ReikoMori
ReikoMori
About
- Username
- ReikoMori
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,794
- Last Active
Comments
-
Swamp Thing as in the DC character who is a hero and definitely should not be killing on behalf of the Entity? That Swamp Thing?
We have Kujo at home,
Kujo at home: Demogorgon
We sort of have all the components of Frankenstein's Monster already between Doctor, Nemesis, and Oni
-
@[Deleted User] said:
I want Pennywise.
I want Ray Tracing.
I want more FOG in the maps.
I want face camping to be adressed (camping included).
I want improvements over the chat filter.
I want MMR improvements.
I want Badham re-reworked.
I want better performance.
I want faster updates.
I want more impactful changes in mid-chapters and only CHAPTERS left out for content.
That for now.
Asks for better performance, but also wants ray tracing which is a feature that would absolute tank performance.
It's not a bad list overall, these are mostly the same things I want save for Fog. That can stay gone .
-
@dreadnod said:
quick question, so I looked at the player base, and with some math deduced that, there are 13250 Killers give or take and 39750 Survivors, again just a guestiment could be more or less, just wondering, with a 1 to 4, is this good enaugh?
How did you come to this number?
-
This again...
-
@Kuinzu said:
Recently, Ubisoft announced a crossover with Netflix's fan favourite Stranger Things and Far Cry 6, the latest instalment in the franchise. There's no doubt that this is due to Season 4 of the TV show being on the horizon, releasing in just a few months' time now.
What I'm getting at with all this, is that most of us thought that Netflix revoking the license from DbD was due to their endeavours into implementing gaming into their app, therefore slowly removing all ST content from other video games to bring the audience into their app ONLY. However, with their new crossovers, it doesn't seem like this is necessarily the case.
With Season 4 on the way, and Netflix giving out new licenses, could this be a sign that Netflix will renew their license with DbD? This could end up with a deal similar to Halloween and DbD, where they only renew it once every few years when the timing aligns.
Also, does anyone know why the Halloween license is only renewed every few years? Still loving Laurie's Wolf in Sheep's clothing outfit personally, but it would be nice to know if it'll be in their hands again for Halloween Ends this year.
The contracts for licenses vary wildly from property to property.
They probably have a sweetheart deal with the Halloween rights holders that gives them a lengthy period of time before they have to renew. DBD doesn't really dabble in highly active licenses much at all as well which may mean that generally speaking rights holders of older franchises are more interested in long term residual payment terms.
Netflix conversely is super active with the Stranger Things license and has had several games, multiple crossover licensing deals, and is still actively producing content. So, the pricing of the Stranger Things license could just require renegotiation, but is prohibitively expensive compared to older franchises.
It's hard to say or even speculate because licensing contracts are exactly meant to for public consumption.
-
Monstrous Shrine. It literally does nothing of value.
-
@herbaljellyfish said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2846592#Comment_2846592
Exactly. If killers see 4 flashlights or 4 tool boxes, they'll likely just leave because they know it's not going to be fun. I just think that if all players, survivors and killers retained the agency to choose if they would like to stay in a game or not based on who they're up against before the game starts, you'd get a lot less DCs happening. Also, I didn't mention earlier but the MMR probably plays a huge part in DCs. I rarely DC bc of a certain killer, but the amount of times I've just DC'ed out of rage because a 20 hour default meg slammed a pallet in my face while I was being chased by the killer is phenomenally high lol. Hate to do it, but you just don't want to play in that match anymore at that point, ya know?
DCing over a palette drop is the exact thing the penalty is there to combat. You might be angry because someone made a bad play, but that doesn't make it ok to quit mid-game.
@herbaljellyfish said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2846584#Comment_2846584
Why? Killers dodge lobbies all the time especially if they suspect SWF. What's the difference? Only killers get the agency to determine if they think a match is going to be unfun or not? Please explain why you think it's moronic to let players decide if they would like to choose to dodge a match they presumably deem to be unfun? Do you play games to be miserable, or to enjoy yourself?
People don't tend to play games to be miserable, but if you wanted to not put up with being inconvenienced by others you probably shouldn't have chosen to play a multiplayer game or at least doing solo q. Killers and survivors dodging lobbies generally don't negatively influence the game outside of waiting an extra bit of time to queue into a game. It's not the same as leaving and actually affecting the outcome of a trial.
-
@JoaoVanBlizzard said:
I don't like the idea of banning for disconnection because it encourages people not to play the game, the idea is to make them play the game, they need to make the game fairer and more fun, so that players disconnect less due to dissatisfaction with the match
We actually have to have DC penalties in DBD as when we didn't have them people disconnected for the pettiest of reasons making games bad for everyone involved at an extremely high rate.
There are far too many players who will dc just because they dislike even seeing certain killers. It got to a point where it was messing up queue times as no one wants to play a game where they suddenly get stuck in a 3v1 because Meg has a tantrum at seeing a Nurse in the distance.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2845460#Comment_2845460
oh this guy?
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/VXRDFEJD1EP2/image.png
over half of his videos being random clickbait theories with basically no evidence?
reliable
Looking at this video spread I think it is clear to say this Schmuckles person has vested interest in seeing a FNAF chapter.
At this point just make the FNAF chapter so people will stop....
-
@GamerEzra said:
Even tho clown isn't a strong killer I think that he shouldn't be able to carry more then 2 bottles with Pinkie Finger...
If you're acknowledging that he isn't strong why do you want to make a change that will see him made worse?
How does making a killer who's already pretty bad worse make sense? What are you giving to compensate taking power away from his only good Iri add-on?
-
@playhard said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2846292#Comment_2846292
some tournament have a limitation on perk, cosmetic and add on. that make game more balancing.
I literally said that, I just didn't speak on whether it made the game more balanced. I figured the mention of ban lists would imply it was for balance.
"as tournaments are non standardized to a degree and feature ban lists that aren't adhered to by the wider playerbase"
-
I've seen the Japanese films, but didn't even know it was a book.
