Rapid99
Rapid99
About
- Username
- Rapid99
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
care to elaborate…?
What's not fun about them?
-
I sure hope it's a visual bug because otherwise it's just plain dumb. Why remove haste stacking if you're also not going to make haste perks better, but in fact… nerf them on top of it?
That defeats the entire purpose. The whole point is you remove haste stacking but make haste perks better individually.
-
The real hot take about ghoul:
Survivor players have the same PTSD towards ghoul, like they did with Skull merchant when she was actually fixed and better and they STILL kept complaining about her and giving up against her. I don't think I've ever seen a more overrated killer.
He's been nerfed… by quite a bit. His power is not that difficult to avoid and outplay anymore. He's a free first hit machine like legion and his power in chase after that has plenty of counterplay.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942820#Comment_3942820
It's not unreasonable, however...
- BHVR's statements on it suggest otherwise.
- The 'math' Rpthehotrod is using to reach his conclusions is objectively and obviously incorrect.
You also have to keep in mind that a 50% winrate for one side and a 40% winrate for the other is, by definition, very poorly balanced.
Except how do you reach balance in a game where one side is on their own and has a flat winrate of 50%, whilst the other side has 4 different people who in theory are a team but can all win or lose seperately?
I don't think it's physically possible unless I'm missing something.
-
@cestoda5 said:
Doom Slayer is not evil. He would never willingly serve the entity .
Willingness to serve the entity means nothing because there's a plethora of killers that wouldn't ever serve the entity, but they do because they don't have a choice. They were forced to.
-
And just because good survivors have won against multihooking before in a 9 year span, does not mean that it's bad and not viable.
Okay if you wanna act like the amount of good survivor teams beating multihooking isn't vastly far and away higher compared to good survivor teams that have lost to multihooking, then sure man. We can be delusional and live in this fantasyland for your sake.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941874#Comment_3941874
Ok it's very clear not only can you not read, but you also love to twist words around so you can make your argument make sense (it still doesn't). I'm done with you. You're so hopped up on this idea of me being a tunneler and me comparing multihooking to tunneling that you've completely and constantly ignored my point that has nothing to do with tunneling. Like genuinely, you are
weird.Simple question for you, since you are refusing to engage with this point:
What does 'general' look like?
Because you used that word to dodge away from thinking about why you used the term 'harder'. And the term 'harder' is, literally, COMPARATIVE.
So what is it that you are comparing it to?
I've said countless times, multihooking as an individual playstyle is bad because you are actively delaying yourself from reaching the killer objective, of kills. You can say you aren't, but you
factuallyare.Explain how hooking survivors keeps you from killing them! Explain how hooking survivors slows you down when it comes to getting kills.
Because you CAN'T explain that without pointing at tunnelling and saying that that gets the job done -faster-. Which, once again, means you're judging multihooking off of tunnelling.
The fact that I can give you a literal quote of the person saying "yes, it depends on the matchmaker giving you bad players" and you somehow manage to twist it into a sentence never uttered is genuinely remarkable.
Give me the literal quote then. NOT your paraphrasing, but the literal quote. Show me where Hens says that you have to be significantly better than your opponents to be able to win by multihooking.
Explain how hooking survivors keeps you from killing them! Explain how hooking survivors slows you down when it comes to getting kills.
If you are multihooking, that means your goal is to spread out hooks and to get more hooks! That means you aren't killing things! Because instead of going for a kill! You're going for hooks!
😮
You're actively making kills the secondary objective, and hooks the primary objective!!! Do you get it now? Was that put simple enough for you?
Give me the literal quote then. NOT your paraphrasing, but the literal quote.
???
I literally did. It was in the reply that you replied to. It was right there IN quotation marks. That was directly from his pinned comment.
His own comment section was literally calling him out about it and saying what I'm saying lmfao.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941795#Comment_3941795
The killer's objective is to win… multihooking handicaps them and makes it harder to win.
Harder compared to what?
Stop putting words in my mouth.I am not putting words in your mouth. I am using your words to explain something that you don't even realise you are doing. Even now, as you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, you don't even seem to be aware that you slipped in that multihooking 'makes it harder to win', which is obviously in comparison to its alternatives.
This is the problem. You are so stuck in considering tunnelling as the baseline that you don't even register that you're doing it. You're not judging multihooking on its own merits because in every argument, you refer to the alternative. You're not making any assertion on how effective multihooking is, except in comparison to its alternatives.
Think of it this way:
If Multihooking gets you a 55% KR and tunnelling gets you a 70% KR, then Multihooking isn't bad. But you are asserting that it is, because 55% < 70%.
That is your argument when you call it a detriment, handicap, or say that it makes it 'harder to win'. Even if you, yourself, aren't clocking on to it, that IS what you are doing.
No, multihooking is bad as its own thing. It's garbage.
You did see the part where I said… make tunneling, camping and slugging worse correct? I mean it was in the thing you quoted yourself.
That still doesn't fix it if you believe that the game is only balanced with tunnelling, because it means you'd just need to swap the two out, which would leave multihooking in the same problematic spot.
Harder compared to what?Harder in general, that's what a handicap does.
Again, don't dodge the point because you can't argue against it. Face it head on and say "I'm wrong". Multihooking delays the killers objective of KILLING PEOPLE.
Do not play dense. You understand the words on the screen.
That is your argument when you call it a detriment, handicap, or say that it makes it 'harder to win'. Even if you, yourself, aren't clocking on to it, that IS what you are doing.
No, I say it's a detriment and a handicap because you are actively delaying yourself from completing the killer's objective… of killing things.
It's so funny you linked this video and literally IN the comment section he pinned a comment of his that says:
"Many of you have rightfully pointed out that I am way more experienced than the survivors that I play against in these 10 games and you are totally right.Dead by Daylights matchmaking has a very low softcap on the MMR, the entire point of this is that if you are good enough you can win almost any game because you outskill your opponents.I'm not saying Tunneling Camping or Slugging are bad or that you shouldn't do them at all costs, there are games where you will have to to win, BUT in the majority of games that you play you can win if you are just good enough at playing Killer."
The fact you don't realize that your "evidence" is just evidence for me. The video creator himself states that multihooking REQUIRES the survivor players to be much worse than you. It's literally matchmaking RNG, if you get survivors who are bad and go down quick you can multihook. If you don't, you can't.
That's literally what I've been saying the whole time, holy christ.
That still doesn't fix it if you believe that the game is only balanced with tunnelling, because it means you'd just need to swap the two out, which would leave multihooking in the same problematic spot.
If multihooking is "problematic" then that means survivors literally just don't want to play dbd. To which I say, goodbye. Go play something else dawg, it's clear you aren't happy here.
No, you don't need to make multihooking up to the level of tunneling in terms of strength. Because if you reduce tunneling's strength, that means it's no longer at that initial baseline that multihooking would have to pass. It's now much lower.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941277#Comment_3941277
Again, that is not the case. Every killer can win with multihooking and they have been winning with multihooking for almost nine years. Or are we to assume that every single survivor who died to a killer multihooking in 9 years of DBD was a bad player? No, definitely not.
As for the supposed "pro" play, it does not matter. High MMR cannot be the focus of balance because most players aren't there, it is restricted to a very small pool (and MMR shouldn't even exist to begin with, but that is a discussion for another time). Less relevant yet is Comp DBD, which is made for entertainment, nothing more.
