CodeDB
CodeDB
About
- Username
- CodeDB
- Joined
- Visits
- 12,187
- Last Active
Comments
-
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4009565#Comment_4009565
Survivors aren’t literally forced to repair generators. Surely they can heal teammates, unhook teammates, be chased by a killer, break totems, and a bunch of other things.
Nothing in the game actually forced a survivor to repair if the survivor doesn’t want to. The survivor always has the choice to click that M1 button
Wait, I apologize, I must have missed something. How many totems does a survivor have to break to be able to progress the game? Does it actually power the gates or does it just create a secret special hatch for that one person?
-
Swimming in syringes is not recommended….
-
When y'all are arguing over this proposed mechanic, how are you envisioning it working?
Because right now, if a killer abandons a match, the match ends right there and that would be my issue with the killer having the option to leave as soon as the gates are powered/opened/whatever.
There are countless reasons for a survivor to want to play out the end game. There are specific achievements, rift challenges, and even just bloodpoint incentives for specific actions during end game. Add on the fact that the game is designed for survivors to only even see the gates powered in about 40% of their matches, it would make things even more frustrating.
If the survivors all abandon right now, there are still bots and the match can continue as mostly normal. The killer can still get their daily ritual mori, hook in basement, etc challenge done in that scenario. Until we have bot killers (or allowing an endgame with just no killer), I don't think this would be a good option. -
@danielmaster87 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3906952#Comment_3906952
If only we saw half the outrage over Badham as we did Haddonfield. But I think we know why that's not the case.
What's worse than Whataboutism? Whataboutism that isn't even based in reality.
-
Even taking your premise as true, which I don't think it necessarily is, I think there are a few main issues.
First off, its a regressive punishment. It punishes worse players more than good players. While this needs to be true to an extent, as good play needs to be rewarded, it just creates further disparity between the top/above average players and the average/below average players which leads to major frustrations. I see it similar to increasing the penalty for missing skill checks on generators. Sure, it helps with regression and can punish "mistakes" but this would clearly just make weaker players (or solo queue, where you can't control the skill level of your teammates) worse while barely touching top level players. This would then be similar for killer players. A cracked Huntress who snipes you across the map isn't going to care about a missed attack cooldown nearly as much as your average player who had a Huntress daily and now needs to have all their mistakes compounded on them.
Second, there's a "feels bad" argument that has to be considered. While I don't think this argument should stand in the way of properly balancing the game, you do have to consider how a killer feels to play to an extent. Look at Twins before their mini-buffs they received. They were a legitimate threat with the right player but anyone who just tried picking them up would always complain about dealing with the cooldowns, especially when switching between Charlotte and Victor not necessarily because it stopped them from winning but because it was a chore to deal with constantly having your control locked. Decreasing cooldowns like that didn't all of a sudden sky rocket their kill rates (as far as I'm aware) but it did at least make them more enjoyable for the players who did play them. Even complaints about Chucky right now generally reference how terrible he feels to play which is a legitimate concern when video games should, by design, be fun to play.
Last point then, is that it punishes killer players for trying to use their powers more. Any Deathslinger or Pyramid Head can hold their power and only use it when its guaranteed a hit like at a window/pallet and most people would agree that is boring (but consistent). Adding longer cooldowns to them means that it encourages this safer playstyle even more and doesn't allow for them to risk using their power at non-guaranteed moments. The same could then be said of Blight then. Why try to use my power to outplay a loop when I could just force the pallet drop, break it, and chase them down with my power instead of risking the whiff and the punishing cooldown?
Obviously, there is a balance to be had and you can argue specifics on any killer but unless something is grossly overpowered or leading to other unsavory outcomes (like old Legion or Skull Merchant), I think killers should be encouraged to use their power more rather than less. -
I don't think starting another discussion is going to get you a different answer.
This one makes even less sense though. What is the benefit of disconnecting in your scenario? You're on death hook, about to be downed by the killer, so whether you disconnect or get downed and hooked, you're out of the game. What difference does it make other than protecting your ego? -
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3850007#Comment_3850007
Let me put it this way.
I'm saying:
Hey, at the highest level of play, this game is a survivor sided.
And then you are saying:
Yeah, but when you look at these crazy win streaks which are these highest level players playing in "average" level matches, this thing happens.
It doesn't make sense.
It’s weird that you literally type “you are saying” and then be the one to accuse me of straw-manning.
To set the record straight, I’m not saying that. I’ve said nothing, and continue to say nothing, on the balance of Dead by Daylight because, as I previously said, it’s a nuanced topic. And honestly, when it comes up, I generally find people irrational and tribal.
What actually happened was you brought up win streaks in public queues while arguing some other point. You specifically mentioned Otz and/or his general group go on crazy “30-40+ win streaks” and others going on hundreds long win streaks previously.
I haven’t seen that. So I brought up what I’ve been seeing (which specifically seems to contradict what you claim to have been seeing) in hopes we could discuss why we have such different experiences.
That's all I cared about. Now that it's fairly clear that is no longer the point you want to make (as win streaks in public queues don't matter, which absolutely could be true), I'll drop it. I just hope you can get over your Us vs Them mindset to actually comprehend where this discussion broke down. -
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3850001#Comment_3850001
You are being so disingenuous at this point. I literally said they exist, Team eternal has done major win streaks before. I'm pointing out that the argument of win streaks itself is just a bad argument anyway. I would like you to make some counterpoint to what i just said though and stop strawmanning. Otherwise if you are going to be disingenuous i'll just disengage because no point in having a discussion with someone who wants to argue in bad faith.
