KayTwoAyy
KayTwoAyy
About
- Username
- KayTwoAyy
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/377518/the-community-ruined-this-game
You should always expect people to play to win. There's a free e-book written by game designer David Sirlin that talks about "playing to win" and i think this describes you perfectly:
https://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub
The derogatory term “scrub” means several different things. One definition is someone (especially a game player) who is not good at something (especially a game). By this definition, we all start out as scrubs, and there is certainly no shame in that. I mean the term differently, though. A scrub is a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about. A scrub does not play to win.
Now, everyone begins as a poor player—it takes time to learn a game to get to a point where you know what you’re doing. There is the mistaken notion, though, that by merely continuing to play or “learn” the game, one can become a top player. In reality, the “scrub” has many more mental obstacles to overcome than anything actually going on during the game. The scrub has lost the game even before it starts. He’s lost the game even before deciding which game to play. His problem? He does not play to win.
The scrub would take great issue with this statement for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevents him from ever truly competing. These made-up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant. Let’s take a fighting game off of which I’ve made my gaming career: Street Fighter.
In Street Fighter, the scrub labels a wide variety of tactics and situations “cheap.” This “cheapness” is truly the mantra of the scrub. Performing a throw on someone is often called cheap. A throw is a special kind of move that grabs an opponent and damages him, even when the opponent is defending against all other kinds of attacks. The entire purpose of the throw is to be able to damage an opponent who sits and blocks and doesn’t attack. As far as the game is concerned, throwing is an integral part of the design—it’s meant to be there—yet the scrub has constructed his own set of principles in his mind that state he should be totally impervious to all attacks while blocking. The scrub thinks of blocking as a kind of magic shield that will protect him indefinitely. Why? Exploring the reasoning is futile since the notion is ridiculous from the start.
You will not see a classic scrub throw his opponent five times in a row. But why not? What if doing so is strategically the sequence of moves that optimizes his chances of winning? Here we’ve encountered our first clash: the scrub is only willing to play to win within his own made-up mental set of rules. These rules can be staggeringly arbitrary. If you beat a scrub by throwing projectile attacks at him, keeping your distance and preventing him from getting near you—that’s cheap. If you throw him repeatedly, that’s cheap, too. We’ve covered that one. If you block for fifty seconds doing no moves, that’s cheap. Nearly anything you do that ends up making you win is a prime candidate for being called cheap. Street Fighter was just one example; I could have picked any competitive game at all.
Doing one move or sequence over and over and over is a tactic close to my heart that often elicits the call of the scrub. This goes right to the heart of the matter: why can the scrub not defeat something so obvious and telegraphed as a single move done over and over? Is he such a poor player that he can’t counter that move? And if the move is, for whatever reason, extremely difficult to counter, then wouldn’t I be a fool for not using that move? The first step in becoming a top player is the realization that playing to win means doing whatever most increases your chances of winning. That is true by definition of playing to win. The game knows no rules of “honor” or of “cheapness.” The game only knows winning and losing.
A common call of the scrub is to cry that the kind of play in which one tries to win at all costs is “boring” or “not fun.” Who knows what objective the scrub has, but we know his objective is not truly to win. Yours is. Your objective is good and right and true, and let no one tell you otherwise. You have the power to dispatch those who would tell you otherwise, anyway. Simply beat them.
The good news, is this is a live game. But the problem isn't the players. The problem is that, for both sides actually, the most effective way to play the game and win, is also the most boring for the other side. It is a fundamental problem with the design of the game itself. If you want to be mad at anyone, be mad at the devs for not fixing this years-long problem that has existed since nearly the inception of the game.
Top comment.
I believe OP's concerns are exacerbated by an inadequate matchmaking system and/or uneven skill ceilings between Killer and Survivor. Rather than plateauing in an MMR that is saturated with other scrubs, OP is (frequently/semi-frequently) encountering players who want to win at all costs.
I don't think some people realize just how much a competent MMR system contributes to player satisfaction.
It almost sounds like OP didn't even know there existed such a person who would play to win as a means to have fun. That notion blows my mind--anyone who has played any sport/game ever will have encountered a person who is better than everyone else and enjoys being better than everyone else.
-
It doesn't help that there still exists a vocal minority on the forums peddling the unproven philosophy that providing incentives to not camp & tunnel will solve all our problems.
BHVR seems to feel that enough people will be up in arms if they outright invalidate camping/tunneling, it would hurt their bottom line.
-
@omelette said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3440194#Comment_3440194
They're using big words to sound smart and to impress strangers. It's been years and cheaters are still not dealt with and it gets worse as time goes on. There was a cheater in one of my matches today and he was flying through every thing.]
