http://dbd.game/killswitch
People just dc instead of self unhooking now
One thing that i have noticed increasing tremendously now is that people will now just dc on first hook and rage quit since they can't self unhook. Now i know that we have bots now which do help (i did just 3 man escape out of my last match with the bot) but i find it wierd that people are just increasingly disconnecting.
i think maybe we can excuse a disconnect for bad internet now and then but yes on average people are rage quitting way more often than they should be lately.
Bot behavior is still way wonky even though they do at least "exist" i saw the alan bot tbagging us instead of helping heal the person i was healing. and just wandering around scared and then lasting 3 seconds in a chase.
maybe throw that into quality of life additions.
Comments
-
If the people that used to go-next by hook suiciding are now just d/cing, that's a win in my book. Avoiding the penalty was a large issue in rewarding rage quitting. Now they get the penalty and the rest of the team at least has a bot instead of being a 3v1.
55 -
No matter what systems are in place, players will find a way to stop playing the game if they wanted to. I agree with Crowman here, if their best option for that is to eat a temp ban, then it’s a win in my book.
25 -
As the others have stated above, I do think that this is a better alternative as it leaves a Bot and they get a penalty. However, I also feel it should be mentioned that while the ability to give up on hook has been disabled, it didn’t change why people got to that point. The system was to stop the symptom rather than the cause, so it’s not surprising that people are still quitting the game. It’s good they’re getting penalties, but I don’t think it’s good that quitting is still so common. Hopefully phase 2 will help address some of that too.
2 -
I keep saying it, but the changes to DCing and going next were a bad move. Should've made DCing more attractive by making it less impactful on the trial. Players racking up penalties that keep them out of the game (given the 20 trial cooldown) removes even more Survivors from an already dry queue and encourages giving up in a way that's equivalent to sandbagging. Bots are the healthiest alternative yet the least likely, purely down to an inappropriate moral argument. As if you should be pilloried for leaving what's mostly a casual game.
-16 -
Frankly, I'm not too concerned about people with hour long penalties not being in queue. I would much rather my teammates actually try to play the game.
22 -
Good, let them DC. Then they cannot ruin other players matches for an increasingly amount of time.
20 -
Agreed 💯
12 -
The problem is they now have a strong incentive to make you be down a player versus at least having a bot.
There is no real solution to giving up - the most you CAN do is try and mitigate it. Bots aren't perfect, but they're something more than an empty team slot.
1 -
It's the worst of both worlds. You're just asking for longer queues and players finding unhealthier ways to quit the game versus striking a balance that you might not love but benefits the game overall.
-10 -
Who's up for harsher DC penalties? Anyone? No? Just me? Ok… 😓
13 -
What's the point of fast queues if the first teammate to go down gives up?
19 -
I highly doubt there is enough players with penalty to affect queue times.
Even if it increase by few seconds, I am fine waiting for lobby without a player throwing tantrum when something goes wrong…11 -
Because they're unrelated. Players are still giving up now. Unless you want longer queues and players giving up, you have to compromise somewhere. If DCs had a limited timer and replaced players with bots (or ended the trial for Killer DC) as well as maintaining the surrender option if it's all bots against one Killer, it wouldn't fix the issues that cause players to give up at all but it would keep the queue moving. The game would require better balancing and changes if we want the quality of trials to bump up.
-5 -
The problem is that BHVR have barely addressed the common pain points that lead to players becoming frustrated and DCing. Hopefully we'll see something in the next phase but I definitely feel like they got the implementation order the wrong way around. It's funny to me that Killers are still rewarded for making a trial into a 3 V 1 as quickly as possible, but Survivors face a heavy punishment for doing the same thing. There are even cases of Survivors getting a matchmaking ban for being tunnelled out too quickly (though I'm not sure if that's still happening).
For what it's worth, I think the new system is successful in the sense that I've (personally) seen less Survivors DCing now. No doubt because they know there's a harsher punishment for doing it and/or repeat offenders have locked themselves out of the game for longer periods of time. But lots of players who know how quickly they can become frustrated have stopped playing as much as well, which I think is at least a partial explanation for why Killer queues are so long despite a healthy player count. Survivors and Killers still quit games, they're just being more subtle about it. Survivors will do things like allowing themselves to be grabbed off gens or Killers will turn friendly when they're losing.
