TheWheelOfCheese
TheWheelOfCheese
About
- Username
- TheWheelOfCheese
- Joined
- Visits
- 850
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Monlyth said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3305943#Comment_3305943
Tu quoque fallacy. Not a good look when you can only defend your argument by pointing to a supposed flaw in someone else's.
I didn't defend my argument because you're not arguing in good faith. You're being hyperbolic and dismissing an analogy as a non sequitur as though it's supposed to be an exact comparison. (Hint: it's not.)
The point I was trying to make is that there are often real-world consequences for leaving in the middle of a game, and DBD isn't an exception to that, and that your "chained to the table" argument is utter nonsense.
I think there is an argument to be made that there are circumstances where this shouldn't apply to the killer, so I think we are in agreement there.
-
You counter it by playing a different killer.
Sarcasm aside, Knight's power is basically useless against survivors that hold W. This is the same problem Artist has in chase; good survivors will just leave the tile. (At least her power has utility outside of chase, though.)
-
@Monlyth said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3303508#Comment_3303508
Your professional sports analogy is a non sequitur. Resigning the match is not poor sportsmanship.
I mean... other games came up with solutions for this ages ago. Conceding only drops your MMR after a set number of turns, or a set number of minutes (Depending on the game).
I agree, DCs on the survivor side are a big problem and rarely acceptable. If the survivor team wants to admit defeat and move on to the next match with no penalty, they should have to take a vote first.
If you think my analogy is a non sequitur, you should check out this other guy who compared a matchmaking ban to being chained to the table while playing cards!
Oh, wait...
-
@AssortedSorting said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3303652#Comment_3303652
Hmm. Sounds more like a matchmaking Hard Cap, if MMR hits a wall after a point.
Would have expected something more like: After the Soft Cap, upper and lower bounds for search ranges expand much faster, with the lower bound resuming standard search expansion once reaching below the Soft Cap.
A hard cap would mean your MMR is capped, but it's not. You can gain MMR above the cap, but it's only capped when searching for a match. This is why it's called a soft cap.
It's not a meaningless distinction -- your real (uncapped) MMR is used when calculating rating adjustments post-match. This means if you are way above the soft cap, you would have to lose a lot more games to drop below it than someone who is exactly at the soft cap.
-
@AssortedSorting said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3303492#Comment_3303492
Interesting.
Does the Soft Cap come into play as soon as someone hits the queue, or is there a grace period where it tries for closer matchmaking before the Soft Cap allows for a greater range of ratings to be pulled from?
The soft cap is a maximum rating for matchmaking purposes, so it's immediate. For example, if the cap is 2000 and you have a 2300 rating, when you enter the queue the matchmaker will pretend you have a 2000 rating, which means it could put someone at 1950 in your lobby and it thinks that's a good match, when you're a far better player.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3303500#Comment_3303500
Now is this a problem with WOO or is this a problem with The Game?
Oh definitely The Game. Thematically it's a cool map but balance and fun were clearly not even remotely a consideration for the team that designed it.
-
@Nazzzak said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3303500#Comment_3303500
I know you're having a laugh, but I feel like anyone who uses a Game offering with WoO is wasting a perk spot lol
Toward the start of a match, yeah. Toward the end, knowing which parts of the map are dead without having to remember and/or know where your teammates threw pallets already can be quite valuable.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3303520#Comment_3303520
No, because it doesn't matter if the last survivor is 1 meter or 30 meters away from the nearest exit. It would close that one the moment there is one 1 survivor left.
Remember that there is also the hatch left.
Ah, I missed the detail that it closes the gate closest to that survivor.
Honestly that feels less like "hatch for the killer" and more like "#### the last survivor." If that were implemented, I could imagine Left Behind becoming meta.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3303503#Comment_3303503
Can be solved by simply closing the closest gate of the last survivor. That way it doesn't matter if the survivors split up. They are even incentivized to leave before their teammates, even when they can't see them.
In addition, they could also add a bonus for leaving the match last. Kinda risk vs reward.
Then you just force a 3:1 split that hugely favors teams with comms, who definitely don't need yet another advantage.
-
In general, killer on console is going to be weaker than killer on PC because you have less control over how much and how fast you turn. This is a limitation of controllers; mouse is just so much more precise and enables near-instant turns of any angle.
