Valuetown
Valuetown
About
- Username
- Valuetown
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@[Deleted User] said:
This means that once 5 players are found and paired, the game immediately goes to loading screen from queue. It would remove the dodging problem and lobby shopping, make it harder to streamsnipe, and shorten waiting time between matches. Sometimes you might wait a long time sitting in lobby due to dodgers. Most importantly though, it could improve match fairness because no more backfills. We can already change loadout during queue time or before queuing up. Most people, and I really mean most players, do not use the pregame lobby chat for coordination nor any useful communication. I dont think we would lose anything significantly beneficial to the game. Thoughts?
Just make it so the killer can't see the survivors, their items, or their profiles; but instead just a shadowy outline signifying that somebody is there. That's really the only fix that's needed in my opinion.
-
@UnicornMedal said:
Cue 10 threads about how that's still not strong enough and gens are flying.
At this point, this isn't even satire, it's clairvoyance.
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4050470#Comment_4050470
So i am correct in that you have no valid argument against it, you have nothing to show that the match is lost when 1 players DC's at the start. i have many examples i can provide, all anecdotal of course but you dont seem to have anything to counter my argument… anecdotal, numerical or any thing else.
You can't just declare yourself the winner of a discussion when you show up with no evidence, but rather just tell other people how wrong they are from your point of view and hope they just concede lol
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4050454#Comment_4050454
Maybe look back to what i was actually talking about, it was about when 1 survivor DC's early. It doesnt matter if there are 5 gens left or 1, if someone DC in first 10sec or goes next, makes no different. The end game is always the same, 1 survivor remaining with hatch spawning which is an escape. As i have explained in my example i provided, in the event of the killer closing the hatch, the gates are powered which is exactly how i escaped v ghoul, because i didnt give up. You could argue hatch is not a win, but a gate escape is and it is always an option for a survivor as my example has shown due to me escaping via the gate after the killer closed the hatch.
You are trying to prove a match is pretty much done when someone DC's early by suggesting NL stats show matches are lost with a DC in them. This argument i have already proven to not show if survivors have lost due to 1 person DCing or if its because the survivors gave up and did not try to play the match out.
With this in mind, do you have any actual argument to suggest that when a player DC's early the match is over? Do you have stats that show survivors cant win in this situation when they try? Do you have your own anecdotal evidence that you struggle in this situation?
If the hatch is not a win, why is it an option? at this point in the match the player can abandon which gives neutral MMR so why even bother with the hatch? why not just skip that stage and start EGC as if the hatch was just closed? Hatch escapes also count towards adepts and escape challenges which suggests its a win.
People do not DC in a vacuum.
You have not proven anything. For the third time, your one ghoul game is not proof of anything, despite you wanting it to be.
The hatch is a relic of old dbd. The reason it still exists is the same reason basement still exists.
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4050439#Comment_4050439
not at all, i think anecdotal evidence is useful and valid based on the fact that in this particular argument it shows if you try and you dont give up then the match is not over because some one DC early. If people can come together to share their own experience saying they dont DC, they try and fail then they might have a valid point and the statistics showing they are trying and not giving up would be valid. But this particular argument is about people DCing which is people giving up and my original point to a post that said the match was over when someone DC's early so its no surprise that other DC after 1 has shows that people are not trying. of course the match is over when you give up, thats the point to giving up but as long you dont give up then the match is not over and you can in fact still escape. Your NL stats do not provide any argument against this. My anecdotal evidence does. So which is more valid here? NL or personal experience?
You are arguing a completely different point. This is about your philosophy about how "it's not over until it's over," but in reality there are certain situations where the killer would have to actually throw the match by getting up for 3 minutes to get their pop tart from the toaster for the survivors to win. You may not like it, but that's the truth. A blight that has 2 people on the ground, one person on death hook, and 5 gens are left is an unwinnable match. Hatch is technically not a win to the dbd systems, since it does not give MMR.
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4050425#Comment_4050425
i didnt say they didnt, im just saying the evidence you provided is just as invalid as personal experience because
- cherry picked matches
- not everyones matches are on there (mine for example) that would actually counter your argument if they were uploaded along with other people like me.
- Does not show how many matches people gave up and didnt try. This point being a major flaw in your argument because while my experience is anecdotal it shows that i actually tried and didnt go next or give up and i escape whereas NL stats doesnt show if people tried and failed or simply gave up.
You seem to want to double down on everyone having their own "anecdotal" experience. That's fine and dandy, but you do realize that when a lot of individual data points come together, you get data and statistics right? You saying "well that's not how it is for ME" means nothing when the aggregate data does not agree with you. If you think your matches are enough to sway the aggregate, then maybe you should be uploading your data so arguments like mine with actual data can't hold water.
