Jump to content


Take a leaf out of another company's books

Put the emphasis back on community

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
15 replies to this topic

MissMadeline #1 Posted 27 March 2015 - 12:20 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Member
  • 15433 battles
  • 451
  • Member since:
    09-01-2013

So my mate and I were discussing anti bot / cheating measures used in other games. She described to me the system they use in the current game she is playing made by a rather large game provider / company which I imagine, if implemented correctly, could work in WoTs.

The system they use : The game company decided that cheating detection via robots / programs was unreliable, time consuming and inaccurate. They decided that sometimes an issue needed a 'human' pair of eyes instead of an automatic system. So instead, they gave players who reached a certain (high) level the ability to 'vote'. Let me explain in some detail:

Friend logs onto game after reaching a certain level. Game offers the player the option to improve the overall quality of the game by joining the games 'quality team' - offers cosmetic rewards eg Forum signatures, gun visuals ect if the player wishes to join.
Friend joins the quality team. Each time friend logs onto game the friend is offered the ability to 'quality check'. If the friend clicks yes, then the game takes the player into replay mode with 9 other people (10 total) These people are chosen at random and can not see who the other quality checkers are. the players watch the replay then get the option to click yes or no to 3 or 4 questions which are along the lines of : Is the player in question a bot: yes/no/unknown (unknown is treated as a no)

Now if 10 out of 10 quality players click yes: That player is a bot. Then the player in question (they can not see the name of the player) is banned from the game with the option to appeal via customer services where the game staff then look into it.
If the majority click yes (6+) then the player in question is banned for X amount of days and given a warning with the option to appeal via customer services where company staff then look into it.
If the minority of players click yes (4 or less) then the player in question is deemed not a bot and are allowed to continue playing.

How is the player in question chosen for said 'trail' ? The players in game have a report button much like WoTs. If a player gets X reports over X games... then they go on to the Quality team. 

How could this work for WoTs?
If a player manages to acquire three or four Tier 10 tanks - they are offered a chance to join the Q-Team. By this amount of games, they hopefully will know the difference between a human player, and one who is just bad.
Player who owns a tank T3+ (to account new players learning the game) receives X amount of complaints for botting over X games (not just the one to take in account game crashes ect) they then go onto being Q-checked.
This system would put emphasis of quality and getting rid of bots back onto the community as it is seemingly an impossible (or slow) task for Wargaming (which I can appreciate)
Why would players want to do this? Wargamming can easily reward players who Q-mark X games with visuals / non money rewards which is good for the player - and good for wargaming as their game will become "cleaner" -  I would also argue that is might create a greater sense of community within the game, and perhaps retain some long term members / players.
I suggest another "mark of excellence" style cosmetic for the gun barrel rewarded after 100+ Quality marks - something to say that this player cares about the Quality of the game and is apart of the community keeping the game 'clean'.

Once botting has been curbed. This process can then be applied to Wargamings other complaints. EG - 'bad sportsmanship' but with a lesser penalty which currently is only being collected for statistical purposes only. 

Of course the idea would need fine tuning. 'Im not saying this is the be all end all - just an idea being used by another gaming company, utilizing the 'power of the community' in an attempt to keep their game clean. 

Let me know what you think. I personalty think its a great idea.

EDIT To those who would say that players just wouldn't quality check - I agree, its not for everyone. My friend, whenever she logs onto her game each day or so. Checks one game before playing. The belief being that she is improving the game which she likes to spend time playing. SEA has anywhere from 4 - 12k+ players online most times - thats potentially alot of players to check games and get rid of unwanted behavior. She also enjoys the fact that the game company cares about the community enough that it has put some of the responsibility of keeping the game 'clean' on the people that matter the most - The players.


Edited by NZStevie, 27 March 2015 - 01:27 PM.



My random pubs battle theme song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ5LpwO-An4

U12D13 #2 Posted 27 March 2015 - 12:54 PM

    IRL Garbage Collector

  • Council of Armored Forces
  • 38676 battles
  • 1,906
  • [CALM] CALM
  • Member since:
    12-11-2013
The idea sounds superb! However one issue I noted was that the replays are stored client side and it may be difficult to obtain such replays for viewing/judging without the replays being submitted. It would be rather difficult for WG to track all the replays of every match going on as well. So maybe that portion needs refinement, otherwise the report function will just flag a possible bot but without evidence to substantiate the ban.

I'm not good at this game, its just that the rest of the server sucks~

Casual Gaming: Apply for [ANKOU] today! Simple requirements: English speaking, Wn8 = 1000+ (nego-able), new players welcome!

Competitive Gaming: Come join in the [CALM/CROWN] family! Weekly Strongholds and CW~


MissMadeline #3 Posted 27 March 2015 - 12:57 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Member
  • 15433 battles
  • 451
  • Member since:
    09-01-2013
Yeah we didn't discuss in depth how that part was done so can't offer any insight unfortunately.

