Ryuhi
Ryuhi
About
- Username
- Ryuhi
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3971393#Comment_3971393
That’s literally the argument though. The argument literally is “are comp players the BEST players in the game”?
Thats the thing though, are you trying to compare the pinnacles, or the averages? Either way, the chances are higher of them putting the comp player(s) over the non-comp one(s.) There isn't an objective metric to try to factually state for or against the claim, the only objective measure would have to be based off of one of those two metrics, which can only be assumed. The claim is essentially a very reasonable assumption, even if not an objective fact.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3971374#Comment_3971374
Again, you keep comparing comp DBD to AVERAGE players.
"Theyre looking at their friendslist and saw their buddy is online" is a statement about AVERAGE PLAYERS.
This entire argument is supposed to be "Are comp players the BEST players in the game"? As in literally better than everyone else.
I think he's more saying that a comp player is inherently going to be able to coordinate more than a non-comp player. When you're focused on a coordinated environment, you tend to get better at compensating for other non-coordinated players due to knowing what you're supposed to be doing (and when) without needing to be told. I don't agree with comp players always being better than non-comp players, just that they gain experience in coordination in a way that helps them deal with its absence if they properly utilize that skill. Non-comp SWFs obviously have this same potential, but generally not in an environment that focuses strictly on things like efficiency, unless they center around pubstomping.
-
Good topic. I don't think its as much about M1 killers being considered inherently weak, but more that they are essentially the lowest common denominator for the killer roster. In that I mean that M2 killers generally have their power be a core part of their design in a more positive way comparatively. Lets take some examples:
Wraith: cloaking speeds up movement and can speed up many actions, but it also prevents him from attacking until uncloaked. It also increases his stun duration. You loop him and adapt to his curveballs like bodyblocking resources while cloaked.
Trapper: His traps can completely shut down resources from windows and pallets to loops, but generally requires things like planning or routing, and can cause more harm than good if the survivor is good at recognizing opportunities to detatch to other tiles so its less effective in chase. You loop him and make reads on when he's going to place (or bait placing) traps mid chase.
Clown: Pink bottles are excellent at hindering/zoning and preventing resource usage (namely fast vaults) but need to be reloaded regularly. Yellow bottles give a similar tightrope as they are both beneficial, but can be directly detrimental if misused. You loop him and make reads on his mindgames concerning zoning and denying vaults.
Pig: Crouching hides her TR and makes her shorter, but she needs to charge her dash or stand back up in order to attack. Giving survivors a nice hat is good to excellent slowdown, but there are limited quantity for the whole match and the actual lethality threat of head pops is fairly low. They also don't activate until a gen is finished, and might as well not exist in endgame if they're not already active. You loop her and position under pallet to react to her dash attack mindgame, or leave the loop if it will gain you more distance from her crouching and standing.
The main things that a lot of M1's have in common is that their power is there to help them secure hits (instead of directly securing them) and that their powers usually come with a drawback to that same ability to potentially hinder them from securing said hits. This means that their baseline counter is usually pretty similar, most of their attributes like movement speed are generally the same, and said counters have ancillary adjustments being based on how their power affects interactions. Honestly I feel like this could be expanded to "group" more killers that have similarities, like
DashorRangedbased powers, as they usually have similar reads/mindgames/core counterplay within their groupings.M2 killers by comparison tend to have their M2 power directly secure their hits. Even though Nurse could technically be considered an M1 killer (please hear me out, as its the only way she can actually deal damage) her power increases the direct lethality of her M1 considerably. Ditto for killers like Blight, hell even Hag and Spirit. They have drawbacks like the M1 killers, but they're generally considered M2 because the majority of your hits are usually going to start with an M2. Their powers directly amplify their M1 to a major degree, often (but not always, Blight) due to drawbacks like base movement speed that make their direct chase worse than M1 killers. They also often (but again, not always) tend to have cooldowns on their powers as a counterbalance. Obviously the more pure examples like Huntress rely on their powers actually dealing a large portion of their lethality instead of amplifying their M1.
Some killers like Oni kinda form outliers, since even with his rush, if he has it available even his normal M1 can also instadown. His dash is his main attraction, but it makes him feel more like a super powerful M1 than an M2 in that regard. He's an example where his lethality is kinda more even between the buttons in a way, and has a more adaptive counterplay style (including power denial by not bleeding.) I think Plague might fit in here as well, due to how limited her access to vile purge is. While very powerful, its not where the majority of your hits are going to come from unless the survivors basically hand it to you on a platter. They also use their base M2's to kinda charge up to their powered forms, without limiting their upgraded form to M1s like Myers. They're kinda like M1 killers that become gigapowerful and gain damaging M2's that can be prevented or gained based on survivor play.
I think the big thing is that M1 is generally used as a grouping of killers based on how their core gameplay loop works, both for and against. When you compare them to M2 killers, there's a general homogenization to them, where their power is more like a twist than a direct strategy. The most universal answer to T3 Myers has always been "just loop him :)" because even with his instadown, you can handle him in T3 the same way you would any other M1 killer and be pretty successful at it (minus the obvious aforementioned twists, like his faster vault speed and tombstone stuff)
Anti-loop is an interesting aspect, since both M1 and M2 killers can have it. Hell all 4 of my examples have it to varying degrees, as do other killers like Doctor. I think the bigger picture on that point is that M1 anti-loop tends to also be more twist, while M2 anti-loop tends to be more core. Not always of course, but that tends to get more into the killers that start to blur the binary.
TL:DR: M1 killers aren't necessarily weak, but their design similarities lead them to have similar counterplay retain a lot of effectiveness, and their powers can often hurt them as much as help them (with exceptions.) That said, Obviously some of those elements can apply to M2 killers as well. Part of why people tend to consider M2 killers more powerful is because M2 killers tend to use their power as a base, instead of having a common base that the powers then build off of. Simply put, they're just kinda more unique in a way, even when they occasionally have similarities amongst themselves, and that generally makes them a bit more tricky to directly counter. Even with that, M1 killers can and sometimes are absolutely stronger than some M2 killers, they just generally require better ratios in macro considerations like lethality or mobility to make up for it. It also may be time to expand our classifications a bit due to how many killers now kinda daywalk between the two.
TL:DR the TL:DR : M1 doesn't mean weak, M2 doesn't mean strong, but they tend to be weighted a bit due to how players are expected to adapt to them.
-
The video wasn't wrong about most of the issues new players face, but the thing I have issue with is the casual dichotomy people seem to have about the game. Not every competitive game is Starcraft 2, and not even casual game is Fall Guys. There are many degrees of separation in between, and DBD falls in the middle. This tends to confuse people, because its pretty far away from both extremes. It creates a form of cognitive dissonance where we often try to force it to fit one or the other, when in reality, it would be more accurate to call it a third option in between.
-
@brewingtea said:
I'm fine with crouch tech. If someone was taking a swing at you IRL, ducking could help avoid it.
Until they just aim downward and crack your skull. Unfortunately some DBD killers forget how to move their neck when using their powers though.
Edit: Looks like the downvotes on the op are hiding the thread yet again?
-
@PetTheDoggo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3970011#Comment_3970011
Balance by bugs is one of the worst design perspectives a game can have, and in most genres its entirely unthinkable
Whole current way of playing DBD is not intended. I fail to see how it is bad thing.
Sure, there are game breaking bugs that should been removed, but some bugs should become a feature and stay imo. We can see this on Knight quite well…
DBD is not CSGO, or Dota. Bugs are part of the game at this point and balance is not really a thing in DBD. I don't think it's bad thing, DBD is supposed to be played for fun and some bugs simply add additional layer of what you can learn about this game.
It may be not interesting for you, but I love to learn what bugs there are and how to use them.If one is a bugfeature, both are. If you only make one a feature (even though it was already identified as a bug and even attempted to fix it) that becomes inconsistent.
Killers are not the same. The outcome of similar bug on the game is not same. Killer's counterplay is not same.
It simply doesn't make sense to hold this to any standard to me and should be treated case by case.Sure, there are game breaking bugs that should been removed, but some bugs should become a feature and stay imo.It may be not interesting for you, but I love to learn what bugs there are and how to use them.Please stop misrepresenting me. If you just didn't understand I apologize, but I very clearly addressed this already. I also don't mean this to sound hostile, but I imagine I likely find bugs more interesting than you do. Thats why I'm being so specific about this.
Bugs are part of the game at this point and balance is not really a thing in DBD.Trying to keep a bug specifically because it hurts specific killers you subjectively think "can afford it" is literally trying to force balance under specific circumstances. Its not about overall game balance, it is about game design. I don't know how I can make this more clear.
Killers are not the same. The outcome of similar bug on the game is not same. Killer's counterplay is not same.They are not. The outcome IS, which is being denied a valid hit. The "counterplay" cited is being on uneven terrain and pressing a single button for a minimum of a few frames, and its the same for any killer's power that is designed to barely hit the top of a crouching survivor's collision*. THAT is the issue. You're imposing subjective reasoning to exclude specific killers from something as simple as expecting their power to function reliably.
Edit: To clarify, this is necessary due to how (semi)ranged attacks work, particularly so they can still register hits over low obstacles. The issue is when it applies to full body melee actions that lock the camera.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3970023#Comment_3970023
It just seems to be a tangent from the point about whether and when a feature would be good for the game or not to a broader discussion on game design theory.
I say this aware of the irony that I've gone off on tangents many times on this forum.
As an example, the idea of keeping it in for one killer and removing it for others is probably impossible just because its the same code and either they fix it for one, or not fix it at all, because unique coding per killer would probably not be worth the time. That's almost certainly true from a coding perspective, but I feel like it would be a different discussion.
The topic is about how crouch tech was supposed to have been fixed, and the post posited that it should only be fixed for some killers while not being fixed for others, and I explained why that is a bad idea. Multidimensional thought is an important aspect of critical thinking, which is why its often important to zoom the scope out to avoid our personal biases or, again, losing the forest for the trees. If the point is made then great, but like I said earlier, BHVR seems content to just sweep their design contradiction under the rug when inconvenient instead of actually commit to them omnilaterally, and excuses like balance by bugs are an easy way for them to quietly justify that to the community if they decide to change their mind about actually fixing it.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3969607#Comment_3969607
People made this argument for keeping hug tech, especially since it was a skill cap anomaly that was in the game foryears, even after being publicly acknowledged. In the end, it was behavior's decision to remove it because it was an unintended consequence of how the affected dash powers worked vs how they were supposed to work.This seems to be a different argument than what @PetTheDoggo is talking about.
1: He's giving his personal opinion about how BHVR should behave in their decision making and then explaining the why on this situation
2: You're arguing that BHVR needs to follow precedent they've established about the issue with bugs.
Even if the second is true, it doesn't preclude a discussion about what a more ideal policy would be or whether a bug would be good or not if instead of being a bug it was actually a feature.
