Coffeecrashing
Coffeecrashing
About
- Username
- Coffeecrashing
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Xray said:
It would be also helpful to bring out some Fog Whisperers or big content creators out to talk about their input on upcoming changes too.
I’d rather that not happen, considering how many streamers purposely exaggerate stuff because clickbait = $$$ for them.
-
During the livestream, it was implied there were issues trying to get the stream working on YouTube, which caused the delay.
-
I’m on Twitch, and I just see STARTING SOON. And I checked a streamer, and his screen says STARTING SOON too.
-
@ImperatorHaze said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4018880#Comment_4018880
Are killers supposed to be immune to the environment when performing a lunge attack? I've never tried to lunge to slid across a wall/surface, I usually hit something. The camera pulling I haven't experienced. If I did it was very minimal. Not saying this isn't an issue, just something I've never noticed.
Killers are not supposed to have weapon collision during a lunge attack, and this makes it much easier to attack a survivor that is looping around an object.
-
@ImperatorHaze said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4018875#Comment_4018875
Interesting. I've never heard of this or experienced it, but it sounds like a pain
You’ve probably experienced it, but didn’t know aim dressing was literally stealing hits from the killer.
If you ever try to lunge attack a survivor, and instead your camera gets yanked and you immediately hit an object instead, even though you were lunge attacking and therefore weren’t supposed to have collision with objects, then you were wrongfully affected by aim dressing.
-
@ImperatorHaze said:
I haven't noticed any aim assistance…can you provide more context?
It’s officially called Aim Dressing, and it can steal hits from the killer.
The game can forcibly yank the killer’s camera, and forcibly forbid a killer from making a lunge attack, based on proximity checks. The problem is these proximity checks are completely separate from the hit validation checks, so the game can forcibly cause the killer to miss an attack, because it changed the killer’s attack before confirming a hit occurred.
-
@Nazzzak said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4018123#Comment_4018123
Then i suppose they could count games with one abandon as a kill? I dont agree with DCs counting as kills though. I think that would be detrimental to killers and game balancing.
According to the patch notes, the only survivor abandon scenario that is supposed to count as a kill, is a survivor using the abandon button when all the remaining survivors are in the dying state.
This means the abandon button isn’t supposed to care about the number of survivors that abandoned, and instead is suppose to care about which scenario gave them the abandon button.
-
So we know abandons are bugged, because we had patch notes tell us that survivors are supposed to get a loss if they abandon because all remaining Survivors are in the dying state.
This means the official stat tracker isn’t reliable.
The problem is we don’t know if the official stats BHVR releases about kill rates, are also completely unreliable. When BHVR says the average kill rate is 60%, is it really higher than 60% because it’s not counting abandoned games correctly?
-
This map is still a design nightmare. As a killer, it’s still really annoying to patrol the map, and annoying to find survivors that are hiding in the buildings.
But the survivors don’t value the fact that the buildings are really annoying for killers, and will just complain that the outside doesn’t have enough pallets.
If the map is supposed to have a bunch of pallets everywhere, then the buildings should be nerfed even more, so it isn’t so easy for survivors that are repairing inside generators, to easily hide whenever they see or hear a terror radius. The TD;LR is the inside generators are still too safe if the killer has a terror radius.
-
Just because a killer is considered “S tier” at the top 0.001% of the players, doesn’t mean that the average player will be able to easily handle the new pallet densities on these killers.
All the killers feel terrible with the new pallet densities. And a lot of the killers that can “shred through pallets” are actually stunned in place long enough that they aren’t really gaining that much advantage over M1 killers in breaking pallets. And a lot of the modern pallet loops are purposely designed so that M2 killers can’t ignore them and get “free hits”.
And this post applies to all the maps affected by the new pallet densities.
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4017320#Comment_4017320
They should have said that skin specifically then, but they said "some of".
@CompetitifDBD said:
Tbf, this is not the skin they said they fixed. They fixed the Ghost skin, since that one actually took up half your screen
@fussy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4017359#Comment_4017359
They overall changed "hands" position from PoV, they are closer now, it affected all skins.
What on topic, it seems like problem only with this weapon, because with other weapons it looks good.
This is what the Unwanted Toy cosmetics used to look like. Notice that we used to be able to see a lot more of the screen, and the arms were both on the edges of the screen, which means BHVR actually made this cosmetic WORSE than it was before.
-
@ThatRyanB said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4017137#Comment_4017137
To be clear, the change to this perk wasn't specifically tied to Myers' rework. The intention was to make Terror Radii scale more naturally across all Killers without creating cases where they could get a Terror Radius of near-zero (without relying on Undetectable, of course).
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4017139#Comment_4017139
We don't currently have plans to change these add-ons. Would you be able to give a little more detail on why this isn't vibing with you?
I don't understand which other killers were getting a near-zero (without undetectable) terror radius.
The closest was Chucky with double terror radius addons, that could reach 10 meter terror radius, but he isn't affected by the perk change. And the next closest was Huntress at 12 meters, which doesn't sound like near-zero, and she still has a lullaby, and she has an addon that makes her undetectable so she doesn't really care about this perk.
-
@ThatRyanB said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/458973/myers-hotfix-mixed-impressions
Will definitely be interested to hear what you think once you've had a chance to get some time with it. Our team will be making sure any feedback is shared with the dev team!
I don't understand why Monitor and Abuse is still nerfed, if Myers had the terror radius reverted.
-
@cogsturning said:
I don't see how this can be. My killler matches pretty much always have an abandon or two at the end, yet my stats are still fine. Some of my monthly numbers are close to 90% on some killers. That shouldn't even be a possible number if half of my kills aren't counting.
I'll have to start writing them down and comparing them, I guess.
The abandoned games even show up differently on the Recent Match History section of the official stat tracker.The top 3 icons are normal, where they say Dead, Sacrificed, or Escaped. The bottom icon has zero words, because I pressed the abandon button that game, and the official stat tracker decided to not count that game.
Anyone can try this out for themselves, and check what their Recent Match History page looks like after they use the abandon button.
-
@Firellius said:
Wait, so the official stats are going to exclude a ton of survivor losses? This is going to massively deflate the stats on kill rates.
That appears to be what the dev was saying.
I know for a fact those games are excluded from the official stat tracker, because I tested this by having a month where I pressed the abandon button as survivor each time it appeared, and it inflated my escape rates by over 15% because it threw out a bunch of games where I was seconds away from being sacrificed.
