Feedback and Suggestions
Feedback and Suggestions
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!
The "Surrender Option" will kill the game
The suggested surrender option will encourage slugging over hooking, this is literally the opposite of what the game needs right now. Going into FNAF if slugging is even more popular then it's probably gonna kill any hype that it would generate because new players will come in, get slugged, and leave, then spread the word.
The surrender option as suggested will encourage slugging.
By allowing survivors to give up when everyone is incapacitated (Everyone is downed or hooked), they will take that option. Furthermore many killers previously 4 man slugged to be toxic, this change doesn't address that because survivors have the option of literally bleeding out or giving up, which will still likely satisfy a toxic killer, this is not considering that survivors giving up actively decreases the time it takes for these killers to "Win" and thus allows them to do more matches which will again, make them more prevalent.
I believe this is a completely backwards way to be looking at a sidevside style of game. Both sides should be encouraged to try and pull back from difficult scenarios instead of just pressing a button to go next.
I also believe that there is a very simple fix that addresses problematic slugging only in a non abusable manner, that also encourages the aforementioned mentality:
When all survivors have been downed by the killer, each survivor gains a token, this token can be consumed to pick yourself up from the dying state once you have fully recovered. This token is consumed upon being hooked, or going from the dying state to the injured state.
This cannot be abused as the killer chooses when it can happen, furthermore it encourages survivors to try and pull back the game as they can either get up themselves or at least someone will be able to do something. This directly addresses problematic slugging situations and ensures that they are not encouraged while encouraging players to stick games out.
Even if there is only a small chance 4 man slugging would become more popular than now it's not worth taking that risk considering the potential coming up later this year.
If you have any suggestions, feedback or even disagreements please post them below, also sorry for the slightly misleading title.
Comments
-
Before people said the anti-camp will kill slugging. Before that it was basekit borrowed time. Before that it was decisive strike changes.
Give it up. Nothing can kill DBD until DBD actually has competition in the market.
7 -
...So... Killers will slug to allow survs to surrender for not winning the trial?
5 -
This mechanic will just encourage the slugging build and since you can't communicate in game and all the anti-slug perks besides Unbreakable are terrible the only counter is SWF 3rd party VC. But whatever DBD wants to make SOLO Q disappear let them its basically unplayable to play with randoms and this will just hasten that progress.
0 -
Playing to win is not toxic. Using slugging as your victory condition is not toxic. What is toxic is intentionally bleeding out the survivors after you have won to waste their time. The surrender option prevents that and saves everyone's time.
10 -
With the surrender option slugging is arguably a better play style than hooking. No surv perks activated by hooking will be available and if survivors do surrender if they are slugged (not necessarily to bleed out) then it's going to save killers who do slug time in matches, which means that they will go through more matches.
Furthermore slugging over hooking is already becoming more and more popular and if it is genuinely seems as better than hooking it will only make it more popular. It's a dangerous game because if it does become really popular before a massive influx of new players, and also considering the games bad matchmaking, many new players are going to encounter the slugging over hooking playstyle, and as such essentially be forced to surrender instead of playing the game.
Considering the abysmal new player experience too that will probably drive a lot of new players away.
The system I suggested guarantees that 4 man slugging to win will not become more popular while not punishing killers who play the game normally.3 -
I'm not sure if you are talking about my suggested system but if you are please explain to me how it would encourage slugging builds.
(edit): idk why it didn't quote "YuffieGreatestWaifu"Post edited by Angerydoge on1 -
No playing to win is not toxic, but from a survivor perspective being slugged (unless you happen you have an anti-slug perk and even then) is not fun. You are literally forced to not play the game.
I respect your opinion but I disagree. Basing your win condition around a practice that literally guarantees that the other side will not enjoy the match is arguably toxic.
As a predominantly Solo Q player, 4 man slugging (even if not to bleed out) is the worst experience in the game by far to me.
The system I suggested still allows for slugging in scenarios where it makes sense, for example to maximise power value. It only guarantees that at least 1 survivor is available for counter play and encourages hooking, which is the intended way to play killer. It will create closer matches which are arguably the most satisfying moments in DbD too.
I can't think of anything sadder in this game than loading into a match, everyone getting downed within 2 minutes then just surrendering. The exact same can be said from a killer perspective too, it's really sad if a killer gets ran because of a disgusting setup and gets no hooks the entire game. There isn't fun in those games, arguably for either side. This is what should be minimized as much as possible and the surrender option only allows for more games like that.3 -
This wont be an issue because they also will nerf slugging itself. Calm down people
3 -
But killers who slug for win will not do that since surrender is not a win for a killer. Also slugging gives almost no points, no grades, nothing especially slug only playstyle.
