http://dbd.game/killswitch
People just dc instead of self unhooking now
Comments
-
I feel like the removal of the self unhook queue did alot. Ppl have the immediate doom expectations when they first get hooked... but by the time they get unhooked and realize they actually ARNT getting tunneled by a 4 gen slowdown killer, they tend to start playing.
I can't say for sure, but I think if that guy who ragequit against my Pig DIDNT have the unhook queue, he would've been able to tell that I was heading to the other side of the map to check gens and it would've turned into a completely normal experience.
1 -
Ive seen no one suicide, obviously.
Haven't seen too many DC's. Seen a lot more just either not really trying, giving up, intentional misplays etc etc.
1 -
This was from 2 different games back in the day when "forever freddy" was a thing. Ppl would instantly DC as soon as the match started before seeing what the build ACTUALLY was.
You can say the ppl nowadays arnt doing their absolute best, but adding restrictions to ragequitting is definitely nice for avoiding stuff like THIS.
-2 -
What else do you propose?
We have DC penalties and you can't suicide.
4 -
All im saying is it IS helpful. Before we had this, ppl would dip out after afew seconds if they didnt like the map, killer, ect. Its not a perfect system, but the idea that the steps BHVR have implemented is completely useless is a joke. If the guys in the pictures had to stick around longer than 15 seconds, they would've learned they arnt going against "Forever Freddy" as soon as the first hit showed Thana wasn't being used and they took the time to see Dying light wasn't either.
The longer a survivor is in the trial, the more they get to see that not EVERY match is going against some preconceived stereotype.
3 -
So someone going down when all the map resources are avaliable and survivors are at their strongest is somehow something the devs need to fix?. Lets say the devs adress the imbalances of the 3v1 survivors can now win on a 3v1 scenario, this means a 4v1 matchup would be even more skewed in the survivors favor (as if we balance for a 3 v 1 to win its obvious a 4 v1 would be stronger) so survivors would have the upper hand until the killer achieves a 2 v 1 , this would not only horribly punish the fools that play for 4 hooks as they would be versing survivors at their strongest through all the match, it would subject all players to a similar expireence. Better yet we would still have dcs because even if you spawn in eyre of crows with a siringe, full on meta build but the killer gets an early down because of a good use of his power, the survivor will still dc.
0 -
I have not contested that, have I?
I want to start working on issues, because I do not believe the majority of players play that way.
1 -
How convenient that you ignored the part where I said we need to fix the balancing of the 4v1 and 3v1.
-1 -
Absolutely we can.
This is purely anecdotal, but… I remember around 2020, DCing on down or going next on hook was really not a common thing. It did happen, but it was always kind of a surprise. Same with everyone getting slugged. You'd get one a-hole Doctor or Nurse and then you'd go weeks without it. Not that the game wasn't an unbalanced mess or that it didn't cause any frustration, but all of it was more bearable overall.
However, the day 6.1.0 went live, all of that changed. Suddenly the power imbalance was in your face and trials were hopeless. Granted we're not in the same exact spot now, but trials don't inspire as much hope as they used to. There's a lot of criticism around Survivor having too much time to fool around in the past, but when you look at Survivor objectives that's exactly what they're meant to do.
To be completely honest, the damage is already done and it's incredibly hard to wind back the clock on that (see Skull Merchant as an example) so there's no guarantee that anything could deflect giving up anymore. But I'd be willing to try and see if there is. And giving Survivor more autonomy is a good way to start.
3 -
Just for the record... what EXACTLY does that mean "give survivors more autonomy". Autonomy to do what?
2 -
You HAVE been contesting that though. You keep saying on this thread that if ppl can't give up or DC, they'll just "soft quit" instead. Im saying thats not necessarily the case when people realize their assumed result after their first down doesnt always happen. They're given enough time to see that the game ISNT automatically a bust because the Pig downed them first.
