Jump to content


Why doesnt WG use trusted, mature, old players with experience to review replays?

cheating pushing abusing gold trusted world of tanks

  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

Isharial #21 Posted 13 May 2020 - 11:25 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 26621 battles
  • 2,755
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

I cant see how you can trust anyone to do "the right thing" for essentially free, and then how do you enforce that they do? who's going to police the "police" that just ban everyone they have to view regardless of whether it was just a fake report?

 

View Posteldrak, on 13 May 2020 - 10:55 AM, said:

I think it would do lots of good for the game.

 

In CS:GO you have to be pretty good at the game to be able to review replays.

 

They should make a system where you can watch replays (or parts of them) from the game client, with player names anonymized. Camera controls and playback options could also be updated a fair bit.


how "good" is good? 65% platoon players only? 4-5k average in TX? or higher?

 

i dont think any of those players are any better at fair justice if presented with a case, and they should not be trusted with the task just because they are suposedly "good" at the game. yes they might know the game's mechanics better, but that does not mean they are a good judge of when things are against the rules.

 

I don't think its a particularly smart idea if im honest. if you get anything at all in terms of recognition as one of these players (like a badge or an icon or even a name on a list on the website) then it becomes a vanity item people will want

this opens up scamming and more "for the pretty badge!"

 

 

 

 

 

 



eldrak #22 Posted 13 May 2020 - 11:37 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 54630 battles
  • 1,628
  • [GR-W] GR-W
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011

View PostIsharial, on 13 May 2020 - 10:25 AM, said:

I cant see how you can trust anyone to do "the right thing" for essentially free, and then how do you enforce that they do? who's going to police the "police" that just ban everyone they have to view regardless of whether it was just a fake report?

You use a system that requires a lot of the reviewers to confirm the case. 

Each reviewer gets a "trust factor" depending on how often their judgement coincides with other reviewers. If they have too bad numbers they're kicked out.

 

 



Jauhesammutin #23 Posted 13 May 2020 - 12:20 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 24287 battles
  • 1,239
  • [KANKI] KANKI
  • Member since:
    11-05-2013

View PostIsharial, on 13 May 2020 - 10:25 AM, said:

I cant see how you can trust anyone to do "the right thing" for essentially free, and then how do you enforce that they do? who's going to police the "police" that just ban everyone they have to view regardless of whether it was just a fake report?

 

I don't think its a particularly smart idea if im honest. if you get anything at all in terms of recognition as one of these players (like a badge or an icon or even a name on a list on the website) then it becomes a vanity item people will want

this opens up scamming and more "for the pretty badge!"

 

The system could work quite well.

 

First players need to report players in-game. One gets X amount of reports per day/week/month/whatever and gets on the watch-list.

The replay(s) of the reported player is then shown for the "reviewers".

There has to be some rules for who can apply for the program. Like at least 5000 battles and 2 T10 tanks or something similar so you can't just create new account and review cases.

Every reviewer then has their own score. It could be formed from two factors: recent game activity and review history. If you play a lot, get good WTr (WoT rating) and your reviews are on par with the majority of other reviewers your verdicts weigh more than the verdicts of someone who plays once a year and disagrees with the majority of other reviewers. (Everyone starts from low of course)

Once the case gets enough reviews the case gets closed and the suspect gets either punished or not. The punishment should be only temporary (1-3 day ban max).

If the same player gets reported and punished multiple times then the case is moved to WG staff who then can decide if the suspect needs longer ban.

 

I don't really see any negative in this. There's no way to "scam" within this system. Unless you trick the whole community to give false verdicts which at point you might just as well trick the WG staff to do the same thing.

 

The only problem with this is that we don't have a replay system which would support it.

 



Nishi_Kinuyo #24 Posted 13 May 2020 - 12:27 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 11207 battles
  • 7,551
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View Posteldrak, on 13 May 2020 - 11:37 AM, said:

You use a system that requires a lot of the reviewers to confirm the case. 

Each reviewer gets a "trust factor" depending on how often their judgement coincides with other reviewers. If they have too bad numbers they're kicked out.

Until you realise the amount of work necessary for the amount of reports per day...



Element6 #25 Posted 13 May 2020 - 12:34 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 33475 battles
  • 12,065
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 13 May 2020 - 12:27 PM, said:

Until you realise the amount of work necessary for the amount of reports per day...

Yeah...

