crogers271
crogers271
About
- Username
- crogers271
- Joined
- Visits
- 8,432
- Last Active
Comments
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4048806#Comment_4048806
to be fair its not killers that are against slowing gens down. Its survivors that refuse to accept that if they want tunneling nerfed so it actually punishes killers doing it then gen speeds also needs to be nerfed. If we say tunneling will be nerfed heavily so its not as effective and at the same time nerf gen speeds, its not killers that would be against that….its mostly survivors because they generally dont like doing gens as its boring so they are dead against making them last longer.
to be fair its not killers that are against slowing gens down. Its survivors that refuse to accept that if they want tunneling nerfedIt wasn't the survivor players that got the anti-tunnel update removed. That did exactly what you claim to want, boosting the killer powers in the 4v1 and weakening the incentive of the early elimination. Everyone was willing to discuss that the numbers would need adjustment, but it was killers who were claiming they'd quit the game outright if tunneling didn't stay as is.
You can claim as much as you want that killers are out here willing to compromise, but we very recently saw that wasn't even close to true.
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4048911#Comment_4048911
and is there any wonder why people are using these slow down perks so much? they are literally the only ones viable on a lot of killers other than tunneling.
evidence showing killers complaining about gen speeds and not tunneling is evident in these forums. If you choose to ignore these posts then thats on you but i have seen many.
If me losing match after match and having a kill rate below 60% is not evidence of the being unbalanced then survivors losing match after match getting under 40% by being tunneled is not evidence of the game being unbalanced….so if the answer is for me as killer is to essentially "get good" instead of tunneling then the answer to survivors is "get good" to counter it. I have, i counter it in my survivor matches.
Im just pointing out that no matter what a killer does, someone will and has complained about.
S tier killers are constantly being complained about Blight and ghoul every match seems to be a pretty common complaint in these forums but like i said, if you choose to ignore these posts then your obviously going to ignorant of that fact.
Fact remains, i will never ever follow other peoples made up rules. they can complain until the end of time about tunneling or slugging or camping or perks or what killer i play as….im going to play the game according to BHVR rules. Until BHVR says they are against the rules im going to continue as i always do and im going to enjoy my matches instead of complaining.
and is there any wonder why people are using these slow down perks so much? they are literally the only ones viable on a lot of killers other than tunneling.This is clearly evasive.
You claimed that slowdown perks had been nerfed heavily. @Firellius demonstrated you were wrong. Instead of recognizing the mistake, you are now trying to pivot to a totally different point.
If me losing match after match and having a kill rate below 60% is not evidence of the being unbalanced then survivors losing match after match getting under 40% by being tunneled is not evidence of the game being unbalancedYeah, that's literally not evidence. It's called an anecdote or personal experience.
People have explained, logically, many times, why tunneling creates a bad game without relying solely upon individual experiences.
Im just pointing out that no matter what a killer does, someone will and has complained about.But its a meaningless observation. Every individual player has their own take. Its just a strawman at this point.
-
@Life_Sux said:
Lately, the dominant survivor strategy is clear: split early, ignore interaction, and finish generators as fast as possible. It’s efficient, low-risk, and rewards minimal engagement with the killer. If that’s the meta survivors choose, then killers adapting shouldn’t be controversial.
Rushing hooks, tunneling early pressure, and prioritizing fast downs are logical responses to gen rush. A killer who spreads hooks and plays “fair” while three gens pop in four minutes is simply playing suboptimally. The game already incentivizes speed; expecting killers to slow themselves down out of courtesy makes no sense.
This isn’t about being toxic. It’s about acknowledging cause and effect. If survivors optimize for generator completion above all else, killers will optimize for removing players from the match as quickly as possible. Faster hooks create slowdown. Slower hooks lose games.
If people want longer, more interactive matches, that discussion should start with survivor strategy, not end with blaming killers for adapting.
