Kaitsja
Kaitsja
About
- Username
- Kaitsja
- Joined
- Visits
- 5,184
- Last Active
Comments
-
Why the doompost? We don't even know what form these changes will take yet, but I'll bite.
As someone else said, killers will eventually find themselves in brackets where they can comfortably play without relying on these strategies. SWF becomes a problem when it's a 4-man running meta perks and using clock callouts to keep track of map resources and the killer. It's not really a problem when it's a trio and one of them is constantly trying to befriend the killer.
As for sabo squads, with how little distance there is between hooks, you're almost never going to find yourself in a position where a sabo squad is going to be a problem.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941675#Comment_3941675
Hooking… multiple survivors?
I mean I'm talking like your first kill isn't until your 6th - 8th hook. Forget even 12 hooking.
Dawg I'm telling you, unless the survivors are going down in literally like 15 seconds, one even decent length chase and you're down 2 gens IF they are competent.
Look, some people may define multi-hooking as making sure each survivor has been hooked once before hooking anyone twice. I am not one of those people. That's why I had to be sure of how you defined it.
We're just going in circles here. I'm going to go on about how your goal isn't to try to keep the survivors from doing any gens. You're going to insist that multi-hooking isn't viable. I'm going to insist that it is. Best to agree to disagree on this one.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941636#Comment_3941636
So then screw the top people who want to have fun right! (Even though if you're doing it for average players, I don't think average killers would be able to multihook even against average survivors so you're just doing a loop).
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941642#Comment_3941642
Wrong.
I am asking for the betterment of the game by saying "Hey, we should make both sides feel better to play, instead of just one" like a normal human being would. Because what I'm describing is not people being better, what I'm describing is a playstyle that is an active detriment to try and do, against competent players. Multihooking actively handicaps the killer.
If you take a killer and put them against survivors of equal skill, that killer is losing trying to multihook 8/10 times. Because it's objectively bad. Leaving 4 survivors alive for an extended period of time, is bad.
I repeat, leaving 4 survivors alive, is BAD.
Because as I've said, for the 50th time… the game is severely survivor sided in the 4v1, but severely killer sided in the 3v1.
Already covered how it's viable for the average killer.
I feel like we may have different definitions of multi-hooking, so let me ask, how would you define multi-hooking?
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941608#Comment_3941608
I'm speaking from my own experience. Nothing changed to make it not viable, correct. But it was never viable in the first place. Multihooking has always been a detriment.
I've had games where I get downs decently quick, those gens still get blasted through. Because again… the game is severely survivor sided in the 4v1. Which is what I mean by luck based. I either get bad survivors, and multihooking is viable. Or I get good survivors, and multihooking is just a free loss.
If multihooking isn't viable across the board against a multitude of skill levels, than I cannot in my right mind consider it viable overall.
I don't have a lot of time to write out a lengthy response right now, but multihooking doesn't need to be viable across all skill levels. It only needs to be viable for the lower and average skill levels, as that's the audience bhvr caters to and aims their changes at.
Dead by Daylight is balanced from the bottom-up, not the top-down.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941609#Comment_3941609
Then surely the idea would be met with open arms. Why not incorporate that instead of the instant nope out we have now?
I'm not against the idea. It makes no difference to me. I just think that it's not humiliating to accept that you've lost and push the survivors out.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941245#Comment_3941245
If slugged survivors had a chance to actively humiliate themselves to bleed out faster, would you take it? Say it was something pointless and having absolutely zero impact on your objective, like drawing a heart with your blood trail? Would most survivors take it? What if they could also play with pogs while they're laying there to get some token BP, we'll say… breaking 4 pallets worth?
Honestly the pog idea would probably be more fun than actually doing gens, so maybe not :)
It's only humiliating if you're so insecure you can't handle the idea of losing a match.
-
@terumisan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941579#Comment_3941579
multihooking isn't viable since all the second chance perks especially ds if you aren't paying attention who to you hooked at what time and get hit with ds it can lead to a killer losing
this is what the slugging meta was about btw and the devs never addressed it they just got rid of knock out entirely and gave the abandon feature and in future they're getting rid of it probably with basekit unbreakable
Multi-hooking is viable. Nothing has changed to make it not viable. Second chance perks only, under normal circumstances, come into play if you're tunneling.