With the weaker killers you are also at the mercy of matchmaking and map selection. There will be matches you are placed in that you simply cannot win within the limitations of your killer, control scheme, and skill level.
Sadako is pretty weak, especially if you play her like every other killer. She is only strong when using a specific playstyle and build designed for condemned kills, and that playstyle is boring as ####. If you are going to play her as a standard hooking killer you must go into the match with the expectation you will lose.
Nemesis is fairly decent, but he's not an M1 killer and his power's effectiveness is determined by your ability to aim precisely, which is very hard to do on a controller.
If you really want to continue playing killer on console, you should probably play killers that don't depend as much on ranged aim, and who aren't as weak as Sadako. Bubba and Wraith come to mind. As does Hag, but.... ugh.... Hag.....
If you are willing to use headphones and put in the hours to learn her, Spirit might be a good choice as well.
-
Hacking or network latency.
-
@Monlyth said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3302922#Comment_3302922
Why do I have to justify my position? Justify yours. If you had your way, people would have to be chained to the table at physical card game tournaments, and not released until their opponent has decided they're finished with them.
This is a false equivalency. DBD isn't forcing you to finish the match, it just says that if you leave the match you may not play another for some amount of time.
There's plenty of professional sports where a player who makes a habit of being a bad sport can get themselves removed from the match and possibly banned from future play. That's not "chaining them to the table" and forcing them to play the match. It's saying "if you want to continue playing matches with us, you will show basic respect for your opponent," which is similar to what DBD does. There are plenty of real-life examples where refusing to participate will have negative consequences. This doesn't mean you cannot refuse to participate, it just means you must be willing to accept those consequences.
Now, to a degree, the situation is different for the killer because if they leave the survivors just get a free win. This is not too different from, say, resigning a lost game of chess. I agree that the killer leaving should be theoretically acceptable under some circumstances. The trick is allowing it without making it easy to sandbag to drop MMR. Right now you can sandbag by AFKing the whole match, but this is bannable. So we'd have to find a line where we say "before this happens you are probably sandbagging, but after it happens you aren't" and I challenge you to come up with one that isn't either extremely abusable to drop MMR, or so long into the match that the killer may as well finish it out anyway. (If every match were officiated by a human, it could be a judgement call on the part of that official -- for example, see the intentional grounding rule in American football -- but having a human officiate every match of DBD isn't feasible.)
DCs are hugely problematic on the survivor side, though. If you walk off the field during a soccer game and refuse to participate, you will almost certainly be kicked off of your team. Since DBD matchmaking basically creates ad-hoc teams, getting kicked off of that team is inconsequential, so there needs to be some deterrent to keep you from ruining every match you are placed in, so there needs to be some system to penalize routinely abandoning your "assigned team" mid-match.
-
@Tsulan said:
Killer equivalent of the hatch would be, that when 4 survivors are about to escape, the exit closes after the 3rd survivor left. Survivor would still have the chance to leave through the other gate or the hatch.
Side effect: survivors won´t spend the biggest time of the EGC at the exit gate butt dancing but instead leave asap.
Interesting idea, but it lacks the chance element and can easily be countered by splitting 3/1 or 2/2 on the gates (and doing both gates is already the correct play much of the time, so in most games it wouldn't even come into play).
-
@Sonzaishinai said:
Did you know that ranting/venting isn't actually good for us and when done wrong can lead to heightened stress and physical health concerns.
I'm pretty sure a good chunk of this sentence was copy-pasted from a cherry-picked Google search result.
Bottling up negative feelings can also be harmful. Hang on, let me find a Google search result summary I can paste in here...
-
@Attckcat said:
I think it's currently disabled, I've been hit by a lot of things FAR away from windows, hatchets around 90 degree corners, etc.
If it's not disabled, then they made it so lenient as to not be useful.
I've also had way more instances of killers coming completely through a dropped pallet in the last few months.
AIUI, validation only takes place on pallet drops. There was validation for DH before 6.1.0 but I'm pretty sure there isn't now that the perk works differently.
I think increased player latency better explains the weird hits I've seen recently. I'm not sure why latency is so much worse recently, but it would pretty neatly explain everything I've observed.
