NeverSolus
NeverSolus
About
- Username
- NeverSolus
- Joined
- Visits
- 537
- Last Active
Comments
-
Trapper is, and will continue to be, trash. They will remake him, but he'll undergo full rebuild more than likely. Trapper is just built for a kind of play style they are desperately trying to destroy. He has to camp, he regularly slugs, and he may or may not tunnel it's entirely outside his control in most cases. I love him to death, but I can't see BHVR addressing him without a full rebuild.
-
Trapper is, and will continue to be, trash. They will remake him, but he'll undergo full rebuild more than likely. Trapper is just built for a kind of play style they are desperately trying to destroy. He has to camp, he regularly slugs, and he may or may not tunnel it's entirely outside his control in most cases. I love him to death, but I can't see BHVR addressing him without a full rebuild.
-
I only started two months or so ago, but I can confirm the killer experience is kind of wretched. I've seen more death threats and SA threats to my mother in those two months than I saw in years playing League. It's truly outlandish and out of pocket how some of these people seem primed to go off. That aside?
Teabagging at every single pallet drop before flashing, check. Bullysquads being 25% of match ups, check. Tea-bagging and stalling at the gates, check. 99%'ing gens when I'm at kick limit just so they can play ring around the rosie, check. TTV'ers going in with their stream bullysquad with the intent to content farm me, check. Consistently finding survivors that gain speed on me consistently in a 30 second straight line chase? Check.
To top all of that off with a cherry, if I tunnel, slug, or camp a bullysquad I'm the scum of the earth and will be told about it. Likely streamed about it. If I do anything but play into the 'walk into pallet, get flashed, streamer laughs' cycle then I am told I am being toxic. Being a killer right now feels alot like I am livestock that exists only for the sole purpose of making survivors happy, and if I fail to make them have a good game I'm subhuman.
Granted not all games run this way. 50%~ or so are genuinely kind of chill. I'll get a 'GG EZ' or 'low tier newgen' in post chat, but it's not so bad. But when it is bad? When it is bad I'm seeing people spam my Steam profile to inform the world what scum I am, got looped like a fish despite 4k'ing, and no small amount of helpful instructions on how to stop existing, etc.
I think the killer experience is just made harder not by survivors being more toxic, they aren't, but by survivors being 80% of the communiy so exposure to larger numbers means exposure to more toxicity. -
I only started two months or so ago, but I can confirm the killer experience is kind of wretched. I've seen more death threats and SA threats to my mother in those two months than I saw in years playing League. It's truly outlandish and out of pocket how some of these people seem primed to go off. That aside?
Teabagging at every single pallet drop before flashing, check. Bullysquads being 25% of match ups, check. Tea-bagging and stalling at the gates, check. 99%'ing gens when I'm at kick limit just so they can play ring around the rosie, check. TTV'ers going in with their stream bullysquad with the intent to content farm me, check. Consistently finding survivors that gain speed on me consistently in a 30 second straight line chase? Check.
To top all of that off with a cherry, if I tunnel, slug, or camp a bullysquad I'm the scum of the earth and will be told about it. Likely streamed about it. If I do anything but play into the 'walk into pallet, get flashed, streamer laughs' cycle then I am told I am being toxic. Being a killer right now feels alot like I am livestock that exists only for the sole purpose of making survivors happy, and if I fail to make them have a good game I'm subhuman.
Granted not all games run this way. 50%~ or so are genuinely kind of chill. I'll get a 'GG EZ' or 'low tier newgen' in post chat, but it's not so bad. But when it is bad? When it is bad I'm seeing people spam my Steam profile to inform the world what scum I am, got looped like a fish despite 4k'ing, and no small amount of helpful instructions on how to stop existing, etc.
I think the killer experience is just made harder not by survivors being more toxic, they aren't, but by survivors being 80% of the communiy so exposure to larger numbers means exposure to more toxicity. -
@SoGo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4058699#Comment_4058699
You are right that it is a competitive game, or at least it can be.
But, due to how it's designed, you are not supposed to win every time, over and over again with a 100% kill/escape rate. Kill streaks are an anomaly, not the norm.
Some people swear they "cant win without running full meta and tunneling", but that raises a question: Maybe you are not supposed to be at that high of a level? I don't get why people strive to get to the top MMR, and then complain the game is sweaty.
