AmpersandUnderscore
AmpersandUnderscore
About
- Username
- AmpersandUnderscore
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
I'm hoping this is included in the next chapter patch (this week maybe?).
I could see this being something that they wouldn't kill switch for, since it's a balance issue, but not game breaking.
I'm still scratching my head over the twins thing where they would soft lock their game while switching. That absolutely should've been a kill switch, and I'm not even certain that it's fixed yet for both of the twins mains.
-
@JPLongstreet said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/366760/lobby-dodging-and-backfill-lobbies
I've been preaching this on several threads for a while now, but it gets little traction. We are indeed doing it to ourselves, knowing that in an effort to avoid perceived "harder" or "unfair" matching we are likely throwing a newby killer to the wolves. Be it a protest of SWF or the prestige system or too many tool boxes or whatever, it does end up being selfish behavior in the end.
All the dodging becomes a nightmare for those killers, and worsens an already rough new player experience big time. Hiding prestiges either to post-game or even completely would help dodging for that reason, but not curb it in general. And in the past I've been guilty of dodging lobbies too, even though I cannot check profiles and such, until I realized the impact on matchmaking.
As much as this forum likes to complain about disconnects 'ruining a match for 4 other people', lobby dodge will usually ruin a match for 5 other people.
Both usually result in a complete stomp, but dodging is a coin flip as to which side is getting the short straw.
-
The subreddit isn't moderated by BHVR. Your only outlet is to ask for further clarification from the subreddit mod team afaik, but there's nothing that they can do from here.
-
@EmpireCity830 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3360510#Comment_3360510
Let me clarify "winning" and my frustration. I consider a "win" 3-4k, 2k = tie, 1-0k loss. Sometimes I count 2k as win if it was a late comeback. Do I need to "win" every game to have fun no. Obviously, killers are not meant to win every game and survivors are not meant to win every game. But when getting 1 kill let alone 4 is much harder to do now than before the HUD update, it can get frustrating. Survivors are much better at looping, make little to no mistakes which makes chases longer, gens quicker, and 3-4 escapes more common. Deal with this everyday for 7 days a week. Combine that with IRL college courses you can get a bit annoyed.
The 9 hook thing was just me being annoyed that it resulted in only 1 kill. Usually 9 hooks is 2-3k for me, but whatever.
I'm going on vacation for a week which is nice. I get to relax and get away from this game. But when I get back it won't be much different.
That's understandable. I see 9 hooks and it looks like a pretty close game, even if not a 'win'. One more survivor mistake, or one less mistake on my part could've turned the tide in a game like that.
But games are also different when you're feeling burned out. I've been playing far less the past month or so, so taking a break for a bit well probably help.
Enjoy your vacation!
-
Personally, I don't like using finite resources early if I don't absolutely have to. An empty medkit does me no good later if I'm stuck with no other way to heal once people are dead or hooked.
-
I try not to care about 'winning' as killer. I want to have fun chases and moments where I can feel like I played well. I play for hooks, and consider that my personal win condition. 9 hooks and 1 kill is a great game.
You don't seem to be playing as if a 4k is the only thing that matters in the world. Keep in mind that there's no reward for 4k ing every match. In fact, I'd argue the 'reward' for winning all the time is higher MMR, and sweatier games.
But the last thing the game needs is slower gens base kit. That only puts more pressure on survivors to 'push gens as hard as possible or die' and the gen speed arms race continues. It also means tunneling and camping become even more optimal strategies, but they aren't more fun just because gens are slow.
If anything, the game needs a rebalance so gen speeds have less variance. Two survivors with BNP can finish a single gen in something like 30s, but the other end of the spectrum is dying light + Pentimento which makes a gen almost 3 minutes to complete. Imagine if every game had closer to 90s gens instead of the other extremes.
-
@Peanits said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3360013#Comment_3360013
Happy to clarify!
In this scenario, it's treated as if the Killer 'won' 3 separate 1-on-1 matches and 'lost' a fourth. Overall, they would gain rating.
We actually have team based ratings as well, but this only affects things on the Survivor side. If you were to die and the other three Survivors escaped, you would lose less rating (it is assumed that your actions helped them escape). The same goes if you escape, you will gain more rating for each Survivor that also escapes. On the flipside, if more Survivors die, you will lose more rating if you also die and gain less if you happen to escape.
The key is that these each offset each other. There's an equal positive effect for every possible negative effect, so it ends up being more or less neutral in the end. The only difference is that it can feel less punishing when you get chased all match, die, but your teammates escape.
Ok that makes more sense. I was under the impression that the survivors results were independent of each other. Having the 'match result' factor in was the piece I was missing.
Thanks for the clarification!
-
@Peanits said:
Will try to keep this short, but matchmaking is incredibly complex so apologies if this ends up being long.
There's a couple big misconceptions with MMR, and probably the most common one is how it estimates where you should be. No matchmaking system in any game- even games like chess which pioneered these ranking formulas over many years- is able to take a single match and accurately assess your abilities. There will always be too many factors at play for that to be accurate. Even if you use a different metric or a bunch of metrics, like chase time, hooks, pallets used, generators completed, healing, etc., there are still outside factors that need to be considered. Was your opponent (the Killer in this case) playing well, or were you only doing well because the were making a lot of mistakes? Likewise, did you do poorly because they're amazing at the game? Did your teammates do their part to help ensure your good plays worked, or did they let you down?
Even if you had a human sit there and watch your match, it would still be impossible for them to stick an accurate number on you after watching just one match. The best they could do is a ballpark estimate. They don't know you, they haven't seen you play against higher caliber/lower caliber opponents before. They only have this one match to go off of.
The matchmaking system is no different. It cannot tell how amazing you are from a single match because that is an impossible task, so it doesn't even try. Instead, the system is designed to look at your performance over the course of many matches. This way, due to the law of averages, you will gradually move towards the place where you should be. You might lose two matches and win the next four. You're up overall from where you started.
And because there's no way to accurate take every factor into consideration, it does this by using a proxy condition. Yes, kills or escapes are not the only thing that makes a good player good! But if you're amazing in a chase and can last for several minutes, more often than not, that will lead to a win. If you play well, your chances of escaping will rise. Or if a Killer plays well, their chances of killing the Survivors will rise. This isn't something that's exclusive to Dead by Daylight either, just about every game will use a similar metric for matchmaking (even if it doesn't show it). You'd be hard pressed to find a game that successfully factors in dozens of things rather than using the outcome of a match.
