Bots so no more dc penalty

Options
Stanbriggs67
Stanbriggs67 Member Posts: 15
edited July 2023 in Feedback and Suggestions

They got to remove dc penalty if they are adding bots, plus 90% of the time they will be better

Post edited by Rizzo on
«1

Comments

  • Stanbriggs67
    Stanbriggs67 Member Posts: 15
    edited July 2023
    Options

    whats the point of the penalty then ? if you dc you get bot game carries on still 5 players game is not lost benefits the killer aswell

  • Pluto_1
    Pluto_1 Member Posts: 337
    Options

    The only thing I have against them is that they can avoid a killer without even seeing him. Through walls and stuff

  • ElodieSimp
    ElodieSimp Member Posts: 354
    Options

    Agreed, looking forward to the killer bots whenever they get those working correctly.

  • KolbyKolbyKolby
    KolbyKolbyKolby Member Posts: 606
    Options

    To be honest, any game that I desperately don't want to play, I just kill myself on hook. A bot still won't replace me for it, and if I don't want a penalty for not wanting a 40 minute Skull Merchant match I just have to go out the next quickest way.

    While removing a penalty would probably see MORE people DC, I unfortunately don't think that adding bots is going to change the most efficient way out of the game currently.


    The only problem I have with this is that the tides in DBD turn too quick for it to be effective. If you're out for 90 seconds, that's so much time that as a killer you lose a gen or more, and as a survivor you pretty much lose the match. The balance between players is pretty slim as it is and removing one even for a brief period while they reconnect would probably still not impact the match in any significant way.

  • Orochi
    Orochi Member Posts: 183
    Options

    This pertains to a very small vocal minority of Survivor complainers. Most Survivors just want fun, fair, engaging games with both Killer and their teams.

  • Dwight_Fairfield
    Dwight_Fairfield Member Posts: 6,778
    Options

    You expect them to let people get away with being rage quitting babies just because bots are going to replace them?

  • AmpersandUnderscore
    AmpersandUnderscore Member Posts: 1,317
    Options

    Unfortunately you're going to get bots in your games an awful lot, because

    *The bot replacement system fixes literally none of the reasons people disconnect*

    In fact, it actually gives an extra reason to disconnect (not encouraging or condoning DC's here, just discussing human nature). Anyone who would normally stick out a game just to be a good teammate... well, that's what the bot is for now. It turns a disconnect into a bullshit win-win, where that player can leave the game like they want, but the team isn't down a 'player'.

    So when people get sick of losing because of bots on their team, they'll just disconnect in a cascade and make the problem worse.

    This system is garbage, bullshit, and solves nothing. It's ripe for exploits and abuse by both sides, and simply leaving the player's avatar in the world for 30 seconds before having the entity take them gives the killer time to gain stacks/hooks without any option for abuse.

    This should never go live in a PvP game.

  • Sava18
    Sava18 Member Posts: 2,434
    Options

    There is no downsides to the bots. While there is problems with core dbd that may make people want to dc that is something they knowingly sign up for every time they hit ready.

    Realistically they should have system in place that prevents people over lets say 100 hours to be generous to gain a certain amount of blood points per min while out of chase for at least 20 seconds. It's not hard to make it so people have to play the game or stop playing it. Leagues done an incredible job of preventing people from greifing in any way and negating toxicity to the point of it being absurd. Dbd's system is far too lax to say the least.

    But all of you mobile/veteran players can keep spouting how dc penalties mean nothing.

  • Nazzzak
    Nazzzak Member Posts: 4,861
    Options

    Eh, I feel like people know a bot is a poor consolation prize. I can't imagine too many people will be like 'oh it's okay to leave, the bot will fill in for me.' They'd know full well people would rather play with other people. Plus the DC penalties won't be changing, and I think that's what stops DCs more than anything. Whenever the penalty is down people have a field day with DCing.

    If anything I can see scenarios where the bots are left to die on hook or people refusing to pick them up when they're left to bleed out. Especially when the game isn't recoverable for survivors.

  • Tsulan
    Tsulan Member Posts: 15,095
    Options

    No, removing the dc penalty would only increase dcs.

    On top of adding the bots, they should also prevent survivors from suiciding. Otherwise, people will just suicide instead of disconnecting.

  • AmpersandUnderscore
    AmpersandUnderscore Member Posts: 1,317
    Options

    I'll be clear here, I don't think that disconnect penalties should be removed. I disagree with op.

    But I fundamentally think bots are a bad thing for the game and should never go live.

    You are completely, demonstrably wrong that there are no downsides to bots. The griefing potential alone is insane.

    If bots are in any way better than average players, survivors swfs could and will just grief the solo q with them until they DC to get a bot teammate. I still haven't seen and can't test if the killer is trapped in a full bot game of all 4 survivors disconnect immediately, so that is a potential problem too.

