AmpersandUnderscore
AmpersandUnderscore
About
- Username
- AmpersandUnderscore
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Fix_Killers said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947469#Comment_3947469
So escape rates that don't differentiate between low and high level play are the Survivor's proof?
For all we know, there's enough low-level Survivor groups dragging the average down by 10% or more.
But those rates will be used as the be-all, end-all proof that Survivors need more perks and Killers need to be controlled so they can't do anything Survivor's don't like.So escape rates that don't differentiate between low and high level play
Look, I know math and reading comprehension are really not strong suits for people in this forum, but come on.
The chart has exactly two rows, that are literally differentiated by MMR.
You didn't even look at this.
-
If I'm at the exit gate, I'm waiting to make sure my team is making it out ok too. I'm not moving at all, and if things go sideways, I'm going back in.
As soon as everyone's safe, I'm out, and if the killer comes by they'll have to force me out, barring someone like slinger or knight, for example, or if it smells like blood warden.
Just appearing isn't enough. My goal is to make sure the rest of the team gets out also, so I need to keep the killer occupied as long as reasonably possible. Which is generally true if chase as well.
I'm not being toxic, I'm making the smart, most sportsmanlike play in that situation.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
It’s because of the repair bonus, that BHVR promised they would remove, but never did.
It's not.
And don't spread misinformation. Deja Vu was buffed to "help combat the 3 gen situation" during that meta, but was unsuccessful in doing so… same as with everything else before the regression limit was put in.
They implied, once, that it might not be necessary once 3 genning was finally addressed, but never promised anything.
And honestly, the change from 5% to 6% was literally 0.8 seconds off of one gen. Likely they just realized that's actually basically nothing and leaving it makes zero impact.
And for comparison, over the same time frame, the extra 50% buff to merciless storm is about 8 more seconds off a gen in that same time frame. So as "useless" as people claim merciless storm is, deja Vu is about 1/10 as impactful. It's a negligible change.
-
@Marzipan210 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947730#Comment_3947730
If a perk is so strong that your suggestion is to run perks to counter that perk then that perk is clearly a problem. My real issue is less that they are strong and more that they are just mindless chase extenders. They are both easier to use and provide more benefit than killer haste perks do.
There's a huge difference between "you have to run X to counter Y" (for example, you can't counter tunneling without bringing at least one perk designed for that)
And "if you struggle with X, you have the option to run Y". (For example, if you struggle with the situational awareness for flashlights, you can run lightborn to help with that)
You seem to be reading the first one.
Interestingly, the (recent) counter example to your way of thinking is "distortion was required to counter aura reading" and yet they nerfed distortion instead of aura reading.
Curious.
-
The entire point of the exhaustion mechanic is so you can't use those specific perks more than once per chase (setting aside Blood Rush that resets exhaustion on death hook once, and is so rare we forget it exists).
Vigil doesn't change that. You'd have to have 24 seconds of walking or crouching, while being actively pursued by the killer, to have it bypass that effect. The additional 16 seconds doesn't matter in chase because the timer is paused entirely.
Which, at that point, if the killer isn't pursuing you, then that's the entire point of vigil, and when you get value.
So I guess I'm not sure what scenario you think sprint burst and lithe are being used outside of chase where this is a problem.
-
@UndeddJester said:
The AFC - I disagree.
The Anti Face Camp system does exactly what it is supposed to, which is punish killers for hovering directly under the hook and preventing trades and giving appropriate windows to allow intelligent and skillful play on the survivor side. By having the AFC as it is, it gives survivors the space they need to make use of their perks such as Reassurance, Desperate Measures, and other stealth/exhaustion perks to coordinate for the save, or even just solo sneak/run up to the hook to trade. It takes reasonable timing, skill and knowledge to do so, but the window is definitely there, which is wasn't before.
This is compounded by the fact a set of survivors who correctly identify a camping killer and continue to pressure gens while the killer exerts no pressure waiting out the hook timer, only to lose the unhooked player on a trafe, is on a fast track to losing, and its entirely on the survivor team to make the mistake of giving the camp value. An unhook isn't meant to be free, the survivor team should at least have some awareness in the trial.
Anti Tunneling - I disagree for the most part.
Basekit Borrowed Time does enough to reach a loop, or give time to body block the killer, especially if you have Sprint Burst or Lithe. It again requires skill to overcome effectively, but the window is provided... and if you want an anti-tunnel perk that works in end game, Borrowed Time is underrated as you can use the unhooked player to.body block for the unhooker.
Your real problem with tunneling comes from the killers with the map mobility to pressure gens, but still return to hook quickly. The killers with this type of mobility and lethality are always extremely strong at tunneling, and to face them you'd need to make survivor anti-tunnel perks frankly ridiculous to even have a reasonable chance.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of killers that fall very much foul of survivor anti tunnel perks and have no meaningful answer, and they can struggle to maintain pressure with them in the game, even if they aremt tunneling. Just yesterday in fact as Ghost Face, I got body blocked in the doorways of Badham by a Nancy with Dead Hard and Decisive Strike who denied my hook, which I very much needed to maintain pressure, and forced me drop the Claudette. The subsequent DS that I had to eat to remove it as an option cost me all pressure I had accumulated and effectively put me into a time deficit I couldn't recoup and lost me the game on the spot.
Abandon - Disagree. 2 players slugged is not game over, and survivors should be at least trying to win, not giving up at the slightest inconvenience.
How can anyone ever clutch a game with perks like Unbreakable, Made For This/WGLF, For the People, the aforementioned Decisive Strike or Dead Hard, if survivors bounce the moment the killer even starts amassing pressure?
AFK Crows - Agree, this feature does seem a little overzealous, but it's brand new, and subject to being tweaked, which I have no reason to assume BHVR won't do now it's got a much more of objective set of data in live servers to look at. If nothing is changed I will join you in having stuff to say, but given its not been a week yet, I'm not gonna jump on the finger pinting train just yet.
Go Next Prevention- Agree, it causes false positives which has resulted in it being killswitched. The loss of basekit unhook until 2 players are left, and SoH seems to work fine as changes on their own, I'm not convinced this feature is really needed.
@MarbleThrone said:
It's not anti-camp. It's anti-facecamp. The feature is there to specifically combat this:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/TI7YILU3DKCP/ipp1tnsght491.png
Not to eliminate (proxy) camping entirely.
AFC was initially on the road map as "anti camping". Here's what that looked like, for proof:
What we were given was AFC, which, as everyone likes to point out, is not anti camping, it's anti FACE camping.
And, yes, this mechanic is severely undertuned. It doesn't even prevent face camping. The killer has an insane amount of time to avoid this completely, and can smack a survivor on hook for a good 30 seconds before backing up.
It was a day zero tactic for killers to literally face camp with this mechanic in place and just time it so they were just outside the 11m range before the unhook was possible.
It's, at best, a passing suggestion to please, eventually, consider moving back a few feet. When we were initially told it was an "anti camping" measure.
If you want to see an effective mechanic, the anti gen tap is actually effective. Gen tapping is gone, done. Doesn't exist. It's physically, mathematically impossible to stop a regressing gen mid chase unless the killer consciously and knowingly allows it.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946671#Comment_3946671
you're leaving out the part where having a bad first chase also means the match is over for you.
I left that part out because it is objectively untrue.
But the roster is also big enough that giving people one "killer ban" and "map ban" slot
isactually feasible.You say that, wait until they implement it and then this forum will be flooded with "Not enough ban slots" posts. It's going to happen.
