Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Bavor last won the day on June 8

Bavor had the most liked content!

About Bavor

  • Rank
    Uses 105mm DERP on the M46
  • Birthday August 28

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    East coast USA
  • Server

Recent Profile Visitors

18,411 profile views
  1. I asked Wargaming support what passive play means and I received this response. "Excessive and repetitive passive play means that the system caught the player doing AFK on every game or the repeated act of playing passive in the game." It appears these players are violating the rules and Wargaming doesn't ban them even after reports with replays to Wargaming support. I guess its true what others said, Wargaming doesn't ban them as long as they remain paying customers. Look at stickygreen0 for example. https://wotlabs.net/na/player/stickygreen0 He has been banned multiple times and had his account reset for botting and intentionally playing like a bot, yet he comes back after every ban and never receives a permanent ban. It appears that when he actually tries to play with some efforts he gets green and blue WN8 stats. Yet, most of the time he suicides at the start ot camps the red line. I asked Wargaming support and received a response. So now I do have an idea what it means. I was correct in my interpretation. It does mean a person not participating and playing passively. Also they said I can submit tickets about those people intentionally not participating in battle.
  2. Actually in that case it is the same as being a bot according to Wargaming's own rules. Did you read the part that said, "any other similar methods to accumulate credits and experience without the participation or with passive participation of the player within the battle (excessive and repetitive passive play" and interpret it differently. They aren't being a bad player, they are the equivalent of a bot. I was using that player as an example of one of the many with similar behaviors I encounter in the game. There is a difference between using a player's behavior as an example and asking why Wargaming doesn't ban players like that and straight up complaining about one particular player. The best answer I was able to get out of Wargaming support in the past was rather vague, but I think the support person had no idea what it meant either and didn't bother to ask anyone before giving me a copy and paste response and closing the ticket. However, if you read the rule it seems to specifically describe the type of behavior I mentioned in the first post using that player as an example of one of the many I've encountered.
  3. According to the WoT rules, botting or excessive passive play is forbidden. 4.07. Using bots, clickers, macros, keyboard and mouse recorders, or any other similar methods to accumulate credits and experience without the participation or with passive participation of the player within the battle (excessive and repetitive passive play). So why don't they ban the players who say they aren't going to participate because of matchmaking and then camp the red line? Banning bots is fine, but banning players who behave like passive bots isn't fine by Wargaming? Obviously you didn't read the original post. I was asking why players are continued to be allowed to exhibit that behavior and not be banned after multiple reports since its against the game rules. I got banned once for using a 100% completely legal mod when I submitted a ticket because support didn't know what mods were legal. Lucky I was told by several high ranking people at Wargaming NA that the mod was legal and still had the forum posts to prove it. The ban was reversed and removed from my record. Its entirely possible that people could get false positives or be banned by mistake.
  4. If I had the ability to ban all maps that were two corridors with a death zone in the middle, there wouldn''t be many maps left to play.
  5. There is a difference between playing bad and camping the red line in a bush refusing to participate or even shoot until the entire team is dead. Playing bad is just playing bad. Hiding int he rear and not participating is the same as botting. In the EULA use to be a section that said passive play is not allowed. The example support gave was a player joining the battle, driving somewhere, then going AFK. That's basically the same think these players who refuse to participate unless they are top tier are doing.
  6. That still shouldn't be a reason to let him ruin the game for everyone else. Players like that make other players enjoy the game less. They are effectively bots or worse than bots and if botting is against the EULA. Bot accounts with premiums get banned after 3 violations. Including some of the notorious bot accounts with a ton of premiums. Why aren't players like that banned after 3 tickets submitted?
  7. Every single time the player named Cantshootstraight is on my team and he isn't top tier, he bitches about matchmaker, drives to the red line behind cap and parks in a bush. I've submitted tickets to support about him and other players like him and all I got in replay was something like, "There are many different play styles in World of Tanks. While not all are the same as yours, you have to understand that some players play the game differently than others." or something similar to that bullshit. https://wotlabs.net/na/player/Cantshootstraight Why does Wargaming allow players who are the equivalent of bots to continue to play when it makes the game worse for everyone?
  8. Sandbox changes are focusing on the symptom, not the problem. I think the rework of the ammo is fixing a symptom of the problem instead of the cause of the problem. What Wargaming is doing by changing special/gold ammo is the equivalent of shoving gauze up the nose of someone who is bleeding and dying out from a hemorrhagic disease. The issue isn't gold/premium/special rounds. The issue is map design, lack of real weak spots on many tanks, and RNG. Wargaming loves corridor maps that make players fight frontally. How many of their maps are two corridors that promote frontal engagements with an area in between that is a death zone for most tanks? How many tanks/TDs have little to no frontal weak spots? How many of them have weak spots that can be easily penetrated by standard ammo of the lower tier tanks they face? How many times in a row have you fully aimed a shot at the weak spot of a stationary tank and have RNG send the shot too low or too high or too far too the side several times in a row? How many times in a row have you fully aimed a shot at the weak spot of a stationary tank and have a low penetration RNG roll that caused the shot to bounce off a weak spot. Before attempting any changes to ammo, they need to fix the other areas first. Wargaming is fixing the symptom, not the problem. Personally, I think Wargaming should change RNG to +/- 15% for damage and penetration. WoT Blitz has 15% RNG if I remember correctly from playing it before. In addition to that, many maps need some rework to allow more flanking opportunities. With the current design of most maps your flanking choices are to go to another corridor to fight tanks frontally just as you were before, or crossing into an open area where most players get spotted easily and die quickly. Tanks also need weak spots that can actually be hit and penetrated by lower tier tanks. I'm not saying every tank needs large weak spots that every tank 2 tiers lower can easily hit and pen at 200+ meters. However, the weak spots of many higher tier tanks are small enough that when you are less than 100 meters away, your aim circle is 2 to 4 times the area of the weak spot. Regularly having fully aimed shots at a tank's weak spots miss at under 100 meters because the weak spots are so small they can't easily be hit is a problem. Skill in learning weak spots and aiming for them is negated by RNG in many circumstances. It also works the other way. There are tanks that have been relegated to being useless after nerfs or changes because their weak spots are so large and easy to hit. The T110E5 is one example of this. Before touching gold/special ammo, Wargaming should look at the other major issues with the game with map design, armor, and RNG. The changes on sandbox are an over complicated way of fixing a symptom of the real problems.
  9. I noticed with Wargaming's map design there are several maps I don't like and they all have a similar configuration. Death zone in the middle and two corridors for frontal fighting.
  10. I blocked mines because that tiny map is awful in high tiers. Everything gets almost permalit unless you are in the rear. I forget what other map I blocked. It might be one of the city maps.
  11. People claim this game isn't dying, yet I tried to play several different tier 10 tanks just before 9 PM on a Friday night and they all timed out while waiting 5 minutes for a battle.  Where the fuck are all the higher tier players?

