Why are devs/killers like this?
The reason I'm asking that question is because the devs banned the use of MLGA and they should see this and think if they will ever want to play against/with this guy again...what a great player experience
Comments
-
Pathetic. Whoever that was acts like someone who does not know what winning is. They clearly don't win often because they have no idea how to do it with any level of class whatsoever. Not bannable, of course, but pretty much shows where they are on the human evolution scale....pretty low down on that chain.
24 -
The mechanics of the game allow people to be toxic, and then they wonder why their community is full of salty survivors that rage quit. Tru3 was right when he says these devs often fix the effect but not the cause. That was said in context to gen speeds but its true for disconnects too. They slap on a penalty but dont address reasons why people quit.
Survivors should have a bleed out option. Nobody wants to wait an extra few minutes so some toxic troll can have his fun.
20 -
What's MGLA?
3 -
@Cosmin262 It made the matchmaking impossible to work a lot of the times. You can only block a good amount of killer's until you can't find a match for a good amount of time then people complained about how they couldn't find a match. That's the reason. Then some said they used it as a ping indicator so they added one in.
4 -
@CosmicParagon It was a software to tell who the killer is, put them on a list to let you know who to avoid and had a ping indicator. People who don't like a killer would dodge them and after your list was high enough, they couldn't find a match so they complained that the queue times was very high. They removed it and now the queue times are fine.
15 -
That would seem toxic. That said, we see none of the game that happened before that and you have a purple flashlight. For all we know you were in a toxic swf tbagging and flashlight flicking him all game, we have no idea.
The amount of times I see a killer do something like that when no one was toxic on our team is extremely, extremely rare.
Just saying it seems odd for a person to randomly do that for no reason.
7 -
That's just appallingly terrible sportsmanship. I'm sorry this happened to you. I assure you not all of us killers are like that.
12 -
I'm trying my best to not be toxic because I know it's not cool, if the killer is not being toxic first,I was in a swf and all we wanted was to escape,brought a flashlight just for the event there'd be a hag/wraith.
*also,when the timer elapsed,he sent me to a cage,saying this just because I thought it was in the video*
0 -
Isn't this considered griefing? 🤔
- you're the last survivor and the killer already closed the hatch so the killer can't claim they wanted to secure the 4k.
- you were slugged for several minutes so the killer can't say it was because of "potential ds".
- the killer never left your body so they can't claim they lost your body or it was because they wanted to break a few pallets/gens for more points.
- the killer never picked you up so they can't claim they danced on your body for minutes because there was no hook around.
But then again... I guess planting barbwires on you/around you is enough to nullify the clip as one could say "the killer wasn't griefing they just wanted more bloodpoints by using the power".
Long story short: There should be a bleedout option for survivors so these weird players can't just force you to watch them dance for nearly 4 minutes. DBD isn't Just Dance.
12 -
Edit: My question got answered already.
0 -
So you're saying killers are most of times not toxic?
Dude, just leave bias aside for once, BOTH sides have the same level of toxicity.
And you can clearly see he had ######### addons on the flashlight, and didn't even USE IT
4 -
I know this won't fix a lot of dumb toxic stuff but they should really rework the end game collapse.
It's not fun for survivors to be stuck in this crap and it's not fun for the killer to see people on a Tbag timer at the gate. It should be more final and quick. Survivors have the entire match to do whatever they're going to do and killers shouldn't be pay able to drag out scenarios like this or at least wouldn't be able to do so longer.
I hate this stuff. It's annoying to have swf loling it up at the safety gate and it's annoying for survivors to be just waiting to die. It's almost annoying as wraith standing invisible next to a hook waiting for a save entire match. Almost.
1 -
OP probably found the flashlight using Plunderers + Ace In The Hole so my dedicated guess is op forgot they even had the flashlight in the first place considering it wasn't even used.
4 -
Nope, very rarely are killers toxic in my games. Most people just think a lot of things are toxic that aren't like slugging, or say the killers camping/tunneling when they're not.
I don't think you understand what the word bias means. Bias would be if I only played one side so I had a skewed perspective towards one side. I have played both sides at rank 1 for thousands of hours.
