Ryuhi
Ryuhi
About
- Username
- Ryuhi
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920409#Comment_3920409
Maybe the Devs are trying to kill the idea of a solid wincon?
Maybe escapes and kills are no longer MEANT to be the wincon? Maybe using MMR gain to judge winning… is a bad idea?
I have no idea why on earth this community has decided that MMR = skilled = wincon. But it's long past time to let go of it. We have been wounded and bleeding from this gash that the MMR system has inflicted on us for years, to the point we've all been gaslit to think that winning is all that matters and a "win" is "escape through gate"/"3-4k" only. But yet the Devs SHOW US this is wrong by giving us challenges quests, dailies, and the MMR system just not working.
It's time to admit it. The concept that MMR gain or gate escapes/number of kills equates to wining is DEAD and needs to stay dead. And good on BHVR for trying to find ways to handle it.Then what are winning and losing? What is drawing? How do they actually provide feedback to any of these outcomes other than flavor text on the tally screen? Most people would rather the wincon NOT be how MMR works, and even after its introduction many clung to pips and emblems as their personal wincon. The way the abandon system is being introduced, the feedback becomes both irrelevant and detatched from the closest thing we have to an objective measure. Its almost like they're trying to lessen both gloating and frustration and just confusing everybody in the process.
-
@_Demidrol said:
This isn't right. Once all generators are repaired, it's only the second of the three stages of the game. There's a huge number of builds designed specifically for this stage. And if you want to end the match faster, you can open the gates yourself — that will trigger the endgame collapse timer.
4 minutes and you're free.
Funny, 4 minutes is often considered an eternity when you're laying belly down on the floor. That said it's technically 2-4 minutes, as the timer is at base 2 minutes and can be slowed down to up to 4 depending on survivors being down/hooked.
@GhostsCore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920612#Comment_3920612
There are far more killer endgame builds than survivor. The killer being able to surrender and take a loss isn't a big deal.
Exactly. And if the killer gives up in endgame? The remaining survivors win regardless of their build anyway. When I saw the abandon option being added to all remaining survivors being slugged, I figured this would be the parity application for killer.
Then again, apparently we don't even know what a win, loss, or draw mean anymore.
-
@DeBecker said:
Why do you think youre fine to decide if another player stays in a game or not?
Nobody can prevent you from properly utilizing the DC button. All they can do is avoid playing into your attempt at evading the matchmaking penalty.
@Rulebreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920693#Comment_3920693
The only thing people can do is try and dissuade them from attempting to repeat that ones actions and indirectly try to help others until something changes. We're under no delusions that this will stop a majority or even a minor number of them, but it might stop some and does prevent another reoccurrence from that specific one.
Exactly. If someone is tilted, sometimes they'll calm down while they're in time out and regain their composure to complete the match. If they're as far gone as some of the perspectives in this thread, they honestly need the time away from the game and to reconsider the impact of their actions. Many won't, but maybe they have defective super-egos, idk.
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920704#Comment_3920704
They queue up because they do want to play. Matches typically have two outcomes for Survivors; they either get eliminated early, or they get stuck in a 10+ minute stalemate, the latter of which the surrender feature was intended to mitigate. Most Survivors would rather go ahead and take their loss and try to have a better game next time. That's why they keep queueing up.
Wanting to play and wanting to play only under ideal circumstances are two wildly different things. If someone can only do the latter, competitive gaming might not be a good fit for them. There are plenty of excellent single player or co-op only games they can play instead, and its part of where the whole Civ meme came from. 10 minutes is minuscule compared to many other games on the market, and people can stick through losing matches in those just fine. LoL doesn't even have a surrender option until at least 15 minutes into a match (requiring a 4/5 vote,) no matter how lopsided those 15 minutes go. The exception to this is if someone DCs or is afk, then it can be done earlier strictly if unanimous across the team. One person deciding to nope out and ruining the game for the other 9 players is not considered acceptable, and thats in a game where matches can easily go from 30 minutes to an hour. Its also a game where hypercarries exist, characters who are strong enough to singlehandedly carry their team to victory due to being relatively overpowered in their shared agency proportion. Just like in DBD, you can do everything right, have a teammate feed the hypercarry, and then all of your agency is diminished by that exchange. And it can happen at almost any point in that long match, including the start.
-
@buggybug said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920348#Comment_3920348
Go around like a merry go around all you want because you and all of us do it, so acting as if you pure aint cutting it. Take your own advise and reread my post where I obviously said to op to not waste their time on flashbang anymore.
Trying to stay neutral, regardless of my prefered role, is not "acting pure." I have biases as well, we all do. I just keep them in check and focus on being constructive, like we all should. Stating you claim flashbangs are not worth using is different than what you said and how you carried yourself, which was my point. You were simply a good example that people can hopefully learn from. Just be less antagonistic and stick to opinions rather than instigating toxicity.
-
This is a…. very weird way of implementing these ideas. I've seen a lot of people raise good points about how this can be exploited by either role.
@Mandy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920098#Comment_3920098
I will say what we've always said about MMR which is: play your game without worrying about a hidden number which is purely there for matchmaking purposes.
Then what do wins/draws/losses even mean? The win condition of the game has always been a nebulous topic in the community, and many people have used MMR changes as a way to have some kind of uniform measure in what defines each outcome ever since ranks/emblems/pips stopped being the main contenders. On survivor you could argue that win/lose could be simplified to a binary of escaped/died (which would completely remove the entire draw aspect in any event) but as killer there are "degrees" of winning on top of losing. Draws then have to be forced into both roles pools due to how these outcomes are designated. The way most of us seem to be understanding it is that win/lose/draw outcome definitions mean literally nothing except what message you get at the tally screen, if they're not even (directly) tied to a tracked (visible to the player or otherwise) metric.
It's all very confusing, and anathema to how win condition outcomes have been both illustrated and discussed within the community and officially.
Also, not a fan of the stacking revert. I'm hoping its due to not being able to iron out the healthiest values to compensate for the lack of stacking at this time. From a design standpoint, minimizing stacking is the key to reigning in a lot of extremes in the game for both sides, and similar limitations like the exhaustion system have proven very effective in the past. I can understand if its just a matter of working out things like how all of the on demand +/- factors work (like clown bottles) and/or things like replacement vs additive timers, but I hope the idea isn't getting scrapped.
-
@NewPlayer100102 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920376#Comment_3920376
They aren't going to learn anything. They'll get annoyed. No one here is teaching a lesson in persistence through this game. This specific game lacks the necessary stuff.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920375#Comment_3920375
I can appreciate what you're saying, but this game is too much of a mess for any of that to apply. No one balances anything here. They never tried. I do not feel its a PvP competitive environment. It could be and if it was I suspect I could back your view of enforcing community standards for the enjoyment of all.
It applies to any multiplayer game with any form of code of conduct, really. MMOs like Final Fantasy 14 have rules against quitting content and stranding your teammates, even with drop in/out functionality. They also go further and mildly enforce community behavior when people are being toxic toward other players. Games like League of Legends have both chat bans for people who spew toxic speech either at teammates or opponents, as well as a quite strict DC penalty system (though it does support rejoining, in the event of accidental DCs as long as the match has not yet finished.) King of Fighters 15 shows you the percentage of matches your opponent has disconnected from, which of course goes down the better their match completion ratio gets.
This game is extremely lax with how it handles the social contract regarding player commitment, both from player interaction and match completion perspectives. Honestly a lot of it comes from the role that has both more players and shared agency also being elimination based, which are core foundations to the game's design. There are plenty of games that are even more lax, but it is hardly the authoritarian "forcing people to play" degree that a lot of quitters use to justify their behavior. In the end each player can only be responsible for their own engagement, which is why I always take the side of responsibility over abandonment. We can't control other players, but we can control ourselves.
-
@NewPlayer100102 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920371#Comment_3920371
You can't argue with the time penalty that being stuck in a match imposes. It does accomplish the separation aspect of the criminal justice system.
I will however take issue with the other aspect of the remedy. People annoyed with the game will not behave better due to punishment. They will behave worse. Sadly, in the realm of the game I have only anecdote for you as evidence. Simply the angrier they are made the more they will pass it on.
Me, making light of the communities feelings related to specific killers was not meant to imply, outside of the sarcastic aspect an empathy with such judgements. Sarcasm aside, I view these games as such, if you want out and don't want to interact with me I support you in that.
I'm not keeping people around to torment them, its not worth it and they will not learn to be better people from the experience.
All of this would be fine if the DC button, and its associated penalty, didn't exist. Going next is literally evading said system by abusing a core gameplay aspect which is hard to adjust, despite BHVR finally starting to address it. A common go next argument is that you can't force people to stay in the game, which is true. But you can penalize them for disrupting the matches of the other players, which it does.
I can absolutely sympathize with being frustrated with individual matches, but that is part and parcel of the PVP experience. It has been since that one guy was a crack shot with the sniper in Halo and ruined everyone's day, it has been since that one guy knew the redeemer and other major item spawn locations and timers and ran them like a perfect circuit in UT, it has been since Romero used to aggressively clown other ID developers in Doom deathmatches. Tilt is an important concept for PVP gamers to understand, as its basically the point where you get frustrated with the game more than you enjoy it, and its time to take a break. For some people they might only need a few minutes to recenter themselves, some might take days/weeks/months. When people ignore that and keep forcing matches they are unwilling to play, they just further the tilt and get more frustrated more easily.
Its up to the players to identify that about themselves, how long they need to calm down, and what they can do to prevent said tilt. Honestly I'd consider sore winners more of a tilt issue than anything in the game balance wise, cheats/major bugs/exploits notwithstanding.
