Halloulle

@VomitMommy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3715901#Comment_3715901
Tell that to the Nurse with infectious and Lethal slugging everyone about one minute into the match and then just standing in the middle nodding like they won some kind of medal.
I am not saying it can never happen. You have people who just want to boost their ego on both sides, but it is rare in my experience at least.
It still stands that in most cases, you just played around and found out.
I'm pretty sure spawning into a match doesn't count as annoying the killer, does it?
Nah, it does. You were supposed to spawn in different game. Killer wanted to just wait in lobby and you ruined it.
It isn't used much outside of dedicated builds - which probably isn't the intended way.
Well, it also makes dedicated builds better.

I have simple rule for this, if group denies me three hooks in a row, I am just not hooking for rest of the game. They clearly don't want me to…

"I have simple rule for this, if group denies me three hooks in a row, I
am just not hooking for rest of the game. They clearly don't want me to…"

Which I think is the appropriate way to respond.

As for the Sabo changes making dedicated builds much stronger; that depends on what they're planning/considering. Now, I won't hold my breath either way; from my perspective those dedicated sabo squads are as rare as that slugging nurse. I.e. whatever changes they have in mind will be pretty minor - except they prove to set some chain reaction in motion. Which is why there's PTB first.

in Faster Sabo speed.... greaatttttttttt Comment by Halloulle May 10, 2024

@VomitMommy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3715159#Comment_3715159
Seems like you annoyed the killer, this doesn't happen accidently.

Tell that to the Nurse with infectious and Lethal slugging everyone about one minute into the match and then just standing in the middle nodding like they won some kind of medal.

I'm pretty sure spawning into a match doesn't count as annoying the killer, does it?

——On topic: The Sabo-TB changes to me seem like an experiment to see where sabo is at. It isn't used much outside of dedicated builds - which probably isn't the intended way. I'm curious to see where tweaking TBs leads. Maybe we learn something interesting that leads to interesting changes - maybe we learn that Sabo should really not be touched. That's what PTB is for.

in Faster Sabo speed.... greaatttttttttt Comment by Halloulle May 10, 2024

Never thought about applying an effect similar to "exhaustion" to killers to manage multiple regression stacking. - But I very much like the idea. Either by vortue of an actual status effect - or by effectively building it into how regression perks work in general. The end result should be that more than two regression perks just don't make any sense because you won't get the additional value. — For all I care they can actually increase the base-kick-regression a little in return (+2 or 3%); since that does count toward the 8-regression-events-limit. They can do that - but they can do that only so often.

in Is it me or Comment by Halloulle May 10, 2024

The comparison he gives is comparing apples to oranges. - Does nightvision give you an advantage when you can see something but the other can't? Yes. Does even the reddest of red filters he uses there compare to that? No. You can actually see very nicely that there's a hard fall off where it's being more red, so you don't actually see more - or better. (Vanilla has a more gradient falloff so you can actually see more of the red stain - but it's fainter.)

Though, the most important thing that makes me think that filters are more about personal preference and countering some personal isssues, be that colourblindness or cognitive stuff*(see below) or something else, is that some of the best surv players don't use filters. Are they just that much better, that despite not having filters, i.e. even at a disadvantage, they're still better? Or is it that seeing that kind of information more clearly is, at the end of the day, not the deciding factor? I'm more inclined toward the latter.

*(For a while I ran a pretty much Black and white filter with only red and that certain kind of yellow the WoO auras have because I literally couldn't see stuff; people told me "take that window" and I was "WHAT WINDOW?!!" because with all the visual clutter I just couldn't see it. By now I kinda know the tiles, so I know where a window should be without seeing it, so I'm good but back then that filter was a life saver. - Ugly af, but kinda necessary.)

in If you think reshade doesn't give you an advantage.... Comment by Halloulle May 10, 2024

Distortion is fine. For the assumed Distortion-crouching-in-the-corner-jimmo stacks are gone rather quicky as they tend to leave TR as soon as they enter it.

Running a one-sided build is always a risk - an all-aura-reading-build is no different. Though, having at least one perk that removes stacks at a distance (Gearhead is actually pretty good at that - but also Darkness Revealed, Murmur and Undying) is very helpful with making people run out of Distortion stacks. - Also, bringing only one aura perk and calling it an aura reading perk is just running the risk of one perk being countered by another which is kinda how it should be.

The issue with Distortion isn't actually an issue with Distortion but with survivor perks: If you don't like your aura being read for any reason at any time Distortion is your only option with one exception; those that only want their aura being hidden after they've been unhooked can opt for OTR. Everyone else has to use Distortion. Even those that just want to know if a killer has aura read but don't care if their aura gets seen or not.

Before any change is done to Distortion Survivors need at least two more perks that address aura read by killers in some way; a perk that doesn't actually do anything, except telling you and your team when their aura is being read. A perk that functions maybe more like OoO where if a killer reads your aura, you can see the killer too. Maybe a counter-perk that only activates if you're within x meters of the killer, for those that really don't like NTH and All ears but don't really care about the rest. Idk. There are options that help deal with Killer aurea read and help adjust the playstyle accordingly that don't involve hiding the aura every time / have a different mechanic than Distortion.

in Okay: now tackle distortion Comment by Halloulle May 10, 2024

@KatsuhxP said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/413582/buckle-up-nerf-going-the-wrong-direction
Well made for this gives endurance for yourself aswell as far as I remember (don't know if they removed it with the buff).

well, made for this ives the healing person an endurance effect - though that one isn't getting picked up from the dying state.

