Laluzi
Laluzi
About
- Username
- Laluzi
- Joined
- Visits
- 4,175
- Last Active
Comments
-
I witnessed this on Groaning Storehouse (killer combo of Wraith and Huntress.) Hooks spawned all over the map and cages could spawn inside them. It may be an issue on all MacMillan maps, though I played two games of Suffocation Pit and did not notice hooks spawning on the map in those games. Which is not to say they weren't possibly there, but I do think I would have noticed them.
-
Played several more games, some more thoughts:
-Trapper was doing great at first, and I love him as a team player that helps both killers strategically push survivors around, but against good survivors he really struggled to keep up. I got more value out of 'why would you put a trap there' traps than vaults once survivors wised up. But then I switched to Wraith and found he performs really well in this mode, since it's so easy to find survivors and he's great at patrolling, especially gates and hatch.
-Huntress is an amazing teammate but Billy is surprisingly not. He's way too toned down and exposing people around him serves little purpose when killers don't want to team up more than incidentally. Nurse is Nurse, of course.
-Why are there still totems on the maps? They don't do anything. Chests also contain several no-longer-useful items - sabo boxes have no function and flashlights are pretty weak when killers can't pick players up.
-Had a weird game on MacMillan where hooks spawned on the map and cages kept getting stuck in them. Survivors didn't seem able to unhook them. Should probably fix that soon.
-This mode is fantastic for getting sacrifice challenges and 4k challenges done in the rift, haha. The game tallies both killers' efforts together and doesn't account for the fact that a 4k is not a clean sweep here.
-Minor gripe, but I wish the lobby showed both killers (maybe the other can be looking in from the left corner?) and all survivors. It's a bit strange having the old lobby only showing half the participants.
Probably going to switch back to survivor games soon, but I'm really enjoying the experience of being able to team with another killer - it's a bit of camaraderie that's brand new to Dead By Daylight.
-
Just witnessed this on Groaning Storehouse. Luckily I was a killer and I was able to get the cage to spawn somewhere else, but there were hooks all over the map that shouldn't have been there.
-
@Testoviron said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3767345#Comment_3767345
Double it and give it to the next 4 people
But that's how you get survivors that are abusing game mechanics to troll you in the first place. Some people are just ######### and get their kicks out of ragebaiting people, but way more of them are treating you like garbage because someone treated them like garbage and now they think it's karmic to punish you as a stand-in because 'all killers deserve this', the same way we're claiming random survivors deserve to be slugged for their aggregate sins.
Making more people hate each other isn't the cure, it's the poison.
-
Finally got a killer game! Played Trapper, as suggested, and it was a really awesome experience. My teammate was a Huntress and carried the first bit of the match while I was setting up, but like someone else said, nobody was really watching for traps like they would be in a Trapper game and I started getting loads of catches. The end of the game was delightfully cinematic - there were two survivors left, all four players ended up converging, and I took the Dwight while she went after the Mikaela. Ended up getting the downs within two seconds of each other. Caged, and went up to each other and slow nodded as the match ended. Felt great.
The killer experience was much less chaotic than my survivor games have been, working with a single teammate instead of seven, though it might have been the particular match I played (and the competent teammate.) Though I did have to wait ten minutes to get in.
-
@TheArbiter said:
There are two takeaways I have so far:
Killers teaming up is a bad idea
Trapper is surprisingly good in this mode as he can quickly snowball more effectively with survivors being less conscious of checking for traps
That's good to hear - I was leery of playing a setup killer in such a fast mode, but there's a tome challenge and I was going to have to.
I'm thinking that committing to any particular survivor is a bad idea in this mode - the play is probably to abandon chases as soon as you encounter resistance and trust that you'll find someone out of position pretty quickly because survivors are running all over the place. As far as I can tell, if killers aren't getting a constant stream of downs, they'll lose fast.
-
Feels like Devour is a flat upgrade from this. It takes some setup time, but when it gets going, it makes everyone a one-tap (and eventually becomes even more powerful than that) without any of the drawback of giving survivors free heals if the totem gets cleansed.
Once the totem is found, survivors have the advantage of controlling it, because there are four of them and one killer. The killer's time is worth 4x as much as the survivors and the killer can't delegate - if survivors are cleansing/booning the totem, 3 other teammates are still progressing the match, while when the killer's snuffing it, no killer progress is being made.
A hex totem that struggles between hex and boon is a really cool idea, but I think the risk/reward isn't quite balanced.
Something that would help make the killer time investment worth it would be to make the Undying effect basekit - if the hex totem moves around the map to new dull totems every time it changes state, the perk would be more worthwhile. Because cleansing a hex is extremely easy once survivors know where it is and the resultant boon totem ensures that everyone can see it, SWF or no.
-
I think people need to be situationally aware of when to leave. If there's four people left in the trial and I don't know where all of them are, I'm going to stay because if someone needs my help, the team should be able to safely extract them. Same if there's three - me leaving at that point isn't going to impact hatch play anyway.
