Emeal
Emeal
About
- Username
- Emeal
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
So the way in soloQ I determine if I should run to a person is, if I can see the HUD that says they are on a Gen.
I believe this is the intended way… is it good? uhm not really. but it isnt much better on comms.Thinking about it, the only place I see where comms are better than HUD is when someone is being chases and it has not started a chase yet, so nobody knows it is happening.
-
@MarbleThrone said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3952888#Comment_3952888
No, that's a bug too. We're already in week 8 of the Rift Pass quests iirc.
I know that, but what I wonder is if they figured a way to reset a particular quest.
Because I didnt have this bug before, now it just appeared.
-
Ive just noticed something…
It starts in three days?
-
@DrPrince said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3950643#Comment_3950643
It seems you are one of the players who doesn't place himself in our state
Do you mean Empathy? Honestly you lose that once we start having disconnects almost every bloody game. its absurd!
-
What I hate most is the inconsistency between new Killers and old Killers, I thought we had established that Killers needed a slowdown for failing to land their ranged weapons.
Unironically playing the new Killers feels too good play, and older ones feels like being forced through a wedgie to play them.
To play the old ones you fight against the mechanics to get a 4K and on the new you glide though your use and easily win.Practically I think BHVR has room to dial Kaneki and Springtrap's most annoying parts back, while also going back and adding utility and fun to the weakest and most boring of the Old Killers.
-
- 1. If BHVR verified a report, then that report would also have hard proof of the cheating.
- 2. Why would they make a special server for cheaters, wasting bandwidth when they already know its a cheater.
- 3. Cheaters would be able to spot the numbers in their queues drop to low and get another account.
- 4. BHVR easily has a list of all possible cheats thanks to the sheer volume of cheaters. I doubt they need to observe a cheater.
-
turn down that sound effect to half of what it is now pls.
-
I would like this better.
- Recover from dying at the cost of 80 seconds of bleed out timer to deep wounded (equals two free self pickups)
- Getting hooked reduces bleed out timer by 85 seconds. (meaning by hookstage 2, you cant self pickup anymore.)
- Able to Heal and move at half crawling speed OR Crawling without healing like normal speed.
The goal with this is to allow Survivors more ability to fight back against slugging early game, while keeping late game slugging the same. Excluding only when nobody has been hooked during the game, then Survivors will still be able to pick themselves up.
I think we should all be able to agree that self-pickup outside of Unbreakable should come at a cost.
and the above system does that. -
idk, if you dont know, but the go next prevention is on but the afk detection is off, so they can do that but they wont be able to when BHVR turns the system back on. all that can be said about this video is we just gotta wait for it.
-
That and random perks, items, addons, offerings too.
-
On my MMR level I can easily get a lot of grabs, like if the Survivor cant find a vault or a pallet then I got them.
I had a particularly deadly game of grabs on that Rotten Fields on Coldwind. Absolute insanity.if its countered by emotes then that is a bug and should be reported to BHVR here:
-
Good news, the devs are working on a bug fix on this right now!
Its supposed to land with hotfix 1, which should release shortly. (maybe tomorrow.) -
@DrPrince said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3950304#Comment_3950304
I know what is the problem but it's not solveable by me
Then you should wait until you can get it repaired, otherwise you in danger your account.
Much like one should not drive a Car with faulty brakes.
@Xord said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3950304#Comment_3950304
With the new system we honestly need to be able to disconnect from a game without penalty. If a huge chunk of the playerbase wants to "go next" maybe there is a valid reason? If behavior still refuses to fix the problems of their games at least allow us to chose the games we play…
If they really really want to leave every other game, then they should not play it.
Would you play Chess with a guy who always mid-game, decides nah I cant win this, bye and leaves. I would not play with them.
It would not matter to me, if they think there is something wrong with the rules of Chess, that they should be different.If behavior still refuses to fix the problems of their games at least allow us to chose the games we play…
You already have that choice, play a different game.
Go play Civ OR tell why you dont want to play, then hope BHVR fixes it. or accept the rules of the game are as they are.
-
@Skillfulstone said:
Agreed.
HOWEVER
The system should deactivate if one Survivor is slugged. Nothing should encourage slugging for the 4k.
I think the AFK System is a great idea and when its mended it will do alot against all those AFK people who plague our matches.
But I do think when there are 2 people left,
a downed or hooked player should be able to go next (bleed out)to give the other a chance to get hatch.Why? because the Killer already won the game by all accounts, of all the times I played Survivor. There is almost no way to do 2 gens as 2 people. The Killer needs to be purposely feigning ineptitude to not win. like 99% of matches are unwinnable like that.
This will unfortunately mean that Killer 4Ks would only happen if the Killer is lucky to find both of you and down the other fast or if they win the hatch showdown. OR if the last Survivor has a stick up theirs for the other Survivor. I think that will be fine tho.
But we really need a better system than abandoning in 2surv1down situation.
Ofc, just because the majority of the players in the match would like to push the game to Hatch Showdown does not mean its fair to the Killer, even tho idd be fine with it. We should consider that a score event, so split up No One Escaped into 1.250 Deviousness points, if the downed or hooked Survivor is killed or goes next and then another 1.250 for Killing the last remaining Survivor.
Speaking for Score events, when will survivors get a 3000 Survival score event for all 4 Survivors escaping.
-
@SoGo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3950277#Comment_3950277
Or even a rework for an old useless perk.
Shattered Hope was right there!
The Shattered Hope saga was a story of a solution made in panic, nobody would ever dream using a specific perk to counter other really strong perks. Its just unfair. And now boons are not really strong enough to warrant them being meta and this Shattered Hope fell from useless to beyond useless.
Reminds me, I should make a thread about buffing Boons, its time we see them more.