Yet if the matchmaker worked as it should, you likely wouldn't get 20 hour teammates. And again, if one bad chase means that the
entire match is over, which is where we are today, then that partshould befixable.Ok… again.
One bad chase does not equal instantaneous win for the killer. It's just objectively untrue.
I left that part out because it is objectively untrue.
Completely denying that tunneling is the meta is certainly a choice.
The only variable with tunneling is where or not the killer can tunnel the first survivor out of the game faster than the gens can be completed. It makes the game a race. And usually it's a race the killer can win, since people swear by this strategy, and even go so far as to say it's "required".
Since I made it clear that this is the context I was talking about, it's generally incredibly unlikely that a hard tunneling killer is completely unsuccessful in getting even one kill. In fact, according to nightlight, only 23.8% of games end in a 0k. So there's at least a 76.2% chance that the first survivor hooked isn't going to escape, and if they're just tunneled... They get chased to death, which was my entire point.
That's far from "objectively untrue", as you put it.
You say that, wait until they implement it and then this forum will be flooded with "Not enough ban slots" posts. It's going to happen.
I doubt they're going to implement bans at all, but your response is a textbook slippery slope argument.
My point is that there are solutions available. Whether or not they are implemented, or in what capacity is a different discussion. But that's just of the top of my head, and for literally accessibility reasons, as I said.
One bad chase does not equal instantaneous win for the killer. It's just objectively untrue.
If you read what I actually wrote, I said if one bad chase means the entire match is over. I never said or implied that it automatically wins, rather that strong early pressure often leads to snowballing to a win in the current state of the game.
Which, again, in the context of hard tunneling means that the killer is winning the race. If you know that no one has touched a gen and you're on hook already, there's really not a significant chance of that match turning around.
If the killer can get someone out of the match and more than 1 gen remains, that's effectively game over.
That's why people tunnel, it's insanely strong early. That's not "objectively untrue".
Unless, of course, you're taking the stance that tunneling is somehow worthless, but I doubt that.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947161#Comment_3947161
But I didn't have the data to conclude that, I had no proof the system would do a DC Penalty.
You may have forgotten that Hex_Ignored gave me the correct information, I was not under the impression that the system could take the next step. I had no data to assume there even was a next step, but even so I did ask for it so that isn't unhealthy skepticism. I only thought there was a warning, because of all things that was the one we could see.How do you reason that I could reason that the Go Next Prevention was tied to the DC Penalties if I never saw a DC Penalty.
Literally didn't see the first step as a step, then how can I see it as a step. It doesn't make sense my friend.I'm not entirely sure what to tell you here.
You, yourself linked the patch notes in this very thread.
Someone else already linked you the exact statement from those very patch notes that survivors would be both flagged for "throwing", and that the penalty for that gives "disconnection points".
Those same patch notes also clarify what disconnection points mean.
The video pops up a window at the end of the match, which is new with this patch, warning that the gameplay was "flagged for being unusual".
Those are the facts, and you seem to not be putting the pieces together to understand that this is the system working, and doing what they said it would do.
You appear to be dying on this hill of "but I didn't see the 5 minute timeout", which is where I think most of us are saying that level of skepticism is unhealthy.
The system is demonstrably working, it is flagging people for "throwing" (right or wrong), and you seem overly concerned that somehow the disconnection priority system is, I dunno, bugged and not giving timeouts? or something?
That's a stretch. And why we're all saying this seems like an unhealthy level of skepticism for this issue.
(I've also not seen any reports of "people are disconnecting every match, is the dc penalty broken?" Which I would also expect if the system was failing in this way.)
-
"Learn nothing, nothing can be fixed, if you don't like it just leave."
What a healthy outlook.
Although, since BHVR seems to be taking the punish them message to heart, I suspect this attitude of yours would change dramatically if they applied this same mentality to literally anything in phase 2.
-
@Fix_Killers said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947095#Comment_3947095
Tunneling is not a bad habit. It's a valid tactic.
Why do entitled Survivor mains always think they can decide what's good or bad, or a valid tactic or not, for their opponent?
Is it a 'bad habit' for Survivors to try completing that 75% done gen? No?
Then why is it a 'bad habit' for Killers to go after the wounded, already-hooked Survivor for easy pressure?
Oh, right, because Survivors think 'my fun' is more important than their opponent winning.Weird how that tired excuse never works in reverse. Survivors can 4-man SWF with 16 META perks and then say 'Git gud' to Killers.
But Killers winning in non-Survivor Approved™ ways? 'Bad habit!' and 'What about my fun?'Also, playing Lightborn and Iron Grasp to avoid being shafted by Survivors is not a 'bad habit'. How entitled are you?
Is the Killer not allowed to counter anything Survivors do? Should he just walk to each pallet and allow a stun? Do you think he's a bot or a BHVR employee meant to give you BP?Tunneling is not a bad habit. It's a valid tactic.
It's a bad habit if that's all the killer player knows how to do. Which, going by how many people claim you "have to" tunnel and camp every game, seems to be quite a few.
Something is only a "tactic" if you have options and, specifically, situations where you can use that to peak effect. And you generally want to change tactics in response to gameplay.
Something like "stealth" for survivors is a valid tactic, because there are times you do want to be hidden. But you shouldn't excessively use that one tactic, and you're intentionally switching tactics in response to your PVP opponent.
So, tunneling can be a tactic, and should be, but for an awful lot of people, it's the only way they play, and they never switch tactics, not by choice, circumstance, or even in response to other players gameplay.
And for people who only know how to camp and tunnel, yes. It's a bad habit that is preventing them from learning anything else, and from learning the fundamentals of gameplay.
Why do entitled Survivor mains always think they can decide what's good or bad, or a valid tactic or not, for their opponent?
Interesting choice, since this 9.0 patch is basically the nail in the coffin for stealth play.
I've been asking a similar question for years: since it's a primary function of the killer role to hunt survivors, why is stealth such a problem?
Because with this very patch, you have that sneaking, hiding, and stealth has basically been deleted and hard punished. And, I'll point out, by the "request of entitled killers" as you put it.
Now, I'd say the same thing here: that if stealth is the only tactic a survivor uses, then there's a problem. But we've already addressed distortion, and added an abandon option to prevent hostage situations. But even after all of that, deleting stealth is the option they went with.
So maybe you should ask why you think tunneling should get special treatment and still be the one and only way people are allowed to play every game, especially if it ruins the match for most everyone else.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947134#Comment_3947134
Which is it? Either you just want the source or you want the source because the dbd community often lies. I ask again, which is it?
Both, Its not either or. Wanting a source for has many benefits, It helps them judge whether the claim is based on solid evidence or just opinion. I want the source because I care about knowing how someone knows something not because I assume people lie, but because humans can be mistaken, biased, or misinformed (even without meaning to).
It’s not necessarily about accusing anyone of lying, though its very beneficial to do that. Its about making sure a claim is grounded in reliable evidence rather than just trusting words & opinion alone. My goal is to be the least mistaken, biased or misinformed person I can be and not about just avoiding "community drama".
If you dont understand me, I don't expect everyone to and we should not get off topic, Try researching these keywords on Wikipedia: Skepticism, Empiricism, Epistemology, Critical thinking, Burden of proof.
Fascinating stuff really re-shapes your brain and approach to Information.
There's healthy skepticism, then there's unhealthy.
You've been given video of the system flagging a game for "go next", and the system is designed to give a warning, then penalties for additional offences. You're looking at the first step and being skeptical that the system is taking the next step and timing people out.