This is also important because the matchmaker's sole job is to find you matches where you have a roughly equal chance of winning or losing. It doesn't care how you do it, whether you played super well or you used every crutch in the book. It's a cold, emotionless machine that's solely trying to put you up against opponents where your strategy- whatever that may be- works about half of the time. It is not trying to pass judgement on you as a player, not trying to make you feel bad for losing or claim you're amazing for winning. It's simply looking at the facts: If you won, rating goes up, if you lost, rating goes down. And over the course of several matches, you'll almost always end up moving in the right direction.
This is a big part of the reason why your rating is not shown. It's not meant to be something you obsess over or focus on. It's sole purpose is to find you fair matches. It will go down sometimes when you don't feel like it should, but it will also go up more often than not if you are truly below where you should be.
It's crucial for a matchmaking system to have a clear win condition. The winners rating needs to go up, and the losers' ratings need to go down. If it's a draw, they stay the same (although this isn't common). If this is not the case and both people can win simultaneously, you end up in situations where people can endlessly climb in rating rendering the entire matchmaking system useless. It would quickly become a reflection of someone's playtime more than their actual abilities.
The emblem system is actually a perfect example of this. Since emblems are independent of the other side's performance, it's possible for both the person who 'won' and the person who 'lost' to pip. The result was exactly what was expected: By the end of a month, pretty much anyone who played enough would find themselves in the higher ranks because on average they were pipping more than they were depipping. This meant: A) By the end of a month, a large number of people with a wide variety of skill levels were being matched together, making matchmaking feel random, and B) By the end of a month, the lower ranks (people who had not played much) would suffer from excessively long queue times since the majority of people had already ranked up past them. If the matchmaking system is producing long wait times for some and horribly uneven matches for others, it's failing to do its job.
In short, don't sweat it if you "lose" by the matchmaker's standard. It expects you to lose some matches, and it knows that you will win matches to offset those losses. If you think you did well, you did well. Don't let an invisible number that you can't see take that away from you.
This might be asking for more information under the hood, but I think there are still some misconceptions about how the system works. Specifically, the 'there are problems if both sides can be considered winning simultaneously' part. (I don't disagree, I just think I misunderstand something here).
The system seems to assume there are only two parties. In a 'team of survivors' vs killer scenario, there is only one winning side (or a draw), so assigning a winner is just one team or the other.
But the way I understand it, survivor matchmaking is based only on your individual escape, not as a team. The game isn't considering win/loss in 4v1, rather 1v1v1v1v1.
Take, for example, a match where 3 survivors are sacrificed and the last survivor escapes via the exit gate. In this example, 3 survivors 'lost', the killer 'won', but we also have the survivor who escaped 'won' as well.
Does this not fall into the troublesome category you described? Both the killer and a survivor won the match, despite being opposing teams.
Or is likely I'm misunderstanding something here. Any clarification is appreciated.
-
@FFirebrandd said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3359678#Comment_3359678
That difference in language matters.
This is a game. The potential for outplaying your opponents is a thing that should exist. It's a good thing.
However, again... this is a game. All parties involved should be enjoying it if possible. Outplays can and should exist, but ones that feel like garbage because they feel like they robbed one player of something they spent a considerable amount of time to get generally shouldn't.
You seem to be saying that Dead Hard is fine and stay as it is. I'm saying it absolutely isn't fine and shouldn't stay.
I agree the language matters. I say 'outplay' because if dead hard were deleted, then 99% Sprint burst would become the target of annoyance. As it is, the new blood rush perk will likely be irritating to face as well, even though it's single use, because it will be Sprint burst on 'e' instead of endurance.
I don't think dead hard is perfect, but it gets far more anger than it deserves. By design, it's the 'exhaustion perk that triggers on demand', so unless it's deleted or reworked completely it will always be 'annoying' to face... Again, that's because it gives the survivor a reaction to avoid something the killer wants to do (like blood rush will).
I also don't have any constructive ideas for how to fix Dead Hard as it is. I have issues with every 'recommended fix' I've seen outside of deleting it.
It's also worth noting that I think the perk is overhated because I personally find it to be incredibly unreliable as survivor. So much so that I've been using Lithe or nothing at all for months. It's incredibly dependent on killer's latency. Some games I was able to get consistent value, others i still effectively get exhausted on the ground. I have the same sporadic latency issue with vaulting, where hits land after I've taken two steps out of the window, but at least then I can choose to run resilience to mitigate it.
Dead Hard is countered by insta downs, deep wound (which can be applied base kit), exhaustion, and latency. It can be baited out or wasted if the survivor makes a mistake or is forced into a mistake.
It's also countered by fearmonger and blood echo. I tend to get decent fearmonger value in my killer games because, even if I get hit with dead hard once, I know they have to avoid touching gens for 40 seconds of free slowdown if they want to dead hard again later. I doubt that some people have even tried these perks, even though dead hard (or exhaustion perks in general) are so powerful. They're worth yelling about, but somehow not worth trying to use the tools to deal with in game.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3359323#Comment_3359323
The problem is that the complaints on these forums aren't 50/50 between both roles. It is far easier for these forums to get flooded with anti-killer posts than it is to get flooded with anti-survivor posts. Dead hard is been the most complained about killer perk for far longer than the eruption nerf announcement, but it just never got the massive flood of posts because it's just so much harder for anti-survivor posts to gain traction on these forums.
Anti survivor-posts shouldn't need to reach the flood level that anti-killer posts get, in order to be considered a "hot topic". What really happened is we got a survivor HUD, an additional feature added to the survivor HUD, a roadmap discussing further improvements for survivors, and a eruption nerf.... and all of that combined finally pushed people over the edge to start flooding the forums with anti dead hard posts.
I was responding to your question about dead hard being a 'recent' complaint, as Peanits mentioned in his post. I was assuming you were trying to say that dead hard complaints go back years and that isn't 'recent'.
But you respond to me saying, 'no, it's actually gotten louder more recently than you think'. So now I feel like you're being contrary for the sake of argument.
Complaining about dead hard absolutely died down around the time of the nerf, then bubbled back up again later. It doesn't matter to the point if we agree on the reasons why dead hard is complained about right now.
The 'recently' in Peanits post refers to 'since the 6.1.0 nerf', which oddly, we seem to agree on.
-
@Basement_Bubba420 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3359730#Comment_3359730
No I don't think that. All that I'm saying is that even a small percentage of players can skew the statistics if they choose to die on first hook. Even if just 1% or .1% of them decide to do it, that's 1% or .1% more games that result in 3-4ks. The statistics they release have intervals of 25%. These are shifts of .25% and 0.025% respectively to the overall kill rate.
