Ryuhi
Ryuhi
About
- Username
- Ryuhi
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Senaxu said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3958308#Comment_3958308
Just to clarify: the idea isn't to block multiple killers or to make matchmaking collapse under its own weight. It’s a personal opt-out system for one single killer per player (swf lobbies excluded). This means even if a killer is widely disliked, they will still find games… just not with the subset of players who genuinely struggle or burn out against them.
And yes, as the original post suggested, this generates valuable indirect feedback. If a specific killer receives a high volume of personal bans, that data could act as a non-verbal protest signal… very much like how ragequits or hook suicides once indicated frustration levels. But instead of disrupting games, it quietly informs future balance without damaging MMR integrity or punishing others in the match.
Plus, fallback logic would return players to normal matchmaking after a short time to avoid excessive wait times. The system wouldn't be perfect, but it could be a more respectful way of giving players breathing room while still allowing developers to monitor discomfort trends objectively.
I understood, thats why I gave the perspective of even a single instance per lobby, not even per player.
This means even if a killer is widely disliked, they will still find games… just not with the subset of players who genuinely struggle or burn out against them.Anyone who has played a MOBA knows where this goes. The term "perma-ban" would be used regularly over the years I played LoL, usually referring to whoever were the current hypercarries of that particular ELO that season. You saw it the most with the lower end, as the characters often had an increased ability to make up for their teammates, hence the name. That was in a much more competitive oriented game with many more characters, and ban targets weren't even consistent among ranks. What was "OP" at low level might have barely been able to carry its weight at higher ranks. The result? You likely would not even be able to play the character you want until you got to a certain matchmaking level, and even then, the one you liked at low level might be considered busted at high level and you would then have to switch your main until the next balance patch switched people's ban targeting off of them.
The reason I bring this up is because DBD would be a terrible candidate for a type of ban system like that. It only applies to one side, DBD is a loadout based game where a significant part of (dis)advantages are decided before the game even starts, it is wildly unbalanced regarding the best and worst on either side, there is no ranked system, honestly there are a slew of reasons why it simply wouldn't work. But one of the most important ones is just simply being able to play as the content you bought. Thats a big part of why killswitching is such a precarious concept.
And yes, as the original post suggested,this generates valuable indirect feedback. If a specific killer receives a high volume of personal bans, that data could act as anon-verbal protest signal… very much like how ragequits or hook suicides once indicated frustration levels. But instead of disrupting games, it quietly informs future balance without damaging MMR integrity or punishing others in the match.How does this not disrupt the game for players of said shadowbanned killers? Never getting matches and having absurdly long wait times prevents them from even getting into games, let alone ones that players then ruin. Again, I want to like the idea, but the exploitation and disruption implications are massive. Not only that, its basically introducing a sanctioned way for players to refuse to interact with content in the game. That type of power should only be reserved for accessibility issues, and even then, should almost always come in the form of replacement of offending elements and not entire removal.
Plus, fallback logic would return players to normal matchmaking after a short time to avoid excessive wait times.
Which loosens the matchmaking, thus making it worse. We already have backfill issues as it is, this would only make them even worse, unfortunately. And thats not even getting into its impact on MMR rankings, which we don't even know, let alone how well (or not) they're even working with every match.
-
@Senaxu said:
One alternative to ragequitting or forced hook suicides could be a personal killer opt-out system integrated into matchmaking. Each player could be allowed to exclude one specific killer from their matchmaking pool… the one they personally struggle with the most, whether it's due to mechanics, frustration, or just playstyle incompatibility.
This would give survivors a constructive outlet rather than disengaging entirely. It also respects individual boundaries without overhauling balance. To prevent abuse in SWF, the opt-out could be limited to just one collective exclusion per group, ensuring it remains fair and doesn’t overly fragment matchmaking.
It won’t solve everything, but it would reduce burnout and give players back a sense of agency… especially during events or meta shifts where one killer becomes disproportionately dominant.
And no Blight, Nurse, Ghoul, or Skully would ever get a match again. The matchmaking system is already ragged enough as it is, but as much as I like the idea (especially regarding accessibility issues like phobias or neurological issues, since many still remain in the game) even a single ban per lobby would make the matchmaking system even worse than it already is.
-
So your argument is that the ability to go next allowed players to ruin the game for everyone else enough to strongarm them into making changes to the game, it just happened that sometimes they were good changes that the developers would have reached anyway without the mass sabotage that this system allowed? Do you have any evidence that none of the "ragequit boycott" changes in the game's history wouldn't have been naturally reached without ruining countless games in the process?
I entirely support concepts like course correcting, but you're trying to make sabotage sound just.
-
@Coffee2Go said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3958277#Comment_3958277
With that knowledge i think even BHVR team is by definition struggling to man handle it them selves which could be the reason why the game state is what it is right now and has been a long time.
Like even if they release the stats to the public they really wont do any good which is my concern too, what also concerns me is i think the current stats are fairly balanced around 30% - 30% - 30% and so on, its not like it was before reaching sky high 50-60% solo q casuals.
That would make sense why the changes have kinda stopped and have been slowed down ever since, the changes have been more drastic in past.
Think of it like dozens of spreadsheets printed on transparencies, then stacked on top of one another. Their job is to use that data to shape the future of the game. The tools that they have to do so are generally designed around being able to either extrapolate or isolate that data (and its affect on other data) on demand. How well they apply those statistics is an entirely different discussion, but if the claim is that they aren't able to keep up with tools specifically designed for data aggregation, then why wouldn't forum users keeping Excel to log game data (even incomplete data released by the devs themselves) fall to the same data digestion issues?
If your argument is that they're not doing a good enough job of interpreting their own data, thats a reasonable opinion to have. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being unhappy with any particular aspect of the game, and to think something needs a course correction. To assume your average hyperbolic poster in the community is going to understand incomplete data better than they can internally is laughable, regardless of how inept anyone thinks they are. All the community can do is provide insights that they can then use the data to replicate/simulate/isolate and then adjust from there. Nobody is going to see something like % of matches with a Nea present and crack the code for all the game's woes, but even the kill statistics they release are an average of a variable range the moment they are intended to be applied to anything, and immediately begin to depend on other data.
