Ryuhi
Ryuhi
About
- Username
- Ryuhi
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@jedimaster505 said:
the game is heavily killer sided according to science and objectivity. why then the killers crying so much about it being survivor sided? let me tell you...
- their MMR is inflated
first thing which happens is a new killer curb stomps their opponent when playing at their true MMR because the game balance holds killers hands. then their MMR skyrockets and who do they go against? primarily cheaters, sweaty swfs and the best solo Q vets Dbd has to offer. then their win streak is broken and they post a video demanding survivor nerfs. like yeah, when your opponent is primarily the sweatiest upper skill bracket with a bunch of subtle cheaters in the mix, that's gonna feel survivor sided. but you're ignoring the huge percentage of solo Q players that you effortlessly massacred on auto pilot to get to that point.
2. entitlement
since killer is so easy they get used to getting 3-4k almost every match so they don't feel like they're "winning" unless they get a 4k every game. even though 2k is a perfectly balanced draw, in many killer mains eyes they see that as a loss because you can literally just meme around and get a 2k on auto pilot with even the low tier killers so it never really feels earned. they see their idols like momo and otz and true talent getting huge killer win streaks and they think they're a failure if they only get a balanced result like 50% kill rate avg. to be honest you kinda are since killer role is easy mode in 2025
3. killer main politics
I watched a recent dev live stream on YouTube and a dev said to type K, S, or B in chat to see if you're a killer main, survivor main or hybrid. overwhelming the chat was flooded with K's. there were hardly any S's and B's.
this didn't surprise me. I've always noticed how much louder killer mains are on social media. there's a killer main culture where they learned to cry very very loud on social media. the moment a sensible balance change is implemented by the devs, social media is inundated with an angry mob of killer mains posting doom videos about how they're quitting dbd.
so this scares BHVR who then reverts the changes until they are a joke (cough cough...anti tunneling, slugging and camping). survivor mains complain just not nearly as loud and the most popular streamers tend to be killer mains , like otz and true talent who are basically the mascots of dbd community. and since BHVR wants to be able to say they "listen" to feedback, game design choices get largely dictated by subjective politics instead of objectivity. cause what they're largely hearing is the noise of all those K's in the live stream chat.
more examples, Reddit killer mains have a dedicated Dead by daylight killers subreddit and survivor mains have no such equivalent. they're just not nearly as coordinated in their digital outcry. or Steam reviews, there are far more killer mains threatening to uninstall if anti tunnel changes are implemented.
4. survivor mains have learned to adapt, killer mains are stuck in their ways
survivors are always adapting to new killers added to the game, so we're used to learning new things and dealing with adversity, especially the solo Q vets. killer mains are set in their ways and not accustomed to adversity, so any sensible balance change that would make the game fair is perceived as BHVR ruining the game for killers. God forbid blight and his crutch slowdown perks be nerfed...we can't be letting momo lose his nearly 2k win streak now can we. that would be far too upsetting for all the wannabe momo blights that think they're actually good.
lastly if you think about killer mains, a lot of them play a bunch of different killers and expect to perform well on all of them. so for example they put like 500 hrs into killer role but that experience is spread across 10 different killers, which means they only have an average of 50 hrs of experience on any given killer, or maybe 100 on their favorite killer. so if they go up against survivors with 500 hrs dedicated to survivor role, the survivor actually has 5-10 times the experience in their specialty.
there you have it, the hard truth about why killer mains think a heavily killer sided game is survivor sided
Or:
1: Negative experiences tend to stick with people far more than positive ones, especially in an area centered around enjoyment as the expectation.Kinda like they do for survivors.
Anything on topics like entitlement or adaptation is on an individual basis, and applying them to entire groups in anything other than colloqial meaning is straight up us vs them if refusing to do the same for your preferred side. Both killer and survivor mains have equal potential to improve or be scrubs.
-
@BongoBoys said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4039147#Comment_4039147
The perk is fine the killer is the one that's broken
Think of it like order of operations. A whole killer is much more of an obstacle to remove than a single perk, as it would directly affect more customer purchases. Not to say it should never be done, but its a bit more serious of a consideration than simply blocking a perk temporarily. Killswitching entire killers is more for when there is something integral to them that causes the issue, think of things like Nurse being able to blink out of bounds or huntress being able to refresh her hatchets instantly without lockers. Things that affect aspects of killers specifically interacting with something independent of the killer means that the temporary solution can focus on that other element in a way that affects content players have paid for less significantly.
Obviously you could argue that PWYF is (currently) a perk that requires payment, but thats where the order of operations comes in: Its a modular part of that paid DLC instead of its entirety. If disabling PWYF also disabled all of the other perks from said DLC, it would be a more even consideration. Its always important to consider what gets caught in the crossfire when taking drastic actions like killswitching, which is why a whole killer tends to take priority. The fact that killers play differently to one another on a fundamental level influences the order of operations in no small part.
@ArkInk said:
They should build a killswitch to disable a specific perk on a specific killer, so that neither the perk nor the killer are inaccessible during the duration of the Killswitch.
Lacking that, I'd prefer the perk be disabled rather than the killer. Killswitching either solves the issue but I'd rather still be able to use Dracula during it than PWYF.
This is the approach that should be taken. While its unfortunate for players who want to use PWYF on other killers, it's not exactly a top 5 perk, and one based on modifying an existing element (speeding an action up) vs something entirely unique (a whole character with multiple aspects not found in others.) The ideal solution would simply be to prevent the synergy directly, but for all we know with this game that would somehow make twins even more bugged and nerf pig.
-
@Kaitri said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4039317#Comment_4039317
but i dont afk?
saying this gets the afk idiots to dodge the lobby. and then i play with people that actually have a brain and all is fine and dandy.
and yeah a swf is a solution, but they arent on all the time. its not easy finding 3 other people that play at the same time as you do, especially when you have family, work and stuff
edit: i dont see how me actually afking adds to the problem. if i actually went afk, these idiots would see how it feels and maybe learn from it.
"Hey everyone if I think you're not playing well enough I'm going to throw the game" is going to get plenty of not-trash players to assume you're just going to throw the game. Nobody wants a suspected liability, as your reasoning for even doing this illustrates.
Instead you should be focusing on maximizing your own agency, and working on how to offset when your teammates don't do the same. You can't control how other players play, but you can learn ways to minimize their negative impacts while bolstering their positive ones when they come through. Beyond that, even hopeless games make great labs to practice ways to improve aspects of your own agency you may have room to improve and refine. Also
i dont see how me actually afking adds to the problem. if i actually went afk, these idiots would see how it feels and maybe learn from it.Is a terrible mentality and pretty much guaranteed to bump your, and everyone unfortunate enough to get paired with you, lose rates. Instead of trying to spite players you will likely never see again, why not work on improving your own odds despite them?
-
@Leon_van_Straken said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4039262#Comment_4039262
The thing I wanted to archive is to punish hard tunneling.
Yes the Killers aren´t the same a Trapper is not a nurse. But tunneling is on all the Killers the same.
If you have an anti tunnel perk equipped it shuold protect you from beeing tunneld.
And to be fair. If you eat two DS by the same survivor you went 3 times in a row for them which is hard tunneling.
Keeping mental DS timers increases mental stack, meaning it adds to the amount of things you need to keep a mental inventory of during the match. If you hook someone and then go after someone else, but that first person stays in your area after being unhooked, there can easily be scenarios where you do not intend to tunnel but see a clear opportunity to down them while the perk could still be active. You don't even know, since there is no way to know whether they have taken a conspicuous action unless you have been actively watching them the whole time (which, ironically, is generally done by tunneling) or if they even have the perk unless you get hit by it.
It doesn't matter what you have done in between, you could have hooked multiple other survivors, but you still need to hold on to that mental timer for the entirety after each person gets unhooked, because you don't even know if they have the perk, let alone if it is still active. Having a grace window is the intended result, but again, do people honestly consider it tunneling if you did something like down and hook someone else in that time? Where do we draw the line on personal responsibility to not make oneself a tunneling target?
If DS only functioned specifically when being tunneled, less people would have any concern about it. Others will argue over whether survivors can take advantage of that mental stack in any way, especially to get the killer to trigger it accidentally. Its not direct enough of a perk to be bundled solely in its intended application, and even during the DS/UB days it had most of its power just with theory: It was Schrodinger's perk because the killer needed to respect it even if it wasn't in play.
Think about games like MMOs where you have to manage multiple buffs and damage over time effects: They are often littered across the screen to help the player keep track of their timers, both active duration and cooldown, because managing that information subconsciously is a large strain on how many things you have to consider simultaneously: Enemy mechanics, incoming damage, optimizing your own damage/healing/tanking/etc, avoiding telegraphs, memorizing untelegraphed attacks, literally anything involving your teammates, and so on. Now keep in mind how many things you need to subconsciously track in this game, even regardless of role: What perks could be in play, how they work, what they synergize with once identified, what usage cases they would generally lead to, status of objectives like gen progress, etc. The Survivor Hud actually reduced mental stack in many areas, instead of adding to them. Same with hook counters. The goal is to reduce it when possible, not inflate it unneccessarily.
There should be an answer to tunneling, but doubling down on DS as an actual cure when it's nothing but a plastifix isn't it imo.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4039125#Comment_4039125
You know, I'm going to be nice and show some of my gameplay. This was one of my better chases, and I consider myself lucky because I normally don't last this long in chase. But why did I do so well this time? Did I do anything particularly skillful? Or was I just lucky that Wesker kept missing his dash attacks (and even vaulted something at the beginning, giving me more distance)? Or was I lucky to get matched with teammates who split up on three separate gens during that chase?
All things considered, not a bad chase. Room for improvement, sure, but you made a lot of foundational choices that helped your chances quite a bit. Not staying at weak pallets, using the house as a strong position for multiple loops, always focusing on moving toward another resource, you can give yourself some credit. The skill of your opponent isn't really a "luck" consideration, as it is a relativity to your own: If you stayed at the weak loop at the start, he would have gotten the injure much faster. Likewise, if he broke the doors at the house, it would have likely not gained as much distance as it did. There were even some interesting things like the routing in the house being sub optimal, but the debris near the window narrowing the forgiveness of trying to grab you at the vault.
The result is that you went down in the end, and there was room for improvement, but the foundations of improvement are there. The more you can develop those skills, the better you will improve in chase. All of those things contributed more than luck to the moment by moment of the chase, even when they weren't directly in your control (but more reactive.) And like you mentioned it was still a 3 gen chase, which is plenty reasonable to expect, especially if not confident in looping.
Its always important to remember that skill has no set metric you need to hit. You only need to be more skilled than your opponent, so while it might be easy to think "I only did that well because the Wesker kept screwing up," its more effective to consider that some of his mistakes could have been influenced by you, and more importantly you capitalized on them to improve your chances. Thats the kind of mindset that helped me get over gen jockeying in the past, and getting more comfortable in chase.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4039125#Comment_4039125
no one said anything about hiding to avoid being tunneled
You did. In this thread, first page. "killer cant tunnel what they cant find."
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4038746#Comment_4038746
Basekit counters include
stealth, killer cant tunnel what they cant find.
looping, a killer tunneling a good looper often leads to them losing the match or abandoning chase which stops the tunneling.
the team as a whole is basekit for survivor, body blocks, unhooking at the right time, flashlight saves just to name a few.
The reason your narrative here isn't resonating with people outside of you and one other person (as far as I can tell this is the sum and total of "others who [supposedly] have no issue with tunneling") is because none of this reliably works in practice.
Conspicuously absent from anything you talk about is "being efficient with your time", like gluing yourself to a gen while the killer is tunneling. I.e. "gen rush". Which is the only true way to beat tunneling.
It really smacks of "how do you do fellow survivors" to encourage people to waste time being inefficient instead of "just do gens", which is the only real answer to tunneling.
When the killer decides to tunnel, survivors need to take that time with no pressure on anyone else and do gens as fast as possible. That's the actual answer you keep suspiciously dancing around.
You did. In this thread, first page. "killer cant tunnel what they cant find."I mean they're not really the same, though I could see how they could be lumped together. Not being found just means not getting the killer's attention, not necessarily hiding all game. Thats a bit of a hyperbolic extreme to advice that could instead apply to
"Don't run around leaving scratch marks everywhere right off the bat vs a blight with Lethal"as they would very easily find someone in those situations. Actual stealth is supposed to be about being inconspicuous more than locker jockeying, and things like walking around an obstacle to avoid LoS with a nearby killer and wasting their time are great applications of it that would avoid being tunneled in most cases.The reason your narrative here isn't resonating with people outside of you and one other person (as far as I can tell this is the sum and total of "others who [supposedly] have no issue with tunneling") is because none of this reliably works in practice.Just in case I'm that one other person (apologies if not,) using self improvement to counter tunneling isn't a fringe concept at all. Its just one you don't hear in constant complaints, because the people who do it are much more successful against it. Its also more reliable than people give it credit: Not perfect, sure, but its not supposed to be. That type of emergent gameplay is a core component of competing vs another human player, things aren't supposed to be infallable. Its a mentality that fosters growth, and since the alternative is just going down and not wasting any time, virtually any effectiveness becomes an objective improvement (excluding things like sandbagging and sabotage, of course.)
