I came to the conclusion that the game’s automated systems which handle “inactivity” of players - punish quite many good players for what the system mindlessly considers “inactivity”

[Fins_FinsT]

@Necronomica

Players shouldn’t be playing for SL/RP as a primary goal, they should be playing to have fun.

1st, i know for a fact lots of players see RP grind as their primary goal. Arguably, more than half of all. Source: countless discussions over more than 10 years about it that i’ve read, and countless talks about it i had with others. Also, it’s pretty clear by the way Gaijin designed RP grind - it is a grind. And it’s much in human nature to prioritize the grind in grindy games. Very normal.

2nd, those things are not mutually exclusive. You can much care about your RP and (to lesser extent) SL rewards - and have fun, in the same time. And fun in more than one way.

@Necronomica

The systems in place AND the rules all discourage such behaviour:

… “Inactive Gameplay and Deliberate Losing. Deliberately remaining inactive during a match (i.e., being “AFK”) or taking actions that lead to a loss, such as wandering around the map without completing objectives or avoiding engagement with opponents.”

I respectfully (no sarcasm!) disagree; i think you misinterpret this rule, much.

1st: nothing in this topic is about being AFK.

2nd: nothing i posted anyhow advocates taking any deliberate action that leads to a loss.

• clarification: avoiding combat does not always lead to a loss. Because it is possible multiple enemies will die themselves while you’re avoiding combat, after which you can resume PvP action if needed. Practical example: https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/1monujo/antivulture_nesher_1_vs_7_heres_how_you_win_if/ . In this video, i was the last guy vs 7 enemies, and at some point i actively avoid combat by flying back to my AA airfield and patrolling it, then using its AA systems as cover. Result: out of 7 enemies, 4 enemies die without me even trying to fight them, themselves. 5th dies by AA trying to attack me. I actively defeated only two our of seven. Therefore, avoiding combat, however unlikely, can still lead to a win - and therefore can not ever be a proven way of deliberately losing a match. Fact.

3rd: “wandering around the map without completing objectives” - to me, this clearly describes cases when players do it for entirety of a match. Which this topic is not about, at all. This topic is about doing some objectives - be it PvE or PvP - 1st, and then, depending on situation in a match, possibly and optionally, for a part of a match, wandering around the map and/or avoiding combat, while knowing with certainty that doing so will benefit every person who remains alive in the match - both teams, - via provoding better rewards.

4th, even if any of previous 3 points are anyhow objectionale - there is yet another layer to it: yes, there is this Code of Conduct, and it has this rule - and it is exactly part of this topic’s 1st post revelation that this particular rule of this Code of Conduct needs a revision. Exactly in light of particular specific feature of game’s reward system which i described in full detail in 1st post.

@Necronomica

In the end it isn’t about maximising the grind, it’s about having fun playing the game.

For most players, i believe - and i’m pretty certain - it’s about both those things. Similarly important, each.

@Necronomica

You are fully within your right to try to maximize your own RP gain as long as it doesn’t break the rules of fair play and effect other players experience with the game negatively.

“Rules of fair play”: how exactly avoiding combat is unfair? Did you not ever do it yourself, even if for a brief moment?

How about playing a tank, making a shot and then driving back a few feet to hide behind a corner until your gun reloads? Here you go - you just avoided combat!

How about some fighter diving into your bomber, and you dive further down and away, trying to reach bombing position? Here you go - you just avoided combat, you didn’t try to hit that fighter with your turrets, but dove down!

How about your stock destroyer steaming full ahead away from that big scary cruiser, which got twice bigger guns with twice higher effective range, but half your speed? You ever do that - you “avoid combat”, too.

So, then, if you consider those and similar cases “acceptable” and “fair play”, then you gotta agree: there are situations when avoiding combat, for some shorter or longer part of a match - is perfectly fair, legit and respectable.

This topic is about discovering and explaining just one more such reason. One of many.

And i fail to see how it should be treated any different. It should be seen, in my opinion, as perfectly fair, legit and respectable, as well.

And so far, none of the responses i see in this topic convinced me otherwise.