That's just how the system functions.
Unhealthy skepticism is taking things too far and not making the actual connections with the data you have.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946777#Comment_3946777
You must have missed my above comment, stating that she stealthed for the entire match, not just when it was two remaining. Stealthing in a 2v1 is one thing, but that's not all she was doing.
No, I didn't. That's why I said people would still get crows if they're useful and the last one standing in that situation.
You said you haven't seen anyone get a false positive, and I gave you two, very common, scenarios where that can happen.
The only similarity with your video at all is that "slug for the 4k" is meta, and nearly every game.
It's 4 minutes of "being slugged" for one player, while it's 4 minutes of "don't be found" for the other. That's literally the only play in that scenario, and both survivors get unavoidable, false positive crows in that situation now, revealing their location.
That's your example of "people who didn't deserve it being flagged incorrectly".
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946761#Comment_3946761
I've yet to see the system punish the wrong people though.
I mean, there are people on these very forums saying that they searched for a totem (so, afk timer started), started cleaning thrill of the hunt (a 35 action that only resets crows after being fully completed), and being interrupted by screaming and having to start over (face the darkness).
So that's travel/search time, plus 35 seconds to cleanse, plus the false start time. So it's not that hard to hit at least 70 seconds to get even one crow. For cleansing a totem.
And your video almost captured it, but what do you think happens in a "slug for the 4k" scenario right now? What should the correct play for the last standing survivor be?
Because getting on a gen is certain death, getting the teammate up is either death or prolonging an already lost game, and hiding for 4 minutes is just crows giving up your position. So, what would otherwise be legitimate stealth, and the correct play, is now punished and basically a free kill for no reason. Not every "last standing" survivor is useless…
-
This kind of attitude feels disingenuous.
I see an awful, awful lot of complaining from "killer mains" on these forums about how "entire play styles are being deleted" because they have to stand 5 extra feet back while camping.
It "how terrible it is" that they're "being punished for playing the game".
Or even "being expected to play according to an insanely strict set of artificial rules and having no autonomy".
And then the devs implement the new crows and an insane dc penalty system that does literally all of those things at once, we get posts like this. Not hyperbole of "oh no, camping is dead because I have two minutes to step away 10 feet", but literally "stealth is no longer possible in any capacity, go screw yourselves".
Take your "equal attention cake" doomposting somewhere else.
There's zero information about those phase 2 mechanics at this stage, but if there's one thing we've actually seen over and over again, it's that whatever wrist slap they decide to test in 6 months will get watered down even farther before it goes live. So calm down.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946556#Comment_3946556
My point is the things people list as changes necessary or changes that have happened that negatively impact survivor are things that don't even OCCUR at the time people DC.
Someone having a bad first chase, is unfixable. Someone not liking a certain killer, is unfixable. Someone's teammate having a bad chase, so THEY go up to the killer and suicide, is unfixable.
You can't do anything about those scenarios and those are the ones that tend to happen the most. I play killer and those happen CONSTANTLY. They will give up over the most non-existent problems achievable. You can make a bunch of improvements but at the end of the day, these people aren't even making it far enough into the game for those improvements you suggest to change anything. They just don't like the game not starting out perfect or meeting their conditions (a killer and map they enjoy).
I'm sorry, but no. This outlook is just not even trying to examine the issues or why they happen.
Someone having a bad first chase, is unfixable.
Sure, but you're leaving out the part where having a bad first chase also means the match is over for you. Full stop, you just didn't get to play, and literally good luck next. That part is fixable.
Someone not liking a certain killer, is unfixable.
This depends on why. You're right that someone with actual coulrophobia is going to hate clown, or someone who can't stand puking noises from plague isn't exactly a situation you can fix. But the roster is also big enough that giving people one "killer ban" and "map ban" slot is actually feasible.
But let's be honest here, a lot of the most hated killers come about because they're usually overtuned, or simply have a low skill floor and aren't exactly designed to be fun to face. Permanent mending against a legion or getting 3 genned by a skull merchant were design issues with the game and those killers, and the devs letting things get out of control (chess merchant) leads to this more often.
Someone's teammate having a bad chase, so THEY go up to the killer and suicide, is unfixable.
Yet if the matchmaker worked as it should, you likely wouldn't get 20 hour teammates. And again, if one bad chase means that the entire match is over, which is where we are today, then that part should be fixable.
The match shouldn't ever be completely decided in the first 60-90 seconds, unless there's a gigantic, massive skill discrepancy between teams. That also goes into matchmaking, but also balance, to where any killer with a pulse shouldn't be capable of going toe to toe with competitive teams (again, chess merchant).
And I keep bringing up the chess merchant example, simply because there are a number of people on these forums who seem to desperately want that kind of (im)balance back in the game - where slamming your face on the damage generator button is the only "skill" you need to effectively win every match.
There is room for improvement here, but if you're just going to throw up your hands and declare the problems to be unfixable... That sounds like giving up, which is, ironically, the exact problem we're talking about.
-
I've said this a dozen times, and I'll continue to say it:
People have always given up for petty reasons (didn't like the killer, map, whatever), but people have not gotten more petty over time.
Game balance is the reason. Matches are basically decided in the first one or two minutes anymore, and there isn't really an incentive to stick it out to recover a losing match.
If you get unlucky, and found first, you're likely going to just be tunneled out, have basically not even played the game, and you'll get maybe 5k BP for the trouble. Maps, resources, perks that would maybe help with that in the past have all been nerfed in the great name of "increasing kill rates because they felt like it", and anything that could resemble fun suffers.
Most of the time, even having hope in the match is too much to ask for. And, unfortunately, survivor gameplay entirely hinges on the players having some hope of escape. Take away that hope, and you get "go next" epidemic, because this match is irrecoverable, but maybe the next match will be better. Maybe.
-
Stealth is a core part of survivor gameplay. Just deleting that almost entirely in a single patch is ridiculous.
This also destroys several perks, simply due to the fact that taking time to activate, use, and/or travel is just going to reveal your location.
Like, sure, I understand that just about anything in the game can be problematic when taken to extreme levels, and excessive hiding is no different. But this new crow system isn't it.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946318#Comment_3946318
The mechanic isn’t trying to detect if someone is AFK, it’s trying to detect if the player is committing to meaningful interactions.
Yes, “AFK Crows” was a poor naming choice, because it implies it’s supposed to happen to AFK survivors.
I think a lot of the confusion is happening because they are called AFK crows, and people are expecting to only get them if they are AFK.
The semantic argument you make here is nonsense.
The entire mechanic is designed to reveal the survivors location to the killer. There's literally nothing in that clip that is "idle", and the actions are absolutely "normal gameplay".
Why should the killer be getting free Intel on survivors during this? The system is set up to heavily punish people for playing the game.
This is literally, exactly the kind of thing that "killer mains" cry about constantly on this forum: being punished for no reason, giving the opponent something "for free", and "deleting entire play styles" by removing not just stealth, but any attempt to be sneaky or even just "not seen" by the killer.
It's overtuned bullshit. Period.
-
@Rudjohns said:
Not only abandon but also not leaving a bot behind, triggering the hatch
Yeah, this. You basically just want the option to bleed out instantly at that point.
It doesn't help your teammate to have to wait out the bot bleeding out.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3945574#Comment_3945574
Its funny, I've asked in another thread for video of this so that the devs could try to have something, anything, to work with, but its just constant doomposts like this. Not even a dislike on the post asking. When issues like this happen in a game, and you have a line of communication with the development team, it is far more effective to provide relevant details for them to work with in identifying the cause of a system going wrong.
