AlwaysInAGoodShape
AlwaysInAGoodShape
About
- Username
- AlwaysInAGoodShape
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,498
- Last Active
Comments
-
@random1543 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4078459#Comment_4078459
Survivors are shining a flashlight on it 😂
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/1071ZNC0SEEL/dbd-deadbydaylight.gif
That's making too much sense 😂😂
-
Why are the diamonds emitting light?
-
@Fog_King said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4078236#Comment_4078236
I have the exact same opinion. They could just remove skillchecks and had a button so the survivor would die right away. But then people would complain that survivors were just giving up after being on the second hook and it would impact the other players in the match.
The hiving up on hook right now only works if there are only 2 people alive. Missing skillchecks when there are more people alive only speeds up the overall progress bar.
So I think you could make it so that if there's more than 2, that button would just not exist. -
@Lexilogo said:
I would argue testing balance experiments as events rather than PTBs isn't unprecedented, Blood Moon essentially is testing a "gas" system for Generators. I like doing that so support it here, but Blood Moon has revealed a pitfall in that unlike straight balance changes, Events have a greater obligation to be interesting for both sides in comparison to base 1v4.
As for your specific ideas:
- Basekit optional unhook warping: I think this is a neat idea and worth testing out in a scenario like this, so sure. I have no idea if it would be a good resolution for tunnelling, but we currently don't have a Perk or etc that does a similar thing so hard to understand how it would affect the flow of games until it is tested.
- Anti genrush: This seems to be a similar, less extreme version of an idea you posted in a different thread, my opinion's the same, I think a timer like this would moreso encourage hiding if it ever came into play rather than actually stop people from rushing gens.
- Anti slug: I'm not sure how much this really changes, given that in these scenarios where 2-3 Survivors are going down, Survivors probably don't struggle to get their recoveries 99'd that much.
- Basekit KI at start of match: I don't really like this. Yes, when and how Killers find the first Survivor is a bit random, but it's usually acceptably fair on both sides. In extreme situations where a Survivor goes down really quick or a Killer takes truly ages to find anyone and it really puts them on the backfoot for the rest of the match, it's usually a skill issue.
- Thick fog for indoor Killers: Honestly this could be a basekit feature for all Killers, as long as the fog feature isn't ruining the aesthetic of maps, I think stopping SWFs from using clock system callouts on a Killer that's 50+ meters away would be a good thing for the game. I personally think if testing this feature alone, it could honestly just be forced onto base 1v4s for a month without the need to split the queue.
Overall while I think the idea of hook warping is solid, and testing some kind of big reenvisioning of the game as an event makes sense, the other stuff I don't think warrants a special event to test it, so the idea doesn't quite come together.
"Basekit optional unhook warping: I think this is a neat idea and worth testing out in a scenario like this, so sure. I have no idea if it would be a good resolution for tunnelling, but we currently don't have a Perk or etc that does a similar thing so hard to understand how it would affect the flow of games until it is tested."To be honest, it is not truly supposed to "solve tunnelling". It is supposed to make tunnelling fair, and put the control back in the hands of the players. If it were possible for hooked survivors to enter a state of stealth again, them getting tunnelled would become "their fault", rather than the killer's. As they have a responsibility to play less aggressively and more stealthily if they are the person on death-hook. One of the reasons why our culture has evolved this way, I believe, is because getting tunnelled historically hasn't been something the survivors themselves could have properly and consistently prevented. If a survivor gets tunnelled now, it will either be the fault of the teammate, who did not "free" them, or the fault of the survivor who played too aggressively on death-hook. What's most important about it is that it's no longer the killer's fault for playing in their own strategic interest, but this time, that strategic interest has a healthy game mechanic behind it.
"I think a timer like this would moreso encourage hiding if it ever came into play rather than actually stop people from rushing gens."
This is where the beauty if refining such a mechanic comes in. With minor tweaks for example, one could make it so that the entity grasp no longer diminishes once the gates are powered, meaning there's no invisible progression to the time to open the gate. Although stealth will partially be less effective as during this stage of the game, someone will most likely already be chased or hanging on hook, so the survivors are forced to interact."I'm not sure how much this really changes, given that in these scenarios where 2-3 Survivors are going down, Survivors probably don't struggle to get their recoveries 99'd that much."
They do struggle, and that's a problem because if the last survivor is close to the last downed survivor, that recovery would take a very long time, without the survivor being able to transport themselves very effectively.
The point of this change isn't to make slugging impossible, as it's a valid strategy, but does make it harder for it to be a strategy that can be used more widely as a full replacement to hooking, and turns it into an opportunistic mechanic for which the conditions have to be more right, but continues survivors having to play well to counter act it, rather than handing it for free."Basekit KI at start of match: I don't really like this. Yes, when and how Killers find the first Survivor is a bit random, but it's usually acceptably fair on both sides. In extreme situations where a Survivor goes down really quick or a Killer takes truly ages to find anyone and it really puts them on the backfoot for the rest of the match, it's usually a skill issue."
Although knowing highly likely spawn points is a general map knowledge thing that can help, this isn't guaranteed. And as we've seen in comp, aka the best players in the world, it is in fact not a skill issue. It creates a massive balancing disparity and difference in match outcome without providing any real meaningful or fun aspect to the game. It just creates games where, before the killer has interacted with anyone, they for no meaningful reason are already significantly more likely to lose the match. Which you can't balance as other times they will just stumble upon the survivor instantly. You can't balance the game around both scenarios."Thick fog for indoor Killers: Honestly this could be a basekit feature for all Killers, as long as the fog feature isn't ruining the aesthetic of maps"
I have considered this suggestion too, however, considering the existence of ranged killers I've realized that it would be unfair. I've also made the fog explicitly solid so that people with shaders or other modifications cannot use it to see through the fog somehow. and gain an unfair advantage -
@Jejune said:
95% of the time it doesnt even matter if you hit them at all
I would've low key preferred too if they weren't there, bc i multitask when i'm on hook typically, and skill checks mean i can only do that during the first phase of hooking, so I wouldn't be against it being removed, or instead being able to press an active button to kill your own survivor in case of a 2 survivor scenario.
-
You realize that a lot of the pallets have been nerfed and are very mind-gameable?
-
@vol4r said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4077738#Comment_4077738
Oh but it is connected, but not in the direct way.
You idea is helping the killers by giving them more time in a match when killers can get amazing results as I pointed out.
That is of course based on Gold survivors being matched against top 0.1% Challenger killer players But those amazing killers don't necessarily guarantee a win as you're suggesting when paired against equally skilled survivors, as evident in
https://youtu.be/39gl0ZjHxgo?si=C_5ne8Ip0FXxlB6_&t=48571:20:57
My idea only helps killers that are getting genrushed. If there is any normal level of game time they don't receive any form of help from this change.
This tournament is one where pretty much everyone is running with a commodius toolbox and a brand new part. 4 people with a brand new part are already reducing the total game time to around 4.5 gens, with the commodius toolbox pushing it even lower. On top of that running more genrush perks. Even if you'd implemented my system, as you can analyze from the gameplay in any of the matches, would a lot of matches where the survivors played well still ended up as a win. So the idea that the exit gate mechanic would just make killers overpowered is just untrue. Which is even more untrue, considering that the only time this mechanic has influence over the match is when the survivors have an "overpowered" start of the game (Due to factors like many stacked BNP's and other gen perks, pushing the minimal gametime heavily) -
@Yoshirama said:
You can't fix genrushing without fixing tunneling/camping/slugging and viceversa
How to solve Guaranteed Tunnelling FOREVER — BHVR
With tunneling fixed. That leaves slugging/camping.
Camping has largely been fixed, but I have long suggested increasing the hook timers per stage,
Slugging I don't consider a real issue, but it's just as easily solved by simply making people recover more quickly, depending on how hard of a problem you believe it is. Not much more to solve there. And if you believe slugging is fine, leaving it at the current recovery rate is fine too -
@vol4r said:
We can't touch gen time anymore. It's been increased through out last few years.
We can't make the surviviors gameplay more boring than it is now.
Most of the time survivior has to do around 2 entire gens, this takes 3 minutes.
3 Minutes of watching the bar going up.Killer mains that don't play the survivior seem not to understand it - survivior gameplay isn't that exciting for the most of the time.
There is no contant chases like killers have. If there is no fun for survivior but more of the boring thing (gens), people will be less and less excited.
If people are not excited to play, you will end up with no surviviors and killer queue will be extremely bad.If you're actually struggling to win games as a killer… you're doing something wrong.
BHVR already made things so easy, that on average killer's kill rate is around 65%.There are people who get 90%+ killrate on average on every killer.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/RCB82GPSS1DV/image.png
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/B4YNX3KBWI9F/image.png
How will you defend that @AlwaysInAGoodShape?
