Batusalen
Batusalen
About
- Username
- Batusalen
- Joined
- Visits
- 3,248
- Last Active
Comments
-
Proper MMR brackets, named ranks representing that MMR (and showing them to you and everybody else, of course), strict matchmaking that searches teammates and opponents in a small range above and below that rank (-/+ 1 or 2), and a separate "unranked mode" that prioritizes finding a match fast where you can't gain or lose any MMR. Like most of the ranked games out there.
From there, yeah, other alternatives modes with perk rules, 1v1, or whatever the community feels like and BHVR approves, why not.
-
@Junylar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3746948#Comment_3746948
The main take of your post was "there is nothing to fix, it's just the players who are bad and they deserve it all", and it is the only post among MILLIONS of other complaints about soloQ being unbearable that was actually noticed by someone from BHVR. Yours is the only one out there. So while all the complaints were completely ignored (and will continue to be such), your only take about "just let them suffer, they deserve it" will be the only thing taken into account. So because of it, they now will do nothing to fix soloQ, leaving it in the abyss of hopelessness forever, and now they even have a justification for this, because "hey, the community itself agrees with it!"
"The main reason why SoloQ is in that state is because of survivors themselves. […]"
Come on dude, I never said anything even close to "there is nothing else to fix" or "just let them suffer", specially in the post where I specify the things that should be added:
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3745777#Comment_3745777
It is literally what I meant, and yes, it is utopian to the point that I don't think anything the devs would add to the game would 100% solve this problem, but it is how it is: If people played well (and with that I don't mean "loop the killer for 5 gens", but having the minimum game sense) and didn't give up so easily, the SoloQ experience would be much better.
This is not a problem exclusive to DbD, either. In every team-based game the experience will be much worse if you play solo in comparison to playing with a squad of trusted people. The problem with the DbD community is that for some reason they blame anything else but themselves, including the balancing in comparison to SWF, which leads to
demandask for changes in pro of "mAh SoLoQ eXpErIeNcE" disregarding that those changes would generally unbalance the game or that it won't solve the real problem. Because let's be real, the problem can't be solved without changing the mentality of the playerbase as a whole.Of course, I'm not saying there aren't balance issues or things that need to be added to the game that can alleviate this, from better matchmaking (proper MMR brackets) to better in-game documentation (per-killer tutorial of how to play as and against) and QoL features to allow solos to coordinate better (quickchat, more HUD elements, or even voicechat). But at some point, people should start to realize that maybe the problem is not that the game is not adapted to them, but that they not adapt to the game.
Also, you may have confused me with DbD's Gameplay Design Director or something, but if you really think that BHVR is going to say "cancel every implementation of QoL features for SoloQ" just because of my posts… well, it's just hilarious.
-
@Junylar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3744794#Comment_3744794
Thank you very much. Because of this post, that got noticed by Mandy, the devs now won't do anything to help soloQ. Since they now believe it's only soloQ players' fault, and nothing else, not even matchmaking. Thank you, dear, thank you very much.
Dramatic, aren't you? Survivors that don't even try being the main problem of DbD's solo experience doesn't mean that there isn't still work to do, other problems to solve, and features to add that those SoloQ players that really want to try and do good need, like I said multiple times in this thread and in the past. One thing doesn't contradict the other, and suggesting the devs don't know that by now is silly (to put it lightly…).
With this said, I only hope we don't really have to wait years to see those happen.
-
@C3Tooth said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3744854#Comment_3744854
what do you say about a Blight with 99% kill rate?
Is it because the Blight is matched with bad survivors like Hens team matched with worse killers?
Or Blight proved that killers is op like youre trying to make the point with Hens team?
No game should ever balance around 5% of players base. And ignore the 95%. Thats how the game dies. Beside, youre in the 95, not the 5. Want the game to balanced around the group that youre not belong is something else.what do you say about a Blight with 99% kill rate?
I have a better question: What does a Blight with a 99% kill rate have to do with anything that was already talked about? (Spoilers: You are late, you should have kept reading the thread before answering).
But hey, I tell you what: Grab Blight, stream 50 games with him, not count DCs and give ups like Hens did, get that 99% killrate, and resume it in a video so we can
make fallaciesdebate about what it proves or not.Is it because the Blight is matched with bad survivors like Hens team matched with worse killers?
Funny, because when it is convenient to some, Hens is a top pro, high MMR, super-duper player that would never, ever be matched with bad players, not survivors or killers. When it's not, then somehow this top of the top, crème de la crème survivor is matched against bad killers more than 50 times in a row. Who would have thought!
Not that who he was matched against has anything to do with what he does in the video or any of the points I made, but just saying.
Or Blight proved that killers is op like youre trying to make the point with Hens team?
My brother in the Entity… at what point, not just in the post you are responding to but in any other post I made in this thread, have I argued that "Survivors OP"? Please, I need to know!
Also, Hens team? Have you even seen the video? Because he is playing SoloQ with randoms, not "his team".
No game should ever balance around 5% of players base. And ignore the 95%. Thats how the game dies.
Well, like I spoiled to you, you've should keep reading before answering, because this conversation has already been had:
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3746098#Comment_3746098
You only balance for the majority if you want the game to live.
Balance around players like Hens, hell, balance around someone near my skill level and the game will NOT be fun for ANYONE outside of no-life 5K+ hours players.
I'm self-aware enough to know that'd be horrible for the game, even if it'd be better for me.
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3746119#Comment_3746119
You only balance for the majority if you want the game to live.
Except every instance that I know where a game with a high skill ceilling / time investment requirement has been balanced "for the majority", which usually means making the gameplay easier, removing any challenge and rewarding minimum effort in the process, has lost players. Perfect study case: World of Warcraft, to the point of having to bring back the old version of the game after telling their users "No, we are not going to bring back the vanilla game, and you don't want us to do it, really".
So, tell me what multiplayer / live service game do you know that was balanced to appeal to the "unskilled masses" and maintained their playerbase to affirm that it is the way to go if you want "the game to live".
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3746146#Comment_3746146
CoD, Battlefield, Halo, etc etc
Pretty much every casual-oriented game doesn't balance for the 1%.
Now look, if you want to balance for say, idk, 200 players over the other 59,999,800 players, be my guest. It just shows why some of us aren't devs lmao
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3746312#Comment_3746312
CoD, Battlefield, Halo, etc etc
Are you real? Did you just mention 3 of the most competitive games out there, including the one game that started all the "strict MMR sucks the fun out of a game" debate, as examples of "balancing for the majority"?
Pretty much every casual-oriented game doesn't balance for the 1%.
"[…] where a game with a high skill ceilling / time investment requirement". Casual games don't require high skill or time investment because they are designed to be easy to learn and play. But even in those games, there is a certain level of skill requirement and challenge, because if everybody were granted a Crown in every match of Fall Guys, then what is the reason to play?
Now look, if you want to balance for say, idk, 200 players over the other 59,999,800 players, be my guest. It just shows why some of us aren't devs lmao
No, I don't want to balance for "200 players" and never said that, on the contrary, I already said to you that a game should not be balanced around the top (pro players) or the bottom (the ones that, after hundreds of hours, still don't do well) of the player base, no matter how many players are on either side.
But a competitive game should not be balanced "for the majority" either. It should be balanced around those that invest the necessary time to learn and get good at the game, and doing so should feel rewarding. Because the moment it doesn't and any challenge is removed for the sake of "making the game so everybody can do good", people lose interest pretty quickly as there is no reason to invest a large amount of time in it.
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3746405#Comment_3746405
I literally originally said balance for the majority of players.
And everyone hated the CoD changes because it ######### with the casual playerbase. A game with competition =! Competitively balanced.
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3746428#Comment_3746428
Oh yeah, everybody hated so much those CoD changes that it stopped being one of the most played PvP competitive shooters in the market right now…
If that's your response to everything I said, I think we are done here.
No, really, you should have kept reading before starting to make strawmans like you work at a scarecrow factory.
Beside, youre in the 95, not the 5.
So, do you know my MMR? What is it, because I want to know it too! BHVR keeps it a secret from me, for some reason!…
I mean, you're probably right, but I love that you are assuming when nobody knows his MMR, much less you.
Want the game to balanced around the group that youre not belong is something else.
I already explained who and why a PvP competitive game like DbD should be balanced around. Not who I want it balanced for, but who it should be balanced for, specially if you want it to not die like every other game that was balanced "for the majority". Go read it.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3746405#Comment_3746405
I literally originally said balance for the majority of players.
And everyone hated the CoD changes because it ######### with the casual playerbase. A game with competition =! Competitively balanced.
Oh yeah, everybody hated so much those CoD changes that it stopped being one of the most played PvP competitive shooters in the market right now…
If that's your response to everything I said, I think we are done here.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3746146#Comment_3746146
CoD, Battlefield, Halo, etc etc
Pretty much every casual-oriented game doesn't balance for the 1%.
Now look, if you want to balance for say, idk, 200 players over the other 59,999,800 players, be my guest. It just shows why some of us aren't devs lmao
CoD, Battlefield, Halo, etc etc
Are you real? Did you just mention 3 of the most competitive games out there, including the one game that started all the "strict MMR sucks the fun out of a game" debate, as examples of "balancing for the majority"?
Pretty much every casual-oriented game doesn't balance for the 1%.
"[…] where a game with a high skill ceilling / time investment requirement". Casual games don't require high skill or time investment because they are designed to be easy to learn and play. But even in those games, there is a certain level of skill requirement and challenge, because if everybody were granted a Crown in every match of Fall Guys, then what is the reason to play?
Now look, if you want to balance for say, idk, 200 players over the other 59,999,800 players, be my guest. It just shows why some of us aren't devs lmao
No, I don't want to balance for "200 players" and never said that, on the contrary, I already said to you that a game should not be balanced around the top (pro players) or the bottom (the ones that, after hundreds of hours, still don't do well) of the player base, no matter how many players are on either side.
But a competitive game should not be balanced "for the majority" either. It should be balanced around those that invest the necessary time to learn and get good at the game, and doing so should feel rewarding. Because the moment it doesn't and any challenge is removed for the sake of "making the game so everybody can do good", people lose interest pretty quickly as there is no reason to invest a large amount of time in it.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3746098#Comment_3746098
You only balance for the majority if you want the game to live.
Balance around players like Hens, hell, balance around someone near my skill level and the game will NOT be fun for ANYONE outside of no-life 5K+ hours players.
I'm self-aware enough to know that'd be horrible for the game, even if it'd be better for me.
You only balance for the majority if you want the game to live.