Tunneling in DBD is as core a concept as Zoning in a fight game, Camping in an FPS, picking a hypercarry in a MOBA, and so on. They're all tactics designed around working exceptionally well against less skilled players. The answer is also always the same, self improvement to mitigate the negative aspects of the situation as best as possible while increasing the positive impact you can make instead. Hypercarries can still dominate but are less likely to if you don't feed them kills early, Zoners can still force time out wins but are less likely to if you can work your way in and gain the life lead, Campers can still chalk up kills they don't deserve but can easily be taken out due to their predictability in location, and Tunnelers can still win vs players competently trying to minimize it but are more likely to lose the match overall. Its not about the possibility of failure, its about using the agency you have to increase the chance of success. Especially since the alternative is not only rolling over and dying, but usually taking your team with you, which rewards the killer for using the tactic.
Why do people like backstabs in soulsbourne games so much? "Because it's easy. And it does a lot of damage."
That said, the rest about gen efficiency being the biggest counter is absolutely correct. Things like bodyblocks can certainly be effective when timed right, but they should always be situational and secondary to rushing the objective. Its the tunneled person's job to buy as much time as they can manage, and the job of the rest to utilize that time as strongly as they can.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4039178#Comment_4039178
Thats… what competition
is. You are constantly at odds with an opponent, and need to continuously make decisions that elevate yourself into a more favorable position while lowering theirs when it conflicts with your own. Concepts like"mechanics that ensure the Killer will catch you eventually"are specifically designed due to the 1v4 nature of the game:Nobodyis supposed to be able to run the killer for 5 gens in a balanced matchup, much likenobodyis supposed to get 4K 5Gen games. The dynamic for the game just isn't built for those extremes, which is why they get pointed out as landslides that shouldn't be possible without the other side essentially allowing them to be.Oh yeah, I get all of that. I wasn't complaining that the game is designed for the Killer to catch you eventually. I just bring it up as the counterpoint to others' (particularly Killer mains') expectation that Survivors are supposed to loop the Killer all game when they're being tunneled when, by design, it's impossible. That's also why tunneling is so effective.
Nobody expects survivors to loop the whole game, especially when tunneled. The only ones who expect that are survivors who think they should be allowed to. The argument is that any amount of the killer's time you waste is house money, it is completely free denial compared to just giving up. Even if you get downed in 45 seconds, that could have been enough time to progress multiple gens halfway, finish gens near completion, take out hexes that were aiding the killer in their tunneling focus, etc. If that time gets squandered, thats part of the joy</s> of having sentient teammates. Its also why you wouldn't want to be that teammate to someone else who is getting tunneled instead.
Its also not impossible, just improbable. Survivors can and do waste plenty of the killers time and lose them entire games from their refusal to detach, which is the bigger message. The effectiveness of tunneling isn't about securing one kill, its about getting a kill as fast as possible in order to quickly diminish the survivor ability to push their own objective (as well as reduce their potential to interfere with the killer's.) Its almost never as personal as people try to make it out to be, and more often than not, refusing to improve in that situation is the most surefire way to find yourself in it continuously. Killers look for survivors who are weak in chase, especially in basic concepts like routing and planning, as they are extremely easy to zone and down quickly. The less a survivor is a weak link, the less effective tunneling gets vs them and the more likely they are to escape it. I only emphasize all of this so much because defeatism really is self fulfilling in this case.
If you think a specific
x mainis being hyperbolic with their arguments, don't use it as a grounds to dismiss reasonable ones. Thats why the us vs them issue is particularly harmful in this community, you often learn more from your opponents than your allies. If you still have trouble with it, play as killers you struggle vs and when you see a decent survivor, tunnel them and see how they counter it. Look for the ways they waste your time, direct you away from contested areas, look for the times when teammates are successful with distraction and bodyblocking interactions, don't play to win or lose but keep mental notes about what does and doesn't work for them. Even the best killers have to detatch from tunnels that look surefire at times, and those situations are more often than not created by the person being tunneled. -
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4039172#Comment_4039172
I agree that BHVR could be clearer about what they consider tunneling beyond the brief examples they showed in that livestream.
I’m not opposed to adding conditions instead of giving DS a flat second use, but I am a bit hesitant. Anti-tunnel perks are already expected to meet strict conditions to avoid abuse, while tunneling itself has almost no built-in conditions. People are quick to point out how anti-tunnel could be abused, but far less willing to acknowledge that tunneling itself can also be abused. That difference in standards is a big part of why progress on anti-tunnel never seems to get anywhere.
For many players that advocate for tunneling , it isn’t seen as a problem at all, or abusive in anyway, regardless if it happens at five gens. When the strategy itself isn’t viewed as abusable, any solution is rejected regardless if it’s good or not.
So I agree that clearer definitions matter, but I feel that standard has to apply both ways, which I think is also what you’re saying too. If we’re going to be precise about when anti-tunnel is exploitative/abusable, we also need to be precise about when tunneling is exploitative/abusable.
Maybe the 2nd DS is only active at certain points in the game, reflected upon gen states? If it’s early game then both DS can be active, late-end game it doesn’t activate at all. (DS is already disabled like this anyway). It ties the protection to clear game states, which could address abuse concerns without leaving tunneling completely unrestricted?
People are quick to point out how anti-tunnel could be abused, but far less willing to acknowledge that tunneling itself can also be abused.I don't mind being one of the less willing to instead agree to this. Honestly I feel a lot of people who don't advocate for such would also more silently agree with it as well. Thats why some people want both a carrot and stick simultaneously regarding the tunneling conundrum, its a complex issue both in its action and reaction to the game around it.
That difference in standards is a big part of why progress on anti-tunnel never seems to get anywhere.Exactly. Unfortunately, this also affects most disagreements on ways to address or improve aspects of the game. Too much us vs them, too little attempts to find common ground and make Plato proud.
For many players that advocate for tunneling , it isn’t seen as a problem at all, or abusive in anyway, regardless if it happens at five gens. When the strategy itself isn’t viewed as abusable, any solution is rejected regardless if it’s good or not.True, but I feel that is a focus on a vocal minority which then conflates arguments. Even with how I feel about it being unhealthy for the game, I also feel like its a symptom of bigger issues in the overall game itself. It is essentially a tool that is only as maligned as the person utilizing it, much like any meta strategy in the game's history. Thats not at all to say it doesn't need change, just that people tend to be laser focused in their approach to it regardless of the game around it. Basically, in an ideal game it wouldn't even be considered meta, but so many alternatives have been kneecapped while survivors similarly lost unreasonably strong answers to it, leaving both sides kinda unhappy with its current state.
Its part of why I commonly refer to it as a lowest common denominator strategy, commonly complained about effective strategies like camping and tunneling are the first things even new players think of, while not requiring much skill to perform well with in most cases. Thats also why I try to encourage people to fight through it, as poor players tunneling can and will crumble as their skill requirement rises. Its just a situation that most people refuse to see how much agency they still have, and instead focus on the worst possible outcome as infallable. In fighting games that is known as a scrub mentality, and I don't like pointing it out as it gets conflated with whatever flavor of skill issue/git gud/etc people want to reduce it to.
So I agree that clearer definitions matter, but I feel that standard has to apply both ways, which I think is also what you’re saying too. If we’re going to be precise about when anti-tunnel is exploitative/abusable, we also need to be precise about when tunneling is exploitative/abusable.Exactly. Finding a baseline that all reasonable parties agree upon is foundational to being able to address complex issues with opposing considerations. No matter what role or player experience level, if you can't agree on things as simple as classifications it just leads to talking past one another.
Maybe the 2nd DS is only active at certain points in the game, reflected upon gen states? If it’s early game then both DS can be active, late-end game it doesn’t activate at all. (DS is already disabled like this anyway). It ties the protection to clear game states, which could address abuse concerns without leaving tunneling completely unrestricted?In terms of hypotheticals, I like trying to focus perks made for specific utilities to center around them as closely as possible. Those are good considerations, since the idea is to focus on its application to preventing early game tunneling specifically, as that is generally considered the most reasonably understood application of using tunneling in an oppressive manner, while reducing its impact as a catch up mechanic later in a match. My only concern would be the whole aggressive use argument, which causes people to completely shut out reason when discussing unintentional applications of the perk.
Even smaller considerations like giving the perk some type of premature expiration: Maybe something like another person getting hooked while its active cuts the perk short, with a short speed burst for a second or two to reposition further away from the hook: as the killer needs to be doing the hook animation at this time, and the previously unhooked survivor has a global indication of their exact position, this would further fulfil its anti-tunnel properties while addressing things like objective denial not counting as conspicuous actions. Basically things that wouldn't affect normal play, but specifically target purpose exploitation of concepts like mental stack. Even something as simple as not have to keep multiple DS timers in the back of their mind on top of everything else could do a lot to help alleviate pushback on the killer side, especially since adding to the potential amount of DSes per match would only inflate those types of considerations.
Necessity is the mother of invention, which is why I'm always dumfounded how blanket and basic a lot of official solutions that get tested end up being. By having conditions for things like activation, disabling, prevention, and even allowing and preventing stacking, the foundation for across the isle considerations are there, even in regards to things specifically designed to aid one side vs the other. The issue always stems from the improvements to one disregarding the grievances of the other, a "wait your turn" approach to issues that leaves players feeling ignored at best, exacerbating existing issues at worst. And like we agree, a lot of it stems from finding that common ground to start with.
-
@jmwjmw27 said:
Maybe to keep pallet/flashlight saves possible or for animation reasons? I have no idea.
Isn't flashlight timing pretty easy now? Not as bad as that one time but iirc its a lot more forgiving than it had been for quite a while.
-
@Shroompy said:
What we need is a new mechanic to slow the game down by default that both sides need to interact with. Maybe each map has some sort of special generator or thing which acts as 1 or maybe even 2 gens being completed, and maybe killers could have something that they could do which acts as multiple hook states. Survivors for example could have a blood generator they would need to complete and killers could have like shrines that they could interact with and once active every survivor gains a hook state (if theyre on death hook already, they get killed as if it were the endgame collapse)
Both of these things could be slowed down by the other side, and I think it would make things more interesting since both sides now have something to race for other than generators and hooks. So overall less gen rushing, tunneling and camping.
EDIT: Could also make the "unique gen" for survivors change depending on the realm as well. Say Lerys they could find bodies where they could carry them to the treatment theatre and electrocute them, or badham where they need to find valves and do some sort of puzzle inside the boiler room
I like the idea of having the maps be more dynamic/interactable, particularly its impact on the speed of the game. I know people have discussed secondary objectives to death, but from what I've seen it's always been focused on slowing down gens specifically. The tricky part would be balancing the impact of any bonuses from such aspects in ways that don't remove too much from the opponent.
For example, something like having a shrine where praying at it might give you a small/moderate stacking action boost for every killed ally would work well to diminish the impact of hard tunneling on game speed, but it would require a lot of fine tuning to not be too punishing/worthless or be usable later in the game. Having such mechanics work around overall gen progress (as in, total number of charges across all gens) would work better than having it be based on gens completed, as basing it specifically on completed gens would allow people to 99 gens to store up a bonus for lategame as if someone was tunnelled out at 5 gens, for instance.
I also really like the idea of having secondary objectives be contestable like that, as it prevents them from just being a non-interactive approach to guaranteeing progress. The risk and reward would need to account for the roles, but more accurately than something like the hex/boon divide. For a survivor map interaction, it could have requirements like needing all remaining players to interact with it for a certain period of time, with a cooldown to prevent them from just taking turns to rush. That way the less survivors remain, the easier it will be to trigger a buff, and give the killer more opportunities to incorporate contesting it in their macro game. Likewise, a killer oriented one might require something like collecting blood from blade wipes to be collected then pooled in, which could then be balanced around the impact of whatever effect it has.
I don't particularly like typing the survivor one to gens (even specific ones) only because of how wildly variable gen speeds can be. They could either be too contestable by the killer, or it could be achieved by the time trapper even finishes picking up his third trap. The only reason I would incorporate it into the killer's normal gameplay loop is because they're the 1, and their ability to split time and attention is far more limited. Even then, survivor interactions like objective denial could potentially be used to impact their progress if done carefully: Using the blood gathering example, there could be a stipulation like every time a hook is saboed within 16m of carrying a survivor, the killer gains a notification and loses a portion of collected blood. Not direct enough to encourage straight up bully squad tactics, but with enough risk/reward to keep promoting direct interaction above retreating to cash in.
Edit: Thought about it more, and even targeted gens could still work if done right. Cap their max repair speed, give them basekit effects similar to surveillance and discordance, essentially make it so the killer knows at all times when they're being worked on and limit the potential to blitz them before even slow killers can reach. There's potential, but it would need a lot of considerations to avoid curling a finger.
This is all conceptual, but I guess I wanted to focus on the ways such an approach could potentially go wrong and how to avoid them more than anything. If done well, expanding something as core as map interaction could benefit both casual and competitive players pretty evenly. Very key word being well, and we've seen the monkey paw enough times with ideas that ambitious that I feel its important any devs considering ideas like these to really flesh them out before throwing them on a PTB in a halfassed state, wasting resources, and killing good ideas with poor implementation. The best part about your map specific approach is that any impact those types of objectives have on the match can be themed to the map itself, which unfortunately again, leaves it more susceptible to the monkey paw on some maps vs others. Alternatively, they could be used to address map specific issues. Lot of potential in the idea, for both better and worse.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
It’s not true. If this is a casual game then why are there so many complaints? Compare this to an actual casual game such as fall guys or mario kart. These games are not even comparable. Some people may play this game in a casual manner but that doesn’t mean that the game is inherently not competitive. The win condition means other side must lose. the game is designed in a way that if you are winning then the other side is probably not having.
in mario kart for instance there’s one veteran comp player who gets 1st place all the time but he doesn’t need to tunnel you and camp you to get that 1st place. You can still play the game in full capacity.
