http://dbd.game/killswitch
Only Surrender addition First, "Go-Next" Prevention only if necessary
I fully support BHVR's health initiative, as it is years overdue. I do think that these systems are addressing the symptoms rather than core issues with this game, and more gameplay features will need to be changed in the future. Likewise, I do think that implementing both of these features is overkill during the first iteration. The reason survivors would often go next is because there was no way to surrender an already lost match and save some time. With the addition of the surrender option, this pain point is alleviated. I would suggest trying out only the surrender option first, see how the community and matches react to that, and only if it is necessary, go forward with the "go-next" prevention as a follow up.
In addition, my main concern with the "go-next" prevention system is with the verbiage detailing how the system will flag a player:
- "Walking up to a killer and standing still" - what about taking a hit with borrowed time or off the record? What about a protection hit/down to save a teammate that is being tunneled and on death hook?
- "Running to a hook and pointing at it" - what about bloodpoint farming games? What about players that have an emergency and need to leave?
- "Intentionally failing skill checks while on hook" - what about allowing the final survivor to get hatch in a 2v1 situation? What about the players that really can't hit skill checks due to various conditions or having to play the game on mute?
It is impossible to have a programmed system correctly identify these three points described without making wrong judgements. If ONE player is penalized for something they didn't do, the system is a failure, end of story. This system should be a last resort. Contrary to popular belief, systems that hyper-scrutinize player actions in a vain attempt to curb bad behavior end up hurting the game in the long run.
As I stated above, the surrender option should be tested alone to see if it is enough to curb the giving up behaviors we have grown accustomed to seeing. Only if it fails to make any meaningful change should the "go-next" prevention system be implemented.
I have made this discussion in General Discussions to get more of the community's opinions, since nobody but the dev team checks "Feedback and Suggestions" page. Please let this thread live here for a bit so more thoughts can be shared on the matter.
Comments
-
Honestly we feel they should be put at the same time.
To the points:- It would be easy enough to implement it to know the difference between letting the killer have you and taking a bodyblock hit from bt. A short countdown would do.
- For an emergency the player should probably be afk if its an actual emergency and not be pointing at the hook. Farm games would take a hit true, but those are heavily rare outside events and if push came to shove they could disable it during events (and cause all kinds of hell).
- As killers are unfortunately already slugging to bypass this its rather moot…as for if they can't hit skill checks thats something new players have to learn and having the game on mute won't affect that unless that survivor is not paying attention. Theres a point where genuine concerns bleed into outlandish worries.
The above said, it again depends on how they implement the systems. They could do a good job or the expected job, till we have details on them its just a guessing game.
[In a hilarious way its like how killers abused camping and 3 genning and got those smacked.]
1 -
For your first point: imagine two different survivors, one with bt who was recently unhooked and another survivor who is injured but was not recently unhooked. Your proposed solution would be to penalize the survivor who does not have bt, and not to penalize the player with bt because of a short cooldown. Now imagine that the same survivor with bt was trying to unhook themselves to go next or was not saved the first 70 seconds on hook and now wants to leave the game. That player is running to the killer to exit the match, but the system will not penalize them because of your proposed solution. Likewise, a player who is injured but not on their final hook stage is running to body block a killer from tunneling a survivor on death hook. That player will be penalized while trying to actively make a good play. I completely disagree that the solution is easy, as this example shows.
For your second point: so just because farm games are rare means it's okay to make them extinct with this change? Farm games are a wonderful breath of fresh air that remind a lot of players that we're all here to have fun. What about a player who points at a hook to let the survivor ON the hook know to follow them? Again the ambiguity of the TWO emotes we have in this game to coordinate with random survivors will be negatively affected by this system.
For your third point: just because some killers slug to avoid this game state does not mean that all killers do. I still see this sort of game state at least a few times a day. Also, what about after 20 seconds have passed and the skill checks are getting harder to hit? I completely disagree that this is an "outlandish worry" due to how the mechanics work, but you're free to have that opinion.
Even if a system has a million "but if, but if, only if, only if, etc." to curb bad player behavior, there will still not be enough cases covered to guarantee that any player is not wrongfully punished for a behavior they did not do. If any player is wrongfully punished by this system, it is a failure.
