I didnt get my Adept bc a Survivor Dc'ed
Why in heavens name is this still a thing i just did the Skull Merchant Archive Challenge with her 3 Perks but the nea dc'ed before i could hook her so i didnt get my achievement so i only got ruthless killer not merciless for the love of god bhvr change this
Comments
-
dude, theres nothing that can be done about dc's. the dc timer is the only thing to be done, blocking the right to dc is horrible for this game. the game would be literal torture without it, also some people have technical issues with their internet.
0 -
try not to tunnel so hard next time
9 -
for the record i didnt tunnel in fact i played insanely fair for skull merchant standards
5 -
Ah yes, the usual 'It's your fault if your opponent ragequits' mentality. 🤮
Don't matter; Survivors will ragequit and then say what that person did. Them being salty is the Killer's fault, as per the Rulebook. 😂
14 -
Yeah I dunno, why is Skull Merchant a thing? There's a lot of bullshit in this game.
3 -
skull merchant is bs but thats not the point of my post there are enough posts on this forum that already got that covered
8 -
Yeah I agree, if a survivor DC's a killer should still be rewarded with adepts and challenges.
If a killer DC's, survivors still get adepts and challenges.
It makes no sense
7 -
I feel bad that you didn’t get your adept, but I’m not blaming the Nea for rage quitting. Playing against SM is hell, pure & utter hell.
3 -
Imo rage quitting is never acceptable, esp early in the game when you got downed the first time. It's just a d*ck move to all the remaining players. If you don'T want to play against SM, play killer or not at all!
5 -
Not gonna lie, I don’t DC but I surely will feed myself to her if the game is lasting longer than it needs to because she wants to hold her 3-gen strat. If need be, I will end myself on hook & really won’t care because its exhausting and boring.
If that makes me a bad person, I’ll be that.
2 -
This. Either people have to accept to play against the whole roster or not at all.
Imagine people would ragequit all the time in league of legends when they play against one of the many champions they don't like from the 150+ characters. They can only ban one themselves and there are a dozen counters for every champs in lol.
1 -
Worst part is devs knew that DCs would prevent an adept before they applied the adept update. And simply didn't give a flying #########.
1 -
Tbh if you're stuck in an unwinnable slog fest it's perfectly acceptable. It's ppl who DC 2 minutes in the second they go down who hurt the game.
5 -
Giving up on hook may still be a dick move (when done right on first hook when the game is still winable for the survs), but it's within the game rules and it does not rob the killer the adept. So as long as you at least tried to break the 3-gen and not give up instantly bc its a Scully, I wouldn't blame you.
2 -
With more than 30 killers, maybe DbD could use such a ban feature as well. It would have to be a selektion before queuing, bc the matchmaker would habe to respect it. And maybe only allow one killer could be banned per group. So a 4-man can only ban one, while randoms could potentially ban up to 4 (but cannot coordinate before, since they don't know wizth whom they queue).
Don't know if this would be abusable, but I think there are many killers hated on by different ppl (Nurse, Blight, Cannibal, Scully, Twins), that it might even out overall. YOu just would have to expect longer queueing times when using killer ban feature.-
0 -
No. Not unless Killers can pick to ban 4 perks.
I mean, you have 4 Survivors picking to ban up to 4 different Killers, which would inflate the queue times of people playing those Killers, based on Survivors having hurt feelings over some of the roster. So allowing Killers to ban perks they don't like in return is only fair.
0 -
Devs need to take a page from Friday the 13th if the survivor dc's before the kill the kill still happens.
1 -
most Randoms i get paired with if SM is killer putting drones on the gens they instantly DC because they don't want a stale mate for 30 minutes if they drone on a gen but it come to a point every time it's removed they going to put another drone and just coast between the 3 and NEVER commit to a chase if it means a drone gone 90% of people play her like this until her mechanics are reworked or she has a timer on putting drone on the same area again and again it going to happen until it's FIXED
1 -
Killers should not be balanced around Survivors ragequitting because they don't want a challenge. 🤷♂️
0 -
It would only be POTENTIALLY 4 killers for four randoms. And the randoms could not coordinate their bans, bc they have to lock in their banned killer BEFORE queueing for a match, since the killer player cannot change the killer once in a lobby!