-
@NewPlayer100102 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920341#Comment_3920341
I used "You" because I don't want to consider the appropriate pronoun to imply The view you're championing and may on occasion enact but likely don't because I doubt any player is the morality avenger killer every time they log in and dedicates themselves fully or even passingly to hunting down deviant rage quitting or rational quitting in the case of a comp style nurse/blight, or perhaps Kaneki and maybe less likely Hillbilly, solo Q.
The other issue:
I don't care how you play, I was just pointing out a view. You can feel its justified, and I can understand your point. It might be justified, outcome considered, but here I don't think the actions are justified, outcome considered. Because the actions won't accomplish anything but a spread of anger and frustration, directly, acting as condoned will not decrease the occurrences of people giving up.And we'll disagree about the consensual play issue. I fully support people leaving if they want out, I don't like the implementations of the alternate view, but I understand where it comes from. You did agree to the match, you should stick it out.
I absolutely took it that you used "you" because you were implying that I was the killer in the scenario. It was a reasonable assumption. I clarified because it is a common misconception: Many go nexters assume that people who don't want them to leave must be some kind of sadistic killer main who wants to hold them hostage. I clarified that I am the spurned teammate who just wanted a chance at a fair game, and often gets left holding the bag. People who want to go next generally have zero reason to blame "me" for that, as they generally blame their teammates when they play (or at least the go nexter's perception of them plays) poorly. I'm not a comp pro or anything, but I don't give teammates reasons to ragequit. In fact the majority of people left behind don't, despite common arguments.
The fact you specified "reasonable" ragequitting via things you deem unfair means that you are sympathizing with being unwilling to play the hand you're dealt if its unfavorable, a sentiment shared by killer mains who wish to opt out of SWF matches. That is (understandably) denied for the sake of the game's health. The game isn't fair by design, it is balanced by chaotic averages. Either side will always have an advantage based on who/what they bring into a match, that is part of what you agree to when you queue up.
Because the actions won't accomplish anything but a spread of anger and frustration, directly, acting as condoned will not decrease the occurrences of people giving up.But they do. Every time a ragequitter is prevented from ragequitting without penalty, it is effectively imposing the minimum tier of penalty. Bleedouts take 4 minutes, while the DC penalty starts at 5. If every killer slugs and bleeds out every ragequitter, the minimum DC penalty is nearly always being enforced even with the loophole. As a bonus, every time they get picked up by a teammate, it is another chance to instead play out the match. The only thing that is missing is the escalating matchmaking ban, but it makes the workaround both less desirable and less efficient. They are stuck in games longer, so they are unable to ruin as many games due to being delayed in jumping into another game to ruin.
Nothing about this situation disables the disconnect button, it is there for a reason. Disconnecting is to be done sparingly (IRL issues and emergencies, occasional internet or power outage, important phone call, etc) not as a means of shopping for matches until you find yourself in a favorable position. This game is not structured for that like, say, Team Fortress 2. It is also not a large time commitment like a MOBA, nor is it a game where quitters get paired with each other like many fighting games. You are committing to an average of 5-15 minutes, barring lobby and load times.
If you use the DC option for important reasons, said reason will generally take longer than the low end matchmaking ban in the first place. If the ban escalates to a long period of time, that is a sign you need to give yourself ample time and ability to finish your matches. Going next is throwing all that methodology and all those systems out the window in an extremely selfish fashion.
-
@Mondhirsch said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920289#Comment_3920289
BHVR actually does hardware ban Hackers but the problem is that Hackers have programs to generate false Hardware ID's (i think it's called spoofing). So hardware bans won't actually ban their real hardware.
Damn. I know they don't discuss much about their banning process (nor should they) so I try not to speculate much both due to not knowing the details and understanding why they wouldn't want to share them. I'll refrain from anything further on that aspect of the topic.
-
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920354#Comment_3920354
And as Killer, I cannot force a Survivor to play. Sorry.
You're right. But you can prevent them from leaving the game early to abuse the loophole in the elimination aspect of the game. You literally have control over that, which is what this topic is about. They always have the option to DC and take their deserved penalty, but their ability to actively go next without the killer's cooperation is limited to stuff like plot twist bleeding out, which requires premeditation and takes a while anyway.
-
@LockerLurk said:
As I've often said on here, nobody owes anyone a round with you. If you want out so be it, but if I'm Killer I'm gonna vibe with the other three who choose to stay in the game, no points for you. Like, I actively chill out on the other three when it's clear someone does this. I've even purposefully thrown when people do this just to farm.
If someone does this, just let them out and play the game as normal with the other three. There's no need to "prove a point". They do not owe you or anyone else a round.As one of "the other three," I entirely disagree with your sentiment. Some games support drop in/out so that you can leave and someone else can take your place. This one does not. When you queue up, you are committing to a single match with 4 other people, and not even for a long duration. The game has a disconnect penalty for a reason, abusing the elimination aspect of its gameplay loop is purposely sabotaging the integrity of the match for the other 4 players. As survivor, I can't force the killer to play chill/farm/goof around when one person goes next, so I am in an objectively worse game due to their abandonment.
-
@Senaxu said:
It's important to note that free or easily accessible accounts aren’t inherently the problem — plenty of other games like League of Legends and Valorant offer unlimited account creation too, but they don’t suffer from the same overwhelming cheater issues.
The real issue lies in how Dead by Daylight handles cheat detection and enforcement. Without proper behavioral analysis, active in-game monitoring, or meaningful deterrents, even a paid account system wouldn't stop cheaters — it would just slow them down.
A strong anti-cheat system makes free accounts irrelevant to the discussion. If the protection is solid, sock accounts are just wasted effort for cheaters. If the protection is weak, even paid accounts won’t help.
So before trying to patch the surface by limiting accounts, the foundation — the actual anti-cheat infrastructure — needs serious work.
This is absolutely true, but the sheer stockpiles of sock accounts compound that issue. If the epic giveaway never happened, having to continuously repurchase the game would have been a more effective consequence to each ban, even if it only slows them down. No disagreement otherwise, especially in terms of what BHVR should prioritize about the situation.
-
@buggybug said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920283#Comment_3920283
You make yourself sensible, you qoute me then when I speak my mind then your like dont respond to you now when I say dont qoute me then you try now back up with this weak comeback.
No matter what you say or try killers qq and whine like survivors do end of story. Do not act as of its not facts that killers dont whine for everything like survivors do. I am tired of wasting my breath on you we are finished.
Let's try that again:
"That said, please don't respond to me if you want to make pointless victim arguments, my focus is always on improving as a player when possible, not lamenting the worst and refusing to adapt."
read the whole sentence, not the first few words. Note the bolded part. I'm not trying to engage with pointless complaining, but if you want to actually learn how to be less frustrated by the things you bemoan or discuss them in a more constructive fashion, by all means.
No matter what you say or try killers qq and whine like survivors do end of story.Where did I say "killers" don't? My entire point is that you're painting an entire role with the same brush as the worst of them, even if you finally admitted that survivors can be just as bad. Both sides have detractors who will complain about anything they perceive the "others" do, but you keep framing it as both a killer specific thing, and something all killer players do. The main reason I brought it up is because you are embracing that tribalism to a pointless degree. You aren't the first to do so, and you won't be the last.
-
@NewPlayer100102 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920299#Comment_3920299
They don't want to play with you. This is all I see and where I stop thinking about it in so far as considering the morality of action. I mean, if you force it after that point its bad, if you escort them out, that's good.
But its a game. Who cares?
The OP asked if it was toxic, I looked up the niche use of toxic as applied to the community and matched that to my experiences with the term in game. I feel the situation reaches the definition(as poorly defined as it is).
Also no one asked about the spectrum of toxic. And I don't think I can take such a endeavor seriously, but maybe someone else will take up the task of ranking "Toxic" as related to DBD.
Then no, I don't consider it toxic, if thats what you specifically wanted to hear. I was using a comparative assessment to try to give a different perspective on what toxic actually is in this case, but I guess that was not understood. You know who cares? the other 4 people who want to actually play out the match like it is intended, and don't want a pointlessly lopsided 1v3 game. You're trapping them in an even worse game than the one you refuse to play out and wasting their time even more.
Also "not wanting to play with someone" is not a valid reason to abandon a pvp game. Most games are far more harsh about it than this one is, which is why that sentiment always eludes me. There is no ragequitter hell in this game, the DC penalty is far more forgiving than most, and many games can leave you trapped in matches for longer than the server shutdown time limit in this game. If thats your mindset, you should stick to other pvp games that support drop in/out play so as to at least minimise how disruptive you are when you take your ball and go home.
Edit: also, why wouldn't they want to play with me specifically? I'm a survivor main who hates ragequitters because they make my games unplayable, not some killer who wants to keep them around as a plaything. I've seen plenty of players realize they won't get a quick out and change their mind and play out matches instead, which is vastly preferable.
-
@NewPlayer100102 said:
He didn't say "Should I pause the game so my survivors can take a phone call or zoom meeting?"
He said a lot of words "…them so they have to stay in the match." Implying that he is aware that the opponent isn't asking for a pause they want out.Which is why I said, policing moral behavior in a game won't work. They'll just leave.
Address the underlying issue, whatever it is. Its a developer issue. Players will only, and have been making it worse.
Throwing to get out of a match early to avoid the DC penalty and ruin the match for everyone else is far more toxic than keeping them in the match in a way that they get multiple chances to change their mind and play it out. This isn't a 4 man bleed out W/S scenario. Zero sympathy, except for toward the quitter's teammates.
