Ryuhi
Ryuhi
About
- Username
- Ryuhi
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@DxveWolf said:
yes!! make it at least 85% chance of the iconic steagull scream, 99.8% of steve players only play steve for the steagull scream, if anyone find it annoying, im sorry for its our entity given right to be whimsy
So you being annoyed at not being able to be as annoying is more important than the people being annoyed by what you liked doing to be annoying? I'm not sure I follow.
All of it is pointless when discussing licensed content, because that is up to the license holders and their agreements with BHVR. For all we know someone important at netflix hated the meme and thought it was a bad representation of their IP and wanted it changed, while using a rights negotiation as the time and opportunity to do it. Crossover content is always about advertising as much if not more than it is giving the audience what they want, games like Marvel Vs Capcom 3 were basically just an advertising slate for the MCU to Marvel instead of bringing back beloved legacy characters. Its pretty much always just business.
-
@ShootOut37 said:
New voice actor doesn't match the character entirely, let alone his "Steagull" scream, that was literally the only reason I bought Stranger Things Ep. 1. Make his scream back, or, better yet, return the old voicelines back to the game.
I consider it a lot more of a bait and switch when killers come out of the gate too strong and get entirely reworked after release than an annoying meme getting changed after years. Its a live service game.
-
It would help if people could start being honest about what bad ping actually is. Not that you aren't, but its something that regularly plagues feedback on the issue.
@kaneyboy said:
im fed up of killers with bad ping in my games getting free hits all the time… why is this even a thing? make it so servers favour the person with better connection?!
The game used to be P2P, with the killer as the host. There are facets of its code that can and theoretically have broken when moving too far from that standard, which is why some elements favor one side or the other. Hits and many powers need to at least partially favor the killer, while things like interrupts/grabs kinda need to favor survivor. If it were built from the ground up on dedicated servers, it would almost definitely have cut down on some of these types of dependencies. Its a similar idea behind why many games struggle to incorporate concepts like roll back netcode after the fact when being built on delay based systems.
-
@Rokku_Rorru said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4056469#Comment_4056469
It has nothing to do with spite. It's just MGS content.
Silent Hill is the only chapter which has not recieved a single visual update to its survivors, except Lisa's earring addition. Stranger Things came after SH, and that's even recieved updates. BHVR had the perfect chance to do it with their konami 2v8, or the like and we recieved nothing of the sort.
Like for goodness sake Cybil was bugged for several years until finally being fixed, and her hair is still incorrectly rigged, and her face still morphs in a hillarious manner when you rapidly unequip and re equip items on the lobby screen (Castlevania characters hair detatches from their head coz of a desync if you do this also).
I feel the SH chapter in particularly needs some touch ups, to bring them up to the standard the rest of the game has, even Tapp was updated, Giraffe Cynthia from rugrats Cheryl needs some love as do the others and have done for years.
If they love Silent Hill as much as they claimed to back when they first revealed it, they could put as much love into the PROTAGONISTS as much love as they put into Pyramid Head or the map.It has nothing to do with spite. It's just MGS content.Everything that has been done with the IP since he left, paired with how and why he left, makes their usage of it as "content" an insult at best, exploitative at worst. It literally goes against almost everything he tried to convey in his storytelling throughout the series, and he basically spelled it out through expositions in the games multiple times. The last thing he wanted was stuff like:
-WARNING, FLASHING LIGHTS AND LOUD NOISE WARNING-
https://youtu.be/Ffqre27h_0c?si=tddTRXSnyWLBwhiWIn regards to the quality of content from the other collabs, I don't have an opinion on any of that. My point was more about how quality is secondary to how much profit it will bring in for them as a company. It has been the most consistent facet of their business strategies for decades at this point, and a lot of series from Contra to Goemon have suffered for it in light of the pachinko division. They do things if they think they will make them money, things like lore or accuracy are irrelevant.
-
At this point I think they treat MGS with more spite for Kojima than anything actually having to do with respecting its lore. If you know anything about how theyv'e handled their IPs with pachinko, the bottom line is always the most important aspect. There isn't really any way of knowing what that entails with the licenses they have collaborated on without either seeing the actual agreements, or the end results of them. It will always be around what decisions they deem most profitable.
-
I know its been a while, but potentially hot take: Everytime something happens like removing the BP bonus from WGLF or the hook timer gets extended, it speeds up gens. WGLF made people absolutely swarm hooks as it was the most consistent way to get stacks, and since emblems were still a thing they wanted to pump their altruism up as well. Extending the hook timer promotes efficiency before leaving the gen to go for the save. Even when it comes to any type of ability to pick oneself up off the ground idea, it removes the necessity to get off a gen to get someone back in action. Many unrelated changes and ideas can have direct impact on concepts like gen efficiency for survivor just like they do for killer in regards to how elements affect their macro play and time restrictions.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4056074#Comment_4056074
Were all of the perks to do so removed from the game? If not, then yes, it is still "certainly possible" even if not "common."
I didn't run anything of an end game build whatsoever. Franklin's still makes people drop their item, even if it doesn't drain the charges.
So yes.
And my point here is essentially exactly that: this is all base kit for killers. You can hit people out without any perks whatsoever. On every killer.
Honestly kinda tired of the absolute cherry picking that goes on with the exit gate, when the crux of the whole situation is quite literally the survivor's to lose rather than the killer's to win.
This is still a pvp part of the game. In fact, I'd argue that in a properly balanced pvp game that capitalizing on or even forcing errors from your opponent is a core part of the pvp.
The killer has options. You can force them out and shorten your timer and even have the chance to capitalize on mistakes and overconfidence. You can go ignore them completely, and possibly lure them from the exit gate entirely. You can go earn BP.
None of that is available to slugs. The PVP is over for that scenario, there's no base kit mechanic, no capitalizing or forcing mistakes, no way to earn BP or even ignore them entirely since you can't physically even get away.
There is a difference between "I have no options and the game is actually over" and "I have options and think the game is over, but I refuse to even acknowledge those options exist".
I didn't run anything of an end game build whatsoever. Franklin's still makes people drop their item, even if it doesn't drain the charges.That doesn't refute anything I said. Those perks actively disprove your statement of impossibility, by emphasizing that there IS an available solution that people actively refuse to utilize. And again, the abandon system actively discourages anyone from even making that investment even more than their entitlement already did before it was introduced. Its the same exact argument of "if it bothers you, just bring X" that gets used in every single discussion about any problem in the game for either role regarding a problem that has a cost related solution, and I'm using it for consistency's sake to dispel hyperbole more than as a dismissal.
And my point here is essentially exactly that: this is all base kit for killers.Thats not a comparable point, since it is something that falls within the structural differences between roles similar to how the killer cannot leave a match that has not fully concluded. You can put it under a microscope to force a false equivalence, but thats like saying survivors can be blinded by flashbangs and therefore it is unfair they cannot have lightborn. And as someone with light sensitivity issues, if I saw multiple flashbangs in the lobby I would waste a perk slot on that. If the killer were elimination based or the survivors were load bearing, it would change the scenario entirely both in its limitations and role specific considerations.
You can hit people out without any perks whatsoever. On every killer.You can also move your King during a checkmate scenario in chess, but are not required to because the game has officially concluded. No matter whether you're a grandmaster or a beginner. Like I said, there's always such a laser focus on specifics that are used to purposely misrepresent any opposing argument on this subject.
This is still a pvp part of the game. In fact, I'd argue that in a properly balanced pvp game that capitalizing on or even forcing errors from your opponent is a core part of the pvp.It is, note the forcing part. Survivors gloating and dangling their hand over a lion's mouth before losing said hand is not the same as the lion luring said hand to be within their reach. It is not a scenario that is the killer's to win, it is the survivor's to lose, and there is a massive difference between the two. Anyone who understands how concepts like running the clock in genres like fighting games work is very familiar with how different those two statements are.
The killer has options. You can force them out and shorten your timer and even have the chance to capitalize on mistakes and overconfidence. You can go ignore them completely, and possibly lure them from the exit gate entirely. You can go earn BP.Again, they are not options any more than something like running around in the finale of a TF2 match choosing when and where someone eviscerates you are options. Trying to use BP as jingling keys does nothing about the actual dilemma at hand, and is often met by survivors spamming loud noise notifications instead of actually leaving. Survivors would not accept being able to play with pogs or jax on the ground while bleeding out for a pittance of BP, they want to be able to leave the moment they feel their win is no longer reasonable to expect.
