Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
It sounds like you or your friend were confused, they may have said they got footprints (in the salt), which you assumed to mean UV evidence.
Hi, sorry, I'm the friend in question. I saw an actual glowing UV footprint on the ground NEXT to a salt pile, not the salt pile itself (which had been stepped in about 10 minutes before).
As far as I know, salt piles are single use, and the UV footprints appear as soon as its stepped in. With a limited time duration, there shouldn't have been any UV footprints at all after 10 minutes.
After stepping in salt (assuming the ghost has UV as evidence), anywhere the ghost walks to within the next 10 seconds would leave footprints, and those footprints only last like 10 to 15 seconds. (As an additional note, that also means that a ghost with UV evidence may not leave footprints at all, if it doesn't move after stepping in the salt. Which means that UV is still a possible piece of evidence even if there are no glowing footprints to be seen.)
C'mon man just admit it's the game fault this time
All we are relying upon here is word of mouth, which in most cases can be just simply mistakes. We would ideally need to have physical proof, or a way to consistently get the problem to be replicated... to which neither have been provided.
Not to discredit that what these two witnessed actually did happen, but if I were a game developer... if I were to follow every claim on a "trust me bro" mentality it would almost assuredly slow development down exponentially while I blindly investigate, which is especially not ideal if half the time it ends up being a wild goose chase through the code.
To summarize: saying a bug exists is *soft* evidence, but developers would ideally prefer *hard* evidence such as a screen capture, or... even better... a scenario in which they can consistently recreate the specific issue that you experienced