-
@Nazzzak said:
I don't think it needs a nerf, because i think in some games it can be detrimental to the team, particularly when used by those who don't know how to loop. Survivors start off the game in a strong position, with plenty of pallets at their disposal. As the game progresses, these resources slowly diminish. All you need is one pallet-dropping-happy survivor dropping as many as they please to avoid taking a single hit, and creating dead zones early in the game as a result. It's a very handy perk, when used conservatively.
What about when windows is used with a Game offering? Hmmmmmm?
This combination is OP, so obviously the devs should do something about it and nerf Pig.
-
@MrDavidRay said:
It seems like every other match, at least one person disconnects. And it is becoming an increasingly demoralizing factor for the game. Simply put, it makes the game NOT fun.
What more can be done to mitigate DCs? It seems like the current system of progressive timeout penalties isn't much of a deterrent; if it were, we wouldn't be seeing as many DCs as we are.
Other games have successfully addressed this. Why can't BHVR seem to get it right when it comes to disconnects?
And I don't think this is a 'balance' issue with the game. It's an issue where entitled people -- killer and survivor -- are losing, so they decide to rage quit, and then they aren't penalized for it, but the other people in the match suffer.
More needs to be done about disconnects. PLEASE!
Other games have successfully addressed this. Why can't BHVR seem to get it right when it comes to disconnects?
The problem is that DBD isn't like other games. Ask yourself how meaningful it is for a player character to die in other multiplayer games.
- In match-based FPS games like Overwatch, a death can give momentum to the other team, but the dead player respawns. So the system can backfill another player into the match, they spawn in, and the match goes on. (Alternatively, the match could just be aborted, which is exploitable and is a waste of everyone's time.)
- In BR games, you dying is bad for you and good for everyone else. So it's not a problem, and therefore doesn't need a solution.
- Other games may not have a concept of player death at all.
- Games that aren't real-time can simply pause the game until a player can be backfilled.
DBD doesn't fit into any of these categories. It's a real-time game where death is permanent. I think this is why there hasn't been a good solution for such a long time.
I think the two best solutions are:
- Have a bot control the player character until a player can be backfilled to play them. We only just got survivor bots recently, so it's not surprising to me that this solution hasn't been implemented. It very well could be now that we have bots. (There are some details that would need to be considered, such as whether the backfilled survivor gets to pick their own perks or if they are forced to play with whatever the DC'd survivor had.)
- Let the remaining players vote on whether to continue with the match. Players could change their vote at any time for the remainder of the match. If the vote ever becomes a unanimous "no" then the match immediately ends without penalty for the remaining players, who all get whatever BP they had and possibly some bonus BP for the inconvenience. All players not in a group with the DC'd player are guaranteed a safety-pip. Nobody's MMR is adjusted, except for players in a group with the DC'd player, for which the match is considered a loss.
In both cases I think a matchmaking lock for the DC'ing player is still warranted.
-
It's a factor, but the leading cause is the MMR soft cap that pretends everyone over a certain rating has the same rating.
I recall one of the DBD devs making an offhand remark in one of their videos about how they use modified Glicko for MMR. Glicko takes into account the frequency of recent play to determine the certainty of a player's rating. The more they've played, the more certain their rating and so the less it moves each game; the less they've played, the less certain their rating and so the more it moves each game. For a player with few recent matches, Glicko can easily make adjustments of over 200 rating points from a single match result.
The theory is similar to that of the binary search algorithm: you make large changes at first to try to get the player in the right range for them, then smaller and smaller changes to fine-tune their rating within that range. This is very effective at getting the player very close to their "true" rating in a relatively small number of matches.
By default, Glicko starts ratings at 1500. Various numbers have been thrown out for what the soft cap could be, but 1600 or 2000 seem to be the most frequently-cited numbers.
Now, we don't know exactly what modifications they've made to Glicko, and the exact numbers really don't matter that much for the purposes of this discussion. The point is that it's not too hard to see that it's entirely plausible for someone to reach the MMR soft cap after as few as 3 matches (or the first 3 matches after a break).
And that's where everything breaks down, because as soon as you get close enough to the soft cap, you are suddenly eligible to be matched with players way above it. It's a certain kind of "ELO hell" but at the upper end of the range instead of in the middle.
