Lobby Shopping vs Going Next
Why is it that survivors giving up on hook is such a hot issue right now (has been for awhile) and yet I don't see the same energy for killers cherry picking lobbies?
I feel as though the rhetoric used to denounce going next could be easily applied to profile inspecting and lobby dodging and yet I feel as though there's not as much buzz.
How come?
I'd assume it's because the negatives aren't as apparent as someone going next in the middle of a match but I'd argue it's equally as damaging.
I also believe that if survivors should lose the ability to die intentionally on hook then killers should lose the ability to inspect profiles and leave lobbies without eating a DC penalty. And before anyone says Us Vs Them keep in mind this change would apply to survivors too.
This to me would be a fair implementation of 'playing the match you queued for."
Comments
-
I can't blame them. being the first one to be chased for 40s or more while your teammates are doing nothing is quite disheartening.
21 -
apple and oranges
22 -
Going to have to ask you to elaborate.
Because the way I see it both scenarios include someone choosing their own enjoyment over the integrity of their match and the consideration of others in order to get a match where they won't have difficulty winning.
18 -
I think a more mismatched game because of dodging isn't nearly as damaging as the game being auto over, don't think I need to explicate on that. That being said though I'd take this trade in .01 seconds, they are both bad for the game regardless of which ones worse.
5 -
You often don't get "the match you queued for" when you see 4 p100s with 4 flashlights already readied up. It's obvious you are the backfill that some other Killer didn't want. Screw bully squads, I shop all I want.
30 -
You can't damage a game that hasn't happened yet it's not exactly the same thing.
I'm also quite confused about the fact that everyone talks about what a bad thing SBMM is for DBD but then constantly complains about it either not working or people doing things that they think effect it so it feels like people actually do want SBMM? I don't quite get it.
39 -
Statically lobby shopping is fine because if its for some reason like 3+ medkits, or 3+ high prestige survivors on the same playform all that would happen is that they are more likely to queue against stronger killers, which on its own doesn't ruin a match and somewhat balances matchmaking a bit and can't waste anywhere near the same amount of time.
Vs throwing mid match means people already agreed to what they were gonna face wastes anywhere from 2-10x as long in a match, throwing right at the start wastes at least 2x as long since you had to wait in the lobby then load it then have to find the killer and hope they let you out which can easily be longer, after first hook or 2nd hook easily takes 5-6x as long and potentially late in a match can easily take 10x as long for a more annoying depending on the gamestate they threw in
10 -
Lobby shopping and/or dodging by a killer does wreak their MMR pretty badly, and I often wonder what effect skipping lobbies altogether would have on the quality of matchmaking. I'd like to see this tested out.
There's not a lot of what I'd call "legit" reasons for leaving lobbies, things like real-life issues of course, and recognizing a known hacker I can get behind. Aside from that, shopping around to me seems like either passing "a problem" onto another killer, some kind of protest of current balancing, not liking some cosmetics, or simply looking for a personal definition of a "fair" trail. Smells like looking for an easier match to me.
When it comes to survs hoping lobbies it too is not good for proper-ish matchmaking, but less destructive imo.
In truth, how can we blast the devs for an MMR system that is being maneuvered around & bypassed like crazy, and not really given a good shot to do its thing?
4 -
Well there's a lot more people affected when it comes to lobby shopping, just not at the same degree. Especially if multiple killers lobby dodge.
I will concede that its not as directly damaging however I still feel like its subjective.
Are you also okay with survivors going next all they want as well?
Its not exactly the same I agree, but at the same time there is still damage done, especially if you consider sometimes multiple killers will dodge in a row, leading to a killer that is not experienced going against a super strong SWF and having zero fun and on the flip-side four low tier survivors will be placed against a really strong killer.
8 -
I do agree. On a basic level, dodging enables you to pick your opponents in a way survivors cannot. If a killer wants to steam roll a team of baby survivors they have the means to do so, yet if one or more of those survivors decides to leave the match because they're vastly outskilled then they're the bad guy?
13 -
lol Killers tunnel.
Survivors Bully Squad.
These are the two sins of the other side.
One side tramples on open lobbies without much resistance.
One side waits in lobby as killers come and go.
Until lobby shopping goes bye bye, squads and 'tech' will remain and survive the day.
