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!
Blocking Toxic Players
With the amount of toxic players who grief and bully, DBD needs a blocking function to avoid these people. Other games do this and it works fine.
Comments
-
Which games do this where it works fine?
0 -
What do "other games" do to make sure such a system isn't highly abused?
2 -
L4D
1 -
This player is extremely good? BLOCK
This player mains spirit? BLOCK
This player brought a mori? BLOCK
Player didn't play how I wanted them to? BLOCK
Are you seeing the pattern?
6 -
No, it doesn't. You can block someone on Steam, but that doesn't guarantee they won't show up in your games.
3 -
I think you guys are ignoring the point. There needs to be a way to block or at least avoid toxic griefers. Also reporting people in-game should actually do something.
1 -
Petty people would also block legitimately good players though. I'd block streamers. I respect what they do, just don't wanna be a part of it. But yeah that solution would bring about more problems.
1 -
If you block someone on Steam, they can't join your match in L4D. I know this for a fact.
0 -
Well, I was going to open with "Other games have tried this and it led to high-skilled players being banned by all except newbies and it'd work the same way here", as usual, but you claimed other games had tried this and it worked, so I was curious to know which ones and see if I was wrong.
0 -
I keep reading that it doesn't work, although the threads are a few years old.
0 -
I still play L4D and I can tell you, it does. It literally tells you that you cannot join due to being blocked.
0 -
Why does this comment make me visualize Shaq blocking shots in an anti-DBD commercial?
0 -
Interesting. Well, I still don't want something like that in DbD because of all the whining players complaining about others not following their made-up rules.
0 -
So what's to be done about bullies, griefers, and cheats? Because as it is now, nothing's being done and there's no way to avoid them. We're not even allowed to know who the killer is.
0 -
When it comes to messages due to this game I maybe only had 2 blocked at most before I started now I have probably over a hundred blocked players on messaging from this game alone but yeah while I feel it would be nice not to have to play with those people it would just be an overly abused system entitled players would block everyone they lose to whether or not they were toxic
0 -
Griefers and cheaters get reported and banned. That's how you avoid them. And if you're going to say "reporting does nothing", rest assured you're part of the problem for spreading misinformation.
Not sure what you mean by "bullies", but assuming you mean players who abuse others of lower skill, this would make the problem worse as they would block everyone better than them.
You're not allowed to know who the killer is by design, because killers are supposed to have more information than survivors. They need that edge.
1 -
I'd rather people be able to block/mute players, than have BHVR step in and control all the player relations through reporting and stuff. Someone's saying something you don't like in chat? Mute. Easy, and no hassle. They're intentionally griefing? Blocked. Of course it'll get abused, but there's always bad apples. People use reporting inappropriately rn anyway, it's no different.
2 -
The difference is that people abusing the report system now doesn't lead to real consequences for those they falsely reported. Self-moderation just leads to the worst of the worst having a free reign on your platform, it's happened every single time that was attempted.
0 -
Blocking someone doesn't mean they're banned from the game. It means the chances of you being matched with them are lowered. Just because someone might wrongfully block people, doesn't mean the game is going to turn into a wasteland or something. When has it led to the worst of the worst before, anyway? I think of multiplayer games like TF2, and it's pretty great because Valve doesn't step in. It's up to me and my judgement, rightfully so.
1 -
No, this is actually a very important question that needs answering.
It can lead to increased queue times if enough people do it to the same person. Sure, in an ideal world, that "same person" is a complete jerk who actively harasses people and makes things worse for everyone. But what about when salty people just block people who they lose against? What would stop enough people from blocking someone skilled at the game just for winning? What stops that person from inevitably having higher queue times?
1 -
Well it's a risk worth taking because
1. If you're being salty and blocking people who are just better than you all the time... Then that's your own choice. That's you digging your own grave. And if you don't stop once you realize it's a bad idea anyway, then so be it. It's one person out of many, so the chances of it affecting other people are not that great. People would learn to curb it eventually, anyway. Even DSP knows when enoughs enough sometimes.
2. The chances of this exact scenario happening to a huge majority of this games player base is really unlikely. Think about it. This game has tooons of players now. I know there's a lot of people who exhibit bad behavior but I really have faith that the majority of this games players aren't the kind of people to be salty, AND block after every round, AND not learn to curb it.
1 -
-
There should really only be a "mute" button that perma-mutes this player for you so they don't flame you again in the post-game chat.
