Gandor
Gandor
About
- Username
- Gandor
- Joined
- Visits
- 5,003
- Last Active
Comments
-
@UndeddJester said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3884618#Comment_3884618
Fair enough.
Though I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what the game is and what it should be, and thus will just have to agree to disagree.
I believe the difference of our perspectives is in regards to the games theme and objectives as defined. You perceive the 4 Survivors as a team, and the game as far as your terms are concerned, is number of survivors escaped vs. number of survivors killed determines the outcome. If that were true... yes you would be right that 50% would be balanced purely on a team vs. team scale. This means that if 3 survivors escaped, but you had to die to do it, that to your mind is you winning, which is of course the way competative DBD is played. However DBD is not a team.vs. team game... every survivor who dies actually loses; they fail their objective. Every survivor who escapes is the killer failing their objective, and this is a subtle but important difference.
A lot of people say DBD isn't a horror game any more, but I disagree. Even if it's gotten cartoonish in a number of ways, it still explores the same fundamental ideas and principles that a real horror scenario would put you in... and the reason I reject your way of looking at the game is it completely kills that theme.
To save as many of your teammates as possible is your personally defined objective... but in reality as per the rules of the game, it is not an actual objective of the game, your objective is quite simply to get out alive by any means necessary. It is just as valid to play this game with a selfish playstyle. Most people don't... but someone who does, is not wrong.
This means that first and foremost YOUR survival comes before your team. This contradicts my previous example with the 2 man right? Well no... because if I know that I'm gonna lose, the best I can get out of the game now is to help another player win. That player who escapes is winning the game. They are not losing the game because 3 other survivors died, they still win... What this means for me dying is yes, I might have lost to the killer, but the killer lost a kill in doing so, I sacrificed myself and lost so another player could succeed... thatbis different to survivors winning and losing as a team.
Now in theory this should mean I'm always leaving when given the chance right? Since my goal is to survive? Well No… because despite knowing this, I am an altruistic player. I will always TRY and save other survivors, however... I do so knowing I am compromising MY ability to win. That to me is emulating the horror experience it intends, where if this were real the equivalent question would be "could I live with myself knowing someone else sacrificed themselves for me, and I had a chance, however slim, of saving them?".
This simple scenario is a great representation of a horror experience... if survivors are a team, 3 of us can and should leave for a guaranteed win while 1 dies. By your logic, that's a Survivor win... but we all know that isn't true... because we also know that player loses. The real world scenario the game is trying to emulate is that player actually dies if we leave them, so what are we gonna do? We compromise our own chance to win to save someone else...
You might call it risking the game to win more, but to me that is a very detached and inaccurate way of looking at the game. You aren't winning more because thats not your objective as defined by the game, you are deciding to risk your chance of victory to help someone else win, similar to how the games in something like Squid Game work. It's your humanity that is being questioned, not your actual win condition.
On a personal preference note, the decision to go back and save a player, only has meaning if the threat of failure is real, and you are actively giving up your personal chances of victory to do it, and a survivors individual chance of survival in a trial has to be lower for that decision to carry any weight, excitement and meaning... As I've said before, the 50% killrate means that the gate is opened AT LEAST 60% of the time... making this decision to go back not just less meaningful, but also the status quo.
I myself find Survivor role much more thrilling because a 4 man escape is rarer. I tend to find the games where a 4 man escape occurs to be kind of boring more often than not. The games that are really exciting are where there is a desperate scramble between 2 or 3 survivors left to get out... but most 3 man escapes are typically quite easy escapes, and 4 man's are very often snooze fests... that means on a 50% killrate, 30-40% of our survivor games are actually quite uneventful and boring... I personally would like less of these games, not more.
We'll likely continue to disagree I'm sure, but the point I'm laborious getting across is I would personally find the game much more boring at a 50% kill rate, where gate scrambles occur 60% of the time and I still maintain, you can't call the killer failing to complete 50% of their objective a draw game for killer...
Now if you made the killer objective a certain number of hooks... then yeah, in that scenario a tie makes more sense... but with things as they are neither side has a concept of a tie, the objectives are binary.
- Did you kill all survivors?
- Did you escape?
That is it. There is no concept of a draw here, nor winning more as a survivor unless you personally define it.
I 100% agree with your assessment. Your point of view makes sense. I just don't agree with it (which is totally ok).
As you said, I see the game as team vs team and for every snooze-fest where 4 get out, there's another snooze fest where killer kills everyone at 5-3 gens (or even at 0 gens for that matter). In my eyes it's just as boring as 4-man escape. But these extremes are fundamentally more probable the more you deviate from 50% kill rate.
So yes - while I see your point and there's sound logic behind it, it's just impossible for me to adopt it. So lets agree to disagree then
-
@Leon_Loves_Cheryl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3876492#Comment_3876492
DBD isn't about winning every game. It's not a competitive game. This isn't League of Legends. You need to readjust your mentality towards DBD. Survivor isn't about showing off your pro gamer skills and escaping 90% of the time. You're supposed to feel stressed, pressured, and potentially die by daylight.
it's not potential. It's probable. And that's one of the main reasons why I don't play the game.
And that's fine. Clearly the game is no longer for people like me, but instead of people that are trilled to die often on survivor. But that bears it's cost as well - like alienating players like me (smaller player base) and suicide epidemic.
-
@UndeddJester said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3884388#Comment_3884388
Your argument fails at the very start. Gunman winning only if he kills all knive people is super arbitrary.
I feel like you didn't read past that first point, because the point I'm making is you cannot define a tie in my example asym, nor DBD.
The instruction for killer side is to kill all survivors. That is the killer objective, not "most" survivors, ALL survivors. If you do not do that, you failed in your objective, and by escape we agree that gen powered gate escapes are the only true escapes. There are different degrees of failure in this killer objective, but anything short of a 4k/3k with 1e through hatch is a failure by the killer to prevent survivor escapes. The problem is, your 50% killrate has the killer fail their objective at least 60% of the time, while Survivors as a team complete their objective of powering the gates and getting out through gate also at least 60% of the time... You probably disagree with that statement, but let's think about it.
You describe the survivor goal of as many survivors making it out as possible... OK, but do you not also consider it a victory if you have 2 survivors left, and 1 manages to distract the killer long enough for the other to open gate and leave? Or is that not a victory for the survivor team? I would certainly consider getting my teammate out alive a victory, because to my mind, I as the survivor cost the killer a kill. That's a victory by virtue of the fact it ditectly denied the Killer their objective.
That's the crux of my point, the killers goal is to kill all survivors. Killing 4 survivors before any escape as an objective is no different in its terms compared to my little asym example game where you have to kill 4 enemy players before they kill you. A 2k is not a draw, it is a factual statement that a 2k is the killer failing their objective.
This does beg the question, if the killers objective is to kill 4 survivors, how often should they succeed in that objective? By your logic that would be 20% of the time, but it would also mean 20% of the time we should see a 0k. Would you say that every 5 games the killer 0king should be the status quo? Cause I would definitely expect a 0k to be rarer than a 4k if the killer is a tangible threat as the power role.
You are incorrect. I read it whole. My whole point is, that I don't accept your premise of "get it all or I lost". And I argued that if you allow "get it all or I lost" on killler's side, then you should do the same as well on survivor's side (which is 4 out). Given this, most matches result in both side loose. But even in this case killers win way more then survivors, because 60% kill rate instead of 50%.
As for your 2nd statement. No it's not win. It's a loose. 3 people died. Survivors most definitely lost. Given your "I only win when I get it all" view on things, it means that survivors were worlds away from a true win. As survivor my objective is getting everyone out and I failed it miserably.
But if you start to think about it, the world is never absolute. There's a thing called "partial win". Your example showed exactly that. Killer won 75%, but survivors managed to get 25%. Overall killer most definitely won and being survivor feels bad, but it's still better then getting all 4 killed. The same way as getting out via gate is true win, but if I can't get that I will still take hatch over running at killer getting sacrificed. Hatch escape is still better then outright dying.
-
@VibranToucan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3884388#Comment_3884388
"For me that means both roles now suck hard and i am not playing either one (not since chucky)"
You haven't played the game in over a year and still hang around the forums? And want to actively contribute to balance decisions?
Anyway, I wish there was a 60% killrate. In reality its, at above baby MMR, more like 57%. And yes, killers should have a higher than 50% killrate.
Firstly, lets talk about how much power people have over the game. Survivors have 4 offerings slots, compared to killers 1. Survivors have 4 items with 2 add ons each, compared to Killers just having 2 add ons. Survivors have 4 perks each, meaning 16, repeatable perks, Killers have 4 and they have to be 4 different. Due to Survivors having so many tools at their disposale, Survivors have way more power about the framework of a match than the killer has, and the killer has to adept. Giving the killer an advantage to make up for it makes sense.
Secondly, lets talk SWF vs Soloqueue. Soloqueue is less organised than SWF and therefore usually ends up with a lower killrate. The killrates being so close to 50% means that very likely, they are at or below 50% for smart SWFs. Recent community data shows that Eyrie of Crows is by far the most played map and has an under 50% killrate. This map being a favourite for map offering SWFs. It can still be brought by a Soloqueue Survivor or randomly happen, which would push the killrate up, but it still has a below 50% killrate. If Survivors give their all, they can easily get an average under 50% killrate. But if SWFs could constantly crush killers, this wouldn't be fun. A higher than 50% killrate is needed so that killers can actually expect to have a decent shot when going against SWFs.
Thirdly lets talk killer viability. The devs want you to be able to pick up any killer and be able to realistically win, even if going against Survivors. A higher than 50% average killrate, assuming no one killer spikes too hard above the rest, would make sure that this is possible with all killer. Cause a 50% killrate on average, keeping the current average in mind, would mean like a 44% killrate for Chucky. And nobody would want to play a character if it means losing that much.