None of that is available to slugs. The PVP is over for that scenario, there's no base kit mechanic, no capitalizing or forcing mistakes, no way to earn BP or even ignore them entirely since you can't physically even get away.The hatch can spawn right under your belly, which is again, equally unrealistic as expecting the killer to have any influence over survivors who are on the winning side of a check-mate scenario. You only attribute agency to that because they get to choose the duration of their loss, specifically in a way that is intended to be frustrating. Would you agree to giving killers the ability to end the match the same as swatting all survivors out, but being able to do so in a single action instead of 1-8+? Or do you prefer seeing killers take their frustrations out on the next group of survivors? Would you find it acceptable if survivors had parity with how they needed to take their abandon in terms of activity and submission? Nobody ever answers that question so I would honestly like to know since it gets brought up so often as a thing they're not "allowed" to do, and the choice BHVR made makes sure they would never be expected to.
Thereisa difference between "I have no options and the game is actually over" and "I have options and think the game is over, but I refuse to even acknowledge those options exist".Then why are some of the abandon conditions for survivor well beyond the latter? Thats the reason people try to make the case about the exit gates, because there are actual true checkmate scenarios that get ignored in how everything works, while survivors can nope out during a simple check. Its not about attacking the side you don't agree with, its about actually allowing yourself to have logical consistency despite your personal feelings.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4056016#Comment_4056016
The other main difference with this is that killers can still obtain kills in "exit gate" situations. Especially overconfident and cocky survivors will make mistakes, or leave the exit gates entirely.
People can't tell me that they haven't gotten the right angle even once to backflip a survivor back toward the map. Because the benefit of being the "power role" is occasionally getting to be the one who dishes out the "find out" part.
I still remember a game almost 2 years ago now where I struggled as pig and just opened the doors for them. But they all stayed in to make sure Nea for her hat off before leaving. I didn't even care about securing that kill, so I just was waiting in a jungle gym nearby and they came to throw pallets and I kicked them without really committing. Until Feng made 2 mistakes, one that let me get a hit in and she dropped her flashlight because franklins. She was so unconcerned/overconfident that she turned around to get it and gave me a free down more than halfway through EGC. I turned that mistake into a 2k.
Not saying this is common, but it's certainly possible for killers. This isn't possible for slugs.
Not saying this is common, but it's certainly possible for killers. This isn't possible for slugs.Were all of the perks to do so removed from the game? If not, then yes, it is still "certainly possible" even if not "common." The problem is these perks now have zero reason to ever be brought into a match and nobody ever wanted to invest in that safety net anyway, but its easier to focus on the slight possibility of a survivor messing up their positioning when actively delaying the end of the game to taunt when they could take a micro step forward and just leave.
Honestly kinda tired of the absolute cherry picking that goes on with the exit gate, when the crux of the whole situation is quite literally the survivor's to lose rather than the killer's to win. All of it predicates on the survivors to be overzealous in their taunting to the point that they leave an opening for a mistake, and not that the situation is entirely within their control to even remotely fail at. Just leave and take your win instead of coming up with obscure hypotheticals involving handing a turnover on a silver platter as some kind of gotcha like a killer W/Sing until the hatch spawns underneath a survivor isn't also equally both technically possible yet wildly improbable requiring the planets to align just right.
-
@Nazzzak said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4055955#Comment_4055955
How humiliating one finds it is obviously subjective. Personally, I have no qualms about hitting them out. When i talk about it being an option, I'm not intentionally being unsympathetic. I'm also sure there are players for whom being slugged and slowly bled out was humiliating also. There's probably even players who still find the whole team being slugged and abandoning to be humiliating. For me though, it simply comes down to a lack of respect for people's time and therefore ensuring people have the option to claim their time back.
As i said, i have zero issue with the devs implementing something at that point, if only to prevent people from feeling humiliated. You said an abandon option isn't realistic, and since you've put more thought into it than I then I believe you that it's not an option. Your suggestion of being able to close the exit gate is fine, though I don't think it would change much in terms of "choosing the length of time for your inevitable defeat," since it ultimately functions the same way as chasing them out (unless I'm misunderstanding you).
Your suggestion of being able to close the exit gate is fine, though I don't think it would change much in terms of "choosing the length of time for your inevitable defeat," since it ultimately functions the same way as chasing them out (unless I'm misunderstanding you).When you have 4 survivors in the exit gates, you need to swat each one of them 1-2 times, with a blade wipe in between each, and things like heal tech can easily be done to extend things even further while taunting beyond just tea bagging. This is why i mentioned the death by a thousand cuts, because by this point, you have seen that blade wipe plenty of times in the match alone. The killer role has many time wastes where the player can do absolutely nothing about them, so by that point, it becomes less like a period and more like an exclamation point depending on the temperament of the player at that time.
I am not talking from the perspective of my own temperament so much as I am anyone who finds frustration in this. Those types of actions have absolutely impacted many killers reasoning in not "playing nice" in subsequent matches, and poor sportsmanship is a well known contributor to behavior in subsequent matches regardless of role. When I speak of these things, I'm focusing specifically on concepts like game health, as forcing unnecessary frustration, regardless of perceived temperament, bleeds into unrelated future matches due to human nature. Its why so many games have concerns about correcting unnecessarily unsportsmanlike behavior, and games like LoL were notorious for it for years. As the game grew in popularity, they started taking these situations more serious and buckled down on things like chat harassment and BM that carried evidence beyond simple taunt spam, and the game's community removed some of the toxicity from its perception. This also included taking a hardline stance on aspects like leaving matches early, with entire systems focused specifically on making it as difficult as possible to circumvent while having pretty much no impact on normal play beyond improving it. And the average match is far longer both in potential and average duration than DBD, and isnt even elimination based.
This game isn't that success story, not can it be. Since there is no ability to drop in/out after being disconnected, its structure does not allow the same responses to these issues. That said, the extent of the effort in this game has been to make a chat filter so strangely strict you can't even say the names of half of the characters in it and a slew of other false positives that have been complained about and presumably tweaked for years. Then the abandon feature is designed to prevent "time waste" specifically during the scenarios where the killer would BM survivors, but with zero consideration for the other way around outside of a 10 minute timer for eternal hide and go seek championships. I know you don't have objections to parity, which is very respectable and something I shared before certain considerations were brought up in discussions, but the structure of the game does not allow killers to have anything closely resembling the protection from bad behavior that survivors lament. Not only that, but the dismissals given are commonly used as one stop responses to anything remotely focused on removing the underlying problems that are partially addressed specifically with a favoritism for one side's considerations on a universal concern.
The crux of the matter is that they overdid it for one side while practically ignoring the other, not just in the application but in the idea itself. If they had changed it so that you would have to engage in a time wasting animation where you needed to actively grovel at the killer's feet in order to be able to abandon early (not passively, actually do something like a short series of skill checks while throwing yourself at their feet or something designed to be embarrassing or demeaning) that would be the only way it could be done to have parity with the forced smacks and blade wipes involved with swatting players out. Instead you get to skip the mori animation because it would be a waste of time to have to sit through it, let alone give that Dwight a chance to use his deliverance to reset the other 2 slugs when the killer picks you up to hook you. Since one side is elimination based and the other is not, there is no way to reconcile parity in that direction without having the ability for a killer bot to replace the killer and giving them an abandon option during a similar Check scenario, so that fact becomes a limitation of how the issue could be resolved evenly across the two roles. Since the stealth option for killers can take up to 10 minutes, it makes most of the <30 second opt outs seem extremely lopsided before even getting to things like 4 minute bleed outs, but the numbers game is easiest to justify when focusing on the 5-10 second smacks that are the culmination of a dozen or more instances of the same time waste that led up to that point in the game. And people want it that way, otherwise an idea like giving the killer a shrine in the basement they could activate to abandon once the gates are opened or force ejecting survivors with a single action at the gates wouldn't receive any pushback.
