Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
Add 'Avoid Player' feature
Comments
-
It actually doesnt solve itself as much as you think and still manages to be a HUGE issue for others. Overwatch briefly had this system in its game for example and quickly discovered that one of the best widowmakers in the world was having HORRIBLE wait times due to how many people would block him, not because he was being toxic...but because they wanted to avoid playing against him. It wasnt fair for that player to be effected negatively there and it wouldnt be fair for the same to happen with DBD.
1 -
Keep in mind that youd be trying to find a group of 5 similarly ranked players who dont have each other on their blocklists/ have reasonable ping and are all trying to queue up at the same time. Just because YOU dont have people on a block list, doesnt mean nobody else does which would be effecting your wait time. That 69k people also includes people who are on the other side of the world that you likely wouldnt wanna be placed with.
0 -
I would be afraid that feature would have me playing DbD with the same five people every time :)
0 -
Yes I'm well aware of that example. I acknowledged that there would be players like that that would disproportionately suffer from it but an overwhelmingly majority of players won't have that issue.
1 -
Feel like due to how many people youd have to find, it would significantlly increase queue times. Youd need 5 people with none of them having blocked each other. This would be bad enough with solo Q, but then when you factor in SWFs... RIP. A single player in the lobby has you blocked and it would be an entire lobby your locked out of.
0 -
Make it so that anything the game might detect toxic like teabagging or facecamping, will instantly sacrifice the survivor or the killer.
0 -
Would just encourage people to create alts and smurf accounts which would ruin low experienced players gameplay
0 -
That would at least require money to do. Right now you can do virtually the same thing with enough deranking games.
1 -
This discussion is the exact reason why the devs blacklisted MLGA for PC players before the dedicated servers were established:
"MLGA is a mod that shows you the pings of people in your game lobby. The idea is that if the ping is too high you have the chance to dodge that lobby in order to not get stuck in a laggy/ unfair game. It also has a feature that allows you to add players to a list and tag them as either "blocked" or "loved", so you can avoid certain people who play in a way you don't like."
MLGA was being heavily abused by players blocking others and essentially rigging the game so that they would only play against players of lower skill than themselves. BHVR recognized how abusive the ability to block players was being, and rightfully Blacklisted MLGA in Easy Anti Cheat so that no one would be getting blocked anymore. This was back when DbD was still peer to peer connection, and MLGA only worked for that kind of game. However, despite its Blacklisted status in EAC, some players still figured out work arounds and were able to continue abusing it all the way up until the Dedicated servers were set up, which made MLGA useless.
The bottom line: MLGA was a tool that allowed DbD players to do exactly what this post is talking about, and it was such a problem for the PC community that BHVR took measures to Blacklist it, and outright banned players for using it.
OP, what you're asking for is essentially the same thing as MLGA, but integrated into the core of the game, by the developers who already Blacklisted that program because of the damage it was causing to the DbD community, and you think they are going to consider this suggestion? ... Good Luck.
3 -
sure on xbox and PS. But on steam you can just family share it up to 3 to 5 alt accounts
0 -
You can use Steam Family Share to create alt/smurf accounts completely for free and keep all DLC. It'd cost nothing but a new email address.
0 -
I'd love an avoid option. Its not the toxic Id avoid tho, I would rather just avoid all red ranks. As a rank 11-13 player who has only been playing round a month, its no fun as a killer thats still learning the game.
0 -
Did they ever blacklist it? I thought it was just in that "if you get banned, we won't help" greyzone limbo state for a long time and then turned obsolete by the transition to dedicated servers. Which is a good thing, as just like the log-driven "figure out who the killer is" stuff that was going on for a while the only way to stop it was to make it obsolete - people didn't need dedicated software to do any of that, they just streamlined the process.
But yeah, I totally agree with your point though. While I'm sure a lot of people would use a block feature exclusively to block genuinely unpleasant people, it's been proven before in both DBD and other games that a very notable amount of players will use that sort of power to make things easier for themselves instead. Perhaps limited slots would discourage that sorta thing, but it would just reduce the problem and not eliminate it.
1 -
They definitely had it Blacklisted in EAC, and if EAC caught you using it and banned you, the devs would basically wash their hands of you and say "that's your problem, you were warned, but you did it anyway and got caught." Then the Dedicated servers came out and made it obsolete, just as you said, however, up until then there were still ways to bypass EAC and still use MLGA, but fortunately not everyone knew how to do that, so MLGA saw a major decrease in usage due to the Blacklisting. Which leads me to my point: BHVR themselves acknowledged the problem MLGA was causing their game and the community due to players blocking other players, and acted against it by having it Blacklisted in EAC. Yet here's a post asking the devs to basically reinstate the function of MLGA that got it Blacklisted, i.e. the ability to Block players, as an integrated part of the core game... Methinks the OP is "barking up the wrong tree."
Even if they did implement a block player feature into DbD with a limit of 10, that would still cause a huge issue for the top % of high ranked players. Can you imagine a good red ranked Killer getting blocked by every survivor they play against on the dedicated server they play on? While its true each player would only have 10 slots to use, that's still 4 players per match blocking that killer, and eventually that would create an ousting environment wherein the best players can no longer play DbD, because every time they get a match, the players use up one of their slots to block them, and eventually that players queue times go way up because nobody will play with them. It's not their fault that players don't want to take up the challenge of playing against them, they worked hard to get as good as they are, but a block player function would reward them with what basically amounts to a "community chosen" ban from the game. That would be like if the top player in an esports game like Overwatch was kicked out "for being too good" which doesn't make any damn sense in any multiplayer platform. "Congratulations, you're one of the top 100 players in our leaderboards, enjoy your ban!" yeah... that sounds fun. /s
While the "Intention" for having a Block player function may be to weed out the toxic, unsportsmanlike, and hacking/cheating players, the reality is that it wouldn't be used that way, and genuinely good players would end up suffering because of it. BHVR knew that when they blacklisted MLGA, so I don't really see the point of asking them to implement an "Avoid Player" function into their game as a feature.
