RpTheHotrod
RpTheHotrod
About
- Username
- RpTheHotrod
- Joined
- Visits
- 3,824
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Cheque0826 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3953117#Comment_3953117
They should play as Ghostface so they know his weaknesses and learn how to play against him. I used to be afraid of Leatherfaces, but when I tried them and realized how easy it is to run into things, I learned how to counter them. I play Ghostface often and I know how easy it is to reveal him. In fact, the last one I played against got disconnected.
Yup. You can effectively entirely disarm ghostie just by having one person follow him around. Then he's just a powerless m1 killer. However, I love playing him because to succeed, you have to be a master of mindgames.
-
@TimberGoingDown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3954446#Comment_3954446
I disagree. They're trying very hard to balance the game around Solo Queue while letting SWFs get more and more broken.
I almost entirely play solo queue. Don't really have any issues. However, you do have to do your due diligence and get out there and help bodyblock, knock out gens, take chases with good looping, and even trade hook states if needed. Being solo-queue and just sneaking and doing gens isn't going to cut it.
-
The only thing that needs changing is for both springtrap and huntress - hitting an m2 should have the same "cooldown" on another attack that an m1 hit does. Atm in a chase, if you hit with an m2 you can almost immediately followup with an m1 giving survivors very little chance to make any distance whatsoever.
-
I wish you could give another player a percentage of your bp winnings if you so chose - even the opposing side. It would be fun to give each survivor a 5% bp boost for a game well played, or perhaps one that you pick out individually. Conversely, you could give the killer a bp percentage of yours as a gg.
-
Don't look at him directly. You have to center him halfway between the middle of your screen and the top of the screen.
That being said, the reveal mechanic has trouble because of client-server confirmation. Its just as problematic for ghostie.
https://youtu.be/tBjdJ31Cgwk?si=yeH7DMuOwU5kmQokYou can even reveal him with him being behind you entirely.
-
Honestly, I entirely agree. I have tinnitus, and that sound is irritatingly grating.
-
High risk high reward perk. Insanely powerful if it pays off, enough that tournaments usually only allow one survivor to run it. Gotta keep your head down and get a safe rescue to activate it. Essentially, you have to play around the perk in order to utilize it. Some perks are pretty passive, some perks are exhaustion perks, some perks are active, some perks are niche, some perks are for solo players, and some perks are in the high risk vs rewards category. It's good to have a variety of different kinds of perks for different playstyles. If you don't like the risk vs reward kind of perks, then you probably won't enjoy the perk.
-
I feel their desire here is for stealth killers to not really fully sneak up on people but instead close the distance. Every stealth killer has a "tell" that they are approaching or are otherwise near you. Their stealth is enough to get them close, but rarely enough to get grabs and such. I feel the amount of danger a killer is, the louder they make their "tell". For example. Myers (discounting the tombstone) and ghostie are really low threat, so their "tell" is fairly quiet. However, Springtrap has teleport, a ranged attack, can instantly put people onto his shoulder, has an anti-mindgame aura with the axe, and so on. Considering he's a LOT more of a threat "as-is" without the stealth, they make that stealth "tell" a lot louder. Again, it's simply to close the distance vs a terror radius, but not enough to actually jumpscare or get grabs.
-
I find the door reveals are excessively useful. You give anyone in a chase guaranteed info to use in loops. It makes them entirely immune to being mindgamed and them be able to perfectly counter the killer's every movement. Having long term aura read on a killer during chase is absolutely gold. Usually you have to bring in a key with appropriate addons to get that, but even that is limited with charges. If you cam reveal him at a killer shack chase, that survivor isnt going down without at least 2 gens getting completed over it. It'll effectively make most killers give up chase. If you bring killer to killer shack with someone on cams, you turn killer shack into a safe zone.
-
@TragicSolitude said:
I just played a match as killer. Memeing on the new map. No intention of killing anyone. I hooked one person at four gens left. Then I went off to the other side of the map and put the controller down to do something else, as my meme was over.
I came back, she was still on the hook as they popped the last gen, and then they opened the exit gates as she died. Three people did nothing but sit on gens and then left.
What the actual hell is going on. Thank god BHVR removed 4%ing, otherwise she might've had a chance to get herself off when her teammates literally left her to sit on the hook for over two minutes and die.
I don't get it. I just don't get it. Solo queue really is the most miserable video game experience ever concocted by humans.
This happened to me recently days ago. I was just working on a challenge for the chaos gamemode (so this was BEFORE the anti-afk was implemented). I hooked someone, then I went off to find the other survivors. The other 3 were just meming around, doing crouch pointing at me, or just trying to heal someone on the ground who I just downed where I could just…you know…easily just attack the person doing the healing. Absolutely no attempt at actually playing. I wasn't intending on eliminating survivors, so I just let them heal up, so the other guy gets up and they just crouch around in circles WHILE THE FIRST SURVIVOR WAS STILL ON HOOK. I had to teleport (Unknown) over to the hooked survivor and facecamp them so they could unhook themselves for free.
-
@devoutartist said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947258#Comment_3947258
that's untrue as far as im aware 2k is a tie on average for the killer i left a post explaning it on why the 60% killrate is overtuned with stats but basically what matters is kill distrubations overtime you can go all the way down to 54% killrate and still winning more game then losing
from the dbd wiki and a lot of older post on how dbd killer mmr works
"
Ranked Trial Mechanics
During ranked Trials, the Skill-Based Matchmaking Rating functions as a sort of game within a game.
In essence, each Survivor is in an individual mini-Trial with the Killer and vice versa, in which wins, losses, and draws can occur.The game effectively tracks each mini-Trial, adds up the individual wins, losses, or draws, and calculates the change towards the Player's MMR score based on that.
"
The system has been in use since 8 September 2021 and replaced the previous matchmaking system, which had matched Players based on their grades
as far as im aware the same system is still in the game for hidden mmr in your normal games so ill take my old example from the other post
lets say the kill distribution goes something like this over a sample size of 10k games
0kill 18.93%
1kill 16.76%
2kills 12.14%
3kills17.39%
4kills 34.78%
total killrate 58.08%
at that kill rate the win rate for the killer would be 52.17% draw would be 12.14% and losses would be 35.69% when you have 2 kills your mmr relatively stay the same it counts toward a draw you may still pip up but it's not your mmr so my point still stand unless behaviour changed the system recently and it's not base on kills anymore. and your right about survivor not being a team in term of them affecting there mmr witch btw it's really flawed as hell and the only draw for survivor is hatch but on the killer sides of things what counts toward it's mmr system is kill distribution not kill rates but correct me if im wrong and im missing something
I see where you're misunderstanding lies. You're confusing MMR adjustments with Wins. That's a common misconception - no worries.
