Why are devs/killers like this?

@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.

Edit: My question got answered already.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think this just comes to a disagreement on the definition of bias then.

I appreciate that you think I'm generally fair though.

"Griefplay and ######### behaviour is fine, just don't let it get to you". Literally not how real life works my dude.

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".

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.

Lol fair enough. We aren't really getting anywhere anyway.

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.