Jump to content


I have a suggestion (of sorts)

Suggestion?? AFK

  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

lnfernaI #1 Posted 08 April 2019 - 09:02 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 30856 battles
  • 3,998
  • Member since:
    09-15-2012

Players who are AFK for more than 180 seconds in Randoms,share a portion or entirety, of their credits (meaning,tank maintenance) for that battle among their teammates (in relatively equal proportions),regardless of it being a victory,defeat,or a draw. If they are AFK for 300 seconds,issue a ban for 5-30 minutes.

 

Spoiler

This is only an idea,therefore react to it as such. Call me names if you want. I'll take everything.


Edited by lnfernaI, 08 April 2019 - 09:04 PM.


The_Naa #2 Posted 08 April 2019 - 09:05 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 5199 battles
  • 664
  • [QSF-L] QSF-L
  • Member since:
    11-10-2017
i call if they are afk more than 3 minutes straight a dead team mate can take control of the afk players tank.

burbage1 #3 Posted 08 April 2019 - 09:16 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 451 battles
  • 43
  • Member since:
    09-09-2017

View PostThe_Naa, on 08 April 2019 - 09:05 PM, said:

i call if they are afk more than 3 minutes straight a dead team mate can take control of the afk players tank.

 

And get all the xp and credit. On the other hand, could take more than 3 minutes to get back from a system crash.

kubawt112 #4 Posted 08 April 2019 - 09:17 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 3378 battles
  • 532
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

Solid idea if you ask me. There shouldn't really be any issues with restricting someone from playing for a period of time to allow them a break to deal with whatever is more important than the game.

 

The only argument against it is frankly if it's worth the effort required to implement - and perhaps that you could 'tune' it in such a way that it would catch a fair amount of offenders, yet practically never give out an erroneous ban.



TPpie #5 Posted 08 April 2019 - 09:19 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 16230 battles
  • 156
  • Member since:
    05-08-2014

Players shouldn't be banned for something they don't have Any and/or Little influence or control over, especially when it comes to certain technical Issues, Imo. (Internet Disconnects/Power Outages/Game Crashes).

A person suffering a technical fault is already being denied from playing the game despite his/her wishes so what does punishing that person even achieve?

 

With that said, I've had several moments where I've Disconnected during battle (Internet issues beyond me) aswell as well as had Power outages and DC'd from battles, along with a handful of times of having crashed (CTD) during battle and I've never received a "Warning" of any kind (Atleast I've never been able to 'view' one even after I've logged back into the game.)

 

With that said, with that said it seems the game can properly detect if a person has DC'd.

 

Nonetheless, I think people who legit "AFK" (Don't participate while being in a battle) or simply leave the battle (Either by exiting or my closing the game while their connection was still active) should be warned/punished, so long as the distinction is made. (though I suppose WG could try to develop some concept to address a person having multiple connection faults in a relatively short period )

 

If such were the case, (at most it would require WG to tweak a few things) then your suggestions are fine either/or.

 

Spoiler

 


Edited by TPpie, 08 April 2019 - 09:22 PM.


WoT_RU_Doing #6 Posted 08 April 2019 - 09:23 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 53123 battles
  • 2,600
  • [-GY-] -GY-
  • Member since:
    07-20-2013

But how would you know that they are AFK?

 

Also, where the game knows that a player has deserted (NOT disconnected etc., but actually pressed escape and left the battle), it does blow his tank up when the battle ends, For that scenario it'd be able to share XP/credits I guess, but the amounts would be tiny (sometimes some spotting damage, but typically only on a loss as the spotting occurs mostly at your spawn area).


Edited by WoT_RU_Doing, 08 April 2019 - 09:25 PM.


lnfernaI #7 Posted 08 April 2019 - 09:27 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 30856 battles
  • 3,998
  • Member since:
    09-15-2012

View PostWoT_RU_Doing, on 08 April 2019 - 10:23 PM, said:

But how would you know that they are AFK?

