http://dbd.game/killswitch
DC Penalty No Longer Makes Sense
Dead by Daylight used to lack bots, and so disconnecting meant one whole player left with no compensation. But, when bots were added, disconnecting became less punishing for everyone else, as there was a bot left in the place of the player. However, the DC penalty remains, leading people to prefer to die on hook than disconnect, which is a problem as there's no bot replacement after death on a hook. The penalty for disconnection became outdated the moment survivor bots were introduced. "Go Next" will still be an issue, but it will be far less of an issue, as bots are more manageable to deal with than one less survivor.
Comments
-
Removing the DC penalty would not just address fringe cases… it would open the door to a broader behavioral issue. Without consequence, players could freely disconnect over map preferences, early-game frustration, or minor inconveniences.
That doesn’t improve the experience → it erodes it.I’ve been playing DBD for over 7 years, and not once has the DC penalty posed an issue for me. Why? Because it only affects a specific subset of behavior… impulsive quitting that disregards the match integrity for everyone else. The penalty isn’t meant to punish, it’s meant to protect. Removing it because bots now exist is like removing speed limits because airbags exist.
Helpful, yes → but not a substitute for accountability.Bot replacements are a band-aid, not a cure. Let’s not confuse fallback systems with valid design incentives.
3 -
I see your point, but I don't agree with it, as people can still just kill themselves on a hook, leaving everyone worse off. Yes, DC'ing is more convenient, and this will lead to more DC's, but it will leave survivors and killers in more preferable situations and more complete games. Plus, killers are currently able to hold the game hostage, exploit, bring mean builds, and play in severely unfun ways for all 4 people dealing with 1 person's unhealthy style of play. Allowing survivors the freedom to leave would make the survivor experience more enjoyable, as they are no longer forced to commit to a match they didn't want to play. That system would respect their time more, especially for people newer and less attached to DBD. Maybe DC penalty hasn't been a problem for you, but I'm sure it has been for everyone going so far as to point at a hook and say "let me out." Accountability is important, yes, but I don't like the idea that DC'ing is some sort of crime to be punished. If anything, dying on hook should be punished more than DC'ing. Dbd is a game, and I'd rather survivors come and go as they please now that there's bots in place. Regardless of whether DC penalty protects, it does indeed also punish.
Also, by the way, I'm happy to see DBD is introducing rewards for playing multiple matches to the end, I'd rather reward players for sticking around rather than punish players for having preferences or other things to do. I believe that will help.
I'm a killer main by the way, and if it helps to understand my perspective, I really don't mind playing against bots. Maybe playing against a full lobby of human players is far more important to others than it is to me. I'm okay as long as I have at least 1 human player to interact with.-1 -
"Without consequence, players could freely disconnect over map preferences, early-game frustration, or minor inconveniences. That doesn’t improve the experience → it erodes it."
It would improve the experience for people wishing to freely disconnect instead of killing themselves on hook, yes. I don't think "Go Next" is a major issue because killers and survivors need more human players in matches, I think it's an issue because players killing themselves on hook leaves people who don't want to be penalized in an awkward unwinnable state, as there's no bot to replace them. More disconnections, in my opinion, is an acceptable tradeoff for disconnections with minimal consequences.-3 -
Bot's were added to help bring a little less frustration than just it being a simple 1v3. It was not a means to sweep dc penalites under the rug. Those need to stay.
1 -
I really just don't understand the reasoning. Would you rather have one less teammate, or a different (slightly less cooperative) teammate? Would you rather be stuck in a match you don't want to play, or have the freedom to leave?
-5 -
I would rather have at least a small chance vs it being an automatic 3v1. I don't mind Bots. Personally. Up and leaving isnt the solution. Higher Queue times, dodge lobbies because of ANY and every small inconvenience….It just wouldn't be healthy for the game. To summarize. Ill take the bot.
0 -
If anything I feel that the DC penalty should be more harsh in cases where there isnt somthing crazy going on forcing you to quit or be stuck in the match like cheaters.