-
@Nazzzak said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4055951#Comment_4055951
"I just really dislike having comments disparaging personal feelings about some being blanket statements for anyone who disagrees"
If this is referring to my comment about some people being disingenuous, I can clarify that I do think people are being disingenuous when they suggest being able to crawl around to find hatch means being slugged is not a waste of someone's time.
I get what you mean, but even then, its the same type of reasoning that gets applied to being forced to swat out at the gate. If it wasn't intended to be a humiliation ritual, why don't the survivors just leave? If all 4 are in the exit, the justifications for things like waiting to make a save and such are gone. There are times where it is not meant to antagonize, but there are also many times where it is. If there was a way to force eject the survivors when they are in a checkmate scenario, that would be a different story, but it needs to be one last forced time waste on top of a mountain of previous ones that are part of the killers job in playing the game, a final insult that exists purely for the sake of bad sportsmanship, and the main justification revolves around the duration of a single interaction rather than the culmination of the entire game that obviously led to a loss. Its spitting in one's hand for a team handshake at the end of a game like football, but without the risk of the other player knocking your lights out for the disrespect.
I've even tried to offer concessions for killers to be able to swat all 4 out as a single action through things like closing the exit gate instead of having to go through the routine, but it always comes back to "but they have agency!" as a way to disregard anything other than allowing the status quo. Meanwhile I don't consider choosing the length of time for your inevitable defeat any more agency than forcing a losing player in chess to make the last move to decide what space their king dies during a checkmate.
The moment anyone talks about things like W/Sing while bleeding out and demanding empathy, they lose and and all justification to be able to defend that scenario.
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4055914#Comment_4055914
Between the low-effort abandon option, the wonky matchmaking, and the unclear wincons, I do feel like the tone has gotten steadily worse. I really wish they'd dig their heels in and lay things out plainly instead of convoluting them further. The question on the survey about what you consider a win as survivor has got me very curious about the MMR rework and what they might have in-store.
Many of the game's woes could be properly addressed with consistency and clear direction. Its bad enough that there are so many "This is X, except for when its actually Y" scenarios in the game, but it feels like that extends to many of the considerations for the game's health and even core gameplay loop over the years. Its an asymmetrical game, but that can often be more of an excuse than a consideration itself with many of the decisions that have happened over time. Thats why I always try to encourage people to have a more top down perspective on issues instead of personal ones, as both roles can have two different issues under a microscope that are actually two parts of a larger unified issue when zoomed out. Addressing the macro design more than the micro considerations is something I feel strongly improves the ability to positively address game health whenever possible, but without applying concepts like dialectics it can be nearly unattainable.
-
@Nazzzak said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4055933#Comment_4055933
To reiterate my position: it's about having options. If survivors are tbagging in the exit gate, the option exists to chase them out. Or not. If all survivors are a degree of dead and/or slugged, there is an option to abandon. Or not. If all survivors have abandoned, killers also get the option to abandon. Or not. The discussion i replied to is talking about time wastage, and the options exist for both sides to minimise it. Prior to abandon you could still chase tbagging survivors out, but you could do nothing about being bled out for 4 minutes without copping a penalty.
If the devs decide to implement an abandon option in the event that survivors are tbagging in the exit gate, then whatever, no skin off my nose. But there is, and always has been, an option.
If the devs decide to implement an abandon option in the event that survivors are tbagging in the exit gate, then whatever, no skin off my nose. But there is, and always has been, an option.It can't really be an option, since the killer is load bearing and there is no way for the game to properly make those types of identifiers, which is usually what the argument boils down to. If two people are given a free cake and one of them is diabetic, they cannot necessarily eat that free cake. The approach to solving the solution should have been designed around the underlying issue for both sides, but was done in a way that is possible for one (due to being elimination based) and not the other (being load bearing) on an intrinsic level.
It was a very lazy solution that even undermined multiple survivor perks in their intended applications and ability to prevent scenarios that the abandon feature is now a blanket opt out for. Basically my stance is not one that survivors should not have their "time be respected" in extreme scenarios as much as the insistence of such a platform demands exclusion from an aspect that is a part of competition itself. I also strongly believe that to say rules for thee and not for me in regards to something as unavoidable as that while simultaneously having it be baked into the core gameplay loop for the opposite side tends to increase frustrations considerably in a death by a thousand cuts way more than just a direct comparison of specific scenarios. I'm ok with agreeing to disagree on a lot of aspects of the conversation, I just really dislike having comments disparaging personal feelings about some being blanket statements for anyone who disagrees, especially since that betrays concepts like cognitive dissonance as a reason for reconciliation of ideas to not be able to happen.
-
@Nazzzak said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4055924#Comment_4055924
They're definitely trolling, I wouldn't bother.
I force survivors out the gates constantly to ensure my time isn't wasted. It's easy. A survivor can't force a killer to hook or mori them in order to ensure their time isn't wasted. The abandon option was the solution to that, and fair enough. Too many folks purposely being disingenuous here because they want to feel victimised but the point is that everyone has options.
I don't think its anything like being disingenuous or victim status to point out that the system was not designed around the inherent nature of elimination vs load bearing presence in the game, and instead tried to incorporate a solution that favors the consideration of one side far more than the other, but I also don't understand the depths people go to about "time waste" in a competition environment, and I don't think I'll ever be able to get people to not focus on a concept like that in such a self centered way. And I don't say that as any form of insult, but more that its a position that demands empathy while showing none in response. The reason people feel compelled to try to explain parallels is because the killer role can often be built around time waste, and its inherent in everything down to god loops and shift+M1 gameplay or even just blade wipes and picking survivors up.
Many aspects of the game are designed to inherently waste time, and thats something that comes with competition in general, but the sentiment behind things like going next often demands exclusion from that uncomfortable truth (and most of the abandon conditions foster that sentiment.) The reason so many people try to focus on the exit gates is because the only way agency exists is if you force it to based on personal definitions revolving around your character doing things when you press buttons, and not whether those actions do anything to progress you toward your objective. Many situations in the game are not structured in a way that a 1 to 1 parallel will ever be able to be explained without the other side being willing to understand the nuances from the opposing perspective. Since the killer side has no way to leave a match without it ending entirely while survivors are elimination based, one side gets to leave when they lose and the other side only gets to leave when the match has fully concluded for all players. The prioritization depends on a balance of emotions vs logic, with empathy being the only way to actually convey or understand a person's stance on those two principles. Since the foundations are entirely different, cognitive dissonance makes it easier to declare a false dichotomy than it does to actually compare the underlying commonalities between the two perspectives.
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4055879#Comment_4055879
People in this community are constantly asking what others consider a win. We even just had that question on the new survey, so it's not clear-cut, but the answers tend to be a 3k or a 4k/3e or a 4e. I certainly don't feel like I won when I get hatch unless the other three went out the gates first.
Define the wincon officially as team win simply by changing the number on the stat page and see how people change what they do. Pretty sure it would quickly change people like you who care more about a number than they do the actual experience or other human beings. I'm quite sure that abymassl loss number in your stats would flip the script.
Survivor pain points are brought on by themsleves? So a killer who goes into a match intending to tunnel immediately while running Dissolution and Bamboozle to make it near impossible to loop is the survivors fault? A survivor who is downed last who gets humped for 4 minutes for no reason did it to themsleves? A survivor getting camped to death in the basement is responsible for that? What is with this tremendous resistance t o placing the responsibility for killer actions on the killer choosing to preform them?
What would that lead to? Me DCing over anything that i didnt like….because i can.
You'd previously said you don't use the abandon that much. This clashes with that. By "not much" did you mean "every single time I know I won't get hatch"?
Every match would be filled with bots and someone like you who never DC's would find themselves in matches with 3 bots very frequently.
I've said many times I don't care if other people DC. If people want to go then let them go. I'll play against 4 bots or with 3 bots. Nine times out of ten, when three people DC early, the killer is cool with that one remaining person. Might be hard for you to believe, but most people have empathy and can realize and react to an unfair situation. I've had killers throw just because of one DC, saying they didn't think it was fair.
I also love this totem challenge that you bring up everyday that literally no one is doing.
I think the lack of either a clear or personal wincon is a big cause of discordance in discussion with a lot of aspects of the game, and the confusion feels almost by design at times. They want to remove as much frustration as possible from the feedback of game results, yet use them as the sole determining factor of everything every single player has or hasn't accomplished in the entire trial.
