El_Gingero
El_Gingero
About
- Username
- El_Gingero
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,600
- Last Active
Comments
-
No problem.
For example, using a population size of 62,074 (last 30 days steam charts) and a generous 90% confidence level with a 5% margin of error you’d need a sample size of approximately 270, which is still on the low side considering we are dealing with a video game and not a survey.
Going for the minimum sample size of 100 is not going to give you an accurate result with the number of variables involved.
A goal closer to the maximum recommended sample size of 10% will give you more accurate results.
6,207.4 of course is too high, so you’d need to cap it out at 1000, which is 10 times more than the sample size you’re currently using.
Edit: I just want to add that I think it’s great you’re doing your own research/testing and I know it takes a long time, but if you want a reliable degree of accuracy, a larger sample size is required.
-
@tester said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2785657#Comment_2785657
Ok, fine, card counting... But what does it have to do with DBD? Is there a new killer coming out that requires you to know how to count cards? Or are we getting a new map with ocean where side objective is to collect gold?
Almost.
TLDR: Your sample size is too small.
-
@Marc_123 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2785575#Comment_2785575
Alien with a ship map - would be great.
Alien + Ripley + ship map would make this my favourite game, and I don’t even think it’s a particularly good game half the time lol.
-
I was going to poke fun by suggesting Snakes on a Plane but these clowns actually look quite cool.
-
@tester said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2785616#Comment_2785616
Well, if we are going to provide random gambling info unrelated to DBD, I can add one too:
The opposite sides of a die will always add up to seven. If you take a look, you'll see that one and six are on opposite sides of the cube (1+6=7), as are two and five (2+5=7), and three and four (3+4=7).
And did you know cats can't taste sweet things because of a genetic defect?
Technically card counting isn’t gambling. That’s interesting though.
No, I didn’t know that.
Did you know that the oceans of the world contain approximately 20 million tons of gold (that’s $771 Trillion Worth of Gold)
Not on the ocean floor—in the water itself, in tiny particles of approximately 13 billionths of a gram per litre.
-
In Blackjack, a card counter can still lose their bankroll despite a 0.01% risk of ruin.
-
@knell said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2785577#Comment_2785577
This will be the fourth time. Define "skill" in the context of this game without using examples or circular definitions. We'll start there.
Been there, done that. As I said, I appreciate the debate however I’m just not into the discussion enough to keep re-hashing the same stuff, or to even get into a big back and forth about it in the first place lol.
Also when people start finger wagging it just makes me less interested if I’m already disinterested, but at least you’re constructive.
I think we’ve both made our cases clearly and we should just leave it at that. There’s plenty for people to read and mull over.
-
@knell said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2785287#Comment_2785287
*I’ve responded to most these points multiple times now and you’re either ignoring it or misunderstanding what I’m saying.
No, you have not answered my questions - you have repeatedly failed to respond to my request to define exactly what you mean by "skill" in the context of this game without using examples or circular definitions. This is the third time.
*In simple terms, achieving the main objective does not accurately measure the necessary sub objectives, therefore it’s a poor measure of player skill and results in a poor matchmaking system which ignores highly important information.
Like I have already shown, this is simply your assertion, and nothing more. AGAIN, you have failed to answer WHY you believe measuring "sub objectives" are necessary or even important, when the whole purpose of their existence are to simply fulfill the main objective. If their main objective ended in failure, then it means that whatever progress they were making in "sub objectives" simply weren't enough, and therefore absolutely meaningless in the end. Don't agree? Prove it.
*It is absolutely possible to consistently escape whilst contributing the bare minimum, just as it is possible to contribute significantly more than the rest of your team, whilst failing to actually escape.
If certain players are consistently winning the game while doing the bare minimum, why shouldn't they face stronger players? After all, if they are always winning with such little effort, imagine what they can do when they actually try. It's important that they are faced with stronger opponents who will challenge them to do more. On the other hand, if you are consistently losing despite believing that you are doing more than others, perhaps you need weaker opponents to reflect on why you are producing so little results - as I stated before, perhaps you are wasting too much effort in learning to do a 50m butterfly in 25 sec during a chess game. Efforts are meaningless unless they can provide consistent results.
*This is a big issue because matchmaking is pushing the wrong people in the wrong direction based off some arbitrary rule which ignores the reality of how the actual game functions.
There's nothing "arbitrary" about the win conditions - they've always been the same - what's "arbitrary" is what you assert as being "skills" without proving it, and then wanting these random elements of the game to raise or lower the players' MMR when they may not have anything to do with their ability to win the game.
