Moonras2
Moonras2
About
- Username
- Moonras2
- Joined
- Visits
- 5,406
- Last Active
Comments
-
Soo, I had a huge brain fart could a mod please delete this post lol.
-
@IamFran said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3787537#Comment_3787537
FSR downsample the image, the game look sharper but worse in the rest of the aspects. In addition, the FSR version in DBD is old.
Yes it is but I don't really notice any difference with it in image quality in this game, outside of it being sharper. That's on my steamdeck though, I've never tried it on my main PC or console. At least not in this game.
Waaaiiit, I remember now. It's because I tend to play on the lowest settings and it kind of disables the taa anyway I believe.
-
@skylustv said:
After coming back from a break of 2 months, I just discovered that I cant use nvidia filters anymore (we all know the game is too dark) and when I try to use it, the mouse cursor stay stucked, this is only happening in DbD, did they change it recently or something? Everything is updated
I don't know if anything there can help anyone but this is a apparently not the first time there's been issues. Could just be caused by needing a fix, or a driver and software update
-
@イエローミント said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3787499#Comment_3787499
Have you ever played a game on a PC?
To play games on a PC, you must have a piece of hardware called a graphics card. And to run that hardware, you need software called a driver. Only by installing these two on your PC can you play games on it.
The "GeForce Experience Filter," which you keep insisting is an external tool, is actually a part of this driver software. It is not an external tool. The current issue is that EAC is blocking this feature on its own (and while most people can still use it, a small number of users are unable to use part of the feature due to EAC).
As I’ve said repeatedly, if you want to question the validity of this filter, please refrain from posting in this thread. This thread is for people experiencing the same issue to discuss potential solutions.
If you wish to debate the merits of the GeForce Experience Filter, please start your own thread and discuss it there.
Just wanted to throw in here. Unless they've changed something recently, GeForce experience is an "optional" part of the driver software. You can even download it separately if I recall. It's not a requirement.
-
@IamFran said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3787492#Comment_3787492
We have to get used to the blurriness, I was a luma sharpen user. The native AA of the game is the TAA, one of the worse implemented in fact. Not using AA is not an alternative, because with the AA disabled the character hairs and grass look too pixelated, specially for the ones playing at 1080p like me. I hope it is reverted back.
Have you tried enabling fsr. I noticed on the steamdeck it seems to make the game a bit sharper when I'm playing on the tv. Any game I've played that uses taa looks blurry at 1080p for some reason. Never noticed it at higher res.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3787473#Comment_3787473
- Did NVIDIA buy BHVR recently and i not know about it? Because that doesn't feel like an official source to me.
- Care to explain how? It really is the same logic, your argument that you have presented so far is not "filter are not cheating" but that "Filters are important for accessibility" i am simply refuting that logic by pointing out the comparison that could be made in another situation. If you want to make the argument from an accessibility standpoint, you must confront the example i provided. Now, if you want to present the idea that filters are not cheating, i would be happy to read that as i have several counterpoints on that as well i could mention.
- I'm not saying you haven't, i'm simply stating that the better solution to accessibility issues is to make them, you know, accessible to all players and that you should continue to petition BHVR for better accessibility options.
- I never said buying an NVIDIA graphics card is cheating, i stated using this 3rd party program is, i can also buy a mouse for CS:GO that has scripts built in to control my recoil, but valve is banning players for that, is that suddenly not cheating either?
I'm not directing this at anyone just thought your post would be a good place to add this. While I don't really have an opinion on filters one way or another, BHVR has said use 3rd party programs at your own risk, since I started playing. The only outlier is that they do not ban for communication apps.
Just because EAC has allowed something for a long time does not mean they always will. They could even re-allow it on a whim. This whole thing could be caused by a bug for all we know.
Either way, you are correct, I don't remember BHVR ever saying any software related to this are allowed. EAC, if I recall, pretty much determines it, as far as I know.
From the support page.
"OTHER HACKS
Using 3rd party software or other tools to gain any kind of unfair advantage that wasn’t intended by the game.
We do not ban for the use of communication apps"
-
@KatsuhxP said:
They especially took the bloodpoint-bonus away from bbq because they don't want people to run specific perks because of bloodpoints, so I think that won't happen although it would be interessting I think xD
Yeah I understand that. Personally I don't care much about bp anymore. But shards would be nice too. I just think it could help some. Unlike BBQ, this wouldn't necessarily be tied to one perk. It would fluctuate between which perks become least used. If one starts getting used a lot it's extra percentage would drop and move to the the next lower. The daily / weekly thing would probably be easier to implement and would mean it can never stay tied to one perk.
-
It will get lower but over time. It may take 24 hours or something for the first penalty to fade, maybe 48 hours for the second. I don't know the exact numbers. It does fade away but it doesn't happen all at once.
-
@Nazzzak said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3786415#Comment_3786415
If you've played for 5 years then you undoubtedly remember a time where letting go on hook wasn't the issue it apparently is now. So do you think survivors are a hive mind who all suddenly woke up one day and decided to be spoiled brats for giggles? Something has fundamentally changed in the game and honestly, the only people who would know what are the devs. They'd have all the stats. I also recall you posting not long ago a quite high escape and kill rate (80% and 90% or something to that degree if I'm recalling correctly). It stood out to me because that's quite the outlier. It seems team mates letting go on hook doesn't impact the outcome of your games much, so is it just the fun factor they're taking away from you? We all know the common sentiment of this playerbase ("I'm not responsible for your fun"), is it time for that to change?
I remember when dc'ing didn't have the penalty and I saw it far less than I do now. The problem back then is some people would play out a full match to a win, then dc in the exit gates to drop their pips and ranking. So they could have easier matches. I don't think the pips or MMR work that way with dcs now though.
Back then just 2 survivors could accomplish too much though. With all the resources, old perks, vacuum pallets, etc… Because of that the matches didn't feel as hopeless as they do now. You could afford getting matched with a couple teammates who were lower ranked or not as skilled. As you still had a chance to win.
