Double punishment playing Dm. Donskoi

[AnotherDuck]

5 hours ago, EdiJo said:

Not exactly. Repeated accidents are not accidents anymore - became toxic behavior because (as you wrote) the decision to play with: broken net, unstable OS, not happy wife does not have to be conscious to be deliberate ;)

Yes, this needs some tuning. But I would give pink for 2 suicides, disconnects or being afk in a quick succession (like in 3-4 last games), and for 3-4 total during last 24hr. 

If you're expecting everyone to learn from every instance and not repeat it, including if the same thing happens despite trying to change it, then you're just punishing players who're not playing optimally. If it's not okay to test things out more than once, you're stifling the game and encouraging camping.

 

5 hours ago, EdiJo said:

I would count starting Donskoi game without ANY concealment and playing not VERY cautiously as deliberate suicide.

I would count you as a toxic player who doesn't deserve forum rights. People are allowed to experiment. People are allowed to not make perfect choices. This is a game. This is not a real war.

 

5 hours ago, BeauNidl3 said:

You DID do it, you built the ship in a an unworkable bizarre way, leading to 16km spotting range, that led to your immediate death while harming the games of your 11 teammates, by any reasonable definition that's wilful Unsporting Conduct.

By any reasonably definition you're just whining and dogpiling someone to increase your e-peen. It's possible to play the ship that way. You have to learn how to do it, and to learn that takes more than a few games if you're not used to it.

 

50 minutes ago, Tungstonid said:

Where am I being elitist? I didn't say "What's the difference between an AFK player and a bad to average player". Being deleted early on happens to everyone at some point. Happened to OP (obviously), happened to you, happened to me and I am not so blinded by my "elitism" (as you call it) to not admit it. It wasn't whining either.

My point was that OP's contribution to the matches he complains about was that of an AFK player at best, hence he should not wonder for getting flagged as one. Is it ideal? Maybe not since he was not really AFK. But this is one of the weaknesses of automatic systems. No matter how idiot-proof you make the parameters, there is always someone who gets in although he doesn't belong there. Again, this is not elitism from my side.

Yes it is, because you think it's reasonable that a player gets punished for rulebreaking while trying to play the game, just because of not being all that good of a player (or just being unlucky). That's inherently a system that punishes lesser skilled players, which is elitist.

 

There is a difference: intent.

 

Now, if you agree with me that a player shouldn't be unfairly punished for someone they didn't do, then that's fine, but please make clear that's what you actually saying, since any reasonable interpretation of your post was the opposite.

[aboomination]

9 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

Now, if you agree with me that a player shouldn't be unfairly punished for someone they didn't do

An automated system will never be perfect. But as stated above by @pra3y:

(1) This bug or feature couldn't be reproduced by "doing nothing",

also

(2) OP didn't play any matches with DMD according to his WG profile and

(3) if this supposed bug/feature affects you often enough to be an issue: You're the issue.

 

Regarding the question if it's a bug or feature: Nobody on the forums knows the answer anyway.

If OP just wanted an answer from the officials, he could've sent them a PM or asked game support for an answer.

[AnotherDuck]

7 minutes ago, aboomination said:

An automated system will never be perfect.

No, but it shouldn't have a wider net that affects more people than it needs to.

 

Whether this particular incident fits or not isn't something I particularly care about. I'm talking about the general principle of how the system should work.

[BeauNidl3]

9 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

If you're expecting everyone to learn from every instance and not repeat it, including if the same thing happens despite trying to change it, then you're just punishing players who're not playing optimally. If it's not okay to test things out more than once, you're stifling the game and encouraging camping.

 

Testing things out is great, doing it in a Random isn't, that's where we have the Training room (now with the feature for active firing bots again) and COOP where you don't spoil the game for 11 other people. The system uses the term Unsporting Conduct.

9 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

I would count you as a toxic player who doesn't deserve forum rights. People are allowed to experiment. People are allowed to not make perfect choices. This is a game. This is not a real war.

That's your opinion of that poster, you're entitled to it, just as he's entitled to believe that @Yogibjoern acted poorly as evidenced by his own posts.

 

9 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

By any reasonably definition you're just whining and dogpiling someone to increase your e-peen. It's possible to play the ship that way. You have to learn how to do it, and to learn that takes more than a few games if you're not used to it.

 

Now who's the one being "toxic"? You have zero idea of my motivation for criticising @Yogibjoern and the choices he's outlined in his posts on this thread, but the fun and testing arguments fall very flat when he's doing those at the expense of 11 other players on his team in a Random.

9 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

Yes it is, because you think it's reasonable that a player gets punished for rulebreaking while trying to play the game, just because of not being all that good of a player (or just being unlucky). That's inherently a system that punishes lesser skilled players, which is elitist.

