New Policy: Bans for Bads
In order to help the community as a whole, the devs should not only be banning DCs/overly toxic players, but should also be removing players that are "under performing", aka "bads".
Criteria: Losing 30%+ of games in a week. Statistically, anyone who is legit trying to play the game will never have less than 30% of game losses, just like they should theoretically never DC innocently more than 30% of the time.
Define "losing"
Survivor: Failing to escape
Killer: Failing to kill 2/4
According to BHVR, these are the criteria for "average" games.
Result: No longer eligible to play in public games, but can still participate in KYF matches.
This would help better players have better quality games overall. People who clearly don't actually want to play the game, but lack the intelligence and/or willpower to just uninstall and move on, are no longer able to ruin the game for everyone else. By being restricted to KYF games only, they can ######### off all they want during their games (and also make it impossible to refund since they can still play the game without the online factor - see F13 for reference).
Comments
-
This is absolutely not gonna help the community. Surviving isn’t always a win. Neither is 2 kills. It’s a tie. But that’s only if it’s your personal objective. Leave, you suck at ideas.
8 -
@Jack11803 said:
Leave, you suck at ideas.Rofl, and if I don't you'll do what tough guy? It's fine if you disagree with my idea, but don't try to bark orders at me when you a) lack any sort of authority whatsoever and b) lack any way to enforce them. Let me know when you get over yourself and we can have a civil discussion. Until then, please leave your 3rd grade playground bullshit where it belongs.
1 -
@Sythalin said:
@Jack11803 said:
Leave, you suck at ideas.Rofl, and if I don't you'll do what tough guy? It's fine if you disagree with my idea, but don't try to bark orders at me when you a) lack any sort of authority whatsoever and b) lack any way to enforce them. Let me know when you get over yourself and we can have a civil discussion. Until then, please leave your 3rd grade playground bullshit where it belongs.
It wasn’t some military order it’s what I wanted you to do. You don’t need to do it. Anyone with half a brain would know that
3 -
And clearly I have not. What's your next move now, I wonder? I'd wager posting another reply that will yield the same results - nothing.
Again, disagree with my wish all you want, that's your prerogative, but just do yourself a favor - save your time and just move on to another thread that may listen to "what you want them to do" because I can't make it any clearer that will not be me.
1 -
@Sythalin said:
And clearly I have not. What's your next move now, I wonder? I'd wager posting another reply that will yield the same results - nothing.Again, disagree with my wish all you want, that's your prerogative, but just do yourself a favor - save your time and just move on to another thread that may listen to "what you want them to do" because I can't make it any clearer that will not be me.
I get dopamine from making myself seem better than others. So that’s what I’ll continue doing
3 -
Do you realize this is harsh, right? Besides, what if some has the bad luck to die 1st without touching a gen because the killer is facecsmping or tunneling them in several games in a row? Also, there are people better at hiding than running away in chases. This is harsh and no sense.4
-
@chococri said:
Do you realize this is harsh, right? Besides, what if some has the bad luck to die 1st without touching a gen because the killer is facecsmping or tunneling them in several games in a row? Also, there are people better at hiding than running away in chases. This is harsh and no sense.Then they shouldn't be playing public games. We're talking escaping 1 out of 3 games or failing to get 2 kills per game every 3 games. Statistics posted by the devs themselves considers these to be"average" and quite honestly not that hard to accomplish for either role.
2 -
Statistically, anyone who is legit trying to play the game will never have less than 30% of game losses, just like they should theoretically never DC innocently more than 30% of the time.
Ah, the art of pulling statistics out of one's posterior nether regions...
4 -
@Sythalin said:
@chococri said:
Do you realize this is harsh, right? Besides, what if some has the bad luck to die 1st without touching a gen because the killer is facecsmping or tunneling them in several games in a row? Also, there are people better at hiding than running away in chases. This is harsh and no sense.Then they shouldn't be playing public games. We're talking escaping 1 out of 3 games or failing to get 2 kills per game every 3 games. Statistics posted by the devs themselves considers these to be"average" and quite honestly not that hard to accomplish for either role.