Fourthly, lets talk about kill destribution. Because 8 hooks can mean 0 kills and 9 hook stages can mean 3 killers. A killer doesn't win by hooking, they win by killing. In addition to that, a Survivor who is dead cannot work on gens anymore. Both of these factors combined lead to games being fairly snowbally. Getting two kills often doesn't mean two kills, but usually allows a snowball into a third kill. This means the numbers will always be squed towards the extremes, and trying to balance the game by balancing these two extremes out is not healthy.
Fithly, lets talk giving up. If a Survivor decides they don't want to play the game for whatever reason, they can kill themself on hook or disconnect. This usually ends with the killer being able to win the game with 3 or 4 kills. Survivors going next is fairly common, maybe happens one in every 5 games in my experience, meaning that the killrate is artificially increased due to people just refusing to play the game.
Lastly, lets talk emotional impact. We play games to have fun after all and joy is an emotion. Survivors have more control over the match than killers, they are stronger than killers if they try hard, and there is more of them, meaning there is more of a tribalistic push against you than for you. If people are mad at each other after the game, it is 1 vs 4 arguing. Sure, I can handle being insulted, otherwise I would have stopped playing this game, but I think we can generally agree that being insulted usually doesn't feel nice. So from an emotional/community perspective, playing killer feels worse than playing Survivor. So they need to make up for that too somehow.
And Killer feels bad is a fact about this game and without changing it being 1v4, you will not be able to change that.
Yes I do. I loved the game when I first found it. It was a lot of fun. Over the years, it just got frustrated. Now I sometimes watch streamers and come to forums from time to time. What's wrong about that?
As for your first paragraph - killer has full power while solo survivor has tiny portion. You can clearly see it when you compare best players taking weakest killer in public vs tryharding as soloQ. In case of killer he'll have at minimum 90% kill rate (but more like 99+%). As survivor… You can check Ayrun - suffice to say that AFAIK his escape streak never got above 34 escapes in a row which is BTW world record. These are results instead of anecdotal "1 v 4" statements that result "poor 1 person with machine gun in open field is definitely weaker then 4 naked people that have nothing".
2nd and 3rd point are basically identical. Even if survivor has about 50% chance when all odds are in his favor, that doesn't mean the game is fair. For every best survivor map, you have corresponding headonfield or some other horrible map. And even then. 50% is IMO fair. More maps should be like Eyrie. The way they were 5 years ago. And as for every SWF (4 man is very rare btw) you still have nurse/blight with their multiple 1000+ streaks which is apparently fine in your eyes.
As for killer viability - there's exactly 0 killers that have 40% kill rate. All killers are very viable. Maybe not for comp, but in public matches you can get 90% kill rate or more without even using ability (as shown by e.g. Hens - and that was without camping or tunneling). Also. It's fine if survivors loose 60% of time, but it's not fine if chucky looses 56% of time because "noone will want to loose that much"? Well. Survivors already do.
Artificial increase - AFAIK disconnected matches don't count. Giving up is the direct result of survivors not having chance. Enjoy it, because you advocate for this. Why would I continue in a match where you are basically certain to loose now? The chances were already bad when the game started (40%) and now it's just doomed. This is what killers persuading devs brought on you.
Survivors have less control as I already have shown (Ayrun example). If you are 4man on comms with 5000+hours per teammate, then you might be right. But even that's not really true vs blight and nurse. As for the rest of statement - that was exactly my point previously. Killers are bribed by free kills instead of addressing the real issue. As a result both roles suck.
-
@UndeddJester said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3884323#Comment_3884323
I mean not sure I understand your argument tbh, but I suppose an alternative way of looking at it is to simplify the idea of an asym.
So I have an asym where 1 player has a gun, and 4 players have knives. The Gun player has to kill all 4 Knives players to win. Every knife player wins if they are alive when the player with a gun dies. This is a simple as the asym concept can be.
What is neat about this example is it follows a similar gameplay curve as DBD, where the more Knives players that die, the less likely the Knives players are to win, to the point that a 2vs1 is likely a losing game for Knives, and 1vs1 is petty much guaranteed death for the Knife player.... but for the sake of ease we'll assume each outcome is equally likely.
Now what does a "tie" mean in this context? Our Knives side might call it a tie if 2 knives die and 2 knives live... therefore Gun players should expect to have a 50% killrate. However from the gun players perspective, in 4/5 games they are getting killed. They are losing 80% of their games. Even with a 60% killrate, the Gun player is still dying in 75% of their games.
Lets now assume when we get to 1vs1, the Knife player can forfeit and Gun gets to win, and the last Knife player is considered to draw (like DBD hatch). Even then, Gun is making it to the one vs. one 45% of the time (effectively a 3k in DBD), winning less that 50% of their games.
This is semantically no different to Killer in DBD, with a 50% killrate you are expected to be failing to kill 4 survivors in 80% of your games, and failing to kill 3 players in 60% of your games. You don't die in DBD, but you still failed your objective, and your argument is effectively "be happy with a draw"... even though it's not a draw... you failed as killer if you got a 2k.
If I'm wrong, kindly tell me where my argument fails.
Your argument fails at the very start. Gunman winning only if he kills all knive people is super arbitrary. The other extreme of that example would be if gunman escapes with his life without killing anyone (should game allow it).
Now given dbd, you as a killer want to kill as many survivors as possible. On the other side as survivor you most definitely want to escape. However vast majority of players would consider it winning more if it's not just "i escaped", but also "i and everyone in my team escaped". These are the 2 extremes where (after some simplification) "you can't win more" (and yes for simplicity i am ignoring hook states).
So basically as killer i want (my objective) 4k, as survivor i want 0k. Math tells me that means 2k (50% kill rate) instead of 2.4k being the exact split in the middle. That is fair compromise.
If you don't like this way of looking at it, then take devs explenation of killer playing 4 gamed in 1 trial at the same time - if he kills 2, it means he won 2x and lost 2x. That's 2 wins only in 50% kill rate case. Anything above 50% means killer is on average winning more (partial) games then loosing.
And this still conveniently counts hatch escape as an escape - which it absolutely isn't. Hatch is pity chance giving part of the game which only serves as an incentive for survivor to not quit the game when it's hopeless. Most survivors prefer all generators fixed gate escape over hatch escape, because free random hatch does not feel like a true win. Fully valid alternative to whole hatch mechanics would be vote to surender the game (which would probably mildly annoy killer as he's not able to enjoy free win)
However devs clearly don't agree with fair 50% balancing, because in this fair setting, there's less killers then required amount - and the reason for that is stress/annoyance/etc with killer role. But instead of fixing that, people are trying to twist the logic why it's actually fair that survivors should loose most games and killers are entitled to outright loose (meaning not getting even the exact split between perfect win vs perfect loose) veeeery few games because "that's fair".
NO IT ISN'T. Not by a long shot. And i refuse to play this game because of it - survivor is in game for free killers win just to bribe killer players to play the game even thru all the problems that make killers less desirable.
Survivors undeserved loss is directly balanced against killer's frustration. For me that means both roles now suck hard and i am not playing either one (not since chucky). And that is not going to change until the game gets fair while at the same time less frustrating for killer. So long as it's like this, I rather play actual fair (symetrical) multiplayer games instead (where 56% win rate of 1 side equals to very fast hotfix and lots of talk in community compared to TARGETTED FREAKING 60%).
-
When you really think about it, even 50% kill rate is quite generous. Because hatch escape counts as escape - even though in reality it's a draw. So to have correct half-way measure between survivor's clearly win no question about it and killer clearly won no question about it would be half way between 4 legitimate kills vs halfway between 4 legitimate gate escapes.
Hatch should be struck out of the consideration as that's just pity draw mechanics.
And halfway between 4 escape and 0 escape is 2 escape. Now taking into consideration hatch, optimal kill rate could be around 45% (maybe little more, but definitely below 50%).
This does not even take into consideration that win is fun and maximizing fun would mean have more players win more often then loose.
The only reason why 60% kill rate is the target is, that killer is often times stressful and so it's less fun. So to balance number of players, killer get more undeserved wins to dissuade survivors from playing the game and convincing killers to play more. When in fact correct solution would be to actually address reasons why playing killer feels so bad, that they have to be bribed with free wins just to play the game.
(also the reverse is going to happen in 8v2. Survivors need to get bribed with easy games just to queue up, because killer is fun while survivor is not)
-
@UndeddJester said:
After having this discussion 100 times, I think one misconception that a lot of survivors have is the killer draws on a 2k... the killer hasn't drawn in this scenario.
The killers objective is to kill 4 survivors... thats is it. You achieve this most commonly by preventing gates from being powered at all. No one would deny preventing the gates being powered is a killer win.
The only reason a 3k is considered a "win" is because the 4th survivor can escape via hatch or out of gate once hatch closes, so 3k being a "win" accounts for the Survivors last ditch hope mechanics... not because the Killer was "close enough to a 4k so that's a win". If hatch didn't exist and survivors MUST power the gate via gens to escape, then 3k would also not be a win for killer, since you failed to hold the gate and prevent survivors escaping.
I think this is where a lot of this "2k is a tie" mentality comes from.... it doesn't consider the fact that the terms of the trial is simply a race to power generators and open/escape through the gate vs. killing all survivors before that happens. Failing to hold gates means you allowed legitimate escapes from the trial, thus you failed to maintain enough pressure for the killer objective.
Due to this I think the 60% killrate is fine, even though I play more survivor than killer... however since this discussiom keeps coming up, I feel like the sweet spot for most players is a 55% killrate, and my logic is:
- The gate not being opened is unequivocally a killer win.
- The gate being opened means some number of survivors got a "legitimate escape", i.e. the killer failed their objective of killing all survivors. (This is why killers don't see a 2 man escape as a draw, the killer failed their objective of preventing any escapes through gate).
- On a 50% killrate, 60% of your results are 0k, 1k, or 2k, meaning the gate must have been opened after completing 5 gens 60% of the time AT MINIMUM, thus the killer fails to hold gate 60% of the time. (The best case scenario assumes that vast majority of 1 man escapes are hatch/closed hatch into gate escapes, which is probably true)
- On a 60% killrate, only 50% of your results are 0-2k, meaning only 50% of the time the gate must have opened after completing 5 gens and the killwr fauled to hold the gate. This means the killer is succeeded at their objective of preventing any "legitimate escapes" 50% of the time. (Why I think it's fine).