How will you defend momo getting almost 2k wins in a row as blight twice?
Or SupaAlf getting 1000 wins as a nurse?`We can't touch gen time anymore. It's been increased through out last few years.`
This is very true. This is why the exit gates mechanic is genius. Because it doesn't increase progression time in general. It only increases progression time when that progression time has typically been artificially increased.`How will you defend momo getting almost 2k wins in a row as blight twice?`
A lot of your points aren't really relevant to my post much, but to cover this separate topic; He's only getting to 2k because of DBD's matchmaking, paring top 0.1% players with essentially Gold players on the League of Legends scale. With of course the only time of him losing a streak is when he is also playing against the top 0.1% of players. If Momo, a top 0.1% player would only face up against top 0.1% players, his streak wouldn't even reach 10. So that's more of a matchmaking issue than a balance issue.`There is no contant chases like killers have. If there is no fun for survivior but more of the boring thing (gens), people will be less and less excited.`
This doesn't seem too connected to my post either, but the beautiful thing about this change is, there'll be less reason to do exclusively do boring things (at least at an extreme efficiency with gen-rushing perks/items), because some of that will get counteracted with this minimal game-length change, which nerfs extreme pushing of gametimes through generator speed acceleration`If you're actually struggling to win games as a killer… you're doing something wrong.`
Correct with the current matchmaking in public lobbies, but not really relevant to this post. -
@Lexilogo said:
Recently, I am pretty on board with the idea of a "game time normalisation" mechanic that makes Survivor objectives a bit less efficient if their uptime is insane and a bit more efficient in comparison if they're wandering around getting lost, so I'm ok with this in principle. I also think changes to the endgame could be an interesting idea to experiment with in achieving that.
As for the specific method though, not really a fan, sorry. During that phase of the game, Survivors can easily hide, so I think in practice it would just slow down games the Survivor team has essentially already won. If we're elongating the endgame this much, it's also of course worth mentioning most endgame Killer perks would need rebalancing.
A game time normaliser/survivor objective speed scaling mechanic should probably just be applied to Generators, as they're the far more significant part of the game
A game time normaliser/survivor objective speed scaling mechanic should probably just be applied to Generators
I think applying that to generators will sadly be mostly impossible, as it would require very complex system to interact with all the ways generators are sped up.During that phase of the game, Survivors can easily hide, so I think in practice it would just slow down games the Survivor team has essentially already won.
I think that's an interesting criticism, and "the state of stealth" (the phenomenon where all the survivor's locations are hidden) could indeed be considered a problem with a mechanic that to some degree creates automatic progress. That said, at this stage of the game, which is when the last generator pops, they most likely are already chasing someone or have someone hooked, meaning they always know the location of at least 1 survivor, and with that will always have a form of pressure.
I think it in fact is very unique in that to some degree it reintroduced stealth back into the game but in a healthier manner, where it only becomes an element when the game is getting completely rushed. Both giving a chance for the killer to come back, as well as a counter for survivors.
If the stealth would be considered too problematic in testing this mechanic, it would be somewhat easy to add a mechanic that helps find survivors during the Entity's Grasp, but if any such thing would be needed would only be seen with testing this end game mechanic, which would be pretty easy to implement.it's also of course worth mentioning most endgame Killer perks would need rebalancing.
I think a lot of end-game killer perks would actually be just fine. Perks like No Way Out only extend the general game time and doesn't make itself being any stronger as being related to endgame by itself alone. Perks like NOED end up cleaned pretty consistently with its aura help, so they are only part of the endgame for a limited amount of time. Perks like Rancor could of course be strong (especially paired with perks like Game Afoot), yet such perks give themselves away throughout the match, which would mean that survivors could simply counterplay them by delaying the last gen from popping, because keep in mind, the only time where they would face this mechanic to a significant degree is when they absolutely genrushed the hell out of the match. That'll often mean that also have the leverage to take things more slowly. -
He should come inside my games, bc I haven't seen him for a long time…
-
@Wiccamanplays said:
BHVR had an opportunity to properly address this issue in the PTB where stacking of effects was removed entirely, but a vocal minority freaked out because they couldn't run stupid gimmick builds anymore, so the devs backed down when they shouldn't have. Now we have an ever-increasing number of perks and Killer Powers with potentially unhealthy interactions with one another and no clear way to keep them balanced. Instead of having to compare perk strengths in a single dimension you have to keep considering how they might synergise to break the game, and 'diminishing returns' is just tinkering around the edges of the problem to create a non-solution that makes nobody happy.
The thing is, we know how to solve those problems without causing new issues by simply following this diminishing returns method:
Diminishing Returns & New Perk Keywords — BHVR
I'm all for diminishing returns, and advocated for it as early as in 2019. And now they've finally acknowledged that their game is in need of a diminishing returns system.
But instead of going with the one I recommended, they've come up with a completely new one that causes a lot of issues and doesn't even properly solve the problem, as further detailed in A COMPLETE Critique of DIMINISHING RETURNS (And solutions) — BHVRI am glad that they're finally acknowledging that the game is in need of a diminishing returns system and have become a proponent of one as I've been for the past 7 years. Now all I want is for them to also use the system I recommended back when I first advocated for it, as it solves all the problems and doesn't cause new issues, unlike the messy system they are advocating for currently
-
@SoGo said:
The way I see it, diminshing returns' main goals are:
- Limiting stacking gen speed modifiers (root of Forever Freddy, Thana nerfs, restricting perks like Friendly Competition...)
- Limiting Haste stacking
- Allowing for more design freedom
The goals are fine, but the method through which they want to achieve it is not, because it creates so many unnecessary problems, and doesn't even fully solve the problem.
But the method that I recommended 7 years ago does solve the problem perfectly and doesn't create so many unintended negative side-effects, like randomly harming niche builds, etc. -
I've posted on their PTB feedback post on how they can implement Diminishing Returns without unnecessarily hurting niche builds and still unlock infinite opportunity for new perks without problems. Just hope they see the feedback
-
I just hope they implement diminishing returns in the right way, and not in the current way where it hurts niche builds for no good reason, because a diminishing returns mechanism can be implemented easily without having such negative side-effects
-
@Jejune said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4074142#Comment_4074142
Not literally, but I read it that way.
Once per trial, while you do not have 2 Hook States and are next to a hooked Survivor,
use Active Ability Button 2 to unhook them:They lose 1 Hook State.
You gain 1 Hook State.
You scream.
You gain Exposed for 60/50/40s.Maybe its me, but I feel like while reading it; my brain reads ''They lose 1 hook state'' and translates it to ''they lose the 1 mark next to their name'', etc.
The language is, whenever you are hooked, you gain one hook state. Every hook state gets you closer to death.
So the hook states aren't the amount of times you can still be hooked until you die. It's how often you are hooked. -
@BongoBoys said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4074151#Comment_4074151
Well yes that's how it works you have to have trickster in order to get the skins
I meant her base character as being Mina, not Trickster, meaning you'd need both Trickster and base Mina before you'd be able to get skins for Mina
-
@BongoBoys said:
People really like Mina and the sales did really well Devs should absolutely keep making new skins of Mina she's an untapped gold mine
But then the question is, would buying a skin for Mina require her base character to be purchased first?
-
As someone who holds games hostage to torment the killer, I highly disagree with this post
-
Having 4 plague Zarinas in 1 match is gonna be so funny
-
It doesn't.
@Jejune said:
It basically says that you can steal 1 hook state from survivor thats on a hook, as long as I dont have 2 hook states left…
It doesn't.
-
"By your logic, Yui and Yoichi should be the most popular"
Not necessarily. By my logic, as with Spirit and Ghoul, there simply would be a bias towards a slightly higher pick-rate in asia compared to EU or NA. They wouldn't necessarily have to be the most picked killer. Like I said, multiple points influence a character, across several biases. Among killer sadly, and somehow, the anti-female bias manages to be consistently the strongest."There are fantasies that people actually want to live out, and then there's unhinged stuff that stays in your head. Most people probably have these, but very few want to actually live out absurd fantasies"
I'm not saying people are actually looking to be murdered here at all. I'm just saying that these psychological elements are what's helping shape this immense and intense disparity between male and female killers, in a possible attempt to explain it. Considering that, as proven throughout multiple comments on this thread, the anti-female bias remains constistent"The vast majority of people playing a silly horror game aren't doing so to live out a domination fantasy"
Not consciously no, but people act out unconscious biases all the time. This is well known in the field of psychology, and none of the people who are actively acting out those biases are even aware that they're doing it"It's you that thinks that"
It's me that thinks that in accordance with the numbers, while most are still stuck at the stage of copium denying the undeniable anti-female bias in dbd that is easily proved with numbers. So if you don't like my explanation, feel free to come up with your own! But the anti-female killer bias is very real indeed."Why nothing in particular? Does a woman controlling her little digital man, deciding his fate, and watching him die endlessly not fit into your box?"
