Ryuhi
Ryuhi
About
- Username
- Ryuhi
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4042766#Comment_4042766
That's an incorrect comparison. Because the other team won because a flag wasn't called is based on the RULES of the game. In our case the developers. In the DBD example, that would be due to like, a bug happening or something. Like, if a rock spawns that survivors can get through and not the killer. If the survivors use it is it "technically" cheating? Maybe? But like, i'm not going to be mad them for using it, its there.
Tunneling or slugging isn't some "bug" or "dangerous play that maybe is against the rules sometimes and its up to the refs to decide" Tunneling and slugging are just fundamental parts of the game.
The reason I made the flag comment is because its a scenario that is up for interpretation. Thats the entire point of referees, live sports do not have an EAC anti cheat or server logic that forces outcomes. Your examples are so obvious they would be closer to an extra player running on the field and nobody saying anything about it, when I'm talking about more subtle things like an offsides call not going through when it could have given a first down and prevented a turnover. Thats the kind of thing that sticks with a player after a match, and since the determination is subjective rather than objective, it fosters rumination and dissatisfaction in place of satisfaction and acceptance.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4042761#Comment_4042761
If that was the point they were making, telling me to stop doing my gen so that the Killer doesn't feel bad isn't going to get it across.
Thats what you tell a killer when you tell them to not tunnel someone who refuses to leave during their protections, makes extremely obvious misplays right in front of the killer, or just is generally the architect of their own demise. Part of why people say improving at looping makes you less likely to get tunneled, for example, is because it makes you less likely to find yourself in a situation where the killer tunneling you out is the objectively correct move. Telling a killer they shouldn't take advantage of situations that fall into their lap is equivalent to telling a survivor to not finish gens, but without the context of said interaction, a survivor would be free to assume the killer must have malicious intent in such a decision.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4042761#Comment_4042761
But they are asking me to misplay, thats the point.
Take the example of street fighter. What if throwing my opponent 10 times in a row is strategically the best sequence of moves for me to do to win the game. Why should i "care" that my opponent thinks that "throwing is cheap".
And, if lets say for a second, that that move actually is like super OP, and i'm trying to win the game, wouldn't i be a fool for not using the OP move over and over again to try and win the game? At that point it would be up to the developers to nerf said move that is overpowered. But why do the players care that i'm using it.
Like, most people here don't like tunneling for example. I personally think tunneling is bad for the game, and it needs to go. The developers also obviously think that and are trying to do something about, although personally i think their strategy at doing so is wrong but that is a different discussion.
Anyway, the point is, if tunneling is so broken, and i'm trying to play to win the game and that is what i care about, why should i suddenly "misplay" and NOT tunnel just because its "mean" or "boring". You are asking to me to not play a strategy that will give me statistically the best chances for winning the game, simply because you don't like it.
Them asking you to misplay is not my point. My point is that such a claim can be both unrealistic and yet still founded simultaneously. They're lamenting what led to their defeat, and misdirecting it at you instead of directing it properly at the strategies employed. And even then, just disliking an aspect of the game alone isn't enough to warrant it being changed unless the benefits are universal. The moment they clash with another player's role, deeper balance considerations become necessary.
But to the end user, they just see "thing I don't like gets ignored, other players continue to utilize it" without any of the context around things like necessity. They don't think about "is it the objectively correct play?" and instead focus on "People keep winning because they do x." That type of reductionism is what I'm talking about when trying to convey empathy for one's opponent, its about realistically rating logical and emotional responses as if you were the one thinking them.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4042756#Comment_4042756
Its not sportsmanship. The attitude off this community is different.
Sportsmanship is like, after i win i say "ggwp" or shake my opponents hand.
The attitude of players of this game is that for some strange reason if i'm playing a football game and i score 3 times in a row, i need to let my opponent score a couple of times too so they don't feel sad about losing.
Oh I know this community is not the pinnacle of sportsmanship, just that its what's supposed to be there. Sportsmanship as a concept was never necessary to competition, but it improves the experience for both sides when things like mutual respect are observed.
Sportsmanship is like, after i win i say "ggwp" or shake my opponents hand.Thats a small part of it, but sportsmanship in a more pure form would be closer to not throwing sand in someone's eyes during a duel. As a concept, its supposed to be about allowing competition to be as fair and equitable as possible, as the focus is generally more on improvement (self, rivalry, etc) than the outcome of the competition. Outcome focus tends to overshadow those concepts with "whatever it takes to win," which is why its equal parts understandable-yet-undesirable under those circumstances. Handshakes after competitions aren't supposed to be just compulsory, they're supposed to be an acceptance of the outcome.
The attitude of players of this game is that for some strange reason if i'm playing a football game and i score 3 times in a row, i need to let my opponent score a couple of times too so they don't feel sad about losing.Thats how many people think, sure, but to add to that analogy, players can be upset that a flag wasn't called at a crucial moment, the other team won with a dangerous play that could have seriously injured one or more players, or the dreaded "being held back by teammates." Scenarios more difficult to accept that are still within reason, but require much more personal temperament to not dwell on. Its up to the game's design to minimize those potential grey areas while its up to the players to better curate their emotions in response to the match.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4042750#Comment_4042750
And they're making a bigger assumption by claiming that I'm assuming that all Killers are toxic when they tunnel or whatever. I don't think all Killers tunnel to be toxic (but I have seen a few that do). I recognize when they do it to win, and yes it sucks when they do, but I just move on. Are they claiming I'm supposed to be nice to a Killer who's tunneling me?
You came into a topic about increasing empathy for one's opponent with a loaded us vs them argument, and you don't seem to be understanding the hypocrisy in your stance. They're not claiming you should purposely misplay in order to be nice to your opponent, in fact thats the exact point they seem to be trying to drive home. If you understand that as a concept, why jump into the topic trying to make it one side's fault specifically? Reminder, this was the comment that probably got you those responses:
I think the bigger problem is that some players, mostly on the Killer side, take the game too seriously, and feel that anything less than a 100% win rate is unacceptable.It takes a universal issue that crosses roles, and tries to paint it specifically as being instigated by one side while minimizing the prevalence of it on the other. One of the most misleading things about the survivor role as a survivor is that most survivors do not play the same as any one of us, and we have no idea what they're doing when not being told in some way. I can assure you that with a prevalence of 4 to 1 in a given match, the liklihood of that mentality applying to a survivor is much higher than it is a killer, even if the tactics and methods employed are different. Thats not a point worth dwelling on though, as we can only adjust our own behavior, so the important takeaway is to just be mindful on when you are unintentionally giving that impression to your opponent. I believe that was likely the intention of the examples, outlining that its not worth getting upset at someone for playing to win when its something we all do.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4042631#Comment_4042631
Its a game, why should i not play to win? Why do i need to "be nice" why do you expect me to not take my opponents queen for free when they hang it in chess?
I think there is some slight merit to the argument concerning sportsmanship, but thats a concept this community just doesn't gel with for multiple reasons. Personally I would rather a rough win vs a cake walk, so long as the rough part isn't due to design flaws. The desire to win and the desire to have a compelling match should be pretty close to one another, even if one or the other overshadows a bit in a given person's mindset.
That said, its more on the game to limit extremes and have proper matchmaking to foster that environment. We can only be responsible for ourselves in that regard, so it boils down to giving your best while anticipating the worst. The rest falls within the limitations of the game's structure which sadly fosters these types of mentalities the worse people think of their opponents.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4042730#Comment_4042730
Actually I assumed that the other two were on the same gen. I only knew that I was on my gen alone.
Anyways what are you trying to accomplish with this constant gotcha?
I think their point is that playing to win isn't a killer specific thing, and that things that feel miserable to one side are often unavoidable consequences of that. Unavoidable besides sandbagging oneself, of course.
Having empathy for your opponent isn't just being glad when you aren't the one getting dunked, its understanding that they're not personally trying to make your experience worse by trying to win, that just ends up being a consequence of how most interactions in the game are designed. Objective denial is a topic this applies to frequently, everything from gen regression and securing a hook stage to saves and sabos. You can dislike individual tactics employed, but constantly assuming ill intent with a net as wide as "wanting to win the video game" is a bit much. Unfortunately in the current state of the game, all you can really do is go as hard as you can out of the gate and then adjust to your opponent's pace, and that certainly applies to both sides. The early game is just universally too important to how time scales for the rest of the match.
-
I think the bigger point from this question
@Royval said:
what does Kaneki get in return for these nerfs?
Is that chunking a portion of a killer's kit should come with a more healthy alternative, instead of just kneecapping them and taking years to realize it might have changed more than anticipated. Regardless of how vindicated that type of change may be in the short term, it has long term ramifications on paying customers. Better counterplay interaction, addressing the obnoxious pause while waiting for his animations, potentially healthier enrage effects, smarter people more learned with the killer than I could probably come up with direct sidegrades that nerf the things that are oppressive while preventing him from plummeting in viability. We can't keep throwing stuff on the backburner when it often takes years to get back to, and even those attempts don't have a great track record.
-
@Philscooper said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4041292#Comment_4041292
If they bothered to balance high tier killers against soloq, i would agree. But they dont.
So i dont really care if its "balanced" since the devs dont really care about soloq or low tiers.
So at this point just make every side overtuned with quirky perks.
"I don't care if I make it worse" isn't a very effective approach to balancing, and is part of the reason why things have persisted in the game for years. You don't add lopsided nonsense expecting it to fix a shaky foundation.
-
@pickle4juice said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4041292#Comment_4041292
I didn't think of that, so I'll pull bullcrap from my hat for balance: If the killer is moving below a certain speed when active, you must be within a certain range of that killer. And something I didn't mention, you can't activate it while on a hook or in the dying state.
So in other words, it would need an overcomplicated velocity detection system to be in effect at all times in case the perk is being used to then have a proximity one. It couldn't just use TR, because that varies and can be manipulated, which would completely destroy the underlying systems. Oh, but would it light up to notify the player when these specific conditions are met? Because now it lighting up becomes another free detection method like old spine chill was. If it doesn't, the survivor will still know because the prompt will appear so they can use the perk with the action button, making it basically a free survivor-sided whispers like old spine chill used to be without the negative of the killer needing to look at you. And you get to keep it the whole match until you use its intended effect, which has its own balance concerns on top.
You need to think about perk design from both sides. Not just throwing clauses at the end because of what you think might be problems caused by a perk's design, that type of afterthought is why we keep ending up with so many unintended consequences requiring nerfs shortly after release.
-
@Dinadin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4042366#Comment_4042366
Bad killer ping starts already at 60+ and I totally think this shouldnt be a thing in a game where hitboxes are already so wanky. And there is just no reasonable argument to why killers are favored on so many levels regarding ping and action priority.
60ms is literally less of a delay than many games have baked into their local input delay. Street Fighter 5 notoriously had 8f (roughly 130ms) built in on a game where reactions and input accuracy were wildly more important than this one. To reiterate, it would literally take longer than that for the game itself to read your inputs before it would even attempt to send or receive that data to the other player, and you are expecting all interactions with people in other parts of the world should be less than that. Meanwhile, people competed internationally for more money than either of us will see in that game. Unless you plan to personally restructure telecommunications in various countries and regions, learning how to play in a slightly more predictive manner might be more effective at relieving your frustration.