MMR adjustments are entirely unrelated to win conditions. It's usually that way for many, many games. For example, in Chess, a grandmaster doesn't gain "ranking" because he beats a newbie despite winning, and a newbie doesn't lose "ranking" because he loss to a grandmaster despite losing. Ranking\MMR adjustments are not an award - it only exists to try to balance games and place others against opponents better matching them. In DBD, while BHVR follows a similar guideline for both wins and MMR adjustments, they are also entirely separate and are not equal. For example, if a survivor escapes through a hatch, they met their win condition and won, however, the game treats it as MMR neutral - likely because the devs don't want to unfairly inflate that survivor's MMR just because of a random chance lucky hatch which would in theory make their next match harder. So to be clear, MMR doesn't care about who won - it just cares to make future matches more fair even if that sometimes means NOT increasing their MMR despite their win.
So this comes down to your tie comment, a 2K isn't a tie. Why? A tie requires at least 2 parties to tie because…well that's what makes a tie a tie - neither side lost or won against the other. To whom did the killer tie in a 2k? 2 survivors won their match, 2 survivors lost their match. Which out of the survivors neither won or lost their win condition? BHVR has cleared up the misconception that this is a team game quite a few times over the years, it's 1 killer vs 4 individual opponents who each have their own win condition. Working together isn't mandatory, but it will usually help their chances at earning their win condition. That's why there is no "Survivors won!" or "Survivors lost!" screen, because survivors are not a team and do not win\tie\lose together. That's also why solo perks exist such as sole survivor, and why some advertisements ask if you'll work together or will you go at it alone. This is an asymmetrical game, so survivors have a much different win condition than the killer. Don't have to take my word for it - BHVR themselves have clarified this multiple times - DBD is designed around individual players, NOT team vs team. So, for any individual player to win, they have to win their "majority of points" (almost all games in existence work this way). For a survivor, their points available to them are binary. They either get no points (they fail to escape), or they escape and get that point. When only one point is possible, the majority is considered scoring that single point. For the killer, they have up to 4 points (kills). So in order for them to get their majority, they must score (kill) at least 3 out of the 4 points. If they only kill 2 people, there's literally no one you can compare that to - it's an asymmetrical game. Again, a 2k means 2 players won and 3 players lost. 2 survivors fulfilled their win condition, 2 survivors failed to fulfill their win condition, and the killer failed to fulfill their win condition.
I hope that clears that up.
-
@devoutartist said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3945950#Comment_3945950
depends on the killers that you play but tbh at 56% killrate you winning more games than you're losing it's around 52.5 ish% killrate that you start losing more games depending on the kills distribution from your avrage 0 to 4k kills so you're doing verry good
A 56% kill rate means on average only getting a 2k with an uncommon match thrown in of getting more. Thats not winning more than losing. Survivors aren't a team and dont win/lose/tie together either, so there's no ties. A survivor wins if they escape (their own individual win condition). A killer wins with a majority of the kills (3k+). It would take a 62.5% kill rate to be between a 2k and a 3k on average - that there would be a 50% win rate on average. Remember: a 3k in a match is a 75% kill rate for that match.
-
It's usually because some people are lazy and want matches with no actual effort needed while simultaneously having no consideration for anyone other than themselves.
Heck, I remember watching a streamer vod after a match of mine where the streamer was absolutely irate because he had to, and I quote, "pay attention to the game" since I was playing ghostface and he had to look around. He'd get furious when I would catch him off guard because he was literally staring at chat instead of the game. Was so used to autopilot mode where he only would pay attention if he heard a terror radius.
-
@vol4r said:
Well, my play time decreased from 50-60 hours weekly to 15-20. Note: I have 10k hours overall.
I am more of a survivior player, because I play where queue times are good.
Queues used to be good for survivior until 8pm (europe time) and then would be fast killer queue between 8pm to 1-3am.
Now we only have survivior queues to find the games quickly. This indicates that people are giving up on survivior role.Killer games became easier and easier. On top of that, new killers become stronger and stronger, with a lot of powers in their kit.
How is it fair to winning so many matches as a killer? Take me as an example. I am playing mostly survivior and yet I am able to maintain 70-81% killrate on all my killers, after 30/40 hours put into them! Even on the trapper I have 70.12% killrate! After playing him for 55 hours. That's ridiculous.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/6AYRE3G0Y3WG/image.png
For what it's worth, the stats are broken atm. Im waiting for them to fix them before looking at the numbers. That being said, anything above 62.5% is problematic for a killer rate, but then again, current 4 man escape rates are also problematic. At least solo/duo/trio escape rates are within acceptable variance range.
-
I've heard there is a persistent sound that goes silent when he is walking through the security office. Not sure if true. Lets test it?
-
@ChaosWam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946415#Comment_3946415
Likewise, just about to say the same thing. Currently streaming and trying boon and stealth builds to try and force it more.
Unsure if I can share a stream link to show here, but my twitch username is Voidlines.I finally started playing the patch. Only did 5 matches, but never got an afk crow once. I do a mix of stealth, gen pressure, and chases in my gameplay. Off topic, but so far I've loved going up against springtrap! I hope they fix the invisibility glitch, though.
-
@burt0r said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946569#Comment_3946569
In come the complaints about bad teammates (thanks to non-existent matchmaking still) wasting all hook counts while getting hard tunneled by the killer because they can't hold a chase for more than 10 seconds.
No different than existing complaints of people upset about poor survivors that can't do chases who get themselves hooked and eliminated early.
-
I still say remove player elimination and just have the match conclude once the killer gets 9 hooks (which is the equivalent of a 3k). Once the 9th hook occurs, all other survivors are grabbed by the entity. Since rescues could cause a chain reaction hook over a trade, have survivors hooked instead sent to the void (like the Halloween map) where they have to perform objectives to get sent back into the match, or automatically sent back if they take too long. Being hooked essentially gives that survivor a temporary timeout then gets back into the match.
