Batusalen
Batusalen
About
- Username
- Batusalen
- Joined
- Visits
- 3,248
- Last Active
Comments
-
@TrueGuardian32 said:
Ah it's a separate team with with more refined code. Meaning unlike PC and Console DBD the code is easier to work and not made of sticky spaghetti. This means they get more simply cause it's easier.
@TrueGuardian32 said:
This means if BHVR ever decides to remake DBD with newer code. We would see a massive performance boost, better graphics, and more frequent updates. The only problem is that it would take time and money and in the eyes of BHVR per the moment. It just isn't worth it cause we will complain if we go threw months without content. Much left the one to four years it would take to remake the game from scratch to a playable state.
That excuse is getting old. BHVR is using one of the most extended, feature rich and polished engines there is, being the main engine of most of the biggest games in the last decades. It can be programmed in either one of the oldest and most extended programming languages there is (C++), a proprietary visual scripting system that doesn't need advanced programming knowledge (Blueprints) or ideally a combination of both, with soon another proprietary and easier to learn language created for Fortnite being integrated in the main engine (Verse).
If their code is spaghetti, it has nothing to do with the platform the game is programmed on. Also, this may surprise you, but the code and the performance has little to do with graphics or how frequent they make updates, not the impossibility of adding features to the game. If they made the code, they can change it to add whatever is needed no matter what it takes.
By the way, I don't know where you got that coding a game for PC and Console is somehow "harder" than coding one for mobile, specially when right now most engines (including Unreal Engine) are multiplatform and mobile versions usually share most if not all of the code with changes only done to graphics.
@RavenBirb said:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/7AA6O4FTL70Y/image.png
Why is a MOBILE version of this game getting updated more often with features and game modes than it's originator? I've played this game since 2016 and the more I see posts like this, with no new update to DBD other than cosmetics and microtransactions for pages of grey charms ill never use from the story time rift.
Don't get me wrong I support the game and the rifts but the line of this game just asking for money and no new substantial changes needs to draw the line or the game will sadly fade away. Population is literally here for this game and its just becoming a cash cow of the same.
I've made post after post asking for new modes, ways to escape and die, more execution's than the same one on repeat, FOREVER. To be met with silence as i don't understand why so many people don't care to see the game expand with what I've listed along with new maps and killers.
As a Horror buff this whole ordeal personally is frustrating and saddening, maybe one day ill be heard
The real reason: The Mobile version is developed and maintained by NetEase, a company with experience in developing mobile games that moves millions in the asian gaming market.
The question here is, how a company like BHVR with a 7 year old game that has 60 million players buying cosmetics and DLCs multiple times for multiple platforms, a 10$ spin off game, a deal with one of the biggest asian mobile gaming developer in the world, and both another spin off game and a movie coming still works and offer the same live service quality than an indie company instead of being at NetEase level.
-
It's true that the pip requirements for survivors should be tuned, but if you are simply "not spotted or chased by the killer" but unhooking, healing and doing gens, you should be getting points for:
- Lightbringer: For actively doing gens + 1/3 of the points for other survivors doing gens.
- Unbroken: For not being downed in the whole game.
- Benevolent: For the healing and safe unhooks you or your teammates do.
- Evader: For being inside the killer TR even if the killer didn't chase you.
So, at minimum you should not be losing any pip. In what grade are you?
-
That's about right.
-
@Venusa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3625969#Comment_3625969
I wouldn't be surprised. Some Killers would rather stay in a match until the servers shut down instead of "losing". That's how much of an ego war they take upon.
Well, obviously most survivors would rather have the game artificially hinder the other side than getting good at the game and not doing gens mindlessly so they don't lose. That's how much of an entitlement war they take upon.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3624721#Comment_3624721
Weak argument. Nobody will stop running Regression-Perks. It is a Bonus which was not needed, 2,5% are enough that the Survivor cannot gentap. This is 2 seconds repair time (roughly).
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3624737#Comment_3624737
You will not reach 8 Regression-Events on a Gen in normal gameplay. This restriction will only be noticeable in 3-Gens and even then it will be rare.
You will not reach 8 Regression-Events on a Gen in normal gameplay. This restriction will only be noticeable in 3-Gens and even then it will be rare.
Again, that doesn't contradicts in any way what I said. It's not even related with any of the points I made.
-
@Halloulle said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3624762#Comment_3624762
"Knowing how every killer work and how to play against them is part of getting good at the game." Which requires you to have somewhat fair matches against each and every killer, no?
Neither documentation nor tutorials will help there; sure, you can pump the knowledge into your head if you want to treat dbd like a seminar for your college major - but that won't help you with the excution part.
The bots would be an idea - but only if they're actually having an authentic playstyle. Looking at surv bots, that's... questionable.
"Any other idea that is realistically feasible" - patronising much?
--- Granted, maybe the title should have come with a "theoretically" at the front. But titles being somewhat exaggerated/made somewhat more forceful/polarising/assertive isn't exactly a new concept either.