-
@kaneyboy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4042357#Comment_4042357
yes 80 is high, and often hits over pallets. I’d rather not go against a 80 ping killer if I had the choice.
If I can perform one frame links or side flipping headshots in UT at 80ms, you can lean a tiny bit more into reads than reactions. Again, I understand that stuff like 200+ is unreasonable, but not being able to deal with 80 is, for genuine lack of better terms, entitled. This game has no EX Mallet smash.
Edit: To address your edit that was put in after the fact:
Let’s not encourage bad internet or VPN to make the game easier. It’s a bad tactic.Please tell me where I have ever done that. In fact, I specifically mentioned in the post you responded to that there should be systems in place to monitor and either prevent or punish ping manipulation. Please don't put things like that on me when its the exact opposite of my position.
My stance is simply that 80 is "average" and not "bad." Your grouping in a range all the way up to 200 is being done to try to make the two look more similar than they are by evoking expectations of an unrelated extreme.
-
@kaneyboy said:
every game I had on EU last night and tonight are 80-200 ping… this really needs to be addressed now as it’s such a game killer. It makes me and my friends not want to play as it’s such an unfair advantage.
80-200 is a pretty wide range. To reiterate from the other recent topic on the issue, are we really calling 80 unplayable now? Maybe next topic it'll be 80-400.
@azaxydbd said:
This is one of the most debated technical topics in the Dead by Daylight community. The "undeserved hit" (getting hit 5 feet past a window or after dropping a pallet) usually boils down to the discrepancy between what the Killer sees, what the Survivor sees, and what the Server accepts.
Here is a technical breakdown of how Behaviour Interactive (BHVR) could theoretically address these desync issues to reduce those frustrating hits.
1. Tightening Server-Side Hit Validation
Currently, DBD uses a system that largely "favors the shooter" (the Killer) within a certain margin of error. If the Killer hits you on their screen, the server asks: "Was the hit plausible based on the Killer's ping?" If yes, the hit counts, even if you were already safe on your screen.
How BHVR could fix it:
- Stricter Ping Tolerance: BHVR could reduce the maximum allowable latency for a hit validation. Currently, if a Killer has 150ms ping, the server gives them a generous "buffer" to make the game feel fair to them. Reducing this buffer would result in fewer "magic hits" for Survivors but would cause more "ghost hits" (seeing blood but dealing no damage) for laggy Killers.
- Priority on Vault/Pallet States: The server could be programmed to prioritize the Survivor's animation state over the Killer's position specifically during vaults. If the Server receives a packet saying "Survivor has completed Vault Animation," it should instantly reject any incoming hit packets from the Killer that occurred during the transition, regardless of the Killer's ping.
2. Increasing Server Tick Rate
The "Tick Rate" is how many times per second the server updates the game state. DBD servers typically run at 60Hz (60 updates per second). While this is standard for many games, competitive shooters (like Valorant or CS2) push for higher rates (128Hz or "sub-tick" systems).
How BHVR could fix it:
- Higher Tick Rate: Increasing servers to higher tick rates would mean the server knows exactly where everyone is more frequently. This reduces the "gap" where a Survivor is safe but the server hasn't realized it yet.
- Packet Processing Optimization: Even with 60Hz, if the server code is inefficient, it might process hit logic slower during busy moments (e.g., lots of status effects triggering at once). Optimizing the backend code to process physics checks faster would reduce the feeling of desync.
3. Dynamic Hitbox Adjustment (Hurtbox Manipulation)
In fighting games, "hurtboxes" (the area where you take damage) often shift or shrink during specific animations to match the visual model. In DBD, the Survivor hitbox is generally a static "capsule" (a pill shape) that doesn't lean forward when the character runs.
How BHVR could fix it:
- Trailing Hitbox Correction: When a survivor is running, their "capsule" trails slightly behind their visual model due to interpolation. BHVR could shift the hurtbox slightly forward in the direction of movement on the server side to match the visual representation better.
- Animation-Specific Hurtboxes: When a Survivor vaults, their legs often trail behind. BHVR could implement a system where the hurtbox is aggressively disjointed or removed from the window frame the moment the "vault success" flag is triggered, rather than waiting for the animation to finish.
4. Matchmaking Ping Limits (Region Locking)
The biggest cause of "BS hits" is playing against a Killer who is geographically far away or using a VPN.
How BHVR could fix it:
- Hard Ping Caps: Currently, the game tries to match based on ping, but expands the search if queue times are long. BHVR could implement a "Hard Cap" option, allowing players to choose to wait longer for a match to guarantee the Killer is under 50ms-70ms.
- VPN Detection: Aggressively filtering out players spoofing their region would prevent high-latency scenarios that the server currently tries (and fails) to compensate for.
5. Why haven't they fixed it perfectly yet? (The "Ghost Hit" Problem)
This is the main dilemma BHVR faces.
- Scenario A (Current State): The game trusts the Killer's client.
- Result: Killers feel good, hits connect visually. Survivors feel cheated because they get hit through walls.
- Scenario B (The Fix): The game trusts the Server/Survivor more strictly.
- Result: Survivors feel great. However, Killers will swing, hear the scream, see blood splatter, but the Survivor will keep running uninjured because the server said "Too late."
The Solution:
The true fix lies in Predictive Netcode. BHVR needs to improve the algorithm that predicts where a player will be in the next 100ms. By blending "Lag Compensation" (rewinding time to check if a shot was fair) with better prediction, they can reduce the window where these two realities conflict.Summary
To fix undeserved hits, BHVR needs to move the slider away from "Favor the Shooter" and closer to "Server Authority," specifically regarding interactive objects (pallets and windows). If the server confirms a pallet is down, it should act as an absolute shield immediately, overriding any latency-based hit claims from the Killer.
Is this an AI generated argument? I mostly ask because "Just increase your tick rate" isn't how things work on a nearly 10 year old game, that kind of thing is a pretty nuclear option from my understanding. You would have to re-create almost all of the game's logic to make that kind of adjustment, and it's completely irrespective of the hardware the game runs on.
Spikes from things like lag switching or VPNs are one thing, but people seem to forget this was a P2P game at its core structure that was converted to use dedicated servers. The killer is still load bearing in many aspects, which is constantly used as validation for why they're not allowed to disconnect as haphazardly as survivors can. In the end, "what we want" and "how the game is structured" are often two different things.
The approach should be around preventing excess and tracking reasonable levels. I agree that there should be some type of max ping allowed by matchmaking, but people wanting only 20-50 ping matches are being pretty unreasonable. Especially since some people can only get 100+ to their nearest geographical server location due to their region. Putting things in place to counteract or at least punish stuff like lag switching would be the right direction, even if some kind of hidden counter that tracks the number of abnormalities in latency and activates like a DC penalty if it registers more than rare occasions. Only other thing I really agree with is in regards to hitbox visualization, as when not understood they look very misleading in many latency-hit scenarios.
also
To fix undeserved hits, BHVR needs to move the slider away from "Favor the Shooter" and closer to "Server Authority,"Did they not try this? I could swear the determination was that due to how the game was originally designed, moving validation away from the killer for hits especially felt extremely bad and increased the frequency of stolen hits, leading to a lot of situations like blade wipe desyncs and some powers like plague vomit flat out not registering properly (then again, when have they.)
-
@FerrousFacade said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4042061#Comment_4042061
I agree that people do exaggerate on what is unplayable and I should have stated by now that I am against abandoning in this situation (and pretty much all but the most extreme situations). I do think we are seeing more desire for abandons because of an increase in matches that feel hopeless, that isn't a reason to give up but I can empathize with that feeling. I do mean this on both sides as well, there are 3 killer DCs in my last thirty matches and I know there are a few more if I had my last 50, that is unusual for me.
I do think we are seeing more desire for abandons because of an increase in matches that feel hopeless, that isn't a reason to give up but I can empathize with that feeling.And thats why people need to stop being their own worst enemy with things like this. One person's entitlement in refusing to play under anything less than perfect conditions actively holds their teammates back. The mindset is both self defeating and drags others down with it.
-
@FerrousFacade said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4041908#Comment_4041908
It doesn't need to be teleport around level for a survivors position to be off and in a game where tiny position differences matter a lot it can become a problem much sooner. I've seen plenty of people with more experience than me in the game note bad hits at pings that low and my personal experience lines up with theirs. I'm not saying your experience is wrong and perhaps something in the handling has changed since then that has made it worse. It's possible which server you play on could make it better/worse based on how much other traffic the data center receives or other factors specific to that server. I also absolutely leave open the possibility that something in the handling of all this is simply bugged and that there are other issues at play making it worse. From a solely technical standpoint I agree that it shouldn't be occurring at 80-120 as much as it is but for me it really is that level where I start to notice it happening.
I am mostly talking about vaults and getting hit by air. Huntress and her bowling ball hatchets are another issue and she weirdly tends to get validated more than others. I've definitely gotten hits with her on low ping that disappear, lends credence to the possibility that the whole system is bugged.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4041922#Comment_4041922
I'm not disagreeing just want to note there are downsides on the other side as well and I would hope any solution to this helps them as well without giving them an actual advantage.
I'm saying we used to have to play games like SF4 on pings averaging around 100+ms for anything not the next state over, with 5 frames of input delay baked in, with delay based netcode on top of that, while expected to be able to perform inputs with 1/60th of a second accuracy. People grossly overemphasize what they consider to be unplayable in regards to latency's impact in this game, because they focus on the most extreme cases of desync issues and imply that all gameplay running in the "unfavorable middle" must be the sole reason they are losing.
The point of my advice is that it supercedes that. Remember, this is about people wanting the ability to disconnect for free, because the abandon mechanic is becoming another form of match shopping in people's minds.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4041849#Comment_4041849
This seems like a non-sequitur.
@killer_hugs is explaining why the game breaks down IF a certain scenario occurs.
Discussing HOW that situation can be avoided is a different topic, especially being as survivor you don't have control over the other three players.
Everyone has known for years that tuennling is bad for the health of the game. My point is that the community needs to stop just lamenting it and try to do something about it themselves. And especially when it comes to the defeatest attitude that sandbags everyone around them.
-
@FerrousFacade said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4041844#Comment_4041844
It isn't about reaction time, its about distances, which latency effects as well. This game is built around survivors maintaining a safe distance from the killer using the few resources available to them. Every bit of latency on both sides alters the distance between the survivor and killer. You may already know this but, to some extent each client has to "predict" what the other side is going to do to at least partially compensate for latency, this is why when someone lags out you see them continuously run into a wall, your client is still predicting their movement and since it hasn't received a command to change direction the player continues to run in whatever direction your client last knew they were running in. The higher the latency the further off this prediction becomes. This positioning gets reconciled occasionally and may look like a teleport if it is particularly off but that too is effected by latency.
A survivor can get hit past a vault because it looks like a reasonable hit on the killers client but not because of reaction time It happens because the vault is literally happening later on the killers client and you weren't actually at a safe distance to vault but only from the killer clients perspective, to them you are getting hit mid vault. No reaction time can save you from that.
Its hard to say how much of this is actually just due to latency, how much is attributable to the servers, and how much is because of the code that predicts movements but the net sum is hits that shouldn't happen occurring at a lower latency than you might expect from other games. There just isn't a large margin for error. I personally start getting hit as I am sliding off the other end of a pallet at somewhere around 100 ping on the killer, my own ping tends to sit around 35.
