RainehDaze
RainehDaze
About
- Username
- RainehDaze
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,539
- Last Active
Comments
-
I once used this and someone instantly DC'd at the start of the match. I think it's the fastest DC I've ever caused by doing something.
-
The problem is that it turns a lot of things that are annoying to chase in, but still potentially manageable because you can just walk out a wall or something to get to a hook, into unhookable frustration zones. Which is bad after, like, after going around trying to remove true infinites and reduce tiles that are still incredibly painful that will actually end.
RCPD is a hell pit of suffering, yeah, but a perk that threatens to make all twisty two-floor structures super super safe from everything except slug-camping is not great.
-
@BenZ0 said:
So I had finally my first squad trying that on me as Oni and it wasnt that bad as ppl say.
They did the classic sluff, bless the totem at the library and keep running up there when I chased them.
so tell me what the problem now is? You just slug them at the library up there and keep snuffing that totem, you camp their slugged bodys and blodyblock the stairs and they bleed out 100% or they jump down and then you keep slugging them (dont even need blood fury for that).
Yes the game takes a while and its boring, but its the same for the survivors, just as you are bored you keep slugging them and they can count the books at the bookshelfs while they wait for the bleed out.
I almost got even a 4k cuz they tried to pick everyone up but I even ######### up and they got a 2 man escape which is totally fine imo.
Idk why ppl act like its the end of the world, just grow up and play around it lol, its always the same, ppl are too lazy to adapt and instead just cry everywhere.
*edit: I get every game atleast 1 boil over on average and I NEVER had the situation where they wiggled of because of that perk, it was mainly because of ppl taking a hit on the hook which can obviously happen without the perk aswell.
Totem can spawn elsewhere but still reach library, as noted.
Which will then allow for much, much more protracted games.
-
Rewarding should mean that successfully using a power doesn't have a high probability of just being... eh. Like landing a Pinhead shot, and then it just gets broken on scenery.
The difficulty of successfully putting a power to use needs to be offset by being good when it is. High skill but not even rewarding a normal hit is often... bad.
-
@Heartbound said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2774160#Comment_2774160
You have to remember for that casual player that wants to win, there's no tutorial. They loaded into the match with an item they picked out, and all they heard at the start of the match is a chime and see a box. They may not even put two and two together and recognize that it's Pinhead's power. It might just be a map feature. They dunno.
Are you going to put down your item for some random item in the trial that you don't know what it does? No. You're gonna hold on to your medkit. You need that to heal.
Alternatively, my teammate wants to win, he'll go get the box. I need to do this glyph challenge. There's an envelope over there. That guy is hooked. This gen needs to be pushed. I'm scared because the video game played an auditory noise. A corpse fell out of a locker and now I'm frazzled for the next three minutes.
I have chains on me. What does that mean? Etc.
Unfortunately, that's the fault of the game just throwing you in at the deep end and the loading screens not helping as much as they should.
It's not a character design problem, because you can't design characters around the dual limits of "what about someone that knows nothing and looks nothing up" and "people doing other, irrelevant things in the match."
-
@Heartbound said:
Playing against Pinhead means you have to put down your item (and your reason to survive the trial) and the chains will stop you from solving the box.
If Ruin is active then those interrupting chains will cost you progress on generators and make it difficult to heal your teammates.
Now you may see that and think of a response. A tactical way to play. That's fine.
Tell that to Joe random. What's his motivation to do that? Pinhead wins.
Because said random probably isn't playing the game to lose.
"My motivation to win is the item I have" is a really dumb reason to criticise Pinhead. That's on the Survivors in question having stupid priorities in a game. Like, the motivation to win in a game, is winning?
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2774143#Comment_2774143
Yup, remembered that post game. I'm old, and am so used to a simple Print Screen button press.
PrtScr copies the contents of the screen to the clipboard, though?
Don't think Win+PrtScr does anything super different. Alt+PrtScr is only the currently focused window/fullscreen application.
F12 by default for Steam to take a screenshot and save.
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2773915#Comment_2773915
Are you sure, Raineh? As far as I know, it's 30 seconds for a legit down or a pickup, and 10 with Franklins. I could be wrong though.
Well, seeing as the wiki is official, I'm pretty sure the information put onto it is likely correct.
Not entirely sure what the latter two are.
-
@Predated said:
It's same the other way round tho, how often do you see killers get extremely mad because they didnt get a single kill? how often do you see killers rage and scream "genrush" even though the match lasted 8+ minutes with 3 gens remaining with the final 3 gens being done 4 minutes later? How often do you see killers actively tunnel players who just wanted to get an envelope(yes, I have had those. I was already injured, I already basically gave you a free down by standing still, you could have waited 0.5 seconds longer and give me the points, but noooo, you had to be an ass).
As for survivors having the power role, not really. The power role switches constantly in this game, it's up to the opponents to take back the power role if they have lost it. The killer starts with it, survivors gain it by pressuring gens and then survivors have to fight to keep it, and if they dont keep it, they lose. Killers can take the power role back by pressuring back by slugging or hooking and there are plenty of games where killers never lose the power role, even if survivors got all gens.
Wrong way round, Survivors are the ones who start off in control. They're all uninjured, haven't used any single-use effects, have good items if brought in, aren't immediately endangered, can safely spread out on multiple gens, and have every map resource available and unused. Killers start with 0 pressure, trap-based Killers have nothing set up, Myers and Nemesis are at T1 of their powers, etc.