I laughed when they said there was no DDoS and asked us to check our internet connection. They received major backlash from that fiasco.
I'm treating this game as a cosmetics clothing store because they put more focus on the store tab than anything else. This might sound crazy but I have a feeling these devs are selling the cheats online.
tbf, most games I see using Easy Anti-Cheat have a significant cheater problem.
I'm not very knowledgeable about what EAC does, but I don't think it is a BHVR-specific problem. I also don't know if it is really worth BHVR investing a ton of time and resources into the matter, as AI anti-cheat seems to be just around the corner.
It's not particularly cost effective for studios to be doing their own anti-cheat, when they can pay a third-party company that is devoting all of their resources towards leading the industry in anti-cheat. ...unfortunately for us gamers, that third-party company is currently doing a piss poor job of staying ahead of the problem.
I'm not the most knowledgeable about all this, but I'm guessing BHVR is quietly waiting out the storm while they follow industry news on how AI will solve online gaming as a whole.
-
Really sorry to hear this is happening to you. It sounds like a serious issue. Hopefully it is addressed.
-
Feel like I'm the lone wolf out here enjoying all the new maps and map reworks..
They're far from what I want to see in a DBD map, but they've been par for the course with respect to what we already have. Not every map should play the same way, and not every Killer should shine on every map.
Borgo is the only new map to date where I can empathize with the community's complaints, because it's just so damn painful to look at.
-
I don't think the killers are hungry, which is why they need to be force-fed.
-
@DBDVulture said:
-"Was this a cheater, a bug, or are survivor items just allowed to be that stupid broken??"
When you are stunned at a pallet you can't look away fast enough if the survivor decides to blind you. It's really that simple.
With Enduring you can. At least, I've never been blinded at a pallet while using Enduring.
If a survivor can reliably blind a Killer with Enduring, after dropping a pallet, this is the first I'm hearing about it.
-
Well you said random, so I ran a random perk generator...
Up the Ante, Corrective Action, Ace in the Hole, Poised
Up the Ante
You start the trial with 0 Token(s) and gain a Token each time you or another survivor are hooked. Each Token applies an 8/9/10% bonus to the Luck of all Survivors, up to a maximum of 80%. The next time a Survivor unhooks themself, all of your Tokens are consumed.
This would not be stackable, so multiple survivors running Up the Ante would be redundant.
Corrective Action
Each time another Survivor cooperating with you fails a Skill Check, Corrective Action activates, transforming their Failed Skill Check into a Good Skill Check instead.
I don't understand why this perk is Token based. I don't think this change makes the perk meta, but it could go a long way for introducing new players to DBD.
Ace in the Hole
In addition to its existing effects...
When retrieving an Item from a Chest, the Entity asks for your request. Once per trial, you may choose which item type to receive from a Chest.
Poised
When starting to run from a generator, you will not leave an Scratch Marks for the next 3 seconds. Poised has a cool-down of 60/50/40 seconds.
-
Looking to clarify here...
You're asking how others would take an existing perk and change it to be stronger?
By OP, do you mean meta/popular, but not necessarily broken?
-
@ProfessorDunwich said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3433853#Comment_3433853
Minimizing and condescending.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3434077#Comment_3434077
You are trying to spin 16m into “face camping.” Unreal.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3433884#Comment_3433884
Boom, gottem’.
You care to explain to me the difference between 4m and 16m, with respect to camping? I would love to hear how those 12m change the conversation in any meaningful way.
Survivors can't teleport in front of the hook. They need to run up to it, and a killer 16m away will always beat the survivor back to the hook from that distance. The killer might as well have been "face camping." I don't see how anyone could argue that "face camping," as you want to define it, is a seperate issue than "proxy camping," as you seem to believe 16m to be.
Both are camping. Both are problematic for game health. And both need to be surgically removed from the game if DBD wishes to stay relevant for another 7 years.
As I said earlier, this isn't a semantic argument. If you wan't to make it one, you don't belong in the conversation.
-
@Krazzik said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3434045#Comment_3434045
And I'm not saying this is the only thing they should do. Obviously there are issues in the game and they need to address those and make DbD as fun and enjoyable as it can be. However, they do also need to make it more annoying and punishable to give up and ruin the game for everyone else.
Even if they fixed the games' various glaring issues overnight and the game was in a much better state, you'd still have people who give up and spoil the fun for everyone else. I really don't understand why people are defending players like that.
Making DCing/suiciding more punishing -would- reduce the amount of quitters in the game. Obviously it wouldn't get rid of them completely, but it's a big issue and something needs to be done about it.
