Fibijean
Fibijean
About
- Username
- Fibijean
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@ReikoMori said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/660881#Comment_660881
It wouldn't really mess with queue times. People will play regardless of the 5th sloth perk or not. In general the addition of a 5th perk slot would just have to be tested. As far as the game being balanced as 4 against 16, that isn't really how the game works in terms of perks. Most killer perks are not stronger than survivor perks, they just affect a part of the game survivor perks usually don't. So, strength wise all perks are in theory supposed to be of equal strength insofar as what part of the game they influence.
What makes killers strong enough to deal with 16 perks with only for is that they have a base power and increased base stats compared to a survivor. Adding a 5th in my opinion would not help or fix the balance of the game to make both sides more dynamic and competitive. For killers it would just be to have ruin in every build. For survivors it would be to always have something like Wake Up or Self Care. A slot for something that would be useful to you no matter the main build.
I get what you're saying but I think you misread the OP. They're proposing a 5th perk slot for killers only. And I wasn't saying that killer perks are more powerful, I said builds, which includes base powers.
What OP is proposing is a significant buff to killers. Killers don't need to be buffed as far as queue times are concerned, because the balance is already off, and even more people would play killer rather than survivor if killers were given such a huge buff. So yes, it would affect queue times, but I'm guessing you only said that because you didn't realise we were talking about only killers getting more perks and not all players.
-
Camper and tunneler killers are the new players in DBD. New killers are way too terrified of allowing someone to get unhooked because it feels like failing an objective. Makes sense, really - they're told that the killer's job is to hook survivors to sacrifice them to the entity, so when a survivor gets unhooked it makes them feel like they've been outplayed. It's counter-intuitive not to camp as a new killer. New killers need to be taught that camping is a bad idea and why, and that it's okay to let people get unhooked. In the meantime, teach your friends to counter campers by, again, doing the counter-intuitive thing and rushing gens instead of going for the save.
And tunnelling sucks but it's just smart play, really. As a killer, there's no reason not to go for the most vulnerable prey. The best counter to tunnelling is safe unhooking, which is why when I have friends playing for the first time I play alongside them, so I can show them the ropes and so they don't get matched with randoms who unhook them at stupid times and get them killed, because then they never have time to learn anything and they lose through no fault of their own, which I agree is not fun at all.
-
Yeah what a tryhard. Can't believe she brought a very rare offering and then didn't want to let it go to waste. The nerve of some people!
-
Fun fact: disconnecting is already a bannable offence. The threshold is just a lot higher than what you're suggesting because the devs like to allow for the fact that some people just have ######### internet. I probably DC just due to net problems about once every session or two. If they enforced it too heavily they wouldn't have any players left.
Having said that, I do agree that there should be more of a punishment for dc'ing and lobby dodging (obviously not until ping stops being an issue, though). Not a ban from the game, but perhaps just not being able to queue for lobbies for a few minutes (maybe starting at 5-10).
-
The idea of having 5 perk slots for all characters has been often discussed, but I've never heard anyone suggest it for just killer before.
Since the start of the game, killers have been balanced around 4v16. Killer builds are more powerful than survivor builds to compensate for that. Just because the numbers are smaller, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's unbalanced. I think a 5th perk slot for killers would make them way too powerful, and mess up queue times even more than they already are.
-
@thesuicidefox The only problem is, comparing your smurf account to a new player is not a fair comparison because you already know how to play the game. I think David might be a good pick for the sake of WGLF after they've got a handle on the game, perhaps as a second or third character, but his playstyle is quite unforgiving and not noob-friendly at all.
-
@chieftaco I personally love stealth and perks like Iron Will, it's just my playing style but I can acknowledge that it's not the ideal strategy and it's better to get good at chases. I think the point about encouraging bad habits is a valid one, which I hadn't really considered until now.
But I do think that it depends a lot on whether people are more interested in ranking up or in just having fun playing how they want to play, because some people are like me and don't really care if they're not playing optimally because they have fun with a particular build. That's why, when I have a friend that's new and asks who they should pick, I usually say to them something like, "Well, Dwight is good at teamwork, Meg is good at running away from the killer, Nea and Jake are both pretty good for stealth, Claudette is good at healing and Bill is good for clutch situations. So pick whichever one of those sounds most appealing to you."
