Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
@BHVR - Stop calling it "Body Blocking"
Comments
-
What you’ve described as soft locking isnt actually bannable unless they’re the last survivor and egc hasn’t triggered. Lets say I soft lock a survivor in the corner. There are 3 other survivors who can do gens, open the door (triggering the egc), and leave. Then the trapped survivor dies to egc. The game still has a path of progress to end for all players
0 -
I think it is a good idea.
0 -
Dude I'm just throwing out a term that makes the most sense. "Soft lock" is when you can't play the game but the game continues to function, as opposed to a "hard lock" where the game just ceases to work.
The entire point of this thread is to say "we need a specific word for this action that is bannable" because calling it "body blocking" is not working.
And it doesn't matter if body blocking is part of the definition of a soft lock, because a soft lock is a specific kind of body blocking. Again refer to my manslaughter V murder explanation. The difference is subtle but VERY important. If I use the term "body blocking" to describe a soft lock that doesn't mean it's acceptable to call it a body block, because it's not that. It's a certain type of that. Same with holding the game hostage as there are several ways that can be done. Therefore soft lock is a combination of body block and holding the game hostage. It's not immediately meant to be considered body blocking, it's meant to deter people from using the words "body block" in the context of a bannable offense, because those words can refer to several things.
And I mention we could add the word "intentional" or "malicious" in front of soft lock to distinguish it from soft lock bugs where no one is at fault. If you get stuck in a locker, me as killer is not responsible for that and therefore you can't report me. If I stand so that when you exit the locker you can't move, THAT is what is bannable.
We are going in circles here. You are looking way to hard at this for a reason to not use a new term when the reason to use a new term is simple; SPECIFICITY. That is all I have left to say.
"A survivor holding another survivor in the corner for example is classed as Body Blocking, this would be punishable as they are preventing active gameplay, they are not however taking the game hostage cos the game can still end due to EndGame Collapse." - MandyTalk (see above)
So even if the game can end, the act of preventing another player from playing the game is still bannable. If you do it for 10 seconds you're not really impeding someone's ability to play the game. If you do it for 10 minutes though, then you definitely are.
I picked "soft lock" because it most accurately describes the situation, and doesn't use the words "body block" because in doing so you just create confusion. It needs it's own term.
If any of you have a better term please post it. Otherwise stop with the "it's not REAL soft locking" stuff because it doesn't do anything to solve the underlying issue.
0 -
I don't think you are reading what I said.
I understand completely what you are trying to do and i gave my opinion on why I don't see it making any difference as you still have to rely on people being informed.
The main reason you want it is so people understand what is bannable and my argument is people can understand what is bannable right now regardless of the name they just don't bother to read the rules.
As I said earlier the problem isn't the actual term used but the players not knowing the rules. What make a you think changing the name would change that?
You could call it a flugelbinder but if someone doesn't know the rules they won't know what you are referring too without explaining it.
0 -
Why can't we just call it "body blocking a survivor"? That covers both instances in which body blocking is bannable - as a killer against survivors, and as a survivor against other survivors, while eliminating the instance in which it is never bannable - as a survivor against the killer.
If time is an issue, it could just say "body blocking a survivor for an extended length of time" or something.
0 -
If someone doesn't know the rules, and a term is used to describe multiple situations, they will ASSUME that all those situations are bannable. Hence why we have so often explain to people the difference between this body blocking and that body blocking, and why even when presented with these arguments people still say "well the rules say body blocking so both are reportable".
If someone doesn't know the rules, and these things have different terms, they won't assume the permitted action is also bannable. It's a separate thing. You can't say "well the rules say this" because the rules have a specific term for the bannable action.
The problem is not with the people that read and understand the rules, it's with EVERYONE ELSE. Do you see now?
Because that's the exact problem!
You say "killer is body blocking me" is not specific enough. Is it the permitted form or the banned form?
But then you say "killer is soft locking me" that IS the specific term for the bannable form of body blocking. You wouldn't use this term EXCEPT to refer to an instance when what the other player is doing can be reported.
Sorry but this is really triggering that you guys can't seem to understand this very very simple concept. Explain to me exactly what we lose by giving it a different term? People will have to look at the rules either way if they do not understand it completely. All we are doing here is avoiding the issue of people assuming the rules because the terms are vague.
If I go to McD's and just order "a burger" that is so incredibly vague it could be like 10 different items on the menu. But if I say "Big Mac" they know exactly what I want. No assumptions needed.