Agreed. As much as I will stand and die on the hill of 'this is a competitive game' that does, inherently, mean a loss rate is not only expected but healthy. If you sport a 70% rate of 4K, I'd suspect something is dramatically flawed. I myself took to employing things like tunneling as a response to secure 1K or 2K out of a situation, or to force a group engagement. But I don't sport that high of a kill rate, and don't aim to maintain one.
It's not 'I'm playing to win' necessarily though we can package it that way. The actual mentality is 'I am playing to not lose, because losing means I'm not having fun.' Slugging means a person feels they lost. Tunneling, camping, the same as buzzword topics go. But when a Killer gets teabagged at the gates with 0K they feel like they lost. When they eat a series of Head-On + Flashbang combos in a row from a SWF, they feel they are losing.
And the fact of the matter is that in this game someone has to be the loser. BHVR needs there to be a loser, as well. It's part of the driving force that sells the game. If the new Killer comes out who is really strong, people are more likely to buy them. If the new Survivor has amazing perks? More likely to buy them. People aren't doing this because they just want to have the ability to not lose and never use it. 'I just got Ghoul unlocked because he's S-tier and questionably balanced but I don't think I'm gonna play him.' Yeah, that's that )*%% no one ever said.
All this being said - Of course people strive to win alot but complain when it gets sweaty. Your standard player, survivor or Killer, could tell me the sky is blue and I'd go outside to check. I wish it weren't so, but sensibility is rare. -
It has potential but the duration and effect just don't add up for me. If I was going to run a perk to handle things like body blockers or altruism swarmers, I'd rather run Starstruck for the instant downs. Broken doesn't mean much against a well coordinated team even if it's for 80 seconds. It's nice, but there are just options out there that better suit my personal taste.
When I want to go anti-swarm I just pack up Agitation, Starstruck, and from there maybe a Mad Grit, Iron Grasp, etc. Broken will never compete with exposed, at least in my personal preferences. -
@ONSAN said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4058788#Comment_4058788
If it's taken as an insult, that's fine. I think it's more disgusting to want to fight a weaker opponent when it's convenient for you.
It's only an insult insofar as you dismissed his opinion by inferring him as lower skill. But I do agree people wanting inherently weaker opponents are indeed disgusting. I'd rather someone match out to my rank, but to his point as well I am a bit sick of being paired up with full P100 lobbies of twitchers spamming head-on flashbang through my ears while they teabag their way out the gate to the beat of West Side Story.
I don't want weaker enemies myself, I want equal skill, but I also want to face less pre-mades. I'm not a streamer or a killer-god over here, and the communication (used well) can make or break balancing rather severely. -
@Xaerdy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4058699#Comment_4058699
I think the OP meant more something like "I have to win at any cost".
I want to sacrifice (or mori) survivors as a killer, and I want get myself and as many people as possible out as a survivor. But that doesn't mean winning is so important that I become toxic to others or needlessly use tactics, that limit their ability to play the game.
Some Tactics like Hard tunneling and facecamping kinda limit other peoples ability to play and to grow . I usuallly try to spread hooks for that reason, so every player gets some time to play. And I definitely "win" less because of that. But I think it's worth it for a better community.
I understood, but the topic is sadly so broad it's hard to touch on each nuance whilst painting in broad strokes. I also like to (when I'm doing a little too well against a team) let people go or just 2 hook. But if I see things like SWF flags, call outs, headon+flashbang, the standards? Then I will tunnel immediately.
I'm not out to ruin peoples nights, don't get me wrong here. I reserve advanced tactics for advanced tactics. But my perspective is likely skewed in that I don't play an S-tier killer. If I see survivors employing advanced, sweaty tactics I know at once these people are not here to have a good time with me, and act accordingly. When I see four flashlights, similar response. If I see the opposing team is sporting high-end competitive tactics, I bring tunnelling and slugging to the forefront, as those are the only responses I actually have in my toolkit in many cases.
But if I blast through 8 hooks before they complete more than 1 gen? Yeah, pretty good chance I'm just going to let them go because they clearly got an unfair MMR matchup and that's not their fault. -
@Emeal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4058567#Comment_4058567
How often do you deal with this?
Can concur with Hotrod here. I actually get more salt when I try to friendly play than when I outright tunnel or camp. Got a particularly nasty one the other night that included death-threats, threats to my family, outright racism and borderline comical claims of being born in a prison.
