I want say something about 3-gen defense, late-Game stalling, and improving match experience
Hello, I am a long-time Dead by Daylight player who has been playing the game for almost 10 years, with more than 1,000 hours of playtime. I have also played Killer for more than 80 hours, so I would like to provide feedback from the perspective of both Survivor and Killer players.
The issue I would like to discuss is late-game stalling, particularly prolonged 3-gen defense and situations that create extended periods of low-interaction gameplay.
First of all, I understand that the core of Dead by Daylight is the interaction and competition between Survivors and Killers, and I also understand that the development team has always been working to maintain a balance between both sides.
I am not saying that Killers should not be allowed to defend a 3-gen.
In fact, if a Killer successfully creates a strong 3-gen area under the current game mechanics, repeatedly patrolling, damaging, and defending those generators is a perfectly understandable and effective strategy.
However, I believe there is a problem when this strategy turns the match into a long period of repetitive gameplay with very little meaningful interaction or decision-making.
The match shown in the attached screenshot is an example of this situation. The match lasted for more than 30 minutes, illustrating how prolonged 3-gen defense can turn a match into an extremely long period of low-interaction gameplay.
For example, once a Killer has established a strong 3-gen, the Killer may simply rotate between several nearby generators repeatedly.
If Survivors attempt to repair a generator, the Killer can drive them away. If they leave the area, it becomes extremely difficult for them to make meaningful progress elsewhere.
At that point, neither side necessarily has many meaningful choices left.
For the Killer, continuing to patrol may significantly increase the chance of eventually achieving a 3K. However, the gameplay itself can become extremely repetitive and boring.
I have experienced this from the Killer side myself. I understand that this strategy can be effective, but being effective and being enjoyable are not necessarily the same thing.
For Survivors, the problem can be even more significant because they often have very limited ways to break such a stalemate.
If the Killer commits to this strategy for a long enough period, the match can eventually become almost predetermined, while Survivors are still required to spend a considerable amount of time trying to find an opportunity that may not realistically exist.
Therefore, I do not think this should simply be treated as a problem with how a particular player chooses to play.
I believe it is more fundamentally a game-design issue where the current mechanics can allow a match to continue for a very long time even after the outcome has become heavily skewed.
Another similar issue when only two Survivors remain
I also believe there is a related problem when only two Survivors are left.
For example, Survivor A is downed by the Killer, but instead of immediately hooking A, the Killer decides to stay near A while searching for Survivor B.
From the Killer's perspective, this is obviously a valid strategy.
And from Survivor B's perspective, trying to rescue A is also a positive and meaningful action.
However, if the Killer stays near A for a prolonged period of time, A has very few meaningful options.
If A does not perform interactions such as repairing generators or healing for a long period, the crow mechanic may eventually reveal A's position to the Killer.
Even if A decides to give up and leave the match, the resulting Bot replacement does not necessarily solve the problem for Survivor B.
This can lead to a situation where:
A cannot realistically escape, B cannot make meaningful progress, and the Killer can simply maintain the current situation until the match is eventually won.
Once again, this creates a long period of gameplay where there is very little meaningful interaction.
I think the 2v8 mode provides an interesting direction
I believe the 2v8 mode offers an interesting example of how this problem could potentially be addressed.
For example, in the later stages of a match, Survivors can gain additional ways to recover from extremely disadvantageous situations, such as being able to get back up under certain conditions.
I think the value of mechanics like this is not simply that they make Survivors stronger.
More importantly, they prevent players from being forced to spend a long period of time waiting or repeatedly performing actions with almost no chance of changing the outcome.
They also create new decisions and interactions during the late game instead of simply making players wait for the Killer to complete the final kills.
I think similar ideas could potentially be adapted to the normal 1v4 mode without simply copying the 2v8 rules.
Some possible solutions
I am not suggesting that 2v8 mechanics should simply be copied into 1v4.
Instead, I hope the team could consider developing a dynamic system designed specifically to identify and reduce meaningless prolonged stalemates.
