Firellius
Firellius
About
- Username
- Firellius
- Joined
- Visits
- 17,210
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947125#Comment_3947125
That doesn't change that they SHOULD stop playing and we should stop defending people who quit. If you do not enjoy the game you are trying to play and instead you are ruining the experience for everyone else.
STOP PLAYING. This not debatable. This is not some hot take. You do not ruin the experience for others and then act like what you say matters. I don't care why you DC'd, stop playing the game if you're upset and can't handle the things that happen in the game. And let people actually play the game who CAN handle what happens in it and who actually want to enjoy their time playing without babies giving up instantly because rando #243 tunnel'd them last game.
It's not the problem of your next match's players to deal with your displeasure of how your games go. That is genuinely child like mentality.
Do me a favour and read the title of the topic, please.
And then leave it, if you're going to be this utterly unhelpful.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946913#Comment_3946913
So then again… stop playing. Don't play a game you don't enjoy and ruin it for the rest of the people who actually still want to play.
Sure, but people don't just quit. Games like this can become a habit, and people wind up fishing for that one good game among many because they don't have anything else to fill the gap. MOBAs are especially bad for this, it's where the whole 'no one likes League of Legends, especially LoL players' meme comes from.
-
@Rapid99 said:
I full on think that people who try to defend the go next stuff or try to provide some valid reasons as to why it happen, is a bit ignorant sorry to say. Not because you can't do it or not that those reasons aren't valid for the overall experience of survivor. The problem is, those reasons aren't why people leave.
Someone isn't leaving early due to "deteriorating survivor role" because those things aren't even in effect when people leave.
People will see a killer they don't like… and leave. People will have a bad chase… and leave. People's TEAMMATES will have a bad chase… and leave. People will not like the map they're on… and leave.
none of those have to do with a "deteriorating survivor role", they have to do with players being entitled. And it isn't just a survivor thing, it happens with killer too. If the game isn't perfect. A map they want, a killer they like, and a good first chase? They'll leave.
But dbd is genuinely the ONLY multiplayer game I've ever seen where people will try to defend leavers and people who give up, it's hilarious. This mindset of defending leavers gets bullied in any other community because why are we defending people who ruin the experience for everyone else. If you don't like the game and survivor has been "too deteriorated" for you… STOP PLAYING. Stop playing the game, play something else, instead of ruining the experience of everyone who actually enjoys / wants to play the game.
It's like people who leave feel OBLIGATED to play the game, even though they are immensely unhappy with it. So then all that ends up happening is ruining it for everyone else, whilst they stay unhappy.
Someone isn't leaving early due to "deteriorating survivor role" because those things aren't even in effect when people leave.
I don't think that's true.
You can't isolate a singular game and declare that whatever reason the survivor ostensibly might've had to quit is the -only- contributing factor. People don't go into these matches with a clean slate, they do carry baggage from prior games.
If you have three bad matches in a row and you get found and hooked first on your fourth match, it's going to feel a LOT different than if you have three good matches in a row and the same thing happens. It doesn't even have to be something that happens within the game, either. Stressors weighing on your mind in real life can impact the way you interact with games.
In that regard, I don't think it's unreasonable to state that a deteriorating survivor experience is a contributing factor, and I don't think that people quitting out of matches that would be good enough under normal circumstances is solid evidence against it.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
Is it ok for major game changes to feel unfair?
Some people are unhappy with the Go Next and AFK Crow changes, and are claiming "the changes should be removed or lessened, because it's unfair for survivors".
Will we have the same attitude in Phase 2, when the game changes are for camping, tunneling, and slugging? Will we advocate that the changes should feel fair for killers, or will we demand heavy nerfs for killers, and say it doesn't matter if killers think it's unfair?
"I am feel uncomfortable when we are not about me?"
-
@Ryuhi said:
Thank you for sharing this, I would have thought people would have been flocking to show footage of it happening with how frequently its being mentioned on here. In that particular example he didn't leave the TR after getting unhooked, and instead glued to a gen right in view of the killer. This is a near universally bad play (barring certain circumstances,) and one that people would often do to get out of the game as fast as possible, so its not terribly surprising that it would accidentally trigger the penalty. That said, it is an extremely understandable rookie mistake a new player would make.
FOR THE RECORD, I AM NOT SAYING THIS SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED. IT IS VERY CLEARALY NOT HOW THE SYSTEM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK, NOR SHOULD IT BE
New players are going to be unoptimal in a lot of ways, but in this case in particular that misplay was one that people have been doing on purpose for ages to go next. Whether the answer is to put a limit on the go next prevention system (maybe at less than a set amount of hours you have a bigger threshold,
or even post game warning screens to warn new players about objectively bad plays for the first few times they get dingedI just saw they actually do tell you what caused it, though it could definitely be improved to help explain things to new players better especially.)This was exactly the type of thing that helps, though. Knowing exactly how these systems work internally allows the devs to better understand what could be causing the issue, compared to only being able to speculate like I did above.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946554#Comment_3946554
Can they submit the video to a report? Or even just post it here in general?
Don't know what's going with these systemsIs why I ask. The best troubleshooting comes from things like crash logs or ingame data (command console, in game reports, etc) while video can help narrow things down in lieu of that. Anecdotes are valid as lived experiences but they do nothing for troubleshooting if they can't be reliably recreated and isolated.
In that particular example he didn't leave the TR after getting unhooked, and instead glued to a gen right in view of the killer.
This is a near universally bad play (barring certain circumstances,) and one that people would often do to get out of the game as fast as possible, so its not terribly surprising that it would accidentally trigger the penalty.I don't think it's a good idea to hitch the system on that, especially with anti-tunnel changes slated for the near future. Plus, there's Quick Gambit, which would encourage you to get on gens when the killer is near, too.
If the system is going to micromanage your playstyle to this extent, survivors should just be auto-piloted by AIs from the get-go, since there's staggeringly little choice left.
-
With a guest appearance of invisible Springtrap, too, it seems.
But yeah, Dawko's a big name in the FNAF fandom, so this could be real, real bad for the momentum of this chapter.
-
@Reinami said:
You guys seem to really think that because someone queued up for the "killer" role that you just assume the worst of them. People are intentionally doing this to cause people to get penalties? That is some serial killer level mindset right there.
It's the other way around.
It's not that everyone that plays killer, griefs…
It's that almost everyone looking to grief will play killer.
It's the power role that allows you to do that, after all.
-
@Rizzo said:
We should be back to normal now.
Thank you for the speedy resolution, us basement goblins do not handle bright lights well.
-
@StalkingYou said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3944757#Comment_3944757
I mean you could cut all the philosophical crap and just say that you believe killer can out-skill themselves out of any situation which is simply not true
And again, at no point did I say that survivor shouldn't have a 100% win rate if they play flawless too. There you go again feeding words directly into my mouth. Any side who plays flawless in any game should win. But I don't know why you even brought this up if you think no one is good enough to make that call.
A player who can identify when a game is unwinnable probably possesses more knowledge than the person living in la-la-land who acts like some sort of game-balance intellectual, and brings up very profound questions such as "what if every game is winnable" or "maybe none of us really possess enough skill to know when a game IS unwinnable…" every time I see someone try to dismantle the things you say (which isn't hard, because the core game mechanics and experience of thousands of players goes against what you are saying) you just bring out some pseudo-intellectual view of the grand-scheme of things to confuse them, and also because it's pretty hard to dispute the simple logic that playing nice requires 20 second chases, and any competent team does not go down in 20 seconds.I mean you could cut all the philosophical crap and just say that you believe killer can out-skill themselves out of any situation which is simply not true
I never said 'any situation'. If you're 20-odd mistakes deep into a match, chances are, you can't claw your way back out of it. But this idea that any match is unwinnable from the get-go is one that I don't subscribe to.
And again, at no point did I say that survivor shouldn't have a 100% win rate if they play flawless too.
And this is what I mean. It's a lot of talk, but not a lot of thinking about what you're actually saying.
It's like saying there's a weapon that can pierce any shield, and a shield that can block any weapon. They can't both be true. One of the two must be false.
Similarly, how do you envision both killer and survivors having a 100% winrate? What happens if these flawless killers and flawless survivors play matches against one another? Does their flawlessness glitch out the game's code until everyone walks away with a win?
A player who can identify when a game is unwinnable probably possesses more knowledge than the person living in la-la-land who acts like some sort of game-balance intellectual
Is that the case, or is this just you being hopeful that the game is indeed unwinnable, so you can feel vindicated in asserting that 'it's not my fault, it's the game's fault!' when you lose?
because the core game mechanics and experience of thousands of players goes against what you are saying
'Thousands of players', and it's like 7 of you on the forums constantly reinforcing one another's defeatist attitudes and encouraging each other to, whatever you do, not get better at the game and instead just insist the game needs to be changed to accommodate your lethargy better.
and also because it's pretty hard to dispute the simple logic that playing nice requires 20 second chases
Yeah, it's pretty hard to refute, because it's asserted without any kind of evidence. But hey, anything to avoid having to acknowledge that you may have things to learn as a killer player and there may be matches where your quality of gameplay results in you not deserving a win.
-
@TheTom20 said:
they state not to report for tunneling as it wastes dev time from actual problems
What if the dev time IS the problem though?
-
@StalkingYou said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3943387#Comment_3943387
More dancing around the point.
"Erm, define unbeatable" lol.
You can have that many wins by playing S tier killers against a community that consists of mostly potatoes.
Also, there are SWF groups that do extremely high win streaks as well, winning game after game. That's not something exclusive to killer.
Even if there was a best player to ever grace this game, they would not be able to win against strong SWF by spreading hooks. Unless they are playing a A+ tier killer. It is not possible. That strategy requires survivors to go down and 20 seconds. And good teams do not go down in 20 seconds. It is not a difficult concept to understand.
The best killer in the world shouldn't have a 100% win rate, because even the best players make mistakes. However if we replaced "best killer" with "a robot that makes absolutely zero mistakes" then that robot should have a 100% win rate. Except they won't because you can make no mistakes as killer but as long as you continue to play "nice" you will still lose.
But you are seriously so good at twisting words. I say that some teams are impossible to beat without tunneling and you go "What's wrong with survivors winning a single match". It's so funny, anyone who doesn't know that you chronically do this must go insane trying to talk to you on the forums"Erm, define unbeatable" lol.
Did I ask you to define unbeatable, or did I call your judgement of what is unbeatable into question?
If you do not possess the optimal game-sense and insight, how are you going to look at ANY match and go 'yeah, there's nothing the killer could've done to win this' and have ANY faith in that assessment?
You are not competent enough to make that call.
