Coffeecrashing
Coffeecrashing
About
- Username
- Coffeecrashing
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@ReverseVelocity said:
Sole Survivor should give a 5-10% gen speed bonus for every dead Survivor on top of it's current effects.
It'd still be the final girl perk but it'd also be more effective in close games and tunnelling situations, and wouldn't be purely selfish.
it would be better if sole survivor was nerfed on top of wake up being nerfed. It eventually turns into permanent distortion, and distortion was nerfed because people were using it to excessively hide.
-
@Ayodam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3877411#Comment_3877411
I stopped reading after “iTs DiFfErEnT” when it comes to killers. You could have saved us both a lot of time by just using those two words.
I'm saying it's different when survivors start to be selfish near the end of the game, compared to survivors deciding to selfishly sandbag their team before the game has even started.
I was comparing survivor behavior to survivor behavior.
-
@WolfePhD said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3877241#Comment_3877241
Perspective is very important. Do you really think BHVR sat down and intentionally designed a perk for players to sit in the corner and ignore the entire match? The storefront description was probably written years ago and hasn't been touched since launch. What reason would they have to edit the storefront page for the base game? New content is delivered to the game through Chapters. I genuinely believe that BHVR's reaction to seeing the store page used as an argument earlier today was "Oh, that's on there? Hmm. Interesting. Didn't know that."
It's more likely that they had a specific use case in mind when designing the Sole Survivor. Most games end with one player alive at the end. Giving that player options and utility gives room for a niche perk. The low perk utilization rate is an indicator that we are spending a lot of time and effort today balancing a low priority issue.
The official game rules say killers should do "EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER" to stop survivors. Does that mean camping and tunneling should never be nerfed, or does it mean people shouldn't be extremely extreme with their text interpretations?
I'm fairly sure BHVR wasn't expecting survivors to literally hide and wait the entire game for their teammates to die, but since this is happening, it should be addressed. And the high escape rates on both Wake Up and Sole Survivor, are implying survivors are trying extra hard (i.e. are sandbagging their team) to make sure they are the last survivor in the game.
-
@Ayodam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3877241#Comment_3877241
You can’t police survivor intent and you cannot force them to all fall down for your 4K.
BHVR will never force—implicitly or explicitly—survivors to play in a narrow way. This logic follows suit with how they aren’t forcing killers to abandon a slug/tunnel/camp playstyle.
That's not the same thing. If survivors start hiding when the killer is slugging for the 4k, they waited until the near end of the game to be selfish.
I'm talking about the people that decide BEFORE the game has even started, that their selfish plan is for their teammates to die. When people equip perk combos like Wake Up + Sole Survivor + Left Behind, the vast majority of the time, it's not for a backup plan. The vast majority of the time, they are doing this because they want to sandbag their team, so they have the highest chances of escaping.
-
@CautionaryMary said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3877169#Comment_3877169
Where is the same energy for Sole-Survivor, Self-Preservation, Low Profile, and Left Behind?
All of these perks enable "unsportsmanlike" kind of gameplay, yet no changes or reworks to these perks?
Is Dead By Daylight a team-based game or is it a game that enables all sorts of playstyles? I'd argue team-based but as many people have pointed out from the Steam description —Behavior allows this type of gameplay regardless and these perks need to be reworked as no one hardly uses them due to the selfishness they provide.
BHVR should nerf all of the perks that encourage survivors to have a selfish playstyle, where the survivor decides before the match has even started, that their strategy is to wait for the other survivors to die, so they can use their "last man standing" perks.
And the Steam description should be reworded, because it should be considered unsportsmanlike sandbagging, when a survivor decides, before the match has even started, that their priority is their teammates dying.
-
@BritneyMitch said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/437424/turning-off-auto-aim
This problem is more complex than you think. I cant sit out and type it out so I had chatgpt write this, I read through the info, however, and it is correct:
"According to the developers of Dead by Daylight, "auto aim" does not actually exist for killers, and what players often perceive as auto aim is actually a system called "aim dressing" which adjusts the camera angle slightly after a swing to visually make it look like a hit connected, even if it was technically a near miss; meaning the game checks if a survivor is within a certain area to register the hit, not automatically aiming for them. "
The problem is we have a mechanic called "aim dressing", that when a killer makes an M1 attack, it makes proximity checks that are completely separate from the actual hit validation checks.
And the game can forcibly move the killer's camera, and can forcibly turn their lunge into a short M1 attack, after the proximity check, but BEFORE the hit validation check. And the hit validation check can say the killer missed, even though they only missed because aim dressing forcibly changed the killer's camera and attack.
-
@ChurchofPig said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3876371#Comment_3876371
This is not a post about survivors. Oh trust I have a lot to say about survivors and their gameplay, but in this post we're talking about killers. Let's stick to the topic at hand.
Camping and Tunneling isn’t “sweaty”. Labeling and demonizing every killer strategy as “sweaty” or “problematic” is a terrible double standard.
Why isn’t it “sweaty” when survivors use voice comms specifically for extra game advantages? Why isn’t it sweaty when survivors pallet save or flashlight save at 0 hooks?