-
@Langweilig said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3945336#Comment_3945336
His footsteps/sounds come from the wrong direction and he is invisible after exiting the doors for like two seconds. How am I supposed to know where he is? Also the doors are so close to gens that you don‘t make it anywhere before he hits you. At least with other killers you get the chance to disable their teleport, the killer is slowed down afterwards or you at least hear a teleport sound before the are in front of you and hit you. Springtrap doesn’t have any of the limitations of other killers and gets constantly free hits because you have no time to react to him coming out of the doors.
That's a bug.
-
@Frost139 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3945530#Comment_3945530
He's weak against swfs but so is everything else. We're talking about solo queue. These are players who don't have the comms necessary to deal with it
The game is balanced around SWFs. Thats why they keep adding info to the UI to try to bring solo queue up to closer to SWFs.
I almost entirely play solo queue and Ghostface is practically a win handed to you. All you have to do is follow him from a safe distance and keep eyes on him. Hes literally powerless the whole game and ends up being an entirely powerless m1 killer.
Even if he had permanent expose status, he's still an m1 killer with zero chsse power, zero anti loop, and zero ways to damage outside of an m1. Hes literally the best kind of killer you'd ever want to face. Hes the most loopable killer in the entirety of the game. Even trapper has more chase power with area denial.
-
He's literally one of the weakest killers in the game. You have to pay attention to your surroundings as a survivor when facing him. I dont think your suggestion of making one of the weakest killers in the game even weaker will hold any merit.
As for revealing, thats usually because you're trying to put him at the center of your screen. Don't do that. Put him halfway between the middle and top of your screen. Your own character model acts as a visual blocker between him and you.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3945296#Comment_3945296
Go Next Prevention bans you if you die too quickly.
If you get tunneled off hook, you can and will be banned.
BHVR strikes again.
Well That's a massive screw up. Fair enough comment on the OP's part then, but they really need to clarify what they mean - it sounds like a complaint about tunneling itself and not a defensive measure against a busted patch feature.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3945222#Comment_3945222
Yeah, but it does flag the matches for review. Since you can get banned for being tunneled now, it may not be a terrible idea to flag those matches and keep them in the system, so to speak. That way you have something to show Support.
That's about the only way you could fight those false bans, from what I see. Not really sure what else you can do except play Civ
Maybe I missed the memo. Where was it announced that tunneling is a bannable offense?
EDIT - ah, I see this is a discussion where apparently getting tunneled can get yourself banned as a survivor. Is this related to the afk system or something? I have not played the update, yet. This sounds like overreacting. However, if it's not and the system is not functioning properly and survivors are getting auto-flagged, the devs need to look into it asap. The OP needs to clarify that, as it sounds like he's saying to report killers for tunneling in general. Some clarification on how this affects survivors regarding flags is really needed.
-
Edit - disregard - this post isnt about tunneling but about defending against a busted patch feature.
-
@Shirtless_Myers said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3944936#Comment_3944936
The animatronic. I couldn't care less for what the character is truly called. I thought it was Freddy Fazbear, since I'm not interested in FNAF. Without a doubt, this skin will receive a nerf in the future after they've sold enough of this slop. Invisibility + no sound can be yours for the low price of $14.75.
You may not care, but saying a completely different killer's name will confuse the point you're trying to say considering the only killer with the name Freddy is completely unrelated to the chapter and can't interact with doors. Would be no different than posting this but saying Onryo. Thay being said, I 100% agree with your point. No skin should give an audible advantage over the other.
-
It's great, but i would have preferred them getting converted to map BAN offerings, but it would only pick one of the survivors bans and of course a killer's ban.
-
I spawned in Coldwind, felt the breeze
And instantly dropped to my knees.
A crow flew by; I didn't move.
Stealth mode on. I’m in the groove!My team was loud, like killer bait.
They ran, they looped, they met their fate.
I watched from within a hedge,
A natural gamer on the edge.Jokes aside, being a survivor is difficult early on because you don't really know the amount of tools and power that survivors have. Once you get some more experience, survivor play becomes a LOT stronger. However, that is the fatal flaw of DBD - it's rough for new players. I feel that "new player MMR" should come with survivor number buffs that fade off as they climb MMR and are completely eliminated once they are in standard MMR.
-
@ThatRyanB said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3943706#Comment_3943706
To confirm, are you referring to the perks that had their Haste values buffed alongside Steady Pulse? If so, it's worth noting that 3 of these - Batteries Included, Unbound, and Babysitter - have had their Haste values reduced alongside today's update. This is to account for cases where we were seeing this speed burst performing a little too strongly, given how easy or consistent they are to trigger.
Your assumption is correct - I am referring to the steady pulse haste buffs. Im aware that some of them have been reverted, but are there any plans to revert the other ones, as well? Im just not understanding why their haste potential is now higher than ever if high haste was seen as problematic. I definitely get 3 of them were brought back in line, but there are still other perks that maintain a higher than before haste value while also being able to stack them into really high values.
-
As a killer, I almost always give last hatch, and if the survivors have a troll DCer or otherwise have a really bad match, I usually back off and let them have a heal party and escape. As a survivor, instead of escaping always, I usually risk my win in order to get other survivors out the door, or if the killer got stomped, I offer myself to be sacrificed as a sort of pity offering. My stats are effectively "corrupted" for being a nice guy, so I'm not even bothering to check.
-
This is a terrible chsnge, yikes. A killer can effectively guarantee they'll close hatch the moment it spawns, or survivors can guarantee they'll escape the moment it spawns. At least with it being public knowledge, it's a race to the Hatch location.
NGL, I'd just prefer the offering be removed entirely.
-
Also curious if this went live.
-
Quick question, recently your team had acknowledged that haste can be problematic, so it was decided to remove haste stacking and buff multiple haste perks so they are better standalone. After player feedback, yall decided to cancel the implementation of preventing haste standalone. However, you did not bring back those buffed haste perks to their initial values. What we now have is an even worst state of not only still stackable haste perks but they maintained their haste buffs that were only there due to haste that was going to be non-stackable. Now we uave haste stacking and haste perks juiced up where haste is even more problematic than it was before. Yall had identified haste can be problematic, so why keep haste buffed? I see here in these patch notes that you have nerfed a few haste perks back to their initial values as I would have initially expected, but what about the rest of the haste perks that were buffed in expectation that haste would no longer be stackable? Excessive haste just breaks the balance of the game on both sides.
