UnicornMedal
UnicornMedal
About
- Username
- UnicornMedal
- Joined
- Visits
- 892
- Last Active
Comments
-
One thing I'd add that might even be the primary contributor is the psychology of the role.
Despite how comfortable Killer has been made to feel as opposed to Survivor, there is little that can be done about how Killer feels during the trial. The spotlight is always on them. They always feel the need to perform. If they lose the 4k, it's a massive fumble. In that case, you'd think something like bots would be ideal. But then there's the caveat that there's no one to perform for anymore. There's no power to be achieved, for those who crave it.
Essentially Killer has to feel like they're the star of the trial and that they're besting their opponents in a way that is both feared and respected. It must be seen, it cannot be handed to them (everyone gives up), and they cannot be talked down to (bagging, EGC roasting, etc.) as they do it.
You can imagine how impossible that is to create and why even attempting to coddle that will obliterate the game (in my opinion).
-
The asymmetrical genre is sadly not that exciting or interesting. I think it's easy to forget how niche DBD was before they landed the Halloween chapter (which poetically is being lost this year). I've said it before but it bears repeating—DBD would be the same as every other asymm that has come and gone, many with far more potential than DBD has ever had, if there were no licenses (in my opinion). This is the only game where you can have Claire, Heather, Bill, and Ash go up against Freddy Krueger. Nothing can fill that niche. No other IP stands strong enough on its own to challenge that. It's just the reality. ED, TCM, F13, KK, and the like are not DBD's competition. It's games like Fortnite that it can compete for licenses with.
-
As this year has shown us, big promises are generally too good to be true when it comes to the game. And unfortunately, this year has also shown that the game is likely developed with two very hard slants in mind—competition-level gameplay and high Killer performance. We've gotten a lot of excuses as to why things have to be a certain way for a long time now, but those two factors drive the most engagement and are therefore paramount,. They will always be the most important factors and anything that deviates from that is either a farce or temporary, in my opinion.
-
I hate to sound doom and gloom, but year 6 was the tipping point for DBD. A lot of decisions that were poor and did not benefit the game, which was immediately noticeable. After years of trying to smooth that mess out, we had this year—the year of health, which was actually a year of high hopes and broken promises.
Year 5 felt like the game was stale but very playable and very unpredictable at times. Now year 10 will likely feel like the game is about seeing who can trigger the abandon system first.
I know that there is this consensus that we should not lay blame at the doorstep of those creating these issues, but I will say that if things don't shape up, they will only get worse. Deathgarden/Meet Your Maker worse? I don't know. But I genuinely think most of us here will have to find ways to convince ourselves to even engage at all anymore. In my opinion, as always.
-
The abandon feature has been incredibly unhealthy for the game. Ironically in a bid to punish giving up, we've only added the element of "ethical" giving up to the fray which unsurprisingly has no clearly defined limit. It seems that as time goes on, we've added so many of these "ethical" scenarios that it's becoming unrecognizable from the supposedly "unethical" system we had prior to June.
We're only being led back to the same exact conclusion we've known for years now, and which we've clearly communicated—players are fatigued by the game. They don't want to stick out scenarios that aren't fun and appear to be a losing battle. We can argue potential all that we want, but none of us are clairvoyant. It boils down solely to fun and the game is not fun in its current state.
All of that being said, I'm going to contradict myself and welcome more reasons to abandon being added to the game. Despite how closely it resembles what's not allowed, it's a system that restores player autonomy and that is something that is sorely lacking from the game. It highlights the importance of issues that have gone ignored far too long at this point and need to be addressed. Band-aid fixes are killing the game slowly, in my opinion.
-
It would be nice if the interactions that the challenges want you to know were explained in the gameplay details. This many years in, it feels really clunky having to figure it out without explanation.
Edit: Also PLEASE stop adding events where you have to complete every single challenge to get all of the rewards. Nobody likes that. -
My solution would be to remove grades entirely. They're totally misleading.
-
I get what you're saying but it seems a bit like you wanna have your cake and eat it too. For a very long time, events have been a time where players just have fun and help each other through the grind. Players used to get really upset that they couldn't play serious during events because of that reason. Now that the queues are separate, I find it odd to want the gameplay in both to remain the same. That being said, nothing has stopped any Killers I've gone against from sweating super hard and throwing snowballs.
-
I know I'm part of the problem but I just swipe. I don't have the patience to save up anymore. 😭
-
@MoZo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4037110#Comment_4037110
that along with their new version of “we did a pretty good job so far” being “we hear you” when they clearly do not hear us about major issues, complaints or even positive feedback.
Or asking for the Labor Of Love award. 😭
-
@Yoshirama said:
Why people keep asking for this when is a terrible idea.
Why would I play a game where I'm punished just for playing with my friends?
