Pulsar
Pulsar
About
- Username
- Pulsar
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
Yeah, only 2 4Ks in 45 games. If you make up numbers, just make them a bit more realistic.
You must be playing in tournaments. And getting those results while playing Solo, which is the most unrealiable thing in the game.
I doubt it until I see some gameplay. (Let alone - how do you know you are at high MMR? And since when does high MMR mean anything? We know it is not skill-based)
I haven't had an opportunity to mention it, but what did you think of the stats I took over 200 games?
I can upload the PDF of the raw updated spreadsheet, if you'd like.
-
Pretty much everyone is high MMR now, I think.
MMR never resets, so much like how the old Rank system functioned, there are a lot of people at the soft-cap. This can be shown through past experiences as well. We saw that for around the first month after SBMM was implemented, my games were noticeably harder. It took forever to find lobbies and the matches were extremely unfun, but the actual skill level of who I was playing matched up with my own fairly well.
Now? It's worse than old Red Ranks.
-
Yes.
-
I don't think they nerfed it enough.
Isn't it only like a 3 second nerf across the board?
That still doesn't address the time sink Killers have to go through in order to disable it temporarily.
-
@foxsansbox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2767653#Comment_2767653
How would you suggest fixing potatoes?
There are people who DO NOT WANT TO WIN. You cannot incentivize them, their reasons for playing are starkly different from yours and mine.
Also, dude, it's not an argument. It's the best suggestion I can think of for anyone who needs help with SoloQ. Feel free to put up better that you can do within your own power.
You make more punishments for people who intentionally throw games. Seems rather obvious to me.
-
@foxsansbox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/306536/in-soloq-teammates-are-your-main-enemies
Easy solution is go to the looking for group sections of Reddit, this Forum, and your consoles platform, and developing a relationship with people so you have people to play with that are as equally invested in winning as you.
It's a team game for survivors, I don't know what else to tell you.
That doesn't mean Solo Q needs to be hell.
What a terrible argument.
-
The issue seems to be that there aren't enough Killer players.
How far away are we from having enough? I'm not sure.
I'm also not sure why you would want to play Killer.
-
@foxsansbox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2767557#Comment_2767557
I believe you had an incredibly negative experience with Nurse recently. I've got a ton of hours on her now, and I still encounter squads that have too much experience and hold the entire game hostage. I'm one of the most stubborn try-hards I have the pleasure of knowing and those experiences were so bad they made even me look to take breaks from this game.
Bubba is your entry level value killer. He deals in wholesale and his discounts are plentiful. But the way he is used is a symptom.
I would be very interested to see Bubba's pick/facecamp rate after M1 killers are given some breathing room.
It will probably stay the same.
People use him because he gives guaranteed value at the cost of playing like a dick. Slap on NOED and Corrupt and you've got an easy 2K, if not more.
He's a perfectly good Killer. Easily top half of the roster and is completely viable, people just choose to do the easiest thing they can
-
@foxsansbox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2767539#Comment_2767539
Do you think less people would be playing Bubba, face camping or otherwise, if they felt they had other viable options?
Maybe?
I think a lot of them just set out to ruin other people's experiences. A lot of people just started hitting the first guy they caught on hook, regardless of how many gens were done.
You have other viable options. Nurse, Spirit, Blight ect ect. Bubba is just extremely easy to get value out of.
-
I think he's fine in terms of strength, but his ability to basically force a 2K regardless of skill is an issue for me.
In 257 games, this is how the Bubba split has been
-
Dbd Totem Stats - Full Sheet.pdf@tennmio said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2743406#Comment_2743406
That isn't your data, this is your results. Whithout the data I cannot analyse the data. No offense but most people have no clue how to statistically correct analyse the data.
There.
That's the entire (continued) spreadsheet converted to a PDF.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2766088#Comment_2766088
Hey Pulsar. sorry to hear that, but I have to question you on your story.
Its clear that the game was not really made for survivors of your caliber, so why dont you just play when more survivors like you are playing?
Bro when do they play
-
@Lx_malice said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2766040#Comment_2766040
🤷 I leave mine completely open. 90% of the chats I get from Dbd players these days are compliments, thank yous for hatch, and ggs. Almost every chat I get from overwatch players is hate.
I literally had to turn my messages off because I was getting told to off myself after every game.
It wears on you.
-
I actually think it's really bad.
It just turns him into Legion with a 4v1 distraction.
It removes his ability to anti-loop with his Chains (which was already questionable) but gives him the ability to injure easily.
