UnicornMedal
UnicornMedal
About
- Username
- UnicornMedal
- Joined
- Visits
- 892
- Last Active
Comments
-
@ShanoaLegendaryPlz said:
Gave my usual ask for Shanoa and Simon Belmont legendary skins, and for the avoidance of cosplays before the characters alredy exist as atleast legendaries
I'll drop the money for the chapter if they release Richter.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3967092#Comment_3967092
I wouldn't, tbh.
There are some things in DBD I believe should never change.
I'd like to see the game become more dynamic with less predictability. But I think something that would be equally worth investing in given how much the game has changed is something like a DBD Classic mode, which I know you'd also enjoy.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3967082#Comment_3967082
Interestingly enough, friend, the first Lights Out was available for only a week in February of 2024, and there wasn't anything particularly problematic back then, at least not that I can recall.
The only issue was how easy it was to tunnel someone in Lights Out because of no anti-tunnel perks, that was indeed a problem.
Yeah. At this point, I'd almost be perfectly content getting rid of gens and hooks entirely in favor of something else lol
@CLHL said:
The pace of the game makes the survivor role currently boring for someone experienced. Good loopers are playing more killer because currently no killer gives you chase as soon as they find out you are any good. That leaves rushers playing mostly survivor, regardless their skill level, creating long queues for the killer and boring matches.
Very good point. Although Killers that want a challenge have been saying for years that the role is too boring for them now too.
-
It's about who goes down/who gives up first. The Killer could just as easily leave chase as Survivor could unhook/leave hook. The one that's at the biggest disadvantage is the player on hook who has zero autonomy over the situation (unless they have a self-unhook perk). There's no ideal solution that will equally benefit all 4 Survivors or Killer, but it shouldn't feel like someone is catching strays.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3967021#Comment_3967021
You mentioned filling the bar even when in chase. Thats completely different than a killer just standing near a hook. If a killer does what YOU said and doesnt actually chase ppl, the chase mechanic will turn off after afew seconds. Theres no reason for the bar to fill while a killer is actively engaged in a chase, just because the survivor being chased doesnt want to leave the hook area.
I don't know what the ideal solution to that would be since it's a battle of attrition. Ideally the survivor on the hook would be favored above all else.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966320#Comment_3966320
Honestly, my friend, I think the first Lights Out was the best modifier so far.
This is a very unpopular opinion, I know, but I enjoyed a return to hide and seek and the occasional jumpscares.
The second Lights Out I really disliked, because the candelabras basically defeated the whole point of the modifier, imho.
It's not a bad concept, just not really great for where the game is at right now. That's the issue with anything fun that can be added to the game though. It will always have to contend with the core issues of the game, no matter what it is. And that allows it to be negated entirely.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3967070#Comment_3967070
If a survivor with Head On is in the locker directly next to the slugged survivor, then the killer needs a way to open that locker, even though a slugged survivor is directly in front of it.
Then add a secondary button on top of that, like Flashbang used to have (and I think still should have, right?).
-
The controls have always been a problem for both sides and I'd love to see a fix. It gets in the way of just about everything.
A good solution without changing the controls themselves would be to implement better priority stacking. Make it so that Killer will always prioritize grabbing/mori-ing a Survivor over all other actions.
-
@100PercentBPMain said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966320#Comment_3966320
that event would have been fine if they just had the courage to tell doc and Legion players that they are glorified Trapless Trappers; capitulating to them single handedly ruined the spirit of the whole mode
For me, it was the obvious. The stream they did was DBD under ideal conditions—a custom game between 5 friends. That is not how the game operates under any other circumstance. I knew that the mode was just begging Killers to rely heavily on camping/tunneling/slugging, much more than usual, once things got difficult. And that's exactly what happened. I knew it'd be a bad time.
-
@brewingtea said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966080#Comment_3966080
But as a survivor, my queues AREN'T longer. I get virtually instant matches, with a BP incentive, and the matches are higher quality because the quitters are gone.
Now, you're probably thinking that I shouldn't put my own enjoyment above the overall health of the game
…like a quitter does.
I hate to break it to you but despite the voting system, you don't get big karma points for weak owns.
-
@rvzrvzrvz said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966310#Comment_3966310
let's say you are the gameplay guy at BHVR, you have a choice between reworking the whole game or buff decisive strike, what would you choose ?
Very true. And that's assuming you have much freedom at all without your proposal getting smacked down along the assembly line.
At the very least, they should realize that hyping up changes they're incapable of making and/or unwilling to follow through with only further strains their relationship with their audience.
-
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3965885#Comment_3965885
Well can you blame Killer for taking it to heart? They're against four other people all saying they suck. That feels really bad, that feels like bullying, that feels like being ganged up on.
If a group of people is saying you suck, you must suck right? That's a logical fallacy of course, but the brain makes that connection. It's a psychological wound that can and does lead to self doubt - and that's what causes that anxiety.
