Seraphor
Seraphor
About
- Username
- Seraphor
- Joined
- Visits
- 9,011
- Last Active
Comments
-
It's a completely backwards way to shoot yourself in the foot if what you're trying to do is send a message that the game isn't fair or balanced.
If you're already dead, due to camping or tunnelling, or you're on final hook, DCing serves you no purpose.
I'll never understand why survivors do that.
- You're cheating yourself out of BP.
- You're saving that killer an MMR increase, keeping them low and away from survivors that could actually give them a run for their money.
- You've artificially lowering that killers kill rates.
- You're waiting longer for the DC penalty to wear off than it would take to just die and leave normally.
- You're showing everyone what a petulant little child you are.
- The killer is probably cackling with glee that they triggered you so easily.
And it is absolutely not limited to killers to show sportsmanship. Survivors teabag, deny hooks, hide all match without doing any objectives, screw over their team mates by farming them off the hook, or by leaving them to die on first hook, and I mean, DCing itself is bad sportsmanship. You're potentially screwing over the other three survivors because something didn't go the way you wanted it to.
-
@Deathstroke said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3256500#Comment_3256500
Most survivors dc at death hook though to deny kill from killer and those are exluded from stats. Survivors I play agains't almost never hook suicide. I wish they would do it more to give me easier games.
I'll never understand why survivors do that.
- You're cheating yourself out of BP.
- You're saving that killer an MMR increase, keeping them low and away from survivors that could actually give them a run for their money.
- You've artificially lowering that killers kill rates.
- You're waiting longer for the DC penalty to wear off than it would take to just die and leave normally.
- You're showing everyone what a petulant little child you are.
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3256446#Comment_3256446
That 52% is toned down by
1)new players
2)Mostly, bhvr not including DCs in the overall stats. Most games i've played against nurses i've had at least one DC, it is guaranteed as lots of people gets frustrated against her. This means there are must be thousands upon thousands of nurses 3K's that are not being shown in these stats, as they are only shown games where the four survs stayed playing to the end.
But would they have had that 3K if nobody DCd?
If you're stating that the non-DC games show she has a low kill rate, that infers that she has a low kill rate unless someone DCs.
Is Nurse so bad that she can't win unless someone DCs and makes it an easy 3K? Is that what you're saying?
-
@Piruluk said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3256533#Comment_3256533
Wesker...with 65% killrate at high mmr.
Sadako has 61% along with nurse.
What you mean is low mmr, where sadako is highest
They never released the stats for low MMR. They released stats for the top 5%, and the global stats for all MMR levels.
-
While I see absolutely no point in playing solely against bots and don't see how that's going to be in any way enjoyable, considering you get no rewards for it, and no sense of achievement, because the bots are too easy to beat.
I do however see a value in them to some extent. For example as a warm up match with a killer I haven't played for a while, etc.
-
@dugman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3256402#Comment_3256402
Actually they have on and off mentioned swf escape rates go up to about +15% max at 4-man and had an earlier chart that showed about a +3-5% escape rate per player beyond the first in a swf. So it’s a good bet it’s something like +3% for 2-person, +7% for 3 person and +12% for 4 person swfs (give or take). Also they released stats a while back on percentages of games with various swf number and I think it was around 50% solo, 25% 2-person swf, 15% 3-person swf and 10% 4-person swf. Combing those together you can estimate from those weights and the 60% overall average the distribution is around
- Solo 63% death rate (50% of players)
- 2-person swf 60% death rate (25% of players)
- 3-person swf 56% death rate (15% of players)
- 4-person swf 51% death rate (10% of players)
That’s a rough estimate but should give an idea of the distribution.
Peanits quote posted above states that the number of SWFs with a +15% escape rate are the extreme minority. Meaning that a minority of that 10% have such an extremely different escape rate compared to the average. So the spread is likely far less exaggerated than this.
-
@Sweet_Potato said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3256512#Comment_3256512
Of course you can. DCs are part of the realitiiy. Neglecting like 20-30% of the matches makes all your statistics biased.
There is no counter against a good nurse except maybe Lery's, Mothers Dwelling, skilled Dead Hard and comp play style SWF with perfectly separating on different gens. Since you won't see that in average matches much, people will continue DC.
But including matches with DCs makes your statistics biased. You're including games with a foregone conclusion right from the start.
I've had countless games with an early DC that would have been more than salvageable. Games where the remaining 3 survivors have manged to repair about 4.5 gens, more than enough for a 4th survivor to have secured multiple escapes.
If you want your death to be counted, don't DC. Just as you're not supposed to anyway.
