New Policy: Bans for Bads

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. 

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

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

DbD is NOT an university examination: players cannot be banned because they are not clever enough. It would be illegal, too.

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.

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.

@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

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.

@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.

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).

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

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.

Restricted to KYF isn't a ban? Well technically they aren't banned, but for most players that's essentially close enough.

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.