[Mordillo66]

@Fins_FinsT

It sure doesn’t, yes. But thing is, it shouldn’t, too.

That’s your opinion.
You think it backwards.
The reward system has to be a consequence of the game goal, but most rewards, especially for beginners, could be earned by base bombing, with no effect to the battle. In some sense, many of these players are playing more passive than the ones who want save a ticket advantage by holding enemies away from ground targets by baiting.
That’s why I say, if GJN won’t lower the rewards for bombing, they should increase the ticket bleed. Imo there has to be correlation between axction in battle and the rewards.

It’s the same with mission points for events. There is no logic behind it, why I get more mission points for destroying 3 studebakers than for a player kill. So even this system could force me to a passive play.

@Necronomica

Players shouldn’t be playing for SL/RP as a primary goal, they should be playing to have fun.

True.
And that’s why i will never understand this grinding thing. There is no fun in it at all.

I’m a player having fun at all tiers, but when I play lowtier every second battle I get a comment, why a lvl 100 player is playing so low. It’s farming, seal clubbing, blablabla…
In my beginners time I had to play many battles in a row against squads of Ceres, JG3, Olyst and so on. I never complained about it. I took it as a challenge and had fun.
Nowadays everyone you intercept before he can drop bombs is whining…

[markimash]

@Mordillo66

That’s why I say, if GJN won’t lower the rewards for bombing, they should increase the ticket bleed. Imo there has to be correlation between axction in battle and the rewards

I would prefer if they brought back the ability to bomb the af after taking out the bases.

I feel like the bombing cycle/culture was better back then due to it.

[Necronomica]

@Fins_FinsT

1st, i know for a fact lots of players see RP grind as their primary goal.

Hence why i said “shouldn’t”.

@Fins_FinsT

2nd, those things are not mutually exclusive.

Never said they were, that is why i said “primary”.

@Fins_FinsT

I respectfully (no sarcasm!) disagree; i think you misinterpret this rule, much.

1st: nothing in this topic is about being AFK.

2nd: nothing i posted anyhow advocates taking any deliberate action that leads to a loss.

I think you’re misreading it.

Deliberately remaining inactive during a match (i.e., being “AFK”) or taking actions that lead to a loss, such as wandering around the map without completing objectives or avoiding engagement with opponents.

The “or” means that they are two separate things. This means that it doesn’t have to lead to a loss to be against the rules, It’s enough that you are deliberately remain inactive. Then it gives examples of what those actions can look like.

@Fins_FinsT

to me, this clearly describes cases when players do it for entirety of a match.

I wonder how you get “clearly” out of a standalone statement that you then applied your own preconceived circumstances to.

@Fins_FinsT

“Rules of fair play”: how exactly avoiding combat is unfair? Did you not ever do it yourself, even if for a brief moment?

Personal opinion:
It depends on the situation and amount, it’s circumstantial. In some instances it’s temporarily the only reasonable option such as when you’re fully out of offensive weaponry and/or fuel, then you have to avoid combat to fly to base and re-arm. In other situations such as when you’re the only player left in your team, you have fuel and weapons but choose to space climb and not engage anyone just to prolong the match time then it is against the rules. I’ve personally only ever done option one.

@Fins_FinsT

How about playing a tank, making a shot and then driving back a few feet to hide behind a corner until your gun reloads? Here you go - you just avoided combat!

Then you’re doing it because you have no other options and only to the point where you are able to re-engage.

@Fins_FinsT

How about some fighter diving into your bomber, and you dive further down and away, trying to reach bombing position?

You’re avoiding engagement to achieve other objectives that make you an active player.

@Fins_FinsT

So, then, if you consider those and similar cases “acceptable” and “fair play”, then you gotta agree: there are situations when avoiding combat, for some shorter or longer part of a match - is perfectly fair, legit and respectable.

Absolutely, 100% . But what you describe here:

@Fins_FinsT

and then, depending on situation in a match, possibly and optionally, for a part of a match, wandering around the map and/or avoiding combat, while knowing with certainty that doing so will benefit every person who remains alive in the match - both teams, - via provoding better rewards.

@Fins_FinsT

one team has just one player alive, while the other has several players alive. And that “last guy” avoids combat.

