Red_Beard
Red_Beard
About
- Username
- Red_Beard
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,625
- Last Active
Comments
-
@PsychoTron said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2317811#Comment_2317811
You can't push them out to leave match when maybe there are people on the hook, etc..
That's the only downside that I can think. But you can protect the hook as an alternative and if the person doesn't leave and comes back in is another possible kill for you.
"Etc" doesn't tell me anything.
-
@PsychoTron said:
damn.. seems a little game breaking.
How is it game breaking? The worst that happens is you have to wait out the end game timer till they leave.
-
@Zozzy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2314178#Comment_2314178
No idea how you get this to work.. I counter it all the time in solo play because survivor progression trumps killer regression. All it does is waste everyones time and make the game tedious and drawn out.
Just pick a gen and the second you see the killer walking to you, lead him away from it. It only works when you have morons for team mates that sit in a corner and self care for 30 seconds instead of smashing out the generator.
This is if I’m trying to kill everyone with lower mobility. I like corrupt and PGTW over ruin. I start early. Get someone down, get them hooked near my three gen, proxy camp. Spread pressure while they are coming in and only commit enough to get pallets out of the way. Once I get a survivor out of the match I can afford to venture out a little further, and there are probably a lot of the pallets already gone around the area. Get someone down, run back and PGTW. Patrol my gens while they are off resetting, rinse, repeat.
I agree a well coordinated team can make it more difficult, but they are hard for every killer. Most survivors come in for saves on camping killers, allowing you to spread pressure and most run off to reset when injured on a killer patrolling a three gen.
You just have to be willing to not play their game and run away from your gens when you can’t afford it.
I also agree it is boring for both sides. But if your goal is winning with a low mobility killer you are better off not committing to chases that open the door for survivors to finish those gens you need active for later on than you are to chase a “ shift w” survivor all over the map.
-
@Jasix said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2314444#Comment_2314444
Which doesn't negate that the majority of posters rely on it to try and make their point - much like your post. Oh - the irony.
I have made 647 posts of which approximately 80% contain the word "hyperbole" in them - for a total of 517.
The daily intake amount that is deemed healthy for an adult when it comes to alcohol is one drink per day - which would be 1.25 years of having a drink per day - which would in a healthy adult not lead to cirrhosis of the liver. But yes your comment was a cute way to completely disregard the ideas in my post and continue with the inanity of this thread.
I bet you’re fun at parties.
-
@Jasix said:
I am a 50/50 player so I will say this:
If tunneling is a valid strategy then holding W is a valid strategy as well.
Tunneling makes the game entirely not fun for survivors - Holding W makes the game entirely not fun for killers.
Tunneling is a tactic to beat Holding W - Holding W is a tactic to beat tunneling.
Killers use tunneling to catch survivors who hold W - Survivors use holding W to avoid being caught while being tunneled/chased.
You cannot have it one way and not the other.
This will always be an issue because some killers will always tunnel and some survivors will assume a killer is going to tunnel and preemptively use holding W to counter tunneling.
This is not a flaw in map design contrary to what some will say. This is a result of psychology and adaptation. Survivors who cannot loop well will discover that they can adapt and extend chases more by holding W. This thought process is reinforced because killers will fall for this tactic and focus on survivors for an extended time when they hold W - reinforcing the notion that a killer is - tunneling them.
I honestly doubt anyone will read this and give it any actual thought - instead a lot people will continue to fall into their "main" bias way of thinking and refuse to actually look at something objectively. That is the problem with these forums - a large majority of the posters have "main bias" and refuse to actually think about any differing viewpoint that isn't aligned with their own with a modicum of objectivity.
Anyways - I am sure this thread will continue with inane comments full of hyperbole and cognitive biases. Carry on.
If there was a drinking game that for every post you use the word hyperbole, we would all have cirrhosis of the liver.
-
@bibibib8 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2314178#Comment_2314178
True some killer are great in an area but lack in the other that why i said the only killer who can beat all thosr style is Nurse.
I know if i play Clown im mostly going to win if the survivor try to loop but if they decide to hold W and go into a corner i will lose i dont have the mobility to cover the distance they gain and the time i lost for that now all survivor do that i lose. That why i said the only killer who beat all those strat us Nurse
Which is why I said bring perks to help you in the other areas you lack or play a different killer that is strong in the area you are not strong in.
I also think clown is underrated in shift w. You can throw your bottles to zone them into dead zones or slow them down enough to ensure they have to drop the pallet so you can break it, get back to your gens and not have it to deal with next time. Again, you need to know when to leave chase to protect the gens you want.
Also, if all you care about is killing all survivors you should be looking to hook near your 3 gen and proxy camping and tunneling. It is boring for survivors but it is effective for killer.
-
@bibibib8 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2314017#Comment_2314017
My bad i forgot to had some word. What i want to say is the only killer who can beat all 3 style is nurse
I don't agree. There are many killers great at shutting down the loop. If I set up a 3 or 4 gen with them and not commit to hard to the shift w play style I can counter it. If I'm playing 3 or 4 gens, I don't even need to worry about stealth all that much because they have to come to me to finish complete their objective.
I think too many people think they have to protect all of the gens. They don't. Chase them enough to get a pallet destroyed and get back to your close gens. Once you get the resources gone around your 3 gen and get someone out of the match, you can afford to venture out a little further. Or don't and wait till they come back.
