http://dbd.game/killswitch
Being penalized for getting tunneled
Comments
-
I get this but in the meantime this system should be turned off again. People shouldn’t be getting penalized while it takes the team however much time to investigate and brainstorm on this issue.
4 -
Why is the pretty much unanimous backlash against the system as a whole not considered valid feedback? Why are the devs so vehemently insisting on sinking resources into a system that nobody wants and will most likely never be able to sort out false positives?
I really don't understand this decision to keep the system active. We are providing very clear feedback, but it's getting apparently ignored as the devs appear to be dead set on making this system work, despite the community's obvious disapproval. Just why?
10 -
Let's be super honest here. Some of the people claimed it was impossible to fix ragequitting, because they are a ragequitter, and don't want BHVR to patch the loopholes they use to ragequit.
That is the actual problem here. There are people that would lie and exaggerate about the Go Next system, because they want it gone, because they want to ragequit without getting the DC penalties.
That is why every claim against the Go Next system needs to be reviewed. Yes, there might be real problems with the Go Next system, but we need a more accurate estimation of this. For example, is it failing at a rate of 1 in 100,000 or at a rate of 1 in 1,000?
The most helpful thing, would be for people to record their matches, and submit the videos to BHVR if they feel the Go Next system is working incorrectly. If the Go Next system is failing often, then it should be really easy to get recorded video evidence of it failing, right?
-12 -
Look around, you're probably the only person here who is actually defending this system. Are you assuming that everyone else is a ragequitter?
It doesn't matter if it fails at the rate of 1 in 100,000 or 1 in 1,000. One false flag is one too many. The fact that it was released for a second time with the issues still present just proves that this system will not work, period.
17 -
the sub had a massive overtaking of faked afk crow videos and suspicious activity posts due to this exact thing. people will just lie to try and make it seems worse than it is
-15 -
I want it. But want a normal one.
-11 -
get your point about how someone could potentially exaggerate, but dismissing real issues because “some might lie” is a slippery slope. A system that gives strikes, DC penalties, and grade losses shouldn’t ever falsely flag players, period.
The fact that survivors have already gotten real penalties means it’s not just hypothetical. Even if the error rate was/is low, innocent players getting punished is still a problem. And expecting players to record every match to prove innocence isn’t reasonable. Functioning systems shouldnt rely on constant player evidence to be valid.
You and I have personally discussed many times about the potential anti-slug changes. You’ve said that anti slugging changes risk punishing killers for things outside their control, which is why you were against them. But this Go Next system is doing exactly that, but you defend it. Genuinely, Why is that?
14 -
The Go Next system isn't falsely punishing people anywhere near as often as most people's anti-slugging ideas would.
Look how rare the evidence is for the Go Next false flags. There are people in this forums thread, that would absolutely jump at the chance to prove the Go Next system isn't working properly, but instead of giving their own evidence, they just comment on what happened to other people.
We certainly had a lot of videos floating around the internet of people getting AFK crows, when the anti hiding update happened. So why aren't we seeing a lot of videos floating around the internet, of people getting falsely flagged by the Go Next system?
-18 -
Likely because 1) tunneling is less common, and 2) not as many people have access to video recording tools. But just because it's less common doesn't mean it's acceptable.
Oh, and one more reason could be because people are actually afraid to play as Survivor out of fear of getting falsely flagged.
11 -
The Go Next system isn't falsely punishing people anywhere near as often as most people's anti-slugging ideas would.
I've seen many ideas about how anti slugging could be implemented, but I've never, ever, seen anyone say that the killer should receive a dc penalty for slugging.
Trying to compare these two things is wild, especially since you're not even trying to consider the consequences or severity.
You're basically, unironically, trying to imply (without directly saying it) that "yeah, it's bad that people are getting dc penalties inappropriately, but it could be worse: they could actually lose out on a kill".
The fact that this is punishing the person behind the keyboard, outside of the game, is why they should be very, very careful not to have false positives, at all.
And we do have video of brand new players who are triggering this system simply because they don't know how to play the game yet.