I'd love to get some of the dodgers for some 1v1s. I bet they arent as bad as they think they are lol
0 -
Giving up on first hook (assuming at the start) will 90+% of the time wreck the game for the other survivors (how they actually feel varies) and depending on the killer take away an exciting match (granted if the killers an [Beep] then [Boop] them). Lobby shopping has the potential of making a match miserable for one side or the other but doesn't guarantee that the survivor side is screwed over by a lone potato.
Leaving is also more of a issue because people are actually IN the match and ready to play when someone gives up compared to lobby shopping where its more akin to "searching for a match". People notice it, but its like "ehh whatever" feeling compared to giving up where its "For [censored] sake really?!". Lastly, to throw salt in the wounds you don't even get a bot to try and help.
Both are bad, but giving up (at the start) is arguably worse and has become more and more common.
12 -
One is related to player throwing during a game and the other is people trying to game the MMR before the game even starts
These are so vaguely related you might as well mention Meta slaving, tunneling or 4bnp comp squads.
You will almost never know if a killer lobby shopped but you will almost always know a survivor threw.
12 -
Interesting comparison. I’m not sure why there’s somewhat of a double standard but you’re not alone in noticing it. Someone made a post a few days ago about the bias between the way people react to things killers complain about compared to the way people react to what survivors complain about, and I think this may be one of those things. Even if the essence is completely the same, or stats support the point, or it’s just an opinion, often on the forum if it’s a survivor complaint it won’t be met with as much understanding, and often it’s made personal by insisting that the OP is simply bad at the game. “Skill issue” is what seems popular to say, a way to kind of invalidate everything that the OP expressed.Your point I believe is strong, and if survivors or even 1 survivor were given the option to “lobby dodge” the same way, I believe the community would be quick to denounce it. Not trying to “us vs. them” as everyone is an individual, but the posts on the forums already seem to support this.
3 -
The major difference is one is in lobby and the other is mid match you claim cherry picking lobbies does the same damage as mid match is simply not true Killer sees 4 p100s they leave 30 seconds later a new killer comes and readys up. Meanwhile mid match baby dwight sees [insert any killer here] hates them he gives up on hook denying the rest of the team a chance to escape and also denying a bot to takeover and dodging the DC penalty. Imagine Killer if they was losing could just open the gates at anytime and just leave the match ruining the match and avoiding the dc penalty
5 -
Must be because of the items / Prestige’s. Out of every 100 survivor matches I would say the killer leaves probably 10-15 times. And who knows if it’s because the lobby or maybe they had to go do laundry or something.
I think lobby shopping is also overblown too. 7 out of every 10 matches I play has a minimum of 1 P100. 5 out of 10 of my matches have a TTV in them. I’ve had multiple P400 lobbies and I never dodged any of them. Prestige has zero indication of skill.
I used to dodge before but You'll never get better if you dodge the good players. You can learn a lot from sweaty players on the fly. It’s a very good way of learning and if they are cracked and you do beat them it feels great. But if you lose it doesn’t feel terrible either because they have 10,000 more hours than you lol.1 -
If you dontvsee killers cherry that much its on you. They do.
1 -
The volume on certain things like this makes more sense when you understand that the forums in general have an incredibly high number of killer players compared to the total game population.
Not only that, but people who tend to use the phrase 'power role' give the vibe of 'we're done when I say we're done', and are extremely offended that survivors didn't ask permission to leave the trial. For some people, it's just a power trip, not a game, unfortunately.
To the actual topic: I feel like lobby dodging has only one purpose and that's shopping for an 'easy' game. There are legit reasons to drop a lobby, don't get me wrong: things happen IRL, so it's not like dropping from the lobby ever, for any reason, is a heinous crime.
But dropping for the purpose of manipulating the game difficulty is what we're talking about here, and that's ruining the game experience of 5 other players in a match you are dodging at that point. I don't necessarily think a wait/DC timer is necessary, personally, but the literal least effort solution that hurts nothing at all is hiding prestige in the lobby.
The fact that they trialled this and it's been months (almost a year?) and it's still up in the air, tells me that they either don't care to do literally anything about it, or perhaps there's someone at BHVR who thrives on lobby dodging and has some direct influence over the decision.
11 -
I don’t really think they are comparable, they are both issues in their own way.
Lobby shopping shouldn’t be possible. No other game allows you to cherry pick your opponents and avoid ones that might give you difficulty.