There are also killer great at zooming around. Billy, Blight, Wraith. Throw on some perks to help in chase, bamboozle for example, to help shut some loops down. Again, be willing to destroy a resource and leave chase to zoom back to a gen you want to save.
-
@RockoRango said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2314090#Comment_2314090
That’s still a whole lot better than people complaining about holding W being basically the best thing in the game to do. You’ll always have people complaining, but I’d rather have people complaining about looping than having to deal with boring cookie-clicker gameplay 24/7.
I don't disagree. I like looping more myself. But looping was what many called "no skill, boring game play" back then to the point changes were made to "balance" it. Now we are saying we want to go back. And when we go back we will probably say we want to go back again, and again, and again, and again, and again.
-
@TicTac said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2314090#Comment_2314090
To be fair looping in the beginning of dead by daylight was waiting until the survivor makes a mistake.
Looping should be interactive and some maps dont work that way. If i know i can run two laps around a house in haddonfield until the killer catches me or i run to a pallet, drop it, killer breaks it, i run to another pallet, its boring. In general chases where i know what will happen in the next 30 seconds shouldnt happen. It should be constantly outplaying each other.
I'm not saying I disagree. I like looping more myself. But many of the changes over the years to maps and the new killers with powers that shut down loops have been because of the feedback of many on the forum who said they didn't like playing against it. My point is when it comes to the 3 ways survivors have to play, looping, shift w, or stealth there is little point in making changes to combat one of them because the other 2 are always going to be complained about and be the next thing that needs to be "balanced".
-
@RockoRango said:
No, this thread isn't to ridicule survivors for walking and playing efficiently, nor is it to ridicule killers for complaining: it's a question that could be beneficial to answer. This is a game design issue, and every person has the right to complain about this being the most logical thing to do in the game.
What changes would you make to fix this problem? It seems to be a complicated, convoluted issue due to being the culmination of lots of design choices rather than something randomly brought up. The unfortunate thing is how people are only now complaining about it when youtubers/streamers bring it up, but there's nothing that can be done about that now.
For example: I'd like to think a 'reverse bloodlust' would combat the effectiveness of this strategy while also giving incentive to make the looping meta more powerful (thus making chasing more fun for both sides):
- The Killer gains a base 10% speed boost when not in chase, giving a maximum of 125% base movement speed. - This would give all killers a time management buff and make breaking out of the chase not ideal for the meta.
- The Killer loses 12% movement speed while in a chase. The Killer returns to regular movement speed after the chase has ended. (125% No Chase -> 113% In Chase -> 125% No Chase) - This would encourage survivors to loop the killer around as much as possible instead of running away, thereby giving the killer the chance to beat the survivor at the loop.
Holding W is now inefficient, but looping killers is MORE efficient than it was previously. This tackles generators being done too quickly as well as the meta problem, making the game more fun for everyone. Obviously this could cause other issues, but there's a neat little example I put up.
The game used to be more about looping but people said they didn't like to play against it so they changed the maps a bunch and made more killers with powers that shut down loops. If we made changes to bring looping back, we would just go back to hearing about how much people don't like the looping meta and would have threads asking how to solve that again.
-
@bibibib8 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2313502#Comment_2313502
The only killer who connter that style is nurse. Nurse dont care about how the survivor play if she lose its her fault and her mistake
What style are you referring to? I listed three.
-
@MigrantTheGreat said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2313502#Comment_2313502
Here's the problem with your logic.
Some killers aren't equipped to deal with certain playstyles and you can't fully rely on perks to do it all.
Can you give an example?
-
The three survivor play styles are looping, predrop and shift w, and stealth. There are complaints about all of these. The best thing you can do is learn all three and use the best one depending on the killer you get. If you struggle with one more than the others, bring perks to help.
There are killers to counter all of these. If you are a killer player and struggle against a particular style, bring perks to help or play a killer that does better against that style.
-
@gendoss said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2312984#Comment_2312984
I mean they work perfectly on the newer consoles.
What exactly is your agenda here? How does players bringing up concerns about game performance on systems the developer claims the game runs on affect you? Multiple people have told you about games that run better than DBD on their older consoles even though they were made later or are more graphically demanding yet you continue to minimize their concerns because? Is BHVR working on optimization for PS4, XBox 1 and lower end PCs going to ruin your experience?
-
@Shdw_Void said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcXXLbDqckI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFvla_ZufW8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KZE4b_hPr0
Round four of uploading clips. The first two clips I am not surprised by at this point. The game behaves like this at a constant. What bamboozled me was the third survivor clip. I lagged ten feet forward into the killer only for him to miss me. dead hard lagged the game further. I don't have much more to say. Welcome to the console experience
Yeah, those are pretty horrible. Not sure how people can make posts saying Xbox 1 and PS4 are fine after seeing the multitude of clips with those exact issues. I get freezes like that on my PC as well. It actually seems worse since the 5.0.1 update, though I'm not sure they really did anything to fix it overall except for an adjustment to Nemesis, so I'm not sure why.