Killers aren't in control until there's some pressure built up.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2773917#Comment_2773917
I have almost 7k hours in this game and a quite a lot on Killer. Even if I would not play 50/50 (I think it should be around 50/50 currently), I probably have more hours on Killer than many players on total.
And can Survivors make the game miserable for Killers? Sure.
Can Survivors prevent the Killer from actually playing the game or even winning the game? Not really. Flashlight-clicking and teabagging does not prevent anything from that. And if the Survivors are better than the Killer, than the Killer-player got outskilled. Which can happen regardless if the Survivors want to make the experience for the Killer miserable or not.
I wont watch the video btw.
However, I just stick with my point - whenever Killers complain about Boil Over, I just say it is a strategy. Because this is the Killers response if they make the game extremely unfun for Survivors. And, unlike Survivors, Killers can actually prevent Survivors from playing the game. Play Bubba, take Agitation and Iron Grasp and you will have one Survivor dead. Nothing what the other Survivors can do.
Why is it bullying when Survivors use Boil Over and burn a RPD-Offering, but it is a strategy when a Killer brings Agitation + Iron Grasp and facecamps the first Survivor they found?
I am not saying it is great that Survivors are able to do that. But I stick to my point and say that it will not happen that much in a week and onwards, currently it is more, because the Perk just got buffed. After some time, you wont see it much. Probably the same rate as Sabo-Squads - extremely rare, but annoying when you get them once in a blue moon.
But MAYBE it can stop Killers from just parroting "It is a strategy" if they play in the most unfun way because Killers can actually prevent Survivors from playing the game.
I thought the difference between bullying and a strategy was an obvious one. If you're bullying, then what you're doing has zero goal in being used to win. If it's a strategy, even if it's unpleasant, it IS a method of advancing the game and winning (or at least losing less).
Bringing an RCPD map offering and running to the library constantly so there is no way to get you to a hook in time, then proceeding to not do gens until you're bored, is not a strategy. The aim is not to do gens, it's just to be frustrating for the other side so they can't win and are wasting their time. Combine with Exponential or some other source of reusable Unbreakable, and the goal obviously isn't "do the gens and escape!", it's "get downed in the safe zone and use the perks to deny hooks".
Maybe the other three players aren't out to bully and will just use this as a distraction. Or maybe they're in a SWF or will otherwise get in on it, like that video a few weeks ago where Survivors didn't even try to touch the gen on the other side of the map for four minutes because they were all too busy flashlight stunning and locker hopping.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
Funny that you complained a few hours ago about all Survivors running the same Perks. And now they are running Boil Over and it is not correct either.
You cannot win with Killer players.
Second point to those outlined above, the Survivors are also using the usual meta perks for the most part. But also Boil Over. So now it's the usual, plus determined people in the right map can't be hooked.
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2773854#Comment_2773854
If you see a Pinhead running Franklin's, absent like 4 medkits or something, that's a baby Pinhead.
Franklin's was quietly adjusted so that, if he gets the box via Franklin's, it respawns almost instantly (rather than the standard 30 seconds). Be ready to go and grab it, and he'll have wasted time.
No, no, it's 10s for any situation Pinhead grabs the box off a Survivor (or the ground). That's not a Franklin's thing.
@BenSanderson55 said:
You can disable maps and perks when they're broken, what about killers?
This isn't me saying pinhead is op or strong. He's broken.
1) Being attacked by chains when doing the box isn't fixed. "So then do it before chainhunt timer completes" brings me to point #2
2) Soloq can't coordinate to do the box efficiently.
3) I can't force console players to remap their buttons (vault, remove chains) or perhaps they don't even know.
I'm finally saying something because I've been getting a lot more pinheads lately. I assume his new voicelines, but I surmise mainly most killers know of the points I mentioned above and use him for those reasons, especially during the event. Because why use a bad killer (which i've heard numerous times since he was nerfed) otherwise.
And finally just my opinion, he isn't fun to play against, I prefer a nurse or blight to pinhead. Wonder why he gets so many DCs and deadhooks if he's so bad? lol
Because I like the aesthetics, and aiming the chains can be fun, and when the chain hunt works it feels really nice to have that amount of pressure? Shockingly, the main reason I bought the game when I did was "I like this character", not "because SoloQ has the organisation of potatoes, because some people won't look how his chains spawn before complaining about them, and because some people don't remap their buttons". The voicelines just made it more appealing to go back.
-
@lagosta said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2771631#Comment_2771631
Oh, my bad. I was not aware we needed to burn offerings to activate perks for the whole match now.
Devs might as well give Tinkerer/Sprint Burst and other perks that are too consistent a 1/3 chance of being deactivated for trial unless you burn offerings and no one brings a Sacrificial Ward.
When people want to use it, it's almost certain that they will be able to use it, is my point. Even if they can't guarantee it, they're probably going to luck out anyway.
And the people that really want to use it? Oh boy, the bully squads are going to have no trouble providing enough suitable map offerings between them.
-
I... you realise something is going to be super unfun for Killers from your own experience, and you're going to use it anyway?
dude
-
@Junylar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2772095#Comment_2772095
Not to "gain power", but to "win the argument" in this case. You typed several paragraphs of attacks without addressing a single point stated in the OP. That's how you do it: attacking without addressing actual points. That's not a discussion, that's demagogy.
The point is that nobody is actually interested in the topic you're presenting. Only in correcting your word usage.
This does not mean that everyone else is a BHVR shill interested in winning an argument, that's just reading way too much into it.
