Ryuhi
Ryuhi
About
- Username
- Ryuhi
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@brewingtea said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4052712#Comment_4052712
Nah, he's right. You coulda just said "git gud".
Or "Your opinion is invalid because Sun Tzu said so." which is somehow even geekier.
Game can't possibly be imbalanced, didn't you read this 2500-year-old book about a totally different and unrelated type of conflict?
I don't remember even remotely saying the "game can't possibly be imbalanced," in fact I tend to be pretty vocal about game balance in more capacity than just complaining about things without trying to at least understand them first. I know reading things longer than a social media character limit is asking a lot sometimes, but honestly if you want to stay mad at the new killer and just keep losing to them, I hope you don't expect much to come of your position.
Edit: The Art of War applies to a lot more than just strategic combat during the Warring States period. It even applies to modern business and finance, but they're all just nerds anyway.
-
@Ivantxugp_ said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4052701#Comment_4052701
Too many words just to say my opinion is not valid just cause you say so. You could have saved it. I explained on my first post what makes him a pain for most people. If you bought the DLC congrats, I'm not spending a dime on this game since stuff like this happens.
Don't try to patronize me; I'm a player, like everyone else. I've faced +50 Vecnas in 1 week, I know what I'm talking about and what I've seen. I don't need to play as him to know what he does. It's not rocket science.
Too many words just to say my opinion is not valid just cause you say so.If you read the words you'd realize thats not what I was saying. I was actually trying to give you advice on how to understand the killer better instead of seeing him as frustrating, but you're welcome to consider that to be patronizing if you're married to that vote down more than reading it.
Edit: Regardless of how you feel about my advice, at least consider this excerpt by Sun Tzu:
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. -
@Ivantxugp_ said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4052696#Comment_4052696
I don't own him but I've seen plenty of streamers play against him. At least the videos that they usually upload on tiktok.
And I've seen how big streamers like alwaysafailure have complained about him and he is pretty darn good at playing this game. Vecna needs to be nerfed or refined cause in this actual state is hell for most of the players. Congrats to the people that have 5k+ hours I guess that live and breathe this game but the average player has a miserable experience against killers with such overloaded kits that remove the value of things as basic as palletes.
See the thing is, you're avoiding a personal responsibility to adapt and deflecting it as the game not respecting you having a casual attitude in a semi-competitive game. If his kit were overloaded, he would be getting praised across the board by killer mains as another addition to the Nurse and Blight family, but opinions have been fairly mixed from what I've seen so verdict is still out on that one imo. Whenever a killer is new, they tend to do well based on adjustment period alone, with disproportionate impacts across various MMRs since those 5k+ hour players tend to adapt faster both as and against killers. There is nothing to stop more casual players from making that adaptation other than their own commitment (or lack thereof) so doing that for them ends up diluting the killer in the first place, like we saw with Krasue and Unknown. Sometimes changes are needed, but its important to make sure they're for the right reasons.
As for your experiences, if they're focused around survivors playing against him in tiktok vids, I can't imagine the perspective being very informative for his perspective, either in his limitations, his counters, or even the tendencies he calls out of his players. That was my point in focusing on his perspective rather than playing against him, the point of mindgames is to get into your opponents head and understand what they want to do, why, and how you can manipulate that decision process. You don't really get that type of perspective watching them from the outside, even when its being told to you through lecturing. Its a tenant in the Art of War, and it applies to this game quite a bit.
-
@Ivantxugp_ said:
Vecna 2 has:
Infinite spam skill with almost no slowdown so he can catch up to you easily, not to mention is aoe and not precisely a small one, can go through walls, floors and introduces THE WHOLE TEAM on the upside down.
The clocks are a joke. They serve no purpose since the cleansing speed of the white part (wich is extremely short compared to the red one) is simply too slow you rather keep doing a gen than using them.
Can hold his vines all the time he wants and the slowdown is a joke, so he can zone you easily with them. All the people that say ''just hold W'' must have faced Vecnas with no functional braincells cause if the player has any trace of common sense zoning is too easy.
The only counter to the big aoe, if well placed is using any kind of speed boost and he has an addon that exhausts you so you have no means of avoiding it.
He even has addons to damage generators and break pallets with the undergate attack, wich makes him very time efficient.
Has a basekit mori that is faster than average so no need to hook for the third time and he will be done in no time to resume the chase after that, again, giving him more time.
Add all that to the usual totem build most of them seem to carry and voila, you have a killer that is obnoxious to the extreme, gg behavior. Can't wait to see the kill and escape rates so the people that bought the DLC and therefore are defending him can shut the hell up about ''how easy'' is to counter and ''the skill issue'' of the survivors.
Out of curiosity, do you own him? If so, I recommend taking a day or two and only playing him until you run into players who give you trouble. I know matchmaking is pretty bad a lot of the time, but you should find at least one within that broad of a window. When you do, see how they give you trouble with things like LoS and leading shots, maximizing your reduced speed at loops, and turning your shots more into guesses than proper reads. If you get to the point where you find yourself zoning with the power more than spamming it, you've found your mark. He gives a very strong first impression, but he has a lot more counterplay than the post seems to identify, so it should help you deal with him substantially.
If you don't own him, you can at least rely on streamers recording high level matches as him. They don't have to be a killer main to have videos either playing as him and getting clowned on, or instructions on how to deal with stuff like juking and routing. Main reason I recommend playing if you can is because feeling what you want to do at any given time gives you insight into what the Vecna 2 Electric Boogaloo player probably wants to do as well, improving your mind games vs him in the process.
I'm not going to pretend his everything is well designed or implemented, but I feel you might benefit from better understanding how to play against him instead of seeing everything as a pure benefit in his kit.
-
@THE_Crazy_Hyena said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4052676#Comment_4052676
Ahh, I see. I completely misread your comment then.
I would personally say that if one side gets base-kit changes, the other side has to get some compensation for it too. I'd definitely suggest something like a mini base-kit (say 10% or so) current version of Pain Res, so that it gets easier to spread pressure by hooking.Pain rez is a good approach, as its both designed to spread hooks and carries the stipulation of only working on certain hooks, but would that not lead to complaints from survivors about gens popping without the need of the perk? The idea was originally to boost the next kick, which showed uneven affect across the roster, and even pain res would have a similar issue: Instead of solely redirecting behavior and giving more bonus to weaker killers and less to stronger ones, it becomes a blanket buff that helps killers like Nurse and Blight just as much as killers like Ghostface and Hag.
Survivors would only be happy with something like that if the amount on the basekit PR was inconsequentially low. If its too low, it would literally feel like wasting a gen regression event to the killer, so they might even actively avoid it in that case. I actually like using fresh hooks as a way to incentivize killers to spread them (including beyond first hooks) but the only way both sides would agree on what that entails would be if it was designed in a way that normalizes killers instead of blanket buffs: Anything less would just further the divide in tiers and lead to more frustration for whichever side gets the worse deal (and even possibly the other, if its both uneven and lacks meaningful impact.)
Carrot and stick combined approaches need to be measured in order to have the most effect on player mindset. If you're nerfing something, you need to make the value people got from it be attainable through more healthy means. If killers are tunneling to minimize survivor snowballing and securing their own, you need to find a way that addresses the two adequately to make the easier choice less desirable. The first thought might be "but people will always do it" or "how do you match something as strong as getting someone out quickly?" but the approach should be "how do we make that decision more healthy" and "If I take away X, how do I solve the reason people feel the need to rely on it."
The survivor HUD is a great example of those kind of ideas done well, as it helps solo queue much more than SWFs due to redundancy, but does so in a way that requires adequate understanding and game sense to get the most out of (while still having moderate value without that understanding to boot.) Something that was essentially a net nerf to killers was a healthy change for the game due to how it was implemented, and the considerations its design included. It addresses those types of hypotheticals evenly, having its value require a form of skill to bridge the gap between comms and a lack thereof, without requiring additional resources (perk slots,) and having impact that varies based on the aforementioned skill. It simply exists as a tool that players get as much or as little from as they are able to do so, within a respectable degree so as to not make related perks redundant nor necessary. Even though killers didn't get a direct compensatory buff to go with it, I would consider the addition of hook counters after the fact to fit that bill. Either way, the consequences of such a system upon the game loop itself were addressed in its design, both regarding potential and average application. With how rare it happens, I sometimes wonder if it was an accidental success.
