Vast majority of matches are low quality compared to pre 6.1
Yes it's this thread again.
Survivors d/c way too frequently.
Killers camp and tunnel way too frequently.
Have no fear however, eventually these threads will disappear.
And with them, the player base. (because we know behavior couldn't care less about the state of their game).
Comments
-
And those who this patch was supposed to affect (SWF) are just as strong as pre 6.1. They should revert all the changes.
2 -
This has little to do with the changes now, and more something with the game rewards and punishes all the wrong things.
DCs shouldn't be punished as hard/at all unless it's a genuine ragequit DC (as in you dced cause you overestimated your looping skills etc, not necessarily quitting against killers you just utterly utterly utterly despise. it's a fine line)
Camping, tunneling slugging etc however should be actively punished, and the mechanics are present, all while the same mechanics could reward exciting behavior (lets be honest, we all had survivors genuinely thank us (and some of us did the same as survivors) for a good/great/fun match, even though it ended in a 4k at 3-4 gens left. all because there was no slugging, camping or tunneling)
It just needs better coding and a lot of finetuning
4 -
... you think tactics you don't like should be punished more than quitting a multiplayer game?
7 -
Dbd has been turning into an arms race over these last months. Either side competes and sweats to try to rush their objective as fast as they can or they will be throwing the match.
So you have killers stacking slowdown perks one of top of each other to prevent SWF with BNP commodius, hyperfocus, stake out to fix all gens in 3-min.
And on the other side you have survivors fully commiting to gen repairing whenever they are not being chased to preven a possible killer with Brine/Overcharge/Eruption/Pain res.
On top of that, you have those other issues like umbalanced maps, OP medkits healing in seconds, camping and tunneling being the most effective way to win, broken perks like eruption punishing SoloQ, the stronger killers are now stronger than ever, the weaker killers are the laughing stock of the game, DC/suicide on hook, etc.
5 -
I respectfully disagree. DCs of any kind should be handled as rage quits because they are (unless its a crash, which the game can in fact detect) and therefore punished as such. However I can see how someone might be more than a little fed up with playing against 5 Nurses in a row. For that reason, wouldn't it be better if Survivors could queue up picking a single killer they absolutely do not want to play against?
1 -
The problem would then lie in those 4 killers effectively never getting a match (or atleast a fair one)
0 -
The game cannot detect an accidental crash. It's just not possible.
2 -
I agree, matches do seem to be much lower quality than pre 6.1.0.
They destroyed the old meta and replaced it with a much less fun meta. Searching for Undying Ruin was actually an engaging part of the game compared to never being able to guess when Eruption is going to hit you and now with the shadow buff you can watch your gen regress for 25 seconds while you can do absolutely nothing.
6.1.0 didn't actually balance the game it just changed the meta. If they actually balanced the slowdown perks gameplay-wise we would be seeing them being used equally. We are not seeing that and the imbalance seems the same or worse than before.
I have a seething hatred for Eruption. DbD is painful now.
3 -
It can. That's why there is a crash report system. It won't work on network errors of course but an unsuspected shutdown of the game does get detected and triggers the crash report screen to open.
0 -
At least that would force the devs to address some killers' powers and addons.
If they see a certain killer get a 70%-80% ban rate, that should be a clear indication that something is not right.
The same should be done with some survivors perk and items.
0 -
Agreed, and it's a function of matchmaking providing zero consistency whatsoever in opponents/teammates from game to game. They've essentially combined the worst of SBMM and old ranked matchmaking into one horrendous package. The killer who is sweating their tail off is never going to get the survivors who can deal with them and the survivors who can beat the omega sweat killers are going to get the killer running a single slowdown and brown addons. But hey, at least nobody lit their console/PC on fire and requested a refund because they had to wait 15 seconds for a lobby.
2 -
No, it cannot. The crash report (that doesn't even always spawn) is just a handler from the engine that tells the game has crashed.
Making a program crash is pretty easy if you have access to the console* (always in this scenario)
And that's only the first way to exploit such a mechanic.
Another obvious way would be to fake the report.
Basically, a free DC for "everyone" who is tech-savvy or paid someone to give them a tool for it.
*) edit, because I'm pretty sure it will be misinterpreted. In this case "console" means "the computer".
