Lowering the frustration
We all know that the implementation of the DC punishments has lead to drastic increase in the usage of the alternative way to prematurely leave the game also know as hook suicide.
Early hook suicides basically equal early DCs because those fractions of seconds while the killer transports the survivor to the hook mean virtually nothing to the survivor team.
So i thought that implementation of "killer avoid" system might lower the amount of frustration. Let me explain: you will be able to avoid killer and you will not be matched with them. For example: you don't enjoy slugg-involving Oni's playstyle, so you avoid him as a killer and he will not appear in you games until you remove him from your list. Also time restriction is likely to be added to prevent permanent avoidance of certain killers for them not to have endless lobby simulator.
We have 19 killers so having at least 2 avoid options will not be a big deal.
Alternative system that can be implemented is "avoid map". This will work for both killers and survivors. For example you hate Ormond being too big and having way to many safe pallets, so you add Ormond to your "avoid list" and you will not be playing on it as long as it stays in your "avoid list". If a map offering that contradicts your or any player in the lobby "map avoid list" is used it will not be burned and will just return to the inventory of the player who used it. I see no reasons to add time restriction to the "map avoids"
Furthermore, these systems will not only lower the frustration of playing Dead by Daylight, but will provide the dev team with the statistics of the most frustrating/unfun killer or map in the game that might lead to future rework/balance adjustment of particular killer/map
Comments
-
I doubt it will lower the frustration for the killers that never get matches because their favourite character happens not to be popular with survivors.
4 -
I addressed this particular issue with suggestions of adding the time restriction on the "killer avoids" so you can't permanently avoid one killer
0 -
What would lower the frustration is nerfing the OP survivor gameplay
3 -
I don't think it's that good of an idea. In my opinion the single most necessary thing for this game is a surrender option, pure and simply. I shouldn't be forced to stay in a game after a teammate DCs 10 seconds in. Just bring a simple majority surrender vote that becomes available after someone DCs, please.
0 -
As a killer main I would be perfectly fine with this assuming some conditions.
- No chance at de-pipping, even if by the nonsensical emblem system I won't have a lot of hooks or hits or anything else really.
- I don't lose my addons, particularly cause the amount of BP I'm going to earn for this game is not going to even remotely cover the replacement cost.
As long as those features are implemented I would be all in favor of this.
1 -
Yes because survivor mob rule dictating which killers I am able to play or enjoy an eternity waiting in queue for someone who didn't put my preferred killer on their naughty list sounds just absolutely fabulous.
Hard pass.
1 -
That helps, but it doesn't remove the problem entirely. It still affects queue times, and it still discriminates unfairly against killers who just happen to enjoy playing someone like Spirit or Hag.
0 -
I mean, not that I agree with this system, but if it existed and some killers got permablocked by most players wouldn't that hint that maybe their designs should be revisited?
0 -
sure lets also add in avoid decisive strike and commodius tool boxes. lets completely make the survivors not play when they feel oppressed and make the killers play all the time and wait in long ass lobbies and say it's cool. with the quarantines going on and people on internet etc. lets just make it so you can select what perk load outs you will allow the killer to have too! oh yea that's a great one. the problem here is not the frustration the survivors have it's the frustration the players that actually want to play and have fun on either side can't because of entitlements like this OP post.
Basically the OP is hey lets let survivors play only what they want, and crap on the ones that play killers. good idea, REAL GOOD... NOT! (btw the good idea remark, it was sarcasm).
0 -
I'd enjoy it because I'm tired of seeing deathslinger all day every ######### day running the same 4-6 perks.
0 -
No it would just mean survivors blocked the killers that are the most effective, because those are also coincidentally the killers that killer players will play the most often.
Basically every survivor at red rank is going to put Freddy and Spirit on their Naughty list, because those are the only killers they can't just standard loop since Nurse got her gutting, oh I'm sorry, her "rework".
Maybe the better idea would be to take this into reverse. If survivors have absolutely no fear of certain killers and never put them on their naughty list maybe THEY should have their designs be revisited.
1 -
Ok. I got it. You don't like waiting in the lobby as a killer but enjoy games where survivors kill themselves on the first hook and you get minuscule amount of BPs and lose pip. But what about the second part of my suggestion? Why no one is saying anything about "avoiding maps" this will benefit both sides.
0 -
Oh I got an easy fix for that situation there little Mr. Sarcasm.
If a survivor kills themselves on the first hook, killer gets credit for two additional hook actions, and four additional hits, along with BP automatically cause the survivor wanted to be a selfish twat and screw their teammates over. Then I can proceed to farm with the remaining survivors so everyone gets BP and pips and we can all leave and laugh at what a jackass that guy was to give up just cause the killer player had the temerity to play a killer he didn't want to play against.