My point is that considering both sides in a change you intend for one side isn't supposed to be a tit for tat kind of concession. The idea is that if you want to make changes to core gameplay mechanics as influential as the "power play" that centers around survivors outnumbering the killer at the start of the match, you need to focus on how it affects both roles evenly. Same with the opposite, which is part of why "knowledge check" killers tend to outperform at lower MMR while being pushovers at higher ones. If something affects balance in terms of a core mechanic, afterthoughts can be more harmful than helpful, so its important to really think about how a change intended to benefit one side would benefit both in regards to game health more than just adjusting personal outcomes.
-
@THE_Crazy_Hyena said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4052670#Comment_4052670
I'd say give those a try at first, and see if it helps.
At least it is nothing like the punishments proposed in the 9.2.0 PTB.And I am going to refer to this comment that I made in another thread:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4052320#Comment_4052320
Don't you think that changing some of the hook-based killer perks to favor hook spreading would reduce tunneling?
Don't you think that changing some of the hook-based killer perks to favor hook spreading would reduce tunneling?I do, but that isn't what I asked. I asked if you think its fair compensation when one side is focused on removing the necessity of perks to get their functions while simultaneously reducing freedom of choice for the other. I mentioned kindred because it continues to be the underdog perk of being extremely valuable but never being taken because people assume the value applies more to other players than themselves, they can't find room in their build for it, or whatever other reason. Its the perk that arguably helps solo queue the most, yet its not even considered meta. It kinda tells the story of both changes simultaneously, that the perk slot is worth more than the effect to most people unless its overpowered, and that people want things for free without needing to invest in them (which is supposed to be the entire point of perks.)
-
@THE_Crazy_Hyena said:
I'm probably going to be forever stranded on this rock, shouting that unhook notifications needs to be disabled. It will help a little bit against tunneling.
I would also say that the fresh unhook needs to lose their scratchmarks and pools of blood for the duration of the anti-tunnel measurements.As for the killer, to de-incentivice tunneling, some of the hook oriented perks needs adjustments, to make hooking more lucrative.
Do you think adjusting perks that rely on unhooks is a fair trade for basekit perks for free? I get the idea of trying to improve unhook perks to incentivize them more vs the meta, but we already have perks for those things on survivor, so they'd be getting them for free. In fact there are quite a few perks that do just that under other circumstances, like lucky break or parental guidance. Babysitter even does just that but you have to be saved by someone running the perk, which would become even more pointless if given for free. Always reminded of Kindred when it comes to things like that.
-
I'm pretty sure the reason people compare him to nurse is because he has an attack that can be aimed through walls (similar to blink) that also functions similarly in its ground targeting function. Personally I'd compare how his power works more like a weird combination of nemesis and pyramid head, but I get why people think of nurse blinks first.
He's not as strong as nurse in that regard, and he has more counterplay yet less cooldown as an attempt at speeding up moment to moment interactions in chase. Likening him to nurse might also be an attempt to make him look stronger than he is, so it really depends on the reasoning for the comparison, but I do think for some people it's just a manner of how the power works mechanically, and moreso than someone like pinhead who loses ground just to slow them down with a wildly variable value from his power.
I think a lot of these comparisons wouldn't be an issue if so many powers weren't just piecemeal frankenstein's monsters of previous killers' kits, but at least its not more dashslop.
-
@vbarraganj14 said:
I know the feature is there to stop people from going next, but with 4 gens down, one dead, one downed, and one in chase. Im on my first hook. Allow me to try to 3%, the game is almost over why am I still blocked from trying to unhook?
the game is almost over why am I still blocked from trying to unhook?You said it in your question: almost.
Framing it as "trying to 3%" is why they needed the measure in the first place. Because it means "leaving the match prematurely" more often than actually trying to unhook. Otherwise we wouldn't have the abandon option in half the conditions it pops up, especially since many of them can have much more than a 3% chance of resetting the game.
-
@Kupega said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4052508#Comment_4052508
worth noting too without an actual evidence of them being banned we can only assume they are overexaggerating the dc penalty stopping them from playing for some time as opposed to officially banned
Its not so much to say they're lying, but rather that if there is an issue with a system like that throwing false flags, that type of data is very important to both understanding and addressing such an issue. People tend to be pretty hyperbolic with this game, so even a false reading could be understandable that it triggers depending on how it actually went down. Those types of measures always need to account for things, but there's things like intent which will always have their limits.
-
@nossilgk said:
You cant be banned for no reason, did you happen to say something in the egc when you were angry about being tunneled? Or did you dc both games?
I think they're claiming the game mistook them for purposely getting killed as fast as possible to get out of the match, like how people "go next" by running to the killer off hook and getting in their way until they get eliminated (which I'm pretty sure can still be punished automatically.) It would be interesting to see what the leniencies for that actually are interanlly, but without timestamped footage its kinda hard to say whether it should apply or not. Lot of missing info in front and behind the scenes to really say much without knowing.
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4052479#Comment_4052479
I didn't feel terribly ego-driven before the stat page, nor did I care about outcomes much at all. I gave hatch a lot as killer, goofed and memed a lot as survivor, and then I had this number telling me who I was and it's slowly made me worse and worse, playing harder and harder, sucking the fun out. It's like I absolutely must see my overalls go up. I feel like I can't stop a session until I even out my stats. Lost 5 matches? Guess I'm playing 10 more. The smart thing to do would be to log out and forget it, but I know I won't. It really was a bad idea, especially with it being wrong, with people showing off high ERs attributed to abandoning every other match.
If it had more to it I'd be happier. I want wins and losses shown, not just kills and escapes. At least let me have a notch for being the only one who died. As it is, it does feel like the numbers emotionally punish good plays and reward bad ones.
Oh I meant ego in the more literal sense, even though its kinda the same word. We usually associate the term with excessive egos, but its part of the psyche, and feedback in competition impacts it due to our comparative nature. Basically what I meant was that the game's feedback system contributes to how many people feel in terms of satisfaction on a subconscious level, kinda like the idea behind "satisfying defeats" and "empty victories." When we have a given match satisfaction value often disproportionately detached from the metric used to measure feedback (from in game ranking to post game chat,) and since people tend to prefer validation to challenge, things like the stat page or post game harassment end up becoming ways people rate their own performance using a skewed perspective.
Might be better for a different topic to go further on though, since we're getting into left field.
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4052466#Comment_4052466
I used to be okay and my harmful behavior has spiked because of the stat page. It's made my experience so much worse to have numbers hovering over me.
Ego is a big factor with this game, its community, and its feedback to the player. Outcome is possibly the worst determination of actual input into a match, yet it is the sole determination in most people's eyes. The only time it tends to change is out of excuses or forgiveness, when deep down we all know the game doesn't measure us as players appropriately. Thats why it tends to affect people who don't even worry about that kind of stuff, it starts to become a matter of "what actually is a good DBD player" when the gen jockey or turbo tunneler does better than we do when that is the only metric anyone cares about.
That isn't to say that anyone who notices this has an ego, but that we all do to some (un)reasonable degree, and our perceptions of matches get affected by it due to being graded and/or punished/rewarded differently than our performance.
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4052456#Comment_4052456
The new wave is pointless conflict anyhow.
Funny how many active members don't play much if at all.
Main reason I stopped playing as much was because of internet issues, practicing what I preach and whatnot, but at this point I just manage burnout better than I did when I was in my "just one more game"/"This game wont be as bad as the last" phase. Not feeling obligation to play as much helps with frustration and defeatism, I've found. Wouldn't be surprised if others were similar after a few years.