If the game is truly hopeless, then you'll die faster than your DC penalty anyway.
YOU are biasing the statistics by DCing. Stop It.
-
@Sweet_Potato said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3256366#Comment_3256366
True. If you neglect the fact that every second match against a good nurse there is always a DC resulting in a 4 k most of the time.
Taking this into account will boost top mmr kill rate of Nurse to values of 80% or even more.
But you don't take games with a DC into account, because they had a DC. The game is null and void, because the survivors don't stand a chance. The 4K is a certainty, so it can't reflect real kill rates.
"But it would have been a 4K anyway" is conjecture. I've escaped against Nurses when survivors haven't DCed. I'd like to take a guess at how often, but unfortunately too many Nurse games have a DC to tell. Survivors just refuse to learn how to counter her.
Moral of the story is, if you want real kill rates, STOP DCING.
As a 'solo survivor main', my biggest opponent is other survivors, I swear.
-
@_VTK_ said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3256442#Comment_3256442
Oh wow, another killer-main fairytale.
That's just something for the laugh, I think even many killer mains will find that amusing, quote: "60% kill rate is still a 2K average on any individual game, because you don't get partial sacrifices."
What??? This is just hilarious! Looks like someone lives in a parallel universe with different math laws.
Ok, just to debunk this "mathematical masterpiece" from a math "genius". 60% Killrate means that for every 10 games you get 6 games with 2k and 4 games with 3k. Look, no averages, I got rid of them on purpose, these the author of that post doesn't know what "average" numbers are and how to interpret them and thinks that all average statistical numbers just get reduced to their integer part in the real world LMAO
I know how averages work.
My point is this 60% kill rate is completely overblown, because as an average, it still falls within the realm of a 2K average. Even your 10 game example (which is very unrealistic, I WISH games were like this, snowballs are far more likely) as a 2K average, 6 2Ks and 4 3Ks, is more 2Ks than 3Ks.
60% is not some hugely inflated kill rate that's an indication of endemic killer-sided balance issues, it's still in that 2K average bracket, which is anywhere between 37.5% and 62.5%. To put it another way it's a 2.4K average. If you think a 60% kill rate is a huge problem for the game, you're overreacting.
I note you completely ignored the issue of different MMR brackets as well. After all, trying to summarise the state of the game via one figure averaging kill rates among all skill levels, is a pointless endeavour anyway.
We know that the top 5% experience a higher kill rate, despite the fact that this is where all the SWFs end up.
We also know that the lowest skill levels have a higher kill rate. Killer is far easier to play for new players than survivor is, because even playing as a basic M1 killer can result in 4Ks. Newbie survivors constantly complaining about how hard it is to climb up, players getting 'stuck' in low solo survivor MMR, etc.
Now, use your logic, I know you can do this, you understand how averages work.
If the top has a higher-than-average kill rate, and the bottom has a higher-than-average kill rate, what does that mean the middle has?
That's right, a lower-than-average kill rate.
Also, the fact that you've seen my argument, and immediately accused me of being a killer main, is a flagrant display of your bias. I'm not a killer main. I wish I was, I'm just not that good of a killer. I get far more success as a survivor and thus that's what I play.
I understand how this game works form both sides, and both sides deserve their fair chance to win. There are still issues, and solo survivor is still at a disadvantage. But flaunting around this 60% kill rate is not a compelling argument, not if you understand statistics, and not if you understand the nuances of this game.
For example, so many killer games, especially higher up in MMR, that may result in multiple kills, are not respective of the difficulty that killer had. I've seen streamers, and personally experienced in may games, cases where the killer was not having a great time, seriously struggling against looping, hook denial, etc. and the gates get powered with 4 survivors still in the game. This is a game the killer has by all rights, lost, and should be a 0K or 1K tops. And yet survivors make dumb altruistic plays, and the killer manages to secure 2, maybe even 3 kills. These cases are just as prevalent as the flip side of the coin, where killers camp and tunnel and get an unfair 3K or 4K. There is no chance this isn't contributing to kill rates.
Would it be fair if this was the average state of the game, with an average kill rate? Killers sweating their assess of, effectively getting wrecked, but still averaging a 50% kill rate due to survivor mess ups in the last 30 seconds of each game? Because that's what the game was like before patch 6.1 and the buffs that gave us this new 60% kill rate, and that's why killers were leaving in droves and survivor queues took 15 minutes.
-
60% kill rate is still a 2K average on any individual game, because you don't get partial sacrifices.
