Madjura
Madjura
About
- Username
- Madjura
- Joined
- Visits
- 15,299
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Rizzo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2533906#Comment_2533906
I'm sorry, but that specification is there exactly because of threads like this one and for people reporting others for using discord or other voice apps, it's not up to you to decide what is cheating or not, we wouldn't endorse something that actively breaks the rules otherwise.
Please, I understand you don't like us and you have always something to say against everything we post, but don't try to spread false information, thank you.
I have explained why the rules as written say that using communication outside of the game is cheating. I am not making any presumptions about what the developers actually intend the rules to be, I am going only off how they are written. If you disagree please point out why it does not say that or where I am going wrong in my argumentation. I have also provided a suggestion how this can be fixed quite easily at the bottom of my post - please feel free to edit the game rules page if you can do this yourself or forward the suggestion forward to who is responsible for editing these articles.
It is entirely possible that I am wrong, but the the way the rules are written I don't see any room for interpretation going solely off the rules page. If the intent of the rules is that using communication outside of the game is not cheating then the rules should be clarified (for example as I have suggested at the bottom of my post) because they are not written that way (as I think I have argued fairly objectively in my post).
it's not up to you to decide what is cheating or not, we wouldn't endorse something that actively breaks the rules otherwise.
Please point out where in my post it makes you think I am trying to dictate what is and what isn't cheating. That was not my intention and I will edit the parts that are unclear. My intention was to point out why the rules, as written, say that using communication tools outside the game is cheating. As far as I know forum moderators don't have special "administrative" (in terms of the game, not the forum) permission which is why I posted that I disagree with what I perceive as your personal opinion and pointed out that the rules, as written, do not support your claim which again, I think is your personal opinion and not "official information" or an official "ruling".
I am sorry that you feel so attacked by my post that you need to resort to personal attack (the last paragraph - it is unnecessary and to me reads as nothing but a personal attack) but even if your post is "official / administrative" information / an official "ruling" your last paragraph is uncalled for and I would like to request that in the future you refrain from personal attacks. I did not attack you in my post, I would like to request that you show me the same respect and don't personally attack me either. If a part of my post is offensive to you or can be considered as a personal attack then please point it out and I will edit it. Attacking you was not my intention. Please feel free (or any other forum moderator) to edit out this paragraph of this post if you remove your last paragraph.
Please feel free (or anyone else) to make a constructive post pointing out where I am going wrong in my reading of the rules. I am only going by the rules as written because I don't have any insight into what the developers are thinking, which is something you might have.
-
@Rizzo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2533599#Comment_2533599
As @GoodBoyKaru pointed out already, using voice comms is NOT cheating, is NOT against the rules, please avoid spreading false information about it, keep in mind we have specific channels in our official Discord where people can play together in voice chat.
Please refer to this post when in doubt about game rules: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/kb/articles/139-game-rules
Thank you.
using voice comms is NOT cheating
This is not what the game rules say.
From the rules page:
Using 3rd party software or other tools to gain any kind of unfair advantage that wasn’t intended by the game, except if they have been whitelisted by us. We are not banning for the use of communication apps.
If using voice chat was not cheating then it wouldn't have to be explicitly listed here. The rules don't say "Voice chat is not cheating", they say "We don't ban you if you use it". There is a difference. If you use voice chat then you acknowledge that you are cheating by giving yourself an advantage that is not intended by the game, but, even though this technically falls under the definition of cheating, no bans are issued for it.
This is an important distinction for players who want to play as intended - they don't use voice chat or any other communication outside of the game, because the game rules as written define that as cheating. It's allowed, in a manner similar to house rules that are sometimes used for board games for example. It is allowed to use your own "house rule" by using communication tools without penalties (= bans) but you are still technically breaking the rules and not playing as intended. If you want to play the game as intended you need to follow the rules.
Using a controller while playing on PC for example is not listed in the game as something that bans are issued for because it doesn't have to be, because it's obviously not cheating. Communication tools do fall under the definition of cheating though, so the exception must be listed if there are not supposed to be bans for using them.
If using communication tools outside of the game is not supposed to be considered cheating then the rules page must be rewritten to clarify that. As the rules are written it falls under cheating. An easy fix would would be to change "We are not banning for the use of communication apps." to "The use of communication apps is not considered cheating.".
