Behaviour, I highly encourage you to do this for the sake of dead by daylight.
I highly encourage you to partner with other video game companies like naughty dog, Crystal dynamics, insomniac games, and epic games; avoid EA, Ubisoft and Activision for obvious reasons. I'm saying this because dead by daylight is in dire need of an upgrade and I don't mean to offend you when I say this, but when it comes to things such as audio, optimization, graphics and bug fixing... You struggle with that. Dead by daylight is an amazing creation of yours but it can be so much more. Which is why I recommend partnering with a company that can assist you with those kind of things.
Comments
-
I would highly suggest ANYONE to avoid Ubisoft as well, they are famous for releasing buggy, untested cash cows as well. Take a look at most of their first post release updates, its really embarassing. 3 pages is average nowadays.
7 -
Good call, avoid Ubisoft!
2 -
I really hope that they don't enter a partnership with any of those companies mentioned.
6 -
I like Ubisoft 🤷♂️Rainbow, AC, PoP, Division, Far Cry, Splinter Cell, Watch dogs and more.
They make super fun games.
6 -
Note: please keep this discussion dead by daylight related.
3 -
I think Valve would be the obvious partner for Dead by Daylight. Might even be able to allow them to port Bill to consoles. And I've never had a problem with Valve unless DbD intends to try to make more than 1 sequel.
8 -
If that partnered with valve it's more likely we'd see more PC exclusive content. Which is absolutely not a solid way to go.
1 -
Behaviour isn't some small time developer that only does this game. Partnering with those companies won't solve anything.
1 -
They struggle?
You can have a look at IllFonic creations. They do struggle.
0 -
It would give them the kind of management that would allow a game with golden opportunity to live up to its godly potential. As of right now, they're played with management that looks at the massive DC problem and goes "Meh, we'll do something about it later". Management that thinks balance around optimal gameplay isn't important as long as thinks are ok at casual gameplay. Management that looks at game breaking bugs and goes "Meh, that can wait till the next schedule patch". Management that takes that very dc problem from earlier, makes stats that count DCs as non-escapes as well as survivors massively disadvantaged by being in games with DCs, and goes "Look, less than half the survivors are escaping so the game isn't strongly survivor sided".
5 -
They can't do much about the DC problem until dedicated servers which theyre hard at work on currently, they're not just sitting idly by
0 -
I'm afraid that if they did partnerup with another company we'd end up like in the pre 2.0 times, when BHVR was partnered with Starbreeze Studios
0 -
No, they definitely can. They can do even more to combat it with dedicated servers, but that doesn't mean there isn't plenty they can do already. They can change the ridiculously lax requirements for punishments to be rolled out in the first place so that it can actually serve as a deterrent. They can install increased queue wait times for disconnects to stop them from getting into games so quickly after rage quitting. They can significantly increase blooodpoint gains for disconnects for both survivors and killers to simultaneously make disconnects less annoying and take away one of the major reasons people intentionally disconnect in the first place. There's plenty they can do about it, they just don't care enough to do it.
2 -
People dont want to play they will leave anyway
0 -
If people want to murder, they will murder anyways. Is that a good reason to not put laws in effect to curb the murder rate?
3 -
Activision :o
You want Behaviour to "partner up" like Blizzard did with Activison? If so... There are no words in the tongs of Men that can describe how aweful this idea is.
1 -
Gonna break a few of these down real quick
1) we don't actually know the requirements for getting banned from DCing so that one is speculation on your part and I'm electing to ignore it
2) considering how bad queue times are for everyone, making someone's queue times worse would end up impacting everyone indirectly.
3) giving everyone else extra bloodpoints IS a good idea, but that wouldn't change how frequently people DC. If someone is pissed enough to DC it doesn't matter if they'd give extra BP or not, they're going to DC regardless
1 -
There are ones or you want what? One dc = perma ban?
0 -
1) We do know that there is a requirement for getting banned for disconnecting and that it's related to the percentage of games you play that you disconnect from. And we know that percentage is on the lower side based on how the rate some streamers have been watched to intentionally disconnect and continue to be allowed to play. So elect to ignore it if you want. A smart move since it definitely doesn't help your case, but a horrible move for rational debate.
2) Assuming that survivors and killers disconnect at an equal ratio, that would have an insignificant effect on queue times. But the very fact that you recognize that high queue times are annoying is more validation for a deterrent that says you can't join a game for a certain amount of time after disconnecting.
3) I can't say for sure what percentage of intentional disconnects it would stop, but I can garuntee that it would be a significant enough number to validate increasing compensation to remaining players for disconnects. Watch any rage baby streamer or get into voice chat with enough random SWF pickups and it becomes rapidly clear that one of the biggest reasons to disconnect is to intentionally screw over other players. If intentionally disconnecting actually rewards other players, this major reason for disconnecting would vanish. The fact that a number of other intentional disconnecters would continue to disconnect is not a valid reason to eliminate the motivation for these particular problem players.
What I would specifically want from the ban punishment for constant disconnects is a system that punishes for disconnects per period of time rather than percentage of games. We know for a fact that the current percentage is low enough that it doesn't discourage intentional disconnects even remotely close enough. But if you had a system that says you get started on the ban elevation system based on having X amount of disconnects over a certain time frame (ex: 5 disconnects within a 2 hour period), then people would actually be scared to intentionally disconnect all the time.
But the one system that I'm pretty sure the majority of the playerbase wants is for there to be an ever increasing delay before you can get into a new game every time you disconnect that slowly goes down after you go long enough without disconnecting. The vast majority of major games with matchmaking systems do this because it has been proven to help.
1 -
I'd avoid Naughty Dog as well. Was a great company until Neil Druckmann took over.
0