-
@thesuicidefox I can see your points, though I disagree with most of them but that's mainly a matter of opinion. I think it's important for discussions like this, though, to get inside the new survivor mindset. WGLF is great for farming bloodpoints, if you use it. New players just aren't that bold most of the time. They do everything they possibly can to avoid taking hits, even to protect other people. Perks like urban and self-care are not necessarily meta perks, but they don't need to be. The point is they help new players to do the things that new players already do instinctively.
-
It can be very frustrating, and to an extent it is just bad luck that you're being matched with R14s at R20. But even though it's annoying it can help to think of it this way: you will lose constantly at first, but you will get better much faster by playing against people who are better than you because you're forced to learn to adapt.
-
@Marcus Yeah actually, didn't think too much about Meg but you're right. I figured Sprint Burst would be difficult but I remember maining Meg when I first started and as you say, because they don't usually sprint, new players usually only use it when they're actually being chased. Either that or they sprint the whole time because they don't know about scratch marks, or often they don't know about fast vaults or locker entries (NPs love lockers) giving away their location to the killer, which is where Q&Q comes in. And I actually think Adrenaline is quite good, because not only do you get a speed boost to those exit gates but new players tend to be very bad at avoiding being hit, so it can save their lives if they have two chances instead of one when running for an exit.
In short, there's a good reason that Meg, Claudette, Nea, Dwight and Jake were the survivors they designed for us back when everyone was a new player.
-
@thesuicidefox @chieftaco See my comment above. Take it up with the devs. Seriously, I don't know why you're complaining to me about the game design. I can't do anything to change it, all I can do is tell you what's in the rules and why it matters. Which I've done, several times, so... gonna stop before this gets too out of hand. Over and out.
-
I actually agree with @chieftaco about Dwight. He's basically designed to be easy for new players to pick up.
I usually recommend Nea to new players, or Claudette. Feng would probably be on that list if it weren't for the fact that she's not a base character, and most new players don't have or want DLC just yet. People who are new to the game are super paranoid about doing anything that might put them in danger. They like to hide, and they like to heal. David's perks are good but they're all about living on the edge - they don't suit the typical new-player playstyle. Urban evasion is great for learning how to stealth and evade the killer, and balanced landing, like lithe, is a good exhaustion perk which counters the deadly stagger that most new players don't plan ahead enough to avoid. Streetwise is meh, but not having to worry so much about consuming items is good for learning how to use them effectively. And Claudette obviously is just good for keeping yourself and your team in good health, which is always beneficial, especially since new players are terrible at evading while injured, what with all the moaning and blood.
-
The whole point of hex perks is high risk/high reward. Not saying this always works in practice, but in theory they're supposed to be some of the most powerful perks in the game, which is why they're vulnerable to being disabled. DH is arguably the most powerful hex perk when it works, which is why it takes time to get it to that stage. Making it unable to be cleansed prior to that point would make it way too OP.
@darktrix had it right. Think about it - what exactly is the difference between a DH that exposes survivors at the same time that it becomes able to be cleansed, and NOED, aside from the fact that exposed is only the beginning with DH, it can activate much earlier, and cannot be stopped in advance, all of which only serve to make it even more powerful?
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/660818#Comment_660818
It is the win condition as defined by the game. You do well you pip, you pip you win, you win you rank up.
If there was no pip system you can say anything is a win condition. It would be completely arbitrary.
The fact that some survivors can escape while others die means that you can't use kills/escapes as a measure of winning, because winning is binary. If a 4k is the only way a killer can win a game, then winning is near impossible at high ranks for killer.
Tell it to the devs, mate. They wrote the rules, not me.
@NuclearBurrito Case in point lol
-
@PigNRun I agree, which is why I think that allowing survivors to see who the killer is in advance is a bad idea. At this point I'm thinking that it would be best to just implement a better system for punishing people who dodge on the basis of their opponent's build, killers and survivors alike.