We all know how much DCing spikes whenever they turn the penalty off completely, after all.
Even if they fixed the games' various glaring issues overnight and the game was in a much better state, you'd still have people who give up and spoil the fun for everyone else.
I definitely agree with this. A large population of players need to walk away from the game right now, and come back in the future if/when the game is right for them.
I don't know if removing self unhook will inhibit rage quitters much, but this also isn't a hill I'm willing to die on. I don't think self unhook brings much to the game to begin with, and I don't believe the game is made any worse without it. 4%ing is exciting, and I know a lot of people would be sad to see it go--even if it is a rare occurence.
-
@Mushmallow said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3434053#Comment_3434053
Except you're wrong and devs said verbatim over and over that it's specifically for face-camping. 10-16m is not facecamping unless you are on drugs.
I think @1ettuce gave you all the rebuttle you need, honestly.
But personally, if you are camping at the 10-16m range, you are effectively face camping. That said, we don't really need to be a semantic samuel about this, because the issue isn't a matter of semantics. The issue is "how many meters away from hook do we want to discourage the killer from camping?" It appears the developers settled on 16m, and I would agree with them. A killer who is standing within 16m and watching the hook is not being very engaging--they are facilitating a behavior that should be discouraged for the health of the game.
If you're going to complain about "he said-she said," then you're not looking at the real issue.
-
People are acting like these photos are supposed to be some sort of smoking gun?
Please, any one of you, tell me what on earth you're possibly doing within those 16m that isn't camping? I'll wait.
The proposed changes are in place to discourage camping. If you're within 16m, you're definitely camping. I need whatever you are smoking, if you believe all of the gens you need to patrol and survivors you need to chase are within those 16m.
-
I'm typically one who wants to implement features that prevent players from ruining the experience for others, rather than creating incentives to play "more fun."
But this is a game health problem that needs a game health solution.
@Trollinmon is absolutely correct here. You can't bandaid fix this problem by preventing players from hook suiciding. Players who do not want to stay in a game will find other ways to abandon the trial--ways you cannot prevent with any future patch.
Removing self unhook does absolutely nothing to fix the problem.
-
Sooo... i'm not personally disappointed.
But also... I didn't see anything that makes me want to play DBD this year.
The sci-fi horror looks super cool, and I'm hyped that they are exploring that subgenre, but at the end of the day it's just a reskin of everything we already have. They aren't reinventing the wheel, and I've grown tired of the same old loop.
The value of each chapter now rides on the reputation that precedes licensed chapters.
Something I've really wanted for some time now are dynamic environments. Imagine, for example, that this upcoming chapter map begins on a spaceship that is spiraling towards an alien planet. Survivors have X minutes to complete X generators in order to repair the ship. If they don't, the whole ship crashes and the rest of the game plays out on the alien planet.
The spaceship and the planet would be two very different maps, that lean into two different playstyles/killer types.
-
Reassurance, Camaraderie, Kindred, and Adrenaline are currently the only worthwhile anti-tunneling perks in the game. Hope and Prove Thyself get honorable mentions.
As everyone else said, the perks designed to combat camping/tunneling are too easily countered, and buy far less time for your team than the perks mentioned above.
-
The live stream chat seemed to think it sounded like another skull-merchant playstyle.
Based on what we've been shown so far, it does look like a mix between skull-merchant and onryo. As long as the killer can place at least 3 cameras, survivors can expect all 3 to be set-up with prime view on a 3-gen--especially on dense maps with poor LOS.
It remains to be seen how survivors interact with the killer's power, and what the limitations are for placing these cameras.
My first reaction, without really knowing the power, is that this killer would be better suited for an objective system that forces survivors to traverse the map more frequently--e.g. instead of sitting on gens, survivors need to pick up broken parts and carry them from one part of the map to the next. There is the potential for this killer to play similar to Hag, where cameras are placed in areas the killer zones survivors towards. But given the nature of the game, I can't see many people putting these cameras in places that don't have LOS on at least one generator.
Therefore, I'm inclined to believe we are looking at another 3-gen king.
-
Game is not designed to be played with anything less than 5 players.
-
@Marc_go_solo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3429179#Comment_3429179
It's fine. I probably ought to be more specific in future.
There was something on DBDnews about the new chapter poster, but I didn't see it on Twitter last time I checked, so maybe that's a bit of a red herring?
That is unofficial news, right?
Hard to believe the date shown there is real given how soon it is.
