General Discussions
General Discussions
what can be improved here to have this survivor want to stay in the game?
Comments
-
Let's try it your way then, despite the fact we've been doing it your way since DC penalties got added. Let's double-down on punishing players.
Where does it stop? At what point do you say, yeah, maybe we should address underlying causes. How long are you willing to chase this idea for? Clearly, suicides are going to get removed. The next logical step for people is to either run to the Killer or to stop trying. How do you intend to police that?
1 -
Banned By Daylight
-2 -
"Yes, there are some people that will DC for nothing, but they are the VAST minority."
Hard disagree here. The overwhelming majority of DCs I see are in the first 120 seconds of a match. The overwhelming majority of the ######### on hook I see are on one of, if not the first overall hook of the game.
People are going into matches expecting to get pissed off and looking for the first excuse to bail.
Yes, there are things wrong with the game. Lots of things. Yes, the solo queue play loop is often miserable, repetitive, and with seemingly no hope of getting substantially better. But we all know that going in to each play session. Especially the burned out vets. We know almost every possible thing that can happen, and we know it almost certainly will. We read the updates, and we know when something has changed, and more importantly when it hasn't.
Knowing full well what's gonna happen and then repeatedly quitting in a huff when it does seems absurd, no? Because it is.
But as others have said, if you go down the path of justifying going next when something (or anything, really) frustrating or unfair happens, there's no end. The most common complaints (like tunneling) can't be fixed. Not really. And much beyond that, the list of grievances people have are so numerous and subjective that saying they need to be addressed before punishing going next is just arguing in bad faith. There will be no end to it as people will quit over almost anything. That's simply a non-starter.
Not "going next" anytime you're faced with bad game design isn't accepting the bad design. It's being respectful to your teammates and opponents. What sends the message to BHVR that you're accepting the state of the game is continuing to play the game at all. Money, or rather lack of it, motivates.
If people are burned out and sick of the crap, that's totally valid. But just step away from the game altogether for a while. Watch the updates for changes what you want and come back if you see them. Or quit forever, if you can manage it. I know when I get to the point of exasperation with the BS, I don't go next just to repeat the cycle, I take a break. One day I will have had enough of the game's BS and the break will be permanent.
But people just doing the same thing over and over at the expense of their fellow players is just asinine.
Going next is out of control and we need to punish people who go next habitually. That's not the same as saying BHVR doesn't need to improve things, just that we shouldn't be having our games ruined in the interim.
13 -
To extend an olive branch, I do understand there are annoying things in the game, and I do support those issues being fixed. These underlying issues do need to be addressed…
However, there is also this childish and entitled element of the community where people just rsge quit and ruin games through zero provacation. I've seen players try to SoH on my 3rd chase, after looping me at 2 tiles, 3 gens left, when I've moonwalk m1 swinged at a tile with Pig... a genuine mind game, perfectly fair m1 hit, and as honest as DBD gameplay can be... you can even see videos all over the plave of people fumbling a pallet save or screwing each other up with a duo flashlight save, and they just quit.
What "underlying cause" can possibly be addressed here? Quitting like this is itself an underlying cause of frustration in the playerbase. What kind of carrots can you dangle to fix this scenario? Cause the only way other than punishing players who quit for these scenatios is nerf killers to the point of being NPCs.
I've maintained for a while now that you don't need harsh punishments, all you need is to make leaving more annoying than playing the game out.
If the player wants to run to the Killer and get themselves killed, the killer is the one who grants them the ability to leave. It polices itself, because the killer can decide to ignore them, or slug them, or whatever. It becomes more annoying to try and leave than it does to just play the game.
8 -
Tbh, at this point, I would be kinda curious to see what happens if the DC penalty gets upped and ways to "go next" are entirely removed — just to see how much of a negative impact that's gonna have.
