Ryuhi
Ryuhi
About
- Username
- Ryuhi
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@MDRSan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4032105#Comment_4032105
It's funny how people try to frame buffs to M1 killers as if they aren't buffs to all killers at the same time. The only killer who can flat out ignore pallets is nurse - that's it. So everyone but nurse got a buff with these tile downgrades.
Maybe we should be working on changes that buff M1's while specifically not buffing the killers who don't need it then?
-
Because most feedback is hyperbolic
-
@radiantHero23 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4031765#Comment_4031765
I mean, we have bff's on legion, trapper sack, scarred hand on hag, scratched mirror and Jenners / Campbells last breath on nurse. I think purple addons can be a bit more creative.
One of the issues with not adhering to your own design philosophy is that you need to fit things into place rather than having them fit naturally. After seeing so many failed attempts at what should be fairly simple effects/mechanics and the proliferation of dashslop, I'm convinced they might have internally realized they aren't prepared to handle creative and unique effects in ways that don't break the game (to their defense, this is just as much about limitations as it is about problem solving, so the end user will never truly know.) If thats actually the case, this failed health/QoL initiative actually looks even more dire.
They're leaning on homogenization more than normalization, making things the same rather than making them distinct yet equally viable. Its entirely antithesis to what the community actually wants: More variety in more facets of the game while maintaining a reasonable variable of fairness between both roles. Its also ironically a big part of why people generally want shakeups, they want more options, both to play and to play against, to give more variety to their gameplay. Not necessarily just different ones, but most importantly more variety. If time set aside specifically to fix foundational issues and even "QoL" are both squandered and don't please anyone while wasting resources, what hope does improvement have on the backburner to the usual resumed content schedule?
I don't mean this in the general way doomposting gets used around here. BHVR has every possibility to fix every single one of these concerns to some degree and I sincerely hope they do, but unfortunately until then things like taking "safe" options (even when essentially redundant) will probably be their focus before anything that can (and often will) have unforeseen consequences that break the game when trying to cram it in place.
-
@CorvidXCVIII said:
What would qualify as a win for survivors in this vision? If the game becomes balanced around hooks instead of kills, escape rates will inevitably go up and MMR could end up even more janky than it already is.
With the emblem system, survivors pipped based on how well rounded they played. It had its blindspots like how it handled survival and altruism, but the idea was that the less you focus on just one thing, the more emblems you gain. Kinda like how the killer role required more multitasking and macro play than just things like tunneling to secure the power dynamic shift ASAP.
It wasn't perfect, but it was a much more healthy direction than focusing on end results rather than the game itself. If matchmaking was at least good, people probably wouldn't reminisce about it as much as they do.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4028025#Comment_4028025
Yes, there will always be players who will not be adept enough to practice higher skill playstyles, which begs the question why that would be a killer-specific disqualifier.
Because the killer side issue is viability, and the survivor side issue is enjoyability.
You can be a sufficiently incompetent killer to make any strategy non-viable, but no level of survivor competence is going to make tunnelling engaging.
And before anyone says 'I like taking the killer on a 5-gen chase', the three teammates that get stuck doing gens only don't.
You can be a sufficiently incompetent killer to make any strategy non-viable, but no level of survivor competence is going to make tunnelling engaging.Again, I completely disagree, and even with my limited skill in chase have punished killers for trying to tunnel me and turned it into a winning game. Players better than me do it more often I'm sure. Punishing someone with a loss for over-relying on LCD strategies is honestly some of the most fun I have in the game, I'm just willing to accept its not going to work 100% of the time. Thats how competition works.
And before anyone says 'I like taking the killer on a 5-gen chase', the three teammates that get stuck doing gens only don't.Neither do killers who see the exit gates powered in their 3rd chase, or the ones who have to have to deal with flashlights and other objective denial. I will never understand how people pick and choose when to use "fun" as a core argument, rather than an ancillary one.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4027989#Comment_4027989
A 15-20% repair speed penalty is just going to mean survivors get 15-20% less gen-work done in the time it takes the killer to tunnel someone out. It's not going to disincentivise tunnelling at all if it just straight up buffs the very self-same tactic.
The best way to get rid of tunneling is to make other playstyles viable.
The problem is that a sufficiently incompetent player can make every single playstyle non-viable, no matter how good it is, so 'making other playstyles viable' is a pipe-dream.
A 15-20% repair speed penalty is just going to mean survivors get 15-20% less gen-work done in the time it takes the killer to tunnel someone out. It's not going to disincentivize tunnelling at all if it just straight up buffs the very self-same tactic.Thats part of why I don't agree with the speed penalty as the bonus, though I do feel that the overall idea of addressing time management in a way that directly affects the way killers are pressured on their leniency for mistakes would be the most effective approach. A common trait among the higher tiers is that they can afford more mistakes before losing agency than the weaker ones, regardless of whether it comes from direct strength, synergies, or macro potential. Thats why I both highly recommend having the unique hook rewards be more focused than blanket buffs that ignore the variety of the roster, but also having equally impactful punishments to address those who refuse to adapt to more healthy playstyles.
The problem is that a sufficiently incompetent player can make every single playstyle non-viable, no matter how good it is, so 'making other playstyles viable' is a pipe-dream.Agree with the beginning (but moreso that the buffs should come with equal targeted nerfs to tunneling,) hard disagree with the end of the sentence. Yes, there will always be players who will not be adept enough to practice higher skill playstyles, which begs the question why that would be a killer-specific disqualifier. MANY of the anti-anything protections, HUD info updates, and other safeguard mechanics were not always necessary most of the time, and their necessity is greatly impacted by the skill of a given survivor who finds themselves needing them. Instead of the skill focus being around avoiding a quagmire, people focus on decreased agency while already inside it.
Tunneling CAN be beaten purely by skill, even if not always. Being downed in smart positions can not only prevent slugging, but even getting hooked in general. Kindred became redundant with the improved HUD info, and even that was never necessary beyond being helpful. These systems are designed irrespective of the lowest common denominator of skill, and even the most egregious versions wouldn't save someone just teabagging under the hook until they eventually get eliminated. You can't cite a lack of absolute result as a reason to not try for the ones who do get impacted by an improvement, and that applies to almost everything in the game on both sides.
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4027964#Comment_4027964
Noble, but for those that disconnect I'm sure its more of "giving up saves me wasted time and allows me to accelerate the dopamine hits"
Unfortunately you're right, and thats sadly something that can never be balanced around. When attempting to address behaviors from a playerbase, there will always be those who refuse to be sated by anything less than their desired outcome, just like there will always be those who refuse to adapt when given more healthy alternatives. It's up to those people to change themselves rather than drag the game down with them. Thats why I focus on making the best of the bad rather than take my ball and go home.
Granted, thats the point of things like the emblem system, but our ever-so-well-loved MMR system fuels these mindsets rather than help discourage them.
-
@THE_Crazy_Hyena said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4027873#Comment_4027873
I saw that video as well. Now this is Hens and another really good player. They are co-ordinated, using proper callouts and everything. And more importantly, both of them probably has at least 25k hours combined.
This does not apply to the random players you might find in Solo Queue.
Is it possible to win in a 2v1? Yes!. Is it feasible to do as an average player? No!And I'm sure they've encountered situations like that more than once in their 25k hours. Playing out losing matches is a skill in competition in general, and if you shield yourself from it, you never improve at it. There can even be strategic advantages to giving your opponent the upper hand, if the result makes them easier to predict and or counter. Thats the danger of focusing solely on outcome bias, if you only see the ending you miss everything that was gained and lost along the journey.
Every time you are doomed to fail, the more you fight the more you improve, and the better your chances get. Giving up just assures you never rise above.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4027448#Comment_4027448
I believe they do it more for the Killers who just slug for whatever twisted sadistic pleasure they get from it. The ones who just leave Survivors on the ground, not even trying to hook anyone, expecting teammates to repeatedly pick them up. I refer to those as "bleed out matches," since it's clear that the Killer's objective is to bleed everyone out, and that's the most boring and annoying thing to face. Even with the abandon option, I may still opt to just eat the DC penalty, because I refuse to participate in those matches.
Emotionally charged demonization aside, you stated:
There shouldn't be any reason to slug a person that many times, and if they do, that's just excessive.Which I pointed out was untrue, down to the crux of how specific killers' kits even function, as well as perks that can cause these scenarios when functioning as intended. This goes beyond extreme cases and borderlines well within normal play, and not just a fringe situation that does nothing but loses matches. You could up the number from 3 to 8 and still prevent this supposed eldritch horror who plays the killer role from your situation. You could see things from the perspective of your opponent but if you'd rather devolve them to everything you hate, have at it I guess. -
@Dokta_Carter said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4027465#Comment_4027465
The MMR system as it is id just.… disgusting.
One sided victory condition does not meet the other at all(one is killing all 4 other players. The other is personal)
One sides most efficient way of winning is ruining another players fun
This Mmr system is what propagates the US vs them mentality, among other things
It definitely existed before it, but I would certainly agree that the result focused metrics for the game have empowered a lot of it. With emblems you could at least lose something like a 4E or 4K and still have some verification that you played in a skilled way. Dying with a 2 pip made you feel like Atlas, and it was up to the player whether they focused on his burden or his accomplishment. It wasn't perfect, but this version of MMR, and especially its obfuscation paired with things like misleading personal stats, causes it to be more about disparaging others ("You wouldn't know, I'm at HIGH MMR") and doesn't even allow the personal growth/accomplishment aspect it is supposed to in order to encourage climbing.
