Saiph
Saiph
About
- Username
- Saiph
- Joined
- Visits
- 4,261
- Last Active
Comments
-
It's really depressing how all these posts are pointing out real issues, and I genuinely agree with 90% of what you said, but for some reason you decided to start the whole thing with "The event is beyond killer-sided and every streamer agrees" which is a completely biased take and basically ruins the whole argument.
We have a lot of data that proves the game is killer-sided, why not just stick with that instead of making up nonsense that 1) you can't provide any evidence for and 2) is actually false - the event is not killer-sided and "streamers" agree (check Scott Jund's video for example). I don't know which streamers you watch, but the consensus is that both sides get a slight advantage from their ability, but it's not worth it the time spent picking it up in the void, for either side.
Now because you decided to include this weak point, every killer player will only react to that.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3822200#Comment_3822200
I've found a 12 hour video for comparison, but the lobby and queue times aren't shown in the video :(
Anyway, there was a problem with survivor queue times in May / June, iirc. The Forums had some threads about it:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/254916/queue-times-are-out-of-hand
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/255775/long-queues
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/254572/my-worst-experiance-to-date
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/255300/are-not-survivor-queues-so-long
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/251702/survivor-queue-extremely-long
In my experience, players blamed a supposed "killer exodus" as the reason for the long queue times as survivor.
People have always been complaining about queue times for as long as this forum has existed, on each side. I've seen somebody even complain last week, and yet I'm certain queues take < 30 sec on each side now. Out of millions of players there'll always be a few who are unlucky, either because they are at a rare MMR, live in an isolated region, queue at a weird hour, or all of those combined.
If queues were so long in 2021 then people should be able to find examples proving it, there are literally hundreds of Youtube VODs from 2021. But every time I click on one, I see 10 sec queues, just try it yourself. In contrast, every single VOD from 2vs8 shows consistent 10+ min. This shows that during 2vs8 queues were incomparable to anything in 2021.
-
@I_Cant_Loop said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3822200#Comment_3822200
I realize you didn't cherry-pick the video, but there are aren't going to be many posted to YouTube that have long stretches of the streamer just waiting in a queue. Nobody is going to watch those. In other words, you're most likely to see only videos with short queue times if you're randomly pulling stuff off YouTube because people are not going to upload their videos that have a bulk of the total time just sitting watching them wait for games.
All I can tell you with absolute certainty is my own experience. Even now, during peak evening times in my region (US eastern time zone), killer queues are instant and survivor queues are consistently a few minutes long. It was way worse before recent buffs were given to killers to help boost kill rates up to the current ~40% average. If survivor queue times are still a few minutes even now after these buffs, that means that there is still a deficit of killers in the queue pool (less than the 20% needed to make a perfect overall 4:1 survivor-to-killer ratio). The killer role is still not attractive enough to get enough players to balance the queues during peak times. I don't play during the day very often, but I assume it's probably not as bad during "off-peak" times because there aren't as many people playing together in groups, and solo players are probably on average going to choose the killer role more often.
I don't want to sound rude but literally click the links I posted and you'll see these are 10 hour-long recordings that include queue times. This is because I search for VODs, not regular videos, basically those are complete recordings, often from livestreams. There are literally hundreds of them available from 2021.
Do the test, survivor VODs from 2021 show amost 0 queue time, while killer VODs frrom the 2vs8 period show 10+ min queue times. It is totally possible that you get 1-2 minutes now, but first, that doesn't affect the majority of the playerbase like it did for 2vs8, and second, 1-2 minutes is not 10+ minutes. Let's say an average match lasts 10 minutes, you getting 1-2 minutes means there is a 1.1x - 1.2x more survivors than ideal, so 5 survivors for 1 killer in your region - not ideal, but not terrible either. In contrast, 10 minute queues means 2 survivors for 1 killer - 2x less survivors than ideal. I repeat, but the survivor BP incentive during 2vs8 went up to +600%.
-
@I_Cant_Loop said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3822175#Comment_3822175
Yes this can happen to certain people, but if BHVR's escape statistics are really true, then it's not happening to most players. If it was, the escape rates would be far lower. In my experience, when I've played with 2-3 friends who are lower skilled and likely have lower MMR scores, we tend to get matched against baby killers.
BHVR exclude games with DCs for some reason (even though it translates to a survivor loss the majority of the times), and even then 40% is an average, so a significant number of people probably lean more around 30%, with this rate running into long loss streaks is not only possible but actually rather expected.
Doing some very rough math, if you escape 33% of the time, a 10-loss streak should happen on average every 70 games, so very common actually.
-
@I_Cant_Loop said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3822138#Comment_3822138
I don't think it's fair to use the 2v8 mode to assess the popularity of the killer role. That was a very unique event in the game's history and people were drawn to the killer role due to mode offering 2 killers being able to play together for the first time ever.
Yes the peak player count was back in 2021 when kill rates were lower, but I also remember survivor queue times being extraordinarily long back then. My queue times for survivor during peak time are now maybe just a few minutes at the most. Back then it was like 15-20 minutes. The deficit of killer players was definitely worse back then than it is today, and that's because killer doesn't feel as unfun to play as it did back then.
I don't know where this "15 - 20 min survivor queues" claim comes from, but I'm pretty sure it is wrong, even though I've seen several people claim it. I've been playing since 2021 and queues were never ever more than 1-2 min, assuming you played during peak times and on one of the major regions.