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4050395#Comment_4050395
you say about anecdotal evidence yet you reference a non official site where people cherry pick matches to upload. if personal experience isnt valid then cherry picking matches is not evidence either. With the amount of people that go next it wouldnt surprise me if many matches are lost for them but what NL stats dont show is how many of them people actually tried to play out the match and how many went next which makes the whole source invalid to this argument where im saying it is not match over IF people actually played it out instead of giving up.
You don't think BHVR can also cherry pick data to their liking? Like removing all data with DCs?
-
@Classic_Rando said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4050395#Comment_4050395
Nightlight is not a valid data source
Nightlight is the closest thing we have to official data. If you don't like that, then maybe official data should be released on the relevant topics for discussion.
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4050393#Comment_4050393
not at all, i didnt say them not having fun has anything to do with balance. i quoted "issues" because others see them that way but i see them as part of the game and not an issue. tbh i would rather no survivors at all, they often perform better than the players…atleast a bot does gens unlike many survivors.
So even when the developers of the game call tunneling and slugging "issues that need to be addressed," those are suddenly not correct and your version of balance is?
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4050388#Comment_4050388
of course the anecdotal evidence thing again lol. well someone saying the match is over when someone DC is anecdotal in that case. There is no evidence to back up these claims after all other then personal experience
almost every single argument here could be thrown out with "anecdotal evidence" and i have seen it used many times to basically dodge an argument they cant argue against.
Look at Nightlight statistics. Matches that have a DC and matches that have a survivor gone before 1 gen is complete are almost always losses for the survivors. You can't claim "anecdotal evidence" when there are genuine statistics to prove you wrong. Any guesses as to why BHVR won't release data on matches that include a DC?
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4050386#Comment_4050386
Survivors know these "issues" are in the game. If they are not happy with it then maybe dont play? By qing up for the match knowing these tactics have not been addressed to their liking says they accept the terms. No one is forcing people to play a game they dont like.
So you admit there is a genuine imbalance in power to constitute it as an "issue" that makes survivor unfun to the point to prevent people from playing. Glad we have that in agreement. So that being said, would you rather have survivors who DC at a genuine inconvenience in balance or no survivors at all? If you have no survivors playing because the game is as bad as you say, then the game is going to be PvE with survivor bots. Nobody wants that.
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4050373#Comment_4050373
i read it perfectly, you said its game over when its 3 v 1 with a bot is over….its not as i have just pointed out. at no point in the match is the game over untill ALL survivors have died or escaped.
my example clearly wasnt a game over because i escaped. This is another example of how people misunderstand the game entirely. Everyone has equal chance to be last player standing to get the hatch, someone else could have had it if they played better. The gate escape i am talking about in my example was v ghoul on The Game map…you know how well ghouls map coverage is? pretty bad situation to be in but i still did it.
You are looking at the game wrong saying survivors (plural). A common mistake is people believing the survivors are a team but they are not. Everything points to the fact they are not a team so it makes sense for 1 survivor to escape.
Your example is anecdotal evidence and is not enough to automatically prove your argument.
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4050239#Comment_4050239
I have come across many reasons people say they DC, I have read many forums and posts, talked to people in game via chat and the reasons they come up with can be very petty, such as:
- they simply dont like the map
- they simply dont like the killer
- they wanted to show looping skills but went down in 10sec
- team mates go next
- they have a challenge to blind and the killer has lightborn
- they have a totem challenge and others are cleansing the totems
- they dont like a particular perk
- they loop for 3min straight and not 1 person is doing gens
- and my personal favourite that i have heared……"because i can"
My point is, if your looking at reasons why people DC, you cant address them. Which is why punishments for DCing is needed to prevent it. Do we ask "why do people steal?" they want things for free so do we address this by giving people things for free so they dont steal? of course not. We punish people for stealing.
So killers get everything handed to them on a silver platter, and the changes survivors get promised not once, not twice, but three times (slugging and anti tunnel changes) get rug pulled and survivors are just supposed to take it and say thank you?
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4049860#Comment_4049860
I've escaped 4 out of the 13 matches I've played against him so far and it's just day one. Such a breeze.
The killers saying his M2 is hard to hit have got to be playing blindfolded. It's got to be one of the easier to hit abilities that I've seen out of this game.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4049526#Comment_4049526
Stop bringing up comp, i brought that up specifically to address a different point and to a specific person and not to you. And it has nothing to do with the rest of this discussion.
To answer your question, in general at high MMR i would say the tier list is as follows:
S Tier:
- Nurse
- Blight
A Tier:
- Ghoul
- Dracula
- Billy
B Tier:
- Singularity
- Spirit
C Tier:
- Lich
- Twins
- Wesker
Unviable:
- Everyone else
There might be a handful of other killers that can do into C tier, personally i main a handful of killers but generally play all of them a bit to at least understand them. And so this is based on my own experience with each of the killers. But perhaps there's someone who is just so good with one of the "unviable" killers that they prove it can be done. I don't know everything so i just have to base it on my own experience with the killers.
