New Unsporting conduct system needs to be fixed

[invicta2012]

 

7 hours ago, That_Other_Nid said:

Went pink for torpedoing a friendly DD and took immediate damage but it's only 2 games. 

They weren't parking the bus, were they? This has become a thing since the new system, and it's driving me mad. Pesky buzzy do-nothing destroyers - Russian ones, usually -  parking themselves in a smokescreen  between my cruiser or long-range DD and the intended target of my torpedoes. Now there is less risk to them from other players' shots, they just park up, get in the way, fire a couple of shells and hope that someone is dumb enough to come within the 10ft range of their torps before zooming away, having done nothing but inconvenience everyone else. Grr.  

[blindhai]

2 hours ago, invicta2012 said:

This has become a thing since the new system, and it's driving me mad. Pesky buzzy do-nothing destroyers - Russian ones, usually -  parking themselves in a smokescreen  between my cruiser or long-range DD and the intended target of my torpedoes. Now there is less risk to them from other players' shots, they just park up, get in the way, fire a couple of shells and hope that someone is dumb enough to come within the 10ft range of their torps before zooming away, having done nothing but inconvenience everyone else. Grr.  

 

Well, that is an interesting...theory...i mean it is pretty easy: Dont torp where others are. I mean, i dont drive with my car where pedestrian are. Common sense.

 

And those players who do nothing where there before and it is no "new thing".

[invicta2012]

Yes, but in both cases the DDs have deliberately placed themselves between me and an enemy I was engaging. It enables them to kill steal (if they wish) at minimal risk to themselves and increases my chances of being sunk because I can no longer fire torps (as I was planning to do, on both occasions) or if I do, getting blown up as a team killer. The 5.5k rule on torps helps to some extent but with many ships having a torp range of only 6-8k it doesn't always come into play. I think we may see more of this troll tactic as time goes on.

[blindhai]

7 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

Yes, but in both cases the DDs have deliberately placed themselves between me and an enemy I was engaging. It enables them to kill steal (if they wish) at minimal risk to themselves and increases my chances of being sunk because I can no longer fire torps (as I was planning to do, on both occasions) or if I do, getting blown up as a team killer. The 5.5k rule on torps helps to some extent but with many ships having a torp range of only 6-8k it doesn't always come into play. I think we may see more of this troll tactic as time goes on.

 

Please upload a replay of such a case, when it will occur now more than ever, you will have plenty of choices.

[invicta2012]

No replays, I'm afraid, the tool causes too many issues to be worth having when I'd only want to share 1 in 100 games. The point is that the new system penalises players for the actions of the oblivious or trollish in a way which is more detrimental to a team's chances of winning a game than the old one was. Which is not so good, really. 

[havaduck]

11 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

the tool

 

What "tool"? You enable a built in function in the game if youd wish via 1 line in a config file. Then there is a 2-5 mb file generated each game in the replay folder. First called temp (as stuff is continously added) then the final file after conclusion of the battle (like exiting to port).

[blindhai]

7 hours ago, invicta2012 said:

No replays, I'm afraid, the tool causes too many issues [...]

 

First time i have heard that.

[invicta2012]

Enabling replays slows my game down, no idea why, but it does. It also clutters up the place with replay files I don't want. Apologies to you "replays or it didn't happen" fans but I don't use it.

[blindhai]

1 hour ago, invicta2012 said:

Enabling replays slows my game down, no idea why, but it does. It also clutters up the place with replay files I don't want. Apologies to you "replays or it didn't happen" fans but I don't use it.

 

Well, i dont really care, but you could have better arguments with. When your toaster cant handle it, then it is fine with me. :)

[HMS_Kilinowski]

I am not happy with the new penalty system either. I have not seen an intentional team kill for a thousand games or so. A year ago, when you saw a pink player you knew, the guy really blew it, either being a true team killer or just messing up big time. So you knew to stay away. Now there is hardly a game, where there is no pinkie. I don't even take notice anymore. So what, a guy hit someone, what do i care? This is not careless play in my opinion. In most cases of careless play, I felt it's up to your team to decide. When I get hit or hit someone myself, the first thing to do, is write "sorry" or "sry" in chat. And in most cases the answer will be "np". Cause we know stupid coincidences happen. Still we wanna win the game and have no interest in seeing another player being punished, at least not with mirroring dmg and deleting him from the game, when we actually need every gun to win. Likewise, when I mess up, I feel I gotta make up for it in that very battle and that is hardly possible, when the system mirrors dmg. Why not leave it up to the players? If sufficient damage is done and the player reports the incident, the evil teamkiller can be punished and if he is forgiven, so be it.

Sometimes I even find friendly fire highly justifiable. For example I once had this situation where an almost dead BB tried to ram a very healthy BB on my team. The BB was on reload and the only way to avoid the ram was a risky salvo. Chances were I hit both of them possibly setting my own BB on fire and getting penalized. It happened good, I killed the other BB and ours lived happily ever after. But it's a match, sort of peace time restrictions don't apply.

