The problem with NOED [RANT]

@thesuicidefox said:

@FireHazard said:
Don't you think if a killers getting 4k every match (for example) and still uses post-gen perks to make sure the team dies is not overkill? Or to the very least makes them look like an ass?

It is overkill but they have no way to know before hand. Some games go super fast and NOED is almost necessary, other games it's not needed but procs anyway. I always feel bad for the groups where 1 or 2 of them barely make it to end game, but that's offset by the groups that blaze through gens and now I kind of need it to keep pressure.

If you need the pressure then use it. If you for example play fine without it than clearly you don't need it.

There's a difference between needing something and not needing something, but I guess that points never looked on.

@CyanideCandy said:

@FireHazard said:

@thesuicidefox said:

@FireHazard said:
Don't you think if a killers getting 4k every match (for example) and still uses post-gen perks to make sure the team dies is not overkill? Or to the very least makes them look like an ass?

It is overkill but they have no way to know before hand. Some games go super fast and NOED is almost necessary, other games it's not needed but procs anyway. I always feel bad for the groups where 1 or 2 of them barely make it to end game, but that's offset by the groups that blaze through gens and now I kind of need it to keep pressure.

If you need the pressure then use it. If you for example play fine without it than clearly you don't need it.

There's a difference between needing something and not needing something, but I guess that points never looked on.

Kind of like how you keep overlooking the fact that you have no real way of 100% guaranteed knowing exactly what motivated a killer to use no-ed? Or how either way, need it or not, there's nothing inherently toxic about using the perk? Your entire argument is based on your assumption and you're using it to slap the toxic label on someone else and have twice now encouraged people to treat each-other badly over the perk.

You make it sound like I just call out every NOED user, perhaps I should of added that I know when they're intentionally being toxic when they display it post game.

You can also tell they're being toxic from how they play, if you're being demolished by then do they really need the perk?

@CyanideCandy said:

@FireHazard said:

@CyanideCandy said:

@FireHazard said:

@Orion said:

@FireHazard said:

@Orion said:

@FireHazard said:
Of course they have the right to use any perks they want its their character, does that justify what they're doing though? No not really.

Yes, it absolutely [BAD WORD] does. Who are you to tell someone else how to play the game they bought? Who are you to tell someone else which parts of the game they bought they're "allowed" to use? As long as they don't break the rules, they're justified in doing whatever they want, because that's the product they paid for. Who are you to say otherwise?

So what you're saying is, since I bought the game I can be an [BAD WORD] to everyone I come across and be utterly toxic? And theirs justification for it? Sounds amazing.

You'd be breaking the rules, so no. I should've known I should've added "as long as they don't break the rules" to every single point, just so you couldn't pretend you didn't read it.

No I read it, what you're clearly saying is if I wanted to I can be a knob to everyone I come across and just because I bought the game that will justify what i'm doing. The same can be said to people who know they don't need NOED but use it anyways despite it being obvious in the match that they don't.

I know that point flys past most your heads, but that's what the rants implying here. Idc if you're a rank 20 using it, or if you're a Freddy who uses it, or what have you. I care only when its on killers that DON'T need it but still have it on them because the killer knows it makes the survivors angry.

Yeah but the rules posted by the devs say you can't be an absolutely toxic douche to everyone without consequence. Meaning being toxic is breaking the rules, that's why most toxic actions are listed when you click the little thumbsup/down button at the end of the match in the categories. Using a specific perk isn't listed in those, is it?
Using No-ed is not inherently a toxic action, regardless of which killer they're playing or why they do it. Period. You just think it is because you don't like it.

No, I think its bad in the hands of people that want to be douches with it. If you have issues with pressure and or overall playing the game go ahead and use it. That means you NEED it to get better without it, its like training wheels on a bike, eventually we all don't need them anymore and ride the bike ourselves.

And no, specific perks are not listed in it. Does that really matter though when the person clearly knows it'll cause reactions when they use it though? And will outright troll because of it?

Correlation is not causation. Because some toxic killers you've met used no-ed doesn't mean the default motivation for using no-ed it to be toxic. They don't have anything to do with each-other.

I never said the default motivation for using NOED is to be toxic... I said its clear that people who use NOED and are toxic (Usually by displaying it in post chat or in-game) SHOULD be called out for it. I'm sorry some of use can't be good little boys and just sit there and take it?

Obviously you're not reading what i'm saying...

