GeneralV
GeneralV
About
- Username
- GeneralV
- Joined
- Visits
- 10,623
- Last Active
Comments
-
@SpringMyTrap said:
let's put it the other way: tunnelling (and by extension camping, slugging, any other macro strategy) is the only way to win against roughly equally skilled opponents because the game's math is not supposed to give killer TIME for 6+ normal chases when FOUR PEOPLE are ALIVE and THREE can constantly do gens.
obviously you can stomp bad and most importantly MUCH WORSE players without resorting to strategies to optimize pressure because every chase is a 2 tap while they don't do 3 gens at once and just waste time.
you cant do that when this isnt the case and it's very clear from what we've heard from the developers they are going to change MMR system to accomplish exactly that.
I dont mind when people handicap themselves or ask developers to handicap other players when the game BY DESIGN puts them against WEAKER opponents so they can have Fun™.
And if we are doing that nonetheless, then where are same limits for survivors that get carried beyond their skill level? we shouldnt act like killers are the only ones, according to Mandy, who get "carried by abusing strategies". Survivors do that as well. If we act like you need to be "Good™" in chase that should also apply to survivors.
Safe trading resources while splitting gens because the game's math allows a free win anytime you do that against a fair play killer is not being "Good™" at the game.
I dont mind things either way, but I would like less hypocrisy in here.
I wouldn't call it hypocrisy because DBD is asymmetrical. The killer role and the survivor role are different, they approach the game in different ways with different strategies.
And, in the current DBD, survivors simply do not have an equivalent to tunneling, it doesn't exist. A survivor strategy that was generally frowned upon was gen-rushing, and by that I mean the pre-nerf toolboxes version of gen-rushing, which is no longer possible to do in the exact same way.
-
Yes.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3949046#Comment_3949046
I don't understand how someone can be happy with this game, when they honestly believe one side of the game is constantly doing unfair problematic behavior, and the other side of the game is constantly the victim of the unfair behavior.
But I never said killers tunnel every game.
I'm saying that, in the current state of the game, killers have more strategies that are frowned upon then survivors do. Hence the upcoming changes of phase 2.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3949035#Comment_3949035
"Preventing people from playing the game" isn't a requirement for unfair behavior. The definition of unfair behavior needs to include extended 3-gen situations, because survivors felt that was unfair, even though they were free to run around the map.
To be fair, 3-gen situations only became problematic once they were allowed to reach an extreme level with the gen kick meta, and survivors have the agency to avoid those.
There is no agency against being tunneled, if the killer decides to eliminate you ASAP there is little you can do about it.
-
@Malkhrim said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3949021#Comment_3949021
Ooof, I have some bad memories of old Blood Lodge. Some people even called it pallet town.
And yeah, old Badham's only really strong spots were these two buildings, but the house of pain was a direct copy from the one in Haddonfield, while the main building was very unique to that map. I remember Nurse and Hag being the only two killers that could easily deal with it, while other killers were often advised to stay away from the main building unless they really needed to protect the gen down there.
Good ole pallet town, yes. Wouldn't be a guaranteed loss for Old Freddy, no, but it was the worst map you could get with him, imo.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948848#Comment_3948848
I just want people to stop having a double standard.
If someone thinks it's important for killers to play in a way that is fun for survivors, but doesn't think it's important for survivors to play in a way that is fun for killers… that is a double standard.
Whenever someone announces the fact that they play killer in a way that is fair for survivors, I also want them to announce they play survivors in a way that is fair for killers.
To be fair, I wouldn't say it is a double-standard. DBD is asymmetrical, meaning the two roles are different, they have different experiences and perceive the match differently.
The killer role has three strategies (slugging, camping, and tunneling) that are frowned upon by the community, seeing as they basically prevent those who are targeted by them from playing the game. The survivor side doesn't really have an equivalent to those strategies… or, well, not anymore.
Gen-rush used to be considered the equivalent, iirc. Not the modern DBD "gen-rush", but the pre-nerf toolboxes gen-rush which, to be fair, is no longer possible to do in the exact same way it was.
-
@Malkhrim said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948944#Comment_3948944
I thought about it… but I wasn't sure if it had any advantage for old Freddy, so I was guessing it was one of the most neutral ones like Eyrie of Crows for the Artist. I played Old Freddy quite a lot, but didn't know about him deeply enough to judge how maps affected him, I guess. In my personal experience I usually didn't have a lot of trouble approching awake people anyway, the hardest part was the chase, but you clearly knew the killer much better.