You can have that many wins by playing S tier killers against a community that consists of mostly potatoes.
Except this win streak went on for far too damn long to be chalked up to matchmaking blunders. If survivors are so damn unbeatable, why did it take almost 2000 matches before this killer got beaten once?
Also, there are SWF groups that do extremely high win streaks as well, winning game after game. That's not something exclusive to killer.
Yeah, except they're not even close to the same scale. These super-powered mega-swiffers with their colossal winstreaks are about on par with… I wanted to say Clown, but I just checked, and Clown's longest winstreak is way higher…
Even if there was a best player to ever grace this game, they would not be able to win against strong SWF by spreading hooks. Unless they are playing a A+ tier killer. It is not possible. That strategy requires survivors to go down and 20 seconds. And good teams do not go down in 20 seconds. It is not a difficult concept to understand.
Unfortunately, the concept is both completely fabricated and irrelevant to general gameplay.
The best killer in the world shouldn't have a 100% win rate, because even the best players make mistakes. However if we replaced "best killer" with "a robot that makes absolutely zero mistakes" then that robot should have a 100% win rate.
And this is where you trip up.
No, it shouldn't have a 100% winrate, because that would be unfair to the other side. If the other side plays flawless too, why would they get a 0% winrate?
To expect a 100% winrate in any circumstance is to abandon the ideal of balance entirely. And that's what the problem is that you're having: You have a severe bias in favour of the killer side.
It's why you don't bat an eye at a winstreak of nearly 2K but throw a tizzy about a winstreak of a little over 200. If it even reaches that.
But you are seriously so good at twisting words. I say that some teams are impossible to beat without tunneling and you go "What's wrong with survivors winning a single match". It's so funny, anyone who doesn't know that you chronically do this must go insane trying to talk to you on the forums
I have zero faith in your capacity to understand which teams are 'impossible to beat'. Your personal inability to see any room for improvement on the killer's performance is not evidence.
I'm not twisting any words, I'm just letting you run until you trip yourself up. Everything I'm saying is stuff that follows from your words, you just don't like it when it's laid out.
-
It does add heavily to the balancing strain, I feel, but it might also give wiggle room within balancing to nerf perks without adjusting them numerically.
I do want to caution though, that pick-rate =/= perk strength. DS/OTR is meta because people don't like the chance of their match being over faster than their queues, for example. And while I think OTR can safely be classed as a 4-pointer, I'd say DS would be 3, since it's got much stronger counterplay.
-
@StalkingYou said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942936#Comment_3942936
and by "above your skill level" do you mean a game that is impossible to win by playing "normally"? because even if you literally were gods gift to the killer playerbase, sometimes you go against a team that is so efficient that winning without tunneling and camping is borderline impossible.
that's not survivors being above your skill level, that's the game being unbalanced.and no, getting these games is not like winning the lottery. it is not a 1% chance to get an efficient swf lol.
your whole point relies on the idea that "most survivors are bad, so you can afford to play bad too"And what would you know about that? Unless you do believe you are god's gift to the killer community, how would you know what is 'unbeatable'?
Yeah, the game is unbalanced. BHVR said so. By design.
It's why killers win more than they lose.
It's why even high MMR swiffers can't break a 50% escape rate.
It's why there's killer winstreaks that go deep into triple digits, some even quadruple digits!
But all of that is evidently fine. You can have a 90% KR, you can win 99-99.9% of your matches, none of that is problematic.
But if -ever- there is even a single game where the survivor team has the audacity of beating a killer? THAT is unfair.
The killer winning literally everything else, that's fine. The killer winning literally everything when going all out, that's fine. 100% winrate is A-OK!
But the survivors winning a singular match?
Clearly OP.
Let me ask you: Should the best killer in the world have a 100% winrate?
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942865#Comment_3942865
Except how do you reach balance in a game where one side is on their own and has a flat winrate of 50%, whilst the other side has 4 different people who in theory are a team but can all win or lose seperately?
I don't think it's physically possible unless I'm missing something.
Just match the killer winrate to the escape rate as best you can. If a 55% killrate results in a 45% killer winrate, that's perfectly even between the two sides, for example.
Just don't try and aim for a 50% winrate for killers if that necessitates a much lower winrate for survivors.
That is, of course, if you want to prioritise balance, which BHVR doesn't do.
-
@GlamourousLeviathan said:
Before the perk overhaul some years ago, it was kinda agreed on that Corrupt Intervention and Borrowed Time should be both basekit, since they both fix gameplay flaws on both sides and allow for more healthy games. Then BT became basekit and Corrupt got nerfed in the same patch because logic I guess.
The devs have also talked about an early game collapse of sorts some time ago, since the early game is really rough on killers as they start with no pressure. However, they seem to have forgotten about that idea. It is just like some other people said, survivors are the only ones allowed to have meta perks as basekit.
Except they haven't forgotten, they're giving the killer's early game a boost by forcing survivors to spawn clustered so they can't split up as quickly and easily.
-
@StalkingYou said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942864#Comment_3942864
tweaking maps that are some of the worst to ever grace any video game ever is fixing them. not buffing one side.
giving one side in particular basekit mechanics after basekit mechanics is buffing that side.although I don't even know why anyone argues with you anymore, all you do is dance around the points people make and you seem to think that the 2.5% extra attack speed and pallet kick magically granted killers the ability 12 hook every game. you never state how many hours you have either lol. decisive strike basekit now!
also, just a funny thought, but I really do wonder what players like you think while getting steamrolled by a 4 man swf bringing the best stuff they can. from what I can understand, you just sit there with a smile on your face and go "well this is perfectly fair actually because these teams are only the .00000000001% of the game so I should just take it up the ass and be happy"tweaking maps that are some of the worst to ever grace any video game ever is fixing them. not buffing one side.
Yes, I know, if it buffs the killer, it's a 'fix', but if it buffs the survivors, it's a 'buff'.
giving one side in particular basekit mechanics after basekit mechanics is buffing that side.
Except the changes survivors got have mostly been aimed at patching up what can be argued to be exploits in the intended gameplay loop, like killers being able to stall a 3-gen for so damn long that the server closes the match because it thinks survivors are holding the killer hostage.
although I don't even know why anyone argues with you anymore, all you do is dance around the points people make and you seem to think that the 2.5% extra attack speed and pallet kick magically granted killers the ability 12 hook every game. you never state how many hours you have either lol. decisive strike basekit now!
Ah, but it didn't need to grant them that ability, they already had it. They just made it easier.
And it wasn't 2.5% faster actions, it was 10%. The 2.5% is the basekit regression on gen kick that was added, which was increased to 5% some time later.
But the thing is, these changes, along with the +10 seconds of gen time, are things that affect every single match no matter how you play it. You will always benefit from these.
The survivor 'buffs' are targeting specific playstyles that have been a problem for a very long time. But if you, as killer, don't employ those specific playstyles, chances are you wouldn't even notice the changes. I certainly never ran afoul of them. And for some of them, you have to actively try to get them to trigger, like the anti-facecamp.
The changes for survivors are aimed at gameplay. The changes for killer are aimed at balance. Killers get stronger, survivors get slightly improved odds of fun matches.
also, just a funny thought, but I really do wonder what players like you think while getting steamrolled by a 4 man swf bringing the best stuff they can. from what I can understand, you just sit there with a smile on your face and go "well this is perfectly fair actually because these teams are only the .00000000001% of the game so I should just take it up the ass and be happy"
I at least have the decency to recognise that I'm not god's gift to the killer playerbase. I can recognise when I'm up against survivors that are above my skill level. Doesn't mean I'm happy about it, but I'm also not going to demand that the game's balance be butchered so that a 'meh' tier killer player gets to play ball with Team Eternal.
And I've never denied that killer gameplay has problems and I've made suggestions for improvements in the past, but as long as camping, tunnelling and slugging remain as oppressive as they are, they're significantly harder to implement.
Plus, what do most forum killers care about that, anyway? They'd much rather rage about losing a match (Sometimes not even losing, but just having a tough time getting the win) and then demand the game be made easier. What's BHVR supposed to do with that when they already unfairly advantage the killer?
-
@GrimReaperJr1232 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942863#Comment_3942863
When are survivors splitting up?
That's just… horrible. It's punishing survivors for doing their objective—the killer's job is to force survivors off the generators. If 2-3 are on them at a time and it's the start of the game, something is wrong.
And if they're taking risks to do gens (ex, avoid healing), that's inherently risk vs reward in play. No reason to punish survivors for playing well.
I'd argue it's more a case of punishing survivors for the killer doing poorly, but yeah, the suggestion has its flaws. Still, I commend the OP for coming up with something new!
-
@subdl said:
Many killer players probably see a “win” as getting 3 or more kills in a match—that is, eliminating the majority of the survivors.
If that’s the case, isn’t it reasonable to assume that the developers aim for an overall kill rate of around 60%, in order to maintain a perceived 50% win rate for killers?
It's not unreasonable, however...
- BHVR's statements on it suggest otherwise.
- The 'math' Rpthehotrod is using to reach his conclusions is objectively and obviously incorrect.
You also have to keep in mind that a 50% winrate for one side and a 40% winrate for the other is, by definition, very poorly balanced.
-
@StalkingYou said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942445#Comment_3942445
anti-facecamp, hook grab removal, gen limit.
more are to come, can't waitdidn't you want basekit decisive strike too btw?
To quote a certain forum user...
many "buffs" people point out are not buffs, just BHVR fixing their mistakes
-
@GrimReaperJr1232 said:
I don't think you are aware of this, but unless I am misunderstanding, that's how it was when they were 80 seconds.
The penalty was upped from 10% to 15% in 3.7.0
The gens were upped from 80 to 90 in 6.1.0
We lived what you're proposing already.
That's not quite what the OP is saying. They're suggesting to apply the co-op penalty when survivors are working solo on separate gens. Which is an interesting proposition, certainly a new one...
But it kinda runs into the same issue as most other buff suggestions. Tunnelling and camping.
What situation, outside of the start of the game, is most likely to have three survivors splitting up on three gens? When the killer is pressuring only one survivor and no one else. This would weaken the counterplay to tunnelling and camping.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
Actually, tell you what, allow me to give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say we go with your point of view. The devs rejected any notion of using any kind of game design philosophies, statistics, probabilities, or anything of the sort. Instead, they just got together and went, "Mannn, let's like…..just do 60%…that sounds cool enough…". Okay, Now we have them picking 60% entirely because it feels "good". Either way you go, whether they actually put game design to use to come up with 60%, or they just pulled it out of a hat "just because", it still results with them going with 60%.
