subdl

About

Username: subdl
Joined: May 23, 2025
Visits: 394
Last Active: August 27, 2025

Comments

@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3944564#Comment_3944564
What do you think about this experiential asymmetry?
The whole game is asymmetrical. That's an awful place to approach it from. Is it good, or is it bad?
Even if both experiences are equally bad (which again, they aren't, even if they are both bad), fixing one does not make the other any worse than it was before.
Are you genuinely okay with things staying this way?
There's lots of things I'm not okay with. Some I understand are almost impossible to fix, some I understand are that different players want different things on, and a few I think BHVR is wrong on.
I think BHVR should do more to confronting bad manners and games that devolve into pointless gameplay. There are a few simple ideas I wish they would do, but I understand their are more complexities with most issues.
I have no problem with the concept of killers being able to abandon, just like I have no problem with many concepts in the game such as reducing gen rush or broader anti-tunnel, but talking about a concept is much different than talking about an implementation.
If they put a killer option in to abandon when the survivors are right at the exit line I'd be fine with it. I don't think it would have any overall impact, which gets to why it would be time on BHVR's part that wouldn't merit anything, but I'd be absolutely fine with it going in.
If they want to expand on the entire idea of the abandon concept, sure, I'd probably support it as well, but that would be a substantial shift from their current view of the game.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3944749#Comment_3944749
They are not the same, true. But both need to be acted on.
Except then each issue needs to be talked about on its own.
People don't like to be stuck in pointless games, but we all realize that it is inevitable in any multiplayer game there will be moments were it is inevitable. How long do people have to wait, how frequently does it occur, how much of a wait is it, and what other ramifications might fixing it have on the game?

Thank you for clearly answering my question—I now understand your position.
To be honest, although I’ve long advocated for a “match abandonment” feature for killers, I had already resigned myself to the fact that such a function would probably never be implemented. As I’ve said before, allowing killers to surrender would inevitably disrupt the survivors’ sense of victory—just as survivor abandonments now undercut the killer’s sense of having won.
I assumed BHVR understood this. I figured they were making a conscious tradeoff—valuing the survivors’ collective sense of fulfillment and convenience over the individual satisfaction of the killer.
And yes, that’s frustrating for me, but no matter how strongly I disagreed with that design philosophy, it seemed clear (even from community manager comments) that they simply weren’t going to engage with viewpoints like mine. Their priorities were already set.
But now, watching the current disaster around the AFK crow issue unfold, I couldn’t help but wonder: “Could it be that the devs haven’t actually thought any of this through at all? Might they just throw in ideas into the game—without seriously considering the broader consequences of their implementation?”
At this point, I’ve started to enjoy something else entirely—not the game itself, but the chaos and bizarre logic that each new BHVR update manages to deliver.
It’s like watching a live experiment where the devs test how far they can go without thinking things through.

in I did not sign up for a stressful PVP game to kill bots Comment by subdl June 20, 2025
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3943967#Comment_3943967
This is just a strawman. Not a single thing you say here is actually responding to what I actually wrote.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3944422#Comment_3944422
So, is that a fair reflection of what you mean to say?
Sigh. I really should just say this is absurd and tell you to actually respond to what I wrote, but I'll try again.
4 minutes with nothing to do is greater than 2 minutes with something to do.
The inability to end the BMing (slugged) is worse than being able to end the BMing (push them out).
All survivors down, hooked, or dead is a much clearer line to draw than the survivors at the exit gate. With the exit gate BHVR would have to draw a line on how far that survivors could just stand slightly farther away from.
Fixing one thing is better than not fixing anything.
Its an asym, so its a game of double standards. I wish I had 40 types of survivors so I could jump on and complain about how only 3 of them are actually worth playing.
To sum up:
If your argument is reliant upon a double standard, you need to engage with the double standard. The fact that people don't agree with you doesn't mean they are saying you are foolish and meaningless, they are saying they disagree and stating their reasons (in this case all of the clear differences between the two). State your reasons in response if you wish to continue the discussion.
If your argument is that the devs are not dedicating the effort to solving your problems, and others respond with the difficulties of those problems, again, they aren't calling you foolish and meaningless. They are disagreeing, stating their reasons, and if you have disagreements you can respond to them if you wish.
Or you could just put things that were never said in quotes. Nothing will move forward, nothing will be discussed, but strawman are always an easy argument to win.

You keep emphasizing the reasons why the abandon feature was implemented.
But perhaps it’s time to confront the actual outcome it has produced in today’s endgame matches.
Yes, the feature may have been added with good intentions—to protect survivors from prolonged slugging.
But what has it really led to?
Now, when survivors lose, they can instantly vanish—leaving behind an empty mess—while the killer is left to either clean up the bots or abandon the very match they just won.
Meanwhile, when the killer loses, nothing has changed. They still have to endure a humiliating, miserable two-minute wait, forced to watch as survivors dance, flash their lights, and bask in the full glory of victory.
Mercy for killers? A surrender option?
Don’t be absurd—that would diminish the survivors’ sense of triumph!

Is that truly a better outcome for the overall game experience?
You seem to be saying: “Yes, it’s a double standard. But it’s hard to fix—anyway, slugged survivors are at least more deserving of pity than killers left to endure the humiliation of being treated like losers. So really, the current mechanic isn’t that bad. Just stop complaining and deal with it.”

But if that’s not your view, then please be clear: What do you think about this experiential asymmetry?
Are you genuinely okay with things staying this way?

in I did not sign up for a stressful PVP game to kill bots Comment by subdl June 18, 2025
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3943372#Comment_3943372
But apparently, some players manage to find joy in such pathetic loser routines—wandering around aimlessly, breaking leftover pallets, or politely seeing survivors off—all in the name of so-called “player agency.”
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3943512#Comment_3943512
Everyone refuses to admit that tea-bagging survivors at the exit gates, waiting for the killer to push them out like 5-years-old children is also a waste of time.
Just because two things have some similarities doesn't mean they are the same. Just because two things are a problem, doesn't mean they are both a problem to the same degree.
No one is saying they love the gameplay of going around and breaking pallets. No one is saying they love to see off the teabagging survivors.
But those are things that exist. When comparing the level of the problem they need to be recognized. Being slugged was not just longer, it was far more pointless. Implementing a killer abandon is much trickier about where to draw the line
Its why the comparison comes off as silly to so many people. It's an asym, the sides are different, and trying to draw direct comparisons frequently won't work.

When survivors are subjected to inhumane treatment—like being slugged—they are, of course, granted the full right to leave the match instantly.
The devs’ stance: “Oh, how sad. Don’t worry. Let’s make sure you don’t waste any more of your time. You can even skip the killer’s execution scene—it’s not worth sitting through, after all.”