Someone who has OTR or DS cannot do anything to progress the objective or assist their team in any way without losing the benefits of the second chance perks. We are long past the days of old DS where survivors could work on gens with DS active.
I can see how you might think multi-hooking isn't viable if you watch big name content creators with thousands of hours, but they don't represent the average player who likely has somewhere between 200 and 1000 hours. For the average player, multi-hooking is perfectly viable. Almost every match is winnable and largely depends on your own skill.
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941579#Comment_3941579
Okay.
Multi-hooking is not already viable.
It relies on a luck system where if you can get bad survivors, you can do it. If they are competent, you can't. Because it relies on being able down people in relatively quick time or else it's immediately cooked. Again, the game is severely survivor sided whilst in the 4v1. It becomes severely killer sided, in the 3v1. Until that problem is solved, nothing will change.
Edit: And again with the spam downvotes only proves my point that survivor players seemingly don't want the betterment of the game, they only want the betterment of their own side.
Foolish.
If it relies on a luck system, that would make it a matchmaking problem. Multi-hooking is already viable for the average killer, because the average survivor makes a lot of mistakes. They're less sure of themselves in chase, which makes them easier to mindgame and zone which results in shorter chases.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941309#Comment_3941309
No it really doesn't. Multihooking is an objectively bad thing to do. There's no positives to it because any remotely competent team of survivors can easily take advantage of the fact that you're letting 4 of them live at the same time. Unless you're ending chases in 15 seconds flat, it's pointless.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941320#Comment_3941320
???
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941329#Comment_3941329
Yes. And once multihooking is actually remotely viable to do, you can make all the anti-tunneling, anti-camping, anti-whatever changes you want and it won't just actively ruin the killer experience. Because the playstyle you WANT killers to do, won't be complete garbage.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941337#Comment_3941337
No one's backtracking. I made it very clear what the exceptions were, I told you verbatim that it wouldn't buff tunneling and you ignored that and kept repeating yourself.
You are the problem here. You don't read to understand, you read to argue. I can't help you.
Okay.
Multi-hooking is already viable. If anything, it's gotten easier over the years with all the aura reading perks in the game now. It looks bad when compared to tunneling, because tunneling someone out of the game is so much easier and more effective.
Multi-hooking has always been viable, and buffing that before implementing anti-tunneling would be putting the cart before the horse.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941264#Comment_3941264
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941266#Comment_3941266
Ok. Again, this is why I say you are not reading and you are just arguing to argue.
I JUST said… if you make multihooking better you can then do all the anti-whatever patches you want. Meaning, you can do that anti-tunneling stuff and make tunneling worse, but at least make multihooking an actual viable strategy first.
Please, just read. That's all I ask. You are arguing against something that I am not saying. Holy christ man.
Let me get this straight, what you are arguing is that multi-hooking isn't viable right now and could use some buffs. Does that sum up what you're saying?
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941260#Comment_3941260
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941261#Comment_3941261
The carrot does work. Once you give multihooking an actual purpose and benefit to doing it? You can do all the anti-whatever patches you want. Doing anti-whatever patches when you still haven't given an actual benefit to multihooking in LITERAL years outside of like… 2 perks in the whole game, just butchers more viable playstyles while leaving the playstyle you WANT people to do, as complete garbage.
It's plain and simple. Multihooking sucks. Not improving that, but still doing anti-whatever patches just worsens the killer experience and benefits survivors when you could just… benefit both sides???
The carrot doesn't work.
Again, I point out that any benefit to multi-hooking would have to be extreme to have any noticable impact on tunneling.
Why is tunneling strong? Because it permanently reduces survivor efficiency by 25% for the remainder of the trial. Any benefit to multi-hooking would need to be on par with that, at the minimum.
-
@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, is not viable. It just isn't, you are actively performing a playstyle that is a detriment to you. That is simply the truth.