Like even if they release the stats to the public they really wont do any good which is my concern too, what also concerns me is i think the current stats are fairly balanced around 30% - 30% - 30% and so on, its not like it was before reaching sky high 50-60% solo q casuals.This statement encapsulates why they wouldn't be forthcoming to release more data. I honestly don't even know what its about due to incomplete information. I'm assuming kill rates, but there is a 30/30/30 split in there randomly which means it can't actually fit into kill rates (either because it has 3 outcomes, or draws were meant to be included but then it doesn't equal 100%.) Data needs to be clear and complete, otherwise it invites misunderstanding.
Applying data to game mechanics is not an easy task, and it gets more complicated the more variances you add in. That is why this has always been a game based on chaotic averages. It is extremely important to be very careful that data does not get misattributed, because then you both fail to fix the issue as well as indirectly create a new one with negligence.
-
@Coffee2Go said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3958259#Comment_3958259
Machine learning system would categorize that data in a heart beat honestly like seriously those little system designs are insane and used widely by banks, companies to manage some extreme encrypted systems but in dbd it would just be used to properly balance the game widely across all mmr variant players.
Look it wont be easy but its not impossible, my friend says we wont really see this system in place for another 5 years due to how devs dont want to do it because its just not a thing yet but its possible if whoever on BHVR team is in charge for AI.
Yes, data systems are used internally. A few people have even dropped small insights on how their internal data aggregation works, IIRC Peanits (i think?) talked about it very briefly before years ago in a topic. Players aren't doing that with the data, nor are they going to be able to identify any of the important contextual data nor are they likely to even address data points as ranges rather than fixed number averages. They want to have numbers to prop their arguments about whatever complaint du jour they have that requires those numbers.
The net result, again, is that the data will be weaponized far more than it will be used for genuine insight, like it always has been. It will be afforded the insight the end user was already going to attribute to it regardless of what it actually represents. Like it is every single time they post any data. When they release data its usually "for fun," as a neat little perspective in the overall game outside our perspectives.
We need to be able to accept it as just that if we want more, otherwise you'll have to stick with curated proportional statistic aggregation like Nightlight. That doesn't tell the whole story either, but at least in BHVR's eyes they don't have personal responsibility to the data nor players' personal opinions about said data.
-
@Coffee2Go said:
Even if the stats were 2 or 3 years old they are not viable to go by and win in an argument that SWFs are still not that common.
Like why cant we as a whole group of players demand an updated statistics each year or half a year if its too demanding for them.
I still feel like BHVR is hiding stats from us to not lose partial playerbase because the stats are way more chaotic than they were 6 years ago, and 6 years ago people did not play with friends that often if my memory serves me correct people despised buying dbd and playing dbd because before the game was not that enjoyable for most.
On steam i bought the game in 2018 and booted it few times played 2hours max did not touch it since last year but on ps5.
Anyways back to stats, there is just no way that my matches as a killer are so different from one another, one match i can play casually and still win 3/4 kills at 3 gens left and then there are games i have to sweat tryhard patrol the best possible make no mistake hits just to get 1 down.
Its either that in those matches i play with 2 randoms + 2 premades or its 3 or 4 premades because its just impossible they know my every movement location at all times i run my michael ew 1 build to just jumpscare and chase people mainly hook and spread around and patrol.
So majority of aura perks dont work on me it makes no sense
The stats have always been chaotic, for the reasons I listed above. Almost every single data point is the combination of multiple other data points, many of which also have +/- variances. There will always be context missing from any released statistics, because they would have to be insane to try to release every supplementary data point variable that provides the necessary context. The data is useful as insight toward trends within the game, but it takes a lot of extra data for it to turn numbers into statistics. Due to the fact so many in the userbase are unwilling to accept the game can be anything other than their own personal experience, its both a fool's errand and actively fuels discord within the community as people weaponize any scrap they can get their hands on.
@Pit_Bull_Love said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3958238#Comment_3958238
To be fair, if they gave you all that info and it said 4 man swf was still around 4%, would you believe it, or would you still believe that they must be manipulating the info?
This is the crux of the issue. People make their minds up before they see the numbers, then try to either use the numbers to justify their opinion or dismiss the numbers and fall back to their lived experience. The numbers are supposed to be the "other half" of the lived experience (I.E the average of the lived experience of every other player) for you to help piece together what happens outside your own perspective. Unfortunately they are hardly used for that purpose.
-
@Nomade said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3958224#Comment_3958224
By Omitting stats and important context behind those stats, they are essentially making it difficult to trust a single thing they put out. If they are manipulating sentiment by omitting data and context, then they could be fudging the data they do show us too. I want to see the updated stats and context behind those stats.
When have they ever not omitted stats and important context behind other stats they've released? They have done it every single time, and its the standard for a live service game. Because the amount of data being collected, curated, and processed is absolutely massive and consisting almost exclusively on other data points. There will always be parts of the story missing, which is why all of the data they release is supposed to be taken as representing trending and not hard statistics.
The focus should be on the what/when/why/where/how of the data they curate, or it should be about the massive grain of salt to take with the numbers they release. Instead people just see numbers and then look for ways to try to mold them to fit their arguments, which in turn, makes them more wary to release more.
I should clarify, this isn't even remotely in defense of their internal data practices. I have zero idea what data they fudge, discard, or attribute incorrectly internally (and im sure it's more than zero,) just that the community has proven multiple times that the data released is less actual insight and more simple argument fuel.
-
@mecca said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3958134#Comment_3958134
Yes, I find killer mind numbing easy and survivor is near impossible which is very stupid, balance-wise. Why is killer, the person that plays alone, not a skillful role?
Why do you need more proof? There are plenty of killers that post their winstreaks and boast about it. Survivor? Not so much. People are too scared to try it because skill simply means nothing for survivors.
Thats not proof, those are anecdotes. There is no proof that the killer experience is easier or harder than the survivor one because it is not a quantitative statement with any type of evidence. Even kill rates mean nothing about either role being "mind numbingly easy" or "near impossible" unless they are insanely inflated, like 80%+. Otherwise when they are where they are, it means there are plenty of people having a wide variety of experiences. In other words, it's just more pointless doom posting.
This is a game ruled by chaotic averages. For every time the other player is using something busted in their loadout, you can be too. This game sides with the prepared far more than it does either role. Don't forget that also applies to the other 4 players in any given match, both allies and enemies. Maybe you find killer so much easier because you cannot understand the concept of compensating for shared agency?
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3957356#Comment_3957356
Im confused... im still getting LOTS of cakes being played when I hop on. It's generally been between 3 to 5 cakes each match for me.
I've been getting more matches of 1-2 than in years past, and based on the topic and its upvotes I was under the assumption that was more common for others as well. Maybe I've just been unlucky? The rest still stands.
