DBD Match Killer lock (And the need for a survivor lock)

I want there to be some kind of actual base mechanic balance when it comes to these things

Like, how many survivors use the p2 dwight as a bait, and then they switch it out to the p26 nea which has their preferred meta-game perks and all of their delicious little items and offerings which they continue to grow. The low ranked characters are not the issue but are the aid in the issue --

I believe that Survivors shouldn't be able to just switch out their inventory after they've basically tricked the killer-player into a match they would normally not prefer upon seeing the Prestige levels if that makes any sense.

I've seen many streamers mention how it is a genuine tactic in order to get more matches due to the fact killers will often back out when they see higher ranks that they don't feel comfortable with.

"Not curious, just appalled."

At this point, This part was from the rough draft and I intended on deleting it as it felt more like I was speaking a story than attempting to convey my actual message. Also appalled that I'm using the forums for a legitimate suggestion?

"Prestige doesn't equal skill."

You're right, it doesn't. However, the best argument I can provide is that these levels can determine whether or not these survivors have had long enough hours to essentially be able to figure out what perks they are best at using -- and be able to essentially find what perks crutch their possible LACK of skill (DS, DH, ADR, so on and so fourth). Sure, some players who SUCK abysmally at the game will have high P survivors, and it doesn't note that they will always have skill because they stucked and sucked through it -- but it's usually the case as higher levels mean that someone has more experience and thus could possibly have more skill in any scenario.

There is no such thing. If you let them "bully" you, that's a you problem. Don't play the way they want you to play. Problem solved."

They're literally called bully squads because of the fact that most of them attempt to use cheap tactics in order to frustrate the killer-player and essentially abuse them in a large sense outside of simple "Aha! I have flashlighted you as a distraction" when most of these survivors are classed as "Toxic" players for their heavy usage of Flashlights without changing their items out often, Meta perks that allow them to continue this behavior and essentially place more pressure on the killer not in just a gameplay form, but also essentially act as a big middle finger to their feelings and confidence whilst playing the game which turns out to be a large reason why most players tend to actually leave the game in their early stages of playing.

"You can lobbyshop as a killer. As a surv, I don't know WHO I'm facing, let alone their ping."

Sure you can lobbyshop, but that's why these players often change out their character to a LOWER RANKED in order to appear more favorable - like that of an anglerfish. Which is my entire point.

"Survivors are glorified skins. Meatbags if you will. No survivor has a fixed power or survivors pecific addons. Your train of thought doesn't add up" Because your train of thought isn't on the same track. You're also looking for shortcuts to the scenario -- in fact you ARE very correct.. They're skins. And with that, it doesn't change anything so they can literally sit their on their lowest ranked survivor and look like someone who doesn't have a single perk before slapping on their P34 nea with several perks that are aimed towards making the killer's life a living hell right before match-start, trapping the killer into the match before they can nope out."You are right.

"This makes zero sense. So why do you even ask for this?"

Because as you can tell, BHVR devs aren't exactly the best. Sorry not sorry, but as a critique and my years of playing DBD on both console and PC at this point -- The mechanic that I am outlining is literally leaving room for abuse of said mechanic -- This creates almost predatory behaviors in high ranked survivors or high skill survivors who want to be able to find newer killers and target them. This is one of the many issues that circulates DBD's community. Toxic. Behavior.

"Yeah, what mechanics are you talking about? Your MMR that is too high for you?" Fire off Boon: shadow step, I'm talking about the character lock that appears whenever a killer is in a match. Which is very different from survivors. My MMR is something I've gained, I will suck it up as that's literally not the issue.

"It is a 1v4 partygame. You can't balance 1v4s. Not the way you want it to be balanced at least."

It's a 1v4 party game with tuned in-match mechanics that is supposed to balance the game in it's own space. They didn't really think the part of where killers get trapped in with better players because of the fact they A. Smurf, B. MMR-hop from their lower ranked buddies and C. Angler them into a false sense of security with the matches. I've literally shat a brick before when I saw all four survivors equip the same character with flashlights or firecrackers, it's almost traumatic when I realized the match countdown has turned to red and I cannot escape what's about to happen to my braincells.

