Will the devs ever do anything about removing self from game on first hook?
Comments
-
well from my POV none of the excuses you mentioned did happen. Because the first one to be downed mostly wants to ragequit.
0 -
A simple question with a distinct implication.
You must at least admit that it certainly reads that way.
5 -
I dont really care what way it reads, because i didnt mean it that way. You can choose to believe me or not, i know how i meant it.
2 -
Ding ding ding, we have a winner right here! This is the root of everything. A single mistake is all it takes to doom the matches for Survivors at any point in the game. This isn't just entitlement or pessimism, it's a cold hard fact. I've seen it happen more times than I can count, even when no one gives up.
6 -
There's a difference between "being bad" and intentionally ruining games as a pattern of behavior.
For example, the act of just killing yourself on hook. Obviously such a system could be automated so that if someone is new at the game, it doesn't punish them, because maybe they just don't know. But if someone with 3000 hours is killing themself on hook 5 games in a row, it stands to reason that that player is just ruining games.
In LoL for example, if a player is new, and dies 20 times in a game, it isn't going to punish you. But if you regularly go 0/20 in 5, 10, 15+ games, and you have thousands of hours and people are reporting you for feeding, obviously something is going on here.
3 -
Honestly, we really need something to dissuade people from going next immediately. I know the problem can't be solved entirely, but it's just so easy to exit the match, and that's one of the biggest problems in solo queue at the moment.
The amount of times I've had perfectly winnable games lost because a random teammate has decided to tap out one or two hook stages early is more than I can count.
Thanks for shedding some light on the issue from a developer perspective, we all appreciate it.
0 -
I'm not talking about killing yourself on hook
0 -
Its possible to keep the kobe mechanic and removing suicides as well
I thought it was pretty self explanatory. Basically make it impossible for survivors to suicide on hook, but still keep the "kobe" mechanic intact, thats all0 -
It's not the same thing, and a survivor being facecamped is unable to participate in normal gameplay. They are forced into a state of non-participation, which is why there's a mechanic to prevent it.
DC Penalties do, in fact, force players to stay in a game. Removing non-guaranteed self-unhooks, alongside 2nd stage hook skill checks is also forcing players to stay in a game. If someone does not want to participate any longer, you cannot force them. I would rather be down a teammate than be lumped with someone who's deliberately throwing.
Players engaging in unsportsman-like conduct may be reportable, but it's not going to stop them from doing it.
2 -
Okay, why would be bad? Isnt like how it is right now? The only difference is that survivors will not leave the match that easily anymore
Unless you are saying it would be bad for the killer? In that case, are survivors killing themselves on hook also bad for killers?0 -
It's literally not though. There's no one hovering over a player's shoulder, to physically restrain them if they try to DC. Survivors are literally able to DC every single game, because nothing is actually forcing them to stay in the game.
And killers don't have a quick and easy way to ragequit, that bypasses the DC penalties, and the game still survives. Yes, there are some killers that DC, and some killers that AFK, but overall it's better for the game that killers don't have a quick and easy way to ragequit, that bypasses the DC penalties.
…And the same should apply to survivors. The game would be overall better if the quick and easy ways to ragequit, that bypass the DC penalties, are removed from the game for survivors.
1 -
What is the second timer for in your scenario?
FIRST HOOK-Survivors have 2 different timers. 1st timer is 60 seconds and its the normal hook phase timer. 2nd timer is also 60 seconds and goes down along the first-Each survivor has 3 4% attempts of self unhook. These attempts only decrease the 2nd timer, exactly how it works at the current state, however it doesnt change the 1st timer.-Even if all 3 self-unhooks attempts are unsuccessful, they still remain at the first hook phase until someone saves them or the 60 seconds timer pass0 -
Killers don't have a way to quit without bypassing the DC penalty because the role and how you play it is fundamentally different from the survivor role. One person disconnecting on the survivor side lowers the chances of winning, but it doesn't actually prevent anyone from participating in normal gameplay. It's the same as someone giving up on first hook. It reduces the chances of winning, but beyond that doesn't actually prevent anyone from playing out the match normally.
