UndeddJester
UndeddJester
About
- Username
- UndeddJester
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3890595#Comment_3890595
I only answer to this, because you are once again misrepresenting what I wrote. You did that already in this Thread and I know that you did it in the past. This is what I wrote:
And my last point still stands - why should people be forced to play out games when they are already non-games from the start? I had a game against a Nurse a few days ago, one Hook Suicide and one DC pretty early in the game. Why should I have to stay in that game with the other Survivor, even if it is clear that we will not win and dont even have a chance of winning? Why do I have to play out a game as Killer when Survivors gave up or DCed, despite the game being not a Challenge anymore and therefore not fun at all?
I think I made it clear that the issue was not Nurse, but the two people giving up early. The DC happened basically when she blinked (so right at the start) and the Hook Suicide shortly after (probably also triggered by the DC, I cannot blame someone if they dont want to play with a Bot at 5 Gens).
EDIT: And THIS is the issue. Players should not feel like they cannot win and DC right away, leaving the rest of the players in a non-game.I did not even bother reading the rest of your post since you once again start to write something completely different from what I have said. And I think this is really disrespectful. But luckily we dont have to engage here, so I would be fine if we just dont quote each other anymore.
I'm sorry what? I'm not trying to misrepresent you at all, what I'm tryimg to do is understand your argument, which you are making painfully unclear...
- Your original point was that the anti go-next mechanic was a lazy way to address the problem and BHVR should do moRe to address the reasons why players go next.
- You then cited that Nurse was basically a sure loss with the implied reasoning that should mean players are allowed to go next.
- I then explained how for a feature such as go next you probably want to do the exact opposite of what you're saying to ensure the feature is done correctly.
- We then got into a debate on how changes are killer sided, specifically the anti slug mechanism is killer side, which I guess we will ultimately have to agree to disagree. We also discussed timeliness of changes, which is not an accurate reflection on modern DBD.
- We then got embroiled in this Nurse argument where you describe a situation you want to go next, that involved 2 other players prior to you going next... this scenario is prevented by the go next system, so how is this evidence that "more is needed to be done to address the reasons people go next"? The solution to this very game you describe IS the go next system...
To be honest, I don't appreciate this characterisation you've given of me; it makes me feel like I'm being misrepresented, and this subsequent dismissal by yourself is well out of line. I have only disagreed and argued the point against you, while trying and struggling to understand your point.
Given your latest response, I have a hard time not concluding your entire chain of comments has been one big "Us vs. Them" bait post. THAT is misrepresenting someone. Do you see the difference?
NOW I will stop quoting you.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3890553#Comment_3890553
I disagree with you there. The slugging change isn't killer sided at all. You may claim the killer wins faster now on a 4 man slug, so they are more likely to slug, but is that actually true?
No... its not, because the 4 man slug surrender change makes it no more effective than it already was (and its certainly not the easiest and most effective way to win as admitted by many of the lillers who do it). All it does is diminish the survivor side frustration. What does the killer get exactly? Less time to gloat over their win? That seems to be the opposite of a incentive to me.
Thats the thing - the Survivors gain nothing there. The last person being slugged has less time being slugged, sure, but the rest might still be on the ground for up to 4 minutes. And it does nothing to make slugging less strong (and it is REALLY strong currently) and it does not even prevent griefing. If anything, it gives griefers another Kick because Survivors surrender. And you cannot really argue that players who want to grief (and people who go for 4 man slugs usually want to grief) get a great feeling when Survivors surrender.
Heck, they dont even change Knockout in Phase 1, which is the most obvious culprit and a Perk which should not exist like that anymore.
Firstly these 2 players doomed this game for you, how am I as a objective bystander supposed to determine if game was winnable or not in this situation? It may well not have been, but how do you know for sure if this is what happened? This question is entirely what this change is meant to prevent.
Secondly what makes you think you'd be punished after 2 players already SoH and DCd? Why do you assume that isn't taken into account regarding your own decision to leave? Clearly you've been in teh game enough time for 2 other players to die/DC, so what makes you think the system would affect your decision to SoH in any way?
Oh come on. Nurse is an unabalanced design failure, you have little chance with 4 people to survive. Do you really think that 2 people can win against a Nurse? The game is already over when it is a 3v1 since realistically your Gen Progress will go to almost 0 at this point. With 2 it is impossible.
Second point… You dont know that. And neither do I, to be fair. But given their track record, they were not really effective with their measurements. From what we know they could even punish giving up to give another player the Chance to find the Hatch. With how killer-sided BHVR is since a few years, it would not surprise me.
Oh come on. Nurse is an unabalanced design failure, you have little chance with 4 people to survive. Do you really think that 2 people can win against a Nurse?
Just to clarify, I wasn't talking about having to play out a game where you are 2 left vs. Nurse. Your argument was that Nurse is brokenly strong, herefore games are non games from the start, so why should you have to play out the game?
You then went on to explain how you were in a game that saw a player SoH early and another player DC... that does not prove that Nurse is broken strong and games are a non game from the start. That proves 2 players quit and doomed any chance you might have had of winning.
Now I'm not stupid, I am aware Nurse is the best killer in the game, but my point is, your argument of players being forced to play out lost games is currently an unfounded argument. Most people agree that the point of anti-go next is to stop this immediately quit at the start of the game for no reason epidemic. Simply being downed early and saying "this Nurse is too good" is not a good excuse, as per my original example.
Now in the 2 man left scenario, I would argue you should play out the game, because whats the point of starting the game if you dont intend to try? Yes you probably lose regardless, but maybe you manage to juke the Nurse 3 times? Maybe you hold your own for a whole minute. Thats the fun part of DBD is it not? I would take the gamble on repairing gens and seeing who find finds first, and go for hatch, since that is the point of hatches existence. Chances are she will slug for the 4k, and if you want to give it up at that point, then fair enough, no shame in giving up at that point... but just to inherently give up asks the question why are you even bothering to play at all?
Yes Nurse is extremely strong, I've recommended nerfs for her myself, but if players are quitting as soon as they get downed because "Nurse is OP", they are contributing to this whole problem... how can anyone expect her to get balanced/nerfed when she gets smashed at lower levels and everyone quits at high level?
What it boils down to is you don't get to pick and choose when you apply a principle. You can't have one rule for one player and one rule for another. "Oh you can't instant quit against any killer... except Nurse... Nurse is fine to instant quit". This leaves your argument flawed at the foundation, because your rule is no longer an iron principle, but a rule that bends and morphs whenever you see fit.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3890543#Comment_3890543
to complain about "you're not addressing the issues of why people quit" as a defence for saying "this change is bad" is bad faith man
Which I am not even doing, I said quite the opposite, lol.
And nah, some acknowledgement that there are frustrating things in the game and that there will be work done would be nice. All we currently got was a few killer-sided changes. Heck, even the Anti-Slugging change is killer-sided, despite Survivors suffering from it. (The one in Phase 1, no idea what they are doing in Phase 2)
And while some things will be tackled eventually, it takes far too long. E.g. how long did it take for the Devs to nerf Alchemist Ring? The Add On was a problem from Day 1 and it took them YEARS. And quite a bunch of Survivors will probably have gone next due to a Blight bringing Alchemist Ring. Which could have been prevented if they would pay a bit more attention.
And my last point still stands - why should people be forced to play out games when they are already non-games from the start? I had a game against a Nurse a few days ago, one Hook Suicide and one DC pretty early in the game. Why should I have to stay in that game with the other Survivor, even if it is clear that we will not win and dont even have a chance of winning? Why do I have to play out a game as Killer when Survivors gave up or DCed, despite the game being not a Challenge anymore and therefore not fun at all?
While I think it is fine to punish players who DC or give up first, the other players in the match should at least have the option to leave without Penalty at this point. Just give them their BPs and thats it. This would at least remove the point where players are forced to play out non-games.
