Jump to content


Ghost Clans and delaying battles on global map


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

mistervanni #1 Posted 31 October 2018 - 06:21 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 25474 battles
  • 1
  • [RDDT] RDDT
  • Member since:
    01-04-2014

TLDR:dead clan with no intention to fight applies for landing just to delay battle for the defender, legal or not?

hello, after contacting support i was told to post here to see this issue addressed;

my clan had applied for a landing on the tier 8 map. noone else in queue, so straight to defending clan.

Later that evening, another clan aplies and we go on to fight, except they dont show up and we win the round.

I check the clan page out of innocent curiosity (we had noshow too in the past for lateness or disconnections so w/e) and see that they have 12 members

Jumping on wotlife, most of them arent even active in the last 30 days, so i exclude that they were even intending to fight. they also are not in an alliance with the "DEFENDING CLAN" so all i can surmise is that the dead clan was just used as a stopgap to delay the turn and let them fight us at a better time. They do that indeed (and win, but we are bad and didn't had any expectationsXD )

now i contacted support, as i remembered reading the issue of fake clans had been discussed (can't find source tho) and they told me to try it here top bring it to the attention of the "esport moderator"  as they are busy and not in the position to act on it.

 

I left out all names in this post (but not in the support one) as to not raise unnecessary issues if the thing is legal/accepted indeed.

i await to hear from you, esport moderator :D

best regards, giovanni



StinkyStonky #2 Posted 01 November 2018 - 04:48 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 34047 battles
  • 2,826
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    11-02-2015

It's possible that the dead clan just did this randomly.  One of the players messing about.  In which case there is little you/WG can do.

 

Or, one of the Land owner's players could have a player in this clan and they did it deliberately so that they didn't have battle clashes at a busy time.  In that case it's bad, but on the tier 8 map, I doubt anyone will do much.



mango91 #3 Posted 05 November 2018 - 11:51 AM

    Captain

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 43642 battles
  • 2,150
  • [ORKI] ORKI
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011

there's no rule which states that they can't do that

 

they have enough players to fight a tier8 CW. It's to be checked if they could apply for a tierX CW



RockyRoller #4 Posted 11 November 2018 - 11:04 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37952 battles
  • 1,575
  • [NR-NS] NR-NS
  • Member since:
    06-15-2016

I don't know.

If I ask your clan to do a favour and apply for a landing that would be in the spirit of alliances and just unfortunate if you only had 7 players able to get ready.

 

But on the other hand in the real world this use of ghost clans would be called ringing and seen as fraud. Go look it up.

A sporting club or sports person could end up getting banned for life as they were perverting the natural course of events as well as bringing the sport into disrepute. Then think of all the other things this can lead to in real life, like bet rigging, match fixing, these examples end up going to criminal courts to find guilt. There might even be EULA breaking if the ghost clan was purely made up with ebay accounts with the reason they can't show is the owners are fighting elsewhere?

 

WG should keep an eye on this because bad sportsmanship can lead to a game getting a bad reputations then all but the cheats leaving en mass. Clans should keep in the spirit of fair play, and not exploit the games weaknesses. Its better to lose with honour than win by exploiting. 



mango91 #5 Posted 12 November 2018 - 09:19 AM

    Captain

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 43642 battles
  • 2,150
  • [ORKI] ORKI
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011

View PostRockyRoller, on 11 November 2018 - 11:04 PM, said:

Clans should keep in the spirit of fair play, and not exploit the games weaknesses. Its better to lose with honour than win by exploiting. 

 

GM often had issues like this. you can call it "win by exploiting" I could see it as "playing within the rules border" someone else could think another way

 

It's far worse when you get backstabbed by "trusty allies" because you have to expect the enemy doing its best to win anyhow, but you shouldn't be prepared for a treason at any time

 

of course, that's my point of view



RockyRoller #6 Posted 12 November 2018 - 10:05 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37952 battles
  • 1,575
  • [NR-NS] NR-NS
  • Member since:
    06-15-2016

View Postmango91, on 12 November 2018 - 08:19 AM, said:

 

GM often had issues like this. you can call it "win by exploiting" I could see it as "playing within the rules border" someone else could think another way

 

It's far worse when you get backstabbed by "trusty allies" because you have to expect the enemy doing its best to win anyhow, but you shouldn't be prepared for a treason at any time

 

of course, that's my point of view

 

well like all situations you can walk round it and have 360 degrees of different views. But the two main degrees are what the perpetrator gains vs the victim. 