You even proved my own point, by arguing that the people going on those win streaks are survivors with comp experience and 10k+ hours. Which is literally what my point is, but ok.
Also, this entire thread is literally about "balance" its asking the question, is this game survivor sided. By definition that is a question about balance.
My interest is in win streaks and the general game, not explicitly balance because I think its a very nuanced topic.
I wouldn't have even commented on this thread if you didn't bring up win streaks but when you did, I was intrigued. So, I brought up the recent ones I've been seeing to relate and provide what I'm seeing to see how it relates to your streaks you've been seeing (which you still haven't specifically referenced, by the way).
So, I guess I just don't know how this is straw manning to ask for the examples you explicitly referenced but I apologize if it comes off that way.
And what is your point then? I don't want to misconstrue it but if the point is that a team of 4 survivors with 10,000 hours each on comms playing explicitly to get 3 escapes no matter what only managed 20 in a row proves some sort of imbalance towards survivors, I'm just not sure I follow. -
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3849990#Comment_3849990
You are missing my point.
At the HIGHEST levels of play, the game is survivor sided, at the LOWEST level of the play, the game is killer sided. At the average level, it is relatively balanced but swings heavily from 1 side to the other based on RNG, the map, what perks people bring, the killer played etc.
When killers do these "crazy win streaks" they are playing in matchmade games, against the AVERAGE PLAYER, so a top 0.01% killer is playing against the "average" survivor player. Which is more about the skill differential in the players, not the actual killer role.
Yeah, sometimes RNG factors into play and survivors are 4 players, so there are 4x as many opportunities for one of them to make a game ending mistake for the team. Which is why survivors typically are going to go on smaller streaks, more opportunities for mistakes. But the reality is that the "Average player" is generally pretty bad at this game, which is clear from the data.
When you look at comp matches, they impose a ton of rules to more balance the game and remove unfair elements. On the survivor side, a ton of perks are banned, you can't have duplicate perks, a bunch of item addons are banned, you can't bring the same items, etc. On the killer side, they basically just ban a handful of perks, things like mori, and myers tomestone. They also often create separate scoring systems, and its usually less about kills vs escapes, and more about team vs team (I.E. Team a has a killer player and a survivor team, and they go against Team B, and its about how many escape against Team A vs Team B not, oh well the killer wins because they got X Kills). Its an entirely different system.
And the data that BHVR releases clearly shows this. Unless you are going to look at the data and honestly tell me that nurse is one of the worst killers in the game, and needs to get on a much high level like killers like freddy and pig. And that is looking at the "high mmr" stat that BHVR releases.
When i talk about "high level play" i'm not talking about whatever the hell BHVR thinks "high MMR" is. Because obviously their idea of "High MMR" is not looking at the best of the best players, otherwise it would clearly show nurse being the best killer in the game.
The main point is. If you took the best survivor team in the world, and put them against the best in the world for each killer and had them each play 10 matches. Most killers would struggle to break the 50% kill rate, with the exception of maybe nurse and blight. With many kills probably never winning any games, and probably only getting a number of kills you can count with 1 hand.
Cool stuff. Weird comment to give to me though, as I never once mentioned balance.
I was talking about the win streaks you referenced which now sound like they…don't exist? -
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3849983#Comment_3849983
I see, so when we balance the game, we balance around the average survivor player, but the best killer players? Makes sense.
These 4 streamers, all with 10,000 hours in the game and some with comp experience even, are the average survivor players but also one of them happens to be the best killer players?
Can you elaborate on that? Possibly also include some more specifics on the Otz/other survivor win streaks you were referencing? -
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3849953#Comment_3849953
Right, because again, he goes on crazy difficult challenges. My point is that even handicapping themselves they still manage to go on big 30-40+ win streaks. There are survivor teams that have gotten hundreds of wins in the past by playing the best stuff, it exists on both sides.
I would love to see some of these streaks. Only one I've seen recently has been OhTofu (playing with Xeno, Zubat, and Alby, all players with I0,000 hours each I believe though I can't say I'm familiar with all of them) and the most they got was 20. They did do it twice though, losing to a Blight and a Dredge, and all within the past 2 weeks. Unfortunately, doesn't look like they have picked it up again since the newest chapter but I hope to see it continue.
Funnily enough, OhTofu also got to 50 wins with Oni on his first try at the same time. Weird coincidence though, I'm sure. -
@Blueberry said:
Remove the ability to remove yourself on hook.
I just can’t disagree more with people saying it’s a game issue. People keep listing all these reasons for giving up in a game relating to losing, perks, playstyle ect. Okay let’s be honest here, the vast majority of DCs and give ups have nothing to any of this, people are giving up or DCing in most cases in their first hook or within the first 60 seconds of the game. Before any of these points are relevant. It is not because of how the match is going.
The main reason people are doing this is because of entitlement. They messed up on their first chase, they don’t like the killer, or they don’t like the map.
I also couldn’t disagree more with people saying survivors don’t have a come back mechanic. It’s literally a good chase..that’s it. I mainly play solo queue as well and my win rate is in the high 70s%. These problems people have are mainly skill issues but it’s easier to make excuses instead of taking accountability and improving at the game, which won’t happen if they give up every time.
