RpTheHotrod
RpTheHotrod
About
- Username
- RpTheHotrod
- Joined
- Visits
- 3,824
- Last Active
Comments
-
I stopped playing killer because I focus on underdogs like m1 killers because as a previous survivor main, i wanted to provide more killer variety in matches instead of people just getting s tier killers all the time. Every patch, BHVR makes them less and less viable and more and more frustrating. This patch, they literally gave survivors an AoE team sprint burst that is specifically designed to only trigger against m1 hits (not m2). This means it's designed to only work on the weakest killers making them even weaker while not affecting stronger killers. BHVR blatantly despises m1 killers and continues to make them worst and worst consistently in everything they do.
-
@Xord said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3887019#Comment_3887019
Proxy camping and face camping is essentially just one single mechanic. There are people playing semantics but ultimately, the amount of pixels the killer takes on your screen is completely irrelevant in that situation.
That's why I don't really understand how facecamping has supposedly been fixed when it hasn't even been adressed. You just need to move back for 3 seconds to be out of range. That's still facecampingAnti facecamping feature was pretty much soley implemented to stop bubba from just having guaranteed downs at a hook. There was no counter play to it. With the feature here, now there is.
Protecting hooks is one of the options killers have, but it comes at a cost of having absolutely zero gen pressure. A hook camping killer is probably one of the best things a survivor team could hope for.
-
M1 killers with no mobility essentially become a joke once you're at an MMR level where survivors are experienced and know how to effectively use the tools they have. Can easily outloop them, and can easily outrun them with the most recent patch.
https://youtu.be/jPgBh9Ilhmg -
@lord_of_dogs said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3925408#Comment_3925408
Not for this chapter. Do you even realize how much potential it brings?
Potential to kill the game if we add a killer designed to be overpowered? Absolutely. Great way for survivors to quit.
-
If high amounts of haste was identified by BHVR itself as being a problem where they wanted to remove stacking of it, then why did haste perks themselves get buffed after the no-stack idea was reverted? Now they are even MORE of a problem than they already were.
-
At the end of the day, this is a game for all players to enjoy. Balance would need to trump realism/lore. We should strive for proper balance for all parts of DBD.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3925324#Comment_3925324
I see the ideal outcome, but I'm just not sure how you'd achieve that, I'm not sure what changes you'd make.
Would it just be the end screen being changed to outright saying "You win/lose/draw"?
And BP bonuses being divided out accordingly. It's literally THE only beneficial thing we get in the game when winning matches. Big BP boost if your team wins. A basic amount for a tie. Minimal for a loss.
Additionally, survivor escape rate expectations would need to be balanced around a 44.2% escape rate instead of 38.5% which is how it is for the current 1 v 1-1-1-1 (which currently survivors are overperforming according to recent BHVR stats). At the moment, all experienced survivors escape rates are in the 40's (between 40%-48%), so it's already roughly around a team vs team requirement of 44.2% escape rates, anyway.
Psychologically, it might help, as well. Survivors would be more encouraged to work together - that would also indirectly help the solo queue survivor by that trio wanting to help them since they all win together instead of just them sandbagging them. There's also a clear definition of a win, tie, or loss. Heck, might even reduce the amount of survivors who just waste time at the end if they are the only living survivor who just spam teabag at the exit gate or hatch if they get presented with a survivors lost or killer wins screen right after. Could even reduce the amount of trashtalk post match when all sides are on the same page of who actually won or tied. The number of times I've seen survivor SWFs going off post chat about how they stomped the killer when they only had 2 escapes isn't small. A clearly defined win/tie/loss can serve up some humble pie. Again though, all of that is Psychological, but I feel the biggest benefit is encouraging ALL survivors regardless of queue to work together as a team. Now, leaving that person to die might actively be working against your win. Would discourage trolling fellow survivors, as well.
On top of all of that, this would change the feel of time spent in the game. Instead of how it currently is where it's usually a pendulum swing of getting stomped with a 4k or stomping with a 4 escape, instead, the majority of matches (~69% of the time) would result in a positive return for both sides, either a win or a tie - both giving a good amount of bp. Long story short, both sides would have an equal chance at winning, and most matches would have a positive outcome for everyone.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3925290#Comment_3925290
Yeah, that's the part I'm curious about. What would you change to make the win condition team-based for survivors?
Survivors would win\lose\tie together. Everyone still gets their usual performance bonuses like Boldness, Brutality, etc. 3+ escapes is a win for the survivors (get a win bp bonus). 2 escapes would tie with the killer (a tie bp bonus, less than a win but greater than a loss). 0-1 escapes would be a survivor loss. The endscreen would declare whether the killer wins, if there's a tie, or if the survivors won. Essentially, shift away from individual win conditions and instead as a team win condition. For example, if you died, but your fellow survivors managed to get a 3 man out, you still win.
As for what's the point of the last survivor if 3 survivors have been sacrificed, hatch\gate escape would at least give him a little BP incentive to stay alive and escape for a little extra BP (consider it a sole survivor BP bonus or something), but that extra BP probably only makes sense to kick in if in fact the other 3 survivors have been killed - otherwise, hatch\gate is just another avenue of escape (ie 3 survivors escape through the gate, and the hatch spawns is just effectively "another gate", but if everyone has died, and you escape through the hatch or out a gate, you'd get a sole survivor bonus). Alternatively, once 3 survivors are sacrificed, the match could just end, but I'm not so sure how I feel about that. Could have an image of 3 hooked survivors with the final survivor on their knees, head bowed, and hands overing their eyes with the killer ominously staring in the distance or something. /shrug
Long story short, survivors would need to work together for their wins, and individual win conditions would no longer be a thing. Survivors all win together or lose together.
