DBD confirms Bot fills

And then no one plays Killer either. Then it's two Killer bots versus eight Survivor bots.

Trapper bot is then somehow bugged, wildly inflates the kill rate and as a result Trapper gets nerfed to oblivion.

Bots in actual games are whatever as long as it's a choice. Make a separate PvE queue for people who want that but keep them out of anything else.

1 bot isn't going to hurt if it helps queue times drastically. I think its an excellent decision.

1 bot is going to ruin your experience? They do more than some players. At least they do gens. Thats more than what I can say most survivors on my team do.

Good for them, I have a difference of opinion.

Well the reality is SOMETHING has to be done...

Option 1 - Bot Buffs

I don't want bots either, but maybe if those bots are given strong team supporting perks to compensate to help the player survivors, it might be OK.

You give me a bot with a number of additional basekit things like: -

• We'll Make It
• We're Gonna Live Forever
• Resurgence (so targetting bots isn't so bad)
• Shoulder the Burden (minus the scream and exposed effect, that they use if they have few hook stages than the player survivor)

That might be OK. At least I as the player have decent support, and since bots tend to do gens better than a lit of players, it'll probably be fine.

Option 2 - Queue Priority Stacks

The only other alternative is you give a queue priority stacks to killers based on how many games of survivor they've played recently.

If you keep queuing for killer constantly, you get no stacks, and the further and further back on the list you go with the longest queue times.

If you play games of survivor you get pushed closer to the front of the list, maybe 4 or so becomes an auto jump into the top 20% of the queue, and you maintain your stacks -4 each killer game, so you can build up 20 stacks and then play 5 games of killer with fast queue times.

A mechanic like that is the only way I can see it working, you have "pay your dues" if you will to play the role that everyone wants to play.

Option 3 - Locked queues

A more hardball option for option 2 is to say, you can play 2 games of a side (likely killer, so I'll just say killer from now on), but based on queue differences you are then locked out of killer for a set time.

This way everyone gets a chance to play killer without absurd queue times. Instead of the 400% survivor incentive, at 100% there is no lockout, the 250% mark have the killer able to play 2 games, but are then locked out of killer for 15 mins mins. At a queue diff of 400% the lockout is 30 mins.

This is effectively no different to the longer queues, but the difference is the player knows how long the lockout is, and this drastically reduces the players actually in the queue, favouring players who haven't had a turn yet/in a while.

No solution will be perfect, but it's gonna have to be something like that.

There's a huge difference between being angry at a human player, and angry at code. If another survivor doesn't heal me and prioritizes gens, I know a human being is making that decision. It's part of the game that different people have different priorities and will make different decisions.

Being angry at the bot is being angry at the game itself.

And if they make the bots too strong, then killers will (rightfully) be mad about that.

Definitely part of it. Idk why Killers just at base make so much more BP than survivors. It made releveling the cast really hard pre-crossprogression because I kept wanting to swap between roles when killer was the only one actually allowing for proper progression.

Massive buffs??? lol.

I know I am late to the thread, but I still wanted to give my thoughts. As a superfan, I understand that years of playing a multiplayer strategy game as my main hobby has made me think strategically, at a high and intense level, in and out of DBD. For that reason, I feel I truly understand where people come from when there is cause for concern that BHVR might make a change that kills the game. My first thought when I saw the news was to telegraph how this would be applied in future situations—but I just don't think that is the intention.

At the same time, I am worried that the DBD community is indirectly trapping BHVR in continual Catch-22's. The other day, I was watching a DBD video (I think Horceror?) where the developers were criticized for tainting PTB's by not having appropriate matchmaking in place to validate any results on strength and performance. I'm not good with time, but I personally have been under the assumption this entire time that BHVR watched the same video that I did, and immediately implemented a change to fix the problem moving forward because they recognized it was a serious problem that needed to be addressed. Shouldn't we be celebrating that behavior? If the developers are actually taking time to listen to the community and even watch the same YouTube essays I watch while I eat—that means they are just as committed to the world of Dead by Daylight as I am. For that reason, I think they should be given some trust.

I know that my observation is not fact—and I am drawing conclusions on pathos and not logos—but that is just what I believe. It does not make sense to me that BHVR would make any move to hurt the game or "kill" it. It is clear to me as a player that Skull Merchant's chapter changed something very high up at BHVR because the way they acted before Tools of Torment versus now has changed completely. Sometimes I get the impression the community is not allowing the game development company to be game developers.