Basement_Bubba420
Basement_Bubba420
About
- Username
- Basement_Bubba420
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@chimera3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3355578#Comment_3355578
So choosing to play one of the killers in the game means you deserve to lose now huh? I have no idea what mental gymnastics you have to do to come to that conclusion but wow is that absurd
It's the exact mentality that leads to a stale meta and seeing the same killers over and over again.
-
Yes there are still subtle hackers running around.
Encountered an auto DH user yesterday. No animation, just insta DH right before the hit connects.
Looked at their twitch and sure enough there are clips of them doing the exact same thing. Insta DH, no animation, right before the swing connects. So several instances of this. What are the odds that there would be so many observable instant DHs from just one person? Very, very, very low. The DHs were in sus situations too.
The guy had 500+ hours too.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3356146#Comment_3356146
If you take a weak Killer, use off-meta perks, refuse to use optimal strategies and you put that Killer against an optimal 4-man? Yes, you deserve to lose that game.
Perks and strategies only help so much. Every player is still limited by the killer they play. Some killers are so awful that even if a skilled player did use optimal perks and strats they would still be at a major disadvantage.
What is the point you are trying to make? There are bad killers? You guys are in agreement with each other.
-
@TheSubstitute said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3356053#Comment_3356053
If there were actual high MMR matches then the queues would be insufferable. Witness how Dowsey took up to 45 minutes to find a game when MMR was brought in initially. To make queues bearable the softcap was lowered to 1600 MMR with a 200 point variance if queue times got too long.
That's why there is no high MMR. We don't know what percentage of the playerbase is at 1600 MMR+ but, as most large inclusive groups have roughly 30 to 40% of their players at 1600 or up, I'm assuming that's similar here. 35% of the playerbase, as an example, is not defined to me as high MMR. It doesn't exist.
You might be at the soft cap or over; it's not a really exclusive group. If Killers start at 1100 MMR they can probably camp first down for a few hundred point rise. If you're saying you run into SWF death squads all the time what could easily be happening is that you're at the soft cap or a bit above it and many of the survivors past the soft cap are maybe at 1700 or 1800. Those would be really tough games for someone at 1600.
A soft cap exists. A significant amount of Killers are probably at the soft cap. Very few people are at high MMR but they can be matched with anyone at the soft cap to keep queue times down since there aren't enough people at high MMR to match with them and have tolerable queues. That's why high MMR doesn’t exist; if anyone is at high MMR in a match its normally only one side.
Weren't you arguing the opposite in the DH thread?
That because streamers are the top 2% or w/e the data gained from their matches aren't representative of the population.
Yet here you say there is no high MMR, queue times are prioritized, and thusly these streamers can face a wide berth of skill levels. So I don't understand your point. How can it be both?
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3355612#Comment_3355612
Exactly, I can guarantee you if BHVR did release extremely detailed stats you’d have they same people ######### about how the stats are false or misinterpret them . One thing I can say for sure we wouldn’t see a mass exodus like the OP seems to think would happen. The usual suspects will still be around playing and still complaining.
i never said there would be a mass exodus.....
-
@Spare_Them_Mori_Me said:
Op killers can be trash if the player is not skilled. Trash killers can be OP if the player is skilled. Your reasoning doesn't merit this from BHVR.
Releasing this info can literally only make things worse for BHVR. Right now, all you're doing is calling for it. If thats all that is going on, its easy to not say anything and just let it die. If they give in and release this info, it'll be a new thing to complain about. This just isn't worth the companie's time.
Yes. Those are the definitions of OP and weakness. It's what the player can do with them.
Maybe if the balance is that bad that people would quit if BHvR released the full stats they should fix the balance issues. Instead of sweeping everything under a rug.
-
@Spare_Them_Mori_Me said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3355638#Comment_3355638
Realistically, This very well could get people to straight up quit. Especially everyone saying this or that killer is trash/OP, and then they see they were so very wrong... a lot of people dont have the mentality to take that kind of ego hit, and will just quit the game saying its trash.
Well, it is trash. But not the point. Anyway, just one reason, and more a reason for companies and business types than people like us.
but there are op and trash killers. the stats will prove this. it is inevitable that there will be top killers in the normal distribution.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3355558#Comment_3355558
To answer the OP: because when the stats show that the game is way more balanced than people say, all the 'woe is me' killers come crawling out of the woodwork to discredit them.
then they should show the stats and everyone can shut up. just make the api and be done with it. idk why they haven't done this in the nearly 7 years this game has been around.
-
f they released the full stats, I'm sure we will see some "surprising" info.
For instance, 60% kill rate across all killers?
Well, maybe there's an average of 4.5 hooks before the first kill meaning someone got tunneled out early.
Or maybe, in 5% of games someone destroys themselves on their first hook. This means that that game is effectively ruined, leading to an easy 3k or 4k.
Maybe in 10% of games overall at least one person lets themselves die on hook, further inflating the kill rate. Having someone blow themselves up on hook at 3 gens can very easily cost survivors the game.
I do think the kill rate and thusly the targeted kill rate is inflated. This is based on pure speculation and anecdotal evidence of course. because they won't give us stats.
As a Killer (any killer, really) if you are honestly trying to kill at LEAST one person, you can probably do so 95% of the time. Tunnel someone out, camp, slug, be mean, etc... It's very rare to try and go for a kill and not get AT least 1. Thusly, the floor is most likely around 1 kill.
If you include the other scenarios mentioned above with 3-4Ks occurring when they shouldn't if it was an actual competitive game we can have an inflated kill rate. That is, a kill rate that isn't representative of actual competitive play and include people memeing around which has a 4x likelihood occurring for survivors since there are 4 of them in a match.
We need the hook stats, perk stats, survival stats, mmr stats, swf stats, killer stats, etc... to better analyze the game. Leaving it to be done by BHvR isn't getting much accomplished. We had the meta shake up, and then that's it. I thought they were gonna start turning things around but after seeing the Eruption changes, Dead Hard changes, map changes, newest killer, more exhaustion perks, emphasis on the gen kick meta, etc... it seems like they stopped making changes.
We can help. Give us the stats. We will do the analysis for you. You can make up your mind BHvR. Right now, theres no way you can convince me that half the killer roster is viable in a competitive setting. Not professional level gameplay, but people who are trying to win and are in comms with each other. Changes must be made, especially now that we have the much needed UI changes.
-
hex's are already pretty bad. rng can make it so its immediately out of the match if a survivor spawns next to it. most of the hex totems aren't that powerful anyway.
-
@Katzengott said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3354182#Comment_3354182
And you think kills is a good indicator for skill? Couldn't it just be a killer hard camping and tunneling 1 surv out early, than another one and the third one with NOED? Aren't you looking just for stats? And isn't the problem that stats don't tell you anything what really happend in a match? What do you think is more fun for survs, a killer going for kills or hooks?
That's why i'm still thinking MMR at least should be based on Emblems. The emblem system wasn't perfect, just needed some tweeks. Matchmaking just based on kills and escapes forces both sides into using meta and to play very unfun against the other side when you reached a certain point in current MMR.
people are free to ignore this though. why does mmr matter when you never see it?
-
no respect for swfs but i dont hate them.
its the game on ez mode. bhvr should just move 4 mans to a separate queue.
-
Dead Hard + Nowhere to Hide.
Dead Hard still has the same problem it used to, granted its not as bad.
Nowhere to hide makes hiding useless as its name implies.
-
These are good answers thanks everyone
-
Oh I'm not saying that Pips and "rank" should be used to determine matchmaking.
