http://dbd.game/killswitch
Opinions on the new Go-Next Prevention system?
Comments
-
When you are under contract, you can go against what is in the contract but not without repercusions. Players agree to play a match when you hit ready or waitout the timer. It was you and only you who decided to join the match.
-13 -
Yeah, BHVR has really screwed up this patch. The false reports, lack of testing etc. has made it even more worse.
12 -
The government has police that work for them and enforce their will. Whether or not any contract is real and enforceable is up to the government. Does BHVR have police that enforce this supposed contract which you have imagined in your head? No. Thus, there is no contract.
7 -
This is a strange tangent to go on, but I'll ask this:
Why is the killer not bound by this same standard?
I've had games where killers afk, or go face a corner. Why does this system not equally punish that behavior here?
It still ruins the match for 4 other players, yet seemingly none of these afk detection or go next systems even attempt to make sure the killer is active in the game.
7 -
I wonder what this thread is about then? I wonder who decides what the rules are? I wonder who has the power to ban players?
Curiouser and curiouser.
-7 -
Why do you assume I only speak about survivors?
-3 -
I like the removal of giving up on hook.
Hate how the system can actually punish survivors for being tunnelled out.
5 -
Yes, they do have the power to ban players from their video game, of course. They seem to be using that power to ban people who are cleansing totems and missing skill checks and getting killed too quickly, apparently. And, that's because social conditioning is a complicated art, because people are intelligent and creative and have agency. They should make the game balanced and not try to micromanage every interaction and let players come up with their own play strategy. At the end of the day, that's the only limit of their power. Sure, they can ban everyone, but they are a company selling a product. So, this would be a strange decision. But, if they do ban us all, I have like 1000 games on Steam that I've literally never played. I'd probably be relieved, tbh.
4 -
So you admit they are what governs the game. So a contract exists.
Your issue is how they govern. You see, that's two different things.
-5 -
You could kick me out of your house even if you invited me into it. Comparing it to a contract though sounds silly.
7 -
I normally play killer. This one time, during a match, suddenly I realized that I had a need that couldn't wait. I rushed to the rest-room, only taking time to grab my favorite bathroom book, which is an atlas and timelines of history book. I was not back quickly! My digestive system, in this instance, wished to be thorough. When I returned, the players all were saying "Thank you" in the chat as I saw the match over screen. So, they didn't seem inconvenienced. And, if someone feels like I should be banned for having a bathroom emergency, or even frequent ones, then I'm not sure what to say. But, honestly, I don't think that either behavior should be banned. If someone leaves a match, they'll probably lose the match. It's a self-solving problem.
8 -
Inviting someone to your home is not equivalent to this conversation.
-5 -
You know that people renege on social contracts all the time, right? It's just a nominal human behavioral strategy. Other primates do this also. It's not just humans. You aren't going to be able to escape it. So, embrace it and move on. And, besides which, the fact that I would deny that the community even exists in the first place means that any "contract" you imagine is, well, imaginary.
4 -
I mean, the system doesn't currently bind the killer in the same way.
I assume if you have a balanced take that all 5 players are "bound by contract", as you put it, then you should at least acknowledge that the current system is not attempting to enforce this for everyone.
But you didn't answer my question either:
Why is the killer not bound by this same standard?
Because it seems that your entire premise falls apart simply because the system isn't trying to "enforce a contract", it's only enforcing 4/5 of one.
Which seems to completely undermine your premise and argument.
6 -
Are you asking for no consequence to leaving a match early. That players can be free to end their involment at anytime and move to another match just to do the same? Because we've been there, done that. 3v1 are not fun and not balanced for the survivor side. Especially at 5 gens. If a game essentially ends after the first down why would players wait in queue just to face the same thing again?
-8 -
Oh, yeah, absolutely, don't try to force someone to play if they don't want to. It's not that strange, and this isn't a new problem.
Ever heard of chess? I love it. It's older than video games. I used to play competitively in high school. You know what happens when it's clear that your opponent is going to crush you in a tournament? I mean, when you are playing out of your league. You resign! Also, it's polite to resign such cases. It's totally ok!
Now, practice, you probably should play better placers, of course, just to get better. But, no one should force you to play. That's crazy.
So, yes, absolutely, I think there should be no penalty if someone doesn't want to play. They aren't your hostage. It's polite and courteous to allow someone to resign if they wish to. It's civilized behavior.10 -
Some chess masters know they lost after the first move. There are no chess masters that flip the board after that one move.
