Ryuhi
Ryuhi
About
- Username
- Ryuhi
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3913077#Comment_3913077
I do not think it is a rare game.
However, I do not think there is anything wrong with that, aside from the stress factor, which is something built into the game.
Despite literally everything going wrong and all of it stacked against him, he still won the game as Clown. That isn't similar to Old BT at all. If you got farmed without old BT, that was it. You were done and you had no recourse, that's one reason DS was so popular because it was a defense against dumb teammates.
If you get dealt the worst hand possible as Killer, you can still win. It might not be easy, or "fun", but to say it isn't possible isn't accurate.
Thats not what he meant by the BT comparison, at least not how I took it. He was talking about how you were throwing if you didn't take BT at the time, which was generally considered the case. That same type of necessity has been felt with gen perks more than once in DBD's history, especially specific combos with specific killers (corrupt being the big example for setup or poor map presence killers.) He had 3 hooks by the time the gens were powered, and his win was solely from getting aura reads on how greedy the survivors were being. It wasn't his game to win, it was their game to lose, and if he didn't play it the way he did it could have easily been a 3E. There's a specific type of frustration that causes with games, and experiencing it frequently takes a massive mental toll (see: all justifications ever given regarding going next) beyond what the game "should" be. He even touched on wanting to give up and get out of the game but then he kept with it because he was forced to. That type of frustration is felt by both sides, but for some reason there never seems to be any empathy across the isle for either side.
Did I miss something regarding that possibility statement though? The fact he won a game like this is proof that there's always possibility, the point was more about the helplessness and frustration than the number of kills. RPD library whack a mole wasn't ok even though it almost always ended in a 4k.
-
@Pulsar said:
Is this mf Arinad? Author of the billion-page Clown guide?
Also, what is your point? Not every Killer should be balanced to compete with the .01% of Survivors. Survivors have no base-kit comeback mechanics, they have base-kit protections. Call it what it is.
Some of us enjoy playing against difficult opponents and learning. Coming back better next time.
Putting aside the streamer's personality/complaints/etc, the main thing I took away was how fast the gens got done, and how his comeback was entirely caused by overzealous plays on the survivor side. He was even content with a 2k when the snowball started. Balance discussions aside, I absolutely get the frustration aspect of what he's saying, especially knowing that a more meta perk selection (or killer) would have given him a better chance at a more meaningful match (win or lose.) His game sense was not poor, he was doing things like recognizing when gens would pop and was making decisions like hooking the one survivor when he knew the others were down and healing across the map, so I don't think his macro play is especially poor (aside from the limitations of clown and his perks ofc.)
Regarding the basekit combacks/protections, regardless of which one each of us thinks applies, I think the bigger point he was making is that there are a lot of issues on the killer side that are on the same level as BT was before it became basekit: Gen perks feel that necessary because of the speed of matches like this, and it feels as necessary at higher level as BT felt before it got made basekit. Thats part of the issue with the pandora's box that got opened with basekit mechanics/buffs like that and the timer ones: It validates a lot of whataboutism, and makes issues feel particularly ignored when not addressed in a similarly impactful way.
I couldn't even finish the video, but I made sure to watch the entire match to get why he felt the need to make the video, and his frustration is valid. He could absolutely let it not get to him, but I can't imagine this kind of game being rare when you main clown for that many hours, especially if you're willing to divert from his meta.
-
@humanbeing1704 said:
perk stacking being removed is a good thing
they can actually balance ######### properly without it being overpowered and unfair if it can be stackableBingo. Hope to see it with more factors in the future, and the only issue is whether BHVR will give things adequate value to make up for removing stacking. Removing perk/item/addon/etc stacking allows them to make things more powerful since they will no longer be able to overlap, so its then just up to them to make sure things are worth using individually. They've done it in the past by nerfing addons and making a portion of them basekit, so I feel like they (probably) understand how to find that middle ground. I'd take stronger perks that don't stack over weaker perks that need to be stacked to get a decent-yet-necessary value any day.
…If they keep things too weak after removing stacking, however, I feel like they'll learn pretty quick that goes. Their track record for over-nerfing has me skeptical but hopeful.
-
Great idea, terrible implementation, and honestly they feel like they've been holding back loop design.
-
@ArkInk said:
I feel the Doomposting around this chapter specifically is coming from people who are already salty FNAF is being added and want a reason to think it's going to go poorly.
We get years long fan requests added constantly, from RE to Alien to Chucky to Dracula, people have found a reason to be hyped or disappointed by anyone being added, with execution actually seeming to matter the most. Sure, there will be people who hate no matter what, but I certainly didn't see anyone pinning Alien as a flop because of fan expectations, it was almost all based around legitimate complaints in design.
Yes, there's definitely a chance the devs mess up the power like Xeno and the killer becomes extremely unpopular, but I don't see much of a reason to assume that before we've even seen it. Even a controversial killer like Nemesis still has a lot of fans. I have faith we'll get something good from Springtrap, especially since he doesn't fall into regular killer pitfalls like 'dash ability.'
There are two reasons FNAF gets a bit different salt from a lot of franchises (especially iconic ones:) People's stance on the creator of the series and their unwillingness to support him, and the community's behavior (both as a fandom and within DBD's history, as @Pulsar mentioned.) People are allowed to have their opinions about the creator and separating art from its creator and what have you, but there is a very clear generational gap between most of the licensed franchises and FNAF.
As has been mentioned even in this very topic, younger people tend to know FNAF a lot more than most of the horror icons in the game, regardless of what form of media they come from. On the inverse, its a much newer series than most of the licenses (with a few exceptions, of course) and does not carry a "classic" moniker the same as many others for anyone born before maybe 1990 or so. Its a combination of different appreciations and time dilation which causes the schism, and the majority of the licenses are from a different era. It doesn't help that the series has been focusing more on younger audiences and further widening the divide, and that the fandom behind it is a bit…. notorious. Especially within DBD's community.
These things combine to make a lot of people who play the game especially disinterested in this chapter, with some points being legitimate while others are merely subjective. Either way, its probably going to be the most divisive license from a background (i.e. not gameplay/implementation based) perspective we'll see in a while, if ever. Ironically Pinhead was probably the worst up to this point with the whole NFT snafu, and that was the chapter that really started the FNAF drama in the first place.
-
@hermitkermit said:
Something I don’t understand is why second chance perks are seen by some as “hand-holding” when the entire survivor role is intentionally built around having multiple chances. Survivors are designed with three health states specifically because the game is asymmetrical—the killer is always stronger in a 1v1, and it’s because of this that survivors are not meant to die instantly.
Many people argue that second chance perks “reward failure” because they activate when a survivor is downed, yet must also acknowledge that survivors must be able to be downed for the game to even function and intentionally designed to be downed 3 times and still possibly die. If a survivor was meant to die immediately upon their first down or first hook, with no “second chances” the game would have been designed that way from the start. But that isn’t how DBD works. The entire balance relies on survivors having multiple opportunities to extend their survival.
My issue with the argument against second chance perks is that it feels inconsistent. If multiple health states and escape mechanics are necessary to keep the game balanced or even functional for the survivor role, then it follows that perks designed to help survivors last longer in the match aren’t fundamentally breaking the game but working within the intended structure that’s already there and always has been.
If someone takes issue with that, I feel the real question isn’t whether second chance perks are unfair, but whether they think the entire design of the survivor role is flawed. If survivors shouldn’t have perks that activate once they are injured or hooked, then they need to be much stronger and more difficult to down or hook in the first place. The game r is intended for survivors to have 3 chances at life, because of how oppressive the killer is in a 1v1. If they should only have 1 life, then the killer can’t be as oppressive as they are now, which just means that DBD wouldn’t be DBD anymore.
Its hard to say for certain, because you're right: The game is designed for 3 hook states and 2 health states each, meaning you can have an elimination in anywhere from 1-6 hits before endurance effects, which already makes it hard to manage balance wise. Keep in mind this is in a game where it can take 4-24 hits, so adding those second chances throws that variation even further out of alignment. The elimination nature exclusively for one side of the game is hard enough to balance, but any one of those interactions can have a very disproportionate impact on the overall match. The more chances you add, the more chances you add to completely devalue and reset the killer's momentum and progress. I can't think of a way to fix this without completely changing how the elimination system of the game currently works, which would honestly make it stop being DBD, exactly like you said.
I just think second chances need to be used sparingly for this reason, or come with some kind of "recoup" mechanic that the killer could use to minimize the impact of egregious cases on their pressure/momentum. Its actually kinda two halves of the same issue, as killers start weaker and get stronger, so their momentum and pressure are both extremely important to their macro game throughout the match. Interactions should be able to have variable levels of impact, but I feel like there is such a thing as too much/little when it comes to things like eliminations (tunneling, camping, slugging) and second chances (endurance, items, saves, etc.)