This is true regardless of how the killer plays. It will happen sooner if the killer employs hyper-efficient strategies, but it will still happen if the killer doesn't -- just later.
I get why the soft cap is there. Without something like it, two problems emerge:
- You have to consistently bring the same energy to every match to achieve the same result, which creates a situation where competitively-minded players are going to have to sweat their ever-loving butts off to get a 2K/2E. (A 2-out being the most perfect possible result in a match where everyone has the same rating.)
- Players at the extreme upper end of MMR have to wait a lot longer for a match because the population at both ends of a bell curve is miniscule.
The only real solutions to problem 2 are to either not solve it and let the players wait, or to give up after some time and feed the top players bunnies they can stomp.
But problem 1 isn't technically a problem. That's what you expect if matchmaking is very good at putting together matches: a very close result every game. So it's actually evidence that matchmaking is good! If you only want either sweaty or chill games, it's perfect. But it becomes problematic when you want to have a combination of sweaty and chill games, which I suspect the majority of the player base does. Matchmaking doesn't have a way to predict how a player will play.
So the soft cap tries to fix this perceived problem by effectively introducing an element of randomness, putting everyone above a certain rating in the same bag and shaking it up to create matches. It works pretty well for players near the median rating of all active players who are above the soft cap. For players near the bottom end of the range, which includes players who are merely approaching the soft cap, possibly for the first time, it can create this wall where you suddenly and apparently inexplicably start facing players who are not just better than you, but not even close to being in the same bracket as you.
But this is by design.
tl;dr: The soft cap creates imbalanced matches. That's literally what it's supposed to do.
-
@Grandpa_Crack_Pipe said:
It's a toss-up between Artist and Spirit for me.
The only one I outright dislike is Doctor's. Clown's theme sounds like a drunk panic attack at the circus-- which is to say, perfect.
Yeah, it's Clown for me. They absolutely nailed the "haunted circus" aesthetic.
-
Yeah, this is a pretty bad daily.
The one about having X survivors step in your traps as Trapper is also annoying for the same reasons (albeit a bit less so) -- it challenges you to accomplish something that is squarely on the survivors' shoulders to accomplish for you. There's no amount of good play that's going to make a good team of survivors step into a single trap on Eryie. You just have to play the numbers game across multiple matches and hope you get lucky.
-
@brokedownpalace said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3302774#Comment_3302774
Complaining about Sprint Burst? Lol. And I very rarely see DS anymore or even OTR
Complaining about Sprint Burst?
Not complaining, no.
Just pointing out it's a two way street. Always has been.
-
I agree, seeing DS, OTR, SB/DH at least twice every match is annoying!
Wait, you were talking about something else?
-
@BarnesFlam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3301826#Comment_3301826
Ha! They introduced time constraints on ugly sweaters and it broke twice: Ada's sweater was available way before intended, and then all 3 new sweaters were overpriced for a bit too.
So clearly, breaking things do not really matter, as long as they can make money.
Lootboxes will surely come. Until we serverly express our disapproval.
I disagree with both sentences in the last paragraph.
I think there's too much legal uncertainty around lootboxes for the devs to seriously consider it.
I also think that if the devs were going to implement lootboxes anyway, they will regardless of the veracity of our disapproval.
-
@Xendritch said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3301837#Comment_3301837
It doesn't benefit survivors other than encouraging them to do what they should probably be doing anyway which if they run to a boon after getting unhooked it then delays that heal but quite a bit. So it's meant to buy time for the killer in a way that's healthier for both sides.
Then it should be basekit, IMO. It seems like it would be a wash for the killer, so -- again -- why would they run it when they could run something that gives them an advantage without also giving the survivors an advantage?
-
@Xendritch said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3301828#Comment_3301828
I may be assuming how this would play out incorrectly but I actually think it might decrease tunneling because it forces the survivor to run away instead of healing under the hook when the killer often comes back after an unhook so given that, they have to actually hide for 18 seconds and then heal. It's meant to encourage them to run away and not be found while delaying the heal for the killer to buy time. If the killer is basically already at the hook when the unhook happens and wants to tunnel this change doesn't do anything to effect that.
So it's a killer perk.... that effectively benefits survivors? Why would any killer run it, then?
Survivors already get 10s of haste and endurance, which should be plenty of motivation to GTFO.
