StarLost
StarLost
About
- Username
- StarLost
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@FFirebrandd said:
On MMR, honestly I don't think it is a well designed system. Just on a core functional level. Basing all of matchmaking on whether you die or escape leads to some... probably unwanted results.
In theory, the Survivor who can get the highest MMR is one who never gets found, leaves gens early, plays super safe at every window/pallet and does gens as often as possible. Definitely never go for any end game risky saves, nope, open that door and yeet yourself out the Trial.
In theory, the Killer who can get the highest MMR is the one who tunnels, camps, and slugs as much as possible and does anything and everything possible to confirm those kills. Possibly with a Mori to bypass DS on death hook Survivors.
Neither of those play styles are the most fun ones either side can engage in. If MMR was visible, it would literally ruin the game. With it invisible, it still hurts it, but people can't see their invisible number going up and down so they don't fall into that particular psychological trap.
Also, there's a distinct issue with trying to balance for the 2k. That being... it is really easy for any Killer to confirm a 1k. All gens are done? Down and hook somebody and camp as hard as you possibly can. The only way the Survivors are getting that particular person out is with very good teamwork and probably a few second chance perks. If its Bubba... don't even bother. On the flip side, how easy is it for Survivors to confirm a 1e? Near impossible. The killer can always slug for the 4k, hatch has been nerfed and hatch counts as a tie anyway. To make matters even worse, Bubba exists and a Bubba with NOED who's willing to camp it out basically gets a 2k every game. If the Devs do ever manage to make it so all Killers have a 50% kill rate the above facts will mean that playing killer will royally suck unless they somehow make camping not possible which... I don't think they can.
Here I'll absolutely agree.
The system needs to be more nuanced on the survivor end of things.
I'll often go out of my way to let the really good player on the time escape, for this exact reason - and I'll always kill a selfish hider or sandbagger.
I'm a...little tired of seeing 'camping, slugging and tunneling' blamed for all skilled killers. The only one of these things that is a problem is facecamping - which BHVR themselves have said they are going to introduce a mechanic to fix. Proxy camping, tactical slugging and making sure one survivor dies ASAP is sort of how this game is meant to be played.
Regarding your final point...I'm not sure you understood me.
MMR isn't trying to get you an average of 2k a game. It's trying to get you an average of 2k per game across a wide variety of games that will mostly be either 0-1k or 3-4k.
@RainehDaze said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2656963#Comment_2656963
I've seen it happen because people got greedy on unhooking, or because they underestimated Plague, or even just plain bad luck. But, if you're saying that "feels like a stomp to them" then we're not using the phrase in any way that makes sense. Stomp, to me, would imply a completely one-sided game from start to finish--the sort of thing where no gens get done, regression effects keep sabotaging the same generator as survivors die around it, etc. Not just "I lost big time on score".
But the way you're describing it, a single survivor dying is a stomp to them just by dint of them losing. It doesn't matter how much was achieved, how many BP they get, or how well they did, it's just loss=stomp. That's a silly description.
As I said, 8 hooks no deaths is rare, but it happens. But that's also one of the few times you'd get a survivor win that didn't feel really lopsided.
I'm not sure many survivors feel that way in 4k situations. The amount of DCs I see is somewhat testament to this.
Mmmm, people who DC like that are kind of pathetic. You expect me to stick around even though I'm losing, stop denying hooks and any effects they might have. If you're in the game to enjoy the game, then stop ragequitting because you happen to lose after a bunch of game time.
But we seem to be disagreeing on the idea of a stomp. I'd say not every 4k or even 4e has to be one, despite the result, everyone can still have some back and forth during it--sometimes a team is doing really well but overreaches on the altruism and gets a bunch of kills; sometimes the killer gets greedy and a bunch of people get out when it should've been a few deaths; sometimes it just becomes a long game as the sides aren't super lopsided.
Ah.
Yes, we are using that term differently. To me a 'stomp' is a game where one side won overwhelmingly, which feels like most DbD games by it's nature.
And yes - to a lot of survivors, them even getting downed is unfun. I certainly see enough DCs to prove this :)
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2656958#Comment_2656958
It isn't about winning.
To get to my point, allow me to ask you a question. What do you find enjoyable about playing Killer and what do you find unenjoyable?
I'll answer this with a before and after.
Before - Maybe 2/3 to 3/4 of my matches were completely one sided stomps at the hands of survivor groups with thousands more hours than me. I'd go multiple games without a kill (I think my record was 10, I may have made a thread about it way back when), and where I got 1 (or very occasionally 2), I had to sweat my butt off for it.
It was no fun. I felt entirely powerless and that my opponents were so far out of my league that I wasn't even learning anything.
Now - Maybe 3/5 of my games are pretty even. Sometimes I'll struggle for a kill, sometimes I'll 3-4k, but when this happens it feels like had I corrected some mistakes or they'd made more mistakes, I could have won. 1/5 are a bit too easy - usually a case of 1 crazy good survivor with 3 potatoes. I'll usually ease up. The final 1/5 are really sweaty, hard fought games where I was just simply outclassed. Usually this is a case of SBMM pooping itself - I'm guessing due to lobby dodges, long queues on someone's end, maybe simple maintenance of the system or the occasional possible smurfs.
It's fun. I feel like I have the power to win matches I lost by simply improving, and I actively learn from those games.
Did that make sense?
-
@RainehDaze said:
DbD is a snowball game. It generally feels like a stomp, win or lose. That's not MMR's fault, that's just the nature of the game.
I don't know about that one, though. Here's the thing, does it feel like a stomp if the survivors do all the gens and get caught at the exit gates? Or if the gens are nearly done but the fourth person goes for a hatch escape? Or if the killer somehow gets 8 hooks but hasn't actually killed anyone (which, tbf, seems much less common in my experience--if there's enough of an advantage to get 8 hooks someone's normally dead).
Like, a lot of 4 escape games seem to fall into a similar pattern: a bunch of gens go fast during the first chase, not camping leads to an easy unhook, the rest of the gens go with maybe one or two more hooks, everyone escapes. Game time: 7 or so minutes max even without super optimised genrush setups. Killer experience: hold W and play Tom and Jerry.
Some 4k games snowball out of control really fast and everyone dies at once, but there's a lot more room for people to... play. More chases, unhooks, healing checks.
4e games seem to tend towards "Not only was it a loss, but it was a loss where nobody did anything for most of it". Which might explain all the teabaggers; they didn't do anything except hold M1 on gens, got to find something fun to do...
Okay, going in order here:
- To them? Probably. I know I get yelled at for 'try-harding' when I fight for the exit gates myself. But outside of specific 'endgame' perk comboes like NOED+NWO, I can't imagine this happens very often. Mostly what happens if 4 survivors are alive at gate-time is that I hook at most one, someone unhooks, I down them, hook them and then everyone leaves. Or they get away scott free.
- Yes, that would be a 3k. I'm sure it felt like a stomp to everyone else.
- 8 hooks...yeah someone is dead already. Depending on when the game is, this is probably going to be a 3-4k or a 1k.
- I don't camp. I barely slug unless there is someone clearly around. I do tunnel someone down when I can, but that's just smart play. I'm still getting a decent balance of losses and wins.
