A general lack of sympathy from ignorance

It's not the role vs role problem, it's SWF vs everyone else. I play both soloQ and killer, and know how miserable both of them are. Still, those who only play SWF with bully builds will never sympathize with any of those, and they will try to steer every discussion regarding SWF to the simple Survivor vs Killer, and easily manipulated soloQ players eventually start to believe that it's indeed Survivor vs Killer, and not SWF vs others.

I often read in this forum and I think it is always funny to read answers to the question "If you think the other side has it that much easier… go play as them." and the answer which follows is often: "Nah if I play that side my Killrate/Escaperate is always 100%. So it is boring and easy." Ofcourse without prove or when prove follows it could be the account of everyone.

It is funny that some people are trying to hide that they clearly have no sympathy with their opposite side so hard that they don´t notice their own lies.

DbD would be in a better state if 5 people would quque up and each gets a random position. 4 get Survivor and 1 get Killer. So everyone could see what the other side has to deal with.

And just btw. I know there are cracked suvs or killers which are playing on easy mode. But this falls into the category "touch some grass or its way to easy to reach mmr cap.

I feel like ppl should stop complaining about the way their opponents play in a game except obviously when it’s a matter of cheating. If you play this game casually then you should expect to constantly lose, thanks to the unmatched matchmaking quality of dead by daylight

While thats true that people should play both sides, i still am always perplexed by the attitude of players of this game.

There is no other game i have ever played where i am supposed to "think about how my opponent emotionally feels about how i'm playing and adjust my playstyle to be 'nicer'"

If i'm playing street fighter, and i'm playing guile, and my opponent is zangief, you can bet i'm going to try and win by throwing 100+ fireballs while they try to get close to me. I'm not going to "empathize with my opponent about how boring that is and make the choice to NOT throw a fireball because that would be 'too mean'" Nor am i going to be the zangief player and expect my opponent to stop throwing fireballs. Nor am i going to get in close with him and start a throw loop and decide "maybe i'll just throw them twice instead of keep doing it because its mean"

It is very confusing to me that for some reason in this game and this game only i have to "think about my opponent and be nice"

Like, am i supposed to just play chess and see my opponent hung their queen and think "ah that would be too mean to take their queen for free, i'll be nice and not do that"

If a playstyle is inherently unfun for boring to play against, it is not up to the players to not play the style for fear of upsetting their opponents. It is on the developers of the game for allowing said style of play to exist, and perhaps, as in my street fighter example, it is actually designed intentionally to allow for that style of play, that could just be the answer. But you would never cry to the other player about it just because they did something "boring"

Its a game, why should i not play to win? Why do i need to "be nice" why do you expect me to not take my opponents queen for free when they hang it in chess?

I think there is some slight merit to the argument concerning sportsmanship, but thats a concept this community just doesn't gel with for multiple reasons. Personally I would rather a rough win vs a cake walk, so long as the rough part isn't due to design flaws. The desire to win and the desire to have a compelling match should be pretty close to one another, even if one or the other overshadows a bit in a given person's mindset.

That said, its more on the game to limit extremes and have proper matchmaking to foster that environment. We can only be responsible for ourselves in that regard, so it boils down to giving your best while anticipating the worst. The rest falls within the limitations of the game's structure which sadly fosters these types of mentalities the worse people think of their opponents.

You came into a topic about increasing empathy for one's opponent with a loaded us vs them argument, and you don't seem to be understanding the hypocrisy in your stance. They're not claiming you should purposely misplay in order to be nice to your opponent, in fact thats the exact point they seem to be trying to drive home. If you understand that as a concept, why jump into the topic trying to make it one side's fault specifically? Reminder, this was the comment that probably got you those responses:

I think the bigger problem is that some players, mostly on the Killer side, take the game too seriously, and feel that anything less than a 100% win rate is unacceptable.

It takes a universal issue that crosses roles, and tries to paint it specifically as being instigated by one side while minimizing the prevalence of it on the other. One of the most misleading things about the survivor role as a survivor is that most survivors do not play the same as any one of us, and we have no idea what they're doing when not being told in some way. I can assure you that with a prevalence of 4 to 1 in a given match, the liklihood of that mentality applying to a survivor is much higher than it is a killer, even if the tactics and methods employed are different. Thats not a point worth dwelling on though, as we can only adjust our own behavior, so the important takeaway is to just be mindful on when you are unintentionally giving that impression to your opponent. I believe that was likely the intention of the examples, outlining that its not worth getting upset at someone for playing to win when its something we all do.

Oh I know this community is not the pinnacle of sportsmanship, just that its what's supposed to be there. Sportsmanship as a concept was never necessary to competition, but it improves the experience for both sides when things like mutual respect are observed.

Sportsmanship is like, after i win i say "ggwp" or shake my opponents hand.

Thats a small part of it, but sportsmanship in a more pure form would be closer to not throwing sand in someone's eyes during a duel. As a concept, its supposed to be about allowing competition to be as fair and equitable as possible, as the focus is generally more on improvement (self, rivalry, etc) than the outcome of the competition. Outcome focus tends to overshadow those concepts with "whatever it takes to win," which is why its equal parts understandable-yet-undesirable under those circumstances. Handshakes after competitions aren't supposed to be just compulsory, they're supposed to be an acceptance of the outcome.