-
claims like getting handheld by bhvr are one thing, but talk about second chances is generally due to how important single interactions can be for the flow (and outcome) of the match. One pefectly timed stun or save can make a massive difference in the amount of pressure the killer is able to apply, while a poorly timed one may have little to no impact. Timing and usage are just as (if not more) powerful than base effect with various perks and mechanics.
That said, a single DS/syringe/endurance/etc can have a game making/breaking difference. Its why second chances have so much disdain with the killer community, they see it as being "robbed" of their momentum/pressure/progress/etc by a single interaction. Its a similar feeling to getting one hooked imo, you're frustrated that a single mistake basically ruined the game for you.
-
@LordGlint said:
I feel like the main issue with trying to balance this stuff is that survivor gen speed perks and toolboxes are available immediately for the most part and they all stack. The very first gen 5 seconds into the match can have its time halved essentially. Makes it really hard to balance gen speed because if you just increase the base gen time, it makes it too much for ppl who ARNT stacking this stuff.
Agreed. I still maintain that the +/- gen speed variation is the cause for both sides to feel bad about how fast they do(n't) get done. There are just too many ways to speed up or slow them down, and most of them just involve loadout choices for either side. Conceptually it just makes them impossible to balance until they're hemmed in from both directions. Addressing stacking (de)buffs regarding gen speed would be where I would start personally.
-
@kit_mason said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3895107#Comment_3895107
As I said in my original post, it's an exploit because it is both unintended and unfair. Firstly, in the traditional sense: my own play both as and against Oni makes me believe he is very well balanced without 180ing and too powerful when using it, but secondly in the sense that it is unfair for controller players that Oni continues to exist in a state where they cannot under any cirucmstances utilize the same resources in power that a mouse and keyboard player can.
I sincerely apologise for whatever I did that made you think I was speaking with the intent to leave Oni in an undeservedly weak state - what that act was, I would hope you would share, so I don't come across as biased like that again.
As I said in my original post, it's an exploit because it is both unintended and unfair.And I completely disagree with it being unfair, which is why I brought up examples of actually unfair exploits like locker clipping and backpack nurse. The only "unfair" parts of flicks are that not all control methods can use them, and that the survivor's pathing requirements are less forgiving. Flicks don't just teleport you to the survivor and auto aim onto their face, they require accuracy and making a hard read. Perfectly dodgable if you route well enough in advance, but its supposed to be punishing players who wait until the last second and hope that he misses.
Your own anecdotes are perfectly fine, and you're allowed to have your opinion. However as per my original point, I disagree with calling flicks an "exploit" when there have been many, many exploits on both sides that were far more impactful and actually unfair. This is more like saying huntress needs clunkier aiming specifically because it would make her hatchets both easier to dodge, and would remove the gap between controller and M&K controls: A resolution the userbase would understandably be upset with. If you consider it on that level of problematic then fine, you're entitled to it, but I personally don't think they have ever been remotely touching on gamebreaking in any way. Just upsetting people who don't believe they should have been able to be hit, which is something that happens anyway a thousand times a match.
-
@PetTheDoggo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3895107#Comment_3895107
This is all before getting into any type of talk about how/when glitches (and even outright exploits) become intentional mechanics
Funny how Knight's exploit used by survivors become a feature.
To increase skill expression, they simply needed to increase console sensitivity, I think they did it with Billy rework. (at least what I heard from console player)
Oni was simply reverse Billy, he could change direction a lot after the dash instead at start, not like it was game breaking or whithout counterplay…
RIP OniThe issue is that people take "I got outplayed by a skilled play" and confuse it with "There was nothing I could have done differently." Checkmate scenarios are allowed to exist, but people want safe guards to prevent them outright due to frustration and/or a lack of introspection on their own play up to that point. "I was out positioned" isn't as strong of a defense as "there's a nurse moving faster than 100% instadowning everyone while carrying someone" in my opinion, and you could certainly learn more (better positioning) with one than the other (just don't exist in her TR ever?)
-
@kit_mason said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/440112/oni-180s-removed-in-ptb
what are we even calling skill expression anymore…
180s are pc-only and went against the dev intent for 90 degrees being the most oni should be allowed to get away with. he's skill expressive outside of exploits, anyway, and perfectly strong to boot.
great change from bhvr if you ask me.
Can we stop this "its a tech when I use it, an exploit when you do" tribalism in the community? Regardless of how any of us feel about flicks and/or how intentional they are/were, it is a fact that skill expression is hurt by this change, and on a killer who was not even top tier (let alone being so due to the tech specifically.) People stating that Oni's skill expression was reduced by this change are not wrong, as there is nothing about this change that would give him more potential, only less.
This is all before getting into any type of talk about how/when glitches (and even outright exploits) become intentional mechanics after the fact, ranging from combos in fighting games to rocket jumping or bunny hopping in various FPS to looping in this very game. Call everything unintentional an exploit even when it benefits you, or reserve the term for things that actually break the game like OoB/unreachable locations. Or even bugs (that have since been patched thankfully) like clipping into lockers or backpack nurse before the m2 change to her blink attack.
This post is neither for nor against the removal of Oni's flick. That said I do think it should come with compensatory buffs that help high skilled play, as skill expression is something this game desperately needs more of in general. Maybe someday.
-
@MaddieMage said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3888846#Comment_3888846
I absolutely agree with this. As burdensome as the reporting system is, I actually did report all my cheaters with video evidence cuz I know it’s the only way to get anything done.
I’m just not a fan of the claim “That seems like a lot/not a lot so I doubt that happened” that tends to happen on this forum. Thank you’re your perspective.
Thats understandable. A lot of misunderstandings in perspective from this game come from that same experience dichotomy between ourselves and the people we disagree with, so unfortunately it comes with the territory a lot when evidence isn't provided. A lot of times it can be supplanted with methodology or theorycrafting, but at the end of the day strong claims tend to require strong evidence. Since the result of the complaint is that they want the DC penalty removed (even if temporarily) the stakes are rather high compared to the usual (I only play against X Killer/SWF/Addon/etc) style of complaints, while simultaneously having less weight behind the reasoning. Due to that I feel its a more relevant request in this case than the usual "I only see Wesker every day/I get hit by X amount of pain resonances every match" tier of claims. Its just both more abstract and more critical.
As for the lesser use cases when people try to dismiss people's experiences? 100% agree. We can learn a lot from people we disagree with, especially regarding this game in particular. Dismissing their experiences since they don't match our own just leads to more tribalism.
-
@MaddieMage said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3888830#Comment_3888830
I really need yall to stop telling people they’re lying just because something isn’t happening to YOU personally or you haven’t seen it with your own eyes. How many people play this game? It’s not outside the realm of possibility that something is actually happening but you personally haven’t seen it. I’ve gotten 3 cheaters in the matches I’ve played in the last 2.5 days that I’ve recorded which is wild because I rarely see cheaters at all in my matches. There’s definitely an major uptick happening and I’m not even a streamer. There’s another streamer right now who has a hacker impersonating them. It is happening a lot more recently whether you’ve seen it or not and whether people are streamers or not.
One person's experiences don't invalidate another's, but cheating isn't always a blatant thing. Sometimes people you dont think are cheating are, and sometimes people you think are cheating aren't. Its the difference between an observation and an assumption.
The likelihood of that proliferation of cheaters is extremely low, but certainly not impossible. The reason that matters is because a low chance of it happening to one person means that even if it is indeed accurate, there will be few people that have the same degree of misfortune. This is important when discussing issues that are not concrete (i.e observable vs assuming.)
Its the same as people who claim they play against sweaty SWFs in nearly every match. Even killer main streamers don't face seal team 6 nearly every game, so the chances of it happening to randos is considerably lower (though still not impossible, of course.) Unfortunately we focus much more on bad experiences than good subconsciously, so the numbers tend to get internally exaggerated and/or benefit of the doubt gets thrown out.
Either way, video of the matches would both be good for affirming the claim as well as submitting in a report against the players. Ranting lets off steam and misery loves company, but it doesn't actually accomplish anything. Once you add hyperbole (whether intentional or not) it dilutes the value of the complaint.
Edit before this gets taken out of context, I don't feel one way or the other about the claim in the op. I just feel if they did submit video clips like was suggested, they would have a stronger argument than without.
-
@CLHL said:
"Leave the loop or die".
Meet The Trapper, literally the first killer in this game.
There is always a reason to hate the killer. "The killer hits me in the middle of an animation", "a secondary objective is too oppressive", "killer vaulting a pallet is too powerful", "the margin for reaction is too small"…
It was all but fun when the nerfed Hillbilly was so hard to control that he would fail his chainsaw 10 times before he could knock someone down. When he needed an insane ability and you had to modify your mouse sensitivity to even have a chance of doing anything… The reality is that the killer needs to take down survivors at some point, they can't have powers that do nothing.
