Valuetown
Valuetown
About
- Username
- Valuetown
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3968473#Comment_3968473
In order to disallow something, you have to be able to detect it. If BHVR announces a policy TODAY saying they dont allow tape on your monitor while playing Huntress... it doesnt really matter. It wouldn't affect anything. The only person who would be able to tell if the tape is there are ppl in your house.
3rd party programs to give a legitimate pixel calibrated crosshair and analog tape on a monitor are two completely different things.
-
@LockerLurk said:
Again, Killers can do this mentally or do an analog version of this with a sticky note anyway. I don't see the issue with this.
This is a major fallacy.
That would be like saying: well calculators are not allowed on this math test, but I could do these problems mentally or on paper if I really wanted to, so there should be no issue using a calculator.
Just because there's another way to accomplish the same thing, that doesn't automatically mean it's permitted under the EULA.
-
@olmighty said:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/0LLBOFHI9R88/untitled-3.png
Disclaimer: Posting it here because I'm not sure where to post it otherwise. Let me know if I should change the sub-forum.
Hello! I recently made an app to help DBD killers track the hook stages and possible DS timers. It works by visually monitoring survivors' statuses on the screen and then displaying them as an overlay.
No game files are modified. No memory is read. Doesn’t interact with DBD’s processes. It's just an overlay that analyzes HUD pixels. When it sees that the survivor is hooked, it adds a hook stage on the screen. When it sees that the survivor is unhooked, it adds a DS and off-hook Endurance timer on the screen.
I made it to make it easier:
- To NOT tunnel accidentally (I'm bad at remembering hook stages).
- To tunnel when I need to win the game.
- To counterplay survivors trying to use their off-hook endurance and DS aggressively when they defend other survivors.
I feel like this is something that the community would find useful, but I understand how this app enters this "gray" area of software, ethically speaking. And I don't want to contribute to something that BHVR claims is a cheat program.
For the same reason, I don't publish the link to the program on this forum.
Personally, I don't view it as cheating. Cheating is gaining an unfair advantage. This app provides a fair advantage - you're just organizing the already known information (hook stages, DS timers) on your screen. It doesn't tap into the game's memory or its processes. Strictly client-sided. Like a crosshair or Reshade, which BHVR already approve of.
An alternative to using this program is to make notes on hook stages and use timers manually. You will get the same result.
My question is addressed mainly to BHVR - what do you guys think of this? Does using this program comply with the EULA?
Let me know if you want me to share the GitHub link to the source code if this is what's needed.
This is most likely against the EULA, and backed up by the in game report system. This is a 3rd party tool used to gain an advantage. Yes keeping track of these in an automated way is an advantage.
Think of it this way: if consoles can't do it, it's against the EULA.
-
@Hex_Ignored said:
You can definitely put players into miserable games they don't want to be in and hold them there, but you can't make them try. They will instead look for other ways to get the match over quicker while avoiding penalties.
Everyone could see that this was going to happen since the underlying causes for miserable games have still not been fixed and no automated system will be able to differentiate bad plays from throwing on purpose without falsely banning innocents, which would be unacceptable.
The fact that people don't understand this absolutely blows my mind.
The average dbd match is a slog at best, absolutely miserable at worst. However, the issue isn't skin deep. The issue stems from almost an entire decade of technical debt, the refusal to modernize gameplay systems, etc. Essentially: the refusal to iterate on the formula, and the refusal to listen to the majority of negative feedback and to ACTUALLY respond to it in a timely manner.
I do believe that if a game's loop is solid, it won't have to be changed too much; however, in dbd's case, when adding more "modern" killers when the rest of the mechanics still reek of 2017, you're going to encounter a massive power imbalance. 95% of Games are won and lost in the first 60-90 seconds. The average dbd match is around 10 to 15 minutes. It makes sense why people find current dbd miserable when 90% of the match no longer matters if the first 10% did not go their way.
This game needs massive overhaul in every facet, but unfortunately it's more profitable to sell Sable, Mikaela, and Vittorio skins while also banking on the next resident evil dlc than actually fixing any of the issues in the game. This game still has massive potential, it just needs the effort put into it.
-
@terumisan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3963774#Comment_3963774
not really no but i'll double down and say yes. rules for the and not for me survivors are too strong and need nerfs anyway
Thanks for your opinion and your honesty. 👍️
-
@terumisan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3963198#Comment_3963198
noed spirit fury enduring combo (both by themselves are fine since with enduring you still have to break the pallet and spirit you still eat the stun) batteries fire up machine are second chance for killers in my eyes
lightborn is preventing it before it ever happens and if nobody brings a flashlight it's useless
knockout are we talking about pre or post rework knockout?
zanshin is the killer equivalent of Windows/maps if we get rid of all 3 that's fine
what does shadowborn do again?
So you're fine for killer second chance perks that give "rewards" but survivor ones by your own definition should be removed? I'm seeing some bias here.
-
@terumisan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3962964#Comment_3962964
second chance perks like ds and otr reward survivors for getting hooked since that's their activation conditions it's giving a beneficial effect for getting hooked which should be a detriment
I'd love to hear your opinion on noed, lightborn, enduring, spirit fury, batteries included, fire up, machine learning, knock out, shadowborn, and zanshin.