Like I said, I just think nothing particular of it. I know women both play "cute" male survivors (disproportionally compared to other male survivors) for the reason they think he's cute, but I also know plenty of women who play as women themselves and love to make their characters fashionable/cutsey/(quoting) "girlypop", so I think the female psychology on that is pretty spread when it comes to picking survivors genderwise."It's sexist for you to think you know what most women want, as though women are a hive mind with set preferences. And that that preference is being dominated by men. Women have done a lot of struggling to not be dominated by men anymore."
We are talking about deeprooted fantasies here, not about how you live in your physical household, because there, I agree. But it doesn't take a lot of looking at women's favourite literature to see what romances they are most interested in, and I will save you the reading, it's not them dominating some guy that's into it the majority of the time."Your assessment that women want to be dominated runs on numbers? I'd love to see those numbers."
No, but considering I am the only person here who has moved passed the copium stage I'm the only one here providing possible explanations. Meanwhile you are still in denial about the numbers, let alone that you'll contribute in a valuable manner in explaining the overwhelming anti-female killer bias."and even if you did have that, you're making the reasons for those pick rates what you want them to be."
I in fact do not "make those reasons whatever I want them to be", and am more than happy do discuss multiple. For one I've also suggested the possible explanation of there simply being more male killers and them simply picking characters they relate to more. Most of those reasons had question marks originally, but like I said, since I'm the only person not on permanent denial about the clear anti female killer bias, I am the only person exploring its options."I did, abd you keep ignoring it: enjoyability. Harder to get data on, but if your data source is Nightlight, it doesn't really matter"
"Enjoyability" as loose as a metric you suggest could quite literally encrypt misogyny inside of it. If predominantly male killers would decide that playing female killers is less "enjoyable" because they relate to them less, than the enjoyability meter would go hand in hand with the anti-female bias. So like I said, provide any measurable bias that shows you aren't encrypting or merging other biases into it. Show me how many killers fit that category and how many of them are in the bottom 10 and we'll run the calculations. Here's you chance to disprove me. But I fear that your metric will not be able to outcompete the immensely strong anti-female bias, which is so strong that it has far surpassed the error rate and even further beyond, positioning itself as the pillar of prediction. Now maybe once you become willing to accept that we can finally discuss why that is -
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4074099#Comment_4074099
In your example it's 5 female killers4 female killers. I disagree with the idea that Twins can be just called a female killer. Because of the obvious nature of it being Charlotte and Victor.
with the other ones likely still being close to being bottom 10,You're changing your argument. Earlier the only thing that mattered was the 'bottom 10', the fact that a group of male characters were right outside the bottom 10 didn't matter. Now that the bottom 10 doesn't look as favorable to your argument, you want to expand the scope.
What's magical about the bottom ten? Why not the bottom 20? You're looking at extremely minor differences here and giving them outsized importance, especially given Nightlight's small sample set. Until we get to the top 10, even the top 5, the difference in appearances is very minor.
Now had that female bias sat at 28% or so, like a license biasThere are 41 killers, 11 I would say are unquestionably female killers. With four in the bottom 10 we're only slightly more than one standard deviation away from random chance, that's not even really close to the level of being unusual.
About the following list you provided:
XenomorphSingularityArtistLegionDemoHoundmasterCenobiteSkull MerchantTwins (also literally a female and a male character)Hag
We see an even more worrying trend. Non-human-like killers, like Xeno, Demo, Singularity are also picked consistently lower than more than typical human male-like killers, further showing the DBD community boxes female killers in with non-human-like killers and perhaps or possibly viewing them as being the same
In short, not a good look -
"4 female killers. I disagree with the idea that Twins can be just called a female killer. Because of the obvious nature of it being Charlotte and Victor"
Twins is definitely a female killer and unique targets elements of the female experience. Her character, charlotte, is the main character. Not calling her female is like calling houndmaster a non-female. Just because she has a dog doesn't mean she isn't a woman."Now that the bottom 10 doesn't look as favorable to your argument, you want to expand the scope.
What's magical about the bottom ten?"
Not at all, all of those would look favourable for my argument. All of them demonstrate a clear anti-female bias. A bottom 10 would, a bottom 15 would, a general distribution across all characters would. The anti-female bias doesn't stop existing at any point."With four in the bottom 10 we're only slightly more than one standard deviation away from random chance, that's not even really close to the level of being unusual."
Talking about trying to change the numbers, even if you try to take away Twins and count them as a male killer, which is absurd, and picking your timing in looking at the numbers, which is also a favourable number, even then the anti-female bias dominates all other biases, which even further prove my point. You can try to twist the numbers as much as you want, but the anti-female bias continues to dominate all other categories consistently.
Keep in mind with your twisting of numbers and counting female killers as male, and picking the most favourable timing, you still end up with a 36.36%, which has a 3x higher % increase of any other bias, like the license bias, which only adds around 4% on top of the standard 24.%. Even when twisting the numbers, it's still inescapable -
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4074037#Comment_4074037
It's quite funny that you are the only person here that's running on assumptions or copius arguments, when my analysis is purely made from numbers.The uhm 'sexual psychology' aside, you do realize that the video you are so insistent on using as evidence relies on Nightlight, which changes constantly, right?
Like if we ran the same game show right now the results would be:
Xenomorph
Singularity
Artist
Legion
Demo
Houndmaster
Cenobite
Skull Merchant
Twins (also literally a female and a male character)
Hag
Two of the characters you have as female wouldn't be correct today. You're jumping to massive conclusions about basically random data noise and acting like it has a solid foundation.
You can run the numbers again and even with the switches and wiggles, there would still be a massive anti-female bias stronger than all other biases (except the non-purchasable killer bias), which once again strongly suggests this isn't an error rate, but a consistent phenomenon
In your example it's 5 female killers, with the other ones likely still being close to being bottom 10, but just sitting outside. And even then, the bias is 41.6%, which is a bigger anti-female bias then all the other biases, like license bias, free killer bias, etc. and by an incredible margin
So what you will find is that the anti-female killer bias remains the strongest. And you can look at different dates, you could even use the official beHaviour numbers of a longer amount of time (which would be more stable), you will still find an incredibly strong anti-female killer bias when it came to pickrates, for as sad as it is.
Now had that female bias sat at 28% or so, like a license bias, I would've just shrugged it off as potentially some deviation of random bad luck for women killers, but the fact that the bias is so consistently strong, and nobody has been able to provide a stronger bias, to me shows how big the problem is. 42%-58% is more extreme of a bias than most even realize. Accounting that something like a license bias only adds like 4% on top of the fully random distribution at around 24-25%, the anti-female bias adding 5-7 times that is absolutely insane -
The last point I definitely agree with. Probably a bug that they never got around to fixing in the main game
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4074037#Comment_4074037
Well you sure make the assumption that women would be interested in dominating men. But like I said, the reality is opposite, women mainly want to be dommed and in cases where it's not it's mostly because it's the guy that wants the dynamic, not the woman, so now you know.######### what??? What on earth makes you think that’s the case???
Insider experience
-
@Wiccamanplays said:
If you pay much attention to the pro scene you'll end up seeing that some of the most talented players are actually the all-rounders you're talking about. The very best Killer players like Xeno, Knightlight and Zata are exceptionally good at a wide range of Killers and are also very talented Survivors too. They have extremely good mechanics but also strong macro game sense and map knowledge, which are important for both sides.
The main impediments to competitive DBD are that the devs aren't particularly interested in encouraging it (probably because of the notoriously disastrous attempt at managing a pro tournament in-house) through improving spectator mode and custom matches, and also partly because of the silly balance state of the game. Half the Killer roster is unplayable in comp because they simply cannot stand up to high-end organised gameplay, and the perk meta for both sides has been almost the same for years because there's not been a meaningful attempt to shake it up since Project W.
There is definitely talented all rounded killers, and being flexible and able to play a wide variety of killers in itself requires a lot of talent too. Though looking at gameplay, especially like that when they play high skill ceiling killers like Trickster, it'll quickly become apparent that they aren't masters of the character in the slightest. Nowhere near the levels of mastery you'd see at really competitive games, like League of Legends (which ironically have a wide character roster too)
-
@TicTac said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4074053#Comment_4074053
You can watch showcases (for example Hens), but they are kinda rare.
Even the rare public matches have many problems. Many comp teams, even on winstreaks, underestimate the opponent and will lose bc of that. And what makes comp survivor player extremely good is their experience. So they need time to adapt to the gameplay of the true killer main. They will never be at their full strength in the first encounter and a second will probably never happen. Depending on the killer some no restriction loadout could also make the match up quite unfair.
