We have temporarily disabled The Houndmaster (Bone Chill Event queue) and Baermar Uraz's Ugly Sweater Cosmetic (all queues) due to issues affecting gameplay.

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
The Dead by Daylight team would like your feedback in a Player Satisfaction survey.

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!

Maybe a solution to the long queue times?

nullptr
nullptr Member Posts: 12
in Feedback and Suggestions

So, I did some easy math on the queue times in DbD for killer:

33,651 players played the game 22.10.2018 according to steamcharts.

Let's assume the playerbase is 50% killers and 50% survivors.

16825 killers
16825 survivors

1 killer 4 survivors

1 game 10 min

4% of the survivors reached rank 1 according to steam statistics(This is all-time, so might not be accurate).
2.2% of the killers reached rank 1 according to steam statistics(This is all-time, so might not be accurate).

673 survivors is rank 1 if 50% of the playerbase is survivors
370 killers is rank 1 if 50% of the playerbase is killers

673/4
168 games can be played at the same time.
Meaning 168 killers will be put at the end of the queue after 10 minutes.

370/168 = 2.2. Survivors has to be looped 2.2 times before all the killers has played.

That gives us this:
2,2 * 10 min = 22 min.

It would take an average of 22 minutes before a killer finds a game if the ratio of killer - survivor is 50/50 and the rank 1 ratio is 4% survivors and 2.2% killers.

Let's assume the playerbase is 60% killers and 40% survivors.

13460 survivors
20191 killers

1 killer 4 survivors

1 game 10 min

4% of the survivors reached rank 1 according to steam statistics(This is all-time, so might not be accurate).
2.2% of the killers reached rank 1 according to steam statistics(This is all-time, so might not be accurate).

538 survivors is rank 1 if 40% of the playerbase is survivors
444 killers is rank 1 if 60% of the playerbase is killers

538/4
135 games can be played at the same time.
Meaning 135 killers will be put at the end of the queue after 10 minutes.

444/135 = 3.3. Survivors has to be looped 3.3 times before all the killers has played.

That gives us this:
3,3 * 10 min = 33 min.

It would take an average of 33 minutes before a killer finds a game if the ratio of killer - survivor is 60/40 and the rank 1 ratio is 4% survivors and 2.2% killers.

Let's assume the playerbase is 40% killers and 60% survivors.

20191 survivors
13460 killers

1 killer 4 survivors

1 game 10 min

4% of the survivors reached rank 1 according to steam statistics(This is all-time, so might not be accurate).
2.2% of the killers reached rank 1 according to steam statistics(This is all-time, so might not be accurate).

808 survivors is rank 1 if 60% of the playerbase is survivors
296 killers is rank 1 if 40% of the playerbase is killers

808/4
202 games can be played at the same time.
Meaning 202 killers will be put at the end of the queue after 10 minutes.

296/202 = 1.5. Survivors has to be looped 1.5 times before all the killers has played.

That gives us this:
1.5 * 10 min = 15 min.

It would take an average of 15 minutes before a killer finds a game if the ratio of killer - survivor is 40/60 and the rank 1 ratio is 4% survivors and 2.2% killers.

So, my idea solving this issue:
Force players to play survivor every third game in a row they have as killer. This would minimize the queue times a fair bit. Game companies should be careful about forcing people to play something they don't want to, I get it. In this case however, forcing a player to play one round of survivor so he can queue for killer again will take less time than queueing up as killer in the current system(if you are high rank atleast). I don't think the community will mind this at all, rather the opposite.

Feel free to discuss this.

Comments

  • Terrortot
    Terrortot Member Posts: 423
    Have to factor in red bracket not rank, and although forcing a survivor game would probably work, i think it would be better to broaden rank brackets at least for events.


  • nullptr
    nullptr Member Posts: 12

    @Terrortot said:
    Have to factor in red bracket not rank, and although forcing a survivor game would probably work, i think it would be better to broaden rank brackets at least for events.

    Yeah, I would. But it's hard getting statistics of players in red bracket, as it is not public(Atleast not that I know of). I was just going with what was possible to fetch online.