Calling killer behavior “sweaty” is meaningless, if we don’t have comparable “sweaty” survivor behavior that should be avoided. It makes this whole thing sound like one-sided shaming.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3876627#Comment_3876627
What I'm mostly asking here is, what would you expect to see that would make the win condition clear? What do other games have that DBD doesn't?
I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm trying to understand a perspective that I currently don't.
DBD needs to have VICTORY or DEFEAT, in giant letters. That's literally it.
Because the post-game screens we currently have in DBD, aren't the same thing.
-
@Iron_Cutlass said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3876456#Comment_3876456
Because of tribalism.
(This is not directed at any particular content creator or streamer.)
Their favorite content creators and streamers constantly behold the idea that they only face top tier teams and never, whatsoever, face average or below average players. They hold this idea because it makes them look better, and they constantly advertise this to get more attention towards their content.
When people are constantly presented with this idea, they believe it at face value without actually taking the time to show this.
This is the same reason why we had the whole "content creators and streamers are de-ranking off stream because they face awful players occasionally" conspiracy theory going around, because people refuse to do research and refuse to accept that their favorite content creators and streamers pushing the idea might be wrong.
MMR has been datamined to hell and back, we know how it works, BHVR has also confirmed in Q&A and on the Forums that it works that way, and we know that it is incredibly flawed. Matchmaking currently has a focus on finding a match quickly instead of finding a quality match, resulting in players of a variety of skill brackets being paired against one another instead of focusing on people all within the same skill bracket.
Keep in mind this is also why the DBD Wiki removed any listed values of MMR because people kept harassing the DBD Wiki moderators because they upset that it made their favorite content creators and streamers look bad. It was also removed for a variety of other reasons, but ultimately it was the harassment that pushed them over the edge.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/ZP7T01G8QBYV/screenshot-from-2025-01-26-11-35-14.png
AUUUGGGHHH, I wish we could have nice things.
Being able to see MMR numbers could very easily fix the problem of "what MMR are streamers, and the people they play against".
No, you don't know if MMR is incredibly flawed. Matchmaking doesn't have a 100% focus on perfect matches, because of player feedback. BHVR made a balance between quality of matchmaking and speed of queue times, specifically because of player feedback. That does not mean that MMR is broken, nor does it mean that MMR doesn't care at all about quality.
We also know that MMR must be doing something, because BHVR has a target range of kill rates, and the stats they gave us showed they reached their target range.
-
Can someone explain why people are discussing various streamers, if "no one can know what MMR people are"?
Are people trying to guess what MMR various streamers are, even though "it shouldn't matter" and "we should stop caring about MMR"?
Imagine how much easier this could be if everyone could just see what MMR each streamer was, when they watched that streamer play the game?
-
@WolfePhD said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3876370#Comment_3876370
I agreed with you, but then 2v8 came out and revealed that matchmaking is actually a problem we have to consider. I am sure DBD previously had poor matchmaking over the years, but it wasn't until 2v8 that I became aware and concerned about queue splitting.
I don't have access to the data to make an informed decision, but I know the suits at BHVR have access to it. If they are comfortable with the current queue split between Chaos Shuffle/DBD Core in this very moment, then I am 100% on-board with your idea and believe they should also implement a perk banlist system controlled by the developers to address perk concerns (Forbidden - Not playable; Limited - Yellow; Semi-Limited - Green; Unlimited - Purple). The perk banlist system would not impact casual play in the casual queue, where it would be DBD in the current state. Like Old DBD, the casual queue would become the event queue—as casual players will play the events anyway and 3 queues is a lot.
2v8 is the only game mode that really broke the queue times, and that was because of 2v8 itself, and not the fact that we had two game modes at the same time. We would have had the same queue time problem if 2v8 was the only game mode available.
-
@ChurchofPig said:
Seriously something needs to be done about this. In my last 5 games as survivor in Chaos Shuffle, I've been hard camped and tunneled starting at 5 gens, 3 of those matches. It does not make me want to play Chaos Shuffle with how horrifically sweaty killers are playing and I play both sides. A lot of people go "Well if Survivors wouldn't play like this every Chaos Shuffle round then I wouldn't camp and tunnel" but the amount of sweaty killers to sweaty survivors is so far apart that the entire grand canyon could fit between them and there would still be a gap between them. I feel like at this point hard camping and tunneling in event queues needs to become bannable. No one is playing event queues because they want to sweat their ass off and it is incredibly unfun to actually try and play the game mode and not be able to do anything because the killer just happened to see me first and I will be dead before I can do anything else. If you want to sweat that hard, please do everyone a favor and go back to the regular queues. Clearly you don't have intent to actually play the mode.
The biggest double standard in this game is that it's considered "sweaty" for killers to camp and tunnel, but it's not considered "sweaty" for survivors to use voice comms specifically for extra game advantages.
-
@WolfePhD said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3876313#Comment_3876313
I think it is important to have perspective here.
You are suggesting for a multiplayer game to decentivize players from communicating with each other because you believe it provides an unfair advantage. I want to reiterate this point — you have a problem with people working together against you in a game designed for people to work together.
The problem is not that SWF is powerful. The problem is that SoloQ is not powerful enough.
