Ryuhi
Ryuhi
About
- Username
- Ryuhi
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@DancewithmeKate said:
I am seeing so many killer mains want to remove hatch from game. So they can get easy 4ks all time. Probably kill-rates will be around 80 - 90% without hatch escapes.
Hatch should be removed, but it should be replaced with a skill based alternative instead of being a luck based extra chance. Whether it be by a direct contest of skill or a reward for the level of play presented in spite of one's team, it should be present when earned and absent when not. Likewise it should also be more guaranteed when earned instead of relying on luck of the draw and/or patrolling the most likely spawn points.
Its removal shouldn't make it any worse for survivors than it is, on the contrary it should more accurately reward survivors who don't give up while punishing those who do.
-
@jajay119 said:
a 4K should be the result of extraordinarily well played matches. Unfortunately they’re not and now too many people expect them as standard. As a result they’re finding ways to make it far too easy and imo that needs addressing.
Considering the snowball nature of the game, I don't understand the mindset that 4Ks should only come from (near) perfect matches. The killer starts worse off than the survivors in terms of power, and grows substantially with every kill. Why would a 4k be expected to be an outlier when it becomes exponentially more likely with each kill in an elimination based game? If anything 3ks should be the least likely outcome, but they get held up hard by hatch escapes. Which are still more luck than skill based.
-
@Thusly_Boned said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3865507#Comment_3865507
Yeah, it's like the Dunning-Kruger effect: I'd bet 95% of all players think they're at a higher MMR than they are, and 95% of those who hear that would think they're in the 5% who know they're at a high MMR. Most people will presume they're more competent than they are in just about any scenario, and because DBD's MMR/MMR criteria (hell, most of the game parameters in general) are so poorly defined, it's pretty much anybody's guess.
But it's very easy to imagine a newer player who is just getting their arms around the game and winning a bit but not having hit the soft cap might think that they're near the top, when they're lower-mid.
But ultimately, it doesn't matter all that much because SBMM is gonna throw everyone in the pot together most of the time anyway.
That's why I am not a proponent of showing people's MMR; because unless they tighten up SBMM, it's just a number with little meaning. What would knowing your and others MMR do, practically speaking? Not a damned thing. And it will give people even more incentive to sweat, lobby dodge, and act elitist.
I'm not interested in my own MMR beyond a mild curiosity because I don't think it would change my experience one iota, except that it might lead me to start chasing numbers, which is exactly what I don't want to do in this mess of a game.
Though it would be gratifying to know that a whole lot of people who think they're top tier would find out that they're just middle of the pack.
My main thing about knowing MMR is that it allows people to reflect more accurately. If you have low MMR but constantly play against people with high MMR, win or lose you have absolutely zero way of directly knowing. Even if you don't know your opponent's MMR, just knowing your own and point gains/losses per match would give you a relative perspective to your opponent: If you lose and your MMR barely dips, you know you were playing against an opponent with high MMR, which allows you to make assumptions around them being more skilled at the game. If you win and gain next to nothing, you'll be able to assume you pub stomped.
This info might not seem like it matters, but it can be very helpful concerning learning from your matches. If you know you lost to someone who is better than you, it gives context to actions and strategies they might have applied, considerations for things like their build choices, etc. This can help games a lot with off-meta exploration: I know my fighting game comparisons are ever so popular, but Street Fighter 4 had a great example of this, by having both general and character specific MMR ratings that were both weighted like normal. If you played someone using a garbage character with both a high general and character MMR, you knew they were a specialist with that character. If they had high general MMR but low character MMR, you knew they most likely weren't using their main, maybe trying out a different character or playing casually. If they had low general MMR but high character MMR, they probably like experimenting with other characters but are falling back to their main due to something like a losing streak or an off day.
All of that type of data can be used to read into your opponent's mindset during a match, but it also gives you context on why they might have done some of the things they did during the match. If a specialist does something that seems completely stupid, there's a good chance there might be more to the strategy than you realize due to less familiarity. Likewise if they play a little bit of everyone and its not their main, they might be just trying things out or playing less intelligently than they normally would at their best. Most of this has nothing to do with your average player's feedback loop of "win = better, loss = worse," but it can make a pretty big difference for people who try to learn from their matches and especially from other players they face.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3865556#Comment_3865556
It doesn't have to be strict.
Almost never will you get a match with all 5 players having the exact same MMR, let's say 1000 for example. That won't happen in the best of times, and like you mentioned, the matchmaker basically turns off for a fast replacement if someone drops out of a lobby.
You'll usually get 1 survivor at 800, 1 at 900, 1 at 1000, and 1 at 1200 or something, and it tries to match with a killer in about that range, but your killer might still be 1050, even though the average is 975.
Typically, what happens in most MMR systems is the gains and losses are weighted also, so if the survivors lose in this example to a killer higher rated than they are, they lose less MMR because they're expected to lose that match. Similarly the killer will gain less because they're expected to win.
I was referring to your assertion that:
Simply due to the devs balancing around a 60% kill rate, the "average" killer will be going up against "above average" survivors, because "average" survivors are only escaping 40% of the time or less.
the 60/40 split doesn't apply like that as directly as you are implying with that statement. There will always be people who win matches they should have lost, and ones who lose what they should have won. You can have a killer be very lucky as they constantly get matches with Go Nexters who keep inflating their kill rate, survivors who get stuck in elo hell for the same reason, killers who give escapes they could have easily killed, last minute throws, and the myriad of balance issues on top. All of that in addition to the aforementioned points about things like backfill and wait times ruining SBMM's accuracy.
I would argue that I have learned a lot about the game over the years, so I like to think my understanding is adequate, but my mechanical skill (especially as killer) is nowhere near adequate for the dedicated players that I face at 3am. Likewise, I sometimes have games where I stomp due to the opponent(s) either throwing or just being that bad. The sheer volume of mismatches leads that kind of assumption (at least in my experience) to be completely inaccurate. I don't know if I'd call it the ol correlation =/= causation distinction, or simply that the assumption is only as accurate as the matchmaking… and I'm sure there are plenty of other people who have an abnormally high number mismatches as well.
That said, all that combines to me having absolutely no idea where I stand, nor being able to place myself as above or below an average I can't even identify empirically. I understand what you mean with weighted mmr gain/loss (which is great when its actually visible so the player has feedback to compare their own aptitude rating with their opponent's) but without said feedback you will never know what level you were playing against without having to estimate or flat out guess. Thats why I don't think the assumption that "average" killers regularly go against "above average" survivors is necessarily accurate. The distribution is just not that linear.
-
@jajay119 said:
exactly. Developers usually balance games around the majority, not the minority. Being ‘the best’ doesn’t mean anything.
