Peanits
Peanits
About
- Username
- Peanits
- Joined
- Visits
- 6,101
- Last Active
Comments
-
To quickly clarify, Survivors cannot abuse this to force the Killer to stay near the hook. While a Survivor is also nearby the hook, the progression of the anti-camp mechanic will be slowed or even stop entirely.
The goal here is not to remove camping entirely. There are still situations where staying nearby is the right call (e.g. overly altruistic Survivors, when you know someone is waiting nearby, etc.) This is only meant to deal with some of the most egregious and unnecessary scenarios.
-
The hatch probably favours the Killer if anything. As others have mentioned, the Killer moves slightly faster. The Survivor also needs to avoid the Killer while they're searching, which can make it difficult if the Killer zones them back towards an area they've already searched.
That said, the hatch is mostly there out of necessity, not to be as balanced as possible. Without it, you end up in a situation where one Survivor needs to power multiple generators on their own before they can escape. Meanwhile all the Killer has to do is patrol the generators and listen to see which one has more progress than the last time they walked by. If they touch the gen, they are probably going to die. If they don't touch the gen and hide instead, the game never ends.
The hatch's job at that point is to end the game so these never-ending scenarios can't happen. Either the last Survivor finds it and gets out, or the Killer finds it and starts the EGC. In either case, it's still a win for the Killer by pretty much any metric - the matchmaking system doesn't even count it as a win for the Survivor, there's an exception to make it nullify that match, so nobody gains or losses rating from that Survivor escaping through the hatch.
-
@SAF3TYRA1LS said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3540032#Comment_3540032
But to killswitch such a used surv tool?? And isn’t it faster to fix smthng when they shut the servs anyways?
No, the servers being on or off doesn't affect how long it takes to fix something. It still takes the same amount of time to pinpoint the issue, fix it, test the fix, create a build of the game where the issue is fixed, send those builds to every platform, wait for each platform to test those builds, and then finally release it for everyone.
There's no practical reason to shut down the entire game when we could more easily kill switch the thing that's actually causing problems and allow people to continue playing in the meantime.
-
First all, wholeheartedly agree that there's no need to rub it in if you won. It's sad that some folks go out of their way to do it.
This might be a hot take, but it really isn't. When you ask around, things like teabagging in the exit gates or leaving someone slugged for 4 minutes are generally frowned upon. Usually the only people who will come to their defense are the people who are doing it themselves or their friends. Even this thread (so far at least) has multiple people saying that don't support toxic behaviour.
That said, there is also a difference between someone defending that sort of behaviour and suggesting to not let it bother you as much as it is. This is the position I see most people take. Something like teabagging, for example, has been around in games almost as long as crouching. At some point, people become jaded to it and it doesn't bother them as much. That doesn't mean they think it's a good thing to do, just that it doesn't bother them.
It's also very easy to get caught in a bubble that feels a certain way. If you go to Reddit, for example, threads where people catch and kill Survivors who decided to stick around and teabag in the exit gates are very common, and the comments are always filled with people who are against sticking around to taunt. A lot of it really depends on who you surround yourself with. If you're typically hanging around people/spaces with a lot of negativity, things start to seem a lot more negative. There is also something called the negativity bias, where a negative experience is more likely to stand out than a positive one. This can often make it seem like many people welcome toxicity, when in reality, most people do not support it.
There are exceptions, of course. There are some folks who perpetuate toxicity. Someone might have a bad match and then decide to take their frustrations out in the next one - even though those people may have done nothing to deserve it. Ultimately it comes down to immaturity or apathy for other people. The way people act when they're hidden behind a screen is often disappointing, even outside of gaming.
To touch on why we don't ban for some of these, it usually comes down to proving intent. Something like leaving a Survivor slugged could be the Killer's option if there's no hooks nearby and the Survivor is trying to take advantage of it. Trying to carry them to a hook might allow them to wiggle free. Or alternatively, if multiple Survivors are slugged, the Killer might not want to pick someone up in case one of the Survivors has Unbreakable and uses the opportunity to save the others. Things like camping and tunneling are also very tricky because it's borderline impossible to prove intention. Short of someone admitting they're doing it to ruin the fun for you, there's no way to tell what was going through their head. For all we know, they could have thought that was the best move in the situation. They are also very natural things for people to want to do at the end of the day; many new Killers think camping is the optimal strategy because they simply do not know any better. It's not unreasonable for someone to think, "I just worked hard to catch this person, I better stay here and make sure they don't get unhooked."
Bans are something we need to take very seriously. People paid to play the game, and taking that ability away cannot be treated lightly. We can't have situations where we accidentally ban people because we think they might be breaking the rules. Accidents can happen, but removing ambiguity is one of the best ways to prevent them from happening. For this reason, we stick to very clear cut cases where there can be no doubt.
The short version, more often than not, people don't actually support toxicity. But it can really depend on the types of people you're around and what you view as supporting versus simply not caring.
-
I think there might be a misunderstanding here. The survivor you are camping has no obligation to unhook themselves if they don't want to. They can decide to stay there and waste your time if they feel like that would be more helpful, or wait until it would be most beneficial.
What you're suggesting could be countered using the system like so:
- Let the camp meter fill up.
- Wait for the hook progress to almost reach the second stage.