AS FOR MMR ADJUSTMENTS, any kind of ranking structure (MMR included) by design only care about one thing - balancing future matches. This is entirely unrelated to win\loss conditions. In DBD, for example, escaping through a hatch is a survivor win, but to avoid MMR being unintentionally boosted due to a random chance escape, hatch escapes are treated as MMR neutral despite the survivor escaping. With that in mind, MMR adjustments would preferably be done at a personal performance level. If you personally did well even if the team lost, your MMR can still go up. If you were worthless and essentially AFK'ed all match and your team still won, your MMR could still go down. I believe the devs have stated that MMR adjustments are changing soon, so it wouldn't surprise me if this is already being considered. EITHER THAT, or just make it more simple by a win boosting MMR, a tie being neutral, and losing decreasing MMR - that's how pretty much every other game plays with the disadvantage that you're at the mercy of the quality of your teammates. Rainbow Six Siege, Overwatch, and so on all go the "simple" MMR adjustment route, but it can be frustrating to lose "ranking" because your team sucked. That's why I prefer personal performance MMR adjustments.
-
Hey @jesterkind As always, good to see you in a discussion. The quote thing is bugged out, but this is in response to you.
Are you asking how to change the win condition for how it is now to the 2nd option where the survivors are a team that wins and loses together?
-
@DeBecker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3924953#Comment_3924953
It this game would be a 1 vs 4 where every survivors does its own thing, why do you consider the killers win condiditon to be a 1vs4 scenario wher the survivors are a team and not a the aggregation of those four 1vs1 scenarios you tellin us? Talking about double standards here.
It's an asymmetrical game. This is just how BHVR designed it - ask them. I don't agree with it, but BHVR on multiple occasions has clarified that the survivors aren't actually a team and each have their own personal win condition and working together is optional. Only working against each other isn't allowed. They even have perks for players who go at it lone wolf and only focus on their personal win such as sole survivor.
-
@brewingtea said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3924953#Comment_3924953
Right, so what would have to change to make the game the second (preferable?) option?
In the first option, the killer has FOUR wins they can get. In a 2k, they won 2 out of 4, for a 50% win rate. Two of the survivors won and two lost, for an average win rate (on the survivor side) of 50%. No ties. Perfectly balanced.
Edit: Also, you didn't answer my question: What would be so bad about the 2k scenario? Setting math aside, what are you trying to prevent here?
The first scenario is how the game currently is. And for the killer to be considered as getting a win, he needs at least 3 kills. Getting a single kill isn't a win. It's an asymmetrical system, so a win condition for one side doesn't mean it's the same condition for the other. You cannot tell me with a straight face that you believe if 3 survivors escape and the killer kills one that you declare the killer a winner. Even the end of the match shows the message that the entity is displeased. If you ask anyone here what the win condition for the killer is, no one will say getting one kill as you're suggesting. While there are distinct 1 v 1s happening, a killer needs to win the majority of them for a match win. He can't tie in this situation because there is no one to tie with - it doesn't work at an asymmetrical level.
What would need to chsnge to make the second scenario happen is for BHVR to change the win condition for survivors where they all lose if 0-1 escapes happen, they tie with the killer if 2 escape, and they all win if they have at least 3 escapes (including a single survivor that might die, they'd still win since their team won). This would also encourage survivors to work together instead of an every man for themselves mentality. That trio will want to help ensure that solo queue survivor since helping one person is helping ensure the entire team wins. No more individual wins (and frankly, every man for themselves perks would hopefully get reworked like sole survivor that actively discourages working against working with other survivors. BHVR has even had advertisements asking if you as a survivor will go at it alone, or will you help other survivors). On the killer side, they would need to change where the killer can actually get a tie with a 2k which currently isn't a thing.
As a general reminder. MMR adjustments are separate from win conditions - it just cares about trying to balance future matches. For example, currently if a survivor hatches out, they win but their MMR is neutral to avoid unintentionally boosting their MMR for a win that was entirely due to random chance. MMR adjustments aren't "rewards". It just cares about trying to make future matches more balanced for you. Some MMR systems even might increase your MMR on a loss or lower it on a win - they are designed to be their own ranking system. Chess, for example, won't lower their ranking if a new player loses to a grand champion, and a grand champion won't go up in ranking by beating a new player.
-
@brewingtea said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3924922#Comment_3924922
I'm being serious. Go back to my previous question: Why can't we consider this a series of ties and a perfectly balanced game? I mean, are you saying the survivors (despite half their team dying per match) are winning 100% of the time?
I'm honestly confused about what is so bad about this scenario.
Ah, do you mean in regard to how the game IS currently, or how I'd prefer the game be (survivor team vs killer)?
How the game is currently, it's 1 killer vs 4 individual survivors each doing their own thing along with each having their own win condition. If the killer kills 2 survivors, he failed to secure a win (killer needs 3k to be considered a win), 2 survivors lost, and 2 survivors won. The win conditions are not equal because it's an asymmetrical game. The killer has a total of 4 opponents to defeat, while survivors only have 1 opponent. There's no tie in this type of situation, as a killer and a survivor cannot neither win or lose (unless you count the server crashing, ha).
If you're talking about how I'd like the game to be, where survivors all win\lose together, then ties are possible, as the survivors have a win condition that would in theory be at least 3 survivors escaping to mirror the killer's win condition of needing 3 kills. In this case, a tie is naturally possible. It's possible to have both teams have a equal chance at winning if survivors had a 44.2% chance to escape. Each team would have a 31.25% chance to win, and a 37.5% chance to tie - I feel it would be acceptable. Killer got some kills, and survivors had some escapes. If we count a win as major positive, and a tie as minor positive (got some decent points for the match being a draw - gj for both sides), then that means the majority of matches would have at least some sort of positive outcome. That means 68.75% of the time on average, matches would be a positive outcome in some way for all players (A 31.25% chance for your team to win and a 37.5% chance for your team to tie). Let's just round it up and say that all matches would have a 69% chance for the outcome of the match to be positive in some way for their team (nice).
IF we went with the second option (team vs team) - Win percentages would shift significantly to make room for ties, but I think in general it would be better for the game. Both sides would have equal chances at winning, with ties being slightly more common as the outcome. This would also include balancing survivors around having a 44.2% chance to escape (that maths out to both sides having an even chance at winning). This would also push 4Ks and 4 escapes to be less common and more like outlier wins which are generally overkill and isn't ever really fun for the losing side. Bear in mind, there are balance issues at an individual perk or individual killer level - some killers are just too powerful as are some killer\survivor perks and would need to be brought back in line. This also means a lot of weaker killers would need to be buffed to also be brought back in line (mostly m1 killers with no mobility).
