BHVR, Let killers abandon once exit gates open PLEASE
Why should I have to sit through survivors intentionally prolonging the game instead of just escaping? It is literally just the same thing as killers bleeding the survivors out except the survivors "bleed" the killer out. Like bro, what are we doing? These abandon changes just seem so one-sided.
The survivors time is SO important that we have to add an abandon system, but god forbid a killer be able to abandon when all 4 survivors are sitting at the exit gate, DELIBERATELY WAITING to bully the killer and make them feel like (bad word) when they have already lost on top of it.
The survivors time is so precious that the devs add the abandon system yet those same survivors sit in endgame and tbag for 2 minutes. because their time is just so valuable. Let me add that this happens so consistently it's comical.
PS: and before anyone says "just push them out", why should I have to deal with not only getting deliberately harassed on an already bad game? Just add the abandon feature it won't affect gameplay in the slighest. Legitimately every survivor dc's once the killer wins anyways, so let the killer dc once the survivors win and just give survivors the escaped points once the killer dc's
Comments
You actually will and it actually happened often enough that the developers had to step in and do something about it.Past tense. Happened. Are you are claiming that the abandon changes didn't address this for survivors even slightly? Nevermind, don't even bother responding. You're either unable to understand what I'm saying, or you're just dishonest. Either way, there's nothing to be gained for either of us.
Im a bit confused by this response. So I am not really "understanding what you are saying" but not in the context you sent the message to me.
The abandon features did address the problem of stalling matches… more than slightly…. it eliminated it. Like it doesnt happen anymore. So yea it addressed it entirely.
If you are going to say this kind of stuff in your responses to somebody its probably best kept to yourself. Theres no need to shut down conversations in an open discussion(the forums) while name calling others with "dishonest"
Im just telling you the history of what you were saying in a previous post.
If you are going to say this kind of stuff in your responses to somebody its probably best kept to yourself.Taken from a current screenshot of the first two posts:
Was just going to include how you need to follow your own advice, but I figured the ratios were worth including. And I don't even like downvoting. And I don't even necessarily agree with the OP.
I honestly don’t understand how someone can have played thousands of matches and not see this as a core part of DBD.Maybe I just don't want to engage with you, especially since you don't seem to understand any perspective than your own regarding this subject. Please honor that request and stop responding to my posts.
Disagreeing =/= and telling someone not to respond
Former is what I did, give my opinion. The second is what you did … by telling me not to respond to you.
If likes and dislikes are what you value so much over actual discussion you are sort of highlighting the problem. Thats not how you justify saying things to others on the forums. Or view points for that matter.
My second quote you have there is me questioning why that person wants a give up button to devalue gameplay I highlighted in my response.
If this is the case than its not necessary to respond to someone at all. And "you dont see anyone else's perspective than your own" is a very odd way to antagonise others in conversation.
This is all unrelated to the thread by the way. The attempted call out here is not furthering discussion on the topic.
I like your color scheme in the screenshots though.
I wasn't talking to you. I made that painfully clear. Stop trying to start an argument.
This is all unrelated to the thread by the way. The attempted call out here is not furthering discussion on the topic.This is why I've been telling you to not respond.
Well, the abandon option only appears when there's a no-win situation. Technically, you can still win with the Exit Gates open. Really, only Survivors are capable of being put in no-win situations, the Killer still has plenty of options regardless of the state of the match.
Man I've never seen a more fragile community than the one here. You want to quit because you didn't win? Force the survivors out. You want to be able to rage quit once the exit gates are open? Good God, this community complains about every single thing that doesn't need to be fixed or changed.
Thats not something you get to tell others in conversation.
Dont quote me if you dont want a chance for me to respond. You quoted me several times, I responded.
Quoting someone in conversation and then going "dont respond to me" is talking at someone and then plugging your ears and closing your eyes.
Which is doing this:
If you dont want to engage with someone. Dont engage with someone. Its that simple.
Did they rework Unbreakable, Deliverance, Luck offerings, and Exponential? Are they not adding a perk that not only has an easy activation requirement, but allows you to get up and reposition yourself while slugged which people are already learning how to pair with perks like power struggle? Even with the eventual down, its potential to reset the game is far more than zero.
The chances are still low, but I'm tired of people selectively pretending they are zero while simultaneously pretending the killer has any type of real chance when all remaining survivors are in the exit gate. If they're uninjured and the killer doesn't have either an instadown or a gate blocking perk/ability, they can even hang out at the nearest window and spam fast vault while still escaping before the killer can punish them for it. Again, the issue is consistency. Both sides have both check and checkmate scenarios, the system does not address them evenly.
Then why do survivors have the ability to quit when they are all slugged? All people are asking for is parity. If survivors can abandon to skip out on going through the motions of dying then killers should be able to skip out on going through the motions of chasing out every single survivor who are intentionally wasting time.
And this is all I and others who ask for this are saying.
Why do Killers have to remain to the end of a checkmate when Survivors can leave if checked, even when there is a way the Survivors could mount a comeback such as a perk in play?
If BHVR will not add this for Killers, at least don't let Survivors abandon when something like Deli or UB is in play until there's not another option. I'm tired of other old players like me gatekeeping this game for people. Just because we had it harder doesn't mean new players should.
