MrPenguin
MrPenguin
About
- Username
- MrPenguin
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,543
- Last Active
Comments
-
60.77%, so more like 60-61% actually using what we have access to if we're talking overall average. See above post for more details if interested.
But for the top 2 only yeah that's about right.
-
@Rastabooze said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3708217#Comment_3708217
wdym? Almost every killer in high MMR today plays this build or almost this build. Maybe there is one switch in a perk.
So: wdym?
You used the highest percent as the example which is only 1 version of the build which has a less than 1% usage rate.
For your argument to potentially hold that'd have to be the overall average for the build (which it's not).
Taking all the builds available in the top 20 and removing the ones without those perks leaves us with 18. Averaging those kill rates out, the result is 60.77% at the time of writing this.
That's almost exactly where its supposed to be. So as far as we have data for the build is in fact not OP.
-
If you mean back to the 200% version then yes.
-
@Rastabooze said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3707591#Comment_3707591
72% kill rate is not op?
Not when it's less than 1% of the time. That's not enough of a sample size.
-
@THE_Crazy_Hyena said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3707584#Comment_3707584
5-second DS buff feels more like a "band-aid" patch, rather than a proper way to combat the tunneling issue. Since DS was nerfed for a good reason, due to many survivors using it offensively, rather than in self-defense.
- Not that I ever run DS anyways. I'm not the person playing in a toxic way, on either side.
I mean I agree. Imo DS is a dumb perk that needs layers of restrictions and conditions to not be abusable and there are better ways to tackle the problem.
I'm just saying that's what so many were touting hard as the solution and that's why we got it. This is what survivors wanted 🤷♂️
I don't tunnel nor care if I am tunneled, I just hope this doesn't turn into a "give them an inch" situation and that the players are happy now that they got what they wanted.
-
Popular doesn't mean OP.
Survivors are escaping just fine against this build if they are actually good at the game.If you don't want to worry about your teammates skill level, then why are you playing a team based game? Especially solo?
-
Well according to many, especially on the forums, bringing DS to 5 seconds was the magic bullet solution to tunneling and we got that.
-
@fussy said:
- Most of players in this game have very low skill level and poor understanding of balance. Instead of actually learning something they want game to be balanced around them, instead of really getting better at their knowledge and skills. It amazes me that people with 3-6k hours can be so unaware of what they're playing at. I met killers who don't know how to mindgame with 5k hours, I met survivors who don't know how to watch at killer at chase with 5k hours and it shouldn't be like that.
It amazes me that some members here with thousands of posts ask to bring most unhealthy things back just because it was "fun" for them. - Survivors are spoiled too much by previous state of the game and want bring back ez mode. Killers are spoiled by current state of the game and want ez mode by leaning game in killer side further. And this, unfortunately, is a consequence of first point.
- Game is in the best place it have ever been. Most stupid things on both sides are gone, both sides have a lot of help (and soloq got a bunch of very useful stuff, no matter how hard you try to turn a blind eye to it) to have enjoyable matches. Skill finally matters something in this game on both sides and i absolutely love it. Yeah, of course there is still a lot of work should be done further.
100% agree with all of this.
- Most of players in this game have very low skill level and poor understanding of balance. Instead of actually learning something they want game to be balanced around them, instead of really getting better at their knowledge and skills. It amazes me that people with 3-6k hours can be so unaware of what they're playing at. I met killers who don't know how to mindgame with 5k hours, I met survivors who don't know how to watch at killer at chase with 5k hours and it shouldn't be like that.
-
The game is better than it has been in the past. Still has some problems but its overall moving in the right direction. Just really slowly.
The forums however I feel went the other way. I've been around for a few years, and before it had a lot more middle ground minded people. Don't get me wrong we still had plenty of extremist for both sides but it was pretty even. Lately if feels noticeably more survivor slanted. But maybe that's just due to having more of the very vocal members being that way. Not naming names.
That said, its always been and probably always will be an "us vs them" warzone. One side just seems like it has more or louder soldiers nowadays.
-
@Emeal said:
Wont this just cause the majority of players to self unhook to get hooked again, so they can die faster and not play a game where they are getting tunneled?
Players who don't want to play for whatever inconvenience will always find a way to not play. The problem there is their mindset so no matter what you suggest they will always be a problem.