So, you're saying that killers should stop slugging for the 4k to combat this horrific epidemic?
By letting the last survivor have hatch, you deflate the kill rates and inevitably guarantee killer buffs when kill rates drop too far.
-
@DredgeyEdgey said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3359368#Comment_3359368
I'm glad those changes were made but they act 3 times faster for killer perks than surivor perks
And sometimes it just dosent feel right
He's right for the wrong reason
'Moving faster for killer perks than survivor perks' is completely subjective.
Boil over was buffed in 5.5.0 and lasted 2 weeks on live before getting nerfed. Eruption was buffed in 6.1.0 and was bug fixed/buffed again after that and the nerf still isn't live yet.
So, in the category of 'build around this perk and your opponent may not physically be able to complete their objective depending on rng' they reacted infinitely faster to nerf survivors.
-
@FFirebrandd said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3359508#Comment_3359508
It actually isn't because you should be able to tell if someone has basekit BT or OTR active.
If you're swinging into the Survivor who just got off hook, you kind of expect Endurance. Same with a Survivor who's injured but silent. Maybe not so much with Soul Guard or We're Gonna Live Forever but almost nobody runs those.
Loss aversion can't kick in when you weren't expecting to have the thing in the first place.
Then I feel like we're saying the same thing with different words.
Your 'loss aversion' only occurs when the survivor presses e to dead hard, which is what I'm referring to as 'being outplayed'. You seem to be focused on the part where the anticipated phenomenon is 'swing weapon and down survivor' doesn't occur, and I'm looking at the reason why that happened: the survivor did something to change the expected outcome.
Any scenarios that avoid loss aversion are 'always on' or 'on a timer' forms of hit avoidance, but also don't require any precise timing or reaction by the survivor either.
The key difference between other forms of hit avoidance and dead hard is the unknown that comes from having a real person as an opponent, which is what we're both seemingly agreeing on.
-
@FFirebrandd said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3359343#Comment_3359343
There's more to it than that.
For example, if I as the killer lose track of the survivor at a loop and they leave, gaining a ton of distance... that obviously doesn't feel good, but it is an annoyance at worst. Slapping a Dead Hard feels infinitely worse.
The way Dead Hard is set up is that it is only relevant in a position where the Killer otherwise would have a down. To make matters worse, the feedback the game gives killers for a down vs hitting DH is very similar.
It is literally the perfect setup to trigger the killer player's loss aversion. Honestly that alone should get it nerfed/reworked again.
What you described is present any time endurance gets used, whether it's from BT, OTR, or Dead Hard. Including the 'it sounds like I hit then but it didn't count'. (Which, btw, hit validation also registers hits that 'shouldn't have landed').
Endurance is only relevant when you would get a down (injured), and the feedback is the same regardless of where the endurance came from.
And while I'm sure there are some who would argue for endurance changes, by far the overwhelming outcry is about dead hard.
You're 100% guaranteed right now to have BT on every unhook. This isn't a hyperbolic 'dead hard is everywhere', it's just a fact that BT is in every single game, several times per game. And it isn't necessarily the 'waiting' that bothers people as much, because when they want to, people will cheerfully count to 10 while sniffing the survivor off hook.
The variable here is that the survivor has agency over when dead hard is used. That is, by far, the most triggering aspect of the perk.
-
@FFirebrandd said:
I did see that video. For the most part Scott was correct. However if SB became meta I do not think there would be anywhere near the same outcry against it. For one very simple reason.
SB doesn't ever feel like you got robbed of a hit. DH basically always does.
People don't like getting outplayed. That's basically what it boils down to.
The outplay potential with Sprint burst is basically just to 99% it... Until blood rush comes out.
Then you'll get a Sprint burst on a button, just like dead hard. I give it a month before people complain about that, too.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3359089#Comment_3359089
I don’t understand why Dead Hard has only recently been considered a hot topic.
Does hot topic require for people to flood these forums with post after post about dead hard? Because dead hard has been the most complained about killer perk for a while on these forums, it just hasn’t had a flood of posts until recently.
Dead Hard is a more 'recent' complaint because it became apparent that the devs were going to nerf Eruption. (Seen a couple dead hard vs Eruption posts recently?)
Any time anything changes for either killers or survivors, there's an outcry to make an equivalent change to the other. I'm not sure if it's a 'to keep things fair' reaction, or if it's just that people don't like any balance changes whatever. But the reasoning isn't as important as that it's an obvious community reaction to change.
Dead Hard was nerfed in July, and for a couple months the general sentiment online was anything from 'good riddance' to 'git gud, adapt'. (We'll come back that one).
And just like it took several months for Eruption to become meta, it took a while for people to realize that dead hard could still be useful.
So now it's December ish, 5 months after the big 6.1.0 balance patch, Knight just released with Nowhere to Hide to cap off the gen kick meta quartet, and people started really harping on Eruption being overtuned and incapacitation being oppressive.
Also in December, survivors have had enough time to fully adapt to the new perks from 6.1, and dead hard is back on the menu for a lot of people. Once it became obvious Eruption is being targeted, and the devs confirmed a change was likely, it very quickly turned to playing the 'dead hard is op' card.
Whether dead hard needs another pass is a different discussion, but the community has the impression that complaining gets things nerfed. And if someone is under the impression that loudly complaining is the only reason Eruption got nerfed, then by all means it's time to complain as loudly as possible so devs address your frustrations too.
So that's why the discussion is 'recent'.
-
Dead Hard isn't 'untouched', people just have an incredibly short memory. It was nerfed in 6.1.0 perk balance patch in July last year.
In fact, it was changed to specifically remove the 'dead hard for distance' burst of speed on activation that everyone and their dog was complaining about at that time. (For the record, rightfully so, as old dead hard was ridiculous).
But the devs changed exactly what people complained about then. The preemptive burst of speed as it used to be was targeted and deleted. You now only get any value out of the perk if latency allows you to time it correctly within a half second window.
People are angry now because the devs did exactly what people asked for, but it isn't what they wanted.
Even if dead hard were deleted, people would just complain about 99% Sprint burst instead when they get outplayed by that.
-
Whatever is interesting to you, really. I'm of the opinion that there's no bad data (when you can sort and filter in a spreadsheet, for example). But it all depends on how long you want to spend recording your matches.
Bare minimum for me would be: kills/escapes/hatch, killer, map.
Next in priority would be: number of hooks, number of gens done, killer perks, items/offerings brought. Maybe even a subjective 'x out of ten' personal rating for how fun the game was for you.