But generally i see it as, S, A, and B are all viable. C tier is really only viable if like, you are literally like, top 10 in the world at the killer, and then even the best trapper player in the world aint winning against a top team.
Yes, given the nature of DBD, that doesn't mean its impossible for the "unviable ones" to win. Just like with any tier list and due to the nature of RNG, and human interaction and the fact that mistakes can occur on both sides, of course its going to change.
But lets say you pick up every killer in the game, and had the best player for that killer in the world, play against the best 4 survivors in the world for a 100 matches on the same map with the same tiles and RNG generation. What would the result be?
I'd guess that the S tiers would probably win around 60-70% of the matches. A Tiers would win around 60-65% of their matches. B tier would win around 45-55% of the matches. C tier would win around 40-50%, and below that would be from around 0-40% of the matches, with several killers being super low (like trapper or skull merchant).
The way i see it is, if you can't win half your games in that scenario (because ideally against equally skilled opponents you should win 50% of the time) then the killer is not viable because you are going to lose more than you will win.
Thank you for your personal ratings. I won't try to debate them because they are your opinion and you are entitled to it.
I will say that from my experience both as survivor and killer, I have a completely different list which has quite a bit more killers above C tier, but this definitely sheds some light on your stance on the matter.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4049143#Comment_4049143
I brought up comp as a separate thing, you need to really pay attention and not just find a buzzword and say "THEY SAID COMP NOW EVERYTHING THEY SAY IS INVALID"
As for viable killers there's plenty of lists floating around and simply just look at the comp rules and find which ones have massive restrictions on survivors and which ones don't.
I am asking for YOUR opinion. You say there are only 5 killers that are viable at high MMR. Is that from your experience or from what the comp scene wants you to believe is true?
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4049064#Comment_4049064
I didn't bring up MMR, someone else did when ghoul was brought up and it was brought up that ghoul is at like #8 in terms of kill rate. Then the reply said "that's at average MMR" which is what brought MMR into the discussion.
To which i'm stating that, if you balance the game at top MMR you must contend with the fact that the game is horribly balanced at that level and the vast majority of killers are not viable. Which even the most survivor main apologist content creators understand and agree with.
Nowhere did i say anything about how I was in "top MMR" or anything like that. I am simply stating facts about the game.
No one brought up comp dbd to mean high MMR. Comp is its own separate thing and shouldn't be considered when talking about balance. Could you also provide your list of killers you think are not viable and those that are? I'm genuinely curious as to where you place killers like singularly or billy.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4048859#Comment_4048859
My point is that you are basically saying that "X thing is broken because top level players can exploit it" and when people point out the stats showing that thing as actually not being that good the answer is "average players drag that down and inflate other ones"
You don't get to do that without also contending with the fact that there are 5 viable killers at the top level. Either:
- You balance the game around top level players
- You balance the game around average level players
It honestly seems like what you are asking for is that the devs balance around average survivors, but around top level killers. Which is quite frankly hella biased.
Your arbitrary "only 5 killers" is not correct. There are way more than 5 killers who can contend at top MMR. Nurse, blight, spirit, oni, huntress, ghoul, singularity, wesker, krasue, dracula; just to name a few.
Your first statement really means nothing because it's too generic, but also not untrue. Bad nurse and blight players deflate their overall killer stats; but everyone knows nurse and blight are broken. So I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here.
When did I ask for the balance to be around average survivors? Also, your strawman doesn't work because there is a major difference between survivors and killers. Every survivor is the same, just a different character model. Every killer though has a different power and needs to be balanced according. The average trapper and the average ghoul come from two different MMR brackets. That's why it's not as simple as your "gotcha" is making it out to be.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4048781#Comment_4048781
And the answer i always get when talking about balance is we shouldn't balance for the top tier players because as you say the vast majority of matches are with "average and below average" players, so we need to be balancing around them.
Guess what, you can't have it both ways. If you balance the game around average level players, you must do that, and by definition that means that ghoul and nurse and blight are fine (and in the case of nurse she needs buffs) because they are always much lower in the kill rates than other killers.
If however you want to talk about balancing around top tier players, and that ghoul/nurse/blight are a problem. I would be happy to have that discussion, but then are you ready to deal with the consequences of that and the fact that at those levels we have like 6 killers who are even viable at that level out of the 40+ we have?
There is a difference between average and below average player who actually plays the game versus an xbox game pass/epic games store Leon Kennedy/Sable Ward. There are players with thousands of hours who are just average and below average, and that's okay. There are also players who play 4 hours a month who are below average. These are the players some of these discussions on balance are catered towards. Huntress does not need 7 hatchets, yet here we are. Nemesis did not need 20% hindered on contamination whip, yet here we are.
The unfortunate fact is that these two demographics are grouped together when talking about balance. If you wanted competitive integrity, you'd completely ignore the players who lack any experience in the game and hope that they actually learn how to play instead of lowering the entire balance of the game down to their level. The rules of chess don't change just because the majority of new players are awful at chess.