I'm just asking why the criteria for success in MMR (i.e. getting kills) isn't reflected as a successful criteria for pips.
Like if I get a 4k with 3-4 gens left in a few minutes sometimes I won't pip or just get one. This is especially true if chases are really short. I would think that the "chase" category and the "sacrifice" category should be maxed out.
Like getting a double down when there are 3 survivors left and having both end themselves on hook means I won't be scoring well in the sacrifice category.
-
If the only two sides in a game are at fault for the game being in a bad state, maybe it's the games fault.
The dev's aren't well known for having brainiac decisions. Take the DH hard change for instance.
If I told you to reduce the length of something that is easily reducible and after 4 months of work you came back and reduced the length by 5%, how well did you think you do your job?
Well, that's what they did with the initial version of DH on the PTB. All this time and effort put into a "rework" and the prototype they came up with was.... a 5% reduction. They're really afraid of change and it shows.
-
@Ayodam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3352291#Comment_3352291
most of this is dribble but I guess the one thing that intrigues me is why you think it is at all important to point out that DH nerf was 1 second on PTB (and thereby gave a distance if 4 m vs 4.2), when what actually went live was .5 seconds with a distance of 2 m.
Their goal was to reduce the distance gained. They started out with a 5% decrease.
They wasted time, money, and valuable feedback on this.
I find it intriguing as well.
What about the post is dribble?
-
@TheSubstitute said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3353035#Comment_3353035
Your thought experiment has no relevance to DH though. DH, at no point in time, grants invulnerability for the entire match. It can be countered and is countered whereas your thought experiment perk has no counter and is entirely RNG based. To compare apples to apples DH needs to be compared to other chase perks. It's not a perk like Object Of Obsession either. Being in a SWF doesn't automatically make DH better. It's a chase perk. I don't experience any issues with DH users over SB users which is a comparable perk. Apples to apples.
Also, the streamers themselves are not representative of any group but streamers and people at their MMR. In any event, you still don't have any data showing how many DH users escape over how many SB users escape. Saying that streamers are not representative of the entire population is a fact as the majority of players are not at 2000 MMR or up.
Even if you want to use the survivors at the soft cap, which is probably a third of the player base but that's just a guess using the population distributions of other elo games, they aren't representative of the entire survivor population. Unless, of course, you're saying lower MMRs shouldn't be considered. That, in my opinion, would be an error and an example of why would be VHS which did balance for the top lost so many players and has only just started to feel better ever since they began to make changes to make their game more accessible. Balancing for the top, if your revenue is based on participation instead of spectators, is a mistake if your goal is a growing player base.
That's fine, though, and you sound like you're basing your opinion as an opinion on DH and you believe it's OP. As I said, I'm neutral on that. I don't see it in comparison to pre 6.1 DH but that could simply be because I'm more experienced now than I was before. I haven't seen anything in my own personal experience that makes me feel like it's OP but I'm just one player. All my discussions in this thread have really been about is me relating my personal experience, saying that I don't see DH as OP but I could be wrong and there is no data out there to prove me wrong or right. There are other people in this thread that also said they don't see a problem with DH so, if people want to argue about DH, their time might be better served arguing with someone who has a position on the subject instead of someone who is neutral and just pointing out there is no concrete data available to support or debunk DH being OP. It's okay if people have different opinions.
Bro come on. The point of the thought experiment isn't about DH. It's about your contention that statistics are the main determinant of OPness. Answer the question. I literally said this. Just answer the question and we can move on about how we should discuss dead hard. Is it just statistics? Are there other metrics we can look at?
"Anyway, to your point about survival rates being the main measure of OPness I disagree."
So, did I correctly interpret your point? Is my interpretation incorrect? If so, answer the question. If not, tell me what I missed and lets move forward.
To surmise, you state that we need the statistics to evaluate whether DH is OP.
I say, no we don't need the statistics. The power level of the perk is baked into the definition of the perk. We can observe its power through examining the definition. The statistics are just an externality of the perk's definition.
Finally, regarding your point on the data gained from streamers, they face a wide enough skill range of players that given a good sample size of say 100 games, we can gain enough information. You said it yourself, there are not enough people at 2000 MMR to match them with, it will draw people from a wider variety of skill levels. The system will prioritize lower queue times over balanced games. It will answer the question what effect does dead hard have on a top killer player for a wide range of survivors. Also, look at the BHVR released kill statistics. The difference between the generalized stats and the top 5%. What among those would you constitute an important statistical difference?
Finally, I do think the bottom 20% of any skill bracket should be of minimal consideration. These are people who fundamentally don't understand the game, lack the experience, lack technical skill, lack interest, etc...
There is very little incentive to include them in balancing discussion. They just don't know enough about the game or have enough skill to be able to ascertain knowledge by observation.
-
@TheSubstitute said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3352964#Comment_3352964
Streamers do not represent the entirety of DbD's skill levels unless you're arguing that DbD should be balanced exclusively around streamers. They're not a representative population.
As well, you're not showing the survival rates of survivors with the same level of experience with SB or Lithe versus the survival rates of survivors with DH.
Instead, cherry picked situations are being described instead of using actual escape rates to show how DH over SB or Lithe increases survival rates in a statistically significant manner. Somebody could also describe cherry picked situations in which SB, Lithe or BL is better than DH but that means nothing either.
You can't because the data hasn't been released and so, instead of data, we get statements that are false such as 'DH is a third health state' which precludes the possibility of the Killer countering DH or the DH user messing up. DH can give an extra hit but it quite often doesn't.
If you want to say you can 'prove' DH is OP then get a sample of Killers that is representative of the DbD playerbase, compare survival rates between the survivors that use DH and those that use SB and Lithe, determine if there is a statistically significant difference in survival rates between those groups and if there is a variance in survival rates in different MMR groups and make inferences about game balance from there (and also let the data lead you to a conclusion instead of trying to make the data fit a conclusion).
If that sounds impossible that's because that's exactly my point. We don't have the data. We can't access or collect the data. BHVR has the data. All we have are opinions.
If you cannot admit the possibility that perhaps your opinion on whether DH is overpowered is wrong then you have a bias and attempting to argue you have facts when you have opinions that just discredits your arguments as you're not even trying to be objective. I mean, I've stated multiple times that I haven't seen a huge issue with DH in my games but there's a possibility it still needs a nerf and yet I'm getting constant arguments from people who can't accept someone who takes a neutral stance on the subject based on their own personal experiences. You think DH is op. That's your opinion. That's cool. You might be right. However, you only have an opinion, not a fact. That's my entire point. I'm not even defending DH. I'm relating my personal experience and saying I haven't seen the issue but there could still be one and it might (or might not) need a nerf. Why is that so hard to accept?
- "Streamers do not represent the entirety of DbD's skill levels unless you're arguing that DbD should be balanced exclusively around streamers. They're not a representative population."
The streamers themselves don't but the survivors do. AFAIK, the MMR system prioritizes time spent in queue which is why there are alot of matches that result in complete stomps for one side. This information was from a while ago (6 months+) but they haven't announced any matchmaking changes since then so I would assume its the same.
Also, the data doesn't include just the streamers. It's the thousands of other people that play with them as well. These people are of various skill levels. The other people that play with them are representative of the population. It's ridiculous to say "it's only two people" when the previous poster mentioned utilizing the games they played. It's a strawman argument and its what you initially suggested is wrong with the data.
- "As well, you're not showing the survival rates of survivors with the same level of experience with SB or Lithe versus the survival rates of survivors with DH."