    And the abuse potential for killers is insane. Bot gets stuck or caught in an infinite ai loop means the game doesn't have to end normally. A survivor slugged for the 4k can be hard camped by the killer for the full 4 minutes just so a bot can be given hatch.

    I 100% would be on board with forcing a disconnected player to rejoin the same lobby until the match they left has completed. It soft raises the DC penalty, you can't just say that disconnecting is a faster way to find a new game, and it doesn't defeat the core principle that the game is pvp.

    There is no competitive pvp game that replaces disconnected players with bots that I'm aware of, it's absurd. And if you play DBD as a casual player as a 'party game' there's still no reason to have bots.

    Fix literally any reason that people are disconnecting instead. How about looking into the problem that if you're the first player downed you simply don't get to play that match in the overwhelming majority of cases. Let's start there instead of this bullshit.

  • appleas
    appleas Member Posts: 1,060
    Options

    If implemented, people will just DC over every petty issue, such as not liking the Killer, their build getting countered or losing a chase.

    The only intentional DC that’s fine is if someone is hacking.

  • shalo
    shalo Member Posts: 1,497
    Options

    No penaties will vastly escalate the number of DCs, this is with penalties and cake!

  • UnknownKiller
    UnknownKiller Member Posts: 3,024
    Options
  • The_Krapper
    The_Krapper Member Posts: 3,186
    Options

    They should keep the DC penalty to double dunk on those losers who quit early, the bots are better than they are and they sit in timeout I love it

  • CaulDrohn
    CaulDrohn Member Posts: 1,574
    Options

    Since we only have survivor bots right now (and one trapper bot), trial rejoin would only work for survivors. If the killer dc's, the game would still be over instantly. And I think we won't get any killer bots in the near future, since you would need a bot for every respective killer, so they now how to use there power.

    If a survivor dc's, a bot would take over, until the survivor reenters the trial. So there wouldn't be a player missing, just being "less effective" since it's controlled by the bot temporarily. Remember, this rejoin would primarily be for players having an unvoluntary game crash. They should be ready to rejoin a trial in a few minutes. If they were unlucky and it happened at the end of the game, tough luck, but otherwise there's a good chance the dc did not have a major impact on the game.

  • tyrese112499
    tyrese112499 Member Posts: 30
    Options

    Tbh they need to add more dc pentalty. Imagine Having to add bots and waste money becuase people cant play a game and have fun.

  • DredgeyEdgey
    DredgeyEdgey Member Posts: 1,321
    Options

    We should leave it as is don't want a 2h penalty for someone having wifi issues

  • DemonDaddy
    DemonDaddy Member Posts: 4,167
    Options

    Keep the initial penalty, ramp up the ones that follow. It's forgivable/understandable to have one dc and then try to fix the issue while waiting it out. If it's a consistent issue, dodge high ping lobbies or play something offline until something can be done, but it's no excuse to allow salty quitting for petty reasons.

  • FilthyLegionRevival
    FilthyLegionRevival Member Posts: 304
    Options

    I just wanna be able to join back if the servers or my wifi boot me out of the match. Give like a 5 minute window so we can restart and join back in the game, y'know?

  • Crowman
    Crowman Member Posts: 9,015
    Options

    As nice as it would be to rejoin of you lost connection, I don't see a reasonable way to implement it considering that you could have been sacrificed by then.

    Rejoining works in games where you have a respawn system. But not so much when it's an elimination game.

  • FilthyLegionRevival
    FilthyLegionRevival Member Posts: 304
    Options

    If you're already dead then just have it not show up. Easy.

  • Halloulle
    Halloulle Member Posts: 1,118
    Options

    Def. a creative approach --- though the question remains: people who DC as the ASAP way out of the match would make sure to die on hook ASAP - be that by taking chances or by playing so recklessly they get "tunneled" out of the game within a minute.

    I am aware there are plenty petty reasons to dc - but there are also legitimate reasons in so far as there is absolutely no point in sticking around. These need addressing. or more like: they need to actually be identified and made tangible. Which is pretty hard, I imagine.

  • saintjimmy456
    saintjimmy456 Member Posts: 185
    edited July 2023
    Options

    It says a lot about the OP that they think a mechanic introduced because people quit should reward the quitter.

  • Marc_go_solo
    Marc_go_solo Member Posts: 4,909
    Options

    Isn't that what the disconnect bans are though, originally? They start from as low as 5 minutes initially, so that window is already available. If you're being booted out regularily, then that's the ISP's responsibility and you need to raise concerns with them to improve their service.

