Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
iPotatoed

WoWS reporting system: a BIG overhaul needed?

32 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[FISHR]
Players
137 posts
9,678 battles

Hello fellow mariners,

I have been mulling about the reporting system for quite some time.

Originally I was just troubled by the absolute state of the chat ban system, but then, after the n-th chat ban I've started thinking at the whole system, and have come to an hypothesis, which I'd like to submit to your examination.

WG staff expect us to behave like priests in chat, always being nice to each other no matter the provocation.

So they have instituted a system of chat banning the details of which they don't want us to know (otherwise we might try to game the system), that is meant to keep the chat as sterile as possible so that the blatant hypocrisy of having simulate mass slaughter accessible to 7yo children can be kept afloat.

But you can appeal to that system, they say.

Yeah, right...

That is probably one of the biggest lies WG have ever said, as when you appeal you receive an automated email from a bot 8the infamous Tony Curtiss) that does not clarify anything about the reason why you have been banned and at the end tells you to "refer to the appropriate department".

It's like going to the Post office and have the employee computer there tell you to go to the Post office to mail your package.

Oh, but you can ask WG employees here on the forums for clarification!

Of course you can, and sometimes they even care to answer your messages

But, beware! don't even think about telling them the system does not work, because they will find extremely convolute and byzantine ways of convincing you the system is perfect and it does not need to be changed in any way.

The entity closest to perfection I know of was crucified about 2000 years ago.

Claiming anything is perfect and does need changing is just a way of telling you "I don't want to deal with this, you are annoying me, go away!"

 

But I see I'm far from alone in the chat ban club, which means a lot of people are getting tilted by something to the point of rupture.

The quality of the player base is definitely very low: people don't understand their ship roles, yolo in or lemming train and give broadside to BBs in cruisers and all these nice things.

And it's not just the inexperienced! You see players with 15k battles doing this.

So yo report them, and report them, and report them

But still, you see things like these happening all the time.

 

Which means the reporting system is flawed and serves no purpose at all

When a player has reached 5k battles and still has a WR of 45% there is something wrong with that player that WG do not want to fix

Probably money is involved and they don't want to alienate a large percentage of those who pay their salaries.

Which goes head to head with the irritating chat ban system.

So it appears WG have a double standard in the reporting system

They have ZERO tolerance towards what they think is insulting in chat, but allow worse insults to be perpetrated by awful players.

 

Skill-based MM would help solve the problem: at least half-decent players like myself would not encounter the kind of junk that keeps throwing away my battles, nor would I encounter too many unicums, until I become one and then go play with the big boys.

But, guess what? WG have already said NYET to this: MM works perfectly as it is, wo they are not going to change it (another instance of extreme humility display by them...)

 

Ok, then, in this case, wince WG are not willing to do ANYTHING to improve the MM from the standpoint of player skill, they should change the reporting system in a way that bad players get relegated to Co-op or to some kind of sandbox from which they can't do any harm

If I were an exceptionally good player I could carry my teams to victory, but I'd still be severely tilted by bad players, so WG's "git gud" mantra does not apply here.

 

What do you boys and girls think?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
31,090 posts
15,723 battles
7 minutes ago, heypotato said:

Skill-based MM would help solve the problem: at least half-decent players like myself would not encounter the kind of junk that keeps throwing away my battles, nor would I encounter too many unicums, until I become one and then go play with the big boys.

You would get more bad players on your team to make the teams more fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Players
8,175 posts
42,128 battles

People need an overhaul more than that. 40+ acting like 10 yo. Gets offended by the wind. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FISHR]
Players
137 posts
9,678 battles
8 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

You would get more bad players on your team to make the teams more fair.

No.

You'd get more bad players if you were a bad player yourself.

One more incentive to improve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FISHR]
Players
137 posts
9,678 battles
8 minutes ago, MacArthur92 said:

People need an overhaul more than that. 40+ acting like 10 yo. Gets offended by the wind. 

Yes, snowflakes are a problem.

But the system is mostly automatic: if you write anything on the black list of bad words WG has probably borrowed from some seminary or elementary school you get chat banned.

 

Another whole topic would be: if some words are on the black list and you get banned for using them, why not implement an automatic filter to display [edited]  instead of the bad word? They do it here on the forums, but are apparently unable to do it on the chat. Really?

"There is no worse deaf than he who does not want to listen"

 

But the chat ban system is not the topic, here

The topic is "how to improve and overhaul the reporting system so it actually works as a tool to improve player quality"

 

At the moment, you report someone for bad play and absolutely nothing happens

How do I know?  Last battle I had a 25k battle player with 48% WR, another one with 1.3k battles and 43% WR, another one with 3.1k battles and 45%WR.