1 -
This
2 -
This is exactly what players anticipated when the free unhooking ability was removed, especially when teammates abandon you on the hook through two phases.
4 -
Giving survivors more autonomy lets them pressure the killer even when everyone's slugged or hooked.
-4 -
Survivor scoring events include elements that are considered throwing these days like opening chests and breaking totems. Either they need enough freedom to do things like that or those objectives should be axed.
3 -
Having some punishment is fine, but that is not what I foresee happening.
People will continue to soft-quit. Other people will start calling for other avenues of quitting to be policed as well. We cannot police everything. We already saw that when given the chance, BHVR will start grabbing innocent players and banning them.
Changing attitudes of players isn't easy, but it can be done. Forcing them into matches that they don't want to be in may hide the issue for a while, but it won't fix the underlying causes.
Like we discussed, if you truly think that most players will DC or suicide at the drop of a hat, for no other reason than ego; well then there isn't really anything to be done, and the game is doomed no matter what course we pursue. If, instead, you believe that this "epidemic" is in fact, a culmination of different issues plaguing the game for some time, well, that would lend itself to my theory, which is that we can alleviate common areas of frustration.
2 -
"Like we discussed, if you truly think that most players will DC or suicide at the drop of a hat, for no other reason than ego; well then there isn't really anything to be done, and the game is doomed no matter what course we pursue."
I keep repeating myself on this point. Removing the knee jerk reaction is doing alot. Its NOT doomed. When ppl go on the hook and think "the game is over cuz all Nemesises tunnel" and then they have time to realize they were wrong and the game ISNT screwed just because they were first down, I dont think they're 100% guaranteed to sabotage the game like they could with hook suicides.
1 -
Im confused... who at BHVR is saying you arnt allowed to open chests? T
0 -
The increased pressure of the trial. Again, anecdotal, but there was always a lull period during the trial in the past where Survivors could feasibly run a totem build and clear them all without a heavily elevated risk of losing. That was a thing all the way up to 6.1.0 (though less so the year before when MMR was introduced). BHVR has implemented new features to make totems and chests more attractive, but not a whole lot to allow players to interact with them enough to not risk a 4k.
That's just scoring events as well. If we're talking autonomy as a whole, there's the amount of time you spend doing nothing while slugged or on hook (with anti-go next removing even more interactions from hook), the lack of comeback mechanics, very little presence during endgame, etc.
-1 -
Punishing players is like trying to prohibit alcohol. An alcoholic will find alternative ways to access the drug. You have to address the underlying reason for the addiction. Alcoholics are trying to escape emotional pain which is related to the culture in which they live.
So why do players rage quit? They're trying to escape a game that isn't worth the candle. They're effectively committing suicide within the context of the video game. The devs have to address the player experience. You can't just punish survivors more and more severely for quitting the game. They'll just leave for good and the game will die. Or worse, you'll see an increase in the number of cheaters who are retaliating because the game they once loved actively punishes them for playing.
The player experience is largely a matter of game design. Do I see rage quitters in Rocket League, CS2? Absolutely. But the overall percentage of rage quitters there is far, far lower. When I switch to these games, I immediately notice a couple things. The first, is that these games are fairly balanced, unlike DBD. That is, you are rewarded in direct proportion to your skill level. If you invest a lot of time to hone your skills, you will see results and you will win more often until you rank up and face more skillful opponents.
Survivor in Dead by Daylight is the exact opposite, you can practice for thousands of hours, and barely see a difference in the outcome because of how the game is structured to inherently favor killer role. Killer is designed to win by default, so survivor skill expression has been trampled. Meanwhile, you can invest a measly 20 hours into even "weak" killers and dominate survivor teams with thousands of hours experience per member. I know this is true because I've done it. I look at the survivors' profiles after absolutely steamrolling them, and these are seasoned vets I'm demolishing with sloppy mechanical skill as killer, just by abusing low skill cheese tactics like tunneling, camping and slugging. Meanwhile in Solo Q, make one small mistake and the entire match can easily be lost not only for you, but the whole team. So the challenge to reward ratio is very lopsided due to incompetent balancing choices, which is why Solo Q is so commonly described as "miserable" to play.