-
@Dokta_Carter said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4027448#Comment_4027448
Ryuhi, people also believe that no dc penalties should be a thing and that they can screw over teammates because they dont like x killer, so playing the game wont work as reasoning
I'm well aware of how much people have (and continue to) object to actually playing the game that they bought for the express purpose of playing. Unfortunately after a point it becomes more about their addiction to the game than the game itself, chasing dopamine hits and refusing when they're denied. You can never please someone who only wants to win, but you can help that person see more to competition than the desired outcome. Thats why I tend to recommend advice on making the most of bad situations, and game design focused around reducing unnecessary frustrations. Its also why I still think MMR and how it was implemented was one of the worst things for player mentalities in the game.
-
I like the idea, and have even supported it in the past, but honestly I completely understand why they don't. No matter who they play or how, there is no way it won't be filled with constant toxicity in chat, fodder for content creators to mock, and presumptions about aspects of the game the dev has absolutely no personal involvement in. I wholeheartedly agree that the dev team should be playing regularly and at multiple levels of MMR, but making a spectacle of it is a recipe for disaster with this community and the short sightedness of people making big decisions.
Honestly, despite staring at the code 9-5 and occasional inhouse virtualizations, the game would benefit massively if people behind the scenes encountered firsthand half of what end users complain about, on either side. Even though it was apparently already decided before the stream, thats why the infamous Hag game resonated with so much of the community. When OoO was defended for having a low escape rate, it was the facepalm heard round the fog. Overbrine or the twins rework probably would have never seen the light of day if the devs had to experience them nonstop at their strengths. Its up to them to do the right thing if/when they are able, and to look at more than the statistics when they can't.
-
I still play survivor occasionally, but I stopped killer mostly due to accessibility. Tracking has always been a vital skill for killers especially, and I have problems with both my hearing and vision that have always been an issue to varying degrees. Fog vials were the last straw but then they nerfed them into uselessness outside of people like myself so now they're both too weak to use and still prevent me from wanting to even try in case they are. Changing the scratch mark color was actually a very positive change in this direction, but its not enough for me to keep up with the speed of the game, so I don't. Its not that I'm completely blind and deaf, but even minor delays in perception can be the difference between something like hitting a window vault or not, and its just too frustrating when your limitations get in the way. Things like BM just become a twist of the knife at that point, so I'd rather just play other things and avoid the negativity.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
It makes sense. There shouldn't be any reason to slug a person that many times, and if they do, that's just excessive.
And abandoning if you're the last Survivor alive makes sense as well. You can try to go for hatch, but if the Killer gets it first, you know you only have like a 4% chance of getting out through the gate. Why even try at that point with those odds?
Aside from the obvious answer of killers whose power relies on slugging (like oni, but especially twins) they also made it easier to avoid the killer's attention when returning to a slug with the changes to picking yourself up and the crawling speed. And thats not even talking about perks like Conviction or Tenacity that allow for even more relocation.
As for the last part, how far do we need to move the goal post? You're supposed to try because you're still playing the game. I don't see that as any different than killers who have to wait for survivors to leave at the exit gates, which gets argued against since it would end the game prematurely (regardless of how much or little) due to the killer not being replaced by a bot. You answered your own question both with the fact that hatch is still possible, and also that a gate escape is also still possible. If you want out that bad as the last survivor with less chance than you're willing to participate in, just run into the killer and accept the mori you won't have to even watch because you'll be allowed to abandon before it goes off. Think of it like the survivor equivalent of "hitting them out" but with a lot less downtime and BM.
-
It's excellent for learning, but terrible for habit forming. The idea is to run it while learning maps and tiles until you start to recognize them subconsciously, then you can use that to memorize things like general layouts and what tiles generally can('t) spawn in particular areas to get a feel for the map. If you keep using that method, eventually you'll get to the point you have whole map layouts memorized and the procedural generation aspect will affect you less and less.
The problem ends up being people basically give up a perk slot to not have to learn any of that info, let alone foster its growth. The yellow is ironic because it really is like "yellow paint" in perk form. Great for learning, but overreliance has the opposite effect and builds dependance.
-
@MarbleThrone said:
The only way that removing stacking of anything can work, is if every affected perk, add-on etc is compensated properly.
The reason why their initial plan to remove Haste and Hindered stacking failed, was largely in part due to the cherry picking that was done from the perks and add-ons with these effects. A lot of perks, including ones that rely on stacking to be useful (Blood Pact + Teamwork: Power of Two) were completely overlooked in that PTB and didn't receive any compensation or buffs.
Of course people are going to be negative about it because those perks and add-ons became even weaker as a result. The idea was good, just poorly thought through.I think this is a big part of it: Even when they have the right idea, it seems like they can never find a happy medium with individual strength levels regarding multiple facets of the game, like speed. Reworking stacking of any kind requires genuine re-evaluation of strengths, as some perks/addons/etc rely more heavily on synergy with others, and the constant content bloat creates redundancies. I wasn't around for the exhaustion rollout, but I can't imagine people were happy with it at first, and the perks weren't exactly even in their utility and/or effectiveness. It took a lot of changing the game around that direction with things like adding viable drop points to maps, or reworking perks entirely, to make most feel more or less viable. Even then, some are considered too situational or niche to fit an average loadout.
BHVR likes to address this by adding conditions, but they don't seem to know how to balance that with the effects either. Part of why MFT was complained about so much was because the effect was strong for a condition that basically consisted of just playing normally. Same with some perks like Eruption at its prime, and both of them had further issues caused by stacking their effects beyond what would be considered acceptable synergy. Strong impacts need strong conditions, weak impacts require few limitations. The more their feedback consists primarily of frustrated hyperbole, the less they can accurately gauge acceptable levels of impact for acceptable levels of conditions. If on a scale of 1-10 half your userbase rates something at a 9 while the other rates it at a 4, you're probably going to try to land somewhere in the middle regardless of where it should be.
Until people think about the game more than just their preferred role, we'll continue getting what we deserve, never what we want.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4026956#Comment_4026956
It's actually worse than that.
The community screamed for months about haste stacking specifically… but only because they wanted MFT+hope gutted.
BHVR listened to that feedback and said they were addressing haste in general and people equally screamed, basically because they didn't want killers to be affected.
But hey, at least both MFT and hope have been nerfed now. #mission accomplished
So you mean to say no survivors ever complained about haste stacking (or stacking of any kind) and haste wasn't dropped for bloodlust to prevent stacking specifically?
There's no point in being purposely divisive. Stacking of effects like haste has been an issue for both sides and both sides have been vocal about it in various facets. Also, ironically, the only time anyone gets their way is when individual synergies are directly gutted or reworked entirely. Addressing the core issue would make a thousand plastifixes redundant.
-
@cogsturning said:
You could block gens for the first minute of the match, change gen time to 2 minutes, and nerf toolboxes and gen perks and the goal posts will just keep moving. No amount of treats given to killers will stop it. It will only stop if it ceases to be valuable.
The carrot and stick are most effective when practiced in equal measure.
-
@Dokta_Carter said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4025985#Comment_4025985
HHonestly, If one side is to win by eliminating the rest(3 people at the least) then it should be balanced for it to be a team vs 1 and not (1v1vv1v1) v 1, balancing any game, where one side has different wining conditions (the amount that survive in this case) needs more finesse in my honest opinion
But people think im crazy if I were to say this
If there were more reason for the 4 1's to actually be opposed to each other, it would be more fitting of a focus. But everything is more focused on 1v4 while addressing agency concerns of each of the 4 1's, which is why it kinda creates this anomaly. There are next to no situations where survivors are directly in opposition with one another, and I always felt like it was alluding to things like when there are 2 survivors left trying to outsurvive each other for the hatch (which is already unhealthy to begin.)
The individual aspect of the 4 is almost exclusively focused around end results not being dependent on one another. If you are the only survivor to escape, you won, regardless of the loss of the others. I get the idea is that there are times where one's ability to survive could be impacted by another player's survival, but the goal is always shared and sabotage is strictly discouraged (and in many cases, straight up against the rules) so it always felt like a weird mantra derived from a very poor explanation. Its much more about things like leaving people behind than it is going "versus" them.
Instead the vast, vast majority of interactions between survivors are to either benefit one without expense to the other (though sometimes there are self sacrifices, making it even more altruistic,) or benefit both. Its absolutely a team dynamic, but since you have no control over the agency of your teammates, it feels more like it gets used to make excuses for not using one's one agency to compensate for the performance of the others. In reality the split feels more like
1v(1/1/1/1)with an ideal strength distribution being something likeXv(1/1/1/1)with theXbeing something between 3-5 depending on the rest of the game around it. I've posted in the past that the formula could even by dynamic depending on the strength of remaining survivors in an attempt to combat tunneling, but after seeing stuff like Ruin being both weak and self destructing when someone dies (regardless of if it gets any value to begin with and lasts more than 15 seconds) tells me they wouldn't be able to figure out a way to scale things with something like4v(1.3/1.3/1.3/dead)in a reasonable manner.I have no doubt this post will get downvoted.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4025986#Comment_4025986
They're semi related, but they're not intertwined the way some think.
What it basically boils down to is this: Tunnelling is a mismatch against pretty much all the potential efficiency you can actually expect to see from the games you're playing.
For the general spread of popular meta perks, for the usual sort of SWF, and definitely for solo queue teams, the killer has a much wider variety of tools and tricks to combat efficiency than just tunnelling- removing that isn't really escalating an arms race, it's just sorting out a balance problem. You won't be left without a way of managing survivor efficiency, you'll just be left with the healthier spread of options for that.Even with toolboxes in the match, if it's one or two and it's not a full stacked build for either player, the match is harder but you don't need to tunnel someone out, you've got other options too. The only time you could even remotely consider tunnelling necessary is if you're playing against the absolute top tier possible of survivor players, and they're all bringing their strongest heat, and you're not playing one of the top half-ish of the killer roster.
It's much, much, much narrower than the scenarios where tunnelling is a problem, is the point.There is a connection between toolboxes being unbalanced and tunnelling being unbalanced, but those two things have connections to dozens of other parts of the game too. You can't fix everything at once, you have to pace the changes somehow.