-
@NuclearBurrito I think we should quit while we're ahead, honestly. His argument boils down to such a firm belief that pipping ought to be the win condition that he's managed to genuinely convince himself that it's the reality of the game design, to the point of ignoring the game rules themselves. It's really quite impressive, on one level. But it's also pretty clear that no amount of actual reasoning is going to make a difference.
-
@thesuicidefox I'm sorry... but you're just wrong. That's not what the pip is designed to be. That's not what the rules define as the win condition. You can define your personal goal as a pip, that's fine, but don't pretend that that's the win condition defined by the game.
The fact that the pip system exists does not in any way render the win conditions obsolete. The only thing that "the fact that you can die and still pip or 4k and still depip" proves is that winning the game is not directly tied to ranking up. Call it a design flaw if you will, but at worst that's all it is. Doesn't change the reality that the win condition, as defined in the rules of the game, which is the only place it can be objectively defined, is escaping or killing. (And before you start saying that that doesn't count because it doesn't say "win", a "goal" in the context of a game's rules is the same thing as a win condition. Only someone with limited English comprehension could seriously argue otherwise.)
I'll say it for the last time: your conflation of winning and pipping is, at best, a reflection of your personal goals, and at worst an assumption and a logical fallacy on your part. As you put it:
Play well = pip =/= win. Play poorly = depip =/= loss.
-
@Mochan said:
If they do make dedicated servers, the question is: is it going to be global and per region?
If they just have dedicated servers in NA that pretty much kills the game for me, time to move on.
If it helps, I believe they're going to release the final list of server locations some time in the next couple of weeks. The most recent information we have is that there will be servers in the following locations:
- US East (Ohio)
- US West (N. California)
- South America (São Paulo)
- EU (London)
- EU (Frankfurt)
- Asia Pacific (Singapore)
- Asia Pacific (Seoul)
- Asia Pacific (Tokyo)
-
@Cardgrey It's not really about ping. Both survivors and killers have that information from the get-go, and the option to dodge the lobby on that basis, so that's a non-issue. The problem is that killers are able to dodge lobbies when they come up against a build (that is, the survivor's item, and their appearance, which usually gives some information about their playstyle and possible perks) that they don't feel like playing against, when survivors simply don't have that luxury.
-
@NuclearBurrito He won't because there isn't one. He's conflating the two because he assumes (not unreasonably, to be fair) that playing well ought to result in a win. His mistake is in the leap of logic he's made on that basis that the measure of a player's abilities (pip system) must therefore be the win condition.
-
@thesuicidefox You can play well without winning, because sometimes your opponent plays even better, or in the case of survivors, you get screwed over by your allies. Because of the way the emblem system works, fulfilling the win condition is only worth a maximum of two points as far as rank goes. That's why you can rank up and still die.
You may think that the ranking system ought to reflect fulfillment of win conditions more heavily, or argue that it's a flaw in the game design. That's fine, but it doesn't change what the win condition actually is, as defined in the game rules.
If you want to talk about how many survivors the killer needs to kill in order to "win", or whether a "win" for survivors is about personally escaping or about the whole or majority of the team escaping, I'll agree that's a bit of a grey area as far as the rules go. We can talk about that if you like. But pips still have nothing to do with it.
-
@chieftaco Okay, I'll try one more time, since it seems like you're asking a genuine question.
Let's assume that escaping is, in fact, how survivors "win", and I'll explain why that isn't always reflected in the bloodpoint score. While pipping may seem like an indicator of whether or not you won the game, it's actually an indicator of how well you played. It's easy to conflate "winning" and "playing well", since the former is often (but not always) the result of the latter, but they are not actually the same thing and it's important to be able to distinguish between the two.
There are two reasons that playing well is not always the same as winning in the case of Dead by Daylight. Firstly, because the survivors are competing with the killer, which means their goals are in direct conflict. The survivors want to escape, the killer wants to prevent them from escaping by killing them. Secondly, because the survivors are, to some degree, working together, which means that their odds of winning are increased if they can work together effectively.
