Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors
I've been playing Judgment for about 10 days now. And the MMR reset will have undoubtedly contributed to my experience playing Judgment, but still I noticed a crazy amount of survivors being salty after matches, calling her a broken/braindead killer. Berating me for using a certain playstyle, bringing certain perks, etc..
Why? Because they were not having fun. They were mostly unable to counter my playstyle or perks, probably due to not having enough experience against Judgment yet, which is perfectly understandable whenever a new killer releases.
They all had a certain level of expectations from me, their teammates, the trial itself, and they became irritated when things didn't go their way. It's almost as if they expect certain results or outcomes to just be handed to them.
This is sometimes referred to as "Survivor Entitlement". Something that I've had to deal with a lot, regardless of the role I played over the past 4 years (80% survivor, 20% killer by the way). And lately it's becoming more apparent.
So, I feel compelled to once again be painfully clear. (I've gone in a lot of detail this time for all the newer DBD players or anyone who simply needs a reminder.)
When playing public matches in Dead by Daylight, regardless of role or game mode:
You are entitled to nothing. Absolutely nothing.
For both roles, this means that during a trial:
- You are not entitled to a favorable outcome of the trial
- You are not entitled to only play on realms/maps that you personally like
- You are not entitled to not see a certain character in the trial, because you dislike or even hate them
Additionally, when playing a trial as a Survivor:
- You are not entitled to have teammates of a certain skill level
- You are not entitled to only play against killers that you personally like
- You are not entitled to the killer being what you would call 'friendly'
- You are not entitled to the killer not utilizing a certain playstyle
- You are not entitled to the killer not bringing the best possible perks and add-ons that they can
- You are not entitled to not be tunneled, if the killer decides to do so
- You are not entitled to not be slugged, if the killer decides to do so
- You are not entitled to not be proxy-camped, if the killer decides to do so
And when playing a trial as a killer:
- You are not entitled to not play against what is called a 'bully squad'
- You are not entitled to not have survivors repair generators as fast as they possibly can.
- You are not entitled to the survivors not bringing the best possible perks and add-ons that they can
For the parts that you can actually influence: If you do want to achieve a certain result, then you have to work for it.
You will have to put in effort. That means trying, failing, re-trying, and doing it all over again until you get the result you want. You will not get certain results or outcomes handed to you. Other players are not responsible for your fun.
And yes, I had to learn that too, because I too used to be what you'd call 'entitled'. And I'm happy to say that I've left that behind me.
So, from an ex-entitled DBD-player to anyone who needs to hear it: If you want to achieve something, work for it. Just like everyone else.
Comments
What? That's not what I said, stop putting words in my mouth, I just explained why people are usually not that upset about a killer giving up in comparison to a survivor, all I ever said is that people who load the game should just play the game, because they decided to start it, it was their choice
But one survivor being gone doesn't just shift the game, It makes the game unwinnable and pointless if the killer is at an even skill level. There's literally no point playing out a game if a teammate dc's because there's basically no chance of escaping unless the killer lets you go or doesn't try on purpose. This is why you should be able to leave and dc without a penalty if someone on ur team does.
The conditions are more strict for winning on survivor because you need 4 good players at a decent level to beat a good killer, you all need to be on the same page and you ALL have to be playing the game well. You just need yourself as killer to win. Yes i know this is because it's an asymmetrical game, but it's also why survivor is more unpopular than ever. Why rely on teammates when I can just play the role that relies on myself and I know i can win games by myself?
No not everyone gives up and goes to killer or starts dcing, but for a healthy que system and game you need FOUR survivors to every ONE killer, so you need to make survivor 4 times as attractive to play. That's just not happening at the moment.
That's probably cause the last 4 years is when alot of solo agency has been removed from the game, this is somethign that started happening loooong ago. Go back about 7 or 8 years, the way to win games was incredibly different. Your individual chase skill could single handedly determine games, and there was much more of a correlation between your chase skill and ability to influence the game. Alot of chase skill has been removed these days, and the game at the top level is literally about playing guesswork 50/50s now and insta dropping every pallet. You now win games by dying in corners, doing gens fast, dying in the right spots, trading, winning large amounts of 50/50s etc all these things.
Playing survivor is getting worse that's the problem. You say that you should just get over the learning curve, but there's no reward to this. Contrast to killer, it's much more enjoyable to see how improving your skill level directly translates to tangible changes in your results, gameplay and enjoyment in the way you are able to impact the game.
Yeah so it's double standards, killers are allowed to dc no one cares, survivors dc well the game decides to punish the entire lobby for it. Why don't we make it fair, since we are all about fairness on these forums right?
Unwinnable and pointless, no. But harder, absolutely. So it's up to the survivors to delay that for as long as possible. The expected kill-rate for killers is between 60 and 65 percent if I'm not mistaken, so it's not unexpected that not all survivors make it. Sometimes you're lucky and get out and sometimes you're not. My escape rate is 45%, so I escape less than half of the time.
I agree that, once a teammate DC's, it's gonna be a lot harder. But ending the trial then and there, indirectly punishes the killer-player: They already had to wait anywhere between 5 and 15 minutes for a match, and because one survivor decided to be selfish and DC, the match ends prematurely. So the killer-player doesn't get to play after waiting quite a while already, just because one survivor is selfish. That doesn't seem fair to me.
The current system is not perfect, but, as far as I can tell, it's the best it has ever been. And maybe it can improve even more at some point, but that takes time.
No, because that would only encourage more DC'ing, which is the very thing the DC-penalty is trying to discourage players from doing.
It's very simple: When you as a player press Play, you declare your intent to play a match in the selected role, against the other role. In the case of Survivor you then get into a lobby within 5 to 30 seconds (mostly). You then enter the actual lobby with the other players and you have an additional 55 seconds before the match actually starts to load.
And once that happens, you are committed. Once the match starts to load, you are expected to finish it. You've had about a minute to change your mind and back out after all. But if you didn't, then you're expected to commit to it and finish the trial. After that, you are free to leave.
So, excluding any real-world emergencies, you are not supposed to DC when you're no longer having fun: You have to finish what you started, because that's what you committed yourself into doing towards the other players when you pressed the Play button, went to the lobby and didn't back out. This applies to all players, survivors and killers alike. And if a player thinks that it doesn't apply to them, then that's entitlement. That's selfish.
Assuming MMR does its job, then you should get that. However, MMR prioritizes queue-times over exact MMR matching. So sometimes you get survivors of slightly different skill levels, or maybe one or more survivors are having a bad day and are not performing according to their 'expected' MMR. That is something you can never fully plan for, regardless of what kind of MMR system you're using.