13 -
The game would require better balancing and changes if we want the quality of trials to bump up.
How would the devs know what's balanced or not if people keep quitting?
9 -
Have it your way. I don't see the point in extending queues for anything less than more accurate matchmaking. Especially if we're lacking QOL changes like a proper block feature.
Exactly. I haven't seen the quality improve, just less people leaving once the writing is on the wall.
-8 -
Are we forgetting that their own system couldn't tell the difference between tunneling and giving up? Balancing for the game requires a host of different avenues which are all already in place. The stats they do have, surveys, the forums that they pay people to gather and relay feedback on, streamers they pay to do the same, etc.
-5 -
I would rather have longer queues, than have games with players that frequently ragequit.
So yes, give me the longer queue times. Because every game a survivor ragequits early, is a completely ruined game.
6 -
You're implying the majority of players give up. I don't believe that to be the case. It's a small group of players that only care for themselves that will give up the moment the game doesn't go their way or they go up against something they don't like. The less of these type playing the more enjoyable the game becomes for everyone else.
13 -
In most cases, sitting through an already lost game due to someone rage quitting eats up more time than just not having those players in queue in the first place.
7 -
The stats don't show how people died or escaped. Surveys are going to be a mixed bag as that's people's opinions. You can just look at the forums to see how divisive (and other words) our community is. Streamers have their own opinions.
All this, and it doesn't answer the question. If people quit, how does anyone know it was balanced? Those streamers? They could have simply given up on learning to counter the killer and say "to op" for example. Giving up doesn't give data for balance.
2 -
And yet trials are still ruined by early 1v3s when no Survivors give up, among a host of other variables.
Maybe not the majority, but I also don't know that we can pretend that the frequency of going next and the amount of complaints it received were negligible given that it had to be patched out. We're not talking about a perk or a meta, but a core gameplay mechanic that wasn't a huge issue outside of the last 3 years. That's a significant enough portion of players to absolutely affect the queue, in addition to balancing making Killer more attractive already. The only thing I think counteracts that is the revolving door of players that come and go with each new crossover.
-6 -
This is an elimination PvP game. A killer eliminating a survivor is part of normal gameplay.
Players ragequitting is literally against the game rules. It deserves to be punished, because these people are break game rules.
It’s also supposed to be against forum rules to support ragequitting, and many people on these forums are clearly supporting ragequitting, and this should be considered breaking forum rules.
6 -
It's a moot point honestly. Going next can affect kill rates, but there's no way to tell if it was done purposely or on accident, which the failed iteration of the go next prevention proved. You can only guess.
Like I said, it's only one factor of what would need to be utilized to balance the game. On the same token, I can use the old "Nurse has the lowest KR" argument to prove that we should prevent bad players from using her because it affects her balancing. It's just a bad argument for DBD.
-5 -
Are you implying I should be punished for talking about game balancing? That's a little heavy handed don't you think?
-4 -
You’re clearly saying that people should be able to break games rules, without being punished.
2 -
You might think I'm saying that, but can you show me where I ever encouraged or told players to do it? I'll address it if you can.
My point in this thread is that the changes weren't healthy for the game and that they should've balanced it in a different direction.
-2 -
What do you think is a fair punishment, for a survivor that ragequits a game early?
1 -
Personally, I think a DC penalty is fair. But I wouldn't cap it above 5 minutes. Maybe 10 max. I'd rather see better measures in the game to address the loss, more akin to what Left 4 Dead does. We already have bots which is a good start. I think backfilling could help, especially with moving the queue along, but I also see the flaws with that. A proper scaling difficulty and alternate means of moving the trial forward would also help a lot to make the 1v3 and on feel less hopeless, but that's neither here nor there.
Having healthy features behind the DC penalty, while also beefing up the DC penalty, while also removing any softer ways of leaving the trial without first addressing where the prevalence of going next began, was a terrible decision and incredibly short-sighted.
-9 -
They could have simply given up on learning to counter the killer and say "to op" for example
Freddy's release and Skull Merchant 2.0 say hello.
3 -
Bingo
3 -
10 minutes max isn’t a real punishment. You’re saying that someone should be able to ragequit 20 times in the same day, and still only get a 10 minute penalty at most per ragequit.
So if someone had a few Netflix movies they wanted to watch, they could just ragequit as much as they wanted, and watch a movie for 10 minutes while they waited for the DC penalty to go away.