-
@Elessar93 said:
This update should have brought back Pinhead Voiceline not only when he uses the teleport to the cube but also other actions. I can only hear it when I teleport but I never heard other voicelines, Is it bugged? Were the other voicelines cancelled for some reason?
I've heard them when hooking people and stuff? Maybe one for picking someone up. They just don't play every time.
Don't think I've heard the "Don't do that!" one for stopping someone from solving the box, but I might not have done it enough.
Not sure what all the trigger conditions are.
-
@Junylar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2772019#Comment_2772019
By "everyone" you mean those two who in hopes of getting in-game t-shirts for protecting the image of BHVR only say "you are wrong" without providing any elaboration of why and where exactly I am wrong? Mmmkay. I can do the same: you are wrong. See, I countered you with your own argument.
That is not to mention that clutching to a single word out of the whole post while ignoring every point stated there is a low tier demagogic trick.
So, demagogic is the adjectival form of demagogue, which...
- A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.
- A leader of the common people in ancient times.
- Historically, a leader of the people; a person who sways the people by oratory or persuasion.
Interesting to accuse people of making appeals to emotion and prejudice to obtain power. I don't see how anyone is trying to become some sort of leader by dint of criticising your wording. Hell, I'm struggling to see your connection between pedantic criticism of your misuse of terms and any sort of appeal. Or maybe this is meant to be a complaint that people are arguing with you using oratory? That's kind of how arguments are meant to work, I'm afraid.
Here's the problem: you have hilariously misunderstood the concept of hypocrisy. As repeated multiple times, this is some form of saying one thing whilst doing something completely different that contradicts it, or openly doing one thing as a show of virtue and then doing another. Your misuse of the term is way more interesting than another "look how bad BHVR is" rantfest, so people have latched onto that.
To which your response is to accuse people of defending BHVR (ad hominem, as I said: attacking the person and their motives rather than their argument), and now you're calling anyone who has done so demagogues.
In short, your wanton abuse of somewhat unusual words is more engaging than another whinge about BHVR.
-
@N8dog said:
a common issue I have seen with special events is that survivors get great items (I. E. an event version of a commodious toolbox) given out like candy where as killers don't get some kind of killer specific reward to find in trial or in their bloodweb. This is bad for a few reasons 1. Survivors will have plenty of advantage from these great items frequently awarded. 2. A killer main or leaning players will see this and think "well screw this. I want to get as many of these super items I can while I can." so they play survivor instead. And 3. With Survivors wanting to use their new items queue times are much longer for survivors. I do have a suggestion though. What if these events offered special offerings that only a killer can get? Something like "Increase your bloodpoint gain by 150%" or "Reveal a random survivor's aura to you until you start a chase" something like that. If survivors are gonna get incredible items easily then I think killers should get some badass offerings to compensate this.
We got one in the Halloween event. Unfortunately, it was also restricted to the Halloween event.
Kind of a shame to not get it again, but the idea's there.
-
@ShinobuSK said:
Yes. But dont worry they want extra BP so they will open it.
And if not, you can interact with your envelope yourself, which makes it visible for all other players and they will jump on it like hyenas immediately
... you don't have to interact with your own envelope? Huh.
-
I didn't know there was a lunar hook scoring event until I saw this. Do they like... look different or something...?
also the first time I've ever hooked everyone at once, which was kind of unintended.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2771853#Comment_2771853
"making it easier" is nicely put. If you use MDR and Dried Cherry Blossom the game is basically playing for you.
Fastest way to tour map pallets!
-
@foxsansbox said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2771850#Comment_2771850
You're absolutely right that spine chill belongs on the same list. But I'm not trying to make this us vs them, most of my games go really well for me because of how I play, I'm willing to see an entire perk overhaul if ghost perks go extinct as a result, on both sides.
Well yeah, there are some things on the Killer side, too, but the reaction on the Survivor side is more one towards tactics, whilst the reaction on the Killer side is against perks.
Which I think is a pretty big indicator that trying to stop undesirable tactics by making counter perks is really not working out, because it just funnels more and more into unfun gameplay. And Boil Over is just silly because it makes it too easy to do something that's not meant to be done most of the time; what's that even supposed to be doing aside from driving people nuts?
-
People change opinions slowly.
Even though Spirit now feeds Survivors way more information when she uses her power than she gets in return. Pendulum's swung way too far back imo.
-
@foxsansbox said:
This game is incredibly reactionary:
- Once a killer experiences the misery of DS, they start to assume you have it - Modest slugging
- Once a killer experiences the misery of DH (AND THE 7 HIT VALIDATIONS IN A ROW I GOT. THANKS), they start to assume you have it and ride your ass before swinging
- Once a killer experiences BT bodyblock squads, they start to assume it's coming and will go out of their way to make unhooking an exercise in madness - Obligatory Bubba complainers feel free to chime in here
- Once a killer experiences the misery of the DS, DH, BT, Unbreakable squad the killer loses their mind and tries to send a survivor to meet their maker as soon as possible every game
- Then you get the threat of COH, and now we see that extreme tunneling start to crawl up the MMR ladder to where most high level players are doing it too - And if they're not already doing it, wait until they hear that Boon gong sound in the distance and watch their personality change instantaneously
- Now we have Boil Over, and yes, you can all downplay it, but the perk is strong. Strong enough that Killers are going to treat it exactly like they treat the previous five perks. They are going to -assume- you have it and play accordingly
You know what my play accordingly is? Starstruck/Agitation Nurse. I turn into a totem-snuffing, survivor slugging, 1 blink 1 kill monster. Frothing at the mouth as I carve down survivors so panicked by expose that gen pressure collapses 30 seconds into the game.
