Comments

• @Withered8 said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4119255#Comment_4119255

  No phase sound spirit had counter play with perks like iron will, and you could get lucky and guess what she would do and survive a phase. That doesn't explain why people hated her and why she was toxic for the game. You're saying that it's fine that a new killer forces survivors to run certain perks, well I'm afraid to tell you if every killer did that you'd need over FOURTY perks. That is not healthy game design at all. You're pretty close to admitting there's no counter play to aura judgement unless you have an anti aura perk, nud duh.

  Yeah and I'm telling you why your opinion is wrong and based on things that aren't true in regards to what people enjoy playing against. Simplicity of the power is an incredibly small factor compared to counterplay, fun, interactivity, and skill of the power etc.

  You don't like how ghoul has a cheap way of injuring survivors, well judgement has a cheap way of injuring AND downing survivors lmao. Even if you won't accept that, do you thus dislike legion and plague for their injury methods? Or insta down killers as they treat you as you're constantly injured?

  "creating distance and moving unpredictable against the first." Yeah so all you can do against that killer is hold W and do stupid movement to hope that they miss or suck. We all know that's what the vecna 2 experience is. There's no point trying to sugar coat it.

  Sure onryo has some weird gimmicks to her power but at the end of the day it involves pretty standard chases with a stealth killer + removing tapes from tv's on occasion. This doesn't mean blights power is not very advanced and complicated to understand specifically "at a high level" from the survivors perspective. I'm not talking about your average pub blight who barely knows what they are doing.

  The resources that killer has are also finite, time is a finite resource, gens are a finite resource, 3 gens are a finite resource. Killer is no different to survivor in this way.

  Are you just as happy to see a doctor or plague in your games as any other killer then? You're trying to act as if you literally don't care what killer you play against which I highly doubt is true. Just like any video game, some characters are clearly more enjoyable to you than others and there's nothing wrong with admitting that.

  Okay maybe it's different in central Europe but I'm talking about the playerbase at the top of the game, not your average playerbase. You might not notice a difference in your average games if you hardly came across or knew about the best players anyway, but I'm pretty sure that some EU comp players are leaving, and many EU creators are constantly complaining about the game's state currently: Hens, Otzdarva etc.

  The problem with this discussion is everytime I make a point to you that you can't rebut you just go "well in my experience that's how it works/ that's what I think." How are we meant to get anywhere or agree upon principles or game design. I get that you have your own opinions but you gotta back up those opinions with some logic.

  No phase sound spirit had counter play with perks like iron will, and you could get lucky and guess what she would do and survive a phase. That doesn't explain why people hated her and why she was toxic for the game.

  If you say so, I'll take your word for it. I wasn't there after all, as I said before. Therefore, I don't know why people hated her and I never said that I knew. I theorized as to why they might have, which I clearly stated as well.

  You're saying that it's fine that a new killer forces survivors to run certain perks

  No, I didn't say that a killer forces survivors to run certain perks. I simply chose to. Mostly for the benefit of the team, because I was already running We See You before Judgment came out. I want to know when I'm seen, regardless of who the killer is.

  I'm afraid to tell you if every killer did that you'd need over FOURTY perks. That is not healthy game design at all.

  Why should every survivor be perfectly equipped to counter every possible killer every single match? How does that make sense? I don't think they should. Depending on how they want to play, they should bring the perks that best suit their personal preferences or playstyle.

  For a killer to be efficient it makes perfect sense that they either run perks that compliment their power, or if they don't need that, run perks that are considered meta, in order to improve their chances of winning. For Judgment this usually comes down to aura perks, maybe combined with regression perks. And as a survivor you can take the chance of equipping yourself to be anti-aura, at the risk of facing a killer without aura-read.

  Regardless of the role you play, sometimes your build works great against your opponent(s), and sometimes it doesn't. That's all part of the game.

  You're pretty close to admitting there's no counter play to aura judgement unless you have an anti aura perk, nud duh.

  If you're facing an aura-read killer (Judgment or otherwise) and don't have anti-aura perks, then you're not gonna have an easy time, that's true. But that's not unhealthy game design. That's part of the game. Part of the risk when playing survivor. There's nothing wrong with that.

  Also, following that same logic, facing any type of slug build has practically no counterplay either, unless you bring anti-slugging perks. But the thing is: Not every killer uses a slug build all the time, so it doesn't make sense to always bring a full anti-slugging build. Additionally, not every killer uses an aura-read build all the time, so it doesn't make sense to always bring a full anti-aura build.

  And that's the beauty of the game: You never know who or what you're facing. You find that out during the trial and then adapt to it. That's what makes the gameplay as a survivor, to me at least, engaging. And I hope for others as well.

  Yeah and I'm telling you why your opinion is wrong and based on things that aren't true in regards to what people enjoy playing against.

  My opinion is wrong? Are you confusing the word "opinion" with the word "fact" by any chance? Because that's what this looks like.

  As I stated in my previous comment: "An opinion is personal and subjective and is therefore neither right nor wrong". Any opinion I have is neither right nor wrong. Any opinion you have is neither right nor wrong. Any opinion some random stranger on the internet has is neither right nor wrong.

  It's an opinion. Not a fact. Opinions are personal beliefs based on our experiences. Facts are things known to be true, based on direct proof and/or actual evidence.

  I never stated that I actually know why people either enjoy or hate playing against certain killers. I theorized about some of them, based on my own experiences. I can't look inside the minds of every survivor and killer player out there to know what they do and do not like.

  And neither can you. The only thing that we both have are our own experiences. And we form opinions based on those experiences. And those opinions will most likely be completely different, but neither of them is right nor wrong.

  Simplicity of the power is an incredibly small factor compared to counterplay, fun, interactivity, and skill of the power etc.

  If that's your opinion, then that's perfectly fine. I personally don't see it that way, which is also fine.

  You don't like how ghoul has a cheap way of injuring survivors, well judgement has a cheap way of injuring AND downing survivors lmao.

  I don't agree with that, because it's not the same: With Ghoul, you have to move your targeting-indicator over the survivor and if you then click, it registers, in most cases, as a hit and therefore an injury. I specifically said "in most cases", because it sometimes doesn't result in an injury and only applies the "Kagune Mark".

  Judgment can indeed injure and down survivors from a long distance or even when they're not expecting it, that's true. But not only does that require some level of skill, it also requires aura or good game-sense. And since it's not a hit-scan mechanic, it can be dodged. The Ghoul's Grab-attack cannot, because that uses the hit-scan mechanic.

  Even if you won't accept that, do you thus dislike legion and plague for their injury methods? Or insta down killers as they treat you as you're constantly injured?

  No and no. I'm not uncomfortable being injured or vulnerable.

  "creating distance and moving unpredictable against the first." Yeah so all you can do against that killer is hold W and do stupid movement to hope that they miss or suck. We all know that's what the vecna 2 experience is. There's no point trying to sugar coat it.

  To quote me correctly, I said: "dodging his power involves creating as much distance as possible, and if that fails perform a lot of unpredictable movement". Additionally, you can also hide.

  And also, creating distance from the killer, dodging their power and hiding from them, can be applied to every killer in the game: You can run away from killers and dodge their projectiles or ranged attacks.

  How does counterplay from The First differ from other killers?

  Sure onryo has some weird gimmicks to her power but at the end of the day it involves pretty standard chases with a stealth killer + removing tapes from tv's on occasion. This doesn't mean blights power is not very advanced and complicated to understand specifically "at a high level" from the survivors perspective. I'm not talking about your average pub blight who barely knows what they are doing.

  I agree that a high level Blight is far more dangerous and difficult to deal with compared to an average Blight Player. But the same can be said about Onryo. If you have a competent Onryo player, then you're not going to have an easy time either.

  The resources that killer has are also finite, time is a finite resource, gens are a finite resource, 3 gens are a finite resource. Killer is no different to survivor in this way.

  I agree that time is a finite resource, so that's why the killer has to delay the survivors as much as possible and the survivors have to fix gens as fast as possible. Not sure what you mean with gens being a finite resource.

  Are you just as happy to see a doctor or plague in your games as any other killer then? You're trying to act as if you literally don't care what killer you play against which I highly doubt is true.

  In that case, let me spell it out for you to remove any doubt in your mind: I indeed do not care one bit what killer I'm facing during the trial. I will most likely not be as skilled or as properly equipped against certain killers, but I still accept that I can and must face any killer that I am in a trial with.

  I do not DC mid-trial because of who the killer is or what perks they brought or what playstyle they utilize. I accepted all available scenarios once I pressed the Play button. And I think that all players should do that.

  Just like any video game, some characters are clearly more enjoyable to you than others and there's nothing wrong with admitting that.

  Some killers are more enjoyable for me to face, that is true, and most certainly applies to other players as well. But that does not give me or any other survivor the right to DC mid-trial against certain killers, perks or playstyles. When I press Play, I accept it all. Those that I enjoy a lot and those that I enjoy less. If you press Play and don't back out in time, you should not DC.

  Okay maybe it's different in central Europe but I'm talking about the playerbase at the top of the game, not your average playerbase. You might not notice a difference in your average games if you hardly came across or knew about the best players anyway, but I'm pretty sure that some EU comp players are leaving, and many EU creators are constantly complaining about the game's state currently: Hens, Otzdarva etc.

  I don't have data on this, but I'm guessing that the majority of the player base is not at the top of the game, but is rather average. So if the dropout of survivor players only occurs at the highest level, then I honestly don't care that much. It still leaves the majority of the player base intact.

  As to complaining about the state of the game: I saw Hens's recent video regarding MMR. And although I did agree with his suggestion for a sort of bracket system, I don't like the fact that he voiced his concerns in such a public manner.

  In a normal working environment, if you have concerns about the way your employer manages products and/or services, the professional way to deal with it is to discuss it internally, not make a public post about it. Don't get me wrong: I perfectly understand why he did it like that: To draw attention to a problem. But I'm just not sure if it's the right way to do it. Time will tell.

  By the way, I'm comparing it with a working environment because as a member of the Creator Program he creates content for, and on behalf of the game. You could therefore consider BHVR his 'employer' or something similar.

  The problem with this discussion is everytime I make a point to you that you can't rebut you just go "well in my experience that's how it works/ that's what I think."

  I can refute your points just fine, don't worry. I've been doing so for almost 2 weeks already.

  How are we meant to get anywhere or agree upon principles or game design.

  We don't have to agree: It's all subjective: You have opinions about the game, I have opinions about the game, and so to thousands of others. But ultimately, it is up to BHVR to decide how the game is designed and how it works. We as players can and absolutely should advise by providing constructive feedback, but in the end it's all up to BHVR.

  I get that you have your own opinions but you gotta back up those opinions with some logic.

  And where applicable, I have.

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 24, 2026

• @Withered8 said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4118716#Comment_4118716

  Hang on what you said about spirit is exactly correct. You even said that these reasons pissed off survivors and caused them to dc. So why can't you apply this logic to the judgement and other similar modern versions of old spirit?

  It's simply not true that how simple a killers power is determines how much people enjoy playing against that killer. Ghoul's power is simple to understand do many survivor players enjoy playing against him? The first's power is incredibly easy to understand. Shoot a long range circular projectile that damages after survivors are hit twice. Blight's power is definitely NOT easy to understand from the survivor's side at all. He has different cooldowns depending on how much he's rushed, his addons change his power in difficult to understand ways, he has alot of techs that killers can use which take knowledge and skill for both sides to understand, and he recently got nerfed in a way that makes him MORE complicated to play against, as now he loses 2 rushes when he breaks a pallet so you've got an additional cooldown modifier to keep track of. Would you also say that the counterplay to blight, nurse and billy is simple to understand? Is nurse's counterplay really that simple for your average player? Of course not it's way harder than most killers.