Suffice to say I get those most when I 2 hook, friendly, or avoid the tunnel. It's kind of strange, actually. Frequency wise, maybe 1 in every 20 'friendly' games I'll see something to this effect. More like 1 in every 100 when I just lean into the villain mask survivors paint me under as a tunneler. -
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4058772#Comment_4058772
Its impossible to make it fun for EVERYONE. What survivors find fun, the killer might not. What the killer finds fun, survivors might not.
If you can find a solution that would make everyone happy and enjoy the game then you should put forward a proposal to BHVR lol.
I do know 1 thing, remove tunneling, camping, slugging and i wouldnt find the game fun as killer or survivor.
This, effectively. I would be fine with tunnelling, slugging, and camping being hard-coded out if the reasons Killers needed those tools were also removed. But I suspect we'd just find something else to fight about at that point, sadly.
-
@ONSAN said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4058782#Comment_4058782
Unfortunately, players with low skills may think so.
Your departure from civility to replace discussion with an insult may charm you, but it doesn't counter-act the statement. I, too, have seen increased queue times and a wildly less stable MMR during 2v8. The same phenomenon was reported last year and before that, almost every time 2v8 is introduced. It's still being referenced in the other 2v8 thread, and has been cited a great many times.
Insulting people is neither necessary, nor conducive to a discussion. Skill level has nothing to do with queue times and MMR. -
Kyt has the right of it, I think. It's nice if it drags in new folk, even if it's not for me. Not every event needs to be fun for me to be good for everyone. Let them have their fun. I resent the queues, but me waiting a few more minutes isn't awful so long as someone is having fun.
-
@Dinadin said:
The toxic game mechanics attract such people. BHVR is totally at fault cause they just promotes those playstyles instead of getting rid of them to have a fun game for everyone.
I'm tempted to agree, but out of curiosity, can you think of a way to make DbD Fun for everyone? I've been trying lately and I can't come up with a way to do it, given the competitive nature of the game. It's particularly rough for the survivors, as even if there's only one kill a match that's always 25% of the survivors sitting on the hook doing not much but dying. Assuming you could find a way to get Killer to be happy with only killing one and that being fun, you're still isolating 20% of the matches players into oblivion.
Legitimately, any ideas? I'm curious, but I can't come up with much that has any sticking power. -
I get that it feels like a Dark Souls 'YOU DIED' screen, but in reality I agree with the others here. It wouldn't balm enough burns to be worth the change, and it does simply represent the state of the end-game. It's a competitive game and there will be winners, there will be losers. I see no harm in demonstrating that condition in lore-friendly fashions rather than something direct.
If it were changed to 'YOU LOST' or 'YOU FAILED' I think we'd just be talking about removing that, which is borderline nonsensical to me. Sorry OP. -
Much as I like the energy here, with a great deal of the language and communication I've seen in the post-game lobbies, I think I'd happily vouch out of proximity chat. I don't see this going anywhere healthy. If the player base were more mature it would be fun and quirky, but as it is I can only hear some many variations of 'get dunked on nerd' or 'you gotta try this hard huh?' before I would turn it off anyway.
It would be impossible for BHVR to meaningfully moderate and punish, and the playerbase is just generally about as calm and collected as a toddler on bath salts. -
@100PercentBPMain said:
"I'm not responsible for your fun, therefore I'm legally obligated to slug in the 1v2 every time for the 4k"
people like this are why people don't stick around. complete lack of empathy. I enjoy upsetting these people because quite frankly, they're a net negative to the community experience.
Aren't you kind of exemplifying the OP's point? You are not DbD Batman. Targetting people out of the community because you don't like their behavior isn't righteous or just. It's just trying to upset someone because you enjoy it, which is markedly lacking empathy in itself.
Not that I can't relate, mind you. I'm no saint. I've had my own bouts of 'they deserved it' and should strive to be better as well. -
I don't disagree. I have seen a lot of changes in and out where BHVR effectively threw their hands up and said 'fine, I can't make anyone happy.' To BHVR's credit, a lot of Killers cried. Though at this point I'm not sure the current stance we're in is any better, so salt for the salt god I suppose.
-
@AssortedSorting said:
Well if there's any truth to using the abandon feature messing up your MMR (either by not counting it or marking you as a different state for the Killer), then that could be a cause?
My SWF mostly use it to get to the next match faster in the event the match had been drawn out.