Best to not consider them if you want to make any real progress. -
As long as the killer gets some indicator of who was hooked last.
You still get a hook state so I can't really think of any major way to abuse it.
All in all this seems like a much better solution than anything else I've seen suggested. I'd be all for testing it in a PTB and seeing how it pans out.
-
@WolfyWood said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3699748#Comment_3699748
Tunneling is simply targeting a recently unhooked survivor within a certain time-frame.
This time-frame varies for every person you ask, but there are definitely solutions that encompass a large swath of problems because of tunneling.
Yes people will still complain, but this shouldn't be relevant because most players are rational.
The reason I state to stop bringing up killer players is because it should be a given that killer would have to be compensated for losing the best strategy for winning.
The truth of why tunneling hasn't been addressed yet is because bhvr knows their profits aren't in danger so they're taking their time coming up with a low-cost, low-effort solution to implement.
People are grossly overthinking the problem because of BHVR's radio silence on the topic making it seem more complex than it is.
You'd be surprised how many "unsolvable" issues would be fixed very fast if this game had a serious competitor.
That's not tunneling though. Tunneling is explicitly going for the same survivor repeatedly as agreed on by the majority, further evident when polled, and that has been the agreed upon definition for a very long time also among the majority.
Especially considering the whole basis of the term was "tunnel vision". Which doesn't make sense if it's just happening to get chased soon after getting unhooked. How is that tunnel vision?
This is part of the problem. There's some players asserting this "new" definition trying to stretch what "tunneling" means to be a lot more broad than it is. Whether intentional or not.
It's not just getting unhooked and chased again soon after.
Furthermore there's so many things that can influence if that happens or not that it'd have no real value calling it out if that were the definition. You might just get unlucky or your team just failed to take aggro for you for example.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3700814#Comment_3700814
I honestly don't have the mental energy (or physical) to explain why you're wrong, nor do I think that this discussion will do anything for you.
Apologies.
Well until you explain either why you're right against the majority or why I'm wrong you're argument as it stands is incorrect.
That's fine with me.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3699774#Comment_3699774
You could make a case for the others, maybe, but the first one is literally just tunneling.
No it's not. That's why you think you see tunneling more, you're considering something that's not tunneling tunneling.
Again 97% of those that got polled agreed with his definition of tunneling being explicitly going for only 1 person and no one else.
-
Yeah players just thinking they got tunneled when they didn't is a major problem in this discussion.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3699846#Comment_3699846
One notable thing Scott did not take into account, that I saw, was OTHER people being tunneled.
I, personally, get tunneled somewhat often. Not every game, not infrequently. I imagine it has something to do with P100 and not being good lol.
HOWEVER, I see tunneling more frequently than that. I might not know the nuance, but three hooks on one player before anyone else gets hit is a pretty easy case to solve.
wdym he explicitly stated he took into account whenever anyone got tunneled not just him to avoid the very thing you're accusing him of.
Did you actually watch the video?
-
@Ayodam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3699389#Comment_3699389
Jund has a strict & myopic definition of tunneling. It’s kind of like the proxy camping vs face camping argument.
Tunneling to most people: hooking a survivor, going off to chase another survivor. The hooked survivor is unhooked. While I’m chasing another survivor I notice that unhooked survivor off doing something, so I break chase to go after them again specifically.
Tunneling to Jund: Hooking a survivor, proxy camping, then pursuing the unhooked survivor.
Both legitimate forms of tunneling but Jund appears to only consider the latter “true tunneling” and frames his poll in a way where only that definition could be used.
@[Deleted User] said:
The issue is a lot of the community have their own personal, subjective definitions of what tunnelling is. For example I would guess that a lot of people think when a killer focuses on two survivors, that is a form of tunnelling to them. When quite clearly, it isn’t. I have also seen many scenarios where a killer hooks someone, tries to chase other survivors and gets looped in circles before dropping chase and finding the originally hooked survivor (sometimes they haven’t even bothered healing btw) who it turns out is the weak link. Is this tunnelling? I guess. But at this point what should the killer do? The issue is a lot of survivors don’t respect macro gameplay and think killer strategy is boring. The ideology seems to be : find survivor-chase that survivor-either catch them or don’t. Yeah, good luck with that strat.
