Home Discussions General Discussions

Lowering the frustration

SeegsonSeegson Member Posts: 36
edited March 26 in General Discussions

We all know that the implementation of the DC punishments has lead to drastic increase in the usage of the alternative way to prematurely leave the game also know as hook suicide.

Early hook suicides basically equal early DCs because those fractions of seconds while the killer transports the survivor to the hook mean virtually nothing to the survivor team.

So i thought that implementation of "killer avoid" system might lower the amount of frustration. Let me explain: you will be able to avoid killer and you will not be matched with them. For example: you don't enjoy slugg-involving Oni's playstyle, so you avoid him as a killer and he will not appear in you games until you remove him from your list. Also time restriction is likely to be added to prevent permanent avoidance of certain killers for them not to have endless lobby simulator.

We have 19 killers so having at least 2 avoid options will not be a big deal.

Alternative system that can be implemented is "avoid map". This will work for both killers and survivors. For example you hate Ormond being too big and having way to many safe pallets, so you add Ormond to your "avoid list" and you will not be playing on it as long as it stays in your "avoid list". If a map offering that contradicts your or any player in the lobby "map avoid list" is used it will not be burned and will just return to the inventory of the player who used it. I see no reasons to add time restriction to the "map avoids"

Furthermore, these systems will not only lower the frustration of playing Dead by Daylight, but will provide the dev team with the statistics of the most frustrating/unfun killer or map in the game that might lead to future rework/balance adjustment of particular killer/map

«1

Comments

  • FibijeanFibijean Member Posts: 8,283

    I doubt it will lower the frustration for the killers that never get matches because their favourite character happens not to be popular with survivors.

  • SeegsonSeegson Member Posts: 36

    I addressed this particular issue with suggestions of adding the time restriction on the "killer avoids" so you can't permanently avoid one killer

  • SasukeKunSasukeKun Member Posts: 663

    What would lower the frustration is nerfing the OP survivor gameplay

  • gantesgantes Member Posts: 1,611

    I don't think it's that good of an idea. In my opinion the single most necessary thing for this game is a surrender option, pure and simply. I shouldn't be forced to stay in a game after a teammate DCs 10 seconds in. Just bring a simple majority surrender vote that becomes available after someone DCs, please.

  • KwikwittedKwikwitted Member Posts: 609

    As a killer main I would be perfectly fine with this assuming some conditions.

    1. No chance at de-pipping, even if by the nonsensical emblem system I won't have a lot of hooks or hits or anything else really.
    2. I don't lose my addons, particularly cause the amount of BP I'm going to earn for this game is not going to even remotely cover the replacement cost.

    As long as those features are implemented I would be all in favor of this.

  • KwikwittedKwikwitted Member Posts: 609

    Yes because survivor mob rule dictating which killers I am able to play or enjoy an eternity waiting in queue for someone who didn't put my preferred killer on their naughty list sounds just absolutely fabulous.

    Hard pass.

  • FibijeanFibijean Member Posts: 8,283

    That helps, but it doesn't remove the problem entirely. It still affects queue times, and it still discriminates unfairly against killers who just happen to enjoy playing someone like Spirit or Hag.

  • gantesgantes Member Posts: 1,611

    I mean, not that I agree with this system, but if it existed and some killers got permablocked by most players wouldn't that hint that maybe their designs should be revisited?

  • FrekiFreki Member Posts: 479

    sure lets also add in avoid decisive strike and commodius tool boxes. lets completely make the survivors not play when they feel oppressed and make the killers play all the time and wait in long ass lobbies and say it's cool. with the quarantines going on and people on internet etc. lets just make it so you can select what perk load outs you will allow the killer to have too! oh yea that's a great one. the problem here is not the frustration the survivors have it's the frustration the players that actually want to play and have fun on either side can't because of entitlements like this OP post.

    Basically the OP is hey lets let survivors play only what they want, and crap on the ones that play killers. good idea, REAL GOOD... NOT! (btw the good idea remark, it was sarcasm).

  • OtakuBurritoOtakuBurrito Member Posts: 491

    I'd enjoy it because I'm tired of seeing deathslinger all day every [BAD WORD] day running the same 4-6 perks.

  • KwikwittedKwikwitted Member Posts: 609
    edited March 26

    No it would just mean survivors blocked the killers that are the most effective, because those are also coincidentally the killers that killer players will play the most often.

    Basically every survivor at red rank is going to put Freddy and Spirit on their Naughty list, because those are the only killers they can't just standard loop since Nurse got her gutting, oh I'm sorry, her "rework".

    Maybe the better idea would be to take this into reverse. If survivors have absolutely no fear of certain killers and never put them on their naughty list maybe THEY should have their designs be revisited.

