Actual Footage of Go-Next Prevention In Action
Disclaimer: Not my post, credit to Dawko and u/jack11803 on Reddit
Dawko is, apparently, one of the biggest FNAF YouTubers and is brand-new to the game. This is also the first footage I've seen personally of the system in action. Thought I'd repost just so we have video proof instead of just pictures of the message on the end-game screen.
Comments
At least in that scenario you would have evidence and video footage of the penalty, Trust me bro I want you to be right, I want to see the bad stuff happen. But we need video evidence of it.
Did you... not watch the linked video? I can't help you if you're refusing to interact with the data provided to you.
You mean this Video? https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/1lfj0xq/video_of_all_4_survivors_being_defeated_causing/
Sure and would you like to show me when in that video the DC Penalty shows up on screen to prove all of this?
I watched this video three times, and I watched his VOD on Youtube, there was no DC penalty when he came back to lobby.
So where is it? Im literally engaging with the Data!
I see what you're doing by trying to muddle the conversation with pedantics. Let me phrase it to you like this: do you think BHVR would have disabled the AFK system yesterday if there wasn't a MASSIVE problem with it because it was falsely banning players? Or are we just making everything up and you caught us in a massive lie because you deigned to ask for a source?
BHVR disabled the system because there were reports of false positives and they are investigating them, I have not disputed that.
The point is, there are reports of people getting banned or DC penalized too, but nobody has been able to provide proof of this.
BHVR has yet to admit that the system is able to ban and DC penalize players, we dont even know if the system is capable of this. Why? Because you have no proof for it, yet.
I dont think you are lying or in a conspiracy, you probably just don't care about having evidence for your beliefs, so you saw videos about it and assumed what you heard was correct. You are certainly unskeptical and you SHOULD be concerned about the lack of evidence being provided here.
"Going Next" Prevention
According to BHVR's own patch notes, the system can hand out dc penalties if it flags a player.
You don't disable a system unless you see proof. That means BHVR has seen substantial proof of it happening.
After a warning comes a ban. That's how warnings work. If someone is warned and BHVR disables the system, then it means yes, the next step would be a ban. They wouldn't disable a system that just warns people.
Sorry there's no video evidence so the patch notes must be lying. 🤷♀️
Correction: The patch notes does indeed state that it CAN do a DC penalty, but the video in question does not show that.
Full Link for those who care: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/patchnotes#:~:text=%22Going%20Next%22%20Prevention
But I don't dispute the patch notes, Thanks @Hex_Ignored for pointing that out.
And also this is pretty concerning:
According to this report, the DC penalty now doesn't start until you try to queue up for the next match. This is very unfair for people who may have DC'd because of power or internet outages, something beyond their control. Instead of having the game ready whenever they fix their issues, they have to wait for however long afterwards when they try to play again.
Thank you for issuing a correction for my obvious tongue in cheek joke. Some people might have taken it seriously.
I am surprised that you took the patch notes for their word. Did you know that software doesn't always behave how the patch notes say it should? I thought you might have held onto the argument that there's still no evidence because of that.
The reason for why I did take the patch notes for what they said, was because that was from the people who made the game.
Even if the system was malfunctioning that would be a separate issue and that would not make what you say or what others say is happening true, I mean no offence ofc. Thing just is people rarely provide a source for their claims.
But I should have checked the patch notes, instead I watched the video because people kept saying, "oh its in the video, its in the video" and the video just shows a warning that is all. Even searching on reddit, have not seen a single video of a DC penalty or a ban being issued. We can enjoy the benefit of hindsight now ofc.
But It did not help when you told me I was not engaging with the data and I watched the video 4 times.
and to be clear, When I ask for evidence it does not mean I'm saying it does not happen or it cant happen. I am merely asking for evidence, because that is what evidence-based empirical attitude requires. Its about showing how you know something, like the match teacher asked you to do, but for beliefs, truth and claims.
Why do that? Well, the DBD community cooks up falsehoods regularly, humans being humans, so it comes in handy to question where people get the information they say to me from. It really isn't a pedantic debate-tactic as you described it as, just asking where you got it.
