Prob even i DC from time to time without penalties. There you have it, main reason.
Imagine defending one person completely ruining the game for 4 other people. Suppose self-centered people would be the ones to defend it in any way they can to enjoy the benefits of it.
Every single game out there punishes you if you disconnect enough, even if it's casual, even if it has backfill, even if it isn't competitive, they hit you with one. It's like that for a reason. But far be it from me to attempt to write a long winded argument to debate logic with the toxic dumb dumbs who defend it.
I always find it funny how people use this reason or that to justify it, when the reality is they're just using the best example, as rare as it may be, when the reality they use it for even the more tiny, irrelevant reason because they can. Why not just admit it? It isn't like this is a LoL game, where you're stuck in a game you might lose for what? 20 minutes or something? DBD games are short, so it's kind of pathetic you can't even play it out. And if people will just "kill themselves on hook" then perhaps it's time to stop looking that as a reason to not have a penalty (which it is not) and instead look into maybe finding a way to prevent that, too.
Just a suggestion
but it if there was the ability to block players from playing with you eventually all the dc’ers and toxic players would only have each other to play with.
And if if you were really aggressive with your blocking because you are too precious you won’t have anyone play with but that is tough luck.
I feel you brother, yesterday I was doing an ebony daily, I have wasted 1 hour trying to play killer, one guy always dc during loading screen and is dumb
DBD is a casual game, it's not meant to be taken seriously
Literally the same people: Disconnect whenever they feel like it for any reason at all, while also being completely against the DC penalty so they can freely DC. You know, because they don't take the game seriously.
loving the no penalties. I've been dcing at the best times to really stick it too them.
Stick it to who? Killers or survivoirs?? 😦
good for you my times worth more then that. maybe in that instance the killer should just be just as respectful and hook said survivor and not waste their time?
wrong. either play the objective or lose points and the game gets ruined. screw my fun screw yours
If you don't have the time to wait for the game to end, then you shouldn't start the game at all.
They ARE playing the objective. They are trying to kill all the survivors, and keeping one alive to make sure they kill the other. Surely you don't complain when they allow someone to get saved from the hook even though theyre suppose to want them dead? That's all in their objective and the emblem system that reinforces it and playing with their food.
Your objective isn't and never was "baby takes ball and goes home boohooing"
" It is a selfish, abusive act"
First off, there's no reason not to be selfish. Second of all, as a survivor you're part of a team. If you can help someone get out on your team, that is selfless. Thirdly this has nothing to do with abuse. If you feel abused from video games you should not be buying nor playing them. Grow up.
It's miserable to play against killers these days. It's always a forever build or a sweaty slugging 4ker. That or being tunneled and camped. Lately I've even watched Vinc3ntVega disconnect to avoid the bullshit killers do.
It has gotten so bad that I now use task manager when the killer brings a secret offering. I just won't put up with it anymore, lul.
No, again... and it is embarrassing for you that you are unable to understand this. Disconnecting to change a game's outcome is using something outside the rules. It is called CHEATING. It makes you a dirty, reprehensible cheat. You cheated another Player in the game. There is a reason that there are disconnect penalties. The only reason they are off currently is because hackers keep messing with innocent people, you know... people who AREN'T dirty reprehensible cheats.
There is a way to help your fellow Survivor that is within the game. It is already provided for, i.e. you can get into a chase, you can lead that Killer off, and you can even sacrifice yourself on the hook to take yourself out of the game. This isn't hard. If you use something OUTSIDE the game, to change the outcome of a game, you are cheating. Your intent is to cheat; you admit it. You seem proud of it. There is literally nothing I can say that makes you look worse than you do yourself.
"and it is embarrassing for you that you are unable to understand this. Disconnecting to affect change a game outcome is using an outside the game method. It is called CHEATING"
The only circumstance that I mentioned is one where one person is slugged on the ground and the other person still has a chance at escaping. The game should not be designed where an altruistic action is punished and a person has to sit there on the ground for several minutes while the other two play the game. That is poor design, no way around it. Maybe they should put in a seppuku button for that scenario or something because it is not immersive, it is not fun, and a player should not be punished for not wanting to writhe around on the ground for five minutes because the killer wants a 4k.
