Add more surrender options since the abandon has changed

End game surrender still has the same issues that it had before that being the killer ends the match. a survivor leaving does not.

If the killer did not end the match when they left nobody would be opposed but if we allow that sort of option nobody is going to see a full end game again because most killers will just leave and the whole match will end.

When the survivors surrender the killer is still able to move around and do thing in the match and have a choice.

When the killers end the match, then the survivor that's maybe slugged doesn't count as a kill (if I downed the a survivor and I know or saw the other survivor then why shouldn't I slug to end the game quicker).

Bhvr should be able to make it count as an escape and a kill for the killer.

With the amount of powers and perks/addons in the game, thats not a terribly simple fix unfortunately. The survivor bots aren't exactly great as it is, killer bots would probably be farmable if they tried tbh.

Its crazy to think you used to have to mash to struggle, because the devs felt players should feel like they're desperate to hang on for that last hook state. Today's temperment would have killed DBD before it even took off, people just refuse to finish their games.

Regarding the unpleasant parts, I agree. They should be improved across the board, as acute frustrations tend to be the biggest sticking point for impatient players. Its always the straw that broke the camel's back, even if its the only burden so to speak.

Simple fix, match does not end, but the killer stops moving or acting. No killer bots are required.

That would just lead to farming, like what currently happens whenever a killer goes AFK instead. If you want a legitimate killer exit, it would have to be something like opening the exit gates with a period of time that the killer cannot attack, something like 30-45 seconds to allow any survivors to leave. That way if they refuse to leave, they can be punished for drawing it out, but the killer can't just open the gates and abuse an endgame build.

There would have to be considerations around when it would be available (as thats been a very subjective discussion) but mechanically it would have to be: Something involving the killer allowing a free exit, with a limited grace period to prevent abuse. Hell, it could involve a ritual in the basement so that they have to be at least a certain distance from the exits to start, there are a lot of ways you could build on an idea like that to add considerations. That said, any exit/surrender mechanics for either side should be extremely rare, the go next mentality really needs to be put to rest.

There are a lot of considerations, like when it should even be available. And yes those things matter, because the idea isn't to reward one side for free when the other gives up. Its supposed to be to create a resolution to the game as quickly as possible as the required participation has ended. The last thing you want is a TF2 style mockery state, as that would just incentivize survivors to make killers quit for their tik tok reels.

Unfortunately a lot of it comes down to the ideas to fix the issues: They almost always overlook an element for one side or the other, or the devs introduce one by accident when they try it (like pretty much all of the anti-systems attempts.) In regards to the user base, the survivor role is elimination based, which means that survivors have much more control over when they get to leave a match by design.

Since the usual outcome of losing is getting out of the match quicker, impatient players who refuse to try uphill battles just take advantage of that difference like a child mashing redeal on solitaire until they start with an ace visible. Its why there needs to be equal parts punishment and reward for anything like this, put equal effort into fixing the undesirable effect and punishing players for continuing to do it anyway. Unfortunately they also have to be done correctly, which is the main issue at this point.

If you can't actually list the considerations, do they even exist? I listed 2 of the considerations (Adepts and Tome challenges), and I can't think of anymore, can you?

I already gave you the most important one, when the killer has access to it. They should not have an abandon condition whenever they feel like it, any type of surrender should be reserved for an extremely unlikely comeback. That in itself is very hard to define for the killer, and there have been countless discussions on these forums trying to define it (if possible.)

The Killer Resign option should be available when it's EndGame Collapse. And no other considerations need to exist if the match doesn't end when the killer leaves and is left with an AFK bot.

I already said why this is a bad idea, its an incentive for survivors to force killers to quit. You don't want to make that type of behavior desirable, especially with the game's history concerning exploits and hackers. People complain enough about teabagging and WSing, you'd be creating a sanctioned method for a two minute humiliation ritual that would make survivors farming toxic clips salivate. Again, the point of any type of surrender is to end the game as quickly as possible due to a lack of valid participants, which is why survivors quitting has always had ramifications on game quality after they leave (even with bots.)

I don't think this makes a mockery state for DbD, and even if it does that's more content made about DbD, which BHVR sees as a good thing.

Thats also a good way to dwindle your casual killer participants, which you kinda need to have matches. This game's community has a MASSIVE ego issue, so promoting toxicity is the last thing any official design should encourage.

