|
Post by Spoopy Scary Haunter on Feb 20, 2017 19:35:43 GMT -5
Why are you even still here XD I dunno, why are YOU still here? Wai did chu even quit?
|
|
|
Post by truechill on Feb 20, 2017 20:52:36 GMT -5
That escalated quickly.
|
|
|
Post by Thunderkiss on Feb 20, 2017 21:02:46 GMT -5
I believe it is. Artificial inflation/deflation of your score is troubling to say the least. Not to mention the negative impact on your teammates and opponents. It's not fun to win that way and to say it's aggravating to lose thusly is an understatement. I don't participate in these games when my opponents have 3 members. It's just poor form all the way around.
Cheating has my vote.
|
|
|
Post by SlowReflexes on Feb 20, 2017 21:18:32 GMT -5
It's not cheating, but it is suckng the life out of this game and Pix really shouldn't incentivize it. Loaded up that hangar. Got canyon. Third in damage, tied for beacons, 1 gold. Got DC decided to play it anyway. Despite the 5 man clan squad, and their 'random' having full squad protection, flinging aphids like he never has before and breaking 1mil (he was 70k shy of his best *ever*) this was a really really close match. Can you spot why I'm bringing this match up in a thread about tanking?
|
|
|
Post by spawnreaper on Feb 20, 2017 21:21:14 GMT -5
cheat t?i?t/ verb verb: cheat; 3rd person present: cheats; past tense: cheated; past participle: cheated; gerund or present participle: cheating 1. act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage. "she always cheats at cards"
exploit verb verb: exploit; 3rd person present: exploits; past tense: exploited; past participle: exploited; gerund or present participle: exploiting ?k?spl??t,?k?spl??t/ 2. make use of (a situation) in a way considered unfair or underhand. "the company was exploiting a legal loophole"
Mhm, absolutely, with out a doubt different. making use of a situation to unfairly benifit and acting unfair, to, wait for it, benefit are waaaaay different. I mean, as if tanking is making use of a situation to benefit, or acting unfairly to gain an advantage, bah!for all of those still debating if tanking is cheating, i quoted my post. Tanking is considered an exploit, yes? this post explains exploting and cheating are more or less the same, so.....argument finished, good day to you all! Tanking would be a exploit because it's done within the confines of the rules. If it was done outside the rules it would be cheating. Eg. Pixonix uses new mm to exploit players for money. They would rather cheat you by going straight into your bank account and withdraw.
|
|
|
Post by Paps on Feb 20, 2017 21:21:24 GMT -5
Honey boo-boo coming in last with 1 cap. Y'all might have won W/O the anchor.
|
|
|
Post by Pilot Moby_dic on Feb 20, 2017 21:51:16 GMT -5
I think people forget that War Robots now has a player base of around 30 million. That's the size of a large country, particularly considering most players will be adults. As such you're going to get a pretty even spread of all walks of life and characters (good and bad). In such a large data pool , there are people who will exploit any loop hole in any system for any reason. That's inevitable.
Back to the subject of cheating?!
Think of the British Sky cycling team and the current furore about how they pushed the boundaries of what was legal doping. Was it cheating? The challenge is that 'more or less' is not the same thing and completely open to interpretation. In the cycling case it was entirely legal so on one hand there isn't a case to answer. If there aren't specific rules and no rule was broken then it's not cheating. What they clearly did was exploit the system and go against an unwritten code of conduct against the 'spirit of the game and fair play'. Which in many people's minds amounts to the same thing - cheating, but entirely subjective and open to interpretation (many will think - well they exploited a loop hole that was there to exploit). Cycling is now looking to address these loop holes and grey areas around what Sky cycling did so that 'exploitation' is reclassified as cheating. What is clear is that reputations are damaged and some will never recover. You then have the Lance Armstrong case, they are two different cases as Mr Armstrong clearly broke every rule in the book and then some. There is no recovery from that....ever.
For anyone from USA here I am guessing the Patriot/Brady deflate gate stirred similar emotions and fierce debate (probably now long forgotten after Super Bowl 51....but should it be??). And does it tarnish Brady's legacy - I think so.