Also, Badham has been a survivor-sided map for years, but I believe it wasn't that much when it was released, right? I mean, it's been years and I don't remember all the details, but one thing I remember is that Badham was the first map to be reworked and one of the changes was an increase in the number of pallets. Old Badham had some really unsafe zones. Some loops wasted a lot of the killer's time, but once their pallet was gone, it created a dead zone. Perhaps it would still be more survivor-sided than many maps today, specially with that main building, but at that time, when maps were more survivor-sided overall, it felt more forgiving for killers.
Generally speaking, my friend, the easier it was to sneak up on a survivor the better the map was for him, as it gave you the advantage over asleep survivors. In my opinion, that meant his worst map was Blood Lodge. Very few opportunities for sneak attacks and many, many pallets.
As for Badham, it was indeed an interesting map. The biggest complaints from killers were the main building itself, which had two more pallets than it currently has, if memory serves me right. And the house of pain. But overall, I don't think it was that harsh for killers, most of them could handle it.
-
@thrive2survive said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948907#Comment_3948907
Ngl I have to agree with Map design. Maps are probably the BIGGEST issue of current DBD, but since visuals are what makes the game stand out that's usually what I go to first.
Fair enough, my friend, I do believe the visuals are extremely important and should be looked at. If we could have improvements for the game's atmosphere together with a patch that adjusts the maps it would be fantastic.
-
Surprised you didn't mention Badham, my friend.
Now, thinking of my all-time favorite killer, Old Freddy, and Badham is interesting because it works… to some extent. Badham Preschool has always been regarded as a survivor-sided map, but, much like Haddonfield, the structures could be used to your advantage as Old Freddy because, if survivors were asleep, it is easier to sneak in through a structure then an open field.
And, if they are awake, there is no grass to indicate where, exactly, you are.
Now, things get a bit more complicated when you start chasing people. Old Freddy was all about controlling the map, which works well on Badham, but by the time you reach your chases there would be a lot of pallets to go through.
It works partially, at least based on my experience.
-
@thrive2survive said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948883#Comment_3948883
Honestly, I think the only thing worse now is the visual style of DBD, but the rest is better by far. The only old thing that should be brought back as it was a pretty good idea, is old Freddy. <3
Well, my dear friend, while I obviously do agree on the visuals and, especially, Old Freddy my beloved (the reason why I am even a Forum member in the first place), I also think map balancing is worse and should be looked at.
If not every single map that has a previous version we can compare them to, then at least the main offenders, such as the Coldwind Farm realm.
-
When they can't, I would say.
Because if even the strongest and most powerful killer metas in DBD's history weren't enough to stop killers from tunneling, then nothing is.
The "carrot" doesn't work here.
-
@Brimp said:
Because people are still treating a purely pvp game as a party game. Party game implies it can be enjoyed almost anywhere with (most if not all of the time) RNG elements like random space movements or chances to happen when dbd has more than RNG elements so DBD can not be classified as a party game. Casual maybe party? no.
So when they "stop having fun" they think its totally fine to just ruin a match even if it just started. People need to stop treating dbd like it is a party game. This isn't a social gathering of any sort digital or physical. It's strictly Player Vs Player against random people.
I am not sure about this one, my friend.
Personally, I consider DBD a horror-themed party game. But I don't think said mentality is what motivates someone to DC or suicide on hook. I think the issue is connected to why aren't people having fun in the first place.
-
@UnicornMedal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948747#Comment_3948747
That's what's wild to me too. It was day and night. Sure DCs and going next were always a thing, but the two weeks following that patch were AWFUL. They saw it happening and did nothing about it. The game never fully recovered. And now 3 years later, somehow they're still wondering why it's happening at all.
Exactly. Even when we get what should be a balanced patch, it somehow still skews more toward punishment than relief. The 3 gens are a great example of that. A flawed Killer is released that breaks the game, due to no fault of the players who weren't setting up a specific strategy for that one Killer, and yet we still lose gen tapping as some sort of penance which only helps to maintain the 3 gen in the first place. Why not implement a checkpoint system instead? Seems better than limiting kicks too. Hell, even Frank Stone beat DBD to that.
Also I'd like to say that I've lurked here for a long time and I've always found you to be one of the more insightful and pleasant posters on the board. I don't know how you do it, but it's always a pleasure to see you around.
Exactly. And honestly, I believe the game will never recover unless most of 6.1.0 gets reverted and the design goal of 60% KR is abandoned, because survivors will never have a good experience if that number is to be maintained at all costs.
The 3-gen example you've mentioned, friend, is one of the things that makes me a bit concerned for the anti-tunneling / camping / slugging mechanics from phase 2. Because those are supposed to help survivors, that is the goal, but recent history really makes you wonder how effective they will end up being.
