GeneralV
GeneralV
About
- Username
- GeneralV
- Joined
- Visits
- 10,623
- Last Active
Comments
-
@squbax said:
While yes bhvr has done a lot of killer buffs since the inception of the game. To my knowledge, aside from trickster, no killer has recieved a base movement speed increase (I may be wrong tho).
And hell no I dont want to go back to old dbd, with infinites, instant moris, maps that looked like dogwater, instant gens, perma sabo and og 5 blink nurse. That was just awfull.
Ya know, now that you mentioned it, I always find these discussions a bit, well, sad.
Not the discussion itself, but the implications of what happens depending on your favorite version of the game.
Let me explain: you, my friend, stated here that you do not want to go back to the Old DBD. I, on the other hand, would love to go back. Both of our opinions are perfectly valid, but our situations are very different.
Because you can boot up the game right now and you'll be met with a version of the game that you want to play. Which is nice. Meanwhile, I, and others who preferred things the way they used to be, literally cannot do that. We're stuck with this very same "modern DBD" until BHVR decides to release a classic modifier, if they ever do so.
It is a very unfortunate situation.
-
@OmegaXII said:
To be honest, the reason why Survivors didn't rage-quit much before was that the game was EXTREMELY Survivor-sided.
I started playing when Spirit was first introduced, and here's what they had.
- DS working on first down
- DH for distance
- Original OoO for permanent Killer Aura
- Balanced landing has passive effect
- Purple medkit gives 3+ heals
- Insta-heal from dying to healthy
- Gens go a lot faster
- Much larger maps
- Lack of reliable gen slowdowns (Best is Ruin, which is cleansed in 1st minute)
- Etc…
That was the time where Survivors can chill around maps doing totems, opening chests, and still can easily win against most killers. Why would they rage-quit when it's easy game?
Survivor's resources, as I've said.
We started somewhat close, I started around Legion's release. And yes, survivors have more to work with, now they haven't. Not a single thing on the list remained unchanged.
Was it justified? Depends. Some nerfs were needed, others weren't, but the fact is that, either way, survivors lost almost everything they have. Only the bare minimum remains, and in some scenarios not even the bare minimum (deadzones).
The experience deteriorates a lot when you don't really have much to work with.
@Rulebreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947238#Comment_3947238
Not to put to much a damper on the mood, but don't think that finding the past source will fix what is happening now.
It's like finding out who brought an invasive species. You stopped the culprit, but the damage is done and spreading.
I would say it helps, my friends, if the devs are willing to act on it. I think we can only have an effective solution if we fix the root of the problem, even if it isn't easy to do so.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947217#Comment_3947217
There’s nothing to learn here. People are ragequitting for invalid reasons, so they deserve to get DC penalties.
Being upset with game balance is not a valid reason to ragequit. Being upset that the game has changed, is not a valid reason to ragequit. I’ve read through many things that were discussed in this thread, and they aren’t valid reasons either.
There’s nothing to learn here.
Of course there is!
The purpose of this thread is to have a discussion about what caused the "Go Next" epidemic to happen, what was its origin, and I believe we are doing just that.
I think it is a valid and important discussion to have.
@kit_mason said:
I think burnout is a huge part of it.
The game doesn't give anyone a chance to breathe anymore. The new Quest system feels even more restrictive in how you complete the Rift than before, and the constant onslaught of LTMs with FOMO rewards means players don't feel like they can disconnect from the game because they want to get the rewards for content. And from the perspective of a BHVR Executive, this system works. It maintains player retention at higher rates than if you let players take breaks when they need them.
But because you don't let players take breaks when they need them, players are getting burnt out. They're playing a game they aren't having fun in anymore, and it's leading to sabotaging behaviours such as Go Next.
I agree with this, I think I've said it in another reply, but it is noticeable how less often the game doesn't have an event or modifier going on.
I personally like DBD's events, especially Halloween, but the modifiers are exhausting. Most of them aren't even fun, and they just unnecessarily split the queues and make the matchmaking worse for the regular mode.
-
@vol4r said:
Finally this topic gets some recognition. I was vocal about this a while back, but didnt catch enough people to talk abou it.
We definitely need to fix things that CAUSE people to give up, instead of punishing them (which we do now).
We need:
- Anti tunnel mechanic being done properly
- Anti slug to be better, because "you can dc when you're slugged" is just not it
- Better anti-camping mechanic, because people still do it, but it's not on face, it's called proxy-camping now
- Killer prevention system - which doesn't let you play against same killer twice in a row
- Killer ban system - with 40 killers in game we could ban 3 of them.
This system would be a great information system aswell, if majority of plalyerbase are banning blight then this killer needs to be looked at, adjusted. - proper MMR system, because a player with 500 hours shouldn't be put into same lobbies with 10k hours players
I hope the devs see the discussion and take action based on what people say here, we make some good points here.
I would agree with most of them, except the killer ban system, my friend.
While I certainly would love to never play against Wesker or Blight again, I don't think it would be fair for those who play the more unpopular members of the killer roster, as they would take a really long time to find games.
But I agree with everything else, and I would also point out that the maps need adjustments. I would say most if not all map reworks need to be reverted, as they ended up making the maps extremely unfun to play and some of them straight up unfair for survivor, Coldwind Farm in particular.
@jedimaster505 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946452#Comment_3946452
In 2016-2020 when I was a new player, terrible at looping and lacked game knowledge, I found the game quite difficult as survivor. I was not abusing infinites or other exploits because I was simply unaware they existed. Nowadays, survivor must be completely unplayable for new players. Solo Q is barely playable for veteran survivors at this point. It's pretty comical that 4 man SWF teams with thousands of hours experience per member, sweating as hard as they can with 3rd party comms and Reshade filters, routinely get 4K steamrolled by a Nurse, Spirit, or Blight with under 500 hours.
I feel the best balance period was between 2020-2022, before the huge meta shift with 6.1 update. Ever since 6.1, survivor role has just been steadily going downhill with solo Q being less and less worth playing, unless you're a masochist. And I must be because I exclusively play solo Q, because the idea of sweating on comms with a SWF like its CS GO completely ruins the atmosphere of DBD for me. The pendulum has swung from survivor-sided to heavily killer-sided instead of just resting in the middle. Now killer queues are super long while survivors are bribed with blood points to endure misery from killers that all too often use the "power role" to be toxic and BM a survivor who outplayed them but inevitably got caught once the weak links were removed with tunneling/proxy camping/slugging.
I've uninstalled this game so many times post 6.1 due to its unplayability as survivor. I never used to do this. I never used to go-next either but it reached a point where it was completely pointless to stay in certain matches due to how hilariously broken some killer's abilities are. Which is a shame, because the game itself is super fun when the match is actually balanced. But because matchmaking doesn't work and really poor balancing decisions have been made post 6.1 update, these close matches are the exception, not the norm.
I feel the best balance period was between 2020-2022, before the huge meta shift with 6.1 update.
Personally I believe you can include 2019 into the mix, I don't think balance was a problem back then. But overall, yes I agree.