To be fair, people don't mind it as much on trapper due to his limitations being more harsh than smerch (the standstill animation, having to collect traps, FoV forced downward, stepping in his own traps, etc.) I get what you mean, but I'm pretty sure thats more what people using that logic are thinking.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3881085#Comment_3881085
Thats not what people mean by second chance. They mean they won the chase yet were forced to lose it due to a perk or mechanic
The problem, however, is that these perks don't work in any ordinary chase.
If you get pulled off the hook, you're injured, and you're likely in an area where there's reduced resources due to the last chase. If the killer is on you right after, you were never going to get a proper chase to begin with, that's the killer short-circuiting the normal gameplay.
'They won the chase'
If these perks come into play, they more likely won half a chase and expect to reap the full reward. These perks just reset to normal. If you're smashing your face into all these anti-tunnel perks and getting hit by all of them, maybe the problem isn't the anti-tunnel perks. Maybe the problem is you.
These perks are incredibly avoidable and incredibly easy to nullify, but apparently it's easier to bash your head into the wall and then complain to behaviour that the bricks hurt too much.
The only one that can be argued for is OTR, and I have made a suggestion about reworking it in the past, but I think in general, killers have decided that they'd rather hang on to tunnelling irrespective of the consequences for the rest of the game.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3881129#Comment_3881129
Again, if you are eating every single anti-tunnel perk, that is a choice that you made as killer.
It's like driving down a dead-end road after passing a 'dead end' sign, then passing three more 'dead end' signs and going "This signage has really gotten out of hand".
I… never said it has to do with perks specifically, and even said "due to a perk or mechanic." If you get hit with a silent flashbang (or sabo, or pallet, or anything that denies the hook) when going to hook a survivor, that survivor has gotten a second chance. If a survivor gets the hatch, they got a second chance after having lost the match. If they get the gate after the hatch is closed, they got another second chance even though the killer found the hatch first. It gets used when talking about perks primarily, but there are plenty of second chance mechanics that don't involve them. And yes, this applies to killer as well, but people don't really complain the same way about endgame perks anymore (unless it was earlier iterations of NOED of course.)
If you're smashing your face into all these anti-tunnel perks and getting hit by all of them, maybe the problem isn't the anti-tunnel perks. Maybe the problem is you.Realistically people only get hit by a lot of them in the same match, its when they are coordinated between multiple survivors, like bully squads (or even just solos who know how to use the perks aggressively.) Since I know you vehemently oppose the concept of defensive perks being used offensively, I'll leave it at that since I don't think we'll make ground. Just had to mention it due to how unnecessarily belittling those comments were.
-
@ShadowHeart said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3880517#Comment_3880517
When you really break down the numbers, it makes you wonder how survivors ever lose a match. If a killer takes 60 seconds to chase and hook a survivor, the survivors could have completed 180 seconds worth of generators out of the 450 (base) seconds of total generator progress needed. Remember, that 450 seconds can be divided by 4 and completed concurrently.
And if you assume 60 seconds for the total time of a killer finding a survivor, chasing them, and hooking them, it takes a killer 540 seconds to get their first kill without tunneling (2 hooking all survivors, which is what they want) and 720 seconds to get a 4k. And unlike the survivors, this time is cannot be divided. The killer must go through it all, unless the survivors make serious mistakes.
While you're right that the starting numbers are very much in the survivors' favor, they shift more toward the killer as the match goes on. Even though your scenario involves 2 hooking everyone before getting a kill, chases will also get shorter as more resources get used up and/or weak links get chased, just like how they could be longer than a minute at the start. The game is too volatile to put into hard numbers like that, since advantage can change drastically with every interaction, and scales from one side to the other over the course of the match inherently. And thats before all the crazy variables caused by loadouts/powers/maps/etc.
-
@danielmaster87 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3881093#Comment_3881093
Things like Overbrine were healthy, because the killer actually kicked gens and got value. Peak Pop was super healthy as well, requiring the killer to get downs all the time to use it. See how y'all twist it? I think medkits healing people broken fast like they used to contributed more to gen rushing than slower heals, don't you think? If you're healing either way, wouldn't the quicker heal mean you get back on the gens faster? Of course, that nerf made a lot of players just stay injured while pushing gens, because they could, with no real negative. Imagine then how oppressive they were when they were able to heal in seconds, always being full health AND pushing gens fast. I don't know how killers won, ever.
You actually get that it's LCD strats we're moving towards now, even though I don't think that's equatable to those strategies not taking any skill. I really hated the logic that fueled the nerfs that got us here. Everything said on the forums and by Otz, that old Pain Res and Pop were OP because, "You could tunnel while still slowing the gens a lot." No, not "a lot." If you're tunneling, you're too busy doing that to truly defend gens. What's 1 Pop or Pain Res every now and then? Even at their peak, that wasn't a lot of regression. Now they're nerfed to crap, and the only reason you don't still hear survivors complaining about them (because God knows they still would) is because killers have deemed them too garbage to run anymore. And the end conclusion of that initial bogus argument is basically, "Anything that slows the gens is bad, because it buys more time for tunneling (aka killing the survivors)." So that's what we saw, just nerf after nerf against basically every gen defence perk. But clearly because survivors lost old instaheals, MoM, infinites, and pallet vacuums, "The game is SO killer sided!"
I wouldn't call the OverBrine meta healthy, but the idea was there. You're right that having a stronger kick meta encouraged a lot more hooking and patrolling and less camping and tunneling, but the numbers mixed with the incap duration were just too much at their best, and got brought too low at their post-meta values. My theory is that there is not very good internal testing for synergies on either side, which is why we end up with combos that go from way too strong to near useless when they get panic overnerfed.
Every negative change tends to lead to LCD strats while people look for a new meta. The problem is when the community can't find one, so instead they just stick with the LCDs due to the conditioning effect from my other post. This is also coming from someone who doesn't think that LCD strats require no skill, just that their impact is disproportionate from their skill floor. Simply put, they should be harder for how effective they are, and I'd rather it move in that direction than the opposite of just removing/limiting the strats altogether. In fact, hard nerfing something like slugging due to complaints about bleed outs and the like would directly impact its practical applications (like chasing down someone waiting for a save, slugging one for pressure, etc.) This would apply to tunneling and camping just as much, and is probably a big part of why they put the face in AFC.
But basically I want them to get better about nerfs staying reasonable rather than ham fisted. It feels like there is so little forward thinking in a game that forces new content every 3 months that its kinda wild it hasn't burst at the seams at this point. Which is unfair to the game's planning/directing, but these are all things they could be working on in a way that benefits the entire playerbase through a health chapter instead of risking unhealthy strategies within the userbase (survivors included.)
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3881093#Comment_3881093
I can sort of see what you're saying, but isn't this rundown sort of missing the inclusion of playing to the fundamentals? That is to say, occupying multiple survivors at once by spreading pressure, therefore slowing down generator progress through play alone.
That's the thing that should be emphasised if we want skill expressive plays to be the most effective, and in my opinion the devs actually have been doing that, shown in things like buffing a few information perks, buffing killer basekits, and in the basekit changes from back in 6.1.0.
With spreading pressure properly included in our analysis, generator perks being too good is itself a form of LCD, as you'd call it, because regression/blocking perks being too good can replace the skill expression of occupying survivors instead of accentuating it. Most gen perks now - Pop included - are still perfectly good if put into that overall playstyle, but aren't if you're relying on them entirely.
The only perks in the game that allow you to sort of circumvent this are Pain Res for just being that good in general and Grim Embrace for artificially forcing pressure onto survivors. I don't think either are massively overpowered, to be clear, but they're the exceptions to this idea.
I do agree about losing the BP incentives on BBQ not helping matters, though, just wouldn't strictly call it a direct nerf myself. Maybe semantics on that front though.
The thing with LCDs is that they are all basekit, its part of where I coined the term from (accessible to all killers from the start, with loadouts and powers only accentuating them) which is why I don't consider things requiring perks specifically into the mix. They're the lowest effort for the most reward while being accessible to any killer the moment they install the game. As for the ubiquitous "spreading pressure," it varies wildly among the roster, with some killers excelling while others might as well not exist outside their TR. Likewise it can be much more reliant on perks, addons, and even offerings, basically making it too volitile to be an LCD. My argument is basically that the easiest option should never be the best option, and the nerfs and/or changes that other aspects of the game got are how we got there. Hope that makes sense.
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3881085#Comment_3881085
Hello Ryuhi! Good to speak with you again. I always enjoy the conversations with you even when we don't always agree. But I do believe for the most part I agree with you here(?) Forgive me if what I think you're saying isn't accurate.