Rushing hooks, tunneling early pressure, and prioritizing fast downs are logical responses to gen rush. A killer who spreads hooks and plays “fair” while three gens pop in four minutes is simply playing suboptimally. The game already incentivizes speed; expecting killers to slow themselves down out of courtesy makes no sense.Rushing hooks/prioritizing fast downs - whoever said killers can't do this? It would be like saying survivors shouldn't loop too well. No one is complaining about a killer player downing survivors, though there are complaints about certain killers that are too strong at it (just as there are and were complaints about perks like MFT that made looping too strong)
Tunneling - this has always been an awful response to gen rush as an argument. If gens are flying that quickly, the killer needs to interrupt the gens. If the survivors are truly rushing gens and ignoring the survivor on hook, the killer will lose if he camps.
Tunneling has always been strong because survivors do the exact opposite of this and/or because a few killers that can get back to the hook very quickly.
-
Solid post.
Given how many times we've gotten 'X is going to be destroy the game' I wish there would be more careful consideration of certain perks when they are in the PTB (both from the community and BHVR).
As others have said, its very situational, and, even with a hard tunneling killer (the best case for the perk) you still create a potential for a snowball if the StB users is downed right away.
And we have perks like Babysitter, that don't require the survivor to be on 0 hooks to get real value, can provide the value over multiple unhooks, and give value to the unhooker as well. Even something like Reassurance can be a less costly trade off that is easier to access than StB.
-
I man the Western walls looking out across a desolate, war torn landscape. A vigil some say is no longer necessary, but I know, as do a few other haunted individuals, I know it always returns.
Bad Math will come back and I shall be ready when it does.
Also, ya know, feedback and stuff.
-
@ConsAnthroid said:
Everyone knows that aura perks for Killers sucks, because Nurse can abuse them too much.
Current Haywire is literally useless, because Singularity exists…
Why behaviour just don't nerf the perks on the specifically problematic killers and let other ones use it no problem?
Keep 80% treshold of Haywire to just Singularity, Hag and Twins. On other killer this perk should not be as neutered.
Same goes for gen regression perks. ######### killers should have them stronger while strong killers should have them weaker (Blight, Nurse, Spirit).
Aura perks: just cut the duration on Nurse by half, if perk has no set duration then reduce range by 30%.
It is really simple and I don't understand why after 10 years we are still bottlenecked by couple of killer who can abuse a perk while the rest of the roster will have 0 value from it.
It's very simple stuff to program.
Edit: Remember Agitation + Starstruck? Nurse can't use any instadown perks because of this combo - which I don't mind actually.It's very simple stuff to program.With how things go with bugs and every patch, I don't think anything is simple to program in this game.
Minor issue: It would require when killers got updated they needed to go back and think about perk changes they had made for prior versions. I don't think that should be an issue, but there are certain things I've been very surprised that BHVR has used as a reason to not implement something (i.e. why they haven't tailored DS to turning off killer powers because its something they'd have to think about with every killer - which never struck me as a good reason)
Actual reason I believe: It goes against the game concept. Perks are universal, just like every killer gets 4 perk slots though that's another way they could be balanced. I imagine if BHVR could go back in time they wouldn't even do perks for killers like they do for survivors, there'd be a different concept to create killer variety, but being it has been that way for the game for so long I suspect we're well past the point where they'd alter it.
Edit: Remember Agitation + Starstruck? Nurse can't use any instadown perks because of this combo - which I don't mind actually.That's a differing way to deal with it, though more limited to Nurse specifically, by changing what her M1 is counted as. People have talked about that she should gain blindness when charging her power as a possible way to address her being over powered here, but again something like that really only applies to Nurse.
-
Even if you got killers to play it (though you also need a massive survivor to killer ratio), the game would heavily decided based on just who the killer runs into. If someone on your team did an absolutely amazing chase, that benefits the other team just as much.
-
This has strong 'how do you do fellow survivor mains' energy, but here goes.
I don't know a single PvP game that do this1: Lots of games do this. Some characters are faster, or can take more damage, or can heal, etc. You get to choose what benefits you have.
That's true for both sides.
Why am I allowed to receive endurance when I'm in the dying state2: Getting value out of perks isn't a mistake, its a strategic decision on how you play the game.
That's true for both sides.