  Did you know that in 2v8s if a killer dc's the killer gets replaced with a bot? Isn't that interesting? Why doesn't that happen in 1v4?

  Okay but killers also can't chase survivors forever, eventually the gens will pop and they'll escape. They can't hook people forever as eventually they'll escape, so what's your point? Survivors have resources yes but so do killers, generators and exit gates are their resources, and the many perks they have.

  Basing the claim that good survivors are leaving and switching to killer based on a few things, universal killer que times increasing, good survivor content creators and famous players (ie comp players) leaving, and anecdotal experience of running into less good players in pub matches.

  So the gameplay element of survivor you enjoy is stealthing? Nothing else? Does this mean you hate playing against the doctor, and the plague, and any aura perks? What about full aura judgement hm?

  And to your next post, did you actually not enjoy playing killer, or were you just new and not good yet? You didn't tell me specific gameplay elements that turned you off from killer initially, just that you were learning and new. If your biggest complaint as killer is a bunch of people typing in endgame chat, then that's very indicative of the role's current state compared to survivor.

  Hang on what you said about spirit is exactly correct. You even said that these reasons pissed off survivors and caused them to dc.

  I said that it's probable yes, not that they actually did it. I wasn't there at the time to potentially witness it.

  So why can't you apply this logic to the judgement and other similar modern versions of old spirit?

  Because no-phasing-sound-spirit had practically no counterplay if she started phasing far away from you, whereas Judgment has plenty of counterplay. And a Judgment with aura also has counterplay via various perks. Survivors just have to learn and utilize it. I myself now have Boon: Shadowstep in my build by default, in case it's needed. I don't always deploy it. But it's better to have it and not need it instead of the other way around.

  It's simply not true that how simple a killers power is determines how much people enjoy playing against that killer.

  And I never stated that as a fact. I theorized as to why players prefer facing certain killers compared to others, based on my own knowledge and experiences. Additionally, you asked me about my opinion about why some killers are hated compared to others. An opinion is personal and subjective and is therefore neither right nor wrong. But if you're now stating it as a fact, then I'm really interested to learn from you what information that fact is based on.

  Ghoul's power is simple to understand do many survivor players enjoy playing against him?

  No clue, because I can't speak on behalf of all survivors. Personally I dislike the 'hit-scan' element of his power, because it feels like a cheap way to get survivors injured. But even that can be countered to some degree.

  The first's power is incredibly easy to understand. Shoot a long range circular projectile that damages after survivors are hit twice.

  Indeed. And as I stated earlier: "Personally, I don't mind either", referring to creating distance and moving unpredictably, because that is indeed all there is to it. But I can't speak for all survivors, so I can't tell you if it's easy for them as well.

  Blight's power is definitely NOT easy to understand from the survivor's side at all. He has different cooldowns depending on how much he's rushed, his addons change his power in difficult to understand ways, he has alot of techs that killers can use which take knowledge and skill for both sides to understand, and he recently got nerfed in a way that makes him MORE complicated to play against, as now he loses 2 rushes when he breaks a pallet so you've got an additional cooldown modifier to keep track of.

  To me, the essence of Blight's power is easy to understand, as in: He rushes, bounces on objects to rush again and he has limited charges to do so. Once you know this as a survivor you can start working on your counterplay. Learning to counter specific techs can be a next step, but the basics are easy to understand.

  Compare that for example with the Onryo. She has 2 states: Manifested and De-manifested. Depending on what state she's in she can or cannot do certain things. Survivors can get condemned stacks if near an active TV when she teleports. They have to retrieve tapes from active TV's and carry those across the map to another TV to reduce condemned stacks. If you're hooked with condemned stacks, a maximum of 3 of those become permanent. Once condemned, becoming downed means game over, regardless of hook states.

  All of that is base-kit. Therefore, all of it is a factor when facing the Onryo, regardless of the skill level of the player controlling her.

  Would you also say that the counterplay to blight, nurse and billy is simple to understand?

  Yes. But that's how I personally look at it. I cannot speak for every survivor out there about what they find and don't find easy.

  Is nurse's counterplay really that simple for your average player? Of course not it's way harder than most killers.

  Again, I cannot speak on behalf of other survivors. And neither can you.

  Did you know that in 2v8s if a killer dc's the killer gets replaced with a bot? Isn't that interesting? Why doesn't that happen in 1v4?

  Because BHVR stated that they're still working on that. They did so less than 2 months ago when it was asked during the Reddit AMA when killer bots would become available in custom matches:
  https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/1vh6n8y/comment/p29u0tm/

  So if they're not yet ready for custom, then they're certainly not yet ready for 1v4.

  Okay but killers also can't chase survivors forever, eventually the gens will pop and they'll escape. They can't hook people forever as eventually they'll escape, so what's your point?

  Survivors can indeed pop gens and escape, but only if they work together as a team, instead of 4 individual players who only care about themselves. If that happens, as a killer you simply go for the weakest link, taking them out first, thereby impairing the other survivor's ability to pop gens and escape. The less survivors there are, the harder it becomes for them to complete their objectives.

  Also, what do you mean with "They can't hook people forever"? Killers don't have to: Only 12 times or less. And the more time the killer has, the easier it becomes.

  Survivors have resources yes but so do killers, generators and exit gates are their resources, and the many perks they have.

  I don't see your point here. I was explaining that most resources that survivors have are finite and therefore they cannot keep a killer occupied forever.

  Basing the claim that good survivors are leaving and switching to killer based on a few things, universal killer que times increasing, good survivor content creators and famous players (ie comp players) leaving, and anecdotal experience of running into less good players in pub matches.

  I see. I'm guessing that it's a regional thing then. I'm playing in Central Europe and I don't see what you're seeing over here.

  So the gameplay element of survivor you enjoy is stealthing? Nothing else?

  I indeed enjoy stealth (I played a lot of Splinter Cell during my youth). And BHVR themselves stated that it's part of the game, so I'm all for it. But I also enjoy long chases and mind games. Simply put: If I can contribute to the team in a way that either allows me to complete objectives, or helps the team complete objectives, I'm happy.

  Does this mean you hate playing against the doctor, and the plague, and any aura perks? What about full aura judgement hm?

  No, I don't hate that. Unlike some survivor players, I accept the fact that I can be put face to face with any of the available killers, their playstyles and their perks once I've hit the "Play" button. So this includes Doctor and Plague as well.

  And as for Judgment or any other killer with a full aura build: I have recently added Boon: Shadowstep to my build by default and before that I already had We See You in my build, which allows me to detect what aura perks and add-ons a killer has. And I can actually use that against them in some cases, because they don't know that I know, meaning that they can almost never surprise me with a ranged attack.

  My current default build is We See You, Boon: Shadowstep, Iron Will, Dead Hard.

  And to your next post, did you actually not enjoy playing killer, or were you just new and not good yet?

  The latter: New and inexperienced/not good.

  You didn't tell me specific gameplay elements that turned you off from killer initially, just that you were learning and new. If your biggest complaint as killer is a bunch of people typing in endgame chat, then that's very indicative of the role's current state compared to survivor.

  If I play an available killer in a certain way, with any four of all available perks, and the survivors in the opposing team cannot or will not deal with that, then that's their problem. I don't break any official rules by doing so, but still the survivors sometimes feel the need to voice their disdain in end-game chat about how I played.

  Which is exactly the reason why I made my initial post in the first place.

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 20, 2026

• @Withered8 said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4118363#Comment_4118363

  Your logic for dcing doesn't make sense though. Old skull merchant, vecna 2 and judgement have much higher dc rates than killers like nurse blight billy etc. Old spirit as well. Knight. Clearly it doesn't just seem to be correlated to how hard they are to play against or how good they are directly. Why do you think people have some of these killers but don't hate nurse blight billy, which until recently were the 3 strongest killers?

  Yeah exactly so you're basically inferring that its worse if a survivor dc's than a killer dc's which is my point.

  Okay what does that actually mean in practise when you say killer is unstoppable? That nothing survivors do should matter? What do you mean by killers can stop survivors but survivors can't stop killers? Survivors can have chases with killers? They can stun them with pallets (well most of them), loop them, play altruistically, use perks etc. Like what you are saying doesn't translate into any game design or balancing aspects, it doesn't mean anything.

  Yes they are doing a good job at getting new players still, but there's a shrinking pool of long time survivor mains and good survivor players, reducing the amount of players I can actually play against in my MMR. They've all switched to killer, left the game or just play on rare occasions.

  You sound like you play a bit of survivor so let me ask you, what makes survivor fun for you? Why do you play it? What's better about the role than killer that attracts you?

  Additionally, since I just noticed I didn't answer your last question in full…

  You sound like you play a bit of survivor so let me ask you, what makes survivor fun for you? Why do you play it? What's better about the role than killer that attracts you?

  Initially, I used to dislike playing as killer, but to better understand killer-players you simply have to. It was more stressful at first: Not knowing where to go, not knowing what to do next to ensure victory, feeling like I'm judged by the survivors in end-game chat afterwards, stuff like that.
  
  I eventually got better at playing killer and handling salty behaviours though, but that still took quite some time. So even though I'm a better killer-player these days, I sometimes still feel a bit held back because of my rocky start as killer. And that's probably also why it feels 'good' (I guess?) when survivors complain in end-game chat about my playstyle, tactics, perks, etc.
  
  I simply do what I have to do to win, within the boundaries of what the game allows.

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 19, 2026

• @Withered8 said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4118363#Comment_4118363

  Your logic for dcing doesn't make sense though. Old skull merchant, vecna 2 and judgement have much higher dc rates than killers like nurse blight billy etc. Old spirit as well. Knight. Clearly it doesn't just seem to be correlated to how hard they are to play against or how good they are directly. Why do you think people have some of these killers but don't hate nurse blight billy, which until recently were the 3 strongest killers?

  Yeah exactly so you're basically inferring that its worse if a survivor dc's than a killer dc's which is my point.

  Okay what does that actually mean in practise when you say killer is unstoppable? That nothing survivors do should matter? What do you mean by killers can stop survivors but survivors can't stop killers? Survivors can have chases with killers? They can stun them with pallets (well most of them), loop them, play altruistically, use perks etc. Like what you are saying doesn't translate into any game design or balancing aspects, it doesn't mean anything.

  Yes they are doing a good job at getting new players still, but there's a shrinking pool of long time survivor mains and good survivor players, reducing the amount of players I can actually play against in my MMR. They've all switched to killer, left the game or just play on rare occasions.

  You sound like you play a bit of survivor so let me ask you, what makes survivor fun for you? Why do you play it? What's better about the role than killer that attracts you?

  Your logic for dcing doesn't make sense though.

  Which part exactly?

  Old skull merchant, vecna 2 and judgement have much higher dc rates than killers like nurse blight billy etc. Old spirit as well. Knight. Clearly it doesn't just seem to be correlated to how hard they are to play against or how good they are directly.

  I don't have exact data about DC'rates and as far as I know there is no publicly available data on that either, but I can theorize per killer as to why they would:

  Old Skull Merchant could utilize a playstyle that was not engaging for either side, and would ultimately make the killer win due to server-timeout, not skill. Something I'm convinced BHVR did not foresee. Which is why the 8-damage-events-limit was introduced, alongside the changes to some of her add-ons.

