Skip to content
Avatar

Weederick

Weederick

About

Username
Weederick
Joined
Visits
4,568
Last Active

Comments

  • @KillermainBTWm8 said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/389657#Comment_389657

    No mither isn't as weak as people think they can get gens fast af and sabo squads are insane... It's not OP but good survivors with all 4 using no mither is a nightmare say bye bye to gens/hooks.

    Simple math why no mither is #########:

    Resilience adds 9% (or 15%?). So you work at 109%. The chased survivors loops AT MOST for 50% of the time he could. So they work 50% max.

    Thats an efficiency of 54,5% with no mither squads for simple genrush. Now add, that hooked survivors take away momentum exponentially more the earlier they go down and its clear, that no mither squads are too occupied dying to rush gens.

    in Why Do People Think Plague Is Good Again? Comment by Weederick


  • @Maximus7 said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/389657#Comment_389657

    How often do you lose to 4 No Mither? Have you ever seen a No Mither sabo squad?

    If they're coordinated, they're only a bit worse. No Mither isn't broken by any means but it's far from the ######### perk everyone thinks it is.

    Again, broken is a joke. If they have situational awareness, they'll reach a loop before you can get to them, then you have to go through the same long chase. Especially if they stay separated but coordinated, then you're screwed.

    I played a 4x no mither squad once and they like immediately lost :D

    It only takes 1 hit to down them, they're not even getting the speedboost from getting hit. Let alone that the first hit is the easy hit and the second one the hard hit. So no, they dont go through the same lengthy chase, but on average less than half the time, if they stay broken. More importantly, it would be easy to snowball and win. Same as 4k slugging with noed. Its a possibility that is not there without everyone beeing broken.

    I seriously cant believe you really think that 4x no mither is not a big deal. Every no mither can be felt in game. Let alone all four

    in Why Do People Think Plague Is Good Again? Comment by Weederick

  • @Caretaker said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/389291#Comment_389291

    Broken is a joke. I literally run No Mither against normal killers, you think broken scares me? You think it suddenly stops them from looping or hiding? This is the problem, you all look at one simple little thing and ignore literally everything else in the game. Perma E3 is strong cuz he could have a tombstone, and/or he has longer lunge, faster vault speeds, and isn't slowed by using his power. It also takes FOREVER to get and you can usually rush gens before he hits 3 if you play right.

    NOED? Cleanse the totems, NOED isn't scary. If you get 4k'd by NOED you're bad. Sorry the truth hurts, but there it is. You don't HAVE to save someone, get out. Iri Hatchets got nerfed, and you can still use LOS, dodge, there is counterplay. I won't deny it's extremely difficult, but it's also an UR that drops you down to 1 hatchet, and requires a purple to be really effective.

    Billy's chainsaw isn't a joke, you can avoid it though. LF's chainsaw? That's a joke. There is 0 difference between normal Wraith and NOED Wraith except my Wraith has 4 perks all game, instead of 3 and I don't risk losing it end-game. The difference between EW2 and EW3 isn't just the down. It's longer lunge and vault speed which is HUGE. He can also pocket it and is mobile with it meaning you, the killer, can use it when it's effective unlike Plague who relies on Survivors to give her power.

    I had a group run around broken. They still just rushed my gens and only got a 4k cuz they a made really bad play and I managed to catch them in unsafe areas. They got a bit cocky, and altruistic. Had they just finished the gens, I'd have never won. I didn't get my corrupt plague once that entire game. To give you an idea about how bad they were, they dropped the god pallets immediately when I wasn't even chasing them. One guy ruined their safest spot.

    Coordinated solos, can utterly stomp a Plague. You get warned when she gets her corruption, she glows bright red, she's super ######### tall, has a normal TR. You can literally just stealth her. No TR? Do gens. TR/see her? Stealth/run to a jungle gym/area to avoid her.

    Sounds very different to my experience. Broken/Exposed survivors die fast and easily. They cant dodge a single hit for minutes, let alone multiple gens. Without the stronger half of their health states, they actually go down fast. And if multiple survivors are broken, thats a huge timeframe to just take over the game. How often do lose against 4x no mither? How strong to you think its in comparison to 4x normal survivors?

    Imo running around broken to deny a corrupt form is shooting yourself in the foot. I'd love to see survivors doing this "strat" against me. Perma noed is neat

    in Why Do People Think Plague Is Good Again? Comment by Weederick

  • @Maximus7 said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/389276#Comment_389276

    I find her corrupt purge to be at best on par with Huntress' hatchets. And Huntress doesn't require survivors to insta-heal at lockers in order for you to collect hatchets from them just to only be able to use them for 1 minute.

    Being broken is a joke. Just gen rush harder. Then cleanse once the gens are done. Bam, you've countered Plague entirely.

    She's nowhere close to Myers or Pig. Clown, maybe (because Clown is also awful). And Spirit is overrated, but also not bad (more like Myers level).

    Very similar to huntress indeed. If you can handle huntress, she will be better. but plague doesnt need good aim, you can just spray&pray. I think she has her niche in that regard.

    Broken is not a joke. Permanent EW3, No Mither, Noed, Iri hatchets and Chainsaws are no joke. Its the breaking point where ######### gets serious. The difference between normal wraith and noed wraith is gigantic. Just like EW2 myers and EW3 myers. Running around broken is an invitation to get snowballed, my 2c.

    in Why Do People Think Plague Is Good Again? Comment by Weederick

  • @Maximus7 said:

    She's really not any better than anyone at the moment. We had a Freddy situation happen to her. It's like the devs didn't learn anything about not listening to bad players (but then again, they have bad players working on their game and making said balance changes, so.......)

    I find Plague decent. Not top tier, not weak either. Somewhere along Myers, Pig and Clown in the higher midtier. Breaking survivors after a set time is strong against good loopers. And plague has a harder huntress M2+M1 combo. In corrupt form, she is one of the strongest killers but she pays in instaheals for it.

    Decent powerlevel, although i really hope for more Billys, Huntress and Spirits in terms of killer powerlevel. Close though

    in Why Do People Think Plague Is Good Again? Comment by Weederick

  • Noed, Ruin

    Decisive Strike, Unbreakable, Adrenaline, Deliverance, Borrowed Time, Sprint Burst

    Killer crutches are stronger, but you can stack so many survivor crutches. Up to 16 in a game make them stronger overall.

    in Crutch Perks - Which side has more? Comment by Weederick

  • I played against this guy all the time, he complained about infinites a lot. He quit when they removed billys flick and Vuitton got falsely banned.

    in Any other old timers miss these killer mains? Comment by Weederick

  • He gets easy value out of invis. Since sprintburst stopped beeing meta, he can often get the first hit. Its not a oneshot, but still helpful to start chases injured, even against good survivors (although they are more likely to see you or make it to pallets in time). Bing bong is easy to use for relatively high rewards

    Freddy and Legion have to battle their drawbacks. They have their upsides, but good loopers can play around it.

    in Can someone tell me why Wraith isn't considered the worst killer? Comment by Weederick

  • Coal Tower. Its small, so every killer has a chance without need for mobility. There arent many tiles on the map. But there is a strong main structure with a former infinite and a balanced landing dropdown.

    Honestly, its the only map that i dont consider survivorfavored, so it makes the cut for the most balanced.

    in Most balanced Map in Dead By Daylight. Comment by Weederick

  • @Poweas said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/362000#Comment_362000

    Ok. I will try maining her, not yet though, Spirit is bae. But against SWF, Billy does OK. Hag sucks against them. I agree with you. But she's not a top tier though.

    Give her a try first. Btw she was always top 3 on pc (nurse, billy, huntress), before the hag buffs and spirit. You may change your mind on her.

    in Most overrated killer? Comment by Weederick

  • @Poweas said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/361837#Comment_361837

    @Weederick not top tier. That's for sure she's easy to loop if your not a potato and predict her correctly and has rubbish map pressure. But with BBQ, a god tier Huntress can dominate so well. I mean she's a great killer and I'm going to main her once I've levelled Hag but she's at the top of mid tier because it's easy to stealth her, a swf will loop her for years if they're all smart. But I agree with her being less addon dependant then Hag. For me it goes like:

    Top tier

    Spirit,

    Nurse,

    Billy

    Hag

    Spirit and nurse are pretty closely matched and hag and billy are closely matched.

    Upper mid tier

    Myers

    Huntress

    Pig

    Wraith

    Pig and wraith are basically EQUAL and myers and huntress are top tier basically, but Aren't listed there because They're not as op as the top tier killers, They're completely balanced.

    Subjective, a huntress gets looped and ends the loop with damage. So its not really looping in the sense that they can chain it together to genrush. They're eating a hatchet or axe at the end. And regarding good swfs... thats exactly where i find huntress to be the strongest. You can use billy and hag to stomp randoms, but against good coordinated loopers, you need snowball and antiloop. And Huntress has lots of it. Main her for a while, she is a beast.

    in Most overrated killer? Comment by Weederick

  • @HavelmomDaS1 said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/361786#Comment_361786

    I absolutly don't see how you rate her so high. She's good, don't get me wrong. But she's to heavily map depended, hitboxes on tiles can be broken af so even on low objects you have to bruteforce the pallet. She's better than hag imo, but she will never surpass the top 3 (nurse spirit billy) till the devs adjust the maps

    She is a beast in the chase and not that map dependant. Lerys and Game are bad for her, but its manageable (just like i dont have problems with billy on them. They're both still lethal close-mid range). The stupid hitboxes goes both ways though, you can often hit the tip of their upper hitbox.

    Huntress vs Spirit is a hard one, i rate them about equally strong. But Huntress snowballs harder, she is more lethal overall. She has 5x hatchets before reloading, all throwable in a short time. And she controls hook from a distance. If you want to win against good survivors, you have to peak your powerlevel at some point to avoid genrush. And i find it easier with Huntress compared to Spirit.

    Huntress vs Billy goes to Huntress because Billy gets looped. If a killer cant break the chainlooping that leads to genrush, they lose.