As such on a 55% killrate, survivors complete opening the gate 55% of the time, but killers kill 2 or more survivors 55% of the time, therefore both are completing their respective objectives equally outside of scrambles at gate.
Given majority of the player base are casual survivor or SoloQ players, a 55% kill rate is less demanding outside of high level and SWF coordination.
However that is an admission that killer at high level will suck... so... Personally I still vote for 60% killrate.
this is so backwards as saying we need HUUUUUGE surv buffs, because survivor's objective is to escape. Would you consider it win if someone you met died with you? Absolutely not. Even getting hit is traumatizing. So by the same backwards logic the game should be balanced around survivors escaping without getting hit… That's their objective after all
-
The thing is, that I don't want to play the game where I am destined to loose 60% of time. As killer, you can basically never loose. 2k is draw (so NOT a loose), 60% kill rate means on average it's more then a draw. Survivors loose all the time, killers basically never. The only way to enjoy the game is to play killer and DBD spoiled killers I enjoyed.
As survivor, I either escape, or I don't which is exactly the killrate. Thank you but no thank you to DBD
-
@PetTheDoggo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3867420#Comment_3867420
if they make it so survivors cannot drop the pallet during rupture and I can see direction I am going to face after teleport, than I am perfectly happy with the rework.
I am very worried for healing teleport tho, that might end very bad.
That would make them loose-loose for survivors.
I'd rather them being indistinguishable from real pallets once again - that creates skill expression on survivor's side (knowing spawn points, remembering pallet layout when/while awake, giving additional reason to want to be awake).
-
@vol4r said:
I get it, you're getting frustrated because someone uses game mechanics that you are not very familiar with, but instead of proposing to nerf those you should be learning how to go against it.
Everything comes with the experience, I can tell you as a 9k hour player. Might be hard at first, but you will get there. Ain't no bully squads scary if you learn to deal with them.
I always hope i get those people, it's easier to win.
TBF if you are skilled killer, you are very likely to still NOT enjoy bully squads even if you are good. There's a high tendency for them to "go next" once they realize, that they are unable to bully you. Those matches are just boring win IMO.
-
@justadreampallet said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3867816#Comment_3867816
This doesn’t fix it, it just mitigates the effect. You still can’t see where the survivor is, you can’t see what’s ahead of you, and you have to rely entirely on your muscle memory to navigate. The only real difference is that you can choose when to end it and you get to look at your toes
This actually fixes the problem, because
a, flashes are not instant, so you can check environment for 0.5s and then look away for 0.5s. That's enough to navigate. The only problem is, if you look straight at enemy while blinded (because then you get instablind).
b, in order to use flashlight, survivor can't run (just walk). So he's loosing distance. If he's not getting full blind out of it, then it's totally killer's win and free gap close.
The only part where killer can't defend himself is, when he's in stun lockout. Which can't really happen repeatedly outside of bully squads (and even then if the killer is good, he will come on top even if survivors are also good - but it's 100% true, that this is nuisance and "plays against intended way").
-
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3866196#Comment_3866196
But please explain why you cannot o that with one, or even two, spaced out blinds? Why should a chase last an eternity to the point a Killer cannot catch you, do you think being blinded when coming out of the stun animation is fun for that player? You already have perks that give a haste boost, perks that blind the Killer to Auras, and other perks that waste time. Do we really need this mechanic still? No.
What if the Killer has sensitivity to these blinds? Why on earth do chain blinds need to exist outside of a chase at all? I have never seen the need. I agree tem blind resistance is probably best for this sort of issue though, and agree with you on that much.
do you think it's fun to have an item that does nothing? Why take flashlight when you nerf it to the point of total obscurity? Killers already have an edge over survivors (60% average kill rate) so why would you want to make survivor items even that more useless? It's not fun for survivors to have nothing meaningful in a game and being just a toy for killer's fun without any real options.
See? Not very productive discussion. You asked for legitimate case where chain blind just makes sense. Instead of acknowledging it, you started to rant. Both sides can go into rant, but it's just not productive.
My case still stands and "spaced out blinds" requirement would mean, that the flashlight is not a tool that forces killer to chase blinded, but a tool that forces him to kick the pallet (or actually chase by sounds/by memory) and nothing more (because whole blind duration is used for kick time and your suggestion would make killer immune to get another blind) - making flashlights basically fully useless if we don't actually count flashy saves.
Given that the item is already quite bad compared to toolbox or medkit (but it's fun so it's used in contrast to maps/keys), I don't see a reason to artificially make the item even that worse.
But as I said previously - I don't know of any legitimate case where 3x blind in a row is reasonable except bully squads (with headon, decisive strike, etc) or just killer being very new to the game (does not know to look up) or some very obscure random happenings (killer getting flashbanged around the corner, running into pallet while blind and then getting blinded 3rd time during kick animation) - so I am fully OK with killers getting some immunity after 2nd blind in a row.
-
@LockerLurk said:
I don't see why it's still possible in 2025 to stun the Kille,r then blind them the second they come out of the animation. What purpose does doing that really serve except to annoy the player? It should have some form of cooldown between stuns and blinds as an immunity meter, say about 5 seconds after coming from the animation?
Stun and blind immunity for a limited time after the Killer has been hit by a stun or blind once just to prevent these chain stun-blind or chain blind scenarios would be fair, because there is never a situation you ever, ever need to blind then blind again, or stun into a blind. There simply isn't a good tactical reason this is in the game, I cannot think of one thing you can do with two blinds or stuns that you can't do with just one.
I will give you one. As survivor uou run killer around pallet and you manage to stun him - so you blind him. The killer does not want to waste the time chasing while blind, so he decides to break the pallet. Now as a survivor the most logical think you can do is get turn back and chain blind the killer to actually get more distance and force the killer to actually address being blind.
Sure, any additional blinds after that are just excessive, but apart from very rare occasions (killer somehow running into next pallet or survivor using headon on killer) - any additional chain blind is direct mistake of a killer (not looking up/down), that is very easy to circumvent.
Overall I think that OP's suggestion makes sense. Creating temporary blind resistance (say 33% stackable blind duration after 2nd blind which lasts say 60s (no refreshing, but each blind case retains it's own cooldown)) should basically cover all the cases of bully squads while basically not changing anything for regular gameplay (except some rare cases).
-
@Daniel_Silva04 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3850399#Comment_3850399
I disagree with you, the game is defined by the skill of the survivors, if they play badly, you have a chance to win. If they play well, you don't stand a chance, at least with most killers who are weak. The game is more about generator efficiency and Shift W
So you mean to say almost 2K win streak is just pure luck (can you calculate statistics for me on this one please? 2K wins by chance is def more likely then winning a lottery when I infer the meaning from your sentence - also talking about chance - he definitely always got only noob players going by your logic and was never sniped except the very last game of streak) and it's absolutely not defined by killer skill. Right?
As for comp level players… There are some tournaments from time to time with no rules and limitations. Do you know how they usually end up? You would be surprised, but killers still have (veery lightly mind you) an edge over survivors. And we are not talking just nurse and blight (while yes it's true some lower-skill killers like pig/trapper/freddy/legion are absolutely unplayable there).
Overall statements like "killer wins so it's skill, survivor wins so the game balance is bad" talk more about you then about the game.
With exception to kick meta and some short patches with broken mechanics (on release legion comes to mind), killers are THE strongest they have ever been. Their kill rate is waaay above historic data and also waaay above 50% - a lot of them a lot more. Maps are tiny in comparison to what they were. Gens take AGES compared to on release state. Survivor perks don't do anything compared to history and killers got basekit waaaay too many things compared to what the game was.
-
The way to solve it on Doctor and still make it useful on other killers (say legion) is to buff it by fixed number. Say 16m sounds like a good start
Just to clarify - current wesker gets +12m right now, while double calm doctor gets 13,8m. So this version would be buff to the perk even for doctor, but it would buff him the least compared to someone like hag if she for some reason wanted huge TR.
One small note though - we need to take care of TotH before this buff can take place. Because of doctor
-
@Anti051 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3851458#Comment_3851458
Calm Spirit, Counterforce and Boon:Illumination assist with totem cleansing speed.
Counterforce barely does anything. That 20% is also affected by thrill. So in fact it's effectively only 6% faster cleansing speed on first totem (the most problematic one). Or said in a different way, it affects bone cleansing to take 39s instead of 47s.
Like… Survivor "gambled" on killer taking some perk and countered it in best possible way to in fact not even properly counter it? (when counterforce is useless if killer does not take hex build). Does that remind you some other reverse situation from past? Like would you say Shattered hope was a good perk when it came out (or even right now)?
-
@Brokenbones said:
- The buff to thrill changes nothing about the versitility of the game. Gen regression builds make survivors have to sit on gens longer, thrill makes survivors have to sit on totems for longer. No difference apart from the fact ignoring totems in some games gets you killed
- No it doesn't, it encourages one of two things; having to bring nothing but anti-totem perks 'just in case' or encourages survivors to just ignore hex totems altogether; nothing new or creative here.
- The 'old' hex perks have struggled for relevence due to their fragile nature and lackluster effects (except devour arguably) but that's not true of all hex perks; hex plaything and pentimento have been meta staples for a good while now and have not struggled at all.
One thing you don't realize is, that when I as a killer create my setup and it works (meaning it's not countered by e.g. survivors getting their map), then it's literally absolutely impossible to cleanse a hex. And I mean it like that I absolutely do not care what team eternal 4man coms group you could muster together. I can almost AFK and still be able to hold all 5 of my totems for as long as the game runs (until everyone gets killed/escaped or server shuts down). Literal 0 counterplay.
And as hexes are balanced around them being cleansable - then it means, that they are actually broken now with current thrill of the hunt.
