http://dbd.game/killswitch
Killers should be able to abandon when the gates are powered
Comments
-
I mean, you have the situation literally in your hands, right now. The devs have also told you as much.
You are looking for someone else to give you yet another option, which will also not prevent the problem as you describe it either.
You have 3 solutions, you're demanding a band aid that still won't fix the problem. Walking away guarantees you didn't have to deal with it ever again. Your only real situations are walk away or fight back, which are both already available.
Good luck I suppose. I'm going to take my own advice and walk away from whatever this conversation has become.
3 -
She was talking about the general scenario, because she didn't give any other reasons. If she wants to add additional information, she can do that, but for now we need to assume that was the main reason.
There is no "best argument", because we were only given 1 official reason why killers don't have the abandon button.
3 -
We will admit to not being the most empathetic of people, but it's coming to a point where everything that can be considered "bullying" will want to have a surrender option.
Tell us, in honesty, is the survivors t-bagging at the exit gate during the endgame collapse in the same league as the killers keeping 4 slugged and walking back and forth on them? Is it the same where the slugs the killer leaves who have no practical agency (defined as: the ability to do something meaningful) while the killer can freely roam around and do things (of which some are practical)? One of those seems more like bullying while the other is more like rudeness.
All games are for anyone who plays them and bullying is indeed wrong, but there's a certain line where actual bullying needs defined from being an arse, cause we're beginning to see it blurred here.
-2 -
Notice the downvotes we're getting. The narcissistic and ego driven survivor mains need the validation of making the killer watch them at the gate. Without that, they have nothing.
1 -
This doesn't make sense for a lot ofreasons
1: There are 30 posts before Mandy posts. I don't see any discussing hiding, the discussion is about teabagging at the exit gate to taunt the killer. Your post seems to be the first one to mention that after she posts, you then seem to focus on trying to pull the discussion to that issue throughout the thread.
2: She quoted a specific post that dealt with survivors teabagging at the gate, not hiding, not EGC in general, just survivors teabagging at the gate.
3: The phrase 'push them out' is commonly used to refer to pushing out the survivor waiting at the gate, not hiding.
4: We weren't given an 'official reason' for why they don't have the abandon button here anymore than we were given a reason why survivors don't have an abandon button when a survivor gets eliminated or the survivor is the last one left alive and the hatch is closed - because both sides still have a realistic chance of accomplishing their objective. The trial is still ongoing.
To go to one of your posts from page 3 of this thread
People keep bringing up this strawman argument, of survivors that are conveniently waiting at the exit gates, just waiting to be quickly forced out of the exit gates. That’s not the main problem. The problem are the survivors that purposely hide during the EGC.This thread is about people waiting at the exit gate to teabag the killer. It's not a strawman, its what people are talking about. You seem to have another issue you'd like to discuss that you keep trying to make Mandy's statement apply to. If you think survivors hiding out during end game chaos is a massive problem, make a thread about it (the only situation I've ever seen that is a closed hatch and usually its survivors looking for a key, but I've seen plenty of teabagging the killer).
-1 -
It's much more likely that BHVR told Mandy that survivors waiting at the gate is the official response, and that is currently the only official response to give, which is why we never got a follow up clarification statement about survivors hiding during the EGC.
Because if BHVR actually had an official response to survivors hiding during the EGC, they could have easily just clarified their response.
3 -
I mean, even if both side has equal percent of people who emotionally abuse downvote/upvote, there is quite a popularity difference between two lol
5 -
It’s possible to disagree with the idea without being a narcissist ego maniac.
I think making the exit gate less safe, and discouraging the behavior by causing a negative effect by being in the gates, like the EGC going faster for every survivor standing in the gate in addition to how long they remain In the gate etc, would be a great deterrent. But in my opinion there’s a big difference between asking for asking for tools to handle potential BM rather than simply just ejecting into an end game screen for everyone, even if a survivor wasn’t even near the gate. As there are currently no killer bots to replace them, unlike survivors. I would love for killer bots to be added for more purposes than just this, but until that kind of feature is added I don’t agree with shutting the whole match down.
14 -
Ccorrection, they quit and get a draw
3 -
Then let a killer bot do those things.
11 -
While there is another fight going on here over an official answer. Maybe it's time to just draw conclusions? Killers have nowhere to expect help and equal rights with the surviving side. Coming to the forums, we will simply receive indifferent answers and minuses from the defenders of the survivors.
Therefore, the only conclusion we can make. Get another incentive to tryhard. Strong killers with 4 slowdown perks, playing as if your life depends on it. After all, if the survivor does not survive to the gate, he will not be able to make a t-bag. We must take the problem into our own hands in the only way available to us, even if the other side suffers from it.
