http://dbd.game/killswitch
Understanding the "Go Next" epidemic: why did it exist?
Greetings, friends of the Fog! I hope this discussion finds you doing well.
By now most of us have already seen that the Go Next Prevention mechanic was killswitched after the disaster that it caused when players got punished even if they did nothing wrong.
But I think that raises the question as to why such mechanic was added in the first place. And the answer may be obvious at first: the "Go Next" epidemic and the sheer amount of games where players decide to suicide on hook.
The answer is correct, sure, but I would like to propose a deeper discussion:
What was the origin of the "Go Next" epidemic? Why did such thing ever existed in the first place, and how did it reach a level so severe that changes were made to fundamental aspects of the game?
And if I were to share my own answer, I would say it was caused by a gradual deterioration of the survivor role. Because let's think for a second about the year I started playing DBD: 2018. Back then the game simply didn't have DC penalties, one could DC as much as they wanted to, with the only punishment being rank-related (the loss of a pip, if memory serves me right). And yet, people didn't disconnect like crazy every single game.
It happened sometimes, of course, especially with OG Legion, but I wouldn't call it an epidemic of its own.
However, back then there was more to the survivor role than there currently is. They still had proper resources, they didn't have to worry about waves and waves of gen-related killer perks, stealth was still a viable playstyle, killers weren't as oppressive, and the list goes on.
But we all know that changed in more recent times. Survivors lost most of what they had available to them, and nothing was really given. They die more often, their objectives are harder to do (due to perks), and generally speaking they have a worse experience. It is a lack of everything, and it seems to me that was the primary reason for the massive increase of hook suicides.
Let me know what you think, please share your thoughts, any feedback is welcome!
Why do you think the "Go Next" epidemic existed?
Comments
-
To start with I'd like to say that 'going next' had always been a thing way before it was considered this problem that needed rectifying via in-game mechanics.
Though, the introduction of DC penalties was ultimately what led to it increasing since before, 'Going next' meant just DCing whenever you couldn't be bothered with that particular match. Then it warped into giving up on hook instead since there was no punishment for doing so apart from lowering your MMR (Which 90% of people do not care about).
I think saying mass DCing wasn't an issue back then is quite wrong, because it certainly was from my experience. It was even worse back then because there was no bots so the survivor team were even more screwed than they would be these days if someone DC'd.
Now to sort of get into the reason as to 'why' people do it. It's usually just people not liking how the match has went for them and are already "mentally checked out" as some would put it. There's too many factors to list as to why this might happen but the more common ones would be something like
"I went down too fast due to xyz being bs."
"I hate this killer/their perks because xyz."
"My teammates aren't playing well enough so I'm out"
"This game's already lost so I might as well re-queue"
"The killer has 150+ ping" (Personally I think wanting out of a game vs a bad ping killer is completely 100% justified, it's completely miserable).
The survivor role hasn't 'lost' most of what they had available to them. Most of the strong meta perks are almost identical to how they used to be. The only ones that are different from the good old days are:
- Dead Hard being limited to twice per match and is an endurance based mechanic instead of getting a dash + iframes. Also doesn't work while in deep wound.
- Decisive Strike turns off if you progress the game state and is 4 seconds instead of 5
- BT was added as basekit because the perk was REQUIRED back then to have a chance of not being tunnelled off hook
- Balanced Landing was nerfed because of it creating semi-infinites with old maps.
- Iron will did get nerfed to 75% at one point but was buffed back to 100%
- Resillience is the exact same as its always been
- Spine Chill yeah was completely gutted to kill the vault build, but then we got finesse which kinda fills the same role.
I will say survivor was made harder in the following areas:
- Gens being 90s despite what some people say, was a noticeable change in my opinion.
- A lot of maps had their strong tile generation changed to no longer generate as many jungle gyms and weaker tiles were added in their place
- Some maps like Haddonfield have barely any pallets to begin with and all the windows were nerfed in some way
- Medkits being nerfed made it so relying on teammates to heal you was more important, at least after COH was heavily nerfed
That's what comes to my mind at least.
-9 -
It was caused because there was a quick and easy way to ragequit, that bypassed the DC penalties.
It was also caused by streamers that would publicly ragequit whenever they didn’t feel like playing a game, which taught survivors that there aren’t any real penalties for ragequitting in small doses.
I’ve seen streamers say things like “Wraith is boring”, and then ragequit. Like, there are videos of streamers publicly admitting to ragequitting for trivial reasons, and they never got punished for it.
-20 -
I really don't have a straight answer. I have my own scenarios, but I doubt they would reflect the general reasons for the community as a whole.
Though there have been some people who have opined that the devs should try to consider why people give up, no one has ever started an honest discussion on it until now. Therefore I want to say thank you for starting this discussion.
9 -
Thanks bots, worst addition to the game to date. You could blame the killer for a tantrum of your teammates, after all, there was a bot waiting on the bench that probably played better than them.
-16 -
Why do you think the "Go Next" epidemic existed?
Because this playerbase is ridiculously whiny, even more so than OVERWATCH'S. And that game literally has an abundance of actual conspiracy theorists. Want proof? Look at the people on my thread, complaining about Self Care of all things.
Dbd is genuinely not worth the mental energy or effort the people on here and in-game put into it. They take it way too seriously, and treat it like a competitive game. It's not one. And having that mindset makes it SUPER easy to tilt. So after a session of getting progressively more tilted, people see a killer they don't like? Poof, gone. A perk they don't like? Poof, gone. A teammate accidentally sandbags them? Poof, gone.
