Should DCs be punished harder?
We have all been in a match in which there is a DC. As a survivor, seeing a teammate DC is frustrating, as that makes the match more difficult for the remaining survivors, and seeing a killer DC simply crashes the match and prevents earning more BP. As a killer, seeing a survivor DC (they usually do that when they consider you have gone against their unofficial imaginary rulebook) prevents you from having a fin match, as things are much easier for you most times, and from using that survivor to get BP and hooks for rituals and archives. Currently, the punishment is not being able to join a match for some time after DCing, not earning anything from the match and have your rank lowered (maybe there is another effect I am not considering). So, what should be done regarding this issue?
Should DCs be punished harder? 74 votes
Comments
-
honestly "make the time duration longer to join another match" and "make the timer start when starting matchmaking" should go hand in hand. Simply going "oh no, its a killer I don't like" then DC should be something they REALLY have to think about if its worth it, if they wanna DC over "I can't even, I just can't even..." nonsense LOL.
0 -
I like your way of thinking. Yes, I should have put this option as a possible choice.
0 -
DCs definitley need to be punished harder, but at the same time there is really no point to doing so when hook suicide exists, since it's functionally the same as a DC, but you dont get punished for doing it. Killing yourself on hook should just be removed from the game as well.
2 -
I think that the bans should start at 15 minutes and stay at 15 minutes.
I don't DC, but for whatever reason, my game does crash pretty often. (like, for real, it's shockingly common for my game to just freeze and crash regardless of ping or anything).
Once that AI gets implemented there shouldn't be a ban at all, though.
1 -
This is a suggestion based on what some different games do, and while it may be too much to ask (considering BHVR), I really feel this is the proper way to handle DCs across any game
Firstly, there needs to be a system that can recognize whether the DC was intentional or not, checks for this can include latency checks and whether or not the connection was terminated by communication errors or simply leaving the game. With checks like these in place, it's less punishing to players who DC by means of either a faulty connection or unfortunate internet situation, while players who DC out of salt or anger get punished accordingly. Offenses should follow a similar line as such:
Unintentional DCs (IE: Excessive latency, abnormal ping, etc.)
DC 1: Warning given with a message to check your internet and make sure your connection is stable, no penalty.
DC 2: If a second DC happens within 24 hours of the first DC, a 5 minute penalty penalty will be addressed to the player.
DC 3: If a third DC happens within 24 hours of the first DC, a 15 minute penalty will be addressed to the player, loss of pip progress.
DC 4...: Any DC after a third within the 24 hour period will result in a 1 hour penalty, grade down by 1 (If Iridescent 2, you become Iridescent 3) and loss of pip progress.
With four DCs stacked within 24 hours, that's about 1 hour and 20 minutes worth of a penalty, which if you somehow reach a 4th penalty, I feel its probably better to just stop playing DBD at that point, and this is what this penalty line is supposed to try and encourage. Obviously I'm not saying it should be exactly this, but I feel a similar line of progress is healthy for handling unintentional DCs. The reason behind DC 3&4's progressive harsh punishment is simple: disconnecting is a nuisance to you and others around you. To prevent this, we make the DC penalties harsher throughout to encourage you to put the game down for a bit if you put others at risk of a poor game, and we do this with a "3 strikes and you're out" style system. If you're willing to take a risk on a third strike, and strike out (DC), the punishment for that will be minor depending on how pip-hungry you are. If you decide its so important that you NEED to keep playing after a third strike, and you still disconnect, you'll receive a punishment for continuing to possibly hinder other players. I think this is fair since I've only had one natural disconnect, and that was in a spot where despite having poor internet, I just dealt with a pretty good bit of latency but never DCd. If you're in a spot where its THAT bad where you disconnect FOUR times, I think this is a fair punishment. Onto intentional DCs, which I feel is pretty simple to have a check system for (literally if the player uses the leave match function in means of a disconnect, I feel its the easiest of the bunch). EDIT: just at the beginning of a game before finishing this, somebody DC'd at the very beginning of the match. Nothing had even happened, so I feel safe in saying this was an unintentional DC. This player should only get a warning and nothing else, it wasn't their fault and they shouldn't be punished if its their first DC.
