Saitamaspower
Saitamaspower
About
- Username
- Saitamaspower
- Joined
- Visits
- 19
- Last Active
Comments
-
@WalterBlack said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940148#Comment_3940148
With posts like these I think they might have to ban ChatGPT, instead.
Crazy how the suggestion of two block slots has people screaming for AI bans.
Imagine the meltdown if survivors ever got actual influence over their experience. -
@VibranToucan said:
- Most people play to win. People would ban the strongest killer as long as there is a strongest killer. If they nerf Nurse in response, they'll block Blight. If Blight gets nerfed, they'll block Hillbilly. If Hillbilly gets nerfed, they'll block Dracula. Etc… Even if there was a 99% escape rate there would still be a strongest killer. You cannot make it so that all killers are equally strong while still being different.
- You underestimate how dedicated some people are to win. If you gave SWFs ANY disadvantage over soloqueue, people would queue up at the same time and requeue until they are in the same lobby so they can get freely get an advantage. Some would even install hacks to make sure they all end up in a lobby together.
- Why not introduce the same for killers and perks? "If you want to use DS or Off the Record to become temporarily immortal that comes with consequences." People should be allowed to play whatever they want without being disadvantaged. Just because your favourite Killer happens to be strong, doesn't mean you should be punished for it.
- All killers have counterplay. And the entire game is muscle memory. All chases are. Even against killers with no chase power.
- "No other game forces you to queue into experiences you know you’ll hate." Just going over some games I know. Hearthstone doesn't let you ban heroes. Hypixel Skywars doesn't let you ban classes. Magic the Gathering Arena doesn't let you ban colors. TF2 doesn't let you ban classes. Escape from Tarkov doesn't let you ban items. Splatoon doesn't let you ban weapons. Yugioh Master Duel doesn't let you ban anything. Etc… Even for the games that let you ban Heroes, like Overwatch, Lol and Marvel Rivals you a) are symetrical team sizes where both sides ban an equal amount, b) are designed around having a competitive scene and c) ban them once you are in a lobby.
You’re not arguing against the system. You’re arguing against players having a choice.
And that tells me everything I need to know.Let’s break it down.
“People will just block the strongest killer. Then the next. Then the next...”
Exactly.
That’s not a flaw — that’s the entire point.If players consistently block Aura-Reading One-Shot Nurse or 3 gen Slugmerchant, then that’s not abuse.
That’s measurable, behavioral data — not complaints, not forum whining — but players taking direct action against mechanics they’re done with.And no, it doesn’t instantly fix anything.
But here’s what you’re ignoring:The devs take forever to nerf or rework anything.
Spirit was pure mind gaming for years.
Nurse only stopped being an Exposed combo machine because they reclassified Blink hits as Special Attacks.Meanwhile, more killers drop every few months — some fun, some overtuned, some just exhausting — and survivors are forced to deal with all of them.
A blocklist doesn’t delete killers.
It just gives players a filter — while waiting for BHVR’s usual 9–12 month balancing delay.“Players will abuse the system.”
You mean like:
- SWFs running full-gen-rush meta with voice comms
- Players closing game in Task manager because they see Spirit or Nurse in loading screen
- DC chains that ruin entire lobbies — wasting everyone’s time
This already happens.
And it’s not caused by too much player freedom. It’s caused by not giving players any tools to avoid miserable experiences.A blocklist would actually reduce this behavior.
It lets people say “no thanks” at the matchmaking level, instead of forcing them to ragequit mid-match — taking 3 other people down with them.
“Let killers block survivor perks too!”
Sure. Let them block Dead Hard, Made for This, Off the Record.
But perks don’t define the match.
Killers do.You don’t queue into “Off the Record.”
You queue into Nurse with Lethal Pursuer and Starstruck on RPD.The killer is the match.
The perks are side dishes.
Stop pretending they’re equivalent.“All killers have counterplay.”
Nurse doesn’t challenge your mechanical skill.
She bypasses it — blinks through walls, sees your aura, deletes chase before it starts.You don’t “learn” to counter that.
You just get used to hoping she screws up.That’s not interaction. That’s acceptance.
“Other games don’t let you ban content either.”
Really?
Let’s talk about that.
- League of Legends lets you ban champions before the match even starts — because certain picks are unfun to play against, even if they’re not broken.
- Overwatch introduced role queue and hero bans in competitive because too many people ragequit when stuck in unbalanced matchups.
- Rainbow Six Siege has operator bans because some defenders/attackers are simply too oppressive in certain maps — and players need the ability to shape the tactical experience.
