Toystory3Monkey
Toystory3Monkey
About
- Username
- Toystory3Monkey
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3825733#Comment_3825733
The problem with adding hook counters to the HUD, is BHVR might give survivors actual new content on their HUDs, then give killers just the hook counter on their HUD, and call it even.
i dont think that would be the case or that would be a problem if that would happen.
i feel like killer dont really need HUD to track a lot of things for them like survivors lacking comms do. Although there need to be limits too, because comms arent as consistent as directly showing info.
-
WoO is a wasted perk slot and asking for it to be nerfed is asking survivors to be forced to play with 4 perks instead of 3.
-
@Skittlesthehusky said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3825648#Comment_3825648
in reference to your instacancel statement, i'm assuming you're speaking of the abrupt ending of his shred when you release m2, particularly used in zoning. to me it's not really unhealthy. it's merely just another tool used to threaten the survivor similar to how other killers can threaten the position of a survivor or force them to burn a resource.
however, i wasn't speaking on the premise of him being nerfed. i'm speaking from the perspective of making changes that otherwise affect how the demogorgon plays in general. i do agree some QOL would be appreciated!I believe if they nerfed pyramid head and deathslinger for this exact reason and then proceeded to make ALL following midrange m2 killers with cancel penalties (except xenomorph who inherently cannot cancel and hold the power eliminating the issue at its root) then Demogorgon doesn't really need that either, especially if they compensate that with proper buffs.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3825637#Comment_3825637
Hook counters aren't really a big deal, because we can easily track that stuff with a pen and paper next to our mouse.
I'm talking about HUD improvements, like allowing killers to see the same killer power progress that the survivors see. If a survivor sees an infection meter on their HUD, the killer should see it too.
The same goes for status effects. If a survivor is afflicted with a status effect like oblivious, then let the killer see that too.
You know, give killers additional information that they don't have access to now.
I think if I have to use pen and paper or really pay attention to something that can be avoided by simply playing more sweaty, it should be simply added to HUD.
I genuinely never experience issues with tracking hooks when I play to tunnel. Right away, on 5 gens, on 1st hook, till victory. See the goal, see no obstacles.
I do however run into issues when Im playing casually in a chill way and survivors get a win simply because I allowed myself weakness of spreading hooks and now I dont remember which one of them is dead on hook and which one will be 2nd stage, making me lose the game for committing to a chase that doesnt give me a kill at the time when I should've had a kill like 2 minutes ago already
-
@Skittlesthehusky said:
i'm a wee bit concerned about demo being on the list of changes but given how his performance has improved from what ive seen since stranger things ptb, i'd assume he's not going to be touched too much.
hopefully the changes will merely just consider tweaking a few numbers rather than whole changes to his kit or add-ons. he's in a relatively good spot and suits a variety of different playstyles. at the most he might need a few numbers changed for his portals, but that's really all that needs to be done as far as he goes.
there's no way they'll net nerf him.
it's possible they finally recognize how unhealthy his insta cancel is and do something about it, but they won't simply nerf low killrate low pickrate killer like demo. it'll probably be a bunch of addons basekit or maybe big QoLs to his portals alongside that. would be nice being able to teleport to portals without having to stand on one or being able to place them instantly.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
I hope Activity HUD Improvements involves the killer HUD too…
yeah, would be nice to get hook counter for killers too. it's disingenuous to have UI designed specifically to deny killer crucial information to force them into playing nice. People who play to tunnel can focus and never lose track of a single person's hook stages, while good faith players must track hooks in order not to get screwed by bad target pick in the mid game.
-
Realistically - nothing exciting. Best case scenario - they give Freddy back his old dreamworld mechanic (intangible until he pulls survivor in the dream world where they get short grace period before they can be attacked) and combine it with his V2 abilities so he gets the best of both versions while also receiving some lift ups.
But I hope they somehow give Freddy pocket dimension to where he pulls survivors to chase them 1 v 1 without any chance for their teammates to aid them directly. Like the void from event except he can just pull the survivor there.
Like, Freddy is invisible / intangible by default. First hit doesnt do anything to survivor (but since Freddy is invisible to them and they cant know how close he is, it's borderline unavoidable) except pulling them in the dream world. Second hit (in trial grounds to asleep survivor) pulls them inside the "boiler room" which is basically an unsafe mindgame-able tile(s) where Freddy can easily outplay survivor and on third hit they go down and can be hooked or killed right away if they've reached the hook stage.
That's basically very bare concept for what I personally wish Freddy to be and I think if just more is added on it, it could be amazing.
-
@Sackboy123 said:
Chapter 13 - Stranger Things
Will always hold a soft spot for me, everything about it was perfect. Massive turning point for DbD's future to get bigger licenses in the game and at the time, Netflix was top cow
Honorable mention to Chapter 2 - Halloween
Without this chapter, DbD might have died a long time ago nd this was a kickstart to future licences and opened the door to many possibilities
that sudden reveal where they hosted the stream with a countdown and flipped upside down question mark and showed the trailer was one of the most amazing things ive witnessed in my dbd career.
im sad they didnt do the same for Alien trailer, they just silent dropped it (right when I was telling some people alien fits dbd and who were telling me im wrong LMFAO)
-
Alien.
-
@AhoyWolf said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3824452#Comment_3824452
Yea, it also takes the Terror Radius a while to fade away, so getting closer to Survivors without slowing you down so much would be great!
not really, as someone pointed out it would be a placebo.
the real usage for 28 TR is to play with whispers and instacrouch whenever it highlighted, making it way more likely for you to attack survivors without them expecting you while not having to crouch the whole time.
-
@fussy said:
I don't know where you see connection between mori of the LAST survivor and tunneling, but I can tell you exactly where there is a connection between the fact that I usually do not tunnel and then regret about it. Survivors should start at least respect these killers who throwing the game just to see "ez loser" or something like this in the chat.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/L19HDO1ASHHR/askreen.png
>antagonize people playing killer in a game where fun severely hinges on the "1" in "1v4" being nice
>condition them to play competitively by systematically punishing them when they dont>why are all killers so sweaty and always camping/tunnelling/slugging, i wish people knew how to have FUN
-
@Roaroftime said:
Ok deal if something is done about killers taking the game hostage slugging all 4 survs till they bleed out also
thats not taking the game hostage by definition and therefore a different kind of issue bringing which in this particular context is a blatant whataboutism
-
Killer's event power is boring and not even helpful in games you're losing because going away from the map for like 15 seconds to pick it up is not worth the potential payoff in 9/10 cases.
Literally boring "Win harder" button that you have to go out of your way to press.
I'd take something fun like smoke grenades that survivors got any time over this. Though that's exactly what I did, most of my playtime this event is survivor - abusing Lucky star in its peak glory.
P.S. BHVR please add smoke grenades as a perk / item. Insanely cool stuff, survivors desperately need stuff like that being added from time to time to the main game to have more variety.
-
@Roaroftime said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3823811#Comment_3823811
These killers have a low skill ceiling so ppl pick them for a free 4k almost everytime, then there's killer players like me who actually play for fun and do fine getting 2-3k with my unknown, dracula and myers. Not every round has to be a 4k and devs need to stop pushing this idea.
yeah and most people dont enjoy that because these games are too stressful because you are in a losing position and have to put progressively more effort for progressively less reward just to keep the game going.
people dont like lacking agency or skill expression on the power role.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3795122#Comment_3795122
"The game favors survivors because killer not winning is an actual possibility, only when thekiller wins every game would it be killer sided " do you hear yourself
"killers get slightly more kills than survivors escape on average therefore the game is killer sided" do you even hear yourself?
btw, nurse needs buffs, she has poor killrates. and they need to nerf freddy, i heard he is one of the top % killers. stats are everything, right?
-
@mizark3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3795122#Comment_3795122
You never did math, you just asserted Nightlight is a good source, as if sweatlords self-reporting being the only ones to contribute, and people not contributing their losses at the same rate of their wins could ever be a decent source. Then you dismissed BHVR's stats out of hand for no discernible reason from my reading. If you are talking about a specific comment, I suggest you link it.
If the game is as Survivor sided as you claim, all I ask is 10 matches in a row as soloq. Show me you get more than 50% of Survivors out. That's the problem, is that reality shows that too many Survivors single-handedly lose the game for their team. The last time I played with friends, the best we got was a 2-out among 10+ matches. The last time I played soloq, with 10+ matches, I only remember 1 or 2 matches with 3+ out. As Killer, I have 0 difficulty winning matches at roughly the same rates. If I play both sides, and Killer is ez mode in both, then either my brain is hard-wired to never lose as Killer while always losing as Survivor, or the game is extremely Killer-sided.
I still can't comprehend your point, Killer being designed to win more than lose make it Survivor sided? 60% Killer win in the Kill/Escape matchup makes Survivor more likely to win? And you accuse me of manipulating numbers? Like just using basic logic, a 100% kill rate is a full Killer win, a 100% escape rate is a full Survivor win, and a 50-50 is a tie/draw for both sides (although it is made up of 2 wins for Killer and 2 wins for Survivor).