  The First is, according to the most recent data from Nightlight, the 21st most picked killer, with a pick rate of only 1,67%. That puts him below the current average, which is 2,27%. So survivors don't get to see him that often, meaning not enough practice against them. Furthermore, dodging his power involves creating as much distance as possible, and if that fails perform a lot of unpredictable movement. Personally, I don't mind either, but maybe players find it hard to move unpredictably. Maybe they are used to certain pathing, which can be effective for most killers. Just not this one. My best guess would be that this is somehow infuriating to players and they therefore DC.

  Judgment is brand new and, compared to other killer powers, very unconventional. And that is because we as a community voted for that. This also means that there is a lot to learn about the killer. About what she can and cannot do and how to counter her. Every time a new killer is released survivors are going to struggle at first. And in that single regard, all killers are the exact same.

  If with Old spirit you're referring to Spirit without the phasing sound, then I totally get it. Countering killers should not be easy, but it should also not be impossible. And although I didn't play against old Spirit, I can totally understand how old spirit would be considered overpowered, because of little to none counterplay. And that probably pissed some survivors off, causing them to DC.

  Knight has a power that is unique, as in that it can be used in a sort of pincer attack, making it seem like there's 2 killers against one survivor. And because guards can chase a survivor while the killer can also chase another survivor, one killer can basically chase 2 completely separate survivors at once. There are of course ways to counter this, but with a pick rate of only 1,63% they're not that common, meaning that survivors don't get that much practice against them.

  Ultimately, the less you know about a killer, the harder it becomes to counter them. Which I guess can be infuriating to survivors.

  As for Nurse, Blight and Billy: They all have a very easy to understand power, meaning that learning to counter those powers is also relatively easy.

  Why do you think people have some of these killers but don't hate nurse blight billy, which until recently were the 3 strongest killers?

  One word actually: Understanding. When killers have simple powers it makes their powers easy to understand and therefore easy to counter. The more complex a killer's power, the more there is to understand about them and learn about them, before you can properly counter them.

  Yeah exactly so you're basically inferring that its worse if a survivor dc's than a killer dc's which is my point.

  Not sure if I agree with that. However, I can agree that when a survivor DC's, then that's bad for the other survivors. Which is why they shouldn't do it. Which is why I think the DC-penalty should be increased. DC'ing should never be normalized, regardless of who does it. It should be the exception, rather than the rule.

  Okay what does that actually mean in practise when you say killer is unstoppable? That nothing survivors do should matter?

  Oh, it certainly matters what survivors do. But not if the match takes too long. That's why survivors should fix generators as fast as possible and that's why the killer should delay that as much as possible.

  If during a trial the killer would search for and chase the survivors, and the survivors would NOT do any gens in the meantime, all 4 survivors will eventually be sacrificed or killed. Sure, you can drop pallets, extend chases by clever pathing, etc.. But resources and hook stages are limited. The killer can easily perform 12 hook actions within an hour, making them the winner of the match.

  What do you mean by killers can stop survivors but survivors can't stop killers? Survivors can have chases with killers? They can stun them with pallets (well most of them), loop them, play altruistically, use perks etc. Like what you are saying doesn't translate into any game design or balancing aspects, it doesn't mean anything.

  Survivors can indeed be chased by killers, stun them, loop them, but they can't do that forever. They cannot permanently prevent killers from chasing them. The killer can keep chasing, thereby gaining bloodlust and becoming faster, and pallets will eventually run out, giving survivors less and less options as the match progresses.

  Yes they are doing a good job at getting new players still, but there's a shrinking pool of long time survivor mains and good survivor players, reducing the amount of players I can actually play against in my MMR. They've all switched to killer, left the game or just play on rare occasions.

  On what information are you basing this?

  You sound like you play a bit of survivor so let me ask you, what makes survivor fun for you? Why do you play it? What's better about the role than killer that attracts you?

  I actually play quite a lot of survivor. As of this comment, my hours, according to my personal stats from BHVR, are 1.659 hours survivor and 364 hours killer. Percentage-wise that's 82.01% survivor and 17.99% killer.

  One of the reasons I play Survivor a lot is that I like to play with friends as much as I can. Beforehand, we agree on a playstyle and then simply play like that. We mostly prioritize getting at least one survivor out, but more if possible. Not sweaty. Just efficient.

  Also, when playing solo-queue I really like the stealthy playstyle: Being as efficient as I possibly can, while moving unobserved over the map, is what I truly enjoy. I feel good about every time I get to evade the killer. The closer they get, the bigger the rush.

  There was this one time against an Oni on Temple of Purgation where I was able to hide from them almost the entire match, but still did gens, unhooks and heals. Afterwards the killer called me a coward because they thought I was hiding the whole match: Considering my actual actions during the match, it was one of the greatest compliments I've ever had from a killer.

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 18, 2026

• @Withered8 said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4117688#Comment_4117688

  But once again bots unfairly hostage the other 3 survivors in the game, because there's no way to ######### or leave games anymore without dcing. Doesn't matter if you are 0.05% more likely to escape with a bot on your team than an old dc, at those odds it's such a waste of time. As a killer, i get hella bored having to play against bots because it's just stupid, and most killer players do. Old dc's at least end the game quicker so your not stuck in a dead and pointless game.

  Okay then if you're not willing to accept my definition as to why dcing is clearly a problem lets follow your train of thought. You said "unfortunately it happens alot" in terms of dcing and noted that it happens even more against the judgement. Why do you think this is? Why does judgement but also the game have greater dc rates even with dc penalties and everything now?

  "Survivors are allowed certain entitlements compared to others", uh who are the others? They literally get LESS entitlements than killer because as you said a killer dcing doesn't matter whereas a survivor dcing does.

  Okay well what do you actually mean by "killer is the power role". What does this statement actually mean in practise other than some posturing to justify poor game design and balancing choices?

  Well i'm literally a killer main so it doesn't affect me if survivor is the most unfun role anyway cause I'll only play it with good players. I'm trying to make sure that there's still a functional survivor playerbase which I'm able to play against in the future, and right now it looks like that won't be the case.

  But once again bots unfairly hostage the other 3 survivors in the game, because there's no way to ######### or leave games anymore without dcing. Doesn't matter if you are 0.05% more likely to escape with a bot on your team than an old dc, at those odds it's such a waste of time.

  I can't speak for other survivor players, and since you only play with good players when playing survivor, I'm guessing you don't get to experience DC'ing survivors yourself. So what is it then that makes you think survivors are being held hostage by a bot whenever there is one? I certainly don't feel that way. So I simply keep playing. As I did recently.

  As a killer, i get hella bored having to play against bots because it's just stupid, and most killer players do. Old dc's at least end the game quicker so your not stuck in a dead and pointless game.

  I'm sorry that you see it that way. The only thing I can suggest is that you find a way to make it fun for yourself if there's a bot in the game. For example, going after the other survivors first and letting the bot escape so that the bot's score is higher than the human player's score, which would kind of humiliate the human players I guess. I personally don't want to play like that, but if that makes it fun for you, I'd say go for it.

  Okay then if you're not willing to accept my definition as to why dcing is clearly a problem lets follow your train of thought. You said "unfortunately it happens alot" in terms of dcing and noted that it happens even more against the judgement.

  I said that it happens a lot, but not that it happened specifically while playing Judgment.

  Why do you think this is? Why does judgement but also the game have greater dc rates even with dc penalties and everything now?

  I don't have sufficient data to tell if Judgment does indeed have a higher survivor DC rate. But the reason it happens in general is because, and again this is my personal experience over the last 4 years, survivor-players tend to give up when things get too difficult.

  During matches, when they have to confront unexpected situations (e.g. the other survivors not performing to their expectations, the killer using a certain playstyle or bringing certain perks of even playing against a certain killer), they either cannot or will not adapt. They had a certain expectation about how the match was going to go and once that was no longer the case, they'd simply quit. Because it's not what they wanted. But still, they felt entitled to that. They felt entitled to a certain result and once they didn't get it, they DC'd, not giving the rest of the team a second thought.

  "Survivors are allowed certain entitlements compared to others", uh who are the others? They literally get LESS entitlements than killer because as you said a killer dcing doesn't matter whereas a survivor dcing does.

  First of all, you're mis-quoting me: I did not say it like that.

  Second: the part of my comment that you're referencing, does not talk about how survivors actually have certain entitlements (because they don't), but they only think that they have them. Maybe because someone told them, or they convinced themselves. And when I said "That they have certain entitlements, compared to others", I was referring to other survivor players, because thankfully not all survivor players feel like they are entitled to certain things.

  And third: I'm pretty sure that I did not say that "a killer dcing doesn't matter" (I checked all my previous comments and couldn't find it at least). I said that the game 'behaves differently' (so to speak) when a killer DC's vs when a survivor DC's: Because when the killer DC's the entire team opposing the survivors is gone, so you have no other choice but to end the match (until killer bots become a thing of course). Which is not the case if it were a survivor that DC's because then the team opposing the killer is still there, albeit only 75% human. And that's because of the asymmetrical nature of the game.

  And on a side note: Regardless of role, I don't like either side DC'ing before the match is over, even though it would ever so slightly benefit me as a survivor if the killer were the one to DC (some 'free' bloodpoints).

  Okay well what do you actually mean by "killer is the power role". What does this statement actually mean in practise other than some posturing to justify poor game design and balancing choices?

  The killer-role is unstoppable. As a survivor you can delay the killer by hiding from them, using clever pathing during chase, team-strategies, obstacles, certain items and certain perks. But you cannot actually stop them. If a killer and a survivor would go head to head, if given enough time, the survivor would ultimately always lose.

  The killer can injure, down, hook and ultimately kill/sacrifice the survivor. Vice versa is not possible: The survivor cannot kill the killer. They can't even stop the killer.

  In fact, the only thing in a trial that can actually stop the killer, is the Entity blocking the exit areas when the killer tries to walk towards the campfire in the distance. Therefore, it is the only permanently safe space for the survivors to get to, because the killer cannot follow. So that is where they ultimately have to go. And they can get there by working as fast as possible on gens, while simultaneously delaying the killer for as long as possible.

  The survivors cannot stop the killer. They can merely delay. And because the killer can actually stop the survivors, that makes them the power role.

  Well i'm literally a killer main so it doesn't affect me if survivor is the most unfun role anyway cause I'll only play it with good players. I'm trying to make sure that there's still a functional survivor playerbase which I'm able to play against in the future, and right now it looks like that won't be the case.

  When you say "it looks like that won't be the case", what is that based on exactly? The playerbase (on Steam at least) is slightly growing, so there's still an influx of new players.

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 17, 2026

• Is there a reason that some of my comments are suddenly suppressed? I tried to comment on an ongoing discussion and when trying to post the comment I got a message saying that my comments would be shown once approved. I've been commenting daily without issues but now my comments must await approval? Why is this? Did I miss something? I really want to continue my discussion.

  in Forum Feedback Comment by Hopi September 17, 2026

• @Withered8 said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4117373#Comment_4117373

  It's possible for me to become the US president. Does that make it feasible, realistic or even a decent chance? No. Doesn't matter that you can "technically" win with a bot, you can also "technically" win with an old dc no?

  You say it includes the killer too, but once again it also includes THREE OTHER SURVIVORS. Do you think it's healthy to hostage 3 players just to satisfy 1 other player? It's neither the survivors or killer's fault yet one of these groups is punished and the other isn't. Regardless however, bots are also boring asf to play against as killer because you know it's a free win and there's no challenge.

  Sorry yes that was meant to be survivor. 99% of skill levels playing survivor is harder.

  "Fun is not BHVR's responsibilty" uhhh yea it quite literally is if they want anyone to play their game. Ppl don't play dbd for the balance, they play it for the fun. You are asking for the game to die if you think this.