It is possible for a survivor to play very well - loop well, evade the killer, unhook smartly, complete generators, etc. and still not meet the win condition of escape. They lose the game, but still pip because they played well - either the killer just played better, or their teammates let them down in some way. Similarly, it is possible for a survivor to play very badly - get downed a lot, not complete objectives, accidentally get teammates caught, etc. but still escape, either because the killer played badly or because they were carried by the other survivors. Thus, you can play skillfully without winning, and vice versa. And this is the case with all competitive and/or team-based games.
Another way of looking at it, if you want to link the two, is that the Unbroken emblem is your victory definer. If it's gold or iridescent, you won. If it's silver or lower, you lost.
-
@Warlock_2020 I think the frustration is more that people are trying to pretend that having fun is, objectively, the same thing as winning. It's fine to play casually, it's fine to aim for personal goals, it's fine to just want to have fun or to not care about the win condition. But that doesn't mean there isn't one.
Honestly, I think the main point of confusion is the ambiguity around the word "you" in the OP. A lot of people seem to have interpreted it to mean what personally makes them feel like they've won, but it could also be interpreted as how does "one" define the win condition, objectively, which is the point NuclearBurrito is arguing if I'm not mistaken.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/660726#Comment_660726
Nothing here says "x = win" though. It tells you what you need to do to EARN the win, but it doesn't explicitly say that killing survivors or escaping will give you a win.
No, but it does say that escaping is the survivors' "goal", which in the context of a competitive game is the same as the "objective of the game" or the "win condition". I should clarify, though, that the goal is only synonymous with the win condition in this context because the wincon is defined by the official rules of the game. Personal goals which deviate from this are therefore irrelevant.
Pipping is not a win condition, it is a measure of skill. You're conflating the two because typically, the more skilled you are, the more likely you are to win. But in a competitive game, especially one with teams, this isn't necessarily the case. You can play really well (in DBD, this is typically represented by a pip) and still lose (die), because your teammates played badly or your opponent simply played better. Similarly, you can play badly (depip) but still fulfill the win condition (escape), if your opponent also plays badly or your team carries you to victory. There's nothing wrong with caring more about pipping than about escaping. But to pretend that it's a game-defined win condition rather than a personal goal is simply untrue.
-
@chieftaco I'm honestly not sure if @NuclearBurrito's point went totally over your head or you're just being pendantic so you can one-up them just to prove you're right about something.
No one is pretending that there isn't cooperation in DBD. But two teams competing with each other is still a competitive game, even though the teams are cooperating within themselves. League of Legends is a competitive game, not a cooperative one, because each team has a goal which is in direct conflict with the other. Thus, they are in competition. A cooperative game is not one that includes teams, but one in which all players are working towards the same goal. DBD does not fall into that category.
What a lot of people on this thread don't seem to understand is (a) there is a distinction to be made between game objectives and personal objectives, and (b) winning and having fun are not mutually exclusive, they're just not the same thing.
-
@NuclearBurrito said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/660658#Comment_660658
I'm not contesting this.
All I'm doing is pointing out what other changes would need to be made for it to work properly.
Sorry, I didn't mean to come across like I was challenging you, I was mainly just continuing the discussion. That said, I realise I didn't quite understand your earlier point - am I correct in my current understanding that what you're saying is if killers weren't able to adapt their loadouts, there would need to be changes made to perks like FD which are rendered completely useless with certain survivor builds (or lack thereof)?
-
Honestly, the only reason I don't like the sound of this is because I just hate timed rewards in games. I always feel like I'm wasting it or missing out if I'm not making use of it every second it's active. But that's just me. There's nothing inherently wrong with them, except perhaps that they encourage unhealthy lifestyle habits, lol.
Personally, what I would really like is either a large amount of shards for each level (maybe 5k or so) or a passive booster which increases with every devotion level, like an extra 50 shards per player level or something. So if at Devotion 0 you get 150 shards for each level, at Devotion 1 you would get 200.
-
@Objectively_speaking So essentially what you're suggesting is that killers be unable to see survivors pregame, but survivors should also not be able to see killer offerings so they can't preemptively dodge a mori? Sounds fair, that's certainly one solution.
-
@twentybearasses Yeah, I don't have a problem with them getting that information in advance and being able to adapt to it, or even choose not to play against it. But I do think it's a problem that by the time survivors get that information (killer power/perk implications) it's too late for them to make that decision without being penalised.
