Jump to content


this is why the team damage "3 shot" rule is wrong


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

Dr_ownape #1 Posted 31 May 2018 - 07:47 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 41103 battles
  • 5,231
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    03-27-2013
 

Borrowed from a clan members game - nuff said:

 



Balc0ra #2 Posted 31 May 2018 - 08:01 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 63409 battles
  • 14,819
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

It's still 3 shots. But yeah it shows my main beef with it.183 can do over 3K. A tier X light can do around 900 before he turns blue. Or a platoon of 183's can do over 6K without one turning blue.

 

I don't want the 183 to turn blue and get banned for one shot if it's a mishap. But.. there is a difference on what guns does it too. And IMO it should be fixed on alpha etc. Not just shots alone.  As 3 shots on a tier 1 differs from 3 shots on a tier X TD on the % of HP they can take off the team. And that's where it should go IMO. One hit is a mishap. One more on the next shot? Def not.


Edited by Balc0ra, 31 May 2018 - 08:02 PM.


DeadLecter #3 Posted 31 May 2018 - 08:14 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 19344 battles
  • 172
  • Member since:
    05-28-2016

View PostBalc0ra, on 31 May 2018 - 10:31 PM, said:

It's still 3 shots. But yeah it shows my main beef with it.183 can do over 3K. A tier X light can do around 900 before he turns blue. Or a platoon of 183's can do over 6K without one turning blue.

 

I don't want the 183 to turn blue and get banned for one shot if it's a mishap. But.. there is a difference on what guns does it too. And IMO it should be fixed on alpha etc. Not just shots alone.  As 3 shots on a tier 1 differs from 3 shots on a tier X TD on the % of HP they can take off the team. And that's where it should go IMO. One hit is a mishap. One more on the next shot? Def not.

 

why not disable friendly fire at all? What is the reason for it being active in the first place?

Jigabachi #4 Posted 31 May 2018 - 08:20 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17852 battles
  • 17,954
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

Cold coffee. That's already more than obvious since years.

 



Balc0ra #5 Posted 31 May 2018 - 08:22 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 63409 battles
  • 14,819
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostDeadLecter, on 31 May 2018 - 08:14 PM, said:

 

why not disable friendly fire at all? What is the reason for it being active in the first place?

 

Well that's a different discussion. As my points was if they are gonna have it on. 

 

As for turning it off? Well WOT console showed why that might be an equally terrible idea. If they want you dead, they will find ways to do so. 



Tankyouverymuch2 #6 Posted 31 May 2018 - 08:41 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 28659 battles
  • 794
  • [VRTC] VRTC
  • Member since:
    09-13-2013

View PostDr_ownape, on 31 May 2018 - 07:47 PM, said:

 

Borrowed from a clan members game - nuff said:

 

 

 

That guy tryin' to set some records or what?...



Ferditude #7 Posted 31 May 2018 - 08:47 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 862 battles
  • 542
  • Member since:
    11-22-2016

View PostDr_ownape, on 31 May 2018 - 07:47 PM, said:

 

Borrowed from a clan members game - nuff said:

 

From the pict u can't see if he's shooting 500mr, for a light to zoom in while his shell is in the air...

I've never done max dmg, apart from 1x light that I was trying to save, drove into shells path :(

All "random" that 100% of shots to enemy didn't even do av dmg +1x team dmg does more than max! 



Element6_TheSprout #8 Posted 31 May 2018 - 09:07 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28638 battles
  • 10,044
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostTankyouverymuch2, on 31 May 2018 - 08:41 PM, said:

 

 

That guy tryin' to set some records or what?...

Hard to tell, he could simply have been very unlucky while trying to snipe from a long distance. I had 3 battles just today where I did team damage when sniping, and allies drove into the path of the shell, which is a fluke for me because on average I very rarely damage allied tanks.



Dorander #9 Posted 31 May 2018 - 09:31 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17854 battles
  • 1,928
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 31 May 2018 - 08:07 PM, said:

Hard to tell, he could simply have been very unlucky while trying to snipe from a long distance. I had 3 battles just today where I did team damage when sniping, and allies drove into the path of the shell, which is a fluke for me because on average I very rarely damage allied tanks.

 

Three times in a row isn't unlucky. That's careless or intentional. Even if there'd been somebody in your line of fire the entire time, the second shot should've averaged around 2600 damage total, enough to kill pretty much anyone on that list. And he managed to do it a third time.

CmdRatScabies #10 Posted 31 May 2018 - 09:39 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 35401 battles
  • 3,624
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015

View PostDeadLecter, on 31 May 2018 - 08:14 PM, said:

 

why not disable friendly fire at all? What is the reason for it being active in the first place?

 

That would be an overreaction.  Doesn't happen very often and FV driver will have to wait a good long time before he does that again or he'll have a WoT holiday.