-
Unfortunately for players who have an occasional error, there are a huge problem with DCs happening in matches.
Even if you are not a large contributor, that is still part of the problem. Are you saying you deserve a free pass for disconnecting, instead of fixing what's causing the issue?I would recommend you figuring out what on your system is causing the error, instead of racking up more errors cause that responsibility logistically cant be with BHVR.
-
I really dislike that BHVR burn off really risky Gameplay ideas on Licenced perks, like haywire seems absolutely worthless on its own, its only broken with other perks and certain Killers. I don't think this is the way we should treat guests to our game.
BHVR should not give risky perks that is a dead end balance wise to Licenced Chapters, I think its really disrespectful.
BHVR if you want to add a risky perk to the game, nobody is stopping your from adding a 4th perk with a chapter for the general perk pile. Please give the newcomers who join us for Springtrap, a superb experience one that is not plagued by a perk standstill.
-
- He should not be able to teleport to a Door that is near a hooked person.
- Increase the slowdown after throwing an axe slightly. Just a smidge.
- Fix his invisible after walking out of locker.
- Fix his devious gain problem
- fix his speed bug exploit.
Congratulations, Springtrap is now perfect.
-
I love this, what if there were two of those tanning bed, and if a survivor is in both of them. The weather of the map changes from stormy and cloudy to sunny, Until they get up.
-
@Mandy said:
Just to be clear here, you do not get AFK crows after 10s, the points starts building up at that point - the first crow (doesn't notify the killer) appears at 60s if not enough done to progress the game.
We know BHVR disabled it and are making some changes. But is it just the punishment that are disabled or cant we try out the system right now to provide even further feedback? Or have to wait until the changes come?
That actually might be a good idea, implement the system but turn off the punishment so we can test it.
-
This issue seems to not occur on version 9.0, but I could not find any changes regarding it on the patch notes.
what did you do?
-
I warmly recommend him, a true map connoisseur.
-
I think the way Shattered Square is designed is that the safest area are in each end of the maps, across from each other, leaving the middle dangerous. Although the wood stock is also a great place to loop. Anyway, that being said there are many things to hide behind so maybe the map challenges you to hide more to do well.
If you need help finding ways to loop effectively on Shattered Square, I recommend Tatorhead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLxEqMjxHho
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLxEqMjxHho https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3-X6LC1dco
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3-X6LC1dcoTry these out and see if they work for you, but remember this game isn't designed for us to win every time.
-
As long as it does what I suggested too @Elan 😎👍️ META HERE WE COME??!?!
-
@Nazzzak said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947081#Comment_3947081
You dont think a warning that you're at risk of being banned because of something you didn't actually do (die intentionally) isn't "bad stuff"? You don't think the game is likely to follow through with the ban if it continues to detect these things that aren't happening? Do you think this situation really would have no impact on new players to the game? They just paid money for a game, maybe minutes beforehand, and are now told their ability to play said game is compromised. Put yourself in their shoes.
When that message was written I was misremembering the content of the patch notes, so I was not under the impression it was able to cause DC Penalties and further a ban. You are like two days late for this point in the conversation.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948230#Comment_3948230
And since you asked for the proof of the ban happening, someone shared this video in another thread.
Oh Trust me, we are a little past that stage now, but I appreciate the thought, and I do agree. If BHVR wants to have a system like this, there cant be false positives.
-
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948201#Comment_3948201
Yeah, well its not in English so the cultural context is different.
I had no idea that the English language had cultural context. Usually I just err on the side of human decency.
When the heck did I blame the victims?? When did I say everybody's reaction was pure "theater"??
People react to the Warning Message like its a personal slight against them, they dont want to be told they played incredibly poorly. So poor in fact that a system designed to track people who kill themselves on purpose are suspicious of them.
You do know how other games tell you, that you are bad? They give you a Game Over.
I gotta say I have no time for a guy who sits and looks at a warning message for 10 seconds, then looks at chat and then looks back at the message. Its Theater, He wanted to make a point cause he felt insulted by the warning.… 😐️
Yeah, we're clearly done here. It's been a good conversation, but this back and forth is clearly going nowhere, and I'm tired of reexplaining everything for you to just ignore it. Feel free to have the last word, and have a good anniversary event.
Same to the spectators as well! Have a happy 9th anniversary!
I had no idea that the English language had cultural context.
Ask a Linguist.
Yeah, we're clearly done here. It's been a good conversation, but this back and forth is clearly going nowhere, and I'm tired of reexplaining everything for you to just ignore it. Feel free to have the last word, and have a good anniversary event.
I understand why you are tired, you explain without proving and claim to prove with explaining. But I read everything you said and responded to it, In mass in fact. You could not explain why a rational man would do as you said, nor prove that.
Honestly I respect the effort you made, you clearly have a strong set of morals, but you have a really hard time making clear arguments and then prove those. We got lost in the cornfields for a long time over you trying to explain those.
-
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948177#Comment_3948177
Only cause you keep asking me about it, I have no interest in it otherwise, I care more for a bug in my Garden.
Actions speak louder than words. You wouldn't be typing paragraphs upon paragraphs if you truly are only responding out of obligation. Your actions do not match your words.
Not all friends need a carefully curated an intellectual response.
Do you want to meet them? if it would help put your mind at ease you can meet my friends. We can play dbd.
Not all, but most. I don't imagine most people would respond positively to "stop acting like a child" after having a reaction to a message telling them they're going to be banned.
Well as far as I have seen, you have not provided proof for your claims
…
If saying it would only make it so…
Actions speak louder than words. You wouldn't be typing paragraphs upon paragraphs if you truly are only responding out of obligation. Your actions do not match your words.
Why would I not want to see where you are going with all this? I'm literally typing these in-between matches.