 

An arbitrary example would be 60k players online that play 4 battles each/hour = 8k battles. If reportworthy stuff happens in 1% of those that would be 80 replays to review. Then there would be 23 hours left of that day. Even with a rate of 0,1% of battles generating reports WG would be looking at around 200 replays a day.

 

0,1% seems unrealistically low though.



jabster #26 Posted 13 May 2020 - 12:53 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12854 battles
  • 28,062
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostElement6, on 13 May 2020 - 11:34 AM, said:

Yeah...

 

An arbitrary example would be 60k players online that play 4 battles each/hour = 8k battles. If reportworthy stuff happens in 1% of those that would be 80 replays to review. Then there would be 23 hours left of that day. Even with a rate of 0,1% of battles generating reports WG would be looking at around 200 replays a day.

 

0,1% seems unrealistically low though.

The issue I have with what the OP is suggesting is that from posts on the forum the ticket system can be considered to work so they are solving a problem that doesn't exist.



1ucky #27 Posted 13 May 2020 - 01:21 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 92881 battles
  • 2,051
  • [THRIL] THRIL
  • Member since:
    11-05-2013

View Posteldrak, on 13 May 2020 - 11:37 AM, said:

You use a system that requires a lot of the reviewers to confirm the case. 

Each reviewer gets a "trust factor" depending on how often their judgement coincides with other reviewers. If they have too bad numbers they're kicked out.

Agreement or trust are not the same as justice or truth.

 

Voting each other up is nothing but gaming the system for personal gain. That's not judgement. That's fraud.


Edited by 1ucky, 13 May 2020 - 01:24 PM.


JCD3nton #28 Posted 13 May 2020 - 01:41 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 31812 battles
  • 369
  • Member since:
    11-29-2013

World of Tanks.

Mature, trusted players.

 

Pick one.



eldrak #29 Posted 13 May 2020 - 01:48 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 54630 battles
  • 1,628
  • [GR-W] GR-W
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 13 May 2020 - 11:27 AM, said:

Until you realise the amount of work necessary for the amount of reports per day...

What do you mean? For WG it's less works as they no longer has to have staff to review replays.

For players it's as much as or as little as anyone wants as you choose yourself how many you want to review.

12:53 Added after 4 minute

View Post1ucky, on 13 May 2020 - 12:21 PM, said:

Agreement or trust are not the same as justice or truth.

It's really not different from any other court system currently used in western civilization.

 

Block Quote

 Voting each other up is nothing but gaming the system for personal gain. That's not judgement. That's fraud.

 elaborate? Everyone can be anonymous, both jury and accused.

 



Venom7000 #30 Posted 13 May 2020 - 04:45 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 9049 battles
  • 884
  • Member since:
    03-10-2018

What about:
1. Nationality discrimination (your judge really hates a certain nationally)?

2. Sees a fellow clan member? (Cant say that all would be impartial. Unless they redact names and just put "suspect" for their user name)

3. On this forum I see people with amazing stats and battle counts. Still act like babies and call anyone who bested them a cheater.
http://forum.worldof...3#entry17825183

(This expert's thread was just above yours). Do you want this guy to decide what is cheat?!

 

In theory good idea. In practice, WOT community is a cesspool. (Both forum and in game)


Edited by Venom7000, 13 May 2020 - 04:49 PM.


Nishi_Kinuyo #31 Posted 13 May 2020 - 04:56 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 11207 battles
  • 7,551
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View Posteldrak, on 13 May 2020 - 01:48 PM, said:

What do you mean? For WG it's less works as they no longer has to have staff to review replays.

For players it's as much as or as little as anyone wants as you choose yourself how many you want to review.

Which doesn't reduce the amount of work required to check all of it, it merely shifts it to others.

And if it needs to be reviewed by say... at least 5 people, then that quintuples the amount of people having to review it; effectively making it five times as much work.

View PostElement6, on 13 May 2020 - 12:34 PM, said:

Yeah...

 

An arbitrary example would be 60k players online that play 4 battles each/hour = 8k battles. If reportworthy stuff happens in 1% of those that would be 80 replays to review. Then there would be 23 hours left of that day.

Even if we take this arbitrary example; we'd be looking at around... 80×24=1920 battles per day that need reviewing.

Assuming that each battle lasts 6 minutes and has to be reviewed in its entirety, then we're looking at around... 192 hours per day that needs to be reviewed.

And with the peer review suggestion, that likely means 192 hours divided by X amount of people who can be arsed to do so.