Survival rates aren't my point of contention with the perk. Review my post. They failed their original design goal and the perk still functions as before the rework. Anyway, your contention seems to be that survival rates should be the main measure of whether or not a perk is OP. I disagree and I'll explain why later.
- You can't because the data hasn't been released and so, instead of data, we get statements that are false such as 'DH is a third health state' which precludes the possibility of the Killer countering DH or the DH user messing up. DH can give an extra hit but it quite often doesn't.
Agreed. BHvR has been terrible with their data. They obviously cherry pick what they want to show. If they just made an API the players would do the analysis for them and they wouldn't need to spend time and money on it.
- If you want to say you can 'prove' DH is OP then get a sample of Killers that is representative of the DbD playerbase, compare survival rates between the survivors that use DH and those that use SB and Lithe, determine if there is a statistically significant difference in survival rates between those groups and if there is a variance in survival rates in different MMR groups and make inferences about game balance from there (and also let the data lead you to a conclusion instead of trying to make the data fit a conclusion).
I can't prove DH is OP with statistics. I can prove they failed their own goal of the rework. BHvR would actually need to release the statistics in totality for any analysis is done. Until then we can only speculate on statistics and make conclusions from the perk themselves. My conclusion is that the Dead Hard rework was a failure and thusly still overpowered. It's based on the total utility provided by the perk. I don't care if the majority of survivors that use it are complete potatos and fail every time. It's OP on paper. That's bad enough.
Anyway, to your point about survival rates being the main measure of OPness I disagree.
Think about OOO. Used in solo it's terrible and survivors who use it deserve to be tunneled. Used in a SWF it's very good. It's free info for the group and outright counters stealth killers. There is minimal downside especially considering you have a group to help you resist the killer. The perk itself had a low survival rate according to Almo and thusly wasn't overpowered. Well that's partially true. It did have a lower survival rate. It was an absolute menance in SWF though and brought about way too much utility. Because now all the information gained is spread throughout the team and the team can plan and react accordingly.
So, I think it can be fairly stated that the main measure of a perk's OPness is the actual description of the perk itself. The survival rates are a side effect of the OPness. As a thought experiment, imagine a perk that provided complete and permanent immunity 1% of the time at the start of a trial. The survival rate of the users wouldn't change much, but when it does activate it is definitely OP. We can look at the perk itself to determine its OPness. We don't need data in this case, the case of OOO, or the case of DH.
Anyway, what is your opinion on the thought experiment? Is it inconclusive because we don't have the data, or if the data shows survival rates haven't changed is it not OP?
-
@TheSubstitute said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3350764#Comment_3350764
If you think that two people constitute a sufficient sample size for DbD then you don't understand statistics. Also, if you know of streamers that are better than Otz, Dowsey, Scott Jund and SpooksNJukez but are just as entertaining I'll take a look at them but those are currently the only streamers I watch.
Another possibility is that I'm just better at reading people and countering DH than you are and that's why we see different outcomes. It doesn't really matter though as when I say I don't notice an increase in survivability of DH over SB I can only speak to my own personal perception and guess from there as are you when you say that SB is 1/3 as effective as DH. That's not you pointing to data; that's just guessing and making up a figure with no data to support it. It's not facts.
The reality is that neither of us know if DH is fine or not since we don't have the data. The difference is that I'm saying I don't know and you're trying to state an opinion as fact when it's just an opinion.
It's literally not two people. Over hundreds of games between the two and there thousands of people.
Why do you think it's two people when there are 5 people in EVERY game?
If we look at 500 games for both of them played over the last month or so we have.... 4000 people.
DH is a problem. The stated goal of the rework was to "address the problematic nature of gaining distance..." and that "Dead Hard's intended use is to dodge hits by timing it correctly".
Well it's still used to gain distance. You get 2m of free distance when you use. In fact, its even longer if you consider reaction times.
Killer is 6m away from survivor. Survivor is 6m away from pallet. Survivor can DH any lunge (1 second lunge time for killer, average human reaction time is .25 seconds)
Killer is 6m away from the survivor. Survivor is 10m away from pallet. If the killer lunges immediately, same situation as before.
If the killer waits 1 second. Killer is 5.4m away from survivor. Survivor is 6m away from pallet. Survivor has smaller window to react but still plenty of time. If the Killer waits 2 seconds, Killer is 4.8m away from the survivor. Survivor is 2m away from pallet. DH distance away.
If the survivor couldn't interact with anything for a time period after using dead hard, so that they actually lose distance to a point, then it would have been a rework. Right now it's just the same thing with endurance. The extra 2.2m really isn't the issue. It's the interactability afterwards. The problem still exists. They completely missed it.
EDIT: Please explain why you keep referring to a "few streamers" when the totality of their games over a given period is likely to include hundreds if not thousands of other people as valid data entries. We are keeping one thing consistent (generalized killer skill) and the only variable is the survivors. Certainly it would be easier to measure the effects of DH when we have less variables, right? Am I missing something? Can you bring in something from data analytics to show why I am wrong?
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3352251#Comment_3352251
Dead Hard was changed so that it provided 1 second of Endurance. This means that survivors would cover ONLY 4m compared to the 4.2m gained prior to the rework. A 5% reduction. A patch where the goal was to reduce the distance Dead Hard gave survivors started out with a reduction of.... 5%.
Dead hard is .5 seconds though, not 1. So it's 2m instead of 4.2m.
Yes I am aware. In the PTB the initial version was 1 second.
So 4m of invulnerability compared to the previous version which had 4.2m.
The stated goal was to reduce distance gained when activated. The deployed rework to the PTB was a 5% reduction in distance. This equates to .05 seconds of extra time the killer had to swing. That is 25% of the normal human's reaction time to a distinct visual stimulus. Not a situation where they must gauge distance, probability, the speed of their target, their own speed, and other factors. The initial version was a buff because of Endurance.
The actual rework isn't that much of a difference and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the problematic nature of the perk. Dead Hard is still used to gain distance to a point. It's problematic nature wasn't that it gave distance on the killer. It was that it gave you distance to a pallet or vault. If you are invulnerable and thusly uninteractable you are gaining distance to a certain point. The killer can't do anything.
They should actually rework the perk. While Dead Hard is in use and for 1 second afterwards, all pallets and vaults are uninteractable. This way, you actually lose distance to a point. You can't interact with anything for 6m. You must dodge the hit.
The killer can try to fake the hit, bait the dead hard, and hit the survivor during the uninteractivity. The survivor can either Dead Hard the hit, activating Endurance and allowing for interactivity or outplay the bait and drop the pallet. No more free distance. Dodge, or die.
-
The problem is that the game is balanced around 4 solo survivors.
4 SWFs throw things in the survivors advantage tremendously. It's a bunch of free perks.
To balance the 60% kill rate target killers need to have bigger advantages. These advantages are multiplicative against solo Q players and make solo Q hell. However, they can't give killer too many advantages as that would make things for solo Q even worse.
So now, solo Q players get some advantages to make up for the built in advantages SWF have. This should make balancing much easier as there is less of a gap between solo Q and SWF.
Why they didn't start this 4 years ago is a mystery.
Of course, when it comes to balancing don't expect much.
Remember the Dead Hard "rework" PTB. The goal of the "rework" was to reduce the distance survivors gained from Dead Hard.
Dead Hard was changed so that it provided 1 second of Endurance. This means that survivors would cover ONLY 4m compared to the 4.2m gained prior to the rework. A 5% reduction. A patch where the goal was to reduce the distance Dead Hard gave survivors started out with a reduction of.... 5%. Ofc, it could be said the goal of testing is to make discrete small changes so that the effect of such testing can be measured. But then we get things like the Eruption change so I'm not even sure if this is a the devs follow.