If you think having 10 seconds of endurance to prevent the killer from just farming you off hook is a reward despite being one hook closer from being eliminated, I don't know what to tell you.
-
@terumisan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3962721#Comment_3962721
why are survivors rewarded when getting hooked is supposed to be a bad thing?
What?
-
@SpringMyTrap said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3962599#Comment_3962599
do you understand the part about this effect having the same delay as basekit UB people like you are defending?
you are not going to stand over the guy for a minute unless multiple people are also hovering around, you will lose the game.
tunnelling like that is also hardly efficient when the guy can and will crawl under pallet to make as much distance as possible.
however they won't be able to abuse all of that because it will still cost them a stage.
If someone is not being hovered, the killer shouldn't be rewarded with a hook if the survivor wants to get off the ground. It's really that simple.
-
@SpringMyTrap said:
they can add basekit UB, but it's automatic and costs a hook stage for the survivor.
this way it can only be used to counter bleedout / all in snowballs and won't be weaponized otherwise because the benefits would hardly outweigh the cost.
it should take about 48-50 seconds and recovery needs to be possible while crawling.
when survivor is picked up, they get all the benefits from being unhooked - they get 10 seconds of endurance and haste and all post-unhook perks (like resurgence or OTR) are activated.
this way risk/reward would both be reduced - the killer doesnt get to keep survivor on the ground until they bleedout, but they would also get something if they are picked up by the system.
that would be fair and would be something both sides could play around without making slugging into a dead playstyle, it just would be an alternative to hooking, rather than a way to bypass hooking mechanics altogether.
Introducing endurance/haste/off the record/second wind just to justify giving the survivor a hook state is not the right way to do it. Most killers can quickly down a survivor after camping and tunneling, which is exactly what they'd be doing to the slugged survivor to justify giving the survivor unhook benefits after picking themselves up. You're punishing the survivor for a situation they literally cannot escape from.
There is no risk/reward for the killer. What risk is there when they can leave a survivor on the ground, not having to check for flashlight saves/pallet stuns/etc., not having to carry the survivor to a hook, just to be rewarded with a free hook state? What that they don't get their barbeque or pain res proc? So they'd just run surge instead of pain res and infectious fright?
-
@SpringMyTrap said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3962305#Comment_3962305
"how is it fun"
and how is it fun for killer to be punished for playing the game?
if you actually cared about fun, you wouldnt be against the suggestion I've made - basekit UB with a price which actually changes slugging into a two way dynamic that both sides can play around more.
but you dont, you just want killers nerfed even though they're objectively in balance or even underpowered even by devs' own standards.
that's why I dont want to have a discussion with you any further.
peace out
If the killer is slugging for more than a minute, it is no longer a good faith slug in 99 out of 100 cases. They are playing to spite a survivor.
Your solution wouldn't change anything because the killer is rewarded with a hook state by not hooking, and avoiding having to interact with an anti camp meter since you are still camping without the consequences.
I want boring and unfun strategies removed. Slugging has a place in this game, but not to the degree that you suggest.
You have refused to address the fact that it's the killer's choice to slug. They aren't being "punished" for anything. Just pick the survivor up and hook. It isn’t rocket science. It's actually their main objective.
-
@SpringMyTrap said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3962295#Comment_3962295
>If you have someone on the ground for 60 seconds, you no longer have earned the pressure.
no, i very much have, because i did enough to stop survivors from picking up the other guy. we can talk about how this can be improved to be more engaging, but as far as "earning goes", it's way more deserved than a free self pick up for existing.
>Nobody is punishing killer. It's allowing the survivor to actually have a chance at playing the game. It's only an issue if you slug the person on death hook for 32 seconds. Not sure in what situations you need to CONSTANTLY slug, but in general high MMR lobbies, it's not that long.
but you are factually punishing the killer. this only comes into play because killer got survivor on dead hook. the logical response to that is not hooking at all because if you will have to resort to slugging despite strategizing around hooking, you will be punished. might as well just not hook.
congratulations, you can apply to BHVR because you just did their job of implementing a solution aimed at solving the supposed problem that makes the problem ten times more common and only slightly less bad.
Don't really want to read or respond to anything after that, literally didnt even read. I heard enough from you to know this discussion will be a waste of my energy, have a nice day!
no, i very much have, because i did enough to stop survivors from picking up the other guy. we can talk about how this can be improved to be more engaging, but as far as "earning goes", it's way more deserved than a free self pick up for existing.
How is this fun for the person on the ground? Again, survivors are not playing this game to be fodder for your enjoyment. If you're proxy camping a slugged survivor, you are no longer "hooking" or "splitting hooks" or anything like that. You know at least one or two survivors will come running for the save. Getting free health states because the survivors want to give the slugged survivor a chance at actually playing the game is not fun for anyone but the killer. If nobody came to save that survivor, killers would then complain "oh I'm getting gen rushed, gens go too fast, nerf toolboxes!!!" The goalposts just keep moving. At the end of the day, some killer mains have undeserved MMR. Slugging for egregious lengths of time is one of the quickest ways to gain this undeserved MMR. MMR should be awarded for quick chases, great macro knowledge, good educated guesses based on perk usage; not "I slugged someone where's my 4k?"
but you are factually punishing the killer. this only comes into play because killer got survivor on dead hook. the logical response to that is not hooking at all because if you will have to resort to slugging despite strategizing around hooking, you will be punished. might as well just not hook.