-
Its amazing how poorly thought out that promotion was, and how we're still paying for it years later. Sadly pandora's box is open, and there's no (legal/moral/ethical/etc) way to close it. The closest thing they could do would be hardware id banning, but thats a pretty extreme response that would still affect innocent people. All they can do is play whack a mole with each account that "awakens" and chooses violence.
-
@Moonras2 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3918255#Comment_3918255
I may not always agree with you but this one is a big one that I do. When I first started playing there were perks to help find survivors or objectives but they are nothing like what is available today. We had to learn to pay attention to what was around and in many cases I wouldn't even start an objective without doing a quick run around of a small area.
I learned a lot of this from watching some of the older streamers scout ground as survivor or learn to predict survivor spawns and use whispers. The game can seem too fast sometimes and I understand some situations are just bad situations. It's just how the game is.
I do think that more in depth tutorials could possibly help with some of this but I also don't see many content creators actively teaching this like they use too. People just watch them, not realizing how good they actually are with game sense, and then wonder why they aren't playing on their level.
I appreciate you saying that. Its always encouraging to see when people who disagree on some things about the game can put that aside and agree on others. Makes it feel less like you're screaming into the void sometimes.
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3918939#Comment_3918939
I know for a fact sometimes I just get total lobby mismatches, and it's worse when the lobby is slow to match. I had two Dredge games recently with very new Survs who didn't even know to lock lockers, and then got sweat city for my Pig, Oni, and Drac matches the same day due to lobby mismatch. THEN once 3-4 PM rolled around? Normal Dracula matches.
It's very odd.Combination of backfill, expanding matchmaking brackets over the wait duration, and swfs with uneven skill are probably the biggest things that cause SBMM to not work correctly. The first two especially have both a large impact, and increase in likelihood the longer your queue time. Its the bane of playing outside of peak hours, honestly.
@danielmaster87 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3918242#Comment_3918242
What mental gymnastics are these? The killer can force a survivor to misplay? With that mentality, no wonder you consider killer OP.
And we really don't understand the tunnel/camp at 5 gens thing, because that's at such a lower level than what we're used to, we can't even conceive it. You have to understand, our survivors literally never allow that. Not even close. So the survivor who ALL go down that quick, I don't have words of advice for them, because it's not even like they're just noobs. It's like they have negative gameplay, negative experience, like they do the worst things they can possibly do, or they're doing literally nothing. And I get those teammates sometimes as survivor. Like, "Why is it when I get hooked, all 3 of you are just crouched or walking around?" And they do that. All match long. Obviously one and the same as those who get 4-man/5-gen'd.
camping and tunneling at 5 gens are absolutely a thing, but they are caused by a massive fail on the survivor side. The issue is with shared agency: You can glue yourself to a gen that you spawn right next to and still not have enough time to finish it before the first person goes down if they are particularly poor in chase, get caught off guard by an instadown, or anything of the sort. That would be a fail on the person being chased, which the rest of the team suffers for. Alternatively, they could run the killer for 5 minutes straight without a single gen popping, which would be a fail on the other 3 survivors that the person who was chased suffers for. Its a situation that can (and does) happen, but part of improving as a player (especially survivor) is learning how to be both efficient and mitigate the damage caused by others. Its obviously a much bigger issue at more casual/lower MMR levels, but it can even happen to good players as well.
The long and short is that it happens… not because woe is the survivor role, but because it's caused by at least one person on the team sinking and dragging the rest with them.
-
@buggybug said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3919776#Comment_3919776
Well don't qoute me in the first place if you do not want a response lmao.
Comments like
"Killers whine about survivors are boring and only want to sit on gens yet everything we try to do from gens is qq nerf."are not only nonconstructive, but paint an entire portion of the playerbase as your own personal strawman. If you don't want to be called out and want your opinion to actually be taken seriously, try to at least be sensible. This is a major problem in this community and your post was just another example of it. The defeatist victim complex serves no one. -
A specific console's settings specifically for headphones have finally done the impossible and normalized DBD audio? Guess I just need a few hundred dollars extra so I can finally hear important audio queues as either side.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3919556#Comment_3919556
and as I said, this is flawed logic because you do not have to lock into one side. In fact, players should beencouragedto play both sides, idealistically (but not practically, of course) an even amount.Two points:
1: You're reading too literally into the idea of survivors quitting. Whether this is people who only play survivor quitting, or those playing killer/survivor switching to killer more, or those who play killer mostly/survivor occasionally switching to killer only, you have survivors quitting.
2: As much a company might want people to behave a certain way, there are only so many ways to encourage it. If the killer role (or survivor) is completely unappealing, than a player is never going to, or extremely rarely, touch it. How many players are like this we have no idea (this will be a theme I come back to about us not having the data).
If you are making changes specifically to entice one side or the other, you constantly have to go back and forth making the "lesser" role still desirable enough to play. This was witnessed leading up to the big 6.1 shakeup, as killers before that were leaving due to the state of the game. I'm not saying that survivors don't have issues that make the role unappealing, far from it.I think this is a misconception of how live service games work. Being in constant flux is good (its a feature, not a bug). There is not a state of perfect stasis that the game is going toward. You deal with the most pressing problems. That likely creates some new problems, then you deal with those, and so on.
Thats all well and good, but most survivor complaints are about things like gutting high tier killers, treating every killer as if they are as strong as nurse and blight, being beholden by the shared agency of their teammates, "not having fun", and so on.And those issues weren't on the survey anymore than there were questions about killer issues. Part of this is a design decision on BHVR's part to be fine with killer tiers (many disagree), part of it is that balance issues about killers aren't a great topic for a survey.
Meanwhile there are plenty of legitimate issues on the killer side that continue to get ignored, which is my point. You can't use extreme complaints on one side to remove validity in their reasonable concerns, but it seems to happen to one role a lot more than the other.'Legitimate' is generally a perspective issue, unless we're discussing things like bugs/hacks.
I'd say there are plenty of complaints on the survivor side still not being addressed. Again, it's a survey, not an open response, which is what things like this forum is for.
I'm not sure how extreme complaints ties in. If anything a survey is moving away from extreme complaints and trying to get a better overall feel of the entire community.
Which is incomplete data. Player counts (especially role specific ones) say absolutely nothing about people who would like to play one role, but feel forced to play another. It comes up constantly in topics where survivors mains complain about how they 4k with no effort every single game, they always say they WANT to play survivor but feel like it is far too weak by comparison, and they do occasionally play killer but find it boring how effortlessly they apparently win every single match. Hyperbole aside, the takeaway is that they very clearly prefer one role but find it unplayable by comparison, which is a driving force behind their frustration. This is why these considerations are important to gather fromboth sides,because we have no idea where player counts and role interest actually stand relative to one another. Its a nearly impossible metric to measure in terms of raw data. Again, statistics without context are just numbers.I think this too extreme in the interpretation.
Text is a hard mode to convey intent, but this comes off as if you think this is THE survey to end all surveys and that BHVR will throw out all other feedback and opinions from everything else and just go off this. They have other sources of feedback and we'll get another survey with some new issues in just a few months.
And I've always said that you need equal parts carrot and stick. Just carrot, and people will keep abusing what they can to make things easier on themselves.Sure, but we have no idea what they are going to do as of yet.
Exactly. My point has always been that killers quitting is just as important as survivors quitting, especially in a game where anyone can play either role at any time. If someone is a 50/50 player but stops playing because they find half the game unplayable, then they are both 0.5 survivor and 0.5 killer being taken out of the pool, shrinking the user base ever so slightly.Again, we have no data so we don't know if players who primarily play killer are reducing the amount they play. Hypothetically if both killers, survivors, and players who play both equally were all quitting/reducing their level of play, than it would be a dumb way to form a survey, but I find that unlikely to be true
Your focus is specifically on maintaining the optimal ratio, not actual player retention.On the optimal ratio - this is directly tied to maintaining players. No one likes waiting around in queues. If you have a 30/70 split eventually this will become 20/80. BHVR's best case scenario is attracting new players/bringing players back to the survivor role, their next best case is killers moving to the survivor role, the worst case is killers also reducing their play because the queues being too long.
We see this in 2v8. It's been massively successful on the player numbers, but because of the lopsided ratio it also causes players to quit the game because the queues are too long and they don't want to play the other role. This means long term if that problem is not resolved it is potentially damaging to the game despite the initial increase (any time a player 'takes a break' there's a good chance they never come back, which was another type of question on this survey if I recall).
My point, once again, is about parity.And my point is that if you have a survey, you need to be focused. There's far more to the game than just survivors and killers. Survivors can be solo or SWF, they have different playstyles (before we even get into the different metas in different regions), and different levels of experience face much different issues. On the killer side you have the same thing on experience, but then you throw in that you have 38 killers, each of which have different issues and challenges within the game.
No survey is going to get to all of that. You need to focus on a few issues.
text is a hard mode to convey intent, but this comes off as if you think this is THE survey to end all surveys and that BHVR will throw out all other feedback and opinions from everything else and just go off this.I think thats where we're misunderstanding. I'm not holding it up to that high of a regard, I'm just pointing out that one side is very clearly getting preferential treatment in how these things were worded. I honestly don't see a point in continuing as like I mentioned, I don't see us seeing eye to eye. It just feels more like arguing than anything, especially with how much we both keep reiterating and repeating ourselves.
-
@buggybug said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3919479#Comment_3919479
Killers dismiss everything about survivors complaints and always use the famous stale qoute get good/skill issue. No matter what a survivor do a killer will always complain, it can be a simple hearing the terror radius and survivor runs off and they complain about that.
