PlaysByShady
PlaysByShady
About
- Username
- PlaysByShady
- Joined
- Visits
- 362
- Last Active
Comments
-
Premise of this thread: "I cba learning with the basement is, and I can't stay away from it"
Survivor mains who go down near the basement deserve to be trapped there. Simples! Learn to counter-play by staying away from it. You've got the entirety of the rest of the map to explore and run around.
-
You know what else is good for FPS? Dropping your resolution (while maintaining 16:9) and also the graphic settings.
Seriously, the problem with SR is being able to see more than you're supposed to which tips the balance of gameplay in favour of the person who's using SR over the person who's playing normally (i.e. as designed)
-
@landromat said:
So much work, so much effort to make dead hard work properly. It doesn't work well with certain killer's powers so they will fix it FOR EACH power... why? why so much work for one of the most hated and frustrating perk in the game? Why hit validation? Why special coding for each power? Why?
On other side, NOED, which can easily give you 3-4k you do not deserve is untouched as well. Current mmr system is based on kills and there is perk which gives free kills and screws mmr for both killer and survivors.
Im pretty sure there is an agreement between two devs. One loves noed and one loves dead hard and nobody wants to remove their beloved perks so if they're not removing dead hard, noed stays too
inb4 just do bones 🤡
inb4 just bait it out 🤡
NOED, which can easily give you 3-4k you do not deserve
I'm always fascinated when survivors dictate what killers do and do not deserve. If you didn't take the time to do totems and just rushed gens, you deserve to fall to NOED which the killer does deserve because they played the game with essentially 3 perks waiting until this activates.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
Because, as they have said multiple times in their Q&A’s, that would require the game to be built with that in mind from the very start.
In effect, a “replay” system requires the game to ‘record’ the match, in its entirety, for 5 players, plus a 6th ‘free’ PoV. Every single meter moved, every single input, every single skillcheck, recorded, AND made to function normally in-play. That’s not as simple as “just add it”.
You don't need the 6th... once you have the actions of the 5 participants, you can generate the state of the game at any singular point
@Marc_123 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2819495#Comment_2819495
You could easily record your side - as all inputs com from you.
As all inputs run through the server it has to be recorded somewhere there and transferred to you (maybe already happens as the game is on your side and after death you can already watch) so that you could watch all players after that.
I do believe each client receives all updates (so regardless of what you can see, your game client is aware of what every other player has done and is doing)... so in theory it should be possible to record. The problem is the "language" of the updates not being such that can be recorded to file easily.
@Dennis_van_eijk said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2819487#Comment_2819487
The way the devs come across to me is that they want to do as little work as possible, the reason why about 90% of the time they soon.
Take a look at rainbow six siege, they never planned a replay system from the start and only implemented this last year, and that game is 7 years old now.
That's why imo they come across as lazy (and many other decisions they make), as they want to make something work with as less possible work.
I could be wrong tho, but we'll never know.
The way the devs come across to me is that they want to do as little work as possible, the reason why about 90% of the time they soon.
TBH, given how very readily they manage to break seemingly easy things, I'd be very scared of them implementing such a system. They'd probably break the game in some ridiculous ways. See Nurse's current status for more.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2816838#Comment_2816838
That's not the assumption I'm making- the assumption that I'm making is that the features you highlight aren't problematic on the other three boon perks. Things like giving the other survivors its effects, the perk holder not needing to be nearby, it not running out or being permanently removable, and being highlighted to the team are all parts of the boon totem mechanic that are not problematic on the other three.
My take on CoH is that you cannot fix its problems with sweeping changes to boons as a mechanic. The other boons are balanced around the fact that the killer has to be nearby for it to be used to its fullest; Shadow Step's aura hide is somewhat useful at range but the perk excels at being able to cloak you in chase, Dark Theory is only going to be useful in chase due to what it does, and Exponential isn't really useful ever but basically requires you to go down and be slugged in its radius, or at least nearby. In these scenarios, the killer knows where the boon is (at least roughly) and the back-and-forth snuff/relight counterplay is theoretically able to begin.
Now contrast to CoH. It already ignores how boons are set up to function, by being at its strongest when the killer has no idea where it is and being a perk you want to use away from the killer, so all changing the mechanic does is aim a hefty nerf at three perks which don't need it, and only maybe actually fix CoH.
The perk itself needs a rework, not the mechanic it's tied to. To bring it back to the topic of the OP, they didn't fix Undying by messing with the hex totem mechanic, they fixed Undying.
Well, I don't necessarily agree they aren't problematic on the other perks, it still doesn't change my point re: COH. Each of the things I've mentioned apply to COH. I never used the term exclusively, and my point was clearly to highlight how many things are being combined into one perk. Even if you want to attribute a few of the things to global boon mechanics, that still doesn't negate how OP COH is being as it builds on top of those.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2816813#Comment_2816813
Well, I'm not a survivor and I don't say that CoH is fine, but I do have to contest some of your points there.
A fair few of these aren't really problems with CoH, they're just rundowns of how the boon totem mechanic works. So, my main question is, do you also think the other boon perks are equally problematic for the same reasons, or is CoH unique? If the latter, why?
I have my own answers, of course, I'd just like to know where we're both coming from before getting stuck in.
A fair few of these aren't really problems with CoH, they're just rundowns of how the boon totem mechanic works.
You say that, but you don't single any out as an example? All of the issues I raised are problematic with COH, and can be corrected with that perk alone.
You're making an assumption that certain features have to be part of boon totems (i.e. global effects); that assumption is unfounded as yet. There's literally no reason why boons cannot be limited to apply to certain scopes alone.