Similarly context is important- there will be people who consider tunnelling in certain situations acceptable and others who don’t. For example, the one person on death hook just got unhooked in end game. At that point if a killer makes a decision to tunnel I’m not really classing that as tunnelling and I’m not mad if it happens to me.
As Scott said in this video, tunnelling is disregarding everything to 1-2-3 hook one particular survivor ASAP in a game. Ignoring other survivors entirely, ignoring any built in anti-tunnel and powering through anti- tunnel perks. Anything else, which seems to get referred to as “soft tunnelling” is generally just people whining.Are we just going to ignore that as he said in the video he polled the community and 97% agreed with his definition of tunneling being explicitly going for only 1 person and no one else? Or am I missing something?
-
@drakolyr said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3700107#Comment_3700107
It is, but its a design flaw.
I dont get why killers get babysitted in the endgame with survivor perks being deactivated, but unwinnable condition like the 2 person hiding or slug thing is bad.
Also for some here, most of the time its the slug and find the last survivor thing. Hook and its fair game.
Still i think it should have a comeback mechanic for the survivors aswell, free wins are boring.
I dont see why killers should get aura reading, survivors should get something encouraged trying to escape.
Because as many have said in regards to tunneling and other player induced situations: "Incentives don't work. Punishments do."
At least with our community.
Also if the survivors are down to 2 without doing enough gens that's not a "free win". The survivors already lost the match on their own, they're just dragging it out unnecessarily.
Additionally survivors don't need a catchup safety net mechanic when they already start the match at their strongest. They don't need catchup help when they already start ahead.
-
Please prevent the same survivor perks back to back.
Any survivor using any perk in my last match should be forced to wait longer in que so I have a match I personally enjoy more. I don't care about them. RIP que times for anyone using popular perks.Replace that with killer and that's how you sound. People rightfully are calling out the selfish entitlement to get a match you personally want at the detriment to others.
Just stop playing the game if it bothers you so much that a killer you don't want to face might get picked. It's in the game so it might get used. You accept that possibility when you que up. The same way killers accept the risk of going up against another meta perk squad.
-
@MoNosEmpire said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3686613#Comment_3686613
Surely someone pressing a BUTTON doesn't offend you, right? RIGHT??
It's the same argument for killers repetitively moving back and forward behind my body after knocking me and hitting me on the hook and personally targeting me all game for simply being apart of their lobby, it's apart of the game.
Crying about everything is not the answer here because it can't be nerfed without making the game worse.
Flashlight clicking was already nerfed because of the overly sensitive players and that inadvertently affected being able to blind the killer because of the dumb delay added, stop ruining the game.
REGARDLESS of what is done there will always be toxic players, especially now more than ever. It's really not that serious.
These issues are nothing compared to the toxicity witnessed in Modern Warfare 2/COD4 lobbies. Grow some thick skin, it's always usually an immature child being toxic anyway.
No I'm not personally offended but that doesn't mean I'm going to defend people being rude and nasty just to be toxic for no real reason.
That doesn't mean I'm going to excuse their behavior just because there will always be toxic people in some amount. That's true of any bad behavior.
That doesn't mean it's acceptable just because "its debatably worse somewhere else", which doesn't make this situation any better. There will always be "something worse".
That doesn't mean we can't advocate for it to get better.
Surely you're not taking the side of cringe immature players flipping others off being sore winners and donkeys right?
Why are you trying so hard to minimize what's happening and excuse it? They're being toxic, and that shouldn't be encouraged nor defended. Correct me if I'm wrong but the only reason I see to defend it is because you're part of the problem and do these things yourself.
Just because I'm not personally offended doesn't mean I think it should be a free pass to excuse what's happening.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3688957#Comment_3688957
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3688964#Comment_3688964
Both answers dont answer the question why you would not aim to remove things which make people DC. One with less words, one with more words (but I give bonus points for including the Lore of a Character, this will totally make people DC /s).
The fact: You cannot remove DCs or Hook Suicides completely. Thats it. Even if that Dwight DCs because he was the first getting downed, this does not mean that it is pointless to make Skull Merchant enjoyable against it (which does not mean to make her weak, I know that my Killer Mains on this Forum will say that fun = weak, but this is just not true).
