Survivors don't care if the killer has fun so killers shouldn't care either. This is why I slug camp and tunnel.
I only care about winning. And if they are toxic I'll bleed them out and tbag them and beat them on hook. Take the survivor rulebook and burn it.
Lol sorry m8, but if you want me to treat the game as an actual Competitive Game, there needs to be changes first.
As a very specific example that I love to use here, the big one is that the game doesn't really have a strict win condition. If you want to see this game as competitive, it needs to have a strict win condition. While I know this is an asymmetrical game, for example, if I play a game of Overwatch, when I get to the end screen, I get a definitive win or loss.
Don't get me wrong, there are still win conditions in Dead by Daylight. Obviously, survivors and killers have objectives for a reason. However, when you get to the end game screen, the best we get is a scoring system made up by the Devs, who say themselves don't actually represent your skill. So what are we really counting as a win? The game's system which the Devs stated aren't good? Escapes to death? Because right now, players can pretty much choose their win condition, as a lot of it is just what the player believe they need to do to win. If that means sacrificing themselves to the killer, or protecting that sweet, sweet basement chest, then that's their win condition. Personally, I don't mind that as a player. I think it's fun like that. But the game isn't competitive. Sure, there's a competitive scene- but let's also remember that a lot of Tournaments for this game have different point systems and such because no one can agree with what the win conditions are for either side.
Honestly, I don't think the game should be considered competitive in the same vain as CS:GO, OW, or even SSBU. At the very least, not without some major changes for both killer and survivor- or a dedicated 'ranked' and 'casual' modes.
Here is the rub, I don't care how you treat the game for YOURSELF. I have no expectations of what you want from the game or how you choose to play it. Just because I'm competitive, doesn't mean I expect you to play my way. The only thing I ask is please don't grief, shame, or spend a lot of time trying to make me play YOUR way. It isn't going to happen anyway, so it is a waste of your time (and mine). You do you; I'll do me. I will always be polite pre-game and post game. I will do my best to be humble in victory and gracious in defeat. During the match, I'm going to play to win. I won't cheat, but I will avail myself of any tool in the tool box if I need it. I won't begrudge you yours either. You might curb-stomp me and I'm going to give you a GG. I will hopefully learn something from it.
I mean, I'm fine with that. I never grief or shame anyone or make them play my way. Worst I'll do is hit you with a 'ggwp', and if it was like... a Forever Freddy with a Game offering, then I'll hit you with the 'man that was boring' after the gg. I don't mind people seeing this as a competitive game- I just think that not enough people realize that not everyone plays like that, and the system in place now really doesn't help things, since everyone plays together in the same queue- no matter how they see the game.
And this is completely fair. I realize it. I also play Warhammer and Warmachine/Hordes tabletop. Some people are VERY competitive in those games, while others see them merely as beer and pretzel games. I don't begrudge the people who aren't as hardcore as me about them. I just don't want want to hear any whining from them when they choose to play less than their best. That isn't my fault, nor is it my job to tone down my play because they chose to do so with their own.
I just see far too much demonizing of Players for merely playing the game. I consider that passing the buck, blaming one's own choices on other people. It is the easy way out. Now, all that being said, do I sometimes take my foot off the accelerator when I realize I'm in with people I completely dominate? Yeah, I do. If I'm playing late night and I end up with Newbies because there aren't enough people to match me with those on my level, there isn't much point in bulldozing them. I do "play soft" now and then, but I rarely tell them that. Nobody wants Pity. I just slow down and let them learn and earn a few extra points out of a longer game.
I don't tell people that often because I don't want it to be expected. If you feed the bears they get a taste for it. I just play at the level they SHOULD be facing. That is my charity and I keep it to myself.
You shouldn't be concerned, but neither should you go out of your way to make other players miserable. That last part is something many people have trouble understanding.
For those who are just playing "for fun", I say this: if you're not playing to win, you shouldn't complain if you lose. I know I don't.
