Bots in ranked?

[IamTroublemaker]

Is it possible that there could be quite a few players abusing bot scripts/programs in ranked?

 

I've just played 3 battles on Land of Fire map (every time on the same side) and I've seen 4 different players do the exact thing. 2xTirpitz, Myoko and Atago. They all went from our base (at east) straight behind the island on F3 and then continued towards the opponent base (like in domination) and they'd mostly circle around there and just die.

 

They weren't communicating in chat, weren't really good at avoiding torps or aiming.

 

So I'm asking if any of you have seen similar stuff happen?

[Pekoe_Darjeeling]

People do this in random battles and nobody care. Someone do this in ranked battle and everybody starts accuse him of using bot

 

[IamTroublemaker]

People do this in random battles and nobody care. Someone do this in ranked battle and everybody starts accuse him of using bot

 

I find it weird that 4 different persons go on the same route, that's all I'm saying + none of them didn't write anything in the chat.

[Kurbain]

I've seen an enemy Ranger player just sail straight towards our base directly into the arms of 3 DDs on the Northern Lights map.

I was asking what the hell he was doing, but he didn't answer.

 

Interestingly I have been accused of being a bot myself while playing the Independence aggressively. It got an excellent 10,4 KM detection range so you can get quite close to the frontlines with it.

Doing so is nearly a guarantee to get complaints from the team, though, even if I never take any damage during a match.

[Elo_Naj]

Most of the time the acusation of using bots means that someone plays good or has luck. I did not see anything that would be possible for  a bot (since a bot can not calculate how you steer).

[forzica]

I also have some players in ranked battles that didn't answer anything in chat  and make some stupid things 

 

[Pekoe_Darjeeling]

Most of the time the acusation of using bots means that someone plays good or has luck. 

 

You wot m8?

[aboch]

Is it possible that there could be quite a few players abusing bot scripts/programs in ranked?

 

I've just played 3 battles on Land of Fire map (every time on the same side) and I've seen 4 different players do the exact thing. 2xTirpitz, Myoko and Atago. They all went from our base (at east) straight behind the island on F3 and then continued towards the opponent base (like in domination) and they'd mostly circle around there and just die.

 

They weren't communicating in chat, weren't really good at avoiding torps or aiming.

 

So I'm asking if any of you have seen similar stuff happen?

 

Did you check their profiles? IF it is a bot the average damage and winrate must be really low, same goes for kill/death ratio and other stats ....

[IamTroublemaker]

 

Did you check their profiles? IF it is a bot the average damage and winrate must be really low, same goes for kill/death ratio and other stats ....

 

It's a bit different since I'm talking about ranked battles. They can get carried easily (I've won 2/4 of those battles) so I don't know which indicators to look at on ranked stats tbh...

[tobdyls]

I saw the same thing last night.  BB sailed straight behind the island stayed there would not assist when asked and did not respond in chat.  I'm sure it was a bot. 

[Adwaenyth]

 

I find it weird that 4 different persons go on the same route

 

I don't. That is just called a lemming train.

[Purple_Alert]

Is there a bot program for WoWs?

[LilJumpa]

Bots or programmed scripts are based on logic and follow that logic. Most players in Ranked 10-5 are missing that part.

[Benaulim]

 

I don't. That is just called a lemming train.

 

Four different players in three games are a lemming train now?

[Ast3lan]

No OP there are no Bots and Scripts or thingies in this game. You just need to learn to play and stop accusing better players of wining or having a good streak.

  sorry i just couldnt resist.

 

 

[WhoopieMonster]

Being accused of aimbotting is a compliment. Being accused of being a bot is an insult.

 

Unfortunately I think you can blame a lot of the problems on rank 10 being irrivocable. I'm 2 stars away from 5 and really hoping that the quality of player really improves.

 

Last night I was one star away from rank 5 only to get a game where our CV sailed straight toward the enemies then got stuck on the map edge trying to retreat, our DDs sailed off into no where to try and sneak up on their CV only to find the CAs waiting for them. Leaving me and my fellow BB vs 3 enemy BBs and their CVs aircraft. MM was unkind in that game, but I think some people look at the MM, think 'insta loss' stick autopilot on and got for a dump and a coffee.

[ShockPirat]

@Whoopie

Average quality of players does improve at ranks 5+, but that just makes scrubs who got carried up stand out even more. Good players will quickly capitalize on enemy scrub's mistakes, and recovering after you lose one (or more) ships "for free" is very hard.

 

I saw a North Carolina going far west on Land of Fire map (yeah, the part that sees apsolutely no action in 95% ranked games)(he had 45% WR in ranked and abysmal avg damage yet he got up rank 5), I saw another one sailing straight into A cap on North right at the start of the game and get torped to oblivion. I saw some dude who took the Yorck. Of course, people who fail at any kind of teamplay appear often too.

And of course most of them blame the team after they die.

 

It's just a MM roll of the dice. After some time you start recognizing bad players by name and know what (not to) expect from them if they appear in your team. You can only hope they lose their stars fast (preferablly not in your team) and fall down to 6 and don't come back up.

[EsaTuunanen]

Unfortunately I think you can blame a lot of the problems on rank 10 being irrivocable.

Just requiring some amount of damage done/XP from capping for getting that star would go long way for actually separating players into ranks basing to skill.