*It’s easy to look at everything in a vacuum and to deduce that “the objective is to escape therefore escaping is the only thing that matters when it comes to matchmaking,” but this is faulty, circular logic which - while sounding nice on paper - means very little in actual reality.
Again, an assertion - nothing more than a baseless claim. No? Then you are more than welcome to prove your case if you want.
*We are going to have to agree to disagree because we aren’t going to get anywhere.
That's probably because you can't seem to answer simple questions.
Whatever you need to tell yourself.
-
Still waiting patiently for a Xenomorph.
-
@Smuk said:
Its been a 3rd there where BHVR lacks to give a response.
it is HARD to COMPETE where controller scheme does not have close to equal performance as mouse and keyboard.
Do you lack of (ac)knowledgement that this is an ISSUE or do you need any help to brainstorm and maybe with a VPN, I can take a shift, and improve the settings.
Let me help you out:
Deadzone settings. It means how much of the stick has to be tilted before the analog value is greater then 0.
Acceleration curve:
The more you tilt the greater output it is. It can be huge and linear chart, or simple exponential with e^x equation.
Blight: Add a weight(multiplication) to preturn, so it can be done faster without requiring to preturn all the way to get 70 degree flick. Also it prevents you from correcting side/angle.
Result should be more as absolute value - MOUSE
GENERAL M2 settings:
Copy paste current and above settings to be specific for powers.
BONUS: Controller gravitational aim assist. When M2 is being aimed into proximity of survivor, manipulate sensitivity to help with precise aiming.
It’s odd that threads about this don’t seem to gain much traction. You’d think more console players would be vocal about how miserable the experience can be due to the lack of appropriate settings, which let’s be honest is a relatively basic feature that almost no game ships without these days. Especially when you consider we have to pay the same price for killers like Trickster, who verifiably doesn’t function properly with a controller.
-
In no particular order:
Incremental tweaks to underperforming perks + addons (every other patch)
Quality of life changes to various killers (Twins)
Ping system + optional comms built-in (I know you don’t want comms, I really don’t want to get into it.)
-
@Mandy said:
I remember the time before SWF was introduced - there was the option at the start of KYF and SWF and KYF was implemented first (disclaimer before people jump on that, both were always intended).
Survivors just used to lobby dodge until the got into the lobbies with their friends (not difficult to do even now if you're in the same area). That actually caused bigger issues for matchmaking having lobbies being dodged all over the place. People are going to want to play with their friends, it's only natural - this can be a party game for many players, not everyone takes the game super competitively and a lot are casual players who want to have fun with their friends.
Also, a lot of SWF do not even discuss the game properly when they're playing - it's not so much information that they're passing to each other but misinformation and trolling of each other.
Also, I've been accused of being in a SWF a lot of times, when I was not - because the players coordinated together. That happens more frequently than people realise, which then again leads players to assume they're playing against SWF.
Yes coordinated SWF teams are strong, nobody is denying that. And a team of 4 solo survivors is the weakest section of the game, but fortunately as it's been mentioned, there are tentative plans (nothing confirmed) to address that issue.
One theme I notice when it comes to these discussions is that many people don’t utilise comms to the fullest effect, which is all good, and it’s great to be able to jump on and have a good time with your friends, but this doesn’t change the fact that if you do choose to use them to your advantage, comms are one of the most powerful tools survivors have access to, yet this tool is not available to anyone in solo queue.
Analogies are very popular on the forums as of late…
cough cough
It’s like playing on an FPS with wall hacks, but choosing not to shoot anyone you wouldn’t normally see.
Alright, that’s an extreme example but you get the idea lol.
Im glad BHVR are finally looking into the issue and I’m confident they’ll find a decent compromise eventually, but it’s just a shame to know that actual comms will never be built into the game.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2785396#Comment_2785396
Comms are overrated. The true strength of SWF is that you are able to filter out Potato-Teammates. With a 4 man SWF, you wont need to worry about the Claudette crouching in a Corner or the David farming you without BT for his WGLF-Stacks.
That being said, adding Comms to the game (while having big disadvantages), would not solve that. I can tell this Claudette that I am being chased, this does not mean that she will leave her Corner. I can tell David that he should ######### off after unhooking me without BT, does not prevent him from doing that again.
