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!
Riveting Gameplay
Comments
-
I dare you to draw more wrong conclusions about me, and respond with an even more useless, abject comment.
0 -
I agree, but BP's pips and MMR are really the only 3 things that reward gameplay. (although some might argue that going up in MMR isn't a reward).
We can say delete the hatch but it exists to remove the endgame standoff that would happen when there was one survivor left. It gives an avenue for escape even when down to 1v1. So you can play for the hatch if you want and it does work to the survivor advantage to have it creating an avenue of escape if last one alive.
How exactly can the game punish people for playing for the hatch and not progressing the main objective outside of the 3 variables they have to reward people BP's, pips and MMR.
Hatch doesn't give MMR, I'd also say it shouldn't give as many escape BP's or emblem points as getting out through the gate. However if people play for the hatch as last survivor and get out then they should get something for it just not as much.
0 -
I find these type of posts very funny solely because of the potential irony. The same altruism heavy people in my experience, are the exact same people who play like this Dwight but hide that part of their gameplay just to make arguments like this
1 -
BP's pips and MMR are really the only 3 things that reward gameplay.
Do you mean to say that escaping (as survivor) and killing (as killer) are not rewards for good gameplay?
I think hatch is the wrong solution to the endgame problem.
I'm radical--I'd like to see other ideas explored, preferably ones that reinforce this idea that the survivors need eachother to survive.
I'm also practical--I think BHVR has invested too much time and money into the hatch to do away with it. So my best proposal atm for further change would be to institute a bloodpoint requirement to escape through hatch. "The entity wants to be pleased; it'll only let you out if you're deemed worthy of an escape."
0 -
No but you can't just auto kill people because they don't contribute.
Yes the survivor objective gets harder the less people contribute but that already lessens escapes for the team. So players have a choice when things go south to continue to be altruistic and help others or try and save them selves.
Just like a real survival horror experience. It may feel a lil unjust but its part of the game and makes it interesting and variable.
Mechanics like the hatch exists because previously you'd have long standoffs that dragged out forever, the hatch largely fixed that but really other than offering a limited but alternate means of escape (hatch) or just auto killing the last survivor there's not a lot of other mechanics that make sense.
Of those two options I'd prefer an alternate escape over just a you lost auto death move on to next game scenario.
The BP requirement is an interesting thought though but is it too punishing against new players, or even circumstances out of the survivors control. I got hooked and camped all game and can't even get a hatch escape because I don't have the BP's.
This is the extreme response I was talking about when I said take a step back and look at what you're asking, is it really rational or based on emotion because you feel the current system isn't fair.
1 -
I feel like I just had to have this talking point about tunneling and camping yesterday.
Yes, there are advantages to ditching all your teammates from the literal beginning of the game. I don't think anyone's saying there aren't.
Ideally, the game wouldn't incentivize this sort of behavior because it kills the game for a lot of players.
Long long ago, when Soccer wasn't even the name of the game, you could camp the ball by trapping it with your body. Infact, if you were ahead in the game and there were 20 minutes left, it was quite advantageous to turtle yourself over the ball so no one could do anything with it. Do you think people gathered around and said "Hunh. Well, he's got reason to. As frustrating as it is there's nothing wrong with what he's doing."?? No!!
They said "Wow, that's frustrating and not very fun for anyone else. How about we make it a rule to stop that?"
Same goes for here. While I wouldn't say you need to cooperate with your team always and forever as there are times the game is lost and you should take what you can get, maybe don't incentivize abandoning your team from the start and playing the hatch game?
2 -
No but you can't just auto kill people because they don't contribute.
Why not? Reap what you sow.
Mechanics like the hatch exists because previously...
I haven't played DBD since its release, but everything I find online suggests the hatch has always been in DBD. It wasn't designed with the intent of preventing standoffs until Patch 2.7.0 when they allowed killers to close the hatch and initiate EGC.
The hatch was made closeable because the game was seeing frequent standoffs in which the killer and survivor both stood over hatch waiting for the other to make a move, because at the time the killer could interupt and grab the survivor as they jumped in the hatch.
We are now entering a new version of that dilemma, in which multiple survivors can standoff against eachother AND the killer, prolonging the game so they can escape through hatch.
The common denominator here is hatch.
This is the extreme response I was talking about...
What about this response is extreme?
My entire argument here has been built upon observation and the conclusions I've drawn from those observations.