There's one thing in common between chess and DBD. No one wants to play with table flippers.
-4 -
if by improvement you mean killswitch and test a new version on a ptb then yeah sure I agree
8 -
Someone next to me was listening to a streamer discussing complaints about the game penalizing players for dying too quickly whether due to tunneling, being new, or both.
7 -
OK, and if you try to force people to play, you're just going to fail. It doesn't matter what you do. They can literally get up and leave their computer and go outside and take a walk if they want, and you literally can't do anything about it. You are but a brief phenomenon in a very big and endless world, and it might pain you that you control nothing, but that's just how it is. But, worry not. We're all in the same boat. You can't control me, and I can't control you.
12 -
Yeah, the current system is severely bugged and is giving false judgement upon players who don't mean to die incredibly early/quick into the match. I just find it worrying that it wasn't tested AT ALL in PTB. (Public Test Build)
8 -
I hate this new system, Ive been banned 2x today alone for matches I didn't "intentionally lose" I missed a skill check or got caught fast off hook cause of a tunneler and they gave me another ban for now 15 minutes none of these have been my fault so why am I getting a penalty when I'm just playing the game against a Springtrap, this needs to removed or reworked ASAP having your playerbase litterly get banned out of the game their playing just for playing it? This would be unacceptable in any other game and why they haven't disabled the new system already within the last day is beyond me cause this is making me not want to support the game anymore if playing a NORMAL GAME GETS ME BANNED WITH A DISCONNECT TIMER! This isn't how a development studio should react to players getting spontaneously banned because of a faulty system they implemented i bought a skin and might of played it more today if I wasn't fearing for my own safety match after match now wondering if whatever god awful system they introduced is going to give me a another penalty for playing the game normally!
11 -
the devs >needs< to read this.
4 -
Do they not? I'm pretty sure there have been anti-afk systems for killers in the game for years. Isn't that why people were making a certain killer with a certain ability their go to for botting as killer? (Don't want to say who since i'm not familiar on how combating that has been going compared to the past.) I just remember some regions specifically having issues with AFK killers even within the past few years.
This. Taking your ball and going home was always grounds for a whupping the next day. It was also the fastest way to get uninvited from future games. Sportsmanship can't exist if you're unwilling to accept an outcome (or even the rest of a match) the moment you deem it unviable (or even unwinnable.) This still persists in a lot of other genres like FPS/MOBAs/RTS/FGC/etc but for some reason it apparently doesn't apply with this game specifically.
-3 -
Good in theory, bad in practice.
4 -
I hope they will read this. It's an urgent matter that needs to be resolved. Now, this has never happened to me at all. But seeing others suffering from this, makes me feel like it is not fair at all to see people getting falsely reported by the new system. Hence, I'm hoping that this post will get acknowledged and something can be carried out.
It makes me feel empathetic too, as people just want to play survivor. But is unable to due to this crappy system.
5 -
Tbh, this wasn't even tested properly either. People suspected that it would be active in the Beta build, yet it wasn't. And now it got released on day one of this new chapter, it has a lot of false judgement and unfairness.
11 -
Yeah. It's punishing several kinds of legitimate players in the hopes of occasionally punishing a troll.
The thing is, even people who are "rage quitting" (and just trying to get out of the match) aren't trolls. The flawed logic in the punishment is that if they're miserable enough to want out of the match to begin with, then from their perspective they're already being punished. Slapping another punishment on top isn't going to be a useful deterrent, because it misses why it's happening to begin with.
Same for the "AFK" problem of two Survivors hiding and waiting for each other to die in hopes of getting the hatch. Those players are doing that out of desperation for their own win condition, not out of trolling or any other malice. Punishing them makes no sense, because they already don't want to do that, they simply feel they have no other choice.
The root issue is Survivors being forced to stay in matches of a video game that have become no longer fun to them. The solution is to try to reduce situations in which the game isn't fun, not punish players for not having fun. Even if the latter wasn't hitting false positives it would be a bad idea that would only drive players away over time.9 -
I've not heard of any penalties except a regular dc penalty if the killer actually exits the map early. I've had killers go face a corner, be afk the entire match, or even during the twins bugs where they physically can't move or do anything. Never once have I heard of anyone mention dc penalties because of any of these. This would also include killers body blocking survivors in the corner.