- Unhook yourself.
Because it exists, the other survivors are free to work on generators (no pressure to make the save once they realize you're camping), and bare minimum - even if they mess up the chase so badly that you down again them within 10 seconds - adds some extra time between the first hook stage and the second hook stage.
There is no way this scenario would make it faster for you to tunnel that survivor out of the game unless that survivor uses it extraordinarily poorly.
-
@rafajsp said:
I agree with Peanits that latency take a role but other games do better of course because the servers on DBD are very bad even vs same country players.
Take CS for example (i know it's fps and servers tickrate are better but still)
Another example TCM that you can actually play with cross continental players.
And those are just 2 examples ... so yeah in the end Latency play a role but this argument seems invalid for me.
What needs to be changed is DBD code and servers be more capable.
Lastly i have a teory:
"Devs wanted to nerf the vault and baited it on PTB" to lure it's a bug or something reverted because only a MAGIC can not bring the PTB changes and still mess with before PTB vaults ... seems like some genius coding.
The topic of latency happens to be one I'm very invested in, but I gotta clarify some more things here.
First and foremost, the servers are not bad. The servers we use are the exact same servers used by many other games, including many popular FPSs. It has absolutely nothing to do with the servers being less powerful than others. This isn't a stretch or an exaggeration either, some of the exact same servers had been used for other games before being used for DBD and vice versa.
The issue with a game like Dead by Daylight specifically is that the gameplay is not like an FPS. In an FPS, two players tend to run toward each other before they fight. Once they're in the fight, movement tends to become a non-factor (server-wise). It might affect who sees who first, but from that moment on it relies almost entirely on who has the better aim, the better weapon for that situation, etc. In DBD, one player is chasing another for an extended period of time. During a chase, latency is a factor the entire time because the Killer is constantly trying to get just barely close enough to land a hit. There is never a point where the latency stops mattering.
This isn't a problem that's exclusive to DBD either, even FPSs have latency issues in different ways. The most common problem is something called "peeker's advantage". In short, this is when someone peeks out from a corner. Since other players see them slightly behind where they are, the person peeking actually gets a split second advantage where they can see other people before other people can see them.
There are some clever ways to minimize things like this. One is to 'project' where someone is moving and subtly adjust their position for other players. This way, what other people see tends to be a little closer to what that person sees. (We do this in Dead by Daylight as well.) Another way is to slow the "acceleration" of your character which makes it impossible to rapidly change direction. This can make it easier for the server to accurately predict your movement, but it comes at the cost of making movement feel worse for the player. This is okay in some games that are meant to be more realistic, but it's not a fit for all games; Dead by Daylight included. People often need to change directions, so having a slow deceleration and acceleration wouldn't feel very good at all.
In reality, it's not a code or server issue. The issue is and will always be latency itself. It takes time for data to physically travel from one place in the world to another. We use some tricks to minimize that latency and bring what both players see closer together, but there's no way to truly remove it.
But the very long story short, we can't really compare it to a game like an FPS because they are two entirely different scenarios. The problems latency causes in this game are not like the problems latency can cause in an FPS because the gameplay is fundamentally different.
As for the theory, no. We do not intentionally change something as important and core to the game as vaulting without clearly communicating about it first. This is purely a bug, nothing more. We implemented a fix recently, but this had a side effect of making fast vaults stronger than before. This was later reverted. We're currently working on addressing the discrepancies between male and female Survivors.
-
As others have pointed out, many people use it to show good sportsmanship, even if they lost. Not everyone is so focused on the outcome. If we want to get technical, usually it should be the person who 'lost' to say it first so it can't be misinterpreted as taunting, but since there aren't exactly clear cut winners in this game, that's not always possible. It's just important to read the room before saying it. If the match was completely one sided, the winner(s) probably shouldn't say it first.
You are not obligated to say it if you don't want to. You can even choose to hide the chat if you don't want to see it from other people. That said, always assuming the worst of people is a very dangerous way of thinking that tends to sour your opinion of people that have done nothing wrong.
-
This is not a 'you' problem. This is a known issue with disabled turrets and we're working to get a fix out ASAP.
-
We are currently investigating some inconsistencies with vaulting between male and female Survivors. I do not have an ETA for a fix at the moment, unfortunately.
@ReikoMori said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3533817#Comment_3533817
So this is a textbook example of people not understanding how big the survivor's hitbox actually is.
Your character model is overlayed with a hit box that is a little bit bigger than the size of the actual character. It's shaped like a capsule as well and it doesn't follow you perfectly. Instead it kind of lags behind you a bit during things like vaults.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/VICEFKOQLB29/oip.jpg
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/3ZUTQT3WKV64/5oylgs12onq31.jpg
There's a couple incorrect things I need to clarify here.
- The cone that is used for basic attacks are not the same for all special attacks, such as The Xenomorph's tail. The tail attack happens to be much more narrow and longer than the basic attack's zone.
- That screenshot is fairly old, so the capsules don't quite line up with the animations as well as they do now.
- Your capsule does not lag behind you, it matches your movements perfectly. The issue that you'll usually run into is that - being an online game - where you see you and where the other players see you are two different things. It takes time to send your location to the server and for the server to send that information to everyone else. This means that while you see yourself having already vaulted, the Killer sees you slightly in the past where you are still near the window. We do some magic to reduce the effects of latency, but it cannot be removed completely.
