Ryuhi
Ryuhi
About
- Username
- Ryuhi
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Kaitsja said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941611#Comment_3941611
I'm not against the idea. It makes no difference to me. I just think that it's not humiliating to accept that you've lost and push the survivors out.
A forced act of submission is a humiliation ritual. It doesn't matter how it affects either player, it's unnecessary false agency. Hence the gameplay comparisons.
-
@Kaitsja said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941593#Comment_3941593
It's only humiliating if you're so insecure you can't handle the idea of losing a match.
Then surely the idea would be met with open arms. Why not incorporate that instead of the instant nope out we have now?
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941241#Comment_3941241
I must've missed the part where slugs can injure the killer to force the bleed out to go faster. Or even turn that situation into an escape.
Since the killer can force survivors out, possibly get an extra kill, and clearly you think these are the same thing.
If slugged survivors had a chance to actively humiliate themselves to bleed out faster, would you take it? Say it was something pointless and having absolutely zero impact on your objective, like drawing a heart with your blood trail? Would most survivors take it? What if they could also play with pogs while they're laying there to get some token BP, we'll say… breaking 4 pallets worth?
Honestly the pog idea would probably be more fun than actually doing gens, so maybe not :)
-
@Mooks said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3938488#Comment_3938488
no, I am not the one that asked for equal treatment in an asymmetrical game either.
I would welcome these changes for the Killer side, I just think it’s Not really fair to always bring up ‚us vs them‘ for any topic. The terror Radius I just a very specific Feature for the surv side
I can agree with this. While I feel survivor side has been more accommodated in regards to hearing issues (big part of why I play majority survivor,) there are still multiple issue on their side as well. Accessibility especially shouldn't be an us vs them topic, its not about pulling each other down as much as it is making sure everyone is taken care of.
@Malkhrim said:
Honestly, as much as acessibility is important, not wanting to add specific horrifying stuff because of phobias would a bit too much. The main point of horror is to be disturbing in some way and the entire genre is already full of stuff that can cause different forms of phobia. A "phobia" is an intense irrational fear or aversion to something, and horror is entirely based on things that can cause fear. It's no coincidence the game itself already has at least two perks and one achievement with the names of REAL PHOBIAS (coulrophobia, thanatophobia, hemophobia).
Hell, if DbD was really commited to avoid phobia-inducing things, then we wouldn't have the Clown, the Plague, and maybe not even the Dredge. Let's just list a few things in the game that are related to phobias. I understand that most of them are less common, but let's just be reminded how, when it comes to horror, almost everything can be related to some phobia:
Coulrophobia (clowns): there's a clown killer with literally a perk with that name.
Emetophobia (vomitting or seeing others vomit): the Plague (one thing must be pointed out tho, the devs once put a question in a poll about how much her power would impact each players' gameplay experience… but they did so AFTER she had already released and nothing was done about it to this day).
Scotophobia (darkness): the Macmillan State maps used to be quite dark, and now we have the Dredge. I don't know if Nightfall could trigger scotophobia or nyctophobia on people, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Chiroptophobia (bats): Dracula can turn into a small swarm of them, making bat screeches and all.
Hemophobia (blood): there's even an achievement with this name, and even though it's not .
Necrophobia (corpses and things related to death): well, this one is really unavoidable.
Hell, if you want to really go far, there's even Cynophobia (fear of dogs), which is surprisingly common and affects a similar percentage of the world population to aracnophobia, and DbD creates a scenario where a dog is chasing the survivors, biting them, and even attacking them on the ground.
Either way, if we want to give a more constructive feedback here, I believe it should be easier to put spider-related content in the game in a more accessible what it was done to the Clown or the Plague: just make a spider-like being that doesnt'really have the shape of a spider. Come on, that's literally already in the game: the entity's legs coming out of the hook, the Hag's "Black Widow" skin, and even the facehuggers on Nostromo. Facehuggers were always a bit spider-like, but I never heard of them triggering anyone's aracnophobia in either the movies or games. Buuuut of course, I cannot speak for arachnophobes because I am not one. So you know what? I'm going to make another thread asking people about what people would think about a humanoid-ish spider-like killer. Hold on.
Regarding phobias, the issue is in psychosomatic responses, which often come hand in hand with many phobias. Its not as much about fear as your body literally tricking you into believing involuntary sensations. There's a very big difference between even deep psychological horror and physically getting ill, or even true Fight/Flight/Freeze/Fawn responses. Few people who advocate for further phobias being excluded from the game think that the ones already there should be ignored, in fact they could (and should) be fixed the same as other accessibility issues.
Since it is too late as they are already in the game, accommodations would have to involve removing/swapping assets in a voluntary (specifically end user focused) censorship fashion (A setting to force the clown to use an appearance that does not represent a clown specifically, muting vomiting/giving it disassociated visual representation with an unnatural appearance like rainbow vomit, etc.) If you add another common phobia to the mix just because the other mistakes were made in the past, you're putting preference and/or spite before accessibility. There is far more feedback about how phobias do/have affect(ed) players in the community, so we have more data on the subject than we did when Clown was released. Obviously its mostly anecdotal feedback, but people have voiced their difficulties on these topics compared to before they were implemented.
The most important thing that a lot of people need to understand about how a lot of these issues affect players isn't about fear specifically, its about everything that comes with it turning it into a disproportionately negative experience, as opposed to being a "thrill" with no direct consequence. One of the most important aspects of appreciating horror is that it is always in a safe environment, thats why even cortisol can be welcomed in the right circumstances. Thats something that people should always be able to expect from their games, and a complaint that shouldn't really be ignored.
-
@terumisan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/447110/bhvr-s-selective-accessibility
this is a sound based game and sound is super important if someone is hard of hearing they might need to play a different game since the heartbeat meter is already really good if they add something that counters spirit phase might be game breaking
I'm sorry but the sound issues in this game are almost always 100% fixable at all times. Disregarding the ones that are related to bugs (which this game has never had a shortage of, especially in terms of audio,) things like sound balancing of important audio queues have always been a correctable issue, and continue to be so. Even the normalization of survivor volume has been on the table and directly acknowledged for years, with absolutely no followup. Something an amateur could fix in a program like Audacity in an afternoon, maybe two.
The issue many HoH people have with audio in the game is that important information is purposely obfuscated, be it by chase music or gen progress or sound occlusion or anything else. You can go into a game adapting to missing that information and doing your best to go without, but losing someone because the map made no footsteps while they play Ada or Ace and you have to waste extra time using muddied scratch marks to refind them each time LoS gets significantly broken, it starts to become a pretty frustrating thing. Or you're playing vs doctor and the distorted audio makes you miss things like skill check sounds or make it harder to determine the intensity of the chase music. The constant vomiting vs plague making it difficult to hear a nearby fountain (among other issues, for those with emetophobia.) All while the answer is out in the open, but BHVR flat out refuses.
Audio accessibility is 100% an imposed limitation with the game, which is why its an important accessibility issue. It can be fixed, but instead its considered ok for a large number of players to be forced into a disadvantage revolving around a core tracking/awareness sense in the game. They understood the importance when the visual heartbeat actively nerfed stealth killers at the time but rolled it out anyway, so its always baffling why other audio issues always seem to get ignored.
-
@Unequalmitten86 said:
I am sensitive to light so when someone uses a flashlight it hurts my eyes and dims my vision. I still play and one of the main reasons I use lightborn. I wouldn’t expect them to cater to a weird eye issue.
Photophobia isn't a "weird eye issue." In fact it often presents naturally as people age. While most people focus on conditions like epilepsy, people who suffer migraines also tend to be very photophobic.
-
Is it possible to have an accessibility discussion without slippery slope fallacies? Asking for a friend.