The only thing I feel right now is that you are very conservative, and my advocacy of radical design solutions makes you uncomfortable.
0 -
You don’t think it’s extreme to just have survivors die if they don’t live up to your standard of altruism?
1 -
I dare you to be more petty and continue to lash out at everyone that points out that you are shaming players for things you personally don't like. 👍
0 -
No, that isn't my point.
It's not about altruism--not in the literal sense of the word.
These actions which the game labels as Altruism (healing, unhooking, protection hits, etc.) are not really altruistic actions. They can be, such as when you hook-trade with someone in EGC--that is a truly selfless act--but by-and-large these "altruistic" actions are nothing more than strategy.
We don't unhook other survivors because we're altruistic, we unhook other survivors because we need them to increase our chance of survival.
0 -
@KayTwoAyy : Anonymous Dwight for 1 reason here, please take care to avoid these anonymous players in the next. You can't -rep on their profiles so... their gameplays can be highly suspicious...
0 -
you DIED with 20k points. you played a full game. The only person who didn't have a riveting experience was the poor Dwight who probably got tunneled out the game with 8k
0 -
So the goal of saving others is predominately selfish and based on survival?
Meaning at some point if saving your team mate would result in both you and them dying then its not worth saving them and better to play for solo escape/hatch.
But playing for hatch should be punished because its selfish and reduces chances of the team escaping.. but so does unhooking in some circumstances... but you shouldn't play for hatch to escape its unfair.. but why play for a save if neither of you can escape... and round and round we go.
🤯
This is why what you are proposing is an inherently weak premise.
There is nothing wrong with playing for the hatch if the situation calls for it, that's another good strategy.
We've come full circle back to "it was the right play by Dwight"... you know the replies on the first page that you dismissed as off topic even when your counter point relies on the same argument i.e "altruistic" actions are nothing more than strategy". Selfish acts are also nothing more than strategy.
Rather than going around again, lets sum up...
Its not a great idea to punish the right play even if its not in the teams interest, all you can do is give greater rewards to players whom engage in team actions.
This they already do because team actions tend to garner the most BP's, pips and coordinated groups escape more often.
Someone playing selfish may escape when you don't and no matter how unfair you feel that is, its a possible game outcome and circumstance should dictate when to play "altruistically" and when to play "selfishly."
Making that choice can mean the difference between escaping and dying and that makes the game varied and exciting.
Hence what you are proposing, which is a "Dwight should be forced to try and save me rather than save himself" scenario, is just 🤮 from a gameplay perspective.
Dwight currently has the choice of whether to save you or not and the games circumstances will dictate which of those is the best choice to make just like a real survival horror.
I've saved the team plenty of times, I've saved my own butt plenty of times and both scenarios are valid.
0 -
Why are you misrepresenting my opinions in your response?
I already established the fact that hatch is problematic. You can't break down my argument by pointing to a mechanic that I don't believe should exist, and then try to frame me as a hypocrite whose argument is inconsistent.
I can't possibly agree with your premise of "there is nothing wrong with playing or the hatch" when I don't believe that hatch should exist in the first place!
Do I think Dwight made the right call, strategically? Yes. Do I think that strategy should be available to him? No.
Also, I said "we need them to increase OUR chance of survival." I said OUR, as in the team. Survivors should be playing a team game--everything they do should be to progress the objective of the team. Not everyone is going to survive, but everyone should be invested in one another's survival.
The stats that Peanits released today about kill rates is very concerning, given the strength of today's solo-escape builds.
The closer the kill rate gets to 75%, the less incentive survivors have to play for their team. If only one survivor is going to escape on average, than the optimal strategy for every survivor will be to run solo-escape builds and let their teammates die on first hook.
Does that sound like a version of DBD you want to be playing? Because it sounds very boring to me.
0 -
You stated that making team decisions is a strategy, I pointed out the making solo or selfish decisions is a strategy too.
Yeah its a team game and players are already forced to think as a team if they want a greater chance of success
The team as a whole is stronger than the sum of its parts, but parts will fail and when they do you may have to decide what's best for you rather than what's best for the team.
You agree that this is legitimate thinking yet somehow its still unacceptable?
Ugh those stats are pooled blanket numbers with very little context don't read to much into them.
