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!
Dbd is the only non-team game I know of that penalizes leaving
In most PvP games, if you don't have any teammates who need you, you can concede the match at any time and that's that. You lose, your opponent wins, end of story.
But the Killer not only won't get any points from the match but receives a matchmaking penalty for conceding? Why should the Killer have to put the survivors' fun before their own?
Comments
-
I can't think of any game personally where you don't have any teammates and where you leaving ends the game immediately for everyone, that doesn't have some kind of penalty for leaving.
Most of the time if there isn't a penalty, it's like, a battle royale, where you leaving doesn't really affect any specific other player. In DBD, if the killer leaves, the match ends and it affects everyone.
In general, though, why is it considered such an extreme burden to finish playing a match you queued up for?
11 -
Let's see, off the top of my head: StarCraft, Hearthstone, Legends of Runeterra, Battletech, Battlefleet Gothic Armada, Dawn of War, Battlesector, World of Warcraft (Dueling), Darkest Dungeon (Butcher's Circus), XCOM (Multiplayer)... and probably many, many others.
Like I said, DbD is highly unusual for penalizing you for conceding. If one player in a 1v1 sees no point in continuing the match, they can usually give up at any time. The game counts it as a loss, and everyone moves on. And the player's reasons for conceding, as far as the game is concerned, are none of your business.
5 -
Most other pvp game without a team are 1v1
If you leave only one other person is affected and more likely then not finding another one isn't a long endeaver
In DbD you end the match for 4 other people
6 -
...All the ones I recognise there are 1v1, though?
Clearly it's different to concede to one person as opposed to ending the match for four people. I hadn't even considered one on one games because... that's clearly a different beast entirely, different rules and expectations apply.
Even so, again, see above; why is it an unfair expectation for you to actually play out the match you queued up for?
8 -
Says who? My understanding of why there is a leaver penalty in team games is because you have teammates who need your help in order to win. That's usually what pops up in the warnings when you press the "Leave match" button. But again, there are no teammates to speak of when you're playing Killer.
It's no skin off the survivors' back if they get 4 escapes for free. There is no rational basis to prolong the match if the Killer isn't having fun anymore.
0 -
why not just spawn a bot? it's better than nothing and they are good at t-bagging
5 -
No rationale for prolonging the match... except for that you queued up to play a match, which means it's a fair expectation that you finish it. The survivors may get four escapes for free (except not really, I don't think they count as escapes for challenges and such), but they didn't queue up just to see the escape screen, they queued up to play a match of DBD.
You shouldn't get to just ruin the match for everyone solely because you're not having fun anymore. It's basic good sportsmanship, not an unfair burden.
4 -
So if I've lost a StarCraft match, the game is effectively done, I have no army, not enough time/resources to make another, and all that's left is for me to wait for my opponent to destroy every last one of my buildings (The normal win condition), it's poor sportsmanship for me to say "I concede"?
The game's community has the opposite stance; if you say GG and quit, they call you a good sport, but if you try to prolong the match by hiding a building in the outskirts of the map, they'll usually call you a bad sport.
Same goes for most card games I've played; if you know you have nothing to stop your opponent with, it's often considered bad manners to try and prolong the match anyway. But saying "I concede"? Nobody bats an eye.
Hell, even for team games, it's not unheard-of for a team (Even in a competitive setting) to hold a "Surrender" vote and agree to surrender, and again, nobody calls them a bad sport for that. They're not under any obligation to prolong the match just to feed the other team's egos.
2 -
Sure, I'd buy that in StarCraft it's different, if there truly is literally no way for you to win. That's a perfectly good enough reason to have a dedicated surrender button, or even to just not have a penalty for outright quitting either, in that game. DBD, however, is not StarCraft, and a match is not actually meaningfully lost until the survivors have opened the exit gates and are standing inside one.
We've all had matches that feel like a slog halfway through but it's still good sportsmanship to play it out, because it isn't actually meaningfully lost yet. You can - and in a lot of cases will - turn it around in the endgame. The match is not over, so you leaving isn't functionally the same as letting the match play out.
4 -
You think DbD is the only game where comebacks can happen when you're behind? Many card games are turned around at the last minute by one perfect draw that gives the player exactly what they needed to win. But that's beating the odds, and the game still lets you concede at any time if you don't want to play it out.
0 -
I'm really not seeing how this translates to it being unfair to expect you to finish out a match. It's not like stalling a game out forever in your StarCraft analogy because the game isn't just lost and playing it out isn't going through the motions, and even if card games let you concede at any time... so what? I don't get how that's relevant to the central argument at all.
"Other games let you do it" is only compelling rhetoric if you can back it up with some kind of design reason, or other such argument. Why should DBD let you rob four other players of their chance to play the match out, when the match is not meaningfully over or decided?
