Home Dead by Daylight Forums Discussions General Discussions

Dbd is unique in that it enables and promotes toxicity

Any other game I've ever seen or played that has the mechanics or communication to be toxic to other players has always had some sort of repercussions if it was taken too far, not dead by daylight though where the player base is essentially coaxed into being toxic to each other in both roles. This is enabled and promoted by the developers by the lack of any punishments dealt to perpetrators of such behavior. I've never seen someone actually banned from violating the "rules," whether that being through toxic gameplay or hate speech. By the devs doing nothing against in the face of these issues they are announcing that it's acceptable behavior which further promotes it to run rampant throughout the community.


Solo que is nothing but killers griefing players who have no answers to it because of the lack of skill and game knowledge to mount a defense so they are completely taken advantage of as the killers intentionally queing up with this mindset get some sick sense of satisfaction that they are ruining these players games.


Then you have survivors who manage to acquire the skill to compete with killers having the option to be toxic themselves and get away with it, commonly seen in swf's who take full advantage of the survivor sided aspect of the game. Now you have killers that are at the mercy of survivors who through sheer numbers and coordination completely change the face of the game to their favor.


It's entirely common to see both roles speaking to each other disrespectfully in the post game chat as this is the only real outlet and sense of justice in the game when reports result in no actions taken. Why wouldn't players grief others when they can get away with it scott free?


I really don't know what goes on behind the scenes that motivates the devs to allow their game to remain in its current state but as a player it's very demoralizing to play and discouraging to even load up anymore. To que up I essentially have to go in with the attitude of expecting toxicity from either side and adjust my loadout and playstyle accordingly. I feel that this betrays the spirit of the game and is truly a tragedy for a game as fun and innovative as dbd.

«134

Comments

  • ThatOneDemoPlayerThatOneDemoPlayer Member Posts: 5,018

    I don't think killing as a Killer or escaping as a Survivor is toxic, even if the Killer camped/tunneled/slugged or if the Survivors were playing in a SWF

  • socalfusionssocalfusions Member Posts: 109

    Care to elaborate? I feel like every one of those terms applies to dbd, the sheer number of threads on this forum and their general content seems to reflect that.

  • WesCravenFanWesCravenFan Member Posts: 1,473

    Let us just get the first one right off the table:


    Any in-game mechanic, tactic, perk, item, add-on, or feature that directly advanced your objective through injuring, downing, hooking, completing a generator, working on a totem, or opening an exit game is not toxic, griefling, or ruining.

  • AnniehereAnniehere Member Posts: 1,188

    Right now what is considered toxic is tabbing CTRL and flashlights clicks. Provoking their opponent for attention.

    The thing is, these things are an integral part of the game and the developers can do nothing about it unless they are going to change the way the flashlights work.

    The chat is the most offensive and perhaps unnecessary because it encourages players to speak their mind in a negative way.


    In any game, the players find something with which they can "have fun", "annoy" or show "I'm cool".

    It can be from using emote immediately after getting a kill / jumping around/ keeping on shooting after a victory etc.

    Players can find such behavior toxic as well. I guess the players in DBD were also looking for something similar to mess around with.

    The fact that they are with 3 more people in front of a single player encourages them to annoy and bully, they find it fun more than the actual gameplay.

    The chase is the fun part and they are taking it far.

    When players come up with toxicity in the first place it is not the problem of the developers but the mentality of those players, these people need to work on themselves.

    I wonder how the game would be without being able to crouch and use a flashlight. Will the game will stay toxic as it was before?

  • cantelopecantelope Applicant Posts: 343

    I dont think it's possible to convince people of this because then someone will just yell subjective and another will find another fifty words to say toxic.

    Add in the frequency tunneling/camping/swf can be translated to "I lost and can't handle it, you must have played toxic" and every single one of these threads go the same way. As the ever increasing escalation hyperbole continues.

  • socalfusionssocalfusions Member Posts: 109

    You're right it is a reportable offense, that doesn't mean that those reports are actually enforced which is the biggest issue of the game. No one gets banned, not even cheaters from the looks of it, or at least they are able to come back repeatedly which would then be a failed anti cheat which in itself creates a toxic environment.


