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!
Going Next should be a bannable offense
There is a current rising problem that makes soloqueue unberable and killer matches often boring. Survivors killing themself on hook. While its not the standard, its not rare to see a soloqueue Survivor give up on hook, 2 games in a row and they do that for the smallest reason: "Oh, I don't like this killer." "Oh I don't like this map." "Oh I did my tome challenge and now just want to do the next one."
Being one teammate down out of nowhere, especially early on, makes the game way harder for survivors and way more boring for killers. You even recognised this problem by having the DC penalty, even tho that adds a bot to the game, but just removing yourself from the match is not bannable. I believe it should be and here are my responses to common counterarguments.
"What if I need to leave because of IRL reasons?"
There is DCing if you need to leave, if you have to do something else anyway, the DC penalty won't affect you.
"Well, if I dislike XYZ the devs should just make it more bearable to play against"
While killing yourself on hook is common, its not that common that is happens most games. Therefore, it seems really like a you issue if you don't like a certain map/killer/perk/add on. People will always hate certain parts of the game. If you really hate it that much that you can't bear it, play another game. Like seriously. You are the exclusive source of the issue here, not the other players or BHVR. There are lots of players who never DCed/gave up on hook just because they hate some thing about te map. And to solve the issue you should stop playing the game instead of expecting other players to keep up with your BS. The Houndmaster was buggy, but they are doing their best to address these issues and other than the Houndmaster bugs, dbd is in one the best states its ever been. If you have an issue with something, thats on your end and other players should not suffer from you acting like you are entitled around the game being designed exclusively around you. lastly, there are still people who think Skull Merchant can expose Survivors or Chucky can manually scamper or something else outdated. If you never try to play against something in the first place, you'll never notice if it became more bearable.
"How dare you try to police if/how I should play?"
How dare I? Well I dare as a participant of the same activity as you, that you willingly and knowingly signed up for. If I join a board game club and we play a round of Catan and early on one player builds settlements next to the two best clay spots, I don't call them a "dirty clayhoarder", throw all the pieces over and leave. And if I did the club would be completely in its right to exclude me from further play. Same for killing yourself on hook. You are toxicly quitting early over slightly annoying things that you can expect to happen, and thereby ruining the game for everyone. Therefore removing you from the experience in the future is an appropiate response.
"What if I kill myself on hook to give Hatch/because I am a new player who doesn't understand the game/because I have to afk?"
That is a completely different context. To compare it to something currently banned: Lets say there is a dbd game down to one Survivor. Lets look at potential 3 Scenarios:
A) The killer, who is brand new, doesn't know about or understand the hatch and randomly searches for the survivor somewhere on the map. The survivor decides to not go for hatch but just sneaks around the map for the remaining hour and then dies.
B) The killer, a bubba in this case, chases the survivor into a dead end. He bodyblocks the survivor while he charges up his power, and then downs the Survivor with it.
C) The killer chases the survivor into a dead end and waits there until the 1 hour mark kills them.
These situations are all similar in some ways, but only C is bannable. And if you do A or B as killer, you don't have to fear getting banned for it. Same with this. The context will make it obvious and they will only ban in obvious cases, not edge cases.
"Well, the Survivor will just AFK then."
Honestly, fine. You can't make quitting impossible. Just because you can't fix it, doesn't mean you can't medigate it. The issue with going next is how easy it is. You just need to go down and get hooked and its done. If you AFK the killer needs to manually find you, down you and decide to hook you instead of doing something about the Survivors who are actual ly progressing the game. If you need to waste 5 minutes going next, you are encouraged to either play it out or DC instead, which while still kind of annoying, doesn't make the game nearly as unfun as killing yourself on hook. Also, while going afk once isnt going to do something, afking reguarly is a reportable offense.
"Well, I am going for the tome challenge and leaving matches where I can't realistically get them (for example healing tome challenge against a plague) and matches where I completed the tome challenge early on, is optimal"
Well, lets give a similar example abotu something actually bannable, lets say this happens. Two Survivors are dead. The killer, lets say a hag, chases a healthy Survivor, who she knows has sprint burst and whose exhaustion is about to run out, while the other Survivor is dying on hook. Just as the Survivor on hook finishes dying the killer chases the Survivor into a dead end. Then they hear hatch open nearby. If the hag decides to hit the Survivor or go for hatch herself, the Survivor will sprint burst past them and get the hatch. The optimal play is to keep the Survivor trapped in the dead end for a full hour until the game kills them. However, this doesn't mean its an intended, engaging or fun play. Therefore bodyblocking the Survivor for a full hour here is bannable. Same could be done for giving up on hook purely for tome challenges. In addition to that, you can refer to my points earlier about "policing how someone plays". Killing yourself on tome is not the intended or expected experience you sign up with when you queue for a match.
I have 800 hours in dbd and I have only ever given up on hook to give hatch. I only DC for irl reasons as well. Not quitting is easy.
Thanks for reading and Merry Christmas.
Comments
-
I think that’s a bit of a stretch lol
8 -
Then what do you propose should we do about Soloqueue survivors constantly giving up over the smallest reasons?
3 -
Wrong question! You should ask yourself what happens when you introduce such a rule.
This could tempt players to effectively avoid a confrontation with the killer, simply hide and sit it out, regularly changing locations without the killer player being able to find them. The rest of the burden (repairing the generators) would then fall to the others. Is that what you want? What happens next? Do you want to regulate everything that you don't like or doesn't suit your style of play?
By the way:
You may end up with very long laps in such a case... They only really end when one side has been so demoralized that it gives up.As a killer, I like to use AFK survivors as a time lock.
If I'm having a real bad day, I don't kill them. I leave them standing. They don't help the other survivors, they help me. The others have to fix Gens and open the exits. If I were them, I'd be happy if one of them could leave the round via the hook. That is legitimate.
0 -
The reason survivors go next is because they don't want to be in the game, they wouldn't spend all game hiding. It would extend their time in the game that's the opposite of what they want.
Being constant AFK is already against the rules, as I mentioned in the post, so I don't see why we are considering it for other rules. That's like saying
3 -
I think just making the game more forgiving would go a long way honestly.
BHVR's current way of balancing is very very bad for the casual playerbase.6 -
Holy my everything this. Make it more forgiving.
Both sides.
Please. I'm sick of the tiresome dance of git guddery.
4 -
That's not, what I meant.
0 -
I think maybe make a option to just give up? could they do that??? idk
0 -
And how would that work?
0 -
maybe a bleed out option. like have it show up after a minute or so on the ground. nobody needs to be on the ground any longer than a minute hardly ever.
0 -
Trust me, when Survivors want to go next, you do NOT want to keep them in the game (unless you're the Killer, maybe). Otherwise, they'll do crap like this…
2 -
Honestly, I think what we need is to maybe remove self-unhooking. Why don't we make it so you need a perk to do that? Hooks are pressure, Killers need incentive to hook, Survivors need more to do than gens and this would add more value to stuff like Desperate Measures. It seems like this would fix the problem right?
Would anyone object to that?
0