Intentional DCs (Using the Leave Game function)
DC 1: Grade down (If Iridescent 2, you become iridescent 3), loss of pip progress, 10 minute penalty.
DC 2: If within 24 hours of the first DC, reset rank progress (If Iridescent 2, become Iridescent 4), loss of pip progress, 15 minute penalty.
DC 3: If within 24 hours of the first DC, rank down (If iridescent 2, become gold 4), loss of pip progress, 45 minute penalty.
DC 4: If within 24 hours of the first DC, rank down (If iridescent 2, become gold 4), loss of pip progress, 24 hour ban.
I know the initial thought is "holy ######### no, that's WAY too punishing", but in response let me ask you this. Is it fair to just DC whenever you want to other players? It's beyond poor sportsmanship, you're not only putting your team at a disadvantage, but its just annoying to the killer too. "That's the point, the DC is to spite the killer", then you're the toxic one. You can argue hE dId iT FIrSt, but as soon as you disconnect, in my opinion you're as low, if not lower than the killer. I usually find myself giving hatch to the last teammate standing depending on if they were toxic or not if their teammate disconnects, or just let everybody farm BP instead, since its seriously just so disappointing to see. I wanna break down the reasons for the punishments, as I have thought it through. Listen, life happens, sometimes mid game you have to go. We understand, that's why DC 1 will only warrant a loss in pips. Is this annoying? Sure, its a nuisance if all you need to do is something small like eat dinner, being dragged to the store, thought you had enough time to play a game before your shift, then realize you have to quit mid game or you'll be late, etc., and you just have to disconnect. Hell, while writing this I just disconnected as killer at end game because I had to do a few things, it happens. The reason there's still a punishment is because while it may be a nuisance in those situations, its fair punishment for a first offense to anybody intentionally disconnecting with bad intent while giving people who need to disconnect a sorta safety net. The reason for the immediate jump in punishment to resetting your grade progress is to hopefully incentivize players with tilting issues to just stop playing. If you feel the absolute need to continue playing and it gets so bad you need to disconnect, I feel you deserve a harsh punishment for such poor sportsmanship. Keep in mind, these punishments aren't gonna apply to most players, probably wont apply to you reading this too, this is a measure for players who have tilting issues and feel the need to make other players experiences worse because they got mad at a videogame, so if you just play and know not to DC, these wont apply to you! I really wanna push that narrative since these punishments ONLY effect toxic players, and ig you can view that as a callout for saying if you intentionally disconnect with harsh intent, its toxic... which it is lol. I feel these harsh punishments encourage even the most Toxic players to play through the game, and because the punishments are so harsh, they would actually lose more by disconnecting, making it so if you're seriously that mad (which jesus christ get off the videogame bruh), you at least are more inclined to contribute to your team rather than just disconnecting.
Again, these punishments are harsh, but in place to discourage toxic disconnects & give wiggle room for players that may have unfortunate disconnects, whether that be an unfortunate match or a poor internet location or life gets in the way. I feel this system would benefit players who aren't toxic but disconnect by accident, while punishing those who feel the need to ruin other players fun because they got mad at a videogame. Would love to hear how players would feel if a system like this was made for DBD.
1 -
DC penalty should be limited to 5 minutes, not increase.
2 -
I am interested on knowing your arguments.
0 -
I think the DC penalties are fine as is.
0 -
I want at least 20 min DC penalty. 20 min, then 1 hour, then 10 hours, then 24 hours, then the game uninstall automaticaly. I'm so tired of dumb selfish literally zero skill idiots that ruin the game to all another players in match. I'm killer main and play survivor time to time, but it piss me off in both way, i hate those boring matches when somebody dc or die on first hook (should be punished same way). Can't play team games? Go play fckn minecraft, loser
1 -
yeah, it needs to be harder. 2~3 DCs per game is just absurd.