That's interesting you are claiming to have a solo queue win rate in the high 70% range. I wanted to see the gameplay so I checked out your last two weeks of Twitch VODs and found you only played 7 games of survivor on stream and your win rate was actually 29% and that included a game where a killer DCed with 4 gens left (thanks to an Orange Glyph, who can blame them for wanting out of that match?).
Am I missing something with the numbers here?
Also, really impressed at your Onryo win streak. 38 games in that time frame (from my count) with all of them being 3/4k's. Over 3 gens remained on average for those games too, absolutely spectacular gameplay. -
@VampireHimbo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3728747#Comment_3728747
But you can't. You are not allowed to shoot another camera in the radius of a disabled camera. And if you put a new camera outside the radius, a previous camera in a useful location will be removed. Replacing cameras can only be done if they are not broken.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/N9CFWXIXIY93/1716851493482964.jpg
I think you are missing something here. You can shoot the camera's directly, which removes them and allows you to quickly reset them. Otzdarva does something similar in this match, around the 4:09:30 mark.
https://youtu.be/yvozn6fAkPs?si=Pf0a55lDHjmE7y_1&t=14971 -
This may be one of the worst comparisons with actual votes I've seen in this forum. Since when are downs the "main objective" of killers? A flashlight save doesn't retroactively remove a hook state, it stops/delays the hook state from happening.
Which sounds much closer to gen regression, which is a thing already in the game. -
@Blueberry said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3703776#Comment_3703776
Do I have to have recorded the data on a spread sheet for my thousands and thousands of hours to be valid? I know the results of my time whether it's written down or not.
I stream regularly with all the vids recorded on my page if you'd like to see that.
You don't have to, I was just seeing if you had actual data because I find those breakdowns interesting.
You're perfectly fine to rely on your anecdotal experience, I was just under the impression it was actual data by how you presented it. My bad! -
@Blueberry said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3703770#Comment_3703770
The data they're referencing?
No, your data. I assume they're referencing the kill statistics recently released which we know is contentious at best.
Do you have data to back up your breakdown though? -
@Blueberry said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3703734#Comment_3703734
After over 10k+ hours in the game playing both sides, I trust my judgement here. That also is not what the data shows.
At low mmr the game is killer sided.
Mid/average MMR it's pretty balanced.
High MMR it's very survivor sided.
May I see the data?
-
@burt0r said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3701646#Comment_3701646
It's always funny to me that survivor need a chance comeback option at all times in the game.
Meanwhile where is something for killer when they are on the back foot at for example 1/0 gens left and less than 6 hooks?
Edit: Outside of perks like noed, which is also been complained for by survivor since it's inception and therefore not a valid answer in my book.
That's an interesting question. I thought it was well established that killers are meant to get stronger as the game goes on so that is their comeback options? Like, here are all the things I can think of off the top of my head.
- As gens get completed, the map automatically becomes easier to patrol. There are less areas you need to check and you can limit your patrol more
- Survivors main resources (pallets) are a finite resource and as the game goes on, survivors have less to use to defend themselves
- Even survivors secondary resources (items) are limited. The later in the game, the less charges their medkits/flashlights/toolboxes have to help them progress the game. Killers add ons don't drain like that
- Even a ton of killer powers become more plentiful as a game goes on. Oni has more blood orbs around, Onryo has more stacks of condemn, Plague has more people infected and/or more red fountains, Trapper should have more traps collected/set, Doctor should have more survivors in higher tiers of madness, etc
- A survivor on 2nd hook has no chance of unhooking themselves (outside of the camping meter, controlled by the killer) meaning that is less the killer has to worry about later in the game
- After gens are completed, Decisive Strike and the anti-camp feature both disable giving the killer a better chance to secure a kill
- End game perks (beyond even NOED) exist. Terminus, NOED, No Way Out, Remember Me, Fire Up, Blood Warden all give a killer a better chance in the end game which, if more than 3 survivors plan on escaping, needs to happen
- End Game Collapse puts a set timer on the survivors and if they haven't escaped when the timer goes off, they are automatically sacrificed
You can make your arguments that these aren't as effective as you would like but you can't really deny that there aren't mechanics to help killers as the match goes on and "catch up" to survivors. I also find it absolutely silly that so many people saw this comment and didn't take the two minutes to actually think about it. The Us vs Them remains strong as always.
As for the original post, I absolutely think the crows need to be improved and start revealing survivors after a set amount of time with no/limited gen progress. It may be true that it is an issue that survivors don't feel they have a chance to comeback in these style of games but prolonging it is just painful for everyone. The 30 minute 3-gen slog was addressed because of how terribly boring it was, I see this as similar enough to be addressed in some manner. -
@Blueberry said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3694579#Comment_3694579
"You won more then 60% of the games as killer so again it proves killer
is the power role and the role that wins more making it killer sided."You are too stuck on "winning". Whether we win or lose is far less important than how we won or lost. Did I win because they made lots of mistakes or because I played well? It matters.
"So at a lower mmr you lose as survivor and at a claimed higher mmr you
win as killer. So where is the point in your vods that its not killer
sided you were even winning with sub optimal killers at "high mmr"
proving my point even more."It's because I'm able to recognize why I lost. If it's because me or my team played bad, that's not a balance issue.