Op ask whats the point of the perk now which ofc is useless so I gave op an answer of not wasting their perk slot. Apparently survivors are to never defend themselves. Next its to remove the pallets and windows and we can only run for 30 seconds before exhausted.
My argument was that blinding should not be a thing outside of a killers FoV because thats literally how blinding works. I don't recall making any offhand "skill issue" comments so I don't know why you responded to me? Are you trying to for some reason lump me in with these viewpoints? I am not your strawman you are complaining about. Any time I ever make anything remotely resembling a "git gud" style comment, its usually constructive and focused on educating how to improve. There is a big difference. That said, please don't respond to me if you want to make pointless victim arguments, my focus is always on improving as a player when possible, not lamenting the worst and refusing to adapt.
@ShanoaLegendaryPlz said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3919550#Comment_3919550
Im not even against the new blind angle lol i was just pointing out that flashbangs werent the only change
And thats fine, it was just worded in a way that implied that this is a negative change. If that wasn't your intention, I apologize for misunderstanding. Its just a long overdue bugfix.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3919476#Comment_3919476
And why can't this apply to killers? The majority being one role in each match does not mean the majority is the same ratio in the overall playerbase, since most people play both roles at least somewhat.Sure they could. A few reasons on probably why not
1: Surveys need to have some sort of limit or people won't do them. As is, they are probably longer than they should be.
2: BHVR likely has ideas about changes they want to do or areas they are already looking at based on other feedback and internal testing and they are fine tuning those.
3: Where the need for fixes is based on players (this has been mentioned a few times in the thread). This isn't about being the majority per se, but the game needs an 80/20 split in its player base. Based on incentives, and most recently queue times, the survivor side has been struggling to find those players.
4: Don't give false hope. A common killer complaint is against SWFs. If BHVR has, and they probably have, decided that they aren't ever going to change the way SWFs work (i.e. no restriction) because there data shows it would lose far more players than they would gain (among other possible reasons), then putting it on a survey just creates community anger from one group hoping for a change and another angry that it's being considered.
If there were questions like "as killer, do you feel the need to use these strategies regularly?" or "If given a choice, would you rathernotuse these strategies?" they would be doing proper diligence on collecting proper opinions and perspectives.This gets back into the Overbrine meta when the idea seemed to be by making tunneling less necessary killers would tunnel less, but it didn't yield that result. It shouldn't be a surprise. Players want to win. I think one of the biggest mistakes BHVR ever made in their design was creating a game that players were expected to play in a nice way.
They only care because there are a massive number of people in the community who get their way through boycotting and complaining,The level of organized effort it would take to move BHVR's numbers on player counts would be fairly massive. You bring up complaining, but I think the far more likely answer, backed up by the queue times, is player counts.
If players are quitting that's a problem that a company has to address.
They just focus on the most immediate thing thats being complained about, and work their solution around how to appease the complainers.I've been complaining about slugging basically from the moment I got onto the forums. It's not a new issue by any means.
But surveys are meant to address things that are current. Making game changes takes a long time, by the time something gets to a survey they likely have mock ups of possible ideas and directions they could go. You don't want a survey that brings something up, get feedback that its a huge problem, and then tell players its going to be another year.
Why is this not allowed to apply to killers? Its not whataboutism when the developers are clearly favoring only a portion of their userbase when collecting feedback.I've mentioned it a few times, but if that is the portion of your playerbase that they are losing, it is critical for the game's survival to examine why.
Additionally, lots of killer complaints have been addressed without going to a survey. Hook respawns after elimination, making the 'unhookable' builds much harder to pull off, flashbangs, FTP+Buckle Up, and then we can go back further to things like Dead Hard. Lots of these weren't primarily balance issues, an unhookable had a clear counter but it kind of sucked to play against, they were enjoyment issues. Given the smaller role size they might be using other methods (forums, testers), to primarily get their killer feedback.
3: Where the need for fixes is based on players (this has been mentioned a few times in the thread). This isn't about being the majority per se, but the game needs an 80/20 split in its player base. Based on incentives, and most recently queue times, the survivor side has been struggling to find those players.and as I said, this is flawed logic because you do not have to lock into one side. In fact, players should be encouraged to play both sides, idealistically (but not practically, of course) an even amount. Each match needs a 4:1 ratio, but players stagnating to one role over the other is both unhealthy and a big part of why tribalism is so rampant in the community. If you are making changes specifically to entice one side or the other, you constantly have to go back and forth making the "lesser" role still desirable enough to play. This was witnessed leading up to the big 6.1 shakeup, as killers before that were leaving due to the state of the game. I'm not saying that survivors don't have issues that make the role unappealing, far from it. But as someone who specifically rarely plays killer due to multiple issues I have with how the role is handled, my perspective is a bit different on that one.
4: Don't give false hope. A common killer complaint is against SWFs. If BHVR has, and they probably have, decided that they aren't ever going to change the way SWFs work (i.e. no restriction) because there data shows it would lose far more players than they would gain (among other possible reasons), then putting it on a survey just creates community anger from one group hoping for a change and another angry that it's being considered.Thats all well and good, but most survivor complaints are about things like gutting high tier killers, treating every killer as if they are as strong as nurse and blight, being beholden by the shared agency of their teammates, "not having fun", and so on. Meanwhile there are plenty of legitimate issues on the killer side that continue to get ignored, which is my point. You can't use extreme complaints on one side to remove validity in their reasonable concerns, but it seems to happen to one role a lot more than the other. This is why I always talk about how dangerous hyperbole is in feedback.
This gets back into the Overbrine meta when the idea seemed to be by making tunneling less necessary killers would tunnel less, but it didn't yield that result. It shouldn't be a surprise. Players want to win. I think one of the biggest mistakes BHVR ever made in their design was creating a game that players were expected to play in a nice way.And I've always said that you need equal parts carrot and stick. Just carrot, and people will keep abusing what they can to make things easier on themselves. Just stick, and they will move on to whatever else they can find, creating a new problem in its place. You need to both incentivize good behavior while disincentivizing bad behavior. If you do just one or the other, you can't use it as an example of why particular improvements or nerfs can never work. People want to win, AND people want to have fun. Design changes around BOTH and you will have more healthy gameplay.
The level of organized effort it would take to move BHVR's numbers on player counts would be fairly massive. You bring up complaining, but I think the far more likely answer, backed up by the queue times, is player counts.Which is incomplete data. Player counts (especially role specific ones) say absolutely nothing about people who would like to play one role, but feel forced to play another. It comes up constantly in topics where survivors mains complain about how they 4k with no effort every single game, they always say they WANT to play survivor but feel like it is far too weak by comparison, and they do occasionally play killer but find it boring how effortlessly they apparently win every single match. Hyperbole aside, the takeaway is that they very clearly prefer one role but find it unplayable by comparison, which is a driving force behind their frustration. This is why these considerations are important to gather from both sides, because we have no idea where player counts and role interest actually stand relative to one another. Its a nearly impossible metric to measure in terms of raw data. Again, statistics without context are just numbers.
If players are quitting that's a problem that a company has to address.Exactly. My point has always been that killers quitting is just as important as survivors quitting, especially in a game where anyone can play either role at any time. If someone is a 50/50 player but stops playing because they find half the game unplayable, then they are both 0.5 survivor and 0.5 killer being taken out of the pool, shrinking the user base ever so slightly. Your focus is specifically on maintaining the optimal ratio, not actual player retention.
Making game changes takes a long time, by the time something gets to a survey they likely have mock ups of possible ideas and directions they could go. You don't want a survey that brings something up, get feedback that its a huge problem, and then tell players its going to be another year.Which is exactly why killer players feel ignored by how things like the taking a break question are worded. There are current issues that can stop people from playing the killer role. They are being de-prioritized, and not even acknowledged, in a survey that is asking about player satisfaction. That is telling them that their concerns don't matter for the foreseeable future, and in a game where killers like freddy got hung out to dry for years and things like hug tech went ignored for years as well, thats not a good impression to give off. People want to know their concerns are at least being considered, whether or not there are actually plans to address them in the near future. Also some things like adjusting audio balancing can be done in a hotfix, they don't require the amount of manpower that things like reworks do.
Additionally, lots of killer complaints have been addressed without going to a survey.This is kinda irrelevant, as many survivor complaints have also been addressed without surveys. Were there even any killer issue focused surveys, or just the vague tester/forum out (which is also up to 4 times as saturated by survivors per match?) My point, once again, is about parity. I get the feeling we're not going to see eye to eye on this, but it was worth a shot.
-
@ShanoaLegendaryPlz said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3919479#Comment_3919479
Im just saying what they changed. You could be blinded from the side with a flashlight before along with flashbangs againts a wall etc. Now its a rather small cone that resembles the killers fov. Where even if the flashlight is on their face, it will not work unless you are standing infront of the killer, not to the side where u can still see and aim at their face
Exactly, you shouldn't have been able to before and it was an issue. Blinding is caused by putting a light source into your direct line of sight, so being able to be blinded from outside your FoV should never have been a thing in the first place. Do you think it was fair that killers could be blinded by light sources they couldn't even see?
-
@ShanoaLegendaryPlz said:
It wasnt just the flashbang. The entire blinding angle was reduced even for flashlights. Its like if the player with the flashlight isnt within the killers fov then the light on their face doesnt even start to trigger the light burn.
Why would a killer be able to be blinded from outside of their FoV? Isn't that kinda how blinding is supposed to work?
@buggybug said:
The point is that it is pointless. Just run commo tool box with built to last and street wise wise and watch the booboo ever complaints of gen rush or just run blast mine.