- Develop a system for identifying prolonged "dead time"
For example, the game could consider several factors:
Whether the Killer has been repeatedly patrolling within a very limited area for an extended period;
Whether the Killer has been repeatedly defending several adjacent generators with significant repair progress;
Whether the Killer has made little meaningful progress in expanding their control over the map;
When only two Survivors remain, whether a Survivor being downed for an unusually long period without being hooked should trigger a special mechanic;
Whether the game could consider the number of remaining Survivors, remaining generators, generator progress, and player positions together to determine whether the match has entered a prolonged stalemate.
I don't think there should simply be a rule such as "the Killer is penalized for staying in one area for X seconds."
Normal Killer patrols are an important part of the game.
Instead, I think multiple conditions could be combined to identify situations where the match has entered a low-interaction, low-progress, prolonged stalemate. - Gradually reduce Survivor difficulty once a stalemate is detected
If the game determines that a match has entered a prolonged stalemate, Survivors could gradually receive additional ways to make progress.
For example:
Allowing Survivors to recover from the dying state under certain conditions, similar to some mechanics in 2v8;
Providing a special mechanic after a Survivor has remained downed for a certain amount of time;
Gradually reducing generator repair difficulty as the stalemate continues;
Gradually reducing the number of generators that need to be completed;
Introducing another mechanic that allows Survivors to break out of a heavily defended area.
The most important part, in my opinion, is that:
These mechanics should not activate easily during a normal match. They should primarily exist as a response to matches that have already entered a prolonged stalemate.
This would allow Killers to continue using legitimate 3-gen strategies while preventing players from turning the match into an extremely long period of repetitive gameplay.
I don't think the outcome of a match is the only thing that matters.
Good game design should allow players to continue making meaningful decisions and interacting with the game even when they are at a disadvantage.
If a Killer gains an advantage through good strategy, chases, and resource management, I have no problem with Survivors losing the match.
However, if the outcome has effectively become determined and the remaining gameplay becomes:
Killer: patrol generator → find Survivor → chase them away → return to generator → damage it → patrol again.
Or:
Killer: stay near downed Survivor → wait for another Survivor → down them → repeat.
Then the remaining time can become frustrating and boring for both sides.
As someone who has also played Killer for more than 80 hours, I understand that these strategies can increase the chance of winning.
But I believe that "this strategy increases my chance of winning" and "this creates a healthy and enjoyable gameplay experience" are two different things.
I hope Dead by Daylight can continue to focus more on the late-game experience and the problem of prolonged low-interaction gameplay.
I love this game, and after almost 10 years and more than 1,000 hours of playtime, I am giving this feedback because I genuinely want the game to continue improving and provide a better experience for both new and long-time players.
I am not asking for Survivors to be given an unfair advantage, nor am I asking for legitimate Killer strategies to be removed.
Thank you for taking the time to read my feedback, and thank you for your continued work on Dead by Daylight.
Comments
So what does the killer side get from this?, countering 3 gen might be hard in solo q but it's incredibly easy in swf as 2 survivors can be on one gen and other 2 occupy other gen that further away and when killer comes to one gen do the other gen, there's a gen kick limit and the killer would either waste time going to one gen and the other while survivors are getting progress or the killer would be chasing and wasting time for survivors to get progress, this should take 5 minutes max to complete the gen.
Doing a 3 gen is quite essential for killers like hag and trapper, and they are the best at doing it.
The 2 survivors thing is an issue because of the hatch which should be changed.
You don't even need to be in a swf to stop 3 gens, most of my solo queue games I can point at a gen for my teammate and they'll do it whilst I pressure the other gen.
the only people stalling in a 3 gen scenario are the survivors. Don’t want to wait it out do the gen, killer interrupts you? Don’t leave the 3 gen keep them busy within it they won’t leave the 3 gen.
Worst case scenario you die but atleast its not a 30 minute match.
In most cases a 3 gen is entirely the fault of survivors. There are some exceptions though with maps like fallen refuge.
I think my 30+ minute match is a good example of what I mean.I have a match on Dead Dawg Saloon. I was actually trying to repair the middle generators specifically to prevent a 3-gen, but my teammates finished the generators around the Water Tower side, leaving the Gallows generator and the two generators behind it in a very compact area. The Killer was The Deathslinger, so breaking that 3-gen became extremely difficult.