The emblem system used to be tailored to addressing these goals, allowing players to easily create personal wincons that focused on as much or as little of their personal input into a given match, with flaws in how said metrics could be impacted by other players (I.E. if everyone rushes the hook to get their altruism up, there was not enough to go around and it could actually cost matches due to poor prioritization.) The idea was designed around rating players individual input into as many core tenants of the expectations of their participation as possible, with obvious limitations imposed by either other players or opponents (a survivor who gets permatunneled can live long enough to escape, but still only ever get emblems in boldness.) Not a perfect system, but it felt more focused on giving players a more fair metric to gauge their abilities rather than strictly outcome bias.
Deprioritizing that to the point of just being a monthly BP bonus removed the drive for players to engage with as many aspects of the game, and instead maximize their focus on the outcome. Its why metas keep getting more solved, players get more sweaty, unhealthy strategies get more prioritized and leniency/versatility less prioritized. Pair that with bad matchmaking, backfill completely destroying matchmaking quality, and player ego (in the sense of the importance of feedback to the player, not strictly in the "I'm the best" mindset) and you end up with everyone at each other's throats more than ever. The negative outcomes tend to weigh heavier than the positive ones for a lot of people because their entire feedback structure for their impact on a given match has been boiled down to "but did you win?" If the answer is no, they see no value and want to leave immediately for another chance, like a gambling addict on a slot machine getting their next quarter before the slots even stop.
I honestly believe that if MMR was never adopted in the form it has been, people would be less adamant about being able to quit matches early. I have no way of knowing what other impacts it would have for the game (for better or worse,) but it feels like its been long enough to be able to make that type of correlation. The degree it has impacted player satisfaction in a given match is hard to ignore, and trends in behavior in other games over time and across genres makes it a pretty interesting topic to reflect on with this one.
-
@UnicornMedal said:
You have to love that every single time a thread like this starts, people get really upset over DCs but think the game being in a massively unbalanced and broken state is fine.
Being able to go next (or even just give up in general) further destabilizes the balance of the game, so that feels like a weird point to try to force. If anything, removing those types of unknown variables is how you get a groundwork to attempt achieving balance. The game is based on an expectation that it will be 1v4 for a reasonable amount of time, and the concept of time's value is transient enough based on that foundation alone. Stable foundation over Jenga.
-
@Mandy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4055206#Comment_4055206
This is exactly right - it's not a black and white situation. There's a lot of gameplay factors to consider when opening gates or 99'ing them. If I'm solo queue and there's a team mate hooked, I know I will open that gate as I will be going back for the save and not staying around the gate area - however, if someone is in chase, and you don't know where on the map they are, and therefore you won't be randomly running over the map, it's often best to 99 the gate and wait, and be reactive if the chase does come towards the door that you are at.
So many gameplay options like most things in DbD, there's not always a simple "this is right, this is wrong" scenario.TBH the fact that there is such a simple and easy method to delay the start of the EGC is why its even a discussion in the first place. The only risk involved with what essentially amounts to adding free time to the timer via delaying its start is entirely dependent on someone not being able to instantly flip it the moment the killer starts approaching. If 99ing itself was addressed in any way since the EGC was introduced, it would feel more like a strategic choice and less just a pitfall for players who want the gate to open for them like an automated door as they get chased toward it.
I just don't understand why it still works this way when a soft timer for the end of the game functions around it. You would think it would at least decay instead of having the actual choice be "if it's 99ed and someone not in chase is standing next to it, there is no risk" on maps outside of maybe Hawkins where visibility is short. I mostly just acknowledge that someone being chased to a 99ed gate without anyone to pop it open for them is why there are times it might not be the right call.
-
@Nazzzak said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4055194#Comment_4055194
Nothing you've said negates my reply to the other person, who said the people who went next were rewarded. They were not. They had their penalty free option taken from them and their only route now is the one that penalises them. Sure, the people who did the right thing were rewarded by having a better shot at escape but I'm not sure what that has to do with my reply.
I misunderstood the context then, apologies.
-
The fact that so many people are all or nothing on 99ing the gates kinda shows a lack of nuance. It can be both the right and the wrong move depending on the situation, make the decision based on the game around it.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4055175#Comment_4055175
Why is this logic exclusive to this game compared to, say, LoL or Dota? Street Fighter or Garou? Some games like MvC3 would let you do it, but specifically put you in a queue with other quitters as well, so you could be with likeminded individuals. If you were pushing for a vote abandon that would be one thing, but nobody should be defending being able to break the format of the game without consequence, and I'm not even getting into the hypocrisy on this statement concerning an elimination based role vs a load bearing one.
meant for this post, don't know why it swapped?
@Philscooper said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4055093#Comment_4055093
thats one way to defend toxic 4 man bleedouts.
great idea to force survivors to stay in a match they already lost which no chance to comeback or a reason to continue playing.
no one takes you seriously because its common sense that wasting time without a way to move forward, shouldnt be a thing. -
Wrong quote applied, see other postWhy is this logic exclusive to this game compared to, say, LoL or Dota? Street Fighter or Garou? Some games like MvC3 would let you do it, but specifically put you in a queue with other quitters as well, so you could be with likeminded individuals. If you were pushing for a vote abandon that would be one thing, but nobody should be defending being able to break the format of the game without consequence, and I'm not even getting into the hypocrisy on this statement concerning an elimination based role vs a load bearing one.
-
@Nazzzak said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4055033#Comment_4055033
"Go next" was removed. They took away the 4% as a result of people letting go on hook. There was no reward, just punishment. The likely result if there is an increase in DCing is that they'll put in stronger penalties. DCing isn’t even the same as going next anyway, because the latter had no personal downside while the former has always penalised players.
The reward was removing the ability to go next. It was just a reward for the ones who didn't abuse it in that they have a better chance at salvaging the games people try to get eliminated out of as fast as possible instead. That is a genuine buff to gen progress, and the only nerf was to the people who wanted to disrupt matches by noping out faster. Anybody who actually intends to use the 4% as a positive for themselves or their team (instead of just an outdated last ditch effort) can still do so with as little as an offering.
-
@Rogue11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4054848#Comment_4054848
Survivors got the abandon option because the "mature" killers couldn't stop watching them bleed out on the floor for 4 mins before hooking/mori'ing. Something the survivors (since the "mature" killers cried and got any form of anti-slug cancelled) have zero agency to prevent, unlike killers forcing survivors out the gates.
Then why does it apply to many situations that aren't anywhere near that strawman? Why does the other side have to wait up to 10 minutes before it applies to them?
Preventing bleed outs is one thing, but at least try to be impartial when talking about "maturity" in your arguments. The abandon feature has actively destroyed the point of multiple perks designed to revitalize games by making the scenarios where you would apply them instead leave you with 3 bots as allies. It is a good idea (preventing extreme scenarios) with terrible execution (a free DC for impatient players specifically on one side.)
-
@Classic_Rando said:
Spaghetti code strikes again
At this point we need to call it Starfish Code, in honor of how old bugs seem to regenerate after being cut off.
-
@DeadbyMatchmaking said:
Always the same killers, always the same strategy, always the same perks/loadout, always the same maps, always the same layout, always the same survivors.
Where is the variety? It's so boring seeing the same thing over and over again.
This image might shed some light on the reason in a way that doesn't focus on either side specifically:
As it is from Nightlight, some people have probably already clicked downvote, but its not being presented for isolated reasons. Its about how absolutely solved the game's meta is for both sides. The survivor perks are focused on extending chases, with a secondary focus on improving gen speeds and anti-tunnel. The killer perks are focused on slowing down gens, with a secondary focus on reducing down time between chases. The game has become so formulaic that out of the vast number of perks for each side, the top pick on each side has over a 25% proliferation rate alone, not to mention that multiple other perks in the top 8 fit the same usage reason. That is extremely bad.