Unfortunately in the War Robots world reputations count for little and have no impact on real life. Unless there are specific rules against cheating that are clearly defined - and Pix will be clear what they think those are - then they will be 'exploited' and we'll have this endless subjective debate. I know we're unhappy about it but it's inevitable that an element of our 30m player base will continually look to exploit the game for whatever reason. Even if the game was in-exploitable they'd look for a way. So it'd be great if Pix actually said 'exploitation' (are tankers playing the game in the way it was meant to be played) is cheating and therefore set clear guidelines on it and do something about it.
|
|
|
Post by spawnreaper on Feb 20, 2017 21:57:47 GMT -5
I think people forget that War Robots now has a player base of around 30 million. That's the size of a large country, particularly considering most players will be adults. As such you're going to get a pretty even spread of all walks of life and characters (good and bad). In such a large data pool , there are people who will exploit any loop hole in any system for any reason. That's inevitable. Back to the subject of cheating?! Think of the British Sky cycling team and the current furore about how they pushed the boundaries of what was legal doping. Was it cheating? The challenge is that 'more or less' is not the same thing and completely open to interpretation. In the cycling case it was entirely legal so on one hand there isn't a case to answer. If there aren't specific rules and no rule was broken then it's not cheating. What they clearly did was exploit the system and go against an unwritten code of conduct against the 'spirit of the game and fair play'. Which in many people's minds amounts to the same thing - cheating, but entirely subjective and open to interpretation (many will think - well they exploited a loop hole that was there to exploit). Cycling is now looking to address these loop holes and grey areas around what Sky cycling did so that 'exploitation' is reclassified as cheating. What is clear is that reputations are damaged and some will never recover. You then have the Lance Armstrong case, they are two different cases as Mr Armstrong clearly broke every rule in the book and then some. There is no recovery from that....ever. For anyone from USA here I am guessing the Patriot/Brady deflate gate stirred similar emotions and fierce debate (probably now long forgotten after Super Bowl 51....but should it be??). And does it tarnish Brady's legacy - I think so. Unfortunately in the War Robots world reputations count for little and have no impact on real life. Unless there are specific rules against cheating that are clearly defined - and Pix will be clear what they think those are - then they will be 'exploited' and we'll have this endless subjective debate. I know we're unhappy about it but it's inevitable that an element of our 30m player base will continually look to exploit the game for whatever reason. Even if the game was in-exploitable they'd look for a way. So it'd be great if Pix actually said 'exploitation' (are tankers playing the game in the way it was meant to be played) is cheating and therefore set clear guidelines on it and do something about it. I believe pix did say game was being exploited with tanking and are looking into changing it.
|
|
|
Post by Pilot Moby_dic on Feb 20, 2017 22:01:20 GMT -5
I think people forget that War Robots now has a player base of around 30 million. That's the size of a large country, particularly considering most players will be adults. As such you're going to get a pretty even spread of all walks of life and characters (good and bad). In such a large data pool , there are people who will exploit any loop hole in any system for any reason. That's inevitable. Back to the subject of cheating?! Think of the British Sky cycling team and the current furore about how they pushed the boundaries of what was legal doping. Was it cheating? The challenge is that 'more or less' is not the same thing and completely open to interpretation. In the cycling case it was entirely legal so on one hand there isn't a case to answer. If there aren't specific rules and no rule was broken then it's not cheating. What they clearly did was exploit the system and go against an unwritten code of conduct against the 'spirit of the game and fair play'. Which in many people's minds amounts to the same thing - cheating, but entirely subjective and open to interpretation (many will think - well they exploited a loop hole that was there to exploit). Cycling is now looking to address these loop holes and grey areas around what Sky cycling did so that 'exploitation' is reclassified as cheating. What is clear is that reputations are damaged and some will never recover. You then have the Lance Armstrong case, they are two different cases as Mr Armstrong clearly broke every rule in the book and then some. There is no recovery from that....ever. For anyone from USA here I am guessing the Patriot/Brady deflate gate stirred similar emotions and fierce debate (probably now long forgotten after Super Bowl 