"If enough people report you, you're gone" mentality.
Comments
-
It isn't because griefing is defined as "Targeting specific users repeatedly in order to ruin their game experience". This is taken directly from the game rules. Emphasis is on "repeatedly" and "specific"
6 -
Yeah, because a lot of people don't understand the tool tips of the game from underused perks to their opponent's perks. I try to make an effort to understand perks when I play killer, so I can try using it to my advantage. Unfortunately, a lot of people stick to a cookie cutter template and not bother to deviate from there.
Yes. A lot of the time it's whining from survivors, but these people can be serious on filing false reports and clogging up the support system. All because they got stomped in a pub match and want to ruin their opponent's gameplay experience in return. This type of behavior is against the rules and shouldn't be tolerated, especially when Behaviour starts on an automated system.
Exactly. If I was targeting [x] for several games in a row because of a specific reason, then it can be considered a violation. Yet, I avoided doing that for the sake of not ruining people's games. I even dodged lobbies if I encountered them a bit too often.
This is why I believe clarification of the rules should be done in text form and altogether in one document. (Not the current mess of several documents.) People assume facecamping and Insidious camping is bannable under the griefing or harassment tabs.
1 -
In regards to false reports the game rules state:
Abuse of support services
This includes making false support tickets and lying to support agents. Our agents are always here to help the community. However, those making false tickets just to get a step ahead of everyone else and take advantage hinders our ability to better help everyone. Penalties include suspension of your support services, up to a permanent ban of your in-game account.
So I really hope that all the survivors that spam the report system with their complaints about camping and tunneling will get a wake up call
1 -
I should make much shorter posts, maybe then people would read them.
0 -
Glad I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Insidious Basement Camping Bubba is done solely to ruin a match for 4 people and waste their time. Killers who willingly plan to do this, know exactly what they're doing and get some sick amusement out of making others miserable- oh, but sanitize it by calling it "a playstyle". It's just trolling.
Personally, I think it's griefing.
1 -
And I find it fun. The 3 times I did it, I had fun. I didn't do it to ruin anyone's experience, I did it just because it is fun to me.
Basement Boob basically means you camp. Which is not bannable. Periodt.
3 -
but its not reportable. Thats literally in the list of things not reportable.
3 -
Uh huh. Last time I encountered an Insidious Basement camping Bubba, it resulted in 3 disconnects, no gens done, and I was left to find the hatch. Everyone depipped, no one earned many BPs, so If you aren't finding the idea of making others miserable entertaining, because you know full well that it's universally despised- can you articulate what you find fun about it?
and I know it's technically not bannable. But I hope it becomes punishable some day b/c it's griefing almost exclusively against Solo survivors, exploiting their inability to communicate.
1 -
ikr.
0 -
The only people breaking rules there are the people who DC'd.
You can't punish perk set-ups/playstyles
5 -
I'm sure it will never be punished. And yes, I am well aware of DC'ing being against the rules (and yet, it happens every other match!). At the same time, no one can blame survivors for getting uppity either. I don't blame people for not wanting to entertain bad manners. But it's DBD after all :) . "It's a LeGiT strategy" and all that type of thing.
0 -
So then, streamers will get banned swiftly because of targeted mass reporting?
"Appeal to majority" is not effective reasoning, 100 people can all be wrong on something at the same time. It should always be looked into. If the devs go forward with volume being THE factor OR a major factor, then they're opening the doors to abuse.
They'd be wasting their money on making the game more "modern" to invite newbies when the toxic community that would arise would just drive them away. lmao
2 -
Why would streamers in particular be targeted for mass reporting?
And yes, 100 people can be wrong about something. What I think most people fail to consider is that it's unlikely for 100 total strangers to just suddenly report someone for the same thing, especially if that person didn't actually do anything egregious.
I understand the concern about an automated ban system but I think that people are jumping the gun on this generalized idea that "if enough people report you, you're gone". No developer of an online game is going to be so stupid that they're willing to ostracize their entire playerbase by just flipping on a switch that says "10 reports ever and this person is permabanned". I'm pretty confident that the requirements will be a little more reasonable than that.
0 -
They'd be targeted by haters, people trying to streamsnipe, or people salty that they got stomped.
Imagine being one of those who managed to get someone like Otzdarva banned. You'd be noticed... not in a good way, but noticed.
I think so too, but this is BHVR, they worded it in this manner on the stream, and there has been no actual deconfirmation that it WON'T work this way. The devs also said "volume", I think? I know it was brought up in this topic. Which pretty much gives the story, wouldn't you say?
If everyone is wrong, it really shouldn't be hard to just deny it or say it won't work this way. This is honestly such a easy thing to shoot down. It's... worrying that they haven't just denied it. I'm sure others feel the same.
3 -
No offense but it's kind of ironic to say that group mentality is bad because it's the alleged reason why some Youtube goon got banned but it's a good thing when a bunch of people who don't know the details of something decide that it needs to go before it even exists.
People keep ignoring the point so I'm just going to keep reiterating it: A broken ban system will not just anger players, it will legitimately cost the company money. They're not going to release something, or at least stand behind it, if it turns out to be a massive detriment to both parties. That would make no business sense. So until we know what the details will actually be, I think it's safe to suggest that people should relax and not go scorched Earth on the subject. So many people jump to the worst-case scenario and assume that just because a handful of people think that they're tunneling, or hiding, or whatever else, they'll just wake up one day and find that they're restricted from playing the game ever again. I don't quite think that what they have in mind is going to be THAT easy to abuse. Maybe we should all just wait and see.
0 -
This is apples and oranges because we have evidence that this is how the system will work, and like I said, the fact that they won't just say "it won't work this way" is telling.
But... fine. However, if everyone here was right, then you will hopefully be protesting it.
