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!
Nobody likes a short match...
Comments
-
So when you bring up a point about one of my posts, Context doesn't matter is what you have essentially said here.I thought you just didn't understand or were confused, however now I just see you are dishonest and fallacious. This is just a asserted strawman.
I was in a discussion, in which you brought up a point opposing something I said. I then said where you had said this thing, and how in the context of the discussion this is what that means. Maybe you should be more precise or just not quote something I've said and instead just @ me.If you left this out, I would understand you better. I understand the last part, it seems you are not happy about me quoting you? The reason we quote, is because it is important to talk about what the person is saying. This is why you likely don't quote me, because you like to assert X, Y, and Z, instead of using my entire conversation with you and quoting it bit by bit.
I like to know exactly what you are talking about, and I like people who read this to know exactly what I am replying to including yourself so its organized. Anyone who reads this should, at least in theory, be able to read what I have quoted and understand your argument, then read my reply to it and understand my argument and lastly evaluate for themselves, what is and isn't reasonable. Another reason hence we don't assert things as it makes you unreasonable. :P
That would mean you have a point outside of the discussion I was previously having with you. But unless words have no meaning in your eyes or you have a blatant disregard of how your words are interpreted and how you should put fourth points that are outside of the discussion we were having. Or you just don't care to read context.I said X, and that I disagree with Y. Whatever you said to the other comment, and whoever commented and whatever they commented is completely irrelevant. Scroll up and reread if you don't understand why. If you did read it, and are still confused, then I can't help you.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink.
Either way it's obvious you care not for fruitful discussion with the quote "disingenuous" and "telling a child what sight is" that you just believe that you have to be right and your impossible to reason with and are being overly defencive.No, I am being completely reasonable. Again, this is why I have quoted everything you have said, and will do so to reply to it. I don't care if I have to repeat myself 100 times, this is a forum, and conversation/debate is a hobby to me.
Again, the reason you are being disingenuous is for reasons I don't understand, however try replying to what I am saying instead of going on a tangent and maybe the conversation will be "fruitful".
Continuing to make fallacious attempts to win this conversation will prove futile, I can assure you that.
This discussion was about whether or not standing on top of the stairs here was a good thing, and whether you should be allowed to do it.No it wasn't, and no it wasn't, and no it wasn't. I repeating that out loud laughing as I could not even phantom how you got so lost of track.
I made a few comments with the base decision of that person had already messed up to be in the basement, so why should they then be able to disregard such and get out.I don't think they should, but that is the game we play.
That killer could have been just ensuring that he didn't mess up and let the 2 people out (only one person probably would've escaped).You then quoted me saying a bunch of things as a contention to my point (from what I can tell at least, unless words have no meaning) and one of these being , and I will quote for the third time, "if survivors play correctly you will only down one".Yup, finally you got something correct, that is what I said. You WILL only down one, not because you should, not because you want to but because that is the best you can do if the survivors play best regardless if you play best as well in the killers role in that situation as said before.
Your argument is funny, is like someone said "Well if someone killed someone, then they should be killed", and then I said "Well no, thats not how it works because they're could of been a good reason for why they did so." and then you turn around and go "SEE, you are saying that they won't die when clearly they will!". That is how broken your reasoning is. Just stick to quoting me please, as it will help us both in the long run.
I am so confused why you decided to quote me here and actually give my statement rather then just assert "SEE, you clearly are saying X".
So let's look at the situation again. These survivors have already messed up to be in the basement, the last place they want to be. And your saying with this, that they should be able to get one out of this situation.Yes, because that is how the game works in current day with both the survivor and killer's roles. Again, totally regardless of my opinion on the topic, that is what happens. I don't like hunters shooting animals for fun, but regardless of my opinion it happens.
This isn't "putting words into your mouth" this is pointing out the logical conclusion of your words. This is saying they should be able to get one out (a reward) if they play well regardless of the previous mess up to be in the basement.No, no and no. This is where confusion comes from. Remove the "(a reward)" from it as it is not necessary. I would argue this is bad usage too because in that case most any action is a reward by definition but this is redundant.
