Batusalen
Batusalen
About
- Username
- Batusalen
- Joined
- Visits
- 3,248
- Last Active
Comments
-
Entitled survivor main mindset at its purest form... this post is a thing of beauty.
-
@notclaudette said:
The self recovery is meant to make it possible to revive someone with a bit of distance in a chase, because if your the last two thats a necessity. If 4 survivors are still up, how is it fair that they can be instaresed by a teammate while I go to check a gen or scare a way a flashlight? just dont like this. make so as long as there are 2 healthy survivors up you cant res, because you dont need to and it only serves to make slugging useless.
That doesn't even makes sense, how are they going to "instares" a downed survivor while scaring off flashlighters if you just downed him? In fact that are my favorite types of survivors, the heroes that commit to save one downed survivor and they end also downed or all hurt. And if they got him up, just got him down again.
So even if I understand that there are some situations where you need to slug no, that's not a good idea as now it would be better for the killer to slug the first survivors. They should be able to get others up... and die trying.
-
@Katzengott said:
I'm not seeing it as we aleady have 2 dashing killers, Pig and Wesker.
Also Little Sisters as survs won't happen, as they're clearly under 18.
It would also don't make sense as Big Daddys protects Little Sisters, don't hunt them. Would make more sense to have Jack or Elizabeth as survivor for example. Maybe the Little Sister can be as a secondary "power", like Nemesis's zombies. She wanders around the map and if she encounters a survivor up close or get hurt by a pallet she screams, revealing it's position and granting you a short "enrage" buff?
And more than a "dash" it should have something more close to a "charge" attack like in the game, hurting survivors directly if got hit and maybe breaking pallets in his way, making him feel more like a juggernaut killer instead of an agile one like Wesker:
https://youtu.be/wDP2_YrJejA?t=99I don't know, I like the idea and I see a lot of potential here to be a nice and unique addition to the roster.
-
@Deathstroke said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3307500#Comment_3307500
50% kill rate would equal 2K but 61% kill rate however is way above that. It's not 3K though which would equal 75% kill rate. But that 61% kill rates equals around 2,5K per match so 2K might be the most usual outcome but 3K is also very close maybe like from 20 games nine ends in 3K and eleven ends in 2K just my quess. But however dc:s are exluded from stats so those would probably increase kill rates even further.
It's 2.4k per match, which is 3k around 40% of the time. That means 60% killrate = 40% winrate for both sides on average. That's what that means.
-
@MrMori said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3314736#Comment_3314736
4:3 resolution in DBD keeps the same horizontal vision to the sides, but simply adds vertical vision to make it 4:3. So basically you'd see right over shorter loops where average height killers could attempt to mindgame. It was a straight up advantage. Mainly for survivor, only slightly for killer.
That happened (as I get that doesn't happens right now) because they decided to match the width to the viewport instead of the height, which will result in what I posted earlier. I assumed they did the last because is the most common and logical way to do and is how games like CS:GO does it.
Either way: "So in DbD different aspect ratios without blackbars would really be an advantage or disadvantage depending on how much game view that ratio allow you to have." so there you go. The same would happens if they don't put black bars when people play in 21:9, whatever would be and advantage by showing more gameview or disadvantage for showing less.
-
@Raptorrotas said:
I know this dabbles in chances instead of the actual rates and thus is purely theoretical, but remember that we cant just say that a 50% chance to escape is fair. It's more about the chance to win as a killer being the same as for a survivor to win. A survivor wins when they escape and the killer either wins with 4 kills or "3 or more" if you swing that way.
If the escape chance per survivor is x, then the chance for them to be killed is (1-x). A 50% chance to escape would mean a 6.25% ( (1-0.5)⁴ ) chance of a killer win if you only consider 4 kills a win or a 18.75% ( [(1-0.5)³+(1-0.5)⁴] ) if you consider 3+ kills a win.
An equal chance would be ~27.5% if you only deem a 4k a killer win and ~38.2% if you deem 3k+ a win.
Obviously i could be wrong and should have considered survivors as a team but even the game doesnt so why should I?
You are right. In fact, right now that 60% killrate means both survivors and killers have an 40% winrate as for the killer the win condition under MMR terms is 3k and a 60% killrate is 2.4 survivor killed per game on average.
Survivors thinks that 60% killrate is the game being killer-sided because it was in September the first time BHVR got to that number, so now survivor lose more games and makes them think "killers are OP" when in reality is now when the game is balanced and not survivor-sided in winrates.
-
@MrMori said:
Get a 720p monitor, hopefully your PC can handle that for 16:9?
Saying that 4:3 doesn't give an advantage is a debunked lie. I can understand not having money for a strong PC. And the optimization of DBD is frankly awful, unacceptable even.
But bringing back stretched res is not the solution.
It's a shame that the PC market is so expensive right now, but you might be able to find some good deals on PCs in the used market.
Technically the very, veeeery arguable advantage of 4:3 (in a 16:9 monitor) is that it gives you "tunnel vision" as you can focus more on "the center of the screen" without seeing much of the world, something that can technically help in FPS games as even with the lost of FOV (as proved in my image) you can focus more in what you see and that's why some pro players uses it.
In DbD, there's not such an advantage as even for the killer it is better to see more field as survivors are trying to constantly make you lost line of sight with them so they can hide, so having it reduced would mean that a survivor can literally pass to your side and you won't see him. So in DbD different aspect ratios without blackbars would really be an advantage or disadvantage depending on how much game view that ratio allow you to have.
If you ask me, I think the whole 4:3 advantage thing is something subjective and is like mouse sensitivity. Some say lower sensitivity is better as it is easier to aim, some say that high is better as it allow for faster turns with less mouse movement. It's just a personal preference, what makes you play better or better adapts to your way of play.
-
@t1zer said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3313992#Comment_3313992
The developers could do 4:3 with the same viewing angle as at 16:9, if the developers were able to make the skill the brainchild of darkness, which changes the viewing angle of the maniac, then the developers can do that 4:3 would have the same viewing angle as at 16:9. But it is not known for what reasons did the developers decide to make black stripes for 4:3
No, they can't do it unless you want to allow people to see more or less game view depending on their ratio and I literally show you why.
If you don't know how resolution handling in a game works please don't do assumptions.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3313923#Comment_3313923
No it doesn't. The current increases are in the realm of 0.1% increase. You won't see a significant difference until about prestige 70-80.
A significant difference would be that after prestige 3, levels 1-10 have say a 50% chance of getting a very/ultra rare per level, prestige 6 ups that to 75%, and prestige 9 makes it guaranteed one very/ultra rare per bloodweb indefinitely.
So you can hoard 100 purple addons? As killer, after prestige 5 I was able to keep my Ribbons for Nemesis in pretty much all games I played by the use of Black Hands. Now that I'm prestige 10 I'm able to have a good amount of them at all times even if there is a chance RNGesus may get me screwed and made me lost them, but that's why you can have multiple builds made. If you can't run some addons, just use others.
Also, leveling up the first bloodwebs are just a couple of games with BP bonus offerings, so I still don't see the problem. It will be more beneficial if they implemented a way to exchange the addons you don't use for more BP or other addons, IMO.