Many games evolve with their audience, as the audience tends to improve over time as long as it has player retention. With all of the ways balance has shifted in either direction, a claim like "the average survivor understands the importance of gen efficiency more than they did in 2018" would be considered understandable due to the inevitable growth of players that have been playing since their time, and that such level of veteran status did not exist at that time. Its why many games tend to develop higher average player expectations over their support cycles compared to their early release windows. People learn and adapt, regardless of how much/fast they actually grow. Its very rare for players to get worse over time, even if it does happen.
That said, you can't throw that evolution out the window purely to accommodate something like strictly casual players, especially since it disincentivizes them from following said growth pattern. Adversity is what makes us stronger, while catering/pandering makes us weaker. You need to focus on the majority, but not in a way that prevents them from growing with the game itself. This is why many people think focusing on good players (potential) is equally as important as focusing on the majority of players on the metric of skill alone. If the majority of players are bad at a game, you want to design the game around helping them get as good as the already good players, not covering for their weaknesses while encouraging them to remain less skilled or adept. All that does is end up punishing the good players for their determination and growth.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
Most people (almost everyone) isn't "Max MMR", they're just at the upper limit of their skill level.
Simply due to the devs balancing around a 60% kill rate, the "average" killer will be going up against "above average" survivors, because "average" survivors are only escaping 40% of the time or less. That's what happens when you weight one side of the game.
MMR is not strict enough for that to be accurate. Situations like backfill/lobby dodging also completely throw it out without some parties even knowing, and player agency is not high enough for outcome to equal skill 100% of the time (for either side.) I get what you're saying in terms of relativity, but its still an inaccurate implication unless matchmaking is consistently, explicitly strict.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3865507#Comment_3865507
I was programmed to have an ego.
As well as the Id I assume, but where is your super ego, my friend? :)
-
While true, this applies to everyone in the game, due to the lack of user end confirmation. Many killers also assume they are playing at a much higher level than they actually are, just like as happens with survivors as well. The most unfortunate part about this is that people don't have a stable foundation to compare with, as their ego will generally be the determining factor of where they think they are, with no concrete way of actually knowing. You either understand the game enough to be able to accurately estimate your placement, or rely on your self esteem and/or narcissism to fill in that gap for you. Unless you have been keeping count of every single kill and escape in every one of your games since SBMM was introduced, you just aren't going to have an absolute reference to work off of.
One of the most accurate statements I can think of regarding DBD as a whole is that the vast majority of the userbase has absolutely no idea where they actually stand in terms of skill/ranking, their presumptions of such are generated (logically or illogically) by themselves, and this is all by design (presumably in an attempt to cut down on the "As a red rank player…" comments and mindsets that preceeded the change, ironically.) Ego will forever be one of the biggest obstacles for balance in the game.
-
@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.
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.
-
@ProffessorTV said:
Before reading this, THIS IS NOT JUST "We should remove all of the hooks from maps", just me asking why
Why is it that there are so many hooks on maps now? I don't think that the number has necessarily gone up just there density and proximity to one another. So why do we need to have so many?
Because Alex's Toolbox exists, imo.
@ProffessorTV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3864902#Comment_3864902
Why do some have like none?
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3864929#Comment_3864929
What is the 'Rpd-library situation'?
RPD library had an upstairs hook, that when combined with a then-buffed-but-since-nerfed Boil Over and other perks like Exponential created the inverse of the 4 man slug, with survivors being unhookable while playing whack a mole with the killer for a pretty long while as they kept picking themselves back up to waste even more time.
In general though, honestly, unhookable situations just shouldn't exist. Hook denial should only be possible through direct intervention from teammates, and even that walks the tightrope on why many killers feel the need to resort to slugging vs hooking. Hooks should be plentiful but deniable, with the risk factor only being moderate and/or inconsistent to prevent incentivizing abandoning them altogether.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3865247#Comment_3865247
It's definitely possible, but yes, I don't trust BHVR's code.
I think Keys still remove collision, no? There is SOME precedent for removing Survivor collision in-game
Unless I'm forgetting something, the only things I can really think of are the start of the on hit speed burst state, and I believe Myers stalking? I can absolutely be wrong on this though as its been a while since I've used him, and I can always be forgetting something or another. The only times I ever really remember it coming up outside of anti-tunneling ideas were discussions around bodyblocking in the hostage taking sense. Honestly while the wiki is a valiant effort I feel like a lot of changes don't always get documented correctly, so I get surprised by those kinds of things all the time when I try killers again every year or two.
Edit: Remembered another one, Sadako's demanifest!
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3865235#Comment_3865235
One of the Vecna items already does this, I think
I know the eye masks nearly everything, but I don't think even that affects collision data, unless I'm mistaken? My point was more focused around intangibility, and how absolutely awful BHVR's track record is for collision data (especially alterations) in this game. Just imagine someone who has everything you mentioned with all of the same limitations, yet they can keep running in between another survivor and the killer while invisible causing the attacks to randomly whiff because the game straight up gets confused. As a bonus the killer can't even see the survivor messing with the data to even have direct feedback that they are whats causing the issue.
Its not that its a bad idea and I think the intention and considerations are both sound, I just don't trust BHVR to pull it off in a way that wouldn't cause even more issues. Nothing against any specific devs, but in a game with the current aim dressing still present and things like crouch tech going unchecked (as well as the plucking petals stance on the various hug techs in the game's past and present) I don't see it happening in the way it would be intended.
-
@Pulsar said:
Instead, how about this:
Faster bleedout if on the ground for 45+ seconds by holding a button.
Survivors have intangibility and invisibility off of the hook indefinitely until they progress the game in some manner. They are given a form of Incapacitated to prevent them from camping for saves.
Anti-Facecamp will now build up slightly faster at the beginning. I think the grace period is a little too long.
I see this intangibility idea come up a lot, and it wouldn't be too bad if it weren't for the terrible "aim dressing" system in the game. You could temporarily delete an actor from the game and it would still find a way to snap to them instead of an intended target. Its not a bad idea and your version especially covers a lot of avenues of abuse, but I don't see them being able to program it in a way that wouldn't inadvertently completely break elsewhere and subsequently open an unintentional exploit.
-
Balanced Landing, Streetwise, Urban Evasion
-
@Ayodam said:
Color blindness aside…
Isn’t Toba Landing considered one of if not the most balanced map in the game?tbf, personally i think its the most balanced because it sucks as both killer and survivor pretty evenly.
also colorblind tho
-
@Rulebreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3861625#Comment_3861625
Yet sometimes hiding does get us that door or hatch. So where's that leave us?