    Huntress vs Hag depends on swf. Hag is easier to win and more consistent against solos (similar to billy pubstomping bad survivors), but Huntress has the stronger base kit.


    Overall, all 4 toptier killers (Billy, Huntress, Hag, Spirit) are pretty close in powerlevel. Depending on the survivors you face, some are better than others. But in the case of vs'ing skilled survivors, i'd pick Huntress over the others.

    in Most overrated killer? Comment by Weederick


  • @The_Bogeyman said:

    Ehhhh how is Huntress underrated. Most peeps rate her high. Too high.

    Some people still rate her non-toptier. Its all subjective ofc, but Huntress is slowly taking that #2 spot on my tier list, since she is the best killer against good survivors (apart from nurse).

    in Most overrated killer? Comment by Weederick

  • The new ranking system will take care of that. But i see dark times for rank 1... Its not gonna be pretty, when survivors are all good at the game. They'll probably face Legions and Nurses back to back, since they pip effortlessly, while everyone else gets genrushed...

    in So i know killers hate SWF but..... Comment by Weederick

  • Billy. Great pubstomper but loses to fundamentals against good survivors.

    Huntress is underrated on the other hand. Sleeper #2 killer and apart from the Nurse, the best killer to go against depip squads imo

    in Most overrated killer? Comment by Weederick

  • @Slayer said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/360532#Comment_360532

    Yes this is what im looking for not games with HillBilly massacres everyones in the open lol thanks

    You're welcome. Happy vroom vrooming

    in Pro Billy streamers? Any? Comment by Weederick

  • Ryanpez69 is the best billy i know, better than Zubat. 7k hour on billy, really got the chainsaw down.

    https://www.twitch.tv/ryanpez69

    in Pro Billy streamers? Any? Comment by Weederick

  • @MrDardon said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/360447#Comment_360447

    I play every Killer, and when I play Billy I feel bad for the Survivors. And 46 metres would make a good sprint. That's why I set those 5 secs, cuz some people like to run around the whole map in circles to get someone. And making them reload their Chainsaw's would make every Billy Main think twice before using the Chainsaw.

    Btw, I don't have problems with hitting Billy Chainsaws. Who can't hit them is just bad.

    But what would it fix then?? He still sprints over 2/3 the map. He reloads sometimes between chases, but overall nothing changes. Circling the whole map in hopes to run into someone is not something good billys do and good survivors have problems with.

    Nurse has a high skillfloor, while Billy has a low skillfloor. That makes one easier to learn, but both have high skillcaps. If you take it to the extreme, Huntress and Billy can convert mechanical skill into results the best.

    in Chainsaw Killer's change idea! Comment by Weederick

  • @MrDardon said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/360401#Comment_360401

    You could still cover much ground with 5 seconds. Billy Chainsaw's are just as easy to hit as Leatherface's if you practiced this almost brain dead Killer enough. And making Leatherface 115 % when charging the Chainsaw would make him overpowered since he also can move normal while dashing. A slight boost is okay but not over 95 % ms. And Billy is braindead in any ways if you can run around the map nonstop. It would make him a risk/reward Killer like Huntress. He has 5 easy chances to hit but can also cover ground with it. And the reload mechanic would make him at least enjoyable for the Survivors since alot dislike him with his perma insta down/map rush. He'd still stay a 115 % Killer. I heared people saying he should get 110 % which would make him from top 5 to top 3 of the worst Killers actually.

    lol. Didnt know you dont play billy. Nurse blinks are also easy to hit if you practice enough. Kickflips on a skateboard are also easy if you practice enough. :D

    Hitting chainsaws is among the hard things in dbd. Thats why they released leatherface, so everyone can hit them.

    Apart from that. 5s takes you 46m far, which is pretty long. Does that solve any of the issues though? I dont think so, he will still appear next to you with insta addons. You wont feel the nerf as a survivor.

    in Chainsaw Killer's change idea! Comment by Weederick

  • Boring tbh. Instead of adding new mechanics to balance them, you just restrict them in every way. You make it very hard to hit chainsaws, prevent mobility and force them to reload. Whats even left of billy then? Basically nothing. And what does lf become? Still a worse billy.

    I'd prefer adding mechanics instead of taking away. Make billys chainsaw audible over the whole map, increase his cooldown and nerf his addons. That directly influences his map control without bandaid fixing his mobility.

    Leatherface needs more buffs to separate him from billy. Let him walk with his chainsaw at 115% speed. He feels so clumsy, even though he is the one, who is holding a revved chainsaw in front of him all the time.

    in Chainsaw Killer's change idea! Comment by Weederick

  • For pc, from worst to best:

    Bill: Goes down quickly and hookrushes to throw the game. Combines low skill with bad strategy.

    Meg: Meg main huge brain.

    Claudette: Immersed and useless. Has no plan b when spotted.

    David: Farms his teammates and prefers tokens over winning. Often does bad plays for the bloodpoints.

    Jake: Egoistic players who prefer hatch over teammates.

    Laurie: I want DS Reeee

    ... Lesser used survivors somewhere in the middle.

    Kate: Experienced Meg players. Rarely toxic

    Dwight: Playing Dwight puts a bulls-eye on you, they want to get chased. Doesnt really care about the game, more about fun and memes.

    Nea: Toxic. Not as skilled as the other survivors, but takes every 2nd chance they can get, which makes them hard to catch. Hugs infinites and knee bends

    Feng: Skilled, but in the opposite way of Nea. They're rarely toxic or use crutches, they just outplay you.

    Ace: His built-in Iron Will attracts loopers like Claudette attracts stealth players. Long chase ahead.

    in Survivor stereotypes? Comment by Weederick

  • Huntress, Billy, Spirit

    in Most balanced killer in your eyes? Comment by Weederick

  • If you want to win against billy, learn to loop really well. Stealth is not a winning strategy, i can tell you that. You may take the hatch, but survivors will lose. The survivors need 2-3 good loopers to win the timerace. If you are not one of them, chances are much lower that the survivors have enough good loopers.

    Also know your enemy. Play billy for a while, learn his limits and tricks.

    in How to tackle this Hillbilly build? Comment by Weederick

  • @Financial_Stability said:

    @Weederick said:

    Tunneling is just an overpowered strat imo

    Someone saves a hooked survivor within my terror radius. I could be kicking a generator, and I decide to go back. I have a choice, go for the injured survivor or go for the healthy one. I go for what's best, since it isn't reasonably likely that going for both will get me anywhere. So I go and down the injured one. Boom, DS. No counter, just you get a free escape. We went from a bad unhook punishing the unhooked survivor to punishing the killer. This is not right. As a killer, you do what you can in order to kill everyone. Some abide by unspoken guidelines while others simply do not care. You can do whatever you want when it comes to your play style, it isn't invalid. But neither is anyone else's.

    And thats why you eat a DS, because you always take the same easy choice.
    No one forces you to go for the unhooker, but you will outplay decisive strike and borrowed time. Its your choice.
    Same could be said about infinites. Its just the superior choice, why shouldnt they infinite? Does it mean it doesnt need counterplay? Its the superior play to infinite, thus its fine?
    You have the choice and YOU choose to eat DS, not every killer.

    in A guy who's seen DS at it's strongest and his negative opinion on the new changes. Comment by Weederick

  • @blud_peeni said:
    typing "1"in the lobby chatbox to try and guess how bad the ping was

    I still do this, if i dont trust the ping^^
    1
    2
    3
    1
    2
    3

    Getting stuck on the bottom right of "the hill"
    Clicking join lobby all the time, but not too fast or you cancel the search.
    Multiple survivors joining an ongoing game until it crashes. From the survivor POV you joined a game without lighting, it was pitch black and pretty scary.
    Good old bugs by daylight

    in Figments of DBD Past Comment by Weederick

  • @Financial_Stability said:

    If you keep tunneling, since its the easiest, most efficient way to end games, then you have to deal with DS. Rightfully so, there should be perks to help counter ez wins strats. New DS will be similar to Ruin. A way to slow down rushing the main objective.

    >

    You don't have time to "not tunnel." Slugging most of the time will be your next best bet but since it may not be worth it to go after the rescuer due to the amount of time it could take to down a survivor. And by then your generators are going to be done before you can sacrifice a good amount of them.

    I don't know how long you've been playing, or if you've played enough killer to get my point. But if you go for it yourself you will see that you don't have time to do that. You're always on a time crunch as killer.

    I play since release without tunneling and camping. Its harder, but manageable. Tunneling is just an overpowered strat imo, it can only be beaten by hard genrushing, since they dont have any spare time left if they want to get the gates open. Its pretty good that there will be a perk to counter this

    in A guy who's seen DS at it's strongest and his negative opinion on the new changes. Comment by Weederick

  • @Zarathos said:

    @Chi said:

    @Zarathos said:
    Logic is simple tapp is part of a chapter that has a weak killer and very average perks minus make your choice so only dedicated players pick up the dlc. Which means tapp players will be more likely experianced complesionists.

    Pig is not weak.

    She is in comparison to most other killers.Her dash is weak compared to most anti loop tech, clowns gas bottles billy and LF saw. Her snowball potential rely s too much on stealth which made obsolete by swfs existence relaying info on your position and movements and her traps are a gimmick that rely too much on rng. Even then her breathing is extremely loud and easy to pick up on.

    What I'm saying is if half of the killers in the game are better then her she is weak.You can win with her but like Freddy and doc her power doesn't do enough to win the most important part of dbd the chase. Low mid tier means = weak.

    Billy and LF have no antiloop. Pig has a counterable antiloop, but i rarely see people use it. Her looping play is better than most 115% killers (Clown is slightly better).
    She just has more depth to her than most killers and its easy to play her wrong. She punishes tunneling and camping for example. Crouching to get free hits is great, but you have to utilize LoS, crouching too much means wasting time though. Higher mid tier, her versatility and slowing genrush puts her above most 115% killers.

    in What are the Tapp mains on? Comment by Weederick

  • @Financial_Stability said:

    Note how you only covered 2 of my proposed counters and ignored the 3rd.

