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

In the, not so rare, occasion you have afk CV in your team

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[HAMI]
Players
9 posts
15,665 battles

I would like to address an issue that I have come across quite often in the last few days. Unfortunately the existence of bots/afkers is undeniable in the game and it is the second worst to people causing intentionally damage to friendlies. 

 

More or less, people are used to afkers, yet catastrophic for the game experience. In the case the ships they spawn in are DDs, CAs or BBs, it is a situation that can be fairly managed. However, in the not so rare case where the afk ship in your team is a CV, the tide of the battle turns instantly towards the opposing team. The effect is ecxponentialy more drastic as the battle tier increases. In my opinion, there should be some mechanics introduced to address this issue, or even afkers in general. I will quote one of my clan mate's sentence with which I totally agree with. 

 

"Well, problem is, if a player is not connected to the match, it could mean multiple things: Game crashed/not working, he left, his internet is gone, his computer stopped functioning... etc. However, if somebody is actually in the match but not playing, they deserve severe punishment."

 

Of course this leads to the main issue "how the game is going to detect a player being afk". I will focus my ideas only in the case of CVs being afk from the start of the battle.

  • check if there are planes launched after an X amount of time since the battle start (not less than 90sec, not more than 180sec)
    • If the former holds, check if the ship is moving (motion check starts from battle start and up to 30sec after the aforementioned check). This could be a check by itself, but since there are many CV players who think they are airfields and not ships, I propose this as a second level check.
  • In the case both checks hold, player will be warned for being given an afk status after 30sec. This status can be negated if the player launches planes during the 30sec time window.
  • If after the end of this time window no action is taken, the player should be given the afk status and no further action can be taken by him/her. The battle is terminated ad maybe some kind of punishment should be implemented as well for the future games.

 

This leads me to the ideas of what happens if a player is given the afk status as described above

  • The CV players of the other team are negated the ability to manual drop, or/and
  • The time needed to relaunch planes is increased, or/and
  • The AA deference of the ships (in the team with the afk CV) is increased by an X amount (e.g. 10%-20%), or/and 
  • The cool-down of the ships with available "defensive AA fire" (in the team with the afk CV) is buffed.

 

Let me know what do you guys think about this and if you agree or not.

 

Regards, 

Deviloid

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
8,108 posts
11,624 battles

No...

 

How is the other CV's fault your one has gone afk? That's pretty illogical. As you're saying they should be punished for something outside of their control.

 

A potato CV is just as bad as an AFK one as they're essentially completely ineffective. Nerf skill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
7,399 posts
13,813 battles

Or you could just sail together with a couple of capital ships. You know, as you should anyway with CVs in a match. I see no reason to give a CV player any sort of drawback when his counterpart is afk. It means freedom of movement for other classes, but on a CV it has very little impact considering their primary counters in terms of damage dealing are still ships sticking together and not the enemy CV. He can scout more freely, that's it.

The number of ways this can be abused is also hilarious. People could pressure you into leaving to neuter the enemy CV if you're inferior in terms of skill. It gets even worse when you account for divs.

 

Instead, afks should be punished more harshly. Example: A warning or two, after that you're banned from entering random and ranked, forcing X games coop with earnings of ~500+ exp before you can rejoin. Warnings reset after 7 days.

Such a system would be far more effective, easier to implement and, most importantly, cannot be abused.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
612 posts

AFK players are already punished by game economy.

They do not "deserve" any other punishement that would prevent them from playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Alpha Tester
17,384 posts
5,400 battles

Instead, afks should be punished more harshly. Example: A warning or two, after that you're banned from entering random and ranked, forcing X games coop with earnings of ~500+ exp before you can rejoin. Warnings reset after 7 days.

 

Such a system would be far more effective, easier to implement and, most importantly, cannot be abused.

 

^^ this. 

 

You get to many AFK reports where you been idle for to long -> restrict game modes available. Get even more -> 24h ban. 