If DBD introduces a ranked mode, I will not play it. There used to be a time in DBD where you could goof around, and goof around with other people who also wanted to goof around. If you wanted to take the game seriously, pip-up and go to a higher emblem. If the MMR system forced both of us into the same match, you would not like the outcome because our priorities are not in alignment, and you are taking the game 10x as seriously as I am. What if I just want to have fun?
We are both playing Dead by Daylight — but just as you wouldn't want the developers to balance the game for a casual audience, I don't want the developers to balance the game for a competitive one. There used to be a divider on the grocery store conveyer belt, which has been removed by MMR.
There could be a normal mode and ranked mode, and they don't need to be balanced the same as each other.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3876084#Comment_3876084
Absolutely. My suggestion doesn't stop you from chasing them, that's kinda why I designed it the way that I did.
It's just that if you do chase them, and the chase isn't very quick, you lose out only on the ability to outright win the game. That's it, you're still in a favourable position, you still aren't being punished in the least, and you still get a very noticeable amount of value.
It's literally just a way for survivors to not instantly lose because multiple people got downed, that's it. It's something the killer would keep in mind when choosing to slug, because what they get out of slugging changes a little. Instead of just flat out winning, they instead get a forced reset; still good, still in their favour, but not game-ending on its own.
If 2 survivors are slugged, and a 3rd survivor is threatening the killer with a flashlight/flashbang/pallet save, it is completely valid and justifiable to chase them. There should be ZERO punishment for the killer in this scenario.
Punishing the killer with a reset, when the killer is repeatedly being forced to slug, is unacceptable.
I'm done with this conversation.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3876072#Comment_3876072
Sure I did, you don't lose out on value in this scenario with my suggested changes.
What you'd do is one of two things depending on context:
1: Chase survivor 2 away, loop back around and pick up survivor 1
2: Chase survivor 2 and down them, see survivor 3, and loop back around to pick up survivor 1
Sure, you won't get to outright win anymore from just that series of events, but you can still gain quite a bit of value. Hell, let's look at hypothetical scenario three here, just to showcase how many options you'd have depending on what you're going for:
3: Chase survivor 2 and down them, chase survivor 3 and down them, chase survivor 4 and down them, then pick up and hook survivor 4. From there, go backwards to everyone still on the ground.
Does scenario three actually look bad for you just because survivor 1 and possibly survivor 2 picked themselves up? No, of course not, you've massively damaged generator efficiency and you've effectively forced the team to reset. That's a good position for the killer to be in.
You could argue that maybe survivors 1 and 2 would try and get into position to save survivor 4 if you pick them up, but they're injured and who knows how far away. That is an extremely risky play and at worst only delays your pickup by an extra down or two. If they don't reset, they can't threaten saves as easily, and they will lose if they keep trying.
If 2 survivors are slugged, and a 3rd survivor is threatening me with a flashlight/flashbang/pallet save, it is completely valid and justifiable to chase them.
Your solution is 100% unacceptable. Killers should not be punished for slugging, when it was forced upon them by survivors.
If a survivor has been slugged for 60 seconds, teleport them to a 2v8 cage. That fixes prolonged slugging issues that happen to BOTH sides of the game.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875919#Comment_3875919
I agree with that last part, anti-slugging solutions need to care about both sides of the game.
…That's why I crafted my suggestions to allow the killer time to chase flashlight savers away and even to just outright slug someone for a second down if there's someone nearby. I already took this kind of thing into account.
You literally didn’t take this scenario into account. In my scenario it was absolutely valid and justifiable to slug all 4 survivors.
Your suggestion allows survivors to bully the killer, because if 2 survivors are slugged, you’re saying a 3rd survivor should be able to bully killers with the threat of a flashlight/flashbang/pallet save, because if the killer tries to chase them, the 1st survivor can self pickup.
-
- Fix Hag
- Survivors shouldn't be able to run at a trap with the camera facing backward, so they can purposely run into traps without getting hit
- Hag also feels like she has no power if the survivor is literally anywhere without nearby traps, because it takes so long to place a trap.
- And do something so it doesn't feel like she's stuck camping a 3-gen, because her trap teleport range, and trap setting speeds are so bad that she can't really patrol the map and still feel like her power is being useful.
- Fix sound occlusion, or the chase music volume, or whatever changed last year that made it way harder to hear footsteps and grunts of pain while the chase music is happening. Some of the killers have chase music that obfuscates survivor noises more than others, and those chase music need to be quieter.
- Fix Aim Dressing so it no longer steals hits from the killer.
- Show us our MMR scores, and split the game between ranked mode and normal mode.
- Make all the toolboxes have 16 or 18 charges, because 32 charge toolboxes scale way too much when survivors stack generator perks and addons.
- Normalize the survivor noises so we don't have anymore super quiet survivors. Check all the different survivor footwear and all the different floor materials, to make sure running footsteps always make noises that can be heard.
- If a survivor is slugged for 60 seconds, teleport them to a 2v8 cage. Survivors are purposely placing themselves in situations where they can't be hooked, and then complaining that killers are leaving survivors slugged for long periods of time.
- Fix Hag
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875833#Comment_3875833
…Isn't all that assuming you'll actually let those survivors pick themselves up, though?