-
@t1zer said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3313296#Comment_3313296
Take it and try to play with 4 by 3 with an average resolution of 1280x1024. And you will see how players with a weak computer will play. Could the developers just remove the viewing angle and not add black bars. Yes, and the old 4 on 3 did not give bonuses, depending on the maniac how he could play
Dude, are you running an Intel Pentium 4 with Windows XP still? How much of a weak computer do you need to have to not being able to run a game that ask for 1GB of video ram and a i3 CPU from 2015? Even the recommended specs ask for a graphics card from 2013 with just 2GB of vram.
The black bars at 4:3 are needed for a simple reason: If they weren't there, you would be seeing less game view that someone with the regular 16:9, allowing for things like this to happen:
4:3 is not giving you an advantage, is having a handicap against 16:9 people.
Other topic would be why we can't change the resolution of the viewport so we can have 16:9 ratio with lower or higher resolutions on PC (as any cross platform game ever released, as I understand that the fixed resolution is because the game being on consoles). My game runs at 1536x864 and no matters how many times I change the config file, it still that resolution. This will help people with a potato PC by running the game at lower resolutions and the rest to have the game looking (slightly) better.
-
@VaporLion said:
Im pretty sure its unwinnable if you get chainhunt and have hex ruin active since they cant cleanse totems during chain hunt and the chain hunt itself pushes them off gens so they degress from ruin. not sure if it regresses more then you can progress. And no matter if it doesnt, it is a big problem.
Yes, they regress at 4 times slower than repairing it, so the 2 seconds of ruin you would suffer from a chain would be gone by doing the gen half a second. So no, it is not a big problem, it's not even a problem at all.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3313918#Comment_3313918
This isn’t a good faith argument. If you’re trolling, like you just admitted to, then you should face any applicable consequences. Idk why people can’t just play the game like a normal person
For letting survivor win? Have we got to the point of complaining of winning in this game?
It is a good faith argument: I don't see to be a "problem" something that for doing it you basically have to drop the entire game. I understand that it can be unfun for the people suffering it, but I don't see how something so situational and casual should be addressed like it's a game breaking thing.
-
@Seraphor said:
A better solution would be to make lower level bloodwebs more likely to hold higher rarity items after a certain number of prestiges. Say after prestiges 3, 6 and 9, you get increasingly more valuable bloodwebs.
You mean... like it works right now?
General Reward:
Increasing one's Prestige Level also increases the chances for rarer Nodes to spawn in the smaller low-level Bloodwebs.
https://deadbydaylight.fandom.com/wiki/Levels_%26_Prestige#Prestige_Rewards
-
So... a trolling situation where the 4 survivors are able to do all gens and escape is a problem? How are they forced to DC when you just posted a video showing they can literally finish the gens?
Unfun? Yes. A problem? No, it is a free (and painful) game for the survivors.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3309300#Comment_3309300
it makes perfect sense.
-ruin prevents you from kicking gens
-kicking gens is really strong
-ruin prevents you from doing the thing that is strong
-your proposed change would cause ruin to work for longer while doing less passive regression
-ruin would therefore provide less value, and prevent value for other perks for longer
-this would make ruin worse
Sorry, I understand your "bad enough" to mean "it's already strong enough in this meta" from dealing with it perspective.
Either way, my change would be technically a buff to every hex perk and solve the OP problem (inherent in all hex perks), even if Ruin still won't fit in a gen kicking build of the current meta.
-
@Krazzik said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3312644#Comment_3312644
Unless the survivor brings Sole Survivor and Wake Up, there'd be very little chance for survivors to ever get the gate in this scenario. It's already very unlikely and when it does happen it's usually because a survivor camps a gate waiting for killer to close hatch. Without a hatch the killers just patrolling gates and thus a surv has almost no chance.
But still has a chance to escape, and it is the best way to stop people to hide and wait for the last escape: Making it not as advantageous as it is now the hatch. It will also help with the 3º survivor slugging as now killers won't have to fight against the RNG gods to get the 4k.
-
Make it a race to the exit gates instead of a race to the hatch: Remove the hatch, give the killer basekit NOED on last survivor and make so only one gate can be opened at the same time.
The survivor still has a chance to escape, the killer more chances to get what he deserves for winning and making his ability to open the gates useful (as killers can already open the exit gates, just there is not a single reason for doing that) and also prevents the other big problem with the hatch: Survivors not even looking for it but waiting in front of a gate to open it the moment the killer close the hatch.
-
I don't care about hard gen rushing for pressure when there's a reason for it, at 3/2 survivors left... whatever.
But anything earlier than that should be severely punished by AT LEAST BP penalty... if someone is so desperate to ruining the killers experience and waste his time, they should be rewarded with the same thing.
There is NO VALID REASON to gen rush at 5 gens and right after the game has started. Literally none apart from just trying to be a d-bag.
There should be severe BP penalties for such behavior. period. Why survivors are simply allowed to just purely waste killers time is beyond my comprehension.
Seeing the killer leaving the match with just 1k is just sad. Wasted addons, offerings, TIME. And really bad experience on top of that.
It happens WAY too often. I just had 4 games IN A ROW like this. Even kicking the gens didn't help, survivors would simply tap it to stop the regression or hide and keep doing it the moment I chase someone else. Like WHY is this allowed?
That's how you sound. The reason for "early" tunneling is that having 4 survivors at 3 gens is almost a lost game, having them at 2 is pretty much a lost game unless you stack regression perks and they start piling up mistakes, no matter how many times you hooked them. Simple as that.
Stop unhooking survivors at 5 meters of the killer or healing on hook and you would make tunneling for the killer not as advantageous.
-
@Sometimes_Sage said:
I started playing DBD in October, so forgive me if I am unaware of some year-long context, but from what have seen so far it seem like changes to the game are approached from a pure Survivor viewpoint, almost as if playing Survivor was seen as the normal way to play the game with playing Killer as some secondary mode.
I want to make clear that everything I am going to say is about game feel, not balance.
One thing that a noticed pretty early on was that when a Killer would hit a Survivor a short time after they were unhooked the Survivor was protected by an additional effect, fair enough. But then I noticed that when I was playing Killer, unhooked Survivors would intentionally run into me to block me from chasing the unhooker, which seemed pretty unfair to me, after all they were using something that was supposed to keep them from being oppressed, to aggressively protect another player, in a way that left me with no counterplay.
Then later while researching gameplay mechanics, I learned that I hasn't always been like that, originally, Survivors could be downed directly after being unhooked, something that many Survivor-players understandably saw as opressive, while from a win oriented Killer's viewpoint it was the optimal thing to do, after all an already injured Survivor was an easier target and also closer to sacrifice after already have been hooked.
Now the Devs agreed with the Survivors, but instead of adressing the problem at its core, the specifics of the injure-down-hook-unhook-sacrifice-mechanic, they turned what was formerly a Perk into a basekit Survivor ability. There was a situation that had both sides having legitimate causes and it was resolved by buffing Survivors without addressing the way this could be used as an oppressive tactic against Killers.
It didn't seem fair, but it was how the game had always been to me, so I didn't really mind.