Killers whine about survivors are boring and only want to sit on gens yet everything we try to do from gens is qq nerf. I do see flashbang being used since nerfed maybe line 1 in out if like 20 games now.
I really hate to call out specific people on things like this, but being dismissive about killer complaints caused by a one sided response to an issue is exactly why these issues keep cascading like this. Its not uncommon for one side's issues to cause issues for the other side based on how they adapt to the original changes, which is why its so important to not spot treat issues and instead focus on solutions that treat problems further up the chain instead of just the thing people are complaining about at the moment. If people were less spiteful about the issues their opponents face, we might actually start to get some health in the game rather than this weird vindictive tribalism.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3918211#Comment_3918211
The question "Why do you run infinites?" for example could be answered as either "because I want to not get caught" or it could be "because all of the tiles in that half of the map spawned garbage."Except those are two different things. The first is a motivation, the second is why the player thinks they have that motivation.
The first is the kind of thing that can be surveyed. What are you enjoying, what aren't you enjoying, etc. They survey maker can get a gist of general ideas/problems from the community and then put the main issues into a survey that a larger portion of the player base can answer. In this scenario you are looking for what the majority opinion is on the enjoyment of game mechanics.
The second is an issue that would be best resolved by a short answer response (that realistically there is no way it would get read in a mass survey). Game design issues like that usually get left to things like testers and forums, such as this one. Instead of majority opinion you are now looking for the 'best' design which is going to be far more subjective and require a lot of weighing different priorities.
To kind of continue with the example: if a survey asked killers how they felt about survivors pre-running or stealth game play, those would be opinions about enjoyment. Now I don't think any survivor particularly enjoys pre-running, so getting an idea of the level of dislike killer's have for it would make sense, though there would still be balance issues to discuss. Something like stealth would be difficult because some killers dislike it, but many survivors really enjoy it, so you now have contrasting desires.
I presume no killer 'likes' to slug just to torment the survivors, and if they do, that's actually more of a reason to change it.
I make this distinction because its not uncommon for killers whodon'tdefault to the LCD strategies to have toadaptto them. That kind of vital context speaks about bigger issues further up the cause and effect chain.Three points
1: Again this is something they have data on / community feedback. People's opinion of why things are happening in games, especially one like DbD were so much is obscured and their are heavy bias issues, pales in comparison to a data sample.
2: We don't even know what the changes will be. When we got the three gen changes it came with small buffs (that I would say meant a net overall killer buff though I think both sets of changes were good).
3: As Mandy mentioned, they can always make additional adjustments. Let's say the high MMR escape rate goes from 40 to 45%. That would be a significant jump, but its not the end of the world. The things in the survey aren't even about survivors wanting to win, its about not losing in a way that is miserable. That's very different than balance issues.
Actually to further emphasize, the "Why do you destroy all the hooks?" question could have answers ranging from saving teammates over comms to just trying to grind out counter-productive challenges.Except things like challenges they actually have the data on. It's their game, if they want to look up how many people were doing a challenge when engaging in certain actions, they can. A survey would be silly in that circumstance because they would have access to raw numbers.
@crogers271regarding your comment about why ask about the killer perspective and relating it to the playerbase as a whole, sorry it didn't quote for some reason. Must be tired.There seems to be a forum bug. If you quote reply to someone, then go to quote reply someone else, the second reply won't get the quote unless you refresh the page.
And why can't this apply to killers? The majority being one role in each match does not mean the majority is the same ratio in the overall playerbase, since most people play both roles at least somewhat. Surveys like the one in question completely ignore the issues an entire side of the game might be experiencing, while addressing ones that actively make their position both weaker and compounds existing issues without even asking about, let alone addressing them. Its a lopsided focus on multiple bipartisan issues, with promises like Mandy's not meaning much when you don't even bothering to ask the other side. If there were questions like "as killer, do you feel the need to use these strategies regularly?" or "If given a choice, would you rather not use these strategies?" they would be doing proper diligence on collecting proper opinions and perspectives.
This isn't the first time there has been a lopsided survey, and I continue to maintain that BHVR have consistently been terrible at addressing issues that affect both sides in an any way that takes the considerations of both roles into their solutions. They just focus on the most immediate thing thats being complained about, and work their solution around how to appease the complainers. And since an issue like slugging or tunneling affects up to 4 people negatively each time they're employed, there will be more complainers just by sheer volume. This is especially dangerous because said complainers either ignore or try to invalidate anything about the situation from the other side, downvotes coming back are like a perfect metric for the way people dogpile arguments instead of actually considering how each situation affects both sides.
I don't believe BHVR is inherently biased toward either role, but I absolutely think there are people who make important decisions about the game's health that are missing important perspectives on why the game plays out like it does, and why we get the metas we do. Limiting your approach just gives you more cleanup later, and considering how long some very important killer bugs take to get fixed, that type of "we'll get to it later" focus feels especially crappy for one role, let alone when there are satisfaction surveys that completely ignore that side's perspective on a matter. If the argument is "killers would just complain they need to do it regardless of whether they actually do" why would this not apply to people who complain about sensible applications of things like slugging or tunneling?
To kind of continue with the example: if a survey asked killers how they felt about survivors pre-running or stealth game play, those would be opinions about enjoyment. Now I don't think any survivor particularly enjoys pre-running, so getting an idea of the level of dislike killer's have for it would make sense, though there would still be balance issues to discuss. Something like stealth would be difficult because some killers dislike it, but many survivors really enjoy it, so you now have contrasting desires.This is exactly what I mean. Are these questions on the survey? Is there pre-balance "does this bother you" opinion gathering like there is for the issues that currently plague survivor? They constantly make changes with things like audio and don't even acknowledge them, then ignore feedback until people stop bothering. They only care because there are a massive number of people in the community who get their way through boycotting and complaining, and killers have straight up been sent to the graveyard of unsuitability instead of having nuance in addressing people's issues with them. They just continue to reward that bad behavior, and it feels awful to see this stuff if you're trying to play a killer who is not only already in bad shape, but will be hurt even worse when these complaints get addressed. I am all for finding a solution to LCD issues, but it needs to be a solution that incorporates the concerns, methodology, and insights of BOTH sides.
As a last point, I have to again ask concerning this quote:
The things in the survey aren't even about survivors wanting to win, its about not losing in a way that is miserable. That's very different than balance issues.Why is this not allowed to apply to killers? Its not whataboutism when the developers are clearly favoring only a portion of their userbase when collecting feedback.
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3917660#Comment_3917660
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3917684#Comment_3917684
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3918229#Comment_3918229
This is all just willful ignorance.
Not hard to understand how any decent killer running Lethal Pursuer can force a survivor to misplay, effectively winning in the first 30 seconds. There is more than one way to play the game and, regardless of what you believe the optimal strategy is, survivors will never agree on the "right way to play."
A strong counterpoint can be made against all three of your "objectively correct ways to play" which goes to show just how many opportunities there are for something to go wrong for Survivors.
…not to mention what a rediculous statement @TwinsMain2004 made with "i don't understand this camp and tunnel at 5 gens thing…" You either have all of 5 hours in Dead by Daylight or you're oblivious to objective reality. Regardless of how it happens, Survivors frequently find themselves camped and tunneled at 5 gens and no amount of "get good" or practical advice has managed to change that in the past 8 years.Its not willful ignorance, its learning from mistakes. I've been caught out early tons of times. I know its not always your fault, but I also know the vast majority of the time, it is. Thats what building game sense is, taking your experiences and knowledge of the game to predict what is happening outside your purview, as well as what is going to happen based on what you have and are witnessing. The game starts as survivor by panning the camera before the killer even gets into first person, let alone gains control. You get a chance to survey the area before the killer gets to start pursuing you with LP (assuming they even have it.) If your legitimate concern is that they will have LP and head straight for you specifically, you should be using that opening camera pan to identify tiles and begin routing. Like I said, there will be times where circumstances will deal you an impossibly bad hand, but the vast majority of the time there will be at least one avenue for you to identify and utilize.
Also, I don't remember where I said that I had an "objectively correct way to play," just that the post I was responding to was listing common excuses that are made instead of actually improving to mitigate those factors almost entirely. The intention was to reflect "maybe there were things I could have done" and not as an attack. If you (not even the person I was talking to) were offended by that, it wasn't my intention.
Lastly, their point was more that at least 1 gen should be finished before anyone can be camped and tunneled. As long as people are actually doing gens and the person being chased is able to run a modest length of time, at least 1 gen should have popped. If you need to find out whether it was the person in chase or the rest, using a stopwatch can help determine which part of the team didn't pull their own weight to that point.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3917660#Comment_3917660
There's theoretical survivor gameplay where you're always next next to a chain of safe tiles and have perfect knowledge of the killer's position, and there's the actual realistic survivor gameplay where RNG exists, dead zones exist, and you're not able to perfectly pre-run.
Thats… bad game sense then. The entire time you're routing and/or working on an objective you should always be taking a mental inventory of the tiles you encounter, or at least the general map layout. If you find yourself in a dead zone early in the match, you damn well better figure out which way to run the moment you hear the TR. Granted you can have a respectable moderate chase and have nobody touch a single gen the whole time, but thats a different issue entirely.
-
@crogers271 regarding your comment about why ask about the killer perspective and relating it to the playerbase as a whole, sorry it didn't quote for some reason. Must be tired.