Two people left is where it gets complicated. If I'm injured, I should leave because I can't help the other player, so giving them the possibility of hatch is the best thing I can do. And if we're both healthy, but I don't know where they are and they're not being chased, I should probably leave to open up their options. If we're both healthy and they're being chased but I know they're on the other side of the map, I should also leave because I can't realistically save them and get anyone out, so hatch is the play.
If I'm healthy, though, and they're injured, that becomes the point where I should stay. I can take a hit or go for an unhook. And if we're both healthy, they're being chased, and I hear the terror radius, I should go find them to take a hit and guide them towards the exit.
All of that said, hatch challenges are awful nowadays and teammates waiting to BM at the gate become your worst enemies. You almost need a SWF to do them without a teammate inadvertently screwing you over… and forget about key challenges entirely, ugh.
-
When I play killer, I'm always impressed by survivors who can loop structures perfectly and don't get caught on random hooks or run into walls while looking over their shoulder like I always seem to do. As long as I'm not getting BMed while they're doing it, I like having to get clever about it and work hard for that kill. And it warms my heart when I see people do actual teamwork, like I'll be chasing someone on death hook and another teammate comes up and tries to distract me.
Also, the memelords. You make my life very difficult because I'll be trying to raise my MMR and you are crouching there flopping your bunny ears or playing me songs or Plot Twisting in front of me or merely exploiting the loophole that I legally cannot kill you if you stop running and shake your head no, but I wouldn't love this game a tenth as much without you. Keep on memeing.
When I play survivor, I'm deeply impressed by players who manage to master high-skill killers. I have a lot of hours in this game, but I'm pretty casual and I certainly don't have the moxie to read up 130-page guides on how best to use Clown. I'm good at the killers I use regularly, I guess. But when I go against a flick Oni or a quad-aura-read Huntress crossmapping me when I'm nowhere near a gen or a Nurse that reads my every move before I even think of it, it's like… I'll take that L, man, you've clearly earned it.
I remember one time a Deathslinger speared me through a tiny hole in shack and instead of running away after the hit, I hung around to point at the hole and nod. Dude nodded back in that really bouncy way people do when they're excited. Love when this game is like that.
-
I bought every shard-available character already, so it's all cosmetics at this point. I have quite the Plague and Artist wardrobe going.
-
He's quite strong, but his map mobility is easy to deny due to the abundance of EMPs. It's chase where he becomes oppressive, and that's not really anything new in DBD. I don't see him as a new Skull Merchant because the thing that made Skull Merchant so singularly despised was that she forced games that took forever. I'm definitely not getting that against Hux - and I'm still having better luck in games against him than I am, say, Billy.
-
@CountOfTheFog said:
I get your point, but there is a good side to it that I don't see mentioned.
The intense passion for this game is something we all share and if we didn't, the game would not be going on 9 years.
The comments get heated from forum members (myself included). But that's why we have mods to moderate and stop inappropriate escalation.
If there was zero arguing, that would actually be a negative sign for the health of the game.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter which side (if not both) you play. We are all still here because of our love for the game. Killers wouldn't exist without Survivors and Survivors wouldn't exist without Killers.
I've been here a year and I love the community that I'm a part of as much as the game itself. I think in the end it is healthy for players to vent and open discussion.
I've thought about mentioning this for a while and your post seemed like a good place.
Oh, I totally follow this. I've been in all kinds of discussion spaces that ranged from highly aggressive (moreso than this forum is) to total hugboxes. Some places are so aggressively sanitized that no meaningful discourse can be had in them; some moderation is so kid-gloves proactive that it locks things down at the first hint of people disagreeing with each other. Like, I'm gonna out myself and use Archive of Our Own as an example, where if you say you enjoyed someone's writing for X Y and Z reasons but you think they could have improved W, you'll be called out for disrupting a positive space. Legitimately had people whole-ass flip out on me for unsolicited spellchecking before.
I don't mind things getting heated. I'm very guilty of it. But there's good arguing and bad arguing - longposts of reasoning and examples-counterexamples are good discourse that can contribute to understanding and improved game health, but on the other hand you get people responding to topics with "that's just because you're bad" or "you would think that, survivor/killer main" and "who cares about X when survivors/killers can do Y" and all kinds of ad hominems and strawmen that don't contribute to game health in any way.
Open discussion is good, but that doesn't make every part of it equally valuable.
-
Yeah, I feel you. I'm not really concerned over who leans survivor-sided or killer-sided. You'll occasionally get people with wildly bad takes that you can't take seriously, but for the most part it's easy to understand where everyone is coming from and why they feel the way they do. For all we squabble, the bulk of us agree with more things than we don't.
It's the knee-jerk defensiveness that frustrates me. It's so common for people to take suggestions as a personal attack, and fabricate a whole slew of motives why the player making the suggestion actually wants [role] nerfed and an equal number of reasons why their feedback isn't valid. Instead of actually engaging with the suggestion or calmly explaining why in their experience they don't think that's a good idea.
And the whataboutism is really annoying because it assumes that a.) I don't care about the other side's problems, when of course I do, and b.) we're not allowed to fix problems in this game or improve anyone's experience unless some ultimate karmic parity is kept, when pretty much all of us are playing both roles of the same game and 'survivors' and 'killers' aren't actually two separate blocs of players with diametrically opposed needs.