Why would I spend money on characters with perks I can't use because someone else is using it?
And if that's the case, any killer ablve A tier shouldn't be able to use regression/aura perks then 🤷♂️
The reality is that SWFs aren't performing that much better anymore over solo, so this would be the experience for most SWFs.
I think SWF is a catch all for all frustrations while playing Killer (judging by the posts on social media where everyone is in top MMR, supposedly) and sadly judging by how this "year of health" has gone down, it's inevitable that SWFs will be punished eventually. In my opinion, the future of DBD is very bleak and depressing.
-
Maybe for the same reason that we're meant to be competing for gens (pops over progress). Teamwork is always a double edged sword for some reason in DBD.
-
@littlehoot said:
Sadly, based on recent history, the devs would never allow survivors to have any item that impactful. Any new item additions will inevitably be nerfed into oblivion and bloodweb clutter.
Literally came here to say this. I think it's great that new ideas are being suggested, but the reality is that no new items are allowed anymore.
-
@Zuiphrode said:
So basically you want to giga buff survs while nerfing basically everything the killer can do, even gen kicking. The base speed increase for survs and base kit gen kick -removal--is especially egregious. You don't want to balance the game, you want a theme park where survs can play around as they want and killers are just there to be a slightly scary part of the scenery.
This turd of a 'rework' is so actively offensive that I legit think you are trolling.
The Survivor role is actively facing the same sorts of problems Killer was facing 3 years ago which prompted an entire rework of the game, and yet any attempt to level the playing field is considered a bust. 😵 It would be one thing if it was just an opinion and not something BHVR seems to model their updates after (in my opinion).
-
@Rokku_Rorru said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4024567#Comment_4024567
that's not true, so many legendaries have like a huge list of bugs as do normal cosmetics, and they keep piling more broken ones to the list.
Still waiting on Baermar's anniversary outfit to be Baermar's. 😵
-
Honestly, nothing. Abandon solved almost every single issue I have with my teammates.
-
Joke's on you—the new original chapters have by and large been so uninteresting to me that I always have Shards saved up now. 😵
-
I love Vittorio but I'd rather be Alan.
-
It's a delicate balance. It's fun if they know how to make it fun. No one likes having to heal, slug, heal, slug. But if they engage in a way that makes the trial feel like you're progressing, that's fun.
-
This is assuming a whole lot about BHVR. The reality is that what we see is what we get and that does include a lot of lies and disappointment (in my opinion). I think after seeing their actions this year especially, I would not consider that a labor of love at all. I could just as easily say that they weather a storm of their own creation in order to continue to turn a profit. Again, this is all my opinion of course. But I would rather give my vote to a company that doesn't alienate their audience and mistreat them.
-
@CrossTheSholf said:
Any survivors want to address the genuine problems killer mains had with the ptb? Or just sling strawmen around?
Additionally, I would like to hear your definitions of slugging and tunneling. Is it tunneling to hook meg, kate, Meg, Adam, Meg? What if a Steve who was just unhooking bodyblocked for his unhooker. Is going after Steve tunneling? Or what if the last survivor who was unhooked jumped on a gen in the killers face? Would hooking them be tunneling?
Tunneling has had a solid definition ever since Conspicuous Actions were introduced on DS. There's really no point going any deeper than that right now.
-
The best option would just be to revert DS back to its pre-6.1.0 version. It was the healthiest it ever was and still useful. The only complaint at the time was that it could be used during the endgame, which was a silly complaint to begin with.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4031488#Comment_4031488
Can I ask, sincerely, what are you referring to with the idea that BHVR constantly can features shown on PTBs?
The only two examples of that happening I can remember off the top of my head are the Twins rework and the current PTB situation that sparked the conversation. I'm asking you because you're the latest person I've seen say it, but I've seen others also make out like this is not only a pattern, but a constant pattern that happens all the time.
So… what other examples are you thinking of?
I don't have a list in front of me, but I'm not just talking about things that are outright scrapped, but things that are gutted before they go live as well. Sometimes it's perk buffs that end up being perk nerfs, or reworks that end up being shelved indefinitely, or promises that end up changing suddenly or never manifest at all. Things of that nature. It always seems like they end up doing the opposite of what is wanted and/or beneficial to the game.
If I'm being perfectly honest too, even if it were all laid out for me and I saw that it wasn't technically as bad as I thought, it wouldn't replace this feeling of fatigue whenever it does happen. To think that problems that have persisted this long, that are affecting players this greatly, are being shot down so easily is very difficult to look past. And it's all cumulative.
I apologize if that's not the answer you were looking for. 😭
-
My issue is that it's the same old song and dance. But this time it's far worse.
They run all these surveys and have their CMs fish for feedback and then they parrot it so that we feel heard. This "year of health" brought up a lot of issues players discuss often, whether anyone agrees with every individual point or not. The initial proposals were strong too, which was mostly a good sign.