@Fins_FinsT

And this also means, whether we like it or not, it is rational to prolong battles as much as possible whenever having “vehicle research bonus” unlocked - regardless if it’s a winning or losing game.

Isn’t it. at all. In fact i regularly se reports against players for these types of actions meaning that many players do not see it as something they want to experience in the game, regardless of if it gives them a better reward or not.

Additionally, much of what you ask other players to do here is also against the rules.

Asking other players to not engage in PvP and instead do PvE is against the rules.

You might personally want the rules changed to allow for this, but the problem with that is that it would allow for very malicious play without any way to stop players abusing it. What you describe isn’t any different from tanks doing cap-trading where they don’t shoot each other and just go back and fourth taking a capture point to gain RP and SL.

As it stands, avoiding the enemy (with no intent of re-engaging them when a better position / situation is achieved) for the sole purpose of prolonging the match is currently against the rules. As is asking other players to avoid doing specific in-game actions.

You’re also likely thinking about this backwards, instead of encouraging players to play in a way that might break the rules for an increase in economical reward you should instead argue for a change in how the system works where it rewards players more for actively playing.

[Fins_FinsT]

@Mordillo66

but most rewards, especially for beginners, could be earned by base bombing

If only. Limited supply of bases. Typical 16 players team, 4 bases. And some players eagerly take out 2 or even 3, in one go, when they can. Their respawn time is ~4 minutes or so. Not enough for even quarter of the team.

@Mordillo66

Imo there has to be correlation between axction in battle and the rewards.

There is already. And strong one. If you do no “actions”, your activity is near 0%, you get almost no rewards. You do “some few” actions more important than destroying some howitzers, and your activity is above 50%, you get more than half possible rewards. You do “many” actions, though, and diminishing returns kick in - both for direct RP rewards and further activity gains.

But regardless of how many actions you did, most RP you earn - is from “time played”. It’s the largest, and by far, “direct source” of your RP. And then it gets multiplied by activity %. If activity % is low (you did nothing or almost nothing) - you get nothing or almost nothing, because activity is low. If it’s reasonably high - you get close to maximum possible RP from any match.

Thing is, what i tried to explain above - for the sake of “new” and “average” players, activity % should be quite high (well avove 50%) even when they manage to do very few “significant” actions (like killing a base, defeating a player / NPC unit, or hard ground target). Why? Because in vast majority in their matches, they are only able to do that few of such actions, being eaten by better experienced / able / equipped players in opposing team. It’s fair and appropriate reward system works this way.

But then it creates this side-effect of “do few good actions and it becomes more beneficial to prioritize staying alive more than anything else” effect, see?

Can’t have both things “right”. It’s one, or the other. Either well-being of weak players, or extra potential for veterans. Can’t have both.

[RunaDacino]

@GNDM_Panzer

You are not accumulating extra activity by spending X amount of time doing literally nothing but flying around, nor is anyone else. People can accumulate game activity by hitting the GTs or bases if not shooting down players and that’s all well and good because it counts more for activity compared to just dragging the match out by doing nothing, but flying around is doing literally nothing.

False.

Read this:

Report on how scores, SL, and RP rewards are calculated

A revised version of the report posted on the old forum is now available. Reward details are now available on the game and most of the RP rewards have been clarified. I have researched and compiled a report on how WT’s score, SL, and RP rewards are calculated. In this report, you will find links to the base bombing report and the score and SL,RP calculators. The report is based on the match results screen, scoreboard, and replays. I have not done any internal programming analysis of the game…

Activity is just a function that takes “Time Alive” and “Score” as input and outputs a multiplier which is then used in the following formula:

Win: Play time x activity x coefficient x RP multiplier x 2
Defeat : Play time x activity x coefficient x RP multiplier x 1.34

In case of ARB, coefficient is 1.22 RP per second.

For ARB, the function is qualitatively shaped like this (Z axis represented by the curves’ labels)

This conceptual diagram is derived from:

Reiterating: The only thing which determines “activity” is (score earned, time spent alive). This is not a linear function. As you can see, earning 1800 score but only being alive for 200 seconds only nets you 78% activity - that’s ~3 kills with 3 crits! Only 78% activity!