First of all, I really appreciate the actual recorded gameplay. It makes it a lot easier to see others perspectives and I know the headaches and effort it takes to do so.
But watching your 12 hour VOD from the other day kind of shows where I think the disagreement can stem from.
On the left hand side are the killer games (with gens remaining). On the right are the survivor games. You, personally, escaped twice in your eight games played as a survivor which would be an escape rate of 25%. The team though never won (technically you did leave before the final results but I think its safe to assume in most of those matches) with the best result being a tie between survivors/killers.
In the killer games on the other hand, you did exceedingly well, winning eighteen of the twenty-four matches for a win rate of 75% and a kill rate of 77%.
Now, I know you want to focus on the "how" instead of the raw numbers and I absolutely agree to that to an extent. I'm not arguing for balance changes here. What I'm trying to show is that this reflects my experience and, assumedly, others experiences when loading in to Dead by Daylight. If I play one side and can win 60% or so with confidence and the other is a complete guessing game where my personal skill doesn't seem to matter at all, how can you fault them for feeling the game is tilted toward the more consistent role? -
https://youtu.be/xASnx8Uq01g?si=3_1m3kkaXu7rtHIU&t=9097@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3691851#Comment_3691851
I've never seen a huntress in comp, have you?
I'm no expert in the comp scene but I do luckily have some internet searching capabilities! Here you go bud!
Should be timestamped but the games start around 2:32:00. Seems the Huntress (at least in the first match) did just fine! -
@xltechno said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3670624#Comment_3670624
270 seconds! ? Where did that number come from? 3gen will be completed in 120 seconds at most.
To do this, the chase will only take about a minute, subtracting the killer's search time and the time it takes to reach the hook. In the opening, all the pallets are present, so Survivors use them strategically and use them in combination with windows to be frugal. This is quite possible if you know how to derive the loops from each other.
So, as a killer, the theory is to let it use about 2 pallets and then change the target, but if everyone is a good survivor, after consuming a certain amount of pallets and finally knocking it down, several gen completes. From this point on, the killer can only win if the killer doesn't make a mistake and the survivor makes a mistake, so it is said that M1 cannot win against an opponent of the same rank. Of course, it is different if there is a disparity.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3670626#Comment_3670626
Yes, that's why it exists because there is a skill disparity between killer and survivors. Or simply by luck. Or maybe someone just accidentally made a mistake.
One of these matches is quite literally a comp matchup from a tournament. To blame it on "skill disparity", "a mistake", or "luck" instead of actually acknowledging the skill on the killer's part (or even the survivors) is so dismissive, I find it downright insulting.
In the future, if you want people to have actual discussions or considerations with you, you may need to check your bias and possibly admit you were wrong or, at the very least, were exaggerating for emotional effect. Otherwise, it's kind of pointless to even respond.
-
@xltechno said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3670460#Comment_3670460
In the current environment, if you complete 3 gens before getting 1 hook, the killer has no chance of winning. From there, as long as one survivor touches the generator, gen powered is inevitable. The exception is unless top tier killer (in which case 3 gen completion won't happen) or your previous chases have turned key areas of the map into a scorched wasteland of pallets.
It would be fine if all the survivors wanted to skip the generator and rescue the survivors.
Citation needed?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcv_kApsE0A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx-0f_ymFuU&t=357s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGpKN0KeZt8
These are just some of the few recentish examples I could find.
Like, it's not easy obviously but a good player can absolutely snowball as killer and comeback from pretty dire circumstances. You seem to forget that the player playing the killer does have skill impression and can effect the outcome.
You may need to work on your own personal skills and/or mindset if you haven't noticed this.
-
@jesterkind said:
See, the problem is that the perks you're talking about aren't bad. (Mostly.)
Ellen got Light-Footed, a really strong stealth/chase perk, as well as the reasonably strong and fun to use Chemical Trap. Even Lucky Star, which is a little under-tuned, still does something useful and worthwhile.
Gabriel got the ultra strong MFT, sure, but he also got the strong and useful Troubleshooter. Scavenger less so, sure, but two out of three ain't bad.
Alan Wake launched with one super strong perk, Champion of Light, and then his other two perks are reasonably useful but less strong.
The fact of the matter is that survivors have all released with at least one (but normally two) good strong perks, the content survivors are getting lately is not abysmal. This is a community perception issue, not a game design issue.
I don't even necessarily disagree with your sentiment but claiming Boon: Illumination is "reasonably useful" really undercuts your message.
That being said, I do think these survivor doomposts are a tad bit early as there should be a survivor in the PTB tomorrow that could have a perk that actually sees actual use and not just hypothetical "could be good on paper if you squint" use.
-
@Nos37 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3646412#Comment_3646412
Trapper just has to kill 2 surviors, slug the 3rd, trap the exit gates, hook/kill the 3rd, close the hatch, and the 4th one automatically loses. There is no free room for the 4th survivor to pick up the 3rd survivor, repair the remaining gens, and apply pressure at both gates simultaneously. Just a free 4k.
Oh, is that all the Trapper has to do? Just kill 2 survivors, find and slug a 3rd (or kill 3 and find hatch I guess), trap both exit gates and all of this before the last gen is done?
