RpTheHotrod
RpTheHotrod
About
- Username
- RpTheHotrod
- Joined
- Visits
- 3,824
- Last Active
Comments
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941835#Comment_3941835
Holy entity with the math. Just stop.
It's not a coin flip for ######### sake. Tunneling one person it makes the rest of them easier.
So it's more like, toss a coin. If that coin lands soon enough, then not only did heads or tails not matter, but you win because the rest of the flips are trivial (when gens still remain).
Please. Just stop trying to use math. The real fact here is that you are starting with the assumption that "the game is survivor sided" and absolutely desperate to distort a 60% kill rate into anything that you can misinterpret to support your pre-determined conclusion.
You can't just ignore math and game balance. Clear and coherent evidence, and "Nooo, ignore the evidence!" just isn't going to cut it.
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
Theirs is slightly off of an exact hit of 62.5% to make room for various variables which imho is acceptable. I'd say +-3% is a good range.
Anyway, here is the statistics of balance. The team with single player is what we shoot for on a 50% win rate when they have to face multiple opponents. In other words, a 50% win rate for a killer would be balanced, a 50% win rate for each member of the team with multiple opponents would effectively crush the single player. That's why in game design, you balance around the lowest common denominator - in this case, the killer. Here comes the scary math, look out!
Here is the baseline statistics ranging from if the Survivors had a single member all the way up to 10, just for fun. You'll notice something quite interesting.
It might be hard to spot, so here it is in another form (the number on top of each dot shows how many kills are required to kill the majority of the survivors):
This is for the killer to have a 50% chance to win. The Per-Point win % for killer is kill rate. The survivor Per-Point is escape rate.
You'll notice that the more survivors there are, the closer to a 50% win rate the survivors should get. This seems backwards, and I made the same incorrect assumption that it seems backwards previously before diving in deeper. The key here is, the number of survivors changes the required amount of kills that is needed to get a majority. For example, in our 1 v 4, the killers needs a 75%+ kill rate (a 3K+) to win. However, let's say it was 1 v 1,000. The killer would only need to kill 501 survivors to get a majority for a win. This leaves roughly 50% of the survivors who lost, but 50% of the survivors who won! That's because the more survivors there are (with one exception I'm about to cover), the EASIER the killer can earn a majority. You'll notice a lot of up and down on the chart, but that's because of the number of kills required to win. For example, with 4 survivors, the killer needs 3 kills…but with 5 survivors, he still only needs 3 kills - but he has more people to go after which means him getting victory is easier - this means that with 5 survivors, with it being easier for the killer, the survivors would need their chance to win to go up. This is a repeating pattern. The more survivors there are, the target majority requirement changes. On the first case where the kill count needed has less survivors in the game, survivors need a lower chance, but on the second case where the same kill count is needed but survivors are in a larger number, they need a higher chance to win since the killer will have an easier time getting that required kill count.
Now to clarify, this is all around balancing the killer around a kill rate giving them a ~50% chance to win (which is what the 60% kill rate roughly achieves, though 62.5% would be a perfect 50%). Essentially, the devs got to the 62.5% number, but reduced it down to 60% to give survivors some breathing room. Let's just stick to BHVR's 60%. The problem is when killers have a kill rate above that 60%, it becomes very problematic for survivors. These cases absolutely should be addressed. On the flipside, when the killer has under a 60% kill rate, then it's very problematic for the killer which also should be addressed.
At the end of the day, BHVR pretty much nailed their 60% kill requirement if we're giving survivors wiggle room. The problem about just boosting survivor escape rates individually is that it will drop 60% kill rate killers below the 50% win rate balance. Inherently, in an asymmetric game, the individual player who has multiple "allies" must have a lower personal win rate than the player who is completely alone and facing off against multiple opponents all against him. That's the nature of asymmetric games. Buffing those individual win rates of people with allies would make it unfair for the player who is entirely alone. If you're on the side who have allies, you have the numbers, and in turn, you'd need to deal with a lower personal win chance than the player who is entirely alone with no allies who have multiple opponents.
Now, all that being said, this is a top level look at this. One could say, once a killer eliminates a survivor, his per point chance to kill a survivor should change since now he has less opponents. That's a fair statement! However, in order to accomplish this, the match would need to dynamically change once a player is eliminated. BHVR actually attempted this in the recent 2v8 mode where generator repair speeds would increase or decrease dynamically depending on how well or poor the killers were doing. That's a completely different discussion, but I'd be fascinated with that discussion. It makes me wonder if BHVR is testing the possibility of dynamically changing repair speeds depending on how well the killer is performing on standard matches…perhaps a response to tunneling? One counter-argument one might say is that it is punishing a player for doing their objective, or doing it too well. Also a valid argument, but nonetheless, BHVR clearly has this on their mind.
Interestingly enough, all players would have an individual similar win chance if BHVR went with an odd number of survivors.
Edit - clarified the chart titles.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941629#Comment_3941629
I wonder if you'd keep the same tune if Kill Rates and Escape Rates were flipped. I imagine you'd have quite a different opinion if Killers had a 40% KR.
People will always find a way to rationalize their way out of data that doesn't fit their narrative. Survivor hasn't been the power role in half a decade. Any issues on the front lie with individual players, not the balancing of the game.
You're ignoring the fact that the killer has 4 opponents. The survivors have a single opponent. Of course each individual survivors had to have a lower personal win rate - they literally outnumber the killer 4 to 1. If each survivor had a 50% chance to escape, the killer would have a ~30% chance to get at least a 3k. Try it with a coin. Flip a coin 4 times. You only win if it hits tails at least 3 times. You'll be flipping for a while.
-
They do play the game. Historically, devs are usually pretty bad at their own game, however. Keep in mind that this is literally their job, and a lot of people like doing something other than their job on their free time.
-
@jedimaster505 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941455#Comment_3941455
You say "lets put it to the test" and then ironically provide a hypothetical example completely out of touch with what is actually going on in games. In the actual game, killers are getting 3-4K more often than they get 0-1K, and so the average "win" rate is well over 50%. Though, how you want to define a "win" is frankly irrelevant because it is the rate of kills and escapes that define the actual balance of the game. After all, the killers primary objective is to kill and the survivors primary objective is to survive. There is no need whatsoever to even talk about what it means to win, as we can just look directly at kill and escape rates to determine game balance.