The matchmaking is part of the game, just as the mechanics are. The game similarly balanced around 60% killrates back when we used Rank/Grade based matchmaking, and it didn't make the game any less Killer sided. If you want to talk about customs, then you can have that conversation elsewhere, because everyone here is only talking about the game you experience when you hit play to find a match. If Survivors are losing because of bad matchmaking, they still experience all those bad matches. Those experiences aren't automatically discarded because they are inconvenient to your argument. Also if the whole reason Survivors lose is they have a bad team(mate) in comparison to their opposition, then wouldn't it track that the whole reason a Killer loses is because they have a bad team(mate) in comparison to their opposition?
i asserted? lmao, i was only running off the sources the other guy provided.
but it doesnt matter which big data source i use, the logic applies everywhere.
and, again, your whole argument is based on including players refusal to play the game to win and lack of skill to do so. yeah, it's harder to survivors to get 4 people to sweat and get good, but guess ######### what happens when they do that.
by your own logic nurse is a weak killer because she has notoriously low killrates, while freddy krueger, pinhead or whatever need to be nerfed into the ground.
-
@mizark3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3795050#Comment_3795050
Then do the math yourself to show me how I'm wrong. Otherwise you are admitting I am objectively correct! Thanks for your endorsement!
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3795065#Comment_3795065
Yes, this is the most correct assessment I've seen. I combined all possible sets of 5 matches with 60% killrates, and the sum total was the 22S/28D/50K. Some sets must be more common than others, but that varies from person to person.
Theoretically, the set with 4 draws and a 4K could happen at the most frequent rate, leaving Killer winrate at 20%, Survivor winrate at 0%, and draw rate at 80%. IME most matches end in 3Ks, and the least amount of matches end in 2K+2E (playing both sides). The problem there is if I use the set with the most 3Ks (and least 2K+2E), we get 4 matches of 3Ks, and 1 match of a 4E, leaving a 20S/80K, far below the 40S/60K we would expect.
Overall my point is that statistically it is likely that the Survivor winrate could never reasonably exceed 40% when taken in aggregate. That's why when I argue against Killer-sided main-brain comments, I use the most favorable (, yet plausible) numbers for their argument, being the 60/40 split. It likely is less than that, but I have to use the numbers most favorable for their point.
I did the math above in the thread and it fell on deaf ears because people are too busy making a victim of themselves instead of admitting the truth lmao.
let me repeat the takeaway again very short: 60% killrate in conditions where one side is represented by a single player having full agency and capability of learning for their side while the other side consists of mostly random people incapable of fully expressing skill due to lack of an ability to optimize themselves and depending on each other's performance INHERENTLY means the game is survivor sided because the killrate is closer to 50% than it is to 75%+.
If the game was killer sided, the survivors would barely EVER get even a single person through gates, let alone more than 2 and killrates would be above 75% since most games would naturally result into 3k+hatch. That's not the case though, survivors are able to get 2 outs or move often enough to make killrates lean closer to 50% than 75%.
to put it another way: if survivors werent victims (actual ones) of poor matchmaking and lack of communications that deny them the ability to learn working as a team and drag each other down whenever there's a weak link, they'd be winning most of their games as long as they aren't severely outskilled / throwing. the game is balanced around the assumption survivors are always underpeforming so when they are not underperforming and actually put the roughly equal skill & effort input as the killer, the game is severely in their favour.
but you can keep making up more elaborate mental gymnastics instead of admitting the game is ultimately survivor sided and that's okay for it to be like that to a certain extent because survivors players are handicapped in terms of skill expression by this game's poor matchmaking. but folks here rather deny the obvious and make fools out of themself.
-
@ArthurVeloso said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3795082#Comment_3795082
Let’s break this down based on the mechanics of Premonition and its interactions with undetectable killers:
Undetectable Killers and Premonition: Premonition does work on undetectable killers. The Undetectable status effect removes the killer’s terror radius, red stain, and visual heartbeat, but it doesn’t prevent Premonition from alerting survivors when the killer is within their facing direction. This sets Premonition apart from perks like Spine Chill, which used to offer continuous feedback regardless of the killer's stealth status.
Spine Chill's Role and Premonition's Function: When Spine Chill worked on undetectable killers, it was a crucial tool for surviving against stealthy killers such as Ghost Face, Wraith, or Myers in his Stalker phase. It provided consistent awareness, helping survivors effectively counter stealth tactics. However, with Spine Chill no longer functioning in this capacity, survivors have lost a significant means of countering undetectable killers.
Premonition now fills a similar niche by providing directional alerts when the killer is in the survivor's line of sight. While it still works against undetectable killers, it only indicates the direction the killer is coming from and doesn’t provide detailed information on distance or the nature of the threat. Unlike Spine Chill, it doesn’t offer continuous feedback and is hampered by a cooldown, which significantly limits its utility.
The “Big No” Argument: The concern that buffing Premonition would overly weaken stealthy killers overlooks several key factors. While Premonition does give survivors an indication of a nearby undetectable killer, it still requires the survivor to actively look in the direction of the threat. This limitation means that Premonition does not grant continuous awareness or detailed information, and the survivor must be vigilant, making it less of a comprehensive solution.
Moreover, stealthy killers retain their strengths even with Premonition in play. They can still use their abilities to reposition and catch survivors off guard. Killers with high mobility or stealth abilities can exploit survivor distractions or approach from angles not covered by Premonition, ensuring that the perk doesn’t negate their advantages but rather balances the playing field.
Given that Spine Chill no longer functions against undetectable killers, allowing Premonition to maintain its current effectiveness is a fair compromise. Removing the cooldown on Premonition would provide a needed buff, making it a more viable option for survivors against stealthy killers without unbalancing the gameplay. The perk’s current limitations, including its directional nature and cooldown, prevent it from being an overpowering tool, ensuring that stealthy killers can still employ their tactics effectively.In conclusion, allowing Premonition to continue functioning against undetectable killers, with a potential buff to remove the cooldown, does not break the game or overly penalize stealth-based killers. It provides a balanced alternative to the lost effectiveness of Spine Chill, keeping the game dynamic and fair for both sides.
yeah, so no, you lost me.
-
stuff like this needs to be made more consistent to pull off and be a part of the advanced skill set for diehard mains.
cutting off skill expression bc survivors suck and cant be bothered to learn what to do is lame.
-
I dont remember if premonition works on undetectable killers, it shouldnt, in case it isnt, I agree, otherwise big no.
-
Quiet Place death angels.
If we got demogorgon and xenomorph, that thing would work too. Maybe it won't be the universally loved desing, but it would def be something unique and fun for those who'd enjoy it.
-
The word you're looking for is "bleeding out".
I personally would love if survivors were able to pick themselves up after some time being slugged (unrelated to recovery but would still require full recovery to work), but that would cost them a hook stage. if they don't have any more hook stages left (dead on hook) they'll still be able to pick themselves up but then next time they go down they could either die immediately / be moriable / would just be on a timer till they die regardless of going down again.
So the game could still progress, the killer would still get pressure, but slugging now would progress the main objective and won't rob survivors entirely out of agency.
Hook stage price would make sure it cant be abused to create unwinnable scenarios like denying killer a hook by threatening uncounterable within pick up frame flashlight/pallet save.
Still remains optional for the survivors so it cant be abused by killers trying to win the game by slugging - survivors will be able to reset normally and keep the costly self pick up until they can't keep up anymore but in that case they would've lost the game anyway by now.
Would add more strategy to the whole interaction and won't outright kill it.
Or a more simple solution and give bleedout button so people can just give up and inflate killrates anytime they get slugged, lol.
-
nothing can be really done about that unless the game is either designed for each singular survivor to have as much agency in the whole match as the killer or survivors are overbuffed to the point game is balanced around complete lack of coordination rather than just partial presence (mix of solo/swfs) as it is now.
it would be interesting to see self sufficient survivor meta go back, but i dont think it will happen, it requires way too many changes to the game.
-
me when the game requires 80% of the players to pick survivors for a lobby and only 70% pick survivor
-
@mizark3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3794557#Comment_3794557
Yeah, when the Killer is more of an uncoordinated bot the Survivors can also be uncoordinated bots and escape. When it is an even match, it should average out to 60/40.
Also the below section also applies to you.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3794629#Comment_3794629
60% Kill rate isn't 60% winrate, but it is the argument most favorable to a generic Killer facing position. I did the math, and the average numbers are much worse for Survivor (as a team). Survivor winrate is 22%, Draw rate is 28%, and Killer winrate is 50%. Now if you are generous and hand out Draws 50-50, each get a 14% boost for 36% Surv, 64% Killer, still worse than 40/60 respectively. If you instead discard Draws, you get ~30% Surv ~70% Killer*. So that means Survivor winrate is significantly worse than 40%.
