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!
2v1 and 1v1 endgame scenarios
Endgame scenarios where only 1 or 2 survivors remain have often been criticized for the undesirable gameplay they can yield.
With only two survivors left alive and generators left to be done, the match is regularly a foregone conclusion, as either of the survivors being found will usually lead to their death, only seldom with a chance to delay the down until the other survivor can repair the remaining gens (and death for the found survivor still being all but certain even then). This creates a situation in which the two remaining survivors will often try their all not to be found, so as to potentially at least have a chance for a hatch escape. The killer can also opt to "slug for the 4k" in this scenario, meaning they will just leave the survivor they downed lying on the floor to search for the other survivor, for up to 4 minutes (after which they can still pick up and carry the slugged survivor or let them wiggle, to indefinitely delay their bleedout). Both of these scenarios really aren't very engaging, neither the survivors hiding as much as they can nor the killer dragging out the conclusion of the match by leaving someone to crawl around on the floor or otherwise refusing to kill them.
With only one survivor left alive, multiple issues present themselves. The hatch is easier for the killer to find as they are faster than the survivor and don't have to be cautious about being spotted like the survivor does. And then if they find the hatch, they can simply refuse to close it. This creates a very unfortunate situation known as a "hatch stand-off", something BHVR set out to fix years ago but the "solution" to which fell short. The killer in this scenario can opt to not close the hatch in order not to risk giving the survivor a chance to open a gate or escape via key. Instead, they will simply stand there until the survivor reveals themselves, upon which they can then close the hatch and chase the survivor, with the latter having no chance of escaping anymore. The survivor, knowing this, will obviously refuse to show themselves. This can go on until the game server closes the session (at which point the survivor dies, suggesting the killer has "won", which is another if tangential issue with the "endgame design"). But even if the killer does close the hatch, escape is often nigh or actually impossible, with gates that can spawn too close to one another, spots from which the killer can see both gates, killer abilities that can be used to scout or control gates from a distance. In these hopeless scenarios, survivors will often just keep hiding out the endgame timer so as to not give the killer the satisfaction of killing them "by hand", again leading to a boring, uninteractive, anticlimactic conclusion to a match.
I think the endgame design of DbD should have long been looked at, to create tense instead of tedious, hard-fought instead of foregone conclusions to matches. The "finisher mori" system was meant to address some of these issues, although it for various reasons didn't quite work out and was scrapped. But that shouldn't deter you from reconsidering on these scenarios. Here are a few relatively simple ideas I have, that seem pretty easy to implement for the most part and would already go a long way to alleviate many of these issues:
In 2v1 scenarios, give survivors a 100% increase in generator repair speeds (they repair twice as fast), as well as the ability to recover from the dying state. The match here is already all but won for the killer: if they find a survivor, they are almost guaranteed to secure at least 3 kills for the match. So giving survivors buffs in this otherwise regularly hopeless scenario isn't all that relevant for overall balance, but it would somewhat consistently give them an actual shot at trying to pull off the impossible and get gens done and perhaps even escape through the gates, if much of the time only for one of them. They would be much more likely to actually try instead of just hide. Plus, in turn, you could then give the killer periodic information on the survivors' locations whenever they are not on a gen (e. g. a killer instinct proc every 30 seconds, counting whenever a survivor is not currently repairing a gen).
If the "recovering from the dying state" change would be considered to be too balance-relevant (in the sense that the killer already worked to create this 2v1-with-gens-remaining scenario to begin with, and so maybe there shouldn't be a buff to the chances for both survivors to still be able to make it out), an alternative could be to instead give them the ability to "surrender" when in the dying state, where, bereft of hope to feed off of, the Entity will swallow up the survivor. Or yet, make it so that the killer will instantly mori a survivor they down, in this scenario. I don't really think this is necessary, as the "basekit Unbreakable in 2v1" will already most of the time lead the killer to just pick up and hook the survivor they downed, but these would at least guarantee the 3k/win for the killer.
In either case, these then trigger the 1v1 endgame scenario. Simple improvements for this scenario could be the following:
The hatch should close automatically after a minute or two. This is such a simple, obvious change that would 1. make it so the survivor does not necessarily have to search for the hatch (a hunt that as mentioned is skewed against them), and 2. get rid of the hatch stand-off that still exists now.