DBD has long lived by the principle when 5 people load into the game. One of them will definitely suffer. It does not matter if it is a survivor or a killer, but he will definitely suffer. The only question is who? Who will take on the role of a martyr? For myself, I decided that someone else will suffer. Not me.
As a history lover, I want to share some statistics with you. On December 5, 2020, there were statistics published by the developers of T-Bag. You can even find that video if it hasn't been deleted.
The North remembers...
8 -
A lot of people are arguing that for killers, there is a much easier "way out" than for survivors, when taking a look at the way in which the Abandon system is implemented. This argument is fair in and of itself but does not really go into what killers are arguing here: Yes, there is an easy way out, but having to expose yourself to a larger measure of frustration than necessary, with very little to gain in 90% of the cases, is just not healthy. The match is over, there is realistically little left to do, bar from the singular time a survivor is stupid enough to run out and get caught.
I think this is also why Mandy's response drew so much ire: not because what she said was unreasonable, but because the "solution" misses the point. The frustration is about having to expose yourself to even more humiliation, in a situation where there is very little to gain for the Killer player, rather than the actual inability to do anything other than wait (as is the case with slugged survivors).
10 -
- Survivors about survivor toxicity: Killers just need to take it, "be the bigger person". Just deal with it.
- Survivors about killer toxicity: What the #########? Let me abandon this is toxic!
As someone who is genuinely pro equality, sometimes it's hard not to see survivors as the most entitled group in all of internet. It's pretty simple. Give killers the same options survivors have. They may take it if they choose to. It's an option.
Being against this is just hypocrisy to such an extreme point just "entitlement" doesn't cut it anymore. If you're against this, congratulations. You're the worst this community has to offer.
13 -
There is absolutely no reason to NOT seek equality in this other than bias. It's not a perception of it. It's great that one team has the option. The other team should too. Both teams should have the option. This is what a fair person would argue for.
Disagreeing with this means you only want ONE team to have it. That is bias by definition. No matter how fair you think you are, if you are in here defending that one team should have an option while the other team should not, then you are part of the issue. This is a general "you" not a specific you to your person, by the way.
And if you're in here typing stuff like "be the bigger person, just go deal with it" at killers to defend them not having an option that you DO HAVE, like someone literally did earlier in this thread, you are committing hypocrisy to an absurd degree. These should be called out. These people are the rotten apples of the community. This community needs far less hypocrisy than it currently has.
6 -
I think where they may be a disconnect is here: I’m all for equality between the roles, (for the most part. I do think killers should have a higher win rate than survivors) but “one button for both sides” only makes sense when the outcomes are actually comparable.
What happens when a survivor abandons?
The survivor is replaced with a bot.
The rest of the match is still playable by both the other survivors and the killer.
What happens when a killer abandons?
The match instantly ends for everyone.
These outcomes are completely different. It’s 2 different game states entirely. The only way this would be a comparable outcome is if when the killer abandons, they are replaced with a bot.So if this is about creating the abandon button after killer bots are implemented— then yes, I would 100% be in support of it. I have been very vocal about killer bots for a long time, as survivors have no way to practice against killer bots in customs unlike how killers can practice against survivor bots in customs. So rejecting this particular suggestion isn’t “wanting only one team to have an option.” It’s saying the proposed “option” doesn’t give equal results.
If the goal is less BM, (which is great) we should address BM directly (faster collapse if survivors idle in the gate, clearer penalties for extended slug bleed‑outs) not introduce an immediate eject button that ends the entire game for everyone regardless if they were even in the gate at all.
And just for clarity sake, I do not agree with the way the current abandon system works as it gives draws. I feel that any abandon, no matter which role does it, should count as a loss. Not a draw. But BHVR did mention they understood the abandon mechanic can use some better improvements, so hopefully this will be changed in the future.
5 -
Thanks for the tag, and I really appreciate the thoughtful tone here. It’s been a long thread with a lot of strong opinions flying around, so seeing a post that actively tries to cool down the “us vs. them” energy is honestly refreshing.
I completely agree that things get unnecessarily polarized sometimes. killer mains, survivor mains, casual players, competitive players, we’re all ultimately here because we love the same game, even if we experience it differently. You’re right, most people probably aren’t walking in with malicious bias, but from a place of wanting the game to be fair and fun for everyone, even if we disagree on how to get there.
I also appreciate your willingness to engage with ideas from both perspectives, including mine. I still think we can address endgame stalling and BM without needing a full abandon button that ends the match outright, but I’m absolutely on board with exploring compromise solutions like yours if they respect the pacing and investment of everyone involved.
