The 3.6.0 PTB is now live on Steam! For full details, click here:
We are aware and looking into the issue which caused players to have their rank reset further than intended. If your rank was not reset at all this month, this is a visual bug and closing and re-opening the game should fix it.
We have updated our Forum Rules. Please take a moment to read through them:
Please note: Although we may stop by occasionally, this is not a developer Q&A.

Do challenges estimulate harsh playing? (Ppl use to call "toxic")

OicimauOicimau Member Posts: 221
edited February 8 in Ask the Community

I dont feel well when im forced to facecamp a hooked survivor in EGC with Bubbas chainsaw ready to down anybody whos get close...... to get the EGCs sacrifices...

I sent a message to both survivors apologizing. One of then became a friend in ps network. :)

But the question stands...


  • LordGlintLordGlint Member Posts: 4,595

    Feel like it depends on the challenge. Theres plenty of challenges that you'd likely achieve through normal playing, such as kill X amount of survivors or do X amount of gens. Other challenges are likely to incentivize people to pretty much throw a match, such as when survivors have to open 5 chests in a single match for example... Thats way too many chests for a single survivor to realistically find use of the items in said chests, therefore mostly just a waste of time. Then theres challenges like the one you mentioned where its certainly possible to achieve on a normal game, but just easier if you tilt the odds in your favor. Kill 4 survivors by any means for example just means get a 4k, but...a mori makes that easier.

  • FireHazardFireHazard Member, Trusted Posts: 5,920


    It really just boils down to "What's the easiest way to complete this challenge?" to you being camped during EGC is seen as toxic to get the 2 Survivors sacrificed during the EGC challenge done, but it's something that the Killer is either forced to do because it's the only way he thinks he'll be able to do that challenge... or because it's seen as the easiest way to do the challenge itself.

    That's kind of why some Killers will use builds they'll never normally use to get it done, since it's the easiest way to get it over with. I had a Spirit use NOED, BloodWarden, Blood-Echo, and another perk I forgot to just get 2 Sacrifices in the EGC, they intentionally (or literally) played terrible until the end so they could achieve this, so in a sense it might seem "toxic" since they wanted to take the easy way out to get the challenge done, rather than take another route that's a lot harder to do.

    basically what i'm saying is...

    If a Killer needs to use a distasteful build or strategy to get a challenge done because they don't have any other options... than they'll do it.

    If a Killer wants to take the easy route and use a "toxic" build to get the job done quickly, than they'll also take that route.

    The challenges itself can cause toxicity depending on if the Killer enjoys it or not, but I don't really think either of the options above is causing intentional toxicity in-general, it's just to get the challenge done and that's all.

  • LordGlintLordGlint Member Posts: 4,595

    For the challenge your talking about, I saw an Otz video of him demonstrating how to do it by using old Doc and just went in with the intention of more or less copying him...except I instead just won the game and hooked the last 2 survivors after I myself opened the gate to start the EGC. The only thing that was really different about it was that I bothered to open the gate at all and I didnt once swap over to Doc's treatment mode until the very end, therefore effectually making me a powerless M1 killer. Funny how that happens, lol.

    Different note, I havent been keeping up with the challenges this time around...Is the 2 EGC kills challenge on this tome too?

  • FireHazardFireHazard Member, Trusted Posts: 5,920

    It's on Level 2 of Tome ll yes.

    Personally when I did this challenge I did it in the first match I activated it, and I used Spirit (reluctantly) with her Mother-Daughter Ring and Hairclip to become the Flash.

    I mostly memed to make it fun for me and the Survivors by hitting them and than using my super sonic speed to go right around them and stand right in-front of where they were running to while watching them look behind to see where i'd go, than they'd bump into me and i'd just look at them and than down them.

    I 4k'ed the match, but I mostly played terrible to get all the Generators to pop. Once the last two Survivors were injured and popped the Generator I downed them both, opened the gate myself, than hooked them both and finished the challenge.

    Was it considered scummy to use OP add-ons to make the challenge a cake-walk for myself? Yes in a way, but I always stay true to my moral of making the game fun for both sides and mostly memed the match to make it fun for the Survivors to get a lol or two. During the post-chat the last two Survivors said it was a fun match and they thought it was funny, which means I got my challenge done and didn't ruin the experience for some of the team at least, I can't say for the other two Survivors since they left after they died it seems, but at least I tried to make it enjoyable for some of the team.

  • FibijeanFibijean Member, Trusted Posts: 5,928

    There are some players who just play the game and complete their challenge when they can, and there are others who will throw the game, or at least not play as they normally would, to complete their challenge as quickly as possible, no matter what the challenge is. The same could be said about daily rituals, albeit to a lesser extent. If we don't want people to throw games for challenges, the only solution is to not have any challenges.

    So no, I don't think challenges are toxic, and I don't think the majority of them encourage toxic gameplay, because I don't think something can be considered toxic as long as it's done for tactical reasons and not just with the intention of ruining other people's fun. However, I would say "yes" to your first question of whether challenges encourage "harsh" play, because I think having something at stake causes people to play more selfishly and mercilessly than they normally might. But again, the same could be said of dailies, or even of chests, so I'm not sure it's necessarily something that needs to be changed either.

