Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on this and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
Something needs to be done about the "Go next" epidemic
Comments
-
I wasn't trying to imply survivors have lost as soon as they are at the mildest disadvantage. Though a mild disadvantage against one killer is a massive one against another. Also some killers are much better at accumulating advantages than others. This is the point where we would have to look at details.
I argue that the majority of survivors who claim their matches are lost do not put in nearly that amount of deduction or effort
Agreed. I think I've described that twice. Though if your game gets called by a hard-tilting dude you'd be likely not getting back in anyway.
2 -
All reasonable points. The only thing I'd add is that unfortunately its not so much about whether the quitter would have carried the game, but more that they are basically making that decision for their 3 other teammates. That weight is why its so important, since one person thinking the game is lost removes what chance is left for the others. And since hatch still exists the way it does, this then leads to both sides playing around it: slugging for the 4k, survivors trying to out hide each other (and even delaying to server shutdown) and other related issues. The faster survivors lose a chance at realistically powering the exit gates, the sooner the game devolves to that state. Thats why I put so much emphasis on the match lengths, because the consequences of quitting are so far reaching compared to how little time investment is actually expected of a given match. With changes like the kick limit and everything else done to address 3 gen scenarios with certain killers, stall tactics are considerably less effective than they used to be on the killer side, so even slow losses aren't much compared to a lot of other online games. Even many times in DBD's own past.
1 -
I agree solo Q needs some love but as a 1.9 K hours survivor main I think you exagerate.
The number of early impulsive self-kills on hook is a bit too high IMO, it just shouldn't be a thing.
You don't mention that when you unhook these survivors, most of the time they keep playing the game, because they change their mind.
Also yes a team can fall behind fast because of one survivor mistake, but the team can come back with one good chase.
The game snowballs hard both ways…
3 -
I meant the quitter being uncarriable. I'm not getting into these issues. I've done enough of that recently. Also those are not on any quitter. Game should become free to leave instead of replacing with bots in my opinion.
1 -
Unfortunately this is sort of a problem the playerbase made itself. Everyone wanted to sit in the "win at all costs" bed so much, now we all have to lie in it.
0 -
So the second one person leaves, everyone else should be able to jump ship? What does that do concerning consumables that were spent on the match by either side? How would you address things like that without still punishing those players while also not making it something where people could quit matches early to prevent others from having theirs spent, like a quarter on a string for offerings or addons? Killers especially would be able to tunnel one person out asap to try to force a DC, then get unlimited addons for doing so, or survivors would be able to burn through killer addons every time someone gives up on games where they wouldn't even be able to recoup the bloodweb cost of the addon, let alone the nodes to reach it. Either way you've already created another problem by taking the easy way out instead of actually addressing the underlying problem. Changes like that are why so many issues have cascaded into new issues over the years.
0 -
You don't mention that when you unhook these survivors, most of the time they keep playing the game, because they change their mind.
I don't mention that because that doesn't happen. When someone decides they want out of a match, they mean it, and they will make your life a living hell if you deny them that. Each time I've unhooked someone who was trying to throw, I ended up regretting it.
"But refusing to participate is bannable." Sure, but 1) they're not going to bother banning that many people for it, and 2) they will find ways out of a match even without griefing. For example, by sitting on a gen/totem/chest and letting the Killer snatch them from it.
7 -
DBD: The only game where players will defend throwing.
Boo hoo. you queued up to play, you should have to play. if the games in such a bad state then quit, stop ruining everyone elses matches.2 -
Fun fact: People throw because the match is already ruined. Staying won't change the outcome.
And not once did I say that I'm the one who throws every match. I'm not going to say I've never done it, because let's face it, it's happened to all of us at some point. So quit with your accusations, and quit complaining about other people ruining your matches. There's always the next one.
6 -
That's weird because in my case every other time my raging solo Q mates got rescued they play normally after.
You are delusional about survivors that rage quit even when the game is winnable, a lot of cases it's for selfish reasons.