@ReverseVelocity said:
I wish they'd bring back the 10s of aura reading after picking up a slug for both survivors. So you'd have the speed boost on the healed survivor AND you'd both get aura reading for 10s when someone's picked up.
They could probably make the speed boost apply to you when picked up if you take it as well.

That'd also be a pretty good option; be able to gauge if you can even pull the pick up off and have an idea of where to run next. Would be in line with the "pick up and run away" nature.

@Aven_Fallen said:
It is fine. I think For the People is alright as a Perk, because the main issue of the combo was that both Survivors would get Endurance, which made it way to safe for the User. Now with that removed, FTP and Buckle Up are both altruistic Perks.
And I think the concept of Buckle Up is interesting, if you dedicate your build around helping others, it fits that you give someone who was healed with buckle up a Speedboost so that they can get away. And the Killer will get a trade out of it when used with FTP in their face.

I'm not sure if I follow; how would you now address a killer camping a slug? Meaning, a killer who'll just down the surv a split second after getting picked up. Good old just leave em there, overall the killer loses if they camp a slug and four gens get done? I'm genuinely curious cause the only combo I can see being somewhat effective is WGLF+MFT. - I for one don't think getting a safe pick up when a killer refuses to hook should take up two perk slots.

in Buckle Up Nerf going the wrong direction Comment by Halloulle May 9, 2024

@WolfyWood said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3712958#Comment_3712958
People do this with any dev team that's 'transparent.'
Parasocial relationships are an interesting thing but are very damaging for the consumer and I wish people understood that.
To me, the developers deserve to be treated with respect and grace, but the current state of the game is unacceptable and they need to acknowledge it as such and give us at least a superficial glimpse into what they intend to do about it.
But much like the silence that happened during the Anniversary latency I suspect they'll be silent about this too and just release a low effort fix and keep it trucking.

That is a different kinda thing and I do think it's lacking and an update on what's going on and where their priorities are atm is much needed. — I just don't really expect it to go any faster because of it.

Could bhvr use a couple more employees specifically for bug fixing so that it - generally - doesn't take as long? Sure. - But since they haven't for the past nearly eight years I don't think they're interested in that. Doesn't really have to do with "transparency" or parasocial relationships. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect them to be faster than usual when the issues are bigger and probably more complex (cause new engine).

So while they sort out their bugs I go play sth else.

in It has been 2 weeks... Comment by Halloulle May 6, 2024

Just a reminder: bhvr basically switched the game engine with the update. Yes, it's still Unreal Engine - but it's no longer UE4 but UE5 - which is, in many ways, a very different beast.

Add to that an issue that has exceptionally high priority and another release schedule and you have a lot of work to do. You can't just tell the team to just do 95hrs/week for a month to get stuff fixed asap. That's neither how humans, nor how work and overtime related laws work.

in It has been 2 weeks... Comment by Halloulle May 5, 2024

Just another two cents on the definition of cheating.

Or, well, definitions in general. Most terms have more than one definition and it depends on which definition is used/appropriate in a context. In expert circles quite a few of the controversies surrounding a topic are solely about which definition should be "standard". Now that being said, back to the cheating thing.

No I'm not an expert in the field but lo and behold, googling "definitions of cheating game development" has a university research paper as the first search result: Doherty et al. 2014. "An Analysis of Expressed Cheating Behaviors in Video Games". Google it and read the introduction for a somewhat more detailed break down but the bottom line is:
a) many definitions on cheating (some would count guides or making use of tutorial-style content and wikis etc. as cheating - which would then beg the question: is watching one of e.g. Otz's videos on how to improve as X and making use of the tips cheating too?)
b) generally there are things that are deemed "unacceptable forms of cheating". Single and multiplayer games have different standards here. Indeed, for multiplayer games it seems to be a general consensus that a "tactic that gives an advantage in play
over the others or alters the intended format of play" falls into the unacceptable category.
But, in comes c) at the end of the day the devs decide what, in the context of their game, is considered cheating.

— Which I think is also why this discussion crops up again and again. There seems to be a general difference between how a somewhat large group of players defines "cheating" and how the devs define "cheating". While players can indulge the moral arguments, the devs do have to take the technical/pragmatic aspect, namely enforceability and how feasible enforcing certain things is, into account. Maybe you could blacklist ReShade - but what about those that adjust stuff hardware wise? How would you enforce that? The devs define cheating, iirc, as making something accessible that would otherwise not be accessible in order to gain an unfair advantage. And here I keep with what I said before: just because you can see e.g. scratchmarks/the red stain better, doesn't mean you didn't have access to them before. (Correct me if I'm wrong on the dev's definition of cheating, idk where I found that but I'm pretty sure that's the bhvr definition of cheating.)

in Are game filters cheating/unfair advantage? Comment by Halloulle May 5, 2024

First of all: I don't think there's a black and white answer to this since "Filter" isn't one thing but can be all kinds of things. I for one like a Luma Sharpen because I can't stand the blurriness of the regular settings and neitehr can I stand the pixelated half-tone effect of anti aliasing off; with Luma I get the sharpness of AA off but keep the transparency for vfx and haircards.

When we get into map specific presets and all that it gets kinda ridiculous and personally I think it's unncecessarily sweaty and tryhard and people taking a game just waaay too seriously.

- But there are two important questions: how does using a filter to change how your screen displays colours differ from using the hardware settings to calibrate your screen in a certain way? - Time spent to achieve the result aside. There isn't really one. You get more knobs to turn with filters but the principle is the same. Different displays, by default, display colors differently.