It is a bit sad when you compare the survivor experience back then to what it currently is.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946473#Comment_3946473
Someone isn't leaving early due to "deteriorating survivor role" because those things aren't even in effect when people leave.
I don't think that's true.
You can't isolate a singular game and declare that whatever reason the survivor ostensibly might've had to quit is the -only- contributing factor. People don't go into these matches with a clean slate, they do carry baggage from prior games.
If you have three bad matches in a row and you get found and hooked first on your fourth match, it's going to feel a LOT different than if you have three good matches in a row and the same thing happens. It doesn't even have to be something that happens within the game, either. Stressors weighing on your mind in real life can impact the way you interact with games.
In that regard, I don't think it's unreasonable to state that a deteriorating survivor experience is a contributing factor, and I don't think that people quitting out of matches that would be good enough under normal circumstances is solid evidence against it.
I agree.
And, based on my experience, I believe the deterioration of the survivor role increases the level of frustration players have and can potentially build up if they get several bad games in a row. Because you, as a survivor, are far more likely to get a bad game these days than you were in the past.
@ImWinston said:
- I've been playing DBD for a long time now, and I'm seeing the same frustration in the survivors that killers had years ago. Something has to change, I don't know what, I'm not a Devs, but we're in an unhappy situation for the game. Certainly (I think no one can contradict me) DBD is not a welcoming/easy game for new players
Yep, I don't think it is unreasonable to say that the situation is the same, but the roles are reversed.
In my opinion DBD followed a path of being survivor sided in the very beginning, then relatively balanced, then more killer sided in recent years. Both of these extremes create problems for the other role, the only difference is that survivors could quit more often than killers because they had a way to bypass the penalty, while killers don't.
@thrawn3054 said:
Imo I think the survivor role in general has become pretty frustrating. Combine that with alot of killers with unfun designs and the camping/tunneling meta and it's really not surprising.
Yes, I agree, old friend.
-
@TragicSolitude said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946866#Comment_3946866
It wouldn't be DbD otherwise. Stranger Things released with broken matchmaking. Resident Evil released with a map that crashed the game and a buggy killer. Somehow, DbD manages to sabotage new players' first impressions during some of the game's best chances to increase its player base.
Stranger Things released with broken matchmaking
Good times:
Honestly I had forgotten about that.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946789#Comment_3946789
My point is that. The devs obviously care that people are "matched" accordingly based on skill. That by definition means that the game is competitive. DBD is not a party game.
Let me ask you this.
Do you think Mario Party, or Mario Kart match players together with a hidden MMR? Or do you think that they just throw together the first few people with decent ping together?
I consider it a horror-themed party game, most certainly. MMR doesn't exist to create a competitive scene, it just exists to replace (and do a much worse job btw) the old rank system.
Do you think Mario Party, or Mario Kart match players together with a hidden MMR? Or do you think that they just throw together the first few people with decent ping together?
Genuinely no idea, haven't played the on-line multiplayer of these games in almost ten years.
-
@Eelanos said:
The Go Next epidemic became what it was because back then someone could pull the sickest comeback out of a single play and nowadays you know the result of the match within the first 30 seconds.
No one wants to stay on a match several minutes long when they know they lost within the first 30 seconds of the match. That's why the people that disconnect are survivors and very specifically full hex build killer players. Any other killer can pull a 0 to 4k at any point if they're smart enough, so they just endure until it happens (even if it ends up not happening), but full hex builds becoming perkless builds right at the start makes people quit because that chance of a comeback gets severely reduced.
So, yeah, same reason survivors started to "Go next". There was just no reason to play.
Comeback potential for survivors has been greatly reduced, I agree. When compared to Old DBD, it is way harder to recover from a bad start these days.
@bm33 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946707#Comment_3946707
The old ranks not only could you see the ranks but to stay in the red/purple as survivor you had to do things to be useful to the team, there was reason to care. With their SBMM it makes sense people don't care what their MMR is when it's all hidden and the matchmaking itself doesn't feel rewarding.
I agree with GoodboyKaru, they've removed alot of the incentives for survivors to stay in a match and for both sides to play in a more fun way. I think it's one of the unfortunate effects of putting the focus more on balancing based on 60/40 kill rate, making it more competitive, and not considering the fun factor.
I think of before the modifiers and rift people would say how by Lunar New Year event they would start feeling burnt out but then it felt like not much happened between Lunar New Year and Anniversary so that would be time people would take a break. There was a time people could reset if they needed to without missing out.
Survivors used to have alot more agency in a match which allowed for more playstyles. Since 6.1.0 they've removed alot from survivors agency to hit and keep that 60/40 kill rate and have pushed survivors more and more to gen focused gameplay - so much so that if you do anything aside from gen rush it feels like you're throwing the game. I liked being able have a mix of stealth and chase, adjusting based on the match, but they've really killed the stealth gameplay and like you said with chases they have removed resources survivors could work with.
Yep, all good points, my friend!
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946755#Comment_3946755
Oh yeah, I have yet to see a single map that I like. Though some are definitely worse than others. For example, any match in the Forgotten Ruins is guaranteed to be a complete disaster. The number of times I've gone to second phase on my first hook on that map is staggering.
Yep, maps are really problematic when they don't provide enough resources.
Ideal map design is, in my opinion, original Chapel. No map was as balanced as that one was.
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946606#Comment_3946606
DBD is by definition a competitive game, because it uses MMR for matchmaking.
And the point is that these games aren't necessarily compettive. They are TEAMBASED games. Hell the sports games will punish people for leaving early. Every multiplayer game does this. But DBD does not. I'd bet mario kart probably does this if you leave games.
I don't think so, tbh.
In DBD you can't even see your own MMR. The system is widely disliked, it was never requested in the first place, and many players don't care about it. The so-called "comp" scene is external, filled with restrictions that regular games do not have, and don't reflect a normal DBD match.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946742#Comment_3946742
Yes, I still think people should be allowed to "F- off" as the other person puts it. We could just chalk it up to a bad game, as we have many of those, and will continue to have many bad games going forward, no matter what kinds of mechanics are put in place.
And I'll be real, I've also had some of the most interesting matches as a result of teammates giving up as well.
And I'm curious: I wasn't around for 2018 DBD, so I'm wondering what kinds of resources Survivors have lost.
Fair enough, my friend!
Well, as for survivor resources, the most important, in my opinion, are the maps. The map reworks, pretty much all of them, made maps worse for survivors, either by removing tiles entirely or replacing them with extremely unsafe tiles that are barely useful. Coldwind maps are the worst offenders, by far.
Items and perks are also on the list, of course. Med-kits in particular received a severe nerf, which I personally don't think was needed. Perks we could name Self-Care, Balanced Landing, Adrenaline, DS losing 1 second of stun time for some reason, Spine Chill, Iron Will (this one was reverted, thankfully).
The maps take priority though. While perks and items are important, they are not always guaranteed to be there. Some players play without item, and some players do not go with the meta. But the maps are always, always there.
