Coffeecrashing
Coffeecrashing
About
- Username
- Coffeecrashing
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
The only problem with the killer, is that survivors get a full 1.25 second reveal buffer, even when the killer is only revealed for a super small period of time.
The buffer should be changed, so that it doesn’t happen unless the survivor revealed the killer for over 1 continuous second.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3950957#Comment_3950957
Sure, that's probably a good number. I could see it being up to about five seconds longer than that just to be sure, but that's probably where we'd be looking. Though, it's not just the killer bodyblocking the survivors we'd be trying to avoid, it'd be survivors trying to bodyblock the killers too.
…Were you under the impression I was suggesting it'd be substantially longer or something?
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3950930#Comment_3950930
This is a stretch, in my opinion. Even if this actually happens and you actually lose the survivor you're chasing, the survivor trying to distract you isn't going to have intangibility forever.
I just don't see a world where this could possibly be a consistent issue.
The zero collision doesn’t need to last longer than the 10 second period after being unhooked.
10 seconds is long enough for a survivor to escape the basement, when the killer is trying to bodyblock the survivor on the basement stairs.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3950892#Comment_3950892
….Yes?
I mean, it doesn't actually hide where their teammate is. You're still chasing that teammate, you still have sight and sound to track them with. Why would that be super distracting?
It's literally the same as when someone follows you around to try and get in position for a bodyblock, until such time as they actually do it they're a mild distraction that has no real bearing on the game.
The killer doesn’t always have sight and sound of the teammate. If the teammate breaks line of sight, then someone else can purposely run around the area to leave distracting scratchmarks.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3950871#Comment_3950871
Right, but if they INTEND to distract or hinder the killer and can't ACTUALLY distract or hinder the killer, then the intent doesn't matter. That's the case with them just running around nearby or throwing pallets willy-nilly. Maybe that'd be suitably distracting for some players, but not overall, and it doesn't hinder the chase in any way shape or form.
Getting a pallet save is a wholly different issue, and one I think should be kept in mind. Once you've taken item use out of the equation it's the one remaining potential problem. That's just not what we started with here, we started with survivors running around nearby to try and distract the killer, which is decidedly not a problem.
Are you literally saying that when a survivor is running around, purposely leaving distracting scratchmarks, to hide where their teammate is…. that it doesn’t count as distracting? For real???
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3950511#Comment_3950511
I mean, why, though?
If they're running away from you, they're also not being tunnelled, but you'd expect their anti-tunnel to still be on its timer until they actually engage with the game.
Why should their anti-tunnel disable if they're not actually having any effect or influence on the game…? You wouldn't even necessarily be able to then tunnel them if all they're doing is running around near-ish to you. It kinda sounds arbitrary, like you're more interested in punishing annoying intents than in what's actually happening in the match.
I would agree, for instance, that successfully getting a pallet save/flashlight save should cancel any remaining anti-tunnel they have left, like Off The Record and such, because at that point they're back in the action. If they're just sort of running around nearby (in this context not even able to click their flashlight)… they're not doing anything. There's no impact.
Intents are important, because if the survivor intends to distract or hinder the killer from chasing someone else, then they aren’t being tunneled.
If a survivor gets extra anti-tunneling protections, that allow them to get a pallet save, then you literally made the game worse, because you just made it easier to weaponize anti-tunneling.
At most, anti-tunneling should just remove collision for the normal duration of post-unhook haste, and still allow the killer to attack them. That would stop killers from bodyblocking survivors on basement stairs, which would be a buff to survivors, without allowing the survivors to weaponize the buff.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3950110#Comment_3950110
Not really. We can already see how that is with Sadako. Vision doesn't really get impaired.
@Brokenbones said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3950185#Comment_3950185
Default unhook haste is only 10% for 10 seconds, majority of killers are 115% if not faster with powers. So majority of the cast would be faster by default and the others the same speed. The only killer that'd be slower is Nurse and I really doubt you're about to make the argument that's an issue.
And factoring in perks that might be in play is a bad way to try and counter that argument because the same logic goes both ways. What if the killer has haste perks? What if they have ways to inflict hindered? What if they have STBFL?
It's not good logic imo
No, the logic doesn't go both ways.
In the very specific games where the survivor is faster than the killer, they can just weave through the killer's model to block vision like in the above screenshot.@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3950185#Comment_3950185
I think those are a bit of a stretch, honestly. Outside of maybe pallet saves and the window thing once in a thousand games, I don't think any of those things would really be a problem.
It also does address that last part by virtue of making it so they can't hinder the killer from chasing someone else. They can be mildly distracting but they can't actually get in the way anymore.
