Coffeecrashing
Coffeecrashing
About
- Username
- Coffeecrashing
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3234392#Comment_3234392
The skill argument is comparative, as its old iteration did not need it: Its not so much that alone validating it, but more that it added it to the equation where it wasn't really necessary before. In fact I honestly feel like it changed it more from reactions to reads, as in committing to a guess so hard you're forcing the opponent to commit to a guess just as quickly. A "think fast" moment, if you will.
Something containing more skill than before also doesn't count as a validation.
And the skill level of the perk didn't rise, BHVR just removed some of the easier uses of it, and some of the removed uses weren't very useful against certain killers anyway. I can't even remember the last time someone tried to dead hard for distance against my Nurse, and dead hard for distance isn't needed against Blight when you could just dead hard toward him while he's rushing. And certain killers like Pyramid Head and Huntress have powers with a very loud audio cue, that survivors can easily dead hard on reaction to.
-
For survivors that can dead hard on reaction, new dead hard is a big buff. For survivors that can’t dead hard on reaction, new dead hard is a nerf.
And the “dead hard takes skill” argument is a double standard. If anyone wanted to argue that Blight and Nurse are fine because they skill, we would be told that “something taking skill isn’t a good enough reason”, but here we are, with a bunch of people telling us that dead hard is fine because it takes skill.
-
@LunaticLizzie said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3234044#Comment_3234044
Okay? Trickle-down balancing, AKA a pretty widely applicable and, dare I say, "good" way to balance things, dictates that if things function off-kilter or too strongly at the highest possible level, then nerfing it will be fine for the lowest possible level that didn't even know you could do that.
And yes, I'm aware, even top-tier Nurse players struggle with gens and that Blight tends to have a lot more leniency anyways, I have seen Otz' video, you needn't clarify for me,
But I still fail to see how literally any of that means it's okay that Nurse can teleport to a healthy survivor and instantly down them with her 100% special attack "basic" attack should she use one of the seven trillion exposed perks in the game, and if she knows what she's doing, she probably will be.
Killers playing at the absolute highest level should be winning games. Unless you are claiming to be a highest level survivor, they why do you think you deserve to beat a highest level Nurse?
-
@LunaticLizzie said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3234034#Comment_3234034
Please see
- BHVR said themselves not to take the stats at face value
You can still make general conclusions for the data. In the vast majority of the games that you play against Nurse, she is not overperforming.
-
@BasementDweller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3233952#Comment_3233952
You mean the numbers that show that both plague and dredge are better than nurse and blight?
The more likely conclusion from the data is that the vast majority of Blights and Nurses you encounter in your games, aren’t over performing.
Can people please look at the units of measurement on the data? The data labels are so specific that we’re sometimes using 0.5% as a separate category. If killers are off by 1% or 2%, then it’s practically unnoticeable, and it’s definitely not a big enough difference to throw these killers into separate performance tiers.
-
@Omans said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3233538#Comment_3233538
The complaint is it is a poorly thought up perk...
Plenty of perks give SWFs more counterplay than solos. Probably the least healthy perk in the game right now is Eruption, and hey, look at that, it is in basically every killer's build.
Making an overly oppresive perk even more oppresive is certainly...an idea. It would be like suggesting giving the old Undying perk a secondary effect of respawning ruin into the game even after both totems have been destroyed.
This thread is titled "HOW DO YOU COUNTER ERUPTION IN SOLO QUEUE"? The focus of this thread is clearly on SWF having more counterplay.
And my suggested change wouldn't affect solo q at all, since it "has no counterplay in solo q". The intention of the perk is that in can catch people by surprise, and voice communication is bypassing that core mechanic.
-
I think the main takeaway from the kill rate stats is that all the kill rates were way closer than what people predicted.
When people think of tier lists, the different tiers are separated by much more than a 1% difference. If this were a fighting game tier list, then people would be arguing if everyone should be shoved into the same tier.
The other takeaway is that MMR is probably working a lot better than people give it credit for.
