RainehDaze
RainehDaze
About
- Username
- RainehDaze
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,539
- Last Active
Comments
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2706257#Comment_2706257
Twins? Blight? Kinda just seems like you are arbitrarily singling out Trickster.
Twins don't seem scary, they're just unpleasant and gonkish.
-
@Volcz said:
There's already a thread on this about this specific match.
Also, he's playing Legion against a solid 3man SWF. Like the guy at end-game chat said, no one made him pick Legion.
Though to be fair those two points aren't correlated. You pick killer before you see the lobby, and you can't instantly see they're a SWF. So, like, you can't pick a better killer if you're matched against a team.
I maintain the real problem with this video is that it exposes that when the killer's already lost, a sufficiently equipped/skilled team of survivors with a massive advantage can then just toy with them, and there's nothing that can be done about it. Doesn't matter if they misplayed to get to that point or have a terrible killer/perk loadout, they can't force the last gen to be done any faster--2nd to last gen goes at 7 mins, all three gens are spread out, 0 hooks. Survivors don't do the last gen for another 3-4 minutes and nobody leaves for another three after that; though the door could've at least been forced open then.
That sort of toying with people is just jerk behaviour at best (at least when they're not targeting low MMR players to do it specifically for much longer).
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2706167#Comment_2706167
Yes, those Forums here are killer-sided.
What people also tend to forget - even if the Streamer in the video of the OP lost this game, he wins most of the games. Losing is pretty rare for him.
I'm still trying to work out what that has to do with finding the full half of the game where the survivors could have done a gen and left at any time but were deliberately doing locker shenanigans, flashlights through cracks, and the usual bodyblocks/drawn out looping to free someone instead to be an example of extreme jerk behaviour, myself.
And there are some people who tank their MMR and go into SWF so they can do this easier. It's not like this is a secret or unknown behaviour.
It doesn't help you win. It doesn't advance your objective even incrementally. It's something a team can only do once they've already secured the win. It should be an obvious thing to criticise, yeah? People drawing a game they've already won out for no other reason than they can and the other side doesn't like it? That's why downed survivors bleed out, after all.
-
@Marigoria said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2706128#Comment_2706128
I mean, do I have a chance of victory when I'm in a 2v1 when 2 of my team mates dced at 5 gens? No. Is this bullying? No.
It would be if they slugged your buddy and body blocked you in a corner, though.
Stop selectively responding to my posts and taking them in isolation. It's not that complicated; if a team can obviously win but deliberately won't achieve their winning condition, only letting the game end when they're bored of it (or were relying on an exhaustible resource), then their goal is not to win and escape. If it was, the game would have ended as soon as that was possible, and everyone would have taken their BP and moved on.
Now, playing a hopeless game isn't fun, and we should all be aware that this isn't fun--but, at least, equally aware that it should therefore end quick, and we can move on. This leaves three options:
1) they're trying to do a tome challenge. Okay, and they should then finish the challenge and move on, right?
2) they have all the empathy and awareness of a carved footstool, and do not realise that the other side of this game is not, in fact, having fun with an unnecessary extra ten minutes of total failure.
3) they're out to make sure the other side of this game isn't having fun. Therefore, bullying.
-
@Marigoria said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2706106#Comment_2706106
You aren't trapped in the game, you can still catch them. Pallets arent infinites and the killer is always faster than the survivors unless you're playing nurse.
Well, yes, that is why I said: they need to get lucky on target selection. Either: A) be so much better at mindgaming and looping that the raw speed difference doesn't matter because you need to bloodlust the hit out, then they swap out for someone else and heal it etc.; or B) be a perfectly coordinated team with no other goal than to do locker flashlight saves or head on and run loops as long as possible on top of that... then skedaddle as soon as the batteries run low.
"You are not mechanically trapped in the game" does not mean "you have a chance of victory". Being at 1 gen and 0 hooks with a gen in each corner of the map is clearly a state where the survivors could go do gens and escape at any time (which they eventually do, both in this game and my experience). So, why aren't they doing it? They can win. The aim is to win and escape, right? So why aren't they escaping? Why are they insisting on jumping into lockers so their buddies can flashlight stun and repeat, or they can whack you with head-on, or just standing doing nada whilst someone runs the Killer for two minutes?
What part of "not doing any objectives for ten minutes when it would take at most 80s to do one and escape" is viewable as anything other than messing with the other player?
-
@Marigoria said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2706076#Comment_2706076
So for you facecamping/tunneling/camping is also bullying because the survivor isnt having fun?
You not being able to catch the survivors (keeping in mind they arent cheating) it's not bullying, it's just SBMM not working and putting you with people who are not the same skill as you.
No, the important aspect I was emphasising is trapping them in the game. Habitually bodyblocking survivors in corners would be bullying: they have no means by which to advance the game and escape (if they're the last survivor, nobody can trigger EGC if the hatch is open, after all). Because there exists not even the slightest possibility of getting out of this situation, it is rightfully against the rules.
When Survivors want to bully, they do need to get lucky on target (same as a Killer would to back you into said corner): they need to be able to either outplay at their leisure (or as long as their flashlights last), such that the Killer has minimal to no chance to secure the kills necessary to win. Then, they just don't complete the last gen, so the Killer can't open the exit gate, and is forced to either keep engaging in chases or give up on doing anything.
This video is actually a perfect example: 3rd gen pops at 5 minutes, 4th gen pops at 7 minutes, nowhere near Tru3. All of the gens are spread out, so it's not a 3gen scenario, and he has zero hooks at this point. It should be trivial for someone to go off and do a gen, then everyone to Escape. It takes another 3 and a half minutes for that last gen to be done, and another 3 minutes after that for anyone to open the door. That is not the actions of a team playing to win; fully half of the game was spent in a position to win at any point and they put it off to run around.
When I run into people who I know I clearly can't beat, and they know I clearly can't get them, and they proceed to spend 10+ minutes running loops on the last gen, I don't think their aim is "beat the Killer and escape". There is no way that "don't do your objective for ten minutes" can somehow pass for "advancing doing your objective". It's very much the opposite.
-
@Marigoria said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2706026#Comment_2706026
Which part of this was bullying? Did they insult him in end game chat?
There's more to bullying than verbal harassment, y'know?
It's very simple: this is a game, so trapping people in a situation they can't have a fun experience and have no escape from is bad. Body blocking people into corners, for instance, for the one thing Killers can still do to deny the end of the game (and is, notably, against the rules). Survivors who have the resources/mindset/skill difference to drag out the game until they get bored, whilst the Killer has the choice of: A) go AFK, or B) engage in pointless chase after pointless chase whilst whatever tool is used against them.
