Peanits
Peanits
About
- Username
- Peanits
- Joined
- Visits
- 6,101
- Last Active
Comments
-
To clarify, when we use variety in this sense, we're talking about variety in opponents. I.e. Some tougher matches, some more laid back matches. Variety in perks & Killers is a different beast and not something that can, or should, be addressed with matchmaking changes. We're looking into those separately.
-
@brokedownpalace said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2912144#Comment_2912144
Have all the changes gone into effect?
Yes, they have.
-
This time it's a permanent change. We talked about it here if you'd like to know more: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/319692
Fair warning, it's a very long and technical post.
-
They will be unpainted, yes. Having them come painted would increase the production costs pretty significantly, and that would leave the game costing more. It was decided to leave them unpainted so it could be more affordable to more people.
That said, if you do decide to paint them, please share pictures, we'd love to see them.
-
@dugman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2912049#Comment_2912049
Thanks, Peanits! I figured it was low, your “very very few” sounds like it’s closer to 1% than 10%.
Someone else mentioned a concern about long term MmR drifting upwards, but I suspect that probably doesn’t happen much (since a very low percentage of people are at the cap) plus I’m guessing Behavior periodically monitors how many players are in various brackets in case they need to adjust the ceiling or initial ratings.
Due to the way an MMR system calculates the rating change, that's actually not too much of a concern. The amount your rating goes up when you win is dependent on your opponents' rating. To give a massively exaggerated example, if you're at 3,000 and you beat someone who's at 1,500, the system goes, "Well yeah, of course you beat them." and barely changes your score- if it moves at all. Meanwhile, losing to someone who's way below you is going to lower your score way more than someone who's relatively close to you or better than you.
In theory, you can endlessly climb by consistently beating people of a similar skill level. But when you get so ridiculously high that there's nobody on your level to match with, losses mean more than wins, so there's only so far you can break away from everyone else. The range of ratings can grow, but only if there are enough people to support it. (Nerdy aside: The way the system balances things like this all on its own is very interesting to me, and I have spent a lot of time staring at charts and bugging the people who work on it with all my questions.)
-
While I can't give an exact number (I don't have that handy), I can say that it's very, very few. The distribution is a bell curve. Most people are in the middle and tapers off the higher or lower you go.
But to address your concerns, the reduced range more than compensates for the reduced cap. Players from the middle who couldn't be matched with with the best of the best before still won't be matched with them now.
-
@kizuati said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2911950#Comment_2911950
Yes,but why set it in just before Grade reset where the issue is at its' worse instead of,say,two weeks in then? That just dillutes it more.
By setting it just before the grade reset, we gave people as much time as possible to separate. The people who play the most would end up further away from the people who play the least. This is important because under the grade system, grades reset all the way back to 20 whereas ranks would only reset one colour tier. Setting it two weeks into a reset would give people a lot less time to spread out and more than likely end up with the vast majority of players within the silver-gold range.
We could debate whether or not that's the worse time all day, but ultimately that's impossible to say. Under the old rank system rules, that would probably be true, given that players weren't reset that far back and will have a much easier time climbing a few ranks. However, since everyone's starting at 20, that's a much different story. The average person does not reach iridescent ranks each month.
In any case, even with different timing, this still would not be a conclusive test. You cannot switch it on for 1-2 days and get definitive results. A system like that takes longer for people to settle where they're supposed to be.
-
We understand that. We called this out specifically in that post. There is no effective way to test a different system like that in 1-2 days. We do not consider that to be an accurate representation of grade matchmaking.
-
@bm33 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2911635#Comment_2911635
One problem with the grade test is the safety net players have now where they don't drop a grade from negative pips. Someone that makes it to red now could've been stuck in green before because of that safety net. The grade system now is definitely worse than the previous rank system for matchmaking because of that.
Absolutely. This, among other reasons, is why we don't consider this to be a 1:1 test of the old system. We made sure to call it out in the post. We did what we could to give it the fairest shot we could, but we definitely do not consider this a conclusive test of rank matchmaking. There is simply no way to test a system like that in 1-2 days.
-
@Cythe said:
It's odd to me that they found two very distinct groups of people....yet the solution isn't doing what many other Multiplayer games do and just have a Ranked and Non-Ranked matchmaking Q?
Even the more competitive streamer people don't always wanna go hard 100% of the time, sometime you just want to meme about and use fun builds. So having two different places to q would be good? And then you run into a SWF on comms with all meta perks that aren't having any of it. (or vice-versa with some fun survs who run into a competative killer).