Tunnelling is a mismatch against pretty much all the potential efficiency you can actually expect to see from the games you're playing.Disagree, as Tunneling isn't infallible. In fact, it relies on the survivors inability to combat it, much like there are many scenarios where the survivor must rely on misplays from the killer. Which the off hook protections are designed to directly help with, despite their exploitation potentials.
For the general spread of popular meta perks, for the usual sort of SWF, anddefinitelyfor solo queue teams, the killer has a much wider variety of tools and tricks to combat efficiency than just tunnellingI get what you mean, but thats assuming they get a chance. Gens can be extremely fast, to the point that there is not always time for reactionary adjustments. You have no way of knowing if they're running meta general builds or gen rush builds until its too late, so players who want to counter that potential will always have to assume its in play or accept they could lose with very few mistakes. The only compensation potential after that starts to rely on more and more survivor misplays, which makes the killer feel like they have less agency. Thus, preemptive tunneling becomes pragmatic.
Even with toolboxes in the match, if it's one or two and it's not a full stacked build for either player, the match is harder but you don't need to tunnel someone out, you've got other options too.Being able to adjust that balance isn't the issue, as you mentioned there are ways to compensate in normal play. The problem are the extremes that are possible, much like tunneling. Light tunneling, be it securing just a final hook on someone that was unhooked recently when there is one gen left, is not an issue compared to getting someone out in the 1-2 minutes of the game. We might not have OG BNP in the game anymore, but that was an example of something that was an extreme that needed to be hemmed in due to its massive shift in that balance.
The only time you could even remotely consider tunnelling necessary is if you're playing against the absolute top tier possible of survivor players, and they're all bringing their strongest heat, and you're not playing one of the top half-ish of the killer roster.There are plenty of scenarios that can necessitate tunneling that aren't that extreme, but thats part of where the definitions of these things becomes important. Tunneling can in itself be a compensatory tactic, and most people generally don't have an issue with it in situations where the killer is actively on the backfoot. The game's design centers around survivors starting stronger and the killer needing to catch up as their resources dwindle, so there will absolutely be times where the survivor lead is large enough that it becomes one of the few forms of agency as a catch up mechanic. Most agree that preemptive tunneling is bad for the game, but likewise it can sometimes be the only remaining strategy that will be able to prevent relying on survivor misplays to regain momentum.
It's much, much, much narrower than the scenarios where tunnelling is a problem, is the point.I feel this relies heavily on other factors like matchmaking, communication, opponent skill, and so on. But again, the only way to avoid having to deal with those things and hope that you retain the chance to be able to do it in time is to assume the worst, which is why so many killers feel forced to do it as the game continues to reward the potential for gen efficiency on the other side rather than regulate it. If we were specifically talking about low level players and game altering variables weren't a factor, sure. But this is why I feel the most direct connection is between gen speed potential and tunneling potential, especially since they directly counter each other.
I would argue that things like gen rushing are more focused on preparation than actual skill, aside from chaining hyperfocus (which can have its skill requirement mitigated somewhat.) On the inverse, tunneling is centered around matchups of skill and opportunity more, with the loadout portion being a shift in said skill requirement. The better the loadout/killer's kit is for tunneling, the less skill they will need and the more the survivor will need. Same for survivors in regards to perks/items that assist them in chase. But in the end in any reasonable scenario, both sides are required to exhibit more skill than following a checklist, hitting some skill checks, and listening for a terror radius. Its still PvP and not PvE. Low skill scenarios (escpecially when focusing on non-interaction) should not lead to excessively high rewards for either side, another commonality it has with extreme (have to emphasize) tunneling. And again, this isn't to say one is more directly important than the other, but more that the two are more interconnected more strongly than people really seem to give credit. Its much easier to downplay one and focus on the other than to address the impact they have on each other and use that to find better solutions.
There is a connection between toolboxes being unbalanced and tunnelling being unbalanced, but those two things have connections to dozens of other parts of the game too. You can't fix everything at once, you have to pace the changes somehow.Agreed on the last part, but you absolutely can zoom out your approach and fix interconnected issues simultaneously. In mediation they call it "collaboration" rather than "compromise" and its generally considered the most effective way of keeping everyone happy. Thats why i compare it to jenga in regards to balancing, as that is about making individual, more focused approaches that disregard the effect that said changes have on the stability of the tower (game) itself. Jenga balancing basically just becomes a series of compromises, often in a tug of war fashion, until people see the tower toppling over and give up on it. Since things like burnout, plastifixes, and a lack of trust in the devs have always been an on and off situation with the game, it can be much less healthy for the player base compared to fixes that improve the foundation itself.
And just to reiterate, its not that I don't think extreme tunneling is an issue, just that people tend to focus on either it or extreme gen rushing as individual problems, when the real problem is that both have ripple effects on balancing while directly combating each other both in terms of preemptive application and reactionary necessity. Thats why addressing their extremes specifically is the best way to strengthen the foundation of the game and avoid back and forth short term solutions.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4025692#Comment_4025692
Yeah?
Yes, toolboxes are unbalanced too, that doesn't change that tunnelling is also unbalanced.
The two are interconnected, which is the issue. Killer strategies that focus on
reducing survivor potential efficiencyand survivor efficiencybeing able to reduce killer's ability to manage timeare two sides of the same coin, which is why they need to be addressed simultaneously. Instead seemingly unrelated changes like the anti-slug system and longer hook states actually help survivor efficiency instead of hindering it, which then leads to killers feeling more need to address the power dynamic shift much faster to minimize that damage. The same obviously goes in the opposite direction, as things like hard tunneling mean that survivors need to maximize their efficiency to have a chance when someone gets taken out early. This is why addressing these issues like a jenga tower doesn't really work, it just becomes constant compensation adjustments both mechanically and in player mindsets. They have to be addressed simultaneously, otherwise addressing either one directly hinders the counterplay of the other. -
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4024888#Comment_4024888
I'm going try and shorten this up because I feel like it will quickly become a disagreement over the weighting of certain examples (note: I failed at shortening).
Still, its kinda funny that a killer like Nurse has a worse record than a Trapper :DLuck based, I presume, if the survivors happen to run into the early traps.
Unfortunately, one of the things that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way is how they're being so generous with some of these definitions they can't even remember them for their own powerpoint.Ugh, what got said at one point, something like 'and a third one that I can't remember'? Yeah, that was bad, I don't know why BHVR tries to keep putting people into live speaking roles that are not their skill set.
Just like a survivor likely won't have fun if they get tunneled out constantly, a killer isn't going to have fun if they get 2-3 medium chases before the endgame starts.So this is related to BHVR's bad definitions and what data they were getting from people. I don't mind being the target of the tunnel either, its far more annoying to be one of the three other survivors who are just slamming gens.
-onto the more disagreement points-
The big difference is that speedrunning escapes is actually more instructible than just winning as a killer. Were this not something easily emulatable by the average playerHmmm. I spent a bit thinking about this (and what you say after), because I don't think you are by any means wrong, but I also feel a little bit off about it.
Thinking aloud: Would a killer going for a world record change their build over one going for a win streak? Yes, absolutely, things like Lethal Pursuer and other early game perks would become more essential. Is the build giving them the same weaknesses as survivors on a gen rush? Maybe, I could see both sides being possible.
I guess I'd have to look more into the world records by killers. Where the players actively seeking to accomplish it, or did they stumble into it by everything going their way?
A killer needs to play well in more than one facet of the game to get even 20 kills in a row, and thats a streak that could still be achieved in even an uphill balancing scenario. You don't have to play well to reach a sub 3min escape, you just need the right build and teammates that are good enough to allow it to be possibleThey seem a little unalike in comparison. Could these survivor builds get to 20 wins in a row without needing to be good in more than one facet of the game. If they could, or even if they could just get a really high escape rate, then absolutely a problem. That runs into a structural design issue with DBD though that the amount of newer players who might be used for such a test don't have the necessary perks/items that a more experienced team does (if a person was actually going to test it).
Though I think the hypothesis would be moot if one had access to BHVR's data, do these builds result in a higher escape rate in comparison to other 'sweaty' builds (I presume BHVR compares sweaty levels which they might not)? Is so, problem, if not, still maybe a problem but a different one.
They're just extremes that shouldn't be possible in a balanced game, and people seem to pick and choose when thats allowed to be ok.I'm so tempted to get into a larger discussion of variability in games, but I said I'd keep this short and I don't really disagree.
They could have data that would be good enough to make feedback from players redundant, but if they don't analyze it right that uninformed feedback can be more insightful than a hundred layered spreadsheet.Yeah, true, though feedback is always going to tell them more about the 'fun' factor than data (hopefully). I guess if I had their data what I'd like to know is what happens outside the extremes with these builds.
-
Okay, I've failed at keeping it short, so theory time on the issue. There's only one 'type' of survivor so I think its critical to the game's health that survivors have multiple viable styles of 'character' they can build. I think these get split into either mixed (good at a few things) or focused (great at one thing) - with focused builds generally seeing less return for each perk slot invested. So survivors having the option to take a single healing perk and be stronger at healing, or spend their entire build and be great at healing but weak everywhere else, I think is healthy design.
Now ultimately this can make killers feel bad if looking at a singular trial as something outside their knowledge was, or at least felt like, the primary deciding factor of the outcome. In the above scenario if the survivor with the healing focused build is not the one chased and they go around healing everyone the killer is going to feel like the build is brokenly strong. For a fair evaluation we'd need to look at multiple games, best, worst, and middle of the road outcomes.
The going all out on one thing is the survivor risk/reward trade off, perhaps comparable to killer hex perks. If things go your way, great, but if not, devastating. I think that's fine, but recognize it walks a fine line that could lead to player unhappiness.