I just think we have different definitions of "free kills" if that's the case.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
I just recently had a match that I had 8 damage events on a single gen, but it was super unusual. All of the survivors were ignoring ALL of the gens with the exception of three center gens (and eventually one far off). They just kept pouring all of their resources into these 3 gens, so they were literally the only gens to even defend. I'd keep popping over to other gens, but nope - all of them untouched. This was even with me running away from the center 3 gens and running off to chase people (despite being a "bad idea")
The first one was technically a grab, but for all intents and purposes, that would have been a damage event via surge otherwise.
This would have actually been closer to 12 damage events if they happened to go down closer to the generator. Many of the downs they were just beyond the range of surge. If I had used eruption, then I would have reached 8 within minutes of the match starting (but then again, I wouldn't pair surge with eruption to begin with).
https://youtu.be/w_PqS6RSC8g?si=AJ8zLm4xB5qKe-jr
Now someone might say, "Oh, you won, so who cares?" Yeah, I won because the Survivors were making some serious blunders and also didn't have tool boxes or gen rushing perks. On any other match, this could have easily been a loss. They were more interested in playing altruistic than actually doing the objectives. They could have easily knocked out that center gen if they actually tried, and with the other gens spread out like they were, that may have been walking miles as an m1 killer with no map traversal power.
First of all, thank you! Surge/Jolt was exactly what I wanted to see in use and I agree the game was unusual. That center gen must have been up to over 90% with how much the survivors were trying to push it and just couldn't commit.
That being said, I counted 6 gen kicks and 4 Surge/Jolt procs which were mostly split between the gen near Shack and the gen near the Basecamp (though this map makes it hard to tell with its lack of...well much of anything lol) so I don't even think this game would have used the anti 3-gen mechanic (and nor should it). Gen events could have been a bit closer as you mentioned with the early grab or the hook being a bit closer to the gens but the fact that they weren't I think is a good sign for the mechanic.
While I thought 8 events would be on the high side, I do think examples like these show why it can't be much lower (if at all) than 8. I'll be really curious the number of Surge/Jolt hits on a similar game on a map like The Game or Hawkins.
-
@Chiky said:
Using a sample of pro players is not the same as using a sample of general players. It's just a really bad sample, especially using just 2 players. It's like League of Legends balancing the champions based on the pros....
With my oreo build I kick gens all the times. I havent counted, but definitely more than 20 kicks per game. Maybe way more than that. And even with the rest of killers, the number of kicks is high too. Not sure if a kick has been kicked 8 times tho (not in PTE, and not when doing a kick a gen X times with the help of a survivor), so I can't really tell if that's acatually a thing.
If the change was just kicking 8 times turns the kicking regression useless, I'd say it'd be completely busted to the survivor side, but since it has a nice regression and also renders the gen tapping useless, I think it's all good keeping it on 8. Of course I would need to test it, but it sounds fair.
My sample games were simply what I could provide and aren't meant to be definitive proof for balancing. I, like you, had a sense of what my personal games have gone like but I have found that simply stating what I, the average or more likely below average player, experiences isn't really notable for this forum. Anyone can say their personal experience so I wanted to find some actual numbers to help demonstrate why I felt a particular way and help facilitate an actual discussion.
I chose the two players I did because
- I knew about them previously and trusted them to know how to play the game
- I generally enjoyed their content anyways
- They were streaming live content so I knew it was not edited
All that being said, I think you missed the actual question I posted with this. I specifically asked for others to add their input and give me other game footage to check out to get a more holistic view on the issue. If you have someone who plays in a more similar fashion to you that you think would be beneficial to bring to the discussion, I would love to know about them.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3623999#Comment_3623999
I have had 3 regression events within seconds of each before. That's nearly half of my charges gone for the entire match in under a minute. That's simply not scalable.
That killer has 3 people slugged at 5 gens...I don't think they need to worry too much about "only" getting 5 more Jolt prokes in my opinion.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3604450#Comment_3604450
Well, it is the truth. I'd go as far as to say the ANOES remake is my favorite horror movie.
I've watched the entire Nightmare on Elm Street franchise, but I don't like the "silly" approach they took with Freddy after the first movie. The remake fixes that: it makes him darker, scarier, brutal.
I love it.
You know what, I get where you are coming from when you explain it like that and I respect it. I hope this was clear that I meant no ill will with my confusion by the way; I've just never seen anyone say anything really positive about the remake let alone prefer it over the original.
-
@GeneralV said:
Freddy's license is weird, difficult to get. Iirc, it is split between a studio and whoever received the original rights from Wes Craven, so that is why many games don't even have Freddy. Hell, it is a miracle DBD has him.
But honestly? That is the one thing I'll never complain about. I prefer the remake version, so I'm good.
I have seen and heard the wildest opinions on this forum. From the most confusing misunderstandings of basic game mechanics, troll bait designed specifically to start Us vs Them flame wars, and even plain contrarianism just to never have to admit they may be wrong.
And yet I have never been as taken aback as by seeing someone say they prefer the remake Freddy over the original.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3600464#Comment_3600464
beginner players should learn the maps. it costs 3 perk slot to do this so it better do something.
Beginner players are learning the maps? Like, if they knew the maps perfectly, would they still be considered beginners??
-
@WilliamSN said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3592919#Comment_3592919
A comp level blight going on a 1000 winstreak in public lobbies doesn't mean much when you take into consideration the softcap pairing 1800 MMR players with comp players that realistically belong in a 3000 mmr bracket.