So overall Thrill does not need to be nerfed per say. But if it stays like this, then some other mechanism needs to be created instead. Like hexes not resetting their cleanse progress. Or all hexes are significantly nerfed (to actually reflect their possible uncleansability - like say devour needs 8 stacks to actually allow you murdering people and no more exposed). Or all hexes cleanse themselves after some arbitrary time.And as to what build can make it even theoretically impossible to cleanse bones. Take doctor on gideon, double calm addons, distressing, thrill and every 47th seconds discharge it from the approximate middle of the map (this alone gives 0.33s time to cleanse - to circumvent it, either get in chase for 1+ second, or you will have to see bones that are directly at survivors last scream position)
-
There's 1 single test that has 2 parts.
a, is doctor's shock cooldown always shorter then cleansing time?
Here worst case scenario to blast survivors 45s cooldown + 2s charging time = 47s, compared to cleansing time of 46.66s + time to start cleansing = they are almost the same. This means if survivors do scream, doctor actually has to come check the totem, or have any survivor in his TR for at least 1s.
b, Take doctor, give him double calm addons, add distressing and give him thrill of the hunt + devour hope + free perk slot. Then send him to small map - like Gideon meat plant. Now measure what part of map is available for him to give precisely 0% chance for survivors to ever cleanse any of his totems.
Well the doctor in this case would have 59.8m radius (32 base TR+8 violet calm + 6 yellow calm all multiplied by additional 30% from distressing) and gideon meat plant is 2x square of size below 5000m^2. Meaning one side of the map is about 70m. It means that after quite some simplification (TR being circle and not square) doctor has about 10m distance on each corner of the map (it's more on corners, but totems are never at the exact corner or at the very edge of map), where he can't stay to be able to cover everything. At least he can't stay there at 47th second.
I don't know about the rest of you, but to me this sounds quite broken. There's a killer that with very small limitation and just 1 additional perks and no more addons (and I agree that perks/addons limitation are substantial) can make sure you can't ever cleanse his devour hope EVEN IN THEORY if he does not screw up (all he has to do is not be on the edge of map every 47th second + if he interrupts anyone, just check that specific totem 1x in those 47s or have any survivor in his 23.4m TR for at least 1s).
So basically after 2 hooks and 3 hits, he can outright murder survivor with literally 0 possible counter play. The only hope is, that the killer is so bad, that he never actually got hooks before all survivors got out OR survivors expected it and took perks against it (resilience, Better then new, counterforce and spine chill) and these don't even help that much (survivors will realistically be longer in his TR on small map) OR survivors were lucky that their huge map (what map in modern DBD is still huge btw?) got picked instead.
Overall, I expect a lot of doctors once killers realize.
-
@TimelessData said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3836616#Comment_3836616
Fact you say skill issue shows it’s not that and you clearly don’t have constant high level swf because 0 killer can go against a good swf and win sometimes you might but not all. Extremely easy when they have off the record or ds then body blocking the gens will fly. This is personal experience and watching high level players. You cannot get better against an impossible win against a swf or high level survivors who make 0 mistake.
Not true at all. See for example https://x.com/momoseventh/status/1769285428350513644?s=46&t=bEndA0OIWKAA1vXbqE9DCw
If you are insanely good (which means you have insane "not normal" skill), you will win literally hundreds or more games in a row (there are multitudes of killer mains going for very long kill streaks) in public games. The game is indeed killer sided and if nobody makes any mistakes, survivors are guaranteed to loose. Provided you play strong killer of course.
But even if you play "bad" killer, you will still win most games in pubs even without camping/tunneling/slugging/using abilities. It's just hard, but it's still all on you as a killer and on your knowledge - see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaR-9_Vjp3sAnd note that it's not just Hens and it's not just those 10 games (watch the very end for details).
-
@VomitMommy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3788663#Comment_3788663
killers didn't have 60% kill rate on average
They did… We got on 60% because of healing nerf patch, which was more than a year ago.
6.7.0 was released March 2023so overall things that were done in last year absolutely were not to help survivors
They were, those changes were probably implemented to "compensate" for healing nerf, which was more than a year ago.
hence 2k blight wins compared to only 200 win streak on survivors or on onrio
Well, when you want to count only recent streaks. I find the issue that Blight streak was done before his changes. So better addons and hug tech.
Would be probably easier to stop it now for comp team.Even insane Deathslinger would be able to do a lot about it given reasonable map
Lol, talking about gen rush and you pick Deathslinger? He is not known for his map pressure, quite the opposite.
even bad legion would wipe them out without any difficulty
Again very bad example. Any good SWF is going to clean the floor with Legion and there is very little he can do about it. He is M1 killer and they are not going to give him even second hit with his power…
It's clear you never played Legion against team, where mending survivors bodyblock.Otherwise kill rate would not be 60% and genrush build would be much more popular
Those kill rates are because of soloQ and simply new players. Blight, or Nurse are not reason behind 60% kill rates.
Gen rush is not popular simply because it's boring. Most players don't have only goal to escape as fast as possible, people want to have a chase. Genrush doesn't allow it.Slinger example against genrushing team if slinger is actually good works really well. He has no map pressure, but he can down people like REALLY quick. And he can proxy into down almost at unhook. If the whole team takes only genrush stuff and nothing to combat camping/tunneling, then my money is on slinger (again, provided we are not talking about old red forest).
As for Legion example - you deliberatelly didn't read that I said about new team? Like I said it out right - genrush build in hands of new (even new-ish) players is worse then "normal" build and they would absolutely get wiped out by even a bad legion (for example, because they would group and give him 5th hit). And new players will 100% totally not know to bodyblock when mending. Sure - it will be very much different in skilled team - hence Legion is real bad in comp settings. But that wasn't the premise.
Gen rush is not popular simply because it's boring. Most players don't have only goal to escape as fast as possible, people want to have a chase. Genrush doesn't allow it.
You say this, but facecamping Bubba, tombstone piece meyers, camping with prepared projectile pinky finger/iri hatchet were still a thing and I would say I saw it more often then true 4-man genrush squad (not more often then single survivor taking full genrush build). And it still was quite common (not every game, not most game, but people were not surprised to see it). Some people do want to just win no matter how fun/unfun things they have to do to get it. And these things needed to be looked at (and they also were - a lot of things on both sides were looked at - like proofthyself even though I considered it noob trap (because grouping) and overall killer's advantage was nerfed because of genrush) while others are still present in game (kill addon meyers can even facecamp, camping from distance with 1-hit downs projectile killers, no revert to speed buff from dejavu, etc).
I think the healing nerf didn't put it quite at 60% yet, but you might be right and I can be wrong on this one (there were quite a few map nerfs after it as well). If so, then OK - time flies by quicker then I expected. But still - the kill rate didn't go back to when the game was enjoyable to me - it was still somehow OK when the kill rate was on average 55% (that means killers win 22% more then survivors) compared to current 60% (50% more wins then survivor) and I am still counting hatch escape as full survivor win even though I shouldn't (because of missing stats of how often it's used). This already wasn't fair state, but it was still tolerable in my eyes.
-
@VomitMommy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3788432#Comment_3788432
So if killers got buff to always have instadown, but lost their M2 + got changed their base speed to 3m/s, than that would be ok. Because by your logic devs think about killers as they clearly got buff (instadown) and it doesn't matter that the game got literally overall unplayable for them.
Thank you for proving my point. Changes matters… Overall outcome is based on changes that were made and last year changes were better for survivors.
If you didn't enjoy the game back then and enjoy it now, then i guess good for you.
I enjoyed gameplay overall in both, but I didn't enjoy waiting 10 minutes to play survivor. I don't really have an issue playing survivors now, so why would I want to changed?
AFAIK Hens's group with about 232 escapes or something like that was the record in "modern" DBD (and ot actively ended by single comp killer). There was supposed to be really 500+ win streak, but that was very long before my time
Well, but high streak exists even lately. Over 200 streak is a lot and you said it was stopped by comp killer. It's almost like both sides filled with comp players need another comp player/s team end it… Who would have thought?
As for genrush under 4 mins - that 2k blight winstreaker would have 0 problem with that.
That's why I wrote "most killers" :)
So to deal with actual gen rushing squad, you need to be a comp player and play either Nurse, or Blight. Sure, that seems right…A year ago, killers didn't have 60% kill rate on average (but I will give you that year ago stated goal by devs was to get there), so overall things that were done in last year absolutely were not to help survivors (with exception to the queue times - by alienating players like me for one thing).
Concerning the streak - the difference is, that comp survivor team (or weak killer on the other side) can try and still most likely fail to end such a streak - hence 2k blight wins compared to only 200 win streak on survivors or on onrio.
As for most killers being unable to combat super heavy genrush - true if you talk about player base. Not true if you talk about best players on their main. Even insane Deathslinger would be able to do a lot about it given reasonable map (not old cowshed, but he also doesn't need Saloon), because of lack of any defense.
And of course if you take 4 brand new players and give them best genrush build, even bad legion would wipe them out without any difficulty. Otherwise kill rate would not be 60% and genrush build would be much more popular (same reason why you used to face facecamping bubba in at minimum 10% of your games in up-to mid MMR - it was boring, but you just won. So there were quite a number of killers that did it before self-unhook was added. And I can name quite a number of other examples like this if u want)
-
@VomitMommy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3787121#Comment_3787121
I don't care about specific changes
I would guess that's what actually matters, they made game easier for survivors...
60% kill rate is just way too much
In your opinion. I like their goal and I think it's reasonable.
In time when the game was balanced (around 50% kr - and it was on average 52+% kill rate if I remember right for a long time since 6.1) the game was fun.
I personally didn't enjoy queue times on survivors...
Queue times are good on both sides now, so definitely better for me.
Now it's so fun I actually uninstalled.
Oh no, anyway...
The thing is, that if he DC's, it's not counted.
In my games most survivors die on hook to dodge penalty.
If killer gives up, but doesn't DC, that is also counted.
Kinda funny, it's exactly opposite for me. It's so rare to see killer give early, usually it's when we are about to escape anyway, so doesn't matter. Otherwise it's always DC, which doesn't count.
it would mean we have serious problem with people giving up basically every like 4th game
I see quite a lot of posts to complain about this with soloQ. I would increase penalty and try to fix giving up on hook. If you don't want to play the game, then don't play at all…
but there is no survivor's record for 3+out for at least 500 games
That's not true, it was done in past. I think Otz talked about them in his video and they were supposed to do it again later. In both cases they were supposed to give up instead actually losing, because it was boring...