I would much rather bring characters who dominate S and A tier down to an appropriate level and expect players who wish to play them at lower MMR levels to improve their skill over the alternative of making them run rampant in high MMR. I don't want any more 1950+ win win-streaks on killer. That is completely ridiculous and is laughably embarrassing to have that be something that is possible in a PvP game.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4048781#Comment_4048781
Where is the proof that Ghoul is in the top 5?
The onus isn't on me to provide up to date data when I call out your data for being out of date, limited in scope, and missing a lot of nuance.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4048777#Comment_4048777
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/1AJGT51L0HHD/image.png
The latest official stats don't even have Ghoul in the top 5.
These stats are from August 15th 2025 to September 25th 2025. Hardly anything to prove your point. It's been about 3 months since then, and there is a ton of nuance with perk and other killer balancing where these stats are essentially meaningless. You are also forgetting that 80% of matches are in average to below average MMR, where killers like Onryo and Freddy dominate.
-
@Shroompy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4047015#Comment_4047015
Considering the new game is an Assym horror it automatically makes DbD its competition, and one license is not enough (no matter how iconic) is enough to compete with it. The only competition I can see DbD ever having is not an Assym horror, but rather an Assym that can get ahold of licenses from a different genre.
DbD is trying its hardest to be the fortnite of horror (which is apparent from the prioritization of crossover dlcs, licensed chapters, and skins), and it still can't even do that. Fortnite got Jason from friday the 13th before DbD. I doubt the Myers skin will suddenly be removed from the fortnite shop rotation either.
DbD is still in the most unfun state it has ever been, and its revenue stream is only ever increased by taking in massive IPs and releasing a mediocre chapter for it; oh and selling sable, mikaela, renato, and vittorio crossover skins. There is very little monetarily DbD can do for Halloween specifically after Halloween essentially saved dbd from irrelevancy almost a decade ago. No skins, no emotes, no new maps, no new characters.
-
@Shroompy said:
While it was neat to have these interactions, it made the strength of these killers inconsistent and at times just awful to play, especially for Hag and Wraith.
If they were to add these back, Id make it so a special flashlight (Lets call it the Spectral Flashlight) would spawn in the basement chest and thats the only thing that can cause light burn. A global warning would play once a Survivor picks it up, and an icon will show up on the UI so they can see who holds it. If the survivor who holds it is downed and on 2nd hook, they can be moried.
This makes it much easier to balance since now there's a guaranteed way every game for lightburn to be a threat. A nice little bonus as well is this would be the first power related to the basement, which cant possibly benefit from camping.
Oh no, the scroll wheel hag with rusty shackles and 4 slowdown (who loaded in with the intent to be as punishing as possible) might be slightly countered by a flashlight!! Someone book the world's smallest violin player!
The spectral flashlight is not a good idea. We don't need information to counterplay counterplay. Being able to be mori'd because of a flashlight is ridiculous.
Keep in mind that survivors CANNOT SEE THE UPCOMING KILLER IN THE PREGAME LOBBY. People can't run a flashlight to counter a killer if they don't even know the upcoming killer.
Running a flashlight is also practically useless, even before the removal of the flashlight interactions, because there are walls almost everywhere, and all the killer has to do to counter a flashlight is to just shove their face into a wall, or 180 degree flick away from the flashlight survivor after fake chasing them to pick up. So even if we assume people ran flashlights with the sole intent to blind at pallets and to counter specific killers, the flashlight ends up being useless in almost 90% of games. The flashlight only mattered against nurse blinks, wraith lightburn, hag traps, spirit husk, and artist crows.
So basically all this noise and removal because wraith's design is stuck in 2016, and killers don't like it when they get the short end of the stick when the asymmetrical game decides to be asymmetrical but not in their favor.
Keep in mind too that a flashlight means no toolbox, medkit, key, fog vial, map, firecracker. People that complain about gens flying should be happy to see flashlights over toolboxes or medkits.
-
@CountOfTheFog said:
Can we fix it so all platforms can't see the mystery offerings? PC can just hover over and see still... that platform doesn't need certification for a patch if I recall correctly.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/DO01VKNTSUJD/1000037823.jpg
A better idea would be to scrap hiding offerings altogether and remove half of the useless ones. The majority of offerings are all useless, (individual tier bloodpoint multipliers), maps completely hog their tier of offering and only work 20% of the time, and the ones that actually do anything are almost all relegated to the purple or iridescent offerings.
I'd say keep the offerings for hatch, basement, revert maps back to 100% or at least 50%, hook, the wards, the shrouds, bloody party streamers/pudding, and moris; and remove the hidden mechanic. It's 2026. It's a relic of a bygone era.