-
@Mochan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/660588#Comment_660588
The big issue here, is that often it's hard to even use an item because the killer will just bring Franklin's to screw you over. The last three times I brought a map into the lobby the Killer had Franklin's on (not sure why everyone's so afraid of Rainbow Map and Crystal Bead?)
If you bring a key get ready to get tunneled all game on top of the Franklin's.
This is not fair, nor good game design. It just discourages survivors from using items.
Yeah, that's a good point. It goes both ways.
-
@NuclearBurrito As I've said, I understand the benefits of allowing killers to adapt their loadout, and I don't really have a problem with that. But adapting is different to just dodging the lobby, and I feel that if killers can leave just because they decide they don't want to play against a particular build, it's not fair for survivors to not have that same chance. There may be a solution I haven't thought of yet, but the only ones I have brought up so far are that neither killers nor survivors get punished for the above (which is a bad idea considering other problems with dcs), or they receive the same amount of information about each other in the pregame lobby - that is, none (which is also a bad idea considering what you've mentioned), or they both get punished equally somehow, which is what I'm currently leaning towards.
-
@LordGlint Everything is the killer's fault. Screw you for not just standing there and letting me escape.
-
@TrueKn1ghtmar3 I did not realise that, mostly because there was no real evidence for it. With all respect, that seems like an assumption you're making. However, I can certainly agree that toxic SWFs give all the others a bad name. But at the same time, a lot of killers tend to assume that a team of solo survivors who happen to be well-coordinated must be SWF, especially if at least one of them is toxic, when that's actually not the case far more often than most people would think.
Honestly, I think killers dodging SWF is just as unsportsmanlike as survivors dodging powerful or unfun killers, which is the point a lot of those complaining was trying to make, and it's a perfectly valid one. Obviously that's discounting a lot of the other issues with dc'ing ingame, which is why I made this thread, to brainstorm ways to bridge that gap.
-
@LordGlint Survivor main here. If someone has 300 ping in the lobby and still chooses to play the game, that's totally on him and he has nothing to complain about. If you have good ping in the lobby and then your wifi starts acting up mid-game, that's more of a cause for complaint, although everyone has net problems once in a while and most reasonable survivors will recognise that it's not always the killer's fault. A simple "sorry about the lag, guys" in EGC can go a long way in that situation :) And, as you say, hopefully soon none of us will have to worry about this issue at all... or at least we can stop blaming each other for it.
-
@thekiller490490 Yeah, I can see how it's a good thing in terms of balance for the killer to be able to prepare for the match, but at the same time it doesn't seem fair that killers are able to dodge SWF or toolboxes or just generally builds they don't want to play against, but because survivors don't have that same information early on it's a bannable offence for them to dodge moris and iridescent hatchets and whatever other builds they might not want to play against.
Perhaps the solution is just to implement a new punishment system for lobby dodging and dcs, though obviously not until after dedicated servers have been figured out and ping is no longer an issue. I understand there are good reasons for punishing dcs so heavily, but I feel like maybe "dodge" dcs should be treated more like lobby dodges. Maybe if you dodge a lobby or dc during loading or during the first 1-2 minutes of a match, you get punished by not being able to queue again for a certain amount of time, but dc'ing after the last generator is powered (for either killers or survivors), or when you're hooked, carried or downed (for survivors), carries a heavier, bannable penalty. Obviously there would have to be adjustments to the ranking system to ensure the other players don't lose pips in that case. I don't know, I'm sure it has a lot of flaws. Just the first idea that came to mind.
Thanks for responding politely and reasonably instead of getting triggered, I feared the worst for this thread so I appreciate it :)
-
Well, supposedly dedicated servers will improve the ping issue. That's one of the main reasons they're doing it.
Matchmaking is something that people have been complaining about for ages, and I'd be surprised if it's not something the devs are already working on fixing, because it's actually a pretty important issue that affects everyone. They're constantly tweaking the ranking system, so it seems like they're already taking steps in that direction.