Maybe someone might say that these tunnelers make the game competitive but it’s just not true. Swf squads do the same thing. Ultimately both players are playing their game as allowed and to win even if that’s not fun for the other side, which is exactly why this game isn’t casual. The closest to casual dbd got is with 2v8.
what is the point of this post? Just wanted to say this as a response to the casual vs comp argument. Both are the same game, one party is just playing to win and the other is mismatched.
i mean just consider this: why does this game have such strict dc penalties if it’s so casual? Tf2, battlefield, the other casual games dont.DBD walks a fine line between the two, and its one of the things that's maintained the game's longevity imo. If it were too casual, there would be nothing for players who wished to improve or explore skill expression. If it were too competitive, new players wouldn't even stick around long enough to see the licensed content that enticed them in the first place to try it. While nowhere near perfect, in terms of design it tries not to limit agency too much while simultaneously employing very limited mercy mechanics as guardrails (bloodlust, basekit features incorporated to reduce loadout necessity, hatch, compensatory loadout aspects like crutch perks, etc.) to try to reduce the gulf in mismatched players.
One of the biggest problems of this daywalking is that the game doesn't know how to break the news to the players. Player feedback on matches is almost entirely outcome focused, which sides with the competitive aspect as it fosters a more "victory or death" type of absolutism. It also makes loses piss them off more when they lose, since they feel the aspects outside their control contributed despite how they feel they played. This ties in to the player's personal satisfaction with most matches, meaning they will, well, really want to win more and lose less. Hence why competitive players tend to cope better with loses than casual ones, but then they often get toxic as well when they don't.
On the inverse, it doesn't know how to reign in its extremes enough, nor properly balance its variety. Too many aspects of the game get "solved" too quickly, especially for how massive gameplay variety possibilities grow: Every time there is a new killer, survivors need to learn how to counter it and killers need to learn how to maximize it. Every time there's a new perk, it gets evaluated by the players into whether its worthless/usable/viable/busted. All of that is on top of the fundamental aspects of the game that continuously get changed by these additions. Its an extremely daunting amount of info to take in, and the more limited variety one's gameplay experiences have (As in, playing against primarily metas or limiting roles) the less opportunity they have to grow naturally to handle scenarios they've likely never/rarely seen. Casual players constantly get caught off guard by things they wouldn't have any way of knowing unless they had both seen and understood previously, leading even core game mechanics to develop an "Except on Tuesdays" level of exception.
It's enough in either direction to draw people in and mostly to retain them, but its also not far enough in either direction to keep everyone happy. That said, this is why things like quality are more important, as they are universal. One of the biggest uniting factors in the community is when things are just flat out done wrong. And it can sometimes be a pretty clear distinction that everyone can easily agree on. When game improvements focus these types of schisms, comp vs casual/survivor vs killer/new player vs veteran/etc, they tend to appease one side specifically to the detriment of the other. This type of divisiveness in terms of the game's classification in particular would probably be a lot less of a discussion if any improvements to one weren't inherently designed to hinder the other. Would certainly help more people come to terms that the answer to
is DBD casual or competitiveshould be a simpleYes. -
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4039115#Comment_4039115
It's still luck because it's your decision vs. The Killer's, not to mention they only have to win once (or twice if you start healthy). So tunneling is already heavily skewed in the Killer's favor. Survivors winning one 50/50 at a loop only earns them maybe five more seconds. And then add in the game mechanics that ensure the Killer will catch you eventually, skews it even further in their favor. So all the Survivor skill in the world won't defend against tunneling for long.
And your own decision to hide all game to avoid being tunneled, there's no skill in that.
Thats… what competition is. You are constantly at odds with an opponent, and need to continuously make decisions that elevate yourself into a more favorable position while lowering theirs when it conflicts with your own. Concepts like
"mechanics that ensure the Killer will catch you eventually"are specifically designed due to the 1v4 nature of the game: Nobody is supposed to be able to run the killer for 5 gens in a balanced matchup, much like nobody is supposed to get 4K 5Gen games. The dynamic for the game just isn't built for those extremes, which is why they get pointed out as landslides that shouldn't be possible without the other side essentially allowing them to be.There's a sharp difference between
for longandfor the entire match, which is why eventualities are in place to try to keep the game more in check. The game doesn't directly punish you for extending chases, it just usually requires utilizing a resource that may be consumable. The same reason why so many basekit buffs have been given to both sides, the design is to be about maximum interaction while trying to prevent extremes beyond the player's control (yes, this includes everything short of a checkmate scenario, even when temporarily limited.) Its important to keep that in perspective when not only are the two sides structurally different and at direct odds in their objective, but you have to account for both sides being human players. For everything one person finds unfair while the opponent doesn't, their opponent likely has plenty of situations they feel the same in reverse.Thats why skill compensation is generally kept out of balance conversation unless necessary to set a baseline for the health of the game. Actively limiting more skilled players to compensate for the ones who refuse to adapt and grow is one of the easiest ways to kill a live service game, but so is ignoring it entirely when it affects core aspects like player agency. As for skill itself, it is more than mindgames and luck. Far more. Focusing on them while ignoring everything that leads to them (positioning, available resources, allies/multiple opponents, even just the distinction of micro vs macro play goes outside that limitation.) As killer, if your perspective on the other 3 survivors is mindgames and luck while only focusing on the one, you will lose a lot more than you win, which is ironically the main way to punish hard tunneling as the other 3 players. You can't be on all 4 at once, and the entire reason tunneling is so desirable is because it removes one player's potential from the match as fast as possible. Skill isn't even limited to the mechanical, as simple things like understanding proper routing can easily be the difference between reaching a resource and buying more time, as well as catching up to a survivor in that same scenario where you don't waste time around corners, through windows, or traversing the map in general. Its literally why mobility killers eat so good in the current meta, and is an element of skill that has plenty of agency by itself. And thats not even getting into more advanced aspects like killer specific interactions, just general interaction vs most of the cast with perks/items/addons/etc being modifiers in either direction on a given interaction.
I feel like the misunderstanding of skill as a concept, as well as the self imposed limits on it, are where the disagreement stems from. Considering the hyperbolic assumption that you need to avoid both the killer and the gens to avoid the possibility of tunneling (something that can only happen to 1 out of 4 players in a given match at any given time) it seems like the perspective might honestly be the main thing holding you back. If a killer tries tunneling you and you fare well and waste their time, they are forced to either detatch and find a better opportunity or overcommit and lose for it. Again, winning and losing aren't about the entity's endgame message and honestly this mentality is exactly why many people miss the old and busted emblem focus instead of the MMR one.
-
@hermitkermit said:
It would be nice if it could be used more than once. DS is already much weaker than it was before, so killers aren’t really afraid of it and usually tunnel through it. But with how the community reacts to anything anti-tunnel, I wouldn’t hold your breath lol.
If it had a second use specifically when tunneled, that wouldn't be as bad as just making it have 2 uses. That said, we don't even know the third definition of tunneling apparently, unless its been clarified since. Its another case where being able to have proper (objective) detection for such a thing would open up more possibilities without opening up more exploitation in design.
-
@ChaosWam said:
Makes me question why they drew the line here when it comes to hard caps on anything.
Heck, even DS could be changed to be automatic so pickup couldn't have a cap, but they still capped it anyway.Exactly. Stacking has been an issue the devs have acknowledged in how it limits design, tried and failed to address it with things like haste, but this is the most important place for a hard cap. If it's all because it would be too much work to fit in the skill check timing for DS, that feels kinda… specific. Especially when other cases of stacking can have much bigger impacts on either side (like haste or gen speed/regression/blocking)
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4038920#Comment_4038920
You're not really understanding my logic at all, or you just don't want to. You just want to twist it into your own narrative.
If someone gets tunneled out, I will absolutely blame the Killer, because they made the choice to tunnel in the first place. MMR is an issue as well, but for all kinds of different reasons. Killers can and will tunnel at any MMR level, but MMR matchmaking can play a hand in the outcome, since a skilled Survivor can loop and unskilled Killer, but not so well when it's the other way around. If the Killer and Survivor are equally skilled, then it comes to whoever happens to win the constant paper/rock/scissors game.
If someone gets tunneled out, I will absolutely blame the Killer, because they made the choice to tunnel in the first place.You can let the blame be shared depending on how efficient the tunnel is. You could similarly blame gen rushing both on the survivors who focus on it and the killers who can't disrupt it. Strategies for both sides always revolve around efficiency toward the objective while preventing the opponent from doing the same. Blaming the killer for taking advantage of an unhooked survivor refusing to leave or running right into a dead zone is blaming them for making the correct play. Just like it would be to blame a survivor for rushing gens when they know the killer has no interest in interrupting them.
Edit: Since I feel like it needs to be spelled out, that isn't to say every person who tunnels is innocent every time, but more that its blame shifting to ignore the survivor's agency and their lack of ability to utilize it.
If the Killer and Survivor are equally skilled, then it comes to whoever happens to win the constant paper/rock/scissors game.There is a lot more to interactions between sides than mindgames and luck. Things like routing and positioning are why tunneling even works, as they cut down time to down considerably. Again, tunneling becomes much less effective when the survivor refuses to go down, and being on the backfoot is not the same as having a foot in the grave.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4038773#Comment_4038773
Right, but we're talking about the person being tunneled. It's a guaranteed death for them. And it's certainly not any more fun for the people sitting on gens. I know it's no more fun for me to watch a teammate get tunneled than it is to get tunneled myself.
And I'm saying its not about fun, its about being the change you want to see. Its not about the tunnelled person guaranteeing their own escape, its about punishing the killer for trying. If they don't submit to sunk cost fallacy, they should be able to recognize when to drop off, and you escape. If they don't, their chances of losing for it go up. Either way you're not rewarding the behavior, and doing whats in your control to escape.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4038765#Comment_4038765
Because the other three bust out gens while the one being tunneled dies.
Unless you can directly prevent a down or hook, thats what you're supposed to be doing. The tunnelled person's time waste is what lets them finish them, so any extension is pure progress time for the team. Its what usually leads to tunneling leading the killer to lose when it happens.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4038749#Comment_4038749
Why isn't the kill rate 100%? Because not every Killer tunnels. Some Killers like to challenge themselves by not playing the easy way, and are willing to accept losses when they get outplayed.
I mean my point very clearly was that its not an infallable situation. Trying to rephrase more specifically, do you truly believe 100% of all competent tunnels lead to kills (let alone wins?) That nobody has figured out ways to trip people up when they tunnel, nor take advantage of it as the rest of the team? I'm not saying futility doesn't happen, just that its most often self inflicted.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4038741#Comment_4038741
Sure, but it's getting less and less possible with the way the devs have been weakening maps and loops across the board.
And yeah, I already have Kindred as a permanent perk in my build, as well as Soul Guard (to counter slugging). It makes no difference whether I run anti-tunnel perks or not, because the Killer can easily tunnel through them, no matter how skilled you are. I've seen that countless times. If you manage to buy enough time for the teammates to escape, great. But if you get tunneled, you will die. People don't want to play a match where their death is guaranteed.
Sure, but it's getting less and less possible with the way the devs have been weakening maps and loops across the board.And it was more and more possible when you couldn't sneeze without hitting another pallet. Game balance ebbs and flows, so its important to consider all of it instead of just the aspects that particularly frustrate us as players. You can't cut off your nose to spite your face.
And yeah, I already have Kindred as a permanent perk in my build, as well as Soul Guard (to counter slugging).Both reasonable. Kindred is an extremely underrated perk for solo q in general, but the sheer amount of reliance on crutches are why people refuse to run it, despite how much everyone on the team benefits from even a single person taking it. If people took the advice to improve rather than to rely on habit forming perks like WoO, they would easily be able to find room for it in their loadouts. And that's coming from experience, I used to crutch hard on spine chill in my early days (especially for stealth killers) and being able to take it out of my loadout made me miss it less and less as I got better.
It makes no difference whether I run anti-tunnel perks or not, because the Killer can easily tunnel through them, no matter how skilled you are. I've seen that countless times. If you manage to buy enough time for the teammates to escape, great. But if you get tunneled, youwilldie. People don't want to play a match where their death is guaranteed.Then why isn't the kill rate 100%? If it is clearly so futile that it works every single time, how do people beat it? Being defeatist about it is why it seems like it always works: You stop trying to find ways to counter it and it becomes acceptance. It can be extremely daunting when you have a bad game, but even just using each time you get tunneled as an opportunity to try different techniques/routing/mindgames/etc gives you more of a chance than 0. It even gives you more info to pull from whether it works or not, so you have a starting point on what to try or avoid next time. Sure, you've got a good chance of dying when you get tunnelled, but its nowhere near as hopeless as people make it out to be in most situations. And even in the event it is, the only true loss is one you learn nothing from, regardless of what the entity says.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4038727#Comment_4038727
So you want us to run four perks to counter tunneling, hexes, aura-reading, gen slowdown, healing slowdown?