-
@[Deleted User] said:
It doesn't need to make a distinction IMO. If a group is escaping at a high rate, they'll get matched against a good killer. People greatly over-estimate the average SWF and underestimate skilled killers. The vast majority of SWFs don't have comms that drastically change outcomes
The vast majority of SWFs don't have comms that drastically change outcomes
[Citation needed]
-
@Mandy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2433444#Comment_2433444
please don't spread misinformation, we have given out all the information on the FAQ post https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/kb/game-info
"Fixed" link: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/kb/articles/292-f-a-q-stranger-things-last-chance-sale
Your link goes to the main Knowledge Base page. I think if the main page is updated then your link won't directly go to the correct page of the FAQ anymore.
There is a bit of ambiguity regarding the updated perks. From the FAQ, emphasis mine:
Teachable perks for Steve, Nancy, and The Demogorgon will remain available to earn on those characters for players who own them, with new versions of these teachables being made available in the Shrine of Secrets to all players.
What exactly does new version mean in this context? Will they be new, separate perks or are the old perks being updated to remove any licensed content? The perk "Fixated" for example shows Nancy. I assume the new version will have different art and a new quote in the description text but function identically in-game. Is that correct?
The next sentence in the FAQ then says:
Any player who has already earned a teachable perk will continue to have it available to learn on their other characters.
Does this mean that there will be two copies of each Stranger Things perk, the old one with the old art, description etc. and a new one with new art? If you have unlocked the old one you keep it, but you can also get a new one from the Shrine?
Using "Fixated" again for example, does that mean there will be a Fixated 2.0 and a Fixated 1.0 (the current version)? Anyone who has the old / current Fixated unlocked keeps it (with the art showing Nancy, assuming that this is something that has to be changed), but there is also a Fixated 2.0 with identical functionality but different icon for example?
-
I had one game with ~140-160 ms ping as Killer, but the Survivors all had similar ping. To me it seems like the game decided to give us all a server that is relatively far from us, for whatever reason. Usually the ping values I see range from ~40-80 ms, before and after the matchmaking change.
-
There used to be a public whitelist at one point on the EAC website but I don't think it exists anymore.
-
@Rizzo said:
The skins from the different Rifts get added to the in-game store eventually, it already happened with multiple skins, for example the Greek collection skin for Zarina was originally in a Rift last year.
It was never confirmed that all skins will be added.
-
@Zeidoktor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2326037#Comment_2326037
Right. The only way these work is if Victor is able to attack when you're not controlling him. That's why I'm wondering if they're thinking of giving Victor some AI capability. Or even both, where whichever twin you aren't controlling becomes a bot.
That's probably the plan because it stops camping the hook with Victor. Can't use him to camp if he just walks away.
-
@Ryuzaki said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2310712#Comment_2310712
Yeah, also causes survivors to freeze when he primes the tentacle.
When you select Nemesis, in the menu where you can also level him and so on, during his idle animation he sometimes takes out his tentacle. Does it freeze then too or only in-game?
If it happens there too it could indicate that the problem is maybe related to the animation of the tentacle or something, and not so much code that is executed when he takes it out in-game.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2299285#Comment_2299285
They will work. Either they give 105% to everyone. Or 150% to one player. Or they will make something completely different, but they will do something!
Negative points.
-
@Mandy said:
As said on the Patch Notes under Known Issues, we are aware of this issue and are actively working on a fix. We appreciate the patience of the Community whilst this is being worked on.
We appreciate the patience of the Community whilst this is being worked on.
Talk is cheap.
-
This is 100% the exact same situation as with the mori nerf. The mori nerf was pushed into a Twins chapter hotfix because people were already mad, so throwing the mori nerf into a random update didn't make more people mad because everyone was already mad at the developers.
This is the same thing. Everyone is angry about the horrible state the game is in. The perfect time to remove the cosmetic glitch because no new people will get upset.
-
@FengisKawaii said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2299031#Comment_2299031
It´s so sad that the bar for our expectations is so low that we´re pleasantly suprised when their health patches at least don´t make the performance worse.
I mean the Resident Evil map can randomly show up and crash your game so I would say that counts as making the performance worse in a way.
-
@Pulsar said:
Here's my report:
Update did nothing. Freezes MAY be SLIGHTLY less common than before. Other than that, nothing changed.
Except for removing the cosmetic glitch, thank God for that.
Except for removing the cosmetic glitch, thank God for that.
The Resident Evil map can also randomly show up in ranked matches where it will then most likely crash your game, so that's cool too!