However, like clockwork, every feature is canned for one reason or another and all we're left with are flaccid numbers tweaks we could expect from any half-baked chapter release. What made this year different was the promise. These were things that matter a lot to players and they were treated with the utmost disrespect and arms thrown in the air "well what can we do?" mentality we've come to expect from BHVR over the last decade. That attitude is incredibly damaging not only to the game but to their relationship with their audience. It is highly immature, insensitive, and honestly cruel. Players should feel jaded because that's the natural reaction to this degree of dishonesty.
All my opinion, of course.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4030967#Comment_4030967
I wasn't able to find the old list. Though as I went looking through old threads I realized how frequently this concept has been discussed again and again over the years: also, how much I like to make lists. Anyway, it did basically give me the same ideas:
3: 4v1 - Usually being outnumbered means a huge disadvantage. There is a huge desire to say 'I beat 4 people!', so the backlash to 'actually, you had the easier side' is pretty huge. We see this in the '16 v 4' perk arguments as if those things are at all comparable.
4: Standards - People's view of the game and what the killer should expect have been wildly thrown out of whack. When people talk about the game being killer sides you'll get responses like 'oh, show me winning 20 games with a row with Trapper at high MMR!'. Except that just shows how absurd the standard has become because people are basing the 'killer is harder' on a standard heavily in their favor.
5: Burden shifting - We see some of this in the thread, basically saying all of the pressure should be on survivors. An example of this is Sadako with her high kill rate, people will point out, correctly, that this will change as survivors get better. What never gets discussed is what exactly has the new or low MMR Sadako shown to earn that KR? There's just a constant focus on what the survivors COULD do, without discussing what the Killer HASN'T had to do.
This is a possible way the game could be designed, but you're advocating that the Killer should have a heavy dose of hand holding, and that goes back to my earlier point of no one wanting to win a game that is tilted in their favor.
6: Misunderstanding variability - A single trial is not a huge sample size. If a survivors wins a bunch of 50/50s that looks like they are high skill and unbeatable, but it could easily be ascribed to the survivor just winning coin flips (or even outside 50/50s larger percentages).To take the coin flips, 1 out 8 games survivors will win 4 coin flips in a row and look amazing, 1 out of 8 games the killer will win 4 coin flips in a row and the survivors will look awful. But that's not showing the skill, that's just how probability works over many games.
7: No idea what they missed - If a killer runs by a survivor waiting with a flashlight, but doesn't see them, how would they ever know? Or what if the killer goes for a tunnel and gets gen rushed, they have no idea if they could have stopped it via spreading pressure. This is how when certain forum members post their videos it gets a lot 'those are low MMR survivors, mine are much harder'. But its impossible to know what could have been missed, or how seemingly minor tactical changes could have yielded large changes, and it causes lots of anger when others post matches being able to handle things.
8: Always play the same way - Many players employ the same tactics every game (i.e. tunnel). Thus it seems confusing as why survivors don't just run the counter to that strategy. Except, survivors have to predict multiple possible playstyles, but from the killer perspective they're wondering why survivors aren't just taking the 'strongest' builds.
This can be seen with how you have killers arguing the game is clearly survivor sided, while wildly disagreeing on what the broken build is (i.e. anti-tunnel, healing, gen rushing). An argument about what is broken on the survivor side frequently gives an indication to how the killer probably players (though there are objectively overpowered things on the survivor side just as there are on killer).
9: One sided framing - Trapper vs sweaty 4 person SWF is the common argument. Sure, unfair. So is a soloq without items hitting a sweaty Nurse, but that gets ignored.
Somehow killers have been able to maximize the 'if this goes through, only S tier killers will be played', while survivors have never managed 'if this goes through survivors will only run Iri addons and always play in a SWF', though both are equally possible (by which I mean basically will never happen).
10: Perfect - So in a hypothetical world, if the survivors played perfectly, they'd win. That's because many elements of the game are perfectly predictable. If you were a computer, when the killer begins to approach you'd know exactly whether or not which vaults/pallets you could make it to because the movement rates are predictable.
Except perfection is a horrible metric. I like to compare it to chess. There are people who are professional chess players (compared to what we call 'pros' in DbD) and do it their whole lives, there are many books written on chess strategy, and chess doesn't have the randomness of a game like DbD. Except, its been a long time since the world's best chess player could beat a computer (and we keep making better chess playing computers). Well, because people, even at the most extremes of human ability, always make mistakes. But some killers have latched onto this impossible reality as the standard for how we should discuss the game.
Really great points as well. They all align with what we've seen especially since year 6.
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4031273#Comment_4031273
what exactly has the new or low MMR Sadako shown to earn that KR? There's just a constant focus on what the survivors COULD do, without discussing what the Killer HASN'T had to do.