However, there's some cold hard facts that cannot be argued.
Fact: There are up to 4 kills possible
Fact: a 0k is a 0% kill rate for the match
Fact: a 1k is a 25% kill rate for the match
Fact: a 2k is a 50% kill rate for the match
Fact: a 3k is a 75% kill rate for the match
Fact: a 4k is a 100% kill rate for the match
Fact: The game is designed around 4 individual survivors each with their own win condition. Survivors do not all win, lose, or tie together.
Fact: Averaging takes many matches into consideration. That's why you can have a decimal average kill rate - it's not a reflection of a single match but the average across multiple matches. You claim you're a math teacher, so I assume you at least know the basics of averaging in mathematics.
Fact: A 50% kill rate is only a 2k, not enough to have a majority.
Fact: A 75% kill rate is a 3k, enough to have a majority
Fact: A 62.5% kill rate is the middle point (ie a 2.5 average kill rate).
Fact: A 62.5% kill rate, ie a 2.5 kill rate, means on average across multiple matches, the killer would get a majority of the kills ~50% of the time. A 60% kill rate is slightly less, a 2.4 kill rate which still means getting a majority of the kills ~50% of the time
So, it doesn't matter why the devs picked a 60% kill rate, whether because of "feelings" as you say or because they actually put in some actual effort into their game design as I've pointed out, what matters is with a 60% kill rate, on average, that puts killers at getting a majority of the kills ~50% of the time - in other words, a 50% win rate.
Now sure, "wins" are subjective. You can make up whaateeever win condition you want. You win because it's a night map, hurray! That's quite the win condition you picked out for yourself. However, that doesn't change the facts as laid out above.
You can try to argue against the facts all you what, but dem be the facts. BHVR put some real effort into coming up with that 60% kill rate, and it comes out to a nicely balanced around ~50% win rate for the player who is alone who faces multiple opponents. With the facts in mind, what we need to focus on is dealing with killers over performing (over that 60%), or under performing (under that 60%). We also need to focus on what's objectively bad behavior that breaks this balance such as tunneling someone straight from the beginning of the match - that turns the match into a 1v3 for the whole match, not a 1v4, so the balance breaks. As I had suggested, if the match is effectively a 1v3 from the get-go (as in, from the beginning - NOT a 1v3 situation mid to late game), I feel survivors should get a buff for the remainder of the match to re-balance the match as a 1v3.
Fact: A 62.5% kill rate, ie a 2.5 kill rate, means on average across multiple matches, the killer would get a majority of the kills ~50% of the time. A 60% kill rate is slightly less, a 2.4 kill rate which still means getting a majority of the kills ~50% of the time
No. This one is flatly untrue. This has been explained to you SO MANY TIMES.
The logic you use to arrive to this conclusion also, necessarily, argues that a 50% killrate must average to a 0% 3K+ rate for killers. Which is obviously preposterous.
You have been told so many times by me, and by plenty of other people, exactly why you are incorrect on this point and you refuse to engage with any refutation of your mistakes.
At this point, this is just plain trolling. I will be reporting every post of yours that I come across that repeats this error, as by now, we can expect you to know better. I am not expecting you to admit that you are wrong, but I do expect you to stop wilfully lying to people.
-
@TimberGoingDown said:
An argument I see often regarding the Phase 2 changes, one that even Mandy has put forward, is that killer MMR will slowly "balance out" as killers essentially lose their way into their "proper" MMR brackets.
The problem with this is that… MMR is meaningless while matchmaking remains this loose. After a minute or two of matchmaking, the queue just grabs a random player and slots them in to fill an empty spot, whether or not they're the "proper" MMR or not. This is even more pronounced with lobby backfill, which literally grabs the first available player and puts them in, without even looking at MMR.
I understand that nobody wants slow queue times, but at the same time, you can't say that matchmaking and MMR will fix things while matchmaking and MMR kind of don't exist. I could lose a thousand matches in a row and still get slotted against a comp SWF if there isn't a Lilith Omen or comp Nurse in queue.
This shouldn't happen. If Behavior is going to take away any and all tools that an average mid-MMR player has to face these kinds of survivors, then average mid-MMR killers should never have to play against them in the first place. If that means that these escape streak SWFs end up waiting in 20 minute queues while they wait for a match with a p100 Nurse or Blight who is "on their level," then so be it.
But putting casual players against top level players, then taking away their ability to even somewhat compete is a recipe just frustrating.
But even if it DID work and MMR actually meant something… does Behavior really think that casual players are going to keep playing the game as they lose repeatedly until their MMR "balances out?" I know I wouldn't. If these changes go through, whatever they are, and I just lose most of my games, that'll be the end of my DBD journey. I play video games to have fun, not get frustrated as I'm repeatedly put against players I have no chance of beating and getting taunted over every loss.
does Behavior really think that casual players are going to keep playing the game as they lose repeatedly until their MMR "balances out?"
Yeah, they do. And they kinda know people will stick around for it.
After all, survivors are expected to lose most of their matches wholesale.
-
@gingerGeorge12 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942445#Comment_3942445
That is the last patch 6.1.0 where the killer role have gotten buffed universally and that was nearly 3 years ago now.
Survivors on the other hand have gotten the base-kit BT in the same patch by the way 6.1.0, the hook timer increased to 70 was 60 in the same patch again 6.1.0, the anti-camp in patch 7.3.0, and the 8 kick limit to gens in patch 7.5.0.
So to answer your question those changes are what they are on about.
Oh, yeah, I stand corrected. They did get +10 seconds on hook timers, anti-facecamp, and anti-8-gen.
Two of which don't come into play pretty much ever, sadly.
But the mention of anti-8-gen also reminds me that killers got improved regression and anti-gen tap.
-
@StalkingYou said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942307#Comment_3942307
I know you mean well by your statements but hearing someone excitedly tell me about the first new basekit killer buffs we've gotten in years (when survivor gets them every year) and the changes are just the survivor spawning closer together and a hostage-prevention feature is just funny to me
Like yes, it is great that survivors will spawn closer together. Not complaining about that. But it is the only basekit buff killer has gotten in years, meanwhile survivor gets like 2 basekit abilities every year and they're all better than that spawn change by like 1000x. And many people want us to be happy with itKillers keep getting plenty. Not everything is just added to the killer side, a lot of it is being nerfed on survivor side, which, by the way, haven't been getting any basekit buffs since 6.1. The same patch that gave longer gens, shorter on-hit cooldowns, faster action speed and shorter on-hit sprint.
We've since also had hook respawns, nerfed medkits, and changes to map offerings.
meanwhile survivor gets like 2 basekit abilities every year
What basekit abilities have they gotten since 6.1?
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941980#Comment_3941980
Considering most of your comments goes way off topic or is just completely ignoring facts already laid out by BHVR themselves, I'll skip over those parts.
The part below, you actually came up with a valid point - ironically the point I already made in my post, but before we get to that part, I'll at least respond to your claim that BHVR just pulled the number out of the air because they wanted the killers to feel powerful. Now, I know you said you hate it when people use math to support their statements, but im going to use math - I'll keep it simple. A 50% kill rate is only a 2k. A 75% kill rate is a 3k. If we wanted killers to have a 50% win rate, we would take the middle point between 50 (2k) and 75 (3k) which is 62.5%. At a 60% kill rate, that puts killers at an average of 2.49 kills per match. This essentially gives them a very very slightly less than a 50% win rate averaged out. Remember, a 3k is just as much as a win than a 4k. If BHVR wanted killers to make them more powerful by default, they would have done WELL over a 60% kill rate. It sounds like you mixed up kill rate with win rate. Kill Rates are not win rates. Easy to prove. If a killer has a 25% kill rate (a 1k on average), does that mean he's winning 1 out of 4 matches on average (a 25% win rate)? Of course not. BHVR clearly pulled statistics and math to support their number of coming up with a 60% kill rate - it gives killers a roughly 50% chance to get a 3k+ while giving some leeway to survivors. This didn't happen because they threw a dart at a dartboard and it landed on 60 as you'd presume.
Now as to something actually relevant you brought up, the snowball effect. I entirely agree wiith this part and I already acknowledged this was a thing in my post that you apparently decided to not bother reading. Lets say that a killer tunnels someone right out of the game from the beginning. This effectively creates a situation where the match is pretty much a 1 v 3 in reality (not counting time spent tunneling 1 survivor where the other 3 could be pushing gens...the time they gain by doing this pales in comparison to losing a team member early on, so yeah, an early tunnel effectively turns the match into a 1 v 3 from the get go). This is a BIG problem. However, we can't just assume every killer tunnels. What's the solution? Now comes the part of why I added survivor count scenarios more than just 1 v 4. If a killer tunnels right from the get go, survivors are SCREWED because thats essentially a 1 v 3 from the match start. While the game is balanced around the 38.5% escape rate for 4 survivors, if the match is suddenly a 1 v 3 from the get go, suddenly survivors SHOULD be in a position of having a 50% chance to escape from a 1 v 3...but they are stuck at the balanced rate of 38.5% still.
What I propose is that if a killer tunnels right off the bat and effectively forces the match to be a 1 v 3 from the beginning, have the gen speeds dynamically increase to effectively buff the survivors to the required 50% chance escape rate thats needed for a 1 v 3 game. However, this would only take affect if that 1 survivor gone was not in a position to do anything worthwhile. In other words, if the killer eliminates a survivor too quickly, have the match adjust dynamically similar to how BHVR tested this very idea with the last 2v8 gamemode. Chalk it up to the entity wanting survivors to suffer for a prolonged time or something and discourages quick kills. This would effectively punish early game tunneling by significantly buffing survivor repair speeds to make up for the match effectively being a 1 v 3 from the beginning. Now, this wouldn't take affect if enough time has passed, naturally. Otherwise, we would have a situation where the killer has no kills, there's one gen left, and he finally eliminated a survivor...it wouldn't make sense for the match to be considred a 1v3 at that point.
So yes, snowballing is absolutely an issue, and BHVR has clearly thought about having gen speeds dynamically change depending on killer effectiveness considering they literally added this to a gamemode recently. Why not apply that same logic to the base game if a match FROM THE EARLY GAME was considered a 1 v 3? If the match is effectively a 1 v 3, my chart provides the balanced escape rate that would be needed to adjust the match to be a fair game. This has an added benefit by still allowing optional tunneling late game if things are dire.
P.S. - oh, and it's nice to see another fellow math teacher, though I've retired from it and moved onto another career. Kudos to you.
The part below, you actually came up with a valid point - ironically the point I already made in my post, but before we get to that part, I'll at least respond to your claim that BHVR just pulled the number out of the air because they wanted the killers to feel powerful.