-
Hopefully after a few games your MMR for that killer will normalize and allow you to learn. It's really not friendly for learning new abilities. It sucks but it does go both ways. Survivors are often paired against someone who has mastered one of those rare to see killers. Then they have no idea how to play against their abilities because they rarely play against that killer.
-
@theonryo123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783702#Comment_3783702
I didn’t say the game ended because 5 gens done go back and read my post I specifically said if killers are able to use noed no way out blood warden and terminus then survivors should use ds and off the record for end game which means killers should earn their way for a kill since they didn’t stop 5 gens from being done but at end game they should just get good and earn a kill in my opinion
If a killer catches someone during endgame, they did earn that. It then becomes on the survivors to earn the save or escape. There are reasons these perks had to be changed for endgame. By themselves they are strong but paired with other perks it becomes a free escape. Sometimes a guaranteed escape.
I use to run ds, deliverance, and unbreakable just for this scenario. It almost always ended in me getting out plus the survivor I would save off hook. Even if I lost deliverance early on. That was just one combination and I'm sure there were more. The killer couldn't do a single thing about it.
Every thing you mention above has requirements and can be deactivated. Noed has always been one that can be disabled before it ever comes into play. It also shows itself when it does come into play. I still don't really like playing against this perk but it's tolerable these days.
Blood warden is on a time limit and can even be circumvented by not opening the gates right away or by leaving before someone is hooked.
Honestly, terminus I'll give you. I only played against it once but it was after an already unfun match. So it has a 100% not fun rating with me still. Didn't think it was strong just didn't enjoy it at the time.
Endgame perks for killer are also limited to endgame. Leaving the killer with less throughout the match All of those survivors perks can be used at some point throughout the match if needed.
Survivors aren't without endgame perks. Adrenaline and hope being the biggest that come to mind. With that being said, at least one base kit survivor mechanic becomes extremely strong during egc just like camping/tunneling does. Which is body blocking. In the right hands it can lead to a hook save and everyone escaping.
-
@theonryo123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783697#Comment_3783697
it doesn’t matter because killers should earn a kill and not just given to them because they lost the game when they can’t stop survivors from doing 5 gens
How are they given a kill? The game doesn't end just because the gens are done. Perhaps the killer decided to play for hooks. Should they be punished somehow because they got a lot of hooks but didn't choose to kill someone outright at the beginning? Perhaps 1 or 2 survivors were already dead before the gens were done. In this case they aren't really losing at all. It's still a close game.
-
@Prometheus1092 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783502#Comment_3783502
Survivors have the option to do gens in a way that that can be completed by 2 people. It's happened before very easily due to the regression limit. Might take time to slowly get them done but at some point the gens will be completed if they try. Easy option is to bypass that and go for hatch. As far as I'm concerned if they concede to the fact they can't do the objectives they have lost so yes a forfeit option would be ideal.
Maybe if there was other things to do for survivors like more totems or another way to earn points and the points became the winning factor then they wouldn't feel hope is lost so early, give up and still expect to escape. I'm not sure what the solution is but I do believe that if a killer is doing that well in the match then they should be able to get 4k. Otherwise your basically saying it should be impossible to get 4k for anyone. Because if a killer that straight up steamrolls the survivors can't get 4k then what chance does any other killer have? If it's a close match fine I get it, but in a very 1 sided match the victor should get the spoils regardless of what side the victor is. Maybe make the hatch an option for those who reach a target score throughout the match? Certainly shouldn't be an option for a survivor that has done nothing the whole match.
Oh I'm with you on some of this. It sucks when a teammate hides all game and then gets hatch. It shouldn't happen but it is a play style that can be used.
As far as them finishing gens with 2 left, I have to disagree. If it's one or maybe even 2 gens they could possibly finish them. Depending on how they and the killer plays. But it also is just a dead giveaway that the survivors are close by. Just tapping the gens to create distractions isn't as strong as it once was, with the changes to gen tapping. The odds of one survivor completing one gen while someone is being chased could very well happen, if the survivor is great or resources are plentiful. Multiple gens shouldn't happen.
I haven't seen survivors finish gens in that way since before vacuum pallets were removed. I also don't play to win like I did back then though, so I know for certain my MMR is not high.
I would just like to see both sides have a way to pull off a ridiculous play, with even a low chance to win, just to keep it fun and worth playing out. Or a way to alternate mid match and try a different play.
I have no problems losing every game, if it was a good time trying not to. Whatever mechanic it is would have to be weak but exciting. It's suppose to be a chance, not a guarantee. Even if it's something that changes once a week or once a month and can be ridiculous. Just to keep it entertaining.
I just have no idea what that should be.
-
@For_The_People said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783537#Comment_3783537
Yes and it was partly inspired by one of your comments anyway!
I like the idea of different things to do to keep it fun. Mine gets a little to complicated sometimes though lol. Still fun to write them out
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
If there are only two survivors left, and the survivors haven’t repaired 5 generators yet, then the game should start a 3 minute timer, and if there are still generators left after 3 minutes, then start giving killer instinct on the survivors every 30 seconds.
The compensation is when one of the two survivors gets grabbed or knocked to the ground, the game should wait a second and then immediately go into a finisher mori. This immediately starts the hatch phase.
And in the unlikely scenario that at least one survivor is already slugged when the game gets down to two survivors, then randomly finisher mori one of the slugged survivors, and set the other survivor’s health state to healthy.
And there you go. A system that helps stop the 2 survivor stalemate, and stops slugging for the 4k.
I thought about something different that would go more in line with your idea here.
Keep it all the same but dependent on the number of hooks a survivor has for the finisher mori to activate. Instead of normal hooks though, the survivors will be done like the hooking in 2v8 or the cages. Then the 2nd or third time will be the finisher mori. If they haven't already been hooked twice.
Edit: by this I meant the cage thing would be forced on a down. Not optional.
Could even keep the killer instinct based on time or add an entity type thing that slowly starts to crawl up the survivors. If they don't work on an objective for x amount of time it will take them and cage them. This would keep a survivor from just hiding while someone else is being chased also.
There's nothing worse than one gen left and a teammate refusing to touch it while you're being chased.
