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!
Whats your opinion on killing on hook?
What's your opinion on a Survivor killing themselves on hook? Do you understand it when a group runs into a sweaty Huntress who slugs everyone or a Knight who three gens from the start? Or do you think people should tough it out no matter what?
Comments
-
well, if people have to "tough it out" then they actually do have a pretty good reason to want to be in a different match sooner rather than later. In that case the side making them have to tough it out already stated "your fun is not my responsibility" through their actions. And well, that kinda statement is a two way street.
24 -
I don't actually run into that many people who do it for no reason. It's usually something which happens in games that are total train wrecks. Games where the survivors have no hope of coming back. Something like an S tier killer who ends up with five hooks before the first gen even pops. Then someone sees which way the game is going and decides to drop themselves. The amount of people in my matches who give up just because they were the first one downed is actually pretty low based on data I have from slightly over 300 solo queue matches. My escape rate is significantly higher than the average so it could be something that is more common at lower MMR levels. At the end of the day I don't care if people give up in games where the survivors have no chance. I think they should just add a concede button for these situations.
6 -
Sometimes reasonable, sometimes not.
17 -
Its more apparent in Event mode, where MMR isnt a thing, hookcides don't happen much out of unwinnable games like posted above, there is no coming back with 4-5 hooks at 5 gens left unless killer is farming 8 hooks and event points. Over 100-130 event games I've seen maybe 4-6 people hookcide on first hook and 20 or so in the unwinnable area. but more often then not its a killer tunneling out 1 person in 4 hooks total and a second at 7 hooks total when 4 or more gens are up.
0 -
What if its a Killer people just hate for whatever reason? Common suspects being Skully, Twins, or Knight?
0 -
They should tough it out. Facing a "sweaty Huntress" or a Knight who "three gens from the start" is rare. Very rare. Almost Iridescent!
There have many trials I have been in where things have felt hopeless, yet turned around and resulted in a win. The funny thing is this: if all four Survivors decided to tough it out, what may seem impossible becomes possible. Only when people give up does it become near-impossible.
One example was we did come across a 3-gen Trapper. I was SoloQ, but as Survivors we new about the 8 kick rule being brought in, so we chipped away, jumping from gen to gen and knowing soon he wouldn't be able to kick them. We all escaped - the four of us. If someone just gave up, this would have been much harder.
Any game is a series of puzzles to solve. DBD is no exception. Treat it as a puzzle - those who quit won't get any better at the game. Even in lost-hope situations, there's always something to learn.
9 -
I dunno if I agree with the sentiment that DBD need's to be taken that seriously. Especially if the game is really not fun and falls into the 'your fun isnt my problem' camp as stated before.
0 -
Oh, I don't think the game should be taken that seriously. Dunno if it was clear, so let me make it very clear:
One side making the match miserable to the point where the other side has to "tough it out" and stating "your fun isn't my responsibility - just suck it up, tough it out and play out the match!" is beyond hypocritical - because the only reason to say that is because the second sentence goes "because I want to have fun". If one side decides the other side's fun isn't their responsibility (in the "at least don't make it miserable" way), then, well, that other side also doesn't have any obligation to keep them entertained (aka why th wouldn't they go next asap?).
If a side wants to take it that seriously they can go scrim. If they want to pretend a pub game is a scrim they can go play by themselves. (Regardless of the the side, though as killer it's much easier to have agency in what you actually end up doing during the match regardless of what the survs try to do.)
11 -
It's not something I make a habit of, but I tried to do it the other day on the Badham map. I was doing the gen in that little room (the one they gave us the little window in then took it away) and a Nea decided to bodyblock me in there for zero reason at all. Killer came and downed me, then hit me on hook for reasons unknown. I assumed they were working together and tried to let go. People can tell me I'm ruining the game for my team mates or whatever, but my game was literally being ruined, so... I don't think people should have to tough it out no matter what. It's a game at the end of the day.
17 -
If you're doing it on first hook, you a butthole.
But yeah, I think their are some valid reasons not to want to hang about these days.
3 -
I think it depends entirely on the status/situation of the game. If the game is over and impossible to win for survivors, I understand it.
However, if the first chased survivor throws in the towel because the chase was too short and therefore gives up/suicides, then it is not ok imo. But that's really rare in my lobbies.
I find the arguments “the game is ruined for me because of reasons XYZ” unjustified in such a case.
It is NOT a single player game. Here they can end the game at any time, so you it is not ruined for others.