  • CaulDrohn
    CaulDrohn Member Posts: 1,574
    Options

    Yep, attempting escape would also have to be restricted in a way:

    Attempting escape from a hook would only be possible when at least on of the following conditions is met:

    • Less than 4 survivors remaining
    • No other survivor can rescue you (all others downed, hooked, killed or afk)
    • You have an unhook perk ready (active deliverance or slippery meat)

    With this, early rage quitting is only possible by DC, a dc'ed survivor will be replaced by a bot, and the dc'ing player will have to wait longer before getting in a new trial, since the game just started. But they can always proceed with the match.

  • DredgeyEdgey
    DredgeyEdgey Member Posts: 1,321
    Options

    They start as low as 10s if you rarely dc just did for th3 first time in forever because of a cheater with insta blind 12s penalty

  • Luv2NotHateDBD
    Luv2NotHateDBD Member Posts: 37
    Options

    No remove the DC Penalty. This way the killer doesn't get stuck having to play a PVE and they can still get their Blood Points and get value out of their bill. My biggest pet peeve with a survior DCing is it wastes my addons, this way I still get some use out of them.

  • burt0r
    burt0r Member Posts: 4,100
    edited July 2023
    Options

    There is no competitive pvp game that replaces disconnected players with bots that I'm aware of, it's absurd. And if you play DBD as a casual player as a 'party game' there's still no reason to have bots.

    Rocket league, at least in unranked. I can't remember how it is in ranked because I only played duo with my late best friend back then.

  • AmpersandUnderscore
    AmpersandUnderscore Member Posts: 1,317
    Options

    Unranked tends to be dealt with differently in every game that actually separates the 'competitive' mode player base.

    Examples of games in most familiar with personally, in Overwatch the ranked mode has disconnect penalties, a 2 minute grace period for rejoining a match with no penalty. But the unranked quick play mode has no disconnect penalty at all, as well as backfill with new teammates.

    Apex has a very similar system, but with no backfill for the unranked mode.

    It gets weird with DbD being asymm, because they can't really split into unranked and competitive modes. People would just default to doing what they do now, which is sweating constantly, but they'd be able to pick 'unranked' in the hope of easier games. In symmetric games, that just means you're throwing, but not necessarily in DbD, especially if you're the only player on your team.

    I could see bots in some games like unranked rocket league, or even something like Mario party, but whether DbD is a 'competitive asymmetric pvp game' or a 'casual party game' is hotly debated. And honestly, even if you consider it a party game, then just like any party game it only takes a few people who take it too seriously to completely ruin the fun of the game at all.

  • burt0r
    burt0r Member Posts: 4,100
    edited July 2023
    Options

    DBD is, in my eyes, most definitely not a casual "party game". It's a semi casual pvp game, the killer is NEVER part of the party and always the antagonist.

    Party games are either coop only or free for all. Everything else is basic pvp and prone to over optimization by the player over time.

    DBD is and always will be a pvp game with two teams antagonizing each, only that one team is a single person. That's also the reason why comms are such a problem in asymmetrical games, they can help the group side but the lone player will NEVER gain any advantage from them. But I digress once again.

    Also to your point of apex, I don't think battle royals can be compared to other team based pvp games because it is a mix of team based and free for all gameplay, partly even with mixed time size queues like solo and duo combined despite the immense potential difference due to teamwork.

  • Halloulle
    Halloulle Member Posts: 1,118
    Options

    You're missing the point there though.

    What is the goal of all those measures? Certainly not to force people to play a match that is defeating the point of playing a game: to have fun - or to at least have a shot at fun.

    There's a plethora of reasons why people have no shot at having fun in a match and thus opt to not play the match at all. There's a difference between sticking a tough match out and being a punching bag for the sake of being a punching bag. Some of those reasons are petty - the famous "bruh! Killer has Lightborn but I want to just tail people all match and fl save - ima dc now" being one of them - others are not petty but fall into the "not good for game health" category. The facecamping situation being one of them, tunneling being another (and it being mechanically possible to a staggeringly effective degree on some killers especially), and some killer mechanics / the nature of some perks/add-ons being another one. But there are too many killers and too many perks/add-ons to make any blanket statements. Some will be impossible to balance (e.g. if a perk is totally fine on most killers but broken on one or two). Which makes it incredibly difficult to separate "petty" from "legitimate". - Just forcing people to play out everything is certainly not actually gonna fix anything though.

    We see BHVR trying to address some of the common, pretty agreed-upon situations. E.g. facecamping. Slugging is also up there but apparently difficult to solve; the line between slugging as a legitimate tactic to counter certain builds/being the right play in certain situations and it being unhealthy for the game is pretty thin.

    TL;DR: If you want to force people to play out a match you first have to eliminate pretty much all situations in which it is legitimate to throw in the towel and end the match right then and there. (ps: I'm all for a "forfeit" button on both sides - but that's a different can of worms.)