Fibijean
Fibijean
About
- Username
- Fibijean
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
They're just farming for bloodpoints. IMO, it needs to be changed so that you ONLY get bloodpoints for unhooking if it's a safe rescue. Otherwise people are just going to keep farming hooked survivors, no matter how many bonus points they could get for safe rescues. (Also it's not a free game? It's $20? I'm not sure what you're talking about there. It was only free to download for one weekend on steam.)
-
I think buffing The Trapper is more a matter of reworking his existing mechanics. For example, your ideas about letting him carry more traps at once, or picking up traps automatically (or at least faster). His main weakness isn't that his mechanic is bad, but rather that it takes too much time out of the game (finding traps, picking them up, setting them, not to mention that he can only carry one at a time so he has to keep going back for more) for him to use it effectively. Trapper's "mind games" are all about where he puts his traps, and manipulating survivors during a chase to make them run into them. He doesn't need a projectile to play games or work ahead of survivors, his current mechanics already do that.
Bear traps in real life are much heavier than glass bottles, and while throwing them at someone would likely injur them it's not a very effective way of using them. Also, having him hurling 30 pounds of metal across the map like a mad olympian would look a bit silly and detract from his intimidation factor somewhat.
-
@A_Simple_Pig No problem!
-
It's not bannable, but it is a dick move. Don't be surprised if people call you out on it. Ever heard the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf? If you do stuff like that, no one is going to trust you when you actually want/need them to. So it's up to you, but you get what you give. I basically never use flashlights or teabag or anything like that, but if I had a killer that did that to me, if I ran into them again I would BM the hell out of them.
-
I see where you're coming from, but unfortunately tunnelling is a valid technique for any killer that cares about winning. And if I'm being honest, it's scummy (because as you pointed out it's really unfun for the survivor) but not as scummy as camping. Partly because it's actually effective. If you're just playing with winning/completing objectives in mind, tunnelling makes sense in a way that camping doesn't, because if the rest of the team plays well, a camper will often waste too much time securing a single kill, but it makes sense for a tunneller to go after the unhooked player because they're injured and therefore easier/quicker to down.
Typically, killers who care about the survivors enjoying the gaming experience won't tunnel, unless the survivor was really annoying and they just want them dead in retaliation. But from a standpoint of pure efficiency, tunnelling is a good idea. The actual solution, I think, is not to punish killers for doing their job, but to punish survivors for not doing theirs properly - that is, for unhooking their teammate when the killer is right there. IMO, survivors shouldn't get any bloodpoints for hook rescues unless the rescue was a safe one, instead of getting points regardless and then a small bonus for safe rescues. And I'm not saying that tunnelling, or any behaviour which ruins the game for other players, shouldn't be disincentivised - the devs have done a lot trying to disincentivise camping for that very reason. I just think that the disincentive should be a killer mechanic, rather than buffing survivors. Because honestly, killer mains whine a lot about how underpowerered they are, and I think often they're exaggerating a bit, but if I had to pick one, I would agree with them that killer is more difficult to play as things already stand.
@strikerfreak12x said:
Killer can run bloodhound and predator and as long as they're following, you have no choice pretty much just to keep running running running and leaving scratch marks.Counterpoint: survivors can run Sprint Burst, Lightweight, Lithe, Iron Will, Urban Evasion, Quick and Quiet, or any of the other perks that make it easier to escape from chases.
-
This makes me sad. The fact that killers feel the need to dodge because the majority of SWF groups are so toxic. I play SWF often, and the escape rates vary a lot, sometimes we all escape, sometimes 2 of us do, sometimes none. But we always try to be nice to the killer, no spamming or teabagging or BM. And usually, everyone has fun (killer included, at least on the occasions where they stick around to talk about it). Idk, I'm not trying to come off all holier-than-thou, but I wish more survivors would realise that you don't have to be a dick to have fun. I don't think there are inherent problems with SWF, but the way a lot of people use it sucks.