-
@SunsetSherbet said:
saying it's AFK is just an attempt to try and make it bannable via assumption. Every pig I have seen doing this is not AFK. They are actively sitting there, watching. Many start spamming roars if you get close, or move around to look at you. I have also seen Pigs who immediately go on the offensive once all the traps are off or the gens done, which they wouldn't be able to do if actually afk.
You'd need actual proof of the person afking, which you straight up cannot provide or prove. No one is removing paying customers off of an assumption.
It should be changed, but people should stop trying to pretend it's bannable or anything. It's extremely toxic but not bannable, and will almost certainly get fixed down the line.
^^ this
If the killer was genuinely AFK, they wouldn't be in any strategic position - they'd be wherever they loaded into the trial - and the game could/would end normally.
Miscategorising the problem doesn't resolve anything.
-
COH is problematic because
- It gives free healing to all survivors, at the cost of only one survivor perk. Perks like kindred only give a benefit (aura reading) to other survivors in the capacity that it helps you directly because you're on the hook. Otherwise it only works for you the rest of the time.
- Unlike prove/leader/etc, the survivor who brought it in doesn't need to be around for you use it. You benefit just from being around the totem.
- When it's set up, all survivors instantly know where to go because it's highlighted for them! Compare this with other aura perks (bond, better together, etc) that only reveal information in a limited radius
- It allows heals faster than regular self-care or healing via another survivor; so not only does it allow the same thing as self-care, but faster and more universal too
- It has a wide area in which it can work, unlike the extremely localised effects of prove/leader/urban/etc. Imagine prove thyself being buffed that it worked on all gens, regardless if you were there or not!
- It doesn't run out like medkits, etc
- It can never be eliminated by the killer, unlike items which could be destroyed by Franklins, or other once-only perks. This can be set up multiple times, to work again and again and again... whereas DS only works once, BT only works for unhooks (so one survivor can only use it 6x max in a trial), Adrenaline works once, Unbreakable works once, etc
All of those effects combined into a single perk makes it exceptionally OP. And then when you have multiple survivors bringing it into a trial (so you could have 4 totems booned), that makes for ridiculous matches.
So for survivors saying it's fine, please explain this BS?
-
@SilentShepherd said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2812132#Comment_2812132
lol get lost, you're a clown
@Azshhh said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2812132#Comment_2812132
His point is this is a game with multiple metrics besides just killing or surviving, any players that ignore those metrics and do the bare minimum are not skilled compared to other players who do that & MORE to contribute to a successful match. And any ranking system that ignores all other contributing factors and focuses just on the end result is garbage.
The survivor who survives because they hid and maybe did a gen or 2 is not more skilled than the survivor who did gens, cleansed totems, unhooked others and won chases, but died.
And killers who ignore everything & everyone in a match to run down a single survivor or two then stare at them til their dead is not more skilled than a killer actively participating in a match, getting multiple hooks and achieving a nearly comparable result to the former
I'm well aware what his point is. Are you aware of my point? That at the end of the day, the outcome that you expect makes no sense from an algorithmic perspective. And I'm saying this as a professional in the industry for 20+ years.
If you think it makes sense, then please explain it. As yet, no-one has, and I daresay it's because you cannot explain it, and therein is the problem.
To boil it down into logic terms, he's saying X1. I'm saying X->Y (i.e. X leads to Y) and Y is undesireable. He then clarifies with X2. It's the same thing, X->Y. Y is undesireable, and X leads to Y, so how can you advocate for any flavour of X when it leads to Y which you don't want.
You can step to me with any flavour of X, but if it all leads to Y, and you don't want Y, then it's the same problem which you guys are failing to see (whilst at the same time so sure of yourselves that you see everything clearly despite clearly not being able to understand it).
@Brokenbones said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2812177#Comment_2812177
When I read your post, all I could hear in my mind was the quote from Patrick where he was like
"Man i did 80 gens, did 6 totems, looped the killer for ages but died... wouldn't it be cool to be able to do all that and escape too?" That's not 100% the quote but that's basically the gist and man what a quote
not a great way for him to approach the subject of MMR/SBMM
If you understood what he said, then it makes sense. His point was that if you are that skilled, you'd be escaping more often and thus your ratings would rise. There's always be anomalous games for whatever reason, but for skilled players that won't buck the trend.
@SilentShepherd said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2812132#Comment_2812132
lol get lost, you're a clown
What an insightful observation. Did it take both of your brain cells to work that out?
@AJStyIez said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2812115#Comment_2812115
Logic does not work with people deeply indulged in shilling or being overly-positive. This person clearly believes SBMM is a healthy system that accurately portrays skill and doesn't seem to notice the glaring holes in their own logic and how a binary system is incapable of providing good results in a game where multiple metrics are manipulated by RNG.
There are just people out there that will call you crazy and say that the system is amazing despite the vast majority using statistics and evidence to prove why it doesn't work, the Devs themselves in their own quotes over the past 2 years don't even believe that it works but they invested into it so they have to play along to save face. I just had somebody tell me earlier that Legion is just as strong as any of the "A-Tier" killers and that the characters matter less than the player. Some people just don't get it
The devs don't believe it works? Interesting... because the last update from the devs that I recall was that it works exactly as designed. The escape/death ratio is 50/50 which is exactly the outcome the system was designed to produce.
So please enlighten us to how this isn't working when the numbers demonstrate that it very definitely is?
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2812132#Comment_2812132
"I could respond to you, but won't."
Right well thanks for letting me know I don't have to continue this conversation anymore, bye x
aka "I can't answer your simple question because my own logic makes no sense to me, so I'll look for the first excuse to escape from having to explain myself"
Yup... common trait of the ignorant.
