Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
nambr9

Anti-abuse system update

127 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[SCRUB]
Players
2,590 posts
7,066 battles

 

Thoughts?

  • Cool 5
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
954 posts
5,098 battles

I like the idea but I do hope it is automated.

 

Also it would be cool if they impemented system where afk player is being replaced by another player.

Like if you won't move or be able to log into battle for whatever reason in 2 minutes time you are replaced.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
13,618 posts
10,385 battles

As long as it is automated and not dependent on reports, it should be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,309 posts
13,602 battles
2 minutes ago, ImperialAdmiral said:

Also it would be cool if they impemented system where afk player is being replaced by another player.

Like if you won't move or be able to log into battle for whatever reason in 2 minutes time you are replaced.

That would be only fair methinks. After all, there may be a perfectly good/innocent reason why someone is AFK, so simply replacing them at the beginning of the game should be quite enough. I mean, if you start auto-banning people left and right just because their network lags or they suddenly had their mom (or possibly wife ehm..) pull the plug on the PC that might also be quite unfair eh? :Smile_smile:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
954 posts
5,098 battles
1 minute ago, RAHJAILARI said:

That would be only fair methinks. After all, there may be a perfectly good/innocent reason why someone is AFK, so simply replacing them at the beginning of the game should be quite enough. I mean, if you start auto-banning people left and right just because their network lags or they suddenly had their mom (or possibly wife ehm..) pull the plug on the PC that might also be quite unfair eh? :Smile_smile:

Yeah, that way, those that really had problems/got disconnection can try getting into another game, real afk/bots are kicked and the team won't lose one sometimes two players at start.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,876 posts
6,765 battles

As long as it is automated then fine. Player sent reports are so impartial at times :Smile_smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
205 posts
961 battles

As all the others have already said, unless its an automated system it will be ridiculously prone to abuse....

 

Get it? The anti-abuse system will be abused? No? I'll get my coat.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
6,917 posts
9,129 battles

As long as salty douchecanoes can't force people to play CoOp via false reports, it should be a good thing.

 

If people can abuse the system however, it's going to sink faster than the Lusitania.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,309 posts
13,602 battles

Yeah, but now that we are on topic... There SHOULD really be a way to get those Salty douchecanoes (a good one @Aotearas) penalized somehow for false reporting too. :Smile_Default:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PUPSI]
Players
5,861 posts

imho also a mix between automated and report system should work...and for the mentioned cases of abuse it should be simple to detect false reports...

 

And perhaps this system can be extenden to a ship-specific one...for example having less than 10k average damage in a Tirpitz will limit this ship for you to co-op only :Smile_hiding:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TENGO]
Players
1,457 posts
8,205 battles
25 minutes ago, nambr9 said:

 

Thoughts?

Yea. I'm thinking that wg is implicitly admitting that the current in-game "afk " report system, the one wg support apparently refers to when people contact it, is nothing but a joke.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-I-N-]
[-I-N-]
Players
651 posts
11,716 battles

I hope the system will also be active in co-op! Otherwise people will just start game -> leave game -> start next game until the penalty is over (you already see pinkies doing this).

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
Players
2,894 posts
14,827 battles

i bet its gonna depend on the stupid reporting system and "misbehaviour in chat" is gonna be the only option which actually works... because its wg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[3STG]
Players
322 posts
9,329 battles

I truly hope they will get this thing working and reduce drastically amount of bots, afk's and TK's.

 

At least that is what they promised when replying to a ticket regarding an extremely annoyingly programmed bot I had couple of weeks ago. Our DD in the beginning just turned 180 degrees and sailed to the rear border, started to ping in the minimap continuously so many times, that the gameplay itself seemed to be overflowing stuff in the background and everything started to glitch and eventually broke my controls and zoom mode was not working. It seemed a lot like the stuttering / FPS drops from patch just before, but even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,309 posts
13,602 battles
4 minutes ago, Klopirat said:

And perhaps this system can be extenden to a ship-specific one...for example having less than 10k average damage in a Tirpitz will limit this ship for you to co-op only

Ehh, don't know about that man, I got Detonated in Musashi once only couple of mins min into the game, when an Iowa hit me right on the nose with its first salvo from something like 20km away.:fish_boom:

 

Didn't manage to do more than 7k damage (managed to fire just 1 salvo and that was it).:cap_wander_2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FDUSH]
Players
1,044 posts
6,183 battles

I hope that includes those who uses Defensive AA as well. (an automatic report for those)

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
2,590 posts
7,066 battles
9 minutes ago, PzychoPanzer said:

Yea. I'm thinking that wg is implicitly admitting that the current in-game "afk " report system, the one wg support apparently refers to when people contact it, is nothing but a joke.

I just hope the system wont get abused.

 

If I get reported and banned from random, just because some potato DIV abuses it ... im gonna snap.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B0TS]
Beta Tester
1,556 posts
4,803 battles

Does this mean that we can all go around and report all the Hurricane clan members and get them restricted to Co-op mode during clan wars, just so that we "mere mortals" can  get undeserved bragging rights?

:Smile_hiding:

  • Funny 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
3,695 posts
10,594 battles
1 hour ago, nambr9 said:

 

Thoughts?

Too little information, really.

The idea "send teamkillers, AFKers and other scum to coop" sounds great, but so does "chatban chat abusers" and we all know how it can be (ab)used sometimes.

 

So, the question is how it will be handled. Fully automated? Might work on AFKers and that's about it. Somehow dependent on reports? Much more flexible, but then we're up against the big problem of "how do we stop abuse of an anti-abuse system" so that you can't, say, get Random-banned by meeting a rabid division that will dump all their reports on you for one reason or another.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
2,617 posts
9,127 battles
1 hour ago, Aotearas said:

As long as salty douchecanoes can't force people to play CoOp via false reports, it should be a good thing.

 

 

At least I am immune to any potential abuse of that system. :Smile_trollface:

 

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
6,917 posts
9,129 battles
5 minutes ago, havaduck said:

 

 

At least I am immune to any potential abuse of that system. :Smile_trollface:

 

 

 

Maybe the system automatically detects if someone enjoys CoOp and instead forces them to play Ranked?

  • Funny 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
652 posts
4,255 battles

Imo maybe this is something that the Karma system could help with; beyond a certain point good players who arent ranting all the time in chat will, despite the hate they receive from salty farmed enemies, get a higher karma rating (going off of personal experience here)... Perhaps beyond say, 100 karma, you get the ability to in-game report with some meaning? And if these reports are proven to be fair, your influence increases? Something like that atleast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
3,554 posts
6,385 battles

Funny how the Anti-Abuse system, if implemented similarly to Anti-Chat-Abuse system, would be extremely abusable :fish_palm: Fully automated or no deal - that's the only way :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WJDE]
Beta Tester
414 posts
7,632 battles

Great idea, instead of containing trash in the trashcan (pvp q) wg wants it all over the place. Awesome. AND instead of improving standard coop and giving a bit better rewards to coop players (for their patience alone if anything) wg decided it's better to take a giant dump on this part of the playerbase. WHY DO YOU HATE COOP PLAYERS SO MUCH WG????????????????????????????????????

11 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

 

Maybe the system automatically detects if someone enjoys CoOp and instead forces them to play Ranked?

I'd uninstall. I played enough pvp/competitive games to get enough salt for eternity, I don't need any more.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×