-I had a much longer post at first in reply, but figured I'd try to simplify it down.
I never said they're not allowed to have an opinion, just that acting on it would be both detrimental and contradictory to the game around it. I've been going into detail about it because that type of linear thinking is why the game keeps introducing more problems with every "fix." I don't mean anything against them personally, just emphasizing that its a dangerous idea that many games both fall victim to and realize the importance of avoiding. The impact is far too high to even entertain the idea of just ignoring it and trying to warp it into a feature for specific killers. That type of thinking is already a pox on this game's discourse on both sides.
-
@PetTheDoggo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3969578#Comment_3969578
Thank you, at least someone understands what I was trying to say…
I understand what you're trying to say, which is why I'm specifying that I'm talking from a design standpoint. Balance by bugs is one of the worst design perspectives a game can have, and in most genres its entirely unthinkable. Even with CVS2 there is a schism concerning roll cancelling being fixed in the EO version, and thats been a debate for a while. Capcom put their foot down and made the EO version (the one that fixes the bug) to be the standard for things like online play. People still have access to the unpatched version as they have for years (including on the new re-release) but even veteran players understand the importance of the patched version and stick with it. Even sticking with Capcom's fighting game re-releases specifically, they used multiple fixed versions of the legacy games on the collections, even when the unpatched versions were the community favored ones.
The only time its ever well received is in situations like CVS2, where it adjusts the viability of lower tier characters (even though it also marginally helps higher tiers as well) specifcally because it is more universal. Roll cancelling doesn't affect every character, but for some it helps (even if it indirectly hurts them vs the higher tiers.) Even though Capcom do not promote it, they included it exactly as is. If they did something like make it specifically not work for high tier characters, nobody who plays classic would even want that.
As an aside to give more weight to the commitment to this, they even nerfed a bug that Dan had, famously one of the worst characters in fighting game history (though he's had worse versions, but still) had a bug fixed where all it did was allow him to build meter at the end of a round under bizarre circumstances. Nobody thought he needed it taken away, but they didn't consider it worthy of being a feature, so it was fixed in EO.
There's a threshold where a bug can become a feature, which is an entirely different conversation. Thats why I keep bringing up the double standard in their cited design reasoning: If one is a bugfeature, both are. If you only make one a feature (even though it was already identified as a bug and even attempted to fix it) that becomes inconsistent. Since DBD can't have two separate versions to give a room for all of the positively received "techs" it has had over the years into some kind of unplayable mess, they need to be consistent in their approach to resolving vs adapting issues like this. Considering there's even stuff like invisible walls that stop movement abilities from launching off of elevation in many areas of maps, crouch tech has no place in the current game.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3969440#Comment_3969440
You're purposely missing the forest for the trees.I don't know, @PetTheDoggo seems to be distinguishing why the trees are different pretty clearly.
so there needs to be consistency in how it is approached from a design standpoint.The consistency seems to be:
If something unintended happens, but it makes the game better, keep it.
If something unintended happens, and it makes the game worse, remove it.
If there was a bug that only affected SWFs on comms, it would be absolutely asinine to not address it and act like its some kind of balancing feature.That doesn't sound asinine at all. What's the relevance of the result being on accident?
If something unintended happens, but it makes the game better, keep it.People made this argument for keeping hug tech, especially since it was a skill cap anomaly that was in the game for years, even after being publicly acknowledged. In the end, it was behavior's decision to remove it because it was an unintended consequence of how the affected dash powers worked vs how they were supposed to work. Crouch tech relies on hit and hurt boxes not lining up due to verticality paired with survivors' ability to shrink their hurtbox (yes I know collision is done by cylinders and cones, using colloquial nomenclature) on demand. It is quite literally pressing a button under specific circumstances to make the killers power do nothing instead of registering a valid hit. You cannot claim one has more merit than the other unless you are weighing the importance of one side over the other. They go hand in hand.
My stance, again, is about game design: You can't selectively choose to ignore bugs that can have impacts as strong as hits not registering when they're supposed to while simultaneously removing ones that require setup and specifically affect the upper skill ceiling concerning the exact same power. They already claimed crouch tech was fixed, until people very quickly found out it was only fixed sometimes. This is, again, very specifically about the two halves of the "power malfunctioning" part of the issue, and especially about the inconsistency in design showing a very clear bias, and I hate giving that camp fuel but if they actually fixed it when they said they were going to (or when they did) then this conversation wouldn't even be happening.
That doesn't sound asinine at all. What's the relevance of the result being on accident?Crouch tech still working is "supposed" to be an accident, or they flat out lied about it to the community. The relevance is that most sane people agree that SWF shouldn't be directly punished just for being SWF, even though using comms gives a very clear advantage that the game was not designed around (lack of information.) In my hypothetical, if there was a bug that only hindered SWF players who are using comms, that would be the same type of "balance by bugs" approach if it were purposely ignored. Not only would it be unfair to anyone who plays with comms and doesn't take advantage of them, it would be purposely leaving in a bug that only affects players who have what would be considered an advantage: The point pairs with the nurse one that followed it, that purposely leaving bugs as some type of haphazard balance karma is a terrible idea no matter who it applies to.
I specified I'm not talking about X bug vs Y bug in unrelated instances. There is nothing to compare about the individual trees. I'm talking about one group of powers, you could even narrow it down to just blight for conversation's sake, and it shows a contradiction in both design and direction. If entirely unintentional, it then shows a split in either competence or effort, as they already claimed it to be fixed and haven't readdressed it yet. And worst of all if its entirely deliberate and they just honestly feel that survivors complaining about hug tech landing hits while completely ignoring killers who earn valid hits just not getting them because of a combination of elevation issues and pressing a single button for a few frames, it directly becomes an issue of inconsistent design and/or direction. Again, they just need(ed) to handle it better if they want to even appear impartial. Literally all they had to do was not lock the vertical axis on the camera so killers could at least react to it. As a simple throwaway idea, they could have even adjusted the cone so that it would have less range when looking down, giving a mindgame between the killer and survivor on whether they were going to attempt the tech to dodge or not. Don't pick the specifics of that idea apart too much because its off the cuff, but the point is they chose to handle it in both a lazy and contradictory way.
Edit: I hope the person who immediately downvoted realizes I'm not even defending hug tech, but that might be asking a lot.
-
@PetTheDoggo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3968811#Comment_3968811
Of course we can, simply because not all techs are same.
They all have different difficulties and different outcomes. Some techs were simply busted and easy to use.
Some have use only in specific situation, or very hard to do…
There is simply no way any tech that gets accidently created should say, because some are beyond broken, or remove whole counterplay of killer.
I don't think removing hugtech of Blight was a bad change, it was simply easy and removed whole counterplay of Blight.
I think removing hugtech of Wesker would be a bad change, that is actually difficult and way more limited to use.
Removing all techs would be almost equally as bad imo, simply because game would become so much more boring.
I highly doubt Wesker would be anwhere near as popular, if you removed all techs he has.Sure, there is no standard to this and I don't there should be any. Let's be honest, DBD doesn't really have much of a standard to anything.
Bring back skybilly
I loved to watch skybilly, so definetly up for that.
You're purposely missing the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter how strong or weak a character in a game is, if you fix their skill ceiling because of the ability to specifically cause the power to malfunction, you can't purposely leave in a malfunction as some type of spiteful "balancing" measure. You're trying to focus on the specifics of the two while ignoring the massive design contradiction. This isn't even about "any" tech vs "any" other. Exploits/bugs/techs/whatever all have varying levels of impact and importance. This is about two separate bugs involving the exact same power, as well as other similar powers from other killers, so there needs to be consistency in how it is approached from a design standpoint. Not doing so is the type of favoritism that leads people to call the game X sided every chance they get.
If there was a bug that only affected SWFs on comms, it would be absolutely asinine to not address it and act like its some kind of balancing feature. Hell, just look at any of the many bug fixes nurse has had over the game's life, and try to tell yourself that keeping all of her fatigue and dead blink bugs should have stayed as balancing measures.
-
@PetTheDoggo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3968204#Comment_3968204
I don't really mind removal of hugtech for blight, simply because that was something that made him too strong and easy to play in my opinion.
I would definetly be against removing hugtech for Wesker, simply because his version is way more difficult and not really that game breaking.
I was annoyed when it was removed from Dracula.
I think removal/keeping of "techs" should be on case to case basis, not keep everything, nor remove everything.My point was that you can't remove "tech" specifically citing it as being an unintended function of a game mechanic while simultaneously trying to defend similar "tech" that gets deliberately used to… make a power function in an unintended manner. Since they removed hug tech and even claimed to have fixed crouch tech (they did, only partially) when the thing that they removed in the name of that vision was a skill ceiling anomaly, thats bad enough. That said, it makes the half assed attempt at a fix that much more important: They are being given a very clear opportunity to show parity in design, and their approach just fuels people who cry favoritism.
Consistency. Bring back skybilly or hold everyone to an even standard.
-
@PetTheDoggo said:
I don't really mind it working against Blight and Billy, simply because they can handle this as counter play.
They definetly should fix this for Demo…So removing hug tech is fine because it is the power not functioning properly, but its ok if it doesn't function properly if that gives the survivor a chance to avoid getting hit due to the power malfunctioning?
-
@Defnotmeghead said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3963706#Comment_3963706
Im gonna try and keep it asa short as possible:
"Fun is entirely subjective, and should always be secondary to functionality"
Yes and no. It's kinda a fact in gaming that reducing/removing player agency is inherently anti-fun. Its why anti-slug HAS to be introduced because its the most boring basekit mechanic that should have recieved a QoL or rework 5 years ago. The specifics of fun is secondary to functionality, but player agency has priority over proper functionality. In fact, why do you think Trapper hasnt seen any significant buff. Because every single trap activation outside chase removes player agency. Traps inside chase and chasing survivors towards traps is absolutely something players dont mind. But now imagine tripling the amount of traps but reducing the time to get out by half, and it would still be too boring since the chances of you randomly hitting a trap happens often enough to get boring.
Objective player fun is directly tied to agency. It's also why Trapper is one of the least played killers, despite being the poster boy of DBD. You lack player agency as Trapper by being forced to walk certain directions, being forced to stand still to place traps, only for it to be disabled 3 seconds later because there was an Ace in a bush looking at you placing that trap. Trapper is fully functional, but his agency drops with each update since there are more things people can do while Trapper is still tied. Hag also has some reduced agency, but she doesnt have to gather traps and can still use her traps to manipulate other players into a viable agency. Its why Hag is more fun to play than Trapper, despite gameplay wise being very similar killers.