Which I am not even doing, I said quite the opposite, lol.
Yeah fair enough, I will admit I misrepresented you there, but it doesn't really change my point. You need small iterative changes regarding things like, especially for the nature of the anti-go next system. You probably shouldn't change anything at all about why people go next to ensure the system works as intended.
All we currently got was a few killer-sided changes. Heck, even the Anti-Slugging change is killer-sided
I disagree with you there. The slugging change isn't killer sided at all. You may claim the killer wins faster now on a 4 man slug, so they are more likely to slug, but is that actually true?
No... its not, because the 4 man slug surrender change makes it no more effective than it already was (and its certainly not the easiest and most effective way to win as admitted by many of the lillers who do it). All it does is diminish the survivor side frustration. What does the killer get exactly? Less time to gloat over their win? That seems to be the opposite of a incentive to me.
And while some things will be tackled eventually, it takes far too long. E.g. how long did it take for the Devs to nerf Alchemist Ring? The Add On was a problem from Day 1 and it took them YEARS. And quite a bunch of Survivors will probably have gone next due to a Blight bringing Alchemist Ring.
Yes, but how much have BHVR done in the last year regarding player feedback compared to the previous 7 years? As of their new leaf regarding taking on board community feedback, they've actually done a hell of a lot just this past year alone...
I realise that may not make up for those previous 7 years in your eyes, but you can't keep peddling that forever man.
And my last point still stands - why should people be forced to play out games when they are already non-games from the start? I had a game against a Nurse a few days ago, one Hook Suicide and one DC pretty early in the game. Why should I have to stay in that game with the other Survivor
Isn't this proving the entire point of this thread?
Firstly these 2 players doomed this game for you, how am I as a objective bystander supposed to determine if game was winnable or not in this situation? It may well not have been, but how do you know for sure if this is what happened? This question is entirely what this change is meant to prevent.
Secondly what makes you think you'd be punished after 2 players already SoH and DCd? Why do you assume that isn't taken into account regarding your own decision to leave? Clearly you've been in teh game enough time for 2 other players to die/DC, so what makes you think the system would affect your decision to SoH in any way?
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3890532#Comment_3890532
The problem is that it is once again the lazy way of dealing with things. Overall it is a positive change - BUT it should not be the only change happening.
OP has brought up 2 games, which is nothing. And while I would agree that people DC/give up over nothing, BHVR is not planning to do much against the frustrating things which can lead to people DCing/giving up. E.g. you can most of the time mark a game against a Nurse as a lost, since you basically have to hope that the player is just learning her. And while there are measurements against tunneling, camping and slugging in the works, those are a) months from now (could easily only come in 10 months) and b) we dont even know if they will be effective.
Let alone that forcing players to be stuck in an already lost game is also not really great. If there is a person giving up on their first Hook for whatever reason (despite them getting a penalty), the other 3 Survivors are forced to play out a game which they cannot win. And at this point you are only a BP-Pinata for the Killer.
So while the change is indeed good, it is just too little.
I mean sure, but what do you expect? A complete upheaval of the entire game in a single patch? Just one hail mary huge ass sweep of the entire games balance? How are you meant to assess the impact of anything?
This change addresses one problem, the problem of people instant giving up and ruining any chance a team might have had… once you've fixed that and removed that from the equation you can make a more honest assessment of the genuine state of the game.
Nurse is a unique problem on her own, to complain about "you're not addressing the issues of why people quit" as an argument for saying "this change is bad" is bad faith man. Addressing problems has to be iterative.
I've played against a Nurse who slapped me down in 10s flat and made me look like an absolute putz in the first chase, and every chase I had woth them after... yet I've seen a player absolutely dance with them for a solid minute at a time in the same game. If I just gave up because she owned me at every turn, through something that is clearly an issue with me, that inflates her kill rate and makes it harder to assess her impact on the game.
The same way Skull Merchant had an insanely inflated killrate despite being completely mediocre. You can't make a genuine assessment of a killer if people keep refusing to play the moment things don't go their way.
-
@AbsolutGrndZer0 said:
I mean, I get why they couldn't just kill-switch Wesker, cause its an RE themed 2v8 and so they probably couldn't without making Capcom mad, but… they should have prioritized fixing the bug ASAP, and what that one CSR rep said was… very cringe.The only time I ever genuinely raise an eyebrow at BHVR is when they say something like that. Like any reasonable person understands a bug is a bug, and if it can be fixed/patched so easily it would be...
However all they have to say is "Thank you for reporting this issue, we are endeavouring to fix the problem as soon as possible. In the meantime, while we understand this is a serious issue, we have deemed the issue isn't prevalent enough to warrant a killswitch at this time, but we are continuing to monitor and reassess this problem while we are attempting to fix it".
This is all anyone wants to hear... it can of course be complete bollocks; anyone who has worked in customer service knows this is basically conveying the same message of "just shut up and deal with it", but it's done in a way that gives the benefit of the doubt... 😏
-
@HeroLives said:
going next against a pig is wild.
Yet surprisingly common. I've seen first hook go nexts again pre-buff, non-tombstone Myers...
I'm sure everyone who doesn't want this thing to come in is permanently against max sweat and cracked Blights, Spirits and Nurses... because I honestly can't see how you can defend this crap otherwise without being a colossal hypocrite...
-
@xGodSendDeath said:
I can definitely see lobby dodging to avoid any teammates running meme/challenge/trophy builds being a problem. I honestly think they should just review the survivor perks one by one and give in-game notifications when someone has the perk. So if you have Deliverance and you're on the hook, the team gets notification. Or an indicator that someone has Shoulder the Burden. Stuff like that. I think it would help solos coordinate better without having to expose their whole builds to get dodged/flamed
This is the ideal solution I feel. Havng icons come up when on the HUD when teammates perks activate/are in use would be the best way to go.
I started on the "just show them in lobby" side... theb switched to the "just show them in the in game pause menu" side... and even that still doesnt worn. Even if you only show people's builds once the match has started, you get people deliberately throwing games cause they don't like your build.
Doing it this way means that the bulld gets revealed slowly over the course of the game, so by the time our entitled brat players realise what the bulld is, the game is halfway over so not worth the throw.
Alternatively, have it so that players can mark as many of their perks in the pre-game lobby as they want, and once the match starts those chosen perks are revealed on the HUD next to their name. Then have it so you can reveal additonal perks from the menu when desired.
As the game has already begun, and DC penalties are higher with the health QoL update, leaving the game cause someone hasn't revealed a couple of perks and fretting about it isn't worth the time. However if you are running Sole Survivor or Left Behind you don't automatically incur the wrath of your team.
-
I change up builds a lot, but I usually have one staple build I always like to keep hold of/go back to.
For Pig, my go to build has to be my pallet chewer build: -
- Game Afoot
- Nemesis
- Brutal Strength
- Deadock/Nowhere To Hide/Lethal Pursuer/Surge
- John's Medical File
- Workshop Grease
Covers all your bases in chase, you can just disrespect swing at strong pallets and look like a dumb Piggy, which often lures people into a false sense of security. If you hit, you get your obsession, if you don't cause you got stunned you still get your obsession. Either way you can break pallet and catch up pretty quick.
Once you establish your pallet disrespect, if people keep pre-throwing, you stick to them constantly while chewing through resources rapidly, whereas if they actually play pallets or keep trying to leave tiles, you now get to make use of the m1 crouch-stand/ambush mindgames of Pig.
Once your headtraps start rolling, if you've depleted a lot of map resources, you can start to snowball pretty hard.