The rationale to have this outdated system still in the game warrants a further discussion, but the majority of these useless offerings exist solely to keep the bloodwebs inflated with garbage, so people are incentivized to log in weekly to grab their weekly ration of pity bloodpoints from the shop (which all are gone within 10 bloodwebs of useless offerings/addons btw) among other things. Essentially, the longer it takes to get P100 or get your favorite items/addons/offerings, the more you will have to play the game, even if the game's fun crumbles in the process.
-
@Classic_Rando said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4040723#Comment_4040723
I didn’t cherry pick which side it applies to. I never said anything about bully squads. I agree that the same argument applies to both sides.
Did you see the second post?
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4040388#Comment_4040388
This question is basically moot. That's like saying Shohei Ohtani can't give his opinion on pitching because he's a designated hitter. He absolutely can have an opinion and be 100% up to date on the meta of pitching because he interacts with other pitchers and can infer based on what he has to do to get on base.
Shohei Ohtani doesn't need to pitch 50 games before he can have his opinion.
You're also banking on the fact that whatever experience someone has playing killer is radically going to change how they view the balance of killer. It just straight up isn't like that. You are conflating people learning game sense and macro knowledge with some idea that survivors "just don't understand how hard it is for killer." People with good game sense and macro know what to do. They know what the killer is going to do, so they either converge on a Nash equilibrium or make a risky play. Playing killer isn't going to drastically open their eyes to the killer experience because they already have that knowledge and they play killer in their mind while playing survivor.
The issue at hand is that killers have a wider safety net when it comes to their Nash equilibrium. If any survivor makes one mistake in the entire match, it's most likely at least a 2k for the killer because snowballing is out of control on dbd for killer. The only real mistake killers have to face is if they do not down a survivor before 60 seconds into the match elapses. Everything else pales in comparison.
There is a reason the 1975 streak build is corrupt, dead man's switch, pain res, and grim embrace. If gens do not get done in that 60 second window, you win if you are a semi decent player. If 5 gens are still up 2 minutes into the match, the killer already won.
-
@Classic_Rando said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4040369#Comment_4040369
Will you at least answer this question: do you play killer yourself?
This question is basically moot. That's like saying Shohei Ohtani can't give his opinion on pitching because he's a designated hitter. He absolutely can have an opinion and be 100% up to date on the meta of pitching because he interacts with other pitchers and can infer based on what he has to do to get on base.
Shohei Ohtani doesn't need to pitch 50 games before he can have his opinion.
You're also banking on the fact that whatever experience someone has playing killer is radically going to change how they view the balance of killer. It just straight up isn't like that. You are conflating people learning game sense and macro knowledge with some idea that survivors "just don't understand how hard it is for killer." People with good game sense and macro know what to do. They know what the killer is going to do, so they either converge on a Nash equilibrium or make a risky play. Playing killer isn't going to drastically open their eyes to the killer experience because they already have that knowledge and they play killer in their mind while playing survivor.
The issue at hand is that killers have a wider safety net when it comes to their Nash equilibrium. If any survivor makes one mistake in the entire match, it's most likely at least a 2k for the killer because snowballing is out of control on dbd for killer. The only real mistake killers have to face is if they do not down a survivor before 60 seconds into the match elapses. Everything else pales in comparison.
There is a reason the 1975 streak build is corrupt, dead man's switch, pain res, and grim embrace. If gens do not get done in that 60 second window, you win if you are a semi decent player. If 5 gens are still up 2 minutes into the match, the killer already won.
-
@Classic_Rando said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4040369#Comment_4040369
“In another game, if you are able to acquire a skill in that game and use that skill to essentially be undefeated, the responsibility of those devs would be to nerf it and rightfully so. In any other game it would be nerfed”
I would agree with you if that applied to the overall player base - BUT IT DOESN'T. Again - I don’t know any other way to try to make you understand this - balance has to be done based on the experiences of the average player, not based on the performance of the top player in the world. Nerfing all killers because one guy is really really good would just drive away a bunch of killer players. Maybe that doesn’t matter to you because you don’t play killer, but it matters to the vast majority of players who are just average killer players (many of whom play both sides, by the way) and have to put in a decent amount of skill and effort to win in a good proportion of their matches.
Your average killer is not facing "bully squads." If you want to go with the "average" argument, you can't cherry pick which side it gets applied to.
-
@Junylar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4040296#Comment_4040296
You said about "power", in 1v4 that one has to be strong enough to play against 4 other players simultaneously, otherwise it's just bullying simulator. No idea what you mean by "denying others from playing the game", but there is a reason why "bully squad" is a real term and "bully killer" is not, since it's only a group that can bully one person, never the other way around.
Current max killer streak is 1975 wins. Please show me a "bully squad" swf with even one tenth of that as a win streak.
-
@Sablethecableeater said:
Following update 9.2.0, changing your Steam nickname no longer updates in-game without restarting the application. Previously, nickname changes were reflected immediately without requiring a game restart.
A similar concern was raised by user Valuetown in the general discussion forum:“Just another bit of functionality lost for no reason whatsoever. You have to restart the game for your Steam name to update in-game. Can there be a priority to fix this for PC players? Thanks.”