-
To be fair, it is a bit early to tell. We haven't even seen anything yet.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946723#Comment_3946723
I think they should just leave off the "go-next penalty." Just the removal of throwing on hook should be effective enough.
Reading through the discussion, I agree with what some of the others have said about games feeling hopeless shortly after the match starts. If Survivors have a bad start, there is little to no hope of turning the match around. Some kind of catch-up mechanic was explored in 2v8, which might help a little bit for 1v4. Obviously the values would have to be tweaked. The yellow herbs in the RE-edition of 2v8 were a neat idea as well. Maybe something like that could return for 1v4 (but again, limited). Or just giving Survivors one more hook state. We can increase gen repair times to compensate if need be. These are just ideas of course.
I also agreed with the point that there is little point of sticking out a match with a bad start. Or if the Killer wants to tunnel me out that badly? Fine, I'll get out. Bad and/or trolling teammates were another big reason for me to go next.
Honestly, I think reverting most of the maps and giving survivors their resources back should help. It is the route I'd go if it was up to me.
I think it is easier to work with things that we already had instead of creating something new from scratch.
@AshFayd said:
All I know is my matches were more pleasant when these people could actually leave. Now they're actively sabotaging the matches they're forced to stay in.
They're throwing down pallets, they're blowing gens up, they're running to the killer to be hooked or running StB to kill themselves faster, some are even bringing plot twist to bleed themselves out.
This is literally WORSE than if they were just allowed to F- Off
Yes, that was a concern many players had: that people would intentionally sabotage the game. Though, to be fair, someone choosing to leave already ruins the match for the others who will stay.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946723#Comment_3946723
We’ll see, I suppose.
Either way, thanks for an interesting, if somewhat depressing read.
No problem, my dear friend, thank you for stopping by.
And I'm sorry there isn't really a positive aspect to share here.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946712#Comment_3946712
I guess I’m suspecting that they’ll do a partial revert. That, or people will find a loophole and ‘go next’ that way.
That one “we saved the city” spongebob meme comes to mind.
I don't think they will revert the "no more hook suicide" aspect, tbh. The other stuff? Maybe, but I think this part specifically is gone, for now.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
I’d say to wait with retrospectives like this until the measures have had some time to settle. I’m not convinced the ‘epidemic’ is over.
That is a fair point, my friend.
I just chose to do it right now because you can't really "go next" anymore. Sure, you can still DC, but that will mean having to deal with an even harsher penalty. While some people will still give up, the way it had been happening until this point is no longer possible.
-
@bm33 said:
Just starting out with I'm not saying these are justifiable/OK reasons to go next, I'm not defending going next, just that I think these are some reasons that have lead to the increase in the mentality to go next.
SBMM causing matchmaking to only count gate escapes/kills, challenges to complete rifts, time limited rifts/events/modes causing burnout, and doing more to make Survivor escape rate 40% but not really doing anything to increase the fun of playing survivor.
In both the old rank matchmaking and SBMM any survivor that has played enough can tell the likelyhood at the start of match if it will be a match they could win or will lose. With the old rank mode you could have a match you knew you wouldn't escape but at the very least you could do things to prevent dropping ranks and being matched with worse teammates. While the ranking system had its issues it allowed you to at the very least safety pip just by playing out a losing match so it did encourage people to stick it out and do bare minimum to be a useful teammate. If you hid all match for hatch and didn't do anything to help the team you weren't going to be rising in the ranks to be matched with those that were useful (rainbow ranks matchmaking being exception). With SBMM there's no saving your matchmaking for better teammates the next round, dying in first 5 minutes is the same as dying in 15 minutes. That incentive to stick out a match is gone.
While rift/challenges are a way to get people to play DBD way more often it also made people not want to waste time in matches they wouldn't be able to progress/complete a challenge. Need to use Deliverance but are first found and hooked, need to do something/stay in killers terror radius but it's scratched mirrors Myers, need to blind killer but they're running Lightborn, need to get iri emblem in Unbroken but you are hooked once, etc. would all be situations people would go next rather than play the match. Is it a good reason to quit? No but the rift itself is limited time, most people have a limited amount of time to spend gaming and playing out a 10-15 match to not really progress the rift isn't worth it to them to stay in when they could go next and try again.
There's already no real break between the time limited rifts. There's now alot of time limited events/modes throughout the year. Add in new DLCs atleast every 3 months (sometimes sooner) so people have a short window at release to use new perks/killer before nerfs and before people have optimal gameplay figured out. The intent is using FOMO to keep people playing, the problem is this also doesn't give people a good opportunity to take breaks and cool off from what is a game designed to frustrate. People are getting burned out and rather than taking a break they're playing through the burnout because there is constantly something else that is time limited in the game to play/earn. When people are burned out they are more easily frustrated so are morely likely to rage quit/go next. While the new go next penalty may seem like good idea to force people to take a break it's going to just increase this issue since they also changed the penalty from decaying over time to requiring 20 matches to be played - instead of just taking a break from playing until the player has cooled off they need to play more which will just continue to add to the burnout frustration.
It's fine that they want the survivor escape rate to be lower than killer but if they want people to play/stick around in a match where they are likely to lose then the fun for that side needs to make up for the frustration of losing more than winning. Most of survivor gameplay is boring. Survivors don't get basekit powers to play around with, they're just skins. Most of the survivor gameplay is staying in one spot - gen for 90 seconds for multiple gens, heal for 16 seconds, totem for 14 seconds, hang on hook not playing game for 70 seconds for 2 hook states, and lay on ground doing nothing for 4 minutes. Gens and hooks have skill checks but those aren't fun, they're just annoying pop ups to make it seem like you're doing something more than staying in one spot. The only interactive gameplay that isn't just sit in one spot is the chase which is why people say it's the most fun part of the game, but on average a survivor spends 1 minute of a match in a chase (so 20 seconds a chase) - it's sad that is such a short time for what is considered the most fun part of the game and it's something that tends to be hit with nerfs to keep it short. Perks to extend the chase tend to have not fun requirements, killers received basekit buffs with the purpose to shorten chases, and there's a bunch of antiloop killers. The only other fun thing is blinding/stunning the killer but do that too many times in a match and the killer isn't having fun because they feel bullied, they leave match frustrated even if they got a 4k and bunch of BP. So when a survivor is going against a killer that increases the boring gameplay of the match where survivors are stuck in one spot and shortens the chase part (which is supposed to be the fun part of the match) it makes survivors quicker to pull the trigger on going next until they have a fun chase match.
Very interesting points here, my friend!
-The ranks I think are an interesting case because, while I do agree with what you said here, I would also point out the fact that some people don't really care about their MMR. I think this one is closer to what @GoodBoyKaru mentioned regarding alternate win conditions such as BBQ / WGLF stacks, where you had a reason to stay in a match even if it was clear that your team wouldn't be able to win.
