RpTheHotrod
RpTheHotrod
About
- Username
- RpTheHotrod
- Joined
- Visits
- 3,824
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Blue_Guy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3917769#Comment_3917769
I forgot to specify this so I just updated the post now, but it wouldn't affect the UI. UI will always tell the truth, so the main counter would be to pay extra attention to it and realize when the survivor you see injured / healthy isn't actually injured / healthy on the UI, but somebody else is
Once you realize someones running the perk i feel it shouldnt be too hard to adapt and realize injured = healthy and healthy = injured, it's somewhat along the lines of DeceptionAh, that makes a lot more sense. As long as a keen eye can see through the shenanigans, I'm all for deception gameplay. I love Red Herring and Deception XD
-
Interesting idea, but it would just brutalize already weak m1 killers who depend on reliable downs after a long extended chase. This would essentially just bully m1 killers. There would need to be some sort of tell at the very least. It is too easily triggerable, especially if almost everyone is running it. You literally would never know who is healthy and not healthy with such a small cooldown.
-
@Callahan9116 said:
I'm worried about the up coming anti tunneling. It is almost always in your best interest to take 1 survivor out as fast as possible. If you take that away without an equally powerful buff killers will just quit. Stop listening to Survivors too much, there are 4 of them for every 1 killers.
Aight, first of all - I get it. I'm aware survivors are the power role once both sides have experience, and mathematically it's in the survivor's favor…but…BUT even as someone who plays a lot of killer (60% of the time, I'd say, I have a p100 ghostie and such), at the end of the day - games are meant to be fun…and getting tunneled out right out of the gate is not remotely fun for the person getting tunneled out. There needs to be some sort of early-game protection against tunneling because it's just a really bad (EFFECTIVE, I know) habit to rely on. Instead, killers need better adjustments, and survivors need early game protection from being eliminated outside of examples where they might weaponize it somehow.
Long story short, killers need to stray away from early game player elimination to reduce it down to 3 players asap. It's effective, yes, but it shouldn't be. There should be better options for killers where eliminating early isn't so heavily encouraged.
My suggestion would be for the first few minutes of the match, someone getting unhooked gets teleported to the furthest hook from them as an "exit point". Call it Entity's Mercy or something. Besides, this whole fog thing is about the Entity feeding on suffering - the Entity wouldn't want survivors to get eliminated TOO fast now, would it?
-
Hmm, so you're saying that if you get naturally healed, the perk permanently deactivates for the rest of the match?
-
@jesterkind Okay, thanks for your patience. I went and and pulled the video showing how charges can be lost very quickly out of the reddit link. Pardon sound quality, but video from video caused degradation. This is only 22 seconds long, so not a long watch.
https://youtu.be/kgwdQ8dmqYgThe end result after all of them having unbreakable was a single hook. You'll see here that at the beginning of the match, the killer is penalized for survivor mistakes by having one of the gens get nearly half of its charged lost in a matter of 10 seconds. This isn't at the fault of the killer. This isn't the killer making "bad plays". Imagine if the survivors had progress on more gens? That's 3 MAYBE 4 gens within surge range…all would have had nearly half of their allotted 8 regression limits evaporated within 10 seconds. The killer is then significantly punished for this for the remainder of the match, as those gens will perma-lock up FAST.
Now remember, the whole intent of the 8 regression limit is to try to shut down trolls:
BHVR quotes:
"…3 gen scenarios are those where the killer aims to defend 3 generators that are close by in particular, anddoes not participate in normal gameplay - not chasing survivors, etc, in this instance survivors are not able to make any meaningful progress to those generators.""…In the overwhelming majority of games, this will
notcome into play. However, in scenarios where the Killer is defending a set of Generatorsand refusing to chase Survivors, there will eventually come a point where they can no longer damage the Generator…"This means it's specifically designed to shut down killers essentially holding the game hostage by defending and refusing to participate in chases\downs\hooks.
So essentially, I've provided a variety of ways that the 8 regression lockup can occur. The first video earlier (knight video) had shown where survivors can weaponize the system to permanently lock a gen within minutes of the match beginning. Your suggestion was the knight simply not regress the gen, but then the gen is simply lost (it's a vital gen). Lose-Lose situation.
The second video (I replaced it) showed you were a killer making bad plays can trigger permanent lockdown even if not 3 gen camping and running around chasing and hooking.
The third video (replaced a few comments above) shows a standard match where killer and survivors just play normally - I'm sure both making mistakes occasionally, but that's literally part of the game.
The fourth video here (the 22 seconds one) shows that by zero fault of the killer, survivors can make mistakes which can eliminate nearly half the charges of multiple gens within 10 seconds.
On average, ALL of my matches are 10-15 minutes before and after the 8 regression limit, so the whole "it prevented an extended match from happening" isn't valid.
That's a mix of bad killer plays, neutral killer and survivor plays, and bad survivor plays - all of them triggering unfairly on regression hits as no 3-gen camping was occurring.
In the end, this means that the 8 regression limit is ABSOLUTELY affecting games where there is no 3-gen camping going on, at all, and when it happens, it's MOSTLY happening due to m1 killers being forced by the survivors to focus in one small area of the map due to their inability to quickly move across large distances. One might say, "Well it doesn't happen enough to warrant a fix", but I see this happening on streams very commonly, and besides, the last thing weak m1 killers with no mobility needs are to be unfairly harmed by a system that's designed to punish trolls.
-
I don't really trust their fixes after the 3 gen mechanic. They claim it would only affect troll killers who just camp gens and refuse to participate in the match by not doing chases or hooks, but it happens commonly on m1 killers not 3 gen camping because survivors know the no mobility killer can't afford to travel to far gens and they all just focus at the center of the map gens which means any surge hits and such are all hitting middle gens early which lock up the gens before the end of the match.
I don't personally tunnel or slug unless it's necessary (for example, survivors with power struggle and flipflop that go down at a pallet with their flashlight buddy nearby, the slug is mandatory), but if it's anything like the 3 gen solution, it'll start hurting killers that aren't going out of their way to tunnel and slug.
-
@DarKStaR350z said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3916677#Comment_3916677
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/JM5V24APMR2P/img-9008.jpeg
There’s one question about why you took a break from the game or something, and the answer options are all survivor sided like killer power/perks too strong, and nothing about why a killer player might have stopped playing.
It does give an insight into the devs mindset that the killer players are not as important.I stopped playing killer for 6 months because I was tired of how m1 killers were getting kicked in the gut every balance change while the top dogs were relatively unaffected.