Like....why hasn't a ranked/unranked system been tried? Give rewards/incentives/higher BP rewards for the ranked system to reward people for serious play and reduced for just messing about to possibly discourage non-ranked bullying. And yes....I know I KNOW before I get a bunch of replies that there will still be people who "sweat" or do non-fun things in an unranked environment to get easier games....but it should significantly reduce the amount of times people trying to have fun run into competitive people compared to the current system..not eliminate it entirely.
And if this has been discussed at length elsewhere, and I should go look there, I apologize. Just my thought on the current subject.
To put it simply, a ranked & unranked mode is not a magical solution, but it is something that has been discussed numerous times.
For starters, like you've mentioned, you're putting faith in people using them responsibly. If someone who's really good at the game just wants to flex on newer players and get easy matches, nothing's stopping them from playing unranked.
Second, the game needs to be able to support both modes. It could absolutely handle two queues, but splitting players between two queues also limits what the matchmaker has to work with. Say you're playing ranked because you want close matches, but some of the people around your rating are now playing the casual mode. Now the matchmaker has to look further to find you a match. You'd still get a match, but it wouldn't be as close, so the point of the ranked mode becomes less effective.
Third, for offering incentives to people for playing ranked, I'm not completely sold on this. If we're talking things like bloodpoints, then the newer players (who would probably want to play casual) would arguably need those more since they're just starting out, leading them to play ranked when they really wouldn't want to, nor should. If we're talking cosmetic rewards, that's less of a concern, though some people will undoubtedly suffer through it anyway for the rewards, as you often see in other games.
And last but not least, the dirty secret of unranked modes is that they are usually secretly ranked. Most games that have an unranked mode are still tracking your skill in some way, they just don't show it to you. This is why your super casual friend can play a game without any issue, but suddenly when they play with you, they have a really rough time. They're getting pulled up to your (secretly) tougher matches.
But all that's not to say it's an awful idea. Even just giving people the option to separate themselves based on their mindset (casual, just wanna mess around vs. competitive, I want a close match) can be a good thing. It just wouldn't necessarily solve everything and could create other issues.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2911671#Comment_2911671
Are there statistics for the high end survivors? You told us the top end of killers climb to about 70%, but what about the top end of survivors? Were they at a 70% escape rate?
The escape rates are the opposite of kill rates. For example, if the average kill rate is 70% in the absolute highest end, the escape rate is 30%.
-
@Hex_Ignored said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2911682#Comment_2911682
Maybe you can. From my understanding, lowering the cap means that the absolute best dbd player ever is considered to be in the same mmr group as an average player that just barely reaches the cap. Is that correct?
Not quite: That would be the case if we lowered the cap too far, but in reality, it's still not anywhere near the middle. We nudged it down a little bit. This basically pairs the insanely good players with the really good players, not with the average folks.
-
@Hex_Ignored said:
The big winners of those changes are low mmr players, who will only be matched with each other, which is totally fair, and high mmr killers, who will get to terrorize mid mmr players so they can have "laid back" games. The losers are mid mmr players, who will have to go into unwinnable trials against high mmr players.
Is there something I can clear up here? The folks in the middle should actually see an improvement with the maximum range being reduced; the worst possible cases won't match you with Killers nearly as far away anymore. The worst case scenario is fairly unlikely, though, as the majority of people are in the middle of the pack, meaning that they're unlikely to end up waiting a long time for a match (unless they're playing in off-peak hours).
To give some perspective, on average, matches will have far below 50 points of difference. Even at 50 points, the chances of winning/losing don't change significantly.
-
@Zozzy said:
They didn't even show the kill rates from test 2 after admitting they dropped.
This post was already running long as is, so we couldn't add full details on everything (a lot of the stats aren't super noteworthy). But that said, I don't believe we talked about kill rates at all in test 2, unless I'm mistaken. Do you mean test 1? If so, the top end climb to about 70% to give you an idea. We saw a difference of as much as 10% depending on the skill range.
-
To clarify a few things:
- We did not say the old ranking system was good in this post. I'm not sure where you got that bit.
- The reason why we did it right before grade reset is to give people as much time to settle into their grades as possible. We ended the test before grade reset because that would set everyone to 20. This would cause absolute chaos matchmaking. This is different from the ranked system where you'd only reset a little.
- The test was not going great until the reset. It was fairly mixed, although the grade reset (in its current implementation) would have made it a lot worse.