    You can just go after the other guy

    You really think that's a viable option? I intentionally left that out due to how ridiculous it is. If you go by that method, you'll end up hooking everyone equally or losing before you can get anyone sacrificed. I thought that was a given.

    Going after the savior rarely is the best option after an unhook in your face.

    Just dont tunnel. Its that easy.
    No tunnel of the hook = No DS

    If you keep tunneling, since its the easiest, most efficient way to end games, then you have to deal with DS. Rightfully so, there should be perks to help counter ez wins strats. New DS will be similar to Ruin. A way to slow down rushing the main objective.

    If you dont tunnel, survivors play with 3 perks if DS becomes meta. Add Borrowed time and they may aswell play with 2-3 perks, just to counter a playstyle you dont have.

    in A guy who's seen DS at it's strongest and his negative opinion on the new changes. Comment by Weederick

  • Survivors have more good perks. Second chances for every situation, good stealthperks, good teamperks, something to cover every playstyle. Apart from stacking second chances, they're well balanced overall.
    Killer perks are stronger, but less of them are viable. Ruin, Noed, Bbq are high impact perks. Only DS can rival them and its finally getting nerfed. But most killerperks are still too weak, so you see the same few strong perks over and over.

    in Which side has the better perks? Comment by Weederick

  • @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:
    Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    Number two. (Also, why is this in the Balance Feedback section?)

    DarkGGhost said:

Evry trap has it's own box if you trap the same survivor that may have the same box



This is...technically true, but not guaranteed?  There is nothing stopping a Survivor having a second trap placed on them from finding their key in the same box, but that's just because the game randomly picks a box when you get a trap on.  It doesn't, to my knowledge, take into account any previous traps or boxes or anything. 

Weederick said:

Every box has 50% chance when you search it. They´re not linked.

    This is definitely wrong.  A given trap is linked to a box randomly chosen when it is placed on a Survivor's head.

    Thats what everyone thought. Someone on reddit tested 500 traps and the results are pretty disappointing:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/anq365/pig_rbt_stats_part_2/

    Seems like whenever you search a box its just 50/50, until the last one. They're not cleverly linked or so, just 50%.

    The results don't matter because the devs have said how the RBTs and Boxes work.  The box is chosen randomly when a player gets a trap put on them.

    How should that work with 4 boxes and the way they are distributed? If it has a 50% chance to get off on first try, it should be linked to 2/4 boxes. Do you have a source for the dev statement?

    The fact that their results had the key show up in the first box about 50% of the time does not actually indicate that boxes have a 50% chance of getting the key at any given box. There's nothing wrong with the data the person gathered, but conclusion they and other commenters are coming to does not support the official word of the devs because with the way the boxes function according to the devs, you have a 25% chance of getting it off on the first box (assuming four boxes). How do I know this? Simple math. If the game chooses a box to put the key in when you get a trap on your head, there is one box that will 100% give you the key and three boxes that will 0% give you the key. That means if you pick a box at random, you have a one in four chance of picking the correct box, which is 25%. ~50% of the people getting it off on the first box can very easily be attributed to just purely getting lucky on which boxes they walked to. They just happened to go to the correct box first about half the time.

    There are three conclusions you could come to with regards to this:

    1) The devs are somehow completely unaware of how they programmed the Jigsaw Boxes and do not realize/have forgotten that they programmed them to have X percent chance of success per box instead of just randomly putting a key in one of the boxes.

    2) The devs ARE aware of how their boxes function and deliberately lied about it to viewers for no apparent reason and with nothing to gain from doing so, given that the topic of discussion where they brought it up was the Luck mechanic (see the video below).

    3) The info the devs gave are correct, and the Reddit study does not actually matter.

    I'm going by Occam's Razor here, so #3 seems like a safe bet here.

    As for the dev statement:

    https://youtu.be/gTpZSllfMmw?t=1776

    (go to 29:36 if the video does not automatically put you there)

    The exact words:

    "If you are doing a Jigsaw Box, it is not a random roll when you complete the action. So it's not the same thing as a hook or a (Trapper's) Bear Trap. It is predetermined. When you get that (Reverse) Bear Trap on your head, the game already knows where the key is."

    2x tests over 500 samples with very obvious results speak for themselves. This is not a test over few games, its 500 traps with a very distinct distribution of 50/50. Twice. Thats way out of error range and "reliable" so to speak.
    No offense, but dont trust what the devs say. Thats something i learned from the very release of this game. Some of them are not responsible for the programming of certain things. I believe in the math in this case, its a coin flip.

    The problem is that the results in that reddit thread are possible in a "the key is in one of four boxes" scenario. Slim? Possibly. Impossible? No.

    Let me put it to you like this: If I secretly put a ball in one of four cups randomly 500 times without you knowing, and you managed to guess the correct cup about half the time, does this mean that you have a 50% chance of finding a ball in a cup, or did you just get lucky about half the time? Having the key randomly placed in a box every time a trap is put on does not mean it is impossible or even nigh impossible for someone to guess the correct box about half the time.

    Why should I assume the devs either lied about how they programmed the boxes or completely forgot how they did it? This isn't a "Oops, we screwed up a few lines of code" thing. What the devs are claiming with regards to how the boxes are programmed is EXTREMELY different from how you (and others in that reddit thread) are alleging they are programmed to the point where it would not make sense for them to just forget how they programmed it. So either they'd be lying (again, why? for what benefit?) or you're wrong about how they're programmed, regardless of what the results are claiming.

    Its almost impossible for an even distribution to look like a coinflip distribution after 500 samples. Twice.
    Anyone who knows maths can immediately tell this is a coinflip distribution.
    Is is possible that it is an even distribution? Yes, but almost zero chance. Its 99,99...% a coinflip.

    I dont think they lie intentionally. They sometimes just dont know themselves, unless its the one who programmed it.

    Is it almost a 0% chance? Or are you just assuming it is?

    Why would they not know how they fundamentally programmed an entire Killer?

    Here is a quote from someone who did the math:
    "I ran some stat tests and it turns out the distribution isn't 1:1:1:1 nor does it seem to be 4:2:1:1 as you claimed but rather it seems to be 8:4:2:1.

    If we look at the people who got it off (ignore deaths and DCs) we get the following from a chi square test:

    p-value assuming the distribution is 1:1:1:1 was <.00001, less than a .001% chance.

    p-value assuming the distribution is 4:2:1:1 was .0276, a 2.76% chance

    p-value assuming the distribution is 8:4:2:1 was .2716, a 27.16% chance.

    Given those results the last model seems the most likely, but the second one is possible. What this means is that you most likely have an 8/15 chance the key is in the first box, 4/15 on the second, 2/15 it's in the third, and a 1/15 chance it's the last one. I spent more time on this than i should have but it was really interesting. If it turns out I am right then I hope they fix this ASAP."

    For the second question, i would say that this is very much typical for the devs :D

    Apologies, but I am not well-versed in statistics to understand any of that. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just that I don't get it at all.

    What is typical for the devs? Being completely wrong about how they fundamentally programmed an entire killer, announcing the fundamentally inaccurate information on a Q&A session, and then having no one correct them on that fundamentally inaccurate information for months on end? That's typical for these devs?

    "p-value assuming the distribution is 1:1:1:1 was <.00001, less than a .001% chance."
    Thats the chance, that an even distribution, as the devs tell us, ends up in the test results. Less than 0.001%. And that goes for two tests. So less than 0,00000001% chance, that it is an even distribution.
    If the test results are true, then it is a coinflip after searching a box, until the last one.

    They said its an intended feature for doctor to see snapping out of it with nurses calling, when they added that feature. After legion, they removed the doctors ability to see snapping out of it with nurses calling, because it was a bug. Two devs, two contradicting statements.
    Dont take their words for granted. Believe it when you see it. And here you see a coinflip for the trap rng.

    Fair enough, I will trust that what the person in the Reddit thread said is accurate.

    Considering something intended or not is a HUGE difference from declaring "We programmed the boxes to function so that only one of the boxes is the correct one." when the reality is "We programmed the boxes to function through RNG so that each box has an X% chance of getting the trap off." The sheer difference in execution there is not something that both a gameplay programmer and gameplay designer can just get wrong.

    Yes it is. It only takes half the time its supposed to take to remove a trap. There has to be misscommunication somewhere between the devs. Either the info was wrong and traps are supposed to be 50/50 or the programmer did not programm what he should (Or the person on reddit made up the stats, which i find unlikely)
    Only a statement from the devs can clear things up wether its supposed to work that way or not. Anyways, for pig players, this is bad news.

    The devs issued a statement already, though. It was a statement they issued in response to all the people who misinformed with how the RBTs were programmed. I linked you their statement in their Youtube video. They said that the boxes are pre-determined when you get an RBT placed on your head. When you search a box, you don't have a 25% chance of getting it off or a 50% chance of getting it off. You either have a 100% chance because you picked the right box, or you have a 0% chance because you picked the wrong box. You find it unlikely that the stats the person gave on Reddit are inaccurate/falsified? Well, I find it unlikely that the devs in the video somehow did not realize that they programmed the Jigsaw Boxes to function on a percentage-based system instead of a "Only one of these boxes is the right one" system, never realized that they could have it be affected by luck despite the fact that they said that the thing about the Luck Mechanic was that they intended for it to function with RNG systems they implemented but they just never actually ended up adding any since the game was young, still decided to announce to viewers at large that the RBTs was not something that was affected by Luck because of the mechanics behind it, and then were somehow never corrected by someone(s) who knew that they were actually mistaken on that claim despite the fact that this was a recorded video that they probably had to have gone over before they uploaded it to Youtube.

