http://dbd.game/killswitch
So... when is the anti-tunnel and anti-slug measures BHVR promised is coming in...?
Comments
-
I enjoy playing solo, but occasionally I receive penalties.
These are penalties for being tunneled by the Killer and having the game intentionally abandoned.
At that time, I was rescued from the hook, moved a short distance, and was being healed when the Killer killed me.
Why should a survivor who is being tunneled have to receive a penalty?1 -
Are you using Nightlight as per usual? Stop lmao, casual players don't upload their stats
6 -
So all of those killrates are still better than they should be despite nurse. Or do you still want to pretend that this game should be a killer fantasy simulator?
8 -
On top of that, Nightlight has been counting abandons as escapes.
And BHVR stats ignore games with DCs.
So it's really nice that all the stat tracking we have comes with massive caveats to make it grossly unreliable.
8 -
Do we want killers with unique strengths and abilities, like we used to have for old DBD? Or do we want every killer to have the same cookie cutter template like modern DBD?We is always tough to get at, but I'd opt for more uniqueness, though I think that poses a lot of concerns.
1: One of the killer strengths, though less relevant to those of us who are involved with DbD in one form or another every day, is just survivors being uncertain of their powers. Twins is so rare that when I hear the telltale noises my brain takes a moment to remember what I'm facing.
For a wide range of the playerbase, this gives the killers an advantage where survivors lose critical time early going 'okay, I'm facing X, I should be doing Y'.
At a certain point though you get to a level where survivors have mapped out plans for every possible killer. Designing the game only around this extreme would be disastous for reasons we've both mentioned. So BHVR/we have a choice, unique killers with the idea that not all of them will hold up, or stay to a few proven categories (i.e. the quickly becoming hated 'dash slop') that can be more consistently balanced across all MMRs.
2: A related point is that some killer are what I think of as puzzle or gimmick killers. That being there is something about their playstyle that survivors need to figure out. Xeno is a good example - once the survivors figure out how to use the turrets they are going to have a pretty big advantage. I think that is inevitable to a degree, If after the survivors figured out the killer's gimmick the game was then a 50/50, it would be so incredibly lopsided before that as to break down.
Pig has been mentioned so let's look at her. Deploying a head trap poses roughly an equal challenge whether it is deployed by an average player or the best Pig in the world. There's a few minor differences, but largely this game element in the survivors hands. They control how well its played around, i.e. the pros and cons on getting it off or just focusing on gens. I think that's just a part of asyms, some game elements will take one sides skill far more into account than the other.
-
So I'm all for unique killers, but I recognize that some designs are inevitably going to trap certain killers in the weaker tiers. I'm okay with that (though I'll get back to the way it can be dealt with a little later), but I don't know about the overall community.
Even without the tunnel changes in place, you ask anyone what a killer needs for modern DBD, and the answer every time is they need mobility to keep up with the pace of the game...Part of my disagreements with the response to the anti-tunnel changes, is that any change is always going to hit the weakest killers the hardest. New strong survivor perk, more pallets, base kit mechanics, etc. Even when we get pro-killer sided changes, say smaller maps, those will benefit the stronger killers more than the weaker killers.
And as a live service game BHVR will keep making changes, so its always going to be an issue.
I felt a more conservative approach that isn't such a hard ball slap is a better approach... because I honestly can't see how satisfying the condition of making a killer fun and fair can happen, when you're trying to insert changes that force a "fair Blight chase gameplay style", on a killer like Pig, without making Pig not Pig anymore... it just can't work that I can see…As I mentioned earlier, I think BHVR would have been better off doing this piecemeal, starting small and if they get the results they want, stopping, but that's not their nature.
I also wish we knew what BHVR's 'panic' point was on kill rate targets. We all know 60% is the number that gets mentioned a lot, but at what point below that do they panic. 55%, 50%, 40%? Because if the changes were made and some killers dropped a few percent I'd be fine, but think anything approaching a 10% drop would need quick overhauls.
Complaints are frequent about BHVR's pace of changes, but unfortunately we don't get data from them more frequently, so none of us can be sure how 'broken' something might be.
I do think the unique hook benefits offers a way forward for BHVR dealing with weaker killers without automatically destabilizing lower MMR. People have proposed in the past killers like Pig just getting a strong gen kick or slightly higher basekit move speed, which I think would just make them way too strong in lower MMRs. I think stronger unique hook benefits offer more skill expression that won't immediately capitalized on by newer players, while giving more experienced players a strategy element to utilize.
3 -
Yeah its getting bad. Why use skill when you can proxy camp hook, tunnel and repeat? Or just not hook at all and slug everyone? Killers say its not an issue because its a broken mechanic in their favor.