-
The perk should make an AoE incapacitate around the affected generators, so that SWFs using voice communication will still get hit by it. Solo q survivors should be perfectly fine with this, since their complaint is that SWFs had more counterplay than solos.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3233038#Comment_3233038
I think their point was that the existence of a soft cap presents a statistical anomaly that is not accounted for when taken at face value. Its part of why its hard to put concepts like skill or even understanding/game sense into a numeric value, let alone compare them. Technically as long as a type of competition isn't "solved," there will always be variation, both in performance and within each "number" assignment. The softcap is applied in this game for matchmaking purposes, not necessarily to say that everything over x number will be considered even in terms of performance.
Edit: If i had to guess, chess was used either from an anecdotal sense, or to emphasize the concept of guaranteed resolution: Chess "mmr" would basically be limited only by how many steps in the future a player can think, paired with their repertoire of tactics and strategies they can use to manipulate said forethought's fruition.
I thought their point was that chess can perfectly match players with similar ratings, and we can easily compare the performance of chess players with similar ratings...... so the DBD stats they care about are very specific pairings, like a 2,000 MMR killer fighting against a team of 2,000 MMR survivors.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3232946#Comment_3232946
That's my point, you are agreeing with me, so why are you arguing with me?
You want stats for survivors above the soft cap being matched only with survivors above the soft cap, because of chess.
-
I agree with all of this
-
@SilentShepherd said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3232887#Comment_3232887
We have different goals.
You want to know which killer is "strongest"
I want to know which killers are a problem for the health of the game. If counting DC's means it catapults Nurse into 60%+, then this is a very important statistic that needs to be known and addressed for the health of the game. Why are people leaving her games, etc. The opinion of a large portion of the playerbase matters. Goal of game design is for everyone to have fun.
DCs should not be used for balance purposes, because that would encourage survivors to DC even more often, in attempts to force the devs into nerfing a killer.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3232926#Comment_3232926
Wait, you said "it doesn't work" and then state the exact reason "it does work" the point is that matchmaking is matching 1700s with 2800s. Maybe not on a regular basis, but it CAN.
The 2800s would get matched with 1700s far more often than they would with other 2800s, and there isn’t a way to force matchmaking to match 2800s with other 2800s. It doesn’t matter of DBD’s matchmaking could theoretically match a 2800 with another 2800, because it’s not happening at a large enough percentage to be useful for data.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3232725#Comment_3232725
Top 5% is a meaningless stat, because the MMR cap is 1700. To put that into perspective, i play lots of chess. My rating is around 1600. Magnus Carlsen, the world champion, has a rating of 2856. But BHVR would cap him at 1700. The reality is though, if i played him 1000 games, i'd never win and would maybe get a draw in a handful of games. Because of that statistics are skewed no matter what. Because a pig with 10k hours and a proper rating of 2800 will get matched against 1700 MMR survivors and will likely 4k without even a sweat. Just as a nurse with 200 hours and 1700 rating will get matched against a 2800 rated SWF kill squad like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtENJZ_z0zw&t=1s
Because of that, the stats are basically useless unless they specifically break down the top players vs the same top players. Like, let's say they actually track MMR about 1700 but it just caps for matchmaking purposes. What are the stats of the players with 2k rating playing against players with the same (or relatively the same) rating? That would be much more meaningful and useful.
The chess analogy doesn’t work, because that isn’t how DBD’s matchmaking works. The comparable data for DBD would be stats for the MMR range that a soft cap player would normally see, because that is the highest bracket that DBD does matchmaking.
TD;LR this game doesn’t reliably match 2,000 MMR survivors with 2,000 MMR killers, so those stats aren’t useful for balance purposes.
-
@maximo99ac said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3232816#Comment_3232816
nobody ever said that she has to be nerfed because she overperforms and his kill rate doesnt prove that she has relieable counterplay
She’s within a 3% kill rate with half of the killer roster, which means she has comparable counterplay as half the killer roster.
If she truly didn’t have reliable counterplay, then her kill rate would show her as greatly overperforming.
-
@maximo99ac said:
the best part about this data is that destroys the old "nurse is fine because she has the lowest kill rate"
the best part about this data is that destroys the old “nurse is over performing and lacks counterplay”
-
@EntitySpawn said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3232767#Comment_3232767
Plague second strongest heck yeah! Go stats!