These 3, like the HUNDREDS of bad players like those must surely have been reported by someone in the past, and probably waaaaay more than once.

Yet...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
31,090 posts
15,723 battles
7 minutes ago, heypotato said:

No.

You'd get more bad players if you were a bad player yourself.

One more incentive to improve

To the contrary.

We do not have enough players to fill 24 match slots with ONE skill level. Matches will always feature players with different skill level.

Skill based MM would make sure that both teams are of equal strengths. Good players would be punished for being good by getting worse teammates and bad players would get rewarded for being bad by getting better teammates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ENUF]
[ENUF]
Players
2,325 posts
23,343 battles
24 minutes ago, heypotato said:

that is meant to keep the chat as sterile as possible so that the blatant hypocrisy of having simulate mass slaughter accessible to 7yo children can be kept afloat.

It isn't, these are model ships without people. However, at some point in time it became a gambling box vendor for children and people with gambling issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MIAU]
[MIAU]
Players
4,046 posts

Another one who doesn't understand that a skill based matchmaker (whatever skill that is supposed to consider) will sooner or later equalize your stats and make it impossible for the MM to properly work.

MM discussions have a dedicated thread already. This topic has come up at least a million times since I joined the game, in just as many threads. A skill based MM does not solve anything. Don't believe me? Look up the arguments in those old threads or ask in the pinned thread at the top of this board.

 

Blaming the actions of others for your own shortcomings in chat is also not a very convincing argument. You always have the choice to not type. Your fingers do not have a mind of their own. Rage in front of your PC or in your TS / discord channel, but as soon as you start typing you made a conscious decision.

 

You can not improve player quality with the reporting system either. That's not what it is supposed to do. It is for you to vent your frustration (without the risk of a chat ban), to congratulate other players, and to report chat misbehavior. It can't do more. It can't be changed to somehow lower the skill gap between players.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
4,506 posts
15,942 battles

Opting into a Competitive Random Battles mode and letting the new and bad players play in the Standard Random Battles mode would probably reduce frustration a good deal.

 

 

Not sure how to change the report system. It's a decent indication that I don't enjoy the game as much as I once did and I should do other things with my time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-SBF-]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
8,315 posts
49 minutes ago, MacArthur92 said:

People need an overhaul more than that. 40+ acting like 10 yo. Gets offended by the wind. 

You should stop insulting people in   PM after battle, then you won’t get any chat and forum bans. Who knows, perhaps you even won’t be kicked out from your current clan... That attitude needs an overhaul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FISHR]
Players
137 posts
9,678 battles
46 minutes ago, Ze_Reckless said:

It isn't, these are model ships without people. However, at some point in time it became a gambling box vendor for children and people with gambling issues.

Ah, so if you remove the people from the models you don't simulate mass slaughter anymore? That adds another level to the hypocrisy...

And since when pushing gambling to 7yo children has become acceptable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
31,090 posts
15,723 battles
5 minutes ago, heypotato said:

Ah, so if you remove the people from the models you don't simulate mass slaughter anymore?

No.

And this game is no simulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FISHR]
Players
137 posts
9,678 battles
51 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

To the contrary.

We do not have enough players to fill 24 match slots with ONE skill level. Matches will always feature players with different skill level.

I have no idea about the numbers, and I wonder how you can be so sure.

If the waiting time is any indication, what you say may be true about low tiers.

I'm not sure about high tiers, though

And since I don't have data to back my assertion, I'll mark it as pure speculation

If you have hard data, please provide them to the discussion

51 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Skill based MM would make sure that both teams are of equal strengths. Good players would be punished for being good by getting worse teammates and bad players would get rewarded for being bad by getting better teammates.

To the contrary: good players would be matched with good player in both teams and won't have to rage about the idiot rushing forward in the Gneisenau to launch his torps and be deleted in the process, without hitting any targets.

Bad players, however, will be accompanied by and face other bad players, so it will be a rushing Gneisenau fest

Slowly but surely, though, someone will learn and be promoted to the better players.

This, in the long term, will narrow the WR spread we have now

I reckon it's an interesting innovation, and based on the amount of people asking for it (so many that WG have, indeed, answered), I'm not alone.

WG's stern refusal to even consider skill-based MM is appalling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FISHR]
Players
137 posts
9,678 battles
2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

No.

Your opinion

2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

And this game is no simulation.

I know, it's an arcade game, but it's a simulation of reality and history, unlike Star Wars or Mario Bros

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ENUF]
[ENUF]
Players
2,325 posts
23,343 battles
11 minutes ago, heypotato said:

Ah, so if you remove the people from the models you don't simulate mass slaughter anymore? That adds another level to the hypocrisy...