All that said, the hit in that clip is well within the reasonable margin for even a lower latency. The tail attack does indeed reach that far, and it would likely still be overlapping the survivor's capsule (both from the Survivor's POV, but especially from the Killer's POV).
-
Smoe pretty much hit the nail on the head: We've reached the end of that timeline, but it's an ongoing effort. As long as there's still people playing, there will be people who try to cheat. It's not something that can ever be truly solved once and for all because cheating by nature is about breaking through the measures that are there. We are still finding and blocking new cheats that appear and patching any vulnerabilities that are found. It's never going to be something that we forget about, we have a dedicated team working on it.
-
@solarjin1 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3531247#Comment_3531247
agree to disagree my friend. I know the majority of people on the forms like to say prestige doesn't matter but that not my experience at all. On average higher prestige players usually do better in my matches and i don't believe that coincidence.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3531256#Comment_3531256
"We should have less player stats visible in lobby and focus more on better communications between players who cannot communicate. Mostly with loadouts or preferred objectives or something a player has. I just feel out of all the things BHVR could make shown by default rank / prestige seems like the worst options for us."
I'm all for more communication buffs in solo q and players should definitely be able to see loadouts.
"Cool that BHVR is experimenting with finally hiding prestige though I admittedly just don't understand why it's not already hidden when this was already an issue prior with rank dodging."
It was but not where near the level of complaints as of now. Behavior was way slower at addressing things in the past.
It's a very tentative correlation at best. Yes, to prestige a lot, you need to play the game a lot. People who play the game a lot can gain experience as they play and become better players over time. But you'd still have to make a lot of assumptions to assume that prestige is a reflection of skill:
- That there's no limit to someone's skill level.
- That someone tries to become a better players rather than messing around and playing for fun.
- That the Bloodpoints they used were earned playing that character/role.
- That their skill completely disappears when they switch to a character that hasn't been prestiged.
- etc.
Plenty of folks play the game every day and earn loads of Bloodpoints, but very few of them could actually keep up with the very best players. The amount of time you play alone is not a remotely accurate reflection of your abilities.
-
This is a potential change that we're testing among a small set of players. The idea is to make it a little clearer- at least for less experienced players- how many generators need to be powered. With a single number (the normal counter), it's not immediately clear whether that number is supposed to go up or down unless you've been actively watching it. With this, you not only see how many have been powered, but also what the goal is, making it a little bit clearer for someone who's just started out.
Any feedback you may have on this is appreciated!
-
I can tell this comes from a place of good intentions, but I do fear that this would take away far too many of the fun moments that any sort of frustration it may solve. At the end of the day, the game is most fun when players are interacting (chasing, teamwork, etc.) and making decisions. The time between a survivor being downed and when they're hooked are full of opportunities for one side to interact with the other (pallet saves, flashlight saves, taking hits, etc.) Aside from that, although it may only be a few seconds, the time it takes to carry someone to a hook is very important and often makes the difference between being able to heal or power a generator before the killer comes back.
Agency is also a big part. Being able to strategically hook someone on a specific hook can help tremendously (e.g. further from the exit gates, closer to generators that you need to patrol, or far away to force survivors to spend more time saving). Scourge perks would also need a complete rework to accommodate since you wouldn't be able to hook someone on them at will.
Something like this is okay for a character like Pyramid Head, where using this as a quick and convenient option is part of your power. But across the board, I do think this would negatively affect far too many core parts of the game.
-
@Sabraiz said:
They might have divided some people into experiment group while keeping the rest as a control group to see the effect of the change. Which is a pretty standard way to perform research study experiments.
Doubt there is a need for you to be afraid some "illuminate" group of elites getting something you do not.
This is exactly it!
We're running a bunch of little tests like this lately. It allows us to compare results between two different groups to see how it affects things. But feedback is also welcome if you have any.
There is no elite group. People are chosen at random each time. You may not get this one, but you might be selected for a future one.
-
As in 'solving the mystery of why your teammates are doing this'? A few reasons come to mind.
- Most control stations happen to be close to gens. It's faster and more convenient to deploy the turret somewhere close to the control station so you don't have to waste a bunch of time slowly walking with it. And because control stations happen to be close to gens, that's often where they end up.
- This also makes it easier to replace if/when the killer destroys them. You're committing less time to setting them up, but you still gain the same amount of distance if the killer decides to break them before chasing you.
- Most gens tend to be in or around a loop, making it easier to run to if the killer approaches.
- The turret will beep if the killer approaches, even in the tunnels. It can give you a headstart if the killer's about to come out of the control station next to you.
- People are still learning and don't know what's the best place and not-so-great places to put them yet.
But all that aside, I don't think there's really a single 'best use' rule. Putting them in loops can also backfire if they don't have clear LOS. Since the flames don't go through walls, it makes it much easier for the killer to get close and destroy them before it knocks them out of their power. The best move is usually to do whatever makes sense in the situation.
- Most control stations happen to be close to gens. It's faster and more convenient to deploy the turret somewhere close to the control station so you don't have to waste a bunch of time slowly walking with it. And because control stations happen to be close to gens, that's often where they end up.
