Batusalen
Batusalen
About
- Username
- Batusalen
- Joined
- Visits
- 3,248
- Last Active
Comments
-
@fussy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3786425#Comment_3786425
I remember they said that to add replays they would need to redo the entire game, but some of my friends who are close to the gamedev said that it is absolutely not difficult and one plugin is enough to add replays to any UE game. I think it's just way to expensive to support this function.
It's not even a plugin, it is already integrated into UE and the part that would take more work would be the UI. Not only that, but many UE games have implemented that same system way after the game was released (e.g. Fortnite, Rocket League, Tekken 7…).
-
Probably a hacker. I had one the other day that basically prevented anyone from being hooked. I know it was a cheater because I also saw her teleporting and getting outside the map, but if there wasn't any other signal, then probably it would look like a bug.
-
“Just play as a swf” This is literally all ive been told
Here's a new one: Play as killer.
Pick a killer, and play long enough to get those survivors that when you don't tunnel, slug, camp, or use 4 regression / slowdown perks finish all gens by your 6 hook.
Maybe then you will understand the true state of the game right now and why it is important to play both sides to get the full picture.
-
If you don't care about MMR at all, a win can be whatever you want, so the win rate is subjective.
If you care about that invisible number that is only useful for the backend of the game right now, survivors are not a team, and a win is only when a survivor is not killed. Ergo, if you escaped but your other 3 team mates are dead, you won and they lost.
There is an exception to this, as being in a SWF will affect the amount of MMR you gain or lose depending on whether your SWF mates also survive, but only the quantity. If you gain or lose that MMR will still be decided by you escaping or not:
In other words: MMR wise, Escape rate = Win rate.
-
I don't think he is weak, but it definitely doesn't feel good to play since being nerfed.
In my opinion, the main culprit is the fact that hitting a turret with the tail is considered a "wall hit", which has the longest cooldown possible. So, if you are chasing a survivor and there is a well placed turret, your options are:
- Stop the chase and go hit it with your M1, which would grant the survivor a lot of distance and probably remove your power.
- Ignore the turret, which would grant the survivor less extra distance, but now you will have to continue the chase powerless.
- Hit it with your tail in the short window you have before losing your power, but if you miss, the survivor will gain distance and now you will be powerless, and if you don't, your quick reflexes and good aim will be rewarded with a long cooldown, which still makes the chase take longer.
This makes you feel like you are getting punished for doing good, and we can all agree that this is not how it should be in any case.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783478#Comment_3783478
If 2 survivors where killed per match on average, and according to the win conditions a 2K is a draw, then killers draw their matches on average.No, we're outside of math and just talking about how words are used in English. That's a .500 win rate, an even split, etc. This is a game that has draws, saying that the result is a draw on average implies that most games result in a 2k.
Can't I?You can't, and your examples are bad math.
Survivors win condition: Not get killed. Ergo, a 60% killrate on average means 40% of survivors win their games on average.Killer win condition: Get a 3K. Ergo, if a 60% killrate on average means 2.4 survivors killed per match on average, killers are doing mostly 2K, drawing those matches, while doing 3K 40% of the time approx. Therefore, they win 40% of their games on average.
The second part remains incorrect because you refuse to engage with the idea of an uneven data set. 2k is the least common outcome in DbD.
This carries through to your other examples:
Survivors win condition: Not get killed. Ergo, a 75% killrate on average means 30% of survivors win their games on average.Killer win condition: Get a 3K. Ergo, if a 75% killrate on average means 3 survivors killed per match on average, killers are doing 3K 100% of the time. Therefore, they win 100% of their games on average.
What does the phrase 100% of the time mean? It means always.
You seem to understand how the killrate is derived. The average is 75%, meaning there is a mix of game results that over many games result in an average of 3 killed in this hypothetical. You then turn around and use a totally different definition for what winrate would be.
In this hypothetical and the framework for wins, we'd take every game played, how many where 3k or greater, and then we'd have the average.
You could say the most common result would be a killer win, which is already true
Survivors win condition: Not get killed. Ergo, a 50% killrate on average means 50% of survivors win their games on average.Killer win condition: Get a 3K. Ergo, if a 50% killrate on average means 2 survivors killed per match on average, killers are doing 2K 100% of the time. Ergo, they win 0% of their games on average, as they draw 100% of their matches on average.
Again, that's not what an average means. If we keep with your simple math, on average they win 50% of their matches that are not draws (i.e. the average winrate is 50%). More realistically, we'd need more information as you could have a radically different winrate from a 50% killrate.
Is it clear now? Or shall we keep going with the fallacies and mental gymnastics?It's clear that you are committing multiple mistakes. This starts with an incorrect definition of what average can mean and a misunderstanding and refusal to even engage on the concept data sets.
No, we're outside of math and just talking about how words are used in English.
The guy doesn't even know what a rule of 3 is, and even when having the dictionary definition written on top of an example still doesn't understand what an average means. Keep pretending to fight basic math while making language-ambiguity fallacies.
I will only say this:
and refusal to even engage on the concept data sets
Me two doritos earlier explaining to you how data sets are crucial for individual killer balancing, but not before having an average balance target because of the asymmetrical nature of DbD:
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783273#Comment_3783273
In your most recent post you are using the phrase 'on average' to mean the most common result […] The concept of a winrate calls for a percentage, not a general statement
No, I'm using 'on average' because we are talking about averages. Averages that can be expressed as other averages, like a percentage win rate:
- 60% killrate on average = 2.4 survivors killed per match on average.
- A killer win is 3K, so 2.4 survivors killed per match on average = killers win 40% of the time approx on average.
Or:
- 50% killrate on average = 2 survivors killed per match on average.
- A killer doing a 2K is a draw, so 2 survivors killed per match on average = killers draw 100% of their games on average, or in other words, win 0% of their games on average.
Or (and this one is for you, @Firellius):
- 25% killrate on average = 1 survivors killed per match on average.
- A killer doing a 1K is a loss, so 1 survivors killed per match on average = killers lose 100% of their games on average, or in other words, win 0% of their games on average (no negative winrate, mate).
This is why saying things like 0% winrate are so non-sensical
It makes sense, but you either, again, don't understand what an average means, or you are simply refusing to accept what basic math and logic say. Simple as that.
Beyond that, a 60% killrate is not needed to ensure parity. That's still wrong. Technically speaking, you could have a kill rate below 50% and still have a winrate above 50% based on game design
The next phrase…
(that's not true of DbD, but I'm back to pointing out the importance of uneven data sets).
Now, let's forget you contradicted yourself for a moment, and please explain to me how you pretend to balance a game like DbD while granting everyone an equal chance of winning with just "uneven data sets" (which I'm going to guess are "kills distribution" in this case) when:
- The win conditions for both sides are completely asymmetrical.
- You can't directly compare skill levels of both sides, as they require completely different sets of skills and game sense.
- One side is a team of 4 players that can have different skill levels.
- That side is not even considered a team per win conditions, and each individual player in it will win or lose individually.
- You have 5 possible match outcomes, which define the wins or losses of 5 different players.
The answer is simple: You don't, you can't. Starting with not even having a reference to what would be a "balanced point". Because yes, if a killer is doing a lot of 3/4Ks we could assume he is "overperforming", but what would be the point it should be then? What combination of "Ks" in the kill distribution will make him "balanced"? How would you even guarantee that among all the players that use that killer the kill distribution will be even so he is balanced at any skill level? Etc.
So, even if "uneven data sets" can help identify if an individual killer needs balancing, it doesn't work in terms of overall balancing and will not help balance killers against survivors. That's why then we look at our win conditions, we notice that the common denominator is "kills", so we use an average kill rate as the target balancing point. And look at that, if you do the math it even provides a "sweet spot" that allows us to guarantee an equal chance of winning for both sides (60%, 2.4 survivors killed per match on average, 40% win rate on average) without even having to worry about skill levels, side, character used, or anything else.
When we reach that point, now we can use the kill distribution of each killer to balance those that are overperforming or underperforming until we get a balanced average (as again, multiple players with different skill levels will play the same characters, so part of the playerbase will get less than 60% kill rate, while the other will get more, or some will make more 3/4Ks, while others will make less. That's what an average means, by the way). But we can only do that once we have reached that target 60% killrate, and that is just what BHVR did.
So, there you go. At this point, if you don't understand it, it's on you.
So, even if "uneven data sets" can help identify if an individual killer needs balancing, it doesn't work in terms of overall balancing and will not help balance killers against survivors.
[…]
When we reach that point, now we can use the kill distribution of each killer to balance those that are overperforming or underperforming until we get a balanced average […] But we can only do that once we have reached that target 60% killrate, and that is just what BHVR did.
So like I said dude, whatever makes you happy.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783485#Comment_3783485
I simply wouldn't balance DBD with only kill rate.
saying "you either have to use my way of balancing the game using only kill rate, or come up with a different way using only that stat" is a false dichotomy. I would simply opt to use stats with a higher resolution - such as the kill distribution stats on Nightlight.
I assume when BHVR says they want to achieve a 60% kill rate, they mean that kill rate has a casual correlation with some other internal stats that they don't share with us, stats that contain more helpful information but for whatever reason (for example, trying to protect trade secrets or their own technologies) they don't feel it would be prudent to release to the public, and that in getting those numbers to what they think is fair and fun, they estimate that kill rate will hit 60%. I know Peanits has said they look at far more than just kill rate, which would seem to support that theory.