-
@Rapid99 said:
I sure hope it's a visual bug because otherwise it's just plain dumb. Why remove haste stacking if you're also not going to make haste perks better, but in fact… nerf them on top of it?
That defeats the entire purpose. The whole point is you remove haste stacking but make haste perks better individually.
Didn't they change their mind on preventing haste stacking?What i dont get is that they acknowledge excessive haste is a problem, but then they continue to allow haste stacking, and then also buff several haste perks on top of that making the haste stacking problem even worse.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942865#Comment_3942865
Except how do you reach balance in a game where one side is on their own and has a flat winrate of 50%, whilst the other side has 4 different people who in theory are a team but can all win or lose seperately?
I don't think it's physically possible unless I'm missing something.
That's the issue with asymmetrical games. However, if BHVR made it 3 or 5 survivors, they could have effectively given everyone a 50% win rate. 4 just really throws it off significantly due to how majority points (in this case kills) works. For example, with 4 survivors, killer needs to kill 3 out of 4. If there were 5 survivors, the killer would still only needs 3 kills to get a majority, however, it is easier for killer to get 3 kills with 5 survivors since there are more targets, so with 5 survivors, their individual win rate can be increased to offset the killer having more opportunity to get 3 kills.
At the end of the day though, I would love a PTB where we drop the whole individual wins things make survivors actually a team who all win/tie/lose together, and have the match concludes once 9 survivors are hooked (the equivalent of a 3k). Im not sure how well this would end up, but the this would completely end individual player elimination, so perhaps killers would feel less compelled to tunnel people out considering eliminating a player via tunneling would mean hooking them 9 times, ha. The downside is survivors would absolutely need to work as a team, and a very weak survivor would be a detrimental to the whole team.
-
@AssortedSorting said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3933628#Comment_3933628
While they did say you could still ######### on hook faster in such a scenario, they didn't specify as to how: Are you able to miss skillchecks after a certain period of time to get auto-sacrificed?
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3933673#Comment_3933673
My guess is that it's going to be checking missing skill checks, the anti-camp meter, statistic accumulation between Unhook and 2nd Hook, Trial duration, and Frequency of occurrence across multiple matches. But we'll see.
They said missing skill checks to get sacrificed faster is being removed. Presumably, that means missing a skill check will penalize you the same that failing a skill checks does.
-
@MarbleThrone said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942001#Comment_3942001
If the go next and AFK changes irritate people to the point of dropping this game, then it works. As those people should not be queueing up in the first place.
You play DBD because you intend to actually play. If you rq at the first inconvenience, this is not the game for you.As harsh at this sounds, I actually agree with this. They already aren't playing the game, anyway. At best they are just inflating player counts while simultaneously ruining people's matches by trolling.
-
Actually, tell you what, allow me to give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say we go with your point of view. The devs rejected any notion of using any kind of game design philosophies, statistics, probabilities, or anything of the sort. Instead, they just got together and went, "Mannn, let's like…..just do 60%…that sounds cool enough…". Okay, Now we have them picking 60% entirely because it feels "good". Either way you go, whether they actually put game design to use to come up with 60%, or they just pulled it out of a hat "just because", it still results with them going with 60%.
However, there's some cold hard facts that cannot be argued.
Fact: There are up to 4 kills possible
Fact: a 0k is a 0% kill rate for the match
Fact: a 1k is a 25% kill rate for the match
Fact: a 2k is a 50% kill rate for the match
Fact: a 3k is a 75% kill rate for the match
Fact: a 4k is a 100% kill rate for the match
Fact: The game is designed around 4 individual survivors each with their own win condition. Survivors do not all win, lose, or tie together.
Fact: Averaging takes many matches into consideration. That's why you can have a decimal average kill rate - it's not a reflection of a single match but the average across multiple matches. You claim you're a math teacher, so I assume you at least know the basics of averaging in mathematics.
Fact: A 50% kill rate is only a 2k, not enough to have a majority.
Fact: A 75% kill rate is a 3k, enough to have a majority
Fact: A 62.5% kill rate is the middle point (ie a 2.5 average kill rate).
Fact: A 62.5% kill rate, ie a 2.5 kill rate, means on average across multiple matches, the killer would get a majority of the kills ~50% of the time. A 60% kill rate is slightly less, a 2.4 kill rate which still means getting a majority of the kills ~50% of the time
So, it doesn't matter why the devs picked a 60% kill rate, whether because of "feelings" as you say or because they actually put in some actual effort into their game design as I've pointed out, what matters is with a 60% kill rate, on average, that puts killers at getting a majority of the kills ~50% of the time - in other words, a 50% win rate.
Now sure, "wins" are subjective. You can make up whaateeever win condition you want. You win because it's a night map, hurray! That's quite the win condition you picked out for yourself. However, that doesn't change the facts as laid out above.
You can try to argue against the facts all you what, but dem be the facts. BHVR put some real effort into coming up with that 60% kill rate, and it comes out to a nicely balanced around ~50% win rate for the player who is alone who faces multiple opponents. With the facts in mind, what we need to focus on is dealing with killers over performing (over that 60%), or under performing (under that 60%). We also need to focus on what's objectively bad behavior that breaks this balance such as tunneling someone straight from the beginning of the match - that turns the match into a 1v3 for the whole match, not a 1v4, so the balance breaks. As I had suggested, if the match is effectively a 1v3 from the get-go (as in, from the beginning - NOT a 1v3 situation mid to late game), I feel survivors should get a buff for the remainder of the match to re-balance the match as a 1v3.
-
@Moonras2 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942209#Comment_3942209
Oh I'm sure they've said different things before. However, on the 3k being a win, I would say that is subjective. I'll give you my reason why. I personally never played for mmr. Back in the day I did play to win but this was way back before the emblem system, not really relevant, throwing it out there.
What I do know though is that when I played for emblems, it depended on my rank on whether it was a win or not. After rank reset I could get to purple ranks pretty easy and I rarely killed anyone. I liked 2 hooking people and then just goofing off. I could still gain rank, and play how I wanted, up to a point. Between purple and red rank I started having to kill if I wanted to gain anymore rank. I enjoyed this because I wasn't playing against new players and could still win according to what the game was telling me. It may still work that way but now if I play this way I am picking on new people because of mmr.