BHVR has been shifting the balance towards killers since this whole process of "60% kill rates goal" first started. There is very little being stacked against killers right now. And killers still tunnel, simply because it was allowed to reach a point where you, as a survivor, has almost no lines of defense against it.
High MMR cannot be the focus of balance because most players aren't there, it is restricted to a very small pool (and MMR shouldn't even exist to begin with, but that is a discussion for another time). Less relevant yet is Comp DBD, which is made for entertainment, nothing more.
So again, the logic is "screw good killer players who have to play against good survivor players".
I understand it now. And yes, I can comfortably say that if a survivor team loses to multihooking they are bad, because I have yet to be proven otherwise. Anytime I see a killer go against good survivors, you know what they have to do to win? I'll let you ponder.
Multihooking relies on QUICK CHASES. Good survivors don't just go down QUICK.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941667#Comment_3941667
YOU guys are the ones that keep comparing it to tunneling and camping. My judgement of multihooking has entirely been on its own.
No, it hasn't been.
And yes, I do have a leg to stand on. Obviously killer skill matters to an extent, my POINT is that if both sides are of equal skill or if the survivor side is better, multihooking immediately becomes a detriment to do.
No, it doesn't become a detriment. A detriment would have to actively hinder the killer from completing their objective. Hooking a survivor will ALWAYS progress a killer's objective, regardless of whether the survivor was hooked before or not.
The reason you consider it a detriment is because it negatively deviates from what you now hold as the standard, which is tunnelling.
In other words, you declare it a detriment because you are comparing it to tunnelling.
You are calling it bad because it's not as strong as tunnelling.
That's not judging the method on its own merits. That's judging it compared to a standard set by a different tactic.
That is not arguable. That is not debatable. Whatever word you wanna use, it isn't. It's objectively bad, to leave 4 survivors alive for an extended period of time.
You know what else is 'objectively bad'?
Not cheating.
Does that mean that if you aren't cheating, you are playing badly? Or would you not even consider it because the option of cheating is simply not on the table?
Now imagine how you'd feel about four survivors being alive for an extended period of time if there was no option to rush 'em out. Imagine if survivors just had 12 hookstates between the lot of them and you couldn't kill one before hook #9. Would you still care that multihooking doesn't kill a survivor in three hooks?
The only reason you are able to consider this a drawback is because you have tunnelling to compare it to!
Tunnelling has warped your vision and is the standard by which you judge multihooking. You're not judging multihooking by how well it performs against survivors, you're judging it by how well it performs compared to tunnelling.
No, me saying to make multihooking better whilst also making tunneling, camping and slugging worse is NOT me skewing it further to one side.
But the only way this would work is if multihooking is as powerful as, or more powerful than, tunnelling/camping/slugging. Otherwise you'd wind up right back here to complain more.
Nowhere did I say I lose too much, often, or anything of the sort.
I was referring to losing too much when you multihook.
No, it hasn't been.
Yes… it has been. Y'all are the ones that keep comparing it to tunneling and camping.
No, it doesn't become a detriment. A detriment would have to actively hinder the killer from completing their objective. Hooking a survivor will ALWAYS progress a killer's objective, regardless of whether the survivor was hooked before or not.
The killer's objective is to win… multihooking handicaps them and makes it harder to win. That is a detriment. I'm not calling it a detriment compared to tunneling.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I have been speaking on multihooking as its own thing the entire time. Multihooking, is garbage.
Tunnelling has warped your vision and is the standard by which you judge multihooking. You're not judging multihooking by how well it performs against survivors, you're judging it by how well it performs compared to tunnelling.
Ok so your entire response is based around me comparing multihooking to tunneling which I haven't done because I've been speaking on multihooking as its own thing.
No, multihooking is bad as its own thing. It's garbage. Leaving 4 survivors alive for an extended period of time is objectively bad and is just actively handicapping yourself as a killer, because the game is survivor sided in the 4v1 and killer sided below that.
But the only way this would work is if multihooking is as powerful as, or more powerful than, tunnelling/camping/slugging. Otherwise you'd wind up right back here to complain more.
You did see the part where I said… make tunneling, camping and slugging worse correct? I mean it was in the thing you quoted yourself.
@Pit_Bull_Love said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941667#Comment_3941667
You can scream 4v1 is massively survivor sided all you want, that doesn't make it true. The game is balanced around 4 survivors, and then completely falls killer sided after that.
But let's pretend it is survivor sided for the sake of this argument. You're saying it's not fair that survivors have a 25% chance to win. Because it's easy to tunnel one out, making it 3v1 and the killer wins. Then 2v1, killer wins. And lastly 1v1, killer wins. Killer has a 75% chance to win in these scenarios.
If you actually wanted the game yo be better for everyone then 3v1 should lean toward a survivor win.
I truly hope BHVR is paying attention. Survivors are not having fun and we all know it started with 6.1 and just went down hill from there. But are killers happy with this power imbalance? No, they aren't. They still want more. They apparently won't be happy unless they are playing against baby bots to guarantee their win. BHVR need to save the survivor role before it's too late.
I still follow DBD content since I have been playing this game since Meyers was introduced, but like Pulsar, I too, rarely play anymore. I play games for fun, DBD survivor is not that.
Again with the dwellers of this website loving to twist my words.
I'm not saying anything about it being fair or not with survivors having 25% of a game to win compared to killer's 75%. I am speaking SPECIFICALLY in the multihooking playstyle, you are actively keeping yourself IN the survivor's 25%.
That is literally the whole point. I am talking about MULTIHOOKING. The game is 100% survivor sided in the 4v1. My point is multihooking is objectively bad because you are keeping yourself, in the survivor sided situation. You are handicapping yourself. The obj of killer is to get kills, if you are doing a playstyle where you actively delay yourself from getting kills, that is a HANDICAP. The game becomes killer sided after getting down to 3v1 and below, it's why tunneling has become essentially the main way to play. Because the actual fun way to play, isn't viable to win consistently with… because you're handicapping yourself.
It's so funny that you guys are so desperate to argue against an objective fact. It's so weird. You can literally see gameplay from top killers. If the survivor team is competent, they have to tunnel to win. If the survivor team is going down in 15 - 20 seconds, then they can multihook all they want. Multihooking relies on survivors giving you quick chases because again… one semi long chase and you are down 2 gens right then and there, IF they are competent. Killer players have been saying multihooking is garbage since forever, you're acting like this is some brand new hot take I'm spewing here.
-
@Kaitsja said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941644#Comment_3941644
Already covered how it's viable for the average killer.
I feel like we may have different definitions of multi-hooking, so let me ask, how would you define multi-hooking?
Hooking… multiple survivors?
I mean I'm talking like your first kill isn't until your 6th - 8th hook. Forget even 12 hooking.
Dawg I'm telling you, unless the survivors are going down in literally like 15 seconds, one even decent length chase and you're down 2 gens IF they are competent.
-
@subdl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941644#Comment_3941644
Please don’t let yourself be swayed by self-righteous and combative rhetoric.
Frankly, I think you’re being far too gentle — but your logic is 100% correct.Managing hooks and eliminating survivors efficiently is the most fundamental aspect of winning as killer.