@Nephil1682 said:
Console doesn’t have nightlight and you don’t get to say what does and doesn’t affect colorblind people
As someone who is directly impacted by my colorblindness with this game, you're both right yet rude about it. Colorblindness affects every person differently, so issues for one might not be an issue for another. That said, the colorblind mode in the game provides a bare minimum accommodation without sacrificing potential advantages. Personally I think things like selecting the base colors for various auras and blood pools would help someone like myself specifically, but if you started getting into things like luminosity (which objectively helps introduce contrast in many situations where hue is the primary difference) would start to get into an advantage gaining issue. That said, the rarity thing was absolutely stupid and they were warned constantly the moment players found out it was going to be a thing, but they refused to scrap the change and further refuse to give an option to revert them to the previous colors, which comes off as extremely tonedeaf and dismissive about the issue.
-
@Memesis said:
I don't think I can recall whether Clock Tower has been on any of the recent surveys. The series has been completely dormant for so long and the fanbase is either tiny, extremely quiet or both. I love Clock Tower too, but it might be a little too niche to be worth making a full chapter for.
As one of the earliest forms of survival horror however, it totally deserves to be here.
The super famicom original was just remade not too long ago, would have been the perfect timing but the iron has probably cooled by now. Im just glad to see other appreciators of one of the best overlooked (for obvious reasons) horror titles of the 90s.
-
@QuestionMark220 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3936219#Comment_3936219
Traumatize people in a horror community with violence? Just more proof that this community doesn’t actually like horror, they just fetishize it.
There is a massive difference between horror and detailed gore. Many classic horror films had minimal visceral depictions (relying often on a combination of clever camera work and campy practical effects) despite being generally about topics like serial murderers or even occult concepts like demons across various cultures. Less can be more, especially when having to contend with ratings systems like multiple forms of media have had (and continue to) be subjected to in various regions. The camp factor actually saved multiple horror movies from even being allowed to be made, wanna say even one of the Friday the 13th movies was toned down and basically rewritten.
Horror doesn't need to be gratuitous, its meant to play on concepts like fear and terror more than shocking visuals. There's a fine line between what horror is supposed to be and what it looks like on the surface. Thats why people remember franchises like Nightmare on Elm Street more than, say, Hostel.
-
@KeefCheif said:
imo this game is in a horrible state rn. At this point more people DC on average than gens get completed in my matches.
And I don’t blame them for DCing; who tf wants to spend their time playing against wanna be comps with full meta builds and frankly unfun play styles
Maybe the reason the game is in a horrible state is because more people DC on average than gens get completed in many people's matches?
Maybe the effect is actually part of the cause?
-
@100PercentBPMain said:
if the first game released in cereal boxes in the 90s i think us oldies would be nostalgic for it
Hey don't you dare imply Chex Quest is carried by nostalgia alone :)
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3934932#Comment_3934932
Wow, look at you coming off all high and mighty. Let me make one thing clear: I don't DC on a regular basis. I'm simply pointing out that stuff happens. To all of us. Completing 20 matches in a row is only a herculean task for some people because they don't play for eight hours a day like you do. Unlike you, I have a life, and I have a full-time job. And if I can't play because my DC penalty builds up because of things outside of my control and I don't have time to play enough matches to decay the penalty, then there's no reason to play anymore.
I hope you're happy about that.
Where did I say I play 8 hours a day? I just don't ragequit, so the DC penalty is a non issue.
If "unintentional DCs" are enough of an issue to rack up a DC penalty faster than it decays, you should work on stabilizing your internet, or switch to games where your DC doesn't essentially ruin the match. Like ones with drop in/out support. The issue is that every time you disconnect, regardless of why, the damage is done all the same.
-
@Mr_K said:
At this point they are just messing with us.
As someone who has trouble between purple and blue, I felt the same for a moment. Its like someone saying yes and shaking their head at the same time.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3934144#Comment_3934144
Incorrect. I was saying that many Survivors will leave after this patch, whether they DC frequently or not. And the upcoming DC decay change will punish the occasional ragequit or game/server crash, especially for those who only play here and there. For those who play all day every day, then yes, the DC decay won't be an issue.
You like to say that people should quit playing if they ragequit so much, but having DC decay be tied to matches played will force those ragequitters to keep playing. Taking a break for a month won't do anything, because you'll still be punished for that DC you had a month ago. How does anyone not see the folly in that logic?
The logic is simple: Stop DCing, and the penalty will decay. Don't DC, and it won't build back up. If completing 20 matches in a row is a herculean task, pvp games without drop in/out functionality are not a good match.
-
@apathyinc said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3930317#Comment_3930317
Maybe you could try playing in a way that won't activate the abandon match feature for the other side then.
Considering that can sometimes be:
checks notes
playing a killer that's not trapperI think maybe that might not be the whole story.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3930262#Comment_3930262
And no reason for the killer to be stuck waiting for a forever hider with plot twist hiding in a corner extending the EGC.I think this is missing the point I was trying to make so I'll try again.
There are lots of situations where, totally taking BM out of it, survivors can be stuck waiting around. That's a failure of game design that the abandon system can potentially address. Those failures of game design can be used to BM, absolutely, but the problem exists whether a side BMs or not.
The parity comparison would likely be the survivors hiding out not doing the gens. Now BHVR has bungled both the implementation and communication of this, but you have a similar issue. You have a couple of survivors who want to survive, but progressing the generators is no longer realistic, so they go into hide mode. From the game's design, no one is here BMing, BHVR has always maintained a survivor playing for themselves is fine (they only have the incredibly vague standard about trying to 'progress the trial'). They've also said that the killer protecting gens over pursuing the survivors is fine.
You have a situation where everyone in these scenarios is playing the way BHVR says is acceptable, but also there is at least one player in the situation just 'stuck', that calls for something new.
Again in these scenarios no one has done anything wrong, they just come up in the natural course of gameplay and should be fixed.
BMing creates another issue for two reasons.
1: BHVR doesn't seem to want to address anything except extreme BMing. That sucks. They should.
2: Some elements of BMing are realistically much harder to address via coding. Take your plot twist example. How does the game tell the difference between a survivor using it to heal up so they can wait for the right moment when the killer has moved to rush for the gates? This applies to quite a few end game scenarios, how to tell the difference between a survivor observing the killer, figuring out what they are doing, and looking for an opening, vs a survivor just stalling out. A human watching the games probably could tell the difference, coding it would likely be impossible.
Slugged and not doing gens create a clear line that is easy for a computer to decipher. If all the survivors are down, if the gens aren't getting progressed, there is a trigger point that the system can process. There are lots of other situations on both sides where as humans we can tell 'yeah, this is over', that would be considerably more difficult to implement into the game. I think a clear line would be the gates open and all the survivors within a certain range, but BHVR seems to disagree. However I do think the idea of survivors just hiding during EGC would be far too difficult to implement that is not dealt with by the exiting EGC timer.
That was a single example given, while the entire rest of the post was ignored. It was an example where the killer's time is not respected despite the opposite (being slugged, also up to 4 minutes so same duration) being ignored. They have essentially acknowledged this by having plot twist not trigger the abandon condition for survivors IIRC, but there is nothing to stop people from doing this (especially vs killers who don't participate in the exit gate ritual.) My point, again, is that one side is being favored over the other in how lazily this system was conceived and implemented, and that they should adjust one or both sides implementations to not have parts of the issue disproportionally benefit one side over the other. If the killer role has limitations that prevent it from being even with survivors, then survivors can't have a way to BM and waste time for free with zero repercussions while having a way to avoid repercussions and reprisals.
Now BHVR has bungled both the implementation and communication of this, but you have a similar issue.This is my issue.
-
@ChuckingWong said:
- Accessibility is something the base game has to take into account. Not 3rd party programs.
- Only a small portion of the population has severe enough impairments to need visual or audio assistance to that degree.
- Among gamers, especially competitive ones, those with normal or corrected-to-normal vision and hearing make up the clear majority.
So accessibility can only go so far. To the point that I just dont believe someone on the internet saying left right and center that they have all these issues. Its not probable to even begin with.