That's why I use the generous estimate of 60% killrate = 60% winrate, because the truth is far more dire for Survivors.
* Its closer to 31/69, but I prefer to avoid 'nice' comments.
me when i manipulate math to fit my victim narrative:
-
self care was one of the pillars of self sufficient survivor meta which devs wanted to avoid.
i personally wouldnt mind if we went back to that and nerfed teamwork, but then people would cry hard.
-
@Rick1998 said:
simple . Buffs to his m2 making the chain less rng and the actuall slowdown you get on a chain hit more conssistent. Perhaps buffs to his turn rate add ons and a few other . The one nerf or change i could see is making survivors auras visible when within 16m of the box. This would help lessen the confusion the box may cause in solo queue. PH is almost a perfect killer so i hope they don't change him too much.
I dont think showing survivor auras within 16m of the box would help because the issue is when multiple uncoordinated survivors drop their tasks to cross the map to fetch the box. or assume someone else would do that and leave it unattended.
IMO there's nothing that can be really done about the box except just hoping solo q people learn enough gamesense to utilize UI to figure when they should be the ones to commit to the box.
-
@HexHuntressThighs said:
I still haven't heard a good reason for these perks being M1 only. Does anyone have any new piece of evidence for why it shouldn't change?
because devs dont want special attack killers have too much synergy with certain perks because whenever the m1 req is removed from a perk like that (eruption, blood favour) it quickly becomes a very powerful option for m2s and that causes tons of balancing issues bc S tier killers become able to use these perks.
-
he's op for the effort he takes.
very easy power to use, not much risk and high uptime.
very exploitable weaknesses though, but they dont scale well with the skill level of either side.
-
@mizark3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3794336#Comment_3794336
Yeah which completely demolishes the idea of the game being 'Survivor sided' when they are designed to lose 60% of the time. Even when we falsely use Apex Fallacy for 4-man SWF at High MMR from these alone, we still see the game is Killer sided since they still win more often than Survivors.
game balanced for 60% kr means that survivors almost always being uncoordinated bots can still get gens&exits.
60% kr isnt 60% winrate, it means that killer gets less than 3 kills on AVERAGE.
please learn to interpret that data in the context it's provided instead of looking at number and say "it's bigger than half, means game is killer sided".
-
Potential energy is one of those perks that people never bothered with because they knew the meta they were designed for is going to be patched out sooner or later.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3794175#Comment_3794175
Great, you acknowledge the difference, but you don't acknowledge WHY some of these differences are a thing which is what I'm talking about.This is a funny sentence because literally from the beginning I've been arguing they are substantially different. That was the origin of why I responded to you.
The reason why survivors are not allowed to use pretty much all meta or mildly meta perks or resort to using a system specifically created to patch certain playstyles in competitive is because if survivors were allowed to play with all that, pretty much all killers would be unable to even get close to winning the game due to how many resources and second chances survivors would be allowed to use.You're just ignoring though all the bans that killers have. Looking at the DbD league ruleset from the Spring Invitational, the bans on the killer perks seem just as powerful as the ones on survivor.
The WHOLE balance talk must be based on the assumption that skill difference & lack of it is not in the picture. Comp dbd does that the best it possibly could be.I'll go back to my poker example. If you take a game that has a huge level of randomness and you pull that randomness out, you don't prove anything about the game, because you've made a different game.
We're not talking skill levels, we're talking multiple core elements of the game.
Everything in comp dbd makes KILLER'S life easier and yet people still struggle on that level simply because how powerful still survivors are.What do you base these statements on? You just make these claims without any evidence.
Let's take your assertion of struggle and look to the Spring Invitational, which I think is the last major Western tournament to be held. There were 12 games between Elysium and X9. The end game results: 4 4ks, 1 3k, 2 2ks, 2 1k, and 2 0k. That doesn't seem like the killers were struggling.
And not related to anything, but I just realized they basically hit BHVR's 60% kill rate perfectly.
You say survivors have to adapt to RNG in pubs and not in comp, yet if we were to add that RNG back, it would always favour survivors. They would have access to best perks possible from the start, they would have incredibly high chance to get a map that doesn't favour the killer as much as it could be.Earlier you said everything makes Killer's life easier in comp. The thing is, I'm willing to point out things in comp that favor the killer, like always having maps that generally benefit them (some of the S tier killers don't play on their best map), but you're ignoring the things that favor the survivor, like knowing exactly who the killer is or that knowing the map also allows them to make plans on how to counterplay the killer.
then the game is survivor sided due to the fact it's less likely for the killer playing normal way (AKA not resorting to cheesy strategies like tombstone myers, rancor roulette)So to show the game is not survivor sided, we have to eliminate entire elements of the game that killers have access to.
Also are there any 'not normal' things we should be throwing out on the survivor side?
We can count hatch as either draw or loss for the survivors, depending on what criteria from MMR system we use (it's defined as a draw, yet results in MMR loss)Unless something has changed, hatch is MMR neutral.
None of the survivors win if none of them escape through exit gates, killer does not win if any of the survivors escape through exit gates.I mean if that's your definition, the game is very killer sided. If we throw out everything in the middle, 4ks way outnumber 4es.
In that case, killers past certain point are unable to properly compete or stand a fighting chance because survivors simply possess too much agency and resources to consistently beat the killer.Based on what? BHVR's stats don't make it look like that, Nightlight doesn't, win streaks don't. There are multiple sources of data which show the game to be killer sided, I'm asking what supports the idea that that is not true?
Survivors are given resources that allow to recover from the mistakes the killer is supposed to capitalize on.I've asked this before, what specifically do you mean? I can think of some possibilities, but I don't want to guess.
it doesnt matter because at this point your otherwise correct play of defending hook in a 3 gen was completely negated by the perk simply existing.Then it wasn't the correct play. Though if you're defending a hook in a 3 gen, you've still maintained the 3 gen, so the idea that the game is completely lost seems an exaggeration.
Then we have examples on the killer side: NOED, Devour Hope, etc. where the correct play changes based off trying to guess what perks the killer is running.
And it's pretty much like that for a lot of plays you've mentioned. It's not a mistake, it's a valid play for survivors.Of course its a valid play for survivors. That's the game, trying to make guesses about what the other side is doing. Sometimes you don't, regardless of the role you are playing.
You're just ignoring though all the bans that killers have
Looking at the DbD league ruleset from the Spring Invitational, the bans on the killer perks seem just as powerful as the ones on survivor.
We can address and compare those bans. I assure you most of them have way different nature than survivor bans.
Killer bans are aimed at crutch perks or cheesy perks. A lot of aura reading, perks like PWYF that outright allow to remove skill from chases by rushing down ppl with 15% haste. And of course, aforementioned kill cheese mechanics that dont necessarily allow to get good results, but almost guarantee you'll get a kill or two. Grim/DMS/Deadlock and with no AFC system you'll get the most exciting and skillful gameplay of killer facecamping survivor for free with no counterplay to it.
I dont think this should count as an argument towards the game being killer sided. Again, as I've previously established, we aim to ignore bypassing normal gameplay & objective through cheesing game mechanics on killer's end. Nobody plays like that, nobody enjoys playing like that and nobody should play like that to have to win.
I'll go back to my poker example. If you take a game that has a huge level of randomness and you pull that randomness out, you don't prove anything about the game, because you've made a different game.
We're not talking skill levels, we're talking multiple core elements of the game.
DbD isnt poker and poker isnt DbD.
None of the RNG factors we are considering are the major contributors to the balance due to them not tilting the scales to the other side in any meaningful away apart from the aforementioned cheesing kills example.
And, as I've said, if you think that killers should have to play like that to always stand a chance at winning, you're very wrong.
You say that comp makes it so survivors know what the killer is or that they can choose which one to face. So survivors in pubs dont know / cant ban the killer? Are you trying to argue that the fact that survivor can be ignorant to how to deal with a certain killer makes the game killer sided? Is that your argument here?
What do you base these statements on? You just make these claims without any evidence.
Let's take your assertion of struggle and look to the Spring Invitational, which I think is the last major Western tournament to be held. There were 12 games between Elysium and X9. The end game results: 4 4ks, 1 3k, 2 2ks, 2 1k, and 2 0k. That doesn't seem like the killers were struggling.
And not related to anything, but I just realized they basically hit BHVR's 60% kill rate perfectly.
So, killers had 10 games and lost 5 of them by our definitions and you argue killers aren't struggling? Are you sure you have provided the data you wanted to? Or maybe you wanted to say 4k4 as in 4 gens 4 kills instead of 4 games where killer got 4 kills. Though even if I look at provided data like that I still have 3 games out of 5 being 2 kills or less which is even worse. Top tier killers, literally the best known players in the world, facing best known survivors and still not managing to achieve our established win con in half of the matches.