As for giving up, it’s also an issue and completely ruins the game for everyone else and you, the one ruining it, are somehow punished the LEAST. Any other game this would be looked down on, yet the DBD community thinks they are in the right somehow.
Both need to be addressed for separate reasons. The reason lobby dodging is less talked about (even though it is still a pretty common topic anyway) is probably because it is less obvious that it affected the game. Lobbying dodging doesn’t necessarily make the entire game a loss like giving up does and the other players don’t have to sit through a lost game for ages in a dodged lobby. Lobby dodging doesn’t impact the game as obviously as giving up does so it’s not as clear when it actually happened. They both impact the game negatively, just in different ways and lobby dodging is less in your face about it.
They are both issues that should be more punishable but they should be changed because they are issues themselves, not as a tit for tat type thing where you can only remove one if the other goes.
2 -
People want to actually play out a game past one min without being guaranteed to lose, somehow that's a killer player issue? I'll give it to you, killer players are slightly more competitive than survivors on average. But that doesn't somehow discount neutral or survivor players who just want to play out games, MAJORITY of which suicides take place are winnable.
Why do both you and the general player base think consistently playing a semi-competitive match is a such a bad thing? How does it always equate to power role and killer and not just I want a shot at winning without my teamates inting?
Everything you said about lobby shopping applies to leaving the game in any way but especially the free way 10 fold.
Post edited by EQWashu on11 -
There are legitimate reasons to leave a lobby. If you're trying out an unfamiliar killer or build and 4 ttv's queue up it's perfectly reasonable to not want to get rolled in front of hundreds of people. There's also the players whose name or profile is a clear indication they are cheating.
On the other hand if you're playing survivor with the killer at 4 hooks and 3 gens left, and Nea immediately offs herself on hook because she got outplayed at shack, that's it the games over.
So I don't think you can really equate the two. One game hadn't even started and the other was totally winnable.
13 -
Yeah. If I see four obviously pre-made p100 survivors with troll skins, troll nicknames and flashlights, I leave. Bullies can look for a punching bag elsewhere.10 -
This is a necessary feature to avoid cheaters. Originally, the survivors should only display the killer's name.
People often say that you don't encounter cheetahs very often, but that's an idealism that's far from reality.
4 -
I personally think prestige should be hidden and while in the lobby survivors should not see other survivors and killer shouldn't see survivors either.
It's true that the time lost between a survivor giving up in-game and a killer lobby dodging is vastly different but the outcome, or perhaps better the cause, is the same: survivors mostly give up when the situation feels already out of control or is being too hard and the killer dodges the lobby because he thinks it will be too hard to win.
The reason for giving up/lobby dodging is exatly the same for both sides...
7 -
Agreed, it is pretty good compareable. Just the time when the person decides to leave the other players alone is different.
And therefore I am for removing prestige, names and profiles from the Lobby. Saying this for years now, but yet we have to TEST if removing prestige makes sense. Gameplay-wise there is 0 reason why the Killer should have access to Names, Profiles or Prestige. It just leads to lobbydodging.
In fact, you can probably remove the Lobby in the first place, since it only exists because the game was P2P when it came out. It is also not really used for preparation, at least I have not noticed that a Killer used their Meme-Build against 4 Solos with 1 Item in total. The Killer will not prepare, they will just dodge.
OR - if Killers really want to keep this feature, we can just give the Survivors access to the same level of information. See the Killers Name, their profile and which Killer they are playing. And then I would guarantee that there will also be less DCs or Hook Suicides, simply because Survivors would dodge every Nurse or Skull Merchant they encounter. And if someone thinks that Lobbydodging is fine, but Suiciding/DCing not, then this solution would be fair for them as well.
12 -
I'm against removing option to view profiles because they at least provide an opportunity to dodge potential cheaters (because BHVR isn't really doing anything about them). Letting survivors preview the killer's profile is fair though.
3 -
Honestly think this would be great for survivors to see which killer they're going against instead of going in blind and getting a 9th SM or doctor in a row
1 -
Most TTVs stream for like 3 people and are not toxic at all. But that is the general hate against streamers on this forum (unless they are popular, then they are idolized).
The option does more harm than good. The 1 Cheater you get in 20 or so games does not really justify it IMO. Let alone that most Cheaters are Anon anyway.