We're asking for legal DCs in scenarios for when the game is practically decided, not asking for a legal DC because "OMG I was the first one downed and it's a Ghoul."

Thats a subjective assessment, which is the issue. Check is not checkmate, but many will claim it is in this game's community. Nobody can agree on when a surrender would be a valid concession vs leaving a disadvantage early.

When a killer slugs for the 4K, why should the slug not be able to surrender?

The person you're responding to actually listed that as one of the times there should be a fix for:

"If you don't like slugging for the 4k then ask for basekit Unbreakable when there's only two people left"

I don't necessarily agree with that as the solution, but the point is its better to find a fix for what you consider a dead end than have an eject button.

I already gave you the most important one, when the killer has access to it. They should not have an abandon condition whenever they feel like it, any type of surrender should be reserved for an extremely unlikely comeback. That in itself is very hard to define for the killer, and there have been countless discussions on these forums trying to define it (if possible.)

The Killer Resign option should be available when it's EndGame Collapse

I honestly don't get how you can type all that out when the next line of mine you quote directly answers that. The killer should have access to a Resign option in EndGame Collapse. If a killer thinks they have no chance, they should have the option to Resign. If they have a chance and want to pursue it they won't Resign. It's a choice. You seem to be arguing from the incorrect assumption that every killer will Resign once they have access to the option.

I already said why this is a bad idea, its an incentive for survivors to force killers to quit. You don't want to make that type of behavior desirable, especially with the game's history concerning exploits and hackers. People complain enough about teabagging and WSing, you'd be creating a sanctioned method for a two minute humiliation ritual that would make survivors farming toxic clips salivate. Again, the point of any type of surrender is to end the game as quickly as possible due to a lack of valid participants, which is why survivors quitting has always had ramifications on game quality after they leave (even with bots.)

If a bully squad wants to make the killer quit out of a match they'd want the killer to DC not Resign, so I don't see the point here. Maybe we'd see an uptick of 4-man squads 99ing the last gen so the killer can't Resign. But 4-man bully squads are less than 1% of DbD matches so why should that particular scenario prevent a mechanic that can improve ~25% of all matches from existing?

Thats also a good way to dwindle your casual killer participants, which you kinda need to have matches. This game's community has a MASSIVE ego issue, so promoting toxicity is the last thing any official design should encourage.

I think not having this EndGame Collapse Resign option contributes more to casual player attrition. Casual players often have limited time to play DbD so potentially wasting 2 minutes at the end of many games is a very big deal. They might not be able to squeeze in another match, they might feel that DbD is wasting their time for no good reason and decide to play something else instead of DbD. Perhaps Civilization?

Thats a subjective assessment, which is the issue. Check is not checkmate, but many will claim it is in this game's community. Nobody can agree on when a surrender would be a valid concession vs leaving a disadvantage early.

Interesting you bring up Chess because in that game a player can Resign at any time and the positions are very subjective. I remember playing Chess games against my father where I'd Resign and he'd offer to turn the board around, I'd agree and then he'd destroy me from my "losing" position. So how do you think bringing up Chess supports your argument against Resigning in DbD?

When a killer slugs for the 4K, why should the slug not be able to surrender?

The person you're responding to actually listed that as one of the times there should be a fix for:

"If you don't like slugging for the 4k then ask for basekit Unbreakable when there's only two people left"

I don't necessarily agree with that as the solution, but the point is its better to find a fix for what you consider a dead end than have an eject button.

I'd be more in favor of having both options, to be completely honest. If a killer is slugging for the 4K and there are 2+ generators left to complete, I'd much rather surrender and get into a game where it isn't hopeless. If there's 1 gen left to complete and I know there's one with progress I wouldn't mind staying and trying to get it done if they're was a way to get up off the ground. The existence of one system does not preclude the other.

I'd even be down for the idea presented in this video, skip to 5:34 if you're pressed for time:

Because the killer deciding to leave the survivor on the ground for up to 4 minutes isn't something that should be reinforced or encouraged. It should be changed. Matches need to actively go on until they come to their final, engaging conclusion, not just until one side denys the other the ability to do anything so they just legally leave instead.

People have been arguing for this sort of thing for years already and what did we get? The Abandon mechanic. So I am just asking for what I think BHVR will deliver. Whatever stops me from having to waste minutes of my time bleeding out on the floor. Yes, I'd love to see better solutions, see above. But I'd take any solution at this point.

