brewingtea
brewingtea
About
- Username
- brewingtea
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,178
- Last Active
Comments
-
>My food came
THE FOOD! YOU ORDERED IT.
IT CAME.
No, but seriously, cut it out. You guys are f-ing up the matchmaking. Don't be dicks.
-
Being unhooked and immediately running to the killer still takes time. It still benefits the team for the killer to have to re-hook them.
Apply that to every other argument trying to support throwers (and doing so with angry insults, for some reason?)
There is no universe where giving someone options to make THROWING THE GAME more convenient (at the very moment they're most likely to want to) is going to be worth the 0.00001% of the time I'd get a benefit from it.
It's simple math. I track the outcome of every match I play, and the people claiming throwers every 1/5 aren't far off from my numbers. If you agree that is a bad time, and it's worth making changes to address bad times, then how is that ratio not the lowest of low-hanging fruit?????? Every change involves a cost/benefit analysis but <gestures towards extremely lopsided numbers>
why not puting the energy into making the game fun for survivors again?
True, if someone were to develop a game that no one ever got frustrated with, this wouldn't be an issue. Good observation.
I mean, we'd also have to live in a world where trolls didn't exist and wouldn't exploit a big gaping hole in the fun-o-sphere like that. THEN I could totally understand not doing anything about it.
-
From the geniuses that brought you "If you died, did you REALLY play skillfully?" comes their latest bon mot:
Information doesn't help teams win
-
@Marc_go_solo said:
I could see some benefit in this. It's unlikely at this stage that mmr will be visible, that I can understand. However, if there was some BP bonus at the end for any time where a player has been shifted into a match with participants of higher experience it would be nice to acknowledge this.
It may also lessen the frustration of mmr for those who are placed into this scenario. The fact is, because of the nature of the matchmaking, people will find themselves in trials unsuited to their abilities. Acknowledging this with a bonus may very well make people feel a little more justified when they get screwed over.
I don't even need any bonus BP... I would just like to see (during the endgame summary, so no one can use this to dodge) that I was up against a 10k hour SWF or whatever. :)
-
@Archol123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3585756#Comment_3585756
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/61114/community-community-data-requests
Here is your source, official data from the devs, like I said 4 years old. I think this should be somewhat reliable, this poll however is not really ^^
This is from back when they still did "rank resets" so it is worthless.
Also, not sure what "run away" means?
-
BHVR can't even tell if their own code is malfunctioning without video evidence. They do not punish for breaking "rules" lol
-
@Archol123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3583669#Comment_3583669
I don't think talking to your friends while playing a videogame can ever be considered cheating xD The assumption would be ridiculous.
Among Us
-
If no one is dead yet, you can't attempt to 4% (although, if the killer camps, you can still unhook yourself using the new mechanic) and there are no skill checks in the second phase.
Problem solved
-
@Wowie said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3575808#Comment_3575808
Because, quite frankly, it's an absurd statement. Your issue with SWFs is that you have to think a little bit harder about what you're doing, and rather than rise to the challenge, you opt to declare that certain people shouldn't be allowed to play.
It's silly.
Wait, you "have to think a little bit harder" against SWFs?
You just conceded the point. Thank you.
-
The devs (or anyone in this thread who just... can't... think of any ways to improve Solo Q) should watch a SWF play on youtube or whatever, and take a note of every time they share info that a Solo player wouldn't have.
Once all of those are in the HUD, we can have this discussion again.
If you can't think of a way to communicate those things in a HUD, please quit your job designing videogames.
-
"No way to prevent this," say developers of only game where this regularly happens
-
I had 4 SM matches in a row.
-
re: Run Kindred
Solo Q only gets 3 perk slots instead of 4?? Incredible suggestion
>Also, SWF does not mean “on comms”. Plenty of SWF play with no voice communication.
- I would be willing to bet the VAST majority of SWFs use comms.
- Since OP was specifically talking about the value of communication, I think most people knew he meant "SWFs on comms" but thank you for clarifying. The people who would push back on the outrageous implication that "Solo Q sucks" are the exact people who would be confused by that, like you were.
-
I had stopped reporting people because I figured it was pointless. They don't enforce their own rules.
However, when they announced this change, I thought I would give them the benefit of the doubt and resumed the reports. Out of dozens of submissions, I haven't received a single response.