Consider that the highest 5% MMR bracket has a higher kill rate than the global average, plus the lowest MMR bracket because newbie killer is far easier than newbie survivor.
So the 'middle 80%' is likely significantly lower, closer to 50% than 60%.
Game with DCs should absolutely not count, because those deaths may only have happened because of the DC. And what about killer DCs? Everyone escapes then.
Also, to speculate on why the top MMR rate is higher, I'd suggest it's down to SWF altruism. Games that for all purposes are not going the killers way, only to end up with the gates open and survivors trading hooks until at least 2 are dead.
-
Blast Mine triggers a Blind and a Stun, two separate effects.
-
@AcelynnBen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3256114#Comment_3256114
i highly doubt that was thing lol
would be silly if not weird
Absolutely is a thing, still available in the archives as far as I'm aware.
The challenge is called "That's Rude" and you need to point in the killers direction within 5 seconds of premonition going off, and to do it twice in a single trial.
Not sure what tome, I want to say it's about a year ago?
-
I barely even think about it.
Only time I get 'concerned' is when multiple survivors switch to flashlights fairly late in the lobby. But as long as I'm not playing Wraith or Hag then I'll just play normally and do what I can to avoid flashlight saves.
-
@Mat_Sella said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3255532#Comment_3255532
thats not what anyone is saying.
There is a difference between difficulty and being obtuse. There is a quite large number of challanges that disrupt gameplay in an unhealthy manner and forces survivors to ruin matches for others with requirements that are extremely unnecessary and counterintuitive to survival.
How about "Steal 6 void energy by stunning the killer"? This comes to you via regular gameplay, just stun the killer, you got your void energy eventually, without any need to game the system by refusing to repair gens and getting yourself killed.
Or "Hide within meters of the killer for x seconds"? As long as you're playing cautiously instead of recklessly, this happens anyway. You're not throwing the game by hiding form the killer, that's insane. But it comes quicker if you play in a certain way, notably if you run a hook rescue build and line up for rescues by hiding nearby the hook when the opportunity arises. There is no need to spend the entire game stalking the killer.
None of these are problems with the challenges, they're problems with the players. If someone would rather forfeit the game in order to focus solely on a challenge instead of just letting it happen naturally, you can't stop them.
-
@RaSavage42 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3255614#Comment_3255614
But then the most picked perks have the same effect... BBQ, Call Of Brine, Eruption... STBFL kinda sorta
So again it's up to the Killer to run these perks... them being "meta" doesn't matter
That's the whole problem.
6.1 didn't just change up the meta, it swapped one meta for another meta, and that new meta is more toxic.
Call Of Brine and Eruption being meta is entirely the problem, because they don't lose value if you camp or tunnel.
BBQ, Ruin and Pop DID lose value if you camped and tunnelled. Hence, less camping and tunnelling while those perks were meta.
If you're not understanding why, consider this: Pop required you to make a hook, and then you had 45 seconds in which to find a generator that's been repaired at least 25% and kick it. This requires you to leave the hook after you've hooked someone. Conversely Eruption and Call of Brine have no prior hook requirement, can easily be used mid-chase or before a chase because there's no hook-requirement. Meanwhile BBQ gives you information that's at least 40m away from the hook, requiring you to move at least 40m away from the hook to use that information.
If Call Of brine and Eruption are nerfed out of the meta, so that no one is running them or at least not running then every other game as the de facto gen defence perks, then you will see a lot less camping and tunnelling.
-
@StibbityStabbity said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3255634#Comment_3255634
I would totally make it basekit, that way you wouldn't need to run a perk to deal with hook camping. That said, the cost of switching hooks could be adjusted.
Right now, everyone always looks at complex ways to deal with camping as an issue. Make abilities not work, do something where the radius of the killer effects the timer, etc. The ability for the survivor to say "this hook sucks" and switch places would be one of the easiest ways to fix the issue. It requires the least amount of nuanced coding as well.
Also, to make it a bit more "fair", it could just switch them to another hook NOT of their choice. Probably the furthest away from their current hook. That only requires a distance check between hooks. A perk could come later that allows them to pick their hook, but at cost of more timer or even an entire hook phase.
And what about legitimate camping scenarios?
All gens have been repaired so the killer has no other objective besides the hook.
You hook a survivor but others are immediately there to attempt to farm them off it.
You chase a survivor and they lead you back to the hook.
None of those scenarios are ones in which the killer was at fault or should be penalised, they're mistakes the survivors made, or circumstances survivors shouldn't be expected to have a 'get out free' card. Being able to bypass the entire hook mechanic should cost a perk slot at the very least.