-
@Brimp said:
"We don't try to sneak changes in the first place"
*Ignores the shadow nerf to nemesis' tentacle where it locks your camera earlier and the collision change to blight when pinhead released and the shadowdance nerf to open lockers faster*
Bugs are not shadow nerfs. This is why I follow up the statement that you've selectively cropped to say that if they are experiencing that, they should report it since it's unintended.
-
Nope. We don't try to sneak in changes in the first place, but beyond that, it'd both be a very strange & counterproductive thing to do and very obvious. Everyone would immediately know when all Killers drop to ~5 ping.
If you are getting a peer to peer lobby, please let us know. That's very unusual and should not be happening.
-
@GannTM said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2903227#Comment_2903227
A lot of killers' skills can transfer to other killers pretty easily. Not every killer can, but most can.
Absolutely. This is why new Killers don't start at the minimum rating; we expect your experience with the game as a whole to transfer over.
-
Can they? Yes, of course. Originally they all shared the same rating.
Should they, that's a far more loaded question. Someone who's good with a Killer like The Legion won't naturally be good with The Nurse. They play completely differently, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to use the same rating. They're separated so you can pick up a new Killer and learn them without facing the tough opponents you usually do. Even if your first few matches are a bit rough, you'll quickly settle into a place where you're somewhat comfortable with that new Killer. As a bonus, this also means that doing poorly with a new Killer won't tank your rating on others, leading to you being matched against new players on a Killer that you've mastered.
But back when they all shared the same rating, it became very punishing to try something new, so we ended up splitting the ratings.
-
To put it simply, framerates are the end result, they don't say a whole lot about what goes on behind the scenes.
Say you want to hit 60 FPS on the last generation of consoles. In order to do this, both the GPU and CPU must be able to render a frame in 16ms (1 second / 60). If either one can't do this, it becomes a bottleneck and starts to lower the framerate. You could have the most badass GPU out there, but if the CPU can't handle it, your framerate isn't going to go any higher.
In DBD's case, we're already below that threshold on the GPU side of things. We could add more details and sparkles and it generally won't lower the framerate for those consoles. On the CPU side of things, however, there's still some work to be done to get the frame times under 16ms.
We're constantly working on improving that by doing things like optimizing off screen objects (so they aren't updating when they don't need to be), and a whole bunch of technical things I can't even begin to explain. This all takes time, however, since doing something as simple as preventing an animation from playing off screen may prevent a sound effect that's tied to that animation from playing.
Every game is different, though. Some will have relatively little going on for the CPU to deal with and be very GPU heavy instead.
@JPLongstreet said:
From what I've read over the years, one of the crippling issues is that every asset for each & every Killer is loaded into every trial, no matter which Killer is being played. So when something is needed, it needs to go searching along an ever-growing string of code to find it and fire it up. Each Killer, perk, add-on, charm, etc. Not sure about cosmetics but prolly them as well.
And apparently nothing less than a full recoding from scratch can solve this, which the mobile version did but they can't/won't for all other versions.
This is not the case.
-
@KateDunson said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2901772#Comment_2901772
Is sad to see that you guys are so stubborn in keeping this Sbmm when the community doesn't want it at all, last two test of MMR were based on grades imo and they felt so good.
For what it's worth, I'm impartial. Like it if you want, hate it if you want- at the end of the day I'm just here to take the feedback. I'm sharing this information not to convince you, but because a better understanding of how the system works will only lead to more productive discussions.
That said, regardless of what the last test was, I implore you to check the feedback section for those two tests. While they may have been better for you, there are many people who disagree. It's important to remember that no matchmaking system is a one-size-fits-all solution.
-
@BenZ0 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2901772#Comment_2901772
I undersand the part about picking specific perks, however my main point was here about ppl that generally dont even have the perks to begin with. It was mentioned that if you play on a new killer your MMR should be low to begin with since you are learning that specific character, however I have seen more then enough cases where ppl got matched with ppl way above their levels even with their main killers (without survivors that fill an empty slot after someone left)
For new characters that you don't have perks on, I feel that's the one that's arguably the most doable. Though if it's not handled very carefully, you could end up with the inverse problem (you're treated lower than you are, but you end up winning and get pushed higher).