I'm very convinced whatever positive it might have will be more than negated by the negatives that come with it. I mean, you can't have it both ways; you can't have a "go next epidemic" implying it's incredibly widespread, and then also think that many people do that just out of sheer pettiness and will just go to being good little punching bags that suck it up and play all matches out normally from then on out. Heck, I almost hope it'd lead to a massive (surv) player bleed cause that's probably the only datapoint that weighs heavy enough to prompt actual change.
you know how the saying goes; sometimes you gotta burn it all down and start from scratch. Well, maybe not that extreme, I don't think there's gonna be a DBD2 — but some major changes to core gameplay/mechanic design.
1 -
Quitting like this is itself an underlying cause of frustration in the playerbase.
This i fully agree with. However, aren't those frustrations with the state of the game? Generally speaking they're going to be balance concerns also.
Maps being filled with dead zones, not just unsafe but useless pallets, smaller maps, constant base kit killer buffs, reworked tile logic, perk nerfs, item nerfs. All in pursuit of an arbitrary 60% kill rate. People do not want to hear this but that's simply too high for the games health. That's what this "go next epidemic" is really indicating, without using as many words.
How is it not frustrating to spawn into something like Coldwind, a literal empty field of dead zones with nothing to work with, and not feel like the deck is being stacked against you? That's by intention and by design, and they've told us that. But trying to address that problem gets met with insane resistance here: anything that isn't a pure killer buff or survivor nerf is clamored against incessantly.
It's been 10 years, and just now they're talking about anti tunneling and anti slugging. Which, if anti face camping is any indication, means there will be a base kit way for killers to turn these off completely.
I've maintained for a while now that you don't need harsh punishments, all you need is to make leaving more annoying than playing the game out.
This is exactly the point though... Have you asked why the game is, as you put it, "annoying to play out"?
I fully admit that petty people exist, always have. But people aren't getting more petty, they're getting more frustrated with the game. We didn't have these issues, even during the gen kick meta, not to this degree. It's a game health issue. 100%, and the devs are pushing the limits currently in a bad way.
I'm personally disappointed that phase 2 is going to be late this year, because imo the unchecked excessive tunneling, camping, and slugging is a huge factor here too. But they're trying it your way: anti go next is in phase 1, then they'll maybe look at the root causes 6 months later.
3 -
I honestly dont think BHVR is neutral in this matter.
1 -
You cant hook someone before at least 2 gens is done (irony can occur)
0 -
Great that's what you experience on your end. Did you ever stop to think that what the other person is experiencing is different? I've been in games where no one is working on a gen while I just went for a long chase. Why should I stick around in a match where there's a good chance I dont get rescued or if I do I get tunneled out or camped out? Do you realize why a lot of players quit after being the first one down? It's because of killers not leaving the hook or tunneling out the first survivor. Do you realize how stupid it is for a player to stay in a game they can't win or can't play? Unlike killer players a survivor can't just change their gameplay to win the game.
0 -
If those people are the overwhelming majority, the game will die with increased DC penalties and no hook suicides.
I do not think that is the case, but time will tell, I suppose.
0 -
You're also forgetting that there are a bunch of points in the roadmap aimed at addressing common issues with Survivor gameplay.
Even if Camping, Tunnelling and Slugging were magically fixed overnight, people would still go next. With such a large playerbase, you can never make anyone happy all the time, and some people are just inclined to ragequit if the match isn't entirely in their favor. This problem exists to some scale regardless of the issues the game has.
Either way, people tend to follow the path of least resistance. The fact that there's an easy way to circumvent the DC penalty will mean people are inclined to take it if they're annoyed. However, in the case of just straight up going AFK and waiting for the killer to hook you and then for you to die, that takes a BUNCH of time. It's not convenient, it's likely more annoying than whatever's going on in your match.
A big part of live service games is, essentially, playing wac-a-mole with issues too. It's a lot of weighing up whether a problem is big enough to require "wacking", and in this case, it is. We can't know for certain if there'll be another way players will start quitting matches, but there's a very good chance that it'll be far less effective than what we have currently.
There is no way to completely guarantee that people will stay in matches. That doesn't mean we shouldn't take incentives to discourage behaviour like this.
Also, to address the part in this post about rewards for Survivors, an overlooked part of the blogpost is pretty important to note:
This is not just a uniquely punishing system, you will get rewards for actually sticking around in matches that are a bit rough. I hope the numbers on the bonuses aren't too conservative, but we'll have to see.