5 -
Nah, we've needed a Go Next prevention system for too long.
The majority of situations in which people go next (at least in my experience) are not because the match is unwinnable, but because it's a killer they don't like.
12 -
Any proof for that claim? I rarely ever see someone just run at a killer they don't like. The majority of the time I see people go-next is after another player makes a massive blunder, essentially losing the entire game for the survivors.
6 -
I mean obviously it's only in my experience, but I constantly get people going next at 5 gens just because they're first downed, they don't like the killer, etc. There is no rhyme or reason to it, they're just upset. I've had people go next at 1 or 2 gens left when we have a huge advantage.
I can't count the amount of winnable, or even winning games that have been ruined by someone going next. I'm glad the developers are finally doing something about it.
2 -
And like I said, the whole point of my post was to gradually introduce systems to see if they are addressing player pain points. Introducing multiple systems that attempt to tackle the same issues 1) prevents any meaningful and concise data on which systems are performing their desired goals, 2) to what extent these systems are performing their desired goals, and 3) wrongfully penalizing players for making legitimate and valid plays because said systems will always be imperfect.
I dislike people leaving winnable matches as much as the next person, but any logical, scientific, and common sense view of these proposed systems would have them be added in phases and not all at once, and definitely not added if they in fact are not needed. Even if these systems are in place, do you really think they will stop players from going next? They will find new ways, whether anyone likes it or not. And if worse comes to worse, people will just stop playing. And not just the people who go-next, but people who have long since grown tired of a game that doesn't even know the source of its myriad of gameplay problems.
3 -
I might be in the minority, but I think Go Next Prevention will be a disaster without some serious nuance built into it on top of vastly improved matchmaking. There is zero reason that the developers should expect survivors to stay in a game when a survivor is dead at 3 gens, or other near zero win probability situations. This is not community service. It's a video game, and it's supposed to be fun.
When players say they find half their trials unfun, they mean it. When you put together disposable matchups, players will treat them like it (disposable). It is so beyond entitled to sit there and penalize going next over fixing your matchmaking algorithm that puts players in unwinnable games 25% of the time.
8 -
The surrender system and anti-go-next system in my opinion do not solve the same things. The surrender system will stop unwinnable matches from being dragged out significantly, while the go next prevention will stop people from quitting early, resulting in a lot of unwinnable matches.
I assume the system will likely be built to minimise false positives, since banning people over nothing would be a pretty terrible system. I doubt it'd be active in the cases of giving up to give your teammates hatch (which is probably the only valid tactical case for going next). If it is, then that'd be a bad thing, but the idea of a system like this is a good one, it just needs to be implemented well.
Going Next is a separate pain point than getting bled out.
Even if these systems are in place, do you really think they will stop players from going next? They will find new ways, whether anyone likes it or not.
I think these systems would significantly reduce the instances of such a thing happening, just like how the disconnect penalty reduced the number of disconnects significantly.
It would not completely eliminate going next, since people have free will to do what they so wish, but saying we shouldn't implement a system because it might be subverted in some way or won't have 100% efficiency doesn't make sense. Tweaks can be made to prevent new ways that might pop up for people to circumvent the penalty.
And if worse comes to worse, people will just stop playing.
That's probably a good thing.
If you're going next all the time, then that's a pretty big indicator that the game isn't really all that much fun for you anymore. Picking and choosing only super favourable lobbies is not a thing you should be able to do, you should not be able to instantly tap out the second the game isn't going your way, or if it's a killer you dislike, etc. It just ruins the game for the 4 other people still in the lobby.
On top of that, if being made to play out trials to completion is genuinely that unbearable for so many people that the player count starts to significantly drop, then that'll really light a fire under the developers to fix gameplay issues for good.
There's a good amount of people that have an unhealthy relationship with this game. They keep subjecting themselves to trials they find unfun and immediately tapping out in the hopes that they'll find that one fun trial eventually. If this gives them the push to finally quit the game that they don't really find fun anymore, that's a positive for everyone.
It provides motivation for the devs to address issues, prevents people that still actually enjoy the game from having their matches ruined, and pushes burnt out players to find something better to do with their time.
