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

Regarding Bots, AFKs, Riggers, Cheaters, and Abusers...

78 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Super Tester
1,056 posts
9,017 battles

Hello. 

I have not posted here for ages, but as far as getting WG's attention this seems to be the best place to go about it. So without further ado...

Can we get more updates on WG's efforts in clamping down undesirable behaviour? I'm talking things like people botting, AFKing, CV rigging, and even those that suicide in scenario to get quick 5-stars. I'm sure many of us have seen it for ourselves and quite a few of us have reported them, but what happens to them? I have reported a LOT of those guys above (won't name which ones exactly) but have heard nothing about them.

I understand its WG's policy to not share outcomes, but unless I find out from somewhere else that the offender has been banned or not, its quite disheartening. So... can we have that "Bot/AFK" thread back? The one where WG used to say how many BOT/AFKs were flushed out each time? That would go a long way in making players know that their reports actually matter and not seem like they have ended in limbo.

That's all, frankly. Discussions are welcome but keep it civil. I don't want this thread locked and sent down the drain.

Edit: This is the aforementioned Bot/AFK thread.

Edited by stratmania

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
770 posts
8,629 battles
7 minutes ago, chicony56 said:

justice not only has to be done , it needs to be SEEN to be done

who said that? Perry Mason ?

Batman?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
7,548 posts
7,993 battles

I second that after Strat. And I am going to add some more frustration into the thread.

Like Strat, and a good number of others, I have joined the ST program, since 2016, was hoping to help the game development out of my own time. There was no wish for any special gain, just loved the game and wanted to be a part of it. I'm sure a lot of others thought just about the same. A lot of us are paying players too. We spent money on this game to support the development. We loved the game, loved the concept, the designs are fantastic, everyone working hard to make the game a success. A huge number of us supported the game to the best of our abilities, me since 2015, and some might be even before that. Again, most of us hoped that the game would be a better one. No one asked any money from us, people still supported.

Now, can we demand anything for these reasons from Wargaming? Absolutely not, I understand that. It was all voluntary contribution. Will we stop supporting the game? Or leave the game? Probably not either. Hopefully most of us are going to stick around a bit longer, or, let's just say, we want to stick around even though its becoming hard lately. But don't we deserve a better feedback about a serious problem that is plaguing our server since almost a year? This wasn't like this a year ago. How did we come to this point?

Offenders and cheaters SHOULD be named and shamed. A football star getting a red card becomes FIFA headline the next morning, what's so hard here? Here I want to mention, Sub Octavian's statement on Reddit regarding these bot issues were most DISAPPOINTING, and disheartening. I would look for many words when I find someone played 100 games daily for consecutive days but it would never be "really dedicated" as he tried to point out. Really? Even the "We play for fun" bandwagon cannot handle yolo rushing for 100 games every day, we all are human after all. I have played Dota for 7 years before this, I know how rage inducing online games can be, especially with consecutive losses. Here, losing 70-80 battles everyday would be infuriating enough to burn own PC down and never play it again.

We understand that a lot of these players aren't really bots, just terrible player, not even old enough or may be too old to play the game, but hey, they are still here. And best part is, they can be on any team. But they indeed ruin the day for other players every day. Some people aren't just willing to learn either, cause may be they don't have plans to stick around. What can be done about them? While we appreciate all the efforts Wargaming putting into making more and more boxes and premium ships, may be its time to look into the match maker? It might be good or ok enough 1/2 years ago, not anymore. Player base size has increased and the fun elements have decreased. We have seen MM where ships were poorly matched, one side got all purple players while other side nothing, countless times. I believe we deserve more attention. We cannot demand it of course, since, its a free to play game.

May be its high time Wargaming had set some fair play rules, so that violating those would be punishable. For example, intentionally throwing a game more than a certain threshold. Or, may be create two tiers of player base, top bracket and bottom bracket divided by 50% winrate margin. I know I will be hated and roasted for saying this by the "We play for fun" bandwagon guys, but I don't really care about that at this point. Just add it into the 3 minute rules, if no games found in 3 minutes for certain player, he can be included in either bracket MM.

One more thing Wargaming could fix and extend was the ship counter in queue window. Those are fake, lies, imaginary numbers put by random generators. At least we could avoid meeting certain ships and players if those numbers were accurate.

Don't worry Wargaming, we will buy your boxes, crates, whatever pixel you sell, look at what we want too. We are connected with the largest of communities, the subreddit discord, SGC discord which is the largest English speaking server for SEA, many other channels, thousands of players feel the same way. Please do not give us reasons to leave a game we loved so much.

Sorry about the huge post.