All of this would potentially be fine if survivors respawned or had many health states but you can be dead and out of the match in as few as 4 hits. It messes with any muscle memory you may have built up about how much distance is safe at known structures and interferes with learning it in the first place. Tiny differences in distance are all that separate a hit from a miss and it can make all the difference if you are being tunneled out.
I'm not going to put a specific number on what is reasonable because a lot of factors could potentially be altered and there is some amount that you do just have to accept as always going to exist in an online game. However, we do at least need to stop incentivizing high ping and bad hits, it makes the game much more frustrating than it needs to be. Some killers might think more survivors are bad than actually are solely because they get hits that they shouldn't due to not realizing how much their high ping is helping them.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4041781#Comment_4041781
There are situations where the killers bad ping does in fact hurt them. Gen grabs appear to be effected by both the ping of the killer and the ping of the survivor being grabbed. I have personally gotten completion of a gen grab quest where I clearly initiated a grab and then the animation stopped and the survivor ran off. Some killer powers stop responding properly beyond a certain threshold. I also had a kind of funny match against a springtrap with really high ping, I got to watch him stand at generators and pallets for a full half minute before they actually completed the action.
I'm not talking about latency over 200 where people are teleporting around. I'm saying that 80-120 is not that. Visual desync doesn't occur that badly except for cases where visual representations are misleading, like how survivors lean forward but their hurtbox does not and they get hit by a projectile that has a larger hurtbox than its visual. I've played on (what I assume to be) a western european server without issues that bad, and that was generally in the range of around 130.
-
@killer_hugs said:
I think this is the #1 problem with the game design.
It's why people complain about tunneling.
If 1 survivor dies early then the killer wins because the remaining survivors cannot advance the game.
If survivors could advance the game then tunneling becomes far less of an issue.
Too many games end this way. 1 survivor dies. The rest run around in a limbo waiting to die doing nothing but waiting for the killer to find and kill them.
And I think it's one of the reasons why 2v8 feels so much better. There's very few games where games stop advancing.
If the developer could meaningfully address this in 1v4 I think the game would be far better.
Like it may not even be something that meaningfully changes the escape or kill rates. But you need survivors to have a reason to continue participating in the game.
Maybe the games been out too long to change the model, maybe we're stuck with what we have, but I think DBD could do better.
Just as an aside; before patch 6.1 there were fewer games that had this problem. Generators were faster, killers were weaker, 3 survivors could often advance games. But due the efficiency currently required this isn't the case anymore. 1 survivor dies and games are usually over.
Get very good at looping and waste the killer's time enough for your teammates to finish gens, or stick to gens if someone else is being chased and hope they do the same instead of just giving up instantly due to your own mindset.
Worst case? Get chased on purpose anyway, then practice chase vs that killer. Or blame the person who got tunneled out so fast that your team couldn't get enough gen progress to be in a contestable state when they die. Or blame your teammates for not engaging in said gen progress.
You can do things to improve your chances, if you try. Its more effective than beating a horse to death without any real solution. Your teammates who don't give up immediately will thank you. Its more effective than yet another woe is me post about tunneling.
-
@Amanova said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4041779#Comment_4041779
It's bad for the survivor, but not for the killer, because when he's close to the survivor, he do unreal hits when the action is already completed on the survivor's side. The same thing applies to their powers. So if the devs can't fix this, then let them add the abandon feature since they've started adding it to everywhere.
I understand that high ping disproportionately impacts survivors compared to killers, my point is that 80-120 is not very high ping and is considered playable even in games with 1/60th of a second timing for things. This game is nowhere near that demanding, it just reduces your reaction window. You're only going to get stuff in the 30 range if all parties are fairly close geographically and have both consistently good up and down speeds. You're basically saying a very large percentage of people should just never get matches.
Also really outlining why the abandon feature might not have been the best solution in this form.
-
@Amanova said:
It's insane how Krasue hits me from miles away just because she had 120ms same with Spirit like hello this is clearly not fair!
I know killers can be a problem with super high ping, but are we really pretending that 80-120 is considered unplayable ping? Thats pretty normal for the lengths of your average regional distance to server locations paired with average internet connections in regions like North America. Not ideal, but not exactly the same as 200+.
-
@TheSaltySaloon said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4041642#Comment_4041642
I’ve often thoughts this myself.
The killers could be in tiers of how powerful they are which would determine how many pallets would spawn in a given match. Tier 1 killers would have the most and tier 3 would have the least. This will never happen however because it’d require behavior to do some work which is something they desperately don’t wanna, so they’ll just release a new killer instead.
I don't agree with it regarding pallet spawns, but mostly because pallets aren't equal. It would be better to have less strong pallets than more trash ones, with the more middle strength ones being the only real constant. Personally I think they missed a golden oppotunity with fresh hooks by tying a reward for them into addressing each killer's weaknesses, as it would simultaneously actually incentivize the killer player to not tunnel. Pair it with some relative nerf to tunneling, tiers get condensed, tunneling reduced, everybody's happy.
Would take more work than blanket adjustments and (dis)incentives, but those didn't seem to work out anyway.
-
They don't balance for S tiers and SWF, those groups just "play DBD better" than the rest. S tiers are where they are because they excel in macro play in the game's current state (lethality, mobility, unique necessary counterplay, etc,) and SWFs are able to bypass many of the information and coordination deficits the game is designed around. The only way to change those things is to change the reasons why they are considered so fitting for the game's current state, and in the case of SWF especially, thats a pretty hard thing to do without punishing people who just want to play with their friends. Normalizing would be buffing weak while simultaneously nerfing strong, but doing so in a way that their meta considerations are consistent instead of just dumpstering the strong and gigabuffing the weak. After how the fresh hook incentive went, I don't have any faith they could do this properly without it turning into a monkey paw that negatively impacts the role.
-
@SnakePVP said:
I think people in this game are always going to have some bias toward either killer or survivor. It’s pretty rare to find someone who’s truly 50/50. The real issue in these discussions is that killer mains and survivor mains often try to speak objectively about the other side without acknowledging how their own playstyle bias affects their perspective. Most arguments on this forum seem to boil down to a few recurring points:
Solo-queue players rightly saying their experience sucks.
Killer mains jumping in to complain about SWF and gen rushing.
SWF players using solo queue struggles and tunneling to deflect any proposed nerfs to SWF.
That dynamic then feeds into the survivor vs killer mindset among killer mains. I think some of the political-style comparisons people make are a bit much, unless the argument is that SWFs intentionally use the solo-queue vs. killer debate to distract from their overall strength which would be funny, but I don’t think there’s some coordinated SWF lobby here. More realistically, if you’re a 1k, 5k, or 8k+ hour player, you’ve probably played long enough to know enough people that you can SWF whenever you want. Because of that, this forum is likely to have a higher proportion of active SWF players, alongside newer players who come here to vent after getting 4k slugged by a Bubba.
Agreed, and to add to this, the same applies to
survivor mainsboth sides blanketing killers themselves, rather than even just the players. Balance considerations for a Nurse and a Freddy are going to be very different, yet those types of nuances are rarely demonstrated when discussing the role overall. Its the entire foundation on why the Nurse's blink attacks had to be changed to not synergize with basic attacks, since a lack of that nuance took things intended to buff M1 killers specifically and just let her have them as well. Those types of points are why its important that we generalize less in our expectations of what "the other side" discusses. -
@FerrousFacade said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4041485#Comment_4041485
I don't disagree, especially on how Otz plays survivor. I do want to say that I see just as much validation/ego boosting content coming from both sides, I don't care for it on either side so I just ignore it.
Thats a big part of why I constantly state that survivor players can learn to get better by either experiencing or even watching killer gameplay, its about what you're looking for more than who its coming from.
Completely agree, I am obviously a biased survivor main but I do go out of my way to watch content from killers to not leave myself in a bubble and improve myself from things more visible from their perspective. Some people don't like facing streamers because they might feel judged, I love it because I can watch my chases back from their perspective. I do play the role occasionally but just tend to bounce off it for some reason.
I agree on letting everyone have their subjective opinions and allowing disagreement. However, it becomes an issue when they allow their bias and subjectivity to cloud objective fact and then potentially have their viewers parrot that objective falsehood to others. In the ping case their entire argument was "thats the server," which is an objective misunderstanding of what ping is, and that I wanted killers to suffer for bad ping, which I did not state or even imply. I could explain that if they wanted a real discussion and also clarify that what I want is whoever has a bad connection, above a reasonable threshold, to suffer, since unfortunately someone does have to suffer. As a ghostface main they would likely even be open to that argument as it would also make gen grabs more reliable so long as their own connection is good but they would rather stay in their own bubble and further the us vs them by claiming to their audience that I am another whiny survivor main that just wants them to suffer.
I don't disagree, especially on how Otz plays survivor. I do want to say that I see just as much validation/ego boosting content coming from both sides, I don't care for it on either side so I just ignore it.Completely valid. Even for the content creators on the killer side I do learn from, it doesn't always come free of those caveats. I was generalizing based on trends in what I personally see out of creators on both sides, which will vary wildly from person to person. I guess my point was more that I tend to find insight of value from one side more than the other, which again, will vary from person to person.
Completely agree, I am obviously a biased survivor main but I do go out of my way to watch content from killers to not leave myself in a bubble and improve myself from things more visible from their perspective. Some people don't like facing streamers because they might feel judged, I love it because I can watch my chases back from their perspective. I do play the role occasionally but just tend to bounce off it for some reason.Funny enough, I've been a survivor main for years, despite a lot of my considerations on the forums going toward the killer role. Thats also a great outlook on going up against streamers, its the same type of thing I would do when reviewing my match footage in fighting games. Seeing it from a different perspective that you couldn't have during the match itself is even more helpful, since it adds context that was missing during the original decisions.
I agree on letting everyone have their subjective opinions and allowing disagreement. However, it becomes an issue when they allow their bias and subjectivity to cloud objective fact and then potentially have their viewers parrot that objective falsehood to others. In the ping case their entire argument was "thats the server," which is anobjectivemisunderstanding of what ping is, and that I wanted killers to suffer for bad ping, which I did not state or even imply. I could explain that if they wanted a real discussion and also clarify that what I want is whoever has a bad connection, above a reasonable threshold, to suffer, since unfortunately someone does have to suffer. As a ghostface main they would likely even be open to that argument as it would also make gen grabs more reliable so long as their own connection is good but they would rather stay in their own bubble and further the us vs them by claiming to their audience that I am another whiny survivor main that just wants them to suffer.This is true, but it is also a part of human nature. Nobody is truly objective, and I won't pretend that I am either. I just make an active effort to do so, for that exact reason. I understand entirely what you mean about the dangers of ignorantly taking perspectives as fact, which is why I am opposed to that kind of argumentation in the first place. My point is more around how those types of distinctions need to be done on an individual level, and how it relates to concepts like shared agency: You can't control how other people take that information, the only thing we have direct control over is how we take it. In regards to others, all we can do personally is try to offer perspectives that try to provide context or opposing viewpoints that my have been excluded or ignored in the original hypothesis. Unfortunately you can't make people be honest/genuine/etc in how they present their perspective, but thats kind of a fact of life.
