Dbd needs to add an option to block bad teammates
Assuming that the amount of blocks is unlimited, it would help a lot to reduce selfish teammates constantly ruining games. No more sandbaggers, hook farmers, bush stealth noobs that do not do gens and so on.
"Bu-bu-bu-butt would that not increase queue times?" Technically, yes it would, but it is ok. For the survivors that block pthers, it is their choice, they consider that their experience is better even with higher queue times if the selfish teammates get removed from their gameplay. As for the survivor that gets blocked by everyone, it is his fault: if his gameplay made the game unfun for the thousands of survivors he met, then it is his problem, not the problem of thousands of survivors.
Also, yes sometimes you might be blocked without a reason, but that would be very rare as most survivors would just block the bad ones and you would still have 99% of players left (which means that your queue times would not really be affected). And these players would penalize themselves way more than anyone else anyways.
Besides, the main argument that these useless teammates will probably throw, that queue times will be increased therefore you should not be allowed to block people, would assume that you are not allowed to not play. By not playing dbd, you increase queue times by removing yourself from the list of players that can be matched and it is worse than just having a few removed players: instead of not allowing a few players to be matched with you, you prevent the entire player base of being in your lobby. So, if you cannot block bad teammates from playing with you, you cannot stop playing dbd.
Comments
-
gee I can think of absolutely no possible problems that could arise from this idea, no siree
8 -
This would just be abused by too many people, I fear. Some people get mad over anything that a team mate does. So i actually have to disagree here.
They should instead work on matchmaking, and improve it. And to be honest, I am starting to believe the lack of a proper tutorial that shows at least to some extent how to play survivor efficiently is also a big problem. I haven't played the current tutorial myself, but from what I have heard, it only teaches you the absolute basics, and doesn't give you any advice on how to play the game efficiently as survivor.
Which I feel comes much less naturally than playing killer efficiently. With killer, you just naturally play them in a normal way. With survivors, it seems much more natural to be as afraid of the killer as needed, and to be very careful of gens. I feel like there are for more small aspects and bits that survivors have to learn extra in order to play more efficiently, than for killer.
0 -
There isn't just an issue with higher queue times. The complexity of matchmaking logic increases quite a bit when you do things like this because now you aren't just trying to find 4 players near each others' MMR, you're also having to find 4 players where for each pair of 2 people in that group, one of them hasn't blocked the other. This might sound simple but the implementation isn't, especially in a huge pool of players that are constantly entering and leaving queue.
Could you implement this easily? Probably. Could you implement it efficiently considering how many active players there are playing DBD? Optimization at this scale isn't straightforward, and every added matchmaking constraint can have wildly unpredictable effects on how much work the matchmaking servers have to do to find matches.
0 -
A surrender option would solve all hostage related problems after 10 minutes of game time. Not a bad idea at all. Who would even be against that besides hackers, body blockers or immersed 2v1 squads? Either way, it is cringe they take your opinion seriously. Very sad.
2 -
I keep an ongoing list of sandbagging survivors in my phone. I just type in the name and if anything pops up I leave the lobby. It’s sad but I’ve been burned too many times. I’d like to see something put in place to at least make those who sandbag unmatchable if all teammates agree they threw the game for the killer. Especially when having a 3 SWF with that one random solo player urban around the mail or deliberately bringing killer to injured teammates due to bond.
1 -
but then your q times would be WAY longer
0 -
They already do. It's called join an SWF.
0 -
LoL used to have a “report bad teammate” system that was intended to be used for reporting MMR issues, as you can tell by the name of that it was used to report your teammates not for bad MMR but if you thought they were just bad in general lmao
Same thing goes in this case in a way, blocking bad teammates is good but it could also be used to block good killers as well
0 -
For a similar reason why you can't block killers, it's unfair to other players that they have a harder time finding games because people blocked them for whatever minor inconvenience triggered it.
I've had a 3 man intentionally get me killed because I supposedly body block their buddy or having 3 mans reveal my location because they didn't think I was contributing despite my score being the highest.