This is not something Ampersand made up. I believe Peanits is the one that explained why they went for the 60% mark: It was to make the killer feel powerful, while still being relatively balanced. Now, they didn't pull the number out of the air, presumably they did internal testing and collected a lot of feedback to come to the conclusion that they did, but this is the part where you really need to start reading my posts and engaging with my deconstruction of your method, because it's getting ridiculous.
A 50% kill rate is only a 2k. A 75% kill rate is a 3k. If we wanted killers to have a 50% win rate, we would take the middle point between 50 (2k) and 75 (3k) which is 62.5%.
This does not work. This is not how DBD functions. And you have the parts you need to realise this, because…
Easy to prove. If a killer has a 25% kill rate (a 1k on average), does that mean he's winning 1 out of 4 matches on average (a 25% win rate)? Of course not.
You rightfully point out that a 25% kill rate does not mean a 25% winrate per se. You are correct about that. The obvious flaw with Killrate = Winrate (Assuming you define a killer win as 3K+) is that this eliminates all possible outcomes but two: 0Ks and 4Ks.
So, obviously, this is incorrect.
However, your method has the exact same flaw in it.
The way you calculate winrate from killrate assumes that all matches must only have results close to the mean. This idea of a 62.5% killrate resulting in a 50% winrate assumes that the ONLY outcomes available are 2Ks and 3Ks, because those are closest to the mean.
But what happens to the killrate if we keep the same amount of 3Ks, but we take the 2Ks and make half of them 1Ks instead?
Let's take 100 matches.
50% 3Ks = 150 kills.
25% 2Ks = 50 kills.
25% 1Ks = 25 kills.This totals 225 kills over 400 survivors. That's 56.25% KR, a far cry from your suggested 62.5%.
Let's kick it down another notch and split the 2Ks again, this time adding a 0K section.
50% 3Ks = 150 kills.
12.5% 2Ks = 25 kills.
25% 1Ks = 25 kills.
12.5% 0Ks = 0 kills.This totals 200 kills over 400 survivors. That's a 50% KR flat, and it's still the same 50% winrate.
Now, of course the idea that the game is only determined in the absolute extreme outcomes of 0Ks and 4Ks is preposterous, the game doesn't work like that.
But do you see now that your model is driven by the same error, of taking a 5 outcome system with variable distribution, and simplifying it into a binary?
Can you even imagine a killer player with a match history consisting solely of 2Ks and 3Ks? No killer is going to be able to do that. Not in the least because 2Ks are so unlikely to happen due to the snowball nature of the game.
This model of yours simply doesn't work for DBD. It's too simplified to capture the nuances of the game. The reality won't be properly calculable because of such a colossal variety of factors.
Keep the impact of percentage distribution of the various outcomes on winrates in mind, for example, for Bubba. Now, Bubba's chainsaw makes him really good at denying unhooks. This means that if he gets a survivor on the hook in the EGC, it's quite unlikely that the survivors will be able to all get out without losing at least one player.
This means that a portion of what, for any other killer, might be 0Ks, will be turned into 1Ks.
This means his kill-rate goes up, but his winrate does not. This actually allows him to have a higher kill rate, but a lower winrate. Simply because he's good at securing a single kill in the end-game. That little nugget of a fact already shows how complex the relation between Killrate and Winrate is, and why it's virtually pointless to try and compress the entire thing into one simple calculation.
The reason BHVR chose 60% as their target is because from their data, their feedback, and their testing (All practical observations rather than theoretical mathematics), this allows the killer to be powerful without breaking the game too much.
The model you use is simply not applicable to DBD. Full stop. And you need to let it go.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941980#Comment_3941980
Considering most of your comments goes way off topic or is just completely ignoring facts already laid out by BHVR themselves, I'll skip over those parts.
Now as to something actually relevant you brought up, the snowball effect. I entirely agree wiith this part and I already acknowledged this was a thing in my post that you apparently decided to not bother reading. Lets say that a killer tunnels someone right out of the game from the beginning. This effectively creates a situation where the match is pretty much a 1 v 3 in reality (not counting time spent tunneling 1 survivor where the other 3 could be pushing gens...the time they gain by doing this pales in comparison to losing a team member early on, so yeah, an early tunnel effectively turns the match into a 1 v 3 from the get go). This is a BIG problem. However, we can't just assume every killer tunnels. What's the solution? Now comes the part of why I added survivor count scenarios more than just 1 v 4. If a killer tunnels right from the get go, survivors are SCREWED because thats essentially a 1 v 3 from the match start. While the game is balanced around the 38.5% escape rate for 4 survivors, if the match is suddenly a 1 v 3 from the get go, suddenly survivors SHOULD be in a position of having a 50% chance to escape from a 1 v 3...but they are stuck at the balanced rate of 38.5% still.
What I propose is that if a killer tunnels right off the bat and effectively forces the match to be a 1 v 3 from the beginning, have the gen speeds dynamically increase to effectively buff the survivors to the required 50% chance escape rate thats needed for a 1 v 3 game. However, this would only take affect if that 1 survivor gone was not in a position to do anything worthwhile. In other words, if the killer eliminates a survivor too quickly, have the match adjust dynamically similar to how BHVR tested this very idea with the last 2v8 gamemode. Chalk it up to the entity wanting survivors to suffer for a prolonged time or something and discourages quick kills. This would effectively punish early game tunneling by significantly buffing survivor repair speeds to make up for the match effectively being a 1 v 3 from the beginning. Now, this wouldn't take affect if enough time has passed, naturally. Otherwise, we would have a situation where the killer has no kills, there's one gen left, and he finally eliminated a survivor...it wouldn't make sense for the match to be considred a 1v3 at that point.
So yes, snowballing is absolutely an issue, and BHVR has clearly thought about having gen speeds dynamically change depending on killer effectiveness considering they literally added this to a gamemode recently. Why not apply that same logic to the base game if a match FROM THE EARLY GAME was considered a 1 v 3? If the match is effectively a 1 v 3, my chart provides the balanced escape rate that would be needed to adjust the match to be a fair game. This has an added benefit by still allowing optional tunneling late game if things are dire.
P.S. - oh, and it's nice to see another fellow math teacher, though I've retired from it and moved onto another career. Kudos to you.
Considering most of your comments goes way off topic or is just completely ignoring facts already laid out by BHVR themselves, I'll skip over those parts.
What parts were off-topic or ignoring BHVR's facts? 'Cause I don't see it and this feels like a cop-out.
@NarkoTri1er said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941876#Comment_3941876
every team that loses to multihooking killer, especially the mid to lower tier one IS objectively bad.
Why? Because you are not taking advantage of killer wasting their own time and actively avoiding tunneling one person.
Spreading hooks is something your team would want the most from killer in order to have much easier time winning. So, what's up with the fact that people don't do it? Simple, nonexistent matchmaking and the fact it took years for BHVR only to announce that they are working to improve it again (hopefully drastically).
Crogers' law holding strong, I see.
-
@subdl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941987#Comment_3941987
It is absolutely valid for players to feel personal discomfort toward tactics such as camping, tunneling, leaving survivors slugged, or engaging in hook-based mind games. These emotional responses are entirely natural, and everyone has the right to express them freely on this forum.
However, feeling discomfort is one thing—using that discomfort as a justification to insult, deny, or try to restrict someone else’s playstyle is a completely different matter.
For example, if a killer player were to say to a survivor, “Stop playing with friends. A good survivor should be able to escape without using SWF,” most people would find that petty and ridiculous.
By the same logic, when survivors say things like “Tunneling is what bad killers do” or “Camping is immoral,” and attempt to shame others into avoiding those tactics, they are not promoting fairness—they are imposing their personal values under the guise of “morality,” and attacking legitimate strategic decisions in a condescending and childish manner.
Indeed, in this very thread, several survivor-centric posters have been engaging with those who disagree through disparaging generalizations and dishonest rhetoric, actively degrading the quality of discussion.
What’s even worse is that, rather than simply saying, “That tactic is too strong and I find it frustrating to deal with,” which would at least be honest, they resort to statements like:
“Good killers don’t need to do that.”
“Multi-hook is stronger. If you can’t win that way, you’re just bad.”
These kinds of deceitful claims are not only used to mask their own lack of skill, but also to instill false guilt and an undeserved sense of inferiority in killer players who are genuinely working hard to succeed through thoughtful strategy.
The problem is that survivors complain about gameplay, while killers complain about 'balance'.
For years, survivors have been pointing out that tunnelling, camping and slugging flatten an otherwise dynamic gameplay system into an extremely stale and boring experience, and in some cases, it doesn't leave -any- gameplay and becomes indistinguishable from not playing at all.
These are legitimate issues that -will- kill a game if left unchecked. Fortunately, DBD still offers regular matches for survivors to fish for, but otherwise, it would commit the cardinal sin of being boring.
Furthermore, though it's not highlighted to the same degree, there's a conjoined balancing issue where these tactics occupy different positions in balancing terms, which leads to the game becoming harder to balance. There's killer improvements that can't be made because they would boost some of these tactics to be game-breaking.
These issues are strangling the game's foundations and DBD is struggling to move forward because of them.
On the other side, killers struggle to articulate their problems beyond 'I am losing, and I don't like it'.
That's not to say that there aren't legitimate killer problems, but the vast majority of killer feedback is little more than 'I want the game to be easier for me'. Which, in a PvP game, is not really workable feedback. Especially since BHVR is already stretching the game's balancing in killers' favour.
Which gets compounded by figures like the OP, who dismiss skill as a factor in winrates. How do you balance for someone like that?
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941907#Comment_3941907
Explain how hooking survivors keeps you from killing them! Explain how hooking survivors slows you down when it comes to getting kills.
If you are multihooking, that means your goal is to spread out hooks and to get more hooks! That means you aren't killing things! Because instead of going for a kill! You're going for hooks!
😮
You're actively making kills the secondary objective, and hooks the primary objective!!! Do you get it now? Was that put simple enough for you?
Give me the literal quote then. NOT your paraphrasing, but the literal quote.
???
I literally did. It was in the reply that you replied to. It was right there IN quotation marks. That was directly from his pinned comment.
His own comment section was literally calling him out about it and saying what I'm saying lmfao.
If you are multihooking, that means your goal is to spread out hooks and to get more hooks! That means you aren't killing things!
You aren't killing things?
So if you spread hooks, then suddenly, survivors… DON'T die on the third hook?
Or do they still die… Just not as quickly as they do with tunnelling?
You're actively making kills the secondary objective, and hooks the primary objective!!!