I have no doubt that there are people getting false flagged, but it could be something as simple as "the second skill check attempt isnt registering" or "x situational checks were implemented, but its order of operation is wrong so y factor gets missed." Video of everything leading up to and including the error easily saves hundreds of hours of manpower in bug fixing.
If this bug affects you, document and submit it in a way that helps the devs understand and fix it.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3945572#Comment_3945572
This is the alternative. If you can't contribute to the solution, then wait for a fix and don't give business in the meantime. Its harsh to tell anyone to not support a game or team that they want to, but its just as important for your own mental health as a player. If the game is in a state that you are not able to derive enjoyment from it, don't subject yourself to it knowing you're going to be miserable. Basically either do what you can to help fix the issue, or go without until it is in better shape. This has been the case with this game pretty much since its inception, and literally where the Civ meme came from.
Edit: Hey, at least this one got some dislikes :) Still prefer more constructive feedback and data for the devs tho.
So I'll bite I guess.
I'm not playing survivor. That's my response. Been my response for a while, but that's another topic.
But I can also confidently say that I've given my constructive feedback for about two years now.
I've had numerous conversations over the years in various threads, and with different people on these forums talking about exactly these issues. Most recently:
I mentioned it earlier, or maybe in another thread, I forget, but I had a long back and forth conversation with someone a couple months ago. They were saying, roughly, "survivors should be punished if they haven't completed a gen in a while", and I went into great detail about how that would generate a ton of false positives, trigger on things like "being slugged", "hiding while the killer kicks your gen", "cleansing hexes", and a huge list of other things that are actual gameplay.
So that was my constructive feedback. On the devs own forum, discussing these issues, and specifically saying "hey, if you put a system in place for this it should consider these elements, at minimum". That's the best I can do, especially since I can't directly message a dev because it's against forum rules.
So when they ignore that feedback entirely, and also just put in a system that literally just punishes normal gameplay without any of the safeguards or considerations, then yeah, I've said all of this before and been ignored, so now instead of a proactive "consider this with your future patch", it's "your system has issues because you didn't consider this yourselves or listen".
On top of, "you've made a mistake already and need to backtrack".
At this point, I'm just shouting into a void. So yeah, I feel fully within my right to criticize these decisions, lack of foresight, and heavy handed tactics. Especially because I've been vocal about why exactly this is a bad idea in the past.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3945337#Comment_3945337
Do they not? I'm pretty sure there have been anti-afk systems for killers in the game for years. Isn't that why people were making a certain killer with a certain ability their go to for botting as killer? (Don't want to say who since i'm not familiar on how combating that has been going compared to the past.) I just remember some regions specifically having issues with AFK killers even within the past few years.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3945456#Comment_3945456
This. Taking your ball and going home was always grounds for a whupping the next day. It was also the fastest way to get uninvited from future games. Sportsmanship can't exist if you're unwilling to accept an outcome (or even the rest of a match) the moment you deem it unviable (or even unwinnable.) This still persists in a lot of other genres like FPS/MOBAs/RTS/FGC/etc but for some reason it apparently doesn't apply with this game specifically.
I've not heard of any penalties except a regular dc penalty if the killer actually exits the map early. I've had killers go face a corner, be afk the entire match, or even during the twins bugs where they physically can't move or do anything. Never once have I heard of anyone mention dc penalties because of any of these. This would also include killers body blocking survivors in the corner.
There's I guess a chance it does exist, but since I don't do any of these things, I don't have any first hand account of it.
But even so, the "new patch" afk system has literally nothing in it for killer. No requirement to "play the game", wether that would be in chase, damage gens, injure survivors, hooks, anything.
At the bare minimum, this 9.0 afk system has very, very strict prove of what survivors need to do to be considered playing, and says literally nothing for killers.
Same thing with the "go next" penalty. Seems like a killer standing in the corner from the start of the game, or after a bad first chase checks all of the boxes of refusing to play, but there's nothing to force them to play it out. And no penalty unless they choose to "exit game" (or otherwise disconnect). Not that this is common, per se, but if we're taking about "you signed up for this match, play it out" then this is exactly that scenario, but with no penalty for one team.
It's a flaw in how that person was arguing. These aren't necessarily identical scenarios, but the reality is that you can't simply force someone to play out a game they don't want to. And that reality is lacking from the "contract" discussion.
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3945337#Comment_3945337
Why do you assume I only speak about survivors?
I mean, the system doesn't currently bind the killer in the same way.
I assume if you have a balanced take that all 5 players are "bound by contract", as you put it, then you should at least acknowledge that the current system is not attempting to enforce this for everyone.
But you didn't answer my question either:
Why is the killer not bound by this same standard?
Because it seems that your entire premise falls apart simply because the system isn't trying to "enforce a contract", it's only enforcing 4/5 of one.
Which seems to completely undermine your premise and argument.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3945350#Comment_3945350
I have been playing survivor all day and not had a single problem honestly. I'm assuming people upset about it are ones who like to "go next" often and are mad they can't anymore.
I've seen multiple reports of people getting the dc penalty from being hard tunneled out first. So no, I don't think it's entirely a "go next" problem.
-
They released a killer only chapter that's breaking records, so obviously popular, while simultaneously pushing out a system that punishes survivors with dc penalties for basically existing.
At least some of the people who do want to play survivor are being forced to wait out false positives dc penalties for a grossly overtuned system, while others are just going to stop playing for a while to mitigate the collateral damage until BHVR fixes it.
Both of these issues lead to longer killer queues.
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3945302#Comment_3945302
When you are under contract, you can go against what is in the contract but not without repercusions. Players agree to play a match when you hit ready or waitout the timer. It was you and only you who decided to join the match.
This is a strange tangent to go on, but I'll ask this:
Why is the killer not bound by this same standard?
I've had games where killers afk, or go face a corner. Why does this system not equally punish that behavior here?
It still ruins the match for 4 other players, yet seemingly none of these afk detection or go next systems even attempt to make sure the killer is active in the game.
-
<sad spoon Myers noises>
-
@thrawn3054 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3944536#Comment_3944536
The more I read about how the system works it seems like they killed stealth play.
This goes beyond anything I would've considered reasonable. I usually try to give the benefit of the doubt, but… wow.
It really feels like they read some of the feedback on the forums about "punishing survivors for existing" and just pushed that live.
-
@Matukas said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3944730#Comment_3944730
I tested it today and linked video evidence of the invocation despawning crows in the post you replied to, but I agree that this is the kind of interaction that should be made obvious to players in patch notes (and even on perk tooltips, just like how descriptions of exhaustion and endurance were added to perks that induce those statuses).
You don't even need to finish the invocation, just doing it for a couple seconds is sufficient to not accumulate AFK points.
Yeah just make up something like "conspicuous actions". Although, if "using the perk that BHVR designed and I deliberately equipped" isn't "gameplay" then I think the system really needs some better clarity overall.
Especially since people are getting crows from trying to cleanse thrill/face the darkness combo.
It's simply overtuned, to hilarious levels. Which is why it really isn't obvious without someone like you testing and posting video about invocations.
-
@Matukas said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3944505#Comment_3944505
No, that's not how this works. Invocations do not count as being AFK, they count as an activity.