It would only increase queue times when many different players all hate the same killer. But like I said, the hate for certain killers is relatively diverse, so I don't think it would be noticeably, at least in "normal" MMR regions. In high MMR regions, bans for nurse, blight or spirit might be more prevalent, potentially increasing their time. But it would also increase the wait for survivors, so I guess it would also self limit. Would be great to just try this out in a PTB, imo.
About banning perks, how is banning survivor perks fair as a compensation for killer bans? When 50% of survivors ban Blight, there are still the other 50% to build lobbies from. Killer bans do not impact the games that eventually will be played at all. Surv perk bans would ABSOLUTELY impact each and every game that is played. The two things are nowhere near comparable. If anything, survivor perk bans should be compared with killer perk bans.
1 -
It would only be POTENTIALLY 4 killers for four randoms. And the randoms could not coordinate their bans, bc they have to lock in their banned killer BEFORE queueing for a match, since the killer player cannot change the killer once in a lobby!
And 4-Man SWFs could ban 4 different killers.
In high MMR regions, bans for nurse, blight or spirit might be more prevalent, potentially increasing their time. But it would also increase the wait for survivors, so I guess it would also self limit.
And yet Nurse, Blight, whatever players should not be forced to have inflated queue times just because salty Survivors want easy wins.
Would be great to just try this out in a PTB, imo
No. Would be a waste of time.
About banning perks, how is banning survivor perks fair as a compensation for killer bans?
Because it's the same thing; You want to ban a Killer & their powers. Survivors don't have powers, except for perks.
Killer bans do not impact the games that eventually will be played at all. Surv perk bans would ABSOLUTELY impact each and every game that is played. The two things are nowhere near comparable
Incorrect. They are the same thing. Because Survivors don't have powers to ban.
If anything, survivor perk bans should be compared with killer perk bans.
Incorrect. If Survivors can ban Killer powers or perks; Killers get to ban Survivor perks.
Survivors should, in no way, get to freely ban Killer powers with Killers having to shrug and take it. This is BS.
Your idea is horrible and should never happen, but if it were to ever happen; Banning Killers or Killer Perks = Banning Survivor perks. And Survivors should not get to ban both.
0 -
Question: Can you get the killer adept if you offer a map?
I heard you can't, but I don't know if it's true
0 -
ugh don't rise to the bait. How you played shouldn't even factor into it if you are playing within the game's defined rules.
I agree its time for DC's to be counted as kills for the purpose of achievements or dailies. Easier said then done though.
The ability to just cancel someone's achievement by quitting is crummy but does that mean we just give all the survivors in a game their adepts if the killer quits?
Its a tricky one.
0 -
"And 4-Man SWFs could ban 4 different killers."
No, you should read again what I wrote before:
"And maybe only allow one killer could be banned per group. So a 4-man can only ban one, while randoms could potentially ban up to 4 (but cannot coordinate before, since they don't know wizth whom they queue)."
One banned killer per (swf) group!
"And yet Nurse, Blight, whatever players should not be forced to have inflated queue times just because salty Survivors want easy wins."
Sure, but it's not clear if that would be the case (hence a PTB). You can only ban one killer per group, and not all groups will ban the same. Some groups will ban Nurse, some Blight, some Spirit. They cannot ban ALL of them.
"No. [PTB] Would be a waste of time."
Since such a feature will never be implemented anyway, there won't be any PTB about it. But if hypothetically there was such a feature, then surely it would need a PTB to look if queue times are affected (heavily) or not.
You know, the devs response to things like different game modes is always "We do not want to divide the playerbase between normal and special matchmaking, which would increase queue times, so we are not doing it." But I think, we should actually try something out to see if that concern is justified or not. And something like a ban-feature test could be used for that purpose.
"Because it's the same thing; You want to ban a Killer & their powers. Survivors don't have powers, except for perks."
It is NOT the same. LIke I said, no killer will be banned from every group, it's not a gloabl ban! There will be groups which block them, and there are other roups which will face them. And this trials will play out relatively normal (survivor may perform a little bit better overall, just bc there are fewer players instantly giving up). Survivor perk bans by a killer would affect EACH and EVERY game that killer player is playing! Regardless whether the killer they are playing is actually on someones block list. Why should a team that does NOT block a certain killer be punished for playing against that killer?