My solution is to just…not treat the game as anything more than casual fun. I never DC on either role unless facing/playing with a cheater.
-24 -
Well, to be fair, my friend, the list of changed things you've mentioned covers almost the entirety of the survivor meta. We can also add perks like Self-Care to the list, or WGLF losing its bloodpoint bonuses, or Adrenaline getting nerfed. What did remain intact were perks like Sprint Burst and Lithe, but with the maps sorely lacking in resources the speed bonus has a chance of leading you towards a deadzone.
Personally, I never had a problem with massive amounts of DCs in the past, outside of Original Legion. Seems to me it is a "modern DBD problem", if I may put it that way.
Yes, there are countless cases in the community of players replicating content creators, but I am not certain on how much influence they had on this matter in particular.
Thank you, my friend! I think it is important for us to understand why this whole thing started, because otherwise it will never be fixed.
And please, my friend, do share your scenarios! Every point of view is welcome in my discussions!
16 -
I feel like thers was a big spike around the 3 gen era with Merchant's golden days, and it didn't stop since.
28 -
I forgot about Adrenaline, that's my bad.
Though imo it was made healthier by not creating scenarios where killers had to 'adren-check' survivors in the endgame by dropping them off their shoulder. It was lame for both sides. Plus it countered Freddy for no reason, glad they removed that.
WGLF lost it's BP bonus and so did BBQ but BP gains were increased on the survivor-side ten fold. In my games I quite often get 30k per game and I'm not like a super good survivor or anything I just do stuff in all categories a lot. Modern WGLF is a much better perk for actual gameplay though.
Self care, yeah fair that perk is dead in the water.
-3 -
How are bots such a terrible addition?
It's better to have at least something after a DC, instead of just one less player, is it not?
16 -
And if I said that 6.1.0 is to blame for shifting the community's mentality away from fun-based to competitive-based, the pinnacle of which was removing BBQ/WGLF stacks, which in-turn made the go-next issue so severe because people stopped playing a game for fun, or for their own personal goals (especially BBQ/WGLF) and instead just to win so when the odds of winning were less than 75% they'd just give up
21 -
Interesting thoughts General and yes I do agree overall, I think this is probably the hardest time to play survivor in my experience (I also remember the horrors of OG Legion lol). Even though we have more information than ever by default, matches are harder and sometimes can feel hopeless right from the start.
For me the primary reason I may not be into a match is the killer, I just do not enjoy a lot of the killers in the last couple of years and as you say, it can feel somewhat hopeless early on in a match in ways that you probably could have got through years ago.
Either way, I do think the real solution probably is more in the WHY people go next so often, rather than trying to force people to play matches they don't want to be in, as I don't think that will work.
Final thing I have to add, anyone notice how few people DC/go next in 2v8? The answer to how to reduce it lies in there somewhere I think!
20 -
I've said this a dozen times, and I'll continue to say it:
People have always given up for petty reasons (didn't like the killer, map, whatever), but people have not gotten more petty over time.
Game balance is the reason. Matches are basically decided in the first one or two minutes anymore, and there isn't really an incentive to stick it out to recover a losing match.
If you get unlucky, and found first, you're likely going to just be tunneled out, have basically not even played the game, and you'll get maybe 5k BP for the trouble. Maps, resources, perks that would maybe help with that in the past have all been nerfed in the great name of "increasing kill rates because they felt like it", and anything that could resemble fun suffers.
Most of the time, even having hope in the match is too much to ask for. And, unfortunately, survivor gameplay entirely hinges on the players having some hope of escape. Take away that hope, and you get "go next" epidemic, because this match is irrecoverable, but maybe the next match will be better. Maybe.
33 -
Spot on. Survivor used to have more play styles and was overall easier to play. Everything skill expression has been nerfed or removed and it has left survivor in a very bland and stale state.
Also, survivor is way harder to play now and killer is insanely easier. New players can literally play killer and 4K. But, what about survivor?
It's like taking any game and making it worse, worse, and worse and then people finding games not worth it anymore and then saying, oh gee, let's trap them in the game. It's such a big slap on face.
Go next and AFK crows is such a silly addition. It all should be deleted and focus on literally making matches more worth playing.
26 -
Yeah I feel like bots get underused because people find ways to avoid the penalty for DCing.
I think we have all played matches where a team mate DC'd and the bot that replaced them was more useful than the survivor who DC'd lol
3 -
I think the worst time to play survivor was during the eruption meta. If you were playing Solo Q there was virtually no way to avoid the incapacitation penalty unless you knew exactly when the survivor in chase was about to go down. Not being allowed to play the game for 20s+ was completely miserable
13 -
Actually yeah, though were are still in a very similar environment, the Eruption/COB gen kick meta was absolute misery and I actually quit the game for a few months until they sorted that out. But fair point, that was a uniquely terrible low for survivors lol
12 -
The go next epidemic must have started some time, when I was playing dbd barely ( 2021-2023), because I was kinda surprised how often people killed themselfs on the hook, when I returned.
Yeah DC were an issue back then in the early games, but after the DC penalties were introduced, it got way better. And that stayed for a while. So yeah I think it is a general mindshare shift which must have started some time during that time.
Though I think it's still the better way forward to adress it. Because soona mindshare shift has started it won't go away otherwise.0 -
- Dcing was punished to harsh. If people don‘t want to play out their match, they should be allowed to leave and give their teammates a bot.
- Giving up on hook was too easy to do.
- Ending yourself on hook bypassed the dc penalty, which encouraged people to end themself rather than dcing and giving their team a bot.
- Too many unfun maps and killers for survivors.