His decision isn't unlucky, it's incompetent and inconsiderate to his team members when there are facilities to try stuff out without impacting the fun of the rest of the team. People aren't being elitist (why do you love to throw that accusation about so much?) criticising his choice to use a build that led to rapid needless death, they're pointing out that choice was and is plain bad.

 

9 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

There is a difference: intent.

 

Now, if you agree with me that a player shouldn't be unfairly punished for someone they didn't do, then that's fine, but please make clear that's what you actually saying, since any reasonable interpretation of your post was the opposite.

 

An automated system doesn't read intent, but then neither can a human referee without telepathy, from what @Yogibjoern described, a human may well judge it wilful negligence just like the system did..

[mariouus]

6 hours ago, BeauNidl3 said:

You DID do it, you built the ship in a an unworkable bizarre way, leading to 16km spotting range, that led to your immediate death while harming the games of your 11 teammates, by any reasonable definition that's wilful Unsporting Conduct. You admitted you've played it in that state at least twice that led to Disciplinary warnings.

 

Not really true. I have always had non-consilement build Donskoie. It is not bizarre, nor unworkable built.

[loppantorkel]

48 minutes ago, pra3y said:

 

Posted this in another thread but shall post it here as well. Barely doing anything in a battle will not result you in turning pink. I literally did nothing, 0 damage (for that matter 0 shots fired), and only spotted 1 ship in the game above, yet no warning. So I'm really doubtful that the warning system is that cranky.

Tough to say how it works. Could be that it's coupled to the reports system. Doing nothing + reported for something = warning?

[BeauNidl3]

3 minutes ago, mariouus said:

Not really true. I have always had non-consilement build Donskoie. It is not bizarre, nor unworkable built.

 

Looks pretty bizarre to most of the thread respondents. There's always a way to make weird setups work, but the OP proved in his first post that he can't make it work even if you can.

[Exocet6951]

Well crap happens. 

I've learnt that the hard way with the Moskva. 

 

30 seconds from the start one a small map, a DD going 40 knots rushing mid and my priority counter jumping to 8 while I'm still turning to go one side of the map. 

 

To this day, it's the reason I don't start a Moskva match without reversing until my concealment range doesn't include any part of any cap zones. 

 

 

So yeah, a Donskoi being spotted early twice and being fun and engaged to oblivion? Completely believable. 

[Ferry_25]

Troll post. OP doesn't even have Dm Donskoy. On the account with his/ her UN that is.

[pra3y]

18 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

Tough to say how it works. Could be that it's coupled to the reports system. Doing nothing + reported for something = warning?

 

I would think that the system works separately from the report though. Combining both report and the system's own logic/detection, while good safeguard, complicates the system further? Perhaps it was because I spotted one ship but OP spotted nothing and thus inactivity? Who knows. Or maybe OP got d/c after travelling 8.59km, got spotted and sunk and that counted as inactivity. Perhaps more clarification is needed form WG I guess.

[aboomination]

4 minutes ago, Ferry_25 said:

Troll post.

Solid assumption.

[BeauNidl3]

6 minutes ago, Ferry_25 said:

Troll post. OP doesn't even have Dm Donskoy. On the account with his/ her UN that is.

 

1 minute ago, aboomination said:

Solid assumption.

 

He has said his main account (with the alleged Donskoi) isn't the one he posts with on this forum. No idea why that would be the case, but each to their own.

[aboomination]

1 minute ago, BeauNidl3 said:

 

 

He has said his main account (with the alleged Donskoi) isn't the one he posts with on this forum. No idea why that would be the case, but each to their own.

So the account he's posting with is indeed a reroll account - no wonder he was boasting about his stats 

Did he mention the name of the actual account with the DMD?

[BeauNidl3]

Just now, aboomination said:

So the account he's posting with is indeed a reroll account - no wonder he was boasting about his stats 

Did he mention the name of the actual account with the DMD?

 

Not that I'm aware of and the screenshot of stats he posted earlier in the thread has no name on it (I could have missed it, I don't use the sites so I'm not familiar with them).

[loppantorkel]

1 minute ago, aboomination said:

So the account he's posting with is indeed a reroll account - no wonder he was boasting about his stats 

Did he mention the name of the actual account with the DMD?

He has mentioned it before and there's no real reason to distrust him on this. We won't get further without a replay or an official reply.

[Ferry_25]

4 minutes ago, BeauNidl3 said:

 

 

He has said his main account (with the alleged Donskoi) isn't the one he posts with on this forum. No idea why that would be the case, but each to their own.

Ah. I must have overlooked that apparently. Skimming through the threat (don't feel like reading it whole) I can't see any tendencies of learning something from OP. So I'll stick to my troll post opinion. I don't get two things: why only trolling or ranting on the Forum? And I can't understand why someone would run more than one account on the same server?