Most the time I respond to a "well [x] has it worse" with "yes, that's also a problem and I want it addressed, now what's your opinion on the original topic", I don't get a response. Tribalism really doesn't help discourse. And it's tough, because we all think we're neutral parties and rationalize (and relativize) any bias we do have.
-
@sizzlingmario4 said:
It should show your aura in a different color so it's more obvious.
Hiding the aura entirely would be bad if you have good teammates who are actually paying attention, because then they won't know which area to avoid in chase so that they don't sandbag you on accident.
I think this is the right play here. Hiding the player completely introduces more problems alongside the ones it solves, and showing the perk next to the survivor still wastes time running up to them before realizing they Plot Twisted themselves. If a downed survivor is (for example) green, I'd know to leave them alone.
-
Can't agree. Windows is a perk that closes the skill gap between mediocre survivors and good survivors. It doesn't enhance performance at the high end, it just cuts out map memorization. It's a training wheels perk, just a particularly effective one.
-
I think they said they considered this when creating Alien, but their concern was that the power would be highly inconsistent across maps - it'd do next to nothing in Rotten Fields while having tons of utility on indoor maps, and so on.
-
My complaint about current Ultimate Weapon is that because you're forced to look at the locker while activating the perk, it's really hard to tell where a scream came from. It'll reliably tell you if survivors are nearby, but it's hard to tell where. You were already moving when old UW would trigger, so that wasn't a problem.
Not that I'm advocating for a return. Old UW was fun but very busted.
-
Agree. The new tiles they've been adding are horrendous, and they seem to have gotten fond of adding the most worthless pallets to the edge of maps - like, Z-windows are more useful than these things.
It's fair to clean up chained tiles or maps that have pallets Literally Everywhere, but in the spots where survivors should have resources… survivors are supposed to have resources, not unplayable messes masquerading as tiles.
-
I dislike Trickster quite a bit. His base design is… fine, I guess, but there's two problems with him. One is that everyone runs bouncy knives - understandable, he's horribly map-dependent without them - and that makes counterplay pretty rough on indoor maps. Two is that he's very good at camping and tunneling while not being that great at hunting people down and chasing them, so virtually everyone who plays Trickster proxies hook and unloads main event into the unhooker and through basekit BT. I'm rarely going to get a fun match when I hear his lullaby.
Skull Merchant is also very unenjoyable because my teammates don't understand how her power works when they aren't killing themselves on hook immediately, and because again, pretty much everyone who plays her is the kind of person that revels in the fact that every survivor heaved a collective groan when they saw who they were going up against.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3765815#Comment_3765815
I guess where I'm concerned about this is that the killer potentially had no way of knowing that the survivor was blocking the other gate. If they went in front of a gate and then walked away from the computerBut why walk in front of the gate? If the killer wanted to go AFK, why waste the time to block a gate?
Even if we take the most generous interpretation possible, the Trapper behaved in a manner that allowed the rules to be broken.
There aren't that many rules in the game, each player has a responsibility not to break them.
If two survivors where blocking the exit gates, each could claim that they had no idea the other was doing it. The relevant question is, why were they blocking the exit gates at all?
I do think the Trapper's behavior is suspicious. But it's pretty hard for the killer and the survivor to communicate - much more than it is for two survivors to communicate. If you were to show me two survivors doing the same thing, I'd automatically assume they were SWF despite any denials because there's a built-in explanation. It's much less likely for two unaffiliated griefers to appear in the same match. And when you consider the situation, a game where the killer lost hard, it's not hard for me to believe the killer went AFK the moment gens got done, where any survivor blocking the gates at that point in the game is doing it to troll their teammates.
Why would Trapper go AFK in that spot? Could be teaming to lock down the game. It's sus. But it's not inexplicable in the way that the Dwight doing it is. It could also be a last-ditch fit of pique, some ineffectual 'I lost' revenge to annoy any nearby survivors into going to the other gate. Could be he wanted survivors to see he was AFK and far away so that they wouldn't waste time teabagging at the gates. Or Trapper might have been going to trap the gate before going 'screw this' and giving up. It's why I'm curious what happened to the Dwight. If the Trapper ignored the Dwight and the Dwight continued to block the exit, they were definitely teaming - if the Trapper attacked the Dwight, that suggests they weren't affiliated.
It's the timing that makes this tricky. If the Trapper blocked the gate after Dwight did, I'd have no hesitation calling it teaming. Not only is the second player the one who is guaranteeing the trial can't end, but Dwight has no motive to go AFK at this point while Trapper does. But if players are truly AFK, they don't know what anyone else is doing in the trial thereafter. OP says Trapper appeared actually AFK while Dwight was present while bodyblocking. So if we take this order of events at face value, unless they were communicating offsite, Trapper couldn't know what Dwight was doing and that's why I think punishing him without more proof is dicey.
Like… if I'm AFK in a doorway, a survivor walks in the room, and another survivor comes up in the room's other doorway and traps that person in, who's responsible for the bodyblocking? Is it both players, even though one is absent and just happened to be there? Or is it just the one that's trying to take advantage of the situation?
