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!
That’s enough dead by daylight for one day‼️
After a pretty rough game this Trapper decided to go AFK in front of one of the exit gates. One of my teammates, a P22 dwight chose to then follow suit, 99ing the gates, then also going AFK, body blocking the switch. We were waiting ages until the Trapper returned to kill my teammates. Had he not returned i assume we would have been waiting until the server closed.
Has anyone else experienced this lately? What do you think could be changed to stop things like this from continuing?
Comments
-
Some more context, the dwight was not fully AFK, he had 3 crows but was crouching and looking around at us
0 -
Well, for one, that Dwight could be reported, since it artificially extended the game.
As for a solution, having an AFK killer/survivor lose collision would solve or at least somewhat alleviate body-blocking scenarios.
14 -
???????
There is a always second gate? Or did that magically get deleted since I stopped playing this game?
0 -
I'm pretty sure he's saying the Trapper went afk in front of one gate and Dwight in front of the other
8 -
Yeah, both the Trapper and the Dwight should be reported for holding the game hostage. I hope you recorded it so that you can send the recording to the Support.
If not, still report them, but with the screenshots.
3 -
Ah, in front of the switch, not the gate per se. Didn't get that.
I thought the Dwight stood in the killers pov blocking the switch. 😅
0 -
It really depends on more context i think.
Did the killer knew what the survivor was doing? If not, he shouldnt be punished, unless we agree to also ban people waiting for the killer on exit gates.
Both kinda the same thing.
however if he knew dwight was blocking as well, both should definitely banned.For me it sounds like the killer basically only give up, the survivor saw that and decided to be a jerk.
4 -
The Killer can also give up anywhere else and not just in front of the Exit Gate.
2 -
would still be the same thing with survivors waiting on exit gates.
Both can be uneccesary and drags the game out for no reason but can be easily played around (unless someone decides to go a step further)
1 -
Record, report, move on.
0 -
You should be able to push someone away. That would solve most of these issues.
0 -
No, not really.
If EGC has started, it is at max 4 minutes (more likely 2 minutes) until the game ends. Or the Killer can force the Survivors out.
And if EGC has not started and Survivors are blocking the Exit Gates (e.g. to troll other Survivors), the Killer can also do something.
But there is no way for a Survivor to get a Killer to move away from the Exit Gates.
2 -
Players should lose collision once they have a AFK-Crow. This would solve it and makes holding someone hostage basically impossible.
Obviously they would need to remove ways to avoid AFK-Crows (Emotes, dropping and picking up an Item) to make this work.
And it is such an easy fix, I dont understand why it is not in the game already.
4 -
you acting like the killer can block 2 exits lmao.
If another survivor also blocks exit, its the survivors fault not the killers.
1 -
Teaming with the Killer to hold a game hostage would not absolve the Killer from participating in the intentional gameplay abuse.
4 -
I'm actually shocked that I've never run into this before. Lord knows this game inspires trolls to do troll things. And this is the trolliest thing of all.
0 -
Since 2019 I've only had once a case where two survivors proceeded sandbagging the two other players (one being me) and teaming with the killer.
Filmed, reported, moved on.
It may have been during my fist year so I don't recall if they were banned.
0 -
I guess where I'm concerned about this is that the killer potentially had no way of knowing that the survivor was blocking the other gate. If they went in front of a gate and then walked away from the computer - unless the Trapper knows the Dwight and they had communication outside of the match (which is possible if they're on the same platform and the Trapper messaged Dwight), the Trapper wouldn't know that the game was actually being held hostage.
Because I don't think standing in front of the gate, when the other gate is not blocked, would be rulebreaking behavior. But that's potentially the situation the Trapper thinks he's in.
I don't want to defend the outcome. The Dwight is clearly a troll and the Trapper is Schrodinger's Troll, because it is suspicious that the Trapper chose the switch of all places to go AFK. I'm just concerned about the implications when the killer is not actually party to the abuse because the odds of them communicating with the survivors is not high.
Like, before killers were able to unhook survivors on their own via the anti-camp, I've on several occasions had survivors I thought were memeing but turned out to be a 3-man SWF trolling a solo. They'd ask to go farm unhooks, everyone's sitting at the hook, I'd hook the player I didn't know wasn't affiliated with the other survivors, and then the other three would spend two minutes teabagging them instead of rescuing while I futilely swing at the hook and then start smacking them once it's clear they're not going to help. From the solo survivor's perspective, I'm complicit in griefing, but that really wasn't my intent.
I do think we need players to lose collision when they have AFK crows though. It can't be weaponized in most cases of normal gameplay due to the high time cost, and it fixes all bodyblock situations. The only tactical play we're losing from this is a killer bodyblocking a survivor to death while the endgame collapse is on, and is that really valuable gameplay to preserve?
And to the OP, because I'm curious - did you see what happened to the Dwight when the Trapper came back? Did the Trapper ignore him? Was he still blocking the gate or did he flee?