-
@cogsturning said:
@Ryuhi belongs on the list too
Honestly, I was trying to remember all the names from the past that deserve to be on there more. There were a lot of users who used to give very insightful and well constructed analysis of things better than my rants, but they've been gone for years for one reason or another. I'm just an old head who barely plays anymore at this point, and I'm probably best known for my posts being too long to read comfortably on a phone 🤷♂️
Appreciate it regardless.
-
@Rogue11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4052148#Comment_4052148
Maybe they wouldnt have needed to remove her infection on hook if killers didn't throw a collective tantrum at the mere thought of an anti-tunnel system being implemented. Ghoul still the easiest killer to play and get insanely easy wins for almost a year now. Catering to survivors btw.
The devs cater to both sides. When that catering turns to pandering also changes on a case by case basis. This type of thinking is why nobody can ever see eye to eye on balance, and why so many aspects of the game suffer from unrelated issues elsewhere. The entire point of the argument that killers starting strong and getting kneejerk nerfs emphasizes the point that a new killer (supposedly) means a new playstyle, both for and against.
Its actually new content for both sides, but one side's experience is voluntary while the other's is mandatory. That means that how they perform in early days relies entirely on the ability for killers to adapt to using them, and survivors adapting to playing against them. These results will always be affected by those who refuse to adapt (on either side,) so opinions that understand their nuances and interactions are more valuable than ones that just dislike a killer and fostering frustration at having to see them so much. When the latter is catered to instead, the killer becomes overnerfed and quickly forgotten, and we go back to the usually scheduled stale meta.
The main way to improve killer variety is to improve viability. There will always be people who prefer the same old, but by assuming that is the default, you prevent those wanting new playstyles to adapt to from getting much of a chance in the current format of the game. Moving away from outcome based grading being the singular method would also help with this, but we're stuck with this MMR system until they admit it was a failed experiment at this point.
For the record, this isn't to say no killer is oppressive, or needs changes, its more about identifying how often changes in the game are from a lack of adaptation than addressing actual concerns, and how that has consequences to variety. A common acronym for Meta is that its the Most Effective Tactic Available, meaning that its approaches to expanding it should be equal parts uplifting other strategies while diminishing the very best. Normalizing, not just trying to bring down outliers one by one.
The anti tunnel system is actually a good example of how they can't think these things through, as conceptually it wanted to be a combination of carrot and stick, which is the correct approach to take. Unfortunately they don't seem to understand the ways tunneling affects the core foundation of the game, nor how the foundation affects tunneling, so they weren't able to come up with the right carrots or sticks and just gave up. The same happens every time they do a rework to a killer that either doesn't help, doesn't improve the situation for either side, or just flat out makes them objectively worse (like the infamous Twins one.) The issue is much more systemic than just which side the devs supposedly exclusively cater to, and kneejerk reactions to content seem to discourage them from even trying to do things right. So we end up with the same handful of killers in every match.
-
@WalterBlack said:
I think an option to turn it off couldn't hurt. Players will either see the point of aim dressing and turn it back on (I still have no idea what it's supposed to do) or choose to leave it off.
Honestly, I can't think of a single reason it couldn't be made optional. I understand the idea is to help players on controller (which already feels prety bad on killer specifically, love it on survivor) but it has been known to cause more harm than good for many players for years. The amount of stolen hits are far more quantifiable than the ones that it secures, so an option to disable it should have at least been tested by now. Things like framerate improvements taking years to figure out (even when still not fixed across all platforms, to my understanding) have a lot more moving parts to deal with, so those types of changes can legitimately take long periods of time to figure out. Aim dressing feels like it works the way it does on purpose at this point, which makes it even more frustrating to have hits stolen by what you assume to be intentional design.
I'm just amazed we got the ability to change the color of scratch marks, a great accessibility option that was dogged by claims it would give an unfair advantage, before we got the ability to disable swings magnetizing to nearby flaming barrels and walls. Feels kinda backwards
-
Frustration is often made worse by falling short of expectations. Many times people get put off by the game, its because they're going into it expecting a much more laid back experience than the game has unfortunately become. With matchmaking quality being as poor as it is, it doesn't take new players long to run into the result oriented nature most of the community has with the game, and when paired with the sheer amount of things to learn and exceptions to rules, it becomes extremely daunting quickly.
The most important part of getting someone to stick with the game is onboarding them properly, since the game doesn't do this even remotely adequately. The more they understand, the less they will get frustrated, and the more likely they are to be willing to improve. At this point, its exceedingly difficult to set the right expectations by introducing it as a casual game (even though it still partially is) so make sure they understand what they're committing to. If they're looking for something like Peak or Mario Kart it won't take long for the game to push them away, but if they understand that its closer to a genre like mobas regarding improvement and knowledge involving a shared agency environment (either as or against, depending on role) where commitment reduces those frustrations, they're able to build the temperament this game sometimes requires. Thats not to say these frustrations are never valid (in fact many times they certainly are) but its about having the right mindsets to deal with them as they happen.
As other have mentioned, learning the killers is also a great way to help people learning survivor. As the amount of content in the game can make it feel like homework, "tutoring" is the best way to deliver that info. In depth breakdowns from people like Otz are great, and in particular he often does a great job of explaining how things practically apply as he goes over them, but sometimes people respond better to a personalized approach. If they have complaints about a particular killer, bring them in customs and take turns using said killer and practicing interactions. Have them see how something like the Nurse's blink works from both perspectives, as many killer powers counterplays become more digestible when they see how things like juking back last second during a blink charge throws off placement. Where jukes to dodge hatchets are more predictable and when you can put yourself in spots where she is unable to hit you at all. Those types of skills not only improve how you play against those killers, but it also helps limit frustration when things look different on your screen vs the killers.
Its a frustrating game. Always has been, always will be, and most people's stance on that as a subject usually boils down to how well (or not) their experience is being accommodated to. Sometimes changes make things worse, sometimes they make them better, but its a game that changes constantly regardless of whether or not it evolves. Taking a break for 6 months and not reading patch notes can make you almost as clueless as a new player. The only constants are the things we have control over ourselves, which includes expectations and temperament, so it might honestly be more accurate to say that frustration is the default state due to how inconsistent the game is, with enjoyment being the result of not tripping (or being forced to trip) over it.
TL:DR Help set their expectations, and help them deal with using understanding of the game to cut down on frustration. Forcing things tends to have the opposite effect, so try to be accommodating rather than shielding. And most importantly, don't force them to play if they don't want to, but be willing to help whenever lack of knowledge is a main factor. Past all that, they might just not enjoy the game as opposed to what their idea of the game is.
-
@CompetitifDBD said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051951#Comment_4051951
But you're going to know what revealed you anyway if you're knowledgeable enough. All this would do is tell you if something revealed you, that's it. In 2v8, you can get revealed for multiple reasons, it doesn't tell you which mechanic revealed you, just that you're revealed.
if you're knowledgeable enoughThats my point. Having that type of knowledge is supposed to come from at least encountering it once, and piecing it together with game sense. You're asking for yellow paint instead of putting a shred of onus on the player to figure out how a mechanic intended to obfuscate works. Something like a mini tutorial explaining something as simple as using context to make that kind of realization is one thing, but if you sacrifice that element just for people who refuse to engage with that depth to the mechanic, you defeat its point altogether. It basically just becomes a "are you even paying attention" check at that point.
In 2v8, you can get revealed for multiple reasons, it doesn't tell you which mechanic revealed you, just that you're revealed.You can only be revealed by one killer in normal play, which is why that change was likely made. Since you're normally only going against one killer, there is no inherent ambiguity that can't be figured out by basic understanding as long as you bear witness to what causes the stauses or being found. And even then, you already get that tell when its obvious through things like the red stain and TR disappearing. If that happened mid chase at a mindgame where the killer was going to try to use the status for a mindgame, having an indicator pop up suddenly basically spells that strategy out to the survivor.