    How does a chat filter stop players from being toxic to each other? Does blurring out bad words somehow prevent someone from speaking to another in a hateful manner? If that was the case then I guess the issue is resolved and hate speech no longer exists in the game! They promote toxicity by simply not taking action against players that are clearly enacting that kind of behavior in the game whether through gameplay or speech. If you're high school didn't take action against a bully that directed hate speech to victims wouldn't that be promoting toxicity? Of course it would.


    Camping and tunneling absolutely can be toxic is that a joke? Just because camping and tunneling are sometimes the correct course of action doesn't mean that it automatically makes it just at all times. Let's give a pass to the face camping basement Bubba because tournament killers tunnel to win, completely relatable right? Wrong, it's not a black and white issue it's all dependent on the matter in which it is done.


    Turning off the chat doesn't change the fact that players speak to each other in unacceptable ways. With that logic just stop getting punked by the jock at school, don't deal with the core issue just tune it out. A truly lazy train of thought on the matter. Pretty unreasonable to expect players to preemptively turn off the only form of communication in the game (pc players only btw) instead of expecting the developers to moderate their game and take


    Not sure where you got the pre conceived notion that my enjoyment comes from winning as I failed to include that in my post at all.

  • socalfusionssocalfusions Member Posts: 109

    I'm not sure why you're saying that those "things in the game," are not toxic when they are the most commonly referred to actions associated with toxicity in this game. Face camping at five gens, tunneling the same player back to back when objectives are being lost, teabagging killers when the game is won already, and flashlight clicking just in general are definitely toxic behavior without question.


    I'll admit that I don't see the messages that moderators get regarding game bans as I'm not in a position to do that so that is promising to hear but I must say that I see plenty of players that should receive bans walk away with no repercussions only to repeat the same behavior again which of course might result in a ban later possibly but the damage has been done and the question remains how many times can these players harass others before justice is served?


    I'm glad to hear that hate speech is bannable and enforced, again I have no way of seeing such enforcement and haven't seen mention of it in forums. I understand that smack talk is not bannable and don't expect it to be I was more focusing on the fact that it's a part of the game and contributes to the overall toxicity of this game specifically. To my understanding actions such as holding the game hostage for example are bannable yet from what I've seen on that particular offense it is rarely if ever enforced which I would assume is due to the difficulty in proving it happened and the lack of resources dedicated to enforcing such a multitude of offenses.

  • MandyMandy Administrator, Co-ordinator, BHVR Posts: 19,124

    Holding the game hostage is bannable - and we do acts on reports of killers holding survivors hostage in corners for example.

  • socalfusionssocalfusions Member Posts: 109

    Well going by that logic then nothing in the game is toxic. Bubba face camping in basement at five gens is directly advancing his objective by making sure that survivor dies so that's not toxic. Tunneling a survivor off hook because they have ttv in their name and looped you too long as you pass a survivor cleansing your hex and another about to pop a gen because you just gotta have them out of the match, not toxic. Bully squad of survivors not touching gens but instead locker stunning with head on while tag teaming each other and getting double locker flashlight saves a the match hits 45 minutes?


    I mean come on you just gave a blanket statement saying that anything in the game basically isn't toxic as long as it's achieving an objective can't be done with ill intent. I'm sorry but you've got to be either trolling or delusional.

  • socalfusionssocalfusions Member Posts: 109

    Yes I agree that tea bagging and flashlight clicking are toxic while also being unbannable and simply part of the game. Holding the game hostage on the other hand is bannable yet I know multiple offenders that were never disciplined. Face camping at five gens or tunneling with ill intent are toxic but again not bannable which would go in the category of the devs "enabling," toxic behavior.


    Having cheaters in the game show up repeatedly would be promoting toxicity because they fail to successfully and completely deal with a game breaking issue which would be evident by cheaters still be active in matches using the same cheats, this isn't to say those cheaters aren't banned but they definitely have methods of returning.