In any case, I think @jesterkind hit the nail on the head here:
@jesterkind said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2901755#Comment_2901755
The balance issue is that you have to dump a bunch of bloodpoints into a character before they're usable at your level. The solution to that problem is either to have characters start with at least three perk slots and their teachables already at level three, or to fundamentally change how loadouts work at all- changing the matchmaking is just more points of potential failure, which I don't think is going to help in the long run. It's just another thing the devs would have to juggle to make sure it's working consistently across all tiers of play, to say nothing of characters that start with wildly stronger teachable perks than others.
This would be an issue with progression in the first place, not necessarily the matchmaking system. Balance and progression definitely have an effect on matchmaking, but attempting to address an issue with one by fixing another is likely not the best way to go about it. Ideally the progression system works in a way where this isn't a problem in the first place rather than needing a bandaid fix on the matchmaker's side.
-
@Kilmeran said:
Your rating means nothing beyond placing you in matches where you've got an equal chance of winning and losing, and it already does that without predictive penalties & bonuses.
Maybe it creates matches with an equal chance of winning or losing in some alternate reality or parallel Earth, but that's a whole different thread topic.
There are some edge cases that can create some matches that should not happen. There's a few things we're working on fixing to prevent them, but you can find more info on that here.
-
I just want to start by saying that none of these are bad ideas. On paper, they all make sense. Actually incorporating them into a matchmaking system is where things start to get tricky.
For starters, let's look at just perks. Someone has to subjectively pick which perks are meta, we cannot base it solely on how often they're used. A perk like BBQ & Chili is incredibly popular, but I think we can all agree that it's not because slapping it on will carry you to victory. Applying a penalty to it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. So already, you need to selectively apply penalties to perks and also determine how much of a penalty each one should carry. This is already highly subjective and I strongly doubt that you could ever find a value for each one that everyone considers fair. There are bound to be loads of disagreements over penalties (e.g. This perk has too much of a penalty. It's not even that good. Now I get super tough matches just for using it.)
This also does not factor in the fact that not all perks are equal. Some perks are stronger when combined with other perks/add-ons. Take Dead Man's Switch, for example. On its own, it's okay. Put in on a Killer like The Artist that can easily force people off of generators and it becomes much stronger. How do you apply a single value to it that doesn't discourage using it on other Killers while also fairly penalizing it on ones that can make full use of it?
All that aside, these penalties/bonuses are redundant when it comes to how a matchmaking system actually works. By design, using strong things inherently increases your chances of winning. When you win, your rating goes up and you'll end up against tougher opponents. Put simply, the matchmaker does not care how you got there. It doesn't care if you're a perkless legend, it doesn't care if you run meta every match with ultra rare add-ons. What it cares about is your chances of winning, and its' only goal it to pair you with people where your strategy (whatever that may be) works about half of the time. When it stops working more than half the time, you plateau and stop climbing. This doesn't mean that you're a great player because you have the best stuff, it just means that the matchmaker has successfully put you in a place where you're no longer pummeling new players.
Adding another layer of prediction on top of that would only make this worse, and would only be of benefit in a scenario where you can see your rating (and it actually mattered). Say you're a 1,500 player, but you're running really good stuff so the game treats you as a 1,700 player. If you lose your match, you only get shoved further down into matches with less experienced players who are not prepared to deal with the meta you're running. In a scenario where you can see your rating and it means something, sure, this matters. This stops someone from artificially boosting their rating by running all the best stuff. This is not, however, the case. Your rating means nothing beyond placing you in matches where you've got an equal chance of winning and losing, and it already does that without predictive penalties & bonuses.
-
@kizuati said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2891362#Comment_2891362
hey Peanits,can we get a confirmation on whether or not we'll know what the MMR tests were? I've seen conflicting information from the team
Yes, we will be sharing details on the tests afterwards. We've added two more tests, however, so we'll still need to go through those.
As a heads up, we won't have all the details ready right away. We'll need some time to reflect on everything and write up a post about them, but we definitely plan to share!
-
There's two more tests to go, but we'll share the details sometime afterwards.
-
Yes. There's a team of people who review reports. (I actually used to be a part of that team myself.)
-
I can confirm that it's part of the matchmaking tests, not a bug. As for what else changed today, that will remain a mystery until later on.
-
At this point, a full blown rework (as in an entirely new power) is very unlikely for The Legion. I'll never say never, of course, but the chances are slim.
Legion's in an interesting spot where in spite of not being the strongest, they're very popular. All these years later and they're still consistently played more than a lot of other Killers. If so many people are playing them even though they're leaning towards the weaker side, that's a good indicator that a lot of people like the way they work as is (even if they'd appreciate some buffs).