You don't have to do that. I acknowledged that you could to try and knock everyone down and force them to reset, but you don't have to.
Killers with slug-happy powers would be pushed to just cash out with two downs at worst, as far as I can see. You very rarely are in a situation where you have to slug for over 45 seconds, and anyone picking themselves up during that time is catastrophically bad for you.
Your post seems to be from the perspective of a player that just wants to knock everyone down before even trying to hook as just, their basic strategy, and that's the literal thing that these changes would be trying to weaken, that's the entire purpose of doing this in the first place.
Earlier this week I had a game where…
- I knocked the 1st survivor to a ground, searched around for nearby flashlight users, and found the 2nd survivor with a flashlight.
- So I chased the 2nd survivor, and they suspiciously got knocked down under an undropped pallet, so I searched around a found the 3rd survivor.
- So I chased the 3rd survivor, and they also suspiciously got knocked down under an undropped pallet, so I searched around a found the 4th survivor.
- So I chased the 4th survivor, knocked them to the ground, and now all 4 survivors are slugged.
Everything I did was valid and justifiable. I literally had 3 times in a row, where a survivor purposely chose to try to make a flashlight save or pallet save. This is why anti-slugging solutions need to care about both sides of the game.
-
@Iron_Cutlass said:
I always see people say "well I am high MMR" whenever they talk about balancing discussions and I really have to question how it is even important or relevant to anything.
Most people can agree that the MMR system isnt really the best, it has a lot of flaws/issues and rewards players for playing the most boring ways possible, often punishing players for taking risks or trying to go for high skilled plays. High MMR does not really feel like something to boast about, especially when it is basically an invisible number that you can only really guesstimate on anyways.
Furthermore, this concept of "I am high MMR" has lead to this elitism where anyone who is new or less experienced gets their opinions invalidated because they are not playing at a high level, despite the fact that new or less experienced players are a very important part of DBD's player ecosystem and hold just as much importance as the veterans or top % of players.
MMR's softcap to begin with is set really low where most veteran or top % of players are facing average (sometimes even below average) players consistently in their games, the matchmaking is so loose that it is the idea of Skill Based Matchmaking in DBD practically doesnt exist. This is mainly because of the focus on finding games fast instead of trying to have quality matchmaking.
Anyways… yea… MMR is a sham and Im tired of people bringing it up. This isnt aimed at a particular person, of course, this is just talking about a trend Ive seen in the DBD community for a long time and I really dislike it and wanted to talk about it.
It’s still better than when people say their opinion matters more because of the number of hours they’ve played.
And it’s still better than when complain that matchmaking must “obviously” be broken because the 5 players in a game don’t have a similar number of hours.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875681#Comment_3875681
Nope, it offers an answer for one scenario for the killer: Survivors trying to make themselves unhookable as a team. It doesn't help as much for just one survivor doing it, but you don't really need a basekit answer to that, so that's fine.
And, yeah, obviously this is primarily a survivor buff, the issue is a killer action so that's how you'd fix it.
But it doesn’t even really help the killer because it requires the survivors to do a specific action, that the survivors can delay indefinitely.
You could have just given killers an extra 20 second wiggle time as base kit, with zero requirements. But instead, you want it to be the survivor team’s decision on whether or not the killer can get extra wiggle time.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875575#Comment_3875575
If the other survivors are doing generators it implies only this one player is trying to do unhookable stuff, and I'm okay with them running around doing that while I pressure their teammates, personally.
I'm not saying unhookable stuff doesn't need some adjustments in its own right, to be clear, there shouldn't be as many places you can go down to make yourself really hard to hook as there are. I'm just saying this system won't make it any worse and even offers an answer to a good number of those scenarios.
Correction: Your system offers an answer to a good number of scenarios FOR SURVIVORS, but barely helps killers at all.
You give survivors a huge buff, that automatically triggers on its own…. but the one buff you give killers requires the survivor team to make a specific event, which they can decide to delay as much as they want.
-
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875568#Comment_3875568
There is no situation in which a killer is forced to slug and their best interest is to leave the slugged survivor to go across the map. It is in your best interest to defend the slug if you want to keep it a slug.
If you’re slugging because you can’t hook, staying near the slug keeps your pressure and ensures the survivor can’t recover quickly, the exact same way slugging works currently.
If you decide to leave, you’re intentionally giving up that pressure. That is your choice to leave. The proposed mechanic only introduces a risk to lose the slug if the slug is abaondoned, not the act of slugging itself.
This would only encourages strategy, not punishment.
If a survivor is slugged, and the killer literally can't hook them, and the killer sees a survivor nearby… it is absolutely in their best interest to chase that survivor instead. And if that survivor runs away from the slugged survivor, then it's in the best interest for the killer to keep chasing them anyway.
It also doesn't answer the question of "why are we fixing the slugging problems that negatively affect survivors, but not fixing the slugging problems that negatively affect killers"?
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875416#Comment_3875416
What problems even remain, though?
Flashbang saves being borderline uncounterable would be fixed, and anyone who tries to make themselves unhookable puts themselves at a disadvantage because they'll be hooked after their first attempt at picking themselves up.
What's left that forces the killer to slug for longer than 45 seconds that they'd be punished for here?