    I honestly dont understand the sentence, that makes up the second half of the text.
    For the first half, if you mean their Q&A at 29:36, i'm exactly referring to that as the current problem. They say its linked to one box. But the tests show, that it's <0,00000001% chance to actually be that way. Its possible that the stats are made up, even though i dont see any reason or motive to do so and the poster seems pretty honest and casual. Not a conspiracy type of person who wants pig buffs. He just "sad oinks"

    Maybe the devs communicated it wrong. Someone missunderstood it and it spread around. Maybe it is supposed to be 50/50. Maybe its supposed to be linked to one box, but the devs programm it wrong, thus the devs think its working like it should but it doesn't. Maybe the stats are made up and the devs can clarify that its indeed linked to one box and the stats are a lie.
    The devs haven't responded to both topics, but if they read this and know the exact answer, they're very welcome to clarify this.

    I don't see how someone at the company could completely misunderstand programming, spread it around, no one bothers to check the code at any point, and then after they make their announcement on video, no one actually checks to see if anything wrong with that information. And as far as a programming error, if they did, say, mistakenly program the boxes to put the key into two boxes instead of one, then it shouldn't be possible to have to check all four boxes because after you check two bad boxes, the key would have to be in one of the remaining two.

    Honestly, i can. To get their knowledge from Q&A, they ask each other. They've missunderstood each other in the past several times (doctors+nurses calling), as humans do.
    There's no guarantee that the test results are true, someone else would have to test it. And then people dont trust that person and so on. Until you test it yourself or see a whole video of it, we can only believe it or not.
    Its a good thing to keep in mind though for Pig, maybe later on someone can confirm or deny it.

    in Reverse bear traps and Jigsaw's boxes Comment by Weederick

  • @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:
    Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    Number two. (Also, why is this in the Balance Feedback section?)

    DarkGGhost said:

Evry trap has it's own box if you trap the same survivor that may have the same box



This is...technically true, but not guaranteed?  There is nothing stopping a Survivor having a second trap placed on them from finding their key in the same box, but that's just because the game randomly picks a box when you get a trap on.  It doesn't, to my knowledge, take into account any previous traps or boxes or anything. 

Weederick said:

Every box has 50% chance when you search it. They´re not linked.

    This is definitely wrong.  A given trap is linked to a box randomly chosen when it is placed on a Survivor's head.

    Thats what everyone thought. Someone on reddit tested 500 traps and the results are pretty disappointing:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/anq365/pig_rbt_stats_part_2/

    Seems like whenever you search a box its just 50/50, until the last one. They're not cleverly linked or so, just 50%.

    The results don't matter because the devs have said how the RBTs and Boxes work.  The box is chosen randomly when a player gets a trap put on them.

    How should that work with 4 boxes and the way they are distributed? If it has a 50% chance to get off on first try, it should be linked to 2/4 boxes. Do you have a source for the dev statement?

    The fact that their results had the key show up in the first box about 50% of the time does not actually indicate that boxes have a 50% chance of getting the key at any given box. There's nothing wrong with the data the person gathered, but conclusion they and other commenters are coming to does not support the official word of the devs because with the way the boxes function according to the devs, you have a 25% chance of getting it off on the first box (assuming four boxes). How do I know this? Simple math. If the game chooses a box to put the key in when you get a trap on your head, there is one box that will 100% give you the key and three boxes that will 0% give you the key. That means if you pick a box at random, you have a one in four chance of picking the correct box, which is 25%. ~50% of the people getting it off on the first box can very easily be attributed to just purely getting lucky on which boxes they walked to. They just happened to go to the correct box first about half the time.

    There are three conclusions you could come to with regards to this:

    1) The devs are somehow completely unaware of how they programmed the Jigsaw Boxes and do not realize/have forgotten that they programmed them to have X percent chance of success per box instead of just randomly putting a key in one of the boxes.

    2) The devs ARE aware of how their boxes function and deliberately lied about it to viewers for no apparent reason and with nothing to gain from doing so, given that the topic of discussion where they brought it up was the Luck mechanic (see the video below).

    3) The info the devs gave are correct, and the Reddit study does not actually matter.

    I'm going by Occam's Razor here, so #3 seems like a safe bet here.

    As for the dev statement:

    https://youtu.be/gTpZSllfMmw?t=1776

    (go to 29:36 if the video does not automatically put you there)

    The exact words:

    "If you are doing a Jigsaw Box, it is not a random roll when you complete the action. So it's not the same thing as a hook or a (Trapper's) Bear Trap. It is predetermined. When you get that (Reverse) Bear Trap on your head, the game already knows where the key is."

    2x tests over 500 samples with very obvious results speak for themselves. This is not a test over few games, its 500 traps with a very distinct distribution of 50/50. Twice. Thats way out of error range and "reliable" so to speak.
    No offense, but dont trust what the devs say. Thats something i learned from the very release of this game. Some of them are not responsible for the programming of certain things. I believe in the math in this case, its a coin flip.

    The problem is that the results in that reddit thread are possible in a "the key is in one of four boxes" scenario. Slim? Possibly. Impossible? No.

    Let me put it to you like this: If I secretly put a ball in one of four cups randomly 500 times without you knowing, and you managed to guess the correct cup about half the time, does this mean that you have a 50% chance of finding a ball in a cup, or did you just get lucky about half the time? Having the key randomly placed in a box every time a trap is put on does not mean it is impossible or even nigh impossible for someone to guess the correct box about half the time.

    Why should I assume the devs either lied about how they programmed the boxes or completely forgot how they did it? This isn't a "Oops, we screwed up a few lines of code" thing. What the devs are claiming with regards to how the boxes are programmed is EXTREMELY different from how you (and others in that reddit thread) are alleging they are programmed to the point where it would not make sense for them to just forget how they programmed it. So either they'd be lying (again, why? for what benefit?) or you're wrong about how they're programmed, regardless of what the results are claiming.

    Its almost impossible for an even distribution to look like a coinflip distribution after 500 samples. Twice.
    Anyone who knows maths can immediately tell this is a coinflip distribution.
    Is is possible that it is an even distribution? Yes, but almost zero chance. Its 99,99...% a coinflip.

    I dont think they lie intentionally. They sometimes just dont know themselves, unless its the one who programmed it.

    Is it almost a 0% chance? Or are you just assuming it is?

    Why would they not know how they fundamentally programmed an entire Killer?

    Here is a quote from someone who did the math:
    "I ran some stat tests and it turns out the distribution isn't 1:1:1:1 nor does it seem to be 4:2:1:1 as you claimed but rather it seems to be 8:4:2:1.

    If we look at the people who got it off (ignore deaths and DCs) we get the following from a chi square test:

    p-value assuming the distribution is 1:1:1:1 was <.00001, less than a .001% chance.

    p-value assuming the distribution is 4:2:1:1 was .0276, a 2.76% chance

    p-value assuming the distribution is 8:4:2:1 was .2716, a 27.16% chance.

    Given those results the last model seems the most likely, but the second one is possible. What this means is that you most likely have an 8/15 chance the key is in the first box, 4/15 on the second, 2/15 it's in the third, and a 1/15 chance it's the last one. I spent more time on this than i should have but it was really interesting. If it turns out I am right then I hope they fix this ASAP."

    For the second question, i would say that this is very much typical for the devs :D

    Apologies, but I am not well-versed in statistics to understand any of that. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just that I don't get it at all.

    What is typical for the devs? Being completely wrong about how they fundamentally programmed an entire killer, announcing the fundamentally inaccurate information on a Q&A session, and then having no one correct them on that fundamentally inaccurate information for months on end? That's typical for these devs?

    "p-value assuming the distribution is 1:1:1:1 was <.00001, less than a .001% chance."
    Thats the chance, that an even distribution, as the devs tell us, ends up in the test results. Less than 0.001%. And that goes for two tests. So less than 0,00000001% chance, that it is an even distribution.
    If the test results are true, then it is a coinflip after searching a box, until the last one.

    They said its an intended feature for doctor to see snapping out of it with nurses calling, when they added that feature. After legion, they removed the doctors ability to see snapping out of it with nurses calling, because it was a bug. Two devs, two contradicting statements.
    Dont take their words for granted. Believe it when you see it. And here you see a coinflip for the trap rng.

    Fair enough, I will trust that what the person in the Reddit thread said is accurate.

    Considering something intended or not is a HUGE difference from declaring "We programmed the boxes to function so that only one of the boxes is the correct one." when the reality is "We programmed the boxes to function through RNG so that each box has an X% chance of getting the trap off." The sheer difference in execution there is not something that both a gameplay programmer and gameplay designer can just get wrong.

    Yes it is. It only takes half the time its supposed to take to remove a trap. There has to be misscommunication somewhere between the devs. Either the info was wrong and traps are supposed to be 50/50 or the programmer did not programm what he should (Or the person on reddit made up the stats, which i find unlikely)
    Only a statement from the devs can clear things up wether its supposed to work that way or not. Anyways, for pig players, this is bad news.

    The devs issued a statement already, though. It was a statement they issued in response to all the people who misinformed with how the RBTs were programmed. I linked you their statement in their Youtube video. They said that the boxes are pre-determined when you get an RBT placed on your head. When you search a box, you don't have a 25% chance of getting it off or a 50% chance of getting it off. You either have a 100% chance because you picked the right box, or you have a 0% chance because you picked the wrong box. You find it unlikely that the stats the person gave on Reddit are inaccurate/falsified? Well, I find it unlikely that the devs in the video somehow did not realize that they programmed the Jigsaw Boxes to function on a percentage-based system instead of a "Only one of these boxes is the right one" system, never realized that they could have it be affected by luck despite the fact that they said that the thing about the Luck Mechanic was that they intended for it to function with RNG systems they implemented but they just never actually ended up adding any since the game was young, still decided to announce to viewers at large that the RBTs was not something that was affected by Luck because of the mechanics behind it, and then were somehow never corrected by someone(s) who knew that they were actually mistaken on that claim despite the fact that this was a recorded video that they probably had to have gone over before they uploaded it to Youtube.