-
@Rogue11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4016745#Comment_4016745
I hope you have/find someone who loves you as much as you love punishing survivor players.
Survivors are punished every time a survivor ragequits early. The actual innocent survivors are the people that want to play a game, but one of the other survivors ragequits or DCs early.
People keep showing a complete lack of empathy for the survivors that are negatively impacted when someone else ragequits or DCs early.
-
@MaddieMage said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4016712#Comment_4016712
I never said I wanted DC penalties changed for everyone. Not once did I say that. I asked WHY the specific change was made that made it so you had to stay logged into your game for their timer to run out.
I’ve been playing this game since 2020. The DC penalty timer was changed very recently with the go next prevention which made it so that if you had a timer, you now have to stay logged into the game for it to run down. It did not used to be that way. Before if you had a penalty, for let’s say an hour.. you could log out of the game and go watch tv for an hour then come back and your penalty would be gone and you could play again. That was your “cool off” period for ruining the games by DCing. Now they changed it to where in order for your penalty to run down, you must keep your game launched and sit in lobby while your timer runs down.
THATs what my complaint is about. Why is BHVR making people sit in their game lobby like a child in the corner forcing them to stare at a lobby screen for the duration of their timer? Whether you stay in game or log out, you’re still being banned from playing their game until your timer ends and that’s supposed to be the point of the penalty. This extra step of having to stay logged into feels like being petty or punishing for the sake of. Like “we don’t want you to be able to go play another game and have fun while you wait for our timer to run out. You have to sit here in your corner (corner being the game lobby) and think about what you did until your time is up.”
That’s the point I’m making. That’s silly and absolutely stupid imo. You’re not playing the game regardless of if you’re logged in or not so it just seems like an extra step to punish for no reason. Now they want to control your ability to have fun elsewhere outside of their game if they’re currently punishing you in their game? Thats weird full stop. I had a friend decide to take a break because after Dcing for like 4 matches, they obviously were not enjoying it/raging and decided to step away. They logged off for 3 days, came back and when they logged in, their 15 minute DC penalty was still sitting there. Waiting for them to sit in the lobby for 15 minutes to wait it out.
I’m sorry for the novel but I’m trying to make it clear what my complaint is because I don’t think you’re getting it. I’m not advocating for removing or lessening the times of the DC penalty. I’m simply asking why this extra step was added that was never in the game the entire time to begin with, and only seems to be there to infantilize the games playerbase.
I’m not gonna continue to reply to your responses about my troubleshooting because it’s not relevant to my complaint. How I chose to troubleshoot is my business and I’m not complaining about the fact that I received the DC penalty. I knew it would likely happen and I accepted it.
The DC penalties are supposed to be inconvenient. You are supposed to acknowledge the fact that you are ruining games for other people, and you are supposed to actually think and reflect on what you are doing.
So just accept the fact that the penalties have changed. You said you were troubleshooting anyway, so what difference does it make if the game has to be open?
-
@MaddieMage said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4016683#Comment_4016683
I’m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don’t see or comprehend what I posted. I wasn’t DCing. My game was crashing due to tech issues and I couldnt fix the issues without queueing up for the game to figure out if I was fixing the issue as the game was the only thing that kept crashing. How am I to know if I fixed an issue and can play the game again unless I try to play the game? I should just stay off the game without knowing whether or not I fixed the issue? You under stand how troubleshooting works right? (My game crashing also means there was a bot left for my team which is what everyone here advocated for when people used to be able to just give up on hook and leave their team with no one but I digress.)
And again I’m not advocating against DC penalties. I think they’re good and I’m not mad that I had them. That was not the point of this post whatsoever.
Just gonna copy and paste my response to someone else as it applies here: “Are you aware the new reshade update is causing peoples games to crash? I didn’t have that issue but I did have an issue where I was troubleshooting and in order to test whether my fixes were working I had to, guess what? Boot up and play a game to see if the game would no longer crash. When the game crashed I had to go back and try another fix. Then test again and try another match to see if it crashed. Thats why I had the 15 minute penalty. I couldn’t tell when a fix worked until I tried the game and had it not crash. Trial and error.”
I swear it’s like some of you only read the parts of a post you want to read and reply to that while ignoring the actual point of a post. Thanks for the engagement but I’m just gonna put people on ignore and move on from this. 😆 Have a good day.
Did you try playing custom games, to make sure those games weren’t crashing? Because that doesn’t involve other people, so if you’re having a lot of game crashes then you should have started with that first.
And the point of your post is you want the DC penalties to be changed for everyone, just because of your specific issue. You should still be getting real DC penalties even if you are troubleshooting issues, because you’re still DCing in a lot of games, regardless of it’s intentional.
And you said you were troubleshooting issues, so just leave the game open while you troubleshoot the issues. And if your penalty times are getting big, then maybe you should be spending more time troubleshooting before trying again.
-
@Abbzy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4016681#Comment_4016681
Basicaly they treat him like oni but he isnt oni, the 40 meters terror radius, limited turn rate while using strike, many sound cue warnings and big slowdowns when charging his power they even removed his 99 stalk to fast instadown same thing what ghostface has had old mayers but I would be ok with it if his strike would be very deadly which isnt the case quite the opposite (for me even pig dash gives you now more hits than mayers strike, strike is only good at camping which he was good before even more with 60 seconds up to 100 seconds evil within 3) so overall he is better because of pursuer mode in now more better m1 mode and because you can just switch between tier 1 and 2 modes (stalker mode and pursuer mode) and arent forced to level up from tier 1 to 2 and then build tier 3 which was kinda bad and main reason why he sucked, another thing why he is weaekr with his best loadout is because tombstone was just addon that kept him above water and could make 2v1 in solid time so 2k or 3k wasnt wet dream as with basekit mayers without strong addons.
Being able to switch between stalker mode and pursuer mode isn’t much of a buff, because his old T2 had a 4 meter terror radius when monitor + rabbit was used, and that’s a small enough terror radius to sneak up on people.
And I would much rather be able to 99% stalk survivors with a 4 meter terror radius, than have the garbage that current Myers has.
-
@MaddieMage said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4016540#Comment_4016540
Its always funny how people always wanna assume you’re lying & rage quitting when there are legit reasons for repeated crashes. Are you aware the new reshade update is causing peoples games to crash?