No, I'm not obligated. But I'm curious.Not all, but most. I don't imagine most people would respond positively to "stop acting like a child" after having a reaction to a message telling them they're going to be banned.
Yeah, well its not in English so the cultural context is different.
As far as I have seen, you have not provided proof for your claims
If saying it would only make it so…Indeed, that's why if you wanna prove something, it helps to make a logical structure.
- Make a clear claim.
- Give reasons that support your claim.
- Add evidence to back up each reason.
- Consider and respond to counterarguments.
- Conclude by summarizing your case and restating your claim.
Do you wanna do that? We can if you want.
It just doesn't sit well with me that, in my view, someone would blame the victims of this atrocious system and be content with calling those reactions purely "theater," when the system was disabled after numerous reports of it handing out matchmaking bans, showing that it was, in fact, doing that.
When the heck did I blame the victims?? When did I say everybody's reaction was pure "theater"??
-
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948134#Comment_3948134
You keep mixing in irrelevant subjects into this conversaion, like the Dawko Reaction which litteraly dont matter to me.
It matters enough to you to spend 20+ responses between two days defending your opinion on it.
Sure. "Stop acting like a child, you need to consider better how you play this game"
Sure, Jan. I 100% believe that would be your carefully curated an intellectual response to a friend you want to keep. Yep, no doubts from me.
But you HAVE rendered opinions on me.
Of you as a person? Where? I've never done that.
Like you are trying to gaslight me into believing it myself by repeating it constantly
Disagreeing with you with proof is not gaslighting.
you are very confused in regards to the topics and how you dont seem to understand that the Dawko reaction means nothing to me.
See my first response in this message.
So you never actually addressed why a rational man would need to change their opinion about a reaction to a message, just because that system is capable to banning them. Again you just claim you have done that, but never actually doing it.
It matters enough to you to spend 20+ responses between two days defending your opinion on it.
Only cause you keep asking me about it, I have no interest in it otherwise, I care more for a bug in my Garden.
Sure, Jan. I 100% believe that would be your carefully curated an intellectual response to a friend you want to keep. Yep, no doubts from me.
Not all friends need a carefully curated an intellectual response.
Do you want to meet them? if it would help put your mind at ease you can meet my friends. We can play dbd.Disagreeing with you with proof is not gaslighting.
Well as far as I have seen, you have not provided proof for your claims, all you have done is say you have done that.
Like this is why I say, I don't think you know burden of proof, evidence or how to prove anything. -
@Skillfulstone said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948001#Comment_3948001
None of the Souls game ever had a system that punished the player by making them unable to play the game. At worst, it made the game harder/easier and blocked/opened access to various quests/characters.
Dark Souls is not a multiplayer game, not at it's core. You do not need online to play it and finish the main content. You can play it multiplayer but it is not necessary.
DBD is a multiplayer game at its core. Even if you play customs vs bots, the closest thing to a single-player mode in DBD, you still need an online connection to even open the game and you cannot unlock much nor can progress using only customs vs bots. None of the game's content is unlocked via customs vs bots.
A single player game (such as the Souls series) can have a "punishment" system for dying since, at the end of the day, the player made a mistake and died because of it. Said systems are usually disliked even then since it never feels good to be punished further than losing progress (losing your souls can sting but it's expected, but the World/Character Tendency system, for example, is essentially hated by most of the Souls community since it's usually very difficult to deal with unless you play multiplayer, which many people do not wish to do and others don't want to spend the money on).
Now in DBD, said system not only can punish by locking you out of the game, but it can do so just by detecting that you died too quickly for its taste and determined that you tried to die on purpose even if it's wrong.
The video provided is more than enough video evidence even if no ban was issued, since it proves that the system can trigger even if someone was simply bad at the game and/or got hard-tunneled since the streamer got a warning (which is given by the very same parameters as the penalty is given if the system determines that a player tried to "go next"). Imagine how bad it must feel to get tunneled and YOU get a matchmaking penalty from it. How do you think newcomers will react when they encounter this after getting tunneled out quickly since they have no game knowledge yet?
Even without the video proving beyond a doubt that the system is faulty and can detect "going next" attempts despite it not being the case, BHVR killswitched the system. Since you obviously don't trust the playerbase even if hundreds of people are saying the same thing, you surely trust those who made the game right? I mean, if the playerbase is deluded or misinformed, then whatever internal testing BHVR did (after the PTB mind you, since it wasn't active during the PTB) obviously made them learn something that justified the killswitch.
I was talking about it punishing (taking grades) players for being faulty, not false-positives which we know the Go Next System has now. In regards to Dark Souls, I was barred from play in a way, because I could not make past Sen's Fortress, but that's not entirely the same, so I do agree with you, now the comparison is actively falling apart for me and making less sense as I consider it.
But how does BHVR then ban those AFK bots players who farm up and sell accounts?
We can only do this same way we do cheaters?
-
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948077#Comment_3948077
So you never actually address why a rational man would need to change their opinion about a reaction to a message, just because that system is capable to banning them.
I've explained this 3 times to you, I'm not going to do it a 4th. You are entitled to your opinion, but to simply hold onto an opinion out of stubbornness and a desire to be "right," despite a plethora of evidence to the contrary on the intentions behind the reaction is not a good look when trying to convince people you're "intellectually honest" and acting "in good faith."
No, a more correct logic comparison would be if someone received a bill and then made a tiktok of them making a silly reaction to it, and then I look at that tiktok and say, wow that is a silly reaction. And then you come up to me and say, But that bill is going to bankrupt him if he fails the next payment.