That said, people can be just flat out wrong about things. Not all perspectives are equally knowledgeable, and people are often ignorant to their own ignorance on topics. Part of why the forum format still persists in an age where people refuse to read something longer than a tweet's character limit is because it allows for that type of discourse. When one platform refuses to allow for discussion and instead favors soapboxing, other platforms become necessary to provide those types of counter points. Unfortunately, like you mentioned the damage can be done from initial misinformation, and thats a very unfortunate fact that ties this topic and its initial comparison very close together. But thats also why they are best handled in a similar manner, simply trying to be the better person and doing what you can to undo that type of damage, while simultaneously not immediately ignoring any truth stuck deep in the midst of un-truth.
-
@FerrousFacade said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4041160#Comment_4041160
Something that creator in particular pointed out in one of the videos I watched was in regards to content focus between roles: Killer mains tend to talk about strategy, tactics, and focuses much more often than survivor main content creators do, and I kinda agree with him from what I've seen.
I mostly want to dig into this. I agree that killer content focuses on these things much more than survivor content does but I don't think there is much content you could make for survivor that focuses on those things. You could make a video explaining which gens to work on first and which to leave, how to watch the HUD to decide if you need to go for an unhook, how to body block effectively. There is more obviously but the well runs dry much more quickly than it does on the killer side and more advanced tactics are locked behind being grouped up and requiring perks. Solo queue can do those things but it is significantly harder.
Before a survivor can really do any of that they first need to be able to last in chase, if they can't do that then the rest will not matter. You can watch videos on how to run various tiles and how each killer power works (and play those killers) but unless you path well they won't do anything for you. Pathing properly takes practice and once you have enough practice that you are running tiles efficiently and running correctly against a killers power you have likely already started to understand map layouts and acquired enough gamesense for the rest not to matter as much. Even at this point the most effective way to win more games is often still to just be better at running the killer.
On a separate note and as someone who recently learned one of their comments was in a video from this guy (and who has never watched a video from them but was aware of their existence), I found his take on what I said to be entirely misleading and seemed to lack an understanding of ping and what constitutes a 50/50. His sole goal was clearly to paint me as a whiner and dismiss my points out of hand. The format of the video is like so many others where they imply discussion but its just them yapping from a soapbox with no way to challenge what they says or clarify what you said, all while they hmmm as if they made some strong point against you. I posted on a public forum so he is free to use the comment how he wants but if he wanted a real discussion he could have commented back to me, he didn't, he wants to be able to challenge what people say without a way for them to respond, its reductive.
I absolutely agree its easier to do from a killer perspective than a survivor one, mostly due to the lack of downtime by comparison, but the best example I find tends to be killer mains playing survivor. Take someone like Otz, even when he's goofing around he still tries to explain his mentality while playing survivor, even outside of his more informational focused videos for youtube. He also tends to spectate other players when dead and maybe cheers them on or outlines plays they are/could be making, which comes off as very informative. My point was more how that type of focus contrasts with the more ego boosting/validation centric focus I see from a lot of survivor content creators, as that type of content seems to not resonate as much with that crowd. Like I mentioned earlier though, I am always open to suggestions on creators who defy that expectation on the survivor side, as there are more creators out there than drops of rain.
That said, as you mentioned, there are plenty of instructional videos on how to improve. I guess my point is more that practical application is different than instruction, like you surmised, and while you can't directly improve things like routing and pathing by watching (particularly in the realm of input accuracy) you can watch for how they do so in order to improve your own improvement (for lack of better wording.) This is best done in practical application, and believe it or not, you actually learn this best by watching a survivor's movement from the killer's perspective. When playing as killer, you can pick up on a lot of commonalities in good pathing by recognizing things like the directions and angles survivors approach tiles and resources, how they chain them together, recognizing how they utilize things like checkspots, preemptive juke attempts to throw off ranged aiming, etc. These types of things become subconscious as you improve at them, yet are best understood visually through practical application instead of an instructional video in private match examples. Thats a big part of why I constantly state that survivor players can learn to get better by either experiencing or even watching killer gameplay, its about what you're looking for more than who its coming from.
As for the creator themselves, I can entirely understand why people would disagree with him on things, much like I can why people disagree on things at all. If you take a subjective opinion and someone disagrees with it, the disagreement usually stems from each person having different points of reference and experiences, so considering an opposing position as misleading isn't necessarily worth invalidation. It just means if neither side can see the situation from the perspective of the other, it might not be worth engaging in further. Again, I have heard him say many things I disagree with, but I also found many things I did agree with, and some I even learned from. I would not have found those insights if I immediately shut out the rest due to them, which is more my point on the matter. I guess my other point is that you gain more from trying to be the better person than you do focusing on the shortcomings of someone's presentation of their arguments, as well as their contents.
-
@Philscooper said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4041276#Comment_4041276
Even if we give the stats the way you exactly want, you would probably deny it one way or another.
They already described what tunneling is, targeting the survivor off hook. Because thats all you need. Its their game afterall.
If im using a toolbox for completing gens, im genrushing. There doesnt need more explination for that.
60% is still 60%. Killers will win more than they lose.
If that doesnt happen, the devs should be balancing against it, like they did this year.
They ######### up or do wierd changes, maybe the stats saw how survivors were only winning 20% and they drop MFT or buckle up, i dont know.
We will probably never know. But they will never have it be survivor sided by its core design, which is what almost every stat from bhvr released will say. 60%.
Even if we give the stats the way you exactly want, you would probably deny it one way or another.But you haven't, so that ends up just being a strawman in your mind. My issue in regards to your statistical use is mixing up scale to try to force a point, since thats not how statistics work, even as someone who hasn't studied statical analysis. Scope just doesn't work that way, which to my understanding, is why trending is different from hard statistical fact. You don't say that 50 yards is more than 3 miles because its a bigger number. You can't take one and present it as the other, which is why I dislike when people try to do so with things like kill rates. In other genres, things like matchups are specifically designed to exclude all volatile elements like player skill or experience. They're just representations of how these pairings would look in a void/simulation.
They already described what tunneling is, targeting the survivor off hook. Because thats all you need. Its their game afterall.The point was that they said there were 3 versions of tunneling, yet refused to elaborate on what the third one was. They didn't even prepare that for their presentation on the topic, which is a major "just trust us bro" look. One of the biggest issues with handling topics like tunneling is that clear definitions needs to be agreed upon before people can hammer down logical and rational discussion on its flaws, merits, necessity and excess. That applies to almost any issue where perspective gets skewed between roles, as its foundational to discussion over argument.
If im using a toolbox for completing gens, im genrushing. There doesnt need more explination for that.Of course not. But you'd be surprised how much the definition of gen rushing changes in the community depending on who you ask. Some reserve it for situations where gens get finished in less than 4 minutes, others think it applies to any time gens get done faster than they would like, even if its 15 minutes in. That shift is why it turns into arguments rather than discussions on the topic.
60% is still 60%. Killers will win more than they lose.Please look up how matchup comparisons work. This is not an empirically factual statement.
If that doesnt happen, the devs should be balancing against it, like they did this year.That focus is exactly why they missed the mark on almost everything they did this year, which led to many of those changes being scrapped or thrown on the backburner after failed attempts. Even when addressing things specifically for one side, equal considerations for the other (even without attempting equal focus) is how you make healthy changes that don't break things and end up getting reverted or scrapped. Its not a PVE game, so those considerations matter a lot.
We will probably never know. But they will never have it be survivor sided by its core design, which is what almost every stat from bhvr released will say. 60%.Not having it be survivor sided is not the same thing at all. Your statement was that they would make it still be killer sided while making it survivor sided, which is not really possible. The implication of "sided" means that one side has an inherent advantage over the other, which you keep extrapolating to equate to fixed success rates, hence why you keep bringing up the 60%. The game has absolutely been survivor sided at multiple points in its history, on both micro and macro scale, and elements as simple as player experience have always been unrelated to that point.
Do you remember when Ruin skill checks were red and you needed to hit greats? The skill requirement for gen efficiency was much higher, especially since there were less perks to help with it. Gens were arguibly slower then, even with a lower completion time required, simply because skill was a much higher factor in the completion of many gens compared to now. There were ways to circumvent that skill requirement (some as strong at points as the insta-completion BNPs) but foundationally it was an entirely different formula that brought down speeds due to impacting lower skilled players disproportionately compared to now. The entire game operates on that type of volitility, as it undergoes changes constantly. Its not a game that gets annual seasons of revisions and then a year to let the state of the game marinate, so those types of overarching statements about things like (dis)advantage fluctuate frequently. Even the pallet density change made the game range from easy to nearly unplayable for each side due to how badly they missed the mark in each direction, and that was within a pretty short time span.
As for its core design, I've given multiple reasons why 50% does not equal true equality in its design, nor why it would be the default choice. I have no opinion on an exact number for kill rates, as again, I think they impact an individual player's chances much less than many people seem to cling to. You can't try to force symmetrical focus on asymmetrical design, you have to instead provide equal opportunity regardless of outcome trending. And yes, that is not the same as saying that the kill rate needs to be exactly 50%.
-
@Philscooper said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4041278#Comment_4041278
Ill just ask you this.
Do you think, this does anything?, did any of us change our minds or opinions?.
(I can already answer the last one, which is a no).
I could argue back and explain all what i meant, but honestly, it wont change anything, nothing ever does.
I have seen it personally after trying to make bhvr and the community rally behind an idea or against an idea with alot of upvotes. Everywhere, Yet never comes to results.
Sure, i could try again and aim for more support, but honestly if thats what it takes for bhvr to do anything, it would explain alot why its where its at.
Because there never will be a point where i have literally everyone rally up on an idea or against it.
For example the fog-vials nerfs. Not reverted, easy case, still isnt.
Or survivor classes for 2v8, boon class shouldnt be too hard to carry over. But again, nothing. (Mind you those were 6-8 months ago).
Do you think, this does anything?, did any of us change our minds or opinions?.I laid things out as best I could. If you still refuse to, that's on you. You haven't really given me anything to change my mind with, which is why I haven't. If you were more open minded, you'd see my point is one of neutrality, not opposition. If thats not enough for you I can't do anything about that, but I gave you the chance regardless. Thats the difference.
I could argue back and explain all what i meant, but honestly, it wont change anything, nothing ever does.Because you're arguing when we're trying to discuss. Mediation is a two way street, and doesn't really work that way.
I have seen it personally after trying to make bhvr and the community rally behind an idea or against an idea with alot of upvotes. Everywhere, Yet never comes to results.Judging from this conversation, I can kinda see why. I mean that in the least offensive way possible, but regarding the community, its fractured nature means that argumentative approaches lead to limiting support to the ones who agree with you "on party lines," rather than across the entire community. Similarly, the devs are supposed to be trying to be as bipartisan as possible between the two sides, so argumentative one sided positions wouldn't/shouldn't get as much attention as feedback that considers both sides equally (even when focusing on one particular side for a particular issue.) You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and that certainly applies to being understanding vs argumentative, which feels pretty relevant to the point of this topic.
Because there never will be a point where i have literally everyone rally up on an idea or against it.Of course. Its not about gaining every single person's support, thats idealism a bit too far. Its just about presenting yourself in a manner that doesn't shut others out before they finish understanding your position, being open minded and giving people the opportunity to do the same in kind. You won't get through to everyone, but you get through to more than you do by being combative or exclusionary. Likewise, you gain more from the ones who are combative than you would without. Hence why some are able to learn a lot from content creators who they do not agree with on x or y issues, but people who fundamentally disagree with them won't even hear them out enough to get that perspective.