I mean hey, I don't like playing against Decisive Strike, Borrowed Time, Unbreakable, or Adrenaline, where's my perk naughty list?
I like how your comeback is "well implement my solution or I'll just throw a tantrum and die on first hook" as if holding the game hostage is an appropriate solution.
And your map solution will do nothing except again, make queues longer while the game desperately tries to match up people who don't have certain maps on their naughty lists. This is a matchmaking system that even now is matching green rank killers with red rank survivors, you really trust adding something to that concoction to go off without a hitch?
0 -
how will letting people say i won't play against clown help the clown main get out of waiting for a lobby??? it WONT.
0 -
I wouldn't worry about that, once the novelty has worn off and everyone has gotten the adept achievement (if so inclined) he will take his place as the worse version of huntress and mediocre killer he is. You'll basically start seeing him about as often as Plague.
0 -
It might, but not necessarily. It depends why people are blocking them. For example, I imagine that a lot of people would block certain killers just for being strong because they want to have easier matches. Plus, even if that is an indicator that their design should be revisited, it still sucks majorly for anyone that wants to play those killers in the meantime. It would be better, and simpler, to just ask about people's least-favourite killers in the Player Satisfaction Survey or something.
1 -
Are you deprived of the eyes or suffering from severe case of dyslexia? How did you manage to see "avoid killer" in "avoid maps"?
0 -
From my experience in most games, people tend to ban frustrating stuff over overpowered stuff, especially in a casual setting. Since DBD is mostly casual I doubt that'd be a problem. But I can see your point.
0 -
from this part of your FIRST (OP) post here: "So i thought that implementation of "killer avoid" system might lower the amount of frustration. Let me explain: you will be able to avoid killer and you will not be matched with them. For example: you don't enjoy slugg-involving Oni's playstyle, so you avoid him as a killer and he will not appear in you games until you remove him from your list. Also time restriction is likely to be added to prevent permanent avoidance of certain killers for them not to have endless lobby simulator."
7th and 8th word is "killer avoid" thus we are still talking about both of them when I responded. guess you don't have as good of a memory as the written word.
0 -
No one enjoys games where everyone kills themselves on their first hook. They enjoy games where everyone can act like adults and not ragequit because the game isn't going the way they wanted.
1 -
I would like to believe that's true, but unfortunately I think you may be giving this community too much credit. And either way, queue times (especially in certain regions and at certain times) are already long enough, so they can't really afford to do something like this that would extend them even further.
0 -
Watch these forums for a week and see how many posts you could substitute the word "annoying" with "strong". For a lot of survivor players they are one in the same.
Also your assertion that the game is mostly casual would mean those same players don't want challenge, which would likely mean getting rid of strong killers, even over ones they may find "annoying". I mean Legion is "annoying" but no one would choose to ban him because at this point he's a C- level killer. Spirit and Freddy would be considered "annoying" because Spirit can't be standard looped and Freddy has a kit that requires survivors to do more than hold M1 on generators (continually finding teammates, failing skill checks, or holding dream clocks to wake up) but the truth is they're strong, so they would get chosen.
Oh and killer players would not be exempt of this behavior by the by, the sword cuts both directions. Ask what perks killers would like to see nerfed/removed. No one is going to say something like Head-On even though it is SUPER annoying, because it's Niche and not very effective. They would all be listing off the same 5 or 6 perks. Decisive Strike, Borrowed Time, Dead Hard, Unbreakable, etc. These perks are annoying BECAUSE they are so effective at giving survivor second chances.
0 -
Great mental gymnastics! I would say you are on Olympics mental gymnastics champion level! Just so you know, the part that you have quoted isn't the end of my post. There is a continuation and i highly recommend you to read it.
you responded to the comment where i mention ONLY "map avoids" screaming about "killer avoids". At least read full post before commenting something.
0 -
Again, I'm not even in favor of this system. But I see people talk about "this community" a lot when in reality it's much like the community from most games.
Just talk to the average killer player and ask them what they dislike about the game. I'm kinda willing to bet the majority will complain about flashlights and being bullied and whatever, even though survivors who go out of their way to bother the killer are more likely to just die. People dislike frustrating stuff more than OP stuff, even if both go together a lot of the time.