No it isn't. Your argument was directly based on the fact he had any reaction at all that you deemed inappropriate to the situation. You expected, based on the evidence you had on hand, that he should have just taken the ban warning and moved on because he was bad at the game, and that he shouldn't create "theater" to save his ego. Also define the "silly" reaction in your hypothetical. If the person said "oh I'm not paying that" with no other context, then yes, I'd agree with you, what a silly reaction. That's why context matters. Your hypothetical is too abstract and lacks actual premise behind it.
Unlike DBD, my favorite game which we play, which I dont want my friends to be banned from.
Are your friends bad at the game? Considering your words:
People react to the Warning Message like its a personal slight against them, they dont want to be told they played incredibly poorly. So poor in fact that a system designed to track people who [go next] on purpose are suspicious of them.
So either your friends intentionally go next, or they are so bad at the video game (your words not mine), they would trigger the same system.
Let's assume they are not very good at the game, which is perfectly fine. What if they were issued a warning, same as the content creator, and they had a "theatrical" reaction to it. What would you say to them?
You have literally suggested many times, that I'm doing all of this out of dishonesty among other things.
I literally have not rendered any opinion on you as a person. All I have done is discussed what you have typed. Me discussing your intentions behind your posts is not the same as me talking about you as a person.
I've explained this 3 times to you, I'm not going to do it a 4th. You are entitled to your opinion, but to simply hold onto an opinion out of stubbornness and a desire to be "right," despite a plethora of evidence to the contrary on the intentions behind the reaction is not a good look when trying to convince people you're "intellectually honest" and acting "in good faith."
You literally have not. When you say 'opinion' in this sentence,
Do you mean that I thought the Go Next could not make bans OR is it about that Dawko's reaction still?Despite a plethora of evidence to the contrary on the intentions behind the reaction is not a good look when trying to convince people you're "intellectually honest" and acting "in good faith."
Sure it would be a bad look, if that was what I was doing. I mean its pretty clear to me you would not know what "evidence" is if you ever saw it. You keep mixing in irrelevant subjects into this conversaion, like the Dawko Reaction which litteraly dont matter to me.
No it isn't.
It actually is, that summary is literally what happened.
Your argument was directly based on the fact he had any reaction at all that you deemed inappropriate to the situation.
You expected, based on the evidence you had on hand, that he should have just taken the ban warning and moved on because he was bad at the game, and that he shouldn't create "theater" to save his ego.Do you mean my opinion of his reaction was based on the reaction? Yes ofc it was.
No that isn't what I expected, what I didn't expect though was someone sitting in silence and then peeking at chat.Also define the "silly" reaction in your hypothetical. If the person said "oh I'm not paying that" with no other context, then yes, I'd agree with you, what a silly reaction.
Sure, I dont see how it matters it does nothing for the context for me, but it if does for you.
Ahem* "And then the tiktoker, stared at the bill for 10 seconds while peeking at the tiktok live chat"
It doesn't change anything for me, but if it works for you, here you go.
Are your friends bad at the game?
So either your friends intentionally go next, or they are so bad at the video game (your words not mine), they would trigger the same system.
Yes, they suuuuuck. But they are my friends so I dont mind.
Let's assume they are not very good at the game, which is perfectly fine. What if they were issued a warning, same as the content creator, and they had a "theatrical" reaction to it. What would you say to them?
Sure. "Stop acting like a child, you need to consider better how you play this game"
and depending on if I know what I know now add to it: "This system can ban you for this if you keep it up."I literally have not rendered any opinion on you as a person. All I have done is discussed what you have typed. Me discussing your intentions behind your posts is not the same as me talking about you as a person.
I appreciate the clarification. But you HAVE rendered opinions on me. I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page, because it felt personal the way you kept bringing it up. Like you are trying to gaslight me into believing it myself by repeating it constantly, which upon reflectionI have also done to you in regards to me thinking you are very confused in regards to the topics and how you dont seem to understand that the Dawko reaction means nothing to me.
-
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948025#Comment_3948025
Not at all, a rational person does not need to change their opinion about a reaction to a message, just because that system is capable to banning them. Even when I learned that it changed nothing about what I think of his reaction to the message.
Hence why I said this:
That being said, you are entitled to your opinion, but when people disagree with your opinion, you can't just demand "source? source?" in an attempt to make yours seem more popular. Your opinion could be that the sky is green, but the majority of people disagree with you because the sky is blue based on actual facts. The system can ban people, and that's why people disagree with it being "just theater." You saying "source? source?" changes nothing about that.
Your arguments would give the wheel a run for its money for how circular they are.
Even if he WAS banned, idd still find his reaction theatrical, cause his reaction is unrelated to the DC penalty.
So by your logic, if you were pulled over by the police for speeding but issued a warning, you're then not allowed to have a reaction to it when you share that story with others because you didn't get a ticket. I honestly don't understand your reasoning behind this.
What they showed me literally was not a source, it was hearsay, which is why I ask them where they got it from.
I hate to break it to you, but 99.999999999999999999999999% of conversations are hearsay by the definition. That's like telling someone who said "I had a sandwich for lunch" that their claim is hearsay because they didn't take pictures of the sandwich, since no person would ever do that for every meal they ever eat.
Just because you dont like my answers, does not mean I have not added value here. You may hate me, but I have answered everything you asked of me. Getting the answers you want isn't the only thing that holds value here, its about answering honestly and in good faith. And getting to the bottom of our dispute, which seems to be we have now? So all is good?
I'm not sure why you're trying to assume my opinion of you, that's a bit odd. You have answered, but your answers are non-answers and/or sophistry. You still have yet to explain to what purpose you wanted the "proof" that people could get banned anyway. Why did that information mean so much to you?
So you never actually address why a rational man would need to change their opinion about a reaction to a message, just because that system is capable to banning them. Idd like to know why you think that, you seem to just glaze over that and don't address is at all in your response. All you say is this, which isnt even related to it.