Letting the slug surrender would at least be an improvement on the current system where the slug often chooses to sell out their teammate for a chance at mercy from the killer, because I think most of the sellouters would take the Surrender option. Then the last survivor standing would have a better chance of escaping because the bot wouldn't sell them out.

I'll admit, I never really played much of the secondary modes, including 2v8. It sounds like they addressed the potential stagnation of game flow, which is the important aspect of the whole situation. Past that in terms of balance it just becomes a matter of maintaining a proper structure regarding rewarding wins without rewarding failures, but I obviously can't really speak to how they would convert to 1v4. Still, the intention sounds positive and worth exploring, even if I'm not familiar with the implimentations to compare.

If you can't actually list the considerations, do they even exist? I listed 2 of the considerations (Adepts and Tome challenges), and I can't think of anymore, can you?

I want more surrender options, but if we get past the killer bot issue, I think the next biggest issue is impact on kill rates. The original survivor abandon option of everyone slugged the chance of escape out the gates was exceptionally small, and a bot has as about as much chance crawling through a randomly spawning hatch as a survivor.

Most killer situations could still result in kills (or are at such an extreme that the amount of time saved would be negligible). Being the overall kill rates are a big factor in balancing, if the surrender options impacts that number you are now impacting balancing decisions.

And how exactly would giving the option to Resign in Endgame lead to a reduction in match quality? Again the false assumption is being made that killers would Resign too often when given the option.

And this is DbD, no system is ever perfect here. Even if the killer puts the bot back on their feet to try and find the real person that's better than what we have now, the problem of sell outs that I previously stated. And you know that bot is going to do gens so it's not entirely risk free for the killer in that scenario. Also, the bot should be programmed to crawl away anyway so it's not a freebie for the killer to do that.

Your whole sell is that this would let you out of a bad match faster yet you're saying it's good if the killer drags a bad match out?

I never said anything like the last half of that sentence.

Asking for the bots to be programmed better is as hopeful as me asking for more engaging solutions.

And again you're implying I said something I didn't say. I only talked specifically about crawling behaviour, not an overall improvement of bot programming. And asking for the bots to crawl away isn't a big ask. They used to crawl away until they programmed them not to, so the code is already written.

While I would prefer a surrender option in this scenario as opposed to the nothing we have now, I agree with the notion that we should instead have a better set up for the endgame and a reason to keep trying.

A simple solution I ruminated on:

• Change killer adepts to require a 3K instead of a 4K.
• When two survivors are left, spawn hatch if one of those survivors is left in the dying state for 60 seconds.

I also thought about potentially having the killer close the hatch while two survivors remain immediately pick up downed survivors, to really make it clear that hooking then competing for hatch is the best play the killer can make.

I did think about a basekit UB for the final two, motivating the hook, but I can already visualise high-mobility killers timing coming back to the slug to reset their minute of search time, so I'm unsure.

I also think it'd help quite a bit to add clear win/draw/lose notifications in the post-game lobby. We can keep the killer ratings, but if we could get a clear "Killer Victory" splash on a 3K, it might be just enough to sate the egos of some of the less ardent 4Kers, because the game is telling them they're a good boy/girl.

So what? BHVR hasn't been making good balancing decisions anyway. DbD has never actually been well-balanced and I doubt it ever will be

Never underestimate the ability of something to be worse.

Especially with this game.

I think the effect on the stats would be barely noticeable if it's noticeable at all.

Its unknowable without putting it in place, but I think they would be rather substantial. That depends exactly on what parameters BHVR puts in. And its hard to just say 'put the right ones in' if you already believe they are bad at balancing, why would they get this right?

The abandon system already shows this problem. Everyone who backed this wanted survivor abandons to always be treated as losses. Not only has it caused problems on the individual stats page, its still unclear how BHVR was/is tracking the abandons.

I'd even be fine with the killer only being given the option to Resign 30 seconds after EndGame Collapse has started if all remaining survivors not hooked/caged and are healthy. 

The problem with going to this extent is that if survivors want to troll, then they just have to leave someone injured (or if its all survivors in the exit gate, another common request, just leave someone outside the exit gate).

Just something to save a minute here and there and not have to always push bming survivors out. 

