GeneralV
GeneralV
About
- Username
- GeneralV
- Joined
- Visits
- 10,623
- Last Active
Comments
-
I think the buff is fine. Survivors have already lost most of what they had, giving them one good perk back won't be the end of the world for killers.
-
Absolute DBD.
-
@TragicSolitude said:
My friend stopped playing Chucky after BHVR first started messing with him, which really sucks because Chucky was the one and only killer he ever liked playing. He does not play killer at all, now.
I've stopped playing every killer except Nemesis. Most killers feel awful on console. I stopped playing Spirit when she lost collision during her phase. I stopped trying to learn Nurse when she gained a cooldown. Killers with complicated powers feel extremely clunky on console due to the button mapping, sensitivity, and input lag, so Vecna for instance is miserable. Some killers I don't play because their Deviousness BP gains are so bad. Like Kaneki? He seemed like he might be fun when I played him a bit, but holy hell his Deviousness earnings are nearly nonexistent. I could earn more BP spamming Legion's Feral Frenzy staring at a wall than I did playing Kaneki for real, using his power nonstop and getting a 4k. Ending a match with a BP category super low makes me feel like I failed and completely discourages me from using the killer.
Anyway, I've played killer less and less over time, in large part due to perk changes (first it was BBQ, then it was Beast of Prey and Distressing). At this point I play a few rounds here and there working on quests and that's about it. I'm not even going to bother trying to finish the killer milestone quests. Quests aren't like the tome challenges, quests are ephemeral, so I do not care.
Killers with complicated powers feel extremely clunky on console due to the button mapping, sensitivity, and input lag, so Vecna for instance is miserable.
As someone who plays on PC with a controller, my friend, I feel that.
Never got used to playing games with M&K, I really dislike it. So, controller it is. And that really teaches you how some killers just aren't made for it.
-
I honestly think they can just revert it back to 80 seconds and not change anything else. It was fine the way it was.
-
I'm excited!
I must admit I hated the axe… but as a FNAF fan I WILL play Springtrap even if I have to turn good ole William into the man behind the M1 hit.
-
They don't.
-
@THE_Crazy_Hyena said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942504#Comment_3942504
I started in 2018 myself, and I am absolutely with you with this statement. 2019 DBD was peak.
Same, though I gotta make the disclaimer that I want the 2019 DBD before Freddy's rework.
-
@TimberGoingDown said:
SM and Knight.
Both of them got absolutely gutted. SM in very obvious ways.
I don't understand how anyone who actually plays Knight enjoys his rework. He sucks at everything. His macro pressure is nonexistent because guards never get hits, even when you snipe someone from across the map with Assassin. It just pushes that one survivor off of a gen for a few seconds until the standard spawns.
His anti-loop has been absolutely murdered. You can't spawn close range guards, and even if you could, you can't use pincer attacks to score hits because of how quickly the guard disappears when you're next to them. Even using the Carnifex to break pallets isn't really that good because of how wonky and unintuitive it is summoning him to break a pallet. If the game even lets you. Sometimes it's just like… nope. You can't summon a guard here.
I think the Knight's rework failed 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.
@Shroompy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942626#Comment_3942626
Idk if rotation is the best word, rather like "group". Over the years Ive always had a few killers which I played more often than others, and its shifted over the years. Trapper and Trickster though have stayed in that group of killers very consistently over the years
I see. Fair enough, friend!
-
@AlreadyTracer said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941933#Comment_3941933
Agree! Though late 2019 was what I personally consider peak
I can't, because of Freddy's rework. That ruins everything for me.
@Streamsniper said:
Nobody knows 2016 - 2021 Dead by Daylight more than I do.
Trust me, the past was FAR worse. Survivors didn't even had HUD indicators. OG DH. OG DS. OG Ruin. OG OoO. OG MoM. No anti-face camp. Hook grabbing. Hatch stand-off / grabbing. Tunnelling and camping was HUGE. OG Lampkin Lane. Infinites. Insta-gens. Insta-moris… I mean, the list is extremely long but I spare you the headache.
I do miss Space Billy and Space Demo though.
Nobody knows 2016 - 2021 Dead by Daylight more than I do.
I'm willing to bet that I do.
-
@Shroompy said:
Oni
The guy was apart of my regular rotation in the earlier days, but since they removed that banger of a chase theme it just hasnt been the same
You have rotations?
