So now you load into a lobby with all 4 survivors there already on ps4...

2

Comments

  • twistedmonkey
    twistedmonkey Member Posts: 4,291
    edited January 2020

    That's a bugged lobby and it's not working as intended.

    One could join and the three at sperate times and they could all be solo or it could be swf with the server lag taking the time to load them in.

    The lobby shouldn't appear until there are four survivors and 1 killer there to make it and its been this way since last year. Anything else isn't working as intended.

  • GrootDude
    GrootDude Member Posts: 14,110
    edited January 2020

    You can’t really compare swf to counting cards since I’m not getting banned for it so you should find a different comparison. So you don’t care about what the devs said because you think your ‘legal cheating’ hold higher value?

    I haven’t once said nope and covered my ears, you however keep on saying I’m not providing counter argument despite me defending the facts and opinions I’ve told you.

  • arslaN
    arslaN Member Posts: 1,936

    Imagine crying about not being able to lobby dodge

    SwF iS cHeAtInG

  • HellDescent
    HellDescent Member Posts: 4,883

    Didn't happen until today, that change worked for about a week. After that it was back to the way it was before

  • Chewy102
    Chewy102 Member Posts: 613

    Stopped reading at pipping at 1 kill. A low rank can pip with 1 kill, but the emblem system is often more ruthless than a woman on Black Friday. Iv had far too many 3 kill or 25K BP black pip games to count, but don't recall ever earning a pip off a 1 kill game outside of yellow ranks.

    You asked me for proof. I gave examples. Now Im asking for you to do the same. That's now these things work, you gotta back up your claims with examples. Not just a "he said/she said" one line reply.

    Please explain how SWF isn't cheating when if gives information Survivors aren't suppose to have without paying a cost and/or when it actively bypasses ranking and matchmaking systems.

  • twistedmonkey
    twistedmonkey Member Posts: 4,291

    That's because its not been working 100% so what you saw was never an indication of solo or swf. 1 could join then 3 solos at once. Swf could join in but not all at once.

    It is supposed to work that way but it doesn't always even with dedicated servers. There has been no way to tell if a lobby was solo or set since that change apart from checking profiles which you can't do on ps4.

  • HellDescent
    HellDescent Member Posts: 4,883

    So you're trying to tell me what I saw? Interesting. If they're swf they will always join all together. And you could definitely tell survivors are solo when they join 15-30 seconds apart from each other.

  • GrootDude
    GrootDude Member Posts: 14,110

    The devs word about their games rules should be enough.


  • WhattheHeck
    WhattheHeck Member Posts: 93

    I'm a Killer Main and i never dodge. Swf are really Rare. Play the Game for Fun. And you see the are Toxic af then Camp and Tunnel. I only do this if i see they tbaging.

  • twistedmonkey
    twistedmonkey Member Posts: 4,291
    edited January 2020

    No i am stating what is happening. With the new matchmaking there is no indication as 4 joining at once can be all solo its just it working as intended.

    Right now on PC dedicated servers the same happens as before. Ive joined as solo and then 3 at once (all solo). The same happened with 3 joining at seperate times 10s apart (an SWF). That is the matchmaking though nothing to do with dedicated servers.

    Yes if they are 30s apart it tends to say they could be solo but the point is if they can join a few seconds apart and be swf or all join instantly and be solo there is no way to actually tell. Its an assumption based on the past matchmaking.

  • knell
    knell Member Posts: 595
    edited January 2020

    1. Why does it matter if not every survivor playing with friends is a good player? In fact, why does it matter if majority of the SWF players are horrible players, intentionally or unintentionally?

    What matters, balance-wise, is if the best killers playing efficiently against the best 4-Man SWF (who also are playing efficiently), and these 4-Man SWFs, on average, still have a higher win rate than the killers.

    2. The only reason why voice communication isn't considered "cheating" in this particular game is because developers couldn't (or couldn't be bothered to) find a way to enforce a punishment in cases where the rules are broken. In other words, they prioritized their ability to execute rules over what is good (mechanically) for the game. Much like if the government decides one day that slavery is legal again due to their inability to sufficiently find slave-holders, then it wouldn't technically be "illegal" anymore. But is it good for the society? Probably not. Basically, all of these reasoning fall under an 'appeal to authority' instead of each individuals thinking about what is right/fair for the game/society.

  • oxygen
    oxygen Member Posts: 3,312

    It's not cheating because the developers say so. It really is that simple, in any game it's the people running the game that decide what's allowed and what isn't, and both playing SWF in general and using VOIP applications of any kind is explicitly allowed in DBD. It's quite simply completely irrelevant if you feel it's "legal cheating", "kinda cheating", or anything else, just like it'd be completely irrelevant if I thought it should be allowed if it was considered cheating.