The second thing I notice about Rocket League and CS2, is that these games have a functional MMR system. Yes there are smurfs and cheaters, that is an issue, but in general, if you play skillfully and win more matches, you rank up and face better opponents. Your MMR is a fairly accurate representation of your skill level in these games. With DBD, this is not the case. In Solo Q, you can play like a pro and still have terrible outcomes because the killer found the 1 weak survivor and tunneled them out quickly, turning the match into a 3v1. Killers with any game sense whatsoever know to save the best survivors for last, turning it essentially into a 1v1 where the killer has 4 times more power by game design. You can be the star player in so many matches yet the outcome is a 4K, and the MMR system says "you suck, we're lowering your MMR".
So two things are needed to restore the player experience. The first is to heavily nerf the entire killer role, namely by making low skill cheese tactics like tunneling, camping and slugging less effective. Every single killer character should get no more than a 50% average kill rate across the entire player base. The game should not be balanced around a small percentile of high MMR 4 stack SWF teams that are essentially cheating using 3rd party apps. There needs to be a middle ground between Solo Q and SWF when it comes to balance, whereas currently the devs balance only around the strongest SWF teams.
Secondly, the MMR needs to measure player skill accurately, particularly when it comes to survivor. Escaping can't be the only metric that measures skill when a killer can easily save the strongest players for last, in which case their chances of escape are abysmal no matter how well they play. This makes solo Q a low MMR trap. As killer, your MMR should only increase if you play skillfully, and goes down if you play poorly. Currently, you can play poorly as killer and still inflate your MMR because you cheesed out a bunch of 4K's with blatantly OP mechanics.
BHVR has the chance to bring back a quality player experience with the upcoming changes that are to address camping, slugging and tunneling and the MMR system. Whether this succeeds or not has yet to be seen. If they do it right, yes, this means many killers will temporarily lose more matches as their inflated MMR decreases to accurately reflect their skill level. But these killers will have a better experience in the long run because the survivors they go against won't be God squads. Only the best killers will face the God squads, but they'll be ready for the challenge. The Silver killers will face Silver survivor teams, and the Global Elite killers will face the Global Elite survivor teams. The vast majority of experienced killers are not even close to being Global Elites, even if in their imagination they believe this to be the case since the killer role has been pampered by the devs.
-1 -
And continuing to repeat, I don't think that's an issue.
I do not support a continuation without attempting to try to fix issues.
2 -
The amount of stuff that you can do while slugged never really changed. As for the removal of self unhook without SOME build around it... that was mostly ever used to ragequit. If you want to do that, the DC button hasn't moved. Thats kinda like how hook grabs were removed for the overall health of the game.
I dont mean to put words in your mouth, but the entire first part talking about lull periods just comes across as "before I can just kinda screw around and take my time doing anything and I'd still win, but now the killer is pressuring me too much". I know thats not what you SAID, but thats how it reads. It really shouldn't be a case where one side is giving it their all right away while the other side is just meandering and still thinks they should win.
By all means, you can still open chests and all that... just dont explore the whole map opening every chest before thinking about your objective.
2 -
Don't those 2 games you mentioned ALSO have a DC penalty? I just looked it upand saw CS2 will give you a 30 minute penalty after the very first DC. I think if anything, THAT might be why you arnt seeing it happen. Unlike DBD which was pretty tame in the punishments for the longest time, CS2 hits DCers hard.