But from what I gather, I do agree that when healthier strategies or tools/perks that support healthier strategies get nerfs, tweaks or changes which will lead to players defaulting to whatever is next. But I also believe the same could be said for it's opposite, nerfing of unhealthy perks or tactics will also result in healthier game play because there isn't a different option. I do agree that balance changes should definitely not only be "punishments" but also rewards as well, incentivising the desired outcome while also discouraging the other.
I do also believe it's a chicken and the egg scenario. As changes are just domino effects that can all be dissected into subjective reasoning. Bob does X becaue of Y but Sally does X because of Z. Both have different reasons for doing X but X is still done, and both of their reasons are valid. We can debate wether or not Y or Z are good enough reasons to do X, but that's just a distraction from the fact that X is occuring, and I think it takes away from the conversation a bit when things like that happen. If we're taking your example of "LCD" strats, I think nerfing them isn't a complete fix either, but the effort-to-value ratios are still too high compared to other tools in the game, and that should be balanced.
Likewise friend! Respectfully disagreeing but understanding why people feel the way they do is always better to me than just having people blindly agree, so its always nice to see. That said, we actually do agree on most of it, I was mostly iterating on your post (I know it seems like everyone only responds to counterpoint here.) You're also correct on the juxtaposition regarding nerfing the unhealthy, like the OverBrine example. The issue is that BHVR tends to overnerf things and then put them on the backburner for far too long, which is particularly serious when it comes to core gameplay mechanics.
This affects incentivizing healthy behavior the most, as it gets people into bad habits that need to then be re-conditioned out. Making up completely hypothetical extremes for a scenario, lets say that PGTW was 90% flat regression. This would be extremely stupid, and would then understandably get nerfed. Before its nerf, however, killers would be incentivized to go for hooks to keep their Pops going, and they would be encouraged to search multiple gens while its timer is active instead of settling on that nearby gen thats only 20%. Now the perk gets nerfed (as it should in that case) but BHVR makes it so that its only 5% of current progress, and they internally decide to keep it there so people wont complain about it while they try to think of a rework. This would remove the perk from viability, but also remove the playstyle changes it encouraged in its previous form. This causes a slide backward to LCD strats, and even if reverted at a later time, the time in between would get killers in the habit of just sticking with the comfortable LCDs. The damage gets worse the longer that the overnerf is present, and would be completely avoided if the nerf was less severe. People would still try to work with it instead of abandoning it entirely, thus its incentivizing impact would still be present.
Not a psychologist, but emergent gameplay is something I've been taking a lot more seriously over the last few years in game design. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. The best way to get players to conform to a behavior you prefer is to gently guide them toward it in a way they discover it themselves, and the more esoteric you make viable strategies, the more their intuition will simply settle on LCDs (in any game.) Simply put, if a player plays the way you want them to and you didn't have to bombard them with flashing arrows pointing at what you want them to do, you designed both their (dis)incentives properly.
TLDR: LCD strats need nerfs, but ONLY after better strats get buffs that make them both equally viable while also requiring more skill. There needs to be more healthy universal mechanics and they need to be less braindead, but they need to retain their current level of strength.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3881085#Comment_3881085
What is it that you'd say was a healthy strategy that got nerfed, though?
Is it just that a couple slowdown perks in particular were nerfed? I wouldn't personally call running the strongest handful of perks a strategy, which is why I ask.
Its been a gradual trend. Things like OverBrine were not healthy, but even simple things like removing the BP incentive to spread hooks on BBQ has been a contributing factor. For a direct example, while something like PGTW at its strongest might not have been the most healthy, it certainly didn't deserve to get knocked all the way down to its current state. As it stands, slugging is literally more effective gen defense than most gen defense perks, especially if built around it. It applies to survivors in a similar fashion, the medkit nerf similarly led to an uptick in gen rushing because they handled the nerf too hamfisted (as per usual.)
The general idea is that metas form around what is the most effective, and as a developer you generally want that to involve higher skill ceilings and more skill expression. When LCD strats are the meta it means you are stifling your own playerbase, essentially.
Edit: I guess I could clarify by stating that things as simple as spreading (or even getting) hooks or doing chests/totems are actively discouraged by the current state of the game, and changes that obliterate a particular category like the ones above are how we got here.
-
@Iron_Cutlass said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3880375#Comment_3880375
I dont even think it is that. There have been bugs plaguing the game on both sides that have been in the game for months that have yet to be fixed.
BHVR is way too focused on trying to release new content which results in them not only adding more issues to fix, but it shorthands their ability to fix things since their resources are moved elsewhere.
While you're definitely not wrong, sound bugs and deliberate bad audio balancing have been a plague on the killer side especially for a very long time. Its always moving from one bug to the next, while changes to things like chase music and louder hook screams are designed purposely to impede the killer role. Whenever there's another sound bug that lasts for months, it seems to get replaced with another one not long after it gets fixed. Sound occlusion seems to be something they especially have trouble with, and flashbangs are just another on the list from things like footsteps, pain sounds, slugs being silent, and other similar issues. It wouldn't be as bad if they didn't deliberately make the audio worse for the killer role every now and then, or they fixed the issues more effectively and/or more quickly. Bonus if they learn from them to not have them pop up again in a different form.
Edit: Sound occlusion issues actually have affected survivors multiple times in the past as well, I remember you could pan the camera around and have sounds vanish as the PoV put nearly anything between them. Instead of creating the muffled effect they'd just fall completely silent. Thankfully it hasn't been as much of an issue more recently in my experience at least.
-
@Firellius said:
'Second chance perks'
Survivors are innately supposed to have THREE chances. The fact that some killers have a meltdown over survivors getting a -second- chance is telling, in and of itself.
Thats not what people mean by second chance. They mean they won the chase yet were forced to lose it due to a perk or mechanic. Its a form of objective denial similar to gens getting blocked or regressed, which is why the amount of times it can happen is so important. 4 survivors given even only 1 "second chance" is 4 extra hits/bladewipes on many killers, and it plays an important role in the forced time waste caused by the process of hooking (all on top of the obvious chase extension.) Time pressure can often be very real when playing as killer (like it can as survivor, though the agency is more shared in their regard) so time spent prolonging chases that were already won is free pressure for survivors and pressure removal for the killer.
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3880972#Comment_3880972
Both roles are have tacitcs and playstyles that have criticisim and can be considered unfair, a crutch, or toxic by whomever deems them to be so. The reason why tactics like Tunneling and Slugging are so heavily criticized and receive more backlash is because the effort you put in compared to the value you get out is not comparable to anything else in the game.
To explain it simply, a possible comparable to slugging for killer is getting blinded. Both render the particpant mostly incapacitated, unable to work towards their main objective for differing amounts of time. So Lightborn, the counter to blinding, let's say it now would work like a counter to slugging, UB or a counter to tunneling, OTR.
This would mean that Lightborn now:
Has a cool down (you can only resist a blind every 60 seconds), an activation requirement (you must hook someone before it activates) and it was not free (either get it through the shrine or you have to buy a character).
Meanwhile, the survivors ability to blind you does not require a perk slot, has no restrictions, no activation requirements, no cool down, nor does it require an item to use. And it also, passively, works towards their main objective in the end but circumvents the intended mechanics, meaning they all would be able to escape without doing any gens so long as they keep you incapacitated for a set amount of time.
This is the core issue with tactics like Tunneling and Slugging. When compared to other tools in the game—perks, add-ons, items, or even killer abilities—none offer such an extreme level of value with so little investment or some kind of trade-off. They all have cool downs, they all have restrictions, activation requirements, or can only be done a certain number of times. Even killers entire powers have a combination of those things listed above. Thus, the heavy criticism.
In the past I've referred to strategies like slugging and tunneling as Lowest Common Denominator strats: Very effective effort/value ratio, possible by essentially the whole cast (though some have inherent strengths in each, yet very few have real weaknesses in any) and most importantly they are the strategies that people fall back to when more healthy ones get nerfed. It feels like nobody wants to address all three at once, while addressing the first two when they are present causes the last one to move to the next goalpost. There can be criticism about LCD strategies and it can often be valid, but its always important to remember that the carrot and the stick are both important.
When people say part of why we got here was from other more healthy things getting nerfed, they're not incorrect. There will always be people who respond better to the carrot or the stick, but neither is as universal as many tend to argue (X change didn't work because there were people that still did Y anyway.) Every time a more healthy mechanic/strategy/anything gets nerfed on either side, people will always move on to the next LCD strat in a degenerative progression. For survivors it means more gen rush and abusing whatever bug du jour is currently awaiting a long overdue fix, while for killers it means reverting to slugging/tunneling/camping/etc. We'd get a lot better results if people didn't feel the need to be in either camp, even if the improvement wouldn't fit 100% of the userbase.