I have decided to not put any more money into this game until it runs good. I have not bought a dlc since Blight. I unlocked Twins, Trickster and their survivors with shards. If it's licensed, I will have to do without it. No more cosmetics. I buy the rift only with the auric cells I earn from it. I know a lot of people that have bringing up these concerns were excited about RE and bought it, but I wish they wouldn't have. The only way we will get them to make this top priority is to stop giving them money for a product that doesn't work well on systems they state it works for.
-
@ill_Boston_lli said:
The fact the recently Every survivor I've been matched with even though I save them multiple times has left me on my first hook at the end of a match. Killer isn't camping or anything and they just dart out of the gate. So If I am in your game and we are survivor together don't get hooked because I am leaving you up there. As I cannot take the chance of risking a hook state for someone who is just going to leave me up there.
I understand. I have vowed the same thing before. Though I still often forget and go back in for a save to be burned again.
When I had chat turned on I used to ask why they left. The excuse was always “the killer pushed us out”. But he wouldn’t have pushed you out if you all didn’t run to the gate and wait for him to come over there, 4head.
-
@OniWantsYourMacaroni said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2309409#Comment_2309409
Iron Maiden is pretty useless on Bubba.
Even if people jump into the locker to avoid the chainsaw,just crash into it and spam the grab button.
The timing on jumping out of the locker without getting grabbed is INSANELY hard as survivor
I do. And it usually does end up in a grab or they jump out a little early and get hit by the saw. But this is about fun, not optimal. And when I get those that time it correctly it makes me giggle thinking about what their reaction might be.
-
This is what I play the most, swapping out BBQ depending on challenge or what the lobby looks like. I don't really camp and tunnel. Just see survivor, chase survivor. I love going against "bully squads" that try to body block me while I'm carrying a survivor.
And when a survivor jumps in a locker to avoid my chainsaw and then hops out.........
-
@MeltingPenguins said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2309112#Comment_2309112
nemesis and trickster I agree.
Granted:
With Nemesis I have to agree with pixelbrush's assessment that he's a killer for new players to show them the ropes, in a way.
Trickster is a mess. He's all the weaknesses of Deathslinger, Huntress, Clown and Plague combined without their strengths, and he's be better of with a complete overhaul giving him a different power on the whole.
But Deathslinger and Twins?
To me they stay the prime example of people's unwillingness to change their loopy-jukey-genrush MO. Slinger's main counter is in his map and backstory: He's a bounty hunter, the counter is stealth. Will the matches take longer? sure, but it's a killer where you can show off how well you know what killers can see, where to hide etc.
The issue with him is more that we don't have dynamic map creation, nor are the devs brave enough to bar killers like him from using perks that make him unfair (like M&A)
And twins? similar issue: people are not used to killers they can't face with one MO, and Twins also do get some unfair advantages on some maps (while on others survivors get unfair advantages against them).
So, the fault isn't on these killers, it's on the community and on the devs unwillingness to really shake things up (maybe out of fear of the community)
They have change their MO though. It is changing to shift w and pre drop pallets. As a killer, I find this style more boring to play against than someone you tries to loop that I have a chance to mind game. And it is boring on survivor too.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2309117#Comment_2309117
Hmm, if Whispers was made basekit that would be interesting (though finding your first Survivor could take upwards of 1-2 minutes). But I do hate the idea of the game now entirely being dictated by an explicit timer rather than Player input.
Yeah, I can see how that can be less desirable.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2309040#Comment_2309040
Personally, as a Survivor, I would love the find aspect of no Generators. But I would hate it as Killer as it's making the find part of it even harder without the set points of interest.
Maybe it would. Personally I don't think it would. If I have Whispers on, I'm finding you.
-
@Yords said:
It wouldn't be the same.
Yep, can't argue with that. Does that mean you wouldn't find it more fun? If that's your opinion you can say it is, I won't be mad at you.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2308966#Comment_2308966
Does the Killer see the Aura of these alternate objectives?
Maybe, it would depend on balance needs. I'm not asking for this thread to figure all the ins and outs of how to make it work. I'm asking, would you find the game more fun if it were focused on the find/chase interactive without the generators. The reason I am asking because I see a lot of people post about how holding M1 on a generator is not as much fun as the chase. I see a lot of killer players say there is too much pressure because gens can fly so fast, which can lead to camping and tunneling so there is one less survivor on gens. I also find the killer/survivor interactions to be more fun than the "hurry up and get gens done and escape" meta.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
How exactly would the players run across one another?
Gens serve this purpose. Not only is it a more physical form of progress instead of just a timer, they also serve as a meeting point for the Survivors and Killer.
If you remove Gens, the other meeting point that will remain is Hooks, and basically tunneling/camping/proxy just got a lot more lucrative.
And also, it now becomes a game of hide and seek, so there's probably going to be a lot of reliance on information perks, Doctor meta, Lockers become meta, and it's a whole lot of running around wondering where the hell everyone is instead of any action.
As I stated in the original post, I am suggesting alternative objectives for survivors to do to gain blood points. These would be the meeting points that you can interact with other survivors. You could also stay in proximity to the survivor being chased to help them avoid being hooked. It is not uncommon for me to be running a killer and see another survivor running around after us to be able to body block, flashlight save or pallet stun the killer, which means they too probably find the killer/survivor interaction to be more fun.
Yes, the meta would change. Yes there are survivors that would maybe prefer to hide and never get in chase. But I think most would prefer to get into an interaction with the killer.