Except every instance that I know where a game with a high skill ceilling / time investment requirement has been balanced "for the majority", which usually means making the gameplay easier, removing any challenge and rewarding minimum effort in the process, has lost players. Perfect study case: World of Warcraft, to the point of having to bring back the old version of the game after telling their users "No, we are not going to bring back the vanilla game, and you don't want us to do it, really".
So, tell me what multiplayer / live service game do you know that was balanced to appeal to the "unskilled masses" and maintained their playerbase to affirm that it is the way to go if you want "the game to live".
-
@SunaIIanu said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3745699#Comment_3745699
To me your original quote sounded like you are saying that a singular survivor has more options to fix their experience than I think they do (based on Hens' video, where he specifically excluded the matches completly outside of his control) because you are dependant on your teammates, so there is only so much a single survivor can do.
Maybe you meant your comment more in a "If all survivors would play in this way than the situation would be bettter" and I missunderstood. That statement is true but it is really utopian, I don't think ragequiting will get better without intervention from the Devs.
It is literally what I meant, and yes, it is utopian to the point that I don't think anything the devs would add to the game would 100% solve this problem, but it is how it is: If people played well (and with that I don't mean "loop the killer for 5 gens", but having the minimum game sense) and didn't give up so easily, the SoloQ experience would be much better.
This is not a problem exclusive to DbD, either. In every team-based game the experience will be much worse if you play solo in comparison to playing with a squad of trusted people. The problem with the DbD community is that for some reason they blame anything else but themselves, including the balancing in comparison to SWF, which leads to
demandask for changes in pro of "mAh SoLoQ eXpErIeNcE" disregarding that those changes would generally unbalance the game or that it won't solve the real problem. Because let's be real, the problem can't be solved without changing the mentality of the playerbase as a whole.Of course, I'm not saying there aren't balance issues or things that need to be added to the game that can alleviate this, from better matchmaking (proper MMR brackets) to better in-game documentation (per-killer tutorial of how to play as and against) and QoL features to allow solos to coordinate better (quickchat, more HUD elements, or even voicechat). But at some point, people should start to realize that maybe the problem is not that the game is not adapted to them, but that they not adapt to the game.
-
@Junylar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3745699#Comment_3745699
Whether BHVR counts those matches or not for their stats has nothing to do with the in game rewards and winning conditions.
And yet he refuses to count games where a survivor DCs or dies too quickly, even though the game also has respective rewards for every outcome. So this excuse is also inconsistent. Once again: counting favorable outcomes even if you have to apply mental gymnastics to justify it, while not counting unfavorable ones even if you have to come up with excuses why not. Clear data manipulation.
One makes you a bad teammate, the other doesn't.
If a survivor sees 2 of their teammates hiding in bushes and decides to go next, it's not the one going next who is a bad teammate. If you have 2 useless teammates, the game is doomed whether one of you suicides or not. But yes, if your goal is to "prove" that ridiculous number of 65% by any means, you could discard such results in order to boost the result to the intended favor, the excuse you have to use in this case does not even seem that absurd! Convenient.
64.8% escape rate
I can prove it being 100%, I will just have to use a little more absurd excuses for why I had to discard every game that didn't end in 4out, and also why I counted every 1k as a 0k (because obviously the killer just tunneled or camped the poor guy, so it doesn't count!), and maybe even how I counted every survivor DC as an escape, because technically the survivor escaped his faith by leaving the game! As you can see, this method is quite versatile.
You are not proving me wrong, you are confirming my points.
Yup, if you discard every point where I prove you wrong, then indeed, my agreement rate for your takes is 64.8%.
Once again: counting favorable outcomes even if you have to apply mental gymnastics to justify it, while not counting unfavorable ones even if you have to come up with excuses why not. Clear data manipulation.
What I'm saying is if by not counting DCs and give ups (because you keep saying "early kills", but that is not mentioned anywhere in the video) you can have a 64.8% escape rate, and when you count them you have a 39%, then obviously, survivors DCing and giving up is one of the problems of the SoloQ experience and one of the reasons for the low escape rate. Ergo, it is another proof that the main problem with SoloQ are survivors themselves.
The only mental gymnastics here is you evading the point being made and justifying it with "Data manipulation, so not valid" when nobody is trying to prove that by counting DCs, that 64.8% won't be lower.
If a survivor sees 2 of their teammates hiding in bushes and decides to go next, it's not the one going next who is a bad teammate.
Alright then, the other two survivors are also bad teammates. It's still the survivor's fault for not having enough game sense to make the right decisions at the right time and making the one giving up have a bad experience. Again, you are not proving me wrong with anything you are saying, on the contrary.
But yes, if your goal is to "prove" that ridiculous number of 65% by any means […]
Nobody is trying to prove that "ridiculous number" to be the truth of anything more than what that number means: If you don't count those players that don't even try and play well, the escape rate gets higher.
You are the one trying to "disprove" it because you based all your narrative on it not being "real", so it is not survivors playing bad what makes SoloQ unbearable. Can't explain what kind of logic led you to reach that conclusion, but it is what you are doing.
I can prove it being 100% […]
If you do, then you will prove that if you discard every game that didn't end in 4 out, count every 1k as a 0k, and count every survivor DC as an escape, you get a 100% escape rate. Just as the video proves that if you don't count games where someone DCs or gives up, you get a 64.8% escape rate instead of 39%. That's it.
You are not making the great counter-"argument" you think you are making here (or anywhere else in your post).
Yup, if you discard every point where I prove you wrong, then indeed, my agreement rate for your takes is 64.8%.
If you cherry pick one thing from my post (the video), center your argument on a made up reason of why that part is wrong (the 64.8% doesn't count give ups, so data not valid because it doesn't prove what I say it's trying to prove), and completely ignore that your "argument" has nothing to do with the main point I made (survivors are the reason that survivors have bad experiences in SoloQ) then yes, you proved me totally wrong.
But if you don't do that and take into account that every single example you gave for "it's not survivors fault" is in fact survivors being bad teammates, there you have your 100% agreement rate with my points.
-
@Junylar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3745619#Comment_3745619
The killer DCing is a 4 out
The killer DCing could be anything, even BHVR don't count such games. Most killers DC when they have a way to take 1-2k if they try, sometimes a hopeless game for killer turns into a 4k in the end. It's hypocritical to count killer's DC but not to count survivors DC, it's a plain statistic manipulation to get the desired result.
disconnect or suicide on hook
Is there really a difference between suiciding on hook within 1 minute of a trial and being tunneled out of the trial within 1 minute? The end result is the same. And most of the times, survivors go next because of objective reasons you personally might not have noticed, like seeing auras of half of their team hiding in bushes.
Again, this doesn't invalidate any of the points I made.
You used an "experiment" of a guy who blatantly manipulated the counted escape rate as an argument, this is what I replied to. If you only count desirable outcomes while discarding undesirable ones, you will get any result you wish. You should not use such "data" as an argument, soloQ will never get close to 60% escape rate outside of heavily rigged accounting.
The killer DCing could be anything
No, the killer DCing is a 4 escape and it counts as such. Whether BHVR counts those matches or not for their stats has nothing to do with the in game rewards and winning conditions.
Is there really a difference between suiciding on hook within 1 minute of a trial and being tunneled out of the trial within 1 minute?
Yes, the person who does the action. One is the survivor's fault, the other isn't. One means that the survivor at least tried, and the other means that the survivor didn't even try at all. One makes you a bad teammate, the other doesn't.
And most of the times, survivors go next because of objective reasons you personally might not have noticed, like seeing auras of half of their team hiding in bushes.
Sorry to break it to you, but, um… that is still survivors not being good teammates, mate.
You used an "experiment" of a guy who blatantly manipulated the counted escape rate as an argument
No, I used that "experiment" as proof that if you play well, make the right decisions at the right time, bring perks that help the team instead of the "5 gen looper" build, and of course, you at least try to play and not quit the moment something doesn't go your way, your and your team's escape rate will be higher. The fact that counting all those things while not counting DCs gives a 64.8% escape rate is only further proof that the main problem with SoloQ is survivor's doing and not even trying in the first place.
You are not proving me wrong, you are confirming my points.
@SunaIIanu said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3745619#Comment_3745619
Not sure if I worded my original comment so badly but obviously I'm not encouraging ragequits.
My point is, I can play like a team player but if my teammates aren't willing to be teamplayers and ragequit there is nothing I can do.
So while saying "It's the survivor fault" is not necessarily wrong (though I do think that more information like seeing other players perks or the facecamp progress would be a good addition) it does not help those survivors who are already teamplayers.
Do you realize that those survivors who "aren't willing to be teamplayers and ragequit" are also survivors? I think the problem here is that you are taking this like I'm literally saying "it is your fault" to you when I'm talking about the player base in general. There is no reason to take it personally.
And yeah, like I said, there are a couple of QoL things they should add to help those "teamplayers" be able to coordinate better, starting with a Quickchat function. But that's a different topic all together.
-
@Junylar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3744794#Comment_3744794
He said himself he discarded every game where a survivor dies too quickly for his liking, and counted every game where killer DC'd as a 4out. If you manipulate statistics diligently enough, you can even get 100% escape rate if you wanted to.
The killer DCing is a 4 out, and like I said, being such a bad teammate that you disconnect or suicide on hook is part of the problem of SoloQ: Survivors themselves.
Again, this doesn't invalidate any of the points I made.
@SunaIIanu said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3745317#Comment_3745317
I was trying to respond to this part of your comment:
"Who would have thought that if you are good at the game, have good game sense, and try to play as a team (which is the main strength of survivors, being 4 vs 1) would make you and your team mates win more games even in SoloQ?"
Even If you play like this, when you get survivors that instantly quit, there isn't much that you can do. And yes that is on the survivor, but you can be a player that never quits but you are still effected by it, so it should be addressed (a common suggestion I've seen is matching survivors who ragequit often with other survivors who ragequit often.)
I don't know how many games Hens excluded but I like to point out that Otzdarva's 39% winrate in solo que inspired him to make this video. Otz is a good players aswell and from what I've seen tries to help his teammates but that wasn't enough to get him over 40%.
I don't know what you understand by "try to play as a team", but if you quit at first chance, then obviously you weren't trying to play as a team. In fact, you weren't trying to play at all. So, I don't know how that contradicts anything of what I said, even less when you seem to agree with this being on the survivor.
But I can rephrase what I said to be more specific: "Who would have thought that if you are good at the game, have good game sense, and try to play as a team without quitting the moment things don't go how you want, would make you and your team mates win more games even in SoloQ?"
-
@solarjin1 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3744794#Comment_3744794
didn't count any dc's and early hook suicides. lol even this comp player gotta cherry pick his games so his win record wont tank. Gotta make the vib look good....not mad. Just not accurate solo q experience
@SunaIIanu said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3744830#Comment_3744830
He excluded games with a ragequit at the start of the match. Those are part of the normal solo que experience though and not uncommon.
