Jump to content


Proof that being AFK earns more than being terrible

WG loves bots E-100 is awesome

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
154 replies to this topic

X1376 #141 Posted 01 October 2012 - 09:31 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 29654 battles
  • 1,104
  • [EHW] EHW
  • Member since:
    09-01-2010
Hehe. Great thread, this had to be pointed out.

I had yesterday something similar going at extreme. We had one AFK player left and damaged enemy was trying to ram him. Now jokes about arithmetics aside, the enemy armor died in the process. Who you bet got the Kamikaze medal? :)

Opferlamm113 #142 Posted 25 October 2012 - 10:26 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 39093 battles
  • 737
  • [300] 300
  • Member since:
    09-03-2011

View PostSt4n, on 14 September 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

I have a theory...
Because there is one bot (which you have to pay for, because it drives and shots for you) that has a failsave to prevent people from beeing banned.
You must have at least 1 Gold at your account, otherwise the bot didn't start.
Seems that having at least 1 Gold on the account is a very secure way to not get banned.

P.S.: No, I don't show you which bot. You will not get a link or the name from me.


Can you report the site to WG?

Armiger_alpha #143 Posted 25 October 2012 - 10:34 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 9305 battles
  • 438
  • [IRMI] IRMI
  • Member since:
    10-09-2011
Would be funny if all WoT players decide to play bot on a fixed date ! That day everybody just start battles and quit and start another battle with another tank then quit and so on ! A LOT of credits and XPs in less than an hour !
Maybe WG would then decide to change their broken rules... ^^

_ShockWave_ #144 Posted 10 November 2012 - 11:45 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 26691 battles
  • 46
  • [UBER-] UBER-
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View PostKablaom, on 14 September 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

I think I remember from doing this once that you dont actually get XP / Credits when leaving the battle at start and beginning another.

View PostMerquise, on 14 September 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

For some reason I'm pretty sure player X does get xp/cash...

Ragequit anyone??
In the past you could ragequit (just leave battle) directly after start or during battle and your tank would go up in smoke so you could deny the enemy to get you as his kill or just go to your garage to play another battle because you didnt like the map.
WG changed that in some patch to overcome the problem of players doing the ragequitthingy in battle.

Right now your tank stays in battle so the enemy can kill you (as some kind of penalty for you that you have to pay repaircosts if you get killed), however if your team survives you get some nice bonus for doing nothing.

Before the patch if you did ragequit in the beginning of the match you just got a nice repairbill (not sure of that?) and no income or xp.
So if you wanted some free xp and credits you just had to stay in battle until either team was finished and could only do 1 tank in aprox 8 mins.

Today you can ragequit battle and get some nice xp/credits for it and you could even do multiple tanks at once.
So rightnow you get some nice bonus for your behaviour being afk or using a bot, so WG had some part in this story.

deathnoise #145 Posted 11 November 2012 - 12:42 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 18440 battles
  • 886
  • Member since:
    07-02-2010

View PostSnib, on 14 September 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

Broken reward system is broken, or maybe WG loves bots a little bit too much.


You can replace the "reward" with "economy", WG with "politicians" and you will get the world that we share today  :Smile_teethhappy:
That's what you get when they decide to implement the most important element of every socialism/communism into the game  - redistribution system (which is just a better name for robbing the most efficient people and giving it to the least efficient people, aka - leeches")..

The base XP is being greatly influenced by the total damage dealth by your WHOLE team divided by the total HP pool of the enemy tanks and is being shared equally among the whole team. If 3 guys from your team are going to stomp the whole enemy team and the rest of your team has done nothing - they will still get % from the action of these 3 guys. The base experience is being shared across the leeches.

Please, take note that in your case - the experience earned by  m48a1 and amx50B is almost the same. There is no much difference between 0 and 500 damage. Also - the amx 50b has died. I've read somewhere that you get some small amount of XP for staying alive.

Also - it's propable that the XP has been scaled by some XP weight assigned to these vechicles or the difference is the has been randomly deducted to avoid reverse-engineering of the algorithm by the "foreign parties"

Yesterday, I've had a couple of games where I've dealt around 4-5k of damage with my GW Panther, yet - I've earned 120-150xp (before the premium bonus) .. Again - because the rest of my team has dealt nothing, yet - they've got XP for their efforts (around 100 xp). Normally - I'd have earned like 900-1000+ of XP with that damage PLUS the premium bonus.

That's also why you get less XP if your team is going to cap when there are still a couple of high tier, enemy tanks alive somewhere around.

You can save the screenshots after each battle, compare them and see for yourself.

Edited by deathnoise, 11 November 2012 - 11:54 PM.


Snib #146 Posted 11 November 2012 - 10:47 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 18888 battles
  • 3,307
  • Member since:
    07-16-2010

View Postdeathnoise, on 11 November 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

That's what you get when they decide to implement the most important element of every socialism/communism into the game  - redistribution system (which is just a better name for and giving it to the least efficient people, aka - leeches")..