1 -
And in what way would that be worse than what we have now? People dc because they don't like the other player's perks! Even if you are able to exploit the system in this way that would be way more inconvenient than simply pressing "Esc" and click "Leave Game", wouldn't it? I'm not saying everyone with a crash should not be penalized at all because crashing every other game is just as bad but in my oppinion more of an inconvenience and harsher punishments for (repeated) dcs are in order.
0 -
What? You mean letting spineless entitled rage-quitters leave a match and ruin it for everyone instead of playing like normal people?
I'm not sure it's what you mean because that's kind of obvious isn't it?
3 -
You clearly have never played another multiplayer game if you think DC's should be less punishing than this game already is. In any other big multiplayer game they do not allow the kind of behavior some players get away with in dbd, they don't care about your internet that's your fault.
3 -
nice assumption and so amazingly wrong.
If the game would punish bad behavior like slugging etc AND allow to rule out certain killers, there'd be fewer dcs, you know that. It's called curating, and the only argument I have seen people try to put against it is 'oh but then people would just put ALL killers on a 'don't wanna play against them' list' as if that argument would have any logic or realism behind it.
1 -
Slugging is not inherently bad behavior, much like tapping the crouch button isn't either. You demand the ability to rule out certain killers but say nothing about being able to opt out of matching with SWFs, the two of which are one of the only reasons the game is balanced by averages at higher levels. As we have learned since Legion's PTB, ragequitting as a form of protest never stops at the claimed original reason.
The only way to cut back on ragequits and DCs is to cut back on the behavior behind them. And every time the penalty is removed or reduced temporarily, we are reminded that said behavior isn't going to go anywhere anytime soon in the community.
5 -
increasing the dc penalty would only make things worseedit: alright, mighta misread something, so let's go about this pragmatically and by experience:
Scenario 1: We keep everything as is and increase the DC penalty.
- By experience this all too commonly results in people (on survivor side) purposefully BMing (hookiside, sabotaging teammates etc) or killers simply blairwitching the survivors (standing in a corner facing the wall to make blinds and pseudo-chases impossible)
- So, this isn't a good solution.
Scenario 2: We let people set what they don't want to play against (killers and swfs by size)
- This would likely (massively) increase the Q time, which also has a high frustration factor, but I'd say overall this would lower the DCs.
Scenario 3: Scenario 2 + the game punishing bad behavior.
- This would potentially lower the number of DCs, but have a small risk of people trying to abuse the system to unfairly punish the other side. This would need a LOT of finetuning.
In all 3 scenarios we could potentially have a handful of free DCs, before it would increase again as usual.
0 -
Can you please quote where I said, or even implied, it should be increased? All I stated is that removing it is both a terrible idea, and has had multiple tests verify that hypothesis.
4 -
I misread, my apologies. See edited post
0 -
No worries, mistakes happen.
Tried to requote the updated post, but it wouldn't update with the edit, so just assume this is responding to that:
Your synopsis of the consequences of each option aren't necessarily wrong, but the options don't need to be limited to those. The crux of the problem is that an overwhelming number of players refuse to play out matches that they do not want to, and due to the 4v1 nature of the game (both in terms of shared agency and raw population) it is generally going to be more common on the survivor side. The issue then becomes each 1 ragequit having a massive impact on the potential of the remaining 1-3, which is why the problem expands in scope from there. For every one person that ragequits, they are basically forcing a loss on the other 3 people. This is also part of why survivor RQs are more of a problem than killer ones, since those force 4 wins by comparison (even though they're still obviously an issue in terms of being able to have adequate games.)
All of that said, the proper solution in my eyes is to address the efficiency cap of survivors at any given point in the game, something that I feel I end up bringing often due to how many issues it affects. I was just discussing it in another topic, so in trying to copy over my explanation:
In regards to how it would affect DCs, it would both reduce their impact on the overall match, while still giving the victims of the DC a chance at having a fair match from then on. This in turn will lessen the cascading nature of DCs, especially sinc ethe frustration of a game ruined by a DC is often internalized and makes that player less patient in subsequent matches (and thus, more likely to quit themselves.)
DC penalties are necessary, but they can also have more creative ways to approach them as well. Many gaves have a "quitter hell" aspect to their matchmaking where people who have a higher frequency of quitting have a higher liklihood of getting each other as teammates. I don't know how well a system like that would work with this game, but having measures in place like the one i mentioned would help cover the obvious flaws of a system like that in a game like this. Hope that makes sense.