The 'I love data entry' tier includes everything on the end screen and other things the game doesn't tell you: survivors, survivor perks and individual escapes (for 'x perk tends to result in y% escapes'), BP values, break total kills into bleedout/sacrifice/Mori/EGC, and rough match length.
-
Their MMR is max, just like everyone else on this forum.
They could come out, right now, and say their MMR is 7200. Cool. What's yours?
-
@Heytherebigguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3357515#Comment_3357515
extra 10 seconds on a gen and a slightly faster pallet break isn't gonna reduce tunneling.
you need to make the next(!) chase easier to find, and also add some bonuses for hookinh multiple people.
No, but the mantra from some killers is that 'tunneling is necessary, we just need more buffs across the board'. That's patently untrue, because, as you said, you can give all the buffs you like and it will just stack with tunneling.
@Seraphor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3357515#Comment_3357515
There's more nuance than that. Just as "any buffs to survivor is a buff to SWF" isn't necessarily true, as the HUD icons disproportionately favour solo's over SWF, and are intended to close the gap between them.
I don't see how giving killers the location of the furthest survivors after scoring a hook could inadvertently lead to either tunnelling or camping. Maybe some opportune slugging if there's another survivor close by, but not in most instances.
I don't necessarily think the aura reading of BBQ should be basekit either, but some watered down version (like the bubble of the one furthest survivor) could be more or less a balanced addition.
Yes, that's why I have no problem giving the BP bonus. It's a small, passive way to incentivise spreading pressure that largely has no effect other than to encourage some players to spread pressure. I think that's healthy.
My general reaction to any 'let's add X base kit' is to say no, whether it's for survivor (infinite unbreakable is dumb) or killer.
In this case, a 'base kit BBQ' just makes the divide between 'low mobility killers' and nurse/blight/spirit further and does nothing to change the fact that tunneling is still the most efficient way to win the core game.
I'm all for having discussions about map size, or how to meaningfully improve trapper and clown. But you (or op) can't honestly look me in the eye and say that a trapper with base kit BBQ is going to see 2 survivors on the other side of mother's dwelling and say 'wow, I should really go get good value out of this free aura reading I have'. He's not leaving that hook.
-
If you'd said make the 'bloodpoint bonus that was removed from bbq base kit' I'd be 100% on board with that idea. I think that would be a relatively minor change that most reasonable players should have no objective to, and it could be a positive incentive to some killers to deter tunneling.
But no, not the aura reading of the perk itself.
If anything, we've already learned the lesson that 'buffing killers will reduce the need to tunnel' is just completely untrue. It just buffs tunneling. (See: 6.1.0 extra gen time, etc.)
-
@chimera3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3356994#Comment_3356994
I don't know why you replied to this but I quite literally didn't say any of that. That's textbook straw man fallacy.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3357011#Comment_3357011
"Without perks" who said anything about perks? You said simply if you chose to play a certain killer, you deserve to lose. That was your position. Unless your conceding now, that's an absurd and beyond terrible position. Nothing more, nothing less. Leave it at that.
Im not addressing the perks and strategies as I don't need to.
And no, you do not NEED to compensate for ANYTHING in order to "deserve" to win
You are using very extreme language to get your point across. "Deserve" makes it sound entitled, possibly even unearned. Perhaps that's not what you meant, but I can only go by the words you're using. If I went with what I think you meant, instead of what you said directly, I'd be countering a different argument (that's a straw man, btw).
I have no problem saying, for example, that "all killers should be balanced to a point that the player's skill allows them to earn a win against similarly skilled opponents." But that isn't the argument that you're presenting here, or have expressed at any point.
You're specifically saying that by picking a killer, that player *deserves* a win, and there should be "nothing" that needs to compensate for that killer's ability (your words, your quote). By your own admission, you're deliberately ignoring the perks, map, opponents, and strategy, and just flatly saying the player deserves to win. That is vastly different than saying they should have a "reasonable opportunity" to win. One takes player ability as a factor, the other doesn't.
Me taking your words to an extreme, and saying that you're sounding ridiculous isn't a straw man. It's a tactic that takes your argument to it's logical conclusion to show how ludicrous it could be *as you've written it*. It's a technique called "reductio ad absurdum", and it isn't a logical fallacy.
And I'd be open to saying that maybe, perhaps, you're expressing your thoughts in a way that you don't actually mean, but when people are pointing out the flaws in your wording, you're doubling and tripling down instead.
And this whole thing started with a logical fallacy anyway.
This response didn't properly address what I said... You are free to play a killer without "deserving" to lose.
To say that "if you don't think they deserve to win, then you think they do deserve to lose" is a logical fallacy itself called the false dilemma.
I don't believe that any player, killer or survivor, deserves to win just by picking a certain character. That does NOT mean they deserve to lose, rather they should have a decent opportunity to express their skill and possibly win, but not have a guaranteed outcome from the lobby. And part of that is the "strategy" of knowing how to play to that character's strengths, and knowing what perks complement that character for the strategy you're going for.
-
@chimera3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3356471#Comment_3356471
Im not addressing the perks and strategies as I don't need to. I replied to your comment which separated all three into their own category. I have no obligation to address those, all I did was repeat what you said and called it absurd (which it is). Also, unless you're farming, what there reason would you play NOT to win? That's the entire goal of either side is TO win every time you load into a match no matter WHAT killer you are playing. And no, you do not NEED to compensate for ANYTHING in order to "deserve" to win. That's ridiculous. Saying not "compensating" for playing a game as intended by the developers equates to "not playing to win" is some next level, out of this world, mental gymnastics
Because by 'not addressing perks and strategies' you're putting yourself in a ridiculous position.
You're saying that the weakest killer, with no perks, should be able to brainlessly follow a survivor with no mind games and obtain kills at the same rate as everyone else (61% average). They don't even have to use their power, since that's a 'strategy'.
You see how luducrous that sounds, right?
-
@YOURFRIEND said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3354411#Comment_3354411
In fairness to that poster, you said a lot of wacky stuff that needs to be individually considered so I can't really blame them for only addressing one thing you said.
Exactly.
In formal debates, this is called a 'Gish Gallop'. Essentially, is just rattling off a string (or bulleted list) of as many (usually absurd) things as you can as fast as possible, and claiming victory if someone is unable to address every single one of them.
It 'works' only because even a single sentence of obviously false crap can take several paragraphs to debunk thoroughly. And I simply CBA when the premise is so glaringly wrong.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3354178#Comment_3354178
The problem is that there are many killers where 3 genning is the only viable strat. Obviously a nurse or blight doesn't care if they 3 gen or not, but tell that to the trapper.