 

By analyzing them in-game,or during replays. And generally,if they do not commit to battle. Hence the report reasoning being "Inaction / botting".

 



WoT_RU_Doing #8 Posted 08 April 2019 - 09:29 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 53123 battles
  • 2,600
  • [-GY-] -GY-
  • Member since:
    07-20-2013

View PostlnfernaI, on 08 April 2019 - 08:27 PM, said:

 

By analyzing them in-game,or during replays. And generally,if they do not commit to battle. Hence the report reasoning being "Inaction / botting".

 

 

That's different to afk...I've seen plenty of players do that, only to respond ".... off" in the ingame chat if you ask them to actually move their tank.

 



The_Naa #9 Posted 08 April 2019 - 09:30 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 5199 battles
  • 664
  • [QSF-L] QSF-L
  • Member since:
    11-10-2017

View Postburbage1, on 08 April 2019 - 09:16 PM, said:

 

And get all the xp and credit. On the other hand, could take more than 3 minutes to get back from a system crash.

 

the game might be over in less than 3 minutes

lnfernaI #10 Posted 08 April 2019 - 09:31 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 30856 battles
  • 3,998
  • Member since:
    09-15-2012

View PostWoT_RU_Doing, on 08 April 2019 - 10:29 PM, said:

 

".... off" in the ingame chat if you ask them to actually move their tank.

 

I would not be surprised if that was even a part of the code in the bot program.

 



burbage1 #11 Posted 08 April 2019 - 09:33 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 451 battles
  • 43
  • Member since:
    09-09-2017
The team shouldn't be penalised for an inactive tank though (one where the player hasn't made any move of mouse or keyboard from timer 0-3min). So even if it is a genuine disconnect, allowing a dead team member to take over the tank balances the match again. Trouble is, the first one or two team members that die probably aren't going to be the best...

WoT_RU_Doing #12 Posted 08 April 2019 - 09:43 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 53123 battles
  • 2,600
  • [-GY-] -GY-
  • Member since:
    07-20-2013

View PostlnfernaI, on 08 April 2019 - 08:31 PM, said:

I would not be surprised if that was even a part of the code in the bot program.

 

 

Certainly possible, but the cases where they then go and drown if the battle looks like a loss shows that it's sometimes just someone who expects to be carried. Such cases should certainly be punished in my view, whereas genuinely afk players through connection loss should not be. 

 

I do see one major issue with your suggestion though, and this would stop WG implementing it - abuse by platoons:

- In a good player scenario, three of us platoon together, inflict carnage on the enemy, and when we've reached a decisive point in the battle, one of us goes afk while the other 2 mop up over the next 3 minutes. The AFK player's XP/Credits are partly shared to the other two, increasing their grinding speed, or whatever they were intending.

- In a bad player scenario, three of us platoon together, watch the battle, and all report the same person on our team in the hope of conning the system out of his rewards - the target might be the best player in the battle or perhaps someone the platoon see doing very little.

20:45 Added after 2 minutes

View Postburbage1, on 08 April 2019 - 08:33 PM, said:

The team shouldn't be penalised for an inactive tank though (one where the player hasn't made any move of mouse or keyboard from timer 0-3min). So even if it is a genuine disconnect, allowing a dead team member to take over the tank balances the match again. Trouble is, the first one or two team members that die probably aren't going to be the best...

 

I actually like this idea better, but there's still the problem of identifying the tank correctly as AFK if it hasn't deserted. There's also the problem that you can platoon with your own second account, and jump into your spare tank after you get killed.

Laatikkomafia #13 Posted 08 April 2019 - 09:48 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 23006 battles
  • 4,870
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    12-27-2010

View PostWoT_RU_Doing, on 08 April 2019 - 10:29 PM, said:

 

That's different to afk...I've seen plenty of players do that, only to respond ".... off" in the ingame chat if you ask them to actually move their tank.