4 -
This is why I said "at least". Dodging a suspected cheater with a VAC ban on their Steam account is more preferrable to suffering them the entire game, especially if they find a way to hold a match hostage. I've faced a Meg who no-clipped through my hits and, therefore, was basically invincible. To say it was frustrating would be an understatement and even if encounters with cheaters were rare (in my case, they aren't), this isn't the experience I want to repeat.
4 -
Does it need to be one or the other? Why not condemn both?
I consider lobby shopping pretty scummy, and a sign the killer has no belief in their own abilities, nor any desire to grow as a player. It messes with the matchmaking queue, causing disruption to MMR system via backfill with all of those associated issues, and simply shows them to be pretty spineless, sad and pathetic.
I do however condemn suicide on hook more, simply because the effect is greater. It's not even the killer side you're punishing, you're punishing the rest of the survivors in the trial. At least with lobby shopping the argument can made that the immediate damage you've done is only minorly inconvenienced the opposite side and made them wait maybe 30s for another killer to join. With SoH, you basically threw every other survivor on your own team under the bus and left them at the mercy of the killer, all because you couldn't be bothered to sit on a gen and/or run the killer as long as possible before you died.
If you aren't gonna eat a DC penalty for being a baby and kicking your toys out of the pram, at least play super aggressive and/or run the killer to corner of the map to at least try and be useful before you leave the game.
That's how I see it. Both are dirt piles, but survivors who abandon their team are absolutely a higher level of filth.
0 -
There are legitimate reasons to leave a lobby.
I literally say exactly this in my post. I'm not sure you read everything I said, and it seems you stopped reading very early on.
ETA: Not only did I say this in the post, the only partial solution I discussed specifically does nothing in situations that are legit reasons to leave a lobby.
Post edited by AmpersandUnderscore on2 -
This is kinda why I think the forums are horribly biased, because I can't even state an opinion without being attacked for things I never said.
Since you only want to talk about the survivor side, then sure: I have a consistent opinion about that too.
There's nuance to giving up on hook, exactly like dropping from lobby. Sure, some people drop for bs reasons. Maybe they are getting burned out, got downed in 10 seconds, or maybe they didn't get their perfect map. Those things happen.
But there also times where, again, people have something come up IRL, or they're letting go to give the last survivor a chance at hatch. Maybe they're one of the players that has an actual visceral reaction to plague's power and hearing vomiting, or get motion sickness from clown's bottles (i.e. an actual accessibility reason).
So here's the thing: I don't know of a way the game can discern between these options. And so far, no one has said anything other than 'remove it completely' or 'give a DC penalty'. You've certainly given no answers yourself, and I don't know of any options that would only affect the bs reasons and not punish legit reasons as well. Because both of those options certainly impact legit reasons to drop.
That's not the case for lobby dodging. Removing prestige from the lobby hurts literally no one, unless you're specifically lobby dodging and are part of the problem. It doesn't hurt legit reasons to drop. Ever. And they tested it, but haven't done anything about it.
Post edited by EQWashu on9 -
Players created an environment where your entire worth as a person is defined by how "good" you are at the game. If you happen not to play like a god of DBD or struggle with a new killer, then in popular opinion, you deserve to be abused, BMd, told you're worthless and advised to end your life or uninstall the game. Gee, I wonder why players aren't eager to "test their abilities"?
Blame the community.
4 -
Are you okay with survivors going next against killers they don't like as well?
7 -
I've always said either nuke all information from the lobby besides
- Survivor picked
- Outfit equipped
- Item selected (as item counter perks is intended design and fine, revisit this if the new dodge meta becomes cycling lobbies for 47 years until there's 0 items)
OR
Show survivors the killer's profile + name before the match too. What if they want to check if the killer has a VAC ban? Check if they're crossplay? Or they don't want to go against a TTV? Do note I do NOT want this but some of the common arguements in defense of lobby shopping is stuff that really applies to both roles, like checking for old bans or not wanting to go against streamers/anon mode/whatever.
Either cut it all out, or let both sides do it and see what happens.
8 -
2 things.
1- not a fair comparison at all. one happens DURING a game, and everyone else gets stuck playing that match until it ends.
the other is in the lobby. which the worst it would do is screw mmr a bit because another player joins quickly after.
similar in premise, but not in effect.
