Riveting Gameplay
Thanks BHVR.
Comments
-
I mean, why should the Dwight Unhook you? The game is lost.
28 -
I wouldn’t unhook you either. That is literally a hatch game, and he’s equipped for it.
17 -
To be fair I wouldn't unhook you either
I would play that for hatch
11 -
Dwight was up there for the minute and a half Ada was on hook, forcing me to trade with her.
You can't seriously make excuses for this kind of gameplay.
The "game was over" because Dwight abstained from progressing the objective for 4 minutes.
---
Regardless of whether or not that was the smartest play for Dwight, my issue here is with the game, and the fact this scenario is possible.
5 -
No.. the game was over because y’all allowed somebody to die with 4 gens left, with 2 more of y’all on death hook. Y’all all failed. Dwight played for the win at that point, which he did.
11 -
Ada was on first hook when Dwight gave up. As far as I know, he gave up before she was hooked--she just had Kindred to show me where he was and what he wasn't doing the moment she was thrown on hook. He was the only one on death hook, and that doesn't justify his behavior.
This game should stop rewarding players who throw their teammates to the wolves. DBD is a 4v1--not a 1v1v1v1v1.
4 -
Yeah, the game is designed as a 4v1, but then on the DbD Steam page it says this:
Survive Together… Or Not - Survivors can either cooperate with the others or be selfish.
BHVR needs to pick a lane: either it's 4v1 and needs survivors to work as a team or it's not. Trying to have it both ways just leads to a lot of misery.
15 -
I'm sorry you had a bad match and decided to blame the game developers for some bizzare reason
1 -
Thanks for your sympathy.
They made the game. How are they not at fault?
0 -
Because they can't make the Dwight come and unhook you? Do you want them to come to his house and mash his face against the keyboard until he's broken and sobbing and comes and does a pointless hook trade? Like they're not responsible for an individual player's actions cuz people are people. They're going to do what they want.
6 -
It's an individuals choice to play like that. They could make more incentive to not do so, but I doubt it would make this never happen.
0 -
4 gens left and 2 alive? Yeah I wouldnt unhook as Dwight and I wouldnt struggle on hook as you either, its over the Killer won, no reason to keep slowing the inevitable.
6 -
It’s an asymmetrical game in which you may play however you like within certain parameters. There’s a lots of perks for being a “solo” survivor. While it may be frustrating, there’s nothing wrong with what Dwight did.
4 -
You died and outscored Dwight even though he opened and escaped through hatch. Sounds like a win on your part.
4 -
I think that some people just don't know how to play or how to plan ahead.
4 -
You're reading it wrong. Survive together is SWF, being selfish is Solo. That is reflected in the OP's video quite accurately.
3 -
Final 2 survivors is the worst part of this game. It creates an endless web of misery that manifests in many different forms. Snitching, trolling, stalling, hiding, griefing, etc.
2 -
You can't really hate on it either.
I mean sometimes people are gonna play selfish, it emulates realism, not everyone is gonna risk it to save you.
The variable nature of the game is what keeps it interesting. Sometimes its a clean sweep, sometimes its a lost cause and sometimes its hard fought.
Like a real survival horror film, someone's not always going to stick their neck out for a stranger, in a SWF with their friends they'd probably try but with a bunch of strangers hmm maybe not.
Not every survivor is going to be generic hero guy all the time.
"Regardless of whether or not that was the smartest play for Dwight, my issue here is with the game, and the fact this scenario is possible." Oof that's some dangerous thinking there, akin to "we have to force everyone to play the same all the time!"
Nothing wrong with thinking "Dwight you selfish cowardly jerk!" but to say "Dwight should be forced to try and save me!" well frankly... 🤢🤮 on that notion.
4 -
Pretty sure there is a hatch escape challenge in the archives too.
Regardless, how a player chooses to play is entirely on the player, not the devs, and sadly, you will occasionally be sacrificed for the hatch. However I will say, this has become rare for me in my games, usually, everyone is super altruistic, so I'm not too mad when it does happen, and if the game is a loss and I see the other dude has a chance for the hatch, I'm gonna let the entity take me and wish them luck, maybe even cheer them on in spectate if they were a really cool teammate.