I'm left more with the impression that MMR is (2v8's destructive influence aside) not working in a meaningful fashion to begin with. I regularly see full lobbies of P100's sweatlording through me like a diaretic when I try low-tier killers for some fun. But the moment I switch to my main I typically see lobbies of P3-P30. While Prestige doesn't necessarily mean anything, it is one of many possible indicators.
By example my Main killer holds a personal kill rate of around 65%, average of 8.5 hooks per match. My secondary (Trapper) has a kill rate of 41%, average of 5.47 hooks per match IIRC. I will consistently see higher prestige players and a higher prevelance of SWF's on trapper, than I will on my main killer Huntress. I tested it across the last few months and found that of 30 matches played on each, my Trapper faced an average prestige level of 72.3, while my main Huntress faced an average prestige level of 33.95. I couldn't record the confirmation of SWF's but common indicators (matching names, swarming, bullysquading) did favor more SWF's on trapper as well by a margin of nearly 3:1, but again take that data with salt as it cannot be confirmed to any comfort.
Unsurprisingly I see a much higher loss rate on Trapper, not just because it's Trapper but also because of these indicators. This means my Trapper should see considerably lower prestige and groupings. But it's the inverse. Huntress meanwhile I regularly see chunks of fresh installs.
I'm beginning to suspect that killer MMR might be weighted in some fashion. That, or as you say, survivors leaving are given MMR penalty that drives SWF's who often do as you say into lower MMR than where they belong. It's hard to say. I should run a more comprehensive analysis on it but don't know that I care enough to devote that much energy to the process, given the result would be negligible in use. -
@HoodedWildKard said:
Thi bis why we should have a competitive ranked playlist separate from a casual one. Despite all the tournaments etc dbd is not designed to be a balanced competitive experience.
Majority of dbd games are a landslide one way or the other. Not fun games. Heck when I play killer I'm honestly bored of 4ks. I have much more fun playing hardball until I have control of the game. Then i usually take it back a notch and let at least 1 survivor go. Because I know in my mind that I had the win secured, I beat the team. So why bother chasing the 4k after that? I let one or two go and lose a few bp but they get a better game. And gain way more BP than I gave up. If more people tried to make the game a little more pleasant for others, the gsme would be much better
I don't disagree with your first point, and I often do the same in regards of letting people go in landslides. But the fact of the matter is that we're making a choice to let those people go. Game balance cannot be weighted upon player choices. That would not be game balance, that would simply be a community preference. Balance of a game has to exist first and foremost outside of player choices before factoring them.
The game not being balanced or incentivized in a particular fashion is not something that can be easily dismissed. It may, by example, be considered in some circles a rude play to take a pawn with a knight on turn three of Chess but that does not make the move illegal, it just makes the move discouraged. There's a difference between game balance and social expectations of a given game and we'd be playing the fool to not acknowledge them.
You're absolutely right in that DbD is not balanced for a competitive experience, but unfortunately it is a competitive experience. There are defined losers and defined winners. You can 'lose' a match, and when you do so your opposition 'wins' that match. I'd love to see a world in which letting people go is more and more common, but hoping for others to adopt that mentality is just that, a hope. There's no meaningful incentive to do so, and the very game genre itself exists in counter-intuitive opposition to the act.
Perhaps this could be alleviated by blurring the lines on what it means to win, or lose, a bit further and creating a gradient? I'm not personally fond of the idea but it is tennable. The recent survey did spend no small amount of time focused on what people consider a win or a loss after-all. If the results of those surveys are taken to the direction we discuss, perhaps we'll see more and more meaningful incentives given to Killers to not aim for a 4K with consistency. It would be nice knowing that letting a survivor go at the end of a match would see meaningful reward, and not just be a gamble of whether I'll be tea-bagged at the gates. -
@KytLuna said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4057923#Comment_4057923
Yes. You struggling against these perks is a skill issue. Besides, having the potentially to completely remove the survivor's ability to vault a pallet without just dying, and being able to recover from exhaustion and vault a little faster are not in the slightest comparable.
I also love how the second you can't deny you've lost this argument, you resort to deflecting to another topic. Vigil, Ghost Notes, and Finesse are only overpowered when utilised by players that have the skill to handle these perks to their fullest potential. The fact of the matter is, the average player isn't good enough to extract maximum value from these perks. So yes, they're fair. Get over it.