1 -
The conversation around removing the DC penalty keeps orbiting a single issue: hook suicides. And yes, that's a real problem. But solving one flawed mechanic by introducing a worse one isn't progress, it's regression.
Removing the DC penalty wouldn't "fix" suicides on hook → it would just hand players a more immediate escape button, usable at any time, for any reason. Map not to your liking? First two gens went too fast? Not the killer you wanted?
Exit stage left, no consequences. That’s not freedom… that’s abandonment dressed up as convenience.If the goal is to address early-game forfeits, the solution is to fix the incentives around staying, not to encourage leaving. Fix hook suicides by overhauling the struggle phase. Give players meaningful reasons to stay engaged.
But removing penalties entirely turns PvP into PvMaybe.Accountability isn’t about punishing frustration → it’s about protecting the integrity of competitive play. Without it, what’s left isn’t a match. It’s a roulette wheel of who’s still in by minute three.
1 -
DC'ing isn't a "worse problem" if they're replaced by bots. Hook suicide is far more destructive than DC'ing. And dbd isn't competitive to most people. It's a pretty casual game, it doesn't even specify who wins and who loses cleanly. Having the choice to abandon is freedom. If this game was ranked or something, yeah I'd agree it's an issue, but it isn't. I do agree with you though that introducing rewards are going to help, and giving players meaningful reasons to stay engaged is also going to help a lot. But I think the DC penalty does more harm than good. I just don't think we see eye to eye on this. The conversation is going in circles so I think I've said my piece, but I appreciate the feedback, it really is great to see other perspectives.
-4 -
I’ll say it plainly: removing the DC penalty would do more long-term harm than any current fringe issue ever could.
Hook suicides should absolutely be addressed… for example, disabling early self-unhook attempts or limiting escape inputs in the first few minutes. But that’s a separate fix. Removing the DC penalty wouldn’t solve that problem → it would multiply it.
Within weeks, we’d see a match environment where bots replace players in the first 3 minutes… routinely. That’s not speculation — it’s a behavioral certainty. The game would slide from PvP into pseudo-PvE, one impatient quit at a time.
I've played Survivor for over 7 years. Hook suicides are rare. But give people an official exit button with zero consequence, and you won’t see “rage quitting”…. you’ll see preference quitting. Map? Teammates? Killer choice? Gone.
The penalty doesn’t target commitment → it preserves it.
1 -
The killer should have e a forfiet option. And surrender votes for survivors. Sometimes we just know h0w a match is gonna go and it would be nice to slip the 5 minutes.
0 -
honestly I prefer to see it through with bots but if that's what it takes to avoid the penalty I'd gladly take it
-1 -
I wanna highlight that when I mentioned this idea on the discussion channel of the DBD discord, not a single person disagreed, there were 5 people all of which backed up the idea entirely, so I'm shocked there are as many downvotes as there are.
-1 -
Without the DC penalties players in either role would just start leaving at the slightest inconvenience. At first it would be whenever they felt the trial was unwinnable, then snowball into leaving for whatever little excuse.
You're found first, button. Lose two gens first chase, button. Don't like the map, button. Someone running No Mither, button. Don't like the killer, button. See an ally doing a totem, button. Lose that Meg in the center building, button. Corn blindness, button. Azarof's twice in a row, button. Sky is blue, button.
And the trails get quickly out of control. Nope the penalties should stay. They're a little to lenient imo.
1 -
Fully agree with @JPLongstreet.. the DC penalty isn’t just justified, it’s the final thread holding the match together when half the lobby’s already hovering over Alt+F4 like it’s a competitive mechanic.
But sure, let’s remove it. After all, we’ve got bots now → sentient tumbleweeds with the tactical IQ of lukewarm tea.
Want to ragequit because you lost first chase? No problem. ChadBot™ will kindly run in a straight line, fail to vault, and then moonwalk into a wall while the killer reconsiders their life choices.