-
@brewingtea said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3916387#Comment_3916387
If the killer does this:
4k, 0k, 0k, 0k, repeat
then they could have a 25% win rate, yes. If this happens:
1k, repeat
the their win rate would be 0%.
So, like I've done here, show us a series of matches where the kill rate is exactly 50% but the killer's win rate is not. You can spread out the kills/escapes however you want.
I'm…not sure if you're being serious here or not, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say the killer plays 1,000 matches, and in every one of those matches, he only gets 2 kills. That's a 50% kill rate with a 0% win rate.
As for your example, a 4k, 0k, 0k. 0k, 1k, 0k, 0k, 0k does not equal a 0% win rate. Pretty darn low, though.
-
@DestroyerBG said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3922382#Comment_3922382
Yup enjoy the break. I personally am enjoying never touching the game again it is my personal strike against this game developer's incompetence and lack of desire to do anything with their game. I am literally watching how other studios develop and improve their brand while respecting their customers and meanwhile on the other hand I watch how behaviour just ignores most of the community, make expensive dumb cosmetics that cost more than the game itself and dare to keep repeating the same dummy formula of getting other killers from somewhere else into their game cause that is the easy way to make money. I have gotten so tired of watching this that I JUST LOVE NOT PLAYING THIS GAME
I think I'm just going to retire from killer play and just go survivor for a while. It's disappointing, but BHVR has essentially reduced the amount of viable killers for experienced players to just a small number, and it's sad that small number is some of the most frustrating killers to play. That being said, maybe I'll return to killer one day if they finally make the low mobility m1 killers more viable and fun. I'm sure they'll be making Springtrap some dash killer - somehow. I'd just rather play killer in a way that's more engaging and fun for the survivors to face off against.
-
@Adam_Francis_Main said:
Why?
I'm done. P100 ghostie main and been a supporter of dbd for years, but this is the straw that breaks the camel's back. I'm convinced they are just wanting to effectively retire no mobility m1 killers by making them so unappealing to playand instead focus on all killers moving forward having mobility in some form and then balance with that expectation. Uninstalling dbd today and not looking back.
I'm the "nice guy" kind of killer who doesn't tunnel and almost always gives last hatch. Sure there are other killers out there with dashes and all that, but frankly, it's not fun for survivors when they are getting pelted by these ridiculous killers who ignore the game balance like nurse\blight. Yes, I COULD just abandon the m1 killers I play and play nurse\ghoul\blight, but I'm not out to make the game into a miserable experience for the survivors, and facing those killers is exactly that. I always focused on the weaker killers to give people a break from the stress of the constant onslaughts of S tier killers. However, BHVR just simply doesn't allow the weak m1 killers to exist anymore - every single major patch has directly make their playing experience worse and worse. One less nice guy killer in DBD, now - being a nice guy killer is becoming more and more impossible. I reject the notion that I "must" tunnel or mass slug, but considering that the weaker m1 killers are clearly getting pushed out of being playable, I'm rejecting DBD itself. I'm not about to be a part of the problem and jump on the S-tier bandwagon making survivor play unfun.
EDIT- I'm just going to be retiring from killer. I'll probably stick around as a survivor player, but m1 no mobility killers are simply becoming less and less viable every patch.
-
@lord_of_dogs said:
It’s OBVIOUSLY wayyy too strong, shoulder the burden level strong, and will be especially bad against low level killers. The problem was never the range it’s the strength and time of the haste! You literally get the same distance as sprint burst with no cooldown, it’s obnoxious. Make it 10% for 3 seconds. IT NEEDS A NERF.
I'm starting to think BHVR is just soft retiring m1 killers entirely where no one will continue to play them. All recent killers have had dashes or map mobility in some form (houndmaster dog gets a dash, too). I feel they have decided to just balance the game entirely around the expectation that killers will be playing mobility killers, and instead of killswitching the old m1 killers, they are just making them so absolutely unappealing that hardly anyone will play them any more - problem fixed in their eyes.
-
Still not understanding why BHVR released a perk that is entirely designed around making m1 killers even weaker considering that the perk won't affect killers with mobility. Why are we constantly seeing weak killers getting kicked in the gut every patch? On the killer side, I'm tired of seeing the underdogs and weaker killers get worst every patch, andnon the survivor side, im tired of just seeing dash killers every match since the other killers just get crapped on with new perks and balance changes.
-
@Neaxolotl said:
BHVR really should rename this feature to "anti bubba" instead of "anti face camp", amount of people misunderstanding the purpose is too much
Absolutely. The entire mechanic was pretty much entirely created to stop bubba from being able to create a one shot "aura" around a hook by just standing there.
-
@Lixadonna said:
You sound like a Killer Main pretending to be a Survivor. Why would a Survivor complain about this.
I play 60% killer 40% survivor (though lately mostly survivor). The whole concept is silly - if you objectively lose the game, you can on demand declare a draw. In what way would this logically be acceptable in any game, ever?
-
@imabakedpot8o said:
Is2g people need to get rid of the idea that simple M1 killers are weak and need buffs when you just need to switch up your playstyle a bit instead of asking for unnecessary buffs because you struggle to put pressure on a team of survivors. Not every killer needs to be a macro sweaty abomination that makes everyone want to go next because they have 0 counterplay is what I'm saying. a lot of the killers you have listed as "way too weak" are just M1 killers that require actual brainpower and awareness to be able to get a good outcome in their matches.
except, unknown is my favourite killer in the game, and I win against some of the sweatiest survivors, and I'm not even all that! no idea why he's bottom tier on here. same with vecna. xeno now has sufficient counterplay and isn't just a death at every pallet or window.
still, killers such as pig/legion/ghostface/wraith/trapper/clown/myers fit into their own category as M1 killers, which, yes are easier to play, but require a lot more mind games and just efficient gameplay. I firmly believe that if a survivor is GOOD, they should be able to outrun the killer by using resources at the right times and just playing their cards right. not every killer needs to be spoon fed kills, i get the assym argument but at the end of the day survivors need to have at least a chance to prove their worth and skill and not just die in 20's bc people like you say that all of these killers need buffs, when they don't.
and to say that the majority of the killer roster is either way too weak or underpowered is absurd, when the majority of them fall in line with 60 %+ win rate.
deathslinger/houndmaster/knight/lich/unknown/trickster/huntress/bubba/oni//dracula/executioner/plague are all fine, some are more BUGGY than others, but they're not anywhere below balanced.
also I've just seen you put ghoul as balanced, which in his current state is far from true, same with nurse and spirit.
billy and blight are closer to balanced, I agree. blights speed add ons still need adjusted if he wants to be considered balanced to me, but I digress. as for the rest of this tierlist? slop! soz
Just a quick correction, it's a 60% kill rate which puts them at ever so slightly under a 50% win rate (if you feel 3k+ is a win). Remember, a 50% killrate is a 2k, and a 75% kill rate is a 3k.