- Camping and tunneling. Self explaining.
- The survivor experience was neglected for far too long.
- Skull merchant.
I also agree with your points GeneralV
19 -
Ragequitting got more popular because people learned there aren’t any real penalties, when survivors bypass the DC penalties.
A survivor could literally “Go Next” 20 times in the same day, and get 0 penalties if they used hooks to bypass the DC penalties.
-17 -
You're 100% correct. The average survivor experience is an exercise in frustration tolerance. Fun matches are few and far between and you mostly just feel like you're fodder to fuel another player's power fantasy.
30 -
It is possible, my dear friend, but I think Skull Merchant alone didn't create the issue.
Because, if she had created it, then it would have been something similar to Legion: Legion was horrible when they first released, every single match against them was miserable. But once they changed the killer, people didn't disconnect or suicide on hook every single time they got a Legion.
Skull Merchant should have followed the same logic, because the version of SM we had before her nerfs no longer caused a problem for the game. Sure, some people didn't like her, but she wasn't on the same level as OG Legion or her own release.
Good to see you, old friend!
Yes, I would agree. 6.1.0 did take away most of the tools which enabled more diverse playstyles, and what little remained was directed towards winning. BBQ / WGLF were indeed "alternate" win conditions for many players, who would prioritize the stacks over other things. This was especially healthy on the killer side with BBQ.
I agree, my friend!
The HUD changes are often mentioned as a net positive for survivors because of the information, but what use is there in knowing Meg is in chase when the map is Coldwind Farm and the killer is another anti-loop killer that will down her extremely fast?
I think this whole process of inflating the kill rates by taking away most of what survivors had just created, as you said, a feeling of being hopeless. Because when you mix a severely nerfed map with a killer that is extremely chase-oriented, a survivor cannot be reasonably expected to protect themselves, which creates a miserable experience.
I hope this thread helps paint a clearer picture as to why people choose to go next, so we can come up with a better solution.
Maps, resources, perks that would maybe help with that in the past have all been nerfed in the great name of "increasing kill rates because they felt like it", and anything that could resemble fun suffers.
I agree completely.
It is basically what I define as a gradual deterioration of the survivor role, depriving them of most resources they used to have, to a point where a survivor cannot be reasonably expected to protect themselves.
25 -
Thanks for opening this discussion General. I think a lot of conversations around the “go next” epidemic tend to oversimplify the issue by framing it as a survivor problem, when in reality, it reflects a broader dissatisfaction with the game’s state, just like we’ve seen in the past with killer players.
Historically, the game has gone through clear imbalances. Early DBD heavily favored survivors, with things like infinite loops and permanent hook sabotage, keys with hatch etc . Killer players became burned out, and unhappy, many started leaving, prompting Behavior to make sweeping balance changes. Eventually leading to all kinds of good balance changes/mechanics like Bloodlust, reworking maps, and even adjusting the post-game screen from “The Entity is Displeased” to “The Entity Hungers” to reduce demoralization. That frustration was recognized as valid, and the devs responded. The game we have today is proof that changes were made, because killer frustrations were taken seriously (thankfully!).
Now that survivors are expressing frustration, it’s often dismissed as entitlement or a refusal to adapt. But that double standard is part of the problem. Players quitting or mentally checking out of matches isn’t exclusive to one role, it’s a symptom of feeling powerless, burnt out, or unheard. Whether it’s killers or survivors, both have had their turn feeling neglected by balance or design decisions.
In my opinion, the “go next” behavior is a response/symptom to perceived hopelessness, whether due to mechanics, matchmaking, map RNG, or killer powers that feel overwhelming, with no way to practice against them. The survivor role has become much more knowledge dense, and I think many times it’s less of a skill issue and more of a skill gap. There is just so much knowledge you need to have in order to be competent, and you currently have no way to practice that knowledge, unlike killers who can practice against bots in a custom mode. (A resource I celebrate that killers have access to, and am very vocal about the same resource becoming available to survivors as well)
Ultimately, I feel it shouldn’t be a battle over which side suffers more. The goal should be to make both roles feel satisfying and fair. Dismissing survivor concerns today is no different than ignoring killer concerns from years past. If players want the game to thrive, then players should care about other players, regardless of their preferred role.25 -
Dcing was punished to harsh. If people don‘t want to play out their match, they should be allowed to leave and give their teammates a bot.
No. People should not be able to ragequit just because brainless bots exist.
Don't queue up if you're going to ragequit & ruin the match for everyone else.Too many unfun maps and killers for survivors.
Sorry but the Killer doe snot have to pick who they play based on Survivor 'fun', or, with a large enough player base; every Killer would be banned except the easiest to beat.
Camping and tunneling. Self explaining.
Not really. This just says Survivors will quit if the Killer breaks made-up rules.
The survivor experience was neglected for far too long.
ROFL! Survivors are coddled with EVERYTHING they want to counter Killers being made basekit so their precious meta remains untouched.
But they always want more, more, more.-32 -
Yes, the survivor role received an extreme amount of changes that took away most of what they had. And this deterioration of the survivor ole just creates scenarios where they have almost nothing to work with, no way of properly defending themselves against the increasingly high number of anti-loop and dash killers, arguably the most difficult killers to deal with.
While I do not think killer is the easiest it has ever been (though DBD is not in its most balanced state ever and it isn't even close to it), the killer role itself seems to have received more attention in recent times than the survivor role, which hasn't received any improvements in a long time.
Hello friend, good to see you here!
While I do agree with your points, my friend, I think Skull Merchant is more of a reflection than the cause. I mean, she caused the DCs when she first released, of course, but the DCs should have stopped the moment she was changed to no longer cause an actual problem for the game.