@thesuicidefox said:

@FireHazard said:

@thesuicidefox said:

@FireHazard said:
Don't you think if a killers getting 4k every match (for example) and still uses post-gen perks to make sure the team dies is not overkill? Or to the very least makes them look like an ass?

It is overkill but they have no way to know before hand. Some games go super fast and NOED is almost necessary, other games it's not needed but procs anyway. I always feel bad for the groups where 1 or 2 of them barely make it to end game, but that's offset by the groups that blaze through gens and now I kind of need it to keep pressure.

If you need the pressure then use it. If you for example play fine without it than clearly you don't need it.

There's a difference between needing something and not needing something, but I guess that points never looked on.

Some games you don't need it, but some game you do need it. You have no way to know before the game starts. If they rush gens or just split the map then you are screwed as killer. You can't pressure in those situations.

There's a lot of ways to pressure in those situations. And the same can be applied to having the perk itself, how would you know the games gonna go good for you or not...

@Orion said:

@FireHazard said:

@Orion said:

@FireHazard said:

@CyanideCandy said:

@FireHazard said:

@thesuicidefox said:

@FireHazard said:
Don't you think if a killers getting 4k every match (for example) and still uses post-gen perks to make sure the team dies is not overkill? Or to the very least makes them look like an ass?

It is overkill but they have no way to know before hand. Some games go super fast and NOED is almost necessary, other games it's not needed but procs anyway. I always feel bad for the groups where 1 or 2 of them barely make it to end game, but that's offset by the groups that blaze through gens and now I kind of need it to keep pressure.

If you need the pressure then use it. If you for example play fine without it than clearly you don't need it.

There's a difference between needing something and not needing something, but I guess that points never looked on.

Kind of like how you keep overlooking the fact that you have no real way of 100% guaranteed knowing exactly what motivated a killer to use no-ed? Or how either way, need it or not, there's nothing inherently toxic about using the perk? Your entire argument is based on your assumption and you're using it to slap the toxic label on someone else and have twice now encouraged people to treat each-other badly over the perk.

You make it sound like I just call out every NOED user, perhaps I should of added that I know when they're intentionally being toxic when they display it post game.

You can also tell they're being toxic from how they play, if you're being demolished by then do they really need the perk?

If they display toxicity in the post-game chat, you can report them.

How can they know, in advance, that you're a lot worse at the game than they are? Or do you expect them to swap out perks mid-game?

Since when does that make me for example a lot worse at the game than they are? If anything it shows they're an ass by snuffing out any hope of survival in their match. And it strengthens the point if they also show this toxicity in post-game chat or literally in game...

This has nothing to do with my skill vs theirs, it has to do with their closed mind approach to how a match goes in their eyes. But I guess its OK it just demolish an entire team without a second thought while assuming you're good. This goes for people who out right display this, NOT newbies who need the perk or what have you. I still don't know why you two miss this point.

Your example was about you being demolished. You don't get demolished unless you're significantly worse than the guy you're facing. So, how's the guy you're facing supposed to know, in advance, that he's gonna demolish you?

Do you understand the definition of an example? Its a scenario, I didn't imply it was a reality. Not everything I say is referring to me... Not sure where this is coming from.

@CyanideCandy said:

@FireHazard said:

@CyanideCandy said:

@FireHazard said:

@CyanideCandy said:

@FireHazard said:

@CyanideCandy said:

@FireHazard said:

@Orion said:

@FireHazard said:

@Orion said:

@FireHazard said:
Of course they have the right to use any perks they want its their character, does that justify what they're doing though? No not really.

Yes, it absolutely [BAD WORD] does. Who are you to tell someone else how to play the game they bought? Who are you to tell someone else which parts of the game they bought they're "allowed" to use? As long as they don't break the rules, they're justified in doing whatever they want, because that's the product they paid for. Who are you to say otherwise?

So what you're saying is, since I bought the game I can be an [BAD WORD] to everyone I come across and be utterly toxic? And theirs justification for it? Sounds amazing.

You'd be breaking the rules, so no. I should've known I should've added "as long as they don't break the rules" to every single point, just so you couldn't pretend you didn't read it.

No I read it, what you're clearly saying is if I wanted to I can be a knob to everyone I come across and just because I bought the game that will justify what i'm doing. The same can be said to people who know they don't need NOED but use it anyways despite it being obvious in the match that they don't.

I know that point flys past most your heads, but that's what the rants implying here. Idc if you're a rank 20 using it, or if you're a Freddy who uses it, or what have you. I care only when its on killers that DON'T need it but still have it on them because the killer knows it makes the survivors angry.