"There is a way to help your fellow Survivor that is within the game"
I'm obviously not talking about that scenario. I'm talking about two people left, one slugged on the deck and the killer really wants that last kill so they don't hook. Obviously if there are other options then use them but sometimes there aren't. It is extremely common for me to be slugged at the end game and just sit there doing nothing while my teammate could be going for hatch. It's actually penalizing that teammate because the killer now has an unfair lead on looking for hatch.
" Seriously, what is your mental malfunction? This isn't hard."
No, it isn't. I've already told you the circumstance where this option is desirable due to a gameplay flaw. If you ignored it, it's because you are afraid of admitting there is a mistake with that slug-hatch scenario.
"Your intent is to cheat; you admit it. You seem proud of it."
You couldn't be more wrong. If a person is slugged and not doing anything while their teammate is debilitated then obviously the game design did not account for this. It's a crappy situation that devalues altruism. You're drawing these very personal assumptions where they don't belong. Maybe take a break for the game or something because you seem a little too hurt by all of this.
"There is literally nothing I can say that makes you look worse than you do yourself."
If a survivor feels they have to DC in order to save a teammate or not be staring at a slug for five minutes then that's the game's fault-not anyone else's. Maybe stop slugging the third person because you desperately crave that final kill.
And to be clear, the scenario I've just described could be construed as taking the game hostage.
Again, what you are doing is NO DIFFERENT from creating a Lag Spike to help your friend avoid a hit or get out the gate. That is the context.
"It's not the killers fault that that the hatch exists."
And it's not the survivors. 3k is good enough that you don't have to ruin someone else's experience just because you want to get greedy and take a 4th every time. A 3k is generally seen as a win for the killer.
"Hell, sometimes the killer HAS to slug the penultimate girl."
This happens every single time in this scenario. I've never been not slugged as the "penultimate" survivor left.
"For all you know the killer normally would giving the other person the hatch"
I've seen this happen maybe a handful of times. According to your theory though, the best move a killer could make would be to slug the last two, let them bleed out on the ground until one is about to die, then pick the other up right before in order to minimize chance of DS,hatch time, etc. Basically screw survivor gameplay.
No it isn't. It's not nearly the same thing. It's giving the last survivor a chance at the hatch-as was intended by even creating the hatch. Leaving the second to last player slugged not only ruins their experience but bypasses the whole point of the hatch in the first place. It has nothing to do with a "lag spike". You're reaching for straws now because you know it's not fair to leave a person slugged because that makes the hatch useless. It's also incredibly unfun to have to sit there and do nothing while other people are playing the game.
To be clear, you are advocating for holding the game hostage simply because you want 4ks every single time and you're willing to cut out a fundamental part of the game-the hatch- in order to do it.
This happen with the doc more frequently for me too, that's because that cowards blendettes playing immersed builds (which are quite popular), with the doc you counter them and they DC crying.
Ironic because I play Claudette with Calm Spirit lol
Idk about yall, but when I play killer and people DC, I just chill until the number of gens done is one less than the existing number of survivors before I go on the attack again. They're free to quit at any point, in the end they're just wasting their own time and BP.
Slugging the 3rd survivor to find the 4th to prevent a hatch escape - is not taking the game hostage and is not against the game rules in the slightest.
DC'ing is against the game rules, it's Unsportsmanlike Behaviour and is treated as such, please stop advocating for it on our forums as this is completely against the rules of our forum.
I had a hag disconnect on me last night. She already had one person on a hook, saw me working on a gen with bbq so she came right over. I managed to evade a hit and then I smacked her with a pallet 5 seconds later. Apparently that was enough to d/c? First thing I thought was “ What a baby.” I’m not even that good, I just got lucky with that 1-2 combo. She probably would have gotten me if she didn’t give up so fast. lol
are you one of the people who complains about the existence of hatch
"Slugging the 3rd survivor to find the 4th to prevent a hatch escape - is not taking the game hostage and is not against the game rules in the slightest."
So if I slug them and let them bleed out to death every game, that's fair? And what the actual ######### is the point of the hatch if I can just bypass it like that? It's a direct contravention to a game mechanic. This is basically systemic toxicity and probably the main reason why this game has unparalleled rage quitting.
The bottom line is that there needs to be a way to get out of this scenario that is not cheating. Don't just get mad at people for not having a solution to a crappy issue. Help resolve the issue.