The feasible option of all that? Better than bots. Better than tutorials. Better than documentation. - And better than all matches being based on Killer MMR? A built-in 1v1 mode. I'm certainly no "come shack 1v1"- or "trapper-wraith"-monke but more than once I wished for a base game feature (both as surv and as killer) to have focused practise without having to scour Discord servers for people to practise with.
Which requires you to have somewhat fair matches against each and every killer, no?
To acquire that knowledge in first place? Not really, no. If you don't know that The Knight's guards disappear the moment you start to unhook somebody no matter how many matches you play, you probably won't even try to unhook if a guard is near the hook. And even if for some reason you try, you probably would either not notice it or being confused, thinking maybe is a bug or something.
The problem is the lack of detailed documentation about killers, and not having a way to practice against them without having another person playing that killer. Both better documentation / tutorials and a practice mode are needed.
The feasible option of all that? Better than bots. Better than tutorials. Better than documentation. - And better than all matches being based on Killer MMR? A built-in 1v1 mode.
How a 1v1 mode against strangers would help with anything? Because if you want to 1v1 against someone you know to practice in a secure space, you could use custom matchs to do it. Again, the problem here is not having the option to practice without a human playing the killer.
But do you want to know the real best option to really learn how killers work and how to go against them? Playing them. Pick a killer, play a decent amount with him and not only you would learn everything about him (as you would basically need to if you want to do good), you would also learn what works against you so you can do the same against him when playing survivor.
Believe me, it works. Being a killer main did wonders for me when I started playing survivor.
-
"The best way I can think of to remedy that situation [...]"
Well, I can think of a lot of even better ways to solve it:
- Better in game documentation about every killer.
- Killer bots so survivors can practice against them.
- Per killer tutorial to learn how to both play as and against them.
- Any other idea that is realistically feasible (in other words, not impossible to do) and doesn't imply close to infinitum queue times.
Also, I recommend you look what Skill Based Match Making is and the technical details behind it so you understand why what you are suggesting doesn't make any sense and can simply not be done. Knowing how every killer work and how to play against them is part of getting good at the game.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3624636#Comment_3624636
Yeah, but there is no need to buff Genkicks.
That can only be truly affirmed by a dev, but in my opinion is at least highly debatable. Now that kicking a gen to regress it effectively consume limited resources, I'm going to guess they decided (to test, as we have to remember there is a PTB coming and we will have to see what the final numbers are) that spending 1.8 seconds and one of your limited stacks to only regress 2.5% was undertuned, as you can't apply it indefinitely anymore (i.e. just like Pain Res).
In other words, those changes are not because they are giving a free buff to killers for the sake of it, but as compensatory balance necessary to accommodate the base mechanic change (which, if someone didn't notice by now, is a general killer nerf).
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3624371#Comment_3624371
Gentapping could have been solved with the old numbers as well. 2,5% of Progress would already be more than just tapping the Gen mid-chase. Yet they decided to double this AND double the removal of progress via Kicks.
True, in fact they could and should have solved it years ago. Doesn't contradicts what I said in any way.
-
"If you dont agree that DBD favors killers youre obviously the one benefitting."
If you unironically think that the game is killer sided, obviously you have not played killer enough.
-
Like I said in other posts, the only problem I see with the nerf is the "by any means" part. It can lead to some unwanted situations and abuses, like the obsession getting into a trap to force the lose of stacks in the case of Trapper.
It should work like PWYF and lose stacks with "Basic attacks" and "Special Attacks", which would do the same without allowing for indirect damage to eat your stacks even if you completely avoid the obsession.
-
@Xyvielia said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3623629#Comment_3623629
The only reason was that this Gen scenario was the perfect opportunity to cater to the Killers who’ve been moaning about Gen kicking/ tapping, and sneak a little buff in there to ease the tension Devs have been facing from them.
Just yet another means of holding player’s hands who need or simply prefer the easiest path up that little 4K hill they continually claim is Mr Everest.
It was never a real issue for anyone who understands the internal specifics of match management and tactical counterbalance.
Though, it was obvious you weren’t going to receive a response from them, smh.
Just more unnecessary and excessive nerf/buff nonsense because they can, hindering moreso than aiding.
Gen tapping has being a problem in this game since I started playing it, when before learning that kicking the gens often was just a waste of time I had gens stopped 3 or 4 times in a row by just a little touch from a survivor, even in mid chase. The thing is, with the new change made to gens to hold the hands of those survivors that doesn't have enough game sense to break the 3 gens early, use Deja Vu or just pressure the 3 gens at the end, if it stayed like that survivors would be able to eat through the 8 "regression event stacks" making impossible for the killer to defend any gen at the end game, close by or not.
So, gen tapping was always a real issue and they only solved it so survivors could not abuse yet another hand holding mechanic for them in form of a safe net in case they mess up doing gens. This is not a gift for killers.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3623894#Comment_3623894
No. Repair is repair. If a generator was regressing and a survivor hops on it, they have to repair it for 4.5 seconds to prevent it from continuing to regress once they leave the gen. All repair progress is repair progress. The only difference is you can't tap gens to stop regressing, now. Stopping regressing now requires 4.5 seconds of repair progress to be made.