Why are you so obsessed with slaughter and simulation? It's an interactive history lesson in form of a game that is fun to play. Fun fact, before I played this game I didn't know that Yamato, Iowa, etc. existed. And especially when you watch some of the history related videos and read the stories on the WoWS homepage you can see that this game isn't a celebration of war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
87 posts
19,216 battles
6 minutes ago, heypotato said:

To the contrary: good players would be matched with good player in both teams and won't have to rage about the idiot rushing forward in the Gneisenau to launch his torps and be deleted in the process, without hitting any targets.

Bad players, however, will be accompanied by and face other bad players, so it will be a rushing Gneisenau fest

Slowly but surely, though, someone will learn and be promoted to the better players.

Are we playing the same game ? A bad player who wants to improve how they play will look at the different resources available to help them improve e.g Youtube guides, possibly watching twitch streams or maybe even joining a clan and divisioning with better players, the idea that simply by making them play against other bad players will slowly make people improve seems odd as surely it would simply reinforce their bad habits by surrounding them with them constantly. A bad player who either has no idea they are "bad" or simply doesn't care aren't the type of players who are even trying to get better or improve imo. Forcing changes to the MM really wouldn't be the way i would try and improve the skill of the player base over all, but to be blunt WG has no incentive to focus efforts on trying to improve bad players.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FISHR]
Players
137 posts
9,678 battles
57 minutes ago, Egoleter said:

Another one who doesn't understand that a skill based matchmaker (whatever skill that is supposed to consider) will sooner or later equalize your stats and make it impossible for the MM to properly work.

That was just a suggestion, and I recognise the danger you are referring to

57 minutes ago, Egoleter said:

MM discussions have a dedicated thread already. This topic has come up at least a million times since I joined the game, in just as many threads. A skill based MM does not solve anything. Don't believe me? Look up the arguments in those old threads or ask in the pinned thread at the top of this board.

Done that, already. The simple fact that it has come up a million times should make WG think about it, not just dismiss it because MM works. At least give it a try. Does not work? Ok, move on.

AFAIK they have never even considered it

57 minutes ago, Egoleter said:

 

Blaming the actions of others for your own shortcomings in chat is also not a very convincing argument. You always have the choice to not type. Your fingers do not have a mind of their own. Rage in front of your PC or in your TS / discord channel, but as soon as you start typing you made a conscious decision.

I wasn't blaming anyone. It was just an observation of my behaviour.

I'm normally a reasonable person, not prone to excesses of anger. So I started thinking about the reasons that prompted me to tell someone he's an idiot

57 minutes ago, Egoleter said:

 

You can not improve player quality with the reporting system either. That's not what it is supposed to do. It is for you to vent your frustration (without the risk of a chat ban), to congratulate other players, and to report chat misbehavior. It can't do more. It can't be changed to somehow lower the skill gap between players.

In which book of wisdom have you garnered the notion that the reporting system is only supposed to help you vent your frustration?

Report chat misuse --> chat ban

Compliment --> endorphines and friendship

Report unsporting behaviour --> battle is analysed and sanctions may be imposed (pink players)

Report bad play --> nothing happens

Something is amiss, here

If English is not an opinion "report" in this context means that you are deferring judgement on the issue to some higher authority

If the authority in question (WG) does nothing, then something is wrong

The report system should be used to improve the level of players

But WG have more pressing issues on their hands, apparently

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
31,090 posts
15,723 battles
7 minutes ago, heypotato said:

If you have hard data, please provide them to the discussion

Spoiler

dense_winrate_20190413_e.png

You belong to the top 20% of the playerbase. Your skillgroup makes up roughly 10% of the playerbase. Distribute that over the Tiers and different time slots, it will take quite some to fill 24 slots.

And even then you will be rewarded with weaker teammembers, when you are stronger that the players on the enemy team.

And now think about the players who are much better or much worse than you...

14 minutes ago, heypotato said:

To the contrary: good players would be matched with good player in both teams and won't have to rage about the idiot rushing forward in the Gneisenau to launch his torps and be deleted in the process, without hitting any targets.

Bad players, however, will be accompanied by and face other bad players, so it will be a rushing Gneisenau fest

Slowly but surely, though, someone will learn and be promoted to the better players.

This, in the long term, will narrow the WR spread we have now

I reckon it's an interesting innovation, and based on the amount of people asking for it (so many that WG have, indeed, answered), I'm not alone.

WG's stern refusal to even consider skill-based MM is appalling

Looks like you did not put much thought into the idea.

Have you thought about what happens to your WR when you meet only players of your strength? What happens to WR of bad and unicums players, when they meet only players of their strength?

The WR will change drasticly, without players getting better or worse!