It's a real, real problem, and IDK how we solve it.
Sure, but why is it so dire? Why should it take priority over game balance?
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966112#Comment_3966112
Calling people slurs for their pride charms because the Survivor feels tunnelled isn't abusive? Being told to end yourself because the Survivors are mad they lost isn't abusive? Someone telling me they hope my mother gets cancer and dies because they're salty they lost isn't abusive? Stalking profiles to leave nasty comments or send nasty messages isn't abusive? Being told to go do horribly inappropriate things with a dog because I won a round as a weak Killer isn't abusive? Being called things like "pathetic" and "sad" and "a baby" and "awful" and all these negative words because the Survivors are being sore winners rubbing it in isn't abusive?
It sure is when Killers do it, so why isn't it when Survivors do?
This sort of behavior, from either side, is beyond the pale stuff you would never say to anyone on the street. That's not "smack talk and banter", it's verbal abuse. It's abusive.
This is abuse and the brain reacts like it's abuse. Go read any study on online harassment and what it does to people.
It's not abusive in my opinion because it's purely voluntary and has no greater impact beyond the game (i.e. one's quality of life). It might exacerbate existing problems, but it's not the sole cause of them.
Although given that stance, I would agree that it could fall under the category of S/H if you willingly expose yourself to things you know you cannot handle, despite having countless measures to soften your exposure or to cut it off entirely.
Also my point with the charms and the mask is that those players were actively being discriminated against and seemed less upset about it as a whole than players getting bagged at the gates. At least from my experience.
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966293#Comment_3966293
Hello and Blessed Be friend! )O(
I agree the game is definitely a casual game at its core that waaayyyy too many people have decided is competitive, creating a rat race between Devs and the players to make it more competitive. This is why we still have "weak Killers" - they're not actually weak for casual play, they're fine for casual play. Just not comp play.
This game isn't competitive in spirit and never will be. It's too RNG to be truly comp.
Agreed.
@Raptorrotas said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966293#Comment_3966293
Mario Party might be the worst comparison if youre trying to paint dbd as fun little party game.
Dota and League didnt have people blister their hands while playing, Mario Party 1 or 2 did. Nintendo had to offer gloves.
I had it happen to a friend too, its not just internet trivia for me. Pople have fun in MP, but theyre definitely playing to win.
@ChuckingWong said:
A game that has MMR-based matchmaking, a ranking system, years of balance patches, developer Q&As about perk/meta balance, and constant feedback loops with the community, that’s not a “casual” game at its core at all.
You don’t go through that much effort to maintain fairness and responsiveness if you’re building a chill party game.
It might not be truly competitive in the strictest esports sense (like CS or LoL), but it’s definitely intended to be competitive at its core. You dont have all this development and balance over the years on something that is "casual at its core"
So calling DBD a “casual game at its core” feels like rewriting the game’s own structure and trajectory. It’s asymmetrical PvP of course it invites competition. That’s literally the genre.
Examples of truly casual games with a pvp untertone are like.
•Mario party mini games
•Wii sportsIf DBD were truly a “casual party game,” you wouldn’t have daily posts demanding perk nerfs, map reworks, or killer/survivor buffs. Casual games don’t live and die on meta shifts and patch notes. Its a live service PvP game, whether people want to admit it or not.
I said it has the spirit of Mario Party, which is to say that it's like a fun game between friends. It's not something you're supposed to sweat over or take to heart. That is at its core and is why the game suffers so much when players don't respect each other.
Now whether the devs or the players treat it that way is something else entirely.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966307#Comment_3966307
Indeed.
But I'm enjoying the event.
It's alright. Not the worst I've ever played. I didn't even give Lights Out a chance first time around lmao
-
Lots of camping/tunneling/slugging all around right now. Feels good to know the trial is over 2 minutes in and having it extend for 6 minutes longer without doing a whole lot.
-
@rvzrvzrvz said:
I'd rework hook and health states completely (no hooks can solve camping at the same time) but unfortunately it's too late now, you'd have to rework whole game, perks, items, maps, altruism… so realistically nothing will happen, when their anti tunnel goes live it will be killswitched in 2 days
It does have me thinking what's in store. Maybe a buff to basekit BT? Just slightly less negligible?
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966295#Comment_3966295
Usually it is because of Bloodpoints, as it is fairly easy to max out the Objective category and event generators usually award you extra Bps.
Very true. Not a lot of interactive stuff with points this time around aside from the cards.
-
They could've kept self-unhook but removed the fail, or kept the fail but made it to so that you couldn't die on hook until it was down to 2 survivors. Lots of better changes. But for now, you're better off bringing a self-unhook perk like Deliverance or Slippery Meat.
-
That hasn't been my experience, but it'd make sense. We're also playing during an event as well. Survivors tend to crank gens out faster during them for whatever reason.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966209#Comment_3966209
This is not relegated to only coming from survivors.
