Senaxu
Senaxu
About
- Username
- Senaxu
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
I’ve played around 14 hours of Survivor since the patch dropped, and honestly? I haven’t had a single issue with the AFK crow system… quite the opposite.
Matches feel noticeably healthier: survivors are more active, gen progress is steadier, and the amount of self-sacrifice on hook has dropped significantly. You still see the occasional Slippery Meat attempt or someone giving up, but overall, the impact is clear. Even DCs are down, and bots… while not perfect → are still vastly preferable to playing a man down.
As ThatRyanB already pointed out, BHVR is actively looking for video proof before making changes.
That’s exactly the right call. Please make sure to verify these claims with actual gameplay footage before reacting to complaints. Don’t let these long-overdue improvements get watered down because a few players are upset they can’t abandon their team without consequence anymore.
We’ve needed this kind of system for years. With some tuning, it has the potential to massively improve solo queue quality… and if it inconveniences the players who’ve been dragging the rest of the team down all this time? That’s a feature, not a bug.
-
@AlreadyTracer said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946035#Comment_3946035
50 to 35 percent is in fact a huge nerf, my guy. I'm not talking about this last patch, I'm talking about the original nerf that should never have happened
What exactly was nerfed about Self-Care, explicitly?
I’ve read the patch notes and can’t find any mention of a direct change to Self-Care. If you’re referring to the indirect shift through Botany or Medkit tweaks, that’s not a Self-Care nerf.
So unless I missed a stealth update:
What was actually changed.. or are we calling “not buffed alongside others” a nerf now? -
@Tong said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3945981#Comment_3945981
Well, I didn't expecting that. This game is 10 years old already.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3945960#Comment_3945960
And what the hell ??? This means that my report on 100% cheaters does not get ban !?
Unfortunately, yes… the lack of any meaningful server-side validation allows even the most absurd forms of cheating to persist. There are people openly streaming cheats on Twitch, profiting from subs and donations while showcasing instant-kill hacks, teleport hooks, and more…sometimes for weeks before needing a new account.
It's not the norm, but it's absolutely possible, because the system is purely manual. No automation, no real-time detection. Just ticket submissions, in-game reports, and the slim hope that enough noise leads to action. It's a grim reality, and sugarcoating it only delays the pressure BHVR should be under to fix it. -
The unfortunate truth is: most reports go into a black box, and you’ll rarely get feedback unless it's an extremely blatant exploit … and even then, only if you're lucky. BHVR does not have a public ban list, and their anti-cheat system is limited to what EAC can detect, which doesn't include subtle cheats like aura-reading or wallhacks. Server-side validations? Still almost nonexistent in DBD. So if you're expecting consistent action against cheaters or full transparency, you're setting yourself up for disappointment. Sadly, the only real protection right now is hoping not to match into one.
-
Overall, I think Springtrap offers a fun and fair experience… especially when the killer knows how to use the axe properly. Scoring downs across multiple tiles with a clean throw actually feels earned, not frustrating.
That said, there are still a few issues that significantly affect the experience:
- Sound bugs after door interaction: Once you interact with a security door, audio positioning breaks entirely → generator hums, footsteps, terror radius... all get misaligned. I’ve started avoiding door use altogether because the tradeoff just isn’t worth it right now.
- Hook proximity abuse: Some security rooms spawn far too close to hooks. I've seen killers wait inside, ready to tunnel the second a survivor gets unhooked… effectively bypassing the anti-camp system. This feels like an oversight and should be addressed.
- Axe stuck = no unhook: If you get hit with an axe while trying to unhook, the axe removal animation overrides the action. The killer can then grab you instantly. That interaction needs a second look.
Aside from those (hopefully temporary) issues, the core of the chapter is well-designed and fun. With a few tweaks, it could be one of the better killer releases in recent memory.
-
@melissayeti said:
yet another bug that was reported during the ptb that they didn't fix of course
Let’s be real.. if you knowingly buy a DLC after reporting unresolved bugs in the PTB, you're not just a customer anymore, you're part of the QA workaround plan. At some point, you have to realize: if we reward unfinished work with cash, we’re confirming that quality is optional. And BHVR is simply responding to that market signal.
-
@jakeparalta said:
I like how we are seeing all the people who don't do anything during matches coming out of the woodwork to be mad 👀 I played about 10 games yesterday, was tabbed out at the beginning of each match for at least a few seconds, and didn't get a single crow. Survivors have to ACTIVELY be doing nothing to get a crow. So maybe stop following people around trying to get flashlight save for 5+ minutes (or whatever else you are "doing") to get crows and get on a gen?
It’s honestly fascinating how suddenly “AFK crows” have become the new villain, as if survivors are being hunted down unfairly by a broken system. Yet funnily enough, after 10 hours of survivor gameplay since the update, I’ve not seen a single crow.. not in my own matches, not in high-MMR streamer (Ayrun, KL, etc) games, and not in any actual objective-focused play... that's how it is.
Yes, the system punishes inefficiency. And maybe that’s exactly the problem some players are having.
Flashlight stalking, camping behind objects for 3 minutes, or aimlessly opening chests mid-match isn’t “stealth” or “strategy”→ it’s deadweight. And this system doesn’t even punish it harshly. It just says, “Hey, you’ve been inactive a while, maybe it's time to contribute something useful to your team”
If that alone feels oppressive, maybe the issue isn’t with the system.
Let’s be honest… some survivors have coasted for years without contributing meaningfully to their team, and now for the first time, they’re being told it’s visible. That’s not a bug. That’s overdue.
And if a few players quit because they can’t run their solo self-care + urban evasion routine anymore… maybe that’s a win for everyone else.
-
@RoyalRipper said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3944899#Comment_3944899
Actual streak players will tell you that they rely on getting bad survivors and getting lucky, all streaks end pretty much the second they get a single team that is ready to sweat as much as the killer is.
That’s a fair point… but it goes both ways. Survivor streak players would also tell you that their runs rely heavily on not being matched into a competent killer… or at the very least, one who knows how to pressure properly and isn’t running Nurse, Blight, or Wesker with lethal builds.
So if both sides claim their streaks "only happen when the other side is weak," that essentially neutralizes the argument. What remains is consistency… and the data.
And this is where the numbers speak clearly:
- High killer streaks across multiple players, roles, and metas
- 4-man survivor streaks remain extremely rare even at the top competitive level
- Even BHVR’s own kill-rate analytics reflect this pattern (and they don’t ignore their data, as we’ve seen with prior changes and perk reworks)
You're absolutely right that streaks aren’t perfect proof → luck plays a role, as it always does in asymmetrical games.
But in the long run, consistency beats anecdotes. And consistent long-term dominance in streaks and performance data is why BHVR historically balances around killer restraint, not survivor nerfs.
It’s important that feedback comes from a place of realism… because if expectations are misaligned with the stats, we risk being disappointed when changes don’t go the way we hoped. -
While I understand the sentiment behind the concern that survivors feel overpowered in high MMR, I’d like to offer a data-based reflection that may help ground the discussion in verifiable context.
Let’s take win streaks as an empirical benchmark. When you examine public records and competitive showcases, the difference becomes quite striking:
Hens and co. currently hold one of the highest documented 4-man survivor win streaks with 171 consecutive escapes… a remarkable feat, but still an exception, not the rule.