-
@Xendritch said:
No matter really likes the current killer meta it's boring for killers it's boring for survivors and we just need to get away from regression and gen stall in general I feel so I looked over all the perks and here's some changes I would make to some currently really bad perks get us to a more fun chase oriented meta.
Predator: You see scratchmarks for 1/2/3 seconds longer
Territorial Imperative: You see the aura of any survivors when they enter the basement and for an additional 3/4/5 seconds after they leave the basement
Beast of Prey: After putting a survivor in the dying state gain the undetectable status effect for 30 seconds
Hangman's Trick: After being unhooked that survivor gains the broken status effect for 12/15/18 seconds
Unrelenting: increases the cooldown of missed basic attacks by 20/25/30% (now includes when you hit an object)
Brutal Strength: Break Pallets, Walls and Generators 20/25/30% faster
Enduring: Reduce Pallet Stun Duration by 40/45/50%, being pallet stunned while holding a survivor no longer causes you to drop the survivor
Bamboozle: Increases vaulting speed by 5/10/15% and blocks that window for 6/8/10 seconds (one window at a time limit removed)
Hex: Crowd Control: Whenever a survivor vaults a window or pallet they suffer from the hindered status effect (-4%) for 2/3/4 seconds
Eruption: Incapacitated effect reduced to 9/12/15 seconds / Cooldown increased to 40 seconds
Call of Brine: Regression rate decreased to 100/125/150%
Scourge Hook Pain Res: gen progress loss reduced to 8/10/12%
Thoughts? Would this lead to more chases and less kicking gens and camping? Would it lead to a worse meta? What do you think? Keep some of these changes and ditch others?
Hangman's Trick: After being unhooked that survivor gains the broken status effect for 12/15/18 seconds
Coming from an over-1k-hours killer main, this would be an incredibly unhealthy change. Tunneling needs to be made harder, not easier.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3301074#Comment_3301074
Lootboxes is where i draw the line. The day they introduce them is the day i uninstall.
They will not introduce lootboxes.
Games in general seem to be slowly moving away from lootboxes in favor of battle passes (which we already have) due to legal concerns, as a number of regions have instituted partial or complete bans on lootboxes. If they introduced them, they'd be pushed out of several markets either now or in the near future.
Theoretically they have the option to implement them on a regional basis, but seeing how much very basic stuff they struggle with (chat censoring ##### to mind) I really doubt they could implement this without breaking a whole bunch of unrelated stuff.
-
It's 5 minutes from when you DC'd. If it took you 4 minutes to get back to the killer/survivor screen you would see 1 minute remaining. For example, if the game crashed and it took 4 minutes to load back up, or if you left the match and you stayed on the scoreboard for 4 minutes.
-
Same, I lost a lot of event offerings not knowing that it was unnecessary to prestige. Unfortunately, BHVR has moved on so I very much doubt anything will be done.
-
@Sava18 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3249041#Comment_3249041
It's absolutely not the best metric and prestige is especially not the best metric. It takes like 50-75 hours of playtime max to get prestige 100 on a character, that could mean a 100 hour player spent another 75 hours getting prestige 100 on their favorite character. But the time metric falls off fast in terms of skill, if you are actually trying to learn how to play the game it shouldn't take very long to get the basics down. This game is not hard and yet players with 6000 hours will be mid tier in skill and a player with 600 hours will be high tier in skill. Performance is the best metric of skill, a total 8k hour survivor team can be intimidating but the amount of time's I've run through them like butter even though they run their best stuff is countless. Especially in this game where a good portion of player's play it like a party game with no intent to improve anything other than their loadout it means even less. So many variable's in every video game go into how much a player can improve and while time is a factor, it's not the best indicator. How much do people try in video game's overall, how much do people go out of their way to improve, how much information do they absorb from people better than them in order to improve, do they even realize their own mistakes or are they blaming it on the game and do they even have the potential of a good player in general. In league which is a game many time's harder than dbd the player's with the highest mastery points(essentially prestige) are typically bronze or silver player's with thousands to tens of thousands of hours.
TLDR; time is indicator but a weak one with too many variables. Prestige is not actually a representation of time in general, but how much time you have spent recently on dbd relatively.
Prestige is not actually a representation of time in general, but how much time you have spent recently on dbd relatively.