Making one-tricks more common in comp would be interesting for the viewer, but also kinda problematic for the teams. Its not easy to acquire such a deep roster and to manage it. Even with smaller teams there is often some drama between players. But that aside its not easy even as a killer-expert to acquire the neccessary macro-skills. So even if the killer master ends chases some seconds faster, a comp killer will get better results. So we would still see mostly one-tricks on strong chase killer like FallenArt. And even if you have a one-trick with strong macro knowledge, the opponents probably will ban the killer. Or they have nothing to do if the regulations dont allow the killer (not that important bc different tourneys with different regs) or the killer is too heavily bugged.
The best scenario would be more killer players per team (every top team started to use two killer player anyway), so they split the rooster more and have the time to adapt skills from true killer mains.
Really good takes in general! Definitely agree with a lot of the points you're making
One Tricks will often lack the macro knowledge, but will have the technical mastery of that killer. Therefore, having those 2 on 1 killer is even more rare, and I do agree that com survivors aren't even properly trained to force killers at their highest levels.
As for a personal idea, I do think that it could help if big tournaments told survivors way ahead of time which killers were going to be in the roster, so that during that "season", only those 4 killers would be played (One for each player in the comp team) so they could all specialize playing as and versing that killer. The only step they could take, out of the top of my head, to excel the level of gameplay to another level. -
@[Deleted User] said:
Having been a part of the scene in the past, I might be able to shed some light on it.
Specialists are nice to have, but it's someone taking up a roster spot as a one-trick. They're great when the set features that killer, but you need killer players that can cover a lot of the roster. It's why macro becomes so prevalent. That translates across killers. And you might have situations where that killer player needs to play survivor.
Definitely.
I think that ties in with how Teams in DBD are inherently formed. It is this structure of team forming that prevents most matches from being true displays of highest skill vs highest skill.
If competitive ever wanted to solve this issue, they should inherently change how team formation works surrounding the killer part of the team and the survivor team in quite revolutionary ways -
@terumisan said:
the problem with comp dbd is you have to nerf survivor heavily for killers to have a chance even with current blight and nurse since you still find them camping a hook to secure a kill so a loooot of perk combos or perks are banned for survivors are limited to 1 strong perk per person
I think this is a bit of a misconception since in Competitive DBD it's actually quite irrelevant how strong a killer is related to survivors, since teams aren't competing for 3/4k's, they are just competing by outperforming the other team with the same killer. So whether the killer is weak or strong, it doesn't matter, which is actually quite the creative clever solution to solve that aspect of DBD competitive, so killer balance has been largely solved.
There are of course also other issues, like map balance issues where some maps sometimes have disproportionally stronger pallets, which is also partially solved through map bans.
The point covered in my post however isn't solved just yet. -
@MarbleThrone said:
The actual major flaw with DBD "competitive" is that people cling to the belief that there actually is such a thing as "comp" in a game like DBD.
I mean there evidently is. Though not organized by beHaviour itself. Whether you acknowledge it or not
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4073788#Comment_4073788
I know a lot of people play killers when they don't even like their kit necessarily, but they just like the idea of the killer or the concept, and they put up with the kit and make themselves like it no matter what.
I don't think there's that much of this. I was like this with Wesker, being a character I already liked, but it gets old, and I've mostly walked away in favor of kits I actually enjoy. I'd argue the only time I've seen people consistently force themesleves to play a weak killer is Skull Merchant. And again, it's all guys.
Licensed, and has a big asian community behind it (same with spirit)
So now you're also saying people will pick a killer because they align with their cultural or ethnic interests? It seems like you assume people will pick killers for a whole lot of reasons that they probably don't. My secondary survivor is black. I'm not. You don't have to see yourself in a character to like them.
You don't have to be a free killer to be played frequently. That's not my point, but being free guarantees that you won't be in the bottom 10 played killers, due to the nature of newer/cheaper players playing those killers.
This "data" is irrelevant for that reason, as they're free. If you try the game for the first time, you're going to pick one of these. Trapper being the poster boy (and being simple) is probably the most likely option for a fresh install to randomly choose.
I definitely think there is something special going on there, as that is true not merely for the licensed killers like Ghoul, but for any killer that allows you to change the gender of a killer, where that pick is by choice
Which, again, contradicts your points. If I was going to disgrace myself by playing Ghoul, I'd rather play Rize, because of something you're overlooking: audio. After kits, I choose killers based on sound. It's why I play Henry Creel instead of the default skin. I don't like the default's growly voice. I can't see my killer, I don't care what they look like, but I do have to listen to them, and if I had to chose between Rize's annoying giggles and Kaneki's unbearable screeching, it would be the former.
I have asked, I have seen, and I know from personal experience. Like I said, I play this game with plenty female friends
You're telling me you've asked women you play with, in all seriousness and not in a joking context, if they play dudes they want to be dominated by and they've said yes? That's a little hard for me to swallow. I know at least a dozen women who play this game. If I were to ask them, I don't think that's the answer I'd get. And what does "seen" and "personal experience" mean exactly?
You're most likely saying this in response to the female domming community
I sure am not. This is you projecting again. I have zero knowledge or interest in this. If that's an interest of yours (and, from this line of reasoning, it would seem so) then cool, but don't assume it about other people.
so I don't think a lot of them want to play as female killers to dominate men, but they are more likely to play as the male killers who they like to be dominated by
You're arguing that it's sad that female killers are left in the dust then go on to say the most offensively sexist thing you could have managed. Do some women play as male characters they're attracted too? Yes, probably, just like men probably play as female survivors they're attracted to, since they get eye candy out of it. But implying that if a woman has a thing for a guy that means she wants to be "dominated" by him is so gross. What do you think of woman maining male survivors then?
It is quite literally hard data and no assumptions.
What hard data? Nightlight's bad and incomplete numbers? The sparse and cherry-picked data BHVR tosses us occasionally? Have there been surveys on why people main who? There is no data. There are just assumptions.
"So now you're also saying people will pick a killer because they align with their cultural or ethnic interests? It seems like you assume people will pick killers for a whole lot of reasons that they probably don't. My secondary survivor is black. I'm not. You don't have to see yourself in a character to like them."
No assumptions. Just hard experience playing with a Japanese vpn"This "data" is irrelevant for that reason, as they're free. If you try the game for the first time, you're going to pick one of these. Trapper being the poster boy (and being simple) is probably the most likely option for a fresh install to randomly choose."
I'm not quite sure how this rebuts anything I said. If anything it even further proves the point, because if you remove the free killer from the equation, there's even a stronger female bias of ending up in the bottom 10 of killers, where 2 of the female killers who aren't are in fact free."Which, again, contradicts your points."
It does not. It simply reveals a more interesting piece of psychology that's at play here, similarly how female survivors are favoured over male survivors in general as well."And what does "seen" and "personal experience" mean exactly?"
It doesn't take too long to find the many female profiles idolizing being moried by killers like Myers, Pinhead, etc. (Or even fandomming Leon, etc. it's pretty widespread)"I sure am not" (related to "Wouldn't women play as female characters so they can dominate male players as women and live an unlikely fantasy?")
Well you sure make the assumption that women would be interested in dominating men. But like I said, the reality is opposite, women mainly want to be dommed and in cases where it's not it's mostly because it's the guy that wants the dynamic, not the woman, so now you know."What do you think of woman maining male survivors then?"
Nothing in particular. For that, Leon seems to be the most frequent pick."You're arguing that it's sad that female killers are left in the dust then go on to say the most offensively sexist thing you could have managed."
If you feel like women's own preferences are sexists then I think you simply don't know what that word means. But at least you're willing to admit to some realities of it straight after it. It's simply psychology."What hard data? Nightlight's bad and incomplete numbers? The sparse and cherry-picked data BHVR tosses us occasionally? Have there been surveys on why people main who? There is no data. There are just assumptions."
It's quite funny that you are the only person here that's running on assumptions or copius arguments, when my analysis is purely made from numbers.