Explain then: why don't killers feel punished in 2v8 because this mechanic exists there?
Don't really want to read or response to anything after that, literally didnt even read. I heard enough from you to know this discussion will be a waste of my energy, have a nice day!
If you didn't read my response, then how are you in good faith engaging in this conversation? 🤷
-
@SpringMyTrap said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3962273#Comment_3962273
>after 1 minute on the ground (restarts after being picked up by any means)
only if it costs a hook stage otherwise people can stall / crawl away and deny pressure by free self pick up.
this mechanic cannot be just a free UB, it must have an actual downside/be a double edged sword.
>always if on death hook
why are we punishing killers for hooking and, most importantly, for splitting hooks?
>If someone is slugged for that long, it's gone from "good faith snowball" to toxicity
or they just created a situation where killer doesnt have a choice - crawled away, sabo'ed, etc. I could act that this is toxic, but it really isnt, just how the game works and the actual bad faith would be to not take the good with the bad.
>Yes, I consider slugging everyone until all 4 survivors are on the ground toxic, and a relic of old dbd.
is playing twins inherently toxic?
>The only people who do this are either going out of their way to be toxic or are going for killer win streaks.
you're contradicting yourself unless you unironically want to say that people who play to win in a pvp game are "toxic" which is frankly ludicrous.
>If you cannot manage to do so within that time, the survivor should be able to pick themselves up.
If you cannot manage to not be picked up in time, you shoud blame yourself or your team for being too pressured, not ask for handouts
only if it costs a hook stage otherwise people can stall / crawl away and deny pressure by free self pick up.
If you have someone on the ground for 60 seconds, you no longer have earned the pressure.
why are we punishing killers for hooking and, most importantly, for splitting hooks?
Nobody is punishing killer. It's allowing the survivor to actually have a chance at playing the game. It's only an issue if you slug the person on death hook for 32 seconds. Not sure in what situations you need to CONSTANTLY slug, but in general high MMR lobbies, it's not that long.
or they just created a situation where killer doesnt have a choice - crawled away, sabo'ed, etc. I could act that this is toxic, but it really isnt, just how the game works and the actual bad faith would be to not take the good with the bad.
The max time a hook is sabotaged for is 45 seconds with addons. Besides, there are literally, at any given time, 3 hooks a killer can bring a survivor to upon picking up. That is current map design in a nutshell for you. A killer can travel almost 60 meters while carrying. At that point, it's a skill issue. If two or more survivors are going for sabos, you've won the game because nobody is doing gens. That's more slowdown than a 4 perk slowdown build.
is playing twins inherently toxic?
No. If you play twins like this, yes.
you're contradicting yourself unless you unironically want to say that people who play to win in a pvp game are "toxic" which is frankly ludicrous.
I've not contradicted myself at all. My stance is the same: vestige mechanics from old dbd when nobody knew how to play the game are currently being exploited by killer mains. If two people are on the ground at any given point in time in the match, the game is practically over for the survivors. A killer's win condition shouldn't be get two people slugged, or have someone downed in close proximity to a hooked survivor to win. There are so many auto win situations a killer can find themselves in, and it's time that the devs address these unfun scenarios.
If you cannot manage to not be picked up in time, you shoud blame yourself or your team for being too pressured, not ask for handouts
Again, here is another example of a killer main thinking every group of survivors is automatically a 4 man swf with a combined 20k hours instead of the actual situation: 2 solo queues and a duo queue.
-
@SpringMyTrap said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3962085#Comment_3962085
sabo, pallet/flashlight saves, the whole power struggle / boil over insanity, surv crawling out and hiding, most good faith snowball / slugging cases (organic caused by survivor misplays that arent misplays anymore thanks to the free UB or by killer's power like Oni/Plague).
if we want to have infinite UB, we must have basekit deerstalker and the things in bold text being deleted. until that happens, suggesting infinite UB is a ludicrous idea inviting disaster and resurrection of miserable bully squad gameplay because killers lose their ways of counteracting aggressive strategies or securing hooks from snowball.
The activation criteria I suggested was very clear: after 1 minute on the ground (restarts after being picked up by any means) or always if on death hook. If someone is slugged for that long, it's gone from "good faith snowball" to toxicity. Yes, I consider slugging everyone until all 4 survivors are on the ground toxic, and a relic of old dbd. The only people who do this are either going out of their way to be toxic or are going for killer win streaks. Either way, 60 seconds is ample time to try and snowball. If you cannot manage to do so within that time, the survivor should be able to pick themselves up.
-
@SpringMyTrap said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3961809#Comment_3961809
they shouldnt be able to get up for free.
there are a plenty of scenarios where survivor can crawl away or be part of a massive snowball and punish killer for playing the game correctly.
that would also not help making slugging less annoying to any meaningful degree, it's yet another massive buff to high level survivors and survivors' overall very high skill ceiling but not an improvement for people who just dont like spending time on the ground.