If you want factual data about this claim, we can look at old VODs from 2021 of random streamers on Youtube, there are tons of old VODs. Here's a random one I picked from Feb 2021, see by yourself, all his queues take like 10 seconds:
https://youtu.be/pxt4OM4mkRs?si=-xM0_eCCHT8uhMNT&t=3783I did not cherry pick this video, you can try yourself, type "DBD 2021 VOD". I've looked at the first 3, all queues take less than 20 sec for the majority of games.
So, feel free to link it if you find one that takes 10+ minutes, but otherwise I'm calling that claim wrong.
In contrast, I can easily prove such high queue times for 2vs8, check these VODs. All the queues take a consistent 10-15 min:
https://www.youtube.com/live/zNuEGzJsNzs?si=PQ8_0ZFRgVBfDjjI&t=1890
https://www.youtube.com/live/olwvyRkri2U?si=GYHK0tDJfUFQFIA9&t=7996
https://www.youtube.com/live/4y0IAE6t-5k?si=12-Sb6rffJzFEzjT&t=16852
It's possible there were some queue problems in 2021, but it was incomparable with what happened during 2vs8. During 2vs8, queue times were 10+ minutes for EVERYONE, to the point where pretty much no one streamed killer past the first few days.
-
@I_Cant_Loop said:
There sure have been a lot of "survivors don't escape enough" posts recently. Seriously, people need to spend time playing both sides before forming their opinions on this issue. Nobody wanted to play killer when the kill rates were lower. If you want EZ escapes and t-bagging killer at the exit gates, just play a custom game with a bot killer. If survivor side sucks so much, then don't play it - I will gladly welcome the shorter survivor queue times in the peak evening times when I play.
The reason people don't want to play killer has nothing to do with killrate.
During 2vs8 event, the killer role had the longest queue times ever seen in DBD, about 15 min queues, and survivor had +600% BP incentives. Which shows, people overwhelmingly play killer, when they can do it with their friends.
But outside of the event, survivor is the only role that allows that. You could buff killrates to 99%, as long as killer is still the 1v4 role, the majority of players will not play it.
The all-time peak player count of DBD was in 2021 btw, when the killrate was 50%.
-
@CursedPerson said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3822075#Comment_3822075
Honestly this is one of the biggest reasons i cant recommend to anyone right now. In no other game can someone just take away your agency for 4 minutes straight. Not to mention all the aura reading they dont understand why they are being found when they are hiding.
Now it's even better because the killer will bleed you out for 4 minutes then mori you afterwards. If you thought that was already not humiliating enough.
Your 2nd point I've suggested it years ago to become a 2nd effect of Distortion (allow survivor to know when the killer can see their aura). But I quickly realized nobody cares about new players on this forum, and meanwhile, the devs have completely gutted Self-Care and now Distortion, so I think the message is clear and new players can go f*ck themselves.
-
There's been countless people suggesting a "Give up" button for survivors on ground after 1 minute of being slugged. It would solve this issue, as well as many others, like slugging for 4k.
And yet it has never been implemented. I honestly don't understand how something so basic is beind missed by the devs, either they consider the time of survivor time to be worthless, or they never play survivor.
-
The issue is not just that you lose, but that nowawdays in DBD you spend almost all your time watching your character die or waiting for unavoidable death to come, rather than playing the game.
Bleeding out is the best example. The devs still consider it an acceptable game mechanic, for a player to be forced to wait up to 4 minutes on the ground doing nothing, just watching their character die, potentially while the killer watches them die to humiliate them, too. 4 full minutes doing nothing but waiting for the game to confirm you lost. In a game where the average match length is 10 minutes, and the average chase time is 1 minute. I am honestly puzzzled how someone ever considered an unskippable timer of 4 minutes to be something reasonable to have in a video game, let alone never changed for 7 years.
Even when you're not getting bled out. How many times does the game feels like it's over in the first 2 minutes, and then the game just drags itself out for 10 minutes. How many times does a match start, and within 30 sec your teammate goes down and gives up on hook, and it's already a 3 vs 1 at 5 gens, and you have no option but to wait patiently for the game to finish you off, AGAIN?
And of course, let's not forget the iconic hatch game. Because if you thought that 3v1 game was dragging itself out already, you as a survivor are in fact encouraged to drag it out even more: by hiding in a corner! That's right, you can still win this game, but for that you need to be the one who will hide for the LONGEST. Don't do ANYTHING or you'll lose. Because if there's one thing that this game LOVES it's when everyone sits there doing nothing! The killer, however, can counter it. How? By slugging the other survivor of course! How lovely, now it's not just ONE survivor who has to sit 4 minutes on the ground doing nothing, but now we have THREE players waiting patiently for him to die, and this is a core mechanic of the game!
-
Yes it should, the hook animation is ridiculously long, people have suggested to make it skippable for years, there's no argument against it so BHVR will probably implement it by 2030.
Below me will now follow a series of very productive comments like "it's only 10 seconds bro" or "why do you care it's not that long"
-
@CountOfTheFog said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3820341#Comment_3820341
What is moan tech....?
When you carry survivors and they spam the wiggle button it basically makes them moan really fast in your ears
-
I'm convinced that a significant part of the survivor playerbase actually has a BDSM / submission fetish and enjoy survivor as it is now.
Compared to other games, DBD has a very obvious over-representation in submissive player names like "Choke me Daddy" or "Myers' Wife" (to stay polite). Pretty sure anybody has seen these names a few times. As killer, it's also quite frequent that my survivors do something suggestive, like moan tech, or crouch and show their *ss etc. At first I thought it is just funny (and I still think it is) also who am I to judge these people - but I'd say yea DBD has clearly disturbed some people's mental health.