12 -
System failed, but now other thing is for this to happen someone has to unhook you when killer is very close to the hook and then its hard for me to believe you will go down in 10 seconds right after your basekit bt runs out, it can happen but chances for this are low you will most likely make it to some palett or window or your teammate will take bodyblock (depends who is your teammate I know some survivors are just farming rats or super olivious to their surroundings) so chance are in like 20 seconds this can happen normaly if you get to the bad loop like z-wall but still its yout teammate fault because they farmed you, smart player will wait if he can and try to get killers atention not to farm someone dead on next hook thats farming rat right there.
-11 -
This still doesn't explain why we had so many evidence videos of the AFK crow punishments, but so few videos of Go Next punishments.
And steamcharts still has a normal volume of players, so there isn't a large percentage of players that "are afraid to play survivor".
-15 -
I really don't get how the argument is even happening (granted, I think it's almost you vs the rest of the playerbase at that point when it comes to defending this system) when it should stop at even a single occurence. There's not even a need for an actual ban to occur in order for any debate to be unnecessary since the system uses the same parameters when issuing warnings and actual penalties.
Imagine being a newcomer to the game (or just someone who plays occasionally and casually, or just someone using STB at the wrong time) and you're unlucky and get hard-tunneled, or simply make a mistake (run into a stealth Killer by accident for example) then you get warned about "suspicious behavior" by the game.
Getting penalties for DCing is fine, going next was considerably reduced by the removal of self-unhooks without perks/offerings. There will always be people who throw in some way out of spite if every other ways to quit are somehow removed. Even if somehow BHVR was able to give the system the mystical ability to tell the difference in any scenarios between bad plays/tunnels/bad luck and actual intentional giving up, some people, out of spite, would start to run around and drop every pallets or just run around but do nothing productive until the Killer eventually finds them.
Frequency isn't an argument, even a single innocent player getting a warning is enough to send such a system back into the oven since, even if it won't be scrapped, it's obviously not done cooking yet and still needs work because it can punish the wrong people.
13 -
The system falsely flagging is not some hypothetical scenario. It already happened before. BHVR already disabled the Go Next system once, which alone shows it wasn’t functioning properly.
Here’s the contradiction: You defend Go Next because of the potential good, despite the risk of punishing innocent players. But you oppose anti-slugging for the exact same reason. The only difference is which role it affects.
And realistically, anti-slug will likely mirror anti-camp: no penalties, just a mechanic that mitigates abuse. So is the argument really that (potentially, because we don’t know) a base-kit unbreakable is “worse” than survivors losing grades, being locked out of matchmaking, and receiving DC penalties for things out of their control? Is that your stance?
14 -
A) shifting the goal post.
B) I'm sorry you don't have the notarized, ink signed contracts from first hand eye witness accounts that you seem to want
C) quantity is basically irrelevant for almost everyone in this thread (except you, apparently). If "anti tunneling" charged the killer auric cells when it "detected some very strict version of tunneling" but it only happened twice to people who posted, would that make it ok? Because for me, and most everyone else, the answer is no. But your answer appears to be "it's fine, because not enough people have been impacted".
11 -
My stance is we currently have A LOT of innocent players that are punished because survivors are bypassing DC penalties. That should matter.
People should be caring that ragequitting punishes innocent players too.
-16 -
Interesting then, that you also claim that the "go next" disconnect isn't changing player counts.
It would seem that the removal of the 4% was very much sufficient to solve this issue. And the extra measure of "go next dc penalty" isn't actually needed.
12 -
It would seem the removal of the 4% obviously wasn't sufficient, because the Go Next was turn back on.
-15 -
"If I don't see it, it's not actually happening."
Post edited by CrypticGirl on12 -
If your concern is protecting innocent players, that should apply across the board, not only when it impacts killers.
13 -
Every time Go Next punishes a ragequitter, it helps protect innocent players.
And Go Next is helping protect innocent players, far more often than it is falsely flagging innocent players.
-14 -
So then why did they disable it?
This is a terrible system.
13 -
The "punishment" innocent players get due to ragequitters pales in comparison to innocents getting punished by go-next prevention.
Ragequittng leads to two scenarios: a) the Killer may turn friendly, and the remaining players get to farm and goof off and have some fun.
Or b) the Survivors just lose, which is normal gameplay, so ragequitters aren't even a factor in the overall death ratio.
13 -
Frequency is, again, irrelevant.
The system not only can punish innocent players, but it punishes them even though another player did something, it might not even be due to a mistake on their part! You do realize that, out of sheer spite, players could try to purposefully give penalties to other players if they feel like it?
