|
|
Post by Anon O. Mous on Mar 15, 2018 14:00:48 GMT -5
Why? i have a vitally important killer question. If I am nice to you can you get me free stuff? I don't think so. Why, you won't be nice to me otherwise? #goodbyecruelworld Sorry, seanh. You asked for that.  |
|
|
|
Post by moses on Mar 15, 2018 14:11:40 GMT -5
But why are you doing it manually? There are surely simple indicators that should automatically flag when behaviour / league rankings are massively off. If it is too difficult to automate the first screening for problem players then I think we need an Up/down vote / star based rating system for teammates - forget the tanker form and sending pixo screenshots of hangars that disappear into a crazy manual review process, just a plus minus / 1-5 star rating system. Take it out of the hands of pixo and let team mates decide. Rating falls below [X] you get put in the bad queue and out of normal matchmaker. System would need to work the other way too - if you keep giving negative ratings to players that otherwise get good scores (I.e. some malicous person just giving out 1 star to everyone all the time) then your votes get discounted. So we have a community based rating system of players and Pixo just has to arbitrate when someone wants to appeal the community decision to exclude them from MM. Like I said in some other post, we need a centralised definition of tanking before that and with all the different unethical behaviour we have seen, it will take some time to check 'em. Also, rather than outright ban one should be given chance, but alas, some do exploit that goodwill. Right, but that is exactly why the community rating approach is significantly more likely to work that reviewing screenshots of random hangars - do not need to define tanking, just need to have a community view on what types of behaviour are and are not damaging to game play for other people. Anyway - I cannot claim to begin to understand the complexities of dealing with bad actors, just a suggestion that prove a lot less labour intensive than manual review of submissions. |
|
|
|
Post by Why? on Mar 15, 2018 14:14:57 GMT -5
Like I said in some other post, we need a centralised definition of tanking before that and with all the different unethical behaviour we have seen, it will take some time to check 'em. Also, rather than outright ban one should be given chance, but alas, some do exploit that goodwill. Right, but that is exactly why the community rating approach is significantly more likely to work that reviewing screenshots of random hangars - do not need to define tanking, just need to have a community view on what types of behaviour are and are not damaging to game play for other people. Anyway - I cannot claim to begin to understand the complexities of dealing with bad actors, just a suggestion that prove a lot less labour intensive than manual review of submissions. Well...isn't that what the report form is? A convenient in-game rating might be too rife for abuse (clan rivalry etc), so having to actually access the form provides some psychological barrier that removes the immediacy of rage of ravenge and hopefully gives one time to be sure to actually weigh mentally before they shoot off a complaint. |
|
|
|
Post by HEATHEN HERETIC on Mar 15, 2018 14:43:42 GMT -5
And I have no intention of doing that. I just do not appreciate someone assuming things about me when they do not even know me. When I capitalize it is in the old school way of emphasizing a point without resorting to word editing. Quick Reply in these forums doesn't have all the bells and whistles that Reply does in case noone noticed. All of these suggestions have been made multiple times in the in game "suggestions & feedback". And every answer back is ALWAYS the same. So please excuse me if I don't believe that PIXONIC will take any of our suggestions now anymore seriously than then. After over a year it's very hard to have faith in PIXONIC or even trust their word anymore for that matter. PIXONIC has had their own representatives come here to these forums and lie right to our faces over and over. Oh I'm sure they've been "listening" to our complaints but for my money it just appears they've been having a good laugh at our expense. We have no direct contact with PIXONIC or the developers. Just their extremely unhelpful "Tech Support" who can do nothing but "pass your suggestions along to our development team. Remember(and who can possibly forget after getting the exact same messages over and over) not all suggestions make it into the game." So if some of us appear cynical please remember we have every reason to be of PIXONIC and their representatives after the way they have treated us over the last 13-14 months. We never wanted to be...but there it is. If you can get them to pay attention to our concerns it would be greatly appreciated. We love this game and we wouldn't be here griping about it if that were not the case. We're just not happy with it as is and to be anymore. I understand. I dunno if it'll be any helpful but I'll tell you a couple stuff. Firstly, I was in the same positions as you all here. If you check my past posts, same history, same gripes, same frustrations. So, I understand your concerns, and since now I have a closer view of the action among the Pix people, I can tell that they do too. However, as they say and you must have heard other "influencers" say too, at Pix, "data is king". Any change takes time and very regulated steps. Often times, the data doesn't match the ground realities we as players we think we are seeing.(I have seen some surprising numbers that have forced me to rethink a lot of things actually). Secondly, while I agree criticism is due and deserved in some cases, it isn't that improvements aren't being made. ST was a very, very powerful weapon. After the community spoke, no new weapons/bots have been as powerful. At the same time it helps to remember that dialing back ST isn't as easy or a one step thing either. I hope I don't have to explain the reasons why it is problematic to nerf it all at once. Now, there are Battle Rewards designed to help make staying at highest leagues lucrative. Same for supply drops. Improvements are coming, though maybe not always as fast as we want. Like most players all I want is to be able to choose for myself which game mode that I want to play each and every time. I do not care for the idea of a rotating mode system that would force me to schedule my play time around modes I have no interest in playing either. When I'm ready to play I expect to be able to play the mode I actually like playing all of the time, or forget it. And I'm betting most players feel the same way. |
|
|
|
Post by Pulse Hadron on Mar 15, 2018 15:04:04 GMT -5