I heard this fact once, that in our army during exercise with live ammunition soldiers are not allowed to shoot if a human is within an angle of 30° of where they are aiming. For our special forces that angle is 5°.

 

There will always be players who think that any sort of TK or even dmg is bad play. But then again why do we even have friendly fire? It's not in the scenarios and nobody seems to miss it there. Why insist on such an element that only causes new arguments within teams? It's not like we have a lack of players insulting and reporting each other anyway. And why is there no quick warning command? I mean we got these nonsense "i need intelligence data" shout-outs but no "torpedo warning" or anything like that.

I just feel like most player's really try not to hit anyone and it still happens, but if I as a victim could decide, I probably would forgive 90% of the TKs. And if I hit a player, I wish I could send them some credits and XP to make up for it rather than this punishment that does not compensate anyone.

[blindhai]

24 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

[...] I have not seen an intentional team kill for a thousand games or so.

You are a lucky guy. :) I have seen many tks which i would classify as intentional, mostly torping from second row, which is just...

 

24 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

[...] Cause we know stupid coincidences happen. Still we wanna win the game and have no interest in seeing another player being punished, at least not with mirroring dmg and deleting him from the game, when we actually need every gun to win. Likewise, when I mess up, I feel I gotta make up for it in that very battle and that is hardly possible, when the system mirrors dmg. Why not leave it up to the players? If sufficient damage is done and the player reports the incident, the evil teamkiller can be punished and if he is forgiven, so be it.

The mirror damage does not happen every time. But in a situation where your ally is near you and you shoot, it is enough to hit him with only 1 turret (3 shells). Your suggestion is good, but i would only second that, when i would not need to report the ahole, but to decide right in this game if i want to punish him. When he doesnt even say sorry, then i wouldnt think twice.

 

24 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Sometimes I even find friendly fire highly justifiable. For example I once had this situation where an almost dead BB tried to ram a very healthy BB on my team. The BB was on reload and the only way to avoid the ram was a risky salvo. Chances were I hit both of them possibly setting my own BB on fire and getting penalized.

Risky salvos are a part of the game but you decide if you want to take the risk. When you dont want to take the risk, dont shoot. It is really that simple.

 

24 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

There will always be players who think that any sort of TK or even dmg is bad play. But then again why do we even have friendly fire? It's not in the scenarios and nobody seems to miss it there. Why insist on such an element that only causes new arguments within teams? It's not like we have a lack of players insulting and reporting each other anyway. And why is there no quick warning command? I mean we got these nonsense "i need intelligence data" shout-outs but no "torpedo warning" or anything like that.

I wouldnt say that tk or team dmg are a good play. :) Why it is in there, is more a question for the developers, for the players it is the scenario which is given.

 

I miss a "torpedo warning" too, but you need to combine it with pinging the map, like when you want a smokescreen. Without that information, another ship can still drive in your torps. But it is also not the case, that you just use that warning message and after that it is their fault. Not that simple. Right now you write "torps inc" and ping the map, it works too. But most of the players dont say anything and i am not sure if they really would use the com-system.

 

24 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

I just feel like most player's really try not to hit anyone and it still happens, but if I as a victim could decide, I probably would forgive 90% of the TKs. And if I hit a player, I wish I could send them some credits and XP to make up for it rather than this punishment that does not compensate anyone.

I would say 90% which is just a random number anyway, but i agree, that most players dont try to hit their tm. And pls keep in mind that the first warning is the pink status, which is not that hard, because it only last a few matches. When you dont screw up often, you wont even notice that and you probably never get orange anyway.

[Glacis_UK]

On 12/05/2018 at 10:34 AM, blindhai said:

 

Well, that is an interesting...theory...i mean it is pretty easy: Dont torp where others are. I mean, i dont drive with my car where pedestrian are. Common sense.

 

And those players who do nothing where there before and it is no "new thing".

As for the torping... in a game today I was fleeing the site of being blown to smithereens, then reversed course to avoid another shellacking. Then I noticed a spread of friendly torps heading towards the area that I had just doubled back into (fired when it must have seemed like I was well out of the way). I turned towards them, thinking to sail between a couple, and got ham-fisted on the keyboard -- ramming one of them!  My team-mate got an admonishment for hitting allies, but it was obviously not his fault.  It was me making a mistake that he couldn't have anticipated.  I don't suppose it's possible for the game to recognize the situation.

[Glacis_UK]

Torping aside, I am really ticked off.  I have been having problems getting into battles today, and now I am pinked out for leaving games early, restricted to Co-op after this latest instance of "leaving a battle early."  EXCEPT I DIDN'T LEAVE THE BATTLE EARLY IN ANY CASE TODAY!  THE GAME LOCKED, AND I SAT WAITING UNTIL FOREVER, AND WAS FORCED TO GO INTO TASK MANAGER AND TERMINATE THE GAME.  