The killer can't force a survivor to pick themselves off the ground, to trigger the extra 20 seconds wiggle time. And the killer really can't be expected to just stand over the slugged survivor while their teammates repair generators. The killer will have to leave the slugged survivor, at which point the survivor gets their base kit unbreakable, even though the killer was forced to slug.
-
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875496#Comment_3875496
You don’t have to leave the slug. It’s your choice to leave the slug.
If the killer is forced to slug, and literally can't hook the slugged survivor, then why is the killer being punished for leaving the slugged survivor?
-
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875417#Comment_3875417
I disagree that it is a punsihment, it is a risk. Every tool should have risks. Killers can still slug strategically but they won't benefit from leaving survivors slugged across the map for an extended period of time. If a killer is forced to slug its due to sabo or flashlight the recovery speed wouldn't change. This mechanic only triggers when leaving the slug completely unattended.
If a killer is forced to slug, and they leave the slug, they get punished even though they literally can’t hook the survivor.
-
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875271#Comment_3875271
This suggestion is entirely activated upon the killer's choice. I really don't see how making recovery speed increase with killers distance is any way abusable. If the killer stays to defend the slug, nothing changes. Killers don't currently need help to slug, the goal isn't to make slugging easier.
Slugging isn't always the killer's choice, and you're punishing killers even if it wasn't their choice to slug.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875341#Comment_3875341
If you move after they commit to actually sabotaging, they don't have time to run in front of you and sabotage that hook too. If there's a third survivor also doing this, then just play it patient and wait for them to exhaust their options, there's only one survivor doing generators in this scenario.
Plus, y'know, you can always drop the survivor you're carrying and chase one of those survivors. You'd have 45 seconds to finish that chase and still get two hooks, and worst case scenario you've still done a lot of damage to the survivor's generator efficiency.
This really isn't different to current sabotage plays except for that you have more time to get the hook. That's not a bad thing, this is still an improvement.
You're still punishing killers for slugging when it's not the killer's choice to slug.
The problem is that your solution really isn't different for the slugging problems that negatively affect killers, but it completely fixes the slugging problems that negatively affect survivors.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875312#Comment_3875312
All you need to do is just head towards a different hook once they commit to the sabotage, it's not that big of a deal.
You already get a huge bonus in getting that 20 seconds of no wiggle progression anyway, you don't need to be rewarded more for slugging.
So the killer moves toward another hook, and the survivor runs in front of them to sabotage that hook too. And if two survivors have toolboxes, then they can easily sabotage any hook the killer goes near even with an extra 40 seconds. It’s also not addressing the fact that slowly carrying a boil over survivor for over 30 seconds would be very unfun for the killer.
And getting a remote hook prompt after 10 seconds of carrying a survivor has absolutely nothing to do with rewarding the killer for slugging. It’s literally rewarding the killer for attempting the hook a survivor.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875278#Comment_3875278
Yes it would?
Let's assume that there's a second survivor that wants to sabotage after you pick up someone who recently recovered from the dying state.
You now have the 20 seconds of the new feature PLUS the 16 seconds it typically takes to wiggle free.
That's plenty of time to reach another hook even with a sabotage or two forcing you to change directions. It wouldn't necessarily be impossible for survivors to deny a hook this way, but with 20 seconds of free Mad Grit without needing to hit someone it's going to be quite unlikely.
Spending 36 seconds carrying a survivor, and watching their teammate repeatedly run in front of me to sabotage a hook, sounds terrible.
If the killer has carried a survivor for 10 seconds, they should get a button to remotely hook the survivor.
-
20 seconds doesn’t help at all if a survivor is running around with a toolbox to sabotage hooks before the killer gets there.
You’re basically saying it’s fine for survivors to force the killer to slug, but not fine if the killer actually wants to slug.
There should be an additional rule that if a survivor is slugged for X seconds, the killer can remotely hook them without picking them off the ground. Because killers shouldn’t be punished for prolonged slugging if they were forced into it.
-
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875211#Comment_3875211
I believe you and I have discussed this before, but I am open to talking about it again.
The recovery speed based on proximity wouldn't trigger immediately after a survvior is slugged. Only after the killer leaves the proximity of the slugged survivor. If multiple survivors are slugged together, it doesn't activate, the mechanic already accounts for proximity between slugs (just like anti-face camping).The scenario where survivors completely prevent a killer from hooking someone due to hook proxmity or map hook spawns should not only be extremely rare, but I do think wouldn't be affected by my solution at all. If there is a corner in a map where you can't bring a survivor to a hook (this shouldn't ever be possible, and if it is it should be changed immediately and I would like to know which specific map because I am unaware of this) then it doesn't matter how fast they recover or not if they can't be brought to a hook.
If the killer does find themeslves in a scenario where no hook is reachable due to a map layout, my suggestion wouldn't change that outcome. If a killer can't get a survvior to a hook due to the map lacking hooks then wether that slugged survivors recovery speeds up or slows down, wouldn't change the outcome much because the problem isn't the mehcanics or perks it's the design/layout of the map and again, should never happen and should be changed immediately. I do believe if this was a very common occurence, where killers couldnt bring survivors to hooks because the map didn't have enough or they were spaced too far, we would be seeing many people complain about this (rightfully so). But in these discussions for slugging, it is not common for the reasoning being an inability to get to a hook. It's usually about the effort in slugging compared to hooking not being comparable when the results are the same, especially with slugging being able to deny perks from ever activating.
