Jump to content


Pledge for Anti-AFK on NA

poll pledge anti-afk afk

  • Please log in to reply
268 replies to this topic

Poll: Pledge for Anti-AFK on NA (175 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 5 battles in order to participate this poll.

Please select what you pledge for Anti-AFK on NA

  1. 28,000 Gold + 6,000 Bonus ($94.99) (17 votes [9.09%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.09%

  2. 14,000 Gold + 2,000 Bonus ($49.99) (4 votes [2.14%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.14%

  3. 5,600 Gold + 475 Bonus ($19.99) (6 votes [3.21%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.21%

  4. 2,800 Gold + 100 Bonus ($9.99) (6 votes [3.21%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.21%

  5. 1400 Gold ($4.99) (7 votes [3.74%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.74%

  6. Warchest ($74.99) (4 votes [2.14%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.14%

  7. Basic Kit ($23.99) (12 votes [6.42%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.42%

  8. Starter Bundle ($16.99) (5 votes [2.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.67%

  9. Tiny Kit ($0.99) (7 votes [3.74%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.74%

  10. My gratitude (119 votes [63.64%])

    Percentage of vote: 63.64%

Vote Hide poll

ErikBlack #41 Posted 02 July 2015 - 09:46 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5958 battles
  • 1,151
  • [3AD]
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostPheldagriff, on 02 July 2015 - 11:35 AM, said:

 

There have been times where MM has given the enemy team the xtra t10. Then one of or 2 tier tens drowns himself at the beginning and he announced it. it was 7v6 with one tier ten on our side and three on theirs. Shouldnt people like this get the harsh consequences of a ban? I think first offenders should receive warnings.

 

Having a hard time following the beginning part, I do think people who AFK on purpose should get harsher punishments, but I'll take what WG is looking at over nothing.  Policies get buffed and nerfed just like everything else.  1st time warnings might be reasonable in some cases, in other cases not, I think in the long run it will get worked out to make the player base happier and for WG to make more money.

Edited by ErikBlack, 02 July 2015 - 09:48 PM.


ErikBlack #42 Posted 02 July 2015 - 09:48 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5958 battles
  • 1,151
  • [3AD]
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View Postplayer_1234567890, on 02 July 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

 

Much more people are in favor of this system than are against it, because the serial AFKers and horrible, rude players only make up a tiny, minority of players. Either way, somebody is not going to be happy with the system, and it's better that WG pisses of the serial AFKers as opposed to pissing off the vast majority of responsible players.

 

We are very much in agreement about this. :honoring:

My_Dixie_Wrecked_ #43 Posted 02 July 2015 - 09:48 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 26487 battles
  • 1,042
  • [RBLN]
  • Member since:
    08-12-2014

View Postplayer_1234567890, on 02 July 2015 - 03:46 PM, said:

 

Much more people are in favor of this system than are against it, because the serial AFKers and horrible, rude players only make up a tiny, minority of players. Either way, somebody is not going to be happy with the system, and it's better that WG pisses of the serial AFKers as opposed to pissing off the vast majority of responsible players.

 

A lot of people were in favor of removing TKing but look how that turned out



 
 

PPCmgb #44 Posted 02 July 2015 - 09:50 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5740 battles
  • 324
  • Member since:
    03-29-2015

If we have a zero-tolerance policy on this, it won't be perfect. Some people's devices get borrowed by others, need to get off the device, lose their internet connection, etc. Sometimes, their game might crash too.

 

We need to know which players are Serial AFK, and those who go AFK due to something coming up in real life, or by accident.


 

 

 


Rion12 #45 Posted 02 July 2015 - 09:53 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 9303 battles
  • 3,187
  • Member since:
    09-16-2014

The punishments are too harsh, in my opinion. Or, at the very least, I'd call them ham-fisted. People sometimes have contingencies that pull them away from the game, and even one day bans seem a bit silly when you consider how all these little things could cause someone to go AFK for whatever reason.

 

For parents, their kid might have tripped and fell, and they're NOT going to abandon their kid to stay in the game. Heck, I don't think most parents would even take the time to hammer out a message to their team. The college student might have to deal with sudden Wi-Fi issues because everyone in the dorm starts streaming p-...err...Netflix, and their school's Wi-Fi infrastructure has the reliability of a Tiger II engine when in high-traffic situations. The high-school age kid might have their parent yelling for them to do a random chore, and they're not taking "Give me 5 minutes" for an answer.

 

Or, god forbid, actual emergencies might pop up. Granted, in the case of a real emergency, I think the ban would be irrelevant, if it was a first offense.

 

As with any system like this with harsh penalties, there would either need to be a reduction of the penalties, or some major dedication to ensuring the fairness of the bans, so either some really good investigation, or the ability to contest the bans and get them wiped from the record. Problem is, investigation would just slow down the system and back it up, and the ability to contest bans would basically double the number of tickets flowing in.

 

 

All that being said, some kind of AFK protection would be excellent. Just as a quick, not-very-well-thought-out idea: What if a tank that was AFK for the entire round was locked to the player until they played a couple of matches on other tanks in their garage?