The same place that 3 Genning before the kick limit had us. Then the kick limit was introduced to prevent that scenario of boring the opponents into submission over a long period of time. This is why many people's answer to the hide and seek dilemma would be for crows to become present when survivors go a significant period of time without making any progress on gens.
If survivors end up escaping after a 30+ minute stalemate, its most likely because the killer would rather leave the match than wait out the server shutdown and instead just let them go. Excessive 3 genning and excessive hiding are two sides of the same coin, but one will seemingly never be addressed.
Edit: narrowing down specifically to the slug for 4k scenario, both sides would react to the scenario in more healthy ways if the hatch was earned, instead of RNG. You can blame sore winners as much as sore losers for that.
-
@Equinox_One said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3861403#Comment_3861403
Game is a live service. You knew that going in and now have a choice to make, much as when a game patch puts your PC under spec.
You are absolutely putting certain phobias on a pedestal. What do I mean?
Replace 'spider fans' with, let's say, FNAF fans and apply the same logic - which is why demanding that certain content be censored or never added if it triggers your specific phobia is selfish at best and absolute poison to any sort of media at worst. Because by your logic, Houndmaster should never have been added (dog phobia - incredibly common). Or Dracula (dog phobia, bat phobia, blood phobia - all extremely common).
Did that prevent people with a phobia of dogs from playing the game?
Again, you're going down the 'trigger warnings are pointless, we need to censor or exclude any triggering content' road and either you don't realize it, or you do - and are pretending you don't. Because that's the absolutely only place your train of thought leads.
Again, you're making up arguments to try to pin on me. I have made zero comment saying that FNAF chapter shouldn't exist because of automatonophobia or any other phobias related to the franchise. I have been very clear that phobias can be accessibility issues especially when they cause physical or physiological reactions beyond just their shared symptom, fear. That also applies to any that I haven't specifically addressed, including the FNAF chapter.
You're making claims of being selfish then pretending its not selfish that you want content you know will cause issues for other players. I'm not even arachnophobic myself, I just understand that other people are.
I'm not saying we should exclude any and all potentially triggering content. I never said that, only that preventing the content from being introduced in the first place is both safer and more effective than introducing it, forcefully alienating a part of your userbase, then later trying to make options and adjustments to lessen the impact it can have on players. This is universal in regards to accessibility, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it is specifically concerning phobias in this instance.
-
@Equinox_One said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3861352#Comment_3861352
You can choose not to play a game that triggers a specific phobia of yours. That's my meaning.
I'm not stretching your argument or strawmanning…huh? I'm using acrophobia as it's common and often severe. I'm also pointing out that, as much as you try to hedge - you're putting certain phobias on a pedestal. You're also creeping right back into 'trigger warnings aren't enough, we need to actively censor/not release media that triggers anyone' territory.
And what happens when its a game you've invested thousands of hours into before the content was added? Thats my point.
Its not about putting certain phobias on a pedestal, its about preventing them from even becoming relevant. When introducing them into a game, you have to decide whether their inclusion is worth the potential exclusion of the userbase it can affect, especially when its something not crucial to the game. Spider fans being slightly disappointed is not worth as much as players no longer being able to play the game, and that applies to a lot more than just phobias.
-
@Equinox_One said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3861320#Comment_3861320
That wouldn't be enough and you know it. And yes, I'm saying that you're being unreasonable, bordering on minimizing the phobias of others.
Now, an option to maybe change something is an idea, maybe a toggle to chance blood color for instance or disable the puking sound. The problem is that has to be done incredibly carefully to avoid having the 'right' setting for competitive players, ala SC2.
I'm not going to debate the ins and outs of emetophobia to avoid sidetracking the discussion, aside from pointing out that nausea is a common fear response anyway. You listed Clown too.
Explain to me how coulrophobia is less impactful than, say, a fear of heights. Should BHVR start designing maps without verticality? Or hemophobia - should we be removing blood splatter on future killers?
Also - name me a licensed killer property that would not trigger phobias of any sort and let's go from there. Just one good example.
(Yes, it's a rhetorical question. Because I'm pretty sure that someone with severe phobias of any sort is going to regard their phobia as crucial).
Or - better yet - we calm down, include the necessary warnings and let adults curate their own gaming experiences from there. Otherwise things get very silly very fast.
EDIT: masklophobia! Extremely common, often pretty damn severe. Should BHVR skip the FNAF chapter next year?
Keep us posted as to which phobias are okay to trigger and which aren't.
I already addressed the point about people using a setting for an advantage. There is such a thing as addressing accessibility issues without giving inherent benefits, like the current colorblindness and FoV settings (which many claimed were going to give unfair advantages before they were introduced.)
You're also trying to stretch my argument to avoid all phobias ever, when you know thats not what I'm arguing. I listed clown because I was using him as part of the example, as my point was concerning two killers who are already in the game, thus meaning they would need extra work to allow accessibility options. I could have included the Dredge as well, but thats more in terms of physical accessibility.
When did I say anything about more or less impactful? I said that they can elicit different responses. You're also really forcing the acrophobia argument as a bit of a strawman.
And no, your "warnings" are pointless when people are unable to prevent matches vs content added into the game. You can't filter out the game to never see a killer, as this is a live service game that changes over time (including by adding content like the ones in question.) Many people straight up DC from these matches if its a killer that they are unable to go against, especially since they won't know until its too late to dodge.
For the last time, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
-
@Equinox_One said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3861302#Comment_3861302
There was this game, Boyfriend Dungeon I think. Made by an incredibly progressive group, all that stuff. Problem was that part of the story involved a stalker.
The developers were called out endlessly for not providing a detailed enough trigger warning, likely not wanting to completely give the plot away. But they updated it to be detailed.
This…wasn't enough. People declared that even including a stalking subplot in a game was a consent violation and demanded that it be completely removed. Lots of people. And that any content that could trigger anyone for any reason has no place in fiction.
Others quite rightly pointed out that everyone has their phobias and triggers and expecting that none of these to be poked at ever isn't just unrealistic, it's stifling. There are numerous articles and videos about this - including a solid one by YouTuber Sarah Z.
My point is that expecting to have no phobias triggered - in a horror game no less - is a bit silly. I mean, Cynophobia and Hemophobia are two phobias at least as common as a fear of spiders. So…should Houndmaster be removed? And no games can have blood effects now?
No.
Warn people. If it's realistic, allow them options. But to frame triggering phobias as an accessibility issue is absurd, as basically…all video games are thus ableist.
Do you not understand the difference between designing things in mindful ways and people being unreasonable? Plague's emetophobia issues could be resolved in very simple options like disabling puking noises and/or making the puke more transparent
Your slippery slope story has nothing to do with that. The Colorblindness options in this game aren't even good "enough" for many colorblind people, but making them better would compromise other aspects of the game so… they stopped there.
