Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Ducky_shot

WG BANNING players for making game play errors.

105 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

8,503
[GGWP]
Privateers
7,649 posts
18,514 battles

I came across this interesting thread on reddit this morning:

In it, a players was playing a DD, got double radared and died very early in the game. He logged in the next day and WG banned him for rigging the game and will not overturn his ban. Lets go over that again: WG banned a DD player who made a stupid play and died because of it. THIS IS PRECISELY THE SCENARIO WG GAVE IN THEIR DEFENSE OF CARRIERS IN THE DD/CV INTERACTION:

Quote

On the whole, we think that interaction between CVS and DDs is okay. First of all, CV's rework decreased the gap between skilled and unskilled CV players. Inexperienced DD players die quickly in battles even without CVs because they cannot get used to that class's gameplay features. So in the nearest future we are not planning any major changes in that direction.

So not only will WG do nothing to help the survivability of DD's in the DD/CV interaction, they mock lower skilled DD players for being bad at the game and then BAN THEM for poor play.

This is an absolute outrage. Players everywhere should be concerned about incurring a ban because you make a stupid mistake at the beginning of a game that someone reports as collusion or rigging.

Edited by DuckyShot
  • Cool 17
  • Funny 4
  • Boring 3
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
126
[WPS]
Members
181 posts
8,706 battles

Holy hell...

As bad as this might be, maybe it is a solution to the muddied waters that is now tier 10 game play? IDK

Seems to me a skill based MM would be a better solution *shrugs*

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
831
[-Y-]
Members
843 posts
61 battles

dds and cvs really are at the opposite ends of the spectrum, in terms of skill/ability, survivability, and treatment by Wargaming Support. 

Imagine, just for one second, a CV player being banned for bad gameplay? Quite right, impossible, unimaginable, not least because their chances of being sunk are so low. 90% of the cv player population would be banned, if their were equal treatment of gameplay suspension for bad gameplay (we can dream). 

I am happy for bad gameplay to result in bans, as long as it applies to all, equally, whatever warship class they favour, and that the bans take into account, the difficulty of doing well in a particular class. If such a policy existed, I suspect 

15% of dd population  would be banned

25% of light cruiser population banned

45% of heavy/supercruiser population banned

70% of battleship population banned

90% of cv population banned (and good riddance)

The quality of random battles would shoot up, instantly.

Edited by HonniSoitQuiMalYPense
  • Cool 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,477
[FOXY]
Members
3,226 posts
8,096 battles

What the hell? TIL bad plays = rigging the game, but yet they wont ban players who do team damage on purpose because the auto system "works" >.>

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SuperTest Coordinator, Beta Testers
7,133 posts
13,586 battles

While the OP in question may be an innocent victim, I posit to you the following question.

 

These are the actual stats of an actual player in Random from the past week.

image.thumb.png.3031b72868d8e6508ff14b359bc1d370.png

The player in question actually tries really hard in Iowa. Actual respectable play.

On the other hand, he goes AFK in the Missouri, or just enough that he doesn't go Pink/Orange.

image.thumb.png.9dea4182f868dd46fe73d35e5022dbbf.png

Is this a bannable offense?

Edited by Compassghost
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18,568
[ARGSY]
Members
25,533 posts
19,680 battles
9 minutes ago, DuckyShot said:

and then BAN THEM for poor play.

Have you watched the replay yet?

I've got a feeling there's more to this than meets the eye.

  • Cool 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,059
[WOLFG]
Members
13,388 posts
12,784 battles
3 minutes ago, Hapa_Fodder said:

 

I assure you, if this player was suspended it was not because they made "a stupid mistake" or that they only all of a sudden did something. It takes quite a bit of evidence over quite a bit of time (battles) in order to have this occur.

 

I will say that there have been a number of players that have not "played as intended" and taken quite a while to be dealt with.

Anyone remember previous mission leaderboards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,480
[D-H-O]
-Members-
4,756 posts
16,509 battles
12 hours ago, DrHolmes52 said:

I will say that there have been a number of players that have not "played as intended" and taken quite a while to be dealt with.