- I'm not sure many survivors feel that way in 4k situations. The amount of DCs I see is somewhat testament to this.
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2656956#Comment_2656956
It feels worse or at best, the exact same as the rank system.
A totally mixed bag. I'm pretty sure that if you win X amount of matches in a row, the system actively tries to sabotage you as well.
It's funny, because this is said about every MMR system in basically every team game I've played :D.
It's not sabotaging you. What's happening is that either you are facing very sweaty, very skilled killers with meta killer/addon/perk choices OR you are getting less skilled teammates to get the team average around that of the killer's.
I'd be really curious as to what the actual numbers say, but the chances of us seeing them are slim to nill.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2656877#Comment_2656877
That's very untrue in my experience.
I invite you to try to get to high MMR and continue to play there for months on end.
Working on it!
I'd love to see my own MMR, but on my Hag, Cenobite and Demo, I'm confident that I'm at least high-intermediate. I'm mostly facing players with 400-800 hours (on the profiles I can see) and a good amount of SWFs. As a sub-300 hour player, I'm quite happy with this.
But...what exactly is untrue there? I'm sure that from the perspective of a high MMR killer, the game is a bit less fun - as you'll be playing very sweaty to get wins. But...that's the nature of high MMR.
-
@Pulsar said:
I'm probably low MMR as Survivor and I've seen zero improvements personally.
It's the same thing every single game.
Survivor is...tricky. You are going to see a lot more 'churn' because it's not just your MMR, it's the MMR of your teammates, how well you work together, whether one of you is slacking off, being selfish or even sandbagging.
What I'd love is for someone to have noted down maybe 100 matches before SBMM and after SBMM from a solo survivor POV, regarding what happened.
SBMM absolutely does have it's quirks. Especially with how long survivor queues can get at some points of the day (my record is 12 minutes!) you may wind up with all sorts. Similarly, low MMR survivor can also have long queues...but so can high MMR survivor. This means that sometimes you get the absurd games where 2 survivors are insanely good, one is intermediate and one is a complete newbie - up against a pretty decent killer.
I'm...not sure how to fix that aside from getting more people to play killer.
-
@Ryan489x said:
Here is where I come up with that Idea.
I've heard from some survivor and killer players that I've played with that they get bored because you're essentially doing the same thing over and over again and the results are the same. However whenever something is changed or a new element is brought into the game no matter how small people freak out because they're not able to do the same things they've always done that make them get bored of the game.
Not all changes work out for the better, I'm not implying that at all but it sometimes feels to me that the devs are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
yes they've made some huge errors that shows just how weakly the game itself is held together code wise but that's not the point. here are some examples; some stronger then others.
- updated survivor movement. yes some of it looked bad I'll admit that but again people complained had to switch it back.
- people complained about too many infinite loops. they added breakable doors, people complained about that.
- they've changed how keys work because killers complained about how they worked. Now some people have quit playing the game because they don't like how the keys and hatch work now. and others don't believe it when you tell them about the change.
- they changed moris twice. first it was one hook now it's two yet people still complain about killers bringing them at least what I've seen anyway
- The change to DS took forever to die down and we knew it was coming for months.
- boon totems gave survivors and advantage and now they're adding a killer that can relight a hex totem or any broken one as part of their power, how much complaining is going to come from that????
some of the community complains about how the game is just the same thing over and over again but some of those same people as soon as anything is changed it's
OH NO CHANGE IT BACK.
doing that insures that no real change will ever happen
thus this community is collectively insane. Sometimes
Let's...take a look here.
Firstly, as others have mentioned, this community isn't one person.
It's a gaming forum.
Most people who post on gaming forums do so to express feedback, usually about something they want changed. People having fun mostly...just keep playing.
Plus, I think you are mischaracterizing the nature of a lot of the current complaints.
- What do you mean by 'updated survivor movement?'
- They were right to do so. There are still too many infinite loops. The reason people complain about breakable walls is that they don't take too much power away from the loop - it still gives survivors a guaranteed escape.
- Yes, the old keys were bogus. I can't think of a single thread recently where someone complained about this change. Killer and survivor...I think this is one of the few issues almost everyone agreed was silly.
- I haven't seen a single mori complaint in months.
- Yes, nobody likes being nerfed. Especially with how many survivors blame losses on 'tunneling', and DS being one of the two big 'anti tunneling' perks.
- Probably none...maybe Sluzzy. Pentimento is...sort of crap. The complaints are going to be about getting CAWCAWCAW'ed on from across the map.
Again, people are going to complain about games they are passionate about, because the better something is, the more evident it's flaws become. It's Xeno's Paradox.
This is not always a bad thing. Some change is indeed bad - the Wraith, Slinger and Cenobite nerfs, for example.
-
@GrayEyes said:
Well now that I got your attention with that clickbait title 😂, I gotta say with how rough my games have been lately I've found a new way to have fun you guys should try it
Alright so with the boon meta running rampant these days, I've been completely countering it these days with this one simple build
I play trapper with hex ruin, undying, haunted grounds, and Toth
Then I run both stone add ons the one that resets traps for you and the one that kills survivors when they escape
And all I do is trap every single totem I don't worry about gens and whether I win or lose I gotta say it's been fun as hell and way more effective then it should be
That's a fair build. If I was going to do that though, it would probably be:
Undying+Ruin+Devour Hope+Nurse's
TOTH is...fine - if they bring boons. But too often I bring an anti-boon build, and nobody brings them. Nurse's at least has some solid utility.
I've come back around to Nurse's in a big way recently, as a lot of people will use boons to selfcare. I've gotten so many easy downs thanks to that.
Haunted...works, but if I'm going Haunted, I'm also going to want Retribution.
My counter-boon build goes:
Plaything+Retribution+Devour Hope+x
Plaything and DH give incredible pressure in the midgame, and Retribution means that if they start cleansing totems, they are going to give me all the info I need.
-
@IamFran said:
Most of the people who hate the MMR have high MMR, and they are what? 5% of the player base?
MMR is not perfect and need tweaks, but the rank system is far worse, except for tryhader players too used to steamroll other players, the SBMMR is better.
I don't even know that much.
Watching Otz's streams, there are plenty of people saying the game has become better.
The reason (I suspect) that high MMR people dislike it is that they are experiencing way more losses than they were before. Ranks, with zero killer matchmaking protections, meant that if you were decently good, you'd be constantly getting matched against people a lot worse than you.
Now...not so much.
The only definitive point Otz made is that there seem to be a lot more hackers, but even he pointed out that this may be because he's getting a lot more matches in a high MMR range where hackers are more prevalent.
No idea why the OP had to lie to make his point tbh.
-
@RainehDaze said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2656853#Comment_2656853
And because of snowball effects, you're probably getting more 0-1 and 3-4 than 2k's, unless that's a super clutch play.
Most 0-1k's don't feel very fun, as those are the matches that are most likely to be over with almost no hooks and really long chases. I'm not sure that's supposed to be fun for Survivors, given how non-interactive it is--are chases only fun if they're won?
Yes. I've actually been putting together a theory on this based on what Otz and a few others have said, and my own experiences.
I call it 'the Rule of 3'.
If you have a survivor dead before 3 gens are completed, it's almost always going to be your game to lose. Probably a 3-4k.