9 -
Strangely, 6.1.0 still happened without going next even being prevalent yet.
Sure. We're talking about a game that has a largely adult audience, no ranked mode, and a small comp scene. Why go scorched earth on leaving what's ultimately a casual game? There's a disconnect there.
-7 -
It's almost like, removing hook struggle didn't fix the core issues with the game lol Wow shocker, I am so shocked that removing Surv agency even more hasn't worked out. Most of my SoloQ games someone DC's and when I play Killer, doesn't matter what Killer, I know they're SoloQ when eventually one of them DC's.
Exactly, but this playerbase is mostly comprised of actual trolls who want to force others to play with them, that's literally it. There is no logical reason why a party game with no sbmm with matches that are intended to last 5-10 mins should even have a DC penalty, let alone one that goes beyond 2 minutes. Half the games issues would disappear if there was no DC penalty.
-4 -
The issues wouldn't disappear, but it really is necessary to not punish players too heavily with the game in the state it currently is. It's high risk, no reward play. Going next became a problem overnight due to that sort of logic. Punishing it without balancing the game is just more of the same. Thankfully it was scaled back, but it still went in the wrong direction.
And I agree about it being very one-sided. It did/does punish Killer as well, but they were never the primary target and were therefore not punished the same. We'll see how phase 2 goes.
-4 -
Yea, I agree. BHVR's gonna need to really put some effort into it as well otherwise the game will just bleed SoloQ players and not only will Killers have longer wait times, but an increased chance of only facing SWF's. The game really isn't viable for SoloQ play rn. Really BHVR should have a system set up that heavily punishes Killers for slugging/camping/tunneling at the start of the match, but once two or three gens are done all penalties cease to exist so it can be used as a legitimate tactic later in the match if need be.
-4 -
100% this. I’d much rather have these people DC and then not be able to play the game at all for a while.
5 -
What kind of punishment are you thinking about? Ppl have a tendency of forgetting that slugging is also the correct counter to flashlight saves and such. I had a full team essentially kill themselves afew weeks ago because they REALLY wanted to deny my 2nd hook of the game.
4 -
I'd argue it's already getting there. The longer Killer queues were a bad sign considering that the game has been balanced the way that it's been for the last 3 years to help encourage a faster Killer queue. Prior to this more recent go next patch, it was one of BHVR's highest concerns. But now that Killer is the more attractive role and Survivor is still the only way to play with your friends outside of 2v8, I don't see the issues plaguing solo or the queue getting better any time soon.
However, licenses are the lifeblood of DBD. As long as they keep pulling new crossover chapters, the game will stay alive indefinitely regardless of what state it's in. It just becomes more of a turnover with players so the chapters have to come in faster and faster.
0 -
So please explain the thoughts here? We're curious.
If we recall correctly 6.1 is when a bunch of basekit changes happened along with the meta shake up.
1 -
The chapters arnt really coming in faster though. We're about to get a survivor only DLC, which makes sense considering the 9.0.0 update didnt have a survivor. They've done midchapter updates plenty before.
-1 -
If it's such a small group then why were DC penalties and anti go next features added? I seem to recall hook suicides/DCs being referred to as an epidemic. I don't believe you can have it be an epidemic and be only a small group doing it.
5 -
A few off the top of my head. Can be as simple as gen repair buffs that start if a Surv is on the hook a 2nd time consecutively that increases exponentially if the next Surv meets the same fate; which could also really counteract those nasty 3v1s that Killers crave at 5 gens. Survs being able to pick themselves up off the ground. The camping meter getting reworked, not only increasing in speed but with a wider radius around the hook as well as not stopping just because the Killer is in chase with another Surv next to it. I mean there's a ton of different ways to go about it.
All of that stuff can be used tactfully at certain points of the match, but lets not pretend like that time is at 5 gens or even 4, yet that's what most Killers are aiming for. So I think when there are 3 or 2 gens left, the penalties should cease since it's understandable why a Killer could have the need for camping/tunneling/slugging to apply pressure, but not prior to that before anyone has had a chance to actually play, which in SoloQ is what I see more often than not.
I also think another core issue here, is that whatever changes BHVR makes to SoloQ, can lead to rampant abuse with SWF's, which is why I'm always advocating for direct mechanic changes to SWF to further balance out the game.