Earlier you said everything makes Killer's life easier in comp. The thing is, I'm willing to point out things in comp that favor the killer, like always having maps that generally benefit them (some of the S tier killers don't play on their best map), but you're ignoring the things that favor the survivor, like knowing exactly who the killer is or that knowing the map also allows them to make plans on how to counterplay the killer.
Because these things don't make much difference unlike being restricted from using resources and options the game provides. As I've said earlier, survivors DONT HAVE to adapt to any killer they face if they can take 4x4 second chance perks with 4 top tier items. That is the thing you keep failing to understand.
Survivors are allowed to know the killer beforehand alongside map because the game is being individually balanced for each killer. If that was not the case, survivors would be running UNIVERSAL VERSATILE meta that works well enough against ANY killer. Look at the stuff Eternal ran in their streaks.
The only thing survivors truly cannot prepare for is killer deciding to cheese kills on them by taking stuff like tombstone. Then yeah, truly, they might get caught so off guard, they might not win. Though it still would merely depend on what they'd define as winning because Eternal got 2 outs vs that myers and counted that as a draw. That was definitely the kind of games we should be lookin at in the context of such discussions.
So to show the game is not survivor sided, we have to eliminate entire elements of the game that killers have access to.
Also are there any 'not normal' things we should be throwing out on the survivor side?
A very disingenuous way of rewording what I said.
Again, DbD played normally, where both sides play the game and try to complete objective without cheesing it, is survivor sided. That DbD where you chase people and use your braincells is not worth considering because any skill is thrown out of the window. People are exploiting cheesy mechanics to get cheap participation awards shouldnt be considered in balance / design discussion other than examples of things that are wrong with the game.
I mean if that's your definition, the game is very killer sided. If we throw out everything in the middle, 4ks way outnumber 4es.
So you're comparing the extremes without considering the data in the middle that is just as important because that suits your narrative. Who said that only complete wins/losses matter? Who defined that? You? That's a big hypocrisy here.
Based on what? BHVR's stats don't make it look like that, Nightlight doesn't, win streaks don't. There are multiple sources of data which show the game to be killer sided, I'm asking what supports the idea that that is not true?
So let me get this straight. In a game where it's super easy for the whole team to throw, where survivors are so lost they dont know even basic counterplay to half of the killers they encounter given they're more rare than not, where they have no comms, cant be bothered to run proper meta half of the time, get bad rng half of the time, etc,etc killers only score 57% average killrate (according to nightlight) and you actually think the game is killer sided?
In that particular stat, killers LOSE ALL GENS in 48% of the matches.
ALMOST HALF OF THE GAMES. RESULT IN GENS BEING DONE AND 2 OUTS. 2% LESS THAN HALF. OF. THE. GAMES.
and im being ULTRA generous here because not all 3ks (18.69%) & 4ks (32.93%) are done before gens are completed. It's not uncommon for the killer to get 2k by the time last gen pops or just get a lucky snowball in the endgame.
you cant unironically say the game is not survivor sided with these stats given. all that while devs claim to balance for 60% killrate (which still would mean the game being survivor sided at any high level, but nonetheless).
sure you can change your shoes and claim nightlight isn't a reliable source, but then please provide a better one. oh wait, official stats are no better and provide functionally the same info. even full solo qs, poor lost children in the dark forest still have generous chances to complete all gens and escape.
also, streaks don't count, im tired of having to repeat the reasoning to you. You failed to prove my logic being incorrect, you just said nuh-uh and moved on.
I've asked this before, what specifically do you mean? I can think of some possibilities, but I don't want to guess.
So deep into the conversation and you don't know the answer? Deli, unbreakable, decisive, babysitter, camaradiery, otr, meta reset perks, sub meta reset perks, exhaustion perks for lower tiers (oh yeah, they do count, especially when we're talking about killer like ghostface), the list goes and on and on and varies slightly depending on the ruleset and particular killer.
Honestly, I dont think I want to continue this conversation. I'm getting a progressively growing impression you are arguing for the sake of arguing since you misinterpret what I'm saying, ignore previously established or agreed upon points and generally make it move in circles and that's very tiring. Was fun while it lasted, I dont consider it worth the effort anymore.
Feel free to think what you want to think, I said enough of what needed to be said on that subject. If that's not enough to convince you and it clearly isnt, then nothing will, so good luck with dropping arbitrary "you dont have anything more to say" petty last word and have a good day.
-
I too hope freddy rework will bring us back old freddy mechanics.
I'd love if freddy had dream transition initiated by m1ing awake survivors and not actually injuring them. so he had access to old dreamworld mechanics, while also not having buttons occupied that could've been used to let him keep 2.0 abilities.
-
This just punishes killers for any kind of slugging and doesnt give any indication it's even in play to allow playing around it.
Eventually you need to slug to apply pressure and this perk just makes it so that after the inevitably reset, they'll be able to genrush at insane speed.
not to mention that the time it would take for the effect to dissipate should it ever reach any meaningful strength is insane. you'll basically lose the game if you don't proceed to tunnel & down slugged survivor after they were picked up because having up to 100% repair speed bonus (making gens 50% faster) for 200 seconds (3.3 minutes, it's basically 1/3 or 1/4 of the match) on an unpressured survivor = losing game.
ig we want impactful perks, but just no.
-
I think it doesnt because it doesnt reveal killer's aura for a set period of time.
It reveals YOUR aura to the KILLER and then reveals killer aura to you for the whole duration of your aura being visible.
If I remember right OoO is scaled by Lethal Pursuer instead as it's killer who sees your aura for the definitive amount of time.
You would get better results pairing eyes of belmont with scene partner
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3794150#Comment_3794150
You've failed to establish your point then.I don't think you've established your point either, but I'll go back to the beginning. Here is your original statement:
Comp isnt entirely different. The main obvious difference in comp is that it has player enforced balancing and matchmaking which results into a genuine competitive environment.My argument is that comp is radically different from a non-comp game, here are all the ways:
-Survivors know the killer they are facing
-Teams can ban killers they don't want to face
-Both sides know the map
-Always 4 person SWF which at the upper levels have things like try outs to make it.
-Perk and addon bans on both sides
-Perks limited to a single instance on the survivor (obviously) side
-Playing for hooks and gens
-The games are, usually, played sequentially. That means the first killer generally takes safer strategies. Hooking and camping out the first survivor means getting at least five to seven hooks is close to guaranteed. The second game killer strategies will vary wildly based on what they are trying to accomplish. If the survivors need to only do a few gens, camping and tunneling go out the window because the killer needs to spread a ton of pressure.
-More recently, AFC ignored
That seems like a substantially different experience than the non-comp game. I'm not even talking about MMR levels, it's just a fundamentally different game.
All the above is based off Western comp games. If we say that comp is somehow reflective, we also have to address why the Asian region plays under a different ruleset and which one is more reflective of the game.
That is irrelevant to the subject because these are the factors that boil down to rng throwing the skill out of the window or survivors not being prepared to face the killer they go against due to them not having enough experience against that killer.Dealing with RNG is a skill.
Being able to adapt to situations on the fly is a key component of the game. Its also not unique to this game by any means, lots of games (both video and other) have high variability between plays and expect that players who win over time will be the ones who can best adapt to the situation they were given.
The only reason comp needs to reduce these elements is because they play a small number of games. If comp played seasons (which would not be practical for different reasons), you could allow a lot more random elements into the game and they would balance out over time. This is another reason comp is not similar to normal gameplay.
Oh yeah, just "that one streak" that people believing the game is killer sided run with like it's a definitive proof of god existing they brought to an atheist convention.Here's what you originally said:
In my opinion, since most killer streaks (including the aforementioned blight streak) follow "no exit gate escape after 5th gen" logic, then survivor streaks should to.Here's what I replied:
Where does the most come from? Maybe its true, but the killer streaks I come across seem to be the standard kill 3 survivors.If you want to say that you didn't mean most that's fine. That was just an inquiry on my part.
But being we're on the subject, I'm trying to find what portion of the game you are looking to for how its sided. Because if we take the absolute best record on both sides, the killer blows away survivors. If we take the game as a whole, the answer seems to be that survivors are bad and shouldn't be counted.
I'm just trying to find out where the range is you think we should be looking to gauge the game off of.
I presume that this game has no definitive win, loss or draw condition and it's a wide spectrum that people randomly point finger at to determine what is a win con to them.Generally agree that win is not clearly defined, though I think that is different than not being defined at all, but this argument is totally different than everything else you say. You're saying here that the question is moot. Do you believe the game is killer sided, survivor sided, neither, or the question has no possible answer? Because if its what you're saying here, I'm not sure why you are even typing all of the other paragraphs.
You are since you dismiss the examples of the skill ceiling and base your argumentation on the cases where survivors dont have knowledge they should have, dont avoid things they should always be able to avoid due to one-sided nature of prevention of these things, dont play with a correct mindset and so on.The topic of the thread is 'the game'.
On the issue of knowledge they should have: I can say the exact same about your examples. If you hook a survivor who you or have reason to believe unhooked someone, and no one seems to be coming for the rescue, and you continue to camp, and then they use deliverance, yeah you should have known that.