The other question is, do you actually see information with a filter that isn't there otherwise. Yes, it is easier to see e.g. the red stain or to see scratch marks - but were they invisible before? No. Something different would be, e.g. stretched res where you could see things that were actually not visible without stretched res.

If anything, I would prefer if similar to AA being in the game settings, color filters also became part of the default game settings.

While the community is at it and optimises the fun out of the game, why not at least give everyone the same tools and access to them?

in Are game filters cheating/unfair advantage? Comment by Halloulle May 5, 2024

I haven't read through the entire thread, so idk if this has already been mentioned. But in regards to OPs question: "So here comes the question. Isn't Distortion a little bit too strong? Three of my perks get denied by a single Survivor perk, just like that."

The short answer is: No, it is not too strong.

Distortion is save or suck and not OP at all. - If anything, the issue is that there's over exposure. But this is not because of the perk strength but because it's literally the only perk that somewhat reliably helps you out if a killer has aura read.

You want to know which aura-perk a killer has equipped? Distortion is your only option.

You don't want to get your aura read every single time? Distortion is your only option.

You want to be somewhat save from getting tunneled out/found in a very vulnerable situation? Distortion is your only option.

Just introducse some more ways of dealing with aura read perks and I'm certain that you'll see more diverse perk use. There's plenty of people who use distortion just to know how to play the match as a whole. Idc if my aura gets seen - I just want to know when that happens so I can adjust my playstyle.

Now, as for going full aura read as a killer, read: with an extremely onesided build, that is a gamble. And as with all gambles: you win some, you lose some.

in LMAO Distortion. I almost played a game as Perkless Huntress. Comment by Halloulle May 2, 2024

@TheWheelOfCheese said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3709777#Comment_3709777
no, I mean in the sense where you have a sound program analyse what sounds you have and eliminating certain sounds.
You cannot eliminate specific sounds, you can only tune the relative intensity of various frequencies. This is exactly what the headphones you describe can do, except an EQ is typically more granular. So it sounds like what you're saying is "a 3-band fixed-frequency EQ is not cheating, but anything else is." I hope that's not what you're saying because that would be a bit ridiculous.
Multiple in-game sounds will generate audio across a wide variety of frequencies. You cannot "eliminate certain sounds" with an EQ, not without affecting other sounds as well. You can attenuate specific frequencies, which will affect all sounds that occupy that frequency space.

I have no clue what the 3-band-fixed-frequency-part means but I take the rest of what your write as; the equaliser does what you could do in your headphone settings - just a lot better. And in that case no, using an equaliser would not be cheating. - It'd be like bringing your 5 kg carbon bike to the city race where most folks have some average 15kg+ bike but it's not cheating - they're both bikes and the force that makes you move is you pedalling - but one will do a significantly better job at moving. Cheating would be bringing an e-bike.

It's tryhard, sweaty, unneccessary, in my book scummy, and once again an instance of parts of the community optimising the fun out of the game but not cheating.
I have the same opinion on shaders and using vpn. I'd say that's why I use neither of these things - but I do in fact use a Luma sharpen filter cause choosing between the bluriness of the game with anti aliasing on and the pixelated mess and seeing hair cards with anti aliasing off is like choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea.

in Is using Equalizers Cheating? Hens vs Ayrun debate Comment by Halloulle April 29, 2024

@TheWheelOfCheese said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3709774#Comment_3709774
If it's something that can also be achieved by calibrating your headphones in a specific way
If it actually isolates specific frequencies and alters them similar to how some audio-software does it
These two predicates mean exactly the same thing.

no, I mean in the sense where you have a sound program analyse what sounds you have and eliminating certain sounds. - I'm not a sound person, so I don't know the terms, so maybe it's the wrong one. - Like, you know how if you display sound it shows up at waves - and now you pick certain patterns that you want to remove/alter in a specific way.

While with calibrating headphones if you reduce the base it's reduced for all sounds - not just a specific one. Does that make more sense?

in Is using Equalizers Cheating? Hens vs Ayrun debate Comment by Halloulle April 29, 2024

difficult to say without knowing exactly what those programs can or can't do. - If it's something that can also be achieved by calibrating your headphones in a specific way then no; it's not cheating. If it actually isolates specific frequencies and alters them similar to how some audio-software does it, then yes, it is. But I kinda doubt there's software that can do that realtime and without weird sound glitches.

It's almost like there's that debate in various sports; how over-engineered should shoes or bicycles or whatnot allowed to be? The one on a 6 kg carbon bike definitely has an advantage over the one on a 20kg steel bike - but that still doesn't mean the one carbon bike is cheating.

in Is using Equalizers Cheating? Hens vs Ayrun debate Comment by Halloulle April 29, 2024

as per usual updating drivers might help. - Today I was about to ask others if the rubberbanding had gotten even worse than before - but then I saw there was a new driver (released yesterday). And since I got that one it's been at least a little better. Still rubberbanding and stuttering - but not as bad as earlier today.

in Rubberbanding all the time after the update Comment by Halloulle April 28, 2024

idk about you but I kinda don't like a binary game where it's either getting tunneled or playing M1 simulator. If I just want to (improve) looping I just go to some discord and go "Trapper-Wraith anyone?" - Or just any good old come shack 1v1. - Not that I do that often to begin with - but I do often hang around vc with people who do and strim in call.