But that's still survivor's fault. My point and all what I said still stands.
Clutching at straws here, it seems.
-
@Sandt1985 said:
Do solo survivors really need more help, though?
I'd like to point out how many buffs solo que got in the past 2 years. Anti face camp, basekit BT, the new gen regression rework to prevent three gens, nerfs to gen regression perks across the board multiple times, a way for all survivors to see when another survivor is in chase, showing all survivors what specific action another survivor is doing at all times, the visual heartbeat, STBFL was nerfed, mangled was gutted, solo que has gotten a lot of help over the years. The one other thing they tried was basekit unbreakable, but that PTB it was tried in showed why that should never be attempted again.I gotta ask, what more do you want? Basekit 5 second DS? Basekit Kindred? The sacrifice meter freezes when the killer is nearby, thus guaranteeing free unhooks? Killer losing movement speed when they chase the last survivor that was hooked? When will it be enough?
I assure you, I’m not trying to be rude or snarky, but at what point will solo survivors look at what they have and say, this is enough? More specifically, what are they actually looking for
The only things that are left to be added in my opinion is a Quickchat function and being able to see the build of your team mates at the start of the match.
Besides that, totally agree with you.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3744830#Comment_3744830
Yeah, I do think we should balance for the most amount of people. Balancing around a 13K hour competitive player mindset is silly, and I'm 99% sure that Hens would agree.
It's no surprise that Hens managed to escape in a decent number of games. He's a comp player and a good one at that.
I just edited to fully answer the edit of @I_CAME, but as I say, the escape rate on the video counts all 4 survivors in the match including him, and the final escape rate is 64.8%. So, you should have at least watched the video as well.
And my point had nothing to do with balancing in the first place, but the correct answer is no, the game should not be balanced around the top or bottom of the barrel, no matter how much of the player base is on either of those sides.
-
@I_CAME said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3744794#Comment_3744794
So you think we should balance the game around 13K hour comp survivors like Hens who play DBD as a job?
I will apply your logic in reverse to answer: You think we should balance the game around those P100 survivors that, after hundreds of hours, still just press W and predrop pallets no matter what killers they are up against?
You could at least watch the video before going straight for the strawman argument, by the way.
EDIT:
They achieved a 90% win rate at the highest MMR. Does this mean that killers who can't achieve this are just bad at the game? […] Using extreme examples to prove a point like this is just silly and doesn't mean anything for 99% of the playerbase.
The difference is that the 64.8% escape rate they get in the video I posted is not just for his escapes but for every survivor in those 50 games. Meaning, most of those escapes are just randoms from that "99% of the playerbase" you are talking about.
That's why you should have at least watched the video before saying anything.
-
@Krazzik said:
A lot of my time spent playing DBD has been playing as solo survivor, and even though it's always been in an iffy state, I've always managed to still have fun and just roll with it.
Lately though it's just gotten so dire. Game after game of the entire team dying with 4 or 5 gens left. Killers finding and downing survivors within the first 20 seconds of the game starting. Barely even being able to do gens because we practically start off on the back-foot and are just unhooking and healing all game.
I have an archive challenge to get 2 Iri Lightbringer Emblems and the games literally do not last long enough to get them. Even if I ignored my teammates and JUST stuck to gens from the start, I couldn't get them. It's just highlighted how weak solo survivor is thesedays and after even a handful of games I just give up.
The main reason why SoloQ is in that state is because of survivors themselves. Not matchmaking, not balancing, not how killers play, just themselves.
Average survivors with low game sense (specially not making the right decision at the right time) and not playing as a team (including bringing perks that only benefit them and not even help progressing the true objective, that is doing gens) is what make most SoloQ games a true hell to play. Then, instead of trying to get and do better, they complain about the "40% average escape rate" and how the game is killer sided without understanding what an average means or that they are most likely in the lower half of it.
Coincidentally, Hens just uploaded a video today about the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je3AQGuG2C8&ab_channel=HensWho would have thought that if you are good at the game, have good game sense, and try to play as a team (which is the main strength of survivors, being 4 vs 1) would make you and your team mates win more games even in SoloQ?
-
@[Deleted User] said:
DBD Twitter is NOT a good place for feedback. People would complain about literally anything there.
Twitter is not a good place for feedback about anything.
-
@Iron_Cutlass said:
A "Party Game", in more modern definitions, is used to refer to a multiplayer (online or in-person) game that normally consisting of a series of short minigames, that can easily be played within a social setting.
When I think of a Party Game, I usually think of Jackbox Games or Mario Party, games that rely on social interaction to provide a fun and unique experience, which Jackbox provides, or a series of minigames that provide variety and draw in the players attention, like Mario Party.
But I often see "Dead by Daylight is a Party Game, it shouldnt be taken seriously", and which I ask, is it really a Party Game?
In Public Matches, Dead by Daylight is not a super serious competitive game. There is no Ranked/Unranked queue, just a single queue. Official Tournaments funded by BHVR are not really done anymore either, so most of the competitive aspects come from the community-made events that generally come from a lot of passion and love for the game.
But just because it's not super competitive does not automatically umbrella it as a Party Game either, which is what a lot of people dont understand (in my opinion). Dead by Daylight is, at least by definition, not a Party Game. And even if it were, people would not throw such a fit about winning/losing or how other people play a game. Clearly there is some competitive aspect to drive people into such a direction.
So where does this leave us?
Well, somewhere in the middle. DBD is not a Party Game, but it's not a super serious competitive game either, it's within a middle area between the two in which aspects of either can co-exist and should co-exist without either being deemed as problematic.
If you want to play hyper casually and dont care about winning or losing, you should be able to do that without any issues. Likewise, if you want to play hyper competitive and do care about winning or losing, you should be able to do that without any issues. The game enables both as valid ways to play the game, but neither side should act as if their way of playing actively dictates how the other should play.
The answer is no, it is not a party game and it never was. That doesn't mean you can't play the game without worrying about winning or losing, just for the sake of playing it. But this doesn't change the fact that it is a PvP competitive game.
Like @Coffeecrashing said, DbD doesn't even fit the base definition of what a Party game outside of videogames is, in terms of skill required.
-
-
@bakedpot8oesbro said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3738612#Comment_3738612
they’re pretty brainless lmao. also i love how youre speaking so condescending towards me because i have an opinion which differes to you… and you had google the perks? so the person who apparently hasn’t played enough (me) knows more perks than you. food for thought isn’t it.
also i love how youre speaking so condescending towards me because i have an opinion which differes to you
What you are doing is not giving an opinion, you are stating something that is objectively and factually not true. What you are doing is the equivalent of affirming that the sky is red and shielding yourself with "It is my opinion" when everybody else points out you are wrong.
And yes, excuse me for not remembering the perk that had its name changed and have a 1.32% pick rate according to Nightlight because it is still not viable and nobody uses it. The same perk that, according to you, allows you to turn your brain off as it wins games for you. The joke makes itself.
-
@bakedpot8oesbro said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3738588#Comment_3738588
just because some require two perk slots doesn’t make them any less brainless and i didn’t say no conditions i just said brainless bud
But not even the ones that don't need a combo are "brainless" (whatever you meant with that, specially after saying "survivors have to work for the majority of their perks"), and obviously they don't win games for you. You would know it if you had played Killer long enough to really see the viability of those perks, instead of sticking to those few times when Devour Hope wasn't cleaned 14 seconds after the match started.
-
@bakedpot8oesbro said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3738398#Comment_3738398
alright, you’re entitled to your opinion. i’m not gonna gobble your head off for having a different opinion to me.
but a few perks id categorise as brainless would be; weave attunement/franklins, knock out, devour, pop/painres, noed, enduring/spiritfury, rancor(would be good if they couldn’t kill you at 0hooks in end game and was just aura reading after gen completion and maybe a timer on exposed status), cruel limits, i’m all ears, no where to hide, and make your choice… to me, they’re brainless, but there you go.
· Weave attunement / Franklin's: Require 2 slots, that survivors bring items to the match, and warn survivors that their aura is being revealed.
· Knock out: Useless against SWF or if you can't down people fast enough + you need a build to support it if you pretend to slug.
· Devour Hope: Hex perk… 😂☕️ ☕️😂
· Pop: Requires downing someone, hooking him, and getting to a gen to kick it before the effect expires or the gen gets done, often meaning that you should get out of your way or give survivors distance and prioritize kicking the gen.
· Pain Res: Requires downing someone, only works 4 times per match, pray that RNGesus blessed you and didn't spawned all the scourge hooks on the same side of the map (forget about it in multi-level maps), get to the scourge hook before the most progressed gen is done, it triggers even if the gen only has 1% progress so you can waste charges, and only triggers on 1º hook so if you find the same survivor twice in a row is useless.
· NOED: Hex perk (🤣) that only works on the end game so you play the rest of the match with only 3 perks, it notifies survivors on use the moment it is active, and the totem shows its aura to survivors. If you haven't killed anyone during the match, good luck if the totem survives enough time to down someone.
· Enduring / Spirit Fury: Again, two slots, depend on survivors using pallets and is only useful after at least 3 pallets are dropped. In other words, by the time you make use of it after 3 loops one gen can get done. Also, it requires survivors to not predrop the next pallets after it activates.
· Rancor: It warns the obsession by showing him your aura and only let you kill the obsession, which means finding and downing him first in the end game. There are few perks more situational that need an entire build to support it than Rancor, if you pretend to do anything more that get 1K with luck.
· Cruel limits: I even forgot this perk existed (really, I had to look it up on the wiki). It only activates when a gen is done, and it's almost useless in maps with few vaults or a lot of pallets. If you aren't chasing someone when it triggers, most than probably you won't even get to make use of it.
· I’m all ears: Aura perk that is only useful to a bunch of killers that can use its power through walls, and if any other survivor that you are not chasing vaults something 40 meters from you, they just took away their usefulness (in fact, they should reduce its range to 8 meters so it can only be activated by the survivors you are chasing).
· No where to hide: The same as Pop (- downing and hooking) and any other perk that requires you to kick the gen.
· Make your choice: Who in the Entity's name uses this perk outside a meme build?
These are your "brainless perks with no conditions that win you games"? Really? Because it seems to me that, again, this only proves that you haven't played Killer long enough to even test those perks seriously.
-
Unless you are doing a full kicking build and you don't know what to put in one of the slots, I don't see why you would ever use it. And even then, I can argue there are better perks to fill that position.