Tunneling, camping, slugging — these are not “easy outs” or “lazy tactics.”
They’re high-risk, timing-sensitive decisions that often determine whether you lose 3 gens for nothing or actually apply pressure.The only people who call these strategies “braindead” are those who haven’t played killer long enough to understand how fragile the 4v1 truly is.
Anyone who’s played at higher MMR knows: misjudge a tunnel and you hand over the match. Mistime a slug and it’s a full reset.
These aren’t shortcuts — they’re gambles. With real consequences.But of course, survivors who don’t want to learn how to counter them love to repeat the same tired lines, like:
“Good killers don’t need to tunnel.”
“If you have to play like that to win, you just need to get better.”
Funny how the ones who can’t do something themselves always have the strongest opinions on how it “should” be done.To all killers trying to win: don’t be brainwashed or lose sight of yourself.
There’s nothing shameful about using viable strategies to win.What is shameful is pretending to be the voice of fairness, while trying to guilt others into playing by imaginary “honor codes” — codes that just happen to make the game easier for one side and harder for the other.
I'm just tired of the idea that survivor players have of "oh multihooking is viable!" even though any killer player knows multihooking is bad.
Like somehow me saying that "leaving 4 survivors alive is objectively bad" is an incorrect statement? It's baffling. It's also funny because they act like I can't search up how top killers play and literally see that when they are going against competent survivors (and they are actively trying to win) they have to tunnel and camp. When they are playing against survivors who can't last 15 seconds in chase, ofc multihooking is phenomenal.
It's just a blatant lie to say multihooking is good.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941644#Comment_3941644
If you take a killer and put them against survivors of equal skill, that killer is losing trying to multihook 8/10 times. Because it's objectively bad. Leaving 4 survivors alive for an extended period of time, is bad.
Again, it's bad in comparison to game-breaking tactics that have been wreaking havoc on this game since its inception.
You have no leg to stand on when trying to judge the method on its own merits, because you, yourself, have refuted the concept of killer skill entirely, so how do you know when a killer is matched against survivors of 'equal skill'?
It's like @crogers271 said, it's backwards reasoning.
'Good survivors are unbeatable, ergo, if the killer won, the survivors must not have been good'
I am asking for the betterment of the game by saying "Hey, we should make both sides feel better to play, instead of just one" like a normal human being would.
The problem is that your one complaint is that you lose sometimes, and you're turning a blind eye to several years straight of patches almost exclusively aimed at making killer gameplay better, to focus on the one instance of survivors getting something and demanding 'equality'.
The developers have literally said that they muck up the balance in favour of killers and your primary complaint is still about losing. The changes announced are only the second time the developers have attempted to tackle a problem that's been kicking around for NINE YEARS and you think killers are hard done by?
Not to mention that what you are arguing for is to take an already skewed balance and skew it even further. That's not 'making both sides feel better to play', that's just plainly bolstering one side at the express expense of the other.
And again, you complaining about losing too much when you also hold that your skill doesn't matter makes your complaint entirely dismissible. You shouldn't win 'consistently' if you refuse to consider your own gameplay and your own skill.
Again, it's bad
in comparison to game-breaking tactics that have been wreaking havoc on this game since its inception.You have no leg to stand on when trying to judge the method on its own merits, because you, yourself, have refuted the concept of killer skill entirely, so how do you know when a killer is matched against survivors of 'equal skill'?
YOU guys are the ones that keep comparing it to tunneling and camping. My judgement of multihooking has entirely been on its own.
And yes, I do have a leg to stand on. Obviously killer skill matters to an extent, my POINT is that if both sides are of equal skill or if the survivor side is better, multihooking immediately becomes a detriment to do.
Because again, say it with me now:
Leaving 4 survivors alive for an extended period of time, is objectively bad.
That is not arguable. That is not debatable. Whatever word you wanna use, it isn't. It's objectively bad, to leave 4 survivors alive for an extended period of time.
The problem is that your one complaint is that you lose sometimes, and you're turning a blind eye to several years straight of patches almost exclusively aimed at making killer gameplay better, to focus on the one instance of survivors getting something and demanding 'equality'.
"The one instance"???
Yea I'm sorry that's the most disingenuous thing I've read so far. I've been playing this game consistently for years now atp, to sit here and lie and say that this is the "one instance" of survivors getting anything, is just factually incorrect.
Not to mention that what you are arguing for is to take an already skewed balance and skew it even further. That's not 'making both sides feel better to play', that's just plainly bolstering one side at the express expense of the other.
Again, why are we acting purposefully dense.
No, me saying to make multihooking better whilst also making tunneling, camping and slugging worse is NOT me skewing it further to one side.
That doesn't even make sense.
And again, you complaining about losing too much
Nowhere did I say I lose too much, often, or anything of the sort.
-
@Kaitsja said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941627#Comment_3941627
I don't have a lot of time to write out a lengthy response right now, but multihooking doesn't need to be viable across all skill levels. It only needs to be viable for the lower and average skill levels, as that's the audience bhvr caters to and aims their changes at.
Dead by Daylight is balanced from the bottom-up, not the top-down.
So then screw the top people who want to have fun right! (Even though if you're doing it for average players, I don't think average killers would be able to multihook even against average survivors so you're just doing a loop).
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941589#Comment_3941589
I'm sorry, but at this point, your issue is obviously with the possibility that sometimes, better players than you manage to beat you.
You're not asking for 'the betterment of the game', you're demanding free wins.
Wrong.
I am asking for the betterment of the game by saying "Hey, we should make both sides feel better to play, instead of just one" like a normal human being would. Because what I'm describing is not people being better, what I'm describing is a playstyle that is an active detriment to try and do, against competent players. Multihooking actively handicaps the killer.
If you take a killer and put them against survivors of equal skill, that killer is losing trying to multihook 8/10 times. Because it's objectively bad. Leaving 4 survivors alive for an extended period of time, is bad.
I repeat, leaving 4 survivors alive, is BAD.
Because as I've said, for the 50th time… the game is severely survivor sided in the 4v1, but severely killer sided in the 3v1.
-
@Kaitsja said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941585#Comment_3941585
Multi-hooking is viable. Nothing has changed to make it not viable. Second chance perks only, under normal circumstances, come into play if you're tunneling.
Someone who has OTR or DS cannot do anything to progress the objective or assist their team in any way without losing the benefits of the second chance perks. We are long past the days of old DS where survivors could work on gens with DS active.
I can see how you might think multi-hooking isn't viable if you watch big name content creators with thousands of hours, but they don't represent the average player who likely has somewhere between 200 and 1000 hours. For the average player, multi-hooking is perfectly viable. Almost every match is winnable and largely depends on your own skill.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941589#Comment_3941589
If it relies on a luck system, that would make it a matchmaking problem. Multi-hooking is already viable for the average killer, because the average survivor makes a lot of mistakes. They're less sure of themselves in chase, which makes them easier to mindgame and zone which results in shorter chases.
I'm speaking from my own experience. Nothing changed to make it not viable, correct. But it was never viable in the first place. Multihooking has always been a detriment.
I've had games where I get downs decently quick, those gens still get blasted through. Because again… the game is severely survivor sided in the 4v1. Which is what I mean by luck based. I either get bad survivors, and multihooking is viable. Or I get good survivors, and multihooking is just a free loss.