All due respect, I think you're also oversimplifying your own argument here and being more than slightly disrespectful in the process. 'Removing the survivors ability to vault a pallet without just dying' is not how that scenario works. They can be vaulting ledges, not just a pallet. Even if the pallet breaks they still get the vault distance and trigger any vault related perks such as lithe, which are very common.
Dissolution working on a per-strike cooldown would not be the game-breaking venture I think you make it out to be here. The primary purpose of pallets isn't the ability to vault them, it's the use of the pallet to create distance and land a stun. No survivor worth their salt looks at a pallet and thinks 'I can't wait to vault that.' They think 'How many times do I greed this loop before I pull pallet to stun the killer and cycle to the next tile.' It's a resource for space-making and seldom anything more.
Saying 'get over it' is considerably rude, and more than a little condescending. I don't necessarily agree with OP here, but your approach to the counter-argument is anything but charitable. Do you think this is the best means of getting your point across? Dismissing, demeaning, and talking down to someone sharing their opinion? -
I just want into every game now as Killer assuming the opposition is going to be a sweatlord bullysquad on clocks. Much as I hate doing it and it induces some anxiety, it's better than letting it surprise me. If I get a fresh install dwight, then I have to remind myself that him being matched against me was not my decision, it was BHVR's. Darwinism will take its course. Not my preference at all, but I'm not in the position of holding high hopes for the situation to be corrected any time soon.
Don't get me started on the 2v8 nonsense. -
I disagree with the OP, but I am a religious tunneler. I'll share my opinion for the consideration, but TL-DR; I tunnel hard and think the answer to tunneling is showing pre-made groups and relative player ranking in pre-lobby.
For context, I main a 110 killer so looping is particularly painful for me. Running in circles is a game children and dogs enjoy. I'm here for a chase, not running around a particular rock until someone pulls a pallet and slaps the next tile faster than a Mahjong addict. But I digress.
DbD is, in my opinion, unbalanced in survivor favor when a group of talented survivors with voice comms work together. But it is balanced towards killer favor from the skill floor. This just leads to any given game being me playing 'Do I have to tunnel or not?' because there's no consistent way to tell if a group is pre-made or not. As a result I walk into every match assuming I'm going to have to tunnel the first weak looper I see as if I'm the agent of Darwinism. But I may have (to my ignorance) joined a match where that's entirely unnecessary and these are new players all SoloQ'd. I have no way of knowing which is the case. I can't afford to walk in assuming not to employ my full tactics. But if I employ my full tactics from the start I'm going to have collateral damage in the new players.
If we really wanted to correct for behavior like tunneling an slugging, I think step one isn't incentives or trying to make it impossible to do. I think step one instead would be clear, transparent indication of groups in lobby whom queued together. Then clear and transparent ranking of some sort in the lobby for both sides. The survivors should know if they're going against an S tier killer with 9000 hours of sweat on the books, even if they don't necessarily know who the killer is. The Killer should know if they are moving into a space where the opposition is in communication or not, and have an idea for survivor hours.
This would result in a great deal more pre-lobby leaving of course, but it would result (I think?) in less in game disconnections. Equally I think a SWF, coordinated and prepared, is more readily able to deal with tactics like slugging and tunneling. In comp tunnelling and slugging are standard and expected, so this leaves the competitive groups playing with competitive tactics. In lower end this would indicate to both sides how hard they need to work and what they can expect.
Slugging, Camping, and Tunneling are 100% legitimate tactics in competitive, high MMR scenarios. Outside of pre-made survivor groups I do believe tunneling, slugging, and camping are entirely unnecesary. However until BHVR employs a separation of MMR, or a transparent way to indicate the relative skill level and coordination of our opposition, then this conversation is now and will continue to be a dead-end. Both sides keep begging for empathy, both sides refuse to budge.
Survivors will near always be anti-tunnel, sensibly. What sensible prey would vote for giving the hunter an additional ammo?
Killers will near always be pro-tunnel, sensibly. What sensible hunter would turn down an additional ammo? -
I don't disagree with the sentiment here but this is quite literally a PvP game. 'I have to win' is not some rare disease that snuck in through the cracks, it was literally baked into the cake. The idea of us being the problem is very, very accurate however that's much like blaming a blueberry for being blue. BHVR built this into their cake - they cannot then act surprised, indeed no one can, when there's blueberries in their cake.