Personally, in swf I like the whole process of coordination and keeping an eye on the makro game. Wouldn't get around to that a whole lot either if tunneling was good (and thus normalaand accepted as normal)

A for the weak link .... idk, someone hard tunneling the first survivor they find doesn't strike me as being a good way to identify the weak link.

in Tunneling is good for the game and for survivors Comment by Halloulle April 28, 2024

@MechWarrior3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3708127#Comment_3708127
I wouldn’t say 99%……I don’t think I was an exception….

well, I for one somtimes rubberband half a tile back - sometimes see other survs basically janky-teleport via Bond… and it's the same for literally everyone I know. I would say you're an outlier. Not saying you're the only exception - just like your experience doesn't reflect what the overwhelming majority of people experience.

May I ask which server you're on? My it got sth to do with that too

in Please roll back this update, it's a mess. Comment by Halloulle April 26, 2024

@crogers271 said:
I mean how crazy do we potentially want to go? If we're reimagining the game it can get pretty broad.
On the base level, removing the 4% would be an easy solution and wish they would do it (plus the hook checks on 2nd stage). If they really think players should be allowed to leave a game, that's fine, just allow them to DC without a penalty if it is really impossible to keep players in the game.
I'm looking forward to them trying the game mod with no hooks. If I remember the description, you get to be downed twice and can pick yourself back up (death on the 3rd down) after a set amount of time, but you don't have to pick yourself up if you aren't ready (killer standing right there).
Here's one random idea I had while reading through the thread:
No hook timer - instead a survivor on the hook decreases gen speed. If the killer camps, survivors just stay on gens, but if they go to chase a survivor and no one goes for the save the gens will actually be slower than rescuing.

As crazy as you want to go. - It's brainstorming and sometimes the craziest ideas have something to them that someone can run with.

Game mode without hooks? Where did you read about that? — I don't really keep up with plans anymore, so I usually just know stuff when it's officially announced for a set date.

As for being on hook reducing gen speeds: In principle I like the idea - but at least for me the issue with "just hammer gens" when someone gets camped is that it's just really boring to do. And it sucks to be the person being camped. Not so much in swf - but as solo. Plus, there are killers where it's actually impossible to rescue. …. It might also be a tad to abusable. At times greeding that gen leads to a hook stage being lost - and I think that's a fair consequence of gens over frens - but on some occasions also a necessary sacrifice.

@HexHuntressThighs said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/411965/lets-brainstorm-how-hooks-could-be-reworked
Removing the 4% won’t change much. If a survivor wants out they’ll run up to the killer after being unhooked and go down again. This happens very frequently to me as a Huntress main if I down people too fast or hit a gap shot. And I do oblige and kill them immediately because they want out of the game so why not? Better than them getting angry and exploding gens/ dropping all the pallets. Proxy camping would be solved either as the distance for the cage relocation is 8 meters. And 1/4 the roster can comfortably camp 16 meters away.

I do think a surv that on the one hand can't 4% to nope out of a game but on the other hand gets more or less a "fresh start" is somewhat more likely to at least go "tf, then I just go sit on this gen until the killer comes by". Which is more than then noping out immediately. And maybe, if they stick around just a little longer, they change their mind. Some of the reflex noping-outs against e.g. Skullmerchant could be addressed that way.

People actively sabotaging the match is a different story - but I think if those people were actually (temp) banned with video evidence of them just going around throwing all the pallets and sandbagging and whatnot that would be an easy-to-fix issue. I'm not usually in favour of bans, they're more of a last resort. But at that point I think all other options have been exhausted.

As for the teleporting: It's not supposd to work like Pyramid-head. I just took the general idea of survs teleporting as an inspiration. They stay on the hook the killer put them on until the stage-timer is up. Then they get teleported to a random location at least two tiles away (which should be 32m+) from where the killer is at the time of teleportation. This should make it virtually impossible to to tunnel. A killer can still force a hook stage by (proxy) camping if they so wish - but it'll not have the same effect since it a) takes longer and b) they can't get right back on the surv.

@Rulebreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3706942#Comment_3706942
The problem there is that hooks create pressure by (usually) getting atleast 1 survivor off the gens to grab the other. That pressure is needed atleast for those not running 4 slowdowns till sundown.
For the topic: We prefer the suggestion of that survivors get 1 try at the swing with an alternative punishment like broken for X time or something.

In terms of pressure that's why I thought about extending the hook stage plus having the killer waste less time searching for where they need to actively pressure by pointing them directly at where they need to pressure. So on the one hand the killer wastes less time and the surv that's on hook and not rescued itself is the additional time a surv is off a gen. - Considering that this surv will not have someone to reset them immediately and will likely run around half-life for a while/will need to find another surv to reset (and even in swf players will not have to spend time walking to reset) which is additional time lost.

And could you elaborate a bit further on the one try with an alternative punishment? I don't quite follow. What exactly is the "swing" referringto (I assume an attempt at unhooking yourself - but might have misunderstood sth). What chance of success does the one try have? When does a surv get it? And what is the alternate punishment for?

in Let's brainstorm how hooks could be reworked Comment by Halloulle April 25, 2024

@Rudjohns said:
You guys really want DBD to be a completely different game, huh?
Might as well just play a different game

Not really. - Changing how hooks work doesn't really change how the game itself works. Personally, I'm coming from a place where I want to take into account both the reasons why players camp and tunnel and why players dislike these playstyles. - I mean, if you consider camping an tunneling an integral part of DBD and without it, it's a completely different game then, uh, yes, I suppose I do want it to be a completely different game. But I for one don't consider it an essential part of DBD.