0 -
Lol no. If a full body is BLOCKING ME and I cannot move.... I’m being “BLOCKED”.... end of story
0 -
I get what you are to saying i just dont agree with it and my opinion won't change.
What I see is you cant explain what a soft lock is without saying its body blocking to the vast majority of players. That in turn leads to players who don't know the rules still having to be told the differnences between body blocking a hook and body blocking to keeping someone of a corner for a prolonged period.
The issue is body blocking is the term which had been used for years. Without the explanation referring to what people know it means nothing so my opinion is its a pointless change now. I feel most would think you are implying something else if you said it which means we are as it is now and it still needs to be explained.
1 -
It's body blocking bro.
0 -
I didn't realise you were so committed to "soft lock". I thought you were just suggesting that a different term be used because "body blocking" is too vague (which I'm pretty sure everyone here agrees with, at least in principle). So I was just suggesting an alternate phrase that perhaps we could all agree on, since as others have already pointed out, "soft locking" may not be the ideal phrase to use.
0 -
I don't see why it matters that you have to explain soft locking as a form of body blocking. The specific type that is bannable.
If I have 2 sports cars, and one is a Porsche, I still have to use the term "sports car" to describe them both. But I only use the word "Porsche" to describe a specific one.
It's pretty simple. If you body block such that the player can't play the game it's a soft lock. If they can still play, it's just a regular body block. One is bannable the other is not. You don't need to explain this to people that have been playing the game because they know, only now they just have to start using a new term for this specific type of bannable body blocking.
And there is a point to change it now because people still argue over what is and is not bannable body blocking, and the game is still gaining new players.
Also technically speaking, a survivor body blocking a killer carrying a survivor or an injured survivor is a "protection hit". But the need for a specific term is less necessary here because it's allowed. The only kind of body blocking terminology that actually matters is the kind that is bannable; soft locking.
I'm not, but you can't just append the word/phrase to include more words. This is basically how the rule is written currently which is the problem in the first place. If you want to give an entirely unique term, go for it. But calling it "body blocking with extra steps" is proven to not work.
0 -
Yes but if both cars are a porche and you always refer to them as a porche then suddenly you say my 911 (assuming the person doesn't know anything about porche models) then they don't have a clue what you are referring too unless you explain it.
Once the current system is explained people also know. That is what I am saying changing the name doesn't stop the questions or change how its perceived when they both mean the same act body blocking just with differnet stipulations so unless someone has to have knowledge of the rules in the first place.
0 -
Which you explain as "this specific model of Porsche, see how it's different". Now when you say 911 people know exactly which you are referring, and if you always refer to it as the 911 then say Porsche people will know you likely don't mean the 911.
If we begin to refer to bannable body blocking as "soft lock" or whatever else we come up with, then when someone that DOES NOT know the rules hears it they won't conflate it with normal body blocking.
Therefore I can be in a conversation with someone and say "I will body block for you" then later say "killer soft locked me" and they won't assume the first is also the second. But if you use "body block" for both, well now in the second part the person that doesn't know the rules will be confused because apparently one is okay and one is not, they will assume both are not okay.
This is how people think man. I did behavioral research during my capstone in college. Splitting the terms this way would make a significant difference in understanding of the circumstances for most people.
1 -
I'm on board with this metaphor. As someone who knows nothing about cars, the Porsche thing means nothing to me. But if instead of "my 911" you were to say "my Porsche with the [whatever makes the 911 unique]" then it would be much clearer what you mean and doesn't take much longer to say. That was the basis for my point above, that we could maybe solve the problem by keeping the term "bodyblocking" but elaborating on it slightly so that it's clear what is meant by it in context.
1 -
Again this is more or less how it is currently written and there is still confusion and disagreement about the rule. Giving it an entirely new term, even if the definition is just a longer explanation of something that already exists, would go a long way in resolving these problems.
0 -
I was under the impression that all it says currently is "bodyblocking", which we're all agreed is too vague. If I'm mistaken and what I proposed is already written in-game (because I just checked and it's definitely not elaborated on in the Game Rules post on the forum) I'd appreciate it if you could link a screenshot of the current in-game report system for reference.
1 -
I feel like what you refer to as soft locking is listed as taking the game hostage
0 -
You make my point.
You explain with this make porche (body blocking) and expand on it 911 for the model (not allowing play to progress holding them hostage)
Now if one said the above and stated body blocking and then said you soft locked me the rest of what I said would still need explained as like I said the correlation between the two terms mean nothing unless you know the actual meaning of soft locking itself.