-2 -
Yes, there are increasingly long DC penalties for each consecutive DC. But, I am not opposed to having a DC penalty in DBD. I am opposed to the devs solely focusing on punishments like DC and making them more and more severe without addressing the player experience, which in solo Q survivor is quite abysmal. I've gone next in DBD for more often than I "go next" in Rocket League or CS2 and it's because the latter games have far better balancing and a far more accurate MMR system. DBD has too many situations which feel like complete BS for the survivor. Even the net code is designed in killer's favor, such that the worse their connection, the more likely they are to hit you, such that many killers intentionally use VPN to abuse this advantage.
1 -
Thats kinda of the deal with asymmetrical games. With CS2, both sides have access to the same stuff. Even if they make a great sniper and a crap shotgun... that might determine META, but its still considered balanced. Same goes for Rocket League. If they made the cars boost twice as much TOMORROW, it affects both teams so its still balanced.
DBD can't really do that. They can tweak perks, killers, maps ect to try to figure out some kind of balance, but there's going to be room for opinion on everything. As for addressing soloQ stuff... they HAVE been doing that. They introduced stuff into the game like the UI changes specifically to aid SoloQ. They saw knock out essentially only effected SoloQ so they changed its effect. Let's not pretend like BHVR hasn't thought of addressing ANY pain points in 9 years.
1 -
Okay, DBD is definitely more challenging to balance due to the asymmetrical design, but not impossible. However, killer mains have coopted this "asymmetry" term to mean something completely different than its original meaning. The game was asymmetrical since 2016 even when survivors purportedly had the advantage. Why is that? Because "asymmetrical" always referred to the difference between killer role and survivor role. The 1 to 4 dynamic and the fact that one side's job is to kill, and the other side's job is to escape. That "asymmetry" did not refer to the game being made easy to play for killer, yet now that is how it is being used.
The devs can make the game far better balanced with some basic common sense. They've mainly given survivors band-aid fixes for an arterial bleed. It doesn't matter if survivors have a pretty UI if the kill rates are forcibly increased to well over 50% after the fact. They could just reduce the average kill rates to 50% for the strongest killers like Blight, Nurse, Spirit, Kaneki, etc. If any of the so-called "weak" killers (which according to the latest official data, all have over 50% kill rates, by the way) fall below a 50% kill rate, then give them a little buff to bring them in line with the stronger killers. It's really that easy. But instead the devs have this silly philosophy that killer role ought to be way stronger than survivor role by design. This has led to the go-next epidemic which has simply received more band-aid "fixes", as well as more killer buffs, that fails to address the real elephant in the room: killer role is easy mode.
-2 -
True, but a lot these changes have only emphasized those issues. They went from annoying, but manageable to glaring in only the course of a few years. A lot of mechanics are overdue for a change.
That's not entirely incorrect. When the pressure is on the entire Survivor team, individual Survivors do have more time to accomplish their goals. Which again, the game does expect you to accomplish. Currently the pressure is more focused on individual Survivors, with Killer forcing the trial into a 1v3 as quickly as possible and then picking off the rest with ease or forcing an early abandon via slugging. Addressing that does naturally put more pressure on the Killer, but that's the nature of the role. The more wiggle room the Killer has, the more punishing Survivor becomes.
There's two major ways to go about solving this: go back to the formula where Killer has less room for mistakes and Survivor has more (hopefully meeting somewhere in the middle), or keep Killer in the same place they're in now and give Survivor more comebacks and self-defense. Because currently, Survivor consists of a lot of high risk, no reward play. With the go next penalty, all we've accomplished is forcing Survivors to stick around in mostly hopeless situations where they are still likely to give up, just not in the same way they used to. If those hopeless situations could turn around, either by giving more to do or more chances to turn the trial around (both offering more of what Survivors ultimately want and are sorely lacking—gameplay), we'd naturally see a decrease in going next. Hopefully.
The elephant in the room is that MMR has made winning much more important than having fun, so there's the chance that even making Survivor much more bearable to play would not please enough people unless they won A LOT more often. But I'd like to see how making the role better would affect things before shooting it down based on hypotheticals.