-
this is why killers slug the second to last survivor. then they can hook both
-
It's too much work for BHvR. They have enough on their plate already.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
That’s a very weird comparison to make, but ok.
I imagine it’s got to do with rendering, motion sickness, and the like.
Well I can be the judge of my own motion sickness. As for rendering, survivors are in third person so I'm not sure why that's an issue.
@Bwsted said:
Probably because of rendering and clipping issues.
Clipping I can understand but surely this can and should be fixed.
-
@fulltonon said:
It's quite ridiculous to talk about reforms or false positives, It's not like those things doesn't matter for a single game.
There is no difference in those matters whether it's all games or single game, either way reforms can happen and false positives do exists, but there is literally no anti-cheat systems that consider those factor.
It would appear that Riot uses data analysis to make determinations about cheating. Whether its performing abnormally well in ranked match that far defies statistical probability, determines a threat rating based on known associations between users who cheat, or assign different weights for accounts who spam the report button it does seem like there is some system in place.
Whether this is part of the anti-cheat system itself seems to be more of a matter of semantics. I agree with you that I wouldn't classify it as anti-cheat system specifically, but I would say it falls under the anti-cheat umbrella designed to reduce cheating and possible avenues.
Thus, it would make sense to disqualify a subset of players who have a disproportionately high rate of offending and are often the most problematic part of a community. The exact terms used to disqualify them can be a matter of debate, but I have no doubt that a disqualification in totality will reduce the absolute amount of cheating.
-
@RainehDaze said:
I think the point where you're asking if I want to reform the entire justice system (with the added bonus of not specifying which country) clearly marks the end of the possibility for anything productive. This is a single-purpose forum, the state of political systems in the world is way out of scope.
You keep bringing up fallacies and logical contradictions, but your own posts resemble nothing less than a gish gallop. Well, a close relative in forum discussions I refuse to have anything to do with any more; responding to every point in a post with multiple points until it's impossible to follow.
And no, I'm not inconsistent. You ban people for cheating in a game, not for being a high risk of cheating based on prior actions. I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to very closely related games, but that's it. The endless "but what about" does not change that answer.
Okay well stop derailing my thread then. Just leave it and be done.
You have lied repeatedly and engaged in bad faith repeatedly.
- You're original position was that nothing would change your mind. Okay fine. Maybe you know something I don't. It is clear that is not that case and what you actually do know is completely unknown.
- The false premise in which you created a story and assumed that no one was cheating and then came to the conclusion that.... no one was cheating. This is indisputable.
- You didn't read the Steamworks article provided. You either lied or were entirely ignorant about its implications. This is indisputable.
- You outright lied when you said Valve agrees with you. You are against cross game bans. Valve actually does cross game bans. You never addressed this difference, just moved the goal post which generated more contradictions. Your quote "Are they hypocritical? Maybe. Doesn't matter, their stated position is in line with what I was saying" is blatantly false. Valves position is to do cross game bans. That is not in line with what you are saying.
- You gave every possible answer to a yes or no question. Contradicting your original position, your position at the time, and your conclusion. It makes no sense.
- You refuse to give a percentage of false positives that would be acceptable. Thus, I assume you will not tolerate any false positives. Hence the criminal justice scenario. You give no comment on this. Bad faith.
- You outright refuse to answer my questions that would demonstrate your contradictions.
- You consistently engage in "because I said so" arguments, and immediately drop the argument when called on it. What happened to the "lazy Steamworks documentation"? You didn't even read it.
- Yes, you are being inconsistent. You just said you should "probably yes" ban people who cheat in games that share engine, genre, and developers. For the final time (thank goodness) this is inconsistent with your opinion that no cross game bans should occur.
- You state that I am committing logical fallacies. You provide no evidence or reasoning. You don't even point them out when they occur. Yet another example of bad faith, inconsistency, and a bad attitude. Here I am pointing out the things you've done so far. With explanations. You criticize me for being too long with my posts. If you hadn't been in bad faith and could communicate effectively they wouldn't have needed to be so long.
Goodbye. You are blocked. Stop lying and engaging in bad faith in my thread.
-
@RainehDaze said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3349364#Comment_3349364
Ah, I thought you were referring to this part:
Both VAC and Game Ban enabled games can either be bought for your own account, or gifted immediately. If you directly gift a game to someone who gets permanently banned, you won’t be able to gift that game again.
Yes, they stop you from sharing any VAC game if you have a VAC ban. That isn't a ban from playing them, it's a blatantly obvious fix for people trying to use shared games to avoid getting banned while cheating again (also the reverse family sharing thing)
Should a ban in Unreal Engine be applied to all other Unreal Engine games? What if they are from the same company and are in the same genre?
No, maybe, probably yes if it's the same series.
The functionality is provided by the API. It is associated with AppID. They made the system. They could make it so game bans are specific to the game. But they didn't. Not even for newer games, not just 15+ year old games. This is disingenuous.
Since the AppID is part of the HTTP request for VAC status, it seems that there's some game-specific component going on. But the docs are pretty barebones, it's kind of annoying to tell. Does suggest they're not being lazy, although that makes it anyone's guess why their cross-game bans are restricted by engine. Could be they're not using the API properly, would not be the laziest thing I've seen developed.
Basically, you cheat in a game you are permanently banned from it. You are also banned from other online games for a year.
It's really good you're not in charge of anything related to game infrastructure, because that's ridiculously draconian. "You cheat in one game, you can't do multiplayer anything for a year and we have to institute some centralised appeals process". Disproportionate response, much?
Which of course excludes false positives and every form of hacking or impersonation, because that leads to "no, you now need to go through a bureaucratic process to play minecraft on a construction server because your system's RGB software upset an FPS game".
Thank you for attempting to answer my questions.
Regarding the VAC ban on sharing. Yes, it isn't a ban from playing. It is a ban from sharing. It is still a global banlist. Thus, we have acknowledged the existence of global banlists from VAC and acknowledged the existence of a denial of functionality based on behavior in unrelated areas (playing a game vs sharing a game). Do you take issue with this? Based on your comment you seem to agree.
If not, I do not think it is that far fetched of a proposal to acknowledge the possibility of denying functionality based on behavior in related areas (playing a game). This would seemingly contradict your position that my argument is illogical.
"No, maybe, probably yes"
Wow. Okay well you covered all the bases. Just about every possible answer was given here.
These seems to contradict your previous point which was made numerous times that game bans should only apply to the game that they are in and only at the moment the cheater is caught. Can you clarify your position with a sentence or two? Do you think that game bans should not carry over at all? Only in some cases? What is the difference?
I don't think it is possible to maintain the position that cross game bans shouldn't be possible at all, and then say cross game bans should be possible in certain circumstances. So again, please clarify any misinterpretations I have made or the obvious contradictions that are present.
I have no idea what you're talking about regarding the AppID and GET request. Certainly, AppID is a parameter for some requests. So what? Why does this matter when Valve does cross game bans?
What information is missing that you would like to make the resource less "barebones"? I think the documentation is pretty good. Much better than most documentation than I've seen even in internal professional environments.
To be honest, it seems like you didn't even read it after the last falsity involving account sharing bans.
Valve does cross game bans. Just acknowledge this already and it's different from your proposition that no cross game bans take place. What is so hard about this? Why are you so ideologically entrenched in this position?