    I honestly dont understand the sentence, that makes up the second half of the text.
    For the first half, if you mean their Q&A at 29:36, i'm exactly referring to that as the current problem. They say its linked to one box. But the tests show, that it's <0,00000001% chance to actually be that way. Its possible that the stats are made up, even though i dont see any reason or motive to do so and the poster seems pretty honest and casual. Not a conspiracy type of person who wants pig buffs. He just "sad oinks"

    Maybe the devs communicated it wrong. Someone missunderstood it and it spread around. Maybe it is supposed to be 50/50. Maybe its supposed to be linked to one box, but the devs programm it wrong, thus the devs think its working like it should but it doesn't. Maybe the stats are made up and the devs can clarify that its indeed linked to one box and the stats are a lie.
    The devs haven't responded to both topics, but if they read this and know the exact answer, they're very welcome to clarify this.

    in Reverse bear traps and Jigsaw's boxes Comment by Weederick

  • @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:
    Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    Number two. (Also, why is this in the Balance Feedback section?)

    DarkGGhost said:

Evry trap has it's own box if you trap the same survivor that may have the same box



This is...technically true, but not guaranteed?  There is nothing stopping a Survivor having a second trap placed on them from finding their key in the same box, but that's just because the game randomly picks a box when you get a trap on.  It doesn't, to my knowledge, take into account any previous traps or boxes or anything. 

Weederick said:

Every box has 50% chance when you search it. They´re not linked.

    This is definitely wrong.  A given trap is linked to a box randomly chosen when it is placed on a Survivor's head.

    Thats what everyone thought. Someone on reddit tested 500 traps and the results are pretty disappointing:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/anq365/pig_rbt_stats_part_2/

    Seems like whenever you search a box its just 50/50, until the last one. They're not cleverly linked or so, just 50%.

    The results don't matter because the devs have said how the RBTs and Boxes work.  The box is chosen randomly when a player gets a trap put on them.

    How should that work with 4 boxes and the way they are distributed? If it has a 50% chance to get off on first try, it should be linked to 2/4 boxes. Do you have a source for the dev statement?

    The fact that their results had the key show up in the first box about 50% of the time does not actually indicate that boxes have a 50% chance of getting the key at any given box. There's nothing wrong with the data the person gathered, but conclusion they and other commenters are coming to does not support the official word of the devs because with the way the boxes function according to the devs, you have a 25% chance of getting it off on the first box (assuming four boxes). How do I know this? Simple math. If the game chooses a box to put the key in when you get a trap on your head, there is one box that will 100% give you the key and three boxes that will 0% give you the key. That means if you pick a box at random, you have a one in four chance of picking the correct box, which is 25%. ~50% of the people getting it off on the first box can very easily be attributed to just purely getting lucky on which boxes they walked to. They just happened to go to the correct box first about half the time.

    There are three conclusions you could come to with regards to this:

    1) The devs are somehow completely unaware of how they programmed the Jigsaw Boxes and do not realize/have forgotten that they programmed them to have X percent chance of success per box instead of just randomly putting a key in one of the boxes.

    2) The devs ARE aware of how their boxes function and deliberately lied about it to viewers for no apparent reason and with nothing to gain from doing so, given that the topic of discussion where they brought it up was the Luck mechanic (see the video below).

    3) The info the devs gave are correct, and the Reddit study does not actually matter.

    I'm going by Occam's Razor here, so #3 seems like a safe bet here.

    As for the dev statement:

    https://youtu.be/gTpZSllfMmw?t=1776

    (go to 29:36 if the video does not automatically put you there)

    The exact words:

    "If you are doing a Jigsaw Box, it is not a random roll when you complete the action. So it's not the same thing as a hook or a (Trapper's) Bear Trap. It is predetermined. When you get that (Reverse) Bear Trap on your head, the game already knows where the key is."

    2x tests over 500 samples with very obvious results speak for themselves. This is not a test over few games, its 500 traps with a very distinct distribution of 50/50. Twice. Thats way out of error range and "reliable" so to speak.
    No offense, but dont trust what the devs say. Thats something i learned from the very release of this game. Some of them are not responsible for the programming of certain things. I believe in the math in this case, its a coin flip.

    The problem is that the results in that reddit thread are possible in a "the key is in one of four boxes" scenario. Slim? Possibly. Impossible? No.

    Let me put it to you like this: If I secretly put a ball in one of four cups randomly 500 times without you knowing, and you managed to guess the correct cup about half the time, does this mean that you have a 50% chance of finding a ball in a cup, or did you just get lucky about half the time? Having the key randomly placed in a box every time a trap is put on does not mean it is impossible or even nigh impossible for someone to guess the correct box about half the time.

    Why should I assume the devs either lied about how they programmed the boxes or completely forgot how they did it? This isn't a "Oops, we screwed up a few lines of code" thing. What the devs are claiming with regards to how the boxes are programmed is EXTREMELY different from how you (and others in that reddit thread) are alleging they are programmed to the point where it would not make sense for them to just forget how they programmed it. So either they'd be lying (again, why? for what benefit?) or you're wrong about how they're programmed, regardless of what the results are claiming.

    Its almost impossible for an even distribution to look like a coinflip distribution after 500 samples. Twice.
    Anyone who knows maths can immediately tell this is a coinflip distribution.
    Is is possible that it is an even distribution? Yes, but almost zero chance. Its 99,99...% a coinflip.

    I dont think they lie intentionally. They sometimes just dont know themselves, unless its the one who programmed it.

    Is it almost a 0% chance? Or are you just assuming it is?

    Why would they not know how they fundamentally programmed an entire Killer?

    Here is a quote from someone who did the math:
    "I ran some stat tests and it turns out the distribution isn't 1:1:1:1 nor does it seem to be 4:2:1:1 as you claimed but rather it seems to be 8:4:2:1.

    If we look at the people who got it off (ignore deaths and DCs) we get the following from a chi square test:

    p-value assuming the distribution is 1:1:1:1 was <.00001, less than a .001% chance.

    p-value assuming the distribution is 4:2:1:1 was .0276, a 2.76% chance

    p-value assuming the distribution is 8:4:2:1 was .2716, a 27.16% chance.

    Given those results the last model seems the most likely, but the second one is possible. What this means is that you most likely have an 8/15 chance the key is in the first box, 4/15 on the second, 2/15 it's in the third, and a 1/15 chance it's the last one. I spent more time on this than i should have but it was really interesting. If it turns out I am right then I hope they fix this ASAP."

    For the second question, i would say that this is very much typical for the devs :D

    Apologies, but I am not well-versed in statistics to understand any of that. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just that I don't get it at all.

    What is typical for the devs? Being completely wrong about how they fundamentally programmed an entire killer, announcing the fundamentally inaccurate information on a Q&A session, and then having no one correct them on that fundamentally inaccurate information for months on end? That's typical for these devs?

    "p-value assuming the distribution is 1:1:1:1 was <.00001, less than a .001% chance."
    Thats the chance, that an even distribution, as the devs tell us, ends up in the test results. Less than 0.001%. And that goes for two tests. So less than 0,00000001% chance, that it is an even distribution.
    If the test results are true, then it is a coinflip after searching a box, until the last one.

    They said its an intended feature for doctor to see snapping out of it with nurses calling, when they added that feature. After legion, they removed the doctors ability to see snapping out of it with nurses calling, because it was a bug. Two devs, two contradicting statements.
    Dont take their words for granted. Believe it when you see it. And here you see a coinflip for the trap rng.

    Fair enough, I will trust that what the person in the Reddit thread said is accurate.

    Considering something intended or not is a HUGE difference from declaring "We programmed the boxes to function so that only one of the boxes is the correct one." when the reality is "We programmed the boxes to function through RNG so that each box has an X% chance of getting the trap off." The sheer difference in execution there is not something that both a gameplay programmer and gameplay designer can just get wrong.

    Yes it is. It only takes half the time its supposed to take to remove a trap. There has to be misscommunication somewhere between the devs. Either the info was wrong and traps are supposed to be 50/50 or the programmer did not programm what he should (Or the person on reddit made up the stats, which i find unlikely)
    Only a statement from the devs can clear things up wether its supposed to work that way or not. Anyways, for pig players, this is bad news.

    in Reverse bear traps and Jigsaw's boxes Comment by Weederick

  • @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:
    Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    Number two. (Also, why is this in the Balance Feedback section?)

    DarkGGhost said:

Evry trap has it's own box if you trap the same survivor that may have the same box



This is...technically true, but not guaranteed?  There is nothing stopping a Survivor having a second trap placed on them from finding their key in the same box, but that's just because the game randomly picks a box when you get a trap on.  It doesn't, to my knowledge, take into account any previous traps or boxes or anything. 

Weederick said:

Every box has 50% chance when you search it. They´re not linked.

    This is definitely wrong.  A given trap is linked to a box randomly chosen when it is placed on a Survivor's head.

    Thats what everyone thought. Someone on reddit tested 500 traps and the results are pretty disappointing:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/anq365/pig_rbt_stats_part_2/

    Seems like whenever you search a box its just 50/50, until the last one. They're not cleverly linked or so, just 50%.

    The results don't matter because the devs have said how the RBTs and Boxes work.  The box is chosen randomly when a player gets a trap put on them.

    How should that work with 4 boxes and the way they are distributed? If it has a 50% chance to get off on first try, it should be linked to 2/4 boxes. Do you have a source for the dev statement?

    The fact that their results had the key show up in the first box about 50% of the time does not actually indicate that boxes have a 50% chance of getting the key at any given box. There's nothing wrong with the data the person gathered, but conclusion they and other commenters are coming to does not support the official word of the devs because with the way the boxes function according to the devs, you have a 25% chance of getting it off on the first box (assuming four boxes). How do I know this? Simple math. If the game chooses a box to put the key in when you get a trap on your head, there is one box that will 100% give you the key and three boxes that will 0% give you the key. That means if you pick a box at random, you have a one in four chance of picking the correct box, which is 25%. ~50% of the people getting it off on the first box can very easily be attributed to just purely getting lucky on which boxes they walked to. They just happened to go to the correct box first about half the time.

    There are three conclusions you could come to with regards to this:

    1) The devs are somehow completely unaware of how they programmed the Jigsaw Boxes and do not realize/have forgotten that they programmed them to have X percent chance of success per box instead of just randomly putting a key in one of the boxes.