-
@zarr said:
I'm actually baffled how backwards a lot of people are taking this whole MMR thing. This is like the third or fourth entirely-too-long post I make about this topic, but I somehow find it difficult to express in simple, short terms just how backwards people are looking at this system.
I think it wasn't a good decision to call the matchmaking system "skill-based", but not because it doesn't factor in skills (it does), but because people are getting way too hung up on that word and losing out of sight completely what we are talking about here. We are talking about a matchmaking system. People seem to believe this is some kind of ultimate judgement system, that rates players and somehow they are then only worth as much (or as skilled) as the system says, as if a good rating would be a reward, or as if it granted some sort of reward, and as if it would be unfair if it didn't correctly rate someone based on all of their skills.
First of all, realize that the system is only meant and indeed only used to create matches, and specifically matches that are more even in terms of chances of success for all players involved. There is no reward for being highly-rated, your rating is not even shown, and the state of your rating does not signify anything but the pool of players you will (ideally) more often be paired with and against, namely players close to that rating. Even if the system did not rate players based on skill whatsoever (which it again absolutely does), why does anybody care whether it actually assesses skills? Sure, if there were an actual, notable reward for achieving a high rating, like cosmetics or Shards or whatever, I could understand a little better complaints about how the system would not fairly or accurately rate players, that they think it does not account for the types of skills they may have that may also be important... but there are no such rewards, the only thing that changes if your rating increases is the rating of the players you are supposed to be matched with.
I find it perplexing that people take issue with the idea that the system does not rate people fairly based on skills, not only because it ultimately doesn't have to (and despite the fact that it ultimately does), but also because often when I hear other suggestions for matchmaking systems, they are stuff like "just throw everyone in one giant pool", or "use emblems", which are both basically describing the same thing, the old matchmaking system, and only go to show that people often don't actually care about consistently having opponents roughly around their own skill level, they if anything seem to want a completely willy-nilly matchmaking again. And so even if we do assume that the current matchmaking system does not actually match people based on skills, why is that then an issue for so many?
More than that, the most common complaint I see about the current matchmaking system is players saying they have a hard time killing survivors. Yet the system is literally meant to make players average out to around 2 kills. So either they are saying they want to have a system in which they can average more than 2 kills (which would be silly of course), or they are actually fine with what the current system is designed around, only they think it does not actually fulfil its purpose since they do not average around 2 kills (which they however could already very well be).
Either way, let's tackle the arguments of Scott here.
"Killing/surviving does not really determine skill."
In no game in existence MMR is simply about "skill" itself. I will refrain from touching on the hockey analogy because it is not important, but the gist of what Patrick said is completely true. Namely, MMR systems are concerned with winning. Not with winning in the most difficult, fancy ways, just winning by any means possible as long as those means consistently lead to winning. In any proper MMR system, people only advance if they consistently win. Consistently winning requires skill. The skills required to win correlate with winning. The MMR therefore factors in those skills. That doesn't mean the MMR system is about skill, it's about winning, and skills only factor into this if and insofar they respectively correlate with winning. It's an important distinction to make between skills that correlate with winning (which is: to contribute and lead to winning), and skills that are merely fancy, difficult things one can do, but that do not necessarily increase one's likeliness to win, and in fact can even do the opposite. You could separate them terminologically by speaking about survival/killing skills as the one that matter for MMR, as they pertain skills that correlate with winning. As such, you would specify "skill-based" MM as "survival/killing skill-based" MM, or "skill-correlated" MM.
Sure, there are a lot of things in these games people can be skilled at, but if they are not things that lead to wins, they cannot and indeed should not be factored into MMR. You can be the best moonwalker in the game, but if you can't use that skill to actually increase your survival rate, it has nothing to do with MMR, and it would be absurd to argue it should. Basing matchmaking on skills just on the basis of how difficult they are rather than on the basis of whether those skills translate to increased chances of winning is completely backwards and misguided understanding of what MMR and its purpose is. What would high-MMR gameplay look like in a system that looked at difficult stuff for difficulty's sake? You would have 360 youtube montage survivors spinning around in one corner of the map, and a skybilly going for trick montages in the other. Endlessly of course, because nobody would ever do gens which is unskillful and purely, primitively survival-oriented, and Billy would never kill anyone but rather try to win an infinity-approaching amount of chases with tricksaws in a single game.