1 -
Thanks for reminding me. This is actually how I started out in the game so I can't believe I forgot that bit lol.
I've argued on this point before but I've come up with a way to help ease that problem over time. Instead of a permanent avoid feature maybe it's timed for a few months? This would allow those really exceptional players to still find lobbies, albeit at a slower pace than now.
0 -
What is your solution to players who are blocked by salty people for just being good at the game?
0 -
Alright cool, I genuinely either didn't know or forgot that it got "officially" blacklisted instead of being one of those "do what you want but if EAC decided to ban you for it, tough luck" sorta things. Thanks for clarifying.
And for everything else I totally agree, if I made it seem like I wanted a blocklist that was not my intention. It's something that could work well if everyone somehow used it as intended, but people don't do that. People that are "too good" get blocked, and that's without getting into the wild definitions of "toxic" some people subscribe to. For every person that gets blocked for genuinely being as unpleasant as possible without getting banned for it, many others would get blocked for daring to use perks another player dislikes or something like that.
1 -
Well the hope is that they block so many people better than them they only get easy games and therefor themselves become blocked by so many people they have no one or hardly anyone left to match with. This is an ok solution because abusers have to invest into it and get punished for it. Nothing wrong there.
For good players that get blocked by salty people, there's not a whole lot that can be done. I've suggested that instead of permanent avoid it becomes a timed one so that each player doesn't have to interact for a while and hopefully forget and virtually become new players to each other again. Or they can just take it on the chin for everyone else since they're by far a minority in the game. That's not ideal but neither is toxic people ruining the game for everyone and there being no mechanisms in place to even attempt to fix it.
0 -
Hackers sure but swf? Lol I dont get why everyone thinks swf is always so superior. I've noticed as killer and playing swf myself a lot of them goof off and make questionable plays way more often.
0 -
If there isn't a whole lot that can be done for good players, then this is not an idea I can ever get behind.
0 -
I'd agree with you normally, but DbD has time and time again rejected the notion of competitiveness and insists on it being a casual game. Therefore we can't hold special balance exceptions for the top percent of players (but we'll still nerf a killer who is only good in that range cough) so yeah, in this case I'm willing to sacrifice <3% of the game's population to hinder greatly toxic people and their effects on the game.
0 -
I'm not. Good players should not be obligated to "take one for the team."
0 -
And what happens when the big name DbD Streamer/fog whisperers start getting blocked by every player they face simply because they are "big name" streamers? People troll the hell out of those guys on a daily basis, and even recently hackers were ruining the DC penalty system for everyone by attacking those Streamers with 72 hour bans live on their streams. Not only would the "avoid player" feature single them out as an easy target for the trolls, it would also destroy their revenue, and the fog whisperer agreement they have with BHVR wherein they are providing advertising for DbD by playing the game. No one is going to watch a Streamer like Monto, or Otzdarva if 80% of the stream is just them queueing up for a lobby because they got screwed over by a bunch of trolls spreading the word for everyone to block them. Within 1 week of the block feature being implemented, their queue times would skyrocket, and they'd feel alienated from the game they love and utterly betrayed by the devs. The only way the devs could avoid that would be to exempt Fog whisperers from the feature, but that would only cause the rest of the community to ######### and moan about favoritism, and cause a cluster of headache inducing complaint posts from other good players who are getting screwed by the feature and don't have the luxury of being a fog whisperer.
If my queue times shot up to even 10 mins between matches, and I knew that the reason for it is because I was doing too well in the game, I'd just uninstall the damn thing, because obviously no one wants to take up the challenge of playing against me. "Timed for A few Months"... after a sour experience like that, what is the actual likelihood of me EVER re-installing the game a few months later after people already proved to me that they don't want me playing with them?
Adding an "Avoid Player" feature into the game would be financial suicide for the devs, even if the feature only operates for 1 week, because it's still putting the power of Banning players into the hands of the players, and as we all know, this community is full of unsportsmanlike and toxic players who will use any and every excuse to rig the game in their favor if allowed. This has been most prominently expressed ever single time the DC penalty system has been taken offline, and if the Block player function was available the last time that happened, Many habitual DC'ers would get a heftier community chosen ban from the game, but so would every good player they DC'd against. The devs are trying to expand the player base, not kill it. If that means we have to deal with the occasional toxic turd in the punch bowl vs. not being allowed to play anymore because players can't handle the challenge of playing against us, I'd go with the former, because while frustrating at times, at least it's unbiased.
4 -
I want the feature for this exact reason. It would actually make solo que more bearable also so you can block useless players who just wait for gates to be opened.
2 -
Do you think it is something that could be looked into? Maybe there could be a cool down as in you can chose to avoid one player a day. Atleast it would be less abuseable then. I just think it could be implemented and actually be good and helpful :)
0 -
Letting others increase my queue time at the press of a button? No thanks.
1 -
I believe every time the question has been brought up, the answer has always been no.
0 -
Please god yes! I had a killer tunnle me and said sorry the bill usually runs with a 4 stack so I thought you played with him since you got him off the hook... I wanted to make sure I took them out
0 -
Thanks for letting me know. I didn't see any answers through the thread.
1