  • GrootDude
    GrootDude Member Posts: 14,110

    That’s like me saying that they should nerf Trapper because someone like Otz is really good with him, regardless of your opinion on voice comms, it isn’t cheating and that is that.

  • HellDescent
    HellDescent Member Posts: 4,883

    When did I say there's and indication right now?

  • knell
    knell Member Posts: 595

    I don't know who Otz is, but if he is one of the best Trapper players, and he goes against the best 4-Man SWF players of this world doing their best to escape, and they play hundreds of times, and the average win-rate falls in favor of the Trapper, then yes, they should nerf the Trapper. What's your point?

    You're right, according to the 'authority figures,' voice communication isn't cheating. If you are the type of person to just accept whatever the 'authority figures' state to be the absolute law, well, good on you. But just realize that there are many individuals in the world who like to think for themselves about what is 'right' or 'fair' and want to make necessary changes if things are unjust or corrupt - whether it be in general society or just in games. Just differences in personality - that's all.

  • GrootDude
    GrootDude Member Posts: 14,110

    Yet I don’t think everything else they say is law, I’ve been against this ruin change since it was announced, I’m against how legion currently is and I disagree with giving Freddy oblivious.

  • knell
    knell Member Posts: 595

    I don't know what they have stated about this Ruin change, the current Legion, or Freddy, but now my question to you is, "Why are you willing to accept and happily swallow what the 'authority figures' said about the usage of voice communications, but not these other things you just mentioned?"

  • GrootDude
    GrootDude Member Posts: 14,110

    Because since the rules are reasonable I have no reason to be angered over them.

  • knell
    knell Member Posts: 595

    So in your mind, SWF having the ability to have massive communication advantage over solo players and killers is reasonable. I see.

  • GrootDude
    GrootDude Member Posts: 14,110

    I don’t mind playing against swf. 🤷🏼‍♂️

  • Rex_Huin
    Rex_Huin Member Posts: 1,208

    I have noticed this tonight as well. Something has changed. I dont think I was getting SWF's though.

  • arslaN
    arslaN Member Posts: 1,936

    Dedicated servers are online on ps4, that's why it's like this

  • Joekillu
    Joekillu Member Posts: 164

    I'm sorry to interrupt but that made no sense. Any communication is normally enough for anyone to find totems ect...easily. I do agree you should be able to swf. I'd like to think most would be ok with it if it wasn't for cross map talk. If it was distance based to me that would be fair enough. However as is and in rank no I'm sorry. That's just scummy.

  • twistedmonkey
    twistedmonkey Member Posts: 4,291

    I would say its actually impossible to punish for it due to the all the ways someone can circumvent the system. All the platforms people play on have chat and party tools built in, thousands of third party programms or using phones which have chat tools working over wifi or data.

    There is also the legallity of it all. Searching someones system for a third party app that has nothing to do with the actual game and does not interact with it in any way is not information they are allowed to gather in every country around the world.

    Its not about them not bothering to try but accepting from the start that by allowing players to play with friends will mean that some will play while chatting. They may have not realised the actual impact it could have on the game of course which I think could be highly possible but thats another discussion.

  • HellDescent
    HellDescent Member Posts: 4,883
  • Todgeweiht
    Todgeweiht Member Posts: 3,666

    Oh no! now i wont be able to lobby dodge people because I am unable to take any challenge! What will I do now?

  • knell
    knell Member Posts: 595

    ?

    How is your post relevant to my comment you've quoted?

  • GrootDude
    GrootDude Member Posts: 14,110

    That’s why I find it reasonable.

    I just like talking to friends while playing, distance based would ruin that.

  • twistedmonkey
    twistedmonkey Member Posts: 4,291
    edited January 2020

    I just quoted the last one you posted. It's relevant to your first one.

  • knell
    knell Member Posts: 595

    So you personally don't mind going against SWF players, and therefore you find the massive communication advantage of SWF over solos and killers 'reasonable.'

    And yet, you have a difficult time understanding why people who DO mind going against SWF players are players that find SWF 'unreasonable' with their ability to have communication advantage over solos and killers?

  • GrootDude
    GrootDude Member Posts: 14,110

    What is the problem with that? It makes sense that someone who is ok with swf on comms would differ from people who aren’t ok with swf on comms.

  • Aneurysm
    Aneurysm Member Posts: 5,270

    I doubt the reason swf gets dodged so often is the obvious advantages and more how unpleasant they often are, on ps4 anyway.