4 -
All multiplayer games have a DC penalty...
DBD definitely needs it because this community is so more entitled it's stupid. Only game I can play and people will just DC over stupid stuff.
If you massively wanna give up so bad as killer go stand in a corner and face the wall, though I'm not quite sure why people want to give up as either side so easy... you can learn alot in from those matches even if it's just to practice something different/new.
Multiplayer games need DC penalties, even in asymmetrical ones.
1 -
Why do I have to justify my position? Justify yours. If you had your way, people would have to be chained to the table at physical card game tournaments, and not released until their opponent has decided they're finished with them.
1 -
I have justified mine. It's good sportsmanship to play matches out, and bad sportsmanship to end them early outside of guaranteed loss scenarios. This is the case because players queue up to actually play the game, not to simply see the ending screen. Thus, DBD should have a DC penalty, to penalise poor sportsmanship and to promote actually, y'know, playing the game.
7 -
I just listed several that don't. Because you don't have any teammates in those games.
Indeed, the DbD community is incredibly entitled. Especially Survivors who think they're entitled to prolong the match and torment the Killer for as long as they like.
0 -
Good sportsmanship/bad sportsmanship according to whom? What gives you the right to arbitrate what is and isn't good sportsmanship, especially given how many other games would wholeheartedly disagree?
0 -
It's not according to one specific source, it's according to the line of logic that I just laid out, in the message that you just quoted.
Those other games aren't objectively correct, and neither is any game that does have a DC penalty. You do actually have to back up your arguments with reasoning.
4 -
I already did. You have no teammates who need your help in order to win. If you have the option to concede, you don't have to play out a match that you're not enjoying anymore, and your opponents get a quick and easy win. Everybody's happy.
0 -
You can concede in DBD as Killer, you can go to the door and stay there until all gens get done and open it to force EGC, it usually takes around 2 minutes if you actually played the game and they had already some gens done.
1 -
So where's the harm in cutting out the middleman and just giving the survivors the win from the start, instead of forcing the Killer to sit and wait while the Survivors play with the gens?
0 -
You queued up, so that's what you are agreeing to. If you don't want to play the full match don't start the game. This is how it works here and I, for one, think the rules should be more strict, not less. I feel that if anyone DCs the negative pip should be removed for everyone. That person should start at a one hour DC timer, then a one day timer, then a one week timer, then a one month timer, and then a one year timer for each offense and it should take 30 days of no DCs to reduce it by only one offense.
If you DC you are wasting other people's time, not just your own. Either stop doing that or go away. Also, if the killer DCing just gave the survivors their 'win' that doesn't account for everything else those survivors needed to do in that match. They could have a daily ritual, a tome challenge, a trophy/achievement that they are working on and had already put some of the work into these things but you selfishly want to leave...
2 -
Because it will be abused "I got RPD, concede" "Oh they were a premade, concede" "WHAT?! 1 gen done and I didnt get a down yet? concede" "this guy stunned me 0,1 seconds before I got the down... guess what? concede" "They set up a Boon, concede" "DONT YOU DARE TBAG ME OR ILL CONCEDE!! THATS IT, I CONCEDE, CYA TOXIC %@#*`#!!"etc etc etc.
This comunity is so entitled and toxic giving easy exits gets abused nonstop, its easy to see when the DC penalty is off and people mass DC against wathever.
4 -
You've been listing constant false equivalences, none of which have anything to do with asymetrical design.
I can understand both sides of this argument, yours is that there should be a means to concede while the other is that you should play matches out regardless of whether you're winning or not so long as it is still possible. As killer in DBD, there is nothing (currently) that can be done to make it physically impossible to kill survivors: There are ways to stall things out tremendously, but even things like the EGC and bleed out timers are designed to make sure that lethality should never be impossible. That said, there is a very disproportionate ability for survivors to decide they don't want to play out the rest of a match, and force themselves out of it with zero penalty, most commonly via killing themselves on hook.
The killer side gets trapped in games relatively because they have no way out. Survivors abuse their way out which they shouldn't have. Parity in either direction should absolutely be the case, and in most people's eyes, having to play out matches is the more viable solution since it results in an actual playable game. Don't jump to hyperbolic "chaining people to desks" nonsense over a simple concept that has existed in competition for much longer than video games as a medium.
5 -
DbD killers also can open the gate once the gens are done and the game is effectivelly over
So quiting to prevent a already lost match from dragging out is already in the game
And it doesn't change anything that you end the game for 4 times as many people as the games you said
To many people would just leave the moment something didn't go their way
1 -
Everybody's happy, except the players that wanted to actually play the game.
5 -
DCing is the exact opposite of wasting other people's time. It turns a 7-10-minute escape attempt into as little as 2-3, if that.