If you have no survivors dead before 3 gens are completed, it's their game to lose. Probably a 0-1k.
That's the snowball/escalating pressure of DbD.
The thing that MMR has done is give people used to significantly more of the former than the latter on the killer end of things (and vice versa) less matches against people of a way lower skill than them, meaning a loss will probably happen half the time.
-
@Bennett_They1Them said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2656836#Comment_2656836
yep, that's the one.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5KjhbxVZrs)
honestly, MMr is working for me about 75% of the time, but the other 25% (almost always while playing as survivor) I get put up against some real "thanks, MMR" matches almost as ridiculous as some examples of "Go home, chat filter, you're drunk".
The tagline of the video - he's unsure whether people dislike it or like it.
The title of this thread is deliberately misleading.
Remember - people seldom come to forums and make a thread about how much they like something. When they take the time to comment, it's usually a complaint.
-
@Alphasoul05 said:
It makes killers tunnel and camp because 4 equally skilled survivors should always defeat an equally skilled killer, thus ruining the experience, bloodpoints, and overall enjoyment of everyone involved. They created this system and said "We know that basing it off of Escapes/Kills is terrible, so we have this poggers system" then proceeded to spend two years on a system that amounts to exactly what they said doesn't really work.
It's just made the game unfun for me on both sides of the fence.
What?
That's absurd.
If 4 equally skilled survivors should always defeat an equally skilled killer, that would mean that this game was immensely survivor favored.
What MMR should be doing, when it works correctly, is matching up killers with groups of survivors that they have an even chance of beating or being beaten by. Naturally, this is very difficult.
The famous '2k per game' is often misinterpreted as 'killers should kill 2 survivors every game and 2 should escape'. I thought about it that way for a long time.
What it actually means is that you should have as many 0-1 kill games as 3-4k games, as usually it's one of the two.
-
@Chaotic_Wretch said:
Come on Devs. The majority of the player base despises MMR/SBMM. Please change it. The system is far too simple and leads to ridiculously unfair games for killers most of the time. Survivor queues are long, and killers are camping,tunneling, slugging machines anyway when you do get a game because they can't win playing fair much these days. Please change SBMM.
Which video?
He talked about it a bit during the stream, and pointed out that Steam numbers look fine and that the '2 kill' thing only makes sense when you look at it that most games are either a 0-1 out stomp or a 3-4k massacre.
The only negative thing he had to say was that he gets paired up with newer survivors a lot and that there seems to be a ton of hackers right now.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
If I have to answer your thread title, it's straight up people don't like to "sweat", we had a system for over 5 years where people could do the that good old "X winstreaks" you know. People had fun that way, a lot more than now. On this regard, I don't like this type of mindset where some people just cannot accept having similar or even stronger players in their game, but meh.
Another thing that affects the negative feedback, some do not like how devs determine the rating based on escapes and kills, people wanted a more nuanced system.
And even to add here, a third problem... I am not sure why it happens but sometime the matchmaking behaves extremely weird... even if you don't know your rating but good players are matched against weaker players. Now this could be a rating problem or something like this but I don't know. In general my assumption is people assume they are "great" players if they can loop well or pretty much "destroy" killers but they all die in each game, so this way the rating goes naturally down. Knowing you have to escape, you want to escape.
I personally love the system, it's been working great for me; I still have some odd games at times but it's much better and I can feel that I'm challenged each game.
Yes - but here's the thing.
The winstreak was fun for the person winning.
Not so much for the people getting stomped into the pavement.
-
@Chilli_man2400 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2656198#Comment_2656198
They only nerfed his addons. I love it when a killer gets his addons touched a little everyone screams Dead KIlLer OmG HeS GaRBAge TiEr
One thing to always consider - if you have to strawman, how confident are you that you aren't wrong?
Nobody's saying 'GaARAge TiEr'. We are saying that a 'B' tier killer who is extremely addon reliant becomes 'C' tier when you nerf those addons.
Why are BHVR nerfing anything about a killer that is not already overperforming?
-
@jesterkind said:
Oh, lots of things. Far, far more than I dislike.
- The setting and lore are really interesting, even if a few specific characters are kinda eh.
- The fundamental design is still one of the smartest and most competent I've seen from a game of this type, despite any problem areas with specific balancing.
- The visuals, in my opinion, are stunning. Maybe a little less realistic than some of its contemporaries, but stylised enough that it's still gorgeous and the art department's phenomenal work can shine.
- When you're not vastly outmatched, Killer can feel really satisfying to play. You're not completely unstoppable, you're a reactive slasher villain who has to outsmart their victims.
- It's a minor note, but the presence of licenses is a plus. Some of them, especially Myers, are translated incredibly well, honestly Myers is a masterpiece of design in general and I hope he gets a little sprucing up soon.
- I really like the archive mechanic, gives me some specific things to gun for when I don't feel like learning a new killer or just playing for a basic win.
This is still a really, really good game, that's why its flaws feel as pointed as they do.
Mm.
I think that a forum being active and seeing complaints is indicative that a lot of people care enough about your game to have a strong opinion on it.
It's Xeno's paradox. The better something is, the more obvious it's flaws become.
-
@SunsetSherbet said:
The problem with the "at high MMR" thing is that any killer who plays even a small amount and can manage more 1k's or more than 0k's is going to be at high MMR. To lose any, you need to be getting constant 0k's. Legit you could facecamp a single survivor as Bubba for 80 games and bam, you are max MMR. Getting top MMR for killer is too easy and straight up inevitable. It's much harder for survivor because only an escape counts, it seems. This is also where the "1k is a win" thing came from. It was in reference to how your MMR is moving up even with a 1k.
?
I'm curious as to your numbers here.
I generally get 2 kills, sometimes 1 and sometimes 3. I rarely get a 4out and generally give hatch unless the survivor is BM.
My MMR seems...about right, mostly. Some games a tad too easy, some a tad too difficult but on average - it's not bad. And it feels better than it did a month ago.
-
@Chocolate_Cosmos said:
Strong / Decent / OK / Weak / Fun / Unfun / Boring / Hard to play / etc...
With addons, or using the gimmick style with LP/CI to find the box early? Solidly B tier. I'd say C tier otherwise.
He's fun to play, but quite frustrating at times when your hooks just seem to do nothing.
I like the idea of killers with secondary and tertiary objectives for survivors.
-
@Phasmamain said:
Dead hard is working the best it has in quite awhile tbf
Not on the killer side of things. Fake hits and eating powers pretty regularly.
-
@BigChapAlien21 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2653725#Comment_2653725
What infinites still exist in the game? I'm not super familiar with all the maps. Haddonfield houses probably have some right?
Yeah. Haddonfield, Badham, RPD, Grim Pantry (possibly) and Cowshed (potentially). Most of these are 'pseudo-infinites' in that they aren't true infinites, but still allow you to safely drop any chase with ease.
-
@DieGräfin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2656083#Comment_2656083
And I can tell you before MMR, I had definitely more fun to play solo survivor. Everyone knows what to do. Killer too.
Mm. I think that MMR has been rough for people with high MMR and better for lower-intermediate MMRs.
I'm not sure what the answer is here. If we go back to ranks, with all the stomps, smurfing and endless nightmares I'd probably end up quitting.
