WG supporting AFK?

Posted on by

Hello everyone,

just a short thought: most of you have probably seen this weekend’s EU event. It’s a nice event overall, but it carries one small problem:

Mission 2: Lucky 7’s

Objective:

- Win 7 Battles
- Survive 7 Battles
- Destroy 7 Tanks

I am sure you see where this is going. When there is a mission with the specific objective to SURVIVE, it encourages two things: campers and AFK’rs.

Today, I was playing my medium tank as usual and noticed an unusual number of AFK’rs. Maybe it was my bad luck, but it seemed like there are more than usual. At one point, me and my 3 teammates found ourselves at Redshire, with an enemy KV-1S capping our base. I wrote “Let’s kill him, he can’t get all of us” and went in first. Needless to say, he oneshotted me (my health was down), but NOONE else moved. Obviously, if they moved, they could have gotten him before he reloaded. Now, you might think it was just a bunch of random retards, but when asked why didn’t they move, one of them answered “Gotta survive for the mission”.

I believe this behavior is something that should be either discouraged or punished outright, but definitely not supported by a mission. Therefore I think there no longer should be any “survival” objective missions. Campers, AFKers and cowards shouldn’t be encouraged and they sure as hell shouldn’t be given further incentives to continue or justify their behavior.

49 thoughts on “WG supporting AFK?”

    • Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women! Works pretty well.

      To be honest I just play the game, if 50% of every team are total nuggets willing to sacrifice the imitative to me then all the better! If I get a mission, well that’s nice thanks.

  2. since the credit special (300k and 250k) i stopped playing cuz the amount of retards is not bearable

      • Actually, yes but too passive play will make you lose/die anyways. It will discourage headless charges. Which is the usual method of advance in wot.

      • I agree with SS thous missions are stupid but the 25 battle win mission is GINIUS all player’s play harder to win

        • Most missions have been stupid in the way they have been executed..

          They all encourage one or another bad form of gameplay… killstealing, camping, afk-ing..

          I even saw someone zoom off into the corner of a map, hide n the bushes and not move the entire game… there were only us 2 left against 4… (do-able), when i started pushing him out.. he finally did something.. reported me and started swearing like fook at me.. If I had managed a screenie he could easily have been a contender for your Fucktard threads..

          Now I now why he was doing it…

          Missions are fine, but not Fucktard Missions™

  5. it prevents players from suiciding, so its a good thing. As every player has an average survive rate from 20 to 30% it will take them about 28 Games to complete this mission. Its a strategy to show player – you need only 7 games and get a little reward. Most people dont realize how time consuming these missions are and dont complain)

  6. Usually the only players who I see with invincible medals are the ones who have kill ratio below .5, winratio below 48% and accuracy below 50%, and they also seem to afk in corners and woods. But since stats don’t tell anything they obviously have some great plan in mind who we lesser mortals don’t understand.

    • I have invincible medal with Stug III. It doesn’t necessarly mean i’m afker/bot/bad player. It can just mean that i’m a good Stug III driver, invisible and deadly :P

    • I also have such a medal – it comes from my time as noob, when I was camping with my BT-2 (yes, camping in that thing…) and let my buddy (1800+ WN) spot and kill everybody for me while he taught me how to drive my tanks. Wow, getting a reward for being a coward… I’m actually ashamed I have that medal ;)

  8. This mission is probably harder on RU as they all are just a bunch of rushing suicidal maniacs…

    • somehow he plays several games, wins 7 out of them, archieves 7 kills in the process and only then starts his retarded camping like in the article – those guys vs kv-1s probably needed only this survival clause and they wanted it so badly that they went full retard

    • Oh rly? It never occured to your mind that invincible can be achieved by being actually good at the game and not by being afk/bot retard? Well my Stug III agree to disagree with your BS statement.

    • I have it with my Stug. I never afked or anything and with pure passive gameplay there is no possibility for 61% W/L ratio…
      In most other tanks you could be right

      • Invincibru 9 on my Hetzer, what the stats don’t tell you is the 13 kills in that same stint.
        Invincibru 5 on my AT1 15 kills in it’s case
        It might be shit luck but i really don’t “go” for any other then the B.I.A. medal when driving in platoon, the others basically just happen. Same goes for most of the missions

    • I got invincible on Hetzer, using the historical PaK you can be really invisible. Not using derp caused me to not have tank ace on it though :(

  11. The idea of the missions is good, but yes the players will do anything to obtain the mission criteria. Should WG foreseen this, maybe, but i guess this is a learning process for them to, future missions may be without such team destructive goals.

    The do most damage in a round could be said to be better goals for a price, but then you might end up with very high numbers of td’s and so on…

    As long as they don’t have any mechanics which reward teamplay more, people will play as it was 1vs29 to win.

  13. Almost every mission (except getting medals, dmg) does support AFKers/suicides/other shit. For example, getting certain number of kills – kill-stealing, win certain number of battles – suicide with scouts, survive – afkers which get to a close, safe location e.g. bushes.

  14. Without the survival clause, you would probably get 10 suicide “scouts” in each battle. I think I rather have a couple AFK’s (which should be picked out by WG’s bot/AFK script if they do it often enough).

    Those two meds in your battle should be shot at sight though. I hate players that don’t even try to win the game…Especially if there is a very good chance to actually win…

  15. It’s not like for the first time idiots from the EU office have shown a lack of imagination… I mean seriously, ANYONE that had playes WoT would see what will the result of “survived” battles requirement bring.

  16. All these missions only encourage players to be selfish, should focus more on encouraging team play.

  17. If you didn’t notice it… WG doesn’t even care about AFK and super passive campers… WG doesn’t care about players … we are just statistic nubers for them.

      • There are also many maps where you can ditch over a cliff edge, and basically be impossible to kill unless an enemy tank gets stuck over the cliff as well.

  19. I have the same issue with the KILL missions. I had retard scouts and mediums following my TD’s around refusing to engage until I had them under 80% health. At that point, they would tun out and steal kill, then hide behind me again. Very frustrating to do 7k+ damage in my T95, and get 0 kills.

  20. Now, you might think it was just a bunch of random retards, but when asked why didn’t they move, one of them answered “Gotta survive for the mission”.

    And the player quaility gets thrown out from the window… Good job WG, as always. :)

  21. Maybe instead of just “survival”, perhaps it can be added on to an existing objective, i.e. survive and WIN 5 battles in a row, which despite my decent win rate of 52-53%, my survival rating is NOT very high – which is, unfortunately, the price I pay for using Soviet TDs, since they rely on camouflage and your teammates holding the line so that you can shoot from the safety of the second line. That’s something that rarely happens in pub matches since for some reason they insist on having the TDs in front of everybody else, but sorry to disappoint you when I have to tell you that not every TD is a T95 or a JP E-100.

  22. Thanks for informing everyone of this, now I see 2-3 people AFK in the base every round. Really, thanks a bunch.

  23. Lots of good points here; you’re all touching on the weak points of stats as an evaluative method – as soon as a small set (<7 or so) of statistics are emphasized as measures of success, it only takes a little thought to figure out how to behave in such a way as to maximize those stats (rather than achieve the intended mission). As such, negative behaviors will likely always be a part of the necessarily simply defined missions (i.e WG can't create a mission based on 10 different metrics, we'd all think it was stupid and impossible)…

    This also begs the question – is there a way to perfectly define performance in WoT? What does high performance in WoT even mean? Especially considering the roles of each tank type, and roles of each tank within that type, are so different (I.e. a camping LT is probably useless but some TDs have to camp to be effective – and