Yep.
Ever since I first started playing DBD I've encountered toxic survivors AND toxic killers.
Toxic players exist on both sides. The only reason people think survivors are more toxic than killers is because every match of DBD has 4 survivors and 1 killer, meaning you're more likely to encounter a toxic survivor.
If the game was 4v4, you would see them in equal measure.
One-hundred-thousand percent. 2v8 brings out those really gnarly boyfriend-girlfriend duos. They're really annoying when you stumble upon them in solo, but they're a whole different beast as Killers.
@SpitefulHateful said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966213#Comment_3966213
Because your logic can be applied to these scenarios. This is why I am comparing it to them — to show how much sense it doesn't make.
and the hill we're meant to die on is t-bagging, which the recipient of has the choice to ignore or to punish?
The recipient doesn't really have a choice to punish t-bagging — because most of the time tbaggers are doing it in the safety of the exit gate. The choice is to waste your time or to be spat at.
The reason why Killer players add a harder mental/emotional slant is the same reason why Killer anxiety is mentioned. People would like to play and make mistakes without getting abused. However, it's too much to ask.
I don't know what to say anymore, so uh… blessed be )O(
@Dem34888 said:
I don't understand why DBD is a PVP game, and why did people decide that at all?
Did the developers even say that they would make it a PvP game?
In it, each map is generated randomly, sometimes it will give you 5 pallets, sometimes 2 HGs, sometimes idiotic or overbuffed tiles
What kind of PVP game is this, where it is not your playing skill that decides, but randomness?
In Dota 2, mountains are also generated instead of trees from time to time?
In CS, instead of boxes, trees or stones can appear from time to time?
In the LoL, for example, there are no "addons" that make one character into another? Or am I missing something?
So the Nurse can become 4.4 or 4.6 killer instead of use blinks
/ Shape can kill instantly or see auras
Tournaments for this game have restrictions on the use of perks, offerings, addons and killers (I think the reason is clear)
Even if in a tournament everyone plays on the same map, which is more similar to a PVP game - the random spawn of all this crap that I wrote about above is still random
Plus DBD is a game where you don't have a class, except in 2v8, because of this you can create a super fun / random / boring / sweaty build
P.S.
And as far as I remember, CS and Dota have voice chat, whereas in this game you have 2 emotions, which God knows what they mean and what message they carry in different situationsIt is PVP, but at its core it's very much a casual game. The game peaks when you have 5 players that don't take the game very seriously and wanna mess around. Custom games with 4 other friends where you pass around Killer has to be a blast.
The issue is that for years now, it's been balanced as if it's a competitive, tourney-level game and it's not nor will it ever be. You can't have a successful nor fair team game with such limited communication and resources for team play; consistent ranking with such heavy RNG (not like ranks exist anyway); or a reliable MMR system with so many variables at play. It's just not that kind of game.
DBD is essentially the spirit of Mario Party, the joy of hide and go seek, and the roster of Fortnite. But it's treated as if it's League or DOTA.
-
@Rulebreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966176#Comment_3966176
So please explain the thoughts here? We're curious.
If we recall correctly 6.1 is when a bunch of basekit changes happened along with the meta shake up.
Just reiterating what I said earlier that a large part of balance is feedback, which many of the changes in 6.1.0 relied on. DS was a really big one at the time.
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966222#Comment_3966222
The chapters arnt really coming in faster though. We're about to get a survivor only DLC, which makes sense considering the 9.0.0 update didnt have a survivor. They've done midchapter updates plenty before.
You might have me there. It's a nightmare double checking any information with the game since it's never in very convenient places, despite how many social media platforms they have. 😵 I tried finding a list of chapter releases by year and gave up. But it does feel a lot more frequent as time goes on and I'm sure regardless it's going to increase either way. Without a core audience that sticks around, you have to rely on bringing in new people until they leave, and then new people until they leave, etc. Other things like free weekends help too of course.
@Virtualguy said:
Ehh last 2v8 was actually pretty bad. I don't know if I'd even consider 2v8 worth it in solo-Q.
Ironically despite 2v8 basically being SWF simulator for Killer, it tends to be a more balanced experience overall for Survivor. The only issue being that now they're making combos that hurt the mode. Which again, is a terrible idea given the queues.
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966127#Comment_3966127
It couldn't be the community making it more and more acceptable to just leave.
To be fair, this is like the argument that streamers control how everyone plays. Could it be true? Maybe? I don't know. But what I do know is that the game itself naturally dictates the flow of the trial and how players engage with one another. Nobody has to be told that camping/tunneling/slugging is effective when it's the obvious conclusion. Same thing with going next when the trial is a bust. You only have to wipe so many times before you gain enough game sense to know when to leave.