-
@Mandy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3955370#Comment_3955370
ahh okay, sorry for the misunderstanding. Yes it's looking like the personal data is using the tally screen information - not our internal data…so it won't accurately reflect what happened in that match if the abandon feature is used :(
I'm sorry but everything that has been changed about communication regarding match outcome for a while now has been very unnecessarily confusing. Does this mean that the feedback players get is not the same as the internal stats the matches contribute to? There really needs to be some uniformity to outcome weight if they're being treated as two separate entities. Whats the point of purposely and unnecessarily misrepresenting outcomes to the consumer?
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3957006#Comment_3957006
Realistically a person only needs enough cakes to last them til next year. If someone doesn't play much...sure, they won't earn as many cakes, but they also dont USE as many. As far as having cakes DURING the event, that shouldn't be a problem at all. I was playing for abit earlier getting upwards of 350k BPs per match, which obviously made it easy to replace the cakes used each match.
My point was more that people who do not play often, but come back for events knowing that there will be multiple BP offerings, are not drawn back to the game for events if said offerings aren't getting used. Anniversaries were usually great for it, you'd hardly load a match with less than at least 3. They used to be giving them out like candy since literally all they do is help alleviate grind, and its a dopamine inducing way of thanking the community for continuing to live.
-
@kosaba11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3957001#Comment_3957001
Never said people can't play horror games, but the horror genre is meant to scare you and make you uncomfortable. A non-horror game having such a thing makes sense, but horror games should never limit what they can do to accommodate phobias. Horror games are a perfect opportunity to overcome your fears without putting yourself in any real danger.
And yes, I'm aware that having a phobia and being colorblind are different, what I did was called an analogy. Essentially, what I was saying was that, if only arachnophobia received a filter, that'd be ignoring every other phobia already shown off in the game - Some of which affect far more people than arachnophobia, actually. That'd be similar to only including an accessibility option to aid one type of colorblindness - we can all agree that would be wrong. By that same token, only catering to the minority of players with arachnophobia while ignoring everyone else's phobias in the game would be wrong.
There are too many phobias to give a filter to, and while arachnophobia is common, it's not even the most common represented in DBD right now. If the more common phobias aren't receiving filters, then arachnophobia shouldn't receive a filter. And if they do give arachnophobia a filter, then they'd have to add a filter for every other phobia.
I'm sorry but thats just an awful take.
-
@kosaba11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3956453#Comment_3956453
This mindset is the very reason many new players find Killer stressful and why many older Killers rage when they can't secure a 3 - 4K. Winning alone is not a good reason to tryhard. In a game like DBD, where the balance is so off that one side has a much, much easier time than the other, focusing solely on winning is never going to result in a good time every time.
You can play to win, and I hope you do, but if winning is the only thing on your mind, you're not truly having fun. Losing can be just as fun as winning if your head is in the right place. You don't need to run around letting Survivors boop you, but you also don't need to stress getting kills. There is nothing wrong with goofing off during the match. When I tell you to go with the flow, that is what I'm trying to teach you. The Killer's one goal is to kill Survivors, this is true. However, working towards a goal is never the only way to have fun in a match. You can goof off, you can completely dominate a match, you can run builds that serve a funny purpose (like jumpscaring the Survivors), you can befriend the Survivors, you can try Killers you're not good with, you can do so many things beyond just trying to force a 4K, things I definitely haven't even listed. Party games do have a winner and loser, but that's the result, not the point.
Yes, the gameplay loop, especially for Survivors, is incredibly stale, and that's on the developers. But, as it's not going to get better for that side, the best you can do is enjoy each match as they are. Yes, you will lose sometimes, but the easiest way to ensure that loss doesn't feel bad is to not take the game seriously in the first place. The Killer role doesn't have the same oppressive atmosphere that Survivors have - you are the one who decides the flow of the match. If you go in with competitive mindset, it's going to feel bad. But if you go in simply not caring if you win or lose, and simply go with the flow of the match, even losing won't feel like a loss.
And no, PVPs are not inherently competitive. Competitive games are always fair match-ups, where neither side can dominate without having actual skill. Dead By Daylight is not designed that way - it's designed so that the Killer will have the easier time overall. It's a 1v4, that's not a competition, that's nothing more than a party game.
Finally, the learning curve for both sides is completely different. Killers have a low ceiling (depending on the Killer, anyway), while Survivors have a high ceiling. A competitive game is where the ceiling is the same height for everyone.
Competitive games are always fair match-ups, where neither side can dominate without having actual skill.I'm sorry but that's extremely false. Many competitive games incorporate ban systems to prevent extremely bad matchups, but even without there have been plenty of terrible matchups between characters/loadouts/maps/etc across tons of competitive games in multiple genres. Even games like Marvel Vs Capcom 2 have 9-1 matchups.
Not only that, but the competitive mindset isn't about winning, its about improving so that you can win more later. A hard loss is worth more than an easy win because you can learn more from it, allowing you to secure more wins more consistently. If you actually have a competitive mindset, an easy win is in the same category as a loss you learn nothing from.
That said, most games are structured around all comers in the competition having as close to a fair shake as possible, but the moment that preparation is allowed, the die has already been cast. Loadouts inherently disrupt the balance of any competition, yet they are present in many competitive games in many genres.
So again, a game doesn't have to be a 50:50 to be considered competitive. Even at the most rudimentary level, games can have their outcome weighted by the very first interaction any player makes with the game. Even sports tend to use coin flips to start for that reason.
-
@coco_shotz said:
Why do people act like bloodpoints are so hard to get? They literally hand them over to you just for playing
Because some people don't play as much due to, say, working full time. If you're not caught up and only play a few hours a day, the grind is still massive if you're diversifying (especially regarding consumables.) The perk grind has been substantially improved, but if you're trying to stock 1 survivor and 40 killers that amount of BP grows every new chapter.
The point of a bloodpoint offering for an event is that its basically a themed BPS to celebrate. Part of the reason events like the anniversary pull back players who are taking a break is because they can take advantage of everyone running
Bloody Party Streamersthe Confectionery Of The Year, so it kinda loses a lot of appeal if people aren't using the offering that was specifically designed and distributed to be used during the event.Its just a baffling thing to be stingy with when being stingy is directly counterintuitive to its usage as a celebratory/return/retention mechanic.