@ukenicky said:
What I don't understand is how mmr and pips aren't like, related. One would think that doing well in all categories and trying to do everything to win/contribute towards winning would be comparable to the mmr but no.
That one devs opinion comparing dbd to hockey still just makes no sense because dbd is an asymmetrical 4 v 1 and hockey is literally a team vs team game like child.. I just don't understand it at all 😭
Killers should be incentivized to go and do everything for maximum mmr / pip gains not just farm for hook states/kills to guarantee mmr. Survivors should be incentivized to do a little bit of everything for maximum mmr/pip gains so that everyone is encouraged to be a team player and help each other survive instead of play overly selfish and go for hatch escape at the end. But yeah, here we are in a bad place with current mmr. Just face camp with dead lock and an end game build and you can do well with any killer 🤓
The pips only rank how you did in terms of objectives in the game, and has nothing to do with your correlation with your opponent, hence it makes little sense to use them to determine who your opponent should be. Should a 2-pip vs a killer you were expected to escape from the same as a 2-pip vs a killer you were expected to die to be considered the same?
-
@Gamedozer7 said:
I know how dare people complain about people getting an unfair advantage. Who does that.
I also didn't see a bunch of post repeatedly everyday on the forums so I'm pretty sure it wasn't a huge majority using it as an excuse 100% of the time.
I seen way more camping and tunneling threads then stretch res
That's because you can only speculate whether the other person was running SR, whereas when you're camped/tunnelled, it's something observable that's directly happened to you (and even then it's easy to get wrong - I've seem too many accusations of camping/tunnelling that were nothing more than survivor misplays)
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2812109#Comment_2812109
I have yet to see you actively disprove any of my points and explain why, when I've directly addressed my criticisms with the system and why I believe it is fundamentally flawed, quite clearly several times.
Either actually a make a point, disprove one of mine, or get off of my thread.
I don't need to disprove a point you've not made with any coherence. I've literally exposed the flaw in your logic in the most basic form possible, and asked for your clarification on the matter. Thus far you've refused to provide anything of the sort and have just resorted to a variety of logical fallacies that only highlight your ignorance on such matters.
It's a simple enough question... do you believe that a killer who achieved their objective (in your case) should face easier survivors so they can continue killing them (and thus go against easier opponents again), whilst you - even though you died and failed as a survivor (in a clinical sense) - should go against more adept killers, where you'd likely continue to die? Make that make sense. That's literally what you're arguing for, and if you can't make it make sense, then that should be cause for reflection.
"get off of my thread"
Last I checked, you don't own threads, nor have any authority to dictate who may or may not engage. It's a public forum. If you don't like it, or you don't like your opinion being challenged, don't post.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2812096#Comment_2812096
I edited the comment, that might help bestie x
But in case it still doesn't I'll spell it out plain and simple:
DBD is a game where boiling skill down to 2 polar opposites, did you escape or die, is completely illogical for multiple reasons. Teammates can easily be the cause of your death as survivor, and yet apparently you weren't skilled enough. Grab validation messed up your killer game? That's an issue with your skill, not the game. Facecamped at 3 gens in solo and everyone tries to save you? That's entirely on you, by the way- your skill issue for going down in the first place.
Ignoring everything that goes on in a game from either side, while simultaneously attempting to effectively judge any form of skill, is just flawed. You can do it, sure, but no effective outcome can be reached. Emblems did it better, and RBMM was mostly fine until the reset changes, at which point it entirely broke.
It is simply more skillful to get a 16 minute long 10 hook 2k than a 4 minute long 4 hook 4k because you facecamped solos with insidious and someone didn't have Kindred equipped. But SBMM ignore this, and instead the second is believed to have made the better play, and to have been the more skilled. Because they won one chase, compared to the 10+ needed in the first example.
Ranking skill based off of kills/escapes makes no sense at all. At least call it what it is- kill-based matchmaking- instead of trying to pass it off as skill.
And remember, it took them 2 years to devise a system more flawed than the Victory Cube of all things.
You're still flirting around the issue with your waffling explanations that don't bear any resemblance to actual logic (i.e. with propositions and conclusions, i.e. the sort of stuff that can be made into an algorithm).
Until you actually understand the rules of logic, and algorithms in general, you might want to hold off making judgements on the matter.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2812087#Comment_2812087
I'm saying that determining skill based off of kills/escapes is illogical because most people would agree a 1k 9 hook game takes more skill overall as a killer to pull off than a 2k 2 hook game, yes. I'm saying that ignoring everything a player on either side can do in a game to boil the system down to just kills/escapes and calling that skill makes no sense, yes. I'm saying that the entire concept is flawed and while RBMM was terrible, the basic concept behind the Emblem system was substantially better than SBMM, yes. I'm saying that Emblems needed tweaks + the RBMM system needed redoing, but not the entire concept, as well as having the old rank reset back, yes. Glad we're on the same page.
I'm saying that determining skill based off of kills/escapes is illogical
And I'm saying it's completely logical, and I laid out the steps demonstrating that logic.
You can say it's illogical all you like, but as yet you've literally not given an actual logical argument/reason why it doesn't work.
If you're so sure of your position, then please answer my question directly instead of flirting around the issue.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2812048#Comment_2812048
I'm not complaining that he's being facecamped I'm complaining that the flashlight save + 3 gen chase mean ######### all to this matchmaking system because he was able to down me once 😭
So, let me get this straight (and let's be clinical about this).
You played against this killer, and - regardless of how it happened - the killer killed you, i.e. they achieved their objective as killer, and you did not survive as survivor (clue is in the name).
So now the MM system would lean towards pairing this killer vs survivors that are more likely to escape, and you with killers less likely to catch you.