-
Yup. I'm joking, but there have been multiple audio issues in the game's life caused by sound emitters being blocked by things they shouldn't be, so it really wouldn't surprise me if there was some truth in the joke.
-
You have to understand, those blades of grass are extremely soundproof.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3876641#Comment_3876641
Got it. That definitely explains where other people's confusion comes from.
For the sake of clarification I might as well explain why this position was so alien to me- my first instinct when thinking about a game's win condition is to look at how it's constructed overall, not just what it gives you feedback for.
Each side has one specific, bespoke goal that every mechanic is designed around them trying to achieve and their opponents trying to stop. The game is asymmetric so those goals aren't the same, but are contradictory per player (as in, if you are sacrificed, you cannot escape, and vice versa- as well as if a survivor escapes you can't sacrifice them). A player's participation in a match ends when either goal is reached.
I don't see any interpretation of these facts that could possibly lead anywhere except those goals - kills and escapes, obviously - being the game's win condition, hence me being so confused about this argument. It's a discussion that makes as little sense to me as if someone tried it for any other game that obviously had a single intended goal per role.
Its not something you have to think about with most game design, since the outcomes are usually much more both binary and mutually exclusive like you surmised.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3876634#Comment_3876634
From the looks of it, it seems that a lot of people only look at outcomes when it comes to defining a win condition, would you say that's accurate?
As in, they only look at what gives you feedback after the fact, and don't take into account any of the game's structures and systems before that point?
That'd go some way to explaining the position, if so.
Kinda, yeah. The biggest point of confusion comes from the game having three different systems that work at least partially different all giving conflicting feedback: Pips, Survival/entity approval, and MMR (which has pretty much none, aside from assumptions based on the previous info paired with fringe cases like hatch or DCs.) You can have all 3 line up, but when they don't the unifying concept of a singular win definition becomes split.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3876627#Comment_3876627
What I'm mostly asking here is, what would you expect to see that would make the win condition clear? What do other games have that DBD doesn't?
I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm trying to understand a perspective that I currently don't.
Its an elimination game on the survivor side, while having multiple "degrees" of winning and losing on the killer side. Survivors can have their win con be determined by how many survivors escape regardless of themselves, just themselves, just their SWF, hatches do/don't count, etc. On killer side if you go off of MMR strictly, then anything less than a 4k is at least partially a loss since each survivor that escapes won in the individual matchup. Pips and SBMM's implementation do not directly correlate, so even that becomes nebulous as well (dying while pipping, getting a 4k while not pipping, etc.) People can make up their own down to even just completing a tome or daily challenge, if thats all they set out to do and they accomplished their goal.
It doesn't translate to many other games because most games are very clear, like your overwatch example. Many games are explicitly clear whether you win or lose, and both teams have symmetry for a zero sum game: All wins are balanced by losses to create a perfect whole regarding outcomes. If DBD had something where survivors won universally based on how many escape (group based outcome result) then it would be a start toward a more structured win condition definition. Same with if Pips/Emblems were removed, degrees of winning for killer were removed (which many people do in their personal wincon definitions, ala the win/draw/lose based on kill totals) potential draw variables removed or reworked (like hatch,) and shared agency in outcome were introduced those would be steps toward making it more solid. Elimination games are hard to define in this manner, as are asyms, so a game that has both while half dipping into two systems that don't directly correlate is basically asking for confusion among the userbase.
-
@Rogue11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3876521#Comment_3876521
scary killers in a horror game are out of the question lmao
Thats not even remotely what I said? My point was that it would be a poor choice for an inclusion when there is zero opt out and people have been playing (and investing) into this game for up to 9 years at this point. The terms of playing the game change over time, but some considerations for inclusions are more logical (I.E. Will including a spider killer alienate more or less existing players than it would draw in?) than just "what would be cool."
-
@oreoslurpee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3876459#Comment_3876459
honestly idk if this is a hot take or not, but in a horror game where your darkest nightmares come true that you have to face, i think it'd be time to man up and face your phobia because all it is is just another killer design. im terrified of clowns and i absolutely HATE going against clown (not even just bc of bottles) but i know that him being in the game is for the best. his design is HELLA cool and so is his lore, so if there ever is a spider killer, i'd be so excited to see the design and lore the devs come up with.
Phobias can invoke psychosomatic responses, so its not always that simple. There are people who already quit vs clown/plague as it is (even others like artist) due to not being able to stick through the matches, and I honestly feel worse for them than I do the people who ragequit or go next out of impatience. I don't think they should be adding more phobia adjacent killers until they improve their options regarding the existing ones in the game (locally selectable options for things like vomit noises, a local override for clown to have his face hidden like some of his cosmetics, local replacement sounds and visuals for artist crows, etc.) These things aren't even terribly difficult to program, and there are ones that could be made for a spider related killer, but the track record so far is non-existent. Given BHVR's wishy-washy approach to accessibility I don't see them rolling out options like that any time soon, so I don't think putting more players into that situation is a good idea. Especially when people already abandon games too much as it is.
-
@alpha5 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875169#Comment_3875169
how/when to give up (a very subjective assessment, mind)
Is it? There are plenty of objective markers on how a game is going. Though we had that conversation on page 3.
you miss 100% of the shots you never take.
Some of the shots my fellow survivors take make me want to call it immediately. Everyone is free to play for the 1% probability of a massive screw up. Evidently, not all will.
5 gens can mean as little as 0 gens if they're all 99%. Unless you're keeping track of every single progress bar as they show up on the allies on the hud (and can tell when there is no overlap) then the gen counter means nothing other than how many gens can't be kicked and regressed.
I don't know what to even say about that 1% comment. Its like you purposely tried to avoid the point of the expression and turned it back into gloom and doom. You should honestly probably take a break from the game if you're that pessimistic every time you load in.
-
@alpha5 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3874842#Comment_3874842
Of course it's the 5k-hours-guys. Newbies don't understand what's worth going next from and it takes them quite a while to learn that provided they don't join the "never surrender" club first. They still trust their fellow survivors. Maybe they don't even expect to be tunneled out yet or still have a higher tolerance to it.
I think its not as much they haven't "learned" how to not trust their teammates or how/when to give up (a very subjective assessment, mind) but maybe they might have learned that you miss 100% of the shots you never take. The last statement is probably pretty accurate though, especially regarding tolerance. The more players get jaded the lower their tolerance gets, and a lot of people just refuse to admit when they're burnt out. Unfortunately this ends up making their burnout into their teammates problem.
-
@Raptorrotas said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3871263#Comment_3871263
I always wonder how the devs are suposed to fix "the SWF group actually cares for each other" .
Mechanically solo and SWF are already the same.
Not necessarily. SWF can coordinate synergies a lot more allowing them to get disproportionate value, which often ends up needing to be addressed as they become actual problems. The whole "16 vs 4 perks" thing isn't real on its face, but vs a 4 man SWF it absolutely can be. Thats a big part of what a lot of people who want to elevate Solo to SWF strength don't really seem to grasp. The game itself was just simply not designed for that much strength in coordination, and every time perk synergies happen across coordinated players its like another crack forms in the game's design philosophy. It always brings me back to Object of Obsession and both how it was regarded internally, as well as how and why it was eventually addressed.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3874344#Comment_3874344
I'm with ya... partly. As far as slugging at 5 gens goes... If there's an opportunity to down multiple survivors, what's it matter how many gens there are? That's like saying a survivor shouldn't get a flashlight save on the first down if they COULD get one and should wait to only save ppl on deathhook.
You said survivors should be sacrificed via hook. That much ill definitely agree with. Bleedouts shouldnt be someones goal going into a match unless your dealing with a squad thats hellbent on sabo or something. That however doesnt mean a killer cant down 4 ppl and do cleanup duty at the end of the match by hooking them.
In regards to the 5 gen slug, I think they were referring to more when its premeditated than when its reactive to the situation. If you're playing Myers and get a strong Infectious Fright chain with a T3 pop, it'd be pretty stupid to just ignore people and focus on just hooking one at a time instead of slugging in the moment. But going into a match with a full knockout/deerstalker focused build says that group slugging was the plan from the start, which I think is more what they were going for. Honestly I agree with both of you, the unfortunate situation is that slugging is a lowest common denominator strat, so you both need it and need it to not be the optimal play at the same time.
The fact of the matter (imo) is we got to the slugging meta through a combination of alternatives getting weakened paired with survivors getting incentivized for being hooked. This always leads to a resurgence in LCD strats as they are (near) universally effective across the roster (though some are obviously better at them than others,) and they are disproportionately effective for their skill and tactical requirements.
TLDR: Slugging shouldn't be as strong of a carte blanche strategy as it is when prepared through ones loadout, but likewise it should always be viable in situations where it is the actual smartest play.