Can we talk about the fact that the kill rates are so similar? Plague, Nurse, and half of the killer roster is within a 3% kill rate of each other, at the top 5% of MMR. Half the roster might as well be in the same tier.
We aren’t talking about the tier lists that players like to make, where killers are in completely different tiers, and are expected to have massively different kill rates. A 3% difference is barely noticeable.
-
@EntitySpawn said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3232734#Comment_3232734
Right and plague is the second strongest killer in the game...
Ugh stop using stats that don't actually mean anything to us.
The truth is that the game isn’t filled with unbeatable Nurses that have zero counterplay. She’s not overpowering at the average level, and she’s not over performing at the top 5%. The majority of Nurses you’ll face against in games, aren’t overpowered.
-
At least we have official confirmation that all the player made tier lists are garbage.
Nurse isn’t over performing even at the top 5% of MMR. In fact, she is lumped in with half of the killer roster, where they are all within the same 2% kill rate range.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3231403#Comment_3231403
Those things aren't even remotely comparable. A bad Blight or Nurse is already penalised by being a bad Blight or Nurse. And a killers MMR is solely applicable to them rather than a team, so a good Blight/Nurse will already be penalised by a high MMR.
There are ways to bring solo survivors up to SWF levels without penalising those who want to play with their friends.
What's more, is you will just get lobby dodging all over again. Before we had the option to SWF, survivors would lobby dodge until they ended up in the same lobby. A SWF group could just time their 'ready' together and try to get into the same lobby, and bypass their MMR penalty you're suggesting. These days there are even scripts you can run to put you into lobbies with certain players.
Are there ways to buff solo to SWF levels without affecting the average escape rate? Because BHVR is looking to maintain a specific range of escape rates, so if solo q is buffed, other changes would need to be made to bring the escape rate back down. And you might have noticed these forums are filled to the brim with suggestions on how to buff survivors, but very little explanations on how killers should be buffed, and survivors as a whole should be nerfed, to compensate for these solo q buffs.
And BHVR could just implement anti lobby dodging tactics, like random matchmaking delays. Or the game can try to purposely avoid matching players that have already played together in the past 30 days, so lobby dodging won't be as effective repeatedly.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3231398#Comment_3231398
You're brilliant and twisting peoples words.
What do you not understand about this sentence? "These advantages are not guaranteed, only potential."
guarantee
/ɡar(ə)nˈtiː/
- a formal assurance (typically in writing) that certain conditions will be fulfilled, especially that a product will be repaired or replaced if not of a specified quality.
- "we offer a 10-year guarantee against rusting"
- an undertaking to answer for the payment or performance of another person's debt or obligation in the event of a default by the person primarily responsible for it.
- provide a formal assurance, especially that certain conditions will be fulfilled relating to a product, service, or transaction.
- "the company guarantees to refund your money"
potential
/pə(ʊ)ˈtɛnʃ(ə)l/
- having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future.
- latent qualities or abilities that may be developed and lead to future success or usefulness.
- the possibility of something happening or of someone doing something in the future.
By that logic, we shouldn't nerf Blight and Nurse, because they only have the potential to be good killers, and there are a lot of people that are garbage with them.
And that is the problem with trying to sidestep balance by arguing about potential. Pretty much everything in the game works on potential, because there will always be people that won't use things to their potential.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3231387#Comment_3231387
These advantages are not guaranteed, only potential.
Some SWF groups do not play with voice comms. How did you not get that from my post?
Some SWF groups play worse together than solo. I'm an example. I do far better solo because my friends are chosen because they're my friends, not because they're good at DBD. The amount of ######### talk I have to wade through to get any info out of them is incredible, and most games we just end up dicking about and getting each other killed. But I'd rather lose with them than win without them, most of the time.
Forcing me and my friends to play against sweaty Nurses just because we queued up together is penalising me for playing with my friends.
When people complain that solo q needs buffs, you should tell them that solo q shouldn't get buffs, because you think SWFs have practically the same performance level as solo q.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3231364#Comment_3231364
If 4 people always play in a SWF, then they will escape more, which will increase their collective MMR's, which will give them a higher combined MMR than solo players who don't escape as much.