This change shouldnt also be seen as the end of Clown changes. But as a new baseline that can actually be improved. It's often sounding weird to say, but a nerf in the most used mechanic, often leads to the killer as a whole being able to recieve buffs. Legion got a tiny nerf in mending times, which allowed him to be buffed without it being too boring to face. Slinger got an ADS nerf, which has allowed for buffs over time, making his current version stronger than his ADS-instashot version. Pyramidhead has gotten 2 quite significant nerfs in the next patch, but those nerfs do allow for the rest of the buffs to be possible without it being gamebreaking.
Sometimes, you need a nerf in purple bottles, to get a very significant buff later on. And Clown isnt done. We riot if this is his final stage for now. He needs more status effects other than hinderance(like broken if they are injured while intoxicated, haemorrhage basekit makes sense too, its a toxic concoction, I am expecting debuffs) and haste basekit(my suggestion being action speeds in general, vaulting, breaking pallets, picking up survivors, breaking walls and gens, heck, even pallet endurance would fit there, its HARD to time a bottle like that). He can finally have 8 bottles basekit. There are oppertunities for buffing that didnt exist prior, and those oppertunities should be grabbed.I get what you're saying, but most of that doesn't really address my points in the way you might think it does. Almost everything about your agency relation to fun arguments would lead to things like flashlight saves and even kicking or blocking gens to be incompatible on a design level. There's a lot of cake vs eating it when you get into layered game design, as entire philosophies have to remain consistent across facets. its why
Fun is entirely subjective, and should always be secondary to functionality, viability, and incentive to be applied (aka, the user's "fun" but not necessarily the recipient's.) The opponent's fun is certainly an important consideration, but if it needs to suffer a bit for the other factors, that's a necessary sacrifice.is a core design philosophy for this game. The entire statement's context is important, and its inherent to the entire concept of direct competition. You could argue about the competitive nature (or lack thereof) in the game, but by having elements that specifically induce positives alongside negatives for your opponent, its always going to be something that needs to be consistent for all players. As for the casual vs hardcore discussion, its not one I wish to partake in. The amalgamation of both is something somewhat unique to the game.
RIP the thread, but it was a nice discussion at least.
-
@Madmillennial said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3965226#Comment_3965226
There is zero legality to a tos. Look at Nintendo. They got sued so many times over tos stuff. The legal stuff comes from profits from others copyright stuff. Not generally tos
There is zero legality to a tos.Then stop arguing with me and try to take them to court. Why do you keep trying to argue this with me?
-
@DestroyerBG said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3963347#Comment_3963347
Can you please point out where in the EULA it was stated that we are not allowed to leave the match or we get punished severely. I am talking the old eulas pretty sure I think companies have to give refunds if they decide to change their eulas randomly. I mean I would probably take the refund since the game is in such a poor state of unbalanced matching.
I am talking the old eulas pretty sure I think companies have to give refunds if they decide to change their eulas randomly.That is absolutely not a thing. Almost any EULA/ToS looked over by a legal team will always include a clause that the document itself is subject to change. The only legal requirement is that it be presented when it does change, which is why sometimes in games they pop up after a major update that necessitates the player to be informed. Nobody reads them because they get in the way of their dopamine hits, but they're still very legally binding. This isn't even getting into the intricacies of digital rights management, but it might surprise you to know you don't actually own almost anything thats been made in the last decade or two. You only own licenses to access the content, which can be revoked for a lot more reasons than you'd think. But thats another topic entirely.
As for BHVRs':
As for finding specific text in there, I'm not going to do your homework for you, and I don't even represent BHVR. If you want to claim that they have no right, dig through it and find your own evidence. Your claim is the one that demands the burden of proof.
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3964611#Comment_3964611
I'm curious how it could be abused. I'd imagine if it meant the game ended right there and straight to title screen? Lets say that's the case. As long as all alive survivors get escape BP and any credit for escaping like achievements or challege, where is the harm?
But to take it a bit further, the killer gets replaced by a bot and survivors have free ability to leave or search out items or hatch. I can't see that becoming abusive from the killer end. Unless the AI is turned up to 11 or something.
If a killer abandoned, but there was a bot killer left behind who was pretty much zero threat and just a token stopgap to prevent the game from kicking everyone out and the EGC started, they would rightfully complain that would be a waste of time. The only ones who would like it would be people using that time for stuff like quests or farming, so it would probably also have to come with something like starting the EGC and/or limiting those, which would then lead to other issues.
I'm not a fan of just removing an entire stage of the game. There can be merit to gameplay for both sides in situations like the EGC, and there often is. The problem is when there isn't. Even when people claim that there is with token BP from stuff like kicking doors or breaking pallets, the game is sometimes already over before it actually ends. Just like when all 4 survivors are either dead/hooked/downed. And like that scenario, there are very limited factors that can restore meaningful gameplay. Without them though, it is over.
All meaningful objective potential is the key determining factor on whether agency is actually present. It should not be treated the same when it is there vs when it is not. The rub is that there will always be ways for that to be exploited by either side, which is why its so important to have parity in how such a system is introduced. Its either for both checks and checkmates, or specifically for checkmates alone. And making it allow checks for both sides would basically kill the entire concept of an endgame, so thats probably not the best direction to go in.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3964659#Comment_3964659
Past tense. Happened. Are you are claiming that the abandon changes didn't address this for survivors even slightly
I'm just going to point out that the abandon feature with regard to slugging is only in one, very specific scenario where all survivors are slugged or dead.
The abandon feature is not available in what is probably the most common form of slugging, which is slugging for the 4k, because one survivor is still standing. And that's just one common example.
So does the abandon feature address the concern "even slightly"? Yes, in very specific circumstances (which are, coincidentally, basically within the killers control).
Does this still happen, present tense? Absolutely.
This is why I didn't even want to respond to them. I never said that it fixes everything ever about the situation, which is what he implied with that attack. He didn't even quote the complete sentence on purpose:
You wont win, but you will almost never be stuck in a losing match for longer than it takes to either die,instead of
You wont win, but you will almost never be stuck in a losing match for longer than it takes to either die,or your team to wipe, whichever comes first.I originally left room for the fact that, yes, the abandon system does not address every situation the moment that any survivor touches the ground. My issue is that the last survivor gets that courtesy, and at a disproportionate value to any other survivors that are stuck either in the down or hooked state and have been waiting that whole time. Thats why I even mentioned in my example solution that the time to wait could be prorated for the people who have already been waiting.
Edit: It also distracts away from the actual point by needing to clarify that in a tangent, so thats always fun.
-
@HeroLives said:
I’m getting flashbacks to how legion came about.
Glad I'm not the only one. That trailer was pretty misleading.
-
@Nazzzak said:
I value my time too much to wait for them to leave. If it's tbags you are worried about, I can report that I very very rarely cop a tbag while escorting the stragglers out.
If you are someone who *often* cops tbags in the exit gate, I'm going to assume they're being rude because they felt you were being rude to them throughout the trial. In which case, well, give and take as far as I'm concerned (and that goes for either side - if you dish it out, prepare to take it back).
I have hearing and vision issues that make tracking much more difficult than they were intended. Even when I run things like stridor, bugs often disproportionately affect my ability to track, so it tends to lead to an overreliance on aura perks and addons. I'm at peace with the fact that BHVR purposely makes accessibility issues with that aspect of the game, but the long and short is that people tend to be pretty full of themselves when they know they have a clear advantage. So instead of dealing with the BM, I just stick to survivor where my handicap has much less of an impact, and I get tools to offset the issues it causes.
edit: lmao apparently this got a downvote
-
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3964652#Comment_3964652
And this is all I and others who ask for this are saying.
Why do Killers have to remain to the end of a checkmate when Survivors can leave if checked, even when there is a way the Survivors could mount a comeback such as a perk in play?
If BHVR will not add this for Killers, at least don't let Survivors abandon when something like Deli or UB is in play until there's not another option. I'm tired of other old players like me gatekeeping this game for people. Just because we had it harder doesn't mean new players should.
I'm not even responding to any of the bad faith people who responded to me anymore. All people are asking for here is some parity. Either everyone can do it or nobody should be able to.
I've maintained that a good stop gap fix would be a limit of something like 30 seconds after the last down before one can DC. This could easily be prorated so that it would be shorter for the first person downed than the last. They could obviously come up with something better as a more long term solution, but there just needs to be something to stop people from bouncing the moment they touch the ground, and unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe thats a direction they plan to even consider.
-
@Crowman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3964675#Comment_3964675
Then why do survivors have the ability to quit when they are all slugged? All people are asking for is parity. If survivors can abandon to skip out on going through the motions of dying then killers should be able to skip out on going through the motions of chasing out every single survivor who are intentionally wasting time.
Ironically I don't even necessarily want it to be as lax for killers as it currently is for survivors. That would be insane, especially without having killer bots. I just think they went overboard on taking care of survivor specifically vs killer considerations, on an issue they both shared in different iterations (which obviously come with their own nuances.) The logic used to defend the current iteration is just always purposely weighted in a way to try to make them look as unrelated as possible, and the only reasonable oppositions I ever see are generally aimed at how much of a disaster it would be to give killers the same freedom that the survivors are currently afforded.
My position has always been that any and all reasons for allowing a player to abandon need to be equal across the entire playerbase because the actual legitimate issues that would call upon it are deeper than the specific case details that people use to try to force a false dichotomy. Thats it.
-
@kosaba11 said:
Well, the abandon option only appears when there's a no-win situation. Technically, you can still win with the Exit Gates open. Really, only Survivors are capable of being put in no-win situations, the Killer still has plenty of options regardless of the state of the match.
Did they rework Unbreakable, Deliverance, Luck offerings, and Exponential? Are they not adding a perk that not only has an easy activation requirement, but allows you to get up and reposition yourself while slugged which people are already learning how to pair with perks like power struggle? Even with the eventual down, its potential to reset the game is far more than zero.
The chances are still low, but I'm tired of people selectively pretending they are zero while simultaneously pretending the killer has any type of real chance when all remaining survivors are in the exit gate. If they're uninjured and the killer doesn't have either an instadown or a gate blocking perk/ability, they can even hang out at the nearest window and spam fast vault while still escaping before the killer can punish them for it. Again, the issue is consistency. Both sides have both check and checkmate scenarios, the system does not address them evenly.
-
@ChuckingWong said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3964667#Comment_3964667
Was just going to include how you need to follow your own advice, but I figured the ratios were worth including. And I don't even like downvoting.
Disagreeing =/= and telling someone not to respond
If likes and dislikes are what you value so much over actual discussion you are sort of highlighting the problem. Thats not how you justify saying things to others on the forums. Or view points for that matter.
My second quote you have there is me questioning why that person wants a give up button to devalue gameplay I highlighted in my response.Maybe I just don't want to engage with you, especially since you don't seem to understand any perspective than your own.. Please honor that request and stop responding to my posts.
If this is the case than its not necessary to respond to someone at all. And "you dont see anyone else's perspective than your own" is a very odd way to antagonise others in conversation.