Whereas, 800 score earned over ~550 seconds gives you 80% activity.

Your 1800 score GOES UP in activity (78% at 200 seconds) to 91% at 800 seconds. You LITERALLY GAIN ACTIVITY DOING NOTHING!

Broadly speaking, an optimal match is one that lasts about 12-15 minutes with ~3 kills (1 kill worth 450, 1 crit is worth 150). Existence of skill bonus makes optimal match shift upwards in length as despite the loss of activity, you already have a 75% bonus guaranteed (notably, this does not work with either premium vehicles or a premium account so that reduces the benefit of skill bonus)

Please, for the love of all that is holy -

the linked post is the FIRST THING when you search the forums.

Please do not spread misconceptions or false understanding of the reward structure.

[Real_K_Soze]

@Necronomica

Players shouldn’t be playing for SL/RP as a primary goal

In an ideal world - yes. The OP has valid points and the majority of players play exactly for just one reason: Grind.

And gaijin offers all solutions for grinders: Premium time & vehicles and the option to buy a talisman for TT vehicles.

And, ofc, a reward structure which allows playing the game and progress without any clue about aerial warfare. Bombing respawning bases with little to zero game impact (but a rather high RP gain) is one of most outstanding inventions by gaijin in the whole game - even a toddler can play Air RB.

That’s also the reason why the Air RB game play is ruined - the real fun begins when the lobby size is down to 2 vs 2 or 4 vs 4 - because the grinders are dead.

Regarding this:

@Necronomica

The systems in place AND the rules all discourage such behaviour:

( Code of Conduct )

This is a classic example of a rule which was written for the sake of having rules.

If gaijin would really be interested in things related to inactivity, they would auto-kick every player spawning at the airfield and sitting there the entire match - just because he had to help his mom in the kitchen.

I lost over the years dozens of matches playing 1 vs 2 because these guys prevent the red square from being active (as the actual active player remains hidden) and blind hunt orders have the tendency to pick these parking guys instead of the active guy.

In a recent match i met a 3 men squad. Average players but obviously coordinated (2 109s and 1 Yak-3). After the first minutes it was clear that my remaining team was not good enough to face those guys on an individual level. So i decided to take the high 2 109s out of the fight by playing clueless victim. They took the bait and came down from high alt and i gave them the illusion that they can catch me. Their Yak-3 joined them later. So i kept them busy whilst my team murdered their tickets.

So based on the rules i violated them as i “wandered around the map” for several minutes, did not complet any objectives, i just prevented them from doing theirs. You might get the point of rules vs reality.

---

A word regarding the rule “deliberately losing”:

Technically a hell of players deliberate lose matches. Examples:

1. You have a ticket disadvantage of 150 points and fight at 8 km against 2 109s. A B-25 within your team is not attcking the pillboxes below him - despite you told him we will lose if he goes for a base (either ticket drop for a base kill is too low or he his too far away from a base). Your judgement?
2. You see a 3 men squag at 4.7 - 2 of them fly biplanes. Your judgement?

@Necronomica

In the end it isn’t about maximising the grind, it’s about having fun playing the game. You are fully within your right to try to maximize your own RP gain as long as it doesn’t break the rules of fair play and effect other players experience with the game negatively.

So these 2 examples (attacking wrong targets, troll squads) above show that there is a huge gap between rules and in-game reality.

My game experience is highly negatively if i am the only fighter in my team without bombs attacking ground targets - so those fighter players might have fun with shooting ai targets, but their fun is ruining the fun of others.

[RunaDacino]

@Real K Soze@live

This is a classic example of a rule which was written for the sake of having rules.

This may be a consequence of multiple game modes. I can, at very least, confirm that game masters do intervene on reports regarding “PvE Only” match rigging as Schindlbee had confirmed once in the past for air sim (I posted chatlog of a very “funny” lobby where people said all kinds of very nice and friendly things and have been informed, while the chatlog was removed, that the offending party have been taken care of in context of match rigging.)