Gates should spawn further apart. Not necessarily as far as they physically can, but with a certain minimum distance of each other. New maps like Nostromo and Toba Landing already have a few fixed gate spawns that generally guarantee that the gates are not only not too close, but also don't allow the killer to see both gates from one spot or a small patrol area.
Since this is not as possible on all maps, additionally the red lights on the gate switches could be changed to activate later into the gate opening interaction. Currently, the first red light activates at 25% of the gate-opening progress, which is a very early giveaway for the killer as to which gate a survivor is attempting to open. Moving the red light activation sequence from 25, 50 and 75% to 50, 75 and 95% would be preferable.
Killer-specific changes to prevent them from being able to use their powers within a certain range of unopened gates could be beneficial, although I don't think this is absolutely necessary as this aspect of their powers can just be seen as interesting parts of their kits. However, to present a more ambitious and adventurous endgame design change that would do away with all of these issues:
As soon as the hatch is closed (manually or automatically), put the killer and last survivor into a 1v1 chase scenario. The killer will have no power and move at 4.6m/s speed, the survivor will be healthy. All perks, add-ons and items are disabled. Any pallets and walls that have been dropped or broken stay that way. The chase could either start at a designated spot on each map or at the killer's or survivor's current position when the hatch was closed, or the nearest pallet to them (if any). The distance between the killer and survivor could be something like 10-15m. If the survivor can last, say, 2 minutes, the hatch spawns at their feet and they automatically jump to their escape. If the killer downs them, they instantly mori them.
The idea here is that the players get a thrilling chase to conclude the match, and the harder the killer had to work to get into this scenario, the easier it will be for them to win (since more pallets will have been used throughout the match). Specifics of this "sudden death chase" system such as the place where the chase starts, the starting distance between the players, the time they have to keep surviving for, whether this time could perhaps scale with the amount of pallets left, and so on, would all come down to testing and debating, but I for one would celebrate the introduction of this.
Whether it's any of these or other changes, I hope the devs will some day reconsider on the endgame design again.
Comments
-
Why should the killer be punished for winning? Why should survivor get yet another chance when they already lost twice? This isn't a fair design.
9 -
Playing killer a lot myself, I for one despise having one or two remaining survivors that just hide. This is meant to improve the endgame playing experience on both roles. And it wouldn't be all too balance-relevant since the match is already all but (2v1) or actually (1v1) won for the killer.
I'm also not sure where the "punishment" is. The killer has already won if they're in either of these scenarios, these changes are aimed at making the culmination more exciting and engaging. Even in the 2v1 scenario this won't regularly change the fact that the killer will end up with at least 3 kills for the match. And again, part of the change would be revealing the survivors' locations to the killer periodically.
I think giving the remaining survivors in 2v1 and 1v1 endgame scenarios more of an actual shot at surviving is fair, although that isn't the primary purpose, it's the quality of the gameplay experience. In either case, surely you would not disagree that the hatch stand-off for example is unfair - the hatch shouldn't exist to begin with if its entire purpose (creating gameplay once the match has been decided) can be undermined. And sure, some people may argue that the last survivor standing should just automatically, instantly be killed because "the killer has won, why should one survivor be able to escape still?", but I think many would agree that more than "winning" in some abstract sense of getting the last kill too, gameplay is more important, and tense situations where you hunt for the hatch or try to open a gate/prevent the survivor from doing so (or yet to outlast the killer/outplay the survivor in a final chase for survival) are thrilling and make playing a game worthwhile, more so than "winning".
1 -
Okey but since we are pretty nice dudes now and try to help the losing side we also implement changes like this to help the killer should all survivors be alive when the gens are done right?
Things like the gate csnt be 99 anymore and ofcourse the more survs are alive the longer the gates need to open stuff like that
9 -
I for one would agree. I have long wanted something like NOED (without the movement speed buff) basekit, at least if 3+ survivors remain in endgame because particularly M1 killers are regularly at a major disadvantage here, where a hit can allow a survivor to make a gate even from halfway across the map, let alone if hit tanks come into play.
But this thread is not about that, although it was of course to be expected that people would jump to making it about "sides". I will say that even endgame scenarios with 4 survivors alive are not nearly as much of a "foregone conclusion" for the killer as endgame scenarios with 1 or 2 survivors alive are for the survivors (in the latter the match has literally already been decided). I would also hold that it is much easier for the killer to secure at least 1 kill even in a bad loss than it is for survivors to secure 1 escape in a bad loss, precisely because of the endgame design surrounding hatch and the killer's ability to circumvent it and such. Even in general, again, these changes are intended to better the undesirable gameplay these scenarios regularly yield for both roles. So there's still major differences there, but yes, I for one agree that killers should be more threatening in the endgame with 3+ survivors left alive.