    Good point about the toxicity of the game being founded by the players that is certainly true and due to the asymmetrical nature of the game leads to the current state of it where both roles seem to be at each others necks throughout its history.


    On the topic of players always finding ways to intentionally get a rise out of others in most games I would say that the devs could realistically and easily add features to the game to discourage or eliminate a lot of these notoriously toxic behaviors. There should be something in the game that prevents, or makes it much less appealing, a killer from face camping at five gens, I will give them credit because iirc the devs did implement a pause on the hook timer if a survivor was close enough (Steve Harrington's Camaraderie perk aka Kinship now) but it was abused by survivors who were able to pause the timer indefinitely. One of the most popular suggestions is to simply add base kit Kindred which would almost single handedly resolve a lot of the glaring issues in solo que by giving players information that would prevent them from being the victims of toxic gameplay as a player would react differently if they saw a bubba standing still in basement.


    That of course is a very delicate issue to balance as you can't increase swf's already dominate strength which the kindred addition would solve for example. Essentially the game is the way it is because the design of it is determined to be adequate which results in the overall general consensus seen across every forum, the game is toxic.

  • socalfusionssocalfusions Member Posts: 109

    And some people think the Earth is flat, that doesn't make it scientifically correct.

  • ilovedbd123ilovedbd123 Member Posts: 1,942

    1) reports are only enforced if you have video evidence. If you have video evidence of greifing or trolling or hacking, they will be banned.

    2) a chat filter doesn't stop it, hence why I'd agree with the enabling part. But not the promotion. If you give me evidence for the promotion of toxicity, I'll assess it and come back to you.

    3) camping and tunneling, unless it's face camping or outright tunneling (for what tunneling truly means, not what most people prescribe as tunneling, which is focusing one person out of the game even when it's a detriment to the killer. Otherwise it's a tactic) then it's not toxic, and your just being butthurt that you are getting taken out of the game early by a killer that's playing efficiently. And I specifically said when used correctly.

    Turning off the chat is a way to ensure you don't get affected by the toxicity. And saying verbal violence online is the same as physical violence irl is laughable, they are nothing similar. If you turn off chat they won't affect you, unlike the physical assault.

    I said if your fun comes from winning, not that it did, but you gave points that seemed to point in that direction.

  • AnniehereAnniehere Member Posts: 1,188

    English is not my native language. I meant to say that crouching and flashlights cannot be deleted from the game because toxicity.

  • socalfusionssocalfusions Member Posts: 109

    Glad to hear that actions like that are being enforced. I suppose my initial post is more on the lamenting of the attitudes and atmosphere that dbd has created and wanted to focus more on things that could be implemented into the game to discourage or eliminate them. Most of the responses to this thread seem to be denying that commonly associated toxic behavior is even toxic or that toxicity doesn't even exist in the game at all which I find completely false and am shocked I even have to argue is a thing.


    I think a quick look at the front page of the general discussion section says it all, a community of players that are unhappy with the current state of the game for the same common reasons. That's pretty much the large majority of the posts I see here and most other related forums which I think is evidence enough to show that there's a underlying problem which is what motivated me to make this post.


    Gotta give credit to everyone that's behind the game though because at the end of the day it is a popular game for a reason and a lot of things are being updated not only for content but balance wise as well, aka dead hard, hit validation, etc.

  • DAMNFASTDEADDAMNFASTDEAD Member Posts: 216

    Your Daily Philosopher says:

    I think "toxicity" and "morality" are two horns of the same goat. Definitions exist for both, and they are claimed to be universally valid. Subjectively, these, as well as other subjective interpretations of the words may be correct. For others, such an interpretation is at most tenable, if not wrong and rarely right, unless it fits well at that moment.

    O Lord! Please don't let me make #########!

    Amen!