The benefit to multihooking would have to massively outweigh the benefit of tunneling in order to have any impact at all.
The benefit of tunneling is the possibility of eliminating one survivor early, thereby reducing the survivors effiency by 25% permanently. The benefit to multihooking would have to be on par with, or better than, tunneling.
The carrot doesn't work.
-
Even with going next being fairly common, out of thousands of matches and players, going next would likely only make up around 3% of total kill rates. You would need at least one survivor going next in every single match to have a noticable impact on kill rates.
From a personal standpoint, I haven't had someone go next in months.
-
Grades aren't used for matchmaking, like ranks were. The only purpose Grades serve is as a monthly BP bonus. An individual's skill level isn't tied to their grade, like it was with ranks, so depipping and deranking served no real purpose and were really just holdovers from a system that was no longer being used.
-
@Marzipan210 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939984#Comment_3939984
The only times gens pop because the killer got outplayed is when the killer makes the mistake of chasing a survivor for too long. But even when that doesn't happen gens still pop too fast. They take no skill to do on the survivor end.
Bit odd to be complaining that generators don't require skill. That'd be like complaining that the act of hooking a survivor takes no skill. These aren't supposed to be skillful interactions.
-
No. Killers are never forced to watch survivors tbag at the gates. The killer maintains agency right up until the survivors leave. A slugged survivor cannot hook themselves, nor can they bleed out faster. They're entirely reliant upon the killer choosing to hook them. Hence the Abandon option existing for them.
You have options as killer. Not liking those options is another matter entirely.
-
@thrive2survive said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940404#Comment_3940404
So pretty much what happened with Tomb Raider and DND? May as well get 1 of the most popular franchises ever conceived in here. I see no down side to it. I think it's crazy that Disney was interested in it. We may see something Star Wars related happen a lot sooner than people think.
Tomb Raider works because of Lara Croft. She embodies the meaning of the word Survivor. DnD works because it can be horror-themed. Star Wars, on the other hand, is as far from horror as you get.
I don't think Star Wars is a good fit for Dead by Daylight. This game has always strived to maintain elements of horror and acquire horror, or horror-adjacent, licenses. Pop-culture isn't really Dead by Daylight's thing.
-
Honestly? No. Vader is neither horror nor horror-adjacent. He could work as a skin, but definitely not as a character.
-
There really was no need to change the stun duration. DS was largely a perk, after the conspicuous actions nerf, that really only came into play if you tunneled.
That's not to say it never came into play if you didn't tunnel, but in those cases it's very clear that the survivor wasn't contributing to the objective which effectively made it easier for the killer.
-
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3937408#Comment_3937408
Because if enough people say SOMETHING, maybe something will get done.By your logic we shouldn't complain about tunnelling and slugging either because "you're powerless to stop it and the only thing you can control is your reaction to it." But the difference is, THAT issue is now so problematic and so hated the Devs are doing something about it when playing Survivor.
But when playing Killer? Zero zilch nada nothing for similarly frustrating issues that feel equally as bad. That's it that's the whole problem. And THAT is why people complain, because it feels like the devs do not care about your experience when you play Killer, only when you play Survivor.
See, it's really simple to say "but just stop caring!" The problem is… you still care. Even if you try to brush off the annoyance, on some level, you do still care. Why? Because your game was ruined and you didn't have fun. The human brain is hardwired to remember negative experiences better than positive ones, this is neurological fact. So of course, the sting of being defeated and then having it rubbed in your face is more vivid than the excited feeling of a win. You may say you're blowing it off. You might be mature enough to know it doesn't matter and you should move on to the next round.
But on some level, you do in fact care because it hurts to be treated like that… and after dealing with it a lot, or many times in a row, or just constantly seeing it from one side of this game you enjoy but not the other, seeing less of it when you play one side but not the other? It builds up, gets even more frustrating, and causes you to burn out and just not want to play the game anymore.