You’ve actually managed to surpass my level of disregard and ruthlessness toward other players infamous in game and on the forum. That is not only incredibly difficult, but definitely not a good thing as well.
0 -
He's not wrong...this is a terrible idea.
Just think about it, this game would get no new people playing it because of how ruthless it would become. By the way if people are always dcing that is probably because you are playing with lower ranks. Players still dc in high rank but it happens a lot less than with lower ranks. And if you just do not like new players get gud and get out of low rank.P.S. Your statistics are an utter falsehood.
3 -
@Jack11803 said:
surpassed my level of disregard and ruthelessness towards other players
definitely not a good thing as wellWelp, considering a) you have ZERO influence on my life and b) I have ZERO influence on your life, I promise that I'm not scared/intimidated/impressed or whatever you're trying to portray by this comment. You really should've just moved on because, once again, your response has done exactly... NOTHING.
2 -
So, you want to be able to play with people at your skill level, and not with people who are lower skilled.
If only there was some sort of..... System... That could... Sort players together like that...
6 -
@Terrortot said:
So, you want to be able to play with people at your skill level, and not with people who are lower skilled.If only there was some sort of..... System... That could... Sort players together like that...
No, that is not what I said at all. I said people who consistently lose 30%+ shouldn't be a hindrance to everyone else because they refuse to "get gud" as A_Simple_Pig has put it. Which is ironic since when you think about it is exactly what this all boils down to - "get gud" or "get out" - which should really be the basis for any competitive game that has a ranking system.
But that's just me, and you're welcome to disagree.
3 -
It’s downright wrong and against the terms of service to revoke one’s license of the game from not winning enough
5 -
Hi, I'm going to ban you from the forum because your posts aren't deemed good enough to be on here, less than 30% of them have had reactions.
Do you see how bonkers that sounds?
Can you tell us any other games that ban you for not having a certain skill level?Yeah, nah. Never gonna happen.
15 -
Lmao.
"You suck at the game, banned".
I get what you're saying it can be annoying to have idiots on your team who go down 10 seconds into your game or they rush unhooks in front of the killer and ruin it for the rest of your team but this idea just isn't going to happen. You can't just ban people for not winning games.1 -
@Sythalin said:
This would help better players have better quality games overall. People who clearly don't actually want to play the game, but lack the intelligence and/or willpower to just uninstall and move on, are no longer able to ruin the game for everyone else. By being restricted to KYF games only, they can [BAD WORD] off all they want during their games (and also make it impossible to refund since they can still play the game without the online factor - see F13 for reference).wait... better players? But why are these better players in the same ranks as people who lose THAT often.
Hmm something isn't adding up. Maybe stop deranking into the less skilled player ranks and let people have fun with the game they paid for.2 -
In my years of gaming I have read some elitist stuff, but this is definitely one of the best. Instead of understanding that people will filter to a low tier skill level, and allowing them to learn by actively playing the game...we just drop a ban on them? LolKThn
4 -
Oh great, following this advice I would have been banned in my first week of playing.
I think the only way this would help (already good) players is by don't have any games at all because everyone else is banned before they got the hang of it. Sounds fun.0 -
They should just make 2 different "game modes": One for casual play (which doesn´t allow swf), and a competetive one (which allows swf). Then you can kick out players out of competetive for being not that good and not in a group.
1 -
Sorry your ammount of post have been deemed too low to have the right to stay on the forum.
You will be ban in a short ammount of time.0 -
A lot of people are making fun of you (with good reason, honestly) but for real - if you ban people who aren't good at the game, how do you expect anyone to get better? More importantly, how do you expect the game to sustain itself? Not everyone who is good at the game is going to keep playing it forever. If we banned every new player who isn't a video gaming prodigy, the player base would die a slow and painful (but skilled) death.
1 -
Any new players? Rip the 20$ you just spent and got banned because you are a slow learner. LOL
As it is, killer lobby times even at lower ranks is long. That's because there are less people playing Survivor. Now with this event its even longer lol... I actually lost my first 30 games if i remember correctly.
If i only play 1 game today and i dont kill anyone, Banned for lack of performance.