2 -
A much better fit for Support to review context rather than to speculate, is all I mean, and releasing players from responsibility is not what I wanted to encourage in the discussion. The feedback on the post, however, has been really productive and I do want to keep that going for sure!
0 -
I guess where I'm concerned about this is that the killer potentially had no way of knowing that the survivor was blocking the other gate. If they went in front of a gate and then walked away from the computerBut why walk in front of the gate? If the killer wanted to go AFK, why waste the time to block a gate?
Even if we take the most generous interpretation possible, the Trapper behaved in a manner that allowed the rules to be broken.
There aren't that many rules in the game, each player has a responsibility not to break them.
If two survivors where blocking the exit gates, each could claim that they had no idea the other was doing it. The relevant question is, why were they blocking the exit gates at all?
2 -
I do think the Trapper's behavior is suspicious. But it's pretty hard for the killer and the survivor to communicate - much more than it is for two survivors to communicate. If you were to show me two survivors doing the same thing, I'd automatically assume they were SWF despite any denials because there's a built-in explanation. It's much less likely for two unaffiliated griefers to appear in the same match. And when you consider the situation, a game where the killer lost hard, it's not hard for me to believe the killer went AFK the moment gens got done, where any survivor blocking the gates at that point in the game is doing it to troll their teammates.
Why would Trapper go AFK in that spot? Could be teaming to lock down the game. It's sus. But it's not inexplicable in the way that the Dwight doing it is. It could also be a last-ditch fit of pique, some ineffectual 'I lost' revenge to annoy any nearby survivors into going to the other gate. Could be he wanted survivors to see he was AFK and far away so that they wouldn't waste time teabagging at the gates. Or Trapper might have been going to trap the gate before going 'screw this' and giving up. It's why I'm curious what happened to the Dwight. If the Trapper ignored the Dwight and the Dwight continued to block the exit, they were definitely teaming - if the Trapper attacked the Dwight, that suggests they weren't affiliated.
It's the timing that makes this tricky. If the Trapper blocked the gate after Dwight did, I'd have no hesitation calling it teaming. Not only is the second player the one who is guaranteeing the trial can't end, but Dwight has no motive to go AFK at this point while Trapper does. But if players are truly AFK, they don't know what anyone else is doing in the trial thereafter. OP says Trapper appeared actually AFK while Dwight was present while bodyblocking. So if we take this order of events at face value, unless they were communicating offsite, Trapper couldn't know what Dwight was doing and that's why I think punishing him without more proof is dicey.
Like… if I'm AFK in a doorway, a survivor walks in the room, and another survivor comes up in the room's other doorway and traps that person in, who's responsible for the bodyblocking? Is it both players, even though one is absent and just happened to be there? Or is it just the one that's trying to take advantage of the situation?
"Behaved in a manner that allowed the rules to be broken" is the part that makes me nervous. That's too low a burden of proof to enforce. Again, in my example where I thought survivors were farming but they were griefing, I was behaving in a manner that allowed the rules to be broken. It was not possible for the survivors to kill their teammates without the killer's participation. But that didn't make me a willing participant.
Another more recent example of this is a game where a Cheryl was dying on first hook. I always feel bad when I see this, so I went over and stood next to her so she could escape. Lady was pissed at her teammates and started throwing pallets, trying to point teammates out to me, teabagging anyone I hooked (not with her participation, mind, I just walked away when she got involved.) Eventually I had to stop playing that match because there was no way to continue fairly. Again, as killer, I was not engaging in intended gameplay and it was my actions that allowed the griefing to happen. But I don't actually think I did anything wrong, or that I should be held accountable for it.
0 -
Like… if I'm AFK in a doorway, a survivor walks in the room, and another survivor comes up in the room's other doorway and traps that person in, who's responsible for the bodyblocking? Is it both players, even though one is absent and just happened to be there? Or is it just the one that'stryingto take advantage of the situation?If it's my call, it's both people.
Players are responsible for their actions. Why go AFK in a doorway? There are situations where players have to go AFK, or just want to, but why a doorway? The entire map is a place that you can go AFK that won't impede other players.
Even if we presume that this is enough of emergency that a player needed to jump out of their chair to attend to it:
-the chance the player would be standing in a doorway at that point is incredibly low
-the chance that door creates a possible trap is low
-the chance someone comes into check on that is low
-the chance someone else follows up and then blocks the other door is also really low
It just basically impossible to have this happen without the person making a decision that played a part in it.
Again, as killer, I was not engaging in intended gameplay and it was my actions that allowed the griefing to happen.The difference here is your original action is continuing the game and you can now kill the Cheryl at anytime you want. Going AFK in a doorway is always impeding the progress of the game, or in the original example, blocking off the exit gate switch. Someone else's action, maybe unknown to the original actor, made it worse, but the original action was itself wrong.
0