People who only slug will do that regardless. But their victims will suffer less which may decrease sluggers incentives for slugging, because they do that to make other side miserable.2 -
We do get a lot of drama in these forums don't we?
Irrespective of the validity of slugging the whole team as a strategy, how does allowing survivors to quit when they have clearly lost the game directly cause an increase in slugging? If it somehow does, why do we feel the ability to quit is the feature that needs addressing?
Slugging being effective or not is a separate topic from this feature; if slugging the whole team was completely unviable as a strategy would we still be arguing this feature is a problem? No… we wouldn't, so it's pretty irrelevant as a discussion.
You're trying to argue A + B = C, when in reality its more like A = C and B = B.
1 -
Considering it's BHVR it wouldn't surprise me if they end up counting a surrender as a win and giving bonus bp for it but I'm not going to argue solely on hypotheticals.
Why accept horrible scenarios in the game rather than remove them or at least give people the ability to fight back against them?
Why does it have to be "well they 4 man slugged so we lost at 4 gens"?
When it comes down to it people play this game to have fun and the surrender mechanic doesn't provide it. The most fun moments in DbD are when games are close. Not when the killer gets a lucky 4 man down at the start or is doing some unbalanced build (singularity knock out etc…).
There is an entire epidemic in the game right now of people giving up and going next rather than sticking games out, adding a surrender option is literally feeding into that. Why not allow and encourage players to stick games out via the gameplay itself rather than accepting defeat 2 minutes into matches?1 -
Apologies for the kind of bait title I just wanted people to actually look at my suggestion as I think the surrender system is a bad idea and a perfect example of what the game should avoid.
Why will 4 man slugging become more prevalent?:
What I'm saying is that there is a high probability that 4 man slugging will "increase", the reason for this is purely mathematical, people who are inclined to 4 man slug, especially those who do so to be toxic (i.e- slugging to bleed out), will likely see a surrender as a personal win.
As surrendering ends the game prematurely this will shorten the amount of time these games take allowing them to play more matches, and thus 4 man slugging will become more prevalent, not necessarily because more people are doing it.
Why this matters:
While this is still a hypothetical the other question I ask is, why take this risk going into arguably the biggest collaboration for the game ever?
The new player experience is already pretty poor, but if new players go into a match and find out they literally have no other choice than to just press a button to quit, they very well may just leave, especially if it's more prominent than now, which is a possibility if the current suggested system is implemented.
This is why I believe the surrender system is a bad idea, however I feel it's a symptom of a greater problem…
Wrong Design Mentality:
The surrender option directly feeds into the go next mentality. A surrender option is a go next feature to be more accurate. Why not allow players to play the game rather than just telling them to give up? They say they want to address going next yet they are actively encouraging it! It doesn't make sense. The system I suggested would encourage people to play the game, try to stick matches out and even pull matches back, the surrender system does the opposite. The game just ends.
BHVR should be actively adding gameplay systems for both sides to reduce games that are a foregone conclusion. Not adding gameplay systems that encourage giving up because of games that are a foregone conclusion.5 -
Want to go on record as saying thanks for the measured response... and I probably should apologise, I happened to read 3 overly dramatic posts in rapid succession that I bit my tongue on to not feed the non-debates, and was a little coiled up when I got to this one, which was more reasonable to reply to, but then my heckles were unnecessarily up 😅
The only issue I have with your suggestion is I have been in games where survivors are constantly trying to surround and harass me, deny me pick ups with pallets, flashlights and sabos. In this scenario, the only option I have is to slug repeatedly until either they are all slugged, or they get the message and leave. Your suggestion makes it so I can't even do that.
I don't believe slugging can be solved with any form of Unbreakable, it's too much power in the survivors kit that creates way too many "what if" scenario's. My opinion on slugging, is give survivors mechanisms to get apart when slugged so trying to mass slug mapwide is harder for the killer to track and maintain the slug.
2 -
It's fine lol.
What I will say is that in my suggested system every living survivor has to be downed for survivors to be given the ability, as well as the fact that they have to fully recover first (at normal recovery speed).
Considering this, it makes it more likely that they won't be able to use the ability in an "abusable" manner, and if they do there is the fact that the ability means no one has been doing the objective the entire time as it requires everyone to be downed to take effect.
What you suggest is a potential issue but I think it would be exceptionally rare because of how circumstantial the conditions required for survivors to pick themselves up are, furthermore even when it would happen the survivors aren't winning the game when it does.
