<< Back to Ladder Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 30 of 30   
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 9/29/2012 01:04:33

JSA 
Level 59
Report
This will be like the 2v2 Ladder History, except with the 1v1 Ladder. Here it is:

1. 4/30/11-5/22/11 The Impaller
2. 5/23/11-5/25/11 Doushibag
3. 5/26/11-7/11/11 The Impaller
4. 7/12/11-7/15/11 Heyheuhei
5. 7/16/11-7/16/11 Doushibag
6. 7/17/11-7/17/11 Heyheuhei
7. 7/18/11-7/18/11 Zaeban
8. 7/19/11-7/19/11 Doushibag
9. 7/20/11-8/02/11 Heyheuhei
10. 8/03/11-10/03/11 The Impaller
11. 10/04/11-10/22/11 Troll
12. 10/23/11-10/23/11 retrospecka jeza
13. 10/24/11-11/01/11 The Impaller
14. 11/02/11-11/07/11 bytjie
15. 11/08/11-11/08/11 Fizzer
16. 11/09/11-11/11/11 bytjie
17. 11/12/11-11/13/11 Mian
18. 11/14/11-12/28/11 Zaeban
19. 12/29/11-12/30/11 unknownsoldier
20. 12/31/11-1/12/12 Zaeban
21. 1/13/12-1/19/12 Ace Windu
22. 1/20/12-2/08/12 Gui
23. 2/09/12-2/12/12 Ace Windu
24. 2/13/12-3/12/12 Gui
25. 3/13/12-3/14/12 lobstrosity
26. 3/15/12-3/21/12 Gui
27. 3/22/12-3/23/12 Teddy FSB
28. 3/24/12-3/26/12 Chaos
29. 3/27/12-3/29/12 The Window Cleaner
30. 3/30/12-4/02/12 Chaos
31. 4/03/12-4/03/12 unknownsoldier
32. 4/04/12-4/08/12 Chaos
33. 4/09/12-6/27/12 unknownsoldier
34. 6/28/12-6/30/12 Veelvraat
35. 7/01/12-7/02/12 unknownsoldier
36. 7/03/12-7/06/12 Heyheuhei
37. 7/07/12-7/07/12 unknownsoldier
38. 7/08/12-7/12/12 Heyheuhei
39. 7/13/12-7/13/12 unknownsoldier
40. 7/14/12-7/21/12 Veelvraat
41. 7/22/12-7/22/12 Heyheuhei
42. 7/23/12-7/23/12 Veelvraat
43. 7/24/12-7/30/12 Heyheuhei
44. 7/31/12-8/02/12 Veelvraat
45. 8/03/12-8/16/12 Heyheuhei
46. 8/17/12-8/22/12 Niko
47. 8/23/12-8/29/12 Gui
48. 8/30/12-9/17/12 Niko
49. 9/18/12-9/19/12 13CHRIS37
50. 9/20/12-9/20/12 Niko
51. 9/21/12-9/24/12 13CHRIS37
52. 9/25/12-Present [WM]dead piggy

How many days has each player been ranked #1?
1. The Impaller -141
2. unknownsoldier -87
3. Gui -63
4. Zaeban -58
5. Heyheuhei -50
6. Niko -26
7. Troll -19
8. Veelvraat -15
9. Chaos -12
10. Ace Windu -11
11. bytjie -9
12. 13CHRIS37 -6
13. Doushibag -5
14. The Window Cleaner -3
15. [WM] dead piggy -3
16. Teddy FSB -2
17. Mian -2
18. lobstrosity -2
19. Fizzer -1
20. retrospecka jeza -1

I think it is hard to argue that The Impaller has been the best 1v1 Ladder play on Warlight. These 20 guys are are all very good though and definitely deserve to be known by the community. Good job guys :)
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 9/29/2012 02:07:56


szeweningen 
Level 60
Report
I don't think it's hard to argue... Look at this:
Based on studying hisory of games, I'd say at least numbers 2,3,4,5 and 12 are better, but that's only a personal opinion :P

Anyway in response to topic, I think there'd be one more nice statistic to see:
how many players over 2000 were there during the reign of specific player on average or sth along those lines measuring the competition somehow.
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 9/29/2012 02:14:58

JSA 
Level 59
Report
I think The Impaller is the best for his time...I agree that the guys you mentioned would win a game against him if they played him now but for his time, he dominated.