We are trying to clamp down a definition of tanking while similarly maintaining the players' freedom. That's why its taking so long...we don't have a centralised universal theory of exactly what behaviour constitutes tanking since so many people adopt so many ways to try to game the game. I think the easiest most direct way to spot tankers is to identify the tanking behavior itself, not how they try to do it. So a player that drops rapidly, almost always in last place, followed by a climb, almost always in first place, then repeat, is a tanker. Pix has this data so can algorithmically spot the extreme yo-yoing of a tanker. I don’t know the frequency with which tankers yo-yo but I’m sure Pix can establish some reasonable bounds, like 2 or 3 yo-yos in a weeks time or whatever the data suggests. This may not capture every tanker but will make the practice impractical, having to drop so slowly and irregularly it defeats the purpose. The only workaround I can think of is someone micro-tanking: continuing to level gear high but carefully staying in the same low league. Wouldn’t that get old though, even for a tanker? Do you know if this strategy has been looked at? I like the freedom to run whatever gear and to possibly drift down if that’s where the meta takes me, but would hate to see hard caps on league or gear levels. |
|
|
|
Post by FlashAhAhh on Mar 15, 2018 16:50:56 GMT -5
Right, but that is exactly why the community rating approach is significantly more likely to work that reviewing screenshots of random hangars - do not need to define tanking, just need to have a community view on what types of behaviour are and are not damaging to game play for other people. Anyway - I cannot claim to begin to understand the complexities of dealing with bad actors, just a suggestion that prove a lot less labour intensive than manual review of submissions. Well...isn't that what the report form is? A convenient in-game rating might be too rife for abuse (clan rivalry etc), so having to actually access the form provides some psychological barrier that removes the immediacy of rage of ravenge and hopefully gives one time to be sure to actually weigh mentally before they shoot off a complaint. What a load of rubbish! They used a form because it provides a psychological barrier? That is utterly ridiculous. They use a form because they do not care about tanking and only do the very, very bare minimum to make it sound like they are doing something. A report button is all that would be needed with a threshold for X number of reports to look at the player activity. But even THAT is totally unnecessary because they do NOT need players reporting tankers, they already know who they are. They know how they behave and could find them any time they want to! But they won't. Tankers are hardcore players that make up a HUGE number of games on the server, are invested in the game and watch a LOT of ads and are very likely to make purchases The same as your claim the Shocktrain nerf took time because they needed data or some rubbish. You are just talking out of the top of your head or, at worse, vomitting Pix hyperbole. They nerfed the shocktrain reload because Ion has been released and features a very quick reload, which is exactly why scourge no longer do damage at 600m. |
|
|
|
Post by T34 on Mar 15, 2018 22:36:21 GMT -5
We too want players to have the freedom to run whatever they want, whenever, whereever. But while it allows Champions to roam around with Cossacks, it also lets some roam with Shock-Bulgasaris in Bronze (By chests, RM, BM whatever). We are trying to clamp down a definition of tanking while similarly maintaining the players' freedom. That's why its taking so long...we don't have a centralised universal theory of exactly what behaviour constitutes tanking since so many people adopt so many ways to try to game the game. The worse part? when we do make a strict theory of what is tanking, we'll see people trying to exploit the loopholes around it. Hence like how it was done with loaders, we'll try to being concrete solutions when we bring them,even if it's a bit late. WRT to this post and other comments made by you…and without prejudice Without being sarcastic I can appreciate how difficult the task is to define who a tanker is. But it is only difficult because of the current monetisation strategy which introduced countless features that effectively tanks players the “approved” way. I fail to see a way to maintain a players freedom under the current War Robots environment without approving tanking to a considerable degree. Any definition would also be hypocritical to a considerable extent. Not going to list the specific examples as there are so many of them and I do not believe there is a need to do so for this audience. And as soon as you define it you open the flood gates to approved methods of tanking as there are so many potential exploits in this broken system. And if the system wasn’t broken there wouldn’t be so many loopholes/exploits. You know what caused the issue and what caused the loopholes and you also know a strategic change in game design directions is required to change the current situation. Anything but is just window dressing. But never the less, the fact that you are struggling to define what tanking is and that you have no standing definition of tanking than by definition there are no tankers. It is all innuendo, hearsay and subjective. Handing out punishment is nothing more than summary punishment of the vigilante kind. I mean, take an example when a cop pulls you over for speeding and issues you a fine for going too fast. All good if speeding is defined (legally). Should there be no definition and no speed limits there would be no speeders because a non existing law cannot be violated. And not developing a law (definition) to curb a practice because a fear of subsequent exploitation is nonsense. We could bring up morally acceptable behaviours as a defence for pixonic’s position but if we venture down that path we also have to take into consideration the morally lacking elements of the game that Pixonic introduced and the lies they’ve spread. But subjectively we all have a reasonably good concept of who “super tankers” are. Not being able to find them using a systemic approach is hog wash. At the end of the day Pixonic gamed the players by a whole swag of measure and by doing so holes were left open left right and centre for the players to game Pixonic. That is generally what happens when a business tries to make a lot of money and a lot of money the fastest way possible while relying on marginally ethical practices at best. There is no end to this unless you /(Pix) decides to stop gaming the players. You can only do that if you abandon the current monetisation strategy. And you know that too. The rest is spin. |
|
paras
Destrier
Posts: 59
Karma: 14
|
Post by paras on Mar 17, 2018 4:23:31 GMT -5
Totally agreed ?