Sure, give me 20 more perk slots, and I'll be sure to run builds that counter everything the Killer can bring.
Focus on making tunneling you less rewarding instead of relying on perks to be a golden parachute. You'll open up a lot of build variety, rely on bailouts less, and maybe even find more fun in the game so as to not focus so hard on frustration. Even when you get tunnelled into a loss, the time you waste can easily lead to punishing the killer for trying to take the easy option. Talking about forced perks should center around things that players can't control, like accessibility or reducing guesswork, like Bond/Kindred(which everyone wants basekit, yet nobody runs)/Lightborn/old Shadowborne/old Spine Chill/etc. Improving as a player is always within our individual control, even when the game around us isn't.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4038731#Comment_4038731
The context of what chase you lost is pretty important, though- it's not just any chase, it is specifically and exclusively a chase where the killer decided to target you after an unhook.
I could see your point if we were discussing DS in its glory days before the Conspicuous Actions nerf, but these days even being hit with a 59 second DS while not tunnelling is a situation that breaks in the killer's favour because that survivor was being useless for almost a full minute.
The context of what chase you lost is pretty important, though- it's not just any chase, it is specifically and exclusively a chase where the killer decided to target you after an unhook.I completely understand that point, I just don't think even that justifies how much the perk can actually do. It would take extra conditions to reign in the possibilities of 4 players who know how to force the perk (and I'm sure there will be the usual suspects arguing about how you can't use DS aggressively, but I'm not here for that) having up to 8 chances to do that type of objective denial without at least needing resources like flashlights or pallets (since they have other uses outside of that scenario.) It absolutely would have been more cut and dry in the perk's hayday, but again, I don't think its in a place where it would be reasonable. Its impact potential is still too high when used correctly, even with its current stun duration. I'm talking strictly from a design perspective, which is why I feel like a lot of people's emotional reaction can easily get in the way on the topic.
these days even being hit with a 59 second DS while not tunnelling is a situation that breaks in the killer's favour because that survivor was being useless for almost a full minute.There are plenty of ways to be useful to your team without touching a gen. Granted gens are far and away the most useful toward the survivor goal, but things like objective denial don't count as conspicuous actions. You can still do things like bodyblock, throw pallets, use flashlights/flashbangs, any multitude of ways to distract the killer. Which are arguably extremely conspicuous actions by definition but would be too difficult to account for without hurting players who get tunneled, so here we are. I understand why people want to be able to use it more specifically because of the intended use case, but I don't believe the game is anywhere near concise enough for that to be a justification for ignoring its unintended scenarios.
-
An impact of "I already lost chase and am about to get hooked, let me undo that real quick" is far too high to allow it multiple uses. I get people want it to do even more because they hate tunneling, but people's perspective on the perk have been warping more and more over time. And I don't mean stuff about the stun duration (as that has rightfully moved the needle in people's minds) but the sheer downplay it gets is sometimes baffling.
Give killers a perk that lets them kick completed gens, even once per match. Watch how much that would completely shift the tide of a match if used even remotely adequately. Even if it did no instant regression, being able to reopen a wound in your opponent's gameplan that drastically is a bridge too far in terms of objective denial. The limitations on the perk are what keep its impact in check, especially since it can already trigger up to (but not necessarily) 4 times . Its certainly more healthy than the DS/UB combo days, but its not healthy enough to allow it to happen up to 8 regardless of its other conditions. Not in a game where you want people to stop expecting the worst and instead avoid engaging in a meta arms race.
-
@Moonras2 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4036565#Comment_4036565
I would say that's fine. If those things are happening then people are either working on gens for the killer to kick or the killer is getting downs and hooks.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4036698#Comment_4036698
I was just talking about this movie to someone at work a few days ago. Been long time since I've watched it lol.
I mostly mention it because if you get bored and flex your "agency" by kicking a gen, you reset the timer. Its important to note in case you ever find yourself in a situation where it applies, since I don't believe there is any in game indication for the timer. Would hate to see someone waiting 9 minutes only to throw another 10 on top by mistake. Or maybe they would to waste the survivors time and we'll have a mini version of the hatch standoff back. Either way, how it was implemented isn't particularly intuitive, so anyone in that situation should stick strictly to breaking pallets and doorways if no gens have finished/regressed in a while unless they want to prolong the game.
-
@Moonras2 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4036517#Comment_4036517
Oh ok ty. That's good to know that it has to be completed and not just touched.
Just keep in mind IIRC gen regression events reset that timer, so kicks or popping pain res or anything like that would extend those situations.
@cogsturning said:
You can't just leave because you don't like what your opponents are doing. If you're somehow having this problem regularly, bring Lightborn. Learn to read people's perks. If they're playing aggressive with Boil Over or Breakdown than slug them. Unbreakable only works once. Totems can be snuffed. Learning to manage these situations is very satisfying.
All of this applies to survivor gameplay as well, yet we're at the point where getting picked up 3 times allows you to leave. That isn't to say you're wrong, and its very good advice.
@random1543 said:
If a killer decides fo DC it ends the whole match ends and everyone is sent back to the lobby to que back up, so yes they should get a penalty.
You could same same for surviour side tho
"If i get downed in the first few minutes then tunneled, proxy camped and all of that, i do not want to play the game"
This is why concepts like abandoning are so hard to manage for the killer role. It's load bearing for the entire match, while survivors are elimination based. Killer centric approaches to alleviating these problems need to work within the game itself more than around prematurely ending it.
-
Opacity/density should be addressed across maps to set a baseline, then it should be set to a level where it is worth using (viable.) Then some type of lightborne-esque approach should be given to a perk to give killers the ability to mitigate it for a cost (doesn't have to impact all of its effects, just something meaningful enough to help visually/auditorily impaired players.) Uses shouldn't be infinite but 2 is a bit low, especially if any type of mitigation option is provided. If they want to keep it low, they could introduce some type of recharge mechanic for it tied to something like gen progress or even totems. Alternatively, they could try reducing the number of tracking elements it impacts to allow compensation based counterplay, even if they come with limits (something like auras being blocked, but restored if spending too long in the fog as an example.)
Even as someone who gets disproportionately impacted by them from an accessibility standpoint, they chose pretty much the worst way to handle them.
-
Ragebaiting and us vs them really are like peanut butter and jelly.
-
@Sngfun said:
I mean tunneling would be much less frustrating (specially in a friend group) if you didn't just sit in the vc spectating ur team while the match drags on.
Mechanic (probably a perk) aimed at giving dead survivors a side objective to help their team, (obviously not generators, healing other survivors or unhooking, since that would allow for essentially no reason for the killer to kill people, which well, would be a problem)
My ideas would be:
1. Zombie like state in which you die if you are hit, carrying a flashlight, flashbang, barely any noise. (Would allow for a less risky way of learning flashlight saving without throwing the game if you fail, could be used as a 1 time bodyblock help otherwise)
2. Ghost like state in which you move faster (like wraith) but have no body, essentially giving survivors small bonuses and a lot of information (for newer players that get tunneled out).
I would love to hear your ideas!
Can't SWFs already just screen watch each other and convey information much more effectively? They can even compensate for the perspective of any randos who aren't in a call with them. For solo, just queue up for the next one, but I was expecting something like having dead survivors sit in a "waiting lobby" rift pocket or something where they can play a minigame if you wanted to address something like that. Otherwise you can basically be a quantum leaping UAV as it is, so not really any need to introduce something that can impact the match itself.
-
@jmwjmw27 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035409#Comment_4035409
Foreward
yeah no worries here. Just a discussion happening between two forum users.
if I'm understanding you correctly, your concept of agency is limited to
your character does things when you press the buttons, maybe tertiary bonuses like BPmore thanyour character can make meaningful progress without relying on their opponent actively allowing it.Not entirely. If that were the case then I would argue survivors on the ground basekit have agency, just having a character respond to your inputs isn't enough. I think our definitions are pretty similar (agency is the ability to progress/change the outcome or situation in your favor) and we're just looking at the situation differently.
I've already gone into my stance on agency in this topic a bit earlier, as well as explained how checkmate scenarios exist for killers, but think of it kinda like this: If someone in an FPS takes the lead and then glitches out of bounds so their opponent cannot kill them, that doesn't stop the opponent from having any of their mobility, actions, or even have input be taken from them. It simply removes their objective from being possible in that scenario, creating a dead man walking loss. Kinda like in an old point and click adventure if you forgot a key item back in chapter 2, but the game didn't have the decency to just finish you so you could reload and not waste time. Both sides have the ability to have their agency taken away in both micro and macro play, but as soon as it is taken for the remainder of the match, only one side gets to leave while the other gets to balance patience and potential humiliation.
From what I gather, your argument is that in certain situations, you can be in a scenario where your opponents have made it impossible to change the outcome of the match in your favor (like the FPS example). And as a killer in that scenario you should be able to abandon.
I guess for example, playing against survivors that know how to point and heal tech that are all standing against the edge of the escape part of the gate while you are playing wraith. In a scenario like this, regardless of what you do, the only way the outcome will change is relying on the opponent to make a mistake, which realistically will not happen, correct?
I was arguing against what someone else had said, which is that there is no agency in reducing the time waste aspect. If your objective is simply to end the match as fast as possible and move on after your loss, survivors on the ground don't have agency in that (without the abandon feature), but killers in EGC do.
However, from the point of view of "do you have agency if your goal is to progress your objective", with "objective" being hook states or survivor deaths, then I can agree with you that there are scenarios as described above where the killer has none.
This, I think, is where difference of opinion kicks in, I think even in an unwinnable scenario that relies only on opponent mistakes you should still play it out for sportsmanship's sake. In a 2v1 at 5 gens, a similarly hopeless scenario that relies on opponent mistakes, I would not give survivors an abandon option either. But I can respect and understand your opinion that in cases like these or killers in EGC that there should be one, and that not everyone thinks the same way I do.
If its lazy, unfortunately that doesn't make it justifiable. Half baked plastifixes solve one problem to cause 4 more down the line. They could easily have exceptions for the mechanic based on portions of a loadout, even if they were as lazy as to just disable it in the presence of specific perks on a per survivor basis. But again, zero effort, zero thought, and zero announcement of planning.
I agree, and I wish they did it that way. It really kills the momentum of the team when someone abandons when multiple players have perks like conviction and unbreakable.
Haven't been able to play for a bit, but did the anti slug get scrapped as well?
Sadly, completely scrapped. No increased crawling speed, no self pickup, no crawling and recovering. All that made it through was 5 more seconds of basekit BT and tweaks to the anti-facecamp self unhook system (which make it harder to camp/proxy camp).
I guess for example, playing against survivors that know how to point and heal tech that are all standing against the edge of the escape part of the gate while you are playing wraith. In a scenario like this, regardless of what you do, the only way the outcome will change is relying on the opponent to make a mistake, which realistically will not happen, correct?Yep. Its only an example, but its one that's entirely basekit and extremely easy to do when possible. Pointing isn't even required nor is heal tech, though they do obviously reduce the margin of error. The range of safety increases substantially with other factors like perks/bodyblocks/items/etc. Some killers have answers for this, but its a very small portion of the roster.
This, I think, is where difference of opinion kicks in, I think even in an unwinnable scenario that relies only on opponent mistakes you should still play it out for sportsmanship's sake. In a 2v1 at 5 gens, a similarly hopeless scenario that relies on opponent mistakes, I would not give survivors an abandon option either. But I can respect and understand your opinion that in cases like these or killers in EGC that there should be one, and that not everyone thinks the same way I do.I don't necessarily disagree with that, and I'm a staunch proponent for playing out losing matches. The problem is that the abandon feature is already in the game in its current form, and one side gets to escape those checkmate scenarios much easier than the other. The system respects the survivors time far more than the killer's, which is where my problem lies. The next step would be to achieve parity in this concern (not necessarily using a copy and paste of the same solution that worked for survivor, due to how the game is structured) or the abandon conditions on the survivor side shouldn't be as generous as they are. I'd MUCH rather have similar considerations be given to the killer side than the alternative, but there is zero word about any type of phase 2 to do so. Unfortunately it feels like it's not even a consideration, especially how often people try to look at it as tit for tat rather than focusing on the overarching issue that the abandon option is already solving… for one side.
The reason I emphasize this issue so much, is because of how it affects player mindsets. A big side effect of respecting players time is that it keeps players less frustrated, and slows concepts like tilt. This game could always use less upset players, especially since they tend to consequently take that displeasure out on others, causing a cycle. And while frustrations can often be self inflicted due to concepts like entitlement or refusing to adapt, checkmate scenarios are the pinnacle of lose/lose scenarios, so they tend to stick with people harder than they need to. Its an improvement that helps everybody regardless of temperament, as it lessens the "eye for an eye" mentality players have in taking bad games out on the next game's opponent, which is why I don't see the abandon system without merit. The game just needs a better alternative, or a proper overhaul to the approach.
Sadly, completely scrapped. No increased crawling speed, no self pickup, no crawling and recovering. All that made it through was 5 more seconds of basekit BT and tweaks to the anti-facecamp self unhook system (which make it harder to camp/proxy camp).I'm kinda mixed on that. On the one hand, having a solution to excessive slugging should absolutely be a thing. On the other hand, I wasn't a big fan of their approach due to how some perks could be used to build it up more easily than intended. Like anti-tunnel, I hope they don't give up on the idea of a tool away from 4 man slugs that doesn't involve abandoning, but I feel like it needs to be more dire due to effectively taking victory from the opponent. Something like coming with an aura reveal and/or exposed for a short duration or something could be an idea if they cant come up with a more reasonable system, though I'm sure someone could come up with something more elegant.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035346#Comment_4035346
what alternatives do you think would be fair to cut down on the varying degrees of hopelessness for killers in situations where they would want to abandon?So this is always a tricky question because it gets into what I would do vs what would be an equivalent for the killer based on what the survivors have.