Yes, its a curated set, and no, it doesn't represent the overall population of the game. Its not being posted for those types of reasons, its meant to help explain that the people who do take the game as seriously as to submit their statistics to a tracking site like that feel the reasons behind the perks need to be addressed that thoroughly. Its not about Windows of Obsession or Scourge Hook: Pain Relief being OP, its about the fact that to a very significant portion of the player base, they feel mandatory to have a reasonably enjoyable game. The irony is that aspects like gen speed overlap between the two, which shows a clear indication that it is seen as an extremely volatile element to your average game, due to its combination of the relativity of time's value and the amount of control the opposing perks can have over it. That then branches out into other similar considerations, like how killers are focused on finding people quickly while survivors are focused on lasting as long as possible in chase.
At the end of the day, it all comes down to TIME. Nobody feels like they have enough time to play in other ways, and the focus shifts to efficiency and avoiding self sabotage by having a lack thereof. Gen Rushing, Tunneling, Tracking, identifying resources, everything people choose to bring into the game is more focused on increasing one's own odds than it is about having fun. It bleeds into everything from items to addons to killer choices to even survivor choices based on their volumes or ability to be stealthy. As long as there are "correct choices," the rest of the content sadly becomes no better than unnecessary bloat in the average player's eyes.
-
Didn't they state that maps get weighted on a rotation? Can't remember if it was maps or realms, but seem to remember them saying groups get kinda "featured" to show up more often which rotates instead of being true random.
-
This could easily be addressed by normalizing audio levels, preferably as an option, like they have refused to do for years. Nioh 3 just released and even made it an option with 3 presets.
Its the kind of thing that would help immensely with issues like this. Still wouldn't help as much with overlapping sound issues, but it would at least prevent the potential damage large volume fluctuations cause.
-
@joeyspeehole said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4053109#Comment_4053109
The difference is that survivors have to abandon the match entirely to escape the prison that the killer controls. I genuinely believe that design choice was made to boost killers' endgame strength. It's no different from removing Distortion to encourage 4K slugging. I've also seen multiple threads where killer-mains openly discuss removing the hatch altogether.
Also, crouching in the exit gate doesn't stop the killer from playing, it actually increases the odds of hooking another survivor. If players were allowed to take their chance and potentially unhook, it would extend the playable portion of the match. Sure, that survivor might not have the skill to change the outcome, but I've been in plenty of games where a last second unhook completely flipped the game.
Also, crouching in the exit gate doesn't stop the killer from playing, it actually increases the odds of hooking another survivor.This is your bias showing. It is 100% possible to stand in the exit gates in a way that the killer has zero chance of punishing them for it, another point for being disingenuous. My point is that your hyperbole betrays your meaning, you're very clearly trying to frame one side as more malicious than the other for no reason when if you were being genuine, they would be included in your concern since the reason is the same even if the terms are different.
but I've been in plenty of games where a last second unhook completely flipped the game.And now you just need to bring an offering or perk for the chance. If you refuse to do so, you just prove that you never intended to do it on purpose, and just want a chance at a ripcord instead of just taking your abandon if it comes down to it instead of investing in the opportunity.
-
@ad19970 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4053264#Comment_4053264
I am not sure which beta you mean, and Vecna has received quite a few changes ever since he released. Before the last patch where they buffed Vecna, there was a bug that made how long the pallet would get blocked by Mage Hand after picking the pallet up inconsistent. As far as I know they fixed that, and set the time the pallet would get blocked to 0.55 seconds.
But as I just have found out, that doesn't seem long enough. Unless I fooled myself and used Mage Hand too late, after the survivor already started dropping the pallet, but I am pretty sure I didn't.
If you are saying that Mage hand used to block pallets for too long when using it on an upright pallet, then that's somewhat true. Mage Hand has always blocked pallets for 4 seconds, but the addon that inrceases that duration has been nerfed twice.
I seem to remember during the PTB his ability to block pallets was longer than it is now, but its been a while. I only run into him rarely, so not much point of reference, I usually just respect mage hand and try to predict it instead of trying to do stuff like that, and notice it seems to vary a lot in value depending on the loop length. I feel like blocking it longer after its picked up would definitely be worth testing, since it seems kinda silly from what you explained.
If you are saying that Mage hand used to block pallets for too long when using it on an upright pallet, then that's somewhat true. Mage Hand has always blocked pallets for 4 seconds, but the addon that inrceases that duration has been nerfed twice.Thats probably what I was thinking of. Sorry, he came out at a time I wasn't playing much, so I didn't follow his changes much.
-
@ad19970 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4053257#Comment_4053257
It's perfectly balanceable with the movement speed penalty Vecna has to endure after using Mage Hand. Honestly, right now, if you use Mage Hand on reaction instead of prediction, there is a good chance survivors can just make it around the loop again and then drop the pallet.
That's how it would be ideally. But being able to just drop the pallet back down onto Vecna after he uses Mage Hand is ridiculous. Vecna should be encouraged to predict the pallet drop, not react to it. And that's how I thought it was until this match I had that proved me wrong. Survivors can still drop the pallet back down on you again even if you predict the pallet drop.
If Mage Hand would become too strong when buffing the block duration of the hand after picking up a pallet, all BHVR would need to do is slightly decrease Vecna's movement speed after casting Mage Hand, during the cooldown he endures.
Also, I admit Mage Hand isn't fully useless, it can still block pallets. But lifting pallets up again is currently completely useless as it seems.
Oh yeah, When I opened the topic it was just a blank post, sorry. Increasing the delay a bit between it being lifted and being able to drop it would fix it, right? IIRC the issues in the beta were more that it could be blocked too long than how long before it could be re-thrown, correct? I don't own him so never played him much.
-
Mage hand is kinda weird to balance, because its either too strong or useless in most cases with a very fine line in between. I can't really think of a way to hit that middleground with how variable loop distances are. Maybe making it faster or longer but only able to affect up or down pallets, so it has to lean heavier into either prevention or reaction?
-
@FerrousFacade said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4053227#Comment_4053227
Allowing survivors to see killer usernames is an easy way to predict things from what killer they're likely to play to their loadouts, which is less of an issue with survivors since it only really applies to perks and not whole powers.
So much this. There are certain perks that have an outsized effect against certain killers, like iron will or even fog vials against spirit and vigil against any status effect killer. Players love showing off their p100 or other accomplishments on their profile and that shouldn't be forced to change. I would certainly take advantage of that knowledge.
Cheaters and ping are valid concerns but both are entirely on BHVR to fix, its not something the player should have to be worrying about in the first place. Anon mode would hide their profile regardless and its not like the game is going to start showing you The Blight in lobby if the killer uses anon. Just hiding everyone's name is both the best and likely the easiest to implement solution (matchmaking issues aside).
I still remember there was that time where every single Doctor player strangely found themselves going against squads of 4 with calm spirit, and nobody seemed to know why. Turns out people were using unscrupulous means to identify the killer, who would have thought?
-
@100PercentBPMain said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4053239#Comment_4053239
I kinda did...oops..
I wonder if this chapter would work best as a survivor standalone or a store collection? does Smt have notable personalities for the bad guys? Persona has Hitler, who is a certified jerk and not nice guy. Are all the bad guys just demons?
Many of them are human agents, like Strega in P3, so there could be plenty of humans to work with. But since many of the personas/monsters/etc are based on various myths and religions directly or partially, it could be a pretty tricky pool to navigate. Even getting past the religious ones, there's a recurring shadow thats literally just Hulk Hogan. Like, not even trying to hide it.
It could work, but they'd have to lean more into the OC and/or generic ones to avoid potentially being offensive, so it shrinks the choices quite a bit, and those options might end up a little too limiting if they can't find ones that people would be hype for.
-
@UnicornMedal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4053177#Comment_4053177
And yet we're still here a decade after the game's launch still arguing about the same things. My point is that even if we're trying to get to the bottom of these things, we're just have the same circular arguments year after year that never seem to have much impact on the game. So the argument of whether something is conductive to discussion or not is sort of moot. Unless anyone genuinely believes that going back and forth in these threads for another year is suddenly going to solve the game balance, we're just here shooting the breeze.
We're arguing about different things, I assure you. Some of the same topics persist, sure, but discussions have changed a lot over the years, both in their targets and how they're handled. Hell, I went back and found a post where I joked about a killer being able to lasso survivors within a year before Deathslinger was introduced, and I know a lot of things like the EGC had parts of its design suggested well before it made it in. Pulsar's famous console optimization topic went for years and while they certainly didn't keep up with the issues people presented in it, I have no doubt it was used as data to slowly improve things over time. The thing about not having confirmation feedback is you won't see anything making it into the game if you're only looking for the things that don't.