I'm not even responding to any of the bad faith people who responded to me anymore. All people are asking for here is some parity. Either everyone can do it or nobody should be able to.
Ironically I don't even necessarily want it to be as lax for killers as it currently is for survivors. That would be insane, especially without having killer bots. I just think they went overboard on taking care of survivor specifically vs killer considerations, on an issue they both shared in different iterations (which obviously come with their own nuances.) The logic used to defend the current iteration is just always purposely weighted in a way to try to make them look as unrelated as possible, and the only reasonable oppositions I ever see are generally aimed at how much of a disaster it would be to give killers the same freedom that the survivors are currently afforded.
My position has always been that any and all reasons for allowing a player to abandon need to be equal across the entire playerbase because the actual legitimate issues that would call upon it are deeper than the specific case details that people use to try to force a false dichotomy. Thats it.
I value my time too much to wait for them to leave. If it's tbags you are worried about, I can report that I very very rarely cop a tbag while escorting the stragglers out.
If you are someone who *often* cops tbags in the exit gate, I'm going to assume they're being rude because they felt you were being rude to them throughout the trial. In which case, well, give and take as far as I'm concerned (and that goes for either side - if you dish it out, prepare to take it back).
The thing is, just because you have options doesn't mean it's fun to do those options.
I've maintained that a good stop gap fix would be a limit of something like 30 seconds after the last down before one can DC. This could easily be prorated so that it would be shorter for the first person downed than the last. They could obviously come up with something better as a more long term solution, but there just needs to be something to stop people from bouncing the moment they touch the ground, and unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe thats a direction they plan to even consider.
I have hearing and vision issues that make tracking much more difficult than they were intended. Even when I run things like stridor, bugs often disproportionately affect my ability to track, so it tends to lead to an overreliance on aura perks and addons. I'm at peace with the fact that BHVR purposely makes accessibility issues with that aspect of the game, but the long and short is that people tend to be pretty full of themselves when they know they have a clear advantage. So instead of dealing with the BM, I just stick to survivor where my handicap has much less of an impact, and I get tools to offset the issues it causes.
edit: lmao apparently this got a downvote
Hi everyone. A reminder to please keep comments civil and respectful on the Official Forum. Thank you!
I'm just going to point out that the abandon feature with regard to slugging is only in one, very specific scenario where all survivors are slugged or dead.
The abandon feature is not available in what is probably the most common form of slugging, which is slugging for the 4k, because one survivor is still standing. And that's just one common example.
So does the abandon feature address the concern "even slightly"? Yes, in very specific circumstances (which are, coincidentally, basically within the killers control).
Does this still happen, present tense? Absolutely.
This is why I didn't even want to respond to them. I never said that it fixes everything ever about the situation, which is what he implied with that attack. He didn't even quote the complete sentence on purpose:
You wont win, but you will almost never be stuck in a losing match for longer than it takes to either die,instead of
You wont win, but you will almost never be stuck in a losing match for longer than it takes to either die,or your team to wipe, whichever comes first.I originally left room for the fact that, yes, the abandon system does not address every situation the moment that any survivor touches the ground. My issue is that the last survivor gets that courtesy, and at a disproportionate value to any other survivors that are stuck either in the down or hooked state and have been waiting that whole time. Thats why I even mentioned in my example solution that the time to wait could be prorated for the people who have already been waiting.
Edit: It also distracts away from the actual point by needing to clarify that in a tangent, so thats always fun.
Like this one
I'm curious how it could be abused. I'd imagine if it meant the game ended right there and straight to title screen? Lets say that's the case. As long as all alive survivors get escape BP and any credit for escaping like achievements or challege, where is the harm?
But to take it a bit further, the killer gets replaced by a bot and survivors have free ability to leave or search out items or hatch. I can't see that becoming abusive from the killer end. Unless the AI is turned up to 11 or something.
If a killer abandoned, but there was a bot killer left behind who was pretty much zero threat and just a token stopgap to prevent the game from kicking everyone out and the EGC started, they would rightfully complain that would be a waste of time. The only ones who would like it would be people using that time for stuff like quests or farming, so it would probably also have to come with something like starting the EGC and/or limiting those, which would then lead to other issues.
I'm not a fan of just removing an entire stage of the game. There can be merit to gameplay for both sides in situations like the EGC, and there often is. The problem is when there isn't. Even when people claim that there is with token BP from stuff like kicking doors or breaking pallets, the game is sometimes already over before it actually ends. Just like when all 4 survivors are either dead/hooked/downed. And like that scenario, there are very limited factors that can restore meaningful gameplay. Without them though, it is over.
All meaningful objective potential is the key determining factor on whether agency is actually present. It should not be treated the same when it is there vs when it is not. The rub is that there will always be ways for that to be exploited by either side, which is why its so important to have parity in how such a system is introduced. Its either for both checks and checkmates, or specifically for checkmates alone. And making it allow checks for both sides would basically kill the entire concept of an endgame, so thats probably not the best direction to go in.
Closing this thread to avoid any further escalation from some recent comments that were observed.