Taking out SWF(and i ######### hate SWF) will actually break the game considering people would stop playing survivor more. This will do the same if you split the queue. You'll be waiting hours to play at rank 15 as killer lol have fun.
0 -
This dude thought he was starting something lmao
I can literally feel him seething through the screen because everyone doesn't know just how smart he is
2 -
Dude this is extremely selfish thing to even post...this would not be a fair banSythalin said:In order to help the community as a whole, the devs should not only be banning DCs/overly toxic players, but should also be removing players that are "under performing", aka "bads".
Criteria: Losing 30%+ of games in a week. Statistically, anyone who is legit trying to play the game will never have less than 30% of game losses, just like they should theoretically never DC innocently more than 30% of the time.
Define "losing"
Survivor: Failing to escape
Killer: Failing to kill 2/4
According to BHVR, these are the criteria for "average" games.Result: No longer eligible to play in public games, but can still participate in KYF matches.
This would help better players have better quality games overall. People who clearly don't actually want to play the game, but lack the intelligence and/or willpower to just uninstall and move on, are no longer able to ruin the game for everyone else. By being restricted to KYF games only, they can [BAD WORD] off all they want during their games (and also make it impossible to refund since they can still play the game without the online factor - see F13 for reference).
0 -
DbD is NOT an university examination: players cannot be banned because they are not clever enough. It would be illegal, too.
0 -
@grisstyl said:
I can literally feel him seething through the screen because everyone doesn't know just how smart he is1) You need to look up the definition of "literally" and try again
2) I'm far from seething. I've literally been chuckling, if not full out laughing, at every reply thus far.@Fibijean said:
A lot of people are making fun of you (with good reason, honestly)As I've stated before, I couldn't care less since not a single person here effects me in life in any way, shape or form. Gonna take a bit more than a few internet nobodies disagreeing with me to get me riled up. Just text on a screen to me.
I've posted my "wish", on the appropriate thread, to which people are welcome to disagree with. The fact that so many have turned their responses from debates over the wish to personal attacks, clearly violating the very first community rule:
Do not insult, harass or flame other forum members
... has turned this into just entertainment at this point. It's particularly interesting that a moderator has chosen to ignore by replying themselves, although their response is objectively debated to the topic itself, still proves they're intentionally looking past the other non-constructive, ad hominem responses. But that's their prerogative I suppose.
Feel free to lock the thread; I've said my piece, which again can be freely disagreed with, but it's a pretty safe bet any further responses by those who lack the ability to debate objectively will instead continue to attack personally and accomplish nothing for their efforts (see: grisstyl, Jack11803, etc.).
0 -
@Entità said:
It would be illegal, too.Game developers can ban at their discretion for any reason they see fit. Players don't own the game, only the ability to play it on their terms. Player agrees to those terms in the form of a TOS, which can be changed at any point and time. Hell, they could amend "anyone who doesn't spend X $$ per month cannot play (also known as a "subscription")" and it's 100% legal, as proven by any subscription based game.
EDIT: And before anyone pipes up "there's a difference between being banned and restricted access for not paying a sub", reread my original post that clearly states "restricted to KYF", not a full ban from the game.
0 -
I'm a killer main. I play survivor occasionally but i'm horrible at skillchecks. I have severe nerve damage in my fingers that makes precision timing painful and near impossible... I usually provide distraction, cleanse totems and unhook with Borrowed Time. I never escape. And even when i have the opportunity to, i opt to be hooked and die so that the killer can get points. Your ban rule is incredibly pompous.
1 -
Sythalin said:
@Entità said:
It would be illegal, too.Game developers can ban at their discretion for any reason they see fit. Players don't own the game, only the ability to play it on their terms. Player agrees to those terms in the form of a TOS, which can be changed at any point and time. Hell, they could amend "anyone who doesn't spend X $$ per month cannot play (also known as a "subscription")" and it's 100% legal, as proven by any subscription based game.
EDIT: And before anyone pipes up "there's a difference between being banned and restricted access for not paying a sub", reread my original post that clearly states "restricted to KYF", not a full ban from the game.