 

Here's the latest instance.  Screen shot of me waiting to get in, with evidence of other players many minutes into playing. Note the state of the map and the timestamp.  After more than enough time for the battle to run its course, I terminated the game using Task Manager, then got back in.  And of course, now I was restricted to Co-op:

 

[blindhai]

1 hour ago, Glacis_UK said:

Torping aside, I am really ticked off.  I have been having problems getting into battles today, and now I am pinked out for leaving games early, restricted to Co-op after this latest instance of "leaving a battle early."  EXCEPT I DIDN'T LEAVE THE BATTLE EARLY IN ANY CASE TODAY!  THE GAME LOCKED, AND I SAT WAITING UNTIL FOREVER, AND WAS FORCED TO GO INTO TASK MANAGER AND TERMINATE THE GAME.  

 

Here's the latest instance.  Screen shot of me waiting to get in, with evidence of other players many minutes into playing. Note the state of the map and the timestamp.  [...]

 

Wha do you mean with "Locked out"? The Screenshot looks more like that you got into the game and went to C, then got disconnected and couldnt get back in. And it seems it was the first game for you.

[HMS_Kilinowski]

On 17.5.2018 at 10:24 PM, blindhai said:

I wouldnt say that tk or team dmg are a good play. :) Why it is in there, is more a question for the developers, for the players it is the scenario which is given.

Gravity is given. Program code can be changed, it's not a law of nature. Every developer will adapt his policy to what he feels the consumer's wish, if it supports his financial interests. Therefor, if I feel team damage is harmful to my game experience I can give feedback to the developer and maybe he will change it. Many changes to WoWs over the years are the result of such feedback. The idea to see things as given is not a good starting point for any kind of innovation.

 

On 18.5.2018 at 11:17 AM, Glacis_UK said:

  It was me making a mistake that he couldn't have anticipated.  I don't suppose it's possible for the game to recognize the situation.

Right. I think it is not that hard to write some "if"-conditions. Every now and then I get a survey at the end of my battle, asking me how satisfied I was with the outcome. So it's not too hard. If someone caused team-damage you ask him at the end, if he wants to report that and the player decides if he felt TKed.

I once torped a hostile BB at short range and one torp missed and travelled 10 km. A friendly Atago was at a bearing where you would never think it could get into the torp path about 5 km away. You remember how with speed boost you can run in front of airplane torps for kilometers just smoothly navigating out of the salvo? That is what this Atago did just the other way round, it went full speed on a diagonal course towards the end of the torp path, caught the fish. Not intentionally, but these things happen.

 

I just think it is not that hard to write conditions that can distinguish between unsporting behaviour and unintentional events. And if that is not possible you can leave it up to the player's to make that choice. When I look at how many players use all reports but no compliments, motivation seems high enough to me. If I am upset I can go through the trouble of two mouse clicks to get someone penalised.

The other thing is compensation. As a player I don't care if someone gets banned, it does not give me the opportunity back to maybe having had a good game earned credits and XP. My cost, flags consumables, premium time and all that still applies. So on the other side if I hit someone I am willing to compensate him rather than him being mad at me. I would not mind giving some credits and XP.

 

Plus there is already enough negative energy in the community. People often seem to play against each other even in teams. The last thing we need is more mechanics that lead to accusations and flaming. People already hate me cause I got aimbot, stole their kills, did not cross the whole map to help them, took the cap when they wanted to wipe the enemy, played CV or just because I am a f****** moron, idiot, noob or had intercourse with a close relative for whatever reason. So I really need the TK thing.

 

On 18.5.2018 at 1:19 PM, blindhai said:

 

 And it seems it was the first game for you.

It looks like Derzki and Izyaslaw have already been played that day.

[hjsteg]

The new system with unsporting conduct is in my opinion far overdone now. Yesterday I got a warning for hitting another friendly DD in the midst of the battle in my Fletcher. There was damage, not a kill. Result - 2 battles in pink. Next battle it was my time to get hit. Then today, after getting rid of the pink color, I played the Hipper. Ambushing a BB, and a friendly DD nearby, I launched torps, and  our friendly Gadjah Mada turned straight into one of my toprs - bang! another warning (damage caused 3796 and him still alive until the end of the battle, teamkill penalty 177 whatever that is), now 9 battles in co-op only. That felt very unfair. Never had a punishment like that before.

 

Team damage has never been a problem to me. The occasional team damage from a friendly has just been casualties of war, something you just have to recon with. There should be no punishment for one stray torpedo. Team damage should only come into consideration when REPEATEDLY and intentionally hitting another friendly, not random team damage.

