Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
dmb47

AFK solution

30 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

61
[AR15]
[AR15]
Beta Testers
130 posts
14,004 battles

OK--this horse is being flogged hard, but after today's 10 battle fiasco, it needs resolution.  I had an appointment cancel, and suddenly had about 1 1/2 hours of "Free" time.  I got 10 games in, and over the course of those games had 26 AFK ships.  Record was 4 ships that never even TWITCHED whole game.  My solution:

If the game determines someone to be AFK, divide up the costs of the rest of the team and apportion it to the AFK account/s.  I know if I am playing, I usually have at least two flags up.  Those cost me either money or time.  1 guy literally moved as the last salvo to kill him was on its way, and he complained we should have carried him til he logged in---8 minutes into the match--when we had him and our top tier BB platoon AFK.......

 

tl/dr:  Make AFK players pay for the cost of their teammates they screwed over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,027 posts
5,679 battles

I myself have not seen as many afk's as people claim on here, what I have seen since the EA French loot crates is people doing their multitudes of missions instead of trying to win..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles

One simple thing they could do about AFKs is have them give/take 0 points when sunk. Their absence hurts enough, without adding an easy point swing on top of it.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,043 posts
10,248 battles
15 minutes ago, dmb47 said:

OK--this horse is being flogged hard, but after today's 10 battle fiasco, it needs resolution.  I had an appointment cancel, and suddenly had about 1 1/2 hours of "Free" time.  I got 10 games in, and over the course of those games had 26 AFK ships.  Record was 4 ships that never even TWITCHED whole game.  My solution:

If the game determines someone to be AFK, divide up the costs of the rest of the team and apportion it to the AFK account/s.  I know if I am playing, I usually have at least two flags up.  Those cost me either money or time.  1 guy literally moved as the last salvo to kill him was on its way, and he complained we should have carried him til he logged in---8 minutes into the match--when we had him and our top tier BB platoon AFK.......

tl/dr:  Make AFK players pay for the cost of their teammates they screwed over.

And people wonder why I am so adamantly against people leaving the game before they have been sunk. This, right here, is a huge factor. After all, how many of these AFKers the OP describes are simple disconnects (which happens, and the servers sometimes seem especially poor in this regard), and how many took a look at the MM and/or used an XVM-type mod to preemptively decide the match was lost and, to put it aptly, abandoned ship?

I guess we'll never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,266
[SALVO]
Members
23,434 posts
24,054 battles
24 minutes ago, cometguy said:

One simple thing they could do about AFKs is have them give/take 0 points when sunk. Their absence hurts enough, without adding an easy point swing on top of it.

Most AFK's already get 0 XP.  About the only reasons you'd get any XP are (a) an enemy CV tries to drop on the AFK and the AFK shoots down some planes, or (b) some enemy gets into secondary gun range of the AFK and the AFK scores sec gun hits, or perhaps (c) the AFK spots an enemy DD which is then damaged either by the AFK's secs or by a team mate.  Basically, for an AFK to get any XP, the enemy has to get rather close to the XP to allow the AFK's automatic weapons and processes to do something.  OTOH, if a stealthy enemy DD merely stealth torps the AFK to death, it's still 0 XP, IIRC.

 

 

===

 

Oh, wait, are you talking about DOMINATION points?  If so, I don't think that you can deny the enemy team the domination points for sinking them, because otherwise, the team without the AFK now has more dom points at risk, rather than the number of dom points being at risk being similar if not outright equal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles
4 minutes ago, Crucis said:

 Oh, wait, are you talking about DOMINATION points?  If so, I don't think that you can deny the enemy team the domination points for sinking them, because otherwise, the team without the AFK now has more dom points at risk, rather than the number of dom points being at risk being similar if not outright equal.

 

Ya, I was talking about domination points. And while sure, the team without an AFK player has more points at risk, those points face a lower risk due to effectively uneven team size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
192
[NWOC]
[NWOC]
Members
787 posts
10,021 battles
51 minutes ago, dmb47 said:

OK--this horse is being flogged hard, but after today's 10 battle fiasco, it needs resolution.  I had an appointment cancel, and suddenly had about 1 1/2 hours of "Free" time.  I got 10 games in, and over the course of those games had 26 AFK ships.  Record was 4 ships that never even TWITCHED whole game.  My solution:

If the game determines someone to be AFK, divide up the costs of the rest of the team and apportion it to the AFK account/s.  I know if I am playing, I usually have at least two flags up.  Those cost me either money or time.  1 guy literally moved as the last salvo to kill him was on its way, and he complained we should have carried him til he logged in---8 minutes into the match--when we had him and our top tier BB platoon AFK.......

 

tl/dr:  Make AFK players pay for the cost of their teammates they screwed over.

And I goy disconnected in five games today. Got back in and on two of them I was sunk. On the other three I was at a major start disadvantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,134
[WOLF9]
Privateers
11,911 posts
4,602 battles
34 minutes ago, Goodwood_Alpha said:

And people wonder why I am so adamantly against people leaving the game before they have been sunk. This, right here, is a huge factor. After all, how many of these AFKers the OP describes are simple disconnects (which happens, and the servers sometimes seem especially poor in this regard), and how many took a look at the MM and/or used an XVM-type mod to preemptively decide the match was lost and, to put it aptly, abandoned ship?

I guess we'll never know.