 

Edited by icy_phoenix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
71 posts
5,241 battles

as for the BOT problem , can a simple game shutdown and relaunch after a set number of games , SAY :5: perhaps , seems no real inconvenience to me and it will shut out the auto players

idea good or bad ?

Edited by chicony56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
82 posts
2,800 battles

Just sink the mother (edited) and play a couple of co-op games pink :cap_rambo::cap_look:

 

Bypassing Censor, Post Edited, User Warned

~lengxv6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
71 posts
5,241 battles

Just sink the mother (edited) and play a couple of co-op games pink :cap_rambo::cap_look:

like the bot will care , just means it gets into another match earlier increasing its daily game talley

 

Post Edited

~lengxv6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SIF]
Super Tester
3,836 posts
4,138 battles

I think it is high time the name and shame rule is thrown out the window.   Saying that action was taken without disclosing who and what action was taken does nothing but have a negative affect on the community.Naming players and their specific sanctions has the following affect:

Informs the community that something IS being done.  This will increase the communities confidence in WG as well as engage them to participate in reducing the number of cheaters

Advises the community of what acceptable behaviour is.   The benefits of this are obvious.  

Names the known cheaters.   I know this is the big issue for WG as they feel that a player returning will be unfairly targeted after being named, but the onus should be on the player to work to earn the respect of the community again.

 

At the moment the feeling of the community is one of being left in the dark and disenfranchised.   Just saying something is being done is just not enough and it is blatantly obvious that enough is not being done.   The exploitation of the Dynamo Scenario is the prime example of this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
590 posts
2,995 battles
12 hours ago, stratmania said:

Hello. 

I have not posted here for ages, but as far as getting WG's attention this seems to be the best place to go about it. So without further ado...

Can we get more updates on WG's efforts in clamping down undesirable behaviour? I'm talking things like people botting, AFKing, CV rigging, and even those that suicide in scenario to get quick 5-stars. I'm sure many of us have seen it for ourselves and quite a few of us have reported them, but what happens to them? I have reported a LOT of those guys above (won't name which ones exactly) but have heard nothing about them.

I understand its WG's policy to not share outcomes, but unless I find out from somewhere else that the offender has been banned or not, its quite disheartening. So... can we have that "Bot/AFK" thread back? The one where WG used to say how many BOT/AFKs were flushed out each time? That would go a long way in making players know that their reports actually matter and not seem like they have ended in limbo.

That's all, frankly. Discussions are welcome but keep it civil. I don't want this thread locked and sent down the drain.

Edit: This is the aforementioned Bot/AFK thread.

Hi Strat, 

Welcome back - I'll point you to a thread that's been specifically setup for reporting bots. 

Unfortunately the Mod's can't really tell you the data on what they are doing, all we know is the unsportsmanlike like conduct thread is being used. 

You'll find the link to that thread in my pinned post about mods, and how you get our attention :)

Otherwise feel free to pm me for information, i'll do my best to point you in the right direction. 

To everyone else: 
The problem with naming and shaming is literally this - How do you determine a Player who is either very bad / disabled who plays the game as a form of relief and a bot?

Sure there are signs, but there can be enough doubt to make it hard to tell... so naming and shaming isn't going to help. 

We only have to look at how stats are used to justify one persons comments over another. And we only need to look at our own forums a few weeks ago where a T10 player was asking a question that clearly he didn't know, the communities response was woeful and action had to be taken. 

So the rules are there in place to ensure everyone is treated fairly and equally, at least here on the forums. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SIF]
Super Tester
3,836 posts
4,138 battles

TC.  I don't think anyone wants to name and shame suspects.  Huginns thread has provided players a means to report that.    Proven cases are another matter altogether.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,056 posts
9,017 battles

@tc1259 I have used the relevant report thread. Trust me.

To the rest, name and shame IMO should only be reserved for proven cases (of which there are quite a few, at least 2 in recent times). Suspects deserve the benefit of the doubt as much as the next guy. Nobody wants false positives.

Its less of knowing WHO got caught and more of if anyone got caught at all. That is the reason I made this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LBAS]
Beta Tester
324 posts

The only reason I can see about prohibitions on naming and shaming in forums is WG does not willing to be involved in cyber bullying regulations from many countries - because it is a good piece of evidence if someone actually commits suicide after being falsely accused as a bot - even though that should not apply to people who are actually to at least criminals, if they want to prove their innocence then they should prove it themselves.

But then, what WG should be TRANSPARENT to players are:

- How many staffs are working on botting issue, and how they interact with players (a closed discussion thread aren't good enough ok?)

- How many bots (and their account names) the staffs had actually taken action against every 24 hours - (seriously why can't we name and shame criminals? Even newspapers can name criminals on their papers.)

