http://dbd.game/killswitch
New function Killer Block
Can you give us a function to not be matched with players that are queued up with a killer we choose to avoid. I say I don't want to play against The Mastermind today so I can have the ability to avoid any matches that are with a player queued up as The Mastermind. Maybe I get paired against a killer one too many times so I can just block matchmaking from that killer. I and many others would take the longer que times just to never play against a killer that they don't like. Would reduce the disconnect frequency as well since more than 25% of disconnects are from players who find out what killer it is and disconnect right away.
Comments
-
So you can play against weaker killers all day?
11 -
Enjoy your long queues
9 -
Now let's add a function to the killer to block specific survivors. Well, unlike killers, survivors have the same abilities, just different perks, so how about making it a function that blocks all four perks of survivors? You can enjoy a meaningful dbd life by blocking each other!
7 -
Depends... I d rather have Nurse Blight Spirit all day than Skull Merchant, Knight or Hag... Guess since skull merchant has the highest killrate she is the strongest killer in the game. I therefore prefer to play against Nurse and Blight as they are clearly weak and need buffs :)
1 -
If I don't need to see a skull merchant or a Knight ever again I will gladly queue for 15 min every single game.
1 -
This change could result in any group of Survivors not being matched with four Killers. I'm uncertain if the potential consequences of this, given the already limited player pool in various MMR ranges, have been fully considered. Increasing factors that could reduce player matching and push them into higher MMR ranges might not be the most ideal solution to address the issue.
If players disconnect against a Killer often, changes could be made to that Killer to make the murder more palatable.
1 -
Thing is, you won't be waiting 15 minutes, you'll be waiting much, much longer. There are four players; each with their own blocked Killer that matchmaking has to take into account when trying to find a game, and we all know the system is barely fit for purpose as it is. All a block system would do is make sure it is neither fast nor accurate. Then you have to consider the bigger picture: players of this game tend to be massively entitled. You want to wait that long for a game when the odds of someone killing themselves on the first hook are as high as they are? Not facing Nurse won't make Entitled Timmy or Privilaged Paula less likely to rage quit and sink the game for everyone else. I don't much fancy having the game running for 90 minutes just to get 4 games and 10 minutes of actual gameplay.
On top of that, adding a system that punishes people for using content they paid for isn't a great business practice. People paid for Killers, they paid for skins; adding a system that makes it harder to use that content based upon the whims of other players would be disastrous.
7 -
I think there are legitimate health reasons why survivors don't want to play against a given killer. Plague and Clown are the most common but any reason should do. The consequence would be longer queue times but that's a trade most people would make. They'd rather wait 5 more minutes (during peak it won't even be close) then play against a killer they hate or legitimately makes them unwell.
However in exchange killers can queue with up to three killers maybe more if the game allowed it and the player chose to. Realistically different MMRs for each killer is silly anyway unless the killer is new. Especially considering the system only works at the extreme top end and extreme bottom end anyway with most players being smooshed together in the middle in a mishmash of skill or lack of.
Each survivor group can only ban 2 killers which the host leader of a group decides. E.g if you play solo and match with 3 other solos up to 8 killers could be banned but playing with a 4 man swf means only 2 killers would be banned. This way SWF can't coordinate and basically assure they play against weaker killers.
If a killer is banned enough to be an issue, that killer is obviously an issue and people do not enjoy playing against it. Some people forget that a game is supposed to be entertaining for all, not someone's sadistic play pen.
0 -
Make the system optional, let players chose whether or not they want to use the killer ban system or not, if the additional wait time is worth it for them they can use it, if not they don't... Does not really create more of a seperate queue time than cross play on or off... I don't have an issue with longer queues or players still not wanting to play, if someone waits this long and still offs himself early fine by me ^^ Let's see how willing they are to do this after waiting so long.
The key word here is choice... You can choose to use the system or not, nobody is forced to.
