Jump to content

An idea - Overwatch Report System

Idea report player support military honor

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

NeverMoreHopeful_ #1 Posted 01 March 2021 - 09:34 PM


  • Players
  • 16311 battles
  • 40
  • [SRT]
  • Member since:

So, this has been a long time coming from me. My name is NeverMoreHopeful_, although I go by NMH1701 or Nathan. I'm a live streamer, and in the past, I got a couple bans caused by a member of Dsteves' cult taking my name (Copy and paste the name written directly above here, and then compare it to NeverMoreHopefuI_) 

More recently, Droodles Blitz YT has gotten an account ban. No reasons were given, but the ticket response looks the same as the ones I got, and this account exists:

As such, the fact that content creators, both of little and great renown, are getting banned calls for a desperate call for change, and NOW. Here's my idea:
Implement a Replay Overwatch System. For reference to what that is, check out this news journal:


Obviously, this system is very difficult to implement, and would require Wargaming to put effort into finding users that are willing to do it and be serious about it, as well as some incentive to do it, but my thoughts are:
Have it open to all content creator, Community Helpers, and Wargaming-hired Moderators, with an incentive reward of their choice of either 500 free experience or 10000 credits for watching and confirming a report. On a passed report, players will get a 1 day/1 week/1 month/permanent UNRESCINDABLE ban, for their actions, which will be directly inputted and warned in the game TOS. 

I put the unrescindable part in because I have direct evidence of ban reports being lifted repeatedly in places they should not be. This is obviously an imperfect system, and obviously would need a lot of work to both implement correctly as well as make sure it's not an abusable thing, but the fact that, as I said, content creators of both great and minor renown are getting banned NEEDS to be fixed. 

Edit - Note that this could be a system that certain clans and people could be permitted to sign up for outside of the subsets that I have listed. Example, a clan such as Triarii, which has an overwhelmingly positive reputation, known for directly combatting in-game toxicity since they were made. The question would be how, why, and if it's something based off of Military Honor, what changes would need to be made to best optimize it. 

Edited by NeverMoreHopeful_, 01 March 2021 - 09:43 PM.

ChazWillemJenkins #2 Posted 02 March 2021 - 06:28 PM


  • Players
  • 28844 battles
  • 1,585
  • [TENET]
  • Member since:

I find it amusing that the thread about Droodles' ban has 80 comments repeating the same thing but this proposed solution has 0 engagement.


The overwatch system is new, and hasn't had time to mature. There are clearly issues with it. Some are outlined in this reddit thread I found discussing user experiences watching the reported games/players. https://www.reddit.c...e_ive_received/


As one user comments, "All mine have been people losing their lane lol." This would absolutely happen in Blitz. How do you control for salt? I don't know. I'm curious to see what changes Valve makes to this system if they stick with it because I do like the principles. I also think that having trusted clan members (maybe the same way top 8 clans choose the testers for new vehicles) would be a good step.



cheasesteak #3 Posted 02 March 2021 - 06:40 PM

    Lackey to the Barons of Entrenched Corporate Greed

  • Players
  • 23574 battles
  • 4,606
  • [COD-R]
  • Member since:
Seems like a lot of work for not much gain, but if WG did something like this, good for them.  On your suggestion, I wouldn’t include content creators.  Anyone can start a YouTube channel.  You'd need better screening than that.  

_Crusader6_ #4 Posted 02 March 2021 - 08:09 PM

    Please don’t go to town.

  • Players
  • 78496 battles
  • 18,648
  • [III-P]
  • Member since:

One set of eyes isn’t enough.  
    It would need vetting with at least 3 before any penalties could realistically be applied. 

I doubt anyone would want the role though.  

Personally I don’t think it is something that the player base would accept, and frankly WG should be policing their own game.  


I hate Annihilator spammers...  

Tank Hoarder: 463 tanks in Garage:  481/481 Played Tanks Aced
I need more tanks...
    Wallet Warrior: Loyal Original M60 owner


EL_Din_46 #5 Posted 02 March 2021 - 09:39 PM

    Poet Laureate of Boris’ Den (of Iniquity)

  • Players
  • 17518 battles
  • 1,923
  • [MOD3]
  • Member since:

Crusader has a good point, having multiple eyes on the problem would help but would be too hard to implement. With over 1,500,000 people playing this game daily and averaging over an hour online each any improvement is going to come from simple and cheap changes that relatively low level staff can carry out quickly. 










This is what you get for letting rednecks play with antimatter, boss.


John Ringo, Hell’s Faire

Ookla_the_Mok #6 Posted 02 March 2021 - 10:01 PM

    VCR is Peak Tech

  • Players
  • 29082 battles
  • 5,704
  • [BRSKT]
  • Member since:

Hmmmm, rather interesting. 


Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is best thought of as a form of the Re-Captcha system that uses multiple points of verification by humans to automate a task. No one point has to be perfect or even great for the system to work.


The OP begins to address the required rewards to juice the proposed system, but this also shows the issue of scale. You are either using small rewards for hundreds of players to blanket the reporting system with coverage OR you are focusing on the worst reports and thus enacting a nearly redundant check on reports.


You could categorize reports as the most subjective will be battle rigging, blocking, or other behavior conducted in battle. If you focus exclusively on this type of report (presuming language and other conduct is either yes/no and easy to deal with) then you could theoretically harnass a group of vetted players to conduct an eyeball test.


I'd push back strongly on the clan system and content creator system that OP mentions. IMHO, this is not going to generate the type of person right for the task. But, these are the type of people that will do work with WG for rewards so we are once again venturing into split incentives.


Ultimately, while the idea may be relatively sound, the implementation and results undo it. You'd be best off with a small group of people reviewing only the thorniest and most subjective of reports. Every other approach requires a level of infrastructure and human time that radically outpaces any potential value in game improvement. 

Secret Lair & Pawn Discord - Now 41% Bad Choices, 38% Creative Solutions, and 21% Chaos.
Alternatively you can check out


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users