Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Taichunger

Why is this bot crap permitted?

60 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,973
[INTEL]
Members
8,838 posts
26,332 battles

I just encountered again today a "player" who is obviously a bot. Game after game in CVs, with 37% overall win rate. 682 games in Midway, 27% win rate/27K average damage. Saipan 789 games, 37% win rate/17K average damage. In the game we had with him today in Saipan, he finished last on our team with 38 base XP. He sent his fighters to one cap, parked them over an Atlanta, and left them there to be chewed up.

 

That's right. 38. Base XP. 

Why is this person permitted to ruin thousands of games for other players botting CVs? Again and again people have complained and reported him. Why is nothing done?

Please ban this person. 

  • Cool 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,973
[INTEL]
Members
8,838 posts
26,332 battles

It's easy to police. WG just won't do it. This player has been reported and reported and reported and reported. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,493
[GREPT]
[GREPT]
Beta Testers
6,739 posts
7,330 battles
3 hours ago, Taichunger said:

It's easy to police. WG just won't do it. This player has been reported and reported and reported and reported. 

Yeah, no it's really not. But hey, you've dipped into consipracy level BULL lately and honestly I don't understand why. Good luck taich. 

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,973
[INTEL]
Members
8,838 posts
26,332 battles
15 hours ago, Raptor_alcor said:

Yeah, no it's really not. But hey, you've dipped into consipracy level BULL lately and honestly I don't understand why. Good luck taich. 


What are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,332
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
5,594 posts
10,056 battles

How come I never face players like this?

This is the question most CV operators are asking.

The answer I found is that this 'bot' account could be a 'Double Agent'.  This is where one operator is operating two PCs - which is real easy to do on a CV.

The original player either sold this account or died.  The buyer is using it to pad their stats.

Just queue up at the same tier, and sync drop in both accounts.  Works great with a CV.

WG can lock this out by only preventing two different CV operators from facing each other more than once a day.

What you do is not just look up the 'poor' operator, but also the CV facing it.  If the numbers are inverted (i.e. 70% to 30% with same number battles) -- report them.

 

Edited by AVR_Project
(prevent -- not allow)
  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,973
[INTEL]
Members
8,838 posts
26,332 battles

Hmm... I've seen that, but I know this particular ship, seen it many times. But never with the same CV on the other side....

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,777
[PSP]
Members
6,683 posts
9,788 battles

I haven't seen many players that I could definitely say were bots. Also, what would be the purpose of programming an AI to play the game anyway? I suppose one might farm free XP that way but it seems sort of silly to me to do so. What I have seen were players who seemed to get distracted or overwhelmed early on in a game and then just went AFK so that their ships ended up stuck at a corner of the map somewhere. At other times what some would call a bot can just be chalked up to inexperience. I was just in a game where a Langley driver obviously had no clue as to what to do with his ship and everyone yelling at him in chat didn't do anything to alleviate his confusion either.

 

That said, and I notice it mentioned above too, I have played games where a clan intentionally put shills on the other team in order to throw a match, giving said clan the win. It's hard to do this here with random matchmaking but in the game I'm referring to we had game rooms where the game host could make up teams. One clan was especially bad about this. They would go out into chat and phish, stealing new player's accounts. They then would use these stolen accounts as shills to increase the clan's ranking. Eventually, a disgruntled clan member who had been kicked out the clan spilled the beans to the mods. The mass bannings were hilarious, as were the dozens of cheaters who came to the forums trying to justify their actions. Essentially, the entire clan of over a hundred got banned. This was not a free to play game either so in order to play it again those banned had to fork over another $60.

Edited by Snargfargle
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,973
[INTEL]
Members
8,838 posts
26,332 battles
15 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

I haven't seen many players that I could definitely say were bots. Also, what would be the purpose of programming an AI to play the game anyway? I suppose one might farm free XP that way but it seems sort of silly to me to do so. What I have seen were players who seemed to get distracted or overwhelmed early on in a game and then just went AFK so that their ships ended up stuck at a corner of the map somewhere. At other times what some would call a bot can just be chalked up to inexperience. I was just in a game where a Langley driver obviously had no clue as to what to do with his ship and everyone yelling at him in chat didn't do anything to alleviate his confusion either.

 

 

This CV player has over 600 games in Midway and Saipan alone. He's not inexperienced. He's just botting or something similar. I've seen several bot CVs, including one I wrote about in the forums a few months ago, where the CV game in a div of two bot Tirptiz-s. The Tirps orbited him while he played, acting as his AA. 

 

There's an easy way to put an end to it: require that you can't go up to the next CV until you have 50 games and a 45% win rate in your current CV. 

Edited by Taichunger
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,010
[SALVO]
Members
17,707 posts
18,486 battles
22 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

 

This CV player has over 600 games in Midway and Saipan alone. He's not inexperienced. He's just botting or something similar. I've seen several bot CVs, including one I wrote about in the forums a few months ago, where the CV game in a div of two bot Tirptiz-s. The Tirps orbited him while he played, acting as his AA. 

 

There's an easy way to put an end to it: require that you can't go up to the next CV until you have 50 games and a 45% win rate in your current CV. 

Heck, Tai, it might be nice if that sort of limitation was required of all non-premium ships when progressing from tier to tier.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,973
[INTEL]
Members
8,838 posts
26,332 battles
15 hours ago, Crucis said:

Heck, Tai, it might be nice if that sort of limitation was required of all non-premium ships when progressing from tier to tier.