We're at a point now where we have 27 Killers in the game. If one of those 27 Killers isn't for you, that's totally okay, there's still 26 others to choose from. But we're not exactly looking to radically change a Killer that a lot of people like just to make it appealing to folks who aren't a fan. To use the example you gave, changing their ability to allow them to disguise may make them more fun to you, but it would destroy a lot of people's favourite Killer.
A full on rework is something we'd save for extreme circumstances, where the power is either very unpopular or creates a major gameplay issue (old Legion, for instance).
-
I can confirm this is a bug. It won't happen every time, but sometimes it'll spawn more pallets than it's supposed to.
We haven't actually added more pallets to the House of Pain, don't worry.
-
Nah, the undertall chapter was last month. Sadako's pretty short.
-
@bm33 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2877043#Comment_2877043
I don't see point of COH over self care now. Why use COH where I need to spend time running to a boon/spend time blessing a boon when I can just self care at 50% anyway at the first safe spot?
Circle of Healing also applies to altruistic healing and medkits, as well as allowing your teammates to make use of it without bringing self healing perk themselves. It may not always be the best choice, but there's still scenarios where it can be better than Self Care.
-
@mischiefmanaged said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2877031#Comment_2877031
Wouldn't it be ~21 seconds?
(1+0.5) * (1-0.5) = 0.75 c/s heal speed which is then 16/.75 = 21.333.
I think this is probably a good place as it still requires setting up the boon, but I believe it's still faster than self-care.
You are correct, my mistake! The particular wording always trips me up.
-
@sizzlingmario4 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2875254#Comment_2875254
While we’re on the subject (and I agree with what you just said), is there any particular reason some maps have certain guaranteed totem spawns? For example if I see Ruin on any autohaven map I always check TL tiles first because there is always a totem there 100% of the time; same with the hills on ormond or the upstairs library on midwich.
Even just making it so no totem spawn is guaranteed would be a good first step imo, even though that probably doesn’t fix the issue entirely.
Generally speaking, there's no hard set rule that a certain totem must spawn in a certain place. However, the procedural level generation system is likely at fault if you notice a totem in the same spot very often. The key here is that it's procedural, not random, meaning it has a set of rules that it needs to follow. It can only spawn a totem on tiles that have a valid totem spawn point (such as the LT walls), and it'll also try to spawn a totem a certain distance away from any other totem (so they aren't all clustered together in one corner). Maps also have preset tile rules, so junk tiles (small loops, rocks or trees) can't spawn where the shack, a jungle gym, or some other landmark would normally spawn.
So even though there's nothing saying "This tile should have a totem", it's not impossible for certain tiles to have totems more often due to the rules the system needs to follow.
This is also partly why we try not to add a ton of rules to totem spawn points (e.g. Can't be within X meters of a generator / survivor spawn location). The more rules you add, the more predictable it becomes, and the easier it ends up being to find the totem. They're great ideas on paper, but in practice, it gets messy really fast.
-
Not scrapped, no. This is something that is applied to maps going forward- where possible, of course. Both the new maps since that anniversary stream have had a lot more verticality than before. The Racoon City Police Station is 2(ish) floors throughout the entire map, and the Eyrie of Crows has a lot of verticality to the main building as well as some rougher terrain outside, with some tiles that sink into the terrain in addition to the usual hills.
It's something that's progressively being thought about on a case by case basis as maps are being worked on, not a sweeping change that's going to be added to every map any time soon.
-
In practice, this would give survivors a huge clue as to where your hexes are. If they see your leaving a certain area at the start of the match, they would instantly know where to find your totem.
But beyond that, the idea would fall apart with builds that have multiple hexes since the totems are spread out across the map.
-
@Voriis said:
Mail me your minis I'll paint them. I love painting minis.
If you end up painting any, please share, I'd love to see them!
-
@ReverseVelocity said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2872023#Comment_2872023
If only Freddy didn't get panic nerfed 1 week after his release, we might have still had release Freddy today. :(
It's safe to say that release Freddy would not have lasted all this time. It's easy to look back and miss the things we no longer have, but realistically, he was very unpopular both to play as and against while also not managing to get many kills (aside from the glaring issue of slugging sleeping survivors). Manually putting people to sleep was a lot more brutal than people give it credit for, and massively slowing down generators ended up not being very exciting.
It might have lasted a little longer, but it definitely wouldn't stay that way even with the new process.