  I don't find the game boring. STATISTICALLY more survivor players find the game boring and unfun and unfair. Why else would you write a whole post complaining about DCing survivors?? You clearly recognise that survivor retention is a problem. What causes this problem? The fun factor. It's literally that simple. Why do you play video games in the first place? Why do you play some games and not others???

  This is mega gaslighting. I'm not asking to change the game to something new for the sake of it because I don't personally like it. I'm asking that the game be changed to what it USED to be when survivor retention used to be significantly higher. It's not new, it's literally just how it used to be before YOU guys tried to change the game into something new that it is now.

  If the game's working fine, why are you writing a post about how dcing is out of control and needs to be dealt with and telling people how to play the game etc, whilst also acknowledgeable que times are through the roof for killer?

  "Killer is the power role", okay you've been brainwashed by tru3ta1ent haven’t you. Spoken like a tru3 fan.

  You're right the game is changing and that's the PROBLEM. NOT the balance changes necessarily but the fundamental game style and mechanics change which is destroying it. Otz's video shows why not to miss the game from a BALANCING perspective. Once again I'm not arguing from a balancing perspective, I'm arguing from a game health, enjoyment and longevity perspective. You have to put balance aside in this conversation because once again I'm trying to tell you that this argument is not about balance, it's fundamentally about how the game is played. The problem isn't that killer is more powerful than survivor compared to past times, it's that survivor is more uninteractive, unfun and teambased than ever.

  It's possible for me to become the US president. Does that make it feasible, realistic or even a decent chance? No.

  Since you're using the US president as an example, I'm guessing you're American. And if you are, then yes, it can be feasible and realistic, if you work for it. Still not a guarantee though.

  Doesn't matter that you can "technically" win with a bot, you can also "technically" win with an old dc no?

  Yes, absolutely. But the chances of doing so are slimmer without a bot, compared to with a bot. I actually got a 4-man out today, with one survivor being a bot.

  You say it includes the killer too, but once again it also includes THREE OTHER SURVIVORS. Do you think it's healthy to hostage 3 players just to satisfy 1 other player? It's neither the survivors or killer's fault yet one of these groups is punished and the other isn't. Regardless however, bots are also boring asf to play against as killer because you know it's a free win and there's no challenge.

  I agree that there is no perfect solution here. The current solution, replacing DC'ing survivors with bots, is simply the best one there is for now. And with killer queues being what they are right now, ending the match prematurely hits the killer harder than the survivors. Survivor queue-times (in Central Europe at least) are anywhere between 6 en 14 seconds on average, whereas killer queue-times on average are at least several minutes. This means that Survivors could indeed jump back into the action rather quickly if the previous match were to end prematurely. But unfortunately the same cannot be said for killer players.

  "Fun is not BHVR's responsibilty" uhhh yea it quite literally is if they want anyone to play their game. Ppl don't play dbd for the balance, they play it for the fun. You are asking for the game to die if you think this.

  The game has to be interesting and replayable, so that players keep coming back for more. And if there is something for players to work towards, to aspire to, then that can make it fun for them, or at least give them a reason to keep playing, if that is in fact something that they want as a player. Otherwise it's probably not the right game for them.

  Using myself as an example: Ever since Judgment came out, I made it my mission to get her to P100. It will take a lot of time and effort and probably a lot of frustrating moments too, but I believe it's worth all that. And that's what makes it fun for me. Playing with friends also makes it fun. For me at least.

  I don't find the game boring. STATISTICALLY more survivor players find the game boring and unfun and unfair.

  Can you share those statistics? Or provide the source?

  Why else would you write a whole post complaining about DCing survivors?? You clearly recognise that survivor retention is a problem. What causes this problem? The fun factor. It's literally that simple. Why do you play video games in the first place? Why do you play some games and not others???

  No, that is simply not true: If you go back and read the actual post from September 8th, you'll see that I never complained about DC'ing survivors. I was writing about my experiences with survivors in post-game chat while playing Judgment. I wrote about how they were salty, how they were berating me after matches and why they did that. None of them DC'd. And even if they did, I would certainly not complain about that, because the act of survivor's DC'ing increases the odds of me winning as killer.

  This is mega gaslighting.

  I don't think I did. But if you perceived it that way, I'm sorry for that. It was certainly not my intent.

  I'm not asking to change the game to something new for the sake of it because I don't personally like it. I'm asking that the game be changed to what it USED to be when survivor retention used to be significantly higher. It's not new, it's literally just how it used to be before YOU guys tried to change the game into something new that it is now.

  Who are you referring to when you say "YOU guys"? What group am I a part of according to you? Because the only one who changed the game to what it is now is BHVR. Sure, they were undoubtedly influenced by player feedback to get where the game is now, but that's also what feedback is for.

  If the game's working fine, why are you writing a post about how dcing is out of control and needs to be dealt with and telling people how to play the game etc, whilst also acknowledgeable que times are through the roof for killer?

  First of all, as I stated earlier in this comment, I did not write a post about how DC'ing is out of control. Read the original post from September 8th.

  Second, In my subsequent comments that followed, while replying to comments from others, I stated that, unless there's a real-life emergency, you're not supposed to DC for any reason once you've committed to the match, and that the DC penalty exists to discourage behavior like that. Even there I never said that it was 'out of control'. It's simply a real shame when it happens. And from what I can tell from personal experience, it unfortunately happens a lot.

  And third: My primary grievances are with the fact that, in my personal experience, survivor players seem to have the idea that, because they are not having fun or the match doesn't go their way, they are allowed certain behaviors. That they have certain entitlements, compared to others. DC'ing before the match is over is one of them. And whilst playing Judgment certain behaviors became even more apparent to me, like complaining about my playstyle, perks, etc.. So all I intended to do was to make it clear that that's not the case. No one at BHVR gave those entitlements to players.

  The only thing that anyone who plays Dead by Daylight is actually entitled to, and again thanks to NordSahne for pointing that out, is a functional game, because that's what we paid for.

  "Killer is the power role", okay you've been brainwashed by tru3ta1ent haven’t you. Spoken like a tru3 fan.

  Actually, no. That's just the way it is. When a survivor and a killer go head-to-head, the killer will eventually always win from a survivor.
  Was that remark supposed to be demeaning? Let's keep it civilized please.

  You're right the game is changing and that's the PROBLEM. NOT the balance changes necessarily but the fundamental game style and mechanics change which is destroying it.

  According to whom? The ever increasing player base?

  Otz's video shows why not to miss the game from a BALANCING perspective. Once again I'm not arguing from a balancing perspective, I'm arguing from a game health, enjoyment and longevity perspective. You have to put balance aside in this conversation because once again I'm trying to tell you that this argument is not about balance, it's fundamentally about how the game is played. The problem isn't that killer is more powerful than survivor compared to past times, it's that survivor is more uninteractive, unfun and teambased than ever.

  I'm sorry that you feel that way. And I wish you could have more fun playing. I know I have fun playing.

  And if you're systematically not having fun, just stop playing. No one is forcing you. No one is demanding that you play. The world doesn't end if you don't play.

  If you're not having fun, just stop.

  Stop and play something else.

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 15, 2026

• @Withered8 said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4117144#Comment_4117144

  But you seem to think that a bot somehow gives you a chance at escaping. It doesn't. When was the least time you escaped with a bot or 2 on your team the whole game? The answer is pretty much never. So your options become either drag games out that are already decided with bots or end the game earlier and quicker so EVERYONE can go play a more enjoyable with old dcs.

  In what way is that statement contradictory? Only when matched against the very best survivor teams is killer harder to pull of than survivor. Your average good/decent even strong survivor team it's still easier to beat as killer. That's why I said 99% of games are harder as survivor, which contributes to que time issues.

  Because your idea of increasing gen speeds does not make survivor more FUN. It doesn't change the reasons why survivor is losing players right now. 2v8 Has a horrible player base for survivor and they have that feature in it so it's already been tested clearly, and it doesn't work. I'm arguing that to fix the fundamental problem that survivor has you need to fully rework the role/game and how it's played.

  Okay yeah everything I said regarding how to fix this game went right over your head. You gotta put your balancing biases aside for a second because there's plenty of ways to balance what I'm proposing. Balancing in a game like dbd is important but there's no point having a balanced but boring game. If you want to increase the survivor player base and make the role more enjoyable this is by far the best way to do it, and probably the only way to stop the bleed. This worked fine for years on dbd's release btw, the killer hysteria that would come from it is always overblown and exaggerated, because dbd used to work just fine when the game was more like this. Even on release when killer was SO MUCH WEAKER, it was still more than PLENTY fun to play. You can always fix balancing but you can't fix fun if you don't do something drastic about it. Additionally, don't forget that survivor needs to attract FOUR TIMES as many players as killer, so it legit just needs to be fun for 4 times as many people if you want to fix the issue.

  Well exactly so you've been brainwashed by ideas from many creators that that's how the SHOULD be and MUST be. Killers MUST always be able to down survivors no Ifs and Buts. Once again I'm saying you need to change this if you wanna put more individual agency back into survivor, which is what made the role popular to begin with.

  Your second to last paragraph literally just explains exactly why the survivor player base is dying. You would never say that about killer if it was as hard to win in soloq and miserable as soloq. It's complete double standards and exactly where the problems come from.

  Your last paragraph is so telling as well. You never played when the game used to be more individual agency based. This is when the game was super popular on survivor. Survivor has been so handi-capped in all the wrong ways that the role is so pointless individually now compared to what it used to be.

  But you seem to think that a bot somehow gives you a chance at escaping. It doesn't. When was the least time you escaped with a bot or 2 on your team the whole game? The answer is pretty much never.

  I can agree that the chances of escape with a bot on the team are lower than with an actual human player, but it's still possible. Not guaranteed, but possible.

  So your options become either drag games out that are already decided with bots or end the game earlier and quicker so EVERYONE can go play a more enjoyable with old dcs.

  First of all, it's not always decided: It depends on the stage of the match. Second: A bot is better than nothing. And third: When you say everyone, that includes the killer too. They are players too. And they should not be punished by ending the game earlier and quicker, just because a survivor decided to be DC.

  In what way is that statement contradictory? Only when matched against the very best survivor teams is killer harder to pull of than survivor. Your average good/decent even strong survivor team it's still easier to beat as killer. That's why I said 99% of games are harder as survivor, which contributes to que time issues.

  That is not what you said. Read it back: You said "99% of skill levels playing killer is harder". You said "killer", not "survivor". That's what made it look contradictory. However, if you initially misspoke and in fact meant "survivor" instead of "killer", then your argument is not contradictory.

  Because your idea of increasing gen speeds does not make survivor more FUN.

  If a system like this is ever implemented in 1v4, it should be used to make matches more balanced, not fun. Fun is not BHVR's responsibility. It is in fact your own. You have to make it fun for yourself.

  It doesn't change the reasons why survivor is losing players right now.

  I do not have enough information to confirm whether or not that's true.

  2v8 Has a horrible player base for survivor and they have that feature in it so it's already been tested clearly, and it doesn't work.

  As far as I know, 2v8 does not use MMR, because that would dramatically increase queue times. So you get paired up with players with various MMR levels. The test might probably be better if players had similar MMR, but we won't know that for sure until it's tested that way.

  I'm arguing that to fix the fundamental problem that survivor has you need to fully rework the role/game and how it's played.

  Rework is next to impossible at this point. But after second thought (because you mentioned this in your previous comment), maybe, just maybe, adding some sort of secondary win-condition for survivors could indeed be interesting.

  Okay yeah everything I said regarding how to fix this game went right over your head. You gotta put your balancing biases aside for a second because there's plenty of ways to balance what I'm proposing. Balancing in a game like dbd is important but there's no point having a balanced but boring game.