When we bought the game there wasn't any of these clauses, and to apply retroactively a so severe penalty not for misconduct, but for insufficient cleverness should be challenged in courts by groups of angry players.Aside this, can you imagine what kind of boycott the Developers should suffer? They can write all the clauses they like, but without customers' money they are condemned to bankruptcy.0 -
@Sassy said:
Hi, I'm going to ban you from the forum because your posts aren't deemed good enough to be on here, less than 30% of them have had reactions.
Do you see how bonkers that sounds?
Can you tell us any other games that ban you for not having a certain skill level?Yeah, nah. Never gonna happen.
Made my day, a person with the same sense of sarcasm as me.
1 -
@Sythalin said:
In order to help the community as a whole, the devs should not only be banning DCs/overly toxic players, but should also be removing players that are "under performing", aka "bads".Criteria: Losing 30%+ of games in a week. Statistically, anyone who is legit trying to play the game will never have less than 30% of game losses, just like they should theoretically never DC innocently more than 30% of the time.
Define "losing"
Survivor: Failing to escape
Killer: Failing to kill 2/4
According to BHVR, these are the criteria for "average" games.Result: No longer eligible to play in public games, but can still participate in KYF matches.
This would help better players have better quality games overall. People who clearly don't actually want to play the game, but lack the intelligence and/or willpower to just uninstall and move on, are no longer able to ruin the game for everyone else. By being restricted to KYF games only, they can [BAD WORD] off all they want during their games (and also make it impossible to refund since they can still play the game without the online factor - see F13 for reference).
Il be honest...this would be a ######### show if implemented into the game. here's the problem with this idea and the reason it most likely won't be implemented into the game. for one the idea itself is harsher than dark souls and a change of this magnitude and insanity would no doubt bring the company to its knees form a mix of protest and boycotting of the game. and yes we don't own the game as you stated but this game was marketed as an "Online Multiplayer" game. furthermore, I think this would actually count as discrimination against players. lastly, this isnt a competitive game, there is no competitive mode there is no competition cash pot. if you wanna play with better people just get your self up to rank 1..not that hard
1 -
This is an incredibly stupid idea. You should not be punished for being bad at videogames.
There is no way you can guarantee people who are legit trying will win above 30%.0 -
Y'know, I'd support this if you, OP, were to personally pay each individual who gets banned the same amount of money that they spent on the game.
0 -
It’s pretty inane to act like people have a time machine. You’re sassing people who said things which WERE correct in the past. Yeesh
0 -
@leon6er said:
@Sythalin said:
In order to help the community as a whole, the devs should not only be banning DCs/overly toxic players, but should also be removing players that are "under performing", aka "bads".Criteria: Losing 30%+ of games in a week. Statistically, anyone who is legit trying to play the game will never have less than 30% of game losses, just like they should theoretically never DC innocently more than 30% of the time.
Define "losing"
Survivor: Failing to escape
Killer: Failing to kill 2/4
According to BHVR, these are the criteria for "average" games.Result: No longer eligible to play in public games, but can still participate in KYF matches.
This would help better players have better quality games overall. People who clearly don't actually want to play the game, but lack the intelligence and/or willpower to just uninstall and move on, are no longer able to ruin the game for everyone else. By being restricted to KYF games only, they can [BAD WORD] off all they want during their games (and also make it impossible to refund since they can still play the game without the online factor - see F13 for reference).
Il be honest...this would be a ######### show if implemented into the game. here's the problem with this idea and the reason it most likely won't be implemented into the game. for one the idea itself is harsher than dark souls and a change of this magnitude and insanity would no doubt bring the company to its knees form a mix of protest and boycotting of the game. and yes we don't own the game as you stated but this game was marketed as an "Online Multiplayer" game. furthermore, I think this would actually count as discrimination against players. lastly, this isnt a competitive game, there is no competitive mode there is no competition cash pot. if you wanna play with better people just get your self up to rank 1..not that hard
@Emeal said:
This is an incredibly stupid idea. You should not be punished for being bad at videogames.