-
@DieGräfin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2655964#Comment_2655964
I don't think the MMR would work better with reworked maps or perks.
The only thing is what you can do with this MMR is gen rush and hopefully your not the first on hook because you're getting tunneld or camped.
And your getting out with 15K bloodpoints. Yes hurray...
Before MMR, my matches were significantly more one-sided.
-
@clowninabout said:
Do survivors ever feel a bit silly when they've brought the full on boring meta build with purple flashlights and bm'd a killer throught the match. Only to find at the end the killer was a beginner or only had a couple of tier 1 perks?
On the killer end - yeah. I'll go up against a group with fancy, themed skins and names and - expecting a stompy SWF I'll throw on my strongest build and addons.
Then it turns out it's just a bunch of friends trying the game.
I'll usually get a sense after the first kill or so, and I'll usually ease up substantially and try to give them a fun experience.
Unless they are BM. BM = no mercy.
-
@SunaIIanu said:
There was a time in 2020 with no matchmaking protection for killers?
Do you remember why?
That's when I started.
If I recall, it was because of long survivor queues at high ranks.
It was a miserable experience for me, especially as a complete newbie.
-
@Pulsar said:
I'd like to get some form of official response, so, I'm sorry for the tag but do you think you could see if there's an answer @MandyTalk?
I'd just like to know because I'm pretty damn close to quitting. If there's hope that the team is aware of things and are working on a solution to make the game more fun and enjoyable for everyone at high MMR, I can tough it out.
If the team has no plans to change anything there though, I'd like to be made aware so that I can quit for my own mental health's sake. 95% of matches are totally miserable.
I think I've only been playing because I believed that the game was going to get better. Whether it be promises of 60 FPS or improved gameplay, I stuck around. Now though? 60 FPS obviously isn't coming and the gameplay is worse than ever.
I'd just like to know if it's worth sticking around. Thank you.
It's a very fair question and I'm not sure if there is the answer.
With MMR, at high level you get very sweaty matches.
Without MMR, low/intermediate players are constantly put up against nightmare stompcomps.
@woundcowboy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2655150#Comment_2655150
What if winning is fun? I don’t enjoy derping around with crap perks and addons to get 1-2 kills. Pulsar is right: all of you in this thread are only talking about masking the issues. The devs need to balance the game, not cater it towards people who don’t put in the time to learn.
That's actually the crux of the issue I think.
- Everyone wants to win every game.
- MMR has certainly highlighted some of the bonkers imbalances in the game, especially map-wise.
I think MMR would work really well if BHVR took one entire 'season' to rework maps, perks etc.
-
@Laluzi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2655950#Comment_2655950
I think there may be a simpler explanation - July had increased players because the anniversary event ran through most of it and there was a Blood Hunt at the end of it. August, a lot of people were burned out after nonstop cake grinding.
That could also be it.
There's usually one month every year with a big drop off, and it's seldom the same month.
-
@BrokenSouI said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2655920#Comment_2655920
The last few previous months since SBMM and books were added. Have seen a decrease in 10,000 people on average. From 60,000-50,000. Doesn't matter what the peak was at any given time. What's the average. And the average says 10,000 less people played
July averaged 62,000. Since then
51,51,50, and 49,000 in the last 30 days.
A decrease from 62,000 average to 49,000 is a trend and concerning and telling.
I think that's a matter of a lot of people trying the game during summer months. The only big drop I'm seeing is August - I'd be curious as to what other games came out around that time.
-
@whispersenthusiast said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2655881#Comment_2655881
Plaything is slept on, it can really slow down mid-game or you get a massive advantage in the 1v1. Win-win.
I love it. Combined with Retribution, it's just a ton of fun.
It's sort of become one of my go-to perks on non-stealth killers.
-
@RoachesDelight said:
Currently I'm seeing mostly Huntress followed by Blight not far behind. What's everyone else seeing most of these days?
I'm probably low-intermediate MMR and I see a decent variety, with some exceptions.
Pinhead, Hag, Demo, Pig, Pyramid Head, Doctor, Plague and Ghostface are vanishingly rare. I've faced 0-2.
Nemesis, Huntress, Freddy, Bubba, Trickster, Spirit and Blight are quite common.
The rest I see every so often.
-
@BrokenSouI said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2655894#Comment_2655894
Steam numbers suggest people leaving and not playing. Take that for what you will.
That's...not what I'm seeing.
DbD saw an absolutely enormous increase in players between April and July, a bit of a drop-off in August and then consistently high numbers. Last month was the one of the highest numbers of peak players DbD has ever seen. The game has gained something like 20-35% since last year this time and average player numbers are definitely higher.
An ongoing analysis of Steam's player numbers, seeing what's been played the most.@BadLooperQ said:
I don't care about killer MMR cause for that role kills kinda are the main point even though I prefer to look at overall performance and pressure put into the match but for survivors escaping is such a bad way to see your "skill" that it baffles me how they spend so much time to put mmr as simple as a escape = Win. That at the end of the day is benefitting once again, coordinated SWF's. I can't even remember how many times I looped the killer, Just to die on my first hook to let the Clauddie who hide selfcaring all game escape.
And back then I really was pumped for MMR cause my silly brain thought it would help solo q players but in reality It made worse. I barely escaped 5/10 matches before in the old system, and now If I manage 1/10 depending on my day's luck, is too much...
Also, low mmr also brings the worst of both worlds.. killers who know How to play but got destroyed by a swf and are being matched with me and 3 other noobs, or killers who literally started playing and get destroyed (or at the worst case, start facecamping and tunneling everybody)
I agree that survivor SBMM needs to be more nuanced. As a killer, I'm far more likely to let a good looper get the hatch or gate and to kill off selfish hiders ASAP (can't stand that playstyle, MMR or no MMR).
Facecamping is very much a 'new killer' thing. I know that I did it a ton when I started out, I didn't really understand the 'etiquette' of the game and often it was the only way for me to get any kills.
Tunneling...that's just how killer is sort of played at high MMRs, and most high level killer streamers prioritize an early kill. There's probably a trickle-down effect happening here regarding playstyles/meta (welcome to gaming).
There's also, especially at the lower end of things, a definite deficit of killers. On my 'likely low MMR' bad killers, I get lightning fast queues at any time of day. This is just sort of the nature of DbD - starting out as killer is rough and even with me having likely 250 hours on killer alone, it feels like I'm really only starting to get a solid 'feel' for it.
This means that queues will be longer and you'll definitely have some lopsided matches.
But...honestly, that was going on before and also comes down to BHVR's bizarre nerfs on 'easy to play' killers like Wraith.
-
@Freshwick said:
Before the MMR update, every rank other than red was filled with players/ teams playing for rank. However if you reached/ earned red rank as survivor you would be met by players playing to win.
And playing to win is a completely different mindset.
With the current MMR system we're stuck backpacking users who refuse the chase/ body block/ save safely/ heal under the hook/ etc. These players earn MMR off others skill and then go onto ruin the experience for other survivors playing scared/ selfishly for a MMR rank they can't even flex just the way BHVR wants it.