MMR is based on averages, data gathered across several games, it cannot gauge the effect of any single game, not least because of match making issues like lobby dodges and off-peak queue times.
You simply can't penalise people just for playing with their friends.
What if I joined a lobby with one of my friends, who also happened to randomly join with one of their random friends. Perhaps we don't know each other, maybe we're just randoms who added each other after one decent game. None of us are on voice, or maybe two of us are, but there's four players in the pre-lobby. Should we get an MMR penalty for queuing up together?
Now if we're consistently playing with each other, learning each others tactics and behaviours, learning to coordinate, becoming familiar enough to communicate via voice. Well then there might be an argument for boosting our MMR. Guess what? That's exactly what MMR already does.
It's not penalizing people for playing with their friends. It's balancing for the extra advantages people get for being in a SWF.
-
@RoastedGarlic said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3231371#Comment_3231371
Reassurance isn't about helping the quitters, it is used for the people that intend to stay in the game and try to win. Who cares about the rage quitters. I know there is more people wanting to stay and play than the rage quitters.
When the DBD forums are filled with complaints that survivors are stuck on the hook for too long because of camping, the solution isn't to massively increase the time a survivor can be stuck on a hook.
This would also make games more miserable for the solo q survivors that are unfortunate enough to be stuck in the same game a SWF, because I'm sure the SWFs will conveniently save all their reassurances for the people outside of their SWF.
-
@RoastedGarlic said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3231308#Comment_3231308
That is why they need to add a way to opt out. Then they can restore it to it original design. Before they took the easy way out and ruined it before it launched.
If you added a way to opt out, then solo q survivors would just let go on hook, which would be a the same result.
There are too many streamers showing off themselves ragequitting, and telling their viewers they are ragequitting. There are too many posts on these forums were people publicly admit they ragequit, and I don't see the devs ever stepping in and telling these people it's unsportmanship conduct. In fact, BHVR is mostly silent on this, and just allows people to ragequit whenever they want, and tell us the DC penalty is good enough to discourage this behavior.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3230266#Comment_3230266
Er... MMR is based on escape rates. If SWF can get a higher escape rate, then MMR is taking it into account.
This is why higher MMR brackets are saturated with SWFs.
MMR isn't taking SWFs into account, especially for people that aren't always in a SWF.
Example 1: If 4 players have individual MMRs of 1,200 and they all join into the same SWF, their SWF MMR would be 1,200 even though they have extra advantages for being in a SWF
Example 2: If 4 players are at the soft MMR cap and they all join into the same SWF, their SWF MMR is calculated at the soft cap even though they have extra advantages for being in a SWF
-
Reassurance can't be buffed to allow more uses, because too many people think it's acceptable to ragequit. You might think it's good gameplay to keep one person alive on a hook for the entire game, but in realty you'll just get a bunch of frustrated survivors that would just ragequit if they knew someone was going to force them to stay alive on a hook the entire game.
-
@mizark3 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3229340#Comment_3229340
Gotcha, the traffic cone concept worked for me when I decided to learn more about Blight, and only went for distant objects for bounces. The 'too close to bounce' concept seems more like an exception to the rule. Even then when I first dabbled with Blight with his groin height camera, bounces seemed easy enough to get to work. It was just annoying on say Swamp and Autohaven maps to have the loop be taller than your character's camera, when every other killer in the game (at the time) could see over it. I honestly would be fine with reverting the camera change and the follow-up fixes in order to fix all the bugs at this point though.
Originally, if Blight tried to start a rush while up against and facing a wall, the rush wouldn't happen at all. If Blight tried to do this while already rushing, then he would just continue the current rush.
In an attempt to fix the short object collision bug, BHVR added a secondary collision system, with the intention that you could look forwards or downwards to choose if you wanted to bump off of an object. This never fully worked as intended. When Blight pressed the rush button, the secondary collision system overrode the primary collision system, and if Blight was up against and facing a while while the rush button was pressed, Blight would get stuck running in place, and then would get an M2 bug where he would be unable to M2, and he would need to M1 to fix this.
BHVR fixed this bug by allowing Blight to slide instead of getting stuck running in place. They were aware they did this. This new mechanic was reported to BHVR the day it went live. My honest guess is they didn't want this new mechanic to happen, but they couldn't figure out how to fix the bug properly.