Then still later I noticed that the majority of Survivors in my games both as Survivor and as Killer were toxic towards the Killer, waiting at the exit gates in a 100% save spot just to tea bag when the Killer apporached them or going into a game with their friends without actually playing to win, instead just stunning the Killer over and over again.
This is where the cracks appeared; why was a behaviour from Killers that, while unfun to the receiving Survivor, was in the end purely a efficient playstyle from the Killers point of view, worthy of a buff for Survivors, even if it means enabling an unfun tactic against Killers in return, but Survivors going out of their way to harass Killers wasn't adressed?
But I thought: "Maybe it's an ongoing process, maybe the next update will adress your issues."
Then the next Update hit the PTB: to adress slugging, admittedly the one pure "harassment over efficiency" tactic avaible to Killers, it was planned to give Survivors not only another strong perk as basekit, but to actually make it even stronger in the process, a change that would not only punish slugging, but go as far as punishing Killers for not immediately picking up Survivors, ignoring all the many legitimate situation where it would be simply stupid for the Killer to pick up a downed Survivor immediately, not to mention Killers who actually had downing Survivors without being near them as part of their gameplan.
Now of course, this was from the beginning pitched as an experiment, with no plans to hit live servers, but it still shocked me that a change, that would so massivly punish one side to adress a comparatively small issue for the other, was even considered.
This brings me to the current PTB patch; again a change that is a buff to Survivors in general. While the motivation behind it is understandable, it is still disheartening that the effect that this change will has on Killers is treated as an afterthought. It was stated, that if this change will affect kill percentages there will be adjustments, but honestly, how is there even an "if"? This is a buff to Survivors and it is intended as such, the only way how it could not affect kill, and therefore Killer success, rates, is if Killers adept an even more efficiency focused playstyle to compensate.
Why is Survivor satification important enough to upset the entire games balance over it, but Killer satification is reduced to win statistics? Killer players aren't bots who will be happy as long as enough Survivors die, we are also playing this game to have fun, but the direction and motivation behind the changes to this game that I have witnessed make me fear, that there is a, perhaps unintentional, philosophy towards "Survivors play, Killers perform".
Statistcal unevenness can destroy fun, but evenness doesn't guarantee it. In the end a fun game, no matter what the statistics say, is a better one than one that is fair on paper but sacrifices fun.
A game needs a healthy balance, but balance can't be healthy if one side is measured in fun while the other is measured in efficiency.
I love DBD, but the updates that I saw since I started playing make me fear that, whenever I will still love it three monthes from now it will be by chance rather than design.
Didn't you know that killers only exist for the fun of survivors? If killers do something to win that is unfun to survivors should be banned!...
Jokes aside, welcome to the club. You had the same feelings I had when I started playing the game (the same time as you, it seems) so I got what you say. But even if BHVR balanced things in the past mainly guided by the crying of survivors (see what happened with Freddy in it's release, Ardetha has a good video in youtube about it and a lot of other interesting "DbD history" topics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXwqWxNKdOU) I don't thing that is the case anymore.
Yes, there are many things in the game from the survivor-sided past that still need to be changed or reworked, but BHVR seems to have learn it's lesson and started to balance the game for both sides as he must do, as a competitive game. One of the things I think is good is the Status HUD for survivors, as one of the problems the game has is that SoloQ players are in a disadvantage in comparation with SWF because voicechat. So, if you balance the survivor side taking in count SWF (what they should do) SoloQ players would be even worst, but if you balance the game for SoloQ then SWF would destroy killers. Leveling up SoloQ to SWF is what will allow BHVR to balance the game taking the most efficient way of playing on both sides, which would make the game fairer in the higher MMRs.
About the basekit BT, even if survivors abuse it (like any other mechanic BHVR have tried to solve problems survivors cry about) I don't see it as much a problem because it has downsides (if the survivor use the protection for a free bodyblock you will be able to tunnel him without waiting) and doesn't completely nullify tunneling as a valid strat, just removes the possibility to hook the same survivor 3 times in a row without even a chase.
And I agree with you about the anti-slug mechanic thing (even if I think you can't blame them for trying to solve things people not like as long as they don't go live without testing, that's what the PTB if for), but wasn't only because for the slugging's cries but also a try to remove the hatch and change the end game as well. If they did that change, you would only need to slug all survivors to be able to win, that's why they also changed the bleeding mechanic to adapt to that new way of play.
Not only that, but in the last patch announced they're going to change one of the maps because it was literally "too survivor sided" and buff a killer just to make him better to play with, without mention the 60% killrate they want to maintain so winrates are equal to both sides. So yeah, there are things that still need changes, but for the moment I see BHVR with a true intent to really balance things for both sides and not because one side is crying about the other.
-
@Spill said:
No one here is not saying to nerf survivor meta. THIS POST IS NOT FOR THAT.
So again. Brine, Overcharge, and Eruption need to be nerfed.
BTW survivor perks have never locked a game for an hour until the lobby force shuts down. This isn't JUST about meta pick rates.
This is literally about being broken.
You said it like it's just the perks fault there:
The first and biggest mistake, as the streamer says in the 4:40, is let the killer to have 3 gen close by. By the way he is talking they wasn't a full SWF, but right now an squad of 4 is pretty good at doing the middle gens so the killer end with each one of the 3 gens in a corner of the map.
The second mistake: They are 4, but they are not coordinating to do the gens. In the 7:40 the killer was chasing someone and the generator was 1/4 fixed. Two survivors only needs 52.94 seconds to do one full gen, 46.04 with PT, and a lot of progress was done. By the time he came back 2/3 of the gen was done. If someone was "pressuring the gen with him" like the streamer survivor said (maybe if he had PT so the others could see the aura of the gen he was repairing), that gen would be done by the time he got there. And later, at 8:25 it happened again, were he is chasing one survivor and the streamer is alone repairing. And again in 12:00. And yet again in 13:10. Where are the other two survivors? That's four wasted opportunities to do the last gen.
So, your "example" of how those perk could lock a game is one case where survivors wasn't playing optimally, with the one killer that can pressure a gen without even being there by leaving a guard, and when they have 4 chances to complete the gen but wasn't able because they weren't even trying.
If something proves that video is that even against the killer that benefits the most of that strat and perks, if you can't get out of a 3 gen situation with 4 survivors still standing it's either a skill issue or a lack of coordination. But it's better to blame the perks than your own actions, I guess.
-
@DeDoeH said:
That would not be the point of it at all.
I already assume that people know that the 0.X% best players will definitely have a very high killrate or if you take survivors escape rate. So do all very good players in all games I've ever played.
The interesting thing for me would be to see the differences in killrate with each killer when played to their maximum efficiency. I am absolutely certain that most of the top 5% will never ever play a nurse or huntress even close to their full potential whilst I suspect that with "easier" and less mechanically challenging killers like let's say the wraith more people can get close to really good performances. These statistics might actually give us an interesting tier list.
I know it's not your intention, and I agree with you it will be interesting to see... but I think we both know that what I said is what is going to happen around here the moment they show that data. It's already happening with the 60% average after all 🤣
-
So people can cry that 0.1% of killers are winning most of the time and that means killer are OP?
They already have problems understanding what a 60% killrate on average really means. Imagine if for any reason that 0.1% is doing 70 / 80% or more how much would it cost to make them understand that it means 99.9% of killers is doing 50 / 40% or less on top of how killrates doesn't mean winrates.