And I'd wager that before the change, most of us had at least 1/3 of our trials per session involve some form of DCing or going next, judging by my own experience and comments made across social media. That's still a very considerable number, especially given its lifespan. I don't know why now that it's gone, we have to be revisionist about that.
-
I don't know that it's healthy for the game. Once upon a time, when DBD had more of an "everything but the kitchen sink" approach, it slotted in fairly well. But now that they're balancing it to be more predictable and consistent, it feels very out of place. Personally I'd rather they leave Tombstone alone and go back to the drawing board with the rest of the game.
-
@Roco45 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966189#Comment_3966189
Yea, I agree. BHVR's gonna need to really put some effort into it as well otherwise the game will just bleed SoloQ players and not only will Killers have longer wait times, but an increased chance of only facing SWF's. The game really isn't viable for SoloQ play rn. Really BHVR should have a system set up that heavily punishes Killers for slugging/camping/tunneling at the start of the match, but once two or three gens are done all penalties cease to exist so it can be used as a legitimate tactic later in the match if need be.
I'd argue it's already getting there. The longer Killer queues were a bad sign considering that the game has been balanced the way that it's been for the last 3 years to help encourage a faster Killer queue. Prior to this more recent go next patch, it was one of BHVR's highest concerns. But now that Killer is the more attractive role and Survivor is still the only way to play with your friends outside of 2v8, I don't see the issues plaguing solo or the queue getting better any time soon.
However, licenses are the lifeblood of DBD. As long as they keep pulling new crossover chapters, the game will stay alive indefinitely regardless of what state it's in. It just becomes more of a turnover with players so the chapters have to come in faster and faster.
-
@SpitefulHateful said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966195#Comment_3966195
Theoretically, people have full agency in not getting attacked or mugged on the streets — not going out to the streets, not provoking the interactions they can't handle. However, for some reason this led to pushback and the term "victim blaming". I wonder why? /s
That's the point though. People were being actively discriminated against and it feels as if that had less weight thrown behind it than the complaints of getting bagged at the gates. Why is that?The only reason why it feels as if that had less weight thrown behind it is because BHVR actually addressed it and did something about it. There is nothing more to complain about. People keep complaining about tbgagging because it hasn't been addressed and players have to deal with this issue consistently while being told that, in fact, they are the problem.
There is a reason why most multiplayer games work on measures to punish or negate most of BM during gameplay — because they are selling positive experience to new players.
Therefore if new players join the game, get treated like dirt and are met with a response like "Yes, the community sucks big time and your opponents will see you as subhuman if you lose to them, and it's honestly your fault for deciding to have some enjoyable experience in this game, learn to love the abuse, lmao" — it's not a viable game model and these players won't be retained.
You can be sarcastic about it, but it's still true. My argument is that Killer players tend to add a harder mental/emotional slant to issues with the game and here you are comparing it to getting mugged and now victim blaming. I don't know what else could solidify that argument more.
I could agree with the point of BM, but even that is very disconnected. We have the equivalent of spawn camping left almost entirely unaddressed in the game (aside from band-aid fixes); objective camping has been addressed, but only in favor of one side; and the hill we're meant to die on is t-bagging, which the recipient of has the choice to ignore or to punish? Without a lot of resistance? You mentioned communication as well, which is a little slippery because it's out of BHVR's hands if it happens outside of the game. But it's perfectly avoidable both in-game and on Steam. Idk about XBL or PSN.
-
@SpitefulHateful said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966112#Comment_3966112
"You can get attacked or mugged at the streets, such is life, so each time you decide to interact, you are exposing yourself to that. If you don't want to be harassed, don't leave your house because you will get harassed and that's on you. We absolutely don't have measures and laws against the people who decide to attack or discriminate against you. You're not being abused, you're just taking the risks and you're the only one responsible"
This is how it sounds.
Also, given that BHVR removed the Claudette mask from Cannibal to punish such behavior, these complaints actually were taken into account. Same goes for ensuring anti-tunneling, anti-camping, and anti-slugging. However, the Killers are just supposed to "suck it up" and be humiliated.
But again, you're comparing it to something very heavy. Do you truly think that a social interaction, that you have full agency in, is comparable to being attacked or mugged in the streets?
That's the point though. People were being actively discriminated against and it feels as if that had less weight thrown behind it than the complaints of getting bagged at the gates. Why is that?
-
@Roco45 said:
It's almost like, removing hook struggle didn't fix the core issues with the game lol Wow shocker, I am so shocked that removing Surv agency even more hasn't worked out. Most of my SoloQ games someone DC's and when I play Killer, doesn't matter what Killer, I know they're SoloQ when eventually one of them DC's.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966176#Comment_3966176
Exactly, but this playerbase is mostly comprised of actual trolls who want to force others to play with them, that's literally it. There is no logical reason why a party game with no sbmm with matches that are intended to last 5-10 mins should even have a DC penalty, let alone one that goes beyond 2 minutes. Half the games issues would disappear if there was no DC penalty.