The answer is for players to need to learn how to digest the information they're not explicitly told, not give them more for free. The biggest issue with WoO is that its a great perk for learning maps and tiles, but people never take the training wheels off and treat it like a literal yellow paint perk then complain they never have room for things in their loadout. People need to be taught to fish, not given fish for free.
Edit: the statuses that affect killer warning signs are supposed to be a "fool me once" scenario. They're supposed to actually do something the first time, and then the player is supposed to bear responsibility for they're future success armed with that knowledge. Removing that element is like lit totems that already have auras as soon as they spawn, it greatly impacts their effectiveness while coddling their counterplay.
-
@CompetitifDBD said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051925#Comment_4051925
A knowledgeable player is already going to know what a perk does or what's revealing them (i.e. Alien Instinct and Nemesis)
Also I'm not talking about nerfing Undetectable and Oblivious, just making their status effect duration visible on the HUD, just like Haste and Hindered's Percentage is visible. What I did say should be added is the Revealed status effect from 2v8. It tells you when you're aura is being revealed to the killer(s), which would be a perfect status effect for newer players who don't know what perks are affecting them and if a perk reveals them or not. Take Friends Til' The End for example: You know you're Exposed, (having a number to indicate how long it lasts for would be nice too) but some people don't actually know it also reveals their aura for 10 seconds too. So, why not make it show the revealed status effect with the duration of the aura reveal? Adding these doesn't negatively impact either roles, but it helps newer players learn what perks do and how long their effects last for.
It tells you when you're aura is being revealed to the killer(s), which would be a perfect status effect for newer players who don't know what perks are affecting them and if a perk reveals them or not.Thats a direct nerf for the reasons I stated, though. Yes it would help new players, but it basically tells you exactly what aura perk they have as long as you understand its conditions, dumbing down the counterplay to said perks substantially. Exposure effects are a bit different due to the fact they skip entire health states, but there should be at least some onus on the player to realize that if a killer kicks a gen and immediately finds them behind a rock, they probably have nowhere to hide. Your suggestion would effectively make those perks work a single time per player. If comms are involved, it might only be a single time in the entire match.
The hud information is supposed to provide context that would be present with info trading like comms, but its not meant to solve info about your opponent that directly. Half of the point of loadouts being hidden in the first place is that you're supposed to have to understand and adapt to what they are, and honestly, it has far more mental stack keeping track of up to 16 possible perks than it does 4. Like you acknowledge, this type of information can be gleaned adaptively without needing to be told, and if WoO has taught us anything, its that people would rather be given fish than learn how to catch them.
-
@CompetitifDBD said:
Things like Springtrap's Undetectable or Oblivious gained from perks like Nemesis and Alien Instinct can't be tracked, and newer players won't know how much time they have left with the status effect, as well as no clue whether they're revealed or not by an aura revealing perk/power/add on. Now adding the status effect does tell experienced players that the killer does have some aura reading ability, but they'll likely know what's revealing them anyway when the killer finds them. The revealed status effect from 2v8 should be in regular trials and other modifiers too
I disagree, as I feel it kinda removes the point of those kinds of things. Undetectable and Oblivious not oversharing information is part of the point of the statuses, they're supposed to be designed to improve your chances of catching someone off guard, so revealing their presence minimizes their effectiveness while maximizing their counterplay simultaneously. The counterplay is supposed to be a reward for observation: When you encounter something like Nemesis, its supposed to have a higher chance of working on you "the first time" with diminishing returns based on how much you learn from the first interaction. After that, you wouldn't need the status information if it were to come up again, and it creates an avenue of adaptation rather than just diminishing the value of the perk outright. Like you mentioned, to a more experienced player it would have a disproportionate effect due to the information they could pull from it, so it might as well just show an icon of which perk is in play at that point.
-
@Roco45 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051836#Comment_4051836
Yes please, run at Vecna when he is using his power, it foooor sureee is a counter to him, please everyone heed this persons advice and run towards your Vecna's ;)
Generally its not a good call, no, but it is when you last second juke (much like vs nurse) to throw off his aim. When leading shots, someone going the opposite direction takes the most compensation, as its the least likely direction. Its something that specifically affects ground/location targeted attacks (and orbitals) since it doesn't involve running into a moving projectile. That said, doing it too early is generally a bad idea and can be accounted for by the killer, so its more part of a mindgame than an "answer."
Pvp interactions aren't supposed to be
"if x, then y"statements. Part of what makes it fun about playing against another human in general is the unpredictability of their reactions, and how their reactions get impacted by your own (showing patterns, feeding info regarding your own, etc.) Its supposed to be about in the moment decision making where a play like running the exact wrong way can be the right call when its the last thing the opponent expects, but retaining that such a move is still a bad call the rest of the time (especially if the killer predicts it.) Its a similar nuance that you see when facing the nurse. -
While multiple low skill requirement killers seem to be more effective than their requirement, the answer lies in the question itself: Why don't people instead choose higher skill requirement killers? All you need to do is make skill be more rewarded and tone down the skill to effectiveness ratio on the more easy ones, and there you go. When things get nerfed because survivors don't want to deal with them, it often affects the skill to reward formula that makes more difficult killers more effective (or even just satisfying) to use. It also doesn't help when concepts keep getting recycled, which then opens comparisons across lines (like dashslop) creating pretty clear hierarchies that enforce the "might as well go easy AND effective" mindset.
Easy killers shouldn't be disproportionately effective, but difficult ones also need to feel less disproportionately weak. Combine the two adjustments and make a direct skill to reward ratio and the issue would be solved completely. The only problem at that point is actually tuning that formula fairly across the roster, which would take more careful consideration than balancing ever gets in this game. Anything less is just spot treating.
-
@Kupega said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051789#Comment_4051789
If the only way the game has for me to earn more in an already grindy game is to play a set killer for a week, and I get a killer who I dislike playing as or happens to be one with a bug making them miserable to play as, how would that make me eager to play?
Say I get Nurse, who is not only buggy as hell currently but I also do not enjoy playing, or Knight who is also very bugged and just feels clunky overall, I am either not going to participate in these challenges just for extra BP nor am I going to trudge through the grind with other killers who I do enjoy playing if the game gives me no real incentive to do so.
In a version of the game that runs smoothly and isn't plagued with the issues it currently has and even the weakest killers feel less reliant on RNG, add-ons and survivors who make huge mistakes, then yeah I would engage with this and play rarer killers like Artist or Hag. The reality is though that this doesn't fix the issues players have with the killers they could be playing and hence why they run Ghoul, Blight and the usual suspects that are seen.
To add to that, killers have more loadout requirements than survivors in the sense of synergies and addons. Certain addons might be required for certain playstyles (or at all really, depending on the killer) and the same goes for perks to a lesser degree (as they aren't consumable.) This means that in order to be ready for such a system, you would have to have all of them fully equipped and ready just in case they get called on in order to even utilize such a thing. Otherwise you'd just have to be content that the incentive is going to be fake whenever it lands on a killer who isn't prepared. Many people would just take it as an opportunity to force themselves to take a break waiting for it to roll over to a killer they want.
-
@ChrissyG88 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051798#Comment_4051798
And you're fixating on the idea that the implementation of my idea has to be revolutionary and dramatically improve the game for killers. My suggestion is not that in any way.
Buffing/nerfing killers is something that BHVR has done a lot in the past and many players on both sides always have an issue with it.
If you buff weaker killers, then this harms low MMR players as weak killers are far more prevalent in low MMR matches.
My idea, in my opinion has no weakness. It's a nice little bonus that nobody has to comply to. The only criticism you have of it is that it doesn't revolutionise the issue you personally have with weaker killers.
Just to make it clear, you wouldn't have to comply with the weekly killer incentives if you don't want to play that killer. Just the same as there are many killer-based incentives in quests/rifts but for me they remain untouched as I don't play killer.