Just say the situation that has transpired because any small or major action is by normal definition a reward, hence you are just saying the same thing. IE: walking up the stairs is a reward, but not a achievement. This is why I dislike that word because its too broad. Walking up stairs is a reward as it allows you to get upstairs, even in real life not even from the games basement.
My point is, that word left me confused because normally people use that word with something else, IE: She got first place in the race and was rewarded a gold medal.
To get back on track, your wording poisons the well. Its not that they should be able to get out, they CAN and WILL get out. If someone is shot, they SHOULD die (assuming its somewhere critical), if someone gets disintegrated they CAN AND WILL die. When you say should as well in the way you said it, it seems as if I am saying they "SHOULD" or, that I want that outcome when its just a objective fact under best play that wouldn't be too hard to do.
You are infering a reward, you just may not be able to see it. This is not some false dichotomy or strawman, so stop trying to pivot from this and adress what you actually said. If you didn't mean what you said here, then that's fine. Just say it. I'll move on to different points. But don't sit there on some high horse and try and pivot away from it. Accept you were either wrong or misspoke and I'll drop the point..How could I infer a reward? That doesn't even make sense? I didn't cite any evidence for a reward neither did I bring one up??? What is your definition for "infer" as I think you mean assert which would be equally wrong as I have not even again brought a reward up in any regards. Unless you mean the loose definition and in that case just use the situation as it is much easier to contemplate then a generalization in the form of word.
Anyway, it was both of those fallacies for the reasons mentioned before. Stop ignoring what I am saying and actually address the reasons I am saying something you said is both a false dichotomy and strawman and unless you are going to address this point properly that stands as well as EVERYTHING I have said that you have not brought up that we have talked about in our conversation.
I have took no arrogant stance at all hence why I am trying to reason with you, so either you don't understand the meaning of what I have said or you yet again have asserted something that is not true.
A final point of contention, you said "regardless if I like it or not" that they will get one escape if they play correctly. Well in that case the killer played correctly, ensuring he got both kills and therefore there is nothing wrong with what he did. He just played it better than they did and punished their mistakes. What he did has as much outplay as their choice of action if he walked up and swung at one of them. So neither of them are in the wrong then.This doesn't even make sense, one will escape regardless of if I like it or not because the game is not balanced. I think you do not understand what I am saying because you don't listen.
If the killer played correctly he would as well only have one downed. Again, if both sides play best this is the outcome that will happen. I don't know why you can't comprehend what I am saying.
if you are 7 feet from someone who is attempting to shoot you while you are in a open field, and they and you understand what you both are doing. If you both correctly make every action, the end result is you are dying if they are dead set on killing you. This would be you made every correct move to minimize the harm inflicted to you, and if they made every correct move to maximize zed harm.
Or if the killer in the game made every correct move to try his hardest to play most optimally and down both of you, and the survivors made ever correct move to stop this from happening because of the objective facts of the situations.
With the first example you will always die because of the fact the situation is not balanced toward your favor, and you can't do anything to stop the outcome due to this.
Same with the killer in this situation, the game is balanced towards the survivors favor in the sense that they can stop you from getting both of them due to the game mechanics. I specify the ending of this, as even one survivor is not really favorable for the survivors its just more favorable then both going down.
Maybe rather than sitting there and spouting insults and hollow words, think your posts through and look at the context of a discussion. This will help clear up these sorts of things in the future.As far as I am aware, I have no insult you and you haven't either. I don't know what the definition of a hollow word is, however ironically I reckon you should take this advice more because otherwise you wouldn't be in this situation you are in and would clear up the best objective reply to me as to not take this issue on for week(s) of time.
