Understanding the "Go Next" epidemic: why did it exist?
Greetings, friends of the Fog! I hope this discussion finds you doing well.
By now most of us have already seen that the Go Next Prevention mechanic was killswitched after the disaster that it caused when players got punished even if they did nothing wrong.
But I think that raises the question as to why such mechanic was added in the first place. And the answer may be obvious at first: the "Go Next" epidemic and the sheer amount of games where players decide to suicide on hook.
The answer is correct, sure, but I would like to propose a deeper discussion:
What was the origin of the "Go Next" epidemic? Why did such thing ever existed in the first place, and how did it reach a level so severe that changes were made to fundamental aspects of the game?
And if I were to share my own answer, I would say it was caused by a gradual deterioration of the survivor role. Because let's think for a second about the year I started playing DBD: 2018. Back then the game simply didn't have DC penalties, one could DC as much as they wanted to, with the only punishment being rank-related (the loss of a pip, if memory serves me right). And yet, people didn't disconnect like crazy every single game.
It happened sometimes, of course, especially with OG Legion, but I wouldn't call it an epidemic of its own.
However, back then there was more to the survivor role than there currently is. They still had proper resources, they didn't have to worry about waves and waves of gen-related killer perks, stealth was still a viable playstyle, killers weren't as oppressive, and the list goes on.
But we all know that changed in more recent times. Survivors lost most of what they had available to them, and nothing was really given. They die more often, their objectives are harder to do (due to perks), and generally speaking they have a worse experience. It is a lack of everything, and it seems to me that was the primary reason for the massive increase of hook suicides.
Let me know what you think, please share your thoughts, any feedback is welcome!
Why do you think the "Go Next" epidemic existed?
Comments
I think burnout is a huge part of it.
The game doesn't give anyone a chance to breathe anymore. The new Quest system feels even more restrictive in how you complete the Rift than before, and the constant onslaught of LTMs with FOMO rewards means players don't feel like they can disconnect from the game because they want to get the rewards for content. And from the perspective of a BHVR Executive, this system works. It maintains player retention at higher rates than if you let players take breaks when they need them.
But because you don't let players take breaks when they need them, players are getting burnt out. They're playing a game they aren't having fun in anymore, and it's leading to sabotaging behaviours such as Go Next.
Literally just a bad player in most cases
Okay, but if you're not interested in figuring out the why, and you just want to vent how much you hate survivors, do it elsewhere. This is just derailing the topic at hand.
It's crazy how that's not what I said.
If you would've read anything I've said in this topic I've made it very clear.
You cannot fix survivors leaving because it's a killer they don't like. You cannot fix survivors leaving if they have a bad first chase. You cannot fix survivors leaving if their TEAMMATE has a bad first chase.
The same way you cannot fix a killer leaving if they have a bad first chase as well. You cannot fix a killer leaving because 1 too many gens popped.
That is the majority of leavers. You can't fix it. You can do all the anti-tunneling, anti-camping, and anti-slugging mechanics you want. You'll fix maybe the 10% - 15% of why people leave. The grand majority of the reasons why people leave will still be there because the reasons most leave are not for the reasonable reasons, it's for the unreasonable ones.
That is why I say, yes… stop playing. Because you've reached a point where something as dumb as it being a killer you dislike or a bad first chase, just means you're going to up and leave.
STOP PLAYING. Stop ruining the experience for the people who actually care to play the game.
But it's okay I know where your brain lies where somehow out of everything I've said, even though I've put it on killers as well you reached the conclusion of me somehow saying "survs bad" and me hating survivors. Stop acting like a victim please.
There’s nothing to learn here. People are ragequitting for invalid reasons, so they deserve to get DC penalties.
Being upset with game balance is not a valid reason to ragequit. Being upset that the game has changed, is not a valid reason to ragequit. I’ve read through many things that were discussed in this thread, and they aren’t valid reasons either.
I would agree with most of them, except the killer ban system, my friend.
While I certainly would love to never play against Wesker or Blight again, I don't think it would be fair for those who play the more unpopular members of the killer roster, as they would take a really long time to find games.
But I agree with everything else, and I would also point out that the maps need adjustments. I would say most if not all map reworks need to be reverted, as they ended up making the maps extremely unfun to play and some of them straight up unfair for survivor, Coldwind Farm in particular.