If one side is in a position where they can't end the game and the other side could but is choosing not to, that's bullying. You're not letting the other player move on to a game they might actually win.
And then you can add on all the people who admit in endgame chat or out of the game that they're also specifically running builds meant to be frustrating and they're out to annoy people, not win and escape. So, that adds onto it.
-
I believe this is why people have suggested a true, non-optional, non-beneficial secondary objective be added. Something that isn't just holding M1 for longer, but still makes the repair process take longer.
-
There's a lot of things I still want to try. If I run out of those or the grind gets too obstructive... eh, if the balance trends ever onwards to gens still zooming away.
That, and if I want a game where it's easy to play for only, like, 15 minutes, there aren't many I'm interested in.
-
@Marigoria said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2705832#Comment_2705832
How are they denying you the "victory"?
So if someone is denying chase etc, they're a bully. So the "valid" camping "strat" is also bullying? Or is it just bullying when the survivors do it?
I'm talking about when Survivors clearly have the upper hand and could just win the game right out, if the team sat down on the gens and left. But they're not doing gens. They're also not running from the killer, just hopping into the first locker they can see so a buddy can get a flashlight save. But they're not throwing either, because all their actions are still taken to avoid being hooked, with all that coordination.
What are they doing, then? They're not trying to win, but they're not letting themselves lose, either. They're doing something, so what is it?
-
@Marigoria said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2705828#Comment_2705828
They're literally just survivors not doing gens with the weakest exhaustion perk.
Well yeah, they're not doing gens. So what are they actually doing? There has to be some sort of word to describe when you're not playing to win, but are instead playing to do something to the other side whilst also denying them any victory, exciting chase, or use of their powers.
-
@Marigoria said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2705816#Comment_2705816
There is no "bullying" unless they're insulting in end game chat.
what are the head on (apply directly to the forehead)/locker flashlight teams that won't leave for ten minutes doing, then...?
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
I now watched the first 5 minutes. And obviously he has to mention that it was a viewer build he was using aka it is not his fault that he lost (even tho, Plaything, No Way Out and Deadlock have decent Slowdown-Potential, if you actually get hooks).
However, I dont really get why he even left the Quentin at the start. Yes, you injure multiple people with Legion, but the only two Survivors he saw where at the Saloon. Why would any Killer go to the Saloon to chase people, when an injured Survivor is nearby?
And second, two times in those 5 minutes he has all Survivors on one spot, so why not trying to frenzy them at this point? Again, waste of time and it makes it impossible to do Locker Techs.
Here's what I see as the problem, though: does it matter how many mistakes the Killer is making if none of his actions (and in particular his derping around with those messing with lockers) is actually prohibiting the Survivors from clearing all the gens and getting out, and still there's another 10 minutes of video to watch before they choose to leave?
Is the game in a good state if, for whatever reason, the Killer can't win and the otherside can but won't?
-
@Shroompy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2705586#Comment_2705586
I mean, not really "once in a blue moon". If you play Pinhead you can start having a general idea of where the box spawns. To get a good cycle going all you need is to get the box once and you can start controlling it. Reason why is when you pick it up they scream, they usually don't wander too far after that until the box respawns. Using the information of where they are can tip you in a general direction of where the box is gonna appear, go over there and you may not find it right away, when that happens you let Survivors find it for you. His range add ons just give you more wiggle room.
Best part is they can't just ignore this, this acts as great slow down and it aids in chases. I've been using this strategy pretty much since he came out and it hasn't failed me yet.
I mean, the times range addons have/will have made the difference between protecting the box and not protecting the box, super uncommon so far as I've experienced them. The thing that would usually stop me isn't the absolute range, it's always getting the spawning point into a position to go past walls in time.
Which only one of them could ever conceivably help with, but doesn't really anyway because it's the same speed crawl away. Annoying that.
-
@SomberNokk said:
What does he mean by auto dead hard?
Basically, it's possible to have a tool that will press the dead hard button for you when you would get hit (because the client needs to know the Killer is swinging before the attack hits to start playing the animation). Anyone using that, aside from the obvious "they're cheating" aspect, is literally impossible to bait out because they will always dead hard only when you'd hit them.
-
@kyogul said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2705633#Comment_2705633
What you're advocating for isn't skill-based matchmaking, it's more so balancing-matchmaking to encourage particular behaviours for fairness but not skill. Camping in the right decisions is skill as there is a time and place for it and it can turn the game over, and the skill in that aspect comes from just having decent to good game knowledge, although there's really no execution skill involved in it. Co-operativeness also isn't necessarily the best either; people split up on gens and barely interact with each other when they're going hard in the paint trying to get out as survivors as an optimal strategy to apply pressure on their end as much as possible. While I do agree individual hooks is more reflective than kills, as it tells you how many chases you won, it's still not optimal and subsequently not very much reflecting the totality of skill in this game, which is founded upon doing things that produce winning.
Ah, but I didn't call for SBMM. I think it's a fool's errand to chase the idea of matching people on skill, since in the end you're only left with proxies. But we do have a lot of proxy variables that the game counts already, they do point to particular tactics, and they do show whether someone is playing selfishly (whatever that means for each side).
You could, from that, fairly easily pick out when a Survivor has a habit of just leaving other people to die on hook so that they can get out, or a killer's camping from the first hook for whatever reason. If you based your MMR off number of hooks and had survivors gain/lose MMR as a team, it might at least alleviate some of the complaints--facecamping from first hook doesn't gib the person with a bad streak, you can't have a single survivor feed to loose MMR (of all thigns), said facecampers will stop hovering at an MMR where they feel obliged to do such things (and people will, possibly, learn to not feed and even the hookees will get moved away from this point once that happens).
Though my real opinion on MMR is that you shouldn't make it invisible. People can't trust if it's actually working or see when it wasn't.
-
Yes, maybe he could have played better. Maybe he could have focused on how Legion in particular has a power that lets you punish people for locker squatting in your face.
I don't think how either of these points detract from the fact that the survivors could easily have finished the last two gens and cleared out about ten minutes earlier than they actually did bother to do it. They were, literally, toying with the Killer because they could, and there is no recourse a Killer player has in that situation except to go AFK and not play--something which, done consistently, is more likely to punish the Killer.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2704724#Comment_2704724
Then go body block if you want their attention on you and off someone else, or try to chase trade, trying to annoy them is not the only way and its also the least effective as it relies on the killer being annoyed.
or counterproductive
I don't want to deal with annoying people at all.
