Concede button
It has been requested for a while now to have a concede button when being slugged. How do you guys think this could work, and do you agree with it?
Personally, I was thinking it could work like a speed-up button. Instead of dying instantly, it simply speeds up the bleed-out so it takes 15 seconds total instead of 4 minutes. This would give the killer an incentive to pick you up, instead of leaving you on the ground, and would prevent salty survivors from giving up first down in the game (since they wouldn't have time to bleed out before being picked up).
I've wanted this for a while. I think it's fair to say some matches are just not worth your time, and having to alt-tab to watch YT while you're bleeding out on the ground because the [insert least favorite killer here] with 4 gen slowdown cannot find the [insert stereotyped stealthy survivor player here] to secure their 4K isn't healthy.
Maybe some other conditions would have to be met to allow a survivor to use the feature.
What do you think?
Comments
-
Been saying this for years and yet again I have to agree with this.
I am tired of the toxic 'comp' Nurses/Blights in my region who like to slug and bleed everyone out for the full 4 minutes, only to pick one of us up at the last second just to waste a bit more time.
I also don't want to have to run Unbreakable every match (which I was doing) because someone wants to slug for the 4k while my team mate hides while I have to bleed out for 4 mins.
The hatch is the underlying issue here and since they will never remove the hatch mechanic, I would like to be able to concede so I don't have to waste 4 minutes of my time bleeding out.
2 -
Yeah I think the hatch mechanic would work much better if they just didn't force people to have to sit through 4 minutes of doing nothing because some killers must get their 4K no matter what.
At the same time I understand why it exists. With 3 people dead, you are super weak against the killer and have very minimal chances of escaping so to balance that out, the hatch is there to ensure you at least have somewhat of a chance during a 1v1.
It also serves to make the game a little more intense and thrilling near the end for both the killer and survivor. It just sucks that it has to make certain players feel like they must slug to get around it.
0 -
Completely agree. Although it could be pretty easy to deny the killer hook states and thus pips by everyone just conceding as soon as possible. But that is a problem with pips.
The whole "everyone is downed or hooked, the game is over and now you have to walk around, grab and hook survivors" phase of the game is so boring and long. Especially if survivors that you slug crawl away and hide after they get downed. I just wanna go next, you know?
1 -
So survivors ending themselves on hook is already a problem and we have to give a second option to do the same thing?
This sounds terrible. The hook problem is already a way of subverting the dc penalty which is a problem, we don’t want to give even more options to do that.
2 -
I think it would work fine if the option was restricted to when all survs were hooked or downed, and there were no self pickup or self unhook perks active.
1 -
I think expecting that you can force people to play a game that isn't fun or worth their time, is a much bigger problem. The DC penalty is a bandaid fix to a much bigger issue with the game: How fun it is to be pubstomped by a killer that has no intention to give you even an inch of a chance.
If you get rid of hook suicides, you'll just be left with a new problem: Survivors will AFK until the match is over, or intentionally try to lose as fast as possible.
This doesn't apply to survivors who give up over every small little thing, but they shouldn't even be in the conversation because they are not the majority, and they skew the perspective of what I think is a very real issue, namely that some matches just drag on while it is very clear you've already lost, and nobody should have to be forced to endure that for 4 minutes.
And if pips are an issue, simply make the death from concede count as a sacrifice. Problem solved. I don't care if the killer wins or loses, I just really don't want to spend 4 minutes of my life that I can never get back doing nothing.
0 -
It is fine to implement it, but the mechanism must be carefully designed to avoid misuse. If I were to come up with one, I would use the following mechanism.
1. A surrender button will be set for everyone, regardless of killer or survivor. This can only be activated by holding the button for 1 second to prevent accidental activation.
2. Only if survivors are left down for more than 90 seconds (DS, chase with other survivors, etc.), they can request immediate exit and activate the surrender button.
3. In response to this, the surrender button will be activated with the approval of all other survivors. A surrender is only allowed if everyone unanimously approves, and the survivor in question will leave the match.
