Firellius
Firellius
About
- Username
- Firellius
- Joined
- Visits
- 17,210
- Last Active
Comments
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3972079#Comment_3972079
According to BHVR, 4 mans have a 48.2% win rate at experienced levels, not 36%. You're likely pulling from newcomer numbers which yes, killers will dominate at that level - new survivors don't know how to loop and such. You're attempting to skew the numbers by providing numbers where people don't even know how to play yet. "High MMR" doesn't mean professional grade. It's actually very easy to get to "High MMR". High MMR just essentially means a level where everyone is generally experienced. Again, the ~48% are the published official stat numbers from BHVR themselves. As for kill rates, that's because that's how BHVR balances the game. They've clarified this numerous times - survivors are not a team. Otherwise, they would all win\lose\tie together. Their entire balance system is entirely around kill rates and personal survivor escapes. Complain to them, not me. That's just how the game is designed. My numbers are based on the reality of DBD, not how DBD should be in theory according to your preference. If 2 survivors die and 2 escape, which of those 4 survivors did the killer tie with exactly? Did he tie with survivor 1 who died, survivor 2 who died, survivor 3 who escaped, or survivor 4 who escapes? That's right, there are no ties. I don't know how many times BHVR has to clarify this for you to understand - I'm starting to ponder if you're just pulling my leg at this point. Not taking my word for it is one thing, but entirely disregarding BHVR's own statements about how the game is designed is something else. It's 1 killer vs 4 individual survivors that each have their own win condition.
You and I will never see eye to eye on this. My statements are about how the game IS. Your statements are how you (and frankly me too) wish the game was - a team vs team game. However, it's fruitless for me to come here and start making statements and balance about how it would be as a team game when the reality is that it simply is not, so I accept the reality of how DBD is and post accordingly until BHVR abandons the design philosophy that each survivor is their own personal "team" with their own personal win condition.
I am ENTIRELY on board shifting the game to a team vs team game. That allows for ties, and allows for survivors to get balanced around a higher win rate (~43% chance to escape per survivor) which also puts the killer at ~50% win rate. Entirely and totally on board. However, BHVR simply is not.
EDIT - Reference for BHVR's official escape rate stats. Your 36% is nowhere to be seen. You can ignore the reality of how DBD is. I prefer not to. No reason to get upset with me for showing the inconvenient truth of the matter. Get angry at BHVR, not me.
Your 36% is nowhere to be seen.
That's because the statistic that @AmpersandUnderscore is referencing is not tracked in that table. Read their post before you start your counterargument.
The table you show is the escape rate for the individual survivors that are part of a team of a certain size. AmpersandUnderscore was referencing the proportion of match outcomes where one or fewer survivors got sacrificed at the end of the game. Those are two different things.
48.2% escape rate for each individual member of a 4 man swiffer at high MMR =/= 36% of all matches end with one or fewer survivors killed.
They're two different statistics.
My statements are about how the game IS.
Your 'maths' are so far off the mark of what DBD is that you might as well be yapping about the winrate on Meowscles or Cernunnos, or how likely you are to complete the mission if you bring in the Eagle Strafe Run stratagem.
You consider absolutely zero of the factors that contribute to DBD's outcomes. You have simplified it down so far that you're not talking about DBD anymore. That's what everyone is explaining to you, but you keep digging your heels in and clinging tighter. Somehow, when people clearly and concisely explain your mistake to you, you are simply more convinced that you are correct.
Like you process none of the information presented to you.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3971912#Comment_3971912
We can't ignore math because it's inconvenient. It's the hard truth, and ignoring that is unproductive.
That being said, in a fair game, you are absolutely correct - we would be looking at a roughly 43% escape rate, and I STRONGLY encourage the devs to at LEAST experiment with leaving behind the notion of balancing the game around 4 individual survivors each with their own win condition and instead shift it to a survivor team (who all wins/ties/loses together) vs the killer. That would actually allow for ties, and in turn bring up the balanced escape rate to ~43%. Until then, the balance is a mess and not a fair game.
We can't ignore math because it's inconvenient. It's the hard truth, and ignoring that is unproductive.
Unproductive?
How about you listen to anyone else on the subject of the relation between killrates and winrates for once, so we can put that divorced-from-reality scale model of yours to rest for good?
Because constantly harping on about how .5^4 =/= .5 is simply not relevant to any discussion regarding winrates.
DBD is not a perfect mathematical engine. So stop insisting on it.
-
@TimberGoingDown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3970221#Comment_3970221
That's a mighty fine strawman you've got there.
I never said tunneling and slugging were "busted." I said that they were more integral to killers playing well than MfT was to survivors playing well. If BHVR goes overboard and just basically deletes every comeback mechanic that killers have, you'll see them just afk'ing after one bad chase. Because after one bad chase, you might as well throw in the towel if you can't reasonably pressure survivors anymore.
I never said tunneling and slugging were "busted." I said that they were more integral to killers playing well than MfT was to survivors playing well.
That is literally just a euphemism for the exact same thing! In both cases, you're describing a gap between normal results and the results attained by using that particular tool. You're insisting that the gap was less wide in MFT's case. And MFT was considered obscene.
Because after one bad chase, you might as well throw in the towel if you can't reasonably pressure survivors anymore.
The reason you're losing 200 in a row isn't anything to do with non-tunnelling/camping being supposedly non-viable. Your own skill as a killer is a part of this equation, and it's one that's been omitted because it could always be supplanted by just using these incredibly simple 'tactics' for instant results.
Everyone worth their salt knows that the killer is stronger in the lategame when the playing field shrinks and resources run out, but you want to quit because you don't instantly win on first chase.
-
@TimberGoingDown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3969925#Comment_3969925
"If the matchmaking is that loose, why would they lose 200 matches in a row? Surely on plenty of occasions, they'd be matched with newbies to stomp?"
I'm sorry, but do you think occasionally winning matches against obviously bad players while losing the vast majority of the time is fun?
And it's not the same as a new toy. The difference between the game now and forced 12 hooking is a lot wider than Made For This.
We're not bleeding survivor players, though. Killer queues only ever get bad during events or new releases. Right now, I'm back to short queues and even had x1.5 BP bonus at like 8 pm last night.
I'm sorry, but do you think occasionally winning matches against obviously bad players while losing the vast majority of the time is fun?
I mean, that's kinda where survivor is at, but slightly worse because you can easily lose, even against bad players, due to the tactics that are the subject of this thread…
But also, it wouldn't even need to be a 'vast majority'. You could even keep a positive winrate while still declining in MMR. Remember that the way your MMR shifts is also based on the distance between you and your opponent. So if you win against lowbies, and then lose against lowbies, your MMR will overall still go down, even if that's a 50% winrate.