-
Generally speaking, I wouldn't expect any changes to the most recent chapter in the next mid-chapter. Typically there's 3-4 weeks between a major release and the next PTB; there's simply not enough time for everything to settle, analyze all the new content, and implement the changes before the PTB comes out (and this isn't considering the lead time we have on updates; the things in this PTB were locked in several weeks ago). If something is super pressing, we can sometimes squeeze one or two changes into the mid-chapter, but we prefer not to if it can be avoided.
We're still keeping an eye on her, but we've learned from the past not to make impulse decisions when it comes to balance.
-
Just a quick note, but the website does not include the new difficulty ratings which were announced in the developer update earlier today. They'll need to be updated once the update goes live.
Though that said, it's important to remember that these ratings are an indicator for new players to tell how hard it'll be to play that Killer reasonably well, not necessarily master them. Someone like Hillbilly has a lot of room to improve with this like curving and knowing when to rev your chainsaw, but a new player could still do alright by using the chainsaw to get around the map and punishing out of position Survivors.
-
Yes, even a healthy Survivor (though that would be very unlikely).
-
There are some slight tweaks, but they're mostly bug fixes and not super noteworthy. For example, right now, two people cannot reveal Ghost Face at the same time. i.e. If someone else starts revealing him, you cannot start revealing him until they stop. This is being fixed along with a few other bugs, which may contribute to it feeling inconsistent, but it's not a major overhaul or anything.
-
It is, yes.
-
Yes, we're planning to share what was testing afterwards. If we find anything interesting, we're hoping to share some stats on the tests as well.
-
@BabyCameron10 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2866852#Comment_2866852
Absolutely no one:
That one person: “iS ThAT fReDdY fAzBeaR”
If you flip it, brighten it, crank up the sharpness, Google "Freddy Fazbear", copy and paste it onto the image, you can probably find him. Probably.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2866839#Comment_2866839
If I asked very, very nicely could I get a sneak peak?
Yes, but don't tell anyone or we'll both get in trouble.
-
I can confirm that there will be a dev update, but the exact date/time is not set in stone just yet. Keep your eyes peeled (not literally, though, that sounds uncomfortable and unhealthy).
-
@Zozzy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2850925#Comment_2850925
I don't understand why you can't just tell us what the idea is when it would garner so much good will.
There's not really a simple answer to this, but we've learned from the past to not overpromise too early. There's always a risk something gets pushed or cut back, and then you end up with a lot of understandably upset people. Even if you try to make it as clear as possible that something is subject to change, there's bound to be a game of broken telephone where someone tells their friend, but doesn't mention the specifics, and then they tell their friends, etc. Now their friend is expecting it in the next update because that detail was left out, and so are all of their friends, etc. Even earlier in this thread there were some misconceptions of what we've said in the past. (No shade, we don't expect everyone to memorize what we've said word for word, that's not realistic.)
Beyond that, game development is way more complex than it seems, and things are always at risk of being pushed back. We plan our updates many months in advance to prepare as best we can, but unexpected things can cause a domino effect that affect future updates. So, we try not to go into too much detail until something is close. That way we have a better idea of what's at risk of getting cut before getting people's hopes up.
Basically, while it's already on our minds, it's still too early to spill all the beans and get everyone's hopes up. I love sharing details on things like this, but what I don't love is disappointing many people for months until it finally appears in the game.
-
@YOURFRIEND said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2850449#Comment_2850449
They explicitly stated it's supposed to ameliorate the grind to a degree.
We did not. In fact, we've said the exact opposite: We do not consider it a fix to the grind in the slightest, it's an improvement to grade rewards, nothing else.
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2850433#Comment_2850433
I guess they see it as something that encourages people to play more. But I have a feeling more people are put off by the grind entirely or play in spite of it. The player retention from the Resident Evil bump looks laughable
I can also confirm that we don't see it as something that encourages people to play more. A certain amount of grinding, sure, it can give you a goal to work towards and keep you interested. But if it becomes too much, then the goal feels unattainable and you lose interest in trying to achieve it.
To the original topic: It's too early to share details now, but we have a massive grind reduction in the works. I'm looking forward to the day we're finally able to share it with everyone.
-
@SuzuKR said:
How many more times do I have to post this explanation from Peanits of BHVR until people understand the hitboxes are perfectly fine?
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/N8NAGEGQXJX3/screenshot-20200930-232331.jpg
Quick note, parts of this explanation are now slightly dated. This was from before the animations changed, when the survivors visually leaned forward while running a little more than they do now.
That said, the rest is still relevant. The hitbox isn't the culprit, it's latency.