But in your mind, you think that - even though the killer killed, and the survivor died - the killer should be the one to face easier survivors (so they can do this more easily), and the survivor should go against more difficult killers (with the likelihood they'll just be caught/killed again if this match is anything to go by)? And that process should just continue and repeat if the outcomes are consistent (i.e. the killer killing and the survivor dying)?
I'd love for you to make that make sense to me.
-
Well... tbf, you went vs this killer, and so far it seems like he's winning when you boil it down to pure numbers (which is what the MMR is based on).
Seriously, I've love for some of you guys to come up with any kind of workable system, even on paper, that we can poke holes in it and laugh at your lack of understanding as to how these things work or what the devs mean went they're talking about software functionality.
-
Plot Twist: There is no MMR... you're just being matched with whomever is available :D
-
However, there's absolutely no justification for not allowing us to even select Nurse.
Unless you're some kind of developer who understands the mechanics of building complex systems, I'd say you've got literally no basis or credibility for making such a declaration.
The justification is the implementation of an all-encompassing kill-switch that disables a feature for any reason. In this case the Nurse has a game-breaking bug whilst in-game... but in future there may be another bug that occurs on selection, or the loading screen, or whatever.
When building a "kill-switch" feature, you look for the earliest opportunity to implement it that'll catch all scenarios... in this case you prevent the killer from being selected. That'll avoid any problems with that killer, whether it's idle animation, waiting in the lobby, something in game, something to do with the blood-web (each killer's web is unique 'cos of their own add-ons, etc).
So please... instead of crying about the minor inconvenience that certainly has not "effectively locked [your] account", just take a chill pill. Please.
-
Just make his traps translucent... simples... problem fixed for all maps
-
Sounds like your connection dropped temporarily. It happens occasionally.
-
@jakers said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2805508#Comment_2805508
I'm sure you can understand how there is a relationship between the two though. MMR is king but you have to admit its an indicator, surely
By that logic, come the 13th of every month, everyone just 'deskills' ???
-
Honestly, this is embarrassing.
Grades have nothing to do with your match making. They're just representative of how much you've played this month. That's literally it.
All this screenshot shows is that the killer hasn't played much this month, and the survivors have. What's so unusual about that??
-
Light a boon totem.
-
@Pepsidot said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2805374#Comment_2805374
Again, you're putting words in my mouth when you suggest I want "every killer to work in the same way" and I'm not sure where I'm crying (as you say) about how there's no counter-play? I never said that.
All I suggest is that there is more counter-play, not that some counter-play doesn't already exist. And I'm talking from a perspective of counter-play at the highest levels where Nurses are insanely good.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2805400#Comment_2805400
Thanks for your comment although I disagree somewhat about how survivors can overcommit to a doubleback. Survivors can double back to a point where she is a few meters away (not in the danger zone) but she can still blink on top of them anyway with a fully charged blink. Now although there's more travel time with that blink, she can quickly secure the hit with her second blink when the survivor starts running off again.
This nerf would aim to remove that possibility when a Nurse has a well charged blink. Post-nerf, if the Nurse expects the doubleback, she would commit to a short range blink. Currently Nurses don't really have to commit and can instead re-adjust their blink distance depending on what the survivor does.
Anyway thanks for your comments everyone. It's clear no one agrees with this nerf. I know that Nurse has a special place in terms of balance in this game (understandably!), so this post would always be controversial. I've never seen anyone suggest this kind of nerf before so it's interesting to see everyone's replies. Feel free to comment more but I'm done with this post now.
Le sigh...
Again, you're putting words in my mouth when you suggest I want "every killer to work in the same way" and I'm not sure where I'm crying (as you say) about how there's no counter-play? I never said that.
What I actually said was "The problem I see over and over again is that survivors refuse to step up and learn how to counter-play the killers. They just want every killer to work in the same way, and when they don't, they cry "there's no counter-play!!! waaaah!!!" instead of actually looking for it."
If you're going to quote me... quote me properly. Don't selectively quote to make out like I said something I clearly didn't.
The comment I made is clearly a general comment related to survivors as a whole. You can argue it doesn't apply to you, fine. But you can't argue that I said that's what you said.
All I suggest is that there is more counter-play, not that some counter-play doesn't already exist.
Your "counter-play" is literally just a Nurse nerf (on top of all the other issues she faces). That's exactly how you phrased it. You're not arguing to take something she has and tweaking it to provide something additional for survivors (e.g. like Spirit's phasing sound). You're literally asking to take what she has, i.e. her core mechanic, and preventing her from being able to use it properly. That's not counter-play, that's just a straight-up nerf. Her core mechanic already has counter-play (fatigue, blinks to straight lines, blinks have to be recharged, slower than survivor movement speed, inability to cancel blinks once starting to charge, etc).
One has to wonder, at what point will survivors agree that they've already got enough...?
And I'm talking from a perspective of counter-play at the highest levels where Nurses are insanely good.
When you reach that level, then come back to us and let us know about this proposal. Until then, perhaps leave it to the players at that level to determine from their own experience whether it's warranted or not. I'm sure you'll find that the players on that level think Nurse is fine where she is. She's incredibly hard to learn and use, has loads of bugs and other vulnerabilities already, and plenty of counter-play, some of which I've already described. You don't need more, because that takes away the very essence of playing vs her.
You're not supposed to win against a Nurse, or any killer. DBD isn't a 1v1 game. You're supposed to distract them long enough for the rest of your team working together to complete the objectives on you all. If you think that any one killer has to go against 4 survivors, each of whom have full capacity to thwart the killer indefinitely, then how on earth can you possibly regard that as game with any sense of balance???