I simply wouldn't balance DBD with only kill rate.
Neither is BHVR, just as I explained:
When we reach that point, now we can use the kill distribution of each killer to balance those that are overperforming or underperforming until we get a balanced average […] But we can only do that once we have reached that target 60% killrate, and that is just what BHVR did.
But good dodge to avoid answering there.
saying "you either have to use my way of balancing the game using only kill rate, or come up with a different way using only that stat" is a false dichotomy
What is false is that I said to you "do it only with the kill rate" at any point, specially after explaining that not even BHVR uses it as the only data for doing it.
In fact, you are the one who said that "there is such high variance in the data set is a reason specifically to Not extrapolate based on the average of all those data, not a reason you Have to". So, it is you who said that the average kill rate is not needed to do balancing at all, not the other way.
I assume when BHVR says they want to achieve a 60% kill rate, they mean that kill rate has a casual correlation with some other internal stats that they don't share with us, stats that contain more helpful information but for whatever reason (for example, trying to protect trade secrets or their own technologies) they don't feel it would be prudent to release to the public
Yeah, let's just simply forget all the reasons, including the math and dev statements, that explain why it should be a 60% kill rate on average, and let's start making unfounded assumptions just because you don't want to agree with it. Totally logical approach.
and that in getting those numbers to what they think is fair and fun, they estimate that kill rate will hit 60%
Totally agree, as to get any other number to a place where it is fair and fun, like having an equal winning chance to everyone no matter their skill level or character used, the kill rate should by 60%.
I know Peanits has said they look at far more than just kill rate, which would seem to support that theory.
Or, and hear me out in this one, he meant that they look at a lot of other data because even if the kill rate is helpful for overall balancing (among other things), it is complementary to other data that indicate other, more specific things. To give an example, even if a killer has a 60% kill rate, if his kill distribution has a lot of 3/4Ks, it will indicate that he is winning more than he should and needs to be nerfed. Again, just as I explained, which casually coincides with what he said in the quotes @Moonras2 shared.
But hey, yet again, "whatever makes you happy".
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783467#Comment_3783467
you explained incorrectly. the fact that there is such high variance in the data set is a reason specifically to Not extrapolate based on the average of all those data, not a reason you Have to. this is what I mean, you fundamentally don't understand why just the average kill rate is not a helpful stat for the kind of analysis you're trying to do
you explained incorrectly. the fact that there is such high variance in the data set is a reason specifically to Not extrapolate based on the average of all those data, not a reason you Have to.
Then again, explain to me how you would balance DbD, granting every player the same winning chance no matter their skill level or character played, with only those data sets when:
- The win conditions for both sides are completely asymmetrical.
- You can't directly compare skill levels of both sides, as they require completely different sets of skills and game sense.
- One side is a team of 4 players that can have different skill levels.
- That side is not even considered a team per win conditions, and each individual player in it will win or lose individually.
- You have 5 possible match outcomes, which define the wins or losses of 5 different players.
Come on, tell me exactly where I'm wrong and explain the correct way of doing it without taking in count anything else than those data sets, if I'm so wrong in my explanation of how and why.
this is what I mean, you fundamentally don't understand why just the average kill rate is not a helpful stat for the kind of analysis you're trying to do
Maybe because I never, here or in any of the past posts about this topic, argued that only having the kill rate is helpful to anything, and I'm not trying to do any "kind of analysis".
What I have always said and argued is that "For balancing reasons, the kill rate should be 60%, and having it be that number is the only way the game will be balanced between killers and survivors" in response to everytime you people have claimed that it being 60% means the game is killer sided. And I have already explained in detail how and why it has to be that way multiple times by now.
Just that. Like I said to @mizark3 earlier, anything else is a product of your imagination.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783438#Comment_3783438
I'm not sure if you're backing up what I'm saying or misreading what I said because I think we agree (sorry, being extra careful in this thread at the moment).
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783424#Comment_3783424
No, again, the problem is that you don't know what an average is. Let's take 10 players in 10 matches, 5 of them do only 3Ks, the other 5 only 1Ks. The average kills per match is 2 survivors killed per match, which is a 50% kill rate per match on average, which again, means that killers draw their matches on average.In that scenario you have a kill rate of 50% and a winrate of 50%. More specifically you have a winrate of 50%, a loss rate of 50%, and a draw rate of 0%.
Also I don't know what would actually be the problem with that hypothetical scenario.
You could also have a scenario of: 2 4ks, 3 3ks, 1 2k, 1 1k, and 3 0 ks (one of many random possibilities). That's still a kill rate of 50%, but you now have a winrate of 50%, a loss rate of 40%, and a draw rate of 10%. Unless you know the probability of the five different game outcomes (not even getting into hatch), you can't mathematically determine the kill rate percentage you need to determine what would create a winrate parity (not that a winrate parity is even necessary, but if that was your goal that's what you'd need).
In that scenario you have a kill rate of 50% and a winrate of 50%. More specifically you have a winrate of 50%, a loss rate of 50%, and a draw rate of 0%.
By the definition you posted:
"Average, math, is defined as: An average is the result that you get when you add two or more numbers together and divide the total by the number of numbers you added together."
So, let's do the math (with a total of 10 matches for simplicity reasons):
- 10 matches = 40 survivors
- 5 matches ended in 3K.
- 5 matches ended in 1K.
- 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 20 survivors killed in total.
- 20 survivors killed in total / 10 matches = 2 survivors killer per match on average.
- Now, using rule of 3: If 2 survivors where killed per match on average, and according to the win conditions a 2K is a draw, then killers draw their matches on average.
Conclusion: Yes, we have a winrate of 50%, a loss rate of 50%, and a draw rate of 0%. Which, in short, means a draw rate of 100% on average.
Unless you know the probability of the five different game outcomes (not even getting into hatch), you can't mathematically determine the kill rate percentage you need to determine what would create a winrate parity
Can't I?
- Survivors win condition: Not get killed. Ergo, a 60% killrate on average means 40% of survivors win their games on average.
- Killer win condition: Get a 3K. Ergo, if a 60% killrate on average means 2.4 survivors killed per match on average, killers are doing mostly 2K, drawing those matches, while doing 3K 40% of the time approx. Therefore, they win 40% of their games on average.
Now, let's try with higher kill rates:
- Survivors win condition: Not get killed. Ergo, a 75% killrate on average means 30% of survivors win their games on average.
- Killer win condition: Get a 3K. Ergo, if a 75% killrate on average means 3 survivors killed per match on average, killers are doing 3K 100% of the time. Therefore, they win 100% of their games on average.
That won't do it. Let's try lower:
- Survivors win condition: Not get killed. Ergo, a 50% killrate on average means 50% of survivors win their games on average.
- Killer win condition: Get a 3K. Ergo, if a 50% killrate on average means 2 survivors killed per match on average, killers are doing 2K 100% of the time. Ergo, they win 0% of their games on average, as they draw 100% of their matches on average.
Well, look at that. It looks like the only average kill rate that allows for average win rate parity is 60%. And I invite you to try to do it with any other kill rate you want.
Is it clear now? Or shall we keep going with the fallacies and mental gymnastics? Not that I'm going to really keep with this, because at this point, there is definitely nothing else to explain. So, consider anything else you post answered with the BHVR go-to response: Whatever makes you happy.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783459#Comment_3783459
oh yeah i'm not trying to argue with you, i'm trying to back up what you're saying with extra evidence - kill rate and win rate only have the tiniest corrolation
as far as Bathusalen goes, i've found he's overconfident in his knowledge on a lot of topics. he's aware of the process of calculating an average, but utterly unfamiliar with how to apply the concept of averages to anything. if I told him the standard deviation for kill rate across games was 38.3%, that is to say, +- 1.53 kills per game, i doubt he would know what to do with that information.
I literally explained how those averages apply to the balancing of a total asymmetrical game like DbD, why it needs to be those averages, and indirectly explained how what you said doesn't contradict any of it, and in fact, it complements those kill distributions (those "uneven data sets" the game obviously has and no one ever argued it doesn't) you are trying to use to counter-argument it in terms of balancing, but I'm "utterly unfamiliar with how to apply the concept of averages to anything".
Right. But it's me who is "jumping hoops of logic to suit my narrative".
-
@mizark3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783098#Comment_3783098
The problem is that every average is made up of many numbers. A 2k Average can be 2K/2E, or a 4E and a 4K, or a 3K and a 3E. In those 3 cases, only 1 of them has a 0% winrate, and even then it is a 100% draw rate. Heck, even draws are often considered a half win, or 1 point for a draw and 3 for a win, so even in the most extreme circumstances draws still count towards win counts.
Then I truly don't understand how you can counter your own points in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. "And yes, anything more than 2k would be a win, …" in the context of Killer, then contradict yourself saying "2.4k on average won't mean a 100% winrate because you have the .4 part…". You tried to justify that by "if you do the math", but I literally did the math in the previous post which showed closer to ~70/30 winrates for Killer at 60% killrates, or ~50/25/25 if you include draws.
You ignored all the math and did none yourself, and are jumping hoops of logic to suit your narrative even when faced with hard evidence to the contrary. That's why everyone is thinking you are the one trolling. When you ignore what must happen to make an average to push the idea that 2K average means 3Ks and 4Ks CANNOT exist, then it is impossible for you to not be joking.
The problem is that every average is made up of many numbers.