Post edited by DerpyPlayz on0 -
So calling someone disingenuous isn't an insult?No, no it isn't. It is a describer based on your actions. If you do not want to be called X, then don't do X. Its not like I am just calling you names, I am being specific in what you are doing.
I think the one being disingenuous here is you.Couldn't care less, this is laughable considering what you have said so far.
I was replying to someone and when you disagreed with a position I put fourth,you have to realise the context is in. Its like saying murder is wrong, but in self defence it's ok. Context means everything in a lot of instances and I feel like your not even trying to understand this.It doesn't matter what you say to someone else, if you make a claim or statement then other people can reply to it, and do not need to bear whatever the person you have said has said.
If someone says X is correct, then you say no Y is correct, regardless of what the first person says, I can disagree with your claim being Y and it has nothing to do with X nor my thoughts on X.
The comparison you made has made no sense to me and you haven't even made a proper retort for me to understand what you are trying to compare what to what.
Also I don't exact quote because idk how with this website, I tend to use speech marks when quoting directly. If you could tell me how I'll use it in future discussions.You mean quotation marks, and all you do is highlight whatever it is you want to quote and press the small black symbol to the left.
The Op, and the quotes that I have pulled out that you reacted to outside of this, were all due to the main point that I brought up, it seems you don't understand the context of the overall discussion you brought up.I am starting to think you don't understand what context is, our conversations context has nothing to do with the context of whatever else you were talking about.
If someone says "I like hippos" and you reply "I am not so sure, I think hippos are not good", and then I reply to you "Actually hippos are good for X reason" then there is two different contexts in this situation. The context with someone else, and then the context with me. You clearly do not understand what you are talking about, so stop being dishonest, and simplify your language if you can't properly understand these words.
Maybe stop being condescending and learn to debate.I am not (purposely) being condescending, learn to reply to what I am saying so this can even be considered a debate. I am struggling trying to explain logic to you, yet alone have a debate with you.
You say you have done it for a while, so I pity the people you " debate" with if you use such tactless devices and openly lie here.Just another invalid assertion.
If you can't even have a simple discussion without insulting someone then you obviously are either new to discussions, or too hot headed to be taken seriously as your opinions are set in stone so there is no discussion with you.Still neither of us has insulted the other, I am starting to think you don't understand what that word means either.
The reward isn't getting up the stairs, this seems more disingenuous than anything I've said, it's that they have escaped from what would've been a hook in basement, a massive reward for the killer, swooped from them. They have the ability to escape, heal and then go onto a generator. That is the reward. Don't debate in such bad faith.Reread what I have said, because your reply doesn't make sense.
My definition of inferring is that you don't say something, but there is other meanings/ effects of what you have said. The other effect is that someone escaped the killer in that chase in this case. And in most people's opinion this is a reward, much like dead hard "rewards" someone for getting hit ect..Finally you are actually replying to something I have said, sadly it doesn't make sense.
That is not the common definition of Infer nor is that proper use of the word effect, stop using words that you don't understand please. I am not trying to even be rude while saying this, just if you keep using these words and you keep getting them incorrect then we both will be confused and never be able to understand eachother.
You second use of effect is fine, just off. In any case, what is your main language?
I can't even reply to what you have said effectively because both the English and logic here is broken which hurts my head to even contemplate.
"If the killer played correctly he would as well only have one downed", how is that the correct play then.Again, I think the fact you don't understand what I am saying here is because there is a language barrier.
Surely the correct play would then be to stand at the top and not follow them down to ensure the double kill. How is that not the logical play. They ensure they get the 3k (they had already gotten one, I'd asked) instead of potentially getting a 2k. That's the right play there then isn't it? At least from the killers perspective.Its not logical because as said, in a previous reply. Reread what I have said in the past as I am not repeating myself. At least this is your first honest question but I have already answered it.
The reason this is taken weeks is because I'm not using this as frequently as I used to. Hence why my reply is late. Usually it would be at most a few hours late. Not because of how objective my language is. I'm using the most common definition of words there is.No the reason is because you can't understand what I am saying due to a language barrier.