I don't care if you only think it's "mildly distracting". If a survivor is purposely trying to distract and hinder a killer from chasing someone else, then they aren't being tunneled, and they should have their anti-tunnel perks deactivated.
Survivors should not be encouraged to weaponize their anti-tunnel perks and mechanics. Causing survivors to lose collision, still allows them to distract and hinder the killer from chasing someone else.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3950110#Comment_3950110
That's a much easier problem to fix than wrestling spaghetti code for detecting the difference between intentional and unintentional bodyblocks, surely?
Make it so the survivor's model goes invisible if it overlaps, and also just to mention it here, make it so survivors can't use items so there's no unstoppable flashlight saves, and you've covered 95% of possible issues already.
No. Because it still means the survivor can run in front of the killer, try to make confusing scratchmarks or noises, drop pallets to make pallet saves, an just do flashlight saves after the collision is back to normal.
And survivors can still block line of sight from the killer, even when the character models aren’t overlapping. For example, if the killer is chasing survivor A, and survivor A vaults a window, if survivor B stands in front of the window, then the killer might not be able to see which direction survivor A went.
And it doesn’t address the fact that if a survivor is purposely trying to hinder the killer from chasing someone else, they aren’t being tunneled, and therefore all their anti-tunnel perks should deactivate.
@Brokenbones said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3950110#Comment_3950110
Killers will always move faster than the Survivor trying to block so that doesn't matter
The real issue I think would be the issue of aim dressing causing Killer's to autolock onto a survivor who they are currently passing through. If aim dressing auto locks Killer's on random bits of terrain it for sure would lock onto a survivor currently hiding inside their collision box
That isn’t true during the post-hook haste, especially if perks like babysitter are being used.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3950071#Comment_3950071
I can see the vision here, but I also think this would be really difficult to implement and has way too high a chance of backfiring.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just take away the survivor's ability to bodyblock entirely, by having them lose collision? That seems like a safer and easier to implement/balance solution to me.
That won’t work, because survivors could purposely overlap with the killer, and block their vision.
-
@sirlemonhead said:
Is there anything to be said for each individual survivor seeing where their AFK counter is at, onscreen on their own HUD?
That would be a huge buff for survivors, because they could use it to figure out if the killer is nearby, even if the killer is undetectable.
-
@UndeddJester said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3949995#Comment_3949995
Not that I disagree that's a problem, but how do you distinguish a body block vs. the killer walking/moving into a survivor while another Survivor is in range to disable their anti tunnel perks?
Notably Nurse, Ghoul, Blight, Spirit, Houndmaster, Wraith, Legion.
- If a killer is following survivor A, and survivor B repeatedly changes directions to get in between the killer and survivor A, then survivor B is intentionally bodyblocking
- To expand on this, the game could detect if the killer is clearly trying to go around another survivor. As in, if the killer repeatedly changes direction to move away from survivor A, but survivor A repeatedly changes direction to be in front of the killer, then survivor A is clearly intentionally bodyblocking
- Also, if survivor B is in a choke point, and stops moving even though the killer is running in that direction, then survivor A is clearly intentionally bodyblocking. The important factor is the survivor is positioned in a way that prevents the killer from traveling in that direction, which means that standing in front of a window also counts as standing in a choke point.
- As an extra note for point #4, the survivor should still be considered as intentionally bodyblocking, even if they are tapping the direction buttons (or slowly moving near the same spot), because they are still preventing the killer from traveling through that checkpoint.
-
Intentionally bodyblocking should be added to the list of conspicuous actions, that deactivate anti-tunnel perks.
The biggest issue with anti-tunnel perks, are survivors that weaponize them against killers that were trying to chase someone else.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3949644#Comment_3949644
Okay, thank you for the clarification. That was about what I figured. One question: Will there be an in-game tracker on how many penalty points you have and how many more matches you need for the oldest penalty to drop?
That would be interesting. Maybe it could be a numbered grid of the last 20 games, and green represents a good game, and red represents a penalty game.
For example, in the above screenshot, the player has 3 penalty points.
The numbers also represent how many additional games are needed to push that game out of the list. For example, the Red 6, needs 6 additional games for it to get removed from the list.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3949406#Comment_3949406
Yes, I do.
And I said as much in this thread and elsewhere. Repeatedly:
This same mentality applies to camping, tunneling, and slugging btw… situationally and in moderation these are gameplay, it's only problematic when they are used excessively - just like stealth
I've also mentioned this for years, that camping, tunneling, slugging, and stealth are all situational tactics that have a time and a place in the game. Yet all of these can be problematic when taken to extremes. So when the time is "always" and the place is "everywhere", then players are likely using these excessively and we should address that. Ideally, we should address that without significantly impacting those situations where these are actually valid whenever possible.