My opinion - I don't have a huge problem with surrenders (if they are marked as loses and not BHVR's weird process), and actively support them in a game with a design like DbD. I think a surrender option that is way too early can destroy a game, but if the killer had the option to abandon when the survivors where in the gate I'd have no problem with it.
Fairness - I think the survivors being in the exit gate would be equivalent to the survivors on the ground, but I don't know if it would be worth BHVR's time to code if the end result is a survivor just sits outside the exit gate with sprint burst and the whole system becomes moot.
I just really want to know how people define agency. I've seen it defined a few different ways, but I've always attributed it to An individual's ability to impact the outcome of the game they are playing in a meaningful way,That's a good definition, meaningful can of course be a little subjective, but any definition will have that.
I suppose someone could define it more in terms of what you as the player can do. So a slugged survivor can't actually engage with much, while a killer can still do all the killer things even as the survivors stand in the exit gate.
I should add: agency is the not primary reason I support the abandon system, though I get caught up in that argument based on the 'if BHVR did X for Y then they need to do X for Z' points. Mine is that once a game has become pointless, i.e. the chance that one side or the other can come back is astronomically slim, then unless the ending of the game is almost immediate after that, people should be able to end it.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035343#Comment_4035343
That's a fair point. Though it would be weird/funny if killers ended up getting nerfed because tbagging survivors were so frequent they increased the kill rate.
Fair enough. I think regarding agency's definition I still think its more complex than that, but agree to disagree since I've certainly ranted my piece on it. By meaningful, I mostly mean in the sense that the actions aren't mundane: Using a slugged survivor as an example, they can move around, but the only meaningful action it has is supplementing the agency of their teammates. Their personal agency means little, and would only really be limited to crawling away so the killer doesn't find you, but even then its mostly supplementing your allies agency in being able to pick you up (which is why I use
shared agencywhen discussing survivor sometimes.) Without teammates who take advantage of it, that type of agency has no real meaning. It can be viewed in a subjective lens, but its mostly an attempt to create a more unified definition of the concept's application in the game. Part of why people disagree on it is feel like we have different conceptual perspectives on what constitutes it.Fairness - I think the survivors being in the exit gate would be equivalent to the survivors on the ground, but I don't know if it would be worth BHVR's time to code if the end result is a survivor just sits outside the exit gate with sprint burst and the whole system becomes moot.Thats why resolutions would have to account for things like that. Hell, you could realistically disable all speed modifiers in the exit gate itself as a small condition for that particular example (making it require a much bigger running start, so further distance from the gate) but the idea is that these types of solutions don't necessarily get more difficult as the complexity of their considerations goes up, and some fringe cases can be addressed with minimal manpower. Sometimes you run into situations where something might be too much work to implement, but ideally finding more efficient solutions addresses fringe cases without needing to put in extra work.
Thats why I like ideas like adding a growing exposure effect based on proximity to a powered exit gate, as it leaves room for things like risky saves and keeps those elements in the game, yet creates more of a risk for lingering. Then you could give it a second tier that blocks the exit gate and now you have a system that actively punishes all negative forms of refusing to leave while still allowing for the times that ties into endgame gameplay by amplifying the risk/reward nature and urgency of greeding vs leaving. An idea like that can have its thresholds adjusted until you find a sweet spot, and conceptually its focused on addressing the proposed issues while keeping consideration for the impact those types of choices would have on survivor gameplay. It would even be able to recycle code from how the AFC works, since there's already a proximity based meter buildup system in the game.
Thats not to say its a perfect solution, but its the type of consideration that should be going into these types of solutions. Part of why so many things in the game feel like the devs have a bias one way or the other is because their adjustments never seem to have much consideration on what they indirectly lead to, and that tends to lead them to favor one side or the other or completely miss important exceptions.
-
I don't know if fully removing them would be the right play, but maybe something like a cooldown on them? So they might restore 1 kick per 45 seconds after the blocking kick or something like that, to keep it somewhat contested if ignored too long. Would add a bit of urgency to survivors who know its blocked but also be more specifically a punishment for taking advantage of it.
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035378#Comment_4035378
I guess it is a hot take because almost everyone seems to utilize it. It's rare in a killer match that I win that someone doesn't abandon. I recently tracked my stats and 21% of my opponenets abandoned. That was likely almost everyone who the option even showed up for.
When they first announced a surrender option, I thought it would be an in-game thing, like I could run up to the killer and stab myself in the throat or use a spell to summon the Entity for an end game timeout-style death. But just leaving the match sucks, and it deleting the loss from your stats sucks even more.
Even in valid scenarios I rarely touch it. I got humped by a Ghostface for over three minutes recently and just tolerated it. Also had a Twins slug me for the 4k and leave me that way until seconds were left. I'd much rather an in-game reaction to crap like that instead of a match-deletion option.
When they first announced a surrender option, I thought it would be an in-game thing, like I could run up to the killer and stab myself in the throat or use a spell to summon the Entity for an end game timeout-style deathI always thought it would be cool, if any kind of proper concede option was introduced for killers, that it would be something like chanting at a shrine to the entity in the basement or something. That would actually go kinda sick with any kind of idea that would do something like reclosing doors or ejecting survivors. But I like that idea, any type of surrender option goes best with an animation, even if they're just something goofy.
-
@jmwjmw27 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035167#Comment_4035167
Pushing survivors out isn't any more agency than hatch standoffs were.
Sure, but I don't see how that's relevant. We're discussing the agency between a survivor on the floor and a killer when survivors are in the exit gate, base kit. Ignoring that some killers can actually get kills in the exit gate, a killer has the agency to force the survivors to leave under threat of being hooked. In comparison, the survivor base kit cannot do anything except crawl. My point against OP's was this - survivors get the abandon feature because there is nothing they can do if the opponent wants to waste their time. Conversely, the killer can attack the survivors to force them to stop wasting theirs.
And if its not over yet, then why is it ok for survivor abandon to ignore so many perks and mechanics that can be used to prolong the game for them?
The real answer is because BHVR is lazy and didn't want to program a system that would check every single edge case to make sure survivors didn't have a way to come back. If it were up to me, those edge cases would be included in the system, but it's not up to me.
I will never understand the selective nature people use regarding what they consider player agency, as they never seem to reconcile between sides.
I mean, maybe this is just a difference of opinion. Agency is the player's ability to influence happenings within the game. When a survivor is slugged base kit and the killer wants them to bleed out, that survivor has zero agency in the situation. Crawling and recovering are their only options, neither of which will change the outcome of waiting 4 minutes. Killers in EGC have plenty of agency though; ignoring the possibility of kills basekit and assuming a killer like trapper, I can still prevent a 2 minute time waste. Now, if you mean agency as in "the killer has to watch the opponents teabag or waste 2 minutes", then yeah, there's nothing you can really do about that. But I don't think being teabagged (or WS'd by the killer) is enough to warrant an abandon in any situation where that can be the outcome.
This is something that absolutely needed addressing, which is why it always baffles me what the line is for people when comparing the roles. Is it the duration? Because killers can absolutely have more than 4 minutes of their time wasted through things like excessive hiding. They can do it for up to 10 IIRC. The lack of movement? If survivors could zoom around at sprint burst speed on the ground but were unable to escape or interact toward their objective in any way until the match ends, would that somehow be better? How about if they could actively grovel for the same amount of time it takes to swat multiple survivors out? We should have a better solution that addresses the unified issue of
one side being able to stall victory to waste their opponent's timerather than multiple smaller ones between mechanics like abandons and self pickups that very clearly favor one side in consideration.Again, it's the agency that comes from this being an asymmetrical game. Because of the way killer works, they have agency in any time wasting situation survivors will never have by way of always being able to injure, down, and hook them. An equivalent situation for killer would be one of the old exploits where you could sit below a drop and the killer drop and then would be stuck on top of your head, unable to do anything and completely at mercy of the survivor below them until the server times out or they move.
In lieu of that, they could at least try something like (off the top of my head) allowing the killer to close a gate and auto eject any survivors in it out of the match if, say, 50% of remaining survivors are in it. That way if its just one, smack em, but if its a matter of lingering in the safe zone, pushing out can be done more efficiently. It could even lead to situations where any remaining survivors who get left behind form a "second round" to endgame. Maybe adjust the EGC timer or show any remaining survivors the gate switch auras for a few seconds when it closes to give them a chance to come up with a gameplan. Ideas like that obviously take testing and ironing out, but again, not even on the radar.
I wouldn't mind something like this heading to PTB. Would be interesting to see.
Foreward: Some of the wording might have come off a little annoyed, but I couldn't really think of a way to retread some of the stuff from earlier and its been a long day. Its not intentional, so apologies if anything comes off as such. A lot of it seems to stem from our definitions of agency itself, so that makes both arguments more subjective.
Sure, but I don't see how that's relevant. We're discussing the agency between a survivor on the floor and a killer when survivors are in the exit gate, base kit. Ignoring that some killers can actually get kills in the exit gate, a killer has the agency to force the survivors to leave under threat of being hooked. In comparison, the survivor base kit cannot do anything except crawl. My point against OP's was this - survivors get the abandon feature because there is nothing they can do if the opponent wants to waste their time. Conversely, the killer can attack the survivors to force them to stop wasting theirs.I entirely disagree on that based on agency as a concept. See my previous posts in the topic about it, because I even gave examples of how the way killer "agency" works would look on survivor. You're too focused on the asymmetry that you're missing the commonalities, and if I'm understanding you correctly, your concept of agency is limited to
your character does things when you press the buttons, maybe tertiary bonuses like BPmore thanyour character can make meaningful progress without relying on their opponent actively allowing it.I've already gone into my stance on agency in this topic a bit earlier, as well as explained how checkmate scenarios exist for killers, but think of it kinda like this: If someone in an FPS takes the lead and then glitches out of bounds so their opponent cannot kill them, that doesn't stop the opponent from having any of their mobility, actions, or even have input be taken from them. It simply removes their objective from being possible in that scenario, creating a dead man walking loss. Kinda like in an old point and click adventure if you forgot a key item back in chapter 2, but the game didn't have the decency to just finish you so you could reload and not waste time. Both sides have the ability to have their agency taken away in both micro and macro play, but as soon as it is taken for the remainder of the match, only one side gets to leave while the other gets to balance patience and potential humiliation.
The real answer is because BHVR is lazy and didn't want to program a system that would check every single edge case to make sure survivors didn't have a way to come back. If it were up to me, those edge cases would be included in the system, but it's not up to me.If its lazy, unfortunately that doesn't make it justifiable. Half baked plastifixes solve one problem to cause 4 more down the line. They could easily have exceptions for the mechanic based on portions of a loadout, even if they were as lazy as to just disable it in the presence of specific perks on a per survivor basis. But again, zero effort, zero thought, and zero announcement of planning.
I mean, maybe this is just a difference of opinion. Agency is the player's ability to influence happenings within the game.I think that would be better described as input. Using the TF2 example, you can do pretty much everything except shoot (even stuff like double jumps iirc) and it removes any and all effective impact you have on the game. By your definition, your agency would be being able to run into the enemy to get killed faster, or attempt to hide and get found instantly 90% of the time. Just like how swatting out at the gates could lead to a hook or kill, but that is a fringe case that, past a certain point, specifically requires the survivor to allow it to happen. I specify that because as my posts point out, I would only really be ok with killer's getting the ability to specifically abandon in checkmate scenarios, not checks like the survivors currently can.
When a survivor is slugged base kit and the killer wants them to bleed out, that survivor has zero agency in the situation.Haven't been able to play for a bit, but did the anti slug get scrapped as well? I know they were tinkering with it and making it even better, but haven't been keeping up with how much gets kept and how much gets thrown out lately. If not, then no, that would be a check as long as there are means to be picked up (teammates are basekit) and would require any and all ability to be picked up to be a check mate (even all 4 down is still technically a check, though it could be a checkmate if zero survivors had any means through perks to pick themselves up) as even a single perk like UB or Conviction across the whole team (always remember, survivors are the shared agency role) would be enough to keep reasonable potential for a reset. Hell self unhooking would as well, and while something like the AFC version probably wouldn't do anything, deliverance or wicked could lead to a reset. Then you add perks like resurgence to give the reset and even better chance.
My point is a real checkmate would be all 4 survivors in the exit gate, positioned so they will fall past the exit gate when downed, and there is no basekit solution to that for killer. There isn't even really a perk IIRC, just specific killer powers and addons if memory serves. This absolutely can reach those levels on the survivor side, but that type of checkmate is far more strict than how the disconnect system works.
Crawling and recovering are their only options, neither of which will change the outcome of waiting 4 minutes.And if two survivors decide to forever hide, at any point in the game, they can delay the game for up to 10 minutes per remaining gen and/or regression event. Killer gets bored after 9 minutes and decides to kick a gen to flex their "agency?" Just added another 10 minutes to the timer. People seem to think killers can never have checkmates because they carry a weapon, when survivors have an objective that doesn't even rely on one.