-
@Marc_go_solo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3428828#Comment_3428828
Just to make my point a little clearer, when I said "build up" I meant it in reference to previous anniversaries there was a build up of sorts: teasers, images such as you refered to and so on.
If anything, perhaps the anniversary livestream could be even later than we think. Or maybe the silence is somehow a part of this one (albeit I'd question how would that even be a good idea!).
oh... I see what you were saying now. I misread--thought you were saying there is currently a build up, via the silence. You were acknowledging that there is historically a build-up after we receive the announcement.
I'm scratching my head how I misread you now, because you literally said "To just throw an announcement on the day would be rather poor advertising." LOL 🤦♂️
Well, even if you believed the silence was building hype and anticipation, I'm not really one to tell you wrong.
BHVR might believe the silence will work in their favor, once they actually reveal what it is they've been working on/have planned.
-
I find trash talking on console hilarious.
How people remain heated, after all the time and effort required to type out a message, is beyond me. I'm all for banter, but I cannot understand how people don't just delete the message before they send it. Surely the time it took them to say what they want to say was enough for them to cool down.
-
you should be able to make suggestions without ppl going "it's part of the game" as if that means it should be.
Amen.
It's rather comical seeing what this discussion devloved into, given the intention of your post.
-
@Marc_go_solo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3428586#Comment_3428586
Exactly. There's a build up, which leads me to think it would be next week at the earliest. To just throw an announcement on the day would be rather poor advertising.
idk if I'd call it build up.
Short notice about an anniversary livestream for a game as successful as DBD feels more like negligence.
They could be creating "build up" by teasing images the entire month of May, creating CTA's for fan-art, cosplays, etc., and post weekly reminders about the upcoming live stream.
The silence gives me the impression there is little planned for the livestream, and that it isn't something BHVR feels players should be getting excited for. Why should I tune into the anno stream if BHVR isn't doing everything they can to make sure I know when it is and what it will cover?
-
@GensByDaylight said:
It doesn't 90% of the time.
It'll only match prevent you from getting matched with extremely new players, it only sometimes matches you with players around your MMR.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
It might not work 100% of the time.
-
As anti-tunneling, perhaps the best implementation would be to have it only effect the most recently unhooked survivor.
If it is a significant enough debuff, Killers would feel it worthwhile to chase anyone but the recently unhooked AND the recently unhooked survivor might feel their time is better served acting as a "support" player than sitting on a gen.
This might mean the unhooked survivor tries to get tunneled, because it benefits the team, but it also might inform gameplay decisions about when to boon a totem, for example, because doing the main objective is marginal at that time.
-
Interesting concept.
I believe this effect is what Diversion aims to achieve. Perhaps Diversion could use some sort of buff to fill this niche.
-
My memory is a little hazy...
Is it normal for BHVR to keep quiet about the anniversary event, this late into the year? I'm done playing the game, but I'm routinely checking for news, because I am curious to see what they do next.
I thought we would have heard something by now.
I know the anno stream is historically around the end of May. We're rapidly approaching that date, and I've seen nothing about it.
There is zero hype being built around this anniversary.
-
Don't play Survivor with anything short of a 3-man SWF. ...and even that is pushing it.
-
@lifeisstrange said:
Another one of these topic again? Lets see how far this goes.
???
It's a problem that is hurting the game. What is so wrong about people bringing it up?
The more discussions created on the topic, the more apparent it becomes that people are done tolerating it.
-
Way too RNG dependent, imo.
And hindered by the the fact their kit's value relies more on Survivors' skill than the Killers.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3422893#Comment_3422893
MMR means nothing for matchmaking apparently.
Momo is very talented, but this has exposed a clear flaw in the matchmaker.
Piggybacking off of this...
@imakepeoplehateme, I think many players' hesitancy to appreciate skillful play stems from poor matchmaking.
People rarely feel as if they are being outplayed by their opponents. It more often feels as though they've been outplayed by poor matchmaking, map RNG, and perk value disparity. When opposing sides are not standing on even ground, it is much harder to recognize, and thus acknowledge, when you've been bested by skillful play.
For example, if I'm up against a Huntress on Rotten Fields running Lethal, Bitter Murmur, BBQ, and I'm All Ears, with Glowing Concoction & Infantry Belt, I won't be particularly impressed when they steam roll through the match. The cross-map hits will seem impressive at the time, but it's not that skillful considering the Huntress had so much aura-reading.
-
@VikingDragonXii said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3422356#Comment_3422356
No because then people would just start blocking people they don't want to face in general making it harder for those people to even get matches. It's the same if they did a Block Certain Killers
Overwatch has a pretty nice system where you can "Avoid as Teammate" up to 3 players for 7 days.