I provided an example that shows how flawed the idea is that kill rate is equal to win rate. You're response is that win rates doesn't matter anyway? Come on, man.
You're telling me you believe that someone with a 50% kill rate wins half of their matches in average. If someone is only getting a 2k every match on average, they arent winning half their matches even with variants like occasional 0ks or 4ks. Someone with a 25% kill rate isn't winning a quarter of the time. Conversely, Someone with a 90% kill rate is winning every game on average, even someone with a 75% kill rate is.
The only difference between someone with a 75% kill rate and a 100% kill rate on average is that one on average kills 3 survivors and the other on average kills all 4 survivors. However, both on average are winning all (100%) of their matches. No matter how you view it, the idea that kill rate is win rate doesnt hold any water. Putting it to any real tests or thoughts reveals the holes in the idea.
-
If it was limited to actual 3 gen situations, I'd be fine with it. However. It unfairly and unjustly negatively affects m1 no mobility killers making the weakest killers in the game even weaker. Why? No mobility killers cannot afford to patrol far away gens. Survivors know this, so they leave those gens for last. That means the only gens survivors are focusing on are centeralized gens that are near each other. That means the m1 killer has no choice but to focus on center gens since they can't afford to go to far gens and survivors aren't at those far gens anyway. ALL of the action is in the center of the map. That leaves m1 killers absolutely ripe to getting the 8 regression limit with perks such as surge, or if they dare use perks like eruption despite there not being a 3 gen canping situation where the killer is refusing to chase and hook survivors.
It's a good idea on paper, but absolutely wrecks already weak killers by kicking in when 3 gen canping is NOT happening. The regression limit should change to getting reduced to 6 charges and only kick in counting regression hits once 3 gens are left.
-
Survivors already have one. Killer doesn't, but let's be real, the less aura reading perks in the game, the better. Guaranteed info removes fun aspects of the game like mindgames and such.
-
Legion. A killer with a built in wallhack and speedhack is just frustrating, especially when you're having to constantly mend all match.
-
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940858#Comment_3940858
Every killer main forgets that bhvr disables almost every second chance perk in end game, guaranteeing at least 1 kill out of pity. Every map has become smaller, thus lowering the need for gen regression, yet they bring 4 anyway. Almost every decent tile with a window has now been replaced with a garbage replacement of two pallets next to a tree. I'd consider that killer hand holding.
Every time I see a killer main complain about "the UI is hand holding" or "base kit BT is hand holding" I can't help but laugh. The UI was added to bridge the gap between swf and solo queue. That way perks can be balanced in a way where it doesn't feel like SWF has a massive advantage over solo queue (have killers already forgotten that whole line of criticism?). Base kit BT I laugh even more because any killer who genuinely complains about it has never once seriously played survivor for anything other than tome challenges.
I wouldn't say im a killer main anymore, but ive played at least 2000 hours on killer. While the UI elements clearly buffs survivors, it's simply to, as you said, bring solo queue in line with swfs. As for basekit borrowed time, that is something that should have been in the game since its inception. It was practically mandatory to have at least one person have BT slotted and be the rescuer which was very frustrating. Imho, it's hard to imagine DBD NOT having basekit BT.
-
@jedimaster505 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940839#Comment_3940839
This kind of math is a similar confusion to Zeno's paradox, where if you travel half the distance an infinite number of times, you never arrive at the destination. Sure, in a single match, a 60% kill rate is not a 3K, but this 60% is an average, which means over the course of thousands of matches the killer will get more 3-4Ks than 0-1Ks in order to maintain that average kill rate, which leads to a 60% win rate.
This isn't some weird or usual math, it's literally basic math. A 60% kill rate means on average over thousands of matches, the killer would get a 3k+ sliiiiightly under every other match which comes down to roughly 50% of the time. 62.5% would be on average 2.5 kills per match.
According to your "math", kill rate is win rate. That is realized to be flawed pretty quick with this example. If kill rate is win rate, then let's put it to the test. In this example, let's just say the killer plays 1000 matches and only ever gets a single kill. That puts him at a 25% kill rate on average. According to you, he wins 25% of the time, or 1 out of 4 matches. Please explain how the killer, with a 25% kill rate over 1,000 matches who gets a single kill every time somehow won 250 of those matches? Its incredibly clear that kill rate does not equal win rate. Now of course a killer will not kill the exact same number of kills every match, but in math, the model would work in every example situation, and im providing an example that points out the failure in logic to claim the kill rate is the win rate.
-
@jedimaster505 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941195#Comment_3941195
Only 4 man SWF at high MMR. 4 man SWF overall does almost as bad as solos and high MMR overall does almost as bad as solos too.
High MMR doesn't mean pro level. Its very easy to get to high MMR in DBD considering the ceiling is so low. High MMR just means a level where they have enough experience in the game to know how the game actually fundamentally works. Someone at 200 hours could easily hit High MMR. In other words, once everyone has the fundamentals down to the game, 4 man SWFs have their members at an average of a 48% escape rate.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940837#Comment_3940837
How would you get additional rewards AFTER dying?
Some games do that. If you get eliminated, you can leave and do your next match. Once the match concludes, it sends out the match results rewards to everyone. I'm just saying it's possible, but probably too complicated\complex to be worth doing for such a change to DBD.
-
@francesinhalover said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939122#Comment_3939122
killrate 60%… AT THE HIGHEST MMR. we weren't given stats for low mmr or average mmr
KILLERS WIN 60% OF THE TIME VS PRO SURVIVORS.
Bruh, kill rate isn't win rate, lol. To put it into perspective, a 75+% kill rate is required to win a match (a 0k is 0%, a 1k is 25%, a 2k is 50%, a 3k is 75%, and a 4k is 100%). A 60% kill rate is on average killing 2.49 survivors a match which means a 60% kill rate equates to getting at least 3 kills slightly under 50% of the time. A 2.5k average would be a 62.5% kill rate which would equate to an even 50% chance to get a win.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940698#Comment_3940698
Now think about this for a moment...
You're playing survivor. You get killed off quick but shug it off and go into the next game. Do you mean to tell me you could "win" your first game while halfway through your 2nd if those other survivors lock in enough?