-
@Pepsidot said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2804677#Comment_2804677
This post is about adding a bit more counterplay by having Nurses commit to the distance of their held blink. If you think about it, the current mechanic doesn't really make sense. It didn't always work the way it does now. I believe the mechanic is actually a byproduct of the buff nurse received that allowed her to blink up and down floors.
This nerf would not suddenly allow survivors to start looping the nurse as you suggest. That's a gross overreaction.
It's not about adding counter-play. It's literally about nerfing Nurse. You might want to recheck the title of the thread.
Nurse already has counter-play here:
a) Once she starts her charge, she HAS to blink (and then suffer fatigue). Your options are to either maintain course, or turn (even back toward her) to force her to misblink
b) On maps with floors, e.g. The Game, you can run back to the Nurse to force her to blink down to the lower floor... win!
c) You can also abuse obstacles that require her to blink short distances accurately, e.g. rocks and walls (remember, your hitbox also blocks her blinks)
d) Nurse's movement speed is also slower than survivors, you can literally outrun her (blinks aside).
e) After a blink, she suffers fatigue and has vision obscured... perfect time to make a getaway. And I hate to say it, but Shadow Step + Iron Will essentially allows you to disappear when this happens because she can't track after a hit.
Seriously, how much more counter-play do you want??
The problem I see over and over again is that survivors refuse to step up and learn how to counter-play the killers. They just want every killer to work in the same way, and when they don't, they cry "there's no counter-play!!! waaaah!!!" instead of actually looking for it.
Play Nurse. Get good with her. Get to a level where you're getting 4K's vs survivors with 1000's of hours and then you can let us know whether she's already got enough counters, or whether she's too easy.
-
@Pepsidot said:
I'm wondering what others think about nerfing Nurse so that she cannot look down with a blink and cover less distance (hopefully you understand what I mean). Once upon a time Nurse's HAD to commit to their first blink's distance. This meant if they held their first blink fully they would blink quite far away and the only way they could stop this is if they blinked at an unpassable wall.
Nowadays good Nurse's take advantage of how she can blink downwards, so that they can cover less distance. Meaning when a survivor double backs to mindgame, she can correct and mitigate her otherwise long held blink distance by looking down.
Would it be fair if we remove that possibility so that Nurse's HAVE to commit to their first blink's actual distance, leaving more room for mindgames (double backing would be more effective) and less room for the Nurse to correct themselves?
**NOTE**: This wouldn't remove her ability to blink up and down floors. And although the nerf would apply to second blinks too, in reality it would only really force Nurse's to commit to their first blink's distance because they can hold their second blink for long enough to become fatigued anyway. This change would increase her skill ceiling even more and would allow for more counter play (AKA double backing being more rewarded when the Nurse is not expecting it).
How about you use all the options available to you to just juke her?
Seriously, why do survivors always go for the "nerf the killer" card instead "hmm, let me get better vs this killer"
Try playing Nurse, get good with her, learn her weaknesses, and then translate those into your survivor play, and stop expecting every killer to be a carbon-copy replica of every other one so you only have to learn one strategy to loop.
-
@GodDamn_Angela said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2760438#Comment_2760438
A couple things about this:
- Sometimes it is so subtle it is barely noticable until you pay attention to it and by that point the match is basically over.
- Recording a video takes time. Most of us don't have video recording software open all the time.
- BHVR needs to make it easier to report to them.
Forget the reporting... at that point the cheating has already happened and this is a mechanic that's always going to be playing catch-up. You report, they investigate, maybe ban, the cheaters open a new account and repeat ad infinitum. Nothing changes except minor inconvenience to all parties, two of which (the cheated player and BHVR) don't need the hassle.
BHVR need to implement better cheating detection on their servers to ban the current and wanna-be cheaters as soon as cheating is detected. Even monitoring for simple stuff like survivors moving/healing at impossible speeds, etc, would cut down on a huge number of instances.
-
@AetherBytes said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2803123#Comment_2803123
Of course stuff should be refunded. Like a cancelled match, everyone gets refunded
And what about being forced to wait again. Personally, I'd rather take the game as is because I need to practice my looping. I don't care about win/loss, that'll come with experience. I want to play.
-
@adirgeforthedead said:
The saddest part is that you are talking about obvious cheaters.
I am pretty sure I face subtle cheaters every couple of games considering how some of my latest matches have gone...
Same here, I've had multiple instances where I've been in chase and the survivor is running just fast enough to stay ahead, with occasional (impossible) bursts of speed. They're trying to hide it, but not very well.
-
Yes... as a survivor, I love being sent back to the lobby to wait 10 minutes for another game, and lose all my addons and offerings (gateau) in the mean time, without even being afforded the chance to play something, even if it means being at a disadvantage because of someone else
-
Already reported and acknowledged: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/309625/the-nurse-grab-animation-bug#latest
-
This is already reported and acknowledged by the devs here: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/309625/the-nurse-grab-animation-bug#latest
-
I would have thought the issue (on top of what CookieBear mentioned, which I also agree with... the survivors that know can totally abuse this and force the killer into this) is that it forces killers to DC and rack up penalties. If you imagine they DC'd because of Tuesday Maintenance, and then again for whatever reason (salty survivor) and then they switch to Nurse and they have to DC again, they're going to be in for a long timeout and that's not going to be fun.
At some level, Nurse-players need to be aware - even by maybe acknowledgement when they boot up the game - that there's a known bug which will cause the Nurse to freeze/break on a common mechanic (i.e. so there's a good chance they'll experience it if they play)
-
@GeneralV said:
I think tunneling can be split in two.