1 -
They're never going to add a SWF only penalty. As far as widening the autounhook range while making it fill while the killer is in chase... The killer really doesnt have much ability of directing where the chase is. If your teammates insist on looping shack while you're in basement instead of taking the chase elsewhere, thats hardly a reason to punish the killer by filling the bar.
As far as the basekit unbreakable thing...again, slugging is the intended counter things like flashlights and Sabo that works to prevent hooking. If I down the would be rescuer, thats hardly a reason for the first person to get up and take the role of rescuer. As long as there's things to deny hooking, slugging has a place.
2 -
It couldn't be the community making it more and more acceptable to just leave.
6 -
If BHVR was smart they would change SWF, even something as simple as not allowing duplicate perks.
The Killer often camps the hook and doesn't take chase, just keeps the Survs from getting close while the game registers it as a "chase" and so the meter doesn't fill, not that it even fills relatively fast anyway. It definitely should be changed to where you can unhook yourself if your teammates are keeping the Killer occupied around the hook as the camping meter should continue to fill for a self unhook before 2nd stage, that would punish camping which is something this game needs early on.
Yea idk, this isn't 2019 lol I have never in recent years been denied a hook because of a sabo since hooks are littered everywhere lol Oh they sabod that one hook, okay I'll walk to the one 10m away and as far as flashlights go, again, maybe an initial attempt to blind if I pickup carelessly but really you can easily smack the lurker and get them to go away. So really no, in very coordinated SWF's there sure is a risk of hook denial, but not in typical matches and certainly not in SoloQ, unless the Killer is being super careless in which they should get punished.
Again, slugging/camping/tunneling has a place in the game, but it shouldn't be at the start of the match.
So overall, no, I disagree with you on everything. It seems you just would like the game to remain an unbalanced mess since you benefit from it, which is your choice after all, though not a very good one.
-2 -
Problems don't need to reach majority status to be a real issue. In a game of five only one is needed to ruin it for the other four.
3 -
If I have 3 ppl swarming a downed teammate after the first down, does it really matter if its at the start of the match or the end? The counter to sabo/pallet/flashlight saves is slugging and trying to down the rescuer. Once again, as long as a hook can be denied, slugging has its place. If that happens after the first down before any gens are done... so be it. Your asking to remove the inherent risk of these plays. The worst thing that can happen if someone attempts a flashlight save for survivors is they go down and now 2 ppl are down. If they just keep popping up and only 1 person is allowed down at once... there's 0 risk.
As for the self unhook, if a killer is camping a hook, the game doesnt see them as in chase. If a survivor gets in chase and leaves the hook, but the killer doesnt... they're no longer in chase. We are talking about a 3 second period here. We're talking about an extended chase around hook.
1 -
Just reiterating what I said earlier that a large part of balance is feedback, which many of the changes in 6.1.0 relied on. DS was a really big one at the time.
You might have me there. It's a nightmare double checking any information with the game since it's never in very convenient places, despite how many social media platforms they have. 😵 I tried finding a list of chapter releases by year and gave up. But it does feel a lot more frequent as time goes on and I'm sure regardless it's going to increase either way. Without a core audience that sticks around, you have to rely on bringing in new people until they leave, and then new people until they leave, etc. Other things like free weekends help too of course.
Ironically despite 2v8 basically being SWF simulator for Killer, it tends to be a more balanced experience overall for Survivor. The only issue being that now they're making combos that hurt the mode. Which again, is a terrible idea given the queues.
To be fair, this is like the argument that streamers control how everyone plays. Could it be true? Maybe? I don't know. But what I do know is that the game itself naturally dictates the flow of the trial and how players engage with one another. Nobody has to be told that camping/tunneling/slugging is effective when it's the obvious conclusion. Same thing with going next when the trial is a bust. You only have to wipe so many times before you gain enough game sense to know when to leave.
And I'd wager that before the change, most of us had at least 1/3 of our trials per session involve some form of DCing or going next, judging by my own experience and comments made across social media. That's still a very considerable number, especially given its lifespan. I don't know why now that it's gone, we have to be revisionist about that.
7 -
Stop rage quitting. Accept that you will lose games. I am so tired of crying entitled sore losers demanding free disconnects. Play the game to the end and show good sportsmanship to the other real people playing a multiplayer game with you. Place your constructive feedback here like a functioning adult and stop being a worthless burden on the player-base.
6