Anyone remember previous mission leaderboards?

And this is what I mean essentially.

It takes QUITE a lot of evidence across a long time to get an account suspended AT ALL.

-Hapa

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
831
[-Y-]
Members
843 posts
61 battles
10 minutes ago, Hapa_Fodder said:

First of all, I will say you don't know ALL that is going on in any report. How much digging CS did, how often this player may have played in violation of the EULA etc.

For a player to get their account suspended are you aware of how many reports with proof of someone "playing as not intended" it takes to get an account suspension? I would guess no.

It CLEARLY states in the EULA if you do not play as intended this is a violation.

I assure you, if this player was suspended it was not because they made "a stupid mistake" or that they only all of a sudden did something. It takes quite a bit of evidence over quite a bit of time (battles) in order to have this occur.

-Hapa

-Hapa

this is an EU server account, stats are public so we can all see what is going on (without publishing anything sensitive here)? This account has relatively few battles, with a WR and dmg averages that lie within the standard distribution of player results, nothing exceptionally bad. I don't trust WG player support, to always make the right judgement, they have in the past made some very bad decisions which have been made public. Nobody is perfect, not even WG staff. A hasty overeager decision to ban is more than possible.

 

Let me add, this is clearly a new player (not just a new account) who has been enabled by the premium shop and WG policy to sell premium warships of end game content, to brand new accounts, to players who have a very limited understanding of the game. It is not their fault that they do badly. Not their fault, but most clearly, yours (Wargaming's) I say this with 100% confidence (that this is a new player with a generous wallet)

Edited by AlwaysNegative
  • Thanks 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,061
[NYAAR]
Members
2,980 posts
15,923 battles

yeah....I'm going to go with the Reddit poster is leaving something out.

 

When people are chat banned, it usually isn't because of one report, but a series of reports that show a pattern.

So I'm going to say while he likely did a dumb thing in this one battle that gave someone the impression he was throwing the battle, there are likely other reports behind this one that give CS the idea something malicious is going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,313
[0456]
Members
3,824 posts
10,091 battles
23 minutes ago, DuckyShot said:

I came across this interesting thread on reddit this morning:

Okay I guess since you found it on reddit it must be true with no relevant back story so outrage is mandatory. 

 

"Come on man!" 

Edited by _ENO_
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
126
[WPS]
Members
181 posts
8,706 battles
1 minute ago, _ENO_ said:

Okay I guess since you found it on reddit it must be true with no relevant back story so outrage is mandatory. 

 

"Come on man!" 

Wait...
is this not proper behavior?

I'm confused....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
831
[-Y-]
Members
843 posts
61 battles
8 minutes ago, Hapa_Fodder said:

And this is what I mean essentially.

It takes QUITE a propensity of evidence across a long time to get an account suspended AT ALL.

-Hapa

This player hasn't enough battles for their to be a propensity of evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,313
[0456]
Members
3,824 posts
10,091 battles
1 minute ago, Malware_Mel said:

Wait...
is this not proper behavior?

I'm confused....

If in doubt, outrage is a safe bet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,503
[GGWP]
Privateers
7,649 posts
18,514 battles
14 minutes ago, Hapa_Fodder said:

First of all, I will say you don't know ALL that is going on in any report. How much digging CS did, how often this player may have played in violation of the EULA etc.

For a player to get their account suspended are you aware of how many reports with proof of someone "playing as not intended" it takes to get an account suspension? I would guess no.

It CLEARLY states in the EULA if you do not play as intended this is a violation.

I assure you, if this player was suspended it was not because they made "a stupid mistake" or that they only all of a sudden did something. It takes quite a bit of evidence over quite a bit of time (battles) in order to have this occur.

-Hapa

He looks like a slightly below average player with very few games. Actually decent stats for his number of games. 

https://wows-numbers.com/player/560671619,Cpt_Crocs/

There is more here than is being said on WG's part. There is nothing I see that would concern me about having him on my team or that he is a bit or intentionally throwing games. 

And yes, I'm aware how much "research" (or lack thereof) CS puts into tickets like this. That's precisely why I am concerned about it. 