That is a consistent attitude, and one I will continue to repeat.
That being said:
The devs also need to be consistent with their responses to all of these. Which is, honestly, the only stance that actually matters to the game.
They looked at excessive stealth, and ignored all of my (and others) feedback regarding "here are situations you should consider when implementing new AFK crows and go next" and took the hardest line they could've possibly taken. They've effectively deleted stealth, even situations where stealth is valid, or the only correct play.
So, just to have my thoughts out there again: tunneling and camping, particularly at end game (where it's basically the only play), is not what most people complain about. That's a valid situation to camp and tunnel. Any "anti-" solution to these should ideally target camping or tunneling from the start of the game (colloquially "at 5 gens"), but leave end game alone. What that looks like I'm not sure, but I'm not a dev.
Slugging, similarly, has valid situations: sabo or boil over plays, another survivor lurking nearby for a flashlight or pallet save, or even an obvious DS play, are all valid reasons to slug someone for a bit. Excessive slugging, imo, is playing the match by slugging everyone from the start of the game with no intention of hooking. And I'd also personally prefer if any slugging solution considered shortening the "slug for the 4k" situation, which is just simply a waste of everyone's time (I've recommended the slug having the option to bleed out faster, or simply die on the ground after hitting "find help" in the past, which doesn't change the game's outcome). Again, what that looks like, I'm not entirely sure. But any solution they implement should take all of this into account.
Now,
In order for the devs to be consistent with their opinion and approach for the game (the only opinion that actually matters in the long run), one of two things must happen. Either:
- Anti-camp, anti-tunnel, and anti-slug in phase 2 are also implemented in a ham-fisted, broad manner in the same way that "anti-hiding" is, right now, on live. That would also effectively delete all three of these from the game, including the valid cases. I think it's a terrible idea, but it's the only way for them to be consistent with their approach.
- They immediately rework the anti-hiding and go next systems entirely to allow for valid reasons for survivors to hide. This, at minimum, should include the slug for the 4k issue, where hiding for up to 4 minutes is valid stealth with any gens remaining. Then, in phase 2, implement reasonable anti-camp, anti-tunnel, and anti-slugging measures that also take situational gameplay into account.
I should hope that every single person, regardless of which "side" you are on, should agree with me that #2 is the correct approach. It requires BHVR to fix this debacle they've created and not take player agency completely away from players. All of these tactics (camping, tunneling, slugging, and hiding) have a place and can be good gameplay, when not used excessively. We need to target the excessive use, and not impact the tactical, situational use.
If anyone thinks that #1 is the correct approach, then I really have nothing to say other than that they are wrong.
The problem is that survivors want to be able to weaponize the phase 2 changes.
For example, part of the anti-tunneling changes, should be adding intentional bodyblocking to the list of conspicuous actions that deactivate anti-tunnel perks.
The goal should be to reduce the issues on both sides of the game. Excessive camping, tunneling, and slugging should be addressed. But survivors that try to weaponize, and force these situations, should be addressed too.
Because if we’re going to claim that slugging isn’t fun, we should also address survivors that try to force the killer to excessively slug, because that isn’t fun either.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948778#Comment_3948778
That doesn't actually confirm what you said. The wording is extremely confusing for me. Nowhere does it mention that it wipes out all of your DC penalty points after the 20th match.
It could mean that whenever you DC, that point would drop 20 matches later. However, say you DC again five matches later. So 20 matches after that one, that penalty point would drop.
See why it's so confusing? I have asked for clarification several times, but have yet to hear it from any of the devs. I thought maybe you had another source of the info, like wherever you got the info about the AFK crows that wasn't mentioned in the patch notes.The game only remembers the last 20 matches. So if you had 0 penalty games in the last 20 matches, then your DC penalty would be set to 0.
Each match you play, replaces the match that happened 20 games ago, which means each match has the opportunity to remove 1 penalty match
It also means that if you have a penalty game, it’s stuck in the queue until 20 more matches are played.
-
@Wezqu said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3949418#Comment_3949418
Devs most likely already have idea of how they are going to change it to work better. All new things will have growing pains and there is problems with them but if people don't understand how it supposed to work and then don't even bother reporting the possible bug I don't know what anyone can do about that. I already wrote that this system most likely has some bugs as there is odd crow spawning happening time to time like when working on a gen (seen videos of it). Still we don't have any info about it as it seems to happen to people who don't try to find what caused it. I would have reported any crow bug I would have experienced but so far as I don't get the crows really at all there has not been odd behavior of the system. Also we don't know if the crow spawning is really there or if its some bug that only shows it to the survivor in question and nobody else would even see it. I am not dismissing anyones concerns but just stating my own experience.