Business has been good. Too good.
But the DC's are getting to be too much, even for someone like me who relishes the salt. Hell, I usually dance in it while begging the survivors for more in post-game chat.
Obviously, I'm leaving some things out here. I'm leaving out how Killer adaptations like the above are fairly responsible for the 5 Gen rush, the horrendous map offerings that have become the staple of higher MMR, and several other survivor tactics that I'm not looking to downplay or complain about, or even bring attention to. There is a myriad of bullshit in this game.
And yes, I run survivor the exact same way. My one filler perk is Detective's Hunch. I've stopped every NOED of every game I've been in since I slotted it, whether it was in play or not.
The point of this longwinded thread is simple. This isn't fun. With the exception of DH, depending on how you play you can go through an entire game without ever seeing the above perks kick in and provide value. But killers will assume you have them and play accordingly anyway, because the second chance perks are instant game changers. If only a few of them get value you've most likely lost, and most killers will tell you that even if they resisted the invisible perk arms race at first, once they see the EGC hostage holding T-Bag danceathons all bets are off for future games.
But that's how this game is currently designed, strategies designed to counter perks that might not even be present in the current match. An early survivor out, a few critical killer misplays. I can't tell you how many times my stubbornness blinking after a single survivor with more experience than me lead to a 4E. But at least that was a learning experience. I promise you I will never play a divide and conquer strat ever again, COH is that much of a threat to what used to be my favorite strategy.
The casualty of this is everything that isn't meta (Read as - Extreme value second chance perks). I can't tell you how many survivors I put into the dirt in seconds only to find out they were rocking a meme build and just trying to have fun. They never got the chance to use those perks either, because I wasn't going to let them for fear that I was going to have to deal with the second chance menagerie of bullshit.
I don't think there's a solution here. I say remove them all, including Killer ones (NWO, NoED, whatever others ones I can't recall because all I do is slap cheeks with Nurse so my perks don't really matter).
And for all of you who are going to jump in and suggest we play chill, or fool around, this thread isn't for you. People are allowed to want to play this game competitively, and they are allowed to hope for a meta that isn't built around second chances.
I'm just tired of the invisible perk arms race.
Edited for clarity and succinctness and my ######### typing skills.
I think the main difference is that, aside from NOED, Survivors have a lot more ghost perks. i.e., until it's proven that they don't have it, a Killer has to assume a lot of perks are likely in play--because the cost of not assuming it is usually a lost hook/swing/chase. Hell, even Spine Chill gets in here--think how many Killers move around at an angle just because they don't want to maybe look at someone.
Most meta Killer perks can be checked for basically immediately or don't come into play until they get a hook. Or, in many cases, pop up a handy status notification.
But yeah, Boil Over just adds another one onto the pile. Maybe it'll happily go into being non-meta and people won't adapt to it because it's not necessary unless the other team is playing suspiciously. If they do...
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2771793#Comment_2771793
Well I can't get drunk and meme with him :(
Aww.
Oh, I also wish the box would be just like... a tiny bit more visible. I keep walking over the blasted thing, hearing it, and then needing to walk back over it again because I went too far, and it's hidden in a patch of grass. Or let me see the aura within 4m or something.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2771775#Comment_2771775
Well, that might make him good so we can't have that.
I don't mind being mediocre or bad, I can get drunk and enjoy that.
I just want smoother gameplay.
also better perks to crop up.
-
@Pulsar said:
He does come, but let's be real, the only reason to play Pinhead is for his voicelines.
And animations. And the actual shooting can be kind of fun.
I wish it was more rewarding, though. Or at least less janky. Or definitely less full of wild sensitivity swings. Like, the sensitivity between Pinhead, his portal, and his chains are all different. And the pause between things...
-
@Superyoshiegg said:
It's going to end the same way as Soul Guard, Power Struggle & Lucky Break, where people drastically overreact to it, but you're not going to see it used at all a week after the change.
It's not good enough to warrant swapping out a standard meta perk for.
That's unfair, surely it's not in the pool of "subpar non-meta perks", it's over in the "subpar buy bully-focused perks". So, you'll still see it after a week, and you'll wish you didn't.
-
@Hunkulese said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2771729#Comment_2771729
The majority of the chat interactions are positive, especially if you initiate them. There are always going to be dicks anonymously sitting behind their computer screens who are going to be jerks. You can't design around them since no communication at all is not fun for anyone. If you want to play any game online, you need to learn to ignore them or mute everyone. It's just the world we live in.
Having people be jerks in-game is much more preferable to having them message you on whatever platform you're on.
You can design the basic logic of "if this player closed the chat before, please keep the chat closed until they opened it again". You can avoid making "avoid the problematic behaviour" a process of constant involvement from everyone else.
-
@Hunkulese said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2771623#Comment_2771623
Every game that has chat has people being jerks in it. It's not a Behaviour thing, it's not a DBD, it's a societal thing. Killers need to grow some thicker skin. DBD is still balanced in favour of killers. Instead of worrying about what they think after a game that you enjoyed, move on to the next game and figure out what you can do to get better. When I see a group of survivors dicking around and trying to play with me, I know it's going to be an easy 4k. Learn what to do when a team is trying to toy with you and you'll find you don't get toyed with anymore.
"You must go out of your way to avoid people" is not good design. FFS, the minimum improvement needed is "chat is not open by default".
