Shut up, I made that mistake before and will probably keep on doing it

i ll add you gnuff. 32-18



Edited 7/29/2014 23:00:39

24:26

:(

Does this statistic say i'm awesome? Thank you for pointing it out ottoman! ^^ But i got my own way to prove that I'm the best already ;) rank 5 with 150 unexpired games! I bet most of the guys with the golden trophy couldn't do that.

Edited 7/30/2014 00:19:40

This statistics say im lucky!! im #7!!

@Arun

When i was doing this i didn't count games against players whose ratings are less than 1500

@Master of Disaster

Yes. with current ranking system if you want to be ranked #1 you have to leave ladder and wait until your loses expire. System forces players not to play more games instead of forcing players to play more games.I play ladder because every game i meet a new player and play with better opponents. Ladder is just to find a random opponents for me.

Of course this list is not perfect. it uses some criteria from current system. it is just a very simple way to show something different when you change the number of mimimum games completed from 15 to 50. i will update this list time by time to make people play more games in ladder. i am sure this simple list is more competitive than current ladder ranking.

"Ladder is just to find a random opponents for me." Strongly agree. This is the main utility of the ladder.

Ottoman did JSA hack your account?

Edited 7/30/2014 03:13:11

JSA 29-21
Pulsey 15-9
dead piggy under 1500.

Edited 7/30/2014 03:12:54

Not seeing what piggy being under 1500 matters. He was 39-11 in his last 50 against people currently over 1500 before his surrender streak.

good kid 10-12 :)

i will be very happy if players who talks about ladder too much join ladder and complete 50 games against +1500 players. dead piggy is one of the players who can pass 40-10. list should be dynamic. so we can see more good players in ladder. and passing 40-10 will be harder.

i ll add some rules later:
* 1 year expiration
* player should be ranked in ladder
* players who wants to join will be in the list.
* 20 players will be in list
* and maybe we change minimum opponents rating from 1500 to 1600

Edited 7/30/2014 04:31:29

I demand to be assesed as per the rules! My current rating does not matter.

Edited 7/30/2014 03:54:56

ok dead piggy yours is 4-46
join ladder and let warlight community to see some pro games.

Um, fatih, did you actually count?

I was beating Charlie Brown and I surrendered when I quit the ladder, so that game doesn't count.
Lost Dreamworker
Beat Z-dog
Beat bahuma
Lost Timi
Lost Surehand
Beat Ze
Lost Anakin
Lost Wazz
Beat Pedro
Beat Kryzchu
Beat Odin
Beat Jorgst
Lost Teddy
Beat Pulsey
Lost queralant
Beat rento
Beat lawm
Beat mario
Beat Bzox
Beat Andersault
Beat Robke
Lost Gambler
Beat Ulti
Beat Vadas
Lost Tenshi
Beat Mirror
Beat Gyver
Beat dodo
Lost Chewie
Beat mod
Beat Falker
Beat Komandant
Lost Verzheer
Beat retro
Beat CONQ
Lost Omega
Lost GMontag
Beat lawm
Lost Chris
Beat NoobSchool
Lost schmidt
Beat adny
Beat Dharma
Beat Clifford
Lost HHH
Beat Anakin
Beat banana
Beat Military
Beat timon
Beat Fighter

My wins vs UglyCassanova, Steve, pisherned, Kris, Hughsey, and my loss vs Gurtbal don't count since they were rated under 1500 when I played them.

34-16 in my last 50 games vs 1500+ rated players (when I played them).

Also, only counting games vs 1500+ is silly. It's easiest to be like 1600 rating and get players rated around 1500-1700 constantly. It's a lot easier to go 45-5 vs them than go 40-10 vs 1900+ rated players.

Better yet, let's do a series of round robins between 18 of the best Strategic 1v1 players. 51 total games. Winner is the one with the best record in the combined tournaments. This seems much more accurate than doing it the way you suggest. Your system is as easy to game as the actual 1v1 ladder is right now.

Edited 7/30/2014 03:49:40

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6355355 the game with charlie brown. Itd be nice to have seen another turn. I would still definitely call it for jsa. Discounting it seems quite fair.

"Also, only counting games vs 1500+ is silly. It's easiest to be like 1600 rating and get players rated around 1500-1700 constantly. It's a lot easier to go 45-5 vs them than go 40-10 vs 1900+ rated players." Its very hard to go 45-5 against 1600 players and stay rated 1600 =D

"Your system is as easy to game as the actual 1v1 ladder is right now. " even if that were true, judging in retrospect means that noone has gamed the system, they didnt even know it existed when they played the games they are being judged on.

Edited 7/30/2014 03:54:00

I'm not sure how he counted most of the ratings. Like, I can't be 15-12.

I have 28 finished games. The first 6 vs. people under 1500.

That leaves 22 games.

I'm 9-13 in those 22 vs. average rating of 1940.

Piggy, if you did a ladder run right now, I'd imagine you'd go at least 45-5 in your next 50 games, becasue your rating is low and will stay low for a while.

My point is his system can be gained easily if a player had the desire to. A round robin series cannot be gamed other than stalling in losses and hoping for opponent to get booted which will earn you at max, only 2-3 more wins I'd assume.

Edited 7/30/2014 03:57:05

Yeah but i am the only one with the foresight to put myself in such a strong position. I am also not going to do that because its soooo lame. If gnuff were to try and game this new system by doing that it would take him over 6 months. So this system is valid for atleast 6 months.

Edited 7/30/2014 03:59:16

Lol. I doubt anyone would do it. I just think it is a worse way of rating players than the current 1v1 system. Everyone has different opponents strength. Some averaged playing 1900+ opponents, others averaged 1700 opponents. Not a good comparison to compare their records imo.

A better challenge: get a 2200+ rating without stalling with 50+ unexpired games. I think it is possible but would be a tough challenge and require a lot of focus from a top strategic 1v1 player to accomplish it.

Edited 7/30/2014 04:03:31