-2 -
Just laying this out there, I didnt mean asymmetrical means power role or whatever else... I meant you dont have a case where both sides have the same stuff. This means when you have a really strong item being introduced, it DOESNT effect both side equally.
Every item in this game is attempting to be balanced around opinions. You'll have ppl claiming something needs a nerf while another person saying the same thing needs a buff. All BHVR can really do is what they HAVE been doing, which is applying tweaks and seeing how it plays out. Thats the best they can do about balancing.
-2 -
MMR in general is kind of an unsolvable mess in this game due to SWFs. Im not trying to say they're OP and bully me or anything, just that any other game that has a system for pre-made squads generally require that your MMRs are close so a grandmaster doesnt team up with a bronze rank. DBD though has no plans to put any such requirements on which of your friends you can play with.
0 -
It's not balanced around opinions, it's balanced around kill rates, which the devs have forcibly increased so that killers win more than they lose by design, with some killers having outrageously high kill rates. They don't make blind changes, they heavily buff killers on purpose to sell licensed killer DLC, which is the only reason a PvP so fundamentally broken can survive this long.
-3 -
I feel like your missing afew details because your hyperfocusing on the killer characters themselves. The various perks in this game on both sides have a tendency affecting the various killers unevenly. A survivor perk might be really strong against against one killer but really weak against another. Dramatuergy for example kinda sucks against Plague while being pretty strong against Bubba. The same is true for killer perks. Perks that are kinda meh on most killers can be cracked out on others.
Quick example here...
Before Bubba got his rework... he was like embarrassingly weak and only good for camping. Then Oni got released and his perk Nemesis created an AMAZING combo on Bubba.
So... what do you really do here? Do you nerf Bubba because his average killrate went up for ppl who used this? That kinda screws over anyone NOT using these perks on an already weak killer. Do you nerf the perks that are mediocre on most of the killers?
1 -
But none of that was what I was referring to. I was referring to when a Survivor purposefully leads a Killer past a hook.
If you had read my whole post instead of skimming, you'd know that.
0 -
That logic doesn't work.
The percentage of players that are frequently ragequitting, is low enough, that if BHVR found a way to magically ban them all, then the game would still be fine.
As in, I can simultaneously believe the majority of players that frequently ragequit, are doing so purely because of selfish and unacceptable reasons, and still believe the game isn't "doomed".
-3 -
How could you possibly buff the 3v1 without indirectly or directly buffing 4v1. Only thing that comes to mind is add a multiplier for each dead survivor to say repairing and at that point the killer might even get punished for getting kills lmao.
0 -
"Other people will start calling for other avenues of quitting to be policed as well. We cannot police everything"
This is what it comes down to. To police these case by case scenarios, BHVR would have to hire more support staff (this costs time and money). Then, said staff would not only have to watch provided clips to try determine intent (this will also involve time spent shifting through videos not formatted correctly, aren't working, dont show much of anything etc) but mistakes will be made, players will dispute and they will be dealing with these players/cases longterm, all of which takes even more time.
They also won't ban first time offenders, because these are paying customers at the end of the day (and hey, they have a new Support staff who they now need to pay) but now they also need to have a system that puts marks on people's accounts.
1 -
If people want to play games only the way they want to, that's fine, but they should probably play single player games.
Every single match has five players in it, and no one person's wants matter more than the other four, and when one person does something that ruins the experience for the other four…yeah, that should be punished. No one is playing in a vacuum here, and punitive measures for leaving your teammates in a lurch aren't unfair an arbitrary.
If you play this game long enough (and it really isn't that long), you come to know all the various flavors of BS you can run into, and are likely to run into. I've said it dozens of times before, but if you aren't willing to eat some of that crap from time to time, you shouldn't play. Most or all of us will get to that point sometime, and then it will be time to move on.
DbD isn't Burger King, no one gets to have it their way all the time.
6 -
Someone isnt quite telling the truth then.
Either the epidemic isn't that bad or it is. Pick one.