0 -
Honestly we need to get people on both sides of this to stop being crap heads about things. I played doctor last night, having rancor on I got to mori the obsession, I used a survivor pudding offering as well and at the end one person said "you are a gross doctor with a mori!" I was flabergasted they didn't even look to see what my load out was. the person played nea, so i said "you are a gross nea" being flippant and sarcastic they then proceeded to berate me publicly (on their live stream as well as their friend's live stream). This is what people are doing that is bad, they are not liking how someone plays a game and uses the tools given to them!
today i was playing and said something about noed on a nurse... didn't say it was crappy to use or good but another survivor decided I was being derogatory and then later they were the best survivor as they were the one to escape did 3 gens what were the rest of us doing? well running from the killer and keeping the nurse occupied. NO one was berating him for not being noticed as that happens. This thread shows the "ENTITLEMENT" that some people see survivors having. If you can avoid a single killer (or map) what do the killers get to avoid? just the map? I mean all survivors are really are skins. killers have a specific power and I like that in general it's great that you have to learn a good deal but stop making it all about the survivors. if you have 4 survivors and 1 killer in every match, and you loose 10 killers to attrition but all the same survivors in the game you'd have 40 survivors waiting in the wind for a match. however out of 10 killers and 40 survivors then lost 10 survivors you would have 3 killers waiting for matches. how does that math stand? stop being crap heads to each other on either side and just play the game.
0 -
It may be, but not being an active part of the communities for a lot of other games, I can only speak to this one. But at this point we're already agreed that this isn't a good idea and we're just speculating about a mostly unrelated issue.
1 -
you know, I actually did both post and i responded because i did not like how you were dismissing everything, even then map avoidance is not a good thing either. don't like a map? put up an offering to go some place you like. simple as that, otherwise deal with it for the time you're on it and move on. (edit, added the rest) how will you deal with offerings to go to a certain map? I mean if only one person puts up an offering to go to say "the game" and no one else puts up a map offering and one of the 5 people say nope won't play on the game. now what? remove that one not wanting to go, take time WHILE loading to put another in their place? abort loading? what?
yes edited, why? i just thought of the last part i just added.
0 -
Oh honey I'd personally still ban Legion. And Ghostface who isn't even that strong but is inconsistent and annoying af to go against. Spirit could be bottom tier and I'd still be in favor of reworking her from the ground up because of how bad of a design I think she is.
These forums don't speak for the entire playerbase. It's just a very vocal minority.
0 -
I agree that his forums isn't representative of the entire playerbase, but my point still stands.
Your personal preferences aside, there's other examples of this.
As an old school World of Warcraft player, for PVP, you get the option to ban two battlegrounds from your random battleground queue ever since Wrath of the Lich King. Alliance would always ban Alterac Valley and Horde always ban Isle of Conquest. Not cause those maps are broken, annoying, or even unfun. Alterac Valley is probably the most iconic PVP map in a game that has lasted over 15 years now. But simply put, the way the map is designed the Alliance don't win, so they avoid it. Same with Isle of Conquest.
If players are allowed to remove an option, they will remove the option that prevents them from winning, even at the cost of an option they may find "annoying".
0 -
I play League of Legends and I have the exact opposite experience. The highest ban rate champions, even at ranked, are the most frustrating ones, unless there's something EXTREMELY ridiculously overpowered. In normal games, even when something is overpowered to the maximum chances are people will still ban unfun champions before them, even when said unfun champions are undertuned.
There's a difference between something unwinnable and moderately overpowered. Barring moris, nothing in DBD makes the game unwinnable for either side. So unfun things would most of the time be banned first.
0 -
The problem with using League for example is that League has an unranked and ranked game modes.
When I played in unranked, it worked like you said, people banned personal preferences (though really that was another way of saying they were banning a counterpick to whatever champ they were gonna instalock) and bans were all over the place.
In ranked, completely different, players screamed at the top three picks to ban the OP FOTM champions without question, and usually players obliged.
So I think maybe the answer is that with DBD where there is no ranked or unranked we may both be right, some will ban killers they find annoying, others would ban the OP FOTM killers.
1 -
Yeah that makes perfect sense actually.
0 -
I think it's a good idea simply because if you're not for it then you're going to have to deal with people who don't want to play against you anyway and deal with *even more* queues and/or people disconnecting or letting themselves die on hook, or simply not trying.
I also agree with the idea that if a lot of people are "banning" something then that probably indicates that said thing needs to be changed. I don't see a ton of Nurse for example, but I still would rather just have the option to not play against her than have to get into a game with her and have that "sigh here we go again against her, time to hold m1 brainlessly on something until it's over." Because that's how Nurse games feel to me. And if a killer makes somebody feel like that for several people and is constantly getting banned... Well... I think you see the point.
The way I see it anyway, if somebody is so "bad" and that's the only reason they don't want to play against a killer, then they probably should be playing against easier killers anyway, and the people that are comfortable handling a killer will give that killer a better fight too. Would give a reason for people to play less popular killers as well, to not have to suffer through trash queue times for playing a boring killer.
Again, all just my opinion, but I just see it as, if you're not for something like this you're just accepting the other side of it, which is the decreased quality in your games.
0 -
"if someone is going to "ban" something then it needs to be changed. i know a great many survivors and each one has a different killer they don't want to face. so do we change every single one? or do we realize the real issue is that we are talking about catering to EVERYONE that doesn't like something. if we continue to cater to people like this then we'll change one thing one day then revert the change the next! I mean if you want to run a game like that please do so but i won't play it, why? because things will change on a whim and make game play unstable and unnecessarily hard in the fact that it will constantly change because someone didn't like X, Y or Z and then someone else didn't like that change so it got reverted.
