General Discussions
General Discussions
Forget 2v8 I’m just gonna play for the rewards
I’m tired of this community not being listened to when we clearly said bots were not a good idea to be added into a lobby. The survivor bots are about as bad as your average solo teammate. And honestly I was over 2v8 after the second round. So anyway that being said for an unbalanced mode I think I’ll pass after getting the free rewards because I’m not dealing with all that nonsense.
Comments
-
100% agree. Adding bots was a giant middle finger to the community. I was looking forward to 2v8 (playing both roles) but I will not be participating this time.
14 -
I honestly am not too bothered about this change. In fact I'm for it overall.
The fact that queue times were so staggeringly long that they had a knock on effect to other modes completely sucked the fun out of 2v8 for me. Something absolutely had to be done.
18 -
don’t blame you
6 -
I enjoy 2v8, I play it basically nonstop, I was excited for it to come back. Now with the bot announcement I'm not going to bother, not even for the rewards. It's easy to tell a bot from a real player, even if they were to remove "bot" from the name the killer will be able to tell and avoid the bots to focus only on the real players. It's more of a 2v6 now instead of 2v8. Players gave multiple options to encourage more people to play survivor - I had made posts in feedback and commented on other posts both in general and feedback with multiple options and I had seen multiple others do the same but the devs ignored it all. Bot fills should've been a last resort, not the first.
15 -
you would think the devs would listen to our feedback but there’s no point in even trying anymore.
9 -
It is pretty frustration how they completely ignored feedback, both with suggestions on how to improve the queue times by encouraging people to play survivor and the overwhelming amount of people saying they do not want to have bot teammates.
5 -
Doesn't that make it a 2v6 anyway?
5 -
I couldn't even bring myself to play for the rewards last time 😮💨
2 -
Thats what happens if devs think of a solution but dont think it through.
2 -
Same. I'll just play killer to quickly grind through the tome and then drop that mode. No sane player will willingly queue up with 2 bots.
5 -
If all the real players are dead, the bots can escape for all I care, I'm not wasting a second of my time chasing a bot. So for me at least, the next event is a 2v6. And we'll have to wait and see if it's worth to play it for the rewards, as for now they only announced skins for sale.
4 -
Saying that devs don’t listen to the community when the number one complaint about 2v8 was the queue times is a take.
12 -
I agree - they make a temporary solution and people still complain. Also - A lot of us were okay with having a couple of bots to make queues faster. Maybe not the majority here on the forums - but on other social media platforms people are actually happy about it.
5 -
We didn't ask them to replace 20% of the playerbase with terribly coded AI
9 -
To be fair - nobody gave them any direct feedback other than "Make survivor roles more fun" So what did bhvr try to do? Add more classes, more basekit stuff, herbs and resources.
0 -
i’ll complain if I wanna complain about something that I don’t think is a solution, like I said I’m only gonna play for the rewards than play a different game. 2v8 dies out after the first 3 days when they bring this back anyway.
7 -
2v8 never dies out lol….and okay..go ahead… complain. I didnt say you couldnt.
Post edited by MechWarrior3 on0 -
I respect your opinion and I am glad you shared it. Everything in business is calculated risk. In this case, queue times were prioritized over player experience. I hope you keep an open mind and at least play one lobby. Even if there are bots in the lobby you play, a lot of people worked hard to improve the mode to be fun.
What personally makes me scratch my head is the flow of information here. We are having this conversation because a journalist didn’t realize how sensitive the information they were reporting was. Did someone really sit in a conference room and say “this will be a very unpopular change, let’s hide this information until they ultimately find out”? I’m sure the strategy pivoted when the news went public — but I wonder when things will become proactive instead of re-re-re-re-reactive.
2 -
Playing for rewards is pretty much the only reason I play anymore lol it's the only time I feel like I get rewarded for my time
6 -
well for me I can’t appreciate supposedly hard work when we are ignored time and time again. BHVR is not a small indie company anymore, they are making millions and millions of dollars and somehow manage to completely #### up every update so there’s not gonna be appreciation from me.
5 -
They said bots will only show in if needed, so it's literally on the community
3 -
Interesting, but I disagree. The community is here. Adding bots is strictly a BHVR sided decision. Its literally on BHVR.
5 -
I meant that the community will kinda rule if they're gonna play against 2 bots every match depending on the role they decide to play
1 -
Ahh, gotcha. Well with the response of this announcement, I'm willing to bet the number of players who will play this time around will be lower than previous, and I'd almost wager that the deficit is sizable. That speaks volumes about the communities general rule.
But!
And this all due to speeding up game queues for killer. So it'll be an interesting experiment for both BHVR and us, as there's no info on how the bots will even be added. 'As needed' is very ambiguous, but I'm accepting this decision and curious how it ends up playing out.