That being said, you are entitled to your opinion, but when people disagree with your opinion, you can't just demand "source? source?" in an attempt to make yours seem more popular. Your opinion could be that the sky is green, but the majority of people disagree with you because the sky is blue based on actual facts. The system can ban people, and that's why people disagree with it being "just theater." You saying "source? source?" changes nothing about that.
in an attempt to make yours seem more popular
You say that I did this to make my point seem more popular, which is absolutely false. Like logically that would not even make sense to me. But if that is what you keep thinking is my rationale for asking for a source then you are wrong and you clearly didn't listen when I explained why sources and how we know things are important to me.
So by your logic, if you were pulled over by the police for speeding but issued a warning, you're then not allowed to have a reaction to it when you share that story with others because you didn't get a ticket. I honestly don't understand your reasoning behind this.
No, a more correct logic comparison would be if someone received a bill and then made a tiktok of them making a silly reaction to it, and then I look at that tiktok and say, wow that is a silly reaction. And then you come up to me and say, But that bill is going to bankrupt him if he fails the next payment.
And I then wrongly believed that this type of bill could not bankrupt him, so then I say back to you, What's your source that this bill is going to bankrupt him? You then tell me, well loads of people have been bankrupted by bills, but then I ask yeah, but what is your source for this bill is going to bankrupt him.
And then Hex_Ignored shows up and say, here is what the bill says and this is how it will bankrupt him.
And then I say, "Oh I see. That is a source for that claim" and then you say, so why dont you change your opinion of the tiktok?
And then I say No, cause the tiktok and his reaction to the bill is unrelated to what the bill can do to him.
And then you say to me, No a rational person would change their opinion of their reaction.And I ask why and then you dont explain it. Pretty much what happened as far as I see it. like I said multiple times its unrelated.
I hate to break it to you, but 99.999999999999999999999999% of conversations are hearsay by the definition. That's like telling someone who said "I had a sandwich for lunch" that their claim is hearsay because they didn't take pictures of the sandwich, since no person would ever do that for every meal they ever eat.
I already know this, I just don't care what you had for lunch, its irrelevant to me.
So I have no reason to ask you for your source regarding the sandwich claim.
Unlike DBD, my favorite game which we play, which I dont want my friends to be banned from.I'm not sure why you're trying to assume my opinion of you, that's a bit odd.
You have literally suggested many times, that I'm doing all of this out of dishonesty among other things.
You still have yet to explain to what purpose you wanted the "proof" that people could get banned anyway. Why did that information mean so much to you?
Because it confirms the hearsay, like I said sometime in the beginning, I wasn't able to find anyone on reddit that was banned.
So if it is a thing I would like to know about it and I didn't recall the patch notes about it. So ofc I would ask for a source if someone responded to me claiming it was a thing. -
@Pulsar said:
At this point, I've been getting tagged every time there's a comment and I'm just kinda
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/R1J1MDEEU6EZ/popcorn-popcorn-eating-popcorn.gif
Me too, I honestly wanted to see how this ends.
-
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947973#Comment_3947973
I legitimately have no idea what you're saying. A rational person, after being shown evidence that a system would be able to ban someone, would maybe change their opinion about someone's reaction being "just theater." I don't know if you're being intentionally dishonest or what, because legitimately nobody would draw that conclusion from what I'm saying.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947974#Comment_3947974
Neither of them have been talking about the theater part because its largely irrelevant to the important stuff
Because you steered the conversation into this "lecture" about media literacy, when it had nothing to do with the original topic at hand.
Incorrect, While I do have that opinion of him, that was not what I asked for a source for, it was clearly for the possibility of getting banned, both @Hex_Ignored and @CrypticGirl understood that when I asked for it. Neither of them have been talking about the theater part because its largely irrelevant to the important stuff. You are the only one who suddenly for some reason wont separate those topics, its both irrelevant and unimportant to anything.
People react to the Warning Message like its a personal slight against them, they dont want to be told they played incredibly poorly. So poor in fact that a system designed to track people who kill themselves on purpose are suspicious of them.
You do know how other games tell you, that you are bad? They give you a Game Over.
I gotta say I have no time for a guy who sits and looks at a warning message for 10 seconds, then looks at chat and then looks back at the message. Its Theater, He wanted to make a point cause he felt insulted by the warning.These were your words, not mine. You made the claim that his "theater" was him being insulted by the warning because he played poorly, nothing else. After people said you can get banned from the system, that's when you doubled down on this "source?" tirade because the data showed that your opinion of his "theater" probably isn't the most popular nor plausible interpretation of the events that unfolded.
I never demanded a source, I asked them for it, calmly and in good faith.
Replying 4 separate times asking for more sources after being shown sources is not "in good faith."
Oh so that really […...] you off huh, well you asked me why I questioned it and to explain myself and I gave the philosophical reasons for it. You asked me if I believed that everyone was lying to me, a tangent which you don't seem to be over now.
No, it didn't. I just find it hilarious you don't hold yourself to the same standard that you hold the other people on this forum to.
I don't want to muddle this thread with further frivolous explanations that fall on deaf ears, so unless you have anything of actual value to add to the conversation, this will be my last response on the matter.
A rational person, after being shown evidence that a system would be able to ban someone, would maybe change their opinion about someone's reaction being "just theater." I don't know if you're being intentionally dishonest or what, because legitimately nobody would draw that conclusion from what I'm saying.
Not at all, a rational person does not need to change their opinion about a reaction to a message, just because that system is capable to banning them. Even when I learned that it changed nothing about what I think of his reaction to the message.
This is why I kept saying you are making bring unessesary and irrelevant parts into the discussion, I could not care at all about the reaction. Its his stream, its his show. To me its not relevant to the question of if the System could ban or not.