Why shouldn't they? I've yet to hear a good reason as to why not.
-
@SpringMyTrap said:
"follow our internal testing"
aka preemptive feedback from players who called out how bad the idea is going to be
I want to be positive about that, but why are we even having to deal with this in the first place, so many resources wasted on changes / things that get cancelled because they are terrible for the game
I mean we legitimately have 0 info on the anti slug mechanic. In my opinion, if someone is on the ground for 60 seconds or is on death hook, they should be able to get up. 1/4 of the bleed out timer or on death hook seems fine to the majority of people.
-
@MechWarrior3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3958173#Comment_3958173
Not exactly. You play 1 singular match out of 20, the last match of that 20 falls off. So forth and so on. When those matches that fall off where you dced for whatever given reason at the time. Your penalty will be less and less.
If you’re internet boots you frequently you should look into that before playing an online game though.While I agree that a good internet connection should be expected, in my opinion the devs have demonstrated that this does not matter to them. Why can a killer load up with 250+ ms ping? The "red ping" bar shows up at 200+ ms. Anyone who has played any online video game will tell you that ping 200+ ms is practically unplayable, yet the game is more than willing to start a match where only the killer has red ping. Shouldn't this be considered "bad internet" just as much as having random disconnects due to things outside of your control?
I would much rather play with someone who has way lower ping but a higher chance to disconnect versus someone who has a lower chance to disconnect but astronomically higher ping.
-
@Shroompy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3957469#Comment_3957469
Might be a culture thing considering I have never in my life heard some one say they're speak Quebecois. They just say they speak French. Never heard some one say they speak Australian, they just speak English.
Anyway this has nothing to do with DbD and has been a huge waste of time so, au revoir 👋
Just glad I could help educate you on language and anthropology! I hope you learned something! :)
-
@Shroompy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3957055#Comment_3957055
you do know that some one from Quebec and France can still easily hold a conversation right
Wait................ really?????? /s
I never said they couldn't. But to try and criticize, even as a poor joke, the original tweet because the poster DARED to call the dialect they spoke as the dialect itself makes no sense to me.
It's like calling every car, truck, sedan, coup, and crossover a "vehicle," and getting all bent out of shape because someone called a car a car and a truck a truck. 🤷♀️
-
@Rapid99 said:
For what? What does this accomplish other than anger your playerbase for zero reason?
You've got pretty much your peak playercounts of all time, and you decide "yea this game needs less anniversary cakes".
Why? Why are you treating bloodpoints like it some sort of ration in the apocalypse?
Fun detected.
Also the old and outdated "bloodpoint economy." Bloodpoints are the last carrot on a stick they have to retain players. Without it, they might actually have to balance their game and address the glaring issues plaguing current dbd.
-
@Shroompy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3957031#Comment_3957031
thanks for the history lesson, anyway.
Im not saying theyre identical, Im saying at the end of the day they are still the same language, just spoken slightly differently. Using myself as an example, just because Im Acadian doesnt mean I dont understand people from Quebec or France. As some one who speaks English as well, am I gonna say I speak Canadian? Or go to some one from the states and say they speak American? Of course not, because that sounds stupid. Just call it English and get it over with.
To use that family analogy of yours as well. They may not be identical, but they all share the same blood and name.
I hear people say American English and Australian English all the time. The problem with your statement about Canadian English is that it has very little difference with just normal British English, as does normal American English. The more the dialect influences the language, the more it can be called just the dialect. If the vocabulary is more than just one or two slang words every few sentences and you really need to know the lingo to understand the sentences, yeah I'd say you can just call it as the dialect.
Regarding my family analogy, they have a first name for a reason. You don't call your siblings by their last name, you use their first name. You know, the name that is personal to them?
-
@Shroompy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3956973#Comment_3956973
Ok, but do you point to them saying theyre speaking Australian?
Yes. And further to the point, Canada hasn't been a part of France since 1763. Britain didn't travel to Australia until 1788. I say this because Canada not only had longer to distinguish its dialect from France for longer, but it is being intertwined with English, which is exactly what that dialect of French is. Are you and your siblings always identical just because you have the same parents?
-
@Shroompy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3956955#Comment_3956955
I mean its just a different dialect. I myself am Acadien which is still very distinct compared to Quebecois despite both cultures being in neighbouring provinces. But in the end, its still french.
Australian English is still English but good luck understanding an Australian dialect and all the slang they use in practically every sentence if you are a standard English as a second language learner.
-
@Drunkenmunky said:
Maybe do something about the hacking first.
Unlike most of of the "Oh, i'm so great at the game" garbage; I'm very average.
My stats are below 60 and 40.
Yet I have over 1000 hours (cuz the stats are broken) and 3k on steam.
I have an actual job. I'm not wasting my time if it's obvious the killer or jerk teammates are wasting m time.
I don't care about winning, I care about earning BP. If you're preventing that, you are the problem.
Ugh… This discussion has be done do death, yet, it seems to escape people that outside of earning BP you don't earn anything.
There's no actual leaderboard for the best of all killers or survivors.
A 5 min or 15 min penalty means nothing to a me. I'd rather do something else anyway than deal with a try hard/cheater.