-
@cTrix It doesn't have to be buffed to meta level. In fact, I think a lot of people would rather it wasn't (especially killers). It just needs to be buffed to a level where it's viable to use. Not many people use slippery meat, but it does what it says in the tin and is good in certain builds. No Mither is useless as it currently stands, and the solution is not to forget about it but to make it different to unbreakable, because they're not the same perk as you seem to be suggesting. Unbreakable is a one-time-use recover, and a bonus to recovery speed in general; No Mither is infinite recoveries, with no speed bonus, PLUS you don't leave blood stains, in exchange for being permanently injured. The problem isn't that it's useless, the problem is that because the recovery aspect is void, the cons therefore outweigh the pros. The solution is to find a way to make the recovery viable again.
@Entità I see where you're coming from, but the HUD icon was originally added because other survivors were wasting time being confused over why they couldn't heal their teammate, thinking it was a bug or something, so there needed to be some indication that this person couldn't be healed. I think perhaps @ToolboxMotley 's solution is a good one, except that there should be a HUD icon still, but visible only to survivors (similar to how the obsession indicator used to be visible only to the killer and the obsession). That way, the killer can't tell they have No Mither, but the other survivors know not to waste their time trying to heal them.
-
If they did have Pig cosmetics, they would probably be inspired by the movies, at least some of them. However, because she's licenced they're not actually allowed to do anything with her that they haven't been given explicit permission to do. So far, all they have permission for is including her in the game, because they have to negotiate with the actual licence owners anything that makes them money. So they're allowed to sell her as a character (and presumably the franchise owners get some cut of the profits), but in order to sell cosmetics for Pig, Myers, Leatherface etc., there needs to be another round of negotiations with the licence owners. However, the good news is the devs have confirmed that they are in the process of negotiating with licence owners to get cosmetics for the licenced characters.
-
@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
i mean they could add more wraping around her just for the sake of people who think it is a little too revealing and to someone who doesnt play this like a parent who saw thier kid playing this and saw that they might not let them play anymore because of how revealing she is. kids can play this game too not just adultsThis game is not for kids. It's explicitly rated as being not for kids, which means it's actually illegal to buy this game for a kid. So while I'm more or less on OP's side I feel the need to call out that line of thinking.
-
@Malakir For clarity's sake, which examples are you referring to? OP already addressed the argument you made about David (he's still half-covered and it's not a default skin anyway), and the one about it fitting with the killer's backstory (it doesn't). If you mean the point about Tracer... I guess it wasn't addressed because it's not that relevant. Yes, another game had a similar issue, and in that case no one really cared and nothing changed. OP is still allowed to state his opinion in the (however small) hope that it might get recognised.
-
This should be in "bug reports", I believe. I don't think you can move your own topic, but if you delete this one and repost there it will be less likely to get buried and will probably get more attention from the devs
-
@Jack11803 I love the stuff you're saying but for the love of God stop using that headache-inducing text colour. I'm begging you.
-
@TheWorldconsumer For starters, I believe OP is a dude (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, @Lyinginbedmon ). Don't assume that just because someone is standing up against something they see as potentially harmful to the female player base, that means they're a part of the group they're defending. Secondly, you say you read the whole thread, but I think you missed the point. Try laying your political prejudices aside and rereading OP's arguments (and by the way, if you're going to tell them they're wrong, maybe listen to their arguments first - watch the video they posted. I know you didn't because if you had, you would have known that they weren't female in the first place). You don't need to agree with someone, and I understand the sentiment of encouraging people to spend their time on things that "matter", but you're not going to change their mind without actually disputing the points they're making.
And all of that can be done without mocking them and putting words in their mouth. If we're going to talk about stuff in this thread that's unnecessary, let's start with that.