And you're fixating on the idea that the implementation of my idea has to be revolutionary and dramatically improve the game for killers. My suggestion is not that in any way.Killers are human players, and you're trying to diminish their right to choice in regards to what killer they're using, which would require appropriate compensation in more ways than just bonus BP or anything frivolous like that. Once you start tying it to quests or any type of commitment based reward system, you're compounding this even further by using concepts like FOMO to try to force their choice. These come off more as manipulation tactics than incentives. Incenvtives would have to revolve around the most important reasons for people to have less variety in killer representation, like addressing their disproportionate weaknesses or augmenting their kits/playstyles in ways that are more appealing to use. It was the main thing people disliked about the daily rituals, as it seemed you always got who/whatever you didn't want to play most of the time, even when rerolling.
The biggest thing that would improve pickrate variability would be attempts to normalize the roster, not bribing people to abstain from making that choice. The only way that kind of thing works in games like mobas is because it usually revolves around a free rotation, meaning you can play characters you don't own via a rotation like that. Anything less is basically asking people to self sabotage their experience.
-
@ralecgos said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051610#Comment_4051610
I mean 99% of this game is casuals who rarely survive a chase long enough to do multiple balanced landings in 1 chase. Let alone are there maps that exist today that would allow for this to happen frequently. The hawkins map was literally just changed.
It's hard to even notice what I'm talking about because it's so slight, but I'm telling you it's there. My point with "remove the stagger" was that if they can't fix the timing issue it's experiencing and it's just going to bug out every 3 patches, then they need to get their act together or remove it and balance the perk another way.
It's hard to even notice what I'm talking about because it's so slight, but I'm telling you it's there.If its that hard to notice, it has very little effect on almost any players it would apply to. I have also not heard of this being a bug that resurfaces every 3 patches, and if so, it should actually be reported instead of making a topic asking to salt the earth as a response. If you've been playing as long as you claim, I'm sure you have seen what those infinites could do to a match, so the response doesn't seem particularly measured.
-
@ralecgos said:
Guys. Stop only reading the title…
The stagger feels bugged out. It's like it's 0.05 seconds longer than it's meant to be. Ever since BL was bugged and you could still hear falling grunts. It feels OFF.
Also, you'd still be exhausted. I didn't say remove the exhaustion.
I read it, but a solution of removing it is not the answer, which is why you got the response you did. If you only want it to be bugfixed for this bug that others haven't experienced firsthand, maybe give examples and focus your resolution around that? What response did you expect when pairing that title with talking about "back in the day" when it literally ruined specific maps?
Edit: Since I saw the edit, the stagger was always the issue, not the exhaustion. Supposedly It couldn't be accounted for in the procedural generation of tiles regarding where it could be applied, which is how it led to infinites that were created specifically by the stagger reduction of the perk. It being bugged is not the same at all and an entirely different issue that should follow the awful new bug reporting system.
@Wyndsor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051605#Comment_4051605
I mean every reply to your thread thus far are the same killer-mains that post in every thread so /shrug.
It is dumb that you still get stunned for so long even with the perk, your suggestion wouldn't even make the perk meta since it still has a length exhaustion timer.
I am a killer main that posts in every thread. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
-
Why not just bring infinites back I guess?
-
@Defnotmeghead said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4044078#Comment_4044078
I was gone for a while, so it's a bit late of a reply.
But in short:
You can easily filter through messages, but if enough of those messages appear, it's something to worry about in general. Even if 40% of users say "X sucks", it should be the full time job of one of the analysts to find out why people think X sucks and do something to reduce why it sucks. It could be 100% fine and working as intended, users are not experiencing joy when seeing that thing. Unconstructive feedback might not help find the issue, but it SHOULD make it a higher priority because its mentioned more often.
It's the job of business analists and in this case also community managers, to convert those messages into a single ticket and adjust priority based on how common the complaint is, how severe the reaction is to the players and what the effect is. Constructive feedback, normally speaking, will be summarized if it actually deconstructs on why, and will be added to the ticket if multiple people have similar feedback. But that requires people reading the feedback at all. Right now, it just feels like every single feedback gets summarized into a very generic sentence, and those sentences are summarized into a single ticket, while using chatGPT or something to summarize it. Which means that common complaints will have bigger impact than detailed complaints, where back in the day, it was the other way around.
Pain Res these days is a perfect example of it. It's TOO effective on mobility killers. Especially since they improved scourge hook spawns (prior to that, you pretty much required Agitation if you wanted consistent value, nowadays, no matter where you down someone, unless its Midwich, you can basically guarantee value). It has issues. It is known that it has issues specifically on mobility killers and it's only working on normal speed killers if they tunnel (which, they couldnt rely on as much if Pain Res would disable after 1 kill). There was a period before where Pain Res was too effective on mobility killers, 15% of people wrote feedback on why it was too effective (info on where the generator with the most progression is+15% regression applied+you could hook anyone to trigger it, meaning it was effectively free and could trigger it 12 times). You had 85% of people just spouting "pain res too stronk, plz nerf". Nowadays, I have seen up to 30% of posts explaining why pain res is a bit problematic (mobility killers can tunnel and still profit off Pain Res, especially thanks to DMS and Grim Embrace, even tho the perk was changed to make tunnelling less effective), and that 2 simple changes (mainly disabling it after 1 kill) can make the perk 1000x more fun to face.
As for my "militant" perspective. No, I have been constructive, even for the majority of the period when constructive stopped having an impact. They have shown that the past 2 years, constructive feedback doesnt matter. I've seen essays on why something doesnt work, and what would be changed to make it work in 2020 and 2025. In the 2020 version, you would maybe see a perk see a slight nerf in their power, but a huge buff in their utility, making it overall a big buff. In 2025? They just make big number bigger, see the bigger number didnt do much, make the number even bigger untill it does do something, then a new killer or perk comes by that actually offers utility in their power that has synergy with that perk and now the perk is busted. People love to hate on the old stance of "bhvr cant buff something without also slightly nerfing it", but that did grow consistency in balance.
And while that does lead to sudden changes that might not work, at least it leads to changes. We've been giving extremely constructive feedback on why RECOVERING WHILE CRAWLING, and CRAWLING FASTER should be basekit, aka effectively Tenacity basekit.. There has been reached a consensus that while some killers will struggle with that, the vast majority wouldnt even notice, because most killers do not need to slug. It would hard counter killers who slug early game (especially tournament nurses and blights), and hard counter slugging in the 2v1. Yet the moment it got implemented, 3 big name content creators claimed it was a BS change and got their communities to yell at BHVR. Despite their reasoning literally being "Why shouldnt I be able to slug survivors for 4 minutes?". 3 years of consistent constructive feedback vs 1 week of yelling. They have lost the right to constructive feedback by listening to people who just echo someone, without even considering the fact that further adjustments can be made (as an example, slugs get their aura revealed every 30 seconds). They decided to follow the screams, rather than years of consistent points.
So simply put, we(people who have been giving constructive feedback for years, but recently got denied because of vocal minorities) decided to scream the opposite, untill they actually have proven to listen to why something needs to change. It's part of the reason why my playtime went from 20 hours a week, to barely 20 hours a month(and that's only because of gamemodes). I would instantly jump back to 10-20 hours a week if they implement basekit anti-slug and improve basekit anti-tunnel, as they promised they would early 2025. Untill then, I will watch the playercount trend drop and only log on if I see a small spike because 2v8 or smth returned for 2 weeks.Speaking of jobs, its not my job to continue an argument about feedback a month later. I've said my peace, and done so in an attempt at being in your best interest in trying to help not give the devs excuse to ignore your approach to feedback. I even tried to adapt it to your terms as a response to you trying to use your profession as an attempt to disqualify my opinion. There's nothing more to be gained so why restart it as an argument instead of just reflecting on what has been said?
-
It wouldn't, but it would take creativity to do so in ways that don't blanket buff the higher tiers as well, so it'll probably just be a rework or two every 1-2 years, most of which will need to be either partially or fully scrapped, some re-re-(re?)worked, and it'll become a drop in the bucket because some unrelated perk/map/item/etc will power creep the changes by the time they happen. The balancing approach we've been seeing in normalizing the roster's extremes has been the equivalent of throwing buckets of water on a burning building at this point.