ErikBlack #46 Posted 02 July 2015 - 09:54 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5958 battles
  • 1,151
  • [3AD]
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostPPCmgb, on 02 July 2015 - 11:50 AM, said:

If we have a zero-tolerance policy on this, it won't be perfect. Some people's devices get borrowed by others, need to get off the device, lose their internet connection, etc.

 

Agreed, thankful, WG has already stated they will judge on a case by case basis and of course if wrongly accused you can protest it.

Ksftwe #47 Posted 02 July 2015 - 09:57 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 25683 battles
  • 4,256
  • [PRAMO]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2014

View PostErikBlack, on 02 July 2015 - 05:54 PM, said:

 

Agreed, thankful, WG has already stated they will judge on a case by case basis and of course if wrongly accused you can protest it.

 

See, this is what I mean by inefficiency. If this idea is truly implemented they would be bombarded with hundreds - literal HUNDREDS of tickets every day about how they were wrongly banned for being AFK. It doesn't even matter if every single one of those tickets were from serial AFKers - WG will still have to sift through all of them. I'm not even mentioning the very real probability that many of them have actually been wrongly banned for choppy internet, game crashing, real-life emergency, etc.

 

Of course I'll do everything in my power to not go AFK in game, but if I get the hammer thrown down just because my parents called me downstairs to fix a leak or something, I'm going to flip.


 

[SCAMO] > [PRAMO]


Beastnumber2 #48 Posted 02 July 2015 - 10:02 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10077 battles
  • 1,113
  • [_STR8]
  • Member since:
    06-28-2014
Ok, what I think they should do is if they recieve a screenshot of the afk person about 3 minutes in at spawn, AND a screenshot of the players stats. If its like a 32% 50 avge dmge player I think WG should ban them. If the player has atleast a 45% WR and like 200 avge dmge just a warning with no punishment. Stats don't lie in this case.

Pheldagriff #49 Posted 02 July 2015 - 10:04 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 9131 battles
  • 1,371
  • [SPUDX]
  • Member since:
    02-28-2015
My number one question: WHY WOULD PEOPLE GO AFK ON PURPOSE?

"Sucking is the First Step to Being Sorta Good at Something"


ErikBlack #50 Posted 02 July 2015 - 10:05 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5958 battles
  • 1,151
  • [3AD]
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostKsftwe, on 02 July 2015 - 11:57 AM, said:

 

See, this is what I mean by inefficiency. If this idea is truly implemented they would be bombarded with hundreds - literal HUNDREDS of tickets every day about how they were wrongly banned for being AFK. It doesn't even matter if every single one of those tickets were from serial AFKers - WG will still have to sift through all of them. I'm not even mentioning the very real probability that many of them have actually been wrongly banned for choppy internet, game crashing, real-life emergency, etc.

 

Of course I'll do everything in my power to not go AFK in game, but if I get the hammer thrown down just because my parents called me downstairs to fix a leak or something, I'm going to flip.

 

Just hundreds?  No problem, WG has been ramping up their abilities to handle lots of tickets.  Abusing the ticket submission is a bannable offense, so if serial AFKs opening false tickets it will just accelerate their permaban.  There needs to be some balance, right now there is none, if it starts off to much against AFKs, it will be nerfed.

player_1234567890 #51 Posted 02 July 2015 - 10:06 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 30282 battles
  • 4,263
  • [OMK]
  • Member since:
    05-09-2015

View PostKsftwe, on 02 July 2015 - 04:57 PM, said:

Of course I'll do everything in my power to not go AFK in game, but if I get the hammer thrown down just because my parents called me downstairs to fix a leak or something, I'm going to flip.

 

It sounds like you live in a very leaky house or something. And also, some of those other things that you mentioned are actually the player's own fault.

 

If for example somebody has a very bad connection, and that player is fully aware of it, and they keep on joining match after match, fully knowing that there is a high likelihood that they will get disconnected or otherwise be having trouble, then that is the player's own fault. People are responsible for their own choices and people must also accept responsibility for the choices that they make.

 

If I had a terrible internet connection and I knew that I would disconnect 50% of the time, then I would either get a better connection, or I would not deliberately join and ruin multiple matches, because that is exactly what they would be doing.

 



ErikBlack #52 Posted 02 July 2015 - 10:06 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5958 battles
  • 1,151
  • [3AD]
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostPheldagriff, on 02 July 2015 - 12:04 PM, said:

My number one question: WHY WOULD PEOPLE GO AFK ON PURPOSE?

 

They be mad.  The issue an order and get a negative, or the MM wasn't fair in their opinion, or they hate this map, or they hate a certain player on their team, etc. etc.

KimJongSpoon #53 Posted 02 July 2015 - 10:09 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10561 battles
  • 1,071
  • [WT]
  • Member since:
    07-06-2014

The punishments seem a little harsh. For example:

I have Century Link

If someone tries to upload an image on my wifi, I either get slapped in the face with ~900 ping, or I get booted from the WiFi completely. Is this my fault? I would argue that it isn't. We want to punish people who go AFK just to grind XP or to screw with their teams, not the people who either have responsibilities that spring up outside of WoTB or who have spotty internet.