12 minutes ago, heypotato said:

Your opinion

Then please show us the mass slaughter in game. Do you have any screenshots?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FISHR]
Players
137 posts
9,678 battles
6 minutes ago, Ze_Reckless said:

Why are you so obsessed with slaughter and simulation? It's an interactive history lesson in form of a game that is fun to play. Fun fact, before I played this game I didn't know that Yamato, Iowa, etc. existed. And especially when you watch some of the history related videos and read the stories on the WoWS homepage you can see that this game isn't a celebration of war.

I'm not obsessed.

i'm pointing out the absurdity of a puritan chat ban system in a game that simulates manslaughter on an epic scale.

And not even that. WG chat, WG rules. What I have difficulty accepting is the sanctioning and appeal systems

But again, this is not the topic of the thread

The topic is "make the report system for bad play work"

So, let's cut this sub-thread here

 

I was a bit more versed than you were in naval history, but I totally agree with you on the "history lesson" part

And studying history is not celebration of war

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ENUF]
[ENUF]
Players
2,325 posts
23,343 battles
7 minutes ago, heypotato said:

The topic is "make the report system for bad play work"

No, this will never happen. If you don't like the players you can always change the game you play. Go global elite in CS or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FISHR]
Players
137 posts
9,678 battles
3 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:
  Hide contents

dense_winrate_20190413_e.png

You belong to the top 20% of the playerbase. Your skillgroup makes up roughly 10% of the playerbase. Distribute that over the Tiers and different time slots, it will take quite some to fill 24 slots.

Thank you for the spreadsheet

3 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

And even then you will be rewarded with weaker teammembers, when you are stronger that the players on the enemy team.

And now think about the players who are much better or much worse than you...

At least give it a try, no? Divide the mass of players in chunks of roughly the same number and try to do skill-based MM by prioritising the choice of player

3 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Looks like you did not put much thought into the idea.

It seems you haven't read my post in its entirety

3 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Have you thought about what happens to your WR when you meet only players of your strength? What happens to WR of bad and unicums players, when they meet only players of their strength?

The WR will change drasticly, without players getting better or worse!

Yes, I have thought about it and said exactly what you are saying: WR spread will narrow. I don't see it as a huge problem.

Maybe players won't get better or worse. We don't know because WG refuse to even give it a try.

3 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Then please show us the mass slaughter in game. Do you have any screenshots?

Go to YT and watch any videos of Yamatos burning in WoWS

The real life Yamato had 2500-2800 people on board. At the time of her sinking, 3055 of her 3322 people on board died.

You don't see people burning and dying in game, granted, but that does not mean you are not simulating their death

Denying this simple fact is delusional and hypocritical

 

Yet, neither simulation nor MM are the topics of this thread

I have suggested skill-based MM as one of the 1000 possible solutions to the report system

It may or it may not be.

We'll never know for sure, until WG give it a go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FISHR]
Players
137 posts
9,678 battles
3 minutes ago, Ze_Reckless said:

No, this will never happen. If you don't like the players you can always change the game you play. Go global elite in CS or something.

Sorry, not my style. I don't run away from things that don't work but have the potential to.

I try to fix them

WoWS is such a great game, it's a shame some parts of it are left to rot in the sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
31,090 posts
15,723 battles
2 minutes ago, heypotato said:
  1. At least give it a try, no? Divide the mass of players in chunks of roughly the same number and try to do skill-based MM by prioritising the choice of player
  2. Yes, I have thought about it and said exactly what you are saying: WR spread will narrow. I don't see it as a huge problem.
  3. Maybe players won't get better or worse. We don't know because WG refuse to even give it a try.
  4. Go to YT and watch any videos of Yamatos burning in WoWS. The real life Yamato had 2500-2800 people on board. At the time of her sinking, 3055 of her 3322 people on board died. You don't see people burning and dying in game, granted, but that does not mean you are not simulating their death
  5. I have suggested skill-based MM as one of the 1000 possible solutions to the report system
  1. There are games that got ruined that way.
  2. The spread would get MUCH smaller and the MM would get MUCH more inaccurate as more and more players would have similar WR, but different skill levels
  3. Players do not get stronger by a MM change. Players get stronger because they want to improve!
  4. There are no people on the ships in game. Their death is not simulated. When you use a 3d viewer, you will see that the models are pretty empty...
  5. MM and report system are two different topics and have nothing to do with each other. Even good players flame each other...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,070 posts
15,102 battles
15 minutes ago, heypotato said:

Sorry, not my style. I don't run away from things that don't work but have the potential to.

I try to fix them

WoWS is such a great game, it's a shame some parts of it are left to rot in the sun

I respect your determination, but by playing this particular game you have to respect the EULA. Wargaming have liability issues to avoid, hence why they have rules and enforcement systems they can point to. We can neither change that reality or pick and choose the parts of the EULA that we agree to abide by.

 

Even if you don't use bad language you can still get dinged for harassment. Sorry.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×