No, I don't think it is a draconian response. Cheat in one online game, it is highly likely you will cheat in another. They can play single player games for a year while they are on timeout. They can still host their own private servers or join private servers with permission. They are just separated from the general populace.
False positives are low. I've already given a comparison about false convictions and false positives in gaming. Look it up. I don't think you actually care about false positives, as if you did you would be against the criminal justice system and would want radical reform to reduce the false conviction rate.
So, are you against the criminal justice system in its current form and want radical reform? In the interim, do you want the whole process just done away with?
Again, please address the points I made in bold. Thank you.
EDIT: I know you think my posts are too long but it wouldn't be this way if you were logically consistent, avoided fallacies, avoided contradictions, avoid misconstruing what is being said, actually reviewed cited information, and avoided the common "because I said so" argument. Half of my text is asking you questions or setting up to ask questions so I can get to the point.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
You do realise that a VAC ban would then be extended to every online game, which would mean the account just cannot play online games anymore?
Like, you’re entertaining the possibility of someone ‘reforming’, but then propose that they shouldn’t even be given the chance.
Yes. I am aware. This is my proposal. Ideally, a ban for cheating would extend to every online game. There would be an appeals process. There would be some time limit at which the ban expires.
Basically, you cheat in a game you are permanently banned from it. You are also banned from other online games for a year.
The possibility of reform is small. They have a year to get their act together. They should use this time wisely.
@RainehDaze said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3349341#Comment_3349341
No, I think Valve was just lazy about implementation in their own games and they don't want to go back to 15+ year old titles to sort them out individually. Since they only work on things they want to, more or less, it ain't happening.
The shared bans are in things similar enough (note that it isn't ban on one Valve game = on all Valve games, the shared engine is key) it's likely due to shared codebase as much as a design choice, and they outright say to not do cross-game bans or bans based on VAC status. Are they hypocritical? Maybe. Doesn't matter, their stated position is in line with what I was saying.
If you read the rest of article that was linked you would see that there are in fact negative global consequences for receiving a VAC ban. You can no longer share VAC games. The article doesn't say this is associated with AppID so it's probably all VAC games that are unsharable. This is a global VAC banlist from sharing.
This is a page directed at partners, not users. I think that's saying that if you gift someone a free game copy (for reviews or whatever) and they get a VAC ban, you're not allowed to gift games to people again. Nothing about user restrictions.
The functionality is provided by the API. It is associated with AppID. They made the system. They could make it so game bans are specific to the game. But they didn't. Not even for newer games, not just 15+ year old games. This is disingenuous.
We know it's a possibility, because it is already being done by other devs.
Their stated position is not line with what you are saying. You are against cross game bans period. You have not once expressed support for it. You have stated that nothing would change your mind. By all available evidence, you are against this.
I notice you once again failed to answer any of my questions. Good job, as that would point out the contradictions in what you are saying.
Also, it appears you didn't read the end of the article. The information I included is taken directly from this section which talks about the user. What is your point and why did you include this? Why don't you read the article?
Q: How does a VAC ban or Game Ban impact the user?
A: When a user is banned via either one of our anti-cheat services, the following happens:
- The account cannot join secure servers for the AppIDs they are banned.
- The ban is publicly displayed on their Steam Community profile.
- The account can no longer share VAC enabled games.
- If the user is borrowing the game via Family Library Sharing, the ban is also applied to the actual owner of the game.
Please answer my questions. I am attempting to engage with you in good faith. Your outright refusal to answer any of my questions, accuse me of asking irrelevant questions with no explanation, and general misconstruing or outright falsehoods is annoying and derailing the discussion.
EDIT: Since it always seem to come to this, answer these questions explictly if you want me to take you seriously.
Should a ban in Unreal Engine be applied to all other Unreal Engine games? What if they are from the same company and are in the same genre?
If the answer is yes to either you contradict yourself. What is the crux of the contradiction? Is it something I am missing?
If the answer is no to either you don't agree with Valve. Why do you keep bringing this up? Is this some sort of appeal to authority? Why is Valve an authority?
-
@Nazzzak said:
Cheaters come and go in waves in this game. They get around whatever BHVR put in place last time, their numbers increase, then whatever theyre hacking is patched and there's a mass banning and they disappear. Rinse and repeat. As a result, the vast majority are on new accounts.
If someone has a mark on their account from years ago and they haven't reformed and instead used that same account to cheat in DBD, then chances are they've been caught up in the ban waves already. The ones who have had marks on their accounts from years ago and are still playing with no issue are fine, because they're evidently not cheating in DBD. Why throw the baby out with the bath water?
@SunsetSherbet said:
They'd just use alt accounts then.
Regarding the issue of alt accounts, I agree it is a problem.
Mobile authentication has been suggested as a solution. Such that, mobile authenticated players will can opt in to only match with only other mobile authenticated players. Creating a more trusted playerbase because of the increased requirements for access.
Yes, I agree that most habitual cheaters who have played the game for a decent length of time have probably already been caught and banned. The gate is still open for other habitual cheaters to join though. VAC bans are occurring on a regular basis. My suggestion is to close the gate.
Yes, I agree there will be false positives. All I am saying is that there should be an acceptable rate of false positives. I think 0.18% is an acceptable rate. I used the higher end of the data provided by Riot for when cheating as at its highest. If we took the average over the time period it would be even lower around half. Even lower than false incarcerations in U.S. prisons. In fact, it is a couple orders of magnitude lower, around 200x lower. If this false rate is unacceptable, why should the prison rate be acceptable especially since the consequences are significantly more severe?
-
@RainehDaze said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3349273#Comment_3349273
Yeah, cross-game bans on the same engine. So, closely related games, by the same company, and sometimes just variations on the same game (it's also a list of basically FPS's to boot)
They don't think it's appropriate for companies to be banning a player from Shogun 2 Total War (although I thought servers for that shut down, it apparently used VAC? Huh, never knew) for cheating in Counter Strike, or from MORDHAU for Dark Messiah of Might and Magic†. VAC is not meant to be a global banlist where cheating in one game bans you from a hundred others. Or more, since DbD does not implement VAC, yet this would have them acquire that data for it.
And, you know, the fact the documentation also literally says 'no you shouldn't do this'.
given that the related bans are all games running on the same engine, I give it 50-50 odds they're using the same code for anti-cheat and nobody at Valve really felt like changing them to distinguish the bans by game, given how loose their development ethos is.
† ######### is that doing with VAC?
Goodness. Moving the goal post.
Cross game bans on the same engine are still..... cross game bans. So no, Valve doesn't support you opinion about cross game bans. They outright stated they do cross game bans.
Do you think a ban from an Unreal Engine game should be applied to all Unreal Engine games? What about Unity? What about other engines? If the answer is no you are being inconsistent and don't actually agree with Valve. If the answer is yes, well then you contradict yourself.
I expect your next move will be a further qualification and moving of the goal post. Well, they support my idea that cross game bans should be only acceptable if they are in the same engine, the same company, and the same genre! Which really isn't your idea anyway as you've been saying that no cross game bans should be acceptable and only bans that occur during the specific game should be allowed. I'm not sure how you even came to the conclusion that Valve agrees with you anyway, seeing as how you never mentioned support for cross game bans and seem to be vehemently against it. After all, nothing will change you mind as you've directly stated.
If you read the rest of article that was linked you would see that there are in fact negative global consequences for receiving a VAC ban. You can no longer share VAC games. The article doesn't say this is associated with AppID so it's probably all VAC games that are unsharable. This is a global VAC banlist from sharing.