The context of the survivor role itself affected her too, I'd say.
And it seems to me, my friend, that you're no longer expected to even "win" a chase anymore. Time efficiency seems to be more prominent than every other aspect in modern DBD, which just creates a miserable experience, even for killers.
11 -
If survivors really were 'coddled' the experience wouldn't be as frustrating as it is. You could easily make the same argument about all the survivor nerfs over the years to make it more fair for killers
Neither side is coddled, it's just one side (Survivor) hasn't really changed all that much in recent years. Good or bad, it's mostly static with everything changing around it like maps, tiles and so on.
21 -
I full on think that people who try to defend the go next stuff or try to provide some valid reasons as to why it happen, is a bit ignorant sorry to say. Not because you can't do it or not that those reasons aren't valid for the overall experience of survivor. The problem is, those reasons aren't why people leave.
Someone isn't leaving early due to "deteriorating survivor role" because those things aren't even in effect when people leave.
People will see a killer they don't like… and leave. People will have a bad chase… and leave. People's TEAMMATES will have a bad chase… and leave. People will not like the map they're on… and leave.
none of those have to do with a "deteriorating survivor role", they have to do with players being entitled. And it isn't just a survivor thing, it happens with killer too. If the game isn't perfect. A map they want, a killer they like, and a good first chase? They'll leave.
But dbd is genuinely the ONLY multiplayer game I've ever seen where people will try to defend leavers and people who give up, it's hilarious. This mindset of defending leavers gets bullied in any other community because why are we defending people who ruin the experience for everyone else. If you don't like the game and survivor has been "too deteriorated" for you… STOP PLAYING. Stop playing the game, play something else, instead of ruining the experience of everyone who actually enjoys / wants to play the game.
It's like people who leave feel OBLIGATED to play the game, even though they are immensely unhappy with it. So then all that ends up happening is ruining it for everyone else, whilst they stay unhappy.
-23 -
Ultimately bhvr never even tried to question why people are giving up on hook so much recently. Instead they just decided to "fix" the illusional fact of "go next" to make it look better to the outside. Just ignoring the facts that survivor role has been butchered over the past years into a dull plaything for the killer role.
18 -
No problem, my friend, thank you for your comment!
I think you've raised an interesting perspective. In fact, the only reason why this post doesn't talk about the killer side of things is because the killer role cannot avoid the DC penalty. They have no way of going next without going through the system designed to deal with such scenarios.
Regarding balance, I think DBD followed a path where it started as very survivor sided during the early days, then somewhat more balanced, then the tide shifted towards killers and that is where I think we currently are. That isn't to say that the killer role is the easiest it has ever been, of course not, but generally speaking there isn't much being stacked against killers right now. There hasn't been for quite some time.
But, as you've said, there seems to be a certain double-standard regarding survivor's complaints, as if they aren't as valid as the killer's complaints used to be.
There seems to be a misunderstanding, this post of mine isn't "defending" anything.
The point here isn't to tell people that every single DC or hook suicide was justified. The idea is to understand why they happened, why the modern DBD had a severe problem of players choosing to "go next" every other match.
18 -
Oh I'm not saying you're defending it I'm talking about overall and specifically about those that defend it, because that's what I see this forum filled with. This forum is filled with people who would be laughed at in any other community, because in no other community can you get away with defending people who leave and give up.
You know what the other communities will say? The same thing I say… stop playing and move on instead of ruining the experience of those who actually still enjoy it and want to play.
Survivor has not been butchered into a dull plaything for the killer role.
-15 -
You know what the other communities will say? The same thing I say… stop playing and move on instead of ruining the experience of those who actually still enjoy it and want to play.
To be honest, I think this wouldn't really address the problem.
Let me give you an example: I am not sure if you were around for the Realm Beyond changes, but if you were someone who really enjoyed aspects of the Old DBD, like I do, the peak of the Realm Beyond changes was a miserable time to be playing the game. Basically, you would see everything you liked being changed, to a point where it felt as if you're not playing DBD anymore.
And during those days, I complained a lot. A fellow Forum member, someone I consider a good friend and a positive presence here, suggested that maybe I should take a break, just step away from DBD for a while because it seemed I wouldn't enjoy the direction the game was going. Now, I have nothing against them and never will, they suggested what they thought was best and that is perfectly okay, but I didn't want to leave the game. I just didn't want to see a game I loved become something I hated.
I personally think it is better to discuss things and try to find a solution instead of just letting go.
It does seem to me, my friend, that there indeed wasn't an attempt to try and understand why the "go next" epidemic existed in the first place. I hope this discussion can help us understand it.
13 -
Players didn't DC often back then because there was a penalty. You lost a pip and players did care somewhat about them. Yes, there were players that depip on purpose to have easier games. Another reason why the the go-next is happening. You can't have easy games anymore. The SBMM system (when working somewhat) puts you in a match where you can't bully baby killers or baby survivors. That's where a lot of people got there kicks and now they are pissed.
Survivors lost most of what they had available to them
Lets name some:
Lost the ability to insta blind the killer.
Lost the ability to insta complete a gen.
Lost the ability to heal in chase.
Lost the ability to run to a part of a map and be perfectly safe.
Lost the ability to escape with others through the hatch.
Lost the ability to determine the facing direction of the killer on pickup.
Lost the ability to blind the killer when pulling a survivor out of a locker.
Many more can be found here: (For both sides)
-15 -
You can have those discussions about what to improve but again, if you are actively playing a game you are not enjoying anymore and you are literally just ruining the experience of everyone else in the game, then yes. You need to stop playing.