7 -
I don't think the game will die as a result of this.
At the very worst case scenario, there'll be a very dramatic drop in playercount, the devs will freak, turn the system off, and put far more resources into fixing whatever is wrong with Survivor gameplay, since that would indicate that it is genuinely unbearable for a lot of people.
This'll either have not really all that much of an effect on the playercount, or it'll shift the dev's priorities.
1 -
More likely, the increased inconvenience of going next will simply dissuade many of them from going next. As others have said, all that needs to happen to really curtail this problem is for going next to become just enough more of a pain than playing the match out.
And seriously, if playing the game is miserable enough that people will quit over being made to actually play the game they logged on to play, they probably needed to just move on anyway. And some people will quit. Most will just get over it.
I've long felt that most people who quit do so impulsively in the moment, and if given just another few moments to get over the thing that triggered them, they'll just get on with the game.
I suppose we'll find out.
4 -
Or they'll double-down like they've done in the past and refuse to scrap it.
-3 -
That system does nothing to make matches more playable. Oh, boy, a BP bonus on my next match. That doesn't help at all with the current miserable match, which is what they need to fix.
0 -
I don't know. I don't work there. They seemed pretty adamant on adding bots to 2v8 and they ended up backtracking on that.
You've gone from "Survivors need more BP in general" to "BP bonuses don't help at all".
Besides, there are a whole set of changes on the roadmap aimed at making Survivor gameplay better. They're helping with the three biggest complaints Survivors have in a short timespan.
5 -
Except, they kept bots in 2v8, did they not?
Yeah, Survivors need more BP in general, a conditional bonus does not address that. That is a band-aid fix. Score Events should be increased across the board. Selfless actions should be more incentivized.
We know BHVR's track record, we will see if they actually fix things.
-2 -
Bots were removed entirely after a week.
5 -
Thought they were testing stuff.
Like, two bots and no bonuses. One bot and a 300% bonus. No bots and 400% etc etc
-1 -
From my experience as a Demo-main, 5% of the time people give up because of Demo's weird hitbox allowing for hits that do not seem natural (especially when considering Killer-to-Survivor latency) despite them mechanically being legitimate hits.
The other 95% are Survivors who are already going into the match with a soured outlook. They played many matches, dealt with frustrating or annoying things, and rather than taking a break or getting off, they continue to play and make themselves feel worse in the process. I personally call it "doom-queuing" since it's basically the DBD version of doom-scrolling social media.
1 -
Only after ignoring mountains of negative feedback about them before and during the event, on top of killer queue times being just as long as they were before. If the killer queue times had improved more they probably would have ignored the feedback. Tracks with their usual pattern of screw survivors.
0 -
This is nice but you say those things like those are unarguable facts. Do you have any data that dodging because of perks is a the EXTREME minority? Where it is?
Also comparing the 2v8 to the normal mathces a little bit extreme…
0 -
Ill look past why I have to prove it wont be a thing.
But apparently you DONT have to prove it will be a thing.
Lets just take what we know for HOW things WILL turn out.
1)Lobby dodging is minority to begin with. Fact
a)People say it has to do with prestige. Barely had an effect after the change. Fact
b)People say it has to do with private or not. Barely has an effect. Factc)People say it has to do with crossplay or not. Barely has an effect. Fact
d)People say it has to do with someone holding specific items. Barely has an effect. Fact
e)People say it has to do with the skin of a certain teammate. (Sable hate remember?) (Meg continued hate) (Blendette)Does not have an effect. Fact
This is the same as map offering DC, its a minority. The fact the devs are hiding them now(changes coming), wont really change anything. As if someone sees a hidden offering after the change, and they did this sort of thing with map offerings before, they wont just DC, of course they will.
Devs really dont critically think on their decisions.
Again we can take what we know and does happen. And apply it to what will happen.
Every single case were doom speakers say/said something will happen, were, and are still, wrong about lobby dodging.