"You may ask BHVR to work on their matchmaking and MMR, but that's about it." It's almost like this is what I'm doing

"And here you are, speaking lots without saying anything. If you want to balance the player, you have to make it a 1v1. Only then can you pit skilllevel against skilllevel." and here you are hearing without listening to damn. I think you misunderstand out of a personal bias. A killer should be able to be an equal threat to ALL survivors, and the survivors be a threat to the killer in their own terms such as being able to waste the killer-player's time and complete objectives effectively -- doing this in a completely fair manner that allows for it to be based on all of the player's skill and competency -- like the survivor side of intended wordless communication, evasion, survival and objective completion while the Killer-player is meant to oppose this with a focus on skill exactly such as a possible change to the MMR system or better yet allowing for both sides to select easily on what they are able to handle in a sense.

If survivors can decide to switch it up and go from a itemless and perkless dwight just to change over to their nea who has all of the perks with their preferred perk combo along with a purple flash and the best add-ons for that flashlight? then the killer should be able to change over to their bubba in prep for what they're most likely going to do -- a same side of security and capability.

"personally don't mind running into people that have 30x my playtime. And it doesn't matter to me if they are a P3 or a P100. If they only run in a straight line without looking behind them, they obviously belong in the MMR range I queue into (Clarification: this was a generalized point. It usually doesn't happen but hey). This counts on surv as well as on killer side." That's on you if you do or don't.

"IMHO there are more pressing matters. So just learn, take the L once in a while. You won't get better if you only play against people on your or below your skill level." The intent I have is not meant to getting players who are below my skill level, in fact I want people who are WITHIN my skill level. How is one supposed to learn anything when all they get is harassed and unable to apply any pressure because three p100 megs flash them over and over and over, using SW and BTL to essentially have a flashlight that lasts longer than OW2's development? this is also meant to allow for either a fair pre-match decision system to occur. If the killer is locked to their exact killer, survivors should be stuck to their exact survivor as they have separate inventories. one side of the scale must not be tipped against the other.

"Another edit: This isn't meant to bash your opinion, it's just always the same. You guys keep asking for the wrong things, taking away dev time that would be better used otherwise. But I get it. It would be the easy way out instead of just putting the time in to get better."

Ah. okay.

"And here you are, speaking lots without saying anything."

"If you let them "bully" you, that's a you problem"

and various other things I've picked up in your writing tone.

And other pressing things exist yes -- but it's not a wrong judgement. I've never heard anyone actually bring this up, much less actively discuss it. In fact, I feel like changes to the game's existing content should happen BEFORE a chapter release or new killer and survivor that adds another bloodyfuckall mechanic that only further complicates the system and balance.

That is all.

I messed up and deleted my comment

so have this as proof of claim.

You still have to do that for practically every survivor at that point. which all in all is..

38?

you'll still have a prestige total for about 114

I don't feel like doing the math for that now.

but -- for one P per surv?

=  64,600,000 bloodpoints spent at that point.

and that's just for ONE P on every survivor

It has been so long since I've genuinely seen someone so thought provoking and forward on their words. I'm being serious here. When I made this post -- I was frustrated at the fact I did indeed get my ass handed to me by a squad of Ada's that for absolutely no reason kept trying to eat my totem while I stared them dead in the eye. And they all somehow managed to finish 5 generators and caused more pressure on my brain than I was creating pressure on their altruism. I actually don't know how to exactly check MMR, but I can say that I have a minimum of 300 hours on PC. But possibly even more on console, It's been a very long time. But I do have quite some experience in the game so I wanted to see how I could actually figure out how to make a genuine discussion on what could be done to make the game more enjoyable

I read through most of your arguments and did my best to make them as annoying as wall-talking as possible so by you posting this I have effectively achieved my goal. In my opinion, the best way to get constructive conversations is through an argument as it's usually through two parties or more doing their best to counter the other or make the most sense in order to effectively carry their point of view further. By me pushing you to post this, not only have I gained something (a decent and non-aggression fueled convo on a forum that's riddled with angry players), I have also allowed a different point of view to be more effectively expanded

In a full sense -- I was trolling. Sure, I forfeit in a sense but winning or trying to seem right in the long run wasn't my goal.