Its precedence too; as its banned in pretty much any competitive PVP game:
COD
Valorant
Fornite
Rainbow
Apex
- etc…
And none of these games have any options on their graphics that are more sophisticated than DBD's environment.
Ignore all the attempted bullet point organization. These devs cant make a balanced, fun game. And they cant make a website correctly I swear.
No worries on the formatting, I know it can go haywire often on these forums
I 100% agree it should be fixed within the game, not third party programs. Unfortunately the devs vehemently disagree in many cases.
Only a small portion of the population has severe enough impairments to need visual or audio assistance to that degree.
Disagree. Audio acuity issues can range between a multitude of conditions, from APD to autism or even just getting older. Its a lot more often than you think, and many people can't even carry conversations in loud rooms like bars or restaurants because of it. As for visually the issue is that there is a wide range of severity of impact, both in reference to light and color. This is why they're often hard to pin down a perfect solution for, and presents a lot more often than one would assume. The colorblind mode that was introduced was an acceptable attempt, even if many like myself needed other options like changing the colors of auras and blood pools to have our issues resolved. It was a reasonable (if lazy) middleground.
So accessibility can only go so far. To the point that I just dont believe someone on the internet saying left right and center that they have all these issues. Its not probable to even begin with.It can only go so far, but "so far" needs to be more than "nowhere."
As for advocacy, people aren't always advocated for themselves. Thats a side effect of empathy, you see other people struggling with an issue you can identify, so you raise awareness. When we address the issues of our neighbors just as much as our own, they will be in position to address our issues in turn. I know its rampant in this community, but not everyone is only looking for things that benefit themselves exclusively. Some actually want the game to improve.
Also shoutouts to the new rarity colors that nobody asked for causing issues for colorblind people yet again.
- Accessibility is something the base game has to take into account. Not 3rd party programs.
-
@MaTtRoSiTy said:
If it gives you an advantage in game that is not available to others and was not an intended feature implemented by the developers - yes it is cheating.
There is no debate here.
To be fair, high quality headphones would fall under that classification too. I get where you're coming from, but that wording is a bit broad.
@ChuckingWong said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3706184#Comment_3706184
Yup.
Think that both are the exact same idea, and shouldn't be allowed to use.
Both can be argued for "hard of vision/hearing". Which are poor arguments.Poor arguments indeed, always nice to see accessibility get treated as an excuse. Very classy. Remember when colorblind and FoV issues were ignored because of arguments like that? Where was the massive unfair advantage that came with their implementation we were warned about?
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3930009#Comment_3930009
I just want this game to consider both sides' sportsmanship problem. Because it's a big one.Except that's a far bigger issue than the abandon system. BHVR has, generally, said they are okay with BM to a certain degree. Teabagging, humping, insults in chat (that don't go into slurs or threats), broadly seem to be things they aren't going to try and stop.
If they were to change their stance on that, there are a lot of things that could be done to prevent some BM actions that are much easier to implement than an expansion of the abandon system.
Edit to Add:
Thinking about this more, we're over 250 posts into this thread and I think a key point might be alluding the discussion.
The abandon system is not just about BM. In BHVR's eyes it might not even be primarily about BM being that's something that usually doesn't seem to bother them.
1: If a killer slugs for the 4k, the slugged survivor waits for them to find the other survivor, down them, put them on hook, come back to the the slug, and then either put them on hook or mori, which might require waiting for the other survivor to die. That's can be a minute give or take of literally nothing. Dead time like that is awful for a video game.
And it doesn't have to be a slug for the 4k. One survivor dead, three slugged, is not that unusual (even four slugged against some killers), if you're the last survivor on the ground you're just waiting.
And the neither of the above would be clearly BM, its just playing the game. No reason for the survivor to be stuck there.
2: How it helps killers. Even before 2v8 killer queues were long. While they weren't intolerable before Kaneki, most people's reports are the killer queue generally being longer than the survivor. Well the quicker survivors can get out of their game and get back into the next game, the quicker killers can get to their match.
BM is part of it and I think BHVR should do more to address the issue, but it doesn't seem like they will, but there are other reasons for the abandon system beyond just the possibility of BM.
1: If a killer slugs for the 4k, the slugged survivor waits for them to find the other survivor, down them, put them on hook, come back to the the slug, and then either put them on hook or mori, which might require waiting for the other survivor to die. That's can be a minute give or take of literally nothing. Dead time like that is awful for a video game.Then give them a way to quicken their suffering that is humiliating so there is parity with the killer in the exits scenario. Or make it so that they have to be slugged for at least 30 seconds before they can nope out. ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE TWO SIMILAR IF DESIGN LIMITATIONS PREVENT TOTAL PARITY. The issue is that they just threw in a system that is very catering to one side while ignoring the other, allows one side free reign to bm while not even needing to sit through a mori (Why did they even make them basekit in the first place.) Multiple times people have come up with ideas and approaches around finding a middle ground between what killers currently have and what survivors have, and it keeps getting ignored and the status quo outright defended. Thats the approach that should be taken, not "killers should have everything survivors currently do" or "killers should get nothing and like it." There's a middle ground.
No reason for the survivor to be stuck there.And no reason for the killer to be stuck waiting for a forever hider with plot twist hiding in a corner extending the EGC. There is no reason for survivors to be allowed to delay leaving the exit gates in a checkmate scenario. There is no reason for a killer to blow out their eardrums with loud noise notifications because they alt tabbed out to avoid the exit gate taunting. If you have a problem that affects X and Y, you don't fix it for X and just call it a day.
BM is part of it and I think BHVR should do more to address the issue, but it doesn't seem like they will, but there are other reasons for the abandon system beyond just the possibility of BM.This is why people are making such a stink about it, It doesn't seem like they will. Maybe in some alternate universe Jeff and Ada have the same voice volumes, like was promised years ago. Killer centric issues get ignored hard unless they're specifically related to balance (especially kill rates.) QoL has always been a mess for the role, and things like the survivor HUD never even amounted to killers getting hook counters. For the record I don't think the devs are biased toward survivors, but they sure as hell tend to be blind to killer issues, even if unintentional.
-
@LockerLurk said:
How would they fix this? It has to do with the player's connection, they can't make everyone get better internet…
If I had to guess, its a regional server complaint? I know some regions don't have servers nearby so the majority of players end up with poor latency, including their opponents as well. Sadly its hard to have dedicated servers cover every area well, so its not uncommon for people to end up matching pretty far away.
-
@CautionaryMary said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3929946#Comment_3929946
If your intent was to make people come up with their own conclusions by asking a question, the pivot that you did wasn't needed. You deflected, it's a case of whataboutism, but I digress.
You keep insisting this was just a ‘mindfulness exercise,’ yet you directly engaged in comparison between killer frustration and survivor teabagging. (and did not respond to) — If this was meant to be neutral, there wouldn’t have been any reason for you to push back on my response or claim I was ranting.
And now, instead of addressing my points, you’re shifting the conversation to ‘clogging up the topic,’ rather than actually engaging with the discussion you participated in. If you were truly just asking a question rather than making a stance, this exchange wouldn’t have gone on as long as it did.
At this point, I see no reason to continue when the discussion is just being reframed after the fact. I’ll leave it at that. Have a good one.
You keep insisting this was just a ‘mindfulness exercise,’ yet you directly engaged in comparison between killer frustration and survivor teabagging. (and did not respond to)Thats how mindfulness exercises work: You identify a skewed perspective, and ask a question that lets the person even themselves out by considering another perspective. The fact you take that as whataboutism is a you problem, especially since it has been clarified not to be yet you keep persisting.
If you were truly just asking a question rather than making a stance, this exchange wouldn’t have gone on as long as it did.This exchange has literally been you trying to make my arguments for me so that you have something to fight, and me telling you not to.
You're not making points to address. You've been trying to argue for literally no reason, thats why its clogging up the topic. Another face saving "attempt" to disengage, feel free to honor it this time.