- Dota 2 has bans in every draft mode — because even in perfect balance, players deserve agency.
Dead by Daylight is the outlier here — a game that:
- Locks you into 10–15 minutes against a single killer
- Doesn’t let you counterpick
- Doesn’t let you adapt mid-match
- Doesn’t offer rematch, reroll, or swap
- And punishes you for leaving a matchup you hate
So no — DBD isn’t like other games.
And that’s exactly why a blocklist isn’t just reasonable.It’s necessary.
-
@subdl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940114#Comment_3940114
No matter how it’s explained, I still can’t follow the logic that account-level killer blocks are somehow acceptable. Match-based or not, the outcome is the same — fewer killer options and longer queues, which most would agree leads to a worse gameplay experience.
But sure, you’re absolutely entitled to ask for whatever you want.There’s no need to keep persuading me.
The devs have a long track record of implementing features that, to me, feel like short-sighted, band-aid fixes lacking coherent reasoning, all in response to persistent survivor feedback.
So by all means, keep voicing your wishes as a proud survivor.
At this point, I’m mostly curious to see how the devs will respond to your request.
Let me put it in a way that might finally land:
Imagine Dead by Daylight’s matchmaking is like a ride-sharing app.
- Killers are drivers.
- Survivors are passengers.
- The matchmaker is the algorithm matching them together.
Now — you, as a passenger, get to say:
“I don’t want to ride with this specific driver.”
That’s your blocklist. You're not banning them from the road. You're saying:
“Not for me.”
So the algorithm just... doesn’t put you in their car.
And that’s it.The driver still gets matched with plenty of passengers who didn’t block them.
But if too many people say no to the same driver, it’s not the algorithm’s fault.
It means the driver needs to take a look at what makes them get blocked.Maybe it’s their driving.
Maybe it’s the smell.
Maybe it's blasting Slipknot at 110 decibels in a minivan.But whatever it is — it’s real feedback, based on real choices, from real people.
-
@subdl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940094#Comment_3940094
No matter how hard I try, I just can’t understand your logic.
You say, “My blocklist affects my queue, not yours” — but in a match with 4 survivors and 1 killer, if each of you blocks 2 killers, that’s still up to 8 killers effectively excluded from the pool, isn’t it?
If that truly were a special privilege reserved just for you, I might understand.
But the reality is, these individual choices combine to shape a shared outcome — one that directly limits the killer’s character options and increases their effective wait time.That said, don’t worry.
The devs have never turned their backs on honest, pure-hearted survivors.
So don’t give up — just keep asking for whatever you want as survivors. I’m sure they’ll give it to you eventually.Let me break it down again — slowly.
“If each of you blocks 2 killers, that’s up to 8 killers effectively excluded from the pool, isn’t it?”
No. It isn’t.
This isn’t match-based banning.
This is account-level preference filtering.
My blocklist doesn’t affect the current match. It affects who I can be matched with at all.There’s no moment where 4 survivors each ban two killers and 8 are excluded from the match. That’s a fantasy model you made up to sound dramatic.
What really happens:
- A killer queues.
- The system looks for 4 survivors who haven’t blocked them.
- If it finds them, match proceeds. If not, the killer queues longer — same way high-MMR killers do already.
“These individual choices combine to shape a shared outcome.”
Yes — just like every player choice does.
Map offerings shape outcomes. Perks shape outcomes. Killers shape outcomes.
So does opting out of bad matchups.This isn’t unique. This is how every matchmaking system adapts to player behavior.
If certain killers get filtered more often? That’s not oppression.
That’s a trend. A signal that players are mentally done with them -
@Crowman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940101#Comment_3940101
A lot of words to just say that you don't understand how queueing for a game in DBD works.
Killers pick the killer and then queue up. The game tries to match people based on their MMR and how long they've been in queue. If you have a system that also checks to make sure X killer isn't matched up against you, you also have to remember that other survivors also have this added check. If 3 people didn't block clown, and a 4th person blocked clown. Someone queued as clown cannot match with the lobby. And if there's 3 survivors and a clown in lobby and a person not in lobby blocked clown, they cannot join the lobby.
Basically everyone suffers and we already know that everytime queue times get too long people complain because players just want to get into games quickly.
Plus you're not even addressing any perceived problems. You're just rewarding entitlement. If you can't stand playing against parts of the rooster, just don't play.
I understand it just fine.
You queue with your killer. The game finds survivors.
If one of those survivors has you blocked? You don’t match. Simple.This isn’t complicated logic — it’s the same principle used in dozens of modern matchmaking systems.
If one player in a party has you muted, the game doesn’t throw you into voice chat together.