That's also not true at all, either. Multi-hooking doesn't mean getting 8 hooks evenly spread across everyone.
???
I literally did. It was in the reply that you replied to. It was right there IN quotation marks. That was directly from his pinned comment.
Except nowhere in the quote does he state that you have to be significantly better than your opponent to win via multihooking, he just said that he was for this particular experiment.
Here, let me quote you the salient bits:
(…) The entire point of this is that if you are good enough you can win almost any game because you outskill your opponents.
(…)
BUT in the majority of games that you play you can win if you are just good enough at playing Killer.
These are his remarks on the viability of multihooking. No, he doesn't say, anywhere, that you need to be way better than your opponents to win via multihooking. He says that a sufficiently competent killer player can win with high consistency with multihooking.
That's not multihooking being 'bad'. It's not even multihooking being 'decent'. That's multihooking being strong.
Because that's where competent killer players are at. That's where BHVR put them. They are really, really strong.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941851#Comment_3941851
You can't just ignore math and game balance. Clear and coherent evidence, and "Nooo, ignore the evidence!" just isn't going to cut it.
There's a reason BHVR shoots for a 60% kill rate, and…now I hope you're sitting down for this, it's because of math. :O
Theirs is slightly off of an exact hit of 62.5% to make room for various variables which imho is acceptable. I'd say +-3% is a good range.
Anyway, here is the statistics of balance. The team with single player is what we shoot for on a 50% win rate when they have to face multiple opponents. In other words, a 50% win rate for a killer would be balanced, a 50% win rate for each member of the team with multiple opponents would effectively crush the single player. That's why in game design, you balance around the lowest common denominator - in this case, the killer. Here comes the scary math, look out!
Here is the baseline statistics ranging from if the Survivors had a single member all the way up to 10, just for fun. You'll notice something quite interesting.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/I54MAYXVE3Q3/image.png
It might be hard to spot, so here it is in another form (the number on top of each dot shows how many kills are required to kill the majority of the survivors):
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/Q27KBI5HQ3D0/image.png
This is for the killer to have a 50% chance to win. The Per-Point win % for killer is kill rate. The survivor Per-Point is escape rate.
You'll notice that the more survivors there are, the closer to a 50% win rate the survivors should get. This seems backwards, and I made the same incorrect assumption that it seems backwards previously before diving in deeper. The key here is, the number of survivors changes the required amount of kills that is needed to get a majority. For example, in our 1 v 4, the killers needs a 75%+ kill rate (a 3K+) to win. However, let's say it was 1 v 1,000. The killer would only need to kill 501 survivors to get a majority for a win. This leaves roughly 50% of the survivors who lost, but 50% of the survivors who won! That's because the more survivors there are (with one exception I'm about to cover), the EASIER the killer can earn a majority. You'll notice a lot of up and down on the chart, but that's because of the number of kills required to win. For example, with 4 survivors, the killer needs 3 kills…but with 5 survivors, he still only needs 3 kills - but he has more people to go after which means him getting victory is easier - this means that with 5 survivors, with it being easier for the killer, the survivors would need their chance to win to go up. This is a repeating pattern. The more survivors there are, the target majority requirement changes. On the first case where the kill count needed has less survivors in the game, survivors need a lower chance, but on the second case where the same kill count is needed but survivors are in a larger number, they need a higher chance to win since the killer will have an easier time getting that required kill count.
Now to clarify, this is all around balancing the killer around a kill rate giving them a ~50% chance to win (which is what the 60% kill rate roughly achieves, though 62.5% would be a perfect 50%). Essentially, the devs got to the 62.5% number, but reduced it down to 60% to give survivors some breathing room. Let's just stick to BHVR's 60%. The problem is when killers have a kill rate above that 60%, it becomes very problematic for survivors. These cases absolutely should be addressed. On the flipside, when the killer has under a 60% kill rate, then it's very problematic for the killer which also should be addressed.
At the end of the day, BHVR pretty much nailed their 60% kill requirement if we're giving survivors wiggle room. The problem about just boosting survivor escape rates individually is that it will drop 60% kill rate killers below the 50% win rate balance. Inherently, in an asymmetric game, the individual player who has multiple "allies" must have a lower personal win rate than the player who is completely alone and facing off against multiple opponents all against him. That's the nature of asymmetric games. Buffing those individual win rates of people with allies would make it unfair for the player who is entirely alone. If you're on the side who have allies, you have the numbers, and in turn, you'd need to deal with a lower personal win chance than the player who is entirely alone with no allies who have multiple opponents.
Now, all that being said, this is a top level look at this. One could say, once a killer eliminates a survivor, his per point chance to kill a survivor should change since now he has less opponents. That's a fair statement! However, in order to accomplish this, the match would need to dynamically change once a player is eliminated. BHVR actually attempted this in the recent 2v8 mode where generator repair speeds would increase or decrease dynamically depending on how well or poor the killers were doing. That's a completely different discussion, but I'd be fascinated with that discussion. It makes me wonder if BHVR is testing the possibility of dynamically changing repair speeds depending on how well the killer is performing on standard matches…perhaps a response to tunneling? One counter-argument one might say is that it is punishing a player for doing their objective, or doing it too well. Also a valid argument, but nonetheless, BHVR clearly has this on their mind.
Interestingly enough, all players would have an individual similar win chance if BHVR went with an odd number of survivors.
Edit - clarified the chart titles.
In other words, a 50% win rate for a killer would be balanced, a 50% win rate for each member of the team with multiple opponents would effectively crush the single player.
Tripping over the starting line here. How are you going to call it balanced when one side has a 50% winrate, and the other one is lower than that?
Wouldn't it be balanced if both sides had the exact same winrate?
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941858#Comment_3941858
Ok it's very clear not only can you not read, but you also love to twist words around so you can make your argument make sense (it still doesn't). I'm done with you. You're so hopped up on this idea of me being a tunneler and me comparing multihooking to tunneling that you've completely and constantly ignored my point that has nothing to do with tunneling. Like genuinely, you are weird.
It's literally like talking to a brick wall. I've said countless times, multihooking as an individual playstyle is bad because you are actively delaying yourself from reaching the killer objective, of kills. You can say you aren't, but you factually are. You are doing a playstyle that literally moves kill to the backseat and has it be a later OBJ complete, behind hooks. Even though it's the MAIN objective of killers. You have yet to respond to that point, you keep ignoring it, and you keep dancing around it.
I'm done, it's objectively bad. Get over it. I don't care what more you have to say and btw:
He doesn't say that at all. He stresses that in the vast majority of matches, you do not need to tunnel, and multihooking will work absolutely fine. On some occasions, you will need to tunnel if you want to win, but if you are a sufficiently competent player, you will do absolutely fine with multihooking.
The fact that I can give you a literal quote of the person saying "yes, it depends on the matchmaker giving you bad players" and you somehow manage to twist it into a sentence never uttered is genuinely remarkable. It's funny too because the people in the comment section are literally saying what I'm saying. That if the matchmaker gives you competent survivors, multihooking is no longer a viable playstyle and you have to tunnel, camp, or slug to win because again:
LEAVING 4 SURVIVORS ALIVE FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME, IS OBJECTIVELY BAD. NO GOOD. NO BUENO. NEGATIVE. HANDICAP. DETRIMENT.
You're so obscenely wrong, it's genuinely funny to watch.
Ok it's very clear not only can you not read, but you also love to twist words around so you can make your argument make sense (it still doesn't). I'm done with you. You're so hopped up on this idea of me being a tunneler and me comparing multihooking to tunneling that you've completely and constantly ignored my point that has nothing to do with tunneling. Like genuinely, you are
weird.Simple question for you, since you are refusing to engage with this point:
What does 'general' look like?
Because you used that word to dodge away from thinking about why you used the term 'harder'. And the term 'harder' is, literally, COMPARATIVE.
So what is it that you are comparing it to?
I've said countless times, multihooking as an individual playstyle is bad because you are actively delaying yourself from reaching the killer objective, of kills. You can say you aren't, but you
factuallyare.Explain how hooking survivors keeps you from killing them! Explain how hooking survivors slows you down when it comes to getting kills.
Because you CAN'T explain that without pointing at tunnelling and saying that that gets the job done -faster-. Which, once again, means you're judging multihooking off of tunnelling.
The fact that I can give you a literal quote of the person saying "yes, it depends on the matchmaker giving you bad players" and you somehow manage to twist it into a sentence never uttered is genuinely remarkable.
Give me the literal quote then. NOT your paraphrasing, but the literal quote. Show me where Hens says that you have to be significantly better than your opponents to be able to win by multihooking.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941819#Comment_3941819
Harder compared to what?Harder in general, that's what a handicap does.
Again, don't dodge the point because you can't argue against it. Face it head on and say "I'm wrong". Multihooking delays the killers objective of KILLING PEOPLE.
Do not play dense. You understand the words on the screen.
That is your argument when you call it a detriment, handicap, or say that it makes it 'harder to win'. Even if you, yourself, aren't clocking on to it, that IS what you are doing.
No, I say it's a detriment and a handicap because you are actively delaying yourself from completing the killer's objective… of killing things.
It's so funny you linked this video and literally IN the comment section he pinned a comment of his that says:
"Many of you have rightfully pointed out that I am way more experienced than the survivors that I play against in these 10 games and you are totally right.Dead by Daylights matchmaking has a very low softcap on the MMR, the entire point of this is that if you are good enough you can win almost any game because you outskill your opponents.I'm not saying Tunneling Camping or Slugging are bad or that you shouldn't do them at all costs, there are games where you will have to to win, BUT in the majority of games that you play you can win if you are just good enough at playing Killer."
The fact you don't realize that your "evidence" is just evidence for me. The video creator himself states that multihooking REQUIRES the survivor players to be much worse than you. It's literally matchmaking RNG, if you get survivors who are bad and go down quick you can multihook. If you don't, you can't.
That's literally what I've been saying the whole time, holy christ.
That still doesn't fix it if you believe that the game is only balanced with tunnelling, because it means you'd just need to swap the two out, which would leave multihooking in the same problematic spot.
If multihooking is "problematic" then that means survivors literally just don't want to play dbd. To which I say, goodbye. Go play something else dawg, it's clear you aren't happy here.
No, you don't need to make multihooking up to the level of tunneling in terms of strength. Because if you reduce tunneling's strength, that means it's no longer at that initial baseline that multihooking would have to pass. It's now much lower.
Harder in general, that's what a handicap does.
Again, don't dodge the point because you can't argue against it. Face it head on and say "I'm wrong". Multihooking delays the killers objective of KILLING PEOPLE.