It doesn't really matter to me when they reveal a chapter as long as its interesting. I think building hype is much easier to do in DBD post PTB rather than anytime before because speculation for this this game always leads to disappointment. DBD has earned a "wait and see" approach from after they tried to kill Legion and the trailer for Legion is very far removed from what we got in the first place.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2846292#Comment_2846292
Is that a disagreement or agreement?
Disagreement
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2846249#Comment_2846249
I don't agree with this statement, not sure if I understand what you mean correctly.
Dev said, if you watch Dave's Richard ( Creative Director on the game) last interview after Sadako PTB he said "We are working to create fun killers for our casual players and to also help the competitive players at the same time". They know about tourneys, they know about competition, they can see it all behind the scenes even more accurate with the MMR system.
The playerbase also knows, tier lists exista, we see so many debates, so many arguments and fights "X is better" "Nah X is trash, Y is better" "Haha, yea at low MMR"... and all that.
People want to win, they will use what is the best.
The tournament scene of DBD is actually pretty niche.
You can be a competitive player i.e. a win/loss, stats focused player, but never really engage with DBD tournament play. The devs aren't actively balancing around tournament play and a majority of players are not usually considering tournament level play. The tier list discussion is predicated on the thoughts of content creators who while having lots of hours in the game rarely if ever seriously compete in tournaments. The tier lists are judged based on what is viable at high rank play rather than using any metrics generated from tournament play as tournaments are non standardized to a degree and feature ban lists that aren't adhered to by the wider playerbase.
So yes people want to win and will optimize their game play to win, but that doesn't mean tournament play is a driving factor in any decision making for the game. It is would be more likely to be that Blight and Nurse fair much better in the current game state considering they can handle hold W, CoH+Medkit, and generally have the best on demand mobility tools.
-
@mischiefmanaged said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2845362#Comment_2845362
Matchmaking based on time playing the game would be awful. I play with a group that plays for fun and doesn't really try to go and get better at the game. They just like getting chased, getting scared, and having funny things happen. This is a very common way that people play this game. Why would this be a good metric to send us against harder killers? Experience can be correlated with a person's skill, but it also doesn't mean a person is skilled because experience has to be paired with an active desire to learn and improve. If you don't care to improve but just like playing the game at your current level, why should you be penalized? Seems like a good way to cause players to want to leave the game.
The usage of "player play time is more indicative of skill" came around because being rank 1 was considered such a joke that DBD veterans had to find some other way to rank themselves and play time was just about the only metric they could easily see. It's not actually a good metric for player skill. It actively discourages people from playing the game more.
I'm pretty sure I mentioned the time gate in relation to new players being able to play against each other rather than the current setup where new players can end up playing against someone with hundreds or thousands of hours of play time. Even at your most casual level of play you're still going to learn the game to decent degree. The concept of gated matchmaking isn't that uncommon and at least the time metric deals with the biggest complaint I've personally seen in regards to matchmaking.
People with zero to ten hours of gameplay being matched up with people with hundreds to thousands of hours of gameplay.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/313861/blight-nurse-blight-nurse
Back in 2017, people used from the available killer all in a nice variety. 5 years later DbD community got super competitive, even more now that 1v1 and tourneys are shining like stars.
People want to win, so they will use what they have in the arsenal and is the best. Just like the survivor will always bring the same 4 perks..., it's just the game that is at a competitive level right now, MMR also helped.
Nothing surprising, is just how it is
Tournament play isn't a driving factor of anyone's decision making in DBD.
People simply just don't want to have an objectively worse time playing the game as killer. After you get to a certain point a lot of killers just aren't worth playing if you want to have any fun without getting overly stressed.
-
@deKlaw_04 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2845742#Comment_2845742
Yes I do
Thank you! don’t make fun of me lmao
You didn't really do anything majorly wrong in that game. With that in mind I can give you some general pointers, but I'm not really someone who plays Demo really.
Since the game was so active from the start you didn't really get a chance to put any down, but portals will help you keep an eye on gens with the right positioning.
At some of the taller loops you could have moonwalked and potentially caught survivors off guard rather than following them around.
This is gonna be a personal preference thing, but I would rather have went after the closer people than tunnel visioning on Tapp. Getting him out of the game was ultimately a worthwhile decision, but could have picked up more hits overall which just leads to more BP in the end. Nothing really bad about this play though.
You played a pretty fine game. Some of your chases were a bit on the long side, but it didn't really seem to hurt you that game as everyone stayed injured for the most part so good job there.
I think it is just small adjustments overall that will come with time. Someone with more Demo-centric experience may have better tips
-
@deKlaw_04 said:
I have gotten better with demogorgon but I keep making so many dumb mistakes. I still struggle looping at shack and around pallets. I was wondering if someone could review my gameplay and tell me what I could do better. Thank you I would really appreciate it!
You got a link?
-
@knell said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2845726#Comment_2845726
As humans doing our very best, let's strive together to learn from our mistakes and not repeat them. None of us are perfect, but we can always try to be better. I do appreciate you admitting that you were wrong about that subject - I don't think most people on this forum has the decency to do that.
Takes too energy trying to fight against the fact that at some point I'll be wrong. Learning I'm wrong means I can have the right answers later assuming I remember things.
-
@knell said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2845703#Comment_2845703
Just like how others on this forum could have read your original post about chess and (possibly) some fighting games using TrueSkill with random additional variables? And then they'll continue to spread these false information on the internet, convinced that they're true, just like you were?
If you aren't sure of something, please fact-check first.
I was sure, I was also wrong. I am only a human doing their level best. I fact check when I can and other times I put my trust in the words of others.
-
@knell said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2845571#Comment_2845571
I tried to find your claims online about SFIV and BlazBlue developers using Trueskill and then deciding to add other variable metrics such as "offensiveness, defensiveness, execution of combinations" (your words), but I haven't had any success - please cite your sources. It's absolutely counterintuitive to me, given that like I stated earlier, creators of TrueSkill avoided using metrics like that on purpose.