We're not arguing for balance changes on something that "almost happened" , the 5 gen pop with only 3 players remaining happened, the gate opening happened.
If at high MMR killers are forced to play blight/nurse , with strongest addons + strongest perks , just to be able to BARELY secure a win after 5 gens get popped, then the matches for any of the other 30 or so killers will be much more disastrous.
A game where only 2 characters are viable at high MMR gets boring extremely quick, both for killer and survivor players.
I mean, I once saw a Blight running Gearhead/Brutal Strength and nothing above a green add-on get a 4k against a comp level survivor team so I don't know how true it is that you have to run the strongest addons or perks. I don't have the video on hand but I'll see if I can find it somewhere.
But can you at least acknowledge that the Blight, did in fact, secure a 4k and that is your "perfect illustration" for needing balance changes to make the Blight player stronger? And that sounds at least a little bit silly?
-
@WilliamSN said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3592907#Comment_3592907
Thanks, youve completely missed the fine details from that match, but I'll explain it to you again.
A comp level blight, getting an early kill at 3 gens (essentially making the game a 3 v 1), STILL managed to lose all 5 gens + gate opened (while having pop for slowdown), against Survivors that were severely limited in perk choice and item choice.
Heres the video for reference:
https://youtu.be/Lcv_kApsE0A?si=4seeQU3-K3sIPamN
Now, if a 5 gen pop + gate open + almost 3E with only 3 survivors alive for 90% of the match is the end result.
What do you reckon would happen if the survivors weren't perk/item limited, just the way it is in public matches?
What if the Blight wasn't perk or add on limited as well?
What if a Blight could go on a 1,000+ public game 3/4k streak?
Wild hypotheticals we can throw around. I guess we'll just never know. What I do know though is that arguing for balance changes because something ALMOST happened sounds ludicrous.
-
@WilliamSN said:
I've been saying this for a long time, the game when played at High MMR is extremely survivor sided.
One of the recent otz videos perfectly illustrates this, comp level blight v comp level survivors + perk/item limitations and the survivors still 5 gen popped and *almost* 3E'd even when the blight got a kill at 3 gens left.
If THAT is the result when both sides are comp players with severe restrictions, you can imagine what happens in your average high mmr match v survivors without perk and item restrictions, not playing blight/nurse at the softcap just means your chances of losing jumped from 50% to 90%.
Something needs to be done when it comes to balancing "who" the power role is.
Wow, they ALMOST got 3 out? Thats like, super crazy. Really unfair.
What was the actual end result of this comp matchup?
-
Is it the Pain Resonance or the "bad teammates"?
Would, or even should, you win with bad teammates regardless of the perks being run by the killer?
-
So, to get a 3% speed boost, something that was previously given just for being injured, you now need to have a killer either a.) tunnel you off hook, b.) swing in to your Dead Hard (which you also had to bring and had to be previously hooked), c.) happen to guess you're going against Legion/Deathslinger, or d.) use some other perk combination and hope the killer swings at you in the right moment and on top of all of those conditions, the killer then has to actively choose to chase the person in deep wounds for it to even matter.
And you don't see how this is SLIGHTLY harder to get value from to justify calling this a nerf? Do you think people are justified in saying Pop Goes the Weasel was nerfed even though it can do MORE regression if done at the right time?
-
I don't think it's that strange.
First off, there is no hivemind (I assume) so while certain opinions may be shared, there can be differences when specifics come up. While two people may both complain about an overabundance of Weskers, one of them could hate camping and therefore complain about Trickster or Cannibal while the other is more opposed to slugging and hate on Twins or Oni.
Additionally, there could be particular reasons not to buff something even if it is weaker. While some killers hate the current survivor meta and want to see more variety, if the proposed buffs are to perks like Breakdown, Saboteur, Boil Over, Distortion, Head On, etc, they could rightfully point out that it may make the game absolutely miserable to play regardless of its effects on the actual escape rates.
-
@OnryosTapeRentals said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3575460#Comment_3575460
Stripping away all of the nuance of what I just said. How very insightful.
Survivors didn’t get anything *direct* in the developer update. That doesn’t mean some of the changes aren’t beneficial for them. I already mentioned that map decluttering is a pretty big deal for inexperienced survivors.
Saying this kind of thing is needlessly reductive and divisive.
I mean, that IS the joke.
I also just find it funny you come in this thread, that has been peaceful and pretty tongue in cheek from the beginning, and start posting how "divisive" and "inflammatory" it is when I haven't seen you comment similar things on the threads like "Killer Mains, Are We Having Fun Yet???".
Especially when the only evidence you bring is from Twitter of all places. Twitter is a wretched hive of scum and villainy, of course you can find terrible takes there.
-
@OnryosTapeRentals said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3575406#Comment_3575406
It's not inciteful at all
Phrases like "survivors got nothing", "killers got nothing" (and other rhetorics repeated ad nauseum every update) come with inherent charge in DbD spaces. The implication of them is that one role is/was neglected in favour of the other.
As I explained, in a vacuum, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with saying that "survivors got nothing". Technically, it's true that they didn't receive any direct addresses in the developer update. However, it's no secret that this community has a big problem with division.