So where does gen rush fall on this? I think having a completely gen focused build falls into the above idea of doing something really well, but also full of many downsides, and thus an overall healthy option to have in the game. Is it too strong, especially with coordination? My gut leans yes, but I'd feel more comfortable with more data.
And a complete side note: When '1-2-3-4' was announced I said that BHVR was intentionally trying to reinvigorate the World Record chase (which was partly joking, but not fully).
I hear you about condensing things, I've been having a hard time myself. That said, we agree on a lot conceptually, so I mostly just have this in response:
So where does gen rush fall on this? I think having a completely gen focused build falls into the above idea of doing something really well, but also full of many downsides, and thus an overall healthy option to have in the game. Is it too strong, especially with coordination? My gut leans yes, but I'd feel more comfortable with more data.The main issue with gen rushing in particular is that it is focused on removing the most valuable resource the killer has at any point in the game, time. Since the game is weighted toward the survivors at the start, the impact they have on their objective during that window is stronger than other parts of the game. If a minute of the killer's time is wasted when there is only 1 survivor left, its not going to impact them as strongly as losing a minute when 4 survivors are up (outside of other factors, of course.) Regardless of how anyone feels about this balance wise, it also affects mentalities: LCD strats are also used as a comeback approach, so the more burst progress the survivors make at the start, the more the killer will feel backed into a corner and less likely to play in a more fair/healthy manner. Whenever killers lose multiple gens in their first chase, it makes them reevaluate their strategy and the one that shifts time back in their favor the most is the one the community tends to dislike the most.
Its a fine line that needs to be walked similar to objective denial: make sabo and flashlights too strong, the killer will never bother with hooks. Make them too weak, and survivors will never bother to utilize them. Its always important to judge how a particular style of build or focus affects the overall game, as some of them do absolutely affect core gameplay elements more than others, and their extremes need to be kept in check relative to how directly they affect the core gameplay loop.
-
Just make the unique hook bonus be something focused on addressing the core weaknesses of each killer's kit. As throwaway example ideas, Trapper could be something like resetting disabled traps, Wraith it could be his next bell bong is global, there are millions of directions that could be taken to normalize the roster instead of blanket buffs that either favor strong killers or do nothing for half the cast.
They need the carrot and stick to both be significant, and they need to be in equal measure if the goal is to actually shift player behavior. Anything less is just catering to whichever side makes out better.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4024821#Comment_4024821
This will always be a perspective variable regarding matchups, and kinda misplaced since few of the matches in Hens' video for example were just 1 outs.Okay, this why I mentioned streaming earlier as well. I don't watch a ton of live streams, but I've caught some of Hens videos were he's trying ideas, and the Youtube video that emerged didn't cover the times the idea crashed and burned. I don't think he's being deceptive, I think he is trying to focus the video on entertaining material, and so the matches that don't accomplish that get tossed. That's always the problem with using edited videos as evidence, we have no idea what is excluded.
I can't side with dismissing a very clear issue based solely on either frequency or viability downplaying.Not dismissing, though weighing in context, but I'll get to that a little more later.
That said, notice how its not a very contested category, the fastest time is still 2 minutes, and it has no rules around which killer or any other types of curation to the data?If I'm looking at the site correctly, it is actually split up by each individual killer, probably the reason for less results because its divided across all the killers.
Its also a category that can be easily thrown off by things like ragequits/sandbagging/etc, which would not be able to be recorded or observed by the killer's perspective. As survivor (especially in an SWF) its much more possible to document everything in a way that allows verification of proper play.More possible, but you still have a few issues. Whether the killer gets a a slow start or not, and what constitutes 'serious' play, which if I remember correctly Hens worried was going to get their record video tossed out.
This is also why I compare it to tunneling, as it puts optimizing one's own chances of success well before the opponent's chance to have a fair match.Sure, this is a good comparison
The argument that ultimately won BHVR on tunneling was fun, not balance. As a balance issue, tunneling was all or nothing. If the killer's strategy was to tunnel the first person*, and that person happened to have OTR and DS, killer probably lost (or another survivor had Reassurance, etc.). On that sense, gen rush is in a similar space, you're really hoping the killer doesn't have Corrupt and Dead Man's, and I suspect some of the killers might be intrinsically harder to run this against (the S tiers obviously, but also killers who can damage grouped up survivors would likely be very dangerous).
*we can then get into degrees of tunneling, such as proxy camping, just as we could get into degrees of gen rush, but that's going to explode into lots of variables.
The question is where is the line on fun. Having advantages based on what you selected in the lobby with no knowledge of what the opponent has, is pretty baked into the game. I thought tunneling went too far into the lobby guessing game. Does extreme gen rush reach that stage? I don't know, when I've had it run against me I don't find it particularly annoying because its at least quick and a rush, which I enjoy, but I can't speak for anyone else.
Tunneling is an excuse because of gen rushing, gen rushing is an excuse because of tunnelingAgreed.
Speedruns are like the kill streaks everyone loves focusing on hyperbolic examples of.For the record, I don't think that's a good argument either even if I get drawn into it on 'But what about this SWF that…' style.
I think talking about the upper end of the game is fine, even if that's the 1%, but once we start discussing the 0.000001 (the 1 in a million), I don't think its productive. That's why I've always thought it is better to focus on how many killer players have gotten things like a 50 win streak instead of the Blight (kind of like your comment on barely break 20, if a 20 win streak is seen as no big deal I think that's a bigger indication of balance).
But yes, people absolutely do over focus on Momo's Blight run.
People go to these examples because they represent extremes that they find unacceptable, regardless of whether they apply to their specific cases.This is where I'm going to kick back to the idea of dismissing an idea vs weighing it in context.
Single videos are very evocative, they really get people to pay attention. Data tends to be pretty boring. That's why I'm saying its not fair to evaluate without all of the data and a comparison. So if this group played with a different, more traditional build, and got an escape rate of 80%, and with gen rush they got 80% or less, well its not an issue on balance (again, on fun, if people really dislike it that's a totally different story).
This is were we are all at a loss in comparison to BHVR's decision making because we don't have the larger numbers they have access to, and even if we focus it on a specific player its going to be a smaller sample size (Otz and Hens have both done some larger data collections, but even then we're still talking relatively small footprints).
Okay, this why I mentioned streaming earlier as well. I don't watch a ton of live streams, but I've caught some of Hens videos were he's trying ideas, and the Youtube video that emerged didn't cover the times the idea crashed and burned. I don't think he's being deceptive, I think he is trying to focus the video on entertaining material, and so the matches that don't accomplish that get tossed. That's always the problem with using edited videos as evidence, we have no idea what is excluded.Thats why I was moving away from viability. There is no doubt that he had games where he didn't succeed, thats besides the point. Again, this is more in the sense of a smoke test, in that these numbers shouldn't be possible in a healthy game with the design philosophy around addressing LCD strats.
If I'm looking at the site correctly, it is actually split up by each individual killer, probably the reason for less results because its divided across all the killers.You're right, not used to the newer layout so didn't see the drop bar, just the categories. Still, its kinda funny that a killer like Nurse has a worse record than a Trapper :D
More possible, but you still have a few issues. Whether the killer gets a a slow start or not, and what constitutes 'serious' play, which if I remember correctly Hens worried was going to get their record video tossed out.Oh absolutely, the killer player isn't a machine in these games. There's always going to be variability in their skill, which is part of the point of the issue: Killer players are going to make mistakes, they're human. Even the best player is going to make misplays. Time is the killer's resource on how many/how severe their mistakes are allowed to be before their chances rely almost entirely on survivor misplays. Its an agency shift that any tunneled survivor should also understand very well, and the entire reason why second chance perks and mechanics have always been popular with survivors especially. That said, the SWF category in particular gives the best verification of whether the killer played in a reasonable manner despite the outcome. You simply get to see more of the match and have less left to assume., especially compared to a single perspective thats interacting with 4 opposing players frequently.
*we can then get into degrees of tunneling, such as proxy camping, just as we could get into degrees of gen rush, but that's going to explode into lots of variables.Indeed. Unfortunately, one of the things that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way is how they're being so generous with some of these definitions they can't even remember them for their own powerpoint. Agreed with the part above that regarding the "arms race" mentality.
The question is where is the line on fun. Having advantages based on what you selected in the lobby with no knowledge of what the opponent has, is pretty baked into the game. I thought tunneling went too far into the lobby guessing game. Does extreme gen rush reach that stage? I don't know, when I've had it run against me I don't find it particularly annoying because its at least quick and a rush, which I enjoy, but I can't speak for anyone else.Fun is extremely subjective, and has been ruined on many occasions in the name of balance. There are plenty of people playing this game right now who will only find fun in victory. Full stop. You cannot hope to cater to them in a game where you can't have every player win, which is my running theory on why they've been trying to muddy winning and losing so much from personal stats to how they treat abandoning (and the horrible mess the two cause together.)
If fun is a factor, than being able to reasonably get momentum without the exit gates already being powered should be a consideration. Just like a survivor likely won't have fun if they get tunneled out constantly, a killer isn't going to have fun if they get 2-3 medium chases before the endgame starts. Just like how you don't mind these games for being over quickly and their pace, I personally enjoy getting tunneled because it helps me get better in chase and sometimes even turns games around if I can get them to misplay enough. Perspective and reflection (or a lack thereof) are why enjoyment in these scenarios are going to vary, which is why they should be a consequence of balance and not the other way around.