This is all unrelated to the thread by the way. The attempted call out here is not furthering discussion on the topic.I wasn't talking to you. I made that painfully clear. Stop trying to start an argument.
This is all unrelated to the thread by the way. The attempted call out here is not furthering discussion on the topic.This is why I've been telling you to not respond.
-
@ChuckingWong said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3964659#Comment_3964659
Im a bit confused by this response. So I am not really "understanding what you are saying" but not in the context you sent the message to me.
The abandon features did address the problem of stalling matches… more than slightly…. it eliminated it. Like it doesnt happen anymore. So yea it addressed it entirely.Nevermind, don't even bother responding. You're either unable to understand what I'm saying, or you're just dishonest.
If you are going to say this kind of stuff in your responses to somebody its probably best kept to yourself. Theres no need to shut down conversations in an open discussion(the forums) while name calling others with "dishonest"
Im just telling you the history of what you were saying in a previous post.If you are going to say this kind of stuff in your responses to somebody its probably best kept to yourself.Taken from a current screenshot of the first two posts:
Was just going to include how you need to follow your own advice, but I figured the ratios were worth including. And I don't even like downvoting. And I don't even necessarily agree with the OP.
@ChuckingWong said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3964632#Comment_3964632
I don’t know if that kind of response was really warranted? What’s going on here?
I’m not saying healing itself takes over a minute. It can I guess… take longer depending on the situation? If you just took a hit through sloppy, if everyone’s trying to rally a teamplay in soloQ, or if you’re scrambling to communicate with nothing but our two most epic emotes of the century to make a play.
The chaos is half the fun. Maybe someone has to go cleanse NOED or find it. Maybe someone sets up a babysitter play or a reassurance. Maybe someone just blind rushes a save and we all yell and laugh when it falls apart including the killer. That can easily stretch past 60 seconds, and it’s often the best part of the match.
Some of my favorite games ended with the EGC timer blinking red while we failed or half-succeeded to make some silly play that WOULD NEVER work. Even when some of us died, it was still meaningful because everyone saw it through the end. Killer included.
Giving the killer a “nope, I think I lost” button would rip that away.I honestly don’t understand how someone can have played thousands of matches and not see this as a core part of DBD. Wanting to skip this phase because it’s uncomfortable or uncertain is exactly how giving up on hook started, and it would be used the same way all over again.
I honestly don’t understand how someone can have played thousands of matches and not see this as a core part of DBD.Maybe I just don't want to engage with you, especially since you don't seem to understand any perspective than your own regarding this subject. Please honor that request and stop responding to my posts.
-
@ChuckingWong said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3964652#Comment_3964652
You wont win, but you will almost never be stuck in a losing match for longer than it takes to either die,
You actually will and it actually happened often enough that the developers had to step in and do something about it.
Its why the system is in place to begin with. Matches were being stalled for entire bleedouts.
Its a case of give someone the ability to do it and they will abuse it. And destroys gameplay in the process.
Has nothing to do with "being even" or comming at this "from both sides"You actually will and it actually happened often enough that the developers had to step in and do something about it.Past tense. Happened. Are you are claiming that the abandon changes didn't address this for survivors even slightly? Nevermind, don't even bother responding. You're either unable to understand what I'm saying, or you're just dishonest. Either way, there's nothing to be gained for either of us.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3964552#Comment_3964552
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3964594#Comment_3964594
Far more often than not, the game is over once the gates are open.99/100 games, the game is lost once those exit gates open, barring an endgame perkI think 99/100 is an extreme exaggeration. I've played a bunch of games today and can think of two where we got the exit gates open and the trial was still very much going on.
Situations where the survivors open the gate and then go for a save or times when one or more survivors get pushed out while the other survivors are still inside aren't at all unusual.
But even if it was 1%, I can think of lots of scenarios in the game where there is 99% chance the game is lost. And maybe an abandon option would be helpful in those scenarios, but all 4 survivors dead, hooked, or slugged is way below 1%.
Making a comeback in those circumstances relies entirely on the survivor making mistakes that can be capitalized on. Stuff like your going back for a save isn't the issue, that kind of stuff is completely fine. The issue is that survivors can nope out too fast because they were trying to address the proper reason for implementing the mechanic (4 man slugs) but also threw in almost no restrictions, nor considerations for things that could turn the game around in that state. You know, as a treat.
So one side can leave the moment they are in a check (not even a checkmate) while the other side can't even leave while in a checkmate until after they partake in "The Ritual" or they just wait out the 2-4 minute timer. One side is shielded from BM by the devs, the other isn't. You can come up with whatever what ifs to pidgeonhole the argument, but the design consideration focus is literally not even. And if your opinion is that them being uneven is fine for whatever reason you come up with, that doesn't change the fact it is not equitable nor does it address anyone who has an issue with that specifically. You're welcome to that opinion, but it should be pretty understandable why others would take issue with it.
But even if it was 1%, I can think of lots of scenarios in the game where there is 99% chance the game is lost.Reminder that survivors can still bring offerings and perks which not only can re-enable the ability to 4%, but can even guarantee it under the right circumstances. Or just pick themselves up. They not only have more than a 1% chance of getting back in the game, but can even lead to a full reset. Especially if they're the last survivor and it gives them a chance at hatch/gates in egc. The problem is that a lot of that chance is not basekit, so the survivors are required to invest at least something into their ability to reset a lost game, and that's simply too much to ask. Why even run those perks or bring those offerings when you can just wait for a chance to nope out the second it looks too grim? You wont win, but you will almost never be stuck in a losing match for longer than it takes to either die, or your team to wipe, whichever comes first. There is just no consistency in design, and it feels like people use the asymmetrical nature as an excuse instead of finding a middle ground that actually fixes the issue for both sides.
To be honest, the only reason I even responded, even knowing we probably won't see eye to eye on this, is because you tend to focus on logical consistency. The vast majority of stuff from people like the other guy always centers around wanting something while not wanting others to have it, instead of actual consistency in design. Whether it be disregarding comeback potential specifically for one side, only respecting the time of specifically one side, disabling the ability to BM from an advantageous position VERY specifically for one side, or simply just allowing specifically one side to be allowed to completely ignore taking perks that were designed to give you a chance in a game losing situation to stage a comeback. Its not about what they implemented, it will always be about how.
Also all the dishonest ones are free to downvote this into oblivion. Its not the OP, so it won't bury the topic.
-
@Raccoon said:
Is this topic 'buried?'
It doesn't seem to move to the top when anyone posts anything new.
Mass downvotes prevent topics from getting bumped. Its pretty annoying when actual conversation happens.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3963682#Comment_3963682
My point was just that on top of not being really accurate (which is your "take it with a grain of salt"), they were also plain wrong due to the issue which I described. But apparently this does not exist anymore.
It wasn't meant to be "really accurate" and I thought I prefaced that hard enough.
Not everything is intended to be an argument. Sometimes its just an observation.
-
@Defnotmeghead said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3963329#Comment_3963329
You can still zone, you can still deny obstacles. That doesnt change. What does change is purple bottle spam becomes less viable. And bottle spam isnt "proper zoning", thats "I dont know how to zone, so I am just throwing enough stuff so I can still get a hit".
And talking about his original power, BECAUSE it gave hinderance, he was also slowed down while holding a bottle before throwing it. To give a downside to hinderance. Right now, its THE strongest hinderance effect, with no downsides. Considering his power was designed to have a downside with the hinderance effect in mind, this fits.
Fun to play against matters roughly as equally to how fun something is to play as. OG alchemist ring was fun to play as on Blight, not fun to face against.
Again, there are other things that are definitely overlooked. Bottle count can (and should) be increased. Haste needs to be upped to 13% (and there needs to be different activation times between Clown and Survivors). The only alteration I would arguably give for purple bottles, is to have it linger for longer and spread further over time as a basekit thing. Because once a purple bottle is thrown, survivors shouldnt want to stick around. And right now, I will concede that survivors do not feel the need to leave a tile mainly due to the effect not lingering, which is an issue on its own, but is fully solvable by simply increasing cloud spread over time and increasing cloud duration.
In fact, if we're talking about that: purple clouds should disable fast vaults on pallets. I didnt go too much into other changes, since this was purely looking on how Clown has seen quite a significant buff overall speaking. This change would need some QoL changes, for sure, but 15% haste is STEEP without a downside attached to it in modern day DBD. Thats comparable to Bill being able to use basekit Chemical Trap everytime they pallet stun a killer. Sure, a lot of killers can manage against that still and still get 3k's consistently, but it would get boring really quick if you see Bill every 10 games, then every 7 games, then every 4 games as more and more people realize how they can use it.
There are a lot of things I would give to Clown. I would give him an equal % in pallet breaking, vaulting and hit recover speeds while invigorated. I would inflict survivors with deepwound or a timed broken status effect if they are hit while intoxicated, give them exhaustion for the entire duration they are intoxicated too.
There are a lot of things you can give to Clown that are really strong, but dont impede on fun. But 15% basekit hinderance isnt one of those things.You keep attacking the bottom of the skill floor without realizing these changes affect a lot more than just that. Similarly, you're reducing an aspect of survivor agency required in countering the purple bottles simply by virtue of making them have a tighter skill floor needed to utilize them properly. In other words these changes specifically target both bad killers and bad survivors, punishing one while making life easier for the other.
Personally I enjoyed the purple bottle aspect of going against killer, as it always encouraged me to keep an eye on both distance to him and when/where he is going to zone with the bottle, so I could reroute on the fly to bait him to throw a bottle at one area of a tile while going toward another during that time. That back and forth is still going to be there, but its going to be a lot easier to capitalize on that type of mistake now. Instead the chase will shift to "is this routing going to give him a disproportionate amount of distance that I can't really do anything about unless he messes up" with the bulk of the interactions relying mostly on how well he does(n't) use the yellow bottle at actual tiles. Clowns who are exceptionally skilled will already have the placements and timings down to not lose too much efficiency with the purple bottle changes, but even people using them normally and not "spamming" them will be affected by these changes.
And thats not even talking about how it changes his identity. Deprioritizing what is his main focus both in terms of his original gameplay design and even his lore just feels bizarre to me. They added the yellow bottles later to help with one of his biggest weaknesses, and while I consider them a very welcome addition to his power, they have absolutely nothing to do with its core design. They're just an ancillary improvement that was later added, and function wildly different than what any other part of his kit was originally designed around. Its a pretty extreme example, but that would be like BHVR focusing on buffs for that meme nurse addon that removes her ability to blink through objects, while also nerfing the skill floor for said ability to blink through objects. Or Huntresses' addon that helps her when she has no hatchets left while nerfing her hatchets. Yes I know they're different because they're addons rather than basekit ancillary effects, but the point was in the comparison of primary vs secondary aspects of their design.