But when it comes to the mental strain placed on killers, the response is simply: “Addressing it would take effort—so let’s not. Just leave it as is. Who cares?”
The devs’ stance: “Stop whining. You still have ‘agency’—you can move, can’t you? So either chase the survivors out yourself, or stare at a wall for two minutes. Your choice.”
Because this is an asymmetrical game, viewpoints like mine—those that highlight this blatant double standard—are dismissed by so many “reasonable” players like you as nothing more than foolish and meaningless comparisons.
So, is that a fair reflection of what you mean to say?

in I did not sign up for a stressful PVP game to kill bots Comment by subdl June 18, 2025
The core issue isn’t “slugging vs teabagging.”
It’s the fundamental unfairness in the endgame experience:
When survivors lose, they get to go-next instantly—leaving behind empty husks controlled by AI.
But when killers win, they’re forced either to clean up the mess survivors left behind… or to abandon their victory entirely.
In contrast, when survivors win, they’re granted by devs the full right to enjoy their victory with endless teabagging dances and flashlight clicks, all from the safety of the exit gate, until they’re ceremoniously escorted out by the killer they just defeated.
Personally, I find this whole ritual hard to stomach. But apparently, some players manage to find joy in such pathetic loser routines—wandering around aimlessly, breaking leftover pallets, or politely seeing survivors off—all in the name of so-called “player agency.”
That very term—“agency”—has been weaponized by some survivor-aligned players to justify what is clearly a broken and deeply unsatisfying gameplay imbalance.
I’d genuinely like to hear the developers’ current thoughts on this dull and demoralizing endgame experience for killers.
Unless, of course, they rarely play killer themselves and have simply never had to feel it firsthand—in which case, their continued tolerance of this design would at least be somewhat understandable.

in I did not sign up for a stressful PVP game to kill bots Comment by subdl June 17, 2025
Here is my opinion, which I posted a while ago, regarding what I believe to be the most unpleasant and systemically unfair aspect in the entire history of DBD.
@subdl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939618#Comment_3939618
In the current system, the moment all survivors are downed, they are allowed — officially encouraged — to press the Abandon button and go next immediately.
No penalty, no consequences, no shame.
The developers have made it clear: skipping the killer’s at most a few dozen seconds of a “victory ceremony” (hooks or mori) is perfectly acceptable.
And let’s be honest — who wouldn’t skip a lost match to save time?
Meanwhile, the killer — the winner — is left alone to clean up after bots as their final match experience.
This isn’t a rare occurrence. It’s nearly every match now. This is the norm.
⸻
So what happens to the killer when the game is already decided and there’s no realistic chance of turning things around?
They’re forced to stay in the match. And their so-called “choices”?
• Escort survivors who are spamming t-bag dances at the exit gate.
• Kick a few leftover pallets just to miserably scrape together a handful of Bloodpoints.
• Wander the map aimlessly, hoping the victors finally get bored and leave.
A community manager said killers “have agency.”
But these are not meaningful options.
They’re scraps — superficial busywork meant to justify wasting the player’s time under the guise of agency.
Survivors can leave instantly when they’ve lost.
Killers are expected to endure the endgame until the last second.
⸻
Why is only one side allowed to save time?
If “gonext” is a right for survivors, then killers deserve that same right — especially when the outcome is already sealed.

@subdl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940402#Comment_3940402
I understand and respect the view that each player interprets the game through their own values and judges whether a match was good or bad accordingly.
However, since DBD is a PvP game in which real human players confront each other with opposing objectives, it’s entirely natural that many players — especially killers, who are outnumbered and bear sole responsibility for the outcome — seek a clear sense of victory and defeat.
From that perspective, it’s not unreasonable to expect that the moment of victory should be accompanied by an appropriate and satisfying conclusion. When that is missing, it’s only natural for players to feel discomfort or dissatisfaction.
My frustration with the current system doesn’t stem merely from the inconvenience of having to deal with bots. Rather, it comes from the emotional disconnection — the sense that the fulfillment of victory is suddenly cut off.
After carefully making decisions under pressure and finally achieving a 4K, you’re told, “The players you were facing have already moved on to their next match. Please handle the rest against AI.”
That moment of triumph is rendered hollow.
Can you imagine how demoralizing that feels?
To make matters worse, if you find the cleanup bothersome, you’re prompted to press a button labeled “Abandon.”
This feels absurd. It’s as if, after winning a chess match, you’re told, “Your opponent has already left. Please either put away the pieces yourself or abandon the match entirely.”
In a real match, both the winner and loser remain present and conclude the game with a handshake.
The idea of the loser vanishing while the winner silently packs up the board — that’s not a proper competitive experience. It lacks closure, dignity, and respect for the match that just took place.
This kind of structure causes significant stress for killer players in particular.
Of course, I don’t deny that everyone interprets the game differently.
But at the same time, I believe many players would agree that a well-designed competitive game must provide an ending that properly reflects the outcome.
In the current state of DBD, survivors — the losing side — move on without witnessing the conclusion, while the killer — the victor — is left behind to do cleanup alone.
That kind of ending is fundamentally broken.
And the fact that the developers failed to anticipate or design around this leaves me deeply disappointed.

in I did not sign up for a stressful PVP game to kill bots Comment by subdl June 17, 2025
Many killer players probably see a “win” as getting 3 or more kills in a match—that is, eliminating the majority of the survivors.
If that’s the case, isn’t it reasonable to assume that the developers aim for an overall kill rate of around 60%, in order to maintain a perceived 50% win rate for killers?

in Stop using kill rates as evidence of anything... Comment by subdl June 16, 2025
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941972#Comment_3941972
Killers tend to express frustration with structural issues such as matchmaking or game balance. They rarely demand that survivors play a certain way or criticize their tactics wholesale.
Something that gets brought up is that a lot of killer issues have been fixed. Killers complained frequently about things like Buckle Up+MFT, unhookable builds, and old DH on how it made the game feel.
Survivor mains, on the other hand, often direct their anger toward killers’ in-game behavior—strategic choices or playstyles that are entirely within the rules and meant to win the game.
The biggest mistake BHVR ever made in my opinion was expecting the community to kind of police itself and hope MMR could clean things up.
I don't blame killers for how they play, it's a BHVR issue. Thankfully, BHVR is finally addressing some of these points.
-
Comparing your arguments from a more survivor player perspective:
Killers are upset that they occasionally lose. Survivors have accepted losing, but they'd at least like the game to be enjoyable.
Those who insist otherwise—calling them “toxic,” “dishonorable,” or “cheap”—have likely abandoned not just competitive killer play, but also any serious effort as survivors themselves.
There are so many survivor tactics that get labeled as this, everything from sabo builds, to flashlight saves, to background player, to lots of builds that have been patched out at killer request. I've seen plenty of killer posts before the abandon system on how they would intentionally bleed out players for doing any of the above.
The whole concept of SWF gets called cheating all the time despite BHVR saying it is absolutely okay.