-
@Archael said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3310469#Comment_3310469
So... you CAN'T say which conditions are killer winning conditions? You cant show where game itself stated killer wining conditions, and you, by yourself cant pick one condition? This was the only thing i wanted, and you failed. Can you admit already that game has no winning condition for the killer or you are going to try some more arguments? I hope this time you will find something.
Definition of competetive game stated that it has to have established and clear winning conditions, one side wins, and one side loses. Survivors may have 4 competetive games towards one killer, and every escape is killer lost for survivors, BUT even if this one victorious survivor consider killer lost, the killer itself can kill other 3 survivors, and all 4 of them consider killer victorious... so which side won and which loses in this scenario? Did killer won? Not for this one survivor? Did survivors won? As a team no, but individually? One of the did, yet killer do not see it this way. One survivor won over 3 other survivors, 3 survivors can win over 1 survivor, every escaped survivor won over killed ones. This game is competetive but only between survivors. If you add killer to the equation, or consider survivors as a team vs killer, then there is no competetive gameplay according to definition.
BUT
Vocabulary, definitions and descriptions does not matter in this subject, this was only out of topic, one sentence that was not bringing anything to the discussion and i dont understand why anyone started whole different offtop thread about this.
Even if dbd was competetive game, and for the sake of the subject, lets assume it is. Being competetive game does not mean it have to be frustrated and onesided. Game mechanics can be adjusted and designed in a way where noone is feeling bad and bored which is the case of camping and tunneling. I agree that this is one of best strategies to counter swf squads and genrush, but other things could be adjusted at the same time. Devs should not only encourage killers to do chases by increasing gen repair times. They should mechanically removed camping and tunneling WITH adjustments to gen repair times at the same time. Even if dbd was competetive game played only by tryhards, does not means taht some players have to play most boring game ever - hanging from the hook for 2 - 3 (with kinship and reassurance) minutes before end the game.
Did anyone of you, campers and camping defenders played the game that started against lethal pursuer blight, catching you in 20s and then hanging for 3 minutes from the hook while rest of your team escaped? I bet you was so satisfied with the game... Its always so satisfing when you have litterally nothing to do for few minutes and then lose the game... great times. i dont care if 1, 2, or even all other survivors escaped. I lost the game after 3 minutes of not doing anything. i wanted to play the game, i dont care if i lost, i care if i was playing the game. I try to play all roles, but prefer killer, but due to campers i play survivors less and less often even if i have daily - i try to rereoll it to killer daily just because camping. And more such people and there will be no survivors to play against for everyone, not only you, campers, but also me. This is also a reason why camping should be removed from the game, and other means of preventing doing gens should be available rather than removing one survivor as soon as possible. I already have long time in killer que, and i blame you - campers for this, and behaviour for allowing for such things.
Dude... the mental gymnastics man. 11/10.
I literally gave to you the win condition, how it is the win condition, why it is the win condition, and what both sides needs to do to win. I gave you the reason of why it is a zero-sum game for everybody and how it is a competitive game. But instead of even try to understanding you twist all of it because you have to be right.
Not only that, but again you come back to "I have the right to have fun in a competitive game at the cost of people not playing competitively"... dude, stop already, stop saying the same thing over and over after people give you enough proof that you are wrong, and stop trying to discard arguments you don't like with "it's off topic" when it is not.
Stop it. Get some help...
-
@Archael said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3309435#Comment_3309435
No xD
The goal of the killer is to hook and sacrifice. Noone never and nowhere said its to kill everyone. Show me part of the game where it is said. And. Why everyone is saying that killer wins when performing 3 kills? you have just said taht killer have to kill all of the survivors. Does it means the killer fail if sacrificed less than all?
Survivor goal is to escape either via hatch or exit gates, yes.
Killer need 3k to win because how the MMR works. The killer is awarded MMR for each kill he gets and lose MMR for each escape a survivor did. Taking in count that all survivors granted the same amount of MMR, doing a 1k would mean he lost MMR, doing 2k means no gain, 3k means MMR gained and 4k means the maximum amount of it. So, a minimum of 3k for consider it winning, 4k for maximum performance.
Also, the killer lose his addons whatever he kill somebody or not, so to maximize their use he needs to kill as most survivors as possible, as if he do a 0 or 1k is just wasted addons.
And even if all of this wasn't true, said by BHVR itself, the game for survivors is a 1v1/1/1/1, so each survivor is having a competitive match against the killer, while the killer is basically having a 1v4 competitive match against the survivors.
I don't know why deny the evident. Even Fall Guys, a casual game without a ranked system meant to be played for fun is a competitive game. Every game of zero-sum is a competitive game. It's not hard to understand.
-
@NERF_KILLERS_######### said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3309763#Comment_3309763
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3309763#Comment_3309763
it takes 90 charges to do a gen so it really 90 seconds for one survivor to do a gen
True... your point being?...
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3309248#Comment_3309248
So...
You circled power struggle and blast mine.
Having so much trouble with meme build that you're rage posting on the forums about it?
You seen to think this is some gotcha post, but you either have no idea what 'meta' perks are, or you let your 6 year old pick out the 'pretty icons' for you.
I circled every perk in common of the four random games to argue the "oh so much diverse, much wow" point of the OP. I didn't even pretend to just show the meta perks being used, just that there is no such diversity as everybody is using the same perks in different builds as killers do with Eruption + CoB as show by his own "receipts" as he called them.
Also, if you looked just a couple comments more you would see I did a post with two images showing the most used / meta perks. But whatever dude, you do you.
-
@Gandor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3309938#Comment_3309938
Ok. So specifically for you. I want fair games. I want both sides to have same chance to feel bad (because bad feeling hurts more then that good game you already forgot), so both sides should loose with same probability. To achieve this, new kill rate should be 40%. So major buff to survivors should now come that would on average make survivors escape ~20% more often.
Surely you will now agree /s
Again. Anything above 50% for any side is unfair. And to be absolutely precise, we are talking about kill rates.
And to restate what was said again. Given your "match pure wins and consider it fair" mindset (that just is not fair), even under these conditions 60% kill rate is not fair outcome. It would have been if kill distribution was equal. But 2k does not happen in 20% of cases. So 60% kill rate is not fair no matter what.
Do you forgot to switch accounts? Because the comment was for other user and in the other posts where we "interacted" (to put it slightly) at least you made some sense. Also, I think you and me have already talk about this topic in enough detail by now.
I'm not going to even try to understand the rest of what you said there, but I'm going to do like I take seriously at least some part of it and just answer that 40% winning is 60% losing, so both sides are already feeling equally bad. So... there you go, I guess? 🤣
-
@Predated said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3309908#Comment_3309908
A lot of people play on steam, those with the least hours tend to correlate to the weakest survivor, especially in a swf
You are assuming that the killer is going to take the time to look each survivor steam profile in search for DbD play time before the match start... but if that is the case, you can just put your profile in private. Problem solved.
-
@Predated said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3307500#Comment_3307500
39% escape rate does not equal 61% killrate. The killrate is actually closer to 75%.