Survivors are able to DC every game, but thanks to DC penalties increasing the more you do it, there's just no point in doing it. It's the same for killer.
It's better for the game that survivors can't rage quit until you realize that all the people who don't want to participate will find other ways to circumvent the system, bringing us back to square one.
1 -
This is why I stopped playing. I got sick of being a bloodpoint pinata for killer mains. I think it's completely unreasonable that I am expected to lose more frequently than the killer and be rewarded less for my time as the cherry on top. One sided games like this aren't just frustrating because you lose. They're also frustrating because the killer comes away with like 30k while the survivors get 10k. It just adds to the frustration that already exists from losing. I don't know who it is on the dev team who thinks this is a fun time. There's a reason why people rage quit so much more compared to when I first started playing and this is a part of it. I understand why certain things were nerfed but they have gone way too far in the other direction with the balance changes they've been pushing.
6 -
Never said anything about it being perfect, I implied it was completely redundant and wont fix anything.
1 -
The difference is that it isn't the same person each time. Killa Whale did a survey of his audience a while ago, and the average people only like playing against ~60% of the Killers.
The thing is, you have to roll the dice 4 total times, to figure out if someone doesn't like the Killer. That gives you the Killer unique percentages seen in the bottom of the picture.
1 -
First lets clarify : didn't you say that attempts at kobe would affect the second hook timer only? Because that was the part that I thought was great on your idea.
And bad, yes : attempts at kobe without downsides would be bad because everybody would always try without any risk. The reason it's bad should be obvious.
0 -
It's the same thing, a game with 3 survivor is not a "normal gameplay" in any way, those who suicide is robbing anyone else's game
It's not hard logic or anything like that at all, you can pretend you don't know what "normal gameplay" means, but the fact doesn't change
Post edited by Neaxolotl on2 -
which just proofs my point. If people dont enjoy over a quarter of the killer rooster, then the game is not for them.
But i believe its about being downed in the first place, when 5 gens are still up "ohh we will loose this game because he got me so fast" and then they will make their statement true with their own actions by giving up early.1 -
so this means they hate over a quarter of the killer rooster. Thats further proof the game aint for them no more. People that dont enjoy a huge chunk of the killers should not play it.
And the 60% is an average, i bet the people that dont mind most of the killers are tanking while there is alot of people that despise more than half of the rooster.1 -
It's not the same thing at all. Someone being facecamped to death was unable to do anything but sit on the hook and stare at the killer. That doesn't constitute normal gameplay.
Being hooked is part of normal gameplay, being camped to death is not. That's why there's a mechanic to prevent it. Pretty simple stuff.
When someone gives up on first hook, they aren't preventing the rest of the lobby from participating in normal gameplay. They've only reduced the team's chance of winning.
4 -
"they have only reduced the teams chance at winning" → makes it not a normal gameplay.
1 -
The point is that even though you "can't force someone to play the game", DBD still survives as a game, even though killers don't have a quick and easy way to ragequit, that bypasses the DC penalties.
And therefore, the game will still survive even if survivors aren't able to quickly ragequit, in ways that bypass the DC penalties.
1 -
I never said anything about the game dying, though? You can't force someone to participate in a game they don't want to. People will just find other ways to circumvent the system, which puts us back at square one with a change that only serves to make it ever so slightly less convenient for someone to rage quit.
Winning and Losing are end results. You seem to be misunderstanding something here. Normal gameplay does not refer to ideal gameplay. It refers to the normal gameplay loop in which four survivors need to repair 5 generators to activate the exit gates and escape the killer.
