Jump to content


Systems to Improve Game-Play

Bot Bots Game-Play Penalty Penalties Spawn AFK

  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

Poll: Systems to Mitigate Toxic Game-Play (51 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 50 battles in order to participate this poll.

Should there be a hefty silver penalty (100K) for being AFK, and for excessive non-contributing performances?

  1. Yes (29 votes [56.86%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 56.86%

  2. No (22 votes [43.14%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 43.14%

Would you like to see a system put in place which enables a bot to take over a player's vehicle, if they are AFK, quit the game, or have not moved a minimum distance in the first few minutes?

  1. Yes (24 votes [47.06%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 47.06%

  2. No (27 votes [52.94%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 52.94%

Vote Hide poll

FBPrime #1 Posted 26 June 2019 - 03:50 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 49166 battles
  • 1,215
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    08-13-2013
    One of the largest disservices to game-play comes from players who AFK, or give close to zero contribution.  This greatly induces blowouts and steam rolls, as even a few top tier toxic players can completely derail their own team's ability to win, or stand a chance.  Some examples being light tanks not making an attempt to spot on large open maps, and heavies not leaving their spawn.  There are currently no penalties for such instances; and though there is a nulling out of silver and XP for players who AFK with zero movement, this usually does not take effect as even the slightest nudge from a friendly player counts as movement for the AFK player.  The AFK and idleness issue could easily be curbed if a penalty were put in place to deter players from doing so.  A silver penalty of say, 100,000 would probably have some significance towards players who willingly AFK and or give no meaningful team contribution effort.  The silver penalty could additionally be evenly rewarded among the other team members.

    And now that we have bots to alleviate low player populations, why not use them further to improve the game more?  Its never fun to have AFK teammates, or players who simply don't attempt to use their left stick.  Wouldn't it be nice if their vehicles became overridden by bots, thus getting some actual usage out of their vehicle?  This could be set to enact immediately for players who manually quit the game (not to be confused with a disconnect).  Regarding those who remain idle in the spawn and make no attempt to play with the team, a minimum distance traveled within an alloted time could be set (excluding artillery).  Say 'X' distance would need to be traveled within 3 minutes, otherwise the vehicle becomes commandeered by a bot.  This value would not have to be very significant in order to flush out toxic players, and would help motivate players to give a meaningful contribution.

"The 360 was released in 2005. The Super Nintendo was released in 1991. With the new Gen next year, the 360 will be farther behind the newest console than the Super Nintendo was behind the 360."


Cobravert #2 Posted 26 June 2019 - 04:03 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 27310 battles
  • 3,760
  • [WPLAC]
  • Member since:
    03-10-2014

I have made threads in the past about my disgust of AFK players, but that was before WGing set up the system to punish them.

Nowadays I really don't see AFK to be nearly as much of a factor as it was a couple of years ago. Sure it still happens from time to time, but there are those who do get disconnected of no fault of their own that would be penalized by this.

So for the 100,000 silver penalty I voted no.

 

As for a bot taking over the AFK tank, it's possible the disconnected player may be able to reestablish their connection and get back into the game. It's happened to me before. I know I wouldn't want my tank being used, killed, or getting shot up because the bot is playing a TD like a light tank, so again, no thanks.

 

Personally bots area stop gap measure to keep volume of tanks on the field. This game is OLD for a console multi player, and the population is going to steadily decrease in the time ahead. That's the way games go.



ThermalStone #3 Posted 26 June 2019 - 04:12 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 32157 battles
  • 4,645
  • [80085]
  • Member since:
    02-18-2014

AFKing is pretty rare and when it happens it's usually a one off thing.  (Who hasn't had to answer the door or the call of nature during the game?)  I'd hate for a bot to take over while I'm grabbing a beer during a Bat Chat reload.  Also, think of all the free damagr AFKers give to players good.enough to fight through to the enemy spawn.

 

 


I'm not stealing kills, I'm handing out Confederate medals.


im_balthazur #4 Posted 26 June 2019 - 04:26 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 39363 battles
  • 289
  • [DODTR]
  • Member since:
    09-02-2017

You are asking the Kings of failed networking and optimization to install a system to punish people who have been disconnected (G34).

This also assumes that World of fail Networking doesn’t screw up the game even more.

 

You should be ashamed.



FBPrime #5 Posted 26 June 2019 - 04:34 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 49166 battles
  • 1,215
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    08-13-2013

View Postim_balthazur, on 26 June 2019 - 11:26 AM, said:

You are asking the Kings of failed networking and optimization to install a system to punish people who have been disconnected (G34).

This also assumes that World of fail Networking doesn’t screw up the game even more.