51....but should it be??). And does it tarnish Brady's legacy - I think so. Unfortunately in the War Robots world reputations count for little and have no impact on real life. Unless there are specific rules against cheating that are clearly defined - and Pix will be clear what they think those are - then they will be 'exploited' and we'll have this endless subjective debate. I know we're unhappy about it but it's inevitable that an element of our 30m player base will continually look to exploit the game for whatever reason. Even if the game was in-exploitable they'd look for a way. So it'd be great if Pix actually said 'exploitation' (are tankers playing the game in the way it was meant to be played) is cheating and therefore set clear guidelines on it and do something about it. I believe pix did say game was being exploited with tanking and are looking into changing it. That's great - hopefully we'll then get a solution. Rome wasn't built in a day as they say
|
|
|
Post by Spoopy Scary Haunter on Feb 20, 2017 22:04:03 GMT -5
for all of those still debating if tanking is cheating, i quoted my post. Tanking is considered an exploit, yes? this post explains exploting and cheating are more or less the same, so.....argument finished, good day to you all! Tanking would be a exploit because it's done within the confines of the rules. If it was done outside the rules it would be cheating. Eg. Pixonix uses new mm to exploit players for money. They would rather cheat you by going straight into your bank account and withdraw. take a closer look at the definition of cheating. count how many times it says the word rules. what was that? None, you say? now apply this new-found fact to your current statement. you'll find your entire statement is invalid.
|
|
|
Post by spawnreaper on Feb 20, 2017 22:05:23 GMT -5
Of course they could fix it fast by bringing old mm back....lol
|
|
|
Post by spawnreaper on Feb 20, 2017 22:14:38 GMT -5
Tanking would be a exploit because it's done within the confines of the rules. If it was done outside the rules it would be cheating. Eg. Pixonix uses new mm to exploit players for money. They would rather cheat you by going straight into your bank account and withdraw. take a closer look at the definition of cheating. count how many times it says the word rules. what was that? None, you say? now apply this new-found fact to your current statement. you'll find your entire statement is invalid. Obviously you use a h&r block for taxes instead of a accountant because you would understand the difference. Irregardless arguing about the difference is pointless. The main part is tanking bad. Pixonix please fix it by bringing back old mm.
|
|
|
Post by blastronaut on Feb 20, 2017 22:17:46 GMT -5
So far, the general consensus is that we do not want to endorse tanking, as it has been defined in this and other threads, as a valid strategy, to newcomers and old hats, alike. That wasn't the question being asked. The question was "Is Tanking Cheating?" and by my tally so far the majority agree that tanking is not cheating (41 No votes VS 17 Yes votes). I don't know what the admins are planning on doing with this information. But it is my belief that a wiki should be an unbiased source of useful information for everyone covering a wide variety of topics. Obviously guides on how to use hacks or abuse bugs should not be permitted. However hacking is not needed to tank, and I'm not aware of any bugs in the MM code that can be used to alter a player's rating.
|
|
|
Post by Spoopy Scary Haunter on Feb 20, 2017 22:21:58 GMT -5
take a closer look at the definition of cheating. count how many times it says the word rules. what was that? None, you say? now apply this new-found fact to your current statement. you'll find your entire statement is invalid. Obviously you use a h&r block for taxes instead of a accountant because you would understand the difference. Irregardless arguing about the difference is pointless. The main part is tanking bad. Pixonix please fix it by bringing back old mm. A+ In question avoiding. Mhm, arguing about the difference (The topic of this thread, mind you) is absolutely irrelevant! And yes, tanking is bad. Hence why we want discussion on how to do it halted. Also, reverting to the old MM is pretty idiotic, considering the new MM is just a scaffold for the upcoming league system. only an idiot would think the current MM was the final product. You didn't think this new MM was the final product, right? Also, Don't take this to personally, but judging by your punctuation and grammar, 'id think you were more likely to be an 11 year old, rather than someone old enough to pay taxes, even less understand them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2017 22:37:30 GMT -5
Honey boo-boo coming in last with 1 cap. Y'all might have won W/O the anchor. Three people on that team capped 0 beacons leaving them with 5 capped total at the end. The winning team capped 8 times. In my experience that's far more often the root cause of a loss than anything else if a team isn't meched out. Toss in the squad and it really seems a stretch to blame Honey solely for the loss.