Plus they make DBD a more killer sided game in solo Q by doing so.
Solo Q would be a better place without selfish toxic griefing survivor players.
2 -
I just had someone go next at 2 gens left, both gens had good progress on them. It's kind of wild how much this is happening.
2 -
I think we shouldn't look at single matches in isolation, but at the accumulated bad experiences throughout multiple matches. A person who gives up when they're the first to go down probably has to do with them having had several bad matches before this one. They were probably hard-tunneled. Yes, that person should have closed the game and taken a break. But many people sadly don't do that. They want to end on a good match.
With the accumulated stress (throughout mulitple matches) in mind, we could look at the problems. Why is it still so easy for a killer to tunnel someone out of the game before anyone else is hooked a single time? There should be a system that doesn't let that happen (specifically: tunneling someone out before a single hook on any of the 3 other survivors).
Then, the chain leads to the next issue: many killers hardcore tunnel because they've had matches where 2 or 3 gens got done before they managed to find anyone, down them and hook them. This is where something like basekit Corrupt Intervention would do wonders.
The game becomes better when certain things become basekit. Basekit corrupt intervention would minimize awful scenarios where gens just fly at the start of the game. Basekit hardcore tunnel prevention would do wonders for survivors. And again, it's enough to only protect a survivor before any of the other 3 are hooked once. Then the system could get disabled for the rest of the match.
5 -
Pretty much, yes. Maybe conditional to the game state (like no reason to leave when all gens are done), maybe putting it to a surrender vote. I don't care about consumables. At all. They are negligible after they reduced BP prices, put BP modifiers on for simply playing the game, and inflate the BP economy with BPS-type offerings like thrice a year. That's another issue right here btw. It isn't pretty, but vastly preferable to spending any time in a game that's been reduced to an exercise in futility. If I wanted to grind currency I would go back to WoW or Path of Exile. If they want to grind it out, they can go ahead. I'm already tabbed out though. It would be just another issue albeit a much smaller one in my opinion.
Btw2 I'm not a fan of Bloodpoints in the first place. Feels like singleplayer design to me. It becomes obsolete when a gamer plays too much. 10k hour Blights would have >200 alc rings at any time regardless.
As for not solving whatever issue: I wasn't trying to. I offered a solution to sidestep issues. Seems like the simplest scenario to me. Maybe it isn't if gamers care about BP that much. But if they do: Do they care more about BPs or the actual games?
Maybe it is because I just woke up from a nap but I can't follow your last statement. I need a reminder here. What changes?
0 -
I assure you that consumables are not negligible for casual players, not by a long shot. If you play constantly and/or focus your spending into specific killers or survivors, sure. But if you don't play much and want to get all level 3 unlockables, keep up with them, and try to have a decent amount of whatever consumables you need for certain playstyles or builds, you will not be keeping up with them even with the changes over the past few years. Its not as much of an issue with survivor since once you get your unlockables you can go back to sticking with one survivor for piling them up, but when trying to keep the only 2-4 addons that actually support your builds in stock, in this randomized system, which scaled rarity based on prestige level… Its an absolute slog and requires a lot more commitment to even keep up with content as its released. And I'm not even talking specifically about Iris, if you like something like dead rabbit on Myers you can't just buy them and stock up, you have to continuously get lucky and have them show up in your web. Something that also changes as your prestige level does.
The issue with your lack of concern for BP is that, again, choices like leaving early make that decision for other players. You don't care about BP, but others might have spent more on their consumables than they even earned depending on the outcome. Or if a net gain, it might be considerably less than if the match was played out fairly. This actually feels like it hurts the most directly on survivor, since though there is less reliance on consumables, the average BP gain in thrown games tends to be considerably low. They literally can't grind it out if they can't get games that are actually reasonable instead of constant 1v3s.