I'd rather not get into that can of worms.
There is a current pandemic afflicting this game. Try hards.
I play for the progression; and really, the new system sucks. Tomes are difficult but the new quest system gives less rewards over a longer period.
I play less now. Quests are too easy. And it way to try hard on both sides.At a certain point, bloodpoint farming is useless. Not every player cares about having 10 p100s. Most players that have been playing for years have stockpiles of every item or addon that they'll ever use. Most players who are veterans at this game have p3 on all killers and survivors, so perk unlocks are a non issue. Every new DLC, I just dump 3.5 million per new character and then the DLC is over pretty much. That's all it takes to unlock p3.
My honest opinion is that bloodpoints are a vestige of old dbd. It is a useless system and should have been removed a long time ago. It is the only carrot on a stick incentive for people to log in anymore, when in reality, bloodpoints should be renamed to chore-points. It's funny because the people who insist on bloodpoint farming are usually the ones throwing matches that are completely winnable, prioritizing cleansing a dull totem over doing the last gen because they "don't have enough boldness points."
-
@ImWinston said:
- This game LOVES sending me to this map, and i dont understand why. Today i played 6 games (all as survivor) and the game gave me the same map 3 times. NO OFFERS, the "map repeat prevention" system just doesnt work. It hasn't been working for a while, and some maps (in my opinion) have more chances of coming out than others. The system's favorites are D&D map, RPD map (I personally love it), Alien map and Yamaoka map. I haven't been on Ormond in weeks. Have you noticed the same trend?
Notice how all the maps you listed are licensed maps?
In my opinion, they have some special deal in the license agreement where these maps have higher chances so they can "advertise" to get players to buy the dlcs if they don't have them already. Nothing like being on RPD for the 4th time within 8 matches with no map offerings.
-
@AhoyWolf said:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/QC2SDXCWV98J/huh.png
There is not a single word in the Perk's description with the word "boon" in it, and the perk doesn't affect blessing speeds afaik.
A few theories:
- On top of the descriptions for perks, each perk has key word tags assigned to them. Maybe boon is incorrectly assigned to counterforce.
- The search filter doesn't search the actual perk text, but a hidden "description" of the perk which matches the perk text exactly (in theory). Maybe in development the perk also gave a bonus to boon speeds, but was removed before the PTB and subsequent live release.
I did a quick experiment in game, thinking that maybe counterforce wouldn't show the auras of boon totems, but it actually overrides the boon aura to show the counterforce aura. Maybe there's something in that hidden description that says "overrides boon auras."
-
@Feather said:
Am i the only one that experiences that?
Day 69 (b4 spring trap)
Games good. Getting 4k without problems, sometimes 1 or 2 escapes. No need to use gen slow down. I'll play huntress with aura build like a giga chad i am
Day 420 (during anniversary)
HOLY F… ENTITY. Getting 4 hooks before gates are powered is a miracle. Survivours started to use brain and they split on gens, doesnt heal or anything, they worry bout those things when they escape. No need to use gen regressing perks, they are to slow. End game perks and maybe i will have a chance
Day 2137 (far future)
Survivours now carry gens on their shoulders and repair them in chase. While on hook they fish out items that can help them repair in the future. Pallets are on wheels and they follow survivours. No perks nor meta killers can help.Is there an actual complaint here or are we engaging in some hyperbolic fantasy because someone lost an event match?
-
@MoZo said:
I thought this would’ve gotten fixed by now but it’s not. I only get 1 maybe 2 event nodes in my p100 bloodweb as survivor or killer when i should be getting like 4-5 event nodes in the lvl 50/p100 bloodweb. if any dev reads this, please tell the team about this because this sucks not being able to grind cakes on my main :(
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/BZA01ZSUX4ZN/ff951c3b-be2d-4651-8ab2-ab971bb1ecaa.png
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/X7QOH15X41G5/3878a93f-af57-4402-8359-4cf1c518f84c.png
My first post was this very issue... two years ago. At this point there has to be way more P100s to raise concerns about this.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3950858#Comment_3950858
That might very well be the case. I think it is pretty much impossible to claim any state of DBD after 6.1.0 is somehow close to the most balanced or healthiest state ever.
Balance has to go both ways. If the killer side is better and survivors are worse, then it isn't balanced. And I think the survivor experience has been getting gradually worse since 6.1.0
Killer design is largely to blame, yes. Mobility powers should have been handled carefully, and we shouldn't have as many anti-loop killers as we currently do.
I completely agree with your entire post. I see way too often that advocating for anything in the survivors' favor is seen as completely anti killer, when that is absolutely not the case. I'm not advocating for 1.0.0 brand new parts, 60 second generators, or double window shack. Asking for slight nerfs or tweaks on statistically overperforming killers/perks/addons is in the best interest of the health of the game.
-
@GeneralV said:
I disagree with what has been said in the post, especially when it comes to gen speeds because gens definitely aren't flying in the current meta (I wish they were though, seeing your gen get blocked by Grim Embrace or DMS over and over again is not fun). But I think the perspective here is interesting.