If you have 4 survivors on the same level, same page, and same mindset, then you indeed have a much higher chance for a favorable result. But that just doesn't happen every single time. We're not all comp-level or perfect communicators. You can still get situations where, even if MMR is the same across all survivors, one single mistake can cost the survivors the match, depending on where and when it happens and how the killer deals with it.
And that is exactly why, in my original post, I stated that, as a survivor, you are not entitled to a favorable outcome of the trial. Sure, it can happen, even more so when you put in effort, but you're not supposed to expect it every single match, or even the majority of matches. If you want it, all 4 survivors have to work for it. They're part of a team after all, where each survivor has a shared responsibility for the result of the team. And if survivors refuse to play normally, or purposefully throw the match, they can get punished for that if you report them for unsportsmanlike conduct afterwards.
I don't have enough information to determine if this is indeed what's making playing as a survivor unpopular, but I do agree that playing killer is far easier, since you only have to rely on yourself.
I completely agree with this one. And in order to make it attractive for survivors to play, you could give them an incentive to keep on playing if the balance shifts too much in one team's favor. And there is actually a way to do that, and it is already partially being used in 2V8 at the moment. Keep in mind though that this system has to be thought out very carefully and properly and extensively tested:
There used to be a game similar to Dead by Daylight, called Propnight. 4 survivors, 1 killer, 5 of the 7 generators had to be fixed and 2 exit gates. It was basically 'Dead by Daylight meets Prophunt', but the core gameplay was the same. And what they did was to introduce conditional buffs and nerfs, whenever the balance shifted too much. For example: If 4 of 5 generators were repaired and all 4 survivors were still alive, then the killer would get a 10% speed boost until one of the survivors died.
You can do this the other way around as well. For example: If 5 generators remain, and a survivor has already been sacrificed or killed, you could increase the survivor's repair speed, until an x amount of generators remain. It's basically a way to conditionally 'even the odds' as it were. 2V8 currently uses something similar, where the repair speed is increased or decreased based on the amount of hooks the killers have and the amount of gens that have already been completed.
Is a system like this healthy for the game? I honestly don't know. The only way to know for sure is to test it, which is probably why it's currently in 2V8. And I'm not saying that this could in fact solve anything, but I am saying that it is worth considering.
Can you give concrete examples of this? Like, when you say "the way to win games was incredibly different", what do you mean exactly?
Becoming a better survivor player is not a reward? What kind of reward were you expecting?
Why would this not apply to survivor gameplay? If you become better in chases, you can keep the killer occupied for longer, buying your team time. That's a tangible change as well, is it not? Longer chases also impact the game.
Yeah, do you know why? Cause the Killer isnt on the same team as the survivors. If the killer dc's it doesnt make the survivors more likely to lose. Sure it ends the match right away, removing any chance for survivors to earn more BPs. But aside from that it doesnt hurt the survivors chances of escaping.
So punishing a killer is wrong but punishing 3 survivors is fine? This is why Dc's should just go back to the way they were cause then it punishes no one and ends the game much faster.
I'm glad someone is finally acknowledging that at 99% of skill levels playing killer is harder. Only playing against the literal very best survivor teams is killer harder than survivor.
Your idea based on increasing gen speeds when someone dies etc maybe might increase the player base a little bit? But it's not going to solve the long term survivor killer ratio issues the game currently has. That doesn't make survivor more fun, just holds your hand a little bit if you are losing, which won't matter because likely the time that those mechanics kick in the game is already lost and unwinnable.
What you REALLY need to fix survivor is a complete gameplay overhaul. They need to add a second objective to the game that's interesting for survivors and DOESN'T involve holding m1 on gens. With this objective, they can buff loops to strengths that they used to be, increase chase time and interactivity, nerf killers that hard counter loops and give them all significant chase weaknesses and increase overall game time length. This actually would give some fun and purpose to survivor, whilst also giving survivors agency to make a huge solo impact and carry games. This will never happen though because bvhr relies on grabbing in extremely casual and new players to fill the survivor player base. Good players are greatly more likely to opt for killer currently which is the problem.
What i mean by "the way games used to be won was extremely different", is that in the old days chase was like the main thing that mattered in the game. Survivors had many tools in chase mostly but also some outside that were able to hugely sway and impact games. Chases could last way longer depending on the survivors skill level, and chases felt more like a 1v1 battle which was sick and hella fun. Sure you can argue that some parts of it weren't balanced for killer, but it was undoubtedly more fun for both sides and better for survivor. Nowadays your chase is really secondary to the teams macro and co-ordination. There's less of a different between a good survivor and a mediocre survivor in chase, and it's just less relevant to the game now because most killers chases involve a ticking time bomb where you know you will go down but it's just a matter of 20 or 40 seconds. I can give some specific examples if you want.
Becoming a better survivor is not a reward to new players no, because it doesn't win them nearly as many games as becoming a better killer. Infact it just makes you more frustrated at the game when you get unwinnable games/bad teams etc. And being good individually is LESS relevant than being good as a team now.
I never said that punishing survivors is fine. But if it feels that way to you, then the only one applying the punishment is the DC'ing survivor. In fact, going back to the old system punishes the other 3 survivors even more, because there's no bot anymore that can help. And although mostly not better than an actual human player, a bot is still better than nothing at all.
No. I did not say that either. Also, your statement about skill levels looks contradictory: You stated that "at 99% of skill levels playing killer is harder". But also "Only playing against the literal very best survivor teams", suggesting that's the remaining 1%, killer is also harder. That would make killer harder than survivor 100% of the time.
Additionally, in your post from September 10th 5:24 PM, you said, and I quote, "if I wanted to win playing this game I'd play killer any day, it's a far easier role to win on". So it's 'a far easier role to win on', but also harder at least 99% of the time.
Can you explain how that makes sense?
How can you know that if it's not tested first?
That will depend entirely on the actual mechanics. And the only way to find out what works and what doesn't, is to test it.
Do you realize what you're saying? Buffing loops, nerfing killers by giving them "significant chase weaknesses"? That shifts balance way too much towards the survivors. And there's 4 of them, giving them a huge advantage over killer-players. Also, killers are supposed to chase survivors. It's a core mechanic of the game. Their primary objective.
It's up to the survivors to extend chases for as long as possible using skills, knowledge, resources, the environment, perks and help from other teammates. And chases are ultimately supposed to be lost by the survivors. That's why resources are limited. That's why there's the Bloodlust mechanic for the killer, to make them faster the longer the chase lasts. The goal of a chase is to keep the killer occupied for as long as you possibly can, in order to buy your teammates time. The more time you can give your teammates, the better.