Personally I believe you can include 2019 into the mix, I don't think balance was a problem back then. But overall, yes I agree.
It is a bit sad when you compare the survivor experience back then to what it currently is.
I’ll won’t delves into too much detail since it’s a bit of a side branch from the original topic, but I do appreciate your perspective and the thought you’ve clearly put into this. I know you’re passionate about improving the game’s core systems, and I share that desire.
That said, where I think we may disagree is the idea that multi-hooking is inherently weak. I don’t personally believe it’s always a bad strategy, but I do agree that it could offer more value than it currently does, especially if the devs want it to be the ideal playstyle moving forward.
Another area where we may differ is in our views on statistics. While I agree that stats can’t tell the full story due to context and nuance, I still see them as a useful baseline. Dismissing them entirely leaves us with only personal perception or anecdotal opinions which is unreliable and always skewed. If these new anti-changes lead to significant kill rate drops for specific killers, I’d prefer to see targeted buffs to help those outliers compete rather than a blanket power shift across the board. That’s how we can pinpoint which killers are underperforming due to relying too heavily on these tactics.
And while it’s not a popular opinion, I do think there’s room to explore something like a dynamic slowdown similar to the 2v8, where excessive snowballing adjusts gen times based on hook states. The goal wouldn’t be to punish success but to reduce lopsided matches where one role barely gets to play. I get that this idea is controversial, but I think it reflects a broader desire for more matches to feel competitive, rather than one-sided blowouts, regardless of who’s winning.
Ultimately, I think we both want the same thing: healthier gameplay for both sides. We just might differ a bit on how best to get there.
In any case, I don’t want to stray too much farther or clog up Generals post. I do hope that you feel as though you’ve been heard. I do appreciate you taking the time to explain all of your opinions and to clarify your stance. I feel like I better understand your position and I do think we are on the same page for the most part. Gliyn!
Of course there is!
The purpose of this thread is to have a discussion about what caused the "Go Next" epidemic to happen, what was its origin, and I believe we are doing just that.
I think it is a valid and important discussion to have.
I agree with this, I think I've said it in another reply, but it is noticeable how less often the game doesn't have an event or modifier going on.
I personally like DBD's events, especially Halloween, but the modifiers are exhausting. Most of them aren't even fun, and they just unnecessarily split the queues and make the matchmaking worse for the regular mode.
To be honest, the reason why Survivors didn't rage-quit much before was that the game was EXTREMELY Survivor-sided.
I started playing when Spirit was first introduced, and here's what they had.
That was the time where Survivors can chill around maps doing totems, opening chests, and still can easily win against most killers. Why would they rage-quit when it's easy game?
Not to put to much a damper on the mood, but don't think that finding the past source will fix what is happening now.
It's like finding out who brought an invasive species. You stopped the culprit, but the damage is done and spreading.
I’m really sorry to hear those frustrations and I totally relate. I also pretty much only play SoloQ. My friends quit playing years ago, aside from one who became a killer main but still ended up losing interest. I’ve dabbled in killer and it’s just not as fun for me personally, and even when I go into it planning on being serious I always end up just memeing or farming because I have more fun. I’m the killer that can be tamed with a cheeky little nod or gift and I’m the survivor that stays behind at end game to give you a kill if you don’t have one because I don’t like snowballing.
But yeah, I get what you mean. I think it’s no secret that SoloQ has been in a rough spot for awhile. Most players will at least acknowledge it, but the difference comes from those that do acknowledge it and still expect players to be content. Wanting improvements has become seen as unreasonable and entitled, even though the game is literally always improving, always changing, and is not in the same state it was previously because other players wanted improvements too, only it was killers. I don’t think that improvements should be limited to a certain role and I think anyone that argues that it should be limited isn’t interested in a fair game.
In any case, I sympathize and I wish you luck in your future games! Keep hanging on! Things will get better, I feel it in my bones. :)
Except that's what's coming out of what you write.
You wholesale reject the idea that there may be -any- resolvable issues that are contributing to this issue, in a desperate attempt to paint ALL quitting survivors as being completely unreasonable and beyond hope.