No, again, the problem is that you don't know what an average is. Let's take 10 players in 10 matches, 5 of them do only 3Ks, the other 5 only 1Ks. The average kills per match is 2 survivors killed per match, which is a 50% kill rate per match on average, which again, means that killers draw their matches on average.
That's it. Anything else is product of your imagination.
You ignored all the math and did none yourself, and are jumping hoops of logic to suit your narrative even when faced with hard evidence to the contrary.
Funny, because that's what you guys are doing. Either because lack of knowledge, or simply because like you said doesn't fit your narrative.
And I'm done. At this point, you either understand it, or you simply not want to.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783233#Comment_3783233
Like, how hard is it to understand that if the average killrate is 2K, and a 2K is a draw, thenon averagekillers never win, as they draw? I mean, seriously. You guys are seriously not getting that...Because that's not what you've been arguing/stating. To go back to one of your earlier posts:
Why? Because of how the MMR works, only a 3K or more is a win for the killer, and survivors only need to escape themselves to win. Ergo, a 60% kill rate means a 40% win rateon average(I repeat:ON AVERAGEand I can't emphasize it more)In your most recent post you are using the phrase 'on average' to mean the most common result, but in the earlier you are using average to calculate a percentage (i.e. a mean). The concept of a winrate calls for a percentage, not a general statement. This is why saying things like 0% winrate are so non-sensical.
Beyond that, a 60% killrate is not needed to ensure parity. That's still wrong. Technically speaking, you could have a kill rate below 50% and still have a winrate above 50% based on game design (that's not true of DbD, but I'm back to pointing out the importance of uneven data sets).
In your most recent post you are using the phrase 'on average' to mean the most common result […] The concept of a winrate calls for a percentage, not a general statement
No, I'm using 'on average' because we are talking about averages. Averages that can be expressed as other averages, like a percentage win rate:
- 60% killrate on average = 2.4 survivors killed per match on average.
- A killer win is 3K, so 2.4 survivors killed per match on average = killers win 40% of the time approx on average.
Or:
- 50% killrate on average = 2 survivors killed per match on average.
- A killer doing a 2K is a draw, so 2 survivors killed per match on average = killers draw 100% of their games on average, or in other words, win 0% of their games on average.
Or (and this one is for you, @Firellius):
- 25% killrate on average = 1 survivors killed per match on average.
- A killer doing a 1K is a loss, so 1 survivors killed per match on average = killers lose 100% of their games on average, or in other words, win 0% of their games on average (no negative winrate, mate).
This is why saying things like 0% winrate are so non-sensical
It makes sense, but you either, again, don't understand what an average means, or you are simply refusing to accept what basic math and logic say. Simple as that.
Beyond that, a 60% killrate is not needed to ensure parity. That's still wrong. Technically speaking, you could have a kill rate below 50% and still have a winrate above 50% based on game design
The next phrase…
(that's not true of DbD, but I'm back to pointing out the importance of uneven data sets).
Now, let's forget you contradicted yourself for a moment, and please explain to me how you pretend to balance a game like DbD while granting everyone an equal chance of winning with just "uneven data sets" (which I'm going to guess are "kills distribution" in this case) when:
- The win conditions for both sides are completely asymmetrical.
- You can't directly compare skill levels of both sides, as they require completely different sets of skills and game sense.
- One side is a team of 4 players that can have different skill levels.
- That side is not even considered a team per win conditions, and each individual player in it will win or lose individually.
- You have 5 possible match outcomes, which define the wins or losses of 5 different players.
The answer is simple: You don't, you can't. Starting with not even having a reference to what would be a "balanced point". Because yes, if a killer is doing a lot of 3/4Ks we could assume he is "overperforming", but what would be the point it should be then? What combination of "Ks" in the kill distribution will make him "balanced"? How would you even guarantee that among all the players that use that killer the kill distribution will be even so he is balanced at any skill level? Etc.
So, even if "uneven data sets" can help identify if an individual killer needs balancing, it doesn't work in terms of overall balancing and will not help balance killers against survivors. That's why then we look at our win conditions, we notice that the common denominator is "kills", so we use an average kill rate as the target balancing point. And look at that, if you do the math it even provides a "sweet spot" that allows us to guarantee an equal chance of winning for both sides (60%, 2.4 survivors killed per match on average, 40% win rate on average) without even having to worry about skill levels, side, character used, or anything else.
When we reach that point, now we can use the kill distribution of each killer to balance those that are overperforming or underperforming until we get a balanced average (as again, multiple players with different skill levels will play the same characters, so part of the playerbase will get less than 60% kill rate, while the other will get more, or some will make more 3/4Ks, while others will make less. That's what an average means, by the way). But we can only do that once we have reached that target 60% killrate, and that is just what BHVR did.
So, there you go. At this point, if you don't understand it, it's on you.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783118#Comment_3783118
Median wouldn't work either, because if there's any winrate above 0%, the median could not be 0%. Runs into the same issue, effectively.
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783122#Comment_3783122
It could if you create a data set that just compromises three variables win/loss/draw. You could get a median result that is not 'win' and then mistakenly call that an average of 0% winrate.
But I'm just wildly guessing at possible logic at this point.
Like, how hard is it to understand that if the average killrate is 2K, and a 2K is a draw, then on average killers never win, as they draw? I mean, seriously. You guys are seriously not getting that...
-
@mizark3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783081#Comment_3783081
This is super tortured logic, but it is also flawed definitionally. 2K is a draw/tie, thus anything more than a 2K is a Killer win, and anything less is a Survivor win. If you want to use this backwards logic, then 100% of these 'theoretical average' 2.4K games are Killer wins, since 2.4>2.
If you don't concede or go back on this point, I have to assume you are just blatantly trolling.
Now "an average" is "super tortured logic" and trolling. My entity…
A 2K on average means that killers have a 0% win rate on average because there will be people that do more than that 2K and people that do less. That's why it is AN AVERAGE. It is pure, simple, basic math.
And yes, anything more than a 2K would be a win, as the MMR win conditions state that a 3K is a win, but no, anything less won't be a survivor win because survivors have their own win conditions, and that's one of the reasons why BHVR doesn't deal with win rates or pure kill distributions, because then it will be impossible to balance the game between killers and survivors thanks to the total and complete asymmetrical nature of it.
And no, a "2.4K" on average won't mean a 100% winrate because you have the ".4" part, and if you do the math, it means that killers get a 3K about 40% of the time on average, and that's why a 60% kill rate / 2.4 survivors killed per match on average means a 40% win rate for both sides on average.
Seriously, I'd pay to see how some people's brains work.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782960#Comment_3782960
I don't think he does understand, because the way he responded shows he really does not.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782970#Comment_3782970
And what more data do you need to calculate that a 60% killrate
on averagemeans 2.4 survivors killed per match
on average? Because the only thing you are proving here is that you also don't know what an average means.
You keep dodging this!
Imma just spell it out, all the way through for you.
The way YOU, specifically, calculate winrates from killrates here also mandates a 0% average winrate from any killrate under 50%. You have admitted as much yourself.
Now, you calculate an average by taking all the numbers in a data-set and adding them together, then dividing them by the count of numbers in that data-set.
In order for an average to be zero, one of the following two MUST be true:
- The dataset contains negative values.
- There is no value other than zero to be counted in the dataset.
Since we're talking about winrates here, and it is obviously impossible for winrates to be -negative-, the second rule MUST be true if you want to reach an average of 0.
So when you claim that, by the method you use, a kill-rate of 40% would result in a 0% average winrate, you are, by mathematical definition, claiming that within that dataset, there is not a single winrate above 0%, which would require that not a single match ended in a 3K or higher.
So for example: 1000 matches at 40% killrate, meaning 1600 survivors killed, according to your model, can not possibly include ANY match where 3 or 4 survivors were killed.
Because if there's even ONE match with a 3 or 4K, SOMEONE in that dataset has a winrate above zero, which means that the average winrate can no longer be zero.
Do you understand this?
Except 50% killrate is 2 survivors killed per match on average, and because a win is 3K or more, that means a 0% winrate on average. In other words, that 0% is not the result of doing the average of kill rates, as you are saying.
That you are trying to give anyone lessons when you have proved again and again that you don't understand even the most basic math is outstanding.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782970#Comment_3782970
And what more data do you need to calculate that a 60% killrateon averagemeans 2.4 survivors killed per matchon average? Because the only thing you are proving here is that you also don't know what an average means.Then explain. Multiple people in the thread are laying out why you are incorrect and you're just saying 'you don't get what an average' means.
The funny thing for me is that you are, again, trying to fight math with "how to get equal win rates in reality"I don't care if win rates are equal or not. That's a game design decision. I'm saying your 'math' doesn't make sense.
Then explain to me, again, how having a 60% killrate would "keep matches relatively even" in comparison with a 50% killrate, according to the devs own words?The relatively even is why not make it 70% for an uber horror theme. Your missing both the word relatively and the second portion of the sentence.
Then explain. Multiple people in the thread are laying out why you are incorrect and you're just saying 'you don't get what an average' means.
Because every single one of you proved that you don't know what "on average" means. Not only that, you don't even have a grasp of why dealing with averages is needed in this game and not "real kills distribution" for overall balancing.
So, what do I have to explain? Why you don't need any more data than what has already been mentioned to make an average?
I don't care if win rates are equal or not. That's a game design decision. I'm saying your 'math' doesn't make sense.