Now let’s look at killers across different types:
- Blight (Jikkaaa) – 300+ win streak (source: YouTube/documented challenge runs)
- Wesker (Otzdarva) – 200+ wins
- Knight (PainReliever) – 250 wins
- Xenomorph (Var0) – 180+ wins
- Doctor (Not Otzdarva) – 200+ wins
And these are not cherry-picked “God-tier” killers – they span all balance levels from A to C-tier. So what does this show?
➤ Survivors rely on team cohesion and coordination, which is incredibly hard to maintain consistently in solo or even duo queue.
➤ Killers, by nature of being a single-player role, have full control over their pacing, pressure, and snowball potential.
➤ Even with strong survivor perks and endurance-based loops, killers dominate long-term consistency.
Yes, survivors may feel oppressive in some high-MMR lobbies. But raw data from streaks, tournaments, and kill-rate tracking paints a different picture: it’s the killer role that has historically proven far more consistent at high-level play.
The discussion shouldn’t boil down to “buff killer / nerf survivor,” but rather:
☑ How can balance improve without flattening the skill ceiling of either side?
☑ How can we introduce counterplay that rewards teamwork without punishing solo play?
☑ And most importantly: how can we make both sides feel powerful, while keeping long-term statistics in check?Let’s aim for balance through data… not anecdote.
-
Honestly, since the patch dropped, I’ve played about 7 hours of Survivor… and I personally haven’t encountered a single crow.
I’ve crouched behind cover, used Plot Twist, hid when I had to, and even paused for a few seconds between gens. Nothing. Not a single crow. Which makes me wonder: maybe I just got lucky. The current patch has introduced quite a few bugs.. especially tied to the new killer… so it’s possible some edge cases are simply not affecting me. But from what I’ve seen, the system doesn’t punish normal gameplay.
Instead, it seems designed to highlight non-contributive behavior… survivors who spend several minutes running around aimlessly, looting chests, avoiding risk and ultimately not helping their team. In those cases, a crow isn’t punishment → it’s feedback. A reminder that, hey, maybe you're wasting valuable match time. And that’s actually a good thing.
Now, to be clear: I’m usually one of the first to criticize BHVR when something feels rushed or half-baked. But in this case, I think the direction is right… even if the exact values might need some tuning.
One thing I’ve said for ages: if we want to improve the solo queue experience (and eventually justify killer-side buffs), showing teammates’ perks in the loading screen would be a huge quality-of-life change. It’s long overdue.
-
@JayBy336 said:
I had this too in my last round and it specifically happened after I interacted with the Security Doors. Before everything was normal, but it could be coincidence
Doesn't seem like a general audio issue. For me, it only happens with the new killer and only after interacting with the security doors… as if
PlaySoundAtLocationgets offset for gens, terror radius, etc. -
Kaneki’s design clearly walks a fine line between high impact and low counterplay… and that’s exactly why the discussion is so polarized.
He has burst mobility, a hit-ready vault, and practically no post-power downtime. Compared to killers like Wesker or Blight, who at least have visible limitations (windup, cooldown, pathing risk), Kaneki often feels like he's skipping fundamental rules of chase interaction.
The frustration isn't just power level – it's how free the pressure feels.
For context:
- The highest survivor streaks (Flap, Otzdarva, Hens, etc.) often rely on tight coordination and still collapse when a killer has good anti-loop tools.
- But top killers like Blight or Spirit don’t typically enjoy free hits post-vault unless they heavily commit or trade cooldown. Kaneki getting that for free is a problem of design symmetry.
And remember… even Chucky had this removed because it was deemed unfair. Why reintroduce it now?
This isn’t about nerfing strong killers. It’s about making sure interaction still feels earned. -
I genuinely admire your optimism… but I’m afraid I have to dismantle an illusion here: Dead by Daylight has never had proper server-side validation.
What you described is entirely possible from a technical standpoint and common in many competitive online games. But unfortunately, DBD’s architecture still relies heavily on client trust. No reliable server-side checks for movement speed, action ranges, or perk logic are actively enforced in real time. And judging by the development direction over the years, that’s unlikely to change anytime soon.
It’s not a question of feasibility… just priority. And sadly, cheat prevention has never ranked particularly high.
-
@Cetren said:
As much as I love Dead by Daylight, some friends and I have recently gotten into discussing some of the pain points that can keep us from playing the game. DBD's FOMO approach to events is a particularly large part of this. Ideally, there will be more players playing the game. That means more variety, more community, and a well rounded and enjoyable experience for more players. Events like limited time gamemodes, and holiday seasons with earnable skins go a long ways towards encouraging players to get back into the game and feel like they have something to gain from playing. However, something that we've noticed is that the reverse is also true.
If you play too much DBD, you can get burn out. If you get burnout while an event is going on with a banner or skin you might like and you don't earn it, you could simply never have the chance to obtain that item again in some cases. In other, people have had to wait multiple years before having a chance to purchase skins that they simply weren't online to collect for whatever reason, be it burn out, real life obligations, or just playing a different game at the time. (Looking at you Ice Trapper and Ice Billy, who not only took several years to come back to the shop, but also were only available together as a bundle that could only be purchased with real money).
I understand that having event rewards be limited is a way to encourage players to hop on and participate when the event is actually happening. And I understand that there is a sense of accomplishment or pride that comes from having special items that were only available for a limited time. But I would LOVE to see some integration to begin to merge all the little forgotten pieces back into a place where they can be obtained by players who want them. I'm not arguing that everything should be obtainable right away, there's a place for letting people who participate enjoy the rewards for a time. But eventually things should work their way back around into being obtainable by new players.
In some ways Behavior has already begun to do this. Many of the rift consmetics work their way into the shop after about a year or so, however, a more consistent effort is needed to ensure that this is really working. As far as I know, there are still cosmetics that have yet to be added into the store, despite being years old. Trinkets are worse, as there is only a weekly trinket pack in the store. However, this trinket pack is randomized each week, meaning you may not find the trinkets you want, and it can only be purchased with auric cells which cost real money. There's really no reason I can imagine that this has to be the case. It shouldn't be too hard to add a trinkets section to the store and to determine iridescent shard costs depending on the rarity of the trinket. (Ideally cheaper than a skin, given their small size). Even worse though are badges and banners. Despite being in the game for a while now, if you don't consistently play during events your pool of acquired badges and banners is likely to be small. Once again, I don't see any reason why (barring licensed content) this isn't rotated into the shop and made purchasable with shards. Even some sort of drip feed for badges and banners would be better than nothing. You could take the oldest ones and make them unlockable with certain weekly quests from the rift pass. If someone already has them its not like they get less, but it would add in some aveneue for players who didn't play during one of the rifts to get them.
In some regards, BHVR does a good job of making old content available, like with the Halloween, Christmas, and Blood Moon cosmetics that come back annually. But there is still a ton of content that doesn't get cycled around, and it'd really be nice to have SOME way to obtain this without spending real money in the case of trinkets, or even some way to obtain it AT ALL in the case of badges and banners. Please help players feel comfortable playing the game whenever, even if it's not during a special event, and lets also make it more welcoming for newer players who presumably want the chance to decorate their profile and characters like everyone else in the game who was playing before them.