|
|
|
Post by spawnreaper on Feb 20, 2017 22:41:18 GMT -5
Obviously you use a h&r block for taxes instead of a accountant because you would understand the difference. Irregardless arguing about the difference is pointless. The main part is tanking bad. Pixonix please fix it by bringing back old mm. A+ In question avoiding. Mhm, arguing about the difference (The topic of this thread, mind you) is absolutely irrelevant! And yes, tanking is bad. Hence why we want discussion on how to do it halted. Also, reverting to the old MM is pretty idiotic, considering the new MM is just a scaffold for the upcoming league system. only an idiot would think the current MM was the final product. You didn't think this new MM was the final product, right? Also, Don't take this to personally, but judging by your punctuation and grammar, 'id think you were more likely to be an 11 year old, rather than someone old enough to pay taxes, even less understand them. Well rather than mudslinging back and forth like you seem to want to do. My opinion old mm was way better. Sure it needed to be changed to improve. As for waiting for final product? When are we all in a test realm? This mm was badly implemented and without a league, apparently unfinished. As for your cheating definition try this one www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheat
|
|
|
Post by Paps on Feb 20, 2017 22:46:32 GMT -5
I was referencing that player as a likely match drop, more than emphasizing their lack of apparent contribution.
|
|
|
Post by duckdecoy on Feb 20, 2017 22:59:20 GMT -5
I believe pix did say game was being exploited with tanking and are looking into changing it. There already is something in place now. Dropping out of several games in a row [edit: without scoring damage] does not lower the last 50 average by much. War Robots seems to be using a variable formula that changes with every game played. Sometimes it is a simple calculation of [(current score/50) + previous last 50] that appears in no regular pattern. So tanking consecutively only adds zero to the average.
|
|
88generalblue
GI. Patton
Posts: 137
Karma: 76
Platform: Android
Clan: Wik2
League: Silver
Favorite robot: Gareth w/ Taran, Aphids
|
Post by 88generalblue on Feb 20, 2017 23:17:05 GMT -5
Its not cheating. It is exploiting the system, like clubbing. I don't have as much of a problem with tankers as I do with ditchers. please explain what you mean by 'tanker' and 'ditcher'? they kinda seem like the same thing to me.. And I gotta agree that I don't think its "cheating" because the game is what determines if its cheating, not us. in some sports, if you walk into an opposing team member while heading to their goal and knock them down, its a fowl. in football, knocking them down is an essential part of the game, it all depends on how the system is set up if its 'cheating' or not. it's a really douchey move, but in the end, it doesn't necessarily affect my battles that much. i've found some games we lose two people, and after winning noticed two reds also ditched, so it evened out. I honestly enjoy the new MM, though, so maybe i'm looking for the bright side of things, "half glass full". sometimes its frustrating if you continue to lose several times in a row, but overall the matches are much more competitive and fun for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2017 23:22:36 GMT -5
I was referencing that player as a likely match drop, more than emphasizing their lack of apparent contribution. Honey boo-boo coming in last with 1 cap. Y'all might have won W/O the anchor. Really? That implies a match drop over contribution? Sure sure..