There's I guess a chance it does exist, but since I don't do any of these things, I don't have any first hand account of it.
But even so, the "new patch" afk system has literally nothing in it for killer. No requirement to "play the game", wether that would be in chase, damage gens, injure survivors, hooks, anything.
At the bare minimum, this 9.0 afk system has very, very strict prove of what survivors need to do to be considered playing, and says literally nothing for killers.
Same thing with the "go next" penalty. Seems like a killer standing in the corner from the start of the game, or after a bad first chase checks all of the boxes of refusing to play, but there's nothing to force them to play it out. And no penalty unless they choose to "exit game" (or otherwise disconnect). Not that this is common, per se, but if we're taking about "you signed up for this match, play it out" then this is exactly that scenario, but with no penalty for one team.
It's a flaw in how that person was arguing. These aren't necessarily identical scenarios, but the reality is that you can't simply force someone to play out a game they don't want to. And that reality is lacking from the "contract" discussion.
4 -
"Go next" started happening because there was a DC penalty to begin with. The irony is, now that bots exist, the DC penalty actually makes things worse. It's better for the rest of the team that a Survivor DCs than intentionally get hooked, because at least the player will be replaced with a bot.
Personally, I would rather players get no penalty and just be replaced by a bot, than innocent players be punished for being miserable or not playing well enough.
8 -
I've had killers go face a corner, be afk the entire match, or even during the twins bugs where they physically can't move or do anything. Never once have I heard of anyone mention dc penalties because of any of these.
There's a very low threshold for how much the killer needs to participate in the match to avoid a penalty. I've had real life issues pop up that had me walk away during the loading screen and I didn't get back until after the match ended, and because I did literally nothing I received a penalty as if I disconnected. That even happened once when I returned so late in the match that, while I did something, it was so little the game was like, "nuh-uh" and gave me a penalty, I didn't get to keep the small amount of BP I made at the very end.
I've also gotten completely AFK killers who didn't disconnect but on the end screen it displayed the icon for disconnecting along with 0 points, meaning they got a dc penalty for AFKing.
1 -
I've gotten a false warning after being tunneled out early already. It wouldn't have been so annoying if it wasn't so obvious what had actually happened (he literally sat in the door next to hook then followed me off as Meg sprint bursted away). Makes me worried for the new players who joined this chapter.
8 -
Bandaids to prevent going next are not going to make people enjoy the game more. There are issues with the flow and pacing of trials that have to be addressed. Flailing at symptoms isn't going to fix anything.
The timing of this is ridiculously poor too. I really struggle to imagine what conversations are like with the managers who approved this going to production during the largest influx of new players the game has seen. Like...what on earth are we doing here?
13 -
By the way, chess-masters don't know if they're going to lose on the first move. All of the opening are well known and understood even by beginners. It's after the opening that the game begins.
6 -
The removal of self unhook was enough. The system is super unnecessary and will most likely always end up punishing innocent players.
Just add Kobe back to endgame, where it doesn't matter if someone wants to die, and then keep it as it is, without the punishment system. Then i think it'll be close to perfect.
6 -
Was being facetious but thanks for the insight.
-3 -
Too many thing at once, yeah. They could of done a stage approach. Just removing self unhook won't disincentivise runing to the killer or going afk.
False positives will always occur in a detection system like this. There are legit outcomes that look like go next. While not possible, maybe they should have an individule probability score for all players. If they do a go next like action the score increases. At a threshold the probabilty that player is trying to go next becomes more accurate.
-3 -
The problem with this system is that it'll either be too strict and end up like it is now, or it'll be so loose that it won't do anything. I can't really see how they can balance it as long as camping/tunneling/new players exist. New killers will make dumb mistake that can get them killed. Meanwhile tunneling out a survivor super fast is definitely possible within the first couple minutes of the game.
Going AFK/running to the killer/throwing the game are reportable offenses, so I don't see why they can't ignore the system and just let people report the old school way, for these extreme cases. Maybe use that as motivation to improve their reporting system.
6 -
AFK is reportable but the other two listed would be ignored. BHVR doesn't record our games to verify. I wish they did because that is one step closer to detecting cheaters.
Yes there is a thin line between intentional and normal game play. But also take these false penalty reports with a grain of salt. There are those that want zero penalty for any DC, that will claim falsely penalized just to make the system look more broken. Not a discount that the system can produce false positives.