Side-note: After re-reading the patch note, I'm not sure I even saw any mention of the Anti-go-next system returning, which means no one was expecting it to return (and so would have no reason to lie about a false positive). This also means that it took less than 48 hours after the update went live before a post about it was made, even faster than the last time where I think it took about a week before words of false positives started to pop up and a popular streamer got hit with a warning after getting tunnelled, shortly followed by the system being killswitched.
It's also weird from BHVR to shadow-reactivate the previously killswitched system, usually when killswitched things are reactivated there's some kind of announcement (patch note, message in-game etc.) that tells players about it.
11 -
Nope. Every time a survivor ragequits early, it ruins the entire game. It doesn't matter if the killer farms or kills the survivors, because the game has still been ruined.
The ragequitters are punishing innocent players, far more often than Go Next is.
Because there were enough concerns that BHVR wanted to investigate the issue, and check if the code needed to be modified.
Do you honestly think BHVR turned Go Next off, did absolutely nothing to the code, then turned it back on again?
-14 -
It's really the strangest thing. It's across every single platform the game is discussed as well. It's why I say that Killers are usually the ones to make the most emotional arguments. Even when you talk about how bad it feels to be on the receiving end of camping/tunneling/slugging, you're met with "well how am I SUPPOSED TO FEEL?".
7 -
So your stance is that the benefit of punishing ragequitters outweighs the cost of punishing innocent survivors.
I just can’t agree with that. Wrongful penalties in a live service game are serious. Grade losses, matchmaking locks, and warnings stick with players in a way that can’t be undone with “oh well, it was rare.”
If the principle is that innocent players deserve protection, protecting one group of innocent players shouldn’t come at the expense of punishing another group of innocent players.
Why is it acceptable for Go Next to punish innocent players sometimes, but unacceptable for anti-slugging to exist when it wouldn’t even hand out penalties? Why is a system that has given out penalties to an innocent player “less harmful” than a base-kit mechanic that might just let a survivor stand up in a match?
Can you please explain how this isn’t a blatant double standard?
16 -
Because innocent players are punished when a survivor ragequits.
The Go Next system lowers ragequitting, which lowers the number of innocent survivors that are punished by a teammate ragequitting.
Therefore, Go Next being in the game, results in less innocent survivors being punished overall.
-10 -
Yes.
9 -
Should killers get go next warnings if they don’t get a certain number of hooks? I mean, if we’re going to redefine ‘go next’ as ‘not successfully doing the things we think they should be successfully doing’ then that seems similar, yes?
Punishing or warning players who don’t do the things you programmatically think they should is just going to be an endless game of whack-a-mole with exceptions and edge cases.
12 -
So, I was correct. Your stance is: That the benefit of punishing ragequitters outweighs the cost of punishing innocent survivors.
Also, You didn’t actually answer any of my questions.
I asked why it’s acceptable for Go Next to punish innocent players with real penalties, but you oppose anti-slugging, despite it likely giving no penalties.
Repeating “Go Next helps more than it hurts” doesn’t address that contradiction. By your own logic, if occasional harm to innocent players is acceptable for the greater good, then why isn’t your same standard applied to anti-slugging?
Why is one form of collateral damage acceptable, but not the other?
12 -
Less innocent survivors are punished with Go Next, than without Go Next.
This isn't a "greater good" thing. It's literally "which option causes less innocent survivors to be punished"? And the answer is "Go Next being active".
-12 -
But that is a "greater good" thing.
9 -
Are you intentionally ignoring my questions ?
9 -
That's gotta be intentionally obtuse. At least with go next, you had the ability to leave the trial as well. Being locked out of the queue entirely through no fault of your own isn't even the same issue.
11 -
Are you saying that Go Next should be removed, so that survivors have the option to ragequit if one of their teammates ragequits?
-11 -
Should or shouldn't? Ultimately my stance is that going next was never healthy for the game but it offered a sense of autonomy that's required for a game like DBD. Reworking DCs is the better course of action.
9 -
Let's be super honest here. Some of the people claimed it was impossible to fix ragequitting, because they are a ragequitter, and don't want BHVR to patch the loopholes they use to ragequit.That is the actual problem here. There are people that would lie and exaggerate about the Go Next system, because they want it gone, because they want to ragequit without getting the DC penalties.There are three problems here.