What doesn't make sense is this response to what you are quoting. But again, the kill distribution doesn't have anything to do with the average kill rate, or better said, the kill distribution doesn't contradict the math and logic behind the killrate in any way. That's what you people still don't understand, and that's why you keep using it as an argument to try and fight math itself.
The relatively even is why not make it 70% for an uber horror theme. Your missing both the word relatively and the second portion of the sentence.
And talking about not making sense. But the reason to not make it 70% is that then it won't be "relatively even", it would be killer sided. It is so hard to understand?
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782829#Comment_3782829
If you explain to me why that is relevant to the part confirming the math for the 60% killrate, I will update the picture with it included in the underline, as that is the only reason I didn't do it.Sure, I'm a glutton for punishment so I'll dive into the math argument. Let me go back a few posts of yours
So, if we do the math, lead to an average of 2.4 survivors killed, meaning thatON AVERAGEandMATHEMATICALLY SPEAKING(as in reality, getting to an equal 40/40% winrate is more complicated than simply getting to that killrate) survivors "win" 40% of their matches on average and killers 40% of theirsYour math is wrong because you are setting up the wrong problem. Your 'on average' argument presumes an even distribution of game outcomes, which isn't true. The game is skewed to the extremes, 4ks and 0ks, with 2ks being less common and 4ks being by far the most common result. So you can't have a presumption that you need a 60% kill rate because 20% of the games are going to be draws, its the extreme results that are more common, so to get a 60% kill rate you need more 4ks.
As has been pointed out in other threads, you can get to a 60% kill rate with radically different win rates (as high as 80% and as low as 20%. There's no 'average' that is relevant to the discussion here, we have to look at real world data for what the results of the games tend to be.
So when you say 'mathematically speaking' you don't have enough data to arrive at a mathematical conclusion.
Put a different way, the average kill rate is very different than the average game outcome.
While it varies from killer to killer based on how snowbally they are, I'd put a 60% killer rate at around 45% to 55% win rate for killers, 10 to 15% draw rate, and the rest losses.
I think you're misreading what the devs have said. They want the killers to have a higher kill rate because they want killers to feel strong and win more (correctly, in my opinion, because they value theme/fun over balance - they also have other reasons not directly related here).
So when you say 'mathematically speaking' you don't have enough data to arrive at a mathematical conclusion.
And what more data do you need to calculate that a 60% killrate on average means 2.4 survivors killed per match on average? Because the only thing you are proving here is that you also don't know what an average means.
The funny thing for me is that you are, again, trying to fight math with "how to get equal win rates in reality" without realizing first that any other killrate would make it mathematically impossible to achieve equality because of how MMR win conditions work (more than 60% killrate, survivors would always lose more on average, less than that, and killers would lose more on average). Second, that you have precisely pointed out the part where I said:
[…] as in reality, getting to an equal 40/40% winrate is more complicated than simply getting to that killrate
But again, keep trying to fight basic math, it will never get old!
I think you're misreading what the devs have said. They want the killers to have a higher kill rate because they want killers to feel strong and win more
Then explain to me, again, how having a 60% killrate would "keep matches relatively even" in comparison with a 50% killrate, according to the devs own words? Because I think it is pretty clear taking in count the phrasing:
"[…] a 50% kill rate would mean they kill two Survivors per match on average" ⇒ "We try to keep Killers near a 60% kill rate on average to keep matches relatively even"
Ergo, a 60% means more survivors killed per match on average (2.4 to be exact), which means killers now win as much as survivors, which makes "matches relatively even". It's not rocket science, it's basic math and logic.
Either way, you didn't explain why that second part is relevant to the 60% killrate and the math behind it, so I'm going to keep it out of the underline.
@mizark3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782821#Comment_3782821
I'm sorry, but read the rest of the sentence that you didn't underline: "… AND (emphasis mine) support the horror theme of the game, where the Killer is a force to be reckoned with and the survival is not guaranteed."
So the first part that you underlined is to say 'hey it needs to be close', and the second part is saying 'but it does need to be favored for Killer'.
Now personally I don't take issue with the game being designed around being Killer sided, as long as Survivors are designed to have fun even while losing. My major pain points here are bleedouts, and Survivors Kobing on hook (to die) since that is favored over DCing to give a bot. Rats are too much of a gray zone, since you can rat for the benefit of the team or detriment of the team (eg. death hook hiding or never hooked hiding respectively).
So the first part that you underlined is to say 'hey it needs to be close', and the second part is saying 'but it does need to be favored for Killer'.
But that's the thing, if you do the math and see what they are saying, 60% killrate is not only pretty close, it is in fact the only killrate that allows for an equal winrate mathematically speaking (as again, getting to an equal 40/40% winrate is more complicated than simply having the killrate at 60%, but it can't be achieved without it being 60%).
But hey, if you want to focus on that second part that they probably said because they would never talk about MMR or win conditions directly, I will apply to you the BHVR go-to answer: Whatever makes you happy.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782815#Comment_3782815
There's literally a post from Peanits copied in this thread saying they don't talk about 'win rates' because wins are subjective. Direct dev statement outweighs community wiki.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782821#Comment_3782821
I'm trying to avoid the math discussion because that's been done to death, but you're not underlining the portion of the sentence about maintaining the horror theme of the game.
There's literally a post from Peanits copied in this thread saying they don't talk about 'win rates' because wins are subjective. Direct dev statement outweighs community wiki.
And I already explained the reason why he said that: Because the MMR win conditions don't translate to in-game mechanics or rewards (escaping through hatch is a draw for survivors in MMR terms, but in-game it counts exactly as an exit-gate escape, with the exact same rewards).
Ergo, you can consider a win whatever you want in-game, but we were talking about the MMR system, and the MMR system has its own hard-coded win conditions, which are those described in the wiki, which are the same ones they disclosed in the day in a stream where they presented the MMR system but updated through official statements and data mining.
I'm trying to avoid the math discussion because that's been done to death, but you're not underlining the portion of the sentence about maintaining the horror theme of the game.
If you explain to me why that is relevant to the part confirming the math for the 60% killrate, I will update the picture with it included in the underline, as that is the only reason I didn't do it.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782526#Comment_3782526
Ergo, a 60% kill rate means a 40% win rate
on average(I repeat:
ON AVERAGEand I can't emphasize it more)
This remains as incorrect as the last twenty-odd times you insisted on it. This is not how the killrate-winrate connection works.
I will keep correcting you so long as you keep spreading this misinformation.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782565#Comment_3782565
If the survival rate were 60%, which would mean an average of 1.6 survivors killed per match, guess what? That would mean a winrate of 0% on average for killers as again, a win for the killer is 3K.
How did you state that 40% kill rate = 0% average winrate and still not figure out that your assumption about how these figures work is wrong?
Like… It's right there. Staring you in the face.
You are literally stating here that in a dataset with a 40% killrate, not a single match can have ended in a 3K or higher. Does that not ring a bell for you that maybe you're wrong about the relation between kill rates and win rates?
You still don't know what "on average" means, obviously. Even after all the times it has been explained to you. Thankfully, BHVR does, and look at that! They say the exact same thing I had been saying all along:
I will keep correcting you so long as you keep spreading this misinformation.
And you will keep being wrong and trying to fight basic math without even understanding it.
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782565#Comment_3782565
You're wrong - where you've gone wrong is that you fail to realize [the average of] [all the results] is not the same thing as [the average result]
Read above.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782650#Comment_3782650
But you're prioritizing a community created wiki above things that the devs have actually said.
You can view a 2k as a draw. You can also view it as the equivalent of a sports team that went 2 and 2 over 4 four games. None of the results were a draw, but they have an even .500 record.
The "community created" wiki is supported by BHVR and is a compilation of official sources and data mining the game. So, it is probably the most accurate data about DbD that you will find.
-
@Moonras2 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782662#Comment_3782662
Yw. I found something I didn't know in your link. It kind of throws it all out of whack because it seems to further separate solo and swf as far as MMR goes. Instead of just basing swf and solo off how a team performs. They treat them seperate.
Team-based MMR
If Survivors queue up together with friends, playing as a group (Survive with Friends), their final MMR score is influenced by what happened to the other Survivors queueing up with them:
- For each team mate that escapes:
- Increased gains towards MMR upon escaping.
- Reduced losses towards MMR upon dying.
- For each team mate that dies:
- Reduced gains towards MMR upon escaping.
- Increased losses towards MMR upon dying.
This was implemented to counter situations in which team mates sacrificed themselves for the survival of the others and were punished for their altruism by the Skill-Based Matchmaking Rating.
That's the closest thing to a "team" mechanic the game has, and as far as I understand it, it only affects the quantity of MMR you would gain and lose. Meaning, if you die but your SWF escapes, you still lose MMR, but less. So, the normal MMR win conditions for survivors still apply.
In my opinion, it should work for all the team, not just those survivors in SWF, and with the in-game rewards as well, to promote cooperation between survivors. The more survivors that escape a match, the more BP and experience you gain. But some people argued that then you would depend on others not losing, which would lead to toxicity... so, I guess survivors will keep being a team in name only.
- For each team mate that escapes:
-
@doobiedo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782589#Comment_3782589
This is a really good point and just another argument for why Woo should be basekit. Why do killers get to see where just 8 generators are basekit but survivors can't see literally the ONLY THING that can help them escape the killer in chase. The guy arguing above that Survivors are bad unless they go around memorizing every pallet is just insane. I guess Killers are bad if they can't memorize where just 8 generators are?