And it's not the same as a new toy. The difference between the game now and forced 12 hooking is a lot wider than Made For This.
You mean that tunnelling, camping and slugging are -significantly- more broken than Made For This was?
And that's an argument to KEEP IT!?
Killer queues only ever get bad during events or new releases.
That's still a problem though. It's supposed to grow the community and it's getting stunted because no one wants to play survivor!
-
@TimberGoingDown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3969095#Comment_3969095
"Yes, they will drop in MMR. That is actually a huge benefit of this for killers. Assuming the anti-tunnel mechanic actually does something meaningful for tunneling at 5 gens, instead of sweating their balls off every game to feel like they're drowning against survivors who are more skilled than they are… they should lose games until they settle into their actual MMR bracket."
You do realize that this would singlehandedly kill the game, right? Do you know how many games you would need to lose in a row to "settle into their actual MMR bracket?" Dozens. Maybe Hundreds. Do you honestly think that anyone is going to sit down and lose 200 games in a row? Really? That's weeks or even months of just straight losing. If that's the route Behavior takes, people will just quit in droves and the game will die. Killers will quit because the game is a miserable slog where you just get destroyed every match and then tbagged at the gates, and then survivors will quit when queue times start hitting the double digits during peak hours and even longer during off hours. People are complaining NOW about 2-3 minute killer queues. Imagine if every survivor had to wait 15 minutes to get into a match. 20 minutes.
No, if BHVR actually wants to get people to their "non-tunnel" MMR, then they should reset everyone's MMR back to 0, then let the chips fall where they may.
EDIT: Not only that, but with how loose matchmaking is in this game, MMR might as well not even exist. Just saying. I'll backfill into four baby survivors one match, then a comp team the next. MMR is basically worthless.
If the matchmaking is that loose, why would they lose 200 matches in a row? Surely on plenty of occasions, they'd be matched with newbies to stomp?
Besides, it's not like this isn't a common occurrence. Any time an overpowered tool gets added in, people use it to inflate their winrate, then it gets balanced, and they lose their toy and have to tumble back down the MMR ladder. It's nothing folks can't handle.
Also…
People are complaining NOW about 2-3 minute killer queues. Imagine if every survivor had to wait 15 minutes to get into a match. 20 minutes.
The alternative is bleeding away more survivor players and making those killer queues go up to 15+ minutes. Some adjustment is needed.
-
@SpringMyTrap said:
the replies to the thread are such a clueless circle jerk lol
these people unironically thinking the game will become better if they just massively nerf killer's macro skillcap like this and let it be and pat each other on heads for saying how silly killers dare demand alternatives for whole strategies devs plan to effectively make useless
they dont realize that this is going to play out exactly as mandy said then - people will drop in mmr and will end up in lobbies where they can play without optimizing hooks and pressure.
anyone with at least a bit of experience should know how fast chases in such lobbies can be xd
this is gonna be fun for people who enjoy noobstomping and cheap ego validation, regardless of the role, everyone gonna get their piece
these people unironically thinking the game will become better if they just massively nerf killer's macro skillcap like this
Camping, tunnelling and slugging are at the bottom end of the skill bracket, not at the cap.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3961814#Comment_3961814
You don't think:
- Anti-camp
- Anti-tunnel
- Anti-slug
- Anti-go next
Are not part of that?
I don't have high hopes.
Mandy all but confirmed that these systems will be designed in such a way that they won't obstruct these tactics much, if at all. They've been taking on every killer talking point, which means I consider it more likely that we'll see a nerf to anti-tunnel than a new anti-tunnel system that actually works.
BHVR could always surprise us, but…
-
@Digfish said:
There used to be perks that gave bonus Bloodpoints. Most notable were Barbecue for killer and We're Going to Live Forever for survivor.
This lead to those being the most used perks in the game on either side by a lot. So the devs decided to remove BP rewards from all perks and build in higher BP totals to the actual games. This was mainly to disincentivize people from using a perk solely for BP. A lot of people felt like they had to run those perks, or they would be missing out. This freed them up to try other, more useful, perks in their builds.
So while I'm always happy to get more bloodpoints, I do agree that tying them to perks is a generally bad idea. It distorts the meta and can make games a bit boring. The only good thing about it was the way Barbecue worked did incentivize people to tunnel less, though how much that actually impacted in practice was debatable.
I disagree with WGLF and BBQ being bad ideas. I think losing them was honestly, subtly, some of the biggest damage done by 6.1.
These perks had secondary conditions that increased BP gain, which wasn't just good for the BP gain, it was good because it added a win condition that wasn't contingent on the other party losing. Got 4E'd? Doesn't matter if you have 4 stacks of BBQ. Got killed? Doesn't matter if you got your 4 stacks of WGLF.
This made the entire game feel so much better to play, taking a lot of pressure off and boosting morale, and these alternative 'victories' absolutely have to make a comeback.
-
@ShanoaLegendaryPlz said:
So id say the broken aspect is worth it for sables invocation as its like bringing 8 brand new parts, for the price of the person having to be stealthy (and probly use an injured genrush build). Its like a survivor bringing a 1 use bomb against the killer that can't get rid of the effect once its used.
Meanwhile tauries invocation is like splashing water at the killers face while becoming exposed for the rest of the round as it barely does anything productive. Ive had 1 round where it helped some people loop the killer longer and escape but of course i was alredy dead for it .
Either way both invocations are like a super weapon the survivors can bring out that can't be reversed at the cost of one person being more vulnerable in chase. So it seems fair enough to me so far
So id say the broken aspect is worth it for sables invocation as its like bringing 8 brand new parts, for the price of the person having to be stealthy (and probly use an injured genrush build).
You don't get the benefit from three of those though, and they can't stack like normal ones could. They're spread out, making them less impactful. The time it takes to undertake the ritual makes it flatly inefficient, as it's 60 seconds of work for 50 seconds of value. You're just wasting time and getting perma-broken on top.
Invocations just need to be scaled down, in both price and reward. High risk, high reward stuff is just a balancing nightmare and is never going to fly, either pissing off the killer players or ending up uselessly undertuned like they are now.
-
@StalkingYou said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3958006#Comment_3958006
Because one single match invalidates thousands of others and proves your point completely
Oh, sorry, is that a killer exclusive line of reasoning?
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3958159#Comment_3958159
I advise you to go back and search the forums (here and Steam) prior to this feature. Yes, you will find complaints about camping but will also find complaints about facecamping. It was still possible to stand in front of the hook with a one shot killer. Thus why complaints about facecamping were still thrown about.