And it is interesting because a couple years ago (around 2021), in these very Forums, it was not rare for you to see the following line:
"DBD's current state is the most balanced / healthiest it has ever been"That was said EVERY DAY and repeated so often during such different eras of the game that it basically lost its meaning. But interestingly enough, you don't see it anymore. At least in recent discussions I've seen it, like, twice.
Seems to me the problems players have with the game are pointed out more often. That is a good thing, I suppose.
I've come to interpret "healthiest state" to mean the killer side feels the most fun while the survivor side feels like hell on earth. I sure love being 75% on a generator for it to be hit by surge, then pain res, then dead man's, then grim embrace.
Once Pandora's box was opened with hyper mobility killers like blight and also with killer powers that are 5 paragraph essays, this game became impossible to balance.
If you balance the game around trapper, blight mains can get 2k+ win streaks. If you balance the game around blight, trapper can't get more than a 2k. Unfortunately we've balanced the game around weaker killers and low skilled players, so "healthiest it's ever been" is now: "play any killer B tier and above, and you'll have practically guaranteed success while turning your brain off until you hit extremely high MMR."
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3949513#Comment_3949513
What you are bring forward is what can be considered as edge cases. You cannot expect perfect sync between players over vast distances. Even two players in the same neighborhood won't experience it.
Many PvP shooters are great examples of this. You get "shot" but were clearly behind a wall. Well you weren't behind the wall to the other player. The servers job is to validate that hit took place given the infomation at that time based on latency. If it didn't work this way then every killer would have to swing where the survivor should be in 100ms. Survivors would need to be making adjustments based on where the killer could be.
Until we are able to open wormholes between our PC, it's going to look off to someone.
Fighting games have rollback logic. It's not that difficult to implement. This isn't like an FPS that requires the hit to be resolved in 0.02 seconds or the enemy will have a chance, the killer is the only one who has any capability of downing survivors.
-
@Archael said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3949312#Comment_3949312
Oh, it also depends on killer I play.
As cenobite I really rarely kill someone. I extends the trial, but hooks twice tops. Then it's just extended suffering, with lot of chains and whips.
As Nemesis I almost never allow STARS live.
As Weaker I almost never kill Ada.
As Demo I almost never allow anyone to escape.
But it's also affected by other factors, and my Mood don't determine what killer I choose. So I might have... All kill mood, but choose Weaker, got Ada and never ever hooked her. Unless I got a Challange to kill all four… Its complicated :X
But yeah. I think everyone should play like they like. Yes, killer is power role here, but killer too have right to choose how they play.
It's debatable if killer has the right to choose how they play, especially if it breaks the rules (teaming and holding the game hostage), but regardless, that doesn't mean the survivors have to like or even entertain your playstyle, even if it's within the bounds of the rules. If your playstyle is unpopular and you don't want to hear complaints, you'll have to hide the in game chat and not interact with the survivors to avoid that. It's unfortunate that it has to be that way, but that's just the reality.
In regards of your Ada/Wesker etc. interactions, some survivors like preferential treatment, but others find it either boring or consider it game stalling if you want to treat them special. They did queue up to play, and some people consider farm games a waste of time.
Ultimately, just be aware that there are multiple play styles that exist, and because there's no separate ranked and casual playlists, there are many incompatible playstyles that would cause people to get frustrated if they get into the same lobby.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948182#Comment_3948182
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"??
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 [go next] 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!
-
@Skillfulstone said:
It's insane & incredible how this thread as evolved (or devolved?) into a battle between @Valuetown and @Emeal that everyone else is just spectating, finding the argument much more entertaining than the already-answered topic.
😅😅😅
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.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948142#Comment_3948142
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.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…
-
@Emeal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948112#Comment_3948112
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.
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.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948049#Comment_3948049
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.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.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948004#Comment_3948004
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?
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?
-
@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
Make sure to hydrate! I'm sure you've had a lot of popcorn by now 😂
-
@Emeal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947953#Comment_3947953
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.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.
@Emeal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947898#Comment_3947898
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.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/NXBSSNGD5GW9/image.png
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 pissed 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.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/XSN1VW41M8I9/image.png
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.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.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947898#Comment_3947898
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?
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.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947547#Comment_3947547
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.
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.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947511#Comment_3947511
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.
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? 🤔
-
@Emeal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947494#Comment_3947494
I think we are done, you are beyond saying 'nuh uh' right now.
We clearly are, since you won't in good faith engage with the data the community has provided. Especially when your first contribution to this thread was accusing a new player that they were creating "theater" because they felt bad they lost.
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.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947430#Comment_3947430
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?
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. 🤷♀️
-
@Emeal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947234#Comment_3947234
It's like Ampersand already said: there's healthy skepticism and unhealthy skepticism. This is the oddest hill for you to plant your flag down on to defend with such misplaced energy.
I already responded to Ampersand, they are wrong. What they say I could have reasoned, they have not said what I should have reasoned it from. I am also sorry, you think this is "a hill im planting my flag on" im simply answering your questions honestly, but my guess is you really have it in your head that I think everyone is lying and out to get me, I don't.
I know what burden of proof is. You seem to think it's up to everyone else, after proof has been shown to BHVR that the system is false banning people, to prove to you that your claim is incorrect. That's not how the burden of proof works.