  • twistedmonkey
    twistedmonkey Member Posts: 4,291

    You implied it.

    Your original post regarding now all four join at once you will assume the worst.

    You also stated to myself that if 3 joined at once you could tell they were swf.

    I was letting you know that it hasn't been able to be used to indicate swf since the change.

  • Chewy102
    Chewy102 Member Posts: 613

    Are some rules more reasonable than others though? That's my point.


    It is against the rules to stack perks. But SWF is allowed to do so.

    It is against the rules to bypass ranking/matchmaking systems. But SWF is allowed to do so.

    It is against the rules to gain unfair advantages. But SWF is allowed to do so.


    Why is it that SWF is allowed to go against the rules but no one else can? How is is reasonable for the rules to be bent for them but no one else? Why can't Killers stack perks? Why can't Killers bypass ranking/matchmaking? Why can't Killers get unfair advantages? Why?! Because that is cheating.

    Yet SWF gets to do all of that, and it isn't cheating because someone said so even though it fits every definition of the word. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's a chicken.

  • HellDescent
    HellDescent Member Posts: 4,883

    I never implied it. My original post says the opposite. And I never said that I could tell if 3 joined together they are swf. Where are you getting this form? lol Are you running out of valid arguments, so you're just staring to make stuff up on the go?

  • knell
    knell Member Posts: 595
    edited January 2020

    Well, hopefully I understand what you are driving at.

    First of all, my emphasis was on why the developers chose to "allow voice communication." It wasn't because 'voice communication' was an important mechanic of the actual game - it was because they didn't know how to execute a fair punishment system. Basically, they chose the fragility of its rule enforcement than what is good (mechanically) for the game. So that post is mainly about how their decision about voice communication was made, not about its possibility or impossibility of restricting voice communication.

    Second, even if they didn't have a foolproof way of completely restricting voice communication, they could have made it much more difficult than it is now. You're right that people will find ways around it, whether it's by using less detectable third party systems or even simply sitting next to each other on a couch. But does it always have to be 0% or 100%?

    For example, let's take at the current rules about racist/sexist harassment. Much like voice communication, there is currently no way to 100% prevent the problem of racist/sexist remarks that could be targeted at another player. If they are not presented in the first-party in-game chat log, some people may instead use third-party messaging systems to make the same horrible types of remarks. Does that mean BHVR should do nothing at all? No, of course not. BHVR should do what they can on their end to minimize that type of problem as much as possible, and if needed, seek help from some third-party systems' administrators if they are willing to make some concessions and changes on that end.

    Similarly, if they had simply chose to outlaw voice communication because it didn't fit well with their game intention and design, then they could have made it at least much more difficult for voice communication to occur on their end, even if they couldn't control what third party systems did, and thereby standing up for what they believe their game to be.


    But the fact of the matter is, they didn't. And even despite all these years, they still have not properly balanced the game for SWF/Solos/Killers. So I can't blame anyone if they find SWF incredibly unfair to the point of not wanting to play against them - because game-mechanics wise, voice communication was unintended for this game, and only exist due to the developers not wanting to restrict what they could within the game.

  • knell
    knell Member Posts: 595

    There isn't a problem with that. There are different types of people, after all. Just understand that, unlike you, there are people who aren't ok with the unfairness presented by SWF, and don't want to play against them, even if 'authority figures' try to force them to.

  • GrootDude
    GrootDude Member Posts: 14,110

    I understand why people could dislike it but I’m going to defend it since I’m ok with it.

  • knell
    knell Member Posts: 595

    And some people aren't ok with it because of its unfairness, and attack it. And that's ok too.

  • GrootDude
    GrootDude Member Posts: 14,110
  • MegMain98
    MegMain98 Member Posts: 2,913

    “Stopped reading at pip with 1 kill”. Okay...well since you’re gonna be that way, you’re gonna have to deal with the fact that you will have to deal with SWF groups because it’s NOT considered cheating by the devs and they aren’t getting rid of it because it would literally kill the game.

    Any normal match against an SWF group is going to be your average match. Half the time I believe the team is SWF and they say that they were all solo. Just play the damn game and worrying about if people play with their friends or not. It’s not hard to do my dude.

  • Feyd
    Feyd Member Posts: 428

    Most games have at least 2 swf in them. If you didn't have SWF you'd have hour long killer queues.

  • kurgan8282
    kurgan8282 Member Posts: 264

    haven't tried to play as killer yet, but queue seems WAY longer, tonight...