 

 

 

If a player hasn't moved their gun, camera and hull for 180 seconds but replies to the chat, the player is basically afk.


Edited by Laatikkomafia, 08 April 2019 - 09:49 PM.


Balc0ra #14 Posted 08 April 2019 - 09:50 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 69698 battles
  • 18,721
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
 

View PostlnfernaI, on 08 April 2019 - 09:02 PM, said:

Inb4 you pull the whole ''what if their PC crashed or WoT crashed,or power outage happened,or they got nuked by North Korea,or got blasted with an orbital cannon from outer space'' argument - the player is part of the battle once he CLICKS or otherwise executes the BIG,SHINY,GLOWING,RED,RECTANGULAR,BUTTON with a ''BATTLE!" slapped on it.

 

Well true, but the current system is built around giving a bit of leeway on mishaps that can happen. Just like team damage is. You don't' get banned for one hit. And even so, you might just punish players with a slow PC or HHD that takes more than 300 seconds to reboot and fire up the game. As now the system gives you zero XP and credits if you afk, or idle too much over a short period of time. 

 

View PostLaatikkomafia, on 08 April 2019 - 09:48 PM, said:

 

 

If a player hasn't moved their gun, camera and hull for 180 seconds but replies to the chat, the player is basically afk.

 

 

That's basically half the lights doing LT-15. As my LT-15 on the Obj, I went afk to get a drink.


Edited by Balc0ra, 08 April 2019 - 09:51 PM.


Laatikkomafia #15 Posted 08 April 2019 - 09:56 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 23006 battles
  • 4,870
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    12-27-2010

View PostBalc0ra, on 08 April 2019 - 10:50 PM, said:

I went afk to get a drink.

 

Thus the system would work as intended. 



WoT_RU_Doing #16 Posted 08 April 2019 - 09:58 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 53123 battles
  • 2,600
  • [-GY-] -GY-
  • Member since:
    07-20-2013

View PostLaatikkomafia, on 08 April 2019 - 08:48 PM, said:

 

 

If a player hasn't moved their gun, camera and hull for 180 seconds but replies to the chat, the player is basically afk.

 

No, afk is not quite the same as inactive/botting, which is why I asked the question. Inactive/botting annoys me far more than an afk player (i.e. name still grey on the battle panel). Infernal then clarified that actually his proposal was to cover such situations as well. I was just confused initially why the concentration on AFK  players, I think a good starting point would be the deserters, but as I said above, I can't see a way they could implement something that isn't open to abuse.

1ncompetenc3 #17 Posted 08 April 2019 - 09:59 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 37804 battles
  • 11,603
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013
Bans might be a bit much, but a penalty in the form of donating XP and credits to teammates sounds like a plan. Are AFK'ers that much of a problem though? I only recently reinstalled but I only recall seeing someone AFK once since then.

Jigabachi #18 Posted 08 April 2019 - 10:06 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17948 battles
  • 20,749
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

No need to punish a player for a single match he joined too late, especially not with a ban. That's silly.

Real-life > playing games.


Instead, let the system calculate the average afk time of a player. If it reaches X seconds per match, X% of the player's income is used to lower the repair-/resupplycost of all other players in the team until the afk time drops below X seconds again.


Edited by Jigabachi, 08 April 2019 - 10:10 PM.


burbage1 #19 Posted 08 April 2019 - 10:15 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 451 battles
  • 43
  • Member since:
    09-09-2017
What about the game locks the matched tank on the other team as well and WOT sends the name and address of the AFK player to the player they just shafted.

1ncompetenc3 #20 Posted 08 April 2019 - 10:17 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 37804 battles
  • 11,603
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View Postburbage1, on 08 April 2019 - 10:15 PM, said:

What about the game locks the matched tank on the other team as well and WOT sends the name and address of the AFK player to the player they just shafted.

 

That sounds like a very WG way of dealing with the issue. Expect this to be implemented later this year.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users