Burden of proof is on who makes a claim, I commented about the video and Hex_Ignored and CrypticGirl said I should take heed because it would eventually lead to bans, so I asked them to provide a source, they did not provide that at first.
Burden of Proof is not pretend someone made a claim and then press them for evidence. You dont understand it.
I'm simply trying to find out the reason as to why you think everyone is intentionally lying to you.
I literally don't believe this, I have stated this to you so many times now. Why do you keep pushing it?
You are missing the point. Those 777 people made the claim, and BHVR took action because they saw evidence to corroborate those claims. There are at least 10+ threads that exist on the forums in the past 2 days where people are showing the system working erroneously before the system took action on them. The burden of proof is not on me to disprove your claim of it not happening when it has already been proven
Sure, but I don't have the evidence or the reasons BHVR has. I don't know if they did it because of the bans, the de-grades or DC penalties. Ill grant you they had a reason, but they dont tell us why exactly. That is besides the point, if a million people told me to jump off a bridge, I would still not do it. Numbers has nothing to do with this, only evidence.
If you aren't claiming anyone is making a false claim, then why do you not take all these people for their word? Like people have said before, why be unnecessarily skeptical when there is legitimately nothing to gain from saying "I've been falsely banned by the system?"
I don't see why would I take anyone for their word and I don't think its unnecessary to just ask where they know things from.
I already argued the many benefits of doing soI 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.
Not if I already believed I had read the patch notes.
They wouldn't disable a system that only confuses. They keep erroneous perk descriptions, killer descriptions, etc. in the game until the next patch cycle to fix them. If this system did not have the ability to ban people, they would have issued a message in game, like they did when they announced the hotfix for pc, saying to not take the message seriously and that it will be fixed in the next patch.
The system also de-grades maybe that is the reason.
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.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947179#Comment_3947179
We are talking about dead by daylight, a video game. You're approaching this like some groundbreaking scientific discovery just disproved gravity and you're performing the scientific method to verify it.
It isnt the "scientific method" to be just the slightest bit skeptical of what you hear online, Science has even more requirements.
Why would I not be skeptical about what people are saying about a Videogame too?My understanding of your own words based on this conversation is that you believe that this DC penalty issue was "cooked up by the dbd community," essentially calling them bad faith liars, so you want proof because you believe 100+ people and a now disabled system are all lying to you.
You don't seem to know what Burden of Proof is and why its important to have that proof, I explained it to you very thoroughly I might add why its beneficial to verify what you hear. Even if you find Dead by Daylight unimportant, and would believe whatever you hear about it, I'd rather not so its my choice like I said to sift through these claims. You do you.
I also explained very thoroughly that asking for evidence isn't about calling someone a liar, its like you didn't want to believe me when I honestly said I dont assume they lie, they could be, but I dont think they do. If its because I blurted that line about: "cooked up by the dbd community," ??? because you do seem to fixate on it.
So I go back to my original point: do you sincerely think that all these people are lying to you?
What would they get out of that?No, I don't believe that, but that doesn't change that I want to approach skeptically to it.
It would be one thing if it was one or two people who are claiming this because then I'd understand, but in reality it's been a significant amount of the community and BHVR has already taken action and disabled the system.
To me it doesn't matter if one person or a 1000 make a claim, same procedure for me. I dont go:
"Oh well you reached the threshold for 777 people, now I don't need to ask you for evidence anymore."Do not morally grandstand about media literacy when you didn't even read the patch notes before coming here begging for sources. Someone with such ostensible high media literacy should have instinctively done that before even entering this thread putting the burden of proof of your claim that this ubiquitous false flagging problem isn't happening on everyone else.
You call it a moral grandstand, I just told you why I asked. I did not claim that anyone was making a false claim, you cant pin it on me. Also I did read the patch notes, I just don't remember every detail from it. Sorry. I don't have perfect memory.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947192#Comment_3947192
Because it produces false-positives. I already agreed this was the case. So ofc they would disable a system that confuses.
But now we all know it also CAN give you a DC Penalty, and we ASSUME this can give a Game Ban eventually.It's like Ampersand already said: there's healthy skepticism and unhealthy skepticism. This is the oddest hill for you to plant your flag down on to defend with such misplaced energy.
You don't seem to know what Burden of Proof is
I know what burden of proof is. You seem to think it's up to everyone else, after proof has been shown to BHVR that the system is false banning people, to prove to you that your claim is incorrect. That's not how the burden of proof works.
If its because I blurted that line about: "cooked up by the dbd community," ??? because you do seem to fixate on it.
I'm simply trying to find out the reason as to why you think everyone is intentionally lying to you.
To me it doesn't matter if one person or a 1000 make a claim, same procedure for me. I dont go:
"Oh well you reached the threshold for 777 people, now I don't need to ask you for evidence anymore."
You are missing the point. Those 777 people made the claim, and BHVR took action because they saw evidence to corroborate those claims. There are at least 10+ threads that exist on the forums in the past 2 days where people are showing the system working erroneously before the system took action on them. The burden of proof is not on me to disprove your claim of it not happening when it has already been proven.
You call it a moral grandstand, I just told you why I asked. I did not claim that anyone was making a false claim, you cant pin it on me. Also I did read the patch notes, I just don't remember every detail from it. Sorry. I don't have perfect memory.