For clarification while I do believe that slugging is not fun, I only believe that 4 man slugging is an oppressive issue that needs addressing correctly before going into the FNAF collab. While not fun, being slugged by the killer because they need to make good use of their power is part of the games balance, there are other situations too.2 -
well, then killers might not actually slug as much knowing that their matches can be cut short and the only killers that will intentionally slug are the toxic ones playing 5000k hours nurse with best addons just to stomp people.
0 -
Me and the bucket have been thinking and believe from the both of us the surrender should only be enabled once all survivors are either:
A- bleeding and slugged
B-3 hooked one alive
the bucket has spoken
0 -
The surrender option is effectively nothing more than a group of friends playing cards (be it poker, skat, or something else) and they've all counted in their heads which cards are out, what can still be in, what the points are, and then two rounds before the end they shrug their shoulders, put their cards on the table and say: ‘Okay, the round is over, no matter what we play now, we can't win it anyway’.
And they are often right. There is no reason to play a match that has already been played to the end when it is clear that it is over. The argument: ‘But it could still get better and you can still turn the tide’ is no longer valid from a certain point onwards and from then on it's just a waste of time to force it to continue. And that applies to both sides.
Should you then force both sides to continue playing? No. Should they be deprived of the ‘reward’ of the round if they want to cut it short to get to the next round? Again, no.
I would therefore say that the surrender option is definitely a positive thing.-1 -
tbh, i do see it as an incentive to slug. Why getting 12 hooks when I can just slug and get a fast easy win?
2 -
I have said before and I will say again (and again and again and again) any attempt to punish or prevent slugging is fruitless. The REASON killers are slugging needs to be addressed. Why do so many do it? I have some ideas as a killer main who doesn't go out of my way to slug, but beyond that is above my pay grade.
3 -
So BHVR is going to punish Killers for tunneling/camping/slugging instead of addressing the reason why they do it.
On the flipside, they're punishing Survivors for "going next" rather than addressing the reasons why they do it.
So we can't say that "BHVR only cares about Killers or Survivors" anymore, when it can be concluded that they don't care about either side.
2 -
Because it is not win, just end match faster. You get barely no bp and far less score for pips
1 -
ah, well, idk that... can a team abuse it then? 4 plot twist + no mither + instant surrender to explot it somehow?
0 -
My suggested change doesn't really punish slugging, it prevents problematic slugging (i.e- the entire team being incapacitated) while still allowing for the game to be played. Generic slugging, such as maximising power value or preventing a save isn't changed.
I fully agree with you that the reasons why killers slug need to be addressed, many killers simply aren't viable currently and do sometimes have to rely extensively on generic slugging to win.
As my suggested system doesn't really impact generic slugging these killer's wont be weaker. It would solely be there to prevent 4 man slugging while still encouraging gameplay. Hopefully BHVR could actually start reworking some of less viable killers too though.1 -
Yeah and the people who primarily 4 man slug rn aren't doing it for BP or score. All I'm saying is that "Surrendering" will likely still satisfy many of the people who currently 4 man slug while allowing them to get through more games as they take less time. This would make 4 man slugs more common occurrences.
Providing ways to pull back games from these situations would be better as it incentivises closer games rather than a go next mentality which is what the surrender system would do.2 -
BHVR is clear trying to speed up games and DOES NOT want 30 min games to happen. Gen kick limit, Distortion being chase related, Crows, all speed up the game encouraging a lot of chases and quicker paced games. Killers and survivors dont like many of the changes but BHVR is doing it its neither killer or Survivor biased its speeding the game up.
0 -
Honestly I can't see why is it that hard for them to simply allow survivors to get up by themselves in the case 3 or 4 people are in the dying state. Killers would know that if they try to slug all survivors they will get a free get out of jail card, which will deter them from doing it and it would incentivize to hook one of the already dying survivors before knocking down a 3rd person. A hooked survivor and a downed survivor are enough pressure.
1 -
Unbreakable is quite good perk but have 2 downsides - it does not help against "slug only" killers because works only once.
- players never knows if killer will actually be slugging.
Survs should be able to stand up indefinitely as long as all survs (but at least three) are incapacitated. Unbreakable could instead grant ability to stand up once outside of general rules.
Why at least three? Because when only two survs are left, then game is mostly already over so killer should be awarded by being able to Mori last one or slug for 4k.
This could be also tied to gens done. Like if there is more than 4 gens to do, then even single surv can get up, but if there is no gens left, then neither surv can stand on their own. This should reduce snowballing for both sides.
0
