Can BHVR implement don't match me with this person again feature?
An example 3v1, 4 gens left 4 hook states left and the killer just slugs remaining survivors… (Chucky)
Regardless of whether I want to go next game at that point, if I am in that match as survivor I am not really playing an actual match, I am playing pick me up from the ground for 10 minutes.
In the long run it will save me more time to not have to play against someone like that ever again, then me having to waste my time being in the match, since I can't abandon and I cant AFK.
As a sidenote:
Did I think about the effects it would have on match making? Yes.
Does it matter that it would lead longer Queues? No,
Would you much rather wait longer for better matches? Yes.
Comments
-
Damn the C.Cs that will have their ques tanked because noone wants to lose to them by chance. We've seen it in OW for instance where creators had their ques tanked just because people were afraid of facing them.
5 -
I would love an avoid system in dbd.
It would be especially good for late night/early morning gaming where you’re likely to see the same people multiple times.
And it’s be good to avoid griefers and hackers if you run into them.
4 -
It would be nice but it would be easily abused, I think we can all agree on that.
6 -
In TCM if you blocked someone you could get matched with them BUT when they entered the lobby a pop up would appear saying "There is a player you blocked in this lobby, would you like to leave?" So you had the option to leave or stay and play the match with them. I loved it because it made matches feel alot better. For such a small player base, especially compared to DBD, the amount of times I actually ran into those players again and had the pop up was pretty rare. The only queue issue I had was backfill bug they never fixed, outside that finding and filling a lobby wasn't a problem.
4 -
Blocking every Wesker player I come across until I never see this killer again.
-12 -
Me, blocking momo immediately.
Also blocking everyone who's better than me.
8 -
Absolutely not.
This would immediately devolve into "blocking anyone who outplayed me" and queue times for competent players would skyrocket.
5 -
There is no plans for this. There used to be a third party tool in the past that did the same type of thing, and of course it was abused by players blocking people who beat them - killers blocking survivors, survivors blocking someone because they played Nurse for example. It's definitely not something we want to see happening again.
21 -
I can definitely see how it would be abused even though I do agree that some kind of system similar would be cool. Personally I think using the thumbs up rating, and it resulting in some kind of actual in-game accomplishment would be great, and would not be abused. Rewards like extra BP, Cells, Banners, even exclusive cosmetics that are tied to rewards given to you by other players. It would encourage more people to think of some of the positives in the match rather than just the negatives and reward players for being great teammates or opponents. BHVR has the thumbs up data, just hasn’t used it yet.
-1 -
Rewards like extra BP, Cells, Banners, even exclusive cosmetics that are tied to rewards given to you by other players.
Nah thats an awful idea tying rewards to strangers opinions of you, especially with how irrational, misinformed, bias, hateful and salty this playerbase is.
3 -
The compensation idea is an Avoid me for Survivors to just avoid teammates only you ever had the most dumb teammate you never want to play with again yes you have basically with this it'll help purify the pool about more
-5 -
Hm, I mean I get why anything with punishments would be abused but that’s why I feel thumbs up certainly can’t be? If someone doesn’t enjoy that person then they just don’t give a thumbs up? If you get extra BP or cells it’s just a bonus?
Are you saying that if some people get rewards because other players liked playing with them that it wouldn’t be good? I don’t see how rewarding other players by players could be a bad thing.
0 -
I find it comical how you acknowledge that Nurse is problematic enough that people would block players who pick it, yet refuse to adjust the killer who ignores counterplay and pairs perfectly with subtle wall hacking cheats that game devs also refuse to do anything about. Why does your team never address the blatant amount of cheating in your game?
0 -
That's precisely why all games with this feature have a limit of how many players they can avoid.
1 -
How do I make you realize how fun he is to play as and against? Have you tried playing as or against him in 2v8? Undetectable Wesker is actually scary as hell.
0 -
If people didn't like playing with you, then you just wouldn't get anything. You'd be exactly where you are now. Not sure how you can be hateful with what's basically an upvote, especially if theres no downvote version. Positive reinforcement is a tried and true method for good behavior.
1 -
You think its fair to tie tangable rewards to others bias, flawed and arbitary opinions? I don't.