The issues wouldn't disappear, but it really is necessary to not punish players too heavily with the game in the state it currently is. It's high risk, no reward play. Going next became a problem overnight due to that sort of logic. Punishing it without balancing the game is just more of the same. Thankfully it was scaled back, but it still went in the wrong direction.
And I agree about it being very one-sided. It did/does punish Killer as well, but they were never the primary target and were therefore not punished the same. We'll see how phase 2 goes.
-
Strangely, 6.1.0 still happened without going next even being prevalent yet.
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966153#Comment_3966153
10 minutes max isn’t a real punishment. You’re saying that someone should be able to ragequit 20 times in the same day, and still only get a 10 minute penalty at most per ragequit.
So if someone had a few Netflix movies they wanted to watch, they could just ragequit as much as they wanted, and watch a movie for 10 minutes while they waited for the DC penalty to go away.
Sure. We're talking about a game that has a largely adult audience, no ranked mode, and a small comp scene. Why go scorched earth on leaving what's ultimately a casual game? There's a disconnect there.
-
@Ohyakno said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966120#Comment_3966120
I think you've nailed the nuance of the it.
People want to say "tunneling is bad" as a blanket statement without looking at when it's acceptable. Every survivor is stealthing and you can only find one. Survivors using second chance mechanics offensively. There's only a generator or two left. Sometimes you have to do it and people cannot own up to that fact.
So scaling it somehow based on game progress is the natural solution.
Exactly. At their core, camping/slugging/tunneling are catchup mechanics. It's not the mechanics themselves that are the issue, it's that they can be used at inappropriate times for max payoff. Really, that applies to so many things in the game as well.
-
Very glad to see compensation starting to become semi-normal. It's something that's been lacking for a long time.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966146#Comment_3966146
What do you think is a fair punishment, for a survivor that ragequits a game early?
Personally, I think a DC penalty is fair. But I wouldn't cap it above 5 minutes. Maybe 10 max. I'd rather see better measures in the game to address the loss, more akin to what Left 4 Dead does. We already have bots which is a good start. I think backfilling could help, especially with moving the queue along, but I also see the flaws with that. A proper scaling difficulty and alternate means of moving the trial forward would also help a lot to make the 1v3 and on feel less hopeless, but that's neither here nor there.
Having healthy features behind the DC penalty, while also beefing up the DC penalty, while also removing any softer ways of leaving the trial without first addressing where the prevalence of going next began, was a terrible decision and incredibly short-sighted.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966135#Comment_3966135
You’re clearly saying that people should be able to break games rules, without being punished.
You might think I'm saying that, but can you show me where I ever encouraged or told players to do it? I'll address it if you can.
My point in this thread is that the changes weren't healthy for the game and that they should've balanced it in a different direction.
-
It still works in my game. I haven't updated recently either. Maybe it's a specific filter or something?
-
His size and POV are a lot more beneficial than anything in his kit imo.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966127#Comment_3966127
This is an elimination PvP game. A killer eliminating a survivor is part of normal gameplay.
Players ragequitting is literally against the game rules. It deserves to be punished, because these people are break game rules.
It’s also supposed to be against forum rules to support ragequitting, and many people on these forums are clearly supporting ragequitting, and this should be considered breaking forum rules.
Are you implying I should be punished for talking about game balancing? That's a little heavy handed don't you think?
-
@Rulebreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966117#Comment_3966117
The stats don't show how people died or escaped. Surveys are going to be a mixed bag as that's people's opinions. You can just look at the forums to see how divisive (and other words) our community is. Streamers have their own opinions.
All this, and it doesn't answer the question. If people quit, how does anyone know it was balanced? Those streamers? They could have simply given up on learning to counter the killer and say "to op" for example. Giving up doesn't give data for balance.
It's a moot point honestly. Going next can affect kill rates, but there's no way to tell if it was done purposely or on accident, which the failed iteration of the go next prevention proved. You can only guess.
Like I said, it's only one factor of what would need to be utilized to balance the game. On the same token, I can use the old "Nurse has the lowest KR" argument to prove that we should prevent bad players from using her because it affects her balancing. It's just a bad argument for DBD.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966107#Comment_3966107
I would rather have longer queues, than have games with players that frequently ragequit.
So yes, give me the longer queue times. Because every game a survivor ragequits early, is a completely ruined game.
And yet trials are still ruined by early 1v3s when no Survivors give up, among a host of other variables.
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966107#Comment_3966107
You're implying the majority of players give up. I don't believe that to be the case. It's a small group of players that only care for themselves that will give up the moment the game doesn't go their way or they go up against something they don't like. The less of these type playing the more enjoyable the game becomes for everyone else.