It is funny how this is. Personally, when I hop on a killer for the first time, it's not uncommon for me to breeze through 20 wins in a row. That's about when the shift to better opponenets happens, and I end up with survivors who understand the killer far better than I do. So there's this gap in my learning where I now have to sweat and learn at the same time. It's easy to blame the killer's kit but it's really the erratic matchmaking and forced expectations.
This is a possible way the game could be designed, but you're advocating that the Killer should have a heavy dose of hand holding, and that goes back to my earlier point of no one wanting to win a game that is tilted in their favor.
I kinda think it's the other way around, that people can't bear to loose a match that's tilted in their favor. Killers are supposed to get kills and are designed to win more. So if you loose, it hits even harder, because you were already boosted from the get-go. On the flipside, as survivor, when I die to a killer I can see is clearly a bad player but perks, ping, bloodlust, and RNG did half the work, I resign myself to "well I'm designed to loose." In that way, I find survivor to be the sad role, and killer to be the stressful one.
I think that's where this "killer anxiety" silliness comes from. They're the main character and the focus is on them, and they're basically expected to win, so losing hits some too hard.
This is how when certain forum members post their videos it gets a lot 'those are low MMR survivors, mine are much harder'.
I hate how killer players say this, and how they all assume they themsleves are upper MMR and others are lower. You're only making each other feel inadequate, so the situation gets worse. There's also only so many people in upper MMR. You're not all there.
An argument about what is broken on the survivor side frequently gives an indication to how the killer probably players
I also feel this way. Who is telling people to bring Unbreakable, Soul Guard, or Conviction if they're not the problem thise perks address?
'if this goes through, only S tier killers will be played'
I'm always amazed hw much people say this. Does it really convince anyone? Beause you can just play for yourself and see it's not the case. I get wide variety in my matches. Even had a Twins the other day.
So in a hypothetical world, if the survivors played perfectly, they'd win.
I don't understand why this expectation is solely on survivors. I have matches where the survivors are great and I'm whiffing, getting whacked by pallets, getting juiced by people clipping into the walls perfectly, and just looking like an overall fool—then I win. Why did I not only have to play perfect againt good players, but I didn't even have to play well?
Also great additions.
(Not a lot to add, just wanted to give kudos 🥴) -
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4030854#Comment_4030854
I've noticed certain patterns and trends too. My overall view is close to yours. I find survivor mains are mellow and thoughtful but defintely more passive and easily beaten down, and killer mains are louder and more prone to quick emotional crash outs and inexplicable victimhood. But I think those are the extremes. The people with more even personalities seem to either play both or just not take the game so seriously. But, from what I've seen in the forum, I think a lot of killler mains are extreme introverts and the power role is a way to break free of that, and things that infringe on that fantasy hit them hard.
I can attest to your assessment though. I waffle back and forth between roles and currently don't know what I prefer, and I'm probably one of the most unapproachably quiet, cold, unfriendly introverts you could meet but will be loud as hell and say the most outrageous things once you know me. So both generalizations apply.
This is a take I hadn't considered. It makes a lot of sense to be honest. 🤔
@Nazzzak said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4030892#Comment_4030892
DLCs are definitely the lifeblood, though I feel survivors are bigger cosmetic consumers than killers. That's why for every one new killer cosmetic there's multiple for survivor. I feel like DLC consumption is probably higher among those who play mostly killer. Survivors are ultimately just different skins while new killers offer a fresh experience. I could be wrong though.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4030899#Comment_4030899
Yeah, maybe introverts and extroverts are the wrong distinction. I guess passive personalities vs assertive personalities might be more accurate?
I do believe both drive the game, for sure. But cosmetics are more so for those that are already here, while the chapters drive numbers. If the former fails, they just have to pull the latter. Or offer more free copies on Epic. 😵
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4030890#Comment_4030890
I can't even express a quarter of my view or I'd be banned lol but I think you and I are pretty aligned on our views on the mentalities of a certain flavor of killer main. I've seen some downright mental instability. The fact that something as goofy as tbagging actually makes many behave differently in-game blows my mind. The persistent victimhood is the most intriguing part, and it does make me wonder about people's real lives. I'm dying for a psyche study on this game's players.
And yeah, I don't know how you compete with it. My fire comes and goes in waves and sometimes I feel physically exhausted with this fight. But even though I play this game every day I don't attach my identity to it, as some people seem to.
Now you know why I say "in my opinion" like it's going out of style. 🥴 And absolutely. That's the most interesting part to me over the years. I never thought about it too deeply until I played other games in the genre and the same mentality persisted in every single one—"I can't play unless you suffer". It's different from other PVP games.