"Behaved in a manner that allowed the rules to be broken" is the part that makes me nervous. That's too low a burden of proof to enforce. Again, in my example where I thought survivors were farming but they were griefing, I was behaving in a manner that allowed the rules to be broken. It was not possible for the survivors to kill their teammates without the killer's participation. But that didn't make me a willing participant.
Another more recent example of this is a game where a Cheryl was dying on first hook. I always feel bad when I see this, so I went over and stood next to her so she could escape. Lady was pissed at her teammates and started throwing pallets, trying to point teammates out to me, teabagging anyone I hooked (not with her participation, mind, I just walked away when she got involved.) Eventually I had to stop playing that match because there was no way to continue fairly. Again, as killer, I was not engaging in intended gameplay and it was my actions that allowed the griefing to happen. But I don't actually think I did anything wrong, or that I should be held accountable for it.
-
On the one hand, Badham has been one of the most obscenely survivor-sided maps in DBD for as long as I've played, it's the worst one remaining since Haddonfield's first rework, and it's about time it got balanced.
On the other hand, BHVR's reworks this past year have been atrocious and their new philosophy seems to be spamming weak or downright unusable tiles and putting convenient holes next to every vault, so I'm afraid it'll get switched from a survivor-sided mess to a killer-sided mess.
I have zero faith in the map balancing department right now and I don't want them to do any more damage than they already have.
-
I strongly doubt the lack of a fix for the gen bug has anything to do with who it benefits - it's either because they've allocated too many resources to getting 2v8 out on time, or because they haven't figured it out. So I'm more curious about how badly they've broken the game (and how bad the spaghetti code tangle is) that they don't have a working fix yet.
Because I've gotta admit, driving an invisible car off the edges of the map in Borgo while Wesker gets one of your teammates stuck in the floor and another survivor continues to repair gens after exit gates are powered is the most interesting I've ever seen the state of this game.
-
The new UI lost a lot of the functionality of the old one, and this was one of the casualties. BHVR has said they're talking about our feedback, so the best we can do is keep reminding them of the things we want back.
-
@Coordi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3765786#Comment_3765786
Teaming with the Killer to hold a game hostage would not absolve the Killer from participating in the intentional gameplay abuse.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/139-game-rules
I guess where I'm concerned about this is that the killer potentially had no way of knowing that the survivor was blocking the other gate. If they went in front of a gate and then walked away from the computer - unless the Trapper knows the Dwight and they had communication outside of the match (which is possible if they're on the same platform and the Trapper messaged Dwight), the Trapper wouldn't know that the game was actually being held hostage.
Because I don't think standing in front of the gate, when the other gate is not blocked, would be rulebreaking behavior. But that's potentially the situation the Trapper thinks he's in.
I don't want to defend the outcome. The Dwight is clearly a troll and the Trapper is Schrodinger's Troll, because it is suspicious that the Trapper chose the switch of all places to go AFK. I'm just concerned about the implications when the killer is not actually party to the abuse because the odds of them communicating with the survivors is not high.
Like, before killers were able to unhook survivors on their own via the anti-camp, I've on several occasions had survivors I thought were memeing but turned out to be a 3-man SWF trolling a solo. They'd ask to go farm unhooks, everyone's sitting at the hook, I'd hook the player I didn't know wasn't affiliated with the other survivors, and then the other three would spend two minutes teabagging them instead of rescuing while I futilely swing at the hook and then start smacking them once it's clear they're not going to help. From the solo survivor's perspective, I'm complicit in griefing, but that really wasn't my intent.
I do think we need players to lose collision when they have AFK crows though. It can't be weaponized in most cases of normal gameplay due to the high time cost, and it fixes all bodyblock situations. The only tactical play we're losing from this is a killer bodyblocking a survivor to death while the endgame collapse is on, and is that really valuable gameplay to preserve?
And to the OP, because I'm curious - did you see what happened to the Dwight when the Trapper came back? Did the Trapper ignore him? Was he still blocking the gate or did he flee?
-
There'd be a certain amount of uncanniness in translating anime characters to realistic models, and that has to be navigated carefully if you want the characters to still feel like the characters. But if the property fits, sure, why not?
I just don't want action anime with mild horror elements being put into DBD. Like, I'm pretty sure I saw Fullmetal Alchemist in one of the surveys, and I adore FMA more than any anime or manga I've seen since… but that's not a horror property in the slightest. If it's actually horror, by all means, bring it in.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3763232#Comment_3763232
I played a game with my duo partner about a year ago (before I got tired of beating my head against a wall on survivor). Wesker on gas heaven.
Our randos were Claudette and Meg, no idea if they were just awful, or throwing, but it didn't matter. Claude went down in the first 2 minutes, and Meg was apparently lurking nearby and went down as well. First two hooks were in main basement, right next to where they both dropped, and wesker just stood camping at the top of the stairs with 5 gens remaining.
That game was over almost immediately. There was no chance of recovery.
This is an extreme example, but it's not that hard to tell when the game is over. The HUD basically means every survivor knows what gen progress across the map looks like at all times.