-
@OrangeBear said:
https://youtu.be/Kgc-TZRm7S4?si=aJy4PZkA3TWbnYB4&t=35
In the new video, at 37 seconds in, if you look at the mini video above the centre logo you can see gameplay of Wraith in 3rd person.
A modifier like this has been described in surveys in the past where sides swap perspective so killers have 3rd person and survivors are 1st person so it seems like that might be happening?Could be our long requested feature to have a post-game spectator reviewof the match.
-
@Defnotmeghead said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3919797#Comment_3919797
Killrates are directly tied to winrates tho. Because it shows where the average is. A 50% killrate, means killers win and lose matches equally as they tie. Any killrate higher than 50% directly means that more games are won.
And a 50% killrate, doesnt mean a 50% escaperate on average either. A 50% killrate could still mean a 65% escaperate. Thats because your maths assumes that 1 killer in a match=4 survivors. While in reality, you can have greg, susan, harry and megatron face killer carl. Greg and susan dying early on within the first 5 minutes and joining the next match with pietro and mary and facing killer nicole having mary and greg die after 5 minutes, with susan escaping after an additional 5 minutes and leaving pietro behind to die. While harry and megatron lasted an additional 10 minutes.
So you have a timespan of 15 minutes, killers carl and nicole both getting 5 kills in total, greg and pietro having a 0% escaperate, susan having a 50% escaperate and the other 3 survivors having a 100% escaperate.
Doing the maths gets you a 62.5% killrate for killers, and an 58.3% escaperate for survivors.
Since there is player overlap between killers, killrates and escaperates are impossible to properly calculate. You can have a 50% escaperate for survivors, and still have a 65% killrate for killers.Kill rate doesnt mean win rate. Lets say the killer only ever got a single kill, ever, after thousands of matches. His kill rate would be 25%. That doesn't mean he wins 1 out of 4 matches on average. In fact his win rate would be 0% in this example.
My point to clarify that kill rate isn't win rate. They are two very different things. Many people see 60% kill rate means killers win a majority of the time. The reality is a 60% kill rate means roughly getting at least a 3k half of the time (it's actually slightly under that, as a 62.5% kill rate is an even 50%).
This is a game of a killer facing 4 individual opponents each with their own win condition. If there was 1 v 1, then we clearly would want a 50/50 win chance for both sides. However, the killer has 4 opponents, while the other opponents only have 1. This means those 4 must have a lower win rate to be fair. The math comes out to, if we look at the game as intended, each survivor would need a 38.5% escape rate in order for the killer to win 50% of the time (averaged). If we rejected BHVRs design and saw the game as survivors all winning/tying/losing together as a team (ie no individual wins/losses) and that at least 3 survivors must escape to count as a win, then each survivor would need a ~44% escape rate for the survivor team and killer team to have an equal winning chance (this takes ties into consideration which would be a 2k).
-
I'd agree that I'd rather see it not stacking. Mobility and speed changes can make or break game balance. A lot of loops are balanced around certaim expectations of how much they can be used (which is why infinites get nerfed). Fast survivors and fsst killers csn completely bypass this balance in many cases. Blight and nurse are an easy example of how Mobility can break the balance. Same with survivors - especially when they sre running fast vs no mobility m1 killers.
-
@NewPlayer100102 said:
He didn't say "Should I pause the game so my survivors can take a phone call or zoom meeting?"
He said a lot of words "…them so they have to stay in the match." Implying that he is aware that the opponent isn't asking for a pause they want out.Which is why I said, policing moral behavior in a game won't work. They'll just leave.
Address the underlying issue, whatever it is. Its a developer issue. Players will only, and have been making it worse.
Well like I said, if someone isn't remotely a threat, it's not wrong for the killer to prioritize players who are a threat. Thats entirely allowed for the killer.
That being said, I personally just tunnel out AFKs then let the remaining survivors get a free win. That's just my personality, however.
-
@caipt said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3919878#Comment_3919878
surrender on killer end is considered a win and kills all the survivors
This is not accurate. BHVR clarified that it's a killer loss.
@SugarSimp said:
I believe this should be reworked. I was in a game. We were the last 2 survivors. Strategically we were working on 2 separate generators and almost had them completed but the killer was doing patrols. In 10 minutes we had one at 99 and the other at 75, took off pig traps, healed each other, and continuously kept up gen progress while avoiding death. Yet the killer was able to surrender even though we were not just doing nothing. This is unfair as it counts as a loss for us and it’s very possible we would have gotten out.
You won, so what exactly is the issue you're not happy with?
-
Only thing that concerns me is they are maintaining the majority of the speed buffs on perks while still allowing stacking. That means players running around at speeds that was never intended.
-
@NewPlayer100102 said:
Yah its a bad idea.
Its solely for your enjoyment or sense of superiority against an individual who is trying to disengage from you.
I'm amazed that some people think you can police community morals with the stick approach, that barely works in the real world…
Part of playing killer is prioritizing threats. If someone is just AFKing, they are zero threat and your time is better spent elsewhere. Besides, this gives people a chance to take care of that kid crying in the other room and come back to pick back up their game instead of being punished for having real life unexpected responsibilities.
-
There's nothing inherently wrong with slugging. If you slug all remaining survivors then just afk to force them to waste time, I'd argue that's toxic. In your case, you are merely playing the match, and if someone is refusing to participate in the match, they are entirely a non-threat and your time is better spent on people actually playing thr match.