I gotta disagree. Weeding out potatoes is a nice benefit for sure, but comms are everything when it comes to SWF as the level of information provided breaks the intended mechanics of the game. (DBD was originally designed around working with limited information, and it still is for solo queue, which is why you have to spend a perk slot to alleviate it to a small degree.)
Potatoes will always be a thing and there will always be people who ignore information or don’t care to be a team player, but that’s the case with every multiplayer game.
-
@tippy2k2 said:
Reading is for nerds!
I have no idea what you wrote but I’m sure it’s both witty and intelligent.
-
@Tr1nity said:
Or they could show the perks people have in pregame screen
*insert too much work / too difficult here*
Loadouts would be nice too.
-
They’ll never remove SWF and I agree it would probably kill the game if they did.
The only option is to bridge the gap between solo and SWF. It will be far from perfect as they don’t want to put comms in the game, so we’ll just have to take what we get and try to improve it over time.
-
They aren’t going to kill switch it because although there are some issues with maps, from their perspective the mechanics are working as intended and they didn’t put in the work only to disable it right after launch.
I agree some maps are stupid and it can be annoying to put up with, but in most cases you can just slug them and carry on as normal.
I use Boil Over with no Mither so that won’t work on me, but most people don’t do that :x
-
@SilentShepherd said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2783862#Comment_2783862
100% with you, many of us are.
It makes no sense too, because the game -already tracks these stats-.... such as time being chased (looping), etc... but somehow they can't use all of those stats into an overall grade score to better measure each player's contributions to the result..?
Yeah I don’t get it mate. I can see why some people think escapes alone are good enough for matchmaking and at a cursory glance it can sound reasonable, but when you start to deconstruct it, you find a whole host of issues.
Even BHVR have said they’d like to take more things into account, but they aren’t confident enough in their ability to do it well I suppose.
-
@knell said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2783934#Comment_2783934
*Because hiding and doing some skill checks with no care in the world doesn’t take skill. Looping the killer the whole game does, regardless of whether or not you escape.
See, again, you are not answering the question. You are basically saying, "it is not skillful because it does not take skill" and "it is skillful because it takes skill" without being able to actually define what skill means. As I stated in my first post, I defined skill in a game as having the knowledge/ability to fulfill the win condition of said game. Now, your turn: define the term "skill" in the context of games without giving examples or circular definitions.
*Also, why did you not escape? Were you left to die on hook?
If I did not escape, then it's because my skill wasn't enough to allow me to escape, no matter what the reason.
*Leaving a teammate to die doesn’t sound very skilful. Sure you escaped, but you didn’t play well.
Why would you assume that I didn't play well if I escaped while leaving others to die? If the whole purpose of playing as a survivor is to escape, and I escaped, what exactly makes you think that I didn't play well? You keep making certain assumptions, without explaining why you believe it to be so. Didn't play well? Ok, tell me why.
*If you ignore sub objectives in favour of the main objective on the assumption that it encompasses said sub objectives, you have a very poorly designed matchmaking system.
Again, why do you believe that to be so? The only reason why these "sub objectives" even exist is in order to fulfill the main objective. If it can be ignored or replaced by something else to do the same task of fulfilling the main objective, then why shouldn't it be ignored or replaced? Why does it matter?
*Will it work? Sure, it can function and self correct over time, but it’s not accurate nor is it efficient.
I'd argue the opposite - adding unnecessary sets of measurements in which its significance may change after every update would actually make the matchmaking less and less accurate over time and overall bloated. The win conditions never change, but the importance and value of the games' chase mechanics, generator mechanics, hiding mechanics, altruism mechanics, etc all could change with every update, as well as have different values depending on addition of maps and perks (or add-ons), etc.
*You could say, well if they escaped, were they truly not playing well? Escaping is the main objective after all.
And I could say, no, they didn’t play well, they simply avoided any skilful play for a free escape, which is the opposite of playing well, regardless of what the end objective is.
See, to me, there is no such thing as "free escape." If I was engaged with the killer majority of the time, and they escaped - then they did EXACTLY what they were supposed to do in order to fulfill the main objective - they understood their roles and was able to complete it, utilizing me correctly in the process, and thereby earning their victory, regardless of what happens to me.
*Just escaping is not necessarily indicative of skill. Looping the killer for 5 gens is, every time, regardless of escaping.
I would only consider "looping the killer for 5 gens" a skill if they have constant positive outcomes to show for it - otherwise I wouldn't. Here's the thing - in most circumstances, I actually do think that players who are constantly able to hold chase for 5 generators are skilled - but (and that's a big but) that's because those same players often show results - as in, they're able to escape those same matches. If they didn't, and they were constantly dying at the end, I would think differently. Ultimately, it's about whether they were able to produce the result they needed to win.