It is absolutely valid for players to feel personal discomfort toward tactics such as camping, tunneling, leaving survivors slugged, or engaging in hook-based mind games. These emotional responses are entirely natural, and everyone has the right to express them freely on this forum.
However, feeling discomfort is one thing—using that discomfort as a justification to insult, deny, or try to restrict someone else’s playstyle is a completely different matter.
For example, if a killer player were to say to a survivor, “Stop playing with friends. A good survivor should be able to escape without using SWF,” most people would find that petty and ridiculous.
By the same logic, when survivors say things like “Tunneling is what bad killers do” or “Camping is immoral,” and attempt to shame others into avoiding those tactics, they are not promoting fairness—they are imposing their personal values under the guise of “morality,” and attacking legitimate strategic decisions in a condescending and childish manner.
Indeed, in this very thread, several survivor-centric posters have been engaging with those who disagree through disparaging generalizations and dishonest rhetoric, actively degrading the quality of discussion.
What’s even worse is that, rather than simply saying, “That tactic is too strong and I find it frustrating to deal with,” which would at least be honest, they resort to statements like:
“Good killers don’t need to do that.”
“Multi-hook is stronger. If you can’t win that way, you’re just bad.”
These kinds of deceitful claims are not only used to mask their own lack of skill, but also to instill false guilt and an undeserved sense of inferiority in killer players who are genuinely working hard to succeed through thoughtful strategy.

in Stop using kill rates as evidence of anything... Comment by subdl June 14, 2025
While browsing the forum, I found it particularly interesting that, although both sides—killers and survivors—may have their complaints, the direction of those complaints is fundamentally different.
Killers tend to express frustration with structural issues such as matchmaking or game balance. They rarely demand that survivors play a certain way or criticize their tactics wholesale.
Survivor mains, on the other hand, often direct their anger toward killers’ in-game behavior—strategic choices or playstyles that are entirely within the rules and meant to win the game.
This reveals something quite telling: that some survivors seem more focused on limiting killers’ options in the name of morality than on improving their own skill. In other words, they’re not asking for fairness—they’re asking for handicaps and babysitting.
They’re essentially saying:
“I don’t want to try harder, so I’d like you to go easier on me,”
wrapped in the convenient packaging of “fair play.”
Camping, tunneling, slugging, and hook control are all legitimate tactics based on judgment and risk management. There is nothing shameful about them.
Those who insist otherwise—calling them “toxic,” “dishonorable,” or “cheap”—have likely abandoned not just competitive killer play, but also any serious effort as survivors themselves.
To all killer players out there:
Don’t be brainwashed by survivor hypocrisy disguised as morality.
Trust your tactical decisions, and play with confidence.
And to all who claim you can get a 4K by playing “MORALLY” as killer —
Then by all means, play that way yourself.
But don’t tell other killer players how they should play.

in Stop using kill rates as evidence of anything... Comment by subdl June 14, 2025
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941676#Comment_3941676
I'm just tired of the idea that survivor players have of "oh multihooking is viable!" even though any killer player knows multihooking is bad.
Like somehow me saying that "leaving 4 survivors alive is objectively bad" is an incorrect statement? It's baffling. It's also funny because they act like I can't search up how top killers play and literally see that when they are going against competent survivors (and they are actively trying to win) they have to tunnel and camp. When they are playing against survivors who can't last 15 seconds in chase, ofc multihooking is phenomenal.
It's just a blatant lie to say multihooking is good.

What’s truly baffling is that survivors not only claim “multihooking is a viable strategy,” but go so far as to frame it as some kind of ethically superior, morally “correct” playstyle.
As if a killer who doesn’t multihook is somehow dishonest or unfair — when in reality, they’re simply making the most optimal decisions to win.
Are they trying to collar killers with guilt, restricting their strategic options through moral pressure?
Or do they simply have no real understanding of the killer’s mental load and decision-making — whether due to lack of experience, or a complete failure of imagination?
One thing is certain: multihooking is not some noble ideal. It’s a luxury — one you can afford only when you’re far ahead — and in most cases, it’s an inefficient strategy.

in Stop using kill rates as evidence of anything... Comment by subdl June 13, 2025
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941636#Comment_3941636
So then screw the top people who want to have fun right! (Even though if you're doing it for average players, I don't think average killers would be able to multihook even against average survivors so you're just doing a loop).
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941642#Comment_3941642
Wrong.
I am asking for the betterment of the game by saying "Hey, we should make both sides feel better to play, instead of just one" like a normal human being would. Because what I'm describing is not people being better, what I'm describing is a playstyle that is an active detriment to try and do, against competent players. Multihooking actively handicaps the killer.
If you take a killer and put them against survivors of equal skill, that killer is losing trying to multihook 8/10 times. Because it's objectively bad. Leaving 4 survivors alive for an extended period of time, is bad.
I repeat, leaving 4 survivors alive, is BAD.
Because as I've said, for the 50th time… the game is severely survivor sided in the 4v1, but severely killer sided in the 3v1.

Please don’t let yourself be swayed by self-righteous and combative rhetoric.
Frankly, I think you’re being far too gentle — but your logic is 100% correct.
Managing hooks and eliminating survivors efficiently is the most fundamental aspect of winning as killer.
Tunneling, camping, slugging — these are not “easy outs” or “lazy tactics.”
They’re high-risk, timing-sensitive decisions that often determine whether you lose 3 gens for nothing or actually apply pressure.
The only people who call these strategies “braindead” are those who haven’t played killer long enough to understand how fragile the 4v1 truly is.
Anyone who’s played at higher MMR knows: misjudge a tunnel and you hand over the match. Mistime a slug and it’s a full reset.
These aren’t shortcuts — they’re gambles. With real consequences.
But of course, survivors who don’t want to learn how to counter them love to repeat the same tired lines, like:
“Good killers don’t need to tunnel.”
“If you have to play like that to win, you just need to get better.”
Funny how the ones who can’t do something themselves always have the strongest opinions on how it “should” be done.
To all killers trying to win: don’t be brainwashed or lose sight of yourself.
There’s nothing shameful about using viable strategies to win.
What is shameful is pretending to be the voice of fairness, while trying to guilt others into playing by imaginary “honor codes” — codes that just happen to make the game easier for one side and harder for the other.

in Stop using kill rates as evidence of anything... Comment by subdl June 13, 2025
@TimberGoingDown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941609#Comment_3941609
Come on. You and I both know that it's not about "losing the match." It's about the humiliation ritual of having to walk halfway across the map, get tbagged while survivors are 100% safe at the very edge of the gates, and they force you to hit them twice apiece while they still tbag, then walk all the way across the map to the OTHER gate and repeat the process with the other two survivors at the other gate. It's 100% a humiliation ritual that almost every survivor forces any killer they beat to go through.
If I lose a game, almost every time I either have to have the loss repeatedly rubbed in my face, or I have to sit there for 1 minute and 59 seconds because survivors will absolutely wait the entire two minutes for the chance to get a bag in. Honestly, survivor gate tbagging is why I always play to win in every match and never follow the "rulebook." Survivors are going to be toxic no matter what whether I win or lose, so I might as well win.