Banning a killer would happen BEFORE a lobby is found! More specifically, when a group queues for the game, and possible matches with the blocked killer will be discarded. So when they find a lobby, it will be guaranteed it's not the blocked killer. Thats all because the killer player cannot change the killer after queueing.
Banning perks would happen AFTER finding a lobby, since perks can still be changed while waiting in a lobby. There would have to be some sort of notification that one party disallows the use of certain perks from the other party, and each party might have to adjust their loadout. Or just leave the lobby. If you are really concerned about queue times with a killer-ban option, just think about how much dodging would occur if perk bans would be a thing. Pls be aware that I'm talking about general perk bans here, not just survivor perk bans. Perk bans, indifferant for which side, will not work at all, just for the fact that they can be circumvented by dodging lobby and queueing again. There's no such issue with killer bans, bc when the killer gets into a lobby, it is guaranteed the this killer was not blocked by the survivors.
Killer bans do not impact the games that eventually will be played at all. Surv perk bans would ABSOLUTELY impact each and every game that is played. The two things are nowhere near comparable
"Incorrect. They are the same thing. Because Survivors don't have powers to ban."
If anything, survivor perk bans should be compared with killer perk bans.
"Incorrect. If Survivors can ban Killer powers or perks; Killers get to ban Survivor perks."
It is not incorrect, you just don't understood what I meant there. I tried to explain it again above. It all comes down to the fact that killer bans would be performed BEFORE a lobby was found, while perk bans can only be applied AFTER a lobby was found. Which itself leads to dodging. If we wanted to apply perk bans BEFORE as well, then the loadouts needed to be unchangeable once you queue for a game, just like how the killer is fixed when you queue. And that would REALLY increase the waiting times by alot!
So please, just read again what I wrote and think about how it would play out. It's not as "BS" as you make it out to be.
0 -
Survivors will ragequit even if you don't tunnel
1 -
DCs really mess up a lot... they should be handled differently altogether for either side
0 -
Even if SWFs only get 1 ban; the majority of the player base would ban Nurse because Survivors hate her. This means Nurse mains would be unfairly punished with longer queue times just because Survivors are lazy. 🤷♂️
And if Survivors could ban a Killer; what do Killers get in return? Banning Survivors is useless, because Survivor power is in the perks, not the Survivor. Which is why Killers would get to ban Perks. Because it's the Survivor equivalent.
Yes, Survivors ALSO have perks, but setting aside that fact; What would Killers get if Survivors can ban a Killer and completely shaft certain mains? What would be the Killer equivalent? What would be the trade? Name ANYTHING other than "Survivor Perks' that would be a fair balance. Can you?
Or are you going to insist that Survivors get to ban Killers AND perks while Killers only get to ban perks? Because that would b e unbalanced, unfair, and absolutely broken.
1 -
How are you so sure Nurse would be banned more than others? Nurse pick rate considerably lowered after her blink hits became special attacks. Blight is played way more often, so many groups might choose Blight over Nurse. Also, esp. high MMR teams usually LIKE going against a Nurse. But there are numerous reasons for hating killers: Constant 3-genning (Scully, Knight), Face Camping (Bubba), obnoxious addon combos (Legion), avoiding epilectic attacks (doctor) and so on.
Imo it's more probable that such a killer ban option would be very volatile. Bad game against a Pinhead? Just ban him and move on. Boring af Freddy game next? Will ban Freddy now ... but thats exactly why I said we would have to see it in a PTB. It's just not predictable is such a feature would impact queue times significantly or not.
No, banning surv perks is NOT the equivalent of banning killers. Banning KILLER PERKS is the equivalent of banning SURVIVOR PERKS! There is NO EQUIVALENT for banning a killer, period. I cannot tell you something for "counter balance", because there is none! But there simply does not need to be anything! A killer ban would not impact the trials, just the matchmaking time might be affected (taking longer). So if there was any compensation, it would have to be something about faster matchmaking. Like increased chances to find a lobby if you play a killer that is blocked a lot. Or maybe a BP bonus for potentially waiting longer. But surely no compensation to make your trails easier. When we assume that mostly the strong killers might be blocked, why should we make them STRONGER as a compensation? Thats flawed logic.