*We all know that if you put our looper into a higher ranked match, they’ll fare much better than their teammate who hid all game but still escaped. But guess what? Our looper actually de-ranked, and the other survivor ranked up. It’s the wrong way around! That’s the issue I’m getting at.
Again, if the player who is constantly hiding is also constantly winning, why shouldn't that player have a harder match against players who are able to cope with that type of strategy? If the player who is constantly trying to loop the player is also constantly losing, why shouldn't that player face other players who are also losing?
*This sounds nice and paper but in reality things are not so black and white. Our looper is the one who put everyone on the path to victory. It’s his victory, gifted to the team at his expense.
But the fact of that matter is he didn't earn any victory - and therefore there is no victory for him/her to gift. The player's goal in the game isn't to help other players to achieve their goals - it's to achieve their own. If you end up helping other survivors or the killer win at the expense of your own, well - that's your choice, but the game isn't obligated to give you a "win" for being "nice" or pat you on the head and tell you that you are "skilled." If for some reason, you think you deserve a "win" for sacrificing yourself, then that's a personal problem with the player, not the game. Game's win condition is clear - what you do with that information becomes the players' problem.
*It’s circular logic. This is a team game yet survivors have to be ranked individually. If your teammates escape off the back of your hard work, their victory is technically your victory; in this scenario they escaped because of your actions, not because of their own.
*The matchmaking will rank you down, and it will rank them up, even though they contributed the bare minimum to the actual victory.
But this isn't solely a team game. If it were, the win condition of this game would be indicated as, "Survivors win if 2 (or some other #) or more survivors escape." But it's not. It's been shown to only be about the player's own personal escape. On DBD's official webpage (under game objectives - how to win): "As a Survivor, your main objective is to escape the map and live another day." Pretty much the same thing under their game tutorial. Hell, during an interview, Mathieu Cote is quoted as saying, "It is an asymmetrical multiplayer game where you can live in the world of these 70s and 80s horror movies. It’s anti-social multiplayer where survivors have to collaborate and cooperate up to a certain point. The old saying is that you don’t need to be fast than the killer, you just need to be faster than your friends. Whereas the people playing as the killer, they just need to straight up murder everyone." So, sure, survivors are obligated to cooperate with each other to a certain degree for their own survival, but they are certainly not responsible for each others' victories.
I’ve responded to most these points multiple times now and you’re either ignoring it or misunderstanding what I’m saying.
I do appreciate the constructive debate and I think it’s valuable to see both sides, but I honestly see no reason to keep going around in circles; this topic sort of bores me and I had no intention of getting into a big debate in the first place.
In simple terms, achieving the main objective does not accurately measure the necessary sub objectives, therefore it’s a poor measure of player skill and results in a poor matchmaking system which ignores highly important information.
I see this as such a no brainer that I’m surprised there’s such a large discussion about it in the first place.
It is absolutely possible to consistently escape whilst contributing the bare minimum, just as it is possible to contribute significantly more than the rest of your team, whilst failing to actually escape.
This is a big issue because matchmaking is pushing the wrong people in the wrong direction based off some arbitrary rule which ignores the reality of how the actual game functions.
It’s easy to look at everything in a vacuum and to deduce that “the objective is to escape therefore escaping is the only thing that matters when it comes to matchmaking,” but this is faulty, circular logic which - while sounding nice on paper - means very little in actual reality.
We are going to have to agree to disagree because we aren’t going to get anywhere.
-
@CyberDragoon656 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2784871#Comment_2784871
They bandaided the game using perks to the point some people can try and predict that atleast one new killer perk now will be a countermeasure for when they ######### up.
Yeah it seems as though they try to balance the game in general via perks which causes all manner of issues imho.
-
@CyberDragoon656 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2781936#Comment_2781936
So they don't want viability and instead make their game more of a boring slog than it is?
Then first of all why buy anymore dlc if they aren't worth a ######### same with alot of chapters due to the devs balance most chapters now are overpriced perk sets.
Yeah I don’t get it either. They have some very peculiar design philosophies.
-
This subject is becoming more interesting to me but it’s 1:30am and I need to do real life stuff so I’ll have to get back to everyone tomorrow.
-
@knell said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2783818#Comment_2783818
Ok, let's talk about these "other objectives" (aka side objectives that players must do for the sole purpose of achieving the main objective) you keep mentioning.