Curious to see how common this has been to other killers or if it's me who's playing in a way that triggers these types of people more lol (I'm usually playing meme builds, nodding etc.)
-
Honestly this build is very fair. Yes the killer runs at 140% but the only way this works is if they manage to down all 4 survivors, which if the survivors split properly, should not happen. Then after 60 sec the killer loses most of its speed and after the NOED is cleansed, they are just a Legion with +6% speed, should get 1k at most.
There are a lot of genuine things to complain about in the game as survivor, Legion is really not one of them. I'd much rather face this build than say Chucky or Knight.
Also Hens wins the overwhelming majority of his games as killer, regardless of the build. The fact he won most of its games does not mean this specific build is particularly strong.
-
Yeah it really doesn't feel like a good change.
The 2v1 hide&seek situation was already one of the least interesting parts of the game, and this change makes it far more common than before. Now every survivor hides like their life depends on it because they don't want to get mori'd, and killers slug the 2nd survivor 90% of the time. It feels like a net negative on both sides.
-
@Huge_Bush said:
There’s nothing to fix. According to BHVRs stats, their win rate isn’t much higher than SoloQ.
Just match their energy. If they rush gens, rush kills. If they sabo or bring in Boil Over, slug them. If they play casually, do the same.
I just suggest you play a stronger Killer like Pinhead, Nurse, Blight and Larry. Weaker ones with no mobility or secondary objectives don’t really stand a chance against a good SWF that knows how to loop. That’s not a SWF problem though, that’s a BHVR problem with not improving M1Killers.
One issue is, you can't really know if they are a coordinated SWF until it's too late usually. If you play nice under the assumption that you are against 4 solos, then suddenly you get flashlight saved at a clutch moment and everyone is taking hit for each other at 1 gen.
This is a more general problem in DBD where you never know how sweaty your opponents are until they pop that clutch syptic in your face and now it's too late you're already screwed. Because of that, you tend to assume everyone is sweaty by default, and so the game effectively becomes sweatier.
I'm not in favor of SWF-specific nerfs but at least it would be fair for the killer to be able to know who is in SWF with whom, since it has such a huge impact on gameplay. Not even talking about the winrate, but there are perks like Rancor that lose 90% of their value if the obsession is in SWF, and you would play very differently with this perk if you coul know you are facing a SWF.
-
What happened is that the game became hostile to casuals. Too much complexity, too many cheap playstyles allowed, and too many horrible changes that disproportionately affect casual players like the Self-care nerf from patch 6.1.
As the casual players left, the game became sweater, which made it even less casual-friendly etc. It's a vicious cycle, and it affects everyone, because nobody wants to play against sweats. If you pay attention you'll realize your best games on both sides are almost always within the first week of vacation/events, when the player count is high, games feel more relaxed because you're playing against people who don't play it 24/7, but then matches become miserable again as casuals progressively leave.
This is also paradoxical because both sides don't realize how much they hurt themselves by suggesting to nerf casual playstyles for the other side. Let's take Self-Care or Distortion for example. I never use these perks as survivor, they are just bad. But I've seen killers demand nerfs to these perks, and that couldn't be more counterproductive: they probably think "nerf survivors so killer will become easier", but that's absolutely not what happens. What really happens is, the Distortion/SelfCare users aren't good players, they contribute to making your matches chill as killer, and once you delete SelfCare/Distortion, they just stop playing. So, instead of getting matched vs. 3 genrushers and 1 Claudette, you'll now get matched vs. 4 genrushers, and your matches will feel harder, not easier.
-
EDIT: Nevermind, changes were reverted! Thanks BHVR
-
@adsads123123123123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3809039#Comment_3809039
The goal is to just see who wins the most because I care about winning not getting a 2k. Kill rate, which is shown, is best for factoring for the whole kill distribution.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3809035#Comment_3809035
I agree for some of the killers but not Chucky, Wesker, PH, and Huntress. Their skill floor isn't high. Spirit probably plummeted due to the Iron Will buff. Nightlight's historic data shows her kill rate was much higher before Iron Will was buffed.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3809040#Comment_3809040
All stats are from Nightlight on the day of the post.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3809063#Comment_3809063
The killer rankings are comparable to the official stats released in Jan 2024. The killers that got buffed or nerfed changed rankings, but most of the ones that were untouched are similar in ranking. Meta shifts, perk changes, and inaccuracies are responsible for the other differences.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3809093#Comment_3809093
It shouldn't because a draw is neither a loss and a win. Counting it as 0.5 instead of 0 implies that the outcome was 0.5 in favour of the killer, which it wasn't. They also don't count as 0.5 wins in win streaks. They end the win streak.
Counting draws as losses is straight up dishonest and makes most of your statistics misleading.
An average person seeing your table will think that a killer with "50% winrate" has a balanced count of losses and wins, when in reality 50% in your table means the killer wins a lot more than he loses - about 50% wins, and 35% losses. Most people would agree that if you win 50% and lose 35% of your matches, then your winrate is not 50% but more like ~60%, and that's why the common winrate definition counts draws as 0.5 wins to factor that.