The Killer is not obligated to help Survivors finish archives, or dailies, or anything else. If they were, then where's the penalty for downing a Survivor when they're trying to pick up a glyph?
0 -
Its not exactly the same, since the gates can only be opened when powered. By comparison, survivors can conceed <1 minute into the game. If the survivors refuse to power the last gen for whatever reason, the server's time limit becomes the only restriction. If gates could be opened by the killer before gens were powered, that would be correct.
0 -
Games are supposed to be about the journey, not the destination.
4 -
Except when you're not having fun on the journey anymore and would like to move on to the next one, apparently.
0 -
Wrong. If I am in a match, every second of my time in that match spent will be wasted if the killer DCs.
Wrong again. YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO PLAY IF YOU QUEUE UP. You agreed to do it by clicking ready. If you don't like it, too bad.
1 -
And yet the soulsborne games seem to have done quite well, last i checked. Frustration leading to catharsis is a part of the concept of delayed gratification, which is an important part of competition. I find it ironic you called anyone entitled earlier when having a stance like this.
4 -
So let me get this straight: Conceding a match because you're not having fun and don't want to keep playing that match is entitled and toxic? Not putting your opponents' fun before your own is entitled and toxic?
Do you have the slightest idea how many people you just called entitled and toxic?
0 -
Yes, because you leaving the match ruins the match for the other players still in it. Why do you think there is a penalty on quitting matches in the first place?
And yes, I do have a pretty good idea. That doesn't make it any less accurate, and it is a very well known issue with this game especially. Many games even have "ragequit hell" matchmaking where people who act like that get separated from people who play their matches out and only get matched with each other instead.
4 -
So everyone who has ever conceded a match of StarCraft, Hearthstone, Magic the Gathering, Yu-gi-oh, Legends of Runeterra, Battletech, Darkest Dungeon (Butcher's Circus), World of Warcraft (Duels), XCOM multiplayer, Battlefleet Gothic Armada, Battlesector, Dawn of War, Tennis, Golf, Air hockey... any game or sport where you have no teammates, was toxic and entitled for doing so? Even when nobody involved got upset over it?
And how about everyone who ever unanimously agreed to surrender in League of Legends or CS:GO?
Yeah, I think know the games you're talking about with leaver queues. And notably, they're TEAM games. Where you actually have teammates who will likely lose if you leave.
Everybody benefits from having the option to concede a match in a non-team game. It is mutually beneficial for the loser who just wants to move on to the next match, and for their opponents who immediately win the game. If winning is not enough for you, if you think players should be obligated to put their opponents' fun before their own, THAT is peak entitlement.
0 -
I already pointed out that is a false equivalence. Don't try to dress an argument up to attack it. This an asymmetrical game that is designed specifically to have a shifting power dynamic where the advantage changes, by design, from one side to another. By design there will always be points where one side has an advantage over the other. There is also never a "lone barracks in a corner of the map" scenario for the killer especially, they are never that declawed even by the worst of skill matchups due to multiple mechanics that are built into this game.
Not only that, but there is a way to forfeit the game, it just carries a penalty for being unwilling to play the rest of it out. You don't even need to pull the plug on your internet or anything that drastic, its a literal button ingame. It carries a penalty because you are taking back your agreement to play out a game to its conclusion, so your disruptiveness is punished accordingly.
Do you know why the "team" stipulation keeps coming up? Because quitting ruins the game for your team. Quitting also ruins the game for your opponent, which have consumables on both sides (addons, offerings) which get used up regardless of how the match plays out. Thats on top of the most basic of considerations that many people want to actually play matches more than they care about winning, which I honestly don't understand how or why that seems to be a foreign concept to some people.
Edit: Also since you hyperbolized adding things like tennis and air hockey, yes, even 1v1 games have disconnect penalties. Fighting games especially have been cracking down hard on them in more recent years, for the same reasons I have provided.
4 -
Why should either side be able to dc without penalty. I cannot stand that survivors can just get out of the match whenever they want for free ruining the game and half the people on this forum defend this bhvr because they don't know better. At least on killer it really doesn't affect anyone but the killer I guess, but one survivor DC's and that game is just doing the works for the remaining players until it's over.
1 -
If they fixed it so you purposely DC and get these penalties, fine. But I've had it where their own game crashes and it's their bad coding but I get a penalty. I didn't wanna leave, I never DC because I lose, get tunneled out at 5 gens (almost every match now, but I still try) or rage quit. I don't even suicide on hook, even when I've got jerks who let me get to second hook on first hook heh.
Anyway my point is if this happens only to people who purposely DC then fine.
