http://dbd.game/killswitch
Dc timer the following day?
I DC’d my last match yesterday and I’ve got a 5 minutes naughty corner today? Is this for real? At this point I don’t think they even want players in this game.
Comments
-
Idk if they changed the timer for the first penalty, but I would agree with the sentiment. The new "go-next prevention" system was so perfect, it was actually flagging innocent players (like those getting hard tunneled). The devs had to killswitch it due to all the false positives, which means they'll have to make it less perfect. Which will probably mean that some players will find a way to circumvent it.
So really, what are they trying to accomplish with this system?
4 -
The DC timer doesn't start now until you queue up for another game. I'm unsure if this is a bug or as intended, since the system now requires players to play games to clear a penalty point (meaning players can't take time away from the game anymore to reduce or avoid their penalty). It is harsh, but then the new system is intended to be so… 🤷
3 -
good, maybe you will stop dcing and ruining other peoples game now
0 -
The game prioritizes punishment with the latest patch. The DC timer doesn't count down unless you're running the game. Instead of avoiding DCing, I'd advise avoiding Survivor altogether.
10 -
Imagine continually ruining games for 4 other people and thinking you deserve to keep playing.
-8 -
The DC timer doesn't count down unless you're running the game.
This is weird to me. Do other PvP games do this?
It makes me think of those URL shortener sites that show fifty ads before letting you go forward and you have to have the tab active or else the timer stops counting down.
Is someone sitting waiting for the timer to count down included as an active player in DbD's stats?
5 -
Yes. Other multiplayer games do this. PVP and coop alike.
2 -
Wow. Okay, I didn't know other games forced you to keep the game open for the timer to count down. Learn something new every day.
Thank you very much for answering my question!
3 -
I'd assume the best way to cool down from a rage quit is to take a break. This new system stores your minutes until you log back in. The problem? They're saying you have to take that break while the game is still open. That would just make me more angry; I can't even close my laptop!
9 -
Just to add some perspective from other PvP games: In League of Legends (by Riot Games), one of the most popular competitive games worldwide, the penalty system is even stricter. After multiple disconnections, you're required to actively sit through a low-priority queue timer before you can play again.
For example, if you receive a 25-minute queue penalty and leave the queue even 1 minute before it ends, the entire timer resets back to 25 minutes. It gets even harsher… if you're in queue and someone else fails to accept the match (which you have no control over), the timer still resets.
Switching accounts doesn’t bypass the penalty either… the punishment remains until it's fully served, even if that takes months.
So yes, while the DC system in DBD might feel harsh to some, other games enforce even more rigid systems to discourage quitting or negative behavior.
1 -
Dear friend, it's DBD, not some comp League game (but they are balanced and no bugs like in DBD), DBD was always half casual unique game for me..
-4 -
Well, I respectfully disagree, friend.
Dead by Daylight is still a multiplayer game… one with a hidden MMR system and shared player experience. While I agree that the cheating issue is a serious and unique problem in DBD, that doesn’t exempt it from requiring a certain level of responsibility toward other players.
Regularly disrupting the experience for others should carry consequences, and personally, I think the idea of having to actively sit out a penalty in the queue is a fair and effective approach. That’s just my subjective opinion, of course… but I do hope BHVR also takes these kinds of perspectives into account when refining the system.
-4 -
I'm not going to leave my PC open with the game and wait for the penalty to end, thereby reducing the resource of my PC to please the comp killer players of DBD, to whom the devs listen, thereby spoiling the game to please you comp players, take a rest please and don't create meaningless suggestions
0 -
Whatever the punishment, we shouldn't have to keep the game open in order to wait it out, at least when it gets to the hour mark or more. People used to say that people should take a break if the game tilts them this much, but with this new system, that advice is no longer applicable.
5 -
Well, I believe we’ve reached a rather revealing point in this discussion.