Either a significant portion of your games are being affected or there's not actually that many people quitting.
7 -
The percentage of players, that frequently ragequit, and is 100% determined to ragequit, is very small.
There is a much higher percentage of players, that are only ragequitting because there is an easy way to bypass the DC penalties, or because they feel the DC penalties aren’t harsh enough to care about.
Before the 20-game Go Next change, the DC penalties absolutely were not harsh enough for many people to care about them, because the penalties decayed with time, so players could easily just ragequit a large percentage of their games, and wait out the DC penalties.
-4 -
Yea you were referring to your own imaginary argument instead of what I stated, verbatim.
1 -
You're right tho. I used to run builds as Surv that was focused on chests, but then some years back the game changed for the worst and there wasn't any time anymore in SoloQ to rummage through a chest. It got so bad that even BHVR decreased the time it takes to open a chest, but in SoloQ it's still barely feasible especially since aside from most Killers being OP, they run lethal (a perk that should have never been added) and are not only ontop of Survs seconds in to the match, but hook someone shortly thereafter to usually proc another aura reading perk. There is no time in matches anymore to do anything but gens while Killers cry about "gen rushing".
0 -
yesh nothing changes. It's fun to see how when the core game is rotten, no matter what they try to fix, the issue will always remain
4 -
If I said 5% of players are likely to ragequit, that would effect 1 out of every 4 games. Thats a large amount of matches being affected by a decently small amount of the playerbase.
1 -
I've seen an increase in dc'ing as well, myself included. Must be something happening in the games.
-3 -
Exactly, there just isn't a lot of time or patience for side objectives that aren't progressing the trial or distracting the Killer. Often times, healing and unhooking even take a backseat. If BHVR intends on keeping secondary objectives for Survivor and more importantly wants to score players on them, they either have to make them more feasible or just take them out and replace them with something else.
2 -
I have been saying over and over that forcing players to play in a specific way is not healthy for the game. If someone doesn’t want to play against a certain killer or on a certain map, they will not play. Even if you force them to stay in the match, the team would be better off without them or with a bot.
I’ve had people get saved who wanted to go next that start throwing every pallet in the game and being annoying and sandbagging. Just let people leave. At least the useless bot is a a little less useless than a teammate who doesn’t want to be in the trial. Just let people D/C so I have a better chance at a good game than keeping the thrower hostage.
3 -
If they would even try to fix the issue it would be a great deal forward. But they still ignore the issue and try to fake fix some illusions.
3 -
I agree. Ideally no one would go next, but avoiding the problems that make the game unfun for so long and trying to force people not to give up when it comes so naturally is just going to exacerbate fatigue. The players that like the system as is would rather punish their peers and harm the game further than play with bots that actually will fill a slot in the trial without complaint.
6 -
Imaginary what?
Brother my responses were in plain English, everyone reading them could see I was speaking about a different topic that your solution could cause a problem with.This is very true. At the end of the day, no matter what you do, if someone gets in a round with Plague and they hate Plague they will find a way to quit. If someone feels unfairly singled out, they're going to find a way to quit. If a Killer feels the round isn't worth it, they may quit; if the Survivor feels like they don't have a chance to play, they may quit.
The solution we have is a help to make it LESS likely people who don't quit will get bad teammates or opponents, the the thing is ragequitting will always exist, against the rules or not it's ALWAYS going to exist. The solution isn't to ban ragequitters, it's DC penalties. That's enough punishment for understandably crashing out sometimes when the game is frustrating, and making you think or take a time out if you have to. THAT is what solves ragequits and continued play when people are mad - forced breaks.2 -
People that ragequit are breaking game rules, and deserve to be punished.
Seriously, if someone frequently ragequits, then their feelings do not matter at all. Give them huge DC penalties. It doesn't matter if that gives them fatigue or whatever. They deserve to be punished.
0 -
Just more examples of the same old stuff
-4