But Dead by Daylight is a multiplayer game and with this comes certain moral obligations. In other games like League of Legends you can't just feed into the opponent or intentionally sabotage it with impunity, there are consequences.
An approach would be: An option to give up/surrender for survivors (a vote query), which is possible under certain conditions (f.e. 4 survivors on the ground, 5 hook stages when there are still 5 gens left, etc.).
The game should simply end after the majority of survivors have voted positively.
Accordingly the hooks escape attempts should be reduced to 1.
But as I said, for me personally it's rare that someone really gives up straight away. There was a phase here where this happened very often, but generally it is rare.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Ruins the game for the four other players, although it may give the killer a laugh.
Should be grouped together for the next few weeks so they only ruin each-other's chances at winning.
10 -
Low MMR here. It’s not common in those games either. People who bemoan this as some kind of epidemic seem to be lying.
2 -
Conceptually no player should be able to evade the disconnect-penalty.
7 -
If I'm on hook and there's only one other survivor left, the best play, and most sportsmanlike action with any gens left is to let go and give them a better chance at hatch.
7 -
If your going against a slugging Huntress that's not hooking, how are you killing yourself on hook?
5 -
I believe in judging it on a case-by-case basis, because judging every single case of hookiciding as the exact same is disingenuous.
Example A. A survivor runs the killer for 5 minutes, their teammates do not touch any gens in that time and instead spend the entire match hiding in bushes, and gives up on hook
Example B. A survivor that brings a map offering gets found and goes down in 20 seconds, then gives up on hook
Both cases end in the same way, with someone dead at 5 gens and a fairly easy match for the killer. Does this mean they should be judged the same though? I don't think so, one is a example of someone not wanting to play with teammates that have demonstrated that they either do not know how to play, or, more likely, are just trolling. Whereas the other is a example of someone being petty and taking their ball and going home, one has justification, the other doesn't.
These aren't the only examples either, one very common reason for hookiciding is when 2 people are left and you want your teammate to have a chance to get hatch, another just being "I don't like the killer", usually SM even after she got gutted, another version of that being "This killer triggers a serious health problem in me" like Plague, Dredge, or Clown, and another is just "I have things to do IRL and had to go AFK immediately with no time to disconnect". Various different reasons with varying amount of justification.
The way I see it, if someone has a genuine reason to go next, I don't care, if they're doing it because they're a bad sport or for a petulant reason, I will make it a point to keep them in the match for as long as possible, the DC button exists for a reason and that is almost always the option people should use.
5 -
It's perfect. Perfect.
0 -
you can see that the frustration is high among the players.
can you blame them? no.
is it bad for the other team members? yes0 -
I mean you can just look at the role they main, somehow the killer's game is 'ruined' despite being given a free win in a pvp game who's rewards are almost entirely based on winning.
It's always came across as being upset due to loss of control over the survivors.
8 -
It just makes the game worse for everyone involved. Outside of very specific scenarios, players should tough it out if the match isn't going their way.
After all, there is always a chance to turn the tables and win.
6 -
Would the Killer also have the option to surrender or is it a Survivor only feature in your head?
2 -
nah I think the killer should have that option to in some special conditions. for example if he is left with 4 bots
0 -
I'd love to play in the servers of those people who say there's no suicide on first hook epidemic. I've had folks go next on first hook in at least one third of my recent games, both as survivor and as killer. One dude got downed by a Myers (and when I say Myers I mean regular Myers!!! not even Scratched Mirror or Infinite TIII nor anything fancy!!) and they just went next. It was the first person downed too. Completely ruined the game for everyone else.
People go next when I play as killer too? And I don't even sweat nor play meta killers. My mains are Doctor and Sadako and lately I've been playing random killers who I'm far of being good at to get Steam achievements (Dredge, Myers and Hag mostly). I've even been trying to get adept achievements, meaning I have only the 3 perks of the killer I'm currently playing, and people still go next!! It's crazy. Brazil servers in case anyone cares btw.
2 -
I definitely understand it. The Survivors often lose the match well before it actually ends, especially when tunneling is involved. The match is lost for Survivors when the second one dies, forcing the remaining two to hide for hatch. Killers often refer to this as "holding the Killer hostage." Survivors don't like being stuck in this stalemate any more than Killers do, which I believe contributes to the common decision to give up early, especially when factoring in the Killers' "slugging for the 4k."