-
Mobility is a major balance consideration with how varied it is across the roster, just like the similarly lamented anti-loop has generally been in the past. I agree that "dashslop" is a boring and overplayed concept, but I don't think forcing all upcoming killers to be low mobility would be a particularly good response. Unless the game was somehow changed in a way that mobility was less of a meta consideration.
-
@jedimaster505 said:
I got another one…
Sticky Feet
While in chase, Press Active ability button to pour a bucket of stick green goo behind you. If the killer walks through this trail of goo, they receive 50 percent hindered for 10 seconds.
Wouldn't that be just an objectively better chemical trap? Easier to use, and more than double the duration? Even if it were single use that would be pretty busted.
-
@pickle4juice said:
I had an idea for a survivor perk. The idea is this: activate ability, whenever activated, your aura is revealed to the killer for the next ten seconds, if you manage to last 25/20/15 seconds without entering a locker or chase during this time, gain indefinite noise reduction and no scratch marks, and if your hit while injured, you go in deep wound. this can only be used once per trail, and the effect will cease whenever hooked. if you are caught within the time you need to remain unseen or enter a locker, you gain broken and hindered and oblivious until downed
So, it would impact lower mobility killers much more than high mobility ones, and all you need to do is wait across the map to use it when you know the killer is on the other end and you'll get infinite free stealth until downed (which is much less likely when you don't even have scratch marks, let alone noise?) I like the creativity, but the risk reward definitely could use some work. Especially when it would do much less to high tier killers like blight and billy than it would to someone like hag or trapper.
-
@Zuiphrode said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4040762#Comment_4040762
Dbd forums in a nut shell: someone posts a whine thread, gets actual gold advice from another surv main who clearly knows his stuff… and the advice is heavily down voted because he went against the hive mind and refused to enthusiastically support another surv.
I didn't really have an opinion on it, but consider that an overly stealthy player doesn't contribute to hook states. They're less likely to go for even remotely risky saves, trades, or other potentially game winning plays. If its a 6 hook game and you have no hook states, everyone else is on death hook while you'll get one hooked if caught toward the end anyway. You could always at least run shoulder the burden, but that would be somewhat counterproductive to stealth itself due to its drawbacks. Stealth is absolutely a valid playstyle, but the threshold for overdoing it isn't relegated just to urban evading around corners of the map.
-
@Rwby said:
I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I’ve started to think that many killers are heavily carried by aura perks. Often they run multiple aura perks in a row, which means they don’t really need much skill or game sense and can instead rely almost entirely on wallhacks through auras.
What if killers had status effects, similar to survivors with Exhaustion, Oblivious, Mangled, or Hemorrhage? For killers, this could prevent the constant use of permanent aura reading. In the same way you can’t combine Sprint Burst with Dead Hard or Background Player because of Exhaustion, aura perks could share a similar limitation.
Right now, there’s barely a match where you don’t feel forced to run Distortion just to avoid being constantly revealed. Introducing an aura-related status effect would push killers to vary their builds more. At the moment, the killer meta already suffers from the same repetitive aura and slowdown perks every match.
For example, an aura status could prevent instant chaining like Darkness Revealed immediately after Nowhere to Hide, a very common combo, especially on Nurse. The same could apply to perks like A Nurse’s Calling, putting them into a short semi-cooldown after activation.
What do you think?
If you want to tackle stacking as a concept, Aura reading isn't the place to start. Things like Haste, Gen speed/regression/blocking/etc, and unintentional perk synergies are more important for those considerations. Aura stacks on both sides, and while some might feel more impactful on killers, they also can't be stacked with comms to give their share their value over multiple members on a team. Kindred is an extremely powerful aura perk that next to nobody runs, yet everybody wants basekit. It even gets those teamwide benefits for free situationally when only run by a single person while they are hooked.
Both killers and survivors have reasons to hate aura reading, yet I see these complaints far more from survivors than killers. Killers can have auras extend the start of a chase at best, make mindgames completely impossible at some loops at worst. Honestly I hate to make this kind fo assumption, butI think many people are still refusing to adapt from years of using distortion as a crutch. I don't disagree with you regarding how some things can stack in the game, but I think you're starting at the wrong point with auras. Especially if focused on killer ones, as they require a pretty big loadout commitment to stack in the first place. Can't run 4 slowdowns if you have 3 aura perks, after all. Just punish them by slamming gens and using your own auras to keep track of them and/or your teammates.
And lastly, lockers are basekit aura blocking. Cowardly, but its always an option if you assume the killer is going all in on them. But I'm sure you'll retort that all of these killers run iron maiden as well.
-
@Philscooper said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4041160#Comment_4041160
There is close to nothing for me as a survivor main i can do that would change their minds. (Because in my experince, it never does anything anyway, so i dont bother to waste my energy and sanity)
For example, killers love to defenf kaneki like hes the 2nd comming of jesus, even though he had and still has alot of balancing issue and stat issues that just makes the others look like a direct downgrade.
He would defend it and think its needed for a "casual game" to have a easy killer to go on winstreaks with, while survivors should have the opposite...for some reason. Because for some reasob swfs are hardcore dominating the killer, when thats not even true.
If people need a break or quit if they dont enjoy something, why would u argue with someone who is clearly baiting for engagement and most likely just doing it for reasons that just benefits him?.
Atleast for me, i can argue for soloq. But that doesnt matter since the echo-chamber is nerfing soloq anyway, so i dont even bother.
The only thing i can do is make fun of them and tell killers via copy n paste why kaneki for example, is full of #########, then mute them to keep my sanity.
If they dont believe it, not my problem, not my job.
There is close to nothing for me as a survivor main i can do that would change their minds. (Because in my experince, it never does anything anyway, so i dont bother to waste my energy and sanity)And why would you ever expect anyone who disagrees with you to not have that same mindset? You have to give if you want to receive and especially if you want to do more than just shout at each other.
For example, killers love to defenf kaneki like hes the 2nd comming of jesus, even though he had and still has alot of balancing issue and stat issues that just makes the others look like a direct downgrade.And "Killers" aren't a hive mind. You can focus on people who you can't find ground with, but its a fool's errand to allow that to paint an entire role with the same brush. There have been survivor mains defending obviously broken things throughout most of the game's history as well. Its not a role specific thing to disagree with whether X or Y is broken or balanced.
He would defend it and think its needed for a "casual game" to have a easy killer to go on winstreaks with, while survivors should have the opposite...for some reason. Because for some reasob swfs are hardcore dominating the killer, when thats not even true.He also talked multiple times about how he dislikes "fence sitters," yet seemed to find one of my mediation posts pretty agreeable. If as hard headed as you project, I should have been called all kinds of degrees of spineless. Again, I don't agree with many of the things he says about the game, and thats ok. I don't consider anything I've seen worth silencing, and certainly not worth dismissing good points. And I especially don't feel the need to engage with someone who dislikes him summarizing his arguments, potentially excluding all context and/or nuance.
If people need a break or quit if they dont enjoy something, why would u argue with someone who is clearly baiting for engagement and most likely just doing it for reasons that just benefits him?.There's a very big difference between having a focused audience and ragebaiting. Believe it or not, all throughout history people have been able to discuss things with people who actively hate them, fought wars that lasted years, committed countless atrocities and yet they still eventually find ways to return to diplomacy. I don't think someone disagreeing with you about balance perspective in a video game is quite that deep. As for ragebaiting, I feel its a term that gets so overused it apparently means "someone who won't agree with me" now.
Atleast for me, i can argue for soloq. But that doesnt matter since the echo-chamber is nerfing soloq anyway, so i dont even bother.What echo chamber? I don't think thats how that buzzword works, as an echo chamber would be a platform(s) that specifically constantly validate one another while ostracizing dissent from the common "good." Jumping at "wrongthink" shadows and whatnot. Those people do not even have access to the code of the game, so they can't be the one to nerf things. If anything, ignoring and silencing people over disagreements is how you get echo chambers. They're anathema to actual discourse. Not even going to touch how you feel about "nerfing soloq" when the role has gotten multiple buffs irrespective of how they affect SWFs. I'll just continue to enjoy all the stuff we've gotten (especially the HUD update people constantly downplay) and take each change as they come, then assess them from there.
The only thing i can do is make fun of themThats the hallmark of not having a solid counterpoint.
If they dont believe it, not my problem, not my job.Thats not the point. You can't force people to submit to your reasoning any more than you can your will. Its about presenting your points honestly and respectfully, expecting the same from the people who disagree with you, and then shifting your reaction based on theirs. Note how I'm still trying to explain these things to you despite how stubborn you're being about arguing over discussion.
-
@Philscooper said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4041167#Comment_4041167
Even if we keep ignoring the stats for whatever reason.
You cant ignore the dev's words.
Their aimed killrate is 60% no matter what, unless the devs change their minds, which i doubt they will do.
So, no, the game will stay killer sided even if they ######### up and make it survivor sided and refuse to change it for some reason.
You got evidence to support against it besides "swfs"?
You cant ignore the dev's words.Did we ever get that third definition of tunneling?
Their aimed killrate is 60% no matter what, unless the devs change their minds, which i doubt they will do.Yes, thats how averages work. Because the game is designed to be more intuitive for killer at lower skill levels, 4Ks are resultant to more interaction than 0Ks, and the 1 has to work harder than any of the individual 4, it makes sense for a target thats not 50% exactly. If killers are winning most of the matches at lower levels, it would need to be more heavily favored toward survivor at higher levels to get a 50% target, so a more balanced state would end up carrying over that statistic anomaly that newer players generate. Likewise, higher kill counts in a match generally equates to more back and forth between the killer and survivor, especially when comparing the extremes. Additionally, survivors get downtime while working on gens, as well as having an elimination focus which the killer does not. Their position is considerably more transient on the match around them vs the actual load bearing role. You don't have to agree with where they landed, but the reasoning isn't necessarily as dubious as you seem to assume.
All of these things focus on global averages. They factor in everything from people who have been playing since the beta to the ones who just freshly installed the game. Like I keep saying, this is why these stats say nothing about individual interactions between players, just the overal results of all matches recorded into said data. If there is no curation, it says much less than people like to load into the next chamber. Even once you start curating it with vague groupings like "high MMR," it still says absolutely nothing about the expected outcome of any given match beyond simple trends. Other genres have matchups as bad as 80%/20% (possibly even 90/10, though I don't know any personally,) so a shift that minor is nowhere near as catastrophic as people like to claim. It just means that the data should be curated more tightly if anyone wants it to carry strong statistical relevance toward something like individual outcome expectations.
So, no, the game will stay killer sided even if they ######### up and make it survivor sided and refuse to change it for some reason.That statement makes absolutely no sense and directly contradicts itself.
You got evidence to support against it besides "swfs"?Random request for evidence of a claim I never made. I don't think I even used the term SWF in that entire post. I just pointed out how insincere you're being with how you are presenting your statistics. I even tried to do the same regarding the person you were disagreeing with.
-
@jamally093 said:
Her power seems to require headphones...which I don't have yet her power ⁹requires...no killer power should require something that isn't just a control, console, mouse, or keyboard. Yes I get people where headphones but not everyone. Her power is directional...if you have headphones without them her power is all around you since directional means coming from a certain direction not it gets louder the closer she is as that's zoning not directional. Plus with chase music and hearing my survivor groaning in pain it's kinda hard to hear her.