This is useless. Ironically, you're quitting at the start, just like they are. And when you are given the advice to just quit playing, you just come back with a vengeance and reiterate the same thing that I already refuted.
This is what I mean with you having no interest in solving the issue. You're too hung up on this desire to think the worst of survivors to be interested in exploring any possible angle that isn't 'survs bad'.
You're getting completely bent out of shape and hung up on this idea, and the reality is:
Yes, they should stop playing.
But they're human. And humans don't always do what they should. So instead of just pounding the desk and reiterating over and over again that 'they should just be better', this topic is about exploring the wide network of factors that go into this epidemic (And no, it's not just 'survs entitled') in search of solutions.
You wanna give up on that, fine, but follow your own advice and
Anything else is just you derailing the topic.
Whatever reason you think is 'valid' does not matter, because the reality is that they ARE quitting. Those reasons are valid to -them-. If you want to change that, you have to at least understand them.
It's usually because some people are lazy and want matches with no actual effort needed while simultaneously having no consideration for anyone other than themselves.
Heck, I remember watching a streamer vod after a match of mine where the streamer was absolutely irate because he had to, and I quote, "pay attention to the game" since I was playing ghostface and he had to look around. He'd get furious when I would catch him off guard because he was literally staring at chat instead of the game. Was so used to autopilot mode where he only would pay attention if he heard a terror radius.
Survivor's resources, as I've said.
We started somewhat close, I started around Legion's release. And yes, survivors have more to work with, now they haven't. Not a single thing on the list remained unchanged.
Was it justified? Depends. Some nerfs were needed, others weren't, but the fact is that, either way, survivors lost almost everything they have. Only the bare minimum remains, and in some scenarios not even the bare minimum (deadzones).
The experience deteriorates a lot when you don't really have much to work with.
I would say it helps, my friends, if the devs are willing to act on it. I think we can only have an effective solution if we fix the root of the problem, even if it isn't easy to do so.
For me… I want to believe a reason was the endless wave of Anti-Loop Killers on top of Gen Perks
But even with all of that the numbers related to those Gen Perks… 200% Gen regression on COB for 60 seconds or until a Survivor touches a Gen… OG Eruption being 10% of total progress lost and if Survivors are on the Gen they are infected with Incapacitated for 16 seconds
I think it started with Legion and Plague (since they were released back to back)
I think, my friend, that the wave of anti-loop killers and gen perks have a bigger impact on this matter than Legion and Plague.
Or, specifically, Plague. Because Legion caused a lot of DCs when they first released, because they were genuinely unbearable to play against. Plague I think was okay, at least in my experience I don't remember seeing a lot of DCs against Plague in the old days.
The most important thing to change, is making sure people that ragequit get the DC penalties they deserve.
And both Legion and Plague came with a Gen perk… just not slowdown
Plus some survivors not wanting to play against Killers they don't like… of course it wasn't as bad back in the day
Honestly, my dear friend, I had forgotten Discordance existed. Haven't seen it in a long time. Remember when its Tier 1 version was straight up better than the Tier 3 version? Good times.
And yes, I believe there always was a factor of some players not wanting to play against character they disliked. But, as you've said, it didn't happen that often back in the day. And I don't think players got increasingly more petty, I think something else caused the "go next" thing to become an epidemic.
So if I'm thinking right we could say that Blight and Nemesis being added was the start of the epidemic
Blight due to his map traversal and Nemesis with Eruption
Maybe even Sadako with COB and the Overcharge re-work
The whole Gen kick META for all intense and purposes
Blight also started the Ruin + Undying meta, but I don't recall if it caused a lot of DCs and hook suicides.
It was terrible though.
My guess would be not really… but it gave the idea of it
I have another theory…
Maybe when Survivors were playing against the same Killer with the same perks and same playstyle
Then we'd like to ask for your opinion something.
Let's assume for arguments sake (for the ones we KNOW will come say "but it's not just that" this is a hypothetical) the root of the recent epidemic is that people have gotten used to being able to quit without punishment and become more petty.
Since the metaphorical well is poisoned what could be done that would be satisfactory to the majority?