I didn’t have that issue but I did have an issue where I was troubleshooting and in order to test whether my fixes were working I had to, guess what? Boot up and play a game to see if the game would no longer crash. When the game crashed I had to go back and try another fix. Then test again and try another match to see if it crashed. Thats why I had the 15 minute penalty. I couldn’t tell when a fix worked until I tried the game and had it not crash. Trial and error.
Not everything is as nefarious as you’re making it out to be. Have a good night
Frequent game crashes is not a legitimate reason for DCing. If you are having major internet problems, then you shouldn’t be playing a team PVP game, because you are ruining the entire game for your teammates each time your game crashes.
-
The only thing I wanted, was for his 5 super obnoxious addons (both mirror addons, both tombstone addons, and his infinite tier 3 addon) to be removed from the game.
I really don’t like the idea of stealth killers giving a lot of super obvious warnings to the survivors, which is the same reason why I think Springtrap’s loud footsteps make him a complete failure of a game design. Yes, it was annoying when Myers would 99% stalk with a 4 meter terror radius (monitor perk and rabbit addon), then sneak up on someone and instant one-shot them, but he is a stealth character and it’s sort of what his strength is supposed to be.
And nerfing the monitor perk because of the Myers rework was completely unnecessary and should be reverted. The whole point of the monitor perk was to use it on killers that have a smaller terror radius, because anyone with a larger terror radius is better off using an undetectable perk instead.
And the Myers M2 dash is so bad that he’s really better off always using the addon that gets rid of it.
-
I’m noticing that a lot of survivors are using the void, but it has the exact same problem as Springtrap’s security room and Pinhead’s puzzle box, where survivors are waiting for the killer to be committed to chasing someone else (or waiting until the killer picked up a survivor) before running into the void.
I know that I’ve wasted a lot of killer time by running into the void and then immediately hiding, because some killers want to chase survivors in the void so badly that they will spend 1-2 minutes just searching the void for a survivor.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015670#Comment_4015670
If BHVR announced the phase 2 revert after 2 weeks of PTB data collection, would would have supported it as a valid decision?It would have certainly been a more informed decision.
There's no such thing as a valid decision. There's no number, no yes/no, that you can look at to determine the direction of the game. All game design decisions are subjective actions that try to anticipate the shifting desires of a large player base. Given this difficulty designers should strive to gather as much meaningful feedback as possible, especially given their goal of coming back to this idea.
On a personal level I may or may not agree with the decision they make, just as every individual player will have differing levels of feelings toward every decision BHVR makes.
But for their stated purpose of gathering feedback, and with how they announced the not going forward, they missed the opportunity to get feedback from more players and see how opinion stood after more testing - and it would have cost them absolutely nothing.
Waiting would have included a cost, because the amount of negative feedback was reaching critical mass. The early revert announcement absolutely was damage control.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015635#Comment_4015635
If BHVR announced the phase 2 revert, a full week after the PTB closed, would you have considered it to be a valid decision? Or would you have demanded the phase 2 changes go live, so that more people could test them?So is this the new argument now?
In this case its actually a repeat. We did this two days ago. I gave you four possible ways running the PTB longer would have benefited BHVR from getting more info and the community as a whole.
You then got into the representative sample nonsense, which led to you arguing about the data BHVR has, which led to me quoting BHVR, and now you've circled back.
Ok. How let's try a new scenario. Let's say the PTB was extended so that it lasted 2 weeks, so BHVR could gather extra data. If BHVR announced the phase 2 revert after 2 weeks of PTB data collection, would would have supported it as a valid decision?
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015608#Comment_4015608
So is this what is being moved onto?
All of your arguments about data that BHVR had were wrong. I explained why logically it was impossible and I even showed you BHVR saying the same thing despite your claim that the player base would remember something like that forever.
Now you are discussing feedback. For two pages I've been highlighting how BHVR harmed themselves by not giving the PTB more time to gather feedback.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015622#Comment_4015622
And now we have a group of people that want all of that feedback to be ignored, and want PTB feedback to be declared as invalid for major balance decisions.No one is saying that.
If BHVR announced the phase 2 revert, a full week after the PTB closed, would you have considered it to be a valid decision? Or would you have demanded the phase 2 changes go live, so that more people could test them?
@tes said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015622#Comment_4015622
I don’t support such people, at least because adjustments they are asking about will be brought to next PTB, if devs not gonna suddenly change their mind again. So, anti tunnel wasn’t actually cancelled. Just postponed again (maybe because it’s really problematic mechanic that at least half of community would never actually fully accept, hm).
But I understand them. They feel killer got their broken toy in face of Krasue with her braindead mechanic, yet their own broken toy wasn’t released. So (maybe) they try to cover it with an ask that “maybe it’s broken but it should be released so everyone can prove in it”. I don’t support this, but I understand. Devs made a mistake with Krasue, and it fueled tribalism. It’s more a matter of principle rather than some rational ask
Average person don’t care about objectivity and actual playtest/feedback. I got it when played PTB and showed that instead of actual test/experiments, the only thing people were doing is consciously exploiting same stuff over and over because they’ve seen it from some content creator, e.g haste builds on killers and plot twist bug. I played for a week and barely was getting matches where people were actually experimenting with builds/killer/mechanics.
Expecting this from community shouldn’t actually exist tbh. PTB was valid when it was a small game. Now it’s too many layers to it, so people don’t play PTB for test. They play for short joy of feel they can deal with changes in advance and maybe even touch some broken stuff and play with them, because going against actual set up of games is mostly considered funny (not in DBD only). It’s devs responsibility, but some uncertainty from their communication leave people deal with their frustration on it’s own. And because human mindset don’t really fit to the concept of self awareness, people start to blame others. To build self validation they also starting to create facts to present their ideas as factual/majority approved one. And basically you can’t deal with it from more rational perspective. More likely, you’ll start to do the same.
So again, I would rather highlight a need to not contributing to such convos yourself. Accept people want anti tunnel. If you are against it, bring cold facts to support your own sentiments. And don’t pretend they are approved by majority and it’s an only argument that gives validity. If more people would behave like this this forum would be less about rant and more about actual community contribution
That speech should be directed to both sides of the game.
People are complaining that killer nerfs got reverted due to killer complaints, but also think it's fine when survivor nerfs get reverted due to survivor complaints.