Anyway, Good luck out there.
Which is it? Either you just want the source or you want the source because the dbd community often lies. I ask again, which is it?
That's because when people share their experiences, often times they don't have receipts on everything that happens to them in their life. Not everyone is screen recording every second they're on their computer or console, nor would they feel that the onus is on them to screenshot a ban warning or actual issued ban to share it with the world so that people who are too concerned with "dbd community drama" can say with 100% certainty that it's happening, instead of trusting the hundreds of people and a major content creator when they claim it's happening to them.
Both, Its not either or. Wanting a source for has many benefits, It helps them judge whether the claim is based on solid evidence or just opinion. I want the source because I care about knowing how someone knows something not because I assume people lie, but because humans can be mistaken, biased, or misinformed (even without meaning to).
It’s not necessarily about accusing anyone of lying, though its very beneficial to do that. Its about making sure a claim is grounded in reliable evidence rather than just trusting words & opinion alone. My goal is to be the least mistaken, biased or misinformed person I can be and not about just avoiding "community drama".
If you dont understand me, I don't expect everyone to and we should not get off topic, Try researching these keywords on Wikipedia: Skepticism, Empiricism, Epistemology, Critical thinking, Burden of proof.
Fascinating stuff really re-shapes your brain and approach to Information.
There's healthy skepticism, then there's unhealthy.
You've been given video of the system flagging a game for "go next", and the system is designed to give a warning, then penalties for additional offences. You're looking at the first step and being skeptical that the system is taking the next step and timing people out.
That's just how the system functions.
Unhealthy skepticism is taking things too far and not making the actual connections with the data you have.
But I didn't have the data to conclude that, I had no proof the system would do a DC Penalty.
You may have forgotten that Hex_Ignored gave me the correct information, I was not under the impression that the system could take the next step. I had no data to assume there even was a next step, but even so I did ask for it so that isn't unhealthy skepticism. I only thought there was a warning, because of all things that was the one we could see.
How do you reason that I could reason that the Go Next Prevention was tied to the DC Penalties if I never saw a DC Penalty.
Literally didn't see the first step as a step, then how can I see it as a step. It doesn't make sense my friend.
We are talking about dead by daylight, a video game. You're approaching this like some groundbreaking scientific discovery just disproved gravity and you're performing the scientific method to verify it. My understanding of your own words based on this conversation is that you believe that this DC penalty issue was "cooked up by the dbd community," essentially calling them bad faith liars, so you want proof because you believe 100+ people and a now disabled system are all lying to you. It would be one thing if it was one or two people who are claiming this because then I'd understand, but in reality it's been a significant amount of the community and BHVR has already taken action and disabled the system. So I go back to my original point: do you sincerely think that all these people are lying to you? What would they get out of that?
Do not morally grandstand about media literacy when you didn't even read the patch notes before coming here begging for sources. Someone with such ostensible high media literacy should have instinctively done that before even entering this thread putting the burden of proof of your claim that this ubiquitous false flagging problem isn't happening on everyone else.
Imagine being a new Cod player and getting killed as soon as the match starts and getting penalties for being new.
I can't even fathom the thought process of thinking this was a good idea for the side of the game that is already the hardest and most insufferable to play.
Why would they disable a system that would only warn people instead of banning them?
It isnt the "scientific method" to be just the slightest bit skeptical of what you hear online, Science has even more requirements.
Why would I not be skeptical about what people are saying about a Videogame too?
You don't seem to know what Burden of Proof is and why its important to have that proof, I explained it to you very thoroughly I might add why its beneficial to verify what you hear. Even if you find Dead by Daylight unimportant, and would believe whatever you hear about it, I'd rather not so its my choice like I said to sift through these claims. You do you.
I also explained very thoroughly that asking for evidence isn't about calling someone a liar, its like you didn't want to believe me when I honestly said I dont assume they lie, they could be, but I dont think they do. If its because I blurted that line about: "cooked up by the dbd community," ??? because you do seem to fixate on it.
No, I don't believe that, but that doesn't change that I want to approach skeptically to it.