I imagine the replay would be recorded by the company only if X amount of complaints are made. Otherwise... they would have alot of replays haha.

I will do some research / ask my friend.... 

Edited by NZStevie, 27 March 2015 - 01:04 PM.



My random pubs battle theme song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ5LpwO-An4

manofleisure #4 Posted 27 March 2015 - 01:00 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta-Tester
  • 19305 battles
  • 16
  • Member since:
    08-04-2012

I think the idea has merit -- though suspect the qualification requirements would need adjusting as I would suggest there are many accounts that would qualify by virtue of already having botted to the tier 10s.

 

perhaps a requirement of MoE, full name registration (not dissimilar for signing up to closed beta access) etc or perhaps a combination thereof?

 

 

 

 



MissMadeline #5 Posted 27 March 2015 - 01:03 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Member
  • 15433 battles
  • 451
  • Member since:
    09-01-2013
Yes - I imagine people that have botted to T10 and are now actually playing the game ect would not be affected by this - it would be too hard to judge and unrealistic.
It would only affect current bots / non human players (I imagine)


My random pubs battle theme song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ5LpwO-An4

aurora97 #6 Posted 27 March 2015 - 01:12 PM

    Major

  • Council of Armored Forces
  • 34463 battles
  • 2,203
  • [CALM] CALM
  • Member since:
    09-07-2012

That's a good suggestion.

 

Players are more in touch with the game, besides WG customer service is swamped with complaints that they themselves can't clear efficiently or due to pressure may result in sanction being served on innocent players.

 

The goal is to mitigate cheating, currently this is done through check boxes in game, customer service and probably based on statistics that a normal human can achieve .

 

the next phase should incorporate player based quality assurance and in game anti botting devices. I think everyone is well aware...  measures implemented will be overcome through the passage of time.

 

again the goal is to mitigate cheating and indirectly this means denying opportunity to cheat and deterring prospects from cheating.

 

This concept is akin to the broken window theory.


Edited by aurora97, 27 March 2015 - 01:15 PM.


Tinwing #7 Posted 27 March 2015 - 01:33 PM

    Wears what shirt

  • Beta-Tester
  • 14653 battles
  • 1,345
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012

I like the idea. Maybe a little more in depth investigation other than just a replay. Last night I'm strongholds mtspii looked like a bot as his internet lagged out then disconnected.

 

Accounts that have thousands of games in a single tank with 100 average damage done is usually a good sign of a bot.

 

A review of a replay plus overall stats in my opinion would be enough to declare someone a bot or someone that has botted.

 

Animosity would be a must for both the suspected bot and the reviewers.

 

One of the big problems I see though is this server has a very campy cowardice game style couple that with language barriers and a tomoato player who is camping and not responding to in game chat could be labelled a bot incorrectly


My stats don't matter, my reroll has an easy 80% winrate

 

Raging pubbie extraordinare, shitpoaster in training and all around sperglord


Tinwing #8 Posted 27 March 2015 - 01:35 PM

    Wears what shirt

  • Beta-Tester
  • 14653 battles
  • 1,345
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012
Also in terms of banning. Can WG ban the IP address of people caught botting for the same period as the in game ban to stop them using an alt account or just creating a new one?

My stats don't matter, my reroll has an easy 80% winrate

 

Raging pubbie extraordinare, shitpoaster in training and all around sperglord


Airborne447 #9 Posted 27 March 2015 - 02:01 PM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 12698 battles
  • 3,700
  • Member since:
    03-11-2012

View PostTinwing, on 27 March 2015 - 01:35 PM, said:

Also in terms of banning. Can WG ban the IP address of people caught botting for the same period as the in game ban to stop them using an alt account or just creating a new one?

 

They won't do so as said players banned could be from net cafes, and IP banning that IP would prevent the other WoT players from playing (from the same net cafe) 

Click for real sig -> Started back on tanks but am terrible

Bad@Poasting.Bad@Tonks.Gud@Raging

Hear no bots, see no bots, speak not about bots


U12D13 #10 Posted 27 March 2015 - 02:19 PM

    IRL Garbage Collector

  • Council of Armored Forces
  • 38676 battles
  • 1,906
  • [CALM] CALM
  • Member since:
    12-11-2013

View PostAirborne447, on 27 March 2015 - 02:01 PM, said:

 

They won't do so as said players banned could be from net cafes, and IP banning that IP would prevent the other WoT players from playing (from the same net cafe) 

 

True that

I'm not good at this game, its just that the rest of the server sucks~

Casual Gaming: Apply for [ANKOU] today! Simple requirements: English speaking, Wn8 = 1000+ (nego-able), new players welcome!