Fun to play against matters roughly as equally to how fun something is to play as.This is also not how you design powers. Fun is entirely subjective, and should always be secondary to functionality, viability, and incentive to be applied (aka, the user's "fun" but not necessarily the recipient's.) The opponent's fun is certainly an important consideration, but if it needs to suffer a bit for the other factors, that's a necessary sacrifice. Just think about all the types of objective denial on either side, they quite literally attack the fun of your opponent while simultaneously undoing their progress. I'm not the biggest fan of that, but its a pretty clear prioritization in design.
Again, there are other things that are definitely overlooked.There are certainly universally positive changes, but my focus is strictly on how this changes the Clown as a character, and why.
In fact, if we're talking about that: purple clouds should disable fast vaults on pallets.I don't know about this one, mostly because of how vaulting pallets work in terms of momentum. I think it might be worth testing that type of impact, but it could easily become way too oppressive due to how tiles can be laid out.
Honestly, if they actually wanted to make him more fun to go against, attack his skill floor while not hurting everything above it, and give him something to offset the purple bottle changes specifically… They should have given him a reason to get direct hits. Doesn't have to be something absurd like basekit pinky finger, but even something as simple as restoring a single bottle use with a 30 second cooldown on the ability to proc another direct hit would be a proper way of softening that kind of blow. Or maybe a bottle that has a direct hit has the pre-nerf numbers. There is room even now to make these types of changes not disproportionately focus on the worst players on both sides.
Edit: This whole mass downvoting topics removing them from being able to bump really needs to change. Bad ideas can lead to fruitful discussions, and the calculations in the OP alone are very helpful.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3963423#Comment_3963423
Nightlight stats for Killrates are currently not useable. They count abandoned Survivors as escaped (since it shows the Escape Icon). So if a Killer slugs for the 4K and downs the last Survivor and the two remaining Survivors abandon, for nightlight it is a 2K, even if it is a 4K because the Killer will hook the two Bots which are left behind. If the last Survivor abandons when getting downed, nightlight coutns it as a 3K, even if it is a 4K because the last Survivor gets morid.
If the Killer slugs 4 Survivors from the beginning and hooks them afterwards, but all of them abandoned, nightlight counts it as a 0K while it is a 4K.
You get the picture, Killrate stats on nightlight are currently not really worth anything.
I literally said both to take it with a grain of salt, and that the only reason I was bringing it up was because it showed a trend that might not necessarily represent the exact impact of the changes. My point, again, was that if it changes by a lot, then the impact overall must be at least a little. I know people only use KR stats to try to push an agenda, but thats not why I brought them up.
-
@SpringMyTrap said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3963376#Comment_3963376
you dont need to refer to nightlight.
here are some slightly less recent stats:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/DVL53C6C7CFF/image.png
average killrates are almost never above 60%. a few edge cases exceed the expected norm by less than 1%. meanwhile, "high mmr" SWFs are closer to 50% escape/killrate than to 60% target killrate.
these are before anti-go next so these effectively take into account people offing themselves on hooks.
it's funny how despite that data devs keep buffing swfs and nerfing solos. the game totally needs that /s
Thats the thing. With the current nightlight stats, only a single killer even gets over 61%. And its Freddy. Vecna gets close. Ghoul is in third at about 59.
Again, NL stats are always to be taken with a grain of salt, since they are particularly curated in a sense. They are good for picking up trends that correlate with how changes affect the game though, so seeing drastic changes means that they generally tend to have at least a nominal impact on the game overall. I was just surprised to see them as low there as they are.
-
@tjt85 said:
Probably not much will change much for me. I main Legion and nobody bothers to heal against this Killer anyway, so I don't really care if Survivors bring med-kits (if anything, it's good for me because they waste time healing). And since my second main is Billy, his chainsaw doesn't care about med-kits either.
Never ever used Franklin's or any other perks that affect items, so I don't care if they've been nerfed (though I do use the Stolen Sketchbook Legion add-on in Chaos Shuffle to combat beamer saves). Honestly, I very rarely see Built To Last in my Survivor or Killer games, but maybe that will change next patch.
On the Survivor side of things, I'm happy to see Built To Last get a buff for my locker Dweet build. But otherwise, I don't use items outside the events, so it's not going to be a big deal for me. I'm looking forward to the new fog vial item and hoping it isn't nerfed to the point of being useless, but that doesn't even have charges so again, I still won't be bringing Built to Last.
Michonne's perks have the potential to make SWFs more obnoxious to face I guess, but I doubt they will do much for Solo Q. Still, only 2 decent perks out of 6 for a Survivor chapter is kinda sad (especially for a licensed chapter). Conviction is the only good perk for Solo Q, imo.
In any case, if BHVR are buffing Survivor quite a bit this patch it suggests that Killer is over performing right now. Maybe they're trying to do some rebalancing and this is not a bad thing. Maybe I'm not worried because I don't often see a lot of (or care about) what other players complain about. I'm not an especially sweaty Killer and consequently, I don't care if I lose some of my Killer games.
In any case, if BHVR are buffing Survivor quite a bit this patch it suggests that Killer is over performing right now.Not to be the
nightlight guyof the topic but they have been significantly trending down over the last month or so that I can see. Turns out less 1v3s likely made the game more even, with a 62.2% - 44.57% (poor slinger apparently) range. Not official stats so of course have that grain of salt ready, but its going to be interesting to see how much those numbers are going to change with these proposed changes. -
@Madmillennial said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3962802#Comment_3962802
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3962813#Comment_3962813
Wait what?! Dramatic much?! Lmao! Aside from your dumb Disney world reference where I'm stealing from vendors and causing a scene??? Right? You'd know, its your reference.…..
All im literally saying is… there's a thin line here. We can't tell people who buys the game with money how to play for everyone else. Mostly because people have reasons why they disconnect other than the obvious rage.... im an example today… you can't control people. It's not right to dictate how others trest the games they pay for.
Im sorry... I hate to be thst guy. I really do. But my reasons are jo better than yours. I don't care what you say. In the end... we all PAID. WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHAT WE WANT AFTER THE PRICE TAG.
You Might not like it. I might not like it. But it doesn't matter. We all paid. You quit. I quit..irrelevant. devs should reverse penalties bc we are all paying customers in the end.
Since you weren't able to digest it, the point of the disney comparison is that you cannot go out into a private business and use your admission cost as an excuse to break the rules you agree to when you purchase your ticket. Disney parks in particular are well known for giving people lifetime bans for breaking park rules, so it felt fitting.
We can't tell people who buys the game with money how to play for everyone elseThat's literally what ToS/EULA are. You're agreeing to certain terms to have access to the product you already purchased. Agree or disagree all you want, but you're sure as hell not going to get anywhere in court with that one. That's unfortunately how pretty much any game is now, especially if they are multiplayer, and especially if they use a live service model.
Im sorry... I hate to be thst guy. I really do. But my reasons are jo better than yours. I don't care what you say.That's not discussion, that's preaching. And its not exactly a noble cause. And its factually incorrect, ironically. You're pretending we have a consumer right that does not exist, because we all signed on the dotted line, and doing so is a requirement to even have access to the product. Companies can and do revoke licenses at their discretion when users refuse to abide by their rules and regulations.
-
@thrawn3054 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3963300#Comment_3963300
Which still leaves the problem of these changes will kill his playstyle. The basekit nerfs plus nerfs to his only truly good addons will kill him dead. Hell, they even killed Cigarbox. Unless they revert at least some of these changes Clown will drop to Hag levels of rarity.
Many people in this community think that how fun something is to play against is more important than how fun (or even functional) it is to play as. Im sure nyoomin around more often will be more fun to some people, but missing hits that would have been gained through proper zoning or obstacle denial is going to feel pretty unrewarding to play for many. And considering those are the types of things his original power was built on, if his yellow bottles weren't already in the game it would feel like a rework at this point. So there's probably going to be pretty mixed reception.
-
@Madmillennial said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3962784#Comment_3962784
Nah. Clearly you didn't read everything. It's not "rage quitting" im concerned about. It's everything else. Keeping in mind no matter what the issues to the individual are, we ALL PAY money to play.
Who are you to say why I go next?
This is a slippery slope. I get why the devs, and I get what they were thinking when they did this but in the end its messed up to penalty anyone for leaving early. Especially with the increased times and how the timer doesn't start until you try to play another game.
It can be a week later and your hit with a 15 to 30 min penalty for something thst wasn't your fault. And even if it was. Who cares? You paid your fair share like everyone else.
It's not your business why do what I do huh?
Nah. Clearly you didn't read everything. It's not "rage quitting" im concerned about. It's everything else. Keeping in mind no matter what the issues to the individual are, we ALL PAY money to play.Where did I say anything about rage quitting? Abstaining from games while knowingly having internet issues is another flavor of taking responsibility for your actions.
we ALL PAY money to play.If you pay for a ticket to Disneyland, then go around stealing stuff from the vendors and cursing at people, do you think your admission price allows you to behave that way? Playing out your matches is part of the code of conduct you agree to when you play the game. I'm sorry if you think your exchange of currency makes the rules not apply to you.
Who are you to say why I go next?Where did I?
This is a slippery slope. I get why the devs, and I get what they were thinking when they did this but in the end its messed up to penalty anyone for leaving early. Especially with the increased times and how the timer doesn't start until you try to play another game.Interesting fallacy to pivot to, but penalizing people for disrupting matches by leaving them early is one of the most universal standards for PVP games on a conceptual level. You should really see how far many games take it so you can realize how lenient this game actually is. Thats why this type of rhetoric falls flat.
It can be a week later and your hit with a 15 to 30 min penalty for something thst wasn't your fault. And even if it was. Who cares? You paid your fair share like everyone else.You don't hit 15-30 minutes for a single instance. It takes multiple infractions to get to that point, making it your fault. This is, again, why I go back to taking responsibility for your own actions. If you truly have frequent enough internet problems to regularly get a 15+ minute penalty through no fault of your own, then you are not in a position to be able to play the game until said situation is improved. For every time you get disconnected against your will, you are affecting 4 other players experiences that THEY paid for. This is why, again, most PVP games are much more strict about this.
It's not your business why do what I do huh?I was just poking fun at your hyperbolic misuse of a term.
-
@Madmillennial said:
Haha. Lets make fun of the guy who is for the the rights of the everyone and wants fairness and individual rights for all..
ironic really as our forefathers went through the same thing. 😂
Nah, you're just virtue signaling for selfish reasons. You're implying its your "God given right" to disconnect with what you said, which is why hyperbole is so good at undermining your own point. Just take responsibility for your own actions.
-
@Madmillennial said:
Doesn't matter what the situation is. We are all paying customers and shouldn't be TOLD how to play a game. Period. Whatever reason someone leaves a game is their own and nobody else's business. Rage quit aside, there are many reasons people have a leave a match.
It's unconstitutional to be forced to behave a certain way. I hate to be thst guy but its facts. We are paying consumers. Who is anyone to say how we play a game we paid for?