-
@lagosta said:
The perk is too conditional to be useful. Same reason why barely anyone use Balanced Landing. Disregarding the basement the following maps only have a chance to spawn drops or will not spawn any at all: Shelter woods, Groaning storehouse, Suffocation pit, Gas Heaven, Wrecker's Yard, Fractured cowshed. I need to test the drop from the altars in the Family Residence is high enough to trigger that. Good luck using a perk that is dead on arrival on those maps.
If only map offerings were rare or nonexistent, and if that didn't leave still like... 2/3 of the maps in the game.
What low odds of being reduced to a really huge stagger distance.
-
@meatisadelicacy said:
Another PC player complaining about the chat they don't have to read :)
That's not an excuse.
It's open by default, and if your game has a chat people are being jerks in, then that's a problem. Being able to optionally then not look at it doesn't make the people misbehaving any better.
-
@burt0r said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2769539#Comment_2769539
Well to be honest what do you expect from the general section of a forum?
Discussions about the option for a tutu as a cosmetic for trapper?
No, Billy.
-
@Superyoshiegg said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2769112#Comment_2769112
Somehow I doubt that all 850+ are working on Dead by Daylight. They're both a developer and publisher, meaning they probably work on all sorts of external projects that we're not privy to.
Their Wikipedia page name drops seven different games they've worked on since DBD released (one of them being Deathgarden). Of course, they're mainly ports and mobile games, but still.
If you think 850+ is ridiculously big, you should take a look at Square Enix (5,500+), Nintendo (6,500+), Activision-Blizzard (9,500+), EA (11,000+) and Ubisoft (**19,000+**).
The operational scope of those companies is drastically larger, though.
-
@Junylar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2769340#Comment_2769340
And now you are saying I'm wrong without elaborating any further. Nice. It's hard to defend the actions of the devs while remaining constructive nowadays, isn't it?
Nobody's interested in arguing with you about the devs given that you didn't check a dictionary before you posted and have promptly gone ad hominem on people for noting that.
Arguing with someone that doesn't understand the words they're using and gets upset about it is a waste of all our time.
-
Depends if it actually feels like an event and not "here's just another obstacle". If I don't feel I'm taking part, no.
-
@zarr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2768626#Comment_2768626
Completing generators is not 100% of the survivor objective, escaping is part of it. Besides, players can very well die before all gens are completed, even in games where eventually all gens do get completed and 2 survivors escape, and so those players that died earlier did not complete the gen objective before the game was over.
Regardless, they aren't aiming for either 2 escapes every match or an alternating cycle of 4-escape and 4-kill matches, they are aiming just for a 50% kill/survival average, "per-player" but over all matches, which in the results of the individual matches can mean much of anything, inlcuding games where 1 or 3 people escape.
What a perfectly-balanced round of DbD (or any game) ultimately truly is is another question entirely, and one that basically cannot be answered since different people see different things as differently important. But contrary to what you said, defining surviving and killing as win conditions is... the opposite of ridiculous in Dead by Daylight. Those are the clearest, most obvious criteria by which to measure success, and they are also what most people mostly care about. Maybe DbD could be better if it instead revolved around hooks, and killers could win with less-than-3 kills if they get enough hooks, and lose with more-than-2 kills if they didn't get enough hooks... but that is not the reality of the game, and so regardless of whether people would like such a game, the MMR cannot possibly be based on hooks as is, that would actually be ridiculous and lead to absurd consequences, the game would have to be redesigned in some major ways to make this possible.
As for @TheSubstitute's question whether MMR - the success-based, "skill-correlated" matchmaking system - is preferable to other matchmaking systems like the one we've had before... I for one think it is, both based on my personal and anecdotal gameplay experiences, and also on my conviction that people ultimately care about killing and surviving above all, and will have more "fun" with the game if they do so often enough, which MMR is meant to ensure, as opposed to the old system where again, average kill rates were very high, due to having very lopsided matches. I think it is no coincidence that most of the complaints about MMR seem to come from killer players, who have on average suffered a decrease of 10-20% in kill rates down from what they were before. They are actually averaging around 2 kills now as the system is intending (and good players still average much above that, since the system not seldomly does not and often simply cannot supply them with similarly-rated players, due to lack of such players in the pool), but they are having a harder time than in the past, getting less kills, and are often seemingly not happy with averaging around 2 kills.
Of course, if enough players (on either side, for whatever reason, justifiably or understandably or not) are dissatisfied with the game due to the system, having less "fun", playing less or not playing at all anymore, and if this actually leads to the game being less successful, and does so to such an extent that BHVR considers it to be too detrimental to (new) player retention, then it probably should and in all likeliness will be changed. Perhaps the game needs to be designed around average kill rates of around 70% since humans just want to be favoured in their average playing experience of being a killer in such a game, more than they feel they should be as a survivor. Those could be reasonable assumptions. But so far I have no reason to assume this is the case, the decline in player numbers over the last few months is not major and a more steep downtrend to be expected given that the game had experienced its by-far biggest surges in player activity in the months before that, with the RE chapter and Covid affecting things - and beyond that, the fact that BHVR went and reworked such an integral system to their game's experience to begin with that they knew would notably decrease global kill rates if it worked as intended, and are still not showing signs to be reconsidering on (to scrap the system), suggests to me that they have concluded (based on many more insights than we have of course) that it is actually beneficial for the game.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2768684#Comment_2768684
You are basically taking every point the OP attempted to explain, and showcasing again the flaws in understanding those explanations are meant to alleviate.