(Credit to Valuetown)On the bug thread, it was said this was intentional. Real question is why and who asked to remove this functionality as it just ruins the fun out of the game as you require additional steps now.
"Marked as intentional" should be renamed to "unintended change but we don't want to fix it," at least in my opinion.
-
@Shroompy said:
At least for things like map changes/new maps, character and perk changes, and new mechanics. We know they can change/modify a character and maps on 2 different gamemodes thanks to 2v8.
Having the entire playerbase be able to test out changes like these rather than just Steam players would help a tone with feedback and you can even add BP incentives to encourage people to test out these changes.
Because the main reason for the PTB is to identify major bugs that crash the game, then to get the community sentiment on changes. Pushing a patch which can potentially crash the game to consoles is simply not going to be what happens, especially when console verification takes days and in order for everyone to be at parity. PC updates would have to wait for console verifications so that they all match what the server is expecting, which is yet another reason why PTB will always be PC only.
-
Does EAC generate a report for what an end user was banned for and send that to the application developer? I'm just curious, since EAC is a third party solution that BHVR cannot reverse a ban for, even for something approved by the dev team, how is it that BHVR can know that not even one person was banned for changing files that BHVR approves of?
If not, is it then up to word of mouth hoping that someone who did change their icons and got banned for it realizes what they got banned for without a shadow of a doubt, and then hoping they reach out on an official channel to be officially counted as "banned for changing icons?"
Again, I just would like to understand the process because not having the authority to unban someone while also simultaneously knowing what they got banned for down to specific files and reasons seems like there would be at least some false positives from my layperson's perspective.
That being said, is there any desire from the dev team to support steam workshop functionality for perk and item icon adjustments to remove this risk entirely?
-
@tes said:
I was goofing around with my friend and we were changing nicknames during our play. I didn't notice the difference - the new name is set as soon as you go to the new match (lobby )
This is how it was, but since the patch yesterday, it seems to not be working sadly.
-
@JPLongstreet said:
Y'all can change your name around in a game? Wouldn't be that get confusing, particularly for streamers?
Yes you can. No it doesn't.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4007698#Comment_4007698
I think the DMS nerf was related to the phase 2 changes, but BHVR purposely didn't nerf some of the perks, to see what the reaction would be.
A nerf getting reverted, isn't proof that it was always intended. Do you think the anti-tunneling changes were never intended because they got reverted? Obviously, tenacity got changed back because of the complaints, and not because that was always the plan.
I highly doubt this is the case. The last time the devs just let something simmer, we got the biggest embarrassment of this game's history: letting the streetwise bug exist for almost a week despite the community opinion. I highly doubt they want to repeat such a negative experience for everyone involved.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4007566#Comment_4007566
I'm claiming that sometimes BHVR just throws changes at the wall, just to see which changes stick, and which changes get so many complaints that they end up getting reverted.
Right, which is what the PTB did for base kit tenacity. So now we're waiting for the revert for tenacity the perk to go back to the way it was.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4007384#Comment_4007384
That part should have been changed as a deliberate choice, because of the overwhelming feedback that survivors were using increased crawling speed to punish killers that weren't excessively slugging.
Tenacity could get the increased crawling speed back, but it should be delayed by 10-15 seconds, so it's only punished extended slugging.
Because when a survivor has been slugged for 0.5 seconds, that's not extended or excessive slugging, and therefore anti-slugging shouldn't be activating that quickly. As compensation, the increased crawling speed after 10-15 seconds can be buffed. This means that overall, this new Tenacity would be stronger than the old Tenacity, except for the specific scenarios where survivors would IMMEDIATELY use the increased crawling speed to do things like crawl under an undropped pallet, to force the killer to slug the survivor.
What?
So now you're making the claim that BHVR did this intentionally with no patch note saying it is intentional? Please excuse my candidness, but it really sounds like you're grasping at straws with this. They've also posted on twitter that tenacity will be reverted in an upcoming update to restore its functionality.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4007268#Comment_4007268
Where is your source that the regression perks were the ONLY killer perk changes that were made because of the phase 2 anti-tunnel/anti-slug/anti-camp changes?
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4007286#Comment_4007286
You literally said "The comment about gen regression was brought about because the anti tunnel and slug systems that brought some of the regression base kit were reverted, and so were their perks, yet tenacity was not and survivors can no longer recover while crawling"
You're literally saying that because ALL the gen regression perk nerfs were reverted, that therefore tenacity's perk nerf should be reverted.
You're literally ignoring the fact that other killer perks were nerfed, and are still nerfed. You keep saying SOURCE SOURCE SOURCE, but you never gave a source to why the gen regression perks are the only perks that people should care about.
