CadePng
CadePng
About
- Username
- CadePng
- Joined
- Visits
- 52
- Last Active
Comments
-
Rewarding players for proper behavior is always better than punishing them for behaviors you don't like. I love rewarding killers for unique hooks, but those rewards need to be more universal and consistent. I would have preferred a small yet permanent boost for each unique hook, such as fire up, but toned down, and each unique hook is a token. It speeds you up in little ways and universally helps every killer. The unhook intangibility, tunneling punishment, etc, nearly everything else discouraging tunneling feels unnecessary to me when you could just reward killers for healthy behaviors you want to encourage. This would also help killers out and help to balance out the anti-slugging changes.
If killers want to tunnel they have got to find the survivor first. If an experienced survivor gets off hook, they're going to lay lower for a while to spread hooks out, run off somewhere and heal, and spend a bit of extra time to account for that. Outright enforcing anti-tunneling is too big a survivor buff (as it gives survivors more time and flexibility), makes the game less interesting, and overall feels overcomplicated. The anti-tunneling reduction update could make tunneling impractical with one simple and effective change. Having a consistent reward for unique hooks is easy to remember and tutorialize as well.
-
@Bonvex said:
Sadako 1.0: Bad but ezi win againts noobs.
Sadako 2.0: Very strong but absolute free MMR againts noobs.
Sadako 3.0: Kinda bad but ezi win againts noobs.
There is nothing between. She is either gona be kinda too strong in SoloQ or bad.
did you think the rework concept solved some of her design issues?
-
@Senaxu said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3926777#Comment_3926777
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
Thank you too, well said! :)
-
@Senaxu said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3926747#Comment_3926747
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.
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 :) -
@Senaxu said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3925761#Comment_3925761
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.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.
-
@Senaxu said:
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.
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 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.
-
@Callahan9116 said:
The killer should have e a forfiet option. And surrender votes for survivors. Sometimes we just know h0w a match is gonna go and it would be nice to slip the 5 minutes.
honestly I prefer to see it through with bots but if that's what it takes to avoid the penalty I'd gladly take it
-
@Emeal said:
I agree she feels weak at times, but in the right hands with the right strategy… Ohnonononono.
and this is true, I agree she can have successful games, I just think any player that excels at Sadako would get rewarded even more for playing a better killer. She's underwhelming in both strength and design. Like I said though I've had my share of games being destroyed by an excellent player using Sadako too, I know how it is x)
-
@Senaxu said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3925591#Comment_3925591
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.
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.
-
@Falcao said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3925597#Comment_3925597
and it's good that it's not like that, because I remember matches for 40 mins. take the tape, hit, she teleports without chasing to the next, take the tape again, take the tape. this is not fun gameplay.
And here's where we agree. Couldn't have said it better myself. Not that I think she's that much better as she is now. None of her reworks so far have done her real justice in my opinion.
-
@MechWarrior3 said:
Bot's were added to help bring a little less frustration than just it being a simple 1v3. It was not a means to sweep dc penalites under the rug. Those need to stay.
I really just don't understand the reasoning. Would you rather have one less teammate, or a different (slightly less cooperative) teammate? Would you rather be stuck in a match you don't want to play, or have the freedom to leave?
-
@Falcao said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3925578#Comment_3925578
you literally write what you want to see who has what progress in accumulating your passive. you ask for buffs in the first sentence. and then everyone writes she tramples survivors. she does not need buffs, under no circumstances. you can knock the cassette out of the survivor's hands with a hit, it's not difficult. your job is to hit and use hooks, and not spam teleports, knock out cassettes and achieve an easy win
There are two different issues.
1. She's weak
2. She's questionably designed and unsatisfying to play
I mainly care about number 2. Number 1 is subjective, I don't care that much about buffs, though it'd help. Maybe it really is a skill issue, but when I look around tier lists it seems a bunch of people agree that Sadako doesn't have a lot to help her out. It might be that she tramples beginner survivors, and this makes sense because as I said, her power isn't intuitive. New survivors understandably don't get the confusing abilities she has. At my level, however, I can say from my experience, Sadako needs help. That's just my opinion, and I'm going to refrain from talking about buffs/nerfs any more than I have, as it isn't super important to me. -
@Senaxu said:
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.
"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. -
@MechWarrior3 said:
"I know she can teleport, but crawling out of tv's is very telegraphed, and there's hardly a consequence for turning them off"
The part I put in bold is really all they need to fix. Create a consequence for holding tapes too long. They are too free.
That's all I ask.
That would be very nice, yes, I agree, but it still wouldn't change how obtuse her passive is for newer players. I understand this is subjective, but I want to make it clear that buffing Sadako doesn't make her core design any less flawed compared to what it could be. Repeatedly using a teleport in order to use my passive doesn't feel very in-character or fun. For context, Pinhead can simply let his passive do its thing, Pig can just attach a trap when a survivor is downed, Plague can vomit on survivors as she's chasing them, but Sadako must go out of her way to use up tv's and time to teleport to random tv's in order to make her passive do anything, and even then she gets little to no tangible feedback of what she's doing, making it feel all the more useless. If her passive actually does work, it feels unsatisfying to me, as it feels cheap to just mori someone for free. It's anticlimactic, and the game is pretty much over afterwards. I almost don't want my passive to work because it kills survivor motivation and makes me feel far too mean for doing it.
-
@Falcao said:
stop asking for a buff to the passive that makes survs vulnerable just for spamming teleports. these passives were annoying on the merchant, then on sadako, then on pinhead. you need to catch survivors and use hooks like it was intended
This is my point, spamming teleports isn't fun for anyone. I don't love doing it, and I think it should be changed. Also, I'd argue passives can be fun, and I believe pinhead and plague are good examples of this.
-
@Senaxu said:
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.
I see your point, but I don't agree with it, as people can still just kill themselves on a hook, leaving everyone worse off. Yes, DC'ing is more convenient, and this will lead to more DC's, but it will leave survivors and killers in more preferable situations and more complete games. Plus, killers are currently able to hold the game hostage, exploit, bring mean builds, and play in severely unfun ways for all 4 people dealing with 1 person's unhealthy style of play. Allowing survivors the freedom to leave would make the survivor experience more enjoyable, as they are no longer forced to commit to a match they didn't want to play. That system would respect their time more, especially for people newer and less attached to DBD. Maybe DC penalty hasn't been a problem for you, but I'm sure it has been for everyone going so far as to point at a hook and say "let me out." Accountability is important, yes, but I don't like the idea that DC'ing is some sort of crime to be punished. If anything, dying on hook should be punished more than DC'ing. Dbd is a game, and I'd rather survivors come and go as they please now that there's bots in place. Regardless of whether DC penalty protects, it does indeed also punish.
Also, by the way, I'm happy to see DBD is introducing rewards for playing multiple matches to the end, I'd rather reward players for sticking around rather than punish players for having preferences or other things to do. I believe that will help.
I'm a killer main by the way, and if it helps to understand my perspective, I really don't mind playing against bots. Maybe playing against a full lobby of human players is far more important to others than it is to me. I'm okay as long as I have at least 1 human player to interact with.