That being said, if this happens to me, I personally tunnel the afk out of the game then allow the remaining survivors to get a free win, as it would be an unfair advantage to play against them at that point. That's not to say I believe that's the correct way to play out the scenario... that's just merely my personality which I entirely accept is not the norm. I'm not out to make for a miserable experience for other players, but it's not toxic to continue to play out the match as normal.
-
@Prometheus1092 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920228#Comment_3920228
That's the point tho, having it as neutral MMR means over time people will be in MMR brackets they really shouldn't be in. If last survivor gets hooked and sacrificed they should lose MMR which should over time put them in a MMR bracket nearer to their skill level. If survivors abandon the second they are downed preventing this MMR loss then the MMR results won't be accurate. Winning matches gains MMR.... losing matches stays the same essentially.
People already complain about how MMR is awful, try adding inaccurate MMR results to it and it will get much worse.
No argument from me. I'm just saying I think this has nothing to do with actual wins/losses/draws but instead is a conversation about MMR adjustment results.
-
Im assuming the whole win/loss/draw is just a misnomer for MMR adjustments. Actual wins/loses have zero ties to MMR adjustments with how MMR systems work - MMR systems don't care about wins or loses, they only care about making future matches more fair. Thats why some games can even have wins count as MMR neutral and such. However, in DBD, they just happen to count a non hatch win as positive, but a hatch win as neutral despite still winning.
Long story short, I believe this whole conversation can be cleared up if they explain that by winning/losing/drawing, they don't mean it's a literal win/loss/draw but merely how the MMR will adjust.
That essentially means if all survivors are slugged and they disconnect, the killer won, but it treats the match as MMR neutral, so they say it's a draw when what they really mean is that it's MMR neutral.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920176#Comment_3920176
Bhvr has already stated that Plot Twist will not trigger the abandon prompt.
Thank goodness they caught that, at least.
-
@Prometheus1092 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3919941#Comment_3919941
I would say yes it does matter what the outcome is for the survivor because if I'm playing survivor and 2 of my team mates are eliminated with 2 or 3 gens left... I could potentially follow my team mate around and when the killer downs them I allow myself to be downed too so I can abandon and get a draw instead of a loss. Why would I lose when I can settle for a draw?
Plot twist would be the new meta. Everyone just plot twists against a killer they dont want to face and instantly can claim a draw within the first few seconds of the game, ha.
Heck, could use it any time in the match. Match not going your way? Everyone plot twist for a draw and move onto next match.
-
@ThatRyanB said:
There's been a lot of great points brought up about Abandon outcomes here, particularly with folks discussing the impact of draws vs. losses. We're actively monitoring this feedback (as well as the more granular questions folks have raised, as they help to highlight where this feedback is coming from) and bringing it back to the team.
My biggest concern is that there might be some assumption that if all remaining survivors are slugged, the killer "must" be playing toxic and should be punished, but the game strongly encourages this to happen regularly. For example, let's say 2 survivors have been eliminated and there's two survivors left. All one survivor has to do is go down at a pallet. The killer by the game's design is simply not allowed to pick that survivor up since the other survivor could just pallet save (or flashlight save). This means the killer's only option is to go for the survivor nearby waiting to save. The moment that survivor drops, both survivors disconnect and the game is a draw? The killer is clearly winning here with 2 survivors out, but now the killer has a choice to either pick up the downed survivor at pallet which WILL be a pallet save, and both survivors are back up and running, OR the killer goes for the person waiting to pallet save…but if he does so, the game is a draw? This gives the killer no winning situation in a scenario where he's clearly winning. It doesn't make any sense.
Here's an actual match scenario that happened just recently. This should timecode skip to the end of a match.
https://youtu.be/XRY7Rg2gUjo?si=vTKt4r1JxtH7-23r&t=10381 Survivor has already been sacrificed
1 Survivor goes down at a pallet.
1 Survivor is hiding nearby to jump out and flashlight save or pallet save his buddy if he crawls fast enough.
1 Survivor is working on the last gen which is at around 85%.
I down the survivor, but of course he has his buddy nearby with a flashlight to get a flashlight save. There's no wall here, so no way to be "immune" to a flash save. Regardless, he's also at a pallet. I'm aware that another survivor is hiding nearby to do the flashlight or pallet save, so the game literally does not allow me to pick up the survivor, so the only option is to try to down the "flashlight\pallet saver". I down this other survivor. The last generator is at 90% at this point. If I take the time to pick up the survivor I just downed, by the time I'd hook, the last gen would be finished. This risks adrenaline being used by the pallet downed survivor (and otherwise, power struggle with flipflop). This means all gens are completed, and I have 2 survivors active who can just heal up and go for an easy hook rescue for a 3 man out - survivor victory. Due to this, the only viable option is to keep the pallet downed survivor slugged, slug the pallet saver survivor hiding nearby, and chase the last survivor that's working on the last gen nearby that's at 90%. By going for that 3rd survivor, I eliminate the risk of adrenaline entirely, and the only way I'd lose is anyone happened to have Unbreakable. However, the MOMENT the third survivor gets downed, all 3 immediately abandon….so in this case the game would be considered a draw? How is this remotely considered an acceptable outcome considering the cirumstances? There's so many reasons DBD can discourage killers from hooking.
-
@MechWarrior3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3919809#Comment_3919809
No, we'd all be amazing. ;)
ah, but amazing requires a comparison to some standard. That's what makes something amazing - it's superiority over something less superior.
-
@HeroLives said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3919781#Comment_3919781
I’ll have you know I’m below average, and proud. Also my mom says I’m a winner so that’s all that matters.
If everyone was amazing, we'd all be average.
-
@CrossTheSholf said:
I am going to run the math later today as well. But I think that outliers are ok. Id point to how R6 does their pick rate and win rate info graphs for operators and say we should get that for DBD
Heya, so by request, I've included another math situation.
There are two situations that DBD could be designed around:
- The game is 1 killer vs 4 individual survivors each with their own win condition. In order for the killer to win 50% of the time, each survivor would need a 38.5% escape rate. This is currently how the game is designed.