- You would need the baseline 70 second AFK timer plus PLUS the 60 seconds from doing an invocation PLUS the AFK buffer from recently completed activities (it's the same buffer you get from being close to the killer) of 50 seconds. This is a total of 180 seconds from the start of the invocation before you get a crow, assuming that you don't do anything like touching a totem, getting in chase, interacting with killer power, touching a gen, healing, etc.
- Invocations also get rid of AFK crows very quickly, just like any other activity.
That's good if true, but there's no indication of that anywhere. And unfortunately I can't simply rely on common sense since this system does punish you for other things that are also clearly gameplay.
Every other action requires "completion" of the task (chests, totems, boons, heals, etc). Gens are the only activity that counts for "partial progress", and nowhere that I've seen in any dev comments, posts, or patch notes makes an exception for, or even mentions, invocations.
-
The best "go next" prevention should've been addressing reasons people don't get to play the game.
So basically, the "anti slug", "anti camp", and "anti tunnel" needed to come first.
It's infuriating that they not only did these phases out of order, but really, really listened to and leaned into the "punish them" mentality here.
-
I'm going to tentatively hope that this was either a mistake that shouldn't have gone live, or simply a tooltip bug showing the wrong value.
But I think "up the ante getting gutted" might just be a good summary of this patch overall.
-
So, from what I've gathered, you start earning "afk points" toward crows after 10 seconds of "not interacting". The points accumulate slower if you're near the killer, but you have to complete one of these to reset the "points":
- At least 15s of gen progress (I believe in one go).
- Fully break or bless a totem.
- Fully heal a health state for any survivor, including yourself.
- Open a chest.
- Be in chase with the killer.
I'm unsure how things like "being slugged" are counted, since you literally can't do anything but crawl. But I do know that missing a skill check while hooked will consider you attempting to "go next" for the disconnect penalty.
So, unless I'm missing a pretty big list, things like lurking for saves, literally any sneaky/stealth play, or even literally unhooking someone, don't reset your afk meter.
-
@thrawn3054 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3944334#Comment_3944334
Crows aren't literally showing up in only 15 seconds are they?
No, that's hyperbole on my part.
It's a reference though to the fact that it does only take 10 seconds to start giving you "afk" points toward crows. So unless you work on a gen for a bit (I think 15s), fully finish healing someone, fully boon or break a totem, open a chest, or be chased by the killer, you're basically always considered to be afk until you do one of those things to reset it.
If it is truly 70 seconds for crow 1, as someone mentioned here, then the act of walking and starting an invocation will guaranteed give you at least one crow, since you'd have to finish the invocation, which alone takes 60 of those seconds.
It's listed in the patch notes only as "at 90 seconds you have 3 crows". So, depending on travel time, it could be nearly impossible to finish an invocation without giving your position away for free, which, ironically, could also mean you don't get to finish the spell either.
-
It did have that text, so that's an interesting change.
Although, arguably gaining crows by waiting in a locker for 15 seconds or whatever to use your perk is still not a good look for the perk. It doesn't work very well if the killer can just tell you're in there.
This is one of those "hiding is a core part of survivor gameplay" instances that's been overly targeted by this new system. "Excessive hiding" sure, let's try and do something there. Punishing people for "being sneaky" is too far.
-
@Toybasher said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3944256#Comment_3944256
Pretty sure the crow system isn't to counter AFK survivors but count survivors who are intentionally hiding for a prolonged period of time to waste as much time as possible.
I.E. a somewhat common (but not super common, it something I only saw a few times a month) scenario is you kill 2 survivors, and the final two survivors ignore gens and hide. Crouch-walking around the map, hiding in a corner spamming emotes, picking up and dropping items (which prevented AFK crows in the old system) etc. and just waiting until the killer eventually gives up looking for them and disconnects, or the server shuts down.
This is a problem but I thought the abandon button already solved it. If survivors are hiding and not touching gens, you can just abandon and find a new match while keeping bloodpoints and no DC penalty.
About the Go Next prevention I think how it really works is it's just some timer and if you die before the timer is up (it's likely not a long timer) the game declares you were throwing the match. It likely doesn't detect behavior and only goes by survival time. While it does solve people who throw/let the killer kill them, it can apparently trigger a false positive on scenarios like a killer finding you extremely quick and hard tunneling you out of the game as fast as possible, etc.
EDIT: I imagine tombstone piece Myers can give people the go next penalties easily.
If it's designed to target excessive hiding at 2 survivors, it's definitely targeting people at every stage of the game. People are getting crows for being interrupted by cleansing thrill (by screaming, which is outside their control) which is absurd.
And just in general, with both the afk and go next systems, there seem to be instances where the killer can force these scenarios to occur. I'm unsure about tombstone, but hard tunneling someone out, for example, does punish the survivor, even if they're playing and trying.
If there's one thing about DbD we should know by now it's that if you give either side the ability to abuse mechanics like this, they will do so. The fact that this isn't accounted for already, especially after ptb feedback, isn't a good sign.
I think it's a bit unfair to players to assume the worst, where the default position is that "you aren't trying" until you successfully complete one of maybe 4 specific actions, and every 30 seconds or so.
-
I can kind of understand some things, like only giving credit for partial gen repair and not, say, tapping a totem (which could be used for avoiding crows like locker hopping).
But wow, the system seems to be really tuned to assume that "you're just afk, and until you do one of exactly 4 things you're going to be punished" is pretty extreme.
The not letting go on hook changes seem fine for the most part, but we're kind of back to "Doctor spamming m2 to prevent you from doing anything" would force the system to flag you as AFK with penalties, and that's pretty messed up.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941980#Comment_3941980
Before I made my post I was checking to see if you replied because I had a feeling you'd go longer.
Looks like we posted at the same time.
No worries, that one took longer than I thought it would. I felt like being thorough was the better option, but I like your concise example too.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941851#Comment_3941851
You can't just ignore math and game balance. Clear and coherent evidence, and "Nooo, ignore the evidence!" just isn't going to cut it.
There's a reason BHVR shoots for a 60% kill rate, and…now I hope you're sitting down for this, it's because of math. :O
Theirs is slightly off of an exact hit of 62.5% to make room for various variables which imho is acceptable. I'd say +-3% is a good range.
Anyway, here is the statistics of balance. The team with single player is what we shoot for on a 50% win rate when they have to face multiple opponents. In other words, a 50% win rate for a killer would be balanced, a 50% win rate for each member of the team with multiple opponents would effectively crush the single player. That's why in game design, you balance around the lowest common denominator - in this case, the killer. Here comes the scary math, look out!
Here is the baseline statistics ranging from if the Survivors had a single member all the way up to 10, just for fun. You'll notice something quite interesting.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/I54MAYXVE3Q3/image.png
It might be hard to spot, so here it is in another form (the number on top of each dot shows how many kills are required to kill the majority of the survivors):
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/Q27KBI5HQ3D0/image.png
This is for the killer to have a 50% chance to win. The Per-Point win % for killer is kill rate. The survivor Per-Point is escape rate.
You'll notice that the more survivors there are, the closer to a 50% win rate the survivors should get. This seems backwards, and I made the same incorrect assumption that it seems backwards previously before diving in deeper. The key here is, the number of survivors changes the required amount of kills that is needed to get a majority. For example, in our 1 v 4, the killers needs a 75%+ kill rate (a 3K+) to win. However, let's say it was 1 v 1,000. The killer would only need to kill 501 survivors to get a majority for a win. This leaves roughly 50% of the survivors who lost, but 50% of the survivors who won! That's because the more survivors there are (with one exception I'm about to cover), the EASIER the killer can earn a majority. You'll notice a lot of up and down on the chart, but that's because of the number of kills required to win. For example, with 4 survivors, the killer needs 3 kills…but with 5 survivors, he still only needs 3 kills - but he has more people to go after which means him getting victory is easier - this means that with 5 survivors, with it being easier for the killer, the survivors would need their chance to win to go up. This is a repeating pattern. The more survivors there are, the target majority requirement changes. On the first case where the kill count needed has less survivors in the game, survivors need a lower chance, but on the second case where the same kill count is needed but survivors are in a larger number, they need a higher chance to win since the killer will have an easier time getting that required kill count.