1 -
What evidence are you talking about? What is this about "everyone being right"? I don't know what you're referring to.
You said that the Youtube streamer got banned because too many people reported him. I didn't follow the story because I could hardly care less about Youtube streamers. What I've been told is that BHVR made the call, not some automated system. I'm not aware of the planned auto-ban system having played a role in this situation, or anyone else being banned because of it yet. My understanding, at least as recently as when I went to bed last night, is that no one is sure of the details yet and that serious claims that required proof before will continue to need proof in the future. This is from one of the mods themselves.
If you have evidence to the contrary, I'll respond to it. Until then my awareness of the changed report / ban system is that it has not yet been implemented, nor detailed, and that any discussion about it is pure speculation with a healthy amount of "worst-case scenario" based on nothing more than the fact that (A) it's at least somewhat automated, and (B) volume will make a difference (which, contrary to popular belief, is a good thing). Should someone be banned because two hundred people reported him, or two?
0 -
in my opinion, those who are afraid are because they feel defective
0 -
While this is reassuring to some extent, I believe this auto-ban system is going to encourage more toxicity rather than reduce it. Now players know that they can potentially get people to be reviewed for ban, even if they did not against the rules, simply by spamming reports against someone. It’s only going to increase the amount of reporting for non-reportable things and lead to an even more toxic environment, IMO. If this system does end up getting implemented, one thing that would make me feel much better about it is the potential for players to be banned if they are constantly reporting people for non-reportable things. That would be an effective way to help reduce the toxicity
0 -
Abusing the report system is already against the rules:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/kb/articles/139-game-rules
1 -
No, no Youtuber got banned, I was saying that this would most likely happen under the autoban system. "100 false reports" is very possible if the target is a famous person.
And by "everyone was right", I mean that if everyone was right about the autoban system working exactly as everyone fears it will, I hope that you will be protesting it alongside everyone else.
My evidence is also, in hindsight, not decisive, but there are two big things to this:
- According to the stream, the autoban system is supposed to be taking volume of reports into account, and anyhing about reviewing those reports was never mentioned. And the "auto" part of this implies the ban is automatic. You don't generally call a system that involves reviewing reports a "autoban system", specifically...
- The staff isn't denying this, just saying that "it isn't finalized yet" (?). Which is worrisome, because it implies that this is on the table. Justifying the need to post these topics to try and sway BHVR from potentially implementing what everyone fears.
Look, I get your point. "It's not out yet", "we don't have any details", etc... but this evidence leads to very worrying conclusions. This forums has something to go off of, it's not baseless emotional panicking. And like I said before, it's not hard at all to just say it won't work like this. You can just say "no" without giving any deeper details, and that will calm pretty much everyone down.
Rizzo has also said something here... but I noticed a issue with it. I don't think it actually answers these concerns at all.
1 -
Yes but this autoban system is a "auto" ban system. Will anyone be reviewing these reports? It was implied that volume of reports would be enough on that stream. And as far as I know, no staff at BHVR have specifically said it won't work like everyone fears it will. Just that "it's not finished yet" or "it's still being decided", iirc.
Even if it's against the rules, if there is no system or person in place to check if the report system is being abused... will it even matter if it's against the rules?
0 -
We already said multiple times that things within the game rules won't get punished, we don't have details on how it will work because still in development.
And there's a team of ACMs already in charge of dealing with the reports, they will most likely supervise said system, but again we'll give out more information about it when we will be able to.
1 -
And I understand your worries, I'm just saying that people shouldn't panic, they should give the team a chance to develop the system that they have in mind and tell us more about it. If by then there's still worry, maybe we can chat with them about it. But until then it's only logical to assume that they don't want to make a system that will ostracize (or outright delete) a bunch of good, honest customers, so I'm just remaining on the "wait and see" side of things. We don't have the answers yet, so at the moment stressing about it is just that, causing ourselves unnecessary stress.
0 -
When people realise they can’t get someone banned for tunnelling or camping etc, what is to stop them from simply lying in their report? As you say, video evidence would be needed. But that’s not a new system. That’s the current system, and we know a new system is being worked on.
Granted, we don’t have the details yet but it doesn’t really add up. A new system coined “auto ban” that requires video evidence like the current system?
Time will tell I suppose.
0 -
if they do implement the mentioned auto-ban system, that's a clear sign the devs disagree with this statement to a certain degree, right? In addition to violating the rules there is now an additional path ahead to a ban: if you upset enough other players.
If this is indeed a new system coming in the form you described in your OP, then you cannot point to the rules and ToS alone anymore, it will be a new system, and maybe the ToS will be updated to reflect this.
After the 5th, 6th, nth basement camping bubba, iridescent huntress, whatever intentionally triggering killer setup is there out there, people might not want to bite the bullet one more time. Maybe the devs' intention is to create a community where a portion of their player base don't have to bite bullets over and over again.
Personally I'm not sure if I like it, I can see the value of it and the disadvantage of it as well. We'll just have to wait and see.
0 -
You're literally worrying about nothing
0 -
It's still in development. How can you say that it won't be abusable if it isn't even finished?
We had a very similar situation in the past with the automated disconnect bans. That system had to be disabled multiple times because people kept finding ways to trigger it on players who did not disconnect, such as popular streamers.
Supposedly abusing that system required some kind of expert knowledge to abuse it, but any sort of auto-ban system that doesn't function properly in a similar way that the disconnect ban system didn't function properly seems like it could be falsely triggered by anyone from within the game, for example by mass reporting people.
No one is saying that the system will be intentionally built in such a way that it can be abused but based on the track record the developers have with things being released in a completely broken state it doesn't seem impossible that the auto-ban system will have some kind of flaw that will be abused and lead to a lot of incorrect bans.
2