Reason being, a full game lasts about 15 minutes, so killers can get 1 4k, 1 1k and 2 3k's and be at 70% killrate. Survivors can have 6 matches in the same time, be tunneled in 2 games, die in 3 others and escape in 1, leaving to an escape rate of 15-ish%
Escape rate should be around 50%, killrate preferably at 70%
As for MMR only going up when a killer gets more than 2 kills, not really. It can go up with only 2, it can go down with 3. It depends on the MMR of the survivors you're facing. Having a survivor with 5000 hours and the rest being at 50 hours, with you being only 150 hours, you can gain mmr by simply killing that 1 survivor. It's an extreme case, but possible.
Can you please explain to me how do you pretend to have a 50% escape rate and a 70% kill rate at the same time, please? And where do you get that killrate is 75%? Or what any of that have to do with what I said to you? And how in this world a 39% escape rate isn't a 61% killrate? Because you are mixing-up possibles individual kill/escape rates with average, or I don't even know what you are talking about.
And yes, 2k could mean MMR go up, but also that can go down. That's why instead of specific cases, when talking in general or in average, you assume the best hypothetical scenario: If every survivor granted or discounted you the same MMR, 2k means 0 gain, in other words, you need a 3k to gain MMR. Same for the killrate, as of course many players would do better that 60% and others worst, but again, we are talking averages here.
To make it clear: 60% killrate = 40% won games for killers (games that ended in 3k) and 40% won games (games that the survivor escaped) on average. So, "39% escape rate" means the game is balanced as killers are winning the same average of games as survivors. Hence, my "stop using the 61% killrate as a point without even know what it means".
-
@jajay119 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3309112#Comment_3309112
I don't agree that it's in any way the same as one survivor repairing a gen - this takes 90s as base. With a good combination of regression perks gens can reduce from 90+% to next to nothing, or even nothing, in no time - especially when coupled with the likes of Eruption, Pain Resonance and Dead Man's Switch etc. which they are more than they arent. When you have to leave a gen to go rescue, heal, get someone off the ground, enter a chase etc it's very easy for a gen to regress to nothing in that time and for matches to snowball easily - especially when there are less gens.
But you are comparing base time with 1 survivor against perks. With 3 survivors and PT, the time to do a full gen is 32.97 seconds. That could mean by the time the killer end a chase with someone a gen would be done, and that is if you get to end the chase successfully in that time.
Also, is not something that you can agree or not, 400% regression is the same speed as survivor repairing it. A single survivor repair a gen at 1 c/s (1 charge per second), a gen regressing without any perk regress at -0.25 c/s. In other words, 4 times slower than repairing it, which takes 360 second to go from 99% to 0%. So, 400% regression is a little less than 90 seconds to go from 99% to 0%. There is nothing to discuss here, it is a fact.
That's why everyone right now is using those perks, because survivors are doing gens in less than 50 seconds (two survivors with PT is 46.04 till full repair) and on top of that they are using WoO so many of then don't even loop anymore, they just go pallet to pallet so not even Bloodlust would activate, making for the killer almost impossible to commit to chases without allowing the survivors to get a lot of gen progress done. So, you either stack gen regression to stop it, or by the time you go for your second hook you already lost the game.
Address the gen rushing meta, and then we can address the gen regression.
-
@ratcoffee said:
it's already bad enough, that would make it even worse in this meta where gen kicking is so powerful
That doesn't makes any sense as with Ruin you can't kick the gens until the hex is done, so if you have a gen kicking build it's better to have other perk than Ruin.
But I don't think the problem is for it being an hex either, but more that hexes are so easy to turn off as totem placement is often at plain sight and the game have the bad habit to put your hex in the most visible place possible (4 straight games where Devour Hope was just besides a gen, impossible to miss even if you wasn't looking for it).
What they should do is to rework totem placement in map generation or allow the killers to put the hex where they want as survivors do with their boons.
-
@Archael said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3309269#Comment_3309269
Survivor can win by escaping, okay. But there are no win condition to the killer. Even those 3k is unofficial win condition. But even if i give you that, one survivor escaped, so three was killed, so killer won... and survivor won... so yes, both can win. Also, only one surv died, then surv lost, and killer lost... so no side won? No, dbd is not competetive game even with this logic.
But even if it was, Being competetive does not means it cant be fun and interactive.
Dude, you said it yourself. Survivors can win by escaping, so if they don't escape, the lost and so the killer wins. And those 3k in terms of MMR are official, as like I just said, is how MMR works and if you want to get better, you need to do it.
-
@Archael said:
@Batusalen "But the problem is fun is subjective and relative and we have two points of view here. What about the killer fun? If my fun is to hook all survivors and make sure they are fully hooked, should I sacrifice "my fun" so you can have yours? What if my fun is winning all games possible? Should I stop playing in the most efficient way for the sake of survivors fun?"
Removing camping will not prevent this. Unless Your fun is to make others not having fun... then yes... but this means noone should care about you if you dont care about anyone.
@Batusalen "What about survivors who do unfun things for the killers? Having a survivor with Boiled Up getting to a place where he knows I can't hook him is unfun. Should survivors stop using Boiled Up so killers have their fun? Or what about the survivors that brings 3 flashlights and makes impossible to grab someone to hook in peace, should they stop doing it to stop taking away killer's fun?"
Yes, those are problems too, also should be adressed, but its not the topic for that, just focus on the point.
@Batusalen "Again, you can't balance or take away something just for the sake of fun (much less when taking in count only the fun of one side) and you can't expect for people to not play competitively in a competitive game for the sake of your fun. And people don't want an "interaction with the killer", they want an "interaction with the killer and win it", because getting hooked is an interaction with the killer that you have lost and being camped is maybe not having a second chance to win the next."
But dbd is not a competetive game... and even if this would be - Removing camping will not prevent anyone from playing competetively, people can do that while not camping. And still, being camped is neither "interaction with the killer and win it" nor even "interaction with the killer" this whole paragraph has nothing to the discussion.
@Batusalen "And your suggestion, in paper, sounds good. But I can see how SWF would start to have only two survivors doing gens when someone is chased or hooked, and two survivors with PT is still 46.04 seconds per gen, while still punishing the killer by not being able to defend his kill. If you made your debuff to take place even if someone is repairing, you would just be punishing both sides."
This means that survivor side should also be tweaked in this or that way. This is never one-sided, but this topic is only about camping.
I wasn't even respond to you because again, you are ignoring the facts already given to you and keep saying "stay on point" even when what have being said is on point but it's not good for you to address it (again, if your answer to "Survivors should stop doing X for the sake of the killer's fun?" is no, then your answer for "Killer shouldn't be able to do something because is not fun for survivors" is also NO), until I got the "DbD is not competitive" part...
How do you got to that conclusion? Really, how? How when every game that puts people playing against each other is competitive by nature. Every-single-one. Even games that are supposed to be played "to have fun" are competitive! Think Mario Party. Yes, the game is a casual game with low-skill, high-luck requirement that you play to have fun with your friends, but even then you are still competing against them for winning.
DbD is not only competitive, is high competitive as the game requires high skill with low luck to be good at it! And people would go to play in the most efficient, competitive way possible to be the best.