  • OicimauOicimau Member Posts: 221

    Thanks you all for the answers.

    I am the kind that wanna complete a challenge as fast as I can. But i wanna it to be fun to others players... but sometimes, I choose to make sure I'll complete the challenge. Sometimes, i dont - like not escaping to try a hook save in EGC and die together with the hooked, so nobody leaves and i dont escape for the escaping challenge.

    But, as harder i think the challenge will be, more harsh will be my gameplay.

    And sometimes the challenge just push me away from objectives. As opening chests, i dont care about gens until I check all chests are opened... In the EGC sacrifice challenge, i almost left the survivors to pop gens, but giving then a "soft play" to make things at least a little fun. And then, when one gen was left, I tunneled and camped one survivor to get the challenge done.

    I mean... when its a past Tome, I dont care about quickly doing challenges and I play normally. But when its the current Tome and its counting towards the Rift, I wanna go fast in the grinding.

    Nevertheless, i rather the Tome and Rift thing than old events, wich could cause much more harsh playing, with objectives focused in one side frustating the other side to get the event points.

  • FireHazardFireHazard Member, Trusted Posts: 5,920
    edited February 9

    the first part of this post was edited

    I made a mistake by saying that The Rift will continue at Tome 10 and above, that's not true and it's unknown IF it's true or not. What I say is purely speculation for questions like these and it was my fault for not wording it correctly to reflect that.

    back to the original post

    To be honest, I think it's better to get that specific challenge completed as fast as possible, since it's better to have it done in one match than having it done in three, than you can move on to other challenges and progress through the level at a good pace.

    There will always be things that people see as toxic or unfair in video games, but it's good to just not associate yourself with it and instead push forward with your objectives. You can't please everyone and it's best not to bother, since you'll just burn yourself out.

    I'm all for a fair and fun game for both sides, but not every player on either side will be happy about the results of a match or how someone played... that's something we'll all have to accept. Also yes, I agree that the challenges on each level is infinitely better than the events that spawn a lot of negative gameplay between players, since unfortunately that happens a lot when a Bloodhunt or an event rolls around.

    Post edited by FireHazard on
  • FibijeanFibijean Member, Trusted Posts: 5,928

    How do we know that the Rift will continue for at least ten Tomes? I must have missed that announcement.

  • FireHazardFireHazard Member, Trusted Posts: 5,920
    edited February 9

    Why wouldn't it?

    That doesn't make sense if it stopped at 10 and ceased to exist soon after. The 10 slots is most likely a place-holder at the moment until another page is made for 11 through 20, and so on and so forth.

    If it did stop after 10 than it wouldn't make much sense, they might stop at 10 and than continue in the future when they get more characters... but right now I can see why only 10 slots exist.

  • FibijeanFibijean Member, Trusted Posts: 5,928

    You misread me. I didn't say the Tomes wouldn't continue past ten. I was saying that we don't know how many Tomes there will be, whether they will even make as many as ten. You're assuming that there will be at least ten Tomes because there are ten slots in the Compendium, but as someone who has studied design (UI/UX included), I can tell you that's not necessarily the case. So until we get an official announcement along those lines, it's probably best not to state something like "the Rift will continue until Tome ten" as though it's a fact and not just speculation.

  • FireHazardFireHazard Member, Trusted Posts: 5,920

    I don't see why studying design has anything to do with knowing if 10 tomes will exist for the 10 slots, but from an outside perspective that's what it looks like, otherwise it's a placeholder for now.

    I don't know for sure, that was my error above, but from my view it wouldn't make sense that it ends at 10.

  • FibijeanFibijean Member, Trusted Posts: 5,928

    Again, not saying it will end at ten. I'm saying we don't know if it will even get that far. The reason I brought up studying design is to demonstrate that I have solid grounds on which to say that just because there are a certain number of available spaces in a menu or array of items, that doesn't necessarily mean all those spaces will be filled. It just means whoever designed the interface is anticipating that they might be.

    Therefore, knowing how quick the DBD community is to interpret anything they hear about future updates as an official promise, we should avoid making conclusive statements about what will or will not happen in the future, like "the Rift will continue until Tome 10 and above" without any concrete reason to believe that's the case.

  • FireHazardFireHazard Member, Trusted Posts: 5,920
    edited February 9

    Yes Fibijean, that's why I also said that I made a mistake by saying that, I write multiple answers for multiple questions everyday and I can obviously make mistakes every now and than as a result.

    Again, studying design (in my opinion) doesn't really have much to do with 10 spaces for 10 tomes, anyone can deduce the answers we gave with or without studying design, I see what you meant by saying you DO study design and gave an educated opinion on what you know, but I personally don't see why that matters and that's just my view on it.

    At the end of the day though, it doesn't matter, nothing we say is official and it's all just speculation for questions like these. Me saying it's a for sure thing WAS my fault, but again, from an outside perspective it looks to be that the 10 slots exist for 10 tomes, if it didn't than there would be less slots OR in your opinion those 10 spaces that exist doesn't necessarily mean all those spaces will be filled.

    But again, neither of us know and I can admit I was wrong on what I said, I can understand that people might view it as a factual thing because of our status, but for anyone who does read this that isn't the case, it's entirely 100% speculation. Let's end it there and move on.

Sign In or Register to comment.