If one player blocks another in competitive matchmaking, the system respects that.
Why? Because it preserves player experience.You’re arguing that honoring player limits is somehow impossible.
In reality, it’s just inconvenient for you.“If 3 survivors don’t block Clown, but 1 does, the Clown can’t play that match.”
Correct. And that’s how it should work.
That 4th survivor would rather not play than face Clown — and you think the solution is to force them into it anyway?
That’s not game design. That’s coercion wrapped in lazy matchmaking.
Let’s be clear:
If a killer is blocked frequently enough to cause noticeable matchmaking friction, then you’ve found the design problem.The answer isn’t to ignore it.
The answer is to listen.“Everyone suffers when queues are longer.”
False
Short queues mean nothing if the matches are garbage.
People don’t quit games because they wait 30 seconds longer.
They quit because they load into a match, see the killer, and immediately regret pressing Ready.You want fewer DCs? Fewer throw matches? Less burnout?
Then give people the ability to avoid the handful of killers that personally ruin the game for them. -
@Kweh said:
Not enough slots to block all post Wesker slop killers so no.
Then block your top two.
You don’t need to eliminate every killer you dislike , then you need to eliminate the ones that make you alt+F4 on sight.This isn’t about filtering the whole roster.
It’s about triage. Sanity management. Two red flags, not twenty.And if you’re saying, “There are too many unfun killers post-Wesker”
Thanks. You just made my point for me.Because if the killer roster has grown so bloated with anti-fun mechanics that two blocks feel like a drop in the ocean, then the problem isn’t the blocklist system.
It’s the design trend behind the killers.
-
@Crowman said:
You do realize that survivors will also have long queues with this system. Like it's not just killers who will face long queues. You basically are asking for BHVR to kill the game.
You do realize survivors already deal with long queues, right?
This idea doesn’t introduce long queues — it reveals the imbalance that causes them.
If certain killers get avoided so often that it creates a matchmaking slowdown, that’s not a reason to kill the feature.
That’s a design exposure. A stress test. And long overdue.“You’re asking for BHVR to kill the game.”
No. I’m asking BHVR to save it.
Players aren’t quitting because matches are too hard — they’re quitting because they’re too miserable.
They’re being funneled into killer matchups they find unfun, oppressive, or just flat-out exhausting, with no opt-out, no compromise, no alternative.The result?
– Self-hooks at 5 gens.
– Disconnects mid-chase.
– Burnout.
– Toxic lobbies.
– Rage reports.All because the game forces people to endure content they already know they hate.
If giving survivors the right to filter out two killers breaks the system — then the system was fragile to begin with.
You don’t protect a broken machine by pretending it’s fine.
You let it crack, and then fix what leaks. -
@SoGo said:
How about no?
If I play Hag, it's not my fault that people don't know what to do against her and get stomped.
Thanks to your genius plan, killers like Hag or Twins never get to play just because the community can't play against anything but the classic dashslop killer or an M1 trapless Trapper.
Imagine killers could ban perks. No DS, no Shoulder the Burden or Duty of Care.
But that's unfair! You could say.
Maybe the issue is the design?
Really, if you flip the mirror and you get a nightmare, maybe the plan is not good.
“How about no?”
How about you read the system before panicking.
Nobody said you can’t play Hag.
Nobody is banning her from the game.
What we’re asking for is the ability to personally opt out of killers that make the match feel miserable. If enough people block Hag or Twins, that’s not sabotage — that’s organic feedback.Let’s break this down.
“If I play Hag, it's not my fault that people don't know what to do against her and get stomped.”
True. It’s not your fault.
But it is the game’s fault if it keeps forcing players into matchups they find exhausting, gimmicky, or outdated — with no option to say “not today.”If your killer thrives on inexperience, then don’t pretend it’s pure skill.
You’re playing a trap-heavy, setup-dependent killer that punishes players for movement itself — not decisions, not awareness, but movement. That’s design abuse, not outplay.“Thanks to your genius plan, Hag or Twins never get to play just because the community can't play against anything but dash killers or M1 clowns.”
Wrong. They’d still get played — just not against people who hate facing them.
If Hag and Twins get blocked so often they vanish from queues, that’s not injustice. That’s proof that their design needs rethinking.
If entire killer archetypes are only viable when forced on unwilling players, maybe they were never viable at all — just tolerated.
You can’t hold people hostage for your niche killer choice and call it “diversity.”“Imagine killers could ban perks. No DS, no Shoulder the Burden or Duty of Care.”
Yes, imagine it.
Want to block Adrenaline, Made for This, Decisive Strike?
Do it.