Why am I rewarded for perks like Sprint Burst, Lithe or Dead Hard when I haven't done anything compared to Smash Hit3: Smash hit is harder to use, but in turn gives more value. That's a general rule of perks in DbD, those with easy to access values give less potential return than those that are harder/more riskier to access.
That's true for both sides.
Why am I allowed to run away scoff free because my teammate unhooks me next to a killer and I receive 15 seconds endurance and haste?4: Why are killers allowed to see the gens and hook auras? Why do basekit features like Bloodlust exist? Why are there not more or less pallets, bigger or smaller maps? Broadly because all of those are meant to make the game better.
This is true for both sides (and also something not even remotely unique to DbD)
-
@Philscooper said:
Bhvr said once that they hate people showing off stats and invalidating eachother.
But then doing stuff like dbd stats and revealing info anyway
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/I9Z7RYDQ0VZI/rdt-20251220-210326131533930785019770.jpg
Wierdly enough, no one has come out to show their stats (atleast from what i have seen).
So either everyone is scared to be invalidated,
Its pointless to show them,
Or no one cares for that one thing...somehow....
Bhvr said once that they hate people showing off stats and invalidating eachother.But then doing stuff like dbd stats and revealing info anywayThere's a pretty big difference between individuals bragging/using their stats to demean others and providing information on the overall status of the game.
Wierdly enough, no one has come out to show their stats (atleast from what i have seen).I've seen plenty of people post their stats, unfortunately it doesn't tell us much.
The survivor side has been messed up by how BHVR counts abandons and, though probably to a lesser degree, players willingness to rat.
The killer side bolsters a player if they are willing to slug for the 4k or not.
Neither of the above generally get considered to be reflections of skill, but they can subtantially impact the numbers.
-
My guess: I suspect there are bugs associated with survivors leaving while still being within certain killers' animations, and the gate blocking is to ensure the two things cannot occur simultaneously.
-
I expect that we'll get new content, it will create more variety, but will the game ever take the next step? I've given up on that.
The QoL really caused me to lose a lot of faith in them. There were certain issues that I thought were unsolvable, just part of the game, and with healthy players counts unlikely they were going to attempt a radical leap.
But they said they were going to solve those issues. And they didn't, some of them they dropped in shockingly quick spans of time while giving reasonings that made no sense. The changes that did go through were the obvious things that people had been telling them to do for years, making it seem even more aggravating that we had to wait so long for it.
So new content? Eh, sure. But I think they should avoid ever saying 'quality of life' again.
-
@Munky said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4045386#Comment_4045386
Spoken like someone who does not know how to manipulate said stats to their agenda.
If we were talking about 1 month of NL stats, I would agree. Heck even 3 months, I'd still agree. But we have YEARS of consistent data that never shifted. If you understand how to analyse data, you will understand your argument is empty.
I rly don't understand the obsession to discredit NL stats. What is the point? Don't we all want DBD to become better than it currently is? Then why run this weird agenda that completely contradicts these stats?
But we have YEARS of consistent data that never shifted.That's not true though. NL data used to be much closer to BHVR's numbers.
For example here's a post from September 2024 looking at the Nightlight stats:
@adsads123123123123 said:
Interestingly, many of the killers typically ranked high on tier lists have average or below average win rates. For example, Billy, Nurse, Chucky, and Artist are near the average. Oni, Wesker, Spirit, Pyramid Head, and Huntress are below average.