3 -
DBD isn't Overwatch. You jump in a match with a bunch of randoms for a quick game. No ranked or casual MM or anything. It's not a competitive E-sports games with tournaments and big players like that. It's certainly becoming that with the way people push it, but that's a different subject. Either way, Overwatches supervision is the exact opposite of what I'd hope for DBD. It's very easy to get banned for almost anything said/done out of the norm, and it just leads to enabling a super sensitivity within the player base at its worst. Don't even get me started on the Good Boy Points system.
Look at any Valve multiplayer game, and it works fine. It'd be simple, quick, and efficient if you're mature enough to know when to rightfully block someone. And if a surplus of immature DBD players have screwed their matchmaking by not learning, why care for them? They sound like a nuisance to the community, and good riddance. Maybe they can learn from it.
It's not that I have faith in that it won't be abused. Of course it will, everything finds a way to be abused. I have faith that it's abuse won't affect the game in a major way like you and other people say it will, considering just how many people actually play this game.
0 -
I don't see how the things you mentioned means that it is less likely that such a system would be abused in Dead by Daylight. The system in Overwatch was, from what I can tell, "You can block someone to make sure you don't match with them," which is the exact system being proposed by OP.
It'd be simple, quick, and efficient if you're mature enough to know when to rightfully block someone.
I want you to honestly tell me if the word you would use to describe the Dead By Daylight community is "mature."
And if a surplus of immature DBD players have screwed their matchmaking by not learning, why care for them?
The issue is NOT a certain player not being able to queue up quickly reliably because they blocked too many people. The issue is a certain player not being able to queue up quickly reliably because THEY were blocked by too many people.
I have faith that it's abuse won't affect the game in a major way like you and other people say it will, considering just how many people actually play this game.
Consider how many players play Overwatch vs. Dead By Daylight. If it didn't work for Overwatch, why would it work for Dead By Daylight?
1 -
I remember Overwatch being all about reporting. Maybe it's different now, but I remember not being able to go two rounds without someone being reported and making it public to everyone else in the match as if they're some kinda mini-cop. If it does have blocking and muting, then good, that's all it really needs. Keep the actual hacking griefing to reporting/banning. I wouldn't mind a system like that in DBD.
I know a majority of DBDs fanbase isn't mature. Call this an opportunity to cull them. You reap what you sew, in this instance. And if the player is someone being mass blocked by people instead, then you missed something I said in my second post; Blocking doesn't mean you're banned from a player or the game. It means your chances to queue up with them or drastically reduced. So in the case of having actually that many people block you (which is a lot more people than I think you realize), you can still be matched with people that have blocked you. It's not like your account would be a deadzone suddenly.
And I think it'd work for DBD as opposed to Overwatch because the fans are different. Not to mention, Overwatch has you up against 6 players on the enemy team, as opposed to either 4 or 1 players in DBD, so the chances of having more people block you on average (if literally every person blocks you every round idyllically) is far greater. That and a bunch of reasons I mentioned before (DBD is a game with more anonymity and quick matches in contrast to Overwatch, etc)
0 -
No. Dikembe Mutombo.."not in my house...no no no!"
0 -
I sure wish we could block the camping/tunneling jerkweeds...but then who could I flame in post game chat?
0 -
Reporting has nothing to do with the topic at hand. We are discussing a blocking system enforced entirely by player choice. Also, it is not uncommon for someone to go "haxx, reported for camping" in post-game chat in DBD, so that's not something different from what you remember in Overwatch.
You must have missed the part in my post when I said that one of the best Overwatch players in the world was experiencing very long queue times because of the system that OP has proposed. So yes, if that is accurate, I would say that your account does become a deadzone.
Different fans? No. Players numbers? If people are steadily blocking you regardless of which game, the end result is still the same. Obviously, this is an extreme example that isn't going to happen, but having 4 people blocking you at a time is not that much better than having 6 people blocking you at a time. You're still going to gradually find it harder and harder to match up as the game starts to find it more difficult to find people who haven't blocked you (and in a game that already suffers from matchmaking woes, it is absolutely NOT in the devs' best interests to exacerbate the issue). Anonymity? As long as it is still possible to message anyone who hasn't turned off messaging, no.
1 -
Reporting is all we have in DBD. It kind of does have to do with the topic. The point is a blocking system would be preferable compared to what we have now, which is just reporting. I recounted my experience of OW player reputation system, which was mostly comprised of reporting. Which is why I said I didn't want that OW system in DBD. If that's not what OW is anymore, then cool. Also, in DBD while it's just text after the match has already ended, so you can leave and ignore it, in OW it's someone usually saying it on mic mid-game. Something hard to ignore considering avoiding comms is "not good teamwork" which opens an opportunity to ban or block. But that's besides the point
With that OW player in mind, maybe OW straight up bans you from playing with a blocked player instead of lowering the odds, because a situation like that has never happened in a Valve multiplayer game. Not once in CSGO, TF2, or L4D2. And they use what you make sound like, generally the same system.