-
For some people, yes! Over the past few months, we have been running a few different tests for small changes like this. Some randomly selected people will get one of these tests, but others will not. This way, we can compare results and see how it affects things.
Feedback is also welcomed whether or not you've received this!
-
Y'all, it hasn't even been out for 24 hours yet. 🧍♂️
-
To add some quick clarity, when a new map is released, we boost the chances for the map to appear. This boost only makes it a little more common, but it is not meant to give you the new map every match or even every other match. The boost gradually decreases over the new week until the map is back at its usual chance to appear.
Maps which are boosted are already exempt from map repeat prevention, since preventing the boosted map from appearing would defeat the purpose of boosting the map.
It's a tricky situation. One the one hand, we want people to be able to play the newest maps. But on the other hand, boosting it too much means playing on the same map constantly, which can get stale very quickly. People also want to see how new Killers/perks/etc. perform on other maps. We aim for a middle ground where it's a little more common, but if you really want to see the new map, your best bet is to use the offering to guarantee it.
-
@Killing_Time said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3527450#Comment_3527450
But see this is one of my problems with you guys that's always IGNORED. When it comes to killers... You nerf top down. You take the experience of the LITERALLY best players of the game and nerf accordingly. I have almost 1K hours split between PC, ps4 & ps5 and still can't solo blaze everyone with Nurse. Her nerf was because of the god nurses.
When it comes to survivors, it's buff bottom up. MFT is clearly a problem for players that have been playing your game long enough to understand it. (I've been here since Myers. I bought the game because of Myers.) MFT is still destructive for newer players when it's new player vs new player. Experienced players, especially swf can easily take this "harmless" perk and abuse it.
That is the point being made. Eruption, OG POP, etc weren't destroying new players left and what, but what happened? It was destroyed because the top level players could use it to prevent gen rush in a sense. MFT is just as destructive as METTLE OF MAN was. It would've never been in the game. You don't think it's a PROBLEM 4 or 5 of your 30+ killers can reliably mitigate this?
5 of 30 @Peanits
I also do not intend any disrespect to you or your game. I'm not here to attack you. I'm simply stating, the lifeblood of your game understand the issue.
This isn't quite the case. We balance around all groups of players, not any one specific group. We also don't use different balancing strategies for each role. All perks and adjustments are designed the same way regardless of which side they're for. That said, if something is causing significant issues at a certain level of play for a large group of players, we still need to act on that. To put it simply, you can always choose not to use something if you feel it's too weak, but you can't simply choose not to play against something if it is too strong. It would be far less fair to say, "Yes, this is a problem for you. But other people don't have this problem, so we're going to leave it as is."
There are some exceptions to this, of course. We wouldn't specifically balance around competitive rulesets, for example, and there is some level of expectation that newer players are still learning.
Again, I am not here to say if something is or isn't a problem. My job isn't to agree or disagree with opinions, it's to gather feedback no matter what. Nothing I have said is intended to deny your opinion on it.
-
It is still coming, yes. When it's a little closer, we'll be sure to let you know when you can expect it.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3526783#Comment_3526783
So, another hand holding from your part to cover the skill issue of the survivor community? Because even if a killer can choose to defend 3 gens from the start, it's survivors work and choice to let him have it or not. Something as easy to do as using Deja Vu and pressuring the killer until the 3 gen it's broken.
But of course, we can't allow to force survivors to adapt to the game for once, as they are 4 times more players than killers and if they leave who is going to buy all those precious cosmetics we are releasing. QoL improvements for killers? Balance the game? What for? We have to make it easy for survivors so they keep playing.
Oh, and don't forget to nerf The Pig. That would solve every balance problem.
With all due respect, you do not know anything about this mechanic yet and cannot possibly say whether or not it holds your hand. Trying to dispel something under the guise of being hand holdy without having any info on it is silly, and frankly you could apply that same logic to anything (where it also wouldn't hold up to any scrutiny).
I find that what you're doing here is downplaying how strong and frustrating this strategy can be while simultaneously trying to turn this into an us vs. them situation. If your loyalty to one side is causing you to argue against fixing overly powerful or frustrating gameplay that the other side may face, then you've shown you don't actually care for things like fun and balance as much as your care about your own experience. You can acknowledge how people feel when they're stuck in a scenario like this and still want improvements on your end as well. The two are not mutually exclusive.
-
Typically the few most recent DLCs will not go on sale at all. The slightly older (but still fairly new) ones will go on sale, but at a lower discount. Meanwhile the rest will have the usual discounted prices.
The same goes for specific characters in the in-game store, though these sales are far less common, so you might be waiting a while.
-
Quick disclaimer, I'm not going to argue whether it is or isn't too strong. That's totally up to y'all to decide, I'm just here to collect feedback. That said, I don't think that new players can reasonably be factored into a discussion for or against nerfing Made For This.
First, it's not very common for someone to pick up the game and immediately buy one of the newest DLCs (unless they happened to see the trailers and really be interested). Beyond the fact that they just bought the base game and still have things to try and learn, there's years of DLCs to choose from, and the older ones will tend to go on sale for a deeper discount. The odds of them picking this particular DLC of all the options would be fairly low.