It's DBD Etiquette, nothing more and nothing less. Plenty of other games have their own community etiquette and DBD is no different in that respect. Whether you follow these community rules or not is up to you and while a lot of people use "fun" as the excuse for their anger, it's more just them being mad you broke said rules. After all, I can still have fun in matches I got facecamped but I'm still annoyed I was facecamped because it broke the rules of etiquette.
It's really up to each person at the end of the day. To use another games example; in Dark Souls do you bow before a duel and use no estus or do you use every available resource in a gank squad to make your opponent know pain? Same here. Face camp, tunnel, first hook mori, OoO, small PP build, the list goes on. Do you use everything available or do you follow etiquette?
I keep seeing the f-word brought up a lot but I think as a community we should start referring to it only as DBD etiquette. Fun is such a silly word to bring up in things like these since it's so subjective in the first place. It's much easier to refer to this problem as community etiquette and debate over that instead of how much potential fun a person is having because you stood next to them for a second too long or god forbid you pushed the ctrl key.
The flaw with this philosophy is that in fortnite and CoD, everyone is equal. They have the same tools, the same luck, and the same mechanics (overwatch is unbalanced as ######### though).
Dead by Daylight asymmetrical. It's 1v4, and both sides play a completely different game.
I can ALMOST get fully behind this post, except that it isn't even Etiquette yet. An etiquette is a guide of behavior, a moray if you will, that is agreed upon by the MAJORITY of a community or population. I don't think we have even reached a point of agreement over which (if any) behaviors are expected or not. I know a LOT of Survivors want to author the Book of Rules for Killers that Samination makes fun of, but let's be honest here, there is no etiquette yet, none. I don't think there ever will be either beyond DON'T CHEAT.
Well i don't put their needs above mine, but i prefer to not be a dick, cause i need players to play this game.
And i may only "scare" away a few if i was being a dick, but i simply don't want to contribute.
Because this is an asymmetrical game, contrary to the other ones in your example. They don't care about the other side having fun, because the 'other side' is essentially in the same shoes. Their players can be good or bad at the game, but the potential for having fun is the same for all players, they're all on equal ground, regardless of which team they are in a match.
In DbD, you can have fun at the expense of the other side due to imbalances. Think of things like depip squads, Haddonfield, moris, Bubba facecamping, etc. It's all stuff that has the potential to turn the game into a pseudo-pve, where the disadvantaged side becomes a bot surrogate.
I'll tell you what happened to me my last two games:
I have a survivor on hook. They save her, but for some reason I find her running towards a god pallet inside the Badham main building. She's camping the pallet but I down her because I lagged (she didn't even throw the pallet, she obviously didn't see me at all).
I say "well, this is unfair, I'll leave her be and get somebody else".
The game and the gen rush goes on, that extra pressure would have made all of the difference but whatever, that was my decision. Her decision, though, was to tbag me at the exit gate.
Next game, I down a survivor.
They rescue her, but she fails in running away. I down her again, and patrol the gens around her before picking her up again.
One person comes for the rescue, but I have nurse's calling and immediately go back, down her again and this time I can hook her.
I go away, but as soon as she's unhooked I find her once more. She's dead. Less than 5k points for her.
Eventually I kill everybody.
So. Competitively speaking, the latter game was the right way to go: maximally optimised my chances to win. Did the girl have fun? I'm sure she didn't. Should I care? Yes, because I know how it feels to be on the other end.
If you don't empathise with this there might be two reasons:
one, you think (as you do) that DbD is a predominantly competitive game. It is not, though - it is too unbalanced, too buggy, too unfair with the matchmaking to be considered a strictly competitive game. DbD is a hardcore party game.
two, you are too self-centric.
Or both, of course.
You're not wrong and that's exactly why I think etiquette should be brought up more often in debates instead of fun. At least with debating etiquette we'd have chance of progress even if it's minimal. Hell, even though the community would never completely agree on a common etiquette I think you'd see a lot better discussions then ones that bring up fun as the main topic.