"And you can clearly see he had [BAD WORD] addons on the flashlight, and didn't even USE IT"
I think you are misconstruing what I am saying. I am not saying he was toxic. All I said was that we saw none of the rest of the match and that they could have been toxic towards him, we have no idea. That is a true statement. I also never said the killers behavior was fine, I said it was indeed toxic.
2 -
Lol
0 -
If you look closely the flashlight has about a 6th of its bar drained so it was used.
Enough people lie about this on the forums that without a full game its hard to believe this.
1 -
That's your experience, you're not even 1% of the playerbase.
You can't claim killers are most of the time angels, when that's just not true, both sides have the same level of toxicity, you can't claim survivors/killer are more toxic, cause that's a flat out lie.
And I dont know ######### you're talking about, "Bias is disproportionate weight in favor of or against an idea or thing, usually in a way that is closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair."
You can play both sides, but I know a lot of streamers/gamers that play both sides, yet they still favor they're favorite side cause they're
B I A S E D.
Btw when you have any proof that you play both sides, we can discuss that.
"I think you are misconstruing what I am saying. I am not saying he was toxic. All I said was that we saw none of the rest of the match and that they could have been toxic towards him, we have no idea. That is a true statement. I also never said his behavior was fine, I said it was indeed toxic."
I can agree with you on that, OP should post the entire game, but saying most killers are angels is just a biased statement.
3 -
You can have a bias while still playing both sides. In my observations of your posts I would say you definitely have a killer bias. Or at least a killer leaning to your views. Which is not to say your positions are unfair. I actually feel they're usually pretty reasonable. But your views are definitely seen from a killer colored lens.
Not that I'm really any better about it. I play both sides. But I certainly see things more from a survivors view point. As much as I try my own bias will always creep in.
0 -
hahahahahahahahah
0 -
Actually, there are more survivors that play than killer so yes, there are more 'toxic' survivors. Law of averages.
Plus to determine what defines toxicity we really need to define toxic.
For killer, smacking someone repeatedly on the hook i feel is toxic. Purposely letting people bleedout is toxic. And bodyblocking for the whole game (which is bannable) is toxic. Nothing else. Yet some find moris and tunneling toxic. Or camping. Or certain perks, you get the idea.
By my definition of toxic i see an incredibly low number of toxic killers.
Dancing in exit gates waiting for killer, or constantly fast vaulting a window or jumping in and out of lockers to get the killer to come watch you dance in exit gates to me is toxic. Just because theres no reason for it but to brag about the ggez. Clicky Clicky and tbagging pallets is annoying. But can be explained away as trying to get and keep the killers attention. Also refusing to work towards the objective and hiding all game is bannable and after 5 or 10 minutes increases the toxicity scale.
I see dancers in just about every game where the killer loses.
So by my logic, yes there are more toxic survivors than killers
5 -
Actually what is funny is that killer queue are really long at rank 1, doesn't that mean there are more killers and less survivors?
0 -
Firstly man, you need to relax. You are getting way too argumentative over a simple conversation. We can talk or disagree without being combative.
"That's your experience, you're not even 1% of the playerbase."
I quite literally said that was my experience, yes. I also never said I was more than 1% of the player base, you completely interpreted me as saying more than I did my statement.
"You can't claim killers are most of the time angels, when that's just not true, both sides have the same level of toxicity, you can't claim survivors/killer are more toxic, cause that's a flat out lie."
I can claim that as my experience as it is literally just that, my experience. You are interpreting me as saying all killers are non toxic which is not what I said even remotely. All I have said is that in my experience that is generally the case, that's it. Those things are not synonymous
"And I dont know ######### you're talking about, "Bias is disproportionate weight in favor of or against an idea or thing, usually in a way that is closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair."
You can play both sides, but I know a lot of streamers/gamers that play both sides, yet they still favor they're favorite side cause they're
B I A S E D."
You literally posted the definition and didn't read it carefully for what it said. "Closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair" That implies a one sided view point with a lack of objectivity and literally treating one side unfairly. None of which are accurate to what I have said thus far.