No, if you leave the game, you essentially would cash out and abandon any future awards you may have gotten. That being said, I dont see why getting rewards if you left once the original match concludes would be a problem - why not? I suppose that'd be tricky to program in, though.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940676#Comment_3940676
The win condition for the game is still gonna go down to the individual player. Goodluck convincing ppl that in match where the majority (or all) of the team escapes...it's still a win for the killer.
Oh I agree, there, but it's already like that. If the killer kills 3 survivors, and 1 escapes, that escaping survivor won, but so did the killer.
That being said, maybe they should consider dropping the whole "everyone has their own win condition" like how it is now and turn it into a killer vs survivor team that all win/lose/tie together. If the killer gets 9 hooks, the killer wins and the match concludes?
-
I hate to admit this, but I'm a FNaF fan. He may just replace my p100 ghostie as my main.
-
@Rapid99 said:
People who look at just kill rates are quite frankly… ignorant.
There's things that affect kill rates, things like… survivors going next! Which happens an unfathomable amount of times because survivors seemingly can't handle that the killer they ran into, is a killer they don't quite like, or the fact that they went down quickly first. Hell, I just had 3 games in a row where at least one person went next immediately.
Looking at kill rates is dumb. It means nothing. Sadako has a high kill rate while being an objectively weaker killer, it means nothing.
Kill rates can be misrepresented pretty easily. I wish they would change it to hook states instead. Killer wins if he gets 9 hook states, for example. Thats the equivalent of a 3k without the need to actually eliminate 3 survivors. For example, he could 2 hook 3 survivors and eliminate 1 for a win. Perhaps tunneling would feel less "needed" by some killers. Perhaps not.
-
@jedimaster505 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940266#Comment_3940266
A 2K does not mean that 3 players lost. A draw is not a loss for the killer.
2 survivors escaped, 2 survivors were killed. So if we combine the 4 1v1's, killer wins twice and loses twice within a single match by sacrificing the survivors, which altogether balances itself as a draw for the killer.
Even if the survivors win, lose, and tie as a whole team, a balanced game would result in a 50% escape rate. For example, the killer can play 5 matches in a row and get a 0K, a 1K, a 2K, a 3K and a 4K. That's 2 losses, 1 draw, and 2 wins for the killer. The wins and losses therefore cancel themselves out which leaves a draw overall. An average result of a draw is as balanced as the game can get for both sides.
You're following the misconception of how the game is designed. A 2k isn't a draw. The game is designed around 1 killer having 4 opponents. Those 4 opponents are individual players each withbl their own win condition. Now before you cry foul, this is per the devs themselves that they have clarified multiple times over the years. The survivors are NOT a team. Each survivor wins by escaping or loses by dying. If 3 survivors escape, then 3 survivors won and 1 survivor lost. You never see "survivors win!" at the end because there is no actual survivor team. Survivors can increase their chances at winning by working together, but it isn't required. Thats also why there are perks designed for survivors who play on their own such as sole survivor. Thats also why some DBD advertisements say things along the lines of will you work together or go at it alone. Essentially, there are 4 distinct 1 v 1s happening every match. It's an asymmetrical game, so each type of player has their own win condition. A killer needs at least 3 kills, and a survivor need only escape. Try to argue this all you want, the devs have clarified this (1 vs 4 individual opponents - not a team) on multiple occasions. So tell me, if 2 survivors lost by dying and 2 survivors won by escaping who exactly did the killer tie with? Thats right, there are literally no ties in DBD - there are no scenarios in a 1 v 1 where neither the killer nor the survivor wins or loses outside of a server crash
Now, many of us, dare I say all of us, wishes the game WAS team vs team. Survivors would win/lose/tie together. For example if 3 survivors escape, then all survivors win since they would be a team. This would also allow for ties with a 2K. However, per BHVR's own clarification, that is NOT how the game is currently. Its every man for himself on the survivor side, but working together increases your odds of survival.
As for your last paragraph, that's not how numbers work. If every survivor had a 50% escape rate, the killer would hardly every win. For example, if it was 1 v 1, then obviously both players should get a 50% win rate. However, if it was 1 v 2, then OBVIOUSLY the killer's opponents need to have a lower win chance because he has 2 opponents to deal with while the survivors still only have 1 opponent. The more survivors there are, the less their escape rate should be. This is basic mathematics, so I'll assume you get this, now. I really dont want to break it down again, but if you need it, search fora previous comment of mine in my comment history. If you still dont get it, try this. Flip a coin. You win if it lands on tails. You have 50% odds. Now flip a coin 4 times. To win, you need 3 or 4 to land tails. You'll be flipping quite a few times and won't remotely "win" 50% of the time before. Its more like you'd win in the 30 percentile. The more survivors there are, their escape rate must go down to maintain fairness for the player with multiple opponents. If every survivor had a 50% escape rate, killers would hardly every win. Thats flipping 4 coins and needing a majority of it tails...clearly that destroys the killers chances at winning half the time.
Just popped it into my calculator here. Your "give survivors a 50% chance to escape!" just gave killers a 31.25% win rate.
-
@Marzipan210 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939984#Comment_3939984
The only times gens pop because the killer got outplayed is when the killer makes the mistake of chasing a survivor for too long. But even when that doesn't happen gens still pop too fast. They take no skill to do on the survivor end.
While mostly true, it does take some skill on when survivors make the decision on what gens to do and when. Mindlessly repairing gens can lead to an impossible endgame scenario. I personally like going for the middle gens immediately while the killer has 4 opponents to juggle. Those center gens are a LOT more difficult to do mid to late game when resources are lower and potentially there are less survivors still alive. It's less mechanics skill and more gsme knowledge and putting it to effective use skill.
-
@brewingtea said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940240#Comment_3940240
In that previous thread, you also admitted that the only reason we don't consider 2Ks to be "fair" and a 50/50 balanced scenario is because you don't want to. There was literally nothing stopping us (that you mentioned after I asked multiple times) from just… calling that "fair" and being done with it.
Sorry, can you rephrase? I'm not sure what you're referring to (genuinely). A survivor needing only escape for their win condition to be favorable. A killer needs at least a 3k for their win condition to be favorable. Not sure where you're coming from on a 2K. A 2K means two players won and 3 players lost. If you play make believe and believe survivors all win/lose/tie together and there are no survivor individual win conditions, then it's a draw between the two teams. This would be the most common optimal outcome if we pretended survivors are a team and set their escape rate to 44.2%.