So, no, they still don't enforce their own rules.
-
The odds that you will encounter Player X (whom you hate) are very slim, but for the matchmaking to avoid EVERY single "blocked" player is not trivial. You'd have to add code to query/use that data for each separate player combination (both killer and survivor) so the complexity increases very rapidly.
So, yes, both statements CAN be right.
I'm not saying you don't have a point. I'm not against the idea of blocking players, but it doesn't sound like you program these types of systems for a living, so you kinda don't know what you are talking about
-
>i dont understand
Yeah, we got that
-
People that have played in SWFs (like yourself) tend to do better, even when NOT on a team. You're going to ride the proverbial bike better once you take off the training wheels vs. the player who never had training wheels in the first place. Just because YOU suddenly don't need them doesn't mean they aren't helpful. It's not a fair comparison.
Plus, solo Q isn't necessarily bad because you "can't win". It's more that it's boring because your loadout is hamstrung by the lack of communication. You basically have to run Kindred because none of your teammates can call out, "I'm going for the save." and the player on hook can't say, "Don't bother. Bubba is camping." You basically have to run Deja Vu because having 4 players running around "organically" finding each gen separately (while not technically impossible) is a guaranteed loss. Etc., etc.
Even if the game is unwinnable because someone else screwed up, I would have more fun if I could try out different builds. Instead, I have to run the same crap on every survivor or else I'M the weak link!
-
@Seraphor said:
Is there any reason why any killer would opt in?
If SWFs are just THAT unpopular to play against, then haven't you answered your own question?
-
>I get tunneled no matter the prestige anyway
Oh, good, I thought your opinion was valid for a second there
-
Just type it into chat. "I'm prestige 69."
It will literally have the same effect.
-
>This way dodging others based on their perks wouldn't be a problem.
Just make lobby-dodging punishable the same as a DC. That should be the case already...
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3524530#Comment_3524530
While I don't generally put much weight in Prestige (it can be an indicator of skill, but it's not 100% reliable). This argument doesn't work for me.
Hiding Prestige isn't going to fix matchmaking or prevent lobby dodges and backfilling. If anything, hiding Prestiges will only result in more mismatched lobbies going through to play. As low-MMR killers end up with high-MMR, likely high-Prestige survivors, and won't have any indication as such until they begin a game.
As it stands, I don't dodge many lobbies, but when I do it's predominantly lobbies I've obviously been backfilled into (immediately on loading in there's already 4 survivors with some or all of them Readied already) and often then it tends to be when I've been backfilled into a lobby with high Prestige, as well as things like multiple flashlights or multiple TTV usernames, because this means I'M the poor low-skilled killer about to face a comp team.
Occasionally I might get backfilled into an obviously low-MMR survivor team, with nothing but console Dwights and Claudettes with 0-5 Prestige levels. I'll usually dodge those too, and if I don't dodge I take it as a chill game and play around with snoot booping and let multiple escape. But with Prestiges hidden, I'm equally likely not to recognise that team for what it is and end up obliterating them.
I'm not saying unequivocally that hiding Prestige would be bad, but it wouldn't solve any problems in and of itself. It wouldn't prevent the core issues and it would bring up a few of its own. I think there needs to be something to indicate if you're facing potentially low or high skill team. Prestiges aren't a great indicator of that, but they're what we have right now, and unless a more accurate system comes in later along with more robust matchmaking, then I'm not seeing it as a pure benefit.
The people mainly advocating for hiding Prestige are those who made the poor decision to speed-grind one character to P100 for the clout, and now can't deal with the downside of having that clout.
I play fairly regularly. 5-6 days a week, 2-3 hours per session, and I still only have 31 as my highest Prestige.
A few things
1. Back-filling is a terrible policy. If someone dodges, the system should find another person who fits the lobby, even if it takes a little extra time. Or the lobby should be dissolved so they can start fresh. (Or maybe we shouldn't have to wait SIXTY DAMN SECONDS to start each match so people have time to get impatient, but that's a separate issue.)