On Survivor I have a few staple builds depending on my mood, but to just give one, I really like: -
- Empathic Connection
- Botany Knowledge
- Kindred
- Open Handed
- Iridescent Key - Blood Amber, Prayer Beads
Helps mitigate a lot of soloQ annoyance 😁
-
@fixblitzskin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3889793#Comment_3889793
No unfortunately. Still waiting for them too. It’s not only him but it’s how the perk is programmed. It doesn’t take m2 destruction of pallets but it does for walls. Really want them to finally fix it
Ultimate sadge... would be so good on Bubba 🥺
-
It's a great perk if the Killer keeps trying to cut people off from going for saves or is looming constantly to tunnel the player out, but as with any perk related to anti-tunneling or camping, SoloQ's aura goldfish brains and general refusal to be on gens, massively limits it's value.
If your team is smart though and let's 1 player go for the unhook while otherwise doing gens, the perk is generally solid.
-
Did they ever fix Game Afoot on him?
Cause that speed you up chasing your obsession while smashing through pallets... pretty on brand for Nemesis 😁
-
@cheapslurpiee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/439281/maybe-my-most-controversial-take
(people saying they now needed to genrush to compete with the killers they were facing, like, duh, you boosted yourself and now you have to deal with the consequences of that).
How do survivors boost MMR? Like doing SWF and winning when they should've been solo and losing more often? I'm not sure what you mean.
Chase related interactions are 10% shorter for killers, and survivors received a 10% nerf in boost duration.
What do you mean by a nerf in boost reduction? Like when you get hit, the distance you get to gain spacing? I don't read patch notes.
Running things like WoO, Lithe, OTR and We'll Make It, while running Commdious Toolboxes with BNPs and max charges, or medkits with syringes and bringing Survivor sided map offerings constantly.
All strong perks and items in DBD if used regularly start causing bad habits for both sides, cause the reason they are strong is they circumvent elements you need to be mindful of without those perks.
Try playing Survivor without strong items or exhaustion and second chances perks, or killer with only brown add-ons and without gen slowdown and strong aura reading perks. If you've been using these for a long time and suddenly take those things away, you'll have lost or even never developed the fundamental skills required to play without those perks... I.e. you're boosted.
In survivors case, many people unwittingly get their teammates killed, cause they operate with the thought "well I can survive that", not realising its their build massively helping/allowing them to do it... so they drop allies in similar situations then call them crap when they get killed... not realising they themselves created the problem situation for them.
Playing off meta often opens your eyes to what you can and can't get away with, regardless of perks in play... I'd recommend it to anyone to do this regularly.
-
@Spare_Them_Mori_Me said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3889408#Comment_3889408
Wasn't invited, but I wanna take a crack at this one too!
OK... but what is the alternative? It's easy to condemn, but why not give some suggestions for things to do instead of generators?
- Gen speed can be lowered at the start of the game. For example sake, lets say 50% slower.
- Gen parts can be spread around the trial for survivors to collect and bring to a generator.
- This increases gen speed on that gen by 10-15%
- More parts continue to increase up to a cap, but likely will never need to be hit.
I feel this is a simple and viable solution. New things to do. This set up would allow more interaction in a 3 gen situation since increasing gen speed would help possibly get it done. This all feels natural to me in terms of the game growing.
Thoughts? ty!
It's a cool idea, I rather like it as a concept...
I like the idea the gen is basic generator, and you bolt additional parts you find on it to repair it quicker, for example therr are 4 different parts, and each gen has slots for those different parts.
Big questions are: -
- How many spawn in the map?
- Are they a set of random spawn locations from list?
- How big are they? How easy to see?
Is a much slower start for survivor though, and has a similar effect to powerful hexes, where Survivors are slowed down substantially as they search the trial for pieces...
With how the game is set up currently killers would need to reduced in power A LOT to accommodate this change though… Or a lot more resources would need to be put in maps to conpensate, which then hits issues where your killers like Blight, Billy and Nurse with high lethality and cut off go miles ahead of the likes of Trapper (more than they already are).
The other problem I forsee is I don't really see the need to do gens complaint really going away... it's effectively still the same gameplay loop just with extra side quests... no that I mind that myself, but I predict that's the argument against it 😁
-
@CruelLimits1982 said:
You're completely correct people saying BHVR are "Cooking" with this is i disagree with, the core issues of the game sucks doing 5 gens is boring as absolute dirt every gamemode is the same 2v8 is do gens with 2 killers, lights out is do gens but its dark, chaos shuffle is do gens but now your perks are random i'm not calling these gamemodes bad 2v8 is fun especially as killer but they don't change the core objective which is boring af at this point.
Another huge issue is the absolute disparity between high tiers and low tiers will a game with a big roster always have bad characters? Yeah of course but this is an assym game for one so the rules change and number two the perk system also changes the rules its literal night and day when you play Pig vs if you play Blight both of these characters can equip the same perks too. It's crazy that Nurse can equip 4 slowdown perks when a perkless addonless nurse is probably better than 90% of the killer roster already
It doesn't even have to be an F tier killer vs an A tier killer Pig vs someone like Demogorgon is a massive difference too walking across the map is so bloody boring and hitting a survivor and just holding forward because you have no way to catch up hoping they just screw up while gens fly is awful too it feels like you aren't even playing the game with some of the killers.
the core issues of the game sucks doing 5 gens is boring as absolute dirt every gamemode is the same 2v8 is do gens with 2 killers, lights out is do gens but its dark, chaos shuffle is do gens but now your perks are random i'm not calling these gamemodes bad 2v8 is fun especially as killer but they don't change the core objective which is boring af at this point.
OK... but what is the alternative? It's easy to condemn, but why not give some suggestions for things to do instead of generators?
DBD is a pretty unique game, and the whole game has numerous mechanics designed for that gameplay loop... designing something that enhances the mechanics of DBD without being highly exploitable or pointless is actually quite difficult.
E.g. you could do something like prop hunt, but in doing so you have to completely remove looping, the main feature of the game that makes DBD what it is, since the point of prop hunt is to hide and not be found within the time limit, so once found you have to die pretty fast for it to be fair.
Something where a survivor can Kill the killer doesn't work, cause most of the mechanics in the game don't play ball with it. Blight, Billy and Xenomorph would be nigh uncatchable, but Pig or Myers couldn't do anything.
Sure we can come up with silly little games that are fun for a day, but what real game modes can you come up with that explores the mechanics of DBD?
-
I think quite simply the revenue expected from FNAF is expected to make up for any potential losses that come from taking time off releasing content to address other issues over that time period... so it makes sense to happen now.
It would be nice if game development was cheap and companies were able to take all the time to address issues in the game as they please, without the need for new content constantly, but the reality is, it's not cheap... it's a cutthroat industry with traditionally very high bulk hire and fire rates.
I remmeber hearing even the mighty Rockstar had to sack and rehire their lead developer 6 times throughout the development of GTA5 because they simply couldn't afford to keep him on the books unless absolutely necessary, and 70 hour weeks were just expected as the standard at all levels due to the unforgiving nature of publishing deadlines.
Way too many people think games are quite easy to make, they have no idea how challenging and subsequently how much money a games software development engineer demands for their skillset. Often games developers are underpaid for how talented they are due to how ruthless and competative the industry is... game development is often a labour of love, cause if you took the same skillset to other software development fields, you'd make substantially more money for half the stress.
-
If you want to run Invocation Weaving Spiders, here are a few tips: -
- Consider Distortion or Off the Record to inform you of/block Auras the killer has in play.
- Consider Resilience to help crank gens faster and help with loops once you've completed it. Alternatively consider Prove Thyself.
- Consider Dead Hard or Off the Record to make you harder to focus down.
- Consider Iron Will to block your grunts of pain and help stay hidden.
- Do not take No Mither.
- Be aggressive at the start, go for risky gens and try to take chase to make use of your 2 health states rather than give a health state for free. Obviously when unhooked the first time, point to signal you're fine and don't heal.
- In your first chase pay attention and make note of killer perks in play. This allows you to assess for Grim Embrace, Thrilling Tremors, or other perks the killer has in play and assess the killer's playstyle.
- Finally, only do the Invocation if your team seems capable of holding their own and the teams in a relatively healthy state where you feel they're not gonna crumble during the time expense.