No single survivor is meant to win the game on his or her own. That's why it's a team game: As survivors, you are supposed to work together. It's not 1 killer vs 4 teams consisting of 1 survivor, but 1 killer vs 1 team consisting of 4 survivors.
Maybe. But what about killer-players? Do you think shifting the balance that much towards survivors is fun for killers?
What are you basing this on? There are plenty of good players who play both killer and survivor (for example JRM, Ayrun, Hens and Otz).
Don't they still have those tools? They still have pallets, window-vaults, perks and items to extend chases. Efficient use of those extends chases even further.
And that still applies today. The more skills you have as a survivor, the longer you can keep a killer occupied.
Yes, and that is supposed to happen. As I stated earlier in this comment: Chases are ultimately supposed to be lost by the survivors, but the longer you can keep the killer occupied, the better for the team. In a 1v1 you are not supposed to win against the killer. You are supposed to occupy their time for as long as you can.
That's a matter of mindset. All matches are an experience that teaches you about how to do or not do something, or how to or not to handle a certain situation. You just have to be willing to learn. And if not, then maybe Dead by Daylight isn't for you.
I can't speak for the early days of DBD, since I only started playing in 2022, but I agree that being good individually is less relevant than being good as a team. It's as I said earlier in this comment: No single survivor is meant to win the game on his or her own.
But you seem to think that a bot somehow gives you a chance at escaping. It doesn't. When was the least time you escaped with a bot or 2 on your team the whole game? The answer is pretty much never. So your options become either drag games out that are already decided with bots or end the game earlier and quicker so EVERYONE can go play a more enjoyable with old dcs.
In what way is that statement contradictory? Only when matched against the very best survivor teams is killer harder to pull of than survivor. Your average good/decent even strong survivor team it's still easier to beat as killer. That's why I said 99% of games are harder as survivor, which contributes to que time issues.
Because your idea of increasing gen speeds does not make survivor more FUN. It doesn't change the reasons why survivor is losing players right now. 2v8 Has a horrible player base for survivor and they have that feature in it so it's already been tested clearly, and it doesn't work. I'm arguing that to fix the fundamental problem that survivor has you need to fully rework the role/game and how it's played.
Okay yeah everything I said regarding how to fix this game went right over your head. You gotta put your balancing biases aside for a second because there's plenty of ways to balance what I'm proposing. Balancing in a game like dbd is important but there's no point having a balanced but boring game. If you want to increase the survivor player base and make the role more enjoyable this is by far the best way to do it, and probably the only way to stop the bleed. This worked fine for years on dbd's release btw, the killer hysteria that would come from it is always overblown and exaggerated, because dbd used to work just fine when the game was more like this. Even on release when killer was SO MUCH WEAKER, it was still more than PLENTY fun to play. You can always fix balancing but you can't fix fun if you don't do something drastic about it. Additionally, don't forget that survivor needs to attract FOUR TIMES as many players as killer, so it legit just needs to be fun for 4 times as many people if you want to fix the issue.
Well exactly so you've been brainwashed by ideas from many creators that that's how the SHOULD be and MUST be. Killers MUST always be able to down survivors no Ifs and Buts. Once again I'm saying you need to change this if you wanna put more individual agency back into survivor, which is what made the role popular to begin with.
Your second to last paragraph literally just explains exactly why the survivor player base is dying. You would never say that about killer if it was as hard to win in soloq and miserable as soloq. It's complete double standards and exactly where the problems come from.
Your last paragraph is so telling as well. You never played when the game used to be more individual agency based. This is when the game was super popular on survivor. Survivor has been so handi-capped in all the wrong ways that the role is so pointless individually now compared to what it used to be.
I can agree that the chances of escape with a bot on the team are lower than with an actual human player, but it's still possible. Not guaranteed, but possible.
First of all, it's not always decided: It depends on the stage of the match. Second: A bot is better than nothing. And third: When you say everyone, that includes the killer too. They are players too. And they should not be punished by ending the game earlier and quicker, just because a survivor decided to be DC.
That is not what you said. Read it back: You said "99% of skill levels playing killer is harder". You said "killer", not "survivor". That's what made it look contradictory. However, if you initially misspoke and in fact meant "survivor" instead of "killer", then your argument is not contradictory.
If a system like this is ever implemented in 1v4, it should be used to make matches more balanced, not fun. Fun is not BHVR's responsibility. It is in fact your own. You have to make it fun for yourself.
I do not have enough information to confirm whether or not that's true.
As far as I know, 2v8 does not use MMR, because that would dramatically increase queue times. So you get paired up with players with various MMR levels. The test might probably be better if players had similar MMR, but we won't know that for sure until it's tested that way.
Rework is next to impossible at this point. But after second thought (because you mentioned this in your previous comment), maybe, just maybe, adding some sort of secondary win-condition for survivors could indeed be interesting.
I'm not sure that it did actually go over my head. I commented pretty much on everything you said. Also, if you find the game boring, then don't play it.
You can't just start playing a game and then, because you are not having fun, demand that they change it, just so that you are having fun. That's like choosing to emigrate to another country, and instead of adjusting to the values and customs of that country, you demand that they adjust to you. Imagine if everyone did that. That's just stupid.
The way I see it, BHVR has three responsibilities when it comes to Dead by Daylight: One: Make sure the game works and has as few bugs as possible. Two: Since it's a live-service game, make sure that the game receives new content every now and then. And three: Make sure the game is as balanced as it possibly can, which with a live-service game is an ever ongoing task.
Everything beyond that is up to the players. That includes fun. You have to make it fun for yourself. And if you cannot or will not do that, then maybe the game isn't for you.
Again, I don't have enough information to confirm whether or not it is actually bleeding.
Are you suggesting that the game currently is not working just fine? Because as far as I can tell it actually is. Maybe not the way you personally want it, but it still works. I don't have data on the entire player base, but as far as Steam players are concerned, there's actually a steady, albeit slow, increase in player numbers over the past 10 years. And you don't have to take my word for it: You can see it for yourself on SteamDB.
BHVR is not supposed to 'fix' fun. That's up to the players. You can give your feedback to BHVR via the forums and the surveys, and it's then up to BHVR to decide whether or not to act on it. But they are not responsible for your individual fun. Only you are.