-As for the challenges, I think they started out fine, but they reached a point where they required things to perfectly align during a match in order to be completed. Now, I am not sure of how impactful they were when it comes to the "go next" epidemic, because the archives existed before the epidemic and, apparently, they will no longer be updated. It would be difficult to measure how frequent the DC / hook suicides were when complicated challenges were released alongside their respective rifts.
-This part about FOMO is something I've noticed a while ago. If you recall the days of Old DBD, there were longer periods of time between stuff, where you would be playing the regular game. Now it seems you barely select the regular queue. Because it is modifier after event after modifier and so on. Now, I personally like the game's events, especially Halloween and Anniversary, but the modifier streak is a little too much. Most of them aren't even fun to begin with, imo, and their FOMO rewards are really unnecessary.
-Lastly I think the idea of artificially inflating the game's kill rates is largely responsible for the problem, because the way it was done involved depriving survivors of their resources. The map reworks are the best example of this. Personally, I don't like chases, I prefer hide and seek and doing gens, but if I am going to be chased then I need resources to use. Part of the deterioration of the survivor role, in my opinion, is leaving them with very little to work with.
@Rulebreaker said:
We'd argue its a combination of things.
When we started around Doc we rarely saw people trying to die on hook unless it was the old "swing escape" build. We did however see more actual DCing. Usually it looked like Internet explosions but we'd say at least 1/3 (collectively between us) we're out of petty reasons. Once the DC penalty hit, THOSE survivors went the route of swinging on hook to go next and got mixed in with those swinging out of other semi reasonable reasons (ex: your hooked and the rest slugged). Its not like anyone could really stop them and it wasn't a super large number at the time. Then killers got buffed during the meta shake up and quickly followed by the eruptoverbrine era. Obviously survivors didn't want to spend an hr trying to win and would quit via swing to avoid the penalty. Fair enough, however we don't think most these people stopped quitting when met with something they didn't like. This then started a trend for certain types of players and just spread from there. Now we can't tell if it's a quit out of frustration or a quit because F you.
It is an interesting perspective, friends!
Now, I believe the gen kick meta and the supposed meta shake up (meta replacement, as I call it) from 6.1.0 indeed contributed to the deterioration of the survivor role itself. If we pair it with the map reworks that had already happened by then, it is entirely possible that these games weren't worth playing. And, as you say, the trend continues, even if some of the worst offenders (such as the gen kick meta itself and Skull Merchant's first design) were no longer around.
-
@BasementDweller said:
I'm going to start off by mentioning that I started playing DBD slightly before they added Legion, and I mainly played killer. So I'm going to try to not sound biased.
When it comes to the og survivors, survivors were at their strongest.
- Infinites
- Double pallets at almost every loop
- Exhaustion perk were on a cooldown
- No gen regression
- Barely any aura reading perk
- 'Hide and seek' was viable
Over time as all things do, things change. So each patch/update would bring changes that would in someway nerf survivors.
While there weren't that many dcs at the time, as the new update brought in more killers/perks/nerfs dcing started to rise. To me it seemed like survivors felt that how they could express their skill was slowly being put into a meat grinder.
Especially when it came to certain map changes, from getting smaller, loops getting smaller, more dead zones, etc. This can also make survivors feel as if they can't properly express their skill.
To bring it back to the topic of killer, Nurse is probably the first offense to the up rise of dcs. The only way a survivor could 'defend themselves' were with loops and pallets, yet here is this killer that makes those defenses null, especially with the add-on combo with 5-7 blinks.
Over time they added more killers and perks that survivors found unfun, especially OG legion. So devs see that more and more survivors are dcing for 'xyz' reasons so they add a dc penalty, but since those 'xyz' reasons are still there they swap to giving up on hook.
- Nurse, Blight, Spirit, etc.
- Strong Killer add-ons
- 4 gen slowdown/regression meta
- 3 gen being the meta playstyle
Next thing you know Skull Merchant arrives, and people were already skeptical about her of her stalling potential during 3-gen. Eventually a specific loadout is found where you can basically hold the game hostage till the server boots you out, and soon (in my case) every match agaisnt SM was using this build. So the 'hate-train' comes and every game the mentality is just "gg go-next". As each new unfun/strong killer is released it adds more to the go-next mentality.
With perks mainly slowdow, regression, and aura reading it made games for survivor less fun. With how many aura perks for killer are added, the 'hide and seek' playstyle is gone, more slowdown/regress brought in the meta of 4 slowdown/regression loadouts, and slugging perks brought in the 'slug till bleedout' meta. These loadouts also added to the go-next mentality.
Killer play styles are also a culprit in why go-next is a thing. For things like:
- Playing for the 3-gen (Killers would see where the closest 3-gen was and wouldn't leave that area, forcing the survivors to come to them)
- Hard tunneling, camping, and slugging (basically made survivors feels as if they weren't allowed to play the game)
- Hit and run (this play style was boring, especially if a survivor prefers the chase over doing gens)
- Slug till bleedout (should be self explanatory)
I also have the feeling that the slow shift of 'winning over having fun' mentality has also drifted players to go-next.
There are probably some things I missed, so if anyone would like to add onto this I would appreciate that.
Don't think you're missing anything, my friend, I think that was spot-on.
-
@tjt85 said:
My ideas for why there is / was a "go next" epidemic:
Every new Killer is incredibly strong, with multiple complicated powers that are simply too much for a lot of Survivor players to deal with. Listen, I've got a 35% escape rate. Do you think I can deal with a Killer that has 4 powers like Vecna, when I struggle against the dude who can step in his own traps?
The addition of bots probably didn't help the situation. More Survivors were inclined to stick it out through the rough matches because they knew their team would be a man down if they DC'd. But with bots available, players resent being kept in those miserable games by a draconian DC penalty system that will punish them for giving the lobby a bot. So instead, they do the obvious thing and chose to die on hook to avoid the penalty.
It's a low stakes casual game with the DC penalty system of a "serious" competitive one (which has now become even more punishing in the latest patch).
Player burnout building up to a frustrated exit. I'm sure everyone has had a rough run of games, thinking the next one will be better, only to be instantly proven otherwise. Some players just can't stop playing when they really should.
A lack of Killer variety / no repeat prevention (more of an issue at the extremes of MMR). When Survivors are facing their 4th Ghostie or Myers of the day or a succession of Blights / Nurses / Spirits / Ghouls etc, can you really blame them for dipping in the hope of facing a different Killer in their next game?
The lack of a functional MMR system being evident at times, leading to players throwing in the towel early. It's not just Survivors, either. Overmatched Killers give up or DC too, which can be just as bad, rare as it is for me to be on the winning side.
By design, Killers have comeback mechanics (slugging, camping and tunnelling). Survivors do not. Therefore, some Survivors decide to go next on first hook early game because they know there's no coming back from a very poor start. Once the Killer has 2 on death hook at 4 gens, the game is basically over. But as Killer, it often feels like you can make something happen in the end game, maybe even get a kill or two if you keep playing.
The finisher mori causing an uptick in slugging for the 4K to deny hatch, meaning that Survivors rarely get a shot at a personal "win" condition in games that are otherwise a dead loss. There might come a point when the hatch may as well not be in the game.