The poison being the original petty DCers and the trend they set. The well being the player base. A reversion would help somewhat but if the changes that caused this trend were a literal catalyst (like, chemistry catalyst) the problem (the DC epidemic) would remain because the metaphorical well would still be poisoned (the trend being set).
Our three cents would argue that you should heavily discourage the trend you want gone and then slowly introduce a new one you want. But now we're beginning to drift out of topic so we'll stop there.
Also likely, and especially considering the sheer amount of tunneling in modern DBD, which got so bad that we're getting an anti-tunnel mechanic in phase 2.
My guess, friends?
Revert many of the changes made to the survivor role (doesn't have to be all of them), and at the same time keep the removal of the hook suicides (except when there are two survivors alive, then it should be possible to let go for hatch).
Is it a perfect solution? Probably not. But it seems to me that it would prevent people from going next while also improving the survivor experience, and if the survivor experience is good players are less likely to give up in the first place.
At least that is what I think could work. I could be wrong.
Was terrible on the survivor end for sure. But in saying DCs weren't as bad back then really shows how selfish the community has become.
Legion is when the playerbase saw that disconnects drove bhvr to make brash changes. So until it doesn't work or you punish the act, it will continue to happen.
How can it possibly be selfish of me?
I just don't remember, that's all.
Completely denying that tunneling is the meta is certainly a choice.
The only variable with tunneling is where or not the killer can tunnel the first survivor out of the game faster than the gens can be completed. It makes the game a race. And usually it's a race the killer can win, since people swear by this strategy, and even go so far as to say it's "required".
Since I made it clear that this is the context I was talking about, it's generally incredibly unlikely that a hard tunneling killer is completely unsuccessful in getting even one kill. In fact, according to nightlight, only 23.8% of games end in a 0k. So there's at least a 76.2% chance that the first survivor hooked isn't going to escape, and if they're just tunneled... They get chased to death, which was my entire point.
That's far from "objectively untrue", as you put it.
I doubt they're going to implement bans at all, but your response is a textbook slippery slope argument.
My point is that there are solutions available. Whether or not they are implemented, or in what capacity is a different discussion. But that's just of the top of my head, and for literally accessibility reasons, as I said.
If you read what I actually wrote, I said if one bad chase means the entire match is over. I never said or implied that it automatically wins, rather that strong early pressure often leads to snowballing to a win in the current state of the game.
Which, again, in the context of hard tunneling means that the killer is winning the race. If you know that no one has touched a gen and you're on hook already, there's really not a significant chance of that match turning around.
If the killer can get someone out of the match and more than 1 gen remains, that's effectively game over.
That's why people tunnel, it's insanely strong early. That's not "objectively untrue".
Unless, of course, you're taking the stance that tunneling is somehow worthless, but I doubt that.
Wasn't call you selfish.
...
Unless we are talking about Freddy.
Neither what me or you said had to do with tunneling. I said the notion that "one bad first chase and the game is over" is objectively untrue.
Because it is. Especially since even if you're tunneling, it can still not be over and even better if the killer isn't tunneling it DEFINITELY isn't over.
Which is the point, the survivor is leaving off the bad first chase, they have zero indication if the killer is tunneling. Which this isn't what the topic is about because I've already stated multiple times there's reasonable reasons to leave and unreasonable. Leaving before you even know if the killer is tunneling or not and just off a single chase? Unreasonable.
You keep quoting that even though you're applying it to something I never was talking about. It's disingenuous and misquoting me, please don't do that.
I see. My mistake, friend, I apologize.
…
Wait a minute, what about Freddy?
I could add one more thing. If we're all on second hook at four or five gens, then yes, I don't see us turning the match around, and I would let go on second hook. But even in the matches when we're doing well, I would hold on, but then I would get tunneled off the second hook. Even though I recognize that tunneling would be justified at that point, it still leaves me asking the question, Why did I bother holding on? That's not a good feeling, and essentially tells me that if you're on second hook, you might as well be dead.
That's not always the case, though. Maybe in like 50-60% of the cases?
As another reply said, my friend, I think the comeback potential for survivors has been greatly reduced, overall. But I agree.
Yeah okay the last one wasn't a great example for that exact reason but yeah, maybe you're right there. Novelty being part of the appeal
It almost sounds like you are saying survivors only want to stick around in matches when the match is tilted in their favor. Which is not a good look at all. I am pretty positive the game was not in the best state in 2018. That's when survivors still had the upper hand quite noticeably.