Yeah but the rules posted by the devs say you can't be an absolutely toxic douche to everyone without consequence. Meaning being toxic is breaking the rules, that's why most toxic actions are listed when you click the little thumbsup/down button at the end of the match in the categories. Using a specific perk isn't listed in those, is it?
Using No-ed is not inherently a toxic action, regardless of which killer they're playing or why they do it. Period. You just think it is because you don't like it.

No, I think its bad in the hands of people that want to be douches with it. If you have issues with pressure and or overall playing the game go ahead and use it. That means you NEED it to get better without it, its like training wheels on a bike, eventually we all don't need them anymore and ride the bike ourselves.

And no, specific perks are not listed in it. Does that really matter though when the person clearly knows it'll cause reactions when they use it though? And will outright troll because of it?

Correlation is not causation. Because some toxic killers you've met used no-ed doesn't mean the default motivation for using no-ed it to be toxic. They don't have anything to do with each-other.

I never said the default motivation for using NOED is to be toxic... I said its clear that people who use NOED and are toxic (Usually by displaying it in post chat or in-game) SHOULD be called out for it. I'm sorry some of use can't be good little boys and just sit there and take it?

Obviously you're not reading what i'm saying...

You keep saying that, but I'm starting to think YOU aren't reading what you're typing.

Clearly I do if I keep pointing it out to you several times, do I need to continue this till you understand what i'm saying?

How about you go back and read your initial post (Which is still quoted in my first comment on page 1) AND the edited version and show me where you say anything about killers actually behaving in a toxic way. Also worth a note because it's bugging me now, "Noob" does not mean "Intentionally toxic player". It means new or inexperienced player. Words, even slang, have meanings. If you want to call someone something at least don't make up your own definitions, it just makes things way less clear for no reason.

I can't rewrite the title to say "If you use NOED and are toxic than you're an #########" since BHVR likes to censor bad words. So that's the best thing I could come up with. I can say you're a jerk if you want it to sound more PG-13 for the kiddies.

@FireHazard said:

But still use it despite that fact. You're of course entitled to whatever perk set up you use of course, but if you don't need the perk for killers that never will need it... then you're just being unfair and in-general playing like a noob.

@CyanideCandy said:

@FireHazard said:

@CyanideCandy said:

@FireHazard said:

@CyanideCandy said:

@FireHazard said:

@CyanideCandy said:

@FireHazard said:

@CyanideCandy said:

@FireHazard said:

@Orion said:

@FireHazard said:

@Orion said:

@FireHazard said:
Of course they have the right to use any perks they want its their character, does that justify what they're doing though? No not really.

Yes, it absolutely [BAD WORD] does. Who are you to tell someone else how to play the game they bought? Who are you to tell someone else which parts of the game they bought they're "allowed" to use? As long as they don't break the rules, they're justified in doing whatever they want, because that's the product they paid for. Who are you to say otherwise?

So what you're saying is, since I bought the game I can be an [BAD WORD] to everyone I come across and be utterly toxic? And theirs justification for it? Sounds amazing.

You'd be breaking the rules, so no. I should've known I should've added "as long as they don't break the rules" to every single point, just so you couldn't pretend you didn't read it.

No I read it, what you're clearly saying is if I wanted to I can be a knob to everyone I come across and just because I bought the game that will justify what i'm doing. The same can be said to people who know they don't need NOED but use it anyways despite it being obvious in the match that they don't.

I know that point flys past most your heads, but that's what the rants implying here. Idc if you're a rank 20 using it, or if you're a Freddy who uses it, or what have you. I care only when its on killers that DON'T need it but still have it on them because the killer knows it makes the survivors angry.

Yeah but the rules posted by the devs say you can't be an absolutely toxic douche to everyone without consequence. Meaning being toxic is breaking the rules, that's why most toxic actions are listed when you click the little thumbsup/down button at the end of the match in the categories. Using a specific perk isn't listed in those, is it?
Using No-ed is not inherently a toxic action, regardless of which killer they're playing or why they do it. Period. You just think it is because you don't like it.

No, I think its bad in the hands of people that want to be douches with it. If you have issues with pressure and or overall playing the game go ahead and use it. That means you NEED it to get better without it, its like training wheels on a bike, eventually we all don't need them anymore and ride the bike ourselves.