I believe the game should be killer team vs survivor team, and that all survivors should win/tie/lose together. I also believe each team should have an equal chance at winning. However, BHVR disagrees and holds strong with balancing around 1 killer vs 4 individual survivors each with their own win condition. This naturally means that each survivor individually for themselves will win less often due to the fact that the killer has to deal with 4 opponents while a survivor only has to deal with 1. While you can't compare apples to apples for survivor wins and killer wins due to the asymmetrical nature of the game, as an individual survivor, it just feels crappier that you personally see less wins because the killer has 3 additional opponents they have to face against. When 1 player has multiple opponents, the other players with a single share opponent naturally has to have a lower win chance to make it fair. I feel that's lame, hence why I wish BHVR would change the game to killer team vs survivor team where all survivors have to work together and win/lose/tie together despite personal escapes. This would rebalance the game around bumping survivors up to a 44.2% escape rate which feels MUCH better than the 38.5% we need for fair balance when each survivor has their own win condition.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939944#Comment_3939944
It's always a close call on these forums wether reading comprehension, or math, is the worst I've ever seen in my life. Every time I think I have a solid answer, we get a post like this.
I'll just say I need to see your "work" on where this "38.5%" number is coming from.
Because any the this comes up, people consider it like "the toss of a coin" or "the roll of a die", which are independent events. Survivor kills are not independent, because the entire point of things like hard tunneling is to kill one survivor early because "early enough" can make the rest of the kills almost trivial.
So here are the real facts: 41% overall escape rate.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/XYT4PI86LOVB/1000009212.png
So if you consider it as a 1v1v1v1v1, then survivors are losing more than the killer. Flat out. In every group size, category, and MMR.
If you consider it as a 1v4, with the standard 3k+ killer win, 2k draw, and 0-1k survivor win, then it's currently about 45.7% killer wins, 13.5% draws, and 40.8% survivor wins. So killer is still winning more.
By the actual data here, "the game is survivor sided" isn't holding any water. If anything, it supports exactly the opposite.
I already posted the math in a previous comment in a recent thread in the feedback section about kill rates. You're welcome to look it up. I already backed mine with the math breakdown. I know you have a deep distain of math, but math indeed exists. For 1 vs 4 individual players who all only have one shared opponent, for it to be fair (50% chance to win) for the solo killer who has to face 4 opponents while the other 4 only have to face one, each individual survivors player needs a 38.5% chance to win. If it was 1 v 1, both need 50%, if it was 1 v 2, then obviously the 2 players need a reduced chance. 4 brings it to 38.5%. There is obviously no ties in this situation, as who exactly is the killer tying against? He has 4 individual opponents, and those opponents are not a team - it's 4 distinct 1 v 1s per BHVR's statements. Survivors CAN work together, but they dont have to. Thats also why there are solo only perks. However, if you utterly reject BHVRs game design and make up your own rules and play make believe that this is instead a team game where survivors all win/tie/lose together as a team regardless of individual player outcome, then ties MUST be considered in the balance for both sides. This comes out to survivors needing a 44.2% escape rate for both the killer and survivor team to having equal chances at winning (while still respecting ties, of course).
I know you don't like math, but if you want it, just search my comment history. Im not going to keep reposting it.
As for your 1 v 1 v 1 v 1 v 1 comment where killer "obviously" wins more than survivors, you may have forgotten this is an asymmetrical game. The killer has to win at least 3 of those 1 v 1s for a win. A survivor merely needs to escape. Both types of players have entirely different win conditions. Otherwise, you're claiming killers can win up to 4 times a match which, come on, you can't take yourself seriously making that claim. The killer gets a 3k+ for his win. He doesn't win 4 times a match. Killer win condition is very different from survivors, so making such a claim makes me doubt if you're actually taking this discussion seriously.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939949#Comment_3939949
I'm not sure what point you think you're trying to make when you pick garden of joy as the example.
Having trouble finding a pallet? Try Gideon's! Although you can't even choose your map with an offering guaranteed outside of custom lobbies.
Now do the same thing on rotten fields. I won't wait.
Not sure if you're just trolling me here, but I didn't use garden of joy as an example. Did you reply to the wrong person? All I did was provide a link to someone discussing elements of the game. I wasn't referring to the map he is showcasing, I'm talking about his initial discussion which is entirely unrelated to the rest of the video. Sounds like you didn't even bother to watch it and just randomly guessed what was being discussed instead. This guy makes these videos for every map regardless of killer sided or survivor sided because the concepts he discusses works for everything. If you really want rotten fields, just look up his rotten fields video. He showcases that, too. Survivors have nearly complete control over where their area of operation is - thats part of the basic survivor gameplay. Anyone saying otherwise is new to the game.
-
@Lexilogo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939959#Comment_3939959
Being able to reassign teams like that is an interesting proposal and it's not totally impossible, I know there are some MP games/gamemodes that play around with it like zombie infection modes in shooters. I personally don't think it'd work in regular DbD though. In an event gamemode, I think it could be very solid, but not as a random Killer you have like a ~2% chance of running into any given trial.
I'm also worried about how much changing the 1v4 to a 2v3 affects the game balance in other ways, even if the Killer had no other powers besides the traitor teammate, they would be extremely strong IMO by removing a Survivor from the game like that, you'd probably need to implement some downsides.
I would say it would require just as much work as a 3 hook. Essentially, Instead of player elimination, they stay in the game as a turncoat. Perhaps anyone that has been hooked twice is now vulnerable, and any time someone is injured while vulnerable can be chosen by The Thing to have their allegiance change. The thing is (pun intended), the killer can hold off on that allegiance change and put it on anyone on 2nd hook and vulnerable, so the first choice might be skipped and it was the second person who was vulnerable that gets picked which throws suspicion towards the first player.
-
If you're a fresh survivor, youll be in a low mmr which is AWFUL as an experienced player. Just keep escaping the best you can to climb out of the newbie ranks where youll eventually start getting experienced teammates. Low mmr is a killer's playground.
-
They just need the ability to give up some of your BP post match to another player even on the opposing side. Had a fun killer you faced? Give them a bp boost. Had a survivor you thought did well, perhaps sacrificed themselves to ensure someone else got out? Give them a bp boost post match.