Regardless, lobby-dodging shouldn't be touted as a "solution" to back-filling. (Because, you know... it's the cause.) I appreciate you not wanting to face a sweat-squad as killer, but SOMEONE is going to have to. You dodging is fixing the issue FOR YOU. I mean, is there anyone who's like, "Yeah, four P100s! This will be fun!"?? Even if the perfect killer for that lobby came along, they could dodge, too, so why is their reason for dodging worse than yours? In fact, the "best" killer already dodged because they got to see the prestiges and didn't like it. I mean, that's the reason you're in the back-fill position that you're complaining about!
If your goal is to have fewer MMR mismatches, then letting people see prestiges so they can dodge isn't fixing that at all. Everything after the original lobby is effectively RNG, so unless you think the killer who finally caves and says, "Screw it, let's just play. I don't care if it's a back-fill." is magically going to match the MMR for some reason, your argument doesn't make sense.
I'd rather those MMR mismatches be evenly spread across the userbase than to let people like you defer the pain to other players.
2. "[Hiding prestiges] would bring up a few of its own [problems]."
None of the issues you mentioned would be new. They exist already. I mean, I appreciate that YOU'RE using lobby-dodging to keep things fair, but the only reason you need to do that in the first place is because other people are using it to make things UNFAIR. If it was random, it would be fair already without the need to second-guess it.
Plus, I'm pretty sure you're in the minority on using it for good, not evil. I could be wrong, but if everyone was accepting back-fills that were fair, or playing nice when they got low-MMR survivors, you wouldn't be complaining about said back-fills, you know?
3. "The people mainly advocating for hiding Prestige are those who made the poor decision to speed-grind one character to P100 for the clout, and now can't deal with the downside of having that clout."
The survivors are skins of each other. Why should I spread my purchases across multiple if they're all the same anyway? (If there was a shared pool of items/addons/offerings, that would be different.) I don't put all BP into one survivor for "clout"... it's just the most efficient way to do it if you don't care about cosmetics and just want to play the game.
But even if they did it for clout, why should that be punished? Why is that a "poor decision"? I mean, if we hid prestiges, it would take away that clout, so wouldn't that solve the "issue" of people daring to get a high prestige for a reason you don't approve of?
I guess you spread your BP evenly across all survivors, so you don't have any higher than 31. So, your solution to all of this is to... hide your prestige?
You want to keep that number low so you don't get lobby-dodged... while simultaneously claiming that killers NEED this info in order to keep things fair... while admitting this "vital" number is artificial.
Brilliant
-
Whether it's flashlight blinds, pallet stuns, FOV tech, or Window tech, what the killer sees on their screen is irrelevant to the reality of the game.
-
I was thinking: You gain BP for each second you wait in a Lobby, but the timer doesn't start until you ready up.
So if you're one of those who waits the full 60s, you get nothing. But if you ready up right away, you get... 1000BP?
Something like that
-
> increasing the dc penalty results in more people hookiciding
So remove hookiciding
> and would LOVE to stand under a hook if they don't get their hookicide
That's fine. As long as they can't move onto another match.
-
BHVR: Punishes Solo Q for 7 years
Everyone:
Solo player: Maybe they could give us a little-
SWFs: WHY ARE YOU PUNISHING PEOPLE WITH FRIENDS??????
-
>I'll sometimes bring flashlights for the funsies but other than that unless it's for a challenge I basically never bring medkits or toolboxes. Why? Because the the game is already ridiculously unbalanced enough without them. If I actually needed them to win then either me or my team is playing very badly and we don't deserve to win anyway.
I bring items every game, 100% of the time, to counter this guy's attempts to throw.
-
I've only been keeping track of MY escapes (not my team as a whole) but yes, I escape between 43 - 45% of the time.
-
@DavidHypnos said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3487377#Comment_3487377
And if one or two survivors disconnect killers just got handed a much easier game.
I had a match today where literally 2 seconds after we loaded into Midwich the killer (Mastermind) disconnected. I didn’t wait through the loading screens and queue time just to get 7000 BP for doing nothing. I’m playing this game because I WANT TO PLAY THIS GAME. I don’t care if Wesker doesn’t like Midwich - he deserves the penalty just as much as any survivor would because he’s robbing us of the gaming experience.
Well, as a survivor, if you consider a killer DC to be a "penalty" (I didn't want 7000 BP for doing nothing.) then that's where we disagree. I respect your opinion. Honestly, I can see both sides of the Disconnect Debate, and I'm not sure where I land yet.