The attitude of players of this game is that for some strange reason if i'm playing a football game and i score 3 times in a row, i need to let my opponent score a couple of times too so they don't feel sad about losing.

Thats how many people think, sure, but to add to that analogy, players can be upset that a flag wasn't called at a crucial moment, the other team won with a dangerous play that could have seriously injured one or more players, or the dreaded "being held back by teammates." Scenarios more difficult to accept that are still within reason, but require much more personal temperament to not dwell on. Its up to the game's design to minimize those potential grey areas while its up to the players to better curate their emotions in response to the match.

That's an incorrect comparison. Because the other team won because a flag wasn't called is based on the RULES of the game. In our case the developers. In the DBD example, that would be due to like, a bug happening or something. Like, if a rock spawns that survivors can get through and not the killer. If the survivors use it is it "technically" cheating? Maybe? But like, i'm not going to be mad them for using it, its there.

Tunneling or slugging isn't some "bug" or "dangerous play that maybe is against the rules sometimes and its up to the refs to decide" Tunneling and slugging are just fundamental parts of the game.

Thats what you tell a killer when you tell them to not tunnel someone who refuses to leave during their protections, makes extremely obvious misplays right in front of the killer, or just is generally the architect of their own demise. Part of why people say improving at looping makes you less likely to get tunneled, for example, is because it makes you less likely to find yourself in a situation where the killer tunneling you out is the objectively correct move. Telling a killer they shouldn't take advantage of situations that fall into their lap is equivalent to telling a survivor to not finish gens, but without the context of said interaction, a survivor would be free to assume the killer must have malicious intent in such a decision.

The reason I made the flag comment is because its a scenario that is up for interpretation. Thats the entire point of referees, live sports do not have an EAC anti cheat or server logic that forces outcomes. Your examples are so obvious they would be closer to an extra player running on the field and nobody saying anything about it, when I'm talking about more subtle things like an offsides call not going through when it could have given a first down and prevented a turnover. Thats the kind of thing that sticks with a player after a match, and since the determination is subjective rather than objective, it fosters rumination and dissatisfaction in place of satisfaction and acceptance.

All I have said is that tunneling is not necessary to win, and that tunneling is too strong in its current state. And I'll also say that telling Survivors to "get gud so you don't get tunneled" is also lacking empathy. Killers seem to think tunneling is fine because it's "the most efficient/optimal way to play." But let's flip the card over. Imagine that Survivors can cooperate on one generator, and the number of gens that pop would be equivalent to the number of Survivors on that one gen. Example: three Survivors on that one gen = three gens pop. That would be incredibly busted, wouldn't it? And yet for Survivors, that would be the most efficient way to play. Survivors would tell Killers, "Just get gud so they can't work on the same gen." Would Killers be okay with that? What chance would the Killer have of winning at that point? That's exactly the same kind of effect that tunneling has on Survivors. So how anyone can be okay with that is beyond me.

I haven't turned towards the Killer role myself. I play 85-90% survivor but I still have this mentality. I want to win the game. I will do everything the game allows me to do to win the game. If I can loop a killer for 5 gens and leave then I will 100% do that. If I can get my team on multiple gens to pop them as fast as possible, I will 100% do that. And I will expect the killer to tunnel, slug, camp, hold a 3 gen, etc. to win as well. It's what you signup for when you load into a competitive online game. I never expect my opponent to not take the game serious and try to win.

I personally think this is something the BHVR can easily fix as well. If they just added a Quick Play and a Ranked Play queues for the game than I think this sentiment would be better accepted. That how I feel in games like Overwatch or Marvel Rivals. When I load up Quick Play it's mainly to just have fun and try out new things so I'm not going all out. If I load up Ranked Play then I am picking my best character and trying my absolute hardest to win the match. BHVR adding these separate queues would allow new players and people just looking for casual fun to find it in Quick Play and then the hyper sweats, like myself, can go load up Ranked Play and try their hardest to win.

There is no other game i have ever played where i am supposed to "think about how my opponent emotionally feels about how i'm playing and adjust my playstyle to be 'nicer'"

This conversation is constant because the emotional response to this game is higher. Other pvps, like shooters and fighting games, have more balanced opponents. Skill levels might be different, but the goals and abilities are roughly the same. If a decent killer or good survivor team is pitted against a lacking opponent, they automatically control the feel of the match, and can potentially hold the game hostage to make the other miserable. I never experienced anything remotely like this when I was playing shooters, nor did I see in-game actions that show how unhappy someone is, like pallet slamming and AFKing under hook. I don't even remember DCing being a thing in those games. I've also never seen in-game BMing anything like this one. If you get tbagged in CoD it's over pretty fast. You can get humped for four minutes in this game, and then get graphically murdered afterwards. Which brings up the narrative difference. A psychopath torturing and murdering innocent people feels different than two people in a war shooting each other. It's really not comparable to the average pvp.