1 -
Guys, I understand the Dwight's line of thinking.
Dude is equipped to save his own hide--I see why this was a no-brainer for him. It's not what I would do 99.9% percent of the time, but I get it.
That said...
This post ain't about whether or not Dwight made the right play.
This post is about the impact Dwight's decision had on other players' experience, and the fact that his decision was well rewarded, despite the negative impact it had on others.
@pseudechis I'm not here to dictate how people should be playing the game. Dwight should be able to maintain his agency. If he wants to leave my ass on hook, so be it. My quarrel is with this gameplay being rewarded.
As @TragicSolitude noted, BHVR is trying to have their cake and eat it to. This "we're teammates, but oh... I'm going to abandon you at the moment its most convenient for me," gameplay is problematic for the game's health. The whole game becomes a giant prisoner's dilemma, unless the killer is extremely incompetent.
2 -
Solo is really 1v1v1v1v1. Occasionally you'll get matched with people who want to play as a team and then it resembles a 4v1. Honestly, in the Dwight's shoes I'd have come for you even if it meant I died. But people play for different reasons. That's the reality of solo queue. Some people just want to do their dailies or their tomes. He came with Clairvoyance, so he obviously wanted hatch. Game was over at that point.
2 -
Yeah. It's way too prevalent to deny that there's an issue with game design. Endgame encourages you to throw your fellow survivors under the bus, to the point where players will actively try to get each other killed in hopes of a reward.
It's the same kind of issue as tunneling. Players will play in a way that is ######### and unenjoyable for everyone else because the game incentivizes it, however inadvertently, and it won't be fixed until the game is edited in a way that changes that incentive or balances it out with a punishment. In this case... just throwing things at the wall, if Dwight would automatically get crows for waiting the entirety of two survivors' hooks doing nothing to progress the game, then waiting for two players (who are actually trying) to die wouldn't be a valid strategy and he'd be more inclined to unhook you.
That said, BHVR could at least help by not designing more give-me-hatch perks that have no value unless you're going in with the intent to play selfish. Looking at you, Low Profile.
1 -
but to punish it is you affecting his license. Don’t kid yourself about the topic it’s very clear that you want the Dwight to fail for playing selfish.
Well guess what selfish will net you more rewards in a lot of circumstances.
I get the point you are making but it has all these rather negative undertows that undermine it.
Dwight made a play to increase his chances of survival and *drum beat* it increased his chances of survival.
Why get angry about it move on already, it’s just part of the game.
3 -
He clearly was doing something in all that time or he would have gotten crows. He had to do something more than just stand there. That said, I agree with the sentiments others have said. You are not a team. Sure, you can act like one sometimes, but the fact of the matter is that the game is designed in a way that says the other survivors are only worth keeping alive if it helps you survive. That's why the MMR is entirely based on escapes. No one is under any obligation to throw themselves at the hook for you just as you are under no obligation to throw yourself onto one for him. Hook trading is very bad practice. It leads your entire team towards death faster. It's not altruistic. It's throwing. You're giving the killer free hits and downs just to save someone one hook state... which you may not even accomplish as they could be downed 10-15 seconds later.
Think of it this way. Every survivor was pulled from the real world into this realm of eternal torment. What does saving someone else really do? Spare them a single instance of pain? As soon as the trial is over, Steve, Claudette, Meg, etc, they're all going right back in to be tortured more and so are you. After countless days, weeks, months, decades, centuries, who knows how long inside the entity's realm, almost every survivor would have such horrific PTSD that they would all do anything to spare themselves from being sacrificed one more time if they can. Even the mightest soldier would break after being tortured for countless years.
1 -
And I understand your line of thinking, the guy was egotistical it that affected your survival options and he got rewarded for his egoism but the truth is, the game was already over and it was either rescuing you and then someone dying after god knows how many minutes or just let you die and go for hatch, that match was going to end with 1 person looking for hatch anyway, may aswell make it faster and you just happened to be caught instead of him.
From my point of view he made you a favor by letting you go sooner so you could hop in a new match.
3 -
Hatch shouldn't even exist
Hatch needs to be removed
Post edited by Tsukah on1 -
You're completely missing the point here.
@pseudechis your "it's just part of the game" attitude completely disregards my message. It shouldn't be part of the game. That is the point.