I just play Freddy 99% of the time, then I play one or two others a little bit before going back to Freddy.
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942397#Comment_3942397
No disagreements, on this forum?
Rare, but it happens sometimes.
-
@OrangeBear said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942454#Comment_3942454
Understandable my brain gets fried playing that killer 😭
Honestly, same.
I didn't expect such a struggle when trying to learn him, seems like nothing ever worked.
-
@AlreadyTracer said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942374#Comment_3942374
I still have a few Splinters left
I'm so jealous 😭 I didn't pay attention to patches at that time and I used my last one :(
RIP Smoking Splinter on Wraith
And yeah that BT screen was so bad 💀
You think that is bad, friend?
I lost my last Splinter because of a prestige. Didn't know they were going to be removed.
RIP my last Glass Splinter on Freddy…
-
Singularity.
I swear I tried the best I could to learn this killer and do well with him, but I just can't. Everything I tried failed, and I tried everything.
I am just not fit to be a Singularity player :(
-
I think this killer needs more nerfs, tbh. He is extremely oppressive.
-
@AlreadyTracer said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942393#Comment_3942393
I was thinking of you making this post :)
Did you enjoy playing old Sym again?
In Overwatch?
Not much of a Symmetra player myself, friend, more Hanzo, Reaper and Mei.
But having freeze on primary fire again? Oh, that I sure loved!
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942057#Comment_3942057
Your definition does not match the communities definition. By that I mean the part of the community that constaintly complains about it.
Tunneling by most is hooking the same survivor twice in a row. Lesser definitions include, starting a chase with an unhooked survivor, finding the survivor again randomly and going after them, and going after someone even after hooking other survivors.
While it would be nice to hook every survivor to death hook that is simply not practical. You will run into survivors on death hook that will have to be either ignore, injure, or slug. And don't you dare slug you deplorable killer main.
In the course of a normal match some survivors are going to die early. Sometimes the weakest link is just bad at not getting found while the others have enough sense to pre run or hide.
I think it does match the community's definition to a certain extent. At least the last time I shared it here there were no disagreements.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942232#Comment_3942232
I find him to be the most fun, but then again, he's also one of the easiest killers to counter. Just follow him around and he's effectively an m1 killer with no power. Regardless, there's just something pure about an m1 killer without ridiculous and over the top crazy powers that instead has to 100% rely on mindgames to succeed.
I never liked him, to be honest. Ever since the PTB.
For years I'd loathe every single game against Ghostface, and I didn't expect that I would ever dislike a character more than I dislike him. Needless to say, I was proven wrong.
-
Absolutely, my dear friend!
A DBD classic would be amazing!
-
@MechWarrior3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942282#Comment_3942282
Honestly I am so happy for you. ❤️
Thank you, my friend!
I must admit I did not like the axe, but other than that I am excited. I've been a FNAF fan since day seven, first saw the original game a week after its release and have been hooked ever since.
I hope you enjoy the chapter's release as much as I will.
-
I am ready to start this party!
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941936#Comment_3941936
Was designed to be weak in generally. Im glad he got some buffs eventually. Just the fact that the exposed person can't reveal him now is a big help, and it's weird that it wasn't a thing from the get go.
Mixed feelings, really.
Because yes, I do agree that Ghostface needed buffs from the PTB, it was way too weak of a design. But at the same time, I really hate going against him. He was my least favorite killer for years, and he would still be if Wesker didn't exist.
I'm glad they fixed the problems from the PTB but I don't think he will ever be fun.
-
Ya know, thinking about it, I always find these threads somewhat tragic. Not the thread itself, of course, but the implications.
Because there will always be agreements and disagreements, just like every single thread here. They are both valid, absolutely, but their scenarios aren't equal.
If you agree and you prefer the current DBD, then there isn't really anything to complain about. You can close the Forums, boot up the game right now, and you'll enjoy your experience. However, if you disagree and prefer the Old DBD… well, there isn't much you can do about it. You're stuck with the current game until BHVR decides to release a classic modifier, if they ever decide to do so.
A problem with DBD in my opinion is that it changed way too much, and it seems to me that the people who preferred something before said thing got changed were never really taken into consideration. And if they were, nothing was really done to prevent alienating them. Freddy is the biggest example of this. Onryo too, though they dialed back the changes somewhat.