Let's be real, this will just be survivors abusing it to farm each other for passive bonus rewards unless they are trolling. A completely pointless system to have that serves zero actual purpose. Even then you'll get people denying likes for the most petty, pathetic and dumb things because something happened that didnt benefit them.
On the flip side, do you really think people are going to be giving likes to killers when they win? Especially if they have to play "unfair" in the survivors eyes to stop themselves losing? Or when they take advantage of bad survivor plays? Even if thats a totally fair and correct thing to do in a PvP game? Or if they play a killer people dislike for whatever random BS reason? Because they dont follow the "survivor rulebook"? There's atleast one survivors raging in endgame chat every game for no reason except ego.
There is a ton of reasons why letting other people decide what you get is an awful idea, not least of all because a system like this obviously benefits survivors infinitely more than killers who will never get a fair or equal opportunity to benefit.
1 -
Let's be real, this will just be survivors abusing it to farm each other for passive bonus rewards unless they are trolling.
"Abuse" is a pretty strong word for giving someone a thumbs up. So you get a badge or BP? Big deal. Killers could farm it just the same by giving hatch.
There's atleast one survivors raging in endgame chat every game for no reason except ego.
This is either an exaggeration or a you problem. Most of my chats are silent, tame, or friendly. When there is fighting, 9 times out of 10 it's survivors fighting amongst each other. Many people don't even have chat and can't say anything.
not least of all because a system like this obviously benefits survivors infinitely more than killers who will never get a fair or equal opportunity to benefit.
Not necessarily. If you're tunneling and slugging every match, yeah, you probably aren't getting anything. Which, again, leaves you exactly where you are now. The game is unchanged for you, and and you probably wouldn't even notice the system if all you do in the game is play killer aggressively. Pretty sure I'd do okay with this system as killer. This very much depends on how you play, which would be, ya know, the whole point.
We do already have the thumbs up in the game too. It's pretty obvious it was meant to do something. It would be nice if it actually did.
0 -
I would urge you devs to reconsider your stance on that feature as I believe it would really help alleviate some frustrations and there are limitations you could implement to prevent it from being too much. (Ie, you can only have a small number on the avoid list at a time as in 3-5, and they're only on there for a few days.)
-1 -
I didn't acknowledge it, I acknowledged people's behaviour - those are two very different things, please don't try to make more of my comment than it is.
12 -
Played against him far more than I would have liked to, my dear friend. By far the killer I hate most and the least fun to go against.
As for playing as him, I'll never do that.
1 -
There are already plenty of games with endorsement, honor, thumbs up, or commendation systems tied to small rewards. The idea itself is not new to gaming.
What I don’t understand is that your argument about “survivor bias” is itself incredibly biased. You’re essentially arguing that survivor players are incapable of recognizing skill, sportsmanship, or impressive play from killers or one another. You’re criticizing the hypothetical bias of survivors while simultaneously assuming survivors are inherently too unfair or petty to ever use the system honestly. That’s the exact kind of bias you’re accusing others of having.
A huge portion of the playerbase plays both roles. Many even main specific killers themselves.You’re telling me a Huntress main playing survivor wouldn’t appreciate seeing an orbital? Or a Billy player wouldn’t recognize a really skilled curve just because they happened to queue survivor that round?
And again,this system already effectively exists. There’s already a thumbs up/props feature in the game right now. The data already exists. The suggestion is simply giving that system some actual purpose.
Nothing about this negatively impacts players. It doesn’t punish you. It doesn’t reduce rewards. It doesn’t affect MMR. It’s literally just positive reinforcement for players who leave a good impression on others. Encouraging positive interactions is not a bad thing.
3 -
What would prevent people form using this against every person they lose to?
5 -
Nothing. Some people think the current "Block" option in the game does this and they use it for that purpose not realizing the only thing it does is to block them in the chat.
3 -
Ngl you said you thought about queue times but you didn't seem to realise it would absolutely nuke queue times to the point it would kill the game.
Everyone and their mum would smash that no replay button after a vaguely bad game. Everytime they lose they'd lock themselves from ever playing against that player again. After a week or two of that people straight up wouldn't be able to get games.