Remember, you're coming from the perspective of players who play a lot, ones who only use a handful of characters on either side, or a combination of the two. Casual players make up the bulk of the community and many survivor players use that as an argument for various things in the game, but BP and shard accumulation are extremely important toward their retention rates on both sides.
In regards to sidestepping the issue, thats how we keep getting new issues introduced when fixing other ones. The kick limit was said to never affect normal play, but it absolutely does depending on killer/map/loadout. Its considerably less likely to affect normal play than not, but it happens plenty when killers aren't even trying to 3 gen, just involving one gen getting contested frequently or on kick/auto kick perks chewing through kicks. The solution was a sidestep to the issue that created another problem even though they tried to keep the prevalence of said problem to a minimum. This is why fixing an issue overall is more important than spot treating symptoms. If you want more examples than look at things like perk changes ( unintended effects from buffs meant to address issues with said perks, like the Boil Over fiasco or the entirety of the Overbrine meta) killer reworks (Twins were improved for sure, but they became stupid overpowered and had to have almost everything reverted. Things like Deathslinger's ADS delay as well, since it made him much more clunky to aim with as a concession to fix survivors having very little ability to react or counter zoning) and even changes to things like map sizes affecting resource generation algorythms in ways the community mostly agrees are bad (for survivors especially.) Fixing one problem without considering its repercussions creates new problems constantly.
Comparing BP gain to actual games is dishonest. People want both, and they shouldn't be mutually exclusive. In fact good games tend to have higher BP gain overall. The thing is you can't get actual games if 1/5 or more of the players flat out refuse to play them past the first few minutes. its an elimination game, and losing literally gets you out faster, which is exactly why going next is such an issue. If you're guaranteed to lose, then play in a high risk/reward way and lose while trying to win. The worst you'll get is a 4 minute bleedout, the best you'll get is a win, and most scenarios in between you will at least get more BP and shards for actually fulfiling the social contract you agreed to by queueing up for an online multiplayer game.
1 -
There is a lot of shifting the blame in this post, especially from the survivor who DCs to the killer who is playing (or even ones who were from previous games and aren't even present.) As others have said, people will quit vs perkless trappers who don't even use their traps. You can blame strategies you don't like but you'd damn well better be advocating for killers to be able to peace out if they go against strategies that make them miserable as well. Continuing to play a game you queued up for and loaded into is the bare minimum requirement for individual agency in this game. That person who quits because they had bad games just gave 4 other people a bad game to put under their belt, and if their temperament is similar they will continue that trend throughout their games after.
In regards to things like basekit Corrupt, thats not as much the issue and can actually hurt some killers depending on the map and their builds. I appreciate the attempt at reaching across the isle, but its not exactly a fair tit for tat vs having core gameplay be negatively affected while trying to address specific strategies that rely on the lowest common denominator. That said, the problem with basekit "hardcore tunnel prevention" is that this community proves regularly that these types of systems will be abused and weaponized, constantly, unless they are perfectly implemented.
2 -
you're coming from the perspective of players who play a lot
Let that be a lesson on what DBD is: Pretty f'ing hostile to newbies.
Sure, a newbie doesn't have infinite items and not enough giga-toolboxes to genrush 25 games in a row if you die half the time, but you always have at least one medkit. That's good enough. I remember actually running Ace In The Hole to preserve mostly yellow toolbox charges and using up every last item before prestiging while spending BPs on new characters when I used to play four weeks at a time before not touching the game again for half a year. It wasn't that bad then and now is even less so, BP-wise anyway.
Comparing BP gain to actual games is dishonest. People want both, and they shouldn't be mutually exclusive.
They should not. I merely asked what should be prioritized. I know my answer. I don't want to be stuck in decided games because even if we won I have to assume either it wasn't matchmaking's finest work or killer didn't take the game seriously. So that win would mean nothing to me. I find staying in the game just for the BP weird.