Someone giving up on first hook in no way prevents the survivors from repairing generators in an effort to escape. It also doesn't prevent the killer from hooking the remaining survivors. It's unlikely that the survivors will win, but not impossible. You would have this same problem with:
- AFK Survivor
- Throwing Survivor
- Baby Survivor
3 -
repairing generators or hooking with just 3 survivors are never enough to be a "normal gameplay", literally every aspect of dead by daylight is made to be played with four survivors and a killer playing seriously across entire match, "that's just an ideal gameplay" is literally a subjective opinion you've just made up here
Objectively speaking, game is severely unbalanced in that state and might as well kick everyone out at that point, "excessively lower escape rate" is bad enough to call it a non-normal matches, even developers acknowledge that and that is the reason exactly why DC penalty exist, to make less people suffer from those "not a normal matches"
Honestly I don't understand why you are so inclined to defend something that is objectively breaking the game
1 -
Normal gameplay just refers to the normal gameplay loop. So long as all players are able to participate in it, it is normal gameplay.
You cannot guarantee that the players you are matched with will choose to participate. Ideally, all the players you are matched with will participate in normal gameplay. Hence why it's ideal gameplay.
If the DC penalty exists to make less people suffer from abnormal matches as you claim, why then do we still have DC penalties with bots able to replace survivors who DC? It exists to punish players for leaving matches they queued up for.
Again, you cannot force players to participate if they don't want to. Trying to do so will not have the desired results, and will just end up with people finding alternative ways of circumventing the system.
3 -
Do you understand that killers don't have a quick and easy way to ragequit, that bypasses the DC penalties, and killers can "just find other ways to circumvent the system", and most of the games are still fine?
The same would apply to survivors, if you removed their quick and easy ways to ragequit, that bypasses the DC penalties. There absolutely are survivors that are only ragequitting, specifically because there is a quick and easy way to do so, that bypasses the DC penalties. Those are the people that would be affected by this change. That is why this solution would successfully reduce the amount of survivor ragequitting.
2 -
Sure you do. Remove the ability to attempt a self-unhook short of a Perk like Deliverance. That way they stay on the hook until the end or the DC and give their team a Bot. It is a simple, fair solution and would not take much coding. Nobody relies on the 4%. I don't recall the last time I saw anyone using Slippery Meat. Make self unhooks entirely Perk based, otherwise you wait for someone to unhook you or until you die. Just like any other DC you can depart the game.
*If you want to be NICE you can simply remove the lockout penalty for those that DC on the hook. I don't see that as necessary but you could do that. A Bot is better than nothing. Time on the hook for other Survivors to do things is better than nothing. If people don't want to play the game, they should not que up. The time it takes to die on the hook is not unreasonable.
0 -
I agree with this. Yes, survivors could still run to the killer, but it’s way less convenient, because they would be stuck on the hook until someone saves them, or until the hook timer runs out. And if the hook skill checks are also removed, then survivors would be stuck on the hook during both hook stages.
The important thing is it would be way less convenient than a DC, which is what survivors really should be doing when they rage quit, because it replaces them with a bot.
1 -
Have you never saved someone from a hook suicide and watched them go back to playing the game? I've seen it many times. Yes, sometimes those people AFK or run to the killer (which, even when that happens, is still better for the other survivors), but frequently they go back to playing the game.
To say it won't fix anything is to presume that all people behave in the exact same way.
3 -
surely the point of having bots implemented was to allow a continued member of the team if someone chooses to self sacrifice.
Really, I’d rather The Team examine ‘why’ so many survivors are choosing to end matches so early and not just go down a ‘right let’s stop you doing that’ approach.
5 -
This is an excellent argument for an anti tunnel system👍
2 -
are you advocating for rage quitting then?
0 -
I'm not advocating for rage quitting. I'm simply against adding mechanics that aren't going to solve the problem, because people will find ways to circumvent the system, then people will complain about that too.
If someone really doesn't want to participate in the match that badly, I'd rather not have them in the match at all.
Killers don't get a quick and easy way to ragequit because of how their objective works, and the fact that there's only one of them per match. Please stop framing this as if killer players are somehow missing out.