Except generators and chases are two different parts of the game that have nothing to do with each other. The generator aura equivalent of WoO would be Déjà vu, and nobody is complaining of that perk allowing survivors to see the closest 3 gen aura all the match.
But I tell you what, I'm totally ok with only showing the aura of generators for a limited time at the start of the match if WoO is reworked in the same way: It shows all the pallets and windows in the map for 20 seconds at the start, and then deactivates. What do you think?
-
@Moonras2 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782612#Comment_3782612
Sorry to double post, this was it.
"We try to keep Killers near a 60% kill rate on average to keep matches relatively even and support the horror theme of the game, where the Killer is a force to be reckoned with and the survival is not guaranteed."
So it's to keep matches even and for the horror.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/433
"For example, a 50% kill rate would mean they kill two Survivors per match on average. We try to keep Killers near a 60% kill rate on average to keep matches relatively even"
And the matches are more even because a 50% killrate on average means Killer draw all matches while survivors win 50% of the time, so it needs to be 60% so killers win almost as much as survivors. In other words, what we have been saying by doing the math.
I never saw that post, so thanks for sharing it!
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782612#Comment_3782612
per MMR win conditionsBut if you're defining win/loss only off MMR gain/loss, then the trial isn't one game, it's four matches. 2 kills and 2 escapes isn't a 'draw', its two wins and two losses.
If want to define win/loss by MMR increase/decrease, kill rate and win rate are identical.
That's for the survivors, as the survivors win condition is individual, meaning that if you escape but your 3 teammates die, you have won and they have lost. Devs explained it as being "1/1/1/1v1" in the day.
However, for the killer, this is not the case. For the killer it is still a 1v4 and just as explained in the wiki, a loss is 0K or 1K, a draw is 2K, and a win is 3K or 4K.
Taking this into account, in the case you described: Two survivors won, two lost, and the killer draw in terms of MMR.
-
@Moonras2 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782526#Comment_3782526
I just wanted to repost these. They are a little old now and things could've changed. Maybe Peanits could clarify this again to see if there are updates on this.
Sorry I don't know how to quote between threads. This was all quoted from Peanits. The first quote was just a general response to the thread creator I think. But the second and third quotes were direct responses to other members. So I would check out the thread for full context. From this thread.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3591335#Comment_3591335
Quotes from Peanits
1st Quote
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3591335#Comment_3591335
2nd Quote
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3591344#Comment_3591344
3rd Quote
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3591596#Comment_3591596
If I have to guess, he is saying that in Quote 1 because the MMR win conditions don't show in-game at all, and most of the community don't want the game to become "competitive" (even if it already is by design) as they consider it a "party game". So, their go-to answer in this cases is "whatever makes you happy".
Because yes, they have never stated that "60% killrate = 50% winrate" (which is wrong) or why exactly they want the killrate to be 60% as far as I know, but what they have in fact stated in the past is that it is their target killrate. So, if we do the math, lead to an average of 2.4 survivors killed, meaning that ON AVERAGE and MATHEMATICALLY SPEAKING (as in reality, getting to an equal 40/40% winrate is more complicated than simply getting to that killrate) survivors "win" 40% of their matches on average and killers 40% of theirs (technically, as if I have to guess again, one of the reasons they don't talk about winrates is that their win conditions are, to put it lightly, flawed and don't translate to in-game rewards) per MMR win conditions. Conditions that they also disclosed in the day while explaining the MMR system, and are documented in the wiki (Skill-Based Matchmaking Rating).
But hey, if you don't agree… whatever makes you happy.
-
@Ilikechips said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782526#Comment_3782526
More whataboutism to justify having the side you like be easier so endorphin release can be achieved.
Kill rate means 60% of survivors die, over all matches (that means killer is wildly easy to win with).
You lot never talk about a fair match, it's always "but a 3k means win for the killer", it's never 50% is a draw and fair for both sides. It shows your bias before you put out the magical mafematics theory.
If the survival rate was 60% you would be livid with the state of the game.
If the survival rate were 60%, which would mean an average of 1.6 survivors killed per match, guess what? That would mean a winrate of 0% on average for killers as again, a win for the killer is 3K. That's why it needs to be 40%, so both sides could be able to get to a 40% winrate on average, mathematically speaking.
It's not something we are just saying to "justify our bias", it is how the MMR system works ( ) and the reason why the devs want it to be 60% killrate. If you don't understand it or like it, is your problem.
-
@Cypherius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3781917#Comment_3781917
This is what is simply not true. First, because not all SWF play like a SWAT team that shares every single movement they make, and second, because it allows anyone, no matter if it is a good looper or not, to make informed decisions everytime removing any possibility of making a mistake.
The only Swfs that can be argued to be too strong are the ones that play like a SWAT team. So we go back to the previous argument. The strong swfs don't need the perk and the casual ones that play like solos with no coordination are not strong or over performing regardless of WoO.
Besides: going to a dead zone because someone else wasted all the pallets in that area is not a mistake from the person currently being chased. Its bad luck and lack of coordination (something Solo queue has no control over). Using WoO to remove that aspect of bad luck does not make the perk overpowered. If anything removing that aspect of luck makes the chase more skill based.
That's precisely the problem, that's why the "it is an accessibility option for new players" argument is not valid , because it also gives value to those good loopers that now can loop the killer from pallet to pallet without ever entering a death zone by mistake. That's why it should be nerfed.
I am not making the accessibility argument. Merely pointing out that skilled players don't need the perk and get minimal benefit from it. Nerfing WoO is only going to get a substantial result in the low levels of skill. And survivors are already struggling there. That would be bad balancing.
Except, again, it allows unskilled players to:
Not having to memorize where pallets spawn
Not having to memorize where unused pallets are
Not having to plan their escape in case the killer finds them in a gen
Not even having to know how to loop, as they can go from pallet to pallet predropping it and still make the killer lose a lot of time
A good player knows where pallets spawn without a perk telling them and can instead use that perk slot for something else entirely. Simply knowing what pallets where used is not strong enough to justify a nerf.
Simply pre dropping as soon as you get to the pallet does not buy much time unless its a god pallet or a bad killer. That used to be effective back when most maps where filled with super safe pallets but that is not the case anymore.
"That while, again, allowing skilled players to never make a mistake in term of pathing and what loop to play, as they will always know what loops still has a pallet."
Knowing where loops are is not the same as knowing how to play them. How to checkspot them. How to mindgame them. How to correctly run them . And once again: predropping as soon as you get to a pallet is not efficient. Good players will buy much more time than someone that is just running to yellow with WoO.
The only Swfs that can be argued to be too strong are the ones that play like a SWAT team.
Because if a team of 4 people only says "The killer is going to where you are, get out of there!" and does not transmit any other info, they don't have a great advantage over SoloQ, of course…
In other words, everything you said here is, again, simply not true.
[…] Using WoO to remove that aspect of bad luck does not make the perk overpowered. If anything removing that aspect of luck makes the chase more skill based.
That's like saying that in a poker match, allowing some players to know what the next card in the deck is to remove any luck factor and make all their decisions informed would not be overpowered, when it is a huge advantage.
"Bad luck" is part of the game. Deciding your path while taking into account that you could end up in a dead zone is part of being good and skilled at the game. Something that allows you to remove any luck from the game and not make a single wrong decision is powerful by definition. That's why SWF with voicecoms are considered too strong to begin with.
So, explain to me how a perk that allows you to do that without any cost and while being alone is not overpowered. In fact, we can argue that SWF has a bigger cost and drawback than WoO, as you need at least another person, for them to be able to use meta communications, and that he has enough game sense to transmit useful information when he must.
I am not making the accessibility argument.
Never said you were.
Merely pointing out that skilled players don't need the perk and get minimal benefit from it.
And I already pointed out why that's a lie, and they get pretty much the same value from it, which in their hands is a huge advantage in comparison to someone who doesn't have the skill to use the info that the perk provides yet.
Nerfing WoO is only going to get a substantial result in the low levels of skill. And survivors are already struggling there. That would be bad balancing.
Again, bad balancing is having a perk that is a substitute for a whole part of the game sense required to do well at the game. If they nerf a perk and suddenly you can't do good, then the problem was first that the perk was too strong and, most importantly, that you relied on it instead of developing the required skill. In other words, it's on you.
A good player knows where pallets spawn without a perk telling them and can instead use that perk slot for something else entirely.
And? That doesn't contradict anything that has been said, especially all the things that you are not required to do anymore just by using it.
Simply knowing what pallets where used is not strong enough to justify a nerf.
No, but knowing where every single not used pallet are on chase is. Again, WoO should be a tool to allow you to plan your pathing and escapes on top of having the game sense to do that on the first place. You should be memorizing every pallet you see while moving around the map, and even the hint system tell you that when the match is loading.
The problem with WoO is that it allows you to simply forget about all that, as you will have that info on the fly the moment a chase happens. That's the part that should be nerfed.
Simply pre dropping as soon as you get to the pallet does not buy much time unless its a god pallet or a bad killer. That used to be effective back when most maps where filled with super safe pallets but that is not the case anymore.
And again, that's simply not true. Most loops are simply "circles" that don't require a lot of knowledge or skill to be played, and the moment the pallet is dropped it becomes a safe loop while removing any possibility of mind gaming for the killer, leaving him with two options:
- Break the pallet, which will make the survivor simply go to the next one (without any chance of choosing wrong and going to a loop without a pallet, thanks to WoO).