Want to leave because someone brought No Mither? Relax. BotMither 2.0 has entered the trial, now with 17% more standing still and 0% unhooking awareness.
And let’s be honest: this was never about “match quality.” This is about wanting to ragequit with the emotional grace of a toddler knocking over a board game.. but with full moral immunity.
A forfeit button wouldn’t improve DBD.
It would just allow people to fail faster with less guilt.But hey… if all else fails, we can always let the bots run eSports. I hear they’ve almost mastered holding W.
-1 -
Saying it works because your Discord agrees is like claiming a boat floats because the crew’s optimistic.
If a Discord poll was all it took, every game would have god mode by now.-1 -
Okay well I'm not loving your tone, I'm not sure why that's necessary. But I digress, if your point is reliant on bots being bad, I doubt bots will stay bad forever. If your point is reliant on players "ragequitting," that's a bad faith argument, not every player quits because they're upset, some quit because they just aren't having fun, or don't want to continue and would rather forfeit. It is actually match quality, yes, as some killers are less fun design wise than others, because DBD isn't a perfect game. Hence there are tier rankings of the most fun killers, most oppressive maps, most annoying playstyles, etc. Again, I think your perspective is coming from a very competitive place. I appreciate your perspective though. It's like we play two different games.
-1 -
I just don't think you agree with my point. I'd rather you agree to disagree instead of rapid-firing snarky similes. I could use all the sarcasm in the world, but I'm choosing not to because it wouldn't add anything to the discussion. All I said was "oh I didn't expect this to be so poorly received" and you went out of your way to rag on me for it. I'm glad to hear from someone so passionate about this, I am, but there's no need to be rude.
-1 -
I understand not everyone enjoys a sharper tone… fair enough. But the frustration doesn’t come from a desire to be rude; it comes from watching fundamental game structure be chipped away in the name of convenience.
DBD is a PvP experience. And with that comes a level of responsibility. In games like League of Legends, if you leave mid-match, you're locked out of the queue until the match ends — regardless of why you left. That design respects both the integrity of the session and the other players’ time. And no → League doesn’t replace you with a bot. It replaces you with silence, absence, and a consequence you feel. Maybe that’s why people think twice before ragequitting.
Disconnecting isn’t always rage – but when the system starts to normalize exits, it stops distinguishing between technical failure and emotional impulse. At some point, it just rewards leaving.
You're right: we might play the game from different places. I just think the rules should reflect that other people are playing too.
1 -
Not at all – I’m critiquing ideas, not people.
Sarcasm is a tool, not a target. The tone was strong because the issue is.But I do appreciate your willingness to talk through it. If we disagree, we can still aim for the same thing: a better, more resilient DBD…..not one that unravels every time someone doesn’t like their matchmaking.
1 -
I just read both of your responses so I'll keep it to one response,
I appreciate your willingness to talk through it too :) I'm glad we could come to a consensus here because I understand where you're coming from too, I also don't want a DBD where I'm primarily killing bots, that would be far less enjoyable for both survivors and killers. Originally I was saying that the DC penalty encouraging more disconnects would be a tolerable tradeoff for people killing themselves on hook, but you've opened my mind, I'm sure there's some way I'm missing to find a middle ground. Something that ideally would give the players the freedom I value yet also prevent disconnects from ruining the experience for people who commit to every trial. Basically, I still believe there's an issue here, but I'm no longer sold on the idea that removing the DC penalty outright is the solution. It's something I think I'll let sit in the back of my mind for a while. If I come up with something new maybe I'll make a new discussion post, and at that point I'll look forward to hearing your feedback :)1 -
I genuinely appreciate your thoughtful reply – and the openness to rethink things. That’s rare, and honestly refreshing.
If your future post sparks new angles, you can count on me showing up with words, metaphors… and probably one or two snarky analogies ;)
Until then, thanks for the honest back-and-forth. Discussions like this are what keep the community sharp… even when the bots aren’t :D
1 -
Thank you too, well said! :)
0