-
It's not like the Ring is the only story of an onryo to have ever existed, which is what Spirit is, so I don't expect the same sort of nerf. Would be pretty weird for Sadako to have the same sort of power.
It's not like "chainsaw using murderer" where your power choice is quite circumscribed by the identifying feature.
-
@BreadTube said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2705624#Comment_2705624
Comp isn't regulated by the devs. And also 1/4th the size?
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/11MYG1R5ZI6P/shelterwoodsoutline.png
CoH covers an area of approximately 1800 m^2.
There's only a single map where that doesn't potentially cover between 1/5 to 1/6 of the playable area with a single perk (Mother's Dwelling), and a few of the smaller ones where it covers closer to 1/4.
Ignoring the blatant absurdity that is The Game, where it instead covers 1800m^2 on two of its ~4400m^2 floors, for nearly 50% map coverage.
-
@kyogul said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2705580#Comment_2705580
Can you demonstrate possibilities of how that would be better though?
Because down the ladder you have those same optimal strategies done, albeit not in the best fashions and done unintentionally due to being new and not having many perks. And at the top you have the same thing + game knowledge.
The middle isn't going to benefit from additional factors that assess skill in MMR because it's basically a spectrum of people not knowing what you're doing to optimal game playstyles to whatever degrees, intentionally or unintentionally.
The issue is game balance, not MMR system. There is nothing you can do to a matchmaking system, even if one is made completely new, to make it even noticeably better than current MMR. People are simply saying "skill-based matchmaking system" like robots without knowing what they're talking about or being able to talk through it even half properly
Yes, it would at least reduce the odds of people endlessly complaining about camping, and selfish players, because if you budged MMR over to care more about general performance/total hooks and team play, then you're at least removing the rewards from those things.
Now, following on from that, if you try to improve the game balance, do you want your game balance to be fixed around a 1v1-kill-vs-escape measurement of MMR? No, not really.
I don't think it would fix any problems immediately, nor necessarily change gameplay in a big way, but it'd be a better starting point to measure and balance around.
And I don't think anyone can honestly say it's not stupid that the work to go into escaping is a team effort, but the rewards and penalties are all solo.
-
@Shroompy said:
Because you can use your chain to interrupt from afar, theyre real nice for keeping the box in your control
Once in a blue moon. Yeah, you can do that sometimes, but since the speed of the chains and the rate at which the portal moves away are fixed, it's still honestly less useful for that same purpose than the nerfed time addons.
Plus (from a functional point of view) "cast further away" and "chain goes further" are redundantly contributing to the same end statistic (range). Max-range sniping people on gens and stuff through walls with the extra casting is annoying but doesn't really... achieve much, is the problem.
It's just the comedy of having a tooltip saying where his power is generally good, and then nothing he has really contributes to that. Communication!
-
@kyogul said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2705568#Comment_2705568
No I'm also one of the people who knew it was going to be a shite show as well but yet some bellends in this community didn't realise it and kept on asking for a new matchmaking system. And we got this. And now they think some irrelevant tweaks to "judge skill" is going to do anything different (it won't).
Thank you lot for making the game worse by not knowing what you're asking for
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2705451#Comment_2705451
One, I've said in multiple ways that I'm talking about a specific person rather than everyone who complains and dislikes current MMR.
Two, a skill-based system isn't a solution. Because the optimal play in this game isn't skill-based.
A large factor of people's fun in games is to win. The optimal strategies in these game are brainless (pre-dropping pallets, holding W and almost never looping a structure while your team genrush / no ed, camping to force stages). We can use comp as an example that include some of the most renowned players in terms of skill and they all do this to win. What does that mean? Brainless, skill-less strategies are the optimal way to win.
You can deduce that in a matchmaking system, regardless if it's more detailed or not to assess skill, the higher your MMR goes, the more you'll see this sort of playstyle because people with a decent to large amount of game knowledge know this is the best way to guarantee wins. And people do this because they want to have fun, because winning is fun to more people than not. Further meaning even in a mythical system that accurately pairs people of equal skill together, the higher your rating goes, the more you will see playstyles that do not reflect skill even by people who are very skilled at the game.
Giving you the same product you have now.
You lot are literally asking for a system that gives you the exact same thing now.
Even if it might end up in the same spot at the top end, prioritising more than a solo survivor's ability to survive to the end and get out, and a killer's "the number of dead people is literally the only important factor" could have important effects lower down the ladder.
-
@BenZ0 said:
I think making this killer actually fun and playable would be more important than voice lines.
It's not like people doing the art/audio assets are the ones who do gameplay changes. You could, shockingly, do both.
-
I hate corn. It doesn't respond at all to people moving through it which would at least give great audio feedback, it blocks ability line of sight, it interferes with anything that needs aim, it hides scratchmarks and blood unless you're literally on top of them...
Bonus points for a tile being able to spawn with a survivor-sized gap in the tree and rest of the loop. I hope you like bloodlusting the dumb circle with the last survivor.
-
@zarr said:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/IRL4XPSNSGXI/grafik.png
Familiarize yourself with the map using this (from: https://nm.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/np9ma8/quick_and_dirty_map_of_the_racoon_city_police).
I'll just go wait at the exits, it'll be more fun and less frustrating
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2705269#Comment_2705269
Yes, because SC2 MMR is very different to DbD MMR. A Grandmaster isn't going to be matched against a Gold because their queue was too long.
I'm still not seeing your point here. You just don't want any killers reworked or buffed ever, because it's possible for a good enough player to succeed on them sometimes?
Apparently; so long as the best players on average are getting wins, the ability to use the Killer's power and fun of it doesn't matter.
Which is the part I think all the weak killer complaints are directed at, i.e. that they're just an interchangeable M1 bot. So... everything except movement speed nerfs are irrelevant.
-
I mean, yeah, seems obvious? You have two actions that can apply to a state. Just let them both start and whichever one finishes first wins.
There's no gameplay reason that "I started healing first" should mean "You can't pick up". It's just animation jank nobody cares about.
-
Because I am fairly certain the nebulous concept known as the community did not ask for invisible, untrackable MMR which seemingly turns off completely if you're waiting moderately long, and was based entirely on kills/escapes, and treats the game as a set of 4 1v1's rather than a 1v4, and you're not going to gaslight anyone into believing that they did?