That's not to say i don't think those killers should fixed, i think they should be fixed. I think the game would be in a much healthier state if:
- You didn't lose 2-3 gens in the first chase
- Tunneling wasn't possible (not nerfed, i mean impossible)
- Camping too
- Gen speeds were toned down a bit, or a secondary objective was added so the game slows down a bit
- We buff weaker killers.
- Rework nurse (as a nurse main i think it needs to be done)
- Deal with crazy addons (myers instakill)
- Deal with crazy items (commodius with BNP, crazy medkits, syringe etc.)
- We make it so both sides have more than 10 perks that are actually viable.
- 3 genning is dealt with in some way.
- Hexes weren't completely useless
- Boons that aren't CoH aren't useless.
- CoH is nerfed
- Fix crazy maps and infinites and shrink the large ones
- All of this is done in a way that doesn't require the survivors to hold m1 on a gen longer than they already do.
- and more but you get the point.
There are exactly zero killers where this is the ONLY viable strat.
-
@RaSavage42 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3354194#Comment_3354194
Then why wasn't Eruption used before the perk update?
25 seconds VS. 16 seconds... so what then
Because ruin got nerfed, overcharge got buffed to increase to 200% regression, Eruption got 9s of extra incapacitation AND an increase to 10% regression. Combine that with the 2.5% base regression on kick and a 10% faster base kit gen kick speed.
So not only was passive regression nerfed, kicking gens suddenly much more appealing with buffs in a number of areas. And all of the gen kick perks stack, so there's no reason not to just run all of them.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3354088#Comment_3354088
If something that is unhealthy is made stronger by a perk, that perk shouldn't be the thing that should be changed. The fundamental problem should be changed. Making eruption useless was not the way to do this, because all it did was mean that there is one less perk that is any good, and we already have a problem (for both sides) that there are maybe half a dozen to a dozen perks that are any good.
I mean, sure, but we're taking about things like holding a 3 gen from game start for 45 minutes.
The 'fundamental problem' in this case is a core game mechanic of base kit gen defense that is taken to an ultimate extreme. And it only works because the perks are strong enough to allow it to happen and be effective. The perks are the only part that can be nerfed here to make a difference, without going as drastic as removing gen kicking from the game entirely, which is stupid.
And before we inevitably get into a discussion concerning gen speeds... Both regression and progression items and perks need to be toned *down* at some point. Buffing either or both just leads to a more extreme variance in games, and I'd argue we're already at the point where the variance in games is too far to be healthy.
Edit: spelling
-
@Xendritch said:
I don't know why we're celebrating the continuation of kicking gens constantly like a bot meta but okay.
Looking forward to 6 more months of incessant posts about 'gen rushing' too.
Was personally hoping both would get tuned down in the next midchapter, but it looks like that's not gonna happen.
-
Endurance from BT or OTR doesn't go away at full health, but endurance is only consumed if you're already injured.
So in your scenario, they can be healthy and have endurance from BT or OTR. The first hit will take a health state so they're injured, but still have endurance. Then, if they get hit again before the timer it will proc endurance and put them in deep wounds.
-
@Anti051 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3353468#Comment_3353468
Yeah, that 4.22 seconds off sounds alright on paper until you consider how long it still takes to catch people in practice on an M1 killer. It's not palpable unless you have at least 6 STBFL stacks and the force is with you. Just like before 6.1, you'll hit somebody and they're virtually guaranteed distance to the next safety (most of the time with multiple options) unless they run into a dead-zone by mistake or get snagged on something. Only real difference now is it just doesn't feel like it's taking a year to get back into the action. Chances are they're still getting that pallet/window with plenty of leeway...just less leeway now.
So yeah I'd still call those buffs "trivial" for sure. Makes no difference to a lot of the people I go against as a leaderboard ghostface.
Might pull something off with stbfl, pwyf and coup de grace, but I doubt a build like that would hold water in the end.
If these are trivial buffs, then removing them is inconsequential as well. I suspect that 'undoing' the 6.1 base kit killer buffs would be considered a 'non trivial' nerf if that were to ever come up.
Interesting how that works out.
-
@Anti051 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3353198#Comment_3353198
what are you really going to do with chunks of .3 seconds
Close the distance. Obviously.
Yeah, you can't teach much in one minute, but you can give chase with that additional .3 seconds. These DO actually add up. Just because you can easily discard them in your perception doesn't mean they aren't there, or that they aren't contributing to higher kill rates.
Excuse me, but close the distance to what degree if not minuscule/none at all? You would need to take a constant, practically clairvoyant path of least resistance for the entire match, and any sort of tidbit time chunks you'll have "saved" would evaporate with a single stun or blind.
Very good, most rush teams are higher mmr. Also just because most people aren't bringing the rocket launcher to the pistol range doesn't mean that it's not a problem when a team DOES bring it.
And how much of that is down to Hyperfocus versus Stakeout/toolbox? How much of that is actually the new stuff? How much does this impact the average killer? And why is this being argued on this topic, specifically?
Did you not bring up the time added to gens as a killer buff? I mentioned the hyperfocus/stakeout combination because it subverts the added gen time and exacerbates the issue of ultra fast completion. It impacts the average killer because no human being who consistently plays this game is going to remain a novice, they will inevitably get better/develop game sense over time and adopt the most effective tools available or the "META". Is it not foolhardy as a game dev to leave crazy-strong combinations as they are just because a majority of the player base isn't running riot with them at the moment?
You are grasping at straws.
Am I? Because DBD already has trouble retaining newcomers and intermittent players, so upping the skill floor for 80% of match participants even more seems like a really bad idea.
Yes, you are. In fact, I'd actually go as far to say that if this is your stance, then you don't possess a hard grasp on the causes behind the 3 primary events that make uninstalling an attractive option for survivors and killers alike, i.e. tunneling, camping and/or hard-slugging.
Our current predicament with tunneling, camping and hard-slugging has spawned primarily (albeit not entirely) due to:
- Prolonged exposure to generator efficiency elements that boost completion speed beyond the scope of reason, conditioning killers to jump to desperation tactics early unless playing one of the few top-tier killers quite well.
- Overabundance of defensive resources and 'second chance' perks inside a high efficiency environment.
- Killers looking at their hud not far from the start of a match, seeing that survivors have 60%+ completion while they merely have 0 - 8.3% completion and effectively going into 'oh s**t mode.'