You're just putting a lower burden on the killer players for when they do make a mistake or get outplayed.
Which side depends on the other side's mistakes more than they rely on their own skilled plays? Killers do.I agree, but that sounds like evidence that the game is killer sided. It actually seems to agree with what I said about the skill expression on both sides, killers have to match what the survivors do, survivors have to outplay.
The side that has more agency than the other is the one that receives bigger punishment for the mistake, that's how it usually goes.I agree, but this seems to go against what you said earlier:
You also equal having knowledge of your surrounding with not requiring skill which isnt really true as killer's skill is in applying that information correctly which has much higher punishment to it if it's not done right.-
These are bad examples because the required play and consequences of the decisions are incomparable. One is an example of an extreme play with high risk and the other is an example of a mundane game sense decision that people are allowed to fail reasonable amount of time on both sides.All examples are going to be bad because the game is asymmetrical and never going to line up perfectly. if we want to just throw out possible extreme examples we could talk about survivors trying to guess whether a Myers has tombstone or not. This is more equivalent to the camping on a deliverance player. You could make the safer play and give up some ground presuming he does (like a survivor jumping in a locker and losing chase time), or make a higher risk wager and camp on it hoping he doesn't (like a survivor taking a longer chase).
My argument is that comp is radically different from a non-comp game, here are all the ways:
-Survivors know the killer they are facing
-Teams can ban killers they don't want to face
-Both sides know the map
-Always 4 person SWF which at the upper levels have things like try outs to make it.
-Perk and addon bans on both sides
-Perks limited to a single instance on the survivor (obviously) side
-Playing for hooks and gens
-The games are, usually, played sequentially. That means the first killer generally takes safer strategies. Hooking and camping out the first survivor means getting at least five to seven hooks is close to guaranteed. The second game killer strategies will vary wildly based on what they are trying to accomplish. If the survivors need to only do a few gens, camping and tunneling go out the window because the killer needs to spread a ton of pressure.
-More recently, AFC ignored
Great, you acknowledge the difference, but you don't acknowledge WHY some of these differences are a thing which is what I'm talking about.
Why are some perks and addons banned? Why are same perks banned? Why is AFC (the most prominent example of them literally patching out a strategy) ignored?
That's what Im talking about. The reason why survivors are not allowed to use pretty much all meta or mildly meta perks or resort to using a system specifically created to patch certain playstyles in competitive is because if survivors were allowed to play with all that, pretty much all killers would be unable to even get close to winning the game due to how many resources and second chances survivors would be allowed to use.
You're also insisting on survivors knowing the killer / being in 4 man being a major factor in dismissing the example yet it's the factor that determines this example being valid in the first place as, as I said multiple times, that removes a huge element of skill issue in the contest, ensuring that there's no such situation where survivors simply deal with the killer they have no idea how to properly play against.
The WHOLE balance talk must be based on the assumption that skill difference & lack of it is not in the picture. Comp dbd does that the best it possibly could be.
The differences between asian/western comp scenes are also irrelevant to my point because both scenes feature the aforementioned qualities determining their validity as an evidence to my thesis.
Dealing with RNG is a skill.Being able to adapt to situations on the fly is a key component of the game. Its also not unique to this game by any means, lots of games (both video and other) have high variability between plays and expect that players who win over time will be the ones who can best adapt to the situation they were given.
The only reason comp needs to reduce these elements is because they play a small number of games. If comp played seasons (which would not be practical for different reasons), you could allow a lot more random elements into the game and they would balance out over time. This is another reason comp is not similar to normal gameplay.
Not with the kind of RNG you're talking about. Comp sets essentially one of the worst RNG scenario for survivors in terms of map / killer balance, since survivors are not only not allowed to use universally strong meta perks unless it's the best killers in question, but they're also forced to play on the best or one of the best maps for the killer.
Both sides still have to adapt to RNG - tile spawn RNG which is a huge variable on most maps played and which can affect the outcomes to a degree, even though that would be irrelevant should player imposed limitations on survivors be lifted.
If anyone that's allowed to not have to adapt to RNG, it's the killer. Everything in comp dbd makes KILLER'S life easier and yet people still struggle on that level simply because how powerful still survivors are. Killer is given almost best case scenario map for them. For instance Singularity plays almost exclusively wreckers yard / DDS - arguably the best & strongest maps. Ghostface always plays on lery. Dredge gets midwich. I can't recall a single killer that's forced to play on their BAD map. Best case scenario for your point - killers are not given THE BEST map possible (haddonfield) and instead play on more balanced azarov/mac. Yet that still leaves 40+ maps that are going to be a detriment to the killer should they get selected.
You say survivors have to adapt to RNG in pubs and not in comp, yet if we were to add that RNG back, it would always favour survivors. They would have access to best perks possible from the start, they would have incredibly high chance to get a map that doesn't favour the killer as much as it could be.
So, again, competitive DbD doesn't remove any RNG that would be making a difference that disproves my thesis. It puts survivors into worst possible scenario where they have nothing to rely on but their own skill, while untying killer hands completely. Comp dbd is definitely a different game because it lacks all the second chances and emergency mechanics that exist to carry bad teams and ensure great teams are unwinnable unless they run into kill cheese.
If you want to say that you didn't mean most that's fine. That was just an inquiry on my part.
But being we're on the subject, I'm trying to find what portion of the game you are looking to for how its sided. Because if we take the absolute best record on both sides, the killer blows away survivors. If we take the game as a whole, the answer seems to be that survivors are bad and shouldn't be counted.
I'm just trying to find out where the range is you think we should be looking to gauge the game off of.
None streaks are evidence of the game being either sided due to the conditions players set and how the game itself determines win conditions and what tools it provides players to achieve it. Survivor streaks in particular are a pain because killers have access to some options to cheese kills with no effort, yet these options do not indicate the overall state of the killer side or of the normal gameplay.
Generally agree that win is not clearly defined, though I think that is different than not being defined at all, but this argument is totally different than everything else you say. You're saying here that the question is moot. Do you believe the game is killer sided, survivor sided, neither, or the question has no possible answer? Because if its what you're saying here, I'm not sure why you are even typing all of the other paragraphs.
MMR system defines win for killer as getting 3 kills, while the win for the survivor (a single one) would be an escape through exit gates. That, as far as my understanding goes, implies that players from both sides can win in the exact same match. Which is why I personally dismiss 3k+exit gate streaks as complete wins due to survivors being successful in completing their objectives in regards of using survivor streaks as evidence. Hatch, obviously, does not count due to it being evident as a cheap escape mechanic that ignores the main objective.
If we go off by that definition of win con which is what I personally believe to be the only correct way of defining it: do not allow any survivors to complete their objective of escaping through the exit gates after completing five generators; then the game is survivor sided due to the fact it's less likely for the killer playing normal way (AKA not resorting to cheesy strategies like tombstone myers, rancor roulette) to accomplish that goal in more or less equal skill conditions & performing with a reasonable degree of mistakes on both sides.
We can count hatch as either draw or loss for the survivors, depending on what criteria from MMR system we use (it's defined as a draw, yet results in MMR loss) but either way it's not related to survivors' success in completing the objective and only works as a motivation to keep playing, therefore can be dismissed in this context.
So the range we should be looking at is the normal intended gameplay where both sides' goals is to complete their objective and / or prevent the other side from doing that which results into both sides being unable to win at the same time under any circumstances. None of the survivors win if none of them escape through exit gates, killer does not win if any of the survivors escape through exit gates.
In that case, killers past certain point are unable to properly compete or stand a fighting chance because survivors simply possess too much agency and resources to consistently beat the killer. That by it self is fine, however the problem arises with how it's achieved or compensated for the killers. Survivors are given resources that allow to recover from the mistakes the killer is supposed to capitalize on. Even though punishing those mistakes is recognised as unhealthy and undesired gameplay, killers are unable to match survivor gen speeds without resorting to such strategies unless severely outmatching them which is simply not possible at a pretty realistic point.
On the issue of knowledge they should have: I can say the exact same about your examples. If you hook a survivor who you or have reason to believe unhooked someone, and no one seems to be coming for the rescue, and you continue to camp, and then they use deliverance, yeah you should have known that.
Nah, you don't get it. The thing with deli is that you have ALREADY lost by the time the trade happens. If survivor dives and trades, it doesn't matter what you do if they have deli. You either pursue the unhooked survivor (risking DS/OTR/BS) to get them to 2nd or you hook deli and leave / stay with them, it doesnt matter because at this point your otherwise correct play of defending hook in a 3 gen was completely negated by the perk simply existing. The only conceivable way this is preventable is if you play one of those problematic killers that can down the deli trader before they reach the hook.
And it's pretty much like that for a lot of plays you've mentioned. It's not a mistake, it's a valid play for survivors.