There is zero accountability for player behavior right now. A system that makes players think twice about being an ass might actually be good for the game's health. If people are struggling to find matches because everyone is blocking them, it's time they look inward at the real problem.
-
I find this post pretty amusing, because both things in my experience end up throwing the game for Survivors.
People looking for flashlight/sabo saves are usually not progressing the objective, which gives the Killer more time to build pressure. Flashlight saves are typically avoidable, and hook sabos result in a slug which ends up building pressure for the Killer.
What routinely happens is the killer drops their slug, and chases the saboteur. The saboteur doesn't want to leave the area, because they want to be in a position to resabo the hook when it respawns. So they loop the killer around the slug. This results in a 3rd survivor crouching/walking over to the scene, and just hiding waiting for an opportunity to safely pick up the slug. That opportunity never comes and if they try picking up in the Killer's face, the survivor is redowned immediately.
The Killer effectively wins the game in that moment, because objective progress comes to a screeching halt.
Killers might not feel in control against these players, but these strategies are self-sabotaging more often than not
-
Game is not worth playing right now, imo.
DBD can be fun, but right now there is too much BS you need to sift through to have a good time.
Love em' or hate em', the rage quitters are trying to enjoy the game. They just can't, and they are ruining others' experience in the process.
-
Lots of players take things personally, for a variety of different reasons--good and bad.
That said, I don't necessarily believe that in-game retaliation is "taking it personal."
Lets say for example that you tbag a ghostface every time you drop a pallet on his head. If he then over-commits to a chase on you and tbags upon downing you, he's just matching your energy. It doesn't actually need to be personal for GF. The fact that they "over-committed" to the chase speaks larger volumes about your skill (and perhaps their misplays) than it does their personal motives.
It might feel personal, but it might also just be a course of action they believe will be most entertaining or beneficial to their strategy.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
Is there any killer that's universally liked?
Billy was...
-
@Sharby said:
Most David's are P100, and playing P100 in the current climate is like asking for an unfun match, I personally stopped playing him after getting tunneled and slugged because I 'm p100 on him.
Since David and Vittorio have similar charm I mainly just play Vitto instead.
Doesn't help that David has so many joke cosmetics.
This is exactly why I was content making sure all my Killers and Survivors were at least P3 before leveling my main.
I can't say for certain whether or not Fortnite played a big influence in this effect, but after the John Wick era, I noticed a wave of vindictive and nasty attitudes towards players who prominantly displayed their achievements for others to see. We went from "oh god, it's John Wick, he's cracked!" to "look at this loser wearing their tier 100 battlepass skin."
Being an OG (Skulltrooper/Legacy Skin) became the new status symbol, and anyone who tried to flex their grind was clout-chasing and shamed for devoting so much time to the hobby.
When BHVR announced the new prestige system, I knew players would be falling into that trap. P100 isn't so impressive now, because the new system has been out a while, but that doesn't seem to stop people from singling them out in-game.
-
I'm personally not a fan of playing games with over-sexualized characters, but it's also not wildly out of place.
A casanova/seductress is just as terrifying as the Boogieman, if not more.
How that translates to gameplay, however, is another story.
Creating a super attractive killer without translating any of the elements that make them truly terrifying (if that is at all possible to express in this format) makes for a very weak horror experience.
I personally would much prefer to see more of the grotesque and uncanny, because their fear factor translates very well to DBD.
Deathslinger, Trickster, Artist, Knight, and the Skull Merchant were all flops in my book. Deathslinger imo is salvageable, just by making him a dug-up undead cowboy with a heart for vengeance.
-
@thrawn3054 said:
I don't remember ever seeing him that much. He's loud asf so that may be a factor.
I've always steered clear of David because I find his grunts irritating af. It pains me to play him--the only survivor I feel that way for.
If I was a content creator, I'd 100% make a video playing David titled "If I get injured, the video ends."
Edit: I should have made one when Elodie was released, titled "If I get hooked, the video ends," then cut as soon as her scream starts.
-
OP, I think you may have jumped the gun with this post.
This won't be a hot take in 3-5 months.
So many people are trying to push Fearmonger as the next best thing since sliced bread. The answer to Fearmonger is Vigil + Sprint Burst. ...Killers DO NOT want a lobby of 4 Vigils--especially not on a SWF.
Eventually, 99% SB will reveal itself to be even more infuriating than DH, and those who can't be bothered to learn that skill will make killers rip their hair out by sprinting to the nearest safe tile, forcing Killers to drop chase before it even begins.