 

Why not do like this - repeatedly team damage in a battle - start reflecting damage upon the player that does the team damage. Not punish someone for one stray torp. Perhaps WG needs to adjust the "torpedo" bit of the penalty system?

 

Now just finished "enjoying" my punishment in co-op.

[blindhai]

7 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Gravity is given. Program code can be changed, it's not a law of nature. Every developer will adapt his policy to what he feels the consumer's wish, if it supports his financial interests. Therefor, if I feel team damage is harmful to my game experience I can give feedback to the developer and maybe he will change it. Many changes to WoWs over the years are the result of such feedback. The idea to see things as given is not a good starting point for any kind of innovation.

Just make a suggestion in the Thread or write a ticket. Feedback is good, but i think they wont change it. TD has in WoT far more impact and it is not impossible there

 

7 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Right. I think it is not that hard to write some "if"-conditions. Every now and then I get a survey at the end of my battle, asking me how satisfied I was with the outcome. So it's not too hard. If someone caused team-damage you ask him at the end, if he wants to report that and the player decides if he felt TKed.

So what would you write in those "if"-conditions? How to distinguish between intentional and td by mistake? Right now you have something like "if" the target is near you and you shoot it, then you will punished instantly, because it is not possible to hit from that near without the intend. So which other conditions would you choose?

 

7 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

I once torped a hostile BB at short range and one torp missed and travelled 10 km. A friendly Atago was at a bearing where you would never think it could get into the torp path about 5 km away. You remember how with speed boost you can run in front of airplane torps for kilometers just smoothly navigating out of the salvo? That is what this Atago did just the other way round, it went full speed on a diagonal course towards the end of the torp path, caught the fish. Not intentionally, but these things happen.

Torp warning is the same for friend and foe, just saying. :)

 

7 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

When I look at how many players use all reports but no compliments, motivation seems high enough to me. If I am upset I can go through the trouble of two mouse clicks to get someone penalised.

Well, that is the nature of the game. Bad players who do stupid thing or just be afk are far more easy to get than really good players who carry the team or, for example, lay a smoke for a friendly cruiser/dd who can do nice free damage then. The problem with the smoke is, that you dont get anything for your good teamplay there, but maybe these feature will come in the future. You could give the one who laid the smoke some XP depending of how much damage was done from the ships in the smoke, for example.

 

7 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Plus there is already enough negative energy in the community. People often seem to play against each other even in teams. The last thing we need is more mechanics that lead to accusations and flaming.

Yes, that is true, but some players are just so stupid. :) We need mechanics which can be used to relaease pressure, right now there is the chat and the report system.

 

7 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

It looks like Derzki and Izyaslaw have already been played that day.

You are right, didnt think that you can get 721 XP with 2 victories. Were you afk? Looks weird.

 

5 hours ago, hjsteg said:

The new system with unsporting conduct is in my opinion far overdone now. Yesterday I got a warning for hitting another friendly DD in the midst of the battle in my Fletcher. There was damage, not a kill. Result - 2 battles in pink. Next battle it was my time to get hit. Then today, after getting rid of the pink color, I played the Hipper. Ambushing a BB, and a friendly DD nearby, I launched torps, and  our friendly Gadjah Mada turned straight into one of my toprs - bang! another warning (damage caused 3796 and him still alive until the end of the battle, teamkill penalty 177 whatever that is), now 9 battles in co-op only. That felt very unfair. Never had a punishment like that before.

Looks like the system works perfectly. You did td and that is the logical consequence. I am sure you are sorry. FYI, when you shoot just one salvo from one turret to a firendly from close range you will get yourself deleted...instantly.

 

5 hours ago, hjsteg said:

Team damage should only come into consideration when REPEATEDLY and intentionally hitting another friendly, not random team damage. Why not do like this - repeatedly team damage in a battle - start reflecting damage upon the player that does the team damage.

That was the system before and no one cared, because you could almost do anything without real consequences. So, we already had that. :) 

[HMS_Kilinowski]

On 19.5.2018 at 10:44 PM, blindhai said:

Just make a suggestion in the Thread or write a ticket. Feedback is good, but i think they wont change it. TD has in WoT far more impact and it is not impossible there

I regularly take the survey. And the fact that something is even worse in some place else does not imply it is alright here. ... and, captain, are you really comparing their toy guns with our warships? Their main gun is part of my secondaries.

On 19.5.2018 at 10:44 PM, blindhai said:

So what would you write in those "if"-conditions? How to distinguish between intentional and td by mistake? Right now you have something like "if" the target is near you and you shoot it, then you will punished instantly, because it is not possible to hit from that near without the intend. So which other conditions would you choose?

As I wrote, I wouldn't entirely leave it to the system. I am thinking of a combination like "if TD>x and player reported then penalty". There could even be a small pop-up on the edge of the screen, where you can just ask for a kick after TD. Who knows better than the player himself if another player is a bad influence on the game?