I didn't talk about gen regression in my original post. It was only about tenacity. But it is also true of what @Firellius said: the gen regression perks that were nerfed to accommodate their base kit counterparts both were reverted to their states prior to the PTB. This was not the case for tenacity. Tenacity's main function of recovering while crawling is currently not in the game because the system that made it base kit was reverted, and tenacity wasn't reverted back, which is where the functionality was lost. This has nothing to do with perk nerfs or reverts for balancing. This has only to do with a perk's functionality being removed from the game due to an oversight or deliberate choice. I never said anything about "well because the killer perks got reverted, so should tenacity." This is purely only about tenacity, and later in the discussion how the other instance of system reverts, which just so happened to be the gen regression, was fully reverted, where tenacity's was not. That has been my point this entire time.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4007247#Comment_4007247
Because DMS was nerfed because of the anti-tunneling update, because the anti-tunneling update involved basekit gen defense.
This whole thread is trying to set a false narrative, that EVERY killer perk that was involved in this update, is required to be a regression perk.
Are you even reading responses at this point? Several people have explained this to you ad nauseam, yet you still are regurgitating a talking point nobody here ever said. What's more is the only person here who even remotely agrees with your assessment on the matter is yourself. Again, please reread the posts once more to gain an understanding of the topic and discussion of the thread.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4007139#Comment_4007139
If we're only talking about regression perks, that means no one is allowed to mention OTR or tenacity, since neither of those perks are regression perks.
Why do you consistently, either by sheer coincidence or purposefully, misinterpret what people are saying on here? The whole thread was created to address tenacity. The comment about gen regression was brought about because the anti tunnel and slug systems that brought some of the regression base kit were reverted, and so were their perks, yet tenacity was not and survivors can no longer recover while crawling. DMS was not made base kit at all. It's nerf is completely isolated from the gen regression situation.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4007070#Comment_4007070
What is the purpose of repeatedly saying "gen regression", and ignoring the other killer perks that are still nerfed?
Seriously, why should we care if the gen regression perk nerfs got reverted, if some of the other killer perks nerfs are still intact?
Because we're not talking about the other perks, we're talking about gen regression perks. That's the point. You keep trying to move the goalposts to include them, but nobody else here is talking about the other perks but you.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4006638#Comment_4006638
That's literally why someone keeps mentioning the regression perks over and over and over.
By saying "every killer regression perk nerf got reverted", it's implying that every killer perk nerf that was related to the phase 2 changes, got reverted.
You just quoted them saying "gen regression" and proceeded to take that to mean everything. That's not what it's implying at all.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4006465#Comment_4006465
Because limiting the discussion to just gen regression, gives the false impression that BHVR purposely reverted all the killer nerfs, but kept the survivor nerfs intact.
That's the actual argument. And it's false, because BHVR kept some of the killer nerfs.
Nobody is genuinely arguing that they undid all the killer nerfs. I honestly don't know how you arrive at that conclusion after reading any of the posts here.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4006285#Comment_4006285
DMS is mechanically interlinked because the anti-tunnel update involved basekit gen defense. DMS and Pop are both related to gen defense.
And you're missing the point that some of the perk changes were kept because it's better for the game. OTR is supposed to be a defensive perk, and the high number of survivors weaponizing it offensively, means it's not being used for its intended purpose.
You are trying to make this around "gen defense" when @Firellius is talking about gen regression, not the blanket idea of "gen defense." You could argue that BBQ is "gen defense" because you can focus the gens being actively worked on after securing a hook. You could argue sloppy butcher is gen defense because survivors need to spend longer healing; therefore, they spend less time on gens. "Gen defense" is too broad of a topic and can be molded to include out of scope perks, which is what's happening here.
DMS is not gen regression, which is what @Firellius has explained to you.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4005933#Comment_4005933
What is with the "NOTHING to progress the game" strawman? Do you literally imagine a survivor staring at a wall for 30 seconds before deciding to weaponize their perks?
Let's try this again. If the OTR user gets unhooked, and the killer is chasing someone else, the OTR user can either immediately run at the killer, or get healed and then immediately run at the killer. None of that requires the OTR user to initiate a heal or repair.
I didn't know explaining basic macro mechanics was a strawman for you. If you are not hitting the person who is body blocking you with OTR, that's a skill issue. That's besides the point. This thread is about tenacity, but you keep moving the goalposts to irrelevant perks that have nothing to do with either system that got pulled because of killer players. Please try to stay on topic.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4005733#Comment_4005733
Dead Man's Switch is a gen defense perk, that was changed because of the basekit pop from the anti-tunnel update.
Leverage was changed because of the anti-tunnel update, because it was primarily used as a tunneling perk.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4005672#Comment_4005672
Do you know how many survivors don't value the stealth aspect of OTR, and get frustrated that the endurance portion is useless when a killer is tunneling them off a hook? A lot of survivors don't actually value OTR as a good anti-tunnel perk. Its popularity is often with survivors that want to combo it with DS, so they can weaponize two perks against the killer.