Frankly I don't see a plague of people playing for the hatch because the kill rates go up, coordinated teams still have the best chance of escape, its only smart to play for the hatch when its already gone to pieces. Which it what ol Dwight way back at the beginning of this did and you accepted was the right move, but you don't like it because you feel it was unfair.
I'm sorry but you haven't made a very good argument, it stands purely on you feeling its unfun/unfair if someone doesn't contribute and because of that they shouldn't have the option to play that way, why? purely because you think its unfun.
So again I say 🤢🤮to that as a reason for changing game mechanics solely to serve your personal sense of fun.
If the idea of a solo player having license to make their own decisions about what to do in game and potentially be rewarded for them is to much for you then find a SWF to play with.
As I've said we've come full circle I haven't misrepresented anything you've said I've only responded directly with my opinions of what you've said. Usually responding directly.
Its very clear this isn't a rational argument to you its an emotional one because you don't like this part of the game and want it removed where I say this kind of variability makes games interesting fair or otherwise.
Learn to stop hyper focusing on your sense of fairness and just play the game. Sometimes its gonna be unfair and that's ok.
1 -
Using the hatch is bannable forever
0 -
It is astonishing that you haven’t moved an inch on this matter.
Pretty clear at this point that you drew your conclusions at the start of the conversation, and then formed all of your opinions to match that conclusion.
You’re bending over backwards to try and poke holes in my logic, but you can’t so you resort to calling me emotional.
EARLIER you made other irrelevant comments, to which I ignored, that tried to call my character and intelligence into question.
When your best argument is belittling the person you're debating, and trying to discredit them rather than disprove them, then you don’t have an argument at all.
What are you still doing here?
0 -
That’s how you make an argument. You formulate an opinion and then stack it up against reasonable facts.
I haven’t moved because you haven’t really provided any good rational to change my view.
Basically you want the hatch removed because it’s not fair that someone who may have contributed less to the team can get an escape.
Your example of this is a guy who clearly contributed to the team based on post game score but decided at some point his team wasn’t doing great and escaped out the hatch after hiding.
You want this removed over nothing more than a bunch of assumptions about how someone else played and being angry that it’s not fair to have an option for solo escape if the team is lost.
You go on to say that they made the right choice and you understand but then in the same sentence say they shouldn’t be allowed to do this.
And why shouldn’t they be allowed to well… feelings, it hurt your feelings that their selfish play got them out and not you.
They didn’t consider the negative impact their decision had on other team mates. Your words.
My take on this is that’s ridiculous. You are being ridiculous. I’m still here because I genuinely engaged trying to figure out where you were coming and it just kept getting more ridiculous.
So no my opinion on it hasn’t changed. You are making a bunch of assumptions about Dwight after being unhappy about the outcome of a game.
You did an ok job of framing that selfish play should get less rewards and I agree.
But the rest is so extreme I.e deleting hatch so no one can escape if the team fails, overall kill rates increasing leading to nothing but selfish solo play for hatch causing a terrible game experience for everyone. That’s just ridiculous.
Sometimes it’s fun to watch the ridiculous. But we are now going in circles so it’s come to a close.
Dwight made the right choice and you’ve completely failed to justify otherwise. I would have left you on hook too in that scenario and having the choice to do that is fine.
1 -
AFAIK they said that they were working for a system were everyones MMR would raise or fall depending on the teams effort. So if you ran the killer for the last 3 gens and then died on hook, but everyone else got out, then everyone would raise their MMR by whatever a 1K/3E will give under this system, allowing once again for the good players to make some daring plays for their lesser able teammates without stranding in MMR hell once again.
I could also see this system extend to the BP gains, maybe half of everyones BP go into the team pool and the rest is individual BP or something. This way it would feel more like a team game.
2 -
And why shouldn’t they be allowed to well… feelings, it hurt your feelings that their selfish play got them out and not you.
This is so blatantly false.
I’ve articulated how and why hatch breaks the game.
My entire argument has been built upon the premise that survivors should succeed and fail as a team.
Edit: Drawing conclusions, and then cherry-picking facts to fit your narrative is not the proper way to formulate an opinion.
You need to test your conclusion against all available information.
You haven’t done that—you’re like a flat-earther.
0 -
yeah no one should be siding with the dwight. But no surprise the selfishness in the dbd community shows its self like fireworks on the 4th of july.