As a way to compare survivors, that's still going to give an indication of skill better than a coin flip would, so there may not be a strong correlation but there is at least a weak one.
-
@Katzengott said:
All you need is prestige 3 on every char so you have all perks on all survs and killers, prestige 6 if you like the look of the bloody cosmetics.
Everything else is just a waste of time spending in the bloodweb, i'm done with that.
Prestige is forced now after 50, so I'm not sure how else you're going to get addons and offerings on a particular character without spending on webs, unless you already have enough to last you until you quit the game.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
This reminds me of Super Paper Mario... Wonder if we're gonna see a realm utterly obliterated.
Please let it be Coldwind.
Pleasepleaseplease.
-
@Steakdabait said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3249149#Comment_3249149
It's really easy to argue in good faith about CJing if you actually use a reasonably definition for exploiting. "use of elements of a game system in a manner not intended by the game's designers" is an insanely broad definition that if you were to use it as it read would make a large amount of the current gameplay would be considered exploiting. Moonwalking and looping are "exploits" under that definition. Cjtech isn't an exploit because no mechanics are broken or ignored, just like moonwalking and looping. A good example of what i believe is an exploit is hugtech or the flashlight window exploit, you are very very clearly breaking game mechanics when doing these exploits. Ether with ignoring collision or changing your vault direction with the window exploit.
"Not intended by the developers" is a required part of the definition of an exploit. I could just as easily argue that "breaking and ignoring mechanics" is underspecified. Was endurance stacking on the 6.1.0 PTB "breaking mechanics" or was it just using endurance? It all hinges on whether the developers intended it to be in the game.
I can't think of a possible argument that says it's not an exploit to abuse an oversight in how keybindings currently work to make a player perform a completely different type of action than they intended, unless we are just going to disagree on what even constitutes an exploit in the first place.
And yes, looping originally was technically an exploit under this definition when it was first discovered. Abusing the old infinites in particular under your definition wouldn't be an exploit, and I would disagree there. Since then the developers have embraced looping and fixed infinites in most cases by adding entity blocking of vaults, so it's an example of something that I would say was an exploit originally and was then adopted as a core mechanic.
Moonwalking is not an exploit because it confers no advantage to the player using it. It's like sky-billy. Unintended and silly, but not an exploit.
-
Any stealth killer in the hands of someone good at jumpscares. Also Dredge's nightfall is pretty disorienting and makes you feel like you could be snuck up on from any direction.
-
@Steakdabait said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3249055#Comment_3249055
CJ is 110% not an exploit. Exploits ether break or outright ignore game mechanics. CJing is comparable to moonwalking. It's a clever way to use the base game mechanics.
The common definition of an exploit includes "use of elements of a game system in a manner not intended by the game's designers, in a way that gives a substantial unfair advantage to players using it." So I suppose you could argue that it's not a "substantial unfair advantage" since it almost always backfires, so the advantage is arguably negative -- but I have a hard time imagining you could argue in good faith that CJ is "use of elements of a game system in a manner intended by the game's designers."
-
@Akumakaji said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3249115#Comment_3249115
And then delete mothers dwelling. Thats the new game plan!
I like the way you think.
-
@LordRegal said:
I’ll be honest, I don’t know how to run those tiles as either side. Free down for the killer or free escape for the survivor. Feel like an idiot every time.
I feel seen.
For real though, they need more of these unsafe tiles on the larger maps. Putting them in the smaller maps like Coal Tower was a mistake, that map was fairly balanced by being small (good for killer) and having strong tiles (good for survivor). There wasn't a reason to make it killer-sided.
Please take them out of McMillan and put them in Mother's Dwelling.
-
I would say CJ borders on the edge of being an exploit as it abuses the killer's interaction button being overloaded to do too many things instead of having "pick up" and "break" be separate buttons. Claiming that it's intended that survivors can block one of the things the spacebar does to trick them into doing another thing the spacebar does seems disingenuous at best.
Having said that, it's probably the least abusive exploit I've ever seen because it almost never works (I've only fallen for it once and it was due to being distracted by IRL stuff that was going on) and it gives the killer both a free hit and a broken pallet.