- Brute force it, which will waste a lot of time just by running in circles and even more if the survivor has a minimum game sense and fake pallet vaults and such.
Either way, you are wasting a good amount of the killer's time, especially at the start of the match where there are another 3 survivors doing gens and every single pallet that the map could have spawned. "But if that happens, a good killer would drop the chase and find another survivor." True, but that doesn't change the fact that you effectively wasted his time, whether it was 30 seconds or 90.
In short, you are wrong. The strategy is still good unless you go to an unsafe loop (which means that even with the pallet dropped is not safe) or a loop without a pallet, and WoO allows you to do this strategy perfectly without any possibility of making that bad decision. That's why this is another problem of WoO.
Knowing where loops are is not the same as knowing how to play them. How to checkspot them. How to mindgame them. How to correctly run them
But if you know how to play them, how to checkspot them, how to mindgame them, etc., being able to perfectly path to those loops that are still safe thanks to the pallet and never, ever get to a dead zone by choosing wrong without having to pay attention to your surroundings or remembering where those pallets are is a huge (and unfair) advantage. That's the point, and why this is another of the problems with WoO.
And once again: predropping as soon as you get to a pallet is not efficient.
Wrong, as we already saw.
Good players will buy much more time than someone that is just running to yellow with WoO.
Nobody is saying the contrary. But this doesn't change the fact that WoO also allows someone who is not a good player to buy a lot of time, as it removes the need for:
- Not having to memorize where pallets spawn.
- Not having to memorize where unused pallets are.
- Not having to plan their escape in case the killer finds them in a gen.
- Not even having to know how to loop, as they can go from pallet to pallet predropping it, wasting the killer's time.
While allowing those that are good players to buy even more time, by:
- Removing any luck in your decisions by making every single one informed.
Which allows perfect pathing between loops on chase, removing any possibility of making a mistake.
In conclusion: All advantages at any skill level, no cost, no drawback, not even the need to have a minimum game sense already developed to get value from it. It should be nerfed so you cannot use it in chase, so it became a tool to easily see where pallets and windows are to remember them and plan paths without it being an autopilot perk that replaces good game sense. Simple as that.
-
@Ilikechips said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782250#Comment_3782250
53% kill rates are a little killer sided.
65% means that killer is baby mode easy and survivor is a waste of time.
Oh, hell, here we go again…
65% is what is "little killer sided". 53% is "little survivor sided". 60% is balanced.
Why? Because of how the MMR works, only a 3K or more is a win for the killer, and survivors only need to escape themselves to win. Ergo, a 60% kill rate means a 40% win rate on average (I repeat: ON AVERAGE and I can't emphasize it more) on both sides, and is the only mathematical way to be able to achieve equal win rates for killers and survivors. That's why it is the kill rate the devs aim for.
If you want more info, search in the forum one of the 100 times it has been explained.
-
@Cypherius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3781896#Comment_3781896
and it provides the exact same value to new players that don't even know what to do, as to those god loopers that now know where every single pallet is so they would never, ever make a mistake.
This is simply not true. There is a lot more to looping than simply knowing where pallets are. Furthermore good players know where pallets can spawn and don't need help from a perk. The only substantial benefit WoO gives to good loopers is knowing which pallets where used by other players, a benefit that is only relevant to Solo Queue.
Windows is not a replacement to skill. You could argue its used as a crutch by unskilled players but why does it matter? Unskilled players are not hard to chase regardless of WoO.
Nerfing WoO would be a benefit to the good players that still use this perk, as it would encourage them to drop it and use a better perk instead. But would be very detrimental to less skilled players that don't have a good grasp on tile generation and pallet spawns.
The only substantial benefit WoO gives to good loopers is knowing which pallets where used by other players, a benefit that is only relevant to Solo Queue.
This is what is simply not true. First, because not all SWF play like a SWAT team that shares every single movement they make, and second, because it allows anyone, no matter if it is a good looper or not, to make informed decisions everytime removing any possibility of making a mistake.
That's precisely the problem, that's why the "it is an accessibility option for new players" argument is not valid , because it also gives value to those good loopers that now can loop the killer from pallet to pallet without ever entering a death zone by mistake. That's why it should be nerfed.
Windows is not a replacement to skill. You could argue its used as a crutch by unskilled players but why does it matter? Unskilled players are not hard to chase regardless of WoO.
Except, again, it allows unskilled players to:
- Not having to memorize where pallets spawn
- Not having to memorize where unused pallets are
- Not having to plan their escape in case the killer finds them in a gen
- Not even having to know how to loop, as they can go from pallet to pallet predropping it and still make the killer lose a lot of time
That while, again, allowing skilled players to never make a mistake in term of pathing and what loop to play, as they will always know what loops still has a pallet.
Nerfing WoO would be a benefit to the good players that still use this perk, as it would encourage them to drop it and use a better perk instead. But would be very detrimental to less skilled players that don't have a good grasp on tile generation and pallet spawns.
And that's how it should be. Again, WoO should be a help on top of having the good game sense to do all the things I listed before, allowing you to have "X-Rays" and be able to plan with a lot more info that you would normally have by just looking, not a substitute to that game sense so "less skilled players" don't have the need to "have a good grasp on tile generation and pallet spawn", among other things.
-
@TieBreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3781896#Comment_3781896
Ah yes, I didn't list every thing that affects balance in a fighting game, therefore I know nothing. Of course. Well done.
It's a balance issue? It's the most popular perk in the game, and yet killers are doing great. So how is it breaking the balance of the game?
It doesn't matter if it stops players from reaching their highest potential. It's a game. If it helps new players, players with lmited time available and players with issues related to memory, then great. It benefits players and comes at the cost of them not reaching the peak of their skill. It's a worth while trade.
You used the difficulty of playing a character in a fighting game to argue about its accessibility, like it is the only factor that affects the skill and knowledge requirements of it. So yes, you know nothing.
And I already explained why it is a balance issue: Because it removes any need to develop the minimum game sense required to do well in the game while allowing those that have it to never make a mistake, as all their decisions are informed ones, which ends up being unfair. Ergo, a balance issue.
It is not only a help to new players, it is a substitute for game sense at any level, and that's the problem. That's why it needs to be nerfed to a point where it is just a help for the survivor, not a forever "worth while trade" without any cost or drawback.
-
@TieBreaker said:
Should every fighting game character be extremely complex, so that it's a real match of skill every time? No. Why? Because not everyone has the luxury of devoting thousands of hours to a game, so there needs to be less skill intensive options for players who have a job, children, a life. Not to mention that it's a ******* computer game. It's not a broken perk, your perception that you are using skill and your opponent is on autopilot is the problem. If you want to sweat go ahead, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to follow suit.
Removing accessibility options out of spite is ridiculous.
The fact that you think that the only complexity of a fighting game (the genre that is almost impossible to play in a casual manner precisely because of the time investment, skill and knowledge gaining needed) is knowing how your character works says everything.
And the problem is not having "accessibility options" (which in this case, is hidden behind a DLC character without any possibility for new players to even knowing it exist… so accessible), but having options that remove any need for developing any game sense or skill entirely. In fact, the problem that SF6 "Auto" mode has is that it allows you to do pretty damaging combos with just the push of a couple of buttons and without having to worry about hit confirm or timing, which makes it impossible to ever drop them, and that's why it was complained about. In contrast, Tekken 7's combo assist never bothered anybody because yeah, it allows you to make a 1-button combo, but the combos you can do with it are at most decent, allowing you to play the game when you don't know anything about it until you are ready to make the jump on learning how to really play the game.
So, even if WoO were an "accessibility tool" (which it isn't, starting with what has already been said and not even being available to new players), it is broken because it removes any need to develop a great part of the game sense necessary to be a decent survivor (remembering pallets, planning escape paths, etc.) and it provides the exact same value to new players that don't even know what to do, as to those god loopers that now know where every single pallet is so they would never, ever make a mistake.
So, it is not "out of spite", it is for obvious balance reasons.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3781668#Comment_3781668
No, you said specifially autopilot, which would mean that those Survivors are not good, because otherwise they would not need a Perk which puts them on autopilot. Yet you specifically mentioned good Survivors.
And nah, I dont care about WoO. I care about Killers who struggle with the game and try to nerf everything instead of trying to improve. But WoO? I am not running it and if they would nerf it, it would only be good for me since I play against it when playing Killer.
No reason for me to downplay anything.
What you are doing is asking why a good driver would ever drive an automatic if they know how to drive a manual, when the answer is simple: Because it is easier and effortless.
Good survivors maybe don't "need" an autopilot perk, but they use it anyway because it is a substitute for good game sense, removing any need to be aware of your surroundings, memorizing where pallets are, or planning an "escape route" in case the killer finds you, without any drawback or cost. This is why it is the most useful and powerful survivor perk, and consequently, the most used even by those "good survivors" (who maybe are not that good without it).
WoO should be an aid on top of having that good game sense, not a substitute for it. It should grant you the ability to check where the pallets are and plan your pathing from a distance without granting the possibility of just forgetting about all of it and press W to go from pallet to pallet when you are on chase. In other words, it needs a cooldown, and preferably one that doesn't fill after you drop your first pallet or vault your first window when you are in chase.
And by the way, the irony of complaining about "killers that don't want to improve" while "not caring" about one of the perks that removes any need for improvement from survivors is incredible.