Killer
Win rate
Kill rate
Difference
Win rate ranking
Kill rate ranking
Difference
Skull Merchant
64.1%
69.0%
-4.9%
1
1
0
Plague
61.2%
64.8%
-3.6%
2
4
2
Blight
60.6%
65.1%
-4.5%
3
2
-1
Nightmare
59.0%
60.6%
-1.6%
4
8
4
Onryō
58.4%
63.4%
-5.0%
5
6
1
Twins
58.3%
64.8%
-6.5%
6
3
-3
Lich
58.2%
64.0%
-5.8%
7
5
-2
Dredge
57.0%
62.2%
-5.2%
8
7
-1
Unknown
54.9%
60.4%
-5.5%
9
9
0
Cenobite
54.2%
58.3%
-4.1%
10
15
5
Wraith
53.7%
58.8%
-5.1%
11
13
2
Doctor
53.5%
59.7%
-6.3%
12
11
-1
Pig
53.0%
58.0%
-5.0%
13
16
3
Dark Lord
52.3%
58.9%
-6.6%
14
12
-2
Nurse
52.3%
57.8%
-5.5%
15
17
2
Hillbilly
52.1%
60.3%
-8.2%
16
10
-6
Cannibal
51.8%
58.5%
-6.7%
17
14
-3
Singularity
51.7%
57.8%
-6.0%
18
18
0
Good Guy
51.5%
56.9%
-5.4%
19
23
4
Overall Average
51.4%
57.7%
-6.3%
20
19
-1
Artist
50.9%
56.2%
-5.3%
21
26
5
Nemesis
50.8%
57.3%
-6.5%
22
21
-1
Shape
50.0%
57.5%
-7.5%
24
20
-4
Oni
50.0%
56.9%
-6.9%
23
24
1
Trickster
49.8%
57.3%
-7.5%
25
22
-3
Demogorgon
49.7%
54.7%
-5.0%
26
30
4
Xenomorph
48.9%
54.5%
-5.5%
27
31
4
Mastermind
48.8%
56.5%
-7.7%
28
25
-3
Legion
48.5%
54.1%
-5.5%
29
33
4
Hag
48.1%
54.8%
-6.7%
30
29
-1
Spirit
48.0%
55.1%
-7.1%
31
27
-4
Executioner
47.8%
54.8%
-7.1%
32
28
-4
Knight
47.2%
54.0%
-6.9%
33
34
1
Huntress
46.7%
53.4%
-6.7%
34
37
3
Deathslinger
46.6%
53.5%
-6.9%
35
36
1
Clown
46.4%
54.0%
-7.6%
36
35
-1
Trapper
45.8%
54.3%
-8.5%
37
32
-5
Ghost Face
42.9%
50.5%
-7.6%
38
38
0
3-4k is considered a win.
Nightlight's stats are a few percent lower compared to what BHVR released, but they generally were in the same ballpark as what BHVR was reporting.
That's not true anymore. Nightlight's KR numbers have tanked from what they used to show, while BHVR still is showing KR's in the 60% range.
-
You will definitely be missed. GLHF on whatever you end up playing.
-
The only way to win is not to play ~Wargames 1983
I think that's the only thing that could actually beat the Entity. It can't be killed, though conceptually it could be starved.
-
Probably not.
Being that BHVR likely hopes to get licenses back and doesn't want to antagonize the other side, I think they will go as far as possible to not infringe.
-
@THE_Crazy_Hyena said:
With Chaos Shuffle returning soon, it will now also feature random add-ons for killers and survivor items. But I was thinking. What if we took it a step further and made EVERYTHING randomized.
Perks = Random
Add-ons = Random
Survivor items = Random
Survivors = Random
Killer = Random
Roles = Random*
Players can still select universal offerings, such as BP, maps, hatch/basement and so on. Other offerings, like hooks, chests or any offering that affects either side would be disabled in this modifier.- Random roles would require some thinking though.
Random roles:
As it suggests. Groups of 5 will be queued up for the event, where one player is randomly selected to be the killer.
Though this would create a dilemma if SWF groups queue up.Either the SWF group is allowed to have one of their members randomly selected as killer, or SWF groups of 4/3/2 are only allowed to be survivors, with solo queue players being allowed to become both.
However, since this mode will also allow a full group of 5 friends to queue together, the problem would be somewhat solved for larger groups.
Will definitely need some brainstorming around this idea, but it sounds really fun to have a fully randomized mode in the game at some point.
SWFs basically derail the idea. I really think this would only work for SoloQ. Once you start looking at SWFs of 3/4 then basically the randomness has been turned off and we're back to regular Chaos Shuffle (except the soloq who's been thrown into the role of killer is at more of a disadvantage).
Personally, I'd be fine with a super random mode that only applied to soloq, but I doubt BHVR would even consider that as a possibility.
BHVR needs more modes, and I think they should take Chaos Shuffle in two directions.
1: Make it as random as possible.