It's exhausting because players have been having the same exact conversations for nearly a decade now. There's only so much you can say that hasn't been said before and shot down the exact same way every single time. It's like you're juggling constant rejection and the emotions of others. DBD and the community is akin to having a really toxic spouse that you're too invested in to divorce (in my opinion 😏). I'm not above admitting that the exit survey debacle was incredibly frustrating because of how juvenile it was. Or that the rollercoaster with anti-camp/tunnel/slug has been totally draining too. It's a normal thing to lose your cool sometimes or to tap out I think.
@crogers271 said:
Being @Nazzzak @cogsturning and @UnicornMedal have given their theories, I'll jump in on why we see such reactions. I used to have a list of ten reasons, but I'll narrow it down:
1: No one likes to win a game that was rigged in their favor. By design, the killer should kill more than the survivors escape. And even if you are really, really good, it still hurts knowing the designers have their thumb on the scales and it undermines the worth of winning. It's why you get arguments that act like comp is the only level that matters, butchering math, and things like Trapper vs 4 person sweaty SWF (while the memeing soloq vs sweaty Nurse is ignored). Simply, its a defense mechanism.
2: Killers have nowhere to go but down. I think this is what leads to the doom saying about changes even as BHVR says they'll keep to the 60% KR goal. If you're taking a lot of pride in long streaks and a huge win rate, and BHVR changes things and it plummets, but the overall KR stays relatively the same, it will make those earlier 'successes' look fake.
This also makes sense. Anyone that learns Survivor knows that the level of skill you need to get ahead is both extensive and easily negated depending on factors beyond your control. However that is constantly downplayed in a number of ways in order for everyone to focus on Killer (which to be fair, has a learning curve of its own especially if you plan on maining more than one).
I think this also is good because it can apply to both sides. If Survivor was really the power role everyone claims that it is, we'd be seeing the same attitude from them as well. I have zero doubt about that.
-
@YaBoi0215 said:
Leave it to a survivor main to complain about not having their hand held even more than is already is. The whole mentality just feels like, "If I don't instantly spawn at an open exit gate the beginning of the game with infinite sprint burst and 7 millions pallets to annoy the killer than the game sucks and should be cancelled."
Maybe enjoy some challenge with the game. Learn to run loops properly. Appreciate the skill of good killers that now how to mind game and outplay you around loops. If you can do that then the game will be more enjoyable.This mentality is stuck in the past. Basic protections against cheese tactics and the most rudimentary form of communication imaginable aren't ground breaking mechanics. They're not carrying Survivors to the finish line.
Really, seriously, as threads like this are trying to hold BHVR accountable for changes to complaints that have existed since the game's release that they promised to address, we have controversies like the exit survey being discriminatory because it didn't have a "gens are too fast" option. It's extremely out of touch. In my opinion.
-
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Progress has flatlined across the board. You can only ride a gimmick for so long before you have to innovate. Whoever is putting this red tape on every single motion to get there is really only harming the game in the end. There is no reason why every element of the game can't be much more interactive and fair at this stage. How utterly tragic is it that Frank Stone improved generator interactions long before the game itself ever did? Even their worst fears in the past of the Bloodpoint economy crashing and the queue failing have come true. It is really, truly despicable in my opinion.
-
@Nazzzak said:
As long as you keep buying cosmetics, nothing will change. That's the reality of it.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4030616#Comment_4030616
I've always had a theory about that, and it comes down to what sort of personalities are drawn to what sort of role. I think introverts are more likely to drawn to the survivor role. They're generally more passive and reserved and don't like to make waves. When they don't like something, they leave quietly. Meanwhile, extroverts are likely more drawn to killer. They are naturally outspoken and don't care about making waves. When they don't like something, they have no qualms about speaking up.
There's obviously outliers and this is a generalisation. For example, I'd consider myself an introvert and I now prefer killer to survivor, but it's definitely a distinction I've noticed over the years.
As long as you keep buying cosmetics, nothing will change. That's the reality of it.
It used to be, but not anymore in my opinion. I feel like the cosmetic sales have dropped off, at least that's the feeling I get from the latest Rift.
The real life-blood has always been licensed chapters. If all of us solemnly swore to not buy any cosmetics or chapters for the next 3 months, or even took it a step further and decided to stop playing altogether, they would just have to release Resident Evil Part 3, Silent Hill Part 2, or FNAF Part 2 and we'd be replaced in a heartbeat. And if those players leave? Do the same thing again. Eventually some will stay long enough.
-
@cogsturning said:
Survivors aren't being loud enough. The feedback from the last two ptbs has been dominated by killers screaming, crying, and ripping out their hair. The forum has been heavy with them trying to direct the narrative by threatening to uninstall because of things as minor as pallets or tbagging (and it's clealrly working). You're going to have to match that overly-emotional intensity if you want to achieve anything.
I get a ton of backlash for it every time, but I'm saying it again—it won't happen because as cocky as Survivors can absolutely get, their ego is nowhere near as big (in my opinion).