-
@Sepex said:
I main Pinhead and play him daily, I'm good with how he is. I get rolled obv against good survivors but that would happen regardless of what Killer I'm playing anyways.
So do I, and? His M2 is still situational high risk low reward with potato addons, and the box is way too easily used against you for your power.
-
It's an interesting thought experiment.
I still think MMR should've been balanced on the 1v4 basis, not the 1v1x4 basis. If you want to use kills/escapes as a proxy for overall skill, great, do it in the way that incorporates the most side info.
-
Pinhead's big problem is that he is somehow the perfect combination of a pain to aim and land (and surprisingly easy to dodge even for something you can slightly correct after firing), and the effects of his abilities being so reliant on Survivors making mistakes. Letting the chain hunt start, solving the box in a terrible place, failing to dodge the chains if the hunt does start, not breaking the chains in time, etc.
What makes the Engineer's Fang and Original Pain so good isn't necessarily the injury states, it's the payoff for landing the hits.
Seriously, if 90% of his ability set didn't have the ability to leave him in a worse position than not using it even if you hit with the chains (talk about weird anti-loop powers that are bad at way too many loops), he'd be much better off.
-
@zarr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2704171#Comment_2704171
But that's the thing, Wraith doesn't only stomp noobs, unless most players in this game are noobs (in which case the point would stand that he does not need to be buffed anyway, not least because it would mean even noobs stomp with Wraith). Global average rates show he kills more often than not, good killer players win with Wraith consistently, BHVR, based on a variety of stats, an overview of the game and other things that none of us have access to, said he was a wee bit overpowered. I think you will have to start entertaining the idea that public matchmaking is actually a favourably balanced place, for Wraith and most of any killer even in the hands of an average player.
Precisely because of the fact that those people (good players) can win consistently in this game with Wraith is why he isn't "bad" and doesn't necessarily need buffs. Doesn't mean buffing him would necessarily be terrible for the game, but likewise nerfing him didn't make the game terrible playing as Wraith either. Again, what reality are we balancing for? One where good players should have 99% winrates rather than 80-90%? Where even average players should get closer to 3 kills on average rather than 2 with a killer like Wraith? Because those are realities of pubs.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2704177#Comment_2704177
Not that I disagree with the assessment that he struggles against good opponents, I've pointed out as much myself, but my point is that he is evidently good enough to be able to compete relatively comfortably against the vast majority of opponents players get in this game even now with MMR in place, otherwise it would not be possible for his average kill rates to be as high as they are. And even players that have to be assumed to be high MMR due to winning consistently, are winning consistently with him.
I don't think Wraith is all that problematically "overpowered", from my perspective of someone that likes playing as and against Wraith a lot and plays at high MMR I could definitely agree with some buffs for him. But I also don't think he's problematically "underpowered" - I still win much more often than I lose with him, I wouldn't want them to buff Wraith so much that I can even possibly beat the 1 crazy group out of 100 matches that I currently can't, if it comes at the cost of the 99+ other groups being notably easier to beat. Not saying reverting the speed boost nerf would do that, as I said I personally would want for them to revert that change, but that's also from a high MMR perspective, there's much more players in other MMR brackets and they might actually suffer from that a "wee bit" too much. I at least don't believe that BHVR based that change on nothing, again I think it's more likely their decision was much more well-informed than the opinions of many of the players discussing it, with regards to the "live balance" of this game that affects many more players.
You don't actually have to uncloak to snuff Boons, that just a by the way. I do agree that Wraith is one of the killers Circle hurts particularly much, and I hope they will nerf it at least insofar that it does not grant the 100% healing speed boost on any healing action other than its own (so it would allow survivors to heal themselves in 16 seconds within its range and that's it). Beyond that maybe they could put a cooldown on Boon perks, i. e. make it so that you can't bless a totem for 30-60 seconds after your Boon has been snuffed. Or that each survivor can only bless each totem once, so if it gets snuffed they have to find another one. ...But then again, COH is the only actually problematic one in my opinion, people barely even use the others from all I can tell, because they are just not good enough to compete for slots most of the time.
But you have to distinguish if people are getting kills with Wraith or just getting kills with any Killer.
Because you're trying to use global killrates; bad matchmaking/team balance; and the performance of good players all at once. But each of these suggest something completely different! Global killrates obviously don't mean anything otherwise everyone needs nerfs except Nurse who suddenly needs buffs, and Pig's running out of things to nerf for the most hilariously obvious exception. The whole "this character does fine against random solo teams and then potatoes when it's a good SWF" is the recurring problem with SWF balance and how you can't have a balance where most of your players have lost the instant the match starts because of its initial conditions. And good killers getting kills with Wraith doesn't prove anything unless you can isolate how Wraith's power is contributing to that; because of the combination of the matchmaking being iffy and bad communication, you're not necessarily proving anything except "good perks and a skillgap mean you can win with M1's only".
-
@zarr said:
It depends on what you mean by "bad". Having a difficult time winning if you go against 4 good and coordinated players communicating and using the best stuff? Yeah, his ceiling is pretty limited in those instances, you will mostly be fighting for a 2k at best. Having a difficult time in your average pub match? In that environment Wraith is far from bad and in fact one of the killers with the best "ease of use" to "chances of success" ratios.
I 2/3/4k with Wraith consistently in pubs, using a variety of builds and playstyles. If you are an at least competent player you will do well more often than not in pubs, with much of any killer, and with Wraith if anything more comfortably so than with various others.
While I personally dislike the speed boost nerf he received and would wish that it was reverted (it is a fairly significant nerf, both in terms of actual strength and more importantly for me in terms of the fun factor of playing Wraith), I think people are a little naive when they completely disregard the idea that there's actual reasoning behind BHVR's balance adjustments, to put it mildly.
Of course, from a perspective of the idea of facing 4 good survivors on voice comms using the best stuff they possibly can and on some of the most survivor-favouring maps, even the best, most experienced and reasonable players would agree that Wraith was indeed not even "a wee bit overpowered". However, the reality of this game is not facing such survivor groups, to much of any extent. Even now with MMR in place good killer players still win the vast majority of their matches relatively comfortably and decisively with much of any killer. And they do so because the reality of this game is that most players are mediocre at best, good players are relatively rare, and good players teaming up in SWF, using voice comms and the best loadouts is even rarer. If this game is to be balanced in its actual reality of the actual matches that actual players are actually playing, it has to be balanced with the wild disparities of skill and experience and the wild disconcertedness of loadouts, strats, tactics, decisions, playstyles, motivations, and so on in mind that is public matchmaking. That is the so-called "live balance". And rather than the few hundreds of people talking in online outlets about their personal experiences with and anecdotes of the game, I think one should have more confidence in BHVR to have a more accurate grasp of the state of balance in that reality - a reality of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of players every month, logging millions of hours of gameplay, a reality in which the entire playing experience of even the longest-standing players with years of playtime amounting to thousands of hours is matched in mere minutes. And if BHVR nerfs Wraith because he is a "wee bit overpowered" in that reality, I actually am compelled to believe that they are basing this on more accurate and factual assessments than any forum users. And with Wraith I can totally see why that could be the case, since his kit is so easy to make good use of that even average players likely do very consistently, while on the other hand also being a kit average players have a harder time playing against than various other killer kits (they don't know where he is, then he is suddenly there and they do not react fast or well).