-
Just to clarify this subject before some people jump to the wrong conclusions:
- Killer gets priority on hits
- Survivors get priority on interrupts
Both sides get priority in some way to make it feel that it makes sense to the person doing the action at the time. For a killer example, a killer's action of clearly getting a hit on the survivor in front of him even if from the survivor POV the killer isn't right on them, yet. If this wasn't the case, killer just wouldn't feel right to play since many hits would never count. For a survivor example, performing the action of getting off a gen and running away before the killer is on top of them even if from the killer's POV the survivor was still on the gen (the animation to grab will play freezing the killer in place, then it'll stop, and the survivor will then appear to "teleport" away as they are running off). If this wasn't the case, it wouldn't feel right that the survivor went out of their way to get off the gen early and start running away only to suddenly get teleported back to the gen and get grabbed.
-
@CrossTheSholf said:
I am going to run the math later today as well. But I think that outliers are ok. Id point to how R6 does their pick rate and win rate info graphs for operators and say we should get that for DBD
Always happy to see more people mathing it out, but keep in mind, their statistics show that at high MMR (where people have good experience in the game to know how to properly play) that people in a 4 man squad have their individual escape rates at 48% all the way down to solo queue being in the low 40's%. That's not outliers, that's the average across the playerbase. Just keep that in mind.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3917050#Comment_3917050
For the record, I am not contesting that less mobile killers are likely to stick around the centre gens, or whatever gens are actively being worked on to force a gen split if it's not literally the centre. I agree with that part, that part makes perfect sense to me.
What I'm contesting is that the situation described above means the killer needs to kick generators that often. I've played M1 killers, I've played them in scenarios like this, and I've still never seen the regression limit system kick in. It implies that you're actually attacking generators that often, which my position on is that it's a bad play if you're an immobile killer, you don't have time to be paying attention to the generators. It's not a luxury that you can afford if you can't make up for that time with mobility or fast chases afterwards.
I watched the youtube video - not following reddit links, apologies - and there are two broad points to make about it.
First, despite what the video is titled, you did not lose this match because of the regression limit, you lost because you didn't play very well and were outplayed at several points. That's not me dismissing this video outright, to be clear, I still have points to make, and it's also not me trying to insult you- especially if you were sick and on some kinda cold meds, nobody's gonna judge you for losing a match of DBD, it happens.
The second is that even accounting for this, you still stopped to kick generators thoughtlessly with a perk equipped that removes any necessity to do that. While it's not 3-gen camping, it is - perhaps accidentally - still what BHVR were attempting to address with the regression limit, which is excessive generator stall.
It's not about whether or not you're camping, it's about how much generators should be stalled within a match. At the end of the day, you still need to actually progress your objective and play your macro game, not just stall out your opponent's. You specifically may not have been attempting to grind the match fully to a halt… but you were still trying to rely on attrition, and if that worked, then someone who is trying to grind the match to a halt would be able to do it. That's why this system wasn't just exclusively designed around 3-gen camping, that was just the main problem that necessitated it.
The absolute best you could conclude from that video is… it's possible to accidentally trip the limit because of poor play. That's a pretty reasonable edge case, in my opinion.
Always good to have a discussion with you, Jester.
I already mentioned in the original post with the video that I played poorly - I was very sick and heavily medicated, haha (you can see me entirely stopping mid-match on multiple occasions to take a quick "nose check". The quality of the match vs me being well is vastly different. My apologies for having such a piss poor video example while I was very sick (I'm cringing on some of the decisions I made in that match), but it was simply the video I had on hand. I'll see if I can hunt down a "legitimate" match. EDIT - I found a better video where I wasn't sick. I updated the original post. Now granted, I do some gen kicks, but "well, just don't kick the gens!" is a silly solution because not regressing gens simply means they'll just be finished instead of locked but not yet finished.
That being said, even if I never stopped to kick, surge alone would have still caused the same result. You'll notice several surges didn't do anything due to the gen being locked up, so even without stopping to kick, it would have happened. Also the title of the video of course is absolutely debatable, and I played poorly being sick enough that I'd probably lose regardless, but that's not the issue - the issue is that the video shows that m1 killers are getting gens locked up unfairly against them in situations where 3 gen camping is not happening. Regardless, I'd argue that "the killer kicks a gen 3 times, he should be punished!" is not a good way to balance the game. If kicks are so evil and terrible, just remove them from the game entirely and readjust balance accordingly. Kicks "existing" shouldn't be the cause for regression limits. Killers trolling by camping a 3 gen the entire camp and refusing to do chases and hooks should be the cause for regression limits (ie artificially extending the match).
No worries on reddit links - I totally understand. To describe the situation, at the beginning of the match, 3 survivors were caught off guard. I hooked one, and injured 2 in the process. They went for the save, and I downed the rescuer. This triggered a SURGE hit. The person who just got unhooked instead of running simply dipped around the corner then stopped because they wanted to do a flashlight save. I instead simply turned the corner and downed the flashlight attempter. Second SURGE hit. I then go to pick up the first downed survivor (I prefer not double-hooking survivors), but I spot the THIRD survivor just outside the room healing themselves due to A Nurse's Calling. I down them. That was 3 SURGE hits all in a spam of 20 seconds at the very beginning of the match. Why should I be punished for the entirety of the rest of the match of having nearly half of my allocated gen regressions already evaporated just because the survivors are throwing themselves in harm's way? 8 regression limits isn't sustainable if you can literally lose 3 in 20 seconds. I get your point that it's probably bad that m1 killers stop to kick and it's a bad call, and you're probably absolutely correct. However, the regression limit can still easily kick in with things such as SURGE where the killer is NOT making mistakes and merely progressing the objective by downing people (and hooking after, of course) such as the example I provided above. I wouldn't say the killer downing 3 people in 20 seconds is the killer making "bad calls". Regardless, it affects the gen limit WORSE than kicking!
I'll have to disagree the match was about attrition. You can clearly see that I had entirely left the center area on multiple occasions to chase a survivor, but there's a LOT of safe loops on that map, especially when the majority of the time they just ran to killer shack.
Anyway, the point is the 8 regression limit sucks for killers with no mobility - especially ones without range. They give up ALL of their pressure every time they chase. That means they are far more vulnerable to gen rushes. They typically aren't even allowed the time to stop and kick gens which is why surge is a popular perk among them. Even surge alone though can trigger the 8 regression limit against killers who are already designed to be weak.