You're right, Valve does say that they shouldn't do this. Except there are community servers that do exactly this. Valve knows this and has done nothing to remove the ability of the community servers to take advantage of the VAC ban list. It is viewed more of recommendation than a rule, so the question is why? Clearly, cross game bans do not bother them because they engage in it themselves.
It is likely that this is a financial consideration by them. They have their own platform from which they sell games. Being VAC banned once and losing access to all online games in the library would likely be a problem for them would likely create financial issues.
Finally, they say "no you shouldn't do this" yet do it themselves. Isn't that contradictory? What is your point? That they agree with you? You are making less and less sense as this goes on.
-
@huntinghunting653 said:
Guys is it normal that i have been hardware id banned just because i once played with an account that had all of those items like 500x?? i have never used third party programs nor never had third party programs/cheats in my computer i literally played some hours with that specific account that a friend gave me. and now im hwid banned. I purchased the game on 2 different steam accounts and they get permabanned after 2 games.. is this even legal?
So you logged onto a hacked account and got HWID banned for it.
You either knew beforehand the account was hacked or discovered upon logging in. Did your friend tell you the account was hacked? If so, you deserve the ban. You shouldn't have played those games upon discover either, so you deserve the ban if you discovered upon logging in and played those games.
If your friend did not tell you the account was hacked maybe you should consider dropping them as a friend. Why didn't they tell you?
-
@RainehDaze said:
Looks like Valve shares my opinion on when banning is appropriate.
Except they literally do cross game bans as the previous person mentioned. Why are you so consistently wrong?
-
@oxygen said:
Even if BHVR wanted to, they genuinely couldn't do it in the first place.
From Steamworks anticheat documentation (https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/anticheat) (at the bottom, FAQ section)
Q: Can I use bans in other games to block users from playing in my game?
A: No. VAC and Game bans should only prevent the user from playing on VAC secured servers in the game they received a ban in. A permanent ban should only be issued for your game if the user was caught cheating in your game.
The staff of community run servers can and absolutely do exactly this, especially in Rust it's very common to see lines like "Any VAC/Game ban more recent than X years means you can't play on this server" in my experience. But it appears developers simply don't have the option. Only real exception to this rule is for Valve's own games, where VAC operates on a sorta engine/rough engine version basis (A ban from TF2 also bans you from other Orange Box era Source Games, a ban from Counter Strike bans you from other GoldSRC engine games)
Yeah I am aware of the technical restriction.
It would seem like there isn't much that needs to be extended to support cross game bans for non Valve titles. The feature is there it just needs to be enabled. I am speaking in favor of removing this restriction.
-
@RainehDaze said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3348930#Comment_3348930
You're overcomplicating it as soon as you jump to preventative measures that start requiring time exceptions and appeals processes (which will probably fail if you're putting in draconian policies like this) and solutions that would only get a minority of cheaters anyway. The simple solution is: keep banning people when they cheat.
And also don't advocate for a position of 'other people in this thread shouldn't be allowed to play the game so that I might have a lower chance of encountering cheaters'. That's just being a jerk.
I have no doubt that it will reduce the absolute amount.
I do. Because I have no expectation that people who're banned from playing and are actively cheating and haven't been actively detected will accept this rather than find a way around it, or start behaving worse and join the ranks of cheaters who're constantly making new accounts anyway.
Nothing about those things are complicated. A year long timer on a VAC ban is a timestamp comparison. One line of code, maybe a few more if you need to need to get the timestamps through an API or something. An appeals process already exists......
Don't tell me what to or not to advocate for. To be completely honest, it seems like you are in bad faith. I've asked you several times now what percentage of false positives would be acceptable for you even though you refuse to answer. In fact I've asked you several questions which you've neglected. You've already admitted you won't change your mind which is okay but these fallacious arguments, attacks on my arguments without explanation, omitted relevant things I've said, and generally poor attitude grows tiresome. If you're going to tell people to not be a jerk you should tell by example and not engage with others in this manner.
To your final point, you don't think a single cheater will be deterred? Not a single instance of cheating will be prevented? We can argue about degree all day and I agree there is merit to the degree of relief this solution will provide but to say that you don't believe it will reduce the absolute amount of cheating seems to be another bad faith position. Surely at least one person will go find something else to do or at least one game will not have a cheater. And if it's one, there's probably a few more.
Anyway, you don't seem to be really engaging with what I have to say and ask you so this will be the end of our conversation.
I do think I understand your point thougj. False positives are bad, any degree is too much, and this won't catch enough cheaters. I agree with points 1 and 3.
Thank you for participating.
-
@Science_Guy said:
Seems harsh. And maybe I just don't know how VAC works (I'm not a cheater, why would I), but can't someone just... make another account? Move to Epic? Most developers like it when people play their games so I don't think this idea is going anywhere.
Yes someone could make a new account just like they would with other bans. Reduce the incidence rate by pairing these free Epic accounts with mobile authentication.
Yes developers like it when people play their games. They don't like it when cheaters play their games. Most online games have teams dedicated at reducing such players.
In an ideal world the ban history of a player would be available across all games and could be used as requirement for access. It doesn't have to be a lifetime history but at least a year out should be relevant.
-
@RainehDaze said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3348852#Comment_3348852
No, because you ban people for cheating, not because you think they're going to cheat. This is not a difficult concept.
Your 90% number is a premise. And only a premise. It's an assumption that reoffending in the same game means reoffending in new games, or that cheating in one is cheating in all of them. It is not supported by the source and not actionable.
If 100% of VAC bans cheat eventually, then you want an anticheat system that bans them when they do.
And since that number ISN'T 100%, it's an even easier conclusion. You don't ban based on the external data, or start trying to carve weird caveats out like the recency on even less data.
People cheat, you ban them. They aren't, you don't. You can't tell? Improve the cheat detection and reporting system.
You're making things way more complicated in a way they don't need to be, without any actual ability to prove it would help. And suggesting people in this thread should be banned just because you have a hunch it might help elsewhere. Kind of rude, don't you think?
Yes it is a premise. I use premises to support my conclusions. What is your point?
I made several other premises here. They include the general immutability of personallity traits, how culture influences behavior, and how cheating in online games is related to the two. Both of which are significantly resistant to change.
As for your transferability argument it seems we have finally made some progress. The transferability of cheating in one game to another is relevant because of what I mentioned in the above paragraph. Cheating in online games has antecedent causes, such causes are not very malleable, it is highly likely that such causes will be present when that individual plays other games, thusly it is highly likely that they will cheat in another game. I think this is fairly simple to follow and unless you ascribe to some sort of libertarian free will you will agree with me.
As for your answer to my question I am assuming you would say no you wouldn't ban the 100% likely cheaters. You didn't answer why and just said you don't do it because you don't do it. So I'll have to assume you are wary of false positives. What percentage of false positives, if any, are acceptable to you?
I am not sure the degree to which this would reduce cheating. I have no doubt that it will reduce the absolute amount. I agree that there are other avenues that cheaters can gain access to the game. It seems like a mobile authentication system could be implemented for people who don't want to play with cheaters or at least reduce the frequency at which they are encountered. This might actually be the best solution such that if you're banned oncd you need a new phone number and access to it to play again. It could be an opt in process so you are only paired with other mobile authenticated players.
I am not suggesting that they be banned because because of a hunch. It is based on data. I am not sure why you keep reducing the idea to this. If they want to appeal they can. If not ah well. At least there is a matter of recourse. I've also suggested the possibility of making only 1 year old bans relevant.
Is it rude? Yes. Who cares.