-
@tes said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015608#Comment_4015608
Just the hot take… idk…
As person who played PTB myself it’s pretty silly claiming this PTB is representative thing that provides valid feedback. It’s not and never would be, because even in actual game it’s impossible to build valid stats and it seems people playing different games here and there
So both opinion about is PTB showed that proposed changes just needs adjustments/or should be cancelled completely doesn’t have any actual ground beside people’s subjective opinion. You can’t talk about this objective from SUCH perspective. At least well, because on its own devs never showed stats and both you and them just appellate with attempts to build your own facts here, which isn’t contextual true
Both you and people above literally fighting for proving some an ephemeral position, purely because you're trying to convince the other side that your opinion is the majority/valid. Something you both will never actually prove. Because well it’s all attempts to wrap up subjective things to some stats or overall position.
Reviews changes and community feedback showed that the actual majority doesn’t want to see that thing going live in any state. Do people like it here or not, doesn’t matter. People should stop behave like this PTB was completely cancelled, because devs themselves claimed that they will provide next version of this absurdity in next PTB.
Maybe it’s time to stop trying to use this cheap “I’m right because others think the same” and use actual takes that can be at least somehow used around something you actually can call discussion and not a fight
It’s fine to accept that your position is subjective. It’s fine to use objective facts to reinforce a subjective position. And it's very strange when, day after day, people on this forum try to pretend that the way they play this game is the most common and popular. So their opinion deserves the most attention and others should be shut down. If person can’t talk about objective balancing and keep it in objective frame, then at least this person should stop to behave like their opinion is unanimously true
Ok, let’s discuss what actually is happening here. There was a massive massive amount of negative feedback about the PTB, and BHVR reacted to that feedback.
And now we have a group of people that want all of that feedback to be ignored, and want PTB feedback to be declared as invalid for major balance decisions.
The actual compromise is for major changes to be tested in PTBs that are completely separate from patch releases. And BHVR would very clearly tell us these PTBs are only for feedback gathering, and there is zero guarantee that anything on these PTBs will ever reach live.
Having major changes on PTBs, that are connected to patch releases, is an issue for both sides of the game. Because one side will be in a panic to try to get the changes cancelled before they reach live, and that other side will be entitled and feel like the changes should happen just because they existed on a PTB.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015520#Comment_4015520
If BHVR ever said the PTB wasn't a representative sample, then the players would remember that forever, and would constantly complain about PTB-to-live changes not being valid, because the PTB wasn't representative enough.https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3656311#Comment_3656311
That is basically saying…
The feedback is more important than the actual PTB data, which means that when players create feedback, even though they didn't actually play on the PTB, that is completely valid.
It also means that changes can be made based on PTB feedback, even though the entire PTB hasn't happened, because the goal isn't to collect as much PTB data as possible.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015511#Comment_4015511
Coming off the mistakes on the sample being representative, its absurd to suggest that you can get meaningful data about an idea after telling people that it isn't going to happen.
It's also absurd to suggest that the PTB could function, if it wasn't considered a representative sample.
If BHVR ever said the PTB wasn't a representative sample, then the players would remember that forever, and would constantly complain about PTB-to-live changes not being valid, because the PTB wasn't representative enough.
Your viewpoint isn't realistic. The PTB has always been considered representative enough to make game decisions, and it doesn't matter if you like it or not.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015494#Comment_4015494
Why do you think console killers would be more likely to accept the phase 2 changes, than the Steam killers?Why do you ignore that consoles were only one part of the player base not sampled and that a PTB, especially in its first few days, is overwhelmingly sampling from a very small, not representative, group of the player base?
I specifically pointed out this error on the post you are replying to and you still just keep talking about it like I made a huge argument about console killers.
Why do you think the console killers would handle the phase 2 changes, better then the Steam killers?Because I've never agreed the Steam feedback was nearly as bad you make it out to be. I'm primarily pointing out that your definition of representative is factually wrong (and not just for consoles, far more for the self selective nature especially given the limited time frame).
That if the PTB changes went live, a bunch of console survivor players would have given the changes a thumbs up, and that would have convinced BHVR to keep the changes?You are the one who seems to keep insisting that the only options were 'don't do it' or 'do it exactly as it was on the PTB'.
Here are the broad possibilities from continuing to run the PTB
1: People play it more, realize the knee jerk reactions where wrong, and then it goes live with minimal changes
2: People play it more, identify what the clear pain points are, and those get adjusted post PTB.
3: People play it more, identify things that absolutely cannot work, and BHVR now has more feedback for the change they are going to make.
4: People play it more, more people agree it can't work, and the idea gets canned entirely instead of still being planned to come back
BHVR's stance is that this idea is coming back. Now unless they aren't just outright lying to us, not gathering as much info and feedback as possible, especially from the players who don't have time to test things the moment they come out, was a massive error on BHVR's part.
Was the PTB turned off immediately after the revert announcement?
Because I thought the PTB was still available after that, and BHVR was still gathering data and info for the rest of the PTB?
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015377#Comment_4015377
The representative sample was fine. Again, people don't need to actually play on the PTB to make an opinion, and many of the console players mind up their minds when they watched their favorite streamer, or read about the changes on their favorite social media choice.In my last post I said you went from saying they had a representative sample to saying that it didn't matter.
In the first paragraph of the reply that's what you say again, you just use more words.
Also, your scenario doesn't even work. Even if there was a lot of console players that wanted to "wait and see"On consoles you leave out the second part of my reply:
is heavily weighted towards the players who play the game the most.The PTB is sampling only a small section of the player base. It's not even close to representative. That's not an opinion issue, you're just wrong.
And if the PTB changes went live, I literally would have boycotted playing killer. I wouldn’t have cared how the console players felt about the changes, and I would have refused to “try to adapt” to it. And many other people would have done the same.Any change will make some players stop playing the game. That's an inevitable part of change. Many people are boycotting survivor until the changes come through, neither group though is statistically significant.
If we were using the forums as our sample right now, then you would be in the substantial minority. People who disagree tend to be the loudest, that's why when they stopped the changes the forums erupted on the other side.
You're also ignoring the fact that BHVR has access to way more stats then we do, and actually knows the average kill rate for this PTB, and the average kill rates for the other PTBs.As I said earlier, if you're going to take this stance, then BHVR must always be correct because BHVR always has more data than us.
If you honestly think the kill rates were around the same, then you obviously weren’t watching various streamers try the PTB, to see how they handled the changes.I think you're confusing me with others, but a number of points on this:
1: The pallet change at the same time
2: Players intentionally trying to either trigger the system and play with it or avoiding it at all costs
3: That the anti-tunnel changes were meant to hit many of these players
4: In terms of data we don't have, we don't have the kill rates or know if they might be elevated over where BHVR wants them
5: That the PTB could have been adjusted before release
6: That killers could have been adjusted post release if kill rates drops
7: And of course, adapting to the change (a good example would be the time it took for old, old dead hard to go from meta, to unused, back to meta)
Why do you think console killers would be more likely to accept the phase 2 changes, than the Steam killers? Why do you think the console killers would handle the phase 2 changes, better then the Steam killers?
