Why are Dead by Daylight players so opposed to putting in ways for the survivors to fight back?

Technically there was a game like that, Video Horror Society, aka VHS. Where the survivors would make weapons and actually fight back against the killer. As the basic gameplay, instead of doing generators, you wanted to hit damage and banish killer once with each different type of weapon. Those types being Burn, Purify (aka Holy), Shock, and Curse. Once they been banished four times, once for each type, the survivors win. It however, sadly got shut down. While not necessarily a fault of the gameplay, it was more they didn't generate enough income. Yet also because of encountering a series security issue that took them too long to fix which was really the final nail in the coffin.

Its not impossible for the developers to implement what you are suggesting, this but it would either be a perk (unlikely), or have to be its own separate game mode (more likely).

"If it bleeds, we can kill it"

From a thematic point of view, something you can defeat, that you can kill, immediately becomes less scary than before. There's a sense of security in that something is mortal and can be removed. If you've ever played any of the Deadspace games, the Ubermorph is always something tense that you have to navigate around, because it just keeps following you and doesn't stop. That is until you hit a certain point. And upon further playthroughs it becomes a blitz to reach that point. Kinda like what it would become in DBD were it an option, the only win is to kill the Killer and to min-max reaching this goal.

If you play killer to the point that you're against good survivors, you also know the game can be constantly demanding even to reach a few kills, whereas survivor has periodic downtime and split responsibility. As a Survivor, getting moried by the Killer also can feel thematic, and you can even use the excuse that others are to blame for you getting killed. Though tossing in a mechanic where the thematic script is flipped because the killer did so poorly is going to cause more burnout than before, especially if it's something that's quite literally in their face, ala performing a Mori on the Killer.

And in terms of toxicity, I don't like Killers slugging people out of spite (and hope that gets addressed at some point), and I have no doubt that Survivors would likely end up doing the same kind of hitting with their "Killer mechanic" too.

Yup!!! I was gonna remark on this as well, and then read your post. This did not work out well for poor Jason Voorhees at all, and he ended up getting bullied more often than not. I'm happy to see it remain a non-factor in DBD.

What I find funny is that people who claim that game X or game Y is the DBD Killer, are often those who even complain about the limited ways of fighting back Survivors have in DBD. Whether it is DS, Pallet Saves or Flashlight Saves, those get complained about and the same people then claim that a game will be DBD Killer, where Survivors actually have ways to fight back.

I cannot really imagine that someone who has a problem with DS having fun in a game where Survivors can actually fight back.

like all the other already said every game that had sucha mechanic is no more so why would we want it in dbd and we actually have a lore reason for it.

correct me if im wrong but im pretty sure a survivor cant just fight back. the entity makes it so they cant just pick up a sharp piece of metal and fight back. would be absoluty stupid otherwise since we have strong guys like david and lets not start with all the resident evil character

Because it's entirely different game. Not slight different - entirely different.

I would agree with some gameplay changes, but to fit with dbd theme.

yeah... bout that...

For one thing…as much as I hate me as a survivor can be removed out of a match in 2min. I dont like killing someone then they spawn back. With the ability to kill the killer.

I was choosing between The last year and DBD, I picked DBD because of this. A death has more meaningful.

Home sweet home also gives survivors ability to kill killers when they finish all the ritual, it becomes a total bully simulator

Some recent killers have brought with them innate means of "fighting back" to an extent, and I think it is a completely worthwhile gameplay dynamic. Obviously it is, anything that promotes interactiveness and proactive gameplay is welcome game design. That doesn't mean you should be able to kill the killer or stun-lock them or something silly like that, but means of engaging the killer offensively in smaller ways are good, healthy and we should long have gotten more of them. Might sound funny, but I had even hoped that survivors would be able to wield guns against Nemesis, who would be stronger or faster than other killers but slowed down or otherwise kept in check by these weapons.