  • socalfusionssocalfusions Member Posts: 109

    I think it's fair to say that it's impossible to enforce all bannable offenses even with evidence simply due to lack of resources though I know bans are in fact being issued. I know this for a fact because I've submitted video evidence of a game being held hostage by a streamer then proceeded to see them continue to stream the game for an extended period of time without repercussions, it's just not reasonable to think that every report is a guaranteed ban even if it warrants it.


    When I said promotion I meant it in a way that shows they are unwilling or incapable of dealing with, hackers is the first example I think of because they obviously are a toxic addition to any game and are dealt with in wildy varying manners ranging from insta banning them mid game and having an anti cheat that prevents those same cheats from returning to having hackers with the same cheats showing up again and again which I would classify dbd under. That is naturally a fault of the developers who fail to incorporate an anti cheat that can successfully deal with these hackers entirely and the player base suffers for it so in essence they are promoting that they don't have the capabilities to deal with said cheating. I don't know why they can't get an anti cheat that works but I just know that they don't, ironically I just saw a top 5 streamer get toyed with by a hacker last month. The thing is that some games DO have effective anti cheats, take Fortnite for example, I can't remember the last time I saw a hacker in that game.


    Camping and tunneling to the detriment of the killer is what I consider to be toxic, I realize and understand that killers have to enact those strategies to win in many situations which could be considered a failure of the games design and could be improved upon, base kit Kindred for survivors for example in solo que. At high level play I'm not sure how they would change the games design so that tunneling the same survivor three times in a row wasn't the optimal strategy.


    Turning off the chat is a band aid fix to an underlying issue and is unreasonable to expect players to do preemptively to avoid toxicity at all. No ones saying that verbal violence online is the exact same as physical violence that's simply a comparison and I definitely disagree that they are not at all similar, that's a dangerous statement to make when cyber bullying is well known to be a root cause of suicide.

  • cantelopecantelope Applicant Posts: 343

    So this post here largely reflects why these threads are not taken seriously.

    If you are opposed to people behaving negatively then why would you respond this way. There are only two outcomes you can legitimately say you could have expected.

    1) To shame them into silence so they'll stop disagreeing with you.

    2) To antagonize them into starting a fight.

    Which looks awfully hypocritical. Which happens in all of these pointless threads. The people who claim to oppose rude and or toxic behaviour quickly begin to use passive aggressiveness and or direct hostility to silence anyone who disagrees in a civil fashion or antagonize them into acting in a way similar to themselves. As well of course actively antagonizing already irritated people in the hopes of making them angrier.

    Almost like these posts are heavily started and supported by people who would qualify as toxic themselves if they weren't the ones deciding what is and isn't toxic.

    Which in itself is another common theme in these threads. Disagree with what is or isn't toxic, rude, or degrading will almost always result in immediate hostility. Once again, really making it seem like the point of the post has more to do with your own ego.

  • ilovedbd123ilovedbd123 Member Posts: 1,942

    I feel sorry for you guys, having to deal with all ######### bud

  • StarLostStarLost Member Posts: 6,304
    edited December 2021

    As you can tell, I'm quite passionate about this issue (hence the prison bars).

    I must disagree with you here.

    'GG EZ' and postgame abuse is the sort of thing that other players may be straight up driven away by. Even in other highly competitive games (LoL, HoTS, Starcraft 2 etc.) once someone starts berating another player, it becomes something worth discouraging via a warning or a time/chat ban. I remember the days of the LoL tribunal, and if I recall correctly - something like 4/5 toxic players reformed after a simple warning.

    Clicking wouldn't be so bad if the strobing effect didn't wreck me after a while, and my photosensitivity issues are pretty minor. Mostly, flashing lights are fine - but it's the speed and repetition of the strobe of certain macros that are difficult.

    I also think that it's incorrect to compare camping and tunneling (which are cheesy gameplay styles) with teabagging and strobing (which are done purely to be nasty).

    I wouldn't want to see anyone banned for teabagging - but I do think that flashlight macros may need a look (as they can actually aggravate photosensitivity conditions) and that a system to incentivize good sportsmanship may not be a bad idea.

    At the end of the day, you get the community you create - and a good community draws players in who may otherwise not have stuck around. Final Fantasy versus WoW is a perfect example.