0 -
I wouldn't call it shifting the blame, I'd like to call it "zooming out and seeing the whole problem". If you are zoomed in on just 1 part (survivors going next for apparently no good reason), then you can't tell the real cause of a problem, because you are lacking crucial data.
I just suggested a few things I had in mind to help both killers and survivors. Both things can be refined to function well in the game. But also, there are other possible solutions for these. The 2 awful problems are: for killer - gens flying and not being able to do anything about it; for survivor - being repeatedly targetted without a chance to heal or have dead hard / OTR protect you (if the killer hits you right as you're unhooked). If these 2 problems would get healed, then I'm pretty sure the "going next" epidemic would subside.
Another thing that would help the game is further lessening the gap between SWFs and solo Q. When the gap becomes much smaller, the game will be able to become much more balanced, and there won't be scenarios where something is absolutely crucial to survive in solo Q, while that same thing can be used aggresively against the killer in SWFs (DS, OTR).
2 -
The only way this situation gets any better is if SWF have their mechanics changed. Gen repair penalties depending on how many are in the SWF party, not being able to bring in tools, and not being able to bring in the same perks.
Any buffs to Killer will continue to ruin the game for those not in SWF and any flat out buffs to Surv will continue to ruin the game for Killers and embolden SWF even more.
There are three sides to DBD and it's about time BHVR starts actually balancing them out instead of ruining the game all for SWF.
1 -
If you want to zoom out, why not address killers not having fun paired with other strategies getting nerfed being the reason for the uptick in the unfun tactics survivors dislike, like tunneling and slugging? When you make comments like:
Why is it still so easy for a killer to tunnel someone out of the game before anyone else is hooked a single time? There should be a system that doesn't let that happen (specifically: tunneling someone out before a single hook on any of the 3 other survivors).You are passing the blame for survivors leaving to the way that killers are playing, and removing blame from the survivors who actually quit the game early. There is a big difference between reasoning and excuses, and that is defending an excuse. There is no parity in being able to leave the game early, so this is a moot point. Killers have no way of "going next" and are expected to remain in matches where they are losing or unable to conclude the match (I.E survivors hiding until server shutdown, ones who stomp due to bad matchmaking yet refuse to finish the match and drag things on as long as possible, etc.) and yet the killer is not only not allowed to leave early, but guaranteed to face ridicule for sticking with their match.
THAT would be zooming out and looking at the big picture: Your opponent making you miserable is not considered a valid reason for leaving the game. Unless you're a survivor apparently.
As for lessening the gap between SWF and Solo, you are indeed correct. The problem comes with how that would be attained, as most suggestions boil down to either "nerf killers" or "nerf SWF", with a handful being "buff solo" while accidentally (or not) overlaping with "nerf killers." Many of the disadvantages of solo relative to SWF have to do with core gameplay design, as a lack of knowledge was always a core tenant of the game's philosophy: Its why so many forms of information (perks and basekit, respectively) had to be added over the years. The issue is that SWF broke most of the game's core design, and they have been trying to get solo caught up to that slowly over time without kneecapping anything that relies on a lack of information. Meanwhile, Solos often feel that they deserve everything about SWF that broke the game in the first place, and demand it instead of actually trying to come up with ways of tightening the gap without nerfing killers against SWF in the process, or just outright breaking other mechanics. The best way they can help solos is to help them help themselves, there is an insane amount of sardonic mindsets where players burn themselves out hard and take it out on everyone around them, like this exact thread is about.
2 -
Played 10 games yesterday as solo survivor, in 6 of them, someone "went next" this is insane and something needs to be done.
1 -
New players aren't the ones "going next" its always the guy with 5k hours.
1 -
Egos are dbd's biggest issue. This community is terrible to eachother
1 -
I always wonder how the devs are suposed to fix "the SWF group actually cares for each other" .
Mechanically solo and SWF are already the same.
2 -
game is favoring killers too much?
survivor have 3 free perk killer have none.