As I said, not what bias actually means in the way you are using it. You are misinterpreting the definition you posted.
"Btw when you have any proof that you play both sides, we can discuss that."
here you go.
I can also stream it if you'd like.
"I can agree with you on that, OP should post the entire game, but saying most killers are angels is just a biased statement."
Because "but saying most killers are angels is just a biased statement" Is not actually what I said at all, it is what you interpreted me as saying.
4 -
Playing both sides and analyzing the games balance to determine that one side is skewed in the balance so you want to better balance the game does not make you biased. By that reasoning no matter how much experience, data, information or anything you collected, if you think one side needs a buff and the other does not you are biased. That would not be accurate. "Unfair" is one of the key words in having an opinion that is biased, of which is not the case in my scenario.
"But your views are definitely seen from a killer colored lens."
If I play both sides equally at max rank with thousands of hours, how are my viewpoints through killer colored lens? I seek to have the game balanced for both sides and having played both sides for many hours I have determined my opinions to fixing the issues for both sides through that experience.
I don't think that what you're referring to is using the word bias correctly.
4 -
Don't bother trying to get through to killers on the forums. No matter what you show them, they will always try to find away to justify their toxicity. Some will even try turning the blame to survivors, there are already plenty examples here in this thread...
You just can't people's minds so easily
3 -
Survivors does the exact same thing. And the amount of toxic messages from killers is far far less than from survivors. But survivors good, killers bad.
4 -
The amount of toxicity from killers is higher then survivors on the forums. In the in-game chat, you probably think survivors are more toxic because there are 4 survivors and 1 killer in each match so when speaking to them, the killer would often feel outnumbered.
3 -
I've seen plenty of toxicity from both sides on forum. And if all killers are so toxic, wouldn't it make sense that many of them would also be toxic in post-game chat?
1 -
Playing both sides does not prevent a person from forming a bias. As I said before, I feel your views are generally fair. But once people come to conclusions about something, they rarely have their minds changed. From what I've noticed you're more open to having your mind changed. But will probably always see things with a killer slant.
0 -
I did that to a survivor who was teabagging me with his SWF. Let them bleed out almost, then triggered endgame so his mates would have to wait another 4 minutes, that way I had the satisfaction of pissing off 4 toxic people instead of just 1. We don't know the full story here.
0 -
If you view my opinions as generally fair then that already doesn't make them bias by definition. Bias by definition would include an "unfair" treatment.
"But once people come to conclusions about something, they rarely have their minds changed."
If I was presented with data and evidence to suggest otherwise I would gladly change my opinion.
"But will probably always see things with a killer slant."
From a killer slant implies unfair preference to one side, of which I do not think I have. Killer slant the way you are saying it would mean that irregardless of data, evidence or anything I would give preferential treatment to one side which is not the case.
Whatever the data, evidence and experience shows needs buffs or nerfs is what I want, I could care less which side it is. All I care about is objective information. I do not view that stance as bias or as a killer slant. It just so happens that in this one case, killers need some help.
I also happen to think a lot of survivor perks need buffs. That isn't because of a bias, it's because there are a lot of survivor perks that are objectively weak.
4 -
both side can be toxic but there are more toxic survivors than killers.
1 -
I didn't say it was a massive bias. Usually you land on the killer side of things. That's why I say I feel you have a bias. But you never present absolutely outlandish things. Which is why I say you are generally fair.
0 -
I hate killers like that. They’re the type of killers to come to these forums and complain about SWF, Gens, and survivor perks yet they act like they’re the ######### in games against solos.
3 -
I think this just comes to a disagreement on the definition of bias then.
I appreciate that you think I'm generally fair though.
0 -
There Is a bleedout option. Its 4 minutes long.
This is the same as people butt dancing or flash clicking a killer that cannot get to them and do anything. It does nothing but get under people's skin who let it.
Obviously hes being a troll about it, but its 4 minutes. And it's not exclusive to killers.
So can we all stop acting like 4 minutes is the end of the world and stop letting people you don't know controlling pixels on a screen bother us? Trust me, you'll feel a lot better when you realize none of that "bm" ######### matters unless you let it.