All examples are going to be bad because the game is asymmetrical and never going to line up perfectly. if we want to just throw out possible extreme examples we could talk about survivors trying to guess whether a Myers has tombstone or not. This is more equivalent to the camping on a deliverance player. You could make the safer play and give up some ground presuming he does (like a survivor jumping in a locker and losing chase time), or make a higher risk wager and camp on it hoping he doesn't (like a survivor taking a longer chase).
We cant get exact examples but we can see when the difference between them is too drastic to ignore. You are comparing an extreme risk and extreme reward play/decision that is completely counterable by the other side if they play meta with something that poses no extremes due to its mostly uncounterable nature and therefore not resulting into a grand shift in match dynamic.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3794127#Comment_3794127
They dont engage with random elements of the game and focus to get good at actual skill dependant interactions. Again, that not only doesn't invalidate it from being evidence, but makes it work better as such.i dont think it's fair to consider severe lack of basic skill as a balancing factor as you suggest.That's not even close to what I suggest. You leave out all of the points I made about the difference.
Comp is like a game of poker where every player is guaranteed to get cards from one of ten possible combinations. It still might be a game of skill, but its not a reflection of what poker actually is.
This doesn't even get into what comp scene we base it off, with different leagues having different rules and the Asian comp scene having different metas on what they think is actually strong in the game.
Momo7 blight streak, the one that the other guy brought up as evidence to something, is using "no exit gate escape after gens are done" wincon.Okay, so its not most, its that one.
I mean, we can use just 3k wincon, then survivors JUST have to get 2 kills to win.Only if you presume the game doesn't have draws as a possibility.
Which most people think it does. If survivors and killers, both doing a win streak, hit each other, they both could lose it at the same time. It would be as easy for killers to say a 2k should be a win because they broke the survivors streak.
You consider skill floor and I consider skill ceiling.I'm considering both. I'm just not throwing out the floor.
On contrary, when survivor has enough knowledge and skill to apply all accessible options, the killer needs to put much greater skill input to deal with that.How? As I talked about and gave examples killers only have to match the survivor skill on game elements. What exactly does the killer do that needs to exceed survivor gameplay?
And that starts being problematic when killer's aforementioned skill inputs are being cancelled by mechanics that exist to artificially level survivors with the killer.Such as?
You also equal having knowledge of your surrounding with not requiring skill which isnt really true as killer's skill is in applying that information correctly which has much higher punishment to it if it's not done right.I had a longer response here, but later you say that survivors are punished more for making mistakes (
Despite that it's true that survivors are the role that hinges the most on not making mistakes or having them punished which is how they win.)So I 'm not sure what the overall point is.If I hook a person in a 3 gen and try to camp them, I can easily get hit by reassurance or/and deli trade and then lose the game to taking a gamble and getting outperked.If I hook a person in basement and try to play around it, same will happen except I'll also expose myself to losing 3-4 gen and ending up in a terrible position for 3v1.If I try to punish a flashlight save, I might lose a slugged person to them having a perk or just waste time and not get necessary value.Of course, that's usually not the case, because average survivor player will more likely throw the game by expecting the killer to be nice and let them have the unhook/save/etc which will only further worsen their position, but Im going to assume we are not considering cases of people making basic mistakes / not being successful at their one-sided skill input that they must be consistent with because in that case I'll start asking for nurse buffs.Quoting a lot, because I think this is the important part.
I'll start by saying, yes, the killer has to make important decisions. That's true. I just don't see how its different than survivors. More frequent (edit for clarity: on a 1 killer to 1 survivor basis)? Probably, but that's a different thing. This goes back to something that was talked about earlier in the forums, when killers win they attribute it to survivors being bad.
If you set up a defensive zone you get hit by a reassurance / deliverance / etc., you lost the guessing game. If they don't have it, or you make the decision not to play defensive because you think they have it, congratulations, you won the guessing game.
But survivors are having to do the same
You chalk this up to people making basic mistakes, but its only a mistake because you are giving them extra levels of knowledge that they don't have. Each side is trying to make guesses at what the other side is doing, a wrong guess can look like an idiotic play, but it is very different than a mistake.
That's not even close to what I suggest. You leave out all of the points I made about the difference.
Comp is like a game of poker where every player is guaranteed to get cards from one of ten possible combinations. It still might be a game of skill, but its not a reflection of what poker actually is.
This doesn't even get into what comp scene we base it off, with different leagues having different rules and the Asian comp scene having different metas on what they think is actually strong in the game.
You've failed to establish your point then. Because from what Im seeing you're essentially suggesting that we shouldnt consider top tier performance of survivors (though why do we consider top tier killers either even though they're the ones doing those ridiculous winstreaks) because these are 1) rare 2) excluding rng elements that mostly boil down to a possibility of survivors running same perks / off meta build or playing on a map that will favour survivors more than maps usually do in comp (as maps are usually picked to favour the killer or at least not make them unplayable & vulnerable to lack of mobility cheese).
That is irrelevant to the subject because these are the factors that boil down to rng throwing the skill out of the window or survivors not being prepared to face the killer they go against due to them not having enough experience against that killer.
Okay, so its not most, its that one.
Oh yeah, just "that one streak" that people believing the game is killer sided run with like it's a definitive proof of god existing they brought to an atheist convention.
Either way I've addressed most other killer streaks and their relation to survivor streaks.
Only if you presume the game doesn't have draws as a possibility.
Which most people think it does. If survivors and killers, both doing a win streak, hit each other, they both could lose it at the same time. It would be as easy for killers to say a 2k should be a win because they broke the survivors streak.
I presume that this game has no definitive win, loss or draw condition and it's a wide spectrum that people randomly point finger at to determine what is a win con to them. Therefore rendering streaking entirely subjective unless your goal is 4k / 4 out which is obviously not entirely skill dependant for obvious reasons and that, however, only further makes streaks meaningless in my eyes. Not even counting poor matchmaking for both sides alongside lack of proper competitive mindset. Streaks are not indicative of the game's state on either side.
I'm considering both. I'm just not throwing out the floor.
You are since you dismiss the examples of the skill ceiling and base your argumentation on the cases where survivors dont have knowledge they should have, dont avoid things they should always be able to avoid due to one-sided nature of prevention of these things, dont play with a correct mindset and so on.
How? As I talked about and gave examples killers only have to match the survivor skill on game elements. What exactly does the killer do that needs to exceed survivor gameplay?
Which side depends on the other side's mistakes more than they rely on their own skilled plays? Killers do.
In chases, a lot of killers (even the ones with antiloop powers) are forced to rely on survivor's mistakes and can only attempt to make plays that ultimately depend on survivor making mistake in dealing with them to result in a hit. Any hits that solely depend on killer's personal skill are not enough by themselves to let killer win the chase due to how long it would take to get an opportunity for these hits, assuming survivor is doing their one-sided part of the chase right. Again, a spectrum, but the general rule is like that. Survivors always have some kind of consistent counterplay that delays the killer from getting an opportunity to use their ability and / or they are the ones whose decision defines whether or not killer wins the chase. (And winning the chase doesnt mean simply downing the survivor, it means downing the survivor fast enough to not lose the game).
There's very few exceptions to that and they're what bottlenecks killer balance and are universally considered overpowered and problematic by the community 👩⚕️.
I had a longer response here, but later you say that survivors are punished more for making mistakes
We're talking about different skill expressions here even though they're from the same game sense field. In one example that you brought up killers receive bigger punishment, in the other, survivors do due to having more agency in avoiding that mistake or refusing to utilize options to cover up for the mistake.
The side that has more agency than the other is the one that receives bigger punishment for the mistake, that's how it usually goes. Survivors, naturally, have way more agency as a team than killers by themselves do, which leads to them having way more control in chases or in overall match. Which, again, is another example of the game being survivor sided.
But survivors are having to do the same
You chalk this up to people making basic mistakes, but its only a mistake because you are giving them extra levels of knowledge that they don't have. Each side is trying to make guesses at what the other side is doing, a wrong guess can look like an idiotic play, but it is very different than a mistake.
In this particular example killer making an incorrect call and going for riskier play means losing the game right on the spot.
Survivor however will have the game still going regardless of whether or not they make a correct call on killer staying / not staying and pop'ing the gen.
These are bad examples because the required play and consequences of the decisions are incomparable. One is an example of an extreme play with high risk and the other is an example of a mundane game sense decision that people are allowed to fail reasonable amount of time on both sides.
Survivor can make a bad guess and have their 99 gen popped but that's just + roughly 20 more seconds on the gen which while painful is not something they cant recover from.
It would be more fair to compare that to killer losing a 50/50 in chase because that's something that killer can generally allow themselves to happen multiple times throughout the game. It's not something where they have enough agency to suffer extreme consequences.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3794113#Comment_3794113
Comp isnt entirely different. The main obvious difference in comp is that it has player enforced balancing and matchmaking which results into a genuine competitive environment.I watch a good deal of comp and there is a lot different. Survivors always know which killers they are going to face, both sides know the map they are going to play on, they play for hooks, not kills. They try to minimize the randomness of a game that is designed to have a lot of randomness.