Yes, they do actually. That's why there's the Bloodlust mechanic. That's why resources are limited. The killer is the power role: They are supposed to be stronger than individual survivors.
That's just it: BHVR is not supposed to "put more individual agency back into survivor". It's a team-game: Survivors have to work together to get a favorable result. As I stated twice already: No single survivor is meant to win the game on his or her own. They have to do that as a team.
First: I don't have enough data to confirm if the survivor player base is in fact dying, but considering the increase in player numbers on Steam alone, I don't think it is. Second: I totally agree that solo-queue is indeed harder than a 4-man SWF. And BHVR is doing what they can to bridge the gap between solo-queue and SWF, including introducing the new Survivor Intent system in the PTB today. And third: Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see the double standard here, so you might have to explain that one.
I think I finally understand the source of your discord in this entire conversation: You are comparing old Dead by Daylight with new Dead by Daylight. Is that what this is? Because that would explain where your arguments are coming from. And you're right in saying that I never played the game back then. In fact, I said that myself.
But the game has changed since then. Evolved even. The way the game was back then doesn't matter anymore. The only thing that matters is where the game is today and the direction in which the game is heading. And as a player you can either get by that, or stop playing.
It is absolutely impossible for BHVR to satisfy everyone's needs for Dead by Daylight. They simply do what they think is best. And they are the only ones that get to decide what's best. Not me, not you, not other players. Just them. All we as players can do is advise by providing constructive feedback of our experiences.
And on a side note: Old Dead by Daylight had its problems too. There's this really interesting video from Otz, featuring Cope and RunningMan, going over the "17 reasons NOT to miss the old dbd...", which is also the title of the video.
If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend you do. But then again, since you were there as a player back then, you've probably experienced all of that yourself. Which is even more reason why Dead by Daylight should keep on evolving.
It's possible for me to become the US president. Does that make it feasible, realistic or even a decent chance? No. Doesn't matter that you can "technically" win with a bot, you can also "technically" win with an old dc no?
You say it includes the killer too, but once again it also includes THREE OTHER SURVIVORS. Do you think it's healthy to hostage 3 players just to satisfy 1 other player? It's neither the survivors or killer's fault yet one of these groups is punished and the other isn't. Regardless however, bots are also boring asf to play against as killer because you know it's a free win and there's no challenge.
Sorry yes that was meant to be survivor. 99% of skill levels playing survivor is harder.
"Fun is not BHVR's responsibilty" uhhh yea it quite literally is if they want anyone to play their game. Ppl don't play dbd for the balance, they play it for the fun. You are asking for the game to die if you think this.
I don't find the game boring. STATISTICALLY more survivor players find the game boring and unfun and unfair. Why else would you write a whole post complaining about DCing survivors?? You clearly recognise that survivor retention is a problem. What causes this problem? The fun factor. It's literally that simple. Why do you play video games in the first place? Why do you play some games and not others???
This is mega gaslighting. I'm not asking to change the game to something new for the sake of it because I don't personally like it. I'm asking that the game be changed to what it USED to be when survivor retention used to be significantly higher. It's not new, it's literally just how it used to be before YOU guys tried to change the game into something new that it is now.
If the game's working fine, why are you writing a post about how dcing is out of control and needs to be dealt with and telling people how to play the game etc, whilst also acknowledgeable que times are through the roof for killer?
"Killer is the power role", okay you've been brainwashed by tru3ta1ent haven’t you. Spoken like a tru3 fan.
You're right the game is changing and that's the PROBLEM. NOT the balance changes necessarily but the fundamental game style and mechanics change which is destroying it. Otz's video shows why not to miss the game from a BALANCING perspective. Once again I'm not arguing from a balancing perspective, I'm arguing from a game health, enjoyment and longevity perspective. You have to put balance aside in this conversation because once again I'm trying to tell you that this argument is not about balance, it's fundamentally about how the game is played. The problem isn't that killer is more powerful than survivor compared to past times, it's that survivor is more uninteractive, unfun and teambased than ever.
Since you're using the US president as an example, I'm guessing you're American. And if you are, then yes, it can be feasible and realistic, if you work for it. Still not a guarantee though.
Yes, absolutely. But the chances of doing so are slimmer without a bot, compared to with a bot. I actually got a 4-man out today, with one survivor being a bot.
I agree that there is no perfect solution here. The current solution, replacing DC'ing survivors with bots, is simply the best one there is for now. And with killer queues being what they are right now, ending the match prematurely hits the killer harder than the survivors. Survivor queue-times (in Central Europe at least) are anywhere between 6 en 14 seconds on average, whereas killer queue-times on average are at least several minutes. This means that Survivors could indeed jump back into the action rather quickly if the previous match were to end prematurely. But unfortunately the same cannot be said for killer players.
The game has to be interesting and replayable, so that players keep coming back for more. And if there is something for players to work towards, to aspire to, then that can make it fun for them, or at least give them a reason to keep playing, if that is in fact something that they want as a player. Otherwise it's probably not the right game for them.
Using myself as an example: Ever since Judgment came out, I made it my mission to get her to P100. It will take a lot of time and effort and probably a lot of frustrating moments too, but I believe it's worth all that. And that's what makes it fun for me. Playing with friends also makes it fun. For me at least.
Can you share those statistics? Or provide the source?
No, that is simply not true: If you go back and read the actual post from September 8th, you'll see that I never complained about DC'ing survivors. I was writing about my experiences with survivors in post-game chat while playing Judgment. I wrote about how they were salty, how they were berating me after matches and why they did that. None of them DC'd. And even if they did, I would certainly not complain about that, because the act of survivor's DC'ing increases the odds of me winning as killer.
I don't think I did. But if you perceived it that way, I'm sorry for that. It was certainly not my intent.
Who are you referring to when you say "YOU guys"? What group am I a part of according to you? Because the only one who changed the game to what it is now is BHVR. Sure, they were undoubtedly influenced by player feedback to get where the game is now, but that's also what feedback is for.
First of all, as I stated earlier in this comment, I did not write a post about how DC'ing is out of control. Read the original post from September 8th.
Second, In my subsequent comments that followed, while replying to comments from others, I stated that, unless there's a real-life emergency, you're not supposed to DC for any reason once you've committed to the match, and that the DC penalty exists to discourage behavior like that. Even there I never said that it was 'out of control'. It's simply a real shame when it happens. And from what I can tell from personal experience, it unfortunately happens a lot.