 

You should be ashamed.

 

Disconnecting could easily be omitted.  Hence why I said not to confuse AFKing and quitting with disconnecting.

"The 360 was released in 2005. The Super Nintendo was released in 1991. With the new Gen next year, the 360 will be farther behind the newest console than the Super Nintendo was behind the 360."


ATHFjman18 #6 Posted 26 June 2019 - 04:48 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 18351 battles
  • 7,276
  • [JOCO]
  • Member since:
    06-27-2014

I really don’t see any AFK problem that much these days.

 

It’s definitely a “non-contributor” factor that is more relevant with some of these players. I’d propose the -100,000 silver penalty apply only to high tier (IX-X) tanks. Let’s say for players that have less than 500 combined total damage for the match. That’s pretty generous as all you need to do is sneeze to get 500 damage in higher tiers. 

 

This will deter those who have have yet to achieve the skill set to actually play higher tiers well and in doing so it can allow them to stick to mid to lower tiers and will also not affect those precious tier VIII premiums used for silver grinding.

 

Sure, you may have a one-off match or two that you get nuked by arty or a Deathstar that nets you the penalty, but in totality it will only affect those that cannot play higher tiered tanks effectively on a consistent level. 

 

But meh, what do I know....too many players will cry about it for it to ever happen. 



Pit Friend #7 Posted 26 June 2019 - 04:56 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 33185 battles
  • 18,285
  • [PTATO]
  • Member since:
    07-14-2014

There is an anti-AFK setup in the game already. It can be bypassed by a dedicated AFKer just like the system you propose could so I’m not sure how that would help any. 

 

I do actually like the idea that if a tank doesn't connect (is grayed out) after a minute of so it should be taken over by a bot. At least then it wouldn’t be just a useless lump sitting in spawn all game. 


When the nice guy loses his patience the devil shivers. 


Connor McJesus #8 Posted 26 June 2019 - 05:01 PM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 18014 battles
  • 58
  • [TRB]
  • Member since:
    09-30-2014
He shouldnt be ashamed because the biggest issue he is referring to is those who drive into a corner of the map, setup their camp nets and watch the entire team die. Those players (especially top tier heavy tanks) need to position themselves so that they can contribute . Buts just easier to have less situational awareness than a person in a coma and idle in the pee corner

Bring Back Down Voting

Worst community manage in the history of community managers


Shalimar Slayer #9 Posted 26 June 2019 - 05:19 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 25789 battles
  • 273
  • [TRB]
  • Member since:
    03-22-2015

*Deploying dumps would like to know your location*

 

The only caveat I have with is being bottom tier at lower tiers and being one shot by something. The problem is almost non-existent at higher tiers (excluding the Death Star and clickers, and maybe some RNG cuckery*). I wouldn’t advocate for the non-contribution penalty below tier 7** (unless you don’t move) and make it not count if one gets one-bombed by arty.

 

*One-hit ammo racks.

**given that at tier 6, one can be one-shot by a KV-2 or O-I, and as a bottom tier borsigs. Might want to start putting bots at that tier so they aren’t always fighting 8s.


As an Asian, WGW cannot math.


Shalimar Slayer #10 Posted 26 June 2019 - 05:20 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 25789 battles
  • 273
  • [TRB]
  • Member since:
    03-22-2015

View PostConnor McJesus, on 26 June 2019 - 12:01 PM, said:

He shouldnt be ashamed because the biggest issue he is referring to is those who drive into a corner of the map, setup their camp nets and watch the entire team die. Those players (especially top tier heavy tanks) need to position themselves so that they can contribute . Buts just easier to have less situational awareness than a person in a coma and idle in the pee corner

 

they just watched the “gameplay expert,” leave the taters alone. Lol

As an Asian, WGW cannot math.


Allegheny64 #11 Posted 26 June 2019 - 05:54 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 52715 battles
  • 985
  • Member since:
    11-20-2014

Does the OP realize that 'life happens' ?

Just because a tanker doesn't rush to the front line, doesn't mean they're not contributing.  Are they waiting to ambush ? Are they covering a flank ? Are they waiting for a higher penetrating shot ?  

Now we need the Contribution Police ?

So here's what you do when you think someone is afk or not contributing to your satisfaction ....  just pretend their tank is having engine/gun problems.  FYI, they can still spot.  


'An what I do on yer' grave won't pass for flowers


allhavoc #12 Posted 26 June 2019 - 06:09 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 50349 battles
  • 2,314
  • [10SR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014
And if the bot starts camping?  Do they get replaced with a human?