Remember, camping is still a legitimate tactic, to secure a kill in exchange for giving up all other gen/survivor pressure. They just need to balance that equation and make it actually cost something to camp. I.e. camping a survivor at 5 gens should ensure that, if the survivors countered it appropriately by 'just doing gens', that all 5 gens could be repaired in that time and the killer would only get a 1K.
-
@dugman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3255624#Comment_3255624
I never once saw a game from the PTB where Last Standing caused a killer to win a match they weren’t going to win without it.
Yet I've experienced many games where someone escaped, that would have ended instantly under the new mori system.
-
@StibbityStabbity said:
Make it so survivors can sacrifice a portion of their struggle time to get sent to another hook. When that happens, the killer does not see where they went for 30-60 seconds.
Would be a neat idea for a perk, but shouldn't be basekit, and it shouldn't be necessary to run a perk like this.
-
@RaSavage42 said:
But all of that depends on if the Killer uses these perks
But something else needs to happen to make camping unreliable...
MMR system needs to include Gens and Hooks... Not just Kills and Escapes
Killer should lose more BP for Camping... but that won't matter unless ^That happens^
Also....
No Way Out encourages Killers to hook all 4 Survivors to get the most
Dying light encourages Killers to hook multiple Survivors
Thanatophobia encourages Killers to injure multiple Survivors
Call Of Brine encourages Killers to kick gens to get any value out of
Same with Overcharge and Eruption
So a lot of the perks aren't the best for camping... other then Deadlock and Insidious (off the top of my head)
They will use the perks, that's why it's called a meta.
We categorically did not get as much camping and tunnelling before 6.1, and before 6.1 perks like Pop and Ruin were meta, and the only way to maximise their value was to not camp.
-
At most I could see them allowing you to gain some BP from it. The role incentive and offerings having no effect, just base score BP and nothing else. This would give you a 'stress free' method of gaining a foothold by way of unlocking new perks. But that's it.
Challenges aren't challenges if you can do them against bots.
Shards are a store currency and will never be allowed to acquire for 'free'.
EXP against bots isn't real EXP.
MMR against bots is meaningless, it only works by comparing your MMR to that of your opponents, and bots don't have MMR of their own.
-
I'm hoping with every fibre of my being that they've scrapped the idea entirely.
-
I agree that survivors should not rely on perks to prevent camping and tunnelling. By all means have perks that make it easier to deal with certain situations, that include camping, but these perks should not be required to be strong enough to prevent those circumstances altogether. They are afterall the choices the killers make.
Instead, those choices should come with greater consequences to the killer.
I'm not too sure where I sit on disabling killer powers around the hook. Currently the only disabled powers are those that involve instantly attacking or returning to the hook despite potentially being the other side of the map. AKA being in two places at once, and thus allowing the killer to 'facecamp' AND pressure other survivors at the same time. Hag is a bit of an exception but she's still required to be within range of her traps, which can be 100% countered by survivors anyway.
Disabling Bubba's power, or indeed Billy's, or even Pyramid Head's, doesn't sit well with me because in order to use those powers, killers have to give up all other pressure in the game, and fully commit to facecamping. Instead, that full commitment should come with the innate cost that discourages camping in the first place.
As I just posted in another topic:
Tunnelling: There should be more incentive to hooking different survivors. Old BBQ used to be a fairly decent one, and I'm pretty sure that's partly why the new post-6.1 meta includes more tunnelling. A basekit score bonus on first hooks on each survivor would be a nice start, but unlikely to make a big impact on it's own, it wouldn't be a +25% multiplier like old BBQ was.
As for camping, some sort of survivor-bloodlust mechanic, where if the killer is within x meters of the hook for long enough, everyone gets a +5%, +10%, +15% bonus to action speeds (including repairs, healing, unhooking etc.) This would make facecamping a hook incrementally less 'easy' the longer you're there, and make the "just do gens" counter more likely to actually penalise camping. Yet this wouldn't punish camping as a legitimate choice, because all the legitimate uses of camping involve the presence of other survivors, and if they're around the hook then they're not doing gens and getting that repair bonus anyway.
As for the duration, given that each hook state is 60s, I'd say 20s is a nice round number. After 20s of facecamping, all survivors get +5% action speed bonus, 40s is +10%, and 60s being a full hookstate and starting stage 2 gives survivors their +15% and almost guarantees they get all the gens done if they make use of it.