If the mere expectation of staying logged in to serve a minor penalty is seen as "spoiling the game," then perhaps the problem isn't the penalty system, but the attitude toward multiplayer responsibility. I understand that Dead by Daylight isn't a traditional competitive title… but it's still a shared experience, and one's personal convenience shouldn't outweigh the experience of four other players.
So no, I don’t think asking people to remain logged in for the duration of their penalty is unreasonable. It's not about "pleasing comp players"… it's about respecting the premise of multiplayer fairness, however casual the setting may be.
And if that still feels too demanding… maybe the problem isn't the game.
-2 -
Im guessing this change was actually made with the "casual" players in mind. Alot of ppl got use to a "free DC" everyday. If you only played 3 or 4 games a day, you would essentially be allowed to ragequit from 25-33% of your games without penalty while ppl who played alot would have to behave themselves.
Basing it off games played rather than a daily timer would mean either type of player be treated more evenly. This way whether you play for 4 games a day or 400... if you're ragequitting from more than 5% of your matches, you'll start to feel it.
6 -
Thought they could skip the penalty but found out.
-1 -
Here's my perspective:
Having DC penalty tied JUST to time elapsed is a bad idea because theoretically every single match could be ruined by someone deciding to leave - they just decide that's going to be the last game of the day and they don't have to actually face any consequences. Realistically to fully prevent the worst case scenario you need to have a games played component to the penalty.
The games played buffer also needs to be greater than 5, because there are 5 players in a game. If you can freely DC once every 5 games, that's one DC per game between 5 people; every game could get ruined by a leaver with no punishment.
IDK if 20 is the right number, but there needs to be some games-played component to reducing the DC penalty. Maybe they should reduce it to 1 in 12 matches or something
"But I'm a casual player, I don't have time to play a bunch of games to get rid of the DC penalty" Consider, there might be a bunch of casual players in your game who also only play a few games every now and then, and now one of their few games was ruined because of your DC.
"If I have to wait out this super long penalty, I'll just not play" Good for you. If you don't want to play, don't play. People should queue up for DBD because they want to actually play the game of DBD, not because they want to do some random generic free-time activity.
I mean this as genuine advice, I'd rather you engage in an activity you actually enjoy enough to not quit partway through. There's a bunch of free games on steam ranging from comp shooters to relaxing hidden object puzzles. Heck, you don't even need to play games, you can get some other hobby. I learned how to make homemade marshmallows recently, that was fun. Not playing also sends the message that the game isn't fun as-is.
-3 -
Killers do it just fine.
5 -
Ten matches would be enough. DBD does not have a ranked mode so there is no need to be overly harsh. It would still be significantly better than the old system. I never did like the "free DC" that people had every day.
1 -
Why is 20 so bad? It's not like you are forced to wait the penalty every one of those 20.
Seriously how often are you quiting matches? I'm guessing every 10 games or so.
-1 -
I wish DC were 5 hours
So every time people will open the game they will see the 5 hours ban and will play something else
Let's see for how long the game survives
4 -
That would be so helpful to the game… think before hand. PLEASE!
-1 -
With the servers as unstable as they are, and more recently with the go next prevention, they can accumulate totally on accident. Especially when you consider how long 20 trials is. 5 years ago, it wasn't so common.
2 -
The go next system was killswitch 6 days ago. You don't need to worry about it. Even so, how does 10 games help? If you are rapidly increasing the penalty through these bugs then 10 games won't feel quick if you keep DCing every other game.
To my point, the amount of 20 is fine if you look how the system works. You only get the penalty timer after gaining a point, not before every game for the next 20 matches. If you happen to gain another point after 10 games the 1st point does not reset from 10 games left to 20. Its a rolling count and you only feel it ehen you leave the match outside normal means.
The ones complaining about this are the ones that want to leave matches they don't like. You won't get sympathy out of me for those players. In fact, I want players with high penalty counts to queue together until the points age out.
You can have sympathy for the player whose game crashes but those are not the majority.