The problem comes from it being the smartest play the majority of the time, both because other strategies have weakened and properties that benefit from being hooked outweigh the actual act of hooking. What we need are more healthy playstyles being incentivized and promoted and the level of oppressiveness of group slugging to be reduced simultaneously. I'll even argue that perks like knockout and deerstalker have their place in the game in their current forms, but that they simply synergize too strongly with the current meta that has been growing around group slugging. Also make hooks feel like less of a liability, then make them more desirable compared to the pressure that slugging provides.
-
When killers talk about spreading pressure, they're usually referring to keeping balanced presence around the map through macro play, effectively having as many survivors as possible "feel their presence" at a time. This is generally accomplished through actions or methods that disrupt their progress, or introduce risks to focusing on things like gen efficiency or healing. Some killers are naturally good at this, like pinhead and even lil miss piggy. Unfortunately there is no universal method of being able to do this well, so on M1 killers (and even M2 ones with poor map presence) it becomes a much taller order and only really happens during 3 gens or other similar configurations where they can chase people off one gen while chasing another survivor/controlling a particular area of map (like a hook.) Slugging also falls very heavily into this, as one survivor down is one not able to work on gens or perform other tasks like healing, thus diminishing the survivor presence in lieu of strengthening the killer's.
When survivors talk about spreading pressure, they mean "stop pressuring me, go pressure other survivors instead." Basically they're voicing frustration at scenarios like tunneling or aforementioned slugging.
I feel like thats a big part of why it gets thrown around in a more nebulous fashion when there is no perspective other than "its a thing you're supposed to be doing." Spreading pressure is good and it is a thing that killers should try to do whenever possible in terms of good macro play, but sometimes people don't even know what they're actually asking for (or who they're asking it of.)
closing disclaimer, yes I know there are survivor players that know the difference and even killer players who don't. This is strictly a general observation due to one side actually needing to understand the meaning of the term vs another simply being able to demand it without having to understand its applications, and even lamenting when they get their request if it's done in a fashion they don't personally approve.
-
@Alen_Starkly said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3870783#Comment_3870783
I wouldn't call it shifting the blame, I'd like to call it "zooming out and seeing the whole problem". If you are zoomed in on just 1 part (survivors going next for apparently no good reason), then you can't tell the real cause of a problem, because you are lacking crucial data.
I just suggested a few things I had in mind to help both killers and survivors. Both things can be refined to function well in the game. But also, there are other possible solutions for these. The 2 awful problems are: for killer - gens flying and not being able to do anything about it; for survivor - being repeatedly targetted without a chance to heal or have dead hard / OTR protect you (if the killer hits you right as you're unhooked). If these 2 problems would get healed, then I'm pretty sure the "going next" epidemic would subside.
Another thing that would help the game is further lessening the gap between SWFs and solo Q. When the gap becomes much smaller, the game will be able to become much more balanced, and there won't be scenarios where something is absolutely crucial to survive in solo Q, while that same thing can be used aggresively against the killer in SWFs (DS, OTR).
If you want to zoom out, why not address killers not having fun paired with other strategies getting nerfed being the reason for the uptick in the unfun tactics survivors dislike, like tunneling and slugging? When you make comments like:
Why is it still so easy for a killer to tunnel someone out of the game before anyone else is hooked a single time? There should be a system that doesn't let that happen (specifically: tunneling someone out before a single hook on any of the 3 other survivors).You are passing the blame for survivors leaving to the way that killers are playing, and removing blame from the survivors who actually quit the game early. There is a big difference between reasoning and excuses, and that is defending an excuse. There is no parity in being able to leave the game early, so this is a moot point. Killers have no way of "going next" and are expected to remain in matches where they are losing or unable to conclude the match (I.E survivors hiding until server shutdown, ones who stomp due to bad matchmaking yet refuse to finish the match and drag things on as long as possible, etc.) and yet the killer is not only not allowed to leave early, but guaranteed to face ridicule for sticking with their match.
THAT would be zooming out and looking at the big picture: Your opponent making you miserable is not considered a valid reason for leaving the game. Unless you're a survivor apparently.
As for lessening the gap between SWF and Solo, you are indeed correct. The problem comes with how that would be attained, as most suggestions boil down to either "nerf killers" or "nerf SWF", with a handful being "buff solo" while accidentally (or not) overlaping with "nerf killers." Many of the disadvantages of solo relative to SWF have to do with core gameplay design, as a lack of knowledge was always a core tenant of the game's philosophy: Its why so many forms of information (perks and basekit, respectively) had to be added over the years. The issue is that SWF broke most of the game's core design, and they have been trying to get solo caught up to that slowly over time without kneecapping anything that relies on a lack of information. Meanwhile, Solos often feel that they deserve everything about SWF that broke the game in the first place, and demand it instead of actually trying to come up with ways of tightening the gap without nerfing killers against SWF in the process, or just outright breaking other mechanics. The best way they can help solos is to help them help themselves, there is an insane amount of sardonic mindsets where players burn themselves out hard and take it out on everyone around them, like this exact thread is about.
-
@Alen_Starkly said:
I think we shouldn't look at single matches in isolation, but at the accumulated bad experiences throughout multiple matches. A person who gives up when they're the first to go down probably has to do with them having had several bad matches before this one. They were probably hard-tunneled. Yes, that person should have closed the game and taken a break. But many people sadly don't do that. They want to end on a good match.
With the accumulated stress (throughout mulitple matches) in mind, we could look at the problems. Why is it still so easy for a killer to tunnel someone out of the game before anyone else is hooked a single time? There should be a system that doesn't let that happen (specifically: tunneling someone out before a single hook on any of the 3 other survivors).
Then, the chain leads to the next issue: many killers hardcore tunnel because they've had matches where 2 or 3 gens got done before they managed to find anyone, down them and hook them. This is where something like basekit Corrupt Intervention would do wonders.
The game becomes better when certain things become basekit. Basekit corrupt intervention would minimize awful scenarios where gens just fly at the start of the game. Basekit hardcore tunnel prevention would do wonders for survivors. And again, it's enough to only protect a survivor before any of the other 3 are hooked once. Then the system could get disabled for the rest of the match.
There is a lot of shifting the blame in this post, especially from the survivor who DCs to the killer who is playing (or even ones who were from previous games and aren't even present.) As others have said, people will quit vs perkless trappers who don't even use their traps. You can blame strategies you don't like but you'd damn well better be advocating for killers to be able to peace out if they go against strategies that make them miserable as well. Continuing to play a game you queued up for and loaded into is the bare minimum requirement for individual agency in this game. That person who quits because they had bad games just gave 4 other people a bad game to put under their belt, and if their temperament is similar they will continue that trend throughout their games after.
In regards to things like basekit Corrupt, thats not as much the issue and can actually hurt some killers depending on the map and their builds. I appreciate the attempt at reaching across the isle, but its not exactly a fair tit for tat vs having core gameplay be negatively affected while trying to address specific strategies that rely on the lowest common denominator. That said, the problem with basekit "hardcore tunnel prevention" is that this community proves regularly that these types of systems will be abused and weaponized, constantly, unless they are perfectly implemented.
-
@alpha5 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3870565#Comment_3870565
Pretty much, yes. Maybe conditional to the game state (like no reason to leave when all gens are done), maybe putting it to a surrender vote. I don't care about consumables. At all. They are negligible after they reduced BP prices, put BP modifiers on for simply playing the game, and inflate the BP economy with BPS-type offerings like thrice a year. That's another issue right here btw. It isn't pretty, but vastly preferable to spending any time in a game that's been reduced to an exercise in futility. If I wanted to grind currency I would go back to WoW or Path of Exile. If they want to grind it out, they can go ahead. I'm already tabbed out though. It would be just another issue albeit a much smaller one in my opinion.
Btw2 I'm not a fan of Bloodpoints in the first place. Feels like singleplayer design to me. It becomes obsolete when a gamer plays too much. 10k hour Blights would have >200 alc rings at any time regardless.
As for not solving whatever issue: I wasn't trying to. I offered a solution to sidestep issues. Seems like the simplest scenario to me. Maybe it isn't if gamers care about BP that much. But if they do: Do they care more about BPs or the actual games?
Maybe it is because I just woke up from a nap but I can't follow your last statement. I need a reminder here. What changes?
I assure you that consumables are not negligible for casual players, not by a long shot. If you play constantly and/or focus your spending into specific killers or survivors, sure. But if you don't play much and want to get all level 3 unlockables, keep up with them, and try to have a decent amount of whatever consumables you need for certain playstyles or builds, you will not be keeping up with them even with the changes over the past few years. Its not as much of an issue with survivor since once you get your unlockables you can go back to sticking with one survivor for piling them up, but when trying to keep the only 2-4 addons that actually support your builds in stock, in this randomized system, which scaled rarity based on prestige level… Its an absolute slog and requires a lot more commitment to even keep up with content as its released. And I'm not even talking specifically about Iris, if you like something like dead rabbit on Myers you can't just buy them and stock up, you have to continuously get lucky and have them show up in your web. Something that also changes as your prestige level does.