(Edit: This sounds kind of petty now that I read it fully. Kind of take what I say at this point with a grain of salt. I was very tired when I wrote and composed this mess of a. thing I suppose)

Now, allow me to dissect your argument to further elaborate as to why I actually agree with you and to actually try to figure out how to effectively push a more complex and verbose conversation that does essentially have more thought put into it than what most posts I see on here have.

Everything will be as formatted as best as I can, if you have anything that you notice please tell me in a possible follow up post please and thank you.

1.A (8peESC)

• "the demand for detailed information about my playtime, MMR, and encounters with "bully squads" -- While these details can provide context, it's important to remember that they are not the central focus of the argument."

1.B (ScytheIX)

• They are exactly the focus of the argument. You want a change. A change that might help you with your problems, but won't do anything to/ for other people with different experience/ might make it even worse for them. Don't worry, I won't pry, but it just reads as if you are below 500 hrs of playtime. Probably even below 300 hrs. At that point you perceive everything differently than a person with let's say 3k. So the change that might help you will absolutely destroy the matchmaking for the 3k+ people.

Hours do account for a lot of what a player sees in their game-stages. Experience, in my opinion DOES account for how skill is found as a basis. (Hours spent playing the game, but also spent Learning as to how the game works not in just a fundamental purpose, but also effectively gaining their own capable strategies and mastering already known "techs" such as shack looping and such). Sure, It would help players who are new by catering to them -- and would indeed completely shift the balance by making the older and more experienced players to adapt to a large change that has been the same since they've started playing. This would effectively further create an imbalance in fact by making it so that a killer can completely change up their well-- killer to a bubba because they realized that trying to play on their new killer (Oni for example) wouldn't work out when they haven't exactly picked up that killers techniques and opt for the easiest way to nope out of any given scenario, making it much easier to cheese team compositions.

2.A (8peESC)

"The main point here is to emphasize the need for a balanced and enjoyable gameplay experience that takes into account individual skill levels and survivor strategies."

2.B (ScytheIX)

• "Again: You can't take individual skill levels into account. It is a 4v1. So the system tries to level the 4 survs as a team vs. the 1 killer. That already ends in maybe 3 juicers and 1 random pepega. Not really fun if you play in soloQ and instantly are in a 3v2 scenario because one survivor acts like the killer's right hand."

This actually happened to me once, but I as the killer in the scenario. A cheryl kind of just. Let me down here and didn't wiggle so what I did was clear -- I used her for terminus as a shitpost strat. So I was effectively a mirror pyramid head without the need for an M2. And I partially disagree as I do believe that it is possible for three survivors to completely nutshot a killer and leave them hurting for the next two matches. trust me I''ve seen it happen. (I was the killer. I was very hurt). But yeah, If you SQ and within the first three seconds one of- no.. wait. Two of the others leave me and the other dude to fend for ourselves? It's hell on earth. Completely bullshit as well so I'm glad Devs are going to add bots to serve as mimics for real people.

3.A (8peESC)

• "An argument that you presented suggesting that allowing survivors to swap characters and engage in lobby shopping adds variety and unpredictability to the game."

3.B (ScytheIX)

• Not necessarily. But I can tell you something interesting. If you have people sitting on their mains, with their items in hand from the get go, it just makes queuetimes longer. I have a friend with a P70 Claud with a year 4 crown. It's a game mode in and of itself to count the killers dodging (and we managed to get it up to 19 times once I think), because we don't hotswap loadouts last second. Love playing queue simulator. :)

3.C (ScytheIX , Continued)

• A better solution would be to hide the prestige badge completely, as it takes away the initial "oh nonononono" moments. Also another good change would be to actually show the survivors the killer's ping. That would help everyone involved. If killers are allowed to lobby-shop, survivors should also be allowed, if the killers ping is above 100 ms. It would be balance after all.