Also, thank you very much for your kind words, my friend, I appreciate it <3
-
I agree, my friend.
If you allow me to expand a little bit on Freddy, I think his situation is particularly infuriating because his power used to be completely different from the others, but ever since 2019 all that he had available to him were different combinations of pre-existing powers mashed into one.
And this is something I have been saying for a very long time: Freddy's problem wasn't just the lack of power, it was the lack of an identity. Obviously no one can deny that Freddy needed changes, this is pretty much undeniable for anyone who played as Freddy or against Freddy from 2021 to 2025, but his most recent rework went in the wrong direction.
Because it didn't fix this problem, just replaced it.
That also explains both of his statistics: his pick rate is lower than average but his kill rates are extremely high. Because there is literally no reason to pick Freddy unless you just like the character, as everything he does someone else can do. And therefore, the people who do pick him tend to be more experienced and play against players who often don't really know what to do against him. That is not to say we Freddy mains win all of our games, I am not implying that, but you notice how some players have trouble dealing with Freddy because they rarely ever see him.
And someone could claim :"But GeneralV, back when Freddy had his original power his pick rates weren't high, either". Which is, indeed, correct. And it is correct for a very, VERY simple reason: there was never an attempt to fix his power. Old Freddy's primary weakness was his inability to interrupt actions during the Dream Transition, meaning namely being unable to stop a generator or an unhook from happening right in front of you. And they never, not once, attempted to fix that.
Which could have been easily fixed, mind you.
It is just… frustrating, ya know? Having spent so much time giving feedback for Freddy, only for all of it to end up being ignored.
-
@UnicornMedal said:
As of 6.1.0, the game has adopted more of a Killer mentality. Not only is it balanced moreso with Killers in mind (impossible to avoid when you're intentionally keeping the 40/60 KR in mind), but the Killer mantras of "your fun is not my responsibility/I can play however I want" and "my job is to kill/win" have become law. That brings the game to such a one-sided place, that it really might as well be PVE most of the time.
Survivors are in this limbo where we're expected to play more with that Killer mentality, yet not. We're still held accountable (both figuratively and literally with the new prevention systems) for not being the ideal Survivor, while most of our tools to facilitate doing so are gone. What more can you ask of a role that expects you to know more than your opponent, work harder than your opponent (to dwindling returns), overcome greater handicaps than your opponent, maintain hope in the face of defeat, and lose gracefully all while maintaining much slower progress in every aspect of the game than your opponent? It's a no-brainer.
You'd think it would be obvious to anyone that plays the game, especially those overseeing development, but it seems that the voices that matter the most seem to agree that the game is in the best state it's ever been.
Yes, I do agree that patch 6.1.0 is indeed to blame for most of it, and in my honest opinion it was by far one of the worst patches in DBD's history.
This whole process of artificially making the kill rates higher was flawed from the start, as the way it was done basically meant depriving survivors of everything and making them easier targets as a consequence. Because that is the point, survivors were supposed to die more often and they are dying more often, which just creates a bad experience for the role.
And honestly, my friend, I have yet to see any convincing argument proving that, somehow, DBD is in its best state ever. I find that pretty much impossible to believe. Because when you chose to play as a survivor, get one of the current Coldwind maps, against a killer that is extremely oppressive in chase and downs you extremely quickly… that is not even close to the best possible experience in DBD, and that goes for both sides involved.
-
@Rogue11 said:
Maps that weren't tiny empty dead zones with no fog with occasional pallets that are so weak they're only useful for dying under to hope your teammate can use for a save.
I agree, my friend.
Yes, I think the old maps are what I miss the most as survivor. Maps that had resources, a proper atmosphere and weren't filled with dead zones.
-
Freddy's original power, of course.
-
Freddy!
Always has been my favorite, always will be.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948076#Comment_3948076
I would LOVE such a gamemode to be an option just for the sake of reminding people how far the game has come. I might play a match or 2 to laugh at just how busted some stuff was, but beyond that... It would be like watching a car wreck. Then we'd get posts all over again about how BS it is that the other side did XYZ. I highly doubt 90% of people going into an alternative gamemode would be going in with a normal loadout.
Your decision to laugh, theirs to complain.
I would be happily playing it while that happens.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948067#Comment_3948067
Oh for sure if they had an alternative game mode that let you play an old DBD, im sure alot of ppl with rose tinted glasses would hop on. Im also sure those same people would get a quick reminder of the changes they liked once they caught a machine gun huntress hatchet half a second after getting unhooked, then moried. The gamemode wouldn't need to last more than a week for most people.