TThis feels like Nintendo shutting off switch 2 consoles for people that mod a game after they bought it. It's yours to do as you wish. So long you don't cheat, scam, or cause the seller to lose money bc you are being devious...
"unconstitutional"Ah yes, I know that Hancock in particular was a champion for people's right to be able to quit games without penalty.
-
@diatropov said:
Good day! It would be nice if there was an option to turn off the screams when hanging on a hook, or an option to make them quieter, when actively playing DBD, after another hang, my desire to smash the headphones against the wall when Feng screams increases to a critical point. PLEASE!!!!!!!!Believe it not, they used to not be as bad. It was a deliberate decision.
-
@Halloulle said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3961355#Comment_3961355
I was speaking about survivability which hinges on resources and knowing where those resources are "not in killer TR" is information - but not the information I was referring to.
As for WoO; I generally I agree with what you say about usefulness - but I also stand by what I said in my previous post; the opinion on WoO aside a perk should not be considered a fix to a game design issue (and it is a game design issue if a player of median skill cannot reasonably be expected to make use of what is, in theory, provided but can, in practise, only be utilised by a fraction of the players that can be in the same match; again, if it was a "high skill" vs "not high skill" thing and only those of "high skill" are matched with each other; fair, that's all a ok. - But that's not how matchmaking in dbd works).
"Similarly, if these considerations of micro time wastes are so important, why do people always dismiss everything from blade wipes to picking up and transporting?"
Is what I have been referring to with "people always".
A dead zone does not have to be forced all the time; the most likely scenario for that to happen is just a killer running a hex build because in addition to the gens the totems also block tiles. As I said; If the killer is not running a hex build plenty non dead zone tiles are also available - e.g. shack if it spawns without a gen. That being said: forcing a running start isn't even a bad thing, imo; it alleviates the killer side frustration of survs spawning on gens and getting right to work and also gives survs an opportunity to identify which part of the map they're in and which tiles are around them and which they traverse (incl. resources).
"Its as basic as tracking requirements for a killer, and ironically something that the killer player is probably mentally going over before gaining control as well (especially if running LP.)"
This, to me, sounded like this is what you consider natural/basic for killer players - which in turn read like having a pretty high opinion of them.
"Because currently when you find 1, the other 3 have had all of that progress potential for free."
See comment on running start. Plus; it does make it sound like the other three survs just … "appear" on gens far enough away to not be disrupted by the chase. If survs are far enough away to not be disrupted by the chase they spent quite a while running there. If survs didn't run far they will very likely get disrupted and looking at popular perks chances are those gens end up at zero sooner rather than later. Granted, if the killer has developed tunnel vision and completely ignores a gen being done right next to chase that might be different - but even then and even if those gens do get finished that killer now has three gen potential for free* cause several gens have been completed right next to each other).
*consider this tongue in cheek - couldn't help it. I find this whole "for free" stuff slightly irritating.
On the state of the community: agreed - though, tbh, I've found I rather just play something else where you don't have to search for decent people and it's like searching for needles in a haystack.
As for WoO; I generally I agree with what you say about usefulness - but I also stand by what I said in my previous post; the opinion on WoO aside a perk should not be considered a fix to a game design issue (and it is a game design issue if a player of median skill cannot reasonably be expected to make use of what is, in theory, provided but can, in practise, only be utilised by a fraction of the players that can be in the same match; again, if it was a "high skill" vs "not high skill" thing and only those of "high skill" are matched with each other; fair, that's all a ok. - But that's not how matchmaking in dbd works).Unfortunately this is a game where things like audio acuity are purposely obfuscated to purposely affect players' ability to make out important audio cues properly. What is provided allows for any player, regardless of limitations, to be able to achieve the minimum degree of agency the game requires. That said, it can and does have a disproportionate impact to how well people can or cannot digest that information, like I said earlier. As much as I absolutely despise the fact they knowingly and purposely retain the abysmal audio balancing for that specific reason, it is a clear design choice for them to not have changed it despite how much players have told them for years that it affects their ability to have an even playing field with other players who are not hearing impaired. So basically I can absolutely empathize (as I did above) with those who are impacted disproportionately by issues such as spatial awareness processing speed or even simple deductive reasoning, but it is something that every single player can improve to at least some degree if they choose to, so I don't sympathize. Its also one of the most symmetrical aspects to the game, even if the weight of every second is very obviously skewed toward the survivors between the end of the pan and first interaction.
Thats also why I mentioned the "not in TR" observation. That was a very basic example of information that a brand new player would be able to glean after only a handful of matches, that a first time player might not know to even figure out. The more people play, the more info they will subconsciously pick up during that camera pan. They might see a fountain or jigsaw box and recognize it belonged to a specific killer, they might see a gen right in front of them, they might see a lit totem, there is a lot of readily apparent information that can be given for free during that camera pan that we all take for granted because its not an exceptional occurrence: The upper end of this type of deduction can go all the way up to things like "I can see shack from my spawn, which means it needs to have these specific tiles adjacent to it, while it also means that the main building needs to be in X direction on this realm, while A B and C are the most likely locations for nearby gens while Z is the area survivors are most likely to have spawned in" and similar information can be pretty accurately estimated. ALMOST ALL PLAYERS WILL FALL SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE. (As a side note, Pinhead players were exceptionally good at this type of thinking when they would triangulate box spawn locations, even mid match)
The expectation of players by the game is to have at least a pretty low amount of information gathered during this time, while the expectation requirement goes up proportionate to the other players in the match, and how much any individual exceeds or falls short of that adjustment. In other words, due to the fact that this particular situation affects all players exactly evenly in that moment, it is a starting handicap that is built into the game. Any desire to change its current iteration is actively trying to weight the start of the match in the direction of either side, as it is quite possibly the most actually balanced moments of the game.
Is what I have been referring to with "people always".Ah, gotcha, that makes more sense. I very specifically didn't say it was something you said, but brought it up as a relative concept since we were discussing forced timewastes. If your logic is consistent for both sides on that topic, great.
That being said: forcing a running start isn't even a bad thing, imo; it alleviates the killer side frustration of survs spawning on gens and getting right to work and also gives survs an opportunity to identify which part of the map they're in and which tiles are around them and which they traverse (incl. resources).This is not a game designed around a running start. Far from it. Some killers specifically have setup requirements where they need to actively waste time before even attempting to engage interaction with the survivors, which will always represent a disproportional impact by design. Not only that, but different killers have both different mobility options and even just base movement speeds. You would need to be able to account for everything between a hag ignoring survivors to set up a web in one area, vs a blight or billy with LP just beelining to the direction the survivors are spawning from, maybe even going through the location of what they deduce to be the nearest likely gen location. Much like now, but it would, again, introduce an uneven nerf that would disproportionately impact weaker killers while barely even making stronger ones check their watch. We don't need core mechanical changes that hurt trapper but barely bother blight, especially for a reason that is both universally even in terms of value and opportunity, with guaranteed agency growth potential of more than zero. All that aside, again, it is a core component in the game's design, directly related to the procedural generation done within the start of every match. They could alleviate this impact by doing something as simple as making maps static, but they have made this decision very deliberately, for better or worse.
Simply put, if all 5 players started with a running start as they gained control, it would look absolutely stupid in the context of the trials. If they started stationary and still needed to run in a particular direction to the nearest objective (and great players WOULD figure out the spawn locations of gens with this info) it would negatively impact low tier killers more than high tier ones (as their mobility, lethality, or both tend to be why they're high tier in the first place) and worse players wouldn't even know which direction to try to utilize that time unless it was essentially fixed. All you'd be doing is delaying the amount of time either side can interact with their objective, which is excessive after the camera pan.
This, to me, sounded like this is what you consider natural/basic for killer players - which in turn read like having a pretty high opinion of them.I can understand that, but it wasn't my intention. What I mean was more about the individual responsibility requirements and how they differ between the two roles: A bad survivor can get carried by a good survivor, and vice versa. But the killer only has his own ability to depend on in regards to things like game sense and calculating possible outcomes. My frame of reference was mostly in regards to the audio example I gave above: I have hearing issues, and I know many other people who play the game do. The devs purposely hide important audio cues behind other audio, and are even introducing a reusable and rechargeable item that muffles sound on top of how poorly it is already balanced, so they very clearly do not give this same type of consideration to other existing issues in the game, while falling back on core design philosophies being their reasoning. Why would they make changes to accommodate something that is quite literally, and I hate to say it, a "skill issue" when they actively refuse to fix accessibility ones using the same logic? When it comes to conditions like APD, one can't exactly practice to improve their hearing. There is no way to "git gud" regarding the game's audio balancing, but again, even someone booting up their first handful of matches have already started digesting free information from the camera pan alone. They have started, and can continue to grow, in their awareness regardless of any type of limitation outside of purposely refusing to utilize it.
The issue is that people do not put the work in to utilize this tool they are given, but expect to not be at any type of disadvantage vs anyone who does. If they don't want to put the work in, fine, but no matter what their level of aptitude, the benefit of applying the knowledge will always be more than zero. You get what you put in.
If survs are far enough away to not be disrupted by the chase they spent quite a while running there.Do they start in some kind of spawning zone that is independent of the rest of the map? Because otherwise they can (and will) all go in separate directions. If running 5 seconds in one direction means that it will take a killer 3 seconds longer to reach you, you have still created a net time surplus because the killer cannot be in 4 places at once and needs to distribute said time. If anything this could very easily completely offset the entire point of making survivors spawn together in the first place, and would essentially make all of the spawn location offerings pointless.
I appreciate the attempts at trying to make the idea work, but its viability is the entire reason why it needs to be ironed out before it could even be considered. These types of issues and oversights are exactly what continues to cause a lot of extremely obvious mistakes in changes to the core gameplay structure. Old OoO wasn't a problem, until it was. Same with MFT, Overbrine, Starstruck Nurse, original MoM, etc. These types of problems are caused by oversights outside of the expected case usage, introducing things with that much of an impact while not applying concepts like sanity checking and thorough theorycraft testing has brought us some of the worst issues the game has ever seen, and continues to be something they tend to have in common. 20/20 hindsight and whatnot.