I have to admit that I will wait for the devs to do their changes and then see how it works afterwards. Its most likely pointless to speculate before that how it would be made better.
Repairing a generator doesn’t instantly remove crows. It takes around 12 seconds of repairing for the 1st crow to be removed, and about 15 seconds for AFK points to be completely reset.
It ends up being confusing, because it’s the only action that removes 1 crow at a time.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3949342#Comment_3949342
Maybe prolonged passivity (e.g., 45 seconds doing nothing) slowly lowers that score, and minor actions (like touching a gen briefly) only raise it slightly. Once the score drops below a threshold, you get a crow… even if you’ve only been idle for 15 seconds in that moment.
So I think the reason there's a disconnect, is because this isn't the current system we have, it's a complete rework. Your "activity meter" so to speak, only ever goes up, or is completely reset to zero. It doesn't "go down" unless you do one of a very specific set of actions, and even then, it doesn't "fade" away, it drops to zero completely.
The major flaw in this system is that they have pre-defined a set number of things classified as "playing the game", and unless you're specifically completing one of those actions it assumes you are afk by default. That's a huge flaw in the system and why it has a big capacity for false positives. And you can't even be considered as "working on" something unless you actively complete it, the only exception being gens.
That's why, when you see videos like the one linked, people aren't getting "credit" for trying to work on a gen, then going for a rescue, but hearing a terror radius and hiding to not be immediately found. That's normal gameplay.
But instead, the system says "you didn't work on a gen long enough, so you're obviously not trying to play, here's a punishment crow".
Since we agree that there are times for this, I'll put it in another context: If they implemented something even close to this for "anti-tunnel", the game would basically assume the killer is tunneling until they got their next hook. You can't consider chase (you can get in chase with the unhooker while tunneling), but it's only once you've committed to another survivor by hooking them that the system can definiteively say "you aren't tunneling now". And that system doesn't take into consideration "end game" or any other time that tunneling might actually be the correct play.
It's not that the system is "tuned wrong", it's fundamentally trying to "define gameplay", and in such narrow terms that it's extremely difficult for players to actually try to complete their objective while juggling that the game is watching your every move and waiting to give out crows, and not even waiting patiently at that.
What they should have, is a system where it assumes that the survivor is going to be playing the game and instead looks for idle behaviors. So, a re-tuning of what they had before. They need that system to not tell players what it's looking for (to avoid abuse), but should be looking for extreme behaviors, which are much easier to define. Then you find people who are locker hopping, dropping an item constantly, tapping a totem without cleansing or blessing it repeatedly. I can pretty much guarantee that someone who spent the past minute dropping and picking up a medkit and has done literally nothing else, not even moving is simply trying to avoid crows. That's not normal behavior.
Because the system they just added is still just as abusable (apparently clairvoyance resets crows, as one example), but also triggers incorrectly on actual gameplay.
It's better overall if we err on the false negative side and let a few people hide when the system should've flagged them, instead of the false positive side, where we're punishing people who are actually trying to play the game, just not checking the boxes that the game has decided are "playing the game correctly".
I hope you have the same balance guidelines for phase 1 and phase 2.
Because you think the phase 1 survivor changes “should only punish extreme behaviors”, I hope you also think the phase 2 killer changes “should only punish extreme behaviors”
Because you think the phase 1 survivor changes “should err on the false negative side”, I hope you also think the phase 2 killer changes “should err on the false negative side”
-
The change was done so that survivors would have their AFK points reset if Victor was chasing them.
The biggest side effect is that it’s massively harder for Victor to chase survivors, or avoid pallet stuns, because he now has chase music blasting in his ears. I don’t think people realize just how easy it was for Victor to hear survivors through walls, when he never had chase music.
The minor side effect is windows can be entity blocked in Victor chases, but that isn’t really useful, considering he moves so quickly. And it’s certainly not as useful as being able to easily hear survivors through walls.
-
Most people don’t even care about comp DBD, because it has such a long list of custom rules, that it’s difficult to take it seriously.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3949062#Comment_3949062
But I never said killers tunnel every game.
I'm saying that, in the current state of the game, killers have more strategies that are frowned upon then survivors do. Hence the upcoming changes of phase 2.