1 -
Here's the problem with your suggestion
Yes the person who chooses to block players accepts they have longer queue times
The person getting blocked doesn't. And yet both of them their queue times increase
And with how quickly people are to blame other people rather then themself when losing that would very quickly get out or control
1 -
In what world would a surrender feature not help with the current hostage and d/c'ing issues?
"DbD players already ragequit at the slightest inconvenience, you're telling me they wouldn't abuse the surrender feature?"
Tell me you've never played a MOBA or any without actually telling me you've never played a MOBA.
0 -
DBD isn't a moba
0 -
Wow, really? That's nice... r/whoosh. Now that you've cleared that up with your expert analysis lets actually get to my point. MOBA communities are known for toxic players too w/ people ready to d/c at the slightest inconvenience (hey, i've heard that somewhere before). That being said you don't actually see abuse as much as people wanna bring that point up. Yeah you get people who will surrender as soon as they can, but a good system makes it hard to do without the votes to support it.
0 -
I think Scott Jund made a video about this. As long as the capacity is kept small (maybe 5 blocks max), it could work. Plenty of games out there have a block feature and it works fine.
0 -
With just 5 blocks it would be useless. I meet much more trolls and potatoes in soloQ within a day.
0 -
Oh this would TANK the matchmaking. You realise how toxic a lot of survivors are right? I've had more hatemail off of survivors on my team than off my opponent in a match.
I mean i was watching a dbd streamer yesterday, who doubled back from exit gate to try and save the last survivor being chased. Said survivor ended up dying anyway, and then jumped on the streamers chat and started giving them grief for not leaving so hatch could spawn. Like #########? They made an active effort to try and help them and the still got toxic.
Was like a prestige 16 character too. Players like that will block so many people. And not be able to find a game. Plus one bad game doesn't make a bad team. Brand new player who can't hit skill checks could be a perfectly solid team mate one monh down the line.
0 -
By the way, this system in fact existed before the crossplay. You could just block players on steam and check profiles in each lobby: if you see someone you have blocked, just dodge the lobby. So, the same thing actually with the same result. Did it break the matchmaking and mark the end of DbD as we know it? I don't think so. It still can be used against steam players, or with crossplay turned off.
0 -
I agree. This should be a thing. However, there would need to be an option to remove them as well. The database should have a block list for you to remove players from that list. Also, you should get a warning that by doing so, your que times will increase. And the block shouldn’t be 100%, it should only decrease the likelihood of pairing up with these players. Cap at 100.
One last thing- it’ll only reduce your chances as being TEAMMATES with them- doesn’t work if they are the killer/opposition (you’re the killer and they’re survivor).
0 -
@ad19970 first of all, like I said in the post, the survivors that block everyone would probably be rude and most likely bad teammates themselves that want to blame everyone else for their failure, and who wants to play with them? They will penalize themselves far more than the people who will have the fortune of not having to play with them.
Also, a tutorial would not fix the issue of selfish teammates: you know you could do that last generator, but why not just hide, let everyone die and take the hatch?
0 -
@Sonzaishinai if someone blocks you for no reason he is most likely a salty, bad teammate that looks for a reason to blame you instead of himself and sucks at the game & would just drag you down anyways. You do not want this kind of teammate anyways. Beside, this type of person would block so many people that his queue would increase much more than your's and at the end of the day, he probably does not enjoy the game so he is likely to quit.
And let's say everyone blocks you because you always think of yourself and let everyone else die, that's your problem, stop playing in a way that ruins the fun for everyone but you.
0 -
Selfish take, but let's go a step further
Killer players also would experience longer queue times because of this. After all the longer it takes for the game to find 4 survivors the longer the killer has to wait.
How can the killer prevent their longer queues? Not capitilize on mistakes so survivors won't block eachother?
Not to mention that DbD has the challenge of having one of the most difficult matchmaking out of any game with how much variety that can happen in a match.
Survivor players blocking eachother makes it that much worse
This option has so many obvious flaws with it that it would take a really selfish person to think it's a good idea
1 -
Bad teammates kind of suck. Camping Bubbas and slugging Nurses are much worse, imo.
0