  • Cool 7
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,313
[0456]
Members
3,824 posts
10,091 battles
1 minute ago, AlwaysNegative said:

This player hasn't enough battles for their to be a propensity of evidence.

Didn't he say he had 6-7 tier 10 ships? That's enough for 2 propensities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
126
[WPS]
Members
181 posts
8,706 battles
1 minute ago, _ENO_ said:

If in doubt, outrage is a safe bet.

OK thank god my default programming is still satisfactory!

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
831
[-Y-]
Members
843 posts
61 battles
2 minutes ago, _ENO_ said:

If in doubt, outrage is a safe bet.

the player's stats are public, you can see for yourself if you make the effort to find out more, that we can have reasonable doubt about the decision to ban/

Edited by AlwaysNegative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,477
[FOXY]
Members
3,226 posts
8,096 battles
1 minute ago, _ENO_ said:

Didn't he say he had 6-7 tier 10 ships? That's enough for 2 propensities. 

Apparently its really easy to get tier 10s in Randoms with premium time + Money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18,568
[ARGSY]
Members
25,533 posts
19,680 battles
7 minutes ago, AlwaysNegative said:

I say this with 100% confidence (that this is a new player with a generous wallet)

Explain to us, if you will, how this relates to his having committed the offence in a Gearing.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,480
[D-H-O]
-Members-
4,756 posts
16,509 battles
7 minutes ago, DuckyShot said:

He looks like a slightly below average player with very few games. Actually decent stats for his number of games. 

https://wows-numbers.com/player/560671619,Cpt_Crocs/

There is more here than is being said on WG's part. There is nothing I see that would concern me about having him on my team or that he is a bit or intentionally throwing games. 

And yes, I'm aware how much "research" (or lack thereof) CS puts into tickets like this. That's precisely why I am concerned about it. 

Sorry, you're completely wrong in "knowing how much research CS puts in."

Also, just because they have 1300 battles in game doesn't mean that they are not violating the EULA nor does it mean they haven't been warned.

Again, it takes A LOT to get an account suspended.

Also, just looking at their stats, with the amount of battles played and tiers of ships, TBH, I can say there is A LOT more goin on than just a "stupid mistake"

Also, specifically looking at their stats, since their numbers (if you order by number of battles) they are all over the place, which shows more than "simple mistakes"

-Hapa

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
831
[-Y-]
Members
843 posts
61 battles
6 minutes ago, _ENO_ said:

Didn't he say he had 6-7 tier 10 ships? That's enough for 2 propensities. 

honni soit qui mal y pense.

1k battles, the guy whales his way. Everything about his stats screams new player with generous wallet, who has shot oup the tiers, does ok in CVs (no surprise), does averagely in bbs, and badly in dds, all quite normal. If anything, this player is slightly better than the average of new players who insta whale to tier 10. Massive amounts of free XP conversion along the way, and no doubt, a great many loot crates.

3 minutes ago, Hapa_Fodder said:

Also, just looking at their stats, with the amount of battles played and tiers of ships, TBH, I can say there is A LOT more goin on than just a "stupid mistake"

 

Yes it is called the spending habits that you guys encourage, the spending habit that pays salaries and server rental/maintenance.

Edited by AlwaysNegative
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,187
[WOLF5]
Supertester
5,236 posts
4,354 battles
6 minutes ago, AlwaysNegative said:

This player hasn't enough battles for their to be a propensity of evidence.

That in itself may be a warning sign. Remember WG can look at everything, it doesn't necessarily have to be on the same account.

The bottom line here is there is quite obviously more to the story. It's not exactly uncommon for people to play the victim while conveniently leaving out certain relevant details. We don't know the whole story so can't really judge here. Although if WG was banning people just for playing poorly I think the playerbase would be a lot smaller...

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,873
[YORHA]
Members
5,451 posts
10,751 battles
1 minute ago, AJTP89 said:

... Although if WG was banning people just for playing poorly I think the playerbase would be a lot smaller...

7c687debe61f4b5aca1f1465811bbd05.jpg

  • Cool 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×