You will always have people who DC for the most stupid reasons. Whether it is being downed first, being on the disliked Map, a Gen done too fast, not liking the Killer, missing your first Feral Frenzy Hit as Legion… Quite a bunch of reasons, all of them quite dumb.
However, this should not be the excuse to not change things which are unfun to go against.
Many people DC/suicide against Skull Merchant, change her.
"But people also DC against Wraith."… Yeah, whatever. No point in saying that.
To repeat it: You cannot fix 100% of DCs or Hook Suicides. But you can fix some of them.
Fix her by doing what exactly? Every answer I've seen so far is just "delete her", "replace her power completely from scratch" or vague "make her fun".
Other than that its just nonconstructive complaining that she's even allowed to continue existing.
She's not really doing anything special anymore. What is even the problem with her specifically at this point?
It just seems like a bandwagon hate train from her first iterations that players refuse to move on from.
-
The perk isn't the problem so this won't fix the issues. The issues are the maps themselves being generally too strong (yes there are exceptions).
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3688737#Comment_3688737
Of course it is the Killer. If Survivors suicide that much it is a good indicator that something is wrong with the Killer. You dotn get those high numbers of DCs and Suicides against any other Killer.
And it is obviously not strength, since you wont even get those numbers against Nurse.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3688746#Comment_3688746
Why not try to solve the problems which make people DC or suicide on Hook? Nobody ever was able to answer this, lol.
And yes, I know that some people will DC or suicide when they found first or for whatever reason. But reducing the unfun things which make the majority DC would be the right step.
Fix survivors being immature and uninformed? How?
Most of the reasons for DCs boil down to "the match isn't going my way" and/or "I don't like/understand this killer".
Like people dislike SM just because of her general existence and a lot of them don't even know she got changed or how she works. There are those that still complain that her drones camp gens for her and they will get scanned on the gen. They got a first impression that "SM bad" then there's an echo chamber of "SM bad" that just keeps it going regardless of what they do.
There's a not insignificant number that say part of the reason is because "her lore is bad and I don't like her design". It's wild.
"Fixing it" would be essentially "replace this entire killer, concept, power, design, and lore".
Past that the only way to "fix" general DCs is to make survivor punishment proof and always in a superior position to the killer. 1v1 and otherwise.
"Unfun" in this community basically means one or more of the following:
- "I'm losing"
- "The other side is not playing the exact way I want them to"
- "I don't understand this killer and I refuse to learn how they work"
- "This killer needs more than just looping to counter"
- "I refuse to learn how to counter this killer correctly"
- "They're not playing someone from the survivor approved killer list".
Just make the killer a bot at that point and rebrand the game to PvE. It's not realistic to "fix it" and keep killer playable for non-masochists.
It's not just "some" people, it's "many if not most". At least if we're talking about players who actively engage in DC behavior frequently.
-
He's not doing anything special against good survivors so at most he's B.
But D is too low.
-
@MoNosEmpire said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/409475/teabagging
If someone tapping the crouch button or clicking a flashlight offends you.. Sorry to say but it's not them. Yes some survivors are toxic but it's really not that serious.
if someone flips you the bird and is being a sore winner I would not say the problem is the person it's directed at.
That's all these things are, the gamers middle finger. Maybe stop defending these type of players when they're being obvious donkeys?
-
@Man_of_triangles said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3684110#Comment_3684110
It's almost always a 4K, a 0K, or a 1K with the guy getting tunneled or camped while the gens fly by. Almost never does a match feel balanced and like either side could win.
The only information on current kill distribution we have is through nightlight and on there 0K and 4K combined only make up 50% of the overall average.
That's not "almost always" as far as information we have goes. It's not Ideal but I'd rather take that over someone's anecdotal evidence.
Now is that too high? That's subjective I suppose.
-
@Man_of_triangles said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3684093#Comment_3684093
I know what it means. My point is that the statistic is pointless. If the killer is veering wildly between 4 kills and 0 kills then that doesn't mean we say it's 2.5 and we should be happy.
If you know what it means then why ask what is it?
The statistic is not pointless, aim for a 2.5 average. Aim for sometimes a 2K, sometimes a 3K with anything less and more being less common than those 2 outcomes.
If killers are "veering wildly" then there's a problem somewhere. In that case my best guess is it'd be matchmaking and survivors giving up at the slightest inconvenience.