FOMO in DBD feels less like an incentive and more like a second job… one that doesn't pay, but occasionally hands out a banner or a reskinned cosmetic.
And maybe that would be fine… if the core game consistently delivered. But in a title still lacking proper anti-cheat, basic accessibility features, or real long-term progression, it ends up feeling like a dessert trying to distract from an empty plate.Yes, exclusive items and event rewards are exciting… when they're occasional. But when fear of missing out becomes the primary motivator, many players burn out and don't come back.
Imagine ice cream that you can only eat after finishing 12 bowls of lukewarm spinach… and if you skip a day, it's gone for years. Eventually, even the best flavors lose their appeal.Selling cosmetics works best when the game itself earns long-term goodwill. Maybe it’s time to shift from short-term urgency to long-term quality.
-
As it seems ghoul is fine since there have been no more nerfs within the last weeks can we finally give blight 10 basekit rushes.
I mean lets be honest, the seven with adren vial are really few. And while we are on it lets nerf the pig… -
Absolutely nailed it.
Anti-cheat is indeed listed on their roadmap… but let’s be honest: if history is any indication, we’re looking at another glorified banwave while the actual cheating tools remain untouched.
Server-side detection? Real-time countermeasures? Nah. But hey, at least we'll get Feng’s 17th outfit and a slightly different shade of Nea's hoodie. Priorities.
-
The suggestion makes perfect sense… which is precisely why it won’t be implemented.
Because once both survivors are gone and only bots remain, most killers lose interest. Bots don’t rage-quit, they don’t beg for mercy, and they certainly don’t offer that satisfying silence after a four-minute slugfest. They’re just… present.
Would this change improve the match experience for everyone involved? Absolutely.
Would it remove the last ounce of psychological leverage from a downed survivor? Also yes.
So until that trade-off is deemed acceptable by design... slugged silence it is. -
Given how often the anti-cheat system gets mentioned lately, it’s clear the frustration is justified.
Strangely enough, threads like these tend to vanish without a trace… so if this one disappears too, don’t be too surprised. Patterns say more than statements.
-
Yeah, you're not imagining things.
Cheaters in DBD have gone from rare wildlife sightings to something between pigeons and mosquitoes.
The EAC sticker is still proudly glued to the game, but unfortunately, that’s the full extent of its involvement.Speedhacks, teleporting, flashlight blindness from orbit.. pick your flavor. And just like always, after 4 reports and a log file, the outcome is: “No suspicious activity detected.”
But hey, at least the 7th recolor of Feng’s leggings got patched immediately.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3935179#Comment_3935179
They didnt disable it and it’s working as you descrived as it has been since its introduction.
How long does it take to find a lobby?
As far as I know: only players who also have it disabled can match with you. Even if everyone is on the same platform, if their Crossplay is on, you won’t be placed together.So technically it’s there. Functionally? Almost useless.
-
@bigphil0005 said:
So I was harsh on Springtrap. I was thinking it was a low budget huntress. Playing around with the killer a lot more I'm finding more things that I really like. The axe is ok for close to midish range encounters, but playing around the axe is what you gotta do. Foxy's Hook is super fun. You get 10% haste for 6 sec when you walk through the bubble. If you want you can just the axe right in front of you its like a clown bottle. Endu CPU is nice when you walk out of the bubble you get 20% you get to break pallets, gens, walls 25% faster. Pair it with brutal strength and you can just shred pallets. The other thing I didn't realize was the axe weighs you down while holding it. When you don't have the axe you move faster. The axe also has a heavy feel to it. I've been able to hit shots over loops just by tossing it up over a loop because how fast it just drops down. To the ones hating Spring trap saying the samethings I was, play with him a bit. I'm sure you will end up liking him.
Glad to hear he's fun to play, but I'm curious how he feels on the other side. Killers like Ghoul are a blast in control – but often at the cost of fair counterplay for survivors. I haven’t touched the PTB yet and will go in blind, but before forming final opinions, I think it’s worth asking: does the learning curve feel healthy for both sides? As both Springtrap players and survivors adapt, the real test will be whether that curve stays balanced and enjoyable across the board.
-
@hygcat said:
I’m aware that the 2v8 mode has caused some MMR issues. I already created another thread about that.
Today, I want to talk about something else. I don’t understand why people act toxic when the killer uses Lightborn after they bring 4 flashlights. I’m not someone who frequently uses the Lightborn perk, but if I see at least 3 players bringing flashlights, I equip it to prevent potential toxic behavior. I don’t think survivors have the right to complain when they bring 3–4 flashlights and then see Lightborn. In my opinion, they get upset because I ruined their plan to bully the killer. I would post screenshots here, but I can’t due to forum rules.In short: if you’re going to use flashlights, you shouldn’t complain when the killer picks a counter perk lolSome players in DBD don’t just run on low effort… they run on a budget IQ. Their goal isn’t to win, it’s to ruin the match for someone else.
But consider this: you endure them for 15 minutes. They, however, are bound by terms and conditions to live with themselves indefinitely. You’re walking away with the better deal → always.
-
@ad19970 said:
A killer softban would definitely be interesting, but I also fear that it could hurt those that want to play more unpopular killers too much with longer queue times.
I still just wish we'd get more and faster balancing of killers. Honestly Blight and Nurse still being the way they are is quite ridiculous in my opinion.
Absolutely fair point…a killer softban system would need careful balancing to avoid excessively punishing players who enjoy lesser-picked killers. A possible middle ground could be limiting it to solo queue players only, or making it a time-gated preference rather than a hard ban.
And of course, for SWFs, you’d need additional logic… maybe only the group leader can select a softban, or the option gets disabled entirely in premade teams. The idea isn’t to create unfair matchmaking, but simply to offer solo players a small tool to protect their own match quality, especially when certain killers are overwhelmingly dominant or unpleasant to face.
Completely agree on the need for faster killer balancing as well. The fact that Nurse and Blight have remained virtually untouched while others get redesigned from scratch speaks volumes about where the balancing effort has been prioritized.
-
@Nicholas said:
- I agree with this section, but you didn't explore the server issue further, which is significant. Many don't realize that hits are still handled on The Killer's end, even with Server-Side Hit Validation (SSHV). SSHV only seems to "validate" hits at the 250-ms or higher mark, which is exceptionally generous and subject to abuse. And some killers exploit this. Not to mention the myriad fairness issues with a network philosophy they call "Favor The Killer." The game needs to move to Server-Side Hit Authority and full server support, so hits are handled by the neutral server. They also need to increase the tick rate. I would say 1/10 because the developers have previously acknowledged the frustrations of Survivors with fake hits and latency, but are more concerned and sympathetic with The Killer. A lack of awareness by the majority also doesn't help; some prolific streamers believe the game is full server authority.
- I like these ideas, but a more straightforward solution, perhaps even a temporary one, is to conceal the names until the end of the match; the names can be revealed simultaneously as The Killer's perks.
- As the developers focus on the symptoms rather than the problems, there's rarely a resolution, just more band-aids, so I don't anticipate they will do much here. So I agree with your assessment on this happening.
- They are too modest with balance changes; they knew what they were doing with The Ghoul launch and ignored PTB feedback. It gave the impression that it was P2W DLC despite their pronounced protestations.