Then it would be their decision to continue or stop playing, not mine to make.
Again, I cannot speak for others. Only myself. I can tell you I would enjoy such gamemode, I want it to happen. I do not have absolute certainty of how others would react, my friend.
I can offer you my perspective, and my perspective alone.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948015#Comment_3948015
That's my point exactly, lol. Most patchesback then had alot of stuff that was complete cancer. I think they've done well on toning that down so its just annoyingly strong stuff instead. I feel like MOST people who want to re-experience the goodies they had back then will get a wakeup call once they remember the cancer the OTHER side had too.
And that also proves my point, friend.
The subjective aspect is part of it. Correct me if I am wrong, but if I understood your comment, you would prefer not to play an old version of the game. That is fine, valid, and you quite simply have that option by playing the game normally.
What I'm saying is that, if given the choice (because we currently don't have the choice, I am playing the exact same DBD you are), I, GeneralV, would willingly go back to a previous version of DBD. I cannot speak for everyone, but I can speak for myself. I gave you examples of versions I would like to return to, I never said they would apply to the entire community.
Many players don't need a wake up call, they would know exactly what they are choosing. For some people, it WAS a better game. For others, it wasn't. It is preference really.
It just so happens that, currently, those whose prefer the old game do not have a chance to return. That's all.
-
@humanbeing1704 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3948028#Comment_3948028
hemophobia was one of those lucky ones I got because I got an AFK legion
AFK Huntress back in 2019.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947950#Comment_3947950
That's kind of the thing about talking about past patches as if those were good times. While there's some individual things that are missed... its usually bundled with stuff that was an absolute cancer. Freddy's release for example came before instablinds were nerfed. If the devs released an alternative gamemode that let us play THAT patch of DBD, you best believe survivors would remind you of that.
But I think that can be applied to every single patch in the game's history, tbh. I think it is impossible to find one version of DBD that players had nothing to complain about.
There is always going to be something that players dislike, and that is true for both the Old DBD and the modern DBD. It really depends of your personal preferences, when did the good outweigh the bad for your experience. I don't mind dealing with four insta-blinds if I can play OG Freddy, it is something I'm willing to put up with. Or Prayer Beads Spirit, as you recalled. Or 5 blink Nurse, because Freddy matters more to me than any of that.
For other players, this might not be the case, and that is valid. It is perfectly okay to prefer the current version of DBD over any that existed in the past. I just don't think those who enjoyed the Old DBD should have permanently lost it. And, in my case, it is because of Freddy, of course.
-
@UndeddJester said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947509#Comment_3947509
That's a little disingenuous. That's like saying the "Anti-Slugging" feature touted a little ways back, which was the abandon feature to address 4man survivor team slugging, was promised to be basekit Unbreakable...
When the AFC feature was announced the devs made it quite clear that its intent was to resolve the most egregious cases of camping, but not remove camping as a strategy in the game. Heck Bubba was even named specifically as part of the same set of changes to reduce his camping effectiveness.
The dev note is right here, and it's literally called "Anti-Face camp":
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/409-developer-update-september-2023
I was here for that PTB, there was no confusion from anyone what the AFC was for, the devs were very clear about it. The PTB note was basically the same as it was later written here.
That is why everyone keeps saying "It's Anti Face Camp", because that is literally what it is, and there was never any confusion as to what it's purpose was when it was being developed on that PTB. In that regard, it isn't undertuned at all, it does exactly what its intended purpose is… so when people say "the Anti Camp feature is undertuned", it's completely false, because it isn't the Anti Camp feature.
You might WANT an Anti Camp feature, but that isn't what the AFC is, you're asking for a different feature. Furthermore it's a feature I don't agree with, because any killer who is camping out a single player vs. a semi aware team (perhaps with Kindred) is losing the game... 140s is more than enough time to lose at least 3, if not 4 gens.
Macro play and awareness is an important skill even for SoloQ, the HUD helps massively with this if the player pays attention... and just cause your average Solo Q player is completely oblivious and walks into the camp trap, doesn't mean that camping is overpowered in any way shape or form... in fact, it's a pretty sure fire way to lose the game most of the time.
To be fair, there is anti-camping on the roadmap for phase 2, so it seems they now do want to target camping, and the other two disliked strategies, directly.
-
Hey Darren, good to see you my friend!
I must say I was really happy when I got Hand-Eye Coordination against a random Vecna last year because this one is unreasonable. You have to get extremely lucky with the killer, an actual dice roll, and you still need to escape him on top of that.