-
@Ayodam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3683973#Comment_3683973
I think Nightlight perceives matches as 4v1–even though it’s been confirmed (I think by Peanits? Or maybe Mandy, or even Cote on stream) trials are evaluated as 1v1v1v1v1–which is probably why the kill rate and win rate, per Nightlight, differ. Since the two are tethered the kill rate should be what the win rate is.
No they're not the same thing. If you only 2K every single match you'd have a 50% kill rate, but what is your win rate?
0%. Because 2K's are not a win.
On the other end if you 3K every single match you'd have a 75% kill rate with a 100% win rate.
So if we want 50% which is in between 0% and 100% we should aim for in-between 2K and 3K.
2.5K average.
The 1111v1 doesn't really change that as far as I see. The killers win/kill rate still means the same thing. An individual survivor might be different because they are competing with the other survivors as well as the killer and are not graded as a team.
-
@Man_of_triangles said:
What the heck is a 2.5 kill?
It's an average. Basic math should let you know what that means.
-
@Raptoraurz said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3683973#Comment_3683973
2290 posts here but you didn't even read the "January 2024" stats reveal by the developers themselves.
Alright, here is the link. https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/433
Basically half the killers are above 58-60% killrate. And developers don't even hide they want killers to be at 60% killrate (like why, why not 50%).
Alright, let's forget about killers. What about 40-41% winrate of surviving? That's way below 50%. It's only fine with 48% at very high MMR where people are basically acting like tournament mode, but that's like in every other game. Only top 1-2-5% of the whole community achieve high MMR stats. What about the medium MMR? I am not talking about low MMR, what about an average gameplay MMR experience? It's still around 40-41% and it's not even close to 45%. Why?
I agree, killrates are different than winrates. But if developers spread messages like "50% killrate is fine for getting 2 kills" so that means like a tie/draw. Above 50% means:
1) Personal player is skilled enough to win matches by killing more survivors.
2) Flaws in balance.
Since the killrate here represents ALL MMR combined, not personal gaming experience or certain MMR bracket, do you really believe that suddenly killer players are all so good and full of skills and survivors are suddenly dropping in skills? I wonder why, after all the nerfs survivors got and all the perks that require literally nothing to do, just a simple action, like "let me open a locker to become a mini-Doctor".
Maybe with only 5 post you shouldn't assume things about others on forums.
Yes I do know the stats, that's why I originally thought you were confusing the 2. Please point me to where in the stats it specifically list "win rates". Not "kill rates", "win rates".
Its above 50%, 60% in this case, because in order for the killer to win half the time, they need to at least 3K at least half the time. Not 2K, 3K. So the Average gets pushed up above 50% by default.
If we balance for a 2K then you'd be aiming for something like sometimes 1K, mostly 2K, sometimes 3K. So most of the time the killer would not win. 2/3 of the outcomes are not wins. If we factor all the outcomes, 0-4K, then 3/5 are still not wins.
If we want the killer to have a 50% win rate, then we need an above 50% kill rate. Because the killer does not have an even split of outcomes that are wins.
A draw counts as a "didn't win" so as far as win rate goes it's a "fail". Wanting a 50% kill rate is asking for the killer to not win the majority of the time. For example if you 2K every single match you'd have a 50% kill rate, but what is your win rate? 0%. Because 2K's are not a win.
On the other end if you 3K every single match you'd have a 75% kill rate with a 100% win rate.
So if we want 50% win rate, which is in-between 0% and 100% we should aim for in-between 2K and 3K. In other words around a 2.5K average. Which is above 50%.
That's why. The vast majority of people are not fine set up to fail most of the time. As we saw in the past when almost no one wanted to play killer and survivor ques were long enough for me to watch an entire episode of a show and still be in que.
The only information for win rates specifically we have is nightlight. And over there guess what the win rate is? 49.68%, basically 50% with a slight survivor tilt. As far as history has shown nightlight and the official stats have been pretty much identical. Enough to be considered pretty reliable. So as far as information we have access to, you have your 50% win rate with our current kill rate.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3683104#Comment_3683104
Maybe you're more lenient with the hatch, but generally speaking, if the killer gets 3 kills, the fourth is likely to die too, which is likely why it trends towards 4Ks. Not tunnelling or camping may also indeed trend you towards more moderate outcomes too, but that's just a guess.