Necessity is the mother of invention and it became a necessity to deal with fast completion inside overly safe environments, thus tunneling, camping and hard-slugging were born. Atm if anything negative is done to camping, tunneling or slugging without also including some form of meaningful base kit completion limitations or map changes, it's likely that even more killer players will turn coat or flat out uninstall because there would be even less that could be tried in scenarios of desperation, the occurrences of which are very probable in swf matches and more probable now with SoloQ due to the upgraded hud (especially with M1/Stealth killers).
If killers can be easily pushed into a scenario where tunneling, camping and slugging are the only real cards they can play (or lose the game), you can count on at least one if not all 3 of those deadly sins happening. This, in turn, makes playing either side obnoxious with extremely unsatisfying gameplay, leads to people uninstalling and writing bad reviews, company reputation decays, overall sales decrease, etc.
So, most certainly, ultra fast gens have to leave the picture and base killer stats need another slight increase due to the general increased player efficiency from the new hud (or map generation needs a big revamp). AFTER THIS more strict mechanics can be introduced to make tunneling, camping, and slugging virtually pointless/tactically undesirable. I'd rather play hook-based matches (with more chases) that feel more fair and fun instead of kill-based matches that mostly feel like a sweating fever dream.
The OP is correct, the current state of affairs sucks.
Patrick's hockey-based vision of DbD, gameplaywise, is a failure and does not deserve further support.
You're looking at a .3 second change and assuming that's the entirety of the buff. It's not the whole picture.
Let's look at what the entire 6.1.0 patch did for a standard M1 hit against a survivor. So, no perks involved here in this at all, this is now base kit (current) compared to an identical situation before 6.1.0:
The survivor gets a burst of speed when hit and moves at 6.6 m/s briefly. Before, this was 2.0 seconds for a total of 13.2m, and currently this is 1.8 seconds, for a total of 11.88m. So the survivor gains 1.32m less distance when hit from before. For a standard 4.6m/s killer, it takes 2.2 seconds less time to catch up to the survivor now than before with just this change.
Now, the killer also spends less time 'blade wiping' because of the 6.1 buff. Before, the killer spent 3 seconds moving at 0.46m/s and after 6.1 it's only 2.7 seconds at that speed. So those last .3 seconds are moving at 4.6 instead of 0.46, meaning that, previously, the killer would lose an extra 1.062m of distance on the survivor, but now actually gains distance instead. The net gain is 1.242m, which reduces the time to catch up to the survivor by another 2.02 seconds.
So just those two 'trivial' changes together cut 4.22 seconds off of every chase.
And the best part is that map geometry doesn't factor into this at all. If a survivor can get to a loop in the current game, they would've gotten to it before as well. And if they can't get to a loop currently, they might've with an extra 4.22 seconds previously available before the 6.1 buffs.
-
@ElevatedWind said:
They really need to make the maps smaller, I agree. More map size similar to Dead dawg saloon would be fairly balanced. The new map Borgo is just horrible and needs changing. So do like alot of other maps like Badham, Garden of joy, Red forest. The list can go on..
Map size has very little to do with it at all. Current Shelter woods and Azarov's resting place are tied for the second largest maps in the game, behind Mother's dwelling.
Shelter is never complained about because the map is one gigantic dead zone with a handful of pallets and a basement. Basically a killer's perfect map.
-
@Sonzaishinai said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3353191#Comment_3353191
That's not really a fair comparison
Something inexperienced players often don't seem to realise that the progression of both sides their objectives is not linear
At the start of the match everything is in favor of survivors.
all pallets are available, everybody is able to hop on gens while the killer spawned on the other side of the map, there are 7 different gens they can contest, etc...
The longer a match goes however the more the favor starts to shift towards the killer.
Survivors need to be picked up/unhooked, less generators become available meaning less for the killer to defend, pallets are broken creating dead zones, survivors need to heal or risk a snowball, etc...
That first 60% of generators may go fast but once the killer gets their pressure ball rolling and the game shifts to their favor then the last 2 gens go a whole lot slower
There is also the flaw in that comparison that survivors need to do 100% of their objective if they want more then one person to leave through the gates, while killers can secure a win way before they have done all their objectives
If the killer spreads his hooks between 2 survivors then by hook 6 only 2 are left. And in the mayority of the cases those 2 don't stand a chance to finish the gens
The killer has practically already won despite only 50% of their objectives being done.
You can't really put the 2 objectives side by side like that. Asymetric games don't work that way.
Thank god someone understands.
I don't know where the mentality comes from, but somehow people act like the killer lost the game if it's a 4k, but 3 gens got done.
-
I get that nearly every map has a 3 gen somewhere, but even maps that haven't been reworked recently have this problem.
Had a Dead Dawg the other day where we had gallows and main, and the other 5 gens were all along the main road for whatever reason. Windmill and across the street from Mill, behind the building at the T, behind jail and in the street by jail. The map was basically 40% of full size from the start. I've never seen a spawn with literally nothing in the desert before.
-
So you want this to be the only perk that debuffs survivors based on killer terror radius that doesn't give a debuff icon?
Perks like septic touch, coulrophobia, and unnerving presence all show that the debuff is being applied at the bottom. And perks like starstruck show the exposed debuff on the right instead...
-
The idea to make survivors oblivious instead of making the killer undetectable is interesting. And while I understand his point about 'things BHVR might actually be able to do in 3 weeks', most of the suggestions are just putting a band aid on mechanics that should be changed/reworked entirely.
I actively disagree with some of his suggestions when combined together, namely the increased drone radius, extra drone(s), and exposed meter never decaying (mostly this last one). There's a difference between 'people will 3 gen with her regardless' and 'let's actively make a 3 gen strategy a guaranteed win if you get good gen spawns'.
Let's take the tamest version of his suggestion: 5 total drones, no increased radius at all, and exposed meter never decays, but increases slower. Now if you camp a 3 gen from the start, you've got each gen covered by a drone, and at least two approach areas covered as well. Survivors can't even get near the 3 gen without telling the killer where they are by either alerting or turning off a drone, and eventually they're guaranteed to be instantly downable in your 3 gen.
This also actively *discourages* placing drones map wide. You want them all together so that when someone gets exposed, which is now inevitable, they're as close to you as possible. Placing a drone across the map gives counter play for the survivor to possibly become exposed when the killer is busy or too far away, which means doing so is 'suboptimal' and no one will ever do it.
And that doesn't even take into account perks or map layout. You get a 3 gen in the corner of the map, like dead Dawg behind gallows for example, and it's trivial to set up a drone perimeter to cover that quadrant. It also becomes impossible to turn off every drone since you can't interact with them if you have a claw trap on.