  • SeegsonSeegson Member Posts: 36

    Ok. I got it. You don't like waiting in the lobby as a killer but enjoy games where survivors kill themselves on the first hook and you get minuscule amount of BPs and lose pip. But what about the second part of my suggestion? Why no one is saying anything about "avoiding maps" this will benefit both sides.

  • KwikwittedKwikwitted Member Posts: 609
    edited March 26

    Oh I got an easy fix for that situation there little Mr. Sarcasm.

    If a survivor kills themselves on the first hook, killer gets credit for two additional hook actions, and four additional hits, along with BP automatically cause the survivor wanted to be a selfish twat and screw their teammates over. Then I can proceed to farm with the remaining survivors so everyone gets BP and pips and we can all leave and laugh at what a jackass that guy was to give up just cause the killer player had the temerity to play a killer he didn't want to play against.

    I mean hey, I don't like playing against Decisive Strike, Borrowed Time, Unbreakable, or Adrenaline, where's my perk naughty list?

    I like how your comeback is "well implement my solution or I'll just throw a tantrum and die on first hook" as if holding the game hostage is an appropriate solution.

    And your map solution will do nothing except again, make queues longer while the game desperately tries to match up people who don't have certain maps on their naughty lists. This is a matchmaking system that even now is matching green rank killers with red rank survivors, you really trust adding something to that concoction to go off without a hitch?

  • FrekiFreki Member Posts: 479

    how will letting people say i won't play against clown help the clown main get out of waiting for a lobby??? it WONT.

  • KwikwittedKwikwitted Member Posts: 609

    I wouldn't worry about that, once the novelty has worn off and everyone has gotten the adept achievement (if so inclined) he will take his place as the worse version of huntress and mediocre killer he is. You'll basically start seeing him about as often as Plague.

  • FibijeanFibijean Member Posts: 8,283

    It might, but not necessarily. It depends why people are blocking them. For example, I imagine that a lot of people would block certain killers just for being strong because they want to have easier matches. Plus, even if that is an indicator that their design should be revisited, it still sucks majorly for anyone that wants to play those killers in the meantime. It would be better, and simpler, to just ask about people's least-favourite killers in the Player Satisfaction Survey or something.

  • SeegsonSeegson Member Posts: 36

    Are you deprived of the eyes or suffering from severe case of dyslexia? How did you manage to see "avoid killer" in "avoid maps"?

  • gantesgantes Member Posts: 1,611

    From my experience in most games, people tend to ban frustrating stuff over overpowered stuff, especially in a casual setting. Since DBD is mostly casual I doubt that'd be a problem. But I can see your point.

  • FrekiFreki Member Posts: 479

    from this part of your FIRST (OP) post here: "So i thought that implementation of "killer avoid" system might lower the amount of frustration. Let me explain: you will be able to avoid killer and you will not be matched with them. For example: you don't enjoy slugg-involving Oni's playstyle, so you avoid him as a killer and he will not appear in you games until you remove him from your list. Also time restriction is likely to be added to prevent permanent avoidance of certain killers for them not to have endless lobby simulator."

    7th and 8th word is "killer avoid" thus we are still talking about both of them when I responded. guess you don't have as good of a memory as the written word.

  • FibijeanFibijean Member Posts: 8,283

    No one enjoys games where everyone kills themselves on their first hook. They enjoy games where everyone can act like adults and not ragequit because the game isn't going the way they wanted.

  • FibijeanFibijean Member Posts: 8,283

    I would like to believe that's true, but unfortunately I think you may be giving this community too much credit. And either way, queue times (especially in certain regions and at certain times) are already long enough, so they can't really afford to do something like this that would extend them even further.

  • KwikwittedKwikwitted Member Posts: 609
    edited March 26

    Watch these forums for a week and see how many posts you could substitute the word "annoying" with "strong". For a lot of survivor players they are one in the same.

    Also your assertion that the game is mostly casual would mean those same players don't want challenge, which would likely mean getting rid of strong killers, even over ones they may find "annoying". I mean Legion is "annoying" but no one would choose to ban him because at this point he's a C- level killer. Spirit and Freddy would be considered "annoying" because Spirit can't be standard looped and Freddy has a kit that requires survivors to do more than hold M1 on generators (continually finding teammates, failing skill checks, or holding dream clocks to wake up) but the truth is they're strong, so they would get chosen.

    Oh and killer players would not be exempt of this behavior by the by, the sword cuts both directions. Ask what perks killers would like to see nerfed/removed. No one is going to say something like Head-On even though it is SUPER annoying, because it's Niche and not very effective. They would all be listing off the same 5 or 6 perks. Decisive Strike, Borrowed Time, Dead Hard, Unbreakable, etc. These perks are annoying BECAUSE they are so effective at giving survivor second chances.