There is no way you can guarantee people who are legit trying will win above 30%.Btw, his original percent was 50
1 -
@Sythalin said:
Then they shouldn't be playing public games. We're talking escaping 1 out of 3 games or failing to get 2 kills per game every 3 games. Statistics posted by the devs themselves considers these to be"average" and quite honestly not that hard to accomplish for either role.This elitist attitude will get you nowhere, and just means that this game isn’t for you. There are plenty of other games out there, but I doubt that you’ll find many games (if any at all) that employ this tactic. It is a historical fact that games that solely cater to elitists, don’t exist very long.
1 -
@Kaelum said:
@Sythalin said:
Then they shouldn't be playing public games. We're talking escaping 1 out of 3 games or failing to get 2 kills per game every 3 games. Statistics posted by the devs themselves considers these to be"average" and quite honestly not that hard to accomplish for either role.This elitist attitude will get you nowhere, and just means that this game isn’t for you. There are plenty of other games out there, but I doubt that you’ll find many games (if any at all) that employ this tactic. It is a historical fact that games that solely cater to elitists, don’t exist very long.
Mostly because elitists are not as good as they think they are.
1 -
This has to be the worst suggestion I have ever read in here, and there are some truly awful ideas in here. So if you are going to ban players that are not good enough, then you also have to ban players that are too good. Otherwise those players are also ruining the game for the "statistically average" player.
0 -
Oh sure get rid of even more survivors. After all, they only need to make up 80% of the player base for quick lobbies. /sSythalin said:In order to help the community as a whole, the devs should not only be banning DCs/overly toxic players, but should also be removing players that are "under performing", aka "bads".
Criteria: Losing 30%+ of games in a week. Statistically, anyone who is legit trying to play the game will never have less than 30% of game losses, just like they should theoretically never DC innocently more than 30% of the time.
Define "losing"
Survivor: Failing to escape
Killer: Failing to kill 2/4
According to BHVR, these are the criteria for "average" games.Result: No longer eligible to play in public games, but can still participate in KYF matches.
This would help better players have better quality games overall. People who clearly don't actually want to play the game, but lack the intelligence and/or willpower to just uninstall and move on, are no longer able to ruin the game for everyone else. By being restricted to KYF games only, they can [BAD WORD] off all they want during their games (and also make it impossible to refund since they can still play the game without the online factor - see F13 for reference).
0 -
@Peasant said:
Oh sure get rid of even more survivors. After all, they only need to make up 80% of the player base for quick lobbies. /s
I prefer waiting more to have a good match against decent peoples than getting instant lobby full of entitled toxic brats.
Quality over quantity.
0 -
Restricted to KYF isn't a ban? Well technically they aren't banned, but for most players that's essentially close enough.Sythalin said:@Entità said:
It would be illegal, too.Game developers can ban at their discretion for any reason they see fit. Players don't own the game, only the ability to play it on their terms. Player agrees to those terms in the form of a TOS, which can be changed at any point and time. Hell, they could amend "anyone who doesn't spend X $$ per month cannot play (also known as a "subscription")" and it's 100% legal, as proven by any subscription based game.
EDIT: And before anyone pipes up "there's a difference between being banned and restricted access for not paying a sub", reread my original post that clearly states "restricted to KYF", not a full ban from the game.
Let's get real here, how many friends, actual people you chat and hangout with, that actively play Dead by Daylight. Out of that group, how many are willing to play games for no reward other than your company?
Let's face it, most folks play Dead by Daylight for the grind. If you restrict people from playing the grind they'll leave and without bots we're screwed. What you're suggesting would greatly accelerate the death of the game.
Unless you have an entire city's population of survivors hidden behind that big ego of yours don't suggest banning consumers from using a product they bought.0 -
I'm all down for banning toxic folks. (STRIKE THEM DOWN WITH THE BAN HAMMER AND CAST THEM TO THE WAYSIDE!) However, the OP suggested that we start banning players who either die alot as survivor or can't always get kills as a killer.Giche said:@Peasant said:
Oh sure get rid of even more survivors. After all, they only need to make up 80% of the player base for quick lobbies. /s
I prefer waiting more to have a good match against decent peoples than getting instant lobby full of entitled toxic brats.
Quality over quantity.
To restate, I am down for banning toxic folks, but there is no good reason why we should ban folks who just get unlucky/ tunneled/ or are new.1