-
@CautionaryMary said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3929944#Comment_3929944
Maybe if you reread what I said at the tippy top of what I said to you at the beginning:
Someone made an exaggerative text about killers needing to be validated by winning.
You pivoted and did whataboutism saying well, "The other side does this"
I responded that both sides do this and now you're practically reframing what you said when you did not say that. You did not say, "Well, survivors teabag at the exit gate too. Both sides do toxic behavior." - that is not what you said, so I said what I said to you.
If you are annoyed, I apologize for making you feel annoyed - however, do not reframe your original post and act like you were coming from a completely nombiased aspect - your post did not include both sides and directly just pivoted off the other person.
What they said, even if exaggerative - is the fundamental problem with the gameplay loop and why the abandon feature exists. Killers will cause a long drawn out game either by not hooking survivors, slugging them (and using the argument -- well, I don't want to hook them, they might kobe off), or intentionally bleeding them out (either due to previous survivors in a prior match or they are powertripping), while causing a frustration loop of gameplay, hence, why the abandon feature exists.
Teabagging at the exit gate is not comparable to bleeding out or preventing hooking because of a potential unhook, so it's a moot point and a weak attempt at a form of "gotcha". Survivors should not have to wait around for the game to end, killers will never be placed in this position, hence the response to begin with.
Someone made an exaggerative text about killers needing to be validated by winning.yes.
You pivoted and did whataboutism saying well, "The other side does this"Mindfulness exercises are not "whataboutism." I said absolutely nothing about the scenario other than ask why it happens, a hypothetical question that has nothing to do with anything you have said. You assumed what I must think based on the posts from other people, so that clearly for me to ask such a question, I must agree with everything you don't on the topic.
If you are annoyed, I apologize for making you feel annoyed - however, do not reframe your original post and act like you were coming from a completely nombiased aspectThe reason I'm annoyed is because you are still trying to make arguments for me, and implying bias based on your own mistake and continue doubling down. You said you wanted to stop the conversation in the same post you both responded to and @'ed me, yet you're still going and trying to twist me as "reframing."
You did not say, "Well, survivors teabag at the exit gate too. Both sides do toxic behavior." - that is not what you said, so I said what I said to you.You're right, I did not say that. All I did was ask a simple question so that the person reading it would come to that conclusion themselves. If they're actually capable of being unbiased, its a very easy avenue to "maybe the problem isn't insert role, maybe its the player." Reread my single question, your response, then ask yourself how many of these things did he actually say, and how many did I assume based off of what I assumed was his stance.
Thats my issue. All this has done was clog up the topic, so thanks.
-
@CautionaryMary said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3929941#Comment_3929941
The only person being defensive and passive aggressive here is you, I only responded to what you said.
I even pointed out the exaggerative tone, but if your response is fundamentally "I don't like your tone" and "You are being defensive" without engaging in what I am typing then we can end the "defensive" misinterpretation and end things here, have a good night/day @Ryuhi
I only responded to what you said.
You didn't. Thats my point. You responded at me to things that others said, things you assumed were my stances, and other things unrelated to my statement. I'm not being defensive, just annoyed that you're trying to drag me into an argument when literally all I did was propose a mindfulness observation. Which wasn't even at you.
-
@CautionaryMary said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3929931#Comment_3929931
The person you responded to was responding to the post as a whole as people are implying how the "abandon" option is utilized.
The person responded, albeit in a exaggerative way by saying "Killers need to have WIN in all caps for them to be happy."
Which you responded back with how survivors teabag at the gate, so what's the difference.
I chimed in and said what I said that painting one side as doing toxic things is not an argument.
Killers saying that the abandon feature is a "bail out" or "ggez I'm going next" defeats the purpose of the intention behind the "abandon" feature and even though the poster you responded to was exaggerating — what I am reading from people that do not like the abandon feature are people stuck in the frustration loop. Survivor team made the game a hassle for me, I kill one of the survivors, now I am upset that they give up. - regardless I do not find this a large scale problem to warrant getting rid of the abandon feature like @Flawless_ here says.
It's like people want others to endure long, drawn out games to have the upper hand. The game is dead by definition unless the survivor team has done substantial gen pressure, so advocating for the removal in let's say - I, as a killer endured so much to get here, they should endure the same like I endured is an odd take. People running specific builds (WGLF) are more than likely not on a gen because they need to get value from WGLF. Someone flaunting their OTR and DS are not on a gen or progressing the game forward (the other team, sure, might be pushing gens) - perks like these are not pushing the game forward as the user typically is not pushing the game forward, so the argument that I endured so much, why can't the other side doesn't hold weight for the "abandon" feature. The "abandon" feature was implemented to stop long, drawn out games from occurring in the first place.
The alternative - even with the exaggerative tone of the person you responded to was accurate to how it was in the past. People would slug and do unsavory behavior like slugging and bleeding out, humping on the ground, and even teabagging at the exit gate as all forms of time wasters.
However, if people are advocating for the "abandon" feature for when survivors are teabagging and not leaving, sure. - I do not think that's the correct route to take, as you can always get survivors who are stragglers, have a killer with an endgame build not have any surprise at all (the survivors will wonder why the killer didn't abandon) - by all means, we can stretch that definition to include that but it would destroy killers with endgame builds too, as now the survivors can just abandon as well.
Again, another defensive rant. All I did in that post was both agree with your overall message, and ask what words were apparently put into my mouth.
Which you responded back with how survivors teabag at the gate, so what's the difference.I asked why it was specific to one side, not "so whats the difference." Thats something you decided to add. I pointed out that it is NOT a ROLE issue. Go shadowbox somewhere else, you're making arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with me.
In case you don't get it, its supposed to be a mindfulness exercise.
-
@CautionaryMary said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3929897#Comment_3929897
You are implying all survivors do that, I haven't teabagged in years.
Just because some survivors teabag doesn't mean all survivors teabag.
Just because I've seen killers like Bubba, Wraith, Chucky, Billy, etc hump my body as I bleed out does not mean all of those killers I described all do the behavior.
Survivors who teabag at the exit gate, they could also play killer too.
Killers who hump you and bleed you out for four minutes, additionally, can also play survivor too.
You do realize both sides can do toxic things, they can be flex players, can be one survivor/killer main but it doesn't change the fact that toxic people do toxic things. It's not an argument to paint one side as doing something and even in my prior posts, I never said all killers do it.
If killers want an abandon feature for survivors staying in the exit gate, sure. When I played Deathslinger or Demogorgon (killers I am not good with) and the survivors reached the end, I would just go and kick things for points. Sure, I see a survivor teabag me as a killer, it might annoy me a bit - reminder, a bit. The survivor teabagging me during chase is just taunting me, they lose distance, and I can catch up.
If they're teabagging at the exit gate, in the past I would just push them out or I just don't go to the exit gate at all and farm points regardless. The difference between the exit gate and bleeding out for four minutes is time difference - they do not last as long as one another and the killer has the power to end both things by simply - hooking everyone instead of bleeding people out or pushing the survivors out at the gate.
Maybe it's because I have thousands of hours as survivor and when I play killer teabagging doesn't bother me, but to compare teabagging at an exit gate to bleeding and slugging people out is a bizarre stance.
Not all survivors do toxic behavior, not all killers do toxic behavior, however -- toxic people do toxic behavior. A lot of the Dead By Daylight community has a petty stance, I got steamrolled this game, I'll take it out on the next group I go against (as killer or survivor) - the abandon feature cuts through that. I've had killers slug off rip and just have everyone bleed out when nothing was done to the killer. By proxy, I do not teabag or do toxic behaviors to killers either. So, what you're saying is not an argument.
You are implying all survivors do that, I haven't teabagged in years.Where did I imply that? All I did was take a blatantly biased statement and asked why it apparently only applies to one side.
That said, you kinda illustrated my point. Not all killers do it like not all survivors do it. Poor sportsmanship is a player problem, not a role one. Why you needed to go on a defensive rant when we agree is beyond me.
