Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
Why future DLC should not have Survivors
I'll just be blunt about it, Survivors are all the same; therefore, they bring no new game mechanics with them.
The Killer is what we all really care about. Killers want to use their new mechanics, and Survivors want to play against those new mechanics.
So how about we just get rid of the fluff? Instead of adding yet another skin dispensary (let's be honest, that's all Survivors are), focus on just the Killer so its new gameplay is enjoyable for both sides, and also bug-free.
And you might say, well what about Survivor perks? We only get new ones with new Survivors! And to that I say, you're right! So with each new content update the devs would revamp existing Survivor perks so they feel new and fresh to use.
All in all, I'd like to see this game avoid DLC entirely and focus on game health instead. But since that isn't going to happen, BHVR could at least only focus on the important stuff (New Killers), and they could finally get around to rehashing the heaping pile of perks no one wants to play with.
Comments
-
Idk, the game would gradually feel bland if there's no new survivors for a while. Though you are right and that survivors are practically skins each other, some players such as myself love the lore that is brought into the game whenever a new character comes so this suggestion is rough around it's edges.
34 -
New survivors bring much needed diversity to the game. Nothing is worse than looking at a roster of characters and thinking “none of these characters actually represent me”.
48 -
I know this would be controversial, but what if survivors only had 3 perk slots, but the fourth would be an innate perk for that survivor.
Like claudette having botany knowledge innately, so she's a better healer. This would give survivors more unique aspects about them, and make them more than just skins.
15 -
Everyone then mains either Laurie or David (David for WGLF/DH, Laurie for DS/OOO) or never plays them again (if it's No Mither for David or Sole Survivor for Laurie).
18 -
I can see the idea behind this, but then you'd run into the problem of somebody wanting to play a particular character but hesitating because they don't want to be confined to that one perk.
I play Claudette often - and while I'm not someone who runs the same build over and over, I also never run botany knowledge at all. I would, as a result, almost never pick Claudette for this reason.
2 -
The thing is, I don't think anyone really cares about that. We have, what, 20 survivors? All anyone really plays are the original 6, with the occasional Kate, Feng, Ace, and Bill. How many Zarina mains do you know? How many Jane mains? How many Jeff mains? What about Laurie Strode or any of the other licensed characters other than Cheryl?
4 -
There would still be teachables but to maximize the effectiveness of the survivor, you'd have to make a build around their innate perk. Instead of just the same meta we've had for years now.
1 -
This would make it so only killers would have to pay in order to have access to new content. It's unreasonable to expect most people to be OK with this.
5 -
They still have three other perk slots to work with, it's up to them if they want to maximize the effectiveness of that characters role.
3 -
Or keep the 4 perk slots and have each survivor have a small passive, like Nea walks and crouches 10% faster, or Meg vaults 8% faster, or Jake's screams can only be heard from a maximum of 40 meters away. But I love the idea of a innate perk for each survivor as well. Probably would be easier to balance
6 -
Something like that, but for some characters their passive may make already great perks outright horrid to deal with.
So it would actually be decently hard to balance without a massive rework of perks.
2 -
Don't underestimate how much people enjoy character customization.
7 -
And in order to build around those perks using the best perks certain survivors would beocme meta.
1 -
Sure, but again - there are some perks people just really never use and never want to. So you're basically locking off a character to them because of it. This becomes particularly complex for past purchases where this method never applied before, with people paying money for a character and then suddenly not having any use with them.
You also run into the issue of killers having 4 perks plus a power, and survivors essentially having 3 perks, plus a "power" of their own, so to speak.
I think a perk rework would be a better, less restrictive option, especially if passive abilities were introduced. They could be reworked and balanced around these abilities, while still leaving four perks available for each survivor.
1 -
There should not even be new DLC next chapter. The game is in a bad shape right now. It NEEDS a huge health patch soon. These login bonuses are just to keep us logging in to make the game seem more popular than it is which is a lame tactic.
4 -
If you care about being represented in a horror game as the survivor characters, that's you being odd.
"Nice, they finally added a bi character! Now I can watch my fellow bi boys be brutally and mercilessly slaughtered! I feel so represented!"
3 -
I'd say it's more odd to care what other people like in their games, but that's just me.
10 -
Who cares? Let people enjoy things for whatever reasons they have. I'll bet you anything you wouldn't hear those same arguments if every single character was LGBT.
8 -
edit: double post
Post edited by scenekiller on3 -
I’d probably a little bit concerned if minorities were the only characters to be killed violently for no explicable reason.