Besides, Bhvr has introduces mods and even if a different kind of hooks system doesn't work for the "normal game" maybe it works for an alternate game mode.

in Let's brainstorm how hooks could be reworked Comment by Halloulle April 25, 2024

@Raccoon said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3706588#Comment_3706588
Thanks for clarifying.
I thought it was pretty clear, too, but it was nice of you to clarify as people have started using the wording of the post to mean whatever they feel it should mean instead of what it literally says verbatim.

Which is kinda exactly my point; if people can take it as "whatever they feel it should mean" and can quote it as they do so (i.e. me) then it wasn't worded clearly enough. - And at the very least in the initial dev update (that I quoted) it wasn't verbatim. I literally copy pasted the screenshot, it doesn't say "face" there. (Which again is kinda my point; take two seconds and precisely define in your explanation of the mechanic what kind of "camping" you mean - and how far "facecamping" goes.)

@Mandy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3706496#Comment_3706496
To combat the most egregious cases of facecamping where it was next to impossible to get an unhook, that's why the meter has a distance requirement to it, as unhooks can be made if the killer is camping at a distance, if killer is hitting a survivor on the hook for example, they're clearly too close and will trigger the antifacecamp meter.
I actually don't think the wording is that vague on our communications, but thank you for the feedback on it - our intention is of course to be as clear as possible and given the name of the feature includes the word facecamp in it and a distance requirement, it does appear, to me at least, to be very clear in intention.

A distance that was, afaik, adjusted at least once. So it's not really the distance itself that makes something "facecamping" - otherwise you couldn't change it. (If it wasn't changed at all; then by all means: the absolute distance between killer and hooked person is what defines facecamping.)

On the point "as unhooks can be made if the killer is camping at a distance"… I would hard disagree (e.g. Huntress, Billy, Bubba). But as I said: I didn't intend to derail the topic, so agree to disagree it is. — I do appreciate your clarification though.

in So much for Anti Camp System Comment by Halloulle April 24, 2024

@Halloulle said:
I've only recently started tracking my escape rate on nightlight so it's not quite representative of my experience yet but so far I personally have an escape rate of 36% - and the matches I've been in overall (so taking both me and the other survivors into account) it's 29.5%
in '22 after the big update I had an escape rate between 35% and 37%. Pre June '22 it was around 45%. - All soloQ. Back then I didn't track on NL but manually.

I have tracked some more matches since then and I start to notice a pattern. - I play normally and once I drop below an escape rate of 30% two things happen: I get matched with very decent survs (1.5k hours or more, high prestiges, contribute actively and know what they're doing etc.) and we, as a lobby (all SoloQ usually) get matched with a way below avrg killer (comapred to the previous killers). This usually results in a 3-4E (if there's someone unlucky enough to get downed near the end the killer usually just camps out that surv and depending on the situation no rescue is really possible) and the killer asking us if we were 4man swf. This happens 1-2 times (escape rate is back to 30-something percent then) and then it's back to another 7-10 3-4k.

I used to believe killers tend to get backfilled a lot / it's matchmaking time that screws them. But at this point I think it's by design. [Yes, this is all just my personal theory and all that - but at this point it do be quite predictable. To the point where I go "ah, escape rate says 28%, time to get matched with "good" survs and "bad" killers." - Et voila, it either happens that match or the match afte that.]

in Is 30% escape rate normal now in solo q? Comment by Halloulle April 24, 2024

@radiantHero23 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3705603#Comment_3705603
The intention was simple. To stop the "most egregious cases of camping" called face-camping. You are reading too much into it.
It is supposed to help a survivor when the killer does literally just standing next to the hook.

@Raconteurminator said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3705603#Comment_3705603
The devs intentions? Oh, that's easy. To stop facecamping: it's both literally the name of the system and the intention that they expressed multiple times publicly. If you want certain people to stop repeating very, very, very, very, very simple explanations like a broken record, then other people need to stop telling the devs what they did or didn't intend, stop renaming their system, and stop with posts like this. The system is called Anti-Facecamp, it only activates when you facecamp and is only designed to activate when you facecamp. No amount of reading between the lines or Olympic gold medal mental gymnastics will change that.

There is no amount of reading between the lines needed… you just need to find the premise the devs outline and then the intention. The premise is this one:

This includes all instances of camping where the killer is "nearby". Whatever exactly "nearby" means. - But fret not, we don't just have the premise - we also have the explicitly stated intention:

Again, we don't know what exactly "egregious" or "too close" in this context means - but given how the same sentence (!) continues, we don't need to, since the intended outcome is stated clearly: survivors - remember the premise: survivors that are not the most coordinated of teams - are supposed to have an actual chance to rescue a fellow survivor. - Which is simply not the case with the mechanic as it is in place. It doesn't matter for a Bubba or a Billy or a Huntress - or any other killer who really makes it their mission to camp out that hook - if they are 1m away from the hook or 10m.

That being said: I don't think it's possible to design a mechanic that achieves what they intend it to achieve without either being very abusable by survs or fundamentally redesigning how hooking/unhooking works.

Which is why I say they should just've called it "anti BM on hook"-mechanic, boot the premise and the intention and that's that.

Edit: tbh, what bugs me the most about this is not how the mechanic turned out - but how bhvr really has a knack for messing up their communication and expectation management. It happens so often that via the way the word things or the statements they make and without giving any actual details/say what exactly they mean/how exactly they define things, there's too much room for interpretation - interpretations that are not reigned in, even if they get widely popular. This makes it effectively impossible to avoid disappointing, and eventually alienating at least a chunk of the playerbase. And it is so avoidable by just thinking a lil bit longer about what you want to say. #rant end. Sorry.