This isn't even getting into SWFs. Not only are they four person SWFs, already rare, but these are players who have come together because they are good players, not just a group of friends.
Comp players are excellent players, no doubt, but there are so many elements of the game they don't even engage with it feels strange to argue that it can be somehow reflective of the state of the game.
In my opinion, since most killer streaks (including the aforementioned blight streak) follow "no exit gate escape after 5th gen" logic, then survivor streaks should to.Where does the most come from? Maybe its true, but the killer streaks I come across seem to be the standard kill 3 survivors.
However surv streakers believe they only win if they get at least 3 out which is pretty much the same as expecting to 4k3-5 all games in your killer streak.This really sounds like admitting the game is killer sided. You're just saying the survivors should radically adjust their expectations. Because if a 3e is on the same difficulty as a killer 4king before 3 gens are done, the game has a serious balance issue.
Killer needs to make great plays to beat survivor's mediocre plays. Extraordinary plays to beat good plays.I'd say this is the reverse.
Killers only need to match the survivor skill. If a survivor doesn't know how to hug a loop, neither does the killer. If the survivor doesn't have the game sense to break the 3 gen, the killer doesn't need the game sense to protect it. The killer, by design, always has the advantage in the 1 on 1, so they only have to match the survivor skill and they'll win the chase.
Most killers have to put way more skill and effort to win the game than survivors do. That alone proves the game is survivor sided.Effort part, maybe.
Skill, no. The game is pretty straightforward for killer. You see the gens, you see the hooks, you see the scratch marks. The killer has important decisions to make, that's true, but that's most of their game. The skill floor is relatively high As a I mentioned above, the burden is on the survivors to learn skills before the killers need the counters.
Soloq survivors have to play the game with multiple mysteries hanging over their head. They have to guess at their teammates strategies and respond on the fly with extremely little information.
Even if we go to SWFs, it adds a whole new skill category to the game, communication. That can give them an edge, but if we're just talking about skill its something that has to be practiced and developed over time.
On the skill front, the killer has to improve their game sense and mechanics. Survivors have to improve those as well, while also learning to predict what the other survivors are doing and/or communication.
That is achieved through artificial mechanics that ensure that survivor team is allowed to make a scarily generous amount of mistakes against the killer for as long as the skill gap between them can still be measured.I never understand this point. Survivors seem to make one mistake and its game over. Get hooked in the 3 gen, hooked in basement, screw up a chase, caught stealthing, screw up a flashlight save, one mistake and pressure swings around immediately to the killer's side.
I watch a good deal of comp and there is a lot different. Survivors always know which killers they are going to face, both sides know the map they are going to play on, they play for hooks, not kills. They try to minimize the randomness of a game that is designed to have a lot of randomness.
This isn't even getting into SWFs. Not only are they four person SWFs, already rare, but these are players who have come together because they are good players, not just a group of friends.
Comp players are excellent players, no doubt, but there are so many elements of the game they don't even engage with it feels strange to argue that it can be somehow reflective of the state of the game.
They dont engage with random elements of the game and focus to get good at actual skill dependant interactions. Again, that not only doesn't invalidate it from being evidence, but makes it work better as such.
i dont think it's fair to consider severe lack of basic skill as a balancing factor as you suggest.
Where does the most come from? Maybe its true, but the killer streaks I come across seem to be the standard kill 3 survivors.
Momo7 blight streak, the one that the other guy brought up as evidence to something, is using "no exit gate escape after gens are done" wincon. I mean, we can use just 3k wincon, then survivors JUST have to get 2 kills to win. Still very much possible with all the stuff survivors have access to. Maybe not consistently against S tier killers because they offer enough agency to the killer to match survivor meta & skillful performance.
Though again, there's nothing concrete here. The issue with streaks for survivors is that the game is incapable of defining proper win con. Its' the game that took "both sides can win simultaneously" approach which leads to the insanity.
I'd say this is the reverse.
Killers only need to match the survivor skill. If a survivor doesn't know how to hug a loop, neither does the killer. If the survivor doesn't have the game sense to break the 3 gen, the killer doesn't need the game sense to protect it. The killer, by design, always has the advantage in the 1 on 1, so they only have to match the survivor skill and they'll win the chase.
Effort part, maybe.
Skill, no. The game is pretty straightforward for killer. You see the gens, you see the hooks, you see the scratch marks. The killer has important decisions to make, that's true, but that's most of their game. The skill floor is relatively high As a I mentioned above, the burden is on the survivors to learn skills before the killers need the counters.
Soloq survivors have to play the game with multiple mysteries hanging over their head. They have to guess at their teammates strategies and respond on the fly with extremely little information.
Even if we go to SWFs, it adds a whole new skill category to the game, communication. That can give them an edge, but if we're just talking about skill its something that has to be practiced and developed over time.
On the skill front, the killer has to improve their game sense and mechanics. Survivors have to improve those as well, while also learning to predict what the other survivors are doing and/or communication.
See, that's the fundamental difference in our mindsets.
You consider skill floor and I consider skill ceiling.
If we talk about skill floor, game is killer sided because killer doesnt have to even think about a response to anything survivor isn't attempting to do. On contrary, when survivor has enough knowledge and skill to apply all accessible options, the killer needs to put much greater skill input to deal with that. And that starts being problematic when killer's aforementioned skill inputs are being cancelled by mechanics that exist to artificially level survivors with the killer. The game is getting survivor sided even earlier than they near the ceiling due to that factor.
You also equal having knowledge of your surrounding with not requiring skill which isnt really true as killer's skill is in applying that information correctly which has much higher punishment to it if it's not done right.
Someone here said something how killers are ignoring the skill and effort survivors have to put into winning and it's a bit disingenuous to say that when killer skill&effort is diminished if not more, then no less as evident by your reply in particular for instance.
I never understand this point. Survivors seem to make one mistake and its game over. Get hooked in the 3 gen, hooked in basement, screw up a chase, caught stealthing, screw up a flashlight save, one mistake and pressure swings around immediately to the killer's side.
The issue with your understanding is that such mistakes are usually very avoidable and killer can be easily punished for trying to punish these mistakes if they dont make a correct call based on the information they don't have access to.
If I hook a person in a 3 gen and try to camp them, I can easily get hit by reassurance or/and deli trade and then lose the game to taking a gamble and getting outperked.
If I hook a person in basement and try to play around it, same will happen except I'll also expose myself to losing 3-4 gen and ending up in a terrible position for 3v1.
If I try to punish a flashlight save, I might lose a slugged person to them having a perk or just waste time and not get necessary value.
Of course, that's usually not the case, because average survivor player will more likely throw the game by expecting the killer to be nice and let them have the unhook/save/etc which will only further worsen their position, but Im going to assume we are not considering cases of people making basic mistakes / not being successful at their one-sided skill input that they must be consistent with because in that case I'll start asking for nurse buffs.
Despite that it's true that survivors are the role that hinges the most on not making mistakes or having them punished which is how they win. The game, especially without player imposed limitations to make it fair. And if they do make those mistakes, it's only a matter of how many of them they can cover up with perks which is pretty much what defines the skill difference in favour of killer that would still not matter. Which is what, again, should lead to a natural conclusion of the game being survivor sided.
And god forbid survivors are ever so slightly better. Killer is not winning the game even closely because they arent getting any chases fast enough. Their best hope is cheesing kills through party game mechanics.
As the game that still allows to win despite being worse than your opponent to a particular degree favours that side.
Good thing most people in this game actually don't care that much about winning and just don't want the other side to act like douches when they win or lose.
-
yeah, great perk, but i dont find fun to manage its resources
-
@WolfyWood said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3794093#Comment_3794093
Ignoring the fact that comp is a completely different beast entirely and even in your statement you include exceptions, there is no secret gameplay that the drooling masses can't grasp, it just boils down to coordination and intent.
There's a reason why even comp players trying to winstreak can't even break 400 mark while we just had a Blight streak end in a draw due to player error despite playing against a comp team with no restrictions after +2500 games.
If the killer player is good and plays with the intent to win, they will destroy most opponents due to the fact that killer only has to pass a single skill check (no pun intended,) survivors have to pass four which is way harder to pull off.
Team Eternal literally almost lost to a Skull Merchant that was way worse than them and that was only because the killer was careless.
This doesn't mean survivors are weak, but the game is still killer sided in all brackets and the data supports this because it's just way more fruitful to be good at killer. It's rare for me to say this but BHVR has done a good job with balancing as of late, there are still some outliers that need to be addressed but I'm perfectly fine with the game being slightly killer favored if it means I still get to retain engaging aspects of survivor.
People just have a weird victim complex when discussing the game from a killer angle which leads to grossly exaggerated disadvantages that almost never reflect reality. Idc if it's us vs them but survivors are told to deal with crushing defeat after crushing defeat while people complain that they occasionally 2k.