Have those discussion while not playing.
-14 -
Super honest question. Are there any solutions that would make you happy, that don’t involve reverting things back to how they were in Old DBD?
-12 -
This is exactly what I did for a time
I found I wasn't enjoying either role, so I stopped. Played other games and when I came back a few months ago I found the game to be more enjoyable than it was back then.
I'm not saying everyone will feel the same way but if your mindset is you hate the current state of the game, chances are if you keep playing it your opinions will only strengthen, not change.
-1 -
I think there are valid points here and I'd agree at the current time, the game is quite Killer-sided unless a serious SWF is in play and I hope soloQ Survivors can get a better chance in lobbies in the near future.
However, I think it's worth saying that many players who go next don't always correctly identify these things. I'm sure we've all seen people go next when the match was not decided by any means, or people who have very odd criteria for going next eg. "I don't play against BS Killers like Ghostface!!" IMO it's a cultural thing caused by the roster of recent Killer releases:
- Skull Merchant releases in a state that compels a large chunk of the Survivor playerbase to essentially boycott any match with her. Her state is indeed awful and she is not only butchered with nerfs but also causes fundamental changes to the game to make sure her situation doesn't happen again.
- Singularity releases and is an extremely strong Killer.
- Xenomorph releases and while its certainly not top tier (beyond that, its strength is arguable, could be mid or low tier depending on who you ask) its tail strike can definitely feel futile to play against in a chase
- Chucky releases in a strong state, becomes very popular fast, gets fundamentally reworked to avoid aspects of his power people felt were unfair.
- Unknown releases and is a very strong Killer.
- Vecna releases and is decent.
- Dracula releases and is an extremely strong Killer.
- Houndmaster releases and is a very strong Killer.
- Kaneki releases and is an extremely strong Killer, and also smashes records as the most popular Killer in the game. He also releases in a state that a lot of people argue, and still contest, is perhaps unfair and has earned him some nerfs already
The roster of A-Tier Killers, and the overall percieved strength of Killers, has been totally rewritten by the past couple of years of releases. If you compare this to the era BHVR were releasing Nemesis, Pinhead, Artist, Sadako, Dredge etc, the average Killer strength standards are night and day, and it's very understandable why A-tier after A-tier would exhaust people. And right before this massive run of supercharged Killers, we got Skull Merchant normalising the idea that if you think a Killer design is BS, you should probably just give up. It's pretty clear from that how we got here
11 -
I'm going to start off by mentioning that I started playing DBD slightly before they added Legion, and I mainly played killer. So I'm going to try to not sound biased.
When it comes to the og survivors, survivors were at their strongest.
- Infinites
- Double pallets at almost every loop
- Exhaustion perk were on a cooldown
- No gen regression
- Barely any aura reading perk
- 'Hide and seek' was viable
Over time as all things do, things change. So each patch/update would bring changes that would in someway nerf survivors.
While there weren't that many dcs at the time, as the new update brought in more killers/perks/nerfs dcing started to rise. To me it seemed like survivors felt that how they could express their skill was slowly being put into a meat grinder.
Especially when it came to certain map changes, from getting smaller, loops getting smaller, more dead zones, etc. This can also make survivors feel as if they can't properly express their skill.
To bring it back to the topic of killer, Nurse is probably the first offense to the up rise of dcs. The only way a survivor could 'defend themselves' were with loops and pallets, yet here is this killer that makes those defenses null, especially with the add-on combo with 5-7 blinks.
Over time they added more killers and perks that survivors found unfun, especially OG legion. So devs see that more and more survivors are dcing for 'xyz' reasons so they add a dc penalty, but since those 'xyz' reasons are still there they swap to giving up on hook.
- Nurse, Blight, Spirit, etc.
- Strong Killer add-ons
- 4 gen slowdown/regression meta
- 3 gen being the meta playstyle
Next thing you know Skull Merchant arrives, and people were already skeptical about her of her stalling potential during 3-gen. Eventually a specific loadout is found where you can basically hold the game hostage till the server boots you out, and soon (in my case) every match agaisnt SM was using this build. So the 'hate-train' comes and every game the mentality is just "gg go-next". As each new unfun/strong killer is released it adds more to the go-next mentality.
With perks mainly slowdow, regression, and aura reading it made games for survivor less fun. With how many aura perks for killer are added, the 'hide and seek' playstyle is gone, more slowdown/regress brought in the meta of 4 slowdown/regression loadouts, and slugging perks brought in the 'slug till bleedout' meta. These loadouts also added to the go-next mentality.
Killer play styles are also a culprit in why go-next is a thing. For things like:
- Playing for the 3-gen (Killers would see where the closest 3-gen was and wouldn't leave that area, forcing the survivors to come to them)
- Hard tunneling, camping, and slugging (basically made survivors feels as if they weren't allowed to play the game)
- Hit and run (this play style was boring, especially if a survivor prefers the chase over doing gens)
- Slug till bleedout (should be self explanatory)
I also have the feeling that the slow shift of 'winning over having fun' mentality has also drifted players to go-next.
There are probably some things I missed, so if anyone would like to add onto this I would appreciate that.
21 -
To be honest, my friend, no.
I wouldn't say I am extremely unhappy with the current DBD. I am playing every day, and I can say I am having fun. But deep down it isn't the DBD I want to play and it never will be, because the DBD I want to play stayed in 2018.
However, there is one central aspect here: Freddy. OG Freddy matters more to me than anything else in DBD. If I could have OG Freddy back, nothing else would bother me. He WAS Dead by Daylight, if that makes sense.