If multihooking isn't viable across the board against a multitude of skill levels, than I cannot in my right mind consider it viable overall.
-
@Kaitsja said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941451#Comment_3941451
Okay.
Multi-hooking is already viable. If anything, it's gotten easier over the years with all the aura reading perks in the game now. It looks bad when compared to tunneling, because tunneling someone out of the game is so much easier and more effective.
Multi-hooking has always been viable, and buffing that before implementing anti-tunneling would be putting the cart before the horse.
Okay.
Multi-hooking is not already viable.
It relies on a luck system where if you can get bad survivors, you can do it. If they are competent, you can't. Because it relies on being able down people in relatively quick time or else it's immediately cooked. Again, the game is severely survivor sided whilst in the 4v1. It becomes severely killer sided, in the 3v1. Until that problem is solved, nothing will change.
Edit: And again with the spam downvotes only proves my point that survivor players seemingly don't want the betterment of the game, they only want the betterment of their own side.
Foolish.
-
Telling someone their wrong and that you're right is 99% of arguments gang idk what to tell you. Especially when I'm being responded to with people who aren't reading what I'm saying and just making up responses for the sake of arguing and not to understand.
I've tried saying it a million times. I don't disagree about the game being killer sided or whatever. I just need it to be understood it's BOTH sided. The game is severely killer sided 3v1 and below, and the game is severely survivor sided in the 4v1.
Like my overall summary of a point has been "Instead of just helping one side, while making the other feel worse… just help both sides" and somehow that's something that people disagree with. This forum seems to be filled with disingenuous people who don't want the betterment of the game, they just want the betterment of their own side and nothing else. It's the strangest thing and people act like that's ok.
So I'm not putting in much effort, when effort isn't given in the first place.
-
@KeefCheif said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940929#Comment_3940929
Maybe, just maybe, they give up because you're an experienced player on a new account wiping out newer players
He said they gave up on first hook. They wouldn't even be able to understand if he's smurfing or not after one hook lmao.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941451#Comment_3941451
No it really doesn't. Multihooking is an objectively bad thing to do. There's no positives to it because any remotely competent team of survivors can easily take advantage of the fact that you're letting 4 of them live at the same time. Unless you're ending chases in 15 seconds flat, it's pointless.
People win with this method all the time. Just because it won't hard-carry you to T O P M M R like tunnelling does, doesn't mean the method is 'objectively bad'. That's if you're just comparing it to the other methods, not if you're comparing it to regular results.
Because on that front, you'd have to account for killer skill. Some killers have shown that multihooking is perfectly viable.
But you're not going to be able to do that if your starting point is giving up.
Even the best killers can start by doing that but as soon as the survivor team is even remotely competent and can take advantage of the fact that you leaving 4 people alive, and can loop for longer than 15 seconds. Guess what they do, they start tunneling and camping IF their goal is too win. Yes, it is an objectively bad playstyle.
It relies heavily on straight RNG. Are the survivors competent?
Yes? You're not multihooking.
No? You can multihook.
Leaving 4 survivors alive is factually bad. Again, the game is hilariously survivor sided in a 4v1, just the same as it is hilariously killer sided in a 3v1 and below. Until that gap can be closed, multihooking will ALWAYS be worse than any other playstyle that results in kills. Introducing a bunch of anti-tunneling, anti-camping, and anti-slugging mechanics will not change that. All you will do, is make killer feel bad to play and survivors feel great. That is not balance. Balance would be making multihooking better to benefit killers AND introducing anti-whatever changes to benefit survivors. Doing just one is dumb.
But evidently from the downvote spam survivor players can't get behind the idea of "Make both sides fun instead of just one". Somehow that is an outlandish take to have.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941277#Comment_3941277
Never consistently though.
Depends on your skill as a player.
No it really doesn't. Multihooking is an objectively bad thing to do. There's no positives to it because any remotely competent team of survivors can easily take advantage of the fact that you're letting 4 of them live at the same time. Unless you're ending chases in 15 seconds flat, it's pointless.
@jedimaster505 said:
If kill rates aren't evidence that the game is killer-sided then killers should have no problem with a 50% kill rate, because it's not evidence of "anything".
???
@Kaitsja said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941267#Comment_3941267
Let me get this straight, what you are arguing is that multi-hooking isn't viable right now and could use some buffs. Does that sum up what you're saying?
Yes. And once multihooking is actually remotely viable to do, you can make all the anti-tunneling, anti-camping, anti-whatever changes you want and it won't just actively ruin the killer experience. Because the playstyle you WANT killers to do, won't be complete garbage.
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941259#Comment_3941259
I'm arguing because it's been the same song and dance for years.
You started with "buff killers for spreading hooks" and when I pointed out that would *also* buff tunneling, you're now having to backtrack and add layers of exceptions that would attempt to prevent those buffs from applying to tunneling.
And from experience, any time we've had a mechanic that is complicated like this it either has a loophole where it can be bypassed completely, or an unintended consequence where it could be weaponized.
I'm saying we're at a point where the buff needs to be secondary, or not at all. Starting with "buff killer" and then "figure it out later" (which is how you're approaching this ambiguous mechanic in this conversation) is how we've tried it for 3 years now.
Because, all of these extra caveats for "but you can't tunnel with it" are an attempt to whack a mole all the scenarios it might be used to tunnel someone.
Meaningfully nerf tunneling first. Period.
Then we can talk about individual buffs that killers need. Because you can't honestly look me in the eye and say that blight, for example, needs any of these hypothetical buffs to do well. But we probably both agree that trapper probably does.
No one's backtracking. I made it very clear what the exceptions were, I told you verbatim that it wouldn't buff tunneling and you ignored that and kept repeating yourself.
You are the problem here. You don't read to understand, you read to argue. I can't help you.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941259#Comment_3941259
And yet, it works. It always did.
Never consistently though. Doing multihooking and trying to win is hardly up to your skill, it's a wheelspin. You either get even remotely half competent survivors and you lose, or they suck and you win. Because no competent survivor team is losing against that.
It's why anytime you see the "pro" play or people doing streaks and actively wanting to win, they can start off by wanting to be nice and fair and play the fun way that people actually want… but then you realize the survivors aren't god awful it quickly becomes "oh they're taking advantage of the fact that I'm actively just letting 4 of them live at the same time".
BHVR needs to close the gap of how survivor sided the game is in a 4v1 and how killer sided it becomes in 3v1 and below, if they want any chance of multihooking being the main playstyle. Because all it currently is… multihooking plays towards the 4v1 (survivor sided) while tunneling plays towards making the game 3v1 and below (killer sided). There's zero reason to do multihooking and just making tunneling worse doesn't fix that, all you do is make killer feel awful to play.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941263#Comment_3941263
You cannot give a carrot because the carrot would have to be massively overpowered, just like tunneling.
We all agree that CoB, Overcharge, PR, Eruption meta was pretty horrific, right? We all know that was stupidly busted OP.
That still didn't dissuade people from tunneling. Whatever you give to multi-hooking has to be STRONGER than the strongest Killer meta we have ever seen. The only way multi-hooking "replaces" tunneling is by being so easy and so strong that it's the new meta.