*consider this tongue in cheek - couldn't help it. I find this whole "for free" stuffslightlyirritating.I am using it in the very literal application. Currently when a survivor spawns and touches a gen immediately, there is zero agency for the killer to interrupt that, aside from pre-emptive conditionals like bringing Corrupt Intervention. No matter how op anyone considers any of the killers, there are exactly zero that are able to physically interrupt a survivor who has no delay on their ability to interact with their objective. That makes any progress that occurs before first interaction to be literally free. There is no agency to deny it or contest it in any way, it just simply is not physically possible without the survivor not properly utilizing their time. Even when not spawning exactly on top of a gen, survivors will always spawn closer to a gen than they will to the killer by design (which, again, is why I wanted to see some of the absurd times this breaks, because the examples posted were neither optimal usage of time, nor that degree which has actually happened in the game's history.) So any and all time before first interaction will always be free potential specifically for one side. Only one side requires the presence of the other to begin applying agency toward their objective, as finding a survivor only starts the potential for the objective's progress, rather than actually progressing it. You could then spiral into the details of things like gen kicks and flashlight saves affecting the lasting impact of these things, but if you don't lose the forest for the trees, its easy to see the point that the killer cannot achieve progress toward killing the survivors until they can engage with them. Even killers that approach global effects (like Singu) require a minimum amount of time before they can interact with their first survivor, so no matter how little or how much progress is achieved before the killer reaches their first survivor, that progress is incontestable. Free.
Edit: missed the part of about considering WoO compulsory, but was shadowborn not compulsory for people who had FoV issues before the setting was introduced? That said, if Stridor was changed to simply make audio cleaner and more consistent while halving the chase music, I know it wouldn't leave my loadout until BHVR realized that was stupid and just fixed the accessibility issue they purposely created. The thing is, that would never happen, so WoO fills an interesting niche where it helps players whether they actually need it or not, inhibits growth in the process, and is seen as something that shouldn't require a perk to utilize. Oh wait, they added it as a charge usage to maps now so you don't even need the perk. There really is no consistent direction to a lot of these things, and the more people bicker over the pointless stuff the more they distract from things like actual consistency in design.
-
@Halloulle said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3959166#Comment_3959166
The camera pan can sometimes give you that info. Most often the info you get from the loading in camera is "aight. I'm in a tile that has walls." — anything beyond that we're talking about people who either have this game as a full time job - or pretend they have. My mental cut off point for "can you expect a player to reasonably do this" is if a player plays ~3-6 hours a week can they get a hang of that within a few months? No? Then it's something that might be possible among cracked and professional players but should not at all be the expectation of an average player / what the enjoyability of the game hinges on. (This might be different if the "average" player was actually seperate from the "cracked" player - but we know they are in one matchmaking pool)
If the community could at all make up their mind about WoO (it's kinda Schrödingers perk, isn't it? On the one hand it seems necessary for anyone who hasn't made dbd their life, on the other hand it's also a crutch that ought to be deleted cause it's op and gives unfair advantages) I'd say fair point. Alas. — Plus, didn't the community already arrive at the conclusion that a perk should not essentially be obligatory to make the game work for the average player/a perk is not a suitable fix for inadequate game design?
Apparently I'm not "people always" when it comes to other animations and the time they take - in fact I made no comment about it at all so I don't know why you bring it up as if it's a counter point to what I said. Please don't generalise to counter a point I didn't make.
As for how I propose spawn logic to work: You can have an opinion without having the solution at hand…? — That being said; map reworks aren't exactly uncommon so I don't think map tile limitations are an obstacle dev-side; just change the map if need be. (And yes, I am fully aware that it's not as easy as that; but the principle stands: it's not like the map has to remain exactly as it is). Additionally: I also just said by virtue of all survs spawning together already, the problem might already be taken care of between only one tile having to fulfil those criteria (which I have a feeling would likely be a dead zone edge-map-ish if the killer runs a hex build; otherwise literally any tile that doesn't have it's gen spawn and is two tiles away from the killer would work) two survs being less effective on one gen and the increased travel time for the other two survs to a gen that doesn't lead to a three gen/leads to all gens being halted as soon as chase is in one part of the map; which should happen sooner rather than later anyway - considering your high opinion of killers and their understanding of spawn logic; they shouldn't take long to deduce the collective surv spawn point and should thus be able to interrupt all gens near spawn well in time. And even if it takes them checking the map they should get there well before any gen is even close to getting finished.)
And : man. I wish I ran into killers like that. So far killers who basically spawned in front of me seemed to get off on it; nodding and humping after me essentially being two tap cause ######### just happened (especially Blights).
And one last note: OP originally complained about 10 seconds being way too little and led to way too early hooks. Though, the 15 seconds (which are rounded up because you usually can't run in a straight line/need to turn the camera) aren't all that far away from it. Make of that what you will.The reason I focused on the camera pan is because the game has not even started yet. There is no agency for either side, other than to take in what you see and use it to get your bearings. This is something that happens for every player every match. Of course not every camera pan is going to revel the exact same amount of information, but it gives you everything you need to have before you gain control. That information is not automatically digestable, and its value will impact people differently based on their ability to orient themselves, their ability to apply deductive reasoning to what they were shown to tell them what they weren't, and their familiarity with the maps and tiles themselves. Value will not always be 100%, but it is something that has core components that can be improved by anyone who wishes to. This is a fairly universal principle in games that dedication is rewarded by improvement, and that there are reasons to want to improve.
What I am saying is that no player who gets 0% from the intro is someone who actively utilizes it. Even someone playing maybe their third time will likely figure out something as simple as "The TR isn't active, so the killer is not right next to me." Whether people plateau, or how each component impacts their ability to digest this information personally, they are provided this equal information, the same as all parties, every game.
As for WoO, I know it's both. I actively run it even though I learned how to play without it. I just find it extremely convenient, like the contact list on my phone. But due to the contact list on my phone, I rarely remember phone numbers mentally, like I used to before it. It's both strong and convenient, but also dependence building due to not requiring that level of premapping tiles while routing.
I didn't say "people always", I said:
If people are alt tabbed out or looking at twitch chat during the camera pan, they wasted an opportunity the game actively gave them for this exact issue.Meaning that the people who specifically choose not to gain any information from what they are provided, they are knowingly starting at a disadvantage to anyone who does, and that they are acknowledging they opted out of their chance to do so. It's just a decision that has a consequence, regardless of how much or how little it ends up being.
I also just said by virtue of all survs spawning together already, the problem might already be taken care of between only one tile having to fulfil those criteria (which I have a feeling would likely be a dead zone edge-map-ish if the killer runs a hex build; otherwise literally any tile that doesn't have it's gen spawn and is two tiles away from the killer would work)Yes, you would have to create a forced dead zone on one area of the map, because that would be the only way to have no objectives spawn within a straight shot distance from one area. It would have to be a deadzone. That basically just makes a place where the survivors have to hold forward facing toward actual tiles that aren't just filler at best. You'd just be forcing a running start.
considering your high opinion of killers and their understanding of spawn logic;Where did I say anything about my opinion of killers on the subject? They vary wildly just as much as survivors do, and similarly many of them also don't even watch the camera pan. I've been saying the entire time it is something that both sides can utilize or not, to an even degree.
they shouldn't take long to deduce the collective surv spawn point and should thus be able to interrupt all gens near spawn well in time. And even if it takes them checking the map they should get there well before any gen is even close to getting finished.)They don't have enough time for multiple gens to get anywhere near finished before they have to have found someone. Because currently when you find 1, the other 3 have had all of that progress potential for free. It could be a little, it could be a lot, but interaction between the two sides had not yet started so it effectively becomes a starting handicap. That kind of thing affects the weight of time. Its why LP is so strong even with its low duration.
And : man. I wish I ran into killers like that. So far killers who basically spawned in front of me seemed to get off on it; nodding and humping after me essentially being two tap cause ######### just happened (especially Blights).Its just the state of the community unfortunately. There are still some good ones out there on both sides, we all know when we're one of em.
-
@Defnotmeghead said:
Just to compare how big the nerf to the purple bottles is to other changes(ignoring addons, just basekit).
Reloading in 9.0:
1.61 m/s for 3 seconds = 4.83 meters of distance per reload
Yellow bottle empowered
1.77 m/s for 3 seconds = 5.31 meters of distance per reloadReloading in 9.1:
2.3 m/s for 2.5 seconds = 5.75 meters of distance per reload (8 meters of distance if you include 0.5 seconds of moving at normal movement speed, which is a total of 3.17 meters gained per normal reload).
Yellow bottle empowered
2.58 m/s for 2.5 seconds = 6.44 meters of distance per reload (9 meters of distance if you include the 0.5 seconds of moving at normal movement speed, for a total of 3.69 meters gained per yellow bottle reload).
So in short, from 4.83-5.31 meters of distance in 3 seconds, to 8-9 meters of distance in 3 seconds. PER RELOAD.
(Which, sidenote, not counting the additional extra distance from the 3-8 additional seconds of haste)
Yellow bottle lunge increase goes from 3.45 meters in 0.5 seconds to ~3.79 meters in 0.5 seconds in 9.0
Yellow bottle lunge increase goes from 3.45 meters in 0.5 seconds to 3.86 meters in 0.5 seconds in 9.1
Its only a 0.7 meter distance increase just counting the lunge part (I am not counting the open and close phase, which would also increase distance by a total of 0.12 meters total).
Yellow bottle haste changes to normal movementspeed in 9.0
4.6 meters for ~9 seconds ( ~3 seconds in cloud, 6 seconds out of cloud) goes from 41.4 basekit distance to 45.54 meters distance with haste (54.74 meters if we want to compare properly).
Yellow bottle haste changes to normal movementspeed in 9.1
4.6 meters for ~11 seconds ( ~5 seconds in cloud, 6 seconds out of cloud) goes from 41.4 basekit distance to 56.67 meters distance with haste. Which is an increase of 1.93 meters.
Purple bottle distance decrease in 9.0
Assuming 0.01 seconds spend in the cloud (just the lingering duration), goes from 8 meters of basekit distance, to 6.8 meters hindered
Assuming you hit the survivor with a bottle(aka, half cloud+lingering), goes from roughly 12.7 meters of distance total, to 10.88 meters hindered.
Assuming the survivor runs straight through the entire cloud(+lingering), goes from 17.4 meters distance to 14.8 meters hindered.Purple bottle distance decrease in 9.1
Assuming 0.01 seconds spend in the cloud (just the lingering duration), goes from 8 meters of basekit distance, to 7.52 meters hindered. Which is a loss of 0.72 meters total.(assuming same time duration, so 1 second of hinderance and 1 second of non-hinderance)
Assuming you hit the survivor with a bottle(aka, half cloud+lingering, goes from roughly 12.7 meters of distance total, to 11.68 meters hindered. Which is a loss of 0.8 meters.
Assuming the survivor runs straight through the entire cloud(+lingering), goes from 17.4 meters distance to 15.8 meters hindered. Which is a loss of 1 meter.So yeah, purple bottles are slightly worse, meaning instead of survivors losing 2.6 meters over the course of 4.35 seconds, they lose 1.6 meters. But yellow bottles and reload speeds are buffed so significantly, that over the course of the game, you gain so much time.
