Jump to content
Bavor

Why doesn't Wargaming ban the bot like players who refuse to play?

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't bannable to be retarded and play the game stupidly, if it was no game would ever make it big because only 3-4% of gamers would be able to play it in the first place

someone sitting in a bush on redline doing nothing is just as useful as the teammate next to u because they are all garbage anyway, just dont pay them any attention (they are literally the brain function equivalent of what a Taco Bell toilet looks like so paying them attention is pointless) and focus on your game

merons will always be merons and thinking anything different will only cause you further struggles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Kolni said:

It isn't bannable to be retarded and play the game stupidly, if it was no game would ever make it big because only 3-4% of gamers would be able to play it in the first place

someone sitting in a bush on redline doing nothing is just as useful as the teammate next to u because they are all garbage anyway, just dont pay them any attention (they are literally the brain function equivalent of what a Taco Bell toilet looks like so paying them attention is pointless) and focus on your game

merons will always be merons and thinking anything different will only cause you further struggles

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a bloke do that on sea even when top tier. Used to ask him in chat where he was going to go to be useless, no response of course. As noted above wg feel it's not their job to fix stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because every sperm is sacred... 

A bit more seriously it's "happy shitter" policy. It doesn't matter how terrible person/player you are if you play WoT and throw money at WG. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ezz said:

We had a bloke do that on sea even when top tier. Used to ask him in chat where he was going to go to be useless, no response of course. As noted above wg feel it's not their job to fix stupid.

Was it patrick in is 50tp? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly but don't recall the name tbh. Was often in a lowe, and always in the back in some pokey spot that would only ever do anything once his team lost. Eg places like the back of steppes right from the start of the battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile someone rams you multiple times until he manages to flip you, dies in the process crushed by your tank and you get banned for that, you send a ticket to CS and you gain an automated message telling you to fuck off and for some reason 10 days of chat ban, even though your chat has been off for a while.

Just use them as meat shields and stay as far away as possible from such idiots. Not much else you can do really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Haswell said:

See all those prem tanks in his dossier? That's why.

I wish people would stop spreading this, I've seen plenty of people with lots of prem tanks banned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bavor said:

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 ro 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?  

Effectively being a bot or worse is not the same thing as being a bot. Like Kolni wrote, WG isn't going to ban players for being bad or because somebody got salty. Isn't there a thread to vent these kinds of frustrations without starting a whole new one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Assassin7 said:

I wish people would stop spreading this, I've seen plenty of people with lots of prem tanks banned

I should have been more clear, I wasn't saying WG won't ban whales or any other paying customer just because they paid the SerB tax.

Look at this from the other direction, what would happen if WG did ban all these shitters? Yes, gameplay experience for a lot of people MIGHT improve, but at the same time WG is also cutting off one of their revenue streams. A happy shitter is a paying shitter, and having paying shitters is a lot more important in the business sense than appeasing a smaller population of non-shitters (who are also paying customers anyway). It is very possible that non-shitters may be willing to invest more into the game if there are less shitters running around, but why would WG take that risk when they have perfectly healthy money streams right now?

Also taking into account of the power of publicity and social media, if WG indeed goes forward with banning shitters but cannot handle the backlash, the negative publicity will potentially drive existing and future paying customers away, as well as putting huge amounts of pressure on the company when their efforts could be better spent on drumming up new ways to milk people dry. Shitters are loud and numerous, when they throw enough shit at the wall some will eventually stick and people will come to look at what all the fuss is about. Recall how blown up the Sir Foch incident became when WG EU took the proverbial slap to the face and got humiliated, now think how easy it will be to spin the story of WG banning shitters, "WG issue arbitrary mass bans for no broken rules". This is bad publicity that any game company will want to avoid.

18 hours ago, Haswell said:

See all those prem tanks in his dossier? That's why.

This isn't to say as long as you're a paying customer WG will be more lenient to you. Rather, WG wants to keep their current and future paying customers happy for milking. Shitters owning a bunch of prem tanks is a testament to how true the mantra of "happy shitters are paying shitters" is, WG understands that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Haswell said:

I should have been more clear, I wasn't saying WG won't ban whales or any other paying customer just because they paid the SerB tax.

Look at this from the other direction, what would happen if WG did ban all these shitters? Yes, gameplay experience for a lot of people MIGHT improve, but at the same time WG is also cutting off one of their revenue streams. A happy shitter is a paying shitter, and having paying shitters is a lot more important in the business sense than appeasing a smaller population of non-shitters (who are also paying customers anyway). It is very possible that non-shitters may be willing to invest more into the game if there are less shitters running around, but why would WG take that risk when they have perfectly healthy money streams right now?