Having a preference for the Old DBD, like I do, is perfectly valid and okay.But it hurts to know that the game you love and cherished is, for all intents and purposes, gone. And no one wants to just walk away from DBD forever, what we do want is for the game to be as enjoyable as it once was.
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941876#Comment_3941876
Think this argument has been too black and white. Because there are four survivors doesn't mean you have to 2 hook everyone before killing nor do you have to only hook one survivor until dead.
You can exclusively hook 2 or 3 survivors and eventually kill one. Ignoring one survivor to make it a 3v1 quicker can not be consider tunneling.
The best case scenario for killer, outside of tunneling out one asap, is one on hook, one slugged, and one in chase. Keeping the rotation going until one is dead. At that point the damage should be too much to recover. Now is this possible for all killers? Depends on all involve like everything else in this game. Up against a really good swf, not going to happen.
Honestly, my definition of tunneling is focusing on one particular survivor, to a point where the killer would drop whatever they are doing just to chase them again, as soon as they get unhooked.
That I think is problematic.
@NarkoTri1er said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941876#Comment_3941876
every team that loses to multihooking killer, especially the mid to lower tier one IS objectively bad.
Why? Because you are not taking advantage of killer wasting their own time and actively avoiding tunneling one person.
Spreading hooks is something your team would want the most from killer in order to have much easier time winning. So, what's up with the fact that people don't do it? Simple, nonexistent matchmaking and the fact it took years for BHVR only to announce that they are working to improve it again (hopefully drastically).
Again: in nine years and thousands of players, every single survivor who, at one point or another, lost to a killer who was multihooking was a bad survivor?
That just isn't true.
-
PTB Ghostface was very weak indeed.
-
I disagree, to be honest.
I think DBD was, overall, a much better game in the past. Not in terms of new characters, because we did get interesting additions (Mikaela and FNAF for me), but everything else?
I long for early-2019 DBD. Wouldn't hesitate to go back if I could.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941876#Comment_3941876
Really comes down to MMR. Multitasking is VERY viable at lower MMR. It's less viable, but still possible, at higher MMR. At peak performance, it's practically impossible. You'll notice a lot of tournaments, the killer player decides a specific person that must be eliminated above all others.
Tournaments are irrelevant, my dear friend.
They are external, filled with rules that most DBD trials do not have, and experienced only by a very small minority. It is a show for entertainment and amusement, not something that matters when it comes to balancing the game.
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941876#Comment_3941876
I say it again:
Multihooking is objectively bad. You are actively delaying yourself from completing the killer objective of getting kills, by leaving kills as the secondary obj, to hooks.
Like you're using such a strawman argument. DUH obviously in the nine years there have been times when good survivors lose to multihooking, that does not mean it happens consistently enough to be considered viable, nor is it the norm.
The norm is that good survivors can take advantage of a killer letting 4 of them live for an extended period of time. Multihooking is up to the matchmaker. If you get good survivors, you can't multihook. If you get bad survivors, you can multihook. You denying that does not change that, that is the fact and that is what every top killer has said since the dawn of time. Even the one that that dude tried to link to me as "evidence on the contrary", the video creator himself had to clarify in the comments that yea… it's pretty much up to the matchmaker. And all the comments called him out on that and said what I've been saying.
It's like saying because you can beat a collegiate basketball player maybe 1/50 times, that means it's good like??? No. Just because good survivors have lost to multihooking before in a 9 year span, does not mean that it's good and viable. That is illogical.
Well, you said, and I quote:
I can comfortably say that if a survivor team loses to multihooking they are bad, because I have yet to be proven otherwise.
But, as we've established, that just isn't the case. There are nine years of proof.
That said, here is where we get to consistency. Now here I'll have to make a disclaimer because if we're thinking of recent times, then yes, it is possible for it not to be consistent, but not because it isn't viable, but because of how easier it is to tunnel someone out. It is no secret that survivors lost many of the resources they had at their disposal, and without them tunneling gets way easier to do.
Which is a massive problem. Like I said earlier, tunneling wasn't a massive issue in the Old DBD because survivors had more lines of defenses against it. A killer who wanted to tunnel would have to go through many resources that survivors currently no longer have. Multihooking never stopped being viable, the alternative just got increasingly less punishing. Until now, as we thankfully seem to be moving on to a mitigation or removal of tunneling from DBD.
You denying that does not change that, that is the fact and that is what every top killer has said since the dawn of time.