Tunneling because you have to: not toxic.
Tunneling because you want to: toxic.
The problem with this is drawing the line between want/need. It opens the doors for survivors to project their own presumptions onto the killer. I've lost count how many times I've had survivors tell me what I did as killer and why... despite the fact that I was the one playing killer and I know what I was doing and why!
This attitude doesn't put an end to survivors accusing killers of tunnelling for any/every reason, and that just promotes more toxicity.
In my last game I got accused of hard tunnelling... because I killed survivors 1-3 and didn't even hook survivor 4 (who went on to escape) because he kept avoiding me. These guys seemed to be of the opinion that the killer has to go round-robin and dish out hooks fairly, instead of going for the target right in front of them.
If you don't want to be tunnelled then:
a) Avoid the killer (there are more than enough perks to assist in doing this, so boohoo if you choose not to bring them)
b) Blame your team-mates for misplays if they unhook you unsafely, or refuse to take chase when they've got hooks to spare
-
So, she's frozen for the rest of the game? Which means you are forced to DC, and then eat the ever-increasing DC penalties??
Dang... looks like I still won't be playing her :(
Let's hope this fix comes out ASAP
-
Still broken in 5.5.2 :(
-
@smartemarte said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2798644#Comment_2798644
exactly my point, if i get matched with awful survivors that haven't had many games vs a killer thats had 1000's of hours in the game i have much less chance of escaping simply by the design of the game ...
maybe I should think of it more like hockey 😄
Well, you stated "by this system you're judged how good you are by if you escape or not...", which I was clarifying is not a correct understanding of how it works.
I understand your point, but I think you're misapplying it because you don't understand how the system works.
To take your scenario - exceptions aside (i.e. where you or others are back-filled into a lobby), in theory you're supposed to be matched with survivors who are around your level of ability (judged purely on whether they escaped or not, not the manner of escape), and the killer should be around the same level too.
The system isn't designing matches of low-rank survivors vs. high-rank killers, though it may appear like that at times, particularly because of the polarisation that can occur when one side starts to gain traction.
In short, if the system is matching you with "awful survivors", it should also be matching you with awful killers. And if you have the ability, you should be escaping more often, and thus will be ranked with other players who are escaping more often (which you could loosely correlate with skill), and thus going against killers who have the ability to deal with this.
-
@smartemarte said:
by this system you're judged how good you are by if you escape or not...
how can i escape when you are matching me with survivors that admit to only having a handful of games and did not know about recovering on the ground and a killer thats got 2000+ hours in the game rank 1 ??
stupid.
The system doesn't judge how good you are. It just measures how often you manage to escape. It cares not how you managed to escape. What you draw from that inference is your own.
-
@Bennett_They1Them said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2796261#Comment_2796261
That's super cool!
Any advice on getting into the industry?
I'm hoping to work as a sound designer/game designer one day.
I assume you mean games industry? I've no idea, sorry. I've never been (directly) involved. My closest involvement was building the Tomb Raider and Championship Manager platforms (Eidos was our customer).
I'd offer general architectural tips, but I've no idea how they relate to sound/game design. Sorry.
-
@dallasmedicbag said:
Just don't. Save your headache and just play killer. There is a big exploit going on right now regarding pig and her camping boxes. Two of my teammates' keys unfortunately belonged to the camped box and these players are out there to ruin your game. If you play killer, there isn't a way for anyone to ruin your game because you can still play normally.
What's with this mindset of them being "out there to ruin your game"... they're playing their own game and using a strategy that may or may not pay off. It's up to you to play around it. If you don't find it fun to play around various killer's abilities, why are you playing this game??
-
Immediate... the poor survivor and I (killer) spawned atop the same hill somehow. Instant smack :D Only ever happened that one time.
-
Watched the video... 4m of my life I won't get back, and I don't see the problem.
The killer attempted a hook but couldn't make it due to Boil Over (you can see them sliding about).
Thereafter presumably waited for another opportune moment to retry (i.e. perhaps after you'd been picked up and downed again), but the other survivors literally came buzzing like flies and made his job easier. No-one was on gens, everyone was giving free hits, so what else do you expect for the killer to do except take advantage?
Clear survivor misplay as far as I'm concerned. Killers play by their rules, not the survivor rules!
-
@gammatsunami said:
I got it on my first attempt
Same here. The new hatch mechanics actually make it easier IMHO because the hatch won't spawn in advance, so there's no threat of keys, etc, being brought in and abused. You know that until it's down to the last survivor, there is nowhere for them to go except to find the hatch through luck before you.
Or if the survivors know to play around the mori they can hide in lockers to deny you. Luckily they didn't do that with me, mine were good sports when they realised they'd lost
-
@Bennett_They1Them said:
correct.
I don't have much to say, other than that you're right.
BTW, where do you work? I'd be interested in seeing some of your projects.
Thanks.
It's unlikely you would see my work anywhere, I'm a back-end engineer. I used to co-host an Xbox 360 Leagues site back in the day, had a lot of help from the original TrueSkill researchers in implementing an MMR system into our games (so we could match-make our own private COD2 games in advance). The only references to it now are on the way back machine.