The issue with your lack of concern for BP is that, again, choices like leaving early make that decision for other players. You don't care about BP, but others might have spent more on their consumables than they even earned depending on the outcome. Or if a net gain, it might be considerably less than if the match was played out fairly. This actually feels like it hurts the most directly on survivor, since though there is less reliance on consumables, the average BP gain in thrown games tends to be considerably low. They literally can't grind it out if they can't get games that are actually reasonable instead of constant 1v3s.
Remember, you're coming from the perspective of players who play a lot, ones who only use a handful of characters on either side, or a combination of the two. Casual players make up the bulk of the community and many survivor players use that as an argument for various things in the game, but BP and shard accumulation are extremely important toward their retention rates on both sides.
In regards to sidestepping the issue, thats how we keep getting new issues introduced when fixing other ones. The kick limit was said to never affect normal play, but it absolutely does depending on killer/map/loadout. Its considerably less likely to affect normal play than not, but it happens plenty when killers aren't even trying to 3 gen, just involving one gen getting contested frequently or on kick/auto kick perks chewing through kicks. The solution was a sidestep to the issue that created another problem even though they tried to keep the prevalence of said problem to a minimum. This is why fixing an issue overall is more important than spot treating symptoms. If you want more examples than look at things like perk changes ( unintended effects from buffs meant to address issues with said perks, like the Boil Over fiasco or the entirety of the Overbrine meta) killer reworks (Twins were improved for sure, but they became stupid overpowered and had to have almost everything reverted. Things like Deathslinger's ADS delay as well, since it made him much more clunky to aim with as a concession to fix survivors having very little ability to react or counter zoning) and even changes to things like map sizes affecting resource generation algorythms in ways the community mostly agrees are bad (for survivors especially.) Fixing one problem without considering its repercussions creates new problems constantly.
Comparing BP gain to actual games is dishonest. People want both, and they shouldn't be mutually exclusive. In fact good games tend to have higher BP gain overall. The thing is you can't get actual games if 1/5 or more of the players flat out refuse to play them past the first few minutes. its an elimination game, and losing literally gets you out faster, which is exactly why going next is such an issue. If you're guaranteed to lose, then play in a high risk/reward way and lose while trying to win. The worst you'll get is a 4 minute bleedout, the best you'll get is a win, and most scenarios in between you will at least get more BP and shards for actually fulfiling the social contract you agreed to by queueing up for an online multiplayer game.
-
There is no "Decay" if I remember correctly, so sadly it only lowers like that by losing a lot. As long as I'm not mistaken, its just another for the pile of problems with how MMR was incorporated in this game.
-
@alpha5 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3870404#Comment_3870404
I meant the quitter being uncarriable. I'm not getting into these issues. I've done enough of that recently. Also those are not on any quitter. Game should become free to leave instead of replacing with bots in my opinion.
So the second one person leaves, everyone else should be able to jump ship? What does that do concerning consumables that were spent on the match by either side? How would you address things like that without still punishing those players while also not making it something where people could quit matches early to prevent others from having theirs spent, like a quarter on a string for offerings or addons? Killers especially would be able to tunnel one person out asap to try to force a DC, then get unlimited addons for doing so, or survivors would be able to burn through killer addons every time someone gives up on games where they wouldn't even be able to recoup the bloodweb cost of the addon, let alone the nodes to reach it. Either way you've already created another problem by taking the easy way out instead of actually addressing the underlying problem. Changes like that are why so many issues have cascaded into new issues over the years.
-
@alpha5 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3870377#Comment_3870377
I wasn't trying to imply survivors have lost as soon as they are at the mildest disadvantage. Though a mild disadvantage against one killer is a massive one against another. Also some killers are much better at accumulating advantages than others. This is the point where we would have to look at details.
I argue that the majority of survivors who claim their matches are lost do not put in nearly that amount of deduction or effort
Agreed. I think I've described that twice. Though if your game gets called by a hard-tilting dude you'd be likely not getting back in anyway.
All reasonable points. The only thing I'd add is that unfortunately its not so much about whether the quitter would have carried the game, but more that they are basically making that decision for their 3 other teammates. That weight is why its so important, since one person thinking the game is lost removes what chance is left for the others. And since hatch still exists the way it does, this then leads to both sides playing around it: slugging for the 4k, survivors trying to out hide each other (and even delaying to server shutdown) and other related issues. The faster survivors lose a chance at realistically powering the exit gates, the sooner the game devolves to that state. Thats why I put so much emphasis on the match lengths, because the consequences of quitting are so far reaching compared to how little time investment is actually expected of a given match. With changes like the kick limit and everything else done to address 3 gen scenarios with certain killers, stall tactics are considerably less effective than they used to be on the killer side, so even slow losses aren't much compared to a lot of other online games. Even many times in DBD's own past.
-
@alpha5 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3870037#Comment_3870037
MOBA game states are much more difficult to judge than DBD's and most gamers just can't. Often they don't even know they are losing. They take fights they shouldn't. They die alone at a tower when they can see none of the enemy team. They die early in lane, come back and die again losing that lane for good. Some games are lost in the draft. This might still be a okay though in an average game because there is time for a back and forth of throws.
Then there is scaling that you kind of alluded to but not really. You can play for the lategame if your team composition is better or wait for a critical item on your carry. If you're behind and have a hypercarry, your play is to stall the game until your hypercarry gets his items. But if your hypercarry gets destroyed early it's just over in most cases but the game drags to 30min anyway. There is no equivalent for any of this for DBD survivors. There is nothing they can get during a match that makes their game easier. Maybe there is a case to be made for maps and their gen spreads.
A bad earlygame requires mistakes for you to get back into the game. A game being much shorter by design means there are fewer opportunities to do this. Which results in a game being much easier to call how it play out. Losing the slow way is no noble quest. The question is when is it actually, really lost. You shouldn't be like IdrA tapping out against literal hallucinations but Fantasy gg timings aren't always reasonable either.
I disagree that survivors have zero comeback factors(though it is much harder for survivors to comeback than killers, by design,) nor are they as necessary as in mobas. Survivors start at a position of advantage vs the killer, which gets equalized and then reversed as resources and hook states get used up. That said, the progress of generators is not always visible, and while there might be 4 gens left, they can also have multiple ranges of progress. Its very easy to misjudge progress, which leads to either side thinking things are weighted in either direction when not having that information.
That said, survivors can come back from bad matches, all it takes is an efficiency redistribution. One bad chase can do a lot of damage depending on how many resources remain, and can lead to 4 gens remaining to drop to 1-2 gens remaining in a short period of time due to a single good play. The situation then resets to macro play comparison, with the killer needing to reassess switching targets and restoring their pressure or doubling down on a sunk cost scenario. Either way, stopping snowball pressure is very possible in the game, regardless of how probable it is in any given game where the survivors are currently losing. In games like LoL you have a lot more access to a lot more information on these things, while in DBD you need to both deduce and memorize all of it based on HUD status bars and knowing which gens they apply to.
I argue that the majority of survivors who claim their matches are lost do not put in nearly that amount of deduction or effort and instead just preemptively make that decision for the rest of their team out of whatever frustration they are feeling at the time. And in a game where you're not even required to have as much patience as most other online games, its often both extremely premature, and one persons resignation dooms their entire team. If the game had pop in/out it would be a different story, but this one is not designed for it.
-
@Nazzzak said:
I suspect that alot of the time the 'us vs them' is intentional to deflect from the topic at hand
Sometimes, sometimes not. Situations like the example above can be about someone from one side sharing similar scenarios where the overall issue is the same in a macro fashion. When going through the methods of conflict resolution, the main one that would be missing from the Op would be Collaboration. That would be finding a solution to both issues without needing to make compensatory adjustments to either side. Relativity becomes important because if two people have a similar issue but with non-exclusive differences, there can often be a solution that addresses both simultaneously. That type of macro approach to problem solving tends to prevent solutions from causing additional problems with their application as well.
As an example we can look at the DC penalty. We'll start from a standpoint of "Survivors don't want other survivors to DC and ruin their games" while a killer might also complain that "Every time I bring in an iri addon, people DC and the addon is not refunded even though the game was wasted." Both of these issues, while not directly the same, share a common thread that they are caused by survivors DCing and ruining the game for their side personally. The compromise would have been to put a penalty specifically on survivors, since both issues were caused by that issue, which would have involved a lot of 2-4 in the first post. These types of compromises tend to involve one side needing to take an unfair concession to come to a resolution, which would have resulted in something like only survivors getting a DC penalty due to how both issues are presented. Since most balance considerations are about only getting things that help your specific side with this community, it would have led to a lot of arguing and would not have been the best resolution. Thats what I take away from it, at least.