    2) The devs ARE aware of how their boxes function and deliberately lied about it to viewers for no apparent reason and with nothing to gain from doing so, given that the topic of discussion where they brought it up was the Luck mechanic (see the video below).

    3) The info the devs gave are correct, and the Reddit study does not actually matter.

    I'm going by Occam's Razor here, so #3 seems like a safe bet here.

    As for the dev statement:

    https://youtu.be/gTpZSllfMmw?t=1776

    (go to 29:36 if the video does not automatically put you there)

    The exact words:

    "If you are doing a Jigsaw Box, it is not a random roll when you complete the action. So it's not the same thing as a hook or a (Trapper's) Bear Trap. It is predetermined. When you get that (Reverse) Bear Trap on your head, the game already knows where the key is."

    2x tests over 500 samples with very obvious results speak for themselves. This is not a test over few games, its 500 traps with a very distinct distribution of 50/50. Twice. Thats way out of error range and "reliable" so to speak.
    No offense, but dont trust what the devs say. Thats something i learned from the very release of this game. Some of them are not responsible for the programming of certain things. I believe in the math in this case, its a coin flip.

    The problem is that the results in that reddit thread are possible in a "the key is in one of four boxes" scenario. Slim? Possibly. Impossible? No.

    Let me put it to you like this: If I secretly put a ball in one of four cups randomly 500 times without you knowing, and you managed to guess the correct cup about half the time, does this mean that you have a 50% chance of finding a ball in a cup, or did you just get lucky about half the time? Having the key randomly placed in a box every time a trap is put on does not mean it is impossible or even nigh impossible for someone to guess the correct box about half the time.

    Why should I assume the devs either lied about how they programmed the boxes or completely forgot how they did it? This isn't a "Oops, we screwed up a few lines of code" thing. What the devs are claiming with regards to how the boxes are programmed is EXTREMELY different from how you (and others in that reddit thread) are alleging they are programmed to the point where it would not make sense for them to just forget how they programmed it. So either they'd be lying (again, why? for what benefit?) or you're wrong about how they're programmed, regardless of what the results are claiming.

    Its almost impossible for an even distribution to look like a coinflip distribution after 500 samples. Twice.
    Anyone who knows maths can immediately tell this is a coinflip distribution.
    Is is possible that it is an even distribution? Yes, but almost zero chance. Its 99,99...% a coinflip.

    I dont think they lie intentionally. They sometimes just dont know themselves, unless its the one who programmed it.

    Is it almost a 0% chance? Or are you just assuming it is?

    Why would they not know how they fundamentally programmed an entire Killer?

    Here is a quote from someone who did the math:
    "I ran some stat tests and it turns out the distribution isn't 1:1:1:1 nor does it seem to be 4:2:1:1 as you claimed but rather it seems to be 8:4:2:1.

    If we look at the people who got it off (ignore deaths and DCs) we get the following from a chi square test:

    p-value assuming the distribution is 1:1:1:1 was <.00001, less than a .001% chance.

    p-value assuming the distribution is 4:2:1:1 was .0276, a 2.76% chance

    p-value assuming the distribution is 8:4:2:1 was .2716, a 27.16% chance.

    Given those results the last model seems the most likely, but the second one is possible. What this means is that you most likely have an 8/15 chance the key is in the first box, 4/15 on the second, 2/15 it's in the third, and a 1/15 chance it's the last one. I spent more time on this than i should have but it was really interesting. If it turns out I am right then I hope they fix this ASAP."

    For the second question, i would say that this is very much typical for the devs :D

    Apologies, but I am not well-versed in statistics to understand any of that. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just that I don't get it at all.

    What is typical for the devs? Being completely wrong about how they fundamentally programmed an entire killer, announcing the fundamentally inaccurate information on a Q&A session, and then having no one correct them on that fundamentally inaccurate information for months on end? That's typical for these devs?

    "p-value assuming the distribution is 1:1:1:1 was <.00001, less than a .001% chance."
    Thats the chance, that an even distribution, as the devs tell us, ends up in the test results. Less than 0.001%. And that goes for two tests. So less than 0,00000001% chance, that it is an even distribution.
    If the test results are true, then it is a coinflip after searching a box, until the last one.

    They said its an intended feature for doctor to see snapping out of it with nurses calling, when they added that feature. After legion, they removed the doctors ability to see snapping out of it with nurses calling, because it was a bug. Two devs, two contradicting statements.
    Dont take their words for granted. Believe it when you see it. And here you see a coinflip for the trap rng.

    in Reverse bear traps and Jigsaw's boxes Comment by Weederick

  • @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:
    Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    Number two. (Also, why is this in the Balance Feedback section?)

    DarkGGhost said:

Evry trap has it's own box if you trap the same survivor that may have the same box



This is...technically true, but not guaranteed?  There is nothing stopping a Survivor having a second trap placed on them from finding their key in the same box, but that's just because the game randomly picks a box when you get a trap on.  It doesn't, to my knowledge, take into account any previous traps or boxes or anything. 

Weederick said:

Every box has 50% chance when you search it. They´re not linked.

    This is definitely wrong.  A given trap is linked to a box randomly chosen when it is placed on a Survivor's head.

    Thats what everyone thought. Someone on reddit tested 500 traps and the results are pretty disappointing:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/anq365/pig_rbt_stats_part_2/

    Seems like whenever you search a box its just 50/50, until the last one. They're not cleverly linked or so, just 50%.

    The results don't matter because the devs have said how the RBTs and Boxes work.  The box is chosen randomly when a player gets a trap put on them.

    How should that work with 4 boxes and the way they are distributed? If it has a 50% chance to get off on first try, it should be linked to 2/4 boxes. Do you have a source for the dev statement?

    The fact that their results had the key show up in the first box about 50% of the time does not actually indicate that boxes have a 50% chance of getting the key at any given box. There's nothing wrong with the data the person gathered, but conclusion they and other commenters are coming to does not support the official word of the devs because with the way the boxes function according to the devs, you have a 25% chance of getting it off on the first box (assuming four boxes). How do I know this? Simple math. If the game chooses a box to put the key in when you get a trap on your head, there is one box that will 100% give you the key and three boxes that will 0% give you the key. That means if you pick a box at random, you have a one in four chance of picking the correct box, which is 25%. ~50% of the people getting it off on the first box can very easily be attributed to just purely getting lucky on which boxes they walked to. They just happened to go to the correct box first about half the time.

    There are three conclusions you could come to with regards to this:

    1) The devs are somehow completely unaware of how they programmed the Jigsaw Boxes and do not realize/have forgotten that they programmed them to have X percent chance of success per box instead of just randomly putting a key in one of the boxes.

    2) The devs ARE aware of how their boxes function and deliberately lied about it to viewers for no apparent reason and with nothing to gain from doing so, given that the topic of discussion where they brought it up was the Luck mechanic (see the video below).

    3) The info the devs gave are correct, and the Reddit study does not actually matter.

    I'm going by Occam's Razor here, so #3 seems like a safe bet here.

    As for the dev statement:

    https://youtu.be/gTpZSllfMmw?t=1776

    (go to 29:36 if the video does not automatically put you there)

    The exact words:

    "If you are doing a Jigsaw Box, it is not a random roll when you complete the action. So it's not the same thing as a hook or a (Trapper's) Bear Trap. It is predetermined. When you get that (Reverse) Bear Trap on your head, the game already knows where the key is."

    2x tests over 500 samples with very obvious results speak for themselves. This is not a test over few games, its 500 traps with a very distinct distribution of 50/50. Twice. Thats way out of error range and "reliable" so to speak.
    No offense, but dont trust what the devs say. Thats something i learned from the very release of this game. Some of them are not responsible for the programming of certain things. I believe in the math in this case, its a coin flip.

    The problem is that the results in that reddit thread are possible in a "the key is in one of four boxes" scenario. Slim? Possibly. Impossible? No.

    Let me put it to you like this: If I secretly put a ball in one of four cups randomly 500 times without you knowing, and you managed to guess the correct cup about half the time, does this mean that you have a 50% chance of finding a ball in a cup, or did you just get lucky about half the time? Having the key randomly placed in a box every time a trap is put on does not mean it is impossible or even nigh impossible for someone to guess the correct box about half the time.

    Why should I assume the devs either lied about how they programmed the boxes or completely forgot how they did it? This isn't a "Oops, we screwed up a few lines of code" thing. What the devs are claiming with regards to how the boxes are programmed is EXTREMELY different from how you (and others in that reddit thread) are alleging they are programmed to the point where it would not make sense for them to just forget how they programmed it. So either they'd be lying (again, why? for what benefit?) or you're wrong about how they're programmed, regardless of what the results are claiming.

    Its almost impossible for an even distribution to look like a coinflip distribution after 500 samples. Twice.
    Anyone who knows maths can immediately tell this is a coinflip distribution.
    Is is possible that it is an even distribution? Yes, but almost zero chance. Its 99,99...% a coinflip.

    I dont think they lie intentionally. They sometimes just dont know themselves, unless its the one who programmed it.

    Is it almost a 0% chance? Or are you just assuming it is?

    Why would they not know how they fundamentally programmed an entire Killer?

    Here is a quote from someone who did the math:
    "I ran some stat tests and it turns out the distribution isn't 1:1:1:1 nor does it seem to be 4:2:1:1 as you claimed but rather it seems to be 8:4:2:1.

    If we look at the people who got it off (ignore deaths and DCs) we get the following from a chi square test:

    p-value assuming the distribution is 1:1:1:1 was <.00001, less than a .001% chance.

    p-value assuming the distribution is 4:2:1:1 was .0276, a 2.76% chance

    p-value assuming the distribution is 8:4:2:1 was .2716, a 27.16% chance.

    Given those results the last model seems the most likely, but the second one is possible. What this means is that you most likely have an 8/15 chance the key is in the first box, 4/15 on the second, 2/15 it's in the third, and a 1/15 chance it's the last one. I spent more time on this than i should have but it was really interesting. If it turns out I am right then I hope they fix this ASAP."

