Remove the DC Penalty for Killer (Read First)
In any situation where the Survivor disconnects from a game first, the Killer should not be punished for disconnecting afterward to save everyone else some time.
Please, remove the DC Penalty if the Killer disconnects after another player disconnects.
Comments
-
Why would the killer DC if a random survivor DC's? 3 Survivors are very well capable od winning the match. Why do people have the mentality that if 1 survivor is out that means killer already won? Does the Map and Gen speeds become more favourable to killer if 1 guy is out via sacrifice/mori/DC? Does match progression even matter or no matter what 1 survivor DC'ing means the match is ruinned and you're all entitled to some REDO!?
So if theres 4 Survivors but 1 gen left and 1 survivor DC's does that mean that killer won when there's just 1 gen left and 3 survs? How does that make sene? Those 3 Survivors could all be working on a different final gen but because someone DC's the killer won or should killer DC aswell because match is ruinned!? #########!?
If that's the mentality people have then ofcourse killers should think they should tunnel someone really hard because apparently 3 v1 is game over in favor of killer.
You're saying 1 DC = Killer Wins, which is just not the truth in every scenario.
If you as killer want to DC because some survivor DC'ed that's on you, i'd rather finish the match and get my BP.
A better question is why is there even a DC Penalty on a PARTY GAME!? Survivor is meant to be played with friends, as such 1 person having a disconnet doesn't mean the entire party should disconnect. And neither should the killer be forced to disconnect.
0 -
this is make sense, why would they DC The Killer when they know Survivor Queue is very long and lack of killer playing.
0 -
I don't like the idea in general.
but if a survivor DC then BOTH the killer and other survivors should be able to DC
Again don't really want this either way.
0 -
No need to get all up in arms. Let's give it a think. You're right, a disconnect at one gen left should definitely not lead to the match just being cancelled at the killer's discretion. You ask if match progression even matters. - And I'd say yes, it does:
We already have a match being cancelled when a player (including a survivor) disconnects while loading into the game. That means a 3v1 at the start of the match is already considered unfair enough to cancel the match altogether.
Now, does "the start of the match" end the second everyone has loaded in? I'd say that no, it doesn't end that very second. I wouldn't put a timer on it either, though. There are survivors who manage to find themselves on a hook within thirty seconds of everyone having loaded into the game. That's bad luck on various levels - but even if they were to dc at that point I'd go out on a limb here and say them staying in the match wouldn't have saved the match for the survivors. On the other hand; if it was gonna be a close match then the survivor side being down one man after 30 seconds due to dc will most likely cost them the match.
I'd say make it a timer with conditions to narrow down what constitutes "no longer start of the match". Off the cuff I'd say a 90 sec timer. Putting a survivor into the dying state cancels the timer. Injuring two survivors by any means cancels the timer. Entering chase with three different survivors cancels the timer. Completing a gen cancels the timer. Completing a heal cancels the timer.
And I'd probably not make it at the killer's discretion; if a survivor dcs while the timer is still running the game freezes, everyone has five seconds to make their choice: if someone wants to cancel it's cancelled (why not majority wins? Cause when one doesn't want to play anymore they go afk or will deliberately try to end the match asap). - Or just cancel the match by default if the timer is still running, much like the error upon someone failing to load into the match.
0 -
I would like this for survivors as well TBH. Survivors don't like playing in a match they know they will lose. Or the killer farms because they feel bad. If they do... that's just boring.
0 -
3v1 isn’t a guaranteed win, but it’s definitely WAAAAAY easier to win once the game is 3v1 instead of 4v1. When there’s only 3 survivors then downing one of them and chasing another while the downed one is slugged or hooked forces the last survivor to decide between doing gens but letting the other player die and doing a rescue and not progressing gens. It’s much, much more pressure on the remaining survivors at that point.
As a killer, if someone dies and there’s still more than 1 or 2 gens left for the survivors to complete, I very rarely lose the match. It’s much more difficult for them to finish three gens with just three survivors, no question.
0 -
My original post was a bit rushed in what I wanted to argue, but I should really articulate what I mean.
If a Killer player leaves a game, it's an automatic end of the match since the Killer is the host of the match and the most important part of it. However, if a Survivor leaves a game, that leaves the other four players in a sticky situation--Survivor or Killer, regardless. If you play it as a 3v1, the chances of the Killer winning are significantly higher, especially early to mid game--late game it might not matter, but it would definitely be easier for them.
But let's say that the Killer feels cheated out of playing a fair and fun match; maybe the other Survivors do, too. If it only came down to it, the Killer should be able to disconnect from the match early to mid-game to cancel out the match and let everyone reap whatever reward was gained from it, with none of the four or so players remaining keeping a penalty.
There needs to at least be something, anything, that actually makes it so that the Killer can at least not waste peoples' times without having to punish themselves as well. This is the only way I feel would be justified.
0