The way you started this conversation, engaged in logical fallacies, accused me of fallacious arguments with 0 explanation, committed "because I said so" arguments, and outright refused to change your mind indicating that you don't actually want to have a discussion but just argue is rude. But who cares? Why does it matter and what is your point?
EDIT: I am not sure what is complicated or what I am making complicated. The original proposition was if someone has a VAC ban they they can't play the game. Now I had to mention that they could appeal it which I thought would be self evident as you can appeal all bans. Finally, after some recommendations it's only year old VAC bans that apply. What is complicated about this?
-
@SpaghettiVase said:
Your plan is already flawed if you're saying that a system will be put in place to filter out actual cheaters. Guess what, that system exists. It's called the In-game report and support system, BHVR set it up. It has it's flaws, but it does work and if you really want to stop cheaters, use it. You aren't stopping cheaters with your proposed methods.
edit replied to the wrong comment
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3348858#Comment_3348858
The plan is flawed because of its existence?
Yes, false positives occur.
No, just because false positives exist should not deter us from pursuing a plan of action. If false positives were egregiously high then yes, it should but from the evidence I provided this is not the case.
Again.
Large player base.
Of this large player base, only a small minority cheat.
Of these cheaters, only a moderate amount get caught and banned.
Of these that get banned only a small number reform.
So let's sub in some numbers.
Let's say .5% of the player base cheats.
Of these, 50% get banned.
Of these, 9% will reform.
That's a 0.018% false positive rate. Is this acceptable to you? What would be acceptable?
-
@drsoontm said:
No, it shouldn't.
The age of the ban is a factor to take into account. Some stop cheating after getting caught too.
The only real solution is for an efficient anti-cheat system (client AND server side)
That being said, I dodge lobbies with recent VAC bans or weird names (e.g. full digits).
This is a good point. The age of the ban should be taken into account. Maybe 1 year is good enough to deter them?
As for the some stop cheating after getting caught, that is correct. It's around 9%, according to RIOT.
Yes, the real solution is an highly efficient anti-cheat. Unfortunately, that seems to be the most difficult part and for the foreseeable future an obtainable goal.
As for dodging for recent VAC bans, I do the same.
-
@SpaghettiVase said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3348841#Comment_3348841
You're comparing apples to oranges. LoL and dbd share 0 similarities in their premise or how they are played. Their collected statistics of cheaters based in their game means nothing compared to VAC or EAC cheaters.
0 similarities in premise or how they are played?
So they aren't multiplayer, online, competitive games that have different builds, strategies, technical skill, teamwork, communication, and progression?
This seems to be an inaccurate statement, no? I just mentioned several similarities. Are there any that you disagree with?
Why does their collection of statistics not matter? Aren't they one of the largest online multiplayer games in the world? Or is it because of those "lack of similarities" you pointed out earlier?
-
@RainehDaze said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3348832#Comment_3348832
Nothing is changing my mind, because your premise is inherently stupid. Even with your own numbers, that's at least 10% of people that aren't cheating at all, and 90% that may or may not be cheating in DbD now or have ever cheated in DbD. So, at least 10% of your proposed bans are unjust, and we have no way to ascertain how many are even warranted.
- 100% of these people you're proposing be banned are not banned from DbD.
- 10% of these people, at least, have genuinely reformed and don't cheat in anything.
- Of the remaining 90%, 100% are (as far as we are aware) not cheating, because they're not banned.
- Conclusion: with the methods we have, all 100% of these bans would seem to only target people that aren't cheating, therefore we shouldn't do it.
Also not including any people who somehow managed to get a false positive at any point in the past 20 years VAC has existed.
It's irrational to ban people on the suspicion that they may possibly be a cheater when you actually have procedures for detecting and banning cheaters. You're not improving the game at that point, you're just going to cause backlash and lose customers.
(Working on a better reporting system would be a much more useful way to reduce cheating than wonky probability application)
Yes, all good points.
- Correct.
- Correct.
- Assuming, they are not banned correct.
- Mostly correct.
You see, what you just did was assume that everyone in that category has not cheated or have not been banned already. When you do this, which by the way is explicitly contrary to the data I provided it is easy to come up with the conclusion you just did. So you established a false premise (no one in this group has cheated!) and tried to hide it in this little story. Very sneaky of you!
Of course, it contradicts the data I provided. So let's take the data I provided and apply it to your scenario.
- 100% of VAC banned players cheaters haven't been banned yet in DbD.
- 9% of these people are genuinely reformed and will never cheat again ever!
- Of the remaining 91%, they will cheat, are currently cheating, or are currently banned.
The end.
So if you just want to make up false premises, distort the statistics, and attack my argument while committing your own logical fallacies which are plain to see go ahead. You've already said NOTHING will change your mind. This is obvious from the logical fallacies you've committed and that I've pointed out.
To your final point, yes they should improve the report system. I am open to all solutions.
Anyway, seeing as how you are unwilling to change your mind, just made a sneaky attack on my proposition, and accuse me of being fallacious and illogical I won't discuss this with you further. However, if you do suddenly change your mind and your answer to the question I posed
If I told you (and assume it is true because it's just a thought experiment) that 100% of VAC banned players cheat again would that change your mind? If your answer to this is no, why?
is yes, then I will be willing to re-engage with you again. As you can see from the above statement, this was a thought experiment. The situation I posed to you was would you ban a group of people who were 100% guaranteed to cheat again. That's it. A simple yes would have let me know you were in good faith.
-
@sulaiman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3348799#Comment_3348799
You didnt include any statistics at all. You basicly said someone has statistics, and based on that, they claim that that only 9% of cheaters reform, while only 80% of cheaters unbanned were banned again. Not even these numbers add up.
And we have no information about anything, from demografics to examined time to what where the basic parameters.
including statistics is far from ridiculous, so feel free to actually include some.
I take it you didn't read my whole post. The numbers work out just fine. If you're having trouble please reread the last sentence of the second paragraph.
Here is the dev article from Riot concerning the 9%.
Fighting the good fight against botters, scripters, and boosters.The 20% is from a livestream event. I'll try to find it.
I am not sure what you mean by examined time and demographics. Can you clarify?
-
@SpaghettiVase said:
What would it take to change your mind?
You won't, I don't subscribe to "cast a wide net catch a lot of fish" when you're only trying to catch one fish. You want cheaters who cheat in dbd, you don't want cheaters who cheated in tf2 10 years ago, you don't want cheaters who cheat in CoD now, You want DBD cheaters and DBD cheaters exclusively. This "Well they cheated before in a different game so therefor" Is nothing, it's just circumstantial. You can't go banning people because of that, BHVR bans cheaters, as in cheaters who CHEAT. Not suspected cheaters, CHEATERS. This is why EAC exists, and why BHVR has the report system. You can reform the report system to make it easier for the average player. Ask for that, not for this.
I don't think I've expressed my self clearly so I'll do this now.
I want to reduce cheating in DbD.
That's it. That's literally it.
You're right I don't want cheaters in TF2, or COD, or whatever. I just want to reduce cheating.
I've proposed an solution to reduce cheating. Again, based on all available evidence the likelihood of individuals with a VAC ban cheating is high. Extremely high compared to the general populace. The number of innocent people that will be caught up in this is low. Very loow percentage of people cheat. Not all cheaters get caught. Few cheaters who get caught actually reform. An appeals process would be sufficient to provide these people with a manner of recourse.
If I told you (and assume it is true because it's just a thought experiment) that 100% of VAC banned players cheat again would that change your mind? If your answer to this is no, why?