And if the argument is never one-sided, stop saying it is "just about camping" when there are other things that affect or would be affected by camping or its removal. Saying things like that is what makes you look like you simply want to be right so they should remove camping because the sake of your fun.
-
@FeryGEN said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3278847#Comment_3278847
The perks you mentioned are not so common and not so strong, but the one that you didn’t name needs a nerf and absolutely in every match
CoH and PT are more common that both CoB and Eruption:
Again, the "gen regression" killer meta is a counter play to the current gen rushing survivor meta and I don't think anyone would say to not nerf it, but what many people do in here is for BHVR to nerf killer meta and not touch survivor meta as "it is fine". Both metas should be addressed in tandem so one side not get ahead to the other. Simple as that.
-
@Spill said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3308821#Comment_3308821
That's because the survivor meta was effectively nerfed. EVERY game the survivors have a HUGE VARIETY. It's beautiful. For the first time in years survivors are running interesting and diverse builds. I see balanced landing. I see small game.
And even when they do bring Dead Hard - the successful DH is RARE. The Meta shake up was EXTREMELY effective with Survivors.
You CANNOT argue that this killer meta is not problematic. LOCKING a game for an HOUR is an EXPLOIT. That is not up for debate.
And you defending it is HIGHLY questionable. I took these screenshots because I knew the exploiters would try to say its not meta or a problem. Sorry hun. I brought receipts. You didn't.
Yeah, it's not like killers need those perks to counter the progression builds + "looping" builds with WoO everybody is using so SWF don't do all the gens in less than 4 minutes. And you can "nerf" one meta, but now there is another meta... what are you talking about?
And who is saying that Eruption or CoB is not meta? There is practically not other discussion topic in this forum that isn't "Gen rush vs Gen regress" meta and how Eruption + CoB should be nerfed! No, really, what are you talking about?
Also...
So diverse. Much wow...
-
@WitchWalpurga said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3308913#Comment_3308913
This is the most killer-sided state of the game we ever had and tunneling became a much bigger problem since DS was nerfed into oblivion. I really don't see what the "current" game forces killers into tunneling compared to the state before July 21. Tunneling is more rewarding than ever. Get 1 out, camp the second, use Deadlock and in 80-90% of the games you have an easy time. The game should not be balanced around 12k hours Super-SWF where tunneling and camping might be the only way to have a chance. But in the large majority of games there is zero reason to tunnel at 0 or 1 gen.
One idea i had was to at least grant the MoM-special endurance after unhooking but in exchange getting exhausted. By that killers get punished for tunneling if you use off the record (and to prevent massive abuse of DH afterwards). Tunneling killers will simply hit you directly after getting unhooked and depending on the map and the killer there is no "safe" loop nearby so at least they have to invest more time here as off the record can't prevent someone from tunneling if the killer decides to just swing after getting unhooked.
Is simple, survivors are doing gens at extreme fast speed. Having 4 survivors on a 3 gen situation is bad no matter the state they are in, and with 2 gens left is almost a game lost unless they start to piling off mistakes and you have some good regression perks (i.e. Eruption + CoB). The only way to avoid this is to get out a survivor ASAP. Hence, tunneling everytime you have the chance.
And yes, the game should be balance around how "Super-SWF" play and killers counter it because they are playing the game in the most efficient and competitive way. If you balance the game for the people that "play for fun", then those who play to win would destroy the other side, and this go for survivors and killers. It's like wanting to ban dunks and triples for some teams in the NBA because there are people that can't do them.
-
This has so many problems I don't even know where to start with it, but maybe that it would incentive for that just hooked survivor to body block the killer as now the killer won't have a reason to hook him, which would lead to more slugging, and that survivors would be able to make the meter go down non-stop by just doing their objectives while the killer have to lose time by chasing a fresh survivor. Even more, survivors would just bring 4 flashlights and start stunning the hell out of the killer the moment that meter go up too much.
Sorry, but it is not a good idea.
-
@mizark3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3304806#Comment_3304806
The problem is in the design, because players want to have fun. If countering camping requires you to do the most boring action, then the game simply isn't fun.
People want an interaction with the killer (aka actually play the game). Some people enjoy outwitting a killer by hiding, some by a hearty chase, some by using their perks, but all involve interacting with the killer. By forcing non-interaction with the killer to be the best action, survs WILL throw in order to have fun, and camping killers will continue to be rewarded until the broken design is fixed. Rewards should be tied to the risks and desired actions involved (in good design), and the only risk in camping in quickplay/soloq/anywhere outside of sweat squads will always skew heavily in favor of the killer if nothing is changed for the better. That being said, I do think there is nothing wrong with endgame camping, as the Killer has no more goals, and the greed/reward for unhooking is fair on both ends (barring maybe hook grabs, but that is another topic).
I think a Pyramid Head styled hook teleport/swap (hidden to killer) would help on the 'punish killer greed'/'help survivor' end, and slow down gens progress when no one is off gens and someone is hooked to 'help killer'/'punish survivor greed'. The second portion could also apply when someone is in chase and all remaining survivors are on gens to further the desired behaviors of unhook surv and prevent 'genrush' or more accurately here, genb4fren.
But the problem is fun is subjective and relative and we have two points of view here. What about the killer fun? If my fun is to hook all survivors and make sure they are fully hooked, should I sacrifice "my fun" so you can have yours? What if my fun is winning all games possible? Should I stop playing in the most efficient way for the sake of survivors fun?
What about survivors who do unfun things for the killers? Having a survivor with Boiled Up getting to a place where he knows I can't hook him is unfun. Should survivors stop using Boiled Up so killers have their fun? Or what about the survivors that brings 3 flashlights and makes impossible to grab someone to hook in peace, should they stop doing it to stop taking away killer's fun?
Again, you can't balance or take away something just for the sake of fun (much less when taking in count only the fun of one side) and you can't expect for people to not play competitively in a competitive game for the sake of your fun. And people don't want an "interaction with the killer", they want an "interaction with the killer and win it", because getting hooked is an interaction with the killer that you have lost and being camped is maybe not having a second chance to win the next.
And your suggestion, in paper, sounds good. But I can see how SWF would start to have only two survivors doing gens when someone is chased or hooked, and two survivors with PT is still 46.04 seconds per gen, while still punishing the killer by not being able to defend his kill. If you made your debuff to take place even if someone is repairing, you would just be punishing both sides.
-
@Gandor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3308599#Comment_3308599
Ok entitled killer main. 2 out 2 dead means survivors won. ENTITLED! KILLER! MAIN! DETECTED!
Let's go at it from your entitlement perspective. 87.5% escape rate is fair, because 4 out is survivor team win and 1 dead means killer won - he actually got his main objective and killed someone. Survivors lost, because one of their friends died. You would never consider it survivor winning the trial of you or your friend died. Hence 3.5 escapes per game is balanced and everything else means killers are winning more then their fair share (trade mark).
Again. 2 out means 2 lost MMR and 2 got their MMR. In 2 games when this same result happens with 4 same people again but the other 2 got out. Does that compute to you that survivors overall gained ANY MMR? +10 -10>0 ? Or does the math have issues with you? Do you now get it? 60% kill rate means killers are raising their MMR just by playing the game without getting better. On the other side survivors just playing the game the same without getting any worse or any better against same killer will lower their MMR. Because math. Because anything above 50% kill rate would end up in that state. Do you get it now? Or do you require some additional math lessons?