And survivors had strategies that were frowned upon, hence the phase 1 changes we just had. Survivor ragequitting and extreme hiding are major issues that needed to be dealt with.
-
It's because people figured out the door are much safer, if they wait for a safe time to use the doors.
- Survivors can wait until they see a "survivor is being chased" symbol on their HUD
- Survivors can wait until they actually see the killer, and notice they aren't near a door
- Survivors can wait until someone in their SWF announces the killer isn't near a door
- Some survivors will use the cameras (not the doors, but just the cameras) that aren't near unfinished generators or hooked survivors, since it's less likely the killer will teleport to them.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3949044#Comment_3949044
To be fair, 3-gen situations only became problematic once they were allowed to reach an extreme level with the gen kick meta, and survivors have the agency to avoid those.
There is no agency against being tunneled, if the killer decides to eliminate you ASAP there is little you can do about it.
I don't understand how someone can be happy with this game, when they honestly believe one side of the game is constantly doing unfair problematic behavior, and the other side of the game is constantly the victim of the unfair behavior.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948858#Comment_3948858
To be fair, I wouldn't say it is a double-standard. DBD is asymmetrical, meaning the two roles are different, they have different experiences and perceive the match differently.
The killer role has three strategies (slugging, camping, and tunneling) that are frowned upon by the community, seeing as they basically prevent those who are targeted by them from playing the game. The survivor side doesn't really have an equivalent to those strategies… or, well, not anymore.
Gen-rush used to be considered the equivalent, iirc. Not the modern DBD "gen-rush", but the pre-nerf toolboxes gen-rush which, to be fair, is no longer possible to do in the exact same way it was.
"Preventing people from playing the game" isn't a requirement for unfair behavior. The definition of unfair behavior needs to include extended 3-gen situations, because survivors felt that was unfair, even though they were free to run around the map.
-
@thrawn3054 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948926#Comment_3948926
By that logic killers should be getting afk crows for not chasing.
Actually, killers got an anti-3-gen mechanic for not chasing.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948934#Comment_3948934
I really don't want to sound like an arse but I don't think the question I asked was that difficult. You're still coming at it from the wrong direction.
I don't need a list. I want you to tell me how you imagine survivor gameplay, if they play 'fair' according to you. 'Cause from how I understand it, 'fair gameplay' as you define it looks like a solo queue'r who's sticking to gens at all times. I'm asking you to tell me how I'm wrong here.
I'm trying to establish what the equivalent to a killer deciding not to tunnel is, in so far that actually exists.
Fair to me, involves everything allowable by the game. Every allowable strategy is fair to me. I think the entire concept of restricting gameplay out of fairness, is absolute garbage.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948864#Comment_3948864
This is still not an answer to my question. You're coming at it from the angle of 'what's not allowed', whereas I'm asking you 'what's left'. But, I'll humour it anyway.
1: Annoying, sure, but unfair? Hardly. This isn't even possible basekit, either.
2: You might have an argument if you're referring to specific builds and coordinated strategies, but pallet saves in general are not what I'd call 'unfair'. Game sense is important here.
3: Again, annoying, yes, but hardly unfair. Also not possible basekit.
4: This one I might agree with on a conceptual level, but again I ask how often this influences a match to the same degree tunneling does.
5: Coming at it from a pure fairness angle, yes. But this is a video game, and people play with friends for fun. Besides, the people who use comms for an explicit advantage aren't all too relevant, since that's a different kind of player than we're talking about here.
6: That's what the AFK crows are for, heavy-handed as they are rn.
You honestly can't think of a list of things that survivors do, that killers might think are unfair?
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948820#Comment_3948820
Except that's… The point of the game. The killer is supposed to chase and down survivors, not deadlock the entire match and expect the survivors to just surrender!
The point of the game is also for survivors to repair generators, and part of the reason why we have the AFK crow changes is because survivors were sometimes refusing to commit to generators.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948858#Comment_3948858
That is not an answer to my question.
What does survivor gameplay look like without using any of the strats you find unfair?
Survivors could refuse to do the following, out of fairness for killers:
- No flashlight or flashbang saves
- No pallet saves
- No hook sabotages
- No bodyblocking the killer
- No using voice comms, specifically for extra game advantages
- No excessive hiding from the killer
And this isn't a list of things "I" find unfair. It's a list of things the killer role in general can find unfair. I personally don't care what strategies people do, but if people want to make a big deal out of "playing fair", then they might as well have lists of restrictions for both sides of the game.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948693#Comment_3948693
What do you want survivors to do, though? Should they only ever do gens?
I just want people to stop having a double standard.