-
Id be iffy on calling it without seeing the rest. Perhaps that survivor thought they were going to let you go?
-
@For_The_People said:
how about every survivor actions (team-related) during the game accumulates a meter that means if they are left as last two, the one with the most team-related actions gets an advantage over the one who hasn’t (maybe the one who hasn’t has their aura readable or the one who has gets a new objective for steps to ‘create’ a key that only they can use in a temporary hatch for one).
yes of course I’m ready for a million detractors to this idea but just throwing it out there. This will speed things up, not be entirely free (the person still has to manage to go through steps to escape through the two above mentioned methods).
That could be a fun side quest for a while. Could be expanded with different objectives to keep it fresh.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783468#Comment_3783468
In the current DBD, it’s impossible for hatch to spawn with 2 survivors in the match. So it doesn’t matter if survivors can place themselves in situations where they can’t be hooked, because that situation currently doesn’t cause hatch to spawn with 2 survivors.
But there absolutely are situations where the killer can’t hook a survivor, and it’s literally the reason why the finisher mori PTB failed. Many survivors were purposely placing themselves in situations where they couldn’t be hooked, and this happened even if you personally don’t understand it.
It’s not good to add a game mechanic that encourages survivors to exploit it.I understand what the survivors did in the ptb and I also know that many of those places have been fixed and that hooks now respawn. Can you show any current examples of where someone can't be hooked? If so they should be put in the bug reports section to be fixed.
As for the top, I know the hatch doesn't spawn with 2 left. But there was a time it did, depending on survivors left and gens done, which means it is possible. It required a key back then but it did still spawn.
I was suggesting something that "could" be added to the game to prevent slugging for the 4k as well as hiding for hatch. I wasn't suggesting something that already exist.
-
@totallynotamegmain said:
this is devolving really fast can we calm down?
"Woosah, woosah" rub the ears - Martin Lawrence in Bad Boys
I love seeing stats like op posted. I just wish there was more we could see about the matches. Or even a couple to watch.
-
@Prometheus1092 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783461#Comment_3783461
Try flipping it, 4 survivors at the gate, game unwinnable for the killer. The killer gets a free kill to deny all 4 escaping even if the killer didn't get a single hook in the match. Survivors only get big BP score for all 4 escaping. Sound fair? I can guarantee swf especially would do what they can to deny the killer the single kill if the could and I bet many survivors would be annoyed at the fact a killer can suck that much at a match and still get a pitty kill at the end denying all 4 ever getting out. Survivors would say "but I did my objective, give me my escape"
The thing is, those survivors have completed pretty much 100% of their objective, minus leaving through the gate.
If you kill 2 people or even just tunnel out 1. The game is pretty much a guaranteed loss, unless it has been a fairly even match throughout. So for completing 1 half or 1 quarter of your objective, you have pretty much won the game. Do you feel you deserve the second half of your objective because you finished the first half?
If so, let's say that survivors finish 3 gens with all 4 still alive. In this scenario, the killer still has options, even though the survivors have completed part of their objective. Those options aren't guaranteed to work, but they are there for the killer to try. Should those options be removed? Should the survivors deserve the second half of their objective for completing the first?
Again, this is all assuming the matches are one sided. Balanced matches with back and forth can always go either way.
The game can often feel hopeless enough for both sides. Without some sort of option to try for a hail mary win, there is no point in the match even continuing or the losing side to continue playing. May as well just throw in a forfeit option at that point. Of course everyone's opinion of fun is different. Some may enjoy the hopeless feeling.
To clarify myself, I'm not for survivors holding the game hostage. It's boring, unfun, and a waste of time. It needs a change of some sort. But I get those same 3 feelings when a match feels completely hopeless and I have nothing to try.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783462#Comment_3783462
1.53 is interesting.
On the data, I would not have guessed the 1k and 3k rates would be so close, that's neat.
Hey, wasn't this thread about Trapper or something and you were asking for community thoughts?
I don't think its too surprising. If you play all out/ruthless and are good with the killer, you are going to win most of your matches. Trapper especially can snowball, and if anything goes his way early in the game and you're willing to camp you can set up a pretty devastating scenario.
I'd be curious over a 100 matches what his worst results were. Like were there games where he only got one or two hooks because he couldn't get the snowball rolling or he hit a SWF that counter played him from the start.
It's not as eye opening as the no power trapper challenges Hens and others did a while back.
id be curious on this as well. There's been times I've thought I was going to lose on trapper just because I spent the first part of the match only setting traps. Sometimes I did lose lol but often times the traps would have a big part in starting a snowball as well.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783434#Comment_3783434
There are still places that aren’t in range of a hook. And survivors can easily cause this to happen by burning a badham offering with a basement at shack offering.
And it doesn’t matter if hooks respawn, because if the only nearby hook is broken, then a slugged survivor that his flip flop can crawl somewhere that is outside of flip flop hook range, or a slugged survivor that has power struggle can crawl under a pallet. And by the time the hook respawns, the survivor has placed themselves in a situation where they can’t be hooked.
There’s also the situations where the killer was forced to drop a survivor because if things like hook sabotages, and the survivor has so much wiggle meter filled, that if the survivor crawls away from the hooks, then the killer can’t hook them anymore.
I apologize I may just be understanding you wrong but I'm not seeing where any of this would change what I said above.
Places that aren't within range of a hook are map problems and should be addressed. You are describing something that survivors can currently already do in a place it may be possible. I don't know how many of those even exist now but they are an issue that should be fixed.
Flip flop wouldn't have any outcome on hatch spawning, unless you left them slugged for the timer duration.
The survivors wouldn't be able to force the hatch to spawn. You would have to leave one on the ground too long. If they both run to the same corner of the map where they can't be hooked, which would be a rare spot that needs fixed, then one of them would have to be a recent fall. Meaning flip flop would have no effect. Sabo'ing a hook before running there would also have no change because you don't have to down them right away.
You also still have the ability to close the hatch if an offering is used. So you would know where it most likely is and could actually force it to spawn by slugging someone, just to close it.