Yeah. That's pretty much the entire point I was pointing at. Lobbyshopping is kind of a thing that bugs me. So, usually I actually wanted to make the whole "P70 claud with clicky clicky" my argument. Lobbyshopping shouldn't even be a thing to be fair, so honestly I agree with you a lot on hiding the badges. Why is that a thing anyways? Like, sure they should be able to check after the match but it's kind of a stupid thing that has no real purpose other than being inadvertently being used for that exact purpose.

4.A (8peESC)

• "The proposed solution of character locking is to address this imbalance and create a fairer environment for all players."

4.B (ScytheIX )

• See, that doesn't create fairness. A good player stays a good player, no matter what character they play on both sides. It just creates restrictions that aren't really needed.

Yep. That really wasn't the point of my funny thing though. I was trying to push for a "unlock killer's lock" Thingy, but I suppose it did turn out to be more of a "Make both sides suffer the restriction" kind of ordeal. And I feel like good players are hard to come by on their own. Especially nancy's :troll:

5.A (8peESC)

"Not to mention the VARIOUS BUGS still in the game that can easily be abused by these toxic players."

5.B (ScytheIX)

• Which ones exactly? I can't think of a specific bug that gives survivors a huge advantage. If you mention things like that, you gotta follow it up with proof. Otherwise it's just a made up argument.

Technically, there are some bugs that exist that give both sides an advantage if abused properly such as some maps not having collisions on their objects. I remember when a survivor was on a table and couldn't be picked up by a killer because of it. And then there were the jump glitches I think? And then there's the very crappy anti-cheat that most game devs have opted into because of "Reliability" and "cost" or something like that. Easy anti-cheat earned its name by being easy to crack to be fair with you, but those are people using external software to crack the games code and glitch it forcibly into their favor if that makes much sense .

But overall, my point there is basically bugs exist after updates such as the hindered achievement for singularity which occured on wesker. Then there's Wesker's insane glitches that made him a genuine threat to a surv's braincells.

6.A(8peESC)

• "The claim that Dead by Daylight is not a competitive game, (Which is completely untrue, as it revolved around two side competing for success to their objective quickly and efficiently, the rewards and after-trial mechanics enforcing an exactly competitive mindset on players normally) but that does not mean it should lack balance and fairness."

6.B (ScytheIX)

• DbD does not have a competitive playlist. You don't have ranks that up your MMR. The only thing the rank does is give you BPs. I can be the best player in the game and loop the killer for 5 gens, then die for whatever reason and I leave the match with less BPs than the survs that held M1 on 5 gens and did nothing else. If the game were competitive, the one actually competing would receive the biggest reward.

6.C (ScytheIX, Continued)

• Thinking that the game is competitive puts you in a stressful situation/ mindset, because you have to compete in order to win. (Mind you, winning isn't defined anywhere. When do killers win? If they sacrifice 3 people? 4? If they close the hatch?) If you see the game as it is, aka a glorified party game, it gets easier.

DBD does merit those who perform better, which it should, but if you get more badges you rank up more. You get more score in a match then you get more Bloodpoints which kind of does reflect a competitive mindset, but not in the same way as what a true "Comp gamemode" would look like. It's actually one of the reasons many players end up becoming toxic -- is that reinforced way of thinking that they just can't get out of. It's sad to see, and I wish there to be something that can help ease it off. I'm sure there's something the devs have cooking up to make gameplay more enjoyable not just by wanting to win by securing hooks or escapes but by wanting to simply enjoy the fun things. A good example of this is the shitposting. Like GOD.. watching a nancy nod her stupid head up and down after pre-dropping will never not be funny to me.

and the ranks do boost your BPs which is what many players actually desire, as they get more bloodpoints to focus into their preferred character and then enjoy the gameplay on said character further. Though, I'm not quite sure fully on how one would ease up on this accidental echo-chamber of wanting a favorable amount of bloodpoints. Oh, and many people have considered

7.A (8peESC)

• "A game can still offer challenging and engaging experiences while ensuring that both sides have an equal opportunity to succeed."