How are you going to accuse me of 'dodging' when you handwave the 'harder' remark as 'In general'?
That's YOU dodging. Because you KNOW what you mean by 'in general', and that's when you tunnel. That is your 'general' gameplay.
Again, deciding to not use cheats or hacks also makes it 'harder in general', but no one talks like that because the option of cheats or hacks isn't on the table to compare to.
The only reason you think it's 'harder in general' is because you have that one alternative, stuck in the back of your head. THAT is why you call it 'harder'.
No, I say it's a detriment and a handicap because you are actively delaying yourself from completing the killer's objective… of killing things.
No, you aren't. Hooking people progresses your objective. That's not a detriment. The only reason you consider it a detriment is because it is slower than tunnelling. Again, it's purely based on the comparative.
The video creator himself states that multihooking
REQUIRESthe survivor players to be much worse than you.He doesn't say that at all. He stresses that in the vast majority of matches, you do not need to tunnel, and multihooking will work absolutely fine. On some occasions, you will need to tunnel if you want to win, but if you are a sufficiently competent player, you will do absolutely fine with multihooking.
Keep in mind that this challenge was run without ANY killer powers, on top of multihooking.
So if killers, with one arm tied behind their back, can still consistently win with multihooking, where do you get off calling it 'bad'?
If multihooking is "problematic" then that means survivors literally just don't want to play dbd. To which I say, goodbye. Go play something else dawg, it's clear you aren't happy here.
That's also what I can say to you when you come on these forums and demand consistent victories while adamantly refusing to play better. Survivors have been toughing out a game that is intentionally balanced against them, but they're losing patience. Do not keep buffing killers, because it's just gonna keep making things worse.
No, you don't need to make multihooking up to the level of tunneling in terms of strength. Because if you reduce tunneling's strength, that means it's no longer at that initial baseline that multihooking would have to pass. It's now much lower.
Why would the power level of tunnelling matter if the reason multihooking is bad is not based on comparisons to tunnelling?
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941723#Comment_3941723
No, it hasn't been.
Yes… it has been. Y'all are the ones that keep comparing it to tunneling and camping.
No, it doesn't become a detriment. A detriment would have to actively hinder the killer from completing their objective. Hooking a survivor will ALWAYS progress a killer's objective, regardless of whether the survivor was hooked before or not.
The killer's objective is to win… multihooking handicaps them and makes it harder to win. That is a detriment. I'm not calling it a detriment compared to tunneling.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I have been speaking on multihooking as its own thing the entire time. Multihooking, is garbage.
Tunnelling has warped your vision and is the standard by which you judge multihooking. You're not judging multihooking by how well it performs against survivors, you're judging it by how well it performs compared to tunnelling.
Ok so your entire response is based around me comparing multihooking to tunneling which I haven't done because I've been speaking on multihooking as its own thing.
No, multihooking is bad as its own thing. It's garbage. Leaving 4 survivors alive for an extended period of time is objectively bad and is just actively handicapping yourself as a killer, because the game is survivor sided in the 4v1 and killer sided below that.
But the only way this would work is if multihooking is as powerful as, or more powerful than, tunnelling/camping/slugging. Otherwise you'd wind up right back here to complain more.
You did see the part where I said… make tunneling, camping and slugging worse correct? I mean it was in the thing you quoted yourself.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941769#Comment_3941769
Again with the dwellers of this website loving to twist my words.
I'm not saying anything about it being fair or not with survivors having 25% of a game to win compared to killer's 75%. I am speaking SPECIFICALLY in the multihooking playstyle, you are actively keeping yourself IN the survivor's 25%.
That is literally the whole point. I am talking about MULTIHOOKING. The game is 100% survivor sided in the 4v1. My point is multihooking is objectively bad because you are keeping yourself, in the survivor sided situation. You are handicapping yourself. The obj of killer is to get kills, if you are doing a playstyle where you actively delay yourself from getting kills, that is a HANDICAP. The game becomes killer sided after getting down to 3v1 and below, it's why tunneling has become essentially the main way to play. Because the actual fun way to play, isn't viable to win consistently with… because you're handicapping yourself.
It's so funny that you guys are so desperate to argue against an objective fact. It's so weird. You can literally see gameplay from top killers. If the survivor team is competent, they have to tunnel to win. If the survivor team is going down in 15 - 20 seconds, then they can multihook all they want. Multihooking relies on survivors giving you quick chases because again… one semi long chase and you are down 2 gens right then and there, IF they are competent. Killer players have been saying multihooking is garbage since forever, you're acting like this is some brand new hot take I'm spewing here.
The killer's objective is to win… multihooking handicaps them and makes it harder to win.
Harder compared to what?
Stop putting words in my mouth.I am not putting words in your mouth. I am using your words to explain something that you don't even realise you are doing. Even now, as you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, you don't even seem to be aware that you slipped in that multihooking 'makes it harder to win', which is obviously in comparison to its alternatives.
This is the problem. You are so stuck in considering tunnelling as the baseline that you don't even register that you're doing it. You're not judging multihooking on its own merits because in every argument, you refer to the alternative. You're not making any assertion on how effective multihooking is, except in comparison to its alternatives.
Think of it this way:
If Multihooking gets you a 55% KR and tunnelling gets you a 70% KR, then Multihooking isn't bad. But you are asserting that it is, because 55% < 70%.
That is your argument when you call it a detriment, handicap, or say that it makes it 'harder to win'. Even if you, yourself, aren't clocking on to it, that IS what you are doing.
No, multihooking is bad as its own thing. It's garbage.
You did see the part where I said… make tunneling, camping and slugging worse correct? I mean it was in the thing you quoted yourself.
That still doesn't fix it if you believe that the game is only balanced with tunnelling, because it means you'd just need to swap the two out, which would leave multihooking in the same problematic spot.
-
@TimberGoingDown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941660#Comment_3941660
Ok. Let's say you're right. Let's say that I, with my 1200 hours and hundreds of dollars on characters and skins in this game, am actually a terrible player. Maybe you're right. It's not a stretch. I'm certainly not elite.
However, I regularly have to play against players who ARE. I regularly go against survivors who crank gens in under 5 minutes and juke me out of my shoes regularly. My only hope, when I'm faced with these players, is to force a tunnel and maybe scum out a draw if they get too cocky and altruistic. That's it. That's the best case scenario. Most of the time, when I face players of that caliber, I just get bagged at the gates. Which is what should happen. They are objectively better than me, and so should beat me most of the time.
However, if you take away even that small sliver of hope for a draw or win, what am I left with?
So if they're going to take away tunneling, slugging, and all of these other "toxic strategies," then don't pair me with survivors I have no hope of beating. Tighten up matchmaking so I only go up against survivors at my "skill level" that I can reasonably compete with. I'm not expecting to win every match, but I should have a fair shot at winning every match. And if that means that these juicer squads end up with 30 minute queues while they wait for Lilith Omen or some comp Nurse on a win streak to come available, so be it.
However, what's not fair is to throw me to the wolves, then take away any strategies I have of actually fighting them off.
However, I regularly have to play against players who ARE. I regularly go against survivors who crank gens in under 5 minutes and juke me out of my shoes regularly.
And this:
My only hope, when I'm faced with these players, is to force a tunnel and maybe scum out a draw if they get too cocky and altruistic. That's it.
Is you maintaining that exact problem. You are able to admit that they are outplaying you, but then you pull out tunnelling as a means of securing a draw or better, at which point, the MMR has no indication that these survivors were above your skill level.
You are messing up your own MMR by using these tactics to force wins that you, skill-wise, shouldn't be getting. As a result, you get stronger opponents, and thus become -more- dependent on tunnelling.
However, if you take away even that small sliver of hope for a draw or win, what am I left with?
Your own actual skill. Your macro, your micro, your game sense, your intuition, your twitch reflexes.
And yes, after getting boosted by these tactics to a higher MMR bracket, losing that support will likely cause you to take a tumble down the ladder, but eventually the MMR should settle you in a bracket where you can comfortably and confidently face off against survivors that you can beat with multi-hooking.
But it does require that you do not tunnel/camp/slug to get kills outside your skill bracket.
However, what's not fair is to throw me to the wolves, then take away any strategies I have of actually fighting them off.
You tunnelled, camped and slugged your way into the wolves' den. If you're not ready to play with the wolves, don't do that.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941660#Comment_3941660
Again, it's bad
in comparison to game-breaking tactics that have been wreaking havoc on this game since its inception.You have no leg to stand on when trying to judge the method on its own merits, because you, yourself, have refuted the concept of killer skill entirely, so how do you know when a killer is matched against survivors of 'equal skill'?
YOU guys are the ones that keep comparing it to tunneling and camping. My judgement of multihooking has entirely been on its own.
And yes, I do have a leg to stand on. Obviously killer skill matters to an extent, my POINT is that if both sides are of equal skill or if the survivor side is better, multihooking immediately becomes a detriment to do.
Because again, say it with me now:
Leaving 4 survivors alive for an extended period of time, is objectively bad.
That is not arguable. That is not debatable. Whatever word you wanna use, it isn't. It's objectively bad, to leave 4 survivors alive for an extended period of time.
The problem is that your one complaint is that you lose sometimes, and you're turning a blind eye to several years straight of patches almost exclusively aimed at making killer gameplay better, to focus on the one instance of survivors getting something and demanding 'equality'.
"The one instance"???
Yea I'm sorry that's the most disingenuous thing I've read so far. I've been playing this game consistently for years now atp, to sit here and lie and say that this is the "one instance" of survivors getting anything, is just factually incorrect.
Not to mention that what you are arguing for is to take an already skewed balance and skew it even further. That's not 'making both sides feel better to play', that's just plainly bolstering one side at the express expense of the other.
Again, why are we acting purposefully dense.
No, me saying to make multihooking better whilst also making tunneling, camping and slugging worse is NOT me skewing it further to one side.
That doesn't even make sense.
And again, you complaining about losing too much
Nowhere did I say I lose too much, often, or anything of the sort.
YOU guys are the ones that keep comparing it to tunneling and camping. My judgement of multihooking has entirely been on its own.
No, it hasn't been.
And yes, I do have a leg to stand on. Obviously killer skill matters to an extent, my POINT is that if both sides are of equal skill or if the survivor side is better, multihooking immediately becomes a detriment to do.
No, it doesn't become a detriment. A detriment would have to actively hinder the killer from completing their objective. Hooking a survivor will ALWAYS progress a killer's objective, regardless of whether the survivor was hooked before or not.
The reason you consider it a detriment is because it negatively deviates from what you now hold as the standard, which is tunnelling.
In other words, you declare it a detriment because you are comparing it to tunnelling.
