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!
Should the match be over if there are 2 survivors dead and the gens arent finished
Comments
-
Thats a fine arguement if your fine with the way things work currently.
The problem with most suggested changes we see favours one side or the other, my suggestion just simplifies to if your winning enough you win, eliminating several unappealing aspects of the 2 survivor situation for both sides in the fairest and fastest manner possible.
0 -
With my suggestion you wont need a time limit, the only games going over 10 minutes will be the close interesting ones.
0 -
I think you're on to something here. I'm going to make a suggestion in the feedback forum.
0 -
Terrible idea you will be splitting people into 2 groups which is the current problem some people doing gens to try to get out some doing pure stealth to outlast the timer.
0 -
Been having a lot of close/tight solo games were someone is tunneled out early/dies at 2-3 gens.
I'd rather not lose the fun games I'm currently having T_T
0 -
-
Credit for trying to fix the one part of the issue for killers but it doesn't help with any of the other issues in my original post. No help for slugging for the 4K nothing for the Trolling for hatch and nothing nothing for the killer just sitting in the 3 gym and not letting anyone touch a Gen. Well yes that is the survivor's fault it's still an issue where the game will get held hostage, And there's no agency for the survivors because you're putting everything in the killer's hand so you're giving the killer all the power.
My solution is much more neutral and fair.
0 -
So the killer should automatically win after killing 2 out of 4 survivors ?
Alright, let's do it....enjoy your 2 hour killer queue ...
lmfao , this forum is hilarious sometimes
1 -
you misunderstood, in the situation I explained I couldn't take the L, I certainly would've prefered it but the killer refused to kill me. When I got close to bleeding out completely he carried me around, it was a 3 gen situation and he was an infinite myers. If I worked on a gen he would just grab me off and carry me again.
In that game I was unable to die, my partner was just sneaking across the map and the killer refused to even look for him. All he did was patrol the 3 gen. After over 20 minutes i was able to trick the killer into stabbing me instead of grabbing me off a gen and I finally died. This game needs a max time limit.
0 -
Then you played with the two most selfish players in DBD, and should have gone through the garbage report system and submitted evidence they were holding you hostage. If it actually went how you described that was 100% reportable.
0 -
I absolutely did report it. However I do not record my games, which means my report probably means nothing.
0 -
No, just no.
1 -
Your suggestion is terrible lol, it should not be in the game.
2 -
Ok well your suggestion is a time limit I believe you said 25 minutes, thats a fine limit if the game is going pretty evenly, its ridiculously long if the game is a stomp one way or the other.
There is also the question of what happens at that time and then you end up right back at the current endgame.
My idea preserves good games and eliminates alot of the issues with bad games.
There is room for refinement, for instance, a game ending this way could be excluded from mmr, it could even just safety pip the survivors still in the game if they havent pipped, it could impose a matchmaking penalty on killers who trigger this ending too frequently to help reduce tunnelling, a bloodpoint bonus for the game ending prematurely. There are alot of options to balance things out.
What part specifically do you object to that makes it terrible?
Do you enjoy the 2v1 hide and seek?
Slugging for the 4k?
When your teammate sells you out to try and get the killer to give them hatch?
Do you object to the number of gens left that triggers it? What if it triggered if there were 2 or more gens left instead?
0 -
Tunnel 2 survivors and win every game! Yeah, very good idea lmao.
No, thanks.
2 -
How is that different from now? If it is a 2v1 due to tunneling and lets say 3 gens need to get done, sure there may be outliers, but 90% of those games minimum the killer wins.
Ending the game there would take satisfaction away from tunnelling killers of being able to get their precious 4k, and repeat offenders could be punished, to encourage healthier gameplay overall.
Maybe re-read the questions with a more open mind, and actually form a real response.
Your idea was terrible, but i still gave feedback as to the issue with it.
0 -
I am just glad you are not on dev team, i am really so glad for that.
2 -
Alright well since you have nothing to add you can go ahead and stop quoting my posts then.