I said 2v8 with a preceding descriptor "to an extent" for a reason.-1 -
One way to do something about it is to remove convenience from leaving the game. It's always the same. Someone is salty, so they throw and then they have no reason to even try anymore because they have already ruined the match, which reinforces their decision to go next.
After Meg got unhooked, she had already wasted her second hook stage. So she was in a position where it didn't make any sense for her to continue playing because she would die anyway (if you hadn't held their hands, that is). Remove those things and you force people to stay in the game at least for long enough to calm down again, which will reduce the amount of people rage quitting.
3 -
OK gents, that's just blatantly unfair.
They let it run, saw it didn't reduce queue times as intended and changed it. After they tried the 3 different systems they found that having 1 bot in lobbies reduced queue times the most.
- 2 bots was ~13 mins queue times
- 1 bot was ~10 mins queue times
- 0 bots was ~11 mins queue times
So BHVR were actually right... bots were the best method to reduce queue times. Yet even though 1 bot was the most effective, they stuck with 0 bots based on player feedback, and extended the event from player feedback with the player preferred choice.
What exactly do you want from BHVR? They have millions of very uninformed voices screaming their opinions on everything. They have to try and objectively assess all of our stupid little opinions against the most objective data they can define... and even if their objective data is right, they still listened to their player base over what the data showed. What more realistically can you ask for?
-2 -
This is true unless you are up against a well oiled SWF or anyone with comms. Coms play a huge part in tactics here and we have seen this with 2V8 and you can always tell when killers work together.
Survivors face match after match now of tunneling, slugging, proxy camping, or slugging for the Mori. I do not agree with the give up thing because why reward a killer for bad behavior such as slugging. The point is to stop it or ease it this won't do it it still rewards a killer for such behavior and won't stop it.
Killer fatigue is another who wants to go up against the same killer every match?
Streamer builds catch on quick, and make countering it impossible at times.
You are right Survivor is very unrewarded unless you get chased.
Now 90% of killers use tunneling, slugging, and slug for the mori. This is annoying and unfun. 60% of killers do not chase or are hyper focused on one Survivor they will pass up 3 on a gen while on chase. For the last year they have made killer unbelievably easy in the lower to mid ranks but they don't utilize any of it and just use the easy way to win. If they don't get their 3k or 4k they dc.
Since they nerfed distortion a huge chunk of survivors left or switched to killer.
Hackers are on the rise and they do nothing to stop them..
FNAF is going to bring in a huge amount of players that are under the 16 mark. They need to improve or they will find themselves facing a lot of angry moms. They also need to just stop chat too because mom's are going to all over that too.
DC penalties don't need to go away but they need to improve it as where it recognizes a server disconnect from actually removing themselves from a game.
0 -
That's were you're wrong. Before the DC penalty it wasn't uncommon to have survivors DC the moment they hit the ground. The DC penalty came about because it was a major issue. Then survivors would attempt three times on hook and not struggle for an insta death. Then they had to miss two skill checks to die. Now, Now it's a problem because other survivors have an opportunity to save. Now it's an issue because now you have to afk at the hook or run to the killer. It is only a problem now because it's not instant.
You sure are making a lot of excuses for inexcusable behavior. I realize reading these threads that those that excuse the behavior ignore what is presented in the OP for hypotheticals tailored to their position. If the survivor got to the point to kill themselves on first hook then they shouldn't be queing up. You ask for empathy while denying the feelings of the four others trying to play the game. Somehow it's more virtuous to quit over some preconceived notion of unfairness instead of at the very least verifying if things will play out negatively.
-1 -
Personally I'm okay with DC/suicide penalties as long as they are looking into the issues from which these epidemics stem. Introducing penalties without doing anything else to compensate the hellhole that the solo Q experience is right now would be shooting themselves on the foot. But it seems that they are working on it (at least according to their roadmap) so let's wait and see.