5 -
I have some friends I was playing with every night for hours, for months. They've also been playing for years, almost the length of the games existence. I see them on less and less, for shorter periods. One of them gets mad about the tunneling and ragequits regualrly. Then he's just gone for the night. I have some others who have trickled away recently too. I'm playing killer more and more. It's getting gloomy. If I run out of friends I guess I'm a killer-only player again.
10 -
As per usual? I rarely use stats for unofficial sources. Ghoul yes, but i don't think we have official stats from Ghoul. Want to look at literally ever single official stat BHVR has ever released about nurse? Because she's almost always the lowest killer in the game
-2 -
No, they aren't. The devs balance for a 60% kill rate. But if you actually read my post you would have already seen that i mentioned that.
-3 -
If someone ragequits regularly, that means Go Next isn't being harsh enough. People that ragequit regularly, really need to have harsher punishments. They are the #1 problem with solo q.
-10 -
So youre still under the same misconception as the devs. Pretty good job so far I guess.
-2 -
skill isnt required on either side to win
-7 -
You are missing the point here. People don't ragequit or DC regularly without a reason.
The point is that excessive tunneling being the problem, which is almost happening every single match.I have a friend who never DC's but today I am pretty sure he was close to considering it, because of excessive tunneling.
How much more abuse do we survivor players need to endure before we get proper anti-tunnel, and discouragement for the killers to practice that kind of "strategy"?10 -
I honestly wonder what creates this mentality of "Everyone has to be miserable and they're going to like it, or else they can leave and they won't be missed".
12 -
And the reason is a complete lack of respect for teammates, and a complete lack of respect for the rules.
The game is better off without frequent ragequitters. They are the #1 problem with solo q,. They should not be bargained with, since they act out of entitlement, and you can't fix that. They should be forced to play with other people that frequently ragequit, so they can ruin each other's games.
Really, just do that. Place the frequent ragequitters with each other. It's completely fair, because if someone thinks it's acceptable to ragequit, they should be 100% fine being in groups with other people that think the same way.
-5 -
I think that's about the most entitled comment I've heard in a while. 🙄
13 -
I'm sorry, I gotta disagree with that. Rage quitting isn't the main issue of Solo Queuing. As @THE_Crazy_Hyena said, people would mainly DC for a reason.
Hence, tunneling has gotten so frequent, people would DC as there isn't any point to continue playing. It makes matches boring as someone is always being targeted and the killer isn't going for anyone else. No one should be forced to play a match that is 'depressing'. The main issue for solo queue is lack of comms. I can't tell my allies if I'm being camped or need healing or whatever.
9 -
No one is being forced to play a match they don't want to play. No one is physically restrained to their computer or console, with a mouse or controller physically glued to their hands. But people absolutely deserve punishments if they ragequit.
And people mainly DC for a selfish reason. Sometimes it's "this map is boring" or "I got chased first" or "I don't like the killer" or "I don't like one of the killer's perks" or "I don't like my teammates" or "I only want to play games where I'm clearly winning". Selfish selfish selfish.
-6 -
You keep saying this yet you have zero evidence, only assumptions, as to why people quit.
6 -
Fair enough, but I really don't think it's the problem with solo q. More punishments and othering them won't solve the problem, as we've seen with anti-go next. At some point we should try to strike a balance.
7 -
Idk if that's made up assumptions or you just got really bad solo queue teammates...
5 -
Most survivors play through their games without frequently ragequitting. They are playing games that are sometimes frustrating, but they still play through the games. These survivors deserve to be in games with other survivors that will actually play through games, even if they might be frustrating.
And again, the frequent ragequitters being placed together, is the perfect Go Next solution. Anyone that thinks it's fine to ragequit, should be happy to be with other people that also think it's fine to ragequit. They can ruin each other's games, and the rule-abiding survivors that want to play out their games, won't need to suffer the awfulness people that selfishly ragequit.
-6 -
Rage quitting isn't my peak issue with solo Q, it still happens even when go next was just introduced and the new dc penalty.
It's tunneling and slugging stuff which should have been tackled first. Not punishing survivors even more, people rage quit for a reason in most games, regardless if it's justified. If it's happening often, something is wrong with the core game, shocking news (sarcasm): It's not fun in a lot instances where you're slugged/tunneled proxy camped. Queueing up into multiple matches like this is awful.
So no, I want these changes ASAP, I was looking forward to the incentives for hooking different survivors as killer and finally being rid of the awful gen regression meta. I do agree the downside was harsh, but the gen regression changes should have stayed for the perks, it makes no sense, but better gut tenacity…7 -
Placing frequent ragequitters with each other shouldn't be considered punishment. It should be considered placing like-minded people with each other. It's greatly improving the matchmaking.