I think every single action should be able to be bound to a different key, which would "fix" CJ tech in a roundabout way by actually fixing the underlying problem, which incidentally is the same problem that prevents console players from healing under a pallet, prevents survivors in deep wounds from opening the exit gates, and can cause survivors to accidentally jump into lockers adjacent to a vault they are trying to take: one button doing multiple things that are all possible at the same time.
-
@ProfessorDunwich said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3249003#Comment_3249003
Felt like I am the only one. It's baffling that others don't recognize that time spent playing is best individual metric for skill.
People who haven't studied stats draw bad conclusions that sound good. They always make the same argument: it's not always true that the player with a higher prestige is better than a player with a lower prestige.
But nobody ever claimed it's true in every case.
Put it another way: if prestige was not an indication of skill whatsoever then given any two survivors with any prestige level, predicting the higher-prestige survivor is better than the lower-prestige survivor would be correct half of the time. Given enough guesses over various pairs of survivors, the result would tend towards exactly 50% accuracy.
But my experience does not show that to be the case. It's not always true that higher-prestige survivors play better than lower-prestige survivors, but it's definitely true more than half of the time which is all you need to say there is a correlation, even if it's a weak one.
-
Prestige is a clue of hours played, and hours played is a clue of skill. They are not equal, but they are a rough indicator. Outliers existing doesn't disprove the trend.
-
As killer when I see this I try to make sure the troll dies and the victim lives, but in the heat of the moment it can be really hard to tell who is a troll and who is new to the game.
-
@Laluzi said:
I mean, yeah, Wretched Shop and Wrecker's Yard are pretty killer friendly. So is Midwich and Shelter Woods.
There's way more purely survivor-sided maps, though. All variations of Badham, The Game, Garden of Joy, Eyrie, RPD, Cowshed, Gas Heaven, Groaning Storehouse. And apart from Midwich, gates are pure RNG. I think it's rather silly to claim BHVR is trying to cater to killers with their map design when they haven't released a single killer-friendly map in two years.
RPD also has fixed gates now, but even before there were only two possible arrangements and both were very survivor-friendly so I'd call that effectively fixed gate spawns.
-
@Grandpa_Crack_Pipe said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3248517#Comment_3248517
Do you consider not being able to break a pallet while it's being vaulted a exploit?
I think it's more about not having dedicated buttons for "pick up survivor" vs "break pallet." I don't know why every game dev these days seems to think it's a good idea to overload buttons so they do more than one thing, unless it's actually impossible to have both options at the same time (e.g. spacebar for hooking a survivor is fine since you can't kick a pallet while carrying anyway).
See also: console players who drop pallets instead of healing. Though this should not be an issue at all on PC where we have 100+ buttons on our keyboards.
Let me bind "pick up survivor" separately and I can just bind it to R, the same key used to drop survivors by default. This "fixes" CJ by having the spacebar simply do nothing at all if a survivor is vaulting the pallet, which seems like a good change to me. Tricking the killer into doing an action on an overloaded button by blocking the other action seems to me to fall into the category of "unintended mechanics." Like tricking the killer into vaulting a window or checking a locker instead of picking up, which -- while comical when it happens -- is still dumb.
Note this hits on the survivor side as well. In particular, being in deep wounds blocks some actions such as opening the gates because mending has higher priority over the E button. This is honestly just bad design. Some actions shouldn't be blocked by others simply because they share the same input key.
-
@TheSubstitute said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3247607#Comment_3247607
I would like to see any of the supposedly 'high MMR/tournament players' that say they complain about Nurse 'but that's okay because they also feel SWF is broken' actually post in any of the threads about SWF instead of just incessantly complaining about Nurse in every thread they write in (regardless of if the thread topic even has anything to do with Nurse).
They won't because they know BHVR won't do anything to SWF. They've said as much already, so there is little point.
As much as it sucks, SWF draws players in. Killers are the fodder for survivors; BHVR only needs to keep around 1 killer player for every 4 survivor players, so it's in their financial best interests to ensure that SWF players have the best experience and killer players have only a good enough experience not to leave the game.
Every so often, killers get a killer-sided patch, enough to make us think that BHVR cares about our experience and hopeful for the future, only to watch as they continue doing nothing to address the underlying concerns about e.g. maps. It's exactly the same situation as Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown, yanking it away just before he kicks it.