Survivors received quite some nerfs during the last years no doubt. But survivors still have proper resources unless they spawn in on one of the badly balanced maps, gen perks on the killers side have also seen many nerfs over the time and are kind of necessary to keep up with good survivor teams, and the most oppressive killers in the game are Blight and Nurse, two killers that have been in the game for a long time now. Other than those two there aren't really any killers that are particularly oppressive. Kaneki is a bit of a problem still, but other than him, most recent killers have been pretty balanced. Maybe a killer like Hillbilly or Dracula could receive a tiny little nerf but that's kind of it.
Also, survivors haven't lost almost everything that they used to have, that is a massive exaggeration. Survivors still have plenty of strong perks, just like killers have.
The game is arguably in it's most balanced state yet. That doesn't mean it's in a perfect state however, far from it. But it has definitely improved.
With that said, the solo survivor role has gotten more rough over the years, and there surely are valid reasons as to why people would want to give up earlier into the match. But I would argue it's less about what BHVR has done and more about what they haven't done yet, and that is address survivors biggest frustrations, which is mass slugging, tunneling and camping. I can only pray that the coming anti-slugging, anti-camping and anti-tunneling changes will be impactful. Those are the changes that would help survivors feel much less need to go next.
I can not stress enough that whether a killer is fun to go against or not is completely subjective. I find a lot of the more recent killers to be fun to go against for example. So that's really not a good excuse for leaving a match early. There are however frustrations survivors have to deal with that are pretty much universally agreed upon and those are tunneling and camping, which you already touched on.
Hello friend, good to see you here!
Honestly, I disagree with your points here. It is not that the match needs to be tilted in the survivor's favor, it is that people are less likely to be interested in sticking around if the game isn't providing them with an enjoyable experience, and I think the gradual deterioration of the survivor role makes its experience increasingly less enjoyable.
Because survivors did lose a lot. Not just the perks listed in the beginning of the thread, but also in terms of what they can do. Getting a Coldwind map in current DBD against, let's say, Kaneki (who is extremely fun to play as but horrible to go against) isn't balanced. Personally, I don't think DBD is even close to its most balanced state, whatever it was it stayed in the past, certainly before patch 6.1.0
The survivor role just provides… less. Of course we are not here to justify DCs or hook suicides, but I don't think it is a stretch to say that the survivor role gradually becoming worse in the process of inflating kill rates caused people to give up more often.
If a killer downs a survivor at 5 gens, and no gens have progress (because lethal pursuer, corrupt etc), then the killer has the giant lead. The survivor is unhooked and the killer is back to tunnel them out. At this point, the game is already over for survivors. Might as well go next as fast as possible. I don't blame anyone wanting to go next.
This game needs something to prevent this
it's because survivors realized that instead of getting better that the game they can just go next instead and cry to bhvr to get whatever they don't like nerfed since it also inflates kill rates at the same time and also they get into matches faster (especially since now this is a killer only chapter so there is an abundance of killers atm)
It is subjective for sure. However when was the last time you saw a killer everyone enjoyed on both sides?
Can you blame the killer here? The other survivors are crouching around if they're not working gens. He obviously left the hook to look for someone else, but couldn't find anyone. So he went back to hook, where he knows there are two survivors, and only finds the blood trail and scratch marks for the injured survivor just coming off hook. The other survivor went back to stealthing.
Is he supposed to just ignore the only survivor he can find and go randomly looking for one of the immersed survivors?
One of the best ways to prevent tunneling is to take aggro. When a killer hooks someone and comes to your gen, you don't always have to hide. Sometimes it's best to take the chase, especially if you're in a somewhat strong area at the start of the game. I'm much less likely to go back to hook if I'm already chasing someone.
Yes, you can always blame the killer for tunneling. That's not even an argument. It's a video game, made for enjoyment and having fun. One person no matter how bad being singled out of a game immediately removes any semblance of fun for that person, there is 20% of the enjoyment for that match being removed from it nearly instantly. 90% of games you can easily figure out exactly how a killer is going to be as well, see someone being a little too hesitant to walk across the map? You're likely getting tunneled and killed immediately, might as well go next, not like you will be playing much anyway.