Hook sabo to force a drop wouldn't have an effect on it either. That would mean no one was slugged for the hatch to even spawn. One would be on shoulder and one would be sabo'ing the hook. In that case you now know where both survivors are as well.
That does throw in the complication of picking up and dropping a survivor resetting the timer though. I hadn't thought of that.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783410#Comment_3783410
Survivors would purposely place themselves in situations where the killer can’t hook them, so that hatch would spawn with two survivors left, and both would have a chance at escaping.
And we know survivors would do this, because when we had the finisher mori PTB, I saw so many survivors purposely place themselves in situations where they can’t be hooked, because they had an extra inventive to do so.
How would they do that? If I'm not mistaken the hooks respawn now.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
If there are only two survivors left, and the survivors haven’t repaired 5 generators yet, then the game should start a 3 minute timer, and if there are still generators left after 3 minutes, then start giving killer instinct on the survivors every 30 seconds.
The compensation is when one of the two survivors gets grabbed or knocked to the ground, the game should wait a second and then immediately go into a finisher mori. This immediately starts the hatch phase.
And in the unlikely scenario that at least one survivor is already slugged when the game gets down to two survivors, then randomly finisher mori one of the slugged survivors, and set the other survivor’s health state to healthy.
And there you go. A system that helps stop the 2 survivor stalemate, and stops slugging for the 4k.
I'm not against this at all. It would be a quick solution for both outcomes and game stallng.
I would also like to throw in a more complicated way though. Perhaps this could be something that gives survivors more hope on escape. I'm only speculating but maybe it would help cut down on dcs or hook suicides.
Instead of the finisher mori. If no gen has been touched, and no survivors in chase, for 1 or 2 minutes then survivor auras are revealed for the remainder of the match. No more hiding for a win. Time can be adjusted but I think 1 minute is plenty of time to find and start a gen.
On the flip side, if only two survivors are left, and a survivor is left on the ground for more than 1-2 minutes, the hatch will spawn. It will be visible to all 3 players. Only one survivor may use the hatch. It will permanently close if someone hops in and the egc will start. This im more comfortable with at 2 minutes or higher because searching for someone is a lot more work than finding a gen.
If the killer reaches it first, it will close and start the egc.
Now plays from both sides becomes risky. Slugging for the 4k may end with the slugged or the other getting hatch. Possibly even triggering adrenaline for the slugged.
Hiding for hatch will also turn in to the killer being able to see both survivors for the remainder of the match. With plenty of time to probably down them both for the 4k before the other triggers.
-
@Neaxolotl said:
Ah look, we are still discussing as if kill rates means anything meaningful
It's quite obvious survivors are fundamentally easier to lose just because of stupidity(mostly for teammates and challenges) rather than game balance, while not so much for killers, it only makes sense to aim for slightly higher KR especially if they want to make a horror game
It doesn't really matter if numbers are 50/50 or 60/40 or 70/30, because none of those numbers shows actual game health, if devs decided to aim for 60% there is a reason for it, and it's not hard to understand slightly higher KR is basically healthier for the game
They've stated why they aim for the higher kill rates as well as the fact that they try not to bring win rates into it. That doesn't mean we can't discuss or give our opinions on the matter.
I was happy with the game in the state that it was in when I first started. But I also knew it needed the many changes it's gotten along the way. Just like I don't think those changes need to stop yet. Without feedback, combined with their own stats, we would still be playing that game as it was when I started.
-
Have you tried to lower the settings or framerate any to see if that makes a change. A lot of laptops tend to run warm or even hot because of their design. Some games will also tax the cpu more than they may the GPU. I'm not sure where DBD falls on that because I've never paid attention
There may even be a fan curve you can change to help with the temps as well as performance settings in one of the apps. It could be on a setting prioritizing noise over temp.
Edit: can you post the make or model. Or look on YouTube to see if you can find any reviews on the same system. Just to get an idea of how their temps and usage rates are in various games compared to yours.
This will help to indicate maybe if something is faulty if there is a large discrepancy
-
Im starting to think it's all subjective in which way a person thinks the balance should tilt.
To your point, I would say that would depend on the number of matches played combined with the outcome of each match. Average does not always equal exact. An average kill rate of 2k doesn't mean every match ended in a 2k. If the average of all matches is not exactly a 2k every game, then there will be a mix of wins/losses. Could the killer even win more than they lose, or lose more than they win, but still have an average of 2k?
If exactly every match ended in a 2k then that would depend on how you see it. If you see it as a draw that just nullifies the killers match, then the killer neither won nor lost. While the survivors have 50/50 win and lose. Or you could look at a draw as half a win, half a loss, which starts to balance out.
If for some reason you see not winning, but a draw, as a loss. Then there is probably someone else who thinks wow, I managed to get a draw, that's a win to me.
Do both sides stand a chance or is the killer always guaranteed a draw? While survivors always know at least 2 will lose? This could mean 2 survivors constantly have a 0% winrate as well, while the other two could possibly stay at 100%. Or anything in between. Depending on teammates and luck of the draw.
So at that point is it more fair to even out for wins, losses, or just call it even across the board? To keep in line with the horror theme as they said, it seems to go more towards the win side than the loss side.
However, that would just be game balance wise. If you go by MMR and a match ends in a 2k. It may nullify the killers gain/loss but at least 2 survivors may gain MMR and 2 survivors may lose MMR. Which just separates the survivor side even more. Because if they were counted as "one", then the survivors would also be nullified. Since they are not, that means at least two survivors are going to raise in mmr even though the other two teammates may have played the bigger role. But that's just part of scoring individually.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783107#Comment_3783107
I think the point of miscommunication here miiiight be something like, when they say "average winrate of 0%" what they mean is that the average outcome isn't a win?
That statement would kinda make more sense based on what they're saying overall, like, the difference between killers never winning and the average outcome being a draw or a loss but wins still happening here and there.
I'm not good enough with numbers to know if that's anything on its own merits, but it does seem like what they're saying.
Sorry I don't mean to direct all this right at you. Im not great with numbers or math but it all feels thrown off for me. It doesn't help that considering draws to be a half a win appears to be subjective. If we counted draws as half a win and half a loss would that mean that killrate = winrate or am I wrong on that?