1 -
They are attempting to solve the same issue - people are not having fun in matches, and these systems are attempting to allay those problems while not solving the issues behind it. That is the core problem. People wouldn't want to surrender or go next if there were bounce back mechanics both survivor and killer, or if the more unfun mechanics were overhauled or removed, or if more fun and interactive mechanics were introduced.
In my opinion, the surrender option should trigger if 1) everyone is slugged, and 2) if one person is sacrificed or mori'd and the number of gens remaining is at least 1 greater than the number of remaining survivors. For example, a blight tunnels someone off hook and there are still 4 gens left in the match with 3 survivors left alive. A survivor should be able to go into the escape menu and press the "Surrender Match" button, and a simple majority will determine the outcome (in this case 2 out of the 3 survivors). In the current state of DBD, everyone knows that this match is unwinnable unless the blight player massively messes up.
I don't agree with the scapegoat that "people have an unhealthy relationship with this game" as a valid excuse to have them leave the game because they aren't having fun with it. No, it's not "a good thing." The opinions of the players that have been around since 2016 should be just as valid as those that joined during resident evil's first DLC release. If someone has 5k hours and is no longer having fun with the game, the question of "why now" arises. Out of those 5k hours, why is it now they are bored of it? Why not 1k hours prior or even 2k hours prior? At a certain point one has to look at the obvious changes that have been favoring killer and reason that they might have something to do with it. People want to play this game. Blaming those players for, in my opinion, a lackluster 2 years of development doesn't do anyone any good.
I think these systems would significantly reduce the instances of such a thing happening, just like how the disconnect penalty reduced the number of disconnects significantly.
This is exactly how we got to the go-next problem: disconnect penalty introduced → go-next increased to get around it. The same thing will happen with these new systems, until a new problem presents itself.
1 -
NGL the “go next” will probably penalize me bc sometimes when the killer finds the hatch before I do when I’m the last person left and they’ve got me in their sights shortly , I’ll stop chase, and I’ll just go up to a hook and point bc they won, and there was no way I was going to be able to open that door. The killer is right there. I’m just being realistic. Sure I can play it out like a script but honestly once that hatch is closed if you’re seen and they’re not far away enough to finish opening the door it’s an L, respectfully.
5 -
I agree that Go Next prevention has the serious potential to be a hot mess. I would start simple and just remove ability to attempt to self-unhook (unless you're running Deliverance) and the second stage skill checks.
I don't fully trust an automated system that tries to discern when a player is giving up or not trying generally, especially when the punishment is relatively severe.
But as a solo queue player, my number one (by a mile) issue when it comes to ruining my experience is my teammates going next. It's not the killer, it's not the map, it's my teammates bailing.
And most often this happens when the game is still totally winnable. I would say the vast majority of the time I see teammates go next, it isn't when the game is effectively over, it's in the opening minutes. This simply isn't acceptable, and something has to be done.
3 -
- The one not recently unhooked would not be penalized because they would be out of the timeframe. When someone gives up by running to the killer what do they do? They sit there. Thats the kind of timeframe we're talking about. If they go down within the timeframe of hit-wipe-hit then its very clear that person has either given up or gone afk. The timer doesn't need to be tied to the unhook as well. If the timer starts on a hit then that second example would be penalized if they strictly gave up and only penalize that third example if they took a down via standing still. All this said, your point was SPECIFICALLY about a BT body block.
- As we said, we don't know how its going to work so unless you have information that we don't know about and aren't sharing we see this (farm matches) as a non issue until we have more info. How many pointings does it take to get the message across [a tootsie pop commercial is playing somewhere]? The emotes require some minimal brain power and a willingness to listen to the other player. If it takes 3 or more pointings then yes, we have no mercy for that.
- True that not all killers do this (thank the entity) but again, we don't know whats going to happen with this system. Will it be off if all but 1 is on hook? Will it show no mercy? That first one will allow the 3 to die quicker on hooks, the later wont. As for the second half, to each their own opinions then but we'll happily go on record typing that the hook skillchecks aren't very hard after the first few hrs playing the game (bar actual handicaps which should be an accessibility worry).