  • twistedmonkey
    twistedmonkey Member Posts: 4,291
    edited January 2020

    I don't think its as simple as they chose to allow it. My reasoning is if they made the choice to allow it then why not have party chat in game for swf? I think it was accepted it would happen and there was nothing they would do to prevent its use outside of the game when they first had discussions about the implementation of adding swf.

    I think any new co-op/multiplayer game in today's market has to include a mode where you can join with friends. It would be commercial suicide not too. By adding this option you then also have to assume people will use voice chat. To not would be very ignorant to the consumer base you are aiming for.

    It's not really about 0% or 100% its about acceptance of what would happen. It's a business decision and one i'd say all devs would make.

    If we look at the rules BHVR do have firm stances on racism/sexism and they are bannable. The chat logs in game are stored on the server so if someone uses that system they can be reported and the logs will back up the report.

    The issue with banning for those issues on a third party system is that they don't have the man power or way to access the proof. We all know a picture is not evidence as these can be easily doctored. This is why it's advised to go to the third party place direct as most if not all have similar rules. Microsoft, Sony and Steam for example all have rules in place and they can access the consumer chat logs so its logical that is where it should be reported as proof is needed or we end up banning players on someone's word alone.

    I really don't think outlawing it would change anything apart from initially drive players away from the game until they found out its not posdible. As I said they didn't chose to incorporate chat into the game but accepted it will be used. That is a nd always will be a business decision for the game they wished to make. I have to agree with them from that standpoint as like I said it would be commercial suicide not too.

    Take MLGA as an example. It was basically outlawed but the playerbase did not stop using it as they knew for a fact its use would never flag up for a ban to happen. So outlawing it would never stop players from using it. Console would also be a topic of contention as I highly doubt Sony or MS would agree to allow any ban if someone was caught using it. At best they could ask nicely in reality.

    While I agree swf can be and is unbalanced especially with really good players. I can't really see a way to fix it as punishing players is not really an option. I used to believe it was in tge padt and argued my point regarding it but after thinking about it for a long time my mind changed. I feel now the issue is more what the community want over what the devs want for the game. The ones who do seem to complain the most seem to be highly competative. The devs though seem to want the game to be fun and engaging by the wording they use and not highly competative but instead casual.

    We have really no clue what they truly want for the game as visions for anything tend to change over time and turn into something better or worse as they evolve. We also have to always remember, it is just a game.

    Post edited by twistedmonkey on
  • twistedmonkey
    twistedmonkey Member Posts: 4,291
    edited January 2020

    "So you're trying to tell me what I saw? Interesting. If they're swf they will always join all together. And you could definitely tell survivors are solo when they join 15-30 seconds apart from each other."

    I guess you never wrote that in reply to me then 🙄

    What the above implies is that if they all joined at once it INDICATED to yourself that they were swf and If they joined at independant times it INDICATED to yourself that they would be solo.

    Your original post was done as you felt you could no longer use the above to indicate if it would be swf or solo since all player types would join at once.

    My original post was to let you know that has been the case since March 2019 so it has never worked as it did in the past to help indicate solo or swf since its a completely different system.

    Post edited by twistedmonkey on
  • HellDescent
    HellDescent Member Posts: 4,883

    Maybe read first? In my original post I said you can't tell if survivors are swf anymore, since you don't see survivors join separately. I never implied that survivors who are joined together are swf. Not even close. I said swf always join together in reply to this " 3 joining at seperate times 10s apart (an SWF)". I also told you that update lasted for about a week. I've constantly had survivors come in the lobby since then one at a time with as much as 2 minute intervals between each other until today.

  • knell
    knell Member Posts: 595

    I don't think its as simple as they chose to allow it. My reasoning is if they made the choice to allow it then why not have party chat in game for swf? I think it was accepted it would happen and there was nothing they would do to prevent its use outside of the game when they first had discussions about the implementation of adding swf.

    I think any new co-op/multiplayer game in today's market has to include a mode where you can join with friends. It would be commercial suicide not too. By adding this option you then also have to assume people will use voice chat. To not would be very ignorant to the consumer base you are aiming for.

    It's not really about 0% or 100% its about acceptance of what would happen. It's a business decision and one i'd say all devs would make.

    That's what I'm saying, except instead of using the word "accepted," I would use, "forfeited" or "gave up." Instead of spearing through their vision of the game, they acquiesced to commercial trends and expectations. Instead of engaging intently with their own game to see what it needs, they looked outward to see what everyone else was doing. "All the other games have a chat option for their teams," they said, despite the fact that they knew that this isn't really a 'team game', but more of a player elimination, hidden movement game. They didn't believe in their game enough to stand by its mechanics on their own, and so sought out popularity by adding factors outside the main game mechanics. And that is why you constantly hear them saying something to the effect of, "It's not our game any more - it's the players'." It sounds nice, but in actuality, they absolved responsibility of its direction, and placed the gamers, who don't understand anything about game design or balance, in command. They simply prioritized the game as a business, and not as the result of their personal passion. And here we are.