2: Random builds, but the builds make sense. Create a lot of survivor/killer builds where the perk combos actually work (there's actually lots of builds that have already been made by the community). You'd still have a build with No Mither, but it wouldn't have self healing.
I definitely don't think chaos mode should be replaced by that idea, but I think its an opportunity that BHVR could explore for more game modes. I think this would also give players more experience with not just perks they normally don't use, but builds that are outside the meta.
-
2v8 is my favorite - if it became permanent I don't know if that would remain true. I don't think it reaches the heights of 1v4 in terms of 'amazing' matches, but it has a lot fewer and less frequent lows, which at this point are more of an issue to me.
-
@pickle4juice said:
I came up with a item for DBD a while ago, but i've reworked it to be more in depth and balanced. The idea is the item would be called a Tripod and the survivor can set them down around on the map, the survivor can only hold a max of 1 at a time, and takes 3 seconds to place, and a 5 second buffer after placed where it cannot blind the killer to prevent it going off instantly, only a max of 2 can be placed in a map and automatically breaks if in close proximity with another tripod, pallet, hook, or window, and whenever the killer walks past the front of it, the tripod would trigger by emmiting a quick 0.3 windup sound and then go off blinding the killer for 1.5 seconds and breaking itself, but if the killer is beside it or behind it, the tripod won't go off and the killer can break it by using the basic attacks on the item. I feel like it would be a very useful item, and i've also come up with some add-ons from common to rare:
Polished Reflector - blind lasts 0.25 seconds longer
Reinforced legs - takes 2 basic attacks to break
Motion calibration - Trigger cone becomes narrower but longer
Repair manual - once it breaks, you can salvage it one time with reduced blindness time
Military grade light - if the killer isn't looking at the tripod when it flashes, they still get blinded for a duration of 2 seconds
Flash array - after the tripod goes off, it creates a fake trail of scratch marks
What do you guys think?
You're overcomplicating your presentation by getting way too into specific numbers before first clarifying the general idea.
Concept: Have an item that blinds the killer when they get near it.
I think this is basically like a flame turret, but it does blindness instead of slowdown/power loss, and it works against all the killers and doesn't autoaim.
Problems: Like lots of design ideas, different killers would be more or less susceptible to it - that's part of the issue with anything that tries to impact the killer instead of the survivors.
Overall: I don't think its a bad idea.
-
@random1543 said:
What's everyone's thoughts on a rework of the luck offerings?
since they have removed the self unhook basekit the only times I see it burnt it ends up sandbagging the match because someone goes "oh I can unhook myself lemme do that' and goes to second stage.
Best idea I could think of with keeping spirt of how it works the same, I would just make it so hook progress is not lost to get rid of sandbagging potential, its more of a "you get 1-3 chances to try to get off hook" with a offering, with the percentages left the same as a basekit self unhook.
Rough example of how they could work:
Team offerings :
Salty Lips - Allows all survivors 3 self unhook attempts on first hook
Salt Statuette - allows all Survivors 2 self unhook attempts on first hook
Salt Pouch - Allows all Survivors 1 self unhook attempt on first hook
Individual offerings:
Ivory Chalk Pouch - Allows the survivor that burnt offering 3 unhook attempts on first hook
Cream Chalk Pouch - Allows the survivor that burnt offering 2 unhook attempts on first hook
Chalk Pouch - Allows the survivor that burnt offering 1 unhook attempt on first hook
note that: removed the luck percentage increase to avoid stacking. With the purple offering there should be 48% chance of one person being able to unhook themselves if everyone attempts 3 times (4% for every attempt)
can still use perks like slippery meat and up the ante to get more percentage chance, (all tho up the ante I would remove it stacking with multiple up the ante kind of like what was done for vigilwoo a change to up the antie )What's everyone's thoughts on a rework of the luck offerings?They need to be reworked. I don't know why BHVR has been so insistent for so long on trying to keep percentage based self unhooks in the game.
I would just make it so hook progress is not lost to get rid of sandbagging potential, its more of a "you get 1-3 chances to try to get off hook" with a offering, with the percentages left the same as a basekit self unhook.That's an interesting idea.