Anti slugging solutions should be helping survivors when the slugging is the killer’s choice, and helping killers when the slugging is forced upon the killer.
You’re basically helping survivors, but doing absolutely nothing to help killers. That’s not fixing slugging for both sides of the game. -
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3874781#Comment_3874781
Hello! I’m not the original poster but saw your question and I wanted to possibly discuss an idea for slugging with you. I want to preface by saying I am not of the opinion that slugging should be eradicated. I believe it needs to exist because it serves as a counter. Slugging is sometimes necessary when flashlights or sabo is in play. It’s a useful and important tool, but in my opinion just like any other tool in the game, it can be “abused” so to speak.
I think most people that want to discuss possible changes to slugging in good faith come to an agreement that the kind of slugging that’s problematic is full team slugs with intention of bleeding out. I have a suggestion that I think would make slugging like this still possible but more risky, and it doesn’t involve a base-kit UB. Making the slug proximity based.
For example, the Anti-Face Camp, it’s still possible to camp with it only you can’t blatantly be in the face, and the closer you get to the hooked survivor the faster the bar speeds up, and if other survivors are in proximity that bar progresses much slower. What if we take that same concept and put it to slugs (only reverse)? When a killer slugs a survivor, there is a radius around the slug. If the killer remains in that radius— nothing changes. This will allow a killer to defend a slug from a potential save. But if the killer leaves that radius of the slugged survivor, the survivors recovery bar speeds up. The farther away the killer gets, the faster the recovery bar speed fills. Now they will still need someone to pick them up at the end, it does not grant an automatic pick up like UB. But it makes for leaving the slug unattended more of a risk and discourages 4team slugging. If all the survivors are in the same place and happen to get slugged, this also doesn’t affect the killer. Because if one slug is near another the recovery bar will proceed as normal with no speed buff, so it is still a punishable mistake.
I believe this allows slugging to still remain as an important counter while discouraging full team slugging. Again, still possible but more risky, and I don’t believe is abusable because the killer is still in control of deciding to leave the slug or not. Much like the Anti-Face Camp, the killers proximity will determine if it ever comes into play, and does not work if another survivor is in the same radius.
Thoughts?
What happens if the killer leaves a slugged survivor, because the survivor team literally forced the killer to slug, and the killer literally can’t get the survivor to a hook?How is your solution address that problem in a way that is fair for the killer role?
-
@TieBreaker said:
Do you have any way to fix slugging without breaking the game? I haven't seen a single suggested fix that doesn't have massive issues with it.
Adding basekit UB makes it so you can just die on a pallet, and force the killer to chase another survivor that is nearby waiting to pallet save, then you can just get up for free.
Survivors getting moved to a 2v8 cage after a minute or so is also a bad fix, as it makes slugging survivors for a full minute mainstream gameplay. BHVR should be limiting how much time survivors spend unable to do anything, not encouraging it. One minute is better than four, but it's still a bad solution.
I get that being slugged is not fun. But how do you actually fix it without causing a bunch of other problems at the same time? Like it or not, this is a very difficult thing to fix.
The 2v8 cage idea functionally adds 60 seconds to a survivor’s hook timer, makes it more difficult for the killer to camp, and makes it more difficult for the killer to slug for the 4k.
All the other solutions have a big double standard, that it’s “miserable” if slugging happens when it’s the killer’s decision, but it’s 100% ok if slugging happens when the survivors forced it upon the killer.
Slugging solutions should fix slugging problems on both sides of the game. And really, if anyone else has a better anti-slugging idea, that actually cares about both sides of the game, then please tell us what it is.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
I mean, as much as I appreciate the developer side of the argument for once… I feel like his comparison to VHS kinda falls flat. I assume this was written around the same time that VHS shut down, so that’s why he was talking about it.
I think he gives DbD some undeserved credit here. VHS failed due to mismanagement. No question about it.
For starters, the closed beta lasted far too long, which made its playerbase too good at the game. Because of that, there was no initial honeymoon phase that normally comes with a new release, where nobody knows what they’re doing and it’s exciting and fresh. Instead, new players were put off by just how unforgiving Monster was to play against experienced teens.
As a side effect of that long closed beta, it seemed to take forever for any new content to drop. For that matter, the Monsters that were there and did get released barely differed from one another, ability-wise. Only Dollmaster presented a unique playstyle.
The comment about the devs accepting feedback directly contradicts what I’ve heard, though I don’t know enough to really comment on that.
You could very much camp and tunnel?? Wasn’t there a “feast” mechanic or whatever that allowed the Monster to speed up the bleed-out bar? Similarly, I don’t see what was stopping a Monster from tunnelling a specific Teen. Sure, it gave the other teens a lot of time to make weapons, but you very much could tunnel.
Some other things that I think VHS had going against it:
Maps were entirely static. Randomising the locations of the crafting stations alone would’ve alleviated this a lot, I think. Some windows also were just too strong as instant chase escape options.