It's not my entitled perspective, is how the MMR works and how BHVR explained it. In terms of MMR, for survivors the game boils down to each survivors playing a single match with the killer, transforming the game from 1v4 to 1v1/1/1/1. This, by design, means some survivors would lose, and some will win, and a single survivor won't be affected by how their friends ended the match. Your use of my "entitled perspective" is not valid because the 4 survivors are not even a team in MMR terms, and the "win" conditions make the game for the killer a 1v4 while for each survivor is a 1v1 against the killer.
The funny thing is you know this, and I know that you know because it was you who told me in first place:
Killer plays 4 games in a single match. For each kill/win he gets, he is awarded some MMR [...] And this is from killer's POW. From survivor's POW it's even clearer. You escape or you don't.
This are your own words a month ago. Now, because it doesn't fit your narrative anymore, you claim that the 4 survivors "are a team" and 2 of 4 dead is not a win for any of them. And you are calling me entitled for saying the same you said because is how things really are... sure dude, you do you.
And for "mathematical facts" to be "fact", the premise of it should be true (and unbiased). You are talking about the same survivors winning and losing in 2 games, while the truth is some survivors would win more times than they lose and more survivors would lose than they win in all their games, same as killers (hence, again, 40% being an AVERAGE). And you can't use "math" as a fact with just two hypothetical cases that as much can be consider "casual happenings", but that can happen whatever the killrate is, as even with 1% killrate a survivor can win a game, lose the next, and have a +0 MMR.
But the best part is "60% means killer rising their MMR without getting better"... again, looking at what you said when I said to you "Agains who killers are getting that 60% killrate?":
Against 5% of best players. What it means is killer is able to win against tryhards (who can become 5% best without trying? So no. It's not against babies. Only if you say more then 97.5% of survivors are babies - which would also indicate that the game is in a bad spot if virtually nobody can become at least average good)
Conclusion: Your "math lesson" proves nothing, and the fact is the game is balanced now in terms of MMR as killers are winning on average the exact same as survivors. There is nothing more to say.
-
@Gandor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3308136#Comment_3308136
60% kr is 60% win rate. Having a draw does not mean killer lost. It does not even mean survivors won. If you think 2 out is win, then that just simply shows how ENTITLED you are. So you calling 40% outright full win and all the rest being draw just shows your colors. This exact situation would mean survivors NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER win, but sometimes they don't loose. So again. 50% kr to have fair games. And no matter how many times you repeat "but I did not win this game because it was just 2K" does not change that. It just means sometimes the game is tied and NOBODY won.
So, both sides winning 40% of the time in the best hypothetical scenario is not balance according to you, of course... what a surprise.
And again, AVERAGES, not all killers and survivors are doing the same numbers, and we talking that in average we have balance. so some people are doing better and some other are doing worst. It's not so hard to understand.
And no, it is not a draw because even if for the killer a 2k means no gain or lost of MMR, there is still 2 survivors who have won and two who lost by how MMR works for them ("4 games are taking place at the same time, 1v1/1/1/1", remember?). A draw for the survivor is the hatch, as the survivor will not lose or gain MMR and not made the killer lose either in that "1v1".
So, no, 50% killrate is the game being survivor sided. Now, with 60% it is 40% on average for both sides = mathematically balanced and that's why BHVR wanted it to be that percentage. Just accept it and stop trying to defend your "killer OP" point by changing and twisting the arguments you'd being using since I started posting in this forum.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3308154#Comment_3308154
I feel like I'm not getting across that the problem is not everyone can talk on mic. The biggest problem is the language barrier; the only server I'm aware of where the language barrier wouldn't be a gigantic problem would be the NA servers, and even then I'm not sure what all territories that encompasses. Everywhere else, you have the question of if all the players even speak the same language, let alone in a manner that can be interpreted easily through average quality mics.
There are too many elements entirely outside of the game's control that would affect whether people can - not want to, can - communicate through voice to their teammates. It's not that players don't want to use the tools provided properly, it's that in a huge number of cases, they wouldn't be able to. More than that, maybe they can but their teammates can't, which means... the comms are useless, because all players understanding the information being conveyed is the part that matters.
Passive information would actually be a tool they can use, if they want to put in the effort. Voice comms may not be, depending on circumstances completely outside of their control.
Alright, you had a point there. It baffles me how I didn't think of that myself with english not being my birth language 😅
I still think that in-game voicechat should be something they need to add to the game, as it would also help cross platform SWF and would be an step up for SoloQ as I said, but yeah, language barrier would be a problem without doubt and other types of way to convey that information would also help. Maybe even a pin point system like other games has (e.g. Fortnite).
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3308112#Comment_3308112
It may not be Ikea's fault you can't assemble a wardrobe if they give you all the instructions, but if the instructions are all in a different language and the diagrams are drawn in invisible ink, it's also not exactly your fault if you end up with a pretty shoddily assembled piece of furniture at the end. A tool only fixes a problem if it can actually be used by the people affected by the problem, is what I'm saying.
I agree that players who do not think to actively use information shouldn't be balanced around, that is their fault, but they actually need to have that information to use it, and just adding voice comms will not give it to them. The game needs to give them that information itself, not rely on hoping that all four survivors have working mics of good quality, and that they also all speak the same language with the right knowledge of what to call out and when.
I agree that SoloQ players need to be brought up closer to SWF, but voice comms won't achieve that.
"A tool only fixes a problem if it can actually be used by the people affected by the problem" Yeah... that's why they need to give SoloQ that tools. And dude, having common sense and talking is not reading diagrams in invisible ink and instructions in some death language, it's just having common sense and talking 😅
And what more information survivors need, apart of what they can see and hear playing normally? One of them with a map and some aura perks would be the ultimate source of information in a SWF with voicechat! And even if no SoloQ player would think of doing an "informational build" to help the other survivors, they would still be able to give all the information they normally have (where they at, where the killer is, are they being chased, have they located the hex totem, etc.). Also, as far as I know they are adding status icons to survivors, meaning they get even more info of what survivors is doing for free.
So, if we agree that them having the right tools but not using them correctly would be their problem, sorry, but I can see what is your point here.
-
@Gandor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3307284#Comment_3307284
50% is balance. I want balance. Killers before patch 6.1 were 49% kill rate. Si yes they needed a tiny buff. We got instead 61% kr. Incentives and queue times and players count shows it was bad move, but so long as devs listen only to this killer echo chamber, so long the numbers will go down (and only 4-man SWF will remain, because solo stands no chance now).
Also 2k means your MMR did not move. So to explain the obvious to you. Killers will go up in 2 games out of 5 and not change their MMR in the 3 remaining. Survivors will remain on their MMR for 3 games out of 5 and go down for the next 2. See? Killers go constantly up while survivors constantly down. And you call that fair. And when killers get survivors with multitude of their hours and they rightfully suddenly can't win - then the response is survivor is OP nerf them. Guess what. It's killers that are way out of balance. And even though it used to be the other way around, when I want chill easy game with almost free win, I queue for wesker or some other killer (Twins are now bugged bad, so not them for a time being)
Being generous and saying all killers did a 4k in 50% of their games, that would be 200 survivors, meaning the last 40 survivor in the other 50 games would be "0.8 survivors" killed per game, meaning 0 to 1k in all that other games.