Plus I go down since Spirit is basically a health hazard as every main plays her at 200% volume because blowing out your eardrums(better yet the hairs in your ears that actually move sound) is worth it for a 4k. Seriously Spirit is a actual health hazard if killers play her at such a high volume as their damaging their ears.
Anyways the point of the post minus the PSA is more just...please make it where Spirit's "directional" sound be properly heard on a TV or computer and not require headphones because fun fact I do live with other people and I don't think they wanna hear the forty Sable mains and the odd Jane or two screaming(seriously Jane's groans of pain make me uncomfortable as they don't sound like she's in pain)
It used to be an even playing field regardless of equipment when the phasing sound wasn't directional, and was one of the arguments people made against the change. She was obviously considered higher tier before the change, but re-adding directional sound was a solution that came with its own problems.
As for the issues around things like volume normalization/needing to play with high volume while using her, I agree completely. She's actually one of the biggest examples of why audio balancing really needs to be actually looked at, particularly concerning the extreme highs and lows.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4041167#Comment_4041167
There are restrictions on killer, but those restrictions are usually not related to power, and also are based on tier lists for the killer. For example, nurse is gonna have some restrictions yeah, but like, ghost face hardly has any, and you play on his best map.
The restrictions on killer are usually around making the game more fun to watch. For example prior to myers rework, you couldn't use tombstone. That wasn't necessarily because tombstone was OP in comp level play, but its boring, everyone just runs to a locker and then either get grabbed or nothing happens. The survivors probably win anyway, and the game is boring.
The restrictions on survivors are much more significant, only 1 perk copy per team for example. If it wasn't all 4 survivors would probably run the same 6 perks.
I definitely get the killer restrictions based on the explination, but I still feel like the difference in them vs survivor ones could similarly have a lot more to do with the role structure, i.e potential of duplicate effects or cross player synergies. I just don't think its a fair point to say they make a compelling argument about overall game balance, just addressing specific things that could be exploited. There just happens to be more on the survivor side due to the game's structure, even if some of them really shouldn't be ignored like they are.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4040801#Comment_4040801
Comp play kinda proves it. There are massive restrictions on the survivors and usually (outside of nurse/blight) the killers are heavily favored by playing on their best map, or allowing certain perk combinations that make those killers much stronger.
While I mostly agree, there are restrictions on killers as well, are there not? Not as many IIRC, but that would make sense due to the 1v4 nature and a lack of cross player synergies or necessity to offset shared agency. Feels more like a focus on individual aspects rather than overall roles, which could then mean that there are more broken things on survivor than killer, but I don't know if it's quite that simple. That said:
@Philscooper said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4040145#Comment_4040145
"Standart games only, low stakes matches excluded"
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/UDKAYZBTQEBC/smartselect-20251228-105010-brave.jpg
You are winning 60% of the time even against swf from mid to high mmr GLOBALLY.
Is this just denial?, like, im so confused where you get this from, i see no links or evidence anywhere where you would do such a claim.
"At high mmr, the game is survivor sided"
WHERE!??.
I just don't agree with using statistics as some type of "silver bullet" in these types of discussions when they are incomplete data. Things like
You are winning 60% of the time even against swf from mid to high mmr GLOBALLY.mix personal and overall scale in the same statement.
Youin this case would either have to apply toall players who are ever playing the killer role, specifically for those matchesif wanting to stack it withglobalstats, as it would be a different pool from the individual whos data you do not have. After all, the infamous killstreaks from killers like blight far exceed 60%, meaning that they have zero influence on another killer player's statistics nor adhere to the limitations of the aforementioned 60% average. Simply put, its a loaded statement meant to invalidate someone's experiences, which is more arguing than discussing.Overall, I don't agree with statements regarding comparing roles to have any permanence in regards to "The Heirarchy" due to how much concepts like skill, tactics, game sense, etc influence outcomes. We have more agency than that in any role, even if that agency is sometimes limited at times. People can certainly have their opinions on which are easier or harder than others, or even which the game's current state favors at any given moment. It sways a lot more than people seem to realize, with even the pallet density issues causing overall balance to swing back and forth as they kept screwing it up. But the most important thing is to not catastrophize extremes as absolutes, only considerations when focusing on such topics or their influence on the rest of the game.
-
@Philscooper said:
The dude you are refrencing is just a ragebaiting killer main.
Why should i take whatever this dude seriously when he thinks that the game is so bad because of survivors?.
Im biased myself, everyone is to some degree, but atleast i dont defend the most aggrecious bs for views and engagement.
Or the notorious side of dbd yt with the : us vs them "toxic [side] gets stomped by p100". Videos.
Best you can do is not even give him attention, because he will never change his mind regardless what you say to this kind of hardcore us vs them mentality.
Even if we give them what they want, they will still complain and never be happy.
I wouldn't say ragebaiting, but he self admits to having a killer bias. Its the role he enjoys, and his time with survivor is pretty decent, so he clearly has a killer's perspective on different issues while having a more simplified understanding of his opponents' perspective. I don't agree with a good number of his points from the video's I've seen, but he gives them from the perspectives of his wins, losses, and frustrations. If someone doesn't play as much survivor, they would likely not run into as wide a range of experiences in that role. Same with Survivor mains who occasionally play killer and never run into most of what killer mains complain about.
And all of that is ok.
The point is to take the experiences you don't have that someone in that position does, then try to learn from them in your own position. You can disagree with someone on 99% of their points, but if that 1% is true and outside your own purview, its worth hearing them out. When I mentioned watching passionate content creators who have personal biases, thats what I was talking about: I certainly haven't played killer, let alone a low tier M1, anywhere near as much as someone like that. While I feel that level of exposure probably skewed some perspectives due to human nature, it would be a waste to not try to understand anything they have experienced that I simply don't have the sample set to experience.
Something that creator in particular pointed out in one of the videos I watched was in regards to content focus between roles: Killer mains tend to talk about strategy, tactics, and focuses much more often than survivor main content creators do, and I kinda agree with him from what I've seen. I used to see more survivor content creators take that route, but a lot of the content tends to center around trying to assert dominance on the killer, or lamenting the shared agency of the role, while the rest is just normal trying to entertain the audience. Obviously there are many content creators on both sides that defy this type of assumption (and if anyone has any good examples to follow that focus more on improvement and insight, please feel free to mention them. Positivity vibes for either side only please,) but it resonates with my experiences and what I look for from DBD content. And to note, I've seen some content creators switch mains entirely based on how they feel about the state of the game, sometimes out of spite and sometimes out of simple dissatisfaction in the state of their preferred role.
Don't need or want to go into more specific examples, but the point is that there is a lot of content for anyone who plays DBD to improve in their understanding and execution in the game. It can often come from people you fundamentally disagree with on a myriad of issues. The most important thing is to understand what insights you can glean from their stances, as they help you understand what that person is feeling while they play. Its ok to dismiss things as "entitled" or "oblivious" in the community, but only really after giving them a fair and honest shake at consideration. I feel like I bring up Sun Tzu a lot on these forums, but understanding your opponent works both in and out of combat. You'd be surprised the things that are easy to overlook when ignoring warning signs from unlikely people.
Even if we give them what they want, they will still complain and never be happy.This is true of a very large portion of the community, and is absolutely not role centric. In fact, some people believe that entitlement runs much more rampant on the survivor side, due to how multiple aspects of the game work. Personally I think its a user problem more than a role problem, being a scrub has no allegiances in itself.
TLDR: Its ok to disagree with someone on almost everything, so long as you give them reasonable discourse with the things you can agree with them on. If you dismiss them entirely off the bat, you never get that chance.
-
@vol4r said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/462113/do-survivors-even-want-to-play-this-game
Surviviors just refuse to play sometimes, if it's not an enjoyable experience.
Somebody mentioned that cheesy tactics are mostly the reason and got so downvoted, but he isn't really wrong here.
Surviviors just don't enjoy it most of the time.I don't dc so I don't like it happening in my games either. It is just what it is…
I think people are downvoting it because not having fun at a particular moment isn't a valid reason for just giving up mid match. People often associate disliking that as being killer centric since they don't even get the option, but honestly as survivor it bothers me far more since they generally reward that behavior and increase their teammates chances of dying substantially.
No matter what twist people put on it, giving up is taking your ball and going home.
-
@Classic_Rando said:
Your second question about how can we have a productive conversation and steer it in a healthy direction is a very good one. I think it’s pretty simple: people need to spend time playing both roles. This helps people better understand the pains and difficulties that each side experiences, as well as how demands for buffs/nerfs for one side can positively or negatively impact the other. There are people on this forum who I disagree with on a regular basis, but they play both sides, so despite the disagreements I see where they are coming from and respect their opinions.
The most divisive and counterproductive conversations tend to come from those who only play one side and use the forum for the purpose of antagonizing the other side that they don’t play.I agree with all of this, with a
smallasterisk at the end.The most divisive and counterproductive conversations tend to come from those who only play one side and use the forum for the purpose of antagonizing the other side that they don’t play.While this may be the case in many situations, I feel the antagonizing part is less universal. I know you used "most" instead of "all," but I don't even know if I would go that far. I think more of it stems from simply not experiencing certain situations within said role, regardless of intent. If you take a topic thats come up recently like killer anxiety or even something across the isle like mental stack, I'm sure more silent misunderstanding comes from just ignorance of the situations behind them: Someone who rarely plays killer isn't going to have the sheer sample set to have realistically experienced some of the worst the role has to offer, which is something they probably feel toward killer mains who rarely play survivor enough to be constantly burdened by more niche but impactful issues on survivor side. Mental stack is something that affects players the more information they try to keep track of simultaneously, so someone who barely thinks when they play or listens to music or watches twitch chat might not be bothered by it. Or they might if they're gigabrain and can manage to keep a high stack with those distractions on top. Either way, someone who doesn't even bother to track information mentally in their normal gameplay wouldn't even see it as an issue compared to someone keeping multiple mental timers while playing guess who with their opponent's loadout on top of everything else. Skills like that are easy to be ignorant of in discussions if they're not even factored into the original mentality or not considered.
That said, some people are just bad actors. I just feel its worth hearing people out, regardless of disagreement, until you get to a point where you are convinced they aren't being genuine. Unfortunately since those people are generally looking for arguments rather than discourse, they tend to be loud enough to both drown out and sweep away reasonable dissent that can improve opposing ideas, often leading to people accidentally (or subconsciously) conflating arguments.
-
@Skittlesthehusky said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4040951#Comment_4040951
you bring up a very good point. on a personal note, i guess this is the reason why i observe people so closely when it comes to a lot of the conversations that are had on here. a lot of the time is spent learning what not to do, learning what not to be like, and how to cut through things rather than solely just discussing the subject matter. its in the interaction that i gain my wisdom.
the nature and relationship of argument and human emotion is one of those things that i can never fully quantify, however. i suppose it's because of the difficulty trying to pick apart something that tends to be more visceral than logical. but i think that's because of my failure to understand just how intertwined it can truly be, especially when it comes to anything that contradicts the self or someone's perception. frankly, i don't think others can quantify it either and don't realize what they're up against when they create responses to posts that are emotionally charged.
in a way, it all reminds me of the epimenides paradox with the way some of us communicate our perspectives about the game, but in more of the lens of an assumed 'reality' of a situation than directly self-reference. it is such paradoxes that make this community probably the most interesting thing i've come across.