We've already had a matchmaking system based on Emblems, and as you yourself point out, it had problems. In fact, BHVR can see with hard numbers that it was vastly more imbalanced than the current system. As you allude to, there are problems with the things Emblems count and how those things are weighed. And there are things it does not count at all. The main problem with the ranking system based on Emblems and the matchmaking in turn based on ranks was that pretty much everyone ended up at rank 1 sooner or later, and that's how ridiculous kill rates approaching 80% even on average could happen in red ranks. They just did not track player skill and performances well at all, otherwise you would not have had 100 hour Megs at rank 1 every season. The problem with trying to track all the things that go into playing DbD (or indeed any game) is that they are basically uncountable and unquantifiable, and even if you could define, determine and detect all of them, you would then run into the next essentially-impossible task, of deciding concrete tiers of how important they all are in relation to each other.
The solution is to simply look at the results that all of these things lead to: wins. Looking at that will account for all of those things well-enough, and it will automatically weigh the many different skills because those skills that are the most conduvice to winning, naturally lead to winning more than others that aren't as conducive to winning.
So much for the explanation why skills are best accounted-for by looking at results in terms of wins/losses (every MMR/Elo system in existence does this, it's what MMR is designed to be). Keep in mind however that accounting for skills is not actually the reason why these systems look at win results - winning is what people play for, they compete in these player-versus-player games in order to succeed, the vast majority of players does not play in order to not succeed. As such, the system that pairs players should give them a chance to be able to succeed. Ultimately games are about fun, and people usually have fun in games if they succeed, especially if the games are designed to yield good (engaging) gameplay in competitive contexts. The MMR system gives players this chance, it uses algorithms to predict outcomes and pair players such that roughly equal chances of success are at play more often than not. You don't want a chess grandmaster regularly playing against beginners - but not because the chess master is more skilled and therefore a superior person that a beginner doesn't deserve to play against, but simply because neither player involved would enjoy that experience much, let alone if they had to play such lopsided matches all the time (and more problems with this exist if they're playing for prizes of course). Skill merely correlates with winning, it is not the reason why we use MMR in games in and of itself.
For the team aspect thing... While it is true that a team-based rating could (and apparently will in the future) be used, you are failing to see how the per-survivor survival rate ultimately will also account for their teamplay performance. Teamplay also leads to increased chances of succeeding (surviving), and so while it is certainly possible to die despite having done a lot for the team, a player that is good at teamplay will still over many matches survive more often than a player that is not good at teamplay and does not contribute a lot. Your assumption that such players that do not contribute get even better teammates as they rise in rating and players that do contribute worse teammates as they fall is glaringly flawed in various respects. First of all, this is one match, the rating adjustment won't mean much. Secondly, if the survivor that did not contribute much would consistently survive, so would others that do not contribute, and so at higher ratings they would be less and less likely to encounter teammates that can carry them, instead they would all hide. You see quickly how this leads to an absurd scenario. And this is because people that do not contribute on average do not actually survive, they will never surpass players that do contribute in average success rates. Over enough matches, the players that do stuff, are even good enough to "carry" a team among which are people that barely contribute at all, will always outperform those people that do not contribute, in terms of success (survival) rates. You are also failing to account for the fact that players that do nothing but rise in rating would face increasingly tougher killers against which surviving is less likely, especially playing in that way, and that players that do a lot but fall in rating would face increasingly less tough killers, against which surviving is more likely, especially playing in that way.
As for your last point, it's funny how starkly you contradict your earlier point about how this game is played as a team, but suddenly hockey is not fit for an analogy because it is a team game. Regardless, as pointed out, the analogy didn't pertain all of those aspects of hockey, just like it didn't pertain the aspect of hockey that people play on ice and wear helmets. The analogy specifically pertained the fact that as in hockey, the team that wins (scores more goals) is also automatically seen as a better team and matched with better teams in turn. They do not have to use very complicated means to evaluate a team's performance/skill levels to decide who they should play against, and they definitely don't let the team that lost (scored less goals) proceed in the brackets and leaderboards to face the better teams just because someone analyzed the game and said that the team that lost in terms of goals is however still better... No, they just look at goals for that stuff, which does also account for performance and skill levels, but ultimately is just what the game is about, winning, by achieving clearly-defined, diametrically opposed win conditions, advancing if you do so, not advancing if you do not. That's the point of the analogy, and Patrick could have used essentially any competitive PVP game in existence to make this point, he just chose hockey because he's Canadian.
Yes, I didn't say completing generators was the entire Survivor objective. I said completing generators and opening the gates is. You could pedantically add "and then walking out of the gates", but the gist is that for a 2E you still need all mechanical impediments to escaping completed--i.e., Survivor goals must be completed.
And I said the ridiculous part was that the win condition is defined per-Survivor. i.e., you can have two Survivors win, two Survivors lose, and the Killer technically has two wins and two losses. We get 8 individual MMR updates (neat that the Killer's batched into a glicko-like update rule, but that just converts it over to four terms in a sum--they're still liable to have a net shift). But this is a draw. And if one person dies but 3 people escape, that's a clear win for Survivors. But here we have it as three wins and one loss.
Let's say we have a SWF group who make new accounts to always play together. You'd think they should have the same MMR, but instead if one person is specifically the one who draws attention and dies the most, then you'll get this divergence where their MMR is drastically lower (if not decreasing), even if they maintained a 3-1 escape average. But by approaching the team-focused side as a team, the current matchmaking gets thrown off.