You also said this thread was about anti-facecamp when the title says otherwise.
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3957755#Comment_3957755
because the "anti-camp" the Devs implemented was called "anti-facecamp". You can't complain the anti-facecamping system is not working against camping when the system wasn't designed around camping.
But people weren't asking for 'anti-facecamp'. They were asking for anti-camp.
The same happened in this thread. The person was complaining about the lack of anti-camp, it was very quickly pointed out that it never was anti-camp, and now you're saying 'it's what you asked for'?
It can't simultaneously be explicitly NOT what people asked for, and what people asked for.
-
@francesinhalover said:
Meanwhile a legion ps5 player doing 12 hooks without tunneling or camping with only 1 gen regress perk beat team invictus winstreak of 202? was it? matches.
That clearly means that team Invictus was not competent, since competent survivors are unbeatable.
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3957634#Comment_3957634
It was literally asked for and still is (look at the thread your posting to). People just don't like the way they did it.
That's funny, because this thread is talking about anti-camp, and the very first response is immediately pointing out that 'IT ISN'T ANTI-CAMP!'.
So how could it be what people, including those in this thread, asked for, when the very first reply is about how it very explicitly ISN'T what people asked for?
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3957537#Comment_3957537
So better question… has any suggestion or feedback from the suggestion and feedback part of the forum actually been used? Any examples?
Yes, mine.
Prestiging characters unlocking their teachable perks permanently across all other characters is something I suggested as a way to help future-proof the game. Couple months down the line, it was added in.
-
Problem with AFC is that literally no one asked for it, and no one cares about it. It was a complete waste of time.
-
@TimberGoingDown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3957032#Comment_3957032
I think the point is that there's a double standard in the community. The killer player is expected to take everyone else's feelings and fun into account, while survivors can use every trick and BM in the book and not catch any flak. The killer has a long list of things that they're not allowed to do because it's "unsportsmanlike," while survivors can do whatever they want.
while survivors can use every trick and BM in the book and not catch any flak.
That's not it.
The reason survivor BM isn't talked about much is because there's nothing to discuss. It'd be a bunch of people agreeing that it's bad, which makes for very poor conversation.
On the other hand, some folks are staunchly defending something that's bad for the game, which is why that gets far more flak. Disagreement creates far more conversation than agreement. It's why engagement-farming bots on twitter post the most asinine takes, as opposed to generally agreeable ones.
Regarding the topic at hand…
I do think that part of the problem with killer gameplay being seen as more stressful and frustrating is that there's no dynamism to it. On the survivor side, you have your tense moments with hiding (Or had, since that's been scaled back rather aggressively), then there's the action moments with active chases, and lastly, there's downtime. Healing someone or working on a gen are downtime, which allows you to process the rush of a chase and catch your breath. That way, when you next get into a chase, you are ready for the excitement.
Killers don't really have this, since they are always on the clock. They are either in a chase, or looking to start one. They don't get this downtime, and thus there's no dynamism to their gameplay. It's always high tension. And when it's always high tension, eventually the adrenaline fades and you're just left with frustration. I actually quite liked this about Texas Chain Saw Massacre's rendition of the killer role, since it had blood gathering as something killers could do that could resemble downtime. It added that variance in the gameplay that made it far more manageable.
As for how to fix it… It'd be quite invasive to the overall game structure, but I'd be more than game to try it. I think it'd be incredibly healthy for the game to give killers their own form of downtime, it just needs to include more than having survivors sitting in a locker, waiting for it to end.
Some side objective that allows the killer to block all gens until survivors do something on their end might be an option to explore. Something PvE to take the edge off and give killers a chance to relax a bit. I've always been frustrated that the glyphs were introduced and subsequently just never actually utilised…
-
IMO, map offerings from survivors should just ban a map, while the killer can still boost a map in full.
-
@PatchNoir said:
Idk if the perk is bugged (and if its disable it) but i am consistently getting trials that i hook the same person 5+ times and the survivor just doesnt die. On endgame chat there is always someone with shoulder the burden BUT during the trial NEVER ever happenned to someone get the yellow hook indicator.
So basically the perk is bugged and not showing indication on being used, or cheaters are using it as a escapegoat to get infinite hooks (like in the past they used to pick vigil to justify sprint bursting all game)
5+ hooks on one person with one StB on the team is not possible. Either it is critically bugged, or, more likely, you're dealing with a hacker.
If it is hackers, though, killswitching won't fix anything.
-
33% repair speed reduction, doubled, would increase gen times from 90 seconds to 272. Healing another survivor would take almost 50 seconds.
It'd be ridiculously overtuned, making the game progressively more unplayable with every hook, but as Ampersand mentions, it'd still just be a boost to tunnelling.
-
@UnicornMedal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3954434#Comment_3954434
While Survivor consistently gets the short end of the stick the last few years, I've never really gotten the sense that BHVR favors Killer per se.
Pretty much everything boils down to their fixation on matchmaking and their desire to make the game more competitive than it has any business being. The only issues are that more people are interested in Killer than Survivor now (rightfully so) and their latest comp initiative was a disaster, both of which greatly affect matchmaking. It seems like the pendulum is gonna swing soon.
While Survivor consistently gets the short end of the stick the last few years, I've never really gotten the sense that BHVR favors Killer per se.
I have.
But not in the sense that they're overly balancing to the benefit of killers. It's more subtle than that, like the way Invocations are designed to perfectly cater to what killers would want. Or the way that hiding became a hot topic for the design team the moment killers began to complain about it. Or the way anti-AFK/anti-go-next were initially tooled with little concern for false positives.
They seem to be more focused on killer complaints, though that may also be because the major survivor complaints took more time to address. It depends on what the anti-tunnel changes end up being.
-
@thrawn3054 said:
A radius increase would be a nice little buff to them. One possible idea would be to remove a killers ability to snuff them out unless they bring Shattered Hope.
That would be far too powerful, really. And I don't want killers to have to bring a perk on the off chance that survivors bring a boon. It's bad enough survivors have to do that with anti-tunnel stuff.
-
@UnicornMedal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3952815#Comment_3952815
A big issue too is cause and effect I think. We're always much more concerned with "if you do this, I have to defend myself". CoH was in the same category (I think) as perks like WGLF, BBQ, Devour Hope, or even Inner Strength. Not in the sense that the perk itself was the same, but in the sense that the objective changed the course of the trial and helped eliminate some of the complaints in an organic way. It could've been nerfed to just be group Self-Care and it'd still be beneficial toward that goal. But like you said, small thinking leads to removing things entirely versus maintaining variety and that only enforces stale metas that nobody enjoys.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3953176#Comment_3953176
This too. I don't know why we get lukewarm perks that are gassed up to be something really special and powerful when they clearly are not. Weaving Spiders has been a joke from day one. There are SOME clutch plays with it and at least it's more useful than Potential Energy, but it's poorly designed. Treacherous Crows is even worse. Invocations to me are sort of a repentance for Boons, which I find bizarre. Especially in a meta where Survivors could stand to be stronger without much of an impact.