-
@UnicornMedal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051130#Comment_4051130
That's a very valid point too. While Stranger Things was gone, people were paying a lot to get steam vouchers and physical editions of the game with the code.
I'm very curious about that too. Why would the stipulations affect bug fixes? Do they really have to run every fix by the license holder? That seems strange.
I'm very curious about that too. Why would the stipulations affect bug fixes? Do they really have to run every fix by the license holder? That seems strange.I would think there is a minimum level that would be allowed to accommodate for things like that, but like you said, its a very finnicky genre. I'm sure whatever the agreement will become apparent if it becomes an issue, otherwise there would be no reason to assume.
-
@Rogue11 said:
How has this not been addressed yet??
Call me cynical, but:
It was so popular with reporting cheaters, after all.
-
@UnicornMedal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4050814#Comment_4050814
Some of the most relevant perks in the game are behind licensed paywalls (very convenient, huh?). On one hand, deleting those perks would force change and I'm not against that at all. But on the other, we have to assume the worst and that means that we lose a big portion of what we're expected to use. And supposing the license does come back at a later date, then we'd have to contend with whatever changes were made in its absence. Do the perks stay deleted or do they get reworked entirely? Do we shift to a model where you buy Killers and Survivors without any unique perks?
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4050822#Comment_4050822
I will be fair to BHVR on this point—horror is a very finnicky genre. Hell, I'm surprised Evil Dead: The Game even managed to get the licenses together for all 3 movies and the show. Halloween is notoriously finnicky and there are rights disputes all the time with anything Wes Craven or Clive Barker. Then you have the Friday The 13th stuff. The only downside is that all of those tend to represent the cornerstone of the genre so it'll always be a rock and a hard place. I think BHVR securing the content for people that bought it is honestly the best they can do.
To me, it's moreso what's left of the game without those licenses. If you couldn't make Leon S. Kennedy go up against Springtrap and Lara Croft go up against Pyramid Head, would the game even be worth playing anymore?
Yeah, I know licensing with horror properties has been a bit of a nightmare, to say the least. I just meant more along the lines of working harder to ensure that they were negotiated to be held for at least the length of the game's active development, as regardless of the validity of the reason, concepts like FOMO do still apply. It might not seem like a big deal with someone like Myers who has been in the game for so long that most people who want him already have him, but newer players have less/no availability to make that decision, which should never really be the case about a gameplay element as big as an entire playable killer. Not to say its that easy, just that removal can be a particularly negative outcome for the paying customer.
Edit: Forgot to mention, but it also freezes that killer in time, since it theoretically affects their ability to receive adjustments (unless there are stipulations in the licensing agreement) meaning that whatever state they're in is what they end up staying as, for better or worse, and limits how they can be addressed regarding any issues future additions to the game's affect on them.
-
If that was actually a concern, they could always killswitch Grim Embrace? Unless the issue doesn't require it as well.
-
I think the better argument should be about securing better contracts, since that would prevent content from being removed in the first place, but I know thats not a particularly simple subject. That said, pretty sure @UnicornMedal is correct, as collaboration licensing tends to involve more than just what is being directly borrowed from the source material.
-
They paid all that money for those voicelines, especially when they're licensed, so unfortunately giving us the option to opt out seems conceptually like a nono. I really miss the "silence" of older DBD.
-
@UnicornMedal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4049836#Comment_4049836
I think that's a big reason why things take so long. They do preach about their work practices whenever given the opportunity and I do think it's a good thing, but with bad time management in addition to that nothing ever seems to get done.
It unfortunately feels more and more like things get addressed based on how much the issue is actually on fire. That's one of the most frustrating aspects of seeing issues related to accessibility get so thoroughly ignored, and why things like the color options for scratch marks felt like a refreshing surprise. In the end it feels like its just about what saves the most face and/or quells bad PR the most, more than actually improving the experience for the consumer. Its one of those things I'm always looking forward to being wrong about, but the lack of consistency or follow through makes it hard to give the benefit of the doubt after such a long time. The visual heartbeat was a great addition to the options, but it feels like only half of the solution to a larger issue that isn't role specific. Even barring accessibility, having a wide variation of extreme volumes is not exactly great for your ears in general, especially with prolonged exposure, and especially when wearing headphones is designed to be more desirable than something like speakers.
-
@tjt85 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4049796#Comment_4049796
It's absolutely something they should fix. But I get the impression it's so low down on their priority list that it keeps getting pushed back by other issues. It's ridiculous that Survivors like Ace get to take a 5th perk to trial for being so quiet, meanwhile my main Meg can't even breathe without the Killer hearing her from across the map.
This reminds me of one of the funniest things I've ever seen someone do in this game. A Xeno was able to figure out which locker my Dwight was hiding in by walking really close to each locker so that they could hear his breathing sounds. I felt like I was playing against the Xenomorph for real since that is exactly what one would do!
It is unfortunately low on their priority list, which is why its so frustrating to see them waste so much time and effort on things that don't even pass a whiff test before PTBs, then get scrapped and amount to an unknown amount of time and resources wasted. Its very much an ounce of prevention kind of consideration, and since every new piece of content added makes the work involved just a bit more time consuming, its also an issue that gets less approachable the more it gets ignored.
Also very fitting scene with the Xero 😀
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4049751#Comment_4049751
Nurse is basically proof as to why the official stats are useless.
That is part of what I said, yes. I'm an avid proponent of not trying to shape stats to fit hypothesis, instead I prefer using them to understand trends and relativity. I said she's basically a moment of clarity where most people in the community are willing to come to the table regarding a statistic not equating an infallible truth, but mostly because its something they agree with rather than out of applying dialectics.
There were plenty of people in the FGC who used to only do matchup data off of character representation in winning various majors, rather than assessing them independent of skill. Players like Justin are the reason that method doesn't work, because his skill and adaptation allow him to far outweigh those considerations entirely. DBD is still stuck in that phase of analysis, and considering its not as competitive as most fighting games, matchup considerations in discussions aren't necessarily going to evolve to that level for most people. A lot of them don't even understand half the things they're trying to rate, and thats not necessarily meant to disparage, but more to explain the difference in mindset when doing so.
Basically things like matchup comparisons, and even balance considerations, change wildly depending on whether they focus on the minute to minute or strictly the outcome alone. DBD is a game that has been digging a hole deeper and deeper into the outcome camp since they introduced their form of MMR, and you can't necessarily blame people for using the metrics BHVR themselves refuse to move away from, regardless of how flawed they might be.
-
@tjt85 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4049765#Comment_4049765
I dunno, the explody notification noises are easily 100 times worse to listen to with headphones than any of the screams. Maybe they should fix that first.
I feel like there's also a bit of a generational divide going on in gaming, between the super serious younger gamers who grew up with the rise of e-sports playing with their headsets and old timers like me who usually play sat on a couch with all the sound coming out of the TV set. None of this stuff matters if you play the game like that.
Of course. I think people might be mistaking my intent to only have it only apply to survivor voices for some reason (was just pointing out what they have actively addressed about the issue, and promised to take action on,) but the point was that the entire game needs a normalization pass and that people are more than happy to take advantage of how poor it is currently addressed. Its also not something that requires some kind of 5 month initiative, the tools and ability required are not barriers to achieving it, which makes the promise of action years ago much more telling.
Should also mention that headphones are unfortunately the objectively correct decision for the amount of audio queues and how badly they are balanced in the game, though I completely understand your point about the loudness being less of an issue when you can just turn the speakers down. Unfortunately multiple aspects of tracking and tells come from audio queues, and many of them are easily obfuscated by other, louder noises. Having to have the volume up on headphones in order to hear someone's footsteps while they're running behind a wall on a map full of sand makes the stuff like explosion sounds or constant screams much more of an issue than they should be, before even getting into how it can impact people with hearing disorders. Maybe someone at BHVR likes the absurd audio balancing turning everything into a constant string of jumpscares, but it's an extremely unnecessary accessibility issue that goes beyond just relevant disabilities. Things like the loud noise notification being spammed like you mentioned are completely related to the concept of normalization of game audio, its about attacking the extreme highs and lows of volume in a way that reduces peaking and unnecessary fluctuations in the loudest and quietest sounds you hear in the game.