Second, I think you're overestimating a new player's ability to use a 3% speed boost. While there's the odd person that may have watched a bunch of streams of the game before trying it themselves, most newer players don't have anywhere near that level of experience. They won't be looping, running tiles in a way that gives them a fast vault, etc. More often than not, they'll be running away from the Killer and hoping the come across a pallet or window. That's not to say that they wouldn't get any value out of it, but a slight speed boost would provide much more advantage to someone who knows what they're doing rather than someone who's aimlessly running around.
On a related note, you'd also have to consider the more readily available options, like Sprint Burst. Being a Meg perk, every new player can easily gain access to it. The two are exclusive, since MFT wouldn't benefit you since Sprint Burst would make you exhausted, so you'd have to pick one or the other. When you put the two effects side by side, MFT doesn't look as appealing unless you've been around for a while and know what even a small % speed increase can do. Sprint Burst gives a massive boost of speed and gives them a major head start, meanwhile MFT gives them only a slight speed boost and only while they're injured. For someone who doesn't really know where they're going when they get chased, that massive head start will probably help them far more than a small speed boost.
But beyond all of that, we can't let something like a new player's reliance on a perk prevent us from balancing it in the majority of matches. As much as first impressions matter, if it causes problems elsewhere, we still need to be able to deal with those problems.
I am in total agreeance with the last point, though. If you only use something because it's strong, you should not be surprised when it eventually gets adjusted. Becoming reliant on powerful things might help you win in the short term, but will probably make things harder on your in the long term.
-
Correction: The game was better for you, the person disconnecting, when there were no penalties.
Everyone else in the match is not too happy that you just abandoned them.
-
@Xernoton said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3526716#Comment_3526716
Yet we see people complaining about it. BHVR themselves said they do not want to punish killers for the survivors' mistakes but here we are with another post that demands 3 gens get nerfed.
I'm not sure where this comes from, but:
- We have confirmed that we are working on a solution to help with excessively long 3 gens.
- It's not always the Survivor's mistake. A Killer can also choose to defend a 3 gen from the start of the match, leaving them no choice.
-
@SAF3TYRA1LS said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3516897#Comment_3516897
The main point is that some people find other people using a perk the way it was intended "too powerful" which then leaves it nerfed to the ground
Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. Something can be too strong even when used exactly as intended. Obviously an extreme example, but if there was a Survivor perk that said, "At the beginning of the trial, escape." - there's not a shred of doubt that it would be too strong. That doesn't mean that a Survivor who is using it is wrong for using it, it's not their fault that's an option that's available to them, they're just using the best available option. But it would also be perfectly reasonable for a Killer player to say, "This is way too strong." and want it to be nerfed.
Feel free to use whatever you have at your disposal, but if you only chose to use the absolute strongest stuff, you shouldn't be surprised when those things receive some changes.
-
The short version, because it's an online game. It doesn't matter which game it is, there will always be a certain perk, character, weapon, and so on that is seen as the strongest. People don't like to feel like they lost because the other side picked the strongest stuff rather than because the other side played better.
That doesn't mean that the complaints are invalid, but you as a player do not need to be concerned with them. That's for us to worry about. You can use whatever you have available to you, and you don't need to stop using something just because someone else doesn't like it. As you've said, the point of perks are to help you. If you find that something helps you, by all means feel free to use it. If it's too powerful, we'll make adjustments when we can.
-
@ARTRA said:
This iis how MMR woks.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/388104/whats-wrong-with-the-mmr
Survivors gain 1 point if scape lose 1 if die.
Killers gain 1 point for kill and lose 1 for scape.
Bhvr use thst number to pair you with people of your lvl BUT in order to be faster searching a game they augment your MMR diference.
Also, if a killer leave a lobby, that lobby have priority and its autofilled with anyone (like you in this case).
Few days ago, Knightlight from team eternal (best dbd team with infinite hours in the game) posted on twitter he faced and 80 hours killer.
So yeah, MMR and Matchmaking sucks.
This isn't quite true. The amount of MMR you gain or lose is not a fixed amount (and certainly not 1), it depends on your rating compared to the rating of your opponents. If you win against (kill) someone of roughly the same skill level, you'll get an average amount of rating. Meanwhile, if you win against (kill) someone of a much higher skill level, the game awards you more rating than normal. The opposite is true if you win against someone of a lower skill level; you'll gain less rating than you normally would. This same process happens for everyone in the match, with each survivor being treated as a separate 1v1 encounter. Then, all the different rating changes are added together and applied at once.
To give an example of what this means in practice: If you were to kill two good Survivors, but the other two Survivors equal to your rating managed to escape, you could still end up gaining some rating because the game recognized that you managed to catch tougher opponents.
As for the original post, it's tricky to say much with only a screenshot of the end screen. The prestiges you see there have no impact on matchmaking since they are in no way a reflection of someone's skill (someone doesn't suddenly play worse because they switched to a new Survivor). Grades as well aren't factored into matchmaking since they reset every month and again aren't a reflection of skill. Judging from the Bloodpoints as well, it seems like you were the second highest scorer in that match. I can't speak for the match itself from only a screenshot, but from what I can see, this doesn't seem too out of the ordinary.
-
We actually do, to some extent. The "Game" section of our website has most of the basic information you could want about Perks & characters.