-
@bakedpot8oesbro said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3738171#Comment_3738171
sure, it’s not like i’ve played the game for years and developed my own opinion based on my own experiences. go play a game with the recent killers and killers with recent reworks and tell me it is a challenge. you really think someone with over 5000 hours gets matched with incompetent survivors? and that i’ve never actually played killer? that’s crazy if i do say so myself. i’m not talking about playing trapless trapper, or pig. i’m talking about where dbd is headed and has been heading since ~~~ knight and skull merchants release. just brainless gaming, icl.
you really think someone with over 5000 hours gets matched with incompetent survivors?
Yes, specially when you play with a new Killer as your MMR for that killer is low, and specially when you obviously haven't played Killer as much as you claim, so who knows if you have even activated the rubberbanding.
and that i’ve never actually played killer?
Like I said, obviously, you haven't played killer enough, or you won't be saying half of the things you are saying. Simple as that.
that’s crazy if i do say so myself
No, it is obvious from the things you are saying. In fact, I would love to know what killer perks are those that allow you to "turn your brain off and win games without even having to try".
-
@cherrrybomb said:
some of his skills are way too overpowered despite having those treasure chests. For example, he can use mage hand and then use Flight of the damned, yeah you can crouch, but this isn't helpful if he's close to you. Also, his dispelling sphere is overpowered, it reveals our aura and removes the magical item we need, meaning we can't see where he's coming from, and he can use multiple of his skills to down us. Half the time you won't even see the sphere coming.
He has the nurse's skill of flying up or down, left or right, but he doesn't run out of stamina afterward. It also doesn't help that his fly ability makes him travel so far, imagine we're on a smaller map and we're on a generator across from him, he can come instantly.
His 115% speed is a lot compared to the nurse, whose is on average, 96.25%. Chucky, or 'The Good Guy' at 110%. Which is fine, because, after his slice-and-dice skill, he runs out of stamina and gives us players time to get away. But the Lich's fly skill doesn't. What I'm suggesting is to nerf his skills so we survivors can have a chance. Played against him 4x and each one we lost.
Obviously you have not played with him, or you will know that most of the things you are complaining about don't work the way you think at all or have a big cooldown, making it impossible to use them to get a hit (like flying).
Also, they're going to nerf Mage Hand lift time to make it even more situational than it already is so don't worry, you will have even more chances to win against him than you already have.
-
@bjorksnas said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3736925#Comment_3736925
Yes I have 3000+ hours and can very clearly tell there were some bots in my matches for ~3 days after the release of the chapter, based on how they moved played and reacted.
I'm not calling them bots because they are bad but because of strange behavior and patterns
I have a good sense for small inconsistencies like this something was off, now since its cooled down a bit I don't believe I have seen one in my string of matches today but time will tell if they do the same at the next release of content and ill make sure to get some footage
But since my instincts have bore fruit so far I see no reason not to hold firm in my belief
Just curious, were you playing the new killer when you faced those "undercover bots"? Because if that's the case, maybe I can give you another, more factual explanation for it than the company that still hasn't figured out how to make zombies AI not get stuck in the terrain is using fake players to fill matches.
-
@MaddieMage said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3736851#Comment_3736851
theee times in a few days is not much of anything. Unless you o ly played 2-3 games in the last few days I’d say that’s not a bad percentage. I also never said that you said every game is 4 toolbox sabo built squads” but you definitely got close if you read your comment again.
“
Maybe the fact that they buffed sabotage and in every single match right now you see any combination of 2-3 flashlights, 2-3 toolboxes and / or 2-3 medkits with insta heal / Endurance has something to do with that. Including the Sabo - No Mither bully squad strat survivors are doing now.”You directly mentioned the sabo buff, 2-3 toolboxes (not 4, never said you said that)
Yeah, 2-3 toolboxes along with flashlights and medkits. Like you said, read my comment again, because what I meant is that multiple factors (one of them being that every match now has 3-4 items, basically) have a lot to do with Wave Attunement being so used right now (+ new perk, so everybody is trying it).
-
@MaddieMage said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3735311#Comment_3735311
I don’t know what MMR you think you’re playing at but I’m mid level and I have yet to see any lobbies full of toolboxes or sabo squads and me and my friends certainly aren’t running them. We’ve all been running the bard perk to do full on meme matches every time. 🤣🤣
I was actually telling someone that I’m surprised I haven’t been seeing hardly any toolboxes since the buff and if I do, they’re being used on gens, not sabos.
Once again I think this his simply a case of freak out propaganda. Everyone saw the patch notes, starting screaming about the toolboxes and now everyone is taking this combo because they’re being told HERE COME THE SABO BULLY SQUADS GETS READY!” rather than them actually facing any of these so-called sabo bully squads.
3 times in the last few days I have faced No Mither Sabo squads, but I would love for you to point out where I said anything close to "Every single game is 4 toolboxes sabo bully squads".
-
Someone has been playing Among Us a bit too much…
-
This seems to be a problem with Geforce Experience itself and not DbD, as it also happens in other games. There are two solutions right now:
- Downgrade to Geforce Experience 3.27, as it is the last version with working recording right now.
- Go to Privacy settings and allow Desktop recording. It worked for me at least, even if the overlay still doesn't work in game.
-
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3734439#Comment_3734439
That's why with our current roster of aura reading perks like BBQ and Friend's til the end, killers aren't still proxy camping and running immediately back to hook right? "Okayish" = 1/8th coverage of most map with 4 items on the ground.
"1/8th" coverage of most maps if they don't drop more than one item in the same place or pick them up after. That is, assuming they have an item in the first place.
The perk is fine like it is.
@MaddieMage said:
I don’t think this perk combo is horribly oppressive it’s just boring to keep going against when everyone is running it. Yesterday out of 10 matches, 9 killers ran this combo. I just logged off and played something else cuz I was tired of loading into a match and automatically getting hit, losing my item and then having the killer know everywhere I’m at on the map if I don’t touch the item, then being oblivious if I do touch the item to move it… which by then the killer already knows where I am and I’m oblivious.
Maybe it needs a nerf, I think it’s too early to tell. But it’s definitely not fun to go against every single match.
Maybe the fact that they buffed sabotage and in every single match right now you see any combination of 2-3 flashlights, 2-3 toolboxes and / or 2-3 medkits with insta heal / Endurance has something to do with that. Including the Sabo - No Mither bully squad strat survivors are doing now.
-
@JustAShadow said:
I don't think I need to say anything, just giving you these two clips to watch and assess the usefulness of this part of Vecna's power.
https://clips.twitch.tv/AntediluvianFancyWheelMau5-FHjo-tatHfy-El9J
https://clips.twitch.tv/TangibleRudeSpindleYee-hKkFUNV6CadZ-MA4
Use them through walls, or to force survivor to have to crouch to guarantee a hit like in the second clip or prevent them getting distance in a loop.
If you throw them in the open while they are looking or already on a pallet, then yes, it won't do anything.
-
@Garboface said:
It is most definitely a PC thing. I would love to see a console survivor capable of pulling this maneuver off.
Sorry to say, but that looks like either lag or hacks. Definitely not normal movement, no matter what control method was he using.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1w8vJiEJNs@Dreamnomad said:
I think this is a PC thing. At least, I've never figured out how to spin with a controller.
There you go. I can even argue that it is way easier to do in a controller than keyboard, as it is harder to get the timing with the keys than just simply rotating the analog stick.
-
@SchizoMethhead said:
how do u equate playing for fun with not caring if u win that sounds kind of stupid imo im not trying to play this game to lose every game how is that fun
Because someone who really plays the game just for the "fun" of it won't care about losing or the MMR he has. If your "fun" is winning, then you should get good at the game so you don't lose instead of trying to artificially lower your MMR.
-
@Jay_Whyask said:
Blows my mind that we still don't have classic Nemesis.
Also, how amazing would it have been to get the low poly outfits for all the RE characters? PS1 Leon, Jill, Claire, Wesker, etc.
I wonder why the RE characters haven't received more outfits? Even if BHVR recycled Wesker's MVC3 recolours, they'd definitely sell. Maybe put the all white version of the midnight outfit in the premium pass to encourage people to get cells for the rift? I doubt Capcom wouldn't allow it.
It's weird that nothing's going on with these characters.
Instant buy if they add it.
-
@JacksonRulzGaming said:
Hi yall!
So I played a game of dbd and in this game I got tunneled out, and at the same time camped at hook with them being no more than 10 meters away. So the problem here is this: The anti face camping mechanic didn't fill up all the way, even though he camped me the entire time I was on hook. Can I get an explanation onto why this never seems to work as intended?
P.S. I also don't think it should matter if there are survivors are around the hook (which they weren't in this scenario) whenever the killer is camping
P.P.S. A good change would to have the bar fill up faster the longer the killer is in the camping zone and shouldn't matter on distance (closer they are, the faster it fills up) and should be based off longevityCan I get an explanation onto why this never seems to work as intended?
Because even if survivors intend for the system to force the killer to get to the other side of the map so they can have a guaranteed unhook, it was never intended to prevent the killer from defending the hook. It is to prevent Face Camping and grant the survivors the chance to at least do a trade.
In other words, it is working as intended.
I also don't think it should matter if there are survivors are around the hook
It should matter, as the first thing survivors did in the PTB when it didn't was abuse this to get free saves.
A good change would to have the bar fill up faster the longer the killer is in the camping zone and shouldn't matter on distance
In any case, it should be both (as if not, the killer would be able to simply get out of the area from time to time and step back in so the bar doesn't fill up), as long as it still allows the killer to defend the hook.
-
@Junylar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3708463#Comment_3708463
Well, in order to bring soloQ closer to SWF in terms of information sharing, you would also have to implement the following:
- Basekit bond+empathy+kindred, basically make survivors see each other's auras unconditionally, since that's what SWF do by constantly updating their coordinates and status in discord.
- Whenever a singe survivor sees a killer, everyone else should have some kind of constant notification about the approximate position of the killer and what he is doing, since that's what SWF share in voice chat. Basically, in SWF if one survivor sees the killer - everyone sees him.
- Whenever a single survivor sees a trap or a totem - everyone else should get a notification about where the said trap or a totem is. Since in SWF if one survivor saw a totem - everyone saw it.
- Somehow share information about the killer's habits mid-chase, like "the killer respected", "the killer double-backed at TL", etc. Once again, SWFs have this "distributed killer profiling" out of the box.
Quick-chat is not a solution for this, because SWFs can exchange information while running or doing a gen, and a quick chat doesn't allow that. Being able to say "hey, his hex is exactly between these boxes in this part of them map!" while running from the killer is a huge advantage only SWFs have.
Quickchat precisely allows for fast communication without being intrusive or taking a lot of time, to the point of being able to send the info you want in half a second if done right. That's why it's called "Quick"chat.