If someone thinks it's important for killers to play in a way that is fun for survivors, but doesn't think it's important for survivors to play in a way that is fun for killers… that is a double standard.
Whenever someone announces the fact that they play killer in a way that is fair for survivors, I also want them to announce they play survivors in a way that is fair for killers.
-
@DevLinky said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948740#Comment_3948740
And here you are, defending only one side while stating that you either care for both or don't.
How ironic.
Unless you are going to claim that you think player satisfaction is important for both sides of the game, I'm going to continue assuming you think it's only important for survivors.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
I've never liked the idea of base kit unbreakable, and I'm genuinely curious what situation people think this would be good in.
For killers, there are some situations where slugging is the right call. Sabo plays, boil over, having a lurker with a flashlight nearby, are all valid reasons to leave someone on the ground (or drop them). Base kit UB removes that.
But this also doesn't help survivors. The most common scenario is the meta "slug for the 4k". So what good is base kit unbreakable doing in this case? At best, you're just prolonging an already lost game, and it doesn't change the fact that you can't really get gens done with just two people left. At worst, you have the killer playing whack a mole for 4ish minutes while the slug bleeds out, pops up to get instantly slugged again.
The only case this might help is if the killer is just slugging excessively at the start of the game, and never hooking. But there has to be a better solution that also takes the other two scenarios into account also.
The important thing is figuring out if the killer is slugging excessively even though they could have easily hooked those survivors, or if the killer is slugging excessively because they don't think they can safely and reliably get those survivors to a hook.
Because some survivors will try to deny hooks even though it's the start of the game. I've seen many survivors try to pallet save or flashlight save, when there are 5 gens left, and the killer has zero hooks.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948801#Comment_3948801
The point is that the killer is the one responsible for creating the stalemate in the first place. They opted for this particular strategy with the full and express intent to make it a 60 minute stalemate. You can't then accuse the survivors of sharing the blame when all they can do is react to that decision.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948809#Comment_3948809
The stalemate happened specifically because it was the killer's express intent to make it happen. Blaming the survivors is basically telling them that they should've just taken the loss instead, when the killer had other options.
I'm blaming both sides of the game, not just the survivors. Expecting the killer to commit to chases, is telling them they should've just taken the loss instead.
-
@hermitkermit said:
I think a base-kit unbreakable would be too abusable, but I also disagree with the idea that slugging is not in need of some kind of tweaking in its current state. ( i could go on about why I think this but for time sake I'll leave it out ) That being said, I think slugging is important because it is a counter. A counter to flashlights, sabo's etc. But slugging as an alternate win condition is different than slugging as a counter.
I think that the speed in which survivors recover should be increased based upon the proximinity in which the killer is to them. The farther the killer is from the slugged survivor, the faster they recover. They will still need someone to pick them up at the end, but the point is that if the killer is trying to slug the whole team, and eveyrone is spread out (which is the counter to slugging) then it comes with much more risk. But if you're slugging because a flashlight is nearby, therefore you are hovering by the slug, then nothing changes. And if a group of survivors all get slugged because they were all grouped up, the killer can still take advantage of that kind of mistake.
Essentially it would work like the anti-camp, but reverse. The killer is in complete control if the mechanic even comes into play. If they stay near the slug then literally nothing changes. But if they leave the slug out of a set of perimeters, then the mechanic will kick in. Again, it just increases recovery time, it does not grant UB base.
The only way the killer could be in complete control of slugging, is if killers were given a guaranteed way to hook survivors, that had zero counterplay from survivors.
But survivors don't want killers to have a guaranteed way to avoid slugging. They want to be able to force a killer to slug, and then punish the killer for slugging.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948782#Comment_3948782
No, because the killer has a chance, the survivors did not. Even if they did commit to the generators, they'd just be pulled off of them and they'd instantly lose.
The killer was playing overly cautious, the survivors were taking their only possible option.
But the killer didn't really have a realistic chance, because if they did have a realistic chance, then they wouldn't have extended the stalemate.
The stalemate happened specifically because both sides of the game felt like they would lose the game if they broke the stalemate.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948538#Comment_3948538
Survivors -can't- commit to repairing generators, they'd get grabbed off of them. Survivors don't really have options in those situations, they have to respond to whatever the killer decides to do.
And the killer needs to respond to what the survivors do. When survivors used voice comms to pre-leave generators, they created a situation where the killer would lose if they had committed to a chase.
Both sides are at fault, because their optimum gameplay caused them to extend the stalemate.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948746#Comment_3948746
Where have they mentioned this?