If BHVR really wanted to fix Blight's collision bugs properly, they would need to do the following things:
1) Blight should be able to bounce off of objects shorter than his waist, or higher than his shoulders. Alternately, they should just make it so the areas outside of his bump hitbox doesn't have collision with the environment, so he would just phase through those objects so he could properly bump into whatever is beyond those objects. For example, he would just phase through the short rock wall surrounding the new shack, and properly bump off of the shack wall that is beyond the short rock wall.
2) The secondary collision system needs to work as intended, and allow Blight to choose which objects to slide off of, because the sliding mechanic is intended
3) When Blight tries to hug tech, the game ignores the request.
-
@drakolyr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3230266#Comment_3230266
And here in that thread we have the oppositve, someone wanting to buff killers but dont want buff for soloq... So your point is...? And also as mentioned, killers got buffs recently. Quite huge ones.
Solo Q didnt got buffs like ever.
BHVR said they tipped the scales in the killer's favor because the escape rate was lower than they wanted them to be. This means that if solo q were buffed, it would raise the escape rate, and BHVR would need to buff killers or nerf survivors to lower the escape rate back down to where they want it to be.
I don't think people understand that BHVR wants the escape rates to be in a specific range. BHVR told us this quite clearly, as the reason why killers got buffs.
-
@BendIt said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3230261#Comment_3230261
"...So if someone decided to not use voice comms, they would be at a disadvantage. "
As they are right now without voice comms?!?!?
Again... and again I am saying give solo survivors the option and you are bring balance but please think of any excuses but the ones already being repeated again and again as they have already been covered.
Reading the rest of your comments make little sense to me, however I would say once everyone were balanced with communications for all 4 then balancing of killers would obviously be needed.
BHVR could then show SWFs as there would be balance to the game and when things are good you don't need to hide information
Currently the game isn't balanced around voice communication. Being without voice comms is the baseline, it's not a disadvantage. Having voice comms is an extra advantage.
If having voice communication were baseline, then killers would need to be massively buffed, which the expectation that if everyone used voice comms then the survivors would be on equal footing with the killer. At this point, not having voice comms would be a disadvantage.
-
@almofan1001 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3230237#Comment_3230237
Buff solo then buff killers so everyone can have a fair chance, solo can't be ignored.
And why is no one talking about buffing killer? Everyone is just saying buff SoloQ this and that but no one is mentioning what killer buffs are you going to give. It feels like an afterthought of "we'll see". Are you going to add another of these meaningless "mini SBTFL" as compensation?
Give me a list of proposed killer buff changes, then we can talk about SoloQ buffs.
And the "weakest role in the game" is an illusion. It is weakest, but only at certain times, and I can 100 % tell you that it happens not as common as the community tells you. The community exaggerates massively as if every game is 4 SoloQ monkeys running around and doing basic mistakes. There are games when that happens, but if this was every game occurrence, then no one would play this game without being in SWF.
We even have some people that just want to buff solo q, and do absolute zero to help killers. Or they'll suggest minor buffs for the lower tier killers, and say the top tier killers can just suffer.
@Config said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/350872/dont-even-think-about-buffing-soloq-until
BRUH, imagine complaining about buffing the weakest role in the game, how should they balance swf without hurting solo? What they should, and most likely will do is balance solo to have a similar level as a swf, then u can balance the game and buff killer to compensate, an S tier killer with 4 slow gens is unwinnable to solo, but a good swf have a fair chance, and how could u balance something that has a difference so ABYSMAL as solo and swf. Buff solo then buff killers so everyone can have a fair chance, solo can't be ignored.
SWF can get a group MMR score that's higher than it currently is (even if it causes them to need a higher MMR soft cap). The problem with SWF is they can get a higher escape rate due to being in a SWF, and MMR doesn't account for this currently.
-
@BendIt said:
Anyone else have a reason why it isn't a great idea?
And by that I mean an actual idea why having someone positive wouldn't work for solo survivors?
If voice comms were added to the game, then killers would need to be rebalanced with the expectation that every group is using 4 voice comms. So if someone decided to not use voice comms, they would be at a disadvantage. This would also nerf low MMR, where the survivors would be less likely to use the voice communications effectively.