This is going to sound a bit rude so I apologize on our behalf but guess what? Nothing is perfect. Theres going to be flaws in both systems and testing them both together would (atleast to us) be the better idea as they're both going to be in the game together anyway. Theres also the fact that only putting 1 at a time has flaws. For example: If only the surrender is added, what if 1 person wants to surrender and the other 3 dont? That single survivor can go run to the killer, point to a hook or something, and promptly try and die. Without the "go-next" prevention they get to do so free of charge and thats what they're heavily likely gonna do if they're the type that these things are trying to curb. Theres similar situations as this. We're sure you can fill out the opposite number of "what if they added only the "go-next" first".
1 -
Simple solutions tho:
1. dont start the counter if Endurance is active.
2. dont count it if 3 gens have been finished or if a survivor has already died. And if you need to leave due to an emergency, just DC. That's what it's meant for.
3. also stop counting it once at least 1 survivor has died or 3 gens have been finished.
The whole issue about "go next" and hardcore tunnelling is that the remaining survivors literally do not have the resources to finish the game naturally. You need 3 gens to be gone for 3 survivors to stand a chance in a 3v1 as gen regression basically comes to a halt in a 3v1 if the killer is efficient. But a toolbox and 2 survivors pushing a gen if their teammate can last 40 seconds in chase is enough to finish a 4th gen, but another teammate is almost guaranteed to die to get the 5th gen. Leaving 2 survivors with the exit gates powered, almost guaranteeing a 3k for killers if they've been playing properly.
That is the state you want the game to be in for survivors. 3 gens gone before 1 survivor gets out. Most survivors "go next" at 4 or 5 gens remaining, ruining the game for everyone else.0 -
Yeah I think it's going bit overboard. Just remove chance to do hook suicides that the most complained way to go next and I think it's too easy right now.
System like that could cause penalties when someone just ended up playing badly and takes away chance to play farming games with killer. Every game would have to be played competively then I quess.
Surrender option should be available in 2vs1 when one is slugged on the ground so the match don't drag too long.
1 -
My point about bt was to show you that there are hundreds of "what if" scenarios that all cannot be accounted for with one system. To focus on the bt example as my point shows you are missing the forest for the trees. There are many plays that, in a vacuum, seem like a player is throwing or wanting to go next. I actuality, these plays are trying to save another player or allow the rest of their team to win.
Not knowing how something will be implemented is the root of my concern. It's all fine and dandy to say "oh this is what our system will do," but when you actually get down to the brass tacks, you need to know how it's implemented, down to the very last detail. This is programming. There is no room for ambiguity when it comes to a system that hands out punishments to players in an automated fashion.
Your last paragraph misses the point about not being able to differentiate which system is pulling the weight. If you have both systems, you cannot accurately gauge which system is preventing players from wanting to go next. I never had the delusion that any system up for implementation would be free of flaws, but my concern with this system is that its flaws will outweigh its benefits. I understand that a lot of people that play this game have a very heated opinion on people going next and want a fix now, but to hurry and rush out a massively flawed system to the detriment of the game and the community is not the way to go about it.
Would you be for this automated system still if hypothetically it decided randomly that you were going to be falsely flagged for "go-next" behavior? If not after one occurrence, how many times?
2 -
Then why are you asking for a practically perfect system (and yes you we're practically asking: "If any player is wrongfully punished by this system, it is a failure.")? Some of your "what ifs" are odd, such as first one in the opening for example can be solved by the simple timer and the emergency one via common sense. There are many plays that could be seen as throwing but are helpful, but in the same breath they can also be used to give up. After all whats to stop the one who wants to give up from body blocking and taking the killers agro to die? At what point does repeatedly pointing at the hook (with/without someone on it) go from trying to communicate to being a troll? From what we understand you want specifically for the "go next" system to be thoroughly thought out and cooked. Thats fine, but we're of the opinion that they should be together.
If the root of your concern is a lack of info why not ask for details on it instead of immediately trying to get 1 system before the other (and to our knowledge nothing has been said if 1 or both will happen first anyway, looks to be at the same time)? You simply made an argument with your reasons for having the surrender option first. You're welcome to ask for one first but don't go picking at us about unknown details when your in the dark just like the rest of us.