Just to note, I'm going to guess that when they say "5%" (AKA 4.5 charges) that means it would also count the charges of multiple survivors, so two survivors would stop the regression in 2.65 seconds approx (4.5 charges at 1.7 charges per second).
-
@pale_hispanic said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3623629#Comment_3623629
Right I don’t get that part. The 5% kick is a good thing but then having to repair it an additional 5 percent?? They basically buffed kicks to 10% slowdown.
You don't have to fix an additional 5%, you need to fix that 5% without letting go the gen to stop the passive regression of the gen.
-
@Volcz said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3623804#Comment_3623804
The whole point is to break the 3-gen strategy that killers like to use. If a killer is hovering back and forth between 2 gens, its because they're important and/or got progress put into them. If they're pushing me off of the gen w/o me hitting the 5%, the gen will just continue to regress till 0 and we'll be right back to the beginning. The problem wasn't the gen tapping, it was how close some gen spawns are to each other and how some killers basically negate the distance travel time.
I don't see this as a huge problem with coordinated SWFs b/c they can turn the 3-gen strat against the killers now but I do think solo que will suffer with this change the most.
SoloQ has both an icon of when someone is on a gen an another marking that someone is being chased, all the info you need to coordinate gen pressure to break a 3 gen situation. Also, if the killer is hovering between 2 gens, you still have a 3º to do uninterrupted.
There is also Deja Vu, an underused perk that allows you to basically break every single 3 gen the map can generate before even getting to the last one, plus a 6% bonus on repair speed for that gens.
In other words, every survivor, SoloQ or not, have a lot of tools to solve or prevent a 3 gen situation even before it can be a problem. If you let the killer have a good 3 gen at the end game or are unable to coordinate pressure to solve it, it's on you and your teammates at this point.
-
@RFSa09 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3623807#Comment_3623807
the obsession can for some reason step on a trap 4 times to make him lose all his stacks
This. It should lose stacks with "Special Attacks", not "Damaged by any means".
-
@Evan_ said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3623436#Comment_3623436
All this quote shows that's "too close" and "most egregious" means something different to you than to the devs.
Can't say I'm surprised that a survivor feels the killer is too close unless he forgets about the hook and goes to do something else.
Well, just as the Holy Survivor's Rulebook teach us: "If a killer is anywhere on the map, he is camping".
-
@TSQuint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3623387#Comment_3623387
Proximity camping should be next. It should be the 16m radius of Kindred. Laziness should never be rewarded or regarded as a "valid strategy".
You mean, like the 16m radius the AFC already has?
-
I understand that Dying Light is showed as it modifies actions speed so the player doesn't have to ask "why I'm healing people so fast?", but there is no reason to show STBFL to the obsession as it not affect his gameplay in any way.
Also, what we need is for less perks to be shown to survivors (e.g. Dissolution), not more.
-
If they want to camp, they would have memorized the distance they could be without triggering the AFC by now. Not a big deal.
@jonifire said:
My only question for this perk is, whether it stacks with Thrilling Tremors?
Next meta combo incoming.
-
@Krazzik said:
I mean they fixed one of those, m2ing the obsession now loses 2 stacks.
@Hunkulese said:
What you're asking for is already included.
But there is a big difference between "any means" and "special attacks". Like it is written right now the obsession being hurt by a bear trap would take 2 tokens from STBFL, the same if he gets infected indirectly by the Plague, etc. In other words, even if you try to completely avoid the Obsession if for some reason they get hurt indirectly, you are still punished (maybe even when hurt by his own perks like FTP, but not sure about this one).
So I think that part should be changed, to avoid unwanted situations.
-
So, the guy is watching someone with an inactivity crow on their head, just staring at the killer in the distance with just one gen left... "It's a lose situation". Well, of course it is a lose situation if you just give up or didn't even try in the first place. In there, at least 1 of you could have got out of there alive, both if you play it correctly and have a little luck.
Then, after losing any chances of survival by their teammates actions making it a total lost game, "What can the survivor do in this situation? Fix this, BHVR", which basically means "Make it so I can escape even when I have already lost".
There is a lot of problems that need to be fixed in this game. Survivors being able to lose is not one of them.
-
This build is usually based on Thrill of the Hunt and Fear the Darkness, so the moment you see a Pig with this build just start cleaning totems, including the dull ones.
No totems = no Fear the Darkness either, and the moment it's gone UW can't trigger enough times to be a real problem even with both gears addons.
-
@roundpitt said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3622693#Comment_3622693
I’m not going to watch videos anyone posts, I’m listening to an audio book and it stops it
I would take that as a "Sorry, I misunderstood your post" and move on 🤣
-
@roundpitt said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3622690#Comment_3622690
I’m not sure if you are aware, but typically you need an inflection to know sarcasm is being used. With only text, you can’t do that. It’s why typically people add “/s” at the end of sentences which they want to be taken as sarcastic.