This would also buff 2 SWF and 3 SWF, because they currently can't communicate with all of their teammates. The reason why the average SWF stats aren't overwhelming is because most of them are mid MMR and in 2 SWFs, where they can't voice communicate with half of their team. Allowing every team to be a 4 voice communication group is a bigger balance deal than people are assuming it would be.
BHVR would also have to finally address what low mobility killers are supposed to do, when all 4 survivors are allowed to relay the killer's location to each other, and they use this knowledge to hide from the killer, or coordinate other things like bodyblocking.
-
I'm usually survivor during the day, and killer during the night, because of queue times.
-
@Ryuhi said:
Considering how long and how many variations there have been of this bug, without knowing which type of sound emission they use for each effect, I wouldn't have the first suggestion on how to fix it. That said, im sure the answer is in the UE4 documentation on sound attenuation methods somwehere:
https://docs.unrealengine.com/4.27/en-US/WorkingWithAudio/DistanceModelAttenuation/
If you ever wonder why footsteps suddenly don't make sound through walls, im almost positive this is the same issue and has been for years. I'm also fairly certain its related to why it happens with gens when you turn your camera so that a wall is between the gen and the camera, even if you're actively working on said gen.
Edit: looks like possibly something with how Attenuation Occlusion is set up? For OP's case in particular, it might have to do with Attenuation Listener Focus.
This is why I've been complaining about unreliable survivor footsteps, and -100% survivor sound perks for well over a year. Footsteps can go silent when survivors are behind the thinnest unenclosed wall. A survivor barely breaking line of sight because they are crouching, can muffle their breathing and grunts too.
It's also why finding boons is sometimes awful, because that noise can get muffled too.
-
@mizark3 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3228449#Comment_3228449
Gotcha, I haven't played that map this update yet so I didn't know until I googled a vid of that after you explained here. That's a fair reason for a kill switch, but also understandable if they decide not to since they mentioned the specific window.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3228519#Comment_3228519
Wait was that back when the camera was more or less groin height? So was the camera being raised the bug, or artificially lowered being fixed making a side effect bug as a result? Even then I haven't had much issues with using his power as long as I remembered the traffic cone/triangle concept for bumps.
Blight's camera angle originally was super low, as if his waist was the ground level, and he was able to bump off of short objects originally. The camera being raised caused the bug, because it accidently raised his bump hitbox so that any object that sticks out below his waist cannot be bumped off of.
And the traffic cone/triangle concept is incorrect. It's not the shape of the objects, it's whether or not Blight's hitbox touches an object with his bump hitbox, or if some other body part touches the object first (either below his waist, or above his shoulders). The new shack walls aren't traffic cone shaped or triangle shaped, but the short rock wall that surrounds the new shacks do stick out below Blight's waist, and that is what causes Blight to slide. The same thing happens with some basement stair walls, where a very tiny horizontal board is along the bottom of the walls, and that causes Blight to slide. And the small trash bags, or other small objects can be any shape they want to be, and they can still cause Blight to slide.
The same thing happens to objects that hit Blight's head or neck, because those aren't part of his bump hitbox either.
-
@mizark3 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3227423#Comment_3227423
Do you mean how you slide off of traffic cone shaped objects? That is the basic learning curve of how to use Blight. If map geometry is shaped like a cone/triangle, then you can't bump.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3227546#Comment_3227546
Swamp maps are some of the most enjoyable due to varied height without RPD/The Game's oft complained problem of excessive floors, outer tiles often being not entirely worthless in the form of pog-logs, good balance of open and walled off areas for ranged and stealth/trap players (also tall grass and short grass aplenty), and it is the only realm where skilled Blights can show off their map knowledge, due to the abundance of cone shaped objects.
Blight's camera view used to be a lot lower, and his collision is based on his camera view, and he was originally able to bump off of short objects. When Blight's camera view was raised, it created a collision bug, because Blight's bump hitbox became the area between his shoulders and waist, and that made him unable to bump off of anything that sticks out below his waist. This was confirmed to be a bug by the dev that created Blight.