If you see how Killer mains behave when they congregate anywhere, they always feel incredibly victimized over the slightest things. I've seen people threaten to do drastic things to themselves over bagging at the gates. There is an unhinged desire for control. NOW let me say: if this does not apply to anyone reading, don't take it as such. I'm just saying, it's been my experience across multiple platforms.
How does someone with genuine concerns about game balance or someone experiencing burnout compete with that? I'm not entirely sure myself. BHVR has already started to set the precedent that they can replace Survivors with bots and other Killers via the interim queue (I'm just gonna call Play While You Wait that lol).
-
Bad update. It was designed to be nerfed from the get-go and is honestly a distraction against the real issues. In my opinion.
-
It's more change that nobody wanted or asked for. It might be felt, but I don't think it'll make even a slight dent. The reality is that they can just as easily release Killers with powers that ignore it.
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4029965#Comment_4029965
they havnt stopped playing, player numbers are still up according to the figures and have been steadily increasing since 2021 (a big spike with fnaf) but its settled down and still the numbers are up. let people DC on a whim and watch the player count drop. its a pvp game, if people have to play with bots they simply wont play and the numbers would show it.
The numbers spike every time there's a new license, which is expected. But as we've seen from the incentive counter, the game is constantly lacking enough players. Historically so with 2v8. Stronger numbers during a big release only imply a higher turnover rate outside of those releases.
Likewise, it's a PVP that's intentionally unbalanced. How many people are clamoring to play those over time? I'd argue that at this point, more people are logging in to play dress up and record griefing compilations than to actually enjoy the game.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4029945#Comment_4029945
I don't see any reason why queuing up while fatigued should be so heavily punished. The queue is still running, is it not?
I mainly agree. I wouldn't go as far as to remove a dc penalty entirely, and I think having something to give players a bit of pause or even consequence for doing so is a good thing.
Basically, what we have now is enough to prevent unintentional disconnects like Internet, power, or even server issues from overly punishing innocent players, but still something to keep people from fully lobby shopping.
I don't know that I would really change much about the current system either direction, but I honestly put much thought into it. I don't really sit around dreaming of punishing other players like some people seem to.
I certainly don't think that the people who continue to scream "punish them" really have the game's best interest at heart, and some seem to be taking the "power role" concept too far and trying to apply it outside of game as well. (This also applies to how some people talk to the devs like they own them, but I digress)
Unless we can course correct, I don't see the game thriving ever again. It will likely end up on life support, I think.
I generally agree. It is apparently a cycle of applying punishment, when that doesn't work demand more punishment.
"The beatings will continue until morale improves" and "if brute force doesn't work, you aren't using enough".
I think that there are fixable issues at play, and can be addressed, at least in principle. But if people continue to "not allow" the devs to impact any pain points at all, then the game will simply diminish at some point.
Probably not "die" outright, but certainly the target audience, or even the core game will change (if, say, 2v8 becomes permanent). But even now, the same cycle of conversations is attempting to take 2v8 from a casual, loosely balanced, party game mode and force it into competitive balance. Which is what has already happened in the main game, for better or worse.
I agree completely.
For me, it's not about removing the DC penalty but making it less punishing. I think the ritual of having to wait out a penalty in-game and spending 20 trials to clean the slate is frankly bizarre. Cryptic said in another thread that it only encourages you to play more while tilted, which I really agree with. The old system was better about that by letting it count down while you're away from the game, but the penalty went too high there as well. For the scope of DBD (and all of its issues), I really do think a 30-minute max penalty would be ideal. I also think bots need to be introduced for when Killers DC as well. Anything more than that feels excessive.
And absolutely. When I see people upset about it, it almost always seems to boil down to control. They feel entitled to players that have queued up, even if there's nothing at stake. Then they quickly move into guilt tripping: "how do you feel ruining 4 other peoples' experience?". That's incredibly dramatic and manipulative in my opinion. How many mechanics make the game feel unfair? We saw a record level of backlash against limiting camping/tunneling/slugging, which to me is a form of giving up on the 4v1 as Killer. But ruining someone's experience there is OK. They really show their bias, I think.
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4029957#Comment_4029957
and when players just stop playing because every match turns into a bot custom game? kill rates would shoot through the roof because bot kills are way easier than players, hard nerfs would be due to even out the kill rates, killers that play actual people get steam rolled because they have been unfairly nerfed based on bots, killers stop playing killer role. even survivors wouldnt bother playing because every match they would be 1 player and 3 bots v a killer. thats 1 sure way to kill a pvp game lol let people start a match, DC, repeat.
Players have already stopped playing. And we've seen their solutions to that this year—larger incentives, more bots, and Play While You Wait. It's not a good enough excuse to defend increasingly harsh penalties toward DCing in my opinion.