I mean, yeah, that game sucked. Not denying that the killer will often snowball hard from the start, and not denying that 2 people basically dead (or unrescuable without equal hook trades, against a killer who can throw you out of position) at 5 gens is a game over. That's my experience often enough. But I just edited in the opposite scenario I played a few rounds ago, where a terrible start led to a 3-out. I'm not saying a game can't definitively be called at 5 gens, but calling how the match is going to go on first or even second down is always going to be premature.
Tombstone piece being the exception, because there's no realistic walk-back from someone being dead at the start. But same goes for when my teammate kills themselves on first down, because it's functionally the same thing.
I don't appreciate my teammates giving up instantly. I give others the courtesy of playing out rough matches and I expect people to play the games they queued up for.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3763213#Comment_3763213
I think they've seen enough games play out that way to understand that their chances of having a decent game have plummeted.
Especially with stacked slowdown, that's crippling in the early-game. One person hooked, one on a gen, one chased and one for the save. Only have a single Survivor doing gens THAT early is a death sentence, and whether or not people are conscious of it is largely irrelevant.
I cannot and will never agree with this. This is just people ragequitting because they've had bad games, expect more bad games, and now they're passing those bad games onto me.
I've had fun in matches where someone went down early. I've had 4-man escapes in matches where someone went down early. I have not had fun in matches where the first survivor to go down decides the match is lost less than a minute in and proceeds to forcibly lose it for the other three members of the team.
Hell, in the game I played between starting this post and finishing it, a Huntress brought iri head and a Sable went down in the first 20 seconds, and when she got unhooked, she went into the basement and started doing an invocation. The game looked goddamn awful. Then the Huntress started chasing me and it turned out she was actually pretty bad, and I looped her for two gens around a single medium pallet loop. That early down meant nothing to how the game played out.
When anyone's feeling that negative about the game, where they're sure their game is going to be terrible unless everything goes perfectly? They need to take a break, not continue and force those bad games into existence.
Edit: Next game. Camping Artist, gens went awful at the start and everyone kept running her into each other's gens. 3 downs before first gen popped, two on one survivor who got downed 15s after being unhooked, and she was snowballing hard. Turned into a 3-man escape. It's not over when the game starts bad, but it is over when you choose to give up.
-
I've observed that I'm fine playing survivor next to kitsune Yuis and healing/doing gens with them, or chasing and M1ing them, and that level of closeness has yet to give me discernable framedrop. But when I pick them up and the tails get in my face, my FPS consistently tanks to the 10s.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3763184#Comment_3763184
When those things, getting grabbed or going down quick, happen early in the match, that often is the match ender.
So many Killers either tunnel or snowball out of control from an early down. This causes Survivors to want to go next because, well, let's be real they aren't going to lose any BP.
There needs to be a Survivor comeback mechanic AND Survivor BP gains need to be addressed.
You can't call a match on the very first killer down unless it's Mikey with tombstone piece, though. Saying a match is lost because someone went down 30 seconds in is just pessimism, and it's especially pessimistic to do that before you even have a chance to see how the killer plays.
If three people have gone down in the first minute, we have a problem. But I've seen plenty of very early downs turn into a perfectly serviceable gate escape - today, even. Giving up because the match didn't start out ideally is a self-fulfilling prophecy and also very much part of the problem.
Won't argue about survivor BP gains, though. There are few things more enraging than survivors bringing 4 cobblers and all dying with four-digit scores while the killer swans out with 25k x4 on their offerings.
-
Welcome to DBD!
So when you start out, you have characters with bloodwebs. This will gradually see you unlock and level up general perks and that character's individual perks (alongside gathering items and addons to use in trial.) Perks have 3 tiers - yellow, green, and purple, as the perk's effects improve. Bloodwebs and levels are individual to each character - if you pour all your bloodpoints into Meg, you won't have any of Meg's stuff on David.
But there's one exception to this. When a character you own hits level 50, you can prestige them. This unlocks their 3 perks on every other character at level 1, and they can now appear in everyone's bloodwebs to be levelled up further.
So let's say you have Jake and Claudette at prestige 0. Jake has Calm Spirit, Iron Will, and Saboteur at the base level and can learn all the general perks. Claudette has Botany Knowledge, Self-Care, and Empathy at the base level and can learn all the general perks.
Now say you bring Claudette to P1. Now Jake has Calm Spirit, Iron Will, Saboteur, Botany Knowledge, Self-Care, and Empathy at the base level, as well as any general perks he's learned in the bloodweb. He can level up any of these perks to tier 3 by buying them in the bloodweb.
If Claudette is prestige 3, then her perks are unlocked at maximum level across all other survivors and you no longer need to purchase them in the bloodweb. If you prestige 3 every survivor, then every survivor has every survivor perk unlocked automatically and only needs to unlock the general perk pool (which happens pretty quickly, there's not many of them.) Same goes for killers and their own general perk pool.
As you play, you slowly but gradually get Iridescent Shards. This is a special currency that's unrelated to bloodpoints. It lets you buy non-licensed cosmetic options and characters, though they do cost a lot. Newer characters are more expensive than ones that have been around a while. When you unlock a new character, you can then put bloodpoints into them to unlock their perks the same way you'd do so for the starting characters.