BHVR spent months trying to fix this collision bug, because it was very clear it was a bug, and BHVR wanted to fix it. We ended up with a secondary collision system to try to fix this collision bug, but it never worked as intended, and it created an additional bug along the way. When BHVR tried fixing this additional bug, it created hug tech. BHVR was also dealing with a string of exploits that happened around this time, because every time they tried fixing something, it created a new bug or exploit. BHVR finally gave up on Blight, and we're still stuck with the short object bug.
-
@JustAnotherNewbie said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3227647#Comment_3227647
You don't know if the 4th one won by hiding or not though. They could have done 2 gens and rescued etc. I agree we shouldn't reward people who hide all game or crouch all game, no disagreement there.
Maybe it could work with the contribution idea then. If the 4th survivor escapes, but they didn’t do a decent % of the contributions (seconds spent repairing or being chased), then they don’t get rewarded.
-
Requiring all 4 survivors to be hooked is never good, because there are too many games where at least one survivor is super immersed, and you won’t even see them until at least two other survivors are already dead. It also fails when someone DCs before getting hooked.
-
@JustAnotherNewbie said:
From reading your title I thought you wanted SWF to have their own MMR, which would make kind of sense? Like a 4-man SWF would get matched with a slightly higher MMR killer.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3227397#Comment_3227397
This happened to me yesterday. Just seeing 3 people grouped up together on the other end of the map is too much. Even if they're doing a gen all-together. I thought 2 would be enough?
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3227407#Comment_3227407
Ok, that's not a bad idea but isn't it kind of a trap? The way I understand it is the more team members escape the higher the MMR gain? Doesn't that have the potential to lead to the altruistic trap of throwing end game because one or two get caught and then everyone dies somehow trying to save the others? Just a question. Maybe it could be a hybrid. Like say, if you died first but the team escaped you can gain some MMR, but they each individually gain a bit more since you know, they did escape?
And what about a player who is simply bad and gets caught at 5-4 gens without having contributed and suicides as a result handicapping the team, but they still somehow all escape? Should such a player be rewarded with MMR?
Maybe the game should also take account how much one contributed before dying and when they died?
The important thing would be that, if three survivors die, then the 4th survivor should lose some MMR even if they escape. We shouldn’t reward people for excessively hiding, and waiting for everyone else to die.
A contribution system might work too, where we take the total number of seconds spent repairing and being in chase, and somehow reward and punish accordingly. Maybe if a survivor’s MMR is supposed to go up, they could get bonus MMR if they did a high % of the contributions. And if a survivor’s MMR is supposed to go down, they would lose less MMR if they did a high % of the contributions. This could encourage the last two survivors to continue repairing, instead of trying to hide and seek for 5-15 minutes, which is what ends up happening a lot in my games.
-
Are you tapping a button or holding down a button? I think they removed holding down a button.
Update: i didn’t know it for the time. I messed up lol
-
Huntress is free, and is available immediately after downloading the game. She also doesn’t need to worry about addons, because none of her addons are powerful enough to be mandatory.
Trickster, on the other hand, feels like mega garbage without trick blades, and that should be base kit.
-
@mizark3 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3226845#Comment_3226845
I mean you can hold that opinion if you want. In general however, for the game to have a healthy result you need a 4-1 player base as much as possible. I can understand feeling outnumbered, but the simplistic and tribalistic thinking of "us vs them" from either perspective is very reductive, and ultimately self-sabotaging. People will typically advocate in their self-interest, so it is up to BHVR to interpret our writings with that in mind. When you basically scream "I'm a killer main" then some legitimate criticisms of yours may go unheard due to the how of the complaint, instead of the merits being properly viewed.
Blight’s short object bug, has been in the game for far longer than his hug tech bug. On average, Blight’s short object bug hurts Blight far more than hug tech helps Blight.
Where are the forum threads, filled with people demanding for the short object bug to be fixed?
-
I’m still seeing dead hard way too often in my games. Which means there are still a lot of survivors that are still using it well.
-
Team based MMR should be a major priority. This game needs to push survivors into working as a team, instead of rewarding them for playing selfishly.
This is more important than giving solo q buffs, because selfish players would just use the solo q buffs to play more selfishly.