I agree.
This “ritual” of being taunted from the safety of the exit gates after a loss is more mentally exhausting for killers than the loss itself. In fact, I’ve heard countless stories of players quitting killer altogether and switching to survivor-only because of this.
That said, I’ll admit something personal: it was precisely because of this kind of humiliation that I developed a fierce determination to get full kills at all costs. And that, in turn, made the victories feel all the more satisfying.
In that sense, I had accepted even the “miserable loser experience” as part of what makes DBD a PvP game.
But the introduction of the Abandon system has completely destroyed that balance.
Downing all survivors, hooking them one by one, and ending the match with a final mori —
that small “ritual of the victor” has now been permanently erased by the developers, never to be experienced again.
To repeat, in the current state of DBD:
- Survivors can still taunt to their heart’s content when they win, and go next instantly when they lose
- Killers, even when they win, are stuck cleaning up after AI bots — and when they lose, they endure the same humiliating routine as always
—leaving killers with nothing but unsatisfying outcomes, no matter how the match ends.
Survivors are now fully liberated from the sting of defeat, while killers are stripped of the satisfaction of victory.
If this is what the developers truly consider a healthy direction, then it’s clear: they’ve decided to chase out killer players who care about winning from the game itself.
in Killers should be able to abandon when the gates are powered Comment by subdl June 13, 2025
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940890#Comment_3940890
I understand and respect the view that each player interprets the game through their own values and judges whether a match was good or bad accordingly.
However, since DBD is a PvP game in which real human players confront each other with opposing objectives, it’s entirely natural that many players — especially killers, who are outnumbered and bear sole responsibility for the outcome — seek a clear sense of victory and defeat.
Two points:
1: A game cannot both have firm win conditions, and also let everyone have their own standards. For better or worse, BHVR chose the latter path.
2: The game is going on its 9th year. This isn't a game currently in beta development. These things are pretty thoroughly baked into the design at this point and they've had a lot of success with their model.
My frustration with the current system doesn’t stem merely from the inconvenience of having to deal with bots. Rather, it comes from the emotional disconnection — the sense that the fulfillment of victory is suddenly cut off.
After carefully making decisions under pressure and finally achieving a 4K, you’re told, “The players you were facing have already moved on to their next match. Please handle the rest against AI.” That moment of triumph is rendered hollow. Can you imagine how demoralizing that feels?
We're on perception issues, but
1: It's demoralizing for survivors to just sit on the ground waiting for clean up. Same for a killer when the survivors refuse to leave. Just because we can fix one more easily than the other doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
2: I am surprised by saying things like hard fought about the last down.
When the killer wins the game is almost always over well before the last chase. Frequently the last one or two chases aren't really relevant. Usually I spend the last minute or three as killer just hoping the game can speed up in some way (even if the survivors were really good).
The idea of the loser vanishing while the winner silently packs up the board — that’s not a proper competitive experience. It lacks closure, dignity, and respect for the match that just took place.
It's strange that chess keeps coming up being its a game where its very normal to end in one side conceding the game.

The logic that “ambiguous win conditions justify any kind of ending” simply doesn’t hold up. If anything, the lack of clear definition makes it all the more important to carefully design how victory is felt. From that perspective, the current implementation—where the winner is left to clean up alone, or else press an “Abandon” button—feels inexcusably careless.
Sure, the system that lets survivors go next immediately after being downed does a fine job of erasing the sting of defeat.
But on the other side, killers who down all survivors — a clear objective win — are left alone in the match, robbed of the most essential part: the subjective experience of victory. For me and many others, the issue isn’t simply about “winning” — it’s about the absence of feeling like you won.
Perhaps that’s not a problem for you. It is for me.
And as you pointed out, DBD is entering its ninth year. This is no longer a game in experimental stages. Which is precisely why it’s disheartening, as a killer main, to see such a fundamental flaw in the competitive design introduced at this point in the game’s life.
“Please handle the cleanup yourself.”
“Your opponents have already gone next.”
If this bizarre outcome of the ‘Abandon’ system was unintended, then it speaks to a failure of foresight. But if the developers understood this dynamic and still saw no issue, it suggests they’ve already written off those who care about competitive integrity, as if we’re just inconvenient noise best ignored.
Perhaps players like you—who can adapt to such a system without resistance—are exactly the kind of ideal customers the developers had in mind.
As for me, I suppose I was never meant to belong on that side.

in Killers should be able to abandon when the gates are powered Comment by subdl June 11, 2025
@smurf said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940398#Comment_3940398
That's true about not everyone sharing that opinion! It's why I make sure to write that those things are my opinion :)
Can I ask what you find disatisfying about having to finish off the bots if you don't want to acknowledge that the match is done and cut it short once you've won though?
Maybe the button should say something like 'End Trial'?
Also, I don't want to be argumentative so I hope this doesn't come across too much like that, but I think we don't have defined win conditions in DBD. The closest thing we have is our hidden MMR. That leaves the game more up to the interpretation of the player to decide whether they had a good match.

I understand and respect the view that each player interprets the game through their own values and judges whether a match was good or bad accordingly.
However, since DBD is a PvP game in which real human players confront each other with opposing objectives, it’s entirely natural that many players — especially killers, who are outnumbered and bear sole responsibility for the outcome — seek a clear sense of victory and defeat.
From that perspective, it’s not unreasonable to expect that the moment of victory should be accompanied by an appropriate and satisfying conclusion. When that is missing, it’s only natural for players to feel discomfort or dissatisfaction.
My frustration with the current system doesn’t stem merely from the inconvenience of having to deal with bots. Rather, it comes from the emotional disconnection — the sense that the fulfillment of victory is suddenly cut off.
After carefully making decisions under pressure and finally achieving a 4K, you’re told, “The players you were facing have already moved on to their next match. Please handle the rest against AI.”
That moment of triumph is rendered hollow.
Can you imagine how demoralizing that feels?
To make matters worse, if you find the cleanup bothersome, you’re prompted to press a button labeled “Abandon.”
This feels absurd. It’s as if, after winning a chess match, you’re told, “Your opponent has already left. Please either put away the pieces yourself or abandon the match entirely.”
In a real match, both the winner and loser remain present and conclude the game with a handshake.
The idea of the loser vanishing while the winner silently packs up the board — that’s not a proper competitive experience. It lacks closure, dignity, and respect for the match that just took place.
This kind of structure causes significant stress for killer players in particular.
Of course, I don’t deny that everyone interprets the game differently.
But at the same time, I believe many players would agree that a well-designed competitive game must provide an ending that properly reflects the outcome.
In the current state of DBD, survivors — the losing side — move on without witnessing the conclusion, while the killer — the victor — is left behind to do cleanup alone.
That kind of ending is fundamentally broken.
And the fact that the developers failed to anticipate or design around this leaves me deeply disappointed.

in Killers should be able to abandon when the gates are powered Comment by subdl June 11, 2025
@smurf said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940363#Comment_3940363
I guess that's up to the specific player then :)
Once I've done well in a match, it doesn't matter to me if I have a server disconnect, presss a button to abandon, or have my MMR just outright erased; I know I had a good match.
Personally, I don't think there's such a thing as winning or losing in DBD. If I sacrifice a few survivors and didn't do anything cheap, I probably did a good job. At that point, nothing can change the outcome of the match for me. Same when I'm survivor: if I escape, I usually feel alright, and if I get sacrificed but did a good job and didn't have to put up with someone tunneling or camping before endgame, it was probably a good match :)
If I try to think of the game in terms of winning and losing, I'd say that 3-4 sacrifices without tunneling or camping is a net killer win for me, any sacrifice is a killer win over that survivor, and an escape of any kind is an individual survivor win. Once I've secured that game state, there's nothing that clicking a button will do to change the outcome of my game. Likewise, my MMR change after a game doesn't change the fact that I won or lost if I think in those terms.
I always wonder why anyone cares about their MMR anyway. We don't have a way of knowing our own MMR outside of trying to judge the level of skill of our opponents, which can really only tell general trends. And it doesn't impact our experience in-game except to give us different opponents. I'd be interested to hear what your motivation for caring about MMR is; no judgements :)