On 19.5.2018 at 10:44 PM, blindhai said:

Torp warning is the same for friend and foe, just saying. :)

Yes it is, and isn't it sad, that still players cannot avoid torps they see approaching them for 6km from exactly the direction they are aiming their guns at and after several warnings in chat and manage to hit an entire salvo broadside?

On 19.5.2018 at 10:44 PM, blindhai said:

Well, that is the nature of the game. Bad players who do stupid thing or just be afk are far more easy to get than really good players who carry the team or, for example, lay a smoke for a friendly cruiser/dd who can do nice free damage then. The problem with the smoke is, that you dont get anything for your good teamplay there, but maybe these feature will come in the future. You could give the one who laid the smoke some XP depending of how much damage was done from the ships in the smoke, for example.

Still then, I had matches where I laid smoke for half the team with my USN-DD, went spotting, but the team just did not stay in smoke or shoot at the targets I spotted. It is not enough to reward a player for the team taking the opportunity. A player should be rewarded for just creating that opportunity. Or think about the player who starts capping the enemy base, securing plan B for his team while others go hunting enemies. At the end that player is not rewarded for being responsible rather than selfish. The system only rewards the completed cap, although in many games you can see how exactly an attack on the base is what throws an enemy team off the balance and promotes the win.

 

Another point you make is the frequency you get bad players rather than good players. Still WG allows for the same number of compliments as reports. There is a message implied to that, suggesting you should compliment as much as you criticise. If the idea was that you dont need all those compliments anyway cause most players are bad, why are they equal in number?

On 19.5.2018 at 10:44 PM, blindhai said:

Yes, that is true, but some players are just so stupid. :) We need mechanics which can be used to relaease pressure, right now there is the chat and the report system.

Maybe there is nothing wrong with stupidity but with releasing pressure. It is a game. Imagine who is playing it. Kids, normal people. Maybe they are not all PhD students who analyse angles and overmatching mechanics and tactics but just wanna hit that fire button and think warships are cool. And if you went through the trouble of watching/reading guides, did your time in the training room and analyse your play style, don't you expect to be rewarded by performing a lot better and consequently by other players doing worse in comparison? For you it becomes premier league and they are unworthy of playing with you, but for a majority of players this is little league and we are just taking things a bit to seriously.

I know it can be frustrating to loose because of stupidity, but over thousands of games it evens out. Next time the idiot is on the other team and you got all your flags mounted and get 10k xp and think it was all talent.

On 19.5.2018 at 10:44 PM, blindhai said:

Looks like the system works perfectly. You did td and that is the logical consequence. I am sure you are sorry. FYI, when you shoot just one salvo from one turret to a firendly from close range you will get yourself deleted...instantly.

Still the idea of pink players initially was to warn others, not to publicly humiliate. I mean pink? In the forums you are not allowed to name and shame but in the game you make em wear an "unusal" color. When I think back to how things were in the past, pink was a real warning sign as it is supposed to be. You saw a pinkie, that guy was on his own. Now you hit with a single He shell, accidentally cause a fire and if the guy just used his repair you are pink, maybe even deleted. Seems exaggerated for me.

[blindhai]

On 21.5.2018 at 2:50 PM, HMS_Kilinowski said:

As I wrote, I wouldn't entirely leave it to the system. I am thinking of a combination like "if TD>x and player reported then penalty". There could even be a small pop-up on the edge of the screen, where you can just ask for a kick after TD. Who knows better than the player himself if another player is a bad influence on the game?

Well, then you would get flamed by this player because it is your "fault" that you penalized him and you get flamed...i think it is better when it is the system's "fault".

 

On 21.5.2018 at 2:50 PM, HMS_Kilinowski said:

I am thinking of a combination like "if TD>x and player reported then penalty".

Well, that was the case with the old autoamatic system, which was bad.

 

On 21.5.2018 at 2:50 PM, HMS_Kilinowski said:

It is not enough to reward a player for the team taking the opportunity. A player should be rewarded for just creating that opportunity.

In the case of laying a smoke: There are situations where you just dont need the smoke even though the intention was good.

 

On 21.5.2018 at 2:50 PM, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Another point you make is the frequency you get bad players rather than good players. Still WG allows for the same number of compliments as reports. There is a message implied to that, suggesting you should compliment as much as you criticise. If the idea was that you dont need all those compliments anyway cause most players are bad, why are they equal in number?

Well, i can see who played good or bad at the end. I can see bad player who just make bad tactical decisions. And your logic is flawed: The relation bad players to good players looks more like a pyramid, the good players are just more rare, simply put. So it is more likely to get a bad player, he has a chance to make a good match though.

 

On 21.5.2018 at 2:50 PM, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Maybe there is nothing wrong with stupidity but with releasing pressure. It is a game.