7.B (ScytheIX)

• Last time they put out an official ratio like that, wasn't it like a 60% in favor of the killer? (I might be remembering wrong so take that with a grain of salt as I do not have the link to prove what I'm saying, but I'm sure googling for it will help you finding the info.) You can't balance the game to be 50%/50%. That would mean nerfing killers even further.

Doing so -- It wasn't official I believe. It was just a post. Here, I'll quote it and link the exact post. from the DBD Subred

"With the release today of new official kill rate and escape stats, I saw many people upset and confused as to why the developers would be happy with a game that has a 61% kill rate for killers and a 39% escape rate for survivors. And I certainly don't blame them! On, paper that just seems blatantly unfair. Why would developers want to create a competitive pvp game where one side has an obvious advantage?"

I feel as if Killers do need to be balanced in a way that they aren't a completely overarching threat to survivors, because some survivors with perks like.. Leon? Jill? where they can fight back? I really do enjoy that concept. But DBD has recently began to lose it's flavor for the "Survival Horror" and feels more like each side using Diversion to hit eachother in the head over petty balancing issues such as.. MFT. *sigh*

8.A (8peESC)

• "Disregarding the concerns of players who feel overwhelmed or targeted by certain survivor tactics would do a disservice to the community as a whole, specifically towards killer mains."

8.B (ScytheIX)

• I'm not saying that it should be disregarded. Concerns are valid. But not every 'solution' someone puts out is a good solution. (How do we say in germany? Too many cooks spoil the broth.) Especially if you do not have the necessary knowledge to back up a 'solution'.)

(P.S, you missed the Y so I had to bold it because it was annoying to look at on the realization.)

But essentially yeah, I can see your point. That's actually why we need people who can come together and look into the melding pot that is the community discussions and attempt to come to a final conclusion that works more effectively in one larger idea than smaller, multiple almost insignificant changes.

9.A (8peESC)

• "Where the suggestion is made for the killer to mix up their actions, it's important to remember that it is not always as simple as that."

9.B (ScytheIX)

• No ofc not, it was a theoretical scenario. It's more the general idea of trying different things instead of making the same mistake over and over again. That's how you improve in dealing with certain situations.

9.C (ScytheIX, continued)

• I had to generalize with that scenario as I couldn't tailor one directly to your needs/ struggles. After all, I have no idea how you play.

Yeah. You really can't tailor it. But you could draw from your own experience from a situation like that -- as that stuff can be applied to other players and their situation. To be fair, It really did strike my curiosity as to how you did in fact create a good idea on how to kind of work with these situations -- using genuine tactics. But in my case? They were like GODLY at anti-slugging. Its like if I held down the slug, they would apply gen pressure. I apply counter pressure and they get the slug up. So it was like a game of badminton but it was four of them against one of me and they have really long arms for some reason.

10.A (8peESC)

• "Things such as joining community groups, seeking practice partners, or watching guides are a good idea to be fair, However; While these suggestions have merit in terms of personal improvement, they do not fully address the core issue of balancing the game mechanics to ensure a fair and enjoyable experience for all players."

10.B (ScytheIX)

• Imagine you actually improve as a player yourself. That would also change your view on balance. Which would also change your view on possibilities for change.

Ahhh... I love being pessimistic and seeing my inability to get past silver as a permanent skill issue but that's besides the point. I really just wanted to find something in order to provoke a genuine train of thought in other members of the community. If I tried to say, push for a normal discussion and say "Hey, I think the game's balance is kind of sucky" I would get answers like "Yeah lol it's dbd." or "Get good" or something along those lines.

11.A (8peESC)

• "I.E the one sided form of character locking."

11.B (ScytheIX)

• See, this exists because a killer has a power. And you queue up to play with said power. As I already stated: Survivors don't have a power. So locking them makes no sense. All that it does is locking survs from spending their bloodpoints on lower survs for example, while they wait for the killer to ready up. As mentioned, swf that hotswap are far and in between. So you'd punish all the normal survs that just want to efficiently spend their time (that's how I see it for example).