-
@Lyinginbedmon I'll admit I hadn't had time to watch the video when I made my original post - I mostly wanted to call out the people who weren't contributing to the discussion, and I figured in order not to be hypocritical in saying that I should give my contribution as well, such as it was in that moment. I do think you make some very valid points, particularly with the reserach you've done into the lore and how it ties in to Japanese culture. A lot of people are saying that it doesn't matter, that it's just a game, and if you're reading it that way that's your problem. I think that's true to an extent, in that I for one never thought of any DbD character including the Spirit in a sexual capacity or as a sexual being before reading your post, and I think that's most people's experience. However, having said that, I think we are influenced on a subconscious level by the media we consume. The things that are presented to us as normal, or that we are exposed to often enough that it feels normal, do start to change the way we think about and respond to things outside of the games or movies they're featured in, and I think it does us well to be aware of that. So I do agree in that, although I think for the vast majority of people it isn't an issue because they just don't see the character like that, the "Spirit situation" does have the potential for harmful consequences. And, probably the strongest argument you've put forth, it just isn't necessary. There's no good reason to do it, and there's at least one good reason not to. So why do it?
-
@Brady I know, it's great. I've never had such a high rate of "nice" killers that work together to make sure everyone gets their objectives ever until this event. I'm guessing for those who aren't encountering them, either they're just unlucky or it's a rank thing? I tend to get matched against killers around ranks 8-11, so maybe that's just a sweet spot or something.
-
For starters, unless you're in your final year and you just turned 18 and bought the game recently, if you're in high school you're too young to be playing this game in the first place.
Also, as a few others have pointed out, the premise of your post is incorrect - 60 vials is the cap, because the devs have made it so you can only unlock 2 of the 7 outfits for free. Which kinda sucks, I agree, but 48 hours ago they were saying you could only unlock one outfit and then they changed it in response to community feedback, so count your blessings, my friend.
Point is though, your entire argument about how the event isn't long enough is built on the assumption that all the outfits are unlockable, which is false, therefore your post is a moot point.
-
What I don't understand is why so many people are taking time out of their day to post stuff like "get over it". You're not contributing anything to the conversation, and clearly you don't care about the topic, so why even bother replying if you don't have anything meaningful to add?
For me personally, I get where you're coming from, but if I just think about the first time I saw the Spirit, my thought process was more along the lines of "wow, amazing, I think this is the creepiest and most well-designed killer they've ever done. The details in the animations really sell it." So to premise, it is very much a matter of interpretation.
However, I disagree that her backstory has no bearing on how scantily clad she is. As far as I remember, before she died, Rin was crawling around in a sea of broken glass, having already been sliced up with a katana. I feel like a situation like that would realistically shred her clothes as well as her skin, so it's not unreasonable that she won't have much left in the way of clothing by the time she's picked up by the entity.
That said, I think that how smooth-skinned she appears is a little unrealistic. She could have been made to look a bit more inhuman (like the Hag) and a bit less like a Barbie Doll if her skin was more torn up from all that broken glass. If it's enough to shred her clothes, her skin should also be in tatters. It's an 18+ game and the devs have already proven they don't have any issues with gore, so there's no reason why they couldn't have done that for her base model.
(Side note: I notice you mentioned something about wanting it to be accessible to people? I can't tell if that's because you think the sexualisation might offend some people, or that it's too mature for some players, but if it's the latter I would reiterate what I mentioned above about it being rated 18+, and for good reason.)
-
@Kilmeran That's fair, although it's a bit sad what you said about empathy. If you're only kind to people when there are consequences for not being so (that is, with people you know or see in person) then that's not really kindness, it's self-preservation. But I get that some people don't value things like kindness and empathy as highly as I do, and I don't want to derail the thread into a discussion on ethics, so I'll let it go lol.
My main issue with OP is not that he's playing the game normally, which is what you seem to be talking about and that's fine - it's a competitive game, someone has to lose - but that he seems to be taking some kind of fiendish delight in being the cause of someone else's suffering or misfortune.