Edit: I really have to address this one
So, what you're saying is not an argument.what argument did I even make that you're apparently responding to
-
@Lixadonna said:
Killers need their validation. Here and in game. All this really sounds like is Killer Role needs their Win spelled out to them in big letters.
If thats specific to killers, then why does tbagging in the exit happen?
-
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3928977#Comment_3928977
I think this conversation would be a lot easier to navigate and maybe even agree on if the idea of a “checkmate” was clearly defined. Right now, everyone seems to have a different interpretation. Some people still argue that even when all four survivors are slugged, it’s still not truly over. That kind of subjectivity makes it hard to design any mechanic around the concept.
The original post didn’t list specific conditions for when the killer could abandon, just that it should be available if the gates are powered. But there are too many variables at play for that to work fairly.
If the condition can’t be clearly defined, it can’t be fairly enforced.
So the question becomes: who decides what qualifies as a checkmate? That’s not a small detail, it’s the entire foundation of whether this mechanic is fair or broken.
This is also where I take issue with the claim that survivors and killers would have the “same option.” Survivors abandoning a match doesn’t end the game. The other survivors and the killer can still remain in the match if they want. Killer still gets to see their mori. But if the killer abandons, everyone is kicked out. It doesn’t matter if you were trying to complete an EGC challenge, to some definitions of a check-mate it doesn’t matter if you’re even near the gate at all, the match will just end. That’s not an equal option. It’s an objectively different result. Equal buttons, not equal consequences.
When people brush past that distinction I find it very concerning, especially considering that the whole reason people are discussing a killer abandon mechanic is to avoid BM, to respect time, that choosing “when to explode” button is not agency. But what’s being proposed is a “choose when everyone explodes” button. It’s a kill switch to the whole match, not just one persons game. That’s not agency either.
The comparisons between a BM slug and survivors BM at the gate are also… a bit apples and oranges. They’re both frustrating, both BM, but not the same. Slugging is helplessness. Gate BM is obnoxiousness. One is being insulted by someone speeding away. The other is being insulted by someone standing over you until you die. Both suck, and both should be discouraged, but insisting they’re the same kind of problem just oversimplifies a very complex issue in my opinion. But again, both are not fun, and both should be addressed. But the issues are so different that the solutions should be different too.I do want to reduce BM. I’m all for making the exit gates riskier and giving killers more comeback potential. But where we, and perhaps many others in this discussion thread potentially differ, is that I want to improve the gameplay, not delete it. Try to discourage BM directly. This is why I was not a fan of the abandon mechanic as a solution to slugging, as it doesn’t actually discourage slugging itself at all. It just allows you to leave if it’s happening to you. It’s a solution for the symptom, not the cause. (I’m also not a fan of any kind of abandonment being a draw in any way. A DC should be a loss, across the board. Only exception should be when hackers are present )
If the killer were replaced with a bot in those moments, I’d have no problem. That wouldn’t disrupt the match, and it would allow the killer player to step away if they want. It would still respect their time, without erasing everyone else’s.I'm going to be honest with you, the way most of the posts have been going in this thread, I've kinda given up. Everyone keeps looking for something to argue with and ignoring when people are being reasonable with each other, then complaining that anyone who disagrees with them must be (insert condescendingly simplified us vs them.) Like always.
I agree with most of what you said, except:
The comparisons between a BM slug and survivors BM at the gate are also… a bit apples and oranges. They’re both frustrating, both BM, but not the same. Slugging is helplessness. Gate BM is obnoxiousness.One is being insulted by someone speeding away. The other is being insulted by someone standing over you until you die.Both suck, and both should be discouraged, but insisting they’re the same kind of problem just oversimplifies a very complex issue in my opinion. But again, both are not fun, and both should be addressed. But the issues are so different that the solutions should be different too.There are a few things here. I have acknowledged that there are differences in the scenarios, and what you said about killer leaving being a nuclear option is true. They are apples and oranges. But you know what both apples and oranges have in common? They're both fruit. That expression gets used to try to emphasize the differences between scenarios as a way they cannot be related, while ignoring that they have the same exact root (sportsmanship) depending on what frame you view them in.
This is an important distinction because of things like the difference between "helplessness and obnoxiousness." My argument continues to be that swatting out is just as much helplessness as being slugged, just with the option to trade duration for humiliation. Its why I brought up TF2's post game slaughter scenario, you don't have agency just because you can move your controller to try to hide bhind a barrel in the corner. You are unable to compete, even if you can move. There is no scenario where you will be able to make any more progress toward your goal. You might as well be a kid who's older sibling gave them an unplugged controller and told that you are playing great. You inputs mean absolutely nothing toward completing your objective, something that slugged survivors should very much be able to empathize with.
But they refuse to.
I, as an individual (since I can only directly speak for myself, mind,) think that the abandon system is extremely half baked and inconsistent. I think that for survivors there are far too few considerations necessary compared to killers. I understand why killers cannot have the same freedom that survivors currently do, and have not once advocated that the ideal solution would be achieving parity in that fashion. However, I feel that the current status quo is unnecessarily lopsided and only focusing on specific aspects of the issue, and discussion on the topic keeps being a mess of conflating arguments and assumptions far beyond what gets said by either side. Nobody wants to actually find a proper solution, they just want to "get theirs." Half of the rhetoric I see against parity tends to reek of spite, while the rest is arguing extreme cases and refusing to find common ground.
If for the killer the match is considered "not over" strictly because of perks like blood warden, then survivors shouldn't be able to nope out instantly because of the presence of perks like deliverance and unbreakable. If the issue is because of duration, then survivors should be given a grovel option so that they can humiliate themselves in exchange for being able to DC while slugged. They refuse to (and are no longer required to) even sit through a mori as it is. My point continues to be that the status quo went out of its way to address an issue one side has had pretty much since the game has existed and the parallel (yes parallel, both apples and oranges are fruit) issue is ignored almost aggressively.
All I want is actual parity. Nobody gets to leave early, everyone gets to leave early, the same restrictions on either side, anything. Which of those I would prefer is irreverent (though im sure people will jump at the opportunity to impose exactly what I supposedly want onto me) but I want players of both sides to have their time, agency, and sportsmanship respected equally. If one side's design limits that, then the other side should not disproportionately prosper from that fact. If its impossible to have a lowest common denominator between the two, then specialized considerations should be given to keep them as close as possible. Whether it be making all killers equally deadly in the exit gates, identifying the difference between necessary and unnecessary exit gate/slugging gameplay, anything.
Survivors like the status quo because they did not lose their ability to BM killers, while killers dislike it because their ability to bm survivors was removed while they were not given the same courtesy. This community has a massive ego problem and an even bigger empathy one, so its an issue that needs parity no matter where it lands. Especially considering the 4:1 ratio.
Edit: to emphasize again, I strictly refer to checkmate scenarios in my reasoning. I pointed this out last post when specifically excluding a scenario that was more a check than a checkmate, but I feel like I need to repeat it here plainly.
-
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3928865#Comment_3928865
Maybe I’m just not understanding correctly, let me try to work on it. It seems that you are insisting this is about equality, and I am saying that the results are not equal. Giving killers the same option to abandon the match does not do the same thing as when a survivor abandons a match.
When a survivor quits, the match continues. When the killer quits, the match ends for everyone.
That’s not equal. That’s not perception. Thats not opinion. That’s objective difference.
To say that there is no difference between a DC that results in 4 players still being able to play and a DC that instantly ends the game for all 5 players so that nobody can play, is objectively not true.
Now, I’m positive you’re aware of this, and not trying to insist that there is no difference between the two. Which means that maybe, are you saying that while yes, it does do different things, but that it simply doesn’t matter? That if someone who is playing the killer wants to quit, it shouldn’t matter that the game ends for everyone. Wouldn’t true equality mean that if a singular survivor quits, that the game would also end for everyone? That even regardless of role, if 1 player quits the entire match should end?