Hens did 200+ survivor win streak like a year ago. While they limited themselves to not have any perk more than twice.
Survivors that actually commit to genrush can reliably escape under 4 minutes. Most killers can't do anything about that. Luckily it's very boring gameplay.
I would guess that's what actually matters, they made game easier for survivors...
So if killers got buff to always have instadown, but lost their M2 + got changed their base speed to 3m/s, than that would be ok. Because by your logic devs think about killers as they clearly got buff (instadown) and it doesn't matter that the game got literally overall unplayable for them. Do I get your logic right? Or the overall big picture and the resulting state (as seen by outrageious kill rates) is more important?
If you didn't enjoy the game back then and enjoy it now, then i guess good for you. For me the game lost all it's appeal. I see it as just unfair. And when they changed hook density on most maps (by e.g. leaving the same number of hooks but skrinking most maps), the game just lost me (and no, the speed buffs and everything else after 6.1 didn't make it worth again. I didn't care to reinstall for last sabo buffs because they are fundamentally useless as killer can get to 3 hooks). Which is strange, because even at version 6.1, which was bruttal, the game was probably my the most liked game. Probably that is also the reason why I even come back here from time to time.
As for you saying 500+ is a lie... AFAIK Hens's group with about 232 escapes or something like that was the record in "modern" DBD (and ot actively ended by single comp killer). There was supposed to be really 500+ win streak, but that was very long before my time (meaning 2019 or older) - that's why i explicitly omitted that (the game back then was survivor sided and it was problem). But maybe there's a new record since I stopped playing? I seriously doubt it, but if there is, then please point it to me. I want to be corrected on this.
As for genrush under 4 mins - that 2k blight winstreaker would have 0 problem with that. Ayrun was already explaining it when he was doing his genrushes - there's no spot for 2nd chance or any defense, so if you actually get strong chase killer, genrush build falls apart really quickly.
@caipt said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3787132#Comment_3787132
No, a 50% killrate would mean that a survivor wins 50% of the time and the killer ties 50% of the time. I could phrase in the inverse, "a survivor loses 50% of the time while a killer ties 50% of the time", but that kind of defeats the point in a discussion about winrates.
How isa 2k not a tie, even in technicality? If the killer one twice and lost twice as you put it, thats +2 and a -2, resulting in a net 0, non-win match for the killer. Which means, looping back around to my original point, the killer ties (more importantly, doesnt win) the same rate that a survivor will escape.
I agree my example was arbitrary and underdeveloped. However, your counterpoint doesnt change anything. Of course survivors still lose under a 50% killrate, the issue is that its less often than the killer by a sizeable margin. Under a 50% killrate, the killers chance of getting at least 3 kills is only 30%, while the survivors chance of winning (individually) is 50%. Yes, two survivors die in a tie, but that doesnt make it a killer win. Fact is that if the killrate were 50% then the game would be (and was when it used to be) outrageously survivor sided on average. A 60% killrate makes for a balanced game on both sides with a roughly 50% winrate.You said it yourself. In single trial killer gets 2wins and 2 losses (actually possibly 2 wins, 1 loss and 1draw). Calling that unfair, because the only fair thing in pvp game is "me" (my side) winning more then my opponent "just because TM" is the definition of being entitled (to free wins). You can't follow MMR win condition, being happy with current state (in sense of calling it fair) and not being entitled. 1 of those 3 needs to go
-
@caipt said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3787121#Comment_3787121
A 50% killrate does not equal a 50% winrate. DBD doesnt work that way, a killer tie results in a win for 2 survivors while a survivor win could still be a loss for their dead teammate.
Since according the MMR system a 3k is counted as a win minimum for the killer, a 50% winrate would mean that a killer gets a tie the same rate that a survivor gets a win. Of course resulting in a survivor sided game where the killer winning (on average) is uncommon, while a survivor winning is a simple coin flip.
A 60% kill rate means an average of 2.4 survivors killed per match, jus about half a kill from a win. This means that while the killer still ties on average, they perform better doing it and could have won if they were a bit better. I ran the numbers into a probability calculator:
probability of a kill: 60%
flip coin 4 times
when set to at least, it said that the killer would get at least a 3k 48% of the time.that's actually wrong. 50% kr means PRECISELY 50% win rate. Killer plays 4 matches in 1 trial. So when we speak about ties/draws, we are not technically correct. Because it single trial killer can win 2x and loose 2x. It was explained in one of the dev streams (quite some time ago). It was an explenation to MMR - which is the exact thing how game considers when you win and when you loose and this is exactly the number by which you get sorted in lobby.
As for your example - it's not true. You picked survivor that won. That's very arbitrary. So arbitrary, that I can do the same thing - a killer got a "tie" with 2 kills and "I" as a survivor actually lost…
And again. Even this is not always true, because killer can win even when it's 2 out - if one of the survivors went via hatch (draw or canceled match), then he will 2x win, 1x nothing happened and 1x he lost. Overall he won.
-
@VomitMommy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3787097#Comment_3787097
what if you have someone who considers 2 escapes killers win on both sides? It makes no difference.
Exactly, so why even try to bring it into argument about balancing, when win rate is clearly highly personal thing.
It's the exact middle ground which is statistically best represented by 50% kill rate
No, it's not. Because you have quite a high chance one of survivors is either simply bad, or just give up.
If survivor gives up, whole team is most likely die, which is 3/4k, right?
So if you get average kill rate on 50%, it means groups without cowards are going to have an easy time. We had those kill rates in past and I really don't think it was better.
Hence the game is killer-sided and favors killers.
Not really, they just count with examples I mentioned above.
Most basekit features in last year or so were in favor of survivors, which doesn't support your claim.
Because killers "deserve" 50% more kills then survivor escapes in devs eyes
They don't deserve anything, there simply should be higher kill rates for this game to work.
it means you will more often then not NOT get an escape as survivor
Depends,
If you don't get to escape regularly as SWF it's skill issue.
In soloQ you can have dead weights for sure, but if it happens regularly, you may be the dead weight.
But I think they should help soloQ, there are possible features to help without screwing balance.
Most basekit features in last year or so were in favor of survivors, which doesn't support your claim.I don't care about specific changes. The overall goal which they clearly are going for/change stuff up to uphold is 60% kill rate. The specific changes mentioned by either side serves no other purpose then to get away from the main point of discussion. 60% kill rate is just way too much. It's literally 50% more kills then escapes. That's just WRONG.
In time when the game was balanced (around 50% kr - and it was on average 52+% kill rate if I remember right for a long time since 6.1) the game was fun. Now it's so fun I actually uninstalled.
One thing I give you though is the situation where someone gives up. Yes, this is actually good point. The thing is, that if he DC's, it's not counted. If killer gives up, but doesn't DC, that is also counted. Sure, this can happen more on survivor side. But not that much, that it's fair for killers to get 50% more wins then survivor. Otherwise it would mean we have serious problem with people giving up basically every like 4th game (I didn't do math, so if it's every 5th game, so be it) and devs should really do something about it - but that's not the case AFAIK (at least not THAT often).
Also survivor escaping thru hatch is fully counted in statistics as survivor escape - even though it's tie. So it should be discarded in this regards.
If you don't get to escape regularly as SWF it's skill issue.Sure. Even with 99% kill rate if you are literal god and play against newbies, you will win every game. The difference is, that the game is so balanced, that 2K "wins" (3+kills) are done on killer's side, but there is no survivor's record for 3+out for at least 500 games (at least not since the very early stages of the game). This argument is similar to going for a running race, but "you can win even with severly injured leg - it's possible and if you can't compete against other competitors that get free backwind from fan that will follow them whole track, then that's skill issue". Meaning you can overcome malus, but that doesn't make it fair.
-
@VomitMommy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3787043#Comment_3787043
But this logic is faulty because if you change the perspective to the survivor with this train of thought, then the killer is the winner with 2 escaping
What if someone considers 2 escapes win for survivors on both sides?
But for most players, it's personal result. Even hatch can be considered "win" for that single survivor.
For many players it seems escape = win.
So for 2K, you simply have two survivors that won, and two survivors who lost.
Basically when approach changes is for SWF, where they are more likely consider the result of the game as a team.
I have it even easier, I couldn't care less, if I escape or die. I consider it a win, if I got a good chase. Except when we play SWF...
1, what if you have someone who considers 2 escapes killers win on both sides? It makes no difference.
2, I agree that the balance from survivor side is 2 escapes and 2 kills. It's the exact middle ground which is statistically best represented by 50% kill rate. But that's not what DBD is actually aiming for. They want to on average to have 1 or 2 escapes and 2 to 3 kills (because 60% kill rate). Hence the game is killer-sided and favors killers.
And if you have 60% kill rate, it means you will more often then not NOT get an escape as survivor. Because killers "deserve" 50% more kills then survivor escapes in devs eyes
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3786564#Comment_3786564
Nobody won means that game did not end. it also means that neither side completes its objective. The only way you can not complete your objective in dbd is
→ 2 survivors hide entire match for 60 minutes → Server closes down.
→Killer 3 generators for 60 minutes, Survivors are unable to complete generator objective → Server close down.
In every other case which is 99.9% of dbd games, the killer either acquired 3 kill or 4 kill which vast majority of killer will agree that they won the match or they did not get 3 or 4 kill and lost. 0 kill is worse loss possible. 1 kill is bad loss and 2 kill is close loss.
As i said in my previous post, i don't think survivor want close games. they want game to be super easy where you don't need think at all where you escape like 60% of the time, the killer almost never 3k or 4k and vast majority of games are 2 kill.
So in a chess when one player can't make move, then it means match is in progress until forever? Because "draw doesn't exist"?
