Should the devs define asap what the win condition of the game is?
If you aren't aware, dead by daylight has no winning condition.
Exactly, nothing has ever been defined, not killing or escaping or pipping, nothing from what I know. And because it's defined on steam as a "competitive" game, that means 2 sides against each other, so the winning condition of one negates the winning condition of the other, always.
So, should the devs actually define...after 5 years what the winning condition for both sides if?
What is for survivors? Escaping, making more than 3 survivors escape, or pipping?
What is a tie?
What is for killers? Killing, hooking, pipping?
Should the devs define asap what the win condition of the game is? 54 votes
20 votes
34 votes
Comments
-
Yes, the devs should define as soon as possible the win condition.
Clearly there should be a winning condition, for both sides (if not it's not even a game). The real question is:
HOW MUCH TIME WILL PASS BEFORE THEY WILL DO IT?
0 -
Yes, the devs should define as soon as possible the win condition.
in my opinion. the win condition should be the next. 1 or less is a lose, 2 is a tie, 3 and 4 is a win. it's so simple.
5 -
Yes, the devs should define as soon as possible the win condition.
Exactly
3 -
Yes, the devs should define as soon as possible the win condition.
The winning condition must exist, because it's defined as a competitive game, on steam, which means 2 sides against each other
0 -
Yes, the devs should define as soon as possible the win condition.
I think they should do it, IF it's going to encourage interactions in a healthy way and IF it's accompanied by meaningful consequences for meeting/failing the requirements. If it's simply a matter of ranking, then players will keep making up whatever win conditions they want.
1 -
No, there should be no win condition.
Most asymmetrical games have failed from trying to be competitive because, in the end, they will never be 100% balanced. I believe the reason DBD has survived this long is because they haven't defined winning terms, meaning people can have fun and do whatever and still personally define it a win. For tournaments and competitions, yes they could make winning terms more define, but streamers agree kills shouldnt count towards kills, some believe it should be hooks, while others think it should stay kills, others saying 2 kills is a win, others say only 4 can be classifed as a true win. For the base game, it should stay undefined, as it really helps the health of the game and the casual playerbase, while the comp scene should just define winning conditions as they do already.
3 -
Yes, the devs should define as soon as possible the win condition.
Yeah, but the killer could have killed 1-3 survivors and the fourth escapes. Is that a killer win or loss? That's exactly why we need something that says that you've won or lost.
0 -
Yes, the devs should define as soon as possible the win condition.
It would end the hook vs kill debate and set CLEAR condtions that we can understand on how a normal game of dbd should go.
2 -
Yes, the devs should define as soon as possible the win condition.
Even if it's "not made for a tournament", there must be a winning condition, otherwise it's not a competitive game as it is from steam
0 -
Yes, the devs should define as soon as possible the win condition.
Exactly
2 -
Yes, the devs should define as soon as possible the win condition.
It's a game, if you play you gotta accept you can lose, it's part of the game/discipline
1 -
Yes, the devs should define as soon as possible the win condition.
It seems that survivors don't want the winning condition because then their beautiful "bullying the kliller" game falls
0 -
Yes, the devs should define as soon as possible the win condition.
This is what I hope is not actually happening, because if so then what a community...
0 -
Yes, the devs should define as soon as possible the win condition.
What I mean is that I hope that the people who voted no are actually in good faith
0 -
Yes, the devs should define as soon as possible the win condition.
Btw why so many "no"?
0 -
No, there should be no win condition.
Because It's unlikely the devs will make the definition one that people will agree on anyways.
These are the same devs who think Pig is good.
1 -
Yes, the devs should define as soon as possible the win condition.
The entity doesn't give a perfect competitive win condition with pipping, both the killer and all 4 survivors can pip, or both lose(if you all gen rush insanely fast the survivors can all tie and the killer lose. so who won?), while kills/escapes is a perfect way to determin the win condition
0 -
No, there should be no win condition.
I agree that, when the game doesn't define what a win or loss is, it's possible for all five players to feel like they lost, which sucks. But my preferred solution would be to shift focus away from winning and losing and instead give people more rewards just for playing the game, so that a match that doesn't go well still feels like it was useful in helping the player work towards unlocking something. I think placing more emphasis on winning and losing is just going to make people more frustrated, rather than less.
0 -
No, there should be no win condition.
It's so much more fun to keep my arbitrary win conditions though! Did I reach and maintain my 8 STBFL stonks on Demo? Did I stun or loop the killer long enough to get a juicy face camp with hook smacks? Did I land at least 2 Nurse blinks? Or pull off my breakout sabo play? Or hell, even just do one of my archive challenges? ALL WINS FOR ME.
But in all seriousness, the game's not that serious. I'd rather just have a good time than worry about if I met an actual win condition. I don't play it to win.
1 -
No, there should be no win condition.
It's subjective as to what the winning condition actually is.
Like that time when I had a really great game against a Legion.
Healed up plenty of teammates from the dying state. Got the Selfless Survival achievement done. Pipped up once.
Yet I got Sacrificed in the end and (I think) only one of us got out.
I'd definitely call that a win despite the fact that I didn't get out.
0 -
Yes, the devs should define as soon as possible the win condition.
But it's defined as a competitive game, so the must be a winning condition that's exclusive for both sides
0 -
Yes, the devs should define as soon as possible the win condition.
It is a serious game, there have even been tournaments
0 -
No, there should be no win condition.
We already do have a rather loose definition of what it means to win and lose as each side. "Killers kill, Survivors Survive." Kind of thing... Though that's pretty much it as far as a full definite Win/Loss criteria goes for now.
But at the end of the day, I feel those definitions are generally up to the player's own interpretation*.
*Unless of course you're in a Tournament or something similar, in that case it's up to the host to decide the Win/Loss criteria accordingly.
0 -
No, there should be no win condition.
Play how you'd like
0 -
No, there should be no win condition.
I doubt that devs have clear idea of a win condition either. This game just has so many factors and so many outputs from a single game that it's impossible to tell.
0 -
No, there should be no win condition.
I love that there isn't a black and white ruling as to what win or loss is, but I do agree with these conditions. Even before I heard others opinions on the matter I felt this way when I played Killer.
1 -
No, there should be no win condition.
It's a lot simpler to define "win" as killer than it is for a survivor. There are so many things that can happen in a game, so if a survivor decided to be selfless they should be considered a "loser" if they are the reason their entire team escapes?
There's simply no way to calculate a survivor win, because live or die is largely up to the killer. if they wanna kill one survivor and only go for that survivor, did that survivor "lose horribly" or were they subject to a killer's distaste for them. If a survivor works with the killer and gets everyone else killed and the killer and the last survivor farm together did that survivor perform better than everyone else and "win by a wide margin" by going "against all odds" despite the killer specifically deciding they will live?
1