0 -
You noted one map that is extremely survivor sided. There are only a few that I can think of; Eyrie and GoJ and possibly Dead Dog depending on the killer
However you have to look at Shattered Square, Forgotten Ruins, Haddonfield, all three Coldwind variants, Midwich, Backwater Swamp, and even Wreckers Yard has lost loops. These have all been nerfed to the ground with more dead zone than loops
There are very few balanced maps at this point.
2 -
Of course it's the 5k-hours-guys. Newbies don't understand what's worth going next from and it takes them quite a while to learn that provided they don't join the "never surrender" club first. They still trust their fellow survivors. Maybe they don't even expect to be tunneled out yet or still have a higher tolerance to it.
2 -
ALL of this cause I feel many players of this game forget this aspect.
"How can dbd be balanced???" it can't LOL, it's literally 4v1, that alone is unbalanced, it's literally an ASYM.
1 -
Not necessarily. SWF can coordinate synergies a lot more allowing them to get disproportionate value, which often ends up needing to be addressed as they become actual problems. The whole "16 vs 4 perks" thing isn't real on its face, but vs a 4 man SWF it absolutely can be. Thats a big part of what a lot of people who want to elevate Solo to SWF strength don't really seem to grasp. The game itself was just simply not designed for that much strength in coordination, and every time perk synergies happen across coordinated players its like another crack forms in the game's design philosophy. It always brings me back to Object of Obsession and both how it was regarded internally, as well as how and why it was eventually addressed.
0 -
I think its not as much they haven't "learned" how to not trust their teammates or how/when to give up (a very subjective assessment, mind) but maybe they might have learned that you miss 100% of the shots you never take. The last statement is probably pretty accurate though, especially regarding tolerance. The more players get jaded the lower their tolerance gets, and a lot of people just refuse to admit when they're burnt out. Unfortunately this ends up making their burnout into their teammates problem.
0 -
eh tbh if the player dislikes the killer a lot I cant blame them. I would always just give up against trickster, singularity and xenomorph because they have no counterability anyways so why even play with them. I completely agree when someone refuses to participate with a broken killer. But yeah some just give up for no reason sometimes which is not really good at all
1 -
"Going next" against these killers is an insane take, all 3 of these killers are below the average in terms of kill rate.
2 -
yet they all have one thing in common. Spam your power until you down the survivor while not needing any skill whatsoever. Do you think this is fun to deal with. Every health state taken by these killers is just them spamming their power until they hit me without thinking.
1 -
See what i mean people?
3 -
Implying kill rate or general strength is the only viable reason to dislike a killer.
2 -
how/when to give up (a very subjective assessment, mind)
Is it? There are plenty of objective markers on how a game is going. Though we had that conversation on page 3.
you miss 100% of the shots you never take.
Some of the shots my fellow survivors take make me want to call it immediately. Everyone is free to play for the 1% probability of a massive screw up. Evidently, not all will.
1 -
5 gens can mean as little as 0 gens if they're all 99%. Unless you're keeping track of every single progress bar as they show up on the allies on the hud (and can tell when there is no overlap) then the gen counter means nothing other than how many gens can't be kicked and regressed.
I don't know what to even say about that 1% comment. Its like you purposely tried to avoid the point of the expression and turned it back into gloom and doom. You should honestly probably take a break from the game if you're that pessimistic every time you load in.
2 -
Do you not keep track of the HUD and deduce where those gens are being done?
No need to worry about me I don't have the game installed at the moment.
As for that expression. You picked a version of it that implies needing some sort of control. I'm saying call it when you know you don't have any unless you enjoy relying on big mistakes.
2 -
WOW yeah sorry I guess annoyance level is not at all something I should care about MY APOLOGIES for it not counting in your idea of why you should not like a killer.
0 -
What? It is the bloody truth. What is your problem exactly. I give an actual reason and you act as if it is not a reason at all.
0 -
I actually agreed with you.
0 -
Oh okay I misunderstood. My bad
0