To me it doesn't matter if one person or a 1000 make a claim, same procedure for me. I dont go:
"Oh well you reached the threshold for 777 people, now I don't need to ask you for evidence anymore."
You call it a moral grandstand, I just told you why I asked. I did not claim that anyone was making a false claim, you cant pin it on me. Also I did read the patch notes, I just don't remember every detail from it. Sorry. I don't have perfect memory.
Because it produces false-positives. I already agreed this was the case. So ofc they would disable a system that confuses.
But now we all know it also CAN give you a DC Penalty, and we ASSUME this can give a Game Ban eventually.
It's like Ampersand already said: there's healthy skepticism and unhealthy skepticism. This is the oddest hill for you to plant your flag down on to defend with such misplaced energy.
I know what burden of proof is. You seem to think it's up to everyone else, after proof has been shown to BHVR that the system is false banning people, to prove to you that your claim is incorrect. That's not how the burden of proof works.
I'm simply trying to find out the reason as to why you think everyone is intentionally lying to you.
You are missing the point. Those 777 people made the claim, and BHVR took action because they saw evidence to corroborate those claims. There are at least 10+ threads that exist on the forums in the past 2 days where people are showing the system working erroneously before the system took action on them. The burden of proof is not on me to disprove your claim of it not happening when it has already been proven.
If you aren't claiming anyone is making a false claim, then why do you not take all these people for their word? Like people have said before, why be unnecessarily skeptical when there is legitimately nothing to gain from saying "I've been falsely banned by the system?" If you're receiving conflicting information, I would assume the first logical step would be to double check the patch notes which describe the new system just in case information was forgotten or overlooked.
They wouldn't disable a system that only confuses. They keep erroneous perk descriptions, killer descriptions, etc. in the game until the next patch cycle to fix them. If this system did not have the ability to ban people, they would have issued a message in game, like they did when they announced the hotfix for pc, saying to not take the message seriously and that it will be fixed in the next patch.
I cannot connect the dots for you, I'm sorry.
I already responded to Ampersand, they are wrong. What they say I could have reasoned, they have not said what I should have reasoned it from. I am also sorry, you think this is "a hill im planting my flag on" im simply answering your questions honestly, but my guess is you really have it in your head that I think everyone is lying and out to get me, I don't.
Burden of proof is on who makes a claim, I commented about the video and Hex_Ignored and CrypticGirl said I should take heed because it would eventually lead to bans, so I asked them to provide a source, they did not provide that at first.
Burden of Proof is not pretend someone made a claim and then press them for evidence. You dont understand it.
I literally don't believe this, I have stated this to you so many times now. Why do you keep pushing it?
Sure, but I don't have the evidence or the reasons BHVR has. I don't know if they did it because of the bans, the de-grades or DC penalties. Ill grant you they had a reason, but they dont tell us why exactly. That is besides the point, if a million people told me to jump off a bridge, I would still not do it. Numbers has nothing to do with this, only evidence.
I don't see why would I take anyone for their word and I don't think its unnecessary to just ask where they know things from.
I already argued the many benefits of doing so
Not if I already believed I had read the patch notes.
The system also de-grades maybe that is the reason.
40s in and he already fits in.
I contacted the moderators. BHVR's rationale is much more simple, once they realized the Go Next System was targeting tunnel'ed survivors they just had to Killswitch it.
Its as simple as confirmed false-positives.
I'm not entirely sure what to tell you here.
You, yourself linked the patch notes in this very thread.
Someone else already linked you the exact statement from those very patch notes that survivors would be both flagged for "throwing", and that the penalty for that gives "disconnection points".
Those same patch notes also clarify what disconnection points mean.
The video pops up a window at the end of the match, which is new with this patch, warning that the gameplay was "flagged for being unusual".
Those are the facts, and you seem to not be putting the pieces together to understand that this is the system working, and doing what they said it would do.
You appear to be dying on this hill of "but I didn't see the 5 minute timeout", which is where I think most of us are saying that level of skepticism is unhealthy.