The server monitor should be able to track whether a session was disconnected or exited voluntarily.   It isn't a hard problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
544
[WOLF1]
Members
2,849 posts

i like wow's bg setup, afk for 5 mins you are kicked, with a deserter flag which means you can't play the game for 1/2hr, and in his place, someone else in the queue is filled in

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,043 posts
10,248 battles
2 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

The server monitor should be able to track whether a session was disconnected or exited voluntarily.   It isn't a hard problem.

Makes sense, and it would be nice if the data was able to be applied that way (and sanctions handed out). Hopefully WG will do just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19
[_-X-_]
[_-X-_]
Members
202 posts
7,443 battles

Just drop the AFK out of the game, I would prefer not to even see the ship.

The server can handle the details of the connection and there would be less aggression directed at the afk/disconnected player.

(It's an interesting idea of crediting xp/repair costs to the team players, out of the afk 's account, for an inconvenience fee.  I find that amusing. :)  ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,023
[KNMSU]
Members
7,075 posts
7,668 battles
20 minutes ago, Gruntdog_3 said:

And I goy disconnected in five games today. Got back in and on two of them I was sunk. On the other three I was at a major start disadvantage.

Okay, and I am not trolling you, but I would seriously recommend you stop playing this until you upgrade your internet service. If you're getting booted that much, something is seriously wrong with your provider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,957 posts
6,187 battles

You can all dream, there are too many reasons for disconnects that happen without the players control for WG to punish anyone. They started that and players will quite the game left and right.....

Edited by Raven114

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,616
[RKLES]
Members
11,022 posts
12,551 battles
Just now, Battlecruiser_Lutzow said:

Okay, and I am not trolling you, but I would seriously recommend you stop playing this until you upgrade your internet service. If you're getting booted that much, something is seriously wrong with your provider.

It's possibly not the internet sevice, and more likely the Russian software and servers Wargaming uses based on how frequent and widespread bugs and stability issues can be in Wargaming games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,645
[OO7]
Members
3,846 posts
9,054 battles
2 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

It's possibly not the internet sevice, and more likely the Russian software and servers Wargaming uses based on how frequent and widespread bugs and stability issues can be in Wargaming games.

I have 30mbps internet and almost never get dropped from games.

If you regularly are getting dropped either your internet/computer are problematic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,957 posts
6,187 battles
3 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

It's possibly not the internet sevice, and more likely the Russian software and servers Wargaming uses based on how frequent and widespread bugs and stability issues can be in Wargaming games.

You do know the N/A servers are in the US!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,616
[RKLES]
Members
11,022 posts
12,551 battles
1 minute ago, Raven114 said:

You do know the N/A servers are in the US!

I know, but direct your attention to who writes the game code and likely provides the servers... main Wargaming HQ is Russian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
192
[NWOC]
[NWOC]
Members
787 posts
10,021 battles
6 minutes ago, Battlecruiser_Lutzow said:

Okay, and I am not trolling you, but I would seriously recommend you stop playing this until you upgrade your internet service. If you're getting booted that much, something is seriously wrong with your provider.

I am OCONUS in a third world country, I have no choices on ISP. The disconnects are not usually as bad as today. And yes something is VERY wrong with my ISP, so much so that they often do not charge me fees.

Point being, not every player is in the USA, so pse do not be over judgemental.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
723
[NEUTR]
Members
2,207 posts
8,769 battles

Your game is ready, enter the game?

 

YES                                                   NO

 

Fail to press Yes will remove the player from queue and rest of the players goes back to queue. 

 

WG is vehemently against implementing a check on game joining. They've been against it since WoT closed beta.  The only reason is probably reduce overall queue time, something that WG strive to do even if it degrades match quality. People must've reaaaally reeeeeaaaally placed queue time above all else in WG's market surveys. 

 

Which kind of begs the questions, wth other weird things people put in high priority?

Edited by NeutralState

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,957 posts
6,187 battles
2 minutes ago, NeutralState said:

Your game is ready, enter the game?

 

YES                                                   NO

 

Fail to press Yes will remove the player from queue and rest of the players goes back to queue. 

 

WG is vehemently against implementing a check on game joining. They've been against it since WoT closed beta.  The only reason is probably reduce overall queue time, something that WG strive to do even if it degrades match quality. People must've reaaaally reeeeeaaaally placed queue time above all else in WG's market surveys. 

And 5 minutes after you push yes, the phone ring's, your 5 year old falls down the stairs, the doorbell rings. and this list can go on and on!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
723
[NEUTR]
Members
2,207 posts
8,769 battles
3 minutes ago, Raven114 said:

And 5 minutes after you push yes, the phone ring's, your 5 year old falls down the stairs, the doorbell rings. and this list can go on and on!!!

Then simply make AFK auto bannable like chat reports. After X numbers of reports within Y period of time, the system checks if the "total distance traveled" (a metric game's already tracking) is zero, if it is auto ban for 24 hours. This has also been suggested and WG also rejected it.

 

WG's effort to reduce queue time makes the game looks more populated than it is, a good thing for FTP game, because when a multiplayer game enters death spiral, it rarely climbs out. WG's in house statisticians are pretty competent (compare to LoL's, which is laughable), they know the trade offs, occasional crapmatch vs appearance of a full player pool. 

Edited by NeutralState

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
108
[BAKED]
Members
918 posts
9 minutes ago, NeutralState said:

People must've reaaaally reeeeeaaaally placed queue time above all else in WG's market surveys. 

I do. Anything more than 30s is annoying. Anything above 1 min in randoms is simply unacceptable to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×