FYI Despite what that loading screen read during the anniversary, being forced to be bait sucks ask Dick's js
I do think that the system should be a bit more nuanced at the survivor end of things, but I'm getting much closer matches at the more intermediate levels. It's gone from 2 of every 3 games being me stomped and teabagged by either a whole wall of red/purple or smurfing SWFs to maybe 3/5 games being really good, 1 being a bit easy and 1 being a crushing loss.
That's...decent.
-
@BrokenSouI said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2655884#Comment_2655884
Because reverting SBMM. Is easier then reworking a bulk of the maps to be balanced and fair for both sides
Sure the old system wasn't perfect. But you got good enough mixes of experience and inexperienced to make playing killer bearable.
The thing is - while SBMM might make matches sweatier at the high end of things, I'd wager dollars to donuts that it's substantially increased retention rates of newer players.
If I hadn't had...literally nothing else to play at the time, I'd have quit pretty soon after starting. It was just an endless montage of me getting stomped and teabagged by smurfs and people I had absolutely no reason to be paired up against.
It was so easy to smurf your rank down that even some Fog Whisperers admitted to doing it - to get easier matches.
-
@BrokenSouI said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2655793#Comment_2655793
That's exactly what I'm saying, yes.
People don't neccesarily hate SBM. They hate everything that it highlights
Which is fair.
But what I don't get is the 'remove SBMM' posts I see multiple times a day.
It's a million times better than what we had before, at least on my end.
-
@whispersenthusiast said:
I never ran 4 gen defense perks, but often went with 3 - corrupt, pop, ruin/discordance/tinkerer - and tried to slow the gens down a lot in my games. Going out of my way to halt their progress and still hearing the gen notification was really disheartening cause I'm dedicating 75% of my build to stop them and they're still getting done like it's nothing???
So I decided to say ######### it and stop running these slowdown perks. I kept Corrupt (I'm a Trapper main so I'm basically throwing by not using that perk on him, and it's still really good on all the other killers too) and then added NWO to slow down the end game a little bit. Anyone who plays either side knows that a lot of greedy altruism plays happen in end game, and this gives me (hopefully) an additional minute to get a hook before gates are open and maybe get some trades and kills.
Anyway, having 2 open perk slots that I can use to either make chases more efficient or make the game more fun for me (and maybe catch the survivors off guard) has made killer a lot more enjoyable. I've also gotten a LOT better at chasing and mindgaming and general decision making because I simply do not care about the gens anymore - I don't babysit them, I don't camp them, I don't leave a chase to kick them. They will get done no matter what and I've realized that the game isn't over just because all gens are done.
Just a tip for my fellow killer players in the middle of all this SBMM chaos, maybe you'll find yourself having fun again!
The only regression perk I run now is Surge. Sometimes. On M1 killers.
Otherwise, it's Plaything+Retribution+BBQ/Discordance+Fearmonger/Devour Hope
I have so much more fun just unga bunga chasing people.
-
@BrokenSouI said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/296136/why-do-people-dislike-sbmm
Let's see. It could be that people like to feel like they have a chance..? It could be that it shows how unbalanced maps are(some of us already knew that) It could be that at high MMR it's so ######### BORING. When games are the same over and over. Pre drop and hold W. Play as safe as possible. Slam gens and be out. Amazingly interactive stuff.
It could be that at high MMR. You have a VERY good chance of getting hackers.
It sounds like what you are saying is: the game has serious balance issues and something needs to be done about the proliferation of hackers.
-
@Eli_The_Fox said:
People don't like SBMM for a variety of reasons. Some people are unlucky and don't get chill games because of how high their MMR is. Every game they play is a sweat-filled game with the same killers/perks. This is only due to how SBMM was very poorly implemented.
Some people think SBMM shouldn't be in the game at all since its a 4v1 Asym game.
But...if their MMR is high, they will be matched against other high MMR people.
It wouldn't be fair to match them with low MMR people - at least not for the lowbies - would it?
@ShinobuSK said:
Every multiplayer game I played was ruined by SBMM and this DBD version of it is even worse cause it makes no sense
How is it worse?
I wonder (and not trying to be nasty here) - if people were used to stomping, but are now getting matched against people of a similar skill to them?
-
@Bennett_They1Them said:
I'd say oppression is one. if the cooldown is there to prevent three-genning being stronger, maybe just make it so it gains a stack every time a gen is completed, and every completed gen adds 10s of cooldown, with the base cooldown only being 20/15/10 seconds.
what about you? what's a perk and how would you fix it?
Oppression was the literal first thing that came to mind when I read the thread title. It's cooldown is maybe triple the length is should be.
Surge is another one, but it needs it's cooldown...halved maybe?
@Myla said:
Removing the cooldown on Surge would probably make my dream build on Plague plus scourge hook on the new killer.
I'm pretty sure Surge doesn't trigger off her red puke :).
-
@NoOneKnowsNova said:
Alright this post will probably come off as stupid, but is there any way to not let messages from other players get to me? I'm aware I can make my profile private meaning people can't message me, but that's basically a last resort to me as I like getting ggs which is as common as those bad messages. Probably doesn't help I've got mental health issues, but that's besides the point. Is there any good way to help me calm down rather than immediately getting pissed off? Also sorry if this should go into a different section of the forums instead of general discussions, you would think I'd know this at almost 2k posts but I guess not.
I know what you are saying, but seriously - *make your profile private*.
Right now.
This instant.
My experience has been so much better since I did that. I no longer get random creepy messages or friend invites because I ran an iri addon on my killer that game.
-
@SunsetSherbet said:
I doubt that. I think a more likely outcome is forcing/bribing people to play killer in some way. Incentives, like they talked before, are likely. They'll just start offering big rewards for anyone willing to put up with it.
I'll be playing killer come rain or shine, but I'd love some more BP if they're offering.
-
@OnryosTapeRentals said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2654722#Comment_2654722
How is someone body blocking, blowing gens etc. as a character that happens to be LGBT in any way comparable to blackface?
Considering trolling teammates are pretty common as it stands, this comaprison is nonsensical.
What he's saying is that the second you set apart a character by some minority identity characteristic, you 'empower' people to display their bigotry by giving people playing these characters a hard time, much as the argument here goes 'giving Bubba a non-white face option empowers these people to act in a racist way'.
I...think.
-
@OnryosTapeRentals said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2654713#Comment_2654713
How would an LGBT character be used to "harass" LGBT streamers?
This seems like false equivalence.
Sure.
My easiest example would be the maybe once-a-fortnight message I get in postgame threatening to report me for 'tunneling someone because they had a pride charm'.
Bad actors could target down these characters, and it would be incredibly difficult to prove their intent.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2654632#Comment_2654632
Regarding your analogy...um. I swear, there's a name for this that escapes me but what you are doing is conflating two very different scenarios. I'd go to the Lawyer for specific legal advice. I'd go to the brain surgeon for advice on neurology. However, that does not mean that their opinions on, say, baseball or the morality of a welfare state would be any more valid than mine, assuming we all watch baseball.
You're correct in that I wouldn't go to either of them for baseball advice- I'd talk to a baseball player. And I'd assume the opinion of the baseball player to be more valid than that of you three, as this imaginary player has more experience with baseball than the imaginary lawyer. You see what I mean?
It also (and this is key) does not mean that I am incapable of having a valid legal opinion or making a correct point on neurology.