If a person won't read the rules and is misinformed then why would a name change for an action make them suddenly do so?
I agree different terms help but only if implied from the start so what I am saying is when a term is used changing the name doesn't change what people will call it as its already know as what it is.
I'll give an example.
The post office. The UK changed it to insignia and did a huge campaign for the change, spend a lot of money on the changes of logos etc. It didn't last long as no one used the new name as the post office is what it was always called. They changed the name back after a short while due to that fact.
The same happened with star burst and ome people in the UK still refer to them as opal fruits decades later and that was done for logical reasons.
When something has had a name its very hard to change it and get people that are used to it to switch to something new just for the sake of it unless it makes more sense and is states something which is more logical.
All I am saying is the term soft lock isn't very logical to use as imo its a very generic term which had very broad meanings and would take a lot of time to educate people into using and then those that know the term start to use it for all glitches and bugs causing more confusion.
The act itself is body blocking and so its very logical to refer to it as that.
You can ask some one to get you a chocolate bar when at the store but it's only by giving more details do they know you actually want a snickers. This is why i stated that I think more details are whats needed with a better explanation on each act and what is and isn't bannable.
Look I get you like the idea and are very invested in it but I won't agree.
Post edited by twistedmonkey on1 -
I don't waste my time reading posts that neglect common sense.. also yes only have 30 whatever posts, doesn't make my ~20 years of PC gaming or dbd hours less Relevant...
No matter what that rule says, people will complain and try getting someone banned because they annoyed them.. it's how the world works these days.. common sense proves supreme here, "body blocking" as a survivor to take a hit is a legit statragy... (Just like dropping all hooks and running to a corner used to be back in the day).. but blocking a survivor (as killer or survivor) with the sole purpose of trolling is bannable... Common sense dictates that if you do something to be a jerk and ruin the game for others 9 times out of 10 its probably breaking a rule... If you do something to gain a tactical advantage AND it's NOT glitching/exploiting, it's probably ok... Simple
1 -
Not really cause gens can still get done and people can still escape its the same as camping only difference is the person isnt on a hook
0 -
"If a person won't read the rules and is misinformed then why would a name change for an action make them suddenly do so?"
Because then they don't conflate one thing that is permitted with another thing that is bannable, when they are very similar but distinctly different.
If we assume no one reads the rules, if you use body block in both instances, it can lead to someone wrongly believing either both are allowed or both are bannable. This is evidenced by how often these threads pop up where someone cites the rules as saying "body blocking". Several people have done so in this exact thread. If they were two separate things, even if they share a mechanic, there would be less of this.
"I'll give an example."
You examples are flawed because we are not talking about a sweeping change to the entire concept of body blocking. We are talking about giving this specific instance of body blocking, the one that is banned, it's own term.
"All I am saying is the term soft lock isn't very logical to use as imo its a very generic term which had very broad meanings and would take a lot of time to educate people into using and then those that know the term start to use it for all glitches and bugs causing more confusion."
Again it's not about educating people. That is a different problem altogether. This is about preventing cross contamination if you could call it that. It's for those players that do not know the exact rules that may hear about body blocking and bannable offenses from unreliable sources. All the rules need to state is "soft locking is bannable". If the rule says "body blocking is bannable" that leads to people automatically assuming any form of body blocking is bannable.
"Look I get you like the idea and are very invested in it but I won't agree."
You don't have to agree with the name, I've said this. But it's clear you don't seem to understand the concept. You claim you do, but if you did you wouldn't be arguing with me. This is a very straightforward and simple idea that isn't at all about what you argue it's about. It's about the separation of one act from another. Hence my murder V manslaughter point. In either case you are still killing another person, but the context in which is happens makes a huge difference.
Your gaming experience and DBD experience is irrelevant here, because I'm referring to how often someone comes to this forum and says something to the extent of "a survivor body blocked me as I was carrying another survivor, please ban them". Hence why I point out your low forum post count because you likely haven't been here long enough to see how often this issue pops up.
Furthermore your entire argument is irrelevant because we are not talking about whether or not trapping someone in a corner is bannable. It is. The rules say this. The devs have said this. A mod said this in this exact thread. The point of this thread is as I state above; to clarify the specific instance of what is exactly bannable by giving it it's own term that cannot be confused with similar actions that are NOT bannable.
Possibly. I don't have the game open, and it may be worded this way on the report screen, but I definitely recall the devs making these exact statements elsewhere and it doesn't help. We need a separate term to define the bannable form of body blocking so that there is 0 way for someone to assume permitted body blocking is also bannable.