-
Queues are near-instant, despite a dwindling player count.
The developers never promised even match-ups--they only said MMR would make sure you "won" every now and then.
So whether or not it is "broken" is largely up for debate. It could be working exactly as the developers intended. As long as players are getting their wins every x number of games, BHVR might not care what those wins look like.
You got your endorphin kick, so you keep playing the game. It's just like gambling, and it's just as dangerous to players' mental.
-
I'd ramp up the MMR priority on matchmaking, so that players are waiting 3-5 minutes to find a lobby they actually belong in.
Then, when people start complaining about queue times, I'd enable the ability for people to play bot matches while in queue, and tighten the MMR priority even more, so matchmaking takes even longer.
Then, when people start complaining about queue times again, I'd release a skirmish mode that people can play during queue, that holds 10 people to a map, and anyone can choose to load in as Survivor or Killer.
-
RE came out in the middle of June, so much of July's player count is tied directly to the anniversary update. August's player count is just reflective of poor player retention.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3417624#Comment_3417624
35% quitters. You assume out of rage.
These are all assumptions, not conclusions, you're confusing your opinion with fact.
There are no measures in what you have here to show what you are assuming to be genuine, the only measure you have is your low escape rate.
This is what I mean by spurious conclusions. i.e. a line of reasoning that's not actually valid. You data does not offer any validity to any of the conclusions presented here. It flat out doesn't.
Cognitive dissonance.
You want so badly to prove that I'm "bad at the game" that you'd find any semblence of logic to match that conclusion.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3417595#Comment_3417595
So you presented data that was off point to account for an issue that was off topic... hence the ooh err.
Just digging that hole aren't you.
I presented supplementary data because it paints a bigger picture than just saying 40% of my games contain at least one rage quitter.
Lets say I present the same exact data, but the Average Kills is ~1, the majority of Escapes Per Trial were 3 , and I've noted that 10 Killers Hooked Everyone Once.
Despite 40% of the games having a rage quitter, it paints a very different image of my experience.
You may be able to conclude a few things:
- The rage quit occured near the end of the game, and had little-to-no influence on how the game played out
- Killers were probably mindful of Survivors' experience, and went the extra mile to make sure everyone had a good time
- MMR mismatch heavily favored Survivors, so the game was easy even with a man down
- Game is poorly balanced around a 4v1, and Killers struggle even in a 3v1.
You could then remark "wow, that is a lot of rage quitting, although it doesn't appear to be negatively influencing your experience, we should still do something about it"
The context frames the conversation that should be had around the issue.
Edit: Seeing your edit after post.
My personal escape rate was not 27.5%--that was the collective escape rate of all survivors. Mine was 35%, and I averaged 19.9k bloodpoints.
Tunneling and Camping are tags that I tracked on NightLight. They are in the image only because they fall in the same category as AFKing/Quitting/Disconnecting.
The average escape rate of Survivors I played with was 25%, and they averaged 16.35k bloodpoints.
Sure tho, lets continue with the narrative that I'm bad at the game.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3417070#Comment_3417070
Ah you see its bad data because its your proof of concept that the game itself is bad, but all it really demonstrates is that you're kinda bad at it.
Now if you are miserable about the game because you aren't as good at it as you want to be then your data does an ok job of making that point, but game changes can't fix that only you can.
There is a reason they pool outcomes across many many players to look at game outcome statistics because that's the only way you can make game wide claims. Even with 100 games it would still not be a great representation because the game metrics are built from 1000's to 10,000's of players and game outcomes.
This data is not about the game as a whole its a snap shot of you, so if your conclusions from this data represent a bad game... well it's a more accurate conclusion to say that it represents a bad you.
If we go by kill/escape rate data they released a while back which sat at about 60/40 last time I saw it. Then what we have here is 20 games demonstrating empirically that you can't meet the 60/40 average. That's it, the data is an assessment of how you perform playing the game not the game itself.
That's the problem with your pie chart post, the conclusion is spurious and irrelevant at best because its asking the wrong question of the data. You've measured how good am I at the game and used it to make conclusions about balance. All we can answer from this is are you personally any good at DBD? and from the data the answer is no, not really.
I didn't want to get all raw paper reviewer on you but you wanted it so there it is.
"So kindly get the "um er, actually, yikes, this information is... oof, idk" attitude out of here, and try to see the bigger picture. You've got a forum of people expressing frustration over something, yet you respond to each and every one of them as if they are the only ones living in that reality."
Well yeah this is where people come to whine, its the forum and 90% of what's being whined about can be fixed by the player not the game. The game really isn't as miserable as people like to make it out to be, but people fixate on this stuff like their actual life depends on it when the reality is that its largely inconsequential.