However, licensed characters, like Steve Harrington and Freddy Krueger, can't be bought with iridescent shards and actual money has to be paid for them (either by buying the DLC or by buying Auric Cells, the paid currency.)
I don't recommend buying cosmetics early on - a single outfit piece will usually cost you 7200 shards and a full outfit is over 20,000 shards, while a character will cost you 9000 shards (or potentially a fraction of that if you buy older characters.) When you get enough, use your shards to buy the characters who look the most interesting to play or have the best perks!
-
@KateMain86 said:
The best way to approach this is to mitigate the reasons why players do it. It won't completely get rid of it, but it will lower the occasions of it. There are some killers in this game who are just not fun to play against. There are many loadouts of killers that people don't want to play against. When killers have addons that serve as basically additional powers for the killer its going to make people not want to play against that. The most common occurrence of people giving up on first hook I see is against leatherface. A killer who can instant down you with the press of a button is overpowered. Myers and Ghostface both have conditions to their instant down. All leatherface has to do is press a button and he can literally down an entire team with one use of it.
The point is, the more entertainment and fun value survivor players see in playing a match the more likely they are to play out a match. Don't go after the players for doing it. Go after the reasons why they do it. Also incentivize playing out matches more.
It does lower occasions of ragequitting, and ragequitting is paradoxically useful as a metric of when something is so unfun that nobody wants to play against it. See: Skull Merchant, but also plenty of other offenders in the past - Boil Over no-hook builds, Legion, Forever Freddy, etc.
But that still leaves behind a pretty big problem. There are many players in this game who quit games not because they're going against broken mechanics, but because they don't like how their match started. I see people suicide on hook because the killer didn't fall for a dumbtech or brought Lightborn against their flashlights. I see people suicide on hook because they went down really quickly in their first chase, or because they got found in a hiding spot, or because they didn't see a stealth killer come up on them and they got grabbed. Deliverance users are serial first hook quitters. I don't even know why people are killing themselves on that first hook half the time. The killer will be Freddy or Trapper or Ghostface, and the killer isn't camping because I see them headed towards my gen, but that person is out of there. Once I saw someone kill themselves on hook against non-tombstone Myers, on The Game, on the very first hook of the match, at 2 gens left. At that point, fun means nothing. It's a problem with the player, not the game.
And it's frequent. Right now I'd say a teammate suiciding early happens to me about 15-20% of my survivor games, though I'd have to count to take proper statistics.
These people may claim they're going up against broken mechanics, and actually believe it, but their metric is so out of whack that it isn't worth considering - or it contains so many justifications that they'd be better off not playing the game, because they only find small fractions of it acceptable. I've had players explain to me why it's okay to DC against Wraith and Doctor. Others are just entitled and see no problem with match shopping for a better start, better teammates, a weaker killer with an easier build, and don't care that they're ruining the game for other players as they do. Others think it's fine to DC if they're not having fun, but their idea of fun is mostly limited to 'I'm winning.'
So. To an extent, the game has problems that increase instances of ragequitting, and those heightened rates need to be examined because they indicate areas of poor game health. But that's only part of the issue. By and large, the players who suicide on hook at five gens are the problem, and BHVR does have to go after them because they currently have no incentive not to keep bailing every time something inconveniences them. You couldn't satisfy them by fixing every widely held problem in the game, because it's an attitude issue. And they're more of a problem for survivors than they are for killers. Killers get a boring game but an auto-win unless they actively take pity on everyone left - survivors get a bad game and they auto-lose.
-
@Moonras2 said:
This might not go over well for me but here is a more off the wall suggestion. Instead of removing the self unhook chance mechanic, how about making it a guaranteed unhook. Except unhooking yourself in this way will not activate any borrowed time effect, ds, endurance, or any other mechanic. They could also be given the broken status effect. Deliverance could stay how it is, as it still allows all of these things. It could also be deactivated in the endgame and even deactivate other perks.
This would stop first hook leaving while punishing the survivor for unhooking themselves. It will also be "something" for when survivors are left on the hook by their teammates.
I know this could be bad for killers who play nice but at the very least the survivor will be severely hindered for self unhooking.
That would punish the killer for not proxy camping and force every killer to hang around the hook or otherwise have no pressure on survivors. You really don't want to punish players for playing in the way that's most fun to the other side.
Broken is the only meaningful mechanic here - you don't need Endurance or Haste if the killer isn't near the hook.
-
@Crowman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3763005#Comment_3763005
It's pretty obvious when the unhooked survivors runs at the killer stopping just in front of them and then emoting at the killer to hit/kill them. People can open support tickets to supply videos when needed. Though would be nice for in-game reports to be better in general without needing to go through the support ticket system.
At some point, if you are spending so much energy trying to work around systems to not get punished for rage quitting, then maybe you should be playing a different game.
It's obvious to a human, but it's not something that can be read from the match logs. You pretty much described the problem yourself - players have to be recording their matches themselves and submitting tickets offsite to actually catch this behavior in a way BHVR can quantify and punish, and the volume of players who jump through all of these hoops to report people isn't nearly enough to deal with the volume of survivors who abuse game mechanics as a free DC button.