-
There's two facets of this in my opinion.
The first being that horror is a novel experience. Horror relies on the unknown to sow fear. When we're talking about a PVP game where you're considered green until you hit the 500 hour mark, that fear is a limited experience. It fades with each new trick or skill or mechanic you learn. Then when you finally know enough about the game, you are no longer afraid at all and those caveats of feeling unsafe turn to frustration.
The second is that, as @Pulsar said, the true horror aesthetic has been dead for a very long time. For me, it was the addition of anime and Kpop that did it. For others, it was the lighting changes that happened far earlier than that. Are we really supposed to compare it to the likes of the IPs the game pulls from when we have neon-clad characters with SD character charms on their waist running away from a hatchet wielding maniac in a bikini?
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4029950#Comment_4029950
i would honestly love to see DCing less harsh for killer and survivor. if DCing is bad now, its nothing compared to what would happen if people could DC on a whim. forget lobby dodging, match hopping would be the norm. start up, oh its coldwindfarm….DC. someone wants RPD….join a match and if it takes 10 matches…DC every single one untill RPD comes up.
For a mostly casual game, I don't think that's a big deal. The old system was a mess (talking pre-2022 ish), but we have bots that fill the gap. The Killer is able to DC when it's all bots as well (if I'm remembering correctly). The only other improvement they can make is to backfill lobbies during a trial, but that might not be super well recieved.
I really believe a lot of it boils down to entitlement. They don't want to play against bots, but they also don't want the game to be improved so that the fatigue isn't so strong.
-
@Memesis said:
How hilarious is it that there is a huge population of people who think there should be no DC penalty. We are playing with people who seriously wish they could just shop games until they get one where they stomp the other side. I can't stand the immaturity and lack of sportsmanship in this community. Yes, the game is crazy unbalanced, it always will be. Play the game out! You're playing with real people in a competition. Fatherless behavior I swear.
I don't understand the opposite, to be honest. It reads as intentionally obtuse. Very few players I'd wager go into the game expecting to ruin it. But once you're met with a wall where it feels like you aren't able to experience the game, what are you supposed to do? Nobody wants to be relegated to the role of NPC. There's a lot of talk about compassion, but why should you sacrifice your experience and your enjoyment for every other player in the trial? Especially when the mindset for so long has been to play the way you want. I think there are multiple ways to grief and/or give up, whether that's running to the hook against a Killer you don't like or tunneling a Survivor out for an easy win. They're all accepted and they all cause fatigue.
If nothing changes and we're expected to be unaffected by that, then where do we end up? It really seems like there is no solution other than for the majority of the player base to uninstall the game.
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4029926#Comment_4029926
I can tell you what I don't like about the new system. It's a common argument that people who ragequit frequently should step away from the game. But this penalty system doesn't encourage that at all. Rather, it does the opposite; it encourages them to keep on queuing up and risk encountering even more of the frustrating things, leading to even more frustration. So with this system, you're damned if you play, or damned if you don't.
100%. 20 trials is no small feat and I also find it interesting that every set of challenges we get these days require playing a set amount of trials (usually a high number of them as well).
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4029908#Comment_4029908
there is a difference between backlash and intentionally being disruptive by breaking the rules, griefing is breaking the rules and should be punished now matter what reason they give for breaking them.
if i was spawn camped and couldnt play i wouldnt play the game. i wouldnt start a match knowing i am highly likely to get spawn camped then DC and ruin it for the rest of the team. thats my point.
by removing the DCers from the game it might lower player count but it would likely increase it long term when other people know their matches wont get ruined. i have friends that refuse to play the game because of people going next, swap the DCers out for the people that actually want to play the game. banning hackers lowers the player count, but allow them to hack and people wont want to play, this is what will happen if DCing is allowed to continue
This assumes too much, in my opinion. You would have to argue that the amount of people upset over DCs/giving up outweighs the amount of players who do or will do it in the future. And that in the end, that will be a net positive for the game.
You could be right, but given how the anti-go next system performed, I don't think that's the case.
I've said this for a while now, but I think the ideal course of action would be to make DCs less harsh to both parties overall. Less punishing to do, less punishing to be affected by. Anything more or less introduces far too many problems, as we've seen this year.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4029883#Comment_4029883
Yeah I understand that EU, Oceanic, and NA are all very different games. Though, the only way I could check personally would be vpn, and I don't really want to do that. I'm content to take people's word for it.
But yeah, my friend group used to play daily until 6.1 and we all kind of drifted away or lost interest after that.
One of my most memorable games that I remember personally feeling burned out by was a wraith on Groaning Storehouse. He hooked Ada, then came over to kick the gen I was working on by main. I was standing in plain view no more than 8m from the gen and he just went back to tunnel her out. It was 3v1 at 5 gens, and I basically couldn't even play the game even though the killer was actively ignoring everyone else. The "counter" to eruption was not touching the gen until the next down, which was nearly as bad as being incapacitated for 26 seconds (and sometimes worse, depending on chase length).