I literally posted a video of me cleaning an Hex which spawned next to me at the start of the match titled "Hex are great". Taking in count the context of the whole post, I don't think it need any more signals that it is obviously sarcasm 🤣
-
@roundpitt said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3622076#Comment_3622076
If hexes didn’t get cleansed within 20-30 seconds after the game started half of the time, I might agree with you.
But there’s a very good reason why the majority of killers don’t use them. Most killers can agree, without even collaborating, hex perks don’t provide enough value to warrant using. 🤷🏻♂️
... I think you either responded to the wrong post, or someone doesn't know what sarcasm is.
-
@Pluto_1 said:
More and more often I'm finding myself in a public match with 4 bots. In this scenario killers should be allowed to end it.
I don't even know why the game continue at that point. End the game, count as a win with 4 full sacrifices and a bonus BP to compensate for the short match and that's it. If people wanted to play against bot, they would just go to custom match.
@Rulebreaker said:
... while we agree, hoooow are you getting 4 bots repeatedly? What the blazes are you doing?
Just play Skull Merchant. That usually does the trick.
-
@Coordi said:
So what you're saying is to bring a Hex build because no one is ready to cleanse totems. 😏
Because you need a lot of preparation to deal with Hex perks compared with the whole build the killer should bring to make them somewhat viable just for things like this to happen anyway, of course:
https://imgur.com/a/TaeF1tzSo yeah, bring Hex builds people, Hex are great. Perfectly designed and implemented.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3621616#Comment_3621616
People are running Calm Spirit more than Vigil according to Nightlight (3.3% and 2.1% of builds respectively); CS being the tracking counter and Vigil being the blind counter (with the added bonus that Vigil also synergises with exhaustion whereas calm spirit doesn't really synergise with much else)
also the assertion that "the first complaints about the perk" were blindness related confuse me because anyone I've seen mention the blind did so as an explicit afterthought to the tracking ("why does it also have a blind on top of the already op tracking," that kind of thing) but I'll assume we just saw different people's posts so I guess moot point
And? Doesn't change the fact that UW is the Nº 18 while Lethal Pursuer and BBQ are 5º and 6º, with 15.35% and 14.32% compared with UW.
The perk is far from being the "ultimate tracking perk" people claim it is now. And yes, the first posts about the perk when Alien released was about the 30 second blind, not the tracking as again it is only really effective on those killer that can get there before the screaming survivor has got to the other side of the map.
Believe me, as a WoO + DV user I would know.
-
@egg_ said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3621570#Comment_3621570
Because it's one of the best tracking perks in the games for the minimum effort required
Blindness is not it's problem
I totally disagree. The perk is the best tracking perk just for the few killers that can get to the survivor before he has the chance to hide or get to a loop (i.e. high mobility killers). For the rest, it's a nice perk that allow you to find nearby hidden survivors at max. In fact, it is Nº 18 in Nightlight with just a 6.47% use.
And as @GannTM said, even the first complains about the perk was about the blindness effect more than anything. Remove the effect from the perk and you would see how almost nobody would mind the perk being like it is now.
-
Why do you think people have such a problem with UW?
-
The real question they are asking is: Would you be fine giving us money for the same content more than once so we don't have to pay Sony part of the benefits we made even if the purchases are not made in Playstation? And the answer is no, I don't agree.
There is no other explanation for not implementing a proper cross-progression while having an in game store with an account linked to it, and after making it clear in the AMA that their priority with the game are cosmetics and DLCs while they would take "years" to implement QoL features? Absolutely not.
Start doing things right for your consumers BHVR.
-
Let me get this straight, one of your teammates allies with the killer and snitch on you... and somehow is the killer's fault by "abusing" the AFC? How?
-
Oh, Hex are great. Super useful 90% of the matches. And the placement and spawn logic? Flawless...
https://imgur.com/a/TaeF1tzNow seriously, the only few Hex perks that you can use without a whole build dedicated to it or a killer that is able to somehow defend it are those that had conditions for it to activate (e.g. Plaything, Face the Darkness). The rest are going to be cleansed before you even have the chance to get value from it as RNGesus decided to spawn it in the most visible and accessible totem of the whole map.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
"Why didn't the slugged Survivor crawl away?"
What good would that do when the Killer could just walk over, pick up the Survivor, and drop them back under the hook?
Everytime the killer drops you gives you 25% of the recovery for free. So, you would force him to either stop camping and hook you, or to let you go and having to chase you again.
-
@RadiantSurvivor said:
Hi, I will be brief:
apart for the notorious problem of anti-camp not working if:
- a survivor is within range in another floor
- killer has no terror radius
there is a new worse one, happening more frequently in the last days.
Killer slugs a survivor under the hook and can facecamp.
Could be a failed hook save, can be the killer bringing poruposefully a survivor under the hook (both happened to me) but at that moment the game is over for 2 survivors.
It appears that an inert and harmless survivor counts as a survivor that can walk and save - for the anticamp.
Below screenshot of one case:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/E0VE5P0YIVEH/1.jpg
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/US2V9H7YY8PG/2.jpg
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/GG94JVLXN29K/3.jpg
As you can see the anticamp meter didn't move a bit while I died on hook.