- How many accounts are suspect of being a bot - you can play your confidentiality policy here

- Does this server needs to implement their own report and ban system ahead of other servers?

 

Edited by spixys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
7,548 posts
7,993 battles
3 hours ago, tc1259 said:

To everyone else: 
The problem with naming and shaming is literally this - How do you determine a Player who is either very bad / disabled who plays the game as a form of relief and a bot?

No, we don't want to know who were the suspects. We want to know who were banned, as Huginn mentioned 150 accounts were punished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ZA]
Member
165 posts
7,373 battles

To WG staff's defense, they do have to follow rules and policy, however whether or not those rules and policy is reasonable? It is very difficult balance to suit everyone's best interest. Unfortunately, in this case, we are not living in democratic environment, we can not vote who govern WG and forum. So, we can only accept they will be bureaucratic, nothing we can change about that. I do believe WG staff are actively address the issue since the issue was raised over Reddit though. It is just lack of transparency kept people second guessing.

So, let's not talk about changing their rules and policy on name and shame.

Are there anyway, WG can provide more information, give us some statistical reports weekly, just to provide a bit more transparency into the issue?

For example, a leader board for "TOP 100 MOST DEDICATED PLAYERS" on server and their performance stats without names. We just need their connected hours, number of battles played in different game mode. their win/loss ratio, their kill/death ratio. etc. 

The list should include hidden profile player of course, and we can compared week by week and see the trend that the server was going.

And if anything unusual was spotted in those reports we can help WG focus on particular trouble area.

 

Edited by sunlo2013

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
590 posts
2,995 battles
45 minutes ago, icy_phoenix said:

No, we don't want to know who were the suspects. We want to know who were banned, as Huginn mentioned 150 accounts were punished.

I get this sentiment mate :)

Problem is, naming and shaming is something WG won't do. They'll give you numbers, and maybe saying how many we're reported and how many were actioned would be a step in the right direction. 

But they won't name proven accounts, as naming and shaming is as someone has stated above bad for the community as a whole. It's also can be seen as breaching privacy laws in various countries, not to mention bullying and introducing those players to harassment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
247 posts
5,822 battles

I see the problem, botting is not illegal, and WG does not have authority to release people’s private information.

In RL, if someone is convicted as guilty (recognised in a court of law, not trial by media, which is the problem of releasing suspects name early) and sentenced, it is usually released to the public so the public know that justice has been done. Governments have the power to do this.

People in the forums recognise this as justice, as assume that if they do not see justice being done, it is not, especially if the problem persists.

So clearly, if we want WG to name and shame, we need them to have the power to release peoples private information, making them judge, jury and executioner. And we all know how much trouble companies get into when the ‘accidentally’ release people’s private information.

If you were falsely accused of botting (it can happen) and your information was released, how would you feel? You could repeal the judgement, but that would not redeem yourself in the eyes of others.

I am not defending botting, it needs to be stopped. And the approach of releasing names sounds good, in theory, but...

I guess I’m just thinking aloud and recognising the problems involved.

Nothing worthwhile is ever easy.

(as opposed to unworthwile things, which seems very easy, which is probably why we have so many bots).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
7,548 posts
7,993 battles
2 hours ago, tc1259 said:

I get this sentiment mate :)

Problem is, naming and shaming is something WG won't do. They'll give you numbers, and maybe saying how many we're reported and how many were actioned would be a step in the right direction. 

But they won't name proven accounts, as naming and shaming is as someone has stated above bad for the community as a whole. It's also can be seen as breaching privacy laws in various countries, not to mention bullying and introducing those players to harassment. 

Ok, fair enough. Let's not do that.

But as @sunlo2013 suggested above, can we get some anonymous data (even if in a monthly basis) on what kind of offenders are being punished, like Riggers, AFK, Intentional throw, Botlike behavior, game spammers etc.

 

Also, as players we don't have enough ways to check player profiles when they are set as private, but we can suspect many things looking at how players play the game, since, we are quite experienced with the game. Ofcourse there will be false positive in complaints, many complains might even raise from anger issues. Going through all of these reports is a huge chore and Kudos to Wargaming for deciding to do that. However, as a machine learning professional and a software engineer, I can say with confidence that "How do you determine a Player who is either very bad / disabled who plays the game as a form of relief and a bot?" can be answered with very high probability just by analyzing data. It isn't really hard for developers, if they are willing, to add some checks whether the input fed to the game is indeed made by human, and/or a ship is entirely controlled by "autopilot" maneuver without any further input from the human player.

I have been in game testing before, it was a facebook based game, and devs implemented checks to analyze input feed that completely prevented autoclickers. I'm sure devs are aware of similar algorithms, and may be they are even working on it, or probably we can somehow pass on the idea to them? I think it can reduce the botting behavor to a great extent.