Totally engaging and riveting gameplay, but at least tunneling was a nearly guaranteed win for people who decided to take advantage of the new meta.
That was the game I realized I was personally getting burned out and frustrated, and took a break from the game myself.
I keep hoping to see patch notes that will make this game a daily play again, maybe even bring my friends back, but so far I think I'm just hanging onto a dream that will never be realized.
Without agency, there's no reason to engage. The game hasn't fully entered the realm of comp. title either, so I don't see any reason why queuing up while fatigued should be so heavily punished. The queue is still running, is it not?
That's the issue with where the game is right now, in my opinion. It's designed to enforce an imbalance, regardless of how it feels, and then players that are tired of feeling like they're at the mercy of things beyond their control or their skill level are being punished for not enjoying themselves. And the solution? Calls for harsher punishments.
Unless we can course correct, I don't see the game thriving ever again. It will likely end up on life support, I think.
-
@BongoBoys said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4029593#Comment_4029593
Even if they didn't half ass things it still wouldn't be enough for y'all
Could they maybe try first so we can see? All we've had for the longest time are half baked ideas that end in failure (in my opinion). On the very rare chance we get something really cool and fun it's fleeting, either because it's a novelty that wears off (Nic Cage) or it's nerfed into oblivion (too many to list).
@Crowman said:
If you're going to grief instead of eating a harsh dc penalty, you really should be asking yourself why you are even playing the game in the first place. I'm tired of catering towards this baby behavior where we can't punish you too harshly or you'll throw a tantrum and then you throw the tantrum anyways.
I really fail to see the difference of how one system that denies gameplay is worse than another. It's all accepted by the game. All you can do is improve the experience and hope for the best, which is not what we've seen. All we've gotten are anti-measures that harm the game and/or feel akin to threats.
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4029860#Comment_4029860
Let's ban bad players too, while we're at it. That's the route we'll be taking after even more punishment doesn't work.
The craziest thing about these suggestions too is that we've tried it all. Unless anyone arguing for harsher penalties came around in the last 2 months, they saw bad players being punished like you mention.
The discourse on game balance is always stuck in 2016 for some reason.
-
In my opinion, it's all the illusion of change. We had big promises but they have all been a disaster in practice or were never given their time to shine. So what we're getting after a YEAR of health, are slight numbers tweaks like we all assumed from the beginning. Nothing is changing, it's only shifting a hair to the right.
-
In my opinion, it's had no distinctly positive impact on the game overall. It's more of a humiliation ritual that is more likely to affect the queue, so it's less effective.
-
Naturally you're going to see insane things in clips and compilations. The reality is that you're likely doing better than the average Survivor and limiting gens to improve your trials will lower the quality of theirs.
-
In all honesty, the game would probably benefit a lot from making everyone anonymous and not notifying players of DCs. Not that I think they should do that, but the fear around socializing with each other makes me think it wouldn't be as hated as you'd think.
-
It's such a waste of time to talk about anymore in my opinion. Anything that could actually improve the game and naturally limit DCs gets shot down and any idea that could make DCs less punishing overall so they're mundane is treated like heresy.
If players really desire for the game to be the same as it's always been, you have to expect that nothing will change—including giving up.
-
It's not a bad idea.
-
@TheDukeOfCheeseLand said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4028819#Comment_4028819
I see what you mean, but I personally think the current state of the gamemode is killing 2v8. I don't understand how people see a 30% kill rate and the snooze fest that is survivor and think that that is perfectly okay. I'm curious how you think my suggestions would kill 2v8. I'm sure killer queue times would go up, that's a given, but when the wait is already 20 minutes, an extra 10 minutes or so would be well worth it if the games were actually enjoyable. Assuming every 3 or so games right now are somewhat fun, and that's generous, the real queue times right now would be closer to an hour. I think 30 minutes is justified. Especially when you could use that time to be productive or simply do something else.
Because you're asking for players that are already turned off by the game mode to receive nerfs while the players that are overwhelmingly drawn to the mode to receive buffs. You wouldn't just affect the queue, you would nuke it. It's already struggling with the 300% incentive, Play While You Wait, and bots. It's just unnecessary.
That being said, the mode could obviously stand to change. But I don't think this is the way to do it at all.
-
@cogsturning said:
I'd do it for free myself if I could!
I can't tell you how many times I've felt this way about all the typos, grammatical errors, and just plain cringe writing I've see in this game.
There is a swathe of creative players that would do all kinds of stuff for a simple commission fee. But when it comes to projects like this, the most obvious solutions tend to be the least likely to happen. In my opinion.