Maybe not the majority, but I also don't know that we can pretend that the frequency of going next and the amount of complaints it received were negligible given that it had to be patched out. We're not talking about a perk or a meta, but a core gameplay mechanic that wasn't a huge issue outside of the last 3 years. That's a significant enough portion of players to absolutely affect the queue, in addition to balancing making Killer more attractive already. The only thing I think counteracts that is the revolving door of players that come and go with each new crossover.
-
I don't think incentives are realistic. I think the best way is an accurate scaling difficulty model. Essentially allow tunneling to still be possible at every stage of the trial, but so worthless and easy to counter until it can be used as a catchup mechanic. A quick example would be something like 5 gens = struggle bar beefed up, killer slowed significantly, etc., 0 gens = current state of tunneling. It'd require a lot of unique variables to prevent cheesing which I think makes it the most unrealistic to implement, but it is still what would work the best imo.
-
@Rulebreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966107#Comment_3966107
The game would require better balancing and changes if we want the quality of trials to bump up.
How would the devs know what's balanced or not if people keep quitting?
Are we forgetting that their own system couldn't tell the difference between tunneling and giving up? Balancing for the game requires a host of different avenues which are all already in place. The stats they do have, surveys, the forums that they pay people to gather and relay feedback on, streamers they pay to do the same, etc.
-
@PetTheDoggo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966080#Comment_3966080
I highly doubt there is enough players with penalty to affect queue times.
Even if it increase by few seconds, I am fine waiting for lobby without a player throwing tantrum when something goes wrong…Have it your way. I don't see the point in extending queues for anything less than more accurate matchmaking. Especially if we're lacking QOL changes like a proper block feature.
@tjt85 said:
The problem is that BHVR have barely addressed the common pain points that lead to players becoming frustrated and DCing. Hopefully we'll see something in the next phase but I definitely feel like they got the implementation order the wrong way around. It's funny to me that Killers are still rewarded for making a trial into a 3 V 1 as quickly as possible, but Survivors face a heavy punishment for doing the same thing. There are even cases of Survivors getting a matchmaking ban for being tunnelled out too quickly (though I'm not sure if that's still happening).
For what it's worth, I think the new system is successful in the sense that I've (personally) seen less Survivors DCing now. No doubt because they know there's a harsher punishment for doing it and/or repeat offenders have locked themselves out of the game for longer periods of time. But lots of players who know how quickly they can become frustrated have stopped playing as much as well, which I think is at least a partial explanation for why Killer queues are so long despite a healthy player count. Survivors and Killers still quit games, they're just being more subtle about it. Survivors will do things like allowing themselves to be grabbed off gens or Killers will turn friendly when they're losing.
Exactly. I haven't seen the quality improve, just less people leaving once the writing is on the wall.
-
@SpitefulHateful said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966055#Comment_3966055
No it's not. When survivors are sacrificed, they leave the game. That's it. They can go next, move on. There is literally nothing to care about, especially when they have a way out of every trap Killer can set for them — and can gang up against Killer.
Killers, however, can't go next when there is even one monkey dancing at the exit gate and demanding attention. They are forced to either wait it out or do the walk of shame and get humiliated one last time — because Survivors aren't happy with just escaping, not until they tbag, then call the Killer a dog or trash in endgame chat, and then stalk their profile and suggest self-harm because they're "so bad". If that's not abuse…well, news flash, it is.
It's not abuse. You can private your steam profile, you can turn off chat, you can avoid gates, and most of all you can turn off the game if it's causing you genuine anguish. Every PVP game has smack talk and banter, so every time you decide to get invested in one (especially one as tilted as DBD) you are exposing yourself to that. Again, Survivor deals with all of the same stuff. Are we going to pretend that Cannibal's Claudette mask or Survivors being targeted for pride charms aren't/weren't a thing either? I'd wager those were more harmful overall than getting bagged at the gates. But they're not complained about the same way and likely never will be.
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966080#Comment_3966080
What's the point of fast queues if the first teammate to go down gives up?
Because they're unrelated. Players are still giving up now. Unless you want longer queues and players giving up, you have to compromise somewhere. If DCs had a limited timer and replaced players with bots (or ended the trial for Killer DC) as well as maintaining the surrender option if it's all bots against one Killer, it wouldn't fix the issues that cause players to give up at all but it would keep the queue moving. The game would require better balancing and changes if we want the quality of trials to bump up.
-
@MDRSan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3965624#Comment_3965624
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/FB6TR5PVZPJR/stats.png
Yes, clearly I don't play both sides enough to have an opinion that isn't tainted by tribalism. 🙄
My point is that most (not all, most) killer perks that give value I find worthwhile tend to either have no requirements to activate or require me to take an action I would have done anyway like kick a gen, hook a survivor, down a survivor, hook a survivor on a glowy scourge hook.