Invocations to me are sort of a repentance for Boons, which I find bizarre.
I realised at some point that Invocations are designed entirely from a killer perspective, giving them everything they want.
- Survivor off gen for a long time
- Survivor in basement
- Survivor is permanently injured
And then the reward is laughable.
They are legitimately killer perks, not survivor perks.
-
"This is so unfair for killers!"
[Screenshot of 4K]
Why is this a whole trend by this point?
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3953323#Comment_3953323
I mean, you very much can stack the two up. If you spend the same amount of travel time in both scenarios, but on the other end of that travel time you get a heal that's twice as fast in the second scenario, the second scenario looks a lot better. That's kind of the whole point.
Obviously, it's a lot more nuanced than that, but in general that's the idea. You'd play around CoH actively, having to just crouch in the radius and hope someone sees you is the risk for solo queue specifically, it's not the default by any stretch. You would use it in scenarios where you don't have to cross the map to do it, and you get to be vulnerable for less time because the heal is twice as fast.
Plus, something easy to forget is that YOU don't have to be involved after the setup. If we assume you're survivor A, and the others are lettered how you'd expect, sure- it's easy to see the value when the heals are A+B, A+C, and A+D going in either direction. However, CoH is also very much pulling its weight and paying for itself for any combination of survivors B, C, and D healing each other, especially if they're both injured and need to reset which is the situation CoH shines in most.
I'm not saying it's far and away better than the two best healing perks, Botany and We'll Make It, but it IS alongside those two. They're the top three right now, with Resurgence sneaking in for fourth place. The difference is not value or efficiency, it's ease of use. If you play in solo queue, absolutely, Botany and We'll Make It - even Resurgence - would probably be a better pick, but that's not because they're stronger, or save more time, or because CoH is some secret detriment despite how it looks on paper, it's because they're much more consistent and reliable in solo queue specifically.
If you spend the same amount of travel time in both scenarios
Yeah, but that's the point. If you spend the same travel time, sure, CoH is able to recoup the initial investment, but CoH does tend to come with extra travel time which reduces its efficiency.
I'm not saying it's far and away better than the two best healing perks, Botany and We'll Make It, but it IS alongside those two. They're the top three right now, with Resurgence sneaking in for fourth place. The difference is not value or efficiency, it's ease of use. If you play in solo queue, absolutely, Botany and We'll Make It - even Resurgence - would probably be a better pick, but that's not because they're stronger, or save more time, or because CoH is some secret detriment despite how it looks on paper, it's because they're much more consistent and reliable
in solo queuespecifically.Yeah, I think with me being more of a solo queue player, that might be why I do not care much for it.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3953211#Comment_3953211
I think it's a mistake to assume that CoH was "designed for" heals like that just because it has an aura. To me, the reason for the aura being there is to smooth along its use in solo queue, more than to dictate how the perk should be used.
To me, the perk exists to make heals shorter, and to lessen the impact of travel time where it's necessary. That's pretty much it.
You're not wrong that the thing you'll want to do after the heal is a generator, but the scenario you're describing isn't any more efficient than using a nearby boon. Either you spend a little inefficiency to heal much quicker by undertaking a little travel time, or you spend a little inefficiency by running away from the gen you're next to once you're healed.
Or group up on the gen, I suppose, but that's also inefficient.
It's not as though you have to be standing on one spot on the other side of the map. Boons have a pretty healthy range and can be set up reasonably close to the action— there are plenty of spots the killer won't want to go out of their way to snuff a boon, especially since the prevailing opinion on boons is that none of them are worth being worried about. Sure, some of the larger maps can make that a bit questionable, but even the average sized maps are pretty easy to maintain a close by boon on.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3953216#Comment_3953216
Separately - I just don't want to double post to respond here too lol - what do you mean by "all the problems of a regular heal"? There being travel time on some heals isn't a problem, it's just how it is. You spend a little extra time to make sure you're safe when you heal, it's not an actual detriment to you. You're still getting healed, it's still more than worth doing.
Strict literal efficiency in generator seconds is very useful to keep in mind but it's not the only thing to keep in mind. You could forgo heals entirely by sticking on generators… but it's worth taking the hit to efficiency to have an extra health state. Making that hit shorter over the course of the match is, too, also very worth it.
what do you mean by "all the problems of a regular heal"?
To clarify, you mention that regular heals have their own bits of 'travel time' here and there, like moving away from the killer, or going into cover. But these aren't eliminated by CoH, so it's not like you can put these travel times up against the CoH travel time and have them cancel each other out. Even if you're in CoH's radius, you will still want to be in cover, and you will still want to move if the killer comes a bit too close.
Ultimately, I do think that Ampersand has the right of it in that the location restriction of CoH renders a lot of its benefit very situational or even null, and it actually makes it tricky to make good use of it, barring a few hideous spots involving verticality. A CoH in the middle of the action will get snuffed, and a CoH off on the corner of the map provides no benefit.
Yes, you're getting healed. But that's not a benefit that CoH offers, since the ability to heal others is basekit. You have to ultimately look at the numbers: How much time do you spend on setting up CoH and getting to it, versus how much time do you save on the heal?
And I think that, on average, other healing perks like Botany and Resurgence save more time than CoH does. It's also why Autodidact used to be terrible. It was really hard to even break even with that perk, let alone get more benefit than you'd get out of its competitors.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3953170#Comment_3953170
I don't know why you would assume every heal starts at a generator, that's a bit odd. That's definitely the scenario where CoH looks weakest - start at an objective, run away from the objective to heal, run back - but that's also pretty obviously not the only situation you'd be in, and I'd tentatively argue it's not even a common one.
For another example, unhooks. You unhook someone, you and that someone run to the boon and heal, you and that someone run away to separate generators. That's strictly speaking less efficient than healing under the hook, but healing under the hook is a risk and not something to be done every time anyway- it's not uncommon for there to be travel time associated with a post-unhook heal, so if we compare to any other heal with a travel time here, CoH is a massive bonus.
In addition, any other heal where there'd be travel time is relevant here. Any time you run a few tiles because the killer's a bit too close, or you'd want to be behind cover just in case, CoH is coming out neutral on average for travel time and thus looks very strong overall.