More than anything, I think the shared goal here is keeping matches respectful of players time, effort, and dignity, regardless of which side of the trial you’re on. And I’m with you— more GGs and GLIYN would be a win for everyone. :)
5 -
killers to defend them not having an option that you DO HAVE,
Since this is directed at me, and you aren't pinning me in it, let's talk about that.
The entire reason that abandon when all survivors are slugged exists is what you said here: there is no option like the killers have. Slugs can move at the slowest base speed of the entire game, and that's it.
There's no way, base kit, to speed up that bleed out, or get yourself out of that situation, no recovery. And in the case of bad actors, you do have to suffer 4 minutes of toxic behavior. That's true even with the abandon mechanic, since they can just leave one person up.
In the case of exit gates, killers are not in that position. They have agency, and can, by the core game, go force survivors to stop the toxic behavior and speed up the close of the match. It's even possible, that doing that forces errors, and the survivors can still die. I think punishing the toxic behavior through actual gameplay is a good thing.
But, if you take that option off the table, and completely refuse to do anything about it with your core tool kit (as the person I was responding to did), then you still have agency and options to ignore them. Again, that option is not available to a slug being humped.
If you are saying that you refuse to use the core kit of the game, which completely resolves this complaint, then walking away isn't just an option, it's the correct option, and the healthy option. If it bothers you enough that you have to take an extended break for your own mental health (as the person I was responding to said they did) then prioritize your own well being IRL, and maybe this game isn't right for you. I can't believe I'm being misrepresented in this thread enough that people think that taking a break is somehow toxic.
Additionally, the post and most everyone in it is expecting that the killer should just be able to abandon when the gates are powered, which is cutting out an entire phase of the game. That seems both rather excessive of a response (especially since not every survivor is going to linger and tea bag), and an over simplification.
Even if we gave people that option, truly toxic squads would find a way to finish a gen every 9.5 minutes and just bully as much as they want, and then the goal post moves again.
-4 -
We are talking about the option for abandoning matches on defeat. It does not matter if bots are left or not. The match is over. There are two sides in this match. One of the sides has thrown the towel. Therefore, it is over.
If anything adding bots only makes it worse. What's the point of artificially extending a match in which one of the teams has thrown the towel? Let me repeat this: If there are only two teams in a match, and one of the teams has given up, the match is over. The other team has won. Any extension of this is almost as if you're punishing the winner by forcing them to deal with bots in the dead, rotting husk of a match that is already over.
So no. There is no disconnect. This is simply a matter of people wanting more quality of life for themselves while trying their hardest to deny it to others. It just hurts to admit it, so they'll pretend to be fair.
A truly fair person would argue for the option for BOTH sides. And you know it.
6 -
My biggest issue would be when survivor abandons match the killer still gets the kill at least. But if killer abandon match survivors will not get the escape. If they add killer bots then it's different.
But personally I think abandoning match is bit too easy now. I think last survivor should not be able to abandon match immediatelly maybe after like 30 seconds is fine. But when killer slug multiple survivors then the current mechanic is good.
4 -
You have the agency to go eat toxicity as you push them out. And you have agency to not go eat toxicity at the gate, but still eat toxicity anyway as the toxic winners wait until the last second on EGC just to waste as much time as possible and spam sounds with fast vaults and whatnot. No matter what you do, you're having to eat toxicity. Don't defend it.
"ignore it". Do you see me here saying survivors should "just ignore it" when they're left to bleed out just to extend their loss? You don't. Because that's a terrible argument. Nobody should have to hunker down waiting for the rain of toxicity to pass while they pretend it's not happening.
The difference here, is that you seem to agree with me only for survivors. For killers, you say things like "you can ignore it" and "be the bigger person". Can you see now why I classified this as "hypocrisy"? Should be pretty clear.
Meanwhile, I think it should not be acceptable for either side, and if you're giving one side the option to bypass it, which is welcome, it is in all fairness that you should give the same to the other.
15 -
a lot of hypocrisy on both sides why I play both roles 50/50 so I know whats going on in both roles.
3 -
sorta? if a survivor abandons it's a draw for the survivors but if the killer abandoned it's a loss for the killer so in every scenario it's a draw for survivor but a loss for killer
6 -
Maybe I’m just not understanding correctly, let me try to work on it. It seems that you are insisting this is about equality, and I am saying that the results are not equal. Giving killers the same option to abandon the match does not do the same thing as when a survivor abandons a match.
When a survivor quits, the match continues. When the killer quits, the match ends for everyone.
That’s not equal. That’s not perception. Thats not opinion. That’s objective difference.
To say that there is no difference between a DC that results in 4 players still being able to play and a DC that instantly ends the game for all 5 players so that nobody can play, is objectively not true.