[10SR]  


kromhout55 #13 Posted 26 June 2019 - 06:14 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 34933 battles
  • 758
  • Member since:
    01-26-2017

If Consol actually got off their behinds and did something about the MM & RNG it might encourage players not to go AFK in a match.

Also as "Life" happens there can be many valid reasons why a player is away from their controller/consol. So who is to be the judge of these moments? Another one of Consol's "working as intended" systems?

Let them get the basics working properly before adding any more complexity.



SirDerp-a-lot #14 Posted 26 June 2019 - 07:30 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 54293 battles
  • 8,317
  • [GER_1]
  • Member since:
    05-15-2016
Very badly phrased questions. Limit yourself to one question per question, and you might get useful responses.

AnonymousHobo69 #15 Posted 26 June 2019 - 08:57 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 38839 battles
  • 4,476
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    07-19-2013

View PostSirDerp-a-lot, on 26 June 2019 - 01:30 PM, said:

Very badly phrased questions. Limit yourself to one question per question, and you might get useful responses.

What is it about the thread that you don't understand? The intent and explanation of the ideas in the thread were thoroughly stated.



SirDerp-a-lot #16 Posted 26 June 2019 - 10:04 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 54293 battles
  • 8,317
  • [GER_1]
  • Member since:
    05-15-2016

View PostAnonymousHobo69, on 26 June 2019 - 09:57 PM, said:

What is it about the thread that you don't understand? The intent and explanation of the ideas in the thread were thoroughly stated.

 

I understand it alright, the questions are bad. For example, I would punish AFK players, but not those that don't contribute.



AnonymousHobo69 #17 Posted 27 June 2019 - 12:14 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 38839 battles
  • 4,476
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    07-19-2013

View PostSirDerp-a-lot, on 26 June 2019 - 04:04 PM, said:

 

I understand it alright, the questions are bad. For example, I would punish AFK players, but not those that don't contribute.

Those are the same thing.



SirDerp-a-lot #18 Posted 27 June 2019 - 02:21 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 54293 battles
  • 8,317
  • [GER_1]
  • Member since:
    05-15-2016

View PostAnonymousHobo69, on 27 June 2019 - 01:14 AM, said:

Those are the same thing.

 

Are they now? Then why mention both?

M4ntiX #19 Posted 27 June 2019 - 07:04 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 28778 battles
  • 3,674
  • [JOCO]
  • Member since:
    03-18-2014

And who's gameplay exactly are you aiming to "improve" by introducing penalties on lesser skilled players?

What's next? 50k silver fine for doing less than 1000 dmg at tier X? Or firing less than 5 shots, or getting zero kills? 

 

I'm sorry but I can't agree with your ideas. This game is played by all kinds of people and it already rewards skill and punishes the lack of it by regulating XP pay outs. Unicums will grind tanks significantly faster than the base camping heavy or cowardly light tank. As mush as I hate players not fulfilling their roles on the battlefield sometimes, leave them be, they also have a place in this game.

 

Besides, AFKing and base camping is the least of our problems. Perhaps if the mm and game balancing were fairer, players wouldn't be afraid of leaving the spawn in the first place.


"4 kids single father 2 boats a plane 3cars and more battles than you."

"Jesus you smegheads are whiny about your Epeens."


FinlandRed #20 Posted 27 June 2019 - 08:30 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 21538 battles
  • 1,961
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostM4ntiX, on 27 June 2019 - 07:04 AM, said:

And who's gameplay exactly are you aiming to "improve" by introducing penalties on lesser skilled players?

What's next? 50k silver fine for doing less than 1000 dmg at tier X? Or firing less than 5 shots, or getting zero kills? 

 

I'm sorry but I can't agree with your ideas. This game is played by all kinds of people and it already rewards skill and punishes the lack of it by regulating XP pay outs. Unicums will grind tanks significantly faster than the base camping heavy or cowardly light tank. As mush as I hate players not fulfilling their roles on the battlefield sometimes, leave them be, they also have a place in this game.

 

Besides, AFKing and base camping is the least of our problems. Perhaps if the mm and game balancing were fairer, players wouldn't be afraid of leaving the spawn in the first place.

 

Agree. I played the Dreadnut last night and got top tier on Karelia. One shot a couple of Tier VIs before they could do anything. The OPs idea would give them a massive silver loss and turn them away from the game just because they're facing a tank that can squash them.

 

No one likes to be ammoracked or one shotted but it happens to all of us and you shouldn't be punished for it.

 

Also I was disconnected (E:00G34) last night at the start of a game on Hidden Village. By the time I go back in my tank was destroyed. Would I be fined 100K for something outside my control?







Also tagged with Bot, Bots, Game-Play, Penalty, Penalties, Spawn, AFK

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users