You repeatedly say things like “that’s up to the specific player,” “it doesn’t matter to me,” or “personally.”
And that’s fine — those are your values. But please understand that not everyone shares the same perspective.
DBD is a competitive game between real human players. Win conditions exist. For killers like me, a complete win means eliminating all survivors.
Camping and tunneling aren’t shameful exploits — they’re legitimate, high-risk strategies requiring judgment and timing. When people call them “cheap,” I wonder: are they playing a different game with the same name, or are they just absurdly good at killer?
Either way, it’s hard to take seriously.
You can’t expect to win by politely rotating hooks and handing out safe rescues. This role doesn’t allow for that kind of generosity. When the tactics you chose to employ are used skillfully and lead to a 4K, that’s when killers feel they’ve truly earned the win.
That’s why the current system — where even after downing all survivors, you’re forced to babysit bots or press a button labeled “abandon” — feels so hollow. It erases the emotional payoff. And the idea that the winner should press “abandon”? That’s not just ironic — it’s absurd.
I’m not dismissing your values. But no one should be mocked as “sweaty” or made to feel ashamed just for taking competition seriously in a PvP game.
As for MMR — I don’t care, especially when the devs deliberately hide the details and keep making inconsistent statements. What I care about is the clear, earned feeling of victory. If others care about MMR, that’s fine too.
But let me be clear: this “abandon” mechanic, which nullifies the final moments of a hard-fought match, is one of the most frustrating systems ever added — rushed into the game with little thought or understanding of player experience.

in Killers should be able to abandon when the gates are powered Comment by subdl June 10, 2025
@Saitamaspower said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940112#Comment_3940112
Let me break it down again — slowly.
“If each of you blocks 2 killers, that’s up to 8 killers effectively excluded from the pool, isn’t it?”
No. It isn’t.
This isn’t match-based banning.
This is account-level preference filtering.
My blocklist doesn’t affect the current match. It affects who I can be matched with at all.
There’s no moment where 4 survivors each ban two killers and 8 are excluded from the match. That’s a fantasy model you made up to sound dramatic.
What really happens:
A killer queues.
The system looks for 4 survivors who haven’t blocked them.
If it finds them, match proceeds. If not, the killer queues longer — same way high-MMR killers do already.
“These individual choices combine to shape a shared outcome.”
Yes — just like every player choice does.
Map offerings shape outcomes. Perks shape outcomes. Killers shape outcomes.
So does opting out of bad matchups.
This isn’t unique. This is how every matchmaking system adapts to player behavior.
If certain killers get filtered more often? That’s not oppression.
That’s a trend. A signal that players are mentally done with them
No matter how it’s explained, I still can’t follow the logic that account-level killer blocks are somehow acceptable. Match-based or not, the outcome is the same — fewer killer options and longer queues, which most would agree leads to a worse gameplay experience.
But sure, you’re absolutely entitled to ask for whatever you want.There’s no need to keep persuading me.
The devs have a long track record of implementing features that, to me, feel like short-sighted, band-aid fixes lacking coherent reasoning, all in response to persistent survivor feedback.
So by all means, keep voicing your wishes as a proud survivor.
At this point, I’m mostly curious to see how the devs will respond to your request.
in Personal Killer Blacklist: The Most Rational Fix You’re Ignoring Comment by subdl June 9, 2025
@Saitamaspower said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940072#Comment_3940072
You're missing the point.
This isn't about banning killers from a match.
It's about letting individual players avoid a couple of matchups they personally find miserable. My blocklist affects my queue, not yours. There’s no “8 killers banned per game” scenario unless you’re imagining some shared draft system which no one asked for.
And even if Nurse or Blight get blocked often? Good. That’s feedback the devs can actually use. Not whining, not guesswork—real data on what players consistently want to avoid. That's not a balance problem. That’s a design signal.
"But then killer mains might have longer queues!"
Yes. That’s called a tradeoff. If you play high-mobility, high-control killers that routinely frustrate players, you don’t get to act surprised when people start opting out. You chose power. Now deal with the responsibility that comes with it.
This isn’t about dodging skill.
It’s about respecting the player’s time.
You can’t say “it’s just a game” and then force people to endure experiences they actively dislike.
Give players agency. Track the data. Learn what feels bad not just what wins.
That’s how you make a better game.

No matter how hard I try, I just can’t understand your logic.
You say, “My blocklist affects my queue, not yours” — but in a match with 4 survivors and 1 killer, if each of you blocks 2 killers, that’s still up to 8 killers effectively excluded from the pool, isn’t it?
If that truly were a special privilege reserved just for you, I might understand.
But the reality is, these individual choices combine to shape a shared outcome — one that directly limits the killer’s character options and increases their effective wait time.
That said, don’t worry.
The devs have never turned their backs on honest, pure-hearted survivors.
So don’t give up — just keep asking for whatever you want as survivors. I’m sure they’ll give it to you eventually.

in Personal Killer Blacklist: The Most Rational Fix You’re Ignoring Comment by subdl June 9, 2025
If each of the 4 survivors bans 2 killers, up to 8 bans can occur per match. With 40 killers in total, the chance of any specific killer being banned is about 18.6%. This doesn’t directly mean that matchmaking times increase by 18.6%. However, killers like Nurse or The Ghoul are banned far more frequently due to their strength or popularity. For players who rely on those killers and prefer not to switch, this can lead to repeated matchmaking retries — effectively increasing wait time.
That said, maybe this kind of system makes sense in today’s gaming culture.
After all, it’s just a game — people want to keep things casual, avoid discomfort, and skip anything that isn’t fun.

in Personal Killer Blacklist: The Most Rational Fix You’re Ignoring Comment by subdl June 9, 2025
@BorisDDAA said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939764#Comment_3939764
You've already defeated the real players. Like I said it's the same as survivors only getting the satisfaction of escaping if the killer shows up at the exit gate to see them leave.

@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939840#Comment_3939840
But there is no social aspect, because there is no more interaction at all. You're just picking people up and hooking them, allowing them to leave at that moment just saves them time and awards you the exact same rewards.
The only downside is if you want to give them hatch. Then it is unfortunate, I agree. But the hatch is never a guarantee, as a survivor you're better off going for another match than gambling hatch.
Even the post-game chat can still be completely silent if none of the four players used the abandon feature. There is nothing lost in allowing players to move on to the next game once the match is, quite literally, over.

I’m genuinely curious — given your perspective, how would you feel about offering killers the ability to abandon the match after the gates are powered, just as survivors can now go next immediately once they’re all downed?
And please — I’d be especially interested in hearing your thoughts beyond the usual “killers still have agency” argument. I’m asking specifically about fairness in match closure.

in The Most Unfair Experience Disparity in DBD History, Thanks to the Abandon Feature Comment by subdl June 8, 2025
@BorisDDAA said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939527#Comment_3939527
Everytime I heard this, the response was dead silence or "I don't get satisfaction out of hooking/moring bots". So the truth is it all comes down to rubbing the victory in, just like a survivor complaining the killer didn't show up at the gate to see them taunting.