So here are the numbers for ya:
Least played killers:
- Skill Merchant f
- The Twins f
- The Hag f
- The Cenobite
- The Krasue f
- The Houndmaster f
- The Singularity
- The Nightmare
- The Artist f
- The Onryo f
With 41 killers and bottom 10 being comprised of obviously 10, that means any % of around 24.39% would mean this factor had no significance. The further above it, the higher the significance and below 24.39%, meaning a negative significance
41 killers, 12 female, 7 in bottom 10
Guessing bottom 10 based on being female= 58.3% right guess
(Ahem… apparently a strong bias against picking female characters, for whatever the reasons might be)
41 killers, 39 male, 3 in bottom 10
Guessing bottom 10 based on being male = 7.69% right guess
41 killers, 24 unlicensed, 7 in bottom 10
Guessing bottom 10 based on being unlicensed = 29.16% right guess
(No surprise here, licensed killers have a slight bias towards being picked more due to being popular)
41 killers, 17 licensed, 3 in bottom 10
Guessing bottom 10 based on being licensed = 17.6% right guess
41 killers, 2 no longer purchasable, 1 in bottom 10
Guessing bottom 10 based on being not purchasable = 50% right guess
(No surprise here, not being purchasable anymore heavily increases the chance of being picked less)
41 killers, 36 not free, 10 in bottom 10
Guessing bottom 10 based on not being free = 27.7% right guess
(No surprise here, not being free does create a slight bias towards the killer being played less)
(ignoring console specific platforms for simplicity)
41 killers, 11 C/D/E/F tier, 2 in bottom 10 (We will use a non-biased tierlist from a popular creator but feel free to use any other)
Guessing bottom 10 based on being weak = 18.18% right guess
(Although why weaker killers are played more might be a surprise to some, keep in mind win-rates look different at lower elos where the majority of the player-base is, where their version of the tierlist would also look different, so it's not as weird as you'd think)
Now, I just think it adds insult to injury thinking that even guessing based on survivors being NO LONGER PURCHASABLE would yield a lower success rate than guessing based on them being female. That is just beyond crazy. However, with time as killers age and they no longer become purchasable, this statistic should change, and guessing based on this should eventually end up being the nr1 strategy, with only guessing based on them being women remaining as the second most effective strategy.
Now feel free to pick any other metric, such as them being older killers/ younger killers, etc, none will be as successful as just guessing for the female killers. There's no stronger metric currently than that. Now you can argue about the reasons, but it is undeniable; a killer being female is the strongest metric to guess that she will end up in the bottom 10 of played killers.
Feel uncomfortable with that truth as you please, be in denial about it all you want, but if anyone would not want that to be the case, maybe the Devs/community need to start doing something about that, you know? Instead of being in denial about the giant gender disparity between killers in Dead By Daylight -
"Do you think people don't want to play female characters because they're female or because of their kits?"
In truth, I don't know why a lot of players don't want to play female killers. All I know is that it is happening and happening at a rate that is completely domineering, compared to any other factor.
I don't think it's a kit thing. I know a lot of people play killers when they don't even like their kit necessarily, but they just like the idea of the killer or the concept, and they put up with the kit and make themselves like it no matter what."These kinda conflict with each other and reality. Ghoul isn't free, yet he's inescapable. Do you think these endless Ghouls everyone has to tolerate like or have even seen Tokyo Ghoul? "
Ghoul is played for 2 of my mentioned reasons:
1. Licensed, and has a big asian community behind it (same with spirit)
2. Strong, and on top of being strong, being very accessibly strong
You don't have to be a free killer to be played frequently. That's not my point, but being free guarantees that you won't be in the bottom 10 played killers, due to the nature of newer/cheaper players playing those killers."I don't know the series, but she's not overly sexualized in appearance, and she's pricey, yet I see her a lot"
You definitely see her more often, due to Ghoul being played more often. And it is kind of interesting that when players get the choice to turn their male killer into a female killer they are significantly more likely to do so, and even prefer it over a female-killer-by-default. I definitely think there is something special going on there, as that is true not merely for the licensed killers like Ghoul, but for any killer that allows you to change the gender of a killer, where that pick is by choice"Male characters, particularly Ace, tend to be quieter. This is tactical."
Not just ace, but comp players tend to play a lot of male killers, from Quentin, to Adam, to Jake, etc. It's also why they end up as one of the highest survive rate survivors, as these survivors are disproportionally picked by comp players"Why don't you ask them? This is a really outlandish assumption."
I have asked, I have seen, and I know from personal experience. Like I said, I play this game with plenty female friends"Wouldn't women play as female characters so they can dominate male players as women and live an unlikely fantasy?"
You're most likely saying this in response to the female domming community, but from anyone who knows about those communities know that a lot of women who are dominants do so for money, and not merely for enjoyment, as well as getting burned out by it really quickly. A portion of them even wants to have a secret male-dom while doing domming themselves, as they still end up having a lot of submissive fantasies. The people that think as much women are into domming as they think are guys, and have no clue how male-centric that dynamic is. It's taxing and often unenjoyable, so I don't think a lot of them want to play as female killers to dominate men, but they are more likely to play as the male killers who they like to be dominated by, and will mostly play female killers if they relate to some parts of their identity, like some women may connect to hag due to the "witch" theme that some women relate to, for those who understand it's historical context."It's in the eye of the beholder though. I do actually find the Micheal mori lightly sexual in nature. I don't necessarily think it's intentional though. "
I would agree that Michael Myers mori is slightly sexual, but it's not the creative work of beHaviour. That's the work of the makers of the movies and it absolutely displays a power-fantasy, so it's very deliberate too. Although that movie was the power fantasy of men hunting down a woman, where as in DBD ofc they often see themselves through the role of the survivors mostly, so for both the reason why Myer's mori is sexualized and beHaviour's male mori's are not are both due to male-centric sexualizations, ironically."Kind of hard when this seems to be based solely on your own personal biases in assumptions and not any actual data."
It is quite literally hard data and no assumptions. If you played the gameshow and started randomly guessing killers based on being female, you would have the highest chance of winning. No other factor you could define would yield you such good results. It's nothing but purely empirical data: Guessing female killers + no longer purchasable killers = the winning strategy, and if I'm correct, will most likely continue to be in the far future, to my own disappointment as well -
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4073566#Comment_4073566
Out of my top 10 most used killers, two are female. It has nothing to do with their genders. It's because I play killers with powers I like. If they pulled a MiNA and made female versions, would I get them? Yeah, if it's a cool skin. I don't know who genuinely cares about this when they choose killers. Skull Merchant, Twins, Krasue, these killers have kit designs that I hate. It's not a gender thing, it's just a design thing. If their genders were different it'd be the same problems.
But moris overall seem be mainly focussed around male fantasies with guys not wanting to see a male killer have any sort of romantic connotations with them during the animation.
This is a pretty thin-ice topic, but you don't think this has more to do with that fact that one gender is more associated with forced sexual interactions than the other and that maybe it's more of a sensitivity issue? This also kind of contradicts what you're saying. Wouldn't those female characters like SM who have sexualized moris be more popular amongst men who find that appealing? You're also making it sound like only straight men play this game and only that playerbase is considered, when fan reactions to characters like Wesker, Michael, and Pyramidhead make that pretty clear that's not the case.
isn't turning on any women to any degree
Plague puking in someone's face has just as limited of a kink subset as Clown's finger sucking. Pretty sure both these killers trigger more phobias in people than turns-ons.
Yet somehow this mori too is completely sterile without any physical touch.
I dont recall him doing much touching in the films either.
male killers like Dredge
It's news to me that Dredge is male.
It kinda sounds like you're sexualizing things that aren't sexual and projecting. I can't say I find murder very sexually appealing. You're also ignoring the existence of female players, which may well make up half the base. Maybe they play guys they think are hot? But I'm not sure why they would, since they can't see them, which is why i dont know why anyone would care about this when talking about killers.
Out of my top 10 most used killers, two are female. It has nothing to do with their genders
It has something to do with their genders, but gender is simply not the only factor influencing their picks. That is the whole point I'm making. That female killers need to have more positive things going for them to receive the same amounts of playtime.
Among those factors are:
1. The killer being free (This trumps all. You're never going to be bottom 10 if you're a free killer)
2. Being strong (very strong killers are always going to see a lot of play)
3. Being purchasable (obviously killers that can no longer be bought are going to drop off)
4. Being male (female killers are disproportionally ending up in the bottom 10)
5. Being licensed (being recognisable can help bring a pre-existing audience)
With of course part 4 being the sad part. That doesn't mean that it's impossible to break out of part 4 by having other things going for you, like nurse who is both free and insanely strong, which helps instantly boost her to higher pick-rates, regardless of anything else. But that's the point I'm making. She needed more things to go right for her to have the same pick-rate as her male counterparts."This is a pretty thin-ice topic, but you don't think this has more to do with that fact that one gender is more associated with forced sexual interactions than the other and that maybe it's more of a sensitivity issue?"
I don't think that a male version of MINA's mori would be considered controversial in the slightest, but it would unconsciously annoy the straight part of the male audience having to see themselves get moried as a survivor, hence why it doesn't happen. Kind of the opposite of "The male gaze" but then for male killer mori's"Wouldn't those female characters like SM who have sexualized moris be more popular amongst men who find that appealing?"
Well, that is quite the interesting part. There are sort of 3 camps here; a disproportional killer audience (who predominantly gravitate towards male killers), the survivor base, who predominantly gravitate towards female survivors, and then there is the competitive scene, where for whatever reason players once more start gravitating towards male survivors.