I’m genuinely trying to understand your perspective. If the text comes across as condescending or anything it’s not the intent, tone is difficult to convey through message sometimes. I’m trying to get to the absolute bare bones of the differences of opinion and why.
I'm assuming they are referring to the presence of checkmate scenarios, and their comparison. In my post a few pages back I gave a scenario where the match is over, but the killer is stalemated (much like a 4 man slug is a survivor stalemate) until they actively submit, or wait out the EGC. The argument that gets pushed against it is that you have the ability to "end your suffering" so to speak as killer, therefore that is agency that is not afforded to slugged survivors. The counter argument is about stalemates like the one previously mentioned: When there is zero physical possibility of survivors from being able to be punished for not leaving, how is that agency?
I'm sure most people would be against any kind of "the moment things look bleak, eject" option. Even though that is essentially what survivors currently have with how it is currently implemented, there is no such respect for the killer's scenario. That is the reason it is a double standard. Not because the two scenarios are a 1 to 1 match, but rather because one side is both actively shielded from endgame toxicity, but also has their time respected as a player as well (you know, as a treat.) The arguing always focuses on the duration of the time, but it always misses the forest for the trees.
I havent played it in ages, but in Team Fortress 2 I remember when a match would end, respawns get disabled and gthe losing team is unarmed. They retain full control, and try to find places to hide or evade attacks, but they lose their means of fighting back. It is pruposely designed to be a humiliation ritual, a sanctioned means of the winning team to assert dominance over their defeated opponents with zero risk, and no way to make a mistake grave enough that their opponent can capitalize on their hubris. The match has ended, and the mechanic was simply there to be amusing at best, BM at worst. That is the closest example I can think of to swatting at the exit gates: There is no threat (with a few exceptions) and even the ability to capitalize on your opponents mistakes to make a comeback is either limited or non-existent. For all intents and purposes, the match has ended.
Going back to the TF2 comparison, in that game your "agency" is to get yourself killed to speed up the process. People would always handle it differently, some would go out memeing, some would actually try to hide and hope they last until the map closes and try to take a phyrric moral victory from it, but they can never make progress toward their objective, so it is not agency. Choosing the time and place of your death is not agency.
Back to the swatting out conundrum, this is one of the big disconnects I feel a lot of people are having on the subject: Defining "agency", and whether it is considered necessary for the game to commence. While the argument that the game ends when the killer leaves is true, it doesn't apply to a match that is already over. And I'm not talking about "there are 2 in the exit gate, one on hook in basement, and another unaccounted for" scenarios where the game still has life left in it, those shoyldn't be prevented by either side getting to leave early…. But survivors currently can. 4%, wiggling, unbreakable, exponential, deliverance, there are still plenty of things that could turn the tide the same way a survivor overextending from the exit gate could get caught and punished. The issue is that for some reason not only is one side given that freedom beyond the other, but that the perspective seems to purposely focus on the wrong aspects of each argument to have both side speaking past each other instead of with each other.
TL:DR if survivors are to be able to leave the moment they are in a checkmate, the killer should be able to as well. Not a check, a checkmate. It needs to be consistent for both sides considerations on the topic to be equally addressed. Whether that means requiring more considerations for the survivor abandon or less strictness to how it is handled for killer, maybe a combination of both, but as it is there is a lot of (un)intentional discordance based on what people identify as the root of the issue (duration vs sportsmanship)
-
Threadly reminder we have been waiting literal years for this to be followed up on after being officially acknowledged and promised. It could be done by a single person in something like Audacity in maybe half an hour.
Edit: lmao why did this get a vote down
-
@Rokku_Rorru said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3927763#Comment_3927763
Because it's literally reaching I'm sorry, they don't extend if it takes you THAT long to get survivors out I'm concerned you're not even trying.
If survivors are still fooling around, you STILL have a chance to comeback all it takes is one down to snowball, your issue is you are giving up.
Slugging on the otherhand requires a perk or another survivor up, which in a lot of cases casual players aren't building around it casually.four survivors are standing at the edge of the exit gate, so that when they fall while being downed they will land outside of the exit threshold and escape. You are a M1 killer, maybe they have at least one or two endurance effects between them, maybe a pill bottle or two.
According to the wiki, the current cooldown for a successful basic attack is 2.7 seconds. There's also startup and active time windows, but lets stick with just the blade wipe cooldown for now. Those survivors will require 1-2 hits each before any endurance effects, so lets just say 8 hits to average out the +/- variation there. That would be 21.6 seconds of attack cooldown alone. Keep in mind as mentioned earlier, there is zero way for the survivors to mess up in this scenario, they are positioned in a way that the killer is physically incapable of punishing them as they are physically incapable of making a mistake to be capitalized on. For every single realistic metric, the match is already over.
You can cite situations where the survivors fail at BMing and get themselves caught overextending or accidentally sandbagging each other, but those are exceptions to the rule. It is extremely easy to BM at the exit gates without the killer having a single shred of possibility to punish them for it and resume gameplay in any meaningful manner. Add to this that the killer is generally being taunted the entire time at a ratio of up to 1:4. And if they refuse? Constant loud notification spam until they partake in the ritual, an issue that has been requested to be addressed for years now and continues to be ignored.
People need to stop selectively pretending that being able to have visual feedback responding to buttons you press is gameplay. Its easy enough to understand why crawling around isn't gameplay, but neither is swatting people out of the exit gates. They could just make it so the killer can close the exit gates if a survivor lingers in it or something, but at least attempt to understand why trying to force the word "false" into the dichotomy isn't an acceptable answer to these grievances.
-
@Mandy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3927290#Comment_3927290
the difference in this case, is that survivors can do nothing about the being in dying state, however the killer can do a lot to force survivors out of the match.
With how often this topic comes up and is discussed by both sides, I'm kinda disappointed this is the official stance. I tried addressing this very recently in another version of the topic, but just in case it gets lost to time:
Imagine if you had a single way to circumvent the slug bleedout timer, but it involved groveling at the killer's feet. Not just sitting there and waiting to be hooked, but actually perform a degrading act in order to end the match. And you had to do it up to 8 times, while up to 3 other killers were W/Sing you. How many survivors do you think would do it, and how many do you think would just alt tab out and watch videos on youtube?Being able to press buttons does not equal agency. Being able to work toward your goal in any meaningful manner is agency. If there were a reliable way for killers to be able to punish people who refuse to leave, that would involve agency (there are even posts in this topic about how people respect Slinger in the exit gates.) Being forced into a humiliation ritual is not agency. Then again, one side being able to abandon the second the last survivor touches the floor shows that the team is capable of understanding that distinction. Thats why people call it a double standard. Its not about being able to scrape together a few bloodpoints, its about sportsmanship.
-
@mecca said:
It is strange how killers get new skills, powers, mechanics on a regular basis but survivors never get anything. A survivor is only a skin.
The only hype is for the skin. No new ways to evade, do gens, nothing.
Its really why killers have power creep and survivors is unplayable without a really good team.
As survivor each new killer is supposed to be a new way for you to play the game. New strategies to learn and expect, new mechanics you have to do, shifts in priorities regarding time and ally management, they're supposed to feel different in how you need to both approach and handle them. Each new killer is supposed to be a new layer onto the game itself, and ironically the things that make them most unique tend to get complained about the most.
Edit: Also survivors like Ada and Ace are still more quiet than most of the roster, since behavior still hasn't bothered with the Great Survivor Voice Normalization effort they promised years ago.
-
@NarkoTri1er said:
i think we should stop with overall buffs to "improve new player experience" while buffing top tier players even more and should rather work hard on improving tutorial system and advertising guides on how to play the game to the core.