2- I've been on the side of removing the lobby altogether for awhile now… you queue up, and immediatly go into the loading screen when a match is found with 5 people. just show the survivors and their cosmetics in the loading screen if that really matters.
and you want me to have it while also removing hook suicides? sign me in.
also, to people saying it, there are reasons to leave a lobby that isn't shopping. the usual for me is that I forgot to equip a new tome challenge… but I wouid agree that lobby shopping is bs.
this is quite unfair. they do a lot against cheaters. but it's an arms race.
1 -
Lobby dodging happens before the match even starts. Also killers are not the only ones who can lobby dodge.
Giving up after the match has started basically condemns the rest of the survivors to a loss.
8 -
Nah j/k😁
But in seriousness, lobby shopping is undeniably lame, even if survivors have made it toxic to play killer, it should not be used as an excuse to stoop down to the same level or as a shield to defend it.
1 -
For one, the group needs to wait to start a match with no impact to that match.
The other the match is ruined but must be played out.
5 -
There is nothing lame about opting out from interacting with a potential toxic squad and avoiding the repetition of a negative experience. Nobody is obliged to waste their time on a group of people who treats them like garbage.
9 -
And you determine that by them doing what exactly? Having flashlights? Having toolboxes? Being p100?
So because you MIGHT meet a player who might try to annoy you, or heaven forbid, actually beat you, the answer is instead to fish for a lobby with default player skins with no items all at rank 1 to 3? Sounds pretty lame with a healthy dose of cope to me.
9 -
Gosh, of course, if I see a p100 Meg or Sable squad in flashy skins, equipped with 4 flashlights/toolboxes while wearing nicknames like PalletteHumper3000 or nicknames that suggest that the group plays together the first thing I'm going to assume is that they are super-friendly and they totally aren't looking to make the Killer's match living hell. And even if they do, I should totally abandon my self-respect and let them have fun at my expense. This is how game is meant to be played /s
This is how the consequences of toxic behavior work. People do get better at not getting involved with anyone displaying any red flags. There is no pleasure or fun in repeatedly shoving your hand into a methaphorical meatgrinder.
10 -
So then you have no issues of someone going next when they see several slowdowns in play because in their experience most of these players are toxic?
11 -
But there is an impact on the match where the lobby was dodged. The back fill player is likely to be completely mismatched in skill to what the lobby was originally matched for.
So you get a 12k hour nurse stomping a squad of solos, or the other extreme of a new killer going up against 6k hour survivors.
The only difference here is that dropping out of the match affects the game for 4 players, or may not have an effect at all if the match is already lost. Lobby dodging affects the match for 5 other players, and can create the frustrating 'matchmaking is awful' scenarios that literally no one enjoys.
3 -
No. Because:
1) You can't nurture a culture of sore winners and toxicity in a game AND appeal to altruism, teamwork and respect to shame people into staying and helping those who would drag them through the mud for being less than perfect (it's not just killers. survivors do that to other survivors too). You can't have both.
2) I understand the frustration - and if it's combined with teammates lashing out at the player and previous killers BMing, the player doesn't have the incentive to continue the effort. Are they letting their team down? Maybe. But let's be honest, multiplayer games have never been about bonding and working together.
5 -
Not saying lobby shopping should be a thing, it shouldn't, but those are very different degrees of problematic. Lobby shopping is a little more queue time but realistically not that significant, I barely even notice it. Throwing in game is wasting everyone's time significantly and giving them a bad experience. Much worse and more problematic than lobby shopping.
8 -
If I'm playing killer and I know that I'm going up against a 3/4-man SWF team, I'm absolutely going to dodge. Why would I want to knowingly go into a match where the other side has an unfair advantage if I don't have to?
4 -
But would you agree that the mindset is the same?
And with that, they are linked in that if you condemn one you must condemn the other and both have to be removed together or neither should.
This is effectively the crux of my argument.
5 -
Why would a survivor willingly want to play against a SM or Billy with a meta loadout over an inexperienced killer playing a low-tier?
13 -
I agree they should both be removed but I disagree on them being the same mindset and therefor not linked. I think there's more reasons for lobby shopping than there are reasons for rage quitting games.
If the vast majority of dodges were simply because "i want an easy game where I win", "entitlement" if you will. Then yeah I'd agree. However I don't agree because I don't think that's the majority. A lot, sure, but majority, no. If you think that is the majority though then I can see why you feel this way as if I thought that I'd agree as well.
4