  I'm not sure that it did actually go over my head. I commented pretty much on everything you said. Also, if you find the game boring, then don't play it.

  You can't just start playing a game and then, because you are not having fun, demand that they change it, just so that you are having fun. That's like choosing to emigrate to another country, and instead of adjusting to the values and customs of that country, you demand that they adjust to you. Imagine if everyone did that. That's just stupid.

  The way I see it, BHVR has three responsibilities when it comes to Dead by Daylight: One: Make sure the game works and has as few bugs as possible. Two: Since it's a live-service game, make sure that the game receives new content every now and then. And three: Make sure the game is as balanced as it possibly can, which with a live-service game is an ever ongoing task.

  Everything beyond that is up to the players. That includes fun. You have to make it fun for yourself. And if you cannot or will not do that, then maybe the game isn't for you.

  If you want to increase the survivor player base and make the role more enjoyable this is by far the best way to do it, and probably the only way to stop the bleed.

  Again, I don't have enough information to confirm whether or not it is actually bleeding.

  This worked fine for years on dbd's release btw, the killer hysteria that would come from it is always overblown and exaggerated, because dbd used to work just fine when the game was more like this.

  Are you suggesting that the game currently is not working just fine? Because as far as I can tell it actually is. Maybe not the way you personally want it, but it still works. I don't have data on the entire player base, but as far as Steam players are concerned, there's actually a steady, albeit slow, increase in player numbers over the past 10 years. And you don't have to take my word for it: You can see it for yourself on SteamDB.

  Even on release when killer was SO MUCH WEAKER, it was still more than PLENTY fun to play. You can always fix balancing but you can't fix fun if you don't do something drastic about it. Additionally, don't forget that survivor needs to attract FOUR TIMES as many players as killer, so it legit just needs to be fun for 4 times as many people if you want to fix the issue.

  BHVR is not supposed to 'fix' fun. That's up to the players. You can give your feedback to BHVR via the forums and the surveys, and it's then up to BHVR to decide whether or not to act on it. But they are not responsible for your individual fun. Only you are.

  Well exactly so you've been brainwashed by ideas from many creators that that's how the SHOULD be and MUST be. Killers MUST always be able to down survivors no Ifs and Buts.

  Yes, they do actually. That's why there's the Bloodlust mechanic. That's why resources are limited. The killer is the power role: They are supposed to be stronger than individual survivors.

  Once again I'm saying you need to change this if you wanna put more individual agency back into survivor, which is what made the role popular to begin with.

  That's just it: BHVR is not supposed to "put more individual agency back into survivor". It's a team-game: Survivors have to work together to get a favorable result. As I stated twice already: No single survivor is meant to win the game on his or her own. They have to do that as a team.

  Your second to last paragraph literally just explains exactly why the survivor player base is dying. You would never say that about killer if it was as hard to win in soloq and miserable as soloq. It's complete double standards and exactly where the problems come from.

  First: I don't have enough data to confirm if the survivor player base is in fact dying, but considering the increase in player numbers on Steam alone, I don't think it is. Second: I totally agree that solo-queue is indeed harder than a 4-man SWF. And BHVR is doing what they can to bridge the gap between solo-queue and SWF, including introducing the new Survivor Intent system in the PTB today. And third: Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see the double standard here, so you might have to explain that one.

  Your last paragraph is so telling as well. You never played when the game used to be more individual agency based. This is when the game was super popular on survivor. Survivor has been so handi-capped in all the wrong ways that the role is so pointless individually now compared to what it used to be.

  I think I finally understand the source of your discord in this entire conversation: You are comparing old Dead by Daylight with new Dead by Daylight. Is that what this is? Because that would explain where your arguments are coming from. And you're right in saying that I never played the game back then. In fact, I said that myself.

  But the game has changed since then. Evolved even. The way the game was back then doesn't matter anymore. The only thing that matters is where the game is today and the direction in which the game is heading. And as a player you can either get by that, or stop playing.

  It is absolutely impossible for BHVR to satisfy everyone's needs for Dead by Daylight. They simply do what they think is best. And they are the only ones that get to decide what's best. Not me, not you, not other players. Just them. All we as players can do is advise by providing constructive feedback of our experiences.

  And on a side note: Old Dead by Daylight had its problems too. There's this really interesting video from Otz, featuring Cope and RunningMan, going over the "17 reasons NOT to miss the old dbd...", which is also the title of the video.

  If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend you do. But then again, since you were there as a player back then, you've probably experienced all of that yourself. Which is even more reason why Dead by Daylight should keep on evolving.

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 15, 2026

• @Withered8 said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4116578#Comment_4116578

  So punishing a killer is wrong but punishing 3 survivors is fine? This is why Dc's should just go back to the way they were cause then it punishes no one and ends the game much faster.

  I'm glad someone is finally acknowledging that at 99% of skill levels playing killer is harder. Only playing against the literal very best survivor teams is killer harder than survivor.

  Your idea based on increasing gen speeds when someone dies etc maybe might increase the player base a little bit? But it's not going to solve the long term survivor killer ratio issues the game currently has. That doesn't make survivor more fun, just holds your hand a little bit if you are losing, which won't matter because likely the time that those mechanics kick in the game is already lost and unwinnable.

  What you REALLY need to fix survivor is a complete gameplay overhaul. They need to add a second objective to the game that's interesting for survivors and DOESN'T involve holding m1 on gens. With this objective, they can buff loops to strengths that they used to be, increase chase time and interactivity, nerf killers that hard counter loops and give them all significant chase weaknesses and increase overall game time length. This actually would give some fun and purpose to survivor, whilst also giving survivors agency to make a huge solo impact and carry games. This will never happen though because bvhr relies on grabbing in extremely casual and new players to fill the survivor player base. Good players are greatly more likely to opt for killer currently which is the problem.

  What i mean by "the way games used to be won was extremely different", is that in the old days chase was like the main thing that mattered in the game. Survivors had many tools in chase mostly but also some outside that were able to hugely sway and impact games. Chases could last way longer depending on the survivors skill level, and chases felt more like a 1v1 battle which was sick and hella fun. Sure you can argue that some parts of it weren't balanced for killer, but it was undoubtedly more fun for both sides and better for survivor. Nowadays your chase is really secondary to the teams macro and co-ordination. There's less of a different between a good survivor and a mediocre survivor in chase, and it's just less relevant to the game now because most killers chases involve a ticking time bomb where you know you will go down but it's just a matter of 20 or 40 seconds. I can give some specific examples if you want.

  Becoming a better survivor is not a reward to new players no, because it doesn't win them nearly as many games as becoming a better killer. Infact it just makes you more frustrated at the game when you get unwinnable games/bad teams etc. And being good individually is LESS relevant than being good as a team now.

  So punishing a killer is wrong but punishing 3 survivors is fine? This is why Dc's should just go back to the way they were cause then it punishes no one and ends the game much faster.

  I never said that punishing survivors is fine. But if it feels that way to you, then the only one applying the punishment is the DC'ing survivor. In fact, going back to the old system punishes the other 3 survivors even more, because there's no bot anymore that can help. And although mostly not better than an actual human player, a bot is still better than nothing at all.

  I'm glad someone is finally acknowledging that at 99% of skill levels playing killer is harder. Only playing against the literal very best survivor teams is killer harder than survivor.

  No. I did not say that either. Also, your statement about skill levels looks contradictory: You stated that "at 99% of skill levels playing killer is harder". But also "Only playing against the literal very best survivor teams", suggesting that's the remaining 1%, killer is also harder. That would make killer harder than survivor 100% of the time.

  Additionally, in your post from September 10th 5:24 PM, you said, and I quote, "if I wanted to win playing this game I'd play killer any day, it's a far easier role to win on". So it's 'a far easier role to win on', but also harder at least 99% of the time.

  Can you explain how that makes sense?

  Your idea based on increasing gen speeds when someone dies etc maybe might increase the player base a little bit? But it's not going to solve the long term survivor killer ratio issues the game currently has.

  How can you know that if it's not tested first?

  That doesn't make survivor more fun, just holds your hand a little bit if you are losing, which won't matter because likely the time that those mechanics kick in the game is already lost and unwinnable.

  That will depend entirely on the actual mechanics. And the only way to find out what works and what doesn't, is to test it.

  With this objective, they can buff loops to strengths that they used to be, increase chase time and interactivity, nerf killers that hard counter loops and give them all significant chase weaknesses and increase overall game time length.

  Do you realize what you're saying? Buffing loops, nerfing killers by giving them "significant chase weaknesses"? That shifts balance way too much towards the survivors. And there's 4 of them, giving them a huge advantage over killer-players. Also, killers are supposed to chase survivors. It's a core mechanic of the game. Their primary objective.

  It's up to the survivors to extend chases for as long as possible using skills, knowledge, resources, the environment, perks and help from other teammates. And chases are ultimately supposed to be lost by the survivors. That's why resources are limited. That's why there's the Bloodlust mechanic for the killer, to make them faster the longer the chase lasts. The goal of a chase is to keep the killer occupied for as long as you possibly can, in order to buy your teammates time. The more time you can give your teammates, the better.

  No single survivor is meant to win the game on his or her own. That's why it's a team game: As survivors, you are supposed to work together. It's not 1 killer vs 4 teams consisting of 1 survivor, but 1 killer vs 1 team consisting of 4 survivors.

  This actually would give some fun and purpose to survivor, whilst also giving survivors agency to make a huge solo impact and carry games.

  Maybe. But what about killer-players? Do you think shifting the balance that much towards survivors is fun for killers?

  This will never happen though because bvhr relies on grabbing in extremely casual and new players to fill the survivor player base. Good players are greatly more likely to opt for killer currently which is the problem.

  What are you basing this on? There are plenty of good players who play both killer and survivor (for example JRM, Ayrun, Hens and Otz).

  What i mean by "the way games used to be won was extremely different", is that in the old days chase was like the main thing that mattered in the game. Survivors had many tools in chase mostly but also some outside that were able to hugely sway and impact games.

  Don't they still have those tools? They still have pallets, window-vaults, perks and items to extend chases. Efficient use of those extends chases even further.

  Chases could last way longer depending on the survivors skill level, and chases felt more like a 1v1 battle which was sick and hella fun.

  And that still applies today. The more skills you have as a survivor, the longer you can keep a killer occupied.

  most killers chases involve a ticking time bomb where you know you will go down but it's just a matter of 20 or 40 seconds.

  Yes, and that is supposed to happen. As I stated earlier in this comment: Chases are ultimately supposed to be lost by the survivors, but the longer you can keep the killer occupied, the better for the team. In a 1v1 you are not supposed to win against the killer. You are supposed to occupy their time for as long as you can.

  Becoming a better survivor is not a reward to new players no, because it doesn't win them nearly as many games as becoming a better killer. Infact it just makes you more frustrated at the game when you get unwinnable games/bad teams etc.

  That's a matter of mindset. All matches are an experience that teaches you about how to do or not do something, or how to or not to handle a certain situation. You just have to be willing to learn. And if not, then maybe Dead by Daylight isn't for you.

  And being good individually is LESS relevant than being good as a team now.

  I can't speak for the early days of DBD, since I only started playing in 2022, but I agree that being good individually is less relevant than being good as a team. It's as I said earlier in this comment: No single survivor is meant to win the game on his or her own.

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 14, 2026

• @Withered8 said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4116406#Comment_4116406

  But one survivor being gone doesn't just shift the game, It makes the game unwinnable and pointless if the killer is at an even skill level. There's literally no point playing out a game if a teammate dc's because there's basically no chance of escaping unless the killer lets you go or doesn't try on purpose. This is why you should be able to leave and dc without a penalty if someone on ur team does.