Newer survivor players have become so discouraged from improving and encouraged to just rely on game to do majority of the job and that should definitely change
You don't understand. The majority of people complaining don't want to improve, they want the game to cater to them. Tools mean nothing if underutilized or flat out ignored, look at how many people don't understand the nuances of the survivor HUD update. Everybody wants chill games where they can be doing something else and listening to music or reading twitch chat while still looking cool because they always win. This applies to people on both sides, and poisons the well for a lot of changes that could actually improve game health for more than just the individual.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3926752#Comment_3926752
I just wanna know just how widespread this thought pattern is. THIS is the kinda data I'd like to see. What is the survival rate based off offering?
I remember when OoO was defended because "the person who brings it dies often." I don't think they ever even bothered checking how often they were in a SWF.
-
Same ones I wanted to see before it, Jennifer and the Scissorman.
-
Never going to happen, for better or worse.
-
@ChuckingWong said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3924047#Comment_3924047
i dont know why youre getting argumentative about it.
1)You arent stopping someone from doing anything in this game. You are not the police
Big picture are you stopping them from ever doing it again? Yes or no?
You're just not.
2) You are 100% roleplaying dbd policeits intended to make them take responsibility for their actions.
Im stepping away from this discussion as I dont really see the point in this back and forth. Its a terrible situation to be in.Not giving them something they want is not the same as policing. You're welcome to disengage, and I'll reserve my further responses. That said I'd appreciate if you at least didn't try to apply those authoritrian connotations to me simply because you disagree.
-
@ChuckingWong said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3924034#Comment_3924034
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3924037#Comment_3924037
If you think that you are magically going to stop this "give up" behavior by slugging them, by all means continue thinking that.
You are making it inconvenient for them to do it often, but you aren't stopping them from their next matches. You aren't disincentivizing anything.
This is why its not really thinking big picture. In the moment, sure for your match and your lobby you are wasting their time. But this kind of behavior doesnt just stop because someone made another person wait 2 minutes. You can just alt tab and watch youtube or get a drink in that time.
And it still doesnt solve the problem that the match is now over.
Im not saying this is right to do at all, just giving up. But your also not doing anything productive by "roleplaying dbd police" either
And a bot is too variable. Most players will just go next if someone else did. Sadly.You don't seem to understand the concept of "big picture" It means you are considering an aspect in a zoomed out perspective and considering everything outside of what you personally witness. That includes those other players, and as someone who is almost exclusively one of those players who have to deal with a teammate DCing, it 100% prefer the killer not feed into their behavior. Of course I am considering their perspective because the vast majority of the time, I am one of them. Thats still a microcosmic perspective of course, while the actual big picture is the overall impact on the game's health. If one person changes their behavior, its worth it. You don't just give a screaming child candy to shut it up, you teach it that its behavior will not be rewarded.
As for the "just alt tab" argument, that is true. Its not intended to make them suffer, its intended to make them take responsibility for their actions. And again, thats time they aren't in the queue or in another match being just as disruptive. Thats why I said it objectively reduces their ability to ruin other games, because as survivors who hate being slugged often posit, those 4 minutes add up when you get slugged in multiple games.
It has nothing to do with "roleplaying dbd police," especially since I almost exclusively play survivor. I simply hate when players force me into a 1v3 due to their own selfishness, and I know its a widespread enough issue that it compounds the frustrations of many other survivor players as well. If people stopped playing into it, going next would be less effective. The solution would be to prevent going next entirely and force people to eat the matchmaking ban no matter what method they use, but we're clearly not there yet, and there is a downright baffling defense for this behavior I've never seen in any other game. Even ones with drop in/out.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3923561#Comment_3923561
not true, one of the Community Managers is colorblind and was directly involved with the implementation of the colorblind settings.
Thing is, there is not just one single ‚colorblind‘ condition and people are affected differently.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3923999#Comment_3923999
it’s not a buff, it’s literally only a visual indicator something that was Audio only before. I still have situations where I hear the lullaby of a Killer before the visual indicator shows up.
there is also plenty of players that have it turned off (I have seen content creators and teammates I viewed after dying/escaping with it turned off)Killers also didnt got anything similar as there isnt anything similar to terror Radius/lullaby. Well. Maybe the Killer Instinct. But you don’t want to hear how thats implemented..
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3924014#Comment_3924014
YEAH
This would be a good approach to make the game more accessible.
Good colorblind accommodation is smartly designing color schemes so that their contrast does not rely on hue differences, with visual acuity being independent of color differences. Bad colorblind accommodation is throwing filters on top for the most common classifications' most common color differentiation issues. The rarity color scheme change doesn't even have an option for the latter, as others have pointed out.
As for killer, the similar thing on their role would be audio: The game's audio has been wildly inaccessible for years, and by design choice. The visual TR killed lullabys as they were supposed to be much less apparent until the killer got closer but instead the visual icon started before many people would even find the lullaby perceptible, especially when adding in other sounds like generator repairs or healing. I'm not saying it shouldn't have happened (quite the opposite) but it shows a pretty big double standard in design vs accessibility considerations.
1000% agree with both of you about aura colors though.
-
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3923829#Comment_3923829
Man what happened, not that long ago it was the opposite.
Struggling Survivor: Game is unfair and Killers are too strong and maps aren't well designed and [Insert reason here]
Struggling Killer: Just really bad at the game, playing a weak Killer, or playing poorly, git gud.Both still happen regularly, and people still use one side's dismissal to justify their own. The ironic thing is when things literally are skill issues, they use those observation assumptions to try to ignore advice. Its just self destructive.
-
@ChuckingWong said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3924026#Comment_3924026
Im not trying to shift blame yes, it originated from the spazoid that wants to give up early 100%.
I am just illustrating that anyone thinking they are doing something, just or right,by slugging the person out is not really thinking big picture is all.
The person that is "going next" doesnt really have a lose condition here. Either they waste everyone elses time or they go next.And I disagree. I think that anyone who just takes the free kill asap is thinking small picture, because they are enabling that behavior instead of disincentivizing it. They also do have a lose condition, which is the same reason they are going next instead of DCing: They're trying to minimize how much of their own time is wasted, their lose condition is them being stuck in a match and delayed in getting into another match to ruin.
-
@ChuckingWong said:
Eh… you are just wasting everyone elses time. Like I get why people do it in the moment, but macro wise you really shouldnt.
3v1 is just over when someone does that so you can either have 3v1 where the match is over or 4v1 with one person just on the ground.
Teammates will throw themselves to try to pick them up as well which will waste more time as well and possibly ruin their own experience.
People gotta think big picture rather than in the moment. You arent punishing just 1 person when you do this.@Hex_Ignored said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3923535#Comment_3923535
The match is lost. A 3v1 at 5 or 4 gens isn't even remotely winnable unless the killer lets the other survivors win.
As @ChuckingWong said, you aren't just punishing the quitter but the other survivors as well by locking them in a lost match for an unnecessarily extended period of time.
The person giving up is the one punishing the other players. Trying to pass that off onto the killer who refuses to play into their tantrum while absolving the survivor who gave up is misdirected at best. And as rebutted before, that person who is slugged is both being prevented from ruining more matches while they wait, and also given the opportunity to calm down and actually try. The more people justify giving up (whether themselves, or when other people do it) the more they normalize the behavior and give those players misplaced validation in their excuses. Alternatively, if they get slugged every time they give up and have to waste 4+ minutes waiting before they can ruin more games, they will objectively be less able to affect others with their disruptive behavior and refusal to participate.
Its the entire idea behind a disconnect penalty in the first place. The one the game already has. The issue is that people are allowed to abuse part of the game's design to circumvent that penalty. Slugging go nexters is literally doing what you can to make that loophole less appealing, especially since it requires the killer's direct cooperation.
-
@Nicholas said:
I find that sometimes, so I'm okay with letting people DC at will. I'd rather have a bot that's at least trying than a live person wasting pallets, not doing anything, and just running around or AFK. I'm not sure why this community has this culture of wanting to force people to stay in a match. It's the same thing with people suicide on the hook; why even waste time rescuing them? They clearly want to go and sometimes end up being a nuisance by rescuing them and trying to compel them to stay. I've never seen a Survivor accelerate their death and hit the second stage, get rescued, and then become a productive player. This will be an issue with the game until the devs focus on the problem and stop bandaging the symptoms. For whatever reason, people will not want to play, and there's nothing the game will be able to do to compel them.