If someone is playing for emblems, it may still be possible to rank up this way and they may still consider it a win. I imagine many players don't care about mmr. Some probably don't even know it exist, as it's hidden.
For people playing and trying to win against mmr, then it does provide some what of a win condition. I say some what because I don't know how the mmr gain works with the points. For others the win condition could be all over the place. From doing well on emblems to just finishing a daily quest.
For balancing I would normally not have a problem with mmr and its win condition but I don't really agree with it as it is. By prioritizing matchmaking, as far as I'm aware, it would have to be less effective at what it's intended for. I could be wrong there as I no nothing about it really.
Which is why, at least these days, I have no clue what I would like to see used to balance the game lol. I hope the upcoming changes make it so hooks and other things count towards mmr and a new win condition there. Part of the reason I quit playing is because I don't like playing for kills but I also don't want to be stuck picking on new players. On survivor side I just stopped enjoying it entirely.
I know this post went all over the place I'm having a hard time paying attention atm lol.
I mean you actually do make a very fair point - it is indeed subjective. For some people, getting a survivor jumpscared is their idea of "winning" and they have no intention on getting kills. However, balancing around the idea that anyone can just make up a win scenario would he impossible to balance. We need SOME standard of what a win is, so most of us take what is generally accepted in almost every game in existence - majority wins. Whether football, basketball, call of duty, hello kitty island adventure, or whatever, it always come down to who has the majority is deemed the winner. There are always 2 exceptions to this. The case of 1 v 1 and the case of 1 v 2. 1 v 1 obviously is binary - to win you must get 1 out of 1 "points". For a 1 v 2, it's usually requiring to get all points over the other 2 opponents. So for 1 v 1, majority is simply winning. For 1 v 2, majority is considered getting all points. Beyond that, majority is easy to determine. For survivor. They have a single opponent. So it's binary for them - they escape and win or they dont and they lose. For killer, they have 4 opponents, so majority is 3+. There is no survivor team, they never win or lose together. Ties are not a thing outside of a server DC. Yes, there's even a dev quote for that, too.
So yes, winning is subjective. But for balance, we need a standard, so we may as well take the golden standard for almost every game in existence.
As for the rest of yall, im opting to go with the hard facts with the math to back it up vs yall's take that its about the "feelings" of other people's state of lind in matches, that the devs just rolled a d100 abd got 60% arbitrarily because it "feels good", and trying to build a house on such unstable grounds where even a basic amount of consideration can dismantle the idea such as thinking kill rates = win rate. Considering the vastly different mindsets between us, i dont think we will ever come to an agreement. Im sticking to the statistics and math that matches up with how the game is designed. Yall can do whatever. Yall are grasping at conflicting dev statements vs each other. I could easily grab a quote from a dev stating the game is 4 individual 1 v 1 matches and survivors aren't a team which also means ties are impossible. We can grab quotes for whatever we want - there's certainty a variety of them all stating different things. Instead of grasping at straws, I merely provided the math behind how the game is designed. Try all you want, the numbers all work and reflect the 60% decision.
However, I'd very much like your opinion on why you disagree with my thought that survivors should get buffs to gen speeds if a survivor is eliminated at the very beginning of the match effectively turning it into a 1v3 from the start. Why do you disagree with this so much? Im not saying it's THE answer, but based on the math, survivors should have a higher chance to win on a 1 v 3 since its easier for the killer to win the majority out of it. I feel a killer tunneling someone straight out of the gate invalidates a 1 v 4 match just as much as someone who gives up on hook to go next straight out of the gate. Why are you against the idea of helping the survivors in these cases? Perhaps you'd rather just make it impossible for the killer to actually perform the tunnel? That only solves half the problem - what about when survivoes "go next" right off the bat?
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942226#Comment_3942226
Mixed feelings, really.
Because yes, I do agree that Ghostface needed buffs from the PTB, it was way too weak of a design. But at the same time, I really hate going against him. He was my least favorite killer for years, and he would still be if Wesker didn't exist.
I'm glad they fixed the problems from the PTB but I don't think he will ever be fun.
I find him to be the most fun, but then again, he's also one of the easiest killers to counter. Just follow him around and he's effectively an m1 killer with no power. Regardless, there's just something pure about an m1 killer without ridiculous and over the top crazy powers that instead has to 100% rely on mindgames to succeed.
-
@GeneralV said:
PTB Ghostface was very weak indeed.
Was designed to be weak in generally. Im glad he got some buffs eventually. Just the fact that the exposed person can't reveal him now is a big help, and it's weird that it wasn't a thing from the get go.
-
We can't really do anything here. You'll need to report this through the official cheat reporting form.
https://support.deadbydaylight.com/hc/en-us/requests/new?ticket_form_id=360000942011
-
@ChrisTheGreat said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941979#Comment_3941979
Freddy absolutely should. He should never shut up, just like Chucky.
I saw the first Ghostface movie once when it first came out, so cannot remember at all if he speaks.
He speaks very often. However, the problem is using the ghostface voice would require them getting another license, as they dont have a license to the Scream franchise. They only have a license for the mask (the same as the Scream movies needing a license for the mask use). I'm not certain if BHVR would want to be paying for 2 licenses for one character - especially an older character.
-
@mecca said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942199#Comment_3942199
Because you remember a game where a killer was easy on you is not justification to ignore how other people perceive their chances of winning. To give clear example, you are not using gen regression which is clearly not running meta.
Imagine going to the doctor and he says to you, I am not going to cure your illness, I am simply going to treat your symptoms. "You'll have to like that."
Go next prevention will backfire and I will be the first to claim I was right.
It might, it might not. I suppose we will just have to see. It's one of those things where you won't really know the results until its implemented. I think the idea is great, but I AM concerned about false positives kicking in. BHVR said the 8 gen regression limit would only affect situations where the killer refuses to participate in normal gameplay and instead camps 3 gens from the beginning of the match. This clearly isnt the case, as it can kick in during very legitimate matches quite easily. So yeah, we will have to see how it goes.
-
@Moonras2 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942041#Comment_3942041
Personally I don't play much anymore or really care about the math aspects but I just wanted to post this for everyone. It is old at this point and I acknowledge that things can change that we may not know or have information on.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/433-developer-update-stats
"We try to keep Killers near a 60% kill rate on average to keep matches relatively even and support the horror theme of the game, where the Killer is a force to be reckoned with and the survival is not guaranteed."