    Which isn't to say it was a wrong decision, or even a bad one. Unlike board games, player population is important in online video games. If not enough people play, the server goes down. And then no one will get to play. But would it really have died without SWF and voice communication? Personally, I wish they had at least taken the time to take that chance to find out - a little bit more time to let it grow. I wish they believed in their game enough to at least see if enough people would follow. I certainly would have. When you take out all the fluff, it's an interesting concept that's been around since the 80's. Asymmetrical one vs many, hidden information/movement. Except this game went further and allowed both sides to be hidden. In addition, instead of the usual 'team' based systems of typical asymmetrical hidden movement games, it stuck with its theme and made it player-elimination, where you are forced to work together, but still can't completely trust each other. That is indeed innovation!

    But then they included SWF and voice communication out of desperation for popularity. Suddenly it lost its identity. Is it a team game, or not? Is it supposed to be hidden information, or not? Do you win by killing/surviving, or not? And to me, considering what it could have been, that's a shame.

    If we look at the rules BHVR do have firm stances on racism/sexism and they are bannable. The chat logs in game are stored on the server so if someone uses that system they can be reported and the logs will back up the report.

    The issue with banning for those issues on a third party system is that they don't have the man power or way to access the proof. We all know a picture is not evidence as these can be easily doctored. This is why it's advised to go to the third party place direct as most if not all have similar rules. Microsoft, Sony and Steam for example all have rules in place and they can access the consumer chat logs so its logical that is where it should be reported as proof is needed or we end up banning players on someone's word alone.

    I really don't think outlawing it would change anything apart from initially drive players away from the game until they found out its not posdible. As I said they didn't chose to incorporate chat into the game but accepted it will be used. That is a nd always will be a business decision for the game they wished to make. I have to agree with them from that standpoint as like I said it would be commercial suicide not too.

    I'm not sure if you understood the comparison here. My point was simply that if BHVR don't have the man-power or the control to do something in its entirety, they shouldn't just give up. They should just do what they can do on their end to their full potential, and if someone else need to step in, ask. If the third party don't/can't comply, well, at least they are taking a stand on the matter. It's not all or nothing. Just as you shouldn't give up because you can't completely eradicate racist/sexist comments on your own, you shouldn't give up on implementing rules for your game because you can't completely punish everyone who breaks the rules.

    While I agree swf can be and is unbalanced especially with really good players. I can't really see a way to fix it as punishing players is not really an option. I used to believe it was in tge padt and argued my point regarding it but after thinking about it for a long time my mind changed. I feel now the issue is more what the community want over what the devs want for the game. The ones who do seem to complain the most seem to be highly competative. The devs though seem to want the game to be fun and engaging by the wording they use and not highly competative but instead casual.

    We have really no clue what they truly want for the game as visions for anything tend to change over time and turn into something better or worse as they evolve. We also have to always remember, it is just a game.

    You state it's just a game. And it is. And a game, to a developer, may just be a business or a job. To many of you in this forum, a game may just be a tool to socialize with others - a connection tool, where the focus is on other people and not the game. And for others, it may be a way to feel validated, or powerful, or just to feel like you are better than others. Their focus is on "winning," and not the game.

    But for me, I love games for its own sake. I love game mechanics and how they mesh with each other, spinning like cogwheels. Sure I enjoy games on a personal level too, but I love the concepts and ideas behind games around the world. And for me, these particular developers should have been more confident in their original vision - I wish they loved games as much as I do. Unfortunately, from my perspective, it has become a missed opportunity.

  • twistedmonkey
    twistedmonkey Member Posts: 4,291

    You kind of contradict yourself with this post. You state in your first post that you can no longer tell if it's swf. This says you used the system as an indicator. Those words themself do imply that if survivors joined all at once you then thought of them as swf before this change as it was only when they joined seperately did you really think of them as solo.

    As I said since March last year solo could all join at once or separately. The only indication was a long time frame to be solo I agree to they but 2 or more could join with one a bit later and yes it could take 10s for the 3rd and be a 2 or 3 man swf with the later one being part of a group. It's because it's not infallible and can be connection dependent.

    This still happens even with dedicated servers.

  • thrawn3054
    thrawn3054 Member Posts: 5,897

    Except the devs made the game. Which means they make the rules. You can't follow the rules and cheat. You may not like swf. But it's not cheating simply because you say it is.