0 -
I think the only reason it hasn't helped is because most people don't go looking to see what the devs have to say about it before they report someone. They just go off what is written in-game. I suspect that a lot of the problem with false complaints and reports along these lines would be solved if there were simply more written clarity in the post-match report screen.
0 -
Possibly, but we can literally side step all of this by using a new term for specifically this action. Essentially, if you replace the words "body blocking" with "soft locking" or whatever new term we come up with that IMMEDIATELY negates a large chunk of false complaints because someone won't see doing X as the same as doing Y. Worst case scenario is someone doesn't know what "soft lock" means and looks it up as it relates to DBD. They will be less likely to make a false report, either intentionally or unintentionally, because we avoid using the blanket term "body block".
1 -
I still think that simply listing "body blocking a survivor" instead of just "body blocking" as a bannable offence will achieve the same effect with possibly less confusion, but I don't think quibbling over semantics is going to get us very far. The important part is, we're all agreed that some additional clarification is necessary, and based on what Mandy said we may be getting exactly that in the near future.
0 -
See but that's still not specific enough. If the killer happens to stand at a pallet or window such that the survivor can't use it, people would just assume that is bannable.
This is why I say it's just easier to give it it's own term. Less confusion with what is allowed (since most body blocking is allowed). "Soft lock" suggests being stuck in a place, which is really the main requirement for body blocking to go from allowed to banned. It honestly just makes life easier if you can refer to the entire situation in a single term, instead of explaining the entire situation each time. Simple is better, and having the whole explanation doesn't seem simple to me.
Semantics are very important with stuff like this when the line for what is and is not acceptable is paper thin. Again, refer to my murder V manslaughter argument. At the end of the day you killed someone. Period. But how exactly it happened changes a lot.
0 -
It's only two more words. I wouldn't call that complicated.
I understand your point perfectly well, but as I said, I think it's essentially a matter of simple differences in opinion at this stage, and there's not much to be gained by rehashing the same points.
0 -
For what it's worth, I agree that bannable body blocking should have its own term to differentiate it from non-bannable body blocking. It makes sense. There are already terms people use that others might not instantly understand, like kobe-ing or playing immersed. Kobe-ing means escaping the hook, and it's usually considered to mean the 4% rather than Deliverance, so it's a specific type of self-unhooking. Or immersion being a style of stealth play that usually means the survivor spends all their time hiding rather than being useful.
It's helpful to have easy terms to use to refer to something rather than having to explain it every time it's mentioned because the term is so vague, like body blocking. Any time body blocking is brought up, the player has to define what kind of body blocking they're talking about, and if they don't then people get confused. Sure, if we use a new term for bannable body blocking, like "intentional soft locking," then a player will probably need to read further to understand what it specifically means. But unlike always needing to explain what type of body blocking is being referred to, "intentional soft locking" will always mean the same thing. If players talk about "intentional soft locking," they're talking about a type of body blocking that is a bannable offense, but if players talk about "body blocking," they're talking about a legal in-game mechanic. Simple.
1 -
Well think about it this way.
You had a game as killer. You are pissed off you lost. You go to the report screen. You see "body block". How often do you think people read the rest? To some just saying "body block" would be enough. If those fabled words weren't there then this isn't an issue. People are sneaky and will "play dumb" to avoid false reporting penalties, or willfully ignore it to satisfy their ego ("I didn't lose because they outplayed me, I lost because they cheated and the words are right there"). That's kind of how I'm looking at the situation.
@TragicSolitude Gets it. 👍
0 -
Yeah, I get it. I'd be happy with using a different term for it, I'm just not convinced that "soft locking" is the right one to use. I've never heard of it before, but from what I gather from other people's comments, it may be problematic because of other connotations it holds in gaming in general. I just looked it up, and from what I can tell, soft locking isn't usually something a player does to another player, it's something a player experiences as a result of design flaws in the game. So instead of having a bunch of threads about whether bodyblocking is bannable, we'd have a bunch of threads about why soft locking is even a reportable offence in the first place. I'm not sure it would really solve the problem.
Again, I'm all for having a different term to describe bannable bodyblocking for clarity's sake. I said so in my first comment on this thread. I just don't think, having read up on the term a bit more, that "soft locking" is the correct phrase to use in this scenario, so I came up with an alternative suggestion. If anyone comes up with something that's better than either of our ideas, I'd be very glad to hear it.