Correct, it does not. However, people will be more inclined to believe the opinion of someone with more experience and knowledge in the subject. If you can back up your opinions with experiences, be it legal documentation and prior court hearings you've seen, or a video of you playing baseball professionally 15 years ago, then people will also likely provide a lot more validity to your opinion than they would have prior, as they know you come from a place of experience on the subject.
To use a much more real world example, I'm currently studying economics (among other things). My friend, who I'll call Darlah (which isn't her real name), is studying psychology (also among other things). For economics advice, people would obviously go to me over Darlah, and for psychology advice, they'd do the opposite. In terms of getting advice for, say, criminology, they'd naturally go to someone else.
I hope this is making sense now?
Race relations are something we all have to negotiate together.
Which is absolutely true, however this isn't an issue of race relations, but instead of a lot of POC being racially targeted and harassed while a cosmetic enables the intentions to be made clear. Obviously, this won't suddenly solve racism, however making people feel more comfortable while playing their game seems like a good thing, right? Race relations would, imho, be something entirely different.
Here, we have a videogame with an aspect that was likely designed to be inclusive. I don't think that, without a significantly more robust discussion with the playerbase, the devs should change it because a few people declared it to be 'offensive'. I think that's a very bad precedent to set - the sort of precedent that turns you into Ubisoft, pumping out deliberately bland media deliberately to avoid offending anyone.
I believe that while intentions may have been pure, it was tone-deaf at best, and a lot of people I've spoken to seem to agree. It's been taken by racists as a tool for targeted harassment and since a lot of people- or at the very least a vocal minority- of POC players have spoken out against the cosmetic, I believe it at least warrents some looking into (which has been confirmed by not_Queen to be something they're looking into doing).
Can you see that, from mine (and the perspective of my missus) that this is an example of that?
Kind of? I get that it may seem extreme but I'd rather support people who are advocating for more comfort in playing the game than deny their opinions and experiences simply because of a cosmetic. The cosmetic itself has no monetary value and can be easily replaced with something else equally as iconic with far less problematic undertones. And while this may look like PC gone mad to you, to me it seems like a reasonable request for people to feel more safe in the game, and remove a tool to be implicitly racist, as explicit racism will lead to punishments.
Taken to the extreme would be the commentsmade against you and your wife, for example. I don't think this is an extreme at all.
EDIT: sorry for the long comment but I felt like it was warranted in this case.
Okay, going point by point (not sure how to do that indented quote thing).
- Yeah, all analogies start breaking down when you poke them hard enough :). In this logic, we're all baseball fans. It would depend on what specifically is being asked. A fact regarding Nigerian culture? Ask my wife. The morality of certain trade deals with Nigeria? We could both have an opinion that would differ, but our identities wouldn't make one or the other more likely to be correct.
- This is actually sort of an argument for my side - because these people could also be wrong, biased or self serving (something extremely common in 'experts in a field'), and will set up an Argument from Authority fallacy by cloaking it as 'well, I'm right because I have more experience'. I could give some examples, but this is going to be long as-is (and I really want to play a few games). Basically: everyone has biases and these biases often stem from our experiences. And, much like the fields you are describing - there are so many schisms and disagreements that often a common sense 'layman' approach will serve you better. The more educated I've become, the more this approach holds true. Professional activists are the last people I'd go to for an honest opinion on anything.
- From the above, a great thing I once read went something like this: A man has a headache. He goes to a proctologist, a neurologist, an oncologist and a therapist. The proctologist tells him he's constipated, the neurologist tells him he needs migraine medication, the oncologist tells him he might have brain cancer and the therapist tells him it's Displacement Syndrome. Confused, he goes home, takes an aspirin and is totally fine.
- Amusingly, criminology is my original field (I've branched out substantially though in the last few decades).
- Have a lot of POC been targeted or harassed using this cosmetic? If not, then it's purely hypothetical. You say 'it'll happen', I'd say 'probably not much, and this is true of an endless list of things - don't let a tiny number of bad actors have the power to take cool things away from us, we moved away from collective punishments hundreds of years ago'. See: the 'Okay Symbol' in Overwatch.
- I don't see how it's tone-deaf at all. From my perspective, you'd have to reach to make this akin to blackface. I'm happy for them to look into it, but I think it's concerning when devs remove options from players because of the opinion of a vocal minority. When you say 'vocal minority' - the colloquial meaning is generally 'a very loud, impassioned opinion that gives an incorrect impression of the feelings of a majority'.
- Sure. And that's an understandable reaction. You are trying to be compassionate. But emotive reasoning often leads you to make incorrect decisions that come back to bite you later.
- I think that the term 'implicit racism' is problematic in and of itself. Racism, to me, has to stem from a place of either intent or at least deliberate ignorance. Racism is always about context. It's this line of thought that got a professor officially sanctioned for using the 'N' word *when discussing the use of the 'N' word in a sociological context*.
- It's not quite PC culture gone mad - but it definitely comes from a similar place, to my mind. To be charitable, BHVR, in a perhaps-admirable attempt to be PC, are taking what is probably the opinion of a fringe minority (note: I mean minority in a numerical, not racial sense) to be the only reasonable voice on the issue.
- The people who made comments like that about me and the wife also believed that they were right, and were coming from an identical place. It's not too short of a jump to go from 'a white killer who wears faces wearing a POC face is problematic' to 'all white people are racist' to 'whiteness in and of itself is problematic' - which is an argument I've seen made, recently, on these forums. I know this sounds far-fetched, but it's very much what is going on in certain parts of academia right now.
Whew. That was a lot.
Anyway, I'm going to go and play a few games. We can pick this up later if you'd like.
-
@OnryosTapeRentals said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2654627#Comment_2654627
What does the pride charm even remotely have to do with this? I'm lost.
If I understand the argument, he's saying that it could also be used by bigots to display bigotry. This was, if I recall, the first reply to BHVR's announcement of the charm (something along the lines of 'oh yay now I'll get tunneled for wearing it).
In both cases, you have an innocuous, if not well intentioned element of the game that could 'enable' bigotry.
What he's essentially arguing is that it sets a silly precedent.
At least that's my impression.
-
@nostrada96ass said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2654565#Comment_2654565
no, thats just pc based idea
they screwed one remastering and showed they don't care about their customers like before
did you saw how diablo immortal presented? thats true reason
it doesn't matter what happend there, people don't give a damn about it
i never heard any person suggesting to hate them for any whistleblowon stories,
also majority pissed about what you said just because they added soldier76 and tracer is homosexual
Yeah, this.
ActiBlizz were in the dog-house long before these allegations.
@Tr1nity said:
gonna have to ask what POC is.
'People of Color'. It's a somewhat controversial acronym generally meaning 'is part of a minority racial group within the USA/UK/Canada/Australia'. I'm not a fan of it, as I consider it to be somewhat dehumanizing but I'll use it here as this seems to be the common lexicon on the forums.
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2654597#Comment_2654597
If I'm being genuinely honest, I am not 100% the best person to ask for how to gague community requests to change the cosmetic(s), however I have some friends I could ask on what they believe the best way of doing this would be (and you absolutely could do the same if you wanted).