  The conditions are more strict for winning on survivor because you need 4 good players at a decent level to beat a good killer, you all need to be on the same page and you ALL have to be playing the game well. You just need yourself as killer to win. Yes i know this is because it's an asymmetrical game, but it's also why survivor is more unpopular than ever. Why rely on teammates when I can just play the role that relies on myself and I know i can win games by myself?

  No not everyone gives up and goes to killer or starts dcing, but for a healthy que system and game you need FOUR survivors to every ONE killer, so you need to make survivor 4 times as attractive to play. That's just not happening at the moment.

  That's probably cause the last 4 years is when alot of solo agency has been removed from the game, this is somethign that started happening loooong ago. Go back about 7 or 8 years, the way to win games was incredibly different. Your individual chase skill could single handedly determine games, and there was much more of a correlation between your chase skill and ability to influence the game. Alot of chase skill has been removed these days, and the game at the top level is literally about playing guesswork 50/50s now and insta dropping every pallet. You now win games by dying in corners, doing gens fast, dying in the right spots, trading, winning large amounts of 50/50s etc all these things.

  Playing survivor is getting worse that's the problem. You say that you should just get over the learning curve, but there's no reward to this. Contrast to killer, it's much more enjoyable to see how improving your skill level directly translates to tangible changes in your results, gameplay and enjoyment in the way you are able to impact the game.

  But one survivor being gone doesn't just shift the game, It makes the game unwinnable and pointless if the killer is at an even skill level.

  Unwinnable and pointless, no. But harder, absolutely. So it's up to the survivors to delay that for as long as possible. The expected kill-rate for killers is between 60 and 65 percent if I'm not mistaken, so it's not unexpected that not all survivors make it. Sometimes you're lucky and get out and sometimes you're not. My escape rate is 45%, so I escape less than half of the time.

  There's literally no point playing out a game if a teammate dc's because there's basically no chance of escaping unless the killer lets you go or doesn't try on purpose.

  I agree that, once a teammate DC's, it's gonna be a lot harder. But ending the trial then and there, indirectly punishes the killer-player: They already had to wait anywhere between 5 and 15 minutes for a match, and because one survivor decided to be selfish and DC, the match ends prematurely. So the killer-player doesn't get to play after waiting quite a while already, just because one survivor is selfish. That doesn't seem fair to me.

  The current system is not perfect, but, as far as I can tell, it's the best it has ever been. And maybe it can improve even more at some point, but that takes time.

  This is why you should be able to leave and dc without a penalty if someone on ur team does.

  No, because that would only encourage more DC'ing, which is the very thing the DC-penalty is trying to discourage players from doing.

  It's very simple: When you as a player press Play, you declare your intent to play a match in the selected role, against the other role. In the case of Survivor you then get into a lobby within 5 to 30 seconds (mostly). You then enter the actual lobby with the other players and you have an additional 55 seconds before the match actually starts to load.

  And once that happens, you are committed. Once the match starts to load, you are expected to finish it. You've had about a minute to change your mind and back out after all. But if you didn't, then you're expected to commit to it and finish the trial. After that, you are free to leave.

  So, excluding any real-world emergencies, you are not supposed to DC when you're no longer having fun: You have to finish what you started, because that's what you committed yourself into doing towards the other players when you pressed the Play button, went to the lobby and didn't back out. This applies to all players, survivors and killers alike. And if a player thinks that it doesn't apply to them, then that's entitlement. That's selfish.

  The conditions are more strict for winning on survivor because you need 4 good players at a decent level to beat a good killer, you all need to be on the same page and you ALL have to be playing the game well.

  Assuming MMR does its job, then you should get that. However, MMR prioritizes queue-times over exact MMR matching. So sometimes you get survivors of slightly different skill levels, or maybe one or more survivors are having a bad day and are not performing according to their 'expected' MMR. That is something you can never fully plan for, regardless of what kind of MMR system you're using.

  If you have 4 survivors on the same level, same page, and same mindset, then you indeed have a much higher chance for a favorable result. But that just doesn't happen every single time. We're not all comp-level or perfect communicators. You can still get situations where, even if MMR is the same across all survivors, one single mistake can cost the survivors the match, depending on where and when it happens and how the killer deals with it.

  And that is exactly why, in my original post, I stated that, as a survivor, you are not entitled to a favorable outcome of the trial. Sure, it can happen, even more so when you put in effort, but you're not supposed to expect it every single match, or even the majority of matches. If you want it, all 4 survivors have to work for it. They're part of a team after all, where each survivor has a shared responsibility for the result of the team. And if survivors refuse to play normally, or purposefully throw the match, they can get punished for that if you report them for unsportsmanlike conduct afterwards.

  You just need yourself as killer to win. Yes i know this is because it's an asymmetrical game, but it's also why survivor is more unpopular than ever. Why rely on teammates when I can just play the role that relies on myself and I know i can win games by myself?

  I don't have enough information to determine if this is indeed what's making playing as a survivor unpopular, but I do agree that playing killer is far easier, since you only have to rely on yourself.

  No not everyone gives up and goes to killer or starts dcing, but for a healthy que system and game you need FOUR survivors to every ONE killer, so you need to make survivor 4 times as attractive to play. That's just not happening at the moment.

  I completely agree with this one. And in order to make it attractive for survivors to play, you could give them an incentive to keep on playing if the balance shifts too much in one team's favor. And there is actually a way to do that, and it is already partially being used in 2V8 at the moment. Keep in mind though that this system has to be thought out very carefully and properly and extensively tested:

  There used to be a game similar to Dead by Daylight, called Propnight. 4 survivors, 1 killer, 5 of the 7 generators had to be fixed and 2 exit gates. It was basically 'Dead by Daylight meets Prophunt', but the core gameplay was the same. And what they did was to introduce conditional buffs and nerfs, whenever the balance shifted too much. For example: If 4 of 5 generators were repaired and all 4 survivors were still alive, then the killer would get a 10% speed boost until one of the survivors died.

  You can do this the other way around as well. For example: If 5 generators remain, and a survivor has already been sacrificed or killed, you could increase the survivor's repair speed, until an x amount of generators remain. It's basically a way to conditionally 'even the odds' as it were. 2V8 currently uses something similar, where the repair speed is increased or decreased based on the amount of hooks the killers have and the amount of gens that have already been completed.

  Is a system like this healthy for the game? I honestly don't know. The only way to know for sure is to test it, which is probably why it's currently in 2V8. And I'm not saying that this could in fact solve anything, but I am saying that it is worth considering.

  That's probably cause the last 4 years is when alot of solo agency has been removed from the game, this is somethign that started happening loooong ago. Go back about 7 or 8 years, the way to win games was incredibly different. Your individual chase skill could single handedly determine games, and there was much more of a correlation between your chase skill and ability to influence the game. Alot of chase skill has been removed these days, and the game at the top level is literally about playing guesswork 50/50s now and insta dropping every pallet. You now win games by dying in corners, doing gens fast, dying in the right spots, trading, winning large amounts of 50/50s etc all these things.

  Can you give concrete examples of this? Like, when you say "the way to win games was incredibly different", what do you mean exactly?

  Playing survivor is getting worse that's the problem. You say that you should just get over the learning curve, but there's no reward to this.

  Becoming a better survivor player is not a reward? What kind of reward were you expecting?

  Contrast to killer, it's much more enjoyable to see how improving your skill level directly translates to tangible changes in your results, gameplay and enjoyment in the way you are able to impact the game.

  Why would this not apply to survivor gameplay? If you become better in chases, you can keep the killer occupied for longer, buying your team time. That's a tangible change as well, is it not? Longer chases also impact the game.

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 11, 2026

• @Withered8 said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4116325#Comment_4116325

  No one is forcing them, but if you want survivors to kill as killer your gonna need to encourage more people to play survivor. At the moment if I wanted to win playing this game I'd play killer any day, it's a far easier role to win on because the conditions for winning on survivor are much more strict at an equal skill level (needing a 4man etc).

  I agree that there's deceptively alot of depth, especially macro wise but also prediction and game knowledge wise in this game. Especially as survivor it's incredibly difficult to learn alot of these things because you are reliant on teammates to learn alot of this stuff and execute it. This is part of the problem. The game is way harder to win as survivor at an average level so people are either gonna give up more, leave, dc etc or just go play killer, both of which are terrible options for longetivity of the game.

  To fix this, you need to incentivise people to play more survivor and make it more enjoyable. The reason survivor used to be so popular, contrary to popular belief, is that survivor used to have alot of SOLO agency in the game. You could single handedly win a game as survivor through a good chase etc, there was alot of room for impact and skill expression INDIVIDUALLY. Unfortunately, the game has morphed so much now that individual survivor skill is alot less relevant and doesn't win you games, it's all about the team play and macro now, which is not only boring but encourages people to go play killer or get frustrated with the game because unlike killer, often there's literally nothing you can do to win a game, and too often. I only play survivor with ex-comp mates for example because otherwise it can get pretty miserable pretty fast. It feels like you're not working towards anything because you can't practise skills individually, you can't win games for your team and you can't make that impact.

  if I wanted to win playing this game I'd play killer any day, it's a far easier role to win on

  I can somewhat see how it would be easier, but probably not for the same reason: When playing killer, you have all the control over how your 'team' plays, since there's only one killer. With survivor there's 4 in a team, which makes you indeed dependent on the other 3 survivors. That's why I have a serious problem with DC'in survivors, because you're supposed to play as 4 members of a team. Trials are, after all, balanced around 4 players, having to repair 5 generators, while being chased by 1 killer. So if one of the survivors is gone, then that's obviously gonna shift the balance in favor of the killer, depending on gen progress. So the Survivors have to put in more effort to get a favorable result. Hopefully the new Intent system is going to help with that.

  the conditions for winning on survivor are much more strict at an equal skill level (needing a 4man etc).

  I'm not sure I understand this one. Can you elaborate?

  Especially as survivor it's incredibly difficult to learn alot of these things because you are reliant on teammates to learn alot

  When not playing with friends and/or somewhat experienced players, learning can be slow maybe. Not sure it's gonna be difficult. There's a lot to learn and without friends providing feedback during trials, the learning process will take a lot longer. There's no one to tell you afterwards how the killer's perks factored into their strategy and what you could potentially do differently next time. So yeah, I can definitely see how learning without friends could be a lot slower.

  This is part of the problem. The game is way harder to win as survivor at an average level so people are either gonna give up more, leave, dc etc or just go play killer, both of which are terrible options for longetivity of the game.

  Not everyone does that. I didn't. I kept trying, and ultimately I got better. And I can't be the only one that keeps trying.

  you need to incentivise people to play more survivor and make it more enjoyable

  Agreed. A 2.5x BP multiplier (if you're even lucky to get that) is not that interesting anymore.

  The reason survivor used to be so popular, contrary to popular belief, is that survivor used to have alot of SOLO agency in the game. You could single handedly win a game as survivor through a good chase etc, there was alot of room for impact and skill expression INDIVIDUALLY.

  Can you give an example of an in-game situation where this was the case?

  Unfortunately, the game has morphed so much now that individual survivor skill is alot less relevant and doesn't win you games, it's all about the team play and macro now

  As far as I remember (for the 4 years that I'm playing the game), Dead by Daylight has always been about teams: The Survivor-team, consisting of 4, vs the Killer-team, consisting of 1. And to say that individual skill is less relevant is not true in my opinion: If a survivor is skilled enough to keep a killer occupied long enough for multiple gens to pop, then how is that not relevant? How does that not help win games?