Your mention of Epimenides makes me think of the similar Socratic paradox
"I neither know nor think I know,"and how I feel it applies to our understanding of the experiences of others in the game. We can relate, but the only constant is that which we actually experience: For streamers who play the game publicly facing for hours daily, its still not enough to understand how every given match is experienced to them. Those visceral feelings can only be emulated via context or explanation, but the long and short of it is that no two people have the exact same experiences, but especially "under the hood" so to speak. Thats why, while not concrete in logic, its still always worth some consideration. As many of these things can be adjusted within reason (anxiety and hopelessness being pretty big ones in the community,) they should primarily be seen as personal avenues to improve before bending the game to them, with the latter being a result of the elements impacting the game's health directly.Connections on strong levels like that are a big part of what I feel pulls many people together on subjects. Personally I've had discussions on a topic like, say, how double sided the abandon feature is in its current application. Using that as an example (please nobody use this to derail the conversation,) I feel that killers should be able to abandon in true checkmate scenarios, using logical consistency regarding elements like it only requiring a check rather than a checkmate for survivors. On paper, its a very simple point. But then you get other layers like the killer role being load bearing making it a much more difficult position to fit within the abandon system they decided on.
In the end, there is a lot more nuance to the situation. Its actually one where I feel Hegel should be invoked and the abandon system should be replaced with something more direct to the overlapping issues that would make either side want to leave a match early, but the responses range from strawmaning/downplaying/disparaging to agreement/expansion/zealotry. The more people zoom out their perspective, the more they can find common ground. The more they look at discussions as argument fodder rather than actually seeking insights, the more they will try to force bias either for or against their belief. And unfortunately, that tends to lead to concepts like nuance and objectivity itself to suffer for it.
-
@Skittlesthehusky said:
Hello, I’m once again back with probably one of my longest posts in forum history because I just enjoy yapping fr
so as we all know, a lot of discussion goes around balancing and the state of this game on the forums. what's interesting is when the discussions that are had here have gained the attention of youtubers and twitch streamers, whom contribute to these discussions outside of the platform. one of the more notable individuals i've personally seen review posts and talk about them recently is someone named "v.h.s.x", who is predominantly a ghostface main. their videos primarily address opinions surrounding perks, metas, addressing ‘us vs them’ statements, changes made to the game, and discussing other content creators’ opinions. This is pretty standard of those who engage in community discussions, but what makes this case interesting is the perspective and perception of the forums when talking about some of the posts that are made here.
What my opening post is about today isn’t focused on the topics themselves, but what influence such content can have in these conversations as well as the reinforcement of ideologies based on how a conversation is interpreted. Dead by daylight, over the course of its years, has seen much commentary from many different types of players. Often times, you would encounter posts and arguments that have what would be considered a bias. Bias is the nature of our human psyche, since talking points are often made from personal experiences and interpretations of the subject matter. The issue with bias is that it can often reduce someone’s perspective the longer that its reaffirmed. While this is a given, it’s something that people often ignore or forget about when engaging in conversations with others.
A good example of what I described is in real-world politics. I think social platforms that harbor discussions about this game is a near one-to-one example of how political commentary works. Various ideologies, or cultures, coming together to talk about their experiences and how they personally believe the world should be shaped. Some conversations bring good and can be very insightful, other conversations bring bad while being equally as insightful but encouraging change or behavior that does not help progress society as it is today. The quality of conversations is often dictated by one’s understanding and own personal verdict. If you apply this in the game’s current setting, you can see the same formula in the way that things are discussed here.
But what makes this particular person so interesting is their approach and how the things we see in today’s world tends to be reflected in content like this. Now before I get into it, I wanna preface this by saying that just because I am linking videos and talking about an individual person doesn’t give you the right to go out of your way to flame them or accuse them of anything. The whole point of this thread is to invoke a deep conversation about a smaller creator’s content, real-world attributes, and what it contributes to the on-going discussion. If you’re personally going out of your way to invalidate someone for having an opinion for something as trivial as a game, your arguments also deserve to be invalidated just the same.
On dec 6th, v.h.s.x posted a video providing their own perspective to a thread created by kaneyboy discussing kaneyboy ’s OP and the people commenting in it. In particular I wanted to address this conversation because I think it was probably one of the threads that deserved way more attention than just 2 pages, primarily because it allowed everybody’s unique perspective to be showcased. I actually encourage the video gets watched because it is formatted as a more of a counterargument to a lot of the things that were said in that thread and I’d like to see what people think about their points. I will not provide a summary because that is not the intention of this post
As I was watching this video and a few of the other submissions they created on their youtube channel, something I noticed is that the content that was made is more from the perspective of a killer than anything. In this case, this particular video I linked even states in the description that the posts were “broken down from their perspective as a top 1% P100 ghostface main, while also pulling from my own experience of playing over 400 hours of survivor”. There is a lot of statements containing language like “survivor rhetoric”, “survivor opinions”, or “survivor mains”, which is also very common on the forums. This is fine, as this is their way of addressing a specific group of people, but when you understand the concepts within political commentary, you can probably see why this can be a point of concern.
Naturally, someone may develop a preference for playing a particular side of the game due to how they perceive the game or what they feel comfortable learning, playing as, or controlling. Based on what side you may play as more, you’re more inclined to generalize or group together player types by their behavior the longer you grow familiar with similarities in players. However, this comes at the cost of over-generalization and assumption superseding the context of someone’s statement, which can ultimately devalue their personal experience and reasoning. If you do this enough times, you’re challenging the health of conversations and the ability to make clear what is exactly an issue and what isn’t.
This brings me two questions: what is the true validity of most arguments that are made in the community when such biases exist? How can you have a productive conversation and steer something in a healthier direction when discussions become gridlocked by subjectivity? These same questions exist in politics, which is what makes it really intriguing to read.
The reason why I propose these same questions is because of the overarching factor of experience and bias. Dead by daylight, despite is simplicity, is a very complex game. Much like the human experience, you are dealing with a multitude of factors that can influence how someone thinks, behaves, and destroys and builds. Even though this game features obvious variables in its balance like perks, the influence of data, map design, etc., at its core you are exposed to the behavior of humans due to it being a PVP-centric game. You have to spend an exorbitant amount of time understanding player behavior in this game to be able to leverage any of the tools the game offers you, whether its objective focused or interaction focused. I personally believe this makes up a majority of the friction that comes with playing this game: players truly not understanding players and the reasoning behind a decision. If there’s a misunderstanding, it is generally due to an assumption or lack of information to draw an effective conclusion.
The ultimate reality, to me, is that you will never truly 100% know why someone does something, so you are forced to guess based on how much time and information you collected about the people you play against. And yet so many of our arguments are based off of the premise of what we assume to know, and appear to advocate for reinforcement of a foundation that is very shaky. There is a lot of “no, you’re wrong” and less problem-solving to find a middle ground among the community. This brings me to take issue with both videos and posts like these.
Not necessarily because of what is being said, but the reinforcement of what is being said as if it is factual and that an entire group of people wholeheartedly believes. It’s like saying “all people that like the color blue are sad and all people that like red are angry all the time. Red is scary because anger is volatile, therefore the people that like the color blue are the best to be around because red-likers are more likely to be violent, and that everything should be put in place to limit red-likers to keep us safe as much as possible while taking care of the sad blue-likers”.
You never question where the association came from, why someone who likes red may even be angry in the first place, or even question why blue-likers are sad and supposedly require protection. Not once are you encouraged to think about why things are the way they are and what can be done to improve the situation as much as possible. Instead, you develop vitriol through confirmation bias as you begin to pay more attention to things that “prove” the argument that was made. It’s even worse when you encounter individuals who don’t want to learn, merely laugh at it and distance themselves from it, are close-minded, or cast it aside as a non-issue rather than considering the implications. If you put monetary or collective incentive behind this, either as a content creator or as a community-acknowledged ‘leader’, this escalates confirmation bias further. This is what people start to identify as an “echo chamber”. If you read comments or responses to videos and forum posts, you may see what I’m referring to.
Both sides, killer and survivor, inexperience and experienced, do this, and I think it heavily devalues our ability to communicate as people.
Is this a big deal? Not really in the context of DBD itself alone. It is a game at the end of the day. But it is concerning when rhetoric begins to sound awfully close to what we already deal with in today’s age as a society and how we talk about things. Video games, however, tend to be very good at showing what someone’s thought processes and perception of life may be like behind the screen.
Before this post ends up exceeding some character count by accident, I’m going to cut it short here. Let me know what you think. And please don’t use this post as an excuse to ACTUALLY get political. The reference to political commentary was more of a framework to my point.
what is the true validity of most arguments that are made in the community when such biases exist? How can you have a productive conversation and steer something in a healthier direction when discussions become gridlocked by subjectivity?These same questions exist in politics, which is what makes it really intriguing to read.The answer is the same as it is in politics: You can only control your own mindfulness. Bias is inherently human, as we live in a subjective perception of an objective world around us. That said, acknowledging and being honest with others (and ourselves) is what we do to apply dialectics. Bias becomes an issue when it inhibits the ability to face thoughts and experiences that directly contradict our own, while facing those contradictions instead allows for understanding in adjusting conclusions to allow for both. Many arguments are not as mutually exclusive as one might think. Essentially it comes down to critical thinking, using information that seemingly contradicts our own to instead expand our hypothesis to incorporate it as possible/viable/likely/etc. Some people get lost in the emotional details and seeking validation rather than having their mindset challenged, which leads them to hunker down on biases like a flotation device instead of adapting or even attempting to find common ground.
Unfortunately some people do this willingly and knowingly. Can't do much about them, which is why its better to have reasonable discourse than pointless arguments, and instead not engage with hyperbole in favor of nuance and mediation. People can do this pretty easily, it just takes an ability to find commonalities that go beyond the more personal aspects of our gripes and woes. But the most important thing is honesty, as its one of those "you get what you put in" kind of things: When people are constantly hyperbolic or knowingly hunker down on logical fallacies, they make it harder to be seen as objective, and it makes their own arguments much more likely to be discarded by anyone who tries to be (or just disagrees in general.) Its part of why proof claims are almost envenomed with this game, seemingly always used (either offensively or defensively) for spite instead of just simple coaching.
In the end, there is much wisdom to be pulled from a surprising amount of rubbish. Even people who do blatantly one sided campaigns can still be correct about some things, a broken clock is right twice a day. The big takeaway for anyone who wants to actually be heard is to honestly work toward that goal of objectivity when discussing anything specifically outside of their personal visceral reactions: If someone provides a counterpoint on something that aggravates you personally, they're not saying you're not allowed to feel that way, just that clarity can often make the medicine go down easier. People can learn to improve in reducing subjective biases, but they have to want to. All you can do is give them the opportunity to work toward a more objective assessment, or strip the hyperbole for parts of actual points and reasoning that get reasonably close to it and deprioritize the rest. Because again, no matter how emotionally charged or even irrational an argument might be, that isn't to say that the feelings that evoke it aren't valid. Just misguided, sometimes.