For example, what you have just said made no sense. Language can not be objective. You are not and have not been using words correctly, if you were I would not be bringing it up.
Reward:a thing given in recognition of service, effort, or achievement. In this case, they are given the reward of escaping the basement and a possible (at worst usually) hook outside the basement. This is a reward to said survivor who escaped, not a reward to the whole survivor team but a reward to the individual.Yup, a reward is typically used in achievement because as said before if you use the word broadly it is too loose a definition. Anything can be considered a reward for any given action.
I will try it again, if you walk up stairs that in itself is a reward because you put in the effort to go up stairs and that is what you were trying to do therefore walking upstairs is a reward.
Looking up at the sky is a reward because it allows you to see the sky, ect. This is why we do not use reward so loosely and it has implications that are not general. Please stop using this word, and stop giving me a hard time about something you clearly can not comprehend due to the language barrier.
Infer:deduce or conclude (something) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.Correct?
In this case, you said that a person should escape from this.No, the best play from both sides WILL result in one escaping and one downing.
But we aren't debating (or at least shouldn't be) what is the case, but what SHOULD be the case (what the desired result is) hence why I assume that since you said someone should escape, that you believe your desired result to be that someone escapes.Your broken English yet again makes me unable to reply to this as I don't understand what you just said. Stop using words you don't understand.
When you debate, you don't say X is the case now, so it's right.Correct. You specifically give counter reasons to someone's argument and evaluate each others argument to see who is logically more reasonable, and to which of the two you can test.
IE: Saying god is real is not reasonable if you can not demonstrate such thing and/or the other person does not have methods to test the claim.
IE: Saying god is real is reasonable and sound if you can demonstrate it and other people can also perceive and/or test that information to figure it out as well.
Using this as a point here, it is common to assume you want this to be as it is.In conjunction with what you have said before, I am still confused as to what you mean.
IF you are asserting that I think the quote above this one is what I want, then this is exactly why I call you dishonest as I have never said nor implicated that. I specifically said that because that is my point, so it makes no sense to think I am saying that I want that when I clearly demonstrated I dont.
0 -
This is a massive thread and I don't feel like reading it all, but I just wanted to add my two cents: My favorite game is one that lasts at least 7-10 minutes and has a good amount of back and forth, uncertainty over who's actually going to win. I don't care if I win or lose, I just want to know that I had enough time to accomplish something and gain some decent points.
The worst games are the ones that end within like 2-3 minutes as a killer because everyone was way too good at rushing gens, or as a survivor because the killer spawned close, made a beeline for you, then hooked and camped you. It's no fun for anybody to spend 3-4 minutes (or more) of everything that happens between matches only to get a game that lasts two minutes and yields barely enough BP to purchase a rusty toolbox.
1 -
If there 4 survivor and they can't work on 3 gens while killer can only chase 1 or 2 survivor away from a gen at once. combine that with the fact it easy to stop regression and gen speed is kinda fast it look like the issue is not the killer here.
0 -
Again, due to the barrier in language you can't hope to start a debate.
This is a conversation albeit broken until you can.
0 -
You have consistently used improper language, been unable to fathom my points, and consistently do not understand how reasoning/logic works. I highly doubt you have had any meaningful conversation with anything.
You haven't even replied to any of my points this entire conversation, you have consistently brang up other points after I site one, and after I reply to those points and add counter points you ignore them.
If you speak English fluently, then you are the most dishonest person I have ever met in my life according to your behavior.
0 -
I have replied to your points,No you haven't, what about "Still neither of us has insulted the other", a simple point on how we haven't insulted eachother you haven't even replied too. In fact, I have invited you to quote everything I have said and reply to it one by one but you fail to do so.
but you yet again consistently don't understand the preface of context. I made a point in context, you cannot then disagree with that point out of context.Again yes we can as long as it is rational, regardless of the context, if someone says "X is true" you can directly refute that point and have your own original thoughts about that point regardless of what anyone else has said. This is again, why I think you don't understand what context is.