"It is interesting to note that Elo’s update equation depends only on the win/loss outcome. Similarly, TrueSkill’s update equations take into account only the finishing order of the players/teams involved. None of these systems incorporates the actual final score, say, the number of kills in a shooting game or the finishing time in a racing game. This is a deliberate choice.
First, taking into account only the finishing order makes these rating systems universal because in almost any game a finishing order can be computed from the detailed game outcomes.
Second, it is crucial that the purpose of the game and the behavior of the rating system be aligned: people striving for high ratings should be forced to play in accordance with the spirit of the game. Taking the margin into account by which a game was won can be very misleading. As an example, consider a player who is trying to catch up with the opponent before the time is up, thereby taking into account the risk of falling further behind due to counter chances of the opponent. Should the rating system be designed to discourage this fighting spirit?
For the updates of the individual players’ scores in team games it is crucial to consider the finishing order of the teams only. If individual performance metrics are used in the rating system players will aim at maximizing those metrics instead of teaming up with their team members and try to win the game. For example, if you choose to reward the number of flags scored in a capture the flag game, do not be surprised if you find everyone rushing for the flag at once, but also some dead bodies who died with the flag in their hands betrayed by an overly ambitious team mate."
Sirlin, most famous for his thoughts on game designs and balance, also expressed his thoughts about TrueSkill in this manner when addressing Overwatch's matchmaking system years ago:
https://www.sirlin.net/posts/tag/Overwatch
TrueSkill intentionally and explicitly does NOT use any individual performance metrics. Their argument is that no matter what game you're talking about and no matter what metrics you measure to determine how well a given player did, it's necessarily imperfect compared to using only win/loss. The point of trying to guess if a player did well or not is how much they contributed win/loss, but the win/loss stat is the most accurate measure, they say. You'd introducing error by adding ANY other metric.
In addition to introducing error, you're warping incentives. For example, if you measure "damage done" as one metric, then it means players will attempt to maximize "winning AND damage done" rather than just "winning," which is not great. You can also very easily accidentally do a lot worse: you might accidentally give incentive not to play support heroes in a game where you really need support heroes on your team. (It seems this is already true in Overwatch.)
In many cases, it's almost hopeless to even devise a metric. If a character's role has to do with healing, you can't actually use how much they healed as a measure of much. If you did, it would penalize a healer on a team that played so well they didn't need as much healing. Or even worse is a character like Mei. Her ice walls can do a lot, her slow and freeze effects can do a lot too. But to actually quantify that into a metric correlated to win-rate? That's a huge error effect waiting to happen. My friend suggested the best metric how effective you were with her is to monitor the opponent's chat to detect how much they are cursing about Mei.
Yet another issue is that it's easy to accidentally create competition within a team for no real reason. For example, if number of kills is a metric that affects your rating, then your teammate killing an enemy that you could have killed essentially "stole" ranking points from you. That's clearly a bad dynamic.
I think Microsoft TrueSkill's reasoning makes sense here. It's a good case against ever using any individual performance metric when adjusting ranking points after a win or a loss.
I don't have sources to cite. I was working off I could A) Remember from my past engagement with the games in question, B) Believed based on conversations had with others, and C) What I've read over the years.
-
@knell said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2845229#Comment_2845229
"Chess factors in not only flat wins and losses, but time spent in game and number of moves. Fighting games that used the TrueSkill rating system judged you not only on wins and losses, but factors such as offensiveness, defensiveness, execution of combinations."
Please cite sources.
Chess usually uses ELO or Glicko rating systems, and neither one uses "time spent in game" or "number of moves" to determine players' ratings.
And what fighting games use the TrueSkill system, but also take into account all of these other variables for matchmaking? The entire idea behind using the TrueSkill system is that the use of other "performance" variables would make the matchmaking LESS accurate so they purposefully avoided adding them to its algorithm. What game developers would first pick TrueSkill as its ratings system and then proceed to muck it up with other variables?
Off the top of my head TrueSkill was used in the x360 release of BlazBlue and IIRC Street Fighter 4 both had Trueskill sections of their leaderboard. Saint's Row has TrueSkill ranking and its not remotely a competitive game for what its worth. TrueSkill is patented by Microsoft and used in a lot of the games that came out on x360. TrueSkill2 was released around the same time frame as Gears of War 4 and is baked into Halo 5 as well.
To the chess ELO statement, I was wrong, I mistook a proposal for an activity bonus being added to score as a rule and made an assumption that was clearly incorrect.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2845331#Comment_2845331
"if you escape as survivor and don't pip you've not really progressed in any meaningful way"
I agree! But you did win. Winning the game and escalating the game's progression system are separate, and they should be separate. A progression system needs to take more into account than a pure matchmaking system, and the progression system we have does; you need to play a very specific way in order to max out your emblems, to the point that honestly I think it's a flaw in that system. The progression system gets to demand more of you than the basic rules of the game, because it's there to test your skill, not to simply decide if you win or not.
To the rest of your points, I think that's the core thing that's getting in the way here- the matchmaking does only exist to facilitate matchmaking, it's not a want situation. That's all it is- it's not a progression system, it isn't there to reward players, it isn't there to give feedback or even really calculate exactly how skilled you were within a specific match. There are other systems in the game to fill those gaps and we've seen how poorly it goes when those are used for matchmaking too.
(Also, no- it only takes kills and escapes into account but it's not a simple binary. If as survivor you die first, you lose more MMR than someone who dies third, and there's similar changes to your MMR gain/loss based on how different your MMR score is to your opponent's going in.)
The bottom line is: This is a generally casual game that has a matchmaking system wholly divorced from its progression system. It does not need to be all that specific because it's not there to test player skill, just push people with comparable winrates together. Anything that gets in the way of that is a balance issue, and needs to be addressed separately.
Alright then, if it only exists to facilitate matchmaking then why use the MMR format at all? Why call it "Skill Based Matchmaking" if it isn't meant to in anyway account for your actual ability to play the game?