I hate to break it to people, but hooks are not actually the win condition in this game, and in its current state absolutely cannot be. The win conditions are killing and surviving, and you would have to redesign the game in major ways that shift its entire character to change that. Yes, someone might be very skilled at chasing survivors and therefore gets many hooks, but if they cannot convert those hooks into kills or get enough hooks that this naturally happens, they are not skilled at winning, which is what matters for MMR. For MMR only actually winning is important because its entire purpose is only to match players such that their chances of winning are more even, because that leads to healthier competition and more satisfactory playing experiences where players' win/loss ratios are more balanced, i. e. where they are more likely to succeed at least around half the time, which is to kill/survive, which in turn is also what most people actually mostly care about.
Now mind you, a player that is very skilled at chasing survivors is absolutely likely to often kill survivors, and so if they for some reason consistently end up only getting hooks and not kills, they are not converting their chase skills into wins, thus they are lacking other skills, such as macrostrategic skills (or they are going out of their way to not kill survivors, meaning they are actively hampering their own performance for difficulty's sake, which is again something MMR cannot and should not account for, just like it should not rate people higher that play perkless for some reason, or with a steering wheel, or put other such artificial limitations on themselves).
Getting many hooks is certainly indicative that a player is skilled at chases, but if they are not killing survivors that way, they are evidently not skilled enough at them for it to make up for other skills which allow other players to kill survivors with less hooks. Camping, tunnelling and slugging exist, they allow kills to happen with less hooks, and they absolutely require skill to make use of against good opponents that know how to play against them, which you in an MMR system would be expected to go against. As long as it is possible to kill without hooking survivors 3 times each, hooks cannot possibly be a win condition, and therefore also not possibly what MMR concentrates on. Base MMR on hooks and low MMR will be a realm of 99% kill rates where bad and new players get demolished by campers, tunneller, and sluggers constantly. Base MMR on hooks without making survivor MMR also be based on hooks and both sides can win simultaneously, rendering MMR useless as tons of players will be inevitably gaining MMR and ending up at around the same ratings. Base survivor MMR on hooks and they can kill themselves and leave each other on hooks and guarantee "wins" that way, meaning you would have to get rid of hook timers, of the ability to kill oneself on hook, and remedy situations where all survivors are hooked or slugged, allowing them to unhook themselves and recover. Basically, you have to remove camping, slugging and an entire sphere of strategy from the game. Rework the game like that to make hooks the win condition and you alienate the character of the game as well as a lot of players because killing and surviving absolutely is what the game revolves around and what most people care about.
Besides, why stop at hooks? What about the tons of skills that merely looking at "hooks" does not directly account for? Whether you won your chase with a fancy long-range hatchet shot rather than a point-blank one, or with a mindgame on a safe pallet rather than an unsafe pallet? Whether you used good chase perks, or chase perks at all? Add-ons that helped you? The map you were on? The killer you played? How many red stain mindgames you went for and succeeded with? How well you zoned? Shouldn't these things as well as the thousand other things that require skill be measured and accounted for by the MMR system? Aren't these things to hooks what hooks are to kills? Wouldn't we have to acknowledge that the system would become impossibly convoluted and impossible to design altogether, if we wanted to define, detect, evaluate and weigh the countless different skills that can go into the gameplay? Wouldn't we come to the realization that we can and in fact must simply look at the results that these things lead to and that we effectively, over large enough sample sizes, account for all those things by doing so?
The higher MMR levels are not supposed to be some holy realm where the most fun, fancy, difficult, noble, interactive, exciting, etc. gameplay happens. It is not something players are even meant to want to achieve. It is not some ladder to climb that people should fight their best to make it to the top of. It's a system entirely in the background, and only meant to match players with more like-minded and like-abled players when it comes to winning, without them even thinking about it, and at the top levels of that it is simply and precisely about pairing players that care the most about winning and are the best at doing so. That doesn't mean they need to be the best at getting 12 hooks, or the best at getting cross-map hatchet snipes or whatnot, it means they are the best at killing or surviving consistently, with everything that entails, the most effective and efficient, absolute "sweatiest", most "tryhard" loadouts and playstyles, filthy busted-setup-abusing, DHDS genrushers, mean 4-slowdown Nurse/Blight camper-tunneller-sluggers. And yes, consistently winning (killing/surviving) in that environment where you face off against other players that are increasingly also better at those same things, does require a lot of skill. Players in tournaments are also absolutely some of the most skilled in the game, and they too play for killing and surviving more than hooks, and it is actually not easy to kill by camping/tunnelling/slugging/just-doing-gens in that environment, a wide variety of high-level skills are at play, and chase skills specifically are definitely highly important for success there as well, the most successful tournament players are likewise some of the best 1V1 players that consistently get some of the highest chase times in 1V1 competitions. And believe it or not, plenty of people even have fun and find it exciting playing to win by any means possible in highly competitive contexts, that competition and playing-to-win and winning is desirable in itself to them, camping-et-al included.