The patch notes literally says the penalties are based on your last 20 matches played. Which means that if your last 20 matches had zero penalty games, that it would completely reset the penalties.
The second line specifically mentions "each disconnect in this set of 20 matches", which means it only cares about your last 20 matches.
-
@jasonq500 said:
Only learned about this but the way the new system works is that you now have to play 20 matches to remove each DC points instead of waiting a single day for the point to be removed, and if you log in to dbd, the DC penalty timer doesn't go away if you log off the game (don't know if that's a bug or not)
In my opinion I feel this is way too punishing and restrictive especially if you haven't played the game in months or if the game decides to just bug out/Internet issues and alongside the giving up on hook just from being tunneled out (which is currently Killswitched)
Don't know if it's a hot take but I thought the old dc system was honestly just perfect, if you dc'ed too many times then you shouldn't play the game at all for the next couple of days, literally give yourself a breather and play other games then come back if you really feel like playing dbd again, no one would wants to continue playing dbd if you still kept the penalty from a couple of weeks ago as there are some casual players that don't play this game daily
if they really wanted to punish players more from dc'ing, then they should've adjusted the old system like increase it by 48 hours or increase the time amount
Cause right now I just don't think the new dc system is good for the game in my personal opinion
Time-based penalty removal, doesn't teach survivors to ragequit less. Instead, it teaches survivors that it's ok to ragequit as much as they want, and they can just play another game for a while if the DC penalties get too high.
The 20 match DC penalty system is far superior, because it teaches survivors that the percentage of ragequits is important.
Also, you're completely misunderstanding how the 20 match rule works. If you play 20 games without ragequitting, your DC penalties would be 0, regardless of what they were before those 20 games.
-
@DevLinky said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948718#Comment_3948718
The fact that one side has to SPECTATE (a kinda complicated word, I know) the game is the big difference that you would realise if you played both sides, my friend. But no, instead you only stick to one role and think you know everything.
I'm not interested in your point, if you think player satisfaction only matters for survivors.
The fact that one side has to spectate, isn't relevant. You either care about both sides of the game, or you don't.
-
@DevLinky said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948693#Comment_3948693
Why are you avoiding the point I made about players' satisfaction? It's literally the most important part of why tunneling has to go.
Does your point about player satisfaction involve both sides of the game? Or does it only care about survivor satisfaction?
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948614#Comment_3948614
I'm not sure if it's a double standard, due to the assymetry of the game. Tunnelling is something any killer player can choose to do from the jump and have it determine the match outcome, whereas flashlight saves are singular occurences, and obviously require a flashlight. Pallet saves are quite rare in my experience. Bodyblocking is the best comparison, but you'd already have to be losing for a succesful bodyblock to influence the match outcome.
It's still giving the expectation that killers should sabotage their kill rates out of fairness towards survivors, but survivors aren't expected to sabotage their escape rate out of fairness for killers.
It also sends a message that killer strategies are a problem that need to be nerfed, but survivor strategies are fine and shouldn't be nerfed. It's a major problem, when people honestly think the bulk of problematic behavior is only created from one side of the game.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948537#Comment_3948537
But then I have to ask why you care?
I have always despised pursuing ‘optimal’ play, in every game I play. I’m just here to have a good time, not sweat my balls off.
Because it shows a double standard, that people feel like killers should "play fair" for survivors, but survivors don't need to "play fair" for killers.
Because if you were really concerned with playing fair for both sides, then why aren't you also announcing that you play survivors in a way that is "fair" for killers? Why are you only concerned with announcing that you play fair for survivors?
-
This map is awful for killers, compared to the other Greenville map. The other Greenville map is much better for killers, because the annoying main building is on the far edge of a rectangular-shaped map, which means the killer doesn’t need to deal with it very often.
The FNAF pizza map has an even more annoying main building for killers, and it’s thrown in the middle of the map, so the killer is forced to deal with it way more often.
There are way too many pallets outside of the building, considering how many resources are in the giant main building.
In general, the loops in the main building need to be reviewed, especially when vault locations are involved.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948162#Comment_3948162
Go Next and Hiding aren't nearly as big of a problem as the favourite killer tactic being locking the game into a stalemate for a full hour.
Sometimes killers really do break the game really badly and changes need to be made that don't copy 1-to-1 to the other side.
The stalemate problem that was caused by both sides of the game? Where the killers refused to commit to chases, and the survivors refused to commit to repairing generators?
Yes, I remember the popular streamer video, where all the survivors were using voice comms to pre-leave the generators early, but somehow the killer got 100% of the blame, even though the stalemate was the fault of all 5 players?