What exactly was your thought process? That if the PTB changes went live, a bunch of console survivor players would have given the changes a thumbs up, and that would have convinced BHVR to keep the changes?
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015391#Comment_4015391
By that logic, people are in no position to say the phase 2 changes would have been fine going live.
No one said that, though.
They are also in no position to say there wasn't enough data collected, since they don't know what data was collected, and they don't know how that data was interpreted.
But we do know that the changes were pulled after only two days, and the "data" was only collected from a single grain in the sand. As one person said above, more data is always better. We know there was a lot more outcry from Killers than there was data.
The person above is wrong. Diminishing returns is a thing, and there is a point where the data is so overwhelming that it's not worth the extra time to gather additional data.
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015390#Comment_4015390
There was a carrot. Three of them, in fact. Haste, free Pop, and free aura reading on the least hooked survivors.
Also, how would a tool designed to help slugging reduce slugging?
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015361#Comment_4015361
They brazenly say "i dont like this map so not going to bother"
But again, they might've acted differently if they had better match quality surrounding that match.
To assume that that is the entirety of it is naive.
Not long ago before they hid map offerings, there was a couple of SWF teams i regularly went against. these teams would DC in loading screen when they saw an offering they didnt like. they could have brought sac wards but their attitude was "why waste an offering slot when we can DC when we see something we dont like". They had the opportunity and they took it. I recently went against one of these teams since then and it was on a map they didnt like….what happened? 2/3 SWF DC instantly. the 3rd SWF player and solo player went next. Now the offerings have been nerfed and hidden the opportunity to DC penalty free has been reduced but not enough to stop them from DCing over something like a map they dont like.
But you're referring to how many players out of the disconnecters?
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015377#Comment_4015377
And if the PTB changes went live, I literally would have boycotted playing killer. I wouldn’t have cared how the console players felt about the changes, and I would have refused to “try to adapt” to it.
Proving the same point again: Killers can just stomp their feet and demand BHVR balances more harshly in their favour.
Survivors also stomp their feet and get things nerfed to the ground, which is exactly what happened to the AFK crows.
Survivors also stomped their feet until Skull Merchant got absolutely nerfed into the ground. They weren't happy with her being nerfed into a balanced state, they wanted her to be absolutely useless, and that is what happened.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015377#Comment_4015377
Lol, if you know that BHVR has access to all the stats and we don't, you're in no position to claim that the kill rates were low enough to be a problem. You didn't see all the matches played in the ptb either, so you don't know how low the kill rates were.
Also, if you want to boycott playing killer, you can go right on ahead. Just don't let the door hit you on the way out.
By that logic, people are in no position to say the phase 2 changes would have been fine going live. They are also in no position to say there wasn't enough data collected, since they don't know what data was collected, and they don't know how that data was interpreted.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015134#Comment_4015134
So you've gone from saying that BHVR had a representative sample, to after being shown how that was wrong, now arguing that a representative sample doesn't matter.
I'm not going to follow you down the rabbit hole of constantly changing arguments.
The representative sample was fine. Again, people don't need to actually play on the PTB to make an opinion, and many of the console players mind up their minds when they watched their favorite streamer, or read about the changes on their favorite social media choice. People like to take about “proof” or “testing things out themselves”, but the reality is most people don’t care about that. Most people are going off of vibes and feelings, and they decided how they felt about the PTB regardless if they played it themselves.
Also, your scenario doesn't even work. Even if there was a lot of console players that wanted to "wait and see", the Steam players that already decided to boycott killer, still would have boycotted killer on launch day, which still would have caused a financial disaster. And the Steam players did have the weekend to test the changes because the PTB was still up, so if they really wanted to, they could have tried the changes and then posted their feelings online, on whether or not they agreed with the revert decision.
And if the PTB changes went live, I literally would have boycotted playing killer. I wouldn’t have cared how the console players felt about the changes, and I would have refused to “try to adapt” to it. And many other people would have done the same. “Try to adapt” only works if people are willing to still play as killer.
You're also ignoring the fact that BHVR has access to way more stats then we do, and actually knows the average kill rate for this PTB, and the average kill rates for the other PTBs. I’m still claiming the kill rates were extremely low on this PTB, enough to be a problem. And no, I don’t need to prove this. If you honestly think the kill rates were around the same, then you obviously weren’t watching various streamers try the PTB, to see how they handled the changes. And really, watching a lot of other people play the PTB can be more important than trying the changes yourself, because it’s showing how different people, with different playstyles, are handling the changes.
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015134#Comment_4015134
Do you ever have proof of your conspiracy theories?
My conspiracy theories? You make up reasons for things about evey single topic. Case in point:
Most people don't even want to bother with the PTB, and instead they would rather watch their favorite streamer play the PTB, or just read about the changes on their favorite social media choice.
Vibes again. I watch zero streamers. I have no social media. I can't join the ptb and I want to. But you're just assuming no one wants to try it. This doesn't even sound like a real opinion. You just want to shoo away the limited nature of the ptb like it's no big deal.
And you think there's a secret cult of ragequitters trying to manipulate the penalty system. That is a conspiracy theory. You can't just keep saying NO U about all the things you do.
What is your proof that the game would have been fine if the phase 2 changes went live?
How many times do I have to say that I and almost everyone else whose spoken about this on this forum wanted the changes modified and not just scraped. Find me all these people that wanted them pushed through as is.
Do you think survivors should be able to ragequit without penalties, if they don't want to play a game?
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015110#Comment_4015110
Can you just straight up tell us what your point is?
When people say "force survivors to play matches they don't want to play", they are usually claiming that the ragequitting penalties "force" survivors to play matches they don't want to play. That implies they don't think the ragequitting penalties should exist, because they think survivors should be allowed to ragequit without penalties, if they don't want to play a game.
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015023#Comment_4015023
And the only reason why the queues aren't fully stable is because there is a slight killer boycott happening because of the pallet density changes.
You have any proof of this or are we going on vibes again?
Do you ever have proof of your conspiracy theories? What is your proof that the game would have been fine if the phase 2 changes went live? What is your proof that BHVR didn't have a really good reason to revert the phase 2 changes?