According to you, 1. hiding and achieving the main objective is not skillful, and yet, 2. looping the killer the whole game despite if they fail to achieve the main objective is skillful. Why is that? If the entire point of hiding/looping is to fulfill the main objective (escaping), shouldn't it be considered more "skillful" to consistently take actions that would place the player on the path of victory? If you are consistently losing by looping, and consistently winning by hiding, WHY should the game award the players who are consistently losing? After all, if their actions are actually "skillful" in regards to this game, shouldn't they be winning?
If, as you say, the "easiest activity" is to walk through the exit gate, but you consistently FAILED to even get to that point in the game, why should the game consider you as a "skilled player?"
To me, it seems like the only thing you are trying to discuss is how "difficult" an action is, not how "skillful" something is in a game. But if the "difficult" actions you are taking are irrelevant to how likely you are able to win in said game, it seems like they are simply wasted, meaningless effort in regards to that specific game.
According to you, 1. hiding and achieving the main objective is not skillful, and yet, 2. looping the killer the whole game despite if they fail to achieve the main objective is skillful. Why is that?
Because hiding and doing some skill checks with no care in the world doesn’t take skill. Looping the killer the whole game does, regardless of whether or not you escape.
Also, why did you not escape? Were you left to die on hook?
Leaving a teammate to die doesn’t sound very skilful. Sure you escaped, but you didn’t play well.
Did your team try to save you and fail? That doesn’t sound very skilful either. Again you escaped, but you didn’t play well.
This is the issue. DBD has a matchmaking system. This system is supposed to measure how well you play and pool you accordingly.
If you ignore sub objectives in favour of the main objective on the assumption that it encompasses said sub objectives, you have a very poorly designed matchmaking system.
Will it work? Sure, it can function and self correct over time, but it’s not accurate nor is it efficient.
You could say, well if they escaped, were they truly not playing well? Escaping is the main objective after all.
And I could say, no, they didn’t play well, they simply avoided any skilful play for a free escape, which is the opposite of playing well, regardless of what the end objective is.
There’s a clear disconnect here.
I understand that the objective is to escape. However, I’m talking about skill and how we judge it, which leads us to how survivors are placed in the rankings.
Just escaping is not necessarily indicative of skill. Looping the killer for 5 gens is, every time, regardless of escaping.
We all know that if you put our looper into a higher ranked match, they’ll fare much better than their teammate who hid all game but still escaped. But guess what? Our looper actually de-ranked, and the other survivor ranked up. It’s the wrong way around! That’s the issue I’m getting at.
If the entire point of hiding/looping is to fulfill the main objective (escaping), shouldn't it be considered more "skillful" to consistently take actions that would place the player on the path of victory?
This sounds nice and paper but in reality things are not so black and white. Our looper is the one who put everyone on the path to victory. It’s his victory, gifted to the team at his expense.
Everyone else got to chill and play gen simulator, ranking up while our looper ranks down, and the matchmaking has to self correct this error over time. It’s inaccurate and inefficient.
If you are consistently losing by looping, and consistently winning by hiding, WHY should the game award the players who are consistently losing? After all, if their actions are actually "skillful" in regards to this game, shouldn't they be winning?
It’s circular logic. This is a team game yet survivors have to be ranked individually. If your teammates escape off the back of your hard work, their victory is technically your victory; in this scenario they escaped because of your actions, not because of their own.
The matchmaking will rank you down, and it will rank them up, even though they contributed the bare minimum to the actual victory.
If, as you say, the "easiest activity" is to walk through the exit gate, but you consistently FAILED to even get to that point in the game, why should the game consider you as a "skilled player?"
Addressed this above but quoting you makes my post look longer.
To me, it seems like the only thing you are trying to discuss is how "difficult" an action is, not how "skillful" something is in a game. But if the "difficult" actions you are taking are irrelevant to how likely you are able to win in said game, it seems like they are simply wasted, meaningless effort in regards to that specific game.
That’s not what I’m saying at all. My above points actually address this, but quoting you makes my post look longer :D
-
@foxsansbox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2783818#Comment_2783818
My man,
He's not saying looping isn't a skill, he's saying if it doesn't get you the win in that match, it shouldn't be measured as a skill, in that match.
That's why only the win condition is measured, because it rolls up all skills under a single value. Sometimes looping contributes to a win. Certainly, doing it consistently absolutely improves your chances at winning, but should it be measured independently?
Hell. No.