And this actually matters if the team MMR is averaged! Let's say they're particularly extreme about it and always die. Maybe this then gets to the other players and one of them dies or they all die--a pretty bad performance for this person individually, sure, but maybe they're just an average-ish group otherwise and the others die even faster. Nevertheless, they always "lose" by the individual standard, so their MMR drops to 500. But on average, the team escapes enough for the others to rise to 1500--theoretically starting at 1k. Average MMR is (1500*3+500)/4: 1250. If you consider that the fourth person's skill (regardless of deaths) is integral to the results, they're being consistently undermatched until the average MMR is this 1500-point. Which may take a while, as the remaining player's MMR hasn't quite bottomed out, and the other individual players are consistently out-MMRing the Killer. This might even stabilise them at a lower MMR than they belong for their match results, due to the gap in individual MMRs getting too big to really adjust against the points they're matching.
If the team MMR isn't averaged then it's simultaneously matching against noobs as well as good Killers, and we know that's a failure.
i.e. defining the win condition based on individual results can be demonstrably aberrant if the team side functions as a team.
-
As always, this sort of thread is proof your online sarcasm can never be too obvious and people will still take you dead seriously.
-
Kind of silly this works, though. "I shall counter the information side of your perk by... releasing a button for a second at no real cost!"
-
@TheSubstitute said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2768594#Comment_2768594
The math does work. The problem lies in what you just alluded to; two games, one of which is a 4K and the other is a 4E, achieves the goal of a 2K 2E average. Neither of these games are fun for both parties.
It really highlights some of the game imbalances though and what I consider to be a problem. Someone who is just a locker gnome will get harder killers until they end up escaping half of the time. A facecamper will get harder opponents until they regularly get stomped half the time. Neither playstyles though are fun and it would be super frustrating for both the locker gnome and face camper to relearn how to play the game. Most likely result in my opinion? They stop playing since frustrating a player usually doesn't result in the player trying harder but rather quitting. It's recreation time which should be fun.
This negatively affects the game since a lower player base gives longer queues and worse matches. Long term effects? The game becomes worse.
I think a lot of the issues arise because there seems to be a focus on balancing matches for MMR on BHVR's side instead of just asking if MMR makes DbD more fun or not.
Oh, no, I meant if they were outright aiming for 2E as a most common outcome, you're trying to create a balance where one side must 100% complete its objective in all games and the other side needs to only half do its one. That's just troublesome.
Things being stompy one way or the other and averaging out is the more likely outcome, but if that's not what they're aiming for then it's weird.
-
@PlaysByShady said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2768586#Comment_2768586
Let me address this point: "As for win conditions... it's a 1v4 game. There's an entire gameplay option for putting together proper teams. Teamwork is necessary to win. Treating matchmaking as a series of 1v1 encounters is just weird, especially given how easily one person can be snagged in endgame. It's just a bizarre choice all round--and it means that in what we're supposed to think is an even draw scenario, two people definitely gained MMR, two people definitely lost MMR, and the Killer's position probably changed based on who those are as well. In a draw. Er... just weird."
Yes, I agree, it's weird to us as humans. But as far as the maths go, it's sound. In the game, each of the 4 survivors had a 50/50 chance of escaping or dying, and they achieved that with perfect statistical accuracy (50% escaped, 50% died).
The ones who died, need to face less skilled killers to improve their odds of escaping. The ones who escaped should face better killers.
And apply this to a whole range of matches.
When you look at individual matches on a case by case basis, and analyse it as a human does, it doesn't make sense. But that's because the human isn't thinking how to rank the players against each other to match make. The maths is doing that and from a maths perspective it works.
I literally don't know how else to explain it any more clearly.
We, as humans, designed the maths. We know how the game works, we know what the game requires, and we're defining what a win is.
My point is that they decided to model MMR over a game as a series of 1v1 competitions and then adjust MMR based on the individual results there: i.e., modelling it as if the outcome per-Survivor is (mostly) a matter of the Survivor's actions on their lonesome, with the factor built in if someone else has died first.
The maths would not care and would still do the same abstraction of skill into a single number if BHVR had modelled it instead as a 1v4, with the Killer gaining MMR for 3 or 4 kills and losing MMR for 0 or 1, and the Survivors gaining an inverse amount on all four of them regardless of their individual outcomes.
It's a baffling design choice to model MMR in such a way when your game is not built around the idea of a single Survivor's skills being enough to secure their win condition, and it only necessarily needs one bit of bad luck for a single person to lose despite their overall team victory. It's why the sports analogy was flawed, because you don't suddenly demote goalkeepers in, say, professional football for letting in one goal right at the end if the team still won everything.
Furthermore, it means that if the MMR achieved an even result from people with even starting MMR, you're still changing everyone's MMR. If your system can get a perfectly accurate result and it will then make adjustments anyway, I'm questioning your update logic. Looking at it from the perspective of spending way too much time with neural net loss functions, 100% accuracy should mean a loss of 0 and thus no parameters change.
-
@PlaysByShady said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2768564#Comment_2768564
I know they've said a balanced match in their view is one where there are 2-escapes and 2-deaths... that's obviously a result of the maths I've already explained. Like seriously, what else do you want them to say: "A balanced match is 4 deaths... or 4 escapes!"
But anyway... please do provide a link/evidence to support what you're saying, since you're so confident of it. Let's have a look at what they said in context, rather than your opinion of what they said. Then we'll see whose argument fails.
Though if they did say that, we have to admit there's something of an issue with the goal they're setting up: two escapes would mean the Survivors must always complete their objective (do gens and open exit gate), but the Killer must only half complete their primary objective (Kill Survivors).