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014921#Comment_4014921
They had time to gather data. It’s called a representative sample. You should have learned that concept in school.You must really know you're losing this argument if you are turning to insults.
1: If we're talking stats, more data, a larger sample size, is always better. Accidentally or intentionally going for a low sample size is a good way to get a bad data set.
2: A representative sample would actually need to be reflective of the the entire population set being tested. The PTB is never that as it only tests one group (Steam players) and is heavily weighted towards the players who play the game the most. In this case it was even more extreme as they didn't even get to the weekend.
Just because you can possibly test a large group based on a small sample does not mean a small sample is inherently representative of the large sample.
3: None of your argument deals with the point of adjustment. That's not even a stats argument and you are misapplying concepts.
Your argument is also inherently self defeating. If you're saying that after a few days BHVR had enough data to know they where making the right change, than basically any change they've ever made must be correct because they've always that level of data.
There was so much backlash from the PTB, that it literally doesn't matter if the console players tested it themselves. Most people don't even want to bother with the PTB, and instead they would rather watch their favorite streamer play the PTB, or just read about the changes on their favorite social media choice.
Yes, a lot of people made up their minds about the PTB, even though they never played the PTB. That's how this game works.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015043#Comment_4015043
Would you rather they all never queue up again and see what happens to queue times?
Did you know that "force survivors to play matches they don't want to play" and "Would you rather they all never queue up again and see what happens to queue times" are the types of things people say, if they believe survivors should be able to ragequit without penalties?
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015023#Comment_4015023
It's still representative of how launch day would have gone, if the changes had gone live.
The phase 2 revert was announced the first week, because there was a very real threat that the chapter launch would have been a financial disaster if the changes have gone live. There was zero chance that "wait and see" would have stopped a killer boycott, especially because the majority of people wanting the phase 2 changes to happen, play survivor more than killer.
No, it's not. PTB was the first sentiment, the knee-jerk. Things would likely cool down after a week and you'd get more people adapting to the changes, which would make first launch completely different. But that's only if you're willing to use the PTB for its actual purpose.
Keep in mind, if they'd cancelled these changes on the tail end of the PTB, you'd have a case, but they didn't. They cancelled it after two days.
Also keep in mind that you're proving @AmpersandUnderscore 's earlier claim: Killers can just throw a hissy fit to take direct control of the game's balancing. Don't like something? Just threaten to quit and the devs will chicken out, leaving us stranded in the same situation that killers have allegedly been on the edge of quitting over.
You can't force killers to play the game, and if killers get nerfed too much, then many of them will stop playing.
Evidently, this is a one-way street, since the go-next epidemic is perfectly fine and dandy and it's good to force survivors to play matches they don't want to play.
Are people forcing you to play game you don't want to play? Is someone physically restraining you to your computer or console, and they physically glued your mouse or controller to your hands?
No one is forcing anyone to play games they don't want to play.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014921#Comment_4014921
They had time to gather data. It’s called a representative sample.
2 days' worth of a self-selected audience is not, in any way, representative. It's incredibly biased.
It's still representative of how launch day would have gone, if the changes had gone live.
The phase 2 revert was announced the first week, because there was a very real threat that the chapter launch would have been a financial disaster if the changes have gone live. There was zero chance that "wait and see" would have stopped a killer boycott, especially because the majority of people wanting the phase 2 changes to happen, play survivor more than killer.
You can't force killers to play the game, and if killers get nerfed too much, then many of them will stop playing. Even though you don't like the way the game is currently, the queue times are still mostly stable. And the only reason why the queues aren't fully stable is because there is a slight killer boycott happening because of the pallet density changes.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014784#Comment_4014784
Just a note about data:
It takes them at least 6 weeks, sometimes 3+ months, to "collect data" on things they tell us about. There is zero chance that a limited PTB that was live for 48 hours gave them anywhere near the data they could use to make this kind of decision. So just from that alone, it's 100% from the outcry.
For comparison, there is, in this exact thread, a discussion about kill rates for Freddy. That rework was 8.5.0 (January 8, 2025), and the data we have is from January through March. The argument is that over 3 months, survivors "didn't have time to adapt" to the Freddy changes and that's the reason his kill rate is astronomically high.
So, why is it then, that if killers appear to be overperforming, it takes months of "adapting" and months of data to come to a conclusion, yet this patch took basically hours to come to the conclusion that players not only couldn't adapt at all, but the data from 48 hours is somehow rock solid now?
I don't buy it for a second. I don't honestly believe that players were "incapable of trying to learn something new", they just didn't want to. That was literally the feedback people gave, in loud voices: "don't fix it, we didn't want to change how we play".
Survivors refused to adapt to the AFK crows, and instead insisted they should be able to play exactly like they’ve always played, which caused the AFK crows to be nerfed into uselessness.
And I don’t remember seeing you complaining that the survivors should have “adapted” to the AFK crows, and I don’t remember seeing you complaining that the AFK crows wait longer before determining if any nerfs should happen.
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014908#Comment_4014908
I’m claiming that it wouldn’t have mattered if the changes got reverted after a few PTB days, or if the changes got reverted one month after they had gone live, that the same people still would have complained about it, and the same people would have said it’s unfair.The thing you miss is that even in that extreme scenario, they might still be correct (though the 'same people' is overall a strawman)
As an example: BHVR has moved on from the days of dark atmospheres and stealth gameplay. Some people on here think they were wrong. It's impossible to know for certain what would have happened if they hadn't changed their mindsets as its a counterfactual argument.
As another example: you frequently complain about them heavily reverting the AFK crows mechanic. The fact that they reverted a substantial portion of it by itself doesn't make you right or wrong in what you wanted changed or whether the first approach was best for the game.
But if they had kept going with the PTB here's some things that would have happened:
1: People would have had more time try out different playstyles to see how much impact the changes had
2: BHVR would have gotten more feedback to make a decision on how to modify their approach
3: If it had conclusively proven a failure to the whole community, like happened with the first try of anti-slug / auto mori, then we wouldn't be wasting time on this topic and could move onto others
4: If it has conclusively proven to actually work, we could have implemented it, then we wouldn't wasting time on this topic and could move onto others.
BHVR went for a big change, they invested a lot of time into the idea, walking it back so quickly before they were able to gather necessary data is a foolish waste of time.
They had time to gather data. It’s called a representative sample. You should have learned that concept in school.