As for the queue times... they suck, but they're not directly the fault of the devs, except perhaps that they've apparently made survivor and killer too equally balanced in terms of playability, which is pretty funny. Just from looking at the forums, it seems like the survivor/killer main split is roughly 50/50, but for optimal queue times it ought to be more like 80/20. Kind of throws all the "If you don't fix killer no one will play it and your game will dieeeee" complaints into a whole new light, doesn't it? But that's a whole other discussion.
-
@MasterManMike I understand what you're saying, and why you're saying it. But getting hooked is both a triumph for the killer and a failure on the survivor's part. While it's true that the survivors' ultimate objective is to escape the match, there's a reason that there's a whole emblem devoted to evading the killer and not being downed - because it's an essential part of that objective. And while whether or not they are able to be rescued once hooked is outside the survivor's control, whether or not they are in a position to get hooked in the first place is very much within their control.
Again, just to be clear: getting camped is not the survivor's fault. Getting hooked is.
Yes, it sucks to get only one chance to survive instead of three. But it's illogical to insist that survivors should be compensated for it, unless you're also proposing that survivors should receive equal compensation in situations where their teammates choose to do generators instead of saving them, or are prevented from doing so because they are being chased, or leave them behind when they escape.
I suspect that the real reason you want survivors to be compensated in this situation specifically is not because you think survivors are entitled to 2 or 3 hooks before they die, but because facecamping just feels particularly unfair.
-
@MasterManMike said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/656914#Comment_656914
The killer is already docked points for camping lol. Not talking about giving out double pips, just whatever percentage of points they lose from the sacrifice category (because that's the category they lose it from) and doubling it and giving it to the survivor in their survival category.
The idea is to give those players a black pip, not a pip or double.
Also, I say this because despite being in purple ranks, I keep getting put with yellow rank killers and survivors while playing solo. and thus, getting camped, it sucks losing pips because of a crappy matchmaking system and a killer who thinks that camping is a good idea.
I see, I thought that by pip-points you meant pips, not emblem points. However, I still maintain that it's not a good idea to reward survivors for essentially failing in their objective.
-
So you're proposing that the killer be artificially docked points just for camping, or just that if the killer doesn't do well, the camped survivor receives either no pip or a double pip?
While I agree that camping is the worst and it sucks to be on the receiving end of it, double pips are for people who play really well, and if you think about it the survivor has already failed by allowing themselves to be hooked. They shouldn't be rewarded for that. It is possible to pip even if you get camped, if you played well enough beforehand.
If you're constantly getting facecamped at low ranks (because that's really the only place it happens consistently), it's fair enough to want to rank up to escape that, but the best way to rank up is to improve your skills. If you get boosted to a higher rank for reasons that have nothing to do with your skill level, all that's going to happen is you won't be good enough to stay at that rank and you'll depip back down anyway.
-
@Seanzu said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/656902#Comment_656902
Yea it's my favourite thing, honestly.
and then you'll show them screenshots of like, a game where you decimate with a "weaker" killer and just say you're playing against randoms.
I think these people think Tru3 only gets matched up with elite teams of 4 or something, his games are somehow more relevant than everyone elses at rank 1.
Of course. Tru3, like all streamers, is a perfect player who knows everything. The hierarchy goes ordinary players < developers < streamers. His skills transcend the game itself - if they fail, the game is at fault.
-
@Seanzu said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/656874#Comment_656874
Hes playing the strongest killer, on the strongest map, and finds someone in the basement and it takes him another minute and 15 seconds to down someone after losing them out of the basement, he then camps the basement area and moris someone off the hook.
this is an example of terrible gameplay and has absolutely proved nothing.
Thank you. That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Although, I'm starting to think we're wasting our time - this thread isn't for discussion, it's for OP and his friends to insult and stonewall anyone who disagrees with them.
-
@immortalls96 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/656854#Comment_656854
O pressure when he inflicted two injuries and a down in that span of time..?
Correct. We could be charitable and say that he inflicted only a very small amount of pressure by disrupting one survivor's generator progress, but he completely ignored most of the map and the survivors, and then acted surprised because they were able to complete generators quickly when left completely undisturbed.
Also, while it's true that most killers aren't as well-equipped to deal with gen rushing as Nurse, the fact that he was not using Nurse to anything like her full potential to try and prevent it says more about his ineptitude than it does about the game balance.