A competitive focus to balancing but a total lack of anything to compete for. There are no ranks or rewards at stake, so why is the game becoming as sweaty as it is?
I agree, my friend, and I think the last point is particularly severe because it damages the whole DBD experience by trying to turn the game into something that it isn't.
DBD isn't competitive, it never was, never will be. So it shouldn't be approached like one.
@Reinami said:
Its simple, up until now, this was one of the only multiplayer games that just didn't punish it. Look at any other team-based multiplayer game:
- Counter strike
- Rainbow Six Siege
- Valorant
- Overwatch
- Team Fortress
- League of Legends
- DotA 2
- Smite
- Heroes of the STorm
- Starcraft
- Warcraft
- WoW
- Final fantasy 14
- Rocket League
- World of Tanks/Warplanes/Ships
- PUBG
- Fortnite
You get the idea. Every single one of these would punish you for griefing your team, or "feeding" or otherwise giving up. At least when not playing on their casual modes (like CS Deathmatch for example).
DBD is one of the only games i have played that allows it (at least up until now)
To be fair, my friend, most of these games are competitive games, unlike DBD.
I think the game didn't really punish the "go next" thing because it wasn't really a problem, until recently when it became an epidemic.
-
@SoGo said:
The whole office thing is perfect.
The axe is sticking out like a sore thumb.
His mori would be better without the Torture Endo, or Shreddy Fazchair 2.0, as some on Reddit call it.
This.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946499#Comment_3946499
Super honest question. Are there any solutions that would make you happy, that don’t involve reverting things back to how they were in Old DBD?
To be honest, my friend, no.
I wouldn't say I am extremely unhappy with the current DBD. I am playing every day, and I can say I am having fun. But deep down it isn't the DBD I want to play and it never will be, because the DBD I want to play stayed in 2018.
However, there is one central aspect here: Freddy. OG Freddy matters more to me than anything else in DBD. If I could have OG Freddy back, nothing else would bother me. He WAS Dead by Daylight, if that makes sense.
@Lexilogo said:
I think there are valid points here and I'd agree at the current time, the game is quite Killer-sided unless a serious SWF is in play and I hope soloQ Survivors can get a better chance in lobbies in the near future.
However, I think it's worth saying that many players who go next don't always correctly identify these things. I'm sure we've all seen people go next when the match was not decided by any means, or people who have very odd criteria for going next eg. "I don't play against BS Killers like Ghostface!!" IMO it's a cultural thing caused by the roster of recent Killer releases:
- Skull Merchant releases in a state that compels a large chunk of the Survivor playerbase to essentially boycott any match with her. Her state is indeed awful and she is not only butchered with nerfs but also causes fundamental changes to the game to make sure her situation doesn't happen again.
- Singularity releases and is an extremely strong Killer.
- Xenomorph releases and while its certainly not top tier (beyond that, its strength is arguable, could be mid or low tier depending on who you ask) its tail strike can definitely feel futile to play against in a chase
- Chucky releases in a strong state, becomes very popular fast, gets fundamentally reworked to avoid aspects of his power people felt were unfair.
- Unknown releases and is a very strong Killer.
- Vecna releases and is decent.
- Dracula releases and is an extremely strong Killer.
- Houndmaster releases and is a very strong Killer.
- Kaneki releases and is an extremely strong Killer, and also smashes records as the most popular Killer in the game. He also releases in a state that a lot of people argue, and still contest, is perhaps unfair and has earned him some nerfs already
The roster of A-Tier Killers, and the overall percieved strength of Killers, has been totally rewritten by the past couple of years of releases. If you compare this to the era BHVR were releasing Nemesis, Pinhead, Artist, Sadako, Dredge etc, the average Killer strength standards are night and day, and it's very understandable why A-tier after A-tier would exhaust people. And right before this massive run of supercharged Killers, we got Skull Merchant normalising the idea that if you think a Killer design is BS, you should probably just give up. It's pretty clear from that how we got here
Yes, I agree.
And I would say that the issue of killer design is amplified by the game around it, as they wouldn't be as difficult to deal with as they are if survivors still had better resources to work with.
-
Honestly, my friend, I think his "rework" was a failure.
And I think it was a failure because there was an indecisiveness regarding whether or not the Knight was meant to work alongside his guards.
It is simple, really: if the Knight is meant to work separately from his guards, then they have to be a threat, all three of them. They need to get hits consistently, and might as well get rid of the banner.
But, if the Knight is meant to work alongside his guards, then the banner can stay and they don't need to be as threatening, because the killer is meant to be close.
Seems to me they wanted the Knight to not work alongside his guards, but they didn't make the guards enough of a threat in order for that to be viable.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946485#Comment_3946485
Oh I'm not saying you're defending it I'm talking about overall and specifically about those that defend it, because that's what I see this forum filled with. This forum is filled with people who would be laughed at in any other community, because in no other community can you get away with defending people who leave and give up.
You know what the other communities will say? The same thing I say… stop playing and move on instead of ruining the experience of those who actually still enjoy it and want to play.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946476#Comment_3946476
Survivor has not been butchered into a dull plaything for the killer role.
You know what the other communities will say? The same thing I say… stop playing and move on instead of ruining the experience of those who actually still enjoy it and want to play.
To be honest, I think this wouldn't really address the problem.
Let me give you an example: I am not sure if you were around for the Realm Beyond changes, but if you were someone who really enjoyed aspects of the Old DBD, like I do, the peak of the Realm Beyond changes was a miserable time to be playing the game. Basically, you would see everything you liked being changed, to a point where it felt as if you're not playing DBD anymore.
And during those days, I complained a lot. A fellow Forum member, someone I consider a good friend and a positive presence here, suggested that maybe I should take a break, just step away from DBD for a while because it seemed I wouldn't enjoy the direction the game was going. Now, I have nothing against them and never will, they suggested what they thought was best and that is perfectly okay, but I didn't want to leave the game. I just didn't want to see a game I loved become something I hated.
I personally think it is better to discuss things and try to find a solution instead of just letting go.
@DeBecker said:
Ultimately bhvr never even tried to question why people are giving up on hook so much recently. Instead they just decided to "fix" the illusional fact of "go next" to make it look better to the outside. Just ignoring the facts that survivor role has been butchered over the past years into a dull plaything for the killer role.
It does seem to me, my friend, that there indeed wasn't an attempt to try and understand why the "go next" epidemic existed in the first place. I hope this discussion can help us understand it.
-
@hermitkermit said:
Thanks for opening this discussion General. I think a lot of conversations around the “go next” epidemic tend to oversimplify the issue by framing it as a survivor problem, when in reality, it reflects a broader dissatisfaction with the game’s state, just like we’ve seen in the past with killer players.