Also, and this was said to me multiple times by survivor mains in this forum: Not all SWF are SWAT squads relaying their coordinates every second. At this point, what you are asking for is having another 4 perks + more basekit stuff, which would basically buff every SWF and don't accomplish anything.
-
@ImWinston said:
- how is it possible that every game you play is against an aggressive SWF? I also play killer, but all these dramatic things are not so common. maybe I'm lucky🤨
Funny, that's exactly what I think everytime I see a post complaining about tunneling and camping.
-
@Junylar said:
The problem is, the game is being balanced only around SWF vs Killer, they never cared about soloQ experience, since devs themselves never ever play soloQ and have no idea there is an abyss between the two survivor modes.
Killer mains know this too, and yet they don't like to mention it, since ranting about survivors in general is beneficial for them, as it bring new and new survivor nerfs after each rant, and mentioning soloQ problems could accidentally bring a dreaded survivor buff which would also make SWFs stronger.
I'm a killer main, and I said multiple times that survivors need to be able to see their teammates perk loadout in the lobby and at least a Quickchat function to be able to communicate and coordinate like SWF can do. And I'm not the only one.
Personally, can't wait for BHVR to implement those so everybody can see at last that they were right: The problem with SoloQ is not a lack of information, but a general lack of game sense and cooperation. When it happens, hopefully people will be able to give feedback and devs make necessary changes without anyone saying "Won't somebody PlEaSe think of mah SoloQ!?".
-
If you have an old / legacy AMD card, then your best option is to use unofficial, up-to-date community drivers compatible with your graphics card.
There is another post with the same problem where I posted the link to the drivers. You can also try to force the game to use DirectX11 as someone in that post suggested, maybe it works for you.
@AbsolutGrndZer0 said:
So apparently the new upgrade to Unreal 5 is causing an issue with my video card. Despite what this error message says, my card cannot be have the drivers upgraded as it's an older card and 22.6.1 was the last update released for it.
So, how now do I change the rendering API, or is this going to be a constant thing every time I start up Dead by Daylight now or even worse actually cause the game to glitch or worse crash?https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/F7SESDMQ69W6/untitled.png
-
@AbsolutGrndZer0 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3707965#Comment_3707965
Hmmm, while that's not the answer I wanted, I think it's the best I'm going to get, so thank you very much. :)
Well, someone already suggested how to change the render API to DirectX11 instead of 12, but as that didn't work and the game has no support for other renderers like Vulkan AFAIK, having updated DirectX12 compatible drivers, even if not official, is the best option left. The other one is getting a new graphics card.
You're welcome, and I hope it solves your problem.
-
Unless you want to use unofficial drivers, there's little you can do.
But if you want to take the risk, there are community made drivers that in theory should work (never used them myself).
But again, this are not official, so there is no guarantees.
EDIT: It's an old video, but it showcase the drivers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqczlMtc-HI -
@Shroompy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3707593#Comment_3707593
Technically even a 1k can increase your MMR.
If 3 of the Survivors have really low MMR, but the one person you killed had really high MMR. I believe that can outweigh the other 3 (assuming I understood the dev stream a while back)
That's not true. A lot changed since that dev stream, and now even if the MMR of survivors affect how much MMR he gains or loses, the killer only gain MMR if he does a 3K or more, loses MMR if he does a 1K or less, and don't lose or gain if he does a 2K.
Also, the MMR gain is capped at +20 per match:
@SchizoMethhead said:
I have like 60 hours on killer and got pretty good at it when i still played but i main solo surv and my surv mmr is really low and i get a low of players with only 100 hours (I have 450) but when i play killer it is without fail 1k hour swfs that play with good items and perks. i want to reset my killer mmr or lower it so i can play for fun again but its so tedious to throw games over and over and then still feel like my mmr hasnt changed
If you really are playing just for fun, why it matters to you against who are you playing? Just play. You should not care if you win or lose either, if you are in the match just for fun.
-
@zarr said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3707334#Comment_3707334
You add 4 seconds every time you recall him, latched or not, which results in bigger cooldowns overall.
So you are suggesting the regrow time should always be 10 seconds, even on recalling Victor when he isn't latched onto a survivor? Sure, while that is the first time you bring this up as far as I can tell, that would be a nerf for them that someone could argue might make up for the reduction in time before you can recall. But instances of recalling Victor when he isn't latched onto a survivor are rare and barely relevant, the strong thing is injuring someone, recalling Victor, and attacking again. The important difference is between how Twins are supposed to be (30 seconds to recall on injuries, 6 to regrow) and your suggestion that this should be reduced to 20 (10 to recall, 10 to regrow). I'm not debating you on why the one or other may be appropriate and adequate and balanced or whatever, all I'm saying is that going from 36 to 16 (or 20) is a significant difference.
That's why what you did there is a false equivalency fallacy.
You don't seem to understand what an anology is. Just because someone draws parallels between two things does not mean they are creating an equivalence. I won't spend energy on further explaining this simple fact to you. What it boils down to is this: Do you or do you not think that a more than 50% reduction in power cooldown constitutes a meaningful change?
Yes, they can. From the 18 seconds that would take nowadays to crush Victor while latched and being able to use it again, to 36
The 36 seconds are their intended cooldown that I was referring to and that we have been talking about and contrasting to the current 16 seconds/your 20 seconds all along. Whether the 36 seconds are appropriate or not is again another question, but that is factually their intended cooldown and survivors cannot increase this.
Except that you can do this on top of punishing her by literally doubling her power's cooldown
What does one have to do with the other? All kicking Victor does is put him on a cooldown before he's available again, giving survivors respite, just like Spirit's power goes on cooldown.
And that "balanced ratio" has to be 36 - 40 seconds without the possibility of recalling it earlier? It can't be having the ability to recall and use him after 20 - 30 seconds with other compensation changes for balance?
I never argued any of this. Sure they could reduce the recall time and compensate for that buff with other nerfs, such as endowing Victor with more counterplay opportunities. There could be a thousand changes to Twins in theory various of which could be just as if not more balanced than the 36-second cooldown Twins. My opinion is that Twins as they are now with the 10-second recall time are broken, and that a 30-second recall time is more adequate.
Oh right, I forgot about your circular reasoning point: The devs agree with you, so they are right and there is no point in arguing if there is any other way to do it.
I'm sorry, but you really are being incredibly obtuse. I never said they are objectively right, much less that they are because they agree with me, or that there would be no point for anyone in debating whether they are right. I said I personally don't feel like arguing over this because the only reason I would is to convince the devs, you know, because they decide what happens in the game. And I don't have to convince them of my opinion, they already hold the same opinion. Go and debate with someone else all you want, all I did is point out your mistake in the beginning, you came back at me arguing for whatever your suggestion for Twins is.
That's totally false, it does not guarantee anything
I said "basically" every time. But if you really want to go and argue that Victor totally has counterplay and doesn't basically always converts hits, I won't be the one to argue against this, can't be arsed. The actual point was that Victor is a stronger ability than Spirit's, and as such appropriately has a longer cooldown than her. I hope you understand that that is true. After all, if you could control Victor the entire match and hook people as him and such, surely you don't think that would be weaker than Spirit.
No, I said that survivors can punish the Twins by taking Victor hostage and making her cooldown way longer.
This I suppose is where we had a misunderstanding, because as I pointed out before, the 36 seconds are their actual intended cooldown, just because a survivor could decide to crush Victor earlier doesn't suddenly mean their intended cooldown is 18 seconds. Because, you know, otherwise the ability to hold Victor would not have been implemented.
Either way, this still doesn't explain where you got that, according to my logic, Spirit should have no cooldown. It doesn't make sense.
No cooldown was an exaggeration on the logic behind you saying that killers being "punished" for using their power "correctly" (i. e. hitting people with it) is a bad thing. Disregarding that the hit is literally the reward in itself, from this logic would follow that killers should have reduced cooldowns on successful hits. Because why should they be punished if they used their power correctly with a cooldown just as long as if they had incorrectly used their power (missing)? Although I'll concur that you meant Twins having a longer cooldown on successful hits (on healthy survivors anyway) if the survivor decides not to crush Victor. Which again is a moot point however, since the intended cooldown is the time-to-recall, the ability to crush Victor exists because a survivor that he is latched onto can't do things such as repair gens or heal.
So, killers should be punished (more than they already are) if they play good and use their kit correctly and successfully, including giving survivors the ability to punish them even more. Got it. Sounds reasonable.
Killers are not being "punished" if they use their ability to get a hit, they are rewarded by the effect getting a hit has on the game. The cooldowns and slowdowns and whatnot this incurs are a balancing tool. And yes, a reasonable balancing approach is one that creates an adequate amount of respite for survivors from such abilities. In the example of Spirit, if one were to determine that she needs balance adjustment, both things could potentially be argued for, that she could have an increased cooldown on successful hits or an increased cooldown on missed hits. I think the former approach would be more reasonable, but ultimately both approaches would just boil down to creating downtime.
Using your same logic, the devs don't seem to agree with you on this, as the only change they have made to her base cooldown is to lower it […] So they are completely right, and there is no point in debate if this decision is the correct one, right?
You really don't get it. I never said they are right because they agree with me, and would be wrong if they didn't. The kind of immature reasoning you are showcasing here is beyond my desire to interact with.
With this specifically, I was referring to the idea that it could be argued a longer cooldown on successful hits could be reasonable for Spirit. I didn't say this is the only true and right and best way to go about it, nor did I even say it's a conviction I hold absolutely or do more than make a throwaway remark on that being a possible way to adjust Spirit if one were to consider balancing adjustments to her. Besides, this change by BHVR reduced her cooldown regardless of whether she gets a hit or not, so it isn't even relevant to the matter of whether killers should be "punished"/"rewarded" for using their powers "correctly"/"incorrectly". Regardless, It isn't part of any actual argument I made altogether, this asinine Spirit comparison has long outstayed its purpose, you just don't get that the only thing I off-handedly brought her up for is to highlight how significant slashing a power cooldown in half is.
And for that example and argument to be valid, those two killers should be comparable and assume that Twins cannot be balanced with their cooldown cut in half because Spirit will not. That's why it is a false equivalence and not a valid argument.
But I didn't say that cutting Twins' cooldown is half would not be balanced because it also wouldn't with Spirit. That's an equivalence you made up. I only used Spirit to highlight that cutting a cooldown in half is significant, of course it does not literally have to be 1:1 just as significant for Twins as it would be for Spirit, but it helps to get a feeling for how ridiculous of a change this was.
And smart saying "in ways", as there is nothing preventing The Spirit from downing a survivor and using her power to just down the next.