-
@kosaba11 said:
Honestly, this is good thing. Frankly, phobia modes should only be included in non-horror games. I saw so many people on Twitter demanding an arachnophobia mode because of that, now proven fake, leak of a jurogumo yokai being added - but that's frankly stupid for a horror game. Everything is a phobia, and every killer represents one phobia or another, so adding a mode just for that phobia would be like only accommodating one form of color blindness. It'd simply be babying one set of people while telling everyone else they have to just deal with it.
There is a major difference between being unsettled and having psychosomatic responses. If you can't understand the foundation of the issue, please research it first before telling people they're not allowed to play "horror" games.
Especially when they're games they've otherwise been playing for longer than a console generation.
-
@Scarlett1111 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3953782#Comment_3953782
No, the vast majority of people do not do that. They go "that game was fun, lets play another" or they go "that game wasn't fun, I don't want to play anymore". People want to have fun, which can come from a plethora of reasons, someone does something cool, you goof off with friends, someone does something funny, etc etc etc; all of those things can happen and they can still lose, but because they HAD FUN, that is what matters. This isn't real life, you don't have to "win" every single time, have you ever heard of a good loss? Because I have. In my years of playing actual competitive games I have spoken with thousands of people who go "I might have lost, but I had fun and learned something, so I don't feel I wasted my time".
The exact same thing can be said for the other side, sometimes its just a slog and you don't enjoy it whatsoever, but you win by the games terms. That is directly what drives addiction, continuing to do something to try to grasp at the enjoyment you felt at some point, even if you hate it, even if you never actually do get to enjoy it for any reason. Any number of reasons can make a game a bad one, and can lead to a bad win that makes you feel worse. Play against a character you dislike, play on a map you dislike, play with people who are rude. etc etc etc. That's why people will say "Glad that ones over" they aren't "happy" they won, they are relieved they don't have to suffer through it anymore.
Obviously enjoyment is subjective, but if you only play a game for the endscreen you are not correctly playing a game. You should be spending nearly all of your time enjoying your time doing it, the world can suck, that's why games are an escape for a lot of people, that's why they want to have fun before anything else.I agree with almost all of this, except
You should be spending nearly all of your time enjoying your time doing it, the world can suck, that's why games are an escape for a lot of people, that's why they want to have fun before anything else.…for this type of game. That is true of games that are PvE, but with a PvP game, someone is always going to have fun at someone else's expense. Its just how competitive game structure works. You can soften the blow for the loser as much as you want, but at the end of the day you are not going to have every match have all 5 people have fun 100% of the time. With games using a competitive structure you have to be willing to take the bad with the good. The topic then becomes how tolerable the bad is and whether the good is worth the bad. And to clarify, those are important topics.
Otherwise, yes, games are supposed to be an escapist hobby where the primary point is entertainment and enjoyment. But this entire structure requires concepts like delayed gratification to be, well, palletable.
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3953705#Comment_3953705
He is arguing with a killer main but that is all you got right in this post.
They're just trying to live up to the topic title.
-
@Orvarihusklumpen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3953455#Comment_3953455
My point was that you shouldn't play the game if it stresses you out. He should do what Coté said years ago and play CIV or play something else.
And thats literally something I tell people to do regularly, so its like telling smokey the bear not to throw a match into bushes. My point was entirely about the player experience, something people discuss on here frequently. When you're in situations like his, they feel helpless as killer, which leads to people not wanting to feel helpless and pre-emptively stacking every advantage they can in their next matches. I'm basically telling you that this is what causes people to play "unfair."
-
@smurf said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3953635#Comment_3953635
I guess that what I see for those players is that in some fraction of games, they'll still get found as long as they're trying to work on gens, do heals, etc. And that means they'll still get eliminated at a slightly higher rate than players who are good in chase, which will give them a lower MMR. They won't be escaping at the same rate as their teammates.
You're right that their MMR will become higher than if they go take chase all the time when they're not good at it. But I also don't see that as a problem. It's not something that makes the game unenjoyable for the killer, and if they do gens and stuff, they're still making the match playable for everyone.
But I also think stealth should be part of the game, even more so than it is now. Personally, I think looping is one of the least fun aspects of both killer and survivor. I practiced and developed skill in it out of necessity, but it's so anti-horror that I wish the game built more tension through hide-and-seek/cat-and-mouse style gameplay. I really love Lights Out for that reason. So as survivor and as killer, I actually like when survivors hide, as long as they're not doing it to the extent they're a detriment to their team. Everyone else is on death hook? Time to take chase instead of hiding. Have a hook state to spare? Go take a hit for your death hook teammate that just got found. But as long as they're productive players, I like survivors who hide and make the game a little more tense and horror-esque :D
I was playing well above my skill level as survivor for years, simply because I always focused gens. That one simple focus led me to rank 1 every month, yet it would take me over 3 years to even learn how to loop properly. Over time the balance and kill rates of the game shifted and I would definitely agree that wouldn't be as extreme today as it was then, but… I was really bad at survivor all that time. I wouldn't even say I became great, but I would say that gen focus continues to be the primary contributor to gens actually getting done, and that not-ignoring-gens still isn't a mark of skill.
Ironically, I would argue that the more skillful survivor plays are the ones that make you more likely to get killed, either via sunk cost fallacy from the killer securing a kill, saving other survivors who leave you high and dry, strategic trades, etc. I'd argue its easier to get carried by a good teammate than it is to expect a bad teammate to carry their weight. MMR being based on escapes is anathema to being used as a metric of skilled play. Much like it is of kills vs their skill in getting them.
-
At least it's not blight's old belt buckle camera :)
-
@HeroLives said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3953495#Comment_3953495
oh okay thanks for clarifying I was really confused on where your head was at on that one.
Its fine, clutter is a player issue and not a role one so my approach is focused on that. Apparently many people only find it an issue when they have to break out Bill to use some firecrackers from an old event or something. I'm just coming from the perspective of someone who got mostly caught up with the perk grind (thanks to the changes!) but still has a hard time keeping up stuff like shadow dances on wraith or apples on plague. And so even though I mostly play survivor when I do, I have been dumping almost all of my points into killer for ages trying to stay caught up and have at least a few of each addon for trying certain builds.
If you only play a few killers or if you play a lot its not as much of an issue, but for casual long time players or newer players who are experimenting with different killers, its still a very rough slope. I just think its something that should be improved for all players, not just some.
-
@DNet89 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3953465#Comment_3953465
The only thing I think of for Killer add-ons being shared is to code each one like a number. Example Trapper has 5 and 10 for his Iri add-ons and Wraith has 7 and 8. All of the first Iri add-ons would be something like A1 and A2 for the second. So the game would tally all of the Killer add-ons up. For this example there would be 5+7=12 of the A1 and 10+8=18 of the A2.