Hell, if you're in a SWF - and I will acknowledge this point is SWF only, this doesn't apply to solo queue - you can even coordinate meeting halfway in a boon, which is less travel time than one player going all the way to the other.
As for the blessing time, yes, that's a timesink, that's part of what balances having a zone of We'll Make It. Only one person has to do it, though, and if played smartly they only have to do it once. It's not a matter of whether or not "the heal" pays back that investment because there isn't just one heal and it isn't just for one player. This is part of why the perk's more consistent in SWF, but even a halfway competent team of solos will know to heal in the boon if it's close by, and every heal in the boon pays for the setup time.
As for your suggestion, if they made it so you couldn't speed up the self-heal that would've been fine too. The problem with CoH was always that you could gain massively fast self heals by bringing one or two extra tools, that's the part that needed to be fixed. Though, just being a zone of Self-Care only for people who brought the perk would've made it tremendously weaker than what we have now.
I don't know why you would assume every heal
startsat a generator, that's a bit odd. That's definitely the scenario where CoH looks weakest - start at an objective, runawayfrom the objective to heal, run back - but that's also pretty obviously not the only situation you'd be in, and I'd tentatively argue it's not even a common one.I think it's relatively common, really. If the killer moves to pressure the unhooker, the unhooked survivor has to find someone else to heal them. And they're most likely to find them at a generator.
In addition, any other heal where there'd be travel time is relevant here. Any time you run a few tiles because the killer's a bit too close, or you'd want to be behind cover just in case, CoH is coming out neutral on average for travel time and thus looks very strong overall.
The problem here is that it's not either/or. CoH has all the same problems as a regular heal, it just has one extra.
I do think that, overall, the travel time is underestimated and I don't think CoH is time efficient at all anymore.
-
@GeneralV said:
I think the problem with Boons basically boils down to CoH and how poorly that perk was handled after its release.
Because, even though the Boons have their niche uses, only CoH ever became part of the survivor meta. A meta that tends to suffer because, generally speaking, the DBD community is very hostile towards the survivor meta. The meta being dominated by the original iterations of Decisive Strike and Dead Hard was complained about, the DS + UB combo was complained about even in matches where it didn't have any use because the killer didn't tunnel or slug, Adrenaline was complained about even though it was not overpowered, and the list goes on.
CoH became meta and immediately it was complained about, and eventually the perk was nerfed. But the problem is that they nerfed it in the wrong way, because now this perk is gone from the meta entirely. It is my opinion, that a better way to handle CoH (and others if needed) was to keep the perk's original version but make it so that it can be permanently destroyed.
I am aware that this was suggested before, and many discussions happened, but I truly believe it is the best way to fix it. For instance, one of the arguments against it was the idea that Boons and Hexes are inherently different, which has its merits: hexes are active from the start of the match, but the killer cannot choose where to put them. Boons need to be manually activated, but the survivor gets to choose where it will be placed. Hexes tend to be stronger but are permanently destroyed, while Boons tend to be weaker but can be used over and over again.
The concept sounds good in theory, but in practice it creates a scenario where you can never make good Boon perks. Circle of Healing was not overpowered, but it had enough strength to warrant permanent destruction, and since Boons were never made to be permanently destroyed, the perk was nerfed into obscurity.
I believe the best way to fix Boons is by buffing them, but making it so that if the killer finds and destroys it, the perk is deactivated. You can even make the blessing action shorter to make it more fair, but I think that works better than leaving them in their mediocre state.
It is my opinion, that a better way to handle CoH (and others if needed) was to keep the perk's original version but make it so that it can be permanently destroyed.
I don't think that's a good idea, either.
I mentioned this in discussions about Invocations (Another perk type that's permanently ruined by standardisation), but the higher you make the stakes and risks for a perk, the higher its pay-off has to be. If you have a boon that requires you to find a totem, then spend 14 seconds blessing it, and then it is gone completely if the killer finds it and interacts with it for a second, that pay-off has to be -huge- to be worth considering.
Problem with that huge pay-off is that it's going to be very poorly received by the other side. Even if it is mathematically fair, plenty of people will feel unfairly disadvantaged by it.
I think it's a much better idea to think in smaller steps. Like giving it a cooldown upon the perk getting snuffed, ranging from 60-120 seconds, depending on the perk. You can even add a hindrance to the player that is tied to the boon, like Dark Theory giving you a 1% hinder, Shadow Step making you Oblivious, and CoH either giving you Mangled or Exposed.
-
@UnicornMedal said:
At the time, they felt very inappropriate. The game needed better balancing, not more objectives for Killer to have to balance. In the current state of the game, they really could use a lot of love though. I see no reason why old CoH couldn't make a comeback with how effective it was as a slowdown or why the others couldn't have a radius boost.
The reason the others can't have a radius boost is BHVR's annoying tendency towards standardisation. All boons must work as similar as possible, which means that the constraints applied to hold back CoH must also hinder Illuminate.
Boons should have individual statistics, including boon-time, radius, cooldown when snuffed, etc.
Just make it so picking up multiple boons sets them all to the worst parameters among those selected. Now you've got way more space to balance every individual boon.
-
@TimberGoingDown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3951838#Comment_3951838
I have literally never seen you post a killer sided take one time.
Jesterkind and I were on opposite sides of the Distortion changes. Take that how you will.
@TimberGoingDown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3951875#Comment_3951875
But they won't be changed. And you know they won't be changed. I think intangibility is a horrible idea. DH for Distance was removed from the game for a reason.
Those are not even close to comparable. Intangibility that is contingent on you -not- progressing the game is much, much weaker than being able to extend a loop with a button-press.
-
@SpringMyTrap said:
- All the distinct things are kinda not worth going for because optimal and generic&boring play is just this much more consistent
- Cameras are not worth it because there are plenty of other clues to go off anyway
- Doors are nice but people are figuring out prerunning with built-in clues and it's going to get worse
- Doors are kinda too good for gen control but the killer is overall too mid for that to be a problem
- Orbitals are unreasonably hard to go for even though they are the coolest part about him while zoning is too easy
https://youtu.be/RuFtGR99Cag?si=993CJLlLMKsD0DmI
I would add from myself that I think door grabs are way too random to really happen so survivors dont really feel like they need to be too strategic when using doors and there's just not much room for interaction there even though there could be a lovely dynamic if springtrap was fully aware when a door teleport happens.
I dont think this killer really needs big changes, though I would make door grabs much less reliable on a wild guess and more reliable on a position, i'd make his own teleport more telegraphed and Im definitely on with the idea of reducing holding speed and making hitbox bigger if you throw in an arc.