And no, specific perks are not listed in it. Does that really matter though when the person clearly knows it'll cause reactions when they use it though? And will outright troll because of it?

Correlation is not causation. Because some toxic killers you've met used no-ed doesn't mean the default motivation for using no-ed it to be toxic. They don't have anything to do with each-other.

I never said the default motivation for using NOED is to be toxic... I said its clear that people who use NOED and are toxic (Usually by displaying it in post chat or in-game) SHOULD be called out for it. I'm sorry some of use can't be good little boys and just sit there and take it?

Obviously you're not reading what i'm saying...

You keep saying that, but I'm starting to think YOU aren't reading what you're typing.

Clearly I do if I keep pointing it out to you several times, do I need to continue this till you understand what i'm saying?

How about you go back and read your initial post (Which is still quoted in my first comment on page 1) AND the edited version and show me where you say anything about killers actually behaving in a toxic way. Also worth a note because it's bugging me now, "Noob" does not mean "Intentionally toxic player". It means new or inexperienced player. Words, even slang, have meanings. If you want to call someone something at least don't make up your own definitions, it just makes things way less clear for no reason.

I can't rewrite the title to say "If you use NOED and are toxic than you're an [BAD WORD]" since BHVR likes to censor bad words. So that's the best thing I could come up with. I can say you're a jerk if you want it to sound more PG-13 for the kiddies.

Does douche get censored? How about jerk? Fool, idiot, halfwit, simpleton, blockhead, buffoon, dolt, dunce ignoramus, moron, [BAD WORD], dullard, cretin, simpleton, clod?

I didn't know douche isn't censored until this comment chain came back up on this post, how would I know this?

@Orion said:

@FireHazard said:

@Orion said:

@FireHazard said:

@Orion said:

@FireHazard said:

@Orion said:

@FireHazard said:

@Orion said:

@FireHazard said:

@CyanideCandy said:

@FireHazard said:

@thesuicidefox said:

@FireHazard said:
Don't you think if a killers getting 4k every match (for example) and still uses post-gen perks to make sure the team dies is not overkill? Or to the very least makes them look like an ass?

It is overkill but they have no way to know before hand. Some games go super fast and NOED is almost necessary, other games it's not needed but procs anyway. I always feel bad for the groups where 1 or 2 of them barely make it to end game, but that's offset by the groups that blaze through gens and now I kind of need it to keep pressure.

If you need the pressure then use it. If you for example play fine without it than clearly you don't need it.

There's a difference between needing something and not needing something, but I guess that points never looked on.

Kind of like how you keep overlooking the fact that you have no real way of 100% guaranteed knowing exactly what motivated a killer to use no-ed? Or how either way, need it or not, there's nothing inherently toxic about using the perk? Your entire argument is based on your assumption and you're using it to slap the toxic label on someone else and have twice now encouraged people to treat each-other badly over the perk.

You make it sound like I just call out every NOED user, perhaps I should of added that I know when they're intentionally being toxic when they display it post game.

You can also tell they're being toxic from how they play, if you're being demolished by then do they really need the perk?

If they display toxicity in the post-game chat, you can report them.

How can they know, in advance, that you're a lot worse at the game than they are? Or do you expect them to swap out perks mid-game?

Since when does that make me for example a lot worse at the game than they are? If anything it shows they're an ass by snuffing out any hope of survival in their match. And it strengthens the point if they also show this toxicity in post-game chat or literally in game...

This has nothing to do with my skill vs theirs, it has to do with their closed mind approach to how a match goes in their eyes. But I guess its OK it just demolish an entire team without a second thought while assuming you're good. This goes for people who out right display this, NOT newbies who need the perk or what have you. I still don't know why you two miss this point.

Your example was about you being demolished. You don't get demolished unless you're significantly worse than the guy you're facing. So, how's the guy you're facing supposed to know, in advance, that he's gonna demolish you?

Do you understand the definition of an example? Its a scenario, I didn't imply it was a reality. Not everything I say is referring to me... Not sure where this is coming from.

The point still stands: How is the killer supposed to know, in advance, that they're gonna demolish the survivors?

They don't? But what I pointed as an example is just that... AN EXAMPLE, is it possible? MAYBE... Is it common? No.

Your argument is that it's toxic to use NOED when you demolish the survivors, since you didn't need it to win, yet you also acknowledge that the killer would need the power of foresight or time travel to know if they were going to need NOED or not. Do you not see the problem with this line of thought?