I will be happy to reconsider if you do have actual reasonable feedback to add.
0 -
I already did, i told you why your suggestion so bad. But why you are refusing to understand.
0 -
If the last two can loop, sometimes it isnt always the end.
At the least, let them play it to make points.
0 -
I don't necessarily agree with OP that 2ks should be 4ks but those matches where I get two early kills and the ENTIRE rest of the game is just trying to find the other 2 survivors that do nothing but hide from me while 4 gens are still left... I mean it is the most unfun thing in existence. I don't care if there's still 'potential', at some point it's just wasting time for both of us. Letting the Survivors or Killer have a way to just close the game out early would be pure slice of life, even if it's something every player has to agree to, maybe with a paltry pity bloodpoint amount given to the players for conceding the match or something. It's just so boring, i'd take anything to make it go by quicker and get me in a new game that actually has stakes.
0 -
I've suggested aura reading, but nobody likes that, even though it literally still allows you to loop and do gens. It would just prevent you from hiding forever.
0 -
The problem in my eyes with that is your simply just giving the power to the killer, the thing that makes my solution more fair is that it is neutral and doesnt favour one side or the other.
0 -
Killer already got a buff in that direction. Also buffing survivors to do 4 gens while only 2 are remaining, is still not a free escape. So your argument is ridicoulus.
0 -
I thin they should allow to open exit gates from the killer side. So they either can give up or try to catch them at the exit gate.
0 -
See it wouldnt actually be a 4k though, it would actually really be more of a stalemate. The problem with a concession option is you will have those situations where someone wants out but is still stuck.
With my solution it just elimates that whole issue, and everyone moves on to the next game
0 -
To be fair, thats kinda how it is right now. Tunnel 2 is a pretty big universal strat right now, since it addresses the efficiency dilemma from the killer perspective rather well, and its generally more efficient than tunneling one out as it provides more pressure in exchange for taking a bit longer to get one out. The nice thing is that its also a bit malleable: You can relax a bit if you get a great start and since you've been applying more pressure than hard tunneling you have more opportunity to react to how efficient the survivors are being. Its still not the most fair strat nor is it perfect, but its the closest we have to a happy medium right now imo.
0 -
The problem here is what if the killer wants to try to play it out and the survivors play to hide to force the killer to open the door, its the same issue with current hatch, but your giving the killer that control and then if they dont use it survivors will accuse holding the game hostage and stuff like that.
My solution is clean, simple, and neutral.
0 -
You’re still giving survivors more pity escapes when they haven’t completed all their objectives. If the survivors are being seriously outplayed, they should lose.
0 -
I'm sorry but your solution might be simple, but its certainly not clean or neutral.
2 -
How so?
0 -
As was already mentioned, you're basically just giving the killer a win for tunneling asagdp. As I mentioned previously, a more clean and neutral solution would be to weaken the efficiency maximum of survivors at the start, while strengthening it as their numbers dwindle. It both discourages tunneling and camping, while also allowing survivors to retain more of a chance when there are less of them to spread pressure.
Survivors end up less likely to be prevented from being able to play in the first place, they have more of a comeback factor, survivors don't need to burst their progress at the start of the match, and killers don't need to damage control as fast as possible and are able to adjust their strategy to balance efficiency and "fun" for both sides. Most of these types of problems all circle back to the fact that efficiency caps are an extremely important aspect of what controls the pace of a match, as well as a lot of the strats people employ.
1 -
They didnt lost. Stop making that point. Its a game flaw, which game since killers got buffed.
Wait, i use your own logic.
All gens are done, killer didnt kill anyone. At this point survivors should just automatically escape after the last gen. Since, the killer lost. He didnt played good.
1 -
If the gates are open and no one is hooked or on death hook why not
0 -
A survivor win is to escape through the gates, which is why hatch escapes are 0 MMR. A killer win is to kill survivors, and it has nothing to do with generators.