When you have a team (small community) and someone cant behave properly, then he need consequences so he recognizes that he made a mistake and improve the next time. Do you have kids? They do it intuitively. And the player who does it right thing has the satisfaction, that the system works and protect him which leads to a better player experience.

 

On 21.5.2018 at 2:50 PM, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Now you hit with a single He shell, accidentally cause a fire and if the guy just used his repair you are pink, maybe even deleted.

ehm, this was the case before too. Getting pink and get a color which give you a warning is something entirely different to naming & shaming. You can get the normal color back, when you behave, but you wont get your name out of the forum so easily...not by your own. The pink color is just a warning to others...a signal...but you can redeem yourself with just behaving normal...like you want to be treated.

 

On 21.5.2018 at 2:50 PM, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Seems exaggerated for me.

Well, i think it is more important that everyone knows that there a consequences, when you behave like crap. I know that you get instant deleted when you fire with only one turret on another ship from close distance and even you dont do that much damage, you get a slap in your face. That is, maybe, a little drastic but on the other hand i cant think of a situation where you cant hit your initial target from that close distance.

 

In your case those torps were just not well planed and you cant expect from your team that they have a 360 degree awareness all the time. It is likely that they didnt think that torps were coming from that direction and got right into it. Well, you wrote something, but not everybody reads english. And even when they behaved like aholes and just wanted to make you pink...well then they behaved not better than their teammate, who tried to force them to not steer in a specific direction. When you think of it: When you cant get punished for a case like that, then some aholes can just block the way for their teammates when there is easy damage to farm...that is something i dont want to see and it would be unfair.

[Starchy_Tuber]

There is an obvious correlation between "Torping safely" and "Torping dangerously" and TK/FF penalties - in any instance where a friend turns into your torpedoes without you being able to warn them by definition means that you were Torpedoing Dangerously: which simply means that there is a risk of a friendly unit taking friendly-fire without you being able to warn them in advance of a potentially dangerous torpedo attack.

Some players seem to want to be able to torpedo dangerously and then claim none of it is their fault - well, it is your fault - it may not be ENTIRELY your fault, but you certainly carry a portion of the blame for launching the Torpedoes in the first place. 

If you launch 20KM Asashio torpedoes at a target 3 km away and it hits a friendly 16km away = ENTIRELY different kettle fo fish = as well as there being plenty of time for YOU to warn them, there is also plenty of time for that friendly player to see them and turn away as the friendly torpedo tracks are always visible. 

You can argue that many, many situations are dangerous, and if this is the case then you must ALWAYS accept the risk of friendly-fire happening to you, for no other reason than "launching my torpedoes"... there is no way around this.

That said: 

You had the chance to play 2 "safe" co-op games to clear the Pink and never risk being forced entirely into co-op mode ONLY.. you chose NOT to take that 2 game option and RISKED playing in another random game where any further KT penalty might force you into the longer 9-game co-op penalty... it is YOU making these decisions.

Not since the latest changes, but prior to that I've had the secondary-armament set fire to a BB that burned for the full duration - I always go play a couple of QUICK co-op games to get rid of the pink.. it really isn't hard to do and "costs you" no more than about 10 or 15 minutes... 

Really you are making poor gaming decisions and not accepting that you are taking onboard risks for yourself that you cannot fully control yourself.

[HMS_Kilinowski]

3 hours ago, blindhai said:

Well, then you would get flamed by this player because it is your "fault" that you penalized him and you get flamed...i think it is better when it is the system's "fault".

It is not so much different now. A player who gets pink still can report his victim. Happens very often, when the penalized player accuses his victim of not avoiding the torps at all cost. You are not protected at all, because you don't get your lost credits or XP, you get reported and the pink player you won't see again for a thousand games.

3 hours ago, blindhai said:

In the case of laying a smoke: There are situations where you just dont need the smoke even though the intention was good.

 

Well, i can see who played good or bad at the end. I can see bad player who just make bad tactical decisions.

But obviously players who give a lot of reports are just too self-centered to acknowledge other players did something good. If I just look at the amount of effort, that is needed to get a compliment and the easiness you get a report, this system is off balance. Good tactical or team oriented decisions are mostly overlooked whereas it is sufficient to be reported to be the last one alive and not get the solo warrior medal. Is there really a difference in opinion on that?

3 hours ago, blindhai said:

When you have a team (small community) and someone cant behave properly, then he need consequences so he recognizes that he made a mistake and improve the next time. Do you have kids? They do it intuitively. And the player who does it right thing has the satisfaction, that the system works and protect him which leads to a better player experience.

This is all very educational but I can think of many situations where it is the other way 'round that players did not behave properly by intentionally navigating themselves into the way of others to get the kill. The system will reward this behaviour. In many situations you need to ask yourself, if players would really act the way he does, if the other player was a friend or they were a real team, not just randomly assembled.

