http://dbd.game/killswitch
Linking videos on these forums
It's seen as if you've just broken every Geneva convention.
(Linked comment is only there because it was at the top of my notifs. No idea what this person was trying to say though)
Take this thread as an example. I wanted to make the point that killers should have an early game so they have time to settle into the match and set up while saying your average player can't deal with 1 gen being done in 27 seconds. Hence I linked a video to show this so people wouldn't say "YoU HaVe No PrOof".
And around 90% of the comments are basically : "HE got a 4k so why are YOU complaining"
Or
"I'm going to try to get you banned because I don't agree with your opinion"
While this behaviour is exactly the things people point to when they say the dbd community is one of the worst..that's a different thread to be made by a different person who possibly studies psychology or sociology
there's some that actually read the original post ...as there always is. But It's worse than my previous thread where it was simply asking for an early game while making the endgame a little weaker. And the only major difference in the two is that one of them had a linked video.
Linking videos to provide a visual stimulus to your point shouldn't be looked down upon, and to respond to the oh so common reply of "they got a 4k" - of course they did. They wouldn't upload a 2k or a 1k because that doesn't make for interesting content. The survivor "equivalent" is cutting to the next game after you die or escape. Nobody cares about how the rest of the game goes they're only interested in the content creator playing.
Comments
-
alllllrighty then so this is a thread just complaining about people not reading or missing the point of certain threads/arguments?
1 -
This one? Basicly yeah.
0 -
There's nothing wrong with linking videos and that's not peoples issue here, to a degree.
The issue is that people love to pick one game out of many showing a streamer having a hard time and then use that to call balance into question even though said streamer will still win a majority of their games.
It makes it look like you're mad the streamer was unable to steamroll people like normal and then when they get a 4k anyway it makes it even worse.
It's not your intention by any means but that's just how it comes off and it can annoy people. Streamer wins 75 games out of 100, streamer ties in 24 more games, streamer loses 1 game or has a really really hard time so people pick that one game and then complain about it.
It just makes one roll their eyes because balance talk, early game changes and other things like that are great and interesting subjects to discuss. Showing a streamer having to work slightly harder for that 4k and using that to call balance into question and then argue for early game changes is not. There are just way too many uncontrolled variables in such an example to be of any significant use.
If you wanted to share a video and talk about early game changes, you would have been better off showing a video of a streamer directly talking about early game changes and various things that could be done to switch things up. It would have likely been a lot more effective and got people to talk more on the subject you wanted instead of just about the streamer.
Post edited by ohheyitsbobcat on2 -
People take issue with others presenting flawed evidence that doesn't support their argument, as they rightfully should. No one has a problem with linking videos in general, or looks down on it. It's just easier to pick apart bad evidence than a simple opinion post.
1 -
Thanks I'll attempt to do that in future :)
0 -
That's fair. But what if its someone linking a video that shows an example of the issue that they are talking about
E. G : if there was a a loop setup that made it so that a killer could always land a hit on the survivor even if they fast vaulted the person would show a clip from a video showing this so they could provide an example of what they mean
0 -
If the evidence is sound, I don't see why anyone should have a problem with it. Personally, I've never seen anyone respond negatively on the forums to a video that accurately represents a reasonable claim.
0 -
Okay. So can I ask if using the most recent otz video where a gen gets done in 27 seconds is solid enough evidence that killers really don't have an early game?
0 -
Well, if you're asking for my opinion, it depends how you define "early game". I would be inclined to say no, because although the first generator was done within 30 seconds, the next one didn't get done until about three minutes after that, by which point he already had 3 hooks. So all things considered, I would say he dominated what I would define as the early game, in spite of that first generator going off quickly.
Objectively speaking, that video isn't evidence of much more than that generators can get repaired in under 30 seconds, which is something everyone already knows. It's such an obvious fact that it's not even worth discussing. What is worth discussing is whether that's a problem, and if so, why. Otz's video doesn't demonstrate anything to the effect of generator times being a problem or killers having no early game. If anything, it demonstrates the opposite.
Now, that's not to say that those statements ("generator times are a problem" and "killers have no early game") are conclusively untrue, but this is exactly the point I'm trying to make about using bad evidence to back up a claim. It's too easy to discredit the argument by pointing out that the evidence is faulty. An argument accompanied by evidence which its proponents claim supports it, but actually does the opposite, is even less credible than a simple assertion with no evidence behind it. That's why video posts like that one get criticised much more harshly than mere assertions most of the time - not because they're videos, but because more often than not, they don't prove what the poster is trying to pretend they do.
3 -
Why can't I get a civil discussion which makes valid points backed up like this on the regular? Thanks for your information and I'll try my best to work on how I present an argument to cause a debate on a matter. I might try using the technique I have to use in essays when forming them. Have a good day
1 -
You too! I'm always happy to have civil debates with reasonable people, and I would absolutely advocate for well-structured arguments in any context. It's much easier to communicate and have interesting discussions when everyone can share their opinions in a reasoned and logical way 🙂
2 -
It just makes absolutely no sense to post videos that only show the flaws in your own "arguments". And thats what happens 99% of the time, esp. with your threads. You just dont want to understand this.
2 -
Maybe if these content creators actually believe what they are saying, they would set aside their egos and start posting videos where not only gens go fast, but they get crushed and LOSE badly(if these games exist, that is). Don’t you think that would be a much better way to prove a point? But no, it’s always games where a few gens pop early and then stall, with the killer still at least managing a draw, usually winning. All it shows is something everybody should be aware of, gens will go faster early and slower late. Not hard to figure out. Some streamers, one in particular, like to run the narrative that every game they have the odds stacked against them, so when they win they look amazing and if they happen to lose “there was nothing they could do because the game is broken”. Even here ego seems to get in the way of making points, where a killer will complain about gens but in the same post claim they still 3-4K most games at red ranks.
1 -
Most streamers don't cut out games where they don't 4k just like they don't cut out games where they get sacrificed. If they got a 4k what's the problem? If gen times were longer would that have prevented them from getting the 4k? I don't know why people are complaining about it unless they just never play survivor and just want to 4k on 5 gens every game. Just start all the survivors on hooks at that point.
1 -
I read the post here. Yeah, devs are bad! Killee gud!
0