Most survivor perks (not all, most) that give value I would find worthwhile if not for the ridiculous setup required to actually use them require things like rummaging through chests, cleansing totems, being within x meters of a carried survivor, healing a survivor and staying within x meters of them on solo queue with no comms - things that aren't going to just happen naturally and consistently through the course of normal matches.
I wanna say that aside from poor balancing, that's a side effect of how archaic the scoring system is. Like they're trying to encourage Survivors to do all of their objectives without realizing how much the game has been damaged to the point where those objectives are considered throwing now.
-
@Crowman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966061#Comment_3966061
Frankly, I'm not too concerned about people with hour long penalties not being in queue. I would much rather my teammates actually try to play the game.
It's the worst of both worlds. You're just asking for longer queues and players finding unhealthier ways to quit the game versus striking a balance that you might not love but benefits the game overall.
-
I keep saying it, but the changes to DCing and going next were a bad move. Should've made DCing more attractive by making it less impactful on the trial. Players racking up penalties that keep them out of the game (given the 20 trial cooldown) removes even more Survivors from an already dry queue and encourages giving up in a way that's equivalent to sandbagging. Bots are the healthiest alternative yet the least likely, purely down to an inappropriate moral argument. As if you should be pilloried for leaving what's mostly a casual game.
-
@SpitefulHateful said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3965885#Comment_3965885
Because when the Killer who failed to kill all the Survivors gets held hostage by the end of the game, repeatedly being given only two choices (waste their time and wait the EGC timer out or come to the gate for the final spit in the face), not to mention continously receiving verbal abuse in endgame chat, in their Steam profile, in their DMs — this is NOT the experience they come for. Moreover, the amount of times players get abused simply for playing the Killer Survivors don't like is overwhelming. Survivors get out of their way to act like trash in game, then sprinkle some more abuse in the post-game chat while excusing their actions with "That's what you get for playing Plague//Skull Merchant//Ghoul!"
The difference? Survivors get all the handholding they ask for (my Survivor games have never been easier and I couldn't care less about trying hard or relying on SWF), while Killers are told to suck it up and endure being Survivors' punching bags — unless they literally spend most of their productive hours in the game like it's their job.
This is exactly what I'm talking about though. The role you're less invested in will always be "easier", regardless of what the actual balancing looks like. You're going to be far less inconvenienced if you don't care. Likewise Survivors let each other down or turn on each other all the time and Killers bring the trial to a stand still so often that it's actively harming the game. Yet despite all of that, abuse is a very heavy word. It implies something much deeper than a game being unfair and annoying.
-
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3965404#Comment_3965404
The problem is Blight's power has a limit - as you get better and face better people, just running into them at Mach Ten doesn't cut it anymore; people can and do dodge you like a bull in a Toreador Ring. I've done this to MANY Blights, and even Kanekis. That's the big weakness of these dash and micro-based Killers; you make them whiff once and they whiff HARD. If you're just hoping for his power to save you "because it's oppressive and strong as hell" and you never back it up with the rest of your play being good, you will still be stomped nine ways 'til Sunday.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3965471#Comment_3965471
This is true. I think the issue comes when both the game and community themselves though INSISTS that the path to being considered "good" or "winning" is a 4k, all the time, always. And then the game punishes you for doing it too much by slapping you with stronger and stronger opponents that will knock you down a peg regardless of who you play as. Like, guarantee a ton of those Blights and Kanekis you see at high level play aren't actually that good; they're boosted and are probably having a rotten time. Playing a strong Killer doesn't save you from feeling like crap when you get a good team, and never will.
It also, contrary to popular belief, does NOT make it more likely you will win in sequence; those people who pulled off those crazy Blight streaks did it by playing the absolute sweatiest with tons of slowdown or aura. That isn't skilled play of those Killers, that's playing a basic M1 Killer with extra steps and a ton of slowdown. Anyone else who tried that was NOT streaking anywhere near as long, I promise you. The majority of other Killers too during the killstreak fad were hitting 50-100 games in a row even on the weakest Killers and not every Nurse and Blight was ever hitting the 1500+ streaks these streamers were; it was ONLY Nurse and Blight with specific playstyles and builds going on those streaks.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3965617#Comment_3965617
This is what I'm talking about when I say that the new Killer experience suffers sometimes but nobody seems to care. It's not "anxiety" in the clinical sense, people are not scared of playing Killer. The problem is the pressure to perform and look good without being made fun of if you lose, which let's face it… some Survivor players REALLY like to do. I have had slurs, death wishes, and general horrible treatment thrown at me even if I lose, all because Surv players are generally miserable right now and need to take it out on SOMEONE. It's really that bad. In comparison I can count the number of times a Killer has been a miserable little jerk to my friends and I on one hand. It's a big issue, and it contributes to this anxiety.