I'm incredibly confident that if I was to poll the non-white members of my classes tomorrow, they'd be against changing the skin. I could even restrict it to black students (I have two online classes from South Africa) if you'd prefer.
That said, the 'POC' (gah, I hate that term) that I'm speaking to right now (wife, inlaws) agree with me. But they Nigerian, and tend to be very come-as-you-are (although all but the oldest is highly educated).
What's going to matter here is, in my opinion:
- Political alignment.
- Education criteria (from my experience, humanities students are very 'progressive' while STEM tends more towards centrism, bordering on libertarianism).
That said, conversations-by-proxy are a little bit silly.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2654585#Comment_2654585
What I'm putting forward here is primarily the opinions of my wife (and I hope that being married to a Caucasian hasn't become grounds for disqualification) who is sitting about 2 meters away from me at the other end of my living room. This is a core part of my disagreement here. You seem to be more than willing to consider all POC a monolith and are you, yourself, speaking over them where they disagree.
And then her opinions are also entirely valid. I've been using POC all thread when I should be using some/most beforehand, which was entirely my bad and I apologise.
Also also - as I said then, I will never accept any sort of ideological segregation. Anyone can (and should) speak on any issue that interests them. Nobody's opinion should be discarded because of their race, sexuality or identity. And that cuts both ways.
Correct, everyone's opinion holds some weight. However, again to use the analogy of the lawyer and the brain surgeon, they will have vastly different experiences in life, and so you wouldn't go to one person on advice for something they aren't experienced in. If you have experienced something for a large portion of your life, then you are just naturally going to be able to give better advice on the topic at hand, hence why your opinion should be weighted higher since you're more knowledgeable on the subject matter at hand.
It doesn't matter if this is about sexuality, race, gender, religion, science- the topic is irrelevant. The general principle remains the same of "your opinion matters more if you have experience in the subject"- and so, absolutely no offence intended, I'd value your wife's opinion on the subject moreso than your own. Like I'd value an Asian person's opinion on the subject of Asian hate than I would anyone else.
(Also, in terms of your previous talk about the comments you received when marrying your wife, I'm genuinely sorry to hear that. That's been taken to the extreme of the extreme and provided both of you were legally of age to marry then absolutely nothing should've stopped you, with no comments or judgements made. People will take these things too far, and I believe this was one such example of that).
Good!
Never apologize for giving your opinion, unless you are giving it in bad faith or refusing to cede a point that you know is wrong.
Regarding your analogy...um.
I swear, there's a name for this that escapes me but what you are doing is conflating two very different scenarios.
I'd go to the Lawyer for specific legal advice. I'd go to the brain surgeon for advice on neurology.
However, that does not mean that their opinions on, say, baseball or the morality of a welfare state would be any more valid than mine, assuming we all watch baseball.
It also (and this is key) does not mean that I am incapable of having a valid legal opinion or making a correct point on neurology.
Now, I don't think your analogy is bad, but I think you've taken the wrong conclusion from it.
The reason being, everyone has a race (unless you are one of those 'white isn't a race' NBP types - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here). Race relations are something we all have to negotiate together.
'Offensiveness' is and always will be in the mind of the beholder. A very wise man once said 'offense is seldom given but always taken' and I agree with that. I've had some hilarious experiences in Japan (my absolute favorite was 'hey you're from Africa right? Do you have AIDS?'). And don't even get me started on the representations of white foreigners in Japanese media...
However, I would never take offense at that. Because I truly believe that where you encounter ignorance, your reaction should be mild amusement and, if you feel the need, a desire to discourse.
Here, we have a videogame with an aspect that was likely designed to be inclusive. I don't think that, without a significantly more robust discussion with the playerbase, the devs should change it because a few people declared it to be 'offensive'. I think that's a very bad precedent to set - the sort of precedent that turns you into Ubisoft, pumping out deliberately bland media to avoid offending anyone.
And yes, I'm glad that you agree that some things go too far.
Can you see that, from mine (and the perspective of my missus) that this is an example of that?
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2654581#Comment_2654581
And when that spark comes it will be dealt with accordingly.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2654580#Comment_2654580
People have been advocating against this cosmetic for a while- well over 2 years. This isn't a recent development. Who are you to say what is and isn't an issue for people?
Good. I'll agree with you on this.
But again, which people?
Before I changed something like this, I'd make very sure that I was doing it because it actually offended a lot of people. Maybe an ingame poll would be apropo?
Otherwise you risk falling into the trap of making changes to your product because of a tiny minority opinion.
The slippery slope isn't always a fallacy, and you risk sliding right down it once this happens.
@Marigoria said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2654586#Comment_2654586
The same way you can say this is an issue for certain people, I have the right to say this is a non-issue for other people.
Bubba wearing a mask made of skin, that happens to be black, is not blackface. It's not racism.
Saying this is racism, actually takes away from actual racism happening in the world, which already is a lot, why add even more to it?
This, right here, is the absolute core of my problems with a lot of this stuff.
When you start complaining that having black enemies in Far Cry or Bubba wearing Claudette's or Jake's face is racist, then you water down how wrong and evil racism actually is and - if anything - you risk making actual incidents of racism viewed as less serious.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2654542#Comment_2654542
I do really think the discussion is important. I will understand if the thread gets closed, I also feel like both opinions can be, and have to be expressed. Thus far, it has been mostly civil.
I agree. These are very important discussions that need to be had, so long as they remain civil. And media is an excellent framing device for these discussions.
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2654554#Comment_2654554
DBD Forums users stop speaking over POC on issues they face challenge 2021 (failed)
accurately sums up this comment.
Which POC?
What I'm putting forward here is primarily the opinions of my wife (and I hope that being married to a Caucasian hasn't become grounds for disqualification) who is sitting about 2 meters away from me at the other end of my living room.
This is a core part of my disagreement here. You seem to be more than willing to consider all POC a monolith. Aren't you, yourself, speaking over them where they disagree?
Also - let's be nice here GBK. That last thread ended badly.
Also also - as I said then, I will never accept any sort of ideological segregation. Anyone can (and should) speak on any issue that interests them. Nobody's opinion should be discarded because of their race, sexuality or identity. And that cuts both ways.
It saddens me as a progressive of yesteryear, who marched against Apartheid himself (and ended up with a pretty awesome scar), that this seems to be the way we are going now.
@Marigoria said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2654560#Comment_2654560
Definition of things, yes, but that change is not made by nobodies on twitter.
Unfortunately, it is indeed mostly an online thing (and some very fringe parts of academia) - but right now, the Twitter and Blogosphere have the ability to project a very loud and honestly very skewed impression of what people actually believe.
It's a bit of a sidetrack, but my best example is a semi-recent spat involving a team with an 'innapropriate' name. When polled, actual Native Americans either didn't care or were a fan of the name. However, this would not have been the impression you got unless you went and tracked it down.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2654517#Comment_2654517
People haven't said to remove them outright but change them. Make them collectables from the survivors instead- suck as Claudette's glasses, Jake's scarf, Dwight's tie, Meg's... hair I guess? You could easily take her cap from that one common outfit too. Remove the faces, remove the issues, make it something substantially less obvious while keeping the cosmetics.