@Kaitsja said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941263#Comment_3941263
The carrot doesn't work.
Again, I point out that any benefit to multi-hooking would have to be extreme to have any noticable impact on tunneling.
Why is tunneling strong? Because it permanently reduces survivor efficiency by 25% for the remainder of the trial. Any benefit to multi-hooking would need to be on par with that, at the minimum.
Ok. Again, this is why I say you are not reading and you are just arguing to argue.
I JUST said… if you make multihooking better you can then do all the anti-whatever patches you want. Meaning, you can do that anti-tunneling stuff and make tunneling worse, but at least make multihooking an actual viable strategy first.
Please, just read. That's all I ask. You are arguing against something that I am not saying. Holy christ man.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941259#Comment_3941259
You are assuming two things.
1) That by giving Killers more tools, they would naturally stop tunneling/camping/whatever else.
2) That every Survivor team you play against is good.
Most players, on both sides, are quite average and are very beatable. Yes, even with less than "optimal" strategies.
@Kaitsja said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941259#Comment_3941259
The benefit to multihooking would have to massively outweigh the benefit of tunneling in order to have any impact at all.
The benefit of tunneling is the possibility of eliminating one survivor early, thereby reducing the survivors effiency by 25% permanently. The benefit to multihooking would have to be on par with, or better than, tunneling.
The carrot doesn't work.
The carrot does work. Once you give multihooking an actual purpose and benefit to doing it? You can do all the anti-whatever patches you want. Doing anti-whatever patches when you still haven't given an actual benefit to multihooking in LITERAL years outside of like… 2 perks in the whole game, just butchers more viable playstyles while leaving the playstyle you WANT people to do, as complete garbage.
It's plain and simple. Multihooking sucks. Not improving that, but still doing anti-whatever patches just worsens the killer experience and benefits survivors when you could just… benefit both sides???
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941235#Comment_3941235
So again… if you make it based on number of hooks and how spread out your hooks are (a.k.a multihooking) it PHYSICALLY cannot be used to benefit tunneling, camping, etc etc.
But that's not how it will play out. If you give even one scrap of anything on the first hook, even if it gives nothing else to hooking the same survivor twice in a row, that is nothing but a direct buff to tunneling.
This has been tried before, the carrot. Does. Not. Work. Here.
Are you purposefully ignoring what I'm saying so you can try and prove your point even though you're literally arguing air???
You do not get benefits from hooking the same person. That would defeat the purpose of benefits to multihooking. You do not get benefits from just 1-2 hooks, that defeats the purpose of multihooking.
Everything you're saying will happen, is quite literally the complete opposite of the change I am suggesting, you're just arguing to argue.
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941235#Comment_3941235
That is not actually the case.
Well, it happened sometimes, of course. Like I said tunneling and other disliked strategies have always existed, but generally speaking you could very well go into any DBD match and expect the killer to spread hooks.
Most killers played that way. I, as someone who has been playing DBD since 2018, played that way and still do. You can find plenty of videos of regular games in the Old DBD where the killers aren't tunneling at all. Especially, of course, during the days of old BBQ.
Yes… people can not tunnel and people have not tunneled since forever, that doesn't change the point. That doesn't mean that multihooking isn't an objectively dumb thing to do. Because there is no benefit to it.
Leaving 4 survivors alive, unless you are quite literally downing people in 15 seconds of finding them (to which I'm sorry but you're playing bums), is not viable. It just isn't, you are actively performing a playstyle that is a detriment to you. That is simply the truth.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941072#Comment_3941072
Larger maps I think can still cause a bit of an issue, my friend. Except Red Forest and Pale Rose, because these maps used to be larger and players know that, they are used to dealing with those maps being large and have their strategies for it.
I think every map we have should be reverted to the state they were before the original map adjustments from 3.7.0, and the new maps adjusted to have similar layouts.
Scrap the new tiles, go back to a model we know that can and will work.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941098#Comment_3941098
I don't think that is the case, to be honest.
Tunneling, camping or slugging aren't done because they are required. They are done because such strategies, tunneling in particular, massively tips the scales in the killer's favor, and they do so because these strategies were allowed to spiral out of control.
Tunneling, camping and slugging have always existed in DBD, of course. But they didn't cause nearly as much damage to the game as they do these days because they had proper counters. Slugging was harder to do because less killers had mobility as a power, camping was basically a guaranteed loss that would grant the killer one kill at best, and tunneling, arguably the most problematic of the three, meant that the killer would waste a lot of time going after a survivor who had the resources to protect themselves.
And, funnily enough, back then killers were expected to multihook and they did. Myself included, of course, gotta make that clear. You could reasonably go into a DBD game expecting the killer to spread hooks, which they did. And killers didn't lose every single game they played, not at all.
But let's think about current DBD: all three of these strategies are more problematic now. Camping to a lesser extent, yes, but slugging is worse because of the wave of high-mobility killers, and tunneling is genuinely unhealthy. Think of current day Coldwind Farm, for instance. Even if you have DS and OTR equipped you can't be expected to protect yourself against a tunneler in Coldwind Farm because the game doesn't give you enough resources to do so.
These strategies were not addressed in the past because you could fight against them. Now you can't, and it has reached a point where things are so bad that we need to get rid of them, they cannot exist in the current state of the game.
Buddy even back then killers didn't multihook, they just brute forced through anti-tunnel. Let's not do this.
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941076#Comment_3941076
No if you add basekit additions like benefits to multihooking, it would not cause more slugging, tunneling, or camping because it would be benefits EXCLUSIVE to it.
So, again, adding any kind of buff has only led to that buff or improvement to be used to camp and tunnel more effectively.
The only "incentive" that I think would be good is to add the old BBQ bonus as base kit for spreading hooks, and add a new UI element for it. And that, only because the benefit is extrinsic to the match, and doesn't impact the balance of the game in any way. It might change the behavior of some players, but it's also not going to impact things in the core gameplay loop.
But you hit the nail on the head that these things would have to be exclusive to tunneling and camping, but then how do you prevent them from being used to tunnel and camp? The only real way to give any kind of incentive to spread hooks is to deactivate the incentive as soon as one survivor dies. And even then, with that severe of a condition, if you're giving "haste or action speed per hook", that would still be a pretty big benefit even if your first 3 hooks are the same person.
There is no incentive they can give that's stronger than a 3v1. There just isn't. And any incentive that is stronger than a 3v1 scenario would be so broken that it can't possibly be balanced.
So again… if you make it based on number of hooks and how spread out your hooks are (a.k.a multihooking) it PHYSICALLY cannot be used to benefit tunneling, camping, etc etc.
-
@NarkoTri1er said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940974#Comment_3940974
everyone should play against players of their skill level, including killer mains who act like "omg i have to tunnel and camp every match to win" just so that they can realize those are extremely situational and not go-to strats for every match because their opponents are guaranteed to have one weak link due to soloQ players being bigger part of matchmaking pool
You do understand that if they have a weak link, then the strat is to tunnel out the weak link, correct?
That's literally the point. You're just describing tunneling but in a different way as if it's any different. Tunneling, camping, and slugging aren't the main strat. Killers don't WANT to do those, or at least I don't because it isn't fun. But you have to realize at times you don't have a choice, multihooking has ZERO benefits to it. It is an active detriment to yourself, if you want to multihook. Leaving yourself in a 4v1 for a long period of time, is asking to lose because you cannot win when you have 3 survs doing gens while you're out in a chase.