When I said the above in the DbD Discord channel I was basically bullied and insulted by the toxic community of this game (there is no moderator on discord?), so I am expecting the same here.
Nevertheless I believe there should be some awareness of the above in case the developers feel like doing something about it.
Thank you,
Fun facts:
- The anticamp also works when the killer is in another floor if there is no other survivor around.
- The anticamp works even if the killer doesn't have a terror radius. Doesn't even know where you get this from.
Also, you know why downed survivors counts to the slow down of the bar? Because in the PTB survivors tried to abuse the system by forcing the killer to loop around the hook as much as possible (which only slowed down the bar) and down them near it, so the moment they were down they didn't even slowed the bar at all, wasting the killers time and forcing him to grant a free save.
So, yeah, thanks those abusing survivors for it.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3616747#Comment_3616747
Not at all? They're different statements. There is no game sense to cover for in your examples, because those things aren't a case of only struggling because you don't understand the game fully, nor are they situations that you can overcome with a superior knowledge of how a match is progressing.
It's not covering for a lack of game sense. That's a separate sentence to talking about why these things were added. That's why I was responding to your explanation- it's flawed, and doesn't prove the thing you're saying.
The only thing I would say is that you have the misconception that "game sense" only applies to have knowledge of the game. While in part is true, having game sense also implies that you would make the right calls at the right time with that knowledge, which also needs skill. For example, if you can't coordinate to do a save without a "3, 2, 1, GO!" in voicecomms is also having a lack of game sense.
Other than that, I already said what I had to say about the topic. I would only point out that your explanation of "they are needed" are not any proof that they doesn't cover for a lack of game sense either. For example, the fact that having to take in count the possibility of you getting tunneled or camped on hook while making your build could lead to "stale metas and an irritating stifle on player expression" doesn't change the fact that you don't need to even think about it now as the game cover those cases for you. So, you are free to contribute in the stale and irritating meta of having WoO + the 3 builds that everyone else use (a lot of player expression in survivor's builds, without doubt).
-
Well, are they going to fix the bug that allow survivors to wall hug, effectively reducing their collision box size and going faster than they should around loops?
Because I'm going to bet that the Wesker and Blight "exploits" have also a lot to do with how the collision system works and they can not fix one without fixing the other.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3616735#Comment_3616735
You seemed to be saying it sarcastically, hence my asking for clarification. You certainly seemed to be arguing against that point up to this stage, too.
Because, yes, they don't cover for lack of game sense, they were addressing base game flaws.
I think you didn't understand, what I'm saying is that just as I said in the first post, you are giving that "explanation" of why those base mechanics that covers for survivors "are needed", almost like it is what every person defending them says (or maybe I can see the future, who knows...).
Because they do cover for survivors, as already explained. If you want to call it "base game flaws" to justify the fact that the game cover for the lack of game sense and skill of survivors, you do you. If that was the case, they could have done a lot of other things that still required survivors to apply gameplay solutions while solving those "design flaws" in their more extreme form only, instead of applying general nerfs in form of base mechanics that cover for every situation and case so they don't even have to worry about it.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3616726#Comment_3616726
To tackle those examples in order:
The need to craft your build with hard tunnelling and facecamping in mind is not game sense, it's just pressure to not bring fun and interesting perks. It's a cause for stale metas and an irritating stifle on player expression, and it's absolutely a good reason to implement these mechanics, not a detracting factor.
I'm not sure I understand your second example, the need to know how to coordinate with your teammates. That's either something you can't do regardless of game sense, if you're in solo queue, or it's something that's largely pretty unaffected if you're in SWF? Not coordinating still means you're being inefficient, and it also wouldn't have caused hard tunnelling or face-camping before these mechanics were added, so I really don't get this one. Maybe I'm missing something, of course, please feel free to elaborate if so.
Your last point is the same as the first: That's not game sense, that's a game flaw. If you cannot go for a save and there's nothing to punish the killer for it... your teammate just dies and the killer gets a free kill, or you're forced to trade and give the killer free (albeit lesser) value that way instead. That's a bad outcome either way, so this mechanic isn't covering for a lack of game sense, it's correcting a flaw.
As for the 3-gen thing, I think considering that the previous mechanics don't cover for poor game sense in any meaningful way intentionally or unintentionally, I think BHVR have earned a little bit of benefit of the doubt. There's no point in making a fuss until we've actually seen what it does- and even if it does leave survivors able to cause 3-gens without being punished for it, that's not 'another to add to the list', it's the first entry on a currently empty list.
In summary: "They not cover for survivors, they are needed features so survivors can get the best experience out of the game and have fun playing it", just as I said in the first post.
Anyway, again, I don't mind as long as they aren't abusable by survivors or an unearned advantage, so I don't have more to say about it. Just that again, is funny that BHVR is so killer sided for adding a FoV slider for killers after 4 base mechanics for survivors.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3616705#Comment_3616705
How do basekit BT and the AFC system cover for a lack of game sense? No amount of game sense will stop a killer from hard-tunnelling or facecamping if it's mechanically possible for them to do it. Neither are things game sense could beat, or could prevent, so they're out as examples here.