And third: My primary grievances are with the fact that, in my personal experience, survivor players seem to have the idea that, because they are not having fun or the match doesn't go their way, they are allowed certain behaviors. That they have certain entitlements, compared to others. DC'ing before the match is over is one of them. And whilst playing Judgment certain behaviors became even more apparent to me, like complaining about my playstyle, perks, etc.. So all I intended to do was to make it clear that that's not the case. No one at BHVR gave those entitlements to players.
The only thing that anyone who plays Dead by Daylight is actually entitled to, and again thanks to NordSahne for pointing that out, is a functional game, because that's what we paid for.
Actually, no. That's just the way it is. When a survivor and a killer go head-to-head, the killer will eventually always win from a survivor.
Was that remark supposed to be demeaning? Let's keep it civilized please.
According to whom? The ever increasing player base?
I'm sorry that you feel that way. And I wish you could have more fun playing. I know I have fun playing.
And if you're systematically not having fun, just stop playing. No one is forcing you. No one is demanding that you play. The world doesn't end if you don't play.
If you're not having fun, just stop.
Stop and play something else.
But once again bots unfairly hostage the other 3 survivors in the game, because there's no way to ######### or leave games anymore without dcing. Doesn't matter if you are 0.05% more likely to escape with a bot on your team than an old dc, at those odds it's such a waste of time. As a killer, i get hella bored having to play against bots because it's just stupid, and most killer players do. Old dc's at least end the game quicker so your not stuck in a dead and pointless game.
Okay then if you're not willing to accept my definition as to why dcing is clearly a problem lets follow your train of thought. You said "unfortunately it happens alot" in terms of dcing and noted that it happens even more against the judgement. Why do you think this is? Why does judgement but also the game have greater dc rates even with dc penalties and everything now?
"Survivors are allowed certain entitlements compared to others", uh who are the others? They literally get LESS entitlements than killer because as you said a killer dcing doesn't matter whereas a survivor dcing does.
Okay well what do you actually mean by "killer is the power role". What does this statement actually mean in practise other than some posturing to justify poor game design and balancing choices?
Well i'm literally a killer main so it doesn't affect me if survivor is the most unfun role anyway cause I'll only play it with good players. I'm trying to make sure that there's still a functional survivor playerbase which I'm able to play against in the future, and right now it looks like that won't be the case.
I can't speak for other survivor players, and since you only play with good players when playing survivor, I'm guessing you don't get to experience DC'ing survivors yourself. So what is it then that makes you think survivors are being held hostage by a bot whenever there is one? I certainly don't feel that way. So I simply keep playing. As I did recently.
I'm sorry that you see it that way. The only thing I can suggest is that you find a way to make it fun for yourself if there's a bot in the game. For example, going after the other survivors first and letting the bot escape so that the bot's score is higher than the human player's score, which would kind of humiliate the human players I guess. I personally don't want to play like that, but if that makes it fun for you, I'd say go for it.
I said that it happens a lot, but not that it happened specifically while playing Judgment.
I don't have sufficient data to tell if Judgment does indeed have a higher survivor DC rate. But the reason it happens in general is because, and again this is my personal experience over the last 4 years, survivor-players tend to give up when things get too difficult.
During matches, when they have to confront unexpected situations (e.g. the other survivors not performing to their expectations, the killer using a certain playstyle or bringing certain perks of even playing against a certain killer), they either cannot or will not adapt. They had a certain expectation about how the match was going to go and once that was no longer the case, they'd simply quit. Because it's not what they wanted. But still, they felt entitled to that. They felt entitled to a certain result and once they didn't get it, they DC'd, not giving the rest of the team a second thought.
First of all, you're mis-quoting me: I did not say it like that.
Second: the part of my comment that you're referencing, does not talk about how survivors actually have certain entitlements (because they don't), but they only think that they have them. Maybe because someone told them, or they convinced themselves. And when I said "That they have certain entitlements, compared to others", I was referring to other survivor players, because thankfully not all survivor players feel like they are entitled to certain things.
And third: I'm pretty sure that I did not say that "a killer dcing doesn't matter" (I checked all my previous comments and couldn't find it at least). I said that the game 'behaves differently' (so to speak) when a killer DC's vs when a survivor DC's: Because when the killer DC's the entire team opposing the survivors is gone, so you have no other choice but to end the match (until killer bots become a thing of course). Which is not the case if it were a survivor that DC's because then the team opposing the killer is still there, albeit only 75% human. And that's because of the asymmetrical nature of the game.
And on a side note: Regardless of role, I don't like either side DC'ing before the match is over, even though it would ever so slightly benefit me as a survivor if the killer were the one to DC (some 'free' bloodpoints).
The killer-role is unstoppable. As a survivor you can delay the killer by hiding from them, using clever pathing during chase, team-strategies, obstacles, certain items and certain perks. But you cannot actually stop them. If a killer and a survivor would go head to head, if given enough time, the survivor would ultimately always lose.
The killer can injure, down, hook and ultimately kill/sacrifice the survivor. Vice versa is not possible: The survivor cannot kill the killer. They can't even stop the killer.
In fact, the only thing in a trial that can actually stop the killer, is the Entity blocking the exit areas when the killer tries to walk towards the campfire in the distance. Therefore, it is the only permanently safe space for the survivors to get to, because the killer cannot follow. So that is where they ultimately have to go. And they can get there by working as fast as possible on gens, while simultaneously delaying the killer for as long as possible.
The survivors cannot stop the killer. They can merely delay. And because the killer can actually stop the survivors, that makes them the power role.
When you say "it looks like that won't be the case", what is that based on exactly? The playerbase (on Steam at least) is slightly growing, so there's still an influx of new players.
Your logic for dcing doesn't make sense though. Old skull merchant, vecna 2 and judgement have much higher dc rates than killers like nurse blight billy etc. Old spirit as well. Knight. Clearly it doesn't just seem to be correlated to how hard they are to play against or how good they are directly. Why do you think people have some of these killers but don't hate nurse blight billy, which until recently were the 3 strongest killers?
Yeah exactly so you're basically inferring that its worse if a survivor dc's than a killer dc's which is my point.
Okay what does that actually mean in practise when you say killer is unstoppable? That nothing survivors do should matter? What do you mean by killers can stop survivors but survivors can't stop killers? Survivors can have chases with killers? They can stun them with pallets (well most of them), loop them, play altruistically, use perks etc. Like what you are saying doesn't translate into any game design or balancing aspects, it doesn't mean anything.
Yes they are doing a good job at getting new players still, but there's a shrinking pool of long time survivor mains and good survivor players, reducing the amount of players I can actually play against in my MMR. They've all switched to killer, left the game or just play on rare occasions.