There is a power cooldown that prevents Spirit from downing multiple survivors in quick succession with her power. But again, there is no use in drawing direct comparisons between these killers, that is asinine. My argument here merely was that Victor is a stronger ability, and thus adequately has a longer cooldown. And I only argued this because you falsely implied I stated that Spirit's cooldown is fine and Twins' isn't, as if that would be some "gotcha" on errors in my thinking. No, their abilities have different power levels and therefore require different cooldowns. Halving their existing cooldowns would still respectively be ridiculous.
And that "cooldown approach" has to be letting the survivors take your power hostage for 36 seconds by removing her ability to recall him earlier, of course. There is no other "sensible" and well balanced approach.
I never said no other approach could ever be sensible. I have various ideas for Twins, some of which would also include reductions in recall time. You are arguing against delusions.
No, what I'm suggesting is not letting the survivors literally double her power cooldown by taking it hostage in response to getting hit by it, when it already has a minimum of 18 seconds if they crush it (8 seconds to crush, 10 seconds to return), which is basically the only reason they are now bearable to play in comparison to before.
It's not doubling the cooldown by deciding not to crush Victor, the intended cooldown is the timer until the killer player can recall. Crushing is in the survivor player's hand to reduce the time they are locked out from various actions for. Regardless, this just goes back to your idea that a 20-second cooldown (10 to recall, 10 to regrow) or let alone the current 16-second one would not only be better, but make them "bearable to play". I disagree with this, as do the devs, but I for one won't debate you on this. Maybe you are right and everybody that's saying the current cooldown is oppressively overpowered is wrong, I personally don't care to prove otherwise.
If you really don't have any reason to argue against not reverting the change and making the cooldown as high as before, simply don't debate.
I merely corrected your misunderstanding regarding Twins' power trivia, you started debating me on this, saying your suggestion of a lowered cooldown would still be sensible and the 36 seconds not. I have not once in this exchange started debating you on whether the 36-second cooldown is adequate, gone through the reasons why I think it is, whether it could be different, or whatnot. All I did in that regard is tell you that I am of the same opinion the devs are (36 seconds cooldown is needed, with Twins as they are), and that I don't care to argue or convince you of why I think that.
I merely corrected your misunderstanding regarding Twins' power trivia, you started debating me on this
Me:
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3706776#Comment_3706776
So, the only significant change to the killer that solved one of their biggest problems, making it The change that makes them bearable to play now, is a bug that is going to be reverted after years of reworking them. Great, just great.
And
according to the Wiki, right now the times are 20 seconds latched + 10 seconds of "regrowth"(EDIT: I have been informed that it was, in fact, 36 seconds total) the times are 30 seconds latched + 6 seconds of "regrowth", compared to the 16 seconds minimum it is now if you recall them (10 until you are able to recall, 6 to regrow).Crazy idea: Why not just make the latch max time 20 instead of 30, the regrow take 10 seconds instead of 6 and still allow for recalling him after 10 seconds of being latched, making it from 20 to 30 seconds total? That way, it would reduce the overall time he is on the match (including all the other times you will recall him) while still allowing the killer to decide if it is better to have him back earlier or let him latched 10 seconds more, instead of survivors forcing it to be 36 seconds.
And according to the Wiki, right now the times are 20 seconds latched + 10 seconds of "regrowth" […] Crazy idea: Why not just make the latch max time 20 instead of 30, the regrow take 10 seconds instead of 6 and still allow for recalling him after 10 seconds of being latched […]
You:
@zarr said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3707126#Comment_3707126
I already addressed this point earlier in the thread. "Unbound" means not bound to Charlotte or a survivor. It goes without saying that Victor has to not be bound to Charlotte in order to be able to recall him, so it's obvious the reason "unbound" is specified here is that it pertains Victor not being tied to a survivor. That change had also already been in on the PTB, and yet Victor could not be recalled while latched onto a survivor, further suggesting this is not what is meant here. And finally, if this were intended to also apply when Victor is latched onto a survivor, there would not be a 10-second timer until you can recall, because that is not "at any point". What this patch note refers to is recalling Victor when he is parked around the map, which was not possible in the past.
If that isn't enough to convince you, take it from the devs themselves saying this is an unintended bug, surely then meaning they didn't intend for that note to imply otherwise.
What are these weird hills people are trying to climb up to me from. Even if it were "documented", what does that change about the fact that it's broken? What is your purpose with this?
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3707192#Comment_3707192
Lies? You really love your death on this hill. I said they were considered top 5 comp (past tense), which they absolutely had been, and no changes had happened to them since then. I did not specify they were considered top 5 up until the very day the update dropped, but again, the primary reason why they may not have been is simply that they don't see regular play in comp anymore and are not considered much at all. That is not mutually exclusive, I hope you can understand that. You also only brought up one event to support your point. Again, Outrun The Fog for instance has Twins in their second-highest tier. The Arkade has them more heavily restricted than half the killers.
"20th kill rate" is disingenuous. Again, the difference between the top 10 cut-off and Twins is 2%. If you bracket the killers by kill rate, Twins would be on 8th place, and that's a very strict bracketing by 1% integers. And regardless, I said high kill rate, which 58-60% absolutely is (60% in the high MMR bracket in Sep. 2022). Top 3 kill rate on Nightlight in the last month, top 9 and top 4 respectively in the two months prior to that. Saying only the most dedicated mains are playing them is also disingenuous, or just showcasing your lack of understanding that even a pick rate of 1% correlates with a huge number when looking at millions upon millions of matches throughout a month.
But yes, let's say you got me good, I heinously lied about Twins' standing in comp and performance potential in pub matches, to serve my sinister plot to get this 10-second recall time reverted that they absolutely need to be able to compete.
______________________________
@Batusalen You are mistakenly quoting parts of the wiki that describe how Twins functioned on the PTB. You can tell this is the case by taking note of them also pointing to the 10% Haste effect for Charlotte in the same section. The 20-second auto-recall and 10-second regrow time thereafter pertained Victor when latched onto a downed survivor. The time before you could recall Victor when latched onto a survivor in the past was 30 seconds. The regrow time on that being 6.
You are mistakenly quoting parts of the wiki that describe how Twins functioned on the PTB. […]
Me:
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3707223#Comment_3707223
So, instead of being forced to not have your power for 30 seconds total, it was 36? That totally invalidates my point. In no way does this make their apparently final decision to revert it even worse.
But yeah, my mistake. I never was that interested in the Twins to look at their past numbers, and looking at this post, I guess they will get back to my "Not picking them even if I'm paid to do so" list again.
So, instead of being forced to not have your power for 30 seconds total, it was 36? That totally invalidates my point. In no way does this make their apparently final decision to revert it even worse. But yeah, my mistake. […]
You:
@zarr said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3707231#Comment_3707231
I literally proved you wrong with the exact same stats you yourself tried to use an argument
Which stats are those? I didn't refer to any specific set of stats, just saying "pub matches". And what exactly did you prove wrong? I said they have high average kill rates in pubs, I didn't say they are top 5 average kill rate or whatever (which they on Nightlight however are, and which isn't a very meaningful distinction anyway because the differences between the top 5 and top 20 can be as little as 2%). Now you may argue 58-60% is not "high" for your terms, but that would be a completely different and mostly meaningless argument.
compared to other killers then yeah, mostly just their dedicated mains are playing
"Mostly" is different from "only". Again, there's millions upon millions of matches of DbD happening every month, all of which is captured in those stats. 1% of that is still tens of thousands of matches. I hope you don't believe only dedicated Twins mains are the ones playing those matches.
You literally gone back on stats from 2 years ago to salvage your argument
"Salvage" what argument? My argument wasn't they had a 60% average kill rate in high MMR brackets last week - they may very well and likely did still have high average kill rates, but we simply didn't have those stats last week -, it was that they have high average kill rates, which whatever stats we have do showcase. The most recent stats on killer-specific high MMR kill rates are from September 2022. Which, just to note, is less than two years ago. More importantly however, again, no changes to the Twins had happened since then, so there is no reason to not use those stats to describe the state of Twins prior to this update.
This argument is completely fruitless and futile. You supposedly don't even believe Twins were in a bad spot strength-wise and needed buffs, and yet you still keep going around these asinine points that would only be relevant if you did believe that. And regardless, the only actual point of my posting was that the 10-second recall time is broken. If you don't contest me on that, I don't care what you take issue with. Go on thinking that you got me good, for all I care.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3707239#Comment_3707239
You falsely construed the difference from pre to post-update Twins to be less significant than it is. It went from 36 to 16 seconds total, a 20-second reduction, more than 50%. That is meaningful. Imagine if Spirit's power cooldown was halved.
Whether the 10-second recall time is something they need or let alone something that makes them "bearable to play" is not something I care to debate. The devs have already confirmed it's a bug and that they too believe the 30 seconds are necessary, so I don't care to convince anyone anymore.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3707242#Comment_3707242
Fun for the killer player, if they want easy wins, sure. I for one don't find it fun even when playing as Twins - I have always enjoyed their macro focus and the fact that you have to manage your Victor downtime and get good value out of any time you have him available for. With Victor being nigh-constantly available now, playing them is mindlessly easy. The snowball now builds itself if you are capable of hitting your pounces, which if you just run up to survivors and bite their ankles takes little to no skill and has little to no counterplay.
You can still recall Victor when he's on a survivor's back, it'll just take 30 seconds instead of 10 until you are able to again. If you find that unfun, unlucky. I will say that Twins are not a popular killer for a reason, so I definitely don't disagree that ideally BHVR would do more to make them more fun for more players (on both sides). But the oppressively short Victor cooldown is not it. I had a simple suggestion earlier in the thread for an improvement I would like to see for them, but yeah, it will likely be many months or years before they touch them again, if ever.
You falsely construed the difference from pre to post-update Twins to be less significant than it is. It went from 36 to 16 seconds total, a 20-second reduction, more than 50%. That is meaningful. Imagine if Spirit's power cooldown was halved.
Whether the 10-second recall time is something they need or let alone something that makes them "bearable to play" is not something I care to debate. The devs have already confirmed it's a bug and that they too believe the 30 seconds are necessary, so I don't care to convince anyone anymore.
I didn't start, you started "not-debating" with your circular reasoning fallacy. And for someone who "doesn't even see the point in engaging in the argument", you have been "non-arguing" that the devs, and by association you, are right in reverting the changes since almost the beginning.
And sorry, but I'm not going to lose more time "non-debating" with someone who is already piling up language ambiguity, moving the goalpost, and cherry picking fallacies. I already said everything I wanted, and just like The Twins's cooldown, there is no need to prolong it more.
