WG and AFK penalty

[Jagerbomb_2021]

WG really need to redo their AFK/inactivity in battle penalty. After I started an operations, I had a circuit breaker trip causing me to be offline for about 5 minutes. I came back and played the renainder of the operations and was penalized for this game.

Edited October 22, 2023 by Jagerbomb_2021

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 minute ago, Jagerbomb_2021 said:

WG really need to redo their AFK penalty. After I started an operations, I had a circuit breaker trip causing me to be offline for about 5 minutes. I came back and played the renainder of the operations and was penalized for this game.

So, tell Wargaming/World of Warships about it.

Here's a link to the customer support page.
https://na.wargaming.net/support/en/products/wows/

[Type_93]

I mean, you were afk. 

[Jagerbomb_2021]

3 hours ago, Type_93 said:

I mean, you were afk. 

At the beginning of the game. I guess that means most of the other players were AFK, considering I did better than them. If a person is automatically going to be penalized, what's the point of trying to get back into the game? From now on I'll just say screw the rest of the team in ops if I'm going to be penalized regardless. I'll go watch YouTube videos or mow the grass or some other shit.

 

 

20231021_175547_PASC587-Black-Atlanta_s02_Naval_Defense.wowsreplay

Edited October 22, 2023 by Jagerbomb_2021
added replay

[Type_93]

21 minutes ago, Jagerbomb_2021 said:

At the beginning of the game. I guess that means most of the other players were AFK, considering I did better than them. If a person is automatically going to be penalized, what's the point of trying to get back into the game? From now on I'll just say screw the rest of the team in ops if I'm going to be penalized regardless. I'll go watch YouTube videos or mow the grass or some other shit.

It’s an anti-afk system. You were afk. The system doesn’t know why you were afk, just that you were. Post a replay. You still gimped your team no matter how well you did when you got back in. 

[meatgrindr]

Joined back in and came in second place?  Played 12 minutes of a 17 minute game, 261k, 752 mb hits, 5 kills?   I would have gave you comps.  But the others are right, WG doesn't care what the reason was.  But with numbers like that, no way should you get a penalty.  I mean, all the outrage over being AFK is because it hurts the team, right?  Clearly, you did not hurt your team.  Appeal, they'll probably throw some stuff your way.  Convenient that you can do all that, and WG says no cookie.

[WES_HoundDog]

Had this one the other day.   Came down to me vs 2 dd's and a koingberg.   In a ship that moves under 20knts the best move was go to back and defend my cap.  Got  into the best concealed ambush spot possible for if someone entered my cap and held it.  It was realistically the only chance of winning the match but none of them were foolish enough to advanced on my cap for the last 6 minutes of the match.  Because the rest of my team kills themselves and i get put in a tough no win situation, I lose all my xp for it.     Funny thing is, the 4 players left that based off their play did the best thing possible to win the match probably cost all 4 of them their experience because WG thinks you should play the game like a mindless drone.

https://replayswows.com/replay/189224#teams

Edited October 22, 2023 by WES_HoundDog

[Admiral_Karasu]

8 hours ago, Type_93 said:

I mean, you were afk. 

Technically D/C not AFK, I think, but as far as I know WG does not make a difference between the two when it comes to penalties. It's effectively too easy to fake a D/C if you are planning to be AFK. Then again, you have to ask what sort of mentality a player who actually plans to be AFK for a battle they've just clicked themselves in has. Mostly, real life happens, and then it's simply AFK, and I don't think anybody in that case starts thinking about faking their AFK as a D/C.

 

8 hours ago, Jagerbomb_2021 said:

At the beginning of the game. I guess that means most of the other players were AFK, considering I did better than them. If a person is automatically going to be penalized, what's the point of trying to get back into the game? From now on I'll just say screw the rest of the team in ops if I'm going to be penalized regardless. I'll go watch YouTube videos or mow the grass or some other shit.

 

This was changed a few updates ago, it used to be case you didn't get penalised if you contributed at least to some extent. Now, it's much worse, and I don't mean that the penalty makes it worse but it's literally encouraging the players who happen to get distracted by something in real life from re-engaging in the battle.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

10 hours ago, Type_93 said:

I mean, you were afk. 

 

10 hours ago, Type_93 said:

It’s an anti-afk system. You were afk. The system doesn’t know why you were afk, just that you were. Post a replay. You still gimped your team no matter how well you did when you got back in. 

True.

Also true that WGs system is laughably crude and creates justified angst...as demonstrated here.