To the "which system is pulling weight" paragraph we have 2 questions. "Don't they deal with relatively separate issues?" and "Does it truly matter?"
For the 1st question: From what we've read the "give up" system is aimed at 4 bots/4 slug situations. From what we've read the "go next" system is for those who give up via getting killed. Why would they need to gauge?
For the 2nd question: With only the "give up" system as we said people can still "go next" free of charge as they currently can via self swing, walk to killer, yada yada. With only the other survivors are stuck in a match bleeding out or the killer is stuck in a match with 4 bots of which misery abounds. Having both these stops both ends of pain. In addition because these tackle separate things from what we can see so does it truly matter that both are in at once?
Having concerns about either system is very valid, we do however question some of these reasonings of trying only to get 1 first since they can and probably will need tested and fixed.
Depends on what you mean by "randomly". Should we know what triggers it then happily as many times as we did trigger it because it was told to us what triggered it. If its actually random then none because we wouldn't know what triggered it. When the system comes around then we'll be able to see what triggers it in more detail and have new opinions. At the current place in time its just jumping the metaphorical shark.
1 -
I don't think farming games would be extinct, because most of the time the Killers would let the Survivors escape, so they're technically not "going next".
0 -
Agreed. I'm cautiously optimistic about these health updates. I feel like this stuff is definitely needed, but I also have been playing long enough and seen enough changes that I truly do think the devs are quite out of touch with the playerbase and I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. They need to get this right, and proper matchmaking is at the core of this all.
0 -
- A killer they don't like.
- They get a 15 econds chase against a C tier killer.
- They went down first with Deliverance.
3 -
It's got me thinking about a scenario I often find myself in.
1v2 with multiple gens to go. I'm not interested in hiding for hatch so will often stick to a gen until i get grabbed off. Alot of the time the killer drops me to the ground to go find the other survivor. The extreme hiding change means the other survivor will likely keep picking me up, extending the game. If I keep hopping on my gen and keep getting grabbed off, am I likely to be penalised? If the game is unwinnable I don't want to prolong it.
3 -
Idk why people feel the need to catastrophize everything like BHVR is gonna penalize people who stand still for half a second.
I'm sure it has to be extreme like a full minute or something like there are ways to introduce these systems in intelligent ways so let's just see what they do and critique it from there instead of theoretical systems that don't exist.
1 -
Normally I'm saying the exact same thing, but for this particular update I think theoreticals are important. We are having events and chapters pushed back for this, so BHVR need to get it right. We've seen in the past that when something doesn't work, the devs usually just dump it and it doesn't get addressed for years.
Most of the playerbase seems to be in agreement that a health chapter is necessary, so instead of my usual "wait and see" approach, I think it's important this time around to help the devs cross the T's and dot the I's. They have limited bandwidth for updates and can only change so much each year.
5 -
Despite your claim that it's "common sense," I've given examples on it not being the case, which is my entire point. Something YOU or even the developers think as an "all encapsulating" system would wrongfully punish players who inevitably do things that were outside of your predefined "acceptable" criteria.
If a survivor is allowed to surrender, it may dissuade them from going next, as they now have a valid avenue to leave the match. It's really that simple.
The part about punishment systems is that most do not give a verbose reason as to why action was taken, and especially so if your action did not have the intention of "going-next." "Jumping the metaphorical shark" is wrong. I simply asked if you would like it if this system wrongfully punished you. This isn't an exercise in the system's implementation, but the outcome.
0 -
Release legion was admitted to be an issue on release. Even content creators like Noob3 DC'd against that killer. I'm not condoning that behavior, but those are the facts. A good nurse is a good nurse. There is no counterplay. I'm not condoning that behavior, but those are the facts. Release skull merchant was a horrible 45 minute slog because the 3 gen system was not in place and her drones acted differently. I'm not condoning that behavior, but those are the facts.
Those are very extreme edge cases. Would you care to give examples of that on a day to day basis against a killer like pig or freddy?
2 -
Well unless we have some proof, your anecdotal evidence is just as meaningful as mine.
0 -
I think your concerns are very valid. I'm always wary of systems that punish based on interpreting behavior, motives and intentions. I think there is a lot of room for error and people can get caught and unjustly punished when they weren't doing wrong.