-
>Killers aren't getting replaced by bots.
I definitely think there could be different DC penalties for killer vs. survivor. Heck, if you get a DC penalty for survivor, I think you should still be allowed to queue up as killer.
However, if the killer DCs, the survivors get 7000 BP as if they had escaped. So, yeah, it "ends" the game, but it hands you a win on a silver platter! You don't even have to work for it!
So, I'm kind of anti-DC-penalty for killers, but for a totally different reason than survivors...
-
>issue with survivors sitting on hatch and stalling out the game because the killer must watch them leave
Ah, found the real issue. Someone got mad because a surv found the hatch before them.
-
@EQWashu said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3483523#Comment_3483523
And to note, a one-off incident of running to killer/dying on first hook may not be ragequit, it could be an IRL emergency, just like an AFK could if its only done once in a very rare occasion. But if a player is reported repeatedly because they do it very frequently, that is when they'll receive consequences.
I know when I have an emergency, the first thing I do is find the killer, run to them, let them hit me twice, let them pick me up and carry me to a hook, and then hold down M1 three times to make sure my video game character is dead before I take off my headphones and google "heimlich maneuver"
That's exactly like an AFK or a DC
-
Once they implement the Report Feedback, I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I'd be willing to bet money that they basically never punish rule-breaking, even if you follow their "Reporting" instructions to the letter.
edit: Oh, if you hack your save to give yourself free DLC, I'm sure they'll bring the hammer down. Can't mess with their cash flow.
Anything else? They don't care.
-
The SoS should never have "free" perks in it.
-
I wish they'd rework Tombstone Piece so that Locker Tech could be removed. It's a dumb mechanic, but TP is just too strong otherwise...
-
I appreciate all of the free anniversary stuff, so I'm willing to put up with the dumb Invitation effects... but yeah, I agree. I can't wait until the game goes back to normal.
-
>It's a high risk, high reward kind of thing
No, it's not.
There is literally no risk for the killer. Worst case: They miss the grab and get a trade instead. They lose nothing.
Unless you meant for the survivor, in which case you're even more wrong. Survivors are already "risking" something by going for the unhook in the first place. If the killer is camping, and they don't know it until they're there, what are they supposed to do? Try to leave and get downed anyway? It's LESS risky to go for the unhook and take the trade. Or just never go for unhooks?
There's no point where the survivor gets to make decision where they could come out ahead if they "win" the hook grab BS. It's a freeroll for the killer, it's boring, and it's terrible design.
-
After a certain amount of time, I think either side should have the option to forfeit. Not right at the start, but as long as it's unanimous, what is the harm?
-
Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you <3
-
I like having these, but I'm sorry you guys had to work so hard for them 2 years ago.
Hey, wouldn't it be funny if I enjoyed them MORE because you guys got a worse deal than me? Lol, like anyone would enjoy an item IF AND ONLY IF someone else was getting shafted...
-
I'd love to see it actually working
-
Well, how would you fix it then?
If nobody's dead yet, you can't attempt to Kobe.
-
Same. When the match loaded, I was like, "Oh, I got Windows of Opportunity! Nice! Oh, and Kindred! Waaaaiiiit..."
-
Leaving a lobby should be treated as a DC anyway.
-
The reason they don't ask about this in their surveys is because they don't care about it. They already said: The kill rate is fine. End of story.
The last survey contained a lot of questions about cosmetics. Can you guess where their interests lie? (Hint: Cosmetics make them money while Trapper reworks do not.)
-
>it is also extremely hard to play as a nurse and Blight
Lol, you almost had me
-
7 minutes was all they had to playtest this patch.
-
>I don't see how this is camping as the survivors
If your defense begins with BUT THE SURVIVORS then you were camping
Note: I don't have a problem with camping, and I would have done the exact same thing in your case. But let's call it what it is.
-
@brokedownpalace said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3417192#Comment_3417192
What the ######### does that have to do with anything?
Ha, that's what I was thinking!
-
It's also thematic and fitting for killers to grab someone cold-blooded like that.
Yeah, standing in one place, NOT stabbing someone is very killer-esque. Abusing the timing of a mechanic by waiting for the victim (who's right in front of you) to do something is straight out of a horror movie! It's a common trope that the killer is physically too weak to pick up someone who isn't opening a box...