Now to clarify, this is all around balancing the killer around a kill rate giving them a ~50% chance to win (which is what the 60% kill rate roughly achieves, though 62.5% would be a perfect 50%). Essentially, the devs got to the 62.5% number, but reduced it down to 60% to give survivors some breathing room. Let's just stick to BHVR's 60%. The problem is when killers have a kill rate above that 60%, it becomes very problematic for survivors. These cases absolutely should be addressed. On the flipside, when the killer has under a 60% kill rate, then it's very problematic for the killer which also should be addressed.
At the end of the day, BHVR pretty much nailed their 60% kill requirement if we're giving survivors wiggle room. The problem about just boosting survivor escape rates individually is that it will drop 60% kill rate killers below the 50% win rate balance. Inherently, in an asymmetric game, the individual player who has multiple "allies" must have a lower personal win rate than the player who is completely alone and facing off against multiple opponents all against him. That's the nature of asymmetric games. Buffing those individual win rates of people with allies would make it unfair for the player who is entirely alone. If you're on the side who have allies, you have the numbers, and in turn, you'd need to deal with a lower personal win chance than the player who is entirely alone with no allies who have multiple opponents.
Now, all that being said, this is a top level look at this. One could say, once a killer eliminates a survivor, his per point chance to kill a survivor should change since now he has less opponents. That's a fair statement! However, in order to accomplish this, the match would need to dynamically change once a player is eliminated. BHVR actually attempted this in the recent 2v8 mode where generator repair speeds would increase or decrease dynamically depending on how well or poor the killers were doing. That's a completely different discussion, but I'd be fascinated with that discussion. It makes me wonder if BHVR is testing the possibility of dynamically changing repair speeds depending on how well the killer is performing on standard matches…perhaps a response to tunneling? One counter-argument one might say is that it is punishing a player for doing their objective, or doing it too well. Also a valid argument, but nonetheless, BHVR clearly has this on their mind.
Interestingly enough, all players would have an individual similar win chance if BHVR went with an odd number of survivors.
Edit - clarified the chart titles.
You can't just ignore math and game balance.
I'm not. You are, by making base assumptions that your "model" isn't capturing. That's what I've been trying to explain.
Clear and coherent evidence, and "Nooo, ignore the evidence!" just isn't going to cut it.
Your method here is anything except coherent. So I'll just outline why it's incorrect.
There's a reason BHVR shoots for a 60% kill rate, and…now I hope you're sitting down for this, it's because of math. :O
I hope you're sitting down for this, the 60% kill rate is not because "it's balanced", it's because they "wanted the killer to feel more powerful to capture a horror feeling" and specifically not because 60% is "balanced" gameplay. They've intentionally, deliberately, and knowingly skewed the game balance in the killer's favor. And not because of balance, literally because they felt like it.
Anyway, here is the statistics of balance.
This is an awful lot of numbers that have literally nothing to do with Dead by Daylight in any way.
So, since I expect you to learn nothing and keep repeating this drivel, as a Math teacher, I'll go through why this is completely, objectively useless information when discussing the game so that the rest of the class can maybe understand why I'm pushing back on this.
At minimum, there are a lot more variables to consider, and even then I wouldn't look at it as a "probability" of escaping. These percentages are supposed to be descriptive of actual data, not predictive of how a random match with human players will actually play out.
Asymmetric PvP isn't Probablility
Let's look at your assumptions: Survivors all have a 50% chance to escape, each.
So, at minimum, we're ignoring every factor that would impact this. Not every survivor on the team is going to be of the same skill level, and I highly suspect that the matchmaker deliberately puts a "weak link" and a "slightly stronger link" on the team to bias the match toward more kills. Even if the matchmaker isn't going that far, it's a pretty huge stretch to think that there is never a weak link on the team. It's a pvp game, and the bare minimum here would be a skill comparison, even in a naively bare bones statistical analysis.
This also doesn't bring any of the actual PvP, or human elements, or even RNG into consideration. The biggest one being how do these players play? Because, and I already brought this up, let's take the example that the killer is playing to hard tunnel the first person out of the game. (You know, how people are arguing on these forums, and in this very thread that every match must be played, every time, period).
So if the killer just hard camps and tunnels the first player they see, what is the chance that player is going to die? Honestly, there's still too many factors to really give an accurate number, but given that it's simply a race to get 3 hooks vs finishing 5 gens, and this is the meta, it's a lot more than 50% of the time.
In fact, if we use the limited data from Nightlight, and acknowledge that this is somewhat curated data from community-provided sources, and is nowhere near enough of a sample size to make a definitive statement about the entire DbD population, we get this (as of today):
So, if anything, the "chance" of the first survivor dying isn't "50%", it's not even close. There's about a 23.6% chance of them escaping, and the rest of the time they die (76.4%). That's about as far from a "coin flip" as you can get.
Where are the Gens (Other variables)?
I'm really curious where you think that match time, or even simply "gens" factors into this. Especially since the biggest complaint is that "killers don't have enough time" (Gens go too fast).
Since that's missing from your analysis completely… The most common interpretation, given how the game works, would either be:
- Each of these assumes 5 gens.
- Each of these assumes n+1 gens (one more gen than the number of survivors).
Both of these interpretations fall apart when you look at the chart. You can't honestly tell me that in a 1v1 scenario that the survivor is finishing either 2 or 5 gens 50% of the time. That doesn't hold up to any scrutiny whatsoever. In fact, the 1v1 survivor doesn't have anywhere close to a 50% chance here, it's not a matter of if they die, but when. (More on the 1v1 scenario later)
And if you fix the number of gens to 5, then somehow you're saying the killer is still going to win a 1v10 more than half the time. That doesn't seem right either, even at a passing glance.
This method isn't even passing the "sniff" test at this point.
In fact, this graph can be expanded as far as you like, and will never have the killer winning less than half the time. So apparently, you've also "proven" that a 1v20 game is "balanced". Think about that one for a minute, and you might start to understand why I take issue with this "analysis".
(As I said before, this is because you're working backwards from the assumption "it's balanced" and trying to make the data fit that… so at every level of this your data is showing that it's physically impossible for the killer to win less than half the time, which is certainly a choice. This is even displayed in one of your graphs…).
Snowballing and Independence
So the biggest flaw in your method here is the prevalence of snowballing. Tunneling is the biggest factor, and the reason that I say that these are not "independent" variables. Because once you get one survivor out, if there is enough time in the match (i.e. gens remaining) you basically automatically can win the remaining 1v3. That's the gamble that people take all the time with tunneling.
And that isn't captured in your data whatsoever. You are blindly assuming that every survivor has the same chance to escape, and that doesn't match with anything in the game, or any of the data we have available.
Because the killer isn't simply killing one survivor, then has an even chance to kill the next one. Snowballing is a core part of DbD emergent gameplay for the killer.