-
Honestly the only thing this video proves is that streamers are not the infallible gods that an alarming number of players seem to treat them as.
-
@Spiritbx said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/655374#Comment_655374
Someone posted something with gen speed math, i dont remember where though.
The gist of it was that even with just 3 people doing gens, assuming the killer is always chasing someone, it takes something like 3-4 mins to complete all gens and escape.
The only reason a game should last longer than 5 mins is if the killer is a good nurse, or if the survivors play badly.
The flow is 100% set by survivors, the killer has very little power to do anything to change it, especially is survivors are good and are in discord.
Except that's not taking into account survivors who work two people to a generator, which is less efficient, or the time taken to traverse the map looking for generators to do, or the time survivors spend hiding instead of doing gens because the killer is nearby, or survivors who stop doing generators to go and save their teammates, or the generator regression if the killer breaks a gen while that survivor is hiding or unhooking, etcetera etcetera. The only reason a game should last less than 5 minutes is if all four survivors play perfectly, or if the killer is playing badly.
-
@StupidButTru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/655382#Comment_655382
I'm sorry I didn't know my place, I will go online now and allow the killer to kill me. Forgive me for my tresgression.
I am not worthy of wielding such power. You'll have to ask forgiveness from a streamer.
-
@StupidButTru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/655374#Comment_655374
this guy literally just tries to tell people they're wrong and need to watch streamers to see proof as if we ourselves don't play the ######### game.
Nah mate streamers are the only people worth listening to, for they are the mighty wolves and we are mere sheep. Also they know everything because they have the devs on speed dial.
-
@immortalls96 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/655346#Comment_655346
Hm..I only mentioned it because he said nobody talked of gen speeds till recently which is simply not true..anything else?
No, I've made my point, and I'm not interested in derailing this thread any further. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that "anything else" was simply a polite invitation to continue the discussion, even though I suspect that's not the case.
-
@lynelmane said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/617886#Comment_617886
This is actually kind of offensive considering it's not like i've been playing for a long time. I've literally owned the game for no more than 2 weeks and i'm not the best. Somehow I rank up faster than I get better so I get matched with people who are much better than me. It should be harder to rank up IMO, but that's another discussion.
The ranking system should match players with killers based on the swf's highest ranked player of that group, not the lowest. It's not exactly about skill compared to rank, it's about similarity in rank.
I agree with you that the matchmaking system is not good and needs improvement (although if I had to guess I'd say that was probably a SWF team hosted by the rank 14).
However, and I hope this doesn't come across harsh, but @aurum_exe was honestly doing you a favour by pointing that stuff out, and it would be in your best interests to accept the advice without getting offended by the implication that you're not good at the game. Of course you're not good, you've only been playing two weeks. And that's okay. But their advice is good - ranks don't matter that much. Work on improving your skills as a killer and being matched against high-ranked survivors won't end up bothering you as much. Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.
Yes, the system sucks. But as long as it sucks, we have to learn to work around it. And honestly, even if it's hard at first, you'll get better much faster by playing against people that are better than you.
-
The funny thing about ranks is that they're supposed to be a general reflection of a player's relative skill level just for matchmaking purposes, but they don't even do that very well. I can understand not having rank rewards if ranks are meant purely for matchmaking, not as a kind of achievement, but if that were the case having rank progress be hidden would probably be a better idea.
From the way they've built the rank system in terms of the user experience, people are encouraged to see it as a challenge or achievement, which makes it odd that there is no real reward for ranking up. I can only conclude that it's simply not a priority for the devs at the moment, which, considering the amount of "stop adding gimmicks and fix your broken game" comments they're constantly dealing with, is in some ways fair enough.
-
@immortalls96 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/655333#Comment_655333
I'm very aware..I just know the numbers..seen the times recorded, have experimented with many different things....data means I know the facts...far from anecdotal my friend..anything else ?
My point is if you're trying to prove that you have the numbers, you should support your argument with numbers rather than using your own or others' personal experience as you did, which is the definition of anecdotal evidence. I wouldn't even have pointed it out if you hadn't been so scathing of "anecdotal nonsense" in your earlier comment.