And that's the issue. Survivors have an anti burnout feature and the Devs keep working to add more anti grief and anti burnout. But there's utterly no consideration for the Killer side of this experience for people playing both sides, and when people ask about it for Killer side? They get told unhelpful and unsympathetic things lie "ignore them and just push them out." But you shouldn't have to force bullies to stop bullying, and you shouldn't need to go sit in a corner and ignore people trying to make you have a bad time, because those actions simply should not be possible.
I shouldn't need to explain the difference between people wasting your time, and tunneling. You can't really equate the two. One is inherently toxic and being done deliberately to get under a person's skin, and the other is, in a nutshell, rushing your objective.
When killers would 4-man slug and bleed all the survivors out while humpteching them, where was the sympathy then? Non-existent. Survivors were constantly told that if they got 4-man slugged then it was their own fault for playing badly. It's not just killers who get a lack of sympathy.
Bad manners isn't a bannable offense. Before the endgame collapse, survivors would waste the killer's time. They'd gloat. They'd do their victory laps. Tbag at the exit. Repeatedly fast vault. Fast enter/exit lockers. If you didn't force them out, you basically just waited until they got bored. Then they'd taunt you in the chat.
Endgame collapse was added specifically to deal with that problem. I've played both sides. I've played dbd for years. I've repeatedly been on the receiving end of toxic behaviour. I've been bodyblocked into a corner by a teammate. I've been held hostage by a killer. I've been abused in private messages on console. I've been slugged and bled out at 5 gens. I've been taunted at the exit gates by survivors. I've been taunted by survivors after every pallet drop. I once had survivors waste an entire 10 minutes with the gates open just doing their victory laps.
I know all too well how it feels, but there's not really anything that can be done. It's not against the rules. The only possible solutions I can think of are shortening the endgame collapse timer, and making end game chat opt-in rather than opt-out. Neither of these solve the problem, but then it's not exactly like bhvr can just flip a switch and eradicate toxicity.
-
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3936231#Comment_3936231
The problem is, when Killers do this to Survivors, there are mechanics in place for them not to have to take it. There's nothing like that for when Survivors do it to Killers.
Survivors leave the round early when they die. Killers play the whole round, if they lose they are stuck with that loss. Now that's fine and all, but it becomes frustrating when the result of losing, which already doesn't feel good, is served up with an extra heaping helping of people being sore winners about winning, and especially if it's all four. It's not common to see Survivors or Killers do this sort of thing, but it does happen, and when it happens it feels really bad to be on the other end of. Nuisance Squads are a flavor of this. Teabagging at the gates is a flavor of this. Being humpteched on the floor by a Killer or bled out is a flavor of this. Facecamping was a flavor of this.
I don't care what side you play or how much agency your side may or may not have. Being "GGEZ'd" or humiliated with "neener neener you can't touch me"/"neener neener let me rub in your face how much you lost" does not feel good and is always unsportsmanlike bad griefing behavior. End of.I'm not condoning the behaviour, but what are you accomplishing by getting mad about it? It's a waste of time and energy. Sure, it sucks. Sure, it feels bad. Ultimately, though, you're powerless to stop it. The only thing you can really control is how you react to it.
-
That's probably hackers.
-
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3936594#Comment_3936594
I see a wide variety of Killers, friend. I'm sorry you've boosted your MMR to a level you do not, or that you're so good you only ever see the best of the best. 95% of players, the rest of us really, do not have this issue. At all.
Why is your only measure of what a win is a 3-4k or escaping through a gate?
Edit: The downvotes here just prove how lost and out of touch the community is with the reality of this game - the reality is, wins do not matter and never did. How terribly sad…
It's largely what's wrong with the community. People care too much about winning. Everyone wants to win, but for some it simply isn't the be-all end-all like it is for others.
-
@TimberGoingDown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3934622#Comment_3934622
The problem is, survivors go out of their way to make every loss and every escape as miserable as possible. Losing as a killer involves either waiting for two minutes while survivors spam loud noises or the age-old humiliation ritual of marching all the way across the map to witness their tbags while they make you down each and every one of them all while getting bagged and emoted on. And that's not just some matches, it's not just the majority of matches. It's almost every match that a survivor escapes.