Thats my point though WHY!? What makes DBD so special that someone can't sit for 4 minutes on the ground so they can die?

• How is that compared to say a game like Rust you spend hours upon hours doing stuff, and then get offline raided by a clan.
• Or a game like DotA where your teammate is feeding their carry and you are stuck in a completely unwinnable game for the next hour because something your teammate did?
• Or a game like Arc Raiders where someone tricks you into thinking they are friendly and then shoots you in the back?

Why does THIS community have such an emotional response to an opponent in a video game that spending a couple of minutes dealing with something unfun is like the end of the world to them.

You say its because they are more balanced, but like. Are they? Have you seen the win rate for the top heroes in DotA they can often have far higher win rates than a killer in DBD?

I think cogsturning gave a pretty good answer to that. I'm afraid I don't have an answer, because I haven't played any other pvp games, so I have no idea what those other games are like.

Ok then, fine, its took strong, and should be nerfed or changed and its clear the devs are doing that.

Are they really? They've scrapped the past two tunnel/slug reduction systems, with no indication that they're going to try again, so it's not really that clear.

The killer role in dbd there is never a situation where you literally cannot do anything, not talking about "oh I cant catch these survivors" I mean things like hooked survivors cannot do anything but wave there arms outside of perks, slugging survivors cannot do anything expect crawl around on the ground outside of perks.

Thats selectively reductionist. If the killer is always able to do something because of such a wide net, why wouldn't it also apply to survivors crawling on the ground? They have arguably more potential to reset and regroup than, say, a trapper standing in the exit gates while the survivors refuse to leave. You can't speak in absolutes like that when actual checkmate scenarios exist, and similarly you can't call a downed survivor to a checkmate until all other potential options (other teammates, perks that CAN do something in that situation, hatch, etc) have been expended. You have to accept both or neither as agency, as you need some degree of consistency in comparing two differently structured roles.

Thats why people shouldn't selectively change the definition of concepts like agency to suit their arguments. The most consistent definition I have for how the game is structured is based off of the ability to contribute toward core objectives, which to me seems pretty reasonable. Equally addresses checks and checkmates on each side, keeps considerations between concepts like "helplessness" pretty uniform. Survivor in particular is interesting because its an elimination based role, while simultaneously requiring shared agency due to its team format, which is why something as simple as "they can always press buttons to move at normal speed" would look differently between the two sides. Likewise, the abandon feature's generosity doesn't require checkmate scenarios, completely removing most of the incentive to bring the very perks that turn survivor check scenarios back into active matches. Its a lot more of a mess than simplified "you can always swat them out" nonsense, so it feels fitting to the topic.

That induvial survivor cannot do anything but crawl on the ground, yes they need to rely on the team that's why I mention lack of comms (which I think would resolve so many problems in solo q)

Yet they have teammates, and can abandon if in that position when they do not. They can bring anti-slug perks, but are incentivised not to because their teammates can be in positions where they can abandon before you even get to use them. My point is that you can't skew concepts like finality as you see fit, the details may vary but a check vs a checkmate is a very clear distinction that occurs before a match ending or even an individual elimination. You need to keep that scope consistent when comparing roles with different structures.

The killers can never be put into a situation where they cannot use m1 or no situation where the killer cannot chase the survivor (not catch, physically chase). that's what I mean by the killer is never in a situation where they can do nothing.

Those are not the Killer's objectives, though. They are simply ways of working towards them, which have different perspectives due to the afforementioned design differences. If a survivor has zero agency but a killer has full, does that mean the killer has won the game? Or does it simply put the survivor into a position where the killer controls their agency? Thats a very important distinction when comparing a 1v4 setup.

To restructure your statement, a killer absolutely can be put into a situation where they cannot down and pick up any survivor. A survivor can get downed and have hatch spawn directly under them while the killer wipes their blade, but a killer cannot have the exit gates randomly get blocked because a survivor got hit in the exit. Thats why I emphasize the use of check vs checkmate scenarios when discussing topics like this, it helps to remove the personal biases that come with trying to separate the roles by their differences instead of focusing on their commonalities.

I wont accept other teammates as agency until a comm wheel is added to the game, until then I cant communicate with them like SWF teams can. I cant communicate perks that may help (live forever, shoulder the burden) and in regards to hatch, 4 min slugging is mostly happening to avoid hatch plays.

Have you never played a team sport?

I wont accept other teammates as agency is a surefire way to have your team not get any wins in a season, regardless of the reason. Hell its a pretty good way to get benched. If you refuse to play a team based role within a, well, team based role, you would probably get more enjoyment from sticking to killer. The foundation of shared agency is about maximizing your own personal chances, minimizing how much your teammates bring you down, and maximizing any opportunities they provide you. That applies to everything from baseball and hockey down to teams in mobas and fps. Communication can be often extremely minimal in those sports, and casually in stuff like pickup games even coordination might be non-existent. Thats why you learn to improve on the individual level, and specifically how to adapt to the unknowns around you.