If you personally do not enjoy how the game is played when everyone tries their hardest to win (to kill or survive), and if you consider other types of goals in the game to be more desirable or noble or even skillful (such as getting many hooks, even if it costs you kills you could otherwise get), then you are absolutely, completely free to play in those ways, MMR will not "punish" you for that one bit, on the contrary, you will even benefit from the MMR system, since you will be separated from those sweaty tryhards further above in the ratings that only play to win, as you will of course not be winning as consistently as they are. Instead, you will more often be paired against like-minded players that also do not care as much about killing and surviving, and you will have more desirable game experiences as a result, and games where you can actually average around 2 kills by going for many hooks (something that is indeed not possible at higher levels of play, the game at that level is not balanced around hooks but kills).
"Consistently" is another keyword to counter an argument of Scott with here: he points to instances where lower-skilled players in a team may survive without having contributed much to that win, or where higher-skilled players die despite having contributed a lot to the round, or yet where a higher-skilled killer gets 9 hooks but only 1 kill, whereas a lesser-skilled killer gets 2 kills with 2 hooks... And the answer to this is completely obvious and apparently lost on so many: over large enough sample sizes, the higher-skilled player that contributes a lot to the rounds will survive much more often than that lower-skilled player that contributes little; the higher-skilled killer that ends chases so fast that they can get 9 hooks in that round will over large enough sample sizes kill much more survivors than that 2-hook 2-kill player that must rely on cheap tactics (primitive facecamping) that get more and more impractical to be successful with the better your opponents are. MMR is about consistently winning, and it's completely obvious that better players will win more consistently, the correlation between skills and winning is blatant, and the scenarios he and other people point to are edge-case exceptions to a rule that would over large enough numbers of scenarios always prove true and lead to the player rating rather accurately accounting for those skill differences. Sure, if that 9-hook killer goes out of their way to always make sure they don't hook survivors they've already hooked, they might not surpass the hardcamper in kill rates, but if that killer wants to win they will of course do precisely the opposite. If they on the other hand aren't going out of their way not to kill but in fact simply cannot consistently kill despite getting many hooks, they are simply lacking crucial other skills that also play a role in this game, since this game is not at all only about chases.
The lower-skilled players that only do gens, hide, facecamp, suck at chases, etc. will hit an MMR barrier much earlier than those higher-skilled players, since they will at best stagnate playing in those ways over many matches. But that they gain MMR in rare exception matches where they are hard-carried by better teammates or stupid decisions of opponents is not actually a problem either: you actually want those players to gain MMR such that they face better opponents that are better at killing/surviving and as such punish those playstyles and that lack of skill. You don't want the locker hero or the facecamper Bubba to get easier and easier opponents every time they succeed, opponents against which they will be even more successful playing that way; rather, if they are successful playing that way, you want them to face tougher opposition such that and until they aren't anymore.
I'm not saying the game could not be extensively reworked to actually become about hooks vs. preventing hooks rather than about killing vs. surviving, and I even agree that it being changed to at least shift somewhat more from being about kills to being about hooks is a desirable direction, but the reality of the game as it is simply is not that, and without major redesigning it cannot be. Simply tying MMR to amount of hooks without doing anything else would be absurd. And anyway, I do think camping/tunnelling/slugging have a place in the game, they are integral aspects of the "macrogame", the strategical side, they involve decision-making and play-making and therefore different layers and degrees of mental and mechanical skills of their own, and they on top of that add a "danger" factor to the game by being capable of in a short duration turning matches around and ending matches altogether, which makes the game more exciting, thrilling, differentiates the trial-to-trial gameplay experiences much more, and is a big part of what makes the game a horror-type game on top of that (including that it is about killing and surviving specifically, which are clear and thematic horror-type conditions, as opposed to... "achieving X hooking actions" and "preventing X hooking actions from happening" - again, people at large will never feel as if they won a game of Dead by Daylight if they all died, or if they had all survivors escape, no matter how much you tell them the hooks actually matter more).