-
SWFs are usually a bunch of goofballs having silly fun with their friends and are more than willing to throw their buddies under a bus for fun. If there was a THE THING chapter, I would have it where part of the power is having the ability to change the win condition of one survivor over to only winning with the killer. Naturally, even with an swf, that player would want to keep their allegiance change secret until the reveal. How to go about this, not sure, but I'm just pointing out I feel there is a way to have it work out even with SWFs in mind.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939941#Comment_3939941
Except you aren't just carrying those around in your pocket.
Maps, tiles, and pallets have been consistently nerfed over the years, and you don't get to choose where you are hooked, or where the dead zones are.
In fact, the only way you might even have a chance at getting to a pallet is to have a perk that shows you where to go immediately... And Windows of opportunity is literally one of the most complained about perks.
If your "anti tunnel" protection relies heavily on your opponent's choice of hook, RNG, and you running a supporting perk, then that is not a perk that is "in a good place".
Yup, it's important as a survivor to have good positioning, I agree. If I'm running out into the open with nothing nearby and I go down, that's on me. Generally survivors have full control over where they go down. It's all about positioning yourself well whenever your area of operation is. If a killer starts chasing, it's important to bring the killer to a position that's better for you. Avoid deadzones, and be perceptive if stealth is in play. If pallets are low, then ensure you have an exit plan where there at least a window or a loop with them. Pallets are a precious resource, so it is vital that survivors play smart and dont waste them - you'll want as many as you can in the endgame. That's also why experienced survivors may choose to go down instead of using a god pallet so that god pallet is available later in the match when someone is on death hook. It's all about resource management of pallets and even hook states. If survivors are just blowing through resources willy nilly with no thought, that's a problem they should need to deal with, not a perk that just undoes the risk.
So sure, pallets may get reduced, but loops and windows are always available. If you're going down drag the killer to them, then hit them with that DS, and bam, you're extending the chase even longer for your teammates. A single loop can add a lot of time to a chase. Thats the power of DS.
This guy plays entirely perkless and is very good at showing survivors how to effectively play. I definitely recommend checking him out. Getting to one of these loops alone is worth DS' weight in gold.
https://youtu.be/7ia2EuGEnSw?si=29mxwArgJcd6x3cd -
@NarkoTri1er said:
People who choose to play killer aren't magically better at the game than your average survivor. There are just as many mediocre killers as there are mediocre survivors, after controlling for the 1:4 ratio, obviously. Most players are average because they aren't professionals and shouldn't be expected to be professionals to have a rewarding gameplay experience. So if the escape rate is less than 50%, which it is by quite a large margin, this indicates that the game design itself favors killers, which it obviously does.
killrate 60% = winrate 50% (2k on average). With the current matchmaking, this basically means the game is balanced (even though with improved matchmaking killrates would surely drop by significant margin).
Escape rate of 50% would mean 50% killrate, which further means killer winrate going somewhere around 40-45%.
With this fact, average killer wins 50% of the time.
To turn around and then say the escape rate is low because most survivors are bad, completely ignores that most killers are just as bad, on average. But the OP game mechanics killers have at their disposal makes it far easier for mediocre killers to win against mediocre survivors. In other words, an intermediate survivor loses against an intermediate killer, most of the time. You need an expert survivor to consistently beat an intermediate killer in DBD. An expert killer will beat expert survivors most of the time, too. It is only a minority of elite survivors that can actually prosper against expert killers, and killers don't even face these teams very often because elite players are a tiny percentile of the player base. The balance differential is clearly evident in the absurdly long kill streaks that some killer mains have achieved, which is unheard of on survivor side, and unheard of in other popular PvP games that are sensibly balanced. The margin only gets smaller as you approach the very top of MMR, and even then, 4 man SWFs still escape less than killers.
game mechanics make it easier for mediocre killers to win against mediocre SOLOQ survivors.
Regarding expert survivors vs. expert killers, you are plain wrong, expert survivors will wipe the floor with majority of killer roster most of the time.
And please let's not talk about MMR where soft cap is so low that you can easily reqch it quickly, not to mention how matchmaking functions thanks to oversaturated soft cap level.
Regarding killer winstreaks, you literally have top <1% players winstreaking because their overall game knowledge is significantly higher than game knowledge of their average opponent (ohh yeah, the well known MMR again where person that is amongst best killer/survivor players in the world goes in lobby with people who don't have nearly as much skill). Same goes for both sides. .
The fundamental principle of game theory is that you have a balance of challenge and reward, which produces a flow state, and that is called "fun". But if survivors aren't rewarded for skillful input, because low skill cheese tactics are so effective, then the game ceases to be fun, and they rage quit (i.e. go next). This is not a skill issue on the players part, it is a critical game design issue whereby a large percentage of the player base doesn't even consider a match worth playing until the end, because the mechanics are inherently unfun. In fact I have never seen such a high percentage of quitters in any other popular PvP game, compared to DBD.
you literally...already have skill input in terms of macro and micro knowledge of the game. This has nothing to do with game design, it has to do with people usually looking at the game from one perspective only (thinking long chases are almost everything that matters etc.)
The very harsh fact about this game is that it has a VERY STEEP LEARNING CURVE similar to games like CS2.
And the main problem with the "go next" epidemic is that dbd players usually don't play any other game, suffer from burnout but don't wanna uninstall because they don't know how to fill the void left by taking a break from dbd. Not to mentiok that dbd has one of the most petty and entitled communities i have ever seen in any video game.
If you're a really good killer main, you don't need BHVR to hold your hand to help you kill survivors. Your skill as killer will make you an intimidating presence all by itself. If the survivors aren't intimidated by you, then you're just not good at killer role. And if survivors don't consider the game worth playing, then the devs need to address their game design instead of blaming the survivors for "not working together".
this literally goes for the survivor side too lol, yet you see new handholding mechanics arriving to "help newer players" while they end up being abused by veterans. You are again looking at the very situation from rose tinted glasses and are acting like survivors are leaving the game and are doing so because "game is killer sided" which is factually wrong.
Fun fact, if we look at the game as 1 player vs 4 individual players who each have their own win condition and only have one shared opponent, the match comes out for it to be fair for the single player with 4 opponents, it's a 38.5% escape rate. If the game was instead 1 vs 4 players who all win/tie/lose together with no individual win conditions, then each survivor would need a 44.2% escape rate, but thats simply not how the game is designed. Considering BHVR released stats for experienced players shows experienced players have a solo/duo/trio escape rate in the low 40's%, and 4 man squads have their survivors at a 48% escape rate (ALL of them above the 38.5% escape rate), at experienced levels of play, the game is objectively survivor favored.