Historically, the game has gone through clear imbalances. Early DBD heavily favored survivors, with things like infinite loops and permanent hook sabotage, keys with hatch etc . Killer players became burned out, and unhappy, many started leaving, prompting Behavior to make sweeping balance changes. Eventually leading to all kinds of good balance changes/mechanics like Bloodlust, reworking maps, and even adjusting the post-game screen from “The Entity is Displeased” to “The Entity Hungers” to reduce demoralization. That frustration was recognized as valid, and the devs responded. The game we have today is proof that changes were made, because killer frustrations were taken seriously (thankfully!).
Now that survivors are expressing frustration, it’s often dismissed as entitlement or a refusal to adapt. But that double standard is part of the problem. Players quitting or mentally checking out of matches isn’t exclusive to one role, it’s a symptom of feeling powerless, burnt out, or unheard. Whether it’s killers or survivors, both have had their turn feeling neglected by balance or design decisions.
In my opinion, the “go next” behavior is a response/symptom to perceived hopelessness, whether due to mechanics, matchmaking, map RNG, or killer powers that feel overwhelming, with no way to practice against them. The survivor role has become much more knowledge dense, and I think many times it’s less of a skill issue and more of a skill gap. There is just so much knowledge you need to have in order to be competent, and you currently have no way to practice that knowledge, unlike killers who can practice against bots in a custom mode. (A resource I celebrate that killers have access to, and am very vocal about the same resource becoming available to survivors as well)
Ultimately, I feel it shouldn’t be a battle over which side suffers more. The goal should be to make both roles feel satisfying and fair. Dismissing survivor concerns today is no different than ignoring killer concerns from years past. If players want the game to thrive, then players should care about other players, regardless of their preferred role.No problem, my friend, thank you for your comment!
I think you've raised an interesting perspective. In fact, the only reason why this post doesn't talk about the killer side of things is because the killer role cannot avoid the DC penalty. They have no way of going next without going through the system designed to deal with such scenarios.
Regarding balance, I think DBD followed a path where it started as very survivor sided during the early days, then somewhat more balanced, then the tide shifted towards killers and that is where I think we currently are. That isn't to say that the killer role is the easiest it has ever been, of course not, but generally speaking there isn't much being stacked against killers right now. There hasn't been for quite some time.
But, as you've said, there seems to be a certain double-standard regarding survivor's complaints, as if they aren't as valid as the killer's complaints used to be.
@Rapid99 said:
I full on think that people who try to defend the go next stuff or try to provide some valid reasons as to why it happen, is a bit ignorant sorry to say. Not because you can't do it or not that those reasons aren't valid for the overall experience of survivor. The problem is, those reasons aren't why people leave.
Someone isn't leaving early due to "deteriorating survivor role" because those things aren't even in effect when people leave.
People will see a killer they don't like… and leave. People will have a bad chase… and leave. People's TEAMMATES will have a bad chase… and leave. People will not like the map they're on… and leave.
none of those have to do with a "deteriorating survivor role", they have to do with players being entitled. And it isn't just a survivor thing, it happens with killer too. If the game isn't perfect. A map they want, a killer they like, and a good first chase? They'll leave.
But dbd is genuinely the ONLY multiplayer game I've ever seen where people will try to defend leavers and people who give up, it's hilarious. This mindset of defending leavers gets bullied in any other community because why are we defending people who ruin the experience for everyone else. If you don't like the game and survivor has been "too deteriorated" for you… STOP PLAYING. Stop playing the game, play something else, instead of ruining the experience of everyone who actually enjoys / wants to play the game.
It's like people who leave feel OBLIGATED to play the game, even though they are immensely unhappy with it. So then all that ends up happening is ruining it for everyone else, whilst they stay unhappy.
There seems to be a misunderstanding, this post of mine isn't "defending" anything.
The point here isn't to tell people that every single DC or hook suicide was justified. The idea is to understand why they happened, why the modern DBD had a severe problem of players choosing to "go next" every other match.
-
@mecca said:
Spot on. Survivor used to have more play styles and was overall easier to play. Everything skill expression has been nerfed or removed and it has left survivor in a very bland and stale state.
Also, survivor is way harder to play now and killer is insanely easier. New players can literally play killer and 4K. But, what about survivor?
It's like taking any game and making it worse, worse, and worse and then people finding games not worth it anymore and then saying, oh gee, let's trap them in the game. It's such a big slap on face.
Go next and AFK crows is such a silly addition. It all should be deleted and focus on literally making matches more worth playing.
Yes, the survivor role received an extreme amount of changes that took away most of what they had. And this deterioration of the survivor ole just creates scenarios where they have almost nothing to work with, no way of properly defending themselves against the increasingly high number of anti-loop and dash killers, arguably the most difficult killers to deal with.
While I do not think killer is the easiest it has ever been (though DBD is not in its most balanced state ever and it isn't even close to it), the killer role itself seems to have received more attention in recent times than the survivor role, which hasn't received any improvements in a long time.
@Langweilig said:
- Dcing was punished to harsh. If people don‘t want to play out their match, they should be allowed to leave and give their teammates a bot.
- Giving up on hook was too easy to do.
- Ending yourself on hook bypassed the dc penalty, which encouraged people to end themself rather than dcing and giving their team a bot.
- Too many unfun maps and killers for survivors.
- Camping and tunneling. Self explaining.
- The survivor experience was neglected for far too long.
- Skull merchant.
I also agree with your points GeneralV
Hello friend, good to see you here!
While I do agree with your points, my friend, I think Skull Merchant is more of a reflection than the cause. I mean, she caused the DCs when she first released, of course, but the DCs should have stopped the moment she was changed to no longer cause an actual problem for the game.
The context of the survivor role itself affected her too, I'd say.
@Hex_Ignored said:
You're 100% correct. The average survivor experience is an exercise in frustration tolerance. Fun matches are few and far between and you mostly just feel like you're fodder to fuel another player's power fantasy.
And it seems to me, my friend, that you're no longer expected to even "win" a chase anymore. Time efficiency seems to be more prominent than every other aspect in modern DBD, which just creates a miserable experience, even for killers.
-
@SoGo said:
I feel like thers was a big spike around the 3 gen era with Merchant's golden days, and it didn't stop since.
It is possible, my dear friend, but I think Skull Merchant alone didn't create the issue.
Because, if she had created it, then it would have been something similar to Legion: Legion was horrible when they first released, every single match against them was miserable. But once they changed the killer, people didn't disconnect or suicide on hook every single time they got a Legion.
Skull Merchant should have followed the same logic, because the version of SM we had before her nerfs no longer caused a problem for the game. Sure, some people didn't like her, but she wasn't on the same level as OG Legion or her own release.
@GoodBoyKaru said:
And if I said that 6.1.0 is to blame for shifting the community's mentality away from fun-based to competitive-based, the pinnacle of which was removing BBQ/WGLF stacks, which in-turn made the go-next issue so severe because people stopped playing a game for fun, or for their own personal goals (especially BBQ/WGLF) and instead just to win so when the odds of winning were less than 75% they'd just give up
Good to see you, old friend!
Yes, I would agree. 6.1.0 did take away most of the tools which enabled more diverse playstyles, and what little remained was directed towards winning. BBQ / WGLF were indeed "alternate" win conditions for many players, who would prioritize the stacks over other things. This was especially healthy on the killer side with BBQ.