— Peanits
And with that I also want to post something from another old post of mine. I no longer have the links to the original post bookmarked but I could probably search through my old post and find links.
I just wanted to post these here. They are all from 2 different forums post and one of the statistics post.
"We don't make decisions solely based on kill rates. Kill rates only show us where a problem might be, they don't tell us whether or not there is a problem or what that problem is. We spend a lot of time gathering feedback and watching gameplay before committing to changing something."
-- Peanits
"I can clarify a bit. I'm not sure where the 60% kill rate = 50% win rate bit comes from, but I don't recall it being said by us. We don't tend to talk about "win rates" because a win is still somewhat subjective. Some people count a pip as a win, others if they get 3 kills, some even consider only 4 kills as a win. If we're talking about solely kills, kill rate and win rate are equal. The kill rate is an average, not a guarantee. You might kill 4 survivors one match and 0 the next, but that'll still average out to 50%. (When you average out thousands of matches, that killer's actual kill rate becomes much more accurate.)"
-- Peanits
"For example, a 50% kill rate would mean they kill two Survivors per match on average. We try to keep Killers near a 60% kill rate on average to keep matches relatively even and support the horror theme of the game, where the Killer is a force to be reckoned with and the survival is not guaranteed."
-- Peanits
Edit: the first post and last post seem to be the same after I read through so that can be found on the link provided if the link is still active.
They also make statements saying the opposite. BHVR conflict each other all the time which is why I posted actual evidence and numbers to back up my statements. Those can't be argued. However, I appreciate you took the time to try pulling one side of these. I'll see if I can dig up where they say the complete opposite. The most recent one is the following, but it's on a different topic, but you can see they obviously are posting competent different facts.
One dev says:
"No report is actioned without solid evidence - so video evidence (screenshots are not evidence and are not used) is pretty much a necessity. If players are talking about chat harassment, we do have all the chat logs checked. Nobody is banned without good reason - and even when you receive the "report is actioned" response, that means the report has been reviewed, not that someone has been banned."
This clearly says that getting the report feedback popup merely means the report was looked at and not that a ban was handed out.
However, another dev said
"When you receive report feedback, it's simply to let you know that action was taken against a player you reported. It does not mean that your report specifically was what led to the ban. For example, if the same person had said something hateful in another match, they may have been banned for that instead, but you'd still receive the feedback popup. This way, nobody who reported that person is left in the dark just because they weren't the first to report them."
This is completely opposite to the other dev statement. Essentially, devs post their opinions here on the forums and arent necessarily posting official reports/statements and do have the wrong idea at times. I tried getting clarification about the above conflict, but they didn't want to post an official answer - just their opinion. Thats why it's good for us to run the numbers to verify which ones are correct. As for Nightlight, careful depending on it - those are self reported numbers only which can show skewed data. For example, someone might just report their wins only, or just their losses. Its also for the few people who bother to self report and misses out on the majority of DBD matches. It can be helpful, but it may not reflect reality.
Some of the dev statements also dont make sense. I believe it was peanits that referred to killers having a bigger chance to win overall in dbd because they can win up to 4 times a match while survivors can only win once. It could have been a different dev - i dont recall. I believe this was in reference to talking about the game being 4 individual 1 v 1 matches and not being a team vs team game. However, this clearly doesn't really match up to realityon counting killer wins considering the killer needs a 3k+ to win. The claim that killers win more because they get more winning opportunities per match just doesn't tell the real story, and many took the statement that it meant the game is killer sided because of a higher win chance.
So considering the amount of conflicting information the devs post, I took a fresh set of eyes approach and built the numbers from the ground up, and what do you know, it matches up with BHVR's numbers nearly perfectly just being off by 2.5% which is I assume was to give survivors some wiggle room. That beats conflicting opinions any day. Now we have a solid foundation that matches BHVR's actual numbers in use, and we can understand their mindset on how they came up with those numbers. Why a 60% kill rate? It makes sense mathematically and statisticallyfor a balanced match. I'll take that over the other guy's belief they just randomly picked a number out of the air because it looked like a scary number. I can back mine up with data, the other cannot. 60% is just slightly over a 2k and not even halfway to a 3k from there. If they wanted the killer to feel overpowering and strong, they would have gone with 68% or something where more often than not they are getting a 3k considering 75% is a 3k.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941964#Comment_3941964
Do you honestly think that when a survivor ragequits early, that the killer gets more upset than the 3 other survivors that are still in the game?
Using hooks to ragequit, in a way that bypasses DC penalties, is an exploit. If a player ragequits, it's intended for them to get a DC penalty. That is what the new update is fixing.
I dont know if I get more upset, but if I see a survivor going next from the beginning, I declare the match a bust and just let the survivors escape. Wouldn't be fair, otherwise.
https://youtu.be/nFRwEK29_UE?si=JsuDGh1sZI6lT5lD -
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941862#Comment_3941862
You can't just ignore math and game balance.
I'm not. You are, by making base assumptions that your "model" isn't capturing. That's what I've been trying to explain.
Clear and coherent evidence, and "Nooo, ignore the evidence!" just isn't going to cut it.
Your method here is anything except coherent. So I'll just outline why it's incorrect.
There's a reason BHVR shoots for a 60% kill rate, and…now I hope you're sitting down for this, it's because of math. :O
I hope you're sitting down for this, the 60% kill rate is not because "it's balanced", it's because they "wanted the killer to feel more powerful to capture a horror feeling" and specifically not because 60% is "balanced" gameplay. They've intentionally, deliberately, and knowingly skewed the game balance in the killer's favor. And not because of balance, literally because they felt like it.
Anyway, here is the statistics of balance.
This is an awful lot of numbers that have literally nothing to do with Dead by Daylight in any way.
So, since I expect you to learn nothing and keep repeating this drivel, as a Math teacher, I'll go through why this is completely, objectively useless information when discussing the game so that the rest of the class can maybe understand why I'm pushing back on this.
At minimum, there are a lot more variables to consider, and even then I wouldn't look at it as a "probability" of escaping. These percentages are supposed to be descriptive of actual data, not predictive of how a random match with human players will actually play out.
Asymmetric PvP isn't Probablility
Let's look at your assumptions: Survivors all have a 50% chance to escape, each.