I also dont see why this is dishonest, like I kept asking you to explain why the two topics are relevant to each other and you never answered this. So is this why? You think I ought to believe now that his reaction isn't theatrical and over the top, because I learned that the system he got the message from COULD have banned him? I don't see why.
These were your words, not mine. You made the claim that his "theater" was him being insulted by the warning because he played poorly, nothing else. After people said you can get banned from the system, that's when you doubled down on this "source?" tirade because the data showed that your opinion of his "theater" probably isn't the most popular nor plausible interpretation of the events that unfolded.
Even if he WAS banned, idd still find his reaction theatrical, cause his reaction is unrelated to the DC penalty.
I'm really sorry guys, but I'm not into evidence because you guys think my comments about Dawko's Reaction were bad.Ofc neither of us can prove what is going on inside my head, but I seriously dont care that much about you guys.
Replying 4 separate times asking for more sources after being shown sources is not "in good faith."
What they showed me literally was not a source, it was hearsay, which is why I ask them where they got it from.
I just find it hilarious you don't hold yourself to the same standard that you hold the other people on this forum.
You have literally questioned me for hours now and I have answered at length, but you don't think I don't hold myself to the standard of being questioned or asked for evidence?? That is literally what we have been doing this whole time.
I don't want to muddle this thread with further frivolous explanations that fall on deaf ears, so unless you have anything of actual value to add to the conversation, this will be my last response on the matter.
Just because you dont like my answers, does not mean I have not added value here. You may hate me, but I have answered everything you asked of me. Getting the answers you want isn't the only thing that holds value here, its about answering honestly and in good faith. And getting to the bottom of our dispute, which seems to be we have now? So all is good?
-
@Skillfulstone said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947050#Comment_3947050
Yes, in fact I've played most souls game (and a few souls-like such as Sekiro and Elden Ring).
And comparing DBD to any Souls game is useless, as their fundamentals are opposites.
The Souls games from Fromsoft are all a single-player experience with multiplayer being effectively optional.
DBD is a multiplayer game with a kind-sorta single player mode in the form of customs vs bots.
Furthermore, all the major "punished if you die" systems that basically require multiplayer in order to deal with them in souls game (World Tendency/soul form, Hollowing to some extent etc.) are disliked by most of the community of those games (especially console players that literally have to pay extra for online multiplayer in order to deal with those systems more easily) which further proves that those systems aren't liked.
The (currently killswitched thankfully) current "Anti-go-next" system not only punishes you if you try to die faster. But it also, as tons of people predicted before it was released, punishes people for simply being bad/new or, even worse, for getting killed too fast.
If you give penalties to people for merely being new or just being hard-tunneled, then there's no surprise if people just drop the game.
I don't see why multiplayer has any effect on if a game should punish a faulty player or not, and In fact Dark souls was multiplayer. Dark souls punishes faulty players by removing souls and DBD now punishes faulty players by removing grade.
You can gain both back by playing more. Seems like completely the same issue, so a comparison seems absolutely usefull.
-
@TragicSolitude said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947788#Comment_3947788
I just go by what the mods have said on the forums. They've always, as far as I can remember, said they need both. A player can still submit a report without both, but in one of the threads I linked to above Mandy said that it's unlikely action will be taken in those cases.
I linked to two threads in the post you replied to, and here are two more posts besides those to back up what I've said here. In the second quote, Mandy says video evidence is required to supplement an in-game cheater report.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3661675#Comment_3661675
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3203683#Comment_3203683
Ah, I see. I stand corrected then.
-
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947753#Comment_3947753
As far as I know, its not illegal to have an opinion about a streamer, even if my opinion is rude and false.
I never said you couldn't have an opinion, but your entire demand for a source was to "prove" your opinion. Your opinion was that he was merely performing for "theater" and not because there was a possibility of him getting banned. People told you that he could get banned for it, and you demanded "source? source?" because you couldn't do your due diligence and read or reread the patch notes, or trust the many players who also claimed that it was happening to them too. You then went on an entire tirade about people not having media literacy when you yourself couldn't be bothered to hold yourself to the same standard. The whole "source" tangent is because you accused a streamer of performing theater, and then refused to listen to anyone's data showing you that there is a more popular opinion based on facts. There's also this statement you made:
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.
Why do you want to see it? To disprove your opinion or to just relish in the chaos? You clearly haven't changed your opinion on the "theater" after being presented with data to contradict it being just "theater," so unless you provide another rational reason as to why you're asking for a source, I'm going to assume it's either chaotic in nature or because you had no other alternative but to try and engage in a red herring fallacy because your opinion was unpopular and the facts show otherwise.
That being said, you are entitled to your opinion, but when people disagree with your opinion, you can't just demand "source? source?" in an attempt to make yours seem more popular. Your opinion could be that the sky is green, but the majority of people disagree with you because the sky is blue based on actual facts. The system can ban people, and that's why people disagree with it being "just theater." You saying "source? source?" changes nothing about that.
you have been making weaker and weaker connections without explaining it.
See this right here, you are entitled to your opinion.
If you didn't want me to respond and see it, you would not tag me, so obviously there is more for us to talk about if you want that.
I tag everyone I respond to, that's common courtesy when I directly respond to someone's message.
At least you seem done about the punishment topic and have moved on to talking about the streamer, so thats nice.
I hope my above paragraph shows you why these are not separate topics.
Oh my you have completely lost the plot.
I never said you couldn't have an opinion, but your entire demand for a source was to "prove" your opinion. Your opinion was that he was merely performing for "theater" and not because there was a possibility of him getting banned.