In addition to basekit changes though, killer perks are the next best target. After all BBQ had a significant effect, and I stand by the position that Ruin and Pop pre-6.1 were a healthy meta, you only got value out of them by leaving the hook and pressuring gens. The new meta of Pentimento, Call Of Brine, Eruption etc. doesn't require you to avoid camping and tunnelling to pay off.
You want to make 'not'-camping the more profitable strategy, and if the meta perks didn't work while camping, then camping wouldn't be a meta strategy. We should go back to the old meta by buffing the following perks:
Hex: Ruin - Required killers to leave a hook and pressure gens to get value out of it.
Pop Goes The Weasel - Forces killers to leave the hook to pressure gens to get value out of it.
Scourge: Pain Resonance - Gave killers an objective to go to after a hook.
BBQ & Chilli - Gave killers an objective to go to after a hook, and encouraged to spread hooks out between survivors.
Hex: Devour Hope - Requires killers to allow a hook rescue to take place.
Make Your Choice - Forces killers to go after the unhooker instead of the unhookee.
Scourge: Gift of Pain - Encourages killer to leave the unhooked survivor alone to get value out of it.
Grim Embrace - Encourages the killer to spread out hooks between different survivors.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3255538#Comment_3255538
Correct.
Although, I don't know how to replace it with something that isn't even easier to do.
There should be more incentive to hooking different survivors. Old BBQ used to be a fairly decent one, and I'm pretty sure that's partly why the new post-6.1 meta includes more tunnelling.
A basekit score bonus on first hooks on each survivor would be a nice start, but unlikely to make a big impact on it's own, it wouldn't be a +25% multiplier like old BBQ was.
As for camping, some sort of survivor-bloodlust mechanic, where if the killer is within x meters of the hook for long enough, everyone gets a +5%, +10%, +15% bonus to action speeds (including repairs, healing, unhooking etc.) This would make facecamping a hook incrementally less 'easy' the longer you're there, and make the "just do gens" counter more likely to actually penalise camping. Yet this wouldn't punish camping as a legitimate choice, because all the legitimate uses of camping involve the presence of other survivors, and if they're around the hook then they're not doing gens and getting that repair bonus anyway.
In addition to basekit changes though, killer perks are the next best target. After all BBQ had a significant effect, and I stand by the position that Ruin and Pop pre-6.1 were a healthy meta, you only got value out of them by leaving the hook and pressuring gens. The new meta of Pentimento, Call Of Brine, Eruption etc. doesn't require you to avoid camping and tunnelling to pay off.
We should go back to the old meta by buffing the following perks:
Hex: Ruin - Required killers to leave a hook and pressure gens to get value out of it.
Pop Goes The Weasel - Forces killers to leave the hook to pressure gens to get value out of it.
Scourge: Pain Resonance - Gave killers an objective to go to after a hook.
BBQ & Chilli - Gave killers an objective to go to after a hook, and encouraged to spread hooks out between survivors.
Hex: Devour Hope - Requires killers to allow a hook rescue to take place.
Make Your Choice - Forces killers to go after the unhooker instead of the unhookee.
Scourge: Gift of Pain - Encourages killer to leave the unhooked survivor alone to get value out of it.
Grim Embrace - Encourages the killer to spread out hooks between different survivors.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3255523#Comment_3255523
I try not to blame the player for doing what's efficient.
It's why I push for tunneling, camping, slugging, gen-rushing etc etc to be "nerfed".
Because it's not fun to play against but I also can't fault players for using the tools they're given.
Absolutely, 'nerfed' but not 'punished'.
Camping and tunnelling should be made less profitable, so that they're not the go-to strategy.
-
Every time they come up with new challenge ideas everyone complains about it being too hard.
Players don't want challenges, they want free bloodpoints.
Just give out more codes.
-
Thing with White Glyphs, because they're gone once you complete the challenge, even if you complete the requirements by bringing the Glyph to the basement, you don't want to pass up escaping with the mirror for the extra 25k BP. You won't get that chance again.
So while it's mechanically easier to complete the challenge, I'd still say it's the hardest Glyph challenge to complete fully. You need to ensure an escape route, and have the time and opportunity to run to the glyph, then to the basement and then back to the exit.
-
There does need to be some consequence to attempting to unhook yourself, but I agree that as it's set up, it's basically a self-inflicted wound to try and get off the hook.
Perhaps it could be that you get three free attempts to unhook yourself, and after the third attempt, you go straight to stage 2. This would give you two free attempts without consequence, but using all three would have the same effect it currently does.
-
It just reset that bloodweb, it reset your bloodpoints too.
Odd bug but at least nothing was lost, just grab it again.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3255501#Comment_3255501
I feel like there's a middle ground.