Yes it doesn't need to be quite as toxic, but all PVP games garner greater toxicity than their PvE cousins. Even Chess, in all its glorious balance and grounded traditions, is known for having a great deal of toxicity, anger, and poor sportsmanship in its tourney wings. DbD is not somehow exempt from that condition just because the fostered community is somehow less desirable to the dev as a result.
We can mitigate some toxicity, certainly, but approaching the DbD experience from the angle of 'it's just a game bro' is not productive. True, yes, but it's not productive. The overwhelming majority of sports fans, competitors in tourneys, and even uno games can inspire a level of infuriation in people that 'It's just a game' does nothing to balm the burn of. This is a PvP Game, and as a result the walk-in is an expectation is not 'I'm going to play to have a jolly good old time!' but instead is 'I'm going to play to win.'
That's the very premise of this genre of games. Acting surprised or attempting to convince people the game is not based on 'I'm playing to win' is, while very mature, not going to bare any fruit I think. -
God I hope not. I love Hellraiser to death, but I'm not sure BHVR can keep up with too much more in the way of licensing costs.
-
@CompetitifDBD said:
You can force them out rather than just wanting to end it immediately. Besides, maybe someone gets too cocky and accidentally gets themself killed, or the game isn't necessarily over. don't give up
I'd agree but the empathy isn't being extended both ways. Survivors can leave/abandon freely without all being slugged. No one is advocating taking that option away from them and saying 'Keep trying! Don't give up!'
It's simply not reasonable to apply that standard to one side and not the other. -
This isn't unreasonable. Very typically survivors just hang out to teabag at the gate. There's no reason to force a killer to stay through a lost match in this fashion. Abandon at the gate powering is perfectly reasonable. I would dare say that not allowing this would be tantamount to BHVR openly and explicitly endorsing toxicity. Which, I mean, if they want to support Survivor teabagging enough to endorse open toxicity, then I think most Killers would either bail or lean hard into the Killer variant of the same.
Abandon at gates functionality could potentially help to circumvent that feedback loop as well making it clear they do not endorse toxicity. -
@joeyspeehole said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4052855#Comment_4052855
If they don’t address tunneling, there is no reason not to focus on generators. If someone is being tunneled hard, the team’s goal should be to at least finish three gens. I mean, there is the option to give up and crouch in front of the hook, but a tunnelers mindset is based on math. To apply pressure, you need to disrupt the equation.
I dunno about this. I regularly see my first chase get extended until three gens pop before I hook them. That's not even tunnelling, that's first chase. I'm not saying both don't need to be addressed, but people are exerting the behavior you're ascribing to anti-tunnelling behavior to just standard chase. This is in part why so many killers tunnel. When 1-3 gens go down per chase, the only mathematically valid solution is to tunnel to slow that progression and get what kills you can.
-
@iloveandhatethisgame said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4055699#Comment_4055699
“Is that why we have an easy abandon feature for survivors, activating the moment they hit the ground”
Blame that on your buddies for the ego trips. I remember bleedouts being the reason why that was implemented.
“but still no way out for the killer even when the game is obviously lost, so that killers still have to endure 2 minutes of wasted time or swallow the humiliation?”
Hit them out and the game ends. There’s the solution
“Is that what the "killer content creators" asked for too? Is that why SWF haven't been addressed for 10 years, even though it has been talked about through all this time?“They have been buffing past killers to deal with that and releasing new ones that are strong. Could they buff more? Sure I guess, but most killers can deal with them already. This isn’t 2019 anymore.
Plus it’s a business if they nerf swf there goes bhvrs money.
“Oh those evil "killer content creators" then, why are they so contradictory to the rest of the killer player base?“
Never said they were evil. But they are a bunch of whiners
Not that I feel all too strongly about it, but I would suggest a measure of moderation. 'Blame that on your buddies' goes both ways, and doesn't necessarily put us anywhere useful or productive. A killer could argue 'Your buddies ego tripping and teabagging is why I start slugging and tunnelling.' And then the survivor group will have another, and the Killer, and so on and so on until the heat death of the universe.
I would say I am somewhat alarmed by your dismissal of the BM'ing of gate camp survivors. I know it isn't long, but BM is BM. 'Hit them to make them stop and end the lost game' isn't an entirely fair rebuttal, as you're inherently putting the onus of dealing with the BM on the killer which is (when inversed) exactly why the abandon feature was implemented. That is, so survivors would not have to burden the onus of a BM'ing killer.