Now, I’m positive you’re aware of this, and not trying to insist that there is no difference between the two. Which means that maybe, are you saying that while yes, it does do different things, but that it simply doesn’t matter? That if someone who is playing the killer wants to quit, it shouldn’t matter that the game ends for everyone. Wouldn’t true equality mean that if a singular survivor quits, that the game would also end for everyone? That even regardless of role, if 1 player quits the entire match should end?
I’m genuinely trying to understand your perspective. If the text comes across as condescending or anything it’s not the intent, tone is difficult to convey through message sometimes. I’m trying to get to the absolute bare bones of the differences of opinion and why.
0 -
Yeah, I agree overall. I guess I also see some of the other comments in the thread using language that can inadvertently lead to people digging into their positions rather than coming to an acceptable compromise :/
4 -
I'm assuming they are referring to the presence of checkmate scenarios, and their comparison. In my post a few pages back I gave a scenario where the match is over, but the killer is stalemated (much like a 4 man slug is a survivor stalemate) until they actively submit, or wait out the EGC. The argument that gets pushed against it is that you have the ability to "end your suffering" so to speak as killer, therefore that is agency that is not afforded to slugged survivors. The counter argument is about stalemates like the one previously mentioned: When there is zero physical possibility of survivors from being able to be punished for not leaving, how is that agency?
I'm sure most people would be against any kind of "the moment things look bleak, eject" option. Even though that is essentially what survivors currently have with how it is currently implemented, there is no such respect for the killer's scenario. That is the reason it is a double standard. Not because the two scenarios are a 1 to 1 match, but rather because one side is both actively shielded from endgame toxicity, but also has their time respected as a player as well (you know, as a treat.) The arguing always focuses on the duration of the time, but it always misses the forest for the trees.
I havent played it in ages, but in Team Fortress 2 I remember when a match would end, respawns get disabled and gthe losing team is unarmed. They retain full control, and try to find places to hide or evade attacks, but they lose their means of fighting back. It is pruposely designed to be a humiliation ritual, a sanctioned means of the winning team to assert dominance over their defeated opponents with zero risk, and no way to make a mistake grave enough that their opponent can capitalize on their hubris. The match has ended, and the mechanic was simply there to be amusing at best, BM at worst. That is the closest example I can think of to swatting at the exit gates: There is no threat (with a few exceptions) and even the ability to capitalize on your opponents mistakes to make a comeback is either limited or non-existent. For all intents and purposes, the match has ended.
Going back to the TF2 comparison, in that game your "agency" is to get yourself killed to speed up the process. People would always handle it differently, some would go out memeing, some would actually try to hide and hope they last until the map closes and try to take a phyrric moral victory from it, but they can never make progress toward their objective, so it is not agency. Choosing the time and place of your death is not agency.
Back to the swatting out conundrum, this is one of the big disconnects I feel a lot of people are having on the subject: Defining "agency", and whether it is considered necessary for the game to commence. While the argument that the game ends when the killer leaves is true, it doesn't apply to a match that is already over. And I'm not talking about "there are 2 in the exit gate, one on hook in basement, and another unaccounted for" scenarios where the game still has life left in it, those shoyldn't be prevented by either side getting to leave early…. But survivors currently can. 4%, wiggling, unbreakable, exponential, deliverance, there are still plenty of things that could turn the tide the same way a survivor overextending from the exit gate could get caught and punished. The issue is that for some reason not only is one side given that freedom beyond the other, but that the perspective seems to purposely focus on the wrong aspects of each argument to have both side speaking past each other instead of with each other.
TL:DR if survivors are to be able to leave the moment they are in a checkmate, the killer should be able to as well. Not a check, a checkmate. It needs to be consistent for both sides considerations on the topic to be equally addressed. Whether that means requiring more considerations for the survivor abandon or less strictness to how it is handled for killer, maybe a combination of both, but as it is there is a lot of (un)intentional discordance based on what people identify as the root of the issue (duration vs sportsmanship)
10 -
Basically to end discussion you guys forget that there is a radius outside the exit gate that its safe to get hit and you still get out depending on the killer and if save the best is on the trial, so there is almost no sense in making egc faster for survs inside gate since they will just hover in a safe distance inside the map.
We already have killer bots on game, so when egc starts the killer could DC without warning survs and be replaced by bots with no loss in egc quality overall and the bot will be able to finish the trial (i know some bots cant use killer power yet but they can still walk and m1), meanwhile giving survivors the option to go for egc challenges and have fun bullying the bot without knowing its one.