I do obviously agree with the last section of Scott's argument here though, namely that the matchmaking system actually has to match players with similar ratings if it is to make any sense at all to calculate ratings to begin with. And it currently doesn't really do that all that reliably. It does so reliably enough to still be a much better system than the rank-based system in my experience and that of the people I know and follow, but it's definitely far from perfect in that regard. It could also very well be improved by looking at group survival rather than per-survivor survival, but as per my earlier explanations, it doesn't actually necessarily need that for ratings to accurately-enough represent player skill over large enough sample sizes - survival/killing skills of individual players very closely correlate with individual survival rates/per-survivor kill rates over many matches. But perhaps the rating adjustments would be a little more reasonable if based on the average rating of groups, rather than that of the individual survivors in them, so that could be an actual improvement.
Finally I want to note that looking at hook stages (not hook events) would account for kills and hooks simultaneously, and it would not require any changes to the game either. So yeah, I guess that's my suggestion for a compromise between the MMR system we currently have and that fits the reality of the game, and the MMR system some people wish to have that however does not fit the game's reality: Use hook stages to support the kill-based rating adjustments.
I find it perplexing that people take issue with the idea that the system does not rate people fairly based on skills, not only because it ultimately doesn't have to
There's only so many matches with a 20 hour Meg that I can take.
The Devs actually admitted that it basically just tosses people in whatever match it can find due to queue times. My average Survivor queue is 7 minutes. My average Killer queue is instant.
The issue is that not only does MMR have nothing to do with actual skill in DBD (likely because of it's asymmetrical and RNG-heavy nature) but that it can't work until the queue times even out. Even if it were a perfectly functioning system, nobody wants to wait in a queue for 30 minutes. I don't think MMR has made any impact on my matches as Killer. It's still just as inconsistent as it was in 2019. My Survivor matches have probably gotten worse, though only slightly. Regardless, it would seem that BHVR wasted two years on a system that doesn't even work properly and has had scrapped features throughout. Remember individual Killer MMR?
You can type another essay, but for literally everyone that I've spoken to on Xbox, not one single person has said the game was more fun after MMR. Player perception plays a massive role in the success of a system.
-
@Predated said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2765978#Comment_2765978
All maps at the beginning of the match are survivor sided. And heck, my average killrate on The Game is 2.5 kills on killers I play casually. Slightly less than 2 kills against sweat squads, but close to a 3k on my 2 mains.
So no, it's not really survivor sided. It feels survivor sided. There is a difference. Why does it feel survivor sided? Because you constantly lose the flow of a chase.
Seriously, play Nemesis on that map a few times, my rate with Nemesis on average is 2.3 kills and I've just started learning him.(once you start up the game in the future, assuming you still have it uninstalled).
Do I sometimes lose with 0-1 kills? Yeah, but the majority of games are 3 kills. If The Game is a god tier survivor map, I should struggle with killers to get more than 1 kill. I dont. With t1 myers I do, but t1 myers is 105% and not really meant to perform amazingly. Yet, I've consistently gotten 1-3 kills with t1 myers. With a 1.7k on average. Considering t1 myers isnt really meant to be competitively viable, 1.7k on average is really good.
So all you can tell me is that an anti-loop Killer that forces a 50/50 is good on a map where there are lots of opportunity's to 50/50?
For every Nemesis, there's a Legion or Clown or Artist or Freddy or ect ect
-
@Predated said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2765906#Comment_2765906
No, its not one-sided. It starts out survivor sided, and over the course of the game, becomes more and more killer sided.
The lack of windows means that any pallet used increases the deadzone, any gen done makes it easier for killers to cut you off and even connect dead zones.
As for unmindgamable and god pallets, there are 7 god pallets, 4 of which near the basement, 4 mindgamable safe pallets(hard mindgames, but if you do time it right, you can hit the survivor before they finish the vault), and quite a lot of very predictable pallets.
Besides, there are up to 26 pallets in Gideon, but there can be anywhere between 16 and 26 pallets.
Again, there are practically no windows(there are 6 total, one next to the exit gate which is kinda useless, one at the funnel which often costs 1 hit, one at the tv room, which often also costs a hit, one in the ice room and 2 at the t&l). Once a pallet is gone, its a useless zone. You would need to chase the same survivor around constantly for that to be an issue. If you spread out your pressure, survivors, especially if they arent on comms, would reach the same area again and have nothing to stop you from hitting them. If the pallets at the basement are gone, you could stand away from the staircase, and no one can enter the basement without swapping hooks, nor can anywone exit the basement without taking another hit.