Even in stuff like the old doom engine it could be done by simply assigning float values to each file in a text document, and giving the player the ability to choose between presets. A free program like Audacity can be used to compare the dB values of extreme sounds and find said float value options without any audio engineering background. I obviously don't know how that type of work would translate to their environment internally, but it can't be something that takes years to even approach for survivor voices, let alone the rest of the sounds in the game. And the best part:
it can be entirely optional, like the visual heartbeat.
Depending on how it would be have to be accomplished, it might not even require duplicate adjusted files. These types of things can potentially be incorporated as simply as tying a single statement to a option. Its not the level of trying to rework smerch for the 90th time, or wasting tons of time on doomed reworks like the infamous Twins one, the difficulties with the concept are entirely dependent on how easy or difficult it is to incorporate a simple system into the game.
-
@Rogue11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4049765#Comment_4049765
Im more interested in killer powers being balanced than audio volumes tbh
And thats a lot more complicated than spending a few hours doing a normalization pass in even amateur software, so I don't think you're getting my point.
-
I get the joke, but imagine if we got actual volume normalization and/or rebalancing instead? Almost like was promised for survivor voices in particular years ago. We could fix the issue for everyone at the same time if they gave an intern a small bonus and a copy of audacity for a weekend.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4049710#Comment_4049710
I come from fighting games, and that is the closest comparison we can get in DBD because of the asymmetry. Yeah i like Street fighter you look at that matchup for each character against each other character. But we don't have that. So what we do is the best we can with DBD. And when you look at matchups and tier lists and fighting games, you don't look at how good necessarily the players are. If you are low MMR in those games but a bad matchup that isn't going to mean as much in those games. This is precisely why tier lists in those games look at "What is the maximum capability of this character when played at the optimal level?" So in DBD terms, you assume that the tools and abilities being brought are the best tools for the job.
Trust me, I get it as I come from fighting games as well, I was just kinda clarifying that the way people are given statistics and how they digest them doesn't match that type of matchup analysis system. With fighting game matchups they would change a lot with evidence of how pros would handle things in tournaments, which is a great way to expand the understanding of what characters have and what they go against. DBD stats are used as argument fodder, and anything that contradicts them, regardless of how true, often gets discarded as unsubstantiated since it opposes the perception caused by putting outcome above all else. Its essentially another consequence of ignoring the journey for the destination, which is why I mentioned about Nurse's stats being one of the few times people are willing break their dogmatic view of official stats. Nurse's strengths side with their preconceived opinion more than the statistics, yet they might also refuse to acknowledge that she emphasizes the importance of nuance in assessments.
-
@terumisan said:
well yea solo is only bad when there is bad matchmaking if every match people were looping gods and slamming gens solo would be above killer in the totem pole
The most important part of the matchmaking issue is its necessity for self reflection and motivation to improve: How many of those bad teammates know they're bad teammates? How many know what they need to do to improve? How many are even willing to? I don't like lamenting matchmaking for two reasons: Compensation for the failures of your teammates is a skill that can be fostered, and "The only thing I know is that I know nothing." For all I know I'm someone's bad teammate, regardless of where I rate my abilities, even pros make mistakes. Everyone's self improvement (or lack thereof) is a personal journey, so its better to work on reducing their impact on your own than to lament their failings. Its probably the best way to survive solo queue burnout.
Matchmaking is bad, and should absolutely be improved (I still say the way MMR is handled is a major factor) but until they do something wild like completely restructure its rating criteria or bring back a fixed version of the emblem system, its gonna be a matter of working with what we're given. You don't have to be good at the game to do well, and being good at the game doesn't necessarily equate to doing well.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4049663#Comment_4049663
Please read the entire post and it explains the reasoning for the list.
TLDR (because apparently you didn't): If you took the best killer player in the world for each killer, and pit them against best 4 survivors in the world and had them play each other on the same map with the same mapgen/RNG (and we assume its a "balanced" map) and they played 100 games, i would make the tiers based on the outcome of those 100 games.
Just in case its part of the misunderstanding, outcome focused grading works inherently different from matchup focus (tools and abilities with the skill element removed from the equation) so I feel like some people might not quite get what you mean, but I getchu. It can be hard to remove those types of things from the equation even though its a bit of a standard with many other genres in terms of rating comparisons. Since that type of data doesn't represent official stats, it can be a bit harder to digest (especially when contradicting them, like the famous Nurse kill rate) if not familiar with that type of matchup analysis.
-
@Abbzy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4049668#Comment_4049668
Phones at this point would be maybe better idea like from friday the 13 where survviors can find them and communicate with others and for balance purposes you can make them spread across the map in dangerous areas like one zones or endge of the map and give them batery so the talking is limited.
But I doubt something like this will happen atleast in this year and options like some wheel with some phrases will be more realistic option (still wont be swf level but better than nothing).
Limitations are better than not, but they still don't address the issues that come with communication in general. F13 is a good example because I had to pretty much always play with all voice chat muted regardless of being councilor or even Jason (when it would be most beneficial to overhear things) just due to how the userbase conducted themselves. People would have arguments, play loud music in the background, sandbag each other, it became a net negative even in situations where I was basically encouraged to either utilize or even exploit how the mechanic was designed. Despite how much people claim SWF has always-been-necessary-but-even-moreso-at-current-moment-because-current-thing, I have never seen it or even communication as necessary because I developed game sense around filling in the blanks instead, like the game's design has always intended. The fact we even got the HUD update is kinda proof of that.
And to clarify, its perfectly ok to have qualms with the game's balance, I think we all do regardless of where it falls at any given time, but its important to work with its core design when considering them. A lack of that perspective is why we have so many things in the game that really don't fit with the rest of the game around them, why the meta always seems to laser focus on particular aspects for either side, and why they keep introducing new problems every time they try to address a seemingly unrelated one. SWF and relying on concepts like discord or console party chat at least allow people to have some level of actual proactive curation over that kind of thing rather than having to assume everyone is utilizing it, punishing those who exercise said curation, or completely toppling major aspects of what makes DBD… DBD.
-
@Zer0Chill said:
It's something I've noticed, but my escape rates lately in matches have been a lot higher as long as I'm paired with 3 other competent Survivor players in Solo Q. Chases feel so easy to run even as basekit Survivor since a lot of loops with a pallet feel so easy to gamesense around as Survivor. So it feels like it's much easier to waste Killer's time in a Chase especially as long as you start running when they're within 16m of you. And with how easy it is to heal off hook or recover after being injured... it makes Survivor either painfully boring to play because you just recover so easily and wallop Killer with no effort or you just blame your Survivor teammates for making awful decisions that cost the game (feeding).
Is it just me that feels this way?
I wouldn't say "easier to play," but certainly "easier to succeed" which will probably get a lot of downvotes without reading the rest of the post. But what I mean by that is its easier to have any other aspect of your personal skill have less bearing on the outcome of the match: As long as you know how to be efficient in your actions, that is far more valuable than any measure of personal skill (especially mechanically.) The same goes for killer: Pick a top tier, bring a meta build, use LCD strats, and your chances are considerably higher than going for cross map Huntress shots or threading needles with Slinger. Skill expression is essentially superfluous.
Since efficiency is a much more solvable and less abstract/dynamic metric, it being more crucial to success than concepts like skill expression or emergent design means that the game is, essentially, easier. And since survivors have their efficiency rated 4 times across the team, the possibility of compensation is much higher than people often give credit (usually due to a lack of tangible feedback whether others are successfully carrying in other concepts, like wasting killer resources or preserving survivor ones.) The average skill of players also improves over time regardless of plateau, and since recognizing and applying strategy is technically a facet of skill, efficiency goes up with it as long as people understand their objective enough. Teammates can be more dependable (even if they're not always) basically due to how common knowledge of the game's "solution" is.