-
@brokedownpalace How does letting the person on the hook go stop farming? Surely going after the person who unhooked would just give them protection points/WGLF stacks? They would still get the points for the unhook, which is apparently why they farm in the first place, plus they'd get points for a safe rescue. Unless you're saying that by refusing to down the unhooked person, you deny the farmer the opportunity to do it again straight away?
-
@brokedownpalace So you're saying that people still do it because they don't realise it's not as lucrative as it used to be? And/or WGLF amplifies the points you get simply from unhooking someone, safe or not, to the point where people don't care about losing the safe unhook points (or emblem value)?
One more question, I've heard killers talk about noticing that a survivor is trying to farm, and "not letting them". How is the killer in control in this situation/How can they prevent a survivor from farming for points like that?
-
@Chi Again, thanks for trying, but that's not enough information. Were my questions not clear enough, or does no one know the answers?
-
@SurpriseSurprise I know how WGLF works. That wasn't my question. Please explain what that has to do with pulling people off hooks unsafely. Is it because the killer gets into a chase with that person, and then you take the hit so it gives you a WGLF stack? I appreciate that you're trying to help, but I just want an actual, clear answer to my question, not half-sentences and unexplained links.
-
Body blocking hooks isn't the same, because you can get them out of the way by hitting them. Even if you lose the survivor you're carrying, there are still consequences for those who blocked and they can't do it forever, so they can't hold the game hostage like you're apparently doing. Survivors have no way of forcing the killer to move.
Also, they destroyed your NOED because it's their job. Getting salty and holding the game hostage because of it is no better than if you were a survivor and you got salty because the killer hooked you. It's their job, it's not personal, they're just trying to do objectives. As others stated, if there's an actual strategic reason for it, or if you're actually going to hit them or something it's a bit unsportsmanlike but it's not bannable. But if you're trying to punish them with boredom or something, yes that's bannable and next time they do one of their objectives that's contrary to yours, my advice would be to take a deep breath and move on with your life.
-
@TigerKirby215 Thanks for trying, but that doesn't really tell me anything. How does it give you bloodpoints? Don't you get more bloodpoints for safe hook rescues?
-
Do I need a more clickbaity title? Or is this just a mystery to everyone lol.
-
@Boss I know, right! I've made so many friends in this game just by being nice to people. I've been playing with a group during the event that I met last week because I played killer against them and decided to be nice. Even if I don't end up making friends exactly, I always enjoy that warm, happy feeling knowing that everyone enjoyed themselves, even if I lost or died. That's why I think good sportsmanship is so important, because even if you lose it feels like it really was a "gg".
-
There's always one, isn't there? @DeadByFlashlight got it right - this is why we can't have nice things. I don't understand the motivations of people like this. Surely the game is more fun if everyone is enjoying themselves? Why would you go out of your way to ruin someone's day like that? Everyone wants the cool skins. We're all in the same boat here, trying to get objectives as killer and as survivor to get the points we need. It just seems like there must be something seriously wrong if you're so lacking in empathy that you actually get joy from denying someone else a simple pleasure like a fun skin when it doesn't hurt you at all.
-
@FrenziedRoach I realise that there are more cosmetics in terms of numbers, and the ability to get 6 rather than 3 is a great improvement that I'm really pleased with. I'm just trying to explain why to some people, it's less about the number of things and more about the principle of having community events which are free, with 100% unlockable content. The percentages were there to illustrate my point: it may be more items, but it's still 28% (an improvement of 14, as I said) rather than 100%. It's not that people want 21 items for free, it's more that they would much more happily accept 6 or even 3 items if that's all there was on offer.
-
@purebalance I think his point isn't that SWF makes you better than you would have been playing solo, which I agree is probably not the case, but that if you happen to be someone who only plays SWF, you're still going to be better on the 100th day of playing SWF that you were on the 1st.
On the other hand, if you played solo survivor for 100 days, you'd probably be much better on day 100 than the SWF player in the above example. So you're both right, you're just missing each other's meaning.