That's what bullies do when they feel insecure, they whine and bully to make YOU feel as bad as they do. And often, it hits the least skilled newest players of all. Killer is always a lonely role (unless you're playing an AI Killer or something), so the feeling of several Survs backed up by their friends all mocking YOU specifically for not performing well enough or doing something they deem unfair? Even when you DC out of justified frustration? Even when you simply go stand in the corner and wait, or open the gate for them to leave, or they aren't ACTUALLY mocking you but you feel like they are? Well. It grates. It gets to you after a while. It hurts. You might brush it off or learn to ignore it but the effects are still there, and eventually you just get tired of chasing the same sweaty builds over and over and over and you burn out because it isn't fun anymore. You grow paranoid and soon easily believe ALL Survs are mocking you in secret. And that just isn't a fun feeling.
Because try as some people might to dismiss those feelings in others, even if you don't react… that feeling still hurts a bit. It still gets under your skin and sits in your brain. It's actually psychologically painful and, if actual harassment is involved, even actively harmful. There's actually studies on both ladder anxiety in gaming and how online harassment in gaming can cause psychological effects that can damage a person, this stuff is real.
The other thing that causes this anxiety? The game itself. The game encourages always playing to 3-4k. The game gives increasingly better results in the endscreen for killing more Survivors. The community as a whole has taken 3k+ = win to its logical conclusion and actively blames any player who cannot meet that consistently. But, it isn't always the player's fault if they lose. Sometimes the map is bad, sometimes their perks were outmatched, sometimes the other side was simply BETTER. But the community always seems to infer "lose more = less skill" when these players ask for some reassurance, so of course they feel left out and like they're the problem.
After a while all this pressure to perform and bad experience with Survivors that actually DID mock them for losing, it takes a toll. Some quit. Some play less frequently. Some chase an endless dragon of 4ks they cannot possibly keep forever. If they stay long enough and find their niche they grow out of it. But the fact it occurs AT ALL and then when they go "hey this feels bad" people in the community dogpile them for it? Shameful. Just shameful, no wonder Killer players sometimes doubt their own abilities, grow a perfectionist complex, and play sweaty. Both the game and the community go out of their way to try and scare Killer players off by any means it can.
A lot of this happens to both sides, but I'd still argue that Killer takes it more to heart. Survivors will always be pissed about diminishing returns when it comes to gameplay, especially post 6.1.0. But I've never seen Survivors complain about endgame chat or being smacked on hook or bled out in the same way that Killers describe the Survivor equivalent of the same behavior.
You really would believe that t-bagging at the gates will trigger an episode, and I've never fully been able to understand why. The stress to perform makes sense, but I really think it's more egocentric. Like every loss, micro or macro, is a mental wound so severe it feels physical. Which sounds really silly to claim, but I genuinely see the same complaints with that level of severity all of the time. Like having a balanced game would be harmful.
-
@HuskyDogLover said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3965477#Comment_3965477
I think it would actually incentivized saving your team mates a lot more. If you don't unhook, or if you don't take protection hits, your dead squad mate will come back to haunt you, litterally.
That worked pretty OK in Resident Evil Outbreak since it was PVE, but for PVP I think it'd be healthier to have a mechanic similar to Friday The 13th or Killer Klowns where you come back to help your teammates. Adding friendly fire to that would make it more akin to F13 which could be a lot of fun.
-
@Bad_Medicine said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3965475#Comment_3965475
Honestly? Fair, and, again, with the penalty system the way it is now, if a SWF did try to abuse the system, they'd just be eating each other's ever-increasing penalties every time they went to queue up. Most Survivor players (at least from the most recent stats I can remember seeing) play solo q, but a significant number are also playing duo, which really isn't much easier most of the time.
My sister and I play duo a lot, and there are nights where she can only play a few games because of her work hours. We can barely go a single night without at least one game where one of the randoms DCs within one minute (if that) and then we're just sort of stuck wasting time trudging on to the inevitable loss, because we have to.
Exactly. There's a million reasons why it makes sense to go next. Some petty, sure, but some that are totally reasonable. The game is too fragile to really force players to stick around and I think these changes are gonna continue to prove that.
However, I do support something akin to what we had, even if it's not what I'd consider ideal. It's the same mantra with almost every change to DBD—at least it's something.
-
If you want to play and you're not having fun, I don't have a lot of advice on how to change that. But I do have advice on how to not get so upset at the game.
I like to play music while I play, regardless of what handicap that adds. There are builds that can counteract that if you're concerned. Then I focus on objectives that I enjoy. As Killer, I'll play for chases and pallets or as Survivor I'll break all of the totems. Technically yeah it's throwing, sure. But you can't be on 100 at all times with DBD or you'll burn yourself out.
-
I'd like the idea for a separate game mode, but as is it'd just make Survivor feel more pointless.
-
If a go next feature has restrictions on it for SWF, I don't think it's worth implementing. SWF's stats aren't as impressive as they used to be to warrant it. Either bottlenecking is a problem or it's not.