-
@bjorksnas said:
On paper it sounds ok but there are some factors that make it annoying especially for both roles
Since chase and hiding are the only aspects of the games many perks would need to be reworked, and hiding players would never have a reason to not hide meaning all the pressure would be on their teammates and tunneling would be common depending on the playstyles in each match
Map gen becomes more important since even if there is a bad map gen survivors could pressure gens for a way out now because of a time limit they take longer and die
Survivors have no reason to not run as soon as they hear the terror radius making starting chases take 20-30 seconds on larger maps
its just not dbd anymore since a lot of what makes dbd fair is that survivors have an objective that forces them into a weakened position so that killers can be viable without gens dbd would stop being dbd
Yes, the current goal and essence of DBD would change. I personally do not believe that would be a bad thing. And yes, there are many things that would need to be adjusted. That should be evident without saying.
-
@Mandy said:
It's an interesting idea, but wouldn't that effectively mean it wouldn't really be DbD then?
The whole premise of DbD from the survivor side is that they need to complete gens to escape, that's effectively their "win" condition - removing that what else would they do whilst someone is being chased etc? Having another objective to replace Gens doesn't seem very worthwhile if it doesn't give them something to work for - as it is Gens have to be done to escape, which is what encourages survivors to complete generators.
A lot of people don't enjoy killer so much because it's the solo experience, regardless of the pressure - and some players love playing killer for those same reasons. And effectively, the objective for killer won't change because the game is now still based around how many hooks the killer has effectively, and I think you will still have killers who want to catch the first survivor and stand there until they die - I don't think adjusting their objective will solve that.
Yes, it would change what DBD is currently. Change isn't always bad.
Survivors not being chased can still be interacting with the killer and other survivor if they choose to help prolong the chase. If they don't want to get close to the killer to help because they prefer a stealth style, then the objectives around the map are there for them to do for them to earn more blood points.
I didn't say it would solve camping, I said it might be a solution to reduce camping. Yes, if someone wants to just stand by the hook, they will stand by the hook. But the reason a lot of killers do that is because they know it can pay off for them because survivors feed them or crouch behind a tree and watch the killer watch the person on the hook and not do gens. Both of these are a reward for the camping killer that wouldn't be there if the gens were not in the equation and the match had a set time limit.
-
@Purgatorian said:
Sorry if I missed this in your post but what's to stop them just walking around lockers to avoid crows and climb in when they hear the heartbeat. Walking around a seemingly empty map sounds quite boring to me. Maybe if their location was revealed if they stayed within a 16 metre radius for 1 minute or something, whether in lockers or not, to get them moving about.
If you don't have gens, you wouldn't need gen slow down perks and can run more tracking perks, like Whispers. Yes there are things that would need to be tweaked in order to make it work, that should go without saying. My question is more on the overall fun level of the game for both roles.
-
[ ] No (Play both sides)
It is definitely not a necessary perk. It works fine as a perk. If you want it, bring it. If not, don’t bring it.
-
I'd like to see more stable performance for consoles and lower end PCs brought back.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
Speaking of Game Informer
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/BL7L8DFDAN4F/image.png
If only they knew the irony of this.
I commented on this too.
-
I added my thoughts in the comment section of this.
-
@Marik13 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2282155#Comment_2282155
Yeah but to be fair, that 1v1 argument is kinda dumb, as that logic applies to a majority of the killers on the roster as well, and at the 1v1 point survivors are inherently going to be at a disadvantage anyway.
It only applies to the killers that can ignore pallet and vault resources though. If you miss with Freddy at the pallet, he isn't going to catch up to you and hit you at the window. So when you take away the ability for a survivor to avoid the killer at the resources put in the game to help them avoid the killer, it feels oppressive. It is also part of the reason the pre drop pallet and shift w meta has become so prevalent. I will waste more of the killer's time throwing the pallet and running to the next loop then staying at the loop trying to mind game him because they can basically ignore the pallet or vault because they have an ability to hit me from range when I'm locked in animation.
-
I think some of the conflicting criticism comes from people talking about two different aspects of game play. Those that think he is too strong and oppressive are speaking about the 1v1 chase. I somewhat agree with this. I think he isn't punished enough for missing the tentacle attack. I can make him miss at the pallet of the loop and he can recover and get close enough in time to hit me while locked in animation at the window. So I guess the best way to play is pre-drop pallets and shift w, which killers say is boring to play against.
People who say he isn't strong enough are usually talking about the 4v1. If survivors play optimal (spread out and work on gens, let people on hooks ride out their hook states, don't heal when you don't have too) then he struggles to put enough pressure on the gens because of low map mobility.
But as a solo only survivor, I find it very rare that survivors play optimal. Some of this is from lack of communication. Survivors don't see what everyone is doing so it is hard to know what the correct decision is. Some of it is selfishness of not wanting to put themselves in a position to possibly be caught. And some of it is just not having enough experience to identify the situation and make the right call.
-
My PC is an i5 - 4690k 3.5GHz, 24.0 GB ram, GTX 970, Windows 10 x64 bit. Not a top of the line, but above the minimum specs. I am on the steam platform.