0 -
Tbh, thats sort of on them. Also if you have a game where if given the change people would avoid 100% of the player base then the game has bigger problems than avoid function
1 -
It's not an issue with dbd. It's the people in pvp games. People like to win, and the vast majority of people will simply avoid those they lose against and not avoid the people they beat. But the people they beat will avoid them.
After a bit of this practically nobody will be able to find a match. It'd kill the game stone dead in a month or two.
3 -
I find this funny as I rarely pay any attention to who I am playing against from match to match, unless someone is really memorable. I just queue and go. Over almost seven years I think I could count the players who repeatedly made my life difficult in game on one hand.
But to echo others here, a system like this would lead to many people just blacklisting anyone who they lose to or rubs them the wrong way. People are either too impulsive and/or too pathologically butthurt over losing to be trusted with a feature like this.
And to those who want to be able to block teammates who pissed them off because they were bad, know at some point you will be the annoying/bad teammate who got blocked. No one is on their game all the time, and survs love to blame teammates for losing. Extrapolate this over the whole game, and you'd have so many blocked people that matchmaking would bog down.It's been suggested that you'd have to limit the "do not play with/against" list to mitigate this, but even then I don't know if this game's already tenuous matchmaking system could bear it.
3 -
What about a system where you're more likely to match with people you've given props to? I'd love to have a way to play multiple games with the same person to "bond" a bit before I decide to potentially friend them.
1 -
>Complaining about slugging.
-1 -
On the flip side, do you really think people are going to be giving likes to killers when they win?
Honestly, I already kind of do this anyway. If the killer has been playing in a way I perceive as unnecessarily steamrolly or jerkishly then I abandon the moment I get the prompt as an option and they can rub salt in a bot's wounds if it's that important to them. Otherwise I stick around for the mori. Upvotes would just codify that sentiment.
I used to use the 'Did you have fun this match?' system as well and my ratings didn't have anything to do with whether I won the match or not.
2 -
Imposing a limit on how many people you can block from matchmaking would do that.
3 -
You could also treat it as a preference rather than a hard and fast block. If can attempt to make a match between people who haven't signified they hate playing with or against each other and if that can't be done then the system is free to form as miserable a match as it wants.
Or if you want to be all sunshine and rainbows about it, it can attempt to make a match between people who signified they enjoy playing with or against each other and if that can't be done THEN the system is free to form as miserable a match as it wants.
2 -
On one hand, a system like this would be good if you were to run into cheaters, and being able to outright blocking them from showing up in your games again.
But on the other hand… I know for a fact that a system like this would be heavily abused by players wanting to avoid better players, and thereby messing with queue times.
And I have a feeling that the bad will outweigh the good when it comes to something like this.2 -
Then you're the 1%. Even then you're proving my point saying you deem something "unfair" and just bail and leave. Because survivors in general expect killers to conform to their ideals of how a game should go while they play however they want. Because of this killers will never be given a fair use of the system due to bias.
It's just an example of why "endorsement systems" will never work in this game. The playerbase at large will never use it fairly or objectively, that much should be obvious to anyone. Why should killers have to play to make survivors happy to not lose rewards in a PvP game? Are survivors gonna let killers win as well? Lol no they wont.
-2 -
Who said anything about losing rewards? I suggested a system that simply attempted to match you against people you haven't told it to avoid before falling back to including those players if it looks like it'll affect someone's queue times. Is there a reason you feel like you NEED to be matched against people who don't want to play with you?
2 -
Is there a reason you feel like you NEED to be matched against people who don't want to play with you?
How else are you supposed to farm salt?
1 -
Having a limit on the avoid list would be helpful and make it reset every week or so, just means if there is a cheater in the queue or the like you can have a bit more control without it being abused.
0 -
Me and half the comment you responded too? Why comment to then try and shift the discussion to something that isnt anything to do with what i was saying? Who said anything about forcing people to play with me? Why are you just making up random arguments now? Is there a reason you feel like you NEED to insinuate something personal against me? Are you that desperate to justifty this irrelevent point you're making?
If you can't stick to the topic of discussion in the comment you respond to then just don't respond to it. What could actually do with an avoid feature is the forums it seems.
-2 -
What could actually do with an avoid feature is the forums it seems.
You're in luck.
-1