-
@MechWarrior3 said:
The DC penalty needs to stay. We can’t have people leaving the game just for any reason. This would get abused. That’s why it was created in the first place. You’re also hurting queue times bouncing in and out of matches.
Tunneling isn’t always effective. That’s 3 other people working on gens for free. The time that person is dead and out of the game your down to the last gen. Unless your nurse, ghoul, or blight.
Don't worry though - the Anti Tunnel system will be here before you know it. I’ll be looking forward to it personally.Don't worry though - the Anti Tunnel system will be here before you know it. I’ll be looking forward to it personally.
Same, my friend. Same.
-
@ad19970 said:
They still had proper resources, they didn't have to worry about waves and waves of gen-related killer perks, stealth was still a viable playstyle, killers weren't as oppressive, and the list goes on.
It almost sounds like you are saying survivors only want to stick around in matches when the match is tilted in their favor. Which is not a good look at all. I am pretty positive the game was not in the best state in 2018. That's when survivors still had the upper hand quite noticeably.
Survivors received quite some nerfs during the last years no doubt. But survivors still have proper resources unless they spawn in on one of the badly balanced maps, gen perks on the killers side have also seen many nerfs over the time and are kind of necessary to keep up with good survivor teams, and the most oppressive killers in the game are Blight and Nurse, two killers that have been in the game for a long time now. Other than those two there aren't really any killers that are particularly oppressive. Kaneki is a bit of a problem still, but other than him, most recent killers have been pretty balanced. Maybe a killer like Hillbilly or Dracula could receive a tiny little nerf but that's kind of it.
Also, survivors haven't lost almost everything that they used to have, that is a massive exaggeration. Survivors still have plenty of strong perks, just like killers have.
The game is arguably in it's most balanced state yet. That doesn't mean it's in a perfect state however, far from it. But it has definitely improved.
With that said, the solo survivor role has gotten more rough over the years, and there surely are valid reasons as to why people would want to give up earlier into the match. But I would argue it's less about what BHVR has done and more about what they haven't done yet, and that is address survivors biggest frustrations, which is mass slugging, tunneling and camping. I can only pray that the coming anti-slugging, anti-camping and anti-tunneling changes will be impactful. Those are the changes that would help survivors feel much less need to go next.
Hello friend, good to see you here!
Honestly, I disagree with your points here. It is not that the match needs to be tilted in the survivor's favor, it is that people are less likely to be interested in sticking around if the game isn't providing them with an enjoyable experience, and I think the gradual deterioration of the survivor role makes its experience increasingly less enjoyable.
Because survivors did lose a lot. Not just the perks listed in the beginning of the thread, but also in terms of what they can do. Getting a Coldwind map in current DBD against, let's say, Kaneki (who is extremely fun to play as but horrible to go against) isn't balanced. Personally, I don't think DBD is even close to its most balanced state, whatever it was it stayed in the past, certainly before patch 6.1.0
The survivor role just provides… less. Of course we are not here to justify DCs or hook suicides, but I don't think it is a stretch to say that the survivor role gradually becoming worse in the process of inflating kill rates caused people to give up more often.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947908#Comment_3947908
You're not really interested in the game's state as a whole though for any given patch. You just want OG Freddy. If they released OG Freddy into the patch we have right now, you'd be satisfied.
Well, kinda. Let me explain.
I am interested in the game's state as a whole mostly for survivor. You see, I cannot really call myself a "killer main" or "survivor main". I started more as killer then switched to survivor, but overall I care about both experiences. Therefore, ideally I would want to choose a version of the game that provides what I enjoy for both experiences (better resources and more atmospheric maps for survivor, OG Freddy for killer).
I believe the versions I have mentioned fit that requirement, my dear friend.
However, your comment is not wrong, at all. OG Freddy takes priority over anything that DBD could possibly offer. Over five years of discussions here and I don't think a single one of them ever properly expressed just how much I care about this character.
So yes, if we could have OG Freddy in the game right now I would be satisfied. It isn't the absolute best possible scenario, far from it, but I would not complain.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947693#Comment_3947693
I feel like as soon as I whip out prayer beads Spirit with OG ruin and a red mori from that time frame, ppl wouldn't like that patch much, lol.
People, perhaps.
But not me.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947652#Comment_3947652
I wouldn't mind going back to 2020 or 2021 DBD. It was pretty balanced, and I'd like to think the community was happier back then.
Can we go slightly further back? I miss my favorite killer.
@LordGlint said:
Im just curious exactly what patch were talking about is the "good" one
Well, I've already shared my own answer as anything between 27th of October 2017 and 22th of July 2019.