Anyway, that being said: if in doubt agree to disagree. Didn't really intend to derail the topic and make it about rhetoric and semantics.

in So much for Anti Camp System Comment by Halloulle April 24, 2024

am I missing something or is main just… a two-story deadzone with one okay-ish window?

in Haddonfield - Lampkin Lane Feedback Comment by Halloulle April 23, 2024

So what exactly was this "rework" supposed to achieve? So far it's been the same old: tunnel the first out, then slug everyone else - or just go straight to slugging everyone.

…… at least de-pipping isn't a thing anymore…

in The Twins Feedback Comment by Halloulle April 23, 2024

I always find it funny how people get hung up on the "face" part and repeat that part like a broken record - and even cite some of the relevant dev posts… just not all relevant passages.

Let me ask you this: What was the devs' reason to implement that mechanic? What is its stated purpose?

It was to deal with frustrations and feeling powerless on the survivor side; make survivors have agency in a situation where they don't have it.

Question: Does this mechanic achieve this?

Answer: No. Just being able to take an action isn't the same as having agency. - If it was all about "being able to take some action while hanging around" nothing was needed: there's 4% and there are skill checks. Between getting camped at 0.5 meters distance and at 5-12 meters distance and getting downed ten seconds after the unhook is no effective difference.

As it is now it's an anti-BM-on-hook-mechanic. Which would be perfectly fine… if they actually said that this was the intended purpose.

in So much for Anti Camp System Comment by Halloulle April 23, 2024

For both sides: If there was some kind of agency and interactions/actions that were meaningful in the context of the whole match. Basically, the stuff you'd talk about if someone asked you "so, what were some positive noteworthy things that happened during your matches today?"

For example, there recently was a match agaisnt a bubba that - for various reasons - was basically a sh* show start to finish and we knew three minutes in that this would be a loss for us. - But it was still satisfying to play this losing battle and we got one over the Bubba several times. Be that somehow making a comeback after two person got hooked right next to another and a third was slugged. Be that the successful breakout play that denied Bubba basement. - Or be that using balanced to drop right into basement just when Bubba picked up someone else and then again successfully pulling of a breakout — and all three smh making it away from basement stairs alive. Sure enough, we still all died at 3 gens left - but we got some stuff in on our terms, you know - and that's satisfying enough for me.

On the other hand: that spirit with headphones cranked up to idk how high that just bot-like phased back to hook just in time for BT being over was just annoying and didn't feel satisfying at all, even though we got two people out.

in What are your personal standards for a satisfying match? Comment by Halloulle April 22, 2024

To play her you need to actually focus (either on chase - via zoning and predicting - or on camping while keeping gen progress slow via harassing survs with birds) and you need quite a bit of game knowledge; need to know how gen spawns work, where survivors gonna go, which loops are on the map and at which tile you need to do what. — Once you focus on that bit it's kinda really just wait for things to happen and get the timing right, not a lot of unpredictability or surprises. It's kinda fun figuring this out but beyond that it's just going through the motions and at that point: why not just play cookie clicker?

Add to that that some people don't like some of the design choices and you get a pretty strong killer that really isn't very exciting past the figuring out stage.

in Why is the Artist's pick rate so low? Comment by Halloulle April 22, 2024

I can think of two issues you're facing:

a) MMR brackets aren't exactly small as far as we know. So you don't usually get matched with people of approx. your MMR but with people who have a lot more or a lot less.

b) The "stoppers" (idk what the actual term is) between MMR brackets that prevent you from going back to a lower MMR bracket once you left it. It's not like it's impossible to go back afaik - but it takes quite a while.

The latter is probably a bigger issue for you. Conjecture on my part but I'd say you're hovering around the MMR soft cap; below the cap you have matches that are alright cause you get matched with players that have the same or a lower MMR than you - more often lower than you. Once you move out of the bracket you're the one with the "lowest" MMR as you get matches with anyone who's past the soft cap.

Idk, maybe they need to further increase the soft-cap soon-ish and create an additional MMR bracket between present soft-cap and new soft-cap. With comp DBD becoming more and more of a thing I suppose the "uhhh but there aren't enough players with an MMR that high and they q-times will be too long!"-line won't be true that much longer (if it even is atm).

in What even IS MMR?? Comment by Halloulle April 22, 2024

I've only recently started tracking my escape rate on nightlight so it's not quite representative of my experience yet but so far I personally have an escape rate of 36% - and the matches I've been in overall (so taking both me and the other survivors into account) it's 29.5%

in '22 after the big update I had an escape rate between 35% and 37%. Pre June '22 it was around 45%. - All soloQ. Back then I didn't track on NL but manually.

in Is 30% escape rate normal now in solo q? Comment by Halloulle April 20, 2024

I treat it like a research experiement at this point by tracking SoloQ matches on nightlight. It does make for an intersting thing. - According NL my escape rate sits at around 30-something percent and the overall escape rate as well (I do not count matches where people DCd early on (cutoff point: less than four minutes into the match, two gens popped or three hook stages) or farming matches - I'm interested in the stats for matches that were actually played). I haven't too many matches tracked that way though, so we'll see if that's where it stabilises or if it changes.