The point of avoiding phobias is that they have not yet been introduced. Since the clown has already been introduced and he can't be changed to something that is not a clown, they now would have to find compromises to minimize the impact he would have on coulrophobics (similar to the Plague situation I mentioned.) If he was just not designed as a clown, they would have avoided having to go back and redesign things if trying to accommodate.
Lastly different phobias work differently, and elicit different responses. Its not always about just the fear aspect. Emetophobia is a prime example because it often directly causes nausea and even vomiting themselves. Which could have been avoided if they designed the killer in a way that is mindful of it, vs having to later play catchup on finding ways to hide or minimize it.
-
@Equinox_One said:
I'd love a spider killer, but it's not likely due to people complaining that it sets off their phobias.
We still have the occasional 'Plague needs to be removed because emetophobia'.
I mean, they're not wrong. Plague, Clown, and Doctor still have accessibility issues (as do some others to a lesser degree,) we don't need to add another common one. The Entity is already spider-like enough.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3860944#Comment_3860944
how do you like killer perks like dead man switch, deadlock, corrupt intervention and grim embrace that just block gens and remove survivor objective? i dislike playing against these builds as survivor because they remove objective from the survivor.
They're not healthy either? I used Pop and PR as reference points for survivor in my comparison. In general I'm against almost everything that speeds up or slows down gens in terms of loadouts, since the variance in that category alone makes gens anywhere from way too fast to way too slow. Time Crunch is one of the biggest enemies of balance in this game, as time efficacy will vary wildly between builds/killer powers/SWF/etc.
Edit: I guess you could put my stance as "necessary evils due to other necessary evils due to oth-"
-
@jmwjmw27 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3860939#Comment_3860939
Hmm…
Blindness would be interesting to disorient the killer, but I'd be concerned about the lowest level of play. Might counter too many aura perks, but I think it could be cool to test. Aura reveal could work as a sort of kindred-esque perk to show what general direction the killer heads in after the hook.
Could also try some more funky effects, like the hearing debuff that the severed ear (hag add-on) gives, same as what you hear for a bit after a flashbang. Or the survivor on hook getting extra hook time… but that stacking with reassurance/cama could be a concern.
In general, I would avoid anything that can affect a players vision or hearing. That type of disorientation is an accessibility nightmare in a game that already has enough of those, and their effects range wildly from "mild annoyance" to "making the game completely ****ing unplayable temporarily" depending on the player. That kind of stuff is up there with things like remaping or reversing controls as "effects that should never see a live release" imo.
-
@HerInfernalMajesty said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3860932#Comment_3860932
I see, yeah a lot of what you’re writing makes sense. Is there any way that you could see this idea work in any way or in your opinion is it a complete no-go?
The issue you run into is the impact in both a mechanical sense and an enjoyment one. Survivor and killer objectives and progress are obviously at odds throughout the match, so obviously something good for one is going to be bad for the other. The reason why objective denial is such a tight rope to walk is because the enjoyment factor takes a direct hit, so regardless of a mechanic's impact, it's going to feel bad for the other side.
Similarly, even if it's not directly annoying, the actual impact needs to be measured carefully vs the time/efficiency/agency of the opponent. For example the killer's time is often more directly valuable than the survivor's due to the 1v4 nature of the game. Similarly, survivors are often punished for the misplays of their teammates through no fault of their own. All of these factors can cause good ideas to become bad ones if all of the factors aren't carefully considered.
In regards to modifying how sabo works in ways like you were considering, I think you would need to make things smaller scale and more subtle instead. If you did something like, say, plant a "tracking device" on the hook (kinda like a localized Kindred, or wire tap) could work, but it would have to have a relatively low impact to not incentivize the killer to avoid hooks outright.
The reason I would use wire tap's effect as an example is because there would be a lot of room to balance and to adjust its strength (radius, duration, etc) while it would also be an effect that wouldn't directly annoy the opponent (without knowing it is present they wouldn't know their aura is revealed) and their counterplay to it would be to avoid staying in the direct area of a recent (un)hook depending on how and when it is applied.
Personally I don't necessarily want something like that in the game (again, I'm just generally against objective denial as its a concept the game suffers more than benefits from) but I would take that kind of approach to it. Subtle and simple unfortunately is not very popular with the game's community (unless it benefits them personally ofc) so it would either become another tool for one side to abuse, another excuse for unsavory playstyles, be considered "too weak to be meta," or just directly detract from either side's ability to enjoy the game. It would basically be a mechanic for youtube content creators to make silly videos while hurting the game more than it helps.
-
@HerInfernalMajesty said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3860924#Comment_3860924
I think after slugging gets fixed somehow if it is a big enough problem, I think one of the areas of the game that could be looked at is the sabotage part of the game. I think it could be updated or maybe this would be a rework? I’m not sure.
Sabotage right now is pretty strong but so hard to pull off. Which is fine, high skill high reward. But there’s so many sabotage toolbox add ons that are so difficult to use. What if you could get a sabo add on that plants a smoke bomb on the hook? It could even be highlighted or something so Survivors would know to go down in the area.
Idk, does that sound fun? At least from a Survivor perspective?
Mechanical changes that far need to consider more than just survivor fun. Remember that everything fun about a save for survivors is generally obnoxious for the killer, especially since its denying their progress toward their objective. Every sabo or pallet/flashlight/flashbang save is kinda like getting hit with a full power pop or pain res.
The reason I brought up slugging is the "why" of why more and more killers feel the need to do it. That objective denial paired with disincentives for hooking in multiple scenarios is why so many killers have been adopting the strategy. Both sides have to be considered carefully when it comes to mechanics like that, just like how pop and pain res have gotten nerfed due to similar annoyance from the survivor side.
In general, objective denial is a hard concept to balance properly, and BHVR's track record isn't exactly great concerning it for either side.
@HerInfernalMajesty said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3860925#Comment_3860925
If you sometimes got blastmined or chem trapped when hooking, on a scale from 1-10 how frustrating would that be for you?
As someone who is photophobic, I would absolutely hate any more blinds than are already in the game as it is. Chem trap would also be a bad idea since it would make it take longer for the killer to leave the hook area, giving more excuse for people to proxy camp.
-
@HerInfernalMajesty said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3860917#Comment_3860917
Oh wow how interesting. How did you like it? Also, what do you think about pre-sabotage that debuffs the Killer when they hook?
SWFs would turn areas of the map into hook deadzones, just 99 every hook in the area then pop them when the killer approaches. It was also less viable for solos, since the base sabo time was longer so the 99ing was pretty much mandatory to get any use out of it.
That said, why would you want to give more punishment for hooking when slugging is such a hot topic?