The removal of unhooking grabs... there's a bit more of an argument there about game sense, kinda, but it ties in to camping. If the killer's camping, no amount of game sense will stop that.
Now the 3-genning solution, which is the first thing actually beatable with the right tools and mindset, but it's not exactly healthy for the game if the killer sticks by a 3-gen and refuses to actually down + hook survivors. Even if we were to agree that it's unnecessary, though, that's one example, so not a pattern.
I do agree the person you're responding to was silly to say the FOV slider is tone-deaf, to be clear, I was just confused about your comment regarding game sense.
The first three things all removes the same level of game sense: The need of making your build with those cases in mind, the need to know how to coordinate with your teammates to do saves (now only reserved to the EGC, where if done correctly it would almost always grant the save without the need of having thought that it could happen beforehand), and having the enough common sense of knowing that if a killer with an instadown is camping the hook it would require extra effort to go for a save, so you should decide if it is worth it or it is better to just do gens (funny enough, it appears that most people don't even have the enough game sense to know that now if you see the killer camping you should get out of there and let the AFC do it's job) among other things.
Now we will have to see what the anti 3 genning is about, but if it is something that prevent survivors getting punished for not putting some thought on what 3 gens are letting the killer have at the end, it would be another one to add to the list.
And don't get me wrong, most of those mechanics were implemented in a "fair" way (with some caveats, like I said with BT in the endgame) and I don't have any problem with them. Doesn't change the fact that they were game changing and made to cover for the lack of game sense of survivors, so it is funny to see survivors complaining that adding an accessibility feature along the 4º base mechanic to solve their gameplay problems for them is so unbalancing that is going to completely break the game.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3616542#Comment_3616542
What mechanics have survivors gotten to cover for a lack of game sense? I can't think of any recently.
Recent mechanical changes for survivors would be like... the basekit BT, the survivor HUD, and the visual terror radius, right? None of those things are things that'd cover for lack of game sense, really. The HUD kinda could in a vague sense, but that's obviously not what it does in most cases. So, what are you referring to?
The basekit BT, the AFC, the removal of unhooking grabs and now the "3 genning solution", whatever it is. All things that already had in game solutions. And people is already asking for an "anti slug" mechanic.
But a FoV slider? Unacceptable, that's too much. It's going to unbalance the whole game, even if the only difference would be that you won't need to use a perk slot to not suffer motion sickness. BHVR is killer sided and they prefer to ruin the game than never buff killers ever again. That's it.
-
@Spare_Them_Mori_Me said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3602223#Comment_3602223
First off, Trapper is one of a few killers that has his effectiveness diminished if he three gens.
Second, you're clearly no Trapper expert. Stop using phrases like "The whole point of Trapper..." and such. Its mis-information to new players who happen here. Its much more effective to pick half a map, or 5 gens to patrol. 3 genning is something that should be a direct result of survivors not paying attention, not something to shoot for from the start.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3606787#Comment_3606787
This genrush meta is a result of killer complaints getting addressed and added. We can't heal anymore effectively, so its better to be on a gen. Its just cause and effect. Still, sucks to hear. Sorry :(
According to survivors, the genrush meta has been the result of killers saying or doing something since 2 years now.
When the gen regression meta was up, it was because all killers used Eruption + CoB + OC so it was a response to it. When DH was nerfed, it was because they were in total disadvantage in chases now so they started doing gens. Now it is because healing was nerfed, so there is no point in healing and not do gens instead. And when there is no available excuse for it, gen rushing isn't even a thing, is just doing the main objective in the most efficient way.
Can we recognize that gen times are simply too low already? Or we should keep it being killers fault somehow until BHVR add more progression perks and the average match time drops bellow the 4 minute mark?
-
@Shirtless_Myers said:
Honestly? Pretty disappointing for the future of the game. Solo queue is already at a disadvantage, and yet in the majority of matches, one of the following will happen: A survivor will disconnect at the start, immediately kill themselves on their first hook, or refuse to play the game because several killers/addons are not well balanced, and then farm each other till death. To top it off, killers are seemingly far more toxic than survivors as they love to t-bag/hump my character whenever I'm downed because Behavior thinks it's okay to showcase my character's prestige in the pregame lobby.
While I think it's wonderful to embrace Shadowborn as an accessibility feature, I think it's fairly tone-deaf to act as though there won't be any consequences to balance with this when Nurse/Blight are allowed to exist as they are. Kindred is a perk that would benefit solo-queue during saves to organize a rescue with/without a killer aura since this same information is relayed in SWF on voice.
Ultimate Weapon and Decisive Strike are not currently in the same realm of usefulness, and it's odd to see them paired together. Ultimate Weapon is a multi-use, zero-effort perk that is strong on a select few overperforming killers by covering their weakness of finding survivors for them and equally punishing solo-queue by removing useful auras (Hooks) during the chaos. Decisive Strike is an anti-tunneling perk that is single-use, doesn't fulfill its purpose well, and is a minor inconvenience. Depending on your luck or skill, you may never get a single use out of it or can miss the difficult skill check.
