Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Amracil

Question about Update 0.7.4 Unsporting Conduct

15 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

224
[ICOP]
[ICOP]
Members
700 posts
11,715 battles

Regarding what I have made red below: 

-----

System for Prevention of Unsporting Conduct

World of Warships is a game in which players team up for a single purpose—outfighting the opponent at sea and in the air. But let's make it clear—players are all human. We all have emotions, and no man is wise at all times. It definitely won't do any good to your team if you miss a teammate's maneuver and send your torpedoes right into his path, or if you succumb to anger or frustration and send a salvo at your ally, or if you forget that you've already pressed the "Battle" button and go do something else. In World of Warships, we've always kept an eagle eye on, and tried to act up on players whose behavior does not always correspond to the rules of the game. The upcoming Update 0.7.4 bring in an enhanced system for tracking offenders, bringing it to a whole new level.

Like in the previous iteration, the main indicator of a player's status will be the color of their nickname. If it's white, the player has not committed any violations recently. A nickname that's gone pink means the player's had a warning and should mend their [in-game] manners. Orange color means the player's been punished for unsporting conduct.

Let's take a quick look at the main violations which can result in a warning or penalty followed by a change in the player's nickname color.

  • Inactivity in battle

  • Damage to Allies/Team Kills

  • Fleeing the battlefield

For violation of the rules, AFK/sleeping status in battle or fire at allies, the system will display a warning in the Port, informing the player of a change in their status and explaining the actions that entailed the change. If the warning does not produce the desired effect and the player continues to violate the rules, the next step will be a ban on entry to certain types of battles, in particular those where individual performance may affect the final result. To be allowed access to battles with real players in Random, Ranked and Scenario Battles, violators will have to play several Co-op battles against bots.

-----

Is this an automated system? Or are players able to click "AFK" within the karma reporting system as they do now? If players are going to be clicking "AFK" as they do now, has there been some consideration and efforts made to mitigate this function being abused?

If this has been addressed elsewhere, I apologize. It's been an extremely busy work week and I have not been able to keep up here they way I would have liked.

Thanks in advance to anyone taking the time to answer here.

Respects,

Am

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,200
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
5,338 posts
9,433 battles

So if an emergency pops up at home, pull the RJ45 plug, or use the control switch to turn off wireless Internet.  Same as a disconnect...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,200
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
5,338 posts
9,433 battles

Dear Wargaming:

If we have an AFK human player, how about making the corresponding bot also go away.

Battles are getting a bit dicey with two AFKs on a the human side....  especially a CV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,819
Members
5,574 posts
7,121 battles
2 hours ago, AVR_Project said:

So if an emergency pops up at home, pull the RJ45 plug, or use the control switch to turn off wireless Internet.  Same as a disconnect...

Yup, that crossed my mind as well.

@OP.. I would think if you just play normally, this shouldn't affect you.

Worse case you get a warning every now and then.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,200
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
5,338 posts
9,433 battles

Got a QUESTION here.....


If the warning does not produce the desired effect and the player continues to violate the rules, the next step will be a ban on entry to certain types of battles


Accidental torp hit..   Torpedo hits...    WARNING..

Flooding happens...   ANOTHER WARNING

More flooding Happens...   ANOTHER WARNING AND A 15 TK GAME PENALTY

Player sinks...  BANISHED TO CO-OP FOR A WEEK.

..

..

I would hope the system could take simple GAME MECHANICS into account when doling out punishment...   The above example WILL happen under the automatic system.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34
[-AVA-]
Members
137 posts
7,218 battles

And the problem with this is. . .what?

Accidental or otherwise, if you launch the torp you own whatever damage it causes, friendly or otherwise. If the person/bot floods, the weapon worked as intended. If more flooding happens, the person/bot is probably experiencing a cooldown of the applicable consumable and unable to stop it. Again, working as intended. If the player/bot sinks, your torp fulfilled its reason for existence. Mission accomplished. If you launched the torp in the direction of a friendly, accidental or otherwise, these are the consequences of your actions just like everyone else in the exact same boat, no pun intended.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38
[NSC]
[NSC]
Members
200 posts
3,864 battles

I'm thinking that they need to add the "forgive team damage" button. I know I'm not the only one that blundered into the path of a "friendly" torp or shell and got smoked as a result of not being able to repair the damage. I would like to have the option to not send that fellow to co-op battle purgatory.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,029
[PVE]
Members
5,319 posts
17,834 battles
45 minutes ago, Pigpen_721 said:

I'm thinking that they need to add the "forgive team damage" button. I know I'm not the only one that blundered into the path of a "friendly" torp or shell and got smoked as a result of not being able to repair the damage. I would like to have the option to not send that fellow to co-op battle purgatory.

I totally agree. Have on more than one occasion pulled an absolute stupid stunt without thinking and took a "friendly" torp causing my team mate to become pink. Apologizing profusely for my own idiotic actions does not seem to be enough. Being able to forgive the innocent "offender" would be a huge plus. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
562
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
1,808 posts
4 hours ago, syd_ said:

And the problem with this is. . .what?

Accidental or otherwise, if you launch the torp you own whatever damage it causes, friendly or otherwise. If the person/bot floods, the weapon worked as intended. If more flooding happens, the person/bot is probably experiencing a cooldown of the applicable consumable and unable to stop it. Again, working as intended. If the player/bot sinks, your torp fulfilled its reason for existence. Mission accomplished. If you launched the torp in the direction of a friendly, accidental or otherwise, these are the consequences of your actions just like everyone else in the exact same boat, no pun intended.