However, if I were to name one Patch in particular… 2.3.3, after Spirit's release but before Legion, sounds good to me. Ghostface's release in 3.0.0 also has enough variety without costing me my favorite killer. Freddy's own release back in 1.8.0 is also one I would gladly accept.
-
Wish I had them in my games :(
-
@Wolfiestein said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947614#Comment_3947614
But you get notification of the teleport. Even post buff, he has limits on it.
You actually get a notification for Afton's teleport, but it can be impossible to see it depending on your angle.
-
@Araphex said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947284#Comment_3947284
Yeah, it's not bad for killer mains. I play both equally and can say that killer is much easier to play than survivor, especially solo. So far it's June and Behavior has done nothing to address the solo issues other than punishing players who are fed up with the constant tunneling and camping. Sure, they supposedly put in fixes for these things but they don't work. Killers don't have to be right on top of you to camp (especially when you're hooked in the basement) and none of the anti-tunnel perks actually do anything. For example, Off The Record… If I wait 60 seconds then I'm flagged as being AFK and risk getting banned. Not to mention if the killer hits me, I don't gain enough distance to stop being tunneled and downed. How is that fair to survivors? But when I play killer, I don't have to worry about penalties. I can tunnel, camp, and just play casually and still win without any repercussions.
I used to like the challenge of killer but now it's too easy and I really want to play survivor more often but I can't because every match at least 2 people are dead in around 5 minutes. When 2 players are dead, there's really no point in playing the rest of the match because you can't finish the generators in time with 90 seconds each and only 2 of you doing them while trying not to be caught by the killer. Even then, if we weren't trying to rush to get the generators done, which most killer mains complain about, then we'd be flagged as AFK and get crows showing our location.
Even though the game wasn't that balanced early on, it was way more balanced than it is today. The only time killers struggle in a match is against a SWF while most matches are against solo players. Solo needs to be heavily rebalanced because right now it's almost unplayable.
Even though the game wasn't that balanced early on, it was way more balanced than it is today.
This is a rather interesting point, my friend, because a couple years ago in these very Forums it was not rare for you to see the following line:
"DBD's current state is the most balanced it has ever been"
That was said CONSTANTLY, and repeated so often during such different eras of the game that it basically lost its meaning. But interestingly enough, you don't see it anymore. At least I have not seen it in any recent discussions.
-
To be fair, you cannot block Freddy's teleport to gens (which is good, you shouldn't).
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947574#Comment_3947574
Honestly? It might be a retrofitting issue. The game has upgraded… multiple(?) engines since its launch, and the scope of almost all of its systems have been tremendously expanded. Its on its third console generation since launch, something that few games can really say. In live service games especially, it can sometimes be difficult to even get things to "fit back how they used to" so to speak, each time a major system update happens its like opening a vacuum sealed package. You're rarely going to be able to get things to fit back in their old shell, and when you can it tends to take a lot of effort. I think that many of the things that have been significantly altered in the past likely get harder to recreate effectively with each major change to the game.
Then you have to decide between whether you want a snapshot or a modernization. A snapshot would be going back, warts and all, to be as accurate to the time as possible. Alternatively, you could modernize it and keep any (near)universally approved improvements that have happened since and retrofit them into an emulation of how the game was at that time. Unfortunately either way, people will be unhappy with whichever is chosen. Some want a "fixed" version of what things used to be, while others will fight over said "fixes". I feel like if demand was high enough they could make it work, but I think there's just too little financial or growth incentives to greenlight throwback ideas.
I love those types of systems, and its honestly one of the things I miss the most about the days before DLC. I can go back and play a game like Super Mario World the exact way I played it in the past, even on the original hardware, and have it be exactly the same as it was when I first played it… but once DLC and patches entered the mix, now you are only allowed to play whatever snapshots (if any) are continuously preserved.
That is a fair point, friend.
And I think that makes it less likely that we will ever receive a simple "yes or no" from BHVR regarding whether or not old content will be made available again someday.
Personally, I just want my favorite killer back. Freddy takes priority over anything else in DBD for me, so basically:
Anything between 27th of October 2017 and 22th of July 2019. A day after Freddy's release and a day before his rework. That is what I need. I don't mind if the make a modernization and alter a few things or if they released a snapshot exactly as it was.
As long as I get OG Freddy, I would have no complaints.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
I could add one more thing. If we're all on second hook at four or five gens, then yes, I don't see us turning the match around, and I would let go on second hook. But even in the matches when we're doing well, I would hold on, but then I would get tunneled off the second hook. Even though I recognize that tunneling would be justified at that point, it still leaves me asking the question, Why did I bother holding on? That's not a good feeling, and essentially tells me that if you're on second hook, you might as well be dead.