I don't think that would show the competition very well...The only way to see how good everyone actually was is to watch games...The skill of the ladder has slowly increased over time meaning that a 2000 rating now means more than it did back then.
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 9/29/2012 02:48:42

Qi 
Level 55
Report
Without (1) a universal rating for all WL games OR (2) a 3v3 Europe ladder and a 5-player FFA ladder (in which players are incognito until the game ends and without private messaging), the BEST MEDIUM EARTH SPECIALIST ARGUMENT (BMESA) is subjective and unrelated to what the BMESA apparently is attempting to ask: Who is the best OVERALL player?

These lists are good as a means to fill the void left by the lack of both better ladders and a universal rating system. But, based on the number of map reviews, the vast majority of WL games are played on maps other than Medium Earth.

For the Impaller argument: Impaller is like the first few iPhones when there were few if any other smartphones. Now, older generations of the iPhone have been supplanted by newer iPhones and other companies' phones. The Imapaller's software can be updated; but his hardware is the same. lol
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 9/29/2012 03:02:00

JSA 
Level 59
Report
The numbers of map reviews don't make a big difference in my opinion...I've rated over 50 maps but I still play on Medium Earth over 1/3 of the time.

And yes, I know The Impaller would not dominate now...He rejoined about a month ago and ended up being around 6 or 7...That is a pretty good analogy though. But this is more of a system like professional sports...For instance, Wilt Chamberlain dominated basketball in his time but if he played now, he would not be a standout player. But he is still considered a legend...This is for who was the best for their time, as well as a way to see who led the ladder at any period in time you wanted to see. But if I had to pick the player I am most scared to face on medium earth with strategic settings, I would pick Gui, unknownsoldier, or Heyheuhei.
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 9/29/2012 08:23:58


professor dead piggy 
Level 59
Report
The point of the 1v1 ladder is not to answer the question "who is the best player?". Do you think when Fizzer sat down to write the code he was thinking "I must find out who the best player is."?

I think the ladder was created to encourages people to buy membership, and to give us all something to talk about and compete for, thereby strengthening the community.
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 9/29/2012 08:26:20


skunk940 
Level 58
Report
I just put this on the wiki to.
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 9/29/2012 10:45:23

The Duke of Ben 
Level 55
Report
5 player FFA with no PMs is also a flawed way to measure skill, because it doesn't measure all useful skills either. Using PMs is a skill, for instance, and one that I happen to like and excel at. Large FFA also uses a very different skillset to small FFA or team games.

The reality is that we will never be able to put together a single number or ranking for Warlight. I'm okay with that, and it's important to recognize that The Impaller or unknown or HHH are really good at a subset of game types, but may not be good at others.
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 9/29/2012 12:08:50


szeweningen 
Level 60
Report
That is not accurate Duke. TrueSkill can actually handle global ELO rating (including team games). It also has its flaws (a few months back I was looking into the possibility to write a quasi-code and I studied TrueSkill). Also at one point in discussion, Fizzer said he could implement global ELO rating outside of ladders, but it wasn't high on his list of priorities.
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 9/29/2012 16:32:28

JSA 
Level 59
Report
How the #1 ranked guys do against other #1's:

The Impaller 18-19
unknownsoldier 8-6
Gui 12-12
Zaeban 19-11
Heyheuhei 42-27
Niko 7-12
Troll 5-4
Veelvraat 3-5
Chaos 3-9
Ace Windu 7-11
bytjie 6-15
13CHRIS37 12-11
Doushibag 3-1
The Window Cleaner 10-9
[WM]Dead piggy 4-1
Teddy FSB 8-14
Mian 6-8
lobstrosity 7-4
Fizzer 10-7
retrospecka jeza 6-9
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 9/30/2012 07:23:07

Qi 
Level 55
Report
you included booted games (not boot surrenders, but actual games in which someone was booted before the game was decided or when the winner was unable to get his orders in and was booted)
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 9/30/2012 07:27:59

Qi 
Level 55
Report
also, i was denzyman in march. i wanted to help him get more recognition after he gave me his account to use while he took a break to focus on working. he is one of the best 1v1 players. for example, i looked at his common games with hhh and he has won about 60% of their 100 or so games. in fact, he completely dominated hhh in their first 35-40 games, winning 25+ and losing only 7 or so. i was surprised. but when i first started learning to play 1v1s, i played denzyman about 40 times and only won 40% or so. if you talk about great 1v1 players, he should be considered, even if he is too much of a perfectionist to keep playing the 1v1 ladder after losing a game or two.