That being said, it's kinda amusing that so many folks here seem to think that all survivor players are petty and just DC due to... pettiness. Yeah, petty DCs exist, but even most of those stem from having a bunch of actually #########-games one after another and not being able to stop queueing in hopes of having one (1) last decent match. Of course, this is on the survivor for not being rationally capable of simply closing the game, which makes them deserving of punishment because the rest shouldn't suffer their lack of self-control. But it 100% raises the question on what the ######### is going on for so many people to be so frustrated with the game. It's not normal. It didn't use to be like this. Survivors make at least half the playerbase and BHVR should be listening to their frustrations as much as they should be listening to killer ones (not saying they are much better in that regard tbh).
Honestly, if you think it all roots back to mere pettiness, sit down and think again. People don't open up games with the intention of DCing. If it was simple pettiness, all videogames would share the same problem. Yet afaik it's a DBD-only issue, at least at this level. Something is 100% going on and I hope the updates announced in the roadmap can fix it.
4 -
So you are saying the DC penalty has done nothing but shift the mechanism of how people leave trials? I'd agree with that.
I ask for empathy for the player because I understand that this is fundamentally, a design issue. Yeah, some people are just asses. Most people aren't and just wanna have fun on their favorite game. Yet, if this issue is as widespread as I am being told, everyone is DC'ing or suiciding. That tells me that there is a deeper root cause, which I believe to be that DBD does not know what it wants to be.
It is trying to both please the comp crowd and the casual party crowd and is pleasing neither, imo. Some balancing is super competitive, other balancing is not
4 -
I mean this situation is completely senseless, if you're so mad you lost in that situation then get better, leaving the game is the worst thing you can do in that situation. It's not the killers or bhvr's obligation to make the game fun for people that obviously don't wanna try, if they don't have fun playing the game and at the same time ruin it for at least 3 other people then they simply shouldn't play it.
To the question what could have been improved:
Absolutely nothing from your or bhvr's side. The only thing that could be improved are the looping abilities and mindset of this meg, but that's something no one can change but this meg.
-1 -
Very simple. Balance the game 50/50 like every other sane PvP developer does. BHVR has been handholding these killer mains every single step of the way for several years now. I can 3-4K on auto pilot such that it feels boring and like a joke. I go to survivor side for a real hardcore challenge. If you want players to play, you need an equal skill-to-reward ratio 50:50. Too much reward is boring, too little reward is frustrating. They've intentionally imbalanced their game which is stupid. The suicide epidemic was not nearly this bad a few years ago, I wonder why?
Winning as a killer should feel like you earned it with good skill and strategy, and when I play killer it feels like the game just hands me free kills with me just doing some basic inputs. When I play survivor, I feel like I'm constantly in a CS GO clutch scenario having to carry my entire team just for a chance to get out alive. And when killers hit and down me, it far too often feels lame because you know they didn't play skillfully, they just have it way easier due to the ludicrous balancing.
1 -
If you're burnt out play something else no one is holding you hostage and if you think "being found first and going down because you made a bad decision" is frustrating maybe stop playing the game all together and play a singleplayer game where you can load from the last checkpoint like skyrim when you make a bad choice.
-1 -
Looks like we're getting the best of both worlds after all.
0 -
It is a good first step, I hope they keep up the good work.
1 -
People are often not tired of the genre, but tired of DBD's take on it.
The issue is that there is no alternative, and there will likely be no alternatives.
0 -
The penalty made those that pushed escape Leave Match out of reflex to pause before clicking. We see this every time the penalty is disable proving it does stop some survivors from rage quiting.
You can say there's game elements that you believe are unfair but what does that have to do with this match? The survivor prejudged the killer and tried to exit the match early. Oh, but they had many bad matches before this one. What about the other three? Could it be they too had bad matches prior to this one? That this match was going to be the first fair match of the day but then ruined by a teammate. How about we consider the feeling of those left in a 3v1 because someone who should of quit for the day pressed Ready instead.
If you want change this is not the way to go about convencing people. Ruining the experience for other players does not bring the changes you want. It just make enemies out of allies.
