Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
Giving Up - Why is there no surrendering option?
I've always wondered: Why are people who are clearly not having fun within a trial not allowed to surrender? Just give the winning side some extra BP and let those people go next instead of getting a Bann for wanting to leave or getting kinda held 'hostage' by one or the other side.
Do you guys think it should be an option? Because I don't see an issue with having a vote system for survivors or simply a option for killers.
Answers
-
I don't want or care about BP. I want to play the game I queued up for.
2 -
Not everyone does though. There are enough people giving up on hook, not moving, staying afk, getting slugged etc. for whatever reason. Let those games be over sooner and move on to the next game. Simple as that.
2 -
the game in question:
11 -
Our main concern is how it's implemented. If individually, then it's effectively a free DC button without the penalty and we know how that goes. If group, then some may want to play it out till the end and keep the others in (reasons vary from good to ill). If the killer gets it at the start then games end as soon as things go poorly for them ending games.... poorly (can't think of the proper word atm). Its going to have to have restrictions.
Like this for example. Did the killer simply slug to slug and is keeping them there, or did the survivors screw up majorly and the survivors want to give up and deny hooks to the killer (which are occasionally rift objectives). The first would make surrender options good, the latter bad.
4 -
I don't think it matters at all what the reason for a surrender even is. The only thing we should keep in mind is, that challenges don't get ruined by them and to avoid this I would recommend making an exeption: You can safe your challenge progress even if the requirement is "Do it in a single trial". So if it's hook 4 survivors in a single trial but you got 3 out 4, then you can keep that progress (but only if the survivors surrendered. If you surrender yourself, then no.)
1 -
They won't do such thing cuz 70% of the games would be like that, they are aware of that.
There is too much miserable things in the game right now to implement such "feature".
1 -
So if only one survivor wants to surrender, what happens? If allowed then it's again effectively a free DC with no penalty (we are assuming no penalty for surrenders) with effectively the types of games where everyone will surrender one after another. If unanimous group then one person can hold the others which creates it's own from of problems. If majority then swfs can quit whenever and screw over the killer or solo (or group if duos but then it's dou v dou) of a actual match.
1 -
This has zero context. Even if it is a no good full bleed out, how often does that even happen? I've seen it less than a dozen times in my years playing this game. Let people bleed out faster if they want. That won't affect games like giving people a free DC button against the hated killer of the week. Or because they happen to be losing.
1 -
plenty of survivors are already surrendering and taking their team down with them, giving the killer a similar option is a bad idea
0 -
Well, Killers already complain about playing against a full team of DC bots. Maybe they should be given a surrender option in that case.
And maybe, if Survivors don't want to play a 3v1 after a teammate gives up, they can surrender and end the match instead of playing (and suffering) it out.
3 -
So killers can only forfeit if the survivors have already left, but 3/4 survivors can just dip for free if they're losing. A killer would have to play out and suffer through a hopeless map with one or two hooks at one gen left.
The double standard is real.
0 -
Killers suffering? Perish the thought. They're tough guys, they can take it.
1 -
Dunno about you, but I'm very soft. It's silly to advocate for some players to be able to leave the game at will and prohibit others from doing the same.
0 -
Lots of issues with something like this.
-People would swf queue and just spam surrender to fast mode derank their mmr. Even aside from how bad letting people derank that fast and easy is, it would also be extremely annoying to all the killers they queue against and ruining their matches.
-You would basically never see almost any games actually to their conclusion. As soon as it looks really bad, NEXT. Talk about anticlimactic.
-You would have groups all just auto surrender against any killer or map they didn't like basically rendering any strong or unpopular killer nearly unplayable.
In no fathomable way would this ever be a good idea for DBD. What we should be doing is going in the opposite direction and take away the ability to remove yourself on hook. It ruins matches for everyone else.
Catering a games play through around the criteria that it only plays out when everyone's subjective and completely different interpretations of "fun" are upheld is a disastrous design choice and flawed in just basic conception. What if my groups interpretation of fun is only when we play against weak killers? Next, next, next, and so on. Obviously this has to be fair for both sides so killers vote would have to count for multiple survivors. So killer sees a SWF? Next, next, next, and so on.
Nothing good would come from this.
1 -
Identity V actually has a surrender option for both sides when things are going south. Pitful dbd wont ever do this sadly op.
2 -
Someday DBD will achieve parity with the anime cell phone game. We can only pray.
0 -
Its on pc too and its still way better in dbd that many ways. Way better community who dont complain and qq about nerf this nerf that and have multiple game modes and do not cater to just one side like killer sided by daylight.
Oh ofc also no qq about swfs but again its not only identity v , no other games like tcm/resident evil resistance/evil dead complains about swfs like dbd does.
0 -
They won't because the game is absolutely one of the most miserable when you are losing on either side. If they did add it then people will realzie this game isn't fun to play most of the time lol. Honestly if they balanced the game and did more to squash people trying to force the game to be hyper competetive then it would be a lot better. But we all know the balance team has one guy working on it which is why it takes them 3 years in some cases to fix broken ######### lol.
BHVR can do some things really great but in other areas like balance, map design, and sometimes perk desgin. They can really come off as super incompitent. Like seriously whomever made RPD and the undone perk might need to be moved to a different team.1 -
I agree that a 4 man slug while the killer stands there waiting for you to all bleed out is boring, but I just have Netflix/YoutTube up on my 2nd screen and if I get slugged like that I just put back on the show I was watching while the killer swats at the crows buzzing around my head lol — Maybe if the game can see no one has a perk to get themselves up, and 4 people are down you bleed out in half the time? idk. But I get in a lot of Netflix while playing DBD :D
1 -
killers def shouldnt have to play if the match is all bots. I get that the survivors wouldnt wanna play a match thats basically set in stone but that can be fixed by removing giving up on hook (if ppl just start going afk we can still replace them with bots after like a minute or two)
0 -
Well, they tried to introduce a "surrender" option a while back (for survivors): If everyone was in the dying state the Killer automatically performed a Mori on the last Survivor downed in a cinematic fashion and the game ended.
Of course that meant that it heavily rewarded slugging play, skipping hooks entirely and kinda made the game seem a bit "on-rails", and the community didn't like it.
BHVR might have mistakenly taken that as a hint to not include a surrender option entirely.
I do hope that they include a "surrender" option, but not something that gives a reward for trying to curate a "surrender" forcing playstyle like a Mori or Bloodpoints, nor one that adds automatic mechanics that removes a players ability for agency or that introduces sudden viewpoint shifts that detach the player from their character.
0