There's a reason why Freddy has had such high average public kill rates and why Nurse doesn't. The "ease of use" to "chances of success" ratio of a killer ability is one of the most important factors in the live balance environment of public matchmaking where the majority of players are at best averagely skilled and experienced. Sure we can say BHVR should balance for high level play, but high level play is exceedingly rare even now with MMR in place, otherwise good killers would not still be 4king all day. There is simply no reality of this game in which it would be reasonable to balance for the highest level. That only happens in tournaments, and tournaments are inherently balanced by their format and ruleset. In public matchmaking, even at high MMR, the balance is already such that good players win much, much more often than they lose even with a killer like Wraith, and where even average players still kill more survivors with him than survivors escape against him. Balancing for the tiny fraction of games where there's actually a high level survivor side would screw with the 99% of other matches in undesirable, imbalanced ways that are to the detriment of countless players' playing experiences. That doesn't mean all balance changes will completely disrupt things of course, and I do think BHVR is much too slow and conservative with changes (a bunch of killers should totally long have been buffed and SWF long have been nerfed, a variety of maps long adjusted), but I also recognize that BHVR with an overwhelming likeliness is much more reasonable in their balancing decisions for the actual reality of this game as the vast majority experiences it than most of the opinions that can be read here and elsewhere.
Besides, if you do want to be able to compete even against the one-in-a-thousand occurrence of getting an actual high-level survivor group, there are still killers you can practice and play that allow you to do so - and they are super fun to play, if anything much more so than Wraith because their abilities have a much higher skill ceiling and reward you much more for practicing and improving.
Note: I do think lightburn for Wraith is a mechanic that has long outstayed its welcome. Or at least, if they want to maintain that mechanic because it makes flashlights and firecrackers a little more relevant, implement it for every killer and buff those that suffer the most accordingly. Wraith in his current form definitely does not deserve to have such a punishing drawback. If I dislike anything about playing Wraith it's seeing flashlights in my lobbies. There's not even add-ons against lightburn anymore. Sure there is some counterplay, but if I vault a window or break a pallet while cloaked, a survivor can reliably lightburn me, and out in the open without Swift Hunt I can't even uncloak against a flashlight if the survivor knows what to do.
That is an excessively long wall of text to, basically, say "BHVR is right and the forums/reddit/streamers are wrong". Come on, brevity has its merits; you don't need 1,000 words to say that you think he's fine against randoms. 🤣
But... other people don't think it's fine to have a Killer whose only strength is the ability to stomp noobs by sneaking up on them. Someone who's a pure M1 killer against good players and will have a winrate based on the player's skill at looping as an M1 killer outside of low ranks isn't someone that actually has anything going for them.
If you balance so that anything easy to use has its powers adjusted so that it can't outmatch similarly experienced survivors, you're going to wind up with a lot of characters that are basically just M1 once you hit that skill ceiling. Yeah, people will get wins, but those same people could probably get wins with literally anything with the same base movement speed in the same game.
-
@BigFatChungus said:
The reason I play Dead By Daylight to this day is solely because of the chases. I never played it because of the licensed killers or because there was other mechanics that I liked about the game, I've basically only played this game for over 4 years because of the chases.
And that implies for me the worst problem I've seen lingering since dbd's last year. Both on the latest killers and on the latest maps.
When i'm in a chase, i want to play against a mechanic that has counter play, and that i can get outplayed.
It just doesn't happen with new killers anymore. The last killers essentially have mechanics of taking down survivors quickly, with no abilities to help put pressure on the map. Basically they're fueling the goal of taking down a survivor as quickly as possible, putting it on the hook and going to the next one, which generates situations and places where you know you're going to die (survivor) regardless of what you do. Leading to boring chases, but you still escape the match because the killer din't put enough pressure on the game, which can fuse both sides. Not to mention new maps are starting to have fewer loops, and more safe pallets. Generating scripted chases where you drop a pallet and run to the nearest safe pallet, delaying the moment you're going to be down to get as much in-chase time as possible.
My point is that the chases are just starting to get tedious, and extremely predictable. Leading to boring chases where you know when; where; and how you're going to die, because you know you have nothing else to do in the match. This for me just kills the game, and I'm not even going to talk about perks and addons, which just add more to it. For me, this is something that is killing the best in-game mechanic.
They did make a Killer with a poor chase power but lots of map pressure.
When players focused on the map pressure, enough people hated it and couldn't deal with the secondary objective that it got nerfed.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2703312#Comment_2703312
That is impossible, unless you make every killer identical.
Some abilities will simply be better than others, be it through their versatility, their effect, or whathaveyou. From there, you’ll see more tier lists emerge, creating the exact same issue you’re trying to combat.
Every killer should be vaguely in the vicinity of what we consider "good" now, to the point that any new tier list would comfortably fit squarely in a tight band cut out of the current tiers (probably top of B to bottom of S or something). That way they're all playable, and you don't perpetually have a ton of options that live in the land of "your power might do absolutely nothing if you're unlucky or outright harm you".
-
"Some maps make certain powers almost pointless and you have no way to stop those specific maps except to go to a different one and screw you if you only have bad offerings" is a sign of bad map design, regardless of whether or not Blight in particular is strong.
-
@Johnny_XMan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2702836#Comment_2702836
Whoever said that killers only do it at the end?
I guess when you can find the perfect scenario which fits your belief, it makes sense.
Er... you were the one who started talking about at the end, lack of clarity in what that means isn't my fault.
Anyway, my point was quite simple: calling a narrowly-defined behaviour toxic is very different from calling some broad-strokes thing nobody can seemingly agree on a definition for toxic.