0 -
if survs could block a killer 90% would just block the killer that is the "strongest" at that moment so lets say right now wesker is the "strongest" what happens now?
its cute that you guys say you would take longer q time so you dont have to face that killer but do you guys remember that the killer is a human too? if i would want to play wesker in this example i would have to waite ages to play him because he is the "strongest" right now.
to adress the: "well when a killer is blocked so much thats a sign bhvr should nerf them" argument i tell you flat out thats bs. there will always be a "strongest" killer thats just logic. as long as there is more then one killer one automaticly is the best. so now we have a funny game where a killer is the "best" gets blocked by more then half the survs cause streamer x has said so and now i cant play a killer i paid money for nice. then bhvr comes in and nerfs that killer if he needs it or not just so he can lose the title as "the best" but what dou you think will happen now?
if you said that logicly now the next killer automaticly becomes "the best" and is blocked you are right.
so in the end we would just run in circles cause sooner or later the nerfed killer will get buffs again cause they are to weak and bhvr will have even more to balance then they have right now and we will have a bunch of killer mains that put money and time into a char and they cant play for god knows how long until he is nerfed.
i absolutly understand if some folks dont like to play against certain killers like plague or clown because of phobias we had that discussion on the forums more then enough and a opion to change these killers for the survs only so they can better deal with that is needed. i also understand that from a survs view its a bit boring when you face the same two or three killers all night but then we should advocate for buffs and changes to the weaker and unfun killers so you get to see more diffrent killer.
4 -
Nobody is saying you should be able to block 90%... Let's say like 3-4 killers max on each survivor... So still half of them are available, also I don't think most people will ban the strongest ones, but the most annoying like skull merchant for example. But sure you might be right about the strongest, however we can only guess...
0 -
They were saying that 90% of survivors would block [current strongest killer], not that 90% of killers would get blocked.
Expanding the banlist by X would just make sure that both the top(X-1) killers and a personal unfavorite get banned.
3 -
I don't think a block is the solution but maybe a functionality to decrease the chance to get queued up with the same killer player and the same killer character. So you decrease the amounts of matches followed by the same killer.
A block however is too drastic. You would then need a block on killers side too to avoid adrenaline as an equiped perk or avoiding dark cosmetics. This would be way out of line and cause a lot of trouble in matchmaking
1 -
My mistake, I wouldn't agree with that either though... As long as rh strongest killer is fun to go against not everyone would block it... Otherwise it would be really sad that they want to win so hard they would rather have unfun matches but win instead of fun matches regardless of the outcome.
0 -
The system isn't optional. For the game to find a Killer within the average MMR range of the team, first it needs to know the average MMR range of the team, and it can't do that before we're matched. If you're matched with me, then I'll experience the increased queue time along with you while we're waiting for it to find a player that is A) Not using one of the four potentially blacklisted Killers and B) Is within the average MMR range of the team.
The only person making a choice is the one that wants to ban a Killer; everyone else is dragged along for the ride. A separate queue isn't the answer either. Simplistically, the answer is: deal with it, not enact a system that makes everyone else suffer for one player's inability to have everything be perfect all the time.
3 -
A function like that would also increase MMR time for players who picked up a unpopular killer " :
"You like playing Knight ¿ Well that's too bad, half the survivor base have blocked that killer. "
0 -
This is a system designed to make survivors happy at the detriment of killer players enjoying the game how they want. Why do you think survivors deserve special consideration?
3 -
It is optional in the sense of opting in or opting out. As for the part of it needs to know the average mmr... Usually it should be somewhere around your own mmr... I don't know if it gets the group first and then the killer or just a killer around each individuals mmr considering length of queue and what not... Seems a bit overcomplicated otherwise?
0 -
The game would basically become unplayable for certain Killers and queue times would be beyond ridiculous.
The stronger the Killer, the longer the queue times. And people who wouldn't block the powerhouses are likely god-tier SWF/comp teams or newcomers, completely removing any kind of fair matches.
Sure, Skull Merchant and Knight would basically disappear (not exactly a big loss) but it would do way more harm than good.
It would also mess with new content feedback, how are devs supposed to get feedback on new Killers/perks if 90% of the playerbase blocks the new Killer because it's too strong for their taste?
4 -
Even without taking any of the other issues into account, the last thing matchmaking needs is more variables that can absolutely torpedo it and make it completely throw in the towel. Already happens enough the moment someone dodges or waits 2 seconds "too long" in queue.
4 -
Wet dream of bully squads
5