So killers have a choice. Playstyles that lead to wins, or a playstyle that is an active detriment to do. What do you think they are going to choose?
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941064#Comment_3941064
So, let me make sure I'm being clear: you seem to think that the kill rate is the problem. That's not what I'm saying (though I do believe that 55% is better for game health than where we are).
One thing that we (should have) learned from the past 3 years is that you simply cannot buff killers without addressing these strategies first.
Every. Single. Time. Killers have been given any kind of a buff, they use that to camp, tunnel, and slug more. Even the height of the gen kick and 3 gen metas, when killers effectively had infinite time to play the match, saw an increase in camping and tunneling.
The only way to tackle this is to meaningfully nerf excessive tunneling, camping, and slugging, and then looking at what needs adjusted individually for killers.
Not the other way around. We've been trying the "just buff killers and we'll stop" strategy for 3 years, and guess what, we get the "buff" part down, and the "stopping" never happens. If anything, we get responses like yours where "yOu HaVe To Play LiKe ThIs" and they continue to camp and tunnel every game, sometimes every hook.
No if you add basekit additions like benefits to multihooking, it would not cause more slugging, tunneling, or camping because it would be benefits EXCLUSIVE to it.
Add status effect buffs to killers who multihook. The more hooks you get to different survivors the stronger the effects become. More regress from a base gen kick, faster vault speed, etc etc and things of that nature.
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941071#Comment_3941071
I do think they should go back to larger maps. I think it would help a lot of things, but I have to think of something to help the Killers without mobility. If we can solve that, I don't foresee many issues.
There's literally no way to fix no mobility killers on large maps without just… giving them mobility?? Whether that be random speed boosts or a literal rework to mobility, it's still just giving them mobility.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941043#Comment_3941043
And I'm telling you, that you can't physically fix people just giving up because they give up over the dumbest things. That is what I don't think you understand. There is no fixing it.
This is a huge overstatement of the problem though.
People have always given up over "killer they didn't like" or "bad map" or "downed in 3 seconds". People have not become more petty over time.
The "go next" epidemic has gotten severely worse because of game balance changes. Period. The devs have openly, explicitly, and deliberately spent 3 years now to increase the kill rates. Survivors are, objectively, dying more often than before.
And, honestly, that wouldn't be a problem by itself. It's absolutely possible to make it so that playing a match where you don't escape can still be fun. DBD used to be that way.
But in the pursuit of making the game objectively more lethal for survivors, they've removed a lot of the "fun" aspects. Unfortunately, they've made the survivor experience more hopeless in the process.
And any of the issues that could help lessen that burden are put on the back burner. Literally. Phase 2 is the "anti camp, anti tunnel, anti slug" portion of the qol changes, and "not getting to actually play the match" has been a top complaint of survivors for about ten years now. These issues have also objectively been getting worse as they continue to "increase kill rates" through map, tile, and pallet reworks, reduced chase times, removing stealth as a play style (in their "hide and seek game"), and forcing more reliance on your teammates.
No, instead of addressing any of those issues, their first priority is "anti go next", with the "promise" that maybe, some day they might look into the core reasons why those matches are hopeless. At least, until people burn the forums down over the next few months and they backtrack most of phase 2, (which people have already started posting on the forums with this goal in mind).
But again… how do you fix this? The entire problem before was that killer wasn't as lethal as it should've been. It's always going to be favored to one side, there is no balancing it.
The only way you drop killrates without making it feel awful for killers is making hooks the win condition and not kills. And considering they haven't done it yet and the only plans they have are "anti-*insert problematic killer playstyle*", that doesn't at all fix the problem that sometimes those problematic killer playstyles are the only viable way to win… then what is the point?
We've had this issue for years now. I've been recommending basekit changes to killers for YEARS now that would ease off on tunneling, camping, and slugging or at least let them fix those playstyles without butchering the entire killer gameplay loop. And they haven't done and don't even have plans for it.
-
@BlackRabies said:
I've always been seeing people state that the devs should just fix the "issues" with the game so survivors would stop killing themselves on hook to go next yet I don't think I've once seen anyone suggest how. This is not a 1v1 game or a team game with both sides having equal players is an asymmetrical game that's almost impossible to balance. How much more hands holding mechanics we have to give to satisfy the survivor players before it destroys the killer player experience? It'll risk making this game end up like Death Garden where they tried to balance it for the high ranking players, but it completely destroyed balance for the casual players.
I couldn't care less if they fix the issue or not, the whole OP was about just not using killrates as a piece of evidence for something when people who give up on hook are a part of said stat.
-
@mecca said:
The whole problem is the game is insanely killer sided where survivor skill expression has been severely minimized.
People go next because their input doesn't mean anything and has no bearing on their win objectives. That kinda translates to being miserable.
Now, let's prevent them from going next. That'll certainly end well.
The game isn't "insanely killer sided". The same way the game has never been "insanely survivor sided" outside of like… literal release time when infinites existed. This game is designed so bad, that it's genuinely killer and survivor sided at the same time. I've never seen anything like it.
But no people don't go next because their input doesn't matter, again… sorry excuse. They go next because they had a bad first chase. They go next because they saw a killer they don't like. You can't fix that, you can't solve that. That will never change.
If people are that miserable, that they can't handle a bad first chase or they can't handle going against a killer they don't enjoy… then they shouldn't be playing the game, instead of ruining it for other people. DBD is genuinely the only game I've ever seen in my idk atp, 16 year span of playing multiplayer games where people who give up or dc are somehow defended. It's the most asinine backwards thinking, I've ever seen.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940865#Comment_3940865
Nah, I am telling you that not everyone is out to get you. Survivors aren't a hivemind of evil children.
Players are people with feelings. They want to have fun, they want to enjoy the game. This is undeniable. Few people, on either side, enter the match with the sole purpose of ruining the game for others.
From my literal years of experience, with most people who give up early, it usually isn't just about THAT game. It's often about the 5 games prior that also went poorly, it's about the toxic messages they got, or the BM or whatever else.
I am saying that heavily punishing suicides, without trying to address common pain points for Survivors, is only going to make the problem worse over time, which is something none of us want.
And I'm telling you, that you can't physically fix people just giving up because they give up over the dumbest things. That is what I don't think you understand. There is no fixing it.
People give up over anything. They give up over unfixable things, you will NEVER fix that problem outside of just straight up punishing giving up. You can't fix a survivor having a bad first chase. You can't fix a survivor not liking a certain killer. You can't fix a survivor not liking a certain map. You just can't.
If they had a bad 5 past matches, DON'T QUEUE. That's the fix. Stop queueing if you aren't having fun. Like???
@Shirtless_Myers said:
I wish the devs would create a balanced game and stop creating one-sided, pay-to-win killers that nobody wants to play against. My interest in spending money or supporting the game is pretty nonexistent lately because they completely disregard solo queue. The kill rates indicate that the developers believe the killer should win regardless of skill, as they have chosen killer. Having a 60-70% win rate in any other PvP title would get the character banned from play or called OP, yet that's the average experience in Dbd.