But beyond that:
1: It's typically frowned upon for companies to control their own wiki pages.
2: Maintaining a wiki is a tremendous amount of work.
3, and most importantly: There is already a community run wiki that does a fantastic job of documenting just about everything. We will sometimes contact them if we notice anything off, but that's about it.
There's really no sense in us creating our own wiki to compete. There's already a group of people (some of which are regulars here) passionate enough about the game to create pages for just about anything you could imagine. We'd rather not make our own version to compete and discourage them from doing so.
-
We do not ban for this. When in the dying state, you eventually bleed out and the match will end. There's too much uncertainty for this to be a bannable offense (e.g. Is there even a hook nearby for the Killer to use? What if the Killer is strategically not picking someone up in case a Survivor has Unbreakable and is waiting for the opportunity to get up and save the others?).
-
@knell said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3515987#Comment_3515987
When the matchmaking system "gradually expand its search range," does it prioritize the outer ends of the population bell curve? For example, if the MMR ranges from 0 to 100, does it give priorities for 0s and 100s (with the least numbers of players) over 10s and 90s so that 0s will much more likely to be matched with 5s and 10s, and 100s will be matched with 95s and 90s, instead of the least number of players being stuck with each other (0s and 100s being matched together because of the difficulty in finding others with similar ratings) From the complaints sometime heard on the forum (I don't know if it's true or not) it sometimes sounds like brand new players are going against players with thousands of hours - to the point where it's hard to believe that there is absolutely no other players in between those skill levels during that time in that region. Or do all of those cases occur only because of random backfills? ...any progress made on the backfill issues?
Not sure I follow, but it works something like this:
- You search for a match.
- The game tries to find you a match with other people close to your rating.
- If a certain amount of time has passed and it can't find you a match, it slowly starts to expand the search range.
- The range expands until you find a match OR until it has expanded to the maximum range.
It doesn't prioritize anyone in particular, but the people who would notice it most are the people on the very low or very high end of the spectrum since there tend to be fewer players at the extremes. Since there's far more people around the average skill level, it's not common for the matchmaking system to expand much- if at all- before they find a match. But that said, the maximum expanded range means that players on the super low end and on the super high end would never be matched together, no matter how long they wait.
-
@stvnhthr said:
Would you be willing to wait longer for an MMR match rather than being matched with 3 level 1 Survivors against a level 100 Killer?
I guess I do not understand why the idea of matching similar skilled players together is not part of the design of the game.
I think there may be some misconceptions here, so I'll do my best to clear them up.
The game does use an MMR system for matchmaking and it has not been removed. That said, not every match will be perfect. Matchmaking systems need to balance match quality and queue times carefully. If it prioritizes making the absolute perfect matches every time, you're going to wind up waiting a very long time for a match. While some may be okay with that wait, others don't care as much and would rather play sooner. It's a tricky thing to perfect and something we're always tweaking to improve. The vast majority of matches are already within a very close margin where your odds of winning vary by a few percent.
There are some extreme cases where this is not possible, though. For example, if there aren't enough players near your rating playing in your area at the time you're playing. In cases like this, the matchmaking system has to gradually expand its search range until it can find you a match, otherwise you may be waiting a very long time (possibly forever). This scenario is fairly uncommon, and while it's unfortunate, there's not much we can do there. The matchmaking system can only work with the pool of players that are available to it.
But as far as levels go, they mean absolutely nothing and have no impact on matchmaking. If an expert survivor happened to pick a new character this match, they aren't suddenly a terrible player. Especially since the progression overhaul, they even have access to most perks right away. The same goes for grades and prestige; they have absolutely zero impact on matchmaking and do not reflect someone's skill in any way.
The exception to this is the PTB. Matchmaking ratings are not used on the PTB since there are not enough players on the test build to create quality matches. Therefore, it's disabled and you can be paired with anyone.
-
@Phantom_ said:
Really appreciate it.
But will this also be done for the add-ons and their usage? Because I can imagine that being transparent like this about the top 10 used perks in an x amount of time (with the last perk overhauls in mind) it might be safe to assume that there will be more perk/meta changes coming in the future. But how about add-ons? Especially given that some like Blight's and Nurse's have been left to catch dust for a long time.
For add-ons, not likely for a few reasons.
- The data wouldn't be interesting or useful. Whereas perks have a roughly equal chance of being obtained - barring DLC/shrine requirements - add-ons have different chances to appear depending on their rarities. The top 10 would be full of low rarity but somewhat helpful add-ons that provide small improvements to your power.
- Killer popularity would heavily sway those stats. A somewhat popular add-on for the most popular Killer could easily outrank a very popular add-on for a lesser played Killer.
- Add-ons are unique to each Killer, so directly comparing them to one another in a single top 10 doesn't do much good. Meanwhile separate top 10s for each Killer is also out of the question when there's currently 32 Killers and counting (I sadly do not have enough time in the day to prepare all of those stats). But even if we did, going back to the first point, you would almost always see that the lower rarity add-ons are used more purely because they're easier to get.
I'm always down for more transparency, but it's not really worth the time it takes to gather all that data just to reveal that common things are common.
-
@Xernoton said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3504037#Comment_3504037
Thank you for clarifying that.