1 -
The only "articulate" reason you've given to why hatch breaks the game is this extreme case where survivors all play for the hatch and the game becomes some big standoff. That's such a niche scenario that its probably why the devs are "indifferent to it" as you put it.
Survivors already do succeed and fail as a team, that has nothing to do with the hatch. Having a secondary avenue for escape when the team fails is a good thing.
I'm not cherry picking anything I've responded directly to your points I just think they are rather weak.
Even your original example of the kind of gameplay you are trying to stop has you making a bunch of assumptions about Dwight's gameplay and motivation.
My conclusion is you had a bad game, felt Dwight shouldn't have escaped, want changes that force players to play as a team or whatever you define as team play.
Your rationale for these changes is it ruins player experience when people play selfishly.
You say that it results in player animosity but the only one here displaying any animosity to their fellow players, is you. Maybe not direct animosity but its all very passive aggressive. Even the topic title is "riveting gameplay" a sarcastic passive aggressive dig at the game.
That is a conclusion weighed against all the points you have discussed in this thread with myself and others.
The earth isn't flat but if the evidence pointed to it being flat over the current evidence for it not (a physical impossibility by this point but lets pretend) then as a rational person I'd have to agree that the earth was flat, which it isn't.
If you offered any semblance of a rational mechanical reason to agree with you then I'd have to change my stance, you haven't though. You really haven't.
Your argument boils down to "waah its not fair we're supposed to be a team". While yeah you are and team work wins games, but I have the choice to abandon you if the situation calls for it and I'll take it if I have to. Which is fair.
1 -
The only "articulate" reason you've given to why hatch breaks the game is this extreme case where survivors all play for the hatch and the game becomes some big standoff.
Again, a blatant lie. It would be convenient for your narrative if this were true, but it is not. Stop gaslighting me.
The irony here is out of this world.
The moment I provided you with an argument you didn't have an answer for you started acting self-righteous and lectured me about how "assuming is bad form," and that I shouldn't be drawing conclusions about Dwight's actions whilst you praised and supported said actions.
MEANWHILE, you drew your own conclusions about what happened in my game, how I felt about that game, what drove me to make the forum post in the first place, and why I want to see change. FURTHERMORE, you've made judgements about my character in a discussion regarding GAME DESIGN.
I have laid the facts down in front of you brick and mortar, yet still you choose to believe the fantasy in your own head, because the pill I fed you is too tough to swallow.
It's not that you can't be persuaded, it is that you refuse to even consider the possibility of having other opinions.
You've been close-minded through this entire discussion, and if you hadn't you would have pressed me on my critiques of the game as I brought them forth.
Instead of questioning the advantages & disadvantages of removing hatch, you questioned my motive for wanting to remove hatch.
Instead of questioning my experience with DBD, video games & design, you assumed all of my ideas were 'ragey and emotional.'
Instead of trying to form a cohesive understanding of my argument, you continued to boil it down to something it wasn't.
Instead of answering my questions when I pushed you on your reasoning, you sidestepped and deflected.
Don't waste your time responding to this, OR ANY, comment of mine until you've learned how to hold a discussion with someone of a differing opinion--I won't entertain you with a reply.
0 -
You must be confusing this thread with another you haven't really discussed advantages and disadvantages of the hatch here. With anyone in any real depth.
The most depth you've given is...
The point that having an alternate escape devalues the primary means of escape, ok sure whatever that means to you.
The other is that it creates a scenario where people play for the hatch screwing over their team. Outside of a rift challenge where you have to escape via the hatch there are probably very few people going into a game planning to hatch out from the get go. So its a pretty minor concern.
Lastly is a rather militant and literal interpretation of it what it means to be a team game. Which on the whole doesn't come off as very player friendly.
"I already established the fact that hatch is problematic" How?.. I don't see it. All you have is an opinion based on some very spurious ideas that don't really stack up, nothing about that is factual. Don't confuse your opinion with fact.
You've yet to provide any good answer to the question, get rid of the hatch why?
You also appear to be getting much more agitated. Which kinda plays into my are you sure this isn't just an emotional response rather than a rational one. Because your point seems kinda irrational. Based as it is on Dwight didn't contribute he shouldn't be allowed to escape.
1 -
Sorry Power Struggle but I'm with Myers on this one.
1 -
Care to communicate your thoughts on the matter?
I'm interested in discussing this issue with someone who will challenge my ideas, not dismiss them.
Post edited by KayTwoAyy on0