So, at minimum, we're ignoring every factor that would impact this. Not every survivor on the team is going to be of the same skill level, and I highly suspect that the matchmaker deliberately puts a "weak link" and a "slightly stronger link" on the team to bias the match toward more kills. Even if the matchmaker isn't going that far, it's a pretty huge stretch to think that there is never a weak link on the team. It's a pvp game, and the bare minimum here would be a skill comparison, even in a naively bare bones statistical analysis.
This also doesn't bring any of the actual PvP, or human elements, or even RNG into consideration. The biggest one being how do these players play? Because, and I already brought this up, let's take the example that the killer is playing to hard tunnel the first person out of the game. (You know, how people are arguing on these forums, and in this very thread that every match must be played, every time, period).
So if the killer just hard camps and tunnels the first player they see, what is the chance that player is going to die? Honestly, there's still too many factors to really give an accurate number, but given that it's simply a race to get 3 hooks vs finishing 5 gens, and this is the meta, it's a lot more than 50% of the time.
In fact, if we use the limited data from Nightlight, and acknowledge that this is somewhat curated data from community-provided sources, and is nowhere near enough of a sample size to make a definitive statement about the entire DbD population, we get this (as of today):
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/807Q2JC2Q6UV/dbd-kill-rates-2025-06-13-png.png
So, if anything, the "chance" of the first survivor dying isn't "50%", it's not even close. There's about a 23.6% chance of them escaping, and the rest of the time they die (76.4%). That's about as far from a "coin flip" as you can get.
Where are the Gens (Other variables)?
I'm really curious where you think that match time, or even simply "gens" factors into this. Especially since the biggest complaint is that "killers don't have enough time" (Gens go too fast).
Since that's missing from your analysis completely… The most common interpretation, given how the game works, would either be:
- Each of these assumes 5 gens.
- Each of these assumes n+1 gens (one more gen than the number of survivors).
Both of these interpretations fall apart when you look at the chart. You can't honestly tell me that in a 1v1 scenario that the survivor is finishing either 2 or 5 gens 50% of the time. That doesn't hold up to any scrutiny whatsoever. In fact, the 1v1 survivor doesn't have anywhere close to a 50% chance here, it's not a matter of if they die, but when. (More on the 1v1 scenario later)
And if you fix the number of gens to 5, then somehow you're saying the killer is still going to win a 1v10 more than half the time. That doesn't seem right either, even at a passing glance.
This method isn't even passing the "sniff" test at this point.
In fact, this graph can be expanded as far as you like, and will never have the killer winning less than half the time. So apparently, you've also "proven" that a 1v20 game is "balanced". Think about that one for a minute, and you might start to understand why I take issue with this "analysis".
(As I said before, this is because you're working backwards from the assumption "it's balanced" and trying to make the data fit that… so at every level of this your data is showing that it's physically impossible for the killer to win less than half the time, which is certainly a choice. This is even displayed in one of your graphs…).
Snowballing and Independence
So the biggest flaw in your method here is the prevalence of snowballing. Tunneling is the biggest factor, and the reason that I say that these are not "independent" variables. Because once you get one survivor out, if there is enough time in the match (i.e. gens remaining) you basically automatically can win the remaining 1v3. That's the gamble that people take all the time with tunneling.
And that isn't captured in your data whatsoever. You are blindly assuming that every survivor has the same chance to escape, and that doesn't match with anything in the game, or any of the data we have available.
Because the killer isn't simply killing one survivor, then has an even chance to kill the next one. Snowballing is a core part of DbD emergent gameplay for the killer.
Here's a visual representation of how wrong your analysis is. When you make incorrect assumptions, like assuming every survivor has the same chance of survival (regardless of any other factors), you get the blue line in this graph. When you look at the only data we have available to us (the Nightlight overall data above) you get the red line.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/DQLTDZD1ENZC/kill-distribution-png.png
No one. Ever. Should look at this and say that your approximation here is accurately representing even the limited data we do have. These are not the same model, and whatever you are actually modeling in blue here does not in any way describe or model what happens in game.
Mismatching Kill Rate and "Win" Rate
Look at your own data. The very first point is wrong. You readily admit and know that BHVR aims for a 60% kill rate. So why would this not appear in your chart. In fact, you brag about the fact that your chart "shows" a 61.5% win rate for the killer… but that is not the kill rate.
At every level of your analysis this fails to capture anything that we already have available to us as actual game data. One big example would be, if we know the kill rate is 60%, so why would you think that a 1v1 situation has a 50% chance ever? Even if we go with the incorrect analysis, we should be capturing that a 1v1 is a 60% kill rate. And a second of consideration, as I mentioned earlier, would show that a 1v1 has basically a 100% kill rate, since the survivor will eventually lose and cannot do gens.
But let's look at your 1v4 "data": a 61.56% win rate for killer. so 61.56% of the time the game is either a 3k or 4k, which is literally the information you present here.
So, on the extreme end, if every single "winning game" is exactly a 3k and every "non-winning" game is a 0k (the worst case scenario for the killer that matches your data), then you get a 46.17% kill rate. On the other extreme end, if we assume maximum lethality, in a world where every win is a 4k and every loss is a 2k (the best case scenario for the killer matching your data), then the kill rate is 80.78%. The reality would be somewhere in between, and this is a major, major reason why you can't simply extrapolate "win rate" from knowing the actual data of "kill rate" that we are given.
Considering most of your comments goes way off topic or is just completely ignoring facts already laid out by BHVR themselves, I'll skip over those parts.
The part below, you actually came up with a valid point - ironically the point I already made in my post, but before we get to that part, I'll at least respond to your claim that BHVR just pulled the number out of the air because they wanted the killers to feel powerful. Now, I know you said you hate it when people use math to support their statements, but im going to use math - I'll keep it simple. A 50% kill rate is only a 2k. A 75% kill rate is a 3k. If we wanted killers to have a 50% win rate, we would take the middle point between 50 (2k) and 75 (3k) which is 62.5%. At a 60% kill rate, that puts killers at an average of 2.49 kills per match. This essentially gives them a very very slightly less than a 50% win rate averaged out. Remember, a 3k is just as much as a win than a 4k. If BHVR wanted killers to make them more powerful by default, they would have done WELL over a 60% kill rate. It sounds like you mixed up kill rate with win rate. Kill Rates are not win rates. Easy to prove. If a killer has a 25% kill rate (a 1k on average), does that mean he's winning 1 out of 4 matches on average (a 25% win rate)? Of course not. BHVR clearly pulled statistics and math to support their number of coming up with a 60% kill rate - it gives killers a roughly 50% chance to get a 3k+ while giving some leeway to survivors. This didn't happen because they threw a dart at a dartboard and it landed on 60 as you'd presume.