As for my opinion? It's disappointing, regardless of the reason. But I also tell myself it's okay, because it's just a game, and this particular match will be over in a few minutes. We'll just try to have a better game next time.
4 -
Look for it to be more common now with the last survivor moir. Nobody wants that.
0 -
Player autonomy on the part of survivors breaks their murder power role fantasy. It reminds them that the people being the little survivor models are humans who do not have to play their games.
2 -
It should be bannable, up to permanent if it is done often enough. This level of griefing is severely punished in every other multiplayer game, and i don't see why they can't ban for it. If anything, i'd like to see it impossible to die on hook on purpose, and then ban people for throwing matches as that would be a bit easier. And people would be less likely to throw a match if they already have to stick it out for 3 hooks.
5 -
Then you'd have zero survivors…good luck with that
5 -
People would stop doing it pretty quick after their first like 12 hour ban.
But i would still be curious, why would you defend people actively griefing the game? Why can't we punish people for doing it? It doesn't affect player counts in say DotA, and in DotA games can last well over an hour. So if someone is in a match they "don't want to be in" they could potentially have to stick it out for an hour or more. Why can't a DBD player stick around in a match they don't like for like 8 minutes?
8 -
My opinion is it should stay. Simply put, you cannot force someone who does not want to play, to play, they will simply AFK, or play poorly, and you cannot snuff out all of these methods. If you try to make such an action reportable, they will simply play really poorly and it will be impossible to prove, and clog the report system. When it is justifiable to do so is more controversial, but I think everyone agrees that if someone else on your team has already quit or it's a 2v1 and you want to give your teammate to hatch then it is fine to "go next".
2 -
Other games do it just fine and harshly punish people who afk or throw games. What makes DBD so special that it wouldn't work here?
7 -
If you harshly punish AFK, they will run into the killer. And then you have to prove that running into the killer is intentionally sabotaging the game, and not just trying to use OTR/DS or be a distraction, or just a bad play. If they make running in front of the killer punishable then they will just sit on a gen and not react as the killer approaches, how can you prove they weren't distracted, or in chase they will just go down quickly by greeding everything or running to a deadzone.
Basically, no matter how hard you try, you would end up needing to have some sort of manual review process for what is essentially inting in league. And given DBD's track record of requiring an ingame report and a recording, you would need both of those, and on top of that be able to prove that their play was throwing. I have no faith in BHVR to implement and maintain any sort of punishment system like this. They could throw together an anti-AFK system like they do for killers but once survivors learn about it they will do the method I described. In a different type of game it could probably work better but I just don't see it working here.
7 -
Those other games also punish toxic behavior that that's along the line of tunneling/slugging/camping along with afking
13 -
I can assure you that Riot does not punish the strategic equivalents to tunneling/slugging/camping, nor consider them toxic.
7 -
The closest thing I could think of for a Killer Side to give up is opening the gate before the gens are completed. They pop open the gate and in doing so all their perks are disabled. Maybe powers as well? Dunno
0 -
There would be nothing to prove.
If I see a survivor ruining it for everybody, it's slug town for him and he'll bleed to death. It could catch on.
Once the normalization of being a sore loser is over, he'd regularly get reported both by his team and the killer.
But that aside, that kind of player would be the last kind that lowers their MMR all the time and stay in hell. The perfect vicious cycle of awful soloQ (because at higher MMR, soloQ isn't that bad, FYI)
When all is said and done, I don't think they would be a problem for long.
1 -
99.99% of the time it’s unjustified. The amount of survivors who give up on hook after getting cross mapped by a hatchet is staggering.
Simply put survivors have there preferences and killers they don’t like to go against and have such a sense of entitlement that they refuse to play against that killer at all.I can’t stand Legion. A very boring and awful killer. But I still play against them. Because how often do you go against them? 1 out of 15 games? 1 in 30 probably?
4 -
This is funny name 3 games that do I wanna see what you choose
0 -
A Mechanic that needs to be removed no ifs or buts
4 -
If survivors want to kill themselves on hook they should suffer a quitter penalty and forfeit all BP.
2 -
I already do this as killer when a survivor throws the game, but the point is it's not something BHVR ever really has the capacity to enforce. It would just shift the problem to being survivors throwing themselves at the killer and now lose the unhook attempt mechanic for all valid gameplay aspects. This would also mean needing to rework luck and slippery meat, so they're never going to bother anyway.
1 -
Short list of reasons why some survivors hook suicide / dc (there is one for killers as well):
- Oh no, I was found first.
- Oh no, X pallet is gone.