And, if you don't mind me asking, can we get an update on kill rates as well?
We could definitely look into getting some updated kill rates sometime! I don't think they would be shared as regularly as perk stats, however, since larger Killer updates tend to take quite a bit longer than perk tweaks, so it's unlikely that they'll change much from one update to the next.
-
@Xernoton said:
Thank you!
Edit: I see MFT is not on the list. Is that because its pick rate isn't as high or was it excluded because it's still relatively new?
Since it's been a while since we released stats, this time around they cover the last few months. Since Made for This only released in June, its usage rate will appear to be lower since it did not exist for a good portion of the date range for this data. Future versions of these stats will cover a smaller, more recent window, so they should give a better idea of what the most recent popular perks are.
-
There's currently a crash that can happen when he hooks a Survivor. We're working on getting it fixed, but he needed to be disabled for the time being.
-
So two things on that:
- DC penalties do not 'reset', they slowly decay over time. If your penalties were really long, it's possible they still haven't fully decayed when you came back.
- I'm not sure what you expected to happen.
-
@txcrnr said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3487054#Comment_3487054
Ok, so… why are killers not punished for lobby dodging? Why can killers still force close task at loading screen to avoid a map offering they don’t like? Seems pretty one sided. And doesn’t having DC penalties just mean they’ll AFK or let go on hook?
These are completely unrelated things. A) The match has not started yet, so there is no penalty for leaving. Anyone who leaves will be backfilled by a new player OR the match will be cancelled and any offerings used will be returned. B) This is not one sided at all, everything you just listed goes for both sides.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3488124#Comment_3488124
I agree. However when a killer DC's, all survivors escape and earn any potential adepts.
This is sadly a consequence of the fact that this is an asymmetrical game at the end of the day. The same happens (pre-bots, at least) if all the Survivors were to disconnect- the match ends. The game cannot continue without a Killer, and back in the day, there were plenty of people who were petty enough to disconnect at the end of the match to deny other people their escaping points. This was also the reason why the Quitter Bonus was added for Killers when a Survivor disconnects.
-
I just want to start by saying that nobody on our team has said that. Us including disconnect bots is by no means us acting like the disconnect penalties are perfect where they are. Like everything, it's up for discussion. If you feel they are too short, you can always argue that. DC bots are not some master scheme to convince you that these exact times are the perfect length.
That said, I do need to point out a few of the reason why they are the way that the are. By design, DC penalties start very low because there are unavoidable circumstances where you might lose connection. Whether your internet drops briefly, your game crashes, your power goes out, or maybe some unexpected company shows up at the door: There are some valid reasons why you might need to leave in the middle of the match. The purpose of these penalties is not to lock you out and shame you because you had to leave one match.
The system is meant to discourage people from disconnecting from an excessive number of matches. This is why they get exponentially longer the more you do it, and why DC penalties don't reset all at once, but rather slowly decrease over time as long as they don't continue to disconnect.
Now whether or not it is effective in doing that, that's for you to decide, I'm not going to convince you one way or the other.
-
I can chime in here.
To clear it up right away, nothing else is changing for the release next week. Disconnecting Survivors will still receive penalties, and disconnecting from a match- even if the rest of the players are bots- will also result in a penalty.
Now that said, we are going to be keeping a very close eye on this going forward, see what possible problems may arise, and then do our best to address them. If it turns out that playing against a full lobby of bots is too common, that is absolutely something we can look into. This is big part of the reason why DC penalties are not going anywhere, we realize that for most people, playing against bots isn't as fun as playing against real people.
-
@Ivanynakov said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3488792#Comment_3488792
In my SoloQ games often happens that players are inactively hiding and nobody comes to save in the end. Maybe they think that the other inactive person is going for save but they can not communicate this.
Have you ever considered to add in-game communication whether in form of phrases or "player intention status"? By intention status I mean that at players' HUD may be icon or text symbolizing what are they going to do. For example: looking for generator, looking for heal, going for save, securing player during chase etc.
So this is actually a very interesting topic, and yes, we have discussed this (and many other solutions) before settling on this one. The main issue with having some sort of active communication- something that people need to manually use to communicate with others- is that it only helps if people are actually using it. In this sort of case, if someone is bumbling around not quite doing anything as is, we'd be putting an awful lot of faith in them taking the time to use the communication options. They may be a newer player who might not even know about the communication options, might not think to use it in the moment, or may not even care enough to use it.
This is a big part of the reason why we settled on a passive HUD instead. It takes no effort on their part; the moment they do something, everyone knows. It doesn't put the pressure on the player to use it, it happens automatically in the background.
-
The simple version, because disconnects are too vague to be considered a kill or an escape, so they're nullified (as if they don't exist). Someone could leave or lose connection at any point in the match. It's impossible to say whether they would have escaped or died in most cases, barring situations where they are being carried to the hook for the last time.
That said, starting with next week's update, disconnecting Survivors will be replaced with a bot, so you'll still be able to get your adept achievements so long as you do kill them all.
-
Back in ye olde days, waving your arms meant the opposite: That the Killer was camping and that you shouldn't try to save.