IDK, it's just became a pet peeve of mine to see people trying to debate "fun" in some of these threads. Fun is important, don't get me wrong but trying to debate it just seems pointless to me.
Agreed and this is a VERY good point. "Fun" is a totally subjective in nature. Etiquette, at least, has a framework, something we can work towards or agree is impossible. Either way, it is a better terminology.
Whomst keeps resurrecting threads?
One should refrain from ressurecting year-old threads.
Especially when we get threads about this same topic like half a dozen times a day. Rofl.
Here is the deal:
Fun is an abstract, hard to define concept. But know what is even harder to define than fun? Fair. Reasonable. Common sense.
It is not your job to 'balance' the game via restricting what you do. Anything within the boundaries of what the game allows is fair game, as long as its not clearly an exploit. Any attempt to say someone who you don't know and will never communicate with should restrict themselves in that space for your benefit, when doing so directly negatively impacts them, is actually kinda selfish, not because we shouldn't care about other people, but because you made an implicit agreement to be that person's opponent, and the social contract of competition means you try your hardest.
DBD is not a 'competitive game.' But it is a competition. Most things people complain about (flashlights, camping, medkits, tunneling genrushing, slugging ect) are actually... just basic mechanics of the game? Yes, these all result in a negative experience for the other party in some way. But they also represent normal, expected behaviors of people in a game trying to win the game. You can talk about fair play all you like, but if your definition of it requires someone to try harder to appease it than trying to win the game itself, its a bad definition.
Lets take genrushing. As a killer, it sucks when survivors just do not want to engage with you and most of the game is over before you even really get into your first chase on larger maps. But the entire game is about tempo and survivors really can't... afford to let you get some good chases in before trying? It isn't their job to fix the bad maps, and most killers have tools to deal with this, so it isn't so bad, and honestly it often comes down to bad choices anyway. There are limited resources on each map, and most maps that are large where a few gens can pop before you really get into chases tend to be resource sparse (there are exceptions, but post ormond rework and the shrinking of the swamp maps this is REALLY true, and the devs seem to understand maps should NOT get more pallets the larger they are), meaning deadzones get created fast and the killer can snowball quickly. Most survivors (and the devs) don't take these complaints very seriously because they betray such a bad understanding of the game. Survivors need to get enough gen pressure on you so that you literally don't have time to kill them before they finish gens.
That is, by definition, how survivors win. Even though for the killer it isn't fun when they are 'too good' at it.
Or on the survivor side, slugging, tunneling, and camping all get a bad rap because 'it ruins the fun for people' but uhh... DBD is a game... with player elimination as a core feature? If your experience is going to be ruined by you not being able to participate in a match because your efficiently eliminated, you should not be playing it. The killer, much like the survivors, does not have time to screw around. Again, DBD is a tempo based game and the killer also has a very intense relationship with time. More than each individual survivor in fact: if the killer is not earing pressure and value every second of a match up until the first player is eliminated, they probably lose. And survivors have tools to avoid these strategies, and usually when they work really well it comes down to bad choices anyway (For example, looping near the hook, or sitting in bleedout under an active hook like a dumbass, or rescuing right away when the killer doesn't face gen pressure). Most of these complaints come down to 'the killer didn't pretend that I wasn't undoing their main objective' and most killers (and the devs) don't take these complaints very seriously because they betray such a bad understanding of the game. The killer has to get enough pressure on the survivors to the point that they can't repair gens faster than they die.
This is, by definition, how the killers win. Even though for survivors it isn't fun when they are 'too good at it.