Killers in EGC have plenty of agency though; ignoring the possibility of kills basekit and assuming a killer like trapper, I can still prevent a 2 minute time waste.We have differing opinions on what constitutes agency, so I can understand your reasoning. However, the thing about your definition is that it ignores concepts like checks and checkmates entirely, as well as all the examples I've given in the topic. If you are playing something like a fighting game and you got touch of death combo perfected every single round, how much agency did you have? How about if you get spawncamped the entire game in an FPS? You start with agency until it is robbed from you, its not just your inputs moving a character onscreen, nor is it purposely walking to your doom to speed up your your loss of the match, which is why I've brought up TF2 so many times.
Now, if you mean agency as in "the killer has to watch the opponents teabag or waste 2 minutes", then yeah, there's nothing you can really do about that. But I don't think being teabagged (or WS'd by the killer) is enough to warrant an abandon in any situation where that can be the outcome.What I mean by agency is that the player has zero realistic ability to have their personal input influence the game in their favor, most notably toward their objective. If a survivor can't use any action commands on gens or other survivors, they would have limited agency since they would still be able to interact with the killer and resources. If they lost that as well, and could only move, they would still have the ability to sandbag themselves but would have zero agency. The only possibility they would have of a positive outcome would require their teammates to use their agency to compensate for the lack, as they would be unable to physically advance their goal and the only impact they could have would involve the killer willfully giving it to them (chasing them and ignoring the rest of the team enough for gens to be finished, or being ignored and having a shot at hatch.)
Again, it's the agency that comes from this being an asymmetrical game. Because of the way killer works, they have agency in any time wasting situation survivors will never have by way of always being able to injure, down, and hook them. An equivalent situation for killer would be one of the old exploits where you could sit below a drop and the killer drop and then would be stuck on top of your head, unable to do anything and completely at mercy of the survivor below them until the server times out or they move.Basically, the main source of our disagreement is about the application of the concept of agency to the game. The interesting thing is that this was exactly why the anti-tunneling mechanic bombed as bad as it did, that type of baseline couldn't be established by the community nor the devs (even though they apparently know a third way to tunnel, but just trust them bro.) Also, now that survivors can abandon in so many non-checkmate situations, it kinda kills this argument. And can you not think of a single situation where a killer cannot "injure, down, and hook them?" People have known how to position themselves to fall out of the exit gate for years, its basekit, only specific killers can do anything about it, and it makes it impossible to ever hook or even pick them up. Thats nowhere near as extreme as things like OOB, locker clipping, or immobilization exploits (which are pretty much all gone, thankfully.)
Again, I feel like the main source of the schism is coming from your definition of agency. You keep switching around on whether even simple mobility and input recognition is what determines it, yet survivors still have that when crawling. They only lose that during animation locks (like the killer pickup animation) but they are always able to relocate as well as crawl through the hatch if it has spawned and they find it. The latter of which straight up nullifies both the loss and the win for their opponent, so while niche, I would argue it's technically still more agency than swatting out at the exit. At least you have luck as a potential to see your goal rather than having to rely specifically on your opponent willingly giving it to you.
Just think of it this way, the more variety a game offers you, the more agency you have. Multiple endings, multiple characters, weapons, all of those extrapolations allow the player to have more direct control over how the game plays out for them. Your literal button input is much smaller than your overall input into games themselves, and it goes beyond the mechanical. Agency is essentially choice.
-
@crogers271 said:
Of all the threads that discussed the abandon issue, why did this one get necroed?
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035322#Comment_4035322
For the record, I'm pro giving the killer a surrender option, but
1: Right now, the game would just end, so it depends on whether its a hypothetical world where BHVR has fixed that issue.
2: Is the issue fairness (i.e., the survivors have this, so the killer should), or is it jus something that should exist (a good idea)?
The fairness issue is that BHVR's approach is agency - how much can the player do at this point in the game. The killer agency is still relatively high in these situations compared to the survivor equivalents.
The is it just a good idea - the difficulty is where to draw the line. Make it standing in the exit gates, survivors just stand slightly outside the exit gates. It's very easy to draw a line for the survivors where they are highly unlikely to advance their position (everyone slugged for example), then it is for the killer (as many people have said in the comments, many kills are obtained after gates opened). So you create the situation where BHVR puts a lot of work into coding an additional abandon option, only for survivors who are interested in bullying the killer to easily sidestep it.
Out of curiosity, since we agree on things like the load bearing structure of the killer role, what alternatives do you think would be fair to cut down on the varying degrees of hopelessness for killers in situations where they would want to abandon?
that said:
The fairness issue is that BHVR's approach is agency - how much can the player do at this point in the game. The killer agency is still relatively high in these situations compared to the survivor equivalents.That heavily depends on the situation. There can absolutely be plenty of dead man walking scenarios for killer, they just tend to get ignored due to a misplaced attribution of agency. Recycling my previous comparison, do you believe losing players in TF2 have agency during the endgame cooldown? They could always try to do things like dance around and goof off with the winners, but that usually gets ended pretty quickly followed up by kill screen taunts. They're kinda eerily similar the more I think about it.
I just really want to know how people define agency. I've seen it defined a few different ways, but I've always attributed it to
An individual's ability to impact the outcome of the game they are playing in a meaningful way,which usually focuses on progress toward their objective and/or a positive resolution. Having a "lose sooner" out (which both smacking out at the gate and abandon fit, to various degrees) respects the player's time more than without, but it doesn't do anything for their actual agency. They still can't do anything meaningful to improve their outcome, just mundane distractions like breaking pallets or cleansing totems, when they'd much rather be in a potentially more reasonable game state (aka next match.)@Leon_van_Straken said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035337#Comment_4035337
But that is kinda my point. If you stay outside of the exit gate and not the finish line the Killer has a chance.
I give you an examples:
Killer has noed and hits you at the exit gate line. You drop out. But if you are out of the gate even before the gate and the Killer hits you than the game is going on. Thats what I ment in my posts by saying the Survivor needs to screw up.
If you stay outside of the exit gate and not the finish line the Killer has a chance.Selectively. There are easily situations where the survivor can be quite far from the gate at all and still not be able to be downed and picked up before they would reach it. The distance potential relies heavily on the game around it, via perks/addons/bodyblocks/instadowns/heal tech/endurance/exhaustion perks/killer/etc. Some killers can punish people inside the gates themselves if they don't position right, 3 allies heal teching can allow someone to crawl a lot farther than you'd think, a bodyblock congo line and a well placed dead hard can cover a good deal of distance and a lot of blade wipes. Nurse can literally be waiting in the exit gate as you open it, etc. Exit gate safety isn't really a static distance, so its important for any attempts to address it to recognize and account for that variation as fairly as possible.
But yeah, things like survivors falling out of the exit gate during the blade wipe are checkmates in all but the most extreme scenarios, like a gate already blocked before they get hit, or the survivor giving up their position for some reason.
-
@Leon_van_Straken said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035314#Comment_4035314
The Killers didn´t ask for a abbandon when all gens are finished or the gates are opend.
They ask for an abbandon when the Survivors are all at the exit gate so that they don´t get the walk of shame.
If all 4 Survivors are standing at the finish line there is nearly 0% chance that the Killer (if the survivors don´t screw up) can do something else than hitting them out while they tbag or click their flashlights.
So I ask again and maybe you can give me an simple answer. What are survivors losing except to bm the Killer when the Killer has the option to close the trial when these conditions are in play?
The Survivors escape except they screw up or the game ends and the survivors escape. So why are Survivors acting like it would be unfair if the Killer won´t need to see them escape?
The Survivors escape except they screw up or the game ends and the survivors escape. So why are Survivors acting like it would be unfair if the Killer won´t need to see them escape?This is the biggest commonality across the isle. Nobody likes when their agency is entirely (or even mostly) dependent on the mistakes of your opponent, especially revolving around a game's outcome. Its a necessarily evil in micro play, but it stings the most in macro and endgame play. Even against a survivor standing just outside the exit gate, the killer still has more agency than against one who is positioned so that they will fall out of bounds when hit. The current abandon system's iteration protects exactly one side from being stuck in that situation more than necessary. People hate lose/lose scenarios, and the devs have acknowledged both that and the desire for maintaining direct agency, yet here we are.
So I ask again and maybe you can give me an simple answer. What are survivors losing except to bm the Killer when the Killer has the option to close the trial when these conditions are in play?Validation in their win. Its the same reason the jackass on a sports team would spit in their hand before the GG handshake. You just have less of a chance of the other player cracking you over the head with their helmet for it. Its not always that sinister, but in the end, a win cut short is far less rewarding. Its also the same reason killers would w/s and 4 man bleed survivors. Unfortunately some people just want to overenjoy it, opponent be damned.
@ArcT said:
"The Killers didn´t ask for a abbandon when all gens are finished or the gates are opend."
Literally the first post in this thread from like 7 months ago is asking to abandon when all gens are finished.
"The Killers" aren't one person. The danger of us vs them attitudes is that it leads to grossly conflating arguments between anyone you deem as an "other."
-
@Leon_van_Straken said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035247#Comment_4035247
As I said both scenarios.
Beeing slugged and forced to hit the others out is exact the same in this scenario.
Not the Slugging is the bad part neither getting hit by the Killer but that "IF" you don´t want to waste time or don´t like to getting bmed you can leave the game. Easy as that.
One side got the possibility for more than one reason. You can abbandon if all Survivors are slugged even if someone could have unbreakable. You can abbandon when all Survivors are hooked even if someone could have deliverance or slippery meat. You can abbandon when you get downed twice and healed up no matter in which time period this occurs. You can even abbandon when both exit gates and the hatch is open while you are still healthy and the killer on the other side of the map.
The only thing I ask is that the Killer gets the abbandon option if nothing else is to do than hitting the survivors and watch the tbag parade.
But it seems that one of these is okay, even if still possibilitys exist while the other would be a total disaster for survivors if this "shaming ritual" would be cut short.
Why is that?
Not the Slugging is the bad part neither getting hit by the Killer but that "IF" you don´t want to waste time or don´t like to getting bmed you can leave the game. Easy as that.This is the right mentality. I don't agree with giving the killer the ability to abandon outside of extreme cases, but that is what prospective solutions should focus around. Like the abandon feature was proposed to target, it should focus on preventing absolute loss of agency, respect the player's time, and minimize one sided BM scenarios. Even if abandon isn't it especially for the killer side, that isn't to say it shouldn't be a more mindful system.
The only thing I ask is that the Killer gets the abbandon option if nothing else is to do than hitting the survivors and watch the tbag parade.Thats why I feel directly addressing the exit gate's virtually non-lethal zone would be the best place to focus efforts. Since abandon would cause issues for match integrity, a more considerate solution would be to incorporate something that targets that instead. People already used powers and addons that block exits as an excuse for people to use, yet they are extremely limited among the roster. They could easily explore things like that, exposure effects when staying too close to a powered exit gate (could even make it scale in speed or duration based on partially powered gates, to make 99ing to prevent EGC more risky,) AoE effects in the gate itself like The Savior Mankind Ill Needs can do, etc. Its an entirely untapped portion of every map thats supposed to be a hopeful finish line more than arguably the safest spot on any map.
@GentlemanFridge said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035253#Comment_4035253
Not sure I understand your point. The anti-tunnel changed never made it to live. People never got to get used to those. The abandon system has been around for a while now, and people will not like it if it’s reined in.
Not sure I understand your point. The anti-tunnel changed never made it to live. People never got to get used to those. The abandon system has been around for a while now, and people willnotlike it if it’s reined in.Youre right, and I don't know if it was related to their point, but its an interesting point that most killers weren't vehemently against a system like that, but more that the threshold was far too strict based on the laughably obfuscated definition of "tunneling." I'm pretty sure most would be fine with it if the minimum hooks were brought down to a lower number than 6. It could have been tested around lower values so that it wouldn't affect things like juggling multiple survivors or tunneling later in the game as an adaptive comeback mechanic. The main issue was that situations that weren't early game tunneling could very easily get lumped into that depending on the flow of the match, and the goalpost-on-wheels that is "defining tunneling." Did we ever get to hear what the third form was?
But yeah, if there's anything that we've seen time and again with this game, its that overshooting on a mechanic or idea to help one side tends to lead to a lot of negativity when reigned in or scrapped. Many people want their personal advantages more than a healthy game, so that will always be an unfortunate side effect of most nerfs just in concept.
@Philscooper said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035221#Comment_4035221
Here's my unproven prediction.
Killers would be afk and then dc the moment the gens are done.
If the killer doesnt dc, most likely endgame perks which survivors will always be able to see comming, which will indirectly nerf endgame perks...besides noed.
Not only that, but the developers would waste resources on something that killers can live without.
-
I just dont see the point why they would even need a surrender in the first place, since they are never in a position to ever needing it besides those extreme scenarios.
Survivors for years had no choice but essentially be afk.
Which didnt even work since killers carrying survivors stopped the bleedout timer.
Why would the "power role" surrender when they lost 5 gens when the game is yet to be over?.
If you really wanted to surrender, you technically could by just opening the gate, pushing the survivors out or be afk and wait out the endgame collapse timer.
At most, i can reasonably see bhvr adding a endgame collapse timer speed up if survivors are hovering around the gate.
This would accomplish your goal without giving more give ups when the game isnt over yet.