- The game is 1 killer vs 4 survivors who win\lose\tie together. While the game is not designed this way, I know MANY (myself included) would prefer the game to be this way. If it WAS this way, then ties MUST be considered. This ends up mathing out to survivors needing a 44.2% escape rate in order for both the killer team and survivor team to have an equal chance at winning (while also respecting ties).
Current BHVR released stats shows the following for experienced players:
Solo - 40.4% escape rate
Duo - 40.0% escape rate
Trio - 42.3% escape rate
Quad - 48.2% escape rate
For currently how the game is designed (#1 above), we're doing pretty well for survivors, as each are above the 38.5% escape rate. Solo\Duo overperforms by ~2%, Trio overperforms by ~4%, but Quads clearly overperforms with a large ~10%.
However, if we were to pretend that survivors are all a team that win\lose\tie together (which is NOT how the game currently is but imho should be), then solo\Duo underperforms at ~4%, Trio underperforms at ~2%, and Quads over perform ~4%
So is the game balanced? If we take the game at face value that BHVR has presented to us, yes, it's generally balanced but in the survivors favor - but it becomes problematic in balance in quad squads. If we reject BHVR's definition of how the game is designed and instead consider survivors as a team that requires 3+ escapes for any of them to win, then survivors are slightly underpowered with their "ace in the sleeve" as being in a full 4 man squad which is still problematic but does help offset the 1-3 squads underperforming.
-
@DeBecker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3888122#Comment_3888122
So you still refuse to make a fair game for everyone.
Don't fall for the misunderstanding that kill rate is win rate. A 60% kill rate doesn't mean they win 60% of their matches.
That means the average kill rate is roughly 2.4 survivors a match. This means a 60% kill rate is sliiiiightly under getting a 3k+ every match half of the time.
If the game is balanced around each survivor having their own win condition (like it currently is), then that maths out to each survivor needing a 38.5% escape rate. This gives killers a 50% chance to win. Yes, as a survivor you personally have a smaller chance to win than a killer, but you must keep in mind the killer is facing FOUR survivors, not just you.
If the game is balanced around survivors winning and losing together (and opens up the possibility of ties), then each survivor would need a 44.2% escape rate for the killer team and survivor team to have an equal winning probability when also respecting ties.
-
Having guaranteed info for looping would be pretty broken without a cost of something like a perk slot. Basekit would not be a good idea. The perk alone can extend chases for several minutes once survivors start using resources.
-
Just trying one last time to get this clarified before abandoning this post.
-
@smurf said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3918636#Comment_3918636
It would be great if a system were added to have preferential targeting of specific items in a bloodweb page during automatic spending. Like maybe have the ability to 'favorite' a list of 5 or 10 items in order of preference, then if a particular item exists in a bloodweb page, preferentially target items in the favorites list in the order of preference.
The simplest form of that would just identify whichever item in a bloodweb page is highest in the favorites list, then target that item to the exclusion of others until it's obtained or taken by the entity. Then just go down the list until the page is empty. And if no favorited items exist, just spend as normal.
I'd love that, for sure.
-
@smurf said:
I think I remember that they're working on this as part of a future update. I'm sorry that I didn't read your whole post (it's late and I have limited mental bandwidth for now), but I think there are plans to improve bp spending :D
Correct - they have an overhaul of the bloodpoint spending system in the works. I'll probably just instantly purchase the page without going through the whole animation or something.
-
An absolutely hard no from me. They allow gens to get finished WAY too fast, and it's frustrating that it disables after ton of perks.
-
@Thanatheros said:
Alien Instinct don't read the aura all times, is a Bug... I play 6 dais whit this perk and work only 1/2 of the times...
Coupd be distortion, people hiding in lockers, or people hiding behind a generator to block the aura with the generator aura.
-
@ikias said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3917752#Comment_3917752
if you get downed and hooked during the 60 seconds then you have to open another 2 chests which is not the same as it was a few months ago and also it doesnt say in the perk description that its "deactivated" only "cancelled"
Ah gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. Wonder if it's intentional? Kind of a weird change to make without patch note on.
-
@cclain said:
No if killer abandon when the survivors haven't popped a gen in 10 mins its a win. OTZ has made a video ont this topic.
you can 3 gen 10 min, abandon and its a win.This is not correct. Otz was wrong. BHVR confirmed this.
-
@bazarama said:
All hooks should have gen regression attached.
Do away with gen regression perks as they're mostly nerfd into oblivion anyway.
There is practically no incentive to hook survivors and can actually cost you the game as survivors have so many second chance perks and anti- hook perks along with being able to stun the killer to prevent hooks.
I think the matches would be much better and more fun if hooks actually counted for something and the game became what it should be- cat and mouse between survivor and killer.
But this would require a lot of adjustment to perks on both sides so I guess slugging will continue to be the better option for killer.
Which is a shame because this game has potential that's overlooked for money from cosmetics and characters.
That was essentially PR before the massive nerf bat that it got hit by. When you'd hook on a scourge hook, the gen with the most progress got reduced a fair amount - every time. No cooldown, no tokens - it simply rewarded hooking with reliable regression.
Now PR is really, really bad. You only get 4 uses, and each use isn't even guaranteed to have its full effect (or ANY effect) depending on how far the most progressed gen is. For example, if it has 1% repair, the entire token gets eaten up for that 1% then it's gone forever.
-
@Nazzzak said:
Oh I didn't know this. I've been using it for the last couple months to now find its barely been working? Has it been reported in case it's a bug?
Considering the amount of videos about the issue, I'd be surprised if BHVR wasn't aware. Let's hope for a fix! At the moment, it's only real use is the marks despawning faster. The whole "intermittent" part of them isn't working in a way that's useful.
-
Lightweight practically doesn't exist at the moment. I hope they fix it - it's one of my favorite perks.
-
@ToughWinter said:
Why is it that the killer can abandon the game if the survivors haven't popped a gen in 10 mins. I just had a game where the killer sat there and held a 3 gen for more than 10 mins and then dcd and with one survivor left then it gave him the kill for dcing that doesnt make sense at all. You should make it that the killer can dc if there hasnt been any gen progress made or at least a certain amount cause that really dumb.