Survivors cannot win a 3v1 against an adequately matched killer. I assume you accept that as fact, because you support the Dwight for declaring our 3v1 to be a "hatch game," even though you have no information about how far into the match we were, and how much gen progress was made on any other generator (for all you know, we could have had 3+ gens over 50% progress, but only 1 complete).
Any one survivor can enter the trial deciding not to advance the objective, and play solely for hatch (as it appears this Dwight did). This strategy has been made even more viable in recent patches, with perks like Sole Survivor, Wake Up, Low Profile, Left Behind, and a key in-hand.
The two above sentences;
Survivors cannot win a 3v1 against an adequately matched killer.
and
Any one survivor can enter the trial deciding not to advance the objective, and play solely for hatch
are glaring design issues.
If survivors cannot win a 3v1 against an adequately matched killer, than the game should NEVER motivate any one survivor to do anything but help their team.
0 -
Why did he only have Clairvoyance is my only question here, though. Is there currently a tome challenge for escaping with only that perk too? 🙄
0 -
He clearly was doing something
I don't know if you noticed (it appears many did not), but I linked to gameplay to show exactly what the Dwight was doing. He was picking up and dropping an item to avoid getting crows. He did this for over 2 minutes. The video shows the moment I was thrown on hook, and the still image I posted initially shows how he is still standing upstairs at the end of my struggle phase.
I have video footage of the second minute I spent on hook, and it is just more of the same. I would have included it, but it is more work for me to censor the names in the video than screenshot the moment before I was sacrificed.
This entire post (see above comment) is about how the "you are not a team" game design conflicts with the "you cannot win a 3v1" design. It is a huge problem, and that is my entire quarrel here. If Dwight wants to ruin his game by letting me die on hook, fine. But he shouldn't be rewarded for throwing his team to the wolves when I cannot escape without his help.
0 -
Survivors cannot win a 3v1 against an adequately matched killer
You are leaving out important information, Survivors cannot win a 3vs1 against an adequately matched killer WHEN there are 4 gens left. Survivors can win 3vs1 with 1 or 2 gens left, its quite common actually.
And to be honest, Survivors can win 3vs1 against 4 gens too but is rare, so rare its not worth trying, there is a point where the match is so heavily skewed towards one side is not worth keep trying, especially when you dont have queues, just get it over fast and jump onto the next.
Being able to count your loses and calling quits then restart again before wasting more time is a part of playing games, not everything has to be a fight to the last drop of blood.
0 -
Stop whataboutism'ing me. We're not talking about 1 or 2 gens left. We're talking about the fact that survivors can deliberately sabotage their teammate's game, from the outset, with zero repurcussions to their behavior.
Keep up, please.
The "every man for themself" element of DBD is bad for the game. Period.
DBD is not a FFA. It is a team game for survivors, and BHVR needs to get in that lane.
0 -
So he was doing something then. It just wasn't helpful to anyone. He played poorly, I do not disagree, especially since even with a hatch escape giving 7000 bp for escape and 2500 for hatch, you still outscored him. But 1) there is a challenge that requires escaping through hatch right now, and 2) he is not under any obligation to save anyone. Welcome to playing games with random people on the internet. Be glad he wasn't just following you around, blowing up every gen you worked on and body blocking you at pallets and windows to get you killed. Trust me when I tell you I've had far worse teammates.
1 -
Whataboutism is when someone exposes an argument and someone else retorts with "yeah sure, but what about this different thing?", biggest example on this forum is "X is busted" "yeah sure, but Y is busted too".
You are complaining someone got rewarded for letting you die on hook and some of us are arguing back its normal when the game is in an unwinnable situation, some people value getting out of unwinnable games sooner than fighting to the bitter end, that Dwight was the first kind of player and you were on the receving end, thats all there is too this thread.
Odds are he was dropping/picking the key Ada brought into the match, Clairvoyance+Key is almost a 100% escape.
0 -
Whataboutism is also raising a different issue, which is exactly what you're doing. It's so cringe; this is how every forum post goes, and people wonder why it takes forever for anything to get done around here.
You continue to disregard the argument I'm trying to make. So much so, that I've needed to clarify what I'm talking about (despite it being quite clear) multiple times now.