-
@100PercentBPMain said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4053234#Comment_4053234
I thought they were an upgrade imo, since you have to actually try to make straight men find straight men appealing(the gourmet king was the worst link I've ever suffered)
You're forgetting about some particularly problematic ones, but that rabbit hole is getting a bit off topic.
SMT in general is an interesting pool though, since there have been so many spinoffs (including but beside persona.) Games like the Devil Survivor series would make for an interesting pool of survivors especially.
-
@100PercentBPMain said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4053231#Comment_4053231
if you play p3p as a girl, the male Attendant will be very uncomfortable about you handling him
Satan is still on the table, seeing as we have Hagboob
Playing p3p as a girl is very uncomfortable in general, and not because you play as a girl. Some of those social links are… not good.
-
Obviously Mara would be out.
SMT joke, don't look up at work or in public -
@Wyndsor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4053218#Comment_4053218
To elaborate,
I believe that the killer should have the upper-hand in game to keep things interesting and keep the killer role desirable.
This sentiment does not extend to a pre-game lobby.
So my belief on the matter is that both sides should be able to cherry-pick in the lobby or neither side should.
Currently, it is very one sided. I shouldn't have to private my profile to avoid several killers dodging me in a row just because I have over 3k hours. There are posts in this thread and earlier ones on the same subject that say it is to avoid cheaters.
I run into high ping killers far more often than cheaters, where is my ability to avoid that?
Personally I dont think the killer should be able to see items either, but I acknowledge that its a subjective point as the killer wasting a perk slot is far more impactful than a survivor wasting a perk slot.
And in my example, I specifically pointed it out in a way that killers can't cherry pick lobbies, while addressing the fact that there are valid reasons to be able to adjust their loadout based on items present, which is why I don't understand the blanket implication. Many killers who utilize lobby information don't do so to cherry pick, while your suggestion is one that was presented in a way that would.
There are posts in this thread and earlier ones on the same subject that say it is to avoid cheaters.Because that's a valid reason, even if it is a necessary sacrifice. Its also why my suggestion specifically said they shouldn't, because its the only way to get parity through game limitation. Allowing survivors to see killer usernames is an easy way to predict things from what killer they're likely to play to their loadouts, which is less of an issue with survivors since it only really applies to perks and not whole powers. Its understandable why people would want to keep it or not, and their reasons don't necessarily have to do with shopping, so there is debate to be had there beyond accusations.
I run into high ping killers far more often than cheaters, where is my ability to avoid that?Which is why I agreed to it despite your previous assumption, and refined it specifically to avoid lobby shopping as you don't wish to have. People can agree on overall positions while having nuanced takes on the particulars, regardless of "side."
Personally I dont think the killer should be able to see items either, but I acknowledge that its a subjective point as the killer wasting a perk slot is far more impactful than a survivor wasting a perk slot.I already stated why it goes beyond that. Not only do items sometimes affect playstyles, they can become accessibility issues. Until BHVR includes something like an option to replace the blinding light with a subtractive filter for people with conditions like photophobia/photosensitivity/cataracts/etc, some people need lightborn to avoid actual physical pain from being blinded. And thats on top of the fact that perks like franklins do literally nothing if there is no item present, especially since they no longer work on killer mechanic specific items like vaccines. I honestly don't consider it particularly subjective in the current state of the game.
-
@Wyndsor said:
Mind you the people saying the Lobby is necessary for killers would most definitely shut down the idea of being able to see the Killer's ping in the Lobby because of 'Lobby shopping,' so I definitely think it should go.
You shouldn't be able to cherry pick lobbies.
Mind you the people saying the Lobby is necessary for killers would most definitely shut down the idea of being able to see the Killer's ping in the Lobby because of 'Lobby shopping,' so I definitely think it should go.Did anyone actually claim that? Hell, I said it should be limited down to just seeing items, and said nothing about ping. I would agree with your proposal as long as it only showed actual high ping when present (150+) since showing all pings would just lead to survivor lobby shopping if they saw anything over 60, which would be cherry picking lobbies as you also don't want.
-
@UnicornMedal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4053165#Comment_4053165
If we're being completely serious, do you feel that anything we talk about really influences the game at all? We talk here more or less to kill time. There's no point in any of these conversations.
I do. The mods used to take conversations and move them to the feedback forum, which I used to think killed conversation, but I honestly believe it was done to earmark things internally. I know it doesn't seem like they listen to much, but thats all the more reason why I oppose ranting and clogging up avenues. I've also seen many ideas (both good and bad) that have made their rounds through the forums long before being tested or adopted in game.
Feedback channels like this can be valuable as much as they can be rubbish. Places like twitter are better for pointless posting, but places like here (and even Reddit to a degree, hence the AMAs they used to do) can be a great crowdsource of ideas and insights. As there is no way to either curate or validate info from semi-anonymous sources, it should (and hopefully is) taken with a grain of salt in most cases, but thats not to say people don't make their arguments with the health of the game in mind. That said, the official presence on the forums seems more sparse than ever, so for all I know, it does get ignored more often than not now.
Without knowing what happens in your average meeting or internal communications, we'll never know. Still, a lot of the names that have been here over the years have been speaking more to the devs than the people they were arguing with, and I'm positive multiple of them have gotten through beyond just complaints.
-
@UnicornMedal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4053153#Comment_4053153
Well, to be entirely fair, we're not talking about a game that's very fair to begin with or even properly "organized". When the game was more chaotic, entitlement certainly existed but it didn't manifest the way that it does now. I think in many ways, going next was the Survivor variant of camping/tunneling/slugging or 3-genning (when it was more aggressive). They're ways of exerting control over the trial that fall outside of fair play. The only real difference post-anti-go next is that one side is not allowed to do that while the other still is. While you have your anecdotal evidence that trials were ruined by giving up, I have my own that trials were and still are ruined by Killers tunneling at 5 gens. Except the former is bad and the latter somehow isn't (both by BHVR's and the community at large's examples). 2025 sought to address going next and camping/tunneling/slugging and only addressed one. To me that's pretty cut and dry.
Now we can agree to disagree on that front, but my ultimate stance is that this one-sided balancing is not good for the game.
I think in many ways, going next was the Survivor variant of camping/tunneling/slugging or 3-genning (when it was more aggressive).They're ways of exerting control over the trial that fall outside of fair play.I really don't see it. Camping/Tunneling/Slugging all have legitimate applications that far surpass "You literally cannot take any other action at this moment, but you can sacrifice a hook timer that may or may not have any value to lose with this choice." that 4%ing had. It was purposely designed to be a bad choice unless it was the only choice, otherwise the chance would have been higher and/or the penalty lesser. The LCD strats on killer CAN be applied in ways that are that lopsided, but they aren't inherently. Thats a big part of what has made them so hard to address, their legitimate applications are significant enough that they need to be approached with more nuance.
The only real difference post-anti-go next is that one side is not allowed to do that while the other still is.One side actually has valid applications of their problem situations, the other doesn't. And not only that, but that agency wasn't even lost, it was just given a cost. Its no different than killers needing to use specific addons to change the function of their power, but they have a forced consumable cost to it. In this case, survivors can either spend a consumable (offering) or put a perk into their loadout that gives them more control over it than they did to begin with. Hell, Up the Ante re-enables it too.
The only thing lost was the status quo of having something for free, and with the amount of things that get added basekit (which does include on killer, even if not as many) the cost is negligible. By comparison, if you really preferred Doctor's shock ability to be a ring rather than a cone, you'd need to give up an addon slot, a green addon (3,2500 BP), and need to maintain a steady supply of them by chance through blood webs. I'm not saying its ideal, I'm saying the cost is something killers have to deal with for managing their actual loadout. Thats not even getting into killers where cetain addons feel compulsory, like the Knight. Its really not that big of a deal, and yes I know survivors have consumables in items and addons as well, but offerings are basically clutter unless they're BPS or Cakes at this point, and the perk choices can easily work as fallbacks for if you are out.