It would be comical if it weren't so depressing.
-
Yes, but only as nurse for some reason.
-
@cburton311 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3220401#Comment_3220401
It's not sadism to let people play the game, albeit in a way that will ultimately fail. Leaving them slugged for 4 minutes is sadistic and is contributing to survivors just dc'ing out of games. They don't dc because they are having fun....
What? Nobody is talking about leaving them slugged for 4 minutes. This comparison doesn't make any sense; you're conflating ending the match quickly with egregious BM.
Letting people try hopelessly to win may not technically be sadistic, but it is definitely cruel to torture them with the hope of escape.
-
@cburton311 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3219559#Comment_3219559
Why does not camping or slug at 5 gens mean show mercy? Play your game, but maybe with a DC in play...take your boot off the survivors throat. That's all I'm saying.
To draw out a doomed game? That seems sadistic, not merciful.
-
@versacefeng said:
Someone please tell me what FOMO is.
Fear of missing out.
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3219552#Comment_3219552
Shrug.
I joined when this game was extremely survivor sided.
Now the game is fairly balanced (killer versus SWF) or a bit killer sided (killer versus solo) depending on how survivors approach things.
I think, between the time I started playing (early 2020) to now, I've had a total of 2 survivors give me a kill on a blowout game.
I started learning survivor last year. I'd say I've seen maybe 500, likely more killers in that time give someone hatch or a gate.
What I'm saying is:
- 'Killers' aren't a monolith. There are some mean ones and some nice ones. Ditto survivors.
- By the numbers (and I'm sure anyone who plays both roles will back me up on this), you are more likely to be shown mercy by a killer than a survivor, even though there will be 4 survivors to every killer.
- Many survivors expect to be let go if they're the last survivor - again, I'm sure any killer player will confirm how often we get BM in postgame if we don't give hatch. However, on games where all survivors escape, there isn't even a consideration of giving them a charity kill.
It seems that there's a double standard here, where killers are expected to abide by unwritten rules of sportsmanship that survivors aren't. Why?
I wish I could upvote posts more than once.
When I first started playing I showed mercy quite a bit as a killer, especially if I destroyed the survivors. I still will occasionally but having experienced over 1k hours in this game, I'm now more ... experienced? Jaded? Take your pick.
In my 1k+ hours in this game, a survivor has attempted to give me a pity kill after a rough match a total of three times.
Three.
And yet I'm the unsportsmanlike one for wanting to finish a cursed match quickly so we can go next? Mmhmm, yeah.
I've simply given up following any kind of rulebook anymore; you will get yelled at whatever you do, so I have decided to play how I want, and as a result I have more fun.
But, just to be clear, when someone DCs right off the bat, it bothers me a lot as well. I'm not sitting there excited, thinking how much easier the match will be to win. The DC robbed survivors of their ability to win, and in so doing robbed me of any challenge and therefore meaning in the match. It sucks for everyone.
-
@sonata93 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3208430#Comment_3208430
People using slurs/offensive language in the EGC is a clear attempt at inflicting harm and hurt on another person. In my case, the language used at me was loaded with dated and highly-offensive terminology. So no... the 'just pixels' argument is completely invalid because the intent was clear because of their choice of language (which is universally considered offensive and bigoted).
Teabagging at the exit gate because all four survivors escaped is not comparable to the above situation, nor the ones that are (sadly) happening regularly within gaming communities.
You're trying to put teabagging on this pedestal of being super offensive when the reality is it's only 'offensive' when the killer loses. And even then, I cannot in good faith use the word 'offensive' in relation to an animated person crouching up and down. So no, you trying to say to compare me saying 'its just an animation' in relation to other social mechanisms ('it's just a word', etc) is completely flawed. You didn't even answer my original question: what offense is caused by teabagging, exactly? Being annoyed that you 'lost' a game is not an offense.
Retrospectively, it's pretty silly that I'm having to justify the difference between experiencing bigotry/homophobia in the end-game chat to 'teabagging'. We will agree to disagree on this one, I've justified my stance, as have you.
I'm not saying that teabagging at the gates and bigotry in chat are the same severity. You keep making that comparison as though I disagree that one is worse than the other, which I don't.
Again, "worse stuff exists" is not an argument for why the less worse thing needs to be tolerated by the community.