As you mentioned, this can happen due to poor play. Okay, so if a killer plays poorly, let's kick them in the gut while they are down by forcing their gens to lock up? They are already playing poorly and likely are going to lose - why make it worst for them? I don't think the concept of "8 regression limits only only affect killers who don't play perfectly" is a good end result. Killers and both survivors are allowed to make mistakes in the game.
My whole point is simple - let's stop having the anti-3 gen camping mechanic affecting killers who aren't 3 gen camping. I don't think that's an unreasonable ask. It's supposed to stop people who, per BHVR's own statements, camp the gens the entire game with no intention on progressing the objective (ie chases and hooking). If this system ever kicks in where that isn't happening, then it's flawed and needs to be re-thought.
In case anyone needs a reminder, here is BHVR's actual words of the intent of the 8 regression limit:
"…3 gen scenarios are those where the killer aims to defend 3 generators that are close by in particular, and does not participate in normal gameplay - not chasing survivors, etc, in this instance survivors are not able to make any meaningful progress to those generators."
"…In the overwhelming majority of games, this will not come into play. However, in scenarios where the Killer is defending a set of Generators and refusing to chase Survivors, there will eventually come a point where they can no longer damage the Generator…"
Clearly in my examples, this never happened, and yet the system still kicks in - mostly against weak no mobility m1 killers. I've watched a lot of streamers, a lot of yt videos, and have had a lot of matches, and I've very often seen at least one generator lock up when no one was stalling the game. In fact, most of their normal matches where there isn't a lockup only lasts 10-15 minutes. How is 10-15 minute matches considered "excessively long matches"?
In the end, I simply want us to stop punishing m1 killers with no mobility simply for existing. "We're adding in an 8 regression limit to combat trolls, but if you're an m1 killer with no mobility, you're also likely to get punished too just because."
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3916971#Comment_3916971
If they kick the generator, and when they check again they're capable of kicking the generator another time, they know someone came back to undo the regression. In this particular video, the correct play - and the difference between a mediocre player and a good one - would be to send the guard out on patrol to catch whoever observably keeps coming back to repair.
For other killers without a tool like that, you'd expect them to at least check the section you're hiding in, that's a no brainer.
To the last part, it's worth mentioning that BHVR's phrasing wasn't that killers who are not 3 gen camping would never be affected. Their phrasing is that eight regression limits aren't reached in the average match and players who aren't excessively stalling the match (their actual target, 3-genning being the most egregious example but not the only one) wouldn't see it.
Which, most people aren't. I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times I've even seen the warning spikes pop up in either killer or survivor games, and I've never seen a gen be actually blocked.
Hearing that it shouldn't affect the average match doesn't mean there's something wrong if it is affecting you, necessarily. It could also mean you're playing in the way they wanted to discourage.
Okay, how about this. The survivors are blatantly making mistakes at the beginning of the match. Within 20 seconds, a gen has already reached almost HALF of it's allocated regression hits - if other gens were being worked on, this would have affected THREE gens. Due to the survivors being out of position and blatantly making mistakes, the killer is punished heavily. Naturally, all of these survivors had unbreakable, so this only netted in a single hook. (sorry, external linking is broken in the forum, so will have to copy and paste)
and here's a match where one of the center gens is locked up despite giving chases and not just sitting at a 3 gen camping. The moment ghostie chases a survivor off it, 2 more survivors come swarming to immediately do repairs. The option is to give chase and lose the gen, or just sit at the gen and camp. Both options will result in a failed match. You'll notice that any time ghostie leaves the center of the map, his pressure drops to absolutely nothing, and the center gens get a LOT of progress.
EDIT - Better example - not sick in this one
https://youtu.be/TEXgvWFcEXI?si=I3hY53GkMkEj5TB8It's a lose-lose for m1 killers with no mobility with the 8 regression limit. They can't afford to leave the center without losing a lot of pressure, and you'll also notice the survivors aren't even bothering to work on the far away gens - just throwing everything at the center. This is using only ONE regression perk and the WEAKEST one, at that. With eruption, this would have blocked even faster.
Again, this is clearly an issue specifically for m1 killers with no mobility. For killers with mobility, they can patrol the gens (ESPECIALLY the center gens) so fast, survivors naturally need to spread out and apply pressure globally across all gens. For killers without mobility, this need to spread out isn't needed, so survivors can just safely stay pressuring the middle of the map easily. This means the weakest killers in the game specifically are far more susceptible to the 8 regression limit than all other killers - even if a 3 gen camp isn't happening. Those weak m1 no mobility killers don't need the extra weakness. Instead, the 8 regression limit should only occur when 3 gen camping is happening - ie they aren't chasing or hooking - just sitting and camping.
Please note, I'm not asking to remove something to stop 3 gen camping (which is indeed lame). I'm just asking for it not to affect anyone not actually camping. I don't think that's an unfair request. Either move the 8 regression limit to starting when there's 3 gens left, or have the counter reduced but reset when someone is hooked…because if someone is being chased and hooked - clearly they aren't just sitting at 3 gens refusing to push the objective which is what the 8 limit was supposed to stop.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3916927#Comment_3916927
I've seen this video before, and the third option is "the killer actually prioritises the survivors they know are on this gen".
This isn't an example of the system being badly designed, it's an example of bad play accidentally tripping the system. It's also exactly what I'm referring to when I say it affects players that heavily prioritise attacking generators over doing something important.
The argument could be made that a system should be designed to not accidentally punish bad players too if that isn't their intention, and I'd be sympathetic to that, but I don't think this specifically is particularly problematic. It just teaches players not to focus on generators over their objective.
The problem here is the killer doesn't know that there's a survivor nearby the gen. He's literally running off to chase survivors he thought was on the gen. The answer is for him to just sit and camp the gen and don't do chases? Thats clearly even more problematic.
If he stops to kick the gen, he gets gen locked. If he chases survivors off, he loses the gen by followup repair survivors. It's a guaranteed lose lose situation that any half competent survivors can use against the killer early in the match.
In the end, bad play or not, this shows the system is absolutely affecting killers who are not 3 gen camping despite BHVRs claims that it would never happen.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3916720#Comment_3916720
I don't see how this can be true, personally.
Eight regression events per generator is high enough that you're not going to hit it on the gens you're interacting with regardless of which gens they are, unless you're focusing really hard on stalling generators by constantly kicking them yourself.
The more immobile, weaker killers don't have the time to spare messing with generators over doing something important, so if anything, they're less likely to see this system fire. To me it seems like the system affects mobile and immobile killers equally- which is to say, it only affects players that focus on damaging generators over progressing their objective or practising good macro play.