It needs to check when it was intentional tho, as if the power goes down, you shouldn't be penalized for that...
0 -
?? You are in favor of dc penalty increasing every time a person dc?
0 -
The one thing I notice about DCing is that you can DC two times before it goes to 15 minutes.
Just don't DC thou.
Let's not forget that increasing the DC timer will hurt players with unstable connection. This isn't OW where the DC timer is 10 min.
0 -
I am, as it will encourage players to not crash games and It will also make players with bad connections move to improve It. However, the vast majority of DCs I see are due to a match not developing as the person who DCs wants.
0 -
i need to do well and learn nurse with starstruck and agitation so i can slug and get 4k
0 -
If BHVR could determine what caused the DC, then sure increase the punishment.
Until that point, they're fine as it is.
0 -
people that DC are cringe
1 -
DC-ing is a symptom. Punitive measures to reduce the frequency of DCs is not addressing the underlying issue. Quite the opposite: DCs show that something is wrong. The (erronous) conclusion from less DCs that follow punitive measures would be that everything is fine. Which it isn't. Which likely leads to less game satisfaction over time which in turn leads to worse player attitudes and/or less people playing the game. It's shooting yourself in the foot in the long run.
The current DC penalties are mostly for management purposes, imo. They mitigate the "cutting in line" nature of DCing and immediately Qing up again; it makes it so that people who DC do not gain an advantage over those staying in a match. The current system is also managing "Serial DCers" just fine, imo; they are taken out of the matchmaking pool after a few matches and stay out of Qs for a long while. Again: It's not primarily to stop them from DCing. It is to protect the matchmaking Q.
0 -
No.
Their purpose isn't to make a single DC some sort of "Wow, gotta wait so long I might as well play something else!" kinda thing, it's to make it increasingly inconvenient for players engaging in "nooooo the first survivor I found is a sapient organism that didn't go down in 0.0042 seconds / the killer found me first / i got a map I dislike / whatever" and DC regularly to continue playing. That's the players the system aims to truly punish.
0 -
You guys forget about how a cheater may take you hostage in a game when you are playing killer and you eventually have to just dc to end the match. Fix ani cheat then talk about changing DC penalties.
3 -
One persons toxicity does not excuse another's.
DC's are bad for the game. Since they cant be removed, the best we can do is incentivize against them.
There's other solutions to the slug issue then "they need to DC". Change the game so if all 4 survivors are slugged, they all just die or at least get the option to.
Post edited by MrPenguin on1 -
DCing to avoid death is pretty cringe-worthy, but so is the killer that slugs a survivor when there are only two left just to avoid the hatch opening or slugs the all remaining survivors and just waits rather than hooking. It’s for that reason that I’d say leave it as is. Heck, they should offer a surrender option if slugged for 30 seconds or more (bleed out faster?) if the killers holding the game hostage.
0 -
Killers DC too.
0 -
The thing is - you shouldn't overdo DC penalties, because they are, in fact, accidental sometimes. Be it lights turning off around the block or Steam running an unexpected maintenance and shutting down servers for several minutes. Sometimes even the game itself is at fault, as there were some bugs and performance issues before, which forcefully disconnected players for seemingly no reason. And you can't always know whether the DC was accidental or intentional. And if it wasn't intentional (especially if game itself is at fault) you don't really want to punish players too much and make them lose gained stuff, because they didn't even want to disconnect from that match so imagine the reaction.
I think time penalties are fine as is.
0 -
Not so much the length of the DC penalty should be changed, but I do think the penalty should apply starting when the lobby ends and game loading screen starts. There’s a few too many people who intentionally disconnect based on the offerings or as soon as they see what the map is but before they “start the match”. As a practical matter though disconnecting during the loading screen or the instant the map is shown is as bad as disconnecting 5 seconds into the start of the match, you’re wasting the time of all four of the other players who’ll have to sit in queue to get a full match again.
0 -
I never said they didn't, what does that have to do with anything?
0