So… let me get this straight.
In a PvP game, you want one player to throw the match and ignore the only enemy they can see in favor of… blindly wandering around and trying to find someone else?
I think the number of gens remaining can be deceiving. It can show you go down with 5 gens left but in reality 3 gens could be close to 99% or something. You never really know how close 5 gens remaining is to being 1/2/3 gens remaining and that number can make it feel like there’s no hope.
As of 6.1.0, the game has adopted more of a Killer mentality. Not only is it balanced moreso with Killers in mind (impossible to avoid when you're intentionally keeping the 40/60 KR in mind), but the Killer mantras of "your fun is not my responsibility/I can play however I want" and "my job is to kill/win" have become law. That brings the game to such a one-sided place, that it really might as well be PVE most of the time.
Survivors are in this limbo where we're expected to play more with that Killer mentality, yet not. We're still held accountable (both figuratively and literally with the new prevention systems) for not being the ideal Survivor, while most of our tools to facilitate doing so are gone. What more can you ask of a role that expects you to know more than your opponent, work harder than your opponent (to dwindling returns), overcome greater handicaps than your opponent, maintain hope in the face of defeat, and lose gracefully all while maintaining much slower progress in every aspect of the game than your opponent? It's a no-brainer.
You'd think it would be obvious to anyone that plays the game, especially those overseeing development, but it seems that the voices that matter the most seem to agree that the game is in the best state it's ever been.
Yes, I do agree that patch 6.1.0 is indeed to blame for most of it, and in my honest opinion it was by far one of the worst patches in DBD's history.
This whole process of artificially making the kill rates higher was flawed from the start, as the way it was done basically meant depriving survivors of everything and making them easier targets as a consequence. Because that is the point, survivors were supposed to die more often and they are dying more often, which just creates a bad experience for the role.
And honestly, my friend, I have yet to see any convincing argument proving that, somehow, DBD is in its best state ever. I find that pretty much impossible to believe. Because when you chose to play as a survivor, get one of the current Coldwind maps, against a killer that is extremely oppressive in chase and downs you extremely quickly… that is not even close to the best possible experience in DBD, and that goes for both sides involved.
That's what's wild to me too. It was day and night. Sure DCs and going next were always a thing, but the two weeks following that patch were AWFUL. They saw it happening and did nothing about it. The game never fully recovered. And now 3 years later, somehow they're still wondering why it's happening at all.
Exactly. Even when we get what should be a balanced patch, it somehow still skews more toward punishment than relief. The 3 gens are a great example of that. A flawed Killer is released that breaks the game, due to no fault of the players who weren't setting up a specific strategy for that one Killer, and yet we still lose gen tapping as some sort of penance which only helps to maintain the 3 gen in the first place. Why not implement a checkpoint system instead? Seems better than limiting kicks too. Hell, even Frank Stone beat DBD to that.
Also I'd like to say that I've lurked here for a long time and I've always found you to be one of the more insightful and pleasant posters on the board. I don't know how you do it, but it's always a pleasure to see you around.
Exactly. And honestly, I believe the game will never recover unless most of 6.1.0 gets reverted and the design goal of 60% KR is abandoned, because survivors will never have a good experience if that number is to be maintained at all costs.
The 3-gen example you've mentioned, friend, is one of the things that makes me a bit concerned for the anti-tunneling / camping / slugging mechanics from phase 2. Because those are supposed to help survivors, that is the goal, but recent history really makes you wonder how effective they will end up being.
Also, thank you very much for your kind words, my friend, I appreciate it <3
With these new changes, it's sacrificing matchmaking speed as well which is pretty risky territory. I think of all the things we couldn't have over the years due to matchmaking but that's out the window now I guess.
I think if we keep our expectations within the realm of "anti-camping" → "anti-face camping", we won't be disappointed. That's my stance at least. 😅
Anytime. 😌
That's why Behavior's upcoming anti-tunnel needs to actually address hard tunneling a single person from the start of the match. I hope this is the case and it isn't some lazy nonsense like "survivors will receive a 1% repair speed bonus if the same survivor is hooked twice in a row".