I've done lots of the things suggested. -dx12, increase virtual memory, reinstall EAC, review and shut off all the unnecessary background applications. All these things help some, but I still experience a lot of stuttering and mini freezes in game. Simply turning my camera can cause me to freeze.
I used to also play with an Xbox One S before crossplay because I had family members that played the game on Xbox. The freezes and stuttering where much more prevalent. When crossplay came out, I thought great, now I can play with my more stable PC and still play with my family. But they have all quit playing because the game runs so terrible on Xbox.
When they started the optimization project, I was really hoping they would make this better. They even created an optimization forum, that I contributed too, in hopes they would get the information needed to make the fixes. But if you go look at that section, you will see there is barely a post from a developer even asking for more information to people's concerns.
They made a pretty roadmap graph, said they did some changes which some people claimed helped but others still said they had issues. After that it just went radio silent. They got a few people to say things seemed a little better and it seems liked they just wiped their hands of it, even though they weren't all the way through their timeline on the road map.
I have not bought the new chapter and will not put anymore money into this game.
-
Getting abused by a person using the Entity window block bug as an exploit on a window that was an infinite without it, even in BL3. Then they flamed me in chat. It wasn't the first time I experienced it but it pushed my frustration to the limit. I quit playing for quite a few months. The bug that causes downed survivors to glitch into objects and become unable to be picked up is pretty annoying too. But luckily I've only had a handful or two that have exploited it.
-
Maybe some undisclosed optimization changes for console?
-
@Mandy said:
I understand that input lag can sometimes be a factor but I really don't think the DS skill check needs to be increased in size, again it's not supposed to be a guaranteed thing, it's a strong perk.
Maybe some better optimization would help reduce the amount of stuttering and freezes that occur and lessen the chances of missing skill checks too.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzWN4v2Ck0s
It only works when no one is looking.
-
@knell said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2267988#Comment_2267988
And I've already stated why it's not an exaggeration and why my main point still stands. I've even altered the analogy to make it simpler for you to understand. You wanting my point to be a false equivalence and repeatedly calling it so doesn't make it one. And ultimately, even if it was one, it doesn't make one tiny bit of difference about my impression of those who are continually whining about the MMR system, and the reasons I've given about it.
The fact that you are now simply lashing out about the analogy, when the analogy itself is the least important part of my posts, seems to indicate that you have nothing more to add about the main overall topic and the subject itself. Then it looks like my point has been made.
I haven't just started telling you your analogy is wrong, I've been saying it from the beginning. The very first sentence of my very first reply was literally, false equivalence. You stated you didn't understand what I was saying, which I also restructured my point, twice, to be able to make it more clear. I also said it didn't matter how many times you told me it was equal, that I would disagree. But YOU, keep insisting it is the same even though I have clearly said I disagree.
And like you said, even if I did convince you it wouldn't matter because you have already made your mind up about what you feel are the type of people that express concerns about the MMR system. Which is that you believe they have a disgusting attitude about gaming because you think they want easy games to be able to stomp on inexperienced people. I hear what you said. I disagree.
At this point the conversation only seems to be who can get the last word and not having a logical debate about how a killer player feels about a perfect MMR system. This will be my last reply to you. Feel free to get in that last word.
-
@knell said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2267844#Comment_2267844
Like I said, my analogy is nowhere near an exaggeration when you are simply comparing the massive differences in players' experience level in a given match, and the obvious outcomes that often follow it. You poking holes in situational differences seem to indicate you don't understand what analogy is. Kindergartners can't beat adults due to physical differences? Fine, let's just change the analogy to players just learning to dribble matching up against professional basketball players who've played for many years. It doesn't matter what the details are. Ultimately, my point is that if possible, less skilled players (in ANY type of game, whether sports or videogames) should not be forced into a match with players who have vastly more experience just to be served as their prop to maintain their egos. And yes, you are absolutely right that I am making a moral judgment on the type of people that enjoy prioritizing their own win-count at the expense of less experienced players. "Oh no, my win count and win ratio won't reflect my awesome skill and vast amount of experience anymore because I have to now face players that are equally skilled as me - woe is me!" To me, that type of personality is pretty disgusting, especially when I think about what the opponents may have had to deal with, and how they felt about it - but that's just me. And I'd go on and add that willingly beating up on weaker players, no matter how many times you do it, doesn't say anything about your skill or your experience - it just mean that you are more than willing to beat up on weaker opponents just for a "win", nothing more and nothing less.
I don't think you are lying. I just find that type of attitude and outlook in life despicable. Nothing against you, personally. More disgusted with many of our current societies that always seem to justify giving more power to the powerful instead of striving to make them fair for everyone, including the weak and the disadvantaged.
I know what an analogy is. Just because you make an analogy doesn't mean it is equivalent to the topic as discussed. People try to use exaggerated analogies all the time to try and prove their point. When it's not, this is called a false equivalence and is a logical fallacy. I am saying your analogy to the subject is a logical fallacy based on false equivalence. And you have admitted you are making a moral judgement and trying to persuade other to as well as you are fighting the good fight against our current societies that prey on the weak. This is called appeal to emotion. But you are doing so based on assumptions about a person and your own biases.
-
@knell said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2267612#Comment_2267612
I'll just ignore the run-on sentence since I still have no clue what you are referring to about the 30 year old woman.