That said, Collaboration was implementing a universal DC penalty so that there would be parity in its application, and survivors wouldn't have taken a concession that didn't also apply to killers (aka a universal change to affect all players evenly.) While this at a glance would appear to be a compromise rather than collaboration, this change also fixed other issues that hadn't been addressed in this example: It addressed survivors who get upset when their challenge/achievement/etc gets denied by a killer DCing, Survivors who do well early vs killers preventing said killer from DCing early as well, basically any scenario where a killer could DC to ruin something. The solution to one issue not only branched out to be the solution to an issue for the other side, but addressed other issues that hadn't even been attributed to the issue during discussion. Now they just need to work on when people bypass said system, but thats another discussion. TLDR: The issue shifted from "Survivors are DCing" to "Players are DCing."
Some people don't share these considerations, and they might indeed be trying to muddy the waters to lose focus on the original complaint or even poisoning the well. Sometimes it really is just a macro approach to how multiple related issues can be addressed simultaneously.
-
@Zboard said:
As soloq? Just go with the flow and go next if things start getting sweaty, which is common. Didnt play in few weeks, and my 2 first matches were against sweaty angry killers that went instatunnel for a 3v1 as fast as possible. And then people just gave up and went next, but yeah this feels like: 'Please bro, just try, it will be fun, stay bro, this will be the match bro, givie it a chance bro….so i can end slugging the third survivor and mori the last one' meh, my time is limited, this is where we are, dont have time to lose
People stick with losing matches in MOBAs, where the ability to forfeit generally isn't available until 15-20 minutes in, and games average from 30-60 minutes. In an elimination game like DBD where matches average less than 10 minutes, I will never understand this argument.
And no, MOBAs are not inherently more balanced than DBD. They have characters that have a wide variety of effectiveness, bad matchups and team comps, and characters that are aptly called "hypercarries" since they can have considerably more impact on the outcome of a match than both their allies and their enemies. And yet people, in an elimination based game where you losing generally means getting out of the game even faster, say they don't have time to play out their matches. Nobody is saying that any player's time doesn't matter, but I feel like some people really don't understand how far to the extreme they take it. If you can't stick through your matches and stuff like waiting for server shutdown isn't in play, you might honestly waste more time in queues than actual matches. DBD is a relatively low time commitment multiplayer game, even if its not as quick as stuff like fighting games or most fps (especially when drop in/out is present.)
-
@Metagamer said:
I want to know if it's become as excessively obvious for anyone else as it has been to me, but as of late I have been versing a lot of survivors that will crouch last second in hopes of miraculously dodging the most stupid possible things. Like I'm talking Pyramid Head's Punishment of the Damned, Draculas Hellfire attack, and as a Wesker main lately I've seen people trying to crouch my Virulent Bound.
Can someone please explain to me what they're trying to accomplish? I decided to make this post after someone tried to crouch tech me playing Chucky.The majority of players understand the game a lot less than they think. They see youtube videos about crouch tech and think its just some kind of mini dark souls dodge or something, without understanding how or why it works. You see it anytime either side gets anything that visually looks stupid compared to what its actual impact is, like huntress hatchets being a common example.
-
@Mandy said:
The fix to this in the PTB will still allow crouching to happen when there's a bigger difference in heights, the fix is so that the power cannot be crouched on the majority of areas but if there's an area where there's a big variation in heights - stairs for example, the survivor can still crouch to avoid the hit.
Why not just remove the vertical camera lock on the affected powers (or at least give it something like a +/- 30 degree variance, which locks once the active hitbox cone-or-whatever starts) so that there can be some actual agency in whether the ability can be "teched"? Just make it so that aiming downward lowers the forward reach of the attack slightly so that it can miss normal hits if the killer tries to aim too low attempting to option select.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
The games are often not worth playing in solo queue. Why sit through a guaranteed 10 minute loss when you can try to get a better game? Who wants to keep playing a game where you just had a chase across the entire map and nobody on your team touched a gen the entire time?
That's what players who go next are saying. This trial isn't worth playing. When it's happening a lot, that means a lot of players think a lot of trials aren't worth playing.
"Why sit through a guaranteed 10 minute loss when you can try to get a better game?"
Because you leaving can be what leads to your teammates guaranteed 9 minute loss. People play really fast and loose with whats "guaranteed" in this game, especially when it comes to wins or losses. Same goes for killers, but its distinctly present with survivors due to both their ease of exit, their reliance on people other than themselves, and their sheer number of players it affects. There is no way of knowing exactly how many "unwinnable" games were actually winnable, but the moment someone leaves (or even just gives up and starts sandbagging or feeding) that prophecy generally becomes very self-fulfilling. For 4 people at once.
And in case someone's thinking it, no, I'm not saying unwinnable games don't exist for either side, especially survivor. I'm saying that its much more often an excuse than a valid assessment.
-
@jajay119 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3866773#Comment_3866773
if you want to know where I am going, use your eyes and re read my initial comment as I mentioned my issue there.
This one?
@jajay119 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3864863#Comment_3864863
Except we have now got to the point where perks like Sabo and Boil over are completely useless which shouldn’t be the case. I appreciate that the hooks used to be a problem and there used to be way more dead zones. But with the change to hooks that they always respawn I do think the proximity needs reviewing.
Because if you actually read my post like you so politely requested I do to yours, you'd see that I already addressed why hook respawning has absolutely nothing to do with your perceived complaint:
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3865418#Comment_3865418
I get this, but consider two thing: There were situations where a single sabo can create a hook deadzone before the hook respawn change, and the easier it is to successfully sabo, the less killers are going to feel incentivized to risk going for hooks when there is a good chance they will be contested and punished for doing so.
The hook respawn change only affects hooks where survivors were killed. Its impact was not changed regarding scenarios where nobody has died within that area specifically. The reason this is an important distinction is because you can't say "well because of y, you should have x!" if the two are not related. Securing a hook was not directly made any easier in any situation (except when someone has already died in that area) with that specific change. Changes to hook generation/spacing forumlas? Sure, that would apply, but not the hook respawn change. Spacing and generation rules are a different beast, just like they are with tiles and other resources.
As for the strength of sabo, that will always be an issue with sabo as a mechanic. Sabo is one of those paradigms that unfortunately will never be as strong solo as it is in SWF, so it will often be too strong, too weak, or both simultaneously. If you make it too strong, killers will just refuse to go for hooks and quadruple down on the slug meta that has been forming and growing. If you make it too weak, as a mechanic it becomes considerably less impactful to near uselessness. If you try to address both, you just make it bad for both sides (strong for swf, weak for solo, basically everybody loses except swf in that case.) Until they can come up with a way of completely retooling sabo (like they did with the old 99% removal change) into something that tightens the gap between swf and solo viability, they're not really going to be able to make it worth doing for solo while not being oppressive for swfs. And no, making it as good for solo as it currently is for swf is not going to give you the results you want/expect.
If you disagree thats fine and perfectly ok, but at least be clear with your arguments, especially when asked for clarification.
-
@xCakeStick said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3866631#Comment_3866631
They launched the game up to then queue onto a game to just kill themselves, they need to ask themselves what's the point of launching the game in the first place…
Thats the point, yeah. Neither side should have the option, but the presence of one necessitates the other. Most people who want the option are coming from a place of parity. The status quo on the scenario has a double standard, much like many in the game do on either side.
-
@jajay119 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3866738#Comment_3866738
I never once mentioned reducing the amount of hooks on a map.
Then where were you going with your comments about map sizes and such? The RPD library situation was being discussed both because it was asked about, and it was a prime example of why there should always be at least 1-2 hooks available. The "now" is that killers are ok with hook distances and presence, while the OP was asking why they aren't less.
-
@jajay119 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3866055#Comment_3866055
the RPD library has been gone for over a year now - possibly longer, maps have been made smaller, hooks are closer together than they ever were and now can never be broken permanently. Dead zones are nowhere near as much a problem as they used to be. Let’s base our arguments in the now - not problems that have largely been addressed in abundance in favour of killers already.
And decreasing hook counts would bring the issue back, which is what people are saying. You want to reintroduce a fixed problem. The extra irony is that if you got your way, slugging would be worse than even now.
-
My absolutely presumptuous guess: one bar constantly ticks down, regardless of situation. The other is the mend bar, which does not lose progress (or loses it slowly, possibly altered by certain actions) If the bleed bar runs out, the mend bar drains quickly (sloppy style) causing a down, and giving the player one last chance to stop doing anything and mend.
Not what I want or what I think would be a good idea, but just a wild guess.