-2 -
Sure it was killswitched, but were the penalties reverted? Will the system come back and have the same issues? Possibly. My point still stands. There's no good reason to make it so the penalty only goes down while in-game or as slowly as a 20 trial basis. Despite the efforts to make the game competitive, it still has a casual core and long and brutal penalties run counter to that.
Your suggestions would kill the queue, but they're the kinds of things BHVR is interested in listening to now. So it'll probably be a thing eventually.
1 -
There's plenty of good reason and I don't believe your issue is truly with false possitives. I thing you are hiding behide that reason in order to leave a match and come back the next day like nothing happened. There's no good reason to have a queue penalty if you never see it.
-2 -
Correct, I am arguing that. I don't think that the penalty should matter once you're outside of the game. Either way, the player leaves until they come back. If you wait to dole out punishments until they're ready to play, they won't play. That affects queue times. If the punishments favor Killer over Survivor (which to be fair, go next and AFK do affect both but to differing degrees), then the queue gets longer. Then by your suggestion, they're filtered into a separate queue, so the queue gets longer.
You have to employ big picture thinking with these things. Just because it doesn't directly affect you doesn't mean it won't affect you or the game at all.
2 -
Yep, I knew exactly where you were coming from.
To make this a killer/survivor is short sighted. I want killers that DC when the exit gates power punished just as much as the survivor that gives up on first hook or tries to "go next" by whatever form it takes now.
And yes it will affect the game, for the better. Weeding out those who agree to a 10 minute match just to quit after 2. Good riddance. I welcome those that actually want to play the game.
-2 -
Ah, another reason never ever try League.
Then again, League is, at this point, a million dollar competitive business, no? Dbd is a buggy party game.
1 -
It doesn't have to be us vs them at all. If you disproportionally affect one side, it means they'll queue for the other side or leave entirely. Killers typically go next during the match screen and the pre-loading screen, hence the changes were made primarily with Survivor in mind. AFK does affect Killer, but not to the same extent as they're again not the focus (crows being the obvious core of the mechanic). Regardless of anything else, that's enough to push players out of a role that feels micromanaged. Is it not? It seems they've backed off of both of those ideas for now, but that sort of thinking is what leads to real problems.
If you want to play hall monitor and avoid the elephant in the room, then again, you're thinking like BHVR. It'll maintain the high turnover rate, make queues even longer, and the balance will still be all over the place.
1 -
Any time after the timer reaches 0 is the starting line for me. If you think killers are getting away with DCing during loading then make that complaint to BHVR.
-1 -
All of these complaints go to BHVR. I don't blame players for using what's at their disposal, despite how good or bad they are.
I'm just saying that advocating for unhealthy changes in the mirco will have macro consequences.
2 -
But this is not a bad change. What's bad was allowing players to think DCing was exceptable for years.
-1 -
I agree with the OP, a pointless feature, I don't understand what was bad about the old one? Especially since the game, as always, has a lot of bugs compared to other competitive games, why punish players so harshly in a semi-casual party game?
1 -
It goes both ways.
0 -
That's too black and white. Even in my ideal scenario, it's not so much that it's acceptable as it is a necessary evil. As long as it's an option in the game, players will use it. If the penalties are going to be so severe, it shouldn't even be an option in the first place (although that still doesn't address issues like server failures which are a real problem and are getting worse).
The very best you can do is mitigate the damage, which the bots and the abandon features do. Changes that lock players out of the queue and force them to wait it out in real time like being sat in the corner are objectively bad. Maybe that has a place in very strict, competitive games where MMR is a very big deal. But if we're being honest, DBD is not that kind of game.
1 -
ok, remove the leave button. It was always stated to be for emergencies but if people start showing up to the ER for paper cuts then something is wrong.
-1 -
We say that, but do we really mean it? The only difference is that there's a lot of justification. That harming MMR by backfilling lobbies is fine, that camping/tunneling/slugging at any stage of the trial is a valid strat, etc.
1 -
Still a bad decision, but at this point it's much better than anything they're trying to implement. Although I wonder if they're even able to do that without some red tape being in the way somewhere.
0