-
Eh, my issue with the MMR isn't a lack of understanding; it's that they designed a system that doesn't select for particularly enjoyable experiences, the built-in win/loss condition can encourage pretty easy smurfing, and the choice of win conditions is inane bordering on ridiculous.
Because it only focuses on kills/escapes, success on either side of the fence will tend to push you into situations with low interactivity. It might be the best way to hard-define a win, but if the state of the game shifts glacially to adjust how things play, you're matchmaking into things people aren't enjoying.
The smurfing point isn't that special, but I'd just like to note that it's still possible to play 90% of the match in a way it's a one-sided stomp and still deliberately throw it at the last second. Being able to both lose deliberately to keep MMR down and stomp to make sure it's not fun at the same time? Ouch.
As for win conditions... it's a 1v4 game. There's an entire gameplay option for putting together proper teams. Teamwork is necessary to win. Treating matchmaking as a series of 1v1 encounters is just weird, especially given how easily one person can be snagged in endgame. It's just a bizarre choice all round--and it means that in what we're supposed to think is an even draw scenario, two people definitely gained MMR, two people definitely lost MMR, and the Killer's position probably changed based on who those are as well. In a draw. Er... just weird.
Oh, and there's the sheer comedy of prestiging a Killer leaving MMR totally unchanged, but that's not really an MMR complaint, just the sheer silliness of "give up all perks and addons now go earn them back". Stockpile 1mil BP, be forced to play someone else, or enjoy the loss streak. <_>
-
@oreoslurpee said:
as a pinhead main since he was released, i absolutely agree. engineers fang is so busted that it literally doesn’t feel good for both the killer (because of how easy it is) and the survivor (because it’s a cheap hit since you get injured 5 meters or more away from pinhead) and which i want a rework for engineers fang. i want his garbage addons buffed, iridescent lament configuration nerf reverted and (basically pixelbush’s change) a buff to the lament configuration solve time where it’s basically this
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/V1NCUE9WS863/09b801e8-e89e-46d7-9653-422d94d183b8.jpeg
Speak for yourself. I always think it makes landing hits actually satisfying. Especially tricky ones.
@GannTM said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2766803#Comment_2766803
How exactly does Iri LC work again?
Survivors can't see the box aura until the chain hunt starts if they're beyond 24m (was 16m).
But they can see it once the hunt starts and I think it can actually spawn within 24m of a Survivor (but more than 8m). Remember, because of how radii work, a 50% increase is actually more than doubling the visible area.
-
Engineer's Fang is strong, because it actually makes his skill rewarding. The thing is, it's not too strong--it's just that the entire rest of his kit is too weak without it. Fang + Original Pain makes it kind of a ranged skillshot Legion, it's actually pretty nice.
I suppose you could think it's too strong if you compare to his basekit, but it's more that the basekit is potato.
@Labrac said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2766532#Comment_2766532
I don't need to prove anything to someone I don't even know on the internet, so I don't care about your challenge. Idk if you're on console or anything, but it's piss easy to hit his power with M&K. Especially considering you can injure people through walls with the Fang.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2766545#Comment_2766545
It's a multiplayer game, it's expected that you need to put some kind of effort to have good results at it. If you want to play like that you can enjoy single players.
Sometimes, sometimes we just want to play without having to overthink it. I don't think that's a difficult idea.
-
I wouldn't focus them, but I'm not going to hang around a lobby with four TTVs in it. Not worth the hassle.
-
I didn't even realise there was a code until it had already expired.
-
@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.
The current stats we have don't tell us anything, because it lumps every player together, and both SWF and solo at the same time. These are the stats produced in all of a few button clicks in Excel, specifically excluding every way to actually glean useful information from it.
What good does it turn out to be if the spread hovers around 50% on the whole, if every killrate except Nurse dropped by 10% or more once you excluded low-MMR games? If some killers were getting 70% winrates or something at low ranks, but then dropping down to 40% or 30% the higher up you go, then that's not good by basically anyone's standards--particularly because what the people playing those Killers are likely to be experiencing is stomp, stomp, get stomped, get stomped, stomp, get stomped as they bounce back and forth between MMR bands based largely on the balance of the Killer.
Really, the best thing after raw stats would be an interactive graph of kill rates against MMR (honestly the X axis doesn't even have to be labelled if they wanted to keep that obscure), with error bars if it's granular enough to give per-player feedback. Then we would have data that actually tells us something informative.
Naive averaging of your entire category across disparate strata is terrible.
-
@Superyoshiegg said:
No rewards please. The bloody clothes is fine as is. It's purely cosmetic and optional, and should stay that way.
Retroactively adding rewards to Prestige levels is just going to screw over people who chose not to Prestige because they didn't think the current rewards were worth it.
I have a friend who didn't want to lose his event items on Jane, so he chose not to Prestige her because he didn't think her Bloody outfit would be worth the loss of the event items. Imagine how he would feel now, years later and several million BP dumped into Jane to get all the perks, if Prestige rewards were added.
Honestly, I think Prestiges should give you BP refund based on the amount of excess stuff you have, so that at least if, say, the buff to rare item appearances or whatever is made actually helpful, people can prestige heavily-levelled people in like... one go.
-
Get nerfed for stomping noobs. Get nerfed if you do well against high MMR.
We're just waiting for "nerfed for overperforming in the middle but doing poorly at both high and low MMR" and there is literally nothing that won't get a nerf.