I think talking about the upper end of the game is fine, even if that's the 1%, but once we start discussing the 0.000001 (the 1 in a million), I don't think its productive. That's why I've always thought it is better to focus on how many killer players have gotten things like a 50 win streak instead of the Blight (kind of like your comment on barely break 20, if a 20 win streak is seen as no big deal I think that's a bigger indication of balance).The big difference is that speedrunning escapes is actually more instructible than just winning as a killer. Were this not something easily emulatable by the average player (Hens even challenges his viewers to try to beat it, after explaining how it works) then it would be less of an issue: But most of DBD's content creation history tends to get things abused, exploited, and nerfed. Sub 5 escapes do not even require much special, but videos like this inform people on how to get those numbers when they wouldn't otherwise. In fighting games Touch of Death combos are like this, where people who don't even know the first thing about a characters game plan can learn a consistent combination to win a match from the first touch. That means that their opponent can be a better player in almost every metric, but one minor mistake can lose them the game vs a worse player.
Thats why gen efficiency is such an important topic to address those extremes. Its not a high skill interaction, in fact, the worst it really gets is getting multiple hyperfocuses in a row (which can be mitigated to an extent.) It doesn't require chase skills, saves, or pretty much any significant macro skill. You just maximize your build and follow the prompts until the loud beep goes off. I got carried in the game for years without even learning proper macro play just by being efficient on generators, and thats a power that the game kinda relies on being untapped to its fullest. So you have the most game winning facet of the game (gen efficiency) paired with both theory and practical application of how to do it, with a very high skill floor.
A killer needs to play well in more than one facet of the game to get even 20 kills in a row, and thats a streak that could still be achieved in even an uphill balancing scenario. You don't have to play well to reach a sub 3min escape, you just need the right build and teammates that are good enough to allow it to be possible. Thats the shared agency dilemma that always seems to throw people's perspective off on those types of comparisons.
Single videos are very evocative, they really get people to pay attention. Data tends to be pretty boring. That's why I'm saying its not fair to evaluate without all of the data and a comparison. So if this group played with a different, more traditional build, and got an escape rate of 80%, and with gen rush they got 80% or less, well its not an issue on balance (again, on fun, if people really dislike it that's a totally different story).Again, this is why I'm not pushing some type of narrative "This is what happens in all my games!" or anything that hyperbolic. Its not even about the fact this can fail, its about the fact it's possible. Its also why I compared it to the Blight streak, as the most reasonable argument against it is that no player should be able to win that many matches in a row in a balanced game. I specified I wasn't talking about common scenario because it doesn't apply regarding kill streaks either. They're just extremes that shouldn't be possible in a balanced game, and people seem to pick and choose when thats allowed to be ok.
This is were we are all at a loss in comparison to BHVR's decision making because we don't have the larger numbers they have access to, and even if we focus it on a specific player its going to be a smaller sample size (Otz and Hens have both done some larger data collections, but even then we're still talking relatively small footprints).I don't like making hypothesis under the assumption they don't have this data, its more about when, how, and how aggressively they ignore data when it outlines things like this. They can have the escape time for every single match that has ever been played of DBD, but willfully ignoring extremes like this breaks trust in how they analyze said data. Every time they put out bad PR over things that even remotely involve data, it makes people's trust in their ability to make proper decisions based on that data less assuring. They could have data that would be good enough to make feedback from players redundant, but if they don't analyze it right that uninformed feedback can be more insightful than a hundred layered spreadsheet.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4024710#Comment_4024710
I get what you mean about it being an extreme-yet-not-viable scenario, but the top 26 on the speedrun leaderboard are all under 5 minutes, and most of them aren't by Hens or his friends.Actually the extremeness isn't really my point, though its related.
For discussing math/balance (not fun, which is very important but a different topic) on the gen rush the issue remains of if instead of trying to get the world record for escape, how much more or less successful would the team/player be under the same conditions using other builds? That a team can escape really fast I don't doubt, but what's the overall impact on their escape rate?
Here's the swf category, but it also has others like solo on there:It also has the killer records, and some of them are also incredibly fast.
If survivors get all 5 gens done lightning fast, there is notimefor the killer to build pressure and/or snowball, just like a survivor who is chased off the hook has notimeto defend themselves reasonably.But survivors maximizing gens have nothing else. A good chase by the killer, having the right killer/perks, and the survivors can crumble. Like lots of things that maximize efficiency, there's no backup, making a recovery extremely difficult.
I remember a while back there was a push for an "early game collapse" style of phase for trials where the survivors wouldn't be able to maximize their strength at the start of the matchI don't have any problem with the concept, I think there's a lot of merit to it, but I think the speedruns are bad at exhibiting the reasons for it.
For discussing math/balance (not fun, which is very important but a different topic) on the gen rush the issue remains of if instead of trying to get the world record for escape, how much more or less successful would the team/player be under the same conditions using other builds? That a team can escape really fast I don't doubt, but what's the overall impact on their escape rate?When LCD strats are prioritized without the skill or game sense to apply them properly, they also tend to lose games more than save them. This will always be a perspective variable regarding matchups, and kinda misplaced since few of the matches in Hens' video for example were just 1 outs. I can't side with dismissing a very clear issue based solely on either frequency or viability downplaying. If we did, the same would apply to things like 3 hook 1K games. But we clearly want to reduce those as they are generally pretty unfair to the 1 who gets tunneled, regardless of efficiency or even effectiveness outside of that one result.
It also has the killer records, and some of them are also incredibly fast.Absolutely, especially since it is something that on paper should be able to take less time. That said, notice how its not a very contested category, the fastest time is still 2 minutes, and it has no rules around which killer or any other types of curation to the data? Its also a category that can be easily thrown off by things like ragequits/sandbagging/etc, which would not be able to be recorded or observed by the killer's perspective. As survivor (especially in an SWF) its much more possible to document everything in a way that allows verification of proper play.
But survivors maximizing gens have nothing else. A good chase by the killer, having the right killer/perks, and the survivors can crumble. Like lots of things that maximize efficiency, there's no backup, making a recovery extremely difficult.Agreed. The survivors are expected to utilize as much momentum at the start as they can in order to offset their gradually weakening position. The issue is that the extreme of said starting strength does not guarantee a reasonable ratio, which is why I compare it to getting one out through tunneling. Doing so forces a hard shift on the potentials of the two sides, and minimizing potential damage is just as important to game dynamic as strengthening one's own position alone. This is also why I compare it to tunneling, as it puts optimizing one's own chances of success well before the opponent's chance to have a fair match. Both are currently balanced around effectiveness in successful execution than they are allowing for dynamic gameplay from either side. At this point I don't even trust them enough to attempt handling both extremes fairly for both sides simultaneously, but its not a part of the formula you can balance like a jenga tower. Tunneling is an excuse because of gen rushing, gen rushing is an excuse because of tunneling. That tug of war over objective efficiency potential has been a driving force in the game for years because of how extreme the far ends on either side get, and its just another facet where they will never find fairness until they figure out how to normalize their landslide scenarios.
I don't have any problem with the concept, I think there's a lot of merit to it, but I think the speedruns are bad at exhibiting the reasons for it.Speedruns are like the kill streaks everyone loves focusing on hyperbolic examples of. For the Blight main who got over 2k wins, there are many who barely break 20. Some never even learn the killer fully, and just play him because he can play like a M1 and they heard he's OP as hell. People go to these examples because they represent extremes that they find unacceptable, regardless of whether they apply to their specific cases. The point of pairing the speedruns with the old early game collapse idea is that it would be focused on addressing that extreme: The world record is a death by a thousand cuts scenario. It utilizes multiple oversights and even the bardic perk to perform much better in a very focused application than they can in normal gameplay. The more layers that get added like that, not only do things get even faster with each new tool, but they create more moving parts that would need to be addressed to undo the damage. At this point having a grace period of reduced survivor efficiency (in whatever means are deemed best, it doesn't have to be a flat debuff or anything lazy like that) at the start of the match would be far more effective than reworking all of the elements involved (and potentially nerfing their normal case use just to address this kind of stacking.) Thats why I emphasize it would need to go side by side with a similar hemming in of killers getting an early down and tunnel well before survivors would be able to utilize any of that "power play."
Honestly, when they backed out on reworking haste stacking, I kinda lost hope they would do the right thing about these types of scenarios. We'll just continue to have people complain about individual pieces of the jenga tower and disregard how unstable it gets with each short sided adjustment.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4024399#Comment_4024399
The problem with the Hens video:
1: If this team was playing to win, and not for a world record, what would their win rate/escape rate be?
2: What was their win rate/escape rate while doing this attempt?
Youtube videos are edited, what I've caught though from some of the releases (including prior videos and streams) is how many times they lost (and a team of this caliber should very rarely lose in pub matches). All they are trying to do is get a single survivor out as quickly as possible. If things didn't go perfectly for them, they could easily get snowballed.
If these survivors were trying to just win, would they be pursuing this strategy? Almost certainly not. They'd get a much higher win/escape rate with a more balanced approach. It's only the optimal approach if you are trying to maximize fastest out the door.
I get what you mean about it being an extreme-yet-not-viable scenario, but the top 26 on the speedrun leaderboard are all under 5 minutes, and most of them aren't by Hens or his friends. In fact, the top 10 are almost all under 3 minutes, and the top 20 for solo specifically are all under 5 minutes. These are people who were willing to record and verify their results for the leaderboards, as well as follow any rule requirements for the category, and says nothing for the millions of games not represented. Its actually quite interesting to see how the times have changed over time. Here's the swf category, but it also has others like solo on there:
https://www.speedrun.com/dead_by_daylight
It doesn't mean your average survivor group is escaping lightning fast due to no fault of the killer, but this is the level of punishing that survivors lament in regards to tunneling: Your opponent's focus on maximizing efficiency reduces your ability to make mistakes (or sometimes even play) until you have no hope of recovering your objective. When criticizing killers in these games saying "if they made no mistakes, the time doesn't add up" is a laser focused perspective on the broader issue: how many mistakes are either side allowed to make to stand a chance. If survivors get all 5 gens done lightning fast, there is no time for the killer to build pressure and/or snowball, just like a survivor who is chased off the hook has no time to defend themselves reasonably.