I think its worth noting that this is something that seems to come up a lot especially regarding content creation for the game. Creators tend to get their niches, where they may find themselves essentially chosen by an audience who may have overlapping beliefs that the creators themselves might not even have. Sometimes they have to play things up or down as entertainers, and a lot of good ones know how to do so in ways that aren't dismissive but instead can help players grow from other perspectives. Honestly, I enjoy occasionally watching some of the more passionate creators on multiple subjects regardless of their perceived biases, because I end up learning more from them even when I don't agree with many of the things they say. I feel like that type of patience to curate information instead of people is something we can all improve on, personally its just something I've tried to get better about over the years, and I know plenty of others do as well.
-
@azaxydbd said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4039934#Comment_4039934
Zubat made a post about killer tier list, not only he made that post, he made it against top teams, and he even claim that all killers are S tier in pubs against casuals, are u denying it? Knightlight and other top players claim the same thing, if u lack skill u could just practice u know, it dont take much time to be good at killer, when i was a new player, took me few hundred of hours to stomp survivors and 4k nearly every game, and that was when legit the game was SWF SIDED, currently killer is easier than it ever was, and stats before those little 50-50 pallets existed already proven that killer is the power role, u denying it shows how selfish u are and that u lack skill,. im over 12k hours in this game ive seen its ups and downs, ive been in the comp scene way before u even started playing dbd, the game currently for pub matches is heavily killer sided, of course u will feel like well i didnt play chucky much i will play him once a week and then get stomped by other people that lets say are not better than u so u will know they are playing poorly, but u will still lose and thats cause u bad at chucky overall, but if u main a certain killer long enough and know how the killer power works and how to utilize the power of the killer, then there is nearly no weak killer in dbd, only few killers i would consider weak in this game, there are plenty of strong ones and even some overpowered ones such as blight/nurse/twins u name it, u flexing on that guy there in chat as if u know anything, the reason comp teams are able to beat blights in pubs is due to being far better than they are. just like other comp killers did massive winstreak vods. there is clearly mmr issues here, matchmaking not working well, and if it did work well, it would be great, in the end, the game is killer sided right now, and its a stomping ground being soloq, if hatch/lucky doors were removed u could delete another 10% of the escape rates of survivors at soloq. even if they did get like the escape it doesnt mean they won the game, it would be like well he played with 3men and that 3men died but he escaped so the stats gets to show as if the 3men stats are similar to soloq, as example btw. when im playing killer in current patch i barely even try im not motivated at all! i dont enjoy it, even if i were to lose a game, i dont feel like practicing the killers which i normally dont play, i dont blame the players if they beat me on a killer i rarely touch, i know i would win if i cared enough, its that bad currently, casual survivors that are not really skillful at dbd will die 9/10 in matches in many cases, bad killers getting rewarded for even making mistakes, nurse fail a blink = gets free hit if survivor doubleback, the only time recently when swfs were the power role was when pallet density was introduced, then i would agree the game was SWF sided, but not only they nerfed it, they made it worse than before the pallet density was even a thing, and now they pretend to revert the change which they didnt, they just half reverted it. keeping the killers in a power role stompinground. to be good at survivor is far harder than mastering 1 killer, since survivors have to deal with multiple types of killers, but killers have to deal with the same mechanics of survivors, get it? killer is easier to get into and easier to master. simple as that.
I'm going to be honest, I had a hard time parsing that rant. I don't even know if it was supposed to be directed at me, but the thinly veiled insults don't particularly give me much to work with when literally my point was that the person I was talking to was overgeneralizing an entire role. I purposely have not said whether I find killer or survivor inherently "easier" as I feel it varies on an individual player basis. If you're looking for argument, look elsewhere.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4040668#Comment_4040668
They are correct, though crude.
The more you play, and presumably the better you get, the less that anxiety kicks in.
To an extent. When it comes to things like accessibility issues for instance, experience only goes so far. It can even lead to a type of self-disparagement and being overcritical of one's mistakes or things beyond their control. Experience does a lot for most people, but sometimes other adjustments are needed.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4040011#Comment_4040011
Maybe we'll see when we can actually see our teammates' perks. For now, I'm not going to assume that anyone is running anti-slug perks (because 99% of them don't).
And yet if they are, you objectively have more chance of a comeback than almost every single different killer does when all remaining survivors are in the exit gate (with very few exceptions.) All survivors being downed is still a check scenario as long as a single one has an opportunity to recover and reset. Even disregarding that, hatch is basekit, and can even have its general location manipulated with offerings. Your chances might not be as high as you would like, nor even very high at all sometimes, but they are more than zero.
Considering how powerful that ability to literally undo the killing blow is, you would think every single game would have at least one person running one, especially with how strong something like conviction is when used properly. And yet instead everyone is allowed to give up before that type of reset, so why would anyone bring it when they can just prematurely give up instead and not even have to be subjected to waiting for their loss? Abandoning being available literally discourages using the tools that are given to prevent the situation, so they become as underutilized as kindred. Meanwhile, when people talk about scenarios in the exit gate where hitting out is literally non-gameplay, they are talking about ones where even those small chances do not exist. It is a true checkmate, requiring survivors to directly undermine their own victory for any other outcome to occur.
When people talk about the double standard, they're not necessarily talking about stuff like just the exit gates being powered. Checkmate scenarios don't actually occur on the survivor side until much later than people lament, and it often causes them to prevent themselves from even getting an opportunity to utilize those chances. Since we can't control the agency of other players in things like their loadout, we can always instead be that person for the team (and ourselves.) Unfortunately, like you mentioned, the assumption that nobody else will bother means they might not even wait for you to start the reset, so defeatism strikes again.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4039925#Comment_4039925
while survivors can skip the mori sequence, killers should be able to skip the gate sequence.
While I'm not a fan of abandon in general, these aren't equivalent.
The Mori is literally a cutscene because the match is already over, the end game (even the collapse) is playable time because the match isn't over yet.
There's a massive difference between "the game is literally, actually over" and "I could play this out and even have the base kit ability to cut this short if I wanted to, but I don't want to do that."
You might as well complain that people are skipping end game chat for all the relevance that has to "gates are open".
There's a massive difference between "the game is literally, actually over" and "I could play this out and even have the base kit ability to cut this short if I wanted to, but I don't want to do that."Then what is survivors positioned so that they fall out of the exit when hit, on a killer without a basekit means of blocking the exits? Or even be in a position where things like heal tech make the skill requirement slightly higher to maintain that inevitability? Is that not a similar checkmate to waiting for a mori? Or is the fact that it's a cinematic the sole difference?
I know you're not defending how loosely it is applied to survivors in its current form, but the equivalence is only false because of the lens you're putting it in. Both sides absolutely have checkmate scenarios where the winner would need to actively weaken their own position to give their opponent a chance. The main reason I don't like that discussion is because people pick and choose which aspects they focus on while invalidating others.
-
@jedimaster505 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4039938#Comment_4039938
it's calling a spade a spade and citing relevant household names as clear examples. the only "bait" factor is that it goes against the killer main victim narrative being pushed on big social media platforms like YouTube, Reddit and Twitter. I tell the hard truth whereas the major content creators have an audience to pander to so they water down their PC opinions to gain acceptance from the hive mind.
If you're interested in things like hard truths and narratives, you might benefit from reading up on Plato's Dialectics. Its a fascinating perspective into how subjectivism can adapt into objectivity. Its also a topic about the hardest truths of all, like learning from one's mistakes and identifying when subjectivity can be a detriment to objectivism. Instead of looking up players on social media to be angry at for their opinions, it could be a more productive way to kill an afternoon.
-
@Raccoon said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4039934#Comment_4039934
This is just (another) bait topic from TC with various name/shaming against numerous streamers/players in the OP.
Perhaps, but I know there are people that think like that unironically, so might as well lay it out in case they could learn from it. And if they're being genuine, maybe they could up their game from the perspective.
-
@jedimaster505 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4039921#Comment_4039921
I'm just being realistic here. if you listen to most survivors they tell you they don't even expect to escape most of their matches...because they don't. but most killers will not tell you they only expect a 0-2K. no, they know they are the power role and feel entitled to at least a 3K average, and many killers even think 4K is the win condition. and this difference in expectation is reflected in the stats.
I'm just being realistic hereHard disagree. Focusing on the loud ones who you think are unreasonable is the exact negative bias I was talking about.
if you listen to most survivors they tell you they don't even expect to escape most of their matches...because they don't.Which can (and often is) caused by the exact reasons you listed, as well as others more unique to the role. Personal responsibility and maximizing agency are an end user issue, but even players you agree with are not immune to it. Someone who loses a lot but learns from ever loss will lose less over time, and someone who refuses to will fall into the same pitfalls continuously.
but most killers will not tell you they only expect a 0-2KBecause this community has toxic perceptions about how killers are supposed to "4K every game without tunneling slugging or camping, and anything less is just a skill issue." There has actually been a few content creators making videos about topics like killer anxiety, with a lot of it stemming from the standard people feel required to hold themselves to because of the sheer hyperbole of their opponents. And that aspect of it in particular is universal to both roles. Nobody wants to admit to something that would get them labeled a scrub, even if the person applying the label is being unreasonable.
no, they know they are the power role and feel entitled to at least a 3K average, and many killers even think 4K is the win condition.You'd be surprised how many killer players would rather have games not full of nonsense, with actual honest competition, more than just 3Ks and 4Ks. You're projecting a need to be validated through victory onto an entire role of the game, when it might apply to some but certainly not all (or even most imo, though its impossible to have a specific value ofc.) This type of villainization is practically mandatory to us vs them focused arguments.
and this difference in expectation is reflected in the stats.The game is centered around survivors having maximum agency at the start, with diminishing returns as the killer grows in strength relative to the resources they spend. Its also a game where one side has shared agency, while the other has individual. The amount of players who don't even understand shared agency as a concept is a far bigger contributor to kill rates at any point in the game's health than killers being big-mean-oppressive-doodooheads could possibly achieve.
Its important to note that these all have exceptions, and sometimes the exceptions are very relative to the "rule." Sometimes the vocal minority makes a perfect lil guy who needs to see the wizard for a brain. The only "truth" is that broad strokes kill honest discourse.
-
@Chilli_man2400 said:
A big statement I always see is that BHVR and dbd would get better and lock in more if there was competition in the genre
Yet when we actually get the competition you guys instantly say the game will die within a year. Yet you guys asked for this and you won’t go fund and support the competition to get BHVR to care again?
Then when that game inevitably dies off you guys complain again that we need competition it’s like a endless cycle
Even if there was a exact copy of dbd beat for beat gameplay no one would play it and say “it will die within a year”
I’m not saying to not have suspicions cause of how gun handled leatherface. But it’s kinda fickle how you guys ask for competition yet won’t go support it?
Yet when we actually get the competition you guys instantly say the game will die within a year.This is the same community that thinks a match is over if a teammate gets downed at 5 gens, or a ghostface player who gets an outdoor map. Catastrophizing is practically a requirement these days.
That said, a lot of the failed competition have patterns people pick up on, and some publishers in particular are exceptionally bad at keeping end user trust, even more than BHVR. A lot of times its writing on the wall, other times its people expecting the writing on the wall and just not bothering to spend the money. After all, if you already own DBD and can play it without buying new DLC, there's minimal financial investment required compared to a full price game (which then may add more paid dlc) which isn't even guaranteed to last more than a year or two. Consumers are as risk averse as publishers sometimes.