So if all of the 40 Killers each have 10 of their first Iri then they would have 400 A1
Each addon could continue as A3, A4, ...A20.
Yep, was thinking similarly with regards to conversion. You could do it based on rarity, have a "ratio system" where addons are given point values in exchanging, etc. Could also put in something like cost inflation based on the addon, so it might cost 2 yellow addons to get 1 yellow, 4 iri for one iri, etc. That could then even have modifiers based on the strength of the killer (to prevent something like farming webs on clown to turn them into the best on top tiers.)
-
@HeroLives said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3953465#Comment_3953465
you trying to do oni with Billy turning addons or something?
Of course not, thats why i mentioned trading or exchanging. If there are redundant addons on one killer that you will never use, but an equal rarity one on another killer that is vital to certain builds, you world be able to exchange the one for the other. It could even come with conversion rates to prevent abuse.
@TimberGoingDown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3953465#Comment_3953465
I disagree. I think killers should share offerings, but addons should be killer dependent.
Thats fine that you disagree, but I don't see a reason. Some killers have addons that are so bad you sabotage yourself while taking them, while another killer might have an addon that entire builds are structured around. I think thats similar QoL to not having to bring out the Jeff you never use because he got a bunch of items while getting his unlocks. Again, I think both sides having the issue addressed should come together.
-
Hey, thats great! Lets come up with a way for killers to share (or transfer/trade between killers) addons as well for the same reasons as well. Keeping up with addons can be a major BP sponge if you do not play often, yet wish to try to keep up with the meta across up to 40 characters (and growing of course.) As you posited earlier, it would improve multiple aspects like build diversity, less grinding, better game flow, and wouldn't have any more effect on gameplay.
For the record, this isnt whataboutism, this is a change I've wanted for both sides for years. Reworking perk acquisition was step 1, now the rest of the node types need some type of attention too.
-
@Orvarihusklumpen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3913077#Comment_3913077
The thing is if he finds the game too frustrating to play then he only has 4 options imo . 1. Play a different killer preferably an S-tier killer. 2. Take a long break from the game. 3. Quit the game entirely. 4. Play survivor
I mean yeah, but thats like saying survivors who have issues need to do one of those as well, so I don't understand your point? Just being needlessly dismissive months later? I'm one of the first ones to tell people to take a break, that wasn't the point at all.
-
@Scarlett1111 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3953000#Comment_3953000
Nope, I responded to the correct post. Because what you responded to was a response about survivors genrushing.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3952996#Comment_3952996
Just because something isn't bannable doesn't make it a "legit strat", because yet again, if it was a "legit strategy" they wouldn't be **ACTIVELY CHANGING IT**.
That is known as conflating arguments. The post I responded to lamented the fact that people don't use details to exclude a larger picture. I figured the words that I actually posted conveyed that well enough. I did not say a single thing you were arguing against.
-
@Scarlett1111 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3952971#Comment_3952971
If it was a "legit strategy" it wouldn't be being looked into to be changed, it wouldn't be the reason hundreds to thousands of people quit the game as their complaints of it fell on deaf ears. "Legit strategies" have counters that be accessed any time during the game, tunneling is not something that can be countered any time in the game, you HAVE to bring perks before the game even begins to counter it. "Just play better" there is no playing better when a killer wants you dead. They will forgo bodyblocking, and everything a team does to stop them, but it doesn't matter all it does it prolong the inevitable. Killers innately have the tools to tunnel and make the game easier and in turn purposefully make the game less enjoyable for survivors.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3952972#Comment_3952972
Genrushing doesn't exist and it never has existed. Survivors playing the game is not "genrushing" just because they aren't all actively trying to flashlight save every down, or sabotage every hook doesn't mean they are "genrushing" they are completing the objective of getting blood points. Tunneling someone is not "completing" anything for the killer, it actively hurts them because it gives them less BP, the shorter a game is the less you receive. Which last time I checked the only "reward" you get in DBD is BP, no ranks, no visible MMR, you get BP.
The amount of air quotes in this post becomes more amusing when you realize I haven't typed a single one of those words. I honestly think you might have selected the wrong post.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3952981#Comment_3952981
If it was for balancing purposes, they'd have a functional MMR system.
Tracking a 10K hour team vs a 200 hour Killer isn't going to tell you much about balance.
Indeed, which is why the game is balanced around a very chaotic average. But that chaotic average is relying on an element of the 4:1 for almost every other part of it, so its almost load bearing in a way. I'm sure it was no small part of why they completely axed the ability for matches to load in missing survivors (and lowering gens required to compensate.)
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3952844#Comment_3952844
Doesn't matter. It happened and it affected the players in that match. Are you saying their experience doesn't matter?
I'm going to be brutally honest: If the overall purpose of the statistics is to be used for balancing purposes, and their experience knowingly introduces a statistical anomaly, then no. In terms of feedback on the player experience? absolutely yes. I think the issue is what people want to use the data for, either actual insight or just argument fodder.
Edit: Its worth noting that there is absolutely no reason both couldn't be tracked simultaneously.
-
@kdog23451 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3952855#Comment_3952855
i play killer and can 4k most games without tunneling if your bad just say that sorry not sorry
Its not so much the amount of people who make these types of claims for either side, its the fact they might honestly believe that their experience is the only experience.
@DeBecker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3952830#Comment_3952830
Amazing that there are still people who blatantly think those are equal. Sigh.
DBD is an elimination game. The killer eliminates survivors to complete their objective. The survivors eliminate gens to complete their objective. Apples and Oranges are both fruit.
-
Playing killer helps you get better at survivor.
Playing survivor helps you get better at killer.
-
@terumisan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3945414#Comment_3945414
i bring it up because it's counterplay to slugging for the 4k
i think the 3rd survivor should be slugged for 4 minutes as a punishment for not bringing one or both these perks since this is such an issue and the game hasn't ended yet
also i have a similar but unrelated question should a killer be allowed to quit if all gens are done?
Honestly the third survivor should be able to abandon, but after a short wait in case of valid play (they're downed under a pallet while the 4th survivor is nearby, nearby aura or KI proc on 4th Survivor when downing 3rd, etc.) I think a simple 30 second timer before they can abandon would be a good compromise.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947559#Comment_3947559
Honestly, my friend, I just don't understand what is BHVR's stance on Old DBD content or what they really think of it.
