Feedback and Suggestions

Feedback and Suggestions

Vanilla (our Hosting Company) will be carrying out maintenance on their servers between the 24th June - 4th July, this might result in some temporary instability on our forums. We apologise for the inconvenience.

Go Next prevention should come AFTER the anti camping and anti tunneling

Options

Go Next prevention was a needed feature, we know some survivors will DC after any minor inconvenience. But let's be honest, some people DC because the match is frustrating. Tunneling, camping, BMing and some kind of nasty behaviors are also reasons on why people don't want to play a match. Punishing people for not wanting to play a game like that is not the best idea. If anti camping and anti tunneling comes, there will not be a real reason for people to disconnect, but until then, survivors will have to play with killers and teammates that will take advantage of that and just queue to make the game miserable knowing they forced to stay or eat a DC penalty.

Welcome to BHVR Forums

Please sign in to join in the discussions.

Comments

  • Member Posts: 1,054

    This was my exact thought.

  • Member Posts: 67

    Are you saying that disconnecting is better? Disconnecting and leaving your teammates frustrated with your actions while they continue to play the game? For me, the punishment for those who disconnect makes sense. Tunneling and camping are strategies used by killer players and are not against the game rules. Nowadays, there are many perks that help prevent tunneling and camping. If these two things are still a problem for you, it’s not about the game system or the killer player, but rather a skill issue on your part or your team.

    (Stop telling others how to play the game they spent their money on. If it's not bannable, not against the rules, and only hurts your little feelings because you can't "do what you wanted to, we call that a skill issue.).

  • Member Posts: 187

    First of all, BHVR does not want anti-tunnels and anti-camping.They doesn't want the rules to be strict for the Survivors.They read the rules through the killers.You can understand this situation even through the perks.Lately, whatever the survivors do, they constantly give the killer a speed increase bonus or hindered effects for the survivors.They changed this situation only for MFT, but if you did not want the survivors to achieve this later, you would only want such difficult conditions.

  • Member Posts: 6,912

    The problem I have with the go next is it punishes survivors who wanna quit when no gens are getting done. Because why should I be punished if I’m running the killer in a long chase and no gens are getting done???

  • Member Posts: 91

    Anti camp: I was on hook, the killer down the last survivor, picked them up and dropped them under my hook and waited on front of me till the hook timer ran out. All that while the anti camp progress was stagnant at about 25% I was on that hook for more than 30 secs and before that the killer was chasing a survivor at the shack where I was hooked

  • Member Posts: 1,110

    if bhvr put a little effort, anti camping, anti tunneling, and anti slugging would have been resolved ages ago

  • Member Posts: 1,242

    I was watching a streamer earlier, and they had a few matches in a row where they had a teammate go next at five gens. They also went next after the first survivor was dead. Shortly after, they questioned whether the new system would punish them for not wanting to play through a three vs one at five gens.

    Thinking about it, I don't know how I feel about the game forcing survivors to play through a match in those circumstances. If a survivor is dead at five gens, the entire match is ruined for the remaining survivors. Tossing some free BP at them isn't going to be enough to make that experience worth playing through.

    I think if a survivor goes next at five gens, everyone else in the match should be able to just leave without being punished.

  • Member Posts: 401

    Its a combination of bad tome quests and bad players. Cote once said all survivors have to do is gens but the game makes it so it encourages other gameplay. Also its very hard to do gens once a team is below 4 players and next to impossible with 2 players.

  • Member Posts: 234

    Almost as if punishment isn't the way to go and almost as if BHVR should start fixing the actual game so that SoloQ Survs want to stay in the match instead of express leaving it lol

  • Member Posts: 465

    I mean, BHVR is gonna address camping and tunneling, killers already are abusing those mechanics because they know they won't abuse it anymore in the future. Forcing survivors staying in matches like that is gonna be problematic. Addressing that and then adding the go next prevention would be ideal. Survivors will not have a real reason to go next or dc.

  • Member Posts: 1,377
    edited March 10

    Go Next is a huge issue right now. Camping and Tunnelling are pieces of the game that some Killers overuse excessively.

    They aren't the same. One has counterplay around it and only ruins one side's fun. The other doesn't and is ruining pretty much every game every round all the time for both sides, simple as.

  • Member Posts: 4,563

    Some people DC or go next just because of their first down in a chase. It tilted them in some way. Some do it because they don't like the killer or it wasn't the killer THEY wanted to go against OR they went up against that killer about 3 or 4 times in a row.

    I look forward to the Go Next Prevention. I am over these survivors throwing my games.

  • Member Posts: 4,339
    edited March 10

    Tbh I disagree...

    Players who SoH at the start of the game irritates me way more than being tunneled or slugged ever has.

    There is also the argument of the "Go Next" feature is a delicate feature, so you should probably change as little as possible while implementing it to appropriately measure its impact.

Welcome to BHVR Forums

Please sign in to join in the discussions.

Welcome to BHVR Forums

Please sign in to join in the discussions.