Because survivors would gladly trade those if it meant never crawling through 9 Hag traps just to get to basement unhook #1 while you sit crouched in the corner with a grin. -
@subdl said:
If each of the 4 survivors bans 2 killers, up to 8 bans can occur per match. With 40 killers in total, the chance of any specific killer being banned is about 18.6%. This doesn’t directly mean that matchmaking times increase by 18.6%. However, killers like Nurse or The Ghoul are banned far more frequently due to their strength or popularity. For players who rely on those killers and prefer not to switch, this can lead to repeated matchmaking retries — effectively increasing wait time.
That said, maybe this kind of system makes sense in today’s gaming culture.
After all, it’s just a game — people want to keep things casual, avoid discomfort, and skip anything that isn’t fun.You're missing the point.
This isn't about banning killers from a match.
It's about letting individual players avoid a couple of matchups they personally find miserable. My blocklist affects my queue, not yours. There’s no “8 killers banned per game” scenario unless you’re imagining some shared draft system which no one asked for.And even if Nurse or Blight get blocked often? Good. That’s feedback the devs can actually use. Not whining, not guesswork—real data on what players consistently want to avoid. That's not a balance problem. That’s a design signal.
"But then killer mains might have longer queues!"
Yes. That’s called a tradeoff. If you play high-mobility, high-control killers that routinely frustrate players, you don’t get to act surprised when people start opting out. You chose power. Now deal with the responsibility that comes with it.
This isn’t about dodging skill.
It’s about respecting the player’s time.
You can’t say “it’s just a game” and then force people to endure experiences they actively dislike.Give players agency. Track the data. Learn what feels bad not just what wins.
That’s how you make a better game. -
@BasementDweller said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940031#Comment_3940031
Devs already know people don't like playing against her, they don't need to add a ban system for that.
“Devs already know people don’t like playing against her.”
Exactly. And yet—they do nothing. No limiter. No opt-out. No adjustment to player experience.That’s the problem.
It’s not about “informing the devs” anymore.
It’s about protecting the rest of the playerbase from being dragged through miserable matches that cause them to ragequit or self-hook at 5 gens just to get out.Because when someone doesn’t want to play against a killer like Nurse, and you force them to anyway, you’re not just giving them a bad match—you’re ruining the match for all 4 players.
The rest of the team suffers because one person gave up.
And that person gave up because you refused to give them a way to avoid that scenario in the first place.This isn’t about bans for fun.
It’s about avoiding psychological burnout in a game that’s supposed to be tense—not depressing.Dead by Daylight isn’t a suicide simulator.
But it starts feeling like one when “######### on first hook” becomes a meta exit strategy for bad matchups.Give people the right to say “not this killer”—and watch the matches get better for everyone, not worse.
-
@Valimure said:
This would drastically increase wait times, and also potentially block people from playing against killers that they do like going against just because they're unpopular with the community.
Think of it this way: as a survivor, you're one of 4 people. If 25% of the community is blocking Nurse, statistically speaking there will always be someone in a lobby who has her blocked and she'd be pretty much impossible to play.
It also greatly benefits SWFs, who essentially have 8 bans they can now spread out accordingly.“It greatly benefits SWFs.”
Then limit it. That’s not a hard problem.
You want fairness? Fine—just cap the blocklist at the party level. If you queue as a SWF, the team gets two shared bans, not eight.
Or none at all, if that’s what it takes.That’s a mechanical fix, not a reason to discard the whole system.
You don’t scrap a fire alarm because some people might use it wrong—you tune it. -
thanks for the feedback guys :)
-
@terumisan said:
if we had a killer block system survivor que would be hours long and killers don't want to play L simulator if they don't have to. why not just learn to counterplay
Funny. The numbers say otherwise.
In the last 3 months, Dead by Daylight has seen a consistent increase in player count:
– April: +30.65%
– May: +1.78%
– Last 30 days: +7.75%So let’s be clear: people are playing. And they’d play even more if they weren’t being funneled into matches they actively dislike. A killer block system wouldn’t “destroy queue times”—it would improve player retention, which matters more than forcing short-term queue efficiency.
Also:
Survivors already deal with constant role imbalance, matchmaking roulette, and wildly unfun mechanics. Asking for two blocked killers isn’t “avoiding challenge.” It’s asking to opt out of misery. That’s not cowardice. That’s sanity.And the “just learn to counterplay” argument? That’s tired. Some killers don’t have counterplay for casual players. They have patterns. Patterns you memorize or you die. That’s not skill expression. That’s repetition under pressure.
You want competitive players? Treat them like people, not cannon fodder.