You're absolutely right, but it is still an insight that the devs should be trying to understand. The question "Why do you run infinites?" for example could be answered as either "because I want to not get caught" or it could be "because all of the tiles in that half of the map spawned garbage." Sometimes its not so much about the low hanging fruit obvious answer as it is how and why you got there. I make this distinction because its not uncommon for killers who don't default to the LCD strategies to have to adapt to them. That kind of vital context speaks about bigger issues further up the cause and effect chain. Actually to further emphasize, the "Why do you destroy all the hooks?" question could have answers ranging from saving teammates over comms to just trying to grind out counter-productive challenges. A lot of issues in the game have ripple effects, so its always important to get as close to the start of the ripple and start there.
-
@DeBecker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3917618#Comment_3917618
Why asking someone that only wants to win why they just rely on the cheapest methods? Its obvious. Cause its easy. Killer mains are mostly people who want easy games with sure wins. Those are entirely biased and have no neutral feedback to give. So no point in asking them.
Thats a pretty wide net to put anyone who disagrees with you under, especially not knowing their perspective or methodology. Sometimes people use LCD strategies because they are their only viable option given the situation they find themselves in, which is not mutually exclusive to comments like Choy's. Anyone who wants to "win more" is going to do things that are more effective, the issues are related to difficulty vs value, and whether alternatives are equally viable. You learn more about people's behaviors when you actually listen to them instead of defaulting to an us vs them mindset.
-
@TotemsCleanser said:
Y'all are arriving to these silly arguments like 4 years late.
No, FNAF's fans these days are not children, most of them are either late teenagers or adults by now, as over 10 years have passed since the release of the first FNAF game. Not everyone who cares for FNAF is a child (I'm almost 30 y/o lol). And most of the FNAF fans who are currently children do not care for games such as DBD, most of them won't even try the game, and those who do won't stay for long. DBD as a game does not cater to children.
Yes, FNAF has become an iconic horror franchise whether you like it or not.
Also, you're allowed not to like any FNAF character designs but that does not mean they do not belong in DBD or that they are not "scary". It's a matter of personal taste.
Last but not least FNAF is coming into the game this anniversary and there's nothing you can do about it so I'd suggest investing your energy somewhere else <3
Last but not least FNAF is coming into the game this anniversary and there's nothing you can do about it so I'd suggest investing your energy somewhere else <3Many likely will. Its not the own you think it is.
A lot of people force themselves to play despite burning out years ago due to sunk cost fallacy and/or chasing what enjoyment they used to get from the game.. Divisiveness is like putting them through rehab.
-
@CLHL said:
They took the quitters' argument instead of punishing them properly and here we are, the problem has only grown.
Its interesting how there is no option for "My teammates keep giving up early in the match." I guess it just got lumped into the trolling one.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3916066#Comment_3916066
I'm mostly being insanely sarcastic tbh.
I said that people splitting up on gens was worse for the killer before the prove nerf, and nerfing that perk would just make gen rushing worse. At that time I was told I was an idiot, and it was 100% PT (and BNP) causing the problem.
Fast forward to today, and shocked Pikachu it looks like people are splitting up on gens more. Who could've seen this coming?
Same goes for BBQ tbh. Getting rid of BP incentives that promoted fair play was extremely backwards.
-
@SkeletalElite said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3915528#Comment_3915528
If you already know the general location of the totem I find it hard to believe that it should take you any substantial amount of time with or without the totem aura, there's only so many places totems can spawn and if already know the general area checking getting to it should be very brief. Of course this all assuming you even need to have the totem called out to you in the first place, given that the bubble from hex totems breaking appears for survivors so you should really be taking note of the location before there is even a penti totem in the first place. This only seems like an issue if you're worried about stomping teams that don't really know totem spawns and aren't prepared to face penti.
Indoor maps. This change makes the perk especially weaker on indoor maps, and the SWF advantage is that the search time is considerably lower and more easily passive: Its a lot easier to incidentally find the totem while in a chase or performing other actions while before it at least needed line of sight and/or close enough proximity to hear the totem.
That said, its exactly like you said… its largely inconsequential, which is why its that much more confusing. Totems revealing themselves or self destructing on downs/kills is so ass backwards to the risk/reward formula of the mechanic, and should only be used sparingly when their effects are both strong and hard to otherwise ignore or deny. This change came along with a huge potency nerf, which makes it feel like they nerfed it too far. Also if its as inconsequential as posited, that begs the question why was it even needed.
-
@cesspoolechochamber said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3914696#Comment_3914696
Well first off I didn't say it was huge or not you took your own assumption based on I'm guessing your negative reaction to what I was saying. Second huge would be a "huge" over evaluation. What huge would be is giving base kit bond or something pf that nature.
You kinda illustrated my point, it was huge, but many people who down play it don't understand how much information it actually provides to bridge the gap between solo and SWF. From who is in chase to progress bars on things like healing and gens, but then also with a lot of meta data (someone is in chase after being unhooked telling you when the killer is tunneling, someone healing isn't currently going for a save, what gen people are on based on knowing what their progress should be at, etc.) It doesn't have to be flat out aura reading to be telling you a lot of info you can use to make better plays, it was actually one of the smarter changes since it helped solo a lot more than SWF, while basekit auras would have given even more free coordination to swfs. It was a change designed to help players help themselves rather than give them advantageous information for free.
-
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3914700#Comment_3914700
I really like the way you’re framing this through agency—it’s a smart lens, and I agree it’s central to the survivor experience. It’s a role built on shared responsibility. But where I differ is in placing the blame soley on the players. I think the game is structured to inherently punish survivors when that shared agency breaks down, and it does very little to prevent, compensate for, or recover from that breakdown. Add in the fact that survivors are intended to lose more than they win, and you’re already starting at a disadvantage.
The solo experience is fragile. The moment that coordination falters, punishment is swift. That’s not just a player issue; thats intentional design. This role is built on collective punishment. You can outplay the killer, make the right calls, be the strongest player in the match, and still lose. Not because you played poorly—but because you’re restricted by other players. And the game doesn’t give you or those players the tools to stabilize.
Individual skill does matter but only up to a point. You don’t get to choose which killer you face, how experienced your teammates are, or how many times anyone’s played against that killer before. It’s not always a skill issue. I think it’s often a skill gap. We don’t call it “throwing” when a killer struggles to learn a new killer in real matches—we call it a learning curve. I feel the same should apply to survivors when struggling to face certain killers as well (especially with how often reworks or buffs to them are consistently happening) But the game offers survivors no structured way to close that gap.
Killers can practice in customs with bots, any perks (even ones they don’t own) on any map, with or against any builds. Survivors don’t have that equivalence. Just trial by fire, over and over, with variable teammates, on maps they can’t choose, against killers they can’t choose. It’s like trying to study for an exam—while taking it, and it’s a slightly different test version every time. There’s no consistency to learn from.It’s intentionally difficult. And that’s fine. It’s a horror game. Survival should be earned. Yes, bad survivor behavior makes things worse. It should not be rewarded. But l also feel that behavior not only comes from selfish individuals but also comes from the fragility of the role itself. It’s not just a matter of “people should play better”it’s also “why is the role so vulnerable to one person not playing well?” If there were better ways to learn, to practice, and to build consistency, I think we’d see a lot less burnout and far more growth.
Yes, harsher penalties for DCs or first-hook suicides might clean up some of the surface-level behavior, which is great! But I don’t think that’s going to fix morale or the overall dissatisfaction with the role itself. And I think using the worst behavior in the role as justification for ignoring survivor frustrations is misguided. It’s the same logic that got Skull Merchant gutted because of how some killers misused her. That wasn’t fair to the role or those players then and I feel it isn’t fair now.
So, I think in a nutshell I agree with most of what you’ve said. But I think where we may disagree is just on the expectations of one role over the other, along with how or what those expectations are perceived depending on the role. I want survivors to just.. be better, too. But I don’t think they have the tools to do so in a way that would actually make a difference. If I had the option, I would absolutely be playing on custom bot lobbies, practicing against every killer in the game, every add-on, every perk, on every map so that I could make up for my short-comings, to learn, and be a better player to face and to team up with.
In any case, it’s always a pleasure speaking with you friend! I smile everytime I see your notifications as the conversations are always pleasant regardless on where we stand.
Definitely agreed that survivors need more practice tools like killers eventually got, though I get why they haven't been able to do so yet. That said, I think there might be a bit of misunderstanding concerning my conceptualization of difficulty: As survivor much of the difficulty comes from your reliance on teammates outside your control, while as killer difficulty comes more from the amount of macro gaming and mechanical skill. The thing is that means that the difficulty on one side is not always entirely one's own fault (win or lose,) while the other side has a lot of variability depending on how their killer/build handles those two aspects (and how they handle said killer.) It would be just as accurate to say killer is harder than survivor as it would be to say that it is easier. The comparison is hard to make when there is such a wide range of advantages either side could have, let alone the asymmetric structure. This is before getting into the other less quantifiable random chance factors like opponent's skill/loadouts/etc.
I just don't like the idea of either role calling the other "easier." They both have very different considerations and thresholds to account for, in a game that is structured mainly by its chaotic nature.
If there were better ways to learn, to practice, and to build consistency, I think we’d see a lot less burnout and far more growth.sadly I doubt it would go that well. There are already plenty of killers who would rather ask for nerfs than use the practice tool they have, and I don't predict the survivor role being any different. Those who honestly do want to get better would be able to do so, but the average player values dopamine hits more than delayed gratification, and practice tools do nothing if not utilized. Its a shame but even now losing matches can (and should) be used for practicing but rarely are, every time someone dips early I'll the the opportunity to practice chase extensions or killer power interactions, anything to try to make the most of the situation. Unfortunately most don't have the same mindset and would rather give up and hope they don't encounter the same situation next game, then continue burning out as they get less and less feel good chemicals. Doomposting aside, I do still hope we get at the very least customs with killer bots eventually.