    For the second question, i would say that this is very much typical for the devs :D

    in Reverse bear traps and Jigsaw's boxes Comment by Weederick

  • @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:
    Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    Number two. (Also, why is this in the Balance Feedback section?)

    DarkGGhost said:

Evry trap has it's own box if you trap the same survivor that may have the same box



This is...technically true, but not guaranteed?  There is nothing stopping a Survivor having a second trap placed on them from finding their key in the same box, but that's just because the game randomly picks a box when you get a trap on.  It doesn't, to my knowledge, take into account any previous traps or boxes or anything. 

Weederick said:

Every box has 50% chance when you search it. They´re not linked.

    This is definitely wrong.  A given trap is linked to a box randomly chosen when it is placed on a Survivor's head.

    Thats what everyone thought. Someone on reddit tested 500 traps and the results are pretty disappointing:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/anq365/pig_rbt_stats_part_2/

    Seems like whenever you search a box its just 50/50, until the last one. They're not cleverly linked or so, just 50%.

    The results don't matter because the devs have said how the RBTs and Boxes work.  The box is chosen randomly when a player gets a trap put on them.

    How should that work with 4 boxes and the way they are distributed? If it has a 50% chance to get off on first try, it should be linked to 2/4 boxes. Do you have a source for the dev statement?

    The fact that their results had the key show up in the first box about 50% of the time does not actually indicate that boxes have a 50% chance of getting the key at any given box. There's nothing wrong with the data the person gathered, but conclusion they and other commenters are coming to does not support the official word of the devs because with the way the boxes function according to the devs, you have a 25% chance of getting it off on the first box (assuming four boxes). How do I know this? Simple math. If the game chooses a box to put the key in when you get a trap on your head, there is one box that will 100% give you the key and three boxes that will 0% give you the key. That means if you pick a box at random, you have a one in four chance of picking the correct box, which is 25%. ~50% of the people getting it off on the first box can very easily be attributed to just purely getting lucky on which boxes they walked to. They just happened to go to the correct box first about half the time.

    There are three conclusions you could come to with regards to this:

    1) The devs are somehow completely unaware of how they programmed the Jigsaw Boxes and do not realize/have forgotten that they programmed them to have X percent chance of success per box instead of just randomly putting a key in one of the boxes.

    2) The devs ARE aware of how their boxes function and deliberately lied about it to viewers for no apparent reason and with nothing to gain from doing so, given that the topic of discussion where they brought it up was the Luck mechanic (see the video below).

    3) The info the devs gave are correct, and the Reddit study does not actually matter.

    I'm going by Occam's Razor here, so #3 seems like a safe bet here.

    As for the dev statement:

    https://youtu.be/gTpZSllfMmw?t=1776

    (go to 29:36 if the video does not automatically put you there)

    The exact words:

    "If you are doing a Jigsaw Box, it is not a random roll when you complete the action. So it's not the same thing as a hook or a (Trapper's) Bear Trap. It is predetermined. When you get that (Reverse) Bear Trap on your head, the game already knows where the key is."

    2x tests over 500 samples with very obvious results speak for themselves. This is not a test over few games, its 500 traps with a very distinct distribution of 50/50. Twice. Thats way out of error range and "reliable" so to speak.
    No offense, but dont trust what the devs say. Thats something i learned from the very release of this game. Some of them are not responsible for the programming of certain things. I believe in the math in this case, its a coin flip.

    The problem is that the results in that reddit thread are possible in a "the key is in one of four boxes" scenario. Slim? Possibly. Impossible? No.

    Let me put it to you like this: If I secretly put a ball in one of four cups randomly 500 times without you knowing, and you managed to guess the correct cup about half the time, does this mean that you have a 50% chance of finding a ball in a cup, or did you just get lucky about half the time? Having the key randomly placed in a box every time a trap is put on does not mean it is impossible or even nigh impossible for someone to guess the correct box about half the time.

    Why should I assume the devs either lied about how they programmed the boxes or completely forgot how they did it? This isn't a "Oops, we screwed up a few lines of code" thing. What the devs are claiming with regards to how the boxes are programmed is EXTREMELY different from how you (and others in that reddit thread) are alleging they are programmed to the point where it would not make sense for them to just forget how they programmed it. So either they'd be lying (again, why? for what benefit?) or you're wrong about how they're programmed, regardless of what the results are claiming.

    Its almost impossible for an even distribution to look like a coinflip distribution after 500 samples. Twice.
    Anyone who knows maths can immediately tell this is a coinflip distribution.
    Is is possible that it is an even distribution? Yes, but almost zero chance. Its 99,99...% a coinflip.

    I dont think they lie intentionally. They sometimes just dont know themselves, unless its the one who programmed it.

    in Reverse bear traps and Jigsaw's boxes Comment by Weederick

  • @TAG said:

    @Weederick said:

    @TAG said:
    Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    Number two. (Also, why is this in the Balance Feedback section?)

    DarkGGhost said:

Evry trap has it's own box if you trap the same survivor that may have the same box



This is...technically true, but not guaranteed?  There is nothing stopping a Survivor having a second trap placed on them from finding their key in the same box, but that's just because the game randomly picks a box when you get a trap on.  It doesn't, to my knowledge, take into account any previous traps or boxes or anything. 

Weederick said:

Every box has 50% chance when you search it. They´re not linked.

    This is definitely wrong.  A given trap is linked to a box randomly chosen when it is placed on a Survivor's head.

    Thats what everyone thought. Someone on reddit tested 500 traps and the results are pretty disappointing:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/anq365/pig_rbt_stats_part_2/

    Seems like whenever you search a box its just 50/50, until the last one. They're not cleverly linked or so, just 50%.

    The results don't matter because the devs have said how the RBTs and Boxes work.  The box is chosen randomly when a player gets a trap put on them.

    How should that work with 4 boxes and the way they are distributed? If it has a 50% chance to get off on first try, it should be linked to 2/4 boxes. Do you have a source for the dev statement?

    The fact that their results had the key show up in the first box about 50% of the time does not actually indicate that boxes have a 50% chance of getting the key at any given box. There's nothing wrong with the data the person gathered, but conclusion they and other commenters are coming to does not support the official word of the devs because with the way the boxes function according to the devs, you have a 25% chance of getting it off on the first box (assuming four boxes). How do I know this? Simple math. If the game chooses a box to put the key in when you get a trap on your head, there is one box that will 100% give you the key and three boxes that will 0% give you the key. That means if you pick a box at random, you have a one in four chance of picking the correct box, which is 25%. ~50% of the people getting it off on the first box can very easily be attributed to just purely getting lucky on which boxes they walked to. They just happened to go to the correct box first about half the time.

    There are three conclusions you could come to with regards to this:

    1) The devs are somehow completely unaware of how they programmed the Jigsaw Boxes and do not realize/have forgotten that they programmed them to have X percent chance of success per box instead of just randomly putting a key in one of the boxes.

    2) The devs ARE aware of how their boxes function and deliberately lied about it to viewers for no apparent reason and with nothing to gain from doing so, given that the topic of discussion where they brought it up was the Luck mechanic (see the video below).

    3) The info the devs gave are correct, and the Reddit study does not actually matter.

    I'm going by Occam's Razor here, so #3 seems like a safe bet here.

    As for the dev statement:

    https://youtu.be/gTpZSllfMmw?t=1776

    (go to 29:36 if the video does not automatically put you there)

    The exact words:

    "If you are doing a Jigsaw Box, it is not a random roll when you complete the action. So it's not the same thing as a hook or a (Trapper's) Bear Trap. It is predetermined. When you get that (Reverse) Bear Trap on your head, the game already knows where the key is."

    2x tests over 500 samples with very obvious results speak for themselves. This is not a test over few games, its 500 traps with a very distinct distribution of 50/50. Twice. Thats way out of error range and "reliable" so to speak.
    No offense, but dont trust what the devs say. Thats something i learned from the very release of this game. Some of them are not responsible for the programming of certain things. I believe in the math in this case, its a coin flip.

    in Reverse bear traps and Jigsaw's boxes Comment by Weederick

  • @TAG said:
    Weederick said:

    @TAG said:

    Number two. (Also, why is this in the Balance Feedback section?)

    DarkGGhost said:

Evry trap has it's own box if you trap the same survivor that may have the same box



This is...technically true, but not guaranteed?  There is nothing stopping a Survivor having a second trap placed on them from finding their key in the same box, but that's just because the game randomly picks a box when you get a trap on.  It doesn't, to my knowledge, take into account any previous traps or boxes or anything. 

Weederick said:

Every box has 50% chance when you search it. They´re not linked.

    This is definitely wrong.  A given trap is linked to a box randomly chosen when it is placed on a Survivor's head.

    Thats what everyone thought. Someone on reddit tested 500 traps and the results are pretty disappointing:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/anq365/pig_rbt_stats_part_2/

    Seems like whenever you search a box its just 50/50, until the last one. They're not cleverly linked or so, just 50%.

    The results don't matter because the devs have said how the RBTs and Boxes work.  The box is chosen randomly when a player gets a trap put on them.

    How should that work with 4 boxes and the way they are distributed? If it has a 50% chance to get off on first try, it should be linked to 2/4 boxes. Do you have a source for the dev statement?

    in Reverse bear traps and Jigsaw's boxes Comment by Weederick

  • @TAG said:
    Number two. (Also, why is this in the Balance Feedback section?)
    DarkGGhost said:

    Evry trap has it's own box if you trap the same survivor that may have the same box

    This is...technically true, but not guaranteed?  There is nothing stopping a Survivor having a second trap placed on them from finding their key in the same box, but that's just because the game randomly picks a box when you get a trap on.  It doesn't, to my knowledge, take into account any previous traps or boxes or anything.
    Weederick said:

    Every box has 50% chance when you search it. They´re not linked.

    This is definitely wrong.  A given trap is linked to a box randomly chosen when it is placed on a Survivor's head.