Its an integral part of the game's design for the survivors to have their strength be at its peak at the start, while it slides into the killer's favor as resources are used up. That means that the burst potential of the survivors at the start has to be addressed in an equal manner to the killer's ability to force resource consumption, most notably in the cases of hook states and teammates in the game.
Short game durations also affect different killers differently, a nurse or blight isn't going to care as much (and will have more opportunity to even punish) vs builds dedicated solely to speedrunning trials vs a hag or trapper who might not even start a single chase by the time gens start popping. I remember a while back there was a push for an "early game collapse" style of phase for trials where the survivors wouldn't be able to maximize their strength at the start of the match, but in actuality an idea like that should only come with the introduction of more stern (and actually well implemented and totally not just lazy attempts at appeasement) anti-tunneling design.
In the end, that leaderboard is basically just a list of failures to a smoke test. Trials should not be able to go that fast, just like people shouldn't be able to be forced out of the trial before being able to have an opportunity to participate in a fair chase.
-
@xerox8521 said:
Don't know about others but I play Killer to Kill survivors not 12 hook them.
And thats fine, but it also creates an outcome biased perspective. A match hard won vs a steamroll should give you different levels of enjoyment if you are there for the competition, and most would rather have good games with less favorable outcomes than landslides where you just win and move on.
The way the game is currently structured? Sure, but thats what people have been trying to address about the core gameplay loop. Outcome focused results have a lot of effects on things down to simple sportsmanship, which is why it would be more healthy for the game if people weren't constantly focusing on peak efficiency as their key strategy. Its the same reason why survivors were opposed to the "only surviving matches counts" blanket outcomes that rewarded selfish rat players more than altruistic players who carried whole teams on their back.
The emblem system wasn't perfect, but at this point it would be preferrable to how laser focused the game has gotten on "kill" and "survive"
-
@angrychuck said:
If someone says windows is problematic, you just shouldn't believe that they know how to play the game well at all.
Its the game's equivalent of a contact list. How many phone numbers do you bother to remember when you can just press a button to call them instantly? Its not necessarily that its too good, moreso that its too good to be forming bad habits. Many people use it to learn tiles or to scout through walls, but it also discourages you from needing to do said learning so many rely on it too heavily. Its basically the perk equivalent of yellow paint in game design.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4022441#Comment_4022441
I was being a little cheeky in my response, but broadly yes, I agree.
The issue is really that the game wasn't thought out with this level of longevity or meta progression. Not a knock on BHVR, nobody knew what they had with DBD.
They REALLY need a DBD 2.0 if not a DBD 2, where it's just a total rebuild from the ground up. As it is now, its clear they don't know how or cant implement the systems required to REALLY advance the game. Balancing for so many different Killers invidually is a nightmare, and it's only getting worse at their current speed.
It could still be hemmed in, because there are a lot of commonalities in their design. I agree that doing something like reworking every single killer with any issues would be too monumental a task (and wouldn't even guarantee improvement regardless,) but they just need to work smarter rather than just harder. The reason I have hope they could is because if they can understand the logic behind variable strength outcomes to universal events (and most importantly, actually balance them fairly for both sides when possible) it would show they can understand how to achieve this, and could apply that logic to a lot of systems in the game (both present and future) to improve the game's longevity considerably as it would lay groundwork for futureproofing later content. I could see licensing being a factor in why a DBD 2 might be off the table for a while, so I feel like readdressing their approach to handling things like balance rather than just trying new things and seeing what sticks is going to be the game's best bet going forward.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4022425#Comment_4022425
They seem to address it by making new Killer powers stronger, not by editing old powers.
Makes sense, of course. Get people to buy new stuff rather than keep playing older stuff.
Thats just compounding the issue, not actually addressing it. Things like the bloodlust bonus on fresh hook is an example of them attempting to address these types of disparities, as it prevents mobility killers from gaining a disproportionate advantage, but they then fumble with how it works regarding its other interruption criteria being too blanketed. Wraith has no problem zooming away from a hook if he wants to as it is (and won't even lose the BL until it expires or he decloaks right next to someone while blocking the nearest window) and he'll get disproportionate value compared to a trapper or hag who may waste a good chunk of that time setting up (or even gathering, in trapper's case) traps, then lose it instantly if they need to start a chase manually (at a rate of chase detection, so moonwalking and looking at an angle on approach are back on the menu boys.) Same goes for killers with reloads who are already slow to traverse the map, or pretty much anyone whose goal isn't to beeline directly to the next target.
-
@CrouchingClaud said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4022225#Comment_4022225
There are no mental gymnastics required to understand that you can’t make game balance decisions on the most extreme cases on the high and low end of the skill curve. Balance has to be based on the vast majority of players that are not capable of extreme win streaks. The game is balanced around a target 60% kill rate and that is what it is currently at for a vast majority of the player population.
If you oversimplify balance, yes. If you approach it individually (or even categorically, which this game actually does in multiple respects) you can fine tune one extreme while minimizing effect on the other. Its entirely possible to balance with nuance instead of just blanket buffs and nerfs. There seems to be this preconception that the only way to address things is on either a large or microcosmic scale (either role overall changes or individual approaches to specific perks/addons/killers/etc) and its similarly part of why nobody can ever agree on how to handle the disparity between SWF and Solo.
As per my usual "
goodexample from a fighting game," Rogue in Marvel Vs Capcom 2 has a grab that lets her get a bonus from her enemy if she makes skin contact with a little smooch. Instead of just making it a blanket bonus to one element, they made it change based on who gets hit by it. A very simple nuance which makes the ability fit her lore better, but it also changes how she interacts with various other characters in the game, giving her the ability to essentially rebalance matchups temporarily. The effects aren't huge, but its enough that they could realistically make a difference at times. That mindset could easily be applied to universal events that have disproportionate outcomes, a method of normalizing balance without having to focus on either extreme while also not just relying on averages for homogenization.The other half of it is regarding exploitation potential. If Riot only focused on the average player and not the extremes on either high or low level play, League of Legends would not have lasted anywhere near as long as it has. Many of the balance changes in both individual characters and universal mechanics have taken both into account over the years. You dont want to balance around the middle specifically, you want to balance in a way that considers both the top and bottom evenly, and there's certainly a difference. If the top were ignored, exploits would be even more rampant in the game on both sides, and if you ignore the bottom, player retention would be even lower for newcomers.
@cestoda5 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4022122#Comment_4022122
If this was true- we would be seeing the same streaks on survivor side and were not. Let the mental gymnastics ensue why this is totally fine and fair……….
1 person will always be coordinated than 4. You can say what you want about whether KR world records should be possible to go as high as they have, but if survivor ones got anywhere near there it would be an even bigger problem for the game's health. For a more even comparison, I'd implore you to check the time records for exit gate escapes (won't spoil it for you.) Both are extremes that should not be possible, its not about "which side gets the unfair thing." Neither should.
-
@Pulsar said:
They arent out to get you lol.
The Killer powers being unbalanced could just as easily be used to talk about the powers being too weak, or Killers being addon dependant.
Thats definitely true and an interesting perspective on the option, but aside from reworks (which often fail) and things like addon passes (which also sometimes fail) have BHVR ever really done much to address this? I mean more on an overall method like how a lot of the anti-systems have been proposed and/or rolled out (and in many cases reverted or then reworked?)
I ask because they would be able to address balance in more mechanical ways with how they incorporate things. The fresh hook system would be a perfect way to balance bonuses and penalties regarding spreading hooks in a way that would address the power discrepancy on either a categorical or individual level, but its not even on the radar. Part of why the first attempt didn't work was because some killers could barely utilize the bonuses, while it just made the strongest ones even stronger. They made a half assed attempt at trying this avenue with the bloodlust bonus, but its limitations aren't really the right ones. I get the idea is to reduce exploitation from mobility killers (which is good) but its still not an effect which helps the rest evenly, especially with the chase halting it (stealth killers are going to enjoy it much more than hag, for example.) Its like they have the right idea but don't know how to incorporate it properly, which can be said for most of these systems that get attempted, and aprt of why so many get scrapped or backburnered for ages.
The pallet spawn logic change has made a lot of people especially vocal about the omission, and even in the livestream there were people in chat answering many of their open ended questions definitively. When they mentioned The Game had the most slugging, chat blew up talking about the prevalence of safe pallets, but they acted aloof and played it off as "I'm glad chat likes pallets" or something to that effect. Its hard to give them the benefit of the doubt concerning their data and especially feedback prioritization when they have verifiable hypothesis in front of their face and willfully ignore it, and thats absolutely not a killer centric criticism. Literally all they had to do was say "Chat is saying Pallets and there are certainly a lot of those on that map, we'll be sure to look into how they could corollate with slugging" instead of playing it off as a joke. Thats why people don't feel heard, it all adds up.
-
@Filipino1490 said:
The tunneling, camping and slugging aren"t the only reason why people are quiting the game. Its also because gens are flying way to fast, the meta is stale and repetetive and the reason why killers are tunneling, camping and slugging is because those are strategies to win And IT DOESN"T ALWAYS MEAN THAT KILLERS ARE ######### JUST BECAUSE OF IT. Killers for example are slugging because cause of the meta or sabo team(sabo teams aren"t often but still) if generators are going to fast then why can"t killers slug? To be clear the upcoming changes for them aren"t that bad But like for killers getting only bloodlust effect and more bloodpoints? like WHY? WHY CAN"T THEY HAVE MORE JUST LIKE IN THE LAST PTB WITHOUT THE PUNISHMENT LIKE WHERE COULD HAVE BASEKIT BARBECUE AND CHILLIE OR POP, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT!? I hate to say it but i feel like that you BHVR are survivor sided. plus in the livestream when you were talking about the maps. the gideon meat plant you had no idea like it is the map with the most slugging. Its becuase its litterally an pallet factory like why can"t we have less pallets but more vaults? And one more thing PLS DO SOMETHING TO THE SURVIVOR META LIKE PERKS ADDONS, ITEMS ETC. (keys, maps, fog viles, flashlights, medkits and toolboxes are fine without addons but the addons need some changes and we can"t forget that there is Genrushing that isn"t capped (the same with healing) and also the stake out and hyperfocus meta. Overall playing killers right now are misserable and if the changes from ptb hits live then its gonna be even worse then ever before.