Conceptually, for me it adds too much randomness/luck into the game. Let's take Salty Lips -
If I'm remembering how the math works on this, 3 unhooks without any modifiers is ~11.5% chance to escape the hook, and I believe that amounts to about a ~37% chance that one of four survivors would be able to unhook themselves (presuming all of them were first hooked of course)
So one out of three games (roughly) survivors get a huge benefit.
Even before getting into modifiers, that seems too big of an impact to be chance based. Maybe if it had some additional limitation (i.e. end game) I could see it.
-
I think linking the luck percentages to items in chests is a pretty common request. Unless this was combined with the more chests addons I doubt anyone would run it, but I think it would be better for the game than the current.
You could also give it a map based effect. Something like 15% chance 1 less pallet, 50% chance no change, 35% chance 1 extra pallet.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/462216/killers-win-if-they-kill-1-survivor-early
Get very good at looping and waste the killer's time enough for your teammates to finish gens, or stick to gens if someone else is being chased and hope they do the same instead of just giving up instantly due to your own mindset.
Worst case? Get chased on purpose anyway, then practice chase vs that killer. Or blame the person who got tunneled out so fast that your team couldn't get enough gen progress to be in a contestable state when they die. Or blame your teammates for not engaging in said gen progress.
You can do things to improve your chances, if you try. Its more effective than beating a horse to death without any real solution. Your teammates who don't give up immediately will thank you. Its more effective than yet another woe is me post about tunneling.
This seems like a non-sequitur.
@killer_hugs is explaining why the game breaks down IF a certain scenario occurs.
Discussing HOW that situation can be avoided is a different topic, especially being as survivor you don't have control over the other three players.
-
@Abbzy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4041622#Comment_4041622
Killers are in advantage in lower tiers of mmr, the higher the mmr gets and experience of survivors plus skill increase the lower killers become way weaker and for that trapper streak that build can win any m1 killers game its not the killer but perks that made it possible and huge macro gameplay the majority of player base can only dream of because willie is very good with it (sadako main and only thing that makes her teleports work with condem is good macro play and keeping targeting specific spots where the most condem survivors are which requires huge macro something I bet you and I doesnt have at that level), the buld he ran can just win you any game as m1 all you need is like 1 or 2 kills and then good macro so you slug rest that has less resources (pallets) that were broke through the match with huge speed and noed giving you the oneshot thats what makes it possible because as you even admited even 4 slowdown trapper cant get half of this progress in wins or very hardly but slugging works its risky strategy in massive execution but its effective if it works. Blight thats just different level of power creep.
Ghostface is bad like realy bad unless he runs some specific builds like haste one with pwf and knife sheet then he can get just instadowns fast but still he isnt anything crazy just m1 killer who can go with no terror radius and has make your choice on command with stalk thats it and I think he would have loose more if he would face more swf because thats something that counters ghostface automaticaly with calling him out, all you need are two survivors prerunning and one always running behind him revealing him and if he switches then the chased one does what the other was doing and i guarantee you he will have no power or get so slowed in his progress that the gens will flyif other two will work on them.
Killers are in advantage in lower tiers of mmr, the higher the mmr gets and experience of survivors plus skill increase the lower killers become way weaker and for that trapper streak that build can win any m1 killers game its not the killer but perks that made it possible and huge macro gameplay the majority of player base can only dream of because willie is very good with itTo beat really good survivors, the killer also has to be really good? I certainly should hope so.
Yes, skill levels matter, there's nothing unique about that on either side. But if you want to argue elite survivor players, then we should argue elite killers. If you don't want to argue elite, but general, well you already said the killers have the advantage.
Ghostface is bad like realy bad unless he runs some specific builds like haste oneWhy wouldn't he run those builds? Outside chaos shuffle, the player gets to choose. Same with Trapper, as the killer you get to play to the killer's strength and away from their weaknesses.
I can make survivors sound extremely weak if I take out 'specific builds'.
-
@THE_Crazy_Hyena said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4041640#Comment_4041640
Well said, and I am glad to have been part of your comeback tour. May 2026 bring better times for everyone who is playing DBD
I hope things improve before May, but realistically if we get improvements by May of 2026 I'd be happy given how long some other things have taken.