0 -
I'd say it makes sense. Though correct me if I got this wrong:
You mean to have perks like Prove Thyself or Overzealous or botany increase their bonus if someone dcs?
0 -
I'm not saying you don't make changes to tunneling and camping, I am saying that if you are a repeat offender of DCing then you should be suspended followed by a ban. No other game tolerates this behavior, league can feel way worse than dbd depending on circumstances but you WILL BE BANNED if you leave a few games in a month and guess what that is literally the biggest game in the world so the whole killing the game argument really doesn't work since you know, every other multiplayer game that's not cod punishes it.
Any reason for DCing is not valid unless is a DBD issue like in this recent patch, everything else is on the player in some way.
0 -
The efficiency shift would be basekit: 4 survivors would be less efficient than they are now, while 3 would be more efficient than they curently are, with that effect increasing at 2 and 1. Perks that rely on other players specifically would be unaffected and not gain their bonus when people are missing, as the prorated value should be set to a level that makes them redundant and/or obsolete, especially when concerning action speeds.
Clarification edit: This means that a perk like Prove thyself would be primarily for when there are still 4 survivors left, as the bonus given when 1 dies would likely be roughly equal to its bonus provided. Allowing things like that to stack would have to require a lot of testing to see if it would(n't) be reasonable.
I just prefer resolutions that attack problems as close to their cause as possible, while giving equal consideration to both sides. Even with my recommendation it would be very easy for someone to purposely skew the idea to favor one side or the other, but the intention is to honestly strike a middle ground as best as possible to affect the subsequent issues on both sides. I get called biased for this all the time btw :)
0 -
And when those get "addressed" the survivor bans would move on to the next inconvenience and so on. Though it would be funny to have banned perks for both sides, even if the same ones got banned each time. Would finally see some variety on killers again after so long.
0 -
Alright. Though the problem I'm seeing with this is the potential with swfs having one or two people disconnect on purpose then and take the penalty.
Especially with perks now like potential energy this could go very wrong
0 -
Thankfully the game's player base has declined 7.5% in the last 30 days. The new chapter is even having trouble reaching 50k during weekend peak hours. Hopefully the honey moon phase is over and we start to see bigger declines. That's the only time companies make real changes. The current meta is already boring and needs to be changed ASAP.
3 -
Thats exactly why the longer they keep throwing bandaid fixes on top of pieces of much bigger problems, the harder fixing core issues gets. This game has needed a health project for years, it outgrew its scope back in like 2019 or so.
0 -
Well yes. You can never achieve true balance in any game as it will always be killers,perks,etc stronger than others. But at least the most broken OP things would be ruled out easily.
0 -
The thing we're worried about is that peoples "definitions" are very often biased (ourself included) and would end up causing all the wrong things to be looked at. We for example think nurse is fine as is even with the boring starstruck build, yet many cry broken (would love to see how they'd react to older nurse with this build).
0 -
For that they need to clean up the code (and said it before this seems to be what they are doing, even though it's in a rather erratic way?)
But I'd argue that making repairing healing etc faster if someone DCs would already have brought these issues long before the Doctor's chapter even.
0 -
to look at the positive things. what's fun in this game?
I enjoy looping as survivor. what is bhvr doing? building a killer that only allows you to hold W at loops.
I enjoy mindgaming as survivor. what is bhvr doing? brought even more aura reading into the game, nerved iron will.
Oh i guess bhvr killed all what is fun for me as survivor. Ok i guess i have to sit on gens as survivor and dont have fun.
since the last killer release the atmosphere on both sides has fallen into the abyss. on all social media you only hear negative things about the game. i think decision makers at bhvr should start asking themselves what makes their game worth playing and if the line they are following is as good as they think it is.
3 -
It's true that they seem to be forcing a more gen oriented meta, with all the gen perks we received this chapter and the last one (for survivor) and it's true that chases are the most fun part of survivor, but if you read around, most killers here don't like it and complain a lot about "second chance perks" and even if those are nerfed to the ground there's still the other exhaustion perks to complain about since they prolong chases (there have been complaints at times about Spring Burst even).
For some people winning is the most fun part, lol and winning through controlling objective is safer and easier currently than it is to deal with every survivor individually.
0 -
This is so overblown and melodramatic.
0