Case and point, the reception to the MFT changes on social media:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/WFIX1XNYEZKI/image.png
Of course, the perk isn't being nerfed because it's unhealthy -- it's being nerfed because killer mains are the root of all evil, have too much influence, and survivors get no say. /s /lh
This is why I don't think this kind of phrasing is helpful. It draws a line in the sand with survivors on one side and killers on the other. It might seem trivial, but the way we talk about things matters. What we say, hear, and read has big impacts on how we perceive things. Yes, one thread is insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but as a collective, all of the divisive thread titles, social media comments, content creator videos, etc. add up to create unnecessary tension between the two roles.
I don't have any issue with the concept of the thread, nor am I "offended" by it, I just think the way we word things is important.
-
@BlueRose said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3556626#Comment_3556626
So I competely agree with you on all those points. If Devs one day say "We want totems to be a more interactive part of the game" and do some of the ideas you listed then I will be all for changing/rework Pentimento. I also love to see that happen but the reality is devs haven't shown any interest in doing that and till that day comes I think Pentimento needs to stay the way it is. That is one of my issues with Otz's video on Pentimento, he did not say anything about making Survivor want to do totems. He talked like at one time survivors wanted to do bones all the time and now Pentimento is in the game it punishes that when there was never a time in DbD history(as far I know since I started playing when Nemmy was added) where survivors actively did bones. Either way, I do completely agree with you and wish the devs did make totems more part of the game and if that ever happens then I will be all for changing Pent.
Makes sense. Looking back and re-watching, I can see Otz focused more on the punishment of cleansing totems aspect instead of what "healthy" changes should be encouraged to move away from something like Pentimento. I didn't interpret his video as meaning anything about how these perks are used currently in real world examples and why they need nerfs but more the implications of having them and what the concept of the perk means for strategies and the trickle down effect they have on the gameplay experience.
Either way, I appreciate the insight and thoughtful response! Can be a rare experience around here some days.
-
@BlueRose said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3556593#Comment_3556593
I personally understand his reasoning but here is why I disagree with him, at least when it comes to Pentimento. I personally never have seen survivors want to do bones as a secondary objective even before Pentimento was added to the game. I still remember reading posts from survivors asking for a NOED nerfs bc they didnt want to do bones to counter it. Most survivors still rather bring a medkit over inner healing since it doesnt take a perk slot and it's still faster to heal with one since with Inner Healing you still have to find a totem, cleanse it, and then sit in a locker. The only time I have seen survivors get excited or want to touch bones was when boons were added to the game and CoH was so strong. So even if they did change Pentimento today I dont think anything would change. Survivors would continue to not touch dull totems and just continue to hold m1 on gens unless there is some hex they need to get rid of like Devolt Hope. The reality is that survivors rather have a more interactive secondary objective than just holding m1 on an object. Pent never changed that mindset to begin with and that's why I dont think it's all that big of a deal and why I disagree with Otz's opinion on it though I do understand where he coming from.
And thats good! I see your perspective and understand. Totems, especially once at a high level of play, really are inconsequential and I 100% agree. But that's why I think they should do more with totems to make survivors want to actively cleanse them. Make totems have a generic slowdown effect in a radius around them, allow killers to "activate" totems to give them a speed boost in a radius around the totem (with caveats around hooked survivors), I'm even not opposed to making something like the NOED speed boost basekit where the killer gets additional power for each totem still standing during end game. All of these would, of course, require game balancing changes but the point is I want to encourage more interactions and choices when it comes to totems to try to make them an actual secondary objective.
A perk like Pentimento though runs contrary to my ideal improvements though. Any perk brought by the survivor/killer shouldn't actively punish the secondary objective, in my opinion. If totems aren't meant to be the secondary objective for survivors, fine, Pentimento can remain where it is as its interaction with things like Plaything or Devour Hope are an interesting dilemma for survivors to work around. It just means that survivors will continue to have no secondary objective (boring for the survivor and even more gen focus from the killer) and tome challenges will continue to have huge swings in the solo queue experience.
-
I feel like nearly everyone here is missing the forest for the trees. Otz isn't saying this is a list of perks that are poorly balanced or ruining the metagame, he is saying that, in his opinion, their core function/ability leads to less fun games.
Take his top choice, Hex: Pentimento, for example. Under his (and my) assumption, survivors should have a secondary objective or something else they can do to help them with a match that isn't just sitting on a gen. This will not only allow for a bit of slowdown from "gen rush" from the killer's perspective but can do so in a way that allows for survivor interaction which allows more diversity in gameplay and feels less like the game is arbitrarily slowing you down with no input on the survivor side.
For a while, totems were kind of that secondary objective in regular gameplay. Cleansing them could clear hexes (obviously) but also prevent something like NOED, give stacks of Inner Healing, but also just give a bit of a BP score. So, at worst, you were trading a bit of your time for a few extra bloodpoints and one less spot to check for NOED.
After Pentimento was introduced, cleansing a totem became an actively bad thing to do. Survivors have no way of knowing if Pentimento is there (until a totem has been cleansed) so the best course of action is to completely ignore them and not to bring perks that encourage cleansing (as a single heal or a slightly faster gen speed increase for a single survivor is not generally worth it for a universal slowdown that can be defended once activated). Without this side objective, it leads to more time just cranking out gens.
Add on top of that the tome challenges that often specifically require cleansing totems and now you have an issue where solo queue can feel even more miserable because you can't coordinate expectations of your intentions in the match. Now, the Leon who normally was just wasting time with his side quest is now actively harming the team.