-
@bjorksnas said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3780947#Comment_3780947
The image doesn't prove anything and the pro player is going to win more often because they are better, the statistics are too narrow and too unsupported to be applied to the masses
Even best case scenario its just interesting statistics assuming everything lines up but its nothing to balance the game around for either side of the argument in either case
First, sorry, I quoted you by mistake. Second, the escape rate was not only the escapes of the "pro player", but his whole team of randoms in those 50 SoloQ games.
Even tho, I agree with your last statement.
-
Image with numbers written in it about a killer doing great without any source or explanation: Aha! This totally proves that killers are OP. Stop with the propaganda already, killer mains!
Pro player playing 50 SoloQ games live in stream and getting a 65.5% escape rate among all survivors by playing well and as a teammate: This is proof of nothing because * insert twisted logic here *…
Another day in the DbD community.
-
@malloymk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3779025#Comment_3779025
For real though. Weird flex by OP, be if it makes him happy so be it I guess.
The best part is that it is not even a good strat… Bloodwarden with Tombstone? What?
-
@mikaaareid said:
I’m sure if you play only as killer you are. Survivors not so much. Here are some reasons why the game is not fun anymore for survivors.
- The only way for survivors to escape from the killers are pallets and perks. Survs gets hit through pallets and windows, if the killer is lagged, wow, getting hit from miles way is a laughter situation. There are not enough pallets in maps and maps are currently filled and filled with dead zones. So, if survs don’t have pallets or perks we go down. Going through windows we get hit or down, no matter how far we are on the other side. We get hit or down through pallets while stunning the killer and being on the other side. Hitbox is just horrible, it doesn’t exist 99% of times.
- We don’t have good perks anymore. There’ no metas because there are no perks that are good anymore. The ones that were good were nerfed and are now dead. If we play without perks is the same thing as playing with them. Killers on the other hand have perks for EVERTHING! Gens, auras, noeds, whatever, they have everything. We can’t even hide anymore because they see auras 95% of the time. The fun is basically a game of hide and seek, which it was when the game began 8 years ago. It’s not that anymore. You can stand still on the far corner of the map and the killer will still find you. Good luck, right?
- So, when survs don’t have speed, perks, pallets, hitbox, killers have perks with instadowns, bloodlust, teleportations, long distance itens or powers while being 3 times faster than survs. While survs have what? Exhaustation for minutes on end if we use an exhaustion perk. I don’t even use it anymore, I’m going down either way. The killer will catch up in a matter of seconds.
- Toxic killers that tunnels til death while having 5 gens. Survs don’t have perks good enough for anti-tunneling anymore because the game is pro tunneling, it must be. Killers leaving survs to die of bleeding out while humping their bodies. There is no option to just “give up” while being on the ground. We are obligaded to watch and wait for MINUTES! All of this because toxic people want to show how good they are, while having extra speed, perks, add-ons and instadowns.
- If you have any fun on this game is when playing killer or sometimes surv with friends. Solo queues are just unplayeable, which most surv players play. I don’t have friends that can play with me for hours on end, which leaves me to solo queues most of the time. After I die an anough amount of times I just give up. Behaviour it seems doesn’t care about survs anymore, everything is killer sided. The only good perks we had got nerfed and killers are only getting buffed in all updates I see. It’s a shame really, because I like the characters, the mechanics of the game, but I don’t see Behaviour doing much.
- If I’m a survivor I will do everything I can to survive, so why deadhard, DS and other perks got nerfed? We have more than 50 survivors, triple the perks and only 1% are usable right now. It’s really sad indeed.
Now, name one thing, one thing at all that benefit survs? You’ll get a prize! :)
I’m sure if you play only as killer you are. Survivors not so much.
Funny, because I had been a killer main since I started playing, and the last few months I had been playing almost exclusively survivor, as with the latest changes in perks and such, playing killer had become extremely stressful to play again.
Now, name one thing, one thing at all that benefit survs? You’ll get a prize! :)
You are 4. The moment survivors start playing as a team and coordinate a little so they benefit from the numeric advantage, there is little the killer can do unless he has a good build with the "correct" perks for him to gain some more time to do what he must.
What have I won?
-
@Tyler3 said:
You're probably thinking "what?". Hear me out. I made a post yesterday:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/423596/how-do-you-escape-in-this-situation
And it got people a little riled up about something. 'Are survivors a team?'
@Ayodam commented this:
"Survivors are not a team like in Apex Legends, Overwatch, or similar team-focused games. They’re four players with the same goal. This is why why survivors are graded individually at the end of each trial (MMR and pipping). It’s why survivors are rewarded individually at the end of each trial (blood points & EXP awarded). The devs have repeatedly stated this; survivors can help one another or play for themselves and both are absolutely legitimate strategies this game. Both can lead to individual victory, which is what survivors are graded on and rewarded for by every available metric we have.
What survivors are, are resources for one another. Just like pallets and perks that can be used to help individual escape efforts. At the end of the day, to spell it out plainly, teams profit and lose together; not individually. When you die in trial I’m not punished as I glide through the exit gates. I’ll gain MMR and pip regardless of what happened to you. You will earn less BPs and may not pip at all. When depipping was a thing, you might have that happen to you. But these consequences that you face wouldn’t affect me or any other survivor who escaped at all.
Killer mains have this xK = win or loss nonsense. And maybe for you all it works. But it doesn’t apply to survivors. Survivors don’t win or lose collectively, per the metrics BHVR has established in their game. For survivors trials are technically a ([1v1v1v1)] v1."
Ultimately, most survivors are out for themselves and everybody else is expendable. A survivor, if they wanted, could drop pallets on teammates, purposefully fail skill checks and even blind other survivors with flashbangs to try to get them killed, all so that they can escape. In a way, they'd be working with the killer. Does this mean they're on the killer's team?
In certain scenarios, a survivor's biggest threat is other survivors. Like stated above, Trials are technically a 1v1v1v1v1. At the end of the day, the survivors' goal is to escape, no matter what. Even if that means getting your teammates killed doing so. This all begs the question, are survivors a team?
Well, everything you said there is correct, so you answered yourself: In terms of MMR and rewards, survivors are not a team. If you die but your other 3 teammates escape, they'll win against the killer, but you still lose.
Ironically, if you want to have the best chance of survival, you have to play as if you were in one.
-
Of course it needs a nerf. For yesterday. But everytime someone brings the topic up, people say:
- It is a perk for new players, even if it is behind a DLC survivor and most people who just started playing the game would not even know the perk exists.
- It is not useful when you learn the maps, but you will see it mainly when you reach high MMR. There are a lot of people who still don't know the maps after hundreds of hours, apparently.
- You still need to know how to loop, even if most people who use WoO would just simply press W and go from pallet to pallet.
- Won't somebody please think of the SoloQ survivors!!!???... even if most SWF would mostly only inform of killer shack and most people would still use it even in a group.
- It is not that strong and not that many people use it, even if it has a 35.49% use in Nightlight (the most used survivor perk right now), and you see at least 3 per match most of the time.
Taking in count this and the cries when they just changed the description by accident, I don't see BHVR nerfing it.
-
@Smoe said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3760003#Comment_3760003
Except Core DBD is doing a decent enough job at making brutal moris as well while remaining true to the characters themselves, so i don't think there is any need to look to mobile moris in general. Not to mention that not all moris needs to be flashy and over the top brutal like mobile moris are if it doesn't fit the character.
Gonna have to disagree on the bit about Freddy, i think his current mori works well enough as it is since it is a direct reference to Jesse's death in the 2010 remake. It is also one of the first moris in the game where it changes based on if you're awake or asleep and that's something i don't wanna potentially lose with a new mori.
Except Core DBD is doing a decent enough job at making brutal moris as well while remaining true to the characters themselves
Yeah, in the last few killers. Before that, there are a few exceptions, but like I said most moris are pretty mild.
so i don't think there is any need to look to mobile moris in general
I disagree, even with the "out of character" problem (which, to be honest, is mostly the Trapper and Wraith ones) they are so much better than many of the moris in the main version, especially the old ones.
Not to mention that not all moris needs to be flashy and over the top brutal like mobile moris are if it doesn't fit the character.
They can be flashy, brutal and fit the character. DbD Mobile's Spirit or Nurse from that video, to name a few. Also, they are "finisher moves" in a game inspired by Slasher movies: They need to be flashy and brutal.
Gonna have to disagree on the bit about Freddy, i think his current mori works well enough as it is since it is a direct reference to Jesse's death in the 2010 remake
If Freddy's Mori works for you, that explains a lot. It is the most boring mori of the whole cast, followed closely by Skull Merchant, Trapper and Wraith. I don't know if BHVR were limited to the 2010 movie to make everything about the character, but if not, they had eight movies to choose from, and they chose the most boring-looking kill from any of them.
On the other hand, the Freddy in MK9 is also the 2010 remake, but his fatalities are based on scenes from older movies (to be fair, NetherRealms belongs to WB and they own the license, so I'm going to guess they had more freedom):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-frM2Lf8KEAnd if someone is wondering, yes, that is young Johnny Depp in his first movie role.
It is also one of the first moris in the game where it changes based on if you're awake or asleep and that's something i don't wanna potentially lose with a new mori.
They could add more moris that had that characteristic as well, but the thing is: What exactly changes depending on the survivor being awake or not? The background? Real question, I don't remember that being a thing.