-
It's in a great position as long as long as you remember it's intended to be used near a pallet, loop, or window.
-
There's a million and one perks that give survivors haste which can all stack. What perks did he have?
-
You can easily hit the limit while playing well due to one perks eating up 2 charges instead of 1, and other perks such as surge that can rapid fire due to poor survivor plays. I've had multiple gens eat up nearly half of their changes within 20 seconds before because survivors were making some seriously bad decisions but also were equipped to the teeth with second chance perks to effectively erase their mistakes.
-
@redhat74 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3938617#Comment_3938617
So as you are the ONLY person to mention 'heal' from the original post and not get whataboutism'd about more effect not to kick gens etc.
Restricting the killer from kicking gens is almost exactly like restricting survivors from healing after 'x' amount of times.
Why is the killer punished to bring the game to an end rather than the… wait forgot this is BHVR$ choice
I didn't say it agree with the regression limit. I think its very dumb how it was implemented, as they said it was intended to only affect people who 3 gen camp and refuse to ever chase anyone and actually do the objectives in order to effectively take the game hostage. However, how its implemented currently, it absolutely can affect killers who are actively chasing and hooking people. The 8 gen regression should be reduced to 6 and ONLY occur when there are only 3 gens left and they are all within a certain distance from each other.
-
@UndeddJester said:
Correction: little to no mechanical skill expression.
A killer like Blight, Billy or Nurse has little to no macro or mind game skill expression because their powers fundamentally allow the killer to subvert these elements of the game and brute force hits once their tile knowledge is good enough... all that's left is the accuracy of their inputs.
Pig and Myers cannot do the same and thus must rely far more on macro and mind games to function, which of course falls short against Survivors of a comparable level of macro/mind game knowledge, usually only going these killers way if they make an incredible series of insane reads/lucky gambles.
Not everyone wants their mouse accuracy and their skill at using the 1 trick strengths of a killers dash powers at subverting looping to be the only skill elements of their game. Some of us actually enjoy m1 mind games and trying to read the trial to effectively create pressure... even if it isn't as strong.
Different types of powers are a good thing, otherwise every killer just becomes generic dash, generic map mobility, generic detection, generic hit over tile killer number 24.
This is very true. A successful high mmr Myers is far more impressive than a successfully blight. Myers has so much stacked against him being an m1 no mobility killer that it forces the killer to be a master of getting into the heada of survivors and pull off mindgames and ambush tricks to succeed as opposed to pressing an I win button. It takes far more true skill imho to be a successful high mmr m1 killer than it is to be successful as blight or nurse since you dont have any givens of power - it is instead fully knowing and understanding how Survivors work internally and using knowledge to win instead of pressing power buttons.
-
@ChaosWam said:
Agreed.
Problem is, how do you buff the M1 killers without accidentally buffing the already strong ones?
M1 killer buffs need to be specific to those killers to make sure of that, and if we know BHVR, that takes a lot of time and money.M1 killers in themselves aren't weak, it's the m1 killers with a lack of map mobility or chase that are weak. Just buff those specific killers. For example, ghostie should get a movement speed buff while stealthed and not in chase. He can't use the speed in chase, but it would allow him to put better pressure globally across the map instead of being forced to stay in the center since he can't afford to travel to gens across the entire map. Having him have more map wide presence would help him tremendously.
Alternatively, you could just have bloodlust generate faster on m1 killers.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3938804#Comment_3938804
Then this a problem with "m1" killers, and it's not exclusive to hook donation either.
Literally any time the devs even hint at tackling an issue that involves any kind of balance change that would in any way be considered a nerf or even change to killer, people immediately run to "but think of the trapper", like you did. As though a large portion of the community is playing perkless trapper against comp 4 mans constantly.
I've already said repeatedly, and I'll reiterate again here, that if they can meaningfully tackle excessive camping and tunneling in the early game, then that might need to involve buffs to killers. And those buffs can even be individual killer adjustments instead of blanket buffs across the board.
The devs have already said that if phase 2 significantly alters kill rates, they'll buff accordingly, and I consider that to be reasonable.
But they're either going to have to do something drastic, like hook donation, to have an actual impact to camping and tunneling (nearly 10 into the game at this point), or we'll end up with AFC 2.0, which will not make any impact at all to the problem of the killer doing nothing other than chasing one survivor to death and ignoring the other 3.
These strategies being meta, and having literally no diminishing return for using them early game, determines the core of the gameplay for the entire game. It needs to be fixed, and again, if we have to buff trapper to do it, then so be it.
Im all for m1 killer buffs - more killer variety means everyone wins.
While this isn't about camping, I feel that if the exit gates aren't powered, the person getting unhooked should get shrouded by the entity - the player becomes invisible, loses all player collision, makes no sounds, no scratch marks, no blood loss, and cannot interact with anything whatsoever for 10 seconds. This gives them ample time to safely leave the hook and reset and leaves no room to use it to weaponize it against the killer. The entity prefers prolonged suffering, after all. Why blow all the hooks all at once? This would make the only valid target during that time the person unhooking, but thats risk vs reward. Naturally, this would disable once the exit gates are powered. This would effectively kill tunneling off of hook. Sure, if the killer finds them again they can go after them, but thats after the survivor had ample opportunity to entirely flee the area to reset.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3938731#Comment_3938731
If we follow this argument, we should close DBD. EVERYTHING in the game hinders low-tier Killers more than it does high-tier Killers. This is something which cannot be changed, since everything which globally affects Killers and/or Survivors will make bad Killers worse compared to good Killers (if it benefits Survivor) or it will make good Killers better compared to bad Killers (if it benefits Killer).
And well… Even if Babysitter grants a lot of health, a Trapper also has the ability to go after the Unhooker instead of the unhooked person… If they decide against it and go after the unhooked Survivor it is a decision the player made and then they also have to deal with the consequences.
It can absolutely be changed. Lower tier killers need buffs to make them viable at high mmr. That would benefit everyone - more killer variety instead of blight and nurse every other match. There's two teams of players here, both killers and survivors, and both are just as legitimate as the other for balance. Killers are specifically targeted to effectively and told by BHVR they aren't allowed to play certain killers at high mmr if you want a fair experience. Imagine if survivors were told something similar, perhaps no toolkits or medkits allowed, there would be an absolute uproar.