Also taking into account of the power of publicity and social media, if WG indeed goes forward with banning shitters but cannot handle the backlash, the negative publicity will potentially drive existing and future paying customers away, as well as putting huge amounts of pressure on the company when their efforts could be better spent on drumming up new ways to milk people dry. Shitters are loud and numerous, when they throw enough shit at the wall some will eventually stick and people will come to look at what all the fuss is about. Recall how blown up the Sir Foch incident became when WG EU took the proverbial slap to the face and got humiliated, now think how easy it will be to spin the story of WG banning shitters, "WG issue arbitrary mass bans for no broken rules". This is bad publicity that any game company will want to avoid.

This isn't to say as long as you're a paying customer WG will be more lenient to you. Rather, WG wants to keep their current and future paying customers happy for milking. Shitters owning a bunch of prem tanks is a testament to how true the mantra of "happy shitters are paying shitters" is, WG understands that.

Heres the thing though, in this case we arent talking about people who literally just suck ass. We're talking about actual bots or people who purposely avoid doing anything and purposely act as useless as possible, which is actually people.

That one player per team is then making 14 other people in every game he plays less happy. And thus more likely to stop playing the more often it happens and less likely to spend money if it happens often enough. So WG should have complete incentive to ban people who do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Assassin7 said:

Heres the thing though, in this case we arent talking about people who literally just suck ass. We're talking about actual bots or people who purposely avoid doing anything and purposely act as useless as possible, which is actually people.

That one player per team is then making 14 other people in every game he plays less happy. And thus more likely to stop playing the more often it happens and less likely to spend money if it happens often enough. So WG should have complete incentive to ban people who do that.

That's a nice theory but there's also the classic saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", aka "why bother if it isn't absolutely necessary?"

WG could have done something about this kind of player ages ago and set a precedent for such behavior but when it comes to any popular online place/activity, you gotta do it early. You can't make an AI do this shit for you, so it's thousands upon thousands of man-hours checking through all the shitters behaving this way, not to mention untold amounts of false report by salty tomatoes.

WG may have a theoretical incentive to do this but not a practical one. Not until the game hits a low-end critical mass on the RU server and they decide to try to keep it going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I 100% agree with the autor of this topic. Good job man!

Quick fix of the current meta:

  • ability to block up to 10 maps (1/2 not enough) + blocking encounter/assault mode too
  • max 1 arta per game
  • nerf tanks accuracy globally by 50%
  • remove or heavily nerf ferraris ebr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

l have always wondered.

Scorpiany has often talked about false-positive bans against players, who swear they were not cheating. And their policies are always in the grey, particularly with their non specified wording and context. My brother was given a 7 day suspension, and l know for sure he was not cheating. And they do not release as to why. 

lf this is the case, botters should be easily picked out and identified. God knows why problematic, diseasing bots are so hard to spot, by WG.  Probably because they bot with a garage full of prem tanks, with 72O days left of prem time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2019 at 8:39 AM, Hellsfog said:

Effectively being a bot or worse is not the same thing as being a bot. Like Kolni wrote, WG isn't going to ban players for being bad or because somebody got salty.

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?

Quote

Isn't there a thread to vent these kinds of frustrations without starting a whole new one?

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.

 

On 6/28/2019 at 2:16 PM, Dirizon said:

l have always wondered.

Scorpiany has often talked about false-positive bans against players, who swear they were not cheating. And their policies are always in the grey, particularly with their non specified wording and context. My brother was given a 7 day suspension, and l know for sure he was not cheating. And they do not release as to why. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least one element is the fact their automated systems aren't adequately able to differentiate between bots and really bad players. They'd need either humans to check which would cost them money or they'd risk false positives. The press from WG banning some poor kid playing with a disability would genuinely be horrible, even by WG standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bavor said:

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.

My point was that being bad is not the same as being a bot and that if you want to complain about a specific player, which you are clearly doing, there's a thread for that.  It's also silly to think that "excessively passive play" means anything. Does it mean camping behind a rock waiting for the enemy and then fighting best you can? Probably not. So unless you know what WG means by phrases like that one, this thread is you bitching about a bad player. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hellsfog said:

My point was that being bad is not the same as being a bot

 

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.

 

Quote

and that if you want to complain about a specific player, which you are clearly doing, there's a thread for that.  It's also silly to think that "excessively passive play" means anything. Does it mean camping behind a rock waiting for the enemy and then fighting best you can? Probably not. So unless you know what WG means by phrases like that one, this thread is you bitching about a bad player. 

 

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.

 

Quote

 It's also silly to think that "excessively passive play" means anything. Does it mean camping behind a rock waiting for the enemy and then fighting best you can? Probably not. So unless you know what WG means by phrases like that one, this thread is you bitching about a bad 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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...