-
@Equinox_One said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3860824#Comment_3860824
The only time I'll mass slug is to finish the game.
But you don't understand. Killers trying to secure their win are evil and survivors who hold games hostage until the server shuts down are just trying to survive. Even though they die when the server shuts down. Only one side is allowed to be upset when their time is wasted because reasons.
If it wasn't for how miserably the win conditions are defined in this game, I feel like people would have a bit more empathy for the other side in this situation. As it stands, survivors will always bemoan that "3 kills is a win, anything more is just being greedy" while killers will complain that "Survivors refuse to accept defeat since they're not dead yet."
Both issues would be fixed if the hatch was changed to a scenario where neither side could stall and the fate of the 4th would be decided by earning it rather than just chance. But unfortunately everyone would rather blame each other than admit the scenario is fueled by both sides being stubborn.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3859474#Comment_3859474
This also happens in many other games where people win finals with off-meta or straight up terrible matchups.Sure, and that exists in DbD regardless of the larger balance concepts. Off meta perks or specializing in weaker killers still exists. Whatever the overall kill rate was, that would remain true.
The point is that seeing a 60/40 doesn't mean you already lost, or that youwilllose 60% of your matches.Again, sure, that's true, but I don't know how you have a balance discussion without factoring those numbers in. At an extreme it sounds like 'let's just not worry about balancing at all because some players get different results'. And while I think worrying about balancing too much is a problem and is not even close to the be all, end all, of game design, its absolutely something that should come up.
That wasn't my intention, I'm not saying it should be ignored in balance discussions outright. My point again was that people using those numbers as an excuse to give up or make statements like
"wins majority of games by default."
are gross misuses of a statistic like that. I wouldn't feel the need to say anything about it if it wasn't continuously used to keep claiming fixed outcomes and self pity. Again, its about misusing statistics in a misleading way to exaggerate any given player's chances in a match. It has nothing to do with the game's current balance (or my stance on said balance,) its literally about mindfulness and trying to avoid the self sabotage that seems to run rampant in this game's community. Hope that makes things a bit more clear.
-
@doobiedo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3859474#Comment_3859474
We're not trying to balance the game for the top .0001% that literally wins a tournament, we're trying to balance it for the player base overall ( or at least we should be.)
I never said it shouldn't? Why do you keep trying to dress my arguments up as something they're not?
The 60/40 split does not mean you will lose exactly 60% of your matches. That was my point from the start, and if you refuse to take the advice and keep doomposting, have fun being miserable I guess.
Honestly I don't even understand how you pulled that from the comment you quoted. It was quite literally about a character who is extremely casual due to their weak matchups. Part of what made the upset so wild is that he was using the 17th ranked character in the game (out of 19.)
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3859025#Comment_3859025
I don't get this comparison. Is there some necessity that they play that character? Because in DbD the players have to be split between two sides.
When you play a fighting game competitively, you generally focus on mains. People tend to have "pocket" characters to deal with bad matchups, but it is not uncommon for even grand finals matches to have a 6/4 or worse matchup. The winner of the most recent SF3 Evo used a low tier character and stomped in matches that were heavily against him statistically. This also happens in many other games where people win finals with off-meta or straight up terrible matchups.
The point is that seeing a 60/40 doesn't mean you already lost, or that you will lose 60% of your matches. It means that statistically you are at a relative disadvantage, but it gets blown out of proportion constantly in this community that anything less than 50/50 = "there is no chance might as well go next" defeatist mentality. Which of course also dooms the other survivors who do continue to try, and ironically often alters their chances to be a lot lower than 40%
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3859280#Comment_3859280
It's certainly variable. The numbers are just averaging across a multitude of matches. You could win 10 in a row (a 100% win rate!) then suddenly lose 50 in a row (so much for that 100% win rate, lulz). I edited my post to include mathz.
I get that (including the edit) and I don't disagree with it. My comments were addressing a post that was trying to frame the 60/40 statistic as immutable. Basically correcting that each individual player will not uniformly fall into line with this statistic. There will be survivors who win more than 40% of the time, just like there will be ones that survive less than the average.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3859276#Comment_3859276
Bear in mind that stat is still at a per survivor basis. If 3 of the 4 survivors escape, one of them on the stats still show as a failed escape despite the survivors "winning".
well… yes?
My entire point was that the stats do not force outcomes like people always like to argue, they are a data point that has a very large deviation in either direction and not "I will lose 60%/win 40% of my games" guaranteed.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3859019#Comment_3859019
Actually, High MMR 4-man SWF stats show they aren't even escaping 50% of the time.
That has nothing to do with what I said. I only mentioned SWFs as a variable that contributes to the average, so I don't see what that has to do with my comment.
-
@doobiedo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3859025#Comment_3859025
I dont know anything about sf4 so I cant say anything about that. I would guess that.game.is still balanced better overall then dbd though.
Yeah, its not. the statistics I mentioned mean that in a match of T.Hawk vs Blanka or Sagat, the T.Hawk player will lose an average of 70% of the time. And thats a non-joke character, Marvel vs Capcom 2 can have matchups like MSP vs Dan/Roll/Servbot, which would almost always end in a perfect without the latter team even getting damage on the board. This game's community just has a weird obsession with trying to stack as many odds in their favor, while complaining when their opponent does the same. It is a lot more balanced than you seem to think, but its balance is also subject to a lot of variables that push the needle in either direction.
Point is, that 60/40 split isn't the magic bullet you seem to think it is. Its indicative of a non-curated blanket comparison, but it does not have any direct bearing on any given match's development. It's an estimate at best.
-
@doobiedo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3859019#Comment_3859019
You cn sugarcoat it however you want, a 20% difference in one side achieving their win condition over the other is massive.
And yet T.Hawk players in SF4 fully accepted matchups vs Blanka and Sagat, which were 70/30 at best
-
@doobiedo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3858935#Comment_3858935
Which side is the one that has the game mechanics in their favor and wins majority of games by default again?
Please stop trying to shoehorn stats into your arguments like that. The game mechanics are not in killer's favor specifically because overall statistics put them in a higher than 50% win ratio. That does not apply to individual players or any kind of precise measure on how much or little skill variables affect that outcome. Part of why some bad killers have high kill ratios is because they are only really played by specialists, not because those killers are OP.
the 60/40 thing is not saying you will survive 40% of your matches, nor is it saying any killer "wins majority of games by default." You are trying to dilute as many variables as you can to try to weaponize a statistic. Rather than actually basing arguments around the amount of said variables, you're trying to use outcome bias to try to rewrite people's experiences.
Yes, killers overall are more likely to win than lose. How that statistic is weighted by skill matchups/builds/maps/swf/killer viability/survivors going next/etc is something that always comes along with such broad statements.