You realize how absurd you sound? Draw means no side won. In DBD that happens when survivor escapes via hatch, server closes down or killer gets 2 kills (on average - there are small factors that influence the stuff a little where killing brand new player is different then killing 20K hours top mmr comp player - but we can ignore that for now).
The fact that you say 2 out is survivor win is just insane. Totally insane to me. It's like saying in chess that white wins when there's no move to be made by any player.
Also you saying "you escape like 60% of the time" is exactly and precisely the same problem but on survivor side (that would be catering to survivors). But this is not the case. Survivors have 40% "desired" escape rate. Which is by insane 50% less winning then killer. No side should win 50% times more then the other. It's just unfair. And so long as devs desires to handhold and give freebies to ANY side, the game is just not for me.
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3787007#Comment_3787007
there is just no killer that believes that 2k is winning for one unless your super egotistical or something. in fact, there are some killer that are not happy with 3k and will even slug 3 to get 4th as they only deem 4k as a win. Over-time though, when you play enough killer games, you just bored of doing a slug at the end because the time and effort to get 4k isn't really worth it in most cases over just playing more dbd matches. It is not really worth it to prologue game for like 3-4 minutes for what might just end up as slug kill when you could those 3-4 minutes on another match. like if you play 4 matches of 3-4 minute of slugging, those 3-4 minutes could been spent to play 5th match but like i said, some people get their joy from that. i personally think its poor designed end game that forces rng into conclusions of the matches which is why i don't really put much difference been 3k and 4k's.
This why sports have the concept of draws that apply when opposing teams have the same score
They also have special rules to eliminate said problem. Sometimes they're not enforced and they're just as number of scoreboard with the idea that the goal of tournament to score most # of points. if point are equal, they play tie-breaker match.
Killers therefore win almost twice as many games as survivor and clearly overpowered beyond belief and deserve rapid and brutal nerfs.
In just over half the games, half of the team is escaping every trial. I believe dev have once said they balance around 2 survivors escaping and 2 people dying every match, so at least according to raw stats, they're pretty much on mark. For me, what matters is my fun in playing survivor and killer. The perk updates for survivor do keep survivor interesting enough for me to have some fun with it. If we ask the question whether i have fun with killers? For a lot of them. Not really. Every now and again, you get this unavoidable loss as killer with majority of the cast. The win-rate stats in my opinion are carried by stronger killers who win too much while the lower end of the killer cast drag win-rates down. If you were to remove like top 12-14 killers with positive win-rates, i imagine that the killer's win ratio is much more negative especially if it the list only included like bottom 12 killers and their associated win-rate vs like… 1% of survivors if there even any statistics on that consider that i imagine that lots of the worse killer might not face the very top of survivor unless the matchmaker is lax.
And this argument is just arguing at entitlement. What would you say if 4-man SWF would say it's a win ONLY IF all 4 of them escape? Because that's the only true good game where nobody had to sacrifice anything = win? Like would you ever call it a win if you went with a group to some party and somebody died there? Or would you consider it successful escape only if all of you got out?
See? The other side can do the same thing. But that doesn't mean it's fair.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3786517#Comment_3786517
i have explained this multiple times…. the other side not considered winning means your side winning. what survivor really want is their side to have 3-4 escapes 60% of the time, 12% 2 kills and killer winning less then 30% of the time. For many years, this used to work like this especially at high MMR.
There's a concept of "nobody won" - like taking hatch as survivor or getting 2 kills as killer (if no survivor escaped via hatch - otherwise killer still won as he got 2 wins and 1 loss and 1 canceled match in that single trial).
You automatically add both of these cases to survivor which explains your entitlement to wins. The fact is, that it's a draw. Not a survivor win (or killer win for that matter).
The fact that devs balance the game as if it was true is the testament to which side gets preferential treatment. So long as killers get 50% more kills = wins then survivor, I will leave other players play this unfair game.
-
As was explained a long time ago by devs. Killer plays 4 matches at once (it can end up as if he was playing 3 matches though, if one survivor escapes via hatch).
Meaning 60% kill rate is the same as if on average killer wins 50% more often then survivor (40% escape rate of survivor +50% out of those 40% is 60% kill rate for killer).
But in fact it's worse. Because for these stats survivor being lucky and finding a hatch is counted as survivor escape - when in fact the real outcome is, that the "match didn't happen" - you can think of it as if there were only 3 survivors in a match (kill-rate-wise).
Devs deciding to give killers 60% kill rate + HATCH not being survivor win is very clear indicator of who in fact is preferred in this game. And it makes perfect sense why some killer mains say "devs don't favor any side".
The game is heavily killer-sided and as my favorite killers got broken (like pinheads camera when using power), I abandoned the game on 18th november last year already. If devs decide that making the game heavily killer-sided is actually not a best idea under the sun, I will probably return. But right now, I enjoy actually fair games instead.
-
@Ohyakno said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3764023#Comment_3764023
You can be as breathlessly angry about this fictional injustice as you want, but logic doesn't bear it out.
Employ a little deductive reasoning. The game consists mostly of survivors. That's factual, game doesn't work without most players at any given time being survivors. There's a contingent of people that only play this or that side, of which there are naturally more survivors than killers due to the inherent population imbalance.
Following?
Most of the money the game makes comes from selling cosmetics. You want to be selling your product to the largest number of people possible. That's survivors because they are the majority of people playing your game.
In light of behavior interactive wanting to pay their employees and continue existence as a corporate entity, why would they ever, ever do something as petty and stupid as pick sides in the video game they make? Your image of devs in a room twirling their mustaches and playing favorites because they are out to get you is absurd. Comical. They gave you the kill rate data and statements you're so fixated on. Why would they publish that if it illustrated some ridiculous bias? Think about it. There's no emotional component, it's just game development.
Don't try to play on logic, because there were so many illogical things devs did, that logic is bad argument (like legion being able to M2 you to death, 7 blink nurse, BNP doing 100% gen and so on).
The fact is still clear. If you in PVP game decide one side should have inherent advantage and just win more, then it's taking favoritism. If there's a nuance to this, then do something about it. But just handing out free wins to one side "to have 150% better results" just is taking favoritism.
Also if your argument about making the game better for survivors - because 4 players and more skins and so on was correct, then the actual kill rate would be more like 40% instead of 60%, to actually have 4 gamers enjoy the game more then just 1 player (don't take me wrong - this is still unfair towards killer the same way as current state is unfair towards survivor, but it maximizes the enjoyment level toward player base as whole - mathematically speaking it would actually even out at 80% escape rate (corresponding to 4vs1, but maths alone does not compute, because the game would be too easy/boring even for winning's side))
@Neaxolotl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3764023#Comment_3764023
going for 50% escape rate is, in fact, favor survivors so much
Since survivors have 4x more throwing rate than killers, escape rate shouldn't be 50%, it's just the way game works
Ah right. Because if both sided won the same amount, then that would be actually unfair. Like ######### is that logic? THE END RESULT "you win" vs "you loose" in exactly precise MMR (now I ignore some caveats like nurse dropping kill rate because learning curve, or Billy right after buffs having higher kill rate because his MMR did not stabilize yet) which means that you play vs exactly as skilled people as you are should always be 50%.
By what convoluted logic did you come to the outcome, that it's fair if one side wins more? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
-
@Ohyakno said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3763862#Comment_3763862
They don't have favorites. The devs are not out to get you. They just make the game how they want.
They don't have favorites? So they actually changed balancing and go for fair 50% escape rate?
Oh they don't. So in fact they do have favorites
-
@danielmaster87 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/420702/survivor-just-isnt-fun-anymore
Killer sided yet free BT and anti-camp, for nothing.
And it means nothing. DEVS WANT killers to win 50% more then survivors (40% escape rate vs 60% → that's 150% the chance survivor gets). No matter what tools or what you want to consider - the result is pretty clear. Devs take favorites and love killers 50% more then survivors.
(and yes, we can go thru all the changes step by step - but that's just stand-in for the real issue here and the final result is just undeniable. They got their favorite's side 60% kill rate)
-
It would be very strong perk in capable hands.
This "noise" information will for example give you very precise information about which gens are being done. It would also be basically equivalent to lethal pursuer for low-mobility (most m1) killers, but it would work for whole game.
If you have decent memory, you can always know/very well deduce which generators are being worked on and which are not touched. Provided you are very good - you can even deduce how much progress the gens should have (ofc this excludes toolboxes/bnps/hyperfocus/….).
Similarly you can know if it's safe to just pick up or which direction should you face when picking up survivor.
I agree that for most people the perk would be just distracting, but in very capable hands it would provide god-like amount of information for macro plays. And the only counter to it is literally just calm spirit - a perk that actively hinders you in other occasions (with speed debuf for some actions like cleansing totems)
-
it's called headon. If it doesn't do anything too consequential (like say your quicker healing example) - then it's called Iron will
-
@Archol123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3729661#Comment_3729661
But isn't that paragraph just phrasing the same coin from two angles? How does it matter? Because you get stomped the other side stomps you, if you stomp the other side gehts stomped, I don't see a reason to think of that as a big difference. That 2nd paragraph just sounds like a well designed killer with a lot of depth, the only issue ist that many killers cannot really have that formula because of how simple they are…
As for that competetive rule that only works when you have enough players in every bracket to allow for that type of thing, look at starcraft for example, while the korean scene might be able to have somewhat around that winrate, with a bit more on the upper end in europe you just have certain players that will win like 90+% of their matches because there are not enough similar ranked people so you get the guy with 2k mmr less, and I guess that is somewhat similar to what happens in dbd, there just are not enough good players to allow for accurate matchmaking, aside from the elephant in the room where the current system is unable to determine skill jsut based on win or loss…
Everyone wants to win. And yes ofc it's 2 sides of same coin. It's impossible to win 80% of games without someone else loosing. So even though you want it, the game can't get it. Nobody would play a role that wins only in 20% of cases (on average). So you have to compromise…. Which devs decided to not really do - as killers "deserve" 60% kill rate…
Sure. That's ideal state. Most killers should be like that. But if they can't be that, then you just can't say "ok this player demographic will just suffer" without even giving them choise to play/not play it.