So essentially this patch removed the cosmetic glitch, which was bothering absolutely no one, and also made it so that sometimes you can get the new map which will crash your game. Instead of fixing anything of note the patch made the game even worse. Incredible!
-
@bm33 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2298665#Comment_2298665
Apparently you might still get it but it could crash your game if you do.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/JLJZHI06GZZ9/20210622-112820-jpg.jpg
How spaghetti must the code be if the map has to be able to randomly show up in ranked so it's available in custom games?
-
The solution is making the game turn-based. It already plays that way on console, so might as well fully commit to it.
-
@Pulsar said:
Two clips. One of the freezes we are all so intimately acquainted with by now; and one of just a single one of the new Clown bugs.
The freezes make the game look like a PowerPoint presentation.
-
@Phasmamain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2284734#Comment_2284734
The map is essentially running in a straight line until you get to a loop a rank 21 could counter and do it again until you die. Boring for both sides
It's almost as if copying a map that was designed for a singleplayer game with completely different gameplay was a terrible idea.
-
@gammatsunami said:
I really feel like the only way to get their attention is if big fogwhispers talk about it.
I wish otz went through it like we do. If he was experiencing it for a 10 hour stream theyd fix it
They would just kick them out immediately instead.
-
@SloppyVoldemort said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2284169#Comment_2284169
Congrats! Never thought it would reach 50 pages tbh.
Sad thing is that we, in those 50 pages, never got a dev reply. Not even a community manager responded to this thread (where are they anyway?). I don't know if I should laugh or cry about that :/
The logical assumption is that console optimization is never happening. If they post and say it's coming but then doesn't (because it's cancelled) even less people will believe them in the future. And if they say it's cancelled then there is a high chance that people will either quit or not buy the game in the first place.
Posting that it's coming and the optimization then actually coming, would make a lot of people happy and help them out because right now a lot of players are unhappy with them.
-
@The_BiggCheeze said:
And no, I'm not talking about the pathetic 300k bp. This WHOLE CHAPTER has been a mess. Performance issues on console (not surprised) The new map being disabled after having problems on the FIRST DAY. And now the entire game is just shriveling up and dying right before our very eyes.
Temple Of Purgation should be disabled too, there is an invisible wall you can get stuck in as Killer.
-
@ChurchofPig said:
The update itself is the worst in dbd, but the chapter itself is fine.
Remember that this was a licensed chapter and making sure the patch quality is high is very important. Now imagine how bad it would have been if it wasn't licensed.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
Guys, this is a licensed chapter, what Mandy said aboves makes total sense, probably they forgot to link them with the release, but in the end it's still common sense since again, is licensed.
It's really nice of them to give full refund.
The refund only matters if for some reason you bought the three items separately, instead of the entire outfit at once. If you have not bought all items then your refund is less than the total current cost of the full set. Anyone who bought only one or two pieces and refunds essentially loses money.
Obviously I don't have numbers but I highly doubt the number of people who bought the three items separately and would thus benefit from a refund is very high. I can't imagine that anyone looked at the Jill outfit, thought that the head (which looks exactly the same as the one you get with the character!) is worth spending money on and then for some reason decided to buy the other two pieces separately.
Even someone who bought the Jill head (which again, looks identical to the one you get with the character) and one other piece of the set benefits more from not refunding because at least they can use the one other piece they have bought. The refund value would be less than the current price of the set and you lose the one piece (and technically the head too in this scenario, but the head is worthless) that you own.
#UnlinkTheSets
-
@FreakPrince said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2278190#Comment_2278190
Then give Jill's outfit a discount. It is the same head after all.
Myers' hospital gown is an outfit without a head. You can buy the body and the weapons separately. It's not locked but the principle is the same: The head cosmetic isn't new so it shouldn't be included, and the overall price should be reduced, like you said.
#UnlinkTheSets
-
-
@Nebula said:
I am now fully, 100% convinced that they run no tests on consoles prior to releasing them. Both games I’ve played on RPD have resulted in my game crashing. Imagine RE fans coming over from playing village, which runs extremely well even on the old consoles, to a 5 year old game that constantly stutters, freezes and crashes.
Don't blame QA. It's 100% a management problem. The Twins release for example was obviously unfinished and broken, but it was released anyway. QA doesn't have the power to decide that a release is happening.
Someone somewhere in management is the equivalent of the "This is fine" dog (the fire represents the broken releases). Things do get fixed, but after the patch releases.