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948263#Comment_3948263
Is it really sabotaging when I’m winning the majority of my games anyway?
You’re not supposed to win every game, y’know. I certainly don’t need to win every game. I get rolled sometimes, and that can be frustrating yes, but that’s life.
Yes. If it's lowering your win rate, it still counts as sabotaging.
@ad19970 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948263#Comment_3948263
None of the things you listed on the survivor side are nearly as problematic or complained about as tunneling and camping. Comparing tunneling and camping to something like flashlight saves or bodyblocking is quite the stretch.
If people care about the fun of survivors, then let them. Who cares if their kill rate could be higher otherwise. If anything it just shows how problematic tunneling and camping are if you can achieve kill rates far above 60% with them.
Does that mean that if a survivor can achieve escape rates far above 40%, that there is an obvious problematic survivor behavior involved?
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948168#Comment_3948168
What? No, the opposite. My killrate is at 73% without tunnelling. That's pretty good, I'd say.
So, if I were to tunnel, that would go even higher. For a while, at least, until my MMR has settled.
For the record, I have no objections against slugging (that isn't longer than it has to be), and camping is fair game to me in the endgame.
If your kill rate would be higher if you tunneled, then your sabotaging your kill rate by not tunneling. And it raises the question of "if killers should sabotage their kill rate for the sake of survivor fairness, then why aren't survivors expected to sabotage their escape rate for the sake of killer fairness"?
If you are claiming your kill rate would eventually settle down to where it is now, then it's basically saying that players don't need to do strategies that are unfun for their opponents, because MMR will settle it back down to the same amount. And that raises the question of "does that mean survivors don't need to flashlight save or hook sabotage, or do anything else that might be unfun for killers, because they would have the same escape rate if they played "fair" or "unfair" for killers?
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948099#Comment_3948099
So… you were just being facetious.
I mean, I posted my own stats here as well. I got an-above average killrate as it turns out, and I don't tunnel either, so that last bit seems a touch dramatic.
Are you claiming your kill rate wouldn’t be higher if you had camped, tunneled, and slugged?
Because if your kill rate would be higher, then you’re sabotaging yourself with these restrictions.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947919#Comment_3947919
It's not.
And don't spread misinformation. Deja Vu was buffed to "help combat the 3 gen situation" during that meta, but was unsuccessful in doing so… same as with everything else before the regression limit was put in.
They implied, once, that it might not be necessary once 3 genning was finally addressed, but never promised anything.
And honestly, the change from 5% to 6% was literally 0.8 seconds off of one gen. Likely they just realized that's actually basically nothing and leaving it makes zero impact.
And for comparison, over the same time frame, the extra 50% buff to merciless storm is about 8 more seconds off a gen in that same time frame. So as "useless" as people claim merciless storm is, deja Vu is about 1/10 as impactful. It's a negligible change.
An anti-3-gen mechanic was added to the game. There was never any expectation that 3-gen had to be completely removed from the game.
Also, if we have the attitude that balance changes should completely remove things from the game, that means Go Next and AFK crows need serious buffs, because they didn’t completely remove those things from the game.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948063#Comment_3948063
For the sake of argument, what does 'fair play for the sake of killers' mean here?
”Fair for survivors” basically means not doing any killer strategies that might be unfair for survivors. And it doesn’t matter if playing this way lowers kill rates.
“Fair for killers” would therefore, basically mean not doing survivor strategies that might be unfair for killers. And it doesn’t matter if playing this way lowers escape rates.
So really, just make a list of things killers complain about. It would mean never using voice comms for extra game advantages. It would mean no flashlight saves, no pallet saves, no hook sabotages, and no bodyblocking killers. It would pretty much be sabotaging your own escape rate, just so it’s “fair” for killers.
Because that is literally what is happening in this thread. 56% kill rate is really below average. It’s literally sabotaging kill rates, for the sake of survivor “fairness”.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948064#Comment_3948064
I mean at this point I feel like it has to be intentional. They talked about normalising survivor audio levels… 5? 6 years ago now? And nothing has happened.
Because they said they’re eventually fixing the audio levels, it means it’s not intentional for the survivor audio to be so different.
They said it takes a lot of work, which is exactly the same reason that it took years to fix Blight’s hug tech, that they announced was a bug, years before it was fixed.
-
@Rapid99 said:
Since you guys somehow still struggle to not make skins that provide an auditory benefit of being much quieter than their normal counterpart, in the big 2025.
Please killswitch it.
By that logic, can we killswitch survivors like Ace, that provide an auditory benefit of being much quieter than their normal survivor counterparts?