I think that the more dominant roles, which are killers and competitive survivors tend to gravitate more towards male characters. Since the match for killer predominantly doesn't include mories, I don't think the mori alone would be enough to make enough people play the character for that reason, as well as especially a bigger part of this more dominant audience doesn't really care seducing men as a female either, so I simply think they might even have a general aversion towards sexualized mories to some degree than seeking out characters for it"You're also making it sound like only straight men play this game and only that playerbase is considered, when fan reactions to characters like Wesker, Michael, and Pyramidhead make that pretty clear that's not the case."
I do not think the only audience of this game is straight males, and I play this game with female friends often as well. But a lot of the trends do suggest a male bias of some sort, which can mean multiple things. It can means that simply more men play this game, or it means that women too want to dominate predominantly female survivors with their male killers too, or whatever other reason there is for this peculiar trend."I dont recall him doing much touching in the films either."
Like I said with the myers example, such killers are based on a movie and have little creative input from beHaviour, which means they don't count towards the argument, but it illustrates my point; that even if they had males who inherently had sexualized themes, they would desexualize them if they were male, and sexualize them if they were female, as we see with Trickster. A killer designed to target predominantly the female kpop audience, yet has one of the least sexualized mories, because their male audience doesn't want to be forced into the Female Gaze, apparently, but it's okey when the Male Gaze to be forced on women, which is what I think is at play here"It kinda sounds like you're sexualizing things that aren't sexual and projecting. I can't say I find murder very sexually appealing. "
They absolutely know what they're doing. DBD is very subtle and very aware in which subgenres they are playing into, and MINA is one of the most obvious prime examples. Hell, even older killers like Huntress eventually get their half-clothed metal skins. A lot of that is deliberate, and where it's not deliberate it's unconsciously happening still.
But in summary, I'm more than willing to have my mind changed. You can put it up for experiment. If my thesis is correct, years from now, as beHaviour continues to release new killers, my thesis is that female killers combined with no-longer purchasable killers will predominantly form the bottom section of least played killers, and there won't be much of a chance to that.
And if I'm wrong, then that simply won't be the case. But 5 years from now when the next gameshow hits where we are supposed to guess the lowest played killers, I'll know which datapoints will yield the biggest chance of winning, knowing what I know about the dbd community -
@Wezqu said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4073622#Comment_4073622
So you are saying that because Pinhead is male he is doing that? No he is doing that because its how his character does it even in the movies and he is modeled after the first movies version of him and in that he does not touch and only uses the chains. He is one of the most accurate licensed killers in the game even having voice lines from the actor himself. Trying to make him some example just does not make any sense. Like how clueless are you his mori is taken directly from the movie and so fits him perfectly like maybe you should really watch the thing you try to make a point of.
You just confirmed my point, that using licensed killers that are based on the movie are meaningless for this argument, as their moris aren't truly designed by beHaviour. With the ones that are however, you see the clear trend I'm describing. A strong female bias towards sexualization and the lack there-of for male moris
-
@not_Queef said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4073566#Comment_4073566
Meanwhile Clown's out here sucking fingers, Pinhead sends you to his BDSM dungeon and Knight is running a train on you, but sure only the female moris are sexualised.
Pinhead is from a license, which is inherently hinting at BDSM themes. Yet somehow this mori too is completely sterile without any physical touch. Which would've likely be very different if it had been a female killer
Clown "sucks a finger" in a completely non-sexualized way, that isn't turning on any women to any degree. So just because you could sexualize something "like sucking a finger" you can also execute that in a non-sexualized manner, which they have indeed done for clown. In which the only opposite example would be Hag, which jumps on dop of you in mostly a non-sexual way, contrary to the Ghoul.
Once again, leaving female killers disproportionally sexualized compared to male characters, where even despite their licensed somewhat sexualizing themes have completely sterile moris -
@Wezqu said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4073566#Comment_4073566
You were already told why some female killers are in the least played killers in this game and all of the reasons are the same as to those of the male killers who are least played. I am not going to go through them here again anyone who wants to know go read the older topic. There is several male killers too that need changes and been like that a long time if few female ones are too then seems to be to be quite equal then.
Skull Merchant's mori has nothing to do with sexualization touching an arm is just that. Plague's mori also has no sexualization there is no leaning to make a kiss she literally holds the survivor so far that there is no way anyone thinks she is going to kiss them and does not do anything sexual the whole time the mori is going. Like you have better argument of Skull Merchant and even in that its a touch of upper arm. If you try to claim Plaque's mori is sexualized then you have to also say that so is Shape's as its practically the same except Shape at least makes physical contact with the survivor. Lets just say this I don't think nobody cares if they bring male character that would be what you want but it has to be good and make sense not just the sake of "inclusion".
You still have not proven any gender-type disparities to me just making strawman arguments and linking your last topic just helps people to see them more easily.
It's very easy so see the difference between moris. If pinhead's mori had been designed for a female killer she would've likely touched the survivor as they were being chained. The literal fact that he's just standing from afar as one of the heaviest BDSM themed killers shows how differently they design male moris from female moris. As for the shape, it's quite literally from the movies so there isn't too much creative freedom there. But you can look at the ones where the devs do have complete creative freedom, like blight, which needless to say is absolutely not sexualized in any manner, neither are other beHaviour male killers like Dredge, Knight and Singularity, unlike when they design female killers, like Nurse, Skull Merchant, Mina and Plague. Not even male killers like Trickster; a killer that's quite literally supposed to attract a female audience has a very conservative and no-contact mori
"You still have not proven any gender-type disparities to me just making strawman arguments "
I have quite literally proven the disparity, shown the numbers adding up, rebutted many other arguments people have made around strength levels (in my older post), and all you've been doing is being in denial about killers like Plague having sexualized moris. It's quite self-evident
The funny thing is that you mention clown, because details matter here. Clown is another great example of why subtleties matter. You can create a clown licking a finger in a non-arousing manner and in an arousing. I don't think there's much of a surprise when I say that very little women feel any form of turned on whenever they are getting moried by a clown, further showing that they are preventing creating such sexualized moris for male killers so that their male audience doesn't have to watch their survivors getting moried by them.
So for summary; beHaviour creates massively sexualized female moris, like MINA, Skull Merchant, Nurse, Plague, yet "nerfs" any form of male moris, even if they through their license have somewhat sexualized connotations, like Pinhead, they still make those moris completely sterile and without any form of physical touch, even for their flagship female-bait killers like Trickster. -
@DemonicDemons said:
For a game company that openly prides itself on being diverse and inclusive to appease it's diverse and inclusive community I find it ironic that when just about anybody comes to the forums to make suggestions that would diversify gameplay with hopes that the community be inclusive of said ideas we actually get the exact opposite, nobody seems to want to be open to new ideas that would likely increase sales and the overall morale of the community and shoots down any attempt at such discourse thus shutting down the idea of inclusivity all together. I hope for the sake of the game we can move in a more positive direction on this front because the gameplay loop does seriously get stale.
I mean for priding itself with being diverse and inclusive they seem to be awfully scared about acknowledging their systemic neglect for Female killers, of which 60% end up in the least top 10 played killers (compared to 10% of male killers) and are often described as left buggy for prolonged amounts of times with female killers having to endure 2 cancelled reworks already (Twins and Skull Merchant). They seem to have little problem neglecting female killers and they have no problem sexualizing female survivors either.
With there even being a male-mori bias where predominantly female killers have a somewhat sexualized mori (Nurse sitting on top of you, Skull Merchant touching you softly, Plague leaning in for a kiss but puking instead, Mina entirely), meanwhile male killers don't have such mori's often at all, where there's no "Trickster leaning over the survivor they're killing" type of mori with no physical contact, where only Ghoul has something that could perhaps play into the female fantasy. But moris overall seem be mainly focussed around male fantasies with guys not wanting to see a male killer have any sort of romantic connotations with them during the animation.
So for a "diverse and inclusive" game, it's ironic that all the same gender-type disparities, biases and issues in real life are even portrayed existing within the game itself, and a lot of their own claims are just signalling but the reality within the game tells a different story, which they have an awful time acknowledging and great difficulty accepting as seen in; The Female Killer Phenomenon — BHVR -
@ShanoaLegendaryPlz said:
The last 2 idea i can think of that came from the community, that actually went through, were Shoulder the Burden perk from otzdarva, and the skull merchant nerf to her stealth activation, from one of these discussions, can't recall the name. But it is extremely rare to see ideas get put into the game and when they do the community seems to attribute the changes to a specific person, like to blame them if the change doesn't work out, which seems like something they want to avoid.
The blight nerfs were community as well
-
So the endurance goes to the unhooker?