But the ritual isn't even over then. Afterwards, you get to see the "GG EZ BABY KILLER" in EGC, too. To really rub salt into the wound. I'd rather get salt from survivors that think I played "unfairly" than get mocked repeatedly, even on games that I win or draw. Because even if I get an 11 hook 3k at 3 gens, the survivor that got hatch will STILL throw out a "GG EZ" in the EGC like they didn't just get the pity escape.
They're doing it to trigger you. The best way to deal with this is to not care. They won? Push them out. They're talking smack in chat? Move on. The only reason they still do this is because it gets a rise out of people.
-
You want to know why people are running it? The repair speed bonus. Unless you're new or your "team" has seriously misplayed, a 3-gen is almost never going to happen.
-
Having read a lot of the responses here, I'm not sure the message is getting through.
Short term - Tunneling is going to get you wins with little effort.
Long term - You're going to eventually face opponents who are better able to deal with tunneling.
That's about the gist of it, right?
-
@Blueberry said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3930420#Comment_3930420
Even though someone "could" say that, is that what he said? You know that's not what he's referring too.
Pay attention to this paragraph right here.
Killers enact these strategies almost never out of toxicity or spite, but rather because the situation of the game they're in requires it in order for them to have a chance at winning.
It is exactly what they're referring to. The situation of the game requiring tunneling can be as simple as gens go too fast.
-
@Blueberry said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3930366#Comment_3930366
You know that's not what he said, at all.
And yet someone who plays a top-tier killer could say something like gens go too fast, so they need to tunnel to win. Is that not "the situation of the game requiring them to tunnel in order to win"?
-
So, when the killer tunnels at 5 gens as a top-tier killer they're doing it out of necessity? I find that hard to believe.
-
@HeroLives said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3887480#Comment_3887480
Couldn't tell you what they meant. Couldn't even tell you how it works. I just know that i've tried turning it off twice just to see what it was like and both times were horrendous que times, and turned it back on expeditiously.
Put simply, PlayStation players who have crossplay turned off can only match with other PlayStation Players who also have crossplay turned off.
I once waited 3 hours in queue to see if I could get a match. I got one other survivor, and that was it.
-
@HeroLives said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3880995#Comment_3880995
yeah you can turn off crossplay.
Yes and no. Don't get me wrong, I don't think OP is right, but turning off crossplay doesn't just make it so you can only play with people on the same platform. For some reason, you can only match with people on the same platform who also have crossplay turned off.
-
@HolyDarky said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3886138#Comment_3886138
No. Map offerings will be no longer stackable. So dropping four Eyries won't increase the chance to 80% - it will stay at 20%.
I am personally happy about the chance but I also rather prefer your suggestion.
Oh, I missed the part where it said they won't stack.
In that case, they may as well have just retired map offerings.
-
Moving forward, Map Offerings will no longer guarantee the appearance of a given Map, but rather increase its chances by 20%. Note that they will not stack. We’re also looking to make it so Map Offerings, as well as several other types of Offerings, will remain a secret during load-in – that way, your decision to remain in the match will not be swayed by external factors.
I feel like this is the wrong approach to map offerings. A 4-man gets an 80% chance of getting the map they want with this, while the killer only gets a 20% chance. The simpler solution that is fair for both sides is to flip the current effect. Instead of sending you to a specific realm, it removes that realm from the pool.
Basically just map bans.
-
@JumpscareMyers said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3850062#Comment_3850062
You can't be tombstoned via Gen grabs? what you must've experienced was an unfortunate latency issue, he cannot kill you on a gen unless you get off of it or you get interrupted somehow.
Might've been a glitch. This happened a very long time ago tbf.
-
Literally any interactable be it a locker, a generator, a chest, self healing can keep you from being tombstoned by Michael
I have been tombstoned on a gen grab before. I think the only thing that prevents it are locker grabs.
-
@ChuckingWong said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3849902#Comment_3849902
Yea its not even high MMR though either.
Load up any streamer of your choice that plays more than several people in here combined and when they play they lose a majority of their matches on survivor.