The signals are mixed, way too much. When they made changes to Hillbilly, Onryo and when they announced the planned changes to Skull Merchant, they expressed concern, or at least mentioned, of "alienating the players who enjoyed previous versions of said killers". But, somehow, this in particular doesn't apply to Freddy or the movement for Old Freddy that had been going on for years?!?
Then, I think it was last year we had a Reddit Q&A where a user asked the devs if they ever planned to allow players to change the lobby background to a previous version. This question was selected to be answered, but instead of an answer the official reply was just a question about that user's favorite lobby.
And, during an interview, it was asked if they planned to ever release a "classic" modifier. The official answer was that is is something that was mentioned multiple times, but then it was said that Lights Out had the feeling of a "classic" mode.
I just find it very difficult to understand if BHVR is or isn't willing to work with old DBD content. I think they can and should add it back, in whatever way is possible, but it is impossible to determine if it will ever happen.
Honestly? It might be a retrofitting issue. The game has upgraded… multiple(?) engines since its launch, and the scope of almost all of its systems have been tremendously expanded. Its on its third console generation since launch, something that few games can really say. In live service games especially, it can sometimes be difficult to even get things to "fit back how they used to" so to speak, each time a major system update happens its like opening a vacuum sealed package. You're rarely going to be able to get things to fit back in their old shell, and when you can it tends to take a lot of effort. I think that many of the things that have been significantly altered in the past likely get harder to recreate effectively with each major change to the game.
Then you have to decide between whether you want a snapshot or a modernization. A snapshot would be going back, warts and all, to be as accurate to the time as possible. Alternatively, you could modernize it and keep any (near)universally approved improvements that have happened since and retrofit them into an emulation of how the game was at that time. Unfortunately either way, people will be unhappy with whichever is chosen. Some want a "fixed" version of what things used to be, while others will fight over said "fixes". I feel like if demand was high enough they could make it work, but I think there's just too little financial or growth incentives to greenlight throwback ideas.
I love those types of systems, and its honestly one of the things I miss the most about the days before DLC. I can go back and play a game like Super Mario World the exact way I played it in the past, even on the original hardware, and have it be exactly the same as it was when I first played it… but once DLC and patches entered the mix, now you are only allowed to play whatever snapshots (if any) are continuously preserved.
-
@Fix_Killers said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947390#Comment_3947390
Oh please. I may have just joined the forums, but I've peeked in off and on for years.
You've been insisting that the Survivors are weaker in spite of every Survivor buff for years.
Survivors have had everything they want handed to them basekit so they can still play META, and they still want more, more, and more.I'd say Survivors want NPC Killers, but what they really want is NPC Killers with human players tied down to play them, so they can taunt a human while still getting the EZ wins they demand with every update.
Case in point:
People wanted a QoL feature (I cannot remember which one off the top of my head). The devs threw in gen-kicking limitations at the same time, because Survivors need to be coddled.Survivors wanted anti-tunneling. Were given basekit BT. Whine it's not enough.
Survivors wanted anti-camping. Were given a literal anti-camp timer. Whine it's not enough.
Killers wanted a way to regress exit gates for over 5 years. What does BHVR do? Make it a perk, which ruins METAs. Because Killers don't deserve nice things.
Survivors have been gift-wrapped multiple ways to counter Killer tactics they hate, all without messing up META perk loadouts.
And yet you really think the game has not been Survivor-sided for years?
You either have 0 clue, or you're outright lying.A SWF 4-man with 16 META perks will wipe the floor with ANY Killer by any player, regardless of perks, except the top 0.5% players like Otzdarva.
But Survivors will wave their hands and say 'That does not count!' Because they want more basekit BS. More Killer hand-tying, and more easier wins.Survivors are objectively weaker than they were in the past, primarily because many of their extremes have been addressed. There is no more player UAV using OoO. No (true) infinites. Dead Hard, DS, MFT, CoH, and other strong perks are not what they were at their prime to say the least. There are ways that survivor has gotten easier in that time, but the absurd potentials on either side have been on the chopping block for years, and survivors haven't been an exception.
Is the survivor role better than they were before? Most would say no and I would agree. But even the basekit additions and the new HUD don't make up for the absolutely broken things that have been removed over the years.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947264#Comment_3947264
Ya know, now that you mentioned it, I always find these discussions a bit, well, sad.
Not the discussion itself, but the implications of what happens depending on your favorite version of the game.
Let me explain: you, my friend, stated here that you do not want to go back to the Old DBD. I, on the other hand, would love to go back. Both of our opinions are perfectly valid, but our situations are very different.
Because you can boot up the game right now and you'll be met with a version of the game that you want to play. Which is nice. Meanwhile, I, and others who preferred things the way they used to be, literally cannot do that. We're stuck with this very same "modern DBD" until BHVR decides to release a classic modifier, if they ever do so.
It is a very unfortunate situation.
This is unfortunately common in many games since the dawn of live service updates. Fighting games in particular get it pretty rough, as like with MOBAs and other genres, a single season's changes can basically ruin the game both in terms of momentum and interest. On top of, well, fun. A good recent example is Tekken 8, while Street Fighter 5's lifespan had a lot of ebbing and flowing in it over its lifespan as well.
Some games actually have neat ideas like Street Fighter 2 and 4, where they have version select modes where you can play as X character from Y version of the game, complete with mechanical changes that were present at that time. Sadly I don't see any way of doing something like that with DBD, especially since many of its changes affect more of the game than individual characters or their nuances. Would be pretty neat if something similar could somehow work though.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946702#Comment_3946702
In that particular example he didn't leave the TR after getting unhooked, and instead glued to a gen right in view of the killer.
This is a near universally bad play (barring certain circumstances,) and one that people would often do to get out of the game as fast as possible, so its not terribly surprising that it would accidentally trigger the penalty.I don't think it's a good idea to hitch the system on that, especially with anti-tunnel changes slated for the near future. Plus, there's Quick Gambit, which would encourage you to get on gens when the killer is near, too.
If the system is going to micromanage your playstyle to this extent, survivors should just be auto-piloted by AIs from the get-go, since there's staggeringly little choice left.
I gave a hypothesis of what was most likely happening regarding the system, and specified this particular thing as it is regarding a very common method of going next. I don't disagree with you that this factor should not necessarily be in place, especially without some type of caveat that least prevents it from applying to new players. I thought that was pretty clear.