Mechanically, it's balanced. Over time, it gets more and more killer sided. As long as you can cause survivors to require more time(which is kinda your job as killer anyway), there is a high likelihood of a 3k. If you cant force the survivors to spend time healing or have gens regressing to take more time to finish, you would lose like on any other map.
The reason why it feels unbalanced, is because its boring to break pallets. You keep losing the flow of the chase. But that's inherently to do with how pallets work. If DBD created a mechanic that is practically a reskin of a pallet, but causes the killer to keep the flow of the chase, suddenly you would enjoy The Game much more. Nemesis is quite fun to play on The Game, and thats not because he can get rid of pallets easily, it takes him the same amount of time as Demo or Blight. Difference is, is that Nemesis keeps the flow of the chase while breaking pallets.
Man is really trying to argue that The Game isn't a god tier Survivor map.
-
@Dawidex said:
i have seen lots of people having this icon on PC. Its basiclly showing that the player is using a diffrent platform than yours. For example if your on PC and you have this icon it means that the player is using for example a ps4. You can't exatcly tell which platform is it.
This was before Crossplay was implemented.
If they saw the icon on PC, it could be from the Windows Store.
If they saw it on Console, it was a cheater.
-
@memento said:
Compare these two data. It's no wonder people are leaving from killers.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/Z9AALUHWYKKR/kill-rates-and-pick-rates.jpg
Those Kill Rate stats are useless.
You can use the pick rates in a general sense tho
-
@Taingaran said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2765096#Comment_2765096
It's a fun style that makes sense for more frequent use of the harpoon)
Either he has a 3 second stun for a reason or he doesn't.
-
I agree.
But I've also been around long enough to have known this since....probably the Hillbilly nerf?
I've never been able to figure out a rhyme or reason to the hit list the Devs keep on certain things in the game. Like, Iri Head took 4 years to get nerfed despite Huntress having high Kill Rates AND high Pick Rates.
Twins have low Kill Rates and low Pick Rates? Instant nerf.
Legion is above all of those Killers. The more I hear from the Devs, the more I think they'll be nerfed. It started out as ironic, because Legion has only gotten nerfs since release, but now it's unironic. I'm legitimately 75% sure that they are gonna get hit with it, so to speak.
-
@IronKnight55 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2764883#Comment_2764883
Didn't they buff something when they nerfed him? I could be wrong, but I thought they did.
Yes, they buffed his movement speed while ADS'ing from 75% to 85%.
They also reduced his stun time when a Survivor escapes from his Chain by 1 second, from 4 to 3. All that did was create an equally unfun playstyle where players stacked the two stun reduction add-ons to make his stun 1.5 seconds.
-
@Tiufal said:
Thats what happens if killer lose their easy mode gameplay.
No, this is what happens if you nerf a Killer who was already pretty meh and don't give them a single goddamn thing to compensate for it.
-
The game just isn't fun.
I hated seeing 2 Boons immediately as Killer. It's way way way way way too stressful to play Killer for the meager reward of getting toxicity spewed at you.
Likewise, queue times are way way way way way too high for Survivor for me to actually enjoy getting tunneled out of a match in a quarter of the time it took to find it.
-
Because it's the most recognizable part of FNAF.
You wouldn't pick Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers to flagship the Halloween chapter, would ya?
Most popular and recognizable parts first, if applicable, sell the others as skins.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2764738#Comment_2764738
people are allowed to make concepts about something my guy, op didnt say it should be implemented
i am also equally allowed to say no to the concept but it is a little too rude so I'll edit it
If FNAF comes to DBD, it's gonna be the first game and it's probably just gonna be one of the original animatronics.
-
That's not realistic.
-
are you trusting BHVR on this case?
No.
-
It's the exact same as the old system, it's just hidden. It doesn't measure skill at all
It is still widely inconsistent.
-
https://clips.twitch.tv/GorgeousYummyBearCharlieBitMe-pQ_AtUkAP5G_zSIf?tt_content=url&tt_medium=clips_api@MikaelaWantsYourBoon said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2764037#Comment_2764037
I already watched this while they were streaming. I still think people are just overreacting but we will see in future right? I hope this will never happen.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2764578#Comment_2764578
Yeah it was weird, i will give that. But is there any reason to make BT base-kit? I really can not see any point. If they wanna buff solo-q, they should buff solo-q without make SWF stronger. This is just not makes any sense to me.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2764580#Comment_2764580
Yes, i did.