Where did I say survivors should be able to ban killer perks? I explicitly stated that perk bans in general are a really dumb idea. So no, NEITHER surivor NOR killer perk bans.
Since you made it very clear that there MUST be some kind of compensation for killers:
Why do you think a compensation is necessary? Just for "fairness"?
How do you justify buffing a killer (by allowing surv perk bans), when all the killer ban does is potentially increase queue times?
How does playing a widely banned killer make your games HARDER, so a compensation is needed?
I just don't get your reasoning here, so pls enlighten me.
1 -
So your idea is:
- Survivors can ban 1 Killer. This would (somehow) not be too badly abused because...vague reasons.
- Killers don't get to ban anything in return. Because...Survivor entitlement demands they control who Killers can play, now. You're ignoring reality or mad if you think someone will ban Freddy over Nurse or Blight. Anyone with an iota of pattern recognition knows your idea would lead to mass blockings of Nurse and Blight.
- Killers get bonus BP for playing massively-banned Killers. You know, in all those no games they will be playing because no one will want to wait 40 minutes to find a lobby.
- You think perk bans are dumb, but Survivors dictating who they can and cannot go against is fine? I can't tell if you're serious now, because this is...wow.
- You also think banning Killers is 'Just higher queue times' but Killers banning Perks is a buff? Hypocrisy much? How is Survivors banning a Killer fine but Killers banning a perk is magically a buff?
The idea is still horrible. Survivors get to dictate who they see, which adds up on a grand scale. And Killers get nothing because 'Increased queue times are THAT bad!' Which, btw, spoken like a true Survivor main.
"We get to block the most hated Killers and they will suck it up because we think it's fine. Also; Killers banning perks is a buff, but Survivors banning Killers is 'just increasing queue times'." 😂🤣😂
2 -
Some survs dc the moment they smell you going for an adept simply out of spite.
3 -
- If it is abusable would have to be TESTED, therefore a PTB! Do I speak french? You are ASSUMING it would be abused (BADLY), I'm ASSUMING it would not really matter in queue times. I'm also ASSUMING that there would be no mass blockings of one killer, at least not for long, simply bc killer players would switch to other killers, creating incentive to block that killer now, creating a back and forth. Nurse is blocked by 90% of survs, killers play more Blight, Surv siwtch form blokcing Nurse to blocking Blight, making Nurse play possible. A queue time estimate would come in handy here.
- Why do killers have to get something in return? WHY? I asked it two times now, still no answer. There's is NOTHING COMPARABLE that killers could get, bc as you yourself pointed out, banning surviors is useless. But you know, since you are so obsessed with having a compensation change: Killers can opt out of facing SWF now! That would surely make it hard for swf to get a game at all, but whatever, making a "fair change" where both sides get some is more important, right?
- Then why don't they play a DIFFERENT killer then? You whole point about "survivor dictating killer selection" only works when all the survivors mysteriously all choose the same killer, which is highly unlikely! WIth just two killers tieing the bans, you have at least half the playerbase to play against, there won't be any 40 minute wait. Also I wrote about matchmaking priority for high-banned killers. That would be perfectly feasable.
- Perk bans ARE DUMB, at least with our current MM procedure. They cannot be enforced, bc survivors can always dodge a lobby where they don't like then perk bans from the killer, and vice versa. Such a change would MASSIVELY increase lobby dodging, and thus the time for getting into a match.
- Then HOW does banning a killer make the game HARDER? If you queue for Nurse, and get a game after one hour, will it be HARDER for you? It MAY be, simply because the survivors are not afraid to face you and may be good enough to last for longer than five seconds. But is this BAD, to be potentially faced with ppl. that do not give up instantly?
- So banning survivor perks is NOT a buff for killers then? Your killer games won't be any easier when you can block SB, UB, Adre from being used? Then why did YOU bring it to the table, when it not even helps a killer (according to you)?