Alas, with the devs having removed unique flashlight interactions (when flashlights are already among the very few means of "fighting back"), it doesn't seem to be on their agenda. Well, at least they are buffing saboboxes.

Perhaps so. I do think turrets don't do enough (although a little tip for the unaware: you need to place at least two turrets within close proximity such that both fire while one is being destroyed, this will actually give you a chance to pull Xeno out of power). I don't think EMPs are nearly as debilitating to Singularity as it is often made out to, at all. Good Singularity players are oppressively strong (not even only in pubs, in tournament settings too). It's just that Singularity is not easy to play.

I also think most of the flashlight burn mechanics were perfectly fine. It really was only Wraith that it was too punishing against, and they could have simply reduced the lightburn stun time on him, and/or given him add-ons against lightburn again. Many more killers could have had unique lightburn mechanics too. Now they're all gone.

Whether more means of fighting back would ultimately be bad for the game's popularity. Well, I'd also say "perhaps so". I do think survivors fighting back can be a frustrating experience even regardless of how "balanced" it is or not, simply because it makes the already fairly stressful killer experience more so (for the average player anyway), and unfortunately means of "fighting back" also often breed "toxicity". The average player will already find it fairly frustrating just getting pallet stunned, even though that is not much more than a minor nuisance. Flashlight saves, sabo saves, all of these things can be a source of great frustration for killer players, getting intercepted in their basic gameplay loop and the parts of this loop that should give them some time to unwind and relax just going through the motions.

Of course, on the flipside they can be really fun, funny and engaging on the survivor side, but yeah, maybe part of DbD's success has also been how relatively untouchable the killer is. But there are degrees to this, and again, the flashlight burn mechanic for one thing had existed for years without killing the game. I for one would take the risk of implementing more of this type of gameplay, and I think the devs' route of tying this innately to certain killers is not the worst of ways to go about it. Like I said, I would have wished for Nemesis to be much more of a menace that has to be kept in check with weapons. That could have been great fun.

Active fighting back the killer is a bad idea.

Lot of people already said why.

But ability to kill the killer is not as bad. Or rather banish it.

This would require some gameplay changes, some of them would not be as bad for the game.

Leave core loop mostly intact, only differences are:

1. Survs cannot be killed during trial, hooks keeps them for X seconds and if noone saves them, they are removed from the hook by the Entity and put in random place at least 40m away from killer with endurance, with no pools of blood and lower noices untill performing conspicuous action. This process can repeat potentially indefinitely. (Mories makes surv becoming a ghost that can do nothing except moving but with no collision for Y seconds, with no ability to be saved).

2. Game have timer (gen speed should be balanced as long as all perks). If survs will not repair gens and turn switches before time runs out, they are sacrificed. If they do, then killer is consumed by the Entity.

It has never turned out well for any other game. Friday, Predator, Evil Dead, Last Year, Texas Chainsaw. It just leads to group bullying, intentional or not. Texas Chainsaw, I can still stomach to play as the killers, just because I haven't played the game enough. Friday and Evil Dead, I can play as the killer, and actually like to, but I always get my hopes up just to be bully material. And Predator, same thing, because I played 1 session as killer and was already fed up with it. Nobody wants to play the power role, the 1 in the 1v4 or whatnot, to be a weak punching bag.

What made what happened worse in my opinion is that the devs were told by play testers that if you can't keep at least 15% preferably 20% of the people in queue as Monsters then the game will die due to ever increasing queue times and that with the skill floor to be effective as a Teen being so much lower than that of Monster almost nobody is going to stick with Monster long enough to get to the point it is effective.

The devs could have easily seen it as every beta key wave had the exact same pattern. Keys were issued, queues were good for a week or so and then the game became a lobby simulator because so few people wanted to play Monster. This happened every single time.

I thought the game had tons of potential but it was all wasted since a very vocal segment of the playerbase couldn't accept that both sides need to have fun.