It really is only coordinated SWF that you see consistent talking points for "survivor sided"
Most SWFs are just friends dorking around with one another as well. So its such a small portion of the player base that even is coordinated in a group.
People over exaggerate their matches to try to justify why they lose, just the reality of things for whatever reason. Been proven time and time again when we get to see what actually happens in real gameplay.If Dead by Daylight had a replay function like Overwatch does, people would be able to put their replay codes up for guidance on what they did wrong. Maybe then we'd see less over exaggerating of people's matches.
-
This isn't really a P100 problem so much as it is a problem with item economy. I don't think the point of your thread should be what amounts to witch hunting P100's.
-
I'm just going to address the slugging for the 4k part.
To nobody's surprise, being slugged isn't fun. The last survivor isn't just going to give themselves up as a free kill. So while the killer and the fourth survivor play hide and seek, the person slugged is just sitting there on the ground bored out of their mind. As killer, you have a much higher chance of finding hatch than the survivor does. The survivor has to find hatch while avoiding the killer.
The only reason to slug for the 4k is to guarantee that you get your 4k.
-
@Haddix said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3802693#Comment_3802693
It wasn't a screenshot, it was a back-and-forth that I was there for.
OP is (respectfully) stupid in bringing legality into it obviously, we agree on this and that's why I do not understand why you keep bringing up entitlement or obligation to me. Obviously there is no entitlement or obligation on BHVR's behalf, I said this in my first comment and it has nothing to do with my statement. I don't think you're understanding that you and I agree on 95% of this issue. My statement boils down to "Let people ask for compensation even if the chances of getting it are 1%, because what do they have to lose?" I think it's silly personally, I don't think it'll happen, but I'm not gonna shame anybody for it given the context. It IS common practice in online games for developers to throw bones at unhappy players, so why blame people for asking for one?! lol
If there's no screenshot, then your proof is anecdotal and I'm not willing to take it on faith that bhvr would outright admit to intentionally killing a character to ensure nobody plays them.
We agree on the legality. We disagree on the notion of letting people ask for compensation. It creates misunderstandings, and can set a dangerous precedent if bhvr capitulates.
-
@I_Cant_Loop said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3803643#Comment_3803643
Some people are going to perceive it that way. If someone perceives reducing a major advantage as "punishment", I can't do anything about the way they perceive that. But by perceiving it that way, you're only looking at it from your point of view. Whatever side you're on, you're being intentionally dishonest if you claim that coordinating on comms, especially on a 4-man team, is not a significant advantage. Debuffs are one potential way to help offset that significant advantage.
It's not being dishonest at all. It isn't incredibly advantageous. If it was, giving comms to a group of four new players would instantly turn them into the SWF death squad from hell. That doesn't happen though.
Coordinating on comms is only advantageous under very specific conditions. Very poor coordination, which you see in your average SWF, is equivalent to playing against Solos. They can communicate basic information like who the killer is, what perks and add-ons they are/might be running, and a rough idea of where they are on the map. They can't, however, tell you precisely where they are, which pallets have been used, which direction they're going in, where they're going to go down, etc.
The vast majority of SWFs have coordination akin to lemmings. They don't go in to every match with a particular game plan, synergistic builds, optimized playstyles, knowledge of every possible tile spawn and how to run each loop for maximum efficiency, etc. etc. They go in looking to have a good time bantering with friends.
Debuffs are not offsetting any advantage. It's punishing people for playing with their friends. It's dishonest to claim otherwise.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
I am totally with you and dont care what the contract says. I have bought all Killers and several of them were nerfed, some even just a few weeks after they came out. This has to stop, it is not friendly towards the gamers buying the DLCs.
Changes are part and parcel of live-service games. If you don't like it, you can always opt not to play. The only thing you're buying with the DLCs is a license to use the character models. BHVR makes zero assurances in regards to the overall strength of the characters, or their perks.
-
@GeneralV said:
Yes, it is impossible.