You can offer people up an alternative perspective and maybe some objective suggestions about how things could get fixed, but a lot of people aren't here for that, they are here to validate their feelings in a sympathetic echo chamber.
Its not gaslighting to disagree with someone and I disagree with the OP, this game isn't about making people miserable and if you are miserable then change your outlook because the game doesn't have to change just because you personally find it miserable.
If you do want it to change then the best way is to make an objective suggestion about how it might be improved.
Go back and look at the data I presented. Note what I said after sharing the 3 images: "Nearly half of my games saw someone quit."
What do you think my intended message was there? mmmh?
You seem to think I was complaining about my escape rate, tunneling, and camping. Why is that? Because I don't recall complaining about any of those things. Sure, they were in the data, but it was pretty obvious what my message was--
SoloQ is not fine, because there is a rage quitting epidemic.
But hey, that's just my experience, right? No one else is talking about rage quitters. It's not a real issue--I'm just bad at the game.
Speaking of which...lets talk about how bad I am at the game, yeah?
I can only escape in 7 of 20 games, when at least one of my teammates throws the game in another 7 of those 20 games. Game is designed around 3v1, right? Who needed that 4th teammate anyway.
I must be really bad for looping a Blight so long he decided to AFK, being directly responsible for the only Killer rage quit in 20 games and one of only two 4-man escapes.
I must also be really bad for looping a Legion for 7+ minutes, then dying because a Kate chose to spectate my chase (and body block me) instead of help Thalia finish the 4 remaining generators.
I couldn't possibly be good at the game if I was asked to join an eSports team. That just doesn't add up, cause eSports teams are for noobs, yeah? Aren't they like a tutorial league, where new players go to learn the game?
Just the fact that I'm voicing my opinion about what a horrible experience I'm having, means that I'm bad at the game, right? Experienced players have never taken issue with anything. Ever. In the history of competition. Right? .....right?
There couldn't possibly be anything wrong with the game. That could never be it. No, the game is perfect just the way it is, isn't it?
It's like hockey.
Your whole response is just... uhh ooo err... so many things wrong with it.
Its err all kinds of erm yeah nah.
Points for effort but actually no, I take those points back. 0/10 response.
-
@Xernoton said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3417070#Comment_3417070
When someone says they don't enjoy DBD they mostly don't frame it as an accurate depicture of the game but as their own experience. You tried to make an argument about how 'bad' soloQ is in general. That is a major difference.
If your experience is genuinely that bad, then you have my condolences. I can only speak from my own perspective and that of a few friends that still play DBD. We all find soloQ quite enjoyable for the most part (with the occasional frustrating match). It's not the same as playing in a SWF (obviously) but it's definitely an upgrade from the horrors after 6.1.0. That was very unpleasant. The amount of quitters I saw back then was so high that I completely stopped playing survivor for a while (1-2 months, something like that).
As I already said, your 'evidence' is weak. I could present you with a (made up) statistic that shows me escaping every single game for 100 games in row with no perks against 'high MMR monsters'. Would you believe something like that, when it clearly is in stark contrast to your own experience? I'd hope not. The validity of such a statistic would be questionable at best and downright non-existent, if you wanted to be extra critical.
You are right though, that my choice of words was not ideal. I should have labeled it as my own experience and opinion rather than framing it as the objective truth. Thank you for pointing that out. I'll edit this, so there is no more confusion on that part.
I wasn't making an argument about how bad SoloQ is. I was counterclaiming you, with evidence.
If I wanted to talk about how bad SoloQ is, I'd make my own discussion, and I'd put more effort into constructing an argument.
As far as either of us knows, I could be playing at incredibly low MMR, and subsequently being matched with players who are frustrated at how difficult it is to win there--because the Killers don't feel 'low MMR'--while you're playing beyond the MMR soft cap with people who actually have a spine.
No way for us to know. BHVR has done a great job of making sure we can't have constructive conversations about either of our experiences.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3416588#Comment_3416588
uhh ooo err.. so many things wrong with presenting this as data.
You have discrete measured binary variables escape yes/no mixed with ill-defined subjective perceptions of play i.e. tunneling/proxy camping.
Small sample size with escape % given alongside average kills representing counter data in different formats.
Its err all kinds of erm yeah nah.
This is a metric of your personal game outcome not overall game health, using yourself as the baseline for overall game health is errr..
Points for effort but not great for its purpose.