Lord knows if I see one more Meg who can't hit skill checks in my lobby, I am going to lose whatever is left of my mind
Oh for sure, some players are just morons. But if like, the killer is just playing well (even if that includes camping, tunnelling, slugging) then I don't get pissed off when I lose, they're just trying to do what every player is trying to do, win. I lost, that's it, next game. And if I lose because Meg brought the killer to me and the killer decided to swap targets, well tying to put blame on that Meg is pointless, I can't know if she did it intentionally or not. That's the sort of thing I'm getting at.
-
You learn to enjoy the chase and the anticipation of getting caught, like any real horror movie/game, regardless of whether you escape or not.
If you can't do that, you'll be stuck in a never ending cycle of salt and frustration.
This game is a testament to the idea that "offense is taken, not given", if you're getting annoyed at other players (your team mates or your opponents) about losing, that's on you.
-
@drsoontm said:
Without that habit of theirs to hide in front of the killer and vault three times in a row, they would be pretty decent.
I've seen real survivors do just that though.
-
@knell said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3253945#Comment_3253945
I'm not sure what's vague or nebulous about "Escaping the trial." Why would you assume it's a team-based goal? As it stands right now, it's clearly written that survivors' objective is for them to escape the trial, nothing more and nothing less (that is, unless it's written somewhere that the majority of the survivors must escape to win.) Again, is the current objective for survivors a good win condition for this game? Maybe, maybe not, but it is what it is. Look, I'm not advocating for one game goal or the other - I'm saying that the way the current win condition is spelled out by the game, this change would normally make MMRs less accurate than it would otherwise. And even if it does make it less accurate, may be that's a sacrifice BHVR is willing to make - I'm just wondering if that's the case. But if isn't, and that's a problem, then one way to solve it is for them to change the game objective for survivors to clearly be team-based.
I think the discrepancies in our understanding is that you have this notion of "intended win condition" or "true representation of the survivor win condition." I don't - I'm simply going by what BHVR has written in their tutorials and official website.
But all of this don't really particularly matter in this thread. I've actually had this same discussion multiple times in the past. I was just wondering statistically, whether BHVR was able to find some way to make the MMR more accurate despite adding secondary variables, or they just came to the conclusion that its accuracy isn't as important as some other factors.
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that "accuracy" is contingent on a faulty win condition.
-
@knell said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3253869#Comment_3253869
As it is currently stated in both the game tutorial and in their official webpage, for survivors, 'Escaping the trial' is their win condition. Nowhere does it say anything like, 'Have 2 or more survivors escape the trial to win.' Would it be a better game if that was the case (like in most many vs one asymmetrical games)? Possibly - but that isn't what it is currently. Which is why I asked, "Have BHVR ever discussed the possibility of changing the wincon of the game?" I made it a point to emphasize that the MMR doesn't determine the game's win condition - in fact, the win condition determines how the MMR is calculated. Like I stated, for MMR to accurately reflect the players' ratings, they usually just go the values reflected by the wincon. I'm just curious if BHVR found a way around it to demonstrate better accuracy somehow, or whether they are just willing to loosen their accuracy to appease the playerbase, as well as their contradictory end-game design.
"Escaping the trial" is vague, that's the issue. Is it personal? Is it a team based goal? BHVR doesn't have a clear stance on that, and yet the MMR system which attempts to quantify this win condition, does impose a clear stance, despite the almost intentional nebulous interpretation of the win condition.
Either way, your contributions as a team member affect the outcomes for other survivors. You play well, you help the team, you increase the chances of some or all of you escaping.
You can repair 3 gens and then get killed. The 3 gens you repaired might enable other survivors to escape.
You can run the killer for 5 minutes allowing other survivors to repair gens, who might then escape while you get camped.
You might make a last minute altruistic play and trade your life for another survivors, who escapes.
None of these things should be discounted. (they currently are)
Conversely, you can escape the trial as the last remaining survivor, despite the fact that your three team mates died at 5 gens. That should also not be discounted. (as it currently is)
To discount any of those things completely invalidates MMR as it applies to the win condition.
The way they've proposed implementing team-based MMR changes isn't a drastic shift away from what already happens, it's merely an additional multiplier.
They've stated that an escape will still result in an increase in MMR, and a death will still result in a decrease in MMR, but the amount at which your MMR increases or decreases will scale depending on the fate of other survivors.
So if you sacrifice yourself to allow three other survivors to escape, your MMR still goes down, but not by nearly as much, which would allow you to claw back some more MMR the next time you do escape.