They could have sorted matchmaking out by simply setting up matchmaking gates where new players could only play with new players and based the entire system off total time spent playing the game. We know they have that number and even have information to such a granular level that they can figure out who actually played Bubba so they could pass out iri shards.
There were more effective ways to get the same or slightly better results without even remotely crossing into a territory where you needed to make a background mmr system nor did it need to be called Skill Based anything. I know this gonna edge into pedantic territory, but what has been conveyed by their messaging does not match either the definition of the words uses or reflect the reality of the implementation of the system in question.
If you want skill based matchmaking then by default your progression system needs to be an integral part in that. If you just want new players not to get curb stomped you can simply let new players play against each other till they get enough game time in to push out of the gate into the wider playing field.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2845229#Comment_2845229
So, a few notes.
The first is that this system does take into account more than just kills and escapes, it just uses those as the primary goal that it then raises or lowers the MMR change for depending on other factors, like which order the survivors died in. Anyone who says the system should take into account more things in that vein, where win/loss matters most and then things can soften the loss if you played really well, isn't someone I want to argue with. I think they're being a little premature, but their position makes sense.
Second, this game does allow "both sides" to win, but it does not allow all players to win. Pipping is not the win/loss condition, kills and escapes are the win/loss condition- and since the game is asynchronous, a little more overlap there than a traditional synchronous competition is acceptable, it makes sense.
Lastly, this game doesn't need to go into the same depth as games like League, or fighting games with competitive ladders, or even games like CS:GO and Overwatch, because it's not that kind of game. What it's going for is more of a Quick Play style MMR, with generalised skill brackets that give a broad overview of how likely someone is to win- that's all it wants, it isn't aiming to be a competitive ladder and failing. Rather than pointing out how other games are trying for something different, you'd be better served trying to make a case for why DBD should be changing its approach.
It doesn't seem to me like a generally more casual game like DBD needs a hyper-competitive MMR system that rivals or even parallels that of genuine e-sports. Why would it?
So here is my stance, if you're going to add a system that only exists to functions as a more in-depth calculation of skill then that system should do that function effectively based on how the game is actually played and actually scored. I'm not saying DBD needs to rise to an e-sports level game standard, but it is making use of system from that realm poorly. Not only is it making use of said system poorly but also very obfuscative. There is another game that has MMR and is a bit closer to DBD's style of game called Spacelords. It used to be called Raiders of the Broken Planet. It's a more casual game with a more casual approach, but even in that game people still want more specificity put into their MMR system.
Why? Because it simply helps sort other issues such accurate matchmaking, in Spacelords case end of game scoring, and can generally just make for a better experience when you inevitably need to make adjusts to said system.
As to pips not being a win/loss condition, that's the only mechanical metric that determines a win or loss for a killer and realistically if you escape as survivor and don't pip you've not really progressed in any meaningful way. This of course has its own flaws as you can have a game where 5 people pip which technically shouldn't be a thing to begin with, but it is.
The idea of looking at this subject in whether or not the added metrics soften the loss is so alien to me. Like couching everything in kills and escapes puts the system at its softest level. This stuff works both ways, the more data you take into account the more exacting scoring becomes so if you're someone who sits by a locker pointing to dodge crows and do nothing of value for the entire game then get out the door you're going get credit for escaping, but you're MMR would be penalized because you didn't actually engage in meaningful gameplay.
Even if you just want to have the system purely to even out matchmaking kills and escapes alone do a poor job of that. Also, kills and escapes are the only thing currently taken into account. I'm not sure as to why you think there is more being calculated as this has been stated in a Q&A and reported on.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2844937#Comment_2844937
I don't see how else they could do it. As they said in the stream itself, they kinda have to have it be based on win/loss because otherwise you might have scenarios where players 'rank up' after losing which doesn't feel intuitive or accurate at all.
Players feeling they need to play a certain way because of the MMR is also on them, not on the MMR system. It's easier to fix the latter than the former so it's not completely irrelevant information, but it's best not to assume that those players are right and justified.
Also, a lot of the current issues would be fixed by tweaking the balance of the game, not the MMR system.
The entire point of ELO, MMR, TrueSkill rating systems is to jump the player's overall level of skill or assign relative placement value on a player to determine their competitive standing.
Wins and losses matter and should be weighted heavier, but the actual important metrics are how you get to the end result. Chess factors in not only flat wins and losses, but time spent in game and number of moves. Fighting games that used the TrueSkill rating system judged you not only on wins and losses, but factors such as offensiveness, defensiveness, execution of combinations. League and Dota take into account vision score, creep score, damage dealt, damage healed etc.
The more data points you use in your MMR system up to a point gives a better understanding of how each player approaches the game and better indicates their level of skill. We already have a game that allows both sides to "win" by default. Killers and survivors both can pip in the same game so the analogy falls apart right there. It falls apart even more when you account for their insistence of 2 and 2 balance which means as long as you get about six hooks, some decent chases, a handful or two of hits and control gen progress for the first 9 minutes of the game you can get a Ruthless Killer at best which is a pip or Brutal killer at worst which is an effective draw.
Even if you die as survivor if you've done enough things to flesh out multiple scoring events then you can pip. Even by the game's own metrics before we add in SBMM into the mix both states can be true simultaneously. A better indicator of skill in DBD by comparison was the old victory cube setup.
-
@Nun_So_Vile said:
It should have been called Back to the Drawing Board because it's a mess. I did a little experiment this month where I haven't played Killer since rank reset and loaded on for a few games of Trapper..first time even picking up the character and only leveled him to 14. Regardless of Cross-play on or off it still paired with rainbow ranks in the middle of the day. IDC how you spin it, there's no reason for it the system to be designed around one specific aspect but still not achieve what it's intended function is. Where's the logic behind putting a killer you haven't played against red ranks. Especially when you're at both Brown IV and on a new killer. SBMM is all piss in the wind.