[Necronomica]

@Real K Soze@live

In an ideal world - yes. The OP has valid points

OP has valid points in some areas yes, but their solution is in my eyes a wrong one.

@Real K Soze@live

And, ofc, a reward structure which allows playing the game and progress without any clue about aerial warfare. Bombing respawning bases with little to zero game impact (but a rather high RP gain) is one of most outstanding inventions by gaijin in the whole game - even a toddler can play Air RB.

I’ve personally argued in favour of implementing more engaging “base bombing” where for example different structures get destroyed a different amount depending on munition used (eg, a bunker shouldn’t take damage from napalm and spaced out vehicles/buildings shouldn’t take as much damage from a bunker buster). It would at minimum make that part of the gameplay less “point and click” and require some skill/knowledge to effectively gain progress from. There are other things i could add here as well but i think you get my point.

@Real K Soze@live

This is a classic example of a rule which was written for the sake of having rules.

Yes, it is there to have some way to discourage (and be able to punish) those that deliberately ruin the gameplay for others (at the detriment of discouraging those that might in rare cases have legitimate purpose for the action, same as any rule really).

@Real K Soze@live

If gaijin would really be interested in things related to inactivity, they would auto-kick every player spawning at the airfield and sitting there the entire match

They do to some extent don’t they? i’ve think i’ve come back to being kicked out of match (but i honestly might be misremembering here, i’m not certain). At the very minimum they do not count as active when all other players are destroyed and the auto ticket bleed speeds up even if they are sitting there, i’ve had this happen to me because it took to long to land and re-arm so i counted as inactive and lost the match.

@Real K Soze@live

Technically a hell of players deliberate lose matches.

1. The action itself doesn’t lead to a loss, it increases chances of a win by bleeding tickets, they didn’t chose the optimal way to bleed tickets and lost that way, in the same way a player can choose the wrong way to fight an enemy plane and lose a fight they could have won with a different strategy. The action itself in isolation isn’t directly leading to a loss.

2. Playing with friends that have lower BR vehicles isn’t against the rules, there is even an achievement designed for those situations, “God mode”. As long as they in the match itself aim to win and take actions that progress the team towards a win then it’s fine.

@Real K Soze@live

So these 2 examples (attacking wrong targets, troll squads) above show that there is a huge gap between rules and in-game reality.

I don’t think so, see above.

[Fins_FinsT]

@Necronomica

It depends on the situation and amount, it’s circumstantial.

There you go, you said it yourself. It suffices that you agree that it’s circumstantial. Now, if you’d read what 1st post of this topic says about how game punishes inactivity, and if you’d consider that very rule from Code of Conduct quoted above - where, in those parts, is any mention of any circumstances?

None.

Let’s take, for example, that 1-vs-7 fight i linked above. Many circumstances were relevant. Types of enemy aircraft i’ve seen before i decided to went to my airfield and camp there (notably, sweden aircraft at this BR are deadly). Amount of fuel i took from very start, anticipating possibility of needing it - full tank. Features of the plane i was piloting, mentioned in the title of that reddit post i linked. Amount of kills made by those 7 remaining enemies - far more than half. I knew they are skilled fighters. Even terrain about my team’s AA airfield on this map. Even combat messages at certain points - for example, i initiated my landing after seeing that last guy just killed some ground units, so i knew i had time to land, repair and reload safely. Etc.

You think any “administrator” who judges who’s “properly” inactive and who’s not - knows all such details and circumstances? I doubt.

You think any automated system can know it all and properly judge? I bet not.

So then, who will then decide in which cases circumstances were justifiable, and in which cases they were not?

Nobody can. Especially because each player’s capabilities and skills - vary wildly. What seems “obvious” for me, or you, or any game’s admin - can seem dead wrong, or be unknown, to someone else. Applies to most things, this.

Means, inactivity “sanctions” and bans will inevitably often be based on incorrect judgement. If any are done at all.

Solution do it? Hell if i know. I just know it’s bad to punish those who are innocent and good-natured. Bad for the game, and bad for everyone who interacts with them. Mind you, this is not anyhow personal experience, if you wonder; just general observation.