I'm also not sure why 60% would guarantee unbalance.
Going by the Nightlight statistics, the current winrate (That's 3K+) is roughly 49.5%, versus a kill rate of 56%. If you were to inflate the kill rate, unless its a buff that trends 0Ks towards 1Ks and 3Ks towards 4Ks, you're going to see an increase in winrates. If you want perfect balance, the rate at which 3K+ occurs should be equal to 1 - KR. Stats above indicate a survivor winrate of 44%, which is 5.5 percentage points below that of killers. That is a pretty considerable swing.
With the complicated nature of DBD and the various killers each having their own individual outcome trends (Instadown killers like Hillbilly and Bubba for example have a uniquely low likelihood of scoring 0K due to their ability to camp a down in EGC, something not shared by, for example, Nemesis) it is virtually impossible to really get a lock on good balance. But what we're seeing at the moment is that the game can already be quite killer-sided at killrates between 50 and 60%. Trying to kick the KR up towards 60% is likely to make things less balanced.
Unless it's some utterly meaningless change like ditching the hatch, which wouldn't do killers much good in upping their winrates but would inflate the killrates, thus pissing off everyone. Normally I'd say that's not an option, but BHVR has proven in the past that they are willing to implement a change that's worse for both sides of the fence.
Yeah I don't think we need to increase the kill rate radically at this time.
If the win rate info is showing it's 50% then it should be fine where it's at. Considering all we have access to is nightlight for info, as far as we can tell the game is pretty balanced right now overall.
Although my only concern there is the win rate potentially being inflated by people giving up and such, hence SM being at the top of the list despite not being great. So the actual balance of the game when people are playing normally is quite different. But I think that's a whole different conversation.
-
@Raptoraurz said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3683965#Comment_3683965
killrates are tied to winrates. High killrate means killers kill more survivors during a match and a winning situation for a killer is to have 3-4 survivors dead during a match.
Yes that's true but they are not equal. Idk where you're getting the information killers have a 70% win rate because afaik that info has not been released and isn't evident anywhere.
Even on Nightlight the average win rate is 50% almost exactly at 49.68%.
-
@Raptoraurz said:
Every game tends to have it at 50% winrate. In most situations.
I am sorry, but when a killer has a 60-70-% winrate, that proves that something is wrong for the killer side and killer powers.
Nerfing perks can fix problems for some killers but that's a terrible way, because nerfing perks strikes bad killers with lower winrates.
Nerfing base mechanics can fix issues. Buffing or reverting some basic changes can fix issues, like that stupid healing nerf across the board. I do agree, nerfing it could help killers, but not obliterating the mechanic alltogether.
-------
Honestly speaking, the whole terrible idea has begun the moment they introduced the "this survivor perk deactivates after the gens are all done".
Punishing survivors for playing better than the killer and removing tools for escaping or nerfing them like that, seriously? The unskilled players on killer side are now allowed to make mistakes?
I am not even talking about how overbloated some perks are for killers and how EASY they can utilize their perks, compared to survivors. Open a locker and then run around the map like you are a mini-doctor so everyone shouts? Yeah, cool. Kick a gen so you can block every gen progress, still see which gen is regressed more, nearby survivor auras.
How long does it take to get a killer perk nerfed now compared to nerfing survivor perks?
-----
Also, I would like to see a "ban specific killer" button. The game has more than 30 killers, yet I always see the same Billy, Blight, Wesker every match. I don't even remember how Myers looks like. Adding this feature will show to the developers which killers are hated by the community and maybe this will move their balance ideas into right ways.
And don't tell me this will "kill" players who love playing specific killers. This is a competitive PvP game with balance changes or some fan based project? Even in PvP games there are one tricks who love playing speficis characters, but this or that character/agent/hero/legends, doesn't matter how you call it, can be blocked and you have to choose another and have other variants that can be used for playing.
=====
Overall, the balance decisions in DbD are sometimes like they have no idea what they want to achieve, but making winrates above 60% is not healthy for the PvP environment.
I think you're confusing the kill rate with the win rate.
Just because we have around a 60% kill rate does not mean killers are winning 60% of the time. Each kill is not a win, you need to kill 75% of the survivor team for it to be a win. Anything less is a "didn't win".