Incorrect, While I do have that opinion of him, that was not what I asked for a source for, it was clearly for the possibility of getting banned, both @Hex_Ignored and @CrypticGirl understood that when I asked for it. Neither of them have been talking about the theater part because its largely irrelevant to the important stuff. You are the only one who suddenly for some reason wont separate those topics, its both irrelevant and unimportant to anything.
People told you that he could get banned for it, and you demanded "source? source?" because you couldn't do your due diligence and read or reread the patch notes, or trust the many players who also claimed that it was happening to them too.
I never demanded a source, I asked them for it, calmly and in good faith. Your mis characterization is majestic. Lets read again.
You then went on an entire tirade about people not having media literacy when you yourself couldn't be bothered to hold yourself to the same standard.
Oh so that really made you angry huh, well you asked me why I questioned it and to explain myself and I gave the philosophical reasons for it. You asked me if I believed that everyone was lying to me, a tangent which you don't seem to be over now.
Read what you wrote to me again, if you dont want me to explain it to you. Dont ask me questions.
Furthermore I asked for a source, which is literally the standard I promote, its literally what I explained to you.The whole "source" tangent is because you accused a streamer of performing theater, and then refused to listen to anyone's data showing you that there is a more popular opinion based on facts.
They never showed me any Data, that claimed the DC penalty was invoked from the Go Next Prevention without evidence.
They said the proof was in the video, which it wasn't, a Warning Screen isnt proof of a system in extension of it. Read it again.
-
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947944#Comment_3947944
What? Do you think, that I think, that Dawko faked the Warning message? Are you serious?
or do you think, I think people are faking the message?
No. As I clearly said, and I will say again, you believe he reacted out of "only theater" and not because there was an actual chance he could get banned from it. We are talking about his reaction, not if he "faked a ban message." I'm not really sure how you could interpret my message to be saying they're faking screenshots when my criticisms were clearly about you not taking people's word when they have literally nothing to gain from lying about it, especially after the system was disabled and proof existed that it was falsely banning people.
Why do you say this then?
You clearly haven't changed your opinion on the "theater" after being presented with data to contradict it being just "theater,"
The system can ban people, and that's why people disagree with it being "just theater." You saying "source? source?" changes nothing about that.
What Data would contradict a reaction? HUH???
To me this looks like you are telling me, I dont think its theater, but why would I then ask for a source for the reaction?
This isnt what Im asking for a source on though. -
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947753#Comment_3947753
As far as I know, its not illegal to have an opinion about a streamer, even if my opinion is rude and false.
I never said you couldn't have an opinion, but your entire demand for a source was to "prove" your opinion. Your opinion was that he was merely performing for "theater" and not because there was a possibility of him getting banned. People told you that he could get banned for it, and you demanded "source? source?" because you couldn't do your due diligence and read or reread the patch notes, or trust the many players who also claimed that it was happening to them too. You then went on an entire tirade about people not having media literacy when you yourself couldn't be bothered to hold yourself to the same standard. The whole "source" tangent is because you accused a streamer of performing theater, and then refused to listen to anyone's data showing you that there is a more popular opinion based on facts. There's also this statement you made:
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.
Why do you want to see it? To disprove your opinion or to just relish in the chaos? You clearly haven't changed your opinion on the "theater" after being presented with data to contradict it being just "theater," so unless you provide another rational reason as to why you're asking for a source, I'm going to assume it's either chaotic in nature or because you had no other alternative but to try and engage in a red herring fallacy because your opinion was unpopular and the facts show otherwise.
That being said, you are entitled to your opinion, but when people disagree with your opinion, you can't just demand "source? source?" in an attempt to make yours seem more popular. Your opinion could be that the sky is green, but the majority of people disagree with you because the sky is blue based on actual facts. The system can ban people, and that's why people disagree with it being "just theater." You saying "source? source?" changes nothing about that.
you have been making weaker and weaker connections without explaining it.
See this right here, you are entitled to your opinion.
If you didn't want me to respond and see it, you would not tag me, so obviously there is more for us to talk about if you want that.
I tag everyone I respond to, that's common courtesy when I directly respond to someone's message.
At least you seem done about the punishment topic and have moved on to talking about the streamer, so thats nice.
I hope my above paragraph shows you why these are not separate topics.
Why do you want to see it? To disprove your opinion or to just relish in the chaos? You clearly haven't changed your opinion on the "theater" after being presented with data to contradict it being just "theater," so unless you provide another rational reason as to why you're asking for a source, I'm going to assume it's either chaotic in nature or because you had no other alternative but to try and engage in a red herring fallacy because your opinion was unpopular and the facts show otherwise.
The system can ban people, and that's why people disagree with it being "just theater." You saying "source? source?" changes nothing about that.
What? Do you think, that I think, that Dawko faked the Warning message? Are you serious?
or do you think, I think people are faking the message?
-
@brewingtea said:
You know that guy who struggles on hook, even though there's no chance of winning? It's annoying that they don't have the game-sense to die and let you get hatch?
I found them:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947828#Comment_3947828
You can just hide in a locker or unhook me like someone who has bravery.
-
I hope you are kidding, these changes are the best we have had my team-mates don't die on hook anymore because they dont think we can win and we actually win a lot more often now. its fantastic. Why would I not love these changes?
-
@chainsawmis said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947781#Comment_3947781
The teleports being so close to main objectives is absurd to me. It's totally silent and I can't look at the door screen whenever he's coming out of that door. It would blink red but if the door is facing the opposite from me then how am I supposed to know?
The fire axe giving him bonus movement speed whenever he throws it away. His power being a faster recovery than basic attack. Undetectable lasts way too long. Using the teleport is insanely risky by getting grabbed immediately which no other killer power does. The Glitchtrap skin is pay to win since that skin makes you almost as silent as a injured Ada.