-
@Johnny_XMan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2702072#Comment_2702072
I think it’s funny how you believe flashlight clicking and getting he killers attention to take aggro are done in a malicious way…. But somehow camping and tunneling is don’t as a strat.
A stat is usually when someone has an intention of winning, shaking your head and sitting at a hook with a 1k at the end isn’t a strat and it is definitely not a win.
Just thought I would correct your double standard.
Shaking your head at the end is not a strat, but that's not a general component of either camping or tunnelling.
Facecamping at the end is a strat and is sometimes the only thing someone can choose to do (if they have the killer for it). Sit on hook with one Survivor, or walk off to the exit gates and have everyone get out?
Like, the problem here is that camping and tunnelling cover a very wide range of behaviours depending on who you ask. Teabagging and flashlight clicking are narrowly defined.
-
@Aurelle said:
I don't know much about how stretched resolution works, but isn't it a setting on your PC? So the game can't detect those kind of things?
The game should absolutely be able to detect the resolution, that's not external to the program at all.
Particularly if you're going to have things like "can survivors see ghostface to deactivate his power" based off it.
The most amusingly straightforward suggestion I've seen was to just stick invisible ghostfaces around that would be set off by stretched resolution and take action based on that.
-
@Dino7281 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2701856#Comment_2701856
Yeah, it happened to me few times with Haddonfield. It was always so sad moment..
I've blocked, of all things, coldwind farm and ended up on haddonfield
RNG is a troll.
Speaking of coldwind, that was cowshed. So I got it the other way.
-
@zarr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2701742#Comment_2701742
I think for most of the special attacks we are talking about in this game, the speeds and therefore timings of these interactions would actually be prohibitive to the idea of being able to work with rollbacks and animation transitions. It would simply take too long to yield accurate results. It would be similar to validated grabs being turned into basic attacks - not seldomly the latency on that grab is big enough that the survivor is out of reach for the basic attack once it does happen (I think grab validation should simply take a health state off the survivor automatically, but current grab validation is a "temporary solution" according to BHVR, so maybe that's why they aren't touching it, ha).
Maybe for lunges it could still work kinda acceptably, but eh. Then they should rather do math in the background having the server make the most educated guess on whether the attack would have continued to still hit the survivor after the DH dash played out, and deliver the result of that to the players afterwards. Would still lead to jank where a survivor would randomly fall down after having seemingly avoided a hit, but it wouldn't be on the same level of jank as trying to go through wildly different animations within fractions of seconds.
And that is of course what they should do with the entire hit system to begin with: move it to the server. I suspect one reason why they aren't keen on doing so is that it would naturally cost more server resources to do all the complicated hit calculations that currently the killer's PC is doing.
Who said anything about proper transitions? Just randomly going from one frame to a different animation is still something.
Yeah, serverside hit detection is another idea. Really depends how much the servers currently need to deal with level geometry etc, I suppose.
-
@zarr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2701699#Comment_2701699
To be fair, if you successfully dodge a Victor pounce with Dead Hard, Victor is supposed to go into cooldown and you can then kick him, the only difference between a pounce that a survivor successfully dodges on the killer's screen and one that the server retroactively tells the killer the survivor successfully dodged is that Victor will overshoot its target in the former case, which can make it a bit more difficult for the survivor to run up to Victor in time to kick him.
But this cannot be solved without compromises, or at all. I'm not sure you got my point that a negated attack that in a latency-free environment might have continued to still register on a survivor after their Dead Hard dash played out cannot be made to work in that same way in an environment where latency does exist. If a successful hit of such an attack on the killer's screen would count no matter what, it would eat DH every time like it did in the past. And if these hits are subject to validation, they cannot continue after they have registered on the killer's screen - in order for that to happen the killer client would then have to undo the hit animations and velocity/position changes and go back into the middle of the attack animation, and then continue it for as long as it would have originally, all the while having to also account for how long the DH invincibility window still lasts so as to not get another successful hit a millisecond later that it would again have to roll back and start animations over. That's just not feasible, even at low latencies cancelling hit animations and velocity/position changes and going back into hit animations would be ridiculous, and more than that, it would cost so much time it would screw with the accuracy of the interactions it is seeking to "solve" to begin with.
A better solution would be to simply remove the invincibility from Dead Hard and replace it with Endurance, so that the hit still does happen on the survivor's screen too. While that would make it impossible to DH through bear traps and to negate Vile Purge or swarms of crows and other non-damaging special attacks, this would of course be a buff for the perk in other respects, so it might have to go along with other nerfs. I think a rework of the Endurance status effect would be good anyway. Namely, either take away the hit sprint from the survivor on an Endurance hit, or make the killer's hit cooldown only be a missed hit cooldown (1.5s) rather than a successful hit cooldown (3s). Or alternatively, reduce both the hit sprint and hit cooldown on Endurance hits somewhat (default hit sprint lasts for 2 seconds, make Endurance hit sprint only last for 1 second, and Endurance hit cooldown only for 2 seconds).
I have no idea where you got the idea that I don't understand how latency works. I haven't questioned that at all, only possible solutions.
Yes, something needs to be compromised. Or collision detection needs to be reworked--i.e. the client should perhaps calculate what will happen if the survivor's hitbox is removed, which then preserves the interactions that otherwise need to happen or not happen without having to do a power-specific fix for every interaction in the game. Would it inevitably mean weird rollbacks of animations and swapping to other animations? Probably, but that is the compromise for having latency winning out and everything operating correctly: animation jank because the client isn't waiting.
-
@zarr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2701662#Comment_2701662
Well, ultimately it doesn't matter whether it's a killer or a survivor client-sided logic that governs the speed boosts and cooldowns and makes it so they don't happen on validated hits, the only important thing is that they don't. I do think the hit cooldown is handled on the killer client and the speed boost on the survivor client, the clip posted earlier in this thread shows Nemesis starting to go into successful hit cooldown because they have a very high latency, and then the overwriting message from the server arrives and turns it into a missed hit cooldown. But yeah, as that goes to show, even at ridiculously high latencies (red lag icon = at least 300ms) the successful hit cooldown only plays for a negligible duration.
Some other interactions are more problematic, such as for instance Nemesis' tentacle not breaking a pallet in its hitzone upon getting a hit rejected on a survivor, but like I said, these are fairly rare and fairly tame in terms of the impact they will usually have even then. Plus some of these interactions can even benefit killers, like a survivor magically losing their item to Franklin's. They should still be sorted out though of course.
Dropkicking Victor is probably the most derp one that's allowed to stand, but they're all kind of ridiculous.