I'm not too optimistic about the Survivor experience in the future. Survivors have been pretty stale for years; nothing new or innovative has happened since Boon Totems, which was an exciting addition. Invocation is lackluster, too. Each new killer has more powers, mechanics, and gimmicks. The developers also give the impression that there is too much reluctance to try new innovative approaches, and so far, the anti-mechanics are unimaginative.
Good insights overall, especially your note on the illusion of server-side hit validation. Many still believe hits are fully handled server-side, when in reality it's only partial and biased in favor of the killer. Your 1/10 rating seems justified given how little has changed in that area over the years.
The temporary name concealment idea is solid → low effort, high impact, and it would instantly reduce some of the toxicity around name abuse. That’s a practical QoL change the game could actually implement.
You also nailed it with the "symptom over cause" issue. Band-aid patches dominate while deeper structural flaws remain untouched… and once the noise dies down, so does the attention.
And yes, the Ghoul launch made it painfully clear: performance and visuals took priority over balance, even with clear PTB feedback. They knew the problems but released anyway.
The survivor stagnation is a concern I share as well. Survivors haven’t seen meaningful design innovation in a long time, while killer kits keep getting more complex and dominant. Eventually that imbalance becomes more than just design… it becomes population shift.
Appreciate the contribution → sharp points and well argued.
-
The Ghoul is, in my view, still overtuned… not necessarily because of raw numbers, but because of how much pressure he generates with so little effort. His map mobility, chained aggression, and the ease with which he secures downs make him one of the most punishing killers to play against, especially when piloted competently.
Yes, he's fun to play → for the killer. But as several people have already pointed out, good killer design shouldn’t peak at 11/10 fun for one side while the other sits somewhere between a 1 and 2. That’s exactly where The Ghoul lands right now. The frustration from the survivor side is palpable, and that’s a clear sign something is off.
Compare him to Wesker… a killer who is strong, fair, and actually fun to face. Wesker rewards both skill and timing on both ends. Survivors feel like they have agency, and good plays on both sides feel earned. That’s healthy asymmetry. The Ghoul currently fails to deliver that experience.
He might not need deletion, but the current iteration does require deeper structural tuning… not just cooldown tweaks. Without that, we're stuck in a meta where one side is encouraged to leave, alt-tab, or write forum posts while waiting to get hooked.
-
@toukent said:
What you mean by "free access to anti tunnel perks"? Also the ghoul was nerfed pretty substantially with the last patch, he goes on a long cooldown after breaking a pallet along with other nerfs such as a range decrease and removing him being able to hit over most waist-high objects. The only real serious issue is his kidnap tech still remains unfixed.
Other than that though I agree with your other points
Thanks for your input, and you're right, the Ghoul did receive some targeted nerfs recently. However, the core issue many players still face isn’t so much about hitboxes or vault reach, but how little counterplay remains in practical chase situations.
When I referenced “free access to anti-tunnel perks,” I meant that the Ghoul, unlike other killers, can bypass several survivor protection mechanics without perk investment. He can instantly injure through Off The Record, Dead Hard, or Deliverance setups – not because of skill or decision-making, but because his core mechanic invalidates them outright in many cases.
And yes, the kidnap tech (which still works in various broken forms) further exacerbates the issue, even post-patch. The problem is less about numbers and more about structure: he skips survivor defenses by default, not by outplaying them.
Appreciate the civil disagreement though → that's what productive feedback looks like.
-
@MechWarrior3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3931304#Comment_3931304
Facts which is wild. I am a killer main. Anyone that knows me, knows this. I can safely admit, this design for the ghoul, is neither fun nor balanced to go against.
Agreed. The Ghoul currently sits in a spot where the effort-to-reward ratio feels disproportionately low. His movement options are too forgiving, his pressure comes too early, and there’s minimal counterplay in solo queue especially. What’s most surprising is frequently seeing calls for buffs despite all this.
Balance discussion should always start from a place of fairness…. not just fun for the one who’s playing the killer. And in Ghoul’s case, it’s clear that a re-evaluation is overdue.
-
Welome to the game! Appreciate your curiosity and openness to ideas.
That said → giving survivors weapons would fundamentally break the game's core identity. DBD thrives on asymmetrical design: killers are strong alone, survivors are weak alone but strong as a team. Adding combat would shift the balance entirely, and we've seen what that leads to (VHS says hi).
Think of it like asking if Chinese could be simplified to English – reasonable on paper, but you lose everything that made it distinct in the first place.
Glad you're enjoying the game so far. Stick with it… it has its flaws, but it’s slowly evolving in the right direction.
-
@OPXtreme_ttv said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3928914#Comment_3928914
Well if you can hide yourself from others you shouldn't be able to see others. Thats ny only other thought process. You can't open someone else's profile and such and you can't see their name, just as they can't with you. And anonymous people can't use in game chat
Absolutely agree! if you opt into anonymity, it should apply both ways.
No names, no profiles, no chat → just pure fog.That way, anonymity remains a shield… not a sniper’s perch.
Because let’s be honest: too many players want to vanish when it's time to take responsibility, but stay visible when it’s time to throw shade. -
Anonymous Mode has valid use cases… especially for streamers avoiding targeted harassment.
But let’s be honest: it’s also frequently used to dodge accountability.
Players DC, suicide on first hook, throw matches… all while hiding behind a blank tag.
No name, no memory, no consequences.Privacy and responsibility don’t have to be opposites.
A simple compromise? Disable endgame chat for anonymous users.
If you opt out of visibility, you should also opt out of the megaphone. -
@Defnotmeghead said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3927086#Comment_3927086
They get banned in DBD too, and Valorant bans in waves too. Valorant doesnt use the "verified movement logic" you think they use. And as for desync validation, that mainly depends on available servers. And yeah, Valorant has MORE servers (other than that, RIOT is also significantly richer than BHVR). But, you're forgetting 1 key factor that has the biggest difference here why it SEEMS like Valorant is more capable, when in reality, their anti-cheat isnt objectively better:
Riot has its own client.
DBD catches as many, if not more cheaters than Valorant(player ratio). The way RIOT somewhat influences spoofing, is due to having their own client. It means that it requires cheaters to set up a new Virtual Machine first every time they get banned, because if they forget then they can get a hardware ban since the ban would be done via the client, and no amount of spoofing gets you around your hardware having been banned.
If Valorant was usable through Epic Games and/or Steam, cheaters would flood Valorant as much, if not more.
Again, what you are asking is impossible. The only way to improve anti-cheat is to reduce your literal privacy.
And no, they dont need video proof. But BHVR will ask for everything that could speed up the process. They could, without videoproof, check the claim and find more than enough evidence. But you know whats 100x easier and faster? Clicking a link and pressing play to see someone teleporting across the map. Its not a requirement.
And there is no PVP standard, you are claiming Valo and League are the standard, but that isnt the standard. Fortnite doesnt have that system, Dota 2doesnt, CS2 doesnt, OW2 doesnt. What RIOT does, is breaching privacy in exchange of giving cheaters a slightly more roundabout way to get back at it. Which, is more effective. But once again, breaching privacy.
You automatically start up the Riot client and are doing your taxes? Congrats, now Riot also has access to your tax info. You have the client running in the background while doing some private research incognito? Congrats, Riot can now see which arrangement of carnality you enjoy most and maybe even offer merchandise that looks eerily similar. That's what kernel level anti-cheat really means. That is the REAL cost of what happens in Valorant and League.