 

Naw, the game depends on the CV. Most poor players can be carried, but not the CV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,010
[SALVO]
Members
17,707 posts
18,486 battles
1 minute ago, Taichunger said:

 

Naw, the game depends on the CV. Most poor players can be carried, but not the CV.

I was thinking more along the lines of players having to show a modicum of competency before being allowed to progress, as a way of attempting to improve the overall player base's skill level.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
791
[SF-A]
Members
2,949 posts
5,920 battles

It is easy to do, but frankly, this is why they won't do it:

 

Saipan/Kaga are excellent ships for trolling (especially TKs). Someone buys their way into a reroll (since the old ones are banned) and starts again. Repeat ad inifinitum.

 

For WG, they're raking in money from these guys, and don't want to stop it. In their eyes it's a ton of profit for a relatively small problem.

Edited by pewpewpew42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,777
[PSP]
Members
6,683 posts
9,788 battles
18 minutes ago, pewpewpew42 said:

For WG, they're raking in money from these guys, and don't want to stop it. In their eyes it's a ton of profit for a relatively small problem.

In the game I mentioned above, the development company (not naming names but it's one of the big ones) never would IP ban cheaters because they knew that an account ban would almost always create a new sale. I knew one consummate cheater who for some reason liked me (though I would never allow him to play in any of my games) and would always tell me what he was up to. He once said that he had bought 44 accounts and I believed it as I knew of over two dozen personally. That's nearly three thousand dollars he'd spent on the game. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
486
Members
2,734 posts
8,001 battles

Maybe he is just terrible. There are players worst than bots.

 

Anyway, is hard to police if he is a bot.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
178
[NEMO]
[NEMO]
Members
763 posts
7,160 battles
2 hours ago, AVR_Project said:

How come I never face players like this?

This is the question most CV operators are asking.

The answer I found is that this 'bot' account could be a 'Double Agent'.  This is where one operator is operating two PCs - which is real easy to do on a CV.

The original player either sold this account or died.  The buyer is using it to pad their stats.

Just queue up at the same tier, and sync drop in both accounts.  Works great with a CV.

WG can lock this out by only preventing two different CV operators from facing each other more than once a day.

What you do is not just look up the 'poor' operator, but also the CV facing it.  If the numbers are inverted (i.e. 70% to 30% with same number battles) -- report them.

 

If this were the case the simple solution would be to prevent two players connecting from the same IP address to play in the same game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,777
[PSP]
Members
6,683 posts
9,788 battles
19 minutes ago, Thraxian said:

If this were the case the simple solution would be to prevent two players connecting from the same IP address to play in the same game.

Unfortunately, there are many legitimate players who share IP addresses. I played games for years on an apartment complex's local network that sometimes had dozens of people routed through the same external IP address. If, say, a brother and sister both wanted to play WOWS on the home network then this would put them into the same boat.

Edited by Snargfargle
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,675
[OO7]
Members
2,229 posts
9,800 battles

You can reduce this dramatically if you disable random mode for players hitting extremely low thresholds. If they care so little to help human players or are that cognitively disabled to not recognize their impact, they won't care to be limited to co-op. 

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,973
[INTEL]
Members
8,838 posts
26,332 battles
16 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

In the game I mentioned above, the development company (not naming names but it's one of the big ones) never would IP ban cheaters because they knew that an account ban would almost always create a new sale. I knew one consummate cheater who for some reason liked me (though I would never allow him to play in any of my games) and would always tell me what he was up to. He once said that he had bought 44 accounts and I believed it as I knew of over two dozen personally. That's nearly three thousand dollars he'd spent on the game. 

 

It's incredible, how dumb people are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,777
[PSP]
Members
6,683 posts
9,788 battles
13 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

It's incredible, how dumb people are.

 

I suppose that you spend money on what's important to you. I've always been tight on money and thus frugal but I've still made some dumb investments, like my first three used trucks, which were pieces of junk. Of course, there's oftentimes a silver lining too. I learned a whole lot about automotive repair trying to keep those clunkers running and have done nearly all my own maintenance ever since, probably saving more than I spent on them. I don't know what the silver lining would be in cheating, unless you just wanted to become really good at hacking games. I guess that there are at least some people who make a living this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,332
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
5,594 posts
10,056 battles
1 hour ago, VGLance said:

You can reduce this dramatically if you disable random mode for players hitting extremely low thresholds. If they care so little to help human players or are that cognitively disabled to not recognize their impact, they won't care to be limited to co-op. 

I've let 6 year old kids play my Hermelin in Co-Op.. and I see a pattern.

At first, they can't hit anything.  Then,over the course of 2-3 matches, they are doing OK - making damage.

Then I pop in and I'm nailing citadels left and right and getting 5 kills.  Great RNG feels good.  Heck, I wasn't even aiming at times.

Turn it back over to the kid and he's struggling again.

Folks swear there is no 'handicap' system built into the game, but I see otherwise -- with troll RNG being the sign of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,098 posts
3,075 battles
5 hours ago, Raptor_alcor said:

Yeah, no it's really not. But hey, you've dipped into consipracy level BULL lately and honestly I don't understand why. Good luck taich. 

It's not that difficult to write and algorithm that flags bot-like individuals than have a human double check if the flagged person is getting "bot" reports, and then ban them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,709 posts
6,418 battles
9 hours ago, Taichunger said:

It's easy to police. WG just won't do it. This player has been reported and reported and reported and reported. 

Actually, nearly impossible to ban a player from an online game.  Just needs a free email account that can be gotten by the thousands and bongo - new account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×