-
@Langweilig said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3914857#Comment_3914857
You have no idea what you are talking about! Having a dead teammate at 3-5 gens left is already a lost cause and that‘s objective not even subjective. I don‘t need to be better than all the others and torment myself if all the other don‘t do it themself. It‘s human nature, you have to get over it. As long as behavior isn‘t addressing any of the problems, that‘s not my fault. You are also assuming that I do it all the time, which I‘m not. I wrote if I do it, which already implies I‘m not doing it often.
I never assumed you do it all the time, just that you do it, which you admitted to. Your entire post just comes off as attempts at justification rather than actually taking any of what I've said to heart, so enjoy being part of the problem I guess.
-
@Langweilig said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3914853#Comment_3914853
I‘m only doing it when the match is already lost and to be honest it’s more often done to me than I do it to others. At some point it is exhausting. On the other hand I barely play survivor anymore. As killer I can handle every map and adjust my build accordingly. Survivors don‘t have perks to work against terrible maps.
"Other people do it too" isn't a valid justification, as you're only perpetuating that cycle at other players and being part of the problem. Its also not your place to decide for your 3 teammates when a match is "already lost," thats depriving them of shared agency necessary for the role to function. Basically you're making their choice for them, while assuming your assessment of the match is immaculate (regardless of actual evidence.) How easy you find killer is an irrelevant deflection, the point was that if a killer ever feels like they "already lost" they do not have the option to avoid the DC penalty like you are apparently enjoying.
-
@Langweilig said:
If I go next it has something to do with the horrible map I have to play on. Some maps are incredibly unfun and unfair to survivors. Haddonfield/both borgo realms/rancid and others still being their current state are miserable to play on and against a decent or strong killer not winnable aside from hatch.
And what happens to the other 3 survivors who might be completely fine with playing said map? What happens when its a map that the killer finds especially unfavorable? You're affecting 4 other players' games, not just your own.
-
@HeroLives said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3914762#Comment_3914762
they can give killers the heart too I guess to let them know a survivor is running nearby but like in killer form since it’s first person, like their weapon vibrates or something. If someone can’t hear at all there’s no amount of sound boosting that’s going to fix that. Might as well give a visual cue for worst case scenario.
The condition I mentioned, APD, has to do with multiple sounds easily obfuscating one another. This is also a common occurrence in people with various forms of hearing loss, including just from getting older. Its not people who "can't hear at all." The fact of the matter is there are people who can't deal with overlapping sounds, so they are at a large disadvantage with either role with how important audio cues get easily hidden. The reason its so important is because both headphones and high volume become necessary with how the current audio balancing is designed, ergo standout loud sounds like the hook screams that are much louder than the rest of the audio are especially ear piercing. That in itself would only require some simple normalization.
-
@HeroLives said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3914753#Comment_3914753
I’m sorry if my joke was insensitive and hurt your feelings, I apologize. My point about in game advantage for those that don’t have hearing issues still stands.
It does, as does my counterpoint that other accessibility changes have been made despite the advantage argument. The precedent is there.
-
@HeroLives said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3914740#Comment_3914740
Are you saying they should set up a department to turn in medical information for a boost to hearing like a waiver? Or that they should create a perk that enhances sound for people with hearing issues that’s available for everyone? I’m just saying you can ask for that. You’re getting upset with me like I’m in charge of their accessibility department. Spies from the shadows is a pretty good perk for killer if someone has hearing issues that’s available. There’s a lot of perks that give visual effects, the aura ones that though not sound, show you where survivors are.
You're projecting a lot onto me, and I don't know what that waiver comment is about. There have been accessibility options added to the game for various similar issues, and I brought it up because of your sarcastic comment. Also they literally changed spine chill to replace it usage with a free accessibility option. Locking accessibility behind perks is a bad idea for anyone.
-
@HeroLives said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3914690#Comment_3914690
imagine the in game advantages you could get from toying with sound on that level. Do you think that’s not intentional? I’ve always felt like that was a very intentional choice.
I didn't say it wasn't intentional, in fact I implied it very much is. That doesn't change the fact that it is an accessibility issue. Also kinda directed at the "googling settings" comment.
-
@hermitkermit said:
I think people consistently underestimate how difficult and chaotic SoloQ actually is—until they get thrown back into it and are forced to remember. While the game has gone through massive shifts over the years, the struggles of survivor players, especially in SoloQ, which are the majority, are often written off or minimized.
Many remember when killer was in a rough spot before the big change, so much so that many stopped playing the role entirely. Survivor queues were painfully long because there just weren’t enough people playing killers. That was seen as a serious balance issue— which it was— and adjustments were made to shift power back toward killers. And it worked! Killer play became more rewarding, and player numbers recovered.
But now, many survivors are feeling what killers once did: powerless, frustrated, and burned out. But rather than seeing this as another balance red flag, it’s often chalked up to survivor entitlement or poor attitude.
Statistically, survivor is a harder role (fitting for a horror game, as escape should be tricky) This is true across MMR brackets, killer tiers, and even regions. Whether the data comes from BHVR, Nightlight, personal match histories, or just consistent player experience, it paints the same picture. Survivor is intentionally designed to be harder. And I think that fact is too often forgotten, ignored, or deliberately dismissed/belittled. Survivors are quitting for the same reasons killers were quitting before— just unhappiness and dissatisfaction with the role. I think many survivors haven’t accepted this yet and still expect more of a 50/50 win and loss rate. I think the QOL changes will help with a lot of the frustration, and the harsher penalties on giving up will certainly help as well.
I don't know that I'd say survivor is designed to be harder, just that its designed to share agency. The reason thats an important distinction is because a lot of the player base seems to be unwilling to do so. The more people get left hanging by their teammates (either through how they play, sandbagging, or abandonment) the more likely they are to slink into the same apathetic stance toward their future teammates. The only way I consider killer easier is that your agency is only impaired by how much time you have, rather than being dependent on up to 3 other people in tandem. When all the survivors are in sync (this does not require comms or even SWF, just efficiency and prioritization) I do not think most of the killer roster is designed to have an easier time (arguments could be made for S tiers, of course.)
The big issue is that a lot of Solo Q's woes come from other Solo Q players, in one way or another. The more people accept shared agency and stop letting each other down, the healthier the role is. The unfortunate part is that the pattern you mentioned regarding many survivors feeling the pinch that many killers used to feel is real, but that its self (by role, not necessarily by individual) inflicted. Every time we give up/throw/sandbag/basically any time not pull one's own weight in agency, we are being the thing we complain about and further cementing the situation we lament.
Its interesting how people react to the agency difference between the roles, as its a somewhat unique dilemma to asyms. Some other types of pvp games have concepts like hypercarries to manipulate the shared agency distribution, but for the most part team games generally tend to have equal parts individual and shared agency, but in this game one side has it while the other essentially does not. This leads to wildly different perceptions of concepts like difficulty and even the grievances.
TL:DR both sides tend to find it frustrating when they lose to things beyond their control, but the survivor role only gives you control over 25% of your role, leading to morale erosion from losses.
-
@cesspoolechochamber said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3914626#Comment_3914626
You do realize the majority of the player base is solo que? We never had this rampant of dc or giving up in the past. Also if majority of your player base is quitting because games aren't fun the solution isn't to ignore them and help the rest or buff them. It should be to buff solo q. The only thing they did was implement icons next to the players name to let you know if your teammate is doing something or not.
If you don't think the HUD update was huge for solo queue then you don't understand how to process that information. Its been an absolute godsend for filling in missing information that you would otherwise have with comms, all it takes is a smidge of deductive reasoning to fill in the blanks. It was an extremely helpful change for solo queue especially.
-
@I_Cant_Loop said:
I had just been thinking about how it’s been quite a while since we’ve had a rash of weekend s***posts. I guess I jinxed it.
Volume balancing is an actual issue in the game, though. Especially hook screams and chase music.
@HeroLives said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3914558#Comment_3914558
They said they can’t find the volume settings on their headset or system and demand BHVR fix their game instead of googling settings. Wow,this game it really is too loud can’t even hear text 🤦♀️
If there was in game audio balancing in any capacity this joke would hit better, but this game is horrible for people with conditions like APD. It would be much better if there was either better audio balancing (read: not purposely bad to disorient players) or actual options for things like lowering hook screams so loud they're basically trying to get neighbors to call the police, loud chase music, voices (which still need to be normalized anyway) footsteps, heavy breathing/snarling and so on. The audio balancing for the game is a mess, and that takes a lot more than just adjusting volume due to how important sounds are often much more quiet than superfluous ones.
-
@I_Cant_Loop said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3914208#Comment_3914208
With the new progression system and sharing of perks across all characters when you level up, you do not have to spend very many BP to keep up with perk unlocks anymore.
Why should confidence in someone’s ability to play well have anything to do with whether or not they bring an item? There have been so many times I’ve been injured at the end of the game, gates are open, no teammates around, and the ability to heal myself have allowed me to take another hit and get out when I otherwise would have been downed, hooked, and probably dead. That doesn’t have anything to do with confidence or skill. It’s being smart and not intentionally handicapping yourself by not bringing an item that could be the difference between escaping and dying.With the new progression system and sharing of perks across all characters when you level up, you do not have to spend very many BP to keep up with perk unlocks anymore.Again, I do not play often, and need to spend my BP across what, 38 killers? and rising? On survivor the only unique aspect to them are their item/addon/offering pools, but on killer upkeep on addons alone is still quite expensive, on top of the perk unlocks (which are much better, like you said.) Trust me, I've been playing catchup for years and I haven't been playing enough to get caught up, so I generally don't use items as survivor because they're not getting the BP to keep stocking them.