Well, at least your stats show a problem with Ghostface, right? He has 40% winrate so surely he must lose the majority of his games, and he's underpowered? Well that's not true either, quite the opposite. In fact Nightlight shows Ghostface loses 43.9% of his games, draws 12.8%, and wins 43.3% - ie. an almost perfectly symmetric result. We see here very clearly what is the problem with your statistics - Ghostface has a balanced result, yet your stats don't reflect that because you show only the "43% wins" part, completely omitting draws. Common sense would be that when the result is symmetric, then winrate should be 50%. And, you guessed it, if we use the common winrate definition, that's what we obtain 43.3+12.8/2 = 50%.
Finally, one thing you "omit" to mention, is that with your definition, the survivor winrate is 35% - ie. much lower than every killer in your list, even Ghostface. So, you make it sound like Ghostface is severely underpowered and borderline unplayable with 40%. What should we conclude for the survivor role who has 35% then?
-
2K should be counted as 0.5 win, not as 0 win. Winrate formula is not N_wins / N_matches, it's N_wins + 0.5 N_draws / N_matches .
-
It's not really outliers though. The first time I played Nurse, I got 36 wins in a row, and I'm not an exceptional player. Then I posted the videos on this forum, saying it shouldn't be normal to get this kind of streaks.
One of the first comments was someone who said a 36 winstreak proves nothing and I should come back when I get at least 100 lol.
-
@doobiedo said:
I
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3807158#Comment_3807158
I mean he's still a really good player though. Espeially considering he doesnt use any perks.
Not using perks is an arbitrarily stupid restriction, even more so in solo Q where you're already severely handicapped by the game - no reason to handicap yourself further.
I mean I could understand the argument that some perks take less skill when it comes to exhaustion or chase perks (although I disagree with it). But you could always equip an anti-tunnel perk or something to help your soloQ teammates like Kindred/Bond
-
@Brimp said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3807144#Comment_3807144
50/50s is part of looping though. You win the 50/50 you get to make another rotation (and yes good killers still lose 50/50s) and with blood lust… you are supposed to eventually lose chase. But it's better to keep the killer in certain areas which looping does than taking the killer on a cross-map tour. There's the macro play coming into the looping game. I feel like peoples expectations of looping has devolved into "oh i get to get to this super safe window or pallet the killer can do nothing about other than brute force it".
I'm not arguing against that, just that it's misleading to recommend these videos as an argument of how supposedly strong looping is.
If anything, Tatorhead's actual gameplay on twitch shows how irrelevant looping really is. He is a Youtuber, experienced player, and arguably a good looper, so arguably should be in the top of the playerbase. And yet he still goes down in 30 sec, barely more than the average player, and still has roughly the same escape rate as the average player (~40%).
I genuinely believe OP has a point when he says you should prioritize press W over looping. Maybe not discard looping entirely as there are still some pretty good tiles, but even on these tiles, it is often better to take a hit at the right moment that will allow you to get back towards the center of the map, rather than greed the loop for 5 more seconds that will possibly result in you being zoned.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3807144#Comment_3807144
the whole point of the loop is to loop till killer get bloodlust 1/2 then drop shack pallet. that is how looping work. i wouldn't call any of these loop 50/50. this is just hold-w and understanding how chain windows….
Then you could just loop shack pallet itself. And yea that Dead Dawg loop is entirely a 50/50, that's why he gets hit several times even in his own examples showcasing it.
And when he doesn't get hit, it's because the killer can't aim, like at 8:12. Seriously, have you watched that clip?
I mean sure looping is still viable, if the killer is drunk. But that's pretty much the only thing I can conclude from this video.
-
@doobiedo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3807144#Comment_3807144
I like tatorhead, but he likes to imply looping is easier than it actually is. His advice, while good, will nornally only apply in an exact area and exact circumstance that you are unlikely to be in. Now because he has like 1000 hours or whatever, he will always know the best thing to do. I don't really like running map offerings, so I don't ever end up in the situation that I watched his video about.
I don't think any of his guides really works in practice. If you check his streams, you'll realize he doesn't hold particularly long. And yes, looping is hard.
Watch how he plays the best loop in the entire game (Garden of Joy) and still gets downed in 30 sec:
https://www.twitch.tv/mr_tatorhead/clip/RepleteAmazingKumquatBabyRage-57_WQ5UzSHFMm7DIUnlike the above links, this clip does not come from cherry-picked Youtube videos. It comes from his real gameplay (from his live a few hours ago, I can find dozens of clips like that).
Ironically, I think OP did a pretty good job at summarizing what's wrong with looping:
- Can't take the strong loop because of anti-loop power
- Tries it, gets hit anyway because of ping
- Best strategy ends up being hold W
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3807008#Comment_3807008
I agree. looping is still super common and super strong despite all anti-loop killers. OP just needs to look up guides if he thinks looping doesn't exist. Tatorhead makes a ton of looping guides for survivor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTL6WIKvgZE
Most of these looping spots are just glorified 50/50s. They can look cool because sometimes he happens to win them several times in a row. But even his example clips you can see he's getting hit several times. There are stronger places to loop on each of these maps, recommending that to new players is questionable at best, if not misleading.
The Dead Dawg spot in particular is ridiculous., It's way too long to work, the killer will catch you with bloodlust even if you make the window. I can't think an "experienced" player can suggest this and think it genuinely works. I've played killer for more than 1000 hours and I don't think I've seen even one survivor try to loop it in this specific pattern, it's just absurd.
Also no offense to Tatorhead but if you watch his actual gameplay on stream he is not the incredibly good looper that the titles of his videos seem to imply. Just like the majority of these god survivor Youtubers, in reality he escapes less than 50% of his games.