That random scream-towards-the-ceiling after a hit tried to solve an issue that was barely one to begin with, and somehow made the basic idea of the elegant ‘wipe’ so much worse.
What even was the point of starting as a fake teen?? You’re staggered for far too long for any ambush to work, so why even bother?
Allowing a player to stunlock another player is kind of a cardinal video game sin. Overwatch, to name an entirely different example, had this issue as well when Brigitte released. People loathed her.
The way Teens were killed was really convoluted. Quite simply, it took too long. In DbD terms, you’re effectively always slugging your downs. You don’t do anything with them after they’ve gone down, other than maybe that feast thing I’ve mentioned. On that note, that minigame you could do to speed up your recovery bar always felt really out of place to me.
WART’s model didn’t make sense. Too top-heavy for a bipedal creature. Nitpicky, but still.
Werewolf did nothing to riff on the basic concept of a werewolf. That could have worked if they expanded on who the human actually was, but as it stood it was just kinda bland.
”It took too long to kill survivors” would be a DBD problem if severe anti-tunnel mechanics were added to the game. How is the killer role supposed to feel like a killer role, if the game heavily encourages all 4 survivors to be alive for most of the game?
And I’ve still seen zero realistic suggestions on what compensation buffs killers should get if the game had a bunch of anti-camping, anti-tunneling, and anti-slugging mechanics.
Because all the things survivors want, would super move the kill rate down, and killers would need severe compensation buffs, to move the kill rate back up to around 60%.
-
VHS failed because the killer role was absolutely miserable to play.
And people are trying to make DBD be more like VHS. Can people really imagine how absolutely pointless and miserable the killer role would be, if DBD got in-game voice comms, or if DBD encouraged every game to be a 4v1 for as long as possible?
-
@dbd900bach said:
When it came to TCM, I was under the impression that the lack of content is what is slowly is Killing the game, plus being limited to a single universe.
The devs don't really add much to the game, and when they do, it's nothing really worthwhile. The skins are extremely bland and generic, and even when they add new characters, you can still be denied playing that character if someone chooses it first, or vice versa you're denying someone playing that character. Someone can go several matches without even being able to the touch the character they paid for.
The new game mode they added certainly breathed life back into things, but that only last for so long. The devs just seem painfully limited, which is a shame when they've obviously built a good foundation when TCM has lasted this long, yet it's dwindling hard.
People dropped TCM because of 2 things:
- The devs actually tried to balance the game, and people were mostly playing the game because it had lots of unbalanced stuff.
- The devs started introducing a lot of high priced DLC content.
-
@UndeddJester said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3874902#Comment_3874902
If this game was better designed, there wouldn't be any need for a bunch of restrictions.
Urgh, I hate this lazy, generic, ambiguous, buzzword of a line so much. There are reasons why things are the way they are, and so many people throw out this phrase whenever talking about something they don't like to give their point gusto, when in reality there is no tangible assessment of what makes it "bad design".
If the devs added a mechanic that disabled the killer's ability to move for four minutes, would you be in favour of that, even if it was balanced somehow?
No of course not, that's why I have acknowledged the issue of excessive slugging in many threads, including this one. That lack of player agency for survivors when excessively slugging is a problem. However there is a reason why slugging exists, and that is because survivors are meant to scatter when a killer turns up on them, it's to ensure there is an appropriate risk involved when trying for saves. The 4 minute timer is a means of making is LESS efficient to slug the whole team compared to hooking.
The Unbreakable PTB demonstrated this perfectly, where the "risk" of sticking around to save became completely moot by virtue of the fact there was no need to get past the killer to actually pick up a teammate. The risk was drastically reduced because all survivors had to do was stall long enough from safety.
Just because this problem of lack of survivor agency while slugged exists is no reason to nuke the ability to slug completely from orbit. There has to be a risk associated with survivors being caught in pairs and sticking around for saves.
I hear so many people harp on about "bad design", while simultaneously proposing absolutely dire suggestions that keeps putting more and more shackles on the Killer where the "design" is so much much worse.
I made a suggestion to address the lack of player agency for Survivor, while not nuking the Killers agency either, this s the point I'm striving for, being careful not to put in aggressive solutions to things that tie the killers hands behind their back.
Survivors pretty much have the same agency when they are slugged or hooked, except for the fact that slugging doesn’t allow players by bypass DC penalties.
If survivors are slugged, then teleport them to 2v8 cages after 60 seconds. That would end the game earlier, without giving survivors yet another way to bypass DC penalties.
-
@Rokku_Rorru said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3874741#Comment_3874741
No you are not reading the room, you are ignoring what people are saying, yes there is no rulebook but killer behaviour is appalling rn, don't just ignore people. Change will end up happening because people hate the way things are currently also "Posts: 52" lol.
Trying to win in a PvP game isn’t appalling. The killer had a valid reason to slug those survivors.
-
@PleaseRewind said:
Does anyone know why the stats stats exclude events, modes, and modifiers?
The stats would get messed up if the other modes were included.
For example, 2v8 had 8 survivors, so a killer could get more than 12 hooks per game.