Competitive Gaming: Come join in the [CALM/CROWN] family! Weekly Strongholds and CW~


Splattimus #11 Posted 27 March 2015 - 05:11 PM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 25047 battles
  • 3,296
  • [PANZA] PANZA
  • Member since:
    09-15-2012

View PostTinwing, on 27 March 2015 - 03:35 PM, said:

Also in terms of banning. Can WG ban the IP address of people caught botting for the same period as the in game ban to stop them using an alt account or just creating a new one?

 

Not to mention 90% of Australian players routinely swap IP's due to Telstra sniffing out the potential to charge extra for "Static IP's"...

 

Don't know how much work would be required to allow the server to take a replay of a suspect account, but perhaps a system which when someone flags, the game requests they submit a particular battle. Say the server logged a series of complaints during an hour period, player must submit one / some / all replays of that time period, or face short term sanctions. Although the random silent grab would work much better.

 

And the best part for Wargaming, is the policing is then a community problem, don't like the rampant bots? Are you signed up for Quality Assurance? And whats to say an Ex Bot Driver isn't the best set of eyes to detect someone else botting?


Sarge: What a way to go. Killed by my own mechanical creations. I'm sure there's a philosophical lesson to be learned from all this.
Simmons: Something about the dangers of technology and the unwavering pride of mankind?
Sarge: No, something about hiring better help that doesn't just stand around watching you die!

I don't believe we should kill all the stupid people. Just remove some of the warning signs and let nature take its course...


U12D13 #12 Posted 27 March 2015 - 06:45 PM

    IRL Garbage Collector

  • Council of Armored Forces
  • 38676 battles
  • 1,906
  • [CALM] CALM
  • Member since:
    12-11-2013

View PostSplattimus, on 27 March 2015 - 05:11 PM, said:

Don't know how much work would be required to allow the server to take a replay of a suspect account, but perhaps a system which when someone flags, the game requests they submit a particular battle. Say the server logged a series of complaints during an hour period, player must submit one / some / all replays of that time period, or face short term sanctions. Although the random silent grab would work much better.

With regards to the replays, not all players save all their replays due to limitations such as Hard Drive space constraints. It is possible that their game settings only save the last replay (if a new battle is started, the old file gets deleted) or even none of the replays. Thus the "request to submit a replay" option is far from valid. Silent grabs rarely work, and is reliant of team flagging/reporting system. In which there are countermeasures by WG already in place for that.


I'm not good at this game, its just that the rest of the server sucks~

Casual Gaming: Apply for [ANKOU] today! Simple requirements: English speaking, Wn8 = 1000+ (nego-able), new players welcome!

Competitive Gaming: Come join in the [CALM/CROWN] family! Weekly Strongholds and CW~


Husky1 #13 Posted 27 March 2015 - 07:11 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta-Tester
  • 40615 battles
  • 646
  • Member since:
    10-03-2012
Thats basically league of legends tribunal system, where players decide to punish the offender, great system,works almost 100% of the time, and its all anonymous

Bartlett #14 Posted 27 March 2015 - 09:16 PM

    Captain

  • Beta-Tester
  • 21654 battles
  • 1,722
  • Member since:
    07-17-2012

View PostTinwing, on 27 March 2015 - 03:05 PM, said:

Also in terms of banning. Can WG ban the IP address of people caught botting for the same period as the in game ban to stop them using an alt account or just creating a new one?

 

IP banning is pretty well by way of the dodo as far as being an effective measure these days. The forums here are a prime example there's enough people on the forums posting from diff IP's on alts etc that have been sanctioned.

For some its as simple as reseting router for others VPN will easily do the same. There's many many ways to get around an IP block and with all the net cafe users the potential to annoy a larger group of customers isn't insignificant.

 

As long as the whole idea is 100% anon on all counts it might work I reckon!



aurora97 #15 Posted 27 March 2015 - 09:30 PM

    Major

  • Council of Armored Forces
  • 34463 battles
  • 2,203
  • [CALM] CALM
  • Member since:
    09-07-2012

View PostSplattimus, on 27 March 2015 - 05:11 PM, said:

 

And the best part for Wargaming, is the policing is then a community problem, don't like the rampant bots? Are you signed up for Quality Assurance? And whats to say an Ex Bot Driver isn't the best set of eyes to detect someone else botting?

Policing should be done hand in hand with community, not just shift the problem to the community.

 

Lastly, think of jury duty in real life. Ppl r literally pick out from all walks of life. Its not perfect but at least u get a trial by ur peers.



shankman #16 Posted 30 March 2015 - 01:56 PM

    Sergeant

  • Member
  • 13857 battles
  • 119
  • Member since:
    10-17-2013

Dont we already have this system in place with the complaints tab . Basically the same thing imo .

 Maybe just actually use the complaints system to its full potential.  

Maybe add some more lines to the complaints like ( the ^@@^@^  just shot me on cap at start of game )

 

there a few others i cant write ;-)

 







1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users