 

Thanks for understanding. We don't want any harm done to any customer, but we are happy as long as Wargaming is fighting the problem, and a bit more transparent with the whole process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
319 posts
4,661 battles
13 hours ago, icy_phoenix said:

Or, may be create two tiers of player base, top bracket and bottom bracket divided by 50% winrate margin.

This, or it's equivalent, is the most realistically implementable solution to the problem. At least so far as the problem exists outside the minds of frustrated players.

As @icy_phoenix said, a considerable amount of it is two players not sharing a common notion of what is the correct strategy, but at the same time some players really are so hopeless that they contribute nothing of value to a battle, regardless of tier or number of games played. It would not be impossible to divide Randoms into two leagues, by WTR for example, and I think the player base could handle the split without excessive queue times. Bots, or human players than play at the level of bots, would be removed from the "Premier League" and sandboxed into the "Training Pool".

Thinking about it further, it isn't even necessary to divide it 50/50. Most players are decent enough to contribute something and should be in the main group. So just extend the protected matchmaking already implemented by keeping players in it until they reach a given WTR, and dropping players back into it if their WTR falls below a certain threshold.

Rewards in the Training league could have to be curtailed to discourage farming by bots, but sealclubbing would be impossible since anyone trying it would shortly be removed back into the main league.

Edited by Rina_Pon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LNA]
Member
1,662 posts
10,466 battles
12 minutes ago, Rina_Pon said:

This, or it's equivalent, is the most realistically implementable solution to the problem. At least so far as the problem exists outside the minds of frustrated players.

As @icy_phoenix said, a considerable amount of it is two players not sharing a common notion of what is the correct strategy, but at the same time some players really are so hopeless that they contribute nothing of value to a battle, regardless of tier or number of games played. It would not be impossible to divide Randoms into two leagues, by WTR for example, and I think the player base could handle the split without excessive queue times. Bots, or human players than play at the level of bots, would be removed from the "Premier League" and sandboxed into the "Training Pool".

Thinking about it further, it isn't even necessary to divide it 50/50. Most players are decent enough to contribute something and should be in the main group. So just extend the protected matchmaking already implemented by keeping players in it until they reach a given WTR, and dropping players back into it if their WTR falls below a certain threshold.

Rewards in the Training league could have to be curtailed to discourage farming by bots, but sealclubbing would be impossible since anyone trying it would shortly be removed back into the main league.

This is a bad suggestion i see here. WTR is not an official stat sanctioned and using that wont end well. DO you know how badly wn8 ruin WoT community ? Or how XVM that is an extension of that create a salty , unhealthy gameplay and overly zealous community that slander each other. We dont want to go there , that is a repeat of past mistake.

The game is a game , you cannot order someone to improve. Thats a fact. You either accept that is another noob or you keep trashing about it until its no longer fun for you. Your call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
354 posts
9,048 battles
4 minutes ago, legionary2099 said:

This is a bad suggestion i see here. WTR is not an official stat sanctioned and using that wont end well. DO you know how badly wn8 ruin WoT community ? Or how XVM that is an extension of that create a salty , unhealthy gameplay and overly zealous community that slander each other. We dont want to go there , that is a repeat of past mistake.

The game is a game , you cannot order someone to improve. Thats a fact. You either accept that is another noob or you keep trashing about it until its no longer fun for you. Your call.

Agreed.

In any case, aren't clan/ranked battles there to provide that filtering into groups with similar skill levels. Sure, ranked has its problems, but that's just an implementation issue which WG will probably iron out eventually.

Randoms are just a PvP version of coop where people can step up and get experience playing against real people and, perhaps, they (randoms) shouldn't be taken so seriously. Of course, bots, afkers, etc should be taken seriously in any and all modes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ZA]
Member
165 posts
7,373 battles
1 hour ago, legionary2099 said:

This is a bad suggestion i see here. WTR is not an official stat sanctioned and using that wont end well. DO you know how badly wn8 ruin WoT community ? Or how XVM that is an extension of that create a salty , unhealthy gameplay and overly zealous community that slander each other. We dont want to go there , that is a repeat of past mistake.

The game is a game , you cannot order someone to improve. Thats a fact. You either accept that is another noob or you keep trashing about it until its no longer fun for you. Your call.

I have not experienced on WoT, anyone can elaborate what is wn8, XVM and how is it relevant to against their suggestions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ZA]
Member
165 posts
7,373 battles

You know, I dont think WG will split matchmaking by skill level. But I am open to have a thought experiment on this kind of scenario. 

PS, you know what, this seem off topic, what about open a new thread to have a proper discussion?

Edited by sunlo2013

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×