If you're routinely playing well enough to aid your team mates, so that sometimes you escape, and sometimes your team mates escape instead, you will average a positive MMR. Whereas currently, you could average a neutral or negative MMR despite playing well and influencing a positive win condition for the team.
This isn't sacrificing accuracy to appease the playerbase. This is improving the MMR's interpretation of the win condition, to more closely align with the intended win condition.
-
While these are secondary factors, they're still related to the win condition of the game, being escapes.
The problem before was that survivor MMR was only influenced by their own escape rate, but that's now how survivors play. Survivors generally play as a team, and the actions of one impact on the results of the others. So personal escape rate wasn't a true representation of the survivor win condition.
MMR is always going to have accuracy issues, but survivor MMR simply wasn't representative of the true survivor win condition. So team-based factors are less about improving accuracy, and more about representing a true win condition.
Dying over and over again because your team mates screwed you over, or because you sacrificed yourself for you team mates, despite you personally playing well and contributing to the teams success, wasn't just inaccurate, it wasn't representative of the players skill, at all, it was in fact inversely correlated with the skill of the player, and that's the whole problem with survivor MMR.
-
I'd rather you could just see other survivors loadouts in the info screen mid-game.
See who has Kindred, then you know if they can see what you see.
-
@BringShaggytoDBD said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3253424#Comment_3253424
It hasn't been like this for years, I still have cakes from the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th anniversary events I can use.
It's being brought up because it's outdated. I have 428 rods that I can't use. That's 856,000 blood points that have been wasted. If you don't have an issue with it that's absolutely fine, but don't act surprised some people don't share your opinion.
I'm sure all the brown trash items, add ons and offerings you have add up to way more than 856,000.
-
@WesCravenFan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3253122#Comment_3253122
No, it shouldn't. Because that's too subjective to take seriously. That slope is so slippery it's covered in butter.
"I think facing medkits is unfun - remove them."
"I think flashlight saves are unfun - remove them."
"I think Lethal Pursuer is unfun - remove it."
"I think being found because I tripped a crow is unfun - remove it."
Literally anything the other side has that helps them win could be swathed with that paint job.
I think looping is unfun. Run around the same stack of boxes with an upright pallet maybe 20, 50 times, slowly closing in on the survivor, waiting for them to drop the pallet, but they don't, because they want to guarantee a stun.
But the alternative is anti-loop powers, which promote 'holding W' instead.
-
I think it was mechanically the best event yet, improving on things from past events.
For example, not needing to escape as a survivor in order to acquire the event cosmetics, and having a too-and-fro mechanic that rewards good play habits, like stunning the killer and making multiple hooks/downs, plus providing all players with a decent side-objective, while also encouraging survivors to work on gens.
The event offerings themselves were personal instead of shared, which (sadly) made it more 'fair', due to the complaints about "others getting benefit for my offerings" from the Anniversary event.
-
Part of testing is sweating though.
Whats the point in testing a new killer but 'playing nice' only to have the patch go live and then discover that, when played sweaty, it's ridiculously overpowered?
You're supposed to play 'normally', not just dick about.
-
So reading his lore on the wiki, he's not meant to be some random victim plucked out of time for the entities pleasure. He's someone who deliberately entered the entity's realm in the 14th century. He's been in the fog for nearly 700 years. Pretty sure he's entitled to a few wardrobe changes.
-
I managed this first attempt against a Deathslinger who tunneled me out.
Hooked me relatively early after I became his Lethal Pursuer target.
When I got immediately unhooked he came straight back for me. Chase ensued where I landed a pallet stun (+3), he then downed me (-3) and I hit him with DS (+3).
I never managed to bank it in a rift before I was sacrificed, and it still counted it.
-
@Sharpefern said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3250173#Comment_3250173
Survivor builds can be map dependent as well. Like balanced cant function on 50% of the maps.
Balanced works fine on hills. The only map Balanced can't work on is Shelter Woods.
-
Thing is it takes several hits of vile purge, or ages in a chase, to get to broken status.
It's kinda like exposing with Ghostface or Myers.
-
Doing a gen with another survivor gives you a -15% efficiency penalty per survivor.
-30% if there's 3 of you, -45% if all four are on one gen. That's why the repair bar is red when you're repairing with others.
Prove Thyself simply cancels out that penalty. (Except ot doesn't quite cancel out, which is why the bar is still red)
-
The paid DLC aren't the only way to 'win', and I wouldn't even say they're the easiest way to win, despite it meaning you spend less time 'grinding' for perks, because the base game characters and generic perks are enough to deal with nearly every scenario.