Edit: Its wild to me how this community in particular has so many people who try to force this mistake. In many fighting games you can almost always be at a 60/40 split or worse (Some can go as low as 80/20) and people still soldier through those matches.
-
Oh hey, its the newest incarnation of this thread.
-
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3857892#Comment_3857892
This is the first time I’ve heard of this idea for hatch. And I really like it. Skill actually mattering in this regard. The only thing I wonder is in this situation, say a survivor does really well all game, they never got caught by the killer they were in Chase most of the match , but the killer was able to sacrifice the rest of their team— wouldn’t the killer BP/points be automatically higher at end game because of the other sacrifices? For example the killer outplays the “team” but not necessarily every “survivor”, and the one survivor they didn’t outplay would be a good candidate for hatch because their team failed but not them, but because the amount of BP/points killer has from sacrificing the rest of the team means their BP/points automatically higher than that last surviving survivor, wouldn’t that mean that they would get the hatch by default? In order for this to work would you suggest a rework of the BP or emblem system? (As it stands form what I’ve seen, I think it’s wild that someone could loop the killer for the majority of the game and often gets the lowest amount of points in comparison to those who did gens, when keeping the killer busy in chase is arguably the most difficult/skillfull part of survivor.)
Oh, the emblem system being the basis was mostly just a starting point, as it provides some (of course not all) insight into performance metrics on a system that's already in place. They could do things like weigh certain emblems for each side: Unbroken has some pretty hard cutoff points, and if you max Evader you probably didn't get much chance to work on the other emblems. Likewise some killers suffer from awkwardness in generating devout or malicious, and so on.
Generally playing both fairly and in a more rounded fashion tends to go hand in hand with increased emblem scores, so it feels like a good idea to start around. Of course this could also go alongside changes to how the emblems currently work, as rank only really matters for BP anymore (and could certainly use a few updates.)
-
@AlexXHunter44 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3857898#Comment_3857898
Anyone can feel any way, it's not possible to balance a game based on how everyone feels about something because it's not an objective thing to be measured.
Objectively, it is part of the strategy for both sides and there is nothing wrong with the current implementation of hatch except a few people's entitled feels.
If you give up hatch as a killer, that's on you. If you don't get it as survivor, that's on you.
The only thing I -might- change would be how and where it spawns since that's entirely RNG. Maybe making it spawn in a place equal distance as possible between a killer and survivor would be interesting for a PTB experiment.
The entire point of my stance is to address exactly that, that there should be an objective way to determine who "earned" their preferred outcome best in the stalemate. I used comparing emblem scores as a starting point since they're something that has been in the game for ages, before SBMM even existed. I also gave room to address outcomes that are skewed by using strats that are unfair to the opponent.
Do you honestly enjoy the hatch situation as it currently is, warts and all, as either side? Is random chance paired with situations that prolong the issue the best way to go? Is a vast majority of the userbase on either side "entitled" for wanting a more fair determination on the fate of the 4th?
The last part addresses one aspect of the situation, but ignores the rest. It's also not really possible in that application because hatch offerings exist, so they would either need to be completely reworked or they'd be worthless.
-
@AlexXHunter44 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3857892#Comment_3857892
As someone who plays both sides - it's not that deep.
I don't feel robbed when the last person gets hatch, it's part of the strategy of the game to either slug for the 4k or decide to play for hatch, certain perks make it a lot easier or harder to find that last person in time.
As survivor I don't play a match for hatch until my last teammate is on hook and its clear we can't win. If I do get hatch I don't feel any sort of accomplishment other than a "cool I managed to get out!".
You don't feel robbed, thats great. Other killers do, and they have justification for feeling that way. Likewise survivors who try to hard carry a bad team have justification for feeling robbed of the hatch when they still don't get it after trying their hardest despite being held back.
The outcome of the 4th survivor can vary from trivial to frustrating for either side, and its part of what fuels the stubbornness of most people's stance on the situation. There should be a "wrap it up" scenario to prevent either side from prolonging things, and it should be implemented in a way that is most fair to both sides.
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Having the hatch be determined by how the killer played vs how the last survivor played would fix most people's issues with how the hatch mechanic works. Most killer players' issue with the hatch is that it often takes away kills that the killer earned, while survivors hate it because they feel they "earned" a win despite their teammates yet it comes down to forced patience and random chance.
If an individual survivor played better than the killer, they deserve the hatch since they did well despite (apparently) their team holding them back. Likewise if the killer completely stomps, they don't deserve to have one of their kills (and now mori) taken away. There would need to be additions to the formula to account for things like 4 man slugs, but a simple starting point could be emblem totals stacked against each other to determine hatch availability. If a survivor is avoiding interactions entirely they don't deserve to escape more than a survivor who is constantly trying to carry their team, and a killer going for 12 hooks deserves to secure the last kill more than one who tunnels survivors out one by one.
Use quagmires like this to condition better gameplay, while removing the "helpless" aspect of the hatch situation for either side.
-
@Berienn said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3852764#Comment_3852764
eh.. youre still ignoring how the game is designed.. its only your problem as survivor if you cant win, rly.. the killer's job is to kill every survivor before they escape.. 3 kills is not win
3 kills is a win by almost every metric. Unfortunately it is not a win for some metrics, like achievements/tome challenges that require a 4K. The only time a 3K is not a win, is when you are going for a 4K specifically.
And this is coming from someone who is very against either of the hatch's iterations, but understands why they are in the game.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3856587#Comment_3856587
Yeah, but that's a completely different situation than the one being discussed.
The pattern being discussed is things being intentionally overnerfed so they're effectively removed from play until a later date. That's happened twice, and didn't happen to the Twins, who were buffed overall.
Honestly, I'd add Freddy McFingerknives to the list. He has been in a poor state for a very long time, and was put there due to certain things like his addons being particularly strong, but he was just trashed in the process. He's been left in a very poor state for a very long time, while he awaits another rework. It also applies to perks on both sides as well, when an effect on a perk/item/addon/power/etc is deemed too strong they'll either nerf it into oblivion or add on conditions that make it worthless.
-
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3856120#Comment_3856120
I think we mostly agree then! From your original reply, I thought you were suggesting AI killer bots weren’t necessary because of the ability to practice with AI survivor bots or purchased killers. But after your explanation, it seems like you agree that training tools like killer AI bots should be implemented, even though some value can still be gained from playing killer or watching how survivors counter you. Which I do agree with.