Your sentence here doesn't make it a fact, either.
Just because good survivors have lost to multihooking before in a 9 year span, does not mean that it's good and viable.
And just because good survivors have won against multihooking before in a 9 year span, does not mean that it's bad and not viable.
-
@MaTtRoSiTy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941505#Comment_3941505
Totally fair good sir.
It probably didn't help that if you came back around his release, it was very much in the midst of the awful Call of Brine/Eruption gen kicking meta - probably one of the most infuriating times for me in recent memory. I actually quit the game for months around this time until they nerfed Eruption and COB and Wesker was right in the middle of that.
You actually reminded me of this and I think it may also be part of why I reflexively recoil at hearing Wesker's music lol
Fair enough, friend!
I have a similar experience with Blight and the Ruin + Undying meta, tbh. That one was also very miserable.
-
@DAMNFASTDEAD said:
It is a very complicated matter.
OK
Is the system perfect? No, not even close, and it might require further changes at some point. But the thing is… something had to be done. The sheer amount of games ruined because of early hook suicides in recent times was extremely unhealthy for the game.
Agreed! And they can choose to implement effective or efficient solutions.
Effective = doing the right things.
Efficient = doing things rightNow, ideally the problem could be fixed by addressing the reasons why players decide to suicide on hook and abandon the match. This is an opinion that has been said many times. But what hasn't been said is how this is almost impossible to do.
You don't have to try to fix all the reasons. However, the most important ones should be addressed.
Because there isn't one factor in particular causing people to abandon their games,
I see it differently. I think many people drop out because one main reason triggers them. What comes on top of that is secondary.
outside of, maybe, playing against Ghoul.
His music is annoying.
A survivor choosing to suicide on hook at five gens could be anything: maybe they didn't like the killer, or the map, or their build isn't working, and the list goes on.
Possible, but I wouldn't get lost in the details here.
Same goes for killers that abandon their games, of course, the only difference is that they can't bypass the penalty.
Agreed.
And some of these things, like a survivor / killer player who doesn't like the map they got, has no fix. Addressing the reasons why people choose to leave before the match is over relies on the "why", but it is something that changes heavily from player to player, so how do you solve this matter?
Definitely not as suggested:
Removing the very option to bypass the penalty and leave.
The biggest problem seems to me to be the glorification of violence. This has nothing to do with horror. I have noticed for some time that the developers have lowered the hurdles a little more in this direction. I'm talking specifically about the ability to kill your opponent with your own hand. Forcing people into this situation is not what I call a solution.
Let's just wait and see. Maybe I'm wrong. I just know that the matchmaking bonus is very very often on the survivor side and rarely on the killer side.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I really appreciate it.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I really appreciate it.
No problem friend! Thanks for the reply.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941797#Comment_3941797
High MMR cannot be the focus of balance because most players aren't there, it is restricted to a very small pool (and MMR shouldn't even exist to begin with, but that is a discussion for another time). Less relevant yet is Comp DBD, which is made for entertainment, nothing more.
So again, the logic is "screw good killer players who have to play against good survivor players".
I understand it now. And yes, I can comfortably say that if a survivor team loses to multihooking they are bad, because I have yet to be proven otherwise. Anytime I see a killer go against good survivors, you know what they have to do to win? I'll let you ponder.
Multihooking relies on QUICK CHASES. Good survivors don't just go down QUICK.
How can nine years of gameplay not be proof of anything?
I say it again: nine years of gameplay where countless killer games were won by killers who multihooked. Nine years, covering every single DBD meta, matchmaking system, powers and perks.
And, in nine years and thousands of players, every single survivor who, at one point or another, lost to a killer who was multihooking was a bad survivor?
Sorry, but that just isn't true.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941273#Comment_3941273
Never consistently though. Doing multihooking and trying to win is hardly up to your skill, it's a wheelspin. You either get even remotely half competent survivors and you lose, or they suck and you win. Because no competent survivor team is losing against that.
It's why anytime you see the "pro" play or people doing streaks and actively wanting to win, they can start off by wanting to be nice and fair and play the fun way that people actually want… but then you realize the survivors aren't god awful it quickly becomes "oh they're taking advantage of the fact that I'm actively just letting 4 of them live at the same time".