I dont honestly believe that BHVR is purposely survivor sided, but I do believe they are willfully ignorant to the power difference across the killer roster. Some killers simply "play DBD" a lot better than others do, and its part of why people argue about things like this. While a survivor might be thinking about nurse and blight, a killer might be thinking about someone like skull merchant. The wide range of strengths mean that people's perspectives are going to be weighted on which end they're focusing on in their considerations.
Just like how its hard to buff solo queue without buffing SWFs, the same applies to blanket adjustments to the killer side. That said, I feel like thats also a big part of why there's so much pushback about the survey wording, as many of the adjustments to the survivor complaints listed are going to directly affect many killers due to that disparity. Its commonly recognized that punishing SWF is bad because most of them do not exploit the potential of communication, and that the approach should instead be on lifting Solo up to bridge the gap, they even allude to this in the stream, but when something like the incentives for fresh hooks make a perfect scenario for killer specific effects to bridge the gap, its not even a consideration.
Its not so much that they are survivor sided, they just oversimplify the issues many killers face, and its generally done either because they don't account for the variable strengths of the roster, or because they aren't willing to put in the work to do it when the opportunity presents itself. Calling it bias is the alternative to calling it either unintuitive, lazy, or reductionist. The survey issue wouldn't have been such an issue if these things were handled equally, even though its admittedly more work to address for more variables than the static stats survivors deal with outside of perks and items. That said, compromises like grouping killers based on common categories (stealth, ranged, dash ability, whatever prominent factors are shared) and going with that would at least prove those sentimentalities less accurate. Simply put, for all of the people who are upset their side is losing something in the us vs them war, a lot of other people are just disappointed to hear the wording paired with the results. Especially when such a focus is put on player satisfaction being a determining balancing factor.
-
@DeBecker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4018659#Comment_4018659
How about we stop assuming downvotes just because it doesnt fit your narrative?
You're continuing to avoid presenting the evidence of your claim, so it seems like a pretty founded assumption. The game's entire design predicates on disorientation so I'm genuinely interested in how
The game was never meant to be played without coms.Is something the devs have directly stated. Especially if several times and I seem to have missed it.
Edit: I'm also curious about this "narrative" my post was pushing. I just asked you to elaborate fam.
-
They were brought back because they want to reddit-ify the forums. I'm sure it has nothing to do with this little option, nor its default setting:
I feel they're supposed to be used as some attempt to have the community "police itself" regarding outlandish topics and posts, but like most tools its just bleeding further into the Us vs them mentality some people refuse to shake.
Edit: for reference, mass downvoted posts would stop bumping after a certain point, making it a way to bury topics even when active.
-
@DeBecker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4018086#Comment_4018086
Devs have stated this several times by now. Stop pretending you never heard of it.
Then provide that evidence. I was literally giving you an opportunity to make your case, but I'm guessing by the downvote you assume it was an attack?
-
@DeBecker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4016833#Comment_4016833
The game was never meant to be played without coms. Thats a big lie.
Interesting. Thinking back on early DBD, what evidence do you have of this?
-
@Skillfulstone said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4017904#Comment_4017904
(I'm going to regret this...)
I think it's pretty safe to say that BHVR's way of tracking stats is much different (and far more detailed) than the official stat tracker that we can use to track our trials.
In streams/AMA in the past, some devs would sometimes mention winrate for a specific map, for example. They have methods of tracking that are different and more precise.
While true, that means they shouldn't be presenting half assed stats as "official" then. We have nightlight for approximation based statistics and that was ironically hit with a similar issue when abandons were rolled out. Since I don't keep tabs, anyone know if its been fixed on their end since?
In any case, they have waffled so much on what actually counts where that its led to a lot of confusion in the community, and it seems like every time they try to address it things just get more murky. The fact they even try to have the user facing stats not align with official ones is an issue in itself, and not very helpful for a community as splintered and hyperbolic as this game has.
-
@Cassiopeiae said:
Statistics will always be objective fact and therefore way more accurate in reflecting reality than subjective experience.
While true, they're also completely meaningless without proper contextual data and objective evaluation. That's the entire point of statistical analysis, elevating them from being simply numbers. The vast majority of the time the reason anyone ever wants stats is to bend them to a hypothesis, rather than build one off of them.
OP's post has an interesting hypothesis, that killers with less intuitive design in how to handle them from the survivor side tend to perform better based off of their recent statistics. This is reasonable as its pretty self explanatory, killers you need to "learn" to counter are going to do better vs people who don't learn said counterplay. That said, people misuse statistics almost every single time they're presented and it ends up just stoking more us vs them arguments that conveniently ignore data that doesn't specifically support their argument, or worse, allow for context to weaken it. We could probably get more consistent statistics if people could be adults about the results when we do.
-
A good player empty handed is far more useful than a bad player with broken items and addons.
If you lament solo queue allies, make sure none of them are lamenting you. All you can really do.
-
@Shroompy said:
this title is very misleading because you cant die to pallets
but what if a teammate uses one to sandbag you? :o
-
@Naxete said:
I’m unable to improve as a survivor in Dead by Daylight. I keep watching people on YouTube or Twitch who seem to play effortlessly well, and it frustrates me a lot. I don’t know how to make decisions about when to stay in a structure or when to leave, and I struggle to recognize each map’s structures. I have about 3,000 hours, almost all as a survivor (I started playing killer in November 2024). I never play SWF, always SoloQ (I understand this is important, but it shouldn’t be decisive for improving my individual skill). I know and use the looping techniques we all know: hugging structures, keeping distance from the killer, going full W, tanking for teammates, trying to play each structure well... But NOTHING, I struggle immensely to improve.
As a survivor, I have better and worse days, but I never feel like I’m actually improving. I don’t know what to do to level up. It’s very frustrating...
It sounds like a lot of what you want to work on is game sense. Things like when to bail vs when to stay, using context info to improve your decisions is generally something that comes with time and experience, but not automatically. If you feel like you're hitting a road block in those regards, expanding your experience is an excellent way to give yourself more info to build off of in those decisions. The best way to do that is to simply play outside your comfort zone more.
Gen Jockey? Get chased more on purpose and/or make higher risk/reward plays, and you'll get better at making those types of judgement calls in the future. Particular killer power always seem to trip you up? Play as that killer, and watch how survivors counter it until you get better at reading their reactions. You'll even get a bit better at that killer for if/when you'd like to play them. You know, as a treat. :)
In fighting games there is a term called labbing, which basically means going into training mode with the express purpose of trying to figure out something that is a roadblock for you, or improving around it in often compensatory ways. If you have trouble with a specific move, you might set up the training dummy to recreate its usage and practice how to deal with it. You might also learn said character and practice using said move while trying out what does and doesn't work afterwards. In a game like DBD, live fire practice is all we really have in a lot of those aspects (in most cases) so the best way to get better about those things is…. probably to lose.
And absolutely nobody ever wants to hear that.
But you learn more from losses than you do from wins, as long as you allow yourself to. Take a week or two and don't care about outcomes of matches, just focus on individual scenarios as they arise. Personally I would always do this in matches that are "already lost," as it makes a much more productive alternative to the go next mentality. Instead of relying on built up muscle memory or default responses to things, work on singling out how you need to adapt each time they arise. And if you don't do very well at said adaptation? Brush yourself off, make a mental note of how and why it didn't work out, and keep that data in mind next time it arises.
That said, that is the best place to insert outside opinions/guides/etc on how to improve. Don't think of them like books you have to speedread from start to finish, but more an almanac you reference as needed to improve. It makes the improvement method less overwhelming, makes losses sting less, and gives a lot of delayed gratification as you start to internalize your improvements subconsciously.
Simply put, keep trying new things, learn your opponent, and don't take failures to heart. -
@Sava18 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4010037#Comment_4010037
I disagree, there are many pallets in the game now that are worse than ormond outside table pallets, just remove the longside and the is no world where a competent m1 killer gets stunned or doesn't get the hit in less than 10 seconds max. It's 100% on the killer to mess up the interaction thus meaning it's not a 50/50. Typically there is a max of 3 god pallets on a map excluding the game, it's supposed to be guaranteed safety for an amount of time. It sets an amount of strength that is reliable and knowable by both sides. god pallets are completely fine in minimal amounts, saturating maps with "1/10s" does neither side any good, they might as well be pallets designed towards comp with them wasting such little time. 1-2 god pallets, 3 good tiles, 2 weak tiles and the rest being filler tiles akin to MacMillan rock, pallet, tree, rock fillers is the best way to go by far. So essentially the autohaven and macmillan maps before they got changed 2 or 3 years ago. It's why those maps used to have their offerings used every other game by both sides, fairness and consistency.
It would be better to keep that previous standard and rework all of the terrible killers with no ability to play tiles because they lack the ability to be buffed directly without feeling extremely boring/unfair in chase. You can try your best to make fillers and gods more playable for trapper and freddy but they are the minority now, they need to be changed directly not the pallet system.