Making it less convenient for survivors to rage quit will only serve to reduce the likelihood of your average player doing it. It isn't solving the problem. It's just making it less convenient, and the same people complaining about it now will complain again about how the problem hasn't been solved.
The people who give up on first hook are now more likely to just AFK. They'd DC, but they still want to be able to play the game. They just don't want to participate in certain matches. Can't remove DC penalties because it messes with statistics. The only way to solve the problem is to first address why the majority of players who do this are doing it.
4 -
The reason "why the majority of players who do this are doing it" is because there is a quick and easy way to ragequit that bypasses the DC penalties. That's literally the reason. It's quick, it's easy, and there's zero penalties or consequences for the person doing this.
And, Yes! Reducing the likelihood of your average player ragequitting, is literally the goal here. That's it. Reducing the ragequitting problem. That is a good enough reason to implement these suggestions.
And it doesn't matter if the problem isn't completely solved. That's not a requirement. Yes, someone might decide to AFK, but that is the worst case scenario, and not the most likely scenario.
Do you understand that when a survivor ragequits early, in ways that bypass the DC penalties, that it massively lowers the survivor team's chances of survival? It doesn't matter if a survivor quickly cycles through hook states, or goes AFK, because the end result is that the rest of the survivors are at a massive disadvantage. Therefore, reducing the number of survivors that bypass the DC penalties, should be a high priority for BHVR.
3 -
tunneling doesn't happen early though, in common circumstance there is like 2 to 1 gen on the point once tunneling has ended, unless survivors are the absolute potato of course
0 -
And the answer to "why" is so simple, because it's literally free and so easy to pull off
If giving up is far easier than actually playing the game, of course people will give up, just make it difficult is ACTUALLY enough to stop everyone from acting like that, exactly like DC penalty
0 -
That's not why they're doing it, though.
Your average player isn't rage quitting nearly enough for it to be a problem. I can count on one hand the amount of times I have witnessed someone attempting to give up on first hook in 1600 hours of total playtime.
The goal isn't reducing the likelihood that your average player will rage quit, because your average player might rage quit once out of a hundred games. The goal is to reduce the occurrence of rage quitting, which just isn't feasible if you don't understand why people are doing it to begin with.
It being easy to bypass the DC penalty fails to explain any sort of reasoning behind why survivors are choosing to end their match early.
It would be easier for them to simply not play, so that just doesn't add up. Clearly these people still want to play the game, but there's some reason they don't want to participate in certain matches.
1 -
Your giving the average player WAY too much credit here. They didn't reason that out in their head, they just give up at any negative scenario early on.
2 -
A lot of the ragequits happen for unacceptable reasons that BHVR should never try to fix. Maybe the survivor hates all killers that can go undetectable. Maybe the survivor was found by the killer near the beginning of the game. There could be any number of unacceptable reasons why survivors ragequit.
The trigger reason isn't important though. The important thing is when a survivor can quickly go to the next game, with zero consequences to themselves, they don't need to actually ask themselves "is my reason for wanting to ragequit good enough to justify ragequitting"?
But if there wasn't any ways for a survivor to quickly go to the next game without any consequences to themselves, the survivor would actually need to ask themselves if their reason for wanting to ragequit is good enough to 1) potentially be stuck with long periods of time on a hook, or 2) suffer a DC penalty, or 3) potentially be stuck in the match for a while if they go AFK.
1 -
If they would show what killer it is in the lobby it would stop a lot of people from killing themself on first hook…. I kill myself on first hook and so do my friends when it's a killer we feel is unfair or boring to play with…
1 -
Yeah bro, just ban all your paying customers bro, dont fix the game bro heck no, just ban half the playerbase yeah thats the ticket!
1 -
But letting the killer kill you is not rage quitting…… Rage quitting is DC and not letting the killer kill you….. Letting the killer kill you will never be banable….. I have people give up and let me kill them all the time but if there not playing one of the guys or Jane I will let one person get out but only one almost every game….