Yes, I agree.
And I would say that the issue of killer design is amplified by the game around it, as they wouldn't be as difficult to deal with as they are if survivors still had better resources to work with.
9 -
There shouldn't have to be a DC to begin with. Bots only prolong an inevitable outcome, wasting everyone's time. They have been used to justify unsportsmanlike conduct and blame the opponent for it.
-5 -
Respectfully, I think there’s a big difference between defending the “go next” mindset and trying to understand why it’s happening in the first place. You can recognize a harmful behavior without excusing it, and trying to unpack the reasons behind it isn’t ignorance, it’s how progress is made. If you don’t understand what’s driving people to disengage, you have no real way of preventing it from continuing
This isn’t about making excuses or encouraging people to throw games. It’s about facing the uncomfortable truth that dissatisfaction isn’t exclusive to survivors and that many “go next” behaviors are symptoms of deeper frustration. Saying “just stop playing” ignores that frustration entirely. Worse, it dismisses feedback that could actually lead to improvement.
The same could have been said to killer players years ago, back when the game was heavily tilted in the survivors’ favor and killers had to deal with extremely frustrating mechanics. But thankfully, those concerns weren’t dismissed as entitlement. The devs listened, changes were made, and now the killer role is in a much healthier place because of it. That same understanding shouldn’t disappear now just because it's survivors who are now frustrated.
DBD is a game built on change. New perks, new killers, new mechanics, the game is constantly evolving. That means the conversation around balance and frustration should evolve too. Understanding why something is happening isn’t justification,it’s the first step toward solving it.
And to be blunt: DBD doesn’t tend to change until something forces it to. Exploits, broken perk combos, and dramatic shifts in behavior are what usually prompt action. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that we’re now getting anti-tunnel, anti-camp, and anti-slugging updates (whatever they end up being) right after the go-next wave. These tactics have existed since the game’s launch, but it’s only now—after mass pushback and visibility that meaningful changes are being made.
It’s unfortunate that it takes things reaching a breaking point to spark change. But that’s always been how DBD works. And whether you agree with the go-next mindset or not, pretending the frustration behind it isn’t real or based on anything substantial doesn't help anything progress forward.
13 -
My ideas for why there is / was a "go next" epidemic:
Every new Killer is incredibly strong, with multiple complicated powers that are simply too much for a lot of Survivor players to deal with. Listen, I've got a 35% escape rate. Do you think I can deal with a Killer that has 4 powers like Vecna, when I struggle against the dude who can step in his own traps?
The addition of bots probably didn't help the situation. More Survivors were inclined to stick it out through the rough matches because they knew their team would be a man down if they DC'd. But with bots available, players resent being kept in those miserable games by a draconian DC penalty system that will punish them for giving the lobby a bot. So instead, they do the obvious thing and chose to die on hook to avoid the penalty.
It's a low stakes casual game with the DC penalty system of a "serious" competitive one (which has now become even more punishing in the latest patch).
Player burnout building up to a frustrated exit. I'm sure everyone has had a rough run of games, thinking the next one will be better, only to be instantly proven otherwise. Some players just can't stop playing when they really should.
A lack of Killer variety / no repeat prevention (more of an issue at the extremes of MMR). When Survivors are facing their 4th Ghostie or Myers of the day or a succession of Blights / Nurses / Spirits / Ghouls etc, can you really blame them for dipping in the hope of facing a different Killer in their next game?
The lack of a functional MMR system being evident at times, leading to players throwing in the towel early. It's not just Survivors, either. Overmatched Killers give up or DC too, which can be just as bad, rare as it is for me to be on the winning side.
By design, Killers have comeback mechanics (slugging, camping and tunnelling). Survivors do not. Therefore, some Survivors decide to go next on first hook early game because they know there's no coming back from a very poor start. Once the Killer has 2 on death hook at 4 gens, the game is basically over. But as Killer, it often feels like you can make something happen in the end game, maybe even get a kill or two if you keep playing.
The finisher mori causing an uptick in slugging for the 4K to deny hatch, meaning that Survivors rarely get a shot at a personal "win" condition in games that are otherwise a dead loss. There might come a point when the hatch may as well not be in the game.
A competitive focus to balancing but a total lack of anything to compete for. There are no ranks or rewards at stake, so why is the game becoming as sweaty as it is?
16 -
It's because of the lack of real balance and the continual changes that remove Surv agency from gameplay. The game has been balanced around SWF with nerfs to all Survs outright which has really damaged the role and created this entire situation, which has been a long time coming. SWF's don't kill themselves on hook, the going next epidemic was a SoloQ problem and BHVR is uninterested in actually trying to improve it beyond forcing Survs to sit in matches through punishing game mechanics.
It doesn't help that BHVR keeps releasing over tuned Killers riddled with bugs with disregard for the affect on the game since they are focused on generating quick profit. It still boggles my mind how half the Killer roster has immense map traversal that have no counter with all new Killers having insane map traversal (FNAF literally has teleportation doors that are directly kissing most gens) yet most maps have been nerfed in size.
There also have been no actual deterrents or changes to Killers tunneling/camping/slugging and that's been increasing in severity for years, leading to SoloQ not wanting to sit in matches that are a complete waste of time. This new afk and "go next" prevention proves that BHVR has no idea how to actually meaningfully develop this IP.
The forums also highlight this, with most people talking about "objectives" need to be done or how Killers and SWF have a right to play however they want to play…. there's little to no emphasis or rhetoric about what is fun and what can be done to make the game more fun.