To be honest, I’m genuinely surprised to learn that there’s a group of players who equate finishing a match by hooking or mori’ing a real survivor with the kind of taunting that happens at the exit gates.
That said, if that’s your perspective, I have no intention of denying it.
However, for the vast majority of killer players in Dead by Daylight, the core enjoyment lies in defeating real human opponents.
There’s no sense of satisfaction in cleaning up bots, and the experience left behind is ultimately hollow.
Once again, I must say — discovering that there are people who equate the act of legitimately executing a real survivor as a killer and winning the match, with the kind of taunting and mockery survivors do at the exit gates, was both surprising and — in its own way — deeply revealing.

in The Most Unfair Experience Disparity in DBD History, Thanks to the Abandon Feature Comment by subdl June 8, 2025
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939711#Comment_3939711
Meanwhile, the killer — the winner — is left alone to clean up after bots as their final match experience.
That's actually not true. Once all the Survivors abandon the match, the Killer can abandon, too.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/IUF5JNVI5UU9/match-surrender2.png

Sure, everyone knows the killer can press the Abandon button.
Let’s break that down.
The killer fights through the entire match, downs the final survivor after a hard-fought chase.
In that exact moment — the moment of triumph — the survivors immediately exit the match and go nexr.
And what is left for the killer?
• Clean up the soulless shells of bot survivors left behind.
• press the “Abandon” button — in a match they just won.
These are not satisfying conclusions to a winning match.
They are just hollow routines that offer no sense of victory experience.
So yes, the killer can abandon —
but if the only choices after victory are “bot cleanup” or “forfeit,”
then we must ask:
What kind of game experience the devs want to design in this context?

in Killers should be able to abandon when the gates are powered Comment by subdl June 8, 2025
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939217#Comment_3939217
That's the part where the killer still has agency: you don't have to.
You can go kick pallets, spam your power, earn BP, complete challenges, probably more. Nothing says that you have to go to the exit gate.
You can also choose to go to the gate and force the survivors to stop whatever they're doing and leave, is another option. And forcing them out or forcing an error is all gameplay.
A slug on the ground has no options. You can't speed up bleed out, can't escape or ignore the killer humping you on the ground, can't earn BP. Crawling at the speed of smell is not gameplay.

In the current system, the moment all survivors are downed, they are allowed — officially encouraged — to press the Abandon button and go next immediately.
No penalty, no consequences, no shame.
The developers have made it clear: skipping the killer’s at most a few dozen seconds of a “victory ceremony” (hooks or mori) is perfectly acceptable.
And let’s be honest — who wouldn’t skip a lost match to save time?
Meanwhile, the killer — the winner — is left alone to clean up after bots as their final match experience.
This isn’t a rare occurrence. It’s nearly every match now. This is the norm.
⸻
So what happens to the killer when the game is already decided and there’s no realistic chance of turning things around?
They’re forced to stay in the match. And their so-called “choices”?
• Escort survivors who are spamming t-bag dances at the exit gate.
• Kick a few leftover pallets just to miserably scrape together a handful of Bloodpoints.
• Wander the map aimlessly, hoping the victors finally get bored and leave.
A community manager said killers “have agency.”
But these are not meaningful options.
They’re scraps — superficial busywork meant to justify wasting the player’s time under the guise of agency.
Survivors can leave instantly when they’ve lost.
Killers are expected to endure the endgame until the last second.
⸻
Why is only one side allowed to save time?
If “gonext” is a right for survivors, then killers deserve that same right — especially when the outcome is already sealed.

in Killers should be able to abandon when the gates are powered Comment by subdl June 8, 2025
“Being forced to stay in a match with no real chance of winning is stressful — that seems to be the main argument against the system.
But killers are expected to silently endure that exact same stress and, no matter how hopeless the situation is, play it through to the end like it’s just business as usual, aren’t they?”

in Concerned about 'going next prevention' Comment by subdl May 27, 2025
@AbsolutGrndZer0 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3931930#Comment_3931930
SURRENDER being the key word. Meaning a LOSS of the game.

Fascinating, really.
When a survivor abandons the match after being downed, it’s considered a draw, and they’re free to move on without trouble.
But when a killer finally achieves a 4K and chooses to leave, that too is somehow treated as a draw—unless they take the time to clean up the leftover husks of disconnected survivors.
What a curious bit of logic.
If any developers happen to see this—or the many other posts like it—it would be great to hear the reasoning behind this design.
Not that the concept of “winning” or “losing” seems to carry much weight anymore.
It’s hard to believe there was any real thought put into this system in the first place.
At the heart of it, there’s really only one issue:
the experiential disparity between survivors and killers.
If survivors are allowed to unconditionally “go next” after being downed,
then killers, too, should be given the option to surrender immediately after the gates are powered.
Naturally, such a surrender would count as a loss.
And that’s perfectly fine—
We do, after all, understand what a loss is.

in Adding the abandon feature was a mistake Comment by subdl May 26, 2025
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3932055#Comment_3932055
I don’t hold survivors accountable for using the abandon feature.
To me, all responsibility lies with the developers.
So my question then is: Why bring survivors up at all?
Yes, it’s a common argument: that killers shouldn’t be allowed to surrender because they still have the ability to act.
That's not a common argument at all, that's your misinterpretation of what people are saying.
Yes, people are pointing out the difference between these two situations. Not to claim that killers should not be allowed to surrender, but because you are building your argument on the basis that they are the principally the same. They aren't. That's what people are trying to get through to you.
Killers shouldn't get the ability to surrender once the exit gates are open because survivors got the ability to surrender once everyone's downed.
Killers should get the ability to surrender once the exit gates are open because the whole t-bag ritual sucks.
Being able to move doesn’t automatically make that experience meaningful. If there’s no purpose, no impact, no engagement — it may technically be “action,” but it’s not a meaningful experience.
Sure, but that's still not justifying the false equivalence between survivor abandon and killer abandon.
The points that you are trying to dismiss are accurate. Summed up succinctly:
Survivor abandon is for when they can't play anymore.
What you want is an abandon for when you don't want to play anymore.
They are not the same. It's not a 'textbook example of a double standard'. That's what people are trying to get through to you.