Instead of addressing the points I've brought forth, you cherry picked half of my statement and pivoted to another theoretical, then rounded out your response with "suck it up."
---
None of what you've said has been constructive, while I'm raising a real issue here.
---
I'll say it for the nth time. Maybe you'll finally to respond to it, maybe you'll ignore it again, or maybe you'll decide to walk away.
Survivors are designed to work together. BY DESIGN, they cannot all survive without working as a team. They are NOT DESIGNED to FFA, therefore the FFA incentives in this game are unhealthy. BHVR is trying to have it both ways here, and their indifference towards this issue creates a ton of animosity between survivors.
1 -
I agree, semi cooperative game design rarely works well. It’s why the official DbD boardgame has the survivors clearly win or lose as a team for instance.
2 -
Yeah, thats a hatch game at that point. Dwight played it smart.
1 -
What are you on about? Your main argument is that being left on hook by someone sucks, especially if that person gets rewarded with hatch which is true. My argument is "that game was doomed, there was no point in rescuing you and dragging it" which also holds true. I didnt raise a different issue, Im just telling you why what Dwight did is justified.
Also
Survivors are designed to work together
They are also designed to ditch each other if the need arises, this is taken LITERALLY from DBD Steam store page.
2 -
I can't believe I actually have to say this AGAIN.
My point:
Your response of...
does nothing to address the "this is bad for the game" part of my argument--which is the entire issue at hand.
Survivors have not been "designed to ditch eachother." The DBD Steam store page might say that survivors CAN be selfish. But survivors have not been DESIGNED to be selfish. I hope you see that distinction.
By design, only one survivor can escape this way, and to do so requires that survivor to not engage with the game.
If every survivor plays this way, the game falls apart. It no longer becomes fun and engaging, and seeing as video games are a source of entertainment, they need to answer the question of "is this fun and engaging?"
Thus, bringing us full circle to "this is bad game design."
0 -
"Survivors cannot win a 3v1 against an adequately matched killer. I assume you accept that as fact," you assume wrong, never assume its bad form. Its more than possible for a 3v1 to come out in the survivors favour. Maybe not so much at 4-5 gens left but if you are at 3v1 in that scenario your team has dropped the ball already. Its gonna be hard but not impossible.
"Any one survivor can enter the trial deciding not to advance the objective, and play solely for hatch (as it appears this Dwight did)" Did he though? you're attributing the the whole team's loss to his choice to play selfish after the team was going down hard at 4 gens up anyway. Yeah it didn't help but the blame likely doesn't solely rest with Dwight.
Yes it was an uphill battle and the Dwight likely decided to save his own butt rather than yours or anyone else's and that's his in game choice.
Altruism and selfishness are choices in game, the emblem and BP system rewards altruism but it comes with he risk of exposure and death meaning it could cost you an escape. Selfishness comes with the likelihood of escape but little reward in other areas.
You seem to fail to grasp that this choice is part of the game and adds to its variety of game outcome. These are not glaring design issues they are the result of freedom of choice in game and the ability to react to how games are playing out.
You are assuming that Dwight came into the game wanting to solely play for hatch from the get go and that assumption alone makes up your whole point and so we come full circle to my first point. Don't assume it leads to weak arguments.
It shouldn't be part of the game... why not? You want every game to play out the same way?
Survivors should always be forced to do X, killers should always be forced to do Y?
Let me submit a hypothesis, I'm not assuming anything this is a idea submitted for you to consider and rebuke if you wish...
You died in game, you saw Dwight not trying to save anyone, you got angry about how unjust that felt, that anger created a narrative where Dwight's sole motivation was to just play for hatch from the get go, which justifies you being angry about it and now you want game changes so that people are punished for this play because you got angry that its not fair.... Think about it.
If you are concerned about people not being punished for playing for hatch then they don't get MMR increases or many BP's or emblem points so they are already punished via game mechanics.
1 -
Yes it does, if you are on death hook and trying to escape, you are not going to hook trade. It is fine if you disagree or whatever, but that is definitely the reason he did not bother.
1 -
It shouldn't be part of the game... why not? You want every game to play out the same way? Survivors should always be forced to do X, killers should always be forced to do Y?