-
@kisfenkin It's different because previously the events were free, and 100% of the content was unlockable. This time, 14% is unlockable and the rest is behind a paywall. Yes, there's more content overall, and 3 pieces is nice, but it feels like less.
-
No Mither in its current state is essentially "you don't leave blood trails but you're always exposed". The getting up doesn't even come into play, because no sane killer would leave a survivor with no mither on the ground. When it first came out, it was better because it didn't have the status effect, so unless you noticed that they were injured at the start, you wouldn't know they had no mither. But it does need a buff now. I think this is a good idea. Maybe it could be a fairly short timer, like 10 seconds (which is shorter than tier 1 borrowed time) but it could potentially render the full-recovery thing not completely useless.
-
You're totally right, it is easier for killers. But it doesn't matter, since everyone has to play both survivor and killer to get enough for the free outfit.
-
Don't worry about them. Survivors like that give the rest of us a bad name. If you hooked them in the basement and then you saw their teammates coming as soon as you exited, then yeah that's not camping if everyone was in the same place. That's their fault for not going to do generators, or trying to bait you away (if you were chasing someone but they were going away from the basement so you stopped and went back, that could be considered camping, but it doesn't sound like that's what you did). Some people will accuse you of camping just for being near the hook, regardless of what else is happening. They're just salty and don't know what the word means, and don't want to accept responsibility for their own bad plays.
-
Event hooks have always been like that. Unless they won't let you hook them again at all, it doesn't seem like a huge problem. It just seems more unfair because you don't get a full "point" for it, just a fraction of one.
Especially since just from hearing about the event on the dev stream, it seems like the survivors have it harder. At least for killer, the nectar gathering is attached to your normal objectives and not an entirely new one on top of everything else. Plus, killers can't lose nectar like survivors can when they die.
Having said all that, I haven't actually played the event yet, so take everything I say with a grain of salt (lol). But ultimately it doesn't matter that much who it's easier for, since everyone is going to have to play both survivor and killer to get enough nectar for the free outfit.
-
To be fair, sometimes it's not about patience, it's about bad ping. Anything 200+ makes the game pretty unplayable. I don't know, maybe people have great ping and are just impatient that the lobby doesn't fill up quickly enough, but that's the main reason I leave lobbies. Sometimes I even stay for a minute or two to see if the ping settles down first. But since we can't see each others' ping, it can look like people are just leaving because they don't want to wait.
-
I also think if they were going to make things paid for, they should have said so from the get-go. It would be insane if they gave us 7 skins for free, but since every community event to date has been 100% free (and one event we got 6 cosmetic pieces and a MAP) I don't think it's unreasonable that people expected this one would be as well. It goes against both the pattern they've established and the mood that has been set around community events, which is "giving back to the community free things and fun minigames as a show of gratitude for loving our game", replacing it with a moneygrab instead. Money grabs are fine, in their place, which is the store. They're less fine if they're disguised as what everyone assumed would be a free community event and then revealed as paid content at the last minute.
-
Ok but... source? More info? Where did this come from?
-
@friendlykillermain wow, advanced stuff for a 4 year old. Pretty sure my brother didn't even know that word at 4. I'm impressed.
-
@Entità That would be ideal. I don't know if it would work out that way in practice or not, but that's what I would love if it did happen.
-
@friendlykillermain Well, at least they're creative? Lol that's happened to me playing as killer. I was trying to prestige Doc, and before I prestige a character I like to use up their nicest items/addons/offerings so they don't all go to waste when I prestige and everything disappears. So I just slapped a couple of high tier addons on there, didn't even check what they did. I killed 1 survivor because they were pissing me off, let the other 3 escape. I never camp, and go out of my way to not tunnel. The one that died called me trash, a c word, said I had "tryhard items" lol and followed it all up with a simple directive: "suck penis". And it was like... okay, but who's the one that got themselves killed?