-
2.5
But that's already what they aim for more or less. That's in-between "I won" and "I didn't win".
-
Unless they're hooked 3 times back to back they weren't hard tunneled. So The minimum to be "not tunneled" would be at least 1 hook in-between, so 4.
The survivor could just get unlucky and be found twice quickly or give the killer an opportunity to eliminate them quickly. But I think once the killer makes an effort to go find someone else and chase + hook them you can't say they were going in with the intention to tunnel someone out from the get go.
-
Considering how important the first chase is to determining the rest of the match, yeah it would probably be excessive.
-
@Nos37 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3683026#Comment_3683026
No Mither is not just "Hard Mode" for that 1 survivor; it affects the whole TEAM.
Survivors should not be allowed to equip No Mither unless they are in a 4-man SWF, where EVERYONE in the group can CHOOSE to play in Hard Mode.
I understand that its frustrating but I don't think they'll realistically ever limit perks that way.
For what it's worth I personally think No Mither is silly and there's not really a need for a perk like that. But as is now its kind of just part of the risk for quing solo in a team game. You don't know who you're going to get paired with and how they'll play or what they'll run. It comes with the territory of team games. They might run perks I deem detrimental or weak such as self care, Mither, or Spiders.
You can't really dictate what teammates can play according to a certain group of players taste or what they think is strong. If that's what they wanna play and it's not against the rules, then they have every right to, even if I don't personally like it.
-
@fussy said:
@MrPenguin @WolfyWood @Akumakaji @Everyonehere back in the days i did a poll. So i will ask you the same thing: do you agree that we should sacrifice our search time slightly (not too much) in favor of more equal matches?
Yeah. I'd rather wait a few minuets for a good match than 1 minuet and have a bad one.
As long as its not pre 6.1 levels where my survivor ques were 20+ minuets. Ques that long just kill the drive to even play.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3683043#Comment_3683043
In a theoretical on paper yeah 50% kill rate could work if we could guarantee extremes one way or the other. But extremes being the most common occurrence aren't how things work, that's why they're extremes. The killer is not bouncing between 0K and 4K all the time, most of it is in-between.
That is actually not true. DBD actually tends to lean -more- towards the extremes than the middle-of-the-road. 2Ks are by far the least common outcome across the board, for example. And while 1Ks and 0Ks are on roughly equal footing due to the nature of EGC and the green light on camping/tunnelling, 3Ks are far less prevalent than 4Ks.
While it's true that a flat 50% KR does not guarantee total balance, we can be pretty much guaranteed that 60% KR and upwards is incredibly unbalanced, resulting in killers winning the vast majority of their matches.
What @RpTheHotrod is doing, however, is taking the statistics, extrapolating an average match, and then misinterpreting this as the 'average winrate'. The model he's using is just flatly incorrect, as evidenced by those three match outcomes. Unfortunately, one other forum user flung this idea into the ether and now there's a lot of people that misunderstand the significance of the 60% target figure as a result, and use it to claim killers are still underpowered when they are in fact overpowered.
60% was not chosen for balance. BHVR chose it because they think it makes the game function better.
Well, I can't speak for the majority but in my experience I have a lot more middle of the road 1-3Ks than sweeps in either direction. If that's truly more common than I'm not sure why I would be different. It might have something to do with my playstyle not being to tunnel and camp maybe? Not really sure there as to what would cause the discrepancy if there is one.
I'm also not sure why 60% would guarantee unbalance. Well, win rate wise at least. I think part of the issue is a 2K would technically be "balanced" but it also isn't a win for the killer while 2 survivors still won. But the killer needs to win too, so you can't really settle on a 2K being the average. The only real options left are things above a 2K which already pushes us above 50%.
It's either "win" or "didn't win" for win rate, and a draw is under "didn't win".
At least as far as I can tell.
-
As long as we keep the self-heal reduction I'm not against buffing the teamplay aspects, or at least making them more interesting.
Maybe not such a drastic jump as giving everyone "We'll make it" in a med kit might be a bit much. But we could definitely test it out.
-
While I see where you're coming from and even agree on most of it, I think the problem is they swung too far in the other direction.
They went form hour(s) long ques to get a pretty much exact match all the way to minuet at most que with a massive pool of skill. This is exacerbated by the softcap being dummy easy to hit for anyone with anything resembling a clue of how to actually play.