1 -
I think the best thing would just be to get a concede mechanic under certain conditions for both sides, so for example only survivors alive or x minutes in the game and only x hooks for killer or so... And in addition just remove hatch altogether, the whole slugging for the 4k stuff and so on is just super boring but required for some stuff and when one side does not reach their goal that is completely fine and there is no reason to give them a bonus to make up for that, as that will always be viewed as a punishment for the other side to be doing well.
2 -
I think that would just make the game even more boring. Again, my primary concern here is not that the killer is all but guaranteed to win out in the 2v1 and 1v1 scenarios, it's that because he is, the survivors will stealth around indefinitely because there is nothing to play for. And the ways in which the killer can play around these scenarios yield even less compelling gameplay. There being more hope in these scenarios encourages survivors to actually play, and creates more engaging and exciting gameplay for both sides.
Again, sure, they could just automatically kill the last remaining survivor(s) in these nigh hopeless scenarios, but I for one would not welcome such a "gameplay" design.
1 -
can you do a tltr? This post is longer than my lab reports
1 -
Imagine any other game for example an rts where you would give the losing side a buff to make it more interesting... That would be ridiculous.
By giving a concede option and removing hatch they could just take the loss and move on without needing to play around for nothing...
I don't think more is needed if you think you lost you concede, just like in Starcraft for example, nobody waits till the last building is destroyed but for some reason that's a thing here and it is just super boring.
It would be quite a bad idea to just kill the last two guys, if they want to play let them, but if not let them concede and move on, really nobody is benefiting from playing those matches out, so why even bother.
2 -
It would be silly to give survivors a win just because they lost.
As a killer, I WOULD like an option to offer the match to end if there are 3+ gens left and 2 survivors left.(Both survivors would have to vote yes in agreement). The killer would get BP credit for kills.
"The killer has offered you mercy. Do you accept?"
2 -
Massive suite of survivor buffs in the end game.
1 -
ah. I just think they need to bring the old hatch system back. Make keys relevant again
0 -
The difference is that the match is already lost here and cannot be won anymore no matter the buffs, this is just about the remaining player(s) having more engaging of a time playing the game out. Well, at most they could achieve a draw, but again, even that is incredibly unlikely just because they repair gens faster - if the killer finds one of them the 3k is all but guaranteed, and with the killer instinct, they will find them. Think of the repair buff as compensation for the fact that the killer gets location info on the survivors, if you will. The "basekit Unbreak" thing is not relevant for the "win" in the sense that the killer can just choose to take the 3k and thereby win if they so desire instead of slugging, nullifying this mechanic (although again, a "surrender on ground"/instant Mori" mechanic is an alternative too).
Another significant difference to Starcraft is that there's multiple players here, and just because 2 or 3 died, doesn't mean the remaining player is a building waiting to be destroyed. Playing for an individual escape in a 2v1/1v1 can still yield engaging and exciting gameplay for both roles, there's no need to just end it. It could also be pointed to the fact that it's a different type of game, a survival horror where having a sole survivor even in an overall loss is part of the appeal (besides, the game is not strictly a team game, let alone one with concretely defined, team-based win conditions; a player may not consider a match "won" or "lost" just because their teammates did not escape).
Either way, giving the players the option to concede leads to the precise problem I considered these changes due to to begin with: then the remaining survivor(s) will regularly just hide, either hoping to still somehow make it even without the existence of hatch (and be it by boring the killer into going AFK or disconnecting or whatever), or simply to not give the killer the satisfaction. After all, there currently already exists the option to "concede", in the form of just running into the killer and letting them kill you. But sure, it is possible that without the danger of the killer refusing to kill you, slugging for minutes on end and potentially delaying your death indefinitely by picking you up, survivors in these scenarios would more often simply "concede", if it takes them out of the match instantly.
I would not strictly be opposed to a surrender option in these scenarios, such as the "call upon the Entity to end it" thing when in the dying state in 2v1/1v1s. I just think there are better ways to have endgames conclude, but that's a matter of opinion.
