ManWithNoName
ManWithNoName
About
- Username
- ManWithNoName
- Joined
- Visits
- 48
- Last Active
Comments
-
@CornMoss said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1099262#Comment_1099262
I get it's annoying to grind but they make it like that so it encourages people to want to buy their product and make money. If I were BHVR I would never give away killers n survivors for free, only some like how they did
You realize he isn't saying giving them away for good. He's saying like a trial period. If you're going to spend money on the game you might as well know, hey I actually like the way this killer plays vs well dropped some money on it and crap I hate it and now I'm screwed.
@maximizer12 said:
Have some weekends be double bloodpoints, once a new moon double shards. Maybe once a month unlock a killer and their survivor for free during the weekend. Of course remove teachable perks but so that people can try killers/survivors they never bought and maybe have some more people join the game with a free weekend. God does this game need more notable events other than halloween, christmas, and chinese new years. Spice it up ya know?
Wait there was a Halloween event? Thought that was Thanksgiving.... or maybe my reality is confused with BHVR's "reality" of a calendar year.
-
Technically you're right. The game should specifically lay out what is acceptable and not acceptable. You shouldn't be banned for something you didn't know wasn't acceptable.
The response: It's "common sense" wouldn't fly in court. Nor would... it's your duty to search our streams, forums, and anything else related to us to find out what is okay or not. It should be clearly listed in the game and you shouldn't have to reject the terms to be able to see the terms and conditions against in the game.
The questionably binding EULA states:
"Improperly use web support or complaint buttons or make false reports to BHVR staff
So yes, the Rules of Conduct state don't report too often. No where in the rules does it say don't DC too often.
"Your online conduct should be guided by common sense and respect for others who access and use the Website"
This term is vague and confusing as it refers to the Website and not the game. Moreover "common sense" is vague and conflicting with the fact a "disconnect" button exists in the game so it would seem to be common sense to disconnect if you aren't enjoying the match. It is also poor legal drafting to switch to the term Website here and essentially limit this condition to only the Website when the initial portion of the Rule said it applied to the Website and any BHVR Service. However, as this condition mentions only the Website, I'd say by the way it is drafted it means the Website.
"Interfere with the ability of others to enjoy playing a BHVR Service or take actions that interfere with or materially increase the cost to provide a BHVR Service for the enjoyment of all its users."
Maybe disconnecting interferes with a killer's enjoyment of their sadistic enjoyment of hanging someone. But on the other hand, a survivor completing a generator interferes with the killer's enjoyment also... and a killer hanging someone interferes with a survivor's enjoyment of escaping. Being that the disconnect button was built into the game and there's nothing saying you can't use it or get banned in the game or in the tutorials; then why should that be considered any different than any other game-related interference of enjoyment? This condition is so vaguely drafted it's enforceable.
Additionally, simply by posting here about any complaint of the game (like pointing out their deficiency of adequately laying out the bannable offenses in-game) could be considering increasing the cost of BHVR to provide a service since they have to rely on people to monitor the forums. Then again maybe they just use free mods that enforce rules inconsistently.
"This above-referenced list of prohibitions only provides examples of unacceptable conduct and is not intended to be a complete or exclusive list of prohibited conduct."
This is their cover-all condition, yet it is also unenforceable. Simply saying essentially here's our rules but if we have some other rule we want to invent, but not really tell you about we'll do what we want.
There used to be a segment on the radio when I grew up where you tried to stump the sports radio guys with sports questions. They called it Ask Dr. Stupid. Rule #1 "We make the rules." Rule #2 "See Rule Number 1". Plenty of people called in and got frustrated when the radio hosts would ask 20 questions to get clues and get the answer so they didn't have to give out the prize. Essentially here, it's the same thing. If they don't like something you do they'll do whatever they want to you as they make the rules, change the rules as they see fit, and arbitrarily enforce them.
-
Seems to be a bit of double speak here now compared to what has been said before. Not only that but why would you wait until much later to send a ban wave? It seems like a rather ill-conceived idea.
If you do something wrong, you need to be punished immediately for it to have any effect. Countless social and criminology studies have shown this. It's why the death penalty has no deterrent effect because its effect is felt 20-30 years later. If you just wait and wait and have some random ban wave based on whatever arbitrary numbers you came up with, you accomplish nothing other than reducing your player base and own potential profits which would be ironic and frankly quite amusing.
If you do something for it to have any deterrent effect there needs to be swift and certain justice. Ex. you DC, you get a 2 minute time out or lose 5,000 blood points or shard etc etc. But DC'ing and then a month or two later being banned, that will accomplish nothing and people that get caught in a ban wave like that would likely not care and just move on to some other game rather than waiting for a temp ban to wear off.