>Ignoring the fact that comp is a completely different beast entirely and even in your statement you include exceptions, there is no secret gameplay that the drooling masses can't grasp, it just boils down to coordination and intent.
Comp isnt entirely different. The main obvious difference in comp is that it has player enforced balancing and matchmaking which results into a genuine competitive environment. That doesnt disqualify it from being an evidence to the power disbalance in the game and, on contrary, makes it as the fundamental proof of lots of balancing and design issues this game has.
There's a reason why even comp players trying to winstreak can't even break 400 mark while we just had a Blight streak end in a draw due to player error despite playing against a comp team with no restrictions after +2500 games.
The reason why comp survivors dont get streaks is because they set unrealistic wincon for themselves since the base game really struggles to define what is a win condition for the survivors.
In my opinion, since most killer streaks (including the aforementioned blight streak) follow "no exit gate escape after 5th gen" logic, then survivor streaks should to. However surv streakers believe they only win if they get at least 3 out which is pretty much the same as expecting to 4k3-5 all games in your killer streak. Or just expecting to 4k every game (including hatch).
It doesnt help that gathering a team for a streak is more difficult task than having one player decide to choose violence.
If the killer player is good and plays with the intent to win, they will destroy most opponents due to the fact that killer only has to pass a single skill check (no pun intended,) survivors have to pass four which is way harder to pull off.
You dont take into account the difficulty and quantity of the "skillchecks" killers has to pass. Killer needs to make great plays to beat survivor's mediocre plays. Extraordinary plays to beat good plays. Killers dont have downtime like survivors do and they constantly have to make crucial decisions throughout the game, while survivors have noticeable periods between being forced to make different choice.
The only part of the game where it's not the case is the chase where most killers have the dynamic shift (most noticeably antiloop m2 killers who flip it and start requiring survivor to make way better plays to beat mediocre performance).
That's obviously depends on every killer, but you get the idea. Most killers have to put way more skill and effort to win the game than survivors do. That alone proves the game is survivor sided.
And don't get me wrong, Im not saying it shouldn't be ultimately survivor sided. That's simply fair for the 1v4 game to lean towards the "4" side, however what is not fair is how this is achieved. That is achieved through artificial mechanics that ensure that survivor team is allowed to make a scarily generous amount of mistakes against the killer for as long as the skill gap between them can still be measured.
You cant unironically say that the game is killer sided when survivors are to win or at least break even against killer players with ten times more experience on a particular killer than the survivors have combined.
-
@Brimp said:
If both sides are of average or above average skill and higher (as most killers) its survivor sided. The thing is a majority of the dbd community has shown to be around below average to average.
pretty much it.
so many people think they're hot ######### and yet they`ve barely scratched the surface of what the survivor role is capable of (in particular, killer is way more conventional to get good at).
there's a reason why comp players ban so much stuff for survivors compared to killers unless it's nurse/billy/blight in question.
-
@For_The_People said:
To be honest, after events etc with many cakes and bloodpoints - add ons and items become more abundant. I don’t think these add ons or items are inherently unfair - especially most of these are medkits which don’t offer the same strength as the past - these are basically 2 or so heals.
When medkit and CoH were nerfed, I think most (well killers anyway) welcomed the changes. I don’t think there was anyone saying post- nerf that multiple medkits in one match with add ons is problematic. The alternative is items such as toolbox (which killers have much more issue with) and flashlights (which if used effectively are more of an annoyance for most killer comments I see on the forums).addon economy has been a mess for years. but overwhelming amount of bp events (which im not exactly against) have made it even worse.
really wish devs took their time to rework lots of such addons in one of the midchapters. rework addons that just give you more resources or make the power op with no drawback and more more interesting and fun addons.
infinite rushes blight was unironically how some of the addons should've been. outright nerf but having such a ridiculous and funny effect.
-
@PuddleOfBludd said:
What exactly is your point? You do realize that you also get access to iridescent add-ons, right?
Are you suggesting that only one person be allowed to use them in a match? That’s ridiculous.
his point that it's not exactly fair how plain powerful surv' addons are and that killers have to deal with that on regular basis because these addons are widely available and universally viable.
i'd also add that most killers dont tend to run their best addons in every game since they prefer qol / convenient addons over them as they make the power feel better to use rather than overbuffing it and turning every match into a stomp with not so pleasant to play power. Not to mention that it's not common for killer's high tier addons to be even that powerful. They're usually niche / gimmicky or outright bad.
It would be much better if we dont have to deal with our opponents having an arbitrary option to use an addon that significantly boosts their resources / ability. It would be much better if such addons are always designed to be gimmicky / niche / playstyle altering rather than being plain buffs or resources that you have no reason not to use other than not having them or wanting the game to feel better than easier.
-
Congrats, you reached softcap and ended up on the bottom of the foodchain again. Enjoy your stay.
-
Can confirm, the bug is present and possible to replicate consistently.
Filed another report to maintain the structure, mods merge if necessary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9M4-MQVTzU -
spine chill was single handedly bottle necking all stealth killers from basic functioning.
good riddance.
-
@OnryosTapeRentals said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3793646#Comment_3793646
There's no way you unironically think tunneling is necessary for a win. In modern DbD? Where even the average killrate is almost 60%? That's absurd.
I think your replies no longer merit an answer apart from this one to spell it out for you since you're clearly thinking I'm going to entertain that discussion further.
By saying thing like "killers play efficiently because it's an easy way" or bringing up killrate statistics in a game where people casually throw and give up without trying you've discredited your position so much to me that I dont think anything more needs to be said.
I established my point and I believe you're fundamentally wrong in your understanding of even more basic things than the actual subject of this discussion that I dont see the reason to argue with you any further as it would be an even bigger waste of ours time than such discussions normally are.
So, as per my last reply, Im wishing you a good day and please don't bother me with this discussion anymore.
-
@OnryosTapeRentals said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3793643#Comment_3793643
The dishonesty of it all.
Killers tunnel because it's the path of least resistance to a win. Not because it's necessary. Not because slowdown is nerfed. Not because of anything else. Simply because it's easy.
>Killers tunnel because it's the path of least resistance to a win. Not because it's necessary. Not because slowdown is nerfed. Not because of anything else. Simply because it's easy.
lmao, have a good day.
-
@OnryosTapeRentals said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3793626#Comment_3793626
the more devs nerf slowdown options that allow killers to comfortably play without resorting to these strategies for longer, the more often and earlier killers will start apply the main strategies to apply pressure. Pretty simple thing.
SO beyond bored of this narrative. Killers have camped and tunneled in EVERY single meta and state of balance this game has ever had irrespective of necessity. There's never been a time when camping and tunneling wasn't a common occurrence.
In fact, killer behaviour seems to be at its worst during the times the deck is already stacked in their favour. Case and point, this year's anniversary event. It wasn't enough that the event abilities and most of Tryks's tricks favoured killers, but the camping, tunneling, and slugging was absolutely off the charts.
and im bored of people saying killers should win with fairplay in a game not balanced around that. or asking the game to be lobotomized whatsoever just so they get even more artificially equal games.
also, saying killers "always camped, tunnelled, yadayada" is such a black and white take. it's a fact that the stronger slowdown options were, the less likely killers were to resort to these strategies because they could win without them.
multiple people spelled it out for you: quantity of "unsavoury strategies" reduces proportionally to the quality of slowdown options available, especially the ones that encourage "savoury strategies". If you want to focus on people still feeling the need to play like that, then you miss the entire point.
People will always camp, tunnel, slug and protect gens for as long as the game is designed around downing people, stopping to pick them up, put on a hook up to 3 times to kill them, while not letting survivors complete an exponentially growing difficulty objective.
You won't force all people to play fair unless you fundamentally change the core design premise of this game and make it so the optimal play is playing fair. But I assure you, if that happens, you'll come to sorely regret that, because you'll get rid of the optional skill expression killers can apply when survivors they finally got arent playing like concussed seals.
-
@OnryosTapeRentals said:
Killers use unsavoury strategies regardless of how much the current meta favours them or not. It's a player issue, not a perk one.
Player issue is lacking basic empathy and understanding the opponent wants to win and will do everything they can within reasonable effort for them to win.
As for game/perk issue, the more devs nerf slowdown options that allow killers to comfortably play without resorting to these strategies for longer, the more often and earlier killers will start apply the main strategies to apply pressure. Pretty simple thing.
If killers dont feel like they can spread hooks with nerfed slowdown anymore, they'll start using other means of pressure.
On contrary, killers won't be allowed to just have powerful regression that allows to throw game sense out of the window and play the game like pure 1v1 because when that's possible, survivors have to both get rolled in every chase until it doesnt matter if they last for a while and be unable to keep up. Doesn't sound like fun either.
"Unsavoury" strategies are the necessary evil here. The only part about them that needs to be regulated is getting rid of the ability to mindlessly apply them in every possible situation which devs have been doing successfully so far.