In many of my matches, the skill level difference between players are unbelievably vast to the point where I think it's more than fair to compare these matches to a basketball match between toddlers and fully grown adults - in that they never had a chance in the first place. I'm exaggerating? From my perspective, you are the one understating the situation to fit your narrative, minimizing the effect of the current matchmaking is having on the outcome of matches, as well as its effect on the players. But perhaps you are just special - living in the right region, playing around the right time, in the right killer/survivor role. We can continue to point fingers at each other, discrediting each others' experiences, but how often have we read complaints on the forum about players feeling like they were totally outclassed or feeling helpless or unfair? How often have we seen streamers just dominate one match after another, and on and on for countless matches?
You ask me why I've continued to invest in this game. Because I enjoy the game mechanics and the theme, and on some occasions, I feel like I do experience a 'fair' match against a opponent of my skill level (though I don't know whether those opponents felt about the same about me). But those types of matches need to happen more often, especially for beginners. Because, yes I'm here, but how many have just gave up in comparison? This game has so many licensed characters from different movies and other games, all of them attached to massive fandom and population of possible players. How many have 'noped' out of the game after being continually being destroyed by more experienced players due to the current matchmaking system? What percentage of them was actually able to endure the pain? If we already had a skill-based matchmaking and the matches felt more fair, I'm sure much, much more would have stayed.
Sure, I've assumed people's motives. I haven't yet heard a better explanation on why they want to continue to be paired with people much less skilled than they are, despite having the opportunity to choose someone of equal skill level. You don't want to "try-hard" on this upcoming MMR system? Nobody is forcing you to. Oh, but you also want to win, and the only way you can win AND screw around is if the opponent is much worse than you. So you feel entitled to be in matches where you can do that, even if it is unfair for the opponents who are trying their best. If that's not the case, then go ahead and explain it to me in a very clear manner.
I highly doubt the average demographic of Dead by Daylight is 6 years old, kindergarten age. Also, this is a video game, not a physical sport, like basketball is. A group of adults playing basketball for the first time is going to beat a group of kindergartners playing for the first time because of the physical differences, not because of experience level difference. So to use a basketball analogy where a group of adults that have played basketball before stomp a group of kindergartners is an exaggerated example of an experienced Dead by Daylight player playing against and beating a new player that is most likely close to their own age demographic.
And most people would agree that a group of adults playing a basketball game against a group of kindergartners would be extremely unfair. And most people would agree you should use kid gloves with young children more than you should with a group of people in your same age demographic. So when you say someone thinking a skill based match making system will lessen their enjoyment of the game is the same as them saying they want to curb stomp kindergartners in a basketball game, you are attempting to make a moral judgement on people based on an example not equivalent to the issue being discussed. You can keep telling me why you think they are equal, but I am going to continue to disagree.
Yes, I want to play the game casually and not try hard most of the time. Yes, I also enjoy that my experience gained playing the game gives me a higher win average than the average player. But that does not mean I feel I am entitled to win. So when I say I think a skill based match making system is going to lessen my enjoyment of the game, it is not because I want to control and dominate other players will be less able to do so, it is because I will not be able to equate me experience and skill earned as meaning anything.
Hopefully you will take me for my word. I have no reason to lie. I have not been discrediting anyone that has made a post about imbalanced match making. I have not been making posts saying MMR is going to kill the game. I have giving the latest tests specific, constructive feedback and not biased opinions. If you look back at some of my posts when they first tried to role it out, you'll see I was one of the people telling other to not be so hasty on their opinions and give it time. So the only reason you wouldn't believe me is because of incorrect assumptions and biases you have.
-
@knell said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2267382#Comment_2267382
You're right; I do equate it as the same. That's because I think your (not just you personally, but those who have continually spoke against the MMR system) "enjoyment of the game will go down with the MMR system" BECAUSE you won't be able "to curb stomp babies." Or at least, you won't be in much control of whether to or not. You can choose to play at your maximum and win by completely destroying your opponent and making them regret ever touching a basketball, or you can choose to relax and still win by slapping your less skilled opponent around a bit while having "fun." It's this euphoria of being in control that I think are driving many anti-MMR players to be scared of the upcoming system. You fear a fair fight where you won't have an advantage and won't be in control of the outcome.
I don't know why you are suddenly talking about 30 year old women playing basketball, but in my analogy, I am literally talking about players beating kindergartners to make the point about this massive difference in experience levels that I have seen in this game. But if you think every 30 year old woman is inexperienced at basketball, then that's another problematic topic that we should probably discuss.
Sure, those who are less experienced may one day be able to reach the level where players with hundreds or thousands of hours are at, but in the current system in which they are constantly stomped by said types of players, constantly feeling like they never had a chance in the first place, why would they want to? Why can't they just play people of equal skill level, winning some and losing some, and learning about the game without feeling overwhelmed and helpless against better players with hundreds of hours ahead of them?
And of course you don't care as much about losing. I'm guessing almost everyone on this forum are above-average players who have already invested time and money into this game, which means that in our current ranking system, mostly everyone here are much more likely to win than to lose their matches since they are more likely to face less skilled opponents. Perhaps not "brown rank" type of opponents, but less skilled overall. Given how the current system allows such gap and discrepancy between player skill levels, and the more experienced players only care that they get a "win" regardless of how unfair the match was, why would they complain about a loss here and there?