In that sense, keeping hook suicides actually makes it easier to track (in match logs) whether or not a player is intentionally killing themselves. It can still be mistaken for legitimate gameplay, but you're looking at much simpler and more consistent variables on the whole. Players who are not newbies and not using Slippery Meat do not try to unhook themselves 3x in a row immediately upon becoming the first hook of the match. The case where this is legitimate gameplay is so rare it's nearly nonexistent. It gets muddier as the game goes longer and when fewer survivors remain (the 2nd-last player hook suiciding is a courtesy to the last player, for instance), but it's pretty clear-cut when it's at the start of the match.
But yeah, I'm in camp 'I hate people suiciding on hook but I don't think removing the 4% would actually do much to deter players who want to give up as soon as something happens they don't like.'
Actionably, I think the best thing BHVR can do (besides better tracking and punishing this behavior, ie if a player is frequently killing themselves on hook on their first hook within the first two minutes of the match, they should be flagged for DC penalties. Maybe add a little grace zone for new players who don't know how to play yet. Or... y'know… match replay and fixing the report system) is, if a player fully kills themselves on hook early enough to meet certain parameters, replace them with a single-hooked bot instead of leaving the team a full player down.
-
@danielmaster87 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3761549#Comment_3761549
He didn't say make Myers normal speed while stalk. Just not a slug's pace.
I'm not sure how else to interpret 'Myers should not be slowed down as he stalks' than… not being slowed down when he stalks.
-
@Peanits said:
Thank you for all the feedback! We have been going through everything as a team and coming up with a plan to address some of these concerns in upcoming patches.
Thank you for keeping us posted! That's really heartening to hear.
-
@Neaxolotl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3762931#Comment_3762931
Oh wait that's true, I was misunderstanding those
But it'd make sense when we consider it's "per survivor", since there is four survivors it basically means like 6 pallets are dropping every match, which seems in line with normal games, your 3 pallets example would be pretty lower side as that's like 0.75 pallets dropped per survivor
To me it seems like both of those stats are intentionally made to be… not exactly "accurate", I feel
In fairness, I misunderstood your post too, because what you were saying was also true - we were just talking about two different subjects.
Per survivor also gets wonky, yeah. The match I just played now (asylum) had 7 pallets dropped, but 6 of them were by one Cheryl in one chase. One of the players was a potato who went down immediately every time, one of them just wanted to get flashlight saves and I kept catching her at it, and one would just hold W for as long as possible (though… that might be because Cheryl already used the good pallets.) So in that match it looks like each survivor dropped 1.75 pallets, but that number isn't even close to accurate to any of them except the one who dropped one pallet.
-
@Neaxolotl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3762904#Comment_3762904
The point is it's "per chase from the view of the game", which means, I think, is that every time a killer breaks a pallet or walk around a long loop, it will drop the chase
So I believe this basically means more like "chase time per god window/pallet" in some circumstance
The pallet data didn't say anything about being chase-only, though. I think it's just pallets dropped per match.
I just played a match on Sanctum of Wrath and I counted; only 3 pallets were dropped all game, mostly because I kept successfully downing survivors who were waiting at or greeding pallets before they could get the drop. Anecdotal, but it happens.
Had another match, Eyrie of Crows. Same thing, kept beating them to the pallets. 3 pallets dropped. Maybe a fourth I lost track of. This team was pretty bad, though, for whatever that's worth.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
Is anyone else surprised at the pallet stats? So if I’m somewhere between average MMR and high MMR, my games would have an average of 6.0 to 6.4 dropped pallets?
That statistic seems low, but not too low to make sense to me. I think part of it is that there's a lot of killers now whom pallets aren't very good against, and pretending to throw the pallet is often a better way to avoid a hit than actually doing it. And part of it is that babies are ignorant of pallets and experienced but not too experienced survivors have a mentality of conserving pallets even when that's detrimental to them.
We're also getting lots of map updates lately with less central loopable pallets and more horribly weak edge pallets. Though in maps like Greenville or the Game, yeah, there's way more than 6 pallets dropped per match.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3762882#Comment_3762882
"The important thing is that it's not significantly higher than average universal chase time. 1:00 vs 1:06 is not statistically significant."
Yeah, my thoughts. So the people who say they go against the absolute gods of the game and are at some gigachad MMR will have Survivors who are slightly better than average.
I have never given a thumbs up btw. Not because I hate all the players I went against, but just because it does nothing.
I don't doubt the gods exist, or that they're significantly better than slightly above average, but if it was as ubiquitous as people claim, you'd see a boost of more than 6 seconds. What this suggests to me is that those high MMR gigachad SWF games are readily balanced out by high MMR games that fall apart for the survivors quite quickly, whether that's overconfident SWF or solos being solos.
Point that the pointlessness skews the thumbs up stats. I give thumbs ups all the time - if survivors were funny or good sports, if my teammates played well, or if the killer didn't do annoying strats like excessive camping, hard tunneling, or tombstone. But that's just me hoping for the placebo to kick in one day.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
Are these stats actually counting the total length of time survivors are actually being chased, or is it just the length of time the game considers the survivors in chase?
Because I could see a survivor 30 yards away, and run towards them as killer, and the survivor could immediately run away… and it would take a while before I’m close enough for the game to consider us in chase. But I am, in fact, chasing the survivor before the game considers us in chase.