@MaTtRoSiTy said:
Interesting thoughts General and yes I do agree overall, I think this is probably the hardest time to play survivor in my experience (I also remember the horrors of OG Legion lol). Even though we have more information than ever by default, matches are harder and sometimes can feel hopeless right from the start.
For me the primary reason I may not be into a match is the killer, I just do not enjoy a lot of the killers in the last couple of years and as you say, it can feel somewhat hopeless early on in a match in ways that you probably could have got through years ago.
Either way, I do think the real solution probably is more in the WHY people go next so often, rather than trying to force people to play matches they don't want to be in, as I don't think that will work.
Final thing I have to add, anyone notice how few people DC/go next in 2v8? The answer to how to reduce it lies in there somewhere I think!
I agree, my friend!
The HUD changes are often mentioned as a net positive for survivors because of the information, but what use is there in knowing Meg is in chase when the map is Coldwind Farm and the killer is another anti-loop killer that will down her extremely fast?
I think this whole process of inflating the kill rates by taking away most of what survivors had just created, as you said, a feeling of being hopeless. Because when you mix a severely nerfed map with a killer that is extremely chase-oriented, a survivor cannot be reasonably expected to protect themselves, which creates a miserable experience.
I hope this thread helps paint a clearer picture as to why people choose to go next, so we can come up with a better solution.
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
I've said this a dozen times, and I'll continue to say it:
People have always given up for petty reasons (didn't like the killer, map, whatever), but people have not gotten more petty over time.
Game balance is the reason. Matches are basically decided in the first one or two minutes anymore, and there isn't really an incentive to stick it out to recover a losing match.
If you get unlucky, and found first, you're likely going to just be tunneled out, have basically not even played the game, and you'll get maybe 5k BP for the trouble. Maps, resources, perks that would maybe help with that in the past have all been nerfed in the great name of "increasing kill rates because they felt like it", and anything that could resemble fun suffers.
Most of the time, even having hope in the match is too much to ask for. And, unfortunately, survivor gameplay entirely hinges on the players having some hope of escape. Take away that hope, and you get "go next" epidemic, because this match is irrecoverable, but maybe the next match will be better. Maybe.
Maps, resources, perks that would maybe help with that in the past have all been nerfed in the great name of "increasing kill rates because they felt like it", and anything that could resemble fun suffers.
I agree completely.
It is basically what I define as a gradual deterioration of the survivor role, depriving them of most resources they used to have, to a point where a survivor cannot be reasonably expected to protect themselves.
-
@Brokenbones said:
To start with I'd like to say that 'going next' had always been a thing way before it was considered this problem that needed rectifying via in-game mechanics.
Though, the introduction of DC penalties was ultimately what led to it increasing since before, 'Going next' meant just DCing whenever you couldn't be bothered with that particular match. Then it warped into giving up on hook instead since there was no punishment for doing so apart from lowering your MMR (Which 90% of people do not care about).
I think saying mass DCing wasn't an issue back then is quite wrong, because it certainly was from my experience. It was even worse back then because there was no bots so the survivor team were even more screwed than they would be these days if someone DC'd.
Now to sort of get into the reason as to 'why' people do it. It's usually just people not liking how the match has went for them and are already "mentally checked out" as some would put it. There's too many factors to list as to why this might happen but the more common ones would be something like
"I went down too fast due to xyz being bs."
"I hate this killer/their perks because xyz."
"My teammates aren't playing well enough so I'm out"
"This game's already lost so I might as well re-queue"
"The killer has 150+ ping" (Personally I think wanting out of a game vs a bad ping killer is completely 100% justified, it's completely miserable).
The survivor role hasn't 'lost' most of what they had available to them. Most of the strong meta perks are almost identical to how they used to be. The only ones that are different from the good old days are:
- Dead Hard being limited to twice per match and is an endurance based mechanic instead of getting a dash + iframes. Also doesn't work while in deep wound.
- Decisive Strike turns off if you progress the game state and is 4 seconds instead of 5
- BT was added as basekit because the perk was REQUIRED back then to have a chance of not being tunnelled off hook
- Balanced Landing was nerfed because of it creating semi-infinites with old maps.
- Iron will did get nerfed to 75% at one point but was buffed back to 100%
- Resillience is the exact same as its always been
- Spine Chill yeah was completely gutted to kill the vault build, but then we got finesse which kinda fills the same role.
I will say survivor was made harder in the following areas:
- Gens being 90s despite what some people say, was a noticeable change in my opinion.
- A lot of maps had their strong tile generation changed to no longer generate as many jungle gyms and weaker tiles were added in their place
- Some maps like Haddonfield have barely any pallets to begin with and all the windows were nerfed in some way
- Medkits being nerfed made it so relying on teammates to heal you was more important, at least after COH was heavily nerfed
That's what comes to my mind at least.
Well, to be fair, my friend, the list of changed things you've mentioned covers almost the entirety of the survivor meta. We can also add perks like Self-Care to the list, or WGLF losing its bloodpoint bonuses, or Adrenaline getting nerfed. What did remain intact were perks like Sprint Burst and Lithe, but with the maps sorely lacking in resources the speed bonus has a chance of leading you towards a deadzone.
Personally, I never had a problem with massive amounts of DCs in the past, outside of Original Legion. Seems to me it is a "modern DBD problem", if I may put it that way.
@Coffeecrashing said:
It was caused because there was a quick and easy way to ragequit, that bypassed the DC penalties.
It was also caused by streamers that would publicly ragequit whenever they didn’t feel like playing a game, which taught survivors that there aren’t any real penalties for ragequitting in small doses.
I’ve seen streamers say things like “Wraith is boring”, and then ragequit. Like, there are videos of streamers publicly admitting to ragequitting for trivial reasons, and they never got punished for it.
Yes, there are countless cases in the community of players replicating content creators, but I am not certain on how much influence they had on this matter in particular.
@CrypticGirl said:
I really don't have a straight answer. I have my own scenarios, but I doubt they would reflect the general reasons for the community as a whole.
Though there have been some people who have opined that the devs should try to consider why people give up, no one has ever started an honest discussion on it until now. Therefore I want to say thank you for starting this discussion.
Thank you, my friend! I think it is important for us to understand why this whole thing started, because otherwise it will never be fixed.
And please, my friend, do share your scenarios! Every point of view is welcome in my discussions!
-
I agree.
You know, my least favorite thing in DBD are chases. I don't like chases, I like hide and seek. I like being stealthy, I like this thrill of seeing the killer looking for me and doing my best to hide, I like the mind-games. I never want to play a chase-oriented match, and in the past that was perfectly viable.
But it gets increasingly harder to do. As you said maps got brighter (and uglier, much uglier), the Fog is essentially gone, aura perks are a dime a dozen when there should be few of them, and survivors even got penalized for hiding.
Worst of all is that this was never even acknowledge. BHVR doesn't outright state that they no longer want stealth in the game, but players who prefer stealth, like you and me, are basically left with nothing.