A friend and I also sort-of accidentally made a viral rumour about new Gears of War content (this is back in 2006), references to that still exist, search for "the above domain". I'm sure someone will ask, so I'll explain now: it started off as an off-the-cuff comment I said to someone to email me at my username "at the above domain" (i.e. without specifying my email address specifically to circumvent bots that were searching for email addresses to spam). "Gears of War" was new and hot, and my friend thought it was an amusing connection (because the locusts come from underground to 'the above domain', i.e. our area) so made a website with some vague references as an in-joke for our league of gamers. At the time we also used to do game reviews too (publishers would send us copies of games to review... good times), so a number of sources also looked to us for content... saw this, and ran with it not realising it was an in-joke. And then it just grew into wild conspiracies with us fanning the flames until the head of Epic had to make an official announcement about it. Good times :D
Other than that, the most visible project I've worked on is Kayako; when it was acquired a few years ago, I was one of the system architects responsible for moving it from the existing servers to the new owner's infrastructure.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2789667#Comment_2789667
The game does not frame the survivor's objective as an individual one. It remains agnostic.
Many people, including myself and the others replying to you in this thread, treat this as a team game. Even if you disagree, you should agree that those who play selfishly should statistically hurt the overall survival rates in their lobbies, meaning that their presence in a match increases the chance of the killer completing their objective regardless of whether or not they survive. I feel they should be punished for that from an MMR standpoint.
Designing the MMR system as a 1v1 rewards selfish play as much as it rewards skill. An MMR system designed as a 4v1 would do a much better job of putting similarly skilled players (i.e. players that do more gens, chase longer, save their teammates more reliably, etc.) in higher skill brackets. So, even if you're the guy leaving me to die on first hook every match, you should want an MMR system that doesn't reward that. You'll just end up going against killers who are better than you.
Many people, including myself and the others replying to you in this thread, treat this as a team game. Even if you disagree, you should agree that those who play selfishly should statistically hurt the overall survival rates in their lobbies, meaning that their presence in a match increases the chance of the killer completing their objective regardless of whether or not they survive. I feel they should be punished for that from an MMR standpoint.
I don't understand what you mean by "punished"... MMR is not a reward/punishment system. It's just a mechanism to match equally-skilled players together (skill as defined in abstract terms as a measure of overall performance... the system doesn't care about swag or style).
The fact that people keep referring to reward/punishment just highlights the lack of understanding of what's going on, and what should be going on. "Winning" etc is a purely subjective position
A survivor may consider a "win" if they prevented a 4K, or a "win" if they escaped, etc.
A killer may consider a "win" if they got 1/2 the team killed, or at least a 3K.
The system doesn't care what the players term as a win. It only cares about the ability for the survivor to escape (which is a concrete indisputable metric to measure... a survivor either escaped or died, there is no alternative).
If people stopped looking at the system with their subjectivity, it would make a lot more sense. I've made a few points where I've criticised the developers for not recognising how the community might understand abstract terms without clarification... but there's also a HUGE amount of blame that the community must also accept for refusing to listen and understand when matters have been repeatedly explained and clarified.
-
And... still broken in 5.5.1 :(
Weirdly though, it did seem fine for a minute or so in the tutorial. But in a live game it tanked the FPS immediately. There's definitely something weird going on
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2785145#Comment_2785145
It's helpful to remember that the point of the matchmaking system isn't to determine who's more skilful- it was a mistake of them to use the word "skill" in the name, even if it is still accurate when you're looking at aggregate batches of MMR brackets instead of individual games.
What the matchmaking system asks of a player when the match ends isn't "how skilful were you", it's "should you go against stronger or weaker opponents". If you won that match, it's a point towards needing stronger opponents, and if you lost then it's a point away from needing stronger opponents. Amass enough points, you move up the bracket.
The facecamping Bubba should go against stronger opponents. They shouldn't be stomping noobs who can't deal with them, they should be going against teams that know what to do. Same for the immersed Claudette- she should be escalated to being the weak link against a good killer because the cheese strat should stop working eventually.
It's also worth mentioning that the MMR system should not account for problems with the game's balancing, it should very explicitly be built as though those problems don't exist so it's future proofed for when the problems are fixed.
"It's helpful to remember that the point of the matchmaking system isn't to determine who's more skilful- it was a mistake of them to use the word "skill" in the name, even if it is still accurate when you're looking at aggregate batches of MMR brackets instead of individual games."
I don't think it was a mistake to use the word "skill" - it's an accurate enough term that's been in use for decades (I referenced TrueSkill in my OP which is 20+ years old).
The mistake was not recognising that the general community would understand something else from the term "skill", and not catering the language accordingly.
It's all well and good for BHVR to refer to "skill" internally... the devs know what they're talking about, and in fairness, it's the most accurate short-hand term (anyone who disagrees, please suggest an alternative). But if you do any PR - including live-streams - then there's a degree of responsibility on you to understand your audience and understand how they'll interpret your words. I think this was the mistake Patrick fell into.
As a dev, everything Patrick said made complete sense to me. But to my non-dev friends, he was full of contradictions and making because they didn't understand the background... and unfortunately as a community, the masses are too immature to recognise that it might be them who's not understanding. It's much easier to say "developer = dumb" which is the trap too many fall into.
-
@LoneSlinger said:
I love how that dude zarr and plays by shady keep defending the system when I can list two flaws with the system rn that can't be argued against
1:it's kills and escapes based matchmaking we all know this everyone knows this, that means it's easy asf to abuse all I have to do is die on purpose every game or let everyone escape every game and all of a sudden boom I'm smurfing
And I already know the counter argument will be oh well eventually you'll get to a point where you get such bad players that you win
And the simple facts are if I die for 80 games straight then would it not also take me 80 wins straight to get back to that point? I mean none of us know the exact numbers but most elo systems you lose and win the same amount so as not to inflate your elo after 2 losses and 1 win
None of that can be argued against these are facts the system is easily abusable that is a fact
And
2:if I play bubba and facecamp every single game I will always walk away with at least 1 kill probably 3 or 4 most games so that means I will never walk away from a game with a 0k like someone playing the game normally can, so yes I may lose mmr
But Does that mean that I'm performing better or am more skilled then someone playing the game normally? I'd argue not so and I don't really think that can be argued against
Facecamping bubba = guaranteed 1 kill every game
Normal player = ability to get a 0k
That can't be argued against that's a fact
Au contraire...