The base XP is being greatly influenced by the total damage dealth by your WHOLE team divided by the total HP pool of the enemy tanks and is being shared equally among the whole team.
...
Yep, part 6 of the series that started with this thread looked at the team bonuses more in detail: http://forum.worldof...ormance-bonuses

As to the redistribution system: I don't disagree with having such a system - in the game - because it is a team game and some roles in a battle may be less rewarding than others, but every bit as crucial. E.g. you could cover a flank but no enemy ever shows up, and by the time you meet up with the rest of your team they already decimated the enemy lemmings, leaving nothing for you. It's good that you still participate in the reward for the win because it was good team play that you didn't leave a flank open.

So the system is good at the base. We only got a problem when rewards for individual contribution get dwarfed to a point where being afk earns you basically the same (the M48A1 does indeed appear to be slightly bonused). That ruins the risk vs rewards balance. Also it's plain unnecessary to reward someone who was easily identifiable as being afk in the first place.

Atomix330 #147 Posted 11 November 2012 - 10:53 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 11952 battles
  • 628
  • Member since:
    02-08-2012

View PostSnib, on 14 September 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:




Broken reward system is broken, or maybe WG loves bots a little bit too much.



thats why they celebrate player milestones. Of the millions of registered players how many haven't played in the last couple of months?

Snib #148 Posted 11 November 2012 - 10:59 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 18888 battles
  • 3,307
  • Member since:
    07-16-2010

View PostAtomix330, on 11 November 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

thats why they celebrate player milestones. Of the millions of registered players how many haven't played in the last couple of months?
Of the millions of registered players about half of them have never played this game at all. About a third of the other half played a few battles and uninstalled.

But to be fair, the rest is still a lot of players and the majority of them play regularly.

deathnoise #149 Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:05 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 18440 battles
  • 886
  • Member since:
    07-02-2010

View PostSnib, on 11 November 2012 - 10:47 PM, said:

As to the redistribution system: I don't disagree with having such a system - in the game - because it is a team game and some roles in a battle may be less rewarding than others, but every bit as crucial. E.g. you could cover a flank but no enemy ever shows up, and by the time you meet up with the rest of your team they already decimated the enemy lemmings, leaving nothing for you. It's good that you still participate in the reward for the win because it was good team play that you didn't leave a flank open.

I disagree.

You can watch the minimap to see where are the tanks. After a couple of minutes you should have a good idea where the enemy forces are and if there are none coming your way - then you should move to support your tanks pushing the enemy or, at least - move forward to spot something..

Sitting in the bush for the whole game with no effect, whatsoever is just a poor excuse - same as for Maus sitting behind the building for the whole game after saying "I'm gonna protect the arty". Yeeeah, right. Same goes for top tier suiciders.

The game should take into account BOTH - the actions and the time spent in the game, while being alive. Also - the missed opportunities. For example - tanks were spotted, you've had line of sight on, at least - ONE of the targets and the shell loaded. The target was spotted long enough for you to aim and fire at him at your effective range (the range that guarantees the penetration)..Yet - you haven't fired or you have fired and missed - you are going to get less base XP at the end of the battle, etc, etc

In other words - if the tank did absolutely NOTHING in the game - no damage, no tanks spotted - he should get ZERO experience points.

Then - if he did, his base XP should be proportional to his input into the game at the time when he was alive. If his input was close to none - well, tough luck. Try better next time.

The point is - everyone are getting same share of worse battles where they've got less chance to do any good so it can't be used as an argument. It's the same logical fallacy as in the case of "win ratio doesn't matter".
It does. Everyone are getting the same share of stupid players, after all..
Only the botters, AFKers - the LEECHERS are going to have (on average) much less opportunities to do any good, since they are not participating in the battle at all or - they input is minimal.
BUT overall - good, active players should earn more on average than bad players, without sharing what they've got for being more active in the battle, across the board.

Edited by deathnoise, 12 November 2012 - 12:24 AM.


Snib #150 Posted 12 November 2012 - 01:10 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 18888 battles
  • 3,307
  • Member since:
    07-16-2010

View Postdeathnoise, on 12 November 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

I disagree.

You can watch the minimap to see where are the tanks. After a couple of minutes you should have a good idea where the enemy forces are and if there are none coming your way - then you should move to support your tanks pushing the enemy or, at least - move forward to spot something..
Sure, I agree with that, which is why I said that the guy would meet up with the rest of your team. Of course sitting in a bush all battle far from the action has no value and should not be rewarded.

View Postdeathnoise, on 12 November 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

The point is - everyone are getting same share of worse battles where they've got less chance to do any good so it can't be used as an argument. It's the same logical fallacy as in the case of "win ratio doesn't matter".
I'll disagree here - not with the win ratio point, mind you, but with the other one. Battles are not random. They are full of behavioural patterns. For example, if you're always joining the lemming train and always keeping to the back of it there's no randomness to your chances of doing good (you won't do any).

But while I agree that win ratio matters, I also always say it doesn't matter how you win as long as you do win. For example, you might be the worst tanker in the world and hopeless in a firefight, but still you always deploy to the right spot on the map, playing it smart, making your presence a deterrent even though you cause little to no damage because you're just that bad at shooting, but shoot you do at the right moments to scare and delay the enemy just long enough, all while not losing hitpoints yourself because you know how to use cover and angle your tank.