-
@Arbmos1998 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3805948#Comment_3805948
BHVR's data also says Nurse and Blight are some of the weakest killers in the game according to their killrates. We know full well these two are not weak but I feel if people want to be biased towards BHVR data and use that as their stance in that sense I say Nurse and Blight should be buffed because the data says so.
BHVR's data isn't in anyway accurate and doesn't tell us the whole picture of a match. Skull Merchant having a 70% killrate but an incredibly low pick rate? Because people quit on her the moment they see her and go next thus massively impacting her data to the point of she is getting completely destroyed next patch just to cater to these people who none stop cry about her instead of adapting and learning. 60% killrate btw which most the killer roster was sitting at isn't too amazing either as that would imply on average killers are getting draws most their matches with the very rare off chance of a 3k (win). People want 50/50 but this just tells me they want Survivors every match to complete all 5 gens, 2 die (lose) 2 escape (win) and the Killer getting a draw every game. That to me is boring and not balance.BHVR's data also says Nurse and Blight are some of the weakest killers in the game according to their killrates.This is not true though.
Killrate data show that Nurse has one of the lowest winrates at low MMR, and one of the highest winrates at high MMR, which is exactly the consensus about her: Nurse is the best killer in the game for people who know what they are doing, but she's being kept at bay because the vast majority can't reach this level. Console players especially are completely forgotten in these killrates discussions, and yet they make up the majority of the playerbase. Killers like Blight, Nurse and Huntress are not particularly good on console.
And I know you're just trying to find an example but I see this absurd claim so often "Nurse is the weakest according to statistics" when in reality the statistics show she's close to the best. There are a lot of problems in BHVR statistics, but Nurse's killrate is not one of them.
-
@Archael said:
idk. I had issues with myu internet connection and my ping was going high to the extreme amounts. If servers really were prioritise kkillers, then all hits i got during such "freeze" times should count since i hit survs from my perspective, game even showed me they was hit and laying down, yet when ping returned to normal, all those damage was canceled, and fit to what surv was seeing.
No I've been playing from the countryside with sometimes up to 500 ms of ping and I would still get the hits at vaults and pallets. I had to stop it eventually because I was getting kicked from the server, but the gameplay was still playable. My connection was rather stable though so maybe that was the difference with you.
-
@CosmicScarab said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3804470#Comment_3804470
https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/1fjd3ps/how_did_this_person_not_go_down_after_3_hits/
This, for example. If hit validation was 100% on the killer side it would never happen.This clip is probably a hacker though, that last hit shouldn't be possible. Also the weird hand waving slide after the 1st hit.
I watch both killer and survivor streamers regularly, I can tell you that survivors getting downed after pallet stunning the killer is 10 times more common than the reverse, a killer getting the hit denied after getting pallet stunned.
It is in fact, so much in the killer's favor, that a common tactic is to intentionally let survivors pallet stun you while timing the hit at the right time, just to make them waste a pallet and still get the down. I'm doing that several times per day, it is that common. And I see experienced killer streamers do the same.
You have a point though that hackers are able to decide whether they get hit or not, which shouldn't be possible if it was 100% client-sided. But hackers are also able to exploit server-sided things like gen times, so I would take that with a grain of salt, it might be that they found an exploit to mess up hit detection too.
-
@CosmicScarab said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3804330#Comment_3804330
If hits were entirely based on the killers perspective though there would never be an instance of a killer hitting a survivor, them screaming and bleeding, and then being uninjured
I've never seen that happen. Can you find a clip please?
-
@B0X0R said:
Unnecessary? It's called Dead by Daylight for a reason. Also it's just 5 or 10 seconds. Is that really going to make a huge difference?
At this point I'm starting to believe there are people who post on this forum just to contradict others lol. This is the most nonsensical defense I've read in a while
-
This idea has been suggested regularly since the game came out. Having to wait out the full 4-minute timer is absurd and probably the top 3 survivor complaint along with tunneling and camping.
Especially adding a "give up" button after 2 minutes, seems like such an obvious solution, I've seen it suggested by so many people, including Swrt a few weeks ago (a streamer) who said BHVR will implement it by 2030, I made that exact same joke on this forum a few years ago.
-
@Prometheus1092 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3763652#Comment_3763652
Any reason why you call nonsense? Or is it just biased views? I'm only saying what I heard happen, not encountered it myself because I refuse to play until the bug is resolved. But it does seem perfectly plausible, definitely something that could be controlled by survivors and based on my experience of the sheer quantity of toxic survivors using bugs and glitches previously.
If your argument for it being nonsense is based on blind support for swf and nothing else then it does invalidate your "nonsense" comment
I would like to point out, I heard this happen from survivors claiming they are doing it...
How do you even picture that thing? You said that people "take turns taking the fall so the rest can auto gens to get the wins", - so that means one guy jumped into his discord today, said "Hey guys there's a bug in DBD, let's go play and one of us will suicide at the beginning of the game, then we can genrush and get out immediately after 2 minutes without interacting with the killer - sounds fun right?"
Idk but if my friends suggested something like this I don't think I would play with them.
Besides, even if you cared just about the escape - which most SWFs don't - the "easy win" involves sacrificing one player of your SWF intentionally, so you're 3vs1, and then you still need to open the gate, which might often end at least in 2K, or even a loss. So not really an auto win.
SWF players will definitely exploit this bug, but making it sound like there are people who exclusively play SWF to be the evil incarnate and get easy wins against poor killer mains, sounds like nonsense. Besides, how would you even know? The game doesn't tell you who is in SWF.