 

The perpetrator by using a ringer doesn't have to spend influence to alter the time by 15 minutes (I think I read that was an option somewhere, so is this theft of influence payable to WG?).

They get to fight elsewhere at the same time slot the ringer covers for them. So what might they have lost if no ringer was used? If they don't have the numbers to field two teams they have to use tactics to decide defend or lose that landing. When they don't have to choose they are literally having their cake and eating it at the victims expense. They have reduced a games risk vs reward to themselves, less risks for greater rewards, that doesn't sound like in the spirit of the rules to me at all. Is it a coincidence the OP hinted this was a high in the seasons rankings clan which was doing this ringing, would they be in the top 100 or lower if they never used a ringer clan? Would the clan below them denied a larger end of season reward because they had a ringer user above them? I think I could devil's advocate more, but I hope I said enough to suggest the use of ringers are bad for the game and only promote an unfair advantage.

 

The victim might have got a technical victory for a provence and all that entails rather than a big fat zero. Their tanks don't even get exp for the tanks for a potential kill of either ringers or main clan, nothing, just like the OP said. They saw a weakness (the army was elsewhere) and were prevent from using intelligence and tactics to take a province. They get denied any mission goals being done.

 

I just can't see it your way Mango, sorry, but I just see far too many reasons why it's not a good thing to do to the OPs clan. Its like defending the bankers for stealing by betting against derivatives because there was no law saying they can't bet against them, or Jimmy Carr when he used a scheme to avoid paying taxes, or the MP claiming expenses for cleaning moats/helicopter pads/Mars bars. We all know it was morally/ethically wrong, and they are only getting away with it because of a loophole.

 

 

 



Headless_Rooster #7 Posted 12 November 2018 - 11:10 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 11570 battles
  • 637
  • [E-VO] E-VO
  • Member since:
    01-04-2017

No matter how people dance around it, it's cheating IMO.

 

The question is, how best to police it, and sanction it.

 

Since the only way to police people with multiple accounts manipulating the system would involve WG being able to prove someone had multiple accounts, and most of the discovery methods could be worked around anyway, I doubt very much it can be stopped.

 

The inevitable result is the practice becomes standard, and the reputation of WoT e-sports degrades further. 



RockyRoller #8 Posted 12 November 2018 - 01:36 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37952 battles
  • 1,575
  • [NR-NS] NR-NS
  • Member since:
    06-15-2016

Well the OP highlighted the problems

 

1) how do you find them? Well the OP showed the way by using the metadata. WG will have far more of that data which they can access plus the good will of ISPs to confirm it.

 

2) WG don't have the time. Well this might be misleading. The complaints department might not have the time, or skills, or access to the metadata. But lets imaging WG have nobody on the payroll with the time to do much more than what they are doing now.

 

If this was the case, and I was the boss, I would call in a programmer and tell them this is the problem, I'm going to give you the job of mentor to two trainees or intern programers who will be tasked to find out how to detect, then invent solutions to catch them. ie coding

You will help them with tech advice with their programing or point them to staff who can aid them with that tech help.

We will refine their solutions, have interns work on them each year in case we get a genius that can improve the code. They will have something extra on the CV, we will get pertriatry anti cheat programing we can rent to other online games.

And lastly with this fantastic starter solution; flag RockyRollers' account with a lifetime of premium status for saving us consultant fees, solve the man hour problems, getting us a product that could make us at WG money, and saved our online reputation. That's the important part btw.



mango91 #9 Posted 12 November 2018 - 03:54 PM

    Captain

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 43642 battles
  • 2,150
  • [ORKI] ORKI
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011

I was playing the devil's lawyer (is this an english way of say too?) I'm bothered by this thing too, but I had to write that because, to me, it's a fact

 

I do agree that WG could do something, BUT (again) what if that 12 ppl clan really has 10 players who said "I'll be online tonight" and it sees its application deleted?