Here's a visual representation of how wrong your analysis is. When you make incorrect assumptions, like assuming every survivor has the same chance of survival (regardless of any other factors), you get the blue line in this graph. When you look at the only data we have available to us (the Nightlight overall data above) you get the red line.
No one. Ever. Should look at this and say that your approximation here is accurately representing even the limited data we do have. These are not the same model, and whatever you are actually modeling in blue here does not in any way describe or model what happens in game.
Mismatching Kill Rate and "Win" Rate
Look at your own data. The very first point is wrong. You readily admit and know that BHVR aims for a 60% kill rate. So why would this not appear in your chart. In fact, you brag about the fact that your chart "shows" a 61.5% win rate for the killer… but that is not the kill rate.
At every level of your analysis this fails to capture anything that we already have available to us as actual game data. One big example would be, if we know the kill rate is 60%, so why would you think that a 1v1 situation has a 50% chance ever? Even if we go with the incorrect analysis, we should be capturing that a 1v1 is a 60% kill rate. And a second of consideration, as I mentioned earlier, would show that a 1v1 has basically a 100% kill rate, since the survivor will eventually lose and cannot do gens.
But let's look at your 1v4 "data": a 61.56% win rate for killer. so 61.56% of the time the game is either a 3k or 4k, which is literally the information you present here.
So, on the extreme end, if every single "winning game" is exactly a 3k and every "non-winning" game is a 0k (the worst case scenario for the killer that matches your data), then you get a 46.17% kill rate. On the other extreme end, if we assume maximum lethality, in a world where every win is a 4k and every loss is a 2k (the best case scenario for the killer matching your data), then the kill rate is 80.78%. The reality would be somewhere in between, and this is a major, major reason why you can't simply extrapolate "win rate" from knowing the actual data of "kill rate" that we are given.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941691#Comment_3941691
You're ignoring the fact that the killer has 4 opponents. The survivors have a single opponent. Of course each individual survivors had to have a lower personal win rate - they literally outnumber the killer 4 to 1. If each survivor had a 50% chance to escape, the killer would have a ~30% chance to get at least a 3k. Try it with a coin. Flip a coin 4 times. You only win if it hits tails at least 3 times. You'll be flipping for a while.
Holy entity with the math. Just stop.
It's not a coin flip for ######### sake. Tunneling one person it makes the rest of them easier.
So it's more like, toss a coin. If that coin lands soon enough, then not only did heads or tails not matter, but you win because the rest of the flips are trivial (when gens still remain).
Please. Just stop trying to use math. The real fact here is that you are starting with the assumption that "the game is survivor sided" and absolutely desperate to distort a 60% kill rate into anything that you can misinterpret to support your pre-determined conclusion.
-
@Frost139 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940542#Comment_3940542
Why are those strategies inherently problematic though? If so why is patching out normal gameplay exclusive to killer
It's not though.
She even mentions "anti hiding" which is pretty much the nail in the coffin for survivor stealth gameplay.
We've also had healing, or maybe the better description is the "always be healthy" meta deleted with coh and medkit reworks.
And, lets not forget that people said literally this exact "you're boosted" and "survivors will completely fall apart without it" when dead hard (both times), and MFT got nerfed.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941245#Comment_3941245
If you want equal balance in the game then you are part of the problem not the solution
Survivors don't have the same options as killer here.
Are you actually saying you want survivors to have a base kit option to injure the killer while slugged? Have a chance to turn that into an escape, even if it's a small chance?
That's insane, but hey, since they don't have that option and you're so hell bent on giving everyone equal chances here, then that has to be the conclusion here.
You should really follow the conversation if you're just going to blindly say these are completely equivalent scenarios, when I'm demonstrating, with examples, to show why the killer has gameplay options here, and survivors have nothing but crawling around.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941245#Comment_3941245
If slugged survivors had a chance to actively humiliate themselves to bleed out faster, would you take it? Say it was something pointless and having absolutely zero impact on your objective, like drawing a heart with your blood trail? Would most survivors take it? What if they could also play with pogs while they're laying there to get some token BP, we'll say… breaking 4 pallets worth?
Honestly the pog idea would probably be more fun than actually doing gens, so maybe not :)
Since the default is to be able to do literally nothing as a slug....
And people seem to forget that you can't simply abandon by being slugged, the entire team has to be slugged. So you can still be humped on the ground for 4 minutes (or in your words humiliated) simply because the killer decided to. No abandon option in sight.
And the abandon option can also be bypassed if the killer just hooks people. You know, their actual objective.
-
Did the survivor become injured? Or deep wounded?
Because there are times where hit registration is sketchy. For example, the killer seeing the blood splatter effect even though the game doesn't register that the hit actually landed.
It's not impossible, just unlikely.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941242#Comment_3941242
Are you purposefully ignoring what I'm saying so you can try and prove your point even though you're literally arguing air???
You do not get benefits from hooking the same person. That would defeat the purpose of benefits to multihooking. You do not get benefits from just 1-2 hooks, that defeats the purpose of multihooking.
Everything you're saying will happen, is quite literally the complete opposite of the change I am suggesting, you're just arguing to argue.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941247#Comment_3941247
Yes… people can not tunnel and people have not tunneled since forever, that doesn't change the point. That doesn't mean that multihooking isn't an objectively dumb thing to do. Because there is no benefit to it.
Leaving 4 survivors alive, unless you are quite literally downing people in 15 seconds of finding them (to which I'm sorry but you're playing bums), is not viable. It just isn't, you are actively performing a playstyle that is a detriment to you. That is simply the truth.
I'm arguing because it's been the same song and dance for years.
You started with "buff killers for spreading hooks" and when I pointed out that would *also* buff tunneling, you're now having to backtrack and add layers of exceptions that would attempt to prevent those buffs from applying to tunneling.
And from experience, any time we've had a mechanic that is complicated like this it either has a loophole where it can be bypassed completely, or an unintended consequence where it could be weaponized.
I'm saying we're at a point where the buff needs to be secondary, or not at all. Starting with "buff killer" and then "figure it out later" (which is how you're approaching this ambiguous mechanic in this conversation) is how we've tried it for 3 years now.
Because, all of these extra caveats for "but you can't tunnel with it" are an attempt to whack a mole all the scenarios it might be used to tunnel someone.
Meaningfully nerf tunneling first. Period.
Then we can talk about individual buffs that killers need. Because you can't honestly look me in the eye and say that blight, for example, needs any of these hypothetical buffs to do well. But we probably both agree that trapper probably does.
-
@Roco45 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941121#Comment_3941121
Eh most of it isn't subjective, it's observable in our reality and it's reiterated through all the objective issues with the game. SoloQ Survs are expeditiously quitting out of the majority of their matches while Killers continue to slug/tunnel/camp with impunity to fulfill their bottom barrel ego's. The game lacks fun unless you're playing Killer and are getting your rocks off or you're playing SWF and getting your rocks off, both involve ruining the other party. People who say different are lying to themselves as well as others.
I loath the "why are you still playing" comment, it's the comment people make when they have no real counter. I play it because I paid for it and I have a right to. I also take breaks from it and come back here and there to see what's been changed and updated, you have no idea what my playtime frequency is. I also can critique the game and still play it, I obviously engage with these forums because I want the game to improve and unfortunately it's like the only asymm game still alive, which is a shame because it generally is bad and has been ruining this genre and I liked every other asymm way more haha
I enjoyed F13, Evil Dead, Chainsaw and Killer Clowns infinitely more than I've ever enjoyed this game to date.