@Necronomica

In other situations such as when you’re the only player left in your team, you have fuel and weapons but choose to space climb and not engage anyone just to prolong the match time then it is against the rules.

As i explained above, 1st, it’s at least arguably not against the rule quoted, 2nd, as already mentioned, i think that rule needs improvement, and 3rd, as per 1st post of this topic, it benefits all remaining players via game’s reward system - both teams. I gave the numbers, and so far noone objects the percentages provided. It’s hard fact. Again, like it, or not. It’s how it works.

And 4th, even. By your own logic, when your vehicle is clearly out of shape to fight - like when out of offensive weaponry - then it’s “the only reasonable option” to avoid combat. Now, take Su-17M2 for example - no counter-measures, no radar, no radar missiles, no all-aspect missiles, no agility to turnfight anything but bricks like F-105. But you got your cannon, full belt. You’re facing some usual fighters trying to catch you - a mirage, a Draken with its awesome low-alt speed and agility, a mig-21 with its radar missiles. You’ve see they scored kills already. They chase you. You know you have 0% chance to win if you would engage any of them - his friends will kill you, guaranteed, in half a minute. You know you have 100% chance to outrun them, because Su-17 engine is superior at high alt. And you know you need high alt to reduce fuel consumption to last until map timer ends. And you know they’ll easily kill you if you’d try to land. What you don’t know - is whether any of them would fail his fuel management and crash for running outta fuel, and whether any of them has damaged gear or flaps and would fail his landing and die trying it, and whether any of them would stop chasing, start grinding ground units and crash into the ground doing it. I’ve seen all of it happen. And so, you know you have more than 0% chance to win if you’d go stratosphere and fly up there, possibly for over 10 minutes, hoping to even out the odds. If just one of them remains, you may go down and fight, and prevail, and win.

Your reasonable choice in this situation? And mind you, it’s real situation i had. My reasonable choice - go stratosphere.

But you just said, quote, “it is against the rules”. I say, there is a problem with rules, here. I say it again, and for the last time.

And you also said, quote, “I’ve personally only ever done option one”. Perhaps you’ve never played much any of Su-17s, Su-7, Su-22s, Lightnings, F-105D, F-15s, F-104s, F-111s, or other similar planes which all have technical high-alt and/or speed advantage over most planes of comparable BR.

P.S. It is no player’s fault some planes excel at high-alt and/or speed more than others. And it is, quite regularly, a reasonable choice to use such advantage exactly the same manner other kinds of other planes’ advantages - are used. “Against the rules”? Give everyone very same vehicle, just one exactly the same, for every random battle - then talk about such a rule. Otherwise, frankly, it doesn’t sound very reasonable - to put it mildly. ;)

[Real_K_Soze]

@Necronomica

Isn’t it. at all. In fact i regularly se reports against players for these types of actions meaning that many players do not see it as something they want to experience in the game, regardless of if it gives them a better reward or not.

Lmao.

The player reports for passive behaviour come from plain stupid players which have zero clue about how to play Air RB. These are the guys which frequently lose even in large numerical superiority because they can’t catch a faster plane, forgot to look after their tickets or are unaware of ai actions on old legacy maps.

If the fly rat planes without sufficient top speed or high alt performance to have an advantage in turn fights - it is their problem. Only clueless players tuen into 2-6 guys chasing him.

@RunaDacino

This may be a consequence of multiple game modes.

I am aware of the issues within SB matches. As the whole thread deals with Air RB i saw no need to mention it.

The issue is more that the fellow GM is desperately trying to find something which supports his views.

The context matters. If i see this:

@Necronomica

the fellow GM cites from a rule related to gaijins interest to earn money - “participating” is clearly aimed at participating in in-game events (like the current F-106 grinding event, tournaments, etc.).

[Mordillo66]

We can discuss how we get the most out of a messy system or how we can create ideas for GJN to make it better. I prefer the second one.

The reward system should be fair over all and should fit the game goals. For ALL players, no exception for beginners. Because such exceptions will only cause dumb actions ingame and forces no learning curve at all. Like the actual base bombing mess.