Yes yes, let's keep using kill rates under the post where I've said that using kill rates makes you look silly because it's an objectively flawed stat. Thank you for proving my point.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940857#Comment_3940857
I did not know I was speaking to the supreme master of DBD, the one who can determine other people's thoughts so easily, my apologies.
Your absurdism fallacy isn't clever, but it does reveal that you have no true rebuttal, which is fine.
Try to check your own bias.
Hey silly goose. You do understand that you literally sound the same way, correct? What's the saying, "don't throw stones from glass houses"?
You yourself are determining the entire thoughts of the whole survivor playerbase.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940852#Comment_3940852
And you've never stopped to ask yourself WHY? You just assumed everyone else to be entitled brats?
They are real people with real feelings about the game, same as you.
They are likely frustrated by how poorly the Survivor experience seems to be going these days. A bad first chase often leads to a poor game. Seeing a strong Killer usually means the match will be over quickly, without much opportunity to gain BP or Archive progress.
There is little reward to "toughing out" bad games as Survivor. The BP gains are abysmal, Archive progress often directly detrimental to your team and the frustration of playing well and having nothing to show for it builds up over time.
Survivor is uniquely frustrating in that you can play perfectly, but it won't matter if your team doesn't play well. You rely on them, and yet BHVR refuses to consider it a team game, opting to consider it a 1v1v1v1v1 instead.
All of this builds and builds until people chase a perfect match. This is what we are seeing now, years of build-up. We have to address how miserable the player-base is if we have any hope of fixing this issue.
I'm sorry but that's a poor excuse.
They'll quit not because the killer is strong, but because they just don't like the killer. You can't solve that.
They'll quit not because bad first chase = poor game, they quit because they can't handle they had a bad start. Killers can have bad starts too, and you don't see them constantly just immediately dcing after a bad first chase. It's ridiculous.
You cannot solve entitlement. You can make bp gains great, and they'd still go next. "Years of build up" brother survivors have been given SO many changes to improve the experience. Genuinely, how much hand holding can they expect? Do we need to add a basekit system where the gens will just passively start repairing themselves to make it a bit easier too?
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940846#Comment_3940846
Any match with a DC is thrown out.
They are capable of separating hook suicides, as seen with the SM information they presented where they stated suicides made up 2% of her total KR.
Well, be glad then, because the game will get worse. Removing hook suicides without actually ADRESSING anything is one of the decisions of all time, to be sure. Up there nerfing SC simply because it was used frequently.
They are capable of it, but do they do it is the question? And what is there to address? You can't address that. People kill themselves from a bunch of nothin.
Have a bad first chase? Suicide.
See a killer they don't like? Suicide.
See a teammate of theirs go down quick? Run up to the killer, do the "come on" emote, and suicide.
-
@Pulsar said:
"I don't believe it because it goes against what I want to believe"
We've known that KR's have been an issue since before this latest epidemic. 60% is far too high and doesn't include DC's.
Perhaps we should look into making the game more enjoyable for everyone?
No I don't believe it because it is an objectively flawed stat to use when things like survivors going next, can alter it entirely.
Survivors going next isn't some "latest epidemic", it's always happened. Where do they state it doesn't include dc's? Because dc's are no longer people just quitting but they turn into bots. Do the bots not count as a kill? What about the rest of the teammates that are now in essentially a 3v1 and they get killed? Is the game entirely null and void?
That doesn't even count for people killing themselves on hook which happens constantly. I need to update the main post in fact because after I wrote this, the amount of games I had with "go nexters" went from 4 in a row, to 7. It's a complete joke.
-
@francesinhalover said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939122#Comment_3939122
killrate 60%… AT THE HIGHEST MMR. we weren't given stats for low mmr or average mmr
KILLERS WIN 60% OF THE TIME VS PRO SURVIVORS.
Kill rate is not win %…
And also… kill rate is a flawed stat to go after because survivors go next and kill themselves on hook. Do you know what stat that boosts when they do that?
I'll let you take a shot in the dark.
-
People who look at just kill rates are quite frankly… ignorant.
There's things that affect kill rates, things like… survivors going next! Which happens an unfathomable amount of times because survivors seemingly can't handle that the killer they ran into, is a killer they don't quite like, or the fact that they went down quickly first. Hell, I just had 3 games in a row where at least one person went next immediately.
Looking at kill rates is dumb. It means nothing. Sadako has a high kill rate while being an objectively weaker killer, it means nothing.
-
@Malkhrim said:
If Darth Vader ever comes to DbD, then you can scratch the word "horror" forom the game for good. He does NOT fit the game at all and nothing can change that. Not only is Star Wars FAR from horror (as much as I Iike it, it's a fantasy/sci-fi mix made mainly for kids. George Lucas himself said it was made for children), Darth Vader's whole design and theme have nothing to do with horror either. In the case of Demogorgon, Dracula amd Vecna, at least the characters were horror-inspired monsters. Stranger Things and Castlevania still have horror elements and references and D&D literally has instructions on how to make horror campaigns, while the closest thing to a horror element Star Wars ever had was a werewolf mask George Lucas REMOVED from the original movie because he thought it didn't fit, it can't even be seen in legally available versions today.
"But he scary,". He is feared in SW because he is the most famous enforcer of a cruel fascist dictatorship, not because of horror elements in his own character. If being feared and wearing black are all it takes to become a licensed killer, then might as well add Don Corleone, Venom, Agent Smith, The Batman Who Laughs, Hans Landa and the Man in Black from Westworld to the game. Just don't complain if it ends up looking like Fortnite.
"But that Rogue One scene…" ONE scene of a character approaching in the dark doesn't mean they fit into horror. Superman has a similar scene in Superman vs The Elite where he scares the villains like that and Batman does it all the time. And there are versions of them that kill. Does anybody think they would fit into the game? Ghostfreak from Ben 10 and the Man in Black from Westworld (literally the scene that introduces him) have some scene where they look somewhat scary too. Does anybody think they would fit into the game?
If they were to add to the game stuff from a franchise for kids, Goosebumps is right there, it's horror. And if anyone thinks a Star Wars license would bring many new players to the game, think again. Star Wars fans who want related games are playing actual Star Wars games like Battlefront II and Old Republic. None of them would be insterested on playing as Darth Vader only to chase survivors around pallets near a barn and then place them in hooks. It is not the kind of playstile that appeals to that fanbase. It would only make the game less appealing for horror fans.
You could scratch horror from dbd years ago because there's literally nothing horror about it outside of having horror movie characters in it.
Hell, Vader is more horror than Trickster or Skull Merchant.
-
@100PercentBPMain said:
a lightsaber merely injuring survivors would be lame
Would fit right in with Disney Star Wars then lol
-
@Stibfa said:
Maybe youre having issues with his terrible minimum leap distance, you cant leap to anything closer then 5 meters which can feel really bad.
Nah cause even things that are at a decent distance (not horrifically far) it just won't go. Like the indicator is red as if it will let me and then it just doesn't work.
-
@100PercentBPMain said:
regression is plenty viable if you don't just rely on the OP crutch that Pain Res is. it's more about finding one that works for your style of play and build.
unfortunately for me, that perk was OLD Pain res, before they made it a true sweat perk. bhvr never should have listened to the complainers
The rest of the regression perks are OBJECTIVELY awful.