I must admit, I couldn’t quite grasp the intent behind your message. The only thing that came through clearly is that you’re quite convinced my logic is flawed.
Unfortunately, after reading your arguments, my perspective remains entirely unmoved.
My point is extremely simple:
•When survivors win → They can leave whenever they choose, or hang around in the safe zone until the killer graciously escorts them out.
•When survivors lose → They can go next the very moment they’re downed.
•When killers win → They’re forced to clean up bots.
•When killers lose → They’re left to shoo survivors off at the gate, like some disgruntled doorman.
This discrepancy in experiential value strikes me as a clear double standard — and that, to me, is precisely why killers should be given the option to surrender.
By contrast, I remain unconvinced that teabagging or BM alone justifies the addition of a surrender option. If we go down that road, we’re essentially saying that as long as survivors don’t engage in overt BM, killers should be expected to play out the endgame, no matter how pointless or one-sided it becomes. Even without explicit BM, survivors can still hide until the final seconds of the EGC or engage in all sorts of passive-aggressive antics. It seems that, for you, teabagging is unpleasant enough to warrant a surrender button. (BTW, isn’t this the very situation you described as “an abandon for when you don’t want to play anymore”?)
But for me, what drains the fun out of the game isn’t any single act of disrespect — it’s the fundamental disparity in post-game experience between the two roles. That’s the real issue.
Of course, I understand that you may not see it that way — and that’s fine. I have no intention of changing your mind. It’s become clear to me that our perspectives will never align, so I see no reason to continue debating this further. Whatever your stance may be, this is a clear structural imbalance in my view — and that’s perfectly fine.
I just hope this gets read by someone on the dev team who still remembers what fairness used to mean — and maybe, begins to consider the idea of experiential disparity.

in Letting Survivors Leave, Forcing Killers to Stay: What a Perfectly Fair System Comment by subdl May 25, 2025
Let me be clear.
I don’t hold survivors accountable for using the abandon feature. I have no intention of blaming players for doing anything that’s permitted within the system. There’s absolutely no obligation to self-restrict the use of officially implemented mechanics. Choosing to “gonext” when defeat is inevitable is a rational decision. Even actions like t-bagging dances after securing a win — while annoying to some — are still within the bounds of what the game’s design allows, and thus not something I consider blameworthy on the player’s part.
To me, all responsibility lies with the developers.
And frankly, I’m not even angry at this point — I’m just exhausted by how consistently disappointing they’ve been. The issues I’ve raised throughout my posts are things that should have been easily anticipated by anyone who’s spent a reasonable amount of time playing killer.
As a side note — though many will remember — the developers once stated that if a downed survivor abandons the match, the result is considered a draw. That announcement alone sparked widespread confusion and backlash.
Even this single incident speaks volumes about how disconnected and irresponsible the team is when it comes to their own statements and design decisions — and how unaware they seem to be of the actual player experience.
The core problem lies in their ongoing pattern of reactive, short-sighted decision-making, and a fundamental lack of imagination regarding how those choices affect the balance of player experience.
You’ve emphasized the difference in “agency” between survivors and killers. Yes, it’s a common argument: that killers shouldn’t be allowed to surrender because they still have the ability to act. But the real issue isn’t whether someone can act — it’s whether there’s any meaningful value in those actions. Some killers may enjoy escorting survivors out, exploring the map, breaking remaining pallets, or farming a few more bloodpoints. But in reality, most killers — once defeat is certain — just want to move on to the next match.
Being able to move doesn’t automatically make that experience meaningful. If there’s no purpose, no impact, no engagement — it may technically be “action,” but it’s not a meaningful experience.

in Letting Survivors Leave, Forcing Killers to Stay: What a Perfectly Fair System Comment by subdl May 25, 2025
@Nathan13 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3931802#Comment_3931802
This was one of the reasons why the abandon feature was implemented, if I’m the last survivor I’m not gonna waste my time with the killer because the killer wants fun interactions. I understand it can be cute and fun but most players including myself would rather just take the L and move on.

This is one of the reasons why the abandon feature should also be implemented for killers.
If I’m the killer and I’ve clearly lost, I’m not gonna waste my time with survivors just because they want fun interactions.
I understand it can be cute and fun but most players including myself would rather just take the L and move on.
But for now, this was a privilege granted exclusively to survivors.
And in that context, I totally understand why abandon was one of the best things they ever added — for a certain kind of player.

in Adding the abandon feature was a mistake Comment by subdl May 24, 2025
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3931684#Comment_3931684
And frankly, I’m both surprised and disappointed by how much opposition this idea has received.
How much opposition is it actually receiving?
Because this outrage started, not with a complaint directed at this issue itself, but with a rant about survivors getting preferential treatment.
Most responses I've seen are in favour of the killer being able to abandon, they just disagree with the false equivalence and the utterly needless 'us vs them' slant the discussion has taken on.

“How much opposition is it actually receiving?”
A quick look through the posts shows that there are clear concerns and negative opinions toward the proposal itself. People are, of course, free to hold different views — opposition is to be expected. I’m simply expressing mine.

“This outrage started, not with a complaint directed at this issue itself, but with a rant about survivors getting preferential treatment.”
If someone experiences a disparity and articulates it with reasoning and structure, isn’t that a valid and constructive form of criticism? Calling it “a rant” doesn’t address the argument — it just dismisses it without engagement.

“False equivalence and the utterly needless ‘us vs them’ slant the discussion has taken on.”
What exactly is the “false equivalence” here? When the match is effectively over, survivors have the option to instantly abandon, while killers are given none. That’s a clear asymmetry in player experience. If simply pointing that out is considered “us vs them,” then what kind of balance discussion is even allowed?

in Letting Survivors Leave, Forcing Killers to Stay: What a Perfectly Fair System Comment by subdl May 24, 2025
@subdl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3931825#Comment_3931825
Then why is it not acceptable for the killer to abandon the match after the gates are powered
If survivors are allowed to disconnect the moment they’re downed — because “their time is being wasted” — then surely killers should be allowed to do the same when they decide the match is already lost, right?
And please, let’s not argue that “the killer still has agency to act and chase survivors out after the gates are powered.”
Let’s call it what it really is: a performative role, escorting survivors on their glorious victory lap.
For many killers on the losing end, it’s nothing more than public humiliation and a waste of time.
Survivors are allowed to disconnect because they “don’t want their time wasted.”
Killers, on the other hand, are expected to stay and endure even when there’s nothing left to do but watch.
The fact that this imbalance is not only tolerated, but even described by some as “one of the best things they’ve done for the game” is, frankly, astonishing.

Sure, killers do have perks that can turn the tide in the endgame.
But am I the only one who finds it odd that bringing specific endgame perks is now treated as a requirement — just to avoid the endgame collapse from being a waste of time?
Why is it that survivors are allowed to leave the match the moment they lose agency (and no, nobody expects them to run “high-level” strategies like Exponential or Unbreakable in advance), while killers are expected to cling to the hope of a build-dependent miracle?
“Killers should always bring insurance perks to avoid wasting time in EGC.”
— So let me get this straight: survivors can leave instantly with no penalty the moment they’re downed, but killers, in order to avoid being trapped in last minutes of pointless cleanup, are supposed to pre-load a last-ditch hope into their build?

in Adding the abandon feature was a mistake Comment by subdl May 24, 2025
@Aven_Fallen said:
I really dont understand why it is an issue for people that the last Survivor abandons. If I am left on the ground instead of being hooked when I am the last Survivor, I also abandon, simply because I can and someone (the Killer) is wasting my time. If I get picked up and hooked, I will not abandon. I dont care about MMR-gain or -loss, so both is fine by me.
And when I play Killer, I could not care less if the Survivor abandons once they are downed. Happened multiple times already, but I still beat the actual human player. If I hook that human player or a Bot does not matter to me in the slightest.
I also dont care about the match being a Draw for that one Survivor. MMR is not a Reward, MMR is just a (very wonky) matchmaking method. But it does not impact me if someone else gains or loses MMR.