    I had a team a few weeks ago that refused to attempt to complete the final gen and just stealthed around the map - they'd given me a pretty decent 3gen and were sulking. They were very clever in avoiding AFK crows and I gave up after 45 minutes. They must have been having fun.

    Another team 99%'d the final gen and then spent 30 minutes memeing on me with a pair of sabos, flashlights and bodyblocking. It was impossible to hook. Eventually I was forced to AFK, and in postgame they informed me that this wasn't 'holding the game hostage' as technically it was still possible for me to eventually win - but I could be banned for 'non participation'. I also vaguely recall reading something to this effect on the forums a long time ago - although I may be mistaken and it was Reddit or something.

  • crowbarmancrowbarman Member Posts: 464

    @Laluzi I agree that most t-bagging is probably toxic, but you correctly call out the strategic use cases where it can be a tactic to try to pull off a tunneling killer from a survivor (same for clicking). Sometimes it does need to happen. For example, I looped a killer for a long time and they chose to stay with me - didn't t-bag at all. But after 2 hooks he kept coming for me. The team really went all out to try to distract him, and in that situation I think it's fair game.

    But intense t-bagging and flashlight clicking, let's say after getting a stun at the start of a game, is simply meant to annoy, and fits the definition of toxicity.

    This is why I've generally said that it's not possible for the killer to be toxic, except for possibly some excess hook swings (which in reality doesn't imply much meaning, but whatever).

  • TheSubstituteTheSubstitute Member Posts: 906

    Merriam Webster has one of the meanings of toxic being ' extremely harsh, malicious or harmful eg toxic sarcasm. ' If a player is doing something to deliberately ruin the fun for another player then I would argue that falls within that definition.

    While a lot of it can't be banned, BHVR seems to be doing the video game equivalent of 'boys will be boys' instead. That's also detrimental to the game as it's pretty obvious the in-game toxicity has hurt player retention for DbD.

    While a lot of it can't be banned, it can definitely be discouraged which BHVR does not appear to be doing. If BHVR is serious about caring that all of its players are having fun even stating BHVR disapproves of players attempting to ruin the fun of other players would help more than the current apathetic attitude that, intentionally or not, BHVR is currently displaying to its player base.

  • MrPenguinMrPenguin Member Posts: 1,673
    edited December 2021

    " Sometimes it does need to happen."

    No it doesn't, they can body block and scratch mark trade out of LOS. Things that would actually directly help instead of trying to be annoying.

    "Anyone saying they click to "gain the killers attention" is most likely being disingenuous as the grand majority of the time its done its at the same points they would T-bag and they already have the killers attention. There's also easy alternatives such as body blocking that actually put the survivor in a position to gain a significant advantage, not just be annoying."

  • LaluziLaluzi Member Posts: 4,339

    It kind of depends. The situation you described is the only situation I'll ever tbag the killer, and even then the times I've done it have been limited to after the killer already downed the player I wanted to protect (because otherwise I'd rather try to get in the way), but at the same time, you'll get players that follow the killer around constantly clicking and tbagging because "they want to draw aggro", which is true and they're usually good loopers who can buy a lot of time for their team if it works, but it's also on the overly provocative side. I also find those particular players are likely to BM in chat/gates anyway, so I'm a bit 50/50 on strategic BM as a whole; I 100% understand trying to protect a vulnerable teammate, but I suspect a lot of the players who say they tbag for strategic reasons really do it for both reasons and then duck behind the acceptable one as a shield.

    As for killer BM; hitting on hook more than once, nodding at a hooked player while facecamping them, or bleeding out without a gameplay reason (DS, Power Struggle, advanced wiggle progress, hook dead zone.) That said, most killer BM is determined in endgame chat because it's hard to tell intent - the killer who hard camps and tunnels a player and then goes "GGEZ lol its ur fault for going down git gud scrub" is toxic, but one who doesn't say anything or just says "GG" is just a normal player doing normal player things.

Sign In or Register to comment.