-
@Rulebreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946289#Comment_3946289
At this point we're almost willing to drag everyone back just to see the riots from the newer people
Honestly I think there are things they would enjoy.
-
@Flopkween said:
Honestly you could revert back a ton of perks to what they were before the meta shake up and it still wouldn't be that bad.
In fact im pretty sure they have been slowly doing that.
You can go much further back than that, tbh.
-
Good riddance.
-
MY EYES!!
-
@CruelLimits1982 said:
Freddy can use doors now? Freddy Krueger mains cannot stop winning
TTruly a time to be a Freddy main.
-
Yes, they really need to remove as soon as possible, because this is ridiculous.
-
It is alright.
I don't recall ever using them except for the few Badham offerings I would use on Freddy whenever there was a Quentin among the survivors (gotta go for the ANOES-themed trial).
Other than that they just collected dust.
-
@KatsuhxP said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3943821#Comment_3943821
I mean I only play since 2021 so it has to have everything. But I still don't believe I was 2k hours in queue and things, but then again it also doesn't count event-queues at all xD
Yeah, if the stats are to be believed I've spent over a thousand hours in queue, which just seems weird.
-
Well, I did manage to get the adept, but overall I am struggling a lot.
Generally speaking I don't like ranged killers. Thought I would try to get over that in order to play Springtrap because I really like FNAF, but it seems I can't do anything with him.
-
Only wished I could help, but so far my experience with him has been one painful reminder of why I don't play ranged killers.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3943597#Comment_3943597
Sure, but the way it was worded it sounds like the Devs are doing most of the things wrong and need to be corrected. While the reality is that most changes are good, but people focus only on the bad things.
I also dont think that Freddy is a good example to be honest. Since the Rework was appreciated by the majority of the community and only in hindsight it was seen how bad the Rework was. Sure, there were some people who did not like the Rework (e.g. you), but those were really in the minority back then.
only in hindsight it was seen how bad the Rework was.
But I did it from the start, friend.
Can I, alone, tell you that I can easily fix the entire game? No, not even close.
But Freddy? I can.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3943584#Comment_3943584
It is incredible entitled to think that you have the knowledge to correct something the Devs do.
EDIT: Not saying that all their changes are a hit, but they are also not all misses either.
To be fair, sometimes you can have a better understanding of something in DBD that no one else has, not even the balance team.
I can think of one perfect example, my dear friend. Just look at my pfp.
-
it's not acceptable to leave a Killer this bad for this long
Sure gives off Freddy vibes, doesn't it?
But yes, I agree. And I would go as far as to support a full reversion of her kit, back to what we had prior to her nerfs.
Because that kit was fine. The problem had been fixed, the 3-gen madness was gone. It is absolutely ridiculous that players still continued to DC and suicide on hook against a killer that no longer caused any problems for the game.
-
@AlreadyTracer said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3943061#Comment_3943061
the grade based matchmaking was so bad,
Dbd has never had a real matchmaking system lol
Ranks were genuinely better at keeping new players out of skilled lobbies, but even then, rainbow ranks 😂
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3943065#Comment_3943065
I liked freezing people
They actually brought that back with perks
Yep!
Basically the main reason why I got back to playing Mei over other characters that I also enjoy, like Hanzo and Reaper.
Meanwhile, here in DBD the stuff you enjoy from the past is just gone, and rarely ever returns. It is sad, really.
-
@100PercentBPMain said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942426#Comment_3942426
he needs to be changed, I think. you can't pay me to play him these days.
I don't even own him, though I am considering buying him to see if there is something I'm missing or if he is genuinely just this broken, because I am still at a loss on how you're supposed to defend yourself against him.
-
@Raccoon said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3943079#Comment_3943079
Too late!
Already updooted:D
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3943080#Comment_3943080
I used to have you mentally tagged as a fellow 'disappointed in Freddy user,' but you're pretty solid.
I've seen you change your mind and/or acknowledge various/differing/new viewpoints before, so you're not really stuck in any single position.
I wasn't really planning on responding to this, initially, but I like you enough to do so/have nothing bad to say about you and owe Sharphand Joe this much >:3
Hahahahahaha, fair enough, my friend!
Well, I would say it was, and still is, a justified disappointment. I mean, after almost 6 years without your favorite killer, it is hard to remain optimistic about him.
Thank you for the reply, friend, I appreciate. I always try the best I can to be a positive presence, and to remain respectful during discussions. Maybe it doesn't work every single time, but I do try.
-
…Now I am curious, friend, in your perspective what do I usually say?
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3943068#Comment_3943068
Ha ha, yep. And NOED and No Way Out and that aforementioned add-on for Freddy. It'll be just as strong on any other Killer, too.
Hahaha, fair enough.
I haven't used an Endgame build with Freddy since before his rework, but I'll test it for ya, friend! See how powerful it truly is.
…Might have to check if I even have No Way Out, since I never leveled up Trickster.
-
Well, I'm joining the war against tunneling because this strategy needs to go.
Really, I don't think anyone is going to miss it, per se. Worst that will happen is that those who relied too much on tunneling will eventually have their MMR readjusted, thats it.
But tunneling itself needs to go. It is clear that, for years on end, this strategy caused far more harm than good for DBD.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
Endgame builds on Freddy are already especially oppressive, especially when he uses that add-on that lets him teleport to exit gates. Haywire will just make it worse.
Expecting the Haywire + Remember Me combo?
-
@squbax said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942909#Comment_3942909
While I agree it isnt that big a deal ONE good perk can mess up the whole balance of the game, look at MfT, og OoO, eruption,old DS, MoM, current shoulder the burden.
Yes, but I don't think we can generalize here, each of these cases is different from the other. And Botany, even if buffed, isn't close to their level.
That said, I don't think Shoulder the Burden fits the list. Don't even remember the last time I saw it.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
I've played this game for over 8 years If it were just graphical & powerwise, leaving maps otherwise as is ect maybe it could do something, I don't think most players these days would get past 2 games in dbd of old!
& as someone who plays at least 100 games of overwatch a week (usually between 200 - 300) Bastion main, Symmetra back up, Moria or zen if I have to heal & Orisa or Mauga if I'm forced to tank.
I've never especially enjoyed going back to the classics & actively avoid them now even if I like the rewards. I expect the same true of dbd beyond true long term players.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942407#Comment_3942407
Having said all that, GeneralV old friend (yes I came back to the fog for one last hurrah 🤦🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️)
Hanzo I don't mind, Reaper I can get on board with but Mei???...
I would love dbd classic to be a thing though if for no other reason we can go show people what old Freddy could actually do!
Smikey!
It is so good to see you again, my dear friend! How are you? I hope you're doing well!
Well, my character selections in Overwatch are interesting. But I liked freezing people, especially Genji players, it was funny. Sadly they changed that :(
And yes, I don't even have words to describe how amazing it would be to finally have Old Freddy back. I would be happy to prove to those who still doubt it that he was not even close to the position of weakest killer in the game.