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
-
Ok now be honest your the killer, the first 2 people you down kill themselves on hook 5 gens left, last 2 go stealth to play for hatch.
Would you really rather play out that match for 5 or 10 min, rather than just have it end get 15k bloodpoints and move on to the next one?
Persnally I'd rather not waste my time and move on to a new potentially better match.
0 -
I proposed that the killer have the option to open the gate once only 2 survivors remain.
Scenario: There are 2 healthy survivors hiding around the map and the killer has no idea where they are. The killer opens the gate.
In what way does this favor the killer?
There is only one way I can see; the match will guaranteed be over in 2 to 4 minutes.
Please enlighten my obviously pistachio-sized brain.
0 -
First off i never insulted you, or made any reference to you intelligence.
The reason it favours the killer is because the 2 survivors are playing the game and your giving the killer the power to force the end and the survivors get no say in the matter.
0 -
That's not true.
The survivors already made their choice. They chose to hide rather than attempting to complete their objective; generators.
This doesn't favor the killer at all. Just because the killer has the choice doesn't mean it's killer-sided. The killer has more advantage from not opening the gate with 2 survivors left.
The moment the killer opens that gate they take a game that would be a guaranteed 3K and turn a probable 2K. This changes the game for the survivors. Rather than hiding, praying not to be found and waiting for their teammate to die they now have a way out. What survivor wouldn't feel relief as soon as the Endgame gong sounded?
If the choice gave the killer some sort of advantage, then it would be killer-sided. This would be survivor-sided, aside from a few very niche scenarios.
0 -
Seriously crappy. Imagine playing your best and then as soon as two team mates are tunnelled to death, the game just ends. If something like that ever got implemented, I'd quit that day. I've been in matches where there's 2 of us left and one of us runs the killer for the entire time it takes the other to smash out the last couple gens. Sometimes it's enough, and sometimes it's not - but everyone went down fighting. This whole suggestion just feels like a way to punish the players who play correctly on behalf of the ones who don't.
2 -
This. Chances are the people you find first aren't the ones busting their butts behind the scenes. For instance, I might not have been caught and hooked, but in the time it's taken two survivors to get hooked twice I've taken multiple protection hits, done one or two gens, and done a fair chunk of the rescuing as that's what my build is tailored to. Should I then have the match automatically stopped because fortnitekid didn't know how to loop or some unlucky soul had the misfortune of getting found quickly after being unhooked? That's not even factoring in the obvious tunnel tactic that will eventually be meta.
You can explain how cool and reasonable your ideas are until you are blue in the face, and heck, you may even make some good points. But at the end of the day, a suggestion like this would turn away more than half the survivor player base because who wants to play a game that can be snatched out from under them no matter how well they are playing?
Even a low-tier killer can tunnel two people out of the game, you'd kill your playerbase for the want of not having to bother chasing down the last survivors or to avoid the (As far as i have seen in 4 years of playing) rare circumstance of people playing immersed.
0 -
I get your point and i can respect it and even agree with it as long as its consistent.
0 -
It actually is trye you wanna give the killer the ability to force the end game at the expense of the survivors being given a chance to play it out the only way for that to be fair is if when the killer tries to open the door the survivors get a vote
0 -
Not at the expense of the survivors. To the advantage of the survivors.
I'm done. gg
0 -
There should always be a chance to escape. The game needs a huge change so the match is not gifted to the killer when 1 or 2 dies.
0 -
Again with the survivor-centric balance. How does it ruin the game for them? The killer is just trying to end the game naturally, by playing the way they've been playing the whole time. But the killer can't do that if the survivors are hiding and not doing anything because they're afraid to keep trying to win... simply because they're at risk of getting sacrificed... which is the threat they've been under since the beginning of the trial. "Ruining the game" for the survivors is simply playing the game with a higher likelihood of winning at that point compared to when there was 3 or 4 of them alive. But what we have right now, hatch + exits gates powered by closing hatch, is a base game mechanic that gives the last survivor or 2 just as high of a chance of escaping as if all 4 were still in the trial, which just doesn't seem right.
0 -
No. Matches aren’t called just because it gets extra tough on one side. 1 survivor can do all 5 gens and open an exit gate. It is very difficult and unlikely to happen but not enough to write off as something that could never happen. If a killer wants a survivor dead, they’re just going to have to do it themselves.
0 -
I would agree that as a team it is the survivor's fault, but more often than not it is a single survivor's fault for a 3-gen. It sucks to be part of the 3 other survivors who get punished because of their "supposed ally's" mistake. (I say supposed in the same vein people say Self-Care is a killer perk.) Similar to how people dislike Myers, Oni, and Plague for being punished when they weren't the one to slip up.
I do like the idea of a time limit, but it should end in ties for killer and living survivors, not death. The killer failed their objective just as much as the survivors failed their own. Both sides should receive a disparaging message from the entity, but no added punishment. I would say if it reaches endgame it should still play out normally or set the timer to 5m, in the cases of a 29m gen pop or sacrifice.
0 -
I would take this a step further and let the killer open the gates at any point in the match. If the killer opens it early all currently living survivors get 10k points per category, minus 1k (per category) per minute passed. That way if a killer wants to hard meme and go for a first minute 4k from Blood Warden, the survivors still get BP. It also can serve as a form of surrender by the killer, and can potentially counter cheaters. It wouldn't work when they do the false hook in front of the gate, but that could be changed by allowing the surrender to be a menu option and opening both gates when using the menu.
Edit: To be clearer, opening early would be within the first 10 minutes. If you open the gates at the 5 minute mark each living survivor gets 5k BP per category. My version above could be misread to think it would take up to 40 minutes.
2nd Edit additional thought: This can also make hard tunneling or quitting survivors less painful for living survivors as the killer can end the match sooner should they choose.
0 -
The would just be far too abusable by MMR manipulators, early quitters and especially map dodgers.
0 -
Well, i am all for it, if we are consequent. If 3 gens are done, and no survivor is dead yet, the game ends and all survivors escape. Just the same thing on the other end.
0 -
No, because I've been in many games where, as one of the final two survivors, we've been able to finish one (or even two) gens between us and escape. The glaring issue with what you've suggested is that killers would simply tunnel two survivors out of the game before 5 gens are done, which would mean an immediate win.
0 -
TL:TR: OP wants a free 4k
0 -
How is playing the game a waste of time in this scenario? It just changes the playstyle.
A cat and mouse hunt for hiding survivors is just as valid a game as chasing active survivors.
As I said in my original post you are there to play the game, not just the bits that suit you.
I always love the "don't waste my time" argument... if your time is that valuable then stop playing games and get whatever important stuff you have to get done... done.
A game of DBD may involve some cat and mouse, it may make a game take extra time... if you don't have time to play then make time or don't play.
That's called responsible time management and it isn't BHVR's responsibility its yours.
0 -
It speaks volumes to the "have your cake and eat it to" entitled mentality of some players.
I only want to play the parts of the game I enjoy, anything else should auto end the game.
Why, because I don't like it which means nobody should like it. ugh.
0