In fighting games fundamentals are much more important than crazy long touch of death combos. The latter will surely lead to victories when performed correctly, but fundamentals are what allow them to even be a possibility. You need to know how to open your opponent's guard up to be able to start them, know how to convert stray hits into your combo structure, just generally being able to adapt and apply before even thinking about high skill execution. DBD has a similar dynamic in how things like gen efficiency for survivor or limiting survivor potential as killer are like fundamentals, but the crazy payoffs that would normally come from that type of incorporation of both aspects has been basically removed from the game. Very few things are both difficult and rewarding outside of personal satisfaction, while the minimum effort for success seems to get lower and lower while only being policed by how the same concept applies to the other side.
-
@Elan said:
EZ solution how to buff solo q
→ Make in game chat similiar to in lobby chat (make it an optional so you can disable it)
→ show all survivor perks in prelobby
→ show killer's ping in prelobby
Make in game chat similiar to in lobby chat (make it an optional so you can disable it)This will never work because it shifts balance priorities intrinsically. The game already has a hard enough time trying to balance between Solo and SWF, and when you make things like that basekit, they change the structure of the game entirely. Not only do you then have to assume everyone will use it while making sure to not penalize those who opt out for valid reasons (especially when dealing with regions having multiple languages) and simultaneously rework any elements that are disproportionately affected by at will communication (like low mobility killers, the entire concept of stealth killers, etc.) SWF and its comms already clash with a lot of the game's design as it is. Unfortunately removing or blanket penalizing SWF is not something that can really be done, and the same goes for unrestricted communication as a basekit: DBD needs to be a different game for it to not clash directly with many of its design choices and even identity. It would have a better chance of working in a DBD 2 if that were designed around it inherently.
-
@diablo916 said:
One of my many ideas to balance a lot of the survivor sided maps in this game is to completely remove "god" pallets and replace them with build able pallets. Keep the filler and more manageable pallets at the start of the trial so it gives survivors something to run to if they were to be found early but replace shack, gidean double pallets, basically every un-mindgameable pallet on every map with a pallet that survivors have to "set up". Same thing with some windows. A lot of the broken windows with no mindgame need to be boarded up and require survivors to interact with them. Basically open them in order to use them like normal. Each window and pallet should take 20-30 seconds to build/open. This gives survivors something to do besides gens that if they dont do at least a few, it would negatively impact them later on in the trial. If they decide to try and rush gens, it hurts their chase. I feel like they're already half way there and this is doable because they released Rick with a perk that can rebuild pallets. If a trapper cant start with every trap in the game then why do survivors get a double god pallet setup with 2 pallets right next to each other?
Sounds like some kind of basekit alternative to Any Means Necessary which is guaranteed to get the highest possible value per use, with its tradeoff being focused around time spent, which is an extremely relative cost (as time's value for any given individual, let alone role, changes throughout the match) Especially since what you're asking for is free time when it makes such a high impact, during chases. An idea like that would only work if it came with more risks, like only working on weaker pallets, but nobody would consider it worth bothering unless they got guaranteed high value from it. Make it that strong and all you would need is for survivors to coordinate when and where to build things to be as efficient as possible. It doesn't sound like there are any ways to really account for things like that.
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4049272#Comment_4049272
I mean, what I'd personally like to see more than anything is a comprehensive tutorial, in-game tips, and more varied matchmaking criteria. It's ridiculous that someone who works on all the right gens, unhooks right, heals right, all while also juicing the killer gets nothing but an MMR loss if they're the one death while another survivor who rode on their back and strolls out the gate after doing nothing gets an increase. Matchmaking that can recognize productive players (and team wins) would help this playerbase's mindset a lot.
As for the wheel, if agency is an issue, it's not s though you have to obey. It could also be things solely related to you. "Killer camping me" "letting go" " brought hatch at shack". Things that aren't commands like "heal me," "meet me at shack," "don't unhook," "do gens". In keeping with the spirit of survivor, it could also be a limited resource, like each player can only use it three times or something. That would keep it from being spammable too. It could also fall off when you get to upper MMR. You should have enough gamesense at that point. Personally I think this stuff would mostly benefit others over me. I don't really need training wheels anymore. The matchmaking is what I really want for myself.
I know someone who has almost 5k hours, all in survivor. Far more than me, especially since my hours are split with killer. She's utterly clueless. I had to explain to her I was letting go because the match was lost and I wanted her to go for hatch. She then also equipped a hatch offering, not understanding one was enough. She also can't identify killer perks to save her life. It's quite shocking. I don't know how you can play that long and know nothing, nor do i know how to fix that particular problem, though the in-game tips might help.
I mean, what I'd personally like to see more than anything is a comprehensive tutorial, in-game tips, and more varied matchmaking criteria100%. There is a lot to onboard in the game with its evolution over time, so both sides would benefit from a more robust way to learn immensely. I remember LoL expanded their active tutorial in a way that was a lot more in depth but let you earn multiple characters for free, so it both incentivized and actively rewarded you not to skip them. A small bribe with something like shards or choosing a few perks for each side to start unlocked would go a long way toward helping players improve more naturally if the contents are done right, and people are willing to go through it. I'd definitely want those incentives to be tied to the tutorials for both sides though, as in needing to do both (or maybe a much smaller incentive if only doing one.) Survivors understanding the basics of killer gameplay and vice versa improves you just as much at your role of choice, and the perspective is obviously helpful in general.
Matchmaking that can recognize productive players (and team wins) would help this playerbase's mindset a lot.#BringBackTheEmblemSystem2026
it rewarded skill far more than just survival, and required engaging in multiple facets of your responsibility to your role. All it needed were some adjustments to some scoring conditions and values, and a few fixes for fringe cases (like killer powers preventing certain categories from really working, or survivor categories being particularly lopsided.)
As for the wheel, if agency is an issue, it's not s though you have to obey.That is true, but that doesn't mean people won't persist in trying. It was notorious in games like L4D because there was almost no delay between calls, but even in games that have them, people don't necessarily give up. Even if you put in an anti-spam measure (like a 1 minute lockout or something similar) that just tilts the player even further, making them become more of a liability.
In keeping with the spirit of survivor, it could also be a limited resource, like each player can only use it three times or something.Interesting idea, but again, I just don't feel that its necessary or helpful enough. Since you have no way of verifying the player's abilities like you would in an SWF, you have no idea if the messages are even misleading or not.
Personally I think this stuff would mostly benefit others over me. I don't really need training wheels anymore. The matchmaking is what I really want for myself.And thats very respectable. The main issue is that a system like that doesn't really discern that, so you can just as easily have medicore players misleading newer/worse ones, people purposely giving bad intel, or just setting up incorrect expectations. Its not about the people who would use it to its fullest, its the ones who would make it a net negative.
I know someone who has almost 5k hours, all in survivor. Far more than me, especially since my hours are split with killer. She's utterly clueless. I had to explain to her I was letting go because the match was lost and I wanted her to go for hatch. She then also equipped a hatch offering, not understanding one was enough. She also can't identify killer perks to save her life. It's quite shocking. I don't know how you can play that long and know nothing, nor do i know how to fix that particular problem, though the in-game tips might help.Yep, and I'll be the first to admit I played the game for a long time before really buckling down on a lot. As you mentioned she only plays survivor, would she maybe be interested in learning a bit of a simpler killer like Wraith? It might actually help quite a bit with the types of things you're trying to teach, as a lot of the less intuitive stuff on the survivor side tends to come from how it affects the killer role, like leading chases away from contested areas, balancing hook states, when to use things like bodyblocks or stealth, etc. Honestly intuitiveness is probably the word I would use on how to improve the learning process in the game as a whole. The right ideas should come more naturally than they do at times.