-
@mizark3 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3226180#Comment_3226180
I think the strength that bugs provide is quite relevant to consideration. "Hug tech" is closer in strength to the perma-breakdown bug back when, rather than the current flashbang bug. The breakdown bug was more powerful than "hug tech", but both sure as heck (are/were) annoying when facing them. They also both ha(d/ve) counterplay, but it is not enjoyable to engage in it. Also the value gained can be compared to the effort put in, as well as how often they can be utilized. HT (RMB+W+AimDown) and BD(get hooked) require(d) little to no effort on the user's end, whereas Flashbangs require half a gen each. In Flashbang's case, if someone got 7 grenades, I think the Killer has greater issues than 7 flashbangs going off in their face.
Another thing to note is that this is coming off of the nerf/bug-removal of Blast Mine. As far as players were aware, the old functionality was the proper form that was unchanged for over a year. The bug removal appeared to be a nerf instead of a bug-fix, especially since it wasn't touched in all this time (or even declared as a bug before being "fixed"). I think many people's perception is "lose one gain another" in terms of we "lost" Blast Mine, and now we "gain" Flashbang.
More importantly in regards to Blast Mine/Flashbang is that these are "meme" perks, and you could instead grab a meta perk and get far greater average value per match. "Hug Tech" is extra potential strength on the 2nd strongest Killer. This would be more akin to something like Off The Record (a meta perk) having the timer be glitched and permanently granting no aura reads and no grunts of pain until the gates are powered. Such a theoretical bug adds additional strength on something that is already powerful, that the opposition can still technically play around.
No. I think the only thing most people are considering here, is "bugs that benefit survivors should stay" and "bugs that benefit killers should be fixed".
Blight has a bug that is in his favor, and an even bigger bug that hurts his performance, but you don't see survivors asking for both bugs to be fixed. They only ask for the bug that is in Blight's favor to be fixed.
-
@TheArbiter said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3226487#Comment_3226487
I've never heard of this before, do you have a video link or developer explaining this? I always thought that once you press spacebar on the pallet that's that
Here is a screenshot from a dev
-
@TheArbiter said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3226476#Comment_3226476
Don't you think it would be fair to refund the pallet then, if the hit connects but the survivor got the stun on the server's end?
No, it should not refund the pallet.
Pallet stuns aren’t supposed to happen instantly after dropping a pallet. A pallet needs to drop something around halfway before it can stun a killer. This means that a killer can hit a survivor after the survivor starts dropping a pallet, but before the stun hitbox is active.
-
I just wish both bugs got equal treatment. The Blight bug had a bunch of threads filled with people complaining that it should be fixed immediately, and that bugs should be fixed.
The flashlight bug threads are mostly people saying “wouldn’t it be fun if we could do this forever!!!!!!!!” What happened to all the people that demanded that bugs should be fixed?
-
@EntitySpawn said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3226113#Comment_3226113
Agreed!
Though I dont care for a FOV slider unless its killer only and only changes the FOV slightly so it's not used for a competitive reason. though this will impact flashlight angles as well
It doesn’t have to impact flashlight angles, considering that flashlights currently do not care if the FoV is fair for the killer. I could have my head almost inside a locker, staring directly at a survivor inside the locker, and still get flashlight blinded. And there have been other times where a survivor that isn’t in my FoV gets a flashlight blind.
Maybe if we get a FoV slider, survivors could finally be in our FoV when they try to flashlight blind.
-
@Hex_iButt said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3225308#Comment_3225308
Forgive me for not being more clear. Not this exact bug as-is to drop multiple, just being able to accumulate more flashbangs without having to drop them in random places would be a nice change. Best idea I saw was turning Flashbang into a token system so you don't have to immediately excuse yourself from a gen when the perk is ready.
That still would be a buff, because it could save you a lot of time. Being able to stack flashbangs is similarly a buff, because it could save you a lot of time.
Quality of life changes provide ZERO in game advantage. Quality of life could be something like a hook counter for killers, because killers could write down or memorize which survivors they hooked, so it's something they could be doing already. Quality of life changes could also be something out of game, like being able to mark certain perks as favorite, so people wouldn't need to sift through all their unlocked perks.