Not only that, but the developers would waste resources on something that killers can live without.That is the literal definition of QoL. Improvements that aren't necessary for the game, but improve the experience for the end user. If that was used as a dismissal we wouldn't have gotten the majority of the improvements the game has received, the issue is more with them wasting those resources on things that don't even pass the conceptual phase, yet get pushed to PTBs (and sometimes even straight to live) anyway. If we want to trim some fat, they should focus on considerably more theory crafting and smoke testing to make sure both concepts and proposed solutions are more concrete before dedicating resources enough to put them in our hands, even for further testing. There are arguments about salvaging bad ideas and repurposing them into good ones later, but thats more an exception than a rule.
I just dont see the point why they would even need a surrender in the first place, since they are never in a position to ever needing it besides those extreme scenarios.Is the implication that survivors need a surrender outside of extreme scenarios? They're an elimination based role, so they only have to stick around to the end if they are the last survivor. Otherwise they get to leave a match before the killer, which allows them to get into another match faster. It was the entire premise behind go next advocates, being able to get out of a losing game faster and into another one where they had more potential. You can absolutely have a bad game without it being some extreme hostage situation.
Survivors for years had no choice but essentially be afk.Same for killers who refuse to swat survivors out. They just get the added bonus of loud noise notification spam from across the map. Survivors could at least be eliminated, preferably by just playing out the game like usual and dying since it is apparently inevitable, despite the potentials of both hatch and sneaking a cheeky exit gate if you end up being last.
Which didnt even work since killers carrying survivors stopped the bleedout timer.Likewise, if two survivors forever hide and finish at least one gen every 10 minutes, or force a regression event within the same cadence, they can theoretically go all the way up to the server shutdown. Not realistic, but if we want to talk about extremes that exploit oversights, this game never lacks them for either side.
Why would the "power role" surrender when they lost 5 gens when the game is yet to be over?.If you are playing chess, do you need to actually take the opponent's king, or just put them in a situation where any move they make would result in it? Likewise, why does the abandon feature on survivor side disregard "its not over yet" elements? Even on the individual level?
If you really wanted to surrender, you technically could by just opening the gate, pushing the survivors out or be afk and wait out the endgame collapse timer.Thats like saying you could just walk away or alt tab and do something else while waiting to bleed out. Oh, with the added bonus of constant
LoudNoiseNotification.wavandStevegull.ogg.People want solutions that respect their time just as much as their agency.At most, i can reasonably see bhvr adding a endgame collapse timer speed up if survivors are hovering around the gate.The target of loitering in the exit gate is good, but it needs to be more forward thinking than just that. You also don't want to punish regrouping in exit gates too hard, as it would reduce last second play attempts considerably. And believe it or not, that greed can easily be better for the killer than the survivor, so its a good element to keep. Thats why I feel like it should focus more on increasing risk (within reason) rather than reducing gameplay.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035239#Comment_4035239
You made an Edit to an post after 4 new posts have been dropped. Thats not good faith.
I made an edit 2 minutes after I posted it, after considering. The time stamp is there.
I also clarified in the response you read. Which isn't edited at all. To be clear here and for the third time: it shouldn't exist, make them watch the mori.
You haven't answered my question, not once. You keep deflecting and dodging.
The reason I ask "why not give survivors the option to "hit the killer out" while slugged instead?" Is the same reason you won't answer it and push for anything else, including personal attacks now:
They aren't the same scenario. That's the reason. You don't give survivors that option because it's a bad idea, and shouldn't be in the game. Period.
But you can't say that, because your stance is "they should have the same options, make it fair".
So you're stuck. You can't admit they're actually different scenarios, because that undermines your entire premise.
You can't request "equivalence" and then agree with me that they aren't the same.
Others are also calling you out because the reality is: you just want to disconnect, but recognize how entitled that sounds.
Others are also calling you out because the reality is: you just want to disconnect, but recognize how entitled that sounds.Unfortunately the abandon conditions for survivor, paired with the elimination nature of the role, make it just that. Stuff liek the 4 man slug situation are perfectly fine for it, but adding the multiple pickups clause basically turned it into a sanctioned way to go next. The consideration for an extreme situation isn't invalid, but the ability to force it is considerably realistic. Even as a false positive, like in the case of killers who have minor slugging as part of their kit, and a perk like Conviction being even decent. Anything that makes it so survivors have more ability to relocate while slugged makes the killer less likely to find them and pick them up, so it creates a funnel effect to make that condition much more directly accessible.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035225#Comment_4035225
why not give survivors the option to "hit the killer out" while slugged instead?
I'm still waiting 6+ months for an answer to this. You first.
Edit: actually. Sure. Make them watch, the current implementation is wrong. Now your turn.
I'm still waiting for months for someone to tell me how having to participate in a humiliation ritual is agency any more than running around after defeat in a game like TF2 is. I remember in that game the losing team would have their weapons disabled and could only run while being slaughtered by the winning team. Hitting survivors out is the same as running into the winner purposely to get out of the match faster, its just shortening the duration of a loss you're forced to bask in. Its always talk of false equivalences yet no survivor is happy with situations where they are checkmated but the killer refuses to finish them off in a timely fashion and wouldn't accept it as an alternative to being able to abandon, especially with as many concessions as it has.
And again, its not even about how it affects me, its about how it affects player mentalities. You can't control the mindset of your opponent who is bitter about a previous match, and even if your temperment is good enough for it to not bother you, it will affect others. Which in turn then affects that next batch of survivors who they take it out on. Its the same justification a lot of people use to be toxic toward killers, that they're essentially taking out a previous player's BM on the next killer.
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035239#Comment_4035239
This is sounding more like you just want to quit when the game doesn't go your way.
Isn't that what most of the abandon conditions are? Few people have complaints about things like 4 man slugging being a condition, but do you really need to be able to skip moris? Leave a match early because the Twins didn't take Deerstalker and your build helps with pickups? Abandon is a slippery slope which is already closer to a sanctioned form of going next than it is a proper solution, especially with its lack of necessity for checkmates instead of just checks.
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035230#Comment_4035230
Survivors got the abbandon button the second when they get slugged like this.
Only for final survivor and the Mori, which I said was wrong.
Abandon only exists when all remaining survivors are slugged, so it's not always available. You seem to not understand how this system even works.
much longer
No, 2 minutes of EGC is not longer than 4 minutes of slug. Not to mention the agency involved, which is the exact point you keep ignoring.
Your turn
No, your turn. I made a good faith response with my edit and answered your question. You ignored my question to throw out irrelevant info and a red herring:
I'm done with this conversation unless or until you answer:
why not give survivors the option to "hit the killer out" while slugged instead?
Since you seem to be completely convinced these are identical situations. They aren't, you're just ignoring that they aren't and refusing to examine the obvious reasons that they aren't. That's disingenuous.
Abandon only exists when all remaining survivors are slugged, so it's not always available.Yet they added the ability to do so after getting picked up a few times, not even remotely a checkmate scenario unless the killer is literally playing whack a mole overtop of them. And even then, its assuming that no endurance effects like soul guard can be present. And even then, that means the killer is doing nothing to pressure the rest of the survivors, meaning they are actively throwing to do it. Meanwhile:
The killer equivalent requires 10 consecutive minutes without a gen being finished or regressed. While understandable, that also means that it forever hiders can force a much longer wait. The considerations aren't even remotely even in terms of both realistic application nor exploitation potential. Both aspects favor the survivor, mostly because of the game's design around the mechanic, but it just means it was a bad solution, particularly how it was implemented.
No, 2 minutes of EGC is not longer than 4 minutes of slug. Not to mention the agency involved, which is the exact point you keep ignoring.And +/- 10 is more than 4. Not to mention that, again, being able to move or even shorten your defeat is not inherently agency. Otherwise throwing oneself at the killer and going next would be considered agency instead of, you know, just quitting.
why not give survivors the option to "hit the killer out" while slugged instead?They do, its called running into the killer. Like smacking survivors out, its not instant, but guarantees a shorter duration before being able to accept defeat. Its also considered against the rules because it sacrifices the integrity of the game for the other players, which is also why I feel giving the killer the ability to abandon similar to survivors wouldn't be the right move. But that's not to say that the reasons why a killer would feel the need to abandon aren't valid and shouldn't be addressed.
-
Considering sometimes bugfixes end up needing bugfixes, genuinely hope they don't miss.
-
@Crowman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035174#Comment_4035174
We don't have these kinds of conditions for survivor abandon when all slugged.
Survivors could have unbreakable, no mither, etc and they can still abandon. The final survivor can abandon mid-mori.
Just let killers have no condition free abandon in EGC. It's a 2 minute time save for pointless to play out games.
We don't have these kinds of conditions for survivor abandon when all slugged.Survivors could have unbreakable, no mither, etc and they can still abandon. The final survivor can abandon mid-mori.I already addressed that. Again, I am no fan of how the abandon feature was implimented. I'm more focused on the difference between necessity of player retention for the match to continue. As someone who wants there to be more ability to avoid endgame helplessness and toxicity and feels killers are being shafted in that field by how things work, I acknowledge how the same thing wouldn't work for killers directly. That isn't to say that either a smaller killer focused solution to complement the abandon feature, or scrapping that and coming up with something that directly addresses the issue in a way that is even for both sides, wouldn't be much better than what we have now.
There are just considerations in the game's structure itself that make a copy paste solution not really viable as it would potentially remove an entire stage of the match in an instant. If the killer was the only one who could have anything endgame focused, it might not be as bad, but the entire point of the EGC is to add tension to the endgame just as much as it is to add a time limit. I would like the problem to be fixed, I just don't think a carte blanche solution would improve game health.
-
@Crowman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035169#Comment_4035169
Survivors can abandon after being picked up from dying state twice and being put into dying state a 3rd time. I wouldn't exactly call that a checkmate situation.
If the killer player doesn't want to play out the final 2 minutes of the match, let's not force them.
Oh absolutely, getting picked up multiple times wouldn't constitute as a checkmate, but again, the game can continue without that survivor continuing to play. I've got my own opinions about some of the abandon conditions and how they have been implimented. My point was more about how if the killer abandons, its just a hard cut for everyone out of the match. Thats why it would need to be more strict for killer than for survivor in terms of the required level of futility in resuming. Thats why I also went into exploring other ideas in how to achieve parity if sticking with these mechanical changes that clearly favor one side in both their implementation and considerations.
Allowing endgame to be skipped entirely is a bit much, but it could be done with some type of caveat. Like if the gates are powered within too short of a time limit, or like zero hook stages or something. It would have to be pretty extreme to completely remove a stage of the game, especially when multiple perks on both sides revolve around it. Just like with many elements of the game, its important to respect time and acknowledge removal of agency while understanding the realistic limits of both.
-
@Crowman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035150#Comment_4035150
Here's the wonderful thing about giving killers the option to abandon in EGC. If they feel like they have something they can do to change the outcome of the match, they don't have to abandon. Why force killers who lack the tools to catch survivors waiting in the exit gates to teabag to waste time when they should have the option to move on to the next match?
While I agree, the structure of the game is an important consideration. It would have to be a checkmate specifically, as the elimination nature of the survivor role paired with the lack of killer bot replacements means that killer abandoning is a hard cut to the game's conclusion compared to a game which can still continue without one or more survivor players playing. It could still absolutely apply to situations like all 4 in the exit gate while lacking an exit blocking aspect of the killer's kit, though honestly considering abilities like that would fall in line with regards to perks that get ignored with the abandon system, so maybe they could be skipped similarly. But it wouldn't be able to apply to check situations similarly due to the killer role essentially being load bearing to the match itself.
Basically it wouldn't be able to be for games that are mostly over, it would have to be ones where the only way they could change would rely on the winning side purposely allowing it to.
-
@jmwjmw27 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035144#Comment_4035144
Push them out?
Several killers also have a basekit way to kill a survivor if they're trying to stay in the exit gate and leave last second.
If I'm playing trapper for example and I walk to the gate, at most I have to left click a few times per survivor to push them out. If I'm slugged as survivor, there is nothing I can do basekit to speed up the wait time of 4 minutes on the ground.
Pushing survivors out isn't any more agency than hatch standoffs were. The entire situation was caused by two people refusing to accept defeat, knowing that their action would only result in loss unless it was a reaction. If the survivors are far enough in the exit gate that you would not be able to pick them up after a blade wipe, not even getting into things like heal tech, how is that agency? And if its not over yet, then why is it ok for survivor abandon to ignore so many perks and mechanics that can be used to prolong the game for them?
I can understand arguments about the mechanical nature of the game itself, like how there are no killer bots so a killer abandon is a hard cut to the results screen for all parties, but I will never understand the selective nature people use regarding what they consider player agency, as they never seem to reconcile between sides. If survivors could actively humiliate themselves in order to cancel a mori animation instead of having to sit through it, they would be more comparable. Like some kind of self induced Mortal Kombat babality or friendship or something. Instead one side gets to avoid the situation entirely while the other has to actively deal with it while being subjected to the grace of their opponent(s). Its almost like these things can affect player mindsets going into other matches, and lead to them doing everything they can to ensure they don't wind up there again. And we all love the strategies and choices that leads to.
It really is something that should have a more elegant solution, and it should be equally applicable to both sides, instead of just favoring one and mostly ignoring the other. A lack of player agency in endgame (and in general) is an across the isle issue, so it begs the question of what the meaning behind half the abandon conditions is actually supposed to be.