  • SeegsonSeegson Member Posts: 36

    Great mental gymnastics! I would say you are on Olympics mental gymnastics champion level! Just so you know, the part that you have quoted isn't the end of my post. There is a continuation and i highly recommend you to read it.

    you responded to the comment where i mention ONLY "map avoids" screaming about "killer avoids". At least read full post before commenting something.

  • gantesgantes Member Posts: 1,611

    Again, I'm not even in favor of this system. But I see people talk about "this community" a lot when in reality it's much like the community from most games.

    Just talk to the average killer player and ask them what they dislike about the game. I'm kinda willing to bet the majority will complain about flashlights and being bullied and whatever, even though survivors who go out of their way to bother the killer are more likely to just die. People dislike frustrating stuff more than OP stuff, even if both go together a lot of the time.

  • FrekiFreki Member Posts: 479

    Honestly we need to get people on both sides of this to stop being crap heads about things. I played doctor last night, having rancor on I got to mori the obsession, I used a survivor pudding offering as well and at the end one person said "you are a gross doctor with a mori!" I was flabergasted they didn't even look to see what my load out was. the person played nea, so i said "you are a gross nea" being flippant and sarcastic they then proceeded to berate me publicly (on their live stream as well as their friend's live stream). This is what people are doing that is bad, they are not liking how someone plays a game and uses the tools given to them!


    today i was playing and said something about noed on a nurse... didn't say it was crappy to use or good but another survivor decided I was being derogatory and then later they were the best survivor as they were the one to escape did 3 gens what were the rest of us doing? well running from the killer and keeping the nurse occupied. NO one was berating him for not being noticed as that happens. This thread shows the "ENTITLEMENT" that some people see survivors having. If you can avoid a single killer (or map) what do the killers get to avoid? just the map? I mean all survivors are really are skins. killers have a specific power and I like that in general it's great that you have to learn a good deal but stop making it all about the survivors. if you have 4 survivors and 1 killer in every match, and you loose 10 killers to attrition but all the same survivors in the game you'd have 40 survivors waiting in the wind for a match. however out of 10 killers and 40 survivors then lost 10 survivors you would have 3 killers waiting for matches. how does that math stand? stop being crap heads to each other on either side and just play the game.

  • FibijeanFibijean Member Posts: 8,283

    It may be, but not being an active part of the communities for a lot of other games, I can only speak to this one. But at this point we're already agreed that this isn't a good idea and we're just speculating about a mostly unrelated issue.

  • FrekiFreki Member Posts: 479
    edited March 26

    you know, I actually did both post and i responded because i did not like how you were dismissing everything, even then map avoidance is not a good thing either. don't like a map? put up an offering to go some place you like. simple as that, otherwise deal with it for the time you're on it and move on. (edit, added the rest) how will you deal with offerings to go to a certain map? I mean if only one person puts up an offering to go to say "the game" and no one else puts up a map offering and one of the 5 people say nope won't play on the game. now what? remove that one not wanting to go, take time WHILE loading to put another in their place? abort loading? what?


    yes edited, why? i just thought of the last part i just added.

  • gantesgantes Member Posts: 1,611

    Oh honey I'd personally still ban Legion. And Ghostface who isn't even that strong but is inconsistent and annoying af to go against. Spirit could be bottom tier and I'd still be in favor of reworking her from the ground up because of how bad of a design I think she is.

    These forums don't speak for the entire playerbase. It's just a very vocal minority.

  • KwikwittedKwikwitted Member Posts: 609

    I agree that his forums isn't representative of the entire playerbase, but my point still stands.

    Your personal preferences aside, there's other examples of this.

    As an old school World of Warcraft player, for PVP, you get the option to ban two battlegrounds from your random battleground queue ever since Wrath of the Lich King. Alliance would always ban Alterac Valley and Horde always ban Isle of Conquest. Not cause those maps are broken, annoying, or even unfun. Alterac Valley is probably the most iconic PVP map in a game that has lasted over 15 years now. But simply put, the way the map is designed the Alliance don't win, so they avoid it. Same with Isle of Conquest.

    If players are allowed to remove an option, they will remove the option that prevents them from winning, even at the cost of an option they may find "annoying".

  • gantesgantes Member Posts: 1,611

    I play League of Legends and I have the exact opposite experience. The highest ban rate champions, even at ranked, are the most frustrating ones, unless there's something EXTREMELY ridiculously overpowered. In normal games, even when something is overpowered to the maximum chances are people will still ban unfun champions before them, even when said unfun champions are undertuned.

    There's a difference between something unwinnable and moderately overpowered. Barring moris, nothing in DBD makes the game unwinnable for either side. So unfun things would most of the time be banned first.

Sign In or Register to comment.