Now as to something actually relevant you brought up, the snowball effect. I entirely agree wiith this part and I already acknowledged this was a thing in my post that you apparently decided to not bother reading. Lets say that a killer tunnels someone right out of the game from the beginning. This effectively creates a situation where the match is pretty much a 1 v 3 in reality (not counting time spent tunneling 1 survivor where the other 3 could be pushing gens...the time they gain by doing this pales in comparison to losing a team member early on, so yeah, an early tunnel effectively turns the match into a 1 v 3 from the get go). This is a BIG problem. However, we can't just assume every killer tunnels. What's the solution? Now comes the part of why I added survivor count scenarios more than just 1 v 4. If a killer tunnels right from the get go, survivors are SCREWED because thats essentially a 1 v 3 from the match start. While the game is balanced around the 38.5% escape rate for 4 survivors, if the match is suddenly a 1 v 3 from the get go, suddenly survivors SHOULD be in a position of having a 50% chance to escape from a 1 v 3...but they are stuck at the balanced rate of 38.5% still.
What I propose is that if a killer tunnels right off the bat and effectively forces the match to be a 1 v 3 from the beginning, have the gen speeds dynamically increase to effectively buff the survivors to the required 50% chance escape rate thats needed for a 1 v 3 game. However, this would only take affect if that 1 survivor gone was not in a position to do anything worthwhile. In other words, if the killer eliminates a survivor too quickly, have the match adjust dynamically similar to how BHVR tested this very idea with the last 2v8 gamemode. Chalk it up to the entity wanting survivors to suffer for a prolonged time or something and discourages quick kills. This would effectively punish early game tunneling by significantly buffing survivor repair speeds to make up for the match effectively being a 1 v 3 from the beginning. Now, this wouldn't take affect if enough time has passed, naturally. Otherwise, we would have a situation where the killer has no kills, there's one gen left, and he finally eliminated a survivor...it wouldn't make sense for the match to be considred a 1v3 at that point.
So yes, snowballing is absolutely an issue, and BHVR has clearly thought about having gen speeds dynamically change depending on killer effectiveness considering they literally added this to a gamemode recently. Why not apply that same logic to the base game if a match FROM THE EARLY GAME was considered a 1 v 3? If the match is effectively a 1 v 3, my chart provides the balanced escape rate that would be needed to adjust the match to be a fair game. This has an added benefit by still allowing optional tunneling late game if things are dire.
P.S. - oh, and it's nice to see another fellow math teacher, though I've retired from it and moved onto another career. Kudos to you.
-
@Pit_Bull_Love said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941959#Comment_3941959
I don't know where people come up with the idea that only survivors are nerfed in comp games. It depends on the tournament, but nurse is almost always banned, sometimes blight, slugging is usually banned until end game, so are some killer perks, and I'm sure other things I'm not even thinking of. Survivors typically can't duplicate perks, no duplicate items (unless found in match), and certain perks may be banned as well. Sounds like both sides have equal nerfs in place.
I suppose ot dependant the tournament. I have not watched them all. I just usually see survivors upset about how many restrictions they get such as only one deliveranceand such. I entirely admit im not participating in the tournament scene, so I've only seen a handful of tourney rules.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941894#Comment_3941894
Tournaments are irrelevant, my dear friend.
They are external, filled with rules that most DBD trials do not have, and experienced only by a very small minority. It is a show for entertainment and amusement, not something that matters when it comes to balancing the game.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941903#Comment_3941903
Well, you said, and I quote:
I can comfortably say that if a survivor team loses to multihooking they are bad, because I have yet to be proven otherwise.
But, as we've established, that just isn't the case. There are nine years of proof.
That said, here is where we get to consistency. Now here I'll have to make a disclaimer because if we're thinking of recent times, then yes, it is possible for it not to be consistent, but not because it isn't viable, but because of how easier it is to tunnel someone out. It is no secret that survivors lost many of the resources they had at their disposal, and without them tunneling gets way easier to do.
Which is a massive problem. Like I said earlier, tunneling wasn't a massive issue in the Old DBD because survivors had more lines of defenses against it. A killer who wanted to tunnel would have to go through many resources that survivors currently no longer have. Multihooking never stopped being viable, the alternative just got increasingly less punishing. Until now, as we thankfully seem to be moving on to a mitigation or removal of tunneling from DBD.
You denying that does not change that, that is the fact and that is what every top killer has said since the dawn of time.
Your sentence here doesn't make it a fact, either.
Just because good survivors have lost to multihooking before in a 9 year span, does not mean that it's good and viable.
And just because good survivors have won against multihooking before in a 9 year span, does not mean that it's bad and not viable.
Replying to your reply to me. It's a fair point. I was just pointing out that even the most experienced players have it in their playbook to tunnel, but yes, as you said, tournaments to have special rules mostly having survivors playing with one hand tied behind their back.
-
@Mandy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941807#Comment_3941807
Yes I am, I've played this game since day 1 back in 2016 and I think it's in the healthiest position its ever been in balance wise - and I've played both sides of the game for many many years now. There's always going to be some issues with the game, same as any game, and we're addressing those this year with the slugging / tunneling / "go next" things that we have planned.
Im quite excited and nervous where y'all are going with this, ha. Going next correction will help give a more realistic take on where actual kill numbers are which I think will be very beneficial. That in itself can cause quite a chain reaction of balance changes. Im looking forward to seeing the results!
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941831#Comment_3941831
How can nine years of gameplay not be proof of anything?
I say it again: nine years of gameplay where countless killer games were won by killers who multihooked. Nine years, covering every single DBD meta, matchmaking system, powers and perks.
And, in nine years and thousands of players, every single survivor who, at one point or another, lost to a killer who was multihooking was a bad survivor?
Sorry, but that just isn't true.
Really comes down to MMR. Multitasking is VERY viable at lower MMR. It's less viable, but still possible, at higher MMR. At peak performance, it's practically impossible. You'll notice a lot of tournaments, the killer player decides a specific person that must be eliminated above all others.