I also do not care about any stats BHVR publishes, there are multiple factors that show the stats are skewed, if we even are to take them at face value anyway because BHVR could just be fabricating all the stats regardless, but that's another topic entirely.
At the end of the day, BHVR has to literally trap people into matches because otherwise people don't want to be in them, that alone says everything that needs to be.
Eh most of it isn't subjective
I think there was a miscommunication. I meant that my personal experience of DBD (in the past) was that the game could be fun while losing. I meant that "I accept that my experience in that was subjective", and your mileage may vary.
Clearly, at least you and I have had different experiences in this.
I loath the "why are you still playing" comment
I mean, I'm not forcing you to do anything, and it's healthy to take breaks. That's all I meant.
It's more a response to the very angry language you use, especially when you generalize that the community as a whole "is spite and salt" as you put it, and then double down with "loathing".
I do agree that DbD does tend to bring it the worst in some people, but that's a trend with games bhvr designs. They give most of the game to over person as the "power role" and just hope that creates a fun enough game to survive. DBD has survived, largely because of licensing, not gameplay. Unfortunately this analysis also applies to death garden and even meet your maker, which didn't.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3927210#Comment_3927210
And when killers slug you just AFK until you bleed out? This about balance...if they give survivors a go next then killers should get it too.
I must've missed the part where slugs can injure the killer to force the bleed out to go faster. Or even turn that situation into an escape.
Since the killer can force survivors out, possibly get an extra kill, and clearly you think these are the same thing.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941106#Comment_3941106
Buddy even back then killers didn't multihook, they just brute forced through anti-tunnel. Let's not do this.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941125#Comment_3941125
So again… if you make it based on number of hooks and how spread out your hooks are (a.k.a multihooking) it PHYSICALLY cannot be used to benefit tunneling, camping, etc etc.
So again… if you make it based on number of hooks and how spread out your hooks are (a.k.a multihooking) it PHYSICALLY cannot be used to benefit tunneling, camping, etc etc.
But that's not how it will play out. If you give even one scrap of anything on the first hook, even if it gives nothing else to hooking the same survivor twice in a row, that is nothing but a direct buff to tunneling.
This has been tried before, the carrot. Does. Not. Work. Here.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941075#Comment_3941075
No if you add basekit additions like benefits to multihooking, it would not cause more slugging, tunneling, or camping because it would be benefits EXCLUSIVE to it.
Add status effect buffs to killers who multihook. The more hooks you get to different survivors the stronger the effects become. More regress from a base gen kick, faster vault speed, etc etc and things of that nature.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941072#Comment_3941072
There's literally no way to fix no mobility killers on large maps without just… giving them mobility?? Whether that be random speed boosts or a literal rework to mobility, it's still just giving them mobility.
No if you add basekit additions like benefits to multihooking, it would not cause more slugging, tunneling, or camping because it would be benefits EXCLUSIVE to it.
So, again, adding any kind of buff has only led to that buff or improvement to be used to camp and tunnel more effectively.
The only "incentive" that I think would be good is to add the old BBQ bonus as base kit for spreading hooks, and add a new UI element for it. And that, only because the benefit is extrinsic to the match, and doesn't impact the balance of the game in any way. It might change the behavior of some players, but it's also not going to impact things in the core gameplay loop.
But you hit the nail on the head that these things would have to be exclusive to tunneling and camping, but then how do you prevent them from being used to tunnel and camp? The only real way to give any kind of incentive to spread hooks is to deactivate the incentive as soon as one survivor dies. And even then, with that severe of a condition, if you're giving "haste or action speed per hook", that would still be a pretty big benefit even if your first 3 hooks are the same person.
There is no incentive they can give that's stronger than a 3v1. There just isn't. And any incentive that is stronger than a 3v1 scenario would be so broken that it can't possibly be balanced.
-
@Roco45 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941061#Comment_3941061
Eh DBD was never a fun game to "die in" like other asymm games. DBD was always and continues to be built off the back of spite and salt. Every match is based around what you can do to make the other party miserable and deny them gameplay and BHVR only continues to add to it. In contrast to other asymm games where the power role is viewed as the match facilitator in which to cultivate fun, in DBD it's just viewed as a way to make small people feel big for a brief moment.
The refusal to balance SWF, to balance SoloQ, to balance Killers, but they focus on continuing to rework maps so that you can see all four corners at all times while constantly adding Killers that have insane map traversal. The refusal to add voice comms so that an actual community and accountability could be garnered; the refusal to actually decide if their game is serious enough to warrant +72hr DC penalties, but they don't even have a functioning MMR system. The list goes on and on.
Eh DBD was never a fun game to "die in" like other asymm games. DBD was always and continues to be built off the back of spite and salt.
I mean, this is purely subjective, but this isn't my experience. At least not my experience with past DbD. I certainly have had many fun matches, including those where I won or lost, as either killer or survivor. I've given props/GG to opponents for fun matches regardless of the outcome, and even given door/hatch to survivors who were particularly fun or funny, as well as offering myself as a kill or mori to killers for the same.
Not that that's common, or even something that should be expected, but that certainly happened for me a lot more in the past. And I typically won't do those things when the game isn't fun, which has been more and more as the years/patches go on.
And genuinely, if you consider the game to be "built off the back of spite and salt" as you put it, why are you even still playing? If you truly feel that everyone in this game has the worst intentions, then I feel bad for you. Especially bad that you continue to choose to stay in what you self-describe as an abusive environment.
The refusal to balance SWF,
I won't pretend that every killer is equal, or that solo queue is in a good spot, but they put out the stats that, yes, they actually have balanced SWF overall. In fact, the numbers they gave us most recently shows that solo q was escaping slightly more than people who were grouped in any group size, and everyone was escaping at about 41% or less overall in every group size. There was a very weak correlation also, that being in a group was actively detrimental to escape rates… so altruism actually does get you killed in this game.
So, unfortunately, instead of making the game better for solo q, they chose to listen to some aspects of the community and make the SWF experience just as awful.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941061#Comment_3941061
But again… how do you fix this? The entire problem before was that killer wasn't as lethal as it should've been. It's always going to be favored to one side, there is no balancing it.
The only way you drop killrates without making it feel awful for killers is making hooks the win condition and not kills. And considering they haven't done it yet and the only plans they have are "anti-*insert problematic killer playstyle*", that doesn't at all fix the problem that sometimes those problematic killer playstyles are the only viable way to win… then what is the point?
We've had this issue for years now. I've been recommending basekit changes to killers for YEARS now that would ease off on tunneling, camping, and slugging or at least let them fix those playstyles without butchering the entire killer gameplay loop. And they haven't done and don't even have plans for it.
So, let me make sure I'm being clear: you seem to think that the kill rate is the problem. That's not what I'm saying (though I do believe that 55% is better for game health than where we are).
One thing that we (should have) learned from the past 3 years is that you simply cannot buff killers without addressing these strategies first.
Every. Single. Time. Killers have been given any kind of a buff, they use that to camp, tunnel, and slug more. Even the height of the gen kick and 3 gen metas, when killers effectively had infinite time to play the match, saw an increase in camping and tunneling.
The only way to tackle this is to meaningfully nerf excessive tunneling, camping, and slugging, and then looking at what needs adjusted individually for killers.
Not the other way around. We've been trying the "just buff killers and we'll stop" strategy for 3 years, and guess what, we get the "buff" part down, and the "stopping" never happens. If anything, we get responses like yours where "yOu HaVe To Play LiKe ThIs" and they continue to camp and tunnel every game, sometimes every hook.