[aboomination]

1 minute ago, loppantorkel said:

He has mentioned it before and there's no real reason to distrust him on this. We won't get further without a replay or an official reply.

I don't distrust him, I was just curious ;)

[ShinGetsu]

I got once detonated my Neptune at the starts of the match by a single torp from a CV. I spawned alone in a corner, CV went to me, killed me with that Detonation. It can't happens anymore now that Detonation can't happen if you have over 75% HP, but I received 0 XP and 0 credits along with a warning for that game.7

 

I believe it is fair. The detonation mechanic was at fault, but I immediately put my team as a disadvantage without contributing at all.

Now, with the new system, if I got a warning for that, especially if that happened twice in a row, I think I would accept being pink or orange for two games. I should have mounted detonation flag or do something.

After all, it's only an orange status for 2/3 games.

 

On the other hand, if the same system also allows to catch repeated offender, I can accept very easily this minir flaw.

[Yogibjoern]

15 minutes ago, Ferry_25 said:

Ah. I must have overlooked that apparently. Skimming through the threat (don't feel like reading it whole) I can't see any tendencies of learning something from OP. So I'll stick to my troll post opinion. I don't get two things: why only trolling or ranting on the Forum? And I can't understand why someone would run more than one account on the same server?

Clan purpose´If you have more clan members than can normally fit in one, you create one or more similar clans with the same name but with a slightly different tag. Quite normal and have a second account in case the other part of the clan need help. You can only do clan stuff in the clan with your tag. Hence the second account. No trolling

[invicta2012]

25 minutes ago, ShinGetsu said:

I believe it is fair. The detonation mechanic was at fault, but I immediately put my team as a disadvantage without contributing at all.

Nope. If being detonated without contribution is of such deleterious effect to the chances of a team that it now deserves a disciplinary penalty for the player, why was it ever in the game? The only answer is bad game design. Ditto the OP. If you're given a Tier IX cruiser which has such bad concealment that it shouldn't go into battle without a camo, concealment module and a CE skilled captain and it's possible to send into battle like that then surely the ship's config needs a rework, because it's been designed badly? 

[ShinGetsu]

1 minute ago, invicta2012 said:

Nope. If being detonated without contribution is of such deleterious effect to the chances of a team that it now deserves a disciplinary penalty for the player, why was it ever in the game? The only answer is bad game design. Ditto the OP. If you're given a Tier IX cruiser which has such bad concealment that it shouldn't go into battle without a camo, concealment module and a CE skilled captain and it's possible to send into battle like that then surely the ship's config needs a rework, because it's been designed badly? 

Donskoi is one of the best tier IX cruiser... 

[BeauNidl3]

2 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

Nope. If being detonated without contribution is of such deleterious effect to the chances of a team that it now deserves a disciplinary penalty for the player, why was it ever in the game? The only answer is bad game design. Ditto the OP. If you're given a Tier IX cruiser which has such bad concealment that it shouldn't go into battle without a camo, concealment module and a CE skilled captain and it's possible to send into battle like that then surely the ship's config needs a rework, because it's been designed badly? 

 

It has a base concealment number that high, so that when people apply the effects of Concealment Expert (you really should expect a tier 9 cruiser to have at least a 10 point Captain) and the Concealment System (2m silver) plus a basic Camouflage it has a detection radius that's quite close to its long range radar reach. Using the module and Concealment Expert is what a significant majority of players do, especially on squishy cruisers.

Since the RU cruisers are not very stealthy compared to others as part of their national flavour and they have long reach radars I think the argument it needs a rework to accommodate the oddball build to support a gameplay style poorly suited to the ship isn't a strong one. 

[Yogibjoern]

16 hours ago, aboomination said:

 

Your solution could be to git gut and stop playing randoms until you surpass a bot/afk player in effectiveness.

 

 

This is why I said your stats was not better than mine.......

[aboomination]

4 minutes ago, Yogibjoern said:

This is why I said your stats was not better than mine.......

You don't say! And I said this cause of your smug attitude.

[Capra76]

1 hour ago, BeauNidl3 said:

 

Looks pretty bizarre to most of the thread respondents.

 

The best you're going to get with a full concealment build is ~ 12.3km, which means you're still going to be spotted most of the time so the benefit of the build is much less than some other cruisers.

 

There's also the fact that Dm Don has 180 mm guns so IFHE is a strong choice, but you then also want SI and DE as level 3 skills so CE is going to need 17 points if you spec it at all.

 

Also, if you're going to be spotted most of the time anyway and have a glacial rudder shift is the concealment upgrade better than the rudder upgrade?

 

Also, the 920 m/s guns work well at long range, so if you're going for LR HE spam does concealment help now that stealth fire has gone?

 

It might not be the best build but eschewing concelment in favour of other builds doesn't look bizzare to me.