0 -
Reasons I've gotten from survivors who go next:
The dark Lord is boring
The legion is boring
The nurse is boring
The demogorgon sucks
I don't like Chucky
Skill check doctor is sad
You sniped me as hillbilly
You grabbed me as wraith
Plague is annoying
Pinhead is annoying
You had corrupt intervention
Map offering was negated
Someone was instadowned
Blight is boring
New freddy is op
Basement was at shack
Clown scares me too much (justifiable)
Another survivor had no mither
You had Franklins
You slugged so I couldn't flashlight save.
Can probably find more examples besides.
1 -
People in this thread are talking like it's only Survivors that "go next". A fair chunk of my Survivor "escapes" are from Killers that DC because they're not doing so well in the match. This is just as dissatisfying to experience, if not even more so, because it's so rare to be in a Survivor trial where things are going well for a change. Face it, this happens on both sides and I think the reason is an MMR system that barely works for anyone at this point.
I don't know what they can do to fix it, but it's not uncommon to have multiple hopeless games in a row with the current system and I think it's contributing to a lot of player frustration and the go next phenomenon. One of the things that struck me about 2V8 was the huge diversity of skill levels in every match. Some trails would have very skilled players in them and others would have players that were… well, let's just say they were less skilled and leave it at that. But it made for a lot of variety in the games. I wasn't around for the old emblem based rank system, but I get the impression that 2V8 is a lot like that older system. I don't know, maybe BHVR should try to bring a little bit more of that back into the match making?
That said, it would be harder to replicate such variety for 1v4, since it's much easier to target weaker Survivors with camping and tunnelling and dump them out of the game early. By forcing an early 3v1, the trial becomes a lost cause and I think a lot of players at this point are past playing for hatch, which is little more than a lucky consolation prize to a lot of players.
This will be a controversial opinion, I know. But I also think the DC penalty is overly harsh for such a casual game. It should max out at a little over the average duration of a game, imo. This would encourage players who want to "go next" to DC and at least give everyone else a bot to play with, instead of ruining the experience entirely for 4 other people. Of course, if this isn't a long enough time out, there's a risk that players will begin to routinely DC over every little thing, which wouldn't be any kind of solution either. But it might still be better than the present situation. I also think there should be a timer added to the DC process (one that gives you 10 seconds to back out of DCing and cool down after a moment of rage).
6 -
At least when the killers your talking about ragequit, they get a penalty so they can't keep doing it. It's odd that you say "going next" ruins your experience, but you want LESS penalty for ppl who do it.
-2 -
The point I'm making is that there are two ways of trying to "go next". The first way is to eat a DC penalty and give everyone a bot to play with. The second way is to be like this Meg and try to die on first hook and follow the Killer around to point at hooks all game. Or throw all the pallets, spam vaults / get AFK crows to force the Killer to do something to stop those annoying notification explosions and generally just be a huge pain to everybody. Of these examples of Survivors "going next", the latter is clearly worse than a DC.
Who knows why this Meg wanted to go next. There will always be players that want out and they will probably continue to find ways of doing so even after BHVR have implemented their new prevention system. So at the very least, if players can choose to bot out without being hit by such a harsh, quickly escalating DC penalty, the match can still continue for the rest of the players.
Killers who want to avoid the penalty don't DC, but they might still AFK in the basement. That behaviour is arguably not much better than the Meg in this game.
4 -
Yeah... I'm gonna have to disagree with ya. If they're so determined to not play after joining a match that they're gonna just AFK or something, that's STILL preventing them from quickly jumping into another match. It's not IDEAL, but it's essentially a self imposed penalty in which they can cool down instead of hitting ready up 10 seconds later.
-3 -
Some trails would have very skilled players in them and others would have players that were… well, let's just say they were less skilled and leave it at that. But it made for a lot of variety in the games. I wasn't around for the old emblem based rank system, but I get the impression that 2V8 is a lot like that older system. I don't know, maybe BHVR should try to bring a little bit more of that back into the match making?2v8 and 1v4 have differences that makes less strict matchmaking working in 2v8. With 8 survivors and the catch up mechanic, 1 survivor who isn't that good at the game is not that significant. 1v4 is really different, a single survivor well below the skill level of the others can basically decide the match.
1 -
Play killer, either love it or loathe it and then decide whether survivor is your bag of tea
0