Yes. Survivors should have a clear objective, and Killers should have a clear objective.
In every game, there should be a clear objective.
Imagine I'm playing you in chess, and you're about to checkmate me when I say "actually, I have a trapdoor on this board that my king is going to jump into. ggs mate, you tried." Next time we square up for chess, you might as well ask me to just jump in the trapdoor immediately and save us both from wasted time.
You devalue the real win condition when you add in a second (or third, or fourth, etc.) win condition that players can fall back on when they fail to meet their actual win condition. Why ever strive for the first win condition, when the second win condition is always there and can be reached with with greater ease?
What is even your hypothesis?
You think I want the game changed BECAUSE OF this Dwight? Like some kind of evil villain arc, you think this is the worst thing to ever happen to me--my life has been drastically changed for the worse--and now I'm here trying to enact my revenge?
Buddy, I think I've made it pretty clear here that I'm not some 10-hour Andy throwing their first babyrage rant up on the forums because I didn't like something that happened to me.
Is that why you're discrediting me? Do you think I'm just babyraging?
Because there is substance to my argument here. Substance that you and others, for some reason completely unbeknownst to me, are repeatedly sidestepping in favor of "suck it up, its just a game."
Yeah, well... game sucks, it needs improvements.
0 -
I love the people talking about how OP is in the wrong despite not even seeing the entire match. They're just going on assumptions. It's like people cannot fathom having clueless horrible solo q teammates. Have you guys not played solo q before?
1 -
It's not even just the hatch. Besides helping with your own escape, it doesn't matter what happens to teammates at all.
For example, just watched the only match my friend is going to play today. Went against a Pig. Friend did 3 gens and healed teammates and went for saves, all that team player stuff. Unfortunately for him, he was the last one the Pig chased. Four gens done. He runs Empathy, so for the majority of his chase he got to watch his teammates do jack. Hell, one of them was even teabagging on top of the Grim Pantry building for no good reason when he was running up it during the chase. (They didn't actually try to take aggro, so I really have no idea what they were doing.) Anyway, two of the survivors finally got on a gen together. My friend got downed, helmet went on, final gen popped before he was even put on the hook. That was it, he was dead. Not even a question. His teammates screwed him. The three of them escaped and he died. Does it matter to them? Not in the least. Has no effect on them whatsoever. Did he need to die? No. That's the frustrating thing. His death was completely unnecessary and preventable, it could've been four people escaping easily, but teammates don't have to care. If they had worked on the gen sooner, he would've been fine. If they'd held off popping it, he would've had a chance. Instead, they popped it at the worst time, and it didn't make a lick of difference to them.
It's one thing to die when you're working with your team, and it's another to die because your team screwed you. One is a meaningful death that happens when you're having fun and helping your team, and the other is a frustrating byproduct of bad game design. Being a team should matter.
(For reference, my friend died with 22k. The survivor with the most got 26k and the one with the least got 20k. Had my friend not died, he would've earned the most. Escaping awards 7k Bloodpoints, so it's no little thing.)
The game is fun when survivors work together and play as a team. The game is not fun when it feels like your teammates don't give a crap about you. It feels like it's you against a killer and three other people. That sucks.
Sorry, I'm also kinda just venting. I was frustrated watching that happen to my friend. I've had it happen to me enough times to know how bad it feels. And I've seen it happen playing Piggy myself, in which case I often try to make sure the survivor gets the hatch or something because dude, their team absolutely screwed them.
1 -
Sorry your friend had to play through that--been there and definitely know how frustrating that situation is.
Pig might not be the most lethal killer, but she is prone to moments like that where one or two survivors feel cheated by their teammates' lax performance. It is especially frustrating when you feel like you've done the heavy lifting, and your teammates goof off because you've enabled them to feel a sense of security in what should otherwise be a tense game of tug-of-war.
In the grand scheme of things, DBD might just be a game, but as humans we want to feel as though our time is being rewarded. Dying for a team that is trying their best is rewarding, even if the game itself is frustrating to play through. Dying for a team that couldn't care less what happens to you leaves a sour taste in the mouth.
Its especially unfortunate, because people sweep these problems under the rug by saying "just play SWF." I can no longer tell whether they're short-sighted or indifferent like the teammates in your anecdote.