0 -
Technically a killer’s win comes from sacrificing survivors on hooks. Moris don’t count toward their win condition (0 MMR just like hatch). So his analogy actually fits well…
0 -
I think it’s important to understand that for survivors, the biggest reward (cuz it damn sure isn’t bloodpoints…) comes from playing with solid teammates, and that kind of relies on MMR. So ranking up in MMR means a lot more for survivors, which is why there are so commonly two survivors attempting to outlast one another. Even if one gets hatch, that survivor won’t lose their ranking; they break even so to speak. This is especially crucial in SoloQ.
0 -
Would you consider a 2k a win? What if we change the language, instead of kills the remaining survivors, it was removes the final 2 survivors forcing a draw?
My idea would reduce tunnelling because it takes away the payoff of getting 4 kills, and it creates a set parameter that can be tracked, and repeat offenders can be punished.
Imagine a repeat offender mid/low mmr tunnel every game killer being thrown to the wolves at top Mmr for 5 games, then next time 10 games, and so on.
It also changes the dynamic to force survivors into actually playing as a team in a 4 V-1 instead of having the option to consider the game a 1v1v1v1v1.
In theory your idea has merit although as you suggest it is very Survivor sided. I say that because in some games when the killer is outmatched the only way that he can make a comeback is by taking out a survivor to get a More even playing field. On the flip side if the survivors are outmatched by a strong killer that initial efficiency loss could cripple the match right from the get go. Not to mention the 3 man swf that would deliberately sacrifice the rando they feel isn't pulling his weight to gain an efficiency bonus. If the efficiency curve stays fairly flat regardless why even have kills? The new meta would become 4man slug builds with knockout.
It's a very utopian idea but there's one thing that would absolutely be required for it to work and that is accurate Match Making, Skill based matchmaking not like the garbage MMR we have now. This creates queue time issues. How do we fix those? 2 basic solutions shadow buff/nerf to try to balance the match (terrible because it changes the basic rules of the game in a way neither side can know), or a matchmaking cap ( Which is where we are now).
0 -
I disagree. Let's try to solve one problem at a time.
My solution is a simple solution that only gives the killer an option to end the game faster when only 2 are left but they can end the game normally if they want to. After some thought this could give survivors less MMR than if they got the gens done before the gates opened. You say I give no agency for survivors but the survivors always have choices; they can choose to hide, do gens among other things or they can find the killer. If they choose to hide, the killer has no option but to try to find them and that's the only scenario I'd like to solve with this solution.
Your solution takes away players options and just ends the game prematurely. It doesn't account for scenarios where 2 survivors have a a good chance of both surviving normally. Here are just some of those scenarios:
- The last generator is almost done when the 2nd death occurs.
- Generators are very well spread out vs a low mobility killer.
- One or both survivors have Unbreakable or Boon: Exponential.
- The first 1 or 2 survivors gave up and the killer wants to let the last 2 go.
As for slugging for the 4k and being bled out in general a solution is that after the survivor has been slugged for 2 minutes or half the bleed out bar, they should be able to attempt to get up on their own at a cost of 20 (or more) seconds off their bleed out timer and have a 4% chance just like self-unhooks. If they fail they have to recover back to near-full to attempt again. This would only allow survivors to die a minute (or more) earlier, but it would still be a welcome change for many players.
0 -
When did I suggest it's survivor sided? I literally outlined how its an approach that specifically addresses issues for both sides simultaneously.
1 -
I said it was survivor sided although i then pointed out deficiencies on both sides and issues with it due to balancing based on matchmaking.
0 -
I will start by addressing your 4 points.
The first 3 do have merit and i did admit in a previous post that the 0 gens left scenario may have been to strict and should maybe be more like more than 2 gens left, which would be more fair for the scenarios you highlight
As to the 4th point I disagree whole heartedly and to be blunt dont care about that scenario. End the match null the result, and toss everyone still there some bonus bloodpoints and move on. Survivors start to expect that kind of treatment and get mad at the killer if they kill them so they can just move on to the next match that matters. Plus this leads to a slug for the 4k situation because the killer geels gypped that they got a bad match and holds those survivors out of queue to speedup queue times. Not too mention putting unearned results into the already bad matchmaking.