-
@zarr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2701647#Comment_2701647
The server does actually correct the killer client according to the validated reality of the hit not having happened: killers go into missed hit cooldown rather than successful hit cooldown, and the survivor does not get a speed boost.
But you're not wrong, there are things this logic does not correct for, such as the possibility of an attack registering on pallets rather than the survivor, or funnily enough apparently even things like Oni still getting power progress or Franklin's Demise still robbing the survivor of their item. I haven't tested around with this much, but there's definitely some wacky interactions. These are very rare to happen in actual gameplay and only seldomly have much of an impact on the matches if they do, but I do think BHVR should sort these things out, not least because they would obviously have to be sorted out when moving the hit system at large to the server authority too.
But yeah, again, they cannot really solve the false feedback on overruled hits and DH sometimes eating attacks that might have otherwise still connected on the survivor after the dash, not without creating other issues. Maybe for one PTB they could disable client prediction of hit feedback so that players can see what it feels like to have latency-delayed feedback on that, and my bet is that nobody will consider it a worthwhile trade-off for getting rid of false feedback. I really think the easiest and most sensible solution is to play a sound/visual effect alongside the overruled hit.
I'm not sure if it's really correcting the speed boost part--I assume the speed boost is handled on the Survivor side (you're injured by some hit = speed trigger), especially with Overcome. Overriding which cooldown it should be appears to be the limit of the feedback it gets.
The problem is that, apart from the raw hits and this one cooldown (assuming that isn't also triggered by the Survivor changing to injured, in which case the server still hasn't interfered), yeah--everything else is just left as-is. I'm not surprised some perks/powers continue on perfectly normally since the validation is such a narrow case.
-
@zarr said:
I hope people will at some point understand this very obvious issue of networked multiplayer games: Every single player sees a slightly different game reality because network latency exists. The information every player has on the state of the game world is delayed because it takes that information some time to get to every player via internet connections. And since it takes different amounts of time for different players, the events on different players' screens can disagree with one another. This is an issue inherent to online networks, and it physically cannot be solved because even at actual light speed information still simply takes time to travel between different locations in space. So unless we are dreaming of networks employing quantum entanglement or spacetime curvature where information exchange might actually be instantaneous in both directions, we will simply have to accept this unfortunate reality and how it affects online multiplayer games.
There are three "perspectives" on game events: those of the respective player clients and that of the server. The events on the clients will be the most affected by latency since information needs to travel from one client to the server and then from the server to the other client. Example: Player A has a latency of 50ms to the server, Player B one of 80ms - in this case, the information either player has on the other player is 130ms delayed.
Of course, the question becomes, if two players' screens disagree on what happened in the game, how do we decide what actually happens? Do you think it is fair if we take the events on the screen of one player and disregard all other screens? That's what DbD has always done and still does in most situations now: whether a hit happens or not only depends on whether it did on the killer's screen, even if on the survivor's screen that hit is completely impossible. That means any latency in any player's connection including the killer's will benefit the killer on hits, because the higher the total latency, the further in the past the survivor model will be on their screen. Using our example values from above, the survivor position will be 130ms further in the past on the killer's screen than it is on the survivor's screen.
The server perspective on the game events is the most real-time accurate, since on it player information will only be delayed by the latency a respective player has to the server, rather than the latency of both players combined. Using our example from above again, the server will see player information at a delay of merely 50ms and 80ms respectively, rather than the 130ms total. It is not only the most accurate but also the most fair perspective on the game events, since players with a higher latency will be at a disadvantage rather than benefitting from their latency. And not only will it therefore not put any player at a disadvantage just because their opponent has a high latency, but the disadvantage the player with the higher latency has is also much smaller than the disadvantage in a system based on client perspective: in our example, Player B with 80ms obviously has the higher latency to the server, however they will only be at a disadvantage of 30ms because their opponent has a latency of 50ms to the server, so Player B's information is only delayed by 30ms relative to that of their opponent. We go from a disadvantage of 130ms to one of 30s, a four-fold improvement. And rather than latency always being to the disadvantage of the survivor player, now it will be to the disadvantage of the player with the higher latency of the two, survivor or killer.
To illustrate this a little more clearly:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/44Q8HKAGWDGT/latency-perspectives.png
Again using our latency examples from above, let's look at a gamestate from a survivor perspective and how it compares to the killer and server perspectives.
In this example, the survivor's real-time position on their own screen is 2.5 meters away from the killer. That is obviously 0.5m more than the killer's ~2m lunge range (6.9m/s * 0.3s), and therfore means the killer at this point in time is not able to reach the survivor and land a hit (which is especially true once we consider that the survivor can make another ~0.33m distance in those 0.3s, but we'll ignore that for simplicity's sake).
Now we look at what the killer player sees at this point in time. Since it takes their own position 80ms to reach the server, and from the server another 50ms to reach the survivor's client, it is clear that their real-time position at this time will be 130ms further forward than it appears on the survivor's screen. Since killers move at 4.6m/s by default, this means their position on their own screen is 0m + 4.6 * 0.13 = 0.598m. The survivor's position on the killer's screen will be delayed by those same 130ms since it obviously also takes the survivor's real-time position first 50ms to travel to the server and then 80ms from there to the killer. Since survivors move at 4m/s by default, the survivor position on the killer's screen will appear to be 2.5 - 4 * 0.13 = 1.98m. 2.598m (killer position + lunge range) is 0.618m more distance than needed to reach the survivor at 1.98m - the killer easily lands a hit on the survivor here, even if we account for the additional distance the survivor makes during the lunge.
So our clients disagree on whether a hit should happen or not. What does the server see?
The killer's real-time position on their own screen is 0.598m. Since they have a latency of 80ms to the server, they will be 4.6 * 0.08 further in the past, putting them at 0.23m. The survivor's real-time position of 2.5m will be delayed by their 50ms latency (4 * 0.05), putting them at 2.3m. At 2.23m with the lunge, the killer just barely does not reach the survivor here.
So we have a case where on the survivor's screen a hit is absolutely impossible, on the killer's it's comfortably possible, and on the server's end it's a near miss. Yet in DbD, this will be a hit every time.
We can express the unfairness of this numerically for the example too: Since the killer perspective decides, they have a 130ms total latency advantage putting them further away on the survivor's screen and the survivor closer on their screen - that translates to 0.59m + 0.52 = 1.1m advantage for the killer even though we are at relatively low latencies, and even though the survivor has a lower latency. If the server perspective were to decide, the survivor's position would only be 0.2m further in the past and the killer's position 0.36m, meaning the advantage would shrink to 0.16m, ~86% smaller of an unfair impact that latency will have. Of course, in this case the survivor would have that slight advantage, due to having the lower latency, but if we were to reverse the latencies for the players, the killer would have that slight advantage, which in this case would mean the hit still happens.