Element6_TheSprout #11 Posted 31 May 2018 - 10:41 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28638 battles
  • 10,044
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostDorander, on 31 May 2018 - 09:31 PM, said:

Three times in a row isn't unlucky. That's careless or intentional. Even if there'd been somebody in your line of fire the entire time, the second shot should've averaged around 2600 damage total, enough to kill pretty much anyone on that list. And he managed to do it a third time.

If 100 battles are played, and each player fire 5 shells in each battle, then there would have been fired a total of 15.000 shells. The server, with 100k players online, probably play 20.000+ battles each hour.

 

Are you telling me 3 unlucky shots in a row is unlikely to happen? The game has run for 7 years. When the samplesize gets astronomical, the most unlikely events start to occur rather frequently.



Dorander #12 Posted 31 May 2018 - 11:09 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17854 battles
  • 1,928
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 31 May 2018 - 09:41 PM, said:

If 100 battles are played, and each player fire 5 shells in each battle, then there would have been fired a total of 15.000 shells. The server, with 100k players online, probably play 20.000+ battles each hour.

 

Are you telling me 3 unlucky shots in a row is unlikely to happen? The game has run for 7 years. When the samplesize gets astronomical, the most unlikely events start to occur rather frequently.

 

Yes, but that's not the point here. The point is that you first have to generate a situation in which such events can occur unintentionally in the first place. As it stands we have no reason to assume the chance of this happening was astronomically small at all. Player actions aren't simply the result of random chance, there's intentionality behind them. In any decision making process in which one is NOT careless, repeating the same accident in the same scenario is far less likely to happen that repeating an identical accident in seperate situations, even though if you snapshot the exact moment and all accuracy and cover factors happen to be identical and thus the chance of it happening are exactly the same.

 

Fact is, people aren't robots (according to current philosophical anthropology anyway).



Element6_TheSprout #13 Posted 31 May 2018 - 11:29 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28638 battles
  • 10,044
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostDorander, on 31 May 2018 - 11:09 PM, said:

 

Yes, but that's not the point here. The point is that you first have to generate a situation in which such events can occur unintentionally in the first place. As it stands we have no reason to assume the chance of this happening was astronomically small at all. Player actions aren't simply the result of random chance, there's intentionality behind them. In any decision making process in which one is NOT careless, repeating the same accident in the same scenario is far less likely to happen that repeating an identical accident in seperate situations, even though if you snapshot the exact moment and all accuracy and cover factors happen to be identical and thus the chance of it happening are exactly the same.

 

Fact is, people aren't robots (according to current philosophical anthropology anyway).

Well, the player has fired a total of 5 shells, 3 of which has hit. It is possible one was a snapshot that accidentally hit a moving ally, one could have been an attempt at sniping, possibly careless, that got fubared by bad accuracy RNG and the third could have been a blindfire at a bush out of render range that hit an ally also out of render range, with two misses in between. If such is the actual events, it seems very unlikely to be intentional. But, it's hard to tell without a replay.

 

All I am saying is that it is easy to jump to conclusions and accuse a player. Tings can change on the battlefield with that kind of reload, he could also possibly have relocated etc.

 

Then again, all 5 shells can of course have been deliberately aimed at allies, not denying that. But nothing is certain from that screenshot alone.



Dorander #14 Posted 31 May 2018 - 11:48 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17854 battles
  • 1,928
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 31 May 2018 - 10:29 PM, said:

Well, the player has fired a total of 5 shells, 3 of which has hit. It is possible one was a snapshot that accidentally hit a moving ally, one could have been an attempt at sniping, possibly careless, that got fubared by bad accuracy RNG and the third could have been a blindfire at a bush out of render range that hit an ally also out of render range, with two misses in between. If such is the actual events, it seems very unlikely to be intentional. But, it's hard to tell without a replay.

 

All I am saying is that it is easy to jump to conclusions and accuse a player. Tings can change on the battlefield with that kind of reload, he could also possibly have relocated etc.

 

Then again, all 5 shells can of course have been deliberately aimed at allies, not denying that. But nothing is certain from that screenshot alone.

 

This is true, but there's another thing to factor to consider here: what we know about how the autotracking teamdamage system works. Specifically, how fast one turns blue and starts racking up bans, and what has been stated about how it works: fully aimed shots at an ally accumulate more "points" in the system than fully aimed shots at an enemy which accidentally hit an ally. I can look up a source if you really need me to but it's late and I'm kinda assuming that to be common knowledge at the moment.

 

I can, from personal experience, tell you that the first and second shots, even when fully aimed at an ally, do not turn you blue if you do not otherwise typically do teamdamage (accidental or otherwise... and yea there was a situation with a WT Auf and a rock a few years ago, only time I ever locked aim at an ally and fired till I got a 1h suspension at the 4th shot). The FV215b 183, is blue, and has fired only three shots. This indicates that either he is prone to doing team damage (which means he's careless) or he was aiming at allies (which means it was intentional).