The game has become one of the worst multiplayer experiences on the market, and it's shocking how awful the solo experience is allowed to be and how the developers treat their audience. I shouldn't feel like I'm being actively punished for doing these challenges by playing this role and the sad state they allowed it to become to appease a vocal minority.
Survivors getting base mechanics to cover for their lack of game sense over and over again: They are needed features so we can get the best experience out of the game and have fun playing it. Now, where is the anti-slug mechanic so I can have another chance on top of my other second chances, BHVR?
Survivors when they add an industry standard feature that should have being in the game since day 1 for accessibility reasons: How dare you make this unbalancing change, BHVR? You are so killer sided! Your non-stopping killer buffing is ruining the game!
Do you realize you are saying what you are saying about a list where most of it are going to be killer nerfs and survivor buffs just because they are going to add a FoV slider, right?
-
@daffyd said:
If communications in DBD were balanced... why isn't it offered to solo survivors in game?
Does anyone know the answer to this?
I should point out the wording here...
'Offered' is to offer, e.g. the survivors need not accept
'in game' is in the game, not some forum/other form of communication method
The only real reason for not having in game voicechat and many other things: Server / Service costs. They need to either set their own voice servers, which would cost them money, or pay for a voice chat service which would also cost them money.
Simple as that.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615294#Comment_3615294
For the rest, I refer to you to the other post I just made and also recommend you read and learn a little about game design theory, because obviously you people doesn't even know what differentiates a casual /party game from a "hardcore" / high skill ceiling one:On game design theory: earlier I posted a comment from a Dev.
I'll also avoid repeating myself, you call mental gymnastics, I'll say you aren't addressing the actual points, and just address your latest arguments. Your definition on skill ceilings as the difference between casual and serious games doesn't make sense. People can get insanely good at charades or Pictionary, but they are still casual games. A child can play chess relatively easily, but that doesn't mean it isn't a serious game. Those elements are true of all games that aren't random luck.
DbD isn't that hard to get into. The thing that makes it difficult is so much of the player base is experienced that its really hard to have a matchup of new players.
DbD is a casual game, that can easily be treated as a competitive / serious game, because of its focus on theme and very heavy inclusion of random elements. The competitive DbD scene has to make numerous changes to the game to have fair matches.
Your definition on skill ceilings as the difference between casual and serious games doesn't make sense. People can get insanely good at charades or Pictionary, but they are still casual games [...]
But you don't need an high skill use of a pencil with a lot of game sense acquired by experience and knowing the game in depth to be able to compete at Pictionary and win, do you?
If you put an unranked child that just started playing chess against a Grandmaster and they play seriously, can we say that the child doesn't have any chances of compete?
That's the difference, and that's one of the reasons of why Pictionary is a casual / party game and chess is not. The point is not how much good you can get at the game, but how much skill and game sense is required to be considered good at the game above the minimum skill required to compete at it.
DbD is a casual game, that can easily be treated as a competitive / serious game
No, it is not. It is a competitive PvP game by nature and design that people play casually just to lose and come to this forums to complain how the game is getting too competitive and sweaty and you can't play it "just for fun" anymore when again, if you play it for the fun of it you won't care about winning or losing in the first place.
On game design theory: earlier I posted a comment from a Dev.
Devs keep saying it is a casual game because that was it's intention in the day (that, and because people like you that seems to need for DbD to be a "casual game" at least in title, even if it has nothing to do with one for the reasons already mentioned), just as Sakurai said that SSB was a "fighting party game". But just as what happened with DbD, the game ended up as a competitive PvP game like any other fighting game as that's the nature of it's design.
So, the sooner we start treating DbD as what it really is, the better.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614835#Comment_3614835
Even your mind gymnastics contradicts your point!Let's try and walk through this again.
Your original quote (to someone who was not me):
Funny that you don't see the contradiction in saying "It is a party game" continued with "Escape/kills highten your MMR".My original reply
There isn't. MMR is meant to match players of similar playstyle against each other, not just skill. If you min/max your role, expect to run into other people who do the same, if you bring kind of random perks and just play around you're supposed to get the same from others.That's still true. The MMR system accomplishes its goal. If you want to treat it as a fun, casual game you can, if you want to be ultra competitive, you can.
Let's go through some other things.
We talk about the definition of party games. I state
I see a wikipedia article with no sources for the phraseYou then quote the same wikipedia article for evidence.
You then say
And your response is making excuses and more mental gymnastics to justify it not being an acceptable definition? Dude...That's not what I said. I never said it wasn't an acceptable definition. I said that's not what other people meant when they said the phrase 'party game'. You have to address a person's point based on what they are talking about, you can't just substitute your own definition and change their argument.
Words, especially phrases, rarely have one single absolute definition. That's more true on a forum like this with users from around the world.
It has, you are wrong.It very much does not. I wish it did, but the devs have discussed the idea of wanting each player to have their own view of what they consider a win or loss.