What I do notice, however, is that matchmaking seems to be very deliberate. If I escaped two times in a row, the next match I get some kind of really high tier killer who stomps and has everyone killed in five minutes. If I die more than four times in a row the next match is a group of pretty decent survivors and a killer even I can run on more or less nothing for 90+ seconds (which doesn't usually help cause these killers then promptly start to tunnel. Bonus points for egc being "I'm UsuAlLy cHilL buT yOu cLeaRly wAnTed to WiN, sO I hAd to!!! - gEn RusH!!!" like, yes, matchmaking screwed you, I can see that - but please have some self awareness and some self respect.)

Other than that? Rift challenges when a Rift is open.

in how do people even play solo Q these days? Comment by Halloulle April 18, 2024

I think it's a mix of "the unseen entity being held responsible for stuff a given player dislikes" — this unseen entity being sbmm/mmr — people having vastly different playstyles and objectives and a lot of frustration building up with how changes have impacted the gaming-experience.

Technically sbmm should be great because if you don't want to sweat to get a certain result then you should be matched with opponents who are either not skilled enough to win against your non-sweaty play or aren't sweating themselves. Unfortunatley that kinda only works for the killer side of things. If a good but non-sweaty survivor gets matches with just bad other survivors their odds of escaping shrink until they hit the very lowest end; a place where they could pretty much 1v1 the killer and still win. And given how the "stoppers", where you can't really drop into a lower MMR bracket anymore, work that's probably mechanically impossible, so it's just an endless circle of frustration.

As for doing away with SBMM; I think it's something similar to what a certain Mr. Churchill said about Democracy in 1947: "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" Now replace "Government" with "matchmaking" and "Democracy" with "sbmm" and there you are. Only difference is: We're not entering a Cold War. So maybe it is time to test another form of matchmaking.

in What are the true motives behind the current SBMM discourse? Comment by Halloulle April 17, 2024

@solarjin1 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3701759#Comment_3701759
"I like to joke that you're supposed to get more skilled at games the longer you play, but I seem to be going backward and apparently lose skill the more I play."
🤣lol it definitely feel that way right! Your skill just seem irrelevant in solo q.... teammates/matchmaking and how the killer is playing seem to steer the match completely. Your killer mmr theory don't seem to off. There's always at least one player on the team who have no business being there. I dodge low level prestiges like the plague. It coUld bE a prestige 100 playing a different character. DONT MATTER! that a risk I'm not taking. Yeah Prestige don't equal skill but it do show you know the basics. I had enough matches with noobs indulging themselves on dull totems. I'm gonna go by what i can see and careless about the backfill problems it cause. The Matchmaking don't care about my experience clearly so why should i give a flying $hit about others? Sad that it came down to this but you need to be completely ruthless to even have a chance at a normal game.
also I'm not saying high prestiges can't be terrible because half of them are.

I think you're in the group that would really benefit from joining one of the various premade-Discords. Not even to sweat or anything of the sorts - but to have people on your team whose skill level you know. Most regions/languages have one of those.

in If survivors should expect to escape ~3/10 matches... Comment by Halloulle April 16, 2024

I joined right around the time everyone was confused by SBMM; Late October 2021 — it was really confusing to see people getting offended if they, who had reached Gold or sth, were matched with an Ash person. - Or how someone in "Gold Ranks" could be so bad. Friends and I (all started at the same time) were like "######### are they on about?!"

in When "era" of the game did you guys start playing in? Comment by Halloulle April 16, 2024

@Dustin said:
I feel the "Did you have fun - Rate between 1 - 5" is absolutely useless because the rating has no context to the developers on why I give it that rating. It just makes me feel like the data is going to be misunderstood or misused if it even is used.
You won't know why I rated it a 5 and you won't know why I rated it a 1. So the information is useless because if you think for example I'll enjoy every game on Midwich or I'll always enjoy playing against a Hillbilly you're misusing the data. The only thing the rating is for is "What do these games have in common"
If I knew how it was actually used I'd use the feature.

afaik that is exactly how it is used tho. There's a somewhat old thread somewhere with a dev (I think it was a dev reply) where they said it's used to get a general feel and to see if there are certain constellations/co-occuring factors that result in a negative rating significantly more often. It's by no means perfect but it's a bit of a smoke detector. With a smoke detector you don't know if it was just that seared steak and everything is all good - or if the whole room is about to be ablaze. But you get a heads up to look into it before it's too late.

in Do you rate "Did you have fun?" Comment by Halloulle April 16, 2024

If I for some reason feel attached to that survivor I very much go for the risky play.

Just yesterday I had someone on hook with a pretty camp-y Wesker endgame and I was like "nah, ima open this gate and then i get that gal off that hook" and Wesker absolutely didn't expect that, so he actually left the hook once the gate was opened (thank you kindred). The other surv and I were both injured so it made absolutely no sense to go unhook. But I did… and would have gotten the unhook for free. Sadly, the hooked surv had let go and I hadn't realised so literally a millisecond before I got the prompt she got sacrificed. — And since at that point the BT hit tank (perk BT) wouldn't work anymore I got sacrificed too. — But it was fun.

Going "yolo, I have Desperate and there's one with Leader" to follow a pinhead who was busy doing a basement party straight down to basement to unhook all three of them before getting downed was a good one too. … They wanted to return the favour though. So after reset they all came back - with varying degrees of success. But hey, we turned a one-man-out into a two-man-out.