-1 -
I'm sorry with killers like Krasue and Ghoul which are awful to play against, I'm not faulting people for wanting another killer rn. awfully designed
2 -
I was going to say something like that for the other response. That the queue tends to be a high priority for BHVR. It's why we don't have true blocks or power/perk bans or perks with BP incentives. Asking for a separate one for ragequitters is unrealistic.
The only exception is how damaging to the game anti-go next was and current DC penalties, but to be totally honest that might be explained away via Play While You Wait being tested.
2 -
I agree with this. i find it crazy ppl want to RQ without any penalties
exactly. abandoning your teammates and disregarding the rules of the trials is so disrespectful.
Yea put the Ragequitters with each other, see how they like it when their teammates abandon them for no "good" reason. Ragequitting is never acceptable and theres no justification for it.
Kind of sad that you're getting downvoted just for speaking truth about ragequitting.
-2 -
Why am I quoted here? Who are you talking to? I'm totally indifferent to this idea of yours, though it would also punish people who have internet issues or DC for reason that don't involve "rage".
I want to know if your insider knowledge on why people quit is based on anything other than vibes. If your soloq, you shouldn't have much communication with your teammates, especially if they leave the match early.
I, on the other hand, am not soloqing, so I can tell you that 95% of the times my partymates DC intentionally it's because of tunneling.
9 -
The queue time doesn't need to be a priority for frequent ragequitters. They are already supposed to get time penalties, so BHVR can just shift the time penalties into having a longer queue time for their ragequitter's queue.
-3 -
And that benefits the queue how? It's removing more players that aren't being replaced.
6 -
If ragequitting is so common, surely these people have already experienced what it's like to have others quit on them as well. It's not like a separate queue for ragequitters will be a new experience for them.
A separate ragequitter queue will lead to longer queue times for everyone. Perhaps even more so for the non-ragequitters if ragequitting is as common as people are making it out to be.
5 -
I would happily agree to longer queue times, if it means my games won't be ruined by frequent ragequitters.
It benefits the quality of matchmaking, because the rule-abiding survivors that actually play out their games, won't have their games ruined by frequent ragequitters anymore.
-2 -
That's not a misconception, its literally something the devs have stated.
1 -
Well, like @CrypticGirl said, if it's so common, then the ragequitter queue is going to move much faster to the point that ragequitting would make the most sense to do. If it's not that common, then it means that even the non-ragequitting queue would still have a fair amount of ragequits. And like anti-go next, the system used to determine ragequits would possibly open the door to punishing players who aren't doing it, further impacting the queue.
In that case, what would prevent Survivors from deciding to purposely ragequit to enter a queue that is less likely to punish them anyway than staying in one that doesn't and walking on eggshells?
5 -
My matches are already 80% ghoul and krasues, so if we get anti tunneling and camping but the same killers ive already having to verse i dont mine.
My last few matches have been ghoul, ghoul, krasuses, ghoul, krasuse.
Edit: next match after writing this, another krasue.
4 -
Nope. I’m not going to entertain this garbage false positive theory, that’s so rare that it literally takes over two months to get one single video evidence of it happening. The false positives aren’t happening often enough for me to care.
There’s nothing preventing people from purposely trying to enter the ragequitting queue. As long as they are banned from being in my games, I don’t care what they are doing in the ragequitting queue.
-5 -
What about those of us who don't see alot of ragequitting? They're so far and few between in my games that a ragequitting queue seems like overkill to me. Last one I had was when Krasue was released, and I'm assuming it was because they wanted to see the new killer and I was playing Freddy
6 -
Exactly. Tunneling is the main cause for DC.
Sure, some people do DC if they are found first, but maybe they have played a lot of games beforehand where they have been tunneled out, and they don't want more repeats of that.And yes, I too will DC because of tunneling if it goes too far, especially against krasues who are dead set on tunneling, who also runs bamboozle and dissolution, or Oni. I can't stand the way people play Oni these days.
It isn't fun. That is core issue, and why people just want to go next faster.I have also seen a lot of killers DC as well, so this is not a survivor-exclusive problem.
1 -
Fair enough.
I'd elevate the fun argument. I think people DC/give up the most when they're not having fun and there's a laundry list of reasons behind that. Camping/tunneling/slugging is a major one, as are bully squads. So are endless trials or trials that end too quickly. Many times there are personal reasons, like DCing on first down. But at the end of the day, fun is a major component of any game and it doesn't feel like the highest priority most of the time. In my opinion.