He specifically avoids saying BT.
-
@EntitySpawn said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2764573#Comment_2764573
Agreed, I made a post explaining that's an issue with forums. No matter what you try to talk about you'll get called a main etc. Or belittled for your opinion when in reality no one is gonna read an essay on everything you want in one post which is why people have one post for one topic.
I always go with the biggest issue at hand, or what I think it is personally. If that's a killer issue it's a killer one, if its survivor issue its survivor. I just go with what I feel needs a change for better game health.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2764578#Comment_2764578
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2764580#Comment_2764580
Some people just dont pay much attention or arent use to how behaviour work lol. Or they're just trying to troll/start an argument
I'm always here to argue, so they can feel free.
-
@Sonzaishinai said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2764460#Comment_2764460
I'm pretty sure the soft cap is no where near top mmr.
The soft cap would probably be the end of low mmr and the start of mid mmr.
Yeah, but the MM doesn't recognize MMR higher than that.
Even if you had 3000 MMR, it'd still match you with 1900 MMR players because that's the cap.
Ergo, those stats would be massively skewed.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2764438#Comment_2764438
Using Nurse as a justification for more stats is pretty weak, since she is the only Killer who is very different from all other Killers.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2764459#Comment_2764459
Even if you include all of this, people would still find reasons to see why the stats are not true.
With the current stats we have, you can at least see that playing Killer is not as bad as people claim it to be.
Yes, Killer is OP when players are new.
I think we all knew that.
-
@MikaelaWantsYourBoon said:
They did not say they are going to make BT base-kit. People really love to create drama.
Did you watch the stream?
-
This is not new.
I have been trying my best for the last few years to get better support for the Xbox One and PS4.
Please post any clips to this specific thread and feel free to read it.
@Pulsar said:
Recently, it's been getting more and more difficult to enjoy this game and to look over the glaring issues. The Console port of DBD has shown that the game is extremely poorly optimized, and performance will continue to get worse unless BHVR addresses the issues now.
I fear that soon, the game will become unplayable for us on current-gen Consoles. Resident Evil broke the game for a month, and it still hasn't fully recovered. What this shows is that the issue is built into the game itself, and will likely continue to worsen if it is not resolved. Likewise, we are seeing the return of bugs long thought patched, which makes me suspect that the entire code is starting to crumble under the weight of the game. I hope BHVR takes the time to do this correctly and fixes their game. If they do not, I fear we will soon lose the ability to play it at all.
Here are some videos demonstrating my points, please note that these were all taken PRIOR to the RE patch in June of 2021. These issues have been plaguing Console players since the game was ported in 2017. I doubt there will ever be an official confirmation from BHVR, but it is important that we do not let these issues go silently. The only thing we can do is continue to talk and spread awareness about them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl7zIxwMUn0&ab_channel=PulsarGaming360
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7p_8C649Rs&ab_channel=PulsarGaming360
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSa8yNir8wU&ab_channel=PulsarGaming360
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlwQc0rdiM0&ab_channel=PulsarGaming360
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tQaee-Od90&ab_channel=PulsarGaming360
August Edit: Well, we are nearing 100 pages. Congrats everyone. We still haven't gotten an answer from BHVR about what happened to Optimization, but we have inspired others to start to question it. I've furthered clarified the purpose of the thread and adjusted some of the language used in this opening statement to better reflect that.
Thank you.
-
I think you've got more issues to worry about than TTV's if they bother you THAT much.
-
He'd be weaker now.
Holding W and making distance were some of his biggest issues with Dream Transition.
-
@lauraa said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2764078#Comment_2764078
Wow. Face camp Bubba only lost to Huntress. Need4Speed Bubba is as rare as The Plague and barely edged out Deathslinger.
That's really sad.
He's just really good at facecamping
-
@lauraa said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2763974#Comment_2763974
I'm doing some stats until Sadako comes out.. I'm sure I'll see the same results. I suppose I should annotate every Bubba I face for an extra stat
I did that as well.
Behold
-
I thought it was an interesting video.
Of course, we have to assume that the guy is telling the truth.
Also, yeah, everyone knew the game being free on the EGS would be a disaster
-
Bubba is the most popular Killer according to my stats on 250 games.
-
Hackers don't seem to have any issue with surviving the EGC, unfortunately.
-
It was a bad analogy.
Look at the perhaps the two most skilled players in the entire NHL. Connor McDavid and Leon Draisaitl.