This dichotomy is common in every competition under the sun. But DBD players have convinced themselves, deluded themselves, into thinking their opponent owes it to them to make it a fair fight (usually in scenarios where they feel like they can win, because as the saying goes: If you win, it was fair, if you lose it was rigged). And DBD, for all its faults, is actually EXTREMELY well tuned in how many mistakes your really allowed to make before you lose when the game is slightly close. If I am a great killer vs bad survivors, I can in fact afford to go easy on them, and vice versa. But if its remotely close and your not giving 100%? Your gunna get trashed. Like what am I gunna do as a killer when I see you unhooking your friend with another survivor next to you because you went for it 5 seconds after I hooked em and I am Bubba? NOT chainsaw you two down, then chase your friend slugging you two, to try to find some immersed Claudette? If I am a survivor and its a big map and I spawn next to a gen should I not repair it until I see you get a hit, even though at that point you may have burned through all 3 pallets on a given corner making that tri-gen impossible to get through?
Heck no. I am gunna try to win, and you should too!
But games can be unfair. Mechanics can be unfair. They are unfair when they subvert the spirit of the competition. Flashlight saves vs a tunneling killer and camping vs people who are over-committing to the hook are fair, they are a part of the competition you buy into: part of being a good killer is being aware of what the survivors are doing, part of being a good survivor is misleading the killer and not being an overt idiot doing stuff in their face.
But sometimes mechanics just don't add anything or are way too much: keys are good example, because not only were they powerful (which is fine) but they nuke the game space and basically make it impossible for one side to win unless they alter their play in a super artificial way that just makes the game worse, and mostly exist to ensure the killer literally can't win even if they do well, rather than to secure an advantage.
Another was old hook traps. While intentional, it created a scenario where survivors couldn't ever safe rescue even if they tracked the killer and cleverly saved when they were well away chasing someone else. Despite doing everything right, you were punished for even trying, which stunk.
Mechanics are unfair when they reward stuff we don't want to be rewarding, or shut down the game with no interaction. Survivors should not be able to freely track the killer with OoO because killer tracking is a huge part of the game. Keys reward survivors for doing bad in a way that doesn't add anything besides nuking the killer's ability to actually play from go. Old undying was comically punishing to survivors who skillfully were avoiding killer engagement like they should. Machine Gun Build was stupid and made every killer able to instadown all the time which was an unfair nightmare. Lampkin is a horrible map that removes most agency from an entire side at all points in the game and the only good thing about removal of DC penalties is I don't have to play there anymore. Iri hatchets were dumb. Ect.
These things are/were unfair because they push the game to a space that has no value, and either rewards bad play or makes skillful play unrewarding. But they aren't going to be fixed by bullying people into not using them. They are fixed by devs changing things.
But we DO want to reward killers who see you going for a rescue and punish it, or survivors who pallet or flashlight save, or killers who down someone in such a way that they can instantly start a second chase to maintain pressure without hooking, or survivors for collectively denying killer pressure while doing gens. These are in many ways core skills of DBD, so claiming 'unfair, plz nerf' is silly, forget about bullying people for doing them. You don't balance the game by bullying strangers. You either play with people who agree to a social contract specifically with you (like fighting game tournaments that ban items, for example), or advocate changes to the core mechanics.
Otherwise, if you don't like how a side plays, you can do what you want when your willing to play that side.
Because of common sense? Because I'm not kid sweating over a game? Because I'm not trying to be toxic to win like I'm winning Oscar in video game? Because actuall people are more important to me than escaping /4k each match? I can keep going till forever
Nobody is telling you to babysit others and make sure they have fun at least have basic human decency and don't be toxic towards survs/killers if u don't need to
Because we are humans with empathy. I think the people that are concerned about other side s fun are the people that play both roles regularly.
Because if enough people on one side aren't having fun, you won't have that many matches anymore if enough of them quit. That is why I always say this game needs to be more fun oriented rather than just having the public match mode be ranked. You'll have a lot of people that care about rank and a lot of people that don't all playing together which just creates a divided community on what they want this game to be. I want DBD to be about fun. I don't care about rank. I don't care about pips. As long as rank is an incentive in public matches, there will always be those who don't care about the experience of the other side.