-
@Langweilig said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3763543#Comment_3763543
I would be fine with that as long as it leans more to the 55% than to the 60%. The point why I choose 55% was that I think killer should have a slight upper hand, but they should not win far more than survivor. Currently with 60% kill rate they have a 20% higher chance to kill/win than survivors have to escape.
With a 60% killrate, killers don't have just 20% more chance to win than survivors, they have 50% more.
60/40 = 1.5x
As OP has shown, percentages are very deceptive in that regard, and a seemingly small increase in winrate leads to drastic consequences on the game balance. A 60% killrate is already very unbalanced from a statistical perspective, because it means survivors are almost guaranteed to get long loss streaks at some point.
-
Bugs actually tend to make games more fun, paradoxically.
This is something I've realized only recently, with TCM. The way I think of it, is that when a game is super bugged, nobody takes the win seriously: a win is worth nothing because you can just exploit to get it. So, people play for fun instead, and rarely actually exploit the bugs. And if you find people who do use the exploits, they are usually people which you do not want to play against anyway, so it's almost a good thing that the exploit exists, to reveal the type of players they are.
For example, if you face an exploiting Trickster this patch, the game will be basically over in 2 minutes and after the match you will say "Oh it's so unfun to play against an exploiter, I hope BHVR will fix it" but chances are, if there wasn't this exploit, this guy would play Nurse + slugging/tunnel build, and it would feel just as miserable, in fact the game would probably have lasted longer and be even less fun.
I know it's crazy but this is something I realized with TCM, which if you didn't know, had bugs way more serious than DBD ever had.
Basically, for several months after release, both sides had exploits that allowed you not only to cheese an easy win, but stunlock the other side players undefinitely and almost force them to DC. As a survivor you could door slam the killers forever, and as killer you could use a bugged Sissy perk that caused her poison to stack and it would slow down the survivor to literally 0% movement speed .
It was genuinely miserable to play against these exploits, and yet, tI'm pretty sure everyone who has played TCM can tell you it was when the game was the most fun. Once the developers patched the exploits, people quickly realized the game was going in some competitive direction and became less fun, paradoxically.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3760111#Comment_3760111
Can confirm, that's also not true.
Source: Completely anecdotal evidence of me never finding people both equal to my skill and equal to my mindset. I'm not gonna go all out and slaughter people just memeing.
I used to get one good match a week when I was playing a lot.
How many games did you play on killer? I'm not joking, you really need to play in the order of hundreds. And that's for each killer (the MMR is not shared). It might be than even somebody like you hasn't played for long enough to reach it (maybe spend a bit less time posting on this forum /s )
If what's datamined is correct, one starts at 800 and gains +20 for a 4K, so to reach 2000 one would need 4K for 60 games in a row. But then, there's also a multiplier if the game is too short, and presumably one too if survivors DC, so 60 matches is really optimistic.
And finally, even if you reach top MMR you still might not realize you are because at most hours the matchmaking is unable to find enough high-MMR survivor SWFs, and panics when you sit in the queue for more than 10 sec
-
Well if you keep playing and slaughtering survivors, your MMR will eventually raise to the point where you'll get challenged.
The problem is, it takes an absurd amount of games to do so. From experience I'd say around ~100 games are needed, which, if you play rarely like me, can take literal years to reach.
The first time I played Nurse, I won 46 games in a row, all 4Ks, and despite me being pretty new. Now after about 2 years, I'm facing tryhard SWFs from time to time who send me to a map and make me lose, this didn't happen before. I still feel like the majority of games are slaughterfests and boring overall, but there are actually good SWFs who will give you a challenge.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3758147#Comment_3758147
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/YA0NAWLUFQ0Z/capture-png.png
The devs HAVE defined a win. That's where the whole "a 3K is a win for the killer in the system" came from. I believe it was in their MMR live stream iirc.
That's why a win is defined in the wiki as a 3-4K as I posted earlier.
DBD is not sports.
I haven't seen the devs say they consider a draw "half a win" but if there's any clear clarification on that aspect I would like to see it. The vast majority of the community considers a 3K+ a win based on what the devs have stated. If that was incorrect I would expect they would have said something by now.
It's not specific to sports. The 0.5x factor HAS to be there otherwise the formula cannot work.
Simple example. Say 4 survivors play 2 matches in a row against the same killer, and to simplify, all players start with the same Elo (say 1000), and say a win is +20.
Question for you: what is the Elo of the players after the following result: 3K, 0K.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3758091#Comment_3758091
Fair enough. It's more accurate to say they want a 60% kill rate and balance around that.
My main argument is kill rate is not win rate as the designers and game have defined it. Not by some "sports logic", alternate personal definitions, or something else.
The definition of "win rate" is pretty important to determining what's considered "massacring" the numbers to change it. I would argue changing the definition to count losses and draws as "partial wins" when they're not does the amount of damage you're accusing. As you're inflating the win rate by a significant amount.
Idk if killers have a 50% win rate, afaik the kill distribution and win rate was never released. We just know that kill rate averages out to roughly 60%.
Under the 3K+ is a win logic the kill rate needs to be over 50% for the killer to win (not draw or lose) roughly half the time. Under this logic you can't really have both sides be at 50%. The "draw" condition on killer and both sides having different win conditions skews the numbers.
If the logic was different then sure. Under your theoretical system sure. But that's not the system we're in nor the logic this game uses.