Fair question, so here is an example. I play a lot of survivor, and it's quite easy to weaponize the whole system to permanently lock a central gen within the first 3-5 minutes of a match. The moment the killer leaves, you simply repair it beyond auto regress line. Either the killer doesn't touch the gen (you win the gen) or he kicks it (you get a free locked up gen within minutes).
https://youtu.be/JsA8ApZOCTA?si=qyRIrfThxuG8WeLc -
I'd say 5. Any more, and it's too much. Survivors do get 16 perks vs the killers 4, but the killer perks tend to be stronger than survivor perks. There are a few exceptions, of course.
-
My issue with the 8 regression limit is that it unfairly punishes weak m1 killers with no mobility.
Killers with no mobility cannot afford to travel very far to gens at the outer edges of the map. Survivors also know this, so survivors leave those gens last. That means the only targets (survivors) available are at the center of the map AND the killer can't afford the lack of pressure to travel to non-central gens anyway. That means the no mobility killers are forced to stay at the center which means the only gens they will be interacting with ARE those center gens. This means they are FAR more likely to be unfairly hit with the 8 regression limit thanks to survivors hammering out those center gens - especially if perks like surge are used hitting multiple gens or if eruption hits which takes up TWO regression hits. This doesn't affect killers with mobility because they can easily cross the map. This means they can patrol ALL gens, and considering their mobility, they can guard those center gens far easier which means survivors will want to spread out to draw the killer away from the center.
Long story short. The 8 regression limit really hurts no mobility killers with no rangefar more often than it hurts a couple of problematic killers who are good at 3 gen camping. They need to make the 8 regression limit only begin once there's only 3 gens left to ensure it's only affecting 3 gen campers and stop hurting weak m1 killers who weren't even 3 gen camping.
-
@OPXtreme_ttv said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3916697#Comment_3916697
Wait i quoted the wrong post mb
That makes more sense - I was very confused, ha! All good, buddy.
-
@Langweilig said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3916560#Comment_3916560
First of all I‘m not advocating for a 50% escape rate for survivors, I‘m for 55-60% kill rate (40-45% escape rate). I get that for the game to make sense the chance for dying needs to be higher than escaping, but there shouldn‘t be a 20% difference between dying and escaping. Giving the killer a 10% higher chance at doing so is enough.
Can you please before we continue decide which type of thing we are arguing with team vs team or 1vs1vs….? So I can respond without you being able to switch to the other side.
I also don‘t get how you come up with the numbers, but please don‘t write a super long text for that again. Let me respond first.
My apologies - I had the claim of wanting the survivors to have a 50% escape rate confused with someone else.
The numbers are just some basic math regarding averages when splitting multiple numbers (4 survivors) and comparing against once number (the killer). It's easy to do in your head if it was just 1 killer and 1 survivor (obviously both would be 50% and 50%), but once you start adding more people on a "side" (ie the survivors), that 50% begins to get reduced to maintain balance\equality. The more survivors, the lower their escape rate is, though I assume you're already aware of that. If you really want the math breakdown, I'll put it together when I have some time - I already tossed my notes. XD
EDIT: Okay here is the math
EDIT UPDATE- this is for a 50% killer win, but that does not equate to a 50% survivor team win since there is no survivor team currently how the game is designed. For a killer to get a 50% win rate while facing 4 individual survivors each with their own win condition, each survivor would need a 38.5% escape rate. IF we pretended survivors were all on a team that win\lose\tie together and require a 3+ escape for their "team" to win, survivors would need a 44.2% escape rate for the killer team and survivor team to have equal chances of winning (which allows for ties, too).
@OPXtreme_ttv said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3916563#Comment_3916563
Forum ban speedrun
Random, but okay. People are allowed to provide feedback about the game both negative and positive. There's a lot of people here who do not like the whole 1 v (1 1 1 1) aspect and would prefer it just be two teams. There's also a lot of people who would prefer the devs balance around hook counts instead of kills (ie a killer with 9 hooks would win, but that would still leave room for 3 survivors to also win). It's a bit silly to claim all of these people deserve forum bans.
-
@Rogue11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3916429#Comment_3916429
Continuing to repeat the same flawed argument doesn't make you correct. A 2k isn't "no win" for the killer. Its 2 wins and 2 losses. 50% win rate. 50% kill rate. Almost sounds…balanced!
Or if you view it as a team, then a 2k is a DRAW. TIE. STALEMATE. STAND OFF. DEAD HEAT. TOSS-UP. Not a draw "but survivors win some" Not a draw "but the killer lost".
Look man, you are welcome to ignore the math and ignore how the game has been designed by the devs. If you're not willing to have a discussion, I'm just not going to bother responding to you further. In the end though, and I know it may trouble you, but the reality remains and the math is sound. Demanding that all survivors get a 50% escape rate would not work out how you think it would.
-
@OPXtreme_ttv said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3916429#Comment_3916429
This links back to the game using the glicko (1v1 game) rating system rather than elo (team game). DBD should be two teams vsing eachother, not a 1v1v1v1v1
10000000000% agreed and an upvote from me. It's a terrible way to balance the game, but thats how the devs have balanced and designed the game. I think the game would be MUCH better if it was killer team vs survivor team, and the survivors all win or lose together (AND it would promote more teamwork!).
Again, I'm not saying how it should be - im saying how it is currently designed and balanced around. I'm just clarifying for people who think survivors should each have a 50% chance to win would be some great idea - it would not. They misunderstand that a 50% win for one survivor doesn't just apply globally for all players - that's not now asymmetrical games work.
Edit - for transparency, I play both killer and survivor. Over the past 6 months I have mostly just played solo queue, though I typically prefer killer. If I'm actively playing both, my split is usually 60 killer and 40 survivor. I nearly have my first p100 survivor (had a p70 claudette but dropped her for my boi Alan Wake who is at about p80), as well as a p100 ghostie and a few p30 killers (mostly slinger/myers/pig/dredge/unknown/xeno). Despite my unhappiness with how Survivors are balanced, I'm not letting that affect my view on the reality of how the numbers are balanced by BHVR.
-
@Langweilig said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3916479#Comment_3916479
Why should killers win 50% of their matches when survivors aren‘t. Both sides should be relatively close to having the same win rate. At the moment killers win 20% more than survivors, that‘s nowhere near being competitive or fair.
The target I would find the fairest is a 55-60% kill rate. Currently we have 60-65%, which the devs stated themself.
Because its 4 v 1.
If every survivor had a 50% chance to escape, then the killer would rarely ever win (32% chance, in fact). If this was a 1 v 1, then sure, 50/50 is great. However, it's not. The killer is going up against 4 players...not 1. The killer is entirely alone in his goal. The survivors have 4 people.