http://warlight.net/LadderGames.aspx?ID=0&LadderTeamID=282
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 9/30/2012 07:32:53


denzyman 
Level 5
Report
http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?TournamentID=1476

i stopped using this account on the 1v1 ladder after experiencing boredom with medium earth games and after getting booted in a few games. no sense in trying to get to #1 if i lose a game i was going to win (vs teddy) and need another month to make up for that loss.
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 10/3/2012 02:09:11

JSA 
Level 59
Report
I will add to this list every time someone else makes it to the number one spot...Today zibik took the top spot! Congrats zibik! You are now in the #1 club with 20 other of the top players in the game.
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 10/3/2012 18:54:14


J Russell Mikkelsen 
Level 4
Report
This is a cool thing you put together JSA. Both the list of #1's and how they've fared against each other. Well done.

As far as calculating records with and without auto-boots, I think the boot factor is mostly irrelevant. Identifying the reason for a win or a loss does not change the fact that it's a win or a loss.
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 10/3/2012 19:22:45

The Duke of Ben 
Level 55
Report
I don't know about that J. I recall when Zaeban disappeared he was in 5 games, plus the replacement games he got put in until Fizzer removed him from the ladder. I can't tell you for sure anymore who he was playing, but surely some of his losses to high ranked players were after he was gone. He got booted from at least 10 ladder games in that time period. The Impaller did that somewhat recently during his return to the ladder, getting booted from several games during a vacation.

The same has happened to other players, both when they disappared, and also during things like vacations. There's also the odd "thought too long and got booted over the weekend," like when lobstrosity lost to unknownsoldier during territory picks.

I guess it's a matter of whether we are recording what happened, in which case a literal won-loss record is fine, or if we are trying to record notable games, in which we only want games in which both sides played well, and one triumphed.
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 10/4/2012 13:12:27


Mostly Harmless 
Level 55
Report
The Duke is right.
If I recall correctly I have both a loss (against HHH) and a win (zaeban) against other #1's due to boots.
Still, correcting for boots (especially turn 0 boots) would change the outcomes only slightly, I'd say the vast majority of games here was played through.

On another note: Great job on the list JSA! It's nice to see all #1's together like this.
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 10/4/2012 14:34:07


Huruey • apex 
Level 9
Report
Might it be worth a 1v1 ladder listing by highest rating achieved?
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 10/4/2012 15:25:35

The Duke of Ben 
Level 55
Report
In my opinion that's less interesting, because highest rating is much more by chance or intentionally stalling in losing games than anything else.

Someone who wins a lot of games against great players but never stalls (HHH) will not reach a 2200 rating, despite winning against better opponents more often. There's also the question of playing a few games verses playing five at a time. Again, HHH plays 5 games at a time and has a rating that can hardly move, win or lose.

Death Taco managed a 2000+ rating by playing 10 games, winning them all (only one strong opponent, and he managed the win), and then dropping from the ladder as soon as he could. He then lost the next few games and dropped his rating closer to where it should have been. He only played one hard match, and frankly got lucky. HHH maintain(ed)(s) a high rating despite playing tons of matches, which is a much better indicator of skill.

If you really like the math behind the rating system, it could be fun to follow statistical averages and such, but the actual rating number is pretty worthless to me.
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 10/4/2012 15:35:47


Huruey • apex 
Level 9
Report
Actually Duke, I think it's the other way round.

You get to number 1 by playing tactically. When I played in the ladder, I played 5 games at a time, never stalling. Had I stalled one of my games my delaying a surrender for a few days, I actually would have been number 1. Furthermore, the scores also indicates the standard of the opponents they were playing against.
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 10/4/2012 15:57:01

The Duke of Ben 
Level 55
Report
Death Taco was a 1600 rating player who managed to beat HHH and not lose to a group of 1300-1500 players. He lost three matches in a row to the only other good players (good at that time) that he faced. If you want to say that he was a good player because he reached rank 9, then go ahead. I am more interested in who is the best player, not who can game the system the best. Your technicality argument reminds me somewhat of the people who defend a win after booting their opponent on territory picks. Yes, they did win the game, but it didn't really show what anyone was interested in seeing.
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 10/4/2012 16:22:18


Huruey • apex 
Level 9
Report
Was he a good player because he reached rank 9? Of course not. Don't you see that I am in fact arguing the opposite? I am arguing that highest achieved rating may actually be a better indicator of skill than the highest achieved rank. Your argument does nothing to respond to this.
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 10/4/2012 16:27:54


szeweningen 
Level 60
Report
Highest ranking is better than highest rank obviously, because the latter heavily depends on who is and who is not on the ladder. In Impaller's times ranking that'd give #1 easily would be 4-5 at the moment and it's still with the absence of many players.
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 10/4/2012 17:21:00

The Duke of Ben 
Level 55
Report
I see your point now Huruey, sorry. Well, Death Taco also reached 1975 rating, whereas he would have had a 1600 rating without his game against HHH.