I would imagine it's the time that the chase music is active. There wouldn't really be a way for the game to discern 'effective chasing' where you're pursuing from afar or looking for a survivor that's hiding; it can't tell your intent the way a human observer can.
Which does mean these numbers are underselling, but there's also cases where the game is going to count a 1-second chase because the survivor took a hit for a teammate/while trying to unhook, was afk or gave up, got hit out the gates, was trying to hide and the killer found them… etc.
So stepping back, I'm not sure this specific number is actually telling us much.
-
@Pulsar said:
I do think it's pretty funny considering all that I've heard about how Survivors can easily go on minute(s) long chases that even at High MMR, they're managing just 22 seconds per chase, on average.
Oh, I love that piece of data. That's even better than the 48% escape rate of 4-man SWFs at high MMR for shutting down the high MMR impossible narrative.
Granted, the data is skewed not everyone is getting hooked 3 times, and a lot of those chases start out injured or are survivors getting hit while bodyblocking, but still, it's a far cry from 'I get looped for 3 gens every game so survivors need to be nerfed.' The important thing is that it's not significantly higher than average universal chase time. 1:00 vs 1:06 is not statistically significant.
I'm weirdly happy about the GG and the thumbs up stats, though I shudder to think at the stats for salt (or how many posts ended up censored.)
-
@Shroompy said:
Youre acting as if theyve never killswitched exclusively paid for content
Exclusively paid content they just released and are trying to tempt people into buying the battlepass with, though? That'd be a bit like killswitching Lara fresh off release.
I notice the tails already disappear when Yui goes into a locker - they need to make the same thing happen when the killer picks her up. The framerate, though, I'm not sure what to do with that except disable or dumb down the sparkle effect.
-
@Peanits said:
These notifications are being removed in an upcoming patch. They will only appear in the store to help you find new outfits, not in the character selection screen.
I hate to jump in on any dev response and try to solicit a Q&A, and I'm not expecting a response, but all the same I have to ask - are there any other plans to change elements of the current UI, or talks about doing so? Feedback seems unanimously negative and while I'm as happy to get rid of the exclamation points as I am the owned stickers, it doesn't fix other problems like the customisation menu being harder to find and having much less functionality than before, or the newest character being stuck in the top left, or the game no longer neatly grouping your owned characters and putting the unowned ones greyed out in the back, and now having to sift through piles of characters you don't own (with a less clear visual indicator that you don't own them.)
-
I think this has always been the case with consumable addons - BNPs, styptics and anti-hemorrhagics, blight serum. They disappear after being used, so there's nothing for the white ward to preserve at the end of the match.
-
It's linked to shop outfits you haven't yet looked at, I'm pretty sure. It's tickling my latent OCD something fierce. I get updates on new skins on DBD's boot-up screen, I don't need the game to slather me in [!]s until I physically go to the shop.
-
I've always felt it depends on the context. If they're tbagging or interspersing 'come here's as they do it, it's toxic, but if they're just standing there, you're just standing there, and they start blinding you, they might be doing it for last-minute bloodpoints or a challenge. Communication in DBD is hard.
Same as how 'come hit me out' is sometimes taunting and sometimes the survivor trying to be nice.
-
This seems to happen to every killer whose power sometimes injures the survivor when it connects, but doesn't always. I've noticed this problem on Artist and Nemesis too.
-
I noticed this too. The number you roll is delayed and it doesn't seem to be applying the bonus (I had an 18 earlier, which should have given me a very visible +2% to each skill check, and couldn't see any visible progress jump on any.)
-
I noticed this bug with Alan Wake but not Yui, Aestri, Lara, or Cheryl, if this information helps narrow it down.
-
I can provide a bit more info about this bug, because I've been consistently applying it in maybe 15 matches.
The bug will happen if, the first time Wesker uses his power on a survivor, they are at full health (and taken to injured), they are not fully infected (ie, no instadown), and they are slammed against an object. It won't happen if they're thrown into an object and it won't happen if they're 'brushed' with the tentacle as they're vaulting. I'm still uncertain if throwing the survivor but no collision (and health state loss) has any effect on producing the bug.
If the survivor's first M2 hit meets these conditions, they'll be put into the contorted state every time Wesker M2s them in that match. They'll visually remain in this state until they start to heal or be healed (doesn't need to complete) or enter/exit a locker, but Wesker can reapply it consistently, no matter what health state he puts them in, unless he throws the survivor into an object. Otherwise, if the first M2 hit doesn't trigger the bug, they're immune and it will never happen in that match.
If he throws a survivor after they've been glitched, then their animation will return to normal and they become immune to the bug.
Concerningly, in one case today I had both a survivor and myself as Wesker become frozen and unable to move after a slam. The survivor was healthy and uninfected, and adjacent to a wall; no animation played when I collided with him, but the survivor entered Deep Wounds somehow. All my controls were disabled, camera included, and while the survivor could tbag, he flopped on the ground shortly thereafter so I can only assume he couldn't mend.
Stopped playing Wesker after that, because the animation bug is silly but harmless but this one's gamebreaking for everyone involved.