The entire issue stems from the game not really being that enjoyable but having an addictive gameplay loop built off of screwing others over.
7 -
Its simple, up until now, this was one of the only multiplayer games that just didn't punish it. Look at any other team-based multiplayer game:
- Counter strike
- Rainbow Six Siege
- Valorant
- Overwatch
- Team Fortress
- League of Legends
- DotA 2
- Smite
- Heroes of the STorm
- Starcraft
- Warcraft
- WoW
- Final fantasy 14
- Rocket League
- World of Tanks/Warplanes/Ships
- PUBG
- Fortnite
You get the idea. Every single one of these would punish you for griefing your team, or "feeding" or otherwise giving up. At least when not playing on their casual modes (like CS Deathmatch for example).
DBD is one of the only games i have played that allows it (at least up until now)
-11 -
I agree, my friend, and I think the last point is particularly severe because it damages the whole DBD experience by trying to turn the game into something that it isn't.
DBD isn't competitive, it never was, never will be. So it shouldn't be approached like one.
To be fair, my friend, most of these games are competitive games, unlike DBD.
I think the game didn't really punish the "go next" thing because it wasn't really a problem, until recently when it became an epidemic.
10 -
My point is the things people list as changes necessary or changes that have happened that negatively impact survivor are things that don't even OCCUR at the time people DC.
Someone having a bad first chase, is unfixable. Someone not liking a certain killer, is unfixable. Someone's teammate having a bad chase, so THEY go up to the killer and suicide, is unfixable.
You can't do anything about those scenarios and those are the ones that tend to happen the most. I play killer and those happen CONSTANTLY. They will give up over the most non-existent problems achievable. You can make a bunch of improvements but at the end of the day, these people aren't even making it far enough into the game for those improvements you suggest to change anything. They just don't like the game not starting out perfect or meeting their conditions (a killer and map they enjoy).
-6 -
Don't think you're missing anything, my friend, I think that was spot-on.
5 -
There is no question that certain players will rage quit for absolutely no good reason. This is not limited to either role, nor is it limited to this particular game. It's nota a DBD issue, it's a human being issue. I understand your point, that some players quit for unreasonable or petty reasons. I agree that those specific situations aren’t things the devs can realistically fix, and that kind of behavior is frustrating.
But those examples shouldn’t erase the more valid cases where frustration builds up over time. The fact that some people quit over “nothing” doesn’t mean everyone is doing it for no actual frustrating reason, and it doesn’t mean the game is above improvement. That logic feels a bit like saying, “Because some people are unreasonable, no changes are worth making” which doesn’t hold up. That wouldn't have been the right solution back then, and it isn't the right solution now. We can acknowledge that some players will always act irrationally and still recognize that certain specific issues contribute to people giving up.
It’s not about this illusion that we can somehow fix every rage quit. It's about reducing the most contributing factor(s) into why it happens. And the way you do that is by addressing the core frustrations that push reasonable players to their limit. Not every DC is petty, but that doesn't mean it's right. You can do the wrong thing for the right reasons. And you can do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons as well. Ignoring all criticism just because some of it is unreasonable is not a good reason to ignore chances for improvement.
I don't agree that it's right to point to the existence of some unreasonable behavior and use it to dismiss the validity of any effort to improve things. With that kind of logic the game would simply never change because there will always be unreasonable humans.
8 -
I'm not saying that changes aren't worth making. I'm saying that a MAJORITY of the reasons why people quit are unfixable. The reasons I listed why people quit happen 10x more. I've seen it playing both killer and playing survivor. Hell, I'm typing this after I JUST had my teammates give up with 3 of us alive and on one gen left (and not even in a 3 gen either). You can't solve that and it's the majority.
You can make sweeping changes to fix the minority of reasons why someone would quit but the majority will still be there and it won't go away.
There are more unreasonable go next's, compared to reasonable go next's. You can fix the reasonable ones but the "go next" epidemic isn't about the reasonable ones. It's about the unreasonable ones. The unsolvable ones.
-3 -
Just starting out with I'm not saying these are justifiable/OK reasons to go next, I'm not defending going next, just that I think these are some reasons that have lead to the increase in the mentality to go next.
SBMM causing matchmaking to only count gate escapes/kills, challenges to complete rifts, time limited rifts/events/modes causing burnout, and doing more to make Survivor escape rate 40% but not really doing anything to increase the fun of playing survivor.
In both the old rank matchmaking and SBMM any survivor that has played enough can tell the likelyhood at the start of match if it will be a match they could win or will lose. With the old rank mode you could have a match you knew you wouldn't escape but at the very least you could do things to prevent dropping ranks and being matched with worse teammates. While the ranking system had its issues it allowed you to at the very least safety pip just by playing out a losing match so it did encourage people to stick it out and do bare minimum to be a useful teammate. If you hid all match for hatch and didn't do anything to help the team you weren't going to be rising in the ranks to be matched with those that were useful (rainbow ranks matchmaking being exception). With SBMM there's no saving your matchmaking for better teammates the next round, dying in first 5 minutes is the same as dying in 15 minutes. That incentive to stick out a match is gone.
While rift/challenges are a way to get people to play DBD way more often it also made people not want to waste time in matches they wouldn't be able to progress/complete a challenge. Need to use Deliverance but are first found and hooked, need to do something/stay in killers terror radius but it's scratched mirrors Myers, need to blind killer but they're running Lightborn, need to get iri emblem in Unbroken but you are hooked once, etc. would all be situations people would go next rather than play the match. Is it a good reason to quit? No but the rift itself is limited time, most people have a limited amount of time to spend gaming and playing out a 10-15 match to not really progress the rift isn't worth it to them to stay in when they could go next and try again.