7 -
Something I never liked the moment all survivors are downed and slugged they have the option to immediately abandon. Should have a 10-30 grace period before they can abandon with the timer getting reset when someone gets put on a hook.
5 -
This lack of any meaningful surrender ability for Killers, combined with every survivor instantly quitting out of the game to avoid the "humilitation" of being Mori'd has just led me to advance my sore winning methods even further. For example, killing two survivors, slugging one, and just chasing the other one around, refusing to down them or hook the other guy, until the second person eventually bleeds out after 4 minutes of doing nothing, and then finding and closing the hatch, and preventing the last survivor from opening exit gates either until they die to EGC.
Now, since this is obviously an unwinnable scenario for the survivors at this point, especially against certain Killers (example: Wraith can easily bodyblock exitgates whenever the last survivor approaches them) we should just let survivors abandon once they're down to 2 and one is slugged. Right?-2 -
My friend and I had three speedhackers, two teabaggers harassing him (he has 100 hours and is learning Wesker), and another Surv who stuck around in the endgame chat just to spam "ggez ezzzzz was there even Killers" a night ago in 2v8. To a baby. A Baby. SOMEONE LEARNING.
Today I was in 2v8 SWF with friends, five to be exact, and we got a baby Huntress and brand new Legion just learning the game in 2v8 to try Killer. They were maybe 500 hours combined and got us, a group with thousands of collective hours, plus a very toxic random Meg who treated them both like absolute crap in the EGC. She called them names. She bodyshamed them. She accused them of being a lesbian. Then when I advocated for the Huntress who was genuinely trying and seemed upset, Meg bodyshamed and orientation shamed me. Oh, and she was hiding her profile so I couldn't even report her harassment whatsoever.
On what planet is this OK when one side does it but not the other? No wonder Killers slug to avoid humiliating defeats like this. No wonder some Killer players get such anxiety loading up. No wonder, no wonder, no wonder.
It's also just an issue of kindness overall, you don't know what someone may be playing this game to escape from. There could be vulnerable people playing, there could be younger people playing, there could be people who have been hurt in the past playing. This is not a "just tough it out" issue either, research has shown that harassment and humiliation online (also called cyberbullying) can and does cause anxiety, depression, PTSD, trauma, and suffering. This behavior over time causes demonstrable harm to people and can ruin mental health. It's not just a little teabag, it's the bagging, the taunting, the harassment, the nasty words in the Endgame chat. Then they come to forums, social media, communities for DBD and they get even more of the same treatment and told to "git gud" instead of given a place to vent, often by more Survivor players who sit there in their four times as great numbers to specifically mock them more. This is not a welcoming environment for ANYONE to get into this game. And what is BHVR's official stance about it?
"Survivors do not have any agency, but Killers have plenty of agency." Yeah sure. Agency to be humiliated until some might even quit the game. And it's because the community, us, we made it like that.
That crap is absolutely heinous.BHVR has to do something about the toxicity at some point, my friend was fine and so was I, but the harassment and toxic nature of this community has the capacity to drive away people who might be new and want to learn. This pushes out people who want to play Killer, but don't want to be treated like this just for playing Killer. Not everyone is going to stick around to be treated like this. You know that and I know that.
I know we're both hardened old goats of the game at this point, we're numb to this. But some new player may not be. In fact, it's already driven players away. It will continue to. DBD has the reputation of being one of the most toxic communities in gaming - and as long as this stuff continues, it deserves it.It needs handled. It NEEDS handled. We need sportsmanship options; this stuff has got to stop. It wasn't okay in the Quake days. It wasn't OK in the COD days. And it's not okay here. At the least give us the OPTION as Killer to forfeit, because Survivor side gets it, why doesn't the other? If the round is a clear loss, it's a loss, let everyone get points and move the actual heck on.
Yes. It's not up for debate anymore. Killers need a surrender option in cases where the game is clearly over, they are in a checkmate situation, and the Survivors will not leave. This thread should now become - and has become it looks like - a place to discuss how and when to implement that. And if the Devs do not listen here, then we need to continue putting it in the surveys until they DO listen.
Post edited by LockerLurk on3 -
This exact issue is why the forums shouldn't have downvotes. I'm not angry when I get them, I just know how much of a cesspit they turned Reddit into. These forums should not be Reddit.
1 -
So I'm supposed to just follow along and not call a spade a spade, just b/c others don't?
The reasons proposed for this feature are just flat out, disingenuous and incredibly biased. There's almost no objectivity.
- survivors can hide and run out at the last 5 seconds of EGC - legit 1% of the playerbase does this. Most people don't do this. Again, acting like this is the norm in your matches, is just a straight up lie to get people on your side.