The mentality of releasing first and then fixing later is causing all kinds of problems and it's not QA who decides that.
-
@gugigor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2267796#Comment_2267796
I am serious pls help me if you know something. (not toxic)
If I remember correctly only cross-progression between PC (I think Steam, not Windows Store) and Switch was confirmed, but not when it's going to happen. Steam and Stadia have cross-progression already (I believe) and are the only platforms for which it is enabled.
No idea why Xbox and Windows Store don't have cross-progression, they are both owned and controlled by Microsoft so it should be possible.
-
@Rizzo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2265355#Comment_2265355
We already said multiple times that things within the game rules won't get punished, we don't have details on how it will work because still in development.
And there's a team of ACMs already in charge of dealing with the reports, they will most likely supervise said system, but again we'll give out more information about it when we will be able to.
It's still in development. How can you say that it won't be abusable if it isn't even finished?
We had a very similar situation in the past with the automated disconnect bans. That system had to be disabled multiple times because people kept finding ways to trigger it on players who did not disconnect, such as popular streamers.
Supposedly abusing that system required some kind of expert knowledge to abuse it, but any sort of auto-ban system that doesn't function properly in a similar way that the disconnect ban system didn't function properly seems like it could be falsely triggered by anyone from within the game, for example by mass reporting people.
No one is saying that the system will be intentionally built in such a way that it can be abused but based on the track record the developers have with things being released in a completely broken state it doesn't seem impossible that the auto-ban system will have some kind of flaw that will be abused and lead to a lot of incorrect bans.
-
At this point I think it's fair to assume that console optimization is cancelled.
If it was coming they could say so. It would make people happy.
But now imagine that it was cancelled, and they announced that. Imagine the outrage that would cause, right before a big release (Resident Evil chapter).
-
@Ryuzaki said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2256325#Comment_2256325
Yeah, it's such a slap in the face.
Or when someone posts an exclusively positive thread and they post a thank you for the feedback. I have never seen them post a thank you for negative, but constructive feedback.
An example is this thread: examples of the issues, with videos, people asking if they can do more to help out. The only response: "We will post an update later, maybe" and the sound of crickets.
I am not saying that they don't care about negative feedback but the signals they are sending makes it look that way to me.
-
I feel like console and low-end PC optimization is going to go the same way restoring lost legacy did: A few months / years of "We are looking into it" and then "Actually we can't do it so we abandon this idea."
-
It only deactivates if you heal yourself or another Survivor. If you are healed by someone else it doesn't deactivate.
-
@Aneurysm said:
You're better off suggesting workable ways that comms swf can be balanced / solo and killers brought to their level rather than demanding things which will never, ever happen.
It's actually really simple: Add voice chat to the game.
The upcoming totally-not-abusable auto-ban system can then be used to report and automatically ban players who abuse voice chat to insult others for example.
-
@CheeseAnton said:
At least this charm looks pretty cool
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/7WGUUP7WD9PL/image.png
Still would be a terribly lazy event that's not that good, but again at least this charm look cool.
That looks like Naughty Bear.
Naughty Bear next killer after Nemesis confirmed.
-
Exactly, and that really shows what a terrible idea it is. No one likes it.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2218169#Comment_2218169
Actually.. yeah.
some of the Nemesis mechanics could easily have served as Plague rework concepts.
- Tentacle coming out of her weapon or red vomit as the ranged attack
- Infected zealots walking around the map mumbling to themselves instead of zombies
- One-time use fountains instead of the supply crates with the antidote
Nemesis could have been a legendary skin for a reworked Plague.
Personally I prefer keeping Plague as her own character. Crushing Survivors who think Plague is weak is very fun. You can tell when they realize they are ######### and about to be absolutely destroyed by a Killer they think is bad.
I want a Nemesis skin where he is cosplaying plague though. Just take Nemesis and make him wear the Plague outfit. Or a Nemesis cosplay for Plague.
-
@Gay Myers (Luzi) said:
Those that left unsavory comments that were rule breaking, they were taken care of. We do not tolerate any kind of behavior that's demeaning, insulting, etc. to people/a group of people. Obviously, it is hard and nearly impossible to stop people from saying those things, but if they decided to do so, they receive consequences for it. I'm sorry if this has ruined the experience for some of people attending though, the Stream was great and effort was put into it - we're all a big community, this includes many people from different walks of lives.