That's not how discussions work bud.I believe you mean logic specfically but in any case that is how ration, critical thinking, logic and THE (specfically) discussion work about anything in specfic.
Anyone who's taken any subject based on evaluating a point knows this, maybe you need to go back a few years and retake a history class or some [BAD WORD].Clearly you think your position is the norm but it is not and history has nothing to do with any of this so that makes no sense.
You obviously have no clue what your saying, and are hanging on to the thin thread of "I'm right and your wrong, that's that".No it isn't and this demonstrates you don't understand, read, or listen to what I am saying.
You have not answered a single on of my main points, hiding behind the "that's not my opinion" card that you hide behind.Sited me anywhere I have said this, or implied this.
You deny context, and refuse any logic about how and why context matters here.I do deny the context of someone elses conversation with you because I am not arguing what they are arguing, I am arguing exactly what you have said as I disagreed.
Ive been using the common usage of every single word I've said, whilst you have just debated in bad faith.No you haven't. This is why "reward", in your use was off to me.
On top of this, I will quote you again, but I'm not going back to the post that you originally said this on, you said "if the survivor plays correctly the killer should only get one", in here youve repeatedly said this is not your position that the desired result is this.Should as in will under best play (hyperbolic statement), but otherwise yes. Correct, for surviviors this is not the desired situation in terms of what would be best. It is only the best that can be acquired. I still don't understand how you can't fathom this.
So which I'm going to say your inability to debate shows here.That doesn't make sense, at least your English hasn't been broken and has made sense though so we might actually get somewhere.
The only other reason you would put this here is to say it as a fact, as in that's what's going to happen, which we both agreed is not how debates work.That is because the assertion is valid due to under best play (hyperbolic statement) that IS what is going to happen.
This is like me saying "If you die, we don't understand if there could be anything after death or if it just ends" and then you go "SEE LOOK, you are making an assertion and we already agreed that is not how we debate!"
This is ironically where the context of me the believe X is reasonable considering the factors prove true under observation. I still can not understand how you can't understand anything but believe you don't understand context properly but would rather use it as a buzz word to get out of the conversation.
Your arguments have repeatedly been nonsensical, but I've tried again and again to be patient and explain this to you. Unless your using some unheard of definition for should that no one uses. Then your a hypocrite among all the other things you've said.Your inablitity to comprehend doesn't change if something is nonsensical objectively, it isn't objectively nonsensical you just are having difficulty comprehending it. To which I am still not sure as to why.
Again I specify that should as in will, due to best play, its rhetorical to describe what will happen. (hyperbolic statement).
I replied to the points point by point, up until the last comment in which I realised nothing was going to come from this discussion. Its obvious your stuck in your ways, as I have looked briefly at your other discussions, which you seem incapable of doing.You have yet to site everything I have said in any of my comments, instead you only cherry pick the points you find as weak and now that you realize most everyone of the points I have said aren't as weak as you thought, now you backtrack. This is why you are dishonest zir.
You haven't defined clearly a single word you've used,you've pivoted in every point and on top of that fall behind the comment of someone being "disingenuous". You overall have displayed yourself as a bad faith actor who cares nothing for discourse.You haven't made a direct question to define anything, you just back peddle. Disingenuous would mean in the way I am using it, pretending to know little or/and not being sincere. Hence why its a descriptor, if you were to google the definition is would be :
"not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does."All in all very similar.
we aren't going to get anything done as we both seem unable to discuss this due to a misunderstanding on a foundational level, and since you are just deflecting any point I make about this nothing is to be gained by having this conversation. Good day.No, just you aren't willing to reply to anything I say. You would rather have me reply to you, and then ask another question in reply all the while ignoring all the questions I have asked you. This is why you are dishonest.
0 -
Its actually not that big, its just this guy can not fathom what I say for his life.
0
