If it is sincere it is proof of how rotten the community and competition has got over the past year. Congratulation on what? You can game the system that a 5-year old could game? You are being blatant with cheating? I guess it's better than denying it, but still... It seems all Gnuff should have done is make a thread called "Hi, I'm cheating", then he would still be liked by everyone... Please, just implement chronologically sorted first 20 games for 1v1 ladder, 15 for 2v2 ladder and all that crap will stop.
Congrats Pulsey!: 5/2/2014 19:36:22


TheWarlightMaster 
Level 59
Report
+10000000 on what sze posted
Congrats Pulsey!: 5/2/2014 19:38:24


master of desaster 
Level 65
Report
Exactly what i think sze.
A good rank isn't worth anything if you need to delay your losses to reach it. Just play the game for fun and give your best. If that's not enough you have to get more practise.
Congrats Pulsey!: 5/2/2014 22:42:33


Odin 
Level 59
Report
@Sze:

It's not completely serious and I think Pulsey understands that, but still some kind of acknowledgement. And I do think his confession was something fresh, maybe the start of a discussion about ladder ratings.

Gnuff did a lot of other things than just stall on ladders. In my opinion, that was by far the least of his sins. Had he not done that, my criticism of him would still stand. Though I would've been a lot less angry with him had he admitted his deeds before beelze exposed him, had he been less arrogant, and had he not made false statements about myself. But I digress.

The community method will never be able to make the ladder equal for everybody. It can deal with the most blatant type of cheating if the cheater reaches #1 - and thus gets attention - and if this happens only once of twice. Everything else will remain in the dark. Not to mention the arbitrariness of the community method, including false allegations.

But most importantly, I agree with you that there should be a new rating system for the 1v1 and 2v2 ladders. You made a thread about it a year ago, and I contributed to it among others. I know Fizzer says that other rating methods will have their weaknesses too, but I'm still not convinced that the current method is the best we can get. I'm not saying I know better than Fizzer, but at least I would like to have an open discussion about it with him, where the community could propose a few new systems, and Fizzer could either adopt one of them, or justify why he wants to keep the old one.
Congrats Pulsey!: 5/3/2014 00:09:41

JSA 
Level 59
Report
The problem isn't the system. It's the low amount of games required. I am looking at the 1v1 ladder #1's, and surprisingly, I've looked through most so far, and only 4-5 would not have #1 if they had not stalled. Out of those that did stall to get #1, only one played had the #1 spot with 20 games.

So what I'm saying is that if Fixzer makes the minimum game amount be 20, it would make skill level play a bigger part in who gets #1 and who doesn't.
Congrats Pulsey!: 5/3/2014 02:31:53

Pulsey
Level 56
Report
I would say something but it looks like the thread has turned into another how-to-change-the-ladder thread, like the other 10 million ones Qi and Sze posted, followed by like the usual angry rants from TWM.

Edited 5/3/2014 02:40:33
Congrats Pulsey!: 5/3/2014 06:15:28


szeweningen 
Level 60
Report
@ JSA:
chronologically sorted first 20 games
Congrats Pulsey!: 5/3/2014 08:52:53


Green 
Level 56
Report
Changing the ladder rating system is a big no-no because it'll make past ratings even more incompatible with present ones, I do however, fully support the minimum 20 games to enter the ladder and this'll make (everyone) happy.

Fizzer!
Congrats Pulsey!: 5/3/2014 11:46:44


professor dead piggy 
Level 59
Report
Sze's idea clearly makes total sense, its easy to instigate and will fix a problem that does need to be fixed.
Congrats Pulsey!: 5/3/2014 14:28:06


Norman 
Level 57
Report
Hello

Congrats Pulsey. I have to admit that I also like doing unsportsmanhip stuff when playing single player Civilization V. I keep pressing the reload button until I get that nice dessert start with ocean access, gold and good production. And if one of those AIs completes their World Wonder just a turn before me I reload and put more effort into completing the wonder. That way I can play at immortal level. However I would have a problem stalling in warlight since I'm playing against human players. I think those players also deserve their victory if they beat me in a fair fight.

@Green:
Changing the ladder rating system is a big no-no because it'll make past ratings even more incompatible with present ones
An Elo rating is an indicator about your playing strength compared with the other players in the playing pool. I don't think you can compare current ratings with past ratings. I don't know the exact algorithm for the 1v1 ladder but I'm pretty sure that a rating inflation will occur when many bad players join the ladder. Let's say thousand new bad players join the ladder named Lawlz_1,..., Lawlz_1000 and that those bad players never win against another player besides another one of their kind. Then these bad players drop beneath their initial rating and thus pump points to the top. The real reason nowadays the top rated players have higher ratings than in the old days isn't because they are stronger but because more bad players joined the ladder.


As for the current ladder problems I see two problems, namely
1. people gaming the system and
2. top players being punished for playing many games since this makes losses more likely

Problem two is actually not that the top players are being punished but that people with less games are often overrated if they got lucky or gamed the system. I think the easiest solution to both problems is just to lower the k-factor. That way both wins and losses would mean less and it would take your more games to reach the number 1 spot. A low k-factor is quite natural for warlight since it's luck based and a bad player can get a lucky punch against a top player what isn't possible in chess. I believe 5 games is the maximum ladder games at a time? Then you can only stall 4 games. Other solutions like "first 20 games before rating" have serious flaws. Just imagine if you have absolutely no intention of gaming the system but one of your opponents goes on vacation.
Congrats Pulsey!: 5/3/2014 15:07:36


TheWarlightMaster 
Level 59
Report
hey i didnt have any angry rants this time :P
Congrats Pulsey!: 5/5/2014 00:15:01


professor dead piggy 
Level 59
Report
You could make an exception of games against players that are on vacation.
Congrats Pulsey!: 5/5/2014 01:16:28


Odin 
Level 59
Report
The new ladder rating system should have a chronological sorting so that the bloc of 20 unexpired games that started last and don't have any unfinished games in-between are considered for rating and rank.

Expiration time could still be 3 months, or even less, to avoid rating stagnation.

An opponent going on vacation / intentionally stalling was the only problem I saw last time chronological rating was discussed. You could make an exception for such cases, such as this:

If the opponent has used more than twice as much time for his moves compared to you over the course of the entire game, and at least 5 turns have passed, then it is assumed that he is stalling and this game will be skipped for your rating. It will be considered again when the game has finished.
Congrats Pulsey!: 5/5/2014 06:01:16


Darkpie 
Level 61
Report
Maybe better to put an actual time limit on that instead of twice as much time. Otherwise the new way to game the rating system would be to make 5-6 very fast turns so the game will be skipped for your rating.

players taking 2 days on average per turn and with atleast 5-6 turns passed would be a better criteria.
Congrats Pulsey!: 5/5/2014 09:38:02


Odin 
Level 59
Report
True, an actual time limit would be necessary. Possibly combined with twice as much time, possibly without it.

Edited 5/5/2014 09:38:35
Posts 1 - 25 of 25