0 -
You're just reading into things that aren't there. Nowhere did I say every single killer that anybody were to "ban" would have to change. It's an obvious point that I'm not sure how you missed: high ban rates might indicate a certain problem at times. Stop trying to stretch what I'm trying to say.
0 -
oh I read it.. and with thousands of people that you alter one then they start saying alter x or revert the alterations. it's happened here too.... only because people didn't want the new changes. this is another reason allowing people to "ban" from their games certain killers or maps is a mistake. why? because 1) people are fickle and change their minds a great deal, 2) people as a rule are stupid when it comes to herd mentality much like lemmings (notice i used general terms not specific) and finally 3) it's pointless. you don't want to face one killer, then play with your friends, you get everything at all times so you don't need blood points and forget the "ranked" aspect. when you play only with your friends you can make that rule and it doesn't affect anyone else but them.
0 -
I just want a block system for players. I dont mind any killer or any map as long as that person isn't a total #########. Gamers themselves are what make matches fun or insufferable. I like the challenge of the variety of killer/map options. But I would like the ability to block a player and never be matched with them again when they are beyond toxic and ruin the game - killer or survivor.
0 -
Regardless of if you read what I said or not you still seem to be treating it like I'm saying that the developers have to listen to every opinion of every person, and consider every single person banning a character. That isn't what I'm saying.
Somebody else brought up League of Legends, and I used to play that a lot and remember a time a character named Kassadin had literally a 99% ban rate or something crazy like that because he was just too much for other people to go against and it was blatantly unfair. The numbers spoke in that situation pretty clearly. If a similar situation were to happen in DbD and the devs had the data, they wouldn't have to change every killer just because somebody bans them. It would just be another piece of data they could look at, like the stuff they do now.
As for the consequences of longer queue times and all that I already stated how I feel about that. Trying to play a stronger killer, or annoying killer for that matter, even without any "bans" or anything you'll still run into more games where people are less inclined to try if they don't want to. I'm also personally into playing many different killers and I'm of the opinion that if somebody wants to "main" a character and only play that character in most game's they'd be setting themselves up for disappointment. As a result, I think it's healthy to get into several characters and try different things out. Naturally the system would punish players who only like to abuse the most strong or toxic things, as the system would end up banning those sorts of things, but that's the kind of price a highly contested pick would have to pay sometimes. And I think it's a small price to pay personally.
And no, I don't just want to only play with a couple friends for the rest of my time playing DbD, thank you very much. I'm not much of a people person anyway.
But once again, don't try to twist what I'm saying to make it sound like I think "every killer that gets banned must have a problem and has to be looked at. I don't even understand where you're getting that stuff from.
0 -
I did NOT say you were saying that, I said that would end up being the end result of your suggestions. You taking it that way is all your doing. I never touched league of legends and i never commented on anything about league because i know next to nothing about it. obviously you don't like what you think you read into what i said. so you will never back down from a position that is not tenable and an idea that isn't going to work in this game.
0 -
I just don't understand why even respond like that if you're not implying that's what I'm speaking. No dev in their right mind is just going to be changing stuff back and forth. So whether or not you were under the impression that's what I'm saying, your response is more or less pointless. I don't see what reason you have to be asking me "so do we change every single one?" and "do we realize the real issue is that we are talking about catering to EVERYONE that doesn't like something." You're just taking this hypothetical situation and acting like the devs are just going to go and make rapidfire changes. That's the only reason I was under the impression you were just reading what I said wrong: I don't understand where what you're saying is even coming from.
What I "don't like" is the fact that you're just acting like you know how everything would pan out if this were to be accepted as an official feature. It's insane to me that you have the gall to say something like "so you will never back down from a position that is not tenable" when you're making a claim completely out of your imagination about how you think a system like this would go down and acting like what you're saying is fact. You said yourself you didn't comment on League of Legends because you have no idea about any of that, but it's a shining example that what you're saying is gonna happen wouldn't happen. The devs are smart enough to only take the data they see as that: data. They don't just go making changes back and forth because people cry for it, and when they do, its the devs wanting it. Not the players.
0 -
The League comparison is flawed.
In Lol NEITHER team has acess to the banned champions.
Here survivors would be dictating killer which killer to play.
And in thus game "annoying" means "too op. Nerf now or uninstall"
0 -
You can say that but killers hooking, going away, and then immidiatly coming back to prevent an unhook etc is also not the greatest of times I must say, Ill glady at that point die on the hook or let the killer kill me and then let myself die on the hook.
If they dont actually want to play and be so cheap about it, then F that match, ill move on to the next.
0