If you discard like 10 best players on each server, then it's not issue. Sure, the very very best can have too much skill difference to balance them (and better player is more then actual real balance), but consider it outlier. Heck I think it would be enough to remove like best 2-3 people/server (because you said it yourself - too few people) from considering balance changes
-
@Archol123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3729646#Comment_3729646
But are we talking 60 40 on average or only on specific killers? Because by design of the game not every killer can be the same strenght, which obviously will result in different win rates. I don't think that is something the game can ever overcome.
I thought most competetive games just balance for the professionals and that somewhat also balances it out for weaker players, which obviously does not work for dbd.
Especially considering Sky Billy was not really that strong and more of a meme… Now every Blight just plays bump logic and people will soon realise that they can do less about that than they could do about hug tech.
On specific killers. I edited my previous answer for clarity. Please read the new paragraph for my reasons (sorry for bad (hopefully initial?) communication on my part).
Most competitive games AFAIK try to balance for all skill groups. And this actually is possible. The way to do this is by adding mechanically easy things to buff lowMMR (say killer M1 lounge speed/distance), tinkering with general stuff (in DBD things like passive slowdown for pinhead) to adjust overall strength and buff execution-difficult things to buff highMMR (say wesker's hug-tech). If the design of said character does not allow it, then you at least make sure that said character can't stomp any skill bracket.
And none of the skill brackets should ever experience 60% wins or 60% losses IF they didn't decide to sabotage themselves (like brand new player picking nurse or survivor taking no mither). If you can get to the state that everyone is within at most 55-45% (if you don't decide to shoot yourself in the foot) win rate (draws are excluded), then you get competitive game.
-
@Archol123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3729632#Comment_3729632
60 40 on how many killers? I think the issue is that really good players have no issue facing 2/3 of the killer roster, but only 10+ are able to deal with those guys, which also presents itself in the fact that very few killers are viable to break those 200+ winstreaks, got really surprised that Trickster is among them... But well many people said that he got buffed by a lot in the last patch.
I don't think it would matter in counter strike, because both teams play both sides anyway... Same for radiant and dire in dota 2 to some degree, even though it is more impact full there I guess. But yeah I agree the ge is somewhat between two chairs, not a party game anymore, but way too rng heavy and inconsistent to be considered competitive... They should really start to think about who the audience is the game is balanced for.
It doesn't matter on how many. If you are really and truly competitive, you want your side to win 70-80 or even 95% of times. To win 50% of times is a compromise (talking from position of same-skill/experience plays). For this reason, 45% is considered "broken" and 40% is absolutely unacceptable. And for the very same reason it is enough if 1 killer can win 60% of times (provided survivors can't just choose who they play against - which would be terrible decision that would result in lobby-shopping and inability for said killer to play a game).
This is also the reason why competitive games are willing to nerf something for everyone so long as it's balanced for each category of players (or rather the target is to balance it for everyone, but if it does not work, they would rather have it balanced in one group then having said thing stomp players in any group you can think of - be it lowMMR, midMMR, highMMR or pro play).
If last paragraph was too convoluted then I can restate it like this - it's better for character in game to be at most balanced and terrible in other skill-brackets, then have character stomp in one skill bracket and be balanced in all the other brackets. Because being stomped feels inherently bad and it's good reason why people will abandon your game if you don't do something about it (and the game fun comes from being competitive), while if it's players choice to take said character in "wrong" skill bracket (and loose because of it) - then it's more acceptable (because it was your decision and you had agency in it).
So in the end - DBD can't go in direction of competitiveness with their current targets. They already chose party-gaming. But they just aren't commiting to it for some weird reason. Like if you don't want your game to be fair, then it should at least be funky. You should aim for more sky billis instead of removing hug-tech…
I agree with you that they really should start to think about who the audience is the game balanced for
-
@Archol123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3729619#Comment_3729619
I brought up the mmr argument because I don't know if the exact number is relevant for a short time of matchmaking and only after let's say a minute or so it just takes the soft cap to not make queues too long. But otherwise you are right it does not really matter, only makes it harder to get equal opponents ^^
Who to bet on fully depends on what is considered a win at that point, I think it would be roughly 50 50…if it is 52 48 or so that's still not enough to convince me call the game one sided.
I don't think it's 50:50. I think it's more towards 60:40. Which means that of course survivors have chance to win sometimes. But overall the game is killer sided (which means I am always surprised seeing any post stating the exact opposite).
Also I am saying that the difference of 60:40 in any competitive game (say league of legends, counter strike or anything else which is actually being played for money) warrants IMMEDIATE hotfix. While in DBD it's target they aim for. Sure - this is actually harder to compare, because symmetrical games vs asymmetrical one, but this is fully taken into account by definition of what is win and what is loose (and what is draw).
Overall this should not matter, because DBD is supposed to be party game. It should not be about wins. But if the game takes away all the dopamine rush things and all the meme stuff and leave "balanced environment" (whatever their definition of the term is). Then sorry but the "party game" argument is no longer valid. So you better balance for fairness.
But it seems devs don't share this view. So all I can do about it is not play the game (because frustration levels are higher then enjoyment levels - unlike other true competitive games which I do play now) and check from time to time if somehow the game became more interesting (dopamine rush fix) or more fair (win-enjoyment fix)
-
@Archol123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3729611#Comment_3729611
Fully depends on restriction, under comp rules sure. No restrictions questionable.
Not really. There was also no rules tournament (I already wrote so above). I would absolutely bet on killer in current DBD without any hesitation
-
@Archol123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3729609#Comment_3729609
It is not about how realistically you will get those guys... But they need to have time, which makes it an Organisation issue. Besides the point is that those players mostly scrim, so when a comp killer player plays pubs his mmr will be rather high, irrelevant after they reach the soft cap though. Whereas comp survivors probably don't play soloQ or swf in normal matches that often, unless they stream or something, and even a comp survivor cannot consistantly win in soloQ. I would argue that preparation and Organisation are easier for the comp killer than the survivors. Especially because the killer that is trying to snipe can see them and know it is their lobby, which the survivors can't.
I don't think the game is killer or survivor sided, I think it favors the side that a. Gets lucky with the map and the rng on the map b. Brings the most busted stuff/strong killer c. Is skilled and in coms.
The killrate are kind of a blurry argument because you can more often than not secure one kill in endgame and the 4k can be taken away by hatch, which also does not really show skill. And therefore you can hardly differ between a hypothetical 4k and an escape through the gate with all gens done. We would need to get more data than just the amount of kills or escapes to be able to tell which side is favored.
You are right that organize single guy vs 4 is different. Still. 200vs2000…
I didn't get into soloQ argument, because that one is clear. Best survivors tried for years for winstreaks and AFAIK the record is 34 (even with rat tactics). So it's pointless to talk about it. If you mentioned that because of MMR, you yourself said the soft cap is quite low so that point is also meaningless…
As for the game is sided to (shortening it) better prepared one… I disagree - if both sides come prepared at same skill as much as possible, then my money is very safely on killer. Sure you can state that you would bet against killer if he took freddy, but that's about the same argument as saying I would bet against soloQ team (and can you really call it fully prepared if they don't take best stuff?).
-
@JackOf4llTrades said:
I do actually agree at some point with TS.
Game is not survivor or killer sided, its SWF sided very heavily.
But if there are 4 random players who know how to play game, then the game is survivor sided. Not that heavily, but pretty much.
All gen regression perks got nerfed, and current PTB patch nerfs already nerfed perks once again which will kill them completely.
At the same time DS got buffed to 5 seconds again, which had no point, because for solo survs thats okay even tho this will not help against strongest killers, but will make weakest killers even weaker, but also 5 seconds DS heavily buffed SWF 4 man tag bully team.
Then dev's did a rework for haddonfield and shifted map from heavy survivor sided to heavy killer sided, facepalm.
Yet there is STILL available OP build with For the people + Buckle up, which buffs SWF even further, whilst do nearly nothing for solo queue. And nothing is done yet for like half a year or more. And once they at last realised that this is overpowered, i read lots of tears from surv mains that this is unfair that they cant abuse double endurance effect with no down sides.
Once again i will repeat: game is SWF sided. This is why you dont have inbetween, only baby survs\killers or pro team/heavy camp/tunnel killers. Because playing solo is pain for survs and its toxic for killers (swf after winning often bully killers by tb at gates or waiting for them to force them to leave through hits or just looking them leaving), which makes killers angry as well, and after games like this where they lots heavily game after game against 4 man swf, they began to tunnel and camp, so the circle is enclosed.
Comp SWF players on comms are actually expected to loose against prepared comp high-tier killer….
-
@Archol123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3729599#Comment_3729599
We're not talking about the balance of comp though are we?
The reason why I said players of that skill are required is because the only players that can consistently end such streaks are comp players... Who ended Hens 230 streak? A comp Nurse... Who ends the 2000 wins Blight streak? A comp squad with the most busted items. So if you want to go that far up with your wins you need to be able to not immediatly lose against the opponents if they are comp players...
Which leads to another reason why those streaks on killer go higher... To end a survivor streak you need 1 comp killer sniping them to be available and get them as opponents and win, for the killer you need 4 comp survivors ready to snipe them, that don't even know when they have the same lobby as the guy they are trying to snipe...
Quite the difference isnt it?
Not really. The chances are the same. You either get to that game, or you don't (remember that stack of 4 players are 1 stack and getting half of those players in is not really possible).
And as for comp rules… A long time ago (before all the killer buffs that raised average kill rate from 50% to 60%) there was a tournament with exactly 0 rules. The end result? It was almost even, with killers getting slightly ahead.
The overall point is - even if you say that my comparison with high-end killer is not fair (I disagree because of sheer difference is in an order of magnitude) and we somehow disregard this point. Do you still think that the data objectively states the game is actually survivor sided? Or is it pretty much clear the game is in fact killer sided (when looking at data instead of someone's anecdotal experience). And if you say the data points to it being survivor sided - please explain to me how you got to this conclusion
-
@Archol123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3729589#Comment_3729589
How many survivor win streaks are the even that potentially go that far up? Meaning consisting of players of comp or former comp or almost comp level? Far less than there are killer win streaks at least.