Why should confidence in someone’s ability to play well have anything to do with whether or not they bring an item?Your own words:
In my experience, it’s a big red flag when I spawn into a lobby and my teammates don’t want to bring an item that could potentially make the difference between escaping a dying.I took that as you saying you have little confidence based on that one thing alone. I agree that it shouldn't have any bearing whatsoever. I'd directly quote the other lines but to put it simply Its possible (and probable) to not put yourself in situations where the item would be that important as your extreme examples: They're neither guaranteed nor eventualities, and you're just as likely to have a match where you had zero need (as opposed to simple want) for said items.
that said:
It’s being smart and not intentionally handicapping yourself by not bringing an item that could be the difference between escaping and dying.…can be said for dozens of things in this game, so you can't really single out people not taking items for that reason. That could be said for anything less than perfect meta and 4 man SWF on comms. People are not throwing if they're not taking every single advantage they can get.
You don't agree with my reasoning, thats fine, you're not me. But holy hell with how people sabotage their teammates constantly this feels like a really weird hangup.
-
Survivors don't need items, they're bonuses for covering specific things (especially regarding saves and blind/sabo builds.) If you're willing to lobby dodge because another survivor is confident enough in their ability to not need to bring a toolbox then you're overthinking things by a lot.
I also main survivor but don't play often, so I sped almost all of my BP trying to keep up with perk unlocks through prestiges for both roles and rarely actually get to use what I spend my points on. If I completely ignored killers? Sure, but I like to dabble sometimes, so keeping up costs more than how much I actually play anymore. I'd rather be unlocking perks and getting addons that are required for specific builds than saving a few seconds on a gen or bringing tools to annoy the killer.
-
@WolfyWood said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3913095#Comment_3913095
If you're referring to comp, I don't know what the dev vision is regarding competitive DBD so I can't comment on it, but there are plenty of rules that creative killer diversity, artificial or otherwise.
Referring to highest queue-able MMR, again, its not really different than being unable to use any of the multitudes of trash perks and playstyles on the survivor side, if survivors were win-streaking perkless I'd be more sympathetic, but they're not even win-streaking with off-meta builds.
And you'd still have to gather stats that show non-meta killers are loss-streaking in the cited MMR levels, if they're not, what's the problem?
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3913097#Comment_3913097
The unsatisfying answer is that if a killer DC's, the entire match ends. Its an asymmetrical game at the end of the day. We are already getting go-next prevention soon-ish, so I'll reserve my thoughts on the topic for that point in time because it will most likely change a lot. I will say that adding killer bots would give them leeway to let killer's leave more often, but it'd be a lot of work and I'd imagine they'd rather just put a stop to chronic hookcide instead.
Time efficiency is survivor biased if they are a SWF and if said SWF is competitive, how often is this the case? If games against competitive SWFs can be won and are rare, is there truly an issue? If the problem is that killers are losing these games despite playing 'perfectly,' one side has to lose the immovable object vs unstoppable force situation, why should it be the survivors?
I also don't agree with the idea that you should be able to play an off-meta killer with an off-meta build and win consistently against comp-swfs running meta, as well as the fact that survivors who are inefficient with crappy builds shouldn't be able to consistently win against comp Blights/Nurses (which they don't.) The only exception to this being a massive skill-gap.
As annoying as Eruption was, survivors still had strong tools to use too and it would've been a lot better (imo) if BHVR added ways to communicate things like gen-perks or chases instead of just gutting Eruption, so I'm not opposed to preserving the strength of something frustrating by indirectly nerfing it with QoL that alleviates said frustration. A perfectly example would be adding basekit weaker corrupt without nerfing gen speeds again.
Regarding your last point, BHVR can put in said changes, but is it worth it the cost/effort? Nothing I've seen is convincing enough for me to believe killers are truly fighting tooth and nail in high-level MMR, all I've seen is evidence that high-mmr is the only place where they have to play against opponents of equal or greater skill instead, which like I said in my first response, should be expected if you're playing at that level.
You're not wrong about the killer leaving ending the game, but if someone goes next at 5 gens, how is that any different? If anything its worse since the match has to drag out in an unbalanced and lopsided manner. As for time efficiency, SWF is not a requirement for it at all: Good players can and do silently coordinate and use deductive reasoning to fill in the blanks for information they're missing regarding their teammates, and the HUD update helped with that a lot.
If the problem is that killers are losing these games despite playing 'perfectly,' one side has to lose the immovable object vs unstoppable force situation, why should it be the survivors?This is an interesting question, because it comes down to a philosophy I feel influenced the game's design: 1 mind is more powerful than 4 minds with no coordination, while 4 minds in synchronicity are more powerful than one mind alone. I feel like DBD is supposed to be about the 4 minds trying to coordinate without the means to do so in order to overcome the one other mind. This is why there is so much missing information at all times, why even the tiles have certain rng elements to their formulas to try to keep things harder to coordinate. So in general, I feel it should fall in the middle, the survivors should win if they achieve near impossible immovability while they should lose if they fail to do so. Meanwhile the majority of matches should fall in the middle due to human error and loadouts on both sides creating a massive +/- window. Unfortunately we will never get there until the roster is balanced, let alone the roles.
I also don't agree with the idea that you should be able to play an off-meta killer with an off-meta build and win consistently against comp-swfs running meta, as well as the fact that survivors who are inefficient with crappy builds shouldn't be able to consistently win against comp Blights/Nurses (which they don't.) The only exception to this being a massive skill-gap.I don't remember claiming that, especially the consistently part. Builds are going to have different strengths, but there is a difference between "winning consistently" and viability. Viability means you actually stand a chance, as opposed to losing at character select. I also don't think the game will ever be able to account for the strength of all aspects of coordination, so consistently is a strong word indeed. Ideally, sure, but realistically those sweat squads are a very small minority (as I'm always told) so it would be unrealistic to account for their potential. Why do discussions always devolve to extremes?
Regarding your last point, BHVR can put in said changes, but is it worth it the cost/effort?That depends on how much BHVR values its fanbase. And I don't mean that in a fanservicey kind of way, I mean that in an integrity in their product way. The fact they're finally putting extra effort into the health of the game tells me they understand how important improving the experience of their user base is, so taking the balance paradigms that have been identified for most of the game's life are worth their already existing investment toward balance adjustments.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3913087#Comment_3913087
RPD sure wasn't okay, but it was a specific interaction on a specific map; not the entire game.
You'd be "throwing" if you didn't run Nurse + slowdowns by that logic. If you go into the game with a weak Killer, no gen perks, no real chase perks against good players WHY should you expect to win?
Because stacking the odds in your favor should not be required to have a chance at winning a balanced game. Something that applies to both sides for different reasons. His build wasn't bad, it just didn't have something that is essentially necessary in the current meta. My point with RPD was that it created extremely unfun games that all parties involved knew would result in the killer getting a 4k. The outcome doesn't mean anything regarding how it got there.
-
@WolfyWood said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3913087#Comment_3913087
I don't think that's exclusive to killer-side though, to the point where I don't see why additional balancing is needed (especially not another survivor nerf.) Killers just feel it more often than survivors because hitting high MMR is way easier on killer, and that's the price you pay for SBMM.
In a good MMR system, every game should be a struggle and should be tiring. You should not expect to just chain matches back to back in high MMR without breaking a sweat or it's not functioning as intended. The emotional response to playing a hard match is understandable, but I disagree that BHVR should change the game to accommodate it.
Playing at a high-level will always include sacrificing fun for efficiency which I believe is Pulsar's point. Looking at the survivor builds of the match, everything there is the equivalent to running four slowdowns. Just like killer, I'd wager > 60% of survivor perks are a throw.
The reason why there's such push-back against killers getting basekit buffs (even though I'd be fine with basekit corrupt) is because killer is the power role and is already dominant at all levels of play until it tapers off into 'sometimes you might have a really hard game but still win most of your matches' territory in high-mmr as low-above average MMR is a slaughterfest.
Oh of course its not exclusive to the killer side, but being bound by the disconnect penalty is. While I personally think neither side should have a way to get out of matches without penalty, killers can't go next (either on purpose or by accident) so they have to play out every single game like this down to the last moment. I never see go next defenders advocating for parity in that regard, so its worth reiterating.
There's a difference between difficult games and unwinnable games. And yes, you can win an unwinnable game. In this instance I'm using unwinnable to define a game where you can do everything right and still lose, because the match is stacked beyond your favor. Both sides can and do occasionally have unwinnable games, but the biggest difference is that on survivor side it often has to do with sharing the agency of your teammates, while as killer it generally means time efficiency is very far in the survivors' favor. You can win games where either of those elements are against you, but they are not fun games win or lose. Especially knowing its not as much that you won as it was that they lost.
If you disagree that frustrations should not be a balance worthy consideration for killers, please remember that if you ever feel they're worthy of consideration for survivors. Not saying whether you do or don't, but keep it in mind as a mindfulness approach. Frustration is quite possibly the biggest catalyst of almost any balance discussion on these forums, moreso than actual balancing.
The reason why there's such push-back against killers getting basekit buffs (even though I'd be fine with basekit corrupt) is because killer is the power role and is already dominant at all levels of play until it tapers off into 'sometimes you might have a really hard game but still win most of your matches' territory in high-mmr as low-above average MMR is a slaughterfest.Why can't we make balance adjustments that help killers more at high level and help survivors more at lower level? That should always be the ideal.