Then why is it not acceptable for the killer to abandon the match after the gates are powered
If survivors are allowed to disconnect the moment they’re downed — because “their time is being wasted” — then surely killers should be allowed to do the same when they decide the match is already lost, right?
And please, let’s not argue that “the killer still has agency to act and chase survivors out after the gates are powered.”
Let’s call it what it really is: a performative role, escorting survivors on their glorious victory lap.
For many killers on the losing end, it’s nothing more than public humiliation and a waste of time.
Survivors are allowed to disconnect because they “don’t want their time wasted.”
Killers, on the other hand, are expected to stay and endure even when there’s nothing left to do but watch.
The fact that this imbalance is not only tolerated, but even described by some as “one of the best things they’ve done for the game” is, frankly, astonishing.

in Adding the abandon feature was a mistake Comment by subdl May 24, 2025
The problem with the “Abandon” feature is obvious.
The moment you down the last survivor, they disconnect and are instantly replaced by a bot. The match is already won, yet all that’s left is cleanup. To top it off, the official verdict on such a match is now considered a “draw.”
When the killer is on the losing side, it’s a different kind of punishment — you’re forced to sit through the survivors’ entertainment segment.
Teabagging in safety zones, flashlight clicks, spammed emotes — and after enduring that, you’re expected to politely watch them leave in style. Of course, walking away from your concierge duties earns you a DC penalty.
Once the outcome is decided, survivors can leave with a single click. Killers, meanwhile, are left with the post-game mess and a forced role in a meaningless end phase.
This, apparently, is what the developers consider a feature that “preserves the health of the game.”

in Adding the abandon feature was a mistake Comment by subdl May 24, 2025
One of the biggest frustrations?
You down the last survivor, and they disconnect before their body even hits the ground—instead of enjoying the win, you’re left cleaning up a bot.
Then when you lose, you’re expected to play concierge under the name of “killer agency,” politely escorting survivors out one by one.
One side can abandon the match whenever they want. The other is left to tidy up afterward.
Fair, right?

in What are your biggest frustrations when playing killer? Comment by subdl May 24, 2025
@LockerLurk said:
I will say the same thing I did in the last thread.
Either we allow everyone to do it or nobody should do it, and it should 100% be a loss for the side that does it. Not a draw.
This feature should only exist if there is parity. The BM situation is bad enough. Survivors got their concerns about Killer BM addressed, why don't Killers ever get theirs addressed? And why is it a loss if the Killer forfeits but a draw if the Survivors forfeit when a forfeit is a loss you choose to take for the sake of sportsmanship?

I agree.
Personally, more than the unequal response to BM, I’ve felt a growing disparity in the overall match experience since the abandon system was introduced.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, there’s now a common pattern where survivors instantly disconnect the moment the killer downs the last one. It’s become so fast and routine, it’s practically a “technique” — almost like a reflex test. As a killer, you’re denied that final moment of satisfaction, and the match — a match with real players — just ends abruptly. What follows is a hollow post-game cleanup phase that feels more like a chore than a conclusion.
On the other hand, when the killer loses, we’re not even given the option to surrender. Instead, we’re dragged into a miserable send-off sequence. And more often than not, under the banner of “killer agency,” as the devs call it, we’re expected to chase out survivors who choose to aimlessly wander around rather than leave.
In the end, no matter how a match ends, killers are consistently left with a bad aftertaste. This is the outcome the current system guarantees.
And yet, the simplest and most logical way to fix this imbalance — removing the survivor abandon feature — will almost certainly never happen.
Why? Because once a “convenience” is handed to one side, taking it back — even in the name of fairness — is almost always seen as a nerf, not a fix. The backlash would be inevitable. Even small, reasonable compromises — like allowing survivors to abandon only after being downed for 60 seconds, to balance anti-slugging concerns with the killer’s sense of victory — are dismissed outright, as if this mechanic were sacred and untouchable.
That’s why I believe the only realistic way left to restore fairness is to give killers the option to surrender after the gates are powered.
And frankly, I’m both surprised and disappointed by how much opposition this idea has received. If a killer chooses to surrender after the gates are powered… who, exactly, is losing anything?
The survivors’ “sense of victory”?

in Letting Survivors Leave, Forcing Killers to Stay: What a Perfectly Fair System Comment by subdl May 24, 2025
The argument always goes the same way:
“Survivors can abandon the game because they’re helpless. Killers can’t — because they still have some control.”
This is the reasoning often used by those who oppose allowing killers to abandon a match once the gates are open. But it completely overlooks the killer’s experience—either because it never crosses their mind, or because they simply choose to ignore it.
The point isn’t about how much agency remains. It’s about why only one side is allowed to walk away from a game that’s already functionally over.
Survivors get a mercy exit. Killers get a mandatory performance.
That’s not gameplay asymmetry. That’s experiential inequality.

in Letting Survivors Leave, Forcing Killers to Stay: What a Perfectly Fair System Comment by subdl May 23, 2025
“The gates being open isn’t the same as all survivors being downed.” Therefore, even if the exit has opened, the killer must keep performing their role — as if the show hasn’t already ended.
This is the logic some continue to insist on.
When all survivors are downed, they can immediately abandon the match — because “there’s nothing left to do.” When the gates are powered, the killer must keep playing — because “there might still be something they can do.”
This is the philosophy behind the current system.
One side is told: “Never give up as long as there’s a chance.” The other side is told: “If hope feels gone, feel free to leave.”
Why is the right to freely abandon a match reserved for only one role?
I believe most players who primarily play killer feel this imbalance — whether they fully realize it or not. Those who mainly play survivor, and perhaps even the developers themselves, may genuinely not understand what the problem is. Because when you’re never the one stuck in a match that’s already over, watching others leave while you’re forced to stay —it’s easy to believe the system is fair.

in Letting Survivors Leave, Forcing Killers to Stay: What a Perfectly Fair System Comment by subdl May 23, 2025
There’s often criticism that “when the killer disconnects, the match ends too suddenly.” But if the gates are open, and all that’s left is for survivors to walk out, how much is actually being lost?
If we’re talking about “experience value,” then let’s talk about the killer’s. After a hard-fought match and downing all four survivors, the killer often watches them all Abandon instantly—ending the game with zero payoff.
What remains? Cleaning up after bots, or pressing the Abandon button themselves—despite a clear win. A truly fitting reward for perfect play.
If the final act of a flawless game is mopping the stage alone, the Entity must be absolutely satisfied with the performance.
Some argue Abandon was introduced to prevent bleed-out abuse. Fair enough. But now, it’s a permanent privilege granted only to survivors, while killers are given no similar option—even when the outcome is already decided. That’s a double standard, plain and simple.
“You should finish what you started.” But once the gates are powered, haven’t both sides already done that? What’s left is emotional closure—and at the moment, only one side gets to enjoy it.
In the end, the current system prioritizes survivor comfort while demanding patience from killers.
This isn’t about balance—it’s about a fundamental asymmetry in the player experience. And frankly, it may be one of the worst design failures in Dead by Daylight’s history.

in Letting Survivors Leave, Forcing Killers to Stay: What a Perfectly Fair System Comment by subdl May 23, 2025