To my understanding killer MMR doesn't decay and is averaged out between all of the killers you have played. So no matter who you pick you're never going to move out too far out of whatever matchmaking you're already getting.
-
@SkeletalElite said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2845159#Comment_2845159
The TVs turning back on if they're all off is a disabled feature, that currently does not happen
That's turned off currently? Jeez...
-
@HexDaddyissues said:
can someone fill me in on how sadakos abilities affect your throughout the game from a survivor perspective?
i get the tv teleportation and the condemnation. I don't understand the manifesting/demanifesting etc.
What do the tapes do? can you effectively shut down every tv if its coordinated enough? is there any way to successfully loop? she always seems to fast for me.
Thank you for any input or guidance here.
With a coordinated group you can currently shut off a significant number of tvs. TVs turned off by survivors stay off for 60 seconds at base and 100 seconds at base after Sadako teleports to a TV. If for some reason all TVs are turned off they will come back on much like Plague's fountains giving Plague corrupt purge automagically should all fountains be tainted.
https://deadbydaylight.fandom.com/wiki/Sadako_Yamamura#Power_Trivia More information can be found here.
-
@P3Pumpkin said:
Survivors using 3rd Party Program to view their killer type/name/perks/offerings as well as being able to killswitch cancel their load in and dodge the game using this method. anyone heard of it?
In the P2P networking era of DBD there used to be a program that could let people see the killer's name.
-
@konchok said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2838336#Comment_2838336
Those statistics only apply to guaranteed kills. You're going to know within the first couple minutes whether or not the survivors are able to get out of their hats. If they all escape from the head traps, you can still camp 1 survivor to death and get a second kill with noed. But if you can even kill 1 survivor , the game becomes a 1vs3 and that's very likely to be a 3 or 4k.
That means this strategy is probably pigs strongest strategy to consistently get kills as you should be able to get a minimum of 2 kills per match and a very high chance of getting 3 or 4k's even with good groups
It's by far her weakest strategy as it requires the use of an iri add-on and endgame specific perk build to even do effectively. Even if it was her best strategy it still doesn't rise to the level of a bannable offense as the game progresses normally and nothing has been exploited in a way that actively breaks the terms of service of the game. You may not like it, but let's not give it too much credit as if it's absolutely wrecking the the game.
-
@BrokenSouI said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2843385#Comment_2843385
I've yet to experience TV's not being where I need them. It probably helps I'm fond of her iri add on.
I'll have to try that with demo more, maybe. It's just not my playstyle to set up like that. I like being aggressive and getting the chases going. Instead of spending maybe a minute setting up for something that may be helpful later. I normally set one wherever I spawn. Then wherever I get hooks. Typically
I've experienced the RNG on TVs not being in my favor and I've experienced multiple times looking around the map and seeing all but two tvs just being turned off either because I burned them in a chase or survivors started yeeting tapes out of them. I get some of her strength shines when you have add-ons but if you don't have add-ons and have to deal with large wide open maps on top of RNG you can't influence there is little way I can see saying she's high tier or very strong
Simply put, other killers do what she does on a smaller scale with better results and less hindrances. It's she the absolute worst? No. Is she good? Also no, imo. Is she fun? Yeah, she can be. Does her level of fun outweigh her issues? I would say no. Her map presence can be quite threatening, but using that map presence hurts as much as it helps. Her moment to moment gameplay in a chase is feels like you're playing catch up rather than engaging in interesting mind games. To me she has the exact opposite problem of Trickster, he was built so pure in the 1v1 that he sucks at managing teams without relying on cheesy tactics. Sadako was built so purely focused on the 4v1 that her map presence vast outstrips her 1v1 ability with the added issue of whether or not RNG is in your favor.
-
@hazzzard said:
I was actually enjoying the game against top-tier Blights and now you bring back this ridiculous character. When are you gonna acknowledge the fact her power doesn't belong in Dead By Daylight? Games against her are just boring and on most maps, she has no counterplay.
Rework her or nerf her even more to the point where games are actually winnable against her.
Also, give Sadako more buffs. I love her so far!
I'll ignore the comments from people who support broken designs just because they are biased.
Calling people biased outright and declaring they will be ignored is in itself a showing of bias.
-
@toxik_survivor said:
Would you rather be looped to oblivion or have to go half way across the map. Ether way this is a game about running from a killer. Not trying to sound disrespectful by any means, but their is always an exuse that people come up with that is "bad for the game"
In the same way that tunneling isn't the most engaging way to play for survivors, Hold W meta isn't very engaging for killers.
It's a valid strategy, but it like tunneling and camping it removes what little skilled play aspects exists in this game and replaces it with the most efficient way to waste a killer's time. The honest problem isn't that you're running it is that killers don't equal ways of dealing it extended chase scenarios.
A lot of killers have no way to augment their movement outside of perks and even then said perks are highly situational as certain conditions needed to be met. When both sides do the most efficient things they can the game simply isn't particularly engaging for either side. People like committing to chases, but don't like dealing with people running to the further corner they can without even remotely caring about looping. Looping for a lot of killers is where people actually play the game with them even if the killer tunnels you, mind gaming a loop in the process is more fun than following someone to the edge of the map in a straight line.
-
@TypicalIllusion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2840219#Comment_2840219
you lose addons, offerings, and time
Things you've committed to losing, are meant to be lost eventually, and don't rise to the occasion of outright banning someone.
The barrier to getting banned in this game is pretty high, that is just the facts. In terms of gameplay the things that will get you banned aren't going to be cheesy low effort strats that ultimately don't stop the game from progressing. Banning afk pig would be like banning camping Bubba, banning back rev Billy, banning pinky finger clown. One of the few things used to get people banned gameplay wise was old hostage Doc and it wasn't even because of the addon/perk combination itself or that he made it really hard to do gens. The difficulty to doing gens was intentional design, but when players stopped actively using that setup to get kills to finish the game that is when it rose to being bannable.