- survivors can be pushed out but I don't want to face them at the gates for w/e reason - you're playing a pvp game where 1 side loses and 1 side wins. Sometimes you lose. Whats so difficult about pushing people out of a gate?
Survivors legitimately have no option when they're forced to bleed out. I'd be all for killers getting an abandon feature, if it made sense. This does not make sense.
This is just a 'scream for the feature despite not having any logic behind it' type thread.
Oh let me clarify. Killers. Not everyone, just the ones defending this or trying to get this implemented, knowing full well, it makes 0 sense and they just want it for selfish/ego reasons. Not saying survivors are any better, I will call them out just the same (& I have, in the past). But this right here, this is just stupid.
-14 -
My friend and I had…
Today I was in 2v8 SWF with…
And again, we ask where the line is "being an arse" from "bullying"? That first one? We'd call that just being an arse. That second one with the meg? That's someone trying to bully people. If we add a surrender option for everything that could be constructed as bullying then its going to get messy. How many times do you think killers are taunted after they get smacked with a pallet? How many times you think survivors are taunted after they go down? Both happen often, both happen to be used with the normal parts of the game too.
On what planet is this OK when one side does it but not the other?
Neither side, yet BOTH SIDES KEEP TRYING TO DO IT. No wonder that survivor t-bags that killer who tried to slug for the 4k or that killer who tried tunneling them for who knows how many gens.
I have…
The people playing know (or at least we very much hope) they are playing with other people. They willingly and knowingly enter the fog with the risk of interacting with other players that, for lack of better terms, have ######### for personality. Does it make the toxic they spew ok? No, but on that same line, everyone knows what they're signing up for and the risks that come with. Its a similar vein to everything that has human interaction.
BHVR has to do something about the toxicity at some point
What would they do? To do something against the toxicity they need to first define everything that would be considered toxic (like our above t-bagging after a pallet smack) and then put ways to prevent that, effectively railroading how people actually act and play. Where would the limit be? Lets paint an example. If someone typed "D***" what could that mean? Maybe theyre calling you a "d**k". maybe they're saying "dude"? Maybe "damn" in the sense you impressed them. It would need gone cause it can be anything. Look at the chat filter right now for more.
I know we're both hardened old goats of the game at this point
Its not even about being hardened to it, its a matter of what the devs should be adding surrendering too. Adding it to extreme ends of toxicity is something we'd be for, but adding it to something that we can actually and easily stop as a player is not. If it were adding a surrender option when a survivor is X distance from the hatch, we'd agree (reasons: theres no timer to force them, they can sit there forever and t-bag while the killer is actually forced to do something to end the game. The main difference here is that the killer is actually forced to interact with them.). The endgame however, the killer isnt forced to interact with the survivors. They can break anything they left, practice using their power, and rare get a potentially stupid survivor for usually 2 minutes or less. Compare that to what the survivor can do when their a slug. You can slowly crawl and get some boldness points while being forced to watch the killer humiliate you (or try to, to us it just looks like their stupid). One end is milder and can be delt with ways other than a surrender button.
Yes. It's not up for debate anymore.
Wanna know whats funny? We were for adding at the start when it was posted till we read replies that changed out mind. It actually can be debated because theres other ways to deal with this specific problem (The problem in question: Survivors t-bagging at the exit gate). We've heard an idea to have the timer increase rapidly per survivor in the gate, another about ways to add more blocking the exit gate in general, there can be more…creative…ways to end that kind of nonsense without an anticlimactic surrender.
-6 -
There is no line. In this game, they're the same thing in my experience.
I think I'm done with this conversation. I won't argue with people who want to defend toxic behavior.
1 -
DBD has long lived by the principle when 5 people load into the game. One of them will definitely suffer. It does not matter if it is a survivor or a killer, but he will definitely suffer. The only question is who?
I kinda agree with this one, in a way. I wouldn't necessarily say someone is expected to suffer, but I do think that actions and strategies that were generally frowned upon by most of the community have been… well, not normalized per se, but they became something players expected to happen, especially in recent times.
But now that the killer side and its strategies are being changed, or at the very least affected by changes, people expect the same to apply to survivors and their actions. They may not be perfectly equivalent to one another, but the logic here makes sense.
4 -
He basically outlined why you're wrong and your reply is 'well I just wont engage'. Okay. Very rational response. Totally not out of anger/exhaustion b/c you don't like that people disagree with you. Great mentality.
Sorry you and the other killers defending this are being called out for being sore losers & selfish/ego driven.
Stop trying to change the game b/c you get butthurt during a match & want to cry foul. While you're playing the 'power' role.
A lot of us would agree with you if you presented ANY logic to this argument. But none of you do. This is not the right way to balance things out.