You sound like you play a bit of survivor so let me ask you, what makes survivor fun for you? Why do you play it? What's better about the role than killer that attracts you?
Which part exactly?
I don't have exact data about DC'rates and as far as I know there is no publicly available data on that either, but I can theorize per killer as to why they would:
Old Skull Merchant could utilize a playstyle that was not engaging for either side, and would ultimately make the killer win due to server-timeout, not skill. Something I'm convinced BHVR did not foresee. Which is why the 8-damage-events-limit was introduced, alongside the changes to some of her add-ons.
The First is, according to the most recent data from Nightlight, the 21st most picked killer, with a pick rate of only 1,67%. That puts him below the current average, which is 2,27%. So survivors don't get to see him that often, meaning not enough practice against them. Furthermore, dodging his power involves creating as much distance as possible, and if that fails perform a lot of unpredictable movement. Personally, I don't mind either, but maybe players find it hard to move unpredictably. Maybe they are used to certain pathing, which can be effective for most killers. Just not this one. My best guess would be that this is somehow infuriating to players and they therefore DC.
Judgment is brand new and, compared to other killer powers, very unconventional. And that is because we as a community voted for that. This also means that there is a lot to learn about the killer. About what she can and cannot do and how to counter her. Every time a new killer is released survivors are going to struggle at first. And in that single regard, all killers are the exact same.
If with Old spirit you're referring to Spirit without the phasing sound, then I totally get it. Countering killers should not be easy, but it should also not be impossible. And although I didn't play against old Spirit, I can totally understand how old spirit would be considered overpowered, because of little to none counterplay. And that probably pissed some survivors off, causing them to DC.
Knight has a power that is unique, as in that it can be used in a sort of pincer attack, making it seem like there's 2 killers against one survivor. And because guards can chase a survivor while the killer can also chase another survivor, one killer can basically chase 2 completely separate survivors at once. There are of course ways to counter this, but with a pick rate of only 1,63% they're not that common, meaning that survivors don't get that much practice against them.
Ultimately, the less you know about a killer, the harder it becomes to counter them. Which I guess can be infuriating to survivors.
As for Nurse, Blight and Billy: They all have a very easy to understand power, meaning that learning to counter those powers is also relatively easy.
One word actually: Understanding. When killers have simple powers it makes their powers easy to understand and therefore easy to counter. The more complex a killer's power, the more there is to understand about them and learn about them, before you can properly counter them.
Not sure if I agree with that. However, I can agree that when a survivor DC's, then that's bad for the other survivors. Which is why they shouldn't do it. Which is why I think the DC-penalty should be increased. DC'ing should never be normalized, regardless of who does it. It should be the exception, rather than the rule.
Oh, it certainly matters what survivors do. But not if the match takes too long. That's why survivors should fix generators as fast as possible and that's why the killer should delay that as much as possible.
If during a trial the killer would search for and chase the survivors, and the survivors would NOT do any gens in the meantime, all 4 survivors will eventually be sacrificed or killed. Sure, you can drop pallets, extend chases by clever pathing, etc.. But resources and hook stages are limited. The killer can easily perform 12 hook actions within an hour, making them the winner of the match.
Survivors can indeed be chased by killers, stun them, loop them, but they can't do that forever. They cannot permanently prevent killers from chasing them. The killer can keep chasing, thereby gaining bloodlust and becoming faster, and pallets will eventually run out, giving survivors less and less options as the match progresses.
On what information are you basing this?
I actually play quite a lot of survivor. As of this comment, my hours, according to my personal stats from BHVR, are 1.659 hours survivor and 364 hours killer. Percentage-wise that's 82.01% survivor and 17.99% killer.
One of the reasons I play Survivor a lot is that I like to play with friends as much as I can. Beforehand, we agree on a playstyle and then simply play like that. We mostly prioritize getting at least one survivor out, but more if possible. Not sweaty. Just efficient.
Also, when playing solo-queue I really like the stealthy playstyle: Being as efficient as I possibly can, while moving unobserved over the map, is what I truly enjoy. I feel good about every time I get to evade the killer. The closer they get, the bigger the rush.
There was this one time against an Oni on Temple of Purgation where I was able to hide from them almost the entire match, but still did gens, unhooks and heals. Afterwards the killer called me a coward because they thought I was hiding the whole match: Considering my actual actions during the match, it was one of the greatest compliments I've ever had from a killer.
Additionally, since I just noticed I didn't answer your last question in full…
Initially, I used to dislike playing as killer, but to better understand killer-players you simply have to. It was more stressful at first: Not knowing where to go, not knowing what to do next to ensure victory, feeling like I'm judged by the survivors in end-game chat afterwards, stuff like that.
I eventually got better at playing killer and handling salty behaviours though, but that still took quite some time. So even though I'm a better killer-player these days, I sometimes still feel a bit held back because of my rocky start as killer. And that's probably also why it feels 'good' (I guess?) when survivors complain in end-game chat about my playstyle, tactics, perks, etc.
I simply do what I have to do to win, within the boundaries of what the game allows.
Hang on what you said about spirit is exactly correct. You even said that these reasons pissed off survivors and caused them to dc. So why can't you apply this logic to the judgement and other similar modern versions of old spirit?
It's simply not true that how simple a killers power is determines how much people enjoy playing against that killer. Ghoul's power is simple to understand do many survivor players enjoy playing against him? The first's power is incredibly easy to understand. Shoot a long range circular projectile that damages after survivors are hit twice. Blight's power is definitely NOT easy to understand from the survivor's side at all. He has different cooldowns depending on how much he's rushed, his addons change his power in difficult to understand ways, he has alot of techs that killers can use which take knowledge and skill for both sides to understand, and he recently got nerfed in a way that makes him MORE complicated to play against, as now he loses 2 rushes when he breaks a pallet so you've got an additional cooldown modifier to keep track of. Would you also say that the counterplay to blight, nurse and billy is simple to understand? Is nurse's counterplay really that simple for your average player? Of course not it's way harder than most killers.
Did you know that in 2v8s if a killer dc's the killer gets replaced with a bot? Isn't that interesting? Why doesn't that happen in 1v4?
Okay but killers also can't chase survivors forever, eventually the gens will pop and they'll escape. They can't hook people forever as eventually they'll escape, so what's your point? Survivors have resources yes but so do killers, generators and exit gates are their resources, and the many perks they have.
Basing the claim that good survivors are leaving and switching to killer based on a few things, universal killer que times increasing, good survivor content creators and famous players (ie comp players) leaving, and anecdotal experience of running into less good players in pub matches.