    Thats what everyone thought. Someone on reddit tested 500 traps and the results are pretty disappointing:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/anq365/pig_rbt_stats_part_2/
    Seems like whenever you search a box its just 50/50, until the last one. They're not cleverly linked or so, just 50%.

    in Reverse bear traps and Jigsaw's boxes Comment by Weederick

  • Every box has 50% chance when you search it. They´re not linked.

    in Reverse bear traps and Jigsaw's boxes Comment by Weederick

  • Nerf.

    The duration is reduced to DS 1, which is manageable.
    The killer has control over DS. He can choose to not eat a single DS, even if they have 4x DS.

    in Do YOU think the new DS changes are a net Buff or Nerf? Comment by Weederick

  • @thekiller490490 said:
    Weederick said:

    Enduring doesnt reduce the stuntime by 75%, it increases the recovery by 75%. And there is also a 1s animation at the end. The new stuntime with enduring is

    (3s/1.75 = 1.71s) + 1s = 2.71s

    Also known as reduction of stun time?#########?

    It reduces the stuntime for pallets, but increases the recovery for DS. They explained that in a devstream, but wanted to keep the perk description simple. Also current DS would last 1s if it reduced the stuntime.
    And the 1s animation was also explained in a dev stream, since people measured the time and it was not correct. So devs corrected the 5s stuntime to 4s (plus the 1s animation)

    in (DS changes) I did the math. Comment by Weederick

  • Enduring doesnt reduce the stuntime by 75%, it increases the recovery by 75%. And there is also a 1s animation at the end. The new stuntime with enduring is
    (3s/1.75 = 1.71s) + 1s = 2.71s

    Afaik survivors are stunned during the 1s animation too, so they can only use 1.71s to run away. Not 100% sure on this, but i think thats how it works.

    in (DS changes) I did the math. Comment by Weederick

  • @CronaWins said:

    @Weederick said:

    @CronaWins said:
    Am i the only one that thinks Freddy is a mid tier killer? I don't understand people jumping on the bandwagon. Please explain why he is worse then Clown and why clown is better?

    Freddy is better against bad survivors, while Clown is better against good survivors. Freddy is similar to Legion, decent against survivors who have no clue what to do. If they just split up and do gens and loop while chased (basically highlevel gameplay), Freddy is countered and has to wait 7s before a hit. He cant even camp effectively, which is one of the usual gamewinning moments when killers start to lose.

    Clown can slow down survivors and cut chases short. And good loopers hate when they're slowed down and their route doesnt work out anymore. So they have to make supoptimal plays, like predropping pallets and not taking windows. Stopping them from playing like good loopers. But other than freddy, clown gets genrushed easily if his chases aren't consistently good. He is overall pretty hard to play, while Freddy can just run around and tag people and has more room for error. Freddy may seem stronger in your everyday game, but when you're against good survivor teams, Clown is better.

    Good loopers can loop the Clown :/ Players can easily out loop the clown because cutting a loop short just means they move to the next loop. The clown power makes one less rotation for a loop, i don't see how that is good. His chase power is rubbish. I've never seen a good survivor lose to a Clown.

    If you're basing your tier list in chase power then yes, but Freddy isn't about chase, he is about control and his control is better then the Clown's chase.

    Freddy has aura reading, information and his ability has the power to slow the game to a crawl, better then the Pig does. I've seen survivors throw pallets early and killers getting free hits.

    I'm a red rank player on both killer and survivor and honestly, i've seen Freddy players 4k more consistently then Clown.

    Currently you can loop everything just once and Clown can cut it to zero. Only the very safe pallets are still loopable, but he is still good for cutting most loops in the game. Either they get hit or they predrop it, wasting lots of pallets to stay safe. Moving to the next loop shouldnt work either if you throw the bottle when you are already at the loop. If you prefire it to distant loops, then you can, but you shouldnt do that.

    Freddy has some advantages, he can cause some havoc. But its really limited against good survivors, they are not afraid to be seen and chased. And they're gonna stay away from each other similar to Legion. When he cant tag multiple people who group up, he doesnt have the map pressure (similar to legion). A really good noobstomper and due to the matchmaking and how easy it is to pip, i believe you, that he 4k's more than Clown. But i would still rate him lower on a highlevel tier list.

    in Every Killer Tier list Comment by Weederick

  • @not_Queen said:
    @Weederick Our Designer is now Out of Office but I would assume you can. Let me just confirm it tomorrow. :)

    Okay, no hurries. Thanks for the clarifications, the DS changes sound great. :)

    in Upcoming DS changes - Q&A Comment by Weederick

  • Regarding Save the Best for Last:
    Its not possible to gain more tokens, when the obsession dies.
    If you kill the obsession and you get DS'ed afterwards, they become a living obsession. Can you gain tokens again afterwards?

    in Upcoming DS changes - Q&A Comment by Weederick

  • Triggered survivor mains all over the world REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

    Silently agrees on the op stuff on the other side One thing at a time

    in ######### is this? This is so balanced. Comment by Weederick

  • @Caretaker said:

    @Weederick said:

    @Caretaker said:

    @ToxicFengM1n said:

    @Caretaker said:

    @Aven_Fallen said:

    @White_Owl said:
    Buff? Can you guys read?

    He cant.

    He seems like a person who only thinks that removing that Perk or making it completely useless is the only thing to do. And he is not understanding that both is not really an option.

    The change is fine, a good redesign.

    Ah yes, putting words in my mouth cuz you're too stupid to understand how this is a huge buff, and extremely unhealthy. We had easy fixes to the perk that they ignored to just buff it instead.

    You know what, EXPLAIN, EXPLAIN HOW THIS IS A BUFF, please I would love to know, is it because you tunnel?

    Once again, I don't tunnel. I know it's hard for you to understand that, but I don't tunnel since that's all you're spamming cuz you're desperate to prove I'm just a toxic killer. Also, tunneling doesn't exist. Stop being a #########. My job is to kill survivors, not be their imaginary friend.

    Gen tapping? Totally fine. Dribbling? Removed. Slug them 4head! They start running Unbreakabill, and slugging got nerfed so they just got to 95% and get picked up before 60s passes while other survivors do gens/waste the killers time. Down someone that got hooked end-game? Hope you like eating DS and losing champ. :^) Also, the super easy to hit skillcheck is now even easier to hit. 4 people can now reliably run DS without any penalty or worry.

    How is this not a buff?

    If you dont tunnel, then DS is dead. It wont affect you and will make survivors play with 3 perks.

    If you do tunnel and play the most optimal way to win, then this perk is good against this strategy.

    This is 100% a nerf to DS, as long as you dont tunnel the survivors. If you do, sucks for you haha

    Easier to hit, 60s safety window, still stuns, makes unbreakable better, makes deliverance better. No more downside to quad ds. Huge nerf. You got me.

    If you dont tunnel, you wont get DS'ed. If you dont camp, you wont get BT'ed.
    Perks that help against the easiest, yet strongest way to play. Brings tunneling and camping more in line with other playstyles.

    in Waited This Long For A DS Buff Comment by Weederick

  • @Caretaker said:

    @ToxicFengM1n said:

    @Caretaker said:

    @Aven_Fallen said:

    @White_Owl said:
    Buff? Can you guys read?

    He cant.

    He seems like a person who only thinks that removing that Perk or making it completely useless is the only thing to do. And he is not understanding that both is not really an option.

    The change is fine, a good redesign.

    Ah yes, putting words in my mouth cuz you're too stupid to understand how this is a huge buff, and extremely unhealthy. We had easy fixes to the perk that they ignored to just buff it instead.

    You know what, EXPLAIN, EXPLAIN HOW THIS IS A BUFF, please I would love to know, is it because you tunnel?

    Once again, I don't tunnel. I know it's hard for you to understand that, but I don't tunnel since that's all you're spamming cuz you're desperate to prove I'm just a toxic killer. Also, tunneling doesn't exist. Stop being a #########. My job is to kill survivors, not be their imaginary friend.

    Gen tapping? Totally fine. Dribbling? Removed. Slug them 4head! They start running Unbreakabill, and slugging got nerfed so they just got to 95% and get picked up before 60s passes while other survivors do gens/waste the killers time. Down someone that got hooked end-game? Hope you like eating DS and losing champ. :^) Also, the super easy to hit skillcheck is now even easier to hit. 4 people can now reliably run DS without any penalty or worry.

    How is this not a buff?

    If you dont tunnel, then DS is dead. It wont affect you and will make survivors play with 3 perks.

    If you do tunnel and play the most optimal way to win, then this perk is good against this strategy.

    This is 100% a nerf to DS, as long as you dont tunnel the survivors. If you do, sucks for you haha

    in Waited This Long For A DS Buff Comment by Weederick

  • Yes, very much!
    Few questions @not_Queen :
    1. If the timer runs out after the first unhook (without using it), will the perk become active again after the second unhook? Or is it only active for the first unhook of the match?
    2. If it is active for every unhook, can you still save it up by ignoring the skillcheck? And use it later after the second unhook?

    in A discussion about D-Strike - Do you like the change? Comment by Weederick

  • @CronaWins said:
    Am i the only one that thinks Freddy is a mid tier killer? I don't understand people jumping on the bandwagon. Please explain why he is worse then Clown and why clown is better?

    Freddy is better against bad survivors, while Clown is better against good survivors. Freddy is similar to Legion, decent against survivors who have no clue what to do. If they just split up and do gens and loop while chased (basically highlevel gameplay), Freddy is countered and has to wait 7s before a hit. He cant even camp effectively, which is one of the usual gamewinning moments when killers start to lose.

    Clown can slow down survivors and cut chases short. And good loopers hate when they're slowed down and their route doesnt work out anymore. So they have to make supoptimal plays, like predropping pallets and not taking windows. Stopping them from playing like good loopers. But other than freddy, clown gets genrushed easily if his chases aren't consistently good. He is overall pretty hard to play, while Freddy can just run around and tag people and has more room for error. Freddy may seem stronger in your everyday game, but when you're against good survivor teams, Clown is better.

    in Every Killer Tier list Comment by Weederick
1 … 12 13 14 15 16 … 20
Avatar