Orbitals are unreasonably hard to go for
Okay, but you can't really have consistent orbitals or he immediately becomes broken as hell. Being able to ignore obstacles is why Nurse is in her own tier and never coming down from there.
-
@SkeletalElite said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3951358#Comment_3951358
Hiding is important, but hiding too much is straight up a bad play. Yes, if the killer is between the hook and you, you might need to stealth, but that shouldn't take anywhere near the time it takes to get crows, much less the time it takes to get enough crows for noise notifications to reveal your location. You are "AFK" when you haven't done an action considered to contributing for 10 seconds. After than it takes 90 seconds to get 3 crows. This amount of time is lengthened when you are moving or near the killer, although I am not certain of the amount, in my experience even if you need to stealth to the hook, you are granted more than enough time as long as you were doing something meaningful before you came for the hook instead of running around like a headless chicken and while moving it takes at least 1 minute to get even a single crow above your head. By the time you get a single crow, the survivor on the hook will be nearly dead if you started going to the hook the instant they got hooked in that time frame, that is far too much time doing nothing. Currently the system is a little too punishing under certain very specific circumstances mostly related to perk and killer power interactions, but in most cases it works perfectly.
As for slugging for the 4k, I frankly do not care. The game considers hatch escapes to be "draws", and I consider a match a loss whether my team got 3kd or 4kd so I really do not care what happens at that point in the game.
This amount of time is lengthened when you are moving or near the killer, although I am not certain of the amount
It's 50% slower accumulation, though I, for my part, don't know the range in which it checks for the killer's presence.
Though it should also be considered that long sightlines can still make it important to be patient and sneak. If you're trying to go for the rescue, even if the killer is on the other side of the map, if they spot you, your rescue is bust. So you need to wait for an opening to go for a safe unhook.
By the time you get a single crow, the survivor on the hook will be nearly dead if you started going to the hook the instant they got hooked in that time frame
It's 40 seconds to get the first crow, and 70 seconds for a hookstate. But also, this is missing situational context. If I finish a gen and am halfway towards another gen when I decide to go for the unhook, I've already accumulated 'AFK time' when I start heading for the hook. Even if I arrive at the hook with 50 seconds on the hookstage left to spare, I could get there with an AFK crow yapping over my head.
Because that's also a problem with this system; it doesn't allow you to change your mind. You can't be on the way to one gen, then see a gen in another area get popped, and then decide you should be going for a different gen because otherwise you'll 3-gen your team. That's flagged as going AFK, even if you are actively participating and doing your best to help your team out.
Interrupted actions suffer the same problem. Not finishing a heal because the killer is on the way over is also flagged as AFK. Logical, correct decisions will still get flagged as being AFK. There should just be no false positives, especially not to this degree.
Even if someone is playing sub-optimally, this is supposed to be AFK detection, not 'you did not play META'-detection.
-
@SkeletalElite said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3951296#Comment_3951296
Like I said power interactions are really the primary issue, but this can be pretty easily fixed. Gen blocking could be an issue too, but once again this is fixable, these perks/powers just need specific interactions to reduce AFK points when they activate but is good otherwise
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3951298#Comment_3951298
Getting crows for actually interacting with a hex totem is dumb, touching hex totems should remove crows even if the interaction isn't complete, but simply running around the map looking for the totem is totally deserved, most hex totems aren't worth spending minutes searching for nor are they such an immediate threat that you can't stop to do a gen if you don't find the totem relatively quickly. Devour is probably the most imminent threat, but the killer has to get several hooks before it even becomes a problem. Very few exposed status effects last long enough to give you crows, nor is being exposed/injured a good excuse to stop participating complety in most cases. Doing gens while injured/exposed is okay.
Getting crows for actually interacting with a hex totem is dumb, touching hex totems should remove crows even if the interaction isn't complete, but simply running around the map looking for the totem is totally deserved, most hex totems aren't worth spending minutes searching for nor are they such an immediate threat that you can't stop to do a gen if you don't find the totem relatively quickly.
This is such micro-management of gameplay though, at this point you might as well let the bot take over.
Devour is probably the most imminent threat, but the killer has to get several hooks before it even becomes a problem.
Yeah, kinda too late to start looking at that point!
-
@StalkingYou said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3950350#Comment_3950350
It's such a funny coincidence that whenever I point out that the strategy you want killers to employ every game doesn't work against good teams, you either don't address it or bring up something else.
Or, you interpret "good teams" as "comp teams" and go "those only make up .000000001% of the matches you play so who cares"Well, what is anyone supposed to do?
This is the premise that -you- set. It's already been proven that for a competent killer, you don't need to tunnel/camp/slug to win the vast majority of your matches. We're talking 90%+, probably even 99%+.
You taking an issue with the possibility of losing that last 1% of matches is so far outside the realm of balance, but you're hung up on it and you shift the premise to be all about answering questions about that last 1%. Never mind that for survivors, matches can be made -actually- unwinnable, that all is fine and should be maintained with great urgency, because killer always takes priority for you.
100% winrate for killers should be fully achievable, and survivors can be left in the dirt.
I'm not going to engage with that premise because I don't agree with it in the slightest.
-
@StalkingYou said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3949887#Comment_3949887
"if you just play in the least optimal way possible, a way where any team who is remotely good in chase and efficient on gens will cause you to lose, you got six small buffs"
I refer you to Crogers' law.
-
@TimberGoingDown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3949887#Comment_3949887
Chase → Down → Hook → Chase
That sounds really good in theory. Until you check the generators and can't find anyone because they either pre-ran into Narnia or are hiding out. Either way, a lot of times it goes, "Chase → Down → Hook → Look → Look Some More → Back to the Hook Because You Know Someone is Coming to Save → Survivor Getting Off Hook Uses Basekit BT/OTR/DS to Bodyblock → Gets 'Tunneled' → Whines in EGC and the Forums"
Perhaps if survivors were more bold and willing to take and hold chase, there'd be less tunneling. Just saying. I'm not going to start chasing the Jake who has a 10 second (on top of Sprint Burst) head start, and I'm not going to spend 5 minutes trying to find the immersed Claudette in the Swamp. 90% of the time when I go back to hook, it's because I couldn't find someone to chase or they unhooked right next to me. And if the Unhooked person impedes my ability to go after the person who unhooked them in any way, I just "tunnel" them. Oh, and that goes for the rest of the match. You get bold with your first unhook anti-tunnel stuff, I'll assume you want to be bold with your second set, too.
Damn. That powercreep on intel perks really messed the killer community up, huh?