BHVR needs to close the gap of how survivor sided the game is in a 4v1 and how killer sided it becomes in 3v1 and below, if they want any chance of multihooking being the main playstyle. Because all it currently is… multihooking plays towards the 4v1 (survivor sided) while tunneling plays towards making the game 3v1 and below (killer sided). There's zero reason to do multihooking and just making tunneling worse doesn't fix that, all you do is make killer feel awful to play.
Again, that is not the case. Every killer can win with multihooking and they have been winning with multihooking for almost nine years. Or are we to assume that every single survivor who died to a killer multihooking in 9 years of DBD was a bad player? No, definitely not.
As for the supposed "pro" play, it does not matter. High MMR cannot be the focus of balance because most players aren't there, it is restricted to a very small pool (and MMR shouldn't even exist to begin with, but that is a discussion for another time). Less relevant yet is Comp DBD, which is made for entertainment, nothing more.
BHVR has been shifting the balance towards killers since this whole process of "60% kill rates goal" first started. There is very little being stacked against killers right now. And killers still tunnel, simply because it was allowed to reach a point where you, as a survivor, has almost no lines of defense against it.
-
@MaTtRoSiTy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941284#Comment_3941284
Very interesting General, not a common sentiment I suspect. I do have an aversion to Wesker when I hear his music it makes me reflexively cringe, simply because when he came out I faced nothing but Wesker for months on end to the point just hearing his music filled me with dread lol.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941305#Comment_3941305
Yeah I have to say these two are definitely in my top few killers I despise and realised I have pretty much never had a good match against (a new Trickster can be bearable since his power is ass).
Twins slug, camp the slug, slug and camp and slug play style is miserable but the best way to play her, as for Trickster, I just hate his entire aesthetic and the knife spam makes me want to rage. Not strong, just extremely irritating.
Very interesting General, not a common sentiment I suspect.
Well, my dear friend, that sure is true.
I wasn't here for Wesker's initial release, I thought the game was in a bad state back then and I had been playing other games. And when I got back and played against him I was extremely confused as to why people seemed to like him, when in my opinion he is almost as unfun as Old Legion.
I was really surprised when I learned he isn't hated by the community in general. But I sure hate him, very much. Any other killer in the game is better to go against than he is.
-
Wesker.
I genuinely loathe that killer and wish he had never been added to the game. Seeing him once is enough to make me want to stop playing for the day.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941242#Comment_3941242
Are you purposefully ignoring what I'm saying so you can try and prove your point even though you're literally arguing air???
You do not get benefits from hooking the same person. That would defeat the purpose of benefits to multihooking. You do not get benefits from just 1-2 hooks, that defeats the purpose of multihooking.
Everything you're saying will happen, is quite literally the complete opposite of the change I am suggesting, you're just arguing to argue.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941247#Comment_3941247
Yes… people can not tunnel and people have not tunneled since forever, that doesn't change the point. That doesn't mean that multihooking isn't an objectively dumb thing to do. Because there is no benefit to it.
Leaving 4 survivors alive, unless you are quite literally downing people in 15 seconds of finding them (to which I'm sorry but you're playing bums), is not viable. It just isn't, you are actively performing a playstyle that is a detriment to you. That is simply the truth.
And yet, it works. It always did.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941106#Comment_3941106
Buddy even back then killers didn't multihook, they just brute forced through anti-tunnel. Let's not do this.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941125#Comment_3941125
So again… if you make it based on number of hooks and how spread out your hooks are (a.k.a multihooking) it PHYSICALLY cannot be used to benefit tunneling, camping, etc etc.
That is not actually the case.
Well, it happened sometimes, of course. Like I said tunneling and other disliked strategies have always existed, but generally speaking you could very well go into any DBD match and expect the killer to spread hooks.
Most killers played that way. I, as someone who has been playing DBD since 2018, played that way and still do. You can find plenty of videos of regular games in the Old DBD where the killers aren't tunneling at all. Especially, of course, during the days of old BBQ.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941106#Comment_3941106
I think that it was the density of tiles that was the problem, along with the size.
Large maps, like Cowshed, with loops that chain from one side of the map to another were bad. Larger maps, with loops that are stronger individually, but more spread out, would be better. It would make it more difficult to tunnel AND hold gens. Objectives being further apart is better for everyone.
Ultimately, I doubt they do it. It would mean admitting they spent a lot of time and money on a mistake.
Fair enough, I see your point. Yes, that could work.