I am strongly in favor of letting people get out of dead matches. However I realize that either:

A) this would sometimes impact matches that were still competitive and impact player experience and stats. That's a trade I'm willing to make, but many others aren't.

B) be so narrowly tailored that it almost never triggers. If you could freely put such a system in, great, but otherwise I think it would be a waste of time.

Are you really trying to say that 2 minutes of end game collapse is rewarding for survivors somehow when the killer refuses to interact with them further? The could cleanse a totem or loot a chest but that's about it.

You must not have been around for the peak of toxic DBD YT clips. There have been a lot of stigmas about a lot of content creators/types of creators in the game's history, and ones where players would be as toxic as possible to other players were a goldmine for a while. Might even still be, I've only really stuck to content based around the game itself for a long while now. Any time you give people an easy avenue to do so, they will makes asses out of themselves for money. Hell, they'll do it just for laughs.

Like I said eariler, people would straight up hold endgame hostage before the EGC. Hatch standoffs could take hours if either player refused to give up. For every person who needs to speed run matches, there will always be those who have no issue taking their time to assert dominance in an online video game.

I said:

And this is DbD, no system is ever perfect here. Even if the killer puts the bot back on their feet to try and find the real person that's better than what we have now, the problem of sell outs that I previously stated. And you know that bot is going to do gens so it's not entirely risk free for the killer in that scenario. Also, the bot should be programmed to crawl away anyway so it's not a freebie for the killer to do that.

I made a very conditional statement where the better is behind a very huge if and put it against a real problematic scenario that currently happens everyday in DbD. The match is already dragging on at this point we're just talking about degrees of suffering. And I stand behind what I said. If the killer is going to stand up the last survivor it is better that it be a bot who's going to do gens than gamer who can't surrender who far too often works with the killer (which is breaking the game rules) selling out the other gamer for a chance at being let go.

If you enjoy that slug gameplay on the ground where you try to mislead the killer, then you don't have to surrender. What's the problem?

It is indeed breaking the rules. There's already a solution for that: submitting a report. And those reports with videos do work, I promise you. You have to be the king of useless rats for this to happen to you regularly, but if it does, the solution already exists.

The problems have already been mentioned. Ever since they added this stupid feature people have been non-stop with the "pwease daddy bhvr can we have more ways to leave for free uwu 👉👈🥺" instead of asking them to fix their game and make it engaging and narratively complete and not just an abrupt trip to the scoreboard. It just reinforces the quitter mentality. You leave when you're slugged, which means the other person gets the prompt as well, and then the killer gets the prompt too. So everyone just gets to leave a match that wasn't over. If you don't like the "slug gameplay" then ask for them to do something about slugging. Because if all everyone ever does is ask for this bs instead of improvements we'll have a horrible game where everyone just leaves.

Abandons and surrenders also delete the match from a survivor's personal stat history, which has completely ruined the stat page, and that's often what people use to judge how things are going for them.

There are a lot of potential ways to address the problem in an engaging, gameplay related way. I personally like the idea of a manual bleedout. If the killer doesn't hook after 30s you can rush your bleedout time, just like letting go on hook. This means it will properly register as a death on the aurvivor's stats but it would also rob the killer of a kill since bleedouts don't count. So it'd be more valuable for the killer to hook instead, lest they risk losing a kill to the bleedout and another to the hatch. If the hatch is supposed to exist it shouldn't be suppressable.

Slugging is fine in certain situations. I do it plenty. But I don't think slugging for the 4k should exist. It does the game nothing but harm, and it's as unengaging as it gets.

I think the bleed out option should be specific to the 2v1, but I think it should also be pretty fast. Like less than a minute, for sure. If you can let go on hook I don't see why you can't let go on the ground.

It is indeed breaking the rules. There's already a solution for that: submitting a report.

Oh go stuff it! You want me to waste even more of my time doing something completely worthless. I'd have to waste some of my hardware's bandwidth to record all my crap just to make my reports effective. People have been doing crap like this for years and I doubt anyone has ever been punished for it. If you can provide me a single example of a player picking up a 72 hour ban for selling out their teammate, I'd be surprised. But I have the grace to not ask you to waste your time on such a fruitless search.

"pwease daddy bhvr can we have more ways to leave for free uwu 👉👈🥺"

And now you're resorting to emotional arguments rather than logical ones. We're done here.