If WGs response to this customer feeling is to blame the customer...than WG is the fool.

[Type_93]

46 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

 

True.

Also true that WGs system is laughably crude and creates justified angst...as demonstrated here.

If WGs response to this customer feeling is to blame the customer...than WG is the fool.

The system could use some tweaking, but it’s fair. 

 

11 hours ago, Jagerbomb_2021 said:

the beginning of the game. I guess that means most of the other players were AFK, considering I did better than them. If a person is automatically going to be penalized, what's the point of trying to get back into the game? From now on I'll just say screw the rest of the team in ops if I'm going to be penalized regardless. I'll go watch YouTube videos or mow the grass or some other shit.

 

If you had been playing from the start, the other players might not have been sunk, your team wouldn’t have had to play from behind and the scores would’ve been different. 
If it had been another player AFK, you would’ve been calling for others to report him for AFK. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

11 minutes ago, Type_93 said:

but it’s fair. 

Apparently not.

[Type_93]

9 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Apparently not.

He was AFK. It is fair. Him not being in game isn’t fair to the other players either. 

[Asym]

1 minute ago, Type_93 said:

He was AFK. It is fair. Him not being in game isn’t fair to the other players either. 

True.....but consider what year this is.....it's not 1963.   A single line of code in the game mechanics programming that says something to the effect that:  "if [status] = [active] at [game end] then [afk status] = null 

else

.....

Now how hard was that?  What this says is that they can't "afford -or don't care - or don't have" access to the source code.......and, I wonder where that is being maintained???  

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

5 minutes ago, Type_93 said:

He was AFK. It is fair. Him not being in game isn’t fair to the other players either. 

I don't think the way WG handles the punishment is fair.

[Type_93]

2 minutes ago, Asym said:

True.....but consider what year this is.....it's not 1963.   A single line of code in the game mechanics programming that says something to the effect that:  "if [status] = [active] at [game end] then [afk status] = null 

else

.....

Now how hard was that?  What this says is that they can't "afford -or don't care - or don't have" access to the source code.......and, I wonder where that is being maintained???  

You can still be in game but be afk. Or a bot. 

[Admiral_Karasu]

2 minutes ago, Asym said:

True.....but consider what year this is.....it's not 1963.   A single line of code in the game mechanics programming that says something to the effect that:  "if [status] = [active] at [game end] then [afk status] = null 

else

.....

Now how hard was that?  What this says is that they can't "afford -or don't care - or don't have" access to the source code.......and, I wonder where that is being maintained???  

Well, at the least I think the penalty should be proportionate to the time spent AFK. I'm not saying it's a good thing to be AFK, but sometimes you have sudden technical issues, or sudden lapses of concentration, or you alt-tab out for a little too long or something. It's not like the battles are like school exams or something, where if you get caught cheating just once you're out.

[NMA101]

8 hours ago, Asym said:

True.....but consider what year this is.....it's not 1963.   A single line of code in the game mechanics programming that says something to the effect that:  "if [status] = [active] at [game end] then [afk status] = null 

The fix is even easier than that. Clearly, the system works well enough to recognize that OP earned 1173 base XP. Why not just set a minimum threshold, if BXP >100 then no AFK penalty is applied? Very simple. 

According to the OP, he was only AFK for 5 min. Some very bad players die in less time than that. So if I was one of the other players on the team, I would be overjoyed to have him return for the last 15 min and pull a victory across the finish line. Punishing this valiant effort with zero resources is totally unfair. Only if the punishment was proportional to the time missed (in this case -25%), that could arguably be considered fair. 

Finally, botting is not a problem in operations. Never has been. It mostly exists in co-op, and despite players noticing it for years WG does absolutely nothing to address it. Just look at all the "raffles" where coop botters win the 1st prize. 

[Hugh_Ruka]

18 hours ago, Type_93 said:

You can still be in game but be afk. Or a bot. 

an AFK player would not get the results as in the screenshot ... but anyway, by your logic if I step away for 30 secs but carry the game to victory anyway, I should be punished ... you have a good grasp on how to motivate people to actually play ...

 

[Asym]

23 hours ago, Type_93 said:

You can still be in game but be afk. Or a bot. 

My point is that programming isn't a "static" choice.  It could cover all of the possibilities if they wanted it to.....   People will always cheat in games.  Game companies actually promote that concept and sell to those goals........  Meta evolves and that evolution sells. 

Our host simply doesn't want to make any changes or can't......