Your slug for the 4k proposal, and I have said this in other threads, fairness level depends on how the hatch spawns in that situation. If the slugged person bleeds themself out and hatch instantly spawns you are letting a survivor leaving the game affect the outcome of the killers match. To balance this suggestion fairly,since the survivor is taking agency away from the killer, it must be scored as if the killer hooked said survivor, since they are being robbed of the opportunity to make it back and hatch should not spawn until the bleedout timer would have elapsed naturally.
0 -
You completely disregarded where I said that survivors start weaker. The entire point is that their efficiency potential stays closer rounded to a value less than 4 but more than 1. Since they will be unable to apply extreme damage at the start of the match, the killer would only need to catch up if they were being outplayed, not because its a statistical eventuality.
And kills are... how you win as killer? I don't understand the hyperbole there. All it does it make it so that going for 12 hooks becomes just as much (if not more, depending on final values) of an efficient strat as tunneling 1-2 out currently is. Your pointless ranting about matchmaking has nothing to do with any of that.
0 -
no way.
Play it out to the end anything can happen.
You're there to play a full game of DBD not just the bits of the game that suit you.
So two people die and then the game ends for me anyway would be a really crappy outcome.
1 -
I still like my solutions better than anything you've suggested in this thread. They're elegant enough and yet simple band aids that get people into the next match quicker. And we know how fond of band aid solutions BHVR is.
For the 4K slug scenario, I am only shaving a minute off that scenario. Assuming the slug wasn't already on the ground for an extended period of time earlier in the match this still gives the killer well over 2 minutes find and kill the other survivor before the hatch has a chance to spawn, if he fails and the survivor gets a fluke hatch who cares? Seriously? The game is fricking over at that point and a few points of MMR is damn near meaningless anyway. You'd take away the last desperate strand of hope the last survivor has by making them wait for the hatch to spawn.
What side are you even on here? In the OP you want the game to be over if 2 are dead and there are gens left. Yet you are arguing against my reasonable ideas to shorten the game by defending some obscure balance.
At least I have fully formed ideas that are ready to implement.
You have some sort of vague, half-baked idea that's currently in a state that's not even worth discussing.
0 -
I play till the game ends, i slug for the 4k, i play the hatch game and i have no qualms about selling out the 2nd to last survivor if they take an action that shows me they are no longer on my team, I'm the petty player who hides in lockers to block the evil incarnate achievement and crawl into the corner to bleedout so you cant hook me, I tunnel and camp when it suits my needs to come back in a game, or if you piss me off i have no qualms about slugging you for the full 4 minutes to make a point. I am a hook-saboing, prove thyselfing, save the best for lasting, No one escapes deathing, Dead by daylight gamer.
0 -
I don't see what's wrong with giving the killer the power to end the game for a change. We could always do the endgame chase thing if we wanted neutral.
0 -
Why should the killer get to ruin the game for the last 2 survivors
0 -
You were supposed to flesh out your idea and come up with a good supporting argument. Instead you destroyed your character. You did a pretty good job so far.
0 -
Nope my character is intact. Im coming straight down the middle neutral. As for fleshing out my idea ive heard suggestions and when i try to talk concessions i get no further feedback.
What i do get is other suggestions that arent any good because they favour 1 side over the other. Lets take a look back at a couple.
Slugging for the 4k - just let the person bleed out faster - which for the record i said sure im on board as long as it doesnt affect what is actually happening in the match, which i believe you objected to, in favor of it being able to be used by the survivor bleeding out as a power move, possibly screwing over a person just trying to get an adept achievement, where slugging for the 4k can be a necessity.
2 survivor hide and seek - Let the killer open the door and start the endgame - A move that favours the killer over the 2 survivors in the match.
I cant get behind either of these ideas because they give extra control to one side or the other, so they have no value in the discussion Im trying to have.
0