That's a suggestion I've seen a lot, and is probably the best compromise.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2654516#Comment_2654516
Firstly, again, stop making it about the character Bubba and start making it about the players and their use of it, since that's the major issue people are having with it. Fog Whisperer DyllonKG put together this article on why the definition has evolved over time, and it isn't based entirely on minstrel shows anymore.
See above for the suggested changes to the cosmetics- not outright removing, but changing.
Shrug. Again, this isn't a hill I'm willing to die on - I barely even play the Bubster :).
I'm saying that I think the arguments being made here are thin at best and is illustrative of an aspect of modern progressive activism that I think has become mildly absurd.
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2654533#Comment_2654533
"taking away the tool" is what I've seen POC say time and time again, so that's probably the best way of putting it. At least from what I've seen from a lot of people.
Which POC though?
This is probably my big problem.
'POC' aren't a monolith and the POC I've spoken to (granted, it's only 3) really like the visual and would actually probably be more likely to play Bubba with it.
@GentlemanFridge said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2654501#Comment_2654501
I'm having a real hard time gathering your viewpoint on the matter of the cosmetics themselves. Surely it'd be more racist if they were removed now? Positive discrimination is also a thing that I'd rather avoid. Regardless of the terms used, it hardly matters to the character itself. He just wears people's faces. As I just said, it'd be worse imo if he actively avoided faces from people of colour.
This is the problem.
It's a lose/lose for companies right now - if you try to be 'representative', you are going to be wokebullied because someone didn't like a specific character (look at the recent spat of forum drama about the new killer/survivor) or found some minute detail problematic.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2654474#Comment_2654474
Right- apparently "yellowface" is the more Americanised term- just checked in with a friend (and yes, calling Asian people yellow is horrendously racist) and it's better to use cultural appropriation over it as it's less offensive (they're also not an expert on the subject, neither am I, however since they're iirc half-Chinese I thought they're better to ask and get opinons from rather than use my own knowledge).
Regardless of the term, though, it's something that was portrayed in media frequently and still is rarely to this day. It's far less recognised than blackface, however is still a problem, and Jake's face cosmetic is cultural appropriation like Claudette's face is blackface.
Don't get me wrong here, but I think some wires have gotten crossed regarding 'cultural appropriation' somewhere along the line.
Firstly, cultural appropriation refers to a dominant culture co-opting cultural signifiers from a minority culture. I don't think 'yellowface' or 'blackface' would qualify. That's more of a straight minstrel show nastiness.
Secondly, I don't think that cultural appropriation even exists, at least not at the ultra-expanded definition that seems to be applied today.
I've spent the majority of my life in Japan and Africa. Japanese people love it when a foreigner throws on a yukata and joins in the local taiko performance, and you can't walk through Tokyo without seeing western fashions, hearing western musical styles or seeing amazing katakana variations of English slogans. In the modern west, this would be considered deeply problematic.
My best example in Africa is the late Johnny Clegg, who took Zulu culture and language and became one of the forerunners of the Afropop genre. He was an incredible activist against the Apartheid regime and drew an enormous amount of attention to the cause of those being oppressed. Now? He's derided for this exact problem.
It's gotten so out of hand that white Hip-Hop artists catch endless flak, several women were essentially terrorized because they wrote a Tex-Mex cookbook (they were accused of 'stealing Latinx recipes'). Hell, I've been scolded by a bunch of students (fortunately not in my class) for marrying Mrs. Lost. I'm not kidding here - the language they used was 'you are colonizing her'.
That's...obscene.
I think the more apt term, aside from very specific examples, would be 'cultural appreciation'. Cultures mixing and exchanging food, fashion and music is an entirely natural process and it's what has given so many places such a unique 'flavor'.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2654450#Comment_2654450
Yes, yellowface. As in, the Jake Park face. Because Bubba is still white immitating an Asian person. And yellowface does exist, as does blackface; look it up.
Is he though?
Or is Bubba just wearing the face of a victim that happens to be non-white?
I know what you are saying, but comparing this to the Asian equivalent to a minstrel show...I don't think that's fair. It's definitely not what the devs intended it to be (BHVR are among the most progressive companies out there).
I think that Bubba refusing to wear the face of someone simply because they were POC would be far more problematic.
It's a lose-lose scenario for the devs, sadly.
@Marigoria said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2654457#Comment_2654457
I'm pretty sure calling asian people yellow is considered racist? At least in Europe is quite frowned on.
'Yellowface' is a term that refers to someone imitating an Asian person (and this next clause is key) to denigrate or make fun of Asian people at a racial/cultural level.
I'm pretty sure that's not what Bubba/BHVR actually meant here. Thus, I don't think it's applicable.
-
@jinx3d said:
There is nothing wrong with smartface as a cosmetic. Yes, some people use it as an additional way to target POC players, streamers, and survivors, but thats only because they GIVE the power to the cosmetic. Calling it "blackface bubba" is giving it power that it doesnt have without these complaints. Even if it gets removed, what does that solve? does that make all racist players quit? No. If people want to be racist in a game they will.
I agree.
I actually chatted with the missus (a lovely, incredibly intelligent Nigerian woman) about this, and in her opinion, removing it would actually be something of an insult to POC people. It's like saying 'well, Bubba wouldn't wear that'.
The entire issue seems to be a deliberately uncharitable read of a situation and attempting to frame it as bigotry.
That said, while it does make me roll my eyes, I really don't care overmuch.
@Mazoobi said:
I too have never seen an issue with this headpiece.
Leatherface could care less about the color of your skin, your sexuality, or any disability... he'll still wear your face.
Bingo.
Honestly, there's an argument to be made that this is exactly how inclusivity should look.
@Aven_Fallen said:
Jesus, now we have this discussion because someone says it should not be removed.
Well, yes?
There's definitely a discussion to be had here. I'm not a fan of the whole 'one or two people on Twitter find something problematic therefore nobody gets to enjoy it' mindset right now.
In a situation of Schrodinger's Offensiveness, always infer a charitable interpretation.
@ReikoMori said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/296081/smartface-bubba-doesnt-need-to-be-removed
The players who are racist probably won't leave, but we also don't have to give them tools to be freakin' weird. I get the whole, Leatherface isn't racist argument, but it ain't about the character and people should stop making it about the character. It's about players behaving in really messed up ways towards a specific group of players. I know a lot of people who play this game don't know or care about the cultural context of why people do not want to see this cosmetic continue to be in the game. Yet, I would like people to just take a step back and consider that none of this is directed at you and that no one is actually asking you to do anything.
When us POC players complain about the cosmetic we ain't talking to you. We're talking to BHVR. If you don't agree, that's cool, but the stupid thing should be removed. To do so literally costs nothing and if people really got a problem with it just give the folks who unlocked it blood points or iri shards.
Sure. But in the same respects, sanitizing everything because of hypotheticals/not to risk offending anyone is a ridiculous route to go. It turns into a nasty little purity spiral where literally everything is problematic.
I still remember the 'Far Cry 5 is TOO diverse' articles, because some journalists...didn't like that you could have black enemies. There was also a big thread last night about how making the new survivor a war criminal is problematic. In a horror game.
This game already has a pretty robust reporting system and the devs have made it clear that anyone acting in a bigoted manner will have them rain hell down upon them.
As far as I'm concerned, that's more than enough.