Something else that seems to throw me off. Some don't want to claim a draw as half a win, which is fine. But then they only want to say that a draw is not a win for the killer, or 0% winrate, but is still a win for 2 survivors. But they leave out the fact that it's also not a loss for killer but is a loss for 2 survivors.
So then they say it needs to be balanced towards killer to balance out winrate. But does that mean the loss rate for survivors becomes higher than killer? What makes the loss rate for survivor less important than winrate for killer? Losing more than drawing or winning may feel worse than the opposite.
The whole thing confuses me lol.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782679#Comment_3782679
That's the closest thing to a "team" mechanic the game has, and as far as I understand it, it only affects the quantity of MMR you would gain and lose. Meaning, if you die but your SWF escapes, you still lose MMR, but less. So, the normal MMR win conditions for survivors still apply.
In my opinion, that's how it should work with the in-game rewards as well, to promote cooperation between survivors. The more survivors that escape a match, the more BP and experience you gain. But some people argued that then you would depend on others not losing, which would lead to toxicity... so, I guess survivors will keep being a team in name only.
Yeah that's part of my problem with all of the balancing discussions. I want to see the game balanced around team play in some way but it just isn't there lol. Can't argue over it being a team game when a survivor can not contribute for an entire match but still win while the others lose. So then this just makes solo queue feel miserable to me at times. At the same time the randomness of solo queue can be extremely fun on occasion lol. So I don't know how to force a team game but keep that.
It wasn't perfect but I still enjoyed the emblem system. I felt like I had a balance of fun and matchmaking in my matches and everyone had to contribute in someway to gain an emblem.
Then again, I may just be burned out.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782652#Comment_3782652
"For example, a 50% kill rate would mean they kill two Survivors per match on average. We try to keep Killers near a 60% kill rate on average to keep matches relatively even"
And the matches are more even because a 50% killrate on average means Killer draw all matches while survivors win 50% of the time, so it needs to be 60% so killers win almost as much as survivors. In other words, what we have been saying by doing the math.
I never saw that post, so thanks for sharing it!
Yw. I found something I didn't know in your link. It kind of throws it all out of whack because it seems to further separate solo and swf as far as MMR goes. Instead of just basing swf and solo off how a team performs. They treat them seperate.
Team-based MMR
If Survivors queue up together with friends, playing as a group (Survive with Friends), their final MMR score is influenced by what happened to the other Survivors queueing up with them:
- For each team mate that escapes:
- Increased gains towards MMR upon escaping.
- Reduced losses towards MMR upon dying.
- For each team mate that dies:
- Reduced gains towards MMR upon escaping.
- Increased losses towards MMR upon dying.
This was implemented to counter situations in which team mates sacrificed themselves for the survival of the others and were punished for their altruism by the Skill-Based Matchmaking Rating.
- For each team mate that escapes:
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782555#Comment_3782555
If I have to guess, he is saying that in Quote 1 because the MMR win conditions don't show in-game at all, and most of the community don't want the game to become "competitive" (even if it already is by design) as they consider it a "party game". So, their go-to answer in this cases is "whatever makes you happy".
Because yes, they have never stated that "60% killrate = 50% winrate" (which is wrong) or why exactly they want the killrate to be 60% as far as I know, but what they have in fact stated in the past is that it is their target killrate. So, if we do the math, lead to an average of 2.4 survivors killed, meaning that ON AVERAGE and MATHEMATICALLY SPEAKING (as in reality, getting to an equal 40/40% winrate is more complicated than simply getting to that killrate) survivors "win" 40% of their matches on average and killers 40% of theirs (technically, as if I have to guess again, one of the reasons they don't talk about winrates is that their win conditions are, to put it lightly, flawed and don't translate to in-game rewards) per MMR win conditions. Conditions that they also disclosed in the day while explaining the MMR system, and are documented in the wiki (Skill-Based Matchmaking Rating).
But hey, if you don't agree… whatever makes you happy.
Sorry to double post, this was it.
"We try to keep Killers near a 60% kill rate on average to keep matches relatively even and support the horror theme of the game, where the Killer is a force to be reckoned with and the survival is not guaranteed."
So it's to keep matches relatively even and for the horror. Not quite what I said in the other post.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/433
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782555#Comment_3782555
If I have to guess, he is saying that in Quote 1 because the MMR win conditions don't show in-game at all, and most of the community don't want the game to become "competitive" (even if it already is by design) as they consider it a "party game". So, their go-to answer in this cases is "whatever makes you happy".
Because yes, they have never stated that "60% killrate = 50% winrate" (which is wrong) or why exactly they want the killrate to be 60% as far as I know, but what they have in fact stated in the past is that it is their target killrate. So, if we do the math, lead to an average of 2.4 survivors killed, meaning that ON AVERAGE and MATHEMATICALLY SPEAKING (as in reality, getting to an equal 40/40% winrate is more complicated than simply getting to that killrate) survivors "win" 40% of their matches on average and killers 40% of theirs (technically, as if I have to guess again, one of the reasons they don't talk about winrates is that their win conditions are, to put it lightly, flawed and don't translate to in-game rewards) per MMR win conditions. Conditions that they also disclosed in the day while explaining the MMR system, and are documented in the wiki (Skill-Based Matchmaking Rating).
But hey, if you don't agree… whatever makes you happy.
If I'm not mistaken they've said in the past that they aim for the 60% to keep the killer more scary and inline with a horror experience. Now I could be completely wrong on that because I haven't tried to find where I saw that again. Ill see if I can find a post but it may have even been on a stream where I saw it. If I'm not just losing my mind and never saw it at all lol.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782396#Comment_3782396
Oh, hell, here we go again…
65% is what is "little killer sided". 53% is "little survivor sided". 60% is balanced.
Why? Because of how the MMR works, only a 3K or more is a win for the killer, and survivors only need to escape themselves to win. Ergo, a 60% kill rate means a 40% win rate on average (I repeat: ON AVERAGE and I can't emphasize it more) on both sides, and is the only mathematical way to be able to achieve equal win rates for killers and survivors. That's why it is the kill rate the devs aim for.