While you have your anecdotal evidence that trials were ruined by giving up, I have my own that trials were and still are ruined by Killers tunneling at 5 gens.The two aren't mutually exclusive, which is why I don't discredit the experiences of others if they contradict my own. Despite what people may think, I've been on the receiving end of LCD strategies far more than I've ever practiced them. The difference is that I try to separate my personal feelings from how bad they feel toward trying to find ways to actually fix them, instead of just calling them bad and asking for them to be abolished. Thats why my approaches at addressing issues like that are both carrot and stick, because I actually try to understand both sides of the argument, despite my personal feelings.
That said, we're operating on an unknown variable: For every match that even a single player gives up on, how many of them were at the point where it would be considered necessary? The answer is extremely low due to the game's elminiation structure, and impossible to quantify since it relies on the decision making of any individual who forces the choice on their team. Again, its like allowing any crew member to make an abandon ship call without having a centralized expert to make that kind of judgement call, there is a reason why those types of operations use a chain of command and not just let the ship's cook decide the fate of the crew (outside of their cooking.) Blame the ones who abused the system for the slight inconvenience to the ones who used it properly.
2025 sought to address going next and camping/tunneling/slugging and only addressed one. To me that's pretty cut and dry.They tried to address the others, and wasted a lot of time and manpower to do so, but they're much more nuanced problems than they are willing to treat them as. The consequences are far more reaching, and again, the ability to self unhook still exists when intentionally planned around. I would have MUCH RATHER them have actually approached the other systems correctly, which is why I constantly advocate against Jenga style balancing. You need to set a strong foundation, not pick away at individual aspects and hope the tower doesn't fall over, which is the problem they ran into with almost all of their anti systems. They even had chances to save the fumble with things like the fresh hook incentives, but there seems to be no actual direction in those types of decisions. When you only focus on appeasement and paint it as concern for game health, people see through that extremely quickly when it doesn't deliver, and at this point I honestly don't know if they're capable of getting changes on that scale right, let alone the first time.
Now we can agree to disagree on that front, but my ultimate stance is that this one-sided balancing is not good for the game.I agree with that 1000%, and that applies to this very conversation. Not being able to go next is, again, more of a boon to survivors than it is to killers, and the legitimate uses of the 4% are still accounted for without even needing a perk, just an offering will do, and they don't have any bearing on your loadout 99% of the time.
-
@UnicornMedal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4053143#Comment_4053143
It isn't that I don't understand it, it's that it was something that could have been retained. BHVR chose the most punishing and frankly unusual option to get there is all. Honestly, I think that applies to gen kicking as well. And in both situations, things haven't really been addressed any farther than the scope of their nose. Sure, giving up is harder and trials don't last an hour because of gens, but we now have a system that allows us to give up "legally" that pops more often than it doesn't (which to me is adjacent to where the game was when it wasn't "legal"). In the end, it would have fared much better had they addressed those aforementioned larger concerns with the game. But that's honestly neither here nor there since we likely agree that they were never going to do that anyway. 😭
It isn't that I don't understand it, it's that it was something that could have been retained. BHVR chose the most punishing and frankly unusual option to get there is all.They could have chosen far worse. It could have let you do so and given you a penalty as if you disconnected, which was a problem with the other system they rolled out at the same time, but kept them separate and prevented players from triggering it instead. They could have NOT changed the offerings to allow it, and reworked the perks that do. The system they landed on was a straight compromise, sacrificing a minor change (not having a chance to refuse to die for free) and complimented that with an alternative (put even a single aspect of your build into it, and the chance comes back and does not affect perks that guarantee it.)
I think that applies to gen kicking as well.Gen kicking is honestly more nuanced, since there are times where it CAN interfere with gameplay that doesn't involve 3 genning, in more capacity than just refusing to accept defeat. 4%ing was only viable when it was your only option, and the abandon feature overlaps most of those situations, while none of them are affected by even just giving up an offering slot.
but we now have a system that allows us to give up "legally" that pops more often than it doesn't (which to me is adjacent to where the game was when it wasn't "legal").I agree that the abandon feature is too lenient, but it goes back to my original point: The crux of the issue is player entitlement, which you can't directly address with gameplay mechanics. You can only redirect it, which is why they decided to make it apply to more than just bleedout scenarios. I don't agree with what they landed on, but you can't force people to not be entitled, and leaving matches early IS an entitlement problem. Its a very important fact to the argument, as entitled people very rarely admit that they are, and will pull people's legitimate concerns as excuses the moment they are able to. Its self report bias without even being able to look the person in the eyes.
In the end, it would have fared much better had they addressed those aforementioned larger concerns with the game.The excuses? Excuses aren't legitimate concerns, and the ones used only apply to one side. Killers have had plenty of excuses that they would consider legitimate to be able to leave matches early, and like survivors, they have a wide range of reasonability. The problem is that by accepting a match, you are agreeing to deal with the parts of it you don't personally like. This has been the foundation of friendly contest since its inception: Rules are to be agreed upon before participating, and participation conveys acceptance of the terms given. Concepts like cheating break that contract, but football teams don't give up because the other side punted instead of giving a turnover near their own endzone. Fencers don't walk off the mat because their opponent knows how to feint. Fighting game players aren't allowed to just give up because their opponent constantly throws fireballs. Half of the point of competition is adaptation, you're supposed to deal with the things that suck and do your best to return the advantage to yourself, not take your ball and go home.
The system addressed the most valid concerns that were involved with people leaving the match early: It stopped them from doing so in most cases, and allowed them to do so in the extreme ones where it would be justified. If anything, they were too lenient on that front, which only emboldens the spoiled behavior into pushing limits instead of properly correcting the behavior. Its hard to stay neutral on this kind of thing because I've had countless games ruined by teammates giving up, yet it keeps getting posed as a killer sided stance by survivors who just want their ability to leave early and continue ruining those matches for other survivors. The ones left behind generally would rather people not be able to ruin their games, but the community is so deep in the us vs them meta that its an unpopular opinion to have.
Edit:
It isn't that I don't understand it, it's that it was something that could have been retainedThere's an old saying that "Equality feels like oppression to the privlidged" which might help illustrate why I didn't "retain" my explanation. You're arguing a loss of autonomy that the other side never had, which was the point I was trying to make. In fact, it still retained part of that autonomy which killers still don't have, since they can't exactly take an offering to be able to leave matches early or even do something like have a 4% chance to block exits at will. It was never an even mechanic, but like hatch, it was designed in an attempt to address player behavior until player behavior chose to exploit it instead (much like 3 genning.)
-
Kill rates will always be a poor representation of balance, and should be secondary consideration to performance.
If they actually wanted balance, they'd measure hook and gen milestones. How long does it take between each hook? How fast or slow do gens get done, individually and simultaneously (obviously the first 1-3 gens are going to be closer together on average, often congruently?) How long are chase durations, individual and average? Any data like that is far more useful to understanding how the game actually plays.
This game is so focused on outcomes it completely skips how matches get to them.
-
@dbd_playerlol said:
Invocation: Telepathic Strain
Very Rare
“I saw him. I saw him everywhere.” — Eleven
Effect:
After completing the Invocation action (75 seconds), gain Broken, Blind, and Oblivious for the remainder of the trial.
Once the Invocation is Completed:
- You and all Survivors see the Killer’s aura for 1.5 / 2 / 3 seconds whenever the Killer:
- Injures a Survivor
- Damages a Generator
- Vaults
So one player does this, plays over stealthy, and gives the other players a turbocharged version of Alert for free.
Its not the worst idea, but thats like a different flavor of old OoO without needing comms. Things like the broken status don't mean as much when their tradeoff benefit affects the whole team, which is part of why invocations are a pretty bad idea in general and so hard to balance. They're either overpowered or garbage with a pretty thin margin in between.
- You and all Survivors see the Killer’s aura for 1.5 / 2 / 3 seconds whenever the Killer:
-
@UnicornMedal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4053135#Comment_4053135
Sure, but it also correlates strongly to game balance. A hopeless game drives hopeless behavior.
While the aforementioned autonomy does factor in the ability to leave when a trial is cooked (which Abandon mostly covers these days), it also affects that 4%. Having to bring a perk or get no chance at all undoubtedly affects player autonomy.