When I say anonymity, OW has you talking with players in voice chat and making teamwork decisions mid-game. DBD does not have this. There is no VC, and you can turn off chat. If you have a private steam profile and want to play the game for yourself without talking to anyone, you can do that. These two player bases invoke different reactions. One of these groups is gonna be a lot more reactive to toxicity and ready to block, compared to the other. One gives more opportunities to block someone than the other. Now take the whole 12 players a match vs 5 players a match into the equation as well. There are many reasons why this block warzone is more likely to happen in OW than DBD. This is why I don't see this pandemic of blocking happening to DBD. I seriously doubt even half of DBD's players as of right now actively report people, or would care to use a blocking system if it came.
0 -
The argument is that it is NOT preferable (in my opinion) because the potential for abuse is extremely high. And the stuff you're saying regarding your experiences in OW really don't do anything to alleviate the concern regarding abusing the system being opposed.
Also, if you're not straight-up banned from playing with a blocked player, then it's not blocking the player, is it?
One of these groups is gonna be a lot more reactive to toxicity and ready to block, compared to the other.
I think you vastly underestimate the DBD community's toxicity. I believe the DBD community is EXTREMELY likely to abuse such a system, and Overwatch is a good example of what happens when such a system is abused.
Now take the whole 12 players a match vs 5 players a match into the equation as well. There are many reasons why this block warzone is more likely to happen in OW than DBD.
I disagree. As I said, I see no reason why being blocked by up to 4 players at a time is going to make the problem not happen. It's unlikely that you would have been blocked by 6 people at a time in Overwatch anyways. Hypothetically, you only need a fraction of players to block you for there to be massive ramifications.
I seriously doubt even half of DBD's players as of right now actively report people, or would care to use a blocking system if it came.
See what I said above about vastly underestimating the toxicity of this community.
1 -
People who use reports inappropriately dont result in actions being taken because the reports are handled by actual people and not some automated system. If you claim someone said harassment for example, an actual person would go in and check the chat to see if its true.
As far as blocking is concerned... This would simply lead to skilled players being blocked by people who dont wanna get placed against a Huntress who can land cross-map hatchets for example. Overwatch TRIED something like this before and what they found was that all of a sudden...surprise surprise... One of the best widowmakers in the world has to wait forever for a lobby because an INSANE amount of people blocked them. The lobby times would worsen for EVERYONE with blocking being a thing because the system would constantly have to find 5 people who didnt block each other along with the normal criteria of rank and all that.
This isnt really an issue in coop games (L4D) since, typically...You wouldnt WANT to block ppl who are skilled since they'll be on your team. This is ONLY an issue when the other ppl playing with you are AGAINST you.
2 -
In a perfect world I'd be all for a system like this.
But this is not a perfect world. As stated already people would block people for simply being too good (even though they'd probably excuse it in some way to avoid admitting that), and that's without touching on the fact that people have wildly varying definitions of the word "toxic".
2 -
Basically every PlayStation game.
0 -
Those who block everyone have noone left to play. I see no issue there.
0 -
Except newbies, whom they'll stomp with impunity.
0 -
Matchmaking shouldn't allow a rank 1 to match up with rank 20, simple.
0 -
What happens when the Rank 1 player gets blocked by enough people that they are forced to pair up with people noticeably lower ranked than them? (See: the Overwatch example).
0 -
I don’t think it would be fair because I would 100% block Samantha the spirit so I don’t have a frustrating game
0 -
Yea, DBD definitely needs a solo mode only or add a block system that you never queue up with. CallofDuty has it.
I just disconnected last match because I was up against a full team of SWF. They didn't want to complete the game/repair gens. They just kept flashlight, body blocking, hook sabotage, healing, sprint bursting, deadhard(no skill perk). It went on so long that I just gave up. Hag needs a speed buff.
DBD isn't fun. Especially up against SWF.
SWF need to be blocked and removed/banned for toxicity. anything. Friends stopped playing killers because of the same thing. Especially the Friend that got me into DBD. He said it just isn't fun anymore and the toxicity helped.
1 -
I wouldn't mind if you could only block like a max of 3 people or something ever and were only allowed to replace someone on that list like once every week or something.
I mean you can't really abuse it then enough to have any real impact. There is a really toxic killer I've run into 3 times now, who is just a disgusting person in post game chat as well I would be quite happy to never have to play against again for example.
0