-
@Supernaut said:
There is an area which is accessible only by survivors. I'm sure its against the rules for me to post screenshots.
If it's a certain area near the gallows, killers can also climb that area.
-
Just running Hex:The Third Seal by itself would make solo q completely unplayable with this change.
-
Depends on which flavor of camping, really.
I rarely see 'stand in front of the hook' camping. But... most of the time with current meta, the killer will just proxy camp a hook by orbiting to kick nearby gens, but never really leaving line of sight.
Nearly every game the killer goes back to hook to tunnel though, no matter how long you wait to unhook or if they find someone else in the meantime.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3348589#Comment_3348589
The treatment although is not the same on every side.
That's because it's an asymmetrical game. The way the game is built means that killers are far more likely to go out of control than survivors are.
It's similar to why League of Legends has had about 16 different tank metas: The way defensive stats and offensive stats work simply means that the former is far more likely to create problems than the latter. It doesn't matter how much damage you can do, if you die in a single stun. It doesn't matter how little damage you can do, if the enemy team literally cannot stop you.
Killers have a similar problem: They are the power role. (Inb4 'muh tournament play') They have much more control in general over a match, so anything they do is much more likely to be oppressive than anything survivors do.
What are the most frustrating things to face from survivors? I'm not talking about anything that's annoying, I'm talking about the things that literally make you want to quit on the spot. You're probably gonna say Dead Hard first, but Dead Hard is not the main ingredient of a bully squad, is it?
It's BNPs to rush gens, chain flashlight blinds, sabo-spam (Possibly with Boil Over + Breakout). It's having two other survivors orbiting your chase, ready to ruin your day by denying you the hook. But all of this stuff, with the exception of the BNP, is pretty hard to pull off, since it requires coordination.
Killers don't have to worry about coordination. It's much easier for killers to execute a lot of strategies, making them far more common, too.
---
But then there's another issue that's going to sound even worse: Loud killers often have a really bad grasp on the game. One of the skills required to be a great killer is having a good macro-level understanding of the game. But there's a lot of killers that struggle with that as they just blind-focus on whatever is directly in front of them. That produces an issue with the kinds of complaints that roll out of the killer community: It can be very short-sighted, pointing the finger at the wrong things, focusing on things that are happening in front of them as opposed to things that are happening outside their view that are more impactful.
Any perk that gets any kind of usage in a match becomes the object of its ire, while there's other, more powerful things at work in the background that draw no attention at all. BNPs are a sterling example of this.
Seriously, I feel like I am the only person on these forums to have ever called for the removal of BNPs, the most blatantly broken piece of garbage in the entire game. But strangely, when people talk about gen speeds, this little trinket is -never- brought up. Disabling this thing should be a slam-dunk, but for some reason, all the attention is on Prove Thyself or Hyperfocus.
Similar to CoH. I could be running around with my ambulance build, healing folks up in 5 seconds flat, but Mikaela's healy perk made a big boom, so that one's the problem.
The most blatantly unfun things that killers can deal with are bully squads and BNPs, and neither are getting nearly as many complaints as they deserve.
Prove Thyself is a prime example of this phenomenon. Nearly every gen speed discussion complains about PT over BNP.
I'm 100% in favor of making BNP lock in a gen, so that a gen over 50% or so can't regress below that value. But it provides no boost in gen progress anymore.
Cap gen speed across the board so there's less variation between 'gen rush' and a squad running 3 maps and a key. And this also applies to slowdowns, too... so stacking perks doesn't result in a 3 minute gen speed.
-
@Sillymare said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3344958#Comment_3344958
Survivors have 10 perks to counter this kind of play. Here I'll list them:
Adrenaline
saboteur
Dead Hard
Reassurance
Off the Record
Breakout
Mettle of man
Breakdown
Deliverance
Decisive strike
Anymore excuses to teabag and flex killers at the gate? Lord knows I have no need to explain how these can ensure an escape WITHOUT Basekit BT
Do you even understand how some of these perks work? The situation is a killer hard camping a hook at end game and you list a bunch of perks that are wholly ineffective in that scenario:
Adrenaline: only works once, and this also only works if you were hooked before last gen pops.
Saboteur: in what world can you sabo a hook that's already in use? Or are you implying that sabo can always just stop every hook, guaranteed?
Dead Hard: maybe, but it's still a guaranteed trade with STBFL and you're back to the same situation with a different person on hook.
Reassurance: does nothing to resolve the hook camping in end game because there's no gen pressure left, only buys 30 seconds of time at end game to prolong the exact same stalemate scenario. The killer isn't leaving.
Off the record and DS: these are literally disabled in end game.... Read the perks.
Breakout is useless if you get downed immediately off hook. You're eliminating BT in this thought experiment and there are no other protections, so someone, either unhooker or hooked is going down at the base of the hook. You think it takes 15 seconds to put someone back on that same hook without needing to walk? There is 0 chance of wiggling off here.
Mettle of man: maybe could work, but you'd have to have it active and unused while on the hook. That's a pretty specific and unlikely scenario, and it only works once. One hook trade and that strat is gone entirely.
Breakdown again maybe, but it's only useful if hooks are far enough apart that the killer can't just carry you to another one. And when they do make it to a hook, you're now guaranteed to be in the same situation, but now farther from the exit.
Deliverance: yeah, try unhooking yourself in the killers face with no BT and see how well that works out for you. Now you're broken on the ground at the base of the hook.
-
@kingcarl2012 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3348634#Comment_3348634
There is a few issues with this assessment, first lets look at the 14 seconds of slowdown you get for the actual booning action, you need to look at that on a per heal basis. Each heal you get on a single boon increases its efficiency, so looking at self heals at 21 sec/heal plus 14 for the boon, that is 35 sec total, however if you get say 4 heals accross the team, that means that 1 booning action gets divided amongst each of those heals to 3.5 sec/heal, which brings that down to 25 sec total per heal.
Futhermore looking at the slowdown gained by a self heal action of 21 seconds, you really dont actually get all of that as actual slowdown, unless you are getting a oneshot down.
Looking at it more realistically, if you do the basic math without taking into account exhaustion perks extending the chase, using a basic M1 killer at 4.6 m/s, this can be calculated quite easily.
Lets take a pretty favorable situation, survivor heals and is full heath instead of injured working on a gen, they take a hit at the gen that would have downed them if they were injured, the clock starts here.