BHVR had enough data to know the new chapter would have been a complete disaster if the phase 2 changes went live. Many killers would have boycotted, and the chapter sales would have tanked into the ground.
The phase 2 changes were toxic to the game, because many people would have just stopped playing killer for reals. And we know this is an actual possible scenario, because it literally happened when MMR went live, back when matchmaking was very overtuned. A lot of players just stopped playing killer, and the survivor queue times were absolutely awful.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014880#Comment_4014880
If BHVR has released the entire phase 2 to live servers, and after 4 weeks people adjusted to it and realized it was a fantastic game update, would you have been happy?
Your 'real question' has a silly premise - if you could know the future result of something with certainty and that it would fail, than obviously you wouldn't take the same course of action. But we don't know the future, and people rarely have a uniform opinion over whether something is good or bad for the game, which means you can't draw such simple absolute scenarios.
The point is people keep bringing up the fact that the changes were reverted so early, as if that actually mattered.
I’m claiming that it wouldn’t have mattered if the changes got reverted after a few PTB days, or if the changes got reverted one month after they had gone live, that the same people still would have complained about it, and the same people would have said it’s unfair.
-
@THE_Crazy_Hyena said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014830#Comment_4014830
You know, I am pretty sure that would have been the case too.
Considering how many posts there has been regarding pallets over the past two weeks or so.It would have made more sense to test either in a separate way, not just everything at once.
- Yes, some maps really needed the increase in pallets, like a few Coldwind variants, Borgo, the Pale Rose, and Haddonfield. But MacMillan was perfect the way it was beforehand, and some others just needed a minor increase (like one or two extra pallets). And Crotus Prenn really didn't need to become more dense with pallets, only shifting around some tile spawns, to reduce a dead zone that could occur in front of the Asylum.But to not get sidetracked here, there should have been a separate test period for the anti-tunnel / anti-slug changes, to test the impact on the playerbase after adjusting to the other changes.
Actual real question. If BHVR released the entire phase 2 PTB to the live servers, then 4 weeks later realized it was a complete disaster, and completely reverted the entire phase 2, would you have been happy?
Would you have said "well, BHVR really gave phase 2 enough time for people to properly test it, and properly give feedback, and the fact that it's getting completely reverted after 4 weeks of being live, is proof that phase 2 had major problems and deserved to be completely reverted"???????
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014626#Comment_4014626
You still would have whined and complained
You're the last person to talk about whining and complaining. A huge chunk of this thread is you hijacking it to whine about one of your personal crusades.
Like, you're really going to tell me that PTB Ghoul, without the bugs, would have been fine to release for a few weeks, so everyone could "wait and see", and try to adapt to him, before making the first non-bug nerf?
Chill on the strawmen. Almost no one wanted the patch to go through without changes. Plenty of people in this very thread are saying they wanted adjustments.
That would mean admitting that people can know if something needs to be changed, just by seeing it on the PTB, and it's not required to reach live, and it's not required for a larger number of people to try it out.
And if you admit that sometimes changes are so bad that people can figure that out on the PTB, that would mean admitting that it's possible the phase 2 changes were so bad that people could figure that out on the PTB.
It's not a strawman, because this is in response to an argument that was claiming it is absolutely impossible to know if a change is bad on the PTB before it reaches live. That's what happens when people talk in absolutes, and say a thing is ALWAYS true.
-
@THE_Crazy_Hyena said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014640#Comment_4014640
Ghoul was horribly bugged on the PTB, which is a different story altogether.
It's sort of funny how powerful 6.1.0 is in an argument just because the Killer complaints haven't changed. 😵
That much is true. Also 6.7.2 from a survivor's standpoint @UnicornMedal
So if BHVR fixed Ghoul's bugs, you would have been fine with absolutely everything else from the PTB reaching live for a few weeks, before Ghoul's first non-bug nerf?
Really? Do you understand how many things have been nerfed with Ghoul, that weren't bug-related? Do you remember how massively overtuned his Kagune Mark auto-aim was on the PTB? Do you remember that he pretty much had non-stop Enrage Mode on the PTB? Do you remember how quickly Ghoul recovered from a leap on the PTB, if he hit the cancel button in mid-air, because the slide component wasn't added as basekit yet? And his leap range wasn't nerfed yet, and he didn't have a token penalty from breaking a pallet yet?
Like, you're really going to tell me that PTB Ghoul, without the bugs, would have been fine to release for a few weeks, so everyone could "wait and see", and try to adapt to him, before making the first non-bug nerf?
-
@THE_Crazy_Hyena said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014626#Comment_4014626
The last time survivor complaints hit critical mass, was when the healing times got massively increased. And if you remember correctly, BHVR ended up reverting the healing times for altruistic healing.
That was in Patch 6.7.2 - Only self-healing got affected by the changes, not altruistic healing. And looping back to the discussion from yesterday, you are once again derailing the topic.
You can just observe the 6000+ hour streamers, that usually just stomp over the vast majority of their PTB games, that were having severely reduced kill rates.
You know that new stuff takes some games to adjust to, right?
No one is going to be instantly proficient on a new killer, or a completely reworked one.Like seriously, of course the kill rates are going to go way down. The incentives were absolutely terrible. Do you really think nerfed BBQ, that was easily dodged, and often showed 0 survivors, was really going to help killers spread hooks?
I on my hand had zero issues with the incentives. Granted the BBQ effect could have lasted a tad longer, but the added gen-regression worked so well.
For reals, do you think killers camp, tunnel, and slug because they are hateful and spiteful towards survivors, or do you think they do these things because they are at severe game disadvantages if they avoid doing these things?
Like killer players always tell us survivor players. "Why don't you just adapt?"
Apply more pressure, and force the survivors off of the gens, instead of trying to chase down someone you know you are going to waste a lot of precious time with.
And do you think that we survivor players split up on gens because we want to gen-rush, or do you think we do this becuase we would be at a severe disadvantage if we grouped up on gens instead?
In short: If you want to keep on tunneling, we will answer with gen-splitting.Am I stuck in an alternate universe? Does anyone really REALLY think that the phase 2 changes wouldn't have severely lowered the kill rates, if it went live as it was?
Initially, it would have lowered the kill rates, because some killer players has artificially inflated their kill rates, thanks to how easy tunneling someone out really is.
But if killers were starting to really struggle, then those hardest affected would have received compensating buffs to be brought closer to the target percentage.