If I told you that we could have a process in place in for VAC banned players to appeal would that change your mind?
If you're not interested in changing your mind, why are you so ideologically attached to this?
-
@RainehDaze said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3348799#Comment_3348799
Because your statistics are irrelevant. They are not a general source. They are not being used in a comparable environment or situation. To apply them to DbD like that is a gross misuse of the findings. What you're also inadvertently doing is saying that people in this thread must be cheaters because it's improbably they changed (and ignoring the 20% of people in your source that didn't continue cheating).
There is a much simpler solution than worrying about whether you're going to ban innocent people over a VAC ban: we keep banning people in DbD for cheating in DbD. 🙄
They are not a general source? They are not being used in a comparable environment or situation?
- They are based on a very large data set that Riot Games has. As LoL is one of the most popular games in the world, I think it would be classified as a general source for behavior in online gaming. Why do you disagree? Is it because they are different games? They are both online multiplayer games. Why does it matter if they are different games? What source or methodology would you like?
- They are comparable environments. Both are online multiplayer games. Both are competitive games. Both are played by millions of people. What similarities do you think they should share in order to be comparable?
No I am not inadvertently saying people in this thread MUST be cheaters. That is a gross mischaracterization of my proposition. I am saying that the likelihood that they are cheaters is significantly higher when compared to the general populace. So much so that it would be better to disclude them all together given the likelihood of cheating to occur again.
As for the 20% you cited, you forgot to mention that only 20% did not get caught cheating after a few months. Not years, not a year, just a few months. So it is with great likelihood that it is even lower than 20%. If you would have mentioned the 9% that actually reform you would have seen that the likelihood of reform is very low. For the record, the recidivism rate for cheating is higher than that of prison.
Yes, there is a much simpler solution than worrying about whether I am going to ban innocent people. I simply don't worry about it. It is a very small portion of the population once you factor in the totality of the circumstances. Only a small portion of players cheat. Only a small portion of cheaters get caught. Only a small portion of cheaters that get caught reform. It is a miniscule amount.
Now with that said, I do think there could be an appeals process where one has to demonstrate that they have changed. They could just write an essay to BHvR for all I care. Or maybe not get banned for a year or two on VAC.
What would it take to change your mind?
-
@SpaghettiVase said:
Ironically enough the cheaters i've encountered have rarely been on steam. They are always pc but most likely through epic, aside from 1 that was a BRAND NEW ACCOUNT. What is your system going to do against that? You realize making steam accounts isn't some difficult process right? Like everyone's already said all you're doing is damning people for having a mark against their account in a game that has nothing to do with dbd.
Yes. More specifically, I am discluding people who have been proven to cheat in other games because based on all available resources, it would seem like the possibility of the reform is highly unlikely.
The system I am recommending will do nothing against new accounts. Perhaps a new system will be required for these new accounts acquired for free at the Epic Games Store will be in order. Mobile verification maybe? Something more strict to restrict access to people who ill intentions. The system I am proposing is in line with these outcomes.
What would it take to change your mind?
-
@RainehDaze said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3348792#Comment_3348792
Because the dedicated cheaters make new accounts for it and use the game from Epic when it was free ffs.
Your entire premise is completely ridiculous and disjointed. Something something LoL statistics? Really? Your logic is based on how people who cheat at one game will keep cheating at that game when unbanned, and you want to use that to go "people who cheated in an FPS game years ago are clearly still cheating in... an asymmetric horror game!"
You don't have a single credible argument this would improve DbD in any way. All it would do is, as people have said in this thread, randomly ban players who aren't doing anything!
My entire premise is ridiculous? Followed it up with "something something LoL statistics?"
Really? Including statistics is now ridiculous? Why do you think this?
My logic is based on statistics, yes. Statistics that include reformation rates of another popular online game. My logic is predicated on studies (you can just google these or LMK if you want a link) that the behavior of video game cheating are largely based on personality and cultural traits. Personality traits that change very little and culture which takes decades to go through significant transitions.
If I could surmise your point it would be that
- One innocent banned is too much.
- Cheaters use free or low cost Epic accounts.
Yes, someone can always get a new account. There is no solution around this especially if they bypass HWID bans. This is a problem that is already in existence and will likely be in existence forever. Thank you for mentioning it. Should we not ban anyone because of this? It seems to be a fallacious point. So I'll stick with the first point you made.
- One innocent banned is too much.
Okay. I disagree. One, this argument can and will be used against any prohibitive or punitive action. Yes, innocents will always be the victim of any process. It is it inevitable. Whether that's because of the process itself or the abuse of the process by individuals is a separate matter but I just can't see this being a coherent argument if you actually apply it to society.
Two there are solutions to this. Solutions that already exist. Maybe there could be appeals process. Maybe the ban could only apply if the VAC ban is less than a year old.
Did I surmise your point correctly? Is there anything I misunderstood or left out?
-
@RainehDaze said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3348782#Comment_3348782
Consider the length of time VAC bans have existed, and how many people do stupid things when they're young.
The answer is: enough. You're not going to get anyone that you're actually trying to ban, and you're just going to pull a bunch of people in as collateral damage.
That's not an answer. It's the "because I said so" argument. If your point is that one is too much then okay but just come outright and say it instead of doing this.
Also, the second part of your premise is false. Really? No one?
@AetherBytes said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3348720#Comment_3348720
I got banned from DBD on my main account like 3 years ago because of what I can only assume was some weird GPU corruption. I still get remarks about it in TF2 on that account and people calling me a hacker despite being only in the middle of the leaderboard lmao.
I still wish I could have my main account back, but multiple appeals have been denied (mostly because neither BHVR nor EAC will own up to banning me and keep saying the other did it).
In short, sometimes its just a false positive, and shouldn't be an instant sign someone is cheating.
Yes, false positive happen. Yes, false positives shouldn't be a sign of cheating. An actual ban that is persistent is a sign of cheating. There is an appeals process for VAC bans if someone is part of the 0.0001% or w/e they say it is now of false positives. I am pretty sure that they are actually more lenient then they could be just to avoid false positives.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
Nah.
Most Cheaters nowadays are throwaway-accounts anyway. You wont hit them with this. Either they have a free account via Epic or they throw in 3 bucks for a new account.
It would punish people who cheated in one game but would never do it in DBD (or any other game). And it would punish people who made a mistake years ago but have changed completely since then. Even limiting it to a year or so would not really be fair and probably not significant enough.
What percentage of people do you think reform?
-
@Chocolate_Cosmos said:
Yes, I don't think just because you get banned in one game you should be auto banned in all other games (maybe expect if they are from same multiplayer franchise, lets say Call of Duty or something if you cheat in more games, etc.).
Also DbD doesn't use VAC anti-cheat so this probably would not even work or make sence at all. Maybe someone cheated in one game 3 years ago, now they are different person and decided to try DbD and now be auto banned? I don't think that's fair. And yes, I hate cheaters of course, but still I don't think that's fair.
Yeah I know DbD doesn't use VAC but they could do a profile lookup for VAC bans on an account and flag them.
I agree it's not fair to someone who has cheated 9 years ago so maybe there could be a lockout period (i.e. VAC bans need to be at least 1 year old to play DbD).
Also, the data suggests that no, most cheaters do not reform.
-
@Shroompy said:
Everything you mentioned that has "no counterplay", has counterplay.
It's not fun to deal with just like the things you mentioned at the beginning of your post, but they can be dealt with
What is the counter play to blast mine? Do nothing? Is doing nothing really playing the game?