Survivor runs at 6m/sec for 2 sec and gains approx 10m of distance, at this point the killer gains at a rate of .6m/sec taking 16 seconds to catch up. Now obviously alot of other factors can affect this killer powers, looping, dead hard, dropping a pallet, individual mistakes. But at its base a 21 sec heal buying you 16 sec of extra chase time means that a self heal only actually buys on average about 5 seconds of actual slowdown, Against a good survivor at a decent tile it can easily actually be a net negative.
I think I just got whiplash with how fast you moved that goal post.
No one is arguing that being fully healed is advantageous for the survivor. The point is that CoH takes an investment of setup time, is slower than other, guaranteed forms of healing, and killers have a base kit method to deal with it by snuffing the totem.
If I bring a medkit, your only hope is that you brought franklin's or that you catch me directly to interrupt the heal. Medkit heals anywhere, which is convenient, is way faster (I could medkit heal in your face mid chase), and I can bring add-ons for even more free healing mid chase.
Every single one of your arguments applies to medkits as well, and the medkit is superior to CoH in basically every way until you get into long, drawn out attrition games.
-
@egg_ said:
You can literally see the mine on the gen. Just look at the gen ???
The mine is only visible to survivors. It's not shown to the killer.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3348655#Comment_3348655
Hold on, what's that scenario look like without CoH though? Where killers can build pressure without leaving gens?
Because that, to me, sounds like a loss/loss on the survivor side. Either you don't do gens and get timed out, or you try to clear a gen and get downed.
Also, what's to stop these teams from achieving similar with other, less conspicuous perks? One guy with Botany can achieve CoH speeds.
I feel like the 'self-healing action is an automatic -50% healing speed' needs to be more obvious in the perk. I'm certain that most people who complain about CoH are confused by that. All they read is 'increased healing speeds' and picture a solo survivor healed in 10 seconds.
I'm also amused that boon setup time is always ignored, even though booning a totem (especially when uninjured) is exactly the kind of secondary objective people beg and plead for constantly.
CoH is healthy for the game because it's one of the few perks that helps bridge the solo q/swf gap. There's a literal beacon for people to go to for heals rather than 'meet me at the gen outside shack'.
And the alternative to CoH is that people will just run medkits, which are faster heals, can be used anywhere, and have no travel or setup time. Shoot, it even leaves up to 4 perk slots for something useful like gen speed perks.
-
If a mori was an actual cutscene then sure, or maybe at the end of gameplay like they tried with the finisher Mori thing. But there's a lot that can go wrong in a multiplayer scenario if you start culling objects with collision.
You're far more likely to have either the killer or another survivor get stuck on the terrain as it comes back into play.
Which doesn't even touch on scenarios where, say, a survivor could deliberately stand somewhere during the mori animation and when the Mori completes, they're fully contained inside a rock or out of the map.
What do you do if, for example, the map boundary wall would block the mori view? Do you delete the wall for the animation but in doing so allow players outside the playable area?
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3347434#Comment_3347434
I mean, I dont think that this Perk will be used. In general, this Chapter all 9 Perks are not really good. But I dont really understand the complaints - if people want variety and the Devs try to bring Perks which would give variety and people are STILL against it, this just shows that they just want Survivors to have weak Perks and not a variety of strong Perks.
There is, unfortunately, a worst-case scenario with this perk.
It'll get used and played with for about a week after launch, just enough to get a feel for how bad it is before moving on.
But some killers will take it as 'i have to tunnel you off second hook every time, it's just the smart play' simply because the perk exists.
-
Seeing other survivors' perk loadouts is about the only information missing that would still be reasonable to add. I believe mobile even has this already, and it would be good to have in the game for solo q.
I'm not 100% certain, but I thought that some countries require moderation of any built in game communication. For text chat, that's easy because you can potentially just save it in a database somewhere. But for voice, now you have to transcribe it to text and go from there.
That's a lot more work for a feature that, I'll be honest, is likely just to be more toxic in a lot of cases. Personally, I'd rather BHVR focus on other things, since I tend to just turn off any in game chat right away in any game I play.
-
Any time devs announce changes to the game, expect an uptick in camping and tunneling.
C&T goes away up *before* a patch if killers are getting nerfed, or if survivors are getting buffed. (Like the current perk that starts with an E).
And it goes up *after* the patch if killers got buffed or survivors got nerfed. (See: 6.1)
-
@RainehDaze said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3342631#Comment_3342631
No, it's definitely the waiting. Every time, until you're sure they don't have it. And that this complete lack of doing anything can get enough time to get to some other tile.
Also, there's a fundamental difference at play: waiting to see if someone has DH isn't a choice. Every game. Almost every chase (it's not like 3 and 4-DH lobbies are uncommon). Don't lunge, don't use your power, don't do anything, because you have to play around this perk. Did the Killer do anything to force this wait upon themselves? Nope, they're not opting to tunnel off hook. But got to do this stupid wait against someone who's possibly already lost the chase, just to check.
It's dumb.
If you really can't wrap your head around the idea, try finding something you do constantly in your life and putting an unnecessary ten seconds of just waiting for nothing to happen. It'll get annoying, fast.
It's not the waiting, we agree on that point then. Killers will wait while camping or proxying. They'll wait out DMS or Repressed Alliance to kick gens in this meta. They'll still wait out BT. The differences are because it's a known factor, and *it's their choice to do it*.
You're so close to the right idea. It isn't a choice because it's the outplaying that is the real issue. You're having to play around a human player which makes the result uncertain. The only factor here is that you want to take a health state from the survivor, but the other player might actually be able to do something about it. The waiting/hesitation is simply a by-product because what you want to do isn't guaranteed.
That's why it really doesn't matter if Dead Hard gets deleted completely, people will just move to complaining about 99% Sprint Burst. You'll still be able to time a sprint burst to avoid a hit and gain distance, and it'll make people as angry as Dead Hard does now. Because it'll still be an unknown factor that you have to take into account when playing. It's just that Dead Hard is currently the better choice for most people.
-
@RainehDaze said:
Because DH requires boring and unhealthy play from the Killer. Literally everything about baiting DH out and countering it boils down to "hold W and wait, swing if there's going to be a pallet because it's bad either way and the timing might work out".
No perk should be encouraging the Killer to sit on the Survivor's butt and not do anything, especially when they don't have the perk, and not use powers even when contact is guaranteed. That's bad gameplay.
Easy enough to understand?
Killers have had literally zero problem sniffing survivors while counting to 10 (or 12) to wait out BT off hook for years.
I don't for a second buy that it's the 'waiting'.
It's the fact that survivors can react and potentially outplay the killer that makes people angry.