There, I already give you your 50% balance. Again, we are talking averages, which means some killers are doing better than that and other are doing a lot much worst and that also go for survivors. So no, killers are not going constantly up and survivors constantly down (hence the "best hypothetical case").
60% killrate is not winrate and killers are just at a good point at that percentage and that's why BHVR wanted it to be that. In fact, someone gave an explanation in another post of why 60% killrate is just 40% winrate on average for both sides as killers need 3k to positive MMR.
You think they are overpowered now because until they got to that killrate the game was survivor sided with killers under performing. Now, as they are doing as well as survivors, you see you can't win as much games and think they are OP. So no, it isn't because the killers are now OP or that the game has become killer sided, it's just that the game got to a good balance point for the first time by BHVR own words.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3307615#Comment_3307615
This isn't the best solution, it's not even really a solution at all.
The benefits that a SWF group get from voice comms aren't passive, they aren't present just from access to voice comms. It's that they use those voice comms to convey information, and simply giving solo queue a voice comms feature does not result in everyone getting the same information as a SWF. Not everyone has a mic, not everyone cares to use it if they do, not everyone knows what to call out and when, not everyone speaks the same language, some people are harder to understand through others (especially through shoddy mics or poor connection)... you'd be in a position where solo queue is functionally the same for a huge majority of players, with the sole difference that there's some random unfriendly person screaming in your ear if you don't mute voice comms by default.
Better would be to give survivors passive information from the game itself, like basekit Kindred, showing teammate loadouts, better survivor-aura perks, and the status icons they've teased already.
The benefits of voicecomm is not passive, yes... but the thing is right now SoloQ players don't even have the opportunity to use it actively, as they don't have them. The point is people pretend for BHVR to balance the killer side of the game for SoloQ players as they don't have the same advantages of SWF with voicechat ignoring the fact that being in a SWF with voicechat is the most efficient way to play competitively, and that is a no-no as the moment you nerf killers to put them at SoloQ level, SWF would destroy them even more they do right now the moment the killer don't have regression perks (i.e. not adapting to the current survivor meta).
Other thing would be that SoloQ players had that tools and they didn't use them in the correct or beneficial way. That would be their problem and doing, and other survivors would only have those players to blame. It's not Ikea's fault if you can't assemble the wardrobe you bought when they give you all the tools for doing it right.
So yeah, that is the only and best solution to the problem, level SoloQ player by giving them what is the greatest advantage SWF have and balance the game taking in count the fact that survivors can communicate and coordinate across the whole map, sharing information to their partners that they shouldn't had by game design. Wanting to nerf killers to the ground so SoloQs have a chance is just wanting to nerf them because you can't play in a competitive way at the cost of them not being able to be competitive. Simply, no.
-
@Steakdabait said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3307520#Comment_3307520
Killer winrates rise across the board with mmr, as per BHVR released stats and please don't state stats that came to you in a dream or something in future debates.
Oh no not again...
No, killrates are not winrates and I think @Archael give a pretty good explanation of why, even if the comment you are responding to wasn't right.
-
@YOURFRIEND said:
Weird because when I play with my group we hardly ever win.
Comms doesn't magically make survivors good.
But makes good survivors great. A well coordinated SWF with voicechat is a nightmare to play against, and if they are well coordinated and playing competitively they would be doing what he described there.
But the solution is not a no-SWF matchmaking list (even if I would thank it) because that would mean no killer in his right mind would go against a SWF for that same reason. The best solution for this is to add in-game voicechat to the game so every survivor, SoloQ or SWF now has that advantage and start balancing the game taking it in count.
-
@YOURFRIEND said:
No. When you make it so your have to relearn the game every few months you alienate casual players. It's exhausting. The old meta was that way for years. That's why an attempt was made at changing it.
All this stuff is just extreme power creep at well. Could some perks use tweaks? Definitely. Do they all need to be busted and obnoxious for both sides? Hell no.
I think that shifting meta changes everytime a new chapter is released would be a good pacing. After all, new killer, new survivors, new perks, so the game have to adapt to those even if you don't pretend to change the meta by itself.
And yes, it's obvious where he want to go with this well thoughts perk reworks. My favorite is "Corrective action": Up to 15% insta progression with the enough cooldown to finish a gen by yourself and go to the next. Pretty well balanced, without doubt 🤣
-
Let's balance the game! Why don't we punish the killer for hooking survivors by slowly transforming them into Flash? But hey, they can now see the downed survivors when they are all dead already!...
To shift the current meta they only need to address how people is playing, and what you are suggesting is basically break the killer knees to "address" camping and buffing survivors until is impossible for the killer to catch anybody. So I will take you advice and not take seriously anything of what you said.
The meta can't be thought by anyone before it changes, for the only reason that the meta is defined by how players are playing the game in that moment with what they have available. They can change mechanics and metaperks so the current meta is not a viable way to play for either side, but even if BHVR expected those changes to make the players play in a certain way there is no guarantee that would be the case. So the only thing we can do is simple address the Gen Rush vs Gen Regression meta and then we can only wait for another meta to settle and start complaining again about what the other side is doing.
-
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/359672/how-are-we-supposed-to-have-any-type-of-chance-or-fun-if-all-of-the-killers-keep-tunneling-and-camp
There have being a discussion about this in another post where I think people have explained in detail why camping is not the problem many think it is and why you can realistically do anything to avoid it for multiple reasons.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3304748
-
@Archael said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3307505#Comment_3307505
Not really. 10s added to gen completion did not make camping and tunneling less frequent. So no, making gens slower will not stop camping and tunneling.
Tho i agree that both camping and gen rushing is bad.
There was a proposal in terms of gen rushing/regresion, making gens slower/faster depending on match pacing - more slowdown perks/less efficient teams would get passive gen progression bonus, and too fast gens would do otherwise. But its the topic about camping - camping should be removed by game mechanics. Like, hooked survivor would be consumed by Entity, and "spit out" after few seconds in random place at least 30m away of the killer (This could go further like survs dont die untill endgame, and each hook giving more pressure/increasing time before "respawn", giving more opportunity to actually play the game), and this would remove camping totally.
First, 10 seconds more proved to be nothing as right now with the Gen Rushing meta survivors are doing gens in less that 50 seconds, hence still the need of taking a survivor of the game ASAP.
Second, that suggestion would only allow survivors to not even have to lose time by doing saves as the hooked survivor would simple unhook himself in a safe place, aggravating the gen rushing problem and making tunneling even more a need (as now it is better for me to go after an already hooked survivor to take him out of the game even earlier than before). What you want to do is not only take away the capacity of killers to defend their kill (as even if I don't pretend to camp, if you don't even wait for me to leave before trying the save don't pretend for me to just give it to you for free) but the one basekit way they have to stop gen progression by indirectly making survivors stop to doing gens. In other words, simply punish all killers for the sake of not suffer something only a few of them can do effectively (and you be able to always have fun).