  I actually had a match earlier today where my teammate kept a Jason occupied for 4 gens. Didn't even get injured until the 4th gen popped. Jason had practically lost at that point. So that teammate's individual skill definitely benefitted the rest of the team.

  which is not only boring but encourages people to go play killer or get frustrated with the game because unlike killer, often there's literally nothing you can do to win a game, and too often.

  I don't see how a survivor's display of skill to help the team is boring. I personally don't think it is. In fact, I get a real rush after a long chase and even more if the killer abandons the chase.

  I only play survivor with ex-comp mates for example because otherwise it can get pretty miserable pretty fast.

  Playing with random survivors can be tough, I'm not gonna deny that, so playing with friends to understand the game and who can communicate well is a lot easier and therefore (hopefully) fun. Thankfully though, the new Intent system will most likely remedy that at least a little bit.

  It feels like you're not working towards anything because you can't practise skills individually, you can't win games for your team and you can't make that impact.

  Maybe not alone or only after a high amount of practice and experience. So playing with friends or being part of a community that can help you with that can be very helpful there. I myself am part of a community for Dutch speaking DBD players, and there's always the official Dead by Daylight Discord server that you can join to find teammates.

  Playing survivor really isn't that bad. You just have to overcome the learning curve. And that takes effort and time.

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 10, 2026

• @Withered8 said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4116311#Comment_4116311

  No I and alot of people would argue Bots is way worse than just an old DC. An OLD DC ends the game faster and lets EVERYONE go next quicker rather than holding the rest of the team hostage in a now unwinnable game.

  So would it be fine to replace DCing killers with killer bots then? You would support that change?

  Why are killer ques so horrendous now compared to what they used to be hm? It's because no one wants to play survivor anymore. It's a miserable role Solo and you have to have 4 good players for it to be enjoyable. We kill the survivor role and now we want to further punish survivors even more and disincentivise people from playing survivor? This will simply make killer ques EVEN WORSE. This is precisely the point I'm getting to. We want to continue to punish survivors, force them to place every single match out, force them to play against miserable and unfun killers and unfun matches, and in the same breath scratch our heads and wonder why killer ques are so horrible? I'm saying this all as A KILLER MAIN, I don't want killer ques to get any worse that's why we need to incentivise people to play survivor more.

  It's very easy to just point the finger at entitlement, its a cop out. Doesn't fix any of the issues regarding killer ques, survivors dcing, survivors giving up etc. If you punish DC's even more then people will just afk, or give up, or find other ways of not playing the game out properly if they don't want to.

  So would it be fine to replace DCing killers with killer bots then? You would support that change?

  Well, the fact that BHVR is working on it (which can be seen in 2V8), my guess is that there is in fact a majority or at least a large part of the player base that would support it.

  We want to continue to punish survivors, force them to place every single match out, force them to play against miserable and unfun killers and unfun matches

  No one is forcing them: They willingly press Play to queue-up against a killer. And they can't cherry-pick the parts of the experience that you want and discard the rest. If they want that, they should play a sandbox or single-player game.

  It's very easy to just point the finger at entitlement, its a cop out. Doesn't fix any of the issues regarding killer ques, survivors dcing, survivors giving up etc.

  I agree with you there. As in, it doesn't solve killer queues, survivors DC'ing or giving up. But it does cause Survivor's DC'ing or giving up, because they believe they have certain entitlements about various parts of the trials.

  If you punish DC's even more then people will just afk, or give up, or find other ways of not playing the game out properly if they don't want to.

  Honestly, for the overall quality of the survivor-part of the player base, that would not necessarily be a bad thing.

  Dead by Daylight has a very steep learning curve. Everyone who wants to be good at the game has to put in a lot of time and effort to get the skills needed to play well. Not perfect, but well. And once you do, you will start to enjoy the game a lot more. Sure, you will still have bad matches, but not as much as before. With practice comes skill and with skill comes success.

  And I was no different: I used to complain a lot as a survivor, because I was under the impression that the game wasn't fair. I even went so far as to (and this is something I actually did, and to this day am still ashamed of), go into the post-game chat afterwards to call the killer a coward (in capitals) for camping a hooked survivor in end-game. But it wasn't until I started playing more killer that I came to understand why they did it. And now I do it too: Once the gens are done there are no more objectives to defend. So a hooked survivor becomes your sole objective at that point. A consolation prize as it were.

  Long story short: It turned out that there simply was a lot I didn't know yet. So I put in effort to learn, to understand and to get better. And now, compared to back then, I am. And I think that's what survivor players need to enjoy the game more: Put in time and effort to learn an understand the game. Make mistakes, learn from them, and improve.

  And if they don't want to do that, if they don't want to learn, if they are not prepared to put in effort to get better, then for their own sake and mental well-being, maybe they should stop playing Dead by Daylight and pick a game that they can actually enjoy.

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 10, 2026

• @Withered8 said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4116299#Comment_4116299

  So we should just punish the team if their teammate dc's instead of just ending the game? Whereas the killer can selfishly leave the game as they wish as the game doesn't punish others if a killer does this. How is it fair if I'm a survivor and my killer DC's, like you said, that's not my fault? Why should my game immediately end?

  To make it clear i don't think you should DC frequently and i don't think it's good for the game. But we need to look at the reasons WHY people DC, especially more against certain killers or in certain games.

  So we should just punish the team if their teammate dc's instead of just ending the game?

  The only one who should be punished in that scenario is the survivor that DC'd. And that's what the DC-penalty is for. The game already does the next best thing it can do for the other players, which is to supply a bot to replace the DC'd survivor. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. A couple of years ago there were no bots to replace DC'ing survivors, so it used to be worse.

  the killer can selfishly leave the game as they wish as the game doesn't punish others if a killer does this

  Why should others be punished for the killer DC'ing?

  How is it fair if I'm a survivor and my killer DC's, like you said, that's not my fault? Why should my game immediately end?

  Because the entire opposing team is gone, so there's nothing for the survivors to play against anymore. And until BHVR replaces DC'ing killers with killer bots, then this is how it's gonna be.

  Dead by Daylight is an asymmetrical PvP game. Asymmetrical, as in not identical on both sides. If all 4 survivors were to DC, then the trial is over too, because the entire team that was opposing the killer is gone. However, due to the bots replacing survivors the killer has the option to continue, instead of ending the match. But the option is there.

  And also, with killer queue's being what they are right now, imagine a killer having to wait 10-15 minutes for a match, only for it to immediately or prematurely end when a survivor DC's, because they don't like the killer/map or some other reason. Is that fair towards the killer?

  If an entire team is gone, then there is no more opposition for the remaining team. And the only reason that, in the case of a DC'ing killer, the match is immediately over, is because there are no killer bots yet.

  But we need to look at the reasons WHY people DC, especially more against certain killers or in certain games.

  Well that one's easy: Entitlement. Survivors feel like they are entitled to DC against certain killers or under certain conditions, because they believe it's not fair or not fun, or not what they were expecting.

  And the whole point of me starting this entire post 2 days ago is to make it clear that they are in fact not entitled to do that. The only thing regarding Dead by Daylight that any player is entitled to, and I want to thank NordSahne for pointing that out, is a functional game. Because that's what we paid for.

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 10, 2026

• @Withered8 said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4116294#Comment_4116294

  Okay so based on what you've said the fair thing to do would be to end games immediately when a survivor dc's? Just how games end immediately when a killer dc's?

  the fair thing to do would be to end games immediately when a survivor dc's?

  No. The survivors play as a team, which means that they have a shared responsibility toward a favorable result for the survivors. So if one of them decided to abandon the team by DC'ing, then that's on that survivor. They willingly and knowingly disadvantage their own team. It's certainly not the killer's fault.
  
  The only widely accepted reason for DC'ing is if there's some kind of real-life emergency going on. But a lot of survivor players DC because they don't like how the trial is going. And that's not why you should DC.

  That's the whole reason that the DC-penalty exists. And if survivor players really are under the impression that DC'ing a trial on a regular basis, thereby abandoning their team, is acceptable behavour, then maybe the minimum DC-penalty should be raised to 30 minutes. The whole idea of the DC-penalty is to discourage players from DC'ing while the trial is not yet over. So maybe 5 or 10 or 15 minutes is simply not enough.

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 10, 2026

• @Withered8 said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4116272#Comment_4116272

  But what if I like every killer other than judgment and the first? I'm just not allowed to play then?

  Why do bad killers get to DC all the time and no one complains about this?

  But what if I like every killer other than judgment and the first? I'm just not allowed to play then?

  You are always allowed to play. But if you willingly load up the game, go into a trial as a survivor, play against Judgment or The First, knowing full well that there is a chance that you could face either one of them, then complaining about it afterwards, just because you actually encountered one of them, is entitlement.

  Why do bad killers get to DC all the time and no one complains about this?

  Because it results in a win for the survivors and a DC penalty for the killer. So the killer has no right to complain because they willingly DC'd, and the survivors have no reason to compain, because they get a free win.

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 10, 2026

• @Oputeev_Stas said:

  they are right she is annoying to face even if it's a noob Judgement match is not fun overall, boring gambling power plus they increased her curve too making her even more annoying to vs, plus all of them abuse uncounterable auras and totems just an auto-pilot power where you can miss million times and still win

  she is annoying to face even if it's a noob Judgement match is not fun overall

  That may be the case, but also, not Judgment's responsibility. It is not up to the killer, or any of the other player, to ensure that you are having fun. The only one responsible for that is you.

  they increased her curve too

  That one surprised me as well and in my opinion it's not really necessary. But to be fair, it's been less than 24 hours since that change was applied, so let's just see how it impacts her performance and kill rates first, before we jump to conclusions.

  all of them abuse uncounterable auras and totems

  This is fascinating: You're the second person I encounter calling it "abuse", as if what they're doing is not allowed or wrong. If the game allows killer players to bring certain perks and combine them in a way that is advantageous for them, then that's allowed.

  The definition of "abuse" is the wrong use of something or the improper, cruel, or harmful treatment of a person. And the killer injuring, downing and hooking a survivor can indeed be considered harmful or cruel, but it's also the very core mechanic of killer gameplay. The killer's objective in Dead by Daylight is to literally do all that. And when you choose to play Survivor, you willingly subject yourself to the risk of that happening to your character during a trial. That's all part of the game.

  So that leaves the "wrong use of something" part of the definition of "abuse". Can you explain to us how using certain perks can be considered the "wrong use"?

  Also, when you say "uncounterable", I say:

  To counter aura-perks you can use:

  • Boon: Shadowstep (Total aura-read immunity)
  • Residual Manifest, combined with Blast Mine (Especially effective against Judgment, as explained in an earlier comment)
  • We See You (To use her aura build against her, also explained in an earlier comment)
  • Temporarily hiding in lockers when your aura is about to be read

  To find and cleanse totem-perks faster you can use:

  • Counterforce (Stackable faster cleanse speed, starting at 25% that also shows you the aura of the totems)
  • Small Game (Sound cue when near a totem)
  • Resilience (9% faster cleansing when injured. Stacks with Counterforce, for as much as the "Diminishing Returns" mechanic allows of course)
  • A map with the "Sharpened Flint" add-on, to reveal the aura's of all totems in range

  So there are plenty of options to counter aura and totem perks.

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 9, 2026

• @Angy_Quentin said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4115877#Comment_4115877

  No, i would choose to play survivor or killer any way i want.

  But i will of course respect your rulebook, no worries.

  No, i would choose to play survivor or killer any way i want.

  Even if it's against the Crayon Muncher? :)
  Or would you simply DC?

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 9, 2026

• @Angy_Quentin said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4115867#Comment_4115867

  I'm waiting out the two years until he gets nerfed, thank you for the offer though.