Though unfortunately, it does indeed seem that they are unlikely to revert most if not all of the Realm Beyond changes, and it is really bad that we'll be stuck with the new tiles and map design for a long time.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941071#Comment_3941071
I do think they should go back to larger maps. I think it would help a lot of things, but I have to think of something to help the Killers without mobility. If we can solve that, I don't foresee many issues.
Larger maps I think can still cause a bit of an issue, my friend. Except Red Forest and Pale Rose, because these maps used to be larger and players know that, they are used to dealing with those maps being large and have their strategies for it.
I think every map we have should be reverted to the state they were before the original map adjustments from 3.7.0, and the new maps adjusted to have similar layouts.
Scrap the new tiles, go back to a model we know that can and will work.
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941085#Comment_3941085
You do understand that if they have a weak link, then the strat is to tunnel out the weak link, correct?
That's literally the point. You're just describing tunneling but in a different way as if it's any different. Tunneling, camping, and slugging aren't the main strat. Killers don't WANT to do those, or at least I don't because it isn't fun. But you have to realize at times you don't have a choice, multihooking has ZERO benefits to it. It is an active detriment to yourself, if you want to multihook. Leaving yourself in a 4v1 for a long period of time, is asking to lose because you cannot win when you have 3 survs doing gens while you're out in a chase.
So killers have a choice. Playstyles that lead to wins, or a playstyle that is an active detriment to do. What do you think they are going to choose?
I don't think that is the case, to be honest.
Tunneling, camping or slugging aren't done because they are required. They are done because such strategies, tunneling in particular, massively tips the scales in the killer's favor, and they do so because these strategies were allowed to spiral out of control.
Tunneling, camping and slugging have always existed in DBD, of course. But they didn't cause nearly as much damage to the game as they do these days because they had proper counters. Slugging was harder to do because less killers had mobility as a power, camping was basically a guaranteed loss that would grant the killer one kill at best, and tunneling, arguably the most problematic of the three, meant that the killer would waste a lot of time going after a survivor who had the resources to protect themselves.
And, funnily enough, back then killers were expected to multihook and they did. Myself included, of course, gotta make that clear. You could reasonably go into a DBD game expecting the killer to spread hooks, which they did. And killers didn't lose every single game they played, not at all.
But let's think about current DBD: all three of these strategies are more problematic now. Camping to a lesser extent, yes, but slugging is worse because of the wave of high-mobility killers, and tunneling is genuinely unhealthy. Think of current day Coldwind Farm, for instance. Even if you have DS and OTR equipped you can't be expected to protect yourself against a tunneler in Coldwind Farm because the game doesn't give you enough resources to do so.
These strategies were not addressed in the past because you could fight against them. Now you can't, and it has reached a point where things are so bad that we need to get rid of them, they cannot exist in the current state of the game.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941043#Comment_3941043
There is alleviating it. You cannot force people to enjoy things they don't enjoy. For example, Dredge triggers massive headaches for me, I would sit inside of a locker, unplug my headset and close my eyes until it was done. It simply wasn't worth it.
You could adjust BP gains for Survivor. You could make it so that there's a real comeback mechanic. You could make the game less Survivor-favored at 4v1 and much less Killer-favored in a 3v1. You could remove a couple of gens in favor of side objectives. You could design some half-decent maps. We could admit that Realm Beyond was a failure.
Other than perma-banning people who give up, or who play in a way you don't like, there isn't any fixing it. But we can try.
We could admit that Realm Beyond was a failure.
Now that I would love to see. I've always, always hated it.
In my opinion the Realm Beyond was easily one of the worst things ever implemented in DBD: not only did it ruin the game's atmosphere and visual identity, but also made the maps worse. Literally all of them.
That is why I hope the Swamp maps are never reworked, and if they are to be reworked I hope it takes as long as humanly possible.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941061#Comment_3941061
But again… how do you fix this? The entire problem before was that killer wasn't as lethal as it should've been. It's always going to be favored to one side, there is no balancing it.
The only way you drop killrates without making it feel awful for killers is making hooks the win condition and not kills. And considering they haven't done it yet and the only plans they have are "anti-*insert problematic killer playstyle*", that doesn't at all fix the problem that sometimes those problematic killer playstyles are the only viable way to win… then what is the point?
We've had this issue for years now. I've been recommending basekit changes to killers for YEARS now that would ease off on tunneling, camping, and slugging or at least let them fix those playstyles without butchering the entire killer gameplay loop. And they haven't done and don't even have plans for it.