|
|
|
Post by truechill on Feb 20, 2017 23:25:49 GMT -5
Tanking would be a exploit because it's done within the confines of the rules. If it was done outside the rules it would be cheating. Eg. Pixonix uses new mm to exploit players for money. They would rather cheat you by going straight into your bank account and withdraw. take a closer look at the definition of cheating. count how many times it says the word rules. what was that? None, you say? now apply this new-found fact to your current statement. you'll find your entire statement is invalid. Can I play the condescending semantics game? It sounds like fun. There are a few definitions of cheating. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheatingtransitive verb 1 : to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud <cheated the elderly couple out of their property> 2 : to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice <a young man who cheated young women into marrying him when he was already married> 3 : to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting <cheat death> intransitive verb 1 a : to practice fraud or trickery <denied the accusation that he cheated> b : to violate rules dishonestly <cheat at cards> <cheating on a test> 2 : to be sexually unfaithful —usually used with on <was cheating on his wife> 3 : to position oneself defensively near a particular area in anticipation of a play in that area <the shortstop was cheating toward second base>
"Rules" is clearly mentioned in one of the definitions. Lets look at the original question. "Is tanking cheating or not?" <-- There is no direct object so it is perfectly reasonable to treat cheating as a intransitive verb. Lets talk about the definition that you prefer. "Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage" This definition may be more subjective than you think. The clubbers and tankers don't seem dishonest to me. Not only are the majority of them very honest about tanking, they even write guides to tell others exactly how to do it. Also, I don't see how it is unfair. Anyone can do it. Again, the tankers have even provided you with detailed guides on how to do it. On a more personal note. I noticed that you were berating other forum users for grammatical errors in another comment. I think you should master basic punctuation before you get nasty with others. I am not an English major, I make plenty of mistakes. You clearly do too. Most of the users here do as well. Just my humble opinion but I think it is usually better to be kind and argue your points with just the facts rather than personal attacks.
Note: I think tanking is not cheating. I think tanking is terrible and bad for the game. I think Pix is to blame and this thread is ridiculous. This thread will do absolutely nothing to address the core problem. As I said in my original post "don't hate the player, hate the game ... designers..." If tanking really frustrates you then you are probably better off sending a message twitter.com/WWR_by_Pixonic or ask@pixonic.ru or www.facebook.com/warrobots/ or something like that. Edit: or chill out a bit and wait for them to fix it... since they already said they are working on it.
|
|
|
Post by boomsplat on Feb 20, 2017 23:31:28 GMT -5
please explain what you mean by 'tanker' and 'ditcher'? they kinda seem like the same thing to me.. . A "ditcher" leaves the match after 30 seconds after maybe capping a beacon to lower their damage quickly as they can jump into and then leave the next match. They do this repeatedly to get to easy competition fast. A "tanker" stays in the match but tries to inflict almost zero damage....hence you can see lineups of Cossacks with ECUs in their hanger. Some will actively cap beacons but others will just squirrel away in a corner or just quickly die without inflicting much damage at all. The purpose is to lower their damage averages. so both are annoying and both are 「multiple dookie delivery chute」.
|
|
|
Post by Paps on Feb 20, 2017 23:38:08 GMT -5
Looks that way to me, yes. We must be running different parameters for what constitutes lack of contribution. Grabbing home and kamikazeing into the reds once doesn't constitute contribution in my book. You're welcome to your own view, of course. I'm done derailing this discussion, in any case.
|
|
|
Post by fijiwater on Feb 20, 2017 23:53:36 GMT -5
for all of those still debating if tanking is cheating, i quoted my post. Tanking is considered an exploit, yes? this post explains exploting and cheating are more or less the same, so.....argument finished, good day to you all! Tanking would be a exploit because it's done within the confines of the rules. If it was done outside the rules it would be cheating. Eg. Pixonix uses new mm to exploit players for money. They would rather cheat you by going straight into your bank account and withdraw. I don't understand, are you saying Honey Badger tanked and you're mad about it? Are you implying my clan cheated? cuz we didn't. Only reason you lost is no one on your team gave a damn about beacons but you and one other guy Helo, it me
|
|
|
Post by loren on Feb 20, 2017 23:56:53 GMT -5
Honey boo-boo coming in last with 1 cap. Y'all might have won W/O the anchor. Man, even without the anchor it would be a tall order. That Gary pilot put out some serious damage. The ME clan pilots run mostly 6-8 to 8-10 hangar, missleallday has the highest of the 4. But Gary probably dropped rank, he was shooting fish in a barrel with those results. I would say Gary is the reason for the loss more than Honey Badger.