I'm not sure why this community has this culture of wanting to force people to stay in a match.because thats how the game is structured. There is no drop in/out, there is no reconnect, there is no power scaling depending on missing players (there even used to be, if the match loaded with less than 4 survivors they had to do less gens and it was awful because 1 gen does not equal 1 survivor.) and this is an elimination based game for 4/5 players.
There's going to be things in the game we don't like. Hell, many players make it their primary mission to make sure their opponent isn't allowed to have fun. Meanwhile this game has an extremely lax disconnect penalty compared to most pvp games on the market, believe it or not. Patient players need to sift through all the things they dislike about the game as well, but they get to add other players disconnecting and ruining their matches on top. People who are frequently unwilling to play out their matches are just looking for ways to justify their selfishness.
-
@Neaxolotl said:
you literally wrote very reason in your post
"first guy immediately saw it was a kaneki and noped out DC'ing immediately", yeah that's the EXACT reason why your match was miserable, and the reason why penalty must exist
I don't even understand why you managed to get a conclusion which is "dc penalty shouldn't exist"
The DC penalty wouldn't be 30 minutes for a one off DC. Kinda comes off as an excuse in this case.
-
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3921180#Comment_3921180
And I am not saying to remove this baseline wincon. My point is I think the devs need the scoring system to acocunt for MORE than just that one wincon, thus adding more wincons. Making the game feel way more casual. Isn't that what we want, the game to feel less sweaty?
Thats what the pip system was. In order to get pips, you needed to diversify your emblems, meaning you needed to prioritize versatility over efficiency. It also led to non zero-sum outcomes, as survivors and the killer could simultaneously win or lose, depending on the quality of the match. It had its blindspots and there were situations where the emblems were not accurate, but it leaned away from strictly result focused outcomes.
-
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3921022#Comment_3921022
I agree that pvp games need wincons. I just think DBD needs MORE wincons. The ones we have now aren't enough and clearly do not feel good, increase sweat, and ruin the more casual nature of the game. So why not just add more possible ways to win or alter what a win is?
It can and should have more. But it needs a baseline one, preferably one that is at least mostly zero sum. the "4 1v1's" fits that bill, which is why having these abandon scenarios result the way they do kinda break that system. Its not even an MMR thing, MMR is just the most objective (even if heavily flawed) way of reaching that conclusion. Personally I thought the pip system was a healthier version of a similar concept, but in the end there just needs to be clear and logically consistent win/lose outcomes, with draws being used sparingly for concepts like stalemates and mutual destruction.
-
@Prometheus1092 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3921126#Comment_3921126
I agree, in principal they are 2 completely different things and not comparable at all. But that is IF survivors can't get back up. And IF survivors lost the match after abandoning. I mean no way to recover, no way to win. And IF they are downed for a length of time. But currently this is not the system in place.
You said it yourself, if the killer is choosing to not chase survivors out they are holding themselves hostage. If survivors are choosing not to get back up when they have the means to do so they too are holding themselves hostage. If someone has unbreakable or a boon or that perk that gaurentees unhook in the basement for example they are not helpless, they are choosing to remain down and choosing to abandon as a means to quickly go next with a "draw" outcome instead of "loss".
Essentially it's a broken abandon system and people are asking for the same thing for killer so others realize how broken it is and how broken it would be on the other side.
Maybe if they fixed it so survivors couldn't use the abandon system as a means of avoiding a "loss" and if they changed it so killers that are not leaving people slugged have time to pick up and hook as per game design or prevented abandon when survivors have the choice to recover. Then I would agree with you and fully support the abandon feature for survivor and not killer no one wants to be slugged intentionally for 4min. but as it stands it's a broken system that makes very little sense so my interpretation of the OP is basically highlighting "fix the broken system or give killers the same broken system"
But that is IF survivors can't get back up. And IF survivors lost the match after abandoning. I mean no way to recover, no way to win.Could you imagine if getting hit in the exit gate would have a 4% base chance to instantly teleport you to a basement hook? Or if a perk like blood warden instead blocked the exit for 1 minute to any survivor hit there? Silly comparisons, but I feel like attitudes about waiting to be smacked out would change significantly.
-
@ChuckingWong said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920960#Comment_3920960
Wait are you talking about why you are able to abandon on survivor versus killer with this comment?
Gates being open = you cant stall the game unless the killer decides to not push you out
Being slugged/down = you can stall the game because you decide when the survivors die for several minutes
These two scenarios have nothing to do with one another.
Survivors being left to bleed out for minutes =/= a killer refusing to push survivors out of the gates
Like what is this argument:
"Yea I slugged the survivors on the ground to sit for several minutes, but they get an abandon feature for this. So I should beable to abandon when they open the gate"
?????Imagine if you had a single way to circumvent the slug bleedout timer, but it involved groveling at the killer's feet. Not just sitting there and waiting to be hooked, but actually perform a degrading act in order to end the match. And you had to do it up to 8 times, while up to 3 other killers were W/Sing you. How many survivors do you think would do it, and how many do you think would just alt tab out and watch videos on youtube?
Swatting out at the gates ranges is "free points!" at best, and a humiliation ritual at worst. Its part of why I say that sore winners are one of the biggest issues in the game in terms of frustration and tilt. If more people could win gracefully, less people would find these situations as demoralizing as they do.
-
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920798#Comment_3920798
My whole point is maybe we need to stop thinking in terms of wins and losses and draws based on MMR… and start thinking in terms of "how well did I do? How many gens/hooks did I get? How many chases did I succeed? How many uses of my power did I have? How many saves did I get?"
Not "did I escape/3-4k?", which is what MMR measures. We're saying the same thing, but not in the same way. People seem to just want to be able to win or lose or draw based on other things besides kills and escapes. I agree. MMR is no way to measure success in this game.
I agree it's very confusing. I wish the Devs would be more clear about it, if this is their goal, to make gloating less satisfying and frustration less frustrating. But BHVR's never been great at communicating…Ive always been a proponent of personal wincons, especially since the can add bittersweetness to otherwise demoralizing defeat. But pvp games, regardless of whether they are casual or strictly competitive, need wincons. Even Mario Party, Fall Guys, Mahjong, Go Fish, even damn Pogs… pretty much everything where one or more players are at odds need at least one unified, concrete wincon to measure their objective completion. SBMM was designed to adhere to this (for better or worse) as was the rank/pip system before it. There needs to be a unified feedback system so players can gauge both their effectiveness at succeeding in their role's objective, as well as have any metric to determine how they fared againt the player(s) they were at odds with.
-
@buggybug said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920731#Comment_3920731
Blast mine is superior in every way which means completing the objective and ofc waste killers time if they wanna kick so happily. So am getting the best of both worlds. Its typical that when a survivor perk is nerf to garbage and no longer want to use and question why bother.
Yall wanna sugar coat oh but the perk is still fine, great which is pretty much more of sarcastic hahahaha serves you right. Yall do the same with perks like coh/dh/distortion and many other perks I can think of. If anything yall sound more upset that said survivor that they choosing better things over something that is giving no value.
Who is "Yall"? I didnt say any of those things. I rarely even play killer, if that was what you were insinuating. Your opinion about blast mine is fine, the rest was unnecessary and further illustrating my point.
@buggybug said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920761#Comment_3920761
Oh really but who agreed with your complaint on map idea offerings? I had agree with some things you said compared to others a fair amount of times but aight lol.
This is why I try to see past biases. There are plenty of things people can find common ground on when we're civil and constructive, even when disagreeing on the majority. Im sure some people would be surprised at the usernames hidden behind their upvotes at times.