Best Of

Imagine people like @undeddJester gets banned and these people are free to roam…

Thankfully my brain is already destroyed by other websites which were shown to me as kid… but dude come on…

It is neither funny nor anything else.

Guys please don´t post here. IF my name isn´t the one on recently posted Don´t open this post okay? Thank you all keep yourself save.

DON´T OPEN THE DISCUSSION

Sorry y'all I tried

Mods, can we please, please give one of us who's up all night and present the ability to delete posts. I'm begging you.

Good evening.

I had been banned from the forum for some time, and although I have been away from the game for even longer, I have been reading the main thread where “abuse” is being discussed. I wanted to link the discussion from there, but from a different angle, because I believe this term is key to understanding what is happening in Dead by Daylight.

Abuse is often associated with player behavior, and people appeal to ideas such as “don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want done to you.” It is a nice and well-intentioned message, but in a well-designed game system, this kind of moral appeal should not be necessary.

The problem is not that players are abusive, but that the structure of the game itself allows, encourages, and normalizes that abuse. When a system makes it possible for one side to be systematically oppressive to the other, we are not dealing with an individual attitude problem, but with a design problem.

Abuse does not happen because players want to abuse; it happens because the system allows them to.

In DbD, something very specific is happening: structural imbalance, the generalization of perks across killers with radically different mechanics, and the accumulation of randomness make certain abusive situations not only possible, but optimal from the system’s own perspective.

For that reason, the focus should not be on how players behave within a match, but on how we have come to normalize the fact that, in a game where balance is assumed, there exists a tier list with at least five distinct categories.

This is unacceptable for the health of both the game and its players. The game is frustrating due to poor design, not because of player behavior. The solution has been explained many times, and this is not a personal opinion: it is exactly how the vast majority of competitive games have been developed and structured in practice for years.

If the game’s leadership were to reconsider and rethink the base structure, this title could grow from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of players, perhaps more. The idea and the concept are unique; the potential is clearly there.

What is hard to understand is why settle for a design that does not scale when there is a clear opportunity to do things properly. Admitting that the initial approach was not scalable and requires a deep structural rework should not be seen as a failure, but as an opportunity.

The game could be so much more than it currently is, retaining its players while continuously attracting new ones, instead of relying on cycles of churn driven by fatigue and frustration.

Simply by applying design principles that have been proven for decades, abuse would be drastically reduced and would no longer be a structural problem for either side.

Time will tell.

Oh ffs...