Think of it this way. If you have a coin, you have a 50/50 chance roughly to get heads. Now imagine you have 4 coins. How often do you think you'd end up with at least 3 heads after flipping all 4 coins? Not very often.
If you have 4 survivors going against the killer, each survivor has to have a lower win rate. The more the survivors, the less each needs to have a win chance.
Let's put it into perspective. Let's say there were 4 million survivors and they each have a 50% chance to win vs 1 killer. How often do you think the killer would win if 4 million of them each had a 50% win rate? Pretty much winning would be numerically impossible except after a few thousand years. It's a crazy example, but the point is - the more survivors the killer has to face, each of their escape rates would have to be reduced to make it fair for the killer player.
It's an asymetric game where the killer is outnumbered. That means the killers chance at winning naturally has to be higher than an individuals survivors chance at winning.
Now, let's say hey, that's a good point. Why don't we view it at a survivor group level (and ignore the fact the gsme isn't designed that way). We would then need to define what a survivor teams win is. Considering a killer wins by a 3k, let's say survivors win with a 3 escape. In order to have a perfectly balanced 50% chance for both the killer team and the survivor team, then the escape rate for each individual survivor would need to be 38.5%. That puts both teams at a 50% win rate. Now that being said, that's not how the game is designed (survivors being on a team and winning or losing together), but if that's how it did work, that's how the numbers would fall in line.
-
@Langweilig said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3916429#Comment_3916429
What is the point of your argument now? Killer should win even more ? What do you want to prove?
At the moment killers win 60% of the time when you use the 1vs1vs1… logic and in the team vs team logic it is, separated the draws and the rest needs to be equally divided, because a draw is in that case not a win for survivors.
Thank you for the question.
No, my point is we should aim for killers to win 50% of their matches (which is 62.5% kill rate, but 60% is close enough). This means nerfing killers like blight and buffing killers like myers (and NOT bring back that darn tombstone).
All I'm doing is explaining that kill rate does not equal win rate - it's a common misunderstanding and I was merely clearing it up. A 60% kill rate is roughly a 50% win rate for killers and is a fine kill rate to strive for that BHVR has set up. We have some people demanding a 50% kill rate thinking that translates to killers winning half the time, but all that means is them on average never winning and only getting a 2k. I also saw people demanding that survivors have a 50% escape rate, but that would be awful for the killer considering that there would be 4 players each with a 50% chance to escape which would result in killers having a 32% chance to ever get a 3k+.
-
@lord_of_dogs said:
One thing most comments in this post are forgetting is the difference between mmr ranks. As the game director has stated, killers are favored in low mmr, and survs in high mmr. This is true for 95% of the killers, and the reason some are so popular. For the low tiers, they are only usable at all in low mmr, try using ghostface or demogorgon in high ranks. Even mastering the killer, it’s difficult to compete against swfs unless said killer is strong. Killers like blight and hillbilly need to exist ( they are also coincidentally very fun, nerfing them would spoil that)
This is something to definitely consider. While lower MMR does exist, I feel that we should balance the game on the MMR where people actually have good experience in the game. A killer that may seem unstoppable as a new player could actually be the weakest killers in the game once you know how to face them. It's better to balance around experienced play than balancing around newcomers to make the weakest killer even weaker than they are.
That being said, lower mmr naturally gives killers an unfair advantage due to a lack of survivor experience (many new players will hide rather than loop which creates a lot less gen progress). Due to this, I would propose that low MMR survivors get a boost to gen speed. This low mmr boost would be eliminated once they leave the low mmr bracket. This would give newcomer survivors a better playing experience. As for newcomers killers...well…killers already have the advantage at low mmr...they can deal with having survivors having some borrowed power for a bit.
-
I'd like to shift the game back to m1 killers with an interesting twist, but NO dashes. Man am I tired of going up against dash killers.
It'd also a lot easier to balance the game around m1 killers than how complex others are.
-
@OPXtreme_ttv said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3916343#Comment_3916343
Yeah you, @Rogue11 and @Jadelysta the downvotes speak for you tbh
The irony. People can hate facts and math all they like - it doesn't change reality.
@Rogue11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3916406#Comment_3916406
A 2k is either a draw (team vs team) or 2 wins and 2 losses (mmr and the 4x 1v1 method). Stop with this stupid slight of hand.
You want to take the killer win rate from the team vs team comparison and set it against survivor escape rate in a mmr sense. It's an apples to oranges comparison and I'm beyond tired of seeing it parroted constantly.
The reality is most killers are winning (3-4k) far more than they lose (0-1k). A draw is not a loss and no amount of mental gymnastics will make it one.
If you don't understand these basics, then I don't know what to tell you. I tried explaining them as simply as I can. If you don't grasp it at this point, well, it is what it is.
Let me try dumbing it down for you further:
If you view it as 4 different 1 v 1, a tie is impossible for each 1 v 1 due to the nature of 1 v 1. If you view it as a team, then both sides must both equally neither win nor lose. Killer wins with a 3k+. You cant have a killer get absolutely no win and the survivor "team" get some winning (2 winners on their team). That by definition has survivors winning more than the killer and in turn is not a tie - the survivors would have made out better than the killer IF you viewed it as a team game.
-
@Langweilig said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3916410#Comment_3916410
In a 1vs1vs1vs1vs1 kill rate equals win rate! Only in a team perspective it doesn‘t.
If you want to look at it that way, sure let's do that. That means every match the killer can have anywhere between 0 and 4 wins. Amongst the survivors, there can be anywhere between 0-4 winners. It still comes out to the same. The survivors can have up to 4 winners and the killer can have up to 4 wins.
It's a very odd way to look at it, but by all means go for it. I believe that's how BHVR views it, as one of the BHVR representatives actually had suggested this before. In the end, it works out the same due to it being asymetric. Each side can have the same amount of wins in a match (up to 4). It's easy to misunderstand why at an example 50% chance to win from both sides that the killer wins 4x as much as survivors until you consider that its 4 players going up against 1 player. Thats probably why they never dictate a killer win but only refers to kills.
In the end, you are correct and i believe thats how BHVR views it based on their previous comments. It's just an overly confusing way to say the same thing- while it's accurate, many will misunderstand.
-
@Langweilig said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3916395#Comment_3916395
Thank you sooooo muchhhh!!!! I‘m not the only one who thinks about draws. Draws are not a lose like most people say in those type of discussions and only use it to prove their twisted idea of win rates. I‘m fine with it not counting as win (even tho I would say it is half a win). Like you say to make it fair Draws should be separated and the rest needs to be equally divided.