If you want more info, search in the forum one of the 100 times it has been explained.
I just wanted to repost these. They are a little old now and things could've changed. Maybe Peanits could clarify this again to see if there are updates on this.
Sorry I don't know how to quote between threads. This was all quoted from Peanits. The first quote was just a general response to the thread creator I think. But the second and third quotes were direct responses to other members. So I would check out the thread for full context. From this thread.
@xEa said:
I have not caught up on that topic so i hope, someone can explain that to me. Without emotions if that is possible.
The reason why i am asking is that i have serious doubts, at least from the perspective i understand it. That does not mean i am right. Like i said, convince me.
60% killrate is suposed to be 50% winrate. I heared thats the reason. Maybe i am wrong with that either.
That can not be true at all, at least when you look at the statistics. I know this is not 100% accurate, but very close to reality.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/EIA8R52DL8NR/winrate.jpg
When we look at any random killer (lets take the Clown for example since he is at 50% killrate) he should have a winrate of less the 40% so it makes sense. But he does not. He is in fact completly ballanced, even slightly ahead of winrate.
50% killrate means:
43% winrate (3 or 4K)
15% drawrate (2K)
41% lossrate (1K or 0K)
Am i missing something here?
To top it all off, i strongly argue that those killrates are actually much higher due to some reasons. On paper Clown might have 50% killrate, but if we considere the following points, he probably might be above 60%. Just a guess to be fair.
- Killer give free hatch or free escapes. They could have had the 4K, but decided to let 1 person go. Not uncommon.
- Killer farm. Without farming killer, the killrate would be much higher.
- Many killer dont care about the 50/50 gategame and go afk.
- Hatch in general is actually a 4K but luck for the survivor give them almost a 50% chance to make it a 3K.
- When a killer DC's, the survivor escape. When a survivor DC's, they get a bot, which makes the game still winable. Bots do gens, unhooks and are actually decent at looping the killer.
So like i said, if someone can explan that rationally, i would be more then happy. I did went through some of those threads, but there was never a clear answer to that.
Kind regards
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3591335#Comment_3591335
Quotes from Peanits
1st Quote
@Peanits said:
I can clarify a bit. I'm not sure where the 60% kill rate = 50% win rate bit comes from, but I don't recall it being said by us. We don't tend to talk about "win rates" because a win is still somewhat subjective. Some people count a pip as a win, others if they get 3 kills, some even consider only 4 kills as a win. If we're talking about solely kills, kill rate and win rate are equal. The kill rate is an average, not a guarantee. You might kill 4 survivors one match and 0 the next, but that'll still average out to 50%. (When you average out thousands of matches, that killer's actual kill rate becomes much more accurate.)
Certain things may influence it, like you've mentioned, but it's a bit too nebulous to speculate on. There are also things that survivors may do to inflate that kill rate, like giving the killer a pity kill after a rough match, giving up when the hatch is closed, and so on. They would cancel each other out to some degree, but exactly how much influence each has is impossible to identify. These would have to be incredibly common to have a significant influence on the total kill rates.
2nd Quote
@Peanits said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3591336#Comment_3591336
This is the part that there is no simple answer to. People will disagree about what the ideal kill rate should be until the end of time. Some feel like 50/50 is the most fair, others will feel like killers in a horror game like this should be a little bit stronger to maintain that power fantasy. Ultimately, it comes down to preference.
3rd Quote
@Peanits said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3591540#Comment_3591540
Please don't assume things, this is completely untrue. Kill rate is not a metric that we use to judge matchmaking. We're more concerned with things like rating differences, match data (was it one sided, or was it a close game), and most importantly, how people actually feel about their matches. If anything, it would be the complete opposite; if we saw a large number of 4 kill and 0 kill matches and nothing in between, it would tell us that something is seriously wrong.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3780992#Comment_3780992
You could simply have this mechanic not trigger until a survivor or 2 is dead.
It could also even remain for all four but pause, not reset, within a killers terror radius. Maybe start the timer off high but make it a little shorter each time a survivor is sacrificed. Might even make solo queue feel more bearable. I wouldn't even be against a less generous time. Maybe 60 seconds when only two are left
-
@LadyScarlett2001 said:
Hey, so I have been having trouble with dead by daylight and my pc in general for the last two weeks. At first my external hard drive (which I had/have dbd installed on) kept disconnecting which would force me to reinstall the game every time i booted my pc up. But after solving that issue, I now am getting the Easy Anti Cheat error code 2 modified files pop up anytime I boot up dbd?
As far as I am aware I have not modified any files, aside from trying to copy and paste them to different drives on my pc when I was trying to fix that installation problem. I have tried everything from validating files, uninstalling and reinstalling, updating pc, trying to move the game to a different drive and also booting up eac file to try and repair dbd and all that came up was repair game 83, but nothing has worked. I am genuinely at a loss because I have not been able to play this game since 2v8 started and I only stream dbd and have lost followers because I havent been able to play and stream. please help me out!
I hadn't thought about it earlier but something else to try might be to see if you can uninstall eac from your apps. Then maybe DBD or steam will reinstall it or something.
@For_The_People said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3780674#Comment_3780674
I thankfully got a good deal on Amazon for a 1TB but I’m keeping all my favourite games on the system just in case! Seeing your message earlier just reinforced it for me haha
I haven’t played the Re4 remake yet (waiting for a big sale..) but I’ve played RE2, 3, 5 and 6 from the SD card and it’s been ok thankfully! I picked up each of these on sale for like £3-5 each - (about $6-8?)!
Yeah I did have one smaller card that worked well but the 1tb card I bought just seems too slow for it. I made sure it met what was recommended but it's just not great.
Mine only came with the 64gb internal drive so I upgraded that to a bit larger one which helped a ton.
-
@For_The_People said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3780660#Comment_3780660
making a mental note to keep DBD firmly on the steam deck and not on a SD card etc!
🗒️φ(･ω･｀)
I haven't had much luck out of running games on the sd card but my larger card was also cheap lol. Re4 wouldn't completely load in levels and I'd fall through the map.