Just in matters of reloading, you save an entire second of distance PER RELOAD. While in terms of distance of gapclosing lost, you're looking at about 1 second lost over the course of 5 purple bottles thrown. So, assuming a constant hinderance for 20 seconds on the 9.0 bottles gets you 68 meters of distance instead of 80 meters, and the new bottles would give 15 seconds total of hinderance and 5 seconds of normal speed, for a total distance of 72.8 meters. Yes, over the course of the maximum possible effect in distance, survivors distance differs by 4.8 meters. Generally speaking, if a survivor gained 4 seconds of distance on you due to a pallet stun+breaking it, instead of being able to hit them after 10 seconds of constant purple bottles, you now hit them after 10.5 seconds.All that text, just to basically point out that every single reload easily saves you more time than the distance purple bottles lose you, and the haste effect boost alone does compensate for it.
If there are any tweaks I would suggest for the devs, its to keep the 2 second antidote cloud activation for survivors, and keep it 1 second activation for killer, and to up haste to 13%. The hinderance is fine as is.
Learn to use yellow bottles in chase, it really gives you a massive edge.Does purple not have a much stronger usage case argument to skew that ratio? Not only does the survivor potentially benefit from yellow in the event of poor placement, but preventing a survivor from reaching a resource and forcing them to not be able to utilize it to its potential is more impactful than simply catching up to them? Preventing fast vaulting alone represents a pretty significant advantage to the bottles' applications. Time's value in DBD is a bit relative, and it can often be easily distorted when applying other factors.
I can always be missing something. I barely ever play him, but even when going against him I only ever see exceptionally good clowns even use the yellow bottle properly, instead of just to take off across the map. They just don't have a great risk/reward to be used in chase compared to purple (the part of his power he was actually built around) unless you are very good at exactly when and where to use them. If usage rates were part of the consideration, they should have worked on improving that ratio instead of taking a bite out of what his power used to only be. Or even doing both and kinda normalizing somewhere in the middle.
-
@Halloulle said:
Spawning into TR is not alright (and does happen). - For those asking "so how long until a killer is allowed to chase you": look at it this way; for survivor to have any survivability they need to be semi aware of their surroundings; they need to know what kinda tile they are in and if any resource spawned in that tile - and which tiles are adjacent. The minimum time this takes is the time it takes to walk through one tile and into another. Let's say it takes 2 seconds to turn the camera initially to identify which tile you're in on spawn and start moving. While you usually can't run in a straight line except if you're in a dead zone, let's assume you can run through two tiles in a straight line. That's that's 8 seconds if you literally just run straight. Now to make that information usable you'll have to spot at least two vault/droppable items, let's say you're super quick and know where they can even spawn so it takes you a second. So, for a survivor to have any reasonable chance at surviving they need at least 11 seconds. Rather more, because usually you can't run in a straight line / you don't spawn into a tile that's at all usable.
That means any killer should take at least 15 seconds to find their first survivor.
Now, vice versa, survs should spawn neither on top of lit totems nor gens but always in a tile that has neither cause yes, it should also take them at least 10-15 seconds to get on a gen. (edit: though as far as survs are concerned; now that they all spawn together even if they spawn on top of a gen at least 2 of the survs should move several tiles away to start a gen - which takes a lot longer than 15 seconds so I suppose that issue is already essentially taken care of).
they need to know what kinda tile they are in and if any resource spawned in that tile - and which tiles are adjacent.
You can learn all of this during the camera pan on most maps. If you understand tile logic, you know which tiles can and can't spawn in certain areas, and even which ones can and can't spawn adjacent to them. As mentioned previously, this is a skill that can be improved over time, and is frequently utilized by better players. You can map out more of the trial than you think with deductive reasoning and visuals on a handful of tiles alone, which is a type of growth that perks like WoO prevent players from developing.
Even if they don't develop that skill, afforementioned WoO gives them the info for all of their nearby resources highlighted in bright yellow before they can even more their character. This is an avenue that every single player can improve on to at least a reasonable degree (being able to identify the tile you spawn on, seeing the surrounding tiles during the camera pan, and having a basic foundation on your relative location before gaining control) even if you can't go gigabrain and understand half the map in seconds. Its as basic as tracking requirements for a killer, and ironically something that the killer player is probably mentally going over before gaining control as well (especially if running LP.) If people are alt tabbed out or looking at twitch chat during the camera pan, they wasted an opportunity the game actively gave them for this exact issue.
Similarly, if these considerations of micro time wastes are so important, why do people always dismiss everything from blade wipes to picking up and transporting? Microwastes like that have been part of the game since day 1 for both sides, and the disorientating effect from procedural generation has always been a deliberate design decision, and it affects both sides evenly.
How would you propose for survivor spawn logic to work in a way that could accommodate that? I don't know the actual tile counts for each map, but I can't imagine the spawn logic working well with requiring 4 survivors to spawn near each other, but also 15+ seconds from a gen or totem spawn as well as away from the killer. Especially if the old spawn proximity bug resurfaced. I don't think maps like the game could remotely support that.
Spawning into TR is not alright (and does happen)I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I just want to see some egregiously silly examples like the last time it happened. It was awful but a lot of killers had a good sense of humor/sportsmanship about it and would give them a head start last time, though im sure the rampant tribalism has made that more rare if its happening again.
-
@Scarlett1111 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3958435#Comment_3958435
I quite literally just played a Legion game where I spawned in the middle of the map on Groaning Storehouse and within 45 seconds of spawning I had a down with someone on hook, and every other survivor in deep wound strictly because of these new spawn changes. Nothing about my skill or planning changed, it was just the spawn changes.
Spawns before this update were completely fine, there was no reason to have everyone spawning together. You say giving that much gen progress to survivors isn't okay, while I agree, that is part of the problem. 3-4 survivors are spawning together every match, normally on top of a gen. That is why gens are popping so fast. Before this you would have gens spread out much more because only one person would be working on them. Giving you time to actually take time in chase. I know personally before it was much more difficult to get for a full gen chase before this update, afterwards it has been much easier, and I am seeing much more often that survivors are doubling up on gens instead of soloing them.Did the offerings get killswitched or something? They don't need to be used by all 4.
Is how bad they have been in the past. The examples you posted are nowhere near that, as for the Legion example, he is one of the killers who can do it due to exactly how I assume you did, getting all 5 FF hits.
-
@Scarlett1111 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3958427#Comment_3958427
A full hook for free isn't insignificant either, why is this a "its okay for killers but not for survivors"?
No killer can currently hook a survivor before a survivor can progress a gen. There's an argument that it would be extremely uncommon for it to happen before thirty seconds have passed, just with sheer travel time/blade wipe/pickup/walk/hook times alone requiring an extremely fast down which only a few killers can even accomplish. Thats not even close to equivalent.
-
@Scarlett1111 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3958376#Comment_3958376
No, I am strictly saying there should be a 30 second window where the killer is required to at least move to the survivors. No "grace period", maps should be both big enough and survivors should be spawning far enough away that it takes a killer 30 seconds to reach a survivor. Especially with how often Corrupt is used this should not be a problem whatsoever. If it takes killers longer to reach survivors you also have significantly less games where it just ends in 5 minutes because nothing could be done about bad spawns (which this game has a lot of), coupled with Lethal being incredibly popular already giving a large amount of killers instant knowledge that they get an easy down immediately. You don't see other PVP games spawning people directly next to each other ever, and its a direct flaw of DBD that its even possible, especially with the volatility of new killers, Dracula is an awful killer to spawn near (made worse by all survivors spawning together), because of his ability to hit and down multiple people instantly, or insanely snowbally killers that are getting extreme power increases by this. Have a Legion spawn within a certain distance of you and they are guaranteed a down because of how close everyone is together.
I do think an innate basekit corrupt of like 30 seconds would benefit the game. Just not for my example. The survivor gameplay being hindered by something like that because of how 1 dimensional it is would just be a net loss overall, even if changes were made to balance it. But that's an entirely different story.No, I am strictly saying there should be a 30 second window where the killer is required to at least move to the survivors. No "grace period", maps should be both big enough and survivors should be spawning far enough away that it takes a killer 30 seconds to reach a survivor.Thats exactly what I was talking about, unless you want it to take a minimum of 30 seconds for a survivor to be able to work on a generator and forgot to mention that? Survivors can spawn literally inches from a gen, so if it takes at least 30 seconds before a killer can even reach a survivor, assuming they even know where they are, thats the only possible outcome. That is not an insignificant amount of progress for free.
-
@Nazzzak said:
A better option would be for them to have left the 'are you having fun?' post-game feature. I can understand all the other changes but that one stumps me. It allowed players to give the sort of feedback that youre talking about.
I can only assume they deemed it worthless based on how low the average was. A happy customer rarely compliments, but an angry customer always complains.
-
@Scarlett1111 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3958334#Comment_3958334
30 Seconds. That's how long at the minimum it should be. 9/10 times if a killer is on top of you this fast you are both near nothing, and have 0 knowledge of what is around you because of how early into the game it is. All this does is force more people into using stuff like Windows (which killers are rampantly complaining about right now).
So for that 30 seconds, are you allowed to work on a gen? Or do you want some kind of window where you get to move 30 seconds before the killer can?
For perspective, the total generator time needed is a minimum of 180-450, excluding all other factors like travel time, perks for either side, etc. In 30 seconds, survivors can accomplish 120 of it. Thats how significant that is, and that's not even getting into killers like hag and trapper that have setup times. They would be impacted disproportionately at a rate dependent on your answer to the second question. Few matches would play out with those numbers, most wouldn't, but some would and could, especially once you start putting in other variables.
If your answer to the first question is no, then the issue would revolve around the amount of time needed to orient oneself, which the game purposely inflicts with how its procedural generation works. Its also something that affects players much less as their time and skill with the game go up. Some crazy players out there can tell a lot about other tiles on the map in the intro camera pan alone. If you have issues with this I can absolutely sympathize with that, but much like how sound is purposely balanced poorly to make tracking more difficult, to BHVR its just another issue that affects some players more than others.
-
I mean hey, at least she had a pallet :D
-
@Scarlett1111 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3958057#Comment_3958057
Lethal doesn't change the fact that both these killers spawned close enough to the survivors that they were able to hit before the 30 second mark into the game. What happens if we get unlucky into the exposed effect from the event off spawn? Cause I've gotten it before, that is a free hook less than a minute into the match. That is not even remotely okay.
These were the huntress' perks, no lethal.https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/Z5PWHCZ3GLKX/image.png
And this was the Dracula's; yes he had Lethal, that does not change the fact he spawned within 10 seconds of the survivors. He got his first hook 30 seconds into the game, after I cut the video off he hits the other sable again and hooks her. That is a full hook before it was even remotely possible to finish a generator.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/IXSUMCCN3NM8/image.png
There is no arguing that this is not okay.
There is no arguing that this is not okay.How long of a buffer would you need for it to be ok? Genuinely asking.
Honestly, I came into the topic to talk about some of the wild spawns I had in years past, where I would be inside both TR and LoS of a Bubba and similar wild situations, but this just looks pretty normal?