Either way, a lot of times it goes, "Chase → Down → Hook → Look → Look Some More
Okay? Should we care?
YOU being consistently unable to find people doesn't make the survivor buff -not- niche.
Perhaps if survivors were more bold and willing to take and hold chase, there'd be less tunneling.
By which you mean 'survivors should just run up to me to get their first smack in, and then I'll consider chasing them'. Do you realise how entitled you sound? Why shouldn't you be expected to find survivors, and suffer for it if you fail to do so?
-
@TimberGoingDown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3949695#Comment_3949695
Survivors will literally never get over when killers got 2.5% on kicks and a quarter of a second off of their pallet breaks. By the way, that was the same update that gave survivors basekit BT, which is arguably a lot more impactful than .2 seconds off of a gen kick.
These are the patch notes for 6.1, for those wondering about these "amazing buffs that killers got."
- Generators take 90 seconds for a single survivor to repair (was 80 seconds)
- Killers kicking a generator now immediately cause a 2.5% loss of progress in addition to starting regression
- Bloodlust trigger times have been reduced to 15 seconds for Tier 1, 25 seconds for Tier 2, and 35 seconds for Tier 3 (was 15 seconds, 30 seconds, and 45 seconds)
- The following Killer actions have been sped up by 10%:
- Time to kick a pallet or wall has been reduced to 2.34 seconds (was 2.6 seconds)
- Time to kick a generator has been reduced to 1.8 seconds (was 2 seconds)
- Cooldown time after a successful hit has been reduced to 2.7 seconds (was 3 seconds)
- Duration of the Survivor speed boost when hit has been reduced to 1.8 seconds (was 2 seconds)
- Survivors now have a modified version of Borrowed Time as a baseline ability, no perk required
- Unhooked Survivors now get a 7% movement speed bonus and Endurance for 5 seconds
- The speed bonus and Endurance effect are removed if the Survivor performs a Conspicuous Action
- New Term - Conspicuous Actions
- Includes: Repairing a Generator, healing yourself or others, cleansing or blessing a Totem, sabotaging a hook, unhooking a survivor, and opening an exit gate.
- Added a new section and description to the Game Manual.
- Endurance status effect is now cancelled by Conspicuous Actions
Survivors will literally never get over when killers got 2.5% on kicks and a quarter of a second off of their pallet breaks. By the way, that was the same update that gave survivors basekit BT, which is arguably a lot more impactful than .2 seconds off of a gen kick.
It isn't, except if the killer is constantly running afoul of it.
That's part of the substantial distinction between what killers got out of 6.1 and what survivors got out of it. The killer buffs are, with the one exception being the bloodlust one, universal. EVERY killer, no matter how they play, will kick a gen at some point. They will hit survivors. They will break pallets. They will make survivors sprint upon getting hit. A lot of these will be done plenty of times per match, too.
But the only killers that will notice the basekit BT are the ones who are at the hook at the moment of unhooking.
This is a list of compounding, universal killer buffs that affect every match and specifically more impactfully affect those that are not tunnelling/camping/slugging, versus survivors being -slightly- harder to tunnel and considerably harder to camp.
If you just follow the normal gameplay loop of 'Chase → down → hook → chase', then survivors got nothing out of this, while you got six buffs.
-
@StalkingYou said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3945830#Comment_3945830
Do you think tunneling and or camping is necessary in some games?
Depends on how you define it.
To win? Probably! I mean, if you're a low MMR killer going up against a high MMR swiffer, you're probably not going to win without tunnelling or camping.
But the question is whether this necessity exists in matches between evenly skilled players.
-
@I_Cant_Loop said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3949346#Comment_3949346
What killer players are advocating for higher kill rates? Please show me where killer players are asking for this.
You’re absolutely right that the kill rates are right where the devs are targeting. So why are there still so many demands to nerf killers and strategies that they use? The 60% kill rate includes all the matches where tunneling occurs, too. So if tunneling is nerfed, kill rates will go down without other compensating adjustments to buff killers to get back up to 60%. I’d be totally fine with that approach as long as we don’t nerf killers to reduce tunneling with nothing to to compensate and keep kill rates consistent with target levels.Or… We don't purposely avoid balancing the game, and bring the killrate down a little bit if it produces overall better gameplay.
-
@TimberGoingDown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948902#Comment_3948902
BS. I've ran that same tactic, and the goal was always to down survivors and clinch the W.
And you are all killer players?
-
@TimberGoingDown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948815#Comment_3948815
So you're saying that if the killer had the chance to down the survivors and get a 4k, they wouldn't have taken it? I don't believe you. Their strategy was slowing down the game in order to give her time to win the game, not hit the time limit.
No, we're talking about the period of time where 3-gens were so ironclad that a guy with zero skill managed to lock one of the best survivor teams in the world into a match lasting 49 minutes. This specific tactic's goal was not to buy time for a chance to win the game, it was specifically to run out the clock and get the win for hitting the 60 minute mark.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948815#Comment_3948815
I'm blaming both sides of the game, not just the survivors. Expecting the killer to commit to chases, is telling them they should've just taken the loss instead.
Except that's… The point of the game. The killer is supposed to chase and down survivors, not deadlock the entire match and expect the survivors to just surrender!
-
@TimberGoingDown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948791#Comment_3948791
Hard disagree. If either side had committed, it was a guaranteed loss for them. Why should the killer be the one to fall on their sword? Both sides were waiting for the other to make a mistake. The survivors won in the end, anyways.
The point is that the killer is the one responsible for creating the stalemate in the first place. They opted for this particular strategy with the full and express intent to make it a 60 minute stalemate. You can't then accuse the survivors of sharing the blame when all they can do is react to that decision.
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948791#Comment_3948791
But the killer didn't really have a realistic chance, because if they did have a realistic chance, then they wouldn't have extended the stalemate.
The stalemate happened specifically because both sides of the game felt like they would lose the game if they broke the stalemate.
The stalemate happened specifically because it was the killer's express intent to make it happen. Blaming the survivors is basically telling them that they should've just taken the loss instead, when the killer had other options.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948768#Comment_3948768
And the killer needs to respond to what the survivors do. When survivors used voice comms to pre-leave generators, they created a situation where the killer would lose if they had committed to a chase.
Both sides are at fault, because their optimum gameplay caused them to extend the stalemate.
No, because the killer has a chance, the survivors did not. Even if they did commit to the generators, they'd just be pulled off of them and they'd instantly lose.
The killer was playing overly cautious, the survivors were taking their only possible option.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948397#Comment_3948397
The stalemate problem that was caused by both sides of the game? Where the killers refused to commit to chases, and the survivors refused to commit to repairing generators?