The system is demonstrably working, it is flagging people for "throwing" (right or wrong), and you seem overly concerned that somehow the disconnection priority system is, I dunno, bugged and not giving timeouts? or something?
That's a stretch. And why we're all saying this seems like an unhealthy level of skepticism for this issue.
(I've also not seen any reports of "people are disconnecting every match, is the dc penalty broken?" Which I would also expect if the system was failing in this way.)
I'm told these are new survivors. They certainly do new survivor things. Camp pallets, repair generators while injured near a killer, and think they can blind a moving killer.
While I know the post is about the penalty system but he says at the end, that was the most boring game he ever played. Well, it's his fault. After being unhooked the killer went after the other survivor instead of him. What every survivor wants, yeah? But when he sees he wasn't being chase jumps on a nearby gen injured and wonders why he's going back on a hook? Really?
Instead of going for the unhooks the other twitchy is sightseeing or something?
Hope you all realise the killer did nothing wrong here. The 2nd hook on the streamer was his own fault and his teammates could of been more proactive in saving others from the hook.
I suspect the penalty is from missing those skillchecks and getting down right after being unhooked. A flaw in the system but at least we can see why.
We are talking about before I re-read the patch notes. How can I have correct information when I don't remember it?
You seem to completely ignore that I told you I didn't know that when I said that and believe I knew it anyway for some reason.
How do I put together facts I didnt know? Im not a time traveler you know.
I'm really not, I simply asked if they had a source for it and nobody had, until Hex_Ignored dug up the patch notes.
And now we have been discussing that and Ive been answering questions about my beliefs and how I reason for idk 3 hours-
Even loop a killer or touching a generator isn't enough to make the system understand you're playing. There are people who have been tunneled and are penalized. There are people who start a chase with a killer, running through the map with the killer behind them, with the terror radius on, and the 10-second crow appears because the game thinks they aren't doing anything. Not even been in a chase saves you, lol.
So are we now in the supporting bans for being bad era of DBD?
It's pretty ironic considering BHVR had to change 'Entity Displeased' to "The Entity Hungers" because people were taking that as a slight against them for doing ""badly"" as Killer
Darn, I think I actually was in favor of that change. hahaha
I don’t think many are shocked that they had to kill switch this. I’ve always held the opinion that’s it’s bad form to have a system interpret what is going on in someone’s mind and punishing because the system assumes you are doing wrong.
I prefer that change, personally. Before, you got 8 hooks and the Entity was displeased with you because you didn't kill anyone. Even though 8 hooks is better than 1 hook and a kill, at least in most people's opinions. Now, you get 8 hooks and the Entity is like, "But dude, I'm hungry," and you can shrug it off like whatever, I don't feel like spoon feeding you right now.
Seriously, though, hunger feels like a better personification of the Entity's state than displeasure.
Nope, clearly it's not acceptable. The system may have been put in too soon and needs adjustment. Timing was bad as well. An update like this is better placed with mid-chapter patches.
The difference is I want a working system while others don't want it at all.
They are not wrong. They are 100% right.
You have spent more energy and time asking "source" and defending your unhealthy skepticism than you invested in actually looking for the threads and evidence of false banning actually happening. If you spent even 1% of that time to actually look among the other threads, you'd have found it. It's not up to these people to find evidence for you when BHVR has already taken action on the system. That means that IT IS HAPPENING.
No, you don't understand it. BHVR has the evidence, BHVR disabled the system. People posted the proof in the various threads on the forums. That means it is happening. You saying "it's not happening, where's the source?" means you want to put the responsibility on other people, and for them to have the burden of proof to disprove your claim. That's why people are disagreeing with you.
These are two completely different things, and you know it. Believing a group of people that claim something is happening is entirely different than refusing a horrible command (I do not condone said command) given by someone else.
Do you see why I would say this as a response:
Also, I see you said this:
So did you or did you not read the patch notes before coming here? I remember you telling me this:
Your story is not holding up. I'm skeptical of your claims.
The system de-grades AND bans at the same time. It says so in the patch notes which we have yet to determine if you actually read before coming to the thread. I guarantee BHVR cares more about falsely BANNING people, preventing them from playing the game, over a grade system that they can compensate with bloodpoints later.