The killer lost. What's the big deal exactly? You want them to be able to surrender and take a loss faster than 10 minutes, perhaps?
I'm not sure if it counts it as a win for the survivor but it definitely counts as a loss for the killer per BHVR's statement.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3917741#Comment_3917741
Sorry about the late response, yesterday was a busy one for me. Happy to get back into things now!
So, there's a couple things I want to clarify about my position as we move forward.
First, I really want to hammer home one big thing - when you say that a killer playing badly shouldn't be harmed more by a generator being locked up, I want to make it clear that the only thing I'm talking about, in general, is that if you play badly your chances of winning are lower. I'm not saying a player should be outright punished for playing badly with a heavy blow, just that if you repeatedly make mistakes, the game will get harder in ways that are specific to those mistakes.
Before this system, overly kicking/damaging gens made the match slightly harder to win because you were giving survivors too much time to make distance and/or evade you. Gen kicks aren't and never have been actually impactful, after all.
After the system, it's broadly the same but there are some edge cases where you might also get a gen locked up midway into the match. I'm not saying those edge cases are super niche, one of them is just having Surge equipped, but it's also not just kicking the gens that causes it, there has to be more going on.
Second, I think it's important that we take a step back and remember what the punishment we're discussing actually is. If you play poorly by focusing on stalling gens, you don't just automatically lose, that one generator becomes impossible for you to continue damaging. Considering that your job as killer is not to stop the gens from being completed, they're merely a timer for you to complete your actual job, and considering that the bulk of a killer's slowdown broadly comes from survivors being too occupied to work on gens to begin with, that isn't actually that big of a deal for any player that isn't trying to stall the gens out.
It can be a relatively noticeable deal, there are centre gens where you get a harder endgame if they're completed early, but even that isn't unwinnable. You have to make a play in the endgame and broadly forgo regressing the last gen, but it's salvageable. I think this is worth mentioning because we're not talking about making one mistake (or a series of instances of the same mistake, even) and that's it, game over. We're talking about that mistake leading to a very specific unfavoured position that you can still come back from. It's just that you don't come back from it by continuing to focus on generators.
Don't get me wrong, the gen locking up IS a gigantic deal if you're trying to stall, 3-gen or otherwise, this system does work for the cases we both agree it should, but if you aren't… at worst it's a knock and something you adapt to, it isn't inherently game-losing.
Third, I do find the video you posted interesting, because you're immediately put into a favourable position - less favourable than outright winning because of the Unbreakable, but still favoured - and you really don't have any reason to continue attacking that generator. If it does get locked up, are you even really affected? It's one generator in this clip, and while I'd grant that you'd notice the situation more if it were more than one… you've still put the survivors into a hard reset, pressing that advantage means they're not even doing that much gen repair to begin with.
That's the broad pattern, and that's where my ultimate position is. Unless you view stopping the generators from being done as a fundamental necessity for the killer role, even the worst case scenario of the gen actually reaching the eighth event limit is like… just sort of that gen no longer being a resource for you after a delay, right? It's still a place survivors congregate, it still counts as one of their objectives that you can prevent them from being able to repair, but you no longer get to kick it.
Fourth and probably finally unless I remember something while I'm typing, I do want to concede something. I went and looked at the dev update in question again, and I'll admit that I remembered the phrasing being more concrete that it actually is. The devs DO specifically frame the system as being more broad than JUST 3-gen camping, having it in brackets as an "in particular", but what I recalled as "excessive stall" was phrased instead as "excessively long matches".
I still think that's relatively ambiguous and definitely not "this system should only affect the most extreme forms of 3-gen camping", but even if it isn't, I would maintain that the extra scenarios this system does affect aren't a problem. You're affected a little if you fall into the bad habit of excessive gen kicking, but it isn't game over unless you're also only excessively kicking those gens. It is, at worst, a soft pressure to learn better habits and improve your gameplay, because you just lose the ability to keep doing that habit after enough attention.
At best I'd say Surge makes that habit particularly prone to backfiring. I feel like even with the bad habit of excessively kicking generators, if you're not running Surge, you're not losing events even close to as much.
"First, I really want to hammer home one big thing - when you say that a killer playing badly shouldn't be harmed more by a generator being locked up, I want to make it clear that the only thing I'm talking about, in general, is that if you play badly your chances of winning are lower. I'm not saying a player should be outright punished for playing badly with a heavy blow, just that if you repeatedly make mistakes, the game will get harder in ways that are specific to those mistakes."
100% agree
"Before this system, overly kicking/damaging gens made the match slightly harder to win because you were giving survivors too much time to make distance and/or evade you. Gen kicks aren't and never have been actually impactful, after all."
GENerally agree (no pun intended…okay maybe a little). However, for gens survivors aren't paying attention to, natural regression is somewhat helpful - and kicking gens can trigger useful perks such as nowhere to hide or Trail of Torment.
"After the system, it's broadly the same but there are some edge cases where you might also get a gen locked up midway into the match. I'm not saying those edge cases are super niche, one of them is just having Surge equipped, but it's also not just kicking the gens that causes it, there has to be more going on."
A fair statement. Regardless, my point is that it happens, and happens worst to M1 killers. A system designed to punish trolls shouldn't be punishing legitimate gameplay (whether that gameplay is effective or poor gameplay).
"Second, I think it's important that we take a step back and remember what the punishment we're discussing actually is. If you play poorly by focusing on stalling gens, you don't just automatically lose, that one generator becomes impossible for you to continue damaging. Considering that your job as killer is not to stop the gens from being completed, they're merely a timer for you to complete your actual job, and considering that the bulk of a killer's slowdown broadly comes from survivors being too occupied to work on gens to begin with, that isn't actually that big of a deal for any player that isn't trying to stall the gens out."
According to BHVR, it's not a timer. See their comments - it's specifically designed to stop killers from holding the game hostage by refusing to participate in normal gameplay such as chases and such. The 8 regression system is for anti-troll. How, it DOES have a secondary benefit that if a match is just taking too long overall, it will naturally start taking place over time - we're talking this is great when a match starts getting 30+ minutes long. A happy side effect. This is a good thing!