It was because people stopped the game in its track. Pig is the exact opposite, she can't even remotely prevent the game from ending and the entire point is to get at least one kill even if it costs them the rest of the game. You can not simply ban someone for this sort of play.
-
@JoaoVanBlizzard said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2839057#Comment_2839057
Exactly, this perk has no reason for anyone to use it unless they want a more challenging game, so I thought of something that could make a difference using it, I had this idea based on her name too (No Mither), so I believe the idea of the perk is that you have resources that don't depend on the help of other survs, being able to have more chances of getting off the hook alone would be very good with it.
No MIther is actually supposed to a rather potent anti-slugging perk as in exchange for always being hurt you can pick yourself up repeated. It also give a lot of synergy to perks that only work while your hurt like resilience, dead hard, etc. On its own it isn't great, but it was always meant to be hyper situational. No Mither gives people access to quite a lot of utility.
-
It's not exactly what i would call great for gameplay, but banning people for doing is a massive overreaction. It's not even a real reliable strategy, at best you kill one person and then have to deal with endgame where you're most likely about to watch three survivors do wind sprints out the door.
-
@Tr1nity said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2840150#Comment_2840150
Iamextremelyangry
Something like that XD
-
@Tr1nity said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2840133#Comment_2840133
I assume it was named "I am extremely angry"
Yeah, but expressed in single word form.
@MonsterInMyMind said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2840133#Comment_2840133
Awesome I see it now and WHOA bro WHAT IS THAT LMFAO
That right there is what we used to call back in the day a "fat shame" spot. Survivors can run through that space perfectly fine, but Sadako apparently is built like a linebacker at the shoulders can't remotely move through it.
-
@MonsterInMyMind said:
Your Image isn't working I'd DM a Mod or something and see if they can post it.
I just needed to change the file name. I wrote it while extremely angry so you can guess at what it was called.
-
@jamally093 said:
I don't do this when a survivor is tormented I put them in a cage I hate it when he just puts you on a hook for what not even impressive mori I feel like it should be a requirement to do that a survivor needs to be put a cage at least once here's the thing cages are also really useful since it prevents all those bs perks BT and DS from activating so why hook people just cage them.
Caging is far less consistent that putting people on hooks as it gimps your ability to pressure survivors into moving out of safe position. The Cage ports to the further spot away from your current location so that also means you can't really depend on it not just ending up a couple tiles over from a survivor.
-
@Bladelesss said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2834423#Comment_2834423
I can see that being frustrating if you are a solo player.
Would you be interested in teaching someone new how to play like a good killer though?
Not in 2 person killer way, no.
Learning to play killer is actually a pretty granular experience. While basic concepts carry over each killer is pretty specialized in how they approach the game so having a 2 person killer would teach the new player to play as a component of that killer only.
It's easier to teach someone by shadowing their games via stream, pulling them into customs and talking them through the specific aspects of whatever killer they are wanting to learn.
There is a character like this is Heroes of the Storm actually that requires two people to play. Consequently, that character is actually insanely difficult to play effectively if one person doesn't understand the game very well. So it is a character that mainly gets played by already experienced players and even then not that often as generally not having full agency over your play making decisions feels really bad.
People who play a lot of killer usually don't have other people they play the game with enough to even trust them like that. So it really would be a killer that probably only appeals to competitive tournament play teams and not much else. The coordination level needed would be pretty high and DBD isn't really built for multiplayer coordination when it comes to killer.
-
@DaddyFatSacks420 said:
What if there were options in settings where you could enable “fair matchmaking”. This would be just like the option to enable cross play, with a warning to the side that would state enabling “fair matchmaking” may result in longer matchmaking times. Basically this option, when enabled, would weigh players SBMM ranks much heavier when matchmaking, while pretty much disregarding wait time. Exactly the opposite as it sits now where players skill is thrown out the window in favor of making the matchmaking faster
Even with an option like that eventually the system needs to widen its criteria or people won't get matches for hours on end. There is also the issue of SWFs which I believe already messes with matchmaking in general in regards to MMR vs Wait Time.
-
@UnKn0wN45 said:
One follow up question, I get (now) how the MMR system works, but is there a way to set my preference to "I'll gladly wait for 20-30 minutes for a GOOD matchup rather than a 5 minute wait for a 7 minute game I get totally wrecked in"?
There is not.
-
@SharpSolid said:
Hello,
Briefly, I have been playing this game since 2016 and 1.600 hours I have played. I can say I am kind of an expert. And hear me out here...
Eachtime you nerfed killers over the years DBD became an unbalanced game. It is so easy for survivors to survive, they are escaping like fooling around. BUT ARENT IT AGAISNT THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF DBD? SURVIVOR MUST BE TERRIFIED, CHALLENGED, TRY HARD SURVIVE.
************************************************
Survivors are mocking killers, there is no adrenaline like it used to have back in early times. You nerfed over and over again every good things on killers. Starting first with Perks and then some Add-Ons and also even Offerings. Brighter Moonligt and Mori Offerings. We used to kill survivors as we pleased with it. Now it is useless just a showdown. What is the point IF we cant take any benefit of killing? Anyway YOU GOTTA BALANCE THIS GAME BECAUSE NOBODY WANTS TO PLAY AS KILLER, EVERYBODY GOES SURVIVOR. THE PROOF YOU WANT? CHECK THE MATCHMAKINGS. AS SURVIVOR YOU NEED TO WAIT 5 MIN. EVEN AS 4 FULL SQUAD BUT FOR KILLERS JUST 5-10 SEC. WHY? BECAUSE LIKE I SAID NOBODY WANTS TO PLAY WEAK KILLERS. THEY BECAME PATHETIC ON THE EYES OF SURVIVORS. WHY WOULDNT IT BE? YOU HAVE TO HANG THEM 3 TIMES AND FOR EACH OF THEM 4X3 = 12 TIMES... IN THE MEANTIME IN 1 HOOK TIME(FULL DEAD) 3-4 GENERATOR CAN BE REPAIRED. FUNNY THING IS DO THE MATCH AND YOU WILL SEE, UNLESS SURVIVORS FOOLING AROUND SO EASY TO REPAIR ALL THE GENERATORS.