The micromanage hyperbole is kinda dramatic, considering we don't even know how harsh or lax any of the upcoming killer playstyle modifications are going to go. But hey, it makes for good tangental tribalism I guess.
-
@Nazzzak said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946732#Comment_3946732
The developers set the parameters so they'd know exactly what needs changing. The system is working as they intended, they just didn't consider or account for enough variables
Which is exactly why I bring up the importance of video examples, as they show said variables and their impacts
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
This kind of attitude feels disingenuous.
I see an awful, awful lot of complaining from "killer mains" on these forums about how "entire play styles are being deleted" because they have to stand 5 extra feet back while camping.
It "how terrible it is" that they're "being punished for playing the game".
Or even "being expected to play according to an insanely strict set of artificial rules and having no autonomy".
And then the devs implement the new crows and an insane dc penalty system that does literally all of those things at once, we get posts like this. Not hyperbole of "oh no, camping is dead because I have two minutes to step away 10 feet", but literally "stealth is no longer possible in any capacity, go screw yourselves".
Take your "equal attention cake" doomposting somewhere else.
There's zero information about those phase 2 mechanics at this stage, but if there's one thing we've actually seen over and over again, it's that whatever wrist slap they decide to test in 6 months will get watered down even farther before it goes live. So calm down.
Remember how many people were claiming that the go next system would unfairly catch innocent survivors in the crosshairs? Thats exactly what the "killer mains" are generally talking about with "entire play styles are being deleted". The thing both sides should be able to see eye to eye about is that just like the go next implementation: They will absolutely ######### it up on release, it will have false positives at launch and potentially after, innocent players will be effected, and the need to decide whether the potential impact will be acceptable next to what the system actually does as intended. That said, there is zero excuse for rolling these types of changes without at least a token PTB. Hopefully they at least learn from that for phase 2.
I don't agree with making these types of strawmen about either side, because both sides do it pretty frequently. Just as they will continue to do so for as long as we're all crabs in a bucket.
-
"Rules for thee, but not for me."
Most of the player base only cares about getting theirs. Anything that helps them is good and anything that helps their opponent is bad. Abstract concepts like game health or even balance are irreverent unless exploitable.
-
@NikolaiYaroslav said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946732#Comment_3946732
I completely understand. Didn't think you were accusing me of anything. Just wanted to respond to your question.
Of course, appreciate the cordiality.
-
@NikolaiYaroslav said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946702#Comment_3946702
From what I understand, they tried using Steam's in-game recorder but didn't realize that it shut off or she accidentally shut it off.
Thats fine, and I'm not accusing you of it not happening, my point was that those types of anecdotes are not only useless to developers in that form, but they can even be poisonous due to human error or missing supplementary data. The more spaghetti the code gets in a near decade old live service game, the more entirely unrelated things can have surprisingly illogical affects on each other. In the post earlier I was able to get a starting point based on the video as to where the penalty could have been accidentally triggered, and potentially why. This gives a starting point for systems to look at, tests to run, and a potential avenue to both isolating and correcting the issue.
And I don't even have any way of knowing how much it might help, if at all. It could be completely unrelated to anything I proposed. That said, if it was related, the devs would be able to identify that the issue was being caused by one of the relevant factors (time from hook to a gen, presence of the TR, hell hook struggle/wiggle progress can tie in for all I know) and gives them direction on how to solve and/or prevent the issue on their end. Hell it can help them preemptively find when other issues are present even before needing to be reported sometimes.
-
@Pulsar said:
Disclaimer: Not my post, credit to Dawko and u/jack11803 on Reddit
Dawko is, apparently, one of the biggest FNAF YouTubers and is brand-new to the game. This is also the first footage I've seen personally of the system in action. Thought I'd repost just so we have video proof instead of just pictures of the message on the end-game screen.
Thank you for sharing this, I would have thought people would have been flocking to show footage of it happening with how frequently its being mentioned on here. In that particular example he didn't leave the TR after getting unhooked, and instead glued to a gen right in view of the killer. This is a near universally bad play (barring certain circumstances,) and one that people would often do to get out of the game as fast as possible, so its not terribly surprising that it would accidentally trigger the penalty. That said, it is an extremely understandable rookie mistake a new player would make.
FOR THE RECORD, I AM NOT SAYING THIS SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED. IT IS VERY CLEARALY NOT HOW THE SYSTEM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK, NOR SHOULD IT BE
New players are going to be unoptimal in a lot of ways, but in this case in particular that misplay was one that people have been doing on purpose for ages to go next. Whether the answer is to put a limit on the go next prevention system (maybe at less than a set amount of hours you have a bigger threshold,
or even post game warning screens to warn new players about objectively bad plays for the first few times they get dingedI just saw they actually do tell you what caused it, though it could definitely be improved to help explain things to new players better especially.)This was exactly the type of thing that helps, though. Knowing exactly how these systems work internally allows the devs to better understand what could be causing the issue, compared to only being able to speculate like I did above.
@NikolaiYaroslav said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946535#Comment_3946535
My friend who plays survivor did three generators, broke a hex totem, escaped and got hit with a DC penalty and lost a grade. That was today. Yesterday, I was playing around as Killer just stalking people with Undetectable and then jump scaring them. Broke some generators, killed 2, let 2 go, and I got flagged for inactivity, hit with a DC penalty and lost a grade (I didn't even think that was a thing for Killers). Don't know what's going with these systems, but if I get punished for playing around in a game then what's the point.
Can they submit the video to a report? Or even just post it here in general?
Don't know what's going with these systemsIs why I ask. The best troubleshooting comes from things like crash logs or ingame data (command console, in game reports, etc) while video can help narrow things down in lieu of that. Anecdotes are valid as lived experiences but they do nothing for troubleshooting if they can't be reliably recreated and isolated.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3945633#Comment_3945633
So I'll bite I guess.
I'm not playing survivor. That's my response. Been my response for a while, but that's another topic.
But I can also confidently say that I've given my constructive feedback for about two years now.
I've had numerous conversations over the years in various threads, and with different people on these forums talking about exactly these issues. Most recently:
I mentioned it earlier, or maybe in another thread, I forget, but I had a long back and forth conversation with someone a couple months ago. They were saying, roughly, "survivors should be punished if they haven't completed a gen in a while", and I went into great detail about how that would generate a ton of false positives, trigger on things like "being slugged", "hiding while the killer kicks your gen", "cleansing hexes", and a huge list of other things that are actual gameplay.