That's not always the case, though. Maybe in like 50-60% of the cases?
As another reply said, my friend, I think the comeback potential for survivors has been greatly reduced, overall. But I agree.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947274#Comment_3947274
This is unfortunately common in many games since the dawn of live service updates. Fighting games in particular get it pretty rough, as like with MOBAs and other genres, a single season's changes can basically ruin the game both in terms of momentum and interest. On top of, well, fun. A good recent example is Tekken 8, while Street Fighter 5's lifespan had a lot of ebbing and flowing in it over its lifespan as well.
Some games actually have neat ideas like Street Fighter 2 and 4, where they have version select modes where you can play as X character from Y version of the game, complete with mechanical changes that were present at that time. Sadly I don't see any way of doing something like that with DBD, especially since many of its changes affect more of the game than individual characters or their nuances. Would be pretty neat if something similar could somehow work though.
Honestly, my friend, I just don't understand what is BHVR's stance on Old DBD content or what they really think of it.
The signals are mixed, way too much. When they made changes to Hillbilly, Onryo and when they announced the planned changes to Skull Merchant, they expressed concern, or at least mentioned, of "alienating the players who enjoyed previous versions of said killers". But, somehow, this in particular doesn't apply to Freddy or the movement for Old Freddy that had been going on for years?!?
Then, I think it was last year we had a Reddit Q&A where a user asked the devs if they ever planned to allow players to change the lobby background to a previous version. This question was selected to be answered, but instead of an answer the official reply was just a question about that user's favorite lobby.
And, during an interview, it was asked if they planned to ever release a "classic" modifier. The official answer was that is is something that was mentioned multiple times, but then it was said that Lights Out had the feeling of a "classic" mode.
I just find it very difficult to understand if BHVR is or isn't willing to work with old DBD content. I think they can and should add it back, in whatever way is possible, but it is impossible to determine if it will ever happen.
-
@squbax said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947274#Comment_3947274
Thats actually a good point, like yeah true I got the game the way I wanted but you don't which sucks. However if you are really interested I saw somewhere on youtube a dude that could play previous versions, While I do not recall his channel the video was called: I played all versions of skullmerchant. Maybe you can ask the people who keep those classic server how the do so and if they let you play with them.
Exactly. I feel like there was never any effort to preserve things from the old DBD, and the players who liked the way the game used to be end up with nothing. I don't even have words to describe how much I would love a classic mode with OG Freddy available.
As for the rest, thank you for the suggestion, my friend, I appreciate it, but I'm already very familiar with it. Long story short, the whole thing is very convoluted and not practical at all. It would certainly be better if BHVR just straight up gave us access to old content, even if through modifiers.
-
Well, I think the answer changes heavily depending on when you ask this question, but I'll try to keep things up to date.
5- Hex: Plaything. Spot-on, this perk is annoying.
4- Infectious Fright. S L U G.
3- Grim Embrace. Nothing more fun than watching the entirety of your objective get blocked and having nothing you can do about it.
2- Scourge Hook: Pain Resonance. It is an excellent perk when you're the one using it, but I don't think anyone really likes playing against, especially when it is paired up with the number 1.
1- Dead Man's Switch. If paired up with Pain Res, this perk is insufferable.
-
@Xernoton said:
Killers will stop tunneling the moment they are replaced by bots. Until then, there will always be killers that try to tunnel. Even if survivors got a base kit DS with infinite duration and 3 minutes stun time some Killers would still tunnel.
I'd probably do it just for the added challenge at that point.
Xernoton!
Good to see you, old friend! How are you? I hope you're doing well.
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947380#Comment_3947380
Wasn't call you selfish.
...
Unless we are talking about Freddy.
I see. My mistake, friend, I apologize.
…
Wait a minute, what about Freddy?
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947318#Comment_3947318
Was terrible on the survivor end for sure. But in saying DCs weren't as bad back then really shows how selfish the community has become.
Legion is when the playerbase saw that disconnects drove bhvr to make brash changes. So until it doesn't work or you punish the act, it will continue to happen.
How can it possibly be selfish of me?
I just don't remember, that's all.
-
@RaSavage42 said:
I have another theory…
Maybe when Survivors were playing against the same Killer with the same perks and same playstyle
Also likely, and especially considering the sheer amount of tunneling in modern DBD, which got so bad that we're getting an anti-tunnel mechanic in phase 2.
@Rulebreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947268#Comment_3947268
Then we'd like to ask for your opinion something.