Not saying I have any answers, just an observation. I see no reason why Killers shouldn't have abandon features with niche conditions and full BP earnings. Heck, let's give Survivors abandon rights the moment 6 hooks are achieved, and give Killer abandon rights the moment 3 gens are done. That way both parties can leave at 60% game completion and call it done. -
Evolution can help solve this one! 🤣
Variety can only persist in an ecosystem of (relative) stability of options. Put differently, you will never find variety in a given structure unless variety is in some way rewarded. In a system where the only rewards exist from doing X instead of Y, you will find far more X than Y. It's not dissimilar to the wolves and rabbits argument of biology.
Ghoul is more fun to play, has higher BP Value ROI? More enjoyable? Makes you feel like you're not bad at killer? You'll see more ghoul. Hyperfocus seems to always be in your build when you actually get 5 gens done on a map? Hyperfocus it is, you'll see it more. Compare that to low tier killers and underwhelming perks, and you'll see the issue quickly.
Trapper is hard to play to a 4k, will very often get you a salt-mine of a post lobby chat, and takes much more effort to pull off than Vecna. He's harder, you'll be insulted more, and you'll spend most the round feeling anxiety. Compared to Vecna? Float around! Legally distinct tentacles! Clocks! Death! The comparison in the evolutionary sense is plain. You'll see more Vecna than Trapper.
What I'm trying to get at here is balance. Balance not just of mechanics and numbers, but also of results, and frankly just the fun factor. You won't see many people play Hag because she basically requires 4d Chess braining to a degree, she has no dash, she's a camper by nature, and she lacks the mobility and flash of more modern killers. She's just less fun, less capable. The balance doesn't exist in a way that supports her, and therefor you see less of her.
Lack of balance is the answer. There's no balance in structure sufficient to support meaningful variety in the ecosystem. Regardless of if you main survivor or killer, the fact is many killers feel they have to tunnel. So they do. Regardless of your feelings, many survivors feel they have to gen rush and dead hard, flashbang and head-on. So they do. The balance has not provided them with meaningfully alternative options, so you don't see those alternative options in the games you queue into.
EDIT: Grammar correction. -
From what I can see, giving up has become common mentality due to the dissatisfaction of both role sides. Killers never know if they are going to run into a bully squad SWF and get streamed and made fun of for views or if they are facing a random lot of casuals. Equally, survivors don't know if they are going up against the dozenth Vecna or Nurse in a row with shot prediction placement that would make Starlink blush, or a random Springtrap who keeps running into walls.
The nature of these situations varies so wildly that you can't predict if you are going to waste 30 minutes of your limited free-time getting bullied and stomped again, so you start trying to pattern predict. Got hooked in 60 seconds of match start? Go next, save your time. Looks like they may tunnel? Go next. Looks like they may slug? Go next. Killer is unenjoyable to play against? Go next. Teammate afk? Go next. So on and so on, ad nauseum.
Frankly speaking the abandon feature seems to be more damaging and childish than useful. Outside of the niche cases it's intended to serve (4slugging, hostaging), it has created a sense of affirmed option in the playerbase that they should always be willing to leave.
My only problem with it personally is that they still get BP, while killers lack a structured abandon clause. Both sides should be able to leave, end of story. Both sides should be equally punished or rewarded for leaving, full stop. I play both, and I see no reason one should be favored over the other.
The only argument I could see for stronger punishments would be that if a survivor leaves it could hurt their whole team, so they should face even higher penalties than the killer doing similar. But that seems a bit much, as it leads to sandbagging. I don't know, the whole situation is a mess and has been poorly instituted on the abandon side, leading to a community acceptance of 'Leave when not enjoying the game, you have limited free time' versus the standard expected 'don't queue up with others if you aren't willing to stay, it's disrespectful to everyone elses time.' -
In theory, couldn't this problem be rectified by instituting a pre-made queue and a standard queue? The ranked idea tanked leaving us with MMR so I suspect the idea will see some recalcitrance, but the balancing of DbD does seem to be complicated by the large gap between SoloQ versus Comp SWF. Can't buff or nerf one without buffing or nerfing the other.
As a result then, why not just split those two queues apart? The queue times will tank temporarily, but the balance issues will either come out in the wash, or they will provide further data for analyzation.