Note: Even if the hatch conditions are met by this surrender, the hatch will appear after 60 seconds. Survivors who accept surrender require just as much effort to escape from the killer as those who do not.
4. The Killer also has a surrender button, which is used if the Killer feels it is unfair to continue the match.
Example: If no survivors are involved in completing gen for a long time and work to light up the killer, if there is no one to open the gate for a long time even though it is confirmed that there is no NOED.
5. Unlike in Survivor, if a majority of survivors agree to this, the game ends immediately. Even if this does not happen, if the killer does not perform any operations for 90 seconds after activating the surrender button, the surrender will be treated as accepted.
Every time one of the Survivors concedes, the remaining Survivors and Killers receive an 8k BP bonus in the result. If the killer surrenders, only the survivors who approve will receive 16k BP as well. In a match where a surrender occurs, all players will not lose any pips.
It may be cramped, but if it's not this bad, it could be abused. Also, downed survivors may be boring, but their existence is valuable and part of the game. In order for the game to succeed, it cannot be easily removed. I offer this as a temporary compromise.
1 -
Survivors who give up over every small thing are absolutely not the minority, they are the majority. The vast majority of dc’s or ending themselves on hook are for silly reasons, very few are actually legitimate reasons. The scenario you’re talking about for justified reasons are a small, small minority.
I’ve also always disagreed with the whole not forcing people to play something they’re not having fun. Literally every single game does this. “Not having fun” can be skewed into endless things. I’m not winning or probably going to lose? Oh that’s not fun, I’m out.
Saying they will just try to throw the game or afk I also don’t believe is realistic. That is making them waste A LOT more time. Most would not do that.
0 -
I feel like you are dilluting my point and blurring the line between what is objectively unfun and what is subjectively unfun. I do not agree with letting people who don't like facing X killer, or X perk concede without further notice.
What I am saying is that there are certain objectively unfun scenarios which just serve to waste time and bore the person involved, and it feels like you are entirely ignoring that point.
Regardless, the burden of proof is on both of us, and I don't think either of us can prove whether or not these people are the majority or minority. And I don't really think it's even relevant.
Personally, my anecdotal experiences suggests that most of the time people give up when facing incredibly objectively unfun strategies, such as tunneling out at 5 gens, proxy-camping, or getting slugged for 4 minutes. And can you really fault people for that?
The disussion about whether or not these strategies are valid or overpowered or not, is completely irrelevant, I know this wasn't mentioned, I am preemptively mentioning it before someone comments exactly that. Neither is the discussion about what other games do, or what you subjectively perceive to not be a valid reason to ALT - F4.
The point is that it isn't fun to face, and the whole point of video games for most people is to have fun. I don't play Dead by Daylight to win. I play it to get my challenges done, spend time with friends, and have a good time. I don't like pubstomping killers, and I don't like getting pubstomped. The perfect game is one where everyone feels like they had a meaningful impact and were able to participate. If I die or live in those matches, is completely irrelevant to me. And that the concede button allows people to back out of matches that frankly are not worth even a millisecond of your time, or anyone's time for that matter.
What about the element of empathy? I think the "your fun is not my responsibility" crowd have some good points, but some of them also reek of just completely disregarding the fact that you are playing against other human beings that have just as much of a right to have fun as you do. This isn't even something to discuss, you should be considerate of the people around you. That's basic human decency.
0 -
I’m not bluring the lines. The things you’re talking about are unfun, they’re just very rare. I play way, way more than the average person at 10k hours and those situations are very rare. I’m only making the point that these are solutions for a small amount of scenarios with a feature that stands to cause more harm than good with how abusable it could be.
There’s also many things the devs consider normal game play and don’t condone that I get the impression you would deem as objectively unfun. So how do we rectify that? You’re wanting a feature to prevent scenarios that they want to allow. That’s counterintuitive yes?
0