I've had much better results playing this way that just beeliningbfor basement and then hoping my team can carry without me.
-
@Oputeeva said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3888614#Comment_3888614
the post looks like a prison warden :)
Have I made a point you can actually refute?
Majority of the examples you've described here are just as applicable to killer, and I don't have reason to believe you're a "one rule for me, one rule for everyone else" type, so I assume you'd allow the killer to surrender for these same reasons. Right?
So I ask, how would you enjoy DBD if every game saw every killer quit when they got aim dressed or spin teched? Quit when they can't catch a survivor who had used a bugged perk to deny a hit or block a hook? When they've been looped for 2 minutes and not gotten a down? When they get a map or a perk used against them they don't like?
As I said, every game you're winning, the opponent quits, every game you're losing, your teammates quit. That is what happens in every game with a surrender option, and it's stops you from caring about the game at all.
Yes DBD is annoying at times, but it's also highly rewarding when you succeed, and I'd rather take a game that annoys me time to time than a game where I'm completely apathetic cause every one just quits all the time.
-
The only issues with Shoulder the Burden, and why it isn't used more are:
- People try to get value out of it even when they shouldn't, and it gets them killed, so they write off the perk.
- Even if you know how to use it correctly, your soloQ teammates seem to actively work to ensure you can't use it correctly.
There are quite a few things that need to happen to get it's value: -
- You need someone to be tunneled without being found yourself. Turning a 0-2 hooks to a 1-1 is the only time to really use it.
- You need to leave that player on hook for a time to get the value/time out of the hook.
- You need your teammates not to "magpie shiny aura" beeline for the unhook to ruin the previous point, and let you get the unhook, which gets messed up by the previous point.
- You want the killer to not be near ideally to make the exchange without exposed... but the 2 points above tend to screw that over.
When you get it's value, it's massive... but you're basically gambling that the 2 other players on your team don't screw you over doing it... which they often do. 😒
-
@Darkage said:
Really like the build, very well thought out, I'll give it ago next time I try pig!
Thanking you that man!
Thus far I've had a head pop every game… a rather alarming success rate. Though obviously map dependence is a thing, I haven't faced something really nasty yet, but it has been surprisingly effective so far....
Let Me know how you get on 🤘
-
Surrender options are awful, you only have to look at a game like League of Legends to see why they suck.
Doesn't matter which side you're on, if you add surrender options what ends up happening is you very rarely play a game out. 90% of games results in either your side quitting, or the opponents quitting.
It makes it feel like you never actually win a game, cause the only experiences you tend to have are losing, or your opponent quitting.
Not to be a jerk, but while reading this list, it basically means "reasons I should be allowed to quit and go next". To answer each point: -
- Poor server connection goes both ways, and can affect anyone. Killer can get robbed of hits due to grabs and weirdness at vaults, and also from aim dressing messing up due to dodgy connections. So both sides are affected by this, and just cause one survivors connection is bad is no reason Survivors should be allowed to go next and throw the game for the rest of their team.
- Fair enough, but this is a legitimate issue to be addressed, just falling back to "let us go next" is not a solution.
- Bugs are bugs, and again appear for both sides, such as survivors hiding in walls or lockers. Severely agregious bugs result in killswitches, as has occured for many killers. There is no reason Survivors should be allowed to go next and throw the game for the rest of their team because of a minor bug.
- If a survivor has been tunneled out, what have survivors been doing to not get at least 2 or 3 gens done? Unless someone has literally been unhooking them within 20s repeatedly and feeding them to the killer. What if the Killer was allowed to just go next when survivors take 4 gens for 1 hook? Would that be fine? We're in the same scenario as described above where neither side will get to experience a win most of the time.
- Not seen any communications this is being targeted. The fact the 4%, and missing 2 skillchecks to die haven't been toted for removal indicates this isn't a thing. Trying to unhook yourself when there is one player left, and if you fail dying since that player likely can't save you is perfectly reasonable... when else would either feature be used if they're not gonna be removed?
- Same applies for both sides again, and survivors are far more common for taking map offerings to abuse strong main buildings or certain perk combos to make things difficult for the killer. Why should a survivor be allowed to Go Next and throw the game when the only reason map offerings are used is because otherwise these builds often don't/barely function? Is it OK for the killer to immediately Go Next because its Garden of Joy, Mount Ormond of Eyrie of Crows? Map offerings are also being nerfed considerably, so this makes no sense as an argument.
As I say, not being jerk, but there seems an awful lot of double standard here, and I don't joke about surrender ruining games. Yes DBD has extreme highs and extreme lows... but if you want to become completely apathetic about the whole thing, allow 90% of your games to end in surrender and see if you still care to play.
The surrender option when the whole team is slugged is reasonable, but any more than that should be added with great trepidation.
-
Thus far I've only found Legion annoying with Wraith...
However that's more Wraiths fault than Legions, cause you often can't see him coming, he uncloaks so fast you can almost never reach safety or greed pallets as he uncloaks, and even pre-throwing or instant-throwing does nothing unless you wait till the last possible second for an extremely risky stun, because he breaks so fast while cloaked you get nowhere.
Spirit is extremely good with Legion, but I've felt like I can still try and outplay Spirit, and she gets discombobulated with all the noise in 2vs8 often... but Wraith doesn't care about noise, and mostly you just die unless there is an escapist nearby.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
You are not really forced to go there, you can do Gens. If the Killer decides to camp someone on the ground for up to 4 minutes, you have time to complete the rest of the Gens. (Unless there is a 3-Gen and the person is right in that 3-Gen, but this is another problem which hopefully will get fixed at some point…)
The second part is very valid tho. The Surrender Option does not fix slugging at all and might just incentivize Killers to go for 4 man Slugs, since it is a Victory for them if all Survivors surrender. So it does not do anything against trolling or that slugging is just a bit too good currently.
I agree with your response to the OP... but if the survivor has gone down in the middle of the 3 gen to be camped by the killer, isn't that the Survivor's fault?
Also they have 4 minutes to crawl out from the 3 gen to get picked up, and I'd argue getting hooked in the 3-gen is probably worse and easier for the killer to capitalise on...
So what is this "problem" you describe that needs to be fixed? Shouldn't making such a massive mistake come with consequences? What makes the killer the issue in this situation?
-
@whoisit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3887978#Comment_3887978
You can not kobe, you can not press m1 unless its guaranteed by a system. So a person can not even press m1 on hook unless system allows him from deliverance, wicked or 4% chance. So a person is hooked, system calculates his probability of an attempt to kobe, if kobe would be succesful he is allowed to press m1 and escape. If not then you are just on hook waiting for your team to save. So a person if presses m1 will always kobe succesfully under this system, unlike now where you just spam m1 three times reach 2nd stage fail skillchecks and die
But if that's the case, then every time a Survivor is hooked, the system calculates whether ir not they get their 11.5% escape chance for three unhook attempts, and then grants that player a free self unhook...
- If it doesn't grant it them, then they don't get the prompt
- If it does grant them the unhook, they get the prompt and can unhook when they wish guaranteed.
This means greater than 1/10 of the killers first hooks can unhook themselves for free, and is in effect exactly the same as letting every player attempt to unhook themselves for 0 penalty... you can't jusy hide the prompt either because you may as well press it anyway, it costs you nothing, and if you got it, hey thats a free self unhook.
You might as well just say you get 3 unhook attempts and it costs you no sacrifice bar to use it... which yes prevents people SoH, but now everyone gets to try and unhook themselves for free every time.
-
I just look at the tragedy that non MMR games in the PTB are and wonder how on earth the old system was in any way better...
The issue I think people.habe with MMR is if you go against the blood point rewards, there is a decent chance you go against a much higher or much lower ranked opponents.