Tier 10s: E100, FV4202, FV215b, Death Star, Mighty Maus, E50M, T110E4, 

Check out our YouTube Channel: WoTeam

Favorite tanks: Both FVs, Panther II, VK 30.01 D, Pz. III/IV, T49, T-34-85 Victory, Comet


HESHSlingingSplasher #54 Posted 02 July 2015 - 10:21 PM

    HESHSlingingSplasher

  • Players
  • 17251 battles
  • 3,530
  • [NRF]
  • Member since:
    07-16-2014
OMK sounds like the guy who lives alone and doesn't care much about life.

Ksftwe #55 Posted 02 July 2015 - 10:30 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 25683 battles
  • 4,256
  • [PRAMO]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2014

View Postplayer_1234567890, on 02 July 2015 - 06:06 PM, said:

If I had a terrible internet connection and I knew that I would disconnect 50% of the time, then I would either get a better connection, or I would not deliberately join and ruin multiple matches, because that is exactly what they would be doing.

 

 

Who said anything about 50%? Stop twisting my words around just because your point has long been defeated. I never said my house is in the middle of Afghanistan or a radioactive fallout shelter. I'm talking about MINISCULE improbabilities that could happen to anyone. Even if it was 0.05% that my internet would fail (that is a 1 in 2000 chance, btw) a player with as many games as I, will have missed 6 games, and will have received at LEAST a 2-week ban.

 

The guy who plays with a potato for their internet modem is a moron. The guy who plays at work outside of break is an imbecile. But even the most legendary unicum with NSA-level internet and living solo in a private home will go AFK every once in a while.


 

[SCAMO] > [PRAMO]


Romanking #56 Posted 02 July 2015 - 10:58 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 8025 battles
  • 62
  • [501RV]
  • Member since:
    08-07-2014

I found a solution people, in order to satisfy OMK do the following... charge the enemy and stand between em, then simply close the game. You never afked :)

Plus you get to close the game instantly.

 

Cheers RK.


 

Operational Tanks: IS7 I T-62A I IS6 I Panther 2 I Object 704 I 

"When placed in command, take charge."


Romanking #57 Posted 02 July 2015 - 10:59 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 8025 battles
  • 62
  • [501RV]
  • Member since:
    08-07-2014

View PostJimerian, on 02 July 2015 - 10:21 PM, said:

OMK sounds like the guy who lives alone and doesn't care much about life.

 

Preach it brother.

 

Operational Tanks: IS7 I T-62A I IS6 I Panther 2 I Object 704 I 

"When placed in command, take charge."


popisdead #58 Posted 02 July 2015 - 11:00 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 17529 battles
  • 2,896
  • [ATC_]
  • Member since:
    06-28-2014

Have you considered remember this is just a game and there is also real life?

 

I have maybe been AFK 2-5 games out of 5000.  Sometimes you get disconnected somethings life happens. 

 

JUST A GAME.


I love kemping bush

player_1234567890 #59 Posted 02 July 2015 - 11:03 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 30282 battles
  • 4,263
  • [OMK]
  • Member since:
    05-09-2015

View PostRomanking, on 02 July 2015 - 05:58 PM, said:

I found a solution people, in order to satisfy OMK do the following... charge the enemy and stand between em, then simply close the game. You never afked :)

Plus you get to close the game instantly.

 

Cheers RK.

 

That sounds like the average team that somebody sometimes would get, so it would make little difference to me if that happened.:justwait:

player_1234567890 #60 Posted 02 July 2015 - 11:07 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 30282 battles
  • 4,263
  • [OMK]
  • Member since:
    05-09-2015

View Postpopisdead, on 02 July 2015 - 06:00 PM, said:

Have you considered remember this is just a game and there is also real life?

 

I have maybe been AFK 2-5 games out of 5000.  Sometimes you get disconnected somethings life happens. 

 

JUST A GAME.

 

And in that case, you would have nothing to worry about. This is about people who are serial AFKers and they are not AFK for only 2-5 games out of 5000. And since it's JUST A GAME, like you mentioned, then nobody should be all that upset when they get banned for being a serial AFKer. It's JUST A GAME, AM I RITE? :teethhappy:

 

And just in case certain people on this forum suffer from poor reading comprehension, there is no need to argue against anything that I have said, because this is not my idea, it is Wargaming's idea to implement anti-AFK measures, and it's already going to happen on the Asia server, and soon to happen on the NA server.

 

So, for all of the people making excuses for serial AFKers, don't complain to me, I don't have any control over the situation. I'm just a player on a forum offering some opinions. Go complain to wargaming, and you may continue to argue and state your case in favor of serial AFKers and other horrible, disrespectful players to them.:playing:

 


Edited by player_1234567890, 02 July 2015 - 11:14 PM.






Also tagged with poll, pledge, anti-afk, afk

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users