Slugging will eventually kill the survivor, so no it's not taking the game hostage. It's in fact a valuable tool that the killer has at their disposal in order to put pressure on the survivors, it's a pretty necessary mechanic in a lot of circumstances.
DC'ing is quite simply ruining the game and refusing to take part in the game - hence that is the thing that's against our game rules.
"Slugging will eventually kill the survivor"
There's no reason to hook in the end game according to this. Just let them all bleed out and camp hatch while they do. Obviously this is painful for survivors, moreso than a DC, but this seems to be the natural endpoint for the gameplay you'd personally like to see. Not sure why.
"DC'ing is quite simply ruining the game"
Then maybe fix the slug-hatch issue and stop creating no-win slug simulators. I'm not even advocating DC at this point(and I never actually did even once, I just said I've done it before), but refusal to admit a problem is why the DC solution is prevalent, along with a couple others.
I would rather let someone take their place mid match. Give them all of the bloodpoints that the dc left. Would help survivor queue time too.
A slugging killer in a hatch-scenario is just acting according to the game. What you're advocating is, like I'd mentioned above, taking the ball because you're mad and BOO-HOO-HOOING all the way home... except perceiving it as pride/honor instead of recognizing the childish spite.
Do you think if all 4 survivors are getting ready to escape, it's cool for the killer to just disconnect? Those survivors are trying to screw killer gameplay by selfishly trying to all escape, right? And well too bad about whatever "be the last person to escape as..." or "open the exit gates as..." tasks they had the right to (and reasonably would) claim. Is this "you should've considered my fun (as I personally define it), so I'm going to flip the board over" a universal condition here?
I'm really hoping the comparison will drive home why it's simply not cool no matter what. There's a material difference in playing within a game's context versus acting OUTSIDE the game to affect it. It's always a "u mad" move in the end, and unreasonable.
When you've got a problem with the mechanics, you need appeal to the developers to get that changed. What you're proposing instead is that it's legit to hold X pet peeve against the other players when they're just operating under the established game conditions with the good-faith expectation that everyone else accepts them, or they wouldn't be there.
When you can't accept the game and conditions as they exist, YOU SIMPLY DO NOT PLAY. That is the only reasonable, rational, and adult thing to do. You flow with the game established (even parts you dislike) instead of childishly abandoning it... because that's childish.
The whole idea of a game is a fun/light experience, though the one consistent operating qualifier that you're onboard with whatever the particular game's rules/conditions in good-faith here. It's not about your personal fun versus their personal fun. It's straight up the default/reasonable code of behavior implemented for the greatest good of everyone. Sometimes that code favors your time/experience over others, other times that means sucking it up and letting the conditions favor someone else's time/experience. It's not about any given situation or selfish maximization of fun/resources; it's a set of reasonable, mature behaviors in the best interest of all.
Wrapping up other stuff here:
You miss the point of "sometimes the killer has to..." to focus on the frequency instead of the need. I'm currently sitting in the boat where I've got 2 devout emblems left to achieve here despite many, many close matches where entitled children have gone this exact route and screwed me over. The end result is just more matches where I'm dedicated to playing to the death of all players whether I'd personally like to or not in normal circumstances. But EVEN IF IT WEREN"T THAT... then still an aspect of the game you're agreeing to you when you play. It's not your place to decide to take the ball home when you personally feel the killer is "greedy."
And I suppose my anecdotal experience is just different from yours, though I've frequently encountered killers that keep true to the Final Girl experience, some that decide to let all players go, and other weird emergent decisions of circumstance. Just this morning I was carried to the hatch. Yesterday I stopped after hooking everyone twice when the whole match was ruined by yet another entitled child who felt getting downed makes it totes fair to DC because "me, me, me, me, me."
To specifically address this.... "According to your theory though, the best move a killer could make would be to slug the last two, let them bleed out on the ground until one is about to die, then pick the other up right before in order to minimize chance of DS,hatch time, etc. Basically screw survivor gameplay." …What? No. That's not sensible as any move, let alone the best idea. You act as fast as possible (or waiting a maximum of 60 seconds in specific conditions of decisive strike) because there's literally no point waiting. Letting them bleed out is the worst case situation and nets you nothing.