If the goal of a battle is a win, there are two ways to do it: Killing all enemies or bleeding all tickets.
In a 16vs16 a player kill should give you as much reward as bleeding 1/16 of tickets. Now you can compare the rewards of a player kill, a destroyed base and a specific amount of ground targets. There is no balance at all.
After all of this we can question why time is a valuable thing in the reward system. I can get 4 player kills in a minute or in 25, the effect to the battle is the same: 25% of a win. Bleeding 25% of tickets in a 7.5k ticket battle…that’s hard work…remember, a base bleeds 0-400 tickets ish (depends on BR), at 9.3 only 100.

Maybe now you could realize, the whole system is a mess.

[Real_K_Soze]

@Necronomica

They do to some extent don’t they? i’ve think i’ve come back to being kicked out of match (but i honestly might be misremembering here, i’m not certain). At the very minimum they do not count as active when all other players are destroyed and the auto ticket bleed speeds up even if they are sitting there, i’ve had this happen to me because it took to long to land and re-arm so i counted as inactive and lost the match.

My example was aimed to show the indirect effects of gaijin not implementing technical solutions to fulfil their rules - like here AFK. The impact of playihg 1 vs 2 (and one of them is AFK) is a severe disadvantage as i am marked with a red square and the only active enemy not.

Some weeks (months?) ago i joined a match - and the door bell rang. So i changed my view to spectator view. I got a parcel & received a phone call. When i came back the match was over - but despite i never spawned i received 5.000 SL as sole survivor…

[Necronomica]

@Fins_FinsT

There you go, you said it yourself. It suffices that you agree that it’s circumstantial. Now, if you’d read what 1st post of this topic says about how game punishes inactivity, and if you’d consider that very rule from Code of Conduct quoted above - where, in those parts, is any mention of any circumstances?

None.

You actually start with that circumstance in your main post:

@Fins_FinsT

In short: regularly, in air RB (and most certainly in quite some other modes), one team has just one player alive, while the other has several players alive. And that “last guy” avoids combat. By doing so, however, he benefits both himself AND all the players of the opposing team - both dead and alive. Yet, the game’s reporting system, the game’s automated routines to deal with “inactive” players, and majority of players in the game - all see such “combat avoidance” as something bad. In error. And this is largely due to how game’s reward system is designed.

@Fins_FinsT

You think any “administrator” who judges who’s “properly” inactive and who’s not - knows all such details and circumstances? I doubt.

You think any automated system can know it all and properly judge? I bet not.

So then, who will then decide in which cases circumstances were justifiable, and in which cases they were not?

Players, by democracy. As well as the War Thunder administration:

You might not like it, but that is how it currently is. Sure there are alternatives, but ALL options come with both positive and negative sides.

@Fins_FinsT

Means, inactivity “sanctions” and bans will inevitably often be based on incorrect judgement. If any are done at all.

Isn’t this the case with any rules/laws? a jury and/or judge makes a judgement and hands out punishment based on their interpretation of the circumstances. I don’t think there is any better system.

@Fins_FinsT

Solution do it? Hell if i know. I just know it’s bad to punish those who are innocent and good-natured. Bad for the game, and bad for everyone who interacts with them. Mind you, this is not anyhow personal experience, if you wonder; just general observation.

This is where a lot of the issue lies in a discussion like this. It’s fine to complain but what is the point other than venting if you offer no alternative?
Innocent people will always end up in the cross fire no matt what you choose, it’s a delicate balancing act between how many innocent can be allowed to get punished compared to how many guilty can be let of the hook. They almost always overlap in a gray area and the choice is then where in that gray are you draw the line. Inevitably others are going to complain about your choice no matter what you choose because letting guilty people of the hook is bad and punishing innocents is bad but you have to do some of either and/or both.

@Fins_FinsT

As i explained above, 1st, it’s at least arguably not against the rule quoted, 2nd, as already mentioned, i think that rule needs improvement, and 3rd, as per 1st post of this topic, it benefits all remaining players via game’s reward system - both teams. I gave the numbers, and so far noone objects the percentages provided. It’s hard fact. Again, like it, or not. It’s how it works.