|
|
|
Post by loren on Feb 20, 2017 23:58:31 GMT -5
Tanking would be a exploit because it's done within the confines of the rules. If it was done outside the rules it would be cheating. Eg. Pixonix uses new mm to exploit players for money. They would rather cheat you by going straight into your bank account and withdraw. I don't understand, are you saying Honey Badger tanked and you're mad about it? Are you implying my clan cheated? cuz we didn't. Only reason you lost is no one on your team gave a damn about beacons but you and one other guy Helo, it me No bud, I think he is talking about the pilot Gary. You guys were good.
|
|
|
Post by spawnreaper on Feb 21, 2017 0:11:49 GMT -5
Tanking would be a exploit because it's done within the confines of the rules. If it was done outside the rules it would be cheating. Eg. Pixonix uses new mm to exploit players for money. They would rather cheat you by going straight into your bank account and withdraw. I don't understand, are you saying Honey Badger tanked and you're mad about it? Are you implying my clan cheated? cuz we didn't. Only reason you lost is no one on your team gave a damn about beacons but you and one other guy Helo, it me Not sure if your talking to me. As I've stated b4 I don't blame people that tanked when mm changed because a lot of people were in the wrong spots with their hangers. So if they used tanking to correct where they should be instead of where pix left them hi and dry, to me no biggy. If they use tanking over and over again, while they are still in the confines of the game, to use it to gain a tactical advantage, seems a little cheap to me. I don't like this mm or how it was presented to us. I think a lot of empty spaces are being blamed for tanking, saw empty spaces before mm change. So while not cheating it is exploiting the general theme of what pix wanted. Personally I believe it is now part of the game, thanks to new mm. So people need to stop getting mad about it and learn to adjust. Cause like it or not this is the new mm and the new game pix has decided for us to play.
|
|
|
Post by SlowReflexes on Feb 21, 2017 0:18:17 GMT -5
Honey boo-boo coming in last with 1 cap. Y'all might have won W/O the anchor. Three people on that team capped 0 beacons leaving them with 5 capped total at the end. The winning team capped 8 times. In my experience that's far more often the root cause of a loss than anything else if a team isn't meched out. Toss in the squad and it really seems a stretch to blame Honey solely for the loss. They capped as a group (shared capture). The way their squad was playing, it was a static defensive game with very few beacons changing hands. The beacon situation in general was extremely close, never more than 3-2 in anyone's favor until both teams were down to 2 players each and one of ours was very slow so then they went up 4-1 just by running faster. When our bar ran out, theirs was small. It was close. If tanker boy had played, we would have won.
|
|
|
Post by SlowReflexes on Feb 21, 2017 0:29:46 GMT -5
Tanking would be a exploit because it's done within the confines of the rules. If it was done outside the rules it would be cheating. Eg. Pixonix uses new mm to exploit players for money. They would rather cheat you by going straight into your bank account and withdraw. I don't understand, are you saying Honey Badger tanked and you're mad about it? Are you implying my clan cheated? cuz we didn't. Only reason you lost is no one on your team gave a damn about beacons but you and one other guy Helo, it me Your clan was great, I'd play with you again any day. But we had some guys doing their best too, and I really do feel we would have pulled it out if we had 6 players, not 5. That's the thing. When you play your best, the opponents are good but so are you, the match is really close but you lose. OK, hats off to the other guys, they were splendid. Then you realize you were playing down a man. Bad moment. This tanking situation, set in motion by the structure of the new MM system that rewards it, is causing an awful lot of matches to end in bad moments.
|
|
|
Post by zeus on Feb 21, 2017 0:31:35 GMT -5
Tanking is not cheating going by Pixonic's current context. It can be considered a mechanism exploit within Pixonic boundaries, but Pixonic has no rules against that.
A large part of blame falls on Pixonic for not closing this obvious loophole before they introduce the new MM. I said as much before the new MM happened, other elo based systems faces the same tanking issue. It is only human nature to exploit the advantages before them. It is entirely possible their design team anticipated the feedback, and wanted to wait for people to complain about tanking before they set in harsher rules and punitive measures for quitting games and afking. This also gives them more time to figure out how to shape the solution to War Robots tanking and more support from players who might otherwise be on the fence with harsher measures.
|
|