Compare this to Dead Man's Switch, which actually is a really amazing gen defense perk, and that is the most popular type of killer perk.
If you are combining OTR and DS, you have to do NOTHING to progress the game, since both effects are lost upon healing, generators, or totems. That is more slowdown than dead man's switch could even wish for.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4005661#Comment_4005661
Here’s the original claim…
“They didn't forget to un-nerf the regression perks that were impacted by the hook incentives, and while I figured there was still some weird way they just 'forgot' to do the same for the survivor side, they did cancel two perk buffs, so they did go over this.They consciously decided to keep the survivor nerfs”
So, the original response was this claim is incorrect, because BHVR didn’t actually un-nerf all the regression perks.
Dead Man’s Switch is still nerfed…. And Leverage is also still nerfed. I originally didn’t mention Leverage, because I didn’t want to deal with anyone trying to argue that Leverage “was actually buffed”, even though it’s obviously meant to be a nerf.
Leverage was laterally adjusted, but with a closer inspection, it was buffed. Just because the big number got smaller doesn't mean it's a nerf. I would much rather have 50% increased time healing for only 30 seconds versus having a 30% increased healing time for an entire minute. The biggest problem for this perk was killers running back to hook to secure a free tunnel. I can say with 100% certainty that this adjustment will do nothing for killers that do this (and now that off the record is nerfed, it will happen with higher probability). Not only that, but the person who unhooked the survivor is punished for longer. I'm not sure how anyone could view this as a straight up nerf.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4005586#Comment_4005586
Official data proof from BHVR is not required. This isn’t a Law and Order episode.
Do you honestly think OTR has a higher pick rate than Dead Man’s Switch?
Absolutely. Do you know how many solo queue survivors there are that don't want to be tunneled?
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4005240#Comment_4005240
Dead Man’s Switch still has its nerf intact, and that perk has a much higher pick rate than both OTR and Tenacity combined.
Can we get a source for your perk pick rate data?
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4001940#Comment_4001940
The conversation moved away from Blight, because I wasn't going to put up with your ridiculous demands for proof. No, it is absolutely not acceptable to ask someone to list 3 things, and then turn around and say "NOW I NEED 100% PROOF THAT WHAT YOU SAID IS TRUE, AND IT NEEDS TO BE ACTUALLY PROVABLE PROOF".
Like seriously, that was an absolutely unacceptable follow up question. I don't owe you anything. I gave my answer, and I don't care if you like it. I don't care that you think every example is "not good enough for you".
Let's just be real here. You're going to be angry regardless of what anyone says. So just be angry. I don't care.
I'm not angry at anything, I'm simply asking you to provide me reasoning for your assertions. How is it not acceptable to ask you for 3 things, and then question the 3 things you provide me? Am I supposed to just take your word for it, especially since there are no patch notes or evidence (before and after) that what you're claiming is true?
You're right, you don't owe me anything; but when you tell me I'm not telling the truth on something I'm discussing, it would be courteous to at least provide a rational explanation as to why and evidence to back that claim up.
I ask again: is your stance on communication of changes "take what patch notes they're willing to give us and don't complain?" It would be much easier to discuss balance and the state of the game if all items were tracked in official patch notes.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4001824#Comment_4001824
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/SNX941Q1WAA4/image.jpeg
There is your patch note for the Haddonfield change. It’s specifically saying pallets are being changed, and it’s understood that means the pallet loops will also be changed.
That’s all the patch notes need to say. You aren’t entitled to a full list of every single changed pallet and every single changed pallet loop, that exists in every single map that was changed this patch.Nothing is been “hidden” by these patch notes. Instead, you are giving an unrealistic expectation for the patch notes.
Sorry, but no. Reading that note for what it is does not mean that existing pallet loops will be changed. What part of "adjusted the quantity and distribution of pallets" gives you the impression that they will add line of sight blockers to loops that have existed for years at this point? I'm sorry but "it's understood that pallet loops will also be changed" is assuming something they never said. If it said "adjusted layout and distribution" then I could understand, but just "distribution and quantity?" Yeah, that's a no from me.
That's all the patch notes need to say
By whose opinion? Yours? If you are of the camp that believes ambiguous patch notes are fine, you are free to have that opinion. On the contrary, I'd like detailed notes and explanations, especially for changes that fundamentally change the gameplay loop. Simply wanting and asking for more detailed notes does not make me entitled, but you are free to think that way.
Again, there is still no official patch note or communication that surge causes survivors to scream. Of everything we've talked about, that would be one of the best candidates to receive a patch note for. Is your opinion on the matter of communication of changes "take what patch notes they're willing to give us and don't complain?" How is writing one line for "updated various loops to add line of sight blockers" or "updated surge so survivors scream" that much of a problem? How has our conversation shifted from your assumption that "blight had all these massive undocumented nerfs" to "you expect too much from the patch notes?" If those changes were documented, it would be a lot easier to make sense of it all, wouldn't it?