Thank you for clarifying. :)
1 -
Meh, it seems to me the choices were:
- Have bots when in extreme imbalanced queues.
- Do nothing and let us govern ourselves/just deal with it.
- Enforce a limited number of times per player they can queue for a particular side when queue imbalance reaches a certain threshold and force so many games on the opposing side to clear the slate.
- Add a queue priority system that operates on a similar "how many games of Killer/Survivor have been played consecutively" logic based on queue times.
The latter systems would be the most effective and fair methods of limiting queue times and particular players excessively hogging killer queue... but the complaints of being "forced to play survivor" will be more intense that any other complaints...
Doing nothing will also yield a lot for complaints as well, you can already hear the "BHVR doesn't care about player experience" posts from just the hypothetical.
Looks to me like people will pitch a fit no matter what BHVR does in this scenario. Bots is probably the most reasonable and non invasive solution, though if it were me, I'd buff the bots significantly with additonal perks geared towards supporting the real survivor players.
Let's face it, gaming communities tend to be littered with drama llamas, "what have you done for me lately?" and "me me me" types... and DBD is no different, so this problem looks like a poisoned chalice to me.
4 -
lol love it 😅
0 -
I'll address this part directly about not listening to players. We really do listen to players, not just the loudly vocal minority however. It's not just about this Forum, it's about every social platform, including non owned by us platforms. It's also about what information we obtain from our own User Research Groups, we have a Playtest Squad as well as Consultants as well as CSAT's. We take feedback from everywhere, and our teams have to make decisions based upon that feedback as a whole.
21 -
I agree 💯
People have to remember it’s not just about this forum. There’s a lot of other feedback to gather outside of the forums that’s valuable to listen to as well which is I think is worth doing.
7 -
People are misusing the word "listening".
Listening just means that BHVR read the feedback, and thought about the feedback. That's literally it.
Listening doesn't require BHVR to actually implement the feedback into their game. Therefore, it's incorrect for someone to say "we aren't being listened to because our feedback wasn't implemented into the game".
2 -
Then i would like you to explain how it is possible that in 8 out of 10 cases the feedback given and the solution presented does not overlap?
7 -
I think that's already been answered by others in this thread - whilst the feedback we receive from all sources is valuable and used, and considered. Our team has to make decisions based on that feedback as a whole - and consider the game as a whole, not just one side or the other.
And whilst you say 8 out of 10 cases the feedback given and the solution presented doesn't overlap, you're not considering the feedback from other sources, just what's presented in one area. We are trying to explain why a lot of the decisions made, bearing in mind the full picture of what is coming ahead as well, which of course we cannot explain.
9 -
thank you for addressing this, I’m sorry for all the criticism I’ve just been super frustrated so this helps.
2 -
We will see.
Maybe it is not that bad of an idea. Queue times are really long.
And the bots are always doing gens.
Question is - will the bots have their normal "Bot" or not? In this case i would rather not know who is a bot because Killers may focus on them first.
1 -
During the first two iterations people were giving a ton of feedback both here and on your various socials on how to encourage players to play the survivor side that needs players. Having the incentive be more than just BP, like adding an XP bonus as well. Not giving the side that has plenty of players more new content than the side hurting for players - giving killer side an additional 3 killers isn't going to draw people to survivor. Examples of content that could be added to survivor side. A queue priority system so people actually rotate out of playing one side.
I saw more negative feedback for bot fills than positive on Twitter and Facebook when the announcement was made that bot fills were in the PTB and would be coming to events, it definitely did not look like the minority there or here when talks of it first showed up. BHVR surveys most questions seem like they are worded in a way to get the answer the creator of the survey is looking for, and you guys put out atleast 2 versions of the surveys where questions like bot fills are only being sent to a portion of the players actually taking the surveys.
While I know BHVR does listen to players, in this specific situation it doesn't feel like listening when players gave a ton of suggestions for different ways to encourage more players to play survivor, then on multiple platforms said they did not want bot fills, only to now have bot fills while no other method to encourage more people to play survivor is even attempted. If there's something in the pipeline to encourage more people to play survivor that's great, but as long as nothing is said it seems like BHVR isn't listening and is just going to easiest/fastest fix.
Saying you "just don't listen the loud vocal minority" comes across as brushing aside the negative feedback while at the same time doing a passive aggressive insult towards those voicing their feedback that are frustrated with the situation. I get you're probably upset as a community manager to hear it doesn't feel like you're listening, but you tend to choose your words carefully and that phrasing isn't good. DBD has plenty of players to have multiple game modes but the survivor side is hurting for players so bad you need bot fills, they are currently the minority. Saying you won't listen to the "loud vocal minority" it feels like you can use that excuse to write off any survivor complaints. People are genuinely frustrated about bot fill lobbies so please don't just write it off as "loud vocal minority."