If you want to have "fun", nobody is stopping you. But do it against a worthy opponent who are equally as skilled instead of at the expense of newer players. It's disgusting.
Yes, you literally said kindergarteners. Which is an exaggeration of who new players to Dead by Daylight are. Which is why I bring up a new player can be a 30 year old woman and not young kids that have no clue they might be bad at something they first try that experienced players that say anything against MMR are licking their lips to face off against to stomp on for a euphoria affect from being in control. But again, you are using this exaggerated example to be able to hold a moral high ground over someone that disagrees with you and as a way to discredit them.
You also keep saying the current match making system is always matching inexperienced players with very experienced players that can curb stomp them. And I have said that is not my experience. Can it happen? Yes. But as a consistent rank 1 killer with the current system, I am barely ever matched against a player that just started. And again, that is less about the matching system and more about the lack of players on one side or the other that forces the match making range to widen the criteria in an effort to reduce wait times.
And you asked why someone would stick around to play the game if they might face an experienced opponent that they can't beat, on an infrequent basis? Skill based match making wasn't around when you started. Why did you stay? It wasn't there when I started either. But most people know when they start doing something for the first time, they aren't going to be great at it right away. But if the game is something they enjoy, they will keep playing knowing they will get better.
"It's disgusting." Again you assume peoples motives and attempt to hold a moral high ground.
-
@Lucent said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2265977#Comment_2265977
Kills is not a good metric to go by and is misleading. Hooks are much better metric.
I agree that hooks are also a metric to be looked at besides just kills in determining the skill gap between a killer and their opposing survivor team. But my question wasn't about the skill difference between the two but the perceived level of fun of the match from the killer. I don't think I've ever thought, "gg survivors, you really made me work for those 8 hooks", when all of them escape. So when FrenziedRoach said he was happy with a game he could say "gg, you really made me work for that" I was curious what type of outcome would happen for him to say that. I assume saying "you really made me work for that" meant he won the match, but it didn't come easy because the survivors were good. So would he, in a perfect MMR system, have a different perception of how well the match was when the system is matching him against teams that when he really tries, will only average a 2k from.
-
@knell said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2266565#Comment_2266565
We'll continue with this basketball analogy.
How does beating up on a bunch of kindergartners in basketball make you feel like you are making any self-improvement? As more and more baby players join, you have more and more opportunities to be matched against those who have less experience than you - players you are able to curb stomp if you are actually trying. At this point with the current unreliable matchmaking, you can't really say that you are winning games because you yourself are improving - in fact, it's more likely that you are winning because you are facing a larger pool of players who have much less experience than you. And while these kindergartners are trying their best, putting 100% of their effort into the match with you, you toy around with them, always in control and confident that if they annoy your team in the slightest, you will always have the power to put them in their place. And that's apparently the kind of games that give many people who are against MMR system satisfaction. Sure, you will on rare occasion be matched up with professional teams that will treat you the same way you have treated the kindergartners, but on average, just because you have more experience than the vast majority of players in this league that matches you up with anyone, you will be the one in control of the game. And you think you DESERVE these "wins" because you have, as you say, "put in the time" unlike these kindergartners who have just started.
Let's be honest, people who are against MMR aren't looking for self-improvement. If they are, then they wouldn't be wanting to be matched with less skilled opponents, or opponents who are so much better than them that they won't even have any opportunity to improve. Those who want to self-improve would be wanting to be matched with people of equal skill level, so that each match will be able to mean something.
No, people who are against MMR systems are simply players who want to face less skilled players so that they can screw around with their opponent who are playing their hardest, and still be able to win regardless. They want the control. They want domination. But self-improvement? No need because they've already "put in the time" unlike majority of the players.
You overly exaggerate your analogy so that so that you can claim moral high ground on anyone that disagrees with you. I say "I think my enjoyment of the game will go down with the MMR system" and you equate it to "you just like to curb stomp babies". I also doubt that the 30 year old woman who just bought the game and started playing likes to be referred to as a kidergartner and baby.
I didn't say every game I play I am trying to self improve. I said over the time I have played the game, I have improved and that those that are less experienced can learn when they play against me and can eventually get to the same level. I said I don't want to play an overly competitive, try hard game.
I don't have the same experience with you in matchmaking.Yes, I get the occasional team that is just better than me. And I don't care that I lose. If I were such the control freak you think because I say I don't want every match I play to be a sweat fest, then I would be fuming over losing and probably ranting in the forums about how unbalanced the game is, which I don't. I also, rarely get new players. While the current match making isn't perfect, which is mostly because of the imbalanced ratio of survivor to killer players trying to queue, I hardly every see a brown rank in my lobby.
It's fine that you have a different experience than me. It's fine that you have a different opinion about MMR than me and express why you feel it will be a better system. It is unnecessary and incorrect to infer that anyone who doesn't think they will like the new MMR system is an entitled, control freak, person that likes to curb stomp people weaker than them.
-
@sulaiman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2266565#Comment_2266565
The comparison is bad, in my opinion. What you dont acknowledge is the fact that the games you win in the old way might end up 72 to 75, but are often more likly to end up 93 to 5, either way. While it might be more enjoyable to you to lose a game 93 to 5 because you also win in this way, the new system will move to matches that are more likly to be 72 to 75, and at this point people like myself dont even care who won, because it was pretty close and a game up to the end, not already determined after the first quarter.