You know, the one striking flaw in my idea you did not even tackle:
What is the BENEFIT of this change?
And i've got to admit, there is not much, at least not enough to warrant the addtion of said killer ban, imo.
Such a killer ban filter MIGHT HELP in reducing rage quits from ppl against killers they totally dislke (the actual topic of this thread). A survivor that despises facing Scully could choose her for the ban, and never have to worry about facing her again. A player with epilepsy coul ban doctor for plaing safely. A player totally loathing camping bubbas could block bubbas. But if such a change would really decrease DC's / Givving up from the start is hard to tell.
Maybe it could be a SOLO / DUO ONLY feature, since having a player DC / give up is more likely in solo / mixed games than in 3- or 4-man swf. Would that be less abusable for you?
0 -
"Which, btw, spoken like a true Survivor main."
You can check out my stats at nightlight, btw. I joined it just recently, so there are not so many games, but I play a little bit more killer than survivor (I play the role that gives more BP bonus, that usually is killer bc I can only play at night). And I play ALL games with a random perk build the site gives me (Build challenge).
So such a killer ban would indeed not impact me at all. But not because I'm a "true survivor main", but because I switch through all the killers for my Build Challenges. If I wouldn't get a game with Nurse, so what, will play the perk build with a different killer then ...
1 -
So such a killer ban would indeed not impact me at all.
And that makes it ok? All the Nurse and Blight mains would be affected, but not you, so it's a GREAT idea?
I've already pointed out the hypocrisy in thinking Survivors should be able to ban Killers but Killers can't ban Perks.
I also pointed out how it's not 'just increased queue times' for Killers while, somehow, banning Survivor perks is magically 'balance' instead. Weird non-logic on this one. Like, how it is NOT balance for Survivors, but unfair balance for Killers? How?
If I wouldn't get a game with Nurse, so what, will play the perk build with a different killer then ...
So all you can see is how it would affect you...and you're fine. Great way to go about a massive balance change. 🤦♂️
Anyways, we are arguing in circles, so I think I'll stop.
0 -
You are again ASSUMING that it would affect all Nurse and Blight mains. Which is a thing that would have to be tested out. It might be a real problem, but it might also be a non-issue. It depends whether survivors team up for banning the same killer. That i cannot see, just judging from the recent complains about certain killers. There were a few complains about nurse, can't recal any about Blight, and a MASSIVE amout about Dull Merchant.
Why is it a hypocrisy, when the two things are not comparable at all? Banning a killer prevents games form happening, banning perks change the game THAT are happening. If you are really insisting killer need compensation for such a killer ban, than I already suggested an SWF ban for killers. THAT would be comparable. Killer bans making queue times for banned killers longer, SWF ban making queue times for SWF longer, each side gets some. It would be hyper problematic, bc SWF would be banned for more widespread than any killer could be, but at least it would be "fair", right?
Where did I say ANY perk bans are fine? I stated multiple times that perk bans IN GENERAL are bad, indifferent from the side!
It's not a balance change, it does not touch any game mechanic at all. It's a proposal to make SoloQ a little less of a nightmare, since random mates are less likely to insta DC or give up with killers they totally hate. Would it be effective? Likely not, so for that alone it's prob a bad idea not worth being implemented and tested.
You see, we are actually on the same side, we both think it's a bad idea. But for different reasons. Imo your reasononing is flawed, you are not willing to think it through with an open mind. Yes there are valid concerns (queue times of banned killers), but I'm not buying a flat-out "banned killers won't get any games then" argument, when it would be a highly volatile and dynamic situation. It would have to be tested to see if thats really an issue. Which will likely never happen.
0 -
"Anyways, we are arguing in circles, so I think I'll stop."
One last thing, in case you are wondering why we even argue, when I think it's a bad idea as well (for different reasons):
Discussing / arguing a topic makes me reevaluate my initial suggestion. And helped me realize that this idea would probably not work, or have to much unwanted side effects. It would have just been nice to have a conversation partner that actually tried to grasp what I'm talking about, instead of repeating the same flawed retorts again and again.
So until next time, bb.
0 -
I mean, who wants to spend 30+ mins on a single game when you could have 2-3 games in the same time-span?
2