So you're saying because of the possibility that their match might possible not go as I say, and turn out to be horrible, makes my point null?

No, I'm saying your point is null because they can't know, in advance, how the trial is going to go. They can't know, in advance, if they might need NOED or not. They can't know, in advance, what the survivors are going to do. They can't know, in advance, how good the survivors are.
You're essentially calling them toxic for not being able to see the future.

So you want me to rewrite the entire post and title (again) to appease you or something?

@thesuicidefox said:

@FireHazard said:
There's a lot of ways to pressure in those situations. And the same can be applied to having the perk itself, how would you know the games gonna go good for you or not...

LOL if survivors split the map there isn't a whole lot you can do to apply pressure. Not to mention like every killer perk is designed to apply pressure in some way. What makes NOED any different?

Clearly you're just a salty survivor at this point. NOED isn't that big of a deal. Maybe killers are being toxic to you because you REEEEEE in end game chat.

Can I REEEEEEE you?

@Orion said:

@FireHazard said:

@Orion said:

@FireHazard said:

@Orion said:

@FireHazard said:

@Orion said:

@FireHazard said:

@Orion said:

@FireHazard said:

@Orion said:

@FireHazard said:

@CyanideCandy said:

@FireHazard said:

@thesuicidefox said:

@FireHazard said:
Don't you think if a killers getting 4k every match (for example) and still uses post-gen perks to make sure the team dies is not overkill? Or to the very least makes them look like an ass?

It is overkill but they have no way to know before hand. Some games go super fast and NOED is almost necessary, other games it's not needed but procs anyway. I always feel bad for the groups where 1 or 2 of them barely make it to end game, but that's offset by the groups that blaze through gens and now I kind of need it to keep pressure.

If you need the pressure then use it. If you for example play fine without it than clearly you don't need it.

There's a difference between needing something and not needing something, but I guess that points never looked on.

Kind of like how you keep overlooking the fact that you have no real way of 100% guaranteed knowing exactly what motivated a killer to use no-ed? Or how either way, need it or not, there's nothing inherently toxic about using the perk? Your entire argument is based on your assumption and you're using it to slap the toxic label on someone else and have twice now encouraged people to treat each-other badly over the perk.

You make it sound like I just call out every NOED user, perhaps I should of added that I know when they're intentionally being toxic when they display it post game.

You can also tell they're being toxic from how they play, if you're being demolished by then do they really need the perk?

If they display toxicity in the post-game chat, you can report them.

How can they know, in advance, that you're a lot worse at the game than they are? Or do you expect them to swap out perks mid-game?

Since when does that make me for example a lot worse at the game than they are? If anything it shows they're an ass by snuffing out any hope of survival in their match. And it strengthens the point if they also show this toxicity in post-game chat or literally in game...

This has nothing to do with my skill vs theirs, it has to do with their closed mind approach to how a match goes in their eyes. But I guess its OK it just demolish an entire team without a second thought while assuming you're good. This goes for people who out right display this, NOT newbies who need the perk or what have you. I still don't know why you two miss this point.

Your example was about you being demolished. You don't get demolished unless you're significantly worse than the guy you're facing. So, how's the guy you're facing supposed to know, in advance, that he's gonna demolish you?

Do you understand the definition of an example? Its a scenario, I didn't imply it was a reality. Not everything I say is referring to me... Not sure where this is coming from.

The point still stands: How is the killer supposed to know, in advance, that they're gonna demolish the survivors?

They don't? But what I pointed as an example is just that... AN EXAMPLE, is it possible? MAYBE... Is it common? No.

Your argument is that it's toxic to use NOED when you demolish the survivors, since you didn't need it to win, yet you also acknowledge that the killer would need the power of foresight or time travel to know if they were going to need NOED or not. Do you not see the problem with this line of thought?

So you're saying because of the possibility that their match might possible not go as I say, and turn out to be horrible, makes my point null?

No, I'm saying your point is null because they can't know, in advance, how the trial is going to go. They can't know, in advance, if they might need NOED or not. They can't know, in advance, what the survivors are going to do. They can't know, in advance, how good the survivors are.
You're essentially calling them toxic for not being able to see the future.

So you want me to rewrite the entire post and title (again) to appease you or something?

I'm just pointing out the flaws in your logic. What you do with them is up to you. You can either cling to your accusations of toxicity based on people not having the power to see the future, or you can try to see things from a different perspective.

I re-edited the post. I hope its more level headed. Rather than a rant being hypocritical its more of a warning now.