Following the bloodpoints tends to result in generally pretty fun and fair games for me. Going against the bloodpoints tends to result in smashing my opponents into the ground with ease and being bored, or getting completely sauced and left feeling utterly frustrated and embarrassed... the fact everyone here says this was basically the status quo is mind boggling to me 😳
-
@whoisit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3887665#Comment_3887665
You did not get me. The mechanics is still the same as it has always been, when you attempt to unhook the game calculates your chance and either lets you kobe or reduces your hook timer. It is still standing, however what im suggesting is instead of trying to kobe the game calculates your chance to unhook yourself 3 times, if 4% procs then you are given the right to unhook yourself so m1 button appears. If it does not proc you can not press m1 to unhook yourself. Nothing changes except for the fact that you are only able to m1 if 4% procs. Do you understand or not?
Now it's confusing... can I attempt to kobe without losing my sacrifice bar or not?
What I understand from you now is I press my kobe attempt, and I get 3 automatic attempts calculated behind the scenes (11.5% chance to succeed) and if I succeed I can press the button to kobe... if I fail I lose progress on my hook timer...
How does this address people going next at all? The result is still me suiciding on hook, or if I don't lose progress, I get a 11.5% chance to get off hook for absolutely free... I'm not trying to be difficult, but I really don't understand what you're trying to suggest here my guy 😵💫
-
@Angerydoge said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3887548#Comment_3887548
Apologies for the kind of bait title I just wanted people to actually look at my suggestion as I think the surrender system is a bad idea and a perfect example of what the game should avoid.
Why will 4 man slugging become more prevalent?:
What I'm saying is that there is a high probability that 4 man slugging will "increase", the reason for this is purely mathematical, people who are inclined to 4 man slug, especially those who do so to be toxic (i.e- slugging to bleed out), will likely see a surrender as a personal win.
As surrendering ends the game prematurely this will shorten the amount of time these games take allowing them to play more matches, and thus 4 man slugging will become more prevalent, not necessarily because more people are doing it.
Why this matters:
While this is still a hypothetical the other question I ask is, why take this risk going into arguably the biggest collaboration for the game ever?
The new player experience is already pretty poor, but if new players go into a match and find out they literally have no other choice than to just press a button to quit, they very well may just leave, especially if it's more prominent than now, which is a possibility if the current suggested system is implemented.
This is why I believe the surrender system is a bad idea, however I feel it's a symptom of a greater problem…
Wrong Design Mentality:
The surrender option directly feeds into the go next mentality. A surrender option is a go next feature to be more accurate. Why not allow players to play the game rather than just telling them to give up? They say they want to address going next yet they are actively encouraging it! It doesn't make sense. The system I suggested would encourage people to play the game, try to stick matches out and even pull matches back, the surrender system does the opposite. The game just ends.
BHVR should be actively adding gameplay systems for both sides to reduce games that are a foregone conclusion. Not adding gameplay systems that encourage giving up because of games that are a foregone conclusion.Want to go on record as saying thanks for the measured response... and I probably should apologise, I happened to read 3 overly dramatic posts in rapid succession that I bit my tongue on to not feed the non-debates, and was a little coiled up when I got to this one, which was more reasonable to reply to, but then my heckles were unnecessarily up 😅
The only issue I have with your suggestion is I have been in games where survivors are constantly trying to surround and harass me, deny me pick ups with pallets, flashlights and sabos. In this scenario, the only option I have is to slug repeatedly until either they are all slugged, or they get the message and leave. Your suggestion makes it so I can't even do that.
I don't believe slugging can be solved with any form of Unbreakable, it's too much power in the survivors kit that creates way too many "what if" scenario's. My opinion on slugging, is give survivors mechanisms to get apart when slugged so trying to mass slug mapwide is harder for the killer to track and maintain the slug.
-
I think it's a bad idea to have downvotes.
Psychologically all humans get a small dopamine hit for every upvote, but have a much stronger reaction to a downvote. Even those who think they don't care, are still manipulated by this somewhat to alter their behaviour, e.g. some almost go out of their way to get downvotes to minimise its psychological impact on themselves.
What this means is people become reluctant to say what they actually think unless what they say happens to be the popular opinion, and this of course leads to the echo chambers we see on social media platforms, where everyone parrots the popular view with no actual arguments, and few people are willing to speak out against the popular view for fear of being ratioed.
This effect is somewhat already in place for just up votes, but the difference is an informed opinion and/or well reasoned argument that opposes yours often gets upvoted instead of your own. Often you still get upvotes from those that agree with you, but anyone with some self awareness will still realise their view is the less agreed with, and that doesn't have anywhere near the same level of psychological impact as being mass down voted... so people still generally say what they think. Downvotes strip that away, and manipulates people to form into mobs or cliques.
I myself am aware of my own issues with being manipulated by social media, it's the main reason I came off all other social media platforms. Even though I am aware of its impact on my behaviour, I can still be heavily manipulated by it, and it takes considerable effort to rise above it... effort most people won't or can't do.
The result is downvotes tend to discourage discussion and instead discussions trend towards click bait/buzzwords and discrediting your opponent by parroting whatever the latest trend is to rally support from the masses instead of discussing the issue...
What they should be, is discussions where perspectives are challenged and creditted based on the evidence brought for the respective arguments... and a downvote eliminates all need to actually engage with the opposing point of view.
So if it were me... I'd definitely not keep this feature. 😁
-
@whoisit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3887634#Comment_3887634
I meant that you can still unhook yourself, but only if the unhook is guaranteed. Say you are hooked, and the system rolls a dice (sort of). If you get 4% you are granted the right to save yourself. Also if the anti camp bar is filled you also have the right to save yourself. Now most of the things you mentioned before dont make sense. You get 4% chance like once in 20 matches. And you should always wait for a team to unhook you, because even if the killer is camping by 'attempting' to unhook yourself you waste precious seconds for you and for team. He is hard camping and they are doing gens? Fine, you are helping team
So you mean thatat basekit whenever you get hooked for the first time, you get automatically given a 4% chance to get Deliverance with no requirements?
This is effectively the same thing as everyone trying to unhook themselves for free whenever they are hooked is it not? Meaning the killer is randomly punished approximately every 25 hooks with a free unhook...
I was merely pointing out the pros and cons my man, your proposal as I understood it wasn't necessarily bad, but it did have downsides... maybe the pros outweighed the downsides...
However this proposal of yours though has a downside that is pretty bad... why should survivors be given an automatic unhook 4% of the time for free?
-
Lets look at what happens with your proposed system.
Pros
- No need to balance making the system effective against ensuring no one is every falsely banned.
- Reduces slugging for the 4k since Killer can hook for their aura perks and the Survivor can't die for hatch for a set time.
- Isn't a measure taken retroactively after the match is already thrown, is taken proactively to prevent it before it happens.
- Allows you to wave on hook to indicate you have Wicked/Deliverance to your team in SoloQ.
Cons
- Inability to attempt to save yourself if the Survivor team doesn't move to save you.
- Inability to die to try and give hatch to the last survivor.
- Inability to try and unhook yourself if the killer is excessively slugging around hook and/or preventing trades.
- Turns being hooked into the same (actually worse) scenario as being slugged, where you have literally 0 agency or actions you can take.
Other Considerations
- A required complete rework of the Luck mechanic, offerings and Slippery Meat/Up the Ante.
- Since the survivor objective is to try and save yourself to climb MMR, you become 100% team reliant on your team unhooking you to complete your objective. While in hook, you have no say at all.
- Betrays the theme, since if you were stuck on a hook waiting to die, you'd at least try to save yourself. Now you just sit there to die.
- The loss of stage 2 skillchecks getting harder and harder also diminishes the theme, and makes stage 2 a boring wait with no tension at all.
Maybe the Cons and considerations are worth those Pros... but there are elements of the game we lose here.
-
We do get a lot of drama in these forums don't we?