  Welp, there we have it friends, i am officialy forboden to play survivor from now on. A sad sad development.

  Only because you choose to. No one else.

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 9, 2026

• @Angy_Quentin said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4115769#Comment_4115769

  So i can't play survivor if i don't wanna play against the crayon muncher?

  If the Crayon Muncher is part of the active roster and there is a chance that you get paired up with a killer player who plays them, but you want to avoid every possible chance of going up against the Crayon Muncher even once, then yes you can't play survivor.
  
  But that's only because you choose to. Not your teammates, not the killer player, not the community, not BHVR.
  
  You could also choose to just take the chance. With 44 other killer's there's about a 2.2% chance of the killer player picking the Crayon Muncher to play. And if you do end up playing against the Crayon Muncher, you can choose to at least try. You can choose to do you best regardless. See it as a chance to learn. To improve your skills. To be a good teammate.
  
  And should you lose, then at least you've picked up some more experience that will help you in future trials, ultimately making you a better survivor player.
  
  

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 9, 2026

• @Angy_Quentin said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4115536#Comment_4115536

  So you do not want to force people to play against you…but you don't want them to leave the match if they are not having fun...i dont get it tbh

  That's right. I don't want to force people to play against me. But whenever they queue-up for a survivor match, they declare their intent to want to play against a killer. And if I queue-up at around the same time as killer, I declare my intent that I want to play against survivors, and there's a chance that they get paired up with me in a trial. Obviously, neither of us can influence who get's paired up with who for a trial. But the fact remains that they made the conscious choice to be paired up against a killer player, playing any of the available killer characters in the game. They willingly chose to do that by selecting "Survivor" from the menu and pressing the big "Play" button.

  And because they chose that, I am under the impression that they intent to play a trial as a survivor. Therefore I expect them to commit to it until the trial is over for them, regardless of their skill level. So, giving up or ending yourself on hook before the trial is over is not a very cool thing to do towards the rest of their team and me as the killer.

  If they committed to playing as a survivor during the trial, I expect them to see it through until the point where, under normal circumstances, the trial ends for them. And that, while they're playing, they do their best, regardless of how good that is.

  So, to answer your question: You are indeed correct in stating that I don't want to force anyone to play against me and I also don't want them to leave the match if they are not having fun. Because that is something that I think they should have considered beforehand. They have all the information of what they can potentially face. And they can't cherry-pick parts of the experience that they want and simply disregard the rest. If they want that, then they should play a single player game with mods, to that they can tailor the experience to what they want.

  Because that is simply not possible in a multiplayer game involving other human players.

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 9, 2026

• @crogers271 said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4115671#Comment_4115671

  It sounds more like your issue is not expectations vs demands, but don't be rude in end game chat.

  End-game chat is certainly a part of it. But that's more of a symptom. It's also the player's behavior during the trials. I recently had a Vee who gave up after being hit once with Divine Light. She was saved by her teammates and healed every time, but just stood there, not participating. And she was complaining in end-game chat afterwards.

  I even made a post about it on Reddit, asking why players would do something like that, complete with footage of the Vee player. This resulted in over 200 comments arguing both for and against the Vee's behavior. The post is called "Of course the Judgement's kill-rate is 'high'...", in case you want to look it up.

  So there's my personal experiences during trials from the past 4 years, the end-game chat messages I've received during that time, and recently the discussion regarding survivor behavior on Reddit.

  Based on all this, I am genuinely convinced that these types of survivor-player truly believe that they are entitled to certain guarantees and outcomes.

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 9, 2026

• @crogers271 said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4115607#Comment_4115607

  Expectations, sure. But demands, no. Absolutely not.

  What's your line between an expectation and a demand?

  You can expect a killer to play 'fair' (as in, don't tunnel, slug, camp), but you cannot go into end-game chat if they did it anyway (for whatever reason) and berate them for it. You cannot demand from the killer that they should have played 'fair'. If they choose to tunnel, slug or camp, then that's well within their right. The game allows it after all.

  You can also expect Survivors to not behave toxic towards the killer by using Head-on, flashbangs, t-bagging constantly, but you cannot demand that they won't. You cannot go into end-game chat and demand that they won't do it again. The game allows it, so they are well within their right to do it.

  And in my particular case, you can expect a killer player not to play as a certain character (in my case, Judgment), because some players consider her to be OP, but you cannot demand it.

  I got berated multiple times in end-game chat for my playstyle (random-aura build) and that I only won because was I was playing a 'broken' killer and that they would have won if it was any other killer. Survivor-players do not get to demand from killer-players which killer they play, or how they play. They do not get to demand that I play anything other than Judgment.

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 8, 2026

• @crogers271 said:

  Quoting from two different replies:

  But it's not as if there are unwritten rules that dictate that players should or should not play a certain way. That's the argument I'm trying to make.

  and

  No player, survivor or killer, should throw a tantrum because they don't like we way things are going.

  Why is it not a entitlement/unwritten rule to expect people not to suicide?

  BHVR has a an 'anti-go' next system, if a player doesn't trigger it, what's the problem?

  If we're using BHVR has our arbiter, they've said multiple times that people can play the game, broadly, how they want. Want to play for pips? Hide for hatch? Never touch a gen? As long as they fit within the broad rules BHVR has laid out, aren't you asking for your own 'unwritten' rule on how people behave?

  Why is it not a entitlement/unwritten rule to expect people not to suicide?

  Because players can play the game anyway the want, within the confines of what the game allows. Anyone, including myself, can have (and most certainly has) certain expectations about other players, that is absolutely true. But you cannot have guarantees from anyone.

  So if a survivor decides to kills themself on hook (and by that I mean when it's early in the game, they're on their first hook and they brought a perk/offering that allows for a chance to self unhook), there's nothing anyone can do to dissuade them of doing so, because the game allows it.

  It's an absolute ######### move towards your team, because you're basically abandoning your team early on, but they can still do it if they choose to.

  For every trial, I have only one expectation (not a demand) for the other players and that is that they want to play the match through until the end (why would you queue otherwise?) and that they do their best, regardless of how much that is. But I'm certainly not allowed to actually demand all of that, or anything else. From any player.

  And that's the point I'm trying to make here: When playing Dead by Daylight, or any multiplayer PvP game for that matter, you cannot demand any behaviors, results, or outcomes from the others players.

  Expectations, sure. But demands, no. Absolutely not.

  And I started this whole topic because survivor players that I've encountered in the last 10 days while playing Judgment demanded certain behaviors from me. Certain outcomes. And if I choose not to provide those, that's totally fine, because every player can play the game how they want, within the confines of what the game allows.

  And on a side-note: There is a difference between sabotaging your own team for selfish reasons at the start of the trial, and bringing certain perks or using a certain playstyle. And although both are allowed, if you have to complain, I'd probably complain about the former.

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 8, 2026

• @RedCentipede said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4115485#Comment_4115485

  Out of curiosity what perks were you running on Judgment, trying to get some ideas for myself.

  Perks:
  Lethal Pursuer
  Gearhead
  Nemesis
  Celestial Witness
  
  Add-ons:
  Electric Torch
  Blindfold of the Devoted
  
  The idea of this build is to have random aura all over the place when survivors least expect it. Judgment is in a position where she can quickly switch targets, if an opportunity presents itself. But it's also very easy to counter if you coordinate properly as a SWF. But I don't mind. I play for fun. And if I win, great. if not, so be it. It's all part of the game.
  
  Best counters against this build are "Boon: Shadowstep", and believe it or not: "Residual Manifest", combined with "Blast Mine". Because Judgment doesn't hook very often and mainly uses her power to down survivors, Judgment players will most likely never bring perks like PainRes or Surge in their build. So they have to kick gens to regress them (and maybe apply Eruption). And the 'Residual BlastMine' combo directly counters that.
  
  Also, running "We See You" when you're part of a SWF is also effective. You can deduce what perks and/or addons Judgment has and even use it against her, by revealing her to your teammates. Being able to tell where and when Divine Light might be coming from for 15 seconds can be an absolute game changer.

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 8, 2026

• @Xendritch said:

  I mostly agree with this but disagree vehemently survivors aren't entitled to good teammates or at least teammates around their skill level. That's the entire point of having MMR and SBMM and that is actually very important to make sure happens because the way the game works the killer only needs to find one weak player to make it a 3v1 so if you have 3 cracked survivors and 1 weak survivor that 1 weak survivor is gonna drag the other 3 way down.

  You know what, I actually somewhat agree:
  
  I agree with you that MMR and SBMM shoud indeed match you up with other players with the same or similar MMR.
  
  However, during the last Discord Dev stream (and please correct me if I'm wrong about this), I remember the devs stating the the new MMR system prioritizes queue-times over accurate MMR matching. And additionally, regardless of MMR, players can have off-days as well, therefore not performing according to their 'expected' MMR.
  
  So yes, I completely agree with you that there should be a reasonable expectation of similar skill levels. But in some cases it simply wont be guaranteed, so you should not always expect it.

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 8, 2026

• @Angy_Quentin said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4115485#Comment_4115485

  So you are fine with people dcing your matches and $uiciding on hook?

  No. Absolutely not. They should absolutely not do that. Why would you willingly join the game, only to DC or refuse to participate in the game? Them doing that because they don't like how the game is going is exactly what I'm talking about. No player, survivor or killer, should throw a tantrum because they don't like we way things are going.
  
  Every video game that involves multiple human players will have unpredictable and unexpected elements in it. But isn't that one of the reason why we play multiplayer games?

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 8, 2026

• @Icaurs said:

  This is.. a very bad take.

  Of cause you should be entitled to people playing a certain way and when they don't you should complain. I remember back when this game use to quite new survivors had a saying "get good in the chase." It was a way of just shutting down valid criticism of how the game was designed. While I agree the devs hold the ultimate responsibility in maintaining fun and balance as a community you should try to promote the game in a way that is fun. I understand that is subjective too a point but survivors have been offering valid criticism of killers who people don't want to go against and have just been silenced.

  I really hate the DC penalty because it was mostly introduced to hide the fact things like if it was removed survivors would DC most matches against Ghoul or Jason. I'm not saying that means they have to be rushed nerfed but you have to acknowledge flaws in their design.

  here is my question. The second floor of RPD library use to accessible and when certain builds almost impossible to get hooks. Would you say that survivors that use this build were ruining the match by abusing a flaw in the design or should killers just have to deal with it?

  Of cause you should be entitled to people playing a certain way and when they don't you should complain.

  This is either sarcasm, ragebait, or you genuinly believe that. I can't tell unfortunately. Could you elaborate?
  

  The second floor of RPD library use to accessible and when certain builds almost impossible to get hooks. Would you say that survivors that use this build were ruining the match by abusing a flaw in the design or should killers just have to deal with it?

  Killers should just have to deal with it, since it was in the game. If survivors want to play that way and the game allows it, then they should.
  
  Was it healthy? An argument could be made for not. And in the end, BHVR did in fact change it, so they must have thought so too. But it's not as if there are unwritten rules that dictate that players should or should not play a certain way. That's the argument I'm trying to make.

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 8, 2026

• I'm not forcing anyone to play against me. They are playing Dead by Daylight out of their own free will (at least I hope so), thereby accepting anything that the game can throw at them.

  They don't get to cherry-pick the parts that they like. And if that doesn't work for them, they can stop playing at any time. Just close the game and play something else.

  in Judgment may have revealed an issue in the mindset of (some) Survivors Comment by Hopi September 8, 2026

• Same issue here. Using version 3.28.0.417 of Nvidia GeForce Experience on Win11.

  in Nvidia no longer supports dead by daylight with 8.2.0 Comment by Hopi August 27, 2024