    1. Show previous comments  1 more
    2. Tarski


      I can't be sure, but matchmaking problems > player base size problems, as far as I can tell. Remember when Frontlines dropped this month and everyone was timing out even when the queue displayed that thousands of people were trying to get in? 

    3. j_galt


      I just bail after 90 seconds and try again.  Often I then get a match in a minute or less.  It has always felt like some issue with the matchmaker rather than a lack of players. 

    4. Bavor


      That day I was on the NA server not the SA server.  I even double checked.

  12. I found the tier 8 VK to be very good in pub battles. The armor works extremely well and the gun isn't awful, but you need APCR against many of the tier 10s. It only took me 89 battles and I played it entire solo in pub battles with a 63% win rate.
  13. Wot has been multithreaded since 9.14. 9.14 The sound engine was split off to its own thread. 9.15 The Sound, Graphics, and Game engines have their own threads. AMD CPUs, especially the older FX 6 and 8 core CPUs got a huge boost in performance. 1.0 The game used at least 4 threads if you have at least 4 cores or 2 cores with hyperthreading. 1.4 the graphics engine uses more than one thread and the rest of the multithreading was improved further.
  14. I had the pleasure of having a planer named Ninja_Jones on my team tonight. In his TOP TIER M46 KR he camped the red lien the entire battle and didn't even fire a shot until most of the team was dead. He refused to participate in the battle and just kept running away from the enemy until he was surrounded and had to shoot.
  15. I guess you haven't played tier 8 since patch 9.18 on the NA server? I recorded tank tier and battle tier data for over 1,000 battles. With regular matchmaking tier 8 tanks you are bottom tier in 3/5/7 battles about 64% of the time. Middle tier in tier 9 battles about 18% of the time and top tier about 18% of the time. In 5/10 battles you are top tier about 15% of the time and bottom tier 85% of the time. You only get all tier 8 battles between 6 and 7% of battles in tier 8 tanks. That's when you are playing during the peak player population hours of 7PM-11PM east coast time. So you will get fucked by 9's and 10's all day playing th TS-5
  • Create New...