It's a problem that should be fixed. More killer variety would be great for both kinds of players.
BHVR occasionally offers minor, very minor buffs to weak killers, but they are way too shy to give them any significant buffs to actually make them viable at higher mmr.
-
@AhoyWolf said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3938900#Comment_3938900
Nah that's not really a rule tbh, characters do not really need to come with weak Perks, Orela came with 2 really good perks and 1 kinda meh-synergy perk, Taurie came with 1 great perk, one decent perk and one awful perk, and so on.
Visionary just needs a rework to be honest, it was always bad, and there really isn't anything about the Perk that should be kept, the effect of it already exists in a better Perk haha
I didn't say it, a BHVR dev did, lol. He didn't use the word memey, but the intent was definitely there.
For example, Alan Wake. Champion of light was the strongest one, deadline was the niche one to pair with others, and the boon to see other objects was the memey one.
-
@Nazzzak said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3938600#Comment_3938600
I have heard of people coming close with Surge, especially when using a secondary gen regression perk. Though if they're hitting the limit with those perks they'd be well on their way to winning anyway so it probably isn't an issue lol I only use Overcharge currently and had no issues
Surge is only 8 percent. Recovering that as a survivor is mere seconds. If you have surge, you can easily lose half of your 8 alott3d regression events in mere seconds, especially with bully squads running instant pick up perks with endurance and stuff.
Here, I lost 3 charges on what could have been 4 gens in a matter of seconds if they had all 4 with progression, but they were too busy being a fail bully squad, so only one person was doing a gen. Ultimately I only got one hook because they all had unbreakable. That means I lost nearly half of my slotted regression on what could have been 4 gens (indoor 2 story map) in seconds for a single hook.
https://youtu.be/kgwdQ8dmqYg?si=irvwMcaJvCrcinjKAnd here is me as a survivor who forced a knight to lose literally half of his charges on a vital middle gen within 3 minutes of the match beginning.
https://youtu.be/JsA8ApZOCTA?si=AV4Pc6ezp0tftUhHThis was only supposed to affect killers who just sit and camp a 3 gen and don't do chases. BHVR utterly swung and missed on this one. It affects non camping killers very often - ESPECIALLY killers who have no mobility and naturally have to play near the center of the map and can't afford to travel to far away gens - survivors save those for last anyway, so that killer literally has nowhere to be BUT the center since survivors aren't at those far gens, either. Effectively, survivors can easily weaponize the 8 regression limit to guarantee the killer will lose center gens. Just poke the gen out of regression, then fall back, then once the killer regresses it and runs off to chase someone, you just immediately hop back on. Pre-run if the killer heads back. The killer either doesn't kick it (he'll lose the gen) or he does (he'll hit the limit and lose the gen).
-
When characters are released, they come with 3 perks. One is usually designed to be weak and niche and expected to be paired with something else to be useful, one is usually kind of memey or for silly builds, and one is usually strong. Visionary is just in the weak department.
-
There's a lot of cheaters, but I've run across far less as of late it feels. I probably have to report one of out ten matches now instead of one out of six.
Granted, it's hard to pick up on subtle cheaters. Im talking about the more blatant ones.
-
@I_Cant_Loop said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3938816#Comment_3938816
I know you’re joking, but unfortunately some players (those who play survivor only) would probably be ok with this. People so often forget that there are humans playing on both sides that equally desire a competitive and fun experience.
This is very true. People tend to have the mindset that all killers players are jerks out to ruin everyone's fun and it's one of their life goals to despise them to the bitter end. In reality, killers are just as valid of a player also deserving proper balance like any survivor. When you play battlefield or cod, to you stand up and shout utter hatred when the other team DARES to shoot you when you're playing? At the end of the match, do you go out of your way to send them threatening and hateful messages on their profile because they reloaded their gun in a firefight? Of course not everyone is expected to play their best versus each other. Yet in DBD, killers are automatically expected to be the worst kind of humans on the planet and deserve the absolute worst to happen to them and don't deserve any fair balancing.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3938690#Comment_3938690
I'm of the opinion that encouraging chases is generally a good thing, and spreading pressure is not only more effective for the killer in many situations, but it's more fun and healthier gameplay.
The most fun I had as survivor was before 6.1, not so much because of the game changes, but the mentality that "gens weren't worth kicking". Killers were hyper focused on "hunt, chase, down, hook, repeat" with as little downtime as possible. The 3 seconds to kick a gen was considered "wasted effort".
I've said since before that patch, and I'll reiterate here, that I think if they wanted to actually curb camping and tunneling they should do a hook donation system. Effectively, every survivor can choose to donate their first hook stage to a shared pool that anyone can use. And likely turn it off when gens complete.
That way, survivors can choose to be altruistic, and if the killer is choosing to camp or tunnel (basically, waiting for one survivor) it would take 6 hooks to kill someone. Waiting for that is almost certainly a lost game, and you don't have to delete camping or tunneling, you simply have to make them less efficient ways to play, and people will naturally stop doing it excessively.
What the hook donation system does do, though, is encourages chase. Chase, and specifically "getting hooks as fast as possible" becomes the focus, not "getting one person out immediately". And it gives back that pressure on the killer that "standing still is a waste of time" or "kicking gens is less valuable than chase".
This also doesn't impact late game camping or tunneling, or "resorting to". Only early game or "at 5 gens".
A donation system would effectively remove m1 no mobility killers from the game. If survivors can force the killer to spread out hooks, then they'll be able to easily have 4 people still up by the time all gens are done. Now granted, you have some caveats to the donation system, but thays a very VERY slippery slope. Yes devs said they'll keep an eye on kill rates and adjust accordingly, but historically they are terrible at following through with this. MFT was really, really overpowering on weak m1 killers and took almost if not a full year for them to get around to actually addressing it. Them "keeping an eye" takes way too long. How long was eruption a problem? How long did it take for them to give basekit borrowed time, something you'd think would be ludicrous now for the game to have never had? They take their sweet time when there's an obvious problem.