-
@kisfenkin I hate when that happens. I play on PC, and if the killer DCs survivors get safety pip and get to keep their items. The only thing lost is offerings. I don't know if that's the case on PS4 but if not that really sucks
Also I don't think that's quite what he meant, although it was worded badly. I think he was trying to say that he wants to take advantage of cannibal's strengths and use his power effectively, as you would with any killer, but especially in this case because he paid money to be able to play him and there would be no point if he didn't make use of the killer's unique abilities. Cannibal does unfortunately encourage camping because of his ability to down multiple survivors at once, but there are other ways to play him that are often more lucrative.
-
@Entità That's essentially exactly what I'm trying to work out here. I'm not convinced that casual play is the perfect solution, but I'm sure there must be one that exists.
-
@Knockel Lol are you serious? I can't believe stuff like that actually happens. You dirty camper. How dare you use your killer power? The Hag's traps are there for lulz and nothing else.
-
@friendlykillermain Aw thank you
Right back atcha! I love meeting nice, thoughtful killers. Restores my faith in humanity in general and this community in particular. -
@Peasant That's a fair point about how things would play out in that scenario, which I'll admit I didn't think about. But that wasn't the case in previous events, which didn't have a cap (or rather, were capped at the max needed to get all the cosmetics). It's probably not worth speculating over too much unless they actually do change, which is unlikely.
Lmao @ the minecraft thing. Did not know that was a thing.
Unfortunately, bad grammar or spelling are usually more an indicator of someone who either doesn't care or isn't well educated, rather than age. Although the charitable thing to do would be to chalk up immaturity to youth, in a lot of cases it might not be so accurate.
Also that's totally true about the skins. Seems a bit silly when you think of it that way.
-
@GodDamn_Angela Lol I don't think I said that about League, but if I did I apologise because it's not true. I barely played competitively at all, I tried once or twice and the toxic was just too much for me. That was just my experience, but it sounds like you have a lot more so I'll take your word for it instead.
That seems to be the main problem with the idea of casual play, that the community is too small to realistically support it. That aside though, I wonder how League's casual matchmaking system works? Perhaps something similar would be possible.
I think the current solution is more or less to deliberately play in such a way as to not earn many emblem points, but still help your team (for example cleansing dull totems in case of NOED). I would like to be able to play to win in games without my rank shooting up, but you're right in that it's a better solution than just DCing.
I agree that there are a lot of issues with the idea of a casual mode, and it doesn't have to be the solution. But I think there does need to be one in some form, because the current system is a problem. My thinking was essentially if we could figure out WHY people are toxic (because I think in most cases it's not just because they're trolls) then we could work out a way to address that, be it with a casual gamemode or something else entirely.
-
I'm a survivor main, although I play killer a fair bit too. I'll try to answer your questions honestly.
First off, kudos to you for trying to make the game fun for everyone! Not enough people, killers or survivors, do that nowadays. Not to mention being a good sport even when the game wasn't much fun for you. And kudos for legitimately being open to addressing issues with your play style instead of blaming everyone around you. Have a virtual high-five.
People like this ruin the game for everyone. Salty killers give killers a bad name, and salty survivors give survivors a bad name. Nobody wins. I think it would be easier to address the issue if you had more specific examples, but I'll do my best.
First off, you're totally right that you would be a fool to leave the hook if you don't see anyone with BBQ (although it's worth bearing in mind that people could be hiding behind generators so that their auras are masked, so they might not all actually be nearby. That said, obviously from your perspective it's in your best interests to assume they are close). From the survivor perspective, especially if they don't know you have BBQ, it looks like you're just camping. (In a zero-communication situation, when people see someone else doing something wrong, the human tendency is to assume that it's for the worst reasons. For example, if you see someone run a red light, the immediate assumption is that they're being reckless or unsafe or an idiot. If you knew that they were rushing their dying wife to the hospital, though, you might be more understanding of their actions.) Now, any reasonable survivor will see BBQ under your perks in the postgame and think "well damn, it sucks that he camped but if he knew we were all nearby then he didn't have much of a choice". Unfortunately, a lot of people don't stop to think like that. So the long and short of it is, in that situation you're not doing anything wrong and there's not much you can do short of playing badly so as not to piss them off.