I respect your opinion, but I don't give them enough benefit of the doubt to say that they couldn't find the best way to move forward. I think it's all pretty obvious what should have been done, but they defaulted to what was easiest (both mechanically and socially). This is a company that wears its hubris like a badge of honor, in my opinion. Because of that, I genuinely do believe that doing nothing about it would have achieved a similar result to where we're at now.
While the aforementioned autonomy does factor in the ability to leave when a trial is cooked (which Abandon mostly covers these days), it also affects that 4%. Having to bring a perk or get no chance at all undoubtedly affects player autonomy.I already explained the nuances of that argument. If you don't understand it, I don't know how to word it any more clearly. Its like saying killers lost autonomy by not being able to kick gens more than 8 times: It was abused, the game moved past its necessity, changes were made.
This is a company that wears its hubris like a badge of honor, in my opinion.Its a very valid opinion, and one I agree with. I honestly feel bad for the people who DO care and do their best, because the company image and attitude does them a huge disservice.
Because of that, I genuinely do believe that doing nothing about it would have achieved a similar result to where we're at now.I disagree. The ability to go next on first hook earlier in the match doomed the rest of the players to an extremely lopsided 1v3, and was subject to a single judgement call made by a single player with no authority over the other 3. If it were something like a surrender vote, sure, but one person could hear a nurse screech and decide to nope out at the speed of light. Its like if any sailor was allowed to make the abandon ship! call and not just a captain. Any delay to that, regardless of how minor, gives the other players more time to make up for that deficit. The key to beating a basement bubba is to get as many gens done as fast as possible while he's down there, and the same applies to:
Needing to go through things like the unhook, endurance hit, downed again, picked up and brought to a hook, unhooked again, another endurance hit, downed again, picked up and brought to a hook for the last time.
That time can be the difference between gens getting done or not, and can turn a 1v3 at 5 gens into a 1v3 at 2. That gives far more value than having a chance of 4%ing or losing an entire hook state for trying, or dying prematurely on hook (the only real benefit to which is making hatch spawn a few seconds faster.) And most importantly, if players really want those benefits, they can plan that into their loadout to get them.
-
Extreme ping is certainly a valid issue, unfortunately its hard to really discuss when people think numbers like 80 or 100 are why they can't judge distances or compensate. Things like lagswitching have been an issue for both sides, and killers with number over 200 and the like have an inherent advantage due to how the game's netcode is structured, but it muddies the conversation when people can't help but be hyperbolic.
The best solution will always be more server regions to cut down on the average server distance, but that costs BHVR more than just manpower so its somewhat understandable why its not on the docket. Retooling the netcode to be more neutral without breaking things that require killer priority from the P2P days would also work, but its impossible to say from an outside perspective how much has been done on that front, nor how much still could be.
The only other thing would be forcing stability checks on players for ping and packet loss, but that would be ridiculous to even expect. Though anomalies mid match could probably be isolated via server timestamps, which would at least internally identify repeat offenders or targeted lag.
-
I think fixing backfills would solve most of the issues, but the lobby would be ok with leaving as long as killers got a few seconds to see items and adjust perks as necessary. Even if it was just something like generic icons for the items (so as to not give away addons or rarity) but just enough for people who are, say, photosensitive to equip lightborn or franklins. Everything else like skins or user names is just lobby shopping, but the interaction between items and killer perks is a bit too important to skip entirely.
-
@UnicornMedal said:
Anti-go next was a terrible addition. Like everyone said at the time, all it did was sweep the larger issues that led to going next under the rug and removed Survivor autonomy. What did we get as a result of it? No changes to those larger issues (in fact, they've been given the green light post-2025) and a new system that gives you more opportunities to leave the trial and doesn't go very far to improve the actual quality of the game.
Like everyone said at the time, all it did was sweep the larger issues that led to going next under the rug and removed Survivor autonomy.The biggest issue in going next is behavioral, which can't be fixed by mechanics alone. It can only be adjusted via incentives and disincentives, or by removing choice. It doesn't affect "survivor autonomy" any more than killers not being able to go next does, the only reason it could feel that way is because the survivor side is elimination based, so defeat means being able to leave the match. Since the killer side's defeat is only measurable by the end result screen (due to NOT being elimination based) that "autonomy" never exists.
The 4% was intended to give players a reason to not give up, but its risk factors made it a last ditch effort and not a reliable mechanic. There are ways to boost that number, and most of them are still possible. Luck offerings still work. Slippery Meat is still a perk, as are Deliverance and Wicked. Up the Ante does as well. The game has evolved to give multiple ways to not only make self unhooks more viable, but make players able to work them into their gameplan. The need for it to be a last ditch chance has long since passed in the game's evolution, its just not available for free anymore. And again, if it weren't synonymous with ragequitting over the past few years, they probably wouldn't have needed to make that change.
This system wasn't the best choice, but it wasn't the worst, which would include ignoring it entirely. Most of the games issues involve behavior being a primary component, which is why so many of them don't have easy solutions. Considering the necessity of the 4% has gone down considerably over time, its been relegated to requiring a cost since people can't help themselves. The same goes for a lot of things like camping and tunneling, but they couldn't figure out how to handle them properly so its back to the drawing board, but the anti-go next is in a position where it accomplishes its job well enough while providing alternatives in exchange for a minimal investment. If anything, the abandon feature actually causes issues with it due to disincentivizing the ways self unhooking can actually be used intentionally.
-
@joeyspeehole said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4052544#Comment_4052544
The issue isn’t that players are “framing it as trying to 3%,” it’s that the community treats any attempt to keep playing as suspiciously close to abandoning; this is also while the killer can stall the match into a non-game state with no consequences.
I think the OP is upset that this “measure” was implemented without pause, yet the efforts to address slugging and tunneling were effectively abandoned. Behaviour (devs) are in control of what they choose to focus on.
it’s that the community treats any attempt to keep playing as suspiciously close to abandoning;This would be more believable if you didn't also include
this is also while the killer can stall the match into a non-game state with no consequences.making it seem very disingenuous. If you actually believed that, you would have at least something in there about addressing the ability of survivors to waste the killer's time without any consequence as well. The concept of "time waste" will always be the root of why people want to be able to leave early, and the abandon system already accounts for that far more than most pvp games, let alone ones based on one side being elimination based.
If people didn't abuse the 4% to ragequit for years, we wouldn't be at this point. If they ever played a moba and had a team that refused to give up, most dbd players would go nuclear getting stuck in a match for 30+ minutes not being allowed to take their ball and go home without a deserved penalty if they disconnect.
If these survivors really want to save games from the jaws of defeat, they'd bring any number of the perks designed to do so. Instead the abandon feature not only disincentivizes them, but nobody wants that anyway.
-
@brewingtea said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4052544#Comment_4052544
"Almost" as in "The killer will win soon." Not as in "There's still a chance for either side to win, gosh, what could the outcome be???"
Personally, I'm ok waiting an extra minute to go next, so I don't mind not being able to 3-4% in cases like this, but do you really not get why the OP would want to???
You already get "the killer will win soon" baked into most of the abandon conditions, even when its not a done deal. If you're actually at that point while on hook, the abandon feature activates. Thats not the same thing as when someone thinks the killer will win soon, which is extremely variable and depends on the temperment of a given player. And again, doesn't even account for perks like deliverance or unbreakable which could lead all the way to a full reset, but why would anyone bring them when people will choose to abandon before they can be used correctly? Doesn't matter that the abandon feature already defeats the point of multiple perks, people still want more.
Edit:
do you really not get why the OP would want to???Of course I do. Just like I'm sure killers wasting time swatting out at the exit gate do. But like how the limitations of the game's design make that a bridge too far in that situation, people can wait for abandon or death on the hook. Just remember to thank the many go nexters who convinced the devs it was a necessary change through their actions
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4052640#Comment_4052640
My response was geared to the statement.
Because the devs are only concerned with The Killer's experience and time!
Its always weird when considerations that are pro survivor get called pro killer. Everything about diminishing going next is the biggest boon to the survivors who don't ragequit more than a killer who has to waste more time getting rid of a player, while the teammates are bought more time to try to make up for the deficit the person leaving causes. The only people it hurts when working properly are the ones who want to be able to abandon their teammates without needing, well, the abandon feature.