And the system could have been tweaked accordingly through the bug-fix patches.Why difference does it really make that it was a few days? You still would have whined and complained if they waited 3 weeks. And if the changes went live, and were reverted shortly afterwards, you would have extra triple whined and complained about that.
Why are you pretending that you would have been fine and accepting of the patch revert, if BHVR took longer before the announcement?
Well, for starters, the patch would have reached out to many more players, which would provide even more useful data, and valuable insight into how it should be properly balanced.
So you obviously think that Ghoul should have been released exactly as he was on the PTB, and there should have been a mandatory “wait and see” amount of time, where BHVR gathered data from a wider audience.
And only after all that happens, could Ghoul finally have received his first nerf?
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014525#Comment_4014525
No. That's not acceptable, because if a patch happened that massively raised kill rates, you know survivors would be complaining non-stop until the changes were reverted.
Demonstrably false, 6.1 happened.
The last time survivor complaints hit critical mass, was when the healing times got massively increased. And if you remember correctly, BHVR ended up reverting the healing times for altruistic healing.
@random1543 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014525#Comment_4014525
"The kill rates on the last PTB where low" how do you know this? You said yourself the last kill rate stats we got where jan- march this year. There is no way for you to know the legitimate stats in the last PTB outside of your gut feeling or assumptions.
Also the PTB has no MMR which makes it more useless for proper testing.
You can just observe the 6000+ hour streamers, that usually just stomp over the vast majority of their PTB games, that were having severely reduced kill rates.
But really, it's common sense the kill rates would be majorly affected. For reals, do you think killers camp, tunnel, and slug because they are hateful and spiteful towards survivors, or do you think they do these things because they are at severe game disadvantages if they avoid doing these things?
Like seriously, of course the kill rates are going to go way down. The incentives were absolutely terrible. Do you really think nerfed BBQ, that was easily dodged, and often showed 0 survivors, was really going to help killers spread hooks?
Am I stuck in an alternate universe? Does anyone really REALLY think that the phase 2 changes wouldn't have severely lowered the kill rates, if it went live as it was?
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014525#Comment_4014525
And how meaningful do you think two days of data gathering from a select audience was?
Why difference does it really make that it was a few days? You still would have whined and complained if they waited 3 weeks. And if the changes went live, and were reverted shortly afterwards, you would have extra triple whined and complained about that.
Why are you pretending that you would have been fine and accepting of the patch revert, if BHVR took longer before the announcement?
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014454#Comment_4014454
Impossible, since we don't know what kinds of adjustments will be needed. And the only way to know that is to release the changes and let us play with them for some time. Nothing is ever perfect and flawless upon release.
No. That's not acceptable, because if a patch happened that massively raised kill rates, you know survivors would be complaining non-stop until the changes were reverted.
The actual solution is to figure out a balanced system, which includes the adjustments, and test it on the PTB to see if the kill rates are similar to the average PTB. And if the kill rates are too low, then you delay phase 2 even further until another set of adjustments can be made.
BHVR doesn't ever need for phase 2 to go live before its' ready. It only takes a couple of days on the PTB to figure out if the changes are completely out of control or not. The kill rates on the last PTB were massively lower than average, and it's not because killers "didn't adapt", it's because the PTB was completely out of control.
-
@random1543 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014454#Comment_4014454
i don't think its healthy to be talking about kill rates when we don't even know what the current ones are, BHVR has not given us official stats on what the kill rates in over a year and there is no way to get a official number (i swear last one i saw was around when they reworked Freddy)
you are just assuming the kill rate will drop below 60% when we haven't even had access to them stats in over a year, the current kill rates on certain killers could be over 80 percent but we don't know. (no nightlight does not count, im talking about official stats released by bhvr.)
Edit: this is the last official kill rate i could find posted in 2022. please if there is something newer show but dont go on about kill rates when you dont even know what they are (again nightlight does not count as it only includes matches people uploadhttps://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/503-stats-january-march-2025
We literally got official stats in April of 2025, with official statements that the average kill rate was 60% and the average escape rates were 41%-42%
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014410#Comment_4014410
If the changes aren't impactful, then what is even the point?
And the tunnel reduction did give Killers compensation for unique hooks, but no one cared about that. It was supposed to have a big impact, but now that it's back on the drawing board, we'll probably get a watered down version which will accomplish nothing.
And it's not like the tunnel reduction would be the end of everything for Killers. If kill rates did suffer as a result, there would be further adjustments down the road, whether it be system adjustments, general Killer adjustments, or specific Killer adjustments. But no one cares about that, because they're going to keep demanding more and more Killer buffs, and more and more Survivor nerfs.
"Further adjustments down the road" means the phase 2 changes should wait until the adjustments are ready.
The kill rates are always supposed to average around 60%.
We aren't supposed to have a "well, the kill rates are really bad, but we'll fix it over the next few months" situation.
-
@random1543 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014078#Comment_4014078
make your own forum about ragequiting, this forum was orginally about anti slugging and camping (which you can see by the title of the post) and people have deluded it into a forum about rage quitters and other issues that are not even related. (like trying to make another que or trying to bring up bully squads in a disccsion about anti slugging and camping. its like if i went to a post about someone complaining about pallet density and my response is "yeah but what about surviours versing a krasue"
They are related, because survivors complained so much about the phase 1 survivor changes that they got massively nerfed, but they also expect the phase 2 killer changes to be as powerful as possible.
Phase 1 and phase 2 should be treated equally. The phase 2 changes should be small and not very impactful, because that is what happened to the phase 1 changes.
The suggestions in this thread are way overboard, considering how weak the phase 1 changes are. This thread is basically a "how can we nerf killers" instead of "how can we balance the game".
And none of these suggestions would fix the kill rate problem, where the changes would massively lower kill rates, but there isn't enough compensation to bring the kill rates back up to 60%. Remember that the kill rates are supposed to be at least 60%, even if you don't want them to be. Which means if you make giant killer nerfs, without proper compensation, then you aren't balancing the game properly. The easiest solution would for the "killers aren't tunneling" incentives to be much more powerful, but instead, people just want to nerf nerf nerf, and don't want killers to have real compensation that actually helps them change their playstyle.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014316#Comment_4014316
And got us back to a system that was wildly and loudly hated, which by your own logic, means we MUST change it.
It's not the same level at all. If the phase 2 changes had gone live, there would have been massive queue time problems, and the entire chapter launch would have been a disaster. It would have cost BHVR a lot of money to have all that happen on the launch day of a new chapter.
The game is actually stable as it is right now.