I don't think that's what people wanted (just my observation, could be wrong). Something in-between is probably the best we can get.
The softcap also needs to be raised (again) to actually have better divisions of the players and not just "average Andy who doesn't keep up with the game and doesn't know how Sadako works" being one side of the fence and the other being literally everyone else from "I at least know how the killer works" all the way to "I play the game for a living".
Additionally the fact that once you pass the softcap 1 time it will make you lose 3 wars worth of matches just to drop back down is silly imo. Someone can have a lucky streak and then be stuck facing players out their depth for basically the rest of their DBD career as long as they get carried sometimes. Just let them drop.
-
Yeah both of these suck for their respective sides.
Gens go too fast, full loadout or not, for the majority of the killer cast with the way maps are RN.
Getting tunneled just sucks in general so that's a more complicated thing to tackle as you have to essentially remove it with big system changes. But we definitely should tackle it.
-
@sinkra said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3682293#Comment_3682293
50% kr is balanced. Anything else isn't. You can't just say "draws" don't count when it's 2k.
Just because its 50% doesn't mean its balanced when the game is asymm. At least if you mean win rate. See above post for more details.
2K's count but not as a win. So as far as "winrate" goes they are not a win. You can't win half your matches if that half is all draws.
If killer was extremely likely to either lose or get a draw, no one would want to play it. They need wins too.
it's not like most other PvP games where the only outcomes are win/lose where 50% works. Having win/draw/lose throws off the 50% a bit. 2 out of 3 outcomes are not wins for the killer.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3682293#Comment_3682293
Pretty sure I explained this to you already, but riddle me this: What are the kill and winrates across the following three matches?
Match 1: 0K
Match 2: 3K
Match 3: 3K
what about for: 1,2,2,3? That's a 50% kill rate. But only a 25% win rate. Also more likely than the bouncing between getting 0 or 3 every match completely skipping the middle of 1 and 2. Those are not realistic results in your example.
In a theoretical on paper yeah 50% kill rate could work if we could guarantee extremes one way or the other. But extremes being the most common occurrence aren't how things work, that's why they're extremes. The killer is not bouncing between 0K and 4K all the time, most of it is in-between.
It's not going to be 0,4,0,4,0,4,0,4,0,4. It's going to be more like 0,2,4,3,1,3,2,3,4,2. Which is still a 50% win rate with a 60% kill rate. Add 1 kill and you have the 62.5 you were given.
To be 50% kill rate it'd be more like 0,2,3,3,2,1,2,3,2,2 which is only a 30% win rate.
As far as I have put together at least. Having a 50% kill and win rate hasn't worked out in any reasonable model of how the game and matches would actually go which include 1 and 2K's not just 0 or 4 and 0 or 3.
Matches with DCs and players just giving up early obviously shouldn't be factored in. That's a separate issue and not normal intended gameplay.
3 of 5 outcomes are not wins for the killer (0,1,2). So it should be favored towards them a bit imo.
@RpTheHotrod idk if this is similar to what you were trying to express.
-
@Hex_Ignored said:
Actually bringing weaving spiders should be considered griefing. This perk and also no mither need a complete rework because as of right now they are basically killer support perks that only exist to sandbag your team.
Well, No Mither is intended to be a "hard mode" perk. So in that case its working as intended in being a "for fun challenge".
The same is not true for Spiders though.
-
@Chaosrider said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3681271#Comment_3681271
Just because someone complained about it 6 years ago doesnt mean it was an issue. Its basically a selfullfilling prophecy by now. Someone started it and others followed it by being as unreasonable as the ones before. You just dig a hole for yourself even deeper. Just stop pretending tunneling is anything worth for this game to be played. You have no arguments.
What do you consider an "argument"? Because you're calling everything brought up to you "not an argument" so what are you even looking for?
-
At the least, weakened needs to last longer.
-
It happens pretty frequently to me and I'm also in NA east.
From the thread so far seems like an NA thing.
-
It will be pretty map dependent.
On some maps the basements is pretty close most of the time.
But on others or certain spawns it can be on the other corner of the map.
-
I mean, it's better so that's something.
it might be a SWF perk, but even that seems unlikely imo. It still seems underwhelming.