1 -
"Yes. Survivors should have a clear objective, and Killers should have a clear objective.
In every game, there should be a clear objective." They do have a clear objective, survivors need to repair gens and escape, killers need to eliminate survivors, what about that isn't clear.
Anything goes within the confines of those two objectives providing its within the games rules.
None of that means Dwight is obligated to save your butt if things are going south. There is an avenue for escape that doesn't involve teamwork (the hatch) and you can choose to fall back on it if you want but you don't get much for doing that its better to participate in the clearly defined objective.
Q and A. Time
You think I want the game changed BECAUSE OF this Dwight? Like some kind of evil villain arc, you think this is the worst thing to ever happen to me--my life has been drastically changed for the worse--and now I'm here trying to enact my revenge? No, but your original post is just a context free dig at BHVR, that was clearly made while not happy about the game, you've tried to rationalize it since but it clearly comes from a place of emotion and not logic. You're over the top framing of this question doesn't really help to paint you as rational in this exchange either.
Buddy, I think I've made it pretty clear here that I'm not some 10-hour Andy throwing their first babyrage rant up on the forums because I didn't like something that happened to me. Again while there is no tone in text it comes off as kinda ragey and emotional. Doesn't matter how many hours you have in game its not just new players who rage at the game.
Is that why you're discrediting me? Do you think I'm just babyraging? A lil bit but you don't seem to need much help from me because as I already pointed out look at your original post, does it seem like something someone would post seriously if in a rational and calm head space at the time?
Riveting gameplay, with a photo covered in writing and a bunch of question marks signed thanks BHVR, now if it was tongue and cheek dig at the game sure but you've since doubled down on wanting game changes to punish what you see as an unfair outcome.
When what people have pointed out what they see here is a smart play by Dwight to secure a hatch escape after his team started failing at the objective. But as you've pointed out "This post ain't about whether or not Dwight made the right play."
"This post is about the impact Dwight's decision had on other players' experience, and the fact that his decision was well rewarded, despite the negative impact it had on others."
Your game experience was negative because of a team mates in game choices. People shouldn't be rewarded if they make decisions that might impact the team negatively. Would you agree that this is a fair assessment of your point?
Would you also agree that making a good choice for yourself can sometimes trump making a good choice for the team in terms of personal game experience and likelihood of escape?
Scenarios where you take the selfish option should then be attenuated by lower BP's, MMR and pips. Making selfish actions less desirable over team oriented ones but still possible if the situation calls for it.
I'm pretty sure hatch escapes already don't increase MMR, not sure how they affect pips and BP's (should probably count for less though) but overall playing for the hatch is already less rewarding than trying to complete the team objective so what's the problem really?
1 -
Your game experience was negative because of a team mates in game choices. People shouldn't be rewarded if they make decisions that might impact the team negatively. Would you agree that this is a fair assessment of your point?
Yes, this is a fair assessment of my point.
Would you also agree that making a good choice for yourself can sometimes trump making a good choice for the team in terms of personal game experience and likelihood of escape?
Sometimes, yes. This frequently occurs in end-game when survivors do not have the resources to save someone on hook.
Scenarios where you take the selfish option should then be attenuated by lower BP's, MMR and pips. Making selfish actions less desirable over team oriented ones but still possible if the situation calls for it.
I would venture to say that lower bloodpoints is an insufficient punishment for poor performance. It is a superficial measurement of skill, and is not the main objective of the game.
If you cannot do what it takes to complete your objective, you have not earned the reward your objective is supposed to provide you.
0 -
You are the only one left lol it is literally the right play. Hide and get hatch, don't keep carrying out a lost match.
1 -
You are the only one left
False.
0 -
Sigma dwight gamer, still more interesting than a hyperfocus user.
1 -
Wow.. Imagine demanding gameplay changes because of one bad trial experience.. This whole circular rant comes off as immature and entitled, and I say that as a Survivor main myself.
I've had this happen to me many times before and it's really not a big deal. Hook suicide to give that person a chance for the hatch, or try for the Kobe! Besides, like others here have already pointed out. It was an acceptable play for the Dwight and there is a challenge to escape through the hatch right now too.
0