-
I have always wanted the ability to unhook a survivor as a killer, but doing so would absolutely need to give them permanent off the record until the timer expires or until they perform a conspicuous action to ensure the killer cannot weaponize it. That means the survivor could get hit many times and still be fine as long as 80 seconds isn't up or they didnt do a conspicuous action. This would ensure the killers intent is to definitely let them go free and not just try to tunnel them out. Either that, or have the killer unhooking also remove a hook state and just give them a basic off the record.
There's plenty of times I've noticed none of their teammates come to try to save them even if i entirely left the hook area. Would be nice to give them a second chance.
-
Survivors should be asking for m1 no mobility killer buffs as to have more killer variety instead of just getting blight or nurse most of the time. Buffs for weak killers is a win for everyone.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3938640#Comment_3938640
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3938678#Comment_3938678
I'm just going to point out that the last time they put "anti camping" on the road map, what they gave us was the AFC mechanic.
Here's the year 8 road map they initially put out. Bottom left, "gameplay improvements: anti camping". And I don't think I have to also point out that for two years now, every thread about the mechanic they actually gave us makes absolutely certain to clarify that this mechanic "isn't anti camping, it's anti FACE camping".
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/4BFPQQVITZKJ/1000009298.jpg
I have very, very tentative hope that the phase 2 "anti camp" feature will be meaningful to deter camping. It needs to do something in some situations, at minimum, because the killer should feel some pressure to actually chase survivors early game (so, camping first hook).
And while I do generally agree that "killer doing nothing" means gens are being done for free, this community doesn't understand that in the slightest (in general). The complaints are about "gen rushing" and "gen speed" because people aren't examining their own gameplay, and just want more time to stand at the hook doing nothing.
The "strategy", for some people, is "run 4 slowdowns, wander blindly for two minutes, camp and tunnel the first person you see, and if that isn't fast enough, complain that you need more regression". Never mind the efficiency of that, or just completely ignoring 3 survivors to let them do what they want (it's gens), or that even one aura perk would cut that time down drastically. It makes the game a literal race for one kill vs 4-5 gens, who can finish first? And the only person who changes that is the killer, because survivor gameplay is responding to the killer, and standing at a hook isn't meaningfully creating gameplay.
From a gameplay perspective, the killer drives the PVP part of the game, and there's currently nothing aside from understanding the game fundamentals that pushes players to go chase instead of camping every hook, every time. And unfortunately there's nothing in the game currently that forces killers to learn that fundamental either.
I never really understood the mindset to just camp a hook from the get go. It has its merits in some cases, but I do generally feel it's just really...really bad for killers to do it, not because it's wrong, but it's just killers are far better off actually pressuring the map. As for survivors complaining about camping, it's a weird situation where its genuinely great for survivors if they are camping, but it feels awful for the person being camped.
I quite welcome to hear what BHVRs plans are for this. I dont really see camping as a problem since it helps survivors significantly, but I can't ignore that it's not fun for the campee.
-
@QuestionMark220 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3938422#Comment_3938422
Just because survivors are selfish and refuse to use perks that help the team and not just themselves doesn’t make it not OP.
DoC is blatantly overpowered and needs a nerf badly, but it doesn’t get used because selfish survivors want 1,000 second chance perks for themselves. No wonder why escape rates are so low, survivors are clueless on how to work together.
Baby Sitter and Reassurance are also insanely overpowered as well but again survivors don’t like the idea of running a perk that helps teammates and not themselves. If the survivor brainlets ever figure out that bringing perks to stop teammates from being tunneled would skyrocket their chances of winning then killers would be in real trouble.
But nope, they’ll just cry until whatever they don’t like gets nerfed. I seen survivors calling Deathslinger OP the other day. So unbelievably out of touch.
For what it's worth, escape rates are actually very high. For a balanced game of 1 player facing 4 opponents, and those opponents all only have a single opponent (the 1 player), the escape rate would need to be 38.5% for a fair game. However, BHVR's recent stats show that experienced solo\duo\trio escape rates on average at in the low 40's, while experienced 4 man SWFs are at 48%. All of these - even solo queue - is above the 38.5% balance rate.
-
@NarkoTri1er said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/447204/killers-camping-hooks
- killer camps hooks often.
- survivors in their matches mostly swarm hook and give camping killer easy hits, downs and basically let the killer snowball for free.
- killer thinks camping is actually very good and efficient.
- killer keeps facing teams that don't punish them for camping.
- killer finally plays against team that knows how to play against a camper, gets humiliated, but doesn't care because 90% of their matches will still be people who refuse to learn counterplay to camping.
- repeat.
Once average survivor learns how to counter camping, average killer will understand it isn't as efficient and effective to always do and camping significantly drops in usage.
You are welcome.
Pretty much. Camping is practically best case scenario short of an afk killer for survivors. Absolutely zero gen pressure. Camping a hook isn't "bad behavior" - it's a tool killers can use, but it's very risk vs reward - doing so gives free gen progress to survivors. Normally, it's simply a bad play on the killer's part, but it does have it's place at times. Facecamping was the thing BHVR wanted to stop, and they successfully did so.
As for the upcoming anti-camping measures, I'm sure we are all quite curious what they have in mind. If they are effectively entirely removing one complete element of killer gameplay, it'll need to be made up in some other way…but perhaps not…removing camping entirely is just going to make killers stronger since "free gen progress" will become a thing of the past.
-
The only thing I see him having an issue with is that he can axe someone then follow up REALLY quickly with very little downtime for the grab. Huntress has the same issue.
-
I know it feels unintuitive, but to be a successful killer, it's less about directly defending gens and more about putting pressure on survivors through other means to slow down the gen progress. You're gameplay will improve dramatically once you start working on that.
For example, here I'm essentially always trying to keep one person hooked which inevitable has one person needing to rescue them. That drops the amount of gen pushers by 50%. You'll notice that they become so busy trying to unhook, recover, and heal that little gen progress is actually being done despite me never having to directly defending them. The game is about pressure, not guarding.
https://youtu.be/LRSwL1a40sE?si=bYXnmpa7MzRMyOYb -
As long as they don't trigger anyone's anatideaphobia, I think it'll be fine. Could you imagine?
Fear of spiders is something that just locks some people up. Not surprising they won't do it.
-
It's not for everyone. I personally love it because it breaks up guaranteed gameplay. That being said, im glad it's not a permanent gamemode as alternative gamemodes usually cause queue time issues.