I've always thought of SWF as an unsolvable problem. Players are doing nothing wrong, they are just playing with their friends, but DBD will always remain a hide and seek survival horror game. The game is built around a certain lack of information, which is the very reason why we have perks that give the player select amounts of information, such as Alert and Bond. Also the reason why the old Object of Obsession had a risky downside to it.
Using comms gives a huge advantage where it shouldn't, but I don't think anything can be done about it.
DBD started out as a hide and seek type game, but over the years that "lack of information" design philosophy has slowly and gradually been removed. It's far more chase-oriented now.
Comms doesn't confer nearly as much of an advantage as players are led to believe. A lot of it comes down to how coordinated the players are. A group of four new players using comms isn't going to automatically make them the SWF death squad from hell. Experience and coordination are what makes voice chat strong, rather than voice chat itself.
-
@Green_Sliche said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3803671#Comment_3803671
Once you start getting SWF above average, which will also likely use VO coms ( I'm not talking about high skilled SWFs and beyond, those will very likely boost their chances even further with VO ) you will notice the significant difference in the behavior and playstyle of survivors.
The average SWF you describe is pretty much on-par with SoloQ as those indeed don't share info that much mid game and could be goofing around or talking about something else. It's MM job to find you opponents who are close to your skill and the higher it is, the more impact shall VO communication have if it is being used by people on survivor side.
That only further emphasizes my point that it is, in fact, a coordination issue. Not exactly something you can do anything about. Players who focus on coordination are often worse in other areas.
-
@Green_Sliche said:
The problem with SWF is voice coms. Everyone knows that.
When one survivor can tell the other one who is on the other side of the map that killer is coming and the remaining ones know where killer is, the gens get repaired uncontested because it's physically impossible to be everywhere at the same time for many killers out of the selection pool.
At this rate, voice coms should be addressed somehow as they give an unfair advantage. It's the same if killer suddenly got a global wallhack or LP perk that last forever.
The issue you're describing is not an automatic benefit conferred by voice comms. You're talking about coordinating. This isn't something that happens with your average SWF.
Your average SWF uses basic callouts with information like who the killer is and what perks they are or might be running, but they can't really communicate where the killer is specifically without a callout system that has been discussed prior to the match. They can use landmarks like Shack and Main, but they couldn't tell you which jungle gym on which side of the map the killer is being looped at.
-
@I_Cant_Loop said:
Yes, there are plenty of ways to nerf SWF. But if you even dare suggest this, people will claim that you are "punishing people for playing with their friends".
Removing an unfair advantage is not "punishment".
It is punishing people for playing with their friends though. Is slapping them with debuffs not punishing them for playing with their friends?
-
@UndeddJester said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3802738#Comment_3802738
The only issue with that is survivors get 4 maps they can block to the killers 1, which seems a little unfair... Survivors can block Midwich, Haddonfield, Toba Landing and Hawkins all at once, while the killer can only block one of Badham, Garden of Joy or Eyrie... seems there is not much point, might as well just take a blood point offering.
The current system is slightly survivor stacked by virtue of the fact survivors can take multiple different offerings to ensure they have a better chance to get a map they like... but that assumes the killer is taking their own offering, and it's harder to plan around exploits that way...
Maybe if you give the killer 2 offering slots instead of 1, that might work...
Alternatively, although it might be a little extreme... having map offerings come with some kind of associated penalty might be interesting...
Like say a 25% bloodpoint and devotion level (iri shard progress) penalty for the player who took the map offering (and their SWF for survivors), while the other side gets 25% on both the other way.
For survivors, have it so it only applies to people who were teamed in the pre-game lobby, so as not to affect SoloQ. This then makes it so playing a nasty strategy is doable, but discouraged, but also incentivises players to take up the challenge of them for the rewards, or at the very least softens the blow.
Taking a map offering is something you'd likely only do for achievements in this case, and remove a lot of stigma around it.
It seems more fair, you get the advantage of being able to plan your build around the realm you chose, thus making the game easier for you, and in turn you get a penalty to account progress as a result.
I don't disagree that it'd be a little unfair if survivors blocked 4 realms in comparison to the killer's 1. I don't see a problem with giving killer more offering slots.