I don't have the same experience as you then. My games with rank based are not one extreme or the other. I have lots of matches that are in between. But I don't usually sweat it out for the 4k because I find this to be a casual game. That doesn't mean I don't take pride in the fact that I have a better than average win rate or the player base as a whole. Or at least I do with killers I play compared to the last stats I have seen.
-
@woundcowboy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2266375#Comment_2266375
No it won’t…. the game is broken. M1 killers like pig and Michael will lose 9/10 matches against good survivors. If the game was balanced, mmr would be fine.
Theoretically, since there will be separate MMR for each killer, MMR will adjust the people playing those killers so they are facing teams they win 50% of the time with. They will most likely not be facing the same teams that a god tier nurse/spirit player faces.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
As others said, most good killers would probably quit if matchmaking was spot on because maybe only crazy add on spirit with 1000$ audio setup and God tier nurse can put a dent into good team(they don't even have to be swf). Every other killer will be gen rushed to the ground. Forget about hex perks, they will be gone in a first minute of a match, pop will not be as useful too because you won't be getting hooks quick enough. Don't know who would want to play through this hell and basically just be entertainer for survivors. I would quit playing killer REALLLL fast.
But that's not really how the MMR will work though since killers will have separate MMRs. The top tier trapper player will probably not be matched with the same people that the top tier spirit player goes against. And the survivor/killer balance is really only going to affect those top teams. For example, if I am a medium MMR trapper player and am getting matched against a set a survivors that I get a 50% win rate against, and then there is a significant nerf to trapper, the system will eventually shift me to a different set of players that I get a 50% win rate against.
-
@knell said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2265977#Comment_2265977
How about you? If you are playing a game of basketball, would you be more or less satisfied winning against a bunch of kindergartners 20 out of 20 times, or being able to win 10 games out of 20 against people of equal caliber?
Ultimately, whether you are for or against this MMR system will tell you what kind of a person you are.
That is a false equivalence. Let me try to make it a little more accurate.
Myself and four of my friends decide we want to join a basketball league for fun. The league we choose isn't a super try-hard competitive league because we aren't super try hard, competitive people. The league has been going for a couple years and we don't know any of the other teams or what their skill levels. That's not really important to us though, just that we think the game looks fun and just want to experience it.
When we first start playing matches, we lose almost every game because we aren't as good as the other teams and we just don't have any basketball skills. But we keep playing because we find it fun and we know we are new and can still improve. Little by little, we start to get the basics and learn how to play and we can sneak in a win here and there. Sometimes new teams join and we beat them, but we tell them, hang in there, we were in the same spot as you not long ago and if you keep at it you will get better too.
After 3 and a half years, we have really improved from where we were at the beginning. We are better than average and win more of our games than lose. That doesn't mean we don't lose. There are still teams that have been doing it longer that we go against every once in a while and they give as a good romping. But we know it is because of them having more experience than us and after all, it's just a game, nothing to be upset about. And we learn some things we can try for next time.
Sometimes we get one of those newer teams that hasn't been playing as long and we know we have more skills than. But this isn't a super competitive league. We chose not to be in a super competitive league on purpose. So we always play chill. They score some points, we score some points. We have fun, they have fun and hopefully learn some things from us that helps them get better.
Maybe they aren't exactly a new team, but their skills are just a little below ours and they are an average team. We still play pretty chill, but man we are making a lot of mistakes and they are on point. Maybe they beat us. Usually they don't because our skills are just a little better than theirs so most of the time we edge it out. But hey, we are all here to have fun and learn and get better.
Sometimes we go against teams that are about par with us. It's always a battle, every time we face them. Half the time they come out on top and half the time we come out on top. We are glad we don't face them all the time though, because we didn't really join to be in a super competitive league, we just wanted to play a game that looked fun.
So here we are, with a better than 50% win rate. We don't take the losses personal, it's just a game. But we do like that we can win the majority of our games without getting super sweaty because we have put in the time and honed our skills.
Today we got the news that the league has decided they are going to start matching people differently. They have decided no team should ever have to play against someone they don't have a 50/50 shot at beating. If you start beating the teams they are matching us with more than half the time, we are going to match you against different teams that you can only beat half the time. No more can you say you win more than 50% of your games.
So now to answer the question, if I am better than average and get more than a 50% win rate and the match making is changed so I can only get a 50% win rate, will the game feel less satisfying to me? Yes it will. Because part of the enjoyment for us was being able to see the progression from new to 3.5 years later and being able to say I've improved enough that I can win more of my games than I lose.
Does that make me a scum of the earth person because I might find it less enjoyable to have to play more competitively to win? Is that what you are trying to infer the people against MMR are?
-
@WishIcouldmain said:
Anyone got player count for the platforms?
I saw TricksterShadow say 200,00 on Twitter. I don’t know where he got those numbers
-
@woundcowboy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2265977#Comment_2265977
Less. I shouldn’t be handicapped into not being able to 4k . Why play if I don’t influence the outcome. The potential for a 4k should always exist
So then you are against a perfect MMR system that matches you with evenly skilled opponents with a balance philosophy of 2 kills and 2 escapes?