There is no PVP anti-cheat standard, and DBD is legitimately one of the groups with an actually active anti-cheat system that recieves constant updates. Like it or not, DBD is very close to being the anti-cheat standard. Its variables outside of BHVR's control that make it seem like they dont.
Just as a comparison, you have an anti-burglary system:
Valorant and League basically have camera's installed in your house EVERYWHERE and on at all times, even when you're home. Someone still manages to get into your house and steals your TV, and not all of them will be caught.
DBD has alarms, infrared lasers that only activate when you're gone from home, replaces your lock once every 3 months while giving you a key to the door that will turn off all alarms because you shouldnt be losing any privacy. But for some reason, the people who break into your house earn enough money to pay people to keep making fake keys and after some succesful keys they manage to make a skeleton key that fits on all homes. DBD makes sure some locks are changed and that people are caught before you miss anything, but they have to change the locks on all homes soon enough.
CS2 just has a sticker of "this home is protected by an alarm", while the alarm has ran out of batteries 3 years ago and the door is unlocked. It basically keeps the basic cheaters out.
The fact that you are willing to sell your private info to a company in exchange for 55 minutes more time that cheaters need to set up a new account to cheat again (which, if it takes 1 hour to ban the average cheater, and it takes about 1 hour for the cheater to be back in running, you're going to have cheaters who will give up for the time being, where again, in DBD, probably takes the same hour, but then they just trigger a spoofer and buy a hacked account and are up and running again in 15 minutes). Valorant isnt better, its less convenient.
Remove hardware spoofers from existance, and the DBD cheater issue goes back to how it was in 2020, practically non-existant.
Also, I would love to stress, Valorant isnt as server sided as you believe. 95% of anti-cheat even in Valorant happens on the side of the client. The servers, even those used for DBD, have validation on certain things. But at a certain point, you cannot ask the server to do things for you without impacting enjoyability. Things that currently flow relatively nicely would no longer flow as nicely.
You genuinely dont know what you are talking about. You can have demands, like everyone else has, and I am not defending BHVR here as I do think there are things they can improve on. But you're asking privacy breaching levels of client sided anti-cheat, while using google server levels of server sided anti-cheat, and calling that "the standard".
Thats like claiming the bodyguards any US president has(who also has very little privacy btw), is the standard of protection that all citizens should have.
You want George Orwell's 1984 levels of anti-cheat. And no, I rather face 2 cheaters on average per match than give any company access to all my private info just so I can maybe face 1 cheater every 1000 games.
The TRUE modern anti-cheat standard, would be finding a way to still implement a hardware ban on people who use spoofers. And there is a way to it: Whitelisting.
You can use an extremely trigger happy anti-cheat that will automatically kick anyone from a match the second they detect something weird and add a flag. And if you dont get flagged for a long enough time (lets say, 1000 escapes/4000 kills), or if you have been personally investigated to not have any cheats, you get added to a whitelist and only face other players who have made it to the whitelist.
You would still have cheaters, but you wont face most of them. Only downside is that new players will be forced to play against quite a few cheaters, so to mitigate that, you can add a grey list, where people on the grey list will only face other people on the grey list, and the only way you can get on the grey list is through cheating. And with a trigger happy anti-cheat, you can instead of auto ban people send them to the grey list. Even in case of a false trigger, they would still be able to play the game while their situation gets sorted out.Regarding Hit Validation in Dead by Daylight:
It's important to clarify that Dead by Daylight's hit detection system primarily relies on the killer's client. This means that if a hit registers on the killer's screen, it is typically accepted, regardless of discrepancies on the survivor's end. This client-side approach can lead to situations where survivors are hit despite appearing to have successfully evaded attacks on their screens.
On the Implementation of Easy Anti-Cheat (EAC):While Dead by Daylight utilizes EAC, its effectiveness is contingent upon the depth of integration and server-side validations implemented by the developers. Reports and community feedback suggest that the current implementation may not fully leverage EAC's capabilities, leading to instances where cheats go undetected unless manually reported.
Concerning Server-Side Validation:
Effective anti-cheat systems often employ robust server-side validations to ensure game integrity. In Dead by Daylight, the reliance on client-side data for critical gameplay decisions, such as hit registration, can create vulnerabilities that are exploitable by cheaters. Enhancing server-side checks could mitigate these issues and improve overall fairness.
In conclusion, while Dead by Daylight has made strides in addressing cheating and gameplay fairness, there remain areas—particularly in hit validation and anti-cheat implementation… where improvements could significantly enhance the player experience.
-
If you're stuck on this, here's the build that did it for me — one match, zero stress.
Doctor prescribed shock therapy, and it worked. Maybe it'll save someone else a headache too. -
Another day, another interdimensional tourist. This time it was Bill…. same phasing cheat, same physics-defying nonsense, different beard.
https://youtu.be/WtUwB4jnkeYI’ve played maybe 10 hours in the past two weeks and already matched with multiple blatant cheaters.
And honestly? That might actually be a good thing.
Because like a toddler ignoring bedtime, sometimes the chaos has to get loud enough that the grown-ups are finally forced to step in.If the anti-cheat is a discipline system, then congratulations BHVR: you’ve just hit the phase where the furniture gets drawn on in marker.
Let’s see how many walls need repainting before someone remembers that "trust the client" was never a parental strategy. -
Another day, another interdimensional tourist. This time it was Bill…. same phasing cheat, same physics-defying nonsense, different beard.
https://youtu.be/WtUwB4jnkeYI’ve played maybe 10 hours in the past two weeks and already matched with multiple blatant cheaters.
And honestly? That might actually be a good thing.
Because like a toddler ignoring bedtime, sometimes the chaos has to get loud enough that the grown-ups are finally forced to step in.If the anti-cheat is a discipline system, then congratulations BHVR: you’ve just hit the phase where the furniture gets drawn on in marker.
Let’s see how many walls need repainting before someone remembers that "trust the client" was never a parental strategy. -
Got a fresh clip from yesterday — a Nea phasing through the ground like she bought the Phasewalker DLC.
https://youtu.be/RgNqGm4nbdc
But honestly, the cheat isn’t even the wild part.
What’s truly absurd is that Dead by Daylight still treats the game client like a trusted eyewitness… despite the fact it’s the prime suspect.While other games enforce movement server-side, DBD’s anti-cheat is more of a dreamcatcher: it filters nothing but still hangs around for comfort.
And when cheaters start flying? BHVR just politely asks for video evidence — as if physics bugs now require film permits.At this point, the only thing getting punished consistently… is player optimism.
-
@Defnotmeghead said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3926669#Comment_3926669
I made it that much, because thats how complex the situation is. You can flyhack in overwatch and not get banned, you can flyhack in valorant and not get banned.
No anti-cheat can be up to that level of detection without creating an unplayable game. Every. Single. Frame. would need to be traced. Every. Single. Variable. must be taken into consideration (aka, hundreds, if not thousands of frames prior need to be saved just in case the "flying" happened due to a vector launch elsewhere).
You dont know what you're demanding, not even Google servers can handle what you demand. Hence the essay I wrote.You've clearly invested time into this — though what stands out more is the conclusion you keep circling back to. You keep naming every known challenge in anti-cheat design… only to conclude that meaningful enforcement is essentially futile unless we accept shadow bans and hidden stats as our gospel.