Not the fairest of tl;drs. For one thing, these buffs apply in 2v1 and 1v1 endgames, so they won't allow the overall result to be changed into a survivor side win. For another, there are 2 survivor buffs here and 1 killer buff (killer instinct), and one of the survivor buffs is only relevant if the killer wants to slug for the 4k instead of taking the 3k (while still having the opportunity to get the 4k thereafter).
At least the "hatch closes automatically after some time" change is simply a no-brainer, hatch stand-offs should not exist, it's a design flaw.
0 -
So you want to just give them the hope to win by giving them the buff so they continue playing? But why would they in the first place xD For most people at that point, unless there is like 1-2 gens left the game is already over and they probably only half heartily try to not get reported by their teammates or something like that. The game does not become more engaging at all, it is still the same old... You are still not supposed to win anymore.
If there is only 1 guy left, but also several gens then this person is supposed to lose, as the last survivor you still get 2 additional chances on hatch or doors after it got closed, but the killer is supposed to be favored and at that point the survivor cannot win anymore, it is a draw at. Est if he gets out, at least that's what the mmr system makes of it. And as killer or survivor I never feel like it is a win to get the hatch or leave through the gates after it got closed... Like I said if they want to play let them, but I find the race for hatch incredibly boring, which is why I tend to just go afk when there is only 1 guy left... Only coming back when he for some reason did not find hatch within the next few minutes. Other people might still want to get that guy which is fine.
This problem you are mentioning already exists right now... And if they indeed do nothing for a longer amount of time they are just holding the game hostage, which is reportable and otherwise they are just playing stealthy, which, as much as I personally despise that playstyle, as something you can do, so there is no issue here either?
Obviously it is way simpler to just press a button instead of relying on the killer to get you out, which is why that option is such a good idea...
I don't think concede should only be available in that niche scenario, I think it would be better to have it available after a specific amount of match time in addition to the match being heavily in favor of the other side... How to define that is up for debate.
2 -
Dunno how you coach giving survivors 45s gens in 2v1 and giving killers useless info is in any way remotely equivalent, but you do you. Hatch standoffs aren't a thing. Personally I've never seen it. Survivors can just do a gen if the killer is sitting on the hatch.
3 -
So you want to just give them the hope to win by giving them the buff so they continue playing? But why would they in the first place
Because there is more of a hope that they can actually get gens done and perhaps even outs.
If there is only 1 guy left, but also several gens then this person is supposed to lose
If that guy were supposed to die, hatch wouldn't exist. That guy having more of a chance to escape (or any chance at all, as opposed to how it can be currently in some situations) is not an issue particularly if you don't care whether one person gets an escape.
This problem you are mentioning already exists right now...
Which is why I'm making the suggestions I am making…
Obviously it is way simpler to just press a button instead of relying on the killer to get you out, which is why that option is such a good idea...
Yes, again, a concede option in these situations could be one idea to deal with tedious, hopeless endgame scenarios. Although again, since it is optional, survivors might still opt to just hide indefinitely, which is what I don't want. I would prefer if they simply died on the spot if no gen is getting done for 60 seconds or whatever in a 2v1. And I would prefer over that if they had more of a chance to actually still make something happen.
I don't see how that info is useless, but you do you. I also didn't say these buffs are equivalent or supposed to be, the aim was to give the remaining survivors more of a fighting chance, such that they actually fight.
Just because you haven't seen killers stand on hatch and refuse to close it doesn't mean it isn't a thing. A survivor finishing a gen is giving away their position. It will often be trivial to find them if they do.
Do you actually have a problem with the idea that hatch would close automatically after some time, by the way?
0 -
You are not always supposed to have a chance, at some point you just need to admit defeat... When 75% of your team died you should not have a realistic chance to still win the game. And hatch is a stupid mechanic exactly for that reason to begin with, not only does it turn teammates against each other in hopes to get hatch it also makes them less productive towards the real goal of getting the gens done...
Which is why I am saying hatch is a stupid mechanic and should not exist... It is a remnant of the past where 4 men key escapes and stuff alike were still possible, just terrible game mechanics that should have gotten rid of years ago.
2 -
But the last survivor having a chance to escape is not an issue, is it? The killer has already won. As you said, you don't even care whether they escape. And sure, you personally may not enjoy the hunt for hatch, but others may, as either role. That there is a last moment of tension, the excitement of still having a chance to end the match without dying.