You are calling it bad because it's not as strong as tunnelling.
That's not judging the method on its own merits. That's judging it compared to a standard set by a different tactic.
That is not arguable. That is not debatable. Whatever word you wanna use, it isn't. It's objectively bad, to leave 4 survivors alive for an extended period of time.
You know what else is 'objectively bad'?
Not cheating.
Does that mean that if you aren't cheating, you are playing badly? Or would you not even consider it because the option of cheating is simply not on the table?
Now imagine how you'd feel about four survivors being alive for an extended period of time if there was no option to rush 'em out. Imagine if survivors just had 12 hookstates between the lot of them and you couldn't kill one before hook #9. Would you still care that multihooking doesn't kill a survivor in three hooks?
The only reason you are able to consider this a drawback is because you have tunnelling to compare it to!
Tunnelling has warped your vision and is the standard by which you judge multihooking. You're not judging multihooking by how well it performs against survivors, you're judging it by how well it performs compared to tunnelling.
No, me saying to make multihooking better whilst also making tunneling, camping and slugging worse is NOT me skewing it further to one side.
But the only way this would work is if multihooking is as powerful as, or more powerful than, tunnelling/camping/slugging. Otherwise you'd wind up right back here to complain more.
Nowhere did I say I lose too much, often, or anything of the sort.
I was referring to losing too much when you multihook.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941636#Comment_3941636
So then screw the top people who want to have fun right! (Even though if you're doing it for average players, I don't think average killers would be able to multihook even against average survivors so you're just doing a loop).
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941642#Comment_3941642
Wrong.
I am asking for the betterment of the game by saying "Hey, we should make both sides feel better to play, instead of just one" like a normal human being would. Because what I'm describing is not people being better, what I'm describing is a playstyle that is an active detriment to try and do, against competent players. Multihooking actively handicaps the killer.
If you take a killer and put them against survivors of equal skill, that killer is losing trying to multihook 8/10 times. Because it's objectively bad. Leaving 4 survivors alive for an extended period of time, is bad.
I repeat, leaving 4 survivors alive, is BAD.
Because as I've said, for the 50th time… the game is severely survivor sided in the 4v1, but severely killer sided in the 3v1.
If you take a killer and put them against survivors of equal skill, that killer is losing trying to multihook 8/10 times. Because it's objectively bad. Leaving 4 survivors alive for an extended period of time, is bad.
Again, it's bad in comparison to game-breaking tactics that have been wreaking havoc on this game since its inception.
You have no leg to stand on when trying to judge the method on its own merits, because you, yourself, have refuted the concept of killer skill entirely, so how do you know when a killer is matched against survivors of 'equal skill'?
It's like @crogers271 said, it's backwards reasoning.
'Good survivors are unbeatable, ergo, if the killer won, the survivors must not have been good'
I am asking for the betterment of the game by saying "Hey, we should make both sides feel better to play, instead of just one" like a normal human being would.
The problem is that your one complaint is that you lose sometimes, and you're turning a blind eye to several years straight of patches almost exclusively aimed at making killer gameplay better, to focus on the one instance of survivors getting something and demanding 'equality'.
The developers have literally said that they muck up the balance in favour of killers and your primary complaint is still about losing. The changes announced are only the second time the developers have attempted to tackle a problem that's been kicking around for NINE YEARS and you think killers are hard done by?
Not to mention that what you are arguing for is to take an already skewed balance and skew it even further. That's not 'making both sides feel better to play', that's just plainly bolstering one side at the express expense of the other.
And again, you complaining about losing too much when you also hold that your skill doesn't matter makes your complaint entirely dismissible. You shouldn't win 'consistently' if you refuse to consider your own gameplay and your own skill.
-
Or... Survivors should be able to see their teammates' loadouts at any time to help solos with their decision-making.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941579#Comment_3941579
Okay.
Multi-hooking is not already viable.
It relies on a luck system where if you can get bad survivors, you can do it. If they are competent, you can't. Because it relies on being able down people in relatively quick time or else it's immediately cooked. Again, the game is severely survivor sided whilst in the 4v1. It becomes severely killer sided, in the 3v1. Until that problem is solved, nothing will change.
Edit: And again with the spam downvotes only proves my point that survivor players seemingly don't want the betterment of the game, they only want the betterment of their own side.
Foolish.
I'm sorry, but at this point, your issue is obviously with the possibility that sometimes, better players than you manage to beat you.
You're not asking for 'the betterment of the game', you're demanding free wins.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941462#Comment_3941462
Even the best killers can start by doing that but as soon as the survivor team is even remotely competent and can take advantage of the fact that you leaving 4 people alive, and can loop for longer than 15 seconds. Guess what they do, they start tunneling and camping IF their goal is too win. Yes, it is an objectively bad playstyle.
It relies heavily on straight RNG. Are the survivors competent?
Yes? You're not multihooking.
No? You can multihook.
Leaving 4 survivors alive is factually bad. Again, the game is hilariously survivor sided in a 4v1, just the same as it is hilariously killer sided in a 3v1 and below. Until that gap can be closed, multihooking will ALWAYS be worse than any other playstyle that results in kills. Introducing a bunch of anti-tunneling, anti-camping, and anti-slugging mechanics will not change that. All you will do, is make killer feel bad to play and survivors feel great. That is not balance. Balance would be making multihooking better to benefit killers AND introducing anti-whatever changes to benefit survivors. Doing just one is dumb.
But evidently from the downvote spam survivor players can't get behind the idea of "Make both sides fun instead of just one". Somehow that is an outlandish take to have.
Leaving 4 survivors alive is
factuallybad. Again, the game is hilariously survivor sided in a 4v1, just the same as it is hilariously killer sided in a 3v1 and below. Until that gap can be closed, multihooking willALWAYSbe worse than any other playstyle that results in kills.But this is the problem.
Other methods being better, doesn't mean multihooking is bad. Competent killers are able to get obscene winrates even without tunnelling, slugging and camping.
But you're not going to -become- a competent killer, if your perspective is, from the outset, that your skill does not matter. If you just attribute every loss to the survivors being competent, rather than looking at your gameplay and thinking 'what could I have done differently?'.
Keep in mind that so far, from you, I've seen:
- My skill does not matter
- I want to win consistently
This is a really bad combination because it basically means that you are expecting a high winrate without having to put in any effort to improve your gameplay. Unless, of course, you genuinely believe your gameplay is 100% flawless, in which case… Good luck with that.
There are probably more competent killer players out there that could easily and handily beat, with multihooking, the teams that you think are unbeatable with multihooking. And they might even be able to give you pointers, to teach you tricks and methods to improve your gameplay.
But you have no impetus to seek out that advice and get better at the game because you start with the assumption that your skill doesn't matter.
So you stagnate, but the survivors you go up against may actually be learning from their mistakes and progressing their skill levels.
And in that scenario, you expect to still win consistently? Don't you think that's pretty unreasonable?
But evidently from the downvote spam survivor players can't get behind the idea of "Make both sides fun instead of just one".
The problem is that the vast majority of killer complaints are little more than 'I lost'. Hell, not even that, sometimes it's just 'The survivors got value out of a perk'.
There ARE legitimate gripes with killer gameplay, like the lack of down-time, like chaining hook-denial, like teabagging and having to escort folks out the exit gate. But those complaints consistently get snowed under by the avalanche of killers complaining that matches are sometimes won by survivors.
What do you expect BHVR to do with that? They have an epidemic on their hands of survivor players that are checking out, and you want them to make the game MORE killer-sided than they already do?
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941309#Comment_3941309
No it really doesn't. Multihooking is an objectively bad thing to do. There's no positives to it because any remotely competent team of survivors can easily take advantage of the fact that you're letting 4 of them live at the same time. Unless you're ending chases in 15 seconds flat, it's pointless.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941320#Comment_3941320
???
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941329#Comment_3941329
Yes. And once multihooking is actually remotely viable to do, you can make all the anti-tunneling, anti-camping, anti-whatever changes you want and it won't just actively ruin the killer experience. Because the playstyle you WANT killers to do, won't be complete garbage.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941337#Comment_3941337
No one's backtracking. I made it very clear what the exceptions were, I told you verbatim that it wouldn't buff tunneling and you ignored that and kept repeating yourself.
You are the problem here. You don't read to understand, you read to argue. I can't help you.
No it really doesn't. Multihooking is an objectively bad thing to do. There's no positives to it because any remotely competent team of survivors can easily take advantage of the fact that you're letting 4 of them live at the same time. Unless you're ending chases in 15 seconds flat, it's pointless.
People win with this method all the time. Just because it won't hard-carry you to T O P M M R like tunnelling does, doesn't mean the method is 'objectively bad'. That's if you're just comparing it to the other methods, not if you're comparing it to regular results.
Because on that front, you'd have to account for killer skill. Some killers have shown that multihooking is perfectly viable.
But you're not going to be able to do that if your starting point is giving up.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941316#Comment_3941316
This isn't some weird or usual math, it's literally basic math. A 60% kill rate means on average over thousands of matches, the killer would get a 3k+ sliiiiightly under every other match which comes down to roughly 50% of the time. 62.5% would be on average 2.5 kills per match.
According to your "math", kill rate is win rate. That is realized to be flawed pretty quick with this example. If kill rate is win rate, then let's put it to the test. In this example, let's just say the killer plays 1000 matches and only ever gets a single kill. That puts him at a 25% kill rate on average. According to you, he wins 25% of the time, or 1 out of 4 matches. Please explain how the killer, with a 25% kill rate over 1,000 matches who gets a single kill every time somehow won 250 of those matches? Its incredibly clear that kill rate does not equal win rate. Now of course a killer will not kill the exact same number of kills every match, but in math, the model would work in every example situation, and im providing an example that points out the failure in logic to claim the kill rate is the win rate.
This isn't some weird or usual math, it's literally basic math.
It's not basic math, it's a complete abstraction of something that… Well, I don't know what it is, but it absolutely isn't DBD.
A 60% kill rate means on average over thousands of matches, the killer would get a 3k+ sliiiiightly under every other match
No, it doesn't. Not by a long shot. That is an obscene oversimplification that completely divorces your 'maths' from reality.
In fact, if you check a real dataset, like Nightlight, you'll see that it doesn't adhere to your 'maths': You claim 60% KR means they get a 3K+ slightly less than every other match.
Well, Freddy's on 60.8% KR, and his 3K+ rate is roughly 55%. In other words, he get's a 3K+ slightly MORE than every other match. So if your math is correct, how is this happening?