If you aren't claiming anyone is making a false claim, then why do you not take all these people for their word? Like people have said before, why be unnecessarily skeptical when there is legitimately nothing to gain from saying "I've been falsely banned by the system?" If you're receiving conflicting information, I would assume the first logical step would be to double check the patch notes which describe the new system just in case information was forgotten or overlooked.
Because it produces false-positives. I already agreed this was the case. So ofc they would disable a system that confuses.
They wouldn't disable a system that only confuses. They keep erroneous perk descriptions, killer descriptions, etc. in the game until the next patch cycle to fix them. If this system did not have the ability to ban people, they would have issued a message in game, like they did when they announced the hotfix for pc, saying to not take the message seriously and that it will be fixed in the next patch.
I cannot connect the dots for you, I'm sorry.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947161#Comment_3947161
But I didn't have the data to conclude that, I had no proof the system would do a DC Penalty.
You may have forgotten that Hex_Ignored gave me the correct information, I was not under the impression that the system could take the next step. I had no data to assume there even was a next step, but even so I did ask for it so that isn't unhealthy skepticism. I only thought there was a warning, because of all things that was the one we could see.How do you reason that I could reason that the Go Next Prevention was tied to the DC Penalties if I never saw a DC Penalty.
Literally didn't see the first step as a step, then how can I see it as a step. It doesn't make sense my friend.Why would they disable a system that would only warn people instead of banning them?
-
@Emeal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947134#Comment_3947134
Which is it? Either you just want the source or you want the source because the dbd community often lies. I ask again, which is it?
Both, Its not either or. Wanting a source for has many benefits, It helps them judge whether the claim is based on solid evidence or just opinion. I want the source because I care about knowing how someone knows something not because I assume people lie, but because humans can be mistaken, biased, or misinformed (even without meaning to).
It’s not necessarily about accusing anyone of lying, though its very beneficial to do that. Its about making sure a claim is grounded in reliable evidence rather than just trusting words & opinion alone. My goal is to be the least mistaken, biased or misinformed person I can be and not about just avoiding "community drama".
If you dont understand me, I don't expect everyone to and we should not get off topic, Try researching these keywords on Wikipedia: Skepticism, Empiricism, Epistemology, Critical thinking, Burden of proof.
Fascinating stuff really re-shapes your brain and approach to Information.
We are talking about dead by daylight, a video game. You're approaching this like some groundbreaking scientific discovery just disproved gravity and you're performing the scientific method to verify it. My understanding of your own words based on this conversation is that you believe that this DC penalty issue was "cooked up by the dbd community," essentially calling them bad faith liars, so you want proof because you believe 100+ people and a now disabled system are all lying to you. It would be one thing if it was one or two people who are claiming this because then I'd understand, but in reality it's been a significant amount of the community and BHVR has already taken action and disabled the system. So I go back to my original point: do you sincerely think that all these people are lying to you? What would they get out of that?
Do not morally grandstand about media literacy when you didn't even read the patch notes before coming here begging for sources. Someone with such ostensible high media literacy should have instinctively done that before even entering this thread putting the burden of proof of your claim that this ubiquitous false flagging problem isn't happening on everyone else.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947112#Comment_3947112
The reason for why I did take the patch notes for what they said, was because that was from the people who made it.
Even if the system was malfunctioning that would be a separate issue and that would not make what you say or what others say is happening true, I mean no offence ofc. Thing just is people rarely provide a source for their claims.But I should have checked the patch notes, instead I watched the video because people kept saying, "oh its in the video, its in the video" and the video just shows a warning that is all. Even searching on reddit, have not seen a single video of a DC penalty or a ban being issued. We can enjoy the benefit of hindsight now ofc.
But It did not help when you told me I was not engaging with the data and I watched the video 4 times.
and to be clear, When I ask for evidence it does not mean I'm saying it does not happen or it cant happen. I am merely asking for evidence, because that is what evidence-based empirical attitude requires. Its about showing how you know something, like the match teacher asked you to do, but for beliefs, truth and claims.
Why do that? Well, the DBD community cooks up falsehoods regularly, humans being humans, so it comes in handy to question where people get the information they say to me from. It really isn't a pedantic debate-tactic as you described it as, just asking where you got it.
Anyway, Good luck out there.
I dont think you are lying or in a conspiracy, you probably just don't care about having evidence for your beliefs, so you saw videos about it and assumed what you heard was correct. You are certainly unskeptical and you SHOULD be concerned about the lack of evidence being provided here.
Why do that? Well, the DBD community cooks up falsehoods regularly, humans being humans, so it comes in handy to question where people get the information they say to me from.
Which is it? Either you just want the source or you want the source because the dbd community often lies. I ask again, which is it?
Thing just is people rarely provide a source for their claims.
That's because when people share their experiences, often times they don't have receipts on everything that happens to them in their life. Not everyone is screen recording every second they're on their computer or console, nor would they feel that the onus is on them to screenshot a ban warning or actual issued ban to share it with the world so that people who are too concerned with "dbd community drama" can say with 100% certainty that it's happening, instead of trusting the hundreds of people and a major content creator when they claim it's happening to them.