-
Sorry to double post but found this video. It's old but perhaps it could help. It looks like the people in the comments didn't get much help from it though
https://youtu.be/Wy93DeYJDL0?si=JM4IYDsC4Qkvspqi
-
Im not sure it would help but after uninstalling did you try deleting the DBD folder from where the game is installed. Maybe there is something hanging around in it.
It may be deleted when you uninstall though so thats why I don't know if this would help anything.
-
@bluesidesoul said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3778538#Comment_3778538
I think the same way that I do about slugging for the 4k as I do about survivors teabagging the exit gate when they already won. The survivors are denying the killer the ability to go to the next match just like how the killer denies the slugged survivor the same. My opinion is that if you're gonna deny me the option to be in the next match, then I'm gonna do the same by making it take longer for you to find me since you needed the 4k so bad.
I know it's annoying when it happens but the maps arent that big. It takes less than a minute to walk back and forth to both exit gates and that's being generous on the time. Just run them out.
There's a difference in having the option to run them out and having no option but crawling around or sitting still.
Someone not sitting in the exit gates and just hiding in the middle of a map is a different story. I wouldn't even be opposed to the gates closing after 20 - 30 seconds if no one is in them and no one is in chase. I'm not opposed to something being done about the last 2 survivors hiding forever either.
-
@RenoPro said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3778982#Comment_3778982
But is not guaranteed how can you balance it?
My problem with stack is that the devs balance the game around them, just look at the last adrenaline nerf.
Instead the game should be balanced around solo Q and stack of survivor should have penalities.
It would be near impossible to balance around solo queue without forcing survivors to play a certain way. That couldn't really be done without harsh in game penalties or making things bannable.
That would remove the fun of the game for a lot of people. They can try and take samples of games where all 4 solo queue players are actively trying to win and balance around that. But if even one survivor decides to do something that isn't progressing the game, that sample would have to be thrown out.
I'm also looking at this as someone who doesn't really enjoy playing survivor anymore. Playing solo queue just ends up with me being frustrated within a couple of matches. I either switch to killer or stop playing afterward. I do wish there was an easy fix to make it feel more fun again but I can't think of one.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3776211#Comment_3776211
Maybe they could have a newbie gamemode like you were suggesting and limit the perks used. We could do pre-made setups similar to what 2v8 does instead of custom loadouts, or just limit everyone to picking 4 general perks.
This may be the best bet. Just try to keep the game fun and engaging for new players so that they want to stay and learn more.
Both sides have a lot to learn in the beginning but for survivors it's different. Even if someone learns the perks, masters the basics, and advanced techniques early on, they still have to deal with learning to play against each killer. Then then they have to learn to play against each addon that changes the way a killer plays.
As it is they are having to deal with the basics plus everything else right from the start. It could often feel over whelming. Many probably don't have the time to invest to learn each individual thing either.
-
@Jim_Tonic said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3768034#Comment_3768034
top mmr SWF is more like a 90/10 than anything, ofc people want it down. But it aint gonna happen anyway, there is no possible way, they would need to make special mmr rules for top 5% mmr but then again people would actually KNOW what mmr they have (roughly at least) and BHVR dont want that either.
Where would you say is the 90/10 coming from though? When I first started playing the game I would've probably called it a 90/10 all day long without even looking for any evidence. But these days I don't really see it that way anymore. I just see good players on both sides and both sides tend to win some/ lose some.
I think I see it different in that some people see swf as having a huge advantage over solo and I can agree with that part to some extent. What I don't agree with is that 4 man, high MMR swf having an advantage = swf is super strong. It just means they have a better chance than solo but doesn't mean they are going to stomp killers. Both sides can make mistakes and in many instances it may just mean that one side was better than the other or matchmaking went wonky.
Now, talking about individual killers is a different story. But there's a line between making some killers at high MMR viable, and keeping them fun for everyone else to play as or against. I feel the same way about any top tier swf being matched up against a killer wanting fun but that speaks more on the matchmaking and how it works.
At the end of the day though this is just what I play and see. I have no way of saying it's the reality of it just like I can't say your 90/10 is wrong. I can go by bhvrs stats but even those have lots of variables that can swing to each side.
-
@Jim_Tonic said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3767775#Comment_3767775
So you all DO understand that the current balancing is closest to "50/50" we can get, good.
Because i dont understand, on one hand people say "why not balance for 50/50" implying they think the current 60/40 is too killer favored just because the numbers look inbalanced but fail to take the asymmetrical part in the aspect. If we were to apply 50/50 to the same ruleset then the balance simply shifts much mor radically into the survivors favor. Thats where the 0-1k comes from because we have an average killrate at 2.5 right now, its kinda obvious if you lower the killrates and higher the escapes to a 50/50 level, then ofc that means less sacrifices per match. Even if its 1-2k on average that means wins are rare for the killer side.
Elanos gave a good insight on why it is 60/40 all though i dont get the second part of the post because its contradicting the first one.It doesn't mean wins are rare though. It could mean several 3-4ks, several 0-1ks, and a couple 2ks. Or it could be 2ks across the board. It could also mean a bunch of losses for one player but a bunch of wins for another. Balancing out overall to 50%.
I do agree that what we have with 4 man swf, at top MMR, is pretty close to a 50/50. That's if we go by behaviors stats. Which I am willing to do in this case, though I'd like to see them updated more often.
They can try things to help out the solo queue experience. I just think while there is only one game mode, and survivors can play how they want, that 60/40 is fine for everything else.
My issue here is that some people think a 4 man swf, at high MMR, should be brought down to that 60/40 level. When there is no real reason too. The thematic experience is pretty much gone at that point and the scare factor thrown out the window. So being close as it is to a 50/50 balance when both sides are trying their hardest, seems fine to me.
-
@Jim_Tonic said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3767182#Comment_3767182
Its impossible due to the pure nature of asymmetrical games. If you make both sides equally strong then kills will average between 0 to 1. Killer role HAS to be opressive in order for the game to be remotely balanced, but we dont even have only an imbalance between killer and survivor, we have an inbalance between swf and soloQ + between the killers themselves.