That would also prevents AFKs/bots from rising up in ranks.

 

 

I saw a North Carolina going far west on Land of Fire map (yeah, the part that sees apsolutely no action in 95% ranked games)(he had 45% WR in ranked and abysmal avg damage yet he got up rank 5)

Ah, WG has now gotten ranked matches stats visible.

Looks like that stat page code doesn't exactly understand having survived all matches because of me having 0.00 k/d from nine matches and 19 kills.

[WhoopieMonster]

@ShockPirat, that is also a valid concern. Losing a bad at a lower rank is easier to overcome as the relative skill of each player is not as good. But when you've got two very good teams, the one containing a free kill is handicapped from the get go. At the risk of regurgitating things discussed in other threads, remove all irrivocable ranks and have the top 1 or 2 players on the losing team keep their star. That way consistently good players will keep ranking up until they reach their plateau or Rank 1. Once you reach your skill level you will win as much as you lose, generally.

[IamTroublemaker]

@ShockPirat, that is also a valid concern. Losing a bad at a lower rank is easier to overcome as the relative skill of each player is not as good. But when you've got two very good teams, the one containing a free kill is handicapped from the get go. At the risk of regurgitating things discussed in other threads, remove all irrivocable ranks and have the top 1 or 2 players on the losing team keep their star. That way consistently good players will keep ranking up until they reach their plateau or Rank 1. Once you reach your skill level you will win as much as you lose, generally.

 

To reward top1-2 players wouldn't be fair, because basically who survives the most will get the most damage=xp, which means people will start sniping even more.

Also the xp difference might be so small that the 2nd or 3rd on the list deserves to be rewarded as well. The only viable "fix" for me is to make either all ranks irrevocable, or make all stars you earn irrevocable (or 2 defeats to lose a star) but then much more stars should be required to rank up.

[ShockPirat]

@Trouble you might as well remove matchmaking by ranks then because everyone will be able to rank up (including bots, actually that would promote botting even more)

Or even, remove ranked as a mode and add in a WoT-like mission "win 200 times and earn a reward".

 

There should be some way of punishing bad players in winning team and rewarding good players in losing teams, but I can't think of anything fully objective and "fair"

[IamTroublemaker]

There should be some way of punishing bad players in winning team and rewarding good players in losing teams, but I can't think of anything fully objective and "fair"

 

Exactly, that's why I think this would make it at least a bit more fair, as you won't be losing hard earned stars due to some incompetent players

[WhoopieMonster]

Fair point Troublemaker, but I have regularly out scored people surviving twice as long as I have.. Sniping is often a terrible tactic and requires both the right ship, with the right guns vs the right ship and an ignorant captain who doesn't change direction. There has to be a cut off point, as there is in anything that involves any kind of competative play. Even if they said anyone he gets above 1k base xp on the losing team gets to keep a star, there could still be that poor bugger on 999 base xp.

 

If the all players on the winning team gain a star excluding those below 400 base xp, who get to keep a star. The players on the losing team will lose a star, appart from players with 1k base xp or more. It sets the threshold fairly low for the winning team, so unless you derp and die doing literally nothing you will gain a star. The threshold needs to be high for the losing team as only the best players should be able to maintain thier stars as they are clearly more suitable to higher rank play.

 

I really think it is an option worth exploring if only for a season. The fact that this sort of discussion keeps coming up everytime we talk about ranked play and our team mates. We rely on our team mates so much, but we have no power to pick them. If we could form our own teams then the current system works fine, you win as a team, you lose as a team. If we are given a team then our individual contribution or lack off, should be recognised.

[IamTroublemaker]

Fair point Troublemaker, but I have regularly out scored people surviving twice as long as I have.. Sniping is often a terrible tactic and requires both the right ship, with the right guns vs the right ship and an ignorant captain who doesn't change direction. There has to be a cut off point, as there is in anything that involves any kind of competative play. Even if they said anyone he gets above 1k base xp on the losing team gets to keep a star, there could still be that poor bugger on 999 base xp.

 

If the all players on the winning team gain a star excluding those below 400 base xp, who get to keep a star. The players on the losing team will lose a star, appart from players with 1k base xp or more. It sets the threshold fairly low for the winning team, so unless you derp and die doing literally nothing you will gain a star. The threshold needs to be high for the losing team as only the best players should be able to maintain thier stars as they are clearly more suitable to higher rank play.

 

I really think it is an option worth exploring if only for a season. The fact that this sort of discussion keeps coming up everytime we talk about ranked play and our team mates. We rely on our team mates so much, but we have no power to pick them. If we could form our own teams then the current system works fine, you win as a team, you lose as a team. If we are given a team then our individual contribution or lack off, should be recognised.

 

In most cases we can see people sniping, and failing hard, that's why I don't like it.

 

As for your idea. I'm always for the "if you won, you deserve an award, no matter how bad you were" because a win should feel like a win. That's why I'm not for that "reward if you have enough xp earned"

[Kurbain]

As for your idea. I'm always for the "if you won, you deserve an award, no matter how bad you were" because a win should feel like a win. That's why I'm not for that "reward if you have enough xp earned"

 

A win shouldn't feel like a win if somebody didn't do any work to achieve that win.

Players should be rewarded for playing well, not for getting lucky enough to spawn in the right team at the start.