-11 -
Walking away from an argument that is becoming heated when one disagrees with an objective opinion is always the mature option.
I play equal amounts of Killer and Survivor. In fact the past year, I played more Survivor than Killer. You're making several heavy assumptions here based on the fact I happened to discuss something that affects Killer, and yet you still come in and add insults about how "butthurt" I am.
I have presented enough logic and my point time and again here in this thread. I don't need to add more. It's always been the same logic: Killers and Survivors both should not have to wait out things to end a match that is already lost and it is unfair to say it's a draw when one side does it but a loss when the other side does. A forfeit should simply be a loss.
If you cannot say anything kind, please don't engage with me anymore.6 -
I'm sorry, what objective opinion are you referring to?
-10 -
I'm not sure why you are angry enough to fight me Volcz, but it's late and I don't have the energy for this. I'm not sure how this thread became such a nightmare, but my position hasn't changed once in the entirety of this thread. It might be time to get mods to lock it because I can't see any way this could possibly continue and be a positive space, people are starting to screech at each other about perceived lack of skill rather than offering solutions to a perceived issue that the majority here agree probably should at least be looked at slightly.
In case anyone is still confused here, my position is, was, and always has been this: Either everyone has an equal forfeit option that ends with a loss if they take it (not a draw), or nobody should have it.
4 -
I am not sure why, it certainly didn't start out this way… An issue was presented, people discussed it, other people came in and tried to make it look like a non-issue "because you're just bad", and it spiraled.
It's still an issue and still needs discussing until and unless the Devs realize "hey, maybe we could fix this if enough players really do find it an issue." That's how literally all other problems have been fixed before. It's how we got AFC and hook respawn again. It's how we get a lot of things.
3 -
Brother, I am not mad. I just want objectivity. Which this forum lacks, heavily. Its always one side vs the other.
I'm not trying to fight with anybody. I just want legitimate reasons laid out that MAKE SENSE, for both sides. Why is that so hard to provide, if your cause/opinion makes sense?
Your end point is fair but both sides are NOT equal. Survivors are forced into certain situations, particularly being bled out by the killer. They can do nothing. How do you attribute that to killers not WANTING to push survivors out at EGC?
This isn't a fight, this is just opinion vs opinion. We all have one..you voice yours, I voice mine.
Nothing more to it. Don't think there's any animosity cause there isn't. I want the game to be better. Thats it.
-11 -
I'm pretty much in agreement with this TBH. I still don't see the inherent issue with simply adding a thing to the game to make it less frustrating for people. Having to wait on your opponent or having to forcibly do stuff to make someone end a round they already won (like crawling to a hook or pushing Survivors out of the game if they won't leave) is frustrating. Why not do something to make the game less frustrating?
It's not even about Survivors or Killers at this point. This game should not be a frustrating exercise in how annoying you can be to the other side. If sticks and carrots do not work, maybe bypassing the behavior causing it is what we need.
1 -
I wish this forum had signatures. So many quotable posts in here now
-3 -
I'll take this at least
3 -
Why should I be a clown in that case?
3 -
If this comes off as aggressive, I really don’t mean it that way, just sharing my thoughts.
Lately, it feels like every time something frustrating happens, people immediately say, “I should be able to abandon or quit the game.” While I do agree that if all four survivors are slugged without ever being hooked, there should be an option to leave.
If you're playing killer and feel anxious or annoyed about pushing survivors out because of potential teabagging, just let it go. Use that time to do something productive in-game. Run around the map, break leftover pallets, or practice your power. Just waste their time. Take Deathslinger, for example, walk around and try to shoot at objects just to sharpen your aim.
Honestly, I think a lot of players are just burned out. What they probably need isn’t an abandon button, it’s to take a break from the game for a few days, weeks, or even months. No shame in that.
-7 -
We want to defend toxic behavior?
We did not condone any of their behaviors. We made a case to point that adding a surrender for the endgame collapse isn't the best of ideas. We even pointed out there could be other options other than adding a surrender to punish the toxic behavior. What we want is something other than an anticlimactic end to every trial. What we want is something that wont set a theme of adding the surrender for more and more things. What we want is something different.3 -
When the killer would abandon in this scenario, the match would then end for everyone WITH THEIR VICTORY. Which you oh so very conveniently forgot to point out. They won. What are you complaining about? In all truth, they had already all but won anyway, the victory just came faster in what was already a near victory scenario. And if the killer wants to try to revert that near loss scenario, they are free to simply not pick the abandon option. It is an OPTION, after all.
Like I said before, that is even *better* than forcing the winner to have to stomach a bot interaction to secure their already earned win. Pretty much no one is playing a multiplayer game for bots, so it is only natural to feel like being forced to interact with them is almost like you're being punished for winning.
