Lagswitching is not a permanent bannable offense?

Sometimes you don't need to use a 3rd party program to lagswitch, and thus it's harder to prove that it's intentional. But realistically, it looks like the devs just don't take it seriously even though it makes the game completely unfun.

And idk.. it makes no sense that 'hacking' a prestige or legacy is that big of a deal. It has little impact on the game. You can't even lose money from that since people don't pay for them to begin with.

@not_Queen said:
@SenzuDuck Yes that's true.
In addition to it, most lagswitches are taken down by EAC.
Large number of lagswitch reports on a player's account will lead to Temporary ban escalation.

Good to hear, sharing internet in a household is a big problem, if my sister ended up uploading something or downloading movies, it will no doubt affect players ping in game

if only we had dedicated server

@WienerSchnitzel_OA_ The rules will be out today or tomorrow. You'll see there is a clause about temporary ban escalation covering this.!

@not_Queen sorry to bother you is there a way to check ping during a game because somone in ps4 accused me of a lag switch (despite me broadcasting and showing all people moving) if its possible can I please know so I can check it when I play killer I dont want to unfairly play against others if I can avoid it

@SenzuDuck said:

@not_Queen said:
@SenzuDuck Yes that's true.
In addition to it, most lagswitches are taken down by EAC.
Large number of lagswitch reports on a player's account will lead to Temporary ban escalation.

Sorry for summoning you, but also, thank you answering the question.

All Hail The Soon™.

I support this message !!!! 👍👍

@megdonalds said:

@SenzuDuck said:
You can't prove someone is lag switching, you can't just start banning people for having bad internet.

This.
And also consider all the salty players who false report killers for just being mad about losing.

To an extent proving it is hard but when you're constantly rubber banding around only during a chase/vault/window until they hit you. It's pretty obvious since the moment they down you it magically disappears.

@Visionmaker said:

And? Instead of doubling down and investing resources into DBD, BHVR made the choice to invest into another game.

Money went into Death Garden. I guarantee you team members were also shifted onto DG. They made a gamble and it's my earnest opinion that the resources would've been better spent on improving and reinforcing DBD.

Did you even look at the other divisions they have? While people may have moved over may'be they wanted to, they've also gone on a hiring spree so perhaps those people got replaced.

If someone wanted a new opportunity and decided to move over and you said sorry you've got to stay here. Well guess what they go to work for someone else that's willing to give them a new opportunity.

@not_Queen said:
@SenzuDuck Yes that's true.
In addition to it, most lagswitches are taken down by EAC.
Large number of lagswitch reports on a player's account will lead to Temporary ban escalation.

@not_Queen i have like 13 fps and not very good internet and that makes so that everyone lags no matter what.

Would i get banned for that? Because im afraid of being banned due to "lagswitch" reports accumulating like crasy now.

@Visionmaker said:
powerbats said:

@Visionmaker said:

And? Instead of doubling down and investing resources into DBD, BHVR made the choice to invest into another game.

Money went into Death Garden. I guarantee you team members were also shifted onto DG. They made a gamble and it's my earnest opinion that the resources would've been better spent on improving and reinforcing DBD.

Did you even look at the other divisions they have? While people may have moved over may'be they wanted to, they've also gone on a hiring spree so perhaps those people got replaced.

If someone wanted a new opportunity and decided to move over and you said sorry you've got to stay here. Well guess what they go to work for someone else that's willing to give them a new opportunity.

? Why does that matter? Good for the employees if they make their own decisions in an organization... But this has less to do with individual employees than the executives that are actually making significant decisions.. Such as not pushing for dedicated servers.

Dedicated servers are not a sound investment when each game session only holds 5 players. If we're talking about game sessions that hold 8 or more players, then yes it's worth the cost.

@Visionmaker said:
pauloandrade22 said:

@not_Queen said:

@SenzuDuck Yes that's true.
In addition to it, most lagswitches are taken down by EAC.

Large number of lagswitch reports on a player's account will lead to Temporary ban escalation.

@not_Queen i have like 13 fps and not very good internet and that makes so that everyone lags no matter what.

Would i get banned for that? Because im afraid of being banned due to "lagswitch" reports accumulating like crasy now.

I don't think people will report you for general lag. It's obvious at the beginning of the game after the loading period if the game will be laggy. You will experience stutters from the start. The lobby ping will wildly fluctuate.

But if you're only "lagging" during chases or when someone is about to hook save after a perfect lobby and start up, then maybe you should be more careful with your "lagging"...