2 -
Which is why I said it's important to understand why the majority of survivors who are rage quitting are doing it. The trigger reason is important if you want to avoid ending up at square one again.
People who rage quit are never going to ask themselves the question of whether or not it's justified. Again, clearly these people want to play the game but there are certain reasons they choose not to participate instead. Figuring out what the legitimate reasons are is crucial to preventing more of the same, just with a different method.
There's still no consequence if they choose to afk. There's still no consequence if they immediately throw themselves at the killer after being unhooked. Are we going to then insist that those players need to be punished too, when it becomes a problem?
2 -
The trigger reason is very important. There are a plethora of circumstances that make Survivors want to leave a certain match, but mecca summarizes it nicely in their comment above. I'll quote it here in case you missed it:
The problem is simple: the game is too unbalanced and it's too much decided in the first minute. While killers have the luxury of coming back from bad starts, survivors don't. If a Blight has downed several before a single Gen is completed, survivors can't win.
The killrates are too high. Survivors often go matches after match facing the same inevitable loss. In essence: there is not much skill expression for survivors to control the outcome. So the whole problem is the game feels unwinnable because it often is.
3 -
Okay yeah im with you on that, i dont want ragequitters in my lobbys either. And i dont see a working system at all either, easyest solution would be to just straight up remove the dc penalty, bots are 1000 times better than ragequitters. For both sides even. Its not fun to have someone give up every game and scewing my MMR. And its quite boring to play killer that way. Even the bots put up more effort all though they are not too hard to catch either. But definitly better than somone hookiciding where i get almost no points.
Nedless to say how much bots would improve survivor teammates experience compared to ragequitters.2 -
if you want to tell yourself that then fine, but that attitude is a massive part of the issue. I get this forum is massively killer sided, but you can’t just fix one side. Killers have been eating so well for the past 12 months and unfortunately the survivor side is suffering for it.
As a survivor main I see WAY more people eat the DC timer than do this since the bots came in anyway.
1 -
Banning players making the game experience worse for other players improves the game experience.
By your logic we shouldn't ban cheaters either.
1 -
The automatic consequence for going AFK is time. And going AFK is reportable, and those players should be reported and punished.
And figuring out the legitimate reasons is not crucial, because most of the reasons aren't legitimate. I think a bunch of people on these forums want to hold anti-ragequitting solutions hostage, and demand that certain survivor game balance issues need to be addressed before BHVR is allowed to make anti-ragequitting solutions.
…That isn't realistic, and doesn't address the fact that being able to quickly bypass DC penalties is literally a major game problem by itself. Yes, there are people that will ask themselves if ragequitting is justified, if they not longer have a quick way to bypass DC penalties. Everyone isn't the worst case scenario. Everyone isn't 100% determined to ragequit regardless of the consequences.
That doesn't summarize the problem nicely. Kill rates aren't a problem that need to be solved. And it doesn't address the fact that both sides of the game sometimes feel like their games are unwinnable, which means that problem isn't solely caused by kill rates.
And framing game balance as "stuff that happens at the start of the game", isn't fair to both sides. If the killer in the game is stomping the survivors, then yes, there might be multiple hooks near the start of the game. But if the survivors are stomping the killers, the issue isn't identified right away. It's more like the killer spends a bunch of time not being able to hook anyone, which can't be determined at the start of the game. Also, this is basically the same issue as the other paragraph, where survivors sometimes think games aren't winnable… and again, killers also feel some games aren't winnable, so this isn't a survivor-only problem.
1 -
Sorry but if you feel this place is biased towards anything, that just shows you are extremely biased to the point you see everything else as "other sided"
It's literally a facts, if there is a easy method, people will use it, nothing complicated, nothing difficult, the word "if you want to tell yourself that then fine" is exactly the word that can be applied to you
The extremely biased attitude of you is certainly a problem for sure, because people like you will always try to protect any of the toxic behavior with absolute effort just like what you do here, only to change literally everything you don't like to your own will, those kind of act only makes community worse without doubt
2