-
@zarr said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3707292#Comment_3707292
By adding 4 seconds everytime Victor has to regrow. Longer cooldown overall, but allowing her to access her power more often.
I still don't understand this. Yes, you would add 4 more seconds regrow time compared to what we have currently, taking it from 16 to 20 seconds, but that is still much less than the 36 we are supposed to have.
Also, it is 20 seconds minimum with my suggestion, the max being 30 seconds.
What do you mean? Victor would always be available after 20 seconds if the killer player so chooses, that's the only thing that matters here.
What is asinine is making a false equivalency and trying to still justify it after someone pointed out the flaws of using it as an argument.
No, what is asinine is trying to make it out as if I said they are equivalent. I used Spirit as an example to highlight a simple concept that is easy to understand: A strong power has a certain cooldown; a change to more than halve this cooldown is significant.
But if she hits the survivor, she can continue that chase with the survivor injured, and the survivor can't prevent her from using her power beyond her cooldown. Twins can literally be on the other side of the map while Victor is latched, which removes her power for 36 seconds, or kicked, something that you can do whenever she hits somebody or not.
Ignoring that we are now going into an asinine direct comparison between these killers instead of leaving it at the simple analogy of "power has cooldown, halving it is significant" I used them for, what you say here doesn't make sense. Twins can continue playing after the survivor is injured by their ability too, and sure the survivor might usually have more distance on Charlotte than they do on Spirit after a hit, but that in and of itself is not a difference relevant for the parallel I drew. Spirit is also 4.4m/s, whereas Charlotte is 4.6m/s and sees where the survivor is, but that's beside the point. Survivors also cannot prevent Twins from using their power beyond the cooldown. If the Twins player decides not to recall Victor despite being able to, that's on them. The kicking part is not a significant distinction: it simply puts the power on cooldown, it doesn't "take it away" in any more meaningful sense than Spirit's power going on a cooldown after using it. Of course there are differences between these killers, they are far from equivalent. But the simple idea of them both having powerful abilities that have certain cooldowns that need to be in a balanced ratio to the strength of their power is analogous.
Also, The Spirit's base cooldown is 15 seconds, and it seems fine to you for a "strong power" as you are using it as an example, but for some reason you want a 36 seconds "cooldown" for The Twins.
Yes, they are indeed not equivalent, and Twins' power is stronger than Spirit's, as it guarantees hits and downs basically every time it is active. I think it should therefore have a longer cooldown. Whether the precise cooldown Spirit does have for her power is appropriate or balanced is another matter that has nothing to do with the topic or analogy at hand, and I didn't say whether I think it is appropriate or balanced. What gives?
That's your assumption. One that I don't know where you get it
Because you make a point of highlighting the distinction that survivors can kick Victor after a successful hit, "punishing" Twins for using their power correctly, neglecting that all kicking Victor does is put the power on a cooldown, just like, for example, Spirit's power goes on cooldown even after successful hits.
And my point was that survivors can't force The Spirit to have a bigger cooldown for using her power successfully and hitting them, like they can do with the Twins. Because that's the problem here, survivors punishing The Twins for injuring them with Victor by making her cooldown 36 seconds instead of 14, not letting her use her power for longer than it should.
I mean, I can definitely see the merit behind this distinction here, that Spirit always has the same cooldown whether she hits a survivor or not. And while this is still not relevant to my argument because my argument only pertained the basic idea that halving a power cooldown is significant, I would if anything argue that precisely because you did get the hit the longer cooldown is appropriate, because you know, you got value out of using your ability. And so sure, maybe Spirit would also be a more balanced killer if she had a shorter cooldown on misses but a longer one on hits. But that's not here nor there, I can only point again to the fact that I didn't draw equivalence between these killers' powers in any direct way, I highlighted a basic, universal concept by ways of mentioning Spirit as an example. Beyond that, of course their powers are different and as such call for different power specifics, and with Victor not only guaranteeing hits and being able to chain downs in ways Spirit cannot, of course a different cooldown approach is sensible. Again, what you would be suggesting if you actually argued "they shouldn't be punished for using their power correctly" (i. e. hitting survivors), is what we had on the PTB.
Say what you want, that's "Arguing with Circular Reasonings 101", while also assuming that the devs are right in this one just because they agree with you.
The only thing going in circles here is me pointing out the same things I have through multiple posts. I am not arguing with you on whether the 10-second recall time is appropriate or not, or whether your suggestion would be (I didn't engage with your suggestion at all to begin with), as such I am not using any circular reasoning or logic in arguing on the matter. I'm pointing to the reason as to why I don't want to engage in the argument at all, which is simply that the only people I would care to convince are the devs, but they already agree with me. Whether we are "right" about this, well, I obviously subjectively think so, but I don't care to convince you or anyone but them of as much.
I still don't understand this. […] Victor would always be available after 20 seconds if the killer player so chooses, that's the only thing that matters here.
You add 4 seconds every time you recall him, latched or not, which results in bigger cooldowns overall. In fact, as I said and according to the Change log, they already changed the return time when crushed from 6 to 10. So, they already have longer cooldowns, and another reason to not revert the change and / or not make it 36 seconds.
No, what is asinine is trying to make it out as if I said they are equivalent.
You compared them indirectly by using one as an example to argue against the reduction of the other. And you are right, they are not equivalent. That's why what you did there is a false equivalency fallacy.
[…] but that in and of itself is not a difference relevant for the parallel I drew
But it is relevant, that's why the "parallel you drew" isn't valid at any level.
Survivors also cannot prevent Twins from using their power beyond the cooldown.
Yes, they can. From the 18 seconds that would take nowadays to crush Victor while latched and being able to use it again, to 36 (or 40 with the change in return time, something that I still don't know if it also affects the auto return like the Wiki says). It literally lets survivors punish The Twins for injuring them with her power.
The kicking part is not a significant distinction: it simply puts the power on cooldown, it doesn't "take it away" in any more meaningful sense than Spirit's power going on a cooldown after using it.
Except that you can do this on top of punishing her by literally doubling her power's cooldown, whenever you miss with it or not. That's why it is meaningful.
Of course there are differences between these killers, they are far from equivalent.
Then don't make false equivalency comparisons between them.
But the simple idea of them both having powerful abilities that have certain cooldowns that need to be in a balanced ratio to the strength of their power is analogous.
And that "balanced ratio" has to be 36 - 40 seconds without the possibility of recalling it earlier? It can't be having the ability to recall and use him after 20 - 30 seconds with other compensation changes for balance?
Oh right, I forgot about your circular reasoning point: The devs agree with you, so they are right and there is no point in arguing if there is any other way to do it.
Yes, they are indeed not equivalent, and Twins' power is stronger than Spirit's, as it guarantees hits and downs basically every time it is active.
That's totally false, it does not guarantee anything as you can fail your attack with Victor and there are many ways to avoid and get rid of him, including pallets, blinding, and kicking him when he fails or even if he downs another survivor.
Because you make a point of highlighting the distinction that survivors can kick Victor after a successful hit, "punishing" Twins for using their power correctly
No, I said that survivors can punish the Twins by taking Victor hostage and making her cooldown way longer. I never related this to the kicking. Either way, this still doesn't explain where you got that, according to my logic, Spirit should have no cooldown. It doesn't make sense.
And while this is still not relevant to my argument because my argument only pertained the basic idea that halving a power cooldown is significant, I would if anything argue that precisely because you did get the hit the longer cooldown is appropriate, because you know, you got value out of using your ability.
So, killers should be punished (more than they already are) if they play good and use their kit correctly and successfully, including giving survivors the ability to punish them even more. Got it. Sounds reasonable.
And so sure, maybe Spirit would also be a more balanced killer if she had a shorter cooldown on misses but a longer one on hits.
Using your same logic, the devs don't seem to agree with you on this, as the only change they have made to her base cooldown is to lower it:
Patch 2.2.1
- Buff: reduced Yamaoka's Haunting Recharge time from 20 seconds to 15 seconds.
So they are completely right, and there is no point in debate if this decision is the correct one, right?
I can only point again to the fact that I didn't draw equivalence between these killers' powers in any direct way, I highlighted a basic, universal concept by ways of mentioning Spirit as an example.
And for that example and argument to be valid, those two killers should be comparable and assume that Twins cannot be balanced with their cooldown cut in half because Spirit will not. That's why it is a false equivalence and not a valid argument.
[…] and with Victor not only guaranteeing hits
He doesn't guarantee hits.
[…] and being able to chain downs in ways Spirit cannot
That's if he is not latched to a survivor for 36 seconds, kicked, etc. And smart saying "in ways", as there is nothing preventing The Spirit from downing a survivor and using her power to just down the next.
[…] of course a different cooldown approach is sensible
And that "cooldown approach" has to be letting the survivors take your power hostage for 36 seconds by removing her ability to recall him earlier, of course. There is no other "sensible" and well balanced approach.
Again, what you would be suggesting if you actually argued "they shouldn't be punished for using their power correctly" (i. e. hitting survivors), is what we had on the PTB.
No, what I'm suggesting is not letting the survivors literally double her power cooldown by taking it hostage in response to getting hit by it, when it already has a minimum of 18 seconds if they crush it (8 seconds to crush, 10 seconds to return), which is basically the only reason they are now bearable to play in comparison to before.
I'm pointing to the reason as to why I don't want to engage in the argument at all
But you are engaging in the argument. If you really don't have any reason to argue against not reverting the change and making the cooldown as high as before, simply don't debate. You corrected my incorrect data, I argued that the correction only made my point even more valid. End of the discussion.
But what you did and continue to do is use the "the devs agree with me" argument as circular reasoning to "not debate" the point while you are still basically arguing against it, as the devs are right according to you, so 36 seconds of power hostage is the correct thing to do.
-
@zarr said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3707263#Comment_3707263
my point of having it from 20 to 30 seconds while nerfing the regrow cooldown instead of those forced 36 as that is what makes them more playable right now less valid and not more? Because it will reduce the overall time of Victor usage
Sorry, I'm not understanding your point here. The only thing I responded to was your misunderstanding of the wiki and the misconstruction of the change's impact based on that. But if I try to understand what you are saying here by looking at your first post:
Why not just make the regrow take 10 seconds instead of 6 and still allow for recalling him after 10 seconds of being latched, making it from 20 to 30 seconds total?
Is this what you are referring to? How would this "reduce the overall time of Victor usage"? It is supposed to be 36 seconds downtime after an injure, with your suggestion it is 20.
And you can't literally avoid and kick The Spirit's power to not allow her to use it even further, like you can with the Twins. It doesn't grant survivors the chance to punish her for using her power correctly, either.