  • CoolAKn
    CoolAKn Member Posts: 677

    My idea is the game would analyze which role is needed to fill up lobbies, and have the Play As Survivor or Play As Killer buttons glow in the main menu to indicate which one is needed. If there are too many lobbies for survivors to fill, then Play As Survivor would glow; if there are not enough lobbies for survivors to fill, then Play As Killer would glow.

  • Terrortot
    Terrortot Member Posts: 423
    CoolAKn said:

    My idea is the game would analyze which role is needed to fill up lobbies, and have the Play As Survivor or Play As Killer buttons glow in the main menu to indicate which one is needed. If there are too many lobbies for survivors to fill, then Play As Survivor would glow; if there are not enough lobbies for survivors to fill, then Play As Killer would glow.

    Think that requires dedicated servers.  
  • KroolTheField
    KroolTheField Member, Alpha Surveyor Posts: 47

    I must say congratulation on the amount of effort you have put into this message. The values seem somehow quite accurate ( 50% / 50% ) when comparing to the amount of time I personnaly spend in an empty lobby.
    However as i've just told you on steam, I don't think players should be forced to play a specific role. Devs should have instead made it so killers have around 10 bottles to fill and survivors maybe 40 since as i've told you, there are 4 survivors per killer. ( This probably doesn't make much sense, but that's the way I see things. ) Once the event is done, things will go back to normal

  • nullptr
    nullptr Member Posts: 12
    edited October 2018

    @KroolTheField said:
    I must say congratulation on the amount of effort you have put into this message. The values seem somehow quite accurate ( 50% / 50% ) when comparing to the amount of time I personnaly spend in an empty lobby.
    However as i've just told you on steam, I don't think players should be forced to play a specific role. Devs should have instead made it so killers have around 10 bottles to fill and survivors maybe 40 since as i've told you, there are 4 survivors per killer. ( This probably doesn't make much sense, but that's the way I see things. ) Once the event is done, things will go back to normal

    As I'm not disagreeing with you, my post is more of a permanent solution to the queue system, rather than a solution just for events. I have queue problems, no matter if it's an event or not.

  • Entità
    Entità Member Posts: 1,583
    Forcing a player may convince them to abandon the game: what about incentives in bloodpoints or other rewards?
  • TG_Cid_Orlandu
    TG_Cid_Orlandu Member Posts: 73

    Not to mention the rank system. I'm at red rank right now and there are NO matches as killer.

  • nullptr
    nullptr Member Posts: 12

    @Entità said:
    Forcing a player may convince them to abandon the game: what about incentives in bloodpoints or other rewards?

    I agree with you, but as I stated in my original post; " In this case however, forcing a player to play one round of survivor so he can queue for killer again will take less time than queueing up as killer in the current system(if you are high rank atleast)". When there is a 1 to 4 ratio, there will always be queue problems unless you force or encourage the survivor playerbase up.

  • Entità
    Entità Member Posts: 1,583
    edited October 2018
    If suddenly appeared alluring rewards for playing as a survivor, players would be encouraged to comply.
  • nullptr
    nullptr Member Posts: 12

    @Entità said:
    If suddenly appeared alluring rewards for playing as a survivor, players would be encouraged to comply.

    Yes, that could work also. As long as something is done with it.

  • mortz
    mortz Member Posts: 8

    Force players to play survivor every third game in a row they have as killer.

    Jesus, you did so well with math and calculations but then you say this?

    The game worked fine before this event. During the event they capped vials to 30 on survivor, and THATS where this problem is. Forcing players to play what they dont wanna play will ruin their game.

  • nullptr
    nullptr Member Posts: 12
    edited October 2018

    @mortz said:

    Force players to play survivor every third game in a row they have as killer.

    Jesus, you did so well with math and calculations but then you say this?

    The game worked fine before this event. During the event they capped vials to 30 on survivor, and THATS where this problem is. Forcing players to play what they dont wanna play will ruin their game.

    Negative. The queue times did not work fine, atleast not for me. How exactly does it ruin their game? The thing ruining their game is the long queue times.

  • TerminalEntropy
    TerminalEntropy Member Posts: 71

    Nice work on calculations! But the idea is seriously lacking, add to the things said before also the fact that one forced to play survivor would simply go kamikaze and there, he can play Killer again.