@Xernoton said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3416588#Comment_3416588
Great sample size. Your 20 games obviously are representative for every soloQ match that's played. Come on, I'm trying to give you credit for providing something you base your opinion on but I'm at a loss here.
Also, everything you stated here could be made up. I could claim that my highest solo escape streak was 57 (it's actually 12). How would you know, if that is correct? It's unlikely but you can only guess if this is true or not. For all I know you could had killed yourself on hook every other match (not saying that you did, only that I can't know).
My own soloQ matches have been pretty good since the last patch. Sure, I had the occasional quitter as well but for the most part I had some pretty smart and persistent team mates. I managed to get an escape streak of 12 in a row and I'm definitely not a great survivor. I just know how to run a few tiles and where I need to be.
Even if the data you provided is accurate, I'd argue that this is not a soloQ issue but a player base issue. You could get paired with afk / rage quitting survivors even when you play in a 3 man SWF.
lmfao, 'small sample size', yeah I was waiting for that one.
When someone tells you they don't enjoy DBD, are you going to ask them if they've played at least 100 games, so that they've collected an adequate enough sample size to justify their expression of distaste?
I don't know about you, but 6 hours of gameplay is sample size enough to tell me if something is fun. Steam seems to agree, since their refund policy is under 4 hours. Only 1 of these 20 games were enjoyable--I don't need a larger sample size to draw any more conclusions about the "state of game health."
@Xernoton you were the first one to use anecdotal evidence to make bold claims in this thread. I could care less what you deduce from my data. Point is that if you want to tell other people "SoloQ is fine," while offering nothing of substance to support that notion, you're going to be met with people providing evidence to the contrary.
It's honestly hilarious that you think I need to present MORE data to prove that SoloQ is in a poor state, when you've a wave of community members expressing grievances about their experiences, while the occassional Survivor (like myself) presents evidence to support their claims.
Also, mate, seriously? You're going to pretend like SoloQ isn't 3 times more likely to encounter a sandbagging teammate than a 3-man SWF?
Edit: Also, @pseudechis you can continue to play the "small sample size/using yourself as a baseline is bad" card all you want, but you totally miss the point of players sharing their personal data. If everyone on the forums presented data from their last 20 games, you'd suddenly see a better picture of overall game health. It's not my responsibility to present everyone's data, nor is it my responsibility to waste my time collecting data, but I'm doing a service to this community by sharing what I can.
If you want to discredit MY experience, because on it's own it is not representative of the community, you are doing a MASSIVE disservice to the rest of the community. I logged 20 games. I shared the information from those games that is most pertinent to this discussion, to Xernoton--I never commented about my notes on tunneling or camping, because they are irrelevant--they're only in the screenshot because the information is presented alongside disconnects/rage quits/afks.
So kindly get the "um er, actually, yikes, this information is... oof, idk" attitude out of here, and try to see the bigger picture. You've got a forum of people expressing frustration over something, yet you respond to each and every one of them as if they are the only ones living in that reality. Major gaslighter.
-
@Xernoton said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3415161#Comment_3415161
Feel free to disagree but it's true. SoloQ is mostly fine. The HUD changes allow for a bit of coordination and it all comes down to using that information correctly. If you can't do that, that's not a soloQ problem but a skill issue. You can get some very unfortunate matches with team mates that aren't anywhere near the skill level they should be but it's not like you only get paired with Dwights hiding in lockers and never touching gens.
I play soloQ too. It's nowhere near as bad as its reputation. You're not gonna win every match and sometimes you lose because a team mate makes a gigantic mistake. This is how the game works.
The last 20 solo survivor games I'll ever play.
Nearly half of my games saw someone quit.
But SoloQ is "mostly fine?"
What world do you live in where this is fine?
-
@Ayodam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3416535#Comment_3416535
Ironically I see that your fun isn’t my priority statement more from killers than survivors. But regardless of who says it, it’s always true. No other player owes any player in this game a single damn thing. Especially not a fun experience. It’s up to the game designers to ensure that, not individual players.
Historically, yes, it's been a thing Killers say to Survivors after face-camping, tunneling, bleeding everyone out, etc.
Recently, however, there has been a massive rise in Survivors using the phrase to excuse their poor sportsmanship. Sure, it is the game designer's responsibility to make sure winning and having fun can coexist. But no amount of game balance will change an awful teammate. It is our responsibility as Survivors to be team players. If we can't do that one simple thing, we shouldn't be playing a team game.
Survivors are done being team players, because it is incredibly unrewarding. Rather than owning up to the fact that being a team player is unsatisfying--and calling on BHVR to make a change--people are hiding behind the veil of "my fun isn't your responsibility."