*************************************************************************************
THERE IS A PROBLEM IN BALANCE IN DBD AND PEOPLE REGRETS TO PLAY AS KILLERS NOW
HERE IS ESSENTIAL BALANCE SOLUTIONS;
1) When survivors took a hit Apply "Hindered" Status Effect till they heal-up(Because whiling bleeding like hell shouldnt be run as fast as healthy, there is logic)
2) Bloodlust must open in first contact and level up every 10 sec. until Lv3(Because there are so much pallets and vaults, even If killer reachs a survivor around the map can reach randomly a pallet or vault before hit)
3) Remove the heads up noise for repair skill checks and decrease %50 of skill check zones. (Because while repair instead of looking around map like repairing nothing, they should focus on repair. After all it will give more thrill and adrenaline to survivors on repairing moments)
4) On the hook of first stage survivors are literally going toilet, grap a drink etc. FFS They are on the hook, about to die and hanging there like a "break time" but NO! This is absurd and prevent that Skill checks must start from the First Stage of Hook then must continue harder like in the Second hook stage.
5) Last but not least... remove %50 of the pallets around the map. Back in the time they were valuable now they are plenty of em.
YOU MUST DO THOSE BALANCES OTHERWISE, NOBODY WILL PLAY AS KILLER AND GAME WILL DIE SLOWLY IN TIME. ESPECIALLY MAIN KILLER PLAYERS LIKE I AM. AND I AM EMPHASIZING 1 MORE TIME I HAVE JUST 1.000 HOUR KILLER TIME AND I AM HELL OF A PRO KILLER(Proven by screenshots)
BEST REGARDS SHARP SOLID
If you've played 1,600 hours and came to this conclusion I think you've been doing something wrong.
-
@UnKn0wN45 said:
I'm on PC (steam), live in Serbia, so probably Russian servers or something IDK. Had the game since 2018 but have a total of 100h in game (most of that spent in the lobby either AFK or waiting for a game).
Before, I understood the "ranking" system, as in rank 20 - rank 01 going from piss yellow to blood red and it was a mixed bag, sometimes I would actually get survivors who didn't know every pallet, jungle gym, window, they'd be new, like me, so I'd play fair (no NOED, tunneling, slugging, camping etc.) but still manage a 2-3K, and sometimes I'd get flashlight clicking ultra survivors with servers in their back yards dead harding for distance, body blocking, flashlight saving swat agents who de ranked on purpose, it felt random and most of all it felt (sort of) fair.
NOW?! Holly #########, now i don't understand ANYTHING! there is a IV (I know it's 4, i just don't understand it) in the corner of my screen that's kind of yellowish, that's rank but every game, it's the latter version of survivors, and in the endgame they all have different ranks with different colors, blood red I as well as IV... The #########??? I don't expect or want to 4k every time, but I can't seem to "git gud". Survivors just run me around for 5 gens and book it. I don't feel like I'm getting any better :(
I got a 4K ONCE! And only because:
-The swat agents got too cocky and way too altruistic, basically throwing, so not me playing good, but them playing bad (on purpose)
-My reverse bear traps got awesome RNG and just wouldn't come off. Can't count on that.
-AND I had to sweat my ass off, slugging, tunneling, and camping like the biggest most toxic player we all hate, and got a well deserved ear full in the endgame chat.
It feels bad, I don't like playing in ways that make it not fun for the four other people in the game, but it also feels bad when the swat team shows 0 fear, and just steam rolls me, looping like pros linking multiple tiles together, flashlight clicking, sabo plays, body blocking, while gens just keep popping like corn! It just seems hopeless. I keep trying but it just seems no one is just NEW anymore.
What can I do, if anything? :(
(except play survivor, that always goes worse, but I didn't buy the game to play survivor tbh.)
So the Rank system now is purely a measurement of how much a person has played the game in the current season. If you see Red Ranks regardless of number, just means they've played a lot of games this season. The numbers are just subdivisions there are 4 levels in each rank color. The combination of Rank and Level determine what reward you get at the end of the season. Rank resets every season as well so it isn't as good of an indicator of skill as it used to be in the past.
Your issue is probably to do with available players in you region vs SBMM(Skill based Match Making). SBMM will try to put you with players who are around the same MMR value to give you matches to have more balanced matches. If your region doesn't have any players currently online that fit in that narrow criteria then it widens the pool until you just start getting matched with any available players. It means you don't have to wait a super long time for games, but means your chances of getting matched with people who far exceed your skill level is more likely.
You could try changing the times you play to be either earlier or later in the day, but even then if your region is just full of hardcore players then you will probably still get that level of player.
-
@Abekrampe said:
So ive been triyng to play some games on and off, as both survivor and killer and i find close to no enjoyment in the game.
More or less every game as survivor someone gets tunneled out of the game on first hook, and on killer you barely get any time setting up before the first 1-3 gens pops.
I simply dont understand what the devs intentions with the current meta is if not to kill the non-competetively minded players.
It has its moments. I can't really see where the game headed and just use it to vibe at this point.
Switching to survivor took all the stress I experienced in the game off so now I just turn on a spotify playlist, do gens, and pretend I care that I'm getting tunneled out of the game every now and then.
I feel like nothing's going to change for the better and I've spent too much money to just walk away again so might as well just not get my hopes up for anything and just exist with what it has to offer even though its the same thing from six years ago.
Pain ceases to be pain if it lasts infinitely.