There are no draws in 1 v 1. See my response above.
@Langweilig said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3916387#Comment_3916387
After reading a lot of the comments about kill rate, it is whatever you want it to be. It‘s not rational at all. If you argue about team vs team, they argue with 1vs1vs1vs1vs1, but in both situations killers are winning way more than survivors.
In 1vs1vs1vs1vs1 the kill rate equals win rate and in team vs team draws don’t count towards win or lose, which means if draws count towards it killers shouldn‘t have 50% win rate. With 10% draws, it needs to be 45% win rate for both sides NOT ONLY ONE. I would even say that draws should count as half a win.
The whole 1 v 1 v 1....etc thing is just how the game is. This is based on BHVR's own comments, and the ingame backs it up in post match. It never says survivors win or survivors lose - it's all about your personal escape. Thats also why there are some perks literally designed around being selfish such as solo survivor. Considering it's 4 1 v 1 matches going on, see my comment just above this one which outlines why there are no draws. Killers either win or lose. Same as survivors.
-
@Rogue11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3916387#Comment_3916387
"You forgot 2Ks.
50% 3K+ is not really the same as a '50% winrate', because it's not just 'win' or 'lose' for killers. There's a third option that takes a slice of the pie.
If you aim for a 50% winrate, killers would be winning far more than they lose, due to 2Ks taking a slice of the remaining %. If you want killers to win as much as they lose, you'd need to split what's left after deducting the 2K rate.
Take Nightlight's stat breakdown for Deathslinger, for example, who's sitting at a 50% killrate. His 3K+ rate is about 41%. But that doesn't mean he loses way more than he wins, because his 0-1K rate is 43%, which means he's way closer to balance than what would be implied by just flatly comparing his 3K+ rate to 50%."
Since i keep seeing this blatently deceptive "math" posted every time it's noticed that killers are overperforming, I'm just going to add this consice explanation that Firellius made in another thread.
I see where you're trying to come from, but a 2k is a failure to win and is not a tie, it's a loss. The reality is that the game isnt a team vs team game. Survivors do not fully win or fully lose together. Each survivor gets their own win condition - they escape and win or they do not. MMR adjustments are disconnected from win rate, as thay just cares about trying to balance future matches...but thats an entirely different discussion. There are 4 different 1 v 1 matches going on every match. This makes a tie impossible, as there is no way for a killer and survivor to neither win or lose their 1 v 1 unless there's a server disconnect. That being said, there are 4 survivors the killer is facing in total, so while each survivor has their own win condition and wins or loses entirely on their own, each survivor has to have a reduced escape rate to make it fair for the killer. While survivors don't win together or lose together, each survivor having a 38.5% escape rate would put having at least 3 survivors escaping on average half of the time and killers getting at least a 3k half of the time.
To put it into perspective, if each survivor had a 50% chance to escape, that would put the killer as having a 32% chance to get at least a 3k.
-
@Langweilig said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3916303#Comment_3916303
60% win rate for killers vs 40% win rate for survivors.
= survivor sided XD
A 60% kill rate is slightly under a 50% win rate. You're confusing kill rates to win rates. If someone had a 25% kill rate, would you say they win 1 out of 4 matches? Of course not. Thats only getting a single kill. In case you're still confused, a 75% kill rate in a match is a 3k.
At 62.5% kill rate, killers would have an even 50% win rate on average. However, they balance around 60%, so it is more like 49%. At the moment survivors have anywhere between and 40% - 48% escape rate on average according to the official stats (48% being SWFs).
Essentially, killers have an intended 49% win rate (60% kill rate), and swfs currently have a 48% escape rate (at high MMR meaning everyone has experience in the game). With 4 survivors being in play, and to keep killers at around a 50% win rate and survivors at a 50% chance to get a 3+ escape match, each survivor would need to have an escape rate of about 38.5% (since there are 4 survivors facing the killer). As an example, if it was 1 v 1, then obviously both sides would want a 50% win rate, but since one side has 4 team members, they each need a reduced escape rate to maintain a 50% balance of both sides.
Long story short, survivors are overperforming IF we wanted to keep killers at a ~50% win rate and survivors at having a ~50% chance of getting a 3+ escape.
Now bear in mind, that's with a 60% kill rate. For killers not at 60%, whether below or above, adjustments should be made.
-
@HeroLives said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3916319#Comment_3916319
yeah my bone isn’t with full aura, but the lack of a viable counter to it. Because it eats into time to counter all the aura. Of course they’re coming for aura now that distortion can’t be blamed. Full aura is a heavy time advantage sure you can run other things that also buy time, but the problem is the lack of a viable counter to it. Because working at the steps to counter aura just takes too much time away from everything, and well you can’t control your whole team. If only there was a perk that countered it for everyone instead of self.
There's a basekit counter to full aura builds - looping. This is generally what the devs are pushing. They want the game to base chase oriented, as opposed to just avoiding contact with the killer. That being said, most of the "surprise" aura reads won't affect looping (such as you aren't getting BBQ'd during a chase, not getting Nowhere to Hide'd during a chase, etc…). There's also telling aura reads, such as the one where your aura is read near unopened chests or dropped items…but this one literally tells you you're being aura read via an icon. There's only a small number of perks that surprise aura read you in a chase, and I believe they all have cooldowns (such as I'm All Ears when you vault).
-
@buggybug said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3916002#Comment_3916002
I would not even bother trying to explain anything to any killer here. They only assume distortion was use to hide. Even though it was just more than hiding, it allowed for safe saves, finishing a gen that is important so some high mobile killer cant see you to pop it from 90% to 0%, or even prevent a would be 3/4 person slug and what not, or as you said help to rescue someone safely.
I personally used distortion almost exclusively for the info. Being able to know what aura reading perks the killer is using is excessively usefulso you can adjust your gameplay accordingly. I play killer 60% of the time and otherwise solo queue, but even I realize distortion was far more than just a hiding perk.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3916092#Comment_3916092
The addition of the fifth box was sort of arguable, there were arguments both ways as to whether that would be a buff or a nerf, but the search changes were unambiguously a buff.
(I personally feel the fifth box was overall a positive, especially combined with the search changes, but it is more subjective there.)
I'm inclined to agree with jester, here. While it had both positives and negatives for pig, overall, I'd say the party hats became more reliable for her.
-
Once the ghoul hype dies down, it'll probably go back to normal - especially with a new survivor coming out very soon. Also, the whole new event expiring means we're not dividing the available number of players between two gamemodes, so that means more people in one pool, again.