Irrespective of the validity of slugging the whole team as a strategy, how does allowing survivors to quit when they have clearly lost the game directly cause an increase in slugging? If it somehow does, why do we feel the ability to quit is the feature that needs addressing?
Slugging being effective or not is a separate topic from this feature; if slugging the whole team was completely unviable as a strategy would we still be arguing this feature is a problem? No… we wouldn't, so it's pretty irrelevant as a discussion.
You're trying to argue A + B = C, when in reality its more like A = C and B = B.
-
Eeeeeehhhh I don't see it...
The Killers who want to 4 man Slug already do it. This change doesn't make it any easier to 4 man slug, so no one is gonna sit and think "Hey! Survivors can leave now when slugged! What a great time to play the slugging playstyle!". Removal of guilt is perhaps the only thing that might cause an uptick, but even then.
I also don't think it's gonna be a vote thing, I think it's gonna be a you personally can surrender thing, likely leaving the killer with just bots if everyone dips.
If anything the only thing different is it removes the power trip for the killers who do it, so it's more of a disincentive to my mind.
The Finisher Mori increasing slugging for the 4k was a more reasonable argument because people like Mori's, though I maintain the uptick in slugging for the 4k was minda immaterial... it basically bumped it from 90% of games to 98% of games... like who cares really when slug for the 4k is the status quo anyway?
The only blatant difference I saw is instead of being picked up and hooked, we had to wait for the 3rd player to die before the could execute me... which I was fine with cause I take a stance lf "damn... well at least I get the mori". Other than that my games remaining largely Unchanged.
So I didnt care really about the Finisher Mori downaides, and I don't see this change altering 4-man slugging any where near as much as Finisher Mori altered 4k slugging... if at all.
-
@DeBecker said:
If those would be so much OP, why dont you see them even regularly? Right, cause theyre no match for tunneling at all. Its scary that people still claim anti-tunnel perks to be useful.
Actually the reason they aren't used often is because they require being tunneled to have value, and killers simply don't tunnel consistently enough.
I played 20 games with a shoulder the burden build to test how strong it is, got literally 2 legitimate chances to use it, one of which got denied by an overzealous soloQ unhook (no one understands the concept of leavimg a tunneled player on hook as long as possible)... the one time I got to use it, it swung that game uber hard.
In the others it did nothing or got me killed cause I was getting too frustrated not being able to use it, and therefore kept using it when I shouldn't.
-
My ever lasting frustration with SoloQ is how many players don't use the HUD and refuse to just repair generators, nor make use of the 70s hook timer. You don't even need Kindred really if you use the HUD intelligently.
When a survivor gets hooked, the number of times I see all 3 players immediately come off gens to go for saves is absurd... they literally don't even give the killer a chance to leave... just beeline for the hook like the hooked survivor owes them money.
As strong as perks like Deliverance, We'll Make It, Babysitter and even Borrowed Time (slept on), etc are, I often have to.ban myself from those perks, cause too many players are like moths to the flame when it comes to unhooks... there is such a lack of common sense, it is very frustrating... as such I don't tend to.go for unhooks anymore unless I'm sure I'm needed, because I always try to ensure there is a gen ring on the HUD at all times. That's how you win games, that's how you beat camping.
Fundamentally I agree with @sanees... you can't nerf the killer because Survivors play badly. Thankfully of you follow.commonmsense rules yourself, you tend to win more often and you start playing with Survivors who do the same thing more often. Though I still run Kindred time to time so I at least can ensure my teammates are goombas when I'm on hook. Open Handed + Kindred demolishes a camping killer.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3887061#Comment_3887061
I guess I'm fundamentally against adding arbitrary restrictions on mechanics. I don't like solutions that place rules on players for an undefined arbitrary amount of time, because there will always be an exception.To me, its a video game. Everything is arbitrary mechanic.
Like if 4%ing just never existed, it never crossed BHVR's mind, I really doubt players would be like 'something feels like its missing'. Or if from the very beginning it had a limitation on when it could be used, I don't think anyone would really think the idea of it having a limitation would even be weird.
I think 2v8 is kind of a good example of that. No one can attempt a kobe and it doesn't feel like anything is missing.
Or for a legit (yet extreme) example, what if a bunch of newbies group up vs. Leatherface and all get downed rapidly from his charge resets by his iri add-on?If I understand the new changes proposed, they can just surrender and get out of the trial.
But let's take the worst case scenario - 3 survivors downed quickly and hooked, final one hides. Normally these 3 survivors try to kobe. Now they have to wait an extra minute.
I'd gladly trade the mild inconvenience of that rarer scenario for the more common scenario of players rage quitting. We're not going to have a perfect solution or a perfect game, but I want the one that has the least amount of "bad" games.
To me a DC penalty system that weights an offence between a single blatant/egrious instance and/or consistent patterns of high scoring instances within a short time frame seems the less intrusive of the 2 options.So I guess my post is a twofold issue.
1: It is better to prohibit certain action than to punish it. If we/BHVR can agree on a metric whereby a player should not 4%, just don't let them 4%.
2: The most straightforward approach should be taken to implementing that and adding layers as necessary.
Yeah fair enough, even if I don't completely agree, it's a very well reasoned and respectable argument.
Just as a closing thought, I'm not completely convinced by the removal of the 4% beimg better than a penalty, because although it is rare in 2vs8, I have had (and seen complaints about) scenarios where survivors don't move to save people on hook in 2vs8. It's rare cause of the number of players, but it has happened to me at least once.
You as the player on hook are stuck there with literally nothing you can do about it, ypu can't even try... which is the same complaint slugging and slugging for the 4k has going on right now. This is why the option to kobe is there, to try and save yourself if no one else will.
If you attempt to kobe, and fail, no one gets upset, cause they knew it was a long shot... but they still had a shot, and taking that away is not a small thing. Kobe doesn't give you much agency... but it does give you some agency to at least try and still keep playing.
Plus I am a little "you get what deserve" regarding punishment. When I play liller, I make a point of slapping down sandbaggers and slugging quitters, (I otherwise almost never slug)... I believe there is a Gentlemans agreement as survivor to try and help each other win, and going so selfishly against that implied agreement is a big trigger for me... so I am absolutely biased cause I definitely want to see quitters get harsh punishments. 😅
-
@buggybug said:
My biggest question is why did they even make a self unhook achievement? Have they completely forgot about that? Come on someone from bvhr answer this please.
Not Today was released as part of the Shattered Bloodlines chapter, which brought Adam with the perk Deliverance.
It's why a lot of suggestions tend to say "ban kobe attempts unless Slippery Meat, Deliverance or Wicked are equipped"
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3886995#Comment_3886995
I'd say a potential long term problem is the impact on people who don't play that much. You have two reactions, neither of which is good:
1: A player every now and then receives a 1 minute penalty. They don't know why, nor do they care, and continue to behave in the same manner.
2: A player every now and then receives a 1 minute penalty. They don't know why, but they are extremely angered by what has happened.
Because if you have weights and a player is only playing occasionally, its going to take awhile for those to add up.
Take the example of player who always quits against Wraith - that might happen 1 out of every 25 matches. If they play ten games a week as survivor, you're looking at a 5 week period for this activity to happen twice.
It also seems a less than optimal use of developer time to design and manage a system of weights when there seems to be pretty significant agreement about what are the biggest problems.
The major problem of players quitting is when players quit a perfectly winnable game cause they throw a tantrumWhich I agree about. I think the solution to that is relatively straightforward by removing/limiting early game kobes. We can worry about the other less major problems later.
Yeah I suppose I get where you're coming from as I've thought about the complexity, the offence itself now is no longer clear.
I guess I'm fundamentally against adding arbitrary restrictions on mechanics. I don't like solutions that place rules on players for an undefined arbitrary amount of time, because there will always be an exception.
For example what if a hacker instantly Nurse teleports everyone on hook? Players can't try to kobe to kill themselves because not enough time has passed.