1. Can be argued, sure. But personally i think very weakly so.
2. Subjective opinion you are free to have.
3. I have not disputed that fact, i have disagreed with your solution.
4. will not comment as it is such a specific case that it makes no sense to argue for or against.

@Fins_FinsT

P.S. It is no player’s fault some planes excel at high-alt and/or speed more than others. And it is, quite regularly, a reasonable choice to use such advantage exactly the same manner other kinds of other planes’ advantages - are used. “Against the rules”? Give everyone very same vehicle, just one exactly the same, for every random battle - then talk about such a rule. Otherwise, frankly, it doesn’t sound very reasonable - to put it mildly. ;)

This is why BR exists and why you then should argue for a BR change instead of a rule change. It’s one thing to use an advantage for a better re-engagement, another to use it to completely avoid the battle altogether.

[Real_K_Soze]

@Necronomica

I’ve personally argued in favour of implementing more engaging “base bombing” where for example different structures get destroyed a different amount depending on munition used (eg, a bunker shouldn’t take damage from napalm and spaced out vehicles/buildings shouldn’t take as much damage from a bunker buster). It would at minimum make that part of the gameplay less “point and click” and require some skill/knowledge to effectively gain progress from. There are other things i could add here as well but i think you get my point.

Finally a topic in which we have an identical view on things. 👍

But imho the fellow player here:

@Mordillo66

the whole system is a mess.

is 100% correct.

[Mordillo66]

That’s all fine, but my question: Where are the punishments?

In all my years of playing this game (250days playtime) I got a single warning about teamkilling. And I’m far away from being well-behaved.

[Necronomica]

@Real K Soze@live

The player reports for passive behaviour come from plain stupid players which have zero clue about how to play Air RB. These are the guys which frequently lose even in large numerical superiority because they can’t catch a faster plane, forgot to look after their tickets or are unaware of ai actions on old legacy maps.

conjecture.

@Real K Soze@live

the fellow GM cites from a rule related to gaijins interest to earn money - “participating” is clearly aimed at participating in in-game events (like the current F-106 grinding event, tournaments, etc.).

It can include, but isn’t limited to that. In fact PvE callouts are frequently punished.

@Real K Soze@live

My example was aimed to show the indirect effects of gaijin not implementing technical solutions to fulfil their rules - like here AFK.

Sure, issue here might be that it isn’t always reasonably possible to implement automated systems in a way where to many innocents aren’t caught in the crossfire. Example: In a low BR match x minutes might be reasonable for nothing to happen as it takes a long time to get from A to B while in top BR its 99% of the time deliberate AFK as during the same time the player have crossed the map 3 times.

But sure, there are likely areas where it is both possible and reasonable for them to do at which point i fully support such implementations.

[Real_K_Soze]

@Necronomica

@Fins_FinsT

Means, inactivity “sanctions” and bans will inevitably often be based on incorrect judgement. If any are done at all.

Isn’t this the case with any rules/laws? a jury and/or judge makes a judgement and hands out punishment based on their interpretation of the circumstances. I don’t think there is any better system.

As long as i see no evidence than players got a temp or perma ban from the game for being “inactive” this looks like pointless exchange.

I mean technically you can construct the case that players with bomber bot scripts are inactive too, but this would be not related to the OP.

[Necronomica]

They regularly punish teamkillers that avoid the automated system (Read more about the system here: https://support.gaijin.net/hc/en-us/articles/200069301-Teamkilling).

Here is the “Fair play” post where they started listing teamkill punishments:

@OrsonES

Since October 22nd, we’ve issued punishments to 25,013 accounts that were found to have violated the rules. Specifically, 23,872 were banned for different time frames for breach of section 2 of “Annex #1. Game Rules” in the Gaijin Terms of Service namely for teamkilling (including intentional ramming).

They have since that post included the teamkill bans that are 1 week or longer in all the “Fair play” posts. There are many more bans issued that are shorter than that, but they aren’t listed.

[Necronomica]

@Real K Soze@live

As long as i see no evidence than players got a temp or perma ban from the game for being “inactive” this looks like pointless exchange.

Agreed, sadly i cannot provide any such evidence due to privacy and security reasons.