The devs don't need to share the win rate, because it's the SAME THING as killrate.
You are correct that you can theoretically define a win as you want, but the devs HAVE defined what a win is, for survivors: escape = win, death = loss. So the survivor win rate is EXACTLY (1 - killrate) and then by symmetry, the killer winrate is EXACTLY the killrate.
You also make the common mistake to think that the winrate formula is (wins / matches) but it's not. The formula is WINS PLUS DRAWS/2, divided by matches.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3758081#Comment_3758081
The game is asymm it's not that simple.
Besides that no I personally wouldn't consider that balanced, but I'm not the one making the rules and neither are you. I wouldn't even balance off kills, I would balance off hooks.
Under the goals and vision the devs want, 60% is balanced. Theirs is the mind you have to change.
The devs have not said that 60% is balanced, they said that they target 60%, which is different. By definition, 60% is not balanced, it is in killer's favor, and I'm pretty sure the devs have said exactly that somewhere (that they intentionally want the game to be in killer's favor).
I'm not arguing whether that 60% target is right or wrong. What I'm saying, is stop massacring math to pretend killers somehow have 50% winrate or other nonsense.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3758053#Comment_3758053
A draw is not a loss but it's not a win either. It's a draw, it's a "nothing" so to speak as it basically gets cancelled out. But "not a win" and "a loss" are the same if we're talking about "how often do you win" a.k.a. win rate. It's a "no I didn't".
Afaik and as far as I've seen the devs and the general population talk about it:
Win: MMR went up
Loss: MMR went down
Draw: MMR did not change.So while yes you are correct in the sense that a 1K will lower your MMR less, it still went down so that is a loss. Likewise a 3-4K raises it, so that's a win. A draw doesn't change it so it's neither a win nor a loss.
Similar to other PVP games the win/loss it all determined based of the skill ranking system and what makes you move up or down, which in DBD is only MMR.
It might be a lesser loss but a loss is still a loss. There's no such thing as a "partial win". You either win, lose, or draw.
You're using a different definition of what a win/loss is. At least afaik. While under your definition that checks out, that's not the definition being used by the game and it's community.
As for the last part about ratios yeah that's true. But "balanced" for survivor and killer are fundamentally different when only counting kills and escapes so I don't think there's a way to really make both 50% without some mechanic forcing it. Besides that the devs also want the kill rate to favor killers a bit so unless you change their mind that's just how it is.
Imo balancing around hooks instead of kills would be better in that regard (amongst others) as you could balance around a certain hook count which is more flexible, but that's not the system we're in unfortunately.
I'm not going to write an essay again.
Survivors die 60% of the time.
If you seriously believe that you can conclude from that number, that the game is balanced, or that killers win only ~50% of the time, this is not math, but dishonesty.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3757462#Comment_3757462
If kill rate = win rate as you claim that would be exactly what happens in that situation. I'm taking the logic and applying it to see if it holds up and it doesn't.
DBD is not sports, or are you going to say it's like Hokey? "Half a win" is not a thing here, we're not using sports statistics. That doesn't help either in the 1K scenario.
Let's take it the other way with a 3K, ok now you have a 75% kill rate but an 100% win rate.
Lets take an random assortment: 1K, 3K, 4K, 1K, 2K, 2K, 1K, 4K, 3K, 2K. Kill rate: ~57% Win rate: 40%
Kill rate =/= win rate.
A draw is not equal to 0 win, it is equal to half a win. Also, strictly speaking, 1K/3K are not full wins/losses, they are 75% of a win/loss - that part doesn't make a big difference, but that's how MMR treats it: if you get a 4K you get more MMR than just a 3K.
If you properly take this into account, then your example magically becomes:
Kill rate=57.5%
Winrate=57.5%
Kill rate and winrate are the same. People who say the opposite are just trying to make killer winrate appear lower by counting 2K for killers the same as if they were losses, when in reality it should be counted as neither a win or a loss. They know very well that they are wrong, they know it's not how MMR works, I have explained it to them several times, but they keep spreading lies to divert debates. The worst part is that they are double wrong, because even if you assume this flawed logic the stats still show that the game is massively killer-sided (It's true that if you count draws as losses then killers win only ~50% of the time but then survivors win only ~30% of the time, so it's still a ~60% ratio in favor of killer).
-
How dare people not work on Sundays
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3706102#Comment_3706102
I can't think of anyone who defends high ping killers, aside from killers who purposely make their ping high. I assume (at least in my case) the silence is more from not exactly having a solution, since the game is supposed to be solving the issue before it happens. Only thing I can think of would be a ping limit, but even that could discriminate against people who live in countries a good distance from the nearest servers.
It's "discrimination" when it happens to killer players, but not to survivors? Because what you're describing is exactly what happens to survivors, and they find it totally normal, because it's how any other game works, you have bad connection so you get penalized for it, the alternative is to penalize OTHERS for your bad connection.
As for technical solutions. For hit validation the game should be client-sided but have ~80 ms tolerance and above that it becomes partially server-sided again. Regardless the devs don't even want to show the killer's ping for some reason so it's clear to me this is an oversight of the problem and not a technical issue.
-
Yeah this is number 1 problem in the game for me, and I don't understand how it's getting so little attention.
People on this forum took a lot of time explaining how the 3% of MFT was gamebreaking because it allowed survivors to reach a pallet just in time, but they keep radio silent when the killer gets this same advantage for free just by having a bad connection (or a VPN).