 

And don't come complaining about bad connections or loading in minutes late, if you do that frequently you're just as bad as someone who goes AFK for whatever reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,085 posts
14,012 battles

The only good option is that if your carrier is AFK, then a bot should launch those planes at the enemy CV. It's very selfish to pick a CV and refuse to be feeding the enemy planes don't you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B0TS]
Players
11 posts
11,199 battles

This leads me to the ideas of what happens if a player is given the afk status as described above

  • The CV players of the other team are negated the ability to manual drop, or/and
  • The time needed to relaunch planes is increased, or/and
  • The AA deference of the ships (in the team with the afk CV) is increased by an X amount (e.g. 10%-20%), or/and 
  • The cool-down of the ships with available "defensive AA fire" (in the team with the afk CV) is buffed

 

Well, I appreciate you agreeing with my sentence there, however... you're trying to fix the problems caused by AFKs, giving buffs to the AFKs team or debuffing the enemy team will only bring abuse of said system and could lead to even more AFKs.

Instead you should fix the root problem, the AFKs, and not just for CVs but all.

 

 Instead, afks should be punished more harshly. Example: A warning or two, after that you're banned from entering random and ranked, forcing X games coop with earnings of ~500+ exp before you can rejoin. Warnings reset after 7 days.

Such a system would be far more effective, easier to implement and, most importantly, cannot be abused.

 

^ This.

 

Back to the CV problem though:

CVs at the moment just play strike almost every time, most of which don't even have a Fighter squad, so they ignore each other anyway. The problem isn't the AFK CV, but no teamplay in random(because there are no rewards for being active in teamplay, lol!) and the absolute randomness that is matchmaking itself. Not to mention the dice rolling Anti Air mechanics.. what do we have AA dmg and plane health for again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
883 posts
7,287 battles

I dislike a mechanic that punishes the opfor CV, not his fault really.

 

I would however like to see some AFK punishment mechanic that's both harsh and automated. If you don't show up for the game within x minutes (say 3-5), you get an AFK'er tag for x games. Like the pink duncecap mechanic for team killing.

 

As far as what to DO with the players with an active AFK'er tag, there are actually lots of options:

- Force them to play co-op only?

- Prevent entry to high-tier games?

- Prevent playing CV's?

 

Not meaning to be too damning of AFK folks here: I know there are "good" reasons like genuine connectivity issues, small kids, medical conditions, etc. But IMO if you cannot reliably get in the game -- for WHATEVER reason -- you should consider playing coop, and you most definitely should not play a CV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
748 posts
11,447 battles

Issue just highlights how imbalanced CVs are. WG needs to balance them so they don't have to be mirrored.

 

Balanced around whats? IJN BBs AA? Minotaurs  AA specced division? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
764 posts
8,120 battles

Balanced around whats? IJN BBs AA? Minotaurs  AA specced division? 

I would say that is exactly the crux of the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,929 posts
7,756 battles

Would be better if the players would have to push a 'Ready' button at game start and that the game could not start until every player had done so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
1,767 posts
12,107 battles

AFK ppl should be punished, agreed. But buffing the team of the afk / nerfing the effectiveness of people on the other team... That's a poor solution and pisses off more people than making them happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
494 posts
9,360 battles

Would be better if the players would have to push a 'Ready' button at game start and that the game could not start until every player had done so.

 

And how does that work when one players client crashes / decides to be very very slow at loading, leaving everyone else sitting there endlessly 

also how will it avoid RL unexpectedly pulling a player away from a game once a battle has started, 

 

AFK CV's are luckily fairly rare, I'v e had it happen when my client crashed a few times, but have only encountered one enemy afk CV when playing as CV myself (admittedly that did allow me to turn what would otherwise have been a curb stomp of the laughably inept team I was in, into a narrow win, by doing massive amounts of damage to the other team), and don't see too many afk cv's whilst out and about (in part due to not seeing many cv's at all) 

so yes when it happens it can be annoying, and does put one team at a significant disadvantage,  but at the low tiers the enemy CV only has limited planes, (and may be running air superiority set up) so all is not yet lost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONI]
Beta Tester
68 posts

i dont think carriers should be punished for the other carrier being afk...its VERY counter productive. I do like the idea of a Bot taking over if the player doesnt do anything mind...at least the Bot wont suicide by their own torp bombers when they feel the match is lost 

 

Edited by lilgoth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×