Long story short: yes, I often do that because, just as you said, it's way more fun. Prerequisite is though that I feel some kind of attachment to my fellow survs. If I haven't seen them take initiative to help the team in some way I usually don't feel very inclined to risk it.

in Do you try and go for a risky endgame save or just leave? Comment by Halloulle April 15, 2024

I kinda like the idea but I don't think it's gonna be practical. Not just for performance reasons but also because Zombies are a bit too lopsided. - What do I mean? Nemo doesn't usually see how much of a difference zombies make because they're in a different place. And survivors get frustrated by zombies because they have to interact with them and lose valuable time without being rewarded for it. - Just think about how miserable it is to get chased by Victor, get inevitably downed eventually and all of that controbuting absolutely nothing to your score or any tangible, visible reward. Having to interact with zombies even more frequently would go very much in that direction.

If anything Nemo needs some form of mobility

in Nemesis Zombies poll Comment by Halloulle April 15, 2024

@Yharwick said:
I escape around 5/10 maybe 6/10 on a good day but regardless I have thousands of hours and have studied this game up and down and that's what it takes to just escape HALF the time. I imagine most people are struggling much more but I was thinking about this and came to the conclusion this is kinda what we signed up for. Not just us but everyone who plays PVP games in general.
Someone no matter what happens is not going to have fun. Either the killer doesn't do well or the survivors fail to escape. Even in "balanced" games with a 2k the killer most of the time isn't going to be happy with that and if you're a survivor that died you probably still didn't have fun. That's just the nature of PvP games, somebody is always going to lose and losing is not fun. So either make peace with the fact that sometimes the game isn't going to be enjoyable or play PvE games.
Which saying PvE games isn't meant as an insult. I've been playing a ton of Warframe lately and it's honestly been relaxing compared to DBD, just chill level clearing and resource gathering with other people. Like I honestly recommend playing some sort of MMO or RPG with friends if DBD is frustrating you, it's not as tense and the communities are generally much nicer as a result cuz nobody is going against each other.

I happen to have 5k hours in WF, so I do play plenty PvE ^^ (not as much as I used to though… starting with PoE they've kinda gotten into the habit of just introducing yet another kind of standing/group of resources where you have to kinda start from scratch over and over again and that's not really my cup of tea. - But I digress.)

That it isn't fun to lose is well understood. - But between "loading into a match and thinking it can go either way" and then losing and "loading into a match thinking it will most likely end in one way" and then losing - as expected - are very different things.
Or differently put, you say "make peace with the fact that sometimes the game isn't going to be enjoyable" — but I increasingly get the impression that it's "make peace with the fact that usually the game isn't going to be enjoyable"… which I think is a problem and a direction game devs should try to avoid.

in If survivors should expect to escape ~3/10 matches... Comment by Halloulle April 15, 2024

@NarkoTri1er said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3700951#Comment_3700951
because the worst killers are the ones that basically have no kind of antiloop, proper map pressure and are weak overall against both good soloQ and SWF teams.
And despite i'm all in favor of implementing voice chat into dbd, it actually won't change anything. Comms won't help you in a chase between you and the killer, which is pretty much the most important aspect of survivor gameplay. I was flabbergasted when i once heard a 5k hours player ask me what checkspots are.
What does it tell you? Is lack of comms really one of the biggest problems in dbd? No, it isn't, because in most cases, you wouldn't even be matched against a godtier killer player in terms of macro gameplay knowledge playing a very strong killer. Is this a proper argument because i'm talking about "average" stuff? Not quite, but when you take in mind pickrate of killers that would actually require you to have comms and the extremely low chance of you getting matched against a very good player playing that killer.

Ah. I see. - Though, I still disagree.

It could also just as well mean that even the worst killers have enough tools available to absolutely stomp anyone but the above-average survivors.

On the point of individual chase strength being the most important factor I also beg to differ. The most recent example I can think of is the showdown between an US/EU team and a Japanese team; Legion on Gideon. The US/EU team got pretty much destroyed. I think an allstar cast of some of the best loopers who most definitely know every checkspot and pallet in the game qualify as "being good in chase". So why did they get destroyed? Because they were oblivious (add-on) and couldn't coordinate/communicate where Legion was and where they had to be. And I do think most people agree that Legion isn't exactly the strongest killer in the game.

That being said, having voice chat will indeed not solve the issue; just "having" comms doesn't mean you can use them. Just like WoO doesn't magically turn you into a good looper; it shows you the resources but it doesn't automatically enable you to use them correctly. Which is why I included the coordination aspect; comms and information sharing are a means to that end. It's not about comms helping you in a chase. It is about helping you to chase in the right places so that you don't screw your team. It is to coordinate unhooks and resets, to keep track of resources and killer powers/perks.

in If survivors should expect to escape ~3/10 matches... Comment by Halloulle April 15, 2024

@NarkoTri1er said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3700730#Comment_3700730
it would be a problem of game balance if the worst killers weren't having highest killrates. This pretty much proves how bad average survivor is.
SoloQ itself would be much better if people just collectively changed their mindsets and actually played as a team.

Maybe I'm tired - but I don't quite follow. How exactly does the worst killers having the highest killrates prove how bad the average survivor is? Also what exactly do you mean by balance?

Cause I'm pretty sure I'm missing something here. If not this reads a lot like "everyting is fine - survivors just need to git gut" … which I don't exactly consider constructive.

As for the other point: In theory, sure. - But how exactly do you picture four strangers with no means of communications and no means of sharing information and coordinating to play as a team? (I ask because I can't picture that at all. - I can, however, picture people who want to have comms, information sharing and coordination to form premade swf on e.g. discord servers dedicated to swf-ing)