I know what they’re saying, but what I’m saying is that they’re incorrect.
Looping (as well as other objectives) should be measured as skill even if it does not net you an escape.
Everyone loves analogies so here’s one to highlight the point:
Mr. Gingeroo loops the killer for 5 gens. Everyone else just does gens. Mr. Gingeroo gets hooked. Everyone leaves.
Should Mr. Gingeroo be penalised because his team did some skill checks and held W through the exit gate, leaving him to die on hook?
Who was the most skilful, and who had the largest contribution towards victory, in your opinion:
Claudette, David and Meg did 5 gens together, unabated.
Mr. Gingeroo outplayed an equally skilled killer at the most skill-intensive activity survivors have access to for 5 free gens, but finally got caught and was unable to complete the last part of his objective (holding W through a loading screen.)
Judging skill based from escapes alone does not roll it all up into one value. That’s the issue I’m getting at.
-
@knell said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2783760#Comment_2783760
No, what you have said is that "it's obvious" without further explanation, and gave some examples that you believe is skillful/not skillful in this game - again, without explaining exactly WHY you believe them to be so. I refuted those assumptions. Try again.
I’m referring to the previous post in which I addressed your arguments before you made them, not my first post. My bad!
You have not refuted anything at all lol. Your arguments are very easily dismantled, and I will again demonstrate:
Yes, escaping is the objective.
To achieve the objective you must do other stuff.
Thus, your objective consists of multiple gameplay loops/activities, aka other objectives. These objectives require varying levels of skill.
Walking through the exit gate is the easiest activity within your main objective.
Looping the killer for a long time is the hardest activity within your main objective.
“But Mr. Gingeroo! Escaping IS the main objective!”
Yes, it is indeed! However, as we have already established, and as you have admitted yourself, in order to achieve said objective, you have to do other stuff. Therefore, your objective actually consists of far more than simply running through an exit gate. There are….several objectives!
Here’s the kicker though: The end result - actually running through that loading screen, is the easiest part of it all. The other stuff you do beforehand takes more skill. Running the killer for a long time takes the most, regardless of whether or not you run through a loading screen afterwards.
“But Mr. Gingeroo! Are you saying that survivor skill is not based solely on escapes, and to judge it that way ignores the full-picture? And…and that some of the activities you must engage with in order to escape in the first place actually take more skill than the actual escaping itself?”
Yes! That’s what I’m saying! I’m glad we are finally getting somewhere :D
(This topic sort of bores me and I’ve got to have some fun with it)
-
Turn your dpi all the way up and spin around like a tornado.
-
@knell said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2783680#Comment_2783680
"Running through the exit gate is easy. You simply hold W in the general direction. I could do it with my eyes closed, and it takes no skill whatsoever.
I can sit afk, hiding in a bush or locker, whilst my team deal with the killer and the gens. Then, I can run to the exit gate, close my eyes and walk right through.
Is that skilful?"
If one can consistently do this in majority of his/her games, then yes, absolutely it should be considered "skillful" in regards to this game. After all, this person understands exactly what needs to be accomplished to fulfill the main objective, and have the ability to pull it off for majority of their matches. That's what having skill means. But for the vast numbers of players, I'm guessing that hiding in a bush all game and doing absolutely nothing else will eventually lead to their own deaths, or if they're lucky - a hatch escape which has no effect on the MMR what-so-ever. Rather, I'd like to understand why you'd even think that being able to pull things like this consistently isn't skillful in regards to DBD.
"Looping an equally skilled killer for the entire match is literally the most difficult thing a survivor can do in the entire game. Going down one time right at the very end and being abandoned by the team you carried, or if they fail to rescue you, doesn’t suddenly negate that, just as you aren’t required to hold W towards a loading screen to validate it either."
Looping a killer for the whole match is difficult? Sure, so is being the best juggler in the world, or being able to swim the 50m butterfly in 25 seconds. But as I stated before, these specific abilities don't make you skillful at basketball or chess. So I ask AGAIN, what makes you think that looping a killer for the whole match makes the player "skillful" specifically in regards to DBD if it doesn't correlate with one's Escape Rate?
I addressed these points in my initial post.
Of course you have to actually do stuff to consistently run through the exit gate, and some of that stuff takes skill, the most skill intensive of which is looping the killer for a long time. The least skilful part is the actual escaping. You literally just run towards a loading screen.