I remember reading somewhere that Bhvr wouldn't penalize intentionally dying on hook because it's logistically impossible to differentiate from somebody lagging and missing the skill check.
I'm not sure if that's true but it's odd to see them go against thar philosophy in a much worse way.
Nope, they have no idea. By their logic I would be a Time Traveler, I would not trust anything they say.
Nah I have spent most time answering your questions, we already solved the source matter about 5 hours ago now.
This is all about you and the questions you have.
Nope, that is NOT what the Burden of Proof is, nor is it BHVR who made the claim, again it was Hex_Ignored & CrypticGirl.
I never said it was not happening, stop trying to put words in my mouth and listen when I say that isnt what Im saying, its not what I said. And if people think that's what I say, idd like them to quote me. Again, show your source.
They are the same thing, one is just horrible, its not a comparison. well-known saying / rhetorical question.
often used to challenge someone’s reasoning when they’re justifying their actions if they are appealing to popularity.
I read the patch notes on the release day and I forgot the part Hex_Ignored pointed out. I have then read the patch notes again.
Well like I have been trying to tell you, I didn't not know if it banned at the time. Even so care about both.
Are we finally reaching anywhere?
No. They are correct.
You should become a DJ with that spin, because that's not what's happened at all.
This is not what happened, you are incorrect.
They are not the same. That would be like saying apples and bananas are the same fruit. You are simply just wrong.
You tell me. 🤷♀️
I think we are done, you are beyond saying 'nuh uh' right now.
We clearly are, since you won't in good faith engage with the data the community has provided. Especially when your first contribution to this thread was accusing a new player that they were creating "theater" because they felt bad they lost.
BHVR has the data. I'm not sure why you're asking random community members "where's the data" when you know that you're not going to get the data as sufficient for you compared to the data that BHVR has, but I highly doubt that this was your intention when you're clearly making "theater" yourself.
The Community has provided hearsay, hearsay isnt data. You clearly don't know the difference.
My opinion of how he acts on stream and entertains his viewers is irrelevant to the topic at hand and what we have been discussing. You are clearly jumping topic now.
Please point out where I asked the Community Members for where is the Data, because you can cause I would not ask a Community Member for BHVR's Data here. I asked for their source and after some deflection they gave it to me.
I have literally engaged with every point you have brought up, while you have succumbed to just denying anything put forward to you without any reason so. Talk about good faith? I dont think you know what that means either.
We are beyond done now. Wow Wow.
Have to disagree. They removed the ability to give up on hook. That's all they need really.
You accused him, then begged for evidence when people said the system bans people. It's the same topic of discussion.
You have dodged every point everyone has said in this thread.
You keep responding though, do you have more to say? 🤔
The difference is I want a working system while others don't want it at all.What they are trying is basically undoable.
If you design a mechanic into a game, but only want it used in a certain way, policing it via some sort of auto detection will almost inevitably cause problems. You can do extreme examples like 'blocking a survivor in a corner' because those are rare enough that a human can review the footage, but an auto detect system will either be too sensitive and pick up false positives or too loose that it can be easily avoided.
The way to deal with it is just to disallow the behavior you don't want. No self unhook attempts for the first five minutes of the game would have been a simple solution and then they could have worked on some type of extreme hiding scenario.
No, it's doable. It may take more than one match to detect it though. If you keep track of how many times someone if flagged with the system the higher the probability they are doing it on purpose.
Lol also does. If you die alot you get 14 day ban for intentionaly feeding.
Someone should have told the developers before this went live how terrible this would go. We should have known something like this would happen.
/sarcasm
Bro i got 1200h and i die early. I still don't know how to play vs most killers. Wasnt this bad on lol
Haven't played that game long enough to have that problem, but… yeah just another reason for me not to play it.
I think truly the most disheartening thing about this isn’t even that the system is clearly not working right, but how some still defend it and blame the survivors in this case. I’ve never seen such unreasonable bias I guess? Probably shouldn’t be shocked, I suppose. This just reeks of “well what were you wearing?”