Does the perk disable in end-game? -
Lots of good suggestions, and the Head On one is a no brainer; definitely should be added with aura reading for SoloQ
-
Upvotes and Downvotes could be goated if you could see who upvoted and downvoted. Also helps with credibility 😉
-
@zonkednb said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4072683#Comment_4072683
I don't think we will find agreement because ultimately this boils down to subjectivity. What is worthy of being called skill expression and what isn't, and where we draw the line of what is arbitrary. We agree on the crosshairs, for example, but timing is where we disagree. Timing is not inherently pointless, neither are knowledge checks.
Your thought experiment sounds horrendous, I admit, but I would not say that I am in any kind of Stockholm Syndrome with the timing mechanic. Your example is wresting control away from the player, whereas timing is not, instead narrowing the margin for success and by definition making that success more meaningful. I can appreciate you don't feel that way about it, but I stand as one example of a player that this matters to. And I'm not even considering this from a killer's perspective. I tend to play presuming a flashlight is on the wings at all times, so your suggestion wouldn't change much for me on the killer side.
I think there's also an element of understanding different stages of player development. Even with reference to new players and this making flashlight saves more accessible, it also removes a small win for them in getting the timing right. It's just removing a challenge that is worth overcoming for some people. How long has it been since you've been in VC with a new player that got a flashlight save and was riding that high for like a solid twenty minutes after? If they were guaranteed so long as you're in front of the killer at any point in animation, I sincerely doubt that kind of reaction would happen, at least more than once or twice. Keep in mind, I preface this by admitting I'm bad at flashlight saves and your suggestion would only benefit me in terms of success ratio. Maybe you consider finding satisfaction in nailing the timing as the Stockholm element, but speaking obtusely we could apply that to every mechanic in every game. What's different between you and I is what we consider an improvement to the gameplay experience in this situation.
As for the FPS example, you're kind of adding context to the basic situation I was referring to. Take hero shooters, which is more where my mind was as I probably should have clarified - Extreme mobility/power options result in a flanker getting to their ideal position, and they're about to get the drop on a juicy support. It took skill to set this up in terms of map knowledge and movement tech, but there wasn't interaction during this. They time their engagement correctly too. For a good player, this will result in value 99.99% of cases, but they are still required to execute mechanically. A bad player would be less consistent, even when set up with all the same advantages. Do we consider the final mechanical skill check in this situation arbitrary because the outplay already took place? I was referring more to this sort of situation as opposed to holding corners like in CSGO, perhaps mentioning a sniper was a bad idea."As for the FPS example, you're kind of adding context to the basic situation I was referring to. Take hero shooters, which is more where my mind was as I probably should have clarified - Extreme mobility/power options result in a flanker getting to their ideal position, and they're about to get the drop on a juicy support. It took skill to set this up in terms of map knowledge and movement tech, but there wasn't interaction during this. They time their engagement correctly too. For a good player, this will result in value 99.99% of cases, but they are still required to execute mechanically. A bad player would be less consistent, even when set up with all the same advantages. Do we consider the final mechanical skill check in this situation arbitrary because the outplay already took place? I was referring more to this sort of situation as opposed to holding corners like in CSGO, perhaps mentioning a sniper was a bad idea."
I wanna add, I'm definitely not for removing any form of knowledge based mechanics from games, in the slightest, as I do think knowledge can play a very meaningful part in gamedesign. Although I do think that in the case of Flashlight saving, considering the context of its history, that all it achieves is fundamentally making a core part of the game inaccessible for newer players, who are, at their elo already significantly behind in survival rate in general and do not need to have this feature as well as entire playstyle taken from them by just requiring them to simply play more, as in this case, this knowledge element mainly adds a negative and doesn't provide anything interesting to the game, rather than making a core playstyle less accessible to people who are at their skill level in least need of a nerf / causing arbitrary gamethrows for merely failing a quite uninteresting technical prompt in my view -
@zonkednb said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4072683#Comment_4072683
I don't think we will find agreement because ultimately this boils down to subjectivity. What is worthy of being called skill expression and what isn't, and where we draw the line of what is arbitrary. We agree on the crosshairs, for example, but timing is where we disagree. Timing is not inherently pointless, neither are knowledge checks.
Your thought experiment sounds horrendous, I admit, but I would not say that I am in any kind of Stockholm Syndrome with the timing mechanic. Your example is wresting control away from the player, whereas timing is not, instead narrowing the margin for success and by definition making that success more meaningful. I can appreciate you don't feel that way about it, but I stand as one example of a player that this matters to. And I'm not even considering this from a killer's perspective. I tend to play presuming a flashlight is on the wings at all times, so your suggestion wouldn't change much for me on the killer side.
I think there's also an element of understanding different stages of player development. Even with reference to new players and this making flashlight saves more accessible, it also removes a small win for them in getting the timing right. It's just removing a challenge that is worth overcoming for some people. How long has it been since you've been in VC with a new player that got a flashlight save and was riding that high for like a solid twenty minutes after? If they were guaranteed so long as you're in front of the killer at any point in animation, I sincerely doubt that kind of reaction would happen, at least more than once or twice. Keep in mind, I preface this by admitting I'm bad at flashlight saves and your suggestion would only benefit me in terms of success ratio. Maybe you consider finding satisfaction in nailing the timing as the Stockholm element, but speaking obtusely we could apply that to every mechanic in every game. What's different between you and I is what we consider an improvement to the gameplay experience in this situation.
As for the FPS example, you're kind of adding context to the basic situation I was referring to. Take hero shooters, which is more where my mind was as I probably should have clarified - Extreme mobility/power options result in a flanker getting to their ideal position, and they're about to get the drop on a juicy support. It took skill to set this up in terms of map knowledge and movement tech, but there wasn't interaction during this. They time their engagement correctly too. For a good player, this will result in value 99.99% of cases, but they are still required to execute mechanically. A bad player would be less consistent, even when set up with all the same advantages. Do we consider the final mechanical skill check in this situation arbitrary because the outplay already took place? I was referring more to this sort of situation as opposed to holding corners like in CSGO, perhaps mentioning a sniper was a bad idea.One of the reasons why I wanted to bring the Stockholm Syndrome up was because it's a more common phenomenon than people realize. I do agree, my example is kinda of bad, but you could take any type of skill increase addition to the flashlight save (hell even something as insane as having to do quick skillchecks during the beam as you hit the killer's eyes), I just want the underlying thought exercise to come through, because when we tell ourselves that "removing timing from saves makes saves less fun", the only way to differentiate between Stockholm Syndrome and the reality is by breaking out of it, which we can do by looking at it from a different direction.
With flashlight timing being an un-interactive technical prompt, would increasing the difficulty of this prompt make saving more fun or satisfying? That is the question I want you to truly ask yourself, independent of what implementation you could come up with.
It is my claim that it wouldn't make it more fun, and neither has the previous change of making flashlight saves more forgiving made saving less fun for anyone, as even the people who used to argue against it back and the days have all recovered from the Stockholm Syndrome.
I think it's important to realize why we ended up with this system in the first place to truly understand why my change would be beneficial. For many people who don't know, flashlight saves were never necessarily intended as a game-mechanic to be exclusively used after an animation stun. For those who remembered the "Hag incident", flashlights used to be so quick with blinding that you could pull it off against the killer at many times during a chase without any form of animation lock. The "blind after stun animation" has solely manifested itself through the players, who have since then used it in such a manner that is actually healthy for the game. That is why it's so important to realize that why we have what we have right now isn't the result of careful game-design around how to make flashlight saves more fun; it's the result of a legacy feature back from when the Devs didn't quite know which direction to take the game in. (And back when they didn't quite know whether they wanted it to be a hide and seek game or chasing game, with the players pushing for the latter).
Inherently it has always been awkward that the only wait that flashlights remained useful after the initial nerf, reducing it to an animation lock mechanic, that it had to be timed exactly after the animation finished, with the killer not being able to turn away fast enough (though always theoretically possible with insane sensitivity). That is why, imo the initial change of creating a more forgiving gap was great, because for the first time the Devs were actually playing into how this feature is supposed to work. It was the first time Flashlights as a mechanic became more than just a random thing you can blind killers with in chase, nerfed to the ground and after only usable after animation locks, to actually acknowledging how Flashlights currently exist in the game as a healthy mechanic;
A mechanic where survivors have to position for a save and try to get the right angle, while the killer tries to look away, or chase survivors far away so they can't get the blind in time.
Sadly, this healthy way of Blinding saves existing has never seen a proper look after that, and some part of the playerbase surely is stuck with the Stockholm Syndrome that the clunky remanence of the current flashlight save mechanic was any way was intentional, or had anything to do with fun.