If I gave the impression that playing killer doesn’t help you learn counterplay, that wasn’t my intent. I do think it’s a valuable resource for understanding killer mindsets. However, I believe that insight only goes so far compared to actively facing killers yourself. And vice versa, as practicing against AI survivors is a much different experience than actual ones, and while it can help Killers get an idea on how their powers work, test out builds and thigns like that, that value you get is limited as opposed to actually facing real survivors or by teaming up with fellow survivors to face a killer that you yourself main. Also it's worth noting that in this scenario of a player wanting to better survivor so they start practicing as a killer in actual matches, it's going to take time to get to a point where the survivors you face actually make good decisions or show skill that you will want to replicate, as many beginner survivors don't know how to loop, when to unhook, how to run tiles or do anything that you are trying to learn how to do in the first place. You'd be forced to putting in quite a few hours on killer (which in this scenario is not the persons preffered role as their goal is to simply improve as survivor) just to gt to the point where you can better understand how to play against them. Combine this with the fact that survivor and killer gameplay aren’t fully interchangeable, as personal preference and enjoyment can heavily influence which role a player excels at. While “thinking like your enemy” is important, the current system makes it much easier for killers to practice against AI survivors than for survivors to practice countering killers. Survivors have no equivalnt training tool, and buying killers they dont want to play just for practice feels like an unnecessary and slightly unresonable ask.
With the AI killer technology already in use for 2v8 mode, implementing a similar feature for survivor training seems possibleand would provide an equal resource for both sides. It’s a great resource that helps players improve and enjoy the game more regardless of their preferred role.
In any case, I think we’re on the same page for the most part. I’m not saying there’s no value in playing as a killer to learn, but that value is pretty limited when you factor in the paywalls, the time and effort it takes to rank up and face better opponents, and how those restrictions don’t really exist for killers practicing against survivors. It just makes it harder for survivors to get the same benefits killers already have. Either way, I think we can both agree that having more accessible practice tools for everyone would be a good thing. :)
I agree with pretty much everything there, except the value of practicing what you face. Even with all the advances in fighting game training modes, they still rely on similarly inefficient methods of using low ELO/MMR/etc as "live practice," having to climb rankings (with the character they want to learn how to fight against) to get to better opponents. Almost any game you're going to start with glass joe opponents before eventually getting to the threatening players after a varying amount of time. That said, it is still the most efficient way to learn matchups and find weaknesses/patterns, and I still think it has significance in this game as well.
-
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3855784#Comment_3855784
TragicSolitude actually brought up one of the main points I was going to say haha.
Aside from the fact that you’d have to purchase all the killers in order to use them in the AI to practice with (despite not needing to purchase any survivor perks to practice against survivors) The only other things I would add is that being able to go against a killer is different than actually playing the killer. A major skill in survivor is learning how to loop and position yourself against various killers, something that can’t be replicated when you’re playing as the killer. It’s the equivalent of watching a video of someone looping as opposed to actually looping. They’re very different.
Being able to practice hands on, doing the actual spot checks, learning how to play tiles and run shack etc. is better to do yourself than to simply watch what other people do.And just as being a killer versing survivor bots can do this and is very helpful, being able to replicate specific situations be it with certain maps you struggle with, certain killer add-ons you don’t understand etc. would be very beneficial.
I understand your point, but I disagree that you’d get the same kind of value. Again, I think it’s great killers have these kind of tools, but I think survivors would benefit from the same kind of tools as well. (Possibly more so simply because of the various types of killers and all the killer perks.)Thanks for your reply! :)
The benefit of learning to play as a killer is that you learn what to make reads on. Understanding a killer's mindset, what they're looking for, what their most likely reactions to situations is, thats the things you're supposed to be looking for. That type of info absolutely applies to improving your counterplay toward them, its straight out of the Art of War:
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”Yes, there is a lot to learn on the survivor side itself on how to counter certain killers (either by category or individual nuances) but that is less of the puzzle than a lot of people assume. The lack of survivor focused training is part of why I don't mind "lost games" as much as a lot of people seem to: They're perfect practice sessions for that half of counterplaying. You don't continue the match expecting to win, but rather to learn as much as you can from the opportunity. Obviously that doesn't apply to situations like 4 man slugs, but even being tunneled gives you more opportunities to try out different strategies. You can practice things like pathing and routing, looping in general, checkspots, resource management, etc. Thats where you want to practice that half of the interactions since there is no bot equivalent for survivors to practice, which I wish did have a proper practice tool for. before bots were added into the game, killers had to keep playing losing games to test these things. I want survivors to have the same level of training options as killers do, but I think what is already there is underutilized due to its perspective alone.
But again, my point was that learning what a killer wants to do in any given situation is just as (if not moreso, imo) important as learning mechanical skill aspects on the survivor side itself. You can even take it a step further and practice in live matches, and see what survivors do to effectively counter you, then apply that info to your own survivor play. Also yes, I know that doing these things is better than seeing it, the videos comment was more toward when you're unable to practice hands on due to not owning killers, which I reiterate I do think practice should not be limited to owned content only. Its something thats been burning me up since the early DLCs of Street Fighter 5 (and even earlier with games like KoF13), and its just a bad practice for any game where players want to be able to grow and evolve their gameplay.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3855824#Comment_3855824
Its just as much of an issue here as it is in fighting games requiring you to purchase characters to be able to train as or against them.The difference here, to go back to the OP's post, is that in DbD this is a one sided requirement. If in a fighting game you don't want to carefully study every character in the game, and the MMR / group you play with doesn't either, there's no inherent disadvantage. And if you do study every character and climb in the ranks, the new players you face have to undertake the same task.
I'm going to date myself here because the last time I really played fighting games seriously the SNES was the height of technological innovation - but it would be like if in Street Fighter 2 players were divided between choosing Guile or anyone but Guile. The players in group A would have to learn to fight every other character, while in group B they would only have to learn to fight against the one move set. Group B would have a much easier time advancing in their skills than Group A which creates a massive issue for game balancing (which might be an inevitable element of DbD, but its a unique problem).
I mean I agree that there should be some type of bots for killers for training purposes, but again, my point was that you need to learn your opponent just as much as you need to learn your own role. For killers its a matter of learning how to make the most of your kit and minimize its weaknesses, while survivors need to learn how to take advantage of any weaknesses and reduce the killer's impact. I get your Street Fighter analogy, but its a bit skewed: In fighting games (historically and currently) learning how to fight against specific characters is just as important as learning your own.
This is important since your game plan changes drastically depending on your opponent, so both groups will have to learn the offensive and defensive nuances of each matchup. This also applies to categories just as much as individuals: Grappler players for example will always need to know what to do against zoners, regardless of which zoner it is they fight. This is very similar to how X killer needs to learn how to counter Y strategy, while X survivor needs to learn how to counter Y killer while using Z loadout.