Also, even if it didn't, I don't know how that would mean anything. I mean, many party games have win and lose conditions, so according to your logic this makes any game that has one not a party game?...I'm trying to move away from the term party game because it confuses the entire argument. Party games is a vague term that can mean different things because even if it means 'games generally played at parties', that going to shift from individual to induvial.
I was merely replying to your point about people adding win conditions to make a "party game" competitive, which is what lots of people have done with DbD.
To avoid repeating myself, which would let you keep repeating yourself, I'm going to avoid your mental gymnastics about already established points that you are not really answering to and just answer to this:
I was merely replying to your point about people adding win conditions to make a "party game" competitive, which is what lots of people have done with DbD.
No, they didn't, it is the game who defined those win conditions.
For the rest, I refer to you to the other post I just made and also recommend you read and learn a little about game design theory, because obviously you people doesn't even know what differentiates a casual /party game from a "hardcore" / high skill ceiling one:
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615194#Comment_3615194
My brother in the entity, explain to me how an high skill ceiling competitive PvP game is a "casual game".
For someone accusing me of not having a frame or reference, is funny that you don't seem to know what a casual game is, or you won't be calling DbD one. Not that you need to (even if reading a little about game design theory would not hurt you), as I already explained exactly what a "party / casual game" is and why DbD is not one. But using your example, again: Fall Guys is a casual game because it has easy controls, a low skill entry point, and a low skill ceiling, like any casual / party game ever in existence for the last 30 years.
So yeah, DbD is a PvP game that "has a MMR system", you can maybe argue that it has easy controls (but then any FPS shooter would have, and if you had see any non gamer playing one like I have you would know that those people have a hard time pressing more than two buttons at the same time) but it definitely doesn't have either a low skill entry point, needing a lot of knowledge and game sense to be able to compete, and not a low skill ceiling as there is a lot of advanced techniques and mechanics to learn and dominate to be able to do good at the game.
In other words: It is an high skill competitive PvP game by the book definition of it, which is just the contrary of what a party / casual game is.
By the way, I not only have played most of the games in your list, but I was there when the difference between "casual" and "hardcore" gaming started to be made online, when you probably didn't even had a controller in your hands yet. Not that I like assuming things about people or that it really change anyone's points, but as you did the same to me is free game, I guess.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614136#Comment_3614136
My brother in christ please take an extended break from the game, try out MK1, LoL, GG:Strive, Counter Strike, SF6, Starcraft 2, Apex Legends, Dota 2, and Valorant (just to get a decent cross sample), and then tell me again that DBD is a competitive game.
I genuinely hope that you have never played any genuinely competetive multiplayer games because the idea that DBD is anywhere close to as competetive as those games, for someone who understands what makes a game competetive, is frankly embarrassing. if you have no frame of reference however that's understandable. Please build that frame of reference
"But the game has a MMR system" yeah so does fall guys. That doesn't make it's competetive, that just means that it's a casual game that tries to prevent people who are casual (good) from playing against people who are casual (bad)
My brother in the entity, explain to me how an high skill ceiling competitive PvP game is a "casual game".
For someone assuming that I don't have a frame or reference, is funny that you don't seem to know what a casual game is, or you won't be calling DbD one. Not that you need to (even if reading a little about game design theory would not hurt you), as I already explained exactly what a "party / casual game" is and why DbD is not one. But using your example, again: Fall Guys is a casual game because it has easy controls, a low skill entry point, and a low skill ceiling, like any casual / party game ever in existence for the last 30 years.
So yeah, DbD is a PvP game that "has a MMR system", you can maybe argue that it has easy controls (but then any FPS shooter would have, and if you had see any non gamer playing one like I have you would know that those people have a hard time pressing more than two buttons at the same time) but it definitely doesn't have either a low skill entry point, needing a lot of knowledge and game sense to be able to compete, and not a low skill ceiling as there is a lot of advanced techniques and mechanics to learn and dominate to be able to do real good at the game.
In other words: It is an high skill competitive PvP game by the book definition of it, which is just the contrary of what a party / casual game is.
By the way, I not only have played most of the games in your list, but I was there when the difference between "casual" and "hardcore" gaming started to be made online, when you probably didn't even had a controller in your hands yet. Not that I like assuming things about people or that it really change anyone's points, but as you did the same to me is free game, I guess.
-
@CountOfTheFog said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615045#Comment_3615045
Thanks so much for the information! I'm referred to the wiki a lot. Do you know if the Devs contribute to or endorse it as a reliable source of information? Thanks!
It is officially endorsed by BHVR even if they are not involved with it, and I would say that the info is pretty reliable as they compile it from both official sources and data mining the game.
All of the information displayed on this Wiki was gathered through the collective efforts of its editors.This Wiki is run by Community Volunteers and not employees at Behaviour Interactive. However, this Wiki is officially recognised and endorsed by the Developers of Dead by Daylight who are in contact with its administrators (a.k.a. Wiki Guardians). -
Well, let's hope that now that streamers are having a real issue with it BHVR decides to finally do something against cheaters after literally half a year of people complaining about it in the forums without even a response from their part.