So that was my constructive feedback. On the devs own forum, discussing these issues, and specifically saying "hey, if you put a system in place for this it should consider these elements, at minimum". That's the best I can do, especially since I can't directly message a dev because it's against forum rules.
So when they ignore that feedback entirely, and also just put in a system that literally just punishes normal gameplay without any of the safeguards or considerations, then yeah, I've said all of this before and been ignored, so now instead of a proactive "consider this with your future patch", it's "your system has issues because you didn't consider this yourselves or listen".
On top of, "you've made a mistake already and need to backtrack".
At this point, I'm just shouting into a void. So yeah, I feel fully within my right to criticize these decisions, lack of foresight, and heavy handed tactics. Especially because I've been vocal about why exactly this is a bad idea in the past.
None of what you said is wrong, especially the feeling ignored part. My point was more toward the data aspect than the feedback one, could have maybe been a bit more clear on that. I do honestly want to see how it plays out in some examples without having to comb through content creators, and its the type of data that helps the devs isolate these types of issues.
-
Still would have greatly prefered if they split them into "indoor" "outdoor" and "nullify" offerings, as many killers play (both against and as) very differently depending on that distinction alone. That said, its at least better than how easily maps could have their RNG mitigated (which allowed for unhealthy builds that required specific maps) as well as just forcing maps that advantaged either side specifically. It needed a change, even if this wasn't necessarily it.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3945327#Comment_3945327
This is a strange tangent to go on, but I'll ask this:
Why is the killer not bound by this same standard?
I've had games where killers afk, or go face a corner. Why does this system not equally punish that behavior here?
It still ruins the match for 4 other players, yet seemingly none of these afk detection or go next systems even attempt to make sure the killer is active in the game.
Do they not? I'm pretty sure there have been anti-afk systems for killers in the game for years. Isn't that why people were making a certain killer with a certain ability their go to for botting as killer? (Don't want to say who since i'm not familiar on how combating that has been going compared to the past.) I just remember some regions specifically having issues with AFK killers even within the past few years.
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3945383#Comment_3945383
Some chess masters know they lost after the first move. There are no chess masters that flip the board after that one move.
There's one thing in common between chess and DBD. No one wants to play with table flippers.
This. Taking your ball and going home was always grounds for a whupping the next day. It was also the fastest way to get uninvited from future games. Sportsmanship can't exist if you're unwilling to accept an outcome (or even the rest of a match) the moment you deem it unviable (or even unwinnable.) This still persists in a lot of other genres like FPS/MOBAs/RTS/FGC/etc but for some reason it apparently doesn't apply with this game specifically.
-
@DeBecker said:
Imagine if people would have predicted this xD
Its funny, I've asked in another thread for video of this so that the devs could try to have something, anything, to work with, but its just constant doomposts like this. Not even a dislike on the post asking. When issues like this happen in a game, and you have a line of communication with the development team, it is far more effective to provide relevant details for them to work with in identifying the cause of a system going wrong.
I have no doubt that there are people getting false flagged, but it could be something as simple as "the second skill check attempt isnt registering" or "x situational checks were implemented, but its order of operation is wrong so y factor gets missed." Video of everything leading up to and including the error easily saves hundreds of hours of manpower in bug fixing.
If this bug affects you, document and submit it in a way that helps the devs understand and fix it.
@I_Cant_Loop said:
Unfortunately the only thing that is going to get BHVR to act with any urgency on this is if people stop playing. As long as the player count stays high and the money keeps pouring in, all this outrage is going to simply be ignored because there is no meaningful negative consequence for them ignoring it. There might be some bad press in the community for a little while, but it will be quickly forgotten.
This is the alternative. If you can't contribute to the solution, then wait for a fix and don't give business in the meantime. Its harsh to tell anyone to not support a game or team that they want to, but its just as important for your own mental health as a player. If the game is in a state that you are not able to derive enjoyment from it, don't subject yourself to it knowing you're going to be miserable. Basically either do what you can to help fix the issue, or go without until it is in better shape. This has been the case with this game pretty much since its inception, and literally where the Civ meme came from.
Edit: Hey, at least this one got some dislikes :) Still prefer more constructive feedback and data for the devs tho.
-
@TimberGoingDown said:
I'm sorry, but a bug like this would get literally any other killer killswitched.
I don't normally play survivor all that much, but with queues the way they are I do what I must lol. But the invisibility bug has made Springtrap absolutely horrible to play against, which makes playing survivor a terrible experience atm, since Springtrap is the only killer you get to play against.
I've never seen BHVR not killswitch a character with an invisibility bug. Playing favorites with the shiny new toy and giving survivors the middle finger is kind of messed up.
BTW, not my video. Pulled it from Reddit.
I mean it probably has to do more with legal red tape in one or more countries concerning releasing content as a coin tied to a string, but I can imagine there are more difficulties in killswitching a new character with a unique playstyle, which is bringing in an entirely new generational audience, which also just released, than just changing a 1 to a 0 like on a perk or item/addon.
Their intention likely isn't "Playing favorites with the shiny new toy and giving survivors the middle finger." They just botched a content release like we have seen time and time again. And like everyone does each time it happens, you can either play through it or take a break and wait for the issue to be fixed. Trying to use it for tribalistic rhetoric is, as always, unproductive and pointlessly divisive.
-
@I_Cant_Loop said:
Don’t forget that you also get DC penalties for being tunneled now.
I'd love to know more about how this has been going since implementation. Do you by chance have any videos? Not saying I don't believe it or anything like that, I'd just love some examples of it happening to help understand how the false positive could happen.
-
@GeneralV said:
I honestly think they can just revert it back to 80 seconds and not change anything else. It was fine the way it was.
The problem has always been in how much variation there is to gen speeds, much moreso than their base speed. They can go both way too fast and way too slow with how many variables there are to gen speed, which is why both sides simultaneously have issues with them being too fast/slow. What we need is to normalize the absurd amount of variables on speed/slow/blocking/etc, basically everything that affects their completion efficiency needs to be reworked in a unified system to prevent things like stacking and overbearing synergies. Even the 10 second increase was only 20-50 seconds basekit, before even being impacted by gen perks in either direction. Trying to honestly clean that up balance wise without any normalization or sanity checking is just spot treating.
I've seen people suggest tying gen manipulation on either side to a category to prevent stacking, similar to exhaustion. I still think something like that would be both more impactful and more fine tunable than just adjusting an average in the absurd +/- variations we have now.
-
Honestly I don't see discourse getting better any time soon.