Several killers also have a basekit way to kill a survivor if they're trying to stay in the exit gate and leave last second.And many more don't. Even perks like blood warden require hooking someone during that time, so its only ever a threat if someone is outside the gates to be hooked.
If I'm slugged as survivor, there is nothing I can do basekit to speed up the wait time of 4 minutes on the ground.This is something that absolutely needed addressing, which is why it always baffles me what the line is for people when comparing the roles. Is it the duration? Because killers can absolutely have more than 4 minutes of their time wasted through things like excessive hiding. They can do it for up to 10 IIRC. The lack of movement? If survivors could zoom around at sprint burst speed on the ground but were unable to escape or interact toward their objective in any way until the match ends, would that somehow be better? How about if they could actively grovel for the same amount of time it takes to swat multiple survivors out? We should have a better solution that addresses the unified issue of
one side being able to stall victory to waste their opponent's timerather than multiple smaller ones between mechanics like abandons and self pickups that very clearly favor one side in consideration.In lieu of that, they could at least try something like (off the top of my head) allowing the killer to close a gate and auto eject any survivors in it out of the match if, say, 50% of remaining survivors are in it. That way if its just one, smack em, but if its a matter of lingering in the safe zone, pushing out can be done more efficiently. It could even lead to situations where any remaining survivors who get left behind form a "second round" to endgame. Maybe adjust the EGC timer or show any remaining survivors the gate switch auras for a few seconds when it closes to give them a chance to come up with a gameplan. Ideas like that obviously take testing and ironing out, but again, not even on the radar.
-
@AbsolutGrndZer0 said:
So what the title says. Tunneling is bad. It's not fun for survivors. We all know this.
Thing is, you know what's not fun for killers? Being stunned and chain blinded with extended duration blindness at every pallet. Yet, seems that when a killer main says that is unfun, survivors either don't care, or mock them.
It's not up to me to make sure the game fun for you, just as it is not up to you to make sure then game is fun for me.
In the end, IMO we all should follow The Golden Rule… Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
If as a killer you are so gung ho that you would never be a 'bully" to killer, then play survivor. Don't be the bully.
If as a survivor you are so gung ho that you would never tunnel, then play killer. Don't tunnel.
See things from the other side for awhile.Wanting a game where your opponent puts respect for their opponent is idealism. Preparing yourself for it when it doesn't happen is realism. They're not necessarily mutually exclusive, and honestly we all need more of both.
-
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4032218#Comment_4032218
To be honest, the killstreak is a terrible example of strength. Most of these wins are just due to misaligned mmr.
If MomoSeventh had played against people his MMR he wouldn't have had a killstreak above 10I don't put hard faith into the integrity of any records, as they embody the currently most desirable conditions. The main validity I think they have statistically relies on how far those extremes deviate from the expected results. Conceptually with balancing, you acknowledge that variables will always be in play, and that the more variables you introduce, the higher the likelihood of extreme variations. The more complex you make something, the higher the likelihood of imbalances both forming and evolving. That isn't to say it always does, but moreso that you have more spinning plates to balance simultaneously. Normalization hems in those extremes, which makes it a good candidate for maintaining balance.
Things like 4K winstreaks and <3 minute gate escapes essentially prove that the variables have essentially overtaken the balance. This happens in minor interactions to create things like lose/lose scenarios, making them unbalanced significantly for either side, but if variables have that significant of an impact on outcome in a game where any and all relevant feedback on a match revolves solely around said outcome, it can easily make players feel less in control of the results of their match.
Essentially, when things like the kill streak or the gate record happen, it often makes people feel like these extremes shouldn't exist, regardless of how perfect of a storm they required. They fail that person's smoke test and exceed the limit they're willing to accept as reasonably possible.
-
@Anniehere said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4032664#Comment_4032664
The way I see it, tunneling works because it lets the killer skip the parts of the game that require actual map pressure. It's a shortcut, not gen pressure. When I faced Nurse and Blight that forced me out at 5 gens, it just shows they don't want to interact with the game flow, just secure their win from the start. So when people say learn to loop, it's not fair. They should learn better too.
Do you believe all killers are equally able to achieve the necessary map pressure reasonably and reliably enough? Do you believe they are always able (disregarding extremes like the pallet density back and forth) to do so to an adequate level, regardless of their opponents or the game around them?
This is why the best solution is equal parts carrot and stick. Sometimes its a shortcut, other times its a necessity. The game is not static enough for such a distinction, and thats not necessarily a bad thing. The most effective way to correct overreliance (while not only improving gameplay variety but expanding on it,) is to both make it less desirable and its healthy alternatives more viable simultaneously. Those types of changes essentially function kinda like sluice gates redirecting water, as they are much more effective at doing so with coordinated utilization.
In regards to the suggestion to improve, how that gets taken is up to us in the end. Even if they mean it as a mockery or dismissal, it is still good advice in utilizing one's own agency. Instead of being bothered by it, think of it like the time of day a broken clock is right.
-
@Meg_Survivor said:
This statement is starting to get so annoying! “If killers are tunneling, you need to learn how to loop better” its honestly the dumbest thing i have ever heard in my life, killers can still tunnel even if the survivor is really good! or they can just tunnel for literally no reason at all, Tunneling out a survivor doesnt always mean they are bad at looping, honestly when most killers dont like a certain survivor even if they did nothing to them they will still tunnel them out, the way certain killers think will never make sense to me fr - we needed that anti tunnel update and now we get nothing smh
The most important aspect of playing survivor is understanding your agency, its limits, and how best to utilize it. You cannot control your teammates any more than you can control the killer, but you CAN improve in ways that offset any deficit in the impact their agency has on your own. If someone is getting tunneled and you aren't in a position where you could force the killer away from them, you CAN slam gens to punish said tunneling. If you are the one being tunneled, you CAN waste the killer's time and pressure to the point where their hyperfocus costs them the game, with an added bonus of potentially escaping as well.
I think that 1v1v1v1v1 comment irreparably damaged how people look at the survivor role, and the way MMR was implemented basically amplified it. There are next to no rewards to playing as an actual team player outside of an improved likelihood of survival. Therefore, when people feel there is no chance for survival, they just want to get into a match where they do more than they do even finish the match they're still in. Playing a losing match removes a lot of the incentivization that is required for teamwork to even function in this format, so it becomes defeatism.
In many other games and their respective genres, playing with no hope of success is much more normal. In fact, it actually creates a perfect environment to work on solutions: If you're playing a fighting game as a grappler and someone is clowning on you as a zoner, you can accept that defeat is likely while learning the predictability/patterns to their projectiles to test and explore ways to gain ground and overcome the lopsided matchup. There's an actual term for it called downloading, where you essentially accept a defeat and utilize as much of it as you can to learn about your opponent to help in future rounds.
In a MOBA you might be a champion who has a hard counter in something like lockdown, while going against an opponent with very high crowd control. While they are perfectly fit to neutralize you if they land a hit, the adaptation then literally becomes don't get hit, and you learn how to better position and space yourself to maximize your impact while minimizing your risks. Even if you lose the lane, that temperament and adaptation will be what stops you from being underbuilt after the lane phase ends.
Hell think of stuff like the SoulsBourne games, where the entire premise is for the game to be unfair and unforgiving until you develop the skills and experience to be able to breeze through things that would hardlock you for hours/days/weeks/etc. You can't go in and tinker with the rules of the game, move encounters around, or curate elements of the games to make them more reasonable: Your only recourse is to improve and utilize everything you can, rely on the agency of others to offset your own failures (co-op,) or to just give up and move on. Yet those games still resonate with people in an age where most games are mostly just delivery devices for feel good chemicals in your brain anymore.
Its a universal concept in competition that our own agency is quite literally the only thing we have direct control over, and anything outside of our agency requires compensation to either dilute or amplify the impact of the things outside of our control. Yelling at people on the forum won't make them play the way we want, nor will guilting them. The MVP on a sports team isn't always the person who scores the winning points, its often the ones who turn assured defeat into potential victory. Its not an easy thing to do, especially knowing there is an aspect of likely futility to it. But in improving how you adapt to the situation, and how you maximize your own agency in order to offset what agency you lack, you give yourself the best chances you can directly influence.
People often assume skill is about results, and relies on things like mechanical prowess. Strategy and adaptation are just as much facets of skill, arguably moreso as they are essentially fundamentals. NONE OF THIS IS TO SAY THAT COMPLAINTS ABOUT THINGS LIKE BEING TUNNELED ARE INVALID, but more that as players self improvement is a very important consideration when discussing concepts like balancing in a PVP environment, let alone one with as many variables as this game does. If you aren't able to utilize the tools you have, you can't expect a PVP game to acquiesce to your lack of growth at the detriment of others who are willing to do so.
So while I agree that extreme tunneling (which the definition of what actually is tunneling is a whole other discussion) is bad for the game's health, and encourage the devs to address it specifically in a way that doesn't favor either side, I know that those words are just that. Encouragement. I can't walk into BHVR's HQ and impose my will on them, nor should I be able to. All you can do is give your honest feedback, and then work on what you can do personally to minimize the impact of that issue on your game. Its similar to the foundation of concepts like radical acceptance, aka "It is what it is." But the most important thing is to realize that suggestions like that aren't necessarily meant to be taunts, in fact, they're often genuine advice.
-
@jmwjmw27 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4032153#Comment_4032153
The record actually sits at 00:02:26:600 if you want to be technical, but why does it matter? Of course in a 4man SWF with full builds for it against a player of a much lower skill level you will achieve something like this. If the other team is better and has a much better build, why shouldn’t the match be a blowout?
You see the same in any of momo’s 1000+ game win streak games. The killer has a way better loadout and a much higher skill level, and everyone’s on the ground in a few minutes.
If you want to argue that even when the survivors are better and are bringing the best stuff they shouldn’t be able to reduce gen times that much, that is fair. But you’re acting like that world record match is representative of average DBD when it is most certainly is not.
Something that both kill streak and escape records have in common is that they shouldn't be possible in a healthy game. More specifically, they shouldn't be possible at the extremes they have reached, as it shows a serious lack of agency in the opposing side in those scenarios. The fact that both can exist at the extremes that they can only serves to dissolve the confidence of players in the integrity of the game, and lead them toward focusing on pre-emptive advantages rather than adaptive gameplay. Its why gen rushing counters tunneling, while tunneling counters gen rushing.
-
@Rogue11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4032174#Comment_4032174
Wouldn't an apple to apple comparison be something like looking at the fastest 4k time (which is almost assuredly faster than the fastest escape time.
Or compare escape streaks to kill streaks (again massively favors killers)
I wouldn't consider it apples to apples as much as apples to oranges with the caveat they're both fruit.
Escape streaks don't really compare to kill streaks as directly, as survivors share agency. At their potential they are generally stronger than the killer, but individually they require coordination to even break even. Both sides can absolutely have lose/lose scenarios, but as one survivor you often require one or more allies to fully succeed getting out of unwinnable scenarios. Since the game is outcome focused, this means that each individual survivor has less agency toward building something like an escape streak, meaning it will theoretically never reach the potential height of a pinnacle kill streak. That degree of consistency isn't possible, nor is it supposed to be. You can argue how high the record for a KS should be allowed to be, but it should always be higher than the top escape streak just based on how the game structure works. How much they should vary is up to interpretation, but one mind with 100% agency should always have more individual control over outcome than 1 of 4. Once you start introducing an SWF into that kind of accomplishment, you need to start cutting up rules about what does(n't) count, disqualifications, and other variables that muddy up your metric.
As for the differences between fastest kill times and fastest escape times… you'd be surprised. The kills are obviously based more on 4ks than just the first kill, but they still don't generally reach the world records for escapes. That said, those escapes involve SWFs with specific builds so they fall into that muddiness I mentioned earlier, and all results rely on self reporting and evidence requirements, but my point is more that they're not assuredly faster than escape records.
-
@grumpelfox said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4032157#Comment_4032157
what·a·bout·ism/ˌ(h)wədəˈboudizəm/nounnoun: whataboutism
- the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.
I'd somewhat agree it could be whataboutism, but I'm pretty sure the point was that extremes like the gen rush record are the other side of the kill streak coin. Both prove that the game's formula can be broken to a degree that your opponent's agency in the outcome is minimal at best. If you want to make that argument for escape speeds, you have to also accept it for kill streaks.
-
@ImWinston said:
- 70% of the new pallets are the classic 50/50. So goodbye to skill (on the part of the killer and survivor) and just a celebration of randomness. Some people talk about "dead zones", but honestly I haven't noticed any in my games.
Absolutely no defense of the current state of pallets (nor its most recent one) but 50/50's are literally the most skillful pallets in the game for both sides. They allow the most mindgame and counterplay opportunities, especially when compared to pallets where the killer either takes two steps to the left and goes around a pebble before attacking you mid drop. Or where you pre-drop knowing that if they don't have a way to circumvent the pallet, they either have to break it or build bloodlust. Pallets that extreme to either side are far more pre-determined, while 50/50's have the most outcome variety until other factors make them tilt in either side's favor.
Trash pallets and god pallets should both be used sparingly, usually with a risk/reward factor like the basement or junk tiles respectively. You want most of them to be a rock paper scissors kind of interaction with the mostly one sided ones being either last ditch clutch opportunities or cornering prey.