Connor McDavid's stats:
Leon Draisaitl's stats:
Now, the team they play for.
As we can clearly see, goals does not equal wins. Edmonton has lost 7 straight and lost 6-0 tonight.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2762210#Comment_2762210
Both my major points in one post!
Most people who dislike the SBMM system base that dislike on a combination of thinking that games are "sweatier" (when they aren't really, it's just slightly less broken up by the matches with baby survivors) and that the system is in any way forcing or even encouraging them to play a specific way.
Since neither of those things are true, the only conclusion I can come to is that people say they dislike MMR when what they actually dislike is the state of the game's balance. It's the only conclusion that makes sense.
I do not understand you.
Do you enjoy losing? Is it something you strive to do? Most people like to win and will generally try their best to do so. Few people set out to fail. That's what you are proposing.
If you don't like your MMR, just throw matches until it's better.
Likewise, I've been keeping stats on the teammates I've been seeing. I have seen FAR more brand new players than before MMR. Sub-20 hour teammates every other match.
You're just ignoring the obvious and I'm starting to think you aren't arguing in good faith, so I'm out.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2762189#Comment_2762189
I'm just going to have to disagree with you there. From everything I've seen, not just from my games but from anyone else's that I've been able to view or hear about, games are definitely more consistent.
Some of the time that's because of people whining about their games being harder, sometimes it's from people talking positively about their experience. Usually not from streamers, I'm given to understand they're victims of the "prioritise speed" thing a lot so they get some really wack games- but even then, some of them are definitely having a harder time.
I really do believe that the primary issue with the current inconsistency that exists is because the matchmaking wants fast, not accurate. It seems very coherent with what I've seen- that this system does have the potential for much greater consistency but needs some more tweaks. I do think things like emblem score should be factored in as a secondary weighting mechanic, but otherwise it's probably more on the "fast not accurate" thing.
To your last point, rank reset was a nightmare and it's absolutely a good thing that it's gone. I also have to assume people lose MMR faster than they'd lose rank, but to be fair, I don't know that.
Considering it took me almost forty Nurse games before I saw any difference in quality, I'd say that you don't lose MMR very quickly.
Likewise, you are in the vast minority. 99% of players despise MMR and want it gone.
Also, when we don't have a reset, we get Red Rank Syndrome. This is where anyone with more than 200 hours in the game can get to Red Ranks, because it doesn't factor in actual skill. We see this with MMR because there are so many players at the softcap of MMR now.
This also highlights the fact that, apparently, people have been quitting the game. My Survivor queue's are 10-15 minutes but my Killer queue's have remained instant.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2762174#Comment_2762174
Yeah, exactly! When people complain about MMR, they inevitably point to how sweaty games are. That's my point.
Not to say it's working perfectly because I'm sure someone'll try that despite me already saying it multiple times. The games are more consistent, but not by that much.
I'm not pointing to that. I don't know why you think I am.
The games aren't anymore consistent than they were under the old Rank system. If anything is even worse.
Rank Reset once a month, MMR never resets which means over time, people will work their way into 'high mmr' no matter what.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2762168#Comment_2762168
The first two I'm given to understand went poorly, I wasn't playing for those two so I'll believe it- I've heard some pretty wack things.
The third one was net neutral, not much difference.
The fourth one was actively good, which I feel like a lot of people forget? That the final test of MMR went really smoothly and everyone was pleasantly surprised?
And then the system was implemented, and... things are only very slightly better. The system is far from above criticism, there's quite a lot that can and should be improved- as the devs have said themselves, the actual matchmaking part is a little too lenient and throws people into games it knows they're unbalanced for just because it's faster- but people who claim it's made the game worse are completely wrong. Usually, they seem to blame the MMR system for the game's balance, despite it having been this way since before the system was introduced.
So, yeah, I wouldn't call that "something that, for all intents and purposes, completely failed".
The first two were awful.
The third saw queue's (for me) ranging up to 1 hour and 45 minutes.
The final test was extremely sweaty all the time.
The Live release was really sweaty for a month, but now it's back to being a mess of random players since MMR never resets. We have literally just come full circle. Nothing was accomplished.
MMR was a waste of time.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2762163#Comment_2762163
If they put that much manpower and resources into something that completely failed, it'd suck.
Of course, you already know I don't agree that happened, so I'm not quite sure what you expect me to say there!
What do you call the last few years worth of MMR tests?
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2762153#Comment_2762153
That'd be pretty soul-destroying, if it happened!
What?