That is why I want you to ask yourself, if increasing the skill for a flashlight save doesn't make saving more fun, and the current already decreased difficulty hasn't made it less fun, would implementing flashlight saves as a fully fledged and intentionally designed flashlight mechanics around "right place right time" while having it's playstyle accessible at all skill levels really ruin the fun? Or would it expand it and make the fun available for all players, while keeping the meaningful gameplay between killers denying the save and survivors positioning for them well and alive, and simply removing the random gamethrows among lower ELO's where a beginner survivor did everything right, but arbitrarily gets their progress and plays taken away due to failing some arbitrary one-sided technical prompt, resulted from this unintentional legacy mechanic? -
@KatsuhxP said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/466397/accessibility-update
Making blinds work any time in the pick up animation would simply make it horrible to play against.
Ever since the change with the extended window you can already turn away sometimes half a second before you would be blinded and still get blinded (with 20-30ms btw, so not impressive but good), I won't accept more of those random blinds that shouldn't have ever worked. I'm positive that people are smart enough to learn at least the slightest bit of timing.
I'm not sure so feel free to correct me on this, but the more forgiving flashlight blind gap was, I think, added to the earlier part of the animation, so it never created saves that were able to take place later. (Which would've been a flashlight save buff if it genuinely did)
What most likely happened to you, where you turned away is simply caused by ping. The player blinded you and stunned you (at the end of the animation), but since that has to be communicated over the internet you see that later, which can cause you to be able to look away before the game can tell you that you were already stunned 30ms ago -
@zonkednb said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4072661#Comment_4072661
I think the problem here is you could apply this logic to pretty much every game mechanic in existence and refer to it as abritrary. There are some arbitrary difficulty gates I do agree with, such as the lack of a crosshair option outside of wasting an addon, but this is not one I'd classify as the same.
I understand your perspective about interactivity, however not every bit of skill expression requires direct interaction and we wouldn't argue they should be gone. For example, do we say someone in a PvP FPS that got the positioning advantage on an opponent should just get a button prompt to kill them instead of having the aim the shot? A sniper holding a good sightline, should they have to aim when gamesense already had them in the right place at the right time to lock down an area? They didn't interact with their opponnent to achieve those advantages, and taking a shot against an unprepared enemy is not particularly interactive either.
No, despite doing everything right, they are still only setting themselves up with the best chance of success, and rely on their mechanical execution to succeed, even if the player in those examples has already outplayed their opponent. If a survivor outplays the killer via game awareness, they should be rewarded with the opportunity for skill expression to conclude the interaction, not a near guaranteed reward."such as the lack of a crosshair option"
Unironically, the lack of a default crosshair option is bad game-design, as pc players often already have access to this by default through their monitor crosshair"They didn't interact with their opponnent to achieve those advantages, and taking a shot against an unprepared enemy is not particularly interactive either."
This is simply incorrect, and kind of proves my point. In this case there is interactivity. In the types of precision shooters you refer to people can crouch around corners as well as stand peek, where headshots are often crucial. There are also ways to juke such as a fake peek to bait a shot, jump or come from an unexpected place. Every bit of it shows there interactivity as well as a subjective/varying place where your crosshair might be considered meta"they should be rewarded with the opportunity for skill expression to conclude the interaction, not a near guaranteed reward."
The problem with this claim is, it simply doesn't really apply much nor involves any meaningful skill. We are literally talking about a basic timing that most people are able to do after just playing the game for a mediocre amount of time. Neither does it punish killers, as survivors saving earlier would only mean the killer's game-sense is worse as it's harder to save earlier than later and puts survivors more at risk as well as requiring to be closer/ at better angles.
This is one of those cases where player's Stockholm Syndrome kicks in. Nobody would hate it if it'd be in the game already, neither killers nor survivors, which is why I invite you to look at this experiment to take you out of the Stockholm Syndrome;
Let's do the opposite: Instead of making flashlights "less skilful", let's make them more skilful, in the same uninteractive way of failure: Instead of a normal flashlight save, halfway during the save your aim gets shot in a random direction, forcing the survivor to having to quickly correct it back into the killer. (It takes slightly less time to blind to compensate for the minimal time it takes to correct it).
Now, I hope you could see that this would definitely make flashlight saves more "skilful", but not having Stockholm Syndrome around this feature, I hope you'd see why this would just universally be a bad idea, as none of it interacts with the killer in any meaningful way, and all it does is lock a fundamental game mechanic behind a one-sided technical prompt of which's outcome of failing is quickly turning those games in which that happens into a fail, causing less players overall to interact with the feature.
The Stockholm Example is relevant, as no players on the long term would ask for flashlights to only start working at the end of the animation again when it would be implemented, since my suggestion would make the game universally better, just like the many other features that used to have pushback, like the survivor icon info on the left screen that caused killers mains to worry, yet today, not a single person complains about it. Because these types of accessibility changes make the game better overall, and once the Stockholm Syndrome has settled, there'll be no haters left to hate, and only enjoyers left to enjoy, which in case would be a lot of beginner players who did a play and did it well, but merely screwed up a meaningless technical prompt to reap their rewards of their efforts. -
@zonkednb said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4072658#Comment_4072658
Presently, the mechanics of a flashlight save require quite a few things to go correctly:
- You need to remain hidden until the killer commits to picking up.
- You need a route to get an angle for the beam.
- You need to be the right distance to get there before the killer can look at the floor.
- You need to start the blind at the right time to avoid triggering it early.
Removing point 4 would make flashlights more consistent for lower-level players, but remove some of the precision required to execute the save. It would make the decision of when to break cover and go for it have a little less thought to it, including the impact on perks that impact pick up speed, as the optimal play becomes "shine as soon as physically possible" regardless of killer choice.
I'm not very good at flashlight saves, happy to admit that, but that difficulty makes getting them a satisfying achievement each time. If I felt like I was being handheld through that, it absolutely would reduce the dopamine hit.The best time to flashlight save would still be at the last possible end, as it would waste the maximum amount of time.
Interestingly enough, if survivors would try to go for the save earlier, it would often also mean they have an increased risk of being spotted, since sometimes they have to pre-run, which allows killers to fake the pickup.
That is the beautiful thing Imo. Timing your save until the very last end remains optimal and makes you most resistant to pick-up fakes, so all the advantages are still there for better players.
However, the timing of the save, like I mentioned, adds nothing interesting to the game. It doesn't interact with the killer much at all, unlike other chase-based techs and other skill expressive elements. Timing the save is a purely one-sided technical aspect that is currently creating games where players invest a game-throwing time into preparing for the save, doing everything right, staying hidden from the killer, finding the right angle, and then failing the blind to a technical error that will then often lose them the entire game. That's why I say, it doesn't add anything interesting to the game to having to "time" flashlight saves, other than arbitrary creating game-throwing situations among beginner survivors, and arbitrarily making the game less accessible. -
"but it would make the act of getting one less statisfying"
I disagree. It wouldn't make anyone less satisfied when getting a flashlight save, however, it would allow a bigger amount of the community to have satisfying moments, especially when they have, by trying to flashlight save, likely invested a game-throwing amount of time in the attempt, which is why I wouldn't see why we'd arbitrarily let them lose those games to merely a technical error, especially since it provides nothing interesting in them timing it."Dull totem auras as base for all boon perks is something I'd be less bothered about. I'd lower the radius you suggest to 8/12 metres though, requiring players at least check the tiles they want to target for a totem."
I think 8/12 meters would be fine indeed too. Whatever it would take for beginner survivors to run past a tile and know for sure whether there was a dull totem there or not -
@Wezqu said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4072647#Comment_4072647
You do realize that you are increasing the blindind window way much making it literal beam when killer picks up and the picked up survivor is off to run away again.
as I added there is several perks to find totems for survivors they can use those if they can't find them without some help.
"You do realize that you are increasing the blindind window way much making it literal beam when killer picks up and the picked up survivor is off to run away again."
I'm not really sure what this adds to the convo or how this is relevant, but like I said, there is no interesting emerging gameplay from letting a survivor miss a flashlight save from them blinding too early. There's no killer gameplay strategy around trying to make survivors blind you too early, only in making them blind too late. Right now, the only thing that blinding too early is doing is create completely unnecessary gamethrowing situations where beginner survivors have committed a significant amount to the save, have done their positioning and stealth correctly and simply lose the game to an uninteresting technical error. There is no positive to that"as I added there is several perks to find totems for survivors they can use those if they can't find them without some help."
All of those perks aren't for boons, but for finding totems in general, including Hex totems. There's no reason why someone trying to run a boon build should also need to integrate anti-hex perks into their build. On top of that, with those perks existing it's already evident that they have in fact not helped the situation, as beginner survivors are running and throwing games with their boon builds and falling to the noob-trap that is looking for totems for the time of entire generators worth of progress