But again, it is of course a fair opinion to say that since the match is basically hopeless in terms of getting gens done, you may as well end it there and then, either by giving up the survivors (killing them automatically or revealing their position) or by giving them an option to give up. I think having more gameplay in these scenarios is preferable, but again, I would not be opposed to a concede option, and suggested being able to surrender when in the dying state. I would just want there to be something in place ensuring survivors won't just still try to hide as much as they can instead of giving up.
0 -
The last survivor escaping does not bother me because it is mostly luck... Luck where the hatch spawns luck how close together the gates spawn, what killer I play and so on... If I have barely an impact on that how can it bother me? Ofc it would mean more if it was under my control just like the rest of the match... Basically the reason why people count 3 KS for the win streak because the 4th guy is mostly out of your control.
Survivors can play the hiding game in any state of theatch, be it beginning or end, sure it might be more annoying when you as the killer basically already won, but if we accept it as legitimate gameplay/strategy then I don't see a reason to get rid of it at that point specifically. However... Since it is a reportable offense if you don't progress the game within 15 min as survivor, basically holding it hostage... How about permanent aura reading regardless of perks at that point... They are already committing a reportable offense... So why not make it easier on the killer to deal with that and report them afterwards... I mean it should be somewhat possible to automatically detect that...
1 -
Do you slug for the 4k? That's something you can do to play around hatch. Most people fortunately don't because they find it incredibly boring, and rightfully so. I think most people don't really feel awful about the last survivor getting hatch if they do, while still trying to find and close the hatch.
I just think getting rid of undesirable scenarios where survivors hide for ages or where the killer refuses the kill the second-to-last survivor would benefit the game. Removing the hatch and giving survivors a concede option would be one way to go about it, but yes, there would need to be something in place ensuring they won't just keep hiding, and 15 minutes would already be way too much of that. Just reveal them if no gen has been touched for 30 seconds or so, I guess.
0 -
Only if I do an adept or have a challenge to do so... The point is you should not have to slug for the 4k but because such a stupid random mechanic like hatch exists you are kind of forced to... You can get 3kills at 5 gens and still not get the 4 th guy just because that dumb hatch spawns directly below his feet... But that's a whole different issue.
Obviously most people won't do that, because it is just way too much of an effort but it is quite dumb that it exists to begin with...
15 min is the in general thing when everybody is alive and what not... Like I said before I don't think restricting stealth is necessary in that scenario... As long as they don't do something banable they can play as stealthy as they want...
0 -
But that's a whole different issue.
Yeah, again, I'm not sure this is actually an issue. I don't think most people care that the last survivor has a chance for a random escape even in an otherwise badly lost match. Challenges and achievements and whatnot could be adjusted for a reality in which the killer can't slug for the 4k and such, which is what I think is an actual issue in terms of the gameplay experience it yields. But this is a matter of opinion, we seem to simply disagree which of the two is worse.
Like I said before I don't think restricting stealth is necessary in that scenario...
This too is a matter of opinion we seem to disagree on. I despise when the last survivor(s) hide, out of spite, so as to not give me the satisfaction of killing them, because they're hoping for hatch, or whatever else. Even 5 minutes spent searching for survivors in these scenarios can ruin my game experience. I think something to prevent that from happening so frequently would benefit the game, while you don't seem to mind if survivors may just hide indefinitely.
But as I've said in the original post, I don't think my proposed changes are necessary, I just hope they do something to address some of the issues these scenarios yield. And again, if that means giving survivors an option to concede, removing hatch, and revealing their positions if they refuse to progress the game, I for one would take it over the status quo.
1 -
Like I said, I despise stealthy survivors, but in general, not just when they are losing and want to get hatch, I don't find it more or less annoying during specific parts of the game.
0 -
Hiding in general in a match however has various strategical/tactical benefits and can be done with the express intention of getting gens done and escaping. Don't get me wrong, as killer I still much prefer to be in chases all match long (and particularly dislike when survivors hide despite me going out of my way to not camp or tunnel), but stealth is an integral part of the game. It's just that in these endgame scenarios, it is not done with any goal of progressing the game in mind, let alone winning, just with the idea of hiding indefinitely in the hopes that the other player gets found, that the killer grows bored, or just to be a petty or the like. Players hiding for the sake of it is just much more common here, and the reasons are clear.
0 -
I'm in for the surrender option and the increased repair speed when 2 survivors remain.
Maybe the auto hatch close after 5 minutes.
That's it.
0 -
Not necessarily, even then they sometimes try to progress the objectively, just reeeeeeally slow...
0
