The Game could have an option to vote for quitting if a match was lost
A problem that I have a lot in my games is that the killer keeps holding the game, leaving the survs on the ground or has 2 survs alive and about 3 generators to fix, and the Killer build is very strong, and we want to finish it soon to go to the next match and we are forced to get stuck in them
My idea would be: if we stayed XX of time (about 10 minutes for example )in the game and a survivor was already dead, disconnected or unable to continue the game, we could vote to give up the game and give the victory to the Killer,I don't mind losing as long as I have a pleasant experience in my matches.
Killers could also have something similar when all gens are made and the exit gates open, since the game is lost for him and the survs don't escape the game
Comments
You bleed out anyway and the survivors have the end-game collapse so eventually both games end naturally.
I like long games.
An option to vote to end the game would be awful. If people voted to end a game I was enjoying then I would go into vote to end every game for the next 3 years mode. Actually, now that I think of it, that is an awesome idea. I would vote to end every game right when it starts. Let's make this happen.
You don't understand, it's not to vote at the beginning of the match, but after a certain time (10 minutes for example) but when the match is already lost for some of the sides, in addition the vote has to be for everyone and not just your
But if everyone agreed to vote to leave, surely they would just give the killer the 4k they are desperate for? If not, what IS the hold up? If you mean he is just bleeding out the last 2, it sucks, but it is also not worth adding a vote to end match feature. At worst you need to wait 4 minutes, which is annoying, but you will not even get halfway through a YouTube video with those odds. Ha ha ha...
Then just add hard time limit of 30 minutes or something like that, that will do better for removing hostage situation.
I agree. If the Killer hasn't won by the ~25 minute mark, the match should just end. It would prevent Survivors from stealthing forever and Killers from extending the match unnecessarily.
If you want the match to end just go find the killer and let them bleed you out. Its in these situations that watching netflix while the game is in a PiP works not much else you can do if your not able to save or do gens. I mean sure you dont want to give the killer a ez 4k but their tactic wont work in higher mmr. Its one reason we have boon exponential.
Exactly, finally a person who understood my proposal, the others seem to think that I want the game to end up being long, but that's not it, I just want to be able to end a game because I have nothing else to do, this game depending on the team you play, or if someone disconnects at the beginning of the match, there's nothing else to do but go to the next match
however, I don't want the game to have a time limit on the game, it just has to have a time limit to release the option to withdraw, but the game would only end if all survs agreed to vote in favor of withdrawing from the game and give the victory to the killer
Yes, the killer would win the 4k , but all survs would have to agree to abandon the match, in fact this feature exists in identity V and avoids having matches where the killer tries to keep a surv stuck in it, few people use this feature there , even because the killer doesn't keep us on the ground,
The issue with voting to end the match is that this is an asymmetrical game and survivors will always out-vote the killer when it comes to their interests. Sure, in this situation where the killer is more or less taking the game hostage, survivors can vote to get it over with. But on the other side of the coin, where a bully SWF is refusing to complete generators so they can dunk on the killer? The killer can't pass a vote through them.
The only time this could properly function and players won't vote as blocs is if there was a cheater in the match. Overall, I think there are better ways to deal with stalled matches.
I think I didn't explain the idea correctly, its purpose is to have a vote, in case there is a hacker in the game, or someone who disconnects, or that the game is already won for the killer, like, there are moments when there is nothing to do not to wait for the next game, sometimes the Killer is much stronger than the surv, since this MMr is a little troll, that's the purpose of my idea, when I enter I want to play, but there are a lot of games that won't work nothing, but we don't want to give DC
but this is a theoretical opinion on your part, but think like this: you're playing surv and someone disconnects right at the beginning of the game, or there's a hacker in the game, it wouldn't be a good idea for the guys to be able to vote to end the game without harming the game?
DBD is not a perfect game the way it is, otherwise I wouldn't be wasting time creating ideas and trying to make you understand them, we know there are a lot of people disconnecting and people just want to increase the penalty, that doesn't solve the problem, it just affects players that the internet goes down, the voting system exists in several games, and it works well, in DBD it could work too, as long as the voting system only works under specific conditions
It shouldn't be majority vote.
Survivors as (whole) team would be able to surrender.
Killer (as 1-man) team would be able to surrender.
Give it correct condition to start and it's good.
In those situations, yes, it benefits the game to have the ability to unilaterally agree to end the match. That's just not what you framed in your OP - you made it sound more like it was a way survivors could get around BMing killers and killers could get around BMing survivors (but only in the endgame, and not the actual scenarios where the killer is being held hostage.)
A way to bail from a match that had a DC or a hacker would be a great addition to the game, but at the same time, you'd need ways to prevent it from being used inappropriately (like a SWF deciding to surrender as soon as they start losing, which denies the killer points and challenges.)
SWF can do that regardless. Just go to hook, jump into/over nearest locker/window/pallet and point at hook. Killer has no choise but to down/hook them or stay in a game where nobody does anything. Killer can't make SWF suddenly play out the match.
And yes - surrender should give hooks-worth of BP to killers/escape's worth BP to survivors.
That's right, I apologize for not having explained it right, sometimes I have ideas that would be good, but because I don't know how to explain it generates all this misunderstanding, I have a little disability that unfortunately makes me explain things the way they seem negatives
in no way do I want to harm Killer's game or any other player, but the mechanics that DBD uses makes the game often unplayable, which generates these disconnects that people are complaining so much about, or people who kill themselves on the hook,There are also killers who leave the surv on the ground until they die and don't put them on the hook, or even the survivors who open the exit gate and the killer needs to wait for them to escape.
there will always be people with bad intentions, but this has always existed, we need to think of this idea as a solution, after all, when someone comes in to play DBD the idea is to play, if you noticed that the players gave up with malicious intentions, you should be able to report it , it even has a function for that, but apparently it doesn't work well in practice yet
While that's true, I was thinking more about adepts or kill challenges. It'd get annoying to do those if everyone could reliably say "nah, I'm out" on matches they don't like.
But otherwise, yeah, it'd be a good thing to have. My thought on a surrender mechanic is that it should be gated by a long period of nothing progressing - like no gens being done in 10 minutes, or no health state loss occurring in 10 minutes. Ideally BHVR could get their act together and handle cheaters by actually baking in game recognition that something's gone wrong (people moving at 400%, people flying above or beneath the map, survivor health states changing several times per second, the killer having a power that doesn't match that killer, a player having 40 perks active, action bars moving at 1000% percent speed or 0.01% speed) and letting players vote to end the game once something wacky has been detected.
No worries, that happens all the time. I'm not the greatest with explaining stuff either. And the stuff you listed is all annoying behavior I've been asking BHVR to discourage for just about as long as I've been here. A system like this would definitely help, it just needs to be carefully thought out so it can't be abused.
For players quitting maliciously, I'm not actually sure what BHVR's current stance is? I hope it's reportable, but BHVR's report system is a dysfunctional mess that some platforms can't even access, and I know some of the terms on the endgame report screen are outdated. For instance, they say disconnecting is reportable, but separately say not to report disconnects because the DC system handles it.
While I mostly agree with you, I don't think this would be an issue.
A stomp will always be stomp and you will never get much points/achievements in such a game even now (surrender system will just make it a little shorter).
And on closer games people will not surrender until it does not matter (say last surrender sirrenders after hatch got closed and gates are next to each other). Killer should get that kill no matter what (survivor's only chance is lucky chest key or killer DC's by net problems). So why not count that immediatelly as killer's kill (say mori)?