The most despiteful thing about him that he's probably better at tunneling than Pyramid Head. He just waits at the hook, hold his axe ready and the moment you're unhooked, and, at the right moment, he throws his fire axe at you then prompt to grab you or hit you with his basic attack. I am forced to bring Decisive Strike at all times but that's usually not enough when an experienced killer knows what to do.
Agreed to that, I think its very sour that you kind of HAVE to look at the panel to get full distance in a chase from the Springtrap.
I also think the Axe should automatically dislodge from a target that is being tunneled. It seems like an oversight to allow Springtrap to tunnel so freely when other Killers are bound on hands and feet with their anti-camp/anti-tunnel power caveats.
I think we need to wait with the Survivor teleporting until that audio fix hits. But this is great feedback imo.
I would give the same feedback. -
@TragicSolitude said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947728#Comment_3947728
I remember seeing mods say you are required to do both, because they need the match flagged and they need video evidence. BHVR doesn't record matches on their end, so they don't take action on most things without video evidence (verbal abuse in chat is an obvious exception).
If you flag a player for bad behavior, then you do get notified if and when action is taken against them. It doesn't matter who or what caused the action to be taken. It doesn't even need to be connected to the same match in which you flagged them.
I'm not making any comments on your own experience, because I obviously couldn't know what happened. I'm just telling you what I know from what mods have said and my own personal experience.
Edit: Saying "I remember seeing" bugged me, because that really doesn't clear up anything, so I did a quick search and here are threads where a mod does indeed specify that both video evidence and an in-game report are needed:
Its incorrect that both are required for action to be taken. What each does is that when a cheater is there is a chance a user will flag them for cheating, optimally 4 per game. Over time those will stack up and that will give them attention from BHVR.
When a BHVR Employee then sits down to squash cheaters, they will see flagged players and can investigate each log the game server saved that cheater was in. Patterns are kind of easy to recognize this way.
Developers would like for us to submit as much evidence as we can as it helps them, but both are not required or needed.
Strongly recommended =/= Required. Stuff will happen, but more evidence is better, it always is. -
Can you explain deeper what types of difficulties you are facing with Springtrap?
Getting some more words on it will help BHVR pinpoint a key issue other than the main bugs he has atm. -
I dont recall any news on this front. I think they just cause normal DC penalty.
-
Not a clue, but do it anyway and see what happens. Report back here so it might help others.
-
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947523#Comment_3947523
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.
You accused him, then begged for evidence when people said the system bans people. It's the same topic of discussion.
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.
You have dodged every point everyone has said in this thread.
We are beyond done now. Wow Wow.
You keep responding though, do you have more to say? 🤔
You accused him, then begged for evidence when people said the system bans people. It's the same topic of discussion.
As far as I know, its not illegal to have an opinion about a streamer, even if my opinion is rude and false.
Even so this does not make it part of the topic, You will have to explain how me calling him theatrical and laying it on thick is related to the Go Next System's punishment. Ok so I "accused him" hows that relate to the punishment??I have no issue yapping about random problems you have with what I say, but honestly you have been making weaker and weaker connections without explaining it. You seem to just assume everyone agrees that there is a connection between them.
Why is it even relevant if a Streamer is doing that? I barely care, you seem to care. Are you a fan of his?You have dodged every point everyone has said in this thread.
I have literally addressed every point I have been given honestly and thoughtfully, you probably still think I assume that everyone here is lying, at least that's how idd make sense of you saying this. Its not like you have acknowledged the multiple times I have addressed this for you, you just seem to ignore it and move on complaining to me.
You keep responding though, do you have more to say?
Like I said I have no issue addressing your complaints to me, if you have something to say then you may say it.
If you didn't want me to respond and see it, you would not tag me, so obviously there is more for us to talk about if you want that.At least you seem done about the punishment topic and have moved on to talking about the streamer, so thats nice.
-
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947502#Comment_3947502
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.
Its Theater, He wanted to make a point cause he felt insulted by the warning.
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.
Especially when your first contribution to this thread was accusing a new player that they were creating "theater" because they felt bad they lost.
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.
I'm not sure why you're asking random community members "where's the data"
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.
You won't in good faith engage with the data the community has provided
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.
-
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947474#Comment_3947474
Nope, they have no idea. By their logic I would be a Time Traveler, I would not trust anything they say.
No. They are correct.
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.
You should become a DJ with that spin, because that's not what's happened at all.
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.
This is not what happened, you are incorrect.
They are the same thing
They are not the same. That would be like saying apples and bananas are the same fruit. You are simply just wrong.
Are we finally reaching anywhere?
You tell me. 🤷♀️
I think we are done, you are beyond saying 'nuh uh' right now.
-
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947362#Comment_3947362
I already responded to Ampersand, they are wrong.
They are not wrong. They are 100% right.
I am also sorry, you think this is "a hill im planting my flag on" im simply answering your questions honestly
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.
Burden of Proof is not pretend someone made a claim and then press them for evidence. You dont understand it.
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.
That is besides the point, if a million people told me to jump off a bridge, I would still not do it.
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.
Not if I already believed I had read the patch notes.
Sorry. I don't have perfect memory.
Do you see why I would say this as a response:
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.
Also, I see you said this:
But I should have checked the patch notes, instead I watched the video
So did you or did you not read the patch notes before coming here? I remember you telling me this:
Also I did read the patch notes, I just don't remember every detail from it. Sorry. I don't have perfect memory.
Your story is not holding up. I'm skeptical of your claims.
The system also de-grades maybe that is the reason.
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.
They are not wrong. They are 100% right.
Nope, they have no idea. By their logic I would be a Time Traveler, I would not trust anything they say.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.So did you or did you not read the patch notes before coming here?
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.
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.
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?