This is also consistent with his complaints for other survivor perks like Deliverance then. If the killers main goal is to sacrifice survivors, spreading hooks between survivors can be seen as a "secondary objective". Spreading hooks can lead to additional slowdown (as it occupies a survivor with rescuing/healing) as well as make for easier options on who to chase when it comes to the end game (as you may have multiple people on death hook) and either way, gives some bloodpoints. It's obviously arguable how efficient this "secondary objective" is and not the point of my argument but having it is as an option is a good thing in Otz's opinion (as well as my own). Deliverance then can actively punish a killer for pursuing this secondary objective. That additional slowdown I mentioned as a small bonus for spreading hooks is completely eradicated if it procs Deliverance as no one needs to get off their gen to go for the rescue.
In both these scenarios then you can see how doing the secondary objective is actively punishing because of the mechanics of these perks. Killers should want survivors to spend time clearing totems and survivors should want killers to spread hooks but these perks are a hindrance to that.
You can agree or disagree with this sentiment, but if y'all are going to deride someone so bad, at least address what is actually being said instead of whatever you presupposed the argument was going to be based on a thumbnail without actually viewing it yourself.
-
@LiveBritishReaction said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3456822#Comment_3456822
And "meta" concerns strength, not use rate. It quite literally stands for "most effective tactic available." What's your point?
Can you quantify what you mean by "strength" then? Do you have stats or any data to demonstrate what perks you think are best?
Obviously, usage rates don't directly correlate to what helps people win the most but since we don't have access to those kind of stats (or at least, I don't), we need something tangible to discuss or else it's all just personal feelings and anecdotes.
So, in general, can we agree that people will bring whatever helps them the most in to a trial? If so, usage rates can help paint a picture of what is currently being used as it has the perception of being the most helpful. That was all I was trying to convey.
-
@LiveBritishReaction said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3456613#Comment_3456613
Because usage rate and actual strength are one and the same, right?
cough Twins cough
The person I was replying to was saying that survivors got 2-3 meta perks in the past year while killers only got 1 seemingly based on their personal feelings on the perks. I was pointing out the actual usage rates that seem to contradict the narrative.
I made no statements on strength other than what is implied based on the playerbase making logical choices when selecting their perks.
-
@GrimReaperJr1232 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3456669#Comment_3456669
"Allow me to name some unpopular/off-meta perks"
But okay. Recent chapters. Let's do some comparison for perks that are meta from this year's chapters.
Last Transmission
Survivor - Made for This
Killer - Nothing. (Don't tell me Forced Hes is a meta perk)
Tools of Torment
I don't think anyone got anything out of this...
Forged in Fog
Killers - Nowhere to Hide? It's fallen out a bit since the gen kick meta nerfs. But let's count it.
RE2
Survivors - Reassurance (and Hyperfocus but that's difficult to use)
Killers - Nothing. In fact, one of the perks got nerfed from PTB.
So killers got 1 perk that had its value diminished with a meta shift, and survivors have gotten 2-3. depending on your PoV.
Nowhere to Hide currently has a higher usage rate (10.24%) than any of the survivor perks mentioned combined.
Made for This - 2.17%
Reassurance - 3.35%
Hyperfocus - 1.51%
-
@mustdogen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3456573#Comment_3456573
I don't know.
Overzealous?
Reactive Healing?
Reassurance?
Hyperfocus?
Potential Energy?(this one is tricky one, I don't know why nobody used it to counter 3 gen killer.)
Fogwise?
Teamwork: Power of Two?
Blood Rush?
And made for this of course.
All of them are useful perk, some of them are even in my build right now.
Unless the meaning of great perk for you is Op game breaking perk,then yes dev should not make any new "GREAT" perk.
Survivor perks you mentioned usage rates:
Overzealous - 1.04%
Reactive Healing - .35% (lol at this one even being mentioned)
Reassurance - 3.35%
Hyperfocus - 1.51%
Potential Energy - .74%
Fogwise - 1.12%
Teamwork: Power of Two - .32%
Blood Rush - .54%
Killer perks since that time that all have higher usages rates:
Deadlock - 11.78%
Hex: Plaything - 4.44%
Scourge Hook: Pain Resonance - 14.75%
Call of Brine - 5.21%
Nowhere to Hide - 10.24%
(Stats from Nightlight)
-
@MimiDBD said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3447060#Comment_3447060
IIRC wasn't the Twins nerfed for this reason?
I think they were nerfed because they were a "monster at high MMR", not because any 1 particular video/streamer. That being said, I'm pretty sure 1 person averaging a 3k may be enough to skew the stats for all 6 Twins players out there...
-
Are you arguing we should balance around outlier content creators?
-
@HugTheHag said:
I'd prefer BNP to be something like "Once consumed, for the next 40s, the gen can not regress from basic kicks and cannot have ongoing regression" (PR/Jolt/Pop would still work, just not keep the gen regressing after activation), to make it a 3gen breaker instead of bonus progression.
You honestly think protecting a gen from basic kicks and base regression for 40s would be worth running, let alone as an iridescent add on? An add on that has to be timed, rely on the opponent to actually kick the gen after its been used, doesn't protect against the most common forms of regressions (perks) and saves AT MOST 12ish seconds of gen time?
You think people would bring that?