Resilience gives survivors +45 ms faster vaults, and people call that borderline OP, but a killer having 45 ms ping is viewed as totally reasonable and fair, and yet it counteracts resilience.
I guess top players don't care because tournaments are played with low ping anyway. But this makes the ladder a joke, any match where the killer has 100+ ms requires the survivor to play a lot safer, we've seen this in the Europe vs. Asia showcase, players on both sides were getting hit like they are complete noobs, yet the game doesn't even show you the ping of the killer. I despise playing against some killers like Wesker and Huntress just because of ping.
-
@SignedUp4PTBFeedback said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3700002#Comment_3700002
Nightlight stats show us that win rate closely follows kill rate, differences range from 5% to 8% less than the kill rate. As it stands, queuing up as killer, you have statistically more chance to win than if you queued up as survivor. With that in mind, I'd suggest the devs to try lowering their targeted kill rate to something like 55% or so.
The difference is MUCH LESS than 5%. At the moment, Nightlight's winrate is ~56.9%, while killrate is 56.6%.
That's a difference of 0.3%.
-
The game IS killer-sided. Literally every public stat, tournament, and even the devs themselves have shown it is. It's only on this forum that people claim otherwise, but this forum is just special at this point. People here are uniquely good at twisting stats and finding creative excuses. We've even seen people demonstrate that 60% killrate still translates to killers losing more than survivors, among other nonsense.
-
@Raptorrotas said:
I'd say I see more survivors asking for the "fair" 50/50 they call the 50% escape chance.
Quickly opened a graphic calculator webpage and wrote this down:
- x = escape chance (the chance for a survivor to win)
- (1-x)^4) + 4 * (1-x)^3 * x = chance for 4k and 3k combined (the chance for a killer to win)
- 6 (1-x)^2 * x^2 = chance to 2k (the chance for the k
- x^4 + 4 x^(3) * (1-x) = Chance for 0k and 1k combined (commonly refered to as survivor "team" win)
With a 40% escape chance we get:
- 47.25% chance for a killer win
- 34.56% chance for a draw
- 17.92% for a survivor "team" win
- The Killer has a 1.188 times higher chance to win than each individual Survivor.
With a 50% escape chance we get:
- 31.25% chance for a killer win
- 37.5% chance for a draw
- 31.25% for a survivor "team" win
- Each individual survivor has a 1.6 times higher chance to win than the killer.
- Yes, this is a "fair" 50/50 or like 31.25/31.25 for the survivor "team" and the killer.
Sorry but that's completely wrong. The binomial formula works if X is an independent event which is absolutely not the case here. In DBD the chance of survivor 1 escaping depends heavily on survivors 2, 3 and 4 escaping too. Your calculator won't tell you anything for that case.
-
This is a false debate. Killrate is the only objective data we have, and it is at 60%.
Winrate is subjective, and prone to manipulation, because it depends of your definition of a win. But by association with other games, people often use the term "winrate" as "killrate", and it's a fine approximation, because if you define 4k as 1 win, 0k as a loss, and anything between as a fraction of a win (2k = 0.5 win for example), then the winrate becomes exactly 60%.
However, some killer mains with very questionable mathematical honesty, have realized that if you twist the definition of a win to consider that 2k as "0 win" (instead of 0.5 win which would be much more natural), then you can pretend that the killer winrate is actually only around ~50%, and the game is "balanced". This is complete nonsense, as even with this definition the survivor winrate is around ~35% so still very far from balanced. The only difference is that instead of saying the winrate is 60-40, you say it's 50-35 but with ~15% matches where neither side wins. If you ignore these matches, then magic, the winrate becomes 60% for killer and 40% for survivor, again.
-
This game is extremely unfair with regard to ping. It doesn't matter if you have 20 ms as survivor, because the game favors what happens on the killer's screen anyway, so if the killer has 500 ms, then you get hit behind vaults and pallets as if YOU had 500 ms.
In contrast if you as survivor time Dead Hard correctly on your screen but you have ~100 ms of ping, this time it's server-sided so you get hit anyway because the server thought you were too late.
Someone posted a few clips on this forum where the killer was VPN'ing with 300 ms, showing both the survivor and killer POV, the difference was insane. On the killer POV it seemed like the survivor was a complete beginner, as if he had slow reaction time, and he would get hit on most pallets. Even on The Game, many pallets were suddenly very unsafe, just because of ping, the killer was basically getting an extra 1-2 meters on his lunge.
Looping in this game is HEAVILY ping-dependent, especially because of windows, and yet in a massive game design paradox, the game does not even SHOW you the killer's ping. Competitive DBD tournaments have a ping restriction of <100 ms, but the pub servers don't have it. As a result, you have to gamble every game hoping that matchmaking won't match you with a Russian or Chinese killer, and the only way you can know is by taking a hit and trying to estimate how BS that was. This is the main reason I've stopped playing surv, I can handle bad balance and bad teammates, but in DBD playing against a laggy killer feels the same as playing against a cheater - totally unfair.
-
It's because BHVR looked at their Excel spreadsheet and noticed her killrate is low so let's blindly buff her.
They don't realize she's a a free character that's unlocked by default, as a result lots of beginners play her and make her killrate lower.
In fact, you can explain almost all the killrate placements, by just looking at whether the killer is free:
Because killers like Pig, Freddy and Myers are paid, they have high killrate, and never get any sizeable buff. At the bottom, you have Hillbilly, Doctor, Trickster, Huntress, all got buffed recently, even though they are much better than the paid killers I quoted.