I disagree, there are many pallets in the game now that are worse than ormond outside table pallets, just remove the longside and the is no world where a competent m1 killer gets stunned or doesn't get the hit in less than 10 seconds max.I'm sorry but thats not how 50/50s work. Again, the point of interaction, at its core, is still a 50/50 where the killer and survivor need to make a read at the same time on whether the pallet will drop in time before a hit comes out. Technically you could argue its a 33/33/33 (since trades are possible) but for all intents and purposes, that comes down to other variables like latency. I'm not talking about the context around it (including connecting tiles,) as that varies wildly. At that one moment, it is entirely dependent on who will have the server register their interaction first. I'm purposely excluding other factors because there is no consistency to them, at its very minimum, every single pallet in the game has a 50/50 outcome for that moment. Thats why I emphasized that there is a separate discussion on whether the game should stray in either direction from that pure 50/50, and ironically, how the stronger pallets get the more they rely on those other variables like anti-loop or adjacent tiles.
Typically there is a max of 3 god pallets on a map excluding the game, it's supposed to be guaranteed safety for an amount of time.Personally I see this as as much of an issue as filler pallets. You could apply the same argument to them in reverse, that they can be a 50/50 at the exact same moment as a filler pallet would, but like the filler pallet, the rest of the time it skews in one direction. This means that for any killer who does not have a way to circumvent that pallet, it is just as debilitating to said killer as a filler pallet is to survivors. Then you add on multiple factors like bloodlust being forced to reset, as well as up to 3 other players having agency while the other two force timewastes on one another, and the impact starts to grow quite a bit. Its also not reliable, as many killers have aspects of their kits that ignore even god pallets. Nurse don't care about your shack pallet unless you get the stun, making it about as effective as a filler pallet in necessitating the stun to have value.
saturating maps with "1/10s" does neither side any good, they might as well be pallets designed towards comp with them wasting such little time.I never said to saturate them, just that people wildly underrate them because they're too used to predrop and forget being the defacto approach, and that they require the most skill to utilize. Filler pallets absolutely have their uses, and i use them as a 1/10 to signify their difference in strength from god pallets, not that they're only 1/10 usable or anything like that. They are not great for either side, but they ARE the most direct point of direct interaction between the two roles. They're the closest any pallet in the game can be to a coin flip at their point of usage, especially since others like god pallets reward pre-emptive action rather than hard reads and/or reactions. My plan was also to uplift most filler pallets to become good pallets, so I don't know where that came from.
It would be better to keep that previous standard and rework all of the terrible killers with no ability to play tiles because they lack the ability to be buffed directly without feeling extremely boring/unfair in chase. You can try your best to make fillers and gods more playable for trapper and freddy but they are the minority now, they need to be changed directly not the pallet system.Thats… exactly what I said?
Honestly, with the amount of antiloop that has been spread across as many killers as it has, it might be time to consider giving a form to the rest, while upping the minimum safety of pallets across the board.I'm in complete agreement that upping the minimum value or pallets (while also adjusting their maximum value to a lesser degree) should go hand in hand with giving the lacking killers some form of anti-loop in order to normalize their abilities between the best and worst killers. Every killer should have at least some form of dealing with strong pallets, just like every pallet should have a chance of extending chase long enough to at least the next tile or two. The two are an interconnected issue that survivors and killers keep yelling past each other about because they only focus on their preferred aspect.
-
@Sava18 said:
As a former killer main I find it baffling that bhvr has more and more moved to a less safe higher pallet density mindset. I don't want to be playing trash fillers all the time as either side. LT's, Long walls and short walls are all great. But they keep adding in at best weird non filler tiles that are just out right weaker and m1 killer outplayable guaranteed along with a bunch of pallets so weak it's not even a 50/50 at best anymore.
Of course something like old cold wind fillers that might as well have been god pallets was too strong, but they are pulling away from the middle ground and going weaker. Unknowns release map is a prime example.
No pallet ever has less potential than a 50/50 unless a killer's kit specifically makes it so. Even the worst filler pallet that leads to nothing inherently has a point of interaction where it is 50/50 against any killer with zero anti-loop. The argument then becomes about whether killers should be able to bring a pallet under a 50/50, but outside of other variables (like kits/powers, positioning, or latency) potentially no pallet is weaker than that.
Honestly, with the amount of antiloop that has been spread across as many killers as it has, it might be time to consider giving a form to the rest, while upping the minimum safety of pallets across the board. If filler pallets are a 1 and god pallets are a 10, maybe we should give every killer something to work with while simultaneously starting pallet strength around a 3 or 4 at minimum. As it stands, people find different things to focus on with the topic as there is too much turbulence in regards to things like how pallet interactions should play out for either side. If nothing else, this type of normalization would help keep the minimum interaction strength to a true 50/50, though it should similarly normalize the opposite end (aka weaken god pallets slightly, like a 7 or 8) as well to keep the average in the middle.
Seems like a lot of work, but its the kind of approach that would be needed to normalize how oppressive or useless killers can be vs certain pallets. And since the ones who get dunked on the most by strong pallets tend to also be the ones who rely more on bloodlust, it would do quite a bit to hem in the extremes and allow for better balancing with pallets on a conceptual level. They might even end up being ok with god pallets staying around a 9 if the weakest killers end up less helpless against them. As it is, its hard to define 50/50's with almost any pallet because those variables like killer antiloop will always shift it in either direction.
-
There are always going to be people who have a geographical advantage with server distance, unless said servers are in the middle of the ocean or an arctic tundra or something. This is going to sound uncharacteristically harsh, but complaining about anything under 100ms is cope, especially since this isn't a frame perfect game by a long shot. The complaint should be about when people cause massive outliers with how high their ping is, not when its low.
-
@poinepp said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4009697#Comment_4009697
i remember they accidentaly unlocked the cap for how long the screams will last when skull merchant chapter came out and that lasted up until nicolas cage patch so that was the time frame where they were going wild but at the same time tho some of the long screams were kinda cool and hilarious then again they went back to 3 seconds duration(previously it was around 2-2.5 ish, before the long screams were introduced with sm patch)
I completely understand them from a thematic point, both in volume and length. I feel they're a visceral exclamation point to the act of hooking. That said, I can also see how they might be a bit too visceral, prompting neighbors who might not hear the rest of the game to only hear occasional blood curdling screams. Especially for console players not using headsets.
The best part about making a setting like that local is that it would be handled on a per player basis. If you want full immersion mode, leave it up and enjoy the Good Suffering. But literally anyone else for any reason whatsoever would be able to simply opt out of the True
EarMurder Experience.But yeah, sound bugs over the years have been a trip in this game to say the least.
-
@MarylinMonhoe said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4009268#Comment_4009268
THIS
Omg I hate it when I miss great skillcheck and I know it's not my fault
Sometimes I do like 10 great ones in a row and i'm like "the heck is that ?"
There is so much inconsistancy
When I watch some streamers on YT, their skillchecks seem way slower than mine so it seems they have better odds to hit then
I'm crazy right ?
It could be because you're focusing so hard on everything around hitting the great (nerves, distractions, HUD info, TR, etc) that you don't get that sensory hyperfocus that often comes with singling out one thing. When you're watching someone else play, you don't really think about those things as much since they don't really matter to you directly, so your undivided attention is on their skill check. In game, you have a lot of other things running through your mind and trying to perceive other things, so it seems to "blur" a bit by comparison.
Try practicing focusing solely on the skill checks and see if it feels any different. Server lag and game FPS can always be variables, but you might find it helps a bit with the consistency. I almost miss OG ruin specifically because it made me realize how distracted I often was with just simple skill checks, and made me a lot better at getting greats more consistently.
-
@poinepp said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4009326#Comment_4009326
they were 'more' ear piercing by being quite long a while ago before they shortened them to what they are rn so its better than what it was originally in that regard
Originally (as far back as I played, anyway) the volume was lower and they were shorter. They've been changed a few times in the years I've been playing, so I can't speak for the days before spirit, but they have gotten worse both in volume and length since. for "immersion." I'm glad they aren't as long as they were at that one point though, I swear they were as long as a whole BBQ proc at one point. I've always had to alt tab out or hit the mute key for a few seconds each time depending on which role I was playing.
Its just a problem we really don't need to have nearly a decade after release. It could have been fixed ages ago with something as simple as an audio ducking or peak limitation option. Apparently people have been using audio adjustment software on their whole OS just to apply peak limiting for DBD screams alone. The length of the screams is more of an annoyance, but the volume difference from quiet sounds is definitely the worse of the two.
Actually, I'd love if it were possible to see the dB ratings of the loudest and most quiet sounds in the game, before applying variables like distance falloff or purposeful obfuscation. Pitch could obviously play a pretty big factor as well, but I feel like just comparing the wavelengths in some free software like audacity would tell a pretty interesting story.
-
@Jog_Og said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4009332#Comment_4009332
Well then you assumed a bunch of things about me based on a vague comment in support of accessibility options.
I didn't assume anything about you, friend. Just what you said and a sprinkle of rationalization, which I will admit, lacked a bit of focus to work with. I was piggybacking off of your post, not everything is intended to be an argument.
-
@Jog_Og said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4009326#Comment_4009326
I didn't disagree with them you read my comment wrong lol.
I'm pretty sure I read it right in that you think the argument for immersion is weaker now than it would have been in years past. My response was in regards to how selective people are about things like "immersion," especially when they likely don't miss the depths of the moonlight offering days or moonwalking legion. After all, deep wounds not bleeding out faster from getting tagged multiple times as well as not going down while being hunted by someone who isn't directly looking at you were clearly immersion breaking, but playing at a gamma of 1 was clearly healthy for the game.
Edit: Essentially I want to see actual, real reasons for people to be opposed to an option like this, especially for how many times I've seen it come up from people who rarely even post on the forums. The only arguments I ever see against it are either apathy from people who don't care (presumably because they think it would "waste" manpower) or people who like that it affects other people. Either way, I never see actual arguments about why its a good thing and/or needs to stay without any local option that wouldn't affect the apathetic or blood curdling aficionados since they wouldn't use it.