So how many highly skilled players do you think are willing to even participate in this? Ten? A Hundred? Over eight thousand?



Cobra6 #32 Posted 13 May 2020 - 04:58 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16624 battles
  • 18,518
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View PostTankkiPoju, on 13 May 2020 - 10:19 AM, said:

Maybe we could program some rudimentary logic in detecting cheaters and bots:

 

If (clanname.equals( "FAME" ) {

   hacks_confirmed_issue_ban();

} else {

  working_as_intended();

}

 

 

That is very rudimentary!

 

I would go for a loop,much more effective!

 

int x = 1;

bool permaBan = 0;

 

if (clanName = 'Fame' )  {

   for(int i=0,i<5,i++){

   int banTimeHours = 12;

   banTimerHours * x;

   x++;

   }

   permaBan = 1;

} else {

   working_as_intended();

}

 

return 0;

 

Cobra 6


Edited by Cobra6, 13 May 2020 - 04:59 PM.


Hedgehog1963 #33 Posted 13 May 2020 - 05:32 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 58414 battles
  • 7,926
  • [DIRTY] DIRTY
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011
They'd have to build a second internet to cope with the posts from players complaining that they were rejected by the programme.

TankkiPoju #34 Posted 13 May 2020 - 05:55 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 25893 battles
  • 8,023
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View PostCobra6, on 13 May 2020 - 04:58 PM, said:

 

That is very rudimentary!

 

I would go for a loop,much more effective!

 

int x = 1;

bool permaBan = 0;

 

if (clanName = 'Fame' )  {

   for(int i=0,i<5,i++){

   int banTimeHours = 12;

   banTimerHours * x;

   x++;

   }

   permaBan = 1;

} else {

   working_as_intended();

}

 

return 0;

 

Cobra 6

 

I think this program would be inline with WG's quality standards if you made this change to end:

 

int x = (int)(Math.random() * 10);

return 0/x;

 



Homer_J #35 Posted 13 May 2020 - 06:07 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Moderator
  • 33937 battles
  • 38,460
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostStig_Stigma, on 12 May 2020 - 10:44 PM, said:

As the title says, why doesnt WG try and create a system where they start selecting a few trusted, mature, old players and make them review replays sent through the tickets, so all the players who push and block get punished?

 

These reviewers could get rewarded with some gold for their time.

 

Pros, cons? 

 

How many "volunteers" do you think you would get, how many replays do you think would be submitted a day, and how many people would you want to review each replay to avoid any bias?

 

Personally I don't think you will get enough volunteers.

 

And if you do then you create another level of work for WG fielding appeals against bans handed out by volunteers.


Edited by Homer_J, 13 May 2020 - 06:09 PM.


Pansenmann #36 Posted 13 May 2020 - 06:32 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 38392 battles
  • 14,709
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-17-2012

I would do it if wg sends a proper work contract with above standard payment

even for 8h a day.



Kartoshkaya #37 Posted 13 May 2020 - 06:40 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 30026 battles
  • 1,035
  • [S4BRE] S4BRE
  • Member since:
    01-01-2015

Probably because they noticed too that high playcount players with low skill are always saying the worst crapyou can hear in this game.



1ucky #38 Posted 13 May 2020 - 06:48 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 92881 battles
  • 2,051
  • [THRIL] THRIL
  • Member since:
    11-05-2013

View Posteldrak, on 13 May 2020 - 01:48 PM, said:

(...) It's really not different from any other court system currently used in western civilization. (...)

You speak for yourself, and not for all courts of western civilization.

 

If you can't even get the most basic stuff right, you're just building trash ideas upon other trash ideas.

 

=> Better replace the trash in your groundwork with more solid/sensible stuff first, so you can start building something more proper from there on.

#Reason101

 



Spurtung #39 Posted 13 May 2020 - 07:07 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 82142 battles
  • 8,425
  • [USSRX] USSRX
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostIsharial, on 13 May 2020 - 10:25 AM, said:

I cant see how you can trust anyone to do "the right thing" for essentially free, and then how do you enforce that they do? who's going to police the "police" that just ban everyone they have to view regardless of whether it was just a fake report?

 

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?



anonym_tQMX6yoqYf0H #40 Posted 14 May 2020 - 03:21 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 118
  • Member since:
    07-03-2020
old trusted and mature people do not play wot





Also tagged with cheating, pushing, abusing, gold, trusted, world of tanks

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users