I'm sure that in your eyes, you're not the villain. While you argue so very hard to deny others a benefit you're getting. It's okay for you to have it. It's not okay for others. But in your eyes, you must be just, huh? Try to understand this. I sure as hell can't.
-4 -
I think this conversation would be a lot easier to navigate and maybe even agree on if the idea of a “checkmate” was clearly defined. Right now, everyone seems to have a different interpretation. Some people still argue that even when all four survivors are slugged, it’s still not truly over. That kind of subjectivity makes it hard to design any mechanic around the concept.
The original post didn’t list specific conditions for when the killer could abandon, just that it should be available if the gates are powered. But there are too many variables at play for that to work fairly.
If the condition can’t be clearly defined, it can’t be fairly enforced.
So the question becomes: who decides what qualifies as a checkmate? That’s not a small detail, it’s the entire foundation of whether this mechanic is fair or broken.
This is also where I take issue with the claim that survivors and killers would have the “same option.” Survivors abandoning a match doesn’t end the game. The other survivors and the killer can still remain in the match if they want. Killer still gets to see their mori. But if the killer abandons, everyone is kicked out. It doesn’t matter if you were trying to complete an EGC challenge, to some definitions of a check-mate it doesn’t matter if you’re even near the gate at all, the match will just end. That’s not an equal option. It’s an objectively different result. Equal buttons, not equal consequences.
When people brush past that distinction I find it very concerning, especially considering that the whole reason people are discussing a killer abandon mechanic is to avoid BM, to respect time, that choosing “when to explode” button is not agency. But what’s being proposed is a “choose when everyone explodes” button. It’s a kill switch to the whole match, not just one persons game. That’s not agency either.
The comparisons between a BM slug and survivors BM at the gate are also… a bit apples and oranges. They’re both frustrating, both BM, but not the same. Slugging is helplessness. Gate BM is obnoxiousness. One is being insulted by someone speeding away. The other is being insulted by someone standing over you until you die. Both suck, and both should be discouraged, but insisting they’re the same kind of problem just oversimplifies a very complex issue in my opinion. But again, both are not fun, and both should be addressed. But the issues are so different that the solutions should be different too.I do want to reduce BM. I’m all for making the exit gates riskier and giving killers more comeback potential. But where we, and perhaps many others in this discussion thread potentially differ, is that I want to improve the gameplay, not delete it. Try to discourage BM directly. This is why I was not a fan of the abandon mechanic as a solution to slugging, as it doesn’t actually discourage slugging itself at all. It just allows you to leave if it’s happening to you. It’s a solution for the symptom, not the cause. (I’m also not a fan of any kind of abandonment being a draw in any way. A DC should be a loss, across the board. Only exception should be when hackers are present )
If the killer were replaced with a bot in those moments, I’d have no problem. That wouldn’t disrupt the match, and it would allow the killer player to step away if they want. It would still respect their time, without erasing everyone else’s.6 -
The villain? Okay, let me try to be very clear here. I thought my message at the end clarifying that I am not trying to be disrespectful when I am asking questions would help but perhaps not.
Nobody is a villain here. Everyone just has opinions. I do not think you, or any other person here regardless of their stance on this issue, is a villain. Just someone with an opposing viewpoint.
I am not arguing to deny others a benefit I am getting. Because the “benefit” is not “what I am getting”. You are talking about 2 entirely different “benefits”.
You’re saying it would be the same while actively ignoring how it isn’t, and then comparing something that would be the same (like a killer bot replacing a DC) as a “punishment for winning.”
The fact that the survivors still win the game doesn’t change the fact that ending the game entirely wouldn’t matter. If the survivors abandon at the end resulted in kicking the killer to an end game screen, taking away their ability play out the rest of the match, and skipping their Mori entirely - I doubt that would feel very fair to you either. Even if the killer still wins, I’m sure it would still matter that they were ejected from the game. Because you don’t have to be a killer or survivor to care about being ejected from the game.I am unsure what exactly I said to upset you. This is a discussion forum, meant for discussion. Someone asking clarifying questions about your opinion does not mean they’re evil and trying to silence you. I quite literally stated I am trying to understand. I have been civil and would appreciate the same courtesy.
5 -
It's because the survivor abandon button shows up immediately after all the remaining survivors are in the dying state, instead of being delayed by something like 20 seconds, so that the last survivor can't just skip the hook animation or mori animation.
The survivor abandon button was supposed to be in response to survivors being bled out on the ground. But if the killer tries to start the mori animation ASAP after knocking the last survivor to the ground, then the last survivor isn't being slugged.
7