-
@DeBecker said:
You can easily play with just one or two of them. Theyre not useless at all.
Buddy. They are absolutely useless. Your "one or two of them" is literally "run the two strongest in the game or none at all".
CoB is awful. Overcharge is awful. Surge is only useful on M1 killers and smaller maps. Eruption is literally an active detriment to use. Ruin was murdered. Pop got butchered. Undone was dead on arrival.
It's literally just pain res, whatever other gen regress perk you use with it, basically means nothing because pain res will be the one doing 90% of the work.
-
@Cetren said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939617#Comment_3939617
But you're just subbing out the option of running multiple perks together with FORCING not stacking to get any sort of reasonable effect out of the perks you play.
I agree with your point but you haven't actually provided a solution that will increase variety.
ETA:
Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to see a system where a more balanced loadout is rewarded and more common. That's what I want too. But that has to come because there is a genuine need/desire to balance your loadout. Not because if you bring two perks that do the same thing one of them does nothing. Maybe a % regression based system. Maybe a diminishing returns system. But a flat out things don't work together, I don't like that and I don't think that's the right move.
Yes but being forced to not stack is infinitely better than being forced TOO stack. Because being forced TOO stack in turn, takes up more perk slots that I could be using for something else. If I can just equip one and be done with it then my loadouts open up immensely.
-
@jesterkind said:
I don't think regression is in that bad of a spot. Especially if we're talking about slowdown in general, I think that's honestly in a relatively good spot overall, with specific perks that fall short of their potential.
What I think we are moving away from is the notion that slowdown perks can REPLACE basekit slowdown as your primary means of gaining more time. It does seem now like the basic expectation is that the killer's going to be making the game slower through their own gameplay, and the slowdown that exists will support that.
It's not as though there aren't good perks within that framework. Pain Res, Grim Embrace, Deadlock, even stuff like Eruption and Surge are very solid in their respective niches. We've got good stuff available, you just have to be using it to boost the slowdown you've already got instead of creating new slowdown all on their own.
I would be very in favour of weakening perk stacking to safely buff the underwhelming gen slowdown perks, though. That'd be very healthy from a variety of angles.
I'm talking about specifically gen regression. Gen slowdown of just spam blocking it with the block perks exists yea but honestly I think those are even less healthy than when gen regression was broken. At least with gen regression you can interact with the obj in front of you. Eruption is a detriment to use because it takes 2 hits of regression events to get value out of and it doesn't even do more regression than something like pop or pain that only take one hit. The only time I ever run into the regression events triggering, is while using eruption. And then surge has the problem of being M1 only, so like half the killers can't even get value out of it efficiently.
Even if we have decent slowdown available it bottlenecks builds into using the same 4 things because quite literally every other option is just… bottom of the barrel useless. Like effects so minimal, you genuinely might as well be running no perk at all and you would have essentially the same thing.
-
@Cetren said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939613#Comment_3939613
There's no way to buff each individual gen stall perk in a way that makes each of them game changing on their own without making them oppressive when combined. It would take a complete overhaul of the perk system. Also, gen stall perks individually already do have a good effect. I think an attitude shift in the game will do far more to changing the meta than anything else. If people are comfortable with the risk of losing because they don't get shat on by their opponents when they do they'll feel more free to run quirky, off meta, or suboptimal builds.
Since player agency is outside of the devs control, the best solution is probably to change the gen regression cap to be % regression based rather than # of regression events based. (let's say for example, a gen can experience 100% total regression at any point during the game before becoming blocked.) That way pain res locks a gen down more quickly from being regressed than weaker gen stall perks which would be able to be used more frequently could either apply more times or be buffed but make you hit the cap faster.
You buff each individual gen perks by literally doing what they did with haste effects. Just prevent stacking. It's that simple.
You solve the entire problem of regression stacking while at the same time not FORCING stacking to get any sort of reasonable effect out of them, and you can actually let them be good individual perks.
-
@Cetren said:
Gen regression is still pretty good. At least from what I've observed its not uncommon at all to see people running 3-4 gen stall perks each game.
Yes but that isn't good. People being forced to run 3-4 gen regression perks because they are completely useless on their own, is not a good thing.
-
@drag27 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939599#Comment_3939599
aw thats depressing. i remember Pop was the only gen regress i needed back when it took off a set amount of 25secs instead of the 20% of current progress
It was decent when they bumped it up to 30% but… that made it actually useful? So I guess they had to nerf it again. It's just funny to me that instead of going for like even 25% or something, they immediately sent it down to a percentage that was already established as too low for it prior.
-
@SoGo said:
The regression is kinda lacking now, true.
Every gen defence perk beside Pain Res, Surge, Pop, Corrupt and Deadlock kinda sucks or just REALLY sucks.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/443315/buffs-to-alternative-gen-regression
Even pop sucks. Pop got nerfed down to 20%. It was already 20% once before and it sucked, which was the whole reason it got buffed up to 30% in the first place.
And then surge is pretty much only useful on M1 killers and smaller scale maps.
-
@Rulebreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3937155#Comment_3937155
Question: did those not improve the value of multi hooking as you asked? Yes they did cause you get immediate value when you very likely need it rather than when you don't by rotating once.
Wouldn't it count as a increase by making there be a decrease to the other way to do things? Probably does but whatever.
Those aside, simply adding a basekit reason doesn't necessarily stop people from doing it the other way. Those perks mentioned before work better when not tunneling but the killer can still tunnel AND potentially get value out of them. Adding a basekit feature would just give those who do X or Y playstyle more and no reason to stop.
Lastly its only detrimental if you've relied only on 1 way to play.
Edit: fixing phone auto corrects
No. They don't, because multi-hooking is still garbage. It's almost as if, just increasing random stats of certain specific killers and having 2 perks in the game centered around getting multiple hooks, isn't enough to warrant multi-hooking. If anything, those perks and changes just make the other playstyles better while multi-hooking stays irrelevant.
Adding a basekit reason absolutely would provide at least a BIGGER reason for people to try out multi-hooking. People don't tunnel or camp because they want to, they tunnel and camp out of necessity because multi-hooking is a complete and utter waste of time. You actively stunt your ability to win the game, when you go for multiple hooks. Leaving yourself in a 1v4 for longer is a free loss, especially since you get nothing out of multi hooking. You just don't.
-
@Pukenplag said:
I actually haven't played actively in around 2-3 years, just every now and then, because I just haven't found anything exciting about recent updates.
It seems like half the new killers are the same formula: m2 for a chase dash/projectile, space/lctrl for a teleport to whatever they used as a portal for the said killer. The other half is still chase power or mobility, but IG like with Kaneki, sometimes innovative.
But I'm really disappointed with what they did with FNAF. I was just as disappointed with Sadako, because I really hoped they would go a very different route, with a power that's really unique and brings new mechanics (like with Myers in a sort of sense, a simple power but one that has the most fun variety of addons that makes it in turn so interesting and fun to verse and play as). But an axe throw? Is that really that innovative? It just screams "we had to add some chase power so we went with a projectile throw, for the 637th time".
Sadako has the unique condemned mechanic? The bigger problem is BHVR's horrific balancing and them making the condemn mechanic essentially useless and a thing survivors can freely ignore for 90% of the match.