It's good to see that pixo is trying to solve the issues with Walking War Robots (or at least it looks like they are trying). BUT pixo itself is the reason all these issues are started in the first place. So they are trying to solve the issues they themselves have created. We wouldn't have needed these solutions if pixo hadn't created them.
|
|
paras
Destrier
Posts: 59
Karma: 14
|
Post by paras on Mar 17, 2018 4:54:05 GMT -5
It's good to see that pixo has introduced supply drops and battle rewards to encourage going up in leagues and to reward the players who do their best whether their team win/lose. But their is still one MAJOR thing that pixo hasn't addressed yet(knowingly or unknowingly). And it is GOLD. You still don't get any gold if your team lose. On the other hand you can get upto 10 gold per match if your team wins. Unless and until pixo solve this issue I don't think tanking can ever be reduced. I have one suggestion for this.  Pixo should start giving gold to losing team too. For example for 1st most damage dealer in losing team gets 3 gold(Instead of 5 in winning team). The 2nd one will get 1 gold(Instead of 3 in winning team). And the most beacon capturer will get 3 gold in losing team(instead of 5 in winning team). How about this? Please convey my massage to pixo officials so they can think about this. Thanks in advance for the cooperation ?? |
|
|
|
Post by ΒΣRΖΣRKΛ²³ on Mar 17, 2018 5:29:43 GMT -5
It's good to see that pixo has introduced supply drops and battle rewards to encourage going up in leagues and to reward the players who do their best whether their team win/lose. But their is still one MAJOR thing that pixo hasn't addressed yet(knowingly or unknowingly). And it is GOLD. You still don't get any gold if your team lose. On the other hand you can get upto 10 gold per match if your team wins. Unless and until pixo solve this issue I don't think tanking can ever be reduced. I have one suggestion for this. Pixo should start giving gold to losing team too. For example for 1st most damage dealer in losing team gets 3 gold(Instead of 5 in winning team). The 2nd one will get 1 gold(Instead of 3 in winning team). And the most beacon capturer will get 3 gold in losing team(instead of 5 in winning team). How about this? Please convey my massage to pixo officials so they can think about this. Thanks in advance for the cooperation ?? Good idea. Why not give everybody test server resources fresh each day? For free? No matter the league, or if they play at all? |
|
|
|
Post by HEATHEN HERETIC on Mar 17, 2018 9:58:35 GMT -5
They did this for awhile. But it had no affect on tanking at all.
This is supposed to be a "team" affair so Ag rewards should be distributed evenly through the winning team(unless you are a non-participating member either damage or beacon cap wise). Au should be distributed to each player 1 Au for every beacon captured. Not liberated, captured. I'd bet all the beacon ignoring would end if that happened and every hanger would have at least one or two fast light or medium bots in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Domino on Mar 17, 2018 12:03:21 GMT -5
The fastest and easiest solution for tanking (it's not 100%) is to compare the highest league the person obtained and compare to current league.
It bigger the difference, the less rewards you are given per match
|
|
paras
Destrier
Posts: 59
Karma: 14
|
Post by paras on Mar 17, 2018 22:54:44 GMT -5
Good idea. Why not give everybody test server resources fresh each day? For free? No matter the league, or if they play at all? Do you mean like this?  Well some of us are already getting those "test server resources" soooo ? |
|
paras
Destrier
Posts: 59
Karma: 14
|
Post by paras on Mar 17, 2018 23:00:19 GMT -5
They did this for awhile. But it had no affect on tanking at all. This is supposed to be a "team" affair so Ag rewards should be distributed evenly through the winning team(unless you are a non-participating member either damage or beacon cap wise). Au should be distributed to each player 1 Au for every beacon captured. Not liberated, captured. I'd bet all the beacon ignoring would end if that happened and every hanger would have at least one or two fast light or medium bots in it. Yeh that is also a good idea. Au distribution should rely more on individual performance than win/lose. Right now it's like this # if you win you get lots of Au #on the other hand if you lose you don't get any even if you are doing your best and you lose because of your dumb teammates. |
|