That said, it was never really a consensus even when the community was much smaller, and I don't think we'll ever reach one with how big it is now. There will always be people who don't realize how most people use it. Fortunately the HUD now shows who's doing what and who's being chased, so you usually have a pretty good idea of whether or not someone is going for the save. Whether or not your random teammates will go for the save is a different story, though.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3487065#Comment_3487065
Yeah, but the right approach would be to tackle the reasons WHY players DC. Which is not really done. E.g. tunneling got buffed with the nerf of DS. Camping got buffed with the increase of Gen-Time (even tho, something is done againt camping, at least facecamping, but it wont change much since the Killer can just proxy-camp).
I mean, sure, there will always be DCs by some salty players who DC at every reason. But other things which are reasons for DCs are not really solved. E.g. Skull Merchant, a Killer which should never made it through QA is probably the main reason why people DC or give up. And with Bots the only thing that will change is that Skull Merchant-players will play more PvE than PvP...
Bots are just a bandaid which help the wrong side.
We are actively looking into sources of frustration at the same time. As you've mentioned, we've already announced a system that will help combat facecamping, and we've also mentioned that we'll be looking into excessively long 3-gen situations as well.
That said, we cannot possibly solve every possible reason someone might have for disconnecting. Anyone who has been around for a while will know that sometimes people disconnect for the pettiest of things: They were the first to be chased, they got outplayed at a loop, or maybe they irrationally hate The Wraith for some reason. These are all things we cannot fix. We cannot make them invincible just because they might get upset if they are caught. Moreover, it's not possible for us to know what else is going on behind the screen. We can't tell if someone had a rough day at work, or maybe they've had a rough string of matches and they're carrying that negativity into their current one. To expect that every single disconnect is for a rational reason would be naïve of us.
And this also assumes that all disconnects are intentional. There are also legitimate connection losses that could cause someone to disappear. Much as I would love to have the power to make the world's internet perfectly stable, that is not something we can do.
-
We dove into this when we removed the Bloodpoint bonuses from BBQ & Chilli and We're Gonna Live Forever, but the gist is: We do not want Bloodpoints to dictate which perks you decide to use. Extra Bloodpoints, especially when the bonus is large, causes a lot of people to use a perk that they otherwise wouldn't have. This creates a situation where people feel the need to run that perk because if they don't, they aren't progressing as fast as they could be. This is not ideal, we want everyone to feel free to use the perks they want- whether they are the ones they consider the most useful or the most fun- not the ones that they need to in order to progress quickly.
This was a different story before the progression overhaul, but these days progression is much faster even without these bonuses. We're gradually phasing them out from various perks as they are updated.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3487054#Comment_3487054
Why not scrap the Bots?
The Bots will only provide more points for the Killer in a game the Killer is already winning. It does not matter if it is a 3v1 without Bots or a 3+Botv1. The Bots dont provide any Support to the Survivors, they only provide more points to the Killer.
You wont have this discussion if DC-Penalty can be removed if you would not go for the failed attempt to add Bots in regular games. Like, play a few custom games against Bots and you should notice that they wont be of any help for the remaining Survivors.
We would rather see how they play out in real matches before jumping to any conclusions, but if the worst case scenario is that the Killer isn't denied points that they would have gotten had the Survivor not disconnected, that's still a pretty good worst case scenario. That is a positive change for the Killer, at least.
That said, even a bot can repair a generator or take some time- even if it's only 30 seconds- to catch and hook. This would be beneficial compared to not having a teammate at all.
I am not a fan of using a defeatist attitude as a reason to not try to make improvements. Yes, we recognize that bots are not and will never be a true replacement for real players. Yes, we realize that in most cases, you would rather have a real teammate than a bot. But just because this isn't a magical perfect solution doesn't mean that it's better to sit here and do nothing. Doing something to help address and reduce the scale of a problem is better than doing absolutely nothing and letting the problem remain.
-
I can confirm that they are not being removed. The DC bots are there as a backup plan: They're better than not having a teammate at all, but they aren't expected to be as good as a real player.
Beyond that, this is a multiplayer game first and foremost. Abandoning the match affects other people. The DC penalties exist to discourage people from leaving an excessive number of matches over the slightest inconveniences. Removing them would only make it more acceptable to quit and leave your teammates to play with a (possibly) less capable bot. If someone cannot be bothered to commit to a match, or has such an unstable connection that they regularly lose connection, they need to reconsider whether or not they should be playing an online game. It is not fair to expect the other people in the match to deal with the consequences because of them.
-
I can definitely say that it is not a measure to stop cheaters. It might have been an extra hurdle to make it a bit more inconvenient way back in the early days of the game, but this is not why the cap exists today.
These days, the cap exists to pace progress when new content releases. Having goals to work towards helps keep the game interesting, and leveling up the new characters to unlock their perks & add-ons is a goal that most people aim for without even thinking about it. The cap is there to limit how many Bloodpoints you can stockpile so that you can't instantly max out all the new characters the moment they are released.
-
To answer on a theoretical level, yes, that's absolutely possible. But for licensed characters it would need to be discussed with the owners of those characters first. That said, I can't confirm whether or not this is going to happen.
On a more technical level, legendary outfits convert an existing character to a different character while the outfit is equipped. The moment you take that outfit off, they revert back to their normal character. So if this were to happen, it would likely appear as a separate legendary outfit.