Not to mention that sometimes im fine but for them its like im lagging but im not (like them standing still and the like)

@FrenziedRoach said:

Dedicated servers are not a sound investment when each game session only holds 5 players. If we're talking about game sessions that hold 8 or more players, then yes it's worth the cost.

You actually bring up a valid point there since the resources for a 5 player versus 10 player match aren't insignificant.

powerbats said:

@megdonalds said:

@SenzuDuck said:
You can't prove someone is lag switching, you can't just start banning people for having bad internet.

This.
And also consider all the salty players who false report killers for just being mad about losing.

To an extent proving it is hard but when you're constantly rubber banding around only during a chase/vault/window until they hit you. It's pretty obvious since the moment they down you it magically disappears.

That's not lag switching. 
Lag switching: you start to perform a action like repairing or unhooking and you get no progress at all. You hold the button for 30 seconds and suddenly you encounter yourself on the shoulder of the killer. 

@Hellbilly said:

@not_Queen said:
@SenzuDuck Yes that's true.
In addition to it, most lagswitches are taken down by EAC.
Large number of lagswitch reports on a player's account will lead to Temporary ban escalation.

Define "large number." Like 12 reports, 20 reports, 50 reports, give me an estimate.

They definitely will not give numbers on this.

To the OP, you need to remember that temporary bans can become permanent bans, it just takes time. The temporary bans for lagswitchers is to avoid perma banning someone with bad internet.

@FrenziedRoach said:

@Visionmaker said:
powerbats said:

@Visionmaker said:

And? Instead of doubling down and investing resources into DBD, BHVR made the choice to invest into another game.

Money went into Death Garden. I guarantee you team members were also shifted onto DG. They made a gamble and it's my earnest opinion that the resources would've been better spent on improving and reinforcing DBD.

Did you even look at the other divisions they have? While people may have moved over may'be they wanted to, they've also gone on a hiring spree so perhaps those people got replaced.

If someone wanted a new opportunity and decided to move over and you said sorry you've got to stay here. Well guess what they go to work for someone else that's willing to give them a new opportunity.

? Why does that matter? Good for the employees if they make their own decisions in an organization... But this has less to do with individual employees than the executives that are actually making significant decisions.. Such as not pushing for dedicated servers.

Dedicated servers are not a sound investment when each game session only holds 5 players. If we're talking about game sessions that hold 8 or more players, then yes it's worth the cost.

But why? I mean It is not a sarcastic joke, I genuinely want to know why it is not a good investment if each game session only holds 5 players.

Lets say that I have created a game and my lobbies hold 15 people. However, only 500 people play it.

Lets say that you have created another game and your lobbies hold 5 people. 50000 people play your game. And your game has problems like lagswitching, killers hitting survivors when they shouldn't according to the survivors' view etc.

Why should first one get dedicated servers while the other one doesn't?

@pauloandrade22 said:

@not_Queen said:
@SenzuDuck Yes that's true.
In addition to it, most lagswitches are taken down by EAC.
Large number of lagswitch reports on a player's account will lead to Temporary ban escalation.

@not_Queen i have like 13 fps and not very good internet and that makes so that everyone lags no matter what.

Would i get banned for that? Because im afraid of being banned due to "lagswitch" reports accumulating like crasy now.

I wouldn't assume you are intentionally doing it, like you said you could just be having a bad pc or internet. Either way, you should fix your problem or just play survivor...it's not other's people fault to teleport all over the map just so you can play killer.

@Delfador said:

But why? I mean It is not a sarcastic joke, I genuinely want to know why it is not a good investment if each game session only holds 5 players.

Lets say that I have created a game and my lobbies hold 15 people. However, only 500 people play it.

Lets say that you have created another game and your lobbies hold 5 people. 50000 people play your game. And your game has problems like lagswitching, killers hitting survivors when they shouldn't according to the survivors' view etc.

Why should first one get dedicated servers while the other one doesn't?

Think about it logically, what takes more resources, the same map loaded 6 times or the same map loaded 3 times?

Don't think that's a thing? Take 30 players, divide them by 5 players each. Take the same 30 players, divide them by 10 each.

Of course there's a point where the network traffic will have an inverse effect on the CPU time on the server, you see this with larger games like Rust and ARK.

You also have to stop and consider the investment itself. It's cheaper to find enough servers to service 500 players than it is to have enough for as much as 40k players (this game does cap out at 40k when new)

And finally, do you really want the people who still have issues with people's saves getting lost to be in charge of our game servers? No thanks! I'll take my chances with the occasional laggy killer rather than not being able to play at all because some 3rd rate server admin forgot to feed the hamsters powering their servers.