"It can be a relatively noticeable deal, there are centre gens where you get a harder endgame if they're completed early, but even that isn't unwinnable. You have to make a play in the endgame and broadly forgo regressing the last gen, but it's salvageable. I think this is worth mentioning because we're not talking about making one mistake (or a series of instances of the same mistake, even) and that's it, game over. We're talking about that mistake leading to a very specific unfavoured position that you can still come back from. It's just that you don't come back from it by continuing to focus on generators."
Can't disagree, but it's rather off topic. The discussion here is how the 8 regression system has a much higher likelyhood of unfairly affecting weak m1 killers with no map mobility when that killer is not 3-gen camping and refusing to participate in normal gameplay per BHVR's definition of the intent of the system.
"Don't get me wrong, the gen locking up IS a gigantic deal if you're trying to stall, 3-gen or otherwise, this system does work for the cases we both agree it should, but if you aren't… at worst it's a knock and something you adapt to, it isn't inherently game-losing."
It can be game losing depending on the circumstance, but that's far too much of a variable situation to say it absolutely will be or absolutely never will be game-defining. Losing a central gen in a map like RPD can absolutely make or break the match, especially for m1 killers who can't effectively patrol the very far gens. Once the center is broken in RPD, the odds swing heavily towards the survivors. There's a reason lobby is usually the first to get focused on.
"Third, I do find the video you posted interesting, because you're immediately put into a favourable position - less favourable than outright winning because of the Unbreakable, but still favoured - and you really don't have any reason to continue attacking that generator. If it does get locked up, are you even really affected? It's one generator in this clip, and while I'd grant that you'd notice the situation more if it were more than one… you've still put the survivors into a hard reset, pressing that advantage means they're not even doing that much gen repair to begin with."
I'm put into a favorable position due to survivor mistakes at first glance, aye. However, the end result is that I get one hook at the cost of nearly half of that generator reaching it's allocated charges within a mere 10 seconds. The survivors are indeed pushed into a hard reset, but once the dust settles, we are essentially back to square one where the survivors made no gen progress to hard reset, all the survivors are healed back up, and the only positive thing I came out on top of was one hook but at the cost of the endgame being significantly weakened with one gen getting locked up by the 3 minute mark. That gen was unable to be regressed all the way to the end of the match. That is a long term penalty that's intended to punish killers that hold the game hostage. Regardless of who has the upperhand or not, the point remains - the system is unfairly affecting killers who are NOT holding the game hostage, and survivor mistakes themselves (or intentionally!) can trigger the system itself. This simply shouldn't be. You ask if the inability to regress a gen would affect me. What if I was using kick-perks like Nowhere to Hide? That can be a game changing perk - remember…there are multiple reasons to kick a gen when perks are involved - it's not just to regress. Also, try playing an m1 killer and never regressing gens from the beginning of the match. You'll find really quick that regression does actually play a role in matches and are not "unimportant".
"That's the broad pattern, and that's where my ultimate position is. Unless you view stopping the generators from being done as a fundamental necessity for the killer role, even the worst case scenario of the gen actually reaching the eighth event limit is like… just sort of that gen no longer being a resource for you after a delay, right? It's still a place survivors congregate, it still counts as one of their objectives that you can prevent them from being able to repair, but you no longer get to kick it."
I don't feel stopping the generators are necessary (though obviously a big help, especially with certain perks). I actually don't kick gens all that often (my original gameplay you saw I was very sick and on meds, so I just didn't care to not kick, ha). That's typically why I run surge, so I don't need to stop and kick. As an m1 killer, you've gotta be putting CONSTANT chase pressure, and stopping to kick gens halts that pressure. That being said, part of the game balance is INDEED having the ability to regress gens, and it was that way for years, but due to some bad apple killers, a punishment for trolls was engaged. Whether kicks are mandatory or optional doesn't matter - again, the point simply is this system to prevent killers from being held hostage is being unfairly forced on killers - especially weak m1 killers with no mobility - where no hostage taking is happening.
"Fourth and probably finally unless I remember something while I'm typing, I do want to concede something. I went and looked at the dev update in question again, and I'll admit that I remembered the phrasing being more concrete that it actually is. The devs DO specifically frame the system as being more broad than JUST 3-gen camping, having it in brackets as an "in particular", but what I recalled as "excessive stall" was phrased instead as "excessively long matches"."
Memory is silly that way. Yay for getting older! Jokes aside, in all of the examples, none of these matches were approaching "excessively long matches", so the system should have never kicked in - ESPECIALLY kicking in after only 3 or 4 minutes (knight video) of the match starting.
"At best I'd say Surge makes that habit particularly prone to backfiring. I feel like even with the bad habit of excessively kicking generators, if you're not running Surge, you're not losing events even close to as much."
We shouldn't be associating killers who happened to one to run Surge as trolls. Originally, Surge had a cooldown. However, the devs LOWERED the damage output on Surge in return for a cooldown removal. Their reasoning? To allow the perk to PUNISH SURVIVORS who are out of position. However, with the 8 regression system, that "compensation" for the damage (no cooldown) now can actually help the survivor since it can rapid fire trigger multiple regression events at once. "Well that's what you get for running Surge - the game has flagged you as a troll." isn't something I think we should even remotely consider.
My ultimate suggestion is this:
REDUCE the regression maximum down from 8 to 4 "tokens". Have it ONLY affect gens that are in close proximity to each other. Have the tokens refill after someone is hooked - as if the killer has chased, downed, and hooked someone, they clearly are not refusing to participate in normal gameplay of chases and hooks.
This would allow the system to kick in MUCH faster against people who are just defending gens and not chase\hooking. This is a survivor buff. However, if the killer is chasing and hooking, then the anti-troll system won't kick in against them, at all. It's a win win.
and let's not forget, there ARE good reasons to kick gens - lots of kick related perks that are not related to gen regression. This whole system that can affect everyone really harms being able to use those perks. Before, you could always rely on kicking a gen to put your TR on it and you be undetectable. With the 8 regression limit system, that absolutely can be a point where ALL of your kick perks just simply no longer function for the rest of the match. That sucks.
Always a pleasure having a respectable discussion.