-
@knell said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2782985#Comment_2782985
You say that it's obvious, but then won't explain WHY you believe that looping the killer for 5 gens is considered "skillful" to you in this game. If it doesn't correlate highly with one's Escape Rate - the entire goal/point/objective of this game, then why would you say that it is an expression of "skill" in this game? I can be the best juggler in the world, but I wouldn't claim that it makes me skillful at basketball - because it doesn't help me score more points than the other team. I may be able to swim the 50m butterfly within 25 seconds, but that doesn't make me "skillful" at chess - because it doesn't help me checkmate the opponents' King. If looping the killer for 5 gens doesn't help you Escape, then why would you consider it "skillful" in this particular game?
Perhaps you should start by defining what exactly you mean by "skillful" in terms of this game.
Well, to me it’s so obvious that I didn’t think it required an explanation.
The argument of “the objective is to escape therefore only escaping is skilful” is frankly ignorant, to put it politely. It’s just nonsensical fantasy that has no bearing on reality.
Running through the exit gate is easy. You simply hold W in the general direction. I could do it with my eyes closed, and it takes no skill whatsoever.
I can sit afk, hiding in a bush or locker, whilst my team deal with the killer and the gens. Then, I can run to the exit gate, close my eyes and walk right through.
Is that skilful?
Looping an equally skilled killer for the entire match is literally the most difficult thing a survivor can do in the entire game. Going down one time right at the very end and being abandoned by the team you carried, or if they fail to rescue you, doesn’t suddenly negate that, just as you aren’t required to hold W towards a loading screen to validate it either.
-
@knell said:
What is a "skill" in any game, but having the knowledge and the ability to fulfill the win condition of that said game?
In this game, the ultimate goal of the game is to Escape/Kill. Everything you do within the game, should be so that you can achieve said win condition of the game. The purpose of playing any game is to carve out a path to victory - that said, "skill" in this context is defined by whether they have the means to do so.
So if your so-called "skill" is not providing any positive outcome majority of the time, should it actually be considered a skill? If this "skill" doesn't correlate at all with providing victories, should it be considered a skill?
I can claim to have skills because I am in the top 1% of players in the number of tea-bagging I do per match, but unless "tea-bagging" is correlated to the likeliness of winning, should it actually be considered a skill? Similarly, if doing long chases are causing you to lose majority of your matches, is it really a "skill" in this game? If doing 8 hooks per match is causing you to lose majority of your matches, is it really a "skill" in this game?
If I am losing majority of the time in any game, there are 2 things I should be asking myself: 1. Is what I consider "skill" actually a skill in this game? and if it is, then 2. what sort of bad decisions am I constantly making that would completely counteract that skill that I supposedly have?
It’s not so simple though.
It’s quite obvious that, all things equal, looping the killer for 5 gens is highly skilful. Conversely, sitting on gens the entire match, never seeing the killer, and running out the exit at the end is not skilful at all.
So we could say, the goal is to escape, thus whatever you do to successfully escape is skilful, however would just be taking nonsense because in reality escaping doesn’t necessarily take any skill, just as you can fail to escape whilst carrying your team to victory, which can easily require superior skill.
-
I tried getting back into Ping since the update. Had three very dominant games and every time people try to get handouts by booping the snoot. I obliged because I don’t often tryhard but I can see that ######### getting tedious lol.
-
Make the game more balanced (in no particular order) =
Incrementally buff underperforming killers, perks and addons.
Bridge the gap between solo and SWF
-
Yeah it’s a shame more killers aren’t being buffed up to a similar level but I don’t think the devs want too many killers to be “top tier” for some reason. You’d think we could at least have more than 3 or 4 tho.
-
@Akumakaji said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2781784#Comment_2781784
Thanks for your consideration :)
But yeah, I think instead of this sluggish, glacial pace, BHVR should much more often, maybe every two weeks, throw out small changes like this ideally at the PTB, and constantly tune stuff. It doesn't always have to be big things, but just change a few numbers up or down and see how things work out.
Right now stuff changes so slowly that you can watch gras grow literally.
Ahh mate that would be nice wouldn’t it. As you say, they just need to make incremental changes and go from there. Very little risk of anything going awry.
I remember once the devs said something along the lines of needing a super computer A.I. to be able to balance perks due to how many there are xd
What nonsense lol
-
@Akumakaji said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2781749#Comment_2781749
I would cap grunts of pain for both, No Mither and Iron Will, at 75%. The absolute silence is way more debilitating then most players imagine. Of course its a cool QoL upgrade, not to care about being hurt or not, but I really think its no good design to invalidate whole branches of the players arsenal with just one passive, unlimited perk. Also, it's effect on Spirit is really enervating and debilitating, flipping the board completely, ie the survivors have way more info on her then the other way around.