As well as Nurse being the de facto most effective killer in the game, you also have Wraith as a starter killer, who is very effective, especially for those starting out. Billy also excels at map traversal which is a win-or-lose factor, and then Blight and Spirit are also up there as free-with-a-grind options.
Conversely, if buying a 'good' paid DLC killer is paying to win, does that mean that buying Sadako is 'paying to lose'?
Rather, paid DLC are like expansion packs that give you more options to play with.
Take Destiny 2 for example. A paid expansion pack unlocks a fourth energy class tree, Stasis, to add to your base classes of Void, Arc and Solar. Stasis is pretty strong, but it doesn't mean that Void, Arc and Solar are weak, because they each have their uses like any class system, which still functions like a rock-paper-scissors paradigm. (admittedly Stasis did used to be very OP, in which case it could have been argued to be PTW, but it's balanced now)
-
Honestly, Garden of Joy has grown on me.
The bushes still have bullshit hitboxes, and the upstairs of the house is still way too dark, but despite that, I'm not too fussed if I end up on this map as either killer or survivor. I've had decent games as both roles on this map.
If they fixed those two things, it would basically be a variation of Thompson House.
-
I would mainly change how traps start off, as his main downfall is the set up. Once he's set up he's pretty much fine.
So I would change the spawn placement and conditions of traps.
- Have all traps start within x meters of a generator, so that you can pick them up on the way on your gen patrol and be guaranteed to be within easy reach of 2-3 traps right at the start. (maybe 12m would be fair?)
- Have the three traps furthest away from you at the start of the match spawn ready armed, so that they serve as potential threats to survivors right off the bat without you having to set them, and due to their random spawning, they won't be so easy for survivors to predict.
Of course, improving (or rather reducing) trap visibility on a map by map basis is fairly important too.
He's already had a pass on the RNG of escaping traps, so I think that's mostly fine. Maybe default carrying capacity could also be improved too. I don't see why you should have to worry about carrying too many traps to be honest, when it already takes a lot of time to go around and pick them all up anyway.
-
@ProfessorDunwich said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3248924#Comment_3248924
How does an indicator of experience in the game mean nothing?
A player could dump all of their BP into one character, or they could spread it equally among 50.
If you see a survivor with a prestige of over 20 or even 40. All it means is they have a minimum of a couple hundred hours, maybe even less if the first 9 came from the catchup mechanic when the new prestige system came in. Considering it can take 1000+ to really be considered 'experienced' that doesn't tell you much.
If you see a prestige of 1, they could literally be anything between a newbie and a 5000 hour vet.
-
@ProfessorDunwich said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3248903#Comment_3248903
Here you are defending a system when you aren't even sure how it works. If the mysterious MMR system is putting these matches together, it is failing miserably. Each of these Survivors has to have more than 1000 hours playing Survivor. I doubt OP has even close to that playing all Killers. Experienced players will trounce relatively inexperienced players the overwhelming majority of the time.
We do know how it works. We also know it's limitations. The matchmaking conditions are quite significantly relaxed in cases where there aren't enough players to fill queues within less than a few minutes.
You're expecting a level of match perfection that simply isn't possible even under the best circumstances. If the right players aren't queuing up at the right time, then it will look for someone else from outside of that MMR bracket.
The testing in the spring indicated that precise matchmaking wasn't the best system, because not only did it mean queues took ages to fill, but it resulted in matches that were too close, resulting in games that were incredibly sweaty and overly competitive for all players. Basically, you don't want MMR to be too good, or you end up with incredibly unfun, stressful games that take forever to get into in the first place.
There's also the issue of backfilling. Every time someone posts one of these "examples" of poor matchmaking, they always fail to mention whether or not anyone ducked out of the lobby and was replaced by someone else, or if they themselves joined a lobby that was already full, indicating that they were the backfill. In either case, MMR goes out the window in those scenarios, it's purely random.
It could be improved a little, mainly via changing the score conditions for survivor MMR so that survivors aren't unfairly 'rewarded' or 'penalised' for results outside of their control, but that's about it.
-
@ProfessorDunwich said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3248881#Comment_3248881
That's rich you make it sound like this is in any way justified.
Rank is not tied to MMR. So bronze 3 means nothing.
Prestige is not tied to MMR. So the survivors levels mean nothing.
Killer MMR is partially shared, so you have high MMR on other killers, then your Artist MMR is also going to start off relatively high. If you know how to play with one killer, you have a decent shot at playing with most other killers. You can always just resort to M1ing, that's how I get through all Trickster games without throwing a single knife.