0 -
@Fibijean That's fine. Like I've said, if someone comes up with a better term I'd support it but so far I haven't seen one. Soft locking makes the most sense to me because of the fact you can't play the game despite the game still functionally as normal.
0 -
My gosh, you nit pick on the minor details of my post and ignore the points that are relevant to the conversation.. not surprised as that seems par for course of your seemingly always right attitude and superiority complex because you " post a lot on the forums"... As for the relevant part of my post... It matters not what the rule says, people are still going to ######### and moan because most don't read the rules... And if people want to complain on the forums about breaking a rule that doesn't exist, ignore them... Explaining it like "body blocking with the intent of taking the game hostage" is immediately understandable without the need of reading a definition... "Intentional soft locking" needs a glossery/definition which will cause less people to know the rule... dbd Forum experience is irrelevant to knowing that fact... Perhaps a bit more life experience for you would help though :)
1 -
My point has always been if no one reads the rules like you originally stated and why the issue is present then how would they know what this would then mean?
Changing the name to anything else means making sure to inform people and then in turn they would need to read the rules on what it is which we have established doesn't happen and us the basis is why you thought of the change.
I understand completely what you are trying to do as I said before I just don't agree as the term body blocking is what the comminity has always called it.
Now if the game was just coming out id agree to it in principle as they could implement it from the start but changing it 3 years later won't stop people calling it what they know. This makes it so you end up with more than one name for the act which just confuses people more imo.
All they need to do is explain what the form of body blocking is in the end game report system.
Something simple like.
Bannable Body blocking offense - holding another player hostage in a situation for a prolonged period of time where the game cannot progress.
It's not rocket science and it doesnt have to be over complicated or confusing by using another name which the players need to look up for the definition as its self explanatory. It just has to be explained in a way which simplifies the only act which is bannable.
I can't see how anyone could take hook blocking or blocking someone in a corner to down them from above as they are not happening for prolonged periods or stopping the game from progressing.
0 -
So...... If a survivor runs into a corner and as an insta down killer I body block them in a corner as I get my insta down ready and then down them what's that classed as? Because if a survivor being an idiot can get a killer banned then that's just dumb.
0 -
Im fairly new to this game and this was very simple to understand. Locking someone in a position they cannot escape with the intention of keeping them stuck is soft locking. Body blocking is using your body to block for someone else. Body blocking is a huge term in most games where a player can act in the defense of another. You guys are just slow.
1 -
To make it clear, we don't ban for bodyblocking regardless of who's doing it. What we do ban for is holding the game hostage (i.e. the game cannot end)- it just so happens that the most common way that happens is via bodyblocking. We even mention this in the game rules.
2 -
Sure. Whatever you say. You haven't been around here long enough to see how often this is an issue is my point. Will people still come here to complain? YES. There will always be someone to complain about something. Would separating acceptable body blocking and bannable body blocking via new terms make a difference? YES. It would significantly decrease how often this issue pops up and how often someone bends the rules to their agenda. But by using the word "body blocking" at all you create a situation where someone can say "they body blocked me and it's bannable". Hence why it is important to give it it's own term, to avoid that situation altogether where someone can intentionally or unintentionally skew the rule to mean something else. If it had it's own term they can't really do that. "He body blocked me" no he soft locked you, not the same thing.
"My point has always been if no one reads the rules like you originally stated and why the issue is present then how would they know what this would then mean?"
And my point is that it doesn't matter what they think it means, all that matters is they know it DOES NOT mean body blocking in the normal context. They don't go down the path of assuming ALL body blocking is bannable because it's not given the same name. THIS is the exact issue I'm trying to avoid. ASSUMPTION BY ASSOCIATION. And as several other have pointed out now, using a term to distinguish this sort of thing from that sort of thing is good for easy reference. All you have to do is say "killer soft locked me" and immediately everyone know exactly what you are talking about. No need to further explain the situation.
Regardless, like I said before we are just going in circles. The mods have come in here and explained they will be making these rules more clear. Whatever that means we shall see.
0 -
Who cares?
0 -
Isn't soft locking something you can't initiate yourself (I mean unless you are trying to do a glitch i.e. speed runs)? Like usually it's one step away from what most would call a "crash" lol. There's a way to do that in the game? I mean isn't blocking something with your characters body "body blocking"? I'll be honest I never had any idea what it meant regardless. I know about blocking the hook,and I've been blocked in rooms,but never thought of reporting anyone anyways. I've never even seen anyone get banned.
0