Then there is far too much RNG involved, if you really would want 50/50 balance maps should not hinder either side, certain perks litteraly should be banned from existing and all the killers would need to be streamlined in some shape or form. It would make for a very boring game that way.Im sorry I may not be coming across how I mean it. To me they have already pretty much done 50/50. If high level 4 mans are at a 48% escape rate then that's pretty close to a 50/50.
I'm not saying that average matches or players should be the 50/50 as you can't control what random teammates or players will do. Even without the horror aspect coming into play, 60/40 seems fine to me in this regard. Unless they force survivors to play a certain way I don't know how solo queue could ever really change without making survivor too strong.
I think the 50/50, or even the 48 it was the last we saw, is fine for high level. That's putting high MMR killers, who are probably playing higher tier characters, against high MMR survivors who are actually playing as a team.
Im also not sure where the 0-1k comes from with this.
-
@Eelanos said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3767136#Comment_3767136
"A higher escape rate at high MMR makes sense to me."
Both 39% and 48% are official numbers for high MMR escape rate. Solo survivor, regardless of skill level, peaks at 40%. Premades have so many advantages over solo that even exclusively comparing the highest level of play they are almost 10% more likely to escape than the most professional soloq player.
To put this into perspective, the patch that pretty much absolutely decimated soloq and threw survivor play into disarray for several months, 6.1.0, "only" raised kill rates by about a 5%.
Yes I get that but that's still solo queue. At low or high MMR it only takes one person being random, doing tomrs, etc... to throw out the whole match. I'm not saying that 4 mans at that level aren't doing the same but the chances are probably higher that they are still working together even for the random things.
I know they have other advantages but working together is kind of the key thing I usually see. It's hard to say that's even happening in high level solo play or if people are still playing for themselves. Which is something that's on the players at that point. Not the balance.
This is all speculative on my part btw. I don't watch a lot of solo survivor play and couldn't guarantee it would be high MMR if I did watch to know if this is how it is
-
@Jim_Tonic said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3767136#Comment_3767136
a 50/50 balance is impossible in a 1vs4.
Why? Their stats are not showing far from it. To be clear I know there's more to the stats than just the number. I'm not talking an exact number.
I think part of the problem is that the game isn't just a 1vs4 in my eyes. As killer, I feel like it's a 1v4. As a solo survivor, it can feel like a 1v1, v2, v3 ,or v4. This is also where I think 60/40 is fine. It's impossible to balance around random players doing random things
However, it appears 4 mans at high MMR are closer to a 50/50. May not be exact but I would say is in a good spot. This means when the survivors are playing as a team, then it is more evenly balanced. I wouldn't consider this a 1v4. More of 1 killer vs 1 team.
Compared to solo survivors, or swfs that are just playing for fun. Where it could be anything from 1v4 to a 1v1v1v1v1. Sometimes a solo group is even comparable to a good 4 man swf, if they are playing the same game.
-
@Eelanos said:
I don't think people realize the huge difference a 5% can make. In most other games I play, a 5% difference is the difference between trash and midtier characters, and between mid and godtier. Heck, people in this very forum had a mental breakdown over a 3% speed increase.
We're acting in this thread like the difference between 39% and 48% escape rate doesn't deserve getting addressed. Like, yeah, it might be a difficult problem to tackle, and obviously the people casually enjoying the perks of playing 4-man will get annoyed if we tried, but it is very much a huge balancing issue whether you like it or not.
People always say "But why would you punish people for playing with friends!!", but as it stands, the game punishes people for playing by themselves. It's a constant stream of balancing patches directed entirely either to high rank players or premades, while soloq gets worse and worse each patch. And yet, soloq players cannot tell others "I'm being camped!", "The killer is at shack!" or "The killer is trying to 3-gen!", a gameplay advantage that premades of all types have (casual premades included) and that unavoidably helps them getting an edge over soloq, no matter if they're using professional map callouts or singing I Want It That Way the rest of the time.
I think those percentages are probably exactly how they need to be. If behavior is shooting for a 40% escape rate to go along with the horror theme of the game, then that seems fine for new to average players. Many of them are probably still experiencing that aspect of the game.
A higher escape rate at high MMR makes sense to me. Most of those people are well past the horror part of the game. A 50/50 balance at that level would be where I think it should be.
This is just my opinion of course.
-
@Toystory3Monkey said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3764869#Comment_3764869
i dont think there can be more toxicity in the game chat and i find it to be a petty excuse to not be fair with people.
telling killers they were against swfs/solo will do more good than harm because it will help people finally see that SWFs dont affect their chances of winning that much.
I don't find it petty at all. Reducing toxicity in anyway is a positive in my eyes. But like I said, I wouldn't mind seeing them try it. There may not be much toxicity at all that comes from it.
I have no problems with people seeing it after a match personally but I also don't see it as that important.
-
@Toystory3Monkey said:
no reason not to show SWFs after the match, but before it will lead to lots of issues
It could lead to more toxicity in the endgame chat. I don't know how many times over the years id be in a group of solos, only for the killer to go off on a name calling tangent and accuse us of being a toxic swf. It doesn't happen often but it may get worse if killers know they were against a swf.
I am fine with them trying it out though. Never know how it would play out without being tested.
-
@SweetbutaPsycho said:
I mean I get that a lot of people will just dodge. On the other hand I find it pretty lame to make a build with Hex: Plaything, Trails of Torment, Insidous etc. and get 0 value out of it cause people just constantly call out where I am. Tried this build for like 8 games and in 3 it was literary useless cause ppl were SWF. That also shouldnt happen tbh, that a whole category of build just instantly becomes useless with no way to tell upfront
Sadly this isn't just a swf thing. It feels like every time I try to run a full healing build I get matched against plague. Or I'll run a hex build and suddenly there are 2 survivors running small game or inner healing lol. The worse is when I try to run a spooky build and use a map offering, just to lose to another offering. It doesn't happen constantly but enough for me to notice.
Apart from showing both sides what they are up against, or removing any sort of "chance", useless builds will always be possible