-
@Cassiopeiae said:
It does not require a mathematician to understand that a 50% kill rate—equating to two survivors escaping and two being eliminated per match—would represent an ideal equilibrium. In such a scenario, all core game mechanics are engaged: each player has participated in chases, the primary objective has been completed, the Endgame Collapse has been triggered, and both sides have achieved partial success. This outcome should not be viewed as a loss for either party, but rather a balanced result where every player has had the opportunity to utilize their full build and experience the game as intended.
Furthermore, in response to other comments on the matter, I believe my original post does not display bias toward either side. My critique is centered on the game’s structural flaws—regardless of whether they affect killers or survivors. For instance, older killers have become less viable over time, and generators are often completed too quickly, both of which point to broader balancing issues.
Lastly, to clarify a potential misinterpretation: I did not equate "holding W" with looping. Rather, I emphasized that "holding W" is what survivors generally wish to avoid, yet are often compelled to do in situations where looping is no longer viable due to a killer’s power rendering it ineffective.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3915890#Comment_3915890
Accusing my post of being biased, followed immediately by remarks implying that survivors need to "improve" and labeling their gameplay as "braindead," is, quite ironically, a rather biased stance in itself. 🤡
My intention was not to favor one side over the other, but to highlight systemic issues that impact the overall balance of the game. Constructive criticism should apply evenly across both roles, rather than defaulting to blame or dismissive generalizations aimed at one side just because you play the other.
I'd say that half of the survivors winning and the killer not winning at all wouldn't be equilibrium. Frankly, I'd prefer BHVR drop the whole concept of kills to gauge a win and instead just do hook states. Have 9+ hook states be a win, and keep it how it is that escaping is a win for that survivor. Could literally have a match where 3 survivors win AND the killer wins this way if he had spread out all the hooks evenly. Heck, tunneling wouldn't even feel as encouraged if it doesn't matter who gets hooked…just that he gets hooks in general.
-
@AngelOfHope2017 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3913641#Comment_3913641
The issue is … VPNing (the lag it causes) allows killers to get hits they shouldn't get. I've seen them hit through rocks, through walls, etc.
I agree that's a thing, but I'm just saying the majority of the problem is likely just them assigning people to the wrong region. Killers going out of their way to VPN for easier hits are probably a lot less than you think. I have a fiberoptics connection, and with or without VPN (I've tested both), I still sometimes get incredibly laggy matches, and almost every time, post game chat, the other players are all from a completely different country.
-
@Langweilig said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3916034#Comment_3916034
Many maps are already extremely empty from the beginning or have terrible loops. What am I supposed to safe when the map has literally nothing on it!? Or should I just accept that I hold w in a line and die 3 times. Prime looping I guess.
If you have a map with zero pallets and no loops, I'd honestly just suggest you submit a bug report.
-
More info the better.
-
@lord_of_dogs said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3916020#Comment_3916020
I agree 70% is a bit much, but mobility isn’t the problem, its if the killer is easy or not. Take Freddy, the highest kill rate killer. C tier, B tier at best, but too easy to use. Old skull merchant, old chucky, all of them.
Do note that 50% is too low. A 62.5% kill rate would on average be a 50% win rate for killers. At the moment, the devs aim for 60% which is slightly under winning half the killer matches.
-
I have to reiterate I'm talking about how things currently are designed - not how we wish things were. We can wish for things all day long, but it doesn't matter in the face of reality. Currently, a win is any escape by any means. Should it be that way? Perhaps not, but thats how it is. Should we abandon the whole each survivor has their own win condition and survivors all win or lose together as a team? I feel absolutely heck yes, but that's not the reality that BHVR designs the game as. My discussion is simply how things are - not how I wish they would be.
My wishes
Give the lower mmr bracket number buffs for survivors since lower mmr, survivors have less experience in how to counter killers. This would lessen how much killers dominate at lower mmr and make it a better experience for newcomers survivors. Once out of low mmr, remove those low mmr survivor buffs.
Nerf blight/nurse/spirit
Remove the balance around individual survivors wins and instead balance the game around the whole survivor team vs the killer. Survivors win or lose together.
Remove balancing the killer around kill counts and instead balance around hook counts. For example, a killer getting 9 hook states would count as a win for the killer even if the survivors escape. Thats enough to double hooking everyone +1 hook.
Abandon giving new killers dashes entirely and start going back to designing m1 killers with interesting powers to compliment them. Start balancing around m1 killers and bring down the high mobility killers.
I personally will never be playing the s tier killers. I prefer to master the lower tier killers since no one expects them to actually succeed but then get surprised with someone who can play them effectively. I try to refrain from double hooking and tunneling (because it's lame for the survivor player) unless it's forced on me (such as one player being entirely built around keeping other survivors from ever being touched - making them the only viable target and getting them removed paramount). If I feel the match is going too poorly for the survivors, I ease up, allow free unhooks, and other such considerations. I almost always give last hatch.Thats just my personality. However, every patch makes being a "considerate killer" more and more difficult - especially when kicking m1 killers in the gut constantly. I'd say i play 60% killer and 40% solo queue survivor.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3915988#Comment_3915988
I disagree. Making maps larger solves more problems than it creates.
Realistically, lower tier no mobility Killers already need help. This will make them worse, no doubt about it. They will still need help. I would not be opposed to a Haste bonus outside of chase to help them traverse the map, but a lot of them need modernizations.
Making maps bigger makes it more difficult to tunnel. Players have a bigger area to run in. It also makes it harder to camp, since it is less likely that gens are within spitting distance from the hook.
It also means that loops won't chain as well. That was a big issue right after we shrunk maps. Loops that used to be fine suddenly started chaining from one end of the map to the other.
I'm 100% on board to make bigger maps if low tier no mobility killers had some sort of haste buff outside of chases. I'm just tired of BHVR making the weakest killers even weaker on sweeping balance changes.
-
@Langweilig said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3915880#Comment_3915880
„They want to focus the game on chases then just people hiding“
So why are they making maps where you can‘t loop and have to hide, because all the loops are either burned after a short time, super bad or don‘t exist at all?!
It doesn‘t make sense to make hiding super bad and making the other playstile super bad as well.
Becsuse the game is designed where the survivors have strong resources at the beginning of the match. Survivors have to be good at resource management. As the match gets longer, the resources begin to dwindle. Essentially, the killer gets stronger indirectly the longer the match, so survivor survival depends on utilizing resources efficiently and effectively. For example, avoid dropping killer shacks pallet at the beginning of the match where a survivor elimination isn't at risk. While you could use it to stop from getting downed early, it's better to save it for someone who is on death hook which creates a safety area later in the match.