KNightlight 500 perk less addon less win streak would immediately end if he faced a 4 men comp squad... He stated that at several occasions when asked. Still not comparable therefore.
The reason those streaks don't go that far up compared to killer is not only does it take 4 people to have time at the same time of the day but they also that they need all to be really good at the so there is no weak link, and the gameplay gets boring rather fast considering you are mostly beating up way worse players, whereas on killer only 1 player needs to be there and he at least has the power to play with, his gameplay is not mostly doing gens.
I don't think that comparison fits.
So you state that killer winning all pub games is not valid, because comp exists. But you don't even think about touching my statement about comp being killer sided (when taking into account best killers). So what gives?
-
@Archol123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3729577#Comment_3729577
That comparison between winstreaks is not really fair, considering the killer players tend to not restrict themselves, I think the 2000 winstreaks Blight used every perk and addon in the game. Whereas the 230 or what it was winstreaks of Hens and his friends had the limitation of how often a perk can be run and no items... If those guys would run the most busted items and addons every single game they would get to a higher number as well rather easily, but they wanted somewhat of a challenge which is why they restricted themselves even more. Therefore I would say it is not comparable by the number alone.
That's one group. THERE IS NO SURVIVOR GROUP PERIOD with 500 win streak (maybe in old old old DBD? Certainly nothing that started from year 2020). Not to mention 2K win streak. Or several 1K winstreaks...
Also - there's higher record playing perkless addonless nurse then best survivor winstreak right now if I remember right (I am not watching the game for half a year that much, so correct me if I am wrong).
-
How at this point can anyone call the game survivor sided? From what point?
When talking about new players - the game is notorious to be killer sided for literal many years. This was true even in the stages of game where everyone said the game is overall very survivor sided (but the game got killer-sided in the meantime, so RIP new players).
When talking about average (median) players - the game is now balanced around 60% kill rate on average. Some killers have way more (but even the worst ones still have 50% when rounded to full percentage).
When talking about best players there are taking best things in the game - survivors were able to get about 200 win streak (3+ out) while killers were able to get about 2000 win streak (and 100 or 200 winstreak even for low-tier killers).
When talking about tournament players taking best killers vs best SWF - the game is usually decided WHEN killer kills everyone. Not how many survivors escape.
So once again. From what point of view is the game survivor sided? Because EVERY POSSIBLE VIEW on data CLEARLY says that the game is killer sided. (And it's really a shame and one of 2 main reasons why I abandoned the game. a, the game got rid of the dopamine effect because "sabo is no fun for killer" so we need so many hooks that even guessing right one, saboing it and taking hit is not enough for survivor to wiggle free before killer can get to another hook (so I am not willing to play for fun) b, the game is just not fair as it's very clearly and very visibly killer sided as stated above (so I am not willing to play for wins) ).
-
I think @_Onyx_ is right. But devs don't agree. If they did, I am pretty sure survivors would get means to communicate LONG TIME AGO. Because that would ACTUALLY be something that purely helps bridge solo vs swf, because it would actually make communication between survivors easier.
But that can't be, because "it would be used to BM more". (there's also the issue of consoles being in disadvantage, but convoluted way to ping meaningful things and getting clear information is still better then just 2 pings we currently have).
So if BM is the issue, then both tbagging AND w-s AND head nods should be also taken care of eventually (but people are creative and there will be new ways to bm until the game cease to be controllable)
-
@tyantlmumagjiaonuha said:
This is to please the survivors who make up 80% of our users. With the HUD visualization, base kit BT, hook grab-no delete, anti face camp system and 3gen countermeasure system of last year and the year before, the only thing killer players can do is to be a practice partner for survivor's chases.
2k win streak for best killers and 200 win streak for best survivor team. Comp players facing best killers (blight/nurse) is usually decided WHEN killer gets 4K instead of how many survivors gets sacrificed. In normal plays killers get 60% kill rate on average - and some killers getting even more.
So by basically ALL THE END RESULT MEASURES, killers have it very easy. Survivor nerfs (especially maps - like new haddonfield) is the real deciding factor. So I REALLY don't get your comment about KILLER being practice partner when all the results are clearly stating the opposite.
-
@Halloulle said:
Well, my personal theory on the sabo thing is that they looked at how long it took people to complete the various sabo-challenges in the last tomes and which kind of loadouts they had. They probably realised that most of the time only people who brought a whole build just to complete that challenge actually had decent success rates at pulling the challenge off.
Now that being said, I don't think tweaking the TBs is going to solve that. - Though I am v curious about how the tweaks play out on PTB.
The thing that makes sabo-ing difficult is that you often need to sabo at least two hooks nearly at the same time because a killer can reach a second - and often even third - hook easily. — And yes, I am aware that there are places where there's a hook-deadzone. But if anything that means hook spawns really need to get looked at because neither situation is normal. And with that fixed I also believe sabo would be in a good spot; if you play for it and are smart about it you can get it without bringing a whole build. But it takes time and is somewhat risky cause you can get injured quite easily too / often have to tank one hit to get the sabo through, which I think is fair.
If this was the case again (it used to be with exception to a few extreme maps - like saloon on one end and midwich on the other end), then I would actually return to this game.
As it stands sabo was my favorite part of the game and the sole reason why I was able to overlook devs wish for systematic kill fiesta (aka 60% targeted kill rate - with some killers going way above that), favoring killer actions (pallets and windows don't matter if killer has ping) and continual killer buffs all the time (see map reworks and general survivor nerfs compared to specific killer nerfs but general killer buffs - like all the map reworks).
But I am not going to touch this game (even after half a year of not playing it) until I hear that at minimum hook spawns actually got fixed (so killer can't freely hook even when 2 hooks that he chose gets sabotaged and survivor takes hit - and yes this happened to me quite a few times - which means that even literally instant sabo hooks do not really matter on a lot of maps right now as u can't get in front of killer quickly enough).
Like sabotaging was my adrenaline fix in the game. If I got 1 sabo in the game, it was a win for me and I could loose the game and still consider it fun experience. But in current version of the game I was robbed of it. So there's no reason to play it any more. If I want to play for fun, I would need saboes back. If I want to play for wins, I would need fair game. DBD does not provide either at this time.
-
@UndeddJester said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3713398#Comment_3713398
I suppose an easy way to explain it, increasing/decreasing volume on a raw audio signal is the same thing as taking a picture and trying to make it larger or smaller.
You might successfully increase or decrease the size of the image, but you haven't improved the resolution, so certain things come out looking pixilated or truncated.
If you're only doing a small change, you might get away with it, but the bigger the change the more the image gets butchered.
It's the same thing for audio, at least that's kinda how I understand it as a layman.
This is actually true and quite a good analogy, but you yourself could see, that raising volume (making picture larger) is vastly different from lowering the volume (making picture smaller). You can easily reduce volume without creating noticeable artefacts (like for Jeff), but you might get noise if you try to raise it too much in source file (Ada).
And as for the implementation - the easiest thing you can do is direct boost/lowering voice and that's good enough so long as you test it with your ears. Changing volume is as easy as decoding the source file (which is basically unziping - it's not zip file, but something more suited for sounds) which results is a "stream" of fractional numbers between 0 and 1. If you multiply them by 2 - you effectively doubled volume (energy-wise) - you would need to remove everything which gets you above 1 (hence some distortion), but it works. But lowering volume? You just divide everything by 2 and voala - you just effectively lowered volumes. Nothing hard really and especially lowering volumes have hard time in distorting the sounds (it is possible - computers can't precisely store numbers - so if you lower the sound by 0.000001% million times then you get distortions out of it) - but if you do 1-time correction (ideally keeping a safe copy of your source sounds) there's no way it would be noticeable in case of dampening sounds.
All you need to take into account is unzipping (you already have this as this is how every computer plays sounds), multiplying/dividing by your specified number, make sure they are within limits (0, 1) and zip them back in (this can be even done by audio converter online - there is even uncompressed format "wav" that you can construct yourself easily and convert that to your desired format).
There are audio programs that do these things better (converting files on their own, they understand human ear and the fact that you "feel" different volume in lower frequencies and in higher frequencies, better filtering of the resulting numbers after multiplications and so on and so forth) but really - this is just extra stuff and extra complications. You can do it like I wrote (with correction from someone listening to the sounds) and the end result will be quite similar. And it will not take you that much time. BHVR is either trying to overcomplicate it (like create tooling that can equalize all the stuff on the fly & precisely measure volume perceived by human and adjusting resulting sounds by different metrics/frequencies and so on), or they just don't care. I presume it's the 2nd thing though even if both are possible.
-
Does that change even matter? I dropped this game for 2 reasons and 1 of which is that any reworked map with the new hook density makes sabotages impossible.
Even with breakout and taking hit and killer not having IG/agi and surprising killer with sabotaging the hook he was going for and killer downing survivor in the far away spot from hooks - even after all these requirements there is VERY good chance killer will still make it to next hook.
Just take a flashlight or flashbang if you want to help teammate. Sabotages don't matter any more.
-
Just before 6.1 came out. The game was balanced for (in my eyes perfectly fair) 50% kill rate before this patch (for most players anyway, sure there were top ~5% and bottom ~5% where it was definitely not balanced, but I didn't belong to either group).
It all went downhill from that moment until we get to this point where deadliest killers (DC games excluded) have 70% and 67% kill rates.
Like sure - there were patches with clearly broken mechanics on both sides (e.g. boil over fiasco from patch 5.5.0, or guaranteed kill upon RNG even being afk as pig with just iri addon or absolute need to bring BT otherwise camping was free kill instead of hook). So it definitely wasn't perfect.
But the most important bit that broke me and I stopped playing this game came with buff to the perk I was using most games back then - with background player buff (patch 7.3.0) came a rework of maps - and suddenly hooks were so close, that it became a rule instead of exception, that doing perfect sabotage and getting hit still meant killer will likely get to hook anyway - even without iron grasp or agitation.