Yet oddly enough, in games like Valorant, actual cheaters do get caught…. not by “banning in waves,” but by enforcing verified movement logic, server-side physics, and desync validation. The same principles DBD structurally avoids.
You say “we can't afford what you're asking.” But the cost of not doing it is a live PvP game where teleporting survivors are more common than in-game transparency. No security model survives on secrecy alone — and if it does, it's not secure. It's just unaccountable.
And if video proof “isn’t needed,” why does BHVR explicitly ask for it in nearly every ticket? Why are reports without it routinely ignored unless you’re already in their internal trust pool (which, conveniently, no one can verify)?
This isn’t about demanding perfection. It’s about acknowledging that DBD isn’t even trying to meet the PvP standard. And when players notice that, they don’t just stop trusting the system… they will stop logging in at some point.
-
@CadePng said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3926770#Comment_3926770
I just read both of your responses so I'll keep it to one response,
I appreciate your willingness to talk through it too :) I'm glad we could come to a consensus here because I understand where you're coming from too, I also don't want a DBD where I'm primarily killing bots, that would be far less enjoyable for both survivors and killers. Originally I was saying that the DC penalty encouraging more disconnects would be a tolerable tradeoff for people killing themselves on hook, but you've opened my mind, I'm sure there's some way I'm missing to find a middle ground. Something that ideally would give the players the freedom I value yet also prevent disconnects from ruining the experience for people who commit to every trial. Basically, I still believe there's an issue here, but I'm no longer sold on the idea that removing the DC penalty outright is the solution. It's something I think I'll let sit in the back of my mind for a while. If I come up with something new maybe I'll make a new discussion post, and at that point I'll look forward to hearing your feedback :)I genuinely appreciate your thoughtful reply – and the openness to rethink things. That’s rare, and honestly refreshing.
If your future post sparks new angles, you can count on me showing up with words, metaphors… and probably one or two snarky analogies ;)
Until then, thanks for the honest back-and-forth. Discussions like this are what keep the community sharp… even when the bots aren’t :D
-
@CadePng said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3925847#Comment_3925847
I just don't think you agree with my point. I'd rather you agree to disagree instead of rapid-firing snarky similes. I could use all the sarcasm in the world, but I'm choosing not to because it wouldn't add anything to the discussion. All I said was "oh I didn't expect this to be so poorly received" and you went out of your way to rag on me for it. I'm glad to hear from someone so passionate about this, I am, but there's no need to be rude.
Not at all – I’m critiquing ideas, not people.
Sarcasm is a tool, not a target. The tone was strong because the issue is.But I do appreciate your willingness to talk through it. If we disagree, we can still aim for the same thing: a better, more resilient DBD…..not one that unravels every time someone doesn’t like their matchmaking.
-
@CadePng said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3925830#Comment_3925830
Okay well I'm not loving your tone, I'm not sure why that's necessary. But I digress, if your point is reliant on bots being bad, I doubt bots will stay bad forever. If your point is reliant on players "ragequitting," that's a bad faith argument, not every player quits because they're upset, some quit because they just aren't having fun, or don't want to continue and would rather forfeit. It is actually match quality, yes, as some killers are less fun design wise than others, because DBD isn't a perfect game. Hence there are tier rankings of the most fun killers, most oppressive maps, most annoying playstyles, etc. Again, I think your perspective is coming from a very competitive place. I appreciate your perspective though. It's like we play two different games.
I understand not everyone enjoys a sharper tone… fair enough. But the frustration doesn’t come from a desire to be rude; it comes from watching fundamental game structure be chipped away in the name of convenience.
DBD is a PvP experience. And with that comes a level of responsibility. In games like League of Legends, if you leave mid-match, you're locked out of the queue until the match ends — regardless of why you left. That design respects both the integrity of the session and the other players’ time. And no → League doesn’t replace you with a bot. It replaces you with silence, absence, and a consequence you feel. Maybe that’s why people think twice before ragequitting.
Disconnecting isn’t always rage – but when the system starts to normalize exits, it stops distinguishing between technical failure and emotional impulse. At some point, it just rewards leaving.
You're right: we might play the game from different places. I just think the rules should reflect that other people are playing too.
-
@Defnotmeghead said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3925824#Comment_3925824
"Saying it's not competitive ignores the core structure of its design."
Where did I say it isnt competitive?"there’s no confirmed evidence that DBD meaningfully validates movement, positioning, or state changes server-side."
But there is validation, you claimed there was none: Pallet validation, DS validation, it validates loadouts nowadays too(which is why you no longer see flashlights with wirespool like you used to, nor have medkits with 20 Abdominal Dressings to do a self-heal in 3 seconds.
And you're right, we dont know if there are any other specific validations surrounding movement, positioning or state changes on the server side. But you know what's also funny? Neither do you know if that happens in a lot of cases. Kicked for flying can have a multitude of reasoning. Like a clientsided check for your movement vector that gets updated and sometimes considered impossible, and your client sending a message to a server to get you kicked in case you're on a server. You assume its done server sided because the server does the kicking. The same happens with pallet stuns, they are just client sided information that is send to the server, and the only validation the server does is check which event happened first. It's still server sided validation, but its the client that checks for it. The only game I am aware that actually does movement and positioning on the serverside is Overwatch 2, as they render the full game and basically do a comparison between what should happen and what actually happens. But if they fully render the game on the server and control, how do you still have cheaters in overwatch 2? Simple, you cannot ban people for suddenly having high ping, that alone can allow you to teleport on the server's end, it just gives you a flag for investigation if it happens too often, and even then, some of those flags are ignored due to high ping. Meaning if you have a program that purposely slows down information send to the server would allow you to cheat and not get any flags.
You're really trying to paint any anti-cheat as superior, when really, its not. 10% of the top 500 players in the Overwatch 2 leaderboard are confirmed cheaters. Meaning they not only managed to cheat and not get banned, they managed to do so for HUNDREDS of games in a row. Despite a full server side validation system rendering the entire game.
"I've personally submitted over 20 cheater reports to BHVR support → always with precise details, Steam IDs, and full context. In every case, unless I attached direct video proof, I was explicitly asked to upload one before any action could be taken."
Funny, because I have submitted at least over 200 by now, and while in a lot of cases I could provide video proof since I have recording software that needs 5 seconds to start up before it can record, I couldnt always record it.
They stopped asking for video proof explicitly in 2022 when I couldnt record, there have been some cases they did ask, where I presume they looked into the matter but couldnt find any substantial evidence with what they had in place, but even then, last time that question happened was early 2024. The main question they have for me is if I reported them in-game, because sometimes, its a saturday with no plans and I have played for 6-7 hours with on average 4 games per hour.
"If true server-side validation existed, this level of manual verification wouldn’t be necessary. The current process isn't reflective of a system that independently detects and confirms cheating — it's reflective of one that doesn’t."
No, it does not. Again, 50 people in the top 500 of Overwatch 2 are confirmed cheaters by the community, they have still been able to evade bans because despite reports, its not enough. Overwatch 2 gets video evidence from people from Twitter and viral Youtube video's, and once a video has gained enough traction, then someone in the top 500 might get banned for it.