-
Play AVP or Colonial Marines Multiplayer
-
@Seiko300 said:
I'm absolutely in love with the idea of a potential Bioshock chapter and having the Big Daddy as a potential killer, it is by far my most wanted Video Game license right above Outlast. There's so much room to create such an interesting power, between the little sisters that they are attached to and relentlessly protect, a giant oversized drill combined with a massive hulking armored frame, plasmids which provide a unique source for other powers and forms of utility. Bioshock is a wealth of ideas and fits like a Glove into Dead by Daylight's slasher thematic filled with empowered killers that are hosts to a myriad of all sorts of strange abilities.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/Z3L865D3KTUQ/image.png
I think I really fell in love with the idea after seeing the fanmade chapter / character model posted up on Youtube. They did a fantastic job with the somber seaside music, the inhuman whale calls and mechanical sounds that a Big Daddy makes, and even a decent power idea as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXNLiez_4a0
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2826047#Comment_2826047
That's an incredibly subjective point, personally, I became interested in Bioshock purely because of the design of the Big Daddies. I love the exterior visual design inspired by vintage diving suits combined with a steampunk aesthetic, just as much as the interior lore about these genetically enhanced humans whose bodies were grafted into the suits themselves, and their subsequent psychological programming which compels them to be the protective caretakers of the little sisters- acting as their personal guardians.
Not to mention the deeper lore about the different versions of big daddies and the prototype Subject Delta. I find them to be incredibly intriguing and with plenty of depth to satisfy that interest. Compared to your average splicer, named bosses, or even the Big Sisters, I still actually like The Bouncers way more, and you would think it's because of all that intrigue that made them so iconic in the first place. I'd have to disagree with you entirely on nearly every point you made in your comment.
Not only that, but the Bouncer works even better than the other ideas you listed because he's actually been licensed out to another game once before, meaning that the license holders would probably be open to doing so again. The Bouncer was featured in Playstation's Smash Bros. esque title for the PS3, Playstation All-Stars: Battle Royale as a fully playable fighter. Meaning that they would be more likely to license this character out again in the future, seeing as they've already collaborated with other studios in the past.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-0JLFEfPGk
Bioshock would be a perfect addition to DBD, and the only true difficulty I see with a potential chapter is having too many ideas to fit into a single kit for this character. However, I'd consider this to be a "good problem" to have as it essentially means they get to pick and choose which aspects of the Bouncer are most important to the fantasy of the character, which ones reflect the character and the overall franchise the best, and which provide the most unique additions to DBD and fit in the overall flow that open up brand new avenues for players to explore.
Worst case scenario, we end up with a Nemesis-like situation where the devs end up compromising for the sake of DBD more than they branch out in bold directions. (Although let's be real, we all knew Nemesis wasn't getting a rocket launcher). I honestly don't think this is a bad thing, as overall I think most DBD players welcomed Nemesis as an intimidating killer who brought the core idea of what Nemesis was (an engineered and lethal bioweapon) and brought with him the first AI controlled elements to a killer. Looking back, I think more people would rather keep him than remove him completely if they had they option to, the people that wouldn't are fringe-case purists who don't accept anything less than perfection from their beloved franchises. Which I don't personally believe is a realistic expectation, given some compromises have to be met to translate and adapt nearly any character from other video games into Dead by Daylight at all.
Ok. I still disagree.
I'm not asking for purity. I feel that Bioshock's horror is less about the Big Daddy experience and more about the people and worldview that leads to getting Big Daddies. I don't find them that interesting or scary considering I've bashed their helmets in with a wrench an excessive amount of times. Even when we get to be a Big Daddy in Bioshock 2 I found myself not actually enjoying that section of the game as much as when I was just a dude. Bioshock's atmosphere, decision making, and body horror are far more appealing to me. I didn't see Big Daddy as a good fit for Playstation All-Stars which competitive play sorta proved that on a mechanically level and I don't see him as an interesting prospect for DBD.
Let's be clear, DBD has an abundance of lumbering murder machines. Splicers would open up interesting mechanically interactions with both opposing players and the terrain. Big Sister would be a gateway into adding a new class of agility based characters potentially. Even then I feel we can get there will less...stylized horror franchises. I want to explore new things with this game, I've been playing for six years so I'm invested, but I've been burned by setting my expectations too high on what usually comes from licensed development in DBD.
I feel Bioshock is not a good fit and to speak on Nemesis, it was a very close class after everything was said and done, considering he has basically a half functioning power. Not to mention the RPD map's attention to detail actively hurts its playability severely.
At least set the Devs up for a better chance of success by not going for a franchise that will require such deliberate, delicate attention.
That's my views based on my time with both games.
-
@Hostile said:
This game has became unplayable as a killer. I main survivor, i usualy solo and sometime play with friends. When i play survivor game are "usualy" fair sided, and the main problem is mainly camper/tunneler.
But when i play killer ... 9 games out of 10 i play against squad of four, usualy most of them are red ranks (while i'm silver) with thousands of hours and AT LEAST a vac ban OR level 1 steam account with less than 5 games :)
This is stupid, where are the anti cheat ? I see BVR talking a lot about "inclusivity" and "pride" and "black history month", but before doing politic, maybe try to make the people who PAID your game having a decent experience by banning cheaters ?
Even streamers say it, cheaters are EVERYWHERE in this game, its unplayable, and most of the time those cheaters or try harders bully killers, they insult, mock, and ruin the game for people who just want to do some killer quest (because BHVR OBLIGE us to do killer quest to get new quests (usualy its like 1 or 2 survivor quests out of 15 on two weeks).
This system is pathetic, when are they going to do something about cheaters ? I could understand if the game was 3 month old, but ffs, its a 6 years (maybe more) old game ? ######### ?
DBD uses EAC(Easy Anti-cheat), but there is a thriving market of people who get paid to defeat both EAC and BHVR's measures. It's a problem with most games with EAC as its just kinda bad for how ubiquitous it is.
If you're getting red ranks then that means whatever region you're playing on may not have anyone around your MMR to match evenly with or the game can't figure out what to do with SWF and are just throwing them at whoever happens to be on. Not much to be done there even if MMR was off as eventually the game just has to make games happen.
-
It's a perfectly mid perk. It's not bad, but it isn't particularly good either.