-
I think it would be better if map offerings were changed so that they work opposite to how they currently do.
So, for example, if you're sick to death of getting the same realm repeatedly, you put up a map offering to avoid that realm specifically.
This could be used by killers, too, to avoid survivor-sided realms like Badham Preschool. Survivors could use it to avoid Haddonfield. I think we have enough realms now that it wouldn't really present a problem if five players all put up five different map offerings.
-
@Haddix said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3801723#Comment_3801723
First of all, it is not a made-up narrative, I witnessed them confirm it live.
Secondly, I said multiple times in my post that BHVR is not obligated or compelled legally or by any other standard to provide compensation or explanation. The entire point of my post, which could not have been clearer, is that requesting compensation is something people are entitled to do in the case that BHVR intends to pad out the backlash, which BHVR does not HAVE to do, but may WANT to do. BHVR can decline this request and everybody has to move on. End of story. The point is there's no downside for requesting compensation anyway given the intention of the change. I'm not requesting it, but I'm not shaming them for it either.
I have no earthly idea why you still chose to give me a bloated reply about how BHVR isn't obligated to do XYZ, that BHVR doesn't make ABC assurances, and that you only license 123, when my first statement was literally "I obviously disagree with the notion this is illegal or genuinely punishable" and my last statement was "Nothing legally compels BHVR or any seller to do this."
It is a made-up narrative. They confirmed the changes are intended. The community took that for a ride and said, "See?! They're killing SM so no-one wants to play her!" People have posted the screenshot, and nowhere does it confirm that Mandy directly said that the changes are intended to kill SM, so that no-one plays her.
You have no earthly idea why I gave you a bloated reply? Let's see, how about the part where you said that the request for a refund has some validity? There is no validity to the request, because BHVR makes zero assurances in regards to the strength of a character's kit. Something that was somehow lost on you, evidently.
There is no validity to the request. In the event that SM was removed from the game, people would be entitled to a refund. Being changed, however, is part and parcel of a live-service game.
-
@Yatol said:
- the game is SWF sided.
- A lot of killers have cheesed their way into stronger opponents.
- The Meta punishes survivors for doing anything else besides gens, so its "genrushing" all the time
- MMR is not doing its job properly
- The game is in a very snowball state, so if killer can't get one kill, they are at a disadvantaged state
- Players who think they are more skilled than they are (TBF its symptom of online games in general)
The escape rate statistics show the game is only SWF sided at high MMR.
-
If four average survivors are in a group together, do you think it's at all fair that their combined average would place them against the likes of Otz, Tru3, etc. Who all have thousands of hours?
If your answer to that is no, then that's your answer as to why they can't make a system like the one you're describing.
-
@Haddix said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3800420#Comment_3800420
I obviously disagree with the notion this is illegal or genuinely punishable, but their request has at least a little validity if it's "I would like an auric cell refund as the changes made to the character are intended make them entirely ineffective so players do not play her," which is obviously different from "I would like an auric cell refund because my character's power was nerfed a little bit". The latter is an attempt to balance a character, the former is a deliberate attempt to ruin the balance of a character, so it's going to get waaay more pushback. If people buy something and it's intentionally ruined so its not appealing to use ever, then the consumer will likely request compensation in some form. Nothing legally compels BHVR or any seller to do this, it's just appealing to their morality and people are honestly valid for doing so lol, cause why not?
BHVR has been pretty transparent about why they're nerfing SM. The whole "They're doing it so nobody plays SM" thing is people making up a narrative that suits what they believe, not what's actually happening.
As a reminder, they don't need to share their reasoning with us. They can change anything at any time for any reason and are under no obligation to be transparent with the community about why they're doing it.
Currently, survivors are either outright disconnecting or just giving up against SM. She isn't fun to play against, and it's not a matter of her being boring despite that being the opposite of fun. It's that she's frustrating to play against. The nerfs are to alleviate that frustration until her eventual rework.
When you buy a character, you are paying for a revocable license to use that character. You are paying for the character model itself. BHVR makes zero assurances in regards to the strength of their kit. The only assurance they make is that the character is playable.