I agree that Survivors can sometimes prevent or break a 3-gen through coordination, even in Solo Queue. But that's exactly why I'm talking about extreme cases, not saying that every 3-gen is unfair or impossible to counter.
The same applies to the two-Survivor situation. I agree that the Hatch mechanic is part of the reason Killers may choose to keep a Survivor down while looking for the other one.
My throught is that in both situations, the Killer can still make meaningful progress toward winning while the Survivors may spend a very long time with very few meaningful options.
I'm thinking whether the game should have some way to recognize an extreme stalemate and make the situation evolve instead of allowing the same low-interaction loop to continue indefinitely.
I agree that Solo Queue players can sometimes coordinate without voice communication. The problem is that it depends on whether your teammates understand what you're trying to do, and even good coordination doesn't necessarily solve every extreme 3-gen situation.
I've also encountered many Killers on Asian servers who simply refuse to take unnecessary chases and focus on holding the three generators. You can leave the area, but they don't have to follow you.
So I'm not saying 3-gens are impossible to counter. I'm saying that being counterable in many situations doesn't mean extreme, prolonged stalemates don't exist.
That's the specific point I'm trying to address.
I think "the worst case is that you die" is actually a good example of my concern.
Leaving the 3-gen doesn't necessarily force the Killer to chase you. They can simply stay on the three generators, and late-game Survivors also have fewer pallets and resources available for long chases.
And in Solo Queue, effective coordination is much harder unless you're playing with three or four people.
So if the solution to a prolonged stalemate is simply "sacrifice yourself so the match ends faster", I don't think that really solves the gameplay problem.
I'm not saying Survivors should always have a way to win. Players should ideally have meaningful choices even when they are losing.
Just to clarify
I just want to clear up one thing about my original post.
It's not trying to make these situations worse for Killer players, and I'm definitely not saying Survivors should just get extra advantages whenever they're losing.
What I'm really trying to do is improve the late-game experience for both sides.
If a Killer creates a strong 3-gen, wins their chases, manages their resources well, and eventually wins the match, that's completely fair. I have no problem with that.
What I'm questioning is whether it's really a good experience for the Killer either to spend another 20–30 minutes patrolling the same three generators over and over, or standing over a downed Survivor while waiting for the last Survivor to show up.
The Killer might be winning during that time, but winning doesn't necessarily mean the gameplay is fun or engaging.
So I'm not really suggesting we should buff Survivors or nerf Killers.
I'm suggesting that there could be some kind of late-game system that kicks in when a match gets stuck in an extreme stalemate, and helps both sides get back to actually playing the game.
Game should be something we enjoy playing, not something we feel like we're being forced to endure.
i said don’t leave the 3 gen, be a distraction. You don’t even need a swf. If your teammates can’t get the job done i don’t know what to tell you. There is only so many regression events that can happen.
If you and your team got 3 genned its on you, you gave the killer a massive advantage. Ya it sucks sometimes but it is a 1 in 200 games occurrence. Just be thankful we have regression limits and we don’t have 1 hour long chess merchant matches anymore.
Just to clarify, killers don't need to make a 3 gen. Like, you can just camp three gens at the start of a match.
I think this may just be a difference in server experience. I mainly play on Asian servers, especially Hong Kong and Japan, and I personally run into these situations quite often there.
Some Killers care more about getting the 3K/4K than how long the match takes, so they'll happily drag a game out for another 20–30 minutes if that's what it takes.
I'm not saying they're playing wrong. I'm just hoping the devs can pay attention to this kind of extreme late-game stalemate, because winning doesn't necessarily mean the gameplay is still fun or engaging.
I honestly don't think you can do much about this. It's not engaging, no, but then again there are a lot of things in the game that aren't all that engaging. I don't particularly find sabo squads engaging, by example, as they force me to slug and camp the slug.
Stable winning strategies are seldom fun or engaging when played at high efficiency. I know that's an awful thing to say, but it's true. Gen rushing, tunneling, slugging, three-genning, sabo swapping, ratting, all of these are strategies to win or survive a match that are just… frankly speaking, not fun or engaging. But they are common for a reason, they tend to award a result.
I do have empathy for your point, interaction and fun in the game should be driven, but I can't see current DBD taking an angle that blends objective oriented goals with fun or engaging gameplay.