Again, you're painting Anti-Cheat measures as if they are miracle work, when in reality, there are thousands, if not millions of reports coming in. Often a lot aimed at a handful of players alone. Then you have people looking into those players and they often need to be manually banned, because autobans only work if you can isolate an issue to be a cheating-only possibility(like, wirespool on a flashlight).
And while I cannot go into detail due to an NDA, financial companies have extremely strict detection systems incase someone gamed the system, as literal millions can be at risk. You have teams of 20 people per team, working 40 hours a week each, being available 24/7 as a team while in contact with the police, trying to catch 5 people. Despite the strict detections, despite KNOWING what they are doing, they have been able to avoid the police. That can take weeks. You, on a daily basis, will trigger hundreds of fraud flags at your bank, by just existing. Someone is making sure that your fraud flags can be considered normal human behaviour. Its the ones that get a manual flag added by people on the team that get higher priority over everyone else. And that is a financial company having 2500+ employees as a whole.
The biggest benefit? When they finally do catch the person, they are actively removing that person from being able to do anything financial because they go to jail.
Now imagine that that person could pay 200$ a month to get an entirely new physical appearance whenever they get caught, then that person could go on with their financial crimes after weeks have been dedicated trying to catch that person. And they can go on doing exactly what they have been doing for weeks with no reprocussions. THAT is the modern issue with hardware spoofers.
The bigger the team, the faster bans can happen. And with BHVR having about 200 people working there, You can assume that 20 people would pretty much cover the entire security team. For a game as popular as DBD, thats small. Overwatch 2 has Activision Blizzard, which has a team of 200 people doing security (and even then, 10% of the top 500 confirmed cheaters who have been able to avoid a ban).
Anti-cheat is basically a nuclear protocol, especially the auto-ban feature. You HAVE to tread lightly and not have it go off on people by accident. And considering the fact that people can bypass bans due to certain spoofers and be at it again within 15 minutes after a ban, and the average ban can take an hour or so to be implemented, you have the situation you currently have at DBD.
In theory, BHVR could ban 100% of cheaters 100% of the time, but you can equally expect 30% of players getting banned for stunning a killer with a pallet after you have gone down, or getting stunned by a pallet after you've downed a survivor because latency was just slightly too big for the server side validation to check.Appreciate the essay – though at some point, quantity stopped compensating for coherence.
You're right that spoofers are a problem. You're also right that kernel-level anti-cheat isn't a silver bullet. But none of that changes the lived experience: cheaters flying across the map while BHVR’s detection system patiently waits for a formal invitation to intervene.
What you’ve written is an impressive catalogue of symptoms, but it skips the diagnosis: trusting the client in a PvP game with money on the line is like locking your front door... and handing the burglar the spare key….just in case.
-
Just spent another cozy 3 hours in Dead by Daylight™ this week and was lucky enough to encounter a Nea who clearly paid extra for the Teleportation DLC.
And the best part? Server-side validation continues to shine as brightly as ever. I mean, who needs consistency or fairness when you can have spontaneous wormholes?
Meanwhile, I’m standing in a tile like an idiot, watching Nea phase through reality like she's on patch 1.0.9 of Doctor Strange.
Honestly, I don’t blame her. If I had access to that kind of power, I’d be gone the moment I hear “Exposed.” Just whoosh — off to a less bug-infested universe.
Anyway, video attached for scientific purposes. Viewer discretion advised: contains scenes of unregulated time-space travel.
https://youtu.be/RgNqGm4nbdc -
@CadePng said:
I wanna highlight that when I mentioned this idea on the discussion channel of the DBD discord, not a single person disagreed, there were 5 people all of which backed up the idea entirely, so I'm shocked there are as many downvotes as there are.
Saying it works because your Discord agrees is like claiming a boat floats because the crew’s optimistic.
If a Discord poll was all it took, every game would have god mode by now. -
Fully agree with @JPLongstreet.. the DC penalty isn’t just justified, it’s the final thread holding the match together when half the lobby’s already hovering over Alt+F4 like it’s a competitive mechanic.
But sure, let’s remove it. After all, we’ve got bots now → sentient tumbleweeds with the tactical IQ of lukewarm tea.
Want to ragequit because you lost first chase? No problem. ChadBot™ will kindly run in a straight line, fail to vault, and then moonwalk into a wall while the killer reconsiders their life choices.
Want to leave because someone brought No Mither? Relax. BotMither 2.0 has entered the trial, now with 17% more standing still and 0% unhooking awareness.
And let’s be honest: this was never about “match quality.” This is about wanting to ragequit with the emotional grace of a toddler knocking over a board game.. but with full moral immunity.
A forfeit button wouldn’t improve DBD.
It would just allow people to fail faster with less guilt.But hey… if all else fails, we can always let the bots run eSports. I hear they’ve almost mastered holding W.
-
@Defnotmeghead said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3925427#Comment_3925427
I mentioned why I am heavily against kernel level anti-cheat. That should only exist in tournaments, on tournament devices. The moment kernel level is implemented in DBD is the moment I will tell everyone I play DBD with to uninstall. And DBD has serverside validation, its why bans happen regardless of reports.
As a side-note, I fully agree that there are issues, but by far the biggest issue, that even kernel doesnt solve, is the fact that hardware spoofers became commercially viable, where previously it was company levels of expenses. Because banning a (part of a) physical device was the main reason that held most current cheaters avoid actual bans, but now, since they cant ban the motherboard, all that effectively happens is an account ban. Kernel doesnt solve that. There currently is no way to detect a spoofer like that, which is why even RIOT still has cheaters.
Its not an anti-cheat issue, its a ban avoidance issue. And you betcha that they are trying to find ways to still obtain the original identification. Which is why some cheaters arent getting banned. Because they know they are cheating and are trying to find out how what information they can obtain from those people, and with some luck find a way to get around the spoofer and surprise them with the next banwave by banning 100% of cheaters, forcing all of them to buy entirely new hardware because they dont know which part of their hardware got banned.
Once that happens, cheating will be down to a minimum, untill someone creates a different spoofer, which will eventually happen because some cheaters are willing to pay 150$+ a month just to be able to cheat in DBD.You make several confident claims…but without verifiable sources, they remain just that: claims.
Dead by Daylight is a PvP game with matchmaking, hidden MMR, and asymmetric roles.
Saying it's not competitive ignores the core structure of its design.As for server-side validation: there’s no confirmed evidence that DBD meaningfully validates movement, positioning, or state changes server-side. If such validation existed, the rampant exploit streams and repeat offenders still playing live on Twitch would suggest a catastrophic failure of that system.
I've personally submitted over 20 cheater reports to BHVR support → always with precise details, Steam IDs, and full context.
In every case, unless I attached direct video proof, I was explicitly asked to upload one before any action could be taken.If true server-side validation existed, this level of manual verification wouldn’t be necessary. The current process isn't reflective of a system that independently detects and confirms cheating — it's reflective of one that doesn’t.
Unless BHVR or EAC provide technical documentation proving otherwise, we should treat “server validation” as a marketing myth, not a mechanic.