 

Problem is, you don't have to launch the torp in the direction of a friendly, there are plenty of players who see white torps as an opportunity to troll and will make 180 degree turns to rush over and intentionally get hit. 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34
[-AVA-]
Members
137 posts
7,218 battles
10 hours ago, KilljoyCutter said:

 

Problem is, you don't have to launch the torp in the direction of a friendly, there are plenty of players who see white torps as an opportunity to troll and will make 180 degree turns to rush over and intentionally get hit. 

 

Define plenty.

In all the battles I have played, I can think of one instance where someone possibly steered into my torps intentionally or didn't maneuver to clear them. Twice I have been sunk intentionally by a griefer, only to see in both cases where they spontaneously combusted doing so to others. I can think of a handful of times where I had to maneuver to avoid enemy fire/torps and ate ones launched by a friendly. I didn't move that way just to eat their torps but wouldn't have had to if the guy had kept his itchy finger off the torp trigger and used his guns instead, which may have saved me and deleted the threat at the same time. Point being that these cases are few and far between to nothing to get all that lathered up about.

I stand by my previous comment whether you agree with it or not. . .you launch it, you own it. And if some clown did as you suggest, do you really think he will bother to forgive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
562
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
1,808 posts
12 hours ago, syd_ said:

Define plenty.

In all the battles I have played, I can think of one instance where someone possibly steered into my torps intentionally or didn't maneuver to clear them. Twice I have been sunk intentionally by a griefer, only to see in both cases where they spontaneously combusted doing so to others. I can think of a handful of times where I had to maneuver to avoid enemy fire/torps and ate ones launched by a friendly. I didn't move that way just to eat their torps but wouldn't have had to if the guy had kept his itchy finger off the torp trigger and used his guns instead, which may have saved me and deleted the threat at the same time. Point being that these cases are few and far between to nothing to get all that lathered up about.

I stand by my previous comment whether you agree with it or not. . .you launch it, you own it. And if some clown did as you suggest, do you really think he will bother to forgive?

 

Has nothing to do with "forgive", it's the simple fact that the existing and in-testing systems fail to differentiate / distinguish based on which party actually caused the incident. 

At least once a week, I will see an incident in which the player hit by "white torps" is to blame, sometimes with multiple other players warning them in chat and with map clicks that they're running into friendly torps.  Whether it's malice or lack of awareness on their part, it's their fault when torpedoes have been in the water that long and are that spread out.  "White torps" at 8km shouldn't be surprising or sneaking up on anyone. 

And then there are the idiots who think that every green DD is laying smoke for their benefit, and try to slide in between the DD and the enemy -- either because they're just stupid, or because they're hoping to grief the DD by eating his torps. 

The idea that every "green on green" torpedo hit is the fault of the firing ship just doesn't hold up to reality -- "it's always the fault of the person who fired" is a contrived and convenient platitude used to excuse a combination of lazy programming and an unwillingness to even consider just ditching friendly fire entirely. 

 

And that's not even getting into the ships (players and bots) who think that the best place for them is as close to a red ship as possible, even if it's already under fire.  If someone is dumb enough to waste a full-health ship ramming the enemy, they probably deserve to eat some "friendly" gunfire. 

 

Fact is, many players already laugh and joke in game about another player being pink -- they don't look at them as some sort of inept player or malignant pariah, because most of them know how ridiculous the "TK penalty" system is and how easy it is to end up pink without doing anything actually wrong, without causing the incident at all. 

 

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
461
[LOU1]
Members
2,890 posts
8,004 battles

I believe the concept is to not fire torps that could damage an ally.  In the examples of maneuvering into friendly torps accidentally, the friendly torps shouldn’t have been where you could get hit by them.  That is the point of the system - don’t fire torps where they can strike an ally or be willing to pay the penalty.  And, yes, I have grumbled under my breath when I have died because I had to hold my torp or main gun shot.    But, I have died or been severely crippled many more times due to avoiding friendly torps.

Edited by ExploratorOne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38
[NSC]
[NSC]
Members
200 posts
3,864 battles

I've seen a lot on the forums of folks complaining of the [edited] in the game. Wargaming is responding as a result. I am concerned about the manner in which that response is going to behave in certain circumstances. In other circumstances, the response is justified and may well not go far enough. I have seen instances in battles where if someone's unacceptable behaviour is the norm, then the ban hammer should come down on them. Problem being it that when someone is disciplined for a string of unacceptable behaviour we have witnessed, we never know about it either.

When it boils right down to it though; When I run into someone that doesn't have the common respect for people to refrain from acting like a [edited] bag, I am going to have to spend 20 minutes of my life with this meathead and likely never see him again. Therefore, I have to question why get all cranked up about it? Some putz that made a sideways remark about my game play 5 years ago in WoT doesn't have the power over me for me to remember the instance at all... 

I found in a written exchange of opinion a reply such as "You seem to have me mistaken with someone who gives a crapabout your opinion." or "What makes you think that your thoughts matter to me?" pretty much shuts down the discussion. Its a game. There are arseholes in it, just like on the street. Those arseholes are going to cause grief in one way or another occasionally for a maximum of 20 minutes. Then they'll never be seen again. Put it behind you and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3 posts
18,914 battles

WoWships crashed through no fault of mine. When I rebooted the game I got the unsporting conduct warning. Please don't penalize the gamers for problematic bugs in the game.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5 posts
996 battles

Two days ago while playing, a DD bumped into me while I was traveling straight. He was turning and thus had the responsibility to maneuver safely. After getting flamed in the message area of the game, he fired his guns and damaged my ship. So I waited until the guns on my BB came on target and returned his treatment. Unfortunately, I sunk myself because the game system gave me the penalty.  This is wrong. He crashed into me, fired his guns hitting and damaging my ship. Returning fire seems to be far treatment on coming from me. The friendly fire penalty subroutine needs to include this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×