To be fair, the whole process of making killers more lethal was flawed.
Because it didn't happen early in the game's lifespan. By the time this whole process of 60% kill rates started, survivors had already lost most of their best resources. The survivor role objectively wasn't even that strong anymore.
They could have made killers stronger without taking away what little survivors had left.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941043#Comment_3941043
And I'm telling you, that you can't physically fix people just giving up because they give up over the dumbest things. That is what I don't think you understand. There is no fixing it.
This is a huge overstatement of the problem though.
People have always given up over "killer they didn't like" or "bad map" or "downed in 3 seconds". People have not become more petty over time.
The "go next" epidemic has gotten severely worse because of game balance changes. Period. The devs have openly, explicitly, and deliberately spent 3 years now to increase the kill rates. Survivors are, objectively, dying more often than before.
And, honestly, that wouldn't be a problem by itself. It's absolutely possible to make it so that playing a match where you don't escape can still be fun. DBD used to be that way.
But in the pursuit of making the game objectively more lethal for survivors, they've removed a lot of the "fun" aspects. Unfortunately, they've made the survivor experience more hopeless in the process.
And any of the issues that could help lessen that burden are put on the back burner. Literally. Phase 2 is the "anti camp, anti tunnel, anti slug" portion of the qol changes, and "not getting to actually play the match" has been a top complaint of survivors for about ten years now. These issues have also objectively been getting worse as they continue to "increase kill rates" through map, tile, and pallet reworks, reduced chase times, removing stealth as a play style (in their "hide and seek game"), and forcing more reliance on your teammates.
No, instead of addressing any of those issues, their first priority is "anti go next", with the "promise" that maybe, some day they might look into the core reasons why those matches are hopeless. At least, until people burn the forums down over the next few months and they backtrack most of phase 2, (which people have already started posting on the forums with this goal in mind).
Well said, my friend, though I do think the problem is even more complicated than that.
Because yes, I do think that something had to be done about the "go next" epidemic. The sheer amount of games ruined in recent times because a player decides to suicide on hook is extremely unhealthy for the game.
Now, ideally the problem could be fixed by addressing the reasons why players decide to suicide on hook and abandon the match. The problem is that the reasons why a survivor would decide to leave early varies heavily from player to player, and some of those reasons have no fix.
Is the survivor role less enjoyable than what it used to be? Yes. Does it needs improvements? Yes, and reversions I'd say. But how do we determine if someone leaving early was caused by the, overall, less enjoyable experience when playing survivor, or if they left because they don't like a certain killer, or a certain map, or their build isn't working?
It is very difficult to know. The easiest solution is removing the option to leave early while bypassing the penalty, which is what the devs are doing.
Unfortunately, they are doing it WAY before the much needed and welcome adjustments of phase 2, which should help mitigate some of the issues we currently have. And, unless they take the time to look at the maps and perks, it won't even be enough. But delaying the adjustments to the "go next" thing means more hook suicides and games ruined until phase 2.
It is one hell of a problem. Honestly, the best solution is just reverting the entire game to a previous state and take a different balancing direction.
-
@Metagamer said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940767#Comment_3940767
It was a disaster as far as my opinion goes. Being almost completely blind as both sides without any perks, hud (making some killers really not fun to play), and just kinda felt like walking simulator until you ran into someone/killer runs into you, you get hit and speedburst away. They typically can't find you again since it's pretty hard to follow pools of blood without scratchies when you can't see even 2 pools at the same time (signifying what direction they last went).
This led to Legion instantly being pretty popular, along with plague since you could just turn corners and insta down most of the time. What sucked most though was when it came back for round 2, where their solution was just to make it extremely unfair to killer for some reason (base 5% progress on all gens from the first time, survivors have a base 20% increase repair speed iirc, and get 60 seconds endurance off the hook that works during end game).
Also just running around in the dark was really eye straining and I disliked feeling like all I can see is the floor.@Grigerbest said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940767#Comment_3940767
I personally played only 2 matches as a killer in Lights out (the very first one), and I didn't like it. Can't tell you from a survivor side…
If I'm not mistaken, I made a post about why I didn't like it, maybe I didn't… (I'm so bad at remembering some things)
In short - (as a killer) It felt like I was playing with a bunch of handicaps and got nothing to compensate for it. It felt like I was running around the map more, than I was chasing, trying to find somebody or trying to follow the blood after a hit.
