On the DC system
In Dota 2, a DC rate of 2% (or 1 in 50 games) is considered egregiously bad. Coming from that game, it's very weird to see people arguing against trying to enforce a less-than 1 in 20 disconnect rate (you can disconnect more than twice as often than dota!)
I'm trying to figure out, what's so different about the community or the game that people in one see it as their god given right to DC, and others see quitting early as a massive disrespect to others. I'm honestly stumped.
Comments
-
There are some differences like longer matches, but IMO the main one is that DbD has a very casual culture. So many players have "rulebooks", because in the game's earliest days, I don't think it would've survived without them.
Before the Abandon system was added, if a Killer slugged the whole team, they could just sit there and waste your time bleeding out for 4 mins, and that was only recently fixed. If you wind back the clock further, there's infinites, facecamping, old Brand New Parts, old Decisive Strike, old Borrowed Time, hatch standoffs, deliberately unsafe unhooks, no Endgame Collapse timer so Survivors could hold the game hostage for as long as they could hide, no Bloodlust, etc.
So, the community couldn't trust the game to define all the acceptable rules for them. The dark side of that now is that if people feel their rulebook is being broken and the game's not being played how it "should" be, they might feel entitled to DC.
7 -
In discussions like these, I believe it's worth stepping back and looking at the broader dynamics that shape how different game communities handle concepts like disconnection and penalty enforcement.
In games such as Dota 2 or League of Legends, there's an implicit "contractual culture" at play: when you queue, you’re agreeing to engage in a full strategic session where every player's contribution is critical to the team’s success or failure. This creates not only mechanical, but moral pressure to stay committed.
Dead by Daylight (DBD), in contrast, grew in a fragmented, exploit-prone environment. Early on, the absence of hardcoded systems to prevent behavior like slugging, infinite loops, or hostage-taking meant that many "rules" emerged socially, not through game design. Over time, this cultivated a rulebook-by-consensus culture, where players felt entitled to define what counts as fair or acceptable.
When Behavior now enforces hard systems like Go-Next penalties, it clashes with that informal social legacy. Some see it as reclaiming structure; others see it as authoritarian overreach.
The irony is: both perspectives are valid in isolation. But structurally, a multiplayer game cannot thrive long-term with optional responsibility. If exit behavior (disconnecting, sandbagging, etc.) becomes normalized, the meta collapses… not because of mechanics, but due to eroded expectations. Consistency in enforcement isn’t about punishment, but about preserving mutual trust in the match contract.
Personally, I believe stricter enforcement… like the "active queue serving" system used in LoL → may feel harsh, but ultimately promotes healthier long-term behavior. It signals: "If you choose to play, you also choose to stay."
Whether DBD remains a “casual horror party game” or matures into a truly competitive platform depends on which of these two cultural forces ends up shaping its identity.
5 -
The main difference is that DBD does not have anything resembling a ranked mode. Typically, this is where the harshest penalties come from in most games. The matchmaking is so bad in DBD that people like Hens, who are advising the devs, will openly tell you how bad it is. You need some form of penalty for leaving, but i'm not sure if it's the right approach for a game like DBD. Harsh DC penalties make sense for a well balanced ranked mode that actually matches people of equal skill. It does not make sense for a poorly balanced casual mode that just randomly throws people of all skill levels together.
4 -
I appreciate that BHVR is finally addressing going next, and rewiring the DC system. But where are the improvements to solo queue? The devs can keep upping the punishments for survivors, but it doesn't change the fact that solo queue is a disorganised mess. There have been almost no efforts to fix long standing problems for solo players. We can't even get a PTB to test out basekit Kindred. Such a sad little change, that could potentially help out a lot, and it never shows up for testing.
0 -
The going next issue has a direct negative affect on solo queue. (If you go next with friends, how long until they stop wanting to play with you?) Solo queue, you have to put trust that the other three players you queue with will pull their weight. With the culture of going next you could be stuck in an unwinnable match at the very beginning because someones feelings got hurt. Sooner or later this will cause players that want to play to fall into the same behavior or just quit.
Even in a "casual game", if you have to cooperate with others towards a goal you expect everyone to play their part. It is not acceptable to abandon teammates even in a "casual game".
2 -
Games can't even compare
0 -
dbd players are saltier than moba players. that's all there is to it
1
