Don't do that, it's not fun for the other side!

Tunneling is unfun for survivors but sometimes its necessary

yea survivor mains (the entitled ones) are always quick to express what the killers do that isnt fun for survivors but have no problem doing things that arent fun for killers and when confronted about it they say to git gud or say its part of their objective.

Exactly! The survivors fun isnt the killer's job and vice versa.

I dont ever expect survivor to play in such a way thats fun for me. They play how they want, just as I play Killer how I want.

People need to just stop telling the other side how to play

Good evening.

I had been banned from the forum for some time, and although I have been away from the game for even longer, I have been reading the main thread where “abuse” is being discussed. I wanted to link the discussion from there, but from a different angle, because I believe this term is key to understanding what is happening in Dead by Daylight.

Abuse is often associated with player behavior, and people appeal to ideas such as “don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want done to you.” It is a nice and well-intentioned message, but in a well-designed game system, this kind of moral appeal should not be necessary.

The problem is not that players are abusive, but that the structure of the game itself allows, encourages, and normalizes that abuse. When a system makes it possible for one side to be systematically oppressive to the other, we are not dealing with an individual attitude problem, but with a design problem.

Abuse does not happen because players want to abuse; it happens because the system allows them to.

In DbD, something very specific is happening: structural imbalance, the generalization of perks across killers with radically different mechanics, and the accumulation of randomness make certain abusive situations not only possible, but optimal from the system’s own perspective.

For that reason, the focus should not be on how players behave within a match, but on how we have come to normalize the fact that, in a game where balance is assumed, there exists a tier list with at least five distinct categories.

This is unacceptable for the health of both the game and its players. The game is frustrating due to poor design, not because of player behavior. The solution has been explained many times, and this is not a personal opinion: it is exactly how the vast majority of competitive games have been developed and structured in practice for years.

If the game’s leadership were to reconsider and rethink the base structure, this title could grow from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of players, perhaps more. The idea and the concept are unique; the potential is clearly there.

What is hard to understand is why settle for a design that does not scale when there is a clear opportunity to do things properly. Admitting that the initial approach was not scalable and requires a deep structural rework should not be seen as a failure, but as an opportunity.

The game could be so much more than it currently is, retaining its players while continuously attracting new ones, instead of relying on cycles of churn driven by fatigue and frustration.

Simply by applying design principles that have been proven for decades, abuse would be drastically reduced and would no longer be a structural problem for either side.

Time will tell.