Secondly, camping Leatherface is aids for survivors. I know it's the most viable strategy, since he can down multiple people at once, but it just feels hopeless and impossible and not fun. I have played games against some great Leatherfaces who killed all 4 of us without camping at all, and it's always much more fun when it feels like a fair match. So it's not the only way to play, and since you seem interested in improving the experience for everyone involved I would encourage you to try not camping on him either. When I play killer, I actually find that the experience is much more rewarding bloodpoints-wise if you don't camp anyway.
Not all survivors are sore losers, but a lot can be, especially when they think you were camping which makes them feel like they didn't have a chance or it wasn't a fair game. Many people overreact in that situation. I've seen some truly awful things said by teammates to killers who barely camped at all, but stayed in the same quarter of the map as the hook. So again, my best advice is to just keep trying to play well and fairly. If they still think you're trash, at least you can take comfort in knowing that they're just being sore losers.
TL;DR: You're not doing anything wrong for the most part, a lot of people insult first and think later, but if you want to improve your playing style for the sake of other people's experience, don't camp as cannibal or anyone else, and you might even find that you get more points that way as a bonus.
-
@Peasant I feel you, but I also feel like giving people the option to unlock things for free with a huge grind while still making them available for purchase would be a better marketing strategy, given that people are so upset. I think that more people would want to pay for the cosmetics/support the devs if they didn't feel like they'd been led astray in the first place. It may or may not be an accurate feeling, but the fact is it's impacting players' willingness to support the game financially. And if it's better for marketing AND player satisfaction, then it's a win-win.
(By the way, there are a lot of valid reasons why people over 18 might not have the financial means to buy cosmetics. I can give examples if you like, but point is just because people are poor doesn't mean they're literal children, even if they act like it :P )
-
@AChaoticKiller I totally agree with the part about DCing, but as I've said several times that isn't what this is about. I'm not interested in defending DCing, but I do think it's a problem when there are people who feel like it's their only option.
The point of "Casual Play" is that winning and losing don't matter as much. If you take League as an example, that's also a game where 1 player can make or break a team - I would argue to a much greater extend than DbD. But if you compare casual to ranked play there, in ranked the toxicity is multiplied by 10. I'm basically trying to figure out why that is, and whether the same principles can be applied to DbD in a fair and reasonable way.
-
@GodDamn_Angela I don't know how to explain it better than I have, but I'll try. Firstly, this isn't really about my friend, I'm just using him as an example. I, for one, never DC from games unless I have no other choice (i.e. game is being held hostage) but I still wish I didn't rank up so easily because people get saltier the higher I climb, and I'm not even trying to rank up. It's not about being the best in the group, it's about playing in an environment where people tend to be nicer to each other. This is just my experience, I still haven't figured out why it's the case but it's what I've encountered for the most part.
I think a lot of people feel like they "have to DC" because the environment is different at higher ranks and some people just don't find it fun. Sure, you can ignore people, but wouldn't it be better if you had the option to play casually in a place like low ranked play where people aren't toxic all the time? For some people it's okay, but for others it's just not fun. And if someone doesn't want to be insulted by strangers online, I don't think that's a reason for them to have to stop playing a game they enjoy.
I should clarify that I don't think my ideas are perfect, they might not even work. They're all built off a theory that people are toxic in high ranks because they care about losing, because they have more to lose, which might not be the reason at all.
My main point is, if people are deranking because they don't find high-ranked play fun, that's a problem. It's impacting other people in negative ways. Perhaps we could find a way to create an environment where people can have fun without hurting others' experience in the process.