-
I agree. We need to start nerfing the high mobility killers and bring them down and start bringing the no mobility killers up. If something is a decent amount above 60% let's fix that. If something is below 60%, let's fix that. Lets also stop making every new killer with some sort of dang mobility power. I'd like to see the game going back to m1 killers but with an interesting twist to them that doesn't involve a dash.
A 70% kill rate is bad. Thats almost a 3K every match on average (75%). A killer shouldn't be winning almost every single match.
-
@ihatethisgam3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3915880#Comment_3915880
There is such a thing as "variability" - it makes the game more interesting, someone wants to run, someone wants stealth, i like both depending on the situation. This does not interfere with completing the assigned tasks. If a player wants to sit in the corner the entire match - he will find a way to do it and forcing players to run in this way is stupid as for me...just like no one will force me to play against the legion...no matter how hard the developers try.
The current distortion facilitates that variable gameplay. You get some aura protection, but to get more, you need to do your job as a survivor and take chases to buy your team time. You're then rewarded with more aura protection.
-
I doubt they'd remove it. Game dev studios are absolutely obsessed with SBMM systems these days despite it just turning matches into frustrating sweat matches. They will probably just adjust the mmr ranges and maybe add a new tier somewhere along the range.
-
@paranoidmad80 said:
interesting statistics. All the more reason to keep playing Solo Survivor. Not only is it more challenging, but I still have a lot of fun, even if there are often exceptions and many other fellow survivors admit defeat far too early. 🙂
I pretty much only play solo queue survivor when playing survivor. Just more fun. In the past playing a duo or trio, we'd always just hope our solo queue knew what they were doing, and it was so fun when they actually did. Nowadays, I like being that solo queue survivor for the swfs, ha. They are always pleasantly surprised when I do bodyblocks, take chases, and so on. There was even one match where one guy was getting tunneled by a huntress, and every survivor was playing protect the vip and taking bodyblocks and everything. We ended up all escaping, and in post game chat, we found out we were ALL solo queues.
-
@Raccoon said:
New stats, same replies.
i wouldnt say so, if something is above 60%, I say bring them down. If they are below 60%, bring them up. Blanket nerfs or buffs arent the answer since it affects all. Killers need individual tweaks. I've been a supporter for blight nerfs for some time.
However I do have a caveat that lower mmr should be taken with a grain of salt since at low mmr, survivors are less experienced on how to face killers. High mmr is a better way to consider balance as that's where players of both sides actually have experience to face each other better.
-
@NarkoTri1er said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3915778#Comment_3915778
now let's ask the same question about how did Sadako, Myers and Dredge managed to finish amongst killers with biggest killrates.
Considering that's low mmr, I'd guess it's due to new players not knowing how to face those killers, and those killers may be easier to pick up for new players than the usual high mmr killers. Generally, killers absolutely wreck in the lower MMRs. I'd like to see survivors get passive number buffs at lower mmr which gets eliminated once leaving low mmr. This would make the new player experience better for survivors.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3915958#Comment_3915958
I think that the game needs larger maps brought back, desperately.
We did not foresee that shrinking maps would in-turn cause greater tile density, greater gen density and greater ability to camp/tunnel.
Maps being larger, with more spread-out loops/gens/hooks/objectives, would alleviate a lot of issues, imo.
Forgot to mention, on the whole escape is a win but mmr neutral being a bad call in your opinion, there is a reason they do this.
Lets say the survivors just didn't do well and a 3k occurs. The last survivor just happens to find hatch and escapes for his win. Does it make sense that he then has to face harder opponents just because he won? Of course not. Hatches are generally not a reflection of success (though they sometimes can, such as 3 survivors running out the door then hatch opens and the last hatches out). Since usually a hatch escape isn't a reflection of success, they simply allow the survivor to win their match, but the survivor isn't unjustly pushed into harder opponents thanks to the MMR system treating hatches as neutral. Again, MMR systems are entirely disconnected from win loss conditions - they only care about trying to balance future matches. Otherwise, if hatches wasn't neutral, you could literally have a selfish survivor who just hides all game and never does gens until the other survivors are eliminated and escape and end up eventually getting into the highest mmr tier possible.
You might then ask why not make hatch escapes not count as a win? Well, what would be the point of going for hatch? Dont get hatch, you lose. Get hatch, you lose. Doesn't make sense. Thats why it's still counted as a win.
In the end, the game is designed around whether you survivor or not. The MMR system is completely separate to try to balance future matches.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3915958#Comment_3915958
I think that the game needs larger maps brought back, desperately.
We did not foresee that shrinking maps would in-turn cause greater tile density, greater gen density and greater ability to camp/tunnel.
Maps being larger, with more spread-out loops/gens/hooks/objectives, would alleviate a lot of issues, imo.
I'm all for larger maps, but the weak m1 killers with no mobility would suffer greatly. They need to have some way to traverse the maps better. Otherwise, they are effectively forced to stay in the center of the map where closer gens are and are more likely to be negatively affected by the 8 regression limit since they can't afford the road trip to very far gens. Survivors know this which is why survivors leave the far gens alone and just focus on central gens. This forces m1 killers to stay at the center since survivors aren't even bothering to do far gens anyway - not only can they not patrol them without massive pressure loss, but there would be no reason to anyway with survivors leaving those last and just focusing on center gens, anyway. Larger maps absolutely help vs the broken killers like blight and such, but absolutely wreck killers with no mobility. Instead, we should focus on bringing down the power of mobility killers themselves instead of a blanket nerf against all killers.
-
Forum bug, disregard
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3915962#Comment_3915962
If Hatch Escapes do not count as a win for MMR, but do count as a win for Escape Rate, then the system is flawed. Either stop counting Hatch Escapes as an escape (win) or count them towards MMR. Not like it'll make the system worse.
Survivors ARE a team. I really don't care what anyone says. If you take three good players and one bad player, not an uncommon scenario, the Killer will focus out the bad player and it is up to the good players to stop them. That is a team game. You cannot win the game with three Survivors (and you are not meant to). BHVR cannot eat their cake and have it too. Survivors are forced to play as a team, despite differing goals and skill levels, if they want a chance to win but they are simultaneously NOT a team either.
I agree the system is flawed - I'm just stating how the system is. BHVR needs to drop the whole individual survivors thing and have survivors all win or lose together. If you're just hiding while your team is getting killed, you lose - no win because you hid then hopped into the Hatch.