Ah yes, the good old “No u” without any actual rebuttal. A classic.
3 -
I personally dont care. I pick a character bc i like them. They can be the complete opposite of me.
But i think they should keep adding survivor bc everyones likes different things and there are surely some people who main Elodie now.
They should only release 3 dlcs a year and focus more on game health.
1 -
I think that we should definitely have a new Survivor - people really enjoy playing as the new Survivors in the game, hence the amount of Elodie's I'm seeing right now. Plus the perks that the character brings with them.
Whilst it's true that the killer brings the biggest change - change of powers etc, new survivors also bring about changes in meta etc with their new perks etc.
4 -
I mean, your opinion adds nothing to any discussion whatsoever. There's no rebuttal to be had to a comment with no substance to begin with.
6 -
You said representation is a reason to want Survivors, I said representation is a BAD reason to want Survivors.
If that’s not contributing by directly refuting your point, I don’t know what is.
3 -
How about a bonus for using that characters perk? Say 10% across the board or a 4th tier only they can have. This can apply to the killers too
0 -
maybe play sims if you want some one that represents you
0 -
I think representation plays a massive part of it. Honestly the video of Friskk when she saw the new survivor, Elodie and how she felt about it nearly reduced me to tears as her happiness and what it meant for her, was so clearly visible.
It's fine if you don't feel the need to be represented in a game, but not everyone feels the same - and there's no reason why people's wants/needs/desires/ should be excluded in that matter.
16 -
I've always wanted to see the charms finally see a use, so maybe tying a very small passive to a character's charm might work. Say one of Claudette's gives you a 1% healing others bonus, or one of Trapper's let's you set a trap 2% quicker, or a Bill can crawl 1% faster, etc. The bonus must necessarily be tiny to prevent stacking and approaching anything OP, but it would finally give the charms meaning.
1 -
I’d probably a little bit concerned if minorities were the only characters to be killed violently for no explicable reason.
Yet the same concern isn't expressed when it's only (presumably) heterosexual characters. In fact, none of these concerns appear when it's about heterosexual characters.
3 -
I've never found a video game character that Represents Me but I play the games anyway.
2 -
I would actually like to see more stuff for survivors in a chapter instead of less. For example a new item or what they did with Felix and add new offerings.
1 -
This is what I'm saying. We have 24 Survivors with a whole plethora of skins. Surely one of them suits your fancy by now? I'm not sure how this turned into a thread about diversity or representation. I'd just like to see less resources be put into what are essentially just paid skins, and more into important things like game health and balance.
0 -
It's because "muh representation" is important to people, despite the fact that there are alot of ways to represent yourself outside of sharing a skin colour or a set of genitals. I 100% agree, but people will find a way to argue about anything.
4 -
I really like the idea of this, but it could be tweaked. Perhaps every Survivor has 4 perks, but a passive innate perk as well alongside that, and that could be a parallel to the Killer's "innate perks" i.e. the Hag's traps, the Huntress' hatchets, Ghostface's stalking etc etc.
So for example, this could maybe be a Claudette Morel set:
Regular Perks:
- Iron Will
- Urban Evasion
- Self-Care
- Spine Chill
Innate Perk:
- Friends First: "Healing other survivors while injured increases healing speed by 50%"
That's just an example, Innate Perks could be better or worse than that, but they could be tailored to their personalities to maybe bring more life to the characters themselves.
1 -
So much I disagree with here. I don't know who Friskk is, I'm assuming a black woman. I guess the question is, with the grind being so outrageous, is diversity really the most important thing? Was one black woman not enough? What is the acceptable number of each and every mix of people? Isn't it a little shallow and strange to have so much of an emotional reaction to playing as someone who 'looks' like you in a videogame?
There are way too many survivors in the game. The grind to P3 and get all the perks for each and every character is beyond the scope of any normal person. At the very least, can BHVR ease off on the survivors until the number reaches up to killers please? I guarantee there are at least 100 completionists for every black woman playing this game. So for the love of god, let's pull the brakes on the woke train.... just for a little bit eh?
2 -
Isn't it a little shallow and strange to have so much of an emotional reaction to playing as someone who 'looks' like you in a videogame?
Not if you've never had that, no.
The grind to P3 and get all the perks for each and every character is beyond the scope of any normal person.
Nobody's forcing you to P3 all characters and unlock every perk on everyone.
I guarantee there are at least 100 completionists for every black woman playing this game.