Let's assume for arguments sake (for the ones we KNOW will come say "but it's not just that" this is a hypothetical) the root of the recent epidemic is that people have gotten used to being able to quit without punishment and become more petty.
Since the metaphorical well is poisoned what could be done that would be satisfactory to the majority?
The poison being the original petty DCers and the trend they set. The well being the player base. A reversion would help somewhat but if the changes that caused this trend were a literal catalyst (like, chemistry catalyst) the problem (the DC epidemic) would remain because the metaphorical well would still be poisoned (the trend being set).
Our three cents would argue that you should heavily discourage the trend you want gone and then slowly introduce a new one you want. But now we're beginning to drift out of topic so we'll stop there.
My guess, friends?
Revert many of the changes made to the survivor role (doesn't have to be all of them), and at the same time keep the removal of the hook suicides (except when there are two survivors alive, then it should be possible to let go for hatch).
Is it a perfect solution? Probably not. But it seems to me that it would prevent people from going next while also improving the survivor experience, and if the survivor experience is good players are less likely to give up in the first place.
At least that is what I think could work. I could be wrong.
-
@dbd900bach said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947297#Comment_3947297
Its kind of a weird discussion to me because what exactly is classic Dbd? We're talking about a decades worth of changes so where exactly does the classic dbd fall onto? Does it fall into an version from eight or nine years ago? Maybe seven? If people got a classic mode back, it would be nostalgic for a few games and then the extremely glaring issues and lack QOL changes we're use too would bleed through like an open vein.
People like to remember the good but forget the extremely scummy bad that a lot of people hated more than anything.
I am not sure if it helps, but I can tell you exactly what I want:
Anything between 27th of October 2017 and 22th of July 2019.
A day after Freddy's release and a day before his rework. That is what I need.
-
@RaSavage42 said:
So if I'm thinking right we could say that Blight and Nemesis being added was the start of the epidemic
Blight due to his map traversal and Nemesis with Eruption
Maybe even Sadako with COB and the Overcharge re-work
The whole Gen kick META for all intense and purposes
Blight also started the Ruin + Undying meta, but I don't recall if it caused a lot of DCs and hook suicides.
It was terrible though.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947295#Comment_3947295
Problem is if you make a classic version, you're going to butcher queues.
Survivors will go back to the classic where the game was better for them.
And killers will stay here where the game is better for them.
I don't see how they could reliably do that, or maintain it because quite frankly I think people take current dbd for granted and have completely forgotten just how abysmal old dbd was.
Well, to be fair, I am not saying it needs to function the same way Minecraft allows to access old content. BHVR can come up with their own way of doing so, I just think it needs to be done.
And this might come as a surprise, but it is actually killer I want to play in an old version. Because it seems to be the only way I'll ever play my all-time favorite killer again, OG Freddy.
-
@AriesEyez87 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947264#Comment_3947264
lol! I can def agree that the modern version does have pros I won’t take that away at all especially with variety
But that is the double-edged sword, isn't it?
Because you can't take it away, even if you want to. There isn't a choice, as soon as you boot up the game, to choose an old version (like Minecraft has, for instance).
And if you prefer the current version of the game, everything is alright, there is nothing to complain about. If you don't, however… tough luck, nothing you can do about it.
-
@RaSavage42 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947283#Comment_3947283
And both Legion and Plague came with a Gen perk… just not slowdown
Plus some survivors not wanting to play against Killers they don't like… of course it wasn't as bad back in the day
Honestly, my dear friend, I had forgotten Discordance existed. Haven't seen it in a long time. Remember when its Tier 1 version was straight up better than the Tier 3 version? Good times.
And yes, I believe there always was a factor of some players not wanting to play against character they disliked. But, as you've said, it didn't happen that often back in the day. And I don't think players got increasingly more petty, I think something else caused the "go next" thing to become an epidemic.
-
@RaSavage42 said:
For me… I want to believe a reason was the endless wave of Anti-Loop Killers on top of Gen Perks
But even with all of that the numbers related to those Gen Perks… 200% Gen regression on COB for 60 seconds or until a Survivor touches a Gen… OG Eruption being 10% of total progress lost and if Survivors are on the Gen they are infected with Incapacitated for 16 seconds
I think it started with Legion and Plague (since they were released back to back)
I think, my friend, that the wave of anti-loop killers and gen perks have a bigger impact on this matter than Legion and Plague.
Or, specifically, Plague. Because Legion caused a lot of DCs when they first released, because they were genuinely unbearable to play against. Plague I think was okay, at least in my experience I don't remember seeing a lot of DCs against Plague in the old days.