Without stalling neither of you would be number 1, I would.

1.- Angry Beavers is #1 over you, with and without stalling.

2.- I surpassed you on 17/18th of May and I've been more than 60 points over you stalling only one game, you can check it.

From late May on it's true that you would have been #1, but there's been some days before where I've been over you regardless of stalling, if you cannot aknowledge that, it's your problem. Sooner or later everyone loses #1. Accept it with grace.

Changing the subject, someone kindly told me that it's said I'm an alt. That's not true. I'm not known because I don't like clans, teams and forums (because of situations like this one, where some people take things too seriously), but as anyone can see, this account is more than 2 years old. I've been playing auto games all this time (+1000) and I'll keep doing it once I leave the ladder, probably in a few days when I lose 2-3 games more. I'll never post again.

Enjoy the game.

Sorry if somebody suggested this earlier,

Perhaps you could make it so that games don't expire whilst you're not currently on the ladder. Or they expire at half speed.

Or maybe games just start to expire after you have a certain number of unexpired games.

I think every one can agree it's a filthy tactic - Thankyou JSA for bringing this sort of thing to light.

That doesn't stop brand new accounts from stalling the heck out of things

If I max out my game count at 5, I can blow by 5-8 weak players, beat 3-6 average players, beat 1-3 good players, and stall 1-5 games while I wait for my wins to accumulate and my completed games to reach 15. This is the most common way people game the current system.

The easiest solution: DECREASE THE GAME COUNT!

0-10 ranked games played --> max game count = 2
10-15 ranked games played --> max game count = 3
15-20 ranked games played --> max game count = 4
20-X ranked games played --> max game count = 5
X+ ranked games played --> max game count = 6+ (some people who play more want more games, why discourage them?)

Effects:

-1- You can't max out at 5 games and stall 2-5 of them while waiting for players ahead of you to lose or for your wins to accumulate. So it becomes much more difficult to game the ladder and reach first or the top 10 (which at least 90% of the stallers are aiming for).

-2- You have to face tougher competition earlier. Instead of playing 5 weak opponents, you play 2. You win and the level of your competition rises a notch. Win again, the level of competition rises again. Isn't this the very idea of climbing a ladder?

Problem solved.

If a fully comprehensive solution is desired:

(1) change the game count as shown above
(2) 0 completed games --> RATING = 1500
(3) min of 20 games completed to be ranked

Could such a system be gamed? Yes. Would it happen every week as it does currently? No. It would be rather rare to see such a system gamed.

easiest solution: chronological order. But of creation date, not finish.

Games are being included in the rating not sooner than games that have been CREATED prior. This way, you don't want to stall.

This would fix the problem of pumped up ratings, and the only problem left would be stalling against people ranked below you who you know won enough later games to jump in front of you. But this will not happen to often i guess..

also minimum amount of unexpired games let's say equal to the number of ladder players active at the moment, would also fix jumpers quitting the ladder and returning with clean account.

The current system was fine when Ladders were introduced, but is no longer..

I once thought that would be the easiest solution too. Then I thought about its implementation.

What do you do with later games won before earlier games? The winner's rating is put in purgatory? You beat the guy one day but the ratings aren't affected until another day? A guy in first could lose a bunch of games but keep first because those games don't count yet? Wouldn't that be odd too? I beat a player when he is focused. The game doesn't count yet. Then he reaches his JSA-like goal and surrenders in his other games...By the time I get credit for my win I don't benefit as much. Also odd. There are numerous situations like this that make it seem that the costs outweigh the benefits.

Edited 6/3/2014 07:30:27

fair enough - now - what if you did not recalculate ladder ratings every now and then like the 1v1 does, but took the ratings as were the time the game was counted, and never going back to it?

in that case - game never expires (as expiration definition is obsolete)
ranking is never recalculated
you need to finish the first 20-30 games (chronology of creation counts) before being ranked.

would that fix the ladders?

No.

Is there some problem with "you have to finish the first 20 games you get allocated before being ranked" that sze suggested first?

It is simple to implimet, will work, and wont annoy new players.

Qi's idea is nice, but it also hurts normal players, if someone wants to get rated early 2 games at a time is not enough for him. Same goes for my original idea of pure chronological order, that fails due to someone potentially stalling you on your 15th game. Imagine if a new player comes in and gets a very high rating and he plays his 15th game against current #1, that game could go on for months. Taking all that into consideration I sincerely believe if there are no core changes (like no expiration+TrueSkill, same as on rt ladder), the solution I proposed is best since there is little to no impact on normal players who do not want to stall.

Is there some problem with "you have to finish the first 20 games you get allocated before being ranked" that sze suggested first?

You win 19 games. 20th is against leader(or just troll). He stalls it for months. You can't get ranked for months.

Yes, my idea punishes players who want to play more. If the only options were the 1v1 and 2v2 ladders, it would be a worse idea. But now the real-time and seasonal ladders exist. If somebody wanted more games, they are there to be had. Make the changes I mentioned and add a multi-day rotating template ladder (identical to the real-time, but multi-day and using the 1v1 ladder's adjusted rating format) and there would definitely be more than enough options for those who would want to play more games.

Edited 6/3/2014 12:45:42

I might adjust the max gamecounts somewhat from those Qi proposed, but I have to say I like his idea very much. It's very similar to the current system so ratings in the current and future system are quite comparable, and the effects of the change are pretty easy to predict. New problems arising from this solution is unlikely.

To have many games in a fast tempo, there is the rt ladder.

Implementing this idea doesn't even prevent some other solutions from being implemented as well.

Very interesting to read the umpteen topic about the gaming-, stalling-, cheating the ladder :P

My opinion about it:

• I think, to reach the first place of any ladders even with stalling is still a good performance.
  
• Reaching the first place without stalling is a better performance.
  
• Reaching and holding the first place with much more than 15 games is a much better performance.
  
• But they are nothing... reaching the first place without picking (I mean get autodistribution while our opponents can choose their picks!), well, that would be the perofrmance of the performances :P

maybe we can have some kind of auto finish for games, nothing that will effect normal non-staling players
something like if after turn 10 a player has triple the income of the other players and more free army on the board the game auto ends and he gets the win,
this of course is just an example I am sure the math geniuses can come up with a good formula.

What happens if you can play max 2 games and your rating is like 1900. You play your 9th and 10th game in the ladder. You play against high (almost) ranked players who can play more games then you and starting to stall against you. Then you wont be able to finish your 9th and 10th game for a long time. if you are unlucky your first games are already expired before you even finished all 20 games and you will loose those points. Then you are kinda fucked :) so i dont think Qi's solution will solve this problem.

Maybe this has been suggested before, but here it comes. I was thinking a way to go about the 1v1 ladder would be to have a minimum number of non expired games to get into top 100. (I suggest 75) and a minimum of 120 non expired games before u can get into top 50. So if u have a rating of 2000 and only 25 games u are placed according to your rating after top 100. If this could be implemented I think a lot of the problems we see now are avoided. If this suggestion sounds good I also think the number of max games should be increased to 10. What do you think?

Edited 6/21/2014 11:52:29