^ Yeah, pretty much. This.

12.A (8peESC)

• "The suggestion to prioritize changes to existing content before introducing new additions is based on the idea of solidifying the foundation of the game. By addressing existing imbalances and improving gameplay mechanics, the overall experience can be enhanced."

12.B (ScytheIX)

• But that might also break the game. Now imagine they shake up the meta before a new chapter releases: You have to rethink how you play in your specific role with perks you might've not ran beforehand. This might end up balanced. Now the new chapter releases. You get even more perks to figure out and try to build/craft with. This might change the previously balanced game to being onesided.

2.C (ScytheIX, Continued)

• The MFT discussion shows why people don't do well with new things. Imagine they have 2 new things to deal with back to back.

I agree with you, but it's still a favorable thing in my opinion. Being able to actually have something stop, then FIX the base platform for the content would mean that you wouldn't have to worry about it teetering on one side too much and falling with the release of a new chapter If we were to look at this situation like a game of jenga -- we need to ensure that the game has a strong base before we continue to push more and more and more. That's what can cause the downfall of many games -- pushing too much content without a platform to hold it's weight. But that's just a general "Throwing that out there" thing. I'd need to analyze the game full and pick out every key detail to figure out a basis on what would or could of the games balance to a much simpler perspective IF even possible.

Also -- made for this... shudders.. People getting angry over a injury-haste perk is silly to me for some reason. All it is? Is basically resilience but for non-conspicuous actions (walking, running, breathing, lollygagging) and essentially just make survivors have a movement increase by like what. 3%? it's nothing crazy like haste which does 11%(?) percent for the entire duration of however long the exit gates become powered basically, Adren? Sure, it's meta but it still has a temporary duration on it's massive speed increase. Then you can have plenty of different perks that in combination -- make someone faster by the killer *during a BL* just by existing next to eachother which is insane

13.A (8peESC)

• "Overall, I believe that you're attempting to push against my entire point not because of that it "pushes lobby shopping" but because I have a heavy feeling of bias, and that it's becoming quite apparent that I'm simply not folding because you decided to speak out against my idea of change.

13.B (8peESC. Continued)

Like you said.. "Normal human behavior, so eh."

Normal human behavior to reject the idea of change."

13.C (ScytheIX)

• 1. Well your feeling is wrong. You posted an idea in a forum. That equals to people adding their 2 copper. I tell you my side of the story and why I think your idea is bad in the long run. You dismiss it as me being biased. I can't sway you, you can't sway me. We agree to disagree. But as you have every right to suggest changes, I do have the right to reply to it and tell you what I think. If you don't like that, then you should not post in an open forum.
• 2.Imma repeat myself: Just because you think it is a good change doesn't mean it is a good change. You only see what this change would do to you and your experience. Not to everyone elses. Just because I tell you that I don't like your ideas doesn't mean I don't respect them. I just can't figure your skilllevel out to maybe help you with finding a middle ground. But since you don't want to provide this info, you can also not expect me to just 180 my opinion, because you obviously also reject the idea of your 'changes' not being the best for everyone else. It's just quite funny that you think I'm a normal human. That's kinda refreshing. :)

answer to 1. My feeling very correct thank you.. sniffle ... but Yeah, I have nothing against you or what you say. I'm again -- just playing D'S A in order to get something genuinely constructive.

and 2. Yeah. I can see where you're coming from. My whole point to what I say is in order to try to push you, so that way you push me harder and give me a feel for how you think or feel. And It really shouldn't be refreshing to be honest dude. DBD is a giant Dragoncon, We've got geeks, nerds, horror buffs and everything in between. It's also good to be able to see long, though out paragraphs and well constructed arguments to express how one believes instead of

"Flashlight bad... SPIRIT RING OP!!"

Which is something I see depressingly often.

With that being said and done...

obama grilled cheese sandwhich...