Or for a legit (yet extreme) example, what if a bunch of newbies group up vs. Leatherface and all get downed rapidly from his charge resets by his iri add-on? Or even if it's just 3 get caught and the last one gets found after everyone has been hooked? Because enough time hasn't gone past, they are basically forced to sit on hook while they loose hook stages, and can't attempt to kobe...
The devil is in the details with this kind of thing, and I don't think blocking the feature arbitrarily is the right way to go.
I guess it boils down to how much faith you'd have in the implemented system. To me a DC penalty system that weights an offence between a single blatant/egrious instance and/or consistent patterns of high scoring instances within a short time frame seems the less intrusive of the 2 options.
The "simplify it" argument of yours can apply to the DC penalty system too. Simply ask:
- What were the hook stages/states of the other survivors at the time?
- Was an attempt to 3x kobe made with a follow up of 2 non attempt checks?
Just hitting players that fail on those 2 points with penalties would hit a substantial number of SoHs, because now trying to escape the trial by bypassing this system is at the mercy of the killer... and plenty of killers don't take kindly to SoHs either... if the risk is slugged for 4 minutes or take the DC penalty... most people take the DC.
-
@Chiky said:
my take on bleeding out:
After you have recovered all you can, you get the option to get up. You're still bleeding, but with this, you can move at 1/2 speed while bleeding 100% faster. This allows you to move to another place. While doing this, the only interaction you can do is heal another slugged survivor who has already recovered the most they can. (You can still see other survivor auras)
Also, base kit deerstalker.
I rather like that idea actually, though I'd reign it in a little more so that slugging isnt made totally pointless, as there are instances the killer needs to slug.
I believe the main issue with slugging is the inability to meaningfully move to teammates or go anywhere to be saved. Maybe something like: -
After recovering to 95% in the dying state, you can pick yourself up by pressing the rush button to enter the critically injured state.
While in the critically injured state: -
- You limp/stagger at a speed of 1.13m/s. (Same speed as crouching, or ½ walking speed 2.26m/s)
- Your grunts of pain are 25% louder.
- You continue to bleedout 25% faster.
- You HUD icon shifts to a standing symbol.
- You are considered to be in the dying state for the purpose of perk interactions.
- Performing any conspicuous actions immediately causes your character to pass out and drop back into the dying state, losing 50% recovery progress.
- Completing a heal action on a critically injured survivor returns them to the injured state.
What's neat about this is chests are not considered conspicuous actions, nor is using a key to open hatch, and it is also affected by perks that affect the dying state... such as Tenacity, WGLF, Buckle Up, Deerstalker, Knockout, the passive aura read Survivors have on each other remains.
Basically this is a reslin of my old Desperation idea... but this is cooler 😁
-
Hmmmmm.... there's a certain poetry to it being a Sable and Unknown combo skin... but I get what you sayin'.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3886614#Comment_3886614
Problem as I see it is a simple system can have any one of/or multiple issues such as: -So I think all of these problems exist with a complex system and may even be worse.
E.g. If you make it so Survivors only have skillchecks after 50% of their bar is depeleted on struggle phase (stage2), the system is ineffective (point 2) because they've already lost an extra hook stage and only need a little over 30s or to run to the killer to escape.But the current system, at least as described in the post what they are focusing on, this doesn't exist either. If we get multiple layers of checks, when the problem is glaringly obvious, by overcomplicating it we've missed the obvious problem.
On the other hand, let's say their data indicates the issue is 2nd stage skill checks. They just remove the first 30 seconds of skill checks. If after a few weeks the player base opinion is "hey, here's how that doesn't work" then you move onto the next thing.
It's easier to start simple and add more layers, then start complex and winnow down (see the basekit mori example).
And if that one simple layer does work, great, you're done, and don't have to worry about false positives.
If you make it so no self unhook attempts period, you hit point 4. Players can't try to kobe in a no hope situation, or when their team doesn't try to help them.But again, this is something that we have and their proposed solution (again, with the limited info we have) doesn't look like it is going to change. Right now killers can circumvent the idea of player getting out of the game by leaving them slugged. Even if a player was trapped on a hook for a 70 second timer, that would be an improvement over being trapped on the ground for 4 minutes.
Again though, you can put in base kit idea and work from there. What's the problem? Go next from first stage with kobe attempts. Okay remove those. Oh, wait, but we need unhooks later in the match.
No problem, slight modification. No unhook attempts within the first X minutes or first 1 or 2 people who are hooked. There's no guesswork on the survivor part of whether or not they are in a position where they can attempt the unhook, nor are we in the situation where matches can still be ruined by people who are willing to eat the depip / dc penalty (instead they would just eat the DC penalty if they really wanted to, but then there is at least a bot).
The examples cited, such as the AFC, are more complex than they appear, with careful controls for mutliple floors, a temprary delay, and different behaviour based on survivor/killer proximity to not punish the killer from doing sensible and natural things near the hook.But more complex than they are appear when they are simple for the player to understand. As killer, don't be close to hook for too long, unless another survivor is there. The killer player doesn't need to worry about the specific distances, the times, or all of that. Some people will inevitably map out the extreme edges of the system, but you don't need to fix everything to have a solution that improves the game.
Having discussed this issue a lot, it's very difficult to find a system that actually solves those 4 points.But you don't need to solve. You need to improve.
'The first two survivors hooked may not attempt to unhook themselves, barring a perk or AFC."
Is that going to solve every issue associated with players going next? No. Would it improve the game? Absolutely.
And you can even modify the above. Two can become one or instead of a number of counts, we can make it the first X minutes of the match. You can start safe, then expand.
I think my biggest point against starting with complex, is there is nothing wrong with going a step at a time (other than BHVR seems opposed). By staying simple you've limited the damage you can do and can solve a portion of the problem at a time. Not to mention you would save a ton of design and coding time during the process.
That's one way of doing it aye, and not a bad approach. The only potential downside of an iterative approach is it can tunnel vision/pigeon hole you into 1 line of thinking.
The issue that sticks out to me is there is no Universal "go next" method, the challenge here really is detection.
The ideal solution is that nothing in the game changes for players who aren't going next... if possible, we would ideally want our mechanics to stay exactly the same and only punish players with clear intent on just ruining the game unprovoked and going next.
The way I would do this myself would not be a automatic "you did this so DC penalty". I'd likely attribute weights that accumulate to then give a ban.
E.g. A player on their first hook who immediately unhook attempts and misses 2 skillchecks looks like an easy ban... but what if its 8 mins into the game, 4 gens are left, everyone else has 2 hooks and 1 survivor is dead? Now this is much more reasonable to try and kobe, and in the event of failure choose to sacrifice.
So instead of being 1 question with an automatic "detection = ban", I'd look to applying weightings based on context. So on a 10 mins of thought system, I might consider: -
- How long has gone by in the trial?
- Did they try to kobe and miss 2nd stage skillchecks? How much time did they spend on hook before they attempted?
- How many players are dead/in the dying state when they died?
- How many score events does the player have relative to their time in the trial?
- How many hooks does the killer have, and how many gens have survivors completed?
- How much chase time does the survivor have relative to their time in the trial minus time in the dying or hooked state?
- Do they have AFK crows?
You get the idea. Any individual measure on this list is flawed by itself, and any simple system will only factor 1 or 2 of these measures in. However when you combine them all together it becomes pretty hard to misidentify someone. The common part of all of these things is that time spent making genuine effort in the trial, even for a newb, gives a reasonable measure of their participation. The main issue to tackle is the immediate DC/SoH at the start of the trial.
The major problem of players quitting is when players quit a perfectly winnable game cause they throw a tantrum... but after the game has been going a while, the likelihood someone quits drops substantially. There is a nice correlation between that and how early in the trial they die, but there are these other factors to consider. So if we run some scenarios: -
- A player who gives up just because its Wraith, or they got a dodgy hit on them over a pallet in the first chase will score poorly on 6 of these points...