-4 -
Ok unpopular opinion here but the whole dc penalty needs to be removed, the purpose of bots was to replace dc'ed players, and id rather have the bot than a 3 v 1. A DC penalty doesnt make sense in this game, id honestly rather see some sort of "Que" system implimented like Overwatch does where, when you que up for a game if theres a free spot in an already started game you take THAT spot, maybe maybe a seperate spot for those willing to do that, 500% bloodpoints or some other incentive and boom theres that issue solved. As for the go next, worse, decision, ever….when theres 2 people left most of the time last person will throw on hook, why? To give a chance to the last player standing, so someone has a chance of escape, a truly altruistic sacrifice….however now your not allowed to be considerate of a teammate else face the wrath of a penalty? DBD use to be one of my fav games, and ill continue to play it most likely, like many, but some of these changes they're making do not make sense whatsoever…its a game meant to be fun, noone here is playing for money….DC pentalties feel more at home in a ranked type gameplay than a casual "for fun" playstyle that i THOUGHT this was meant to be….maybe that could be another option, make a ranked (with all the rules and dc penalties, and other BS some of us dislike) and a ranked mode for those willing to suffer through matches, else be penalised….thats my thought on this whole thing.
3 -
Not being able to let go is miserable for everyone in this situation
5 -
Ikr? Just been downvoted for no reason lol
2 -
First of all its flat out ridiculous to expect anyone to play a match they don't want to be in. For example a 1000 ping killer, I want to go next. Not get a DC penalty AND lose ranks… wth
5 -
Interesting. According to the patch notes, it should still be possible to ‘go next’ in this specific scenario, yet you can’t.
No wonder why there’s confusion. It’s borked.
5 -
Yeah, a few other people have said in other threads that they're needing 5 misses in the same situation too - so it's likely a widespread bug
2 -
I'm thankful that it has been killswitched, but I am still disappointed that BHVR has never actually tested this. And the fact that you're unable to unhook yourself when everyone is slugged is ridiculous. Would've been better if the whole thing got removed too as no one really likes it, and I miss getting the adrenaline of getting the 4% chance... 🫠
It would've been nice if they had a certain criteria that the match had to follow. For example, no one is able to unhook themselves within the first 5 minutes of the match. UNLESS you're using perks that grant yourself or others luck, using Deliverence OR using luck offerings. Then after the 5 minutes, players can use their attempts. There's no way of entirely stopping survivors from giving up, as they'll always find their way around it.
3 -
I don't think anyone should be forced to play in any way, shape, or form. I would truthfully rather see DC penalties removed, and then people can DC and leave a bot in the match. They aren't great, but they are at least a cold body to attempt to assist the team. And frankly, from the few occasions I've played with them in a public match, they are actually better than the ones they replaced.
Most of my complaints with the "go next"ers is that they leave it as a 3v1 instead of a 4v1, usually before the first gen is popped. That puts the Survivors in a deep hole right from the start, and a lot of Killers get upset about it as well and go "hardcore" just to get the match over with. By letting these idiots DC instead, bots get put in place, and you can continue the match reasonably normally. That removes the major issue with people leaving a match early for whatever narcissistic reason they have come up with for themselves.
The real problem is of course the mentality behind it all. Bunch of immature whiners who want things to go their way every time. Haven't had a reality check ever in life, and have been handed things on a silver platter rather than earning them. You absolutely cannot fix this in a video game. They will always be there in one form or another. By providing them an easy way out, you remove any potential blowback that will hurt the other gamers even more (sandbagging and all that), and they can get on with whatever idiocies they have brewing in their mind. If you force them to play, they will just cause even more of an issue and harm the game even more.
I truly do not see any advantage at all with having system in place to stop this. It in fact, makes it worse. In real life, I would refuse to reward this behavior, but in a video game… let them have their "win" and let a bot take their place. That way there are 4 "players" who want to play the game, rather than 3 and some idiot who is going to make the match a living nightmare for the rest, including the Killer.
2 -
What still surprises me more than anything is that for years we've been told that we can't block players from queuing up with us, we can't blacklist killers or perks, we can't have stricter MMR, or even a "quitter queue" like some people have suggested, all because it would affect matchmaking. And yet we can allow players to rack up large DC penalties for nothing that don't count down unless they're in game? It really goes to show where their priorities lie.
2