0 -
And what if I don't care? I was facecamped, and tunneled, all game, from the blasted first hook. The killer did not spare a single glance toward other survivors either, even though he had plenty of opportunities. Now that I'm, once again, down, on death hook, and about to be hooked 3rd fkn time in a row, why can't I leave even a little bit faster? Why force me to watch ugly tunneling mug and suffer from anger-induced brain aneurism in the process?
1 -
Get better at the game so you aren't such an easy target for tunneling that badly. If you'll apparently be leaving the match pretty quickly if you actually try, why give up? If you get tunnelled and then disappear while on death hook, the killer hasn't successfully gotten anyone out. If you want help preventing aneurysms, try less hyperbole.
2 -
Again, why tf should I care about tunneling/facecamping molerat? Besides, my character is about to die anyway, and watching mori-death on hook is something I DO NOT enjoy in the slightest. Not to mention it takes fkn forever.
0 -
Cool, go grab a drink from the kitchen while the animation plays out if you don't want to see it.
2 -
And I already pointed out that it is NOT a false equivalence. Comebacks are not unique to Dead by Daylight, not in the slightest.
I never agreed to play out a game to its conclusion. The warning itself doesn't say anything about ruining the game for other people, it just says "Leaving a match counts as a defeat". And sometimes, you know what? That's perfectly acceptable to me.
And I don't understand why the concept of mutual consent is so foreign to people in this game. Games should only go on so long as both sides consent to keep playing. Consent can be withdrawn at any time, for any reason. I have no right to demand that my opponent keep playing when they don't want to anymore. And nor do you.
Really? Well, that's dumb. Unless disconnecting doesn't count as a defeat in those games for some unfathomable reason, there's no real reason to get upset about it if your opponent decides to leave.
0 -
I never said comebacks were unique to DBD, I said that it has an inherent advantage to either side by design which means that it is never supposed to be an even playing field. That is something that games purposely avoid when trying to be competitive, and the entire purpose behind concepts like balance. Even then, You're not allowed to quit matches early in Street Fighter because you're playing Zangief vs Guile. You are expected to play out matches regardless of advantage.
Also you're once again focusing on win/loss as the only purpose of playing games, when most people play games to actually play them. If you can't understand a concept that simple nobody is going to be able to help you understand this situation, so there is no point discussing it.
3 -
This is a very weird way of saying, Survivors should not be penalized for leaving the game.
1 -
Oof. Okay.
SC2 is 1v1, ditto Hearthstone. Actually most of these are.
I'd love for a 'concede' button to exist, but this is not a good analogy.
1 -
Street Fighter seems to mainly apply DC penalties because the game gives you the benefit of the doubt on why you disconnected, and doesn't count it as a loss. If leaving a match counted as a defeat, I doubt people would be anywhere near as upset over rage-quitting.
You demand that players put their opponents' fun before their own, that they keep playing even when they're not having fun, and you have the nerve to accuse ME of not understanding the purpose of games? Silly me for thinking the main goal of playing a videogame should be that you have a good time. No, the Killer is purely here for the Survivors' entertainment. Should have read up more on the Survivors' Rulebook for Killers.
0 -
What exactly about a 1v4 game is different? The Killer is one person with no teammates; if the Killer leaves, it's a victimless crime. The Survivors get a free win, and the Killer doesn't have to play out an unfun match.
0 -
Street Fighter isn't the only example. King of Fighters even gives you a "fair play score" from 0-100 that flat out tells both you and other players whether you see your matches through to the end. The Dark Souls series flat out softbans you into quitter hell for disconnecting during online play, and even gives you a limited use item to revert the penalty in case it was caused by legitimate issues. There are many games that put match integrity above whether you win or lose, because again, most people want to actually play out matches.
And don't make this an us vs them argument. I get called a killer main here constantly for my stances on parity and how killers are usually at a disadvantage or otherwise left out of game design choices. I've also advocated plenty for survivors to not be able to suicide on hook for the exact same reason, it ruins the match for the other players. I even said earlier in this topic that it needs to be available for both or for neither, and that neither is the better option to maintain the game's ability to actually see its matches reach conclusions.
3 -
Yes and no. For example, my friends and I bring flans and rare items. Killer tries to camp the first down, we get them out and the killer quits. Everyone gets sub 10k BP and wastes all of that stuff.
It's a bit different.
2 -
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in all of those cases, the game doesn't count it as a loss if you disconnect. Which seems to be the root of most of the frustration people feel when their opponent disconnects in those games. Seems to me like we've got an easy solution that has something for everyone: Disconnecting counts as a loss. Leavers don't have to play out a match that they're not enjoying anymore, and the winners still get the rewards for winning.
Well, like it or not, this is Survivors' Rulebook for Killers behavior. Demanding that Killers conform to some arbitrary standard of behavior, because that would be more entertaining for the Survivors.
0