So the gameplay element of survivor you enjoy is stealthing? Nothing else? Does this mean you hate playing against the doctor, and the plague, and any aura perks? What about full aura judgement hm?
And to your next post, did you actually not enjoy playing killer, or were you just new and not good yet? You didn't tell me specific gameplay elements that turned you off from killer initially, just that you were learning and new. If your biggest complaint as killer is a bunch of people typing in endgame chat, then that's very indicative of the role's current state compared to survivor.
I said that it's probable yes, not that they actually did it. I wasn't there at the time to potentially witness it.
Because no-phasing-sound-spirit had practically no counterplay if she started phasing far away from you, whereas Judgment has plenty of counterplay. And a Judgment with aura also has counterplay via various perks. Survivors just have to learn and utilize it. I myself now have Boon: Shadowstep in my build by default, in case it's needed. I don't always deploy it. But it's better to have it and not need it instead of the other way around.
And I never stated that as a fact. I theorized as to why players prefer facing certain killers compared to others, based on my own knowledge and experiences. Additionally, you asked me about my opinion about why some killers are hated compared to others. An opinion is personal and subjective and is therefore neither right nor wrong. But if you're now stating it as a fact, then I'm really interested to learn from you what information that fact is based on.
No clue, because I can't speak on behalf of all survivors. Personally I dislike the 'hit-scan' element of his power, because it feels like a cheap way to get survivors injured. But even that can be countered to some degree.
Indeed. And as I stated earlier: "Personally, I don't mind either", referring to creating distance and moving unpredictably, because that is indeed all there is to it. But I can't speak for all survivors, so I can't tell you if it's easy for them as well.
To me, the essence of Blight's power is easy to understand, as in: He rushes, bounces on objects to rush again and he has limited charges to do so. Once you know this as a survivor you can start working on your counterplay. Learning to counter specific techs can be a next step, but the basics are easy to understand.
Compare that for example with the Onryo. She has 2 states: Manifested and De-manifested. Depending on what state she's in she can or cannot do certain things. Survivors can get condemned stacks if near an active TV when she teleports. They have to retrieve tapes from active TV's and carry those across the map to another TV to reduce condemned stacks. If you're hooked with condemned stacks, a maximum of 3 of those become permanent. Once condemned, becoming downed means game over, regardless of hook states.
All of that is base-kit. Therefore, all of it is a factor when facing the Onryo, regardless of the skill level of the player controlling her.
Yes. But that's how I personally look at it. I cannot speak for every survivor out there about what they find and don't find easy.
Again, I cannot speak on behalf of other survivors. And neither can you.
Because BHVR stated that they're still working on that. They did so less than 2 months ago when it was asked during the Reddit AMA when killer bots would become available in custom matches:
https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/1vh6n8y/comment/p29u0tm/
So if they're not yet ready for custom, then they're certainly not yet ready for 1v4.
Survivors can indeed pop gens and escape, but only if they work together as a team, instead of 4 individual players who only care about themselves. If that happens, as a killer you simply go for the weakest link, taking them out first, thereby impairing the other survivor's ability to pop gens and escape. The less survivors there are, the harder it becomes for them to complete their objectives.
Also, what do you mean with "They can't hook people forever"? Killers don't have to: Only 12 times or less. And the more time the killer has, the easier it becomes.
I don't see your point here. I was explaining that most resources that survivors have are finite and therefore they cannot keep a killer occupied forever.
I see. I'm guessing that it's a regional thing then. I'm playing in Central Europe and I don't see what you're seeing over here.
I indeed enjoy stealth (I played a lot of Splinter Cell during my youth). And BHVR themselves stated that it's part of the game, so I'm all for it. But I also enjoy long chases and mind games. Simply put: If I can contribute to the team in a way that either allows me to complete objectives, or helps the team complete objectives, I'm happy.
No, I don't hate that. Unlike some survivor players, I accept the fact that I can be put face to face with any of the available killers, their playstyles and their perks once I've hit the "Play" button. So this includes Doctor and Plague as well.
And as for Judgment or any other killer with a full aura build: I have recently added Boon: Shadowstep to my build by default and before that I already had We See You in my build, which allows me to detect what aura perks and add-ons a killer has. And I can actually use that against them in some cases, because they don't know that I know, meaning that they can almost never surprise me with a ranged attack.
My current default build is We See You, Boon: Shadowstep, Iron Will, Dead Hard.
The latter: New and inexperienced/not good.
If I play an available killer in a certain way, with any four of all available perks, and the survivors in the opposing team cannot or will not deal with that, then that's their problem. I don't break any official rules by doing so, but still the survivors sometimes feel the need to voice their disdain in end-game chat about how I played.
Which is exactly the reason why I made my initial post in the first place.
No phase sound spirit had counter play with perks like iron will, and you could get lucky and guess what she would do and survive a phase. That doesn't explain why people hated her and why she was toxic for the game. You're saying that it's fine that a new killer forces survivors to run certain perks, well I'm afraid to tell you if every killer did that you'd need over FOURTY perks. That is not healthy game design at all. You're pretty close to admitting there's no counter play to aura judgement unless you have an anti aura perk, nud duh.
Yeah and I'm telling you why your opinion is wrong and based on things that aren't true in regards to what people enjoy playing against. Simplicity of the power is an incredibly small factor compared to counterplay, fun, interactivity, and skill of the power etc.
You don't like how ghoul has a cheap way of injuring survivors, well judgement has a cheap way of injuring AND downing survivors lmao. Even if you won't accept that, do you thus dislike legion and plague for their injury methods? Or insta down killers as they treat you as you're constantly injured?
"creating distance and moving unpredictable against the first." Yeah so all you can do against that killer is hold W and do stupid movement to hope that they miss or suck. We all know that's what the vecna 2 experience is. There's no point trying to sugar coat it.
Sure onryo has some weird gimmicks to her power but at the end of the day it involves pretty standard chases with a stealth killer + removing tapes from tv's on occasion. This doesn't mean blights power is not very advanced and complicated to understand specifically "at a high level" from the survivors perspective. I'm not talking about your average pub blight who barely knows what they are doing.
The resources that killer has are also finite, time is a finite resource, gens are a finite resource, 3 gens are a finite resource. Killer is no different to survivor in this way.
Are you just as happy to see a doctor or plague in your games as any other killer then? You're trying to act as if you literally don't care what killer you play against which I highly doubt is true. Just like any video game, some characters are clearly more enjoyable to you than others and there's nothing wrong with admitting that.