3 -
I'm just adding my two cents here but last night, I took notes on my games as survivor.
Of twelve total games, I only had one teammate DC mid game, but I had four games with hard tunnelling and extreme slugging. Two of those games, I also had killers humping downed survivors. Also the bot that replaced that teammate was more helpful for the rest of the game than the original teammate was while they were there.
So quite frankly, given that 'ragequitting' impacted 8% of my games yesterday, while tunnelling and slugging impacted 33.3% of my games yesterday, I'm much more concerned with the latter than with teammates DCing.
10 -
Let's bring OTR. Scratches disappear now, so it's stronger than before the nerf, right? It's nerfed if you're aiming for body blocks and light stuns since the seconds are reduced, but for countering campers like you, it's a pure buff.
-4 -
It's almost as though one issue is seriously affecting the games health and the other is overblown.
I had 6 killer matches today. One match had two peopele bot out. Another had one. In both instances, the team was cooked. There was zero hope. It had no impact on the assured outcome.
7 -
IT'S NOT COMING. That was just a distraction to push the perk changes that they didn't reverse …and then now this whole fake more pallets nonsense 😒
0 -
Just about every other online game does it.
Ragequitters either get banned, put in low priority queue or gets put with other ragequitters.
Cant believe how many are still defending ragequits.
2 -
I don’t hate the idea outright but think the implementation they were working with (that thankfully got canned) wasn’t the right way to go about it.
I don’t have answers for the actual right way to go about it, but I do think them building a strong foundation will allow them to more effectively balance existing killers around that new baseline - hopefully.0 -
I would happily agree to longer queue times, if it means my games won't be ruined by frequent ragequitters.
Unfortunately, most people don't share that sentiment. When the devs first tested the SBMM system, testing out queue time priority vs. quality match priority, long queue times were a huge complaint about the latter.
And what was the biggest frustration for Killers in 2v8 again? Oh yeah, the insanely long queue times!
A ragequitter queue will never fly if it just leads to longer queue times for all players.
10 -
I'm just going to jump in and point out something about the forums meta here.
This thread. Right here. It's exactly the problem with discussing anything about tunneling.
It applies to far, far more, but you can look at the history of posts on this forum, and every single time recently that there's been a thread gaining traction about survivor issues (which is usually tunneling) we get this:
A completely derailed thread from a small handful of extremely loud and insanely biased (to the point of being just rage bait) commenters who take a thread about "when are we getting the postponed changes" into "punish them harder".
Which wouldn't be so frustrating, except this is the exact kind of tactic that gets anti tunneling pulled (effectively cancelled for all we know at this point) on day 2, and also could get "go next" tuned up to punish even more innocent players with penalties.
You simply cannot have a discussion about this problem because a few people just have to do this:
And they'll just keep doing it because it's worked for years.
13 -
Meanwhile, any conversation about ragequitting problems has to devolve into people massively over exaggerating how often Go Next makes false positives.
You don’t need to over-exaggerate this. Yes, the normal queue time would go up, but not by so much that the majority of players would care. I’m sure most players would be happy with maybe a few extra seconds added to their queue times, if it meant a severe reduction with ragequitters in their games.
Again, the majority of players are actually playing through their games, even if they are frustrating. It’s really just a small percentage of survivors that are ruining lots of games for other people.
But why is it that most people can manage to play through all their games? Do you really think most players don’t have games that feel frustrating? Do you really think most players don’t have games where they feel like something unfair is happening?
And why isn’t bully squads on the official roadmap? Bully squad survivors, whose main goal is to ruin the fun of their opponents, isn’t a game problem? But killers, they are using game strategies to try to win a game, are a game problem?
-6 -
I hate how accurate this is. It feels like every thread about an issue that predominantly affects survivors—whether it be pure venting or a genuine attempt to have a discussion/suggest solutions—rapidly gets turned into 'BUT WHAT ABOUT KILLERS'.
There's a time and a place, and the fact that it happens on basically every thread about a problem survivor players have is infuriating and really gives the impression that some people forget at any given time there are FOUR OTHER PEOPLE in a game with you. Your experience is not the only one that matters.
6 -
Meanwhile, any conversation about ragequitting problems has to devolve into people massively over exaggerating how often Go Next makes false positives.
Where are the threads about ragequitting? Because it kinda feels like 'yes, I derailed the conversation, but now it'd be derailing to go back to the original topic'.
And why isn’t bully squads on the official roadmap?
Because, judging by community feedback, it's not a problem at all.
No one talks about this. It's only ever brought up in answer to survivor complaints. If you want it addressed, bring it up. Open threads about it. Don't keep sitting on it until you can use it as a 'gotcha'.
8