I know the stream might have not been for everyone the right thing, which is perfectly fine, if you didn't like it, you didn't like! However, it is important that it doesn't grant anyone the right to insult people on the screen, no matter for what. You're free to not be a fan of streams presented, just be respectful and civil about it! I hope for the future that people will be more respectful in this regard.
Have you considered making the anniversary streams subscriber only (or whatever it's called), similar to Awesome Games Done Quick (AGDQ)? The stream chat for those events was also absolutely awful until they made it subscriber only.
The stream chat is too fast to have any kind of discussion anyway so it might not be a huge loss if the number of people who use it is limited to subscribers only.
-
@Mooks said:
Survs are vulnerable to tentacle hits and zombie attacks (can injure and down you), tentacle hits are kinda like PHs range attack but are easier to hit but can’t go through certain walls etc.
survs make loud noises and vomit (kinda counters Iron Will and works even when not injured)
also getting survs contaminated tiers up the power of Nemesis
Basically Pyramid Head and Plague had a baby.
-
@oxygen said:
I'm still very very curious to get more information because there simply has to be missing information. Perhaps because the system is in such an early state they genuinely don't have much more of an idea than the basic concept, or something else. Because I can't actually bring myself to believe any developer would implement something that's straight up "if reports is greater than x, ban player" or anything like it. It's such a monumentally bad idea in general, and especially in special cases like streamers and even more so in a game where people can be told "X is not bannable" by a mod/dev and they respond with "Well but it SHOULD be, so I'll report it anyway"
On the bright side actually giving players feedback when their reports do something is a great thing though, and if this autoban thing turns out to not be a catastrophically bad idea afterall that can do wonders for restoring faith in the reporting system actually doing something for people that submit proper and legitimate reports. No real way to know at the moment if someone gets banned unless they get permabanned, as only permas show up as a "game ban" on their Steam profile and all that.
I'm still very very curious to get more information because there simply has to be missing information.
If there really is (a lot of) missing information why announce it during the anniversary stream?
It is one thing to announce an exclusively positive feature that is in development, such as colorblind mode (though that was only announced in response to a certain event) but announcing something that has potential to be abused and can get people banned is a whole other story.
Imagine we did not have colorblind mode, and during the anniversary stream one of two things were announced:
"We are adding colorblind mode."
"We are adding an auto-ban system."
Both lack a lot of information, but saying the first one is safe because there is no downside to it. Instead of announcing the auto-ban system without any details they should have waited until they had more information to share. It looks really bad currently and I can't think of any way that such a system could be made without it being exploitable, without also making the system completely worthless.
@grayon444 said:
I think everyone agrees.Survivors and killers.Devs dont do this and scrap it if you dont want this game to die.
The fact that both Killer and Survivor players / mains agree this is a terrible idea really shows how bad of an idea it is. How often do both sides agree on something?
-
And the developers want to give them the ability to get other players banned by adding an auto-ban system.
-
@sulaiman said:
Where did you get the information about false reports not having consequeces with the new ban system enabled? I would like a source, plz.
Also, i only play solo survivor, and while i dont like tunneling and camping for no reason (yes, there are valid applications) i think its still legit.
I meet toxic survivors way more often than toxic killers, and i always call them out, and i would report them as well. How does that translate to your 4:1 ratio?
The system is automated, there is no one involved who could check if a report is legit or not. If you need humans to check for false reports then that defeats the purpose of an auto-ban system.
That's why it seems like there will be no consequences for false reports.
-
@DeathByGiggles said:
Hey everyone!
Thanks for leaving us your comments. Just to confirm, the autoban changes are not live yet. We will be announcing more details closer to the date they go live! This feature is still being developed, so please sit tight until we are able to share more info about this. ❤️
Why are you trying to reassure us by saying that it's not live yet instead of saying that it won't be abusable?
No one here is complaining because it's not live yet. Everyone here is worried that it will be abused and result in invalid bans.
-
@Laluzi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2215343#Comment_2215343
I'm going to be honest, I would have more faith in this if we didn't just get a chat filter that does a better job preventing people from using random words and discussing the match civilly than it does people from actually insulting each other. I have enough faith in BHVR to know they'd realize just counting reports and letting it smack people would be a bad, bad thing, but in practice... their last attempt at automating community behavior has me extremely nervous about the result.
Or the automated disconnect ban system that had to be disabled what, three times? four times? because people kept finding ways to exploit it and streamers kept getting banned by it despite not disconnecting.