That was not fun to me. Apparently later on, I learned that a lot of people felt the same.
I see. Thanks for the replies, friends!
Personally, I loved the first Lights Out, even if Freddy wasn't available. I think it was a return to horror that DBD really needed, and all of my games with that modifier were fun.
-
What is wrong with Lights Out, my friend? I loved the first one!
But yes, I would like a POV swamp modifier, I think it would be fun.
-
@AbsolutGrndZer0 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940712#Comment_3940712
Yes, Freddy Fazbear. The first game didn't have much of a plot besides the animatronics come to life at night and come after the security guard, so you have to watch the security cameras and lock the two doors to the security room when they are near (can only lock one at a time) and manage the really shady battery that runs the whole system. It was later games they fleshed out the story, the animatronics are possessed by the ghosts of children that were killed by the serial killer owner of the franchise. Springtrap is HIS suit.
If you want to get a "crash course" watch the movie. While it's not perfect, it will give you a pretty good idea of the story to understand why Springtrap is the killer and not Freddy. Also, the Matthew Lillard skin is from the movie, as Lillard plays Springtrap (William Afton) in the movie.lock the two doors to the security room when they are near (can only lock one at a time)
You can close both doors at the same time, actually. Sometimes it is needed.
-
The chapter!
I disliked the axe, that I admit, but I've been a FNAF fan since day seven, found out about it a week after the first game's release, and I really love the franchise.
-
As @Aven_Fallen said, we haven't even tested anything yet.
And whatever it is, it won't be the end of the world for killers. Just look at the AFC.
-
@smurf said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939862#Comment_3939862
It's not a 'surrender' button. It says 'abandon'. The killer is now enabled to decide to take their win and bloodpoints and go next if they don't feel like finishing off the bots. I'm not sure where there's a downside there. If they want the bp, they can finish off the bots. If they want to keep playing the match, they can.
Honestly, it's pretty wild how people are dividing up into 'killer' and 'survivor' sides on this issue. If all the survivors are in an open unblocked gate for some amount of time, the killer should be able to abandon. That doesn't take away any amount of gameplay from the killer or the survivors and prevents the killer having to deal with bm if they think they'll find the survivors teabagging.
There are also some people complaining that as killer, it's not satisfying to win a match if they don't get to finish off their human opponents in a game that's unwinnable for those opponents. There's no scenario where forcing an opponent to play an unwinnable game and waste their time is sportsmanlike. In the current scenario, when all survivors abandon, the killer still gets to have the remainder of their game if they want, and they now have an option to just go play another game faster. Those are only benefits.
Well said, friend!
-
As much as I love Star Wars, I don't think Darth Vader fits DBD.
The game should, at the very, VERY least, make an effort to stick to horror.
-
It is a very complicated matter.
Is the system perfect? No, not even close, and it might require further changes at some point. But the thing is… something had to be done. The sheer amount of games ruined because of early hook suicides in recent times was extremely unhealthy for the game.
Now, ideally the problem could be fixed by addressing the reasons why players decide to suicide on hook and abandon the match. This is an opinion that has been said many times. But what hasn't been said is how this is almost impossible to do.
Because there isn't one factor in particular causing people to abandon their games, outside of, maybe, playing against Ghoul. A survivor choosing to suicide on hook at five gens could be anything: maybe they didn't like the killer, or the map, or their build isn't working, and the list goes on. Same goes for killers that abandon their games, of course, the only difference is that they can't bypass the penalty.
And some of these things, like a survivor / killer player who doesn't like the map they got, has no fix. Addressing the reasons why people choose to leave before the match is over relies on the "why", but it is something that changes heavily from player to player, so how do you solve this matter?
Removing the very option to bypass the penalty and leave.
-
The stun time nerf was unnecessary, 5 seconds was perfectly fine as it was.
-
@subdl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939844#Comment_3939844
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939850#Comment_3939850
I’m genuinely curious — given your perspective, how would you feel about offering killers the ability to abandon the match after the gates are powered, just as survivors can now go next immediately once they’re all downed?
And please — I’d be especially interested in hearing your thoughts beyond the usual “killers still have agency” argument. I’m asking specifically about fairness in match closure.
After the gates are opened, yes, I don't think that would be unhealthy for the game if the killer is replaced by a bot.