-
@Rokku_Rorru said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3874619#Comment_3874619
Are you oblivious they were only hooked coz its a bot LMAO
It doesn't matter if the survivor is a bot. It's still a bad game decision for the killer to pick up any of the other survivors, while the hooked survivor is in 1st hook stage.
A killer still has a valid reason to leave the other survivors slugged.
-
@Rokku_Rorru said:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/7ZQPO8UHNRI1/image.png
Slugging on purpose here too and drawing the match out, this really needs to stop. Behaviour don't care about the casual playerbase, havn't for years….
The hooked survivor is still at 1st hook stage, and the 2 slugged survivors haven't been hooked yet. It is therefore a bad idea for the killer to pick any of the slugged survivors off the ground, until the hooked survivor reaches 2nd stage.
The problem is self-unhooking, because if a survivor self-unhooks, they might try to help their teammates, which would extend the game. It is therefore quicker to hook 1 survivor at a time, and wait for them to reach 2nd stage.
-
@Mandy said:
They have all been sent by this stage yes.
I can only suggest that you can contact our support team who can investigate on why this wasn't received by yourselves.
Just an FYI, I was just told by support that they don’t resend promotional emails.
The main problem is that because the emails were sent in batches, I didn’t know I missed the emails until after both emails were sent.
If the first emails were all sent at the same time, then I would have immediately known I was missing an email, and would have had a chance to fix it before the second email happened. And it’s likely I would have been sent two emails, because I’m fairly sure my overall most played killer is different than my 2024 most played killer.
-
I don’t like that it’s the number of times a killer hooked someone, because it’s purposely hiding the kill rate.
It’s also arbitrarily giving killers a penalty if they use the killer mori instead of always hooking the last survivor.
What we have now, is that survivors can complain if they are under the 40% escape rate, but killers can’t complain if they are under the 60% kill rate because the stats are forbidden killers from knowing their kill rate.
-
@KatsuhxP said:
I have mine by now. I'd like it if there was more in it like average kills and escapes, maybe maps I got the most and things like that.
It's just weird that the stats give escape rates, but not kill rates.
Like, for reals, "Number of survivors killed" should have been in the stats.
-
Thank you. I'll contact support
-
@apathyinc said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3874221#Comment_3874221
Bleed outs never counted as kills under the older systems either, you would lose pips. Moris also didn't used to count, but that was changed and now they do. You have no proof that the MMR system is doing what you say it is, and nothing to back up the claim. I don't have proof of what I'm saying either (that's why I've asked the devs for it), but there is a whole lot of evidence that points towards what I'm saying being correct.
Killers used to face camp back when the game used emblem based matchmaking, and the game clearly mentioned that face camping was negative points. They did this because a large portion of the players really doesn't care about their score, and only cares about how many survivors died.
Similarly, many killers literally don't care if bleed outs affect their invisible MMR score at all, because the survivors still died.
-
@apathyinc said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3874181#Comment_3874181
Popular doesn't mean correct.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3874173#Comment_3874173
Why is it a strange stance to want to know what is actually happening? And what have I made up? The game currently isn't scoring bleed outs as kills, this can be seen by anyone in any match they play and is a fact. Show me where it was confirmed that bleed outs increase killer MMR and I'll STFU about it. Send me a message if you aren't allowed to cite a source on the forums. I will even follow up with a comment that says "Hey look everyone, I WAS WRONG" if you do.
The emblem-based scoring screen, that is based on the emblem system, that wanted to discouraging killers from slugging, is not giving bleed outs the same score as sacrifices.
And you keep getting the words incorrect. The emblem-based system doesn't score BLEED-OUTS the same as SACRIFICES. Bleed-outs always counted as kills, because the survivor literally dies from bleeding out.
MMR is based on escapes and KILLS. MMR is not based on escapes and SACRIFICES.
-
@apathyinc said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3874136#Comment_3874136
The win conditions are on the post match screens. You have the killer grade screen, the scoreboard, the emblem BS. If someone is playing for kills, the killer grade screen is the place where those results are shown.
If people repeatedly ask BHVR to tell us the official overall win condition, and they repeatedly refuse to tell us the official overall win condition, then there isn’t any official overall win condition.
What we do have, is the most popular unofficial win condition for killers, which is a 3k or 4k, and it doesn’t matter if the survivors were sacrificed or if they bleed out on the ground.
-
@apathyinc said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3874116#Comment_3874116
Most people aren't bleeding out survivors. The ones doing are not participating in normal gameplay, and from what you just said are playing by their own made up win conditions. See why this is a problem? All the other players join expecting a game where each side plays to win. But a bleed out killer is playing to their own standard of stalemating the match and believing they won.
Players are making up win conditions because BHVR refuses to give us an overall win condition.
We literally don’t have an official overall win condition, even though we’ve asked for this many times.
-
@apathyinc said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3874097#Comment_3874097
I'm not asking you to do anything because you aren't the person to ask. You have no way to provide a validated answer. Also, that SBMM dev stream never specifically addresses bleed outs. The devs have never specifically addresses bleed outs.
It also doesn’t matter if bleed outs are worth points.
Most people consider 4 bleed outs as a win for the killer, and that is more important than an invisible MMR score that they never get to see.