Now, I'd expect this hypothetical player to have an above-average win rate despite having really bad individual stats. He deserves his piece of the reward because he helped bring the victory. Do the guys on his team who did over 5k damage with the same tank deserve more? Sure they do, and they do get more. Whether the ratio of team reward vs individual reward needs some tuning that's another question. The more you reward individual contribution the more you'll rub it in the face of bad players how bad they really are - and although those players either already know or don't care, it's still territory where WG threads very carefully.

deathnoise #151 Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:34 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 18440 battles
  • 886
  • Member since:
    07-02-2010

View PostSnib, on 12 November 2012 - 01:10 AM, said:

But while I agree that win ratio matters, I also always say it doesn't matter how you win as long as you do win. For example, you might be the worst tanker in the world and hopeless in a firefight, but still you always deploy to the right spot on the map, playing it smart, making your presence a deterrent even though you cause little to no damage because you're just that bad at shooting, but shoot you do at the right moments to scare and delay the enemy just long enough, all while not losing hitpoints yourself because you know how to use cover and angle your tank.
You won't scare anyone if you are not going to hit anyone. Also - the players with the lowest eff are the first ones to be targetted, people are playing with xvm these days, you know.. Always looking for the weakest link so they could break through.

Also - being the spotter, you are going to spot something and someone else is going to do the damage ("Damage upon detecting").  There is no way you can't do SOMETHING in the game. Unless you are bot or afker.


Quote

Now, I'd expect this hypothetical player to have an above-average win rate despite having really bad individual stats. He deserves his piece of the reward because he helped bring the victory. Do the guys on his team who did over 5k damage with the same tank deserve more? Sure they do, and they do get more. Whether the ratio of team reward vs individual reward needs some tuning that's another question. The more you reward individual contribution the more you'll rub it in the face of bad players how bad they really are - and although those players either already know or don't care, it's still territory where WG threads very carefully.
"Nice story, bro.."

The hypothetical situation that you've described above almost never happens. Also - good players are doing everything you've mentioned above PLUS dealing the damage, spotting and more. The imaginary guy that you've described above will not scare anyone - he is going to be an easy prey, and is going to die 7 times out of 10 and, by playing a top tier - is going to lead his team to defeat more often than not. On average - he is going to be a burden for every team in which he is going to land.
Not only - he shouldnt be rewarded. He should be punished for making the life of other people harder

Edited by deathnoise, 12 November 2012 - 04:16 AM.


Snib #152 Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:21 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 18888 battles
  • 3,307
  • Member since:
    07-16-2010

View Postdeathnoise, on 12 November 2012 - 02:34 AM, said:

The hypothetical situation that you've described above almost never happens.
It happens every time a lemming train grinds to a halt in front of a single red dot. But I'd say we'd best agree to disagree at this point.

del500780009 #153 Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:21 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 1 battle
  • 950
  • Member since:
    06-05-2011

View Postdeathnoise, on 11 November 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

That's also why you get less XP if your team is going to cap when there are still a couple of high tier, enemy tanks alive somewhere around.

Thank you! I wish more people would realise this.

I admire the fact that you have more defense points than capture point. You sir, are a true team player. :Smile_honoring:  I'm working my way up there too. got a bit too much apture points in my earlier days - back when I didn't know better.

deathnoise #154 Posted 12 November 2012 - 03:45 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 18440 battles
  • 886
  • Member since:
    07-02-2010

View PostSnib, on 12 November 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

It happens every time a lemming train grinds to a halt in front of a single red dot.
It's an anegdotal example that is based solely on the assumption that the enemy team isn't going to push him. It does, more often than not.

Also - as I've mentioned before - It's impossible to be always a victim of lemming's train, a lone tank defending one flank in each and every battle. It's a promile, It evens out for each player, after hundreds of battles.

It's not going to even out in case of AFKers and bots/leechers, though..

Edited by deathnoise, 12 November 2012 - 04:08 PM.


Wolphantom #155 Posted 16 November 2012 - 10:50 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 17073 battles
  • 34
  • [SNDGR] SNDGR
  • Member since:
    08-16-2012
I had a couple of cases yesterday... (I need to find the replays and take screenshots from the battle reports)
AFKs at the spawn point,not the grey ones that never connected...0 distance travelled,0 shots,0 spotted,0 everything and yet more xp earned than 2-3 that actually played (badly maybe,but still).
In one case,the one with  less xp had more enemies spotted and he even managed a few hits (just 19dmg though)...Lowest tier tank in-game who scouted early before he was 2 shoted...

I'd suggest a fix on that...If some of the stats are 0 (distance travelled,number of shots (or even shots that hit nothing and caused no dmg at all,since i've seen a bot drive to a rock at the back end of the map near the spawn point and then shoot 23 shots in total out to nowhere beyond the borders of the map) and maybe a couple more which are key stats in a battle) then the user gets 0 xp/silver as well...

Why should they get xp/silver in a battle they contributed 0 in total?That might affect some players as well (early rushers i.e.)...




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users