"I love how that dude zarr and plays by shady keep defending the system when I can list two flaws with the system rn that can't be argued against
1:it's kills and escapes based matchmaking we all know this everyone knows this, that means it's easy asf to abuse all I have to do is die on purpose every game or let everyone escape every game and all of a sudden boom I'm smurfing"
Err... no dude. That's not a flaw with "the system" (presumably you mean the MMR system), that's a flaw with anything and everything that doesn't know or understand your intent. Any system can only match you according to your measurable progress... so if you deliberately cripple your progress, obviously that's going to reflect in your standing.
To use the Kobe example, what are you expecting if Kobe just stands on the side of the court for the whole game and throws it? For the system to reward him "oh, he's a good player normally, he's just making a point right now?" No dude, his standing will go down.
That's not a flaw of "the system", that's literally how rankings work... and you've not explained why it shouldn't work like that, and therefore why it's a flaw.
Love it when people thing they've got these killer points without realising the fundamental flaws in it, lol
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
Nurse most definitely had a change to whether or not blinking through an object works or not. Before this patch, I could walk forward until Nurse is touching a window vault, and make a very small blink, and I would consistently make it to the other side of the window vault. Now I can’t do this at all. In fact, in order to blink through a window vault, I have to overblink to the point where Nurse lands beyond the window vault, with a gap large enough that I could float back a few steps to get back to the window vault. This makes short blinking through walls feel awful.
This also makes Nurse feel awful when she’s chasing a survivor with blinks, because the survivor’s effective collision hitbox is noticeably larger than it should be, so if she’s directly facing them and overblinks a bit, she ends up getting pushed backwards for a distance that’s bigger than the survivor’s actual collision hitbox.
TDLR: before this patch, if Nurse tried to blink through an object, and had mostly cleared the object, it would work. Now she has to overblink through objects to a point that’s well beyond that object’s actual collision hitbox.
Glad you mentioned this. I definitely felt this when playing, but I hadn't played her for a month or so so just assumed I was rusty and misremembering. It was definitely a struggle to go through walls at short distances, moreso than before.
-
@Kalinikta said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2774755#Comment_2774755
The analogy is made by the developers and yourself. Take any team sport and the players within it have different rankings based on their personal performances and contributions, any major sport including Hockey track these records and place them in ranking. The fact of the matter is that the overall MMR system for teams does not reflect upon the individual and making that claim it this one is good because it does just that is the point you are missing.
The survivors are judged individually instead of based on the teams overall performance and being a star player doesn't move you into a better team, it might cause you to actually be placed in a worse one. You say these scenarios do not matter, but they do, because star players tend to place themselves in the more dangerous role of the team and that by no means that they will escape more as for that to happen they are reliant on the remainder of the team. You state they are exceptional circumstances, but that is simply false.
The system inherently promotes selfish plays in a team, as that is what is rewarded instead of skillful plays and teamwork. That is what people don't like about the system and find unfair. Your actions might have won the team the game, but there is no incentive to play that way if it results in you to die alone. You might have been that goalkeeper I am talking about with a great record on defensive moves, but because you don't take shots on goal... you drop in rank (because you don't take shots that means you score less, even though your role might have resulted in the team winning).
"The analogy is made by the developers and yourself. Take any team sport and the players within it have different rankings based on their personal performances and contributions, any major sport including Hockey track these records and place them in ranking. The fact of the matter is that the overall MMR system for teams does not reflect upon the individual and making that claim it this one is good because it does just that is the point you are missing."
Err, no dude. If you'd read my responses, you'd see I know and acknowledge that the team MMR is different to the individual one... not least of all because there is no team MMR in DBD. You seem desperate to project your warped interpretation of what I've said onto me, rather than taking a step back and re-evaluating your understanding of what I've actually said.
"The survivors are judged individually instead of based on the teams overall performance and being a star player doesn't move you into a better team, it might cause you to actually be placed in a worse one."
There are no teams in DBD! You don't sign up as a team. You don't log in as a team. You literally enter the queue as individuals. The system ranks you as individuals because you literally go in as individuals.
"You say these scenarios do not matter, but they do, because star players tend to place themselves in the more dangerous role of the team and that by no means that they will escape more as for that to happen they are reliant on the remainder of the team. You state they are exceptional circumstances, but that is simply false."
Prove it with the data then... because what you're essentially saying is the best player on the team is the one who keeps dying, and I don't see that.
"The system inherently promotes selfish plays in a team."
Guess what... selfishness is a subjective perspective. The system doesn't care how you played. It only cares what the result was. And it has no reason, nor any mechanism to care about anything more than this.
"You might have been that goalkeeper I am talking about with a great record on defensive moves, but because you don't take shots on goal... you drop in rank (because you don't take shots that means you score less, even though your role might have resulted in the team winning)."
And this proves you don't know what you're talking about. Yes, goal-keepers don't take shots on goal... but they do save goals and thus help their team rise. You can infer, if their team is successful, that they're saving more shots on goal. That's the point... you don't need to know the individual things that happened within a match when there's a proxy to the same indicator that has a strong correlation. You've literally just argued against your own point.
-
@Erd69 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2774808#Comment_2774808
I do play her and she's hard. I'm not good at her but understand she's hard. Does not matter though because she goes through walls and is hella strong lol.
Yeah, you're focusing on her strengths. Now tell me her weaknesses. Once you've figured that out... exploit them!