-
@CadePng said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3925627#Comment_3925627
DC'ing isn't a "worse problem" if they're replaced by bots. Hook suicide is far more destructive than DC'ing. And dbd isn't competitive to most people. It's a pretty casual game, it doesn't even specify who wins and who loses cleanly. Having the choice to abandon is freedom. If this game was ranked or something, yeah I'd agree it's an issue, but it isn't. I do agree with you though that introducing rewards are going to help, and giving players meaningful reasons to stay engaged is also going to help a lot. But I think the DC penalty does more harm than good. I just don't think we see eye to eye on this. The conversation is going in circles so I think I've said my piece, but I appreciate the feedback, it really is great to see other perspectives.
I’ll say it plainly: removing the DC penalty would do more long-term harm than any current fringe issue ever could.
Hook suicides should absolutely be addressed… for example, disabling early self-unhook attempts or limiting escape inputs in the first few minutes. But that’s a separate fix. Removing the DC penalty wouldn’t solve that problem → it would multiply it.
Within weeks, we’d see a match environment where bots replace players in the first 3 minutes… routinely. That’s not speculation — it’s a behavioral certainty. The game would slide from PvP into pseudo-PvE, one impatient quit at a time.
I've played Survivor for over 7 years. Hook suicides are rare. But give people an official exit button with zero consequence, and you won’t see “rage quitting”…. you’ll see preference quitting. Map? Teammates? Killer choice? Gone.
The penalty doesn’t target commitment → it preserves it.
-
@CadePng said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3925507#Comment_3925507
"Without consequence, players could freely disconnect over map preferences, early-game frustration, or minor inconveniences. That doesn’t improve the experience → it erodes it."
It would improve the experience for people wishing to freely disconnect instead of killing themselves on hook, yes. I don't think "Go Next" is a major issue because killers and survivors need more human players in matches, I think it's an issue because players killing themselves on hook leaves people who don't want to be penalized in an awkward unwinnable state, as there's no bot to replace them. More disconnections, in my opinion, is an acceptable tradeoff for disconnections with minimal consequences.The conversation around removing the DC penalty keeps orbiting a single issue: hook suicides. And yes, that's a real problem. But solving one flawed mechanic by introducing a worse one isn't progress, it's regression.
Removing the DC penalty wouldn't "fix" suicides on hook → it would just hand players a more immediate escape button, usable at any time, for any reason. Map not to your liking? First two gens went too fast? Not the killer you wanted?
Exit stage left, no consequences. That’s not freedom… that’s abandonment dressed up as convenience.If the goal is to address early-game forfeits, the solution is to fix the incentives around staying, not to encourage leaving. Fix hook suicides by overhauling the struggle phase. Give players meaningful reasons to stay engaged.
But removing penalties entirely turns PvP into PvMaybe.Accountability isn’t about punishing frustration → it’s about protecting the integrity of competitive play. Without it, what’s left isn’t a match. It’s a roulette wheel of who’s still in by minute three.
-
Removing the DC penalty would not just address fringe cases… it would open the door to a broader behavioral issue. Without consequence, players could freely disconnect over map preferences, early-game frustration, or minor inconveniences.
That doesn’t improve the experience → it erodes it.I’ve been playing DBD for over 7 years, and not once has the DC penalty posed an issue for me. Why? Because it only affects a specific subset of behavior… impulsive quitting that disregards the match integrity for everyone else. The penalty isn’t meant to punish, it’s meant to protect. Removing it because bots now exist is like removing speed limits because airbags exist.
Helpful, yes → but not a substitute for accountability.Bot replacements are a band-aid, not a cure. Let’s not confuse fallback systems with valid design incentives.
-
@Nomade said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3921910#Comment_3921910
I wouldnt doubt there are some dbd players (I say players as a way to exclude them from the dbd community because imo cheaters are not welcome) that are morally bankrupt enough to try something like this.
I get the sentiment, and I agree: cheaters aren’t part of the community → they’re a parasite feeding on it.
But ironically, a large-scale hack wave might be the most effective QA test Dead by Daylight has ever had.
After all, nothing motivates action quite like public humiliation and a collapsing new-player experience.For nearly a decade, the game has operated without server-side validation, relying instead on what can only be described as a “client-trust utopia.” Speed hacks? Teleporting killers? Survivors flying like budget Avengers?
All technically allowed… as long as the client says it's okay.If it takes a flood of cheaters to finally force systemic change, then maybe the infection is the cure.
-
@Defnotmeghead said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3924099#Comment_3924099
The problem is that certain things are impossible to do so there are no checks for it yet. Then they find an exploit being able to inject it because there is no check yet.
And manipulated input isnt exactly what is happening. Its detection suppression. Aka, how to pass an input without actually making it trigger as an input. That happens even in the strongest of anti-cheat. Even RIOT who has implemented Kernel level anti-cheat, still has cheaters that arent getting banned. Despite literally tracing your direct inputs, the software on your PC, and any software having ANY form of interactions with their software. All getting traced actively and aggressively, still cheaters. All due to suppression of detection.
Doesnt mean their anti-cheat doesnt work, their anti-cheat works really well, bans 99% of cheaters who try to attempt to cheat. But from a community standpoint, as you say "it doesn't align with what many players encounter: repeated exposure to blatant and subtle cheats, vague or absent feedback after reporting, and a near-total absence of transparency". The players see what got through the system, not what was being blocked. And they cant show you what has been blocked, because that gives info.
Its a system you have to trust works, and trust improves by reporting people. Still seeing cheaters is a bias that people have to recognise, because there have been months without cheaters. The fact that there have been months without clearly proves its working. The fact that we sometimes have weeks on ends with too many cheaters clearly proves people still pay enough money to those kind of developers that they can work almost 24/7 as a team to try and find new ways.
Its a very hard line to walk on for bhvr developers, while a very easy line to cross for the cheat developers. And as long as people are willing to spend as much as they do on cheats, they dont have a reason to stop.
The quickest solution at this point, is revamping the entire game, effectively creating DBD 2, same roster, same mechanics, same inventory, just an entirely new batch of code etc to deal with, one where you can effectively have devs being able to spectate any game at any time so they can join in real-time and find out what is happening whenever a cheater does show up. Its not an anti-cheat issue here, its people having access to look into the source code because the game has existed for such a long time.You make some well-structured points, particularly from a technical standpoint, but it’s crucial to draw a line between theoretical anti-cheat capabilities and the actual, tangible experience players face in a client-trusted environment like DBD.
You're correct that detection suppression exists, even in top-tier systems. But that’s precisely why modern competitive games like Valorant have moved toward kernel-level drivers and server-side validation, because trusting client input without robust, real-time verification invites manipulation. Dead by Daylight, on the other hand, still relies heavily on client-side trust, making it especially vulnerable to memory manipulation, packet spoofing, and desync abuse.
That’s not just a challenge… it’s a structural flaw.The idea that 99% of cheaters are being banned may be statistically comforting, but in practice, the system feels indistinguishable from one that does nothing. Silent background enforcement is only effective if its presence is felt through results. But in DBD’s case, player perception of impunity is stronger than any reassurance the system hopes to deliver… and that’s a sign of disconnect between design and lived experience.
Yes, rebuilding the game would help. But so would rebuilding the anti-cheat philosophy: starting with server-side checks on position, velocity, and desync states, basic validations that Riot, Blizzard, and even smaller studios treat as foundational. It’s not just about catching cheaters… it’s about making cheating meaningfully harder.
Until then, trusting the client in a live PvP environment is less a strategy, and more a gamble.
And right now, the house isn’t winning.