I’m just having a bit of fun buffing crappy perks in a vacuum, but I actually agree with you and if I were in charge of balancing there’d be no iron will effect at all because it’s ridiculous imho.
-
@Starrseed said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2781704#Comment_2781704
Don't worry we make sure you are the last little piggy and smack you again and again till your bleed bar is empty
Come at me bro xd
A capture by AllSeeingGoyThink you got what it takes? I see you at da Library, fiction section.
-
No Mither
Go on out, kid, it is just a scratch.
Your thick blood coagulates practically instantly.
You suffer from the Broken Status Effect for the entire Trial, but benefit from the following effects:
Pools of Blood are suppressed.
When injured or dying, Grunts of Pain are reduced by 100%.
Your Recovery speed is increased by 30%
You can recover whilst moving
You can recover fully from the Dying State
-
He’s pretty middle of the road but I agree he’s very strong vs new/bad survivors.
Once you’re good at looping and positioning he’s pretty trivial to deal with in most situations.
-
I just run Boil Over with No Mither. Can’t slug me and a 1 hit down doesn’t matter when you can’t hook me lol.
-
You need to be more subtle mate. I can give you some tips if you like.
-
No hex perk is powerful enough to warrant being placed directly next to the survivors’ main objective.
-
Despite making up a significant portion of BHVRs revenue, console players are honestly treated as an afterthought, and that’s putting it politely.
I can’t remember the last game I played that didn’t have some kind of controller settings. It’s frankly a disgrace and BHVR definitely take their console cash-cows for granted.
-
It’s the balancing philosophy of the devs. They intentionally make terrible add ons to either nerf a killer, or when they simply don’t know what to do with them. It also pads out the blood web and artificially extends the already ridiculous grind, because they think it creates “player engagement,” which they can then show off to shareholders and prospective licence partners.
-
It’s still incredibly strong and blessing a totem isn’t enough of a time sink for the benefits.
-
@MikaKim said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2780591#Comment_2780591
So you see that part where I mention socialisation and tribalism.
See the part where I post stats to show how killers are getting 3+ kills per game.
Note that human beings will work harder to maintain a belief system than investigate truth.
Interestingly 'so far off base' comment could elude to a personal insult which would also demonstrate that you lack critical thinking skills.
Do you actually have anything for me?
I’ve got something for ya.
Kill rates mean diddly squat when it comes to balance. Ok - that’s an exaggeration, but you get the gist.
The reality is that the vast majority of survivors are bad at the game and don’t know how to play it properly. Generalisation? Not really. The game is hard to learn. This leads to kill rates that appear favourable to killers, because they’re facing potatoes a majority of the time.
When you get to high MMR, this changes and survivors become the power role instead, however high MMR makes up a minuscule % of the playerbase so you don’t really see it represented in the statistics.
It’s such an issue that the developers had to implement a bunch of second chance perks just to hold up the weight of all the potatoes, lest the game crumble under the crushing force of their sheer potatoe-ness.
Could you imagine if DH were removed? All those survivors suddenly unable to loop for more than 30 seconds. Would be a disaster, and DH is the most OP crutch perk in the entire game, and it absolutely needs to be nerfed. But imagine the fallout! Everyone suddenly realising that can’t actually loop! Lol…
-
@SmarulKusia said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2779509#Comment_2779509
Nah, especially if one had to go there to do a generator
Well, dead zones are a part of the game. I think they’re fine. Large maps littered with tiles and pallets need at least some kind of dangerous area imho. Agree to disagree I guess.
-
No Mither isn’t as bad as people make it out to be but you have to change your whole play style and make a build around it.
-
DH is the biggest crutch in the game and is primarily used to rectify a mistake or to out-perk an out-play. So technically many survivors will be weak because they’ve relied on it for so long, but that's a skill issue and not a balance issue.
-
Oni has a pretty high skillcap while being easy to get into. He’s reasonably strong and can punish mistakes very effectively. Snowball killers are fun and you can outright win the game at the end if the survivors mess up too much, no matter how far behind you were.
-
I think it’s more that she’s annoying to learn when you have to do it vs people who already know how to play the game.
-
Honestly? Just try not to take it too seriously. Bugs and lag aside, there’s plenty of frustration to be found here, and the best approach is to just take it for what it is and enjoy the fun moments because there are still plenty to be found.