And even if I accept the prior that a player's definition of what is "proper behaviour" is universal, I still think it is a hard assumption, that all players want to play the game on an e-sports level. There is no dedicated "just for fun"-game mode, you will get team members upset in any game mode. So it is not the fault of players that they cannot unite in the amount of effort everyone puts in, it is "given" by the lack of the game to offer such a choice.

Actually there is a minor choice and I take it. When I know I cannot perform to the best of my ability, cause real-life takes its toll, I just play coop. But even then interuptions happen, so we better get rid of our girlfriends or tell the to zip it, cause Warships are more important. Yeah, women can really handle that.

3 hours ago, blindhai said:

ehm, this was the case before too. Getting pink and get a color which give you a warning is something entirely different to naming & shaming. You can get the normal color back, when you behave, but you wont get your name out of the forum so easily...not by your own. The pink color is just a warning to others...a signal...but you can redeem yourself with just behaving normal...like you want to be treated.

The pink clearly qualifies as a means of humiliation. Think of school kids who were made to wear masks and stand in the corner of the class room. They too could get reinstated quickly by behaving properly. We don't do that anymore. The duration of a humiliating procedure does not change its humiliating nature.

Also the pink would not be needed. The player himself is informed about the penalty and its duration. He really is the only person who needs to know. Back in the old days this was different, as the pink player really was a potential danger to his team. Player's kept their distance, watched the pinkie's actions carefully or even asked "what did you do?". Now we come to live with having one or more pinkies in every match and we don't even react to that anymore. So the pink does no longer fulfill the attribute of a warning, it is really just name and shame.

3 hours ago, blindhai said:

In your case those torps ...

Let's put it simple, you're damned if you do and your damned if you don't. If you don't take the shot you will earn some salt for not instantely killing the opponent and you can try to argue in chat - always works out so well -  with them as to the possibility that your shot wasn't safe but nobody cares. Whatever way I turn this, to me it seems that we are part of a rather negative and penalizing community rather than a rewarding. I think the new system is a step into the wrong direction and that steps need to be done to promote a mentality of team spirit.

 

@antenociti: Correct me if I'm wrong, but coop is not safer concerning TKs. If you torp dangerously in a coop you get further penalized ... which is okay with me, just putting things right.

 

 

 

 

[Starchy_Tuber]

yes - I meant that fewer players and predictability of bots make it "easier" not to cause friendly-fire in co-op... its "safer" to clear a Pink in Co-op, plus the games are usually much shorter than random.

[blindhai]

1 hour ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

It is not so much different now.

It is very different, right now the system just works and you dont need to be "active" to punish an offender. You are not to blame when the other one get punished, even though there are some in this thread (and others) who blame others or the system. There was not one case til this point where the offender could show a case where he was really innocent, so to speak. Most are just whining that they get punished quicker and cant do their unsporting behaviour like they did before.

 

1 hour ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

But obviously players who give a lot of reports are just too self-centered to acknowledge other players did something good. If I just look at the amount of effort, that is needed to get a compliment and the easiness you get a report, this system is off balance. Good tactical or team oriented decisions are mostly overlooked whereas it is sufficient to be reported to be the last one alive and not get the solo warrior medal. Is there really a difference in opinion on that?

Well, it just easier to report someone who has 0 XP, because he was simply afk and on the other hand a player who has, lets say, 1800 XP in the winning team did "only" a good job. But nothing that amazing. There are some players like me who give a +karma, when someone lay a smoke or try to play as a team or when the game is close they take responsibilty as, lets say, a dd and play selflessly and just spot without thinking of themselves first.

The system itself is fine, what is off balance (well you claim this), then it is human behaviour...most of the time you get complains and only a few compliments...that is life.

 

1 hour ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

by intentionally navigating themselves into the way of others to get the kill. The system will reward this behaviour.

you really want to give a very very very rare example as counter argument? I think it is more important which case is the main one and occurs more often.

 

1 hour ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

I still think it is a hard assumption, that all players want to play the game on an e-sports level.

I am not talking about eSports, that is an entirely different level.

 

1 hour ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

There is no dedicated "just for fun"-game mode,

I would call CoOp as such and the scenarios as well, partly random as well, but only lower tier. At hightier i would exspect at least a little effort, nothing special but just dont yolo in and die right at the start. At least try...

 

1 hour ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

When I know I cannot perform to the best of my ability, cause real-life takes its toll, I just play coop. But even then interuptions happen, so we better get rid of our girlfriends or tell the to zip it, cause Warships are more important. Yeah, women can really handle that.

In the end it is all about time management and timeslots. There are situations where exceptions happen, but when it happs to often then your time management sucks or you are just lazy.

 

1 hour ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

The pink clearly qualifies as a means of humiliation.

Disagree. When your whole ship would be pink and have pink smoke, THAT would be humiliating. In the end it is up to the pinkie to adept to the situation, not the other way around.

