http://dbd.game/killswitch
Some requests
- kick - this has been asked for, for years. Need the ability as a survivor to kick another survivor away from me on the hook. I do not want to be pulled off directly in front of the killer, and sometimes I want to sit while there's a killer proxy camping me.
- veto - Can each player get 1 killer they can disqualify from matching against? I have had six lethal pursue huntresses in a row; a grand total 11 huntresses in a row. I'm huntressed out, I don't want to go against huntress for awhile, therefore give every survivor the ability to click one killer and veto being put in a lobby vs them for 24 hours. After the 24 hours are up, you cannot select that killer to veto for 48 hours. But god damn, please I'm so tired of vs huntress. You can even use that data to see which killers you should take a look at, if everyone is vetoing blight/huntress for 24 hours, maybe check and see why.
- random perk button - the archive challenge for randoms perks is fun, can there just be a "random perk" button?
Comments
-
They can enjoy the game how they want too, I just shouldn't be privy to it.
As for veto I'm okay with waiting longer queue times if that means I get more variety in what killers I am facing. Like I said, I'm sick of huntress every single round.
0 -
The 1st and 2nd points just kinda makes it look like your teammates saved ya before you could suicide on first hook after seeing a killer you didn't like...
2 -
You're just going to end up getting matched against the Huntresses in the end as for that to even be functional it has to have a default time limit imposed or else matchmaking will grind to a halt because when you have 4 people each with a ban multiplied by the average size of a region you're eventually going to run out of suitable matchups to be made in a timely fashion.
I guess the frustration of low diversity in opponents, but at the very least consider the consequences of what you're suggesting.
0 -
As I mentioned before if you paid any attention, I do not mind waiting longer. If the killer doesn't want to wait a long time they can just switch killers. There are 30 of them, it's not that hard. I know people will veto blight, huntress, nurse from the jump so it is what it is for that. Also like I said, you can only ban one, if you're swf then your lobby can only ban one. Ideally it would match survivors with the huntress banned together and then shoot them into a lobby, not one survivor has huntress, one has xeno, one has pinhead, one has blight so that lobby cannot get those four killers. One killer per lobby.
I will happily wait a match time for a killer to get out of a match and queue another one if that means I'm not facing a huntress for the 12th time in a row. (:
0 -
Each player? That would make SWF so easy...
So let's ban Nurse, Blight, Spirit, Wesker for each game and just bully what's left....
Just no.
0 -
Hello? Please read.
0 -
I paid attention, but your suggestion isn't sound. Just because you don't mind waiting longer doesn't mean that everyone else wants to wait with you and that goes for both sides not just killers.
It takes 4 survivors to make a match and you're saying to give each one of them a ban option. So that is 4 killers banned every game, for the individual that seems inconsequential(setting aside the issues of player bias and using mechanics to dictate 'approved' play), yet when you consider that this process repeats for every single concurrent match being played you end up with a massive queue of players who aren't playing matches of any sort. While killers can just switch that doesn't solve the problem you'd create as any semblance of matchmaking around skill level would become impossible. You're probably willing to wait the length of a singular match for a game, but probably wouldn't stand for waiting potentially 40+mins or more.
There are 30 killers and your suggested system would shave that pool down to 26 at any given moment and switching killers isn't an easy process. It requires dropping from matchmaking every time you need to change your killer and while most players have most or all killers they don't play them all with a high degree of comfort or skill. It's more common to see people who play 1-4 killers well at most since to truly get the hang of killer is a bit of commitment and a lot of stuff doesn't transfer skill wise between killers due to different powers and playstyles. This isn't the sort of game that has been designed with bans in mind and instituting them would just make people play less which would just add to inflated queue times.
Bans would be fundamentally destructive to the overall experience no matter which side you favor once you get to scale because this game isn't remotely designed to handle something like that.
1 -
Re-read the part where I said "one killer ban per lobby" and then re-read the post again. x_x
You are legit talking about a situation that I already spoke against. Can we please read the posts before we reply, thank you.
You cannot debate against someone if you don't even read what is said.
0 -
I actually approved all these options. The kick option could be abused by someone trying to kill themselves on first hook but face it, if they're doing that and you save them they probably won't be any help anyway. The veto might be tricky and need some rules about it but something along the lines would be great. No downside at all for random perk. Especially on killer side for me. Sounds great.
0