8 -
I think you misunderstand my phrasing - "not just the vocal minority" were the exact words, meaning that we listen to everyone's voice. Whilst I appreciate your concern over the bots in some lobbies, we do feel this is currently the best option that's available to us in an attempt to reduce those queue times. Adding newer killers in, we are aware is going to want people to play killer - this is inevitable, and we have to continue to add in new killers in order to attempt to get the majority if not all of the killer roster in the mode. Whilst we are of course looking at the survivor side, and are certainly not looking at bots as a be-all, end-all, for this iteration at least, it's the option that we've chosen to go with.
Incentives were tried initially, with zero affect on the queue times, we don't feel that it's enough, even with adding in XP, it's just not enough of a draw to players given the desire to play killer in the mode.
It would be impossible for us to please everyone, all we can do is continue to try new things for something like this and bots is an option that's open to us, and we have to try it.
8 -
no need to apologise at all, there's no hard feelings taken - we know this is not personal in the slightest. We have this forum so we have this place that people can vent, it's fully expected. But thank you for taking the time to apologise <3
2 -
As Mandy has stated neither incentives nor massive buffs and abilities to survivors were not enough to alleviate nor get people to fill the Queue so this is there next option.
You are a vocal minority and there was plenty of positive feedback to this on twitter reddit and even on the forums you just did not look hard enough
2 -
Will there still be BP incentives for survivor this round? I get the bots but I actually was one of the many people who continued to play the mode, even after I got bored with it, just because I wanted the BP. If there’s that incentive back again this time it would be appreciated.
0 -
Ah yes I too often have to "look harder" to find the majority opinion on social media.
Haven't seen anyone happy about this other than a few killer mains thrilled about 2 free kills every match.
4 -
Imagine being a dev and being so deaf to their community that they would rather add bots than to make survivor role more fun and rewarding.
It is a first step in changing DBD from a PvP to a PvE game. Killer has always been a balance and fun priority in this game and always will.
5 -
Did you miss everything Mandy - a dev just said above? ☝🏼
I’m for the bots - and they won’t even be in every lobby. Just if and when it’s needed to assist in queue times for specific lobbies.
2 -
That she said everyone on all social platforms said bots was a good idea? Only killer mains wants that so they don't wait 30 minutes in a killer sided game. Queue times are bad because survivors are meat for a grinder.
9 -
Totally feel the same.
I play (99.5% of the time solo survivor and just playing killer for archives) as Solo Survivor and it feels like I am just some meaty placeholder for the game. I read what Maddy wrote but this does not change the fact that BHVR just mainly replace solo survivors by bots. Maybe we already played with bots not knowing it was one.
Most of the frustration from the solo survivor experience is made by the lack of communication and QOL features like seeing others perks while playing. Most of my match, i just try to get my archives done. But it feels like if i don't stick to the gen for 20 secondes the game is lost. I don't blame killers for it. But BHVR allowing such a bad gameplay experience on the slugging/tunneling is a terrible game direction.
Nowadays they release more skins in each patch note than actual changes in mechanics or perks. The cosmetic developper team must be huge.
I am starting to regret the 400 dollars and 1K hours spent on this game since 2017. I still watch content creators and lurk each patches to seek for any hope but i don't play the game anymore.
6 -
False. Queue times are bad because killers want to actually be able to play with their friends. Why is that such a bad thing… At least bots actually do gens. That's more than I can say for most teammates in the soloq experience, lets be so for real.
1 -
This is a lie Ive seen nothing but hate for it what
5 -
"I'll address this part directly about not listening to players. We really do listen to players, not just the loudly vocal minority"
Coming from the woman who admitted to the fact they nerfed skull merchant just because she was complained about and that they intentionally did so with the intention to make her as unplayable as possible then laughed in a youtubers live stream about it2 -
Well, I'm past the point where I'm invested in DBD in a way where I want things to go in a direction I like. Personally, in 2v8 one surv disconnecting and a bot taking their place very early in the match did not really have a negative impact. - Though, in how far that is different if two bots are there from the beginning… in no small part depends on how the bots work (watching them is painful more often than not… - but at least they do do gens) and in how far people being annoyed is going to be self fulfilling prophecy.
During the last two iterations I had a blast - I'll try this way as well and if it's not fun I do what I do with the regular mode of dbd: just not play it (safe for the very few occasions where irl friends want to play a few matches and hang out which currently amounts to… ~2hrs/every other week).
1 -
It's not a lie. At all actually.
1 -
Have you opened twitter or Instagram about this topic in any capacity
4 -
Yeah, I have. I also looked into Tiktok too. So yes…Also to say Mandy is Gaslighting is a bold statement. I sure hope she doesn't read your comment. That'll be interesting if that one catches wind.
1