- A player bad at looping who gets tunneled out from first hook may score poorly on 3-4 points... but will score well on at least 3 points, and may even score well on up to 5 points.
- A player who unalives to give hatch may score poorly on 3 points, but will score well on others.
- A player who is AFK is likely to fail on 5 of these points.
The point is the really agregious players will not just score badly on a number of these points... but they will score REALLY badly in the offending points... and that ties into the weightings. Trying to not score badly on a lot of points before they quit, basically makes it so it's more effort to try to reach a threshold before they try to quit than just eat a penalty, or play the game.
So even if we only hit the most blatant of first and last scenario players, and the system is otherwise quite forgiving, the lack of clarity on how much you have to participate becomes something not worth a players time to try and figure out.
-
@Lord_Kaine said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3886488#Comment_3886488
With perfect execution and predictions when aiming, yes, it could be as low as 21 seconds for a single health state. But only if the Unknown gets a succesful hit with weakened, within the first second of the chase, and is fired within the exact second it's off cooldown. Plus, the Unkown only has 3 seconds to line up a shot once off cooldown, otherwise the weakened state is lost if the survivor was staring it down.
Spot on, which kinda puts a pretty big hole in the "how do you last longer than 10s" question... in fact, I'm left wondering how it's even possible to not last 10s... even with No Mither its still 14 😅
-
@Flawless_ said:
Yeah in my opinion the simplest, easiest way to address the problem they mention would be if a player fails two skillchecks the player leaves the game and is replaced by a bot. They can't really force people to stay in a game against their will, that's a recipe for disaster.
But instead of simply granting additional bloodpoints™, they could start flagging all the chronically go next-ers and put them in lobbies with each other. Guaranteed to curb that behavior.And 100% agree that the unhook attempting is the real issue here, which could be easily solved by only letting people attempt unhooks when there's 20 seconds left on the timer. Saves them having to change perks, mechanics, timers etc.
But BHVR gonna BHVR I guess.
Problem as I see it is a simple system can have any one of/or multiple issues such as: -
- It is easy to subvert.
- Doesn't address the problem.
- Causes false positives
- Limits the players playing genuinely more than the players who quit.
E.g. If you make it so Survivors only have skillchecks after 50% of their bar is depeleted on struggle phase (stage2), the system is ineffective (point 2) because they've already lost an extra hook stage and only need a little over 30s or to run to the killer to escape.
If you remove hook stages from stage 2, you prevent attempts to sacrifice a genuine losing scenario for hatch and hit point 4.
If you make it so if miss 2 skillchecks as you hit stage 2 you give me a low priority lobby, you hit points 1 and 3 where newbie players don't understand, and players wanting to quit, hit one, then miss 2.
If you make it so no self unhook attempts period, you hit point 4. Players can't try to kobe in a no hope situation, or when their team doesn't try to help them.
The issue you guys are presenting is you're trying to come up with a system to discourage players from leaving, but without forcing them to stay... these goals are diametrically opposed... any system that is effective must by definition give a strong enough deterrent to force a survivor to stay, otherwise the system is ineffective.
The examples cited, such as the AFC, are more complex than they appear, with careful controls for mutliple floors, a temprary delay, and different behaviour based on survivor/killer proximity to not punish the killer from doing sensible and natural things near the hook.
The Finisher Mori is quite simple granted, and we're seeing the issues from that where the killer has to painstakingly wait for the 3rd player to die before they can Mori, and the rise of slugging for the 4k. I consider those issues small myself, but some people are quite upset by it. The Finisher Mori would probably benefit from a system that is a little more complex to make attaining the Finisher mori a mini challenge for killers to encourage playing the game in more interesting manner. E.g. minimum 10 hook requirements to encourage more macro driven gameplay as a sott of "true victory" or "Entity reward" system.
Having discussed this issue a lot, it's very difficult to find a system that actually solves those 4 points.
-
Sadly main reason I'm on console is my hands can't take the wear and tear of a keyboard and mouse anymore...
So there will still be at least one scrub getting spin teched every 15s... 😭😭😭
-
@Rudjohns said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3886536#Comment_3886536
If 1 gen is left then the match should continue, sure
But thats pretty much it
Well in that case... Nah, I think randomly dropping dead when player 2 dies is a ridiculous feature that just encourages tunneling even more.
I'll keep trying to play the game as it is thanks and take BHVRs proposed changes instead. I would rather go down swinging than have the Entity just randomly kill me because players like yourself can'tbe bothered to play any more.
-
@Rudjohns said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3886523#Comment_3886523
Okay, so because 1 person has the desire to run the rest of the match with barely any chances to win, everybody else is forced to do so?
There are also killers who actually play the hatch game, or give the final player hatch. You believe they too shouldn't be able to do so? Just kill everyone once the second survivor dies?
By extension of your logic, if a final gen is at 98% when the 2nd survivor dies, then uh oh spaghetti-o, sorry chaps, too slow, you just get killed by the Entity. If that's gonna be an exception, where are you gonna put your cut off? Number of gens? What if I've got 5 or hell even 7 gens all at 99%? I still just die?
I think you may be experiencing extreme tunnel vision on one problem here my guy. No offence, but your point and suggestion here is utter crap, to the point the only benefit of the doubt I can extend to you is to assume this is a rage post.
If thats not the case and you're that blinded and warped by your anger at getting slugged for the 4k that you can't see that, then I would strongly recommend you take a break and play something else for a while.
-
@Rudjohns said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3885922#Comment_3885922
True, thats why I have been saying this for a long time: The objective of the game should be 2k, not 4k. As soon as the 2nd survivor is dead, the remaining 2 are sacrificed by the entity.
The desire to quit is not inherent for everyone. Some people want to try to run the killer for the remaining gens, why do you think they shouldn't be allowed to try?
-
@Lord_Kaine said:
The explosion won't injure you if you're not suffering from the weakened status, so the projectile requires 3 three hits to down already.
On a 7s cooldown too plus charge and fly time, so thats at least 21s by my watch.
-
@SoGo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3885853#Comment_3885853
Good ideas!
Although, you likely misunderstood me a bit. By "free" characters, I meant the ones that are available to every player from the very beginning (Trapper, Wraith, Nea, Claudette, Dwight etc.).
Ah yes! Misinterpreted that detail, that makes much more sense. Good shout that man, objection withdrawn 😁
-
Agreed… why should PC players be the only ones who can roll in with such classics as "Wesker's Salt Lick" and "Hex: Put It Rin"?
Where is the equality?
-
(1) Hmmm… I'm not really 100% behind point 1, because it implies you need to spend 4500 (or 9000) shards on a new character that you don't necessarily want, that you then have to sink ~1'350'000 - ~4'000'000 bloodpoints into to prestige and unlock their perks in the web.
If you only want one perk from that character its more cost effective to just unlock the perk you want for 2000 shards, and then just level up your chosen main 2 bloodweb levels for like 45'000 BP.(2) I'd prefer instead to boost this to 6 a side, with 3 licensed character perks and 3 original character perks in the rotation.
(3) Sure!
(4) I mean… I'd be tempted to go a step further and say 2000 → 1000 → 1000. Unlocking the perk is the important part, tier 3ing the perk is a convenience thing once you've mostly got everything you want.
-
TBH even if it only works for stopping people giving up within the first 5 minutes of the match would be enough. The studies content creators have done and my own experience with DBD has been that most of the issues come from entitled babies who give up in the first minute or two of the game. Very few people DC/SoH after the match has been going past the start into the mid game.
Thus I don't think whatever system that comes in to prevent SoH, would affect SoH for hatch. It would likely need to have a lesser system in place after that initial 5 mins to ensure people aren't just waiting it out to get out, but because it's only really the instant quitters that need to be reigned in, even if there wasn't such a system, the 5 mins alone would be enough of a deterrent to DC for bots instead of SoH anyway.