My bigger point was that gaming the system is not really a sign of good playing, and should not be considered as an important aspect. Either rating or rank, taken alone, represent potential gaming of the system numbers. Ultimately what I was against was caring about who hit the highest rating number. I can understand the desire to do so, since it's not really capped the way rank is. That said, the highest ratings will almost always be to the people who stall while losing. To me, caring more about rating than rank is a fools errand. That's the same reason that I would like to see turn 0 boots taken out of the 1v1 comparisons, since (even though they reflect on rating and ranking) those games don't show what we are interested in.
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 10/4/2012 17:54:26


Huruey • apex 
Level 9
Report
Well, Death Taco also reached 1975 rating, whereas he would have had a 1600 rating without his game against HHH.

I'm pretty sure that's not possible. That's an increase of 375 points, much more than half way between Taco and HHH's scores. Where did you get this figure? Have you tried using the ratings calculator?

My bigger point was that gaming the system is not really a sign of good playing, and should not be considered as an important aspect.

Please note that at no point have I tried to argue that either rank or rating are perfect indicators of ability. Some of the best players on warlight aren't even members. I was under the impression, though, that people wanted to make some kind of meaningful comparison of ability on the ladder.

That said, the highest ratings will almost always be to the people who stall while losing.

That is not so. Stalling has a bigger impact on rank than it does on rating, especially if you're talking about within the top 10. If you are not playing your games, your rank will fluctuate more on its own than your rating.

To me, caring more about rating than rank is a fools errand.

Why should caring about getting a higher rating be any more foolish than caring about getting a higher rank? When I played, my intention was to play warlight, not to play some strategic ladder waiting game.

That's the same reason that I would like to see turn 0 boots taken out of the 1v1 comparisons, since (even though they reflect on rating and ranking) those games don't show what we are interested in.

I'm not even sure where you are trying to fit this analogy in. It seems completely irrelevant to this argument. :P
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 10/4/2012 18:01:31

The Duke of Ben 
Level 55
Report
I think you and I are discussing two seperate things at this point, so I'm just going to drop my side of it.

I was not arguing for rank being a descriptor any more than rating, though I can see how you might think I was arguing for that.
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 10/4/2012 18:08:57

Qi 
Level 55
Report
an equation could be made to rank players. an example rating system:

highest rating ever + (net wins vs #1s X 10) + (net wins vs #2s X 5) + total # of days as #1 + overall ladder winning % as a value XX.XX

games, wins and losses, decided by boots where winner is undecided don't count.

for example, my score (i know my boot games, wins and losses -- vs chris, vs teddy as denzy, vs zaeban as self and as denzy, vs chas, vs ixxxx) so it's quicker to use as an example:

2236 + (12-10 as gui 4-0 as denzy = 16-10 = 6... X 10 = 60) + (9-5 = 4... X 5 = 20) + 63 + (77-29 as self, 10-2 as denzy = 87-31 = 73.73% = 73.73) = Total Score = 2452.73
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 10/4/2012 20:31:14


professor dead piggy 
Level 59
Report
Huruey, is there a ratings calculator? I thought the way our ratings were calculated was a secret.
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 10/4/2012 21:14:03


Huruey • apex 
Level 9
Report
The ratings system is detailed on the wiki. You can download software to simulate the ratings system, and you can download the ladder history, see what would have happened if some game ended differently, and also simulate possible future scenarios to see how the ratings might be affected.

http://wiki.warlight.net/index.php/Ladder_Ranks_and_Ratings
History of the 1v1 Ladder: 10/9/2012 01:24:26

Ruthless Bastard 
Level 62
Report
What WL needs is a true rating and a true highest rating ever achieved.

To get your true rating you need to have 50+ active finished games.

There are a lot of problems with the current system. It has a bias towards playing higher ranks so playing fewer games will artificially increase your rating. Also 10 games isnt a large enough sample size, someone could have a 2400 rating over 10 games but be no where near a 2400 rated player.

These ladder settings would be ideal
180 day expiry instead of 90
20 games to be ranked and get a rating
50 games to get your true rating.
Posts 1 - 30 of 30