Okay maybe it's different in central Europe but I'm talking about the playerbase at the top of the game, not your average playerbase. You might not notice a difference in your average games if you hardly came across or knew about the best players anyway, but I'm pretty sure that some EU comp players are leaving, and many EU creators are constantly complaining about the game's state currently: Hens, Otzdarva etc.
The problem with this discussion is everytime I make a point to you that you can't rebut you just go "well in my experience that's how it works/ that's what I think." How are we meant to get anywhere or agree upon principles or game design. I get that you have your own opinions but you gotta back up those opinions with some logic.
If you say so, I'll take your word for it. I wasn't there after all, as I said before. Therefore, I don't know why people hated her and I never said that I knew. I theorized as to why they might have, which I clearly stated as well.
No, I didn't say that a killer forces survivors to run certain perks. I simply chose to. Mostly for the benefit of the team, because I was already running We See You before Judgment came out. I want to know when I'm seen, regardless of who the killer is.
Why should every survivor be perfectly equipped to counter every possible killer every single match? How does that make sense? I don't think they should. Depending on how they want to play, they should bring the perks that best suit their personal preferences or playstyle.
For a killer to be efficient it makes perfect sense that they either run perks that compliment their power, or if they don't need that, run perks that are considered meta, in order to improve their chances of winning. For Judgment this usually comes down to aura perks, maybe combined with regression perks. And as a survivor you can take the chance of equipping yourself to be anti-aura, at the risk of facing a killer without aura-read.
Regardless of the role you play, sometimes your build works great against your opponent(s), and sometimes it doesn't. That's all part of the game.
If you're facing an aura-read killer (Judgment or otherwise) and don't have anti-aura perks, then you're not gonna have an easy time, that's true. But that's not unhealthy game design. That's part of the game. Part of the risk when playing survivor. There's nothing wrong with that.
Also, following that same logic, facing any type of slug build has practically no counterplay either, unless you bring anti-slugging perks. But the thing is: Not every killer uses a slug build all the time, so it doesn't make sense to always bring a full anti-slugging build. Additionally, not every killer uses an aura-read build all the time, so it doesn't make sense to always bring a full anti-aura build.
And that's the beauty of the game: You never know who or what you're facing. You find that out during the trial and then adapt to it. That's what makes the gameplay as a survivor, to me at least, engaging. And I hope for others as well.
My opinion is wrong? Are you confusing the word "opinion" with the word "fact" by any chance? Because that's what this looks like.
As I stated in my previous comment: "An opinion is personal and subjective and is therefore neither right nor wrong". Any opinion I have is neither right nor wrong. Any opinion you have is neither right nor wrong. Any opinion some random stranger on the internet has is neither right nor wrong.
It's an opinion. Not a fact. Opinions are personal beliefs based on our experiences. Facts are things known to be true, based on direct proof and/or actual evidence.
I never stated that I actually know why people either enjoy or hate playing against certain killers. I theorized about some of them, based on my own experiences. I can't look inside the minds of every survivor and killer player out there to know what they do and do not like.
And neither can you. The only thing that we both have are our own experiences. And we form opinions based on those experiences. And those opinions will most likely be completely different, but neither of them is right nor wrong.
If that's your opinion, then that's perfectly fine. I personally don't see it that way, which is also fine.
I don't agree with that, because it's not the same: With Ghoul, you have to move your targeting-indicator over the survivor and if you then click, it registers, in most cases, as a hit and therefore an injury. I specifically said "in most cases", because it sometimes doesn't result in an injury and only applies the "Kagune Mark".
Judgment can indeed injure and down survivors from a long distance or even when they're not expecting it, that's true. But not only does that require some level of skill, it also requires aura or good game-sense. And since it's not a hit-scan mechanic, it can be dodged. The Ghoul's Grab-attack cannot, because that uses the hit-scan mechanic.
No and no. I'm not uncomfortable being injured or vulnerable.
To quote me correctly, I said: "dodging his power involves creating as much distance as possible, and if that fails perform a lot of unpredictable movement". Additionally, you can also hide.
And also, creating distance from the killer, dodging their power and hiding from them, can be applied to every killer in the game: You can run away from killers and dodge their projectiles or ranged attacks.
How does counterplay from The First differ from other killers?
I agree that a high level Blight is far more dangerous and difficult to deal with compared to an average Blight Player. But the same can be said about Onryo. If you have a competent Onryo player, then you're not going to have an easy time either.
I agree that time is a finite resource, so that's why the killer has to delay the survivors as much as possible and the survivors have to fix gens as fast as possible. Not sure what you mean with gens being a finite resource.
In that case, let me spell it out for you to remove any doubt in your mind: I indeed do not care one bit what killer I'm facing during the trial. I will most likely not be as skilled or as properly equipped against certain killers, but I still accept that I can and must face any killer that I am in a trial with.
I do not DC mid-trial because of who the killer is or what perks they brought or what playstyle they utilize. I accepted all available scenarios once I pressed the Play button. And I think that all players should do that.
Some killers are more enjoyable for me to face, that is true, and most certainly applies to other players as well. But that does not give me or any other survivor the right to DC mid-trial against certain killers, perks or playstyles. When I press Play, I accept it all. Those that I enjoy a lot and those that I enjoy less. If you press Play and don't back out in time, you should not DC.
I don't have data on this, but I'm guessing that the majority of the player base is not at the top of the game, but is rather average. So if the dropout of survivor players only occurs at the highest level, then I honestly don't care that much. It still leaves the majority of the player base intact.
As to complaining about the state of the game: I saw Hens's recent video regarding MMR. And although I did agree with his suggestion for a sort of bracket system, I don't like the fact that he voiced his concerns in such a public manner.
In a normal working environment, if you have concerns about the way your employer manages products and/or services, the professional way to deal with it is to discuss it internally, not make a public post about it. Don't get me wrong: I perfectly understand why he did it like that: To draw attention to a problem. But I'm just not sure if it's the right way to do it. Time will tell.
By the way, I'm comparing it with a working environment because as a member of the Creator Program he creates content for, and on behalf of the game. You could therefore consider BHVR his 'employer' or something similar.
I can refute your points just fine, don't worry. I've been doing so for almost 2 weeks already.
We don't have to agree: It's all subjective: You have opinions about the game, I have opinions about the game, and so to thousands of others. But ultimately, it is up to BHVR to decide how the game is designed and how it works. We as players can and absolutely should advise by providing constructive feedback, but in the end it's all up to BHVR.
And where applicable, I have.