This means that when shifting from the killer client-dictated hit registration to a server-dictated one, we make latency as fair of an issue as it can be for all players and we reduce the impact latency has on game events altogether at the same time. Additionaly, once the server is the authority on hit reg, networking techniques can be employed by the server to further reduce the impact latency has on the game, such as lag compensation, a technique where the server will calculatively roll back the game state according to player latencies and check whether a game event was valid or not at that time.
And yet, despite the game favouring killers completely unfairly one-sidedly on hits with regards to latency, and despite this being something that benefits 1 player over 4 others as well as something that can actively be exploited via the use of VPNs and laghacks and the like, and despite the server being the objectively most fair perspective on the game, and with only 2 interactions (stuns and Dead Hard) having been moved to the server authority, people complain that letting the server decide on things is unfair...
If you want to see unfair, I invite you to imagine a reality in which DbD did the opposite of what it has always done and still does now, and looked at the survivor's perspective in order to decide whether a hit happens or not. Now if you as a killer have a high ping and/or the survivor you play against does, you could never swing at them from actual lunge distance, you would always have to account for latency and make sure you are much closer to them before you can secure a hit, and often hits would simply be impossible to get despite seeming perfectly possible on your end. Just like survivors in the actual reality of DbD have to account for their own and the killer's latency (which they can't even see) and still get screwed over by impossible hits reguarly. And it would arguably still be much more fair to look at the survivors' perspectives on things, because they are 4 players that otherwise suffer, as opposed to the 1 that is the killer player.
So I'm sorry, I can't find it anything but absurd to see killer-sided complaints about hit reg in this game. To be frank, you have no clue how "privileged" killers are in this game in terms of hit reg. It's a ridiculous aspect of this game and it negatively impacts the playing experience of countless survivor players in countless matches every day, and has ever since the game's launch. If both players are at around <50ms, things are mostly fine, but once either or let alone both players get above that, things start to favour killers on hit reg more and more noticably, and it gets completely ridiculous beyond 100ms. Hit registration should be moved to the server entirely, every single acclaimed multiplayer game from renown studios uses the server as an authority on important game events, even for games that are much faster and more precise than DbD, because it is objectively the fairest and most secure way to do it. And that's despite many of those multiplayer games not even being asymmetrical, meaning that in those games a client-sided system would not even be as unfair as it is in DbD, because all players in them both benefit and suffer from it, whereas in DbD only one side benefits while the other suffers.
Now to speak more specifically to the limited server-sided validation that thankfully at least exists now in DbD:
While it is possible for Dead Hard to "eat" special attacks that in a latency-free environment might have continued to still hit the survivor after the dash, every single one of these instances prior to DH validation simply ended in the survivor on the floor despite having actuated DH on their end. Prior to DH validation, any latency favoured the killer and DH would get eaten every time if the killer hit the survivor on their own screen; now latency favours the player with the lower latency on DH. It's objectively much more fair.
And any instance in which you in the past before the implementation of DH validation hit a survivor after their dash is unchanged, because validation only comes into play if you actually hit the survivor prior to the dash on your screen. Any timing in which you in the past would have hit a survivor after the dash is still the exact same, validation does not change anything about it.
Getting false feedback on validated hits cannot be solved without delaying the feedback on every hit. Your client detects the hit and gives you feedback (blood, scream) instantly, it however takes some time for the server to tell your client that the hit was not valid in the case of an overruled hit. The only "solution" for false hits would be to make the client wait for the server confirmation that a hit was valid, on every single hit, and this delay would feel awful even at low latencies and get worse with higher latencies.
What they however could and should do is play a sound and/or visual notification whenever a hit is overruled by the server, to avoid confusion.
Special attacks getting eaten comes down to very specific timings, and it is not something that can really be solved, it is a compromise of making DH's invincibility mechanic work in a reality where latency exists. Just like survivors can still die despite already being "invincible" on their screen, due to latency. But they could implement killer-specific remedies for some of these instances, such as having the client check whether there wasn't a pallet that would have been destroyed instead if the hit had not happened on the survivor. I think this is possible because it appears that there already is something in place allowing overruled hits to register on another survivor behind the Dead Hard-ing survivor.
Now whether Dead Hard in general is not an overpowered perk that should be adjusted is another question. I would agree that it is too strong and deserves nerfs. But the server authority on whether a hit is valid or not is infinitely more fair and something that should be implemented for the entire game and should have already been with the launch of dedicated servers years ago.
I think the overriding problem is that the client retains no memory of what it was doing, and the server doesn't seem to correct the client beyond confirming it was a hit/not a hit, and thus: we get all the feedback of a hit including the Killer coming to a dead stop, powers being used, pallets not being broken etc. (the Killer's actions and movement are allowed to stand) but not the hit (i.e. working out who pressed first).
Or, it's not being stateful enough; all it's doing is reporting hit/not hit and positional/anim info. This is not good if you're having all the conditions worked through clientside.
-
The grind.
Seriously, I just want to play with things, why is this a second job to even get to try new things?
-
@Myla said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2699139#Comment_2699139
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/DGNYH86DH9BB/image.png
I don't know man. Pinhead got nerfed for overperforming so I think it's only fair to buff nurse
#buffnurse
damn pig still needs nerfs?
-
What, you think you should be able to do fun things? Blasphemy. Go spend another 100 hours getting back to where you were for some hard-to-see splatters on your first person character.
-
@ReikoMori said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/300469/had-an-idea-for-helping-with-grind-perk-points
This is replacing one lackluster system with another.
Currently, the easiest way to deal with the grind is to simply remove the perk tiers altogether and just have every perk just be its tier 3 self from the start. The amount of time saved would be very substantial. After that, overall price decrease for perks make them all cost about 3-4k so it is just more cost efficient and to get perks.
These two things will drastically reduce the amount of time sunk into grinding out bloodwebs. So much of the bloodweb is just trying to max out perks simply because the lower tier versions are often just not good. I'd also probably structure bloodwebs to spawn perks closer to the center of the bloodweb, but that's not a necessary change just a nice to have .
Or
just stop with the triple unlock nonsense. Buy the character! Unlock the teachable! Unlock it on each character! Just... knock off that last step.