I guarantee there aren't. Even if there were, I thought completionists got their enjoyment from having to work for completion, not just getting everything handed to them.
2 -
Imagine saying this with such a flippant disregard for other people, particularly minorities who are wildly underrepresented to begin with, when we have how many white characters? Why did we need Ace, or David? Isn't one white man in Dwight enough? What about Laurie, Nea, Kate? Isn't Meg enough?
Why not just have only one character of every single race while we're at it?
If you don't care about this, that's fine, but it LITERALLY does not affect you at all. You're choosing to argue a stance for no reason whatsoever. It makes other people happy to see themselves in media they love - deal with it.
7 -
There has been plenty of black characters in a large amount of video games now adays, including this one. And you are forcing me to if I want to complete everything. Do you have any idea on how long it takes to p3 with all perks? Even a modicum of knowledge on the subject? We are talking thousands upon thousands of hours of grinding billions of blood points.
0 -
There's been plenty of white characters too, but I only see you complaining about the black ones. Curious.
Yes, you are forced to complete everything if you want to complete everything. Isn't that part of the enjoyment for a completionist? I do have an idea of how long it takes to P3 with all perks. That's why I chose not to do it, even when Legacy was on the table. Ain't nobody got time for that.
3 -
Please spare me your righteous indignations about characters in video games. I shouldn't have to grind 500 more hours just to complete a character for the simple fact that their skin tone is a shade different in order to have everything unlocked. You want to have 5000 survivors? fine, make the grind actually reasonable.
"It makes other people happy to see themselves in media they love - deal with it."
And people are going to have a difference of opinion to your ideals, deal with it as well.
0 -
You don't have to do that if you don't want to. You are literally complaining about the consequences of actions that you took with full knowledge of said consequences.
3 -
Your need to be a completionist has nothing to do with me, or anybody else. That sounds like a personal issue, and you can stop at any time.
3 -
Okay, before you continue to speak on this subject let me refer you to the following link:
While I agree that I don't want to see a video game I enjoy fall down the rabbit hole of wokeness I am far more concerned with the grind that this involves.
0 -
Yes, that link shows what everyone already knows: it takes a long ass time to get everything, so if you choose to go down that path, you'd better be ready to spend a ridiculous amount of time playing the game.
While I agree that I don't want to see a video game I enjoy fall down the rabbit hole of wokeness I am far more concerned with the grind that this involves.
So DbD is "[falling] down the rabbit hole of wokeness" because they're adding black characters? Please, explain.
3 -
If this chapter hadn't have introduced Appraisal (the new chest perk), I can't have seen myself playing much DBD. I'm a survivor main, the new perks are the only thing I looked forward to. I know you mentioned reworking perks but it's more exciting to get new ones.
2 -
DBD already has several black characters. I think this whole concept of adding (insert minority here) just to have diversity that the vast majority of the community could care less about is insidious in nature. Race shouldn't be a big deal. Do you think all us white people care that the majority of the roster on EA sports games is minorities? No, we could care less. It's realistic to the rosters in reality. Leads in Tell tales walking dead are black? Nope, not one bit. The bigger a deal you make about race and this forced inclusiveness the more people recoil to the notion.
I miss when games were about having fun and not about having some form of social commentary.
0 -
You're right, race shouldn't be a big deal. That's why the devs have been adding characters as they pleased, without concern for quotas. You think one black woman was enough because that's your quota. The devs don't have a quota, so they added more.
Games are still about fun. You're the one choosing to pay attention to the characters' skin tone instead of the gameplay.
PS: White people are the minority, when taking global statistics into account. Signed, a white person.
5 -
There's tons of people, including myself who look forward to the new survivors the same if not more than the new killer.
4 -
I'm just going to say I'd love to see a short fat gay dude. I'd also love to see an out gay killer. I play half naked david cuz he's hot. I'd rather play a bear (hairy gay dude) if I could.
I'd take a half naked Jeff skin ffs. But if we get one that's gay, that's my new main.
Just because you think representation is irrelelvent doesn't make it so. There is also a pretty sizable LGBT population that plays this. Hell theres a clan of drag queens who play this on twitch all the time! (I love Deere!)
Just because a group is a minority doesn't mean they don't have voices. It's offensive to say the least to reduce our requests just because we're a small portion of the population.
5 -
That won’t happen.
They still have tonnes of survivor perk ideas to implement, and they prefer to use a new character as a vehicle for that rather than “perk packs”, because they make a lot of additional income from survivor cosmetics.
2