 

1 hour ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Let's put it simple, you're damned if you do and your damned if you don't. If you don't take the shot you will earn some salt for not instantely killing the opponent

ehm no, when there is even a risk to harm your team with torps, that means the match is not in the starting phase. And it also means that the opponent must be not in your front. But we can talk all day: Just show me a replay where you think it was a good idea to torp where your team was also in the vicinity and it was entirely not your fault that a mate got hit.

 

1 hour ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

I think the new system is a step into the wrong direction and that steps need to be done to promote a mentality of team spirit.

Well, i agree, but we need a better punishment system as well. The old system was not fair to the normal player, who got pink very rarely. He knew that the offender who did something like torping the s**t out of you, would only get punished with selfdestruction and going pink for like 7 to 10 games. That was the worst case for the offender! I cant stress this enough. You could basically do what you want and "torp"/destroy the game of others without real consequences.

 

1 hour ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but coop is not safer concerning TKs. If you torp dangerously in a coop you get further penalized ... which is okay with me, just putting things right.

Yes, you could...but most of the time a CoOp game is very short and the bots just go forward and die. No real need for a risky play. But, simply put, if you cant get your s**t right in CoOp you should perhaps better play a solo game or do something else where you dont come close to others. It seems that you are a liability to others then.

[HMS_Kilinowski]

3 hours ago, blindhai said:

Well, it just easier to report someone who has 0 XP, because he was simply afk and on the other hand a player who has, lets say, 1800 XP in the winning team did "only" a good job. But nothing that amazing. There are some players like me who give a +karma, when someone lay a smoke or try to play as a team or when the game is close they take responsibilty as, lets say, a dd and play selflessly and just spot without thinking of themselves first.

The system itself is fine, what is off balance (well you claim this), then it is human behaviour...most of the time you get complains and only a few compliments...that is life.

If at the end of the day you used reports and got 9 compliments left then your expectations are too high. A teacher cannot hand out only bad grades to the entire class just cause he feels they need to be better than good.

3 hours ago, blindhai said:

Disagree. When your whole ship would be pink and have pink smoke, THAT would be humiliating. In the end it is up to the pinkie to adept to the situation, not the other way around.

We agree to disagree.

3 hours ago, blindhai said:

ehm no, when there is even a risk to harm your team with torps, that means the match is not in the starting phase. And it also means that the opponent must be not in your front. But we can talk all day: Just show me a replay where you think it was a good idea to torp where your team was also in the vicinity and it was entirely not your fault that a mate got hit.

I got no such replay cause I don't friendly fire that often. I can however describe a few situations, where I got hit and felt it was entirely justified, if the fact that I was the victim promotes credibility. I remember a situation, where a friendly destroyer torped an enemy Bismarck or FdG. I was in a New Orleans in bad shape and if the DD hadn't succeeded, the BB would have finished us both. I turned into the torps a little late and caught a fish. Still It safed the game for my team
and I was totally okay with that, cause I think random games are not about each player scoring XP but still about winning. Personally I would not wanna loose a game cause a team mate didn't take a risky but reasonable shot.

 

There just is a difference in mentality. You talk about terms like innocence and I talk about a higher cause. The team wins, that eliminates more enemy ships or reaches a higer score. TK is counterintuitive and punitive in nature as it reduces the chances of the TK's team to win. Any resonable player will only take that risk if the chances of getting an enemy are unevenly higher. If someone takes a shot that was unreasonable dangerous, rather risking the win than securing it, then the team can report him and then the penalty can also be higher than before. That is the other point. You mix the fact that the penalty took a lot of reckless actions to be enacted with the relatively short penalty of 10 games. These are two different things. If a player intentionally kills a team mate, then 2 games in coop or even 10 games with reflected dmg are both very forgiving penalties.

 

Finally, any automated system will be understood and walked around by a teamkiller if possible. What happens, when I am on 100 hp and a player intentionally shoots me?

3 hours ago, blindhai said:

Well, i agree, but we need a better punishment system as well. The old system was not fair to the normal player, who got pink very rarely. He knew that the offender who did something like torping the s**t out of you, would only get punished with selfdestruction and going pink for like 7 to 10 games. That was the worst case for the offender! I cant stress this enough. You could basically do what you want and "torp"/destroy the game of others without real consequences.

I agree.

[anonym_FDOLXpxOfXXq]

On 5/19/2018 at 3:02 PM, HMS_Kilinowski said:

I just think it is not that hard to write conditions that can distinguish between unsporting behaviour and unintentional events.

That sounds ... optimistic. Well, if you can do it, WG may be interested ;-)

 

Quote

And if that is not possible you can leave it up to the player's to make that choice.

Oh. Please no. The ingame report system is abused enough as it is.

 

And I think the recent wave of protests is just a sign that people actually notice something happens now when they're not careful enough.

I trust most players to adjust accordingly quite fast. Let's see how we are in 3 months.