I know we have very little information at this stage and I don't think it's time to be a Chicken Little about it but I'll be honest I also don't have the faith in BHVR to get it right. Hope they prove me wrong.
1 -
I have had people go next immediately on literally every killer I play. Which is all of them, I play variety.
Yes, even if I'm playing nice (which is most of the time unless it's specifically a team that knows their stuff). They just peace out the first second they can.
It's gotten so bad that I generally avoid playing Survivor outside of a 4 stack anymore, just for the guarantee that there are no randoms that'll give up early.
2 -
Nah we need the go next fix now. Would rather them implement it asap and work out the kinks sooner than later.
2 -
….your really going to tell us that leaving a game to deal with an emergency isn't common sense? We also never said its all encapsulating. Our suggestion simply solved those immediate concerns that were reasonable to the points given. And given that so far the devs have been fairly reasonable when implementing things like this (the anti 3 gens, anti face camp) we're willing to give a chance to see what they're planning before throwing ourselves to paranoia.
And if a survivor is allowed to surrender theres 3 survivors left with a bot at best and at worst all being forced to surrender or risk the 1 trying to "go next" at worst. From what we saw the surrender is only for 4 man slugs/ 4 man bots.
It is jumping the shark because you dont know what theyre going to do as well do you? If you know for certain what the plans are, share them. Your calling doom when no one knows anything. You asked us, and we quote: "Would you be for this automated system still if hypothetically it decided randomly that you were going to be falsely flagged for "go-next" behavior?". It would not be "wrongful" if we know what the cause is.
1 -
Are you not reading what I'm writing? I said my suggestion for surrender was what I wrote about gens completed compared to survivors sacrificed.
The 3 gen system and anti face camp have only solved the extreme cases of what they are trying to prevent. Both of those strategies, knowing when to kick gens and standing more than 2 feet from a survivor still allow the killer to execute both of those strategies. Also, none of those systems involve the automated flagging of an account that results in negative action taken on them. This would be a first.
I'm not jumping any shark. I am asking the questions that need to be asked, otherwise we will get a half baked system that will wrongfully ban players. Apparently some people are okay with that.
2 -
I said my suggestion for surrender was what I wrote about gens completed compared to survivors sacrificed.
The reason survivors would often go next is because there was no way to surrender an already lost match and save some time. With the addition of the surrender option, this pain point is alleviated.
You are referring to this correct?
We have pointed out that the pain point isnt alleviated if you only add the surrender option if only 1-2 wants to give up. And add on, many survivors see "a lost match" when they go down in 30 seconds, see a killer they dont like, and so on. They either get to leave via surrender which gives the remaining players a bot which then probably cascades to the rest surrendering (especially considering the backlash bots got in 2v8), or they don't get to leave via surrender and try to get the killer to kill them/hook swings as they currently do.
You might not trust the devs on making these but we are willing to wait and see what they do with these systems before any harsh judgement.
We simply typed a solution we thought would be enough and our opinions with reasons why we think both should be implemented at the same time. Like Brimp above said, its better iron out the kinks sooner rather than later. Your making it sound to us like it will be dooms day if its implemented at the same time when we don't even know how its going to work. To us, it really sounds like shark jumping. For example:
It is impossible to have a programmed system correctly identify these three points described without making wrong judgements. If ONE player is penalized for something they didn't do, the system is a failure, end of story. This system should be a last resort.
If that offends you we're sorry, but its how we see it.
0 -
Wow, an awful unfun killer design, the strongest/most unfair killer uncontested for all of DBD's playtime and legion. You're not even trying to make a good point.
2 -
I already explained this like 3 different times. I'm not going to explain it a 4th. If you want to trust the devs that released release skull merchant, release legion, release houndmaster, proposed the twins ptb changes, have not nerfed blight or nurse; while having full faith they will not mess up such a critical system as this, be my guest.
1 -
I'm applauding you for your brave and stunning game observations. Good job bro, legit. :)
0 -
The only problem is if these systems are implemented, it will prove that BHVR blatantly supports giving up and hating killers because of it. I believe BHVR has been supporting the hatred and nerfing of killers the past few years…
0