-
@Reinami said:
The thing i'm most looking forward to is to get banned when i play killer because I:
- camped
- tunneled
- slugged
- 4ked
- downed a survivor
- used NOED
- used any perks at all
- Kicked a gen
- Moved at the start of the match.
Or when i play survivor because i:
- Use DS
- Use Dead hard
- Use a flashlight
- Save a teammate
- Use borrowed time
- Do a gen
- Escape with a key
- Use the hatch
- Pallet stun the killer
- And otherwise don't stand still and let the killer hook me.
Let's make a list of things that we were reported for (based on people in the chat telling you that they reported you)!
One time I was in a game with a speedhacker, as the Killer. The speedhacker was very clearly trying to farm the other Survivors. They ran in immediately after I hooked someone and unhooked them without Borrowed Time. All of the other three Survivors saw that the fourth Survivor was speedhacking. It was very, very obvious.
I managed to get a hit on the speedhacker as they were going for yet another unhook, and then actually managed to grab them out of a vault. I then facecamped them for obvious reasons.
The other three Survivors told me in the postgame chat to kill myself because I was camping and that they would report me. From what I could tell they were not in a SWF with the speedhacker.
Under the auto-ban system I would most likely get four reports from other players, and only I would be reporting the speedhacker. In that scenario I would be much more likely to be automatically banned than a speedhacker.
-
We know that the number of reports is so high that an automated system is needed.
This is also all the information we need to confirm that an auto-ban system is a terrible idea.
Let's assume that all (or most) of the reports being made are valid. That is, someone broke the game rules and was reported for it. In that case the person will be banned. If a valid report does not result in a ban then there is no need for a report system of any kind and we do not need an auto-ban system (or any report system for that matter).
A banned person can't be reported again until their ban expires. That means, even if you have a high value of reports, so high that you need an automated system, the number of valid reports will decrease as you work through them because players who break the rules are being banned which stops them from playing. The only way for the number of valid reports to stay the same or increase is if new players buy the game and immediately break the rules, which generates more valid reports.
Players who did not previously break the rules but start doing that will of course also be banned, so the number of "old" players who generate valid reports (= break the rules and get reported) will decrease over time.
Therefore, over time, the number of players breaking the rules will decrease, and that also means that the number of reports is going down to a level where you can handle the reports manually. However, this is not the case of there is a high / constant number of invalid reports.
In that case someone is handling the reports manually, banning people for valid reports, but the overall number of reports does not decrease significantly because players are making invalid reports.
That means: If there are too many reports to handle manually then a large amount of them must be invalid. If you now implement an auto-ban system then players will be banned based on invalid reports.
This is obviously a terrible idea.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
It's BHVR. It's going to be devoid of common sense, not work as intended, and lead to a ton of frustration. This seems so easily abusable. People report for slugging and camping, for crying out loud. There's no way this works.
Record all of your matches so when you inevitably get falsely banned you have a chance of contesting the ban.
This is a terrible idea.
You play a killer that Survivor players don't like? Reported.
You camp someone during the endgame? Reported.
You slug someone to go after someone else? Reported.
You unhook someone before another Survivor can? Reported.
You unhooked without Borrowed Time? Reported (by the Survivor).
You unhooked with Borrowed Time? Reported (by the Killer).
You use a certain perk that other players don't like? Reported.
You are a streamer? Believe it or not, reported.
-
Second code: AD800947-01A7-4DEF-81AD-40DDC501DE50
It works for me, first one does not.
-
@bubbabrotha said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2211015#Comment_2211015
The PTB comes out tomorrow.
Source for that claim please?
I haven't seen any official announcement that confirms this.
-
@Vicc said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2209259#Comment_2209259
Ask the devs for an option that allow to change the resolution in the game menu.
or
Turn crossplay off if you don't want face up to stretched's users.
Ask the devs for an option that allow to change the resolution in the game menu.
It's honestly ridiculous that the 5th anniversary is approaching and we have a resolution slider.
Why is it a slider? I honestly haven't seen any other game that doesn't have the standard resolution settings ,either with arrows or dropdown.
-
The mori nerf was was pushed into an unrelated hotfix because of the Twins shitstorm happening at the time. A mori nerf at a later time would have caused another shitstorm. They pushed it out when they did not because it took them that long to implement this change but to avoid having to deal with the outcry.