- Oh no, my teammate went down quick (and that can mean everything from only a few seconds to literal minutes).
- Oh no, my teammate triggered X perk.
- Oh no, my teammate uses X perk.
- I failed a skill check.
- My teammate failed a skill check.
- I tried to greed the gen but was grabbed.
- The killer tunnels.
- The killer camps.
- The killer slugs.
- The killer uses X perk.
- The killer uses Y addon.
- The killer uses Z skin (not kidding, that has happened to me before).
- It's XYZ killer.
- It isn't XYZ killer (yes, I have seen people hook suicide because it wasn't whatever new killer came out).
- It's a map I don't like.
- It's map variation I don't like even though I brought the map offering.
- Someone else brought a map offering.
- I ran into the killer and they hooked me again.
- I sat on a gen right next to the killer and they hooked me again.
- My teammate failed a flashlight / pallet save.
- The killer outplayed Head On.
- The killer mind gamed me.
- I am hooked in the basement (this happens even when I play pallet Freddy).
- The killer interrupted my heal / boon / totem cleansing.
- The killer found me even though I went into a locker / was hiding behind a rock.
- The killer is playing hit and run.
- The killer drops chase.
- The killer doesn't drop chase.
There are at least 50 more points but I think you get the idea. Some people rage quit at the earliest inconvenience. The killer is supposed to be an obstacle, so they will inconvenience you.
If these people genuinely don't want to play the game, then they shouldn't queue up. We all know that these things can happen and we comply every time we load into a match (as long as it's not strictly against the rules). Is it really too much to ask for you to play the game you queued up for?
12 -
I'll say what I've been saying for years: If you've been playing this game for any length of time, you know what each match can bring, and if you queue up to play, play the damned game.
If the game just isn't fun, or if you're not prepared to deal with whatever you load into, just play something else. If you can stand the state of the game and it makes you miserable, step away.
Yeah, you bought the game and you have the right to play as you want, but none of this takes place in a vacuum, and we all have four others to consider in every match.
And sadly it seems like the longer I play, the lower the bar to justify quitting gets.
Don't get me wrong, I really want to quit a lot of matches, but so long as at least one other live player is still in the game trying to advance things, so will I.
So yeah, I fully support finding some sort of punitive measure to combat doing away with yourself on hook.
9 -
Of the games i personally play.
Slugging/Camping it terms of refusing to let someone play the game.
World of warcraft ICC era had in issue with large mounts blocking NPC's and interactable, purposefully blocking them like that preventing others from progressing was banable. They since put in an interact button and disabled mounts around big quest NPCs
FF14 Obstructing quest givers and transit is punishable.
ANY FPS/TPS game with friendly fire. Spawning in and killing you team via shooting/explosives and preventing them from playing the game is banable.
Conan Exiles trapping others in the spawn area with walls is banable.
Tunneling specific people falls in greifing/harassment.
Smash Brothers Online targeting 1 player and only them in large matches is banable.
GTA online targeting and killing only one player in a lobby excessively is punishable.8 -
I don’t care except I wish the stats did not include matchs where people try to unhook themselves and actually try so we could see the real kill rates.
I am pretty sure instead of ~60%, kill rates would be closer to 50% even 40% for some low tier killers.1 -
Doubt it. The devs said that when first hook deaths were removed from Skull Merchants killrates it only went from 71% to like 68%. If Skull Merchant only had 3% first hook deaths then i doubt other killers are worse off. 1/3 deaths definitely aren't from people letting go, especially against low tier killers.
6 -
It needs sorting, but I have no idea how you stop people doing it. Just spoils so many matches, mostly for absolutely no reason at all. Sick of seeing it happen now.
Also was playing as The Unknown on a Cold wind map the other day and found two people on gens. Instead of running away, they just let me down them and killed themselves on hook. The other two I just messed around with occasionally hitting them with UVX and letting them clear it, and let them do gens while kicking pumpkins and firing haunts at them so they could heal. Also gave them some pallet stuns. Somehow I ended up with 220k blood points after the match, before the daily and tone challenge I also did. Both the survivors got 80k.
Playing normally after 2 instant suicides is totally pointless as killer in my eyes.
2 -
There is no justification for hook suicides, no matter what. If people want to leave, they should dc and take the penalty.
Hook suicides should be removed by removing the ability to unhook yourself unless it's a 100 % chance like Deliverance or Wicked.
Rework luck and rework Slippery Meat.. again.
4