 

 

ps. there isn't anymore the chance to delay through influence



RockyRoller #10 Posted 14 November 2018 - 02:06 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37952 battles
  • 1,575
  • [NR-NS] NR-NS
  • Member since:
    06-15-2016

Well the metadata should tell them when 7 tried to gather at the invite start, or none at all. that will be when you need to compare ISP logs to see if the 7 just happened to have the same address as the main defending clan. Or even attacking? You could use ghosts to act like a fog of war on several provinces but your main clans attacking a different 4th provence. 

 

That's another reason to stamp them out and their usage. The damage to fair play is tremendous by the unscrupulous cheater types.

 

I guess the influence was a way to stop the need to cheat, but never worked so they use it for something else now.



04ahgy #11 Posted 17 November 2018 - 09:38 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 48585 battles
  • 109
  • [VTEPS] VTEPS
  • Member since:
    05-04-2012

View PostRockyRoller, on 14 November 2018 - 02:06 AM, said:

Well the metadata should tell them when 7 tried to gather at the invite start, or none at all. that will be when you need to compare ISP logs to see if the 7 just happened to have the same address as the main defending clan. Or even attacking? You could use ghosts to act like a fog of war on several provinces but your main clans attacking a different 4th provence. 

 

That's another reason to stamp them out and their usage. The damage to fair play is tremendous by the unscrupulous cheater types.

 

I guess the influence was a way to stop the need to cheat, but never worked so they use it for something else now.

 

IP address is personal data in EU, protected by GDPR. ISPs won't give it to WG voluntarily for WG, only the authorities can access it and only by a formal process. Secondly, just a theoretical example: I'm an university student and make a clan, 100 people and so on. A second clan is about to starting, but it has just 18 players. Both the second and first clan players play from the dormitory, and have the same IP. Now they are eligible for deletion and/or punishment, just becasue of these circumstances? External IP address is the same, but internal IP address of the clients differs because of the NAT-ting and so on...

RockyRoller #12 Posted 18 November 2018 - 12:19 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37952 battles
  • 1,575
  • [NR-NS] NR-NS
  • Member since:
    06-15-2016

They don't need to ask as the request for information is sent with the address of the requester or it will never return with the data it requires. So WG has the data of that ISP if they are in the habit of saving such things for other legal reasons. WG never has to share that data externally, all it needs to do is store it. Its an inhouse process to uncover if an account has moved from one locality (Germany) to another miles away (France) which happens to be the same as one of the clan member who should have been defending. = ebay or freaky coincidence two gay lovers are now living together. So why did one sho in one battle but not the other = ebay and he can't play two tanks at the same time.

FYI before the datalaw ISPs used to help concerned businesses to eliminate fraud, it was governments they don't trust. But the main reason for helping was it was kinder to the innocent ISP clients not to close them totally off from access to the business block because of one bad apple. So if you find yourself blocked access to a big site for no reason you can figure now you know what occured. Esp if they tell you to contact your ISP to gain access.

Crooks always think they are invulnerable and undetectable which is why prisons are full of them.

 

Strawman: this is not about clans which are real, starting out, or get occasional poor turnouts but ghost clans that never play or ever intended play, whose sole purpose is to shift battle times so the owner get to fight or defend elsewhere, both of which is fraud



jimmyjimmy123 #13 Posted 18 November 2018 - 09:52 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 30465 battles
  • 32
  • [JIMMY] JIMMY
  • Member since:
    12-30-2016
I doubt very much that WG care

Geno1isme #14 Posted 18 January 2019 - 01:36 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 48103 battles
  • 10,223
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

View PostRockyRoller, on 18 November 2018 - 01:19 AM, said:

They don't need to ask as the request for information is sent with the address of the requester or it will never return with the data it requires. So WG has the data of that ISP if they are in the habit of saving such things for other legal reasons. WG never has to share that data externally, all it needs to do is store it. Its an inhouse process to uncover if an account has moved from one locality (Germany) to another miles away (France) which happens to be the same as one of the clan member who should have been defending. = ebay or freaky coincidence two gay lovers are now living together. So why did one sho in one battle but not the other = ebay and he can't play two tanks at the same time.

FYI before the datalaw ISPs used to help concerned businesses to eliminate fraud, it was governments they don't trust. But the main reason for helping was it was kinder to the innocent ISP clients not to close them totally off from access to the business block because of one bad apple. So if you find yourself blocked access to a big site for no reason you can figure now you know what occured. Esp if they tell you to contact your ISP to gain access.

 

Whatever you're smoking, you should reduce the dose.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users