 

The only scenarios in which this is not true is if Wargaming has deliberately misinformed the playerbase about how the team damage system works, or that for completely unknown reasons the rules are not consistent. Both of these scenarios require an additional assumption that we have no reason to make. Ockham's razor suggests the FV's teamdamage was intentional or due to consistent carelessness.



Coldspell #15 Posted 01 June 2018 - 12:11 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 18708 battles
  • 2,108
  • Member since:
    08-12-2013

View PostBalc0ra, on 31 May 2018 - 07:01 PM, said:

It's still 3 shots. But yeah it shows my main beef with it.183 can do over 3K. A tier X light can do around 900 before he turns blue. Or a platoon of 183's can do over 6K without one turning blue.

 

I don't want the 183 to turn blue and get banned for one shot if it's a mishap. But.. there is a difference on what guns does it too. And IMO it should be fixed on alpha etc. Not just shots alone.  As 3 shots on a tier 1 differs from 3 shots on a tier X TD on the % of HP they can take off the team. And that's where it should go IMO. One hit is a mishap. One more on the next shot? Def not.

 

I was grinding the new italians and a friendly pz1c hit me by accident in cqc with a few stray shells from his autoloader..... insta blue.

soul3ater #16 Posted 01 June 2018 - 12:46 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 18541 battles
  • 619
  • [OMNIA] OMNIA
  • Member since:
    07-27-2012

guys like those and the ones who block deserve a special place in hell.

 

imo WoT should've a system like Dota where it tells you that they have taken action against someone toxic you reported recently. imagine getting that notification on your screen, must feel good knowing there is one less buttface on WoT.



Aikl #17 Posted 01 June 2018 - 01:28 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25150 battles
  • 4,200
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View Postsoul3ater, on 31 May 2018 - 11:46 PM, said:

guys like those and the ones who block deserve a special place in hell.

 

imo WoT should've a system like Dota where it tells you that they have taken action against someone toxic you reported recently. imagine getting that notification on your screen, must feel good knowing there is one less buttface on WoT.

 

Haha, no way. That would mean I can't even pretend like the 'report' function does something.

 

Generally surprised at the infrequency of toxic behaviour. First off, this is WoT we're talking about. Second, it's rather obvious that the automated system only really handles one specific type of behaviour - and that it's extremely easy to 'game' the system. Furthermore, parts of what the system can't handle is 'automatically' dismissed by the customer support as being handled by the automated system. It's clear that it isn't the case. Manual reports in regards to physics abuse seems to work fair, but manually reporting someone means wasting even more time on a random idiot.



XxKuzkina_MatxX #18 Posted 01 June 2018 - 01:57 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 45712 battles
  • 1,187
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

Well, one of the things that i wanted to try in Frontline was the disabled team damage. It was really a relief knowing that only the red tanks can damage you, definitely a step in the right direction. No more "sorry, my finger slipped" or "i don't like your tank so i'll kill it" stupidity.

Also the eternal argument of blocking and griefing increase in absence of team damage mechanic failed miserably. Most people want to play and enjoy the game and don't give crap about what you do or which tank are you playing aside from a few "spechul" vindictive morons like the one in the OP screenshot.



250swb #19 Posted 01 June 2018 - 08:15 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 21208 battles
  • 4,710
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 01 June 2018 - 12:57 AM, said:

Well, one of the things that i wanted to try in Frontline was the disabled team damage. It was really a relief knowing that only the red tanks can damage you, definitely a step in the right direction. No more "sorry, my finger slipped" or "i don't like your tank so i'll kill it" stupidity.

 

 

But Frontline isn't a properly competitive game where a player wins or loses stats, it is all about gathering as much loot as possible win or lose. Take away true competitiveness between players and no wonder removing team damage 'seemed' to work, you don't have the try hards with itchy fingers, or the butt hurts because they lost their previous ten games. Players team kill because of a poor emotional response to a situation, but in Frontline they know they'll earn credits anyway, and they'll also re-spawn anyway, so there's no point in team killing another player if they can come back from the dead.

 

It's all very well thinking that removing team damage will somehow make the game better, but I doubt the consequences have been thought about very much. There are of course other ways to disable or kill another player besides shooting them, but how are you going to feel when another player decides to take pot shots at you anyway, will you be able to concentrate on your game with both 'friendly' and enemy shells hitting you? Or consider how much more fun spawn will be with every idiot taking 'friendly' shots at the team. And while we all know there is no such thing as 'kill stealing' (but at the same time we all secretly think we deserved the kill) consider the practice of just blasting away at anything with no skill at all because there are no longer any risky shots that can kill teammates, who would want the game to descend to that level of play?



RamRaid90 #20 Posted 01 June 2018 - 08:17 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 20034 battles
  • 6,063
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostDeadLecter, on 31 May 2018 - 07:14 PM, said:

 

why not disable friendly fire at all? What is the reason for it being active in the first place?

 

Why shouldyou not be able to fire at trolls and consistant blockers. Half the time the bots who block have no idea they're doing it, being shot is the only way to make them move back or out the way.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users