I only brought up Spirit to suggest the simple notion that halving the cooldown on a strong power is significant. Going into a specific comparison of Spirit versus Twins would be asinine. But your contestations don't really hold. The point is that after Spirit uses her power, there is a downtime on it, breathing room for the survivors. This is true even regardless of whether she manages to hit a survivor with it or not. Following your suggestion would mean that Spirit should get her power back instantly when hitting someone, so as to not be "punished" for using it "correctly", I take it?
So, as the devs are saying the same as you, they are right, and because they are right, there is no point in debating if you are right or not, because you are.
I never talked about anyone being "right" in some objective sense. I said the devs agreed with my opinion so I don't care to convince anyone otherwise. That is not a "circular argument", it's simply saying I don't even want to have an argument because I see no purpose in it. You can kick and shout or whatever as much as you want for all I care, as long as the devs don't change their opinion I have no reason to engage in these arguments anymore.
How would this "reduce the overall time of Victor usage"? It is supposed to be 36 seconds downtime after an injure, with your suggestion it is 20.
By adding 4 seconds everytime Victor has to regrow. Longer cooldown overall, but allowing her to access her power more often. Also, it is 20 seconds minimum with my suggestion, the max being 30 seconds.
Going into a specific comparison of Spirit versus Twins would be asinine
What is asinine is making a false equivalency and trying to still justify it after someone pointed out the flaws of using it as an argument.
The point is that after Spirit uses her power, there is a downtime on it, breathing room for the survivors. This is true even regardless of whether she manages to hit a survivor with it or not.
But if she hits the survivor, she can continue that chase with the survivor injured, and the survivor can't prevent her from using her power beyond her cooldown. Twins can literally be on the other side of the map while Victor is latched, which removes her power for 36 seconds, or kicked, something that you can do whenever she hits somebody or not.
Also, The Spirit's base cooldown is 15 seconds, and it seems fine to you for a "strong power" as you are using it as an example, but for some reason you want a 36 seconds "cooldown" for The Twins.
Following your suggestion would mean that Spirit should get her power back instantly when hitting someone, so as to not be "punished" for using it "correctly", I take it?
That's your assumption. One that I don't know where you get it, as what I said is to give the Twins a minimum of 20 seconds and a maximum of 30 seconds of cooldown.
And my point was that survivors can't force The Spirit to have a bigger cooldown for using her power successfully and hitting them, like they can do with the Twins. Because that's the problem here, survivors punishing The Twins for injuring them with Victor by making her cooldown 36 seconds instead of 14 (or, according to the change log of the patch, 18, as they in fact changed the return time of Victor from 6 to 10 seconds when crushed), not letting her use her power for longer than it should.
You can kick and shout or whatever as much as you want for all I care, as long as the devs don't change their opinion I have no reason to engage in these arguments anymore
You are still here arguing about it, but again, you don't want to specifically debate if reverting the ability to recall Victor while latched and maintaining it at 36 seconds is good or not for the killer because the devs agree with you, and as the devs agree with you, there is no point in debating your argument because the devs agree with you.
Say what you want, that's "Arguing with Circular Reasoning 101", while also assuming that the devs are right in this one just because they agree with you, when there is a lot of things they can do to maintain the change and balance it.
-
@zarr said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3707231#Comment_3707231
I literally proved you wrong with the exact same stats you yourself tried to use an argument
Which stats are those? I didn't refer to any specific set of stats, just saying "pub matches". And what exactly did you prove wrong? I said they have high average kill rates in pubs, I didn't say they are top 5 average kill rate or whatever (which they on Nightlight however are, and which isn't a very meaningful distinction anyway because the differences between the top 5 and top 20 can be as little as 2%). Now you may argue 58-60% is not "high" for your terms, but that would be a completely different and mostly meaningless argument.
compared to other killers then yeah, mostly just their dedicated mains are playing
"Mostly" is different from "only". Again, there's millions upon millions of matches of DbD happening every month, all of which is captured in those stats. 1% of that is still tens of thousands of matches. I hope you don't believe only dedicated Twins mains are the ones playing those matches.
You literally gone back on stats from 2 years ago to salvage your argument
"Salvage" what argument? My argument wasn't they had a 60% average kill rate in high MMR brackets last week - they may very well and likely did still have high average kill rates, but we simply didn't have those stats last week -, it was that they have high average kill rates, which whatever stats we have do showcase. The most recent stats on killer-specific high MMR kill rates are from September 2022. Which, just to note, is less than two years ago. More importantly however, again, no changes to the Twins had happened since then, so there is no reason to not use those stats to describe the state of Twins prior to this update.
This argument is completely fruitless and futile. You supposedly don't even believe Twins were in a bad spot strength-wise and needed buffs, and yet you still keep going around these asinine points that would only be relevant if you did believe that. And regardless, the only actual point of my posting was that the 10-second recall time is broken. If you don't contest me on that, I don't care what you take issue with. Go on thinking that you got me good, for all I care.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3707239#Comment_3707239
You falsely construed the difference from pre to post-update Twins to be less significant than it is. It went from 36 to 16 seconds total, a 20-second reduction, more than 50%. That is meaningful. Imagine if Spirit's power cooldown was halved.
Whether the 10-second recall time is something they need or let alone something that makes them "bearable to play" is not something I care to debate. The devs have already confirmed it's a bug and that they too believe the 30 seconds are necessary, so I don't care to convince anyone anymore.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3707242#Comment_3707242
Fun for the killer player, if they want easy wins, sure. I for one don't find it fun even when playing as Twins - I have always enjoyed their macro focus and the fact that you have to manage your Victor downtime and get good value out of any time you have him available for. With Victor being nigh-constantly available now, playing them is mindlessly easy. The snowball now builds itself if you are capable of hitting your pounces, which if you just run up to survivors and bite their ankles takes little to no skill and has little to no counterplay.
You can still recall Victor when he's on a survivor's back, it'll just take 30 seconds instead of 10 until you are able to again. If you find that unfun, unlucky. I will say that Twins are not a popular killer for a reason, so I definitely don't disagree that ideally BHVR would do more to make them more fun for more players (on both sides). But the oppressively short Victor cooldown is not it. I had a simple suggestion earlier in the thread for an improvement I would like to see for them, but yeah, it will likely be many months or years before they touch them again, if ever.
You falsely construed the difference from pre to post-update Twins to be less significant than it is. It went from 36 to 16 seconds total, a 20-second reduction, more than 50%. That is meaningful. Imagine if Spirit's power cooldown was halved.
Ok… how does this affect my point of having it from 20 to 30 seconds while nerfing the regrow cooldown instead of those forced 36, as that is what makes them more playable right now, less valid and not more? Because it will reduce the overall time of Victor usage, which is supposedly the problem with it being 16 seconds only, without granting survivors the chance to forcefully remove your power for 36 seconds everytime you injure any of them.
And you can't literally avoid and kick The Spirit's power to not allow her to use it even further, like you can with the Twins. It doesn't grant survivors the chance to punish her for using her power successfully, either.
Whether the 10-second recall time is something they need or let alone something that makes them "bearable to play" is not something I care to debate. The devs have already confirmed it's a bug and that they too believe the 30 seconds are necessary, so I don't care to convince anyone anymore.
So, as the devs are saying the same as you, they are right, and because they are right, there is no point in debating if it is right or not, because it is.
Circular argument at its finest.
-
@zarr said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3707126#Comment_3707126
I already addressed this point earlier in the thread. "Unbound" means not bound to Charlotte or a survivor. It goes without saying that Victor has to not be bound to Charlotte in order to be able to recall him, so it's obvious the reason "unbound" is specified here is that it pertains Victor not being tied to a survivor. That change had also already been in on the PTB, and yet Victor could not be recalled while latched onto a survivor, further suggesting this is not what is meant here. And finally, if this were intended to also apply when Victor is latched onto a survivor, there would not be a 10-second timer until you can recall, because that is not "at any point". What this patch note refers to is recalling Victor when he is parked around the map, which was not possible in the past.
If that isn't enough to convince you, take it from the devs themselves saying this is an unintended bug, surely then meaning they didn't intend for that note to imply otherwise.
What are these weird hills people are trying to climb up to me from. Even if it were "documented", what does that change about the fact that it's broken? What is your purpose with this?
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3707192#Comment_3707192
Lies? You really love your death on this hill. I said they were considered top 5 comp (past tense), which they absolutely had been, and no changes had happened to them since then. I did not specify they were considered top 5 up until the very day the update dropped, but again, the primary reason why they may not have been is simply that they don't see regular play in comp anymore and are not considered much at all. That is not mutually exclusive, I hope you can understand that. You also only brought up one event to support your point. Again, Outrun The Fog for instance has Twins in their second-highest tier. The Arkade has them more heavily restricted than half the killers.
"20th kill rate" is disingenuous. Again, the difference between the top 10 cut-off and Twins is 2%. If you bracket the killers by kill rate, Twins would be on 8th place, and that's a very strict bracketing by 1% integers. And regardless, I said high kill rate, which 58-60% absolutely is (60% in the high MMR bracket in Sep. 2022). Top 3 kill rate on Nightlight in the last month, top 9 and top 4 respectively in the two months prior to that. Saying only the most dedicated mains are playing them is also disingenuous, or just showcasing your lack of understanding that even a pick rate of 1% correlates with a huge number when looking at millions upon millions of matches throughout a month.
But yes, let's say you got me good, I heinously lied about Twins' standing in comp and performance potential in pub matches, to serve my sinister plot to get this 10-second recall time reverted that they absolutely need to be able to compete.
So, instead of being forced to not have your power for 30 seconds total, it was 36? That totally invalidates my point. In no way does this make their apparently final decision to revert it even worse.
But yeah, my mistake. I never was that interested in the Twins to look at their past numbers, and looking at this post, I guess they will get back to my "Not picking them even if I'm paid to do so" list again.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3707208#Comment_3707208
Victor needs to have meaningful downtime.
You can't just have a 150% Killer running around constantly killing people.
And from 20 to 30 seconds everytime you injure someone, including 4 additional seconds everytime you recall him is not "meaningful"?
For not saying that even if it is visually bugged, you can kick him again when you down someone with him, which is the main reason he is on the map almost constantly right now, as people don't even try to kick him because of it. So, you can even argue that they should first fix the visual bug and then see if the 16 second minimum recall when latched is really a problem before changing it again.
-
@radiantHero23 said:
Let's make a list of all things that need to be killswitched.
- Potential energy
- Rpd
What else is broken?
Vaulting as killer from high places. I don't know if it is because all the rubberbanding or what, but the times I vaulted from high distances the killer stop in the air for half a second after vaulting and then graciously falls to the floor, making it to at least feel slow.