TL;DR: Not all moris need to be "over the top" flashy, but as finisher moves they are, they need to be flashy and brutal. Some of the last killers mori (Knight, Alien, Unknown, Singularity...) are good, but there are still a lot of killers that are in need of new, better moris.
-
@C3Tooth said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3759420#Comment_3759420
Are you going to suggest these should disable DS, OTR:
- Disarm beartrap
- Unlock RBT
- remove Hag traps
- Remove Artist's crows
- Remove madness
- Mending from Legion
- Use Plague fountain
- Look at Ghostface
- Remove Demo's tunnel
- Remove Victor
- Crouching over PyramidHead's rites of judgement
- Using Nemesis vacxin
- Using Wesker spray
- Using Sadako tape to not literally get moried
- Disarm Skull merchant drone
- Pickup Singu EMP
- Using Xeno flame thrower
- Remove Unknown hallucination.
- Open Lich chests.
Yes, as if you have time to do any of those things, obviously, you are not getting tunneled.
The only things I would change from that list:
Remove Artist's crows- You can be affected by this in chase.Look at Ghostface- When you reveal Ghostface out of chase.Crouching over PyramidHead's rites of judgement- Not even when you step on it, as it can be in chase.
In short, any action that advances the game in some way and can only be done effectively when you are not being chased should be considered a conspicuous action.
-
@Smoe said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3759868#Comment_3759868
More brutal moris are fine however mobile moris aren't it, they just come off as being too Mortal Kombat-esque over the top for the sake of just that rather than feeling like they actually fit the characters and their personalities.
To some degree, I agree with you. On the other hand, they are flashy and brutal indeed, so I think they are a good example of what Moris should be, and if they import them directly to the main version they can always modify them a little.
But yeah, a more "lore-friendly" Mori for Trapper would be the one that he had in For Honor, for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kExH-ZlB4YEBut talking about Mortal Kombat and "over the top" kills, either of the Fatalities of Freddy would be a much better Mori than what he has right now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT_n_LfZX8wIn short, I agree that some of DbD Mobile's Moris doesn't fit the characters, but I don't think that having them be a little "over the top" is bad either.
-
@TieBreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3759868#Comment_3759868
Are you suggesting that Wraith's gentle spanking mori isn't brutal enough?
Well, not as brutal as Trapper's back massage, at least.
-
Leaving aside the fact that you are playing a game about slasher-like killers hunting down people to sacrifice them to an eldritch entity, the truth is that most of the moris are not even that violent or gory.
In fact, I'll argue that the moris in the game need to be more flashy and brutal, as it is the only moment gameplay wise where you can have that "slasher movie" feeling in the game. In other words, they need to be more like the ones in DbD Mobile:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKPV7qi97bUAbout your other points, DbD is a game about fictional characters. A game that nobody is forcing you to play, nobody has lied to you about what the game is about, and is rated PEGI 18+ / ESRB Mature, meaning it is for adults. If somebody is unable to separate reality from fiction, they are the ones with the problem, which has nothing to do with the contents of the game.
-
Apparently, it obscuring so much view and being such an interference to the normal gameplay of both survivors and killers is a design choice.
Why? Nobody knows, as they didn't explain and it doesn't make any sense.
-
@HansLollos2 said:
I would love to see a SCP Map or a Backrooms Map. These would work perfectly fine without any new Killer or new Survivor. They don't even need a new Chapter, just as standalone interesting Maps that doesn't feature Wood or a Forest…
Also the SCP and the Backrooms are immensely popular und fit DbD really well. It would attract many new Players without any big Licence Deal.
Even if it is just a map, they would be forced to comply with the extended CC-BY-SA license SCP uses, which is basically incompatible with a closed source, privately owned game and IP like DbD. Even more, taking into account that it is a multiplayer PvP game, publishing the source code would mean more piracy and having even more cheats developed than it has right now. I don't know what license (if they have one) The Backrooms uses, but as long as it prevents a commercial closed source project from staying that way, the problem is the same.
Ironically, the only way they could maybe add SCP to the game would be to make a deal with both the SCP Foundation and the creators of the SCPs used (as the true owner of each respective numbered SCP is the writer of each article, not the SCP web page) so they can get a license more compatible with DbD.
-
@TravisTuft said:
will we ever be seeing SCP in DBD i mean its like free you can just use them
"Free to use" doesn't mean "Use it however you want". This is what SCP website says about licensing for video games:
Game Developers: You are free to create and share videogames based on SCP, but you must comply with all aspects of the license as it relates to software. That means releasing the work under CC-by-SA-3.0, including the release statement prominently on any store page the game is distributed on (as well as developer websites and the like), releasing the game without DRM if the game costs money (steam and the like have developer options for this), not imposing additional legal restrictions through EULAs or equivalent user forms, and not attempting to impede any alternate distribution sources so long as those sources in turn follow the terms of the license.
Just as they explain there, that Creative Commons license allows you to do whatever you want with the content without paying royalties or fees, yes, but you must first give credit to the original creator, and (and here is the problem for commercial games like DbD) share that derivative content you created under the same license, including (AFAIK) the source code of the game, as it must be available to anyone that wants to "modify or create derivative work" of your derivative work (maybe they could only release the DLC part under that license, but the problem is still the same). They also say you can license your game under GPLv3, which has the same (even worse, as IIRC it requires your whole project to be open source) problem.
In other words: I don't see it happening.
-
@Nos37 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3748026#Comment_3748026
I used Open Handed and Kindred to make sure the killer was far away first.
"The survivors unhooked too early, so I'm going back to hook."
"The survivors took too much time to unhook, so I'm going back to the hook to force Stage 2."
"I'm too lazy to look for survivors working on gens, so I'm going back to the hook because I know there are 2 survivors there (even though they could have possibly self-unhooked; oh well, I will just tunnel them in that case)."That's why you should think when going for the unhook instead of simply "YOLOing" it. The solution to your problems:
- "The survivors unhooked too early, so I'm going back to hook." You said it yourself, "too early", so you don't even give the killer time to get away, much less find anybody else. As long as the hooked survivor doesn't get to the next phase, it will be the same to unhook him 5 seconds after being hooked, or 30. There is no reason to rush it.
- "The survivors took too much time to unhook, so I'm going back to the hook to force Stage 2." Don't wait for the timer to be 5 seconds away to get to the next phase, either (unless you plan to do a trade). If you have Kindred, you can see what other survivors are doing, so if nobody else is going for the save after 10–20 seconds or whoever was going for a save starts getting chased, you go.
- "I'm too lazy to look for survivors working on gens, so I'm going back to the hook because I know there are 2 survivors there (even though they could have possibly self-unhooked; oh well, I will just tunnel them in that case)." Like said, if after a while the killer doesn't find anybody else, logically, he will come back to check if a save is being made. So, if the killer is not distracted and chasing somebody else when going for a save, simply wait for him to make his check and pass by, and then apply the first solution. Also, never, ever heal under the hook unless the killer is in a chase somewhere else.
Do all this, and you will not just get more safe unhooks, you won't make it easy for the killer to tunnel. You're welcome.
- "The survivors unhooked too early, so I'm going back to hook." You said it yourself, "too early", so you don't even give the killer time to get away, much less find anybody else. As long as the hooked survivor doesn't get to the next phase, it will be the same to unhook him 5 seconds after being hooked, or 30. There is no reason to rush it.
-
@jezebelthenun said:
Clearly it's not enough said. Obviously it could use a conversation.
The conversation has been had. Slugging is not taking the game hostage because it is literally killing the survivors (even if not in the fastest and optimal way possible), and "immersive survivors" are literally refusing to advance the game by not doing the main objective for up to an hour.
Which is funny, because when the server closes it counts as if they have been slugged AFAIK. So, they are losing their time just to grant the killer a 4K anyway.
-
@DragonMasterDarren said:
After having a half a hour of my time wasted by a pair of degenerates on Blackwater Swamp, I think it's about high time there be a system in place to deal with people who have no intention of progressing the match and instead just want to hide in a corner somewhere, here's what I suggest
First, improve AFK crows, make them take less time to spawn, make t hem take longer to get rid of, make them trigger noise notifications as soon as one crow spawns, and remove the ability to keep them at bay by constantly swapping lockers and repeatedly dropping/picking up a item
Second, if a killer isn't in chase for 5 minutes, trigger killer instinct on the nearest survivor every 5 seconds
I don't know if these systems would be abusable by quite frankly I don't really care, I just want something in place that makes dealing with survivors who want to waste everyone's time as much as possible outside of reporting
Also, rework Blackwater Swamp into something that doesn't resemble a flaming dumpster fire, please and thank you, I hate this realm and not being able to find survivors because of its colour pallet and the dense foliage is one of many reasons why
I think the killer instinct (or unavoidable aura reading) if the killer hasn't had a chase for a while is the way to go. Make it 10 minutes to prevent any possibility of abuse, and problem solved.
-
@indieeden7 said:
WHy does the killer being on a different floor just completely negate the anti camp feature despite the fact that camping from a different floor can in some cases make unhooking a complete impossibility? (Looking at you Myers' and Tompson house).
I understand that the anti camp feature was implemented as a way to negate face camping, not camping in general, but evenface camping didn't completely prevent the unhook from happening.
The AFC does in fact work on different floors, but the "hitbox" has an ellipse form. Meaning, it looks something like this:
This also counts for survivors standing above or below you, by the way. So, even if the killer is in your face in the basement, if you have a teammate in the shack, the AFC will at least move slower.