That is realized to be flawed pretty quick with this example. If kill rate is win rate, then let's put it to the test. In this example, let's just say the killer plays 1000 matches and only ever gets a single kill. That puts him at a 25% kill rate on average. According to you, he wins 25% of the time, or 1 out of 4 matches. Please explain how the killer, with a 25% kill rate over 1,000 matches who gets a single kill every time somehow won 250 of those matches?
It's pretty ironic that you set this challenge to him but fail to respond to mine.
And if you're going to accuse Nightlight of being a statistical anomaly, this one's gonna be even more ironic.
Now of course a killer will not kill the exact same number of kills every match, but in math, the model would work in every example situation, and im providing an example that points out the failure in logic to claim the kill rate is the win rate.
Like how your model asserts that a 50% KR killer can never, under any circumstances, ever win a single match?
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941273#Comment_3941273
Never consistently though. Doing multihooking and trying to win is hardly up to your skill, it's a wheelspin. You either get even remotely half competent survivors and you lose, or they suck and you win. Because no competent survivor team is losing against that.
It's why anytime you see the "pro" play or people doing streaks and actively wanting to win, they can start off by wanting to be nice and fair and play the fun way that people actually want… but then you realize the survivors aren't god awful it quickly becomes "oh they're taking advantage of the fact that I'm actively just letting 4 of them live at the same time".
BHVR needs to close the gap of how survivor sided the game is in a 4v1 and how killer sided it becomes in 3v1 and below, if they want any chance of multihooking being the main playstyle. Because all it currently is… multihooking plays towards the 4v1 (survivor sided) while tunneling plays towards making the game 3v1 and below (killer sided). There's zero reason to do multihooking and just making tunneling worse doesn't fix that, all you do is make killer feel awful to play.
Never consistently though.
Depends on your skill as a player.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940811#Comment_3940811
Bruh, kill rate isn't win rate, lol. To put it into perspective, a 75+% kill rate is required to win a match (a 0k is 0%, a 1k is 25%, a 2k is 50%, a 3k is 75%, and a 4k is 100%). A 60% kill rate is on average killing 2.49 survivors a match which means a 60% kill rate equates to getting at least 3 kills slightly under 50% of the time. A 2.5k average would be a 62.5% kill rate which would equate to an even 50% chance to get a win.
Peddling this should be bannable at this point.
Run this model with a 50% killrate, what happens to the winrate? Instantly proves how dumb this 'calculation' is.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941014#Comment_3941014
And I'm telling you, that you can't physically fix people just giving up because they give up over the dumbest things. That is what I don't think you understand. There is no fixing it.
People give up over anything. They give up over unfixable things, you will NEVER fix that problem outside of just straight up punishing giving up. You can't fix a survivor having a bad first chase. You can't fix a survivor not liking a certain killer. You can't fix a survivor not liking a certain map. You just can't.
If they had a bad 5 past matches, DON'T QUEUE. That's the fix. Stop queueing if you aren't having fun. Like???
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941027#Comment_3941027
Yes yes, let's keep using kill rates under the post where I've said that using kill rates makes you look silly because it's an objectively flawed stat. Thank you for proving my point.
People give up over anything. They give up over unfixable things, you will
NEVERfix that problem outside of just straight up punishing giving up. You can't fix a survivor having a bad first chase. You can't fix a survivor not liking a certain killer. You can't fix a survivor not liking a certain map. You just can't.But people would be less likely to give up over a bad first chase if their other matches are of higher quality. You're more likely to quit if -every- match is bad, and you're less likely to quit if you have a couple of good matches tossed in there.
It's basically a case of the straw breaking the camel's back, but the straw itself isn't the problem. It's everything else the camel is already dealing with that makes the straw 'too much'.
If they had a bad 5 past matches,
DON'T QUEUE. That's the fix. Stop queueing if you aren't having fun. Like???But if -everyone- is quitting all the time, this advice would rend the playerbase to such a degree that you can't get matches anymore. Aren't people already complaining about long killer queues?
-
I'll stop using kill rates as evidence when the usual 'game is insanely survivor-sided' argument is supported by anything more than 'everyone knows that lol'.
Until then, bad stats still trump the 'trust me bro' card.
-
@NarkoTri1er said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940778#Comment_3940778
you pretty much need to stop looking at perk with the "it needs input and has conditions = bas perk" because it's a perk that requires certain level of player input to be used to the full extent, not to mention how so many players are infested with the "if killer doesn't eat the DS up, i wasted the perk" mindset. If killer doesn't tunnel you when you have DS, you literally still got the value from it, killer doesn't tunnel you.
And you can still tell your teammates to 99 the last gen if you have DS.
Only ways you actually truly won't get value of this perk in any way is if you either position yourself terribly or simply can't resist wasting 2s tbagging killer after they eat the DS up.
If killer doesn't tunnel you when you have DS, you literally still got the value from it, killer doesn't tunnel you.
This is incredibly optimistic. If the killer wasn't influenced in their decision-making by the consideration whether DS is in the game or not, then it's unreasonable to consider it 'DS value'.
I never tunnel, so DS has zero value in my killer matches.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940149#Comment_3940149
Because the survivor had an endurance effect, or because they were healed beforehand. For example, one of the popular DS builds is: OTR/DS/DH/Unbreakable.
It’s ok to put faith in the AI system. Anti-tunnel perks should deactivate if the survivor is intentionally bodyblocking, because if they’re intentionally bodyblocking, then they weren’t being tunneled.
Because the survivor had an endurance effect, or because they were healed beforehand. For example, one of the popular DS builds is: OTR/DS/DH/Unbreakable.
Okay?
That's not DS, though, is it?
-
@NarkoTri1er said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940087#Comment_3940087
survivor using locker or plot twist is literally forcing you to either leave them so that they are safe (and heal completely with Plot Twist) or eat up the DS. Because you can still choose to chase them and they will just hop into locker or Plot Twist when aggro has been taken, meaning they saved time for their teammate lol.
And acting like UB will be bad too or Soul Guard (basically guaranteed value against killers with possibility of constant map pressure like Billy and Blight because Ruin is almost always their go-to perk) pretty much speaks volume on how you are not aware of how to actually nullify killer's slug pressure, have time on your side because killer wasted time chasing you anyways completely (and indirectly getting full value out of DS regardless).
survivor using locker or plot twist is literally forcing you to either leave them so that they are safe (and heal completely with Plot Twist) or eat up the DS. Because you can still choose to chase them and they will just hop into locker or Plot Twist when aggro has been taken, meaning they saved time for their teammate lol.
But how are they taking the aggro?
If they bodyblock, you hit them, they go down. Once down, they can't use Plot Twist or lockers.
If they use a locker or plot twist, they are not bodyblocking, so why are you switching aggro onto them?
If you are intentionally targeting a survivor that is not bodyblocking and they do have DS up, you are just flat-out tunnelling and DS is supposed to work. If you take issue with that, you just have an issue with the concept of anti-tunnel to begin with, not its execution.
And acting like UB will be bad too
It's a single-use perk that is still gonna eat up a ton of the user's time which takes pressure off the killer.
or Soul Guard (basically guaranteed value against killers with possibility of constant map pressure like Billy and Blight because Ruin is almost always their go-to perk)
Except Soul Guard requires the hex to still be up in order to get value from it. When the hex goes down, so does Soul Guard. You really think it's a good trade for survivors to intentionally leave persistently effective hexes up all game just for a single bodyblock? You wanna risk the Devour Hope on the off-chance that you can bump the killer?
Think of it from the survivor side: You either screw over your own team by leaving the hex up, or you give up on getting up from a bodyblock. It's a lose-lose.
@NarkoTri1er said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940151#Comment_3940151
it's not situational nor bad at all. Not to mention that you are not only getting value of it if killer eats it up.
You are bringing a perk in preparation for EVENTUAL tunneling.
So all the cases where you actually get the value of perk:
- Killer eats DS up - most obvious one
- Killer doesn't tunnel - you are safe from getting chased any time soon OR you can be annoying for killer and force them to waste more time trying to get rid of you obstructing their other chase
- Killer slugs - other survivor can either reset or you can pick yourself up by combining DS with antislug perks, killer in a lose-lose situation.
This is situation with quite some actual meta perks, people think those are bad simply because people either don't know what getting value of perks is or they simply don't know how to use the perk properly.
The best counterpart perk on killer side for this is Eruption. So many people underestimate it and literally think it's bad while it's in fact one of the best slowdowns and simply the best perk for setting up 3-gens.
There is simply difference between perk that give little to no value no matter what play you or killer make and perks that give great value in specific circumstances you can force very often.
So all the cases where you actually get the value of perk:
Killer slugs - other survivor can either reset or you can pick yourself up by combining DS with antislug perks, killer in a lose-lose situation.
I mean, dude, legitimately?
DS doesn't work if the killer doesn't hook. If they're slugging, there's no DS. At all.
You can't consider it 'getting value from DS' when a perk that is NOT DS gets value.
That's like saying you can repair generators with No Mither because it synergises with Weaving Spiders.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940087#Comment_3940087
Because we're getting Go Next, the game should already be able to tell the difference between a survivor that is trying to escape a chase, and a survivor that is purposely trying to get hit.
So the game should be able to add intentional bodyblocking to the list of conspicuous actions for enduranced-based anti-tunneling, like DS.
Therefore, when a DS user is intentionally bodyblocking, they lose DS when they take a hit, so it wouldn't matter if they jump in a locker afterwards, because they won't have DS anymore.
That's putting an awful lot of faith in something that we don't even know will work. Or even how it will work.
Also…
Therefore, when a DS user is intentionally bodyblocking, they lose DS when they take a hit, so it wouldn't matter if they jump in a locker afterwards, because they won't have DS anymore.
How are they gonna hop in a locker when they're downed?
-
@NarkoTri1er said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939872#Comment_3939872
lockers literally exist btw, not to mention that you can pair DS with Unbreakable or other anti-slugging perks like Soul Guard. You can even use Plot Twist with it to force the killer in an absolute lose-lose situation.
All in all, DS has always been a good perk that actually has skill floor in terms of knowing how and where to force it
A survivor using locker or plot twist is, by definition, not bodyblocking, so why are you targeting them if not specifically to tunnel them out?
And UB will still waste a ton of extra time plus a single use perk. Soul Guard won't even work unless the survivors intentionally leave your hex up, which benefits you more than them.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939872#Comment_3939872
By that logic, survivors should be happy when killers camp a hook, because it means all the other survivors get to repair generators without being interrupted.
Except the problem with camping is the death of gameplay. Survivors don't care if they win if the way they get there is by going AFK on hook.
Conversely, bodyblocking changes nothing about killer gameplay.