1 -
"Griefplay and ######### behaviour is fine, just don't let it get to you". Literally not how real life works my dude.
1 -
I mean anyone sensible can agree what the guy did was shltty.
He probably had a rough day is all i can tell you.
2 -
Did I say that? Did I say it was okay or cool? No. But you CANNOT stop people from doing it. So grow thicker skin and idk ######### move on?
Like if you want to let a video game affect you emotionally and take it personally I wont stop you. But I'll laugh every time you complain about it on a forum when its nothing more than elementary school "bullying".
They do it BECAUSE people complain about it. It gets a response. Like camping, stop feeding into it.
It's not hard to see someone doing EXACTLY what's in the clip, and watch youtube, or check your phone for LESS THAN 5 minutes.
They're not mori spamming, or pick up chase slugging over and over. They're sitting there with them.It's stupid, and APPARENTLY triggers some of you, but its literally not bannable. Egc and bleedout are going. Anything more than that you're making affect you by taking it personally and trying to be the "moral player police".
0 -
Yeah, griefers are a real problem. It's not the Devs/killers being like that, it's players in general. I have certainly come across far more toxic survivors than toxic killers, though you are 4× more likely to find them. It is a pity that people gain personal satisfaction by hurting others, but... Well, I was about to make an excuse, but unless you edited around survivor toxicity then there really isn't any. Griefing is griefing, and it is neither pleasant nor acceptable.
2 -
Giving survivors an option to instantly bleed out (after a set period of time of about 50% blood similar to giving up on hook in 2nd stage) would be a plain QoL change. Not sure why anyone would speak against it.
4 -
This. Honestly give both sides some sort of unconditional surrender button in the endgame so people can move on to the next match when it's already decided.
Let the last survivor press a button (both while slugged and running around if they feel like it) that either instantly or after a short time (30 seconds or so, their aura shown during the duration) teleports them to a basement hook. The timer can not be stopped in any way once activated, and all escape routes are blocked.
Give the killer a switch in the basement or some other easily found/accessible location that instantly makes all living survivors escape no matter the state they're in. Yes, even slugged and hooked survivors if for some reason the killer flips the switch in such a situation.
2 -
i mean.... this doesnt have anything to do with him BMing you but you stood in a bad spot for hatch. you couldve easily escaped
1 -
If all survivors or the last survivor are slugged for long enough there should be an insta-death option. (No not dcing, keeping your points). Survivors being more toxic in general isn't a good argument against it, less opportunities for griefers to try and piss the other side off should be encouraged without devolving into the usual tribal bs.
0 -
Lol fair enough. We aren't really getting anywhere anyway.
1 -
I agree its a dick move but its not much different than survivors sitting at an exit gate tbagging and flashlight clicking. Maybe everyone should stop being #########
1 -
Because everytime its brought up, some people object due to their need to slug for the 4k.
I proposed an idea that a slugged survivor should be able to bleed out at 2 x speed. However doing this would show their aura to the killer. That way they only have to wait 2 minutes before they can leave the game, the killer still gets 2 mins to find the last survivor, if not they know where the slugged survivor is so they can hook them before they bleed out.
3 -
Nothing I said blamed the victim.
0 -
Right, because people who shoot up schools definitely dont have underlying mental issues, family problems, or a slew of other things that could cause that type of reaction.
I was bullied pretty hard, and I didnt as much as fight anyone over it. Shooting a school over bullying is just the final straw/scapegoat.
Also, you're comparing a VIDEOGAME to a school shooting. Proving my point that you take it too seriously and personally.
0 -
I mean, probably true, but only because theres 4 times (if not more) survivors than killers.
That's like saying theres more wheels on cars than bikes. Its true....but not really a fair comparison.
Theres just toxic people. And they play all kinds of roles/games.
0 -
Most likely he got bullied too much by genrushing SWFs. Now he must bully back against bad solos I guess because of his inferiority complex. This is the best example why this community is just toxic trash. I also bet he is actually a survivor main that is just mad and salty af. But when he gets genrushed hard he ragequits and cries. This is literally DBD and its trash community in a nutshell nowadays.
0