To reiterate, I DO think survivor training tools could (and should) absolutely be improved. That said, there is still more there to utilize than a lot of people give credit for, it just takes a bit more unorthodox of an approach. Part of why I made the fighting game comparison is because it is extremely common to handle problem matchups in that fashion, which also has the same hangup DBD does regarding practicing against content you don't own.
-
@TragicSolitude said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3855784#Comment_3855784
That is good advice. However, the player must own any killer they want to play as in custom matches. It's good practice for players who own a lot of the DLCs. For new players, that limits what they can do or forces them to buy characters they may not want.
That is true. Its just as much of an issue here as it is in fighting games requiring you to purchase characters to be able to train as or against them. Ideally every killer would be selectable like how addons and such work, but I can understand BHVR not wanting to allow that level of freedom for free. Closest you can get unfortunately is having a friend who owns the killer and doing 1v1 customs vs them to practice common scenarios and interactions. Sadly its either that or watch a lot of gameplay videos with that specific killer.
Edit: This post just reminded me of the splinter system, and how poorly it was designed. I wonder if they could find a way to incorporate something similar into customs instead? Maybe have tokens that could refill each month and be used to temporarily choose killers you don't own?
-
There's a point when it stops being normal live service rebalancing, and starts to become bait and switch. The mentality of nerfing things into the ground so they can come back to them years later is pretty anti-consumer.
Edit: not necessarily saying Chucky specifically was nerfed into the ground, more that this was admitted by someone from BHVR in a similar topic, I.E overnerfing and then "monitoring" the changes for far longer than is reasonable.
-
@CautionaryMary said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3855798#Comment_3855798
Right, so your argument is that hug tech is comparable or at least on the same level of crouch tech?
A survivor using crouch tech against three killers that I've listed doesn't always work as it requires precise timing in terms of crouching and again, as I've said prior oftentimes puts a survivor at a disadvantage as they're losing distance to these killers. 2/3 of these killers have the momentum to catch up to the survivor to make the crouch tech redundant in the first place and only punishes the killer if they decide to continually M2 over and over again.
However, hug tech on the other hand — yes, it requires precise timing and control... But Blight has the ability to continue that momentum due to the fact that he has the mobility to catch up to said survivor. Behavior in and of itself said it was an unintended bug that Blight had and justifiably took it out of the game as it was giving Blight the ability to not only hit the survivors and traverse the map in such a way, but also keep the momentum going to steamroll over the survivors.
Now tell me, how is crouch tech any way shape and form similar to hug tech? Crouch tech has more downsides and risks involved when we compare both techs together.
Competitive Dead By Daylight is a great example to use as they often use stricter rules and ensure more fair gameplay and tactics are used — if crouch tech was as problematic and game breaking as it is, it would be outright banned.
Behavior is quite aware of the crouch tech, yet here we see one is removed while the other is still in the game.
I must ask you, why you feel like there should be no counterplay to M2 attacks? Why do you feel like you need to consistently hit survivors during a rush or an overdrive hit just because you aim at a survivor and now they're no longer able to crouch to dodge it? Now survivors can only move side to side allowing easier downs for the strongest killers in the game?
The fact you're trying to put the stance of "M2 killers should have no counterplay" onto me is a pretty strong indication that you refuse to understand my point, and keep trying to dress up my arguments as something they are not. You also doubled down on your assumptions about BHVR's stance without providing any evidence when requested. For all I know it exists and I simply haven't seen it, but you either can't or won't strengthen your own argument. This discussion is pointless, but I hope at least someone understands the point I was making so this wasn't for nothing. Please do not tag me further.
Edit: I see this request was denied.
-
@CautionaryMary said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3855772#Comment_3855772
I have seen many people on this forums love to talk about how survivors should be OP because of comp DBD. if it was truly unintended, it would be banned from regular competitive DBD gameplay.
Contrary to your assumption, I learned about the tech a few months ago and yes, I will admit that I do use the tech when going against Hillbilly and Blight (both considered to many comparable to Nurse).
If you want to make an argument - what are the risks and are they comparable to crouch tech? What is the exact risks and counterplay to a Blight abusing hug tech where the developers declared that it was an unintended bug that Blight had?
Yet, "crouch tech" has been in this game for a very long time and you only see drastic gains against Blight, Demogorgon, and Hillbilly. If it was an unintended feature, it would have been thrown out early on and Behavior would have removed it outright from the game. It's not an unintended bug and I don't understand why YOU feel like these killers (Blight and Hillbilly) NEED no counterplay to their special attacks.
If you FEEL a survivor will continually crouch tech you, go up to the survivor and M1 them. It's really not an issue and I don't know why DODGING a character is an unintended game mechanic.
Since you refuse to get the point I was making:
Comp has absolutely nothing to do with whether something is or isn't an exploit.
My "assumption" was that you are holding these exploits to different standards. It has nothing to do with your experience in the game, nor your usage of either "tech."
The risk to crouch tech is messing it up and losing distance and/or getting hit. The risk to hug tech was the survivor abandoning the loop (during setup) and circling around the tile in a way that you would be unable to reach them in time, especially since most of your bounces were used up (this is admittedly much easier on tiles that block visibility, for obvious reasons.)
Appeal to authority is not an argument. The devs being silent on an issue is not the same as an issue not existing, so I don't really understand what you're trying to prove there. Did they ever actively approve of it? I would like to see if there is any evidence they endorse this "tech" any more or less than the other ones that have been patched out on both sides (remember, things like flashlight blinds and vaults cancelling stagger on landing were fixed as well, so it does happen with both sides.) Many of the exploits that have been patched out of the game had been present for very long periods of time (most notably hug tech,) so the fact that it hasn't been addressed yet isn't an argument.
An exploit is not suddenly ok because it has been around for a while or because it only affects certain killers. This is exactly why I bring the parallel with Hug Tech, it was around for ages and it was much more effective on bad survivors than good ones. I'm not saying "git gud" so please don't try to put that sentiment in my mouth, I'm merely pointing out that both exploits have disproportionate value depending on the skill of the players involved. Bad players don't crouch tech, nor did they use hug tech. Both require a degree of understanding about their respective scenarios and applications.
Lastly my stance has nothing to do with "whether killers need" to not be subject to their hits just completely disappearing into the aether because someone tapped a button at the right time, it has to do with the inconsistency between the two changes, and how each side's arguments for/against them can often be applied to both. You're trying to claim an unintended interaction is good because you want to use it as a method of "rebalancing" what you think is skewed against you, not whether mechanics are actually working properly. So again, you're making excuses for why you get to keep your fancy toy while being completely content with your opponent not getting the same courtesy.
Lastly, telling a killer to not use their power, especially M2 killers, is a completely asinine reaction to exploits preventing said powers from working properly. It doesn't address the core issue even remotely.