Yes, I remember the popular streamer video, where all the survivors were using voice comms to pre-leave the generators early, but somehow the killer got 100% of the blame, even though the stalemate was the fault of all 5 players?
Survivors -can't- commit to repairing generators, they'd get grabbed off of them. Survivors don't really have options in those situations, they have to respond to whatever the killer decides to do.
-
I think you'd need something considerably weaker than Unbreakable, and you'd need to do something to limit hook denial a bit more before it could work.
One thing I've had in mind for a while is that survivors should be able to pick themselves up at a generator after fully recovering, with a lengthy animation. This would also add crawl time, so it'd be terribly inefficient in terms of time, but it could do something about slug-locks.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947929#Comment_3947929
An anti-3-gen mechanic was added to the game. There was never any expectation that 3-gen had to be completely removed from the game.
Also, if we have the attitude that balance changes should completely remove things from the game, that means Go Next and AFK crows need serious buffs, because they didn’t completely remove those things from the game.
Go Next and Hiding aren't nearly as big of a problem as the favourite killer tactic being locking the game into a stalemate for a full hour.
Sometimes killers really do break the game really badly and changes need to be made that don't copy 1-to-1 to the other side.
-
@UndeddJester said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947509#Comment_3947509
That's a little disingenuous. That's like saying the "Anti-Slugging" feature touted a little ways back, which was the abandon feature to address 4man survivor team slugging, was promised to be basekit Unbreakable...
When the AFC feature was announced the devs made it quite clear that its intent was to resolve the most egregious cases of camping, but not remove camping as a strategy in the game. Heck Bubba was even named specifically as part of the same set of changes to reduce his camping effectiveness.
The dev note is right here, and it's literally called "Anti-Face camp":
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/409-developer-update-september-2023
I was here for that PTB, there was no confusion from anyone what the AFC was for, the devs were very clear about it. The PTB note was basically the same as it was later written here.
That is why everyone keeps saying "It's Anti Face Camp", because that is literally what it is, and there was never any confusion as to what it's purpose was when it was being developed on that PTB. In that regard, it isn't undertuned at all, it does exactly what its intended purpose is… so when people say "the Anti Camp feature is undertuned", it's completely false, because it isn't the Anti Camp feature.
You might WANT an Anti Camp feature, but that isn't what the AFC is, you're asking for a different feature. Furthermore it's a feature I don't agree with, because any killer who is camping out a single player vs. a semi aware team (perhaps with Kindred) is losing the game... 140s is more than enough time to lose at least 3, if not 4 gens.
Macro play and awareness is an important skill even for SoloQ, the HUD helps massively with this if the player pays attention... and just cause your average Solo Q player is completely oblivious and walks into the camp trap, doesn't mean that camping is overpowered in any way shape or form... in fact, it's a pretty sure fire way to lose the game most of the time.
See, I consider this defense to be kind of disingenuous.
Firstly, it was indeed declared as anti-camp on the initial roadmap, and was then scaled back to anti-facecamp once it came to PTB. But also, when you go through that dev note, the description given doesn't fully match up with what was ultimately given.
"There's not much the survivor being camped can do"
This system failed to address that. Yes, it prevents Bubba from just parking himself in front of the hook, but camping overall has not been resolved or even alleviated. Killers still camp with roughly the same effectiveness as before.
So in terms of the system's overall effectiveness, it's essentially targeting a problem people didn't really have (After all, the problem was camping, not the killer standing close) and left the actual issue pretty much unmarred. So I think it qualifies as a system that 'didn't go far enough'.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947217#Comment_3947217
It's crazy how that's not what I said.
If you would've read anything I've said in this topic I've made it very clear.
You cannot fix survivors leaving because it's a killer they don't like. You cannot fix survivors leaving if they have a bad first chase. You cannot fix survivors leaving if their TEAMMATE has a bad first chase.
The same way you cannot fix a killer leaving if they have a bad first chase as well. You cannot fix a killer leaving because 1 too many gens popped.
That is the majority of leavers. You can't fix it. You can do all the anti-tunneling, anti-camping, and anti-slugging mechanics you want. You'll fix maybe the 10% - 15% of why people leave. The grand majority of the reasons why people leave will still be there because the reasons most leave are not for the reasonable reasons, it's for the unreasonable ones.
That is why I say, yes… stop playing. Because you've reached a point where something as dumb as it being a killer you dislike or a bad first chase, just means you're going to up and leave.
STOP PLAYING. Stop ruining the experience for the people who actually care to play the game.
But it's okay I know where your brain lies where somehow out of everything I've said, even though I've put it on killers as well you reached the conclusion of me somehow saying "survs bad" and me hating survivors. Stop acting like a victim please.
It's crazy how that's not what I said.
Except that's what's coming out of what you write.
You wholesale reject the idea that there may be -any- resolvable issues that are contributing to this issue, in a desperate attempt to paint ALL quitting survivors as being completely unreasonable and beyond hope.
This is useless. Ironically, you're quitting at the start, just like they are. And when you are given the advice to just quit playing, you just come back with a vengeance and reiterate the same thing that I already refuted.
This is what I mean with you having no interest in solving the issue. You're too hung up on this desire to think the worst of survivors to be interested in exploring any possible angle that isn't 'survs bad'.
STOP PLAYING.You're getting completely bent out of shape and hung up on this idea, and the reality is:
Yes, they should stop playing.
But they're human. And humans don't always do what they should. So instead of just pounding the desk and reiterating over and over again that 'they should just be better', this topic is about exploring the wide network of factors that go into this epidemic (And no, it's not just 'survs entitled') in search of solutions.
You wanna give up on that, fine, but follow your own advice and
STOP PLAYING.Anything else is just you derailing the topic.
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947217#Comment_3947217
There’s nothing to learn here. People are ragequitting for invalid reasons, so they deserve to get DC penalties.
Being upset with game balance is not a valid reason to ragequit. Being upset that the game has changed, is not a valid reason to ragequit. I’ve read through many things that were discussed in this thread, and they aren’t valid reasons either.
Whatever reason you think is 'valid' does not matter, because the reality is that they ARE quitting. Those reasons are valid to -them-. If you want to change that, you have to at least understand them.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947164#Comment_3947164
Do me a favor.
Stop trying to make up excuses for people leaving or trying to defend it. Especially because people leave for unsolvable / unfixable reasons. You can't solve child-like mentalities, you can only punish it in hope that they learn.
And then stop replying to me <3
Okay, but if you're not interested in figuring out the why, and you just want to vent how much you hate survivors, do it elsewhere. This is just derailing the topic at hand.