There's already no real break between the time limited rifts. There's now alot of time limited events/modes throughout the year. Add in new DLCs atleast every 3 months (sometimes sooner) so people have a short window at release to use new perks/killer before nerfs and before people have optimal gameplay figured out. The intent is using FOMO to keep people playing, the problem is this also doesn't give people a good opportunity to take breaks and cool off from what is a game designed to frustrate. People are getting burned out and rather than taking a break they're playing through the burnout because there is constantly something else that is time limited in the game to play/earn. When people are burned out they are more easily frustrated so are morely likely to rage quit/go next. While the new go next penalty may seem like good idea to force people to take a break it's going to just increase this issue since they also changed the penalty from decaying over time to requiring 20 matches to be played - instead of just taking a break from playing until the player has cooled off they need to play more which will just continue to add to the burnout frustration.
It's fine that they want the survivor escape rate to be lower than killer but if they want people to play/stick around in a match where they are likely to lose then the fun for that side needs to make up for the frustration of losing more than winning. Most of survivor gameplay is boring. Survivors don't get basekit powers to play around with, they're just skins. Most of the survivor gameplay is staying in one spot - gen for 90 seconds for multiple gens, heal for 16 seconds, totem for 14 seconds, hang on hook not playing game for 70 seconds for 2 hook states, and lay on ground doing nothing for 4 minutes. Gens and hooks have skill checks but those aren't fun, they're just annoying pop ups to make it seem like you're doing something more than staying in one spot. The only interactive gameplay that isn't just sit in one spot is the chase which is why people say it's the most fun part of the game, but on average a survivor spends 1 minute of a match in a chase (so 20 seconds a chase) - it's sad that is such a short time for what is considered the most fun part of the game and it's something that tends to be hit with nerfs to keep it short. Perks to extend the chase tend to have not fun requirements, killers received basekit buffs with the purpose to shorten chases, and there's a bunch of antiloop killers. The only other fun thing is blinding/stunning the killer but do that too many times in a match and the killer isn't having fun because they feel bullied, they leave match frustrated even if they got a 4k and bunch of BP. So when a survivor is going against a killer that increases the boring gameplay of the match where survivors are stuck in one spot and shortens the chase part (which is supposed to be the fun part of the match) it makes survivors quicker to pull the trigger on going next until they have a fun chase match.
9 -
I'm sorry, but no. This outlook is just not even trying to examine the issues or why they happen.
Someone having a bad first chase, is unfixable.
Sure, but you're leaving out the part where having a bad first chase also means the match is over for you. Full stop, you just didn't get to play, and literally good luck next. That part is fixable.
Someone not liking a certain killer, is unfixable.
This depends on why. You're right that someone with actual coulrophobia is going to hate clown, or someone who can't stand puking noises from plague isn't exactly a situation you can fix. But the roster is also big enough that giving people one "killer ban" and "map ban" slot is actually feasible.
But let's be honest here, a lot of the most hated killers come about because they're usually overtuned, or simply have a low skill floor and aren't exactly designed to be fun to face. Permanent mending against a legion or getting 3 genned by a skull merchant were design issues with the game and those killers, and the devs letting things get out of control (chess merchant) leads to this more often.
Someone's teammate having a bad chase, so THEY go up to the killer and suicide, is unfixable.
Yet if the matchmaker worked as it should, you likely wouldn't get 20 hour teammates. And again, if one bad chase means that the entire match is over, which is where we are today, then that part should be fixable.
The match shouldn't ever be completely decided in the first 60-90 seconds, unless there's a gigantic, massive skill discrepancy between teams. That also goes into matchmaking, but also balance, to where any killer with a pulse shouldn't be capable of going toe to toe with competitive teams (again, chess merchant).
And I keep bringing up the chess merchant example, simply because there are a number of people on these forums who seem to desperately want that kind of (im)balance back in the game - where slamming your face on the damage generator button is the only "skill" you need to effectively win every match.
There is room for improvement here, but if you're just going to throw up your hands and declare the problems to be unfixable... That sounds like giving up, which is, ironically, the exact problem we're talking about.
6 -
Thanks for clarifying! I think I understand your stance better now. I agree that there will always be unreasonable players who throw matches or give up for frustrating or petty reasons, and you're right: that part isn’t really fixable. But I don’t think that means we should give up on addressing the reasonable frustrations just because they might be the minority.
Even then, I’d say the line between “reasonable” and “unreasonable” isn’t always so clear-cut. But assuming for argument’s sake that most go-nexts are unreasonable, the next question becomes: what’s the solution?
Personally, I think BHVR has already started answering that. Removing the ability to unhook yourself and prolonging the second stage, those are mechanical changes specifically designed to reduce how easily someone can “go next.” It doesn’t eliminate it entirely (nothing could), but it makes it harder to throw. (though the current AFK system needs some work but they will continue to make tweaks as time goes on) The next logical step is to look at the reasonable frustrations that are driving people to give up in the first place. And from what we’ve seen, BHVR is already doing that too, with upcoming anti-camp, anti-slug, and anti-tunnel changes.
So in a way, isn't this the best possible scenario? The devs are discouraging giving up through mechanical changes while also planning updates to address deeper, more valid frustrations. And if that’s the case, then I think we’re on the same page here: yes, some players are unreasonable, but that doesn’t mean all feedback should be ignored. We can’t solve everything, but we can improve what’s fixable.
Am i understanding your stance correctly? Does this feel like we've reached a common ground?
3