1: A statement is either true or false. Attacking people's motivations for the statement is avoiding the issue.
2: Even if some people are doing it because of bias, not all people are doing it out of bias. Which again means its trying to avoid the issue via guilt by association.
3: Even if those aren't true, bias goes both ways. Some people have such a desire to get rage quitting removed from the game that they are potentially blinded to the negative impacts the system will have.
That is why every claim against the Go Next system needs to be reviewed. Yes, there might be real problems with the Go Next system, but we need a more accurate estimation of this. For example, is it failing at a rate of 1 in 100,000 or at a rate of 1 in 1,000?Actually, you need four things.
1: How frequently does it fail?
2: How frequently does it work?
3: How much time and resources is this taking from BHVR?
4: How much is it actually stopping rage quitting?
What evidence is there that its actually catching rage quitters? Even if you have a low failure rate, if you aren't actually stopping the behavior its an awful change that ate up tons of resources and introduces potential for new bugs.
10 -
when everyone stops playing and it just you and your swf playing or if your solo you never get a match and the game dies at least no ones dc anymore but that because no playing anymore.
cheers.
4 -
Go Next is separated into two parts. Part 1 is the self unhook removal and the 20 match DC queue. Part 2 is the AI ragequit detection.
BHVR absolutely can use data, to determine how well Part 1 did, and how well Part 2 is doing. It's not that difficult.
-10 -
how are they ragequiting anyways? you can't ######### on hook anymore and only way to ragequit to DC also if your talking about survivor run up to the killer to be hooked again if that the case the Go Next system will never going to work because it never be able tell the different between a survivor run up to the killer to be hooked again and being tunnel out.
6 -
Just to set expectations here. I'm not publicly discussing anything that might allow people to figure out how to bypass the Go Next system.
So any public discussions about how the AI ragequitting detection algorithm might work, isn't happening.
-8 -
3 out of 4 teammates get hooked quickly vs busted ass haste clown (well done ignoring PTB feedback once again devs), killer is chasing the last teammate when we realize someone brought a luck offering. We try to 4% to save the match but no dice.
"SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR DETECTED"
What an absolute joke..
6 -
what?! your nuts I'm not with this topic.
with you anyways
3 -
This seems like a non-sequitur from everything I was posting, but I'll dive in on two points:
Part 1 is the self unhook removal and the 20 match DC queue. Part 2 is the AI ragequit detection.If they truly wanted these to be separate they needed to give part 1 a lot more time. BHVR will usually give things months, sometimes years, even when they are pretty obviously broken saying they are collecting data. They're trying to do all of this at once which is compounding a mistake onto a massive mistake.
It's not that difficult.It's extremely difficult.
Collecting data on a nuanced system has all of the difficulties, if not more, of putting a nuanced system in place. What data point are you going to look at to see that this actually working? How do you determine whether people are rage quitting more or less based on just code? They can do surveys, but right now the straw poll that is the community seems extremely negative on the implementation.
If you had the data of a million games before the system and the data of a million games after the system what data would you look for to see if it was actually working?
7 -
1: You're not a dev. No one is going to be like 'hey, I saw this poster on the forums talking about his ideas on how it should work, now I know everything!'
2: Not discussing the possibilities on how a system could work means there is no underlying argument. There is nothing to weigh or evaluate. You might as well type 'I want them to make the game better, but I'm not going to get into how'. Without a 'how', there's nothing to discuss.
3: If BHVR was to not give the specifics on how it actually worked, then new players would have no idea why they triggered it if they just made a mistake.
4: It also sets an unreasonable standard for them to get data on false positives, The vast majority of people don't record their games, so, as happened in this thread, when the community manager comes in asking for more details the poster just has to throw out random guesses on what it might have been.
6 -
No one should be getting penalties that affect their ability to play the game for something outside of their control. End of. The removal of 4% was enough to mitigate early opt outs.
9 -
I think some people want the game to die or they get a kick making someone dc on either side I mean there >funny< fail video of dbd most are survivors and killers dc and person recording laughing the person dc.
I hate this community sometimes…..
2 -
I think it's more that some people are incapable of seeing the bigger picture. Only things that affect them personally are a problem. But thankfully most folks can take a step back and see how certain actions impact the health of a game on the whole.
4 -
i been playing for 8 years and I want to still have fun but the dev and the community make it hard.
6