Oh, wait, that's not how you used the word May (that is how I read it at first and I was wondering if I had missed an announcement of something happening in May).
-
@Anniehere said:
This video showed up right after I read your post.
There's a nerve wracking issue where many players are giving up mid-game. It feels like they still want to play, but the experience has become so miserable that instead of stepping away, they keep pushing through and hoping the next match will be better in a stale meta.https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/41MP5264W62U/screenshot-youtube.png
It feels like they still want to play, but the experience has become so miserable that instead of stepping away,I've always struggled with this and DbD - sometimes it is the best game I've ever played. Sometimes its the absolute worst. One of the issues, and I think it's getting bigger, is people conclude (frequently too quickly) that the game is in 'worst' territory and just try to get out as quick as possible. Unfortunately once people get into that mindset it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
-
@Skittlesthehusky said:
Hello, I’m once again back with probably one of my longest posts in forum history because I just enjoy yapping fr
so as we all know, a lot of discussion goes around balancing and the state of this game on the forums. what's interesting is when the discussions that are had here have gained the attention of youtubers and twitch streamers, whom contribute to these discussions outside of the platform. one of the more notable individuals i've personally seen review posts and talk about them recently is someone named "v.h.s.x", who is predominantly a ghostface main. their videos primarily address opinions surrounding perks, metas, addressing ‘us vs them’ statements, changes made to the game, and discussing other content creators’ opinions. This is pretty standard of those who engage in community discussions, but what makes this case interesting is the perspective and perception of the forums when talking about some of the posts that are made here.
What my opening post is about today isn’t focused on the topics themselves, but what influence such content can have in these conversations as well as the reinforcement of ideologies based on how a conversation is interpreted. Dead by daylight, over the course of its years, has seen much commentary from many different types of players. Often times, you would encounter posts and arguments that have what would be considered a bias. Bias is the nature of our human psyche, since talking points are often made from personal experiences and interpretations of the subject matter. The issue with bias is that it can often reduce someone’s perspective the longer that its reaffirmed. While this is a given, it’s something that people often ignore or forget about when engaging in conversations with others.
A good example of what I described is in real-world politics. I think social platforms that harbor discussions about this game is a near one-to-one example of how political commentary works. Various ideologies, or cultures, coming together to talk about their experiences and how they personally believe the world should be shaped. Some conversations bring good and can be very insightful, other conversations bring bad while being equally as insightful but encouraging change or behavior that does not help progress society as it is today. The quality of conversations is often dictated by one’s understanding and own personal verdict. If you apply this in the game’s current setting, you can see the same formula in the way that things are discussed here.
But what makes this particular person so interesting is their approach and how the things we see in today’s world tends to be reflected in content like this. Now before I get into it, I wanna preface this by saying that just because I am linking videos and talking about an individual person doesn’t give you the right to go out of your way to flame them or accuse them of anything. The whole point of this thread is to invoke a deep conversation about a smaller creator’s content, real-world attributes, and what it contributes to the on-going discussion. If you’re personally going out of your way to invalidate someone for having an opinion for something as trivial as a game, your arguments also deserve to be invalidated just the same.
On dec 6th, v.h.s.x posted a video providing their own perspective to a thread created by kaneyboy discussing kaneyboy ’s OP and the people commenting in it. In particular I wanted to address this conversation because I think it was probably one of the threads that deserved way more attention than just 2 pages, primarily because it allowed everybody’s unique perspective to be showcased. I actually encourage the video gets watched because it is formatted as a more of a counterargument to a lot of the things that were said in that thread and I’d like to see what people think about their points. I will not provide a summary because that is not the intention of this post
As I was watching this video and a few of the other submissions they created on their youtube channel, something I noticed is that the content that was made is more from the perspective of a killer than anything. In this case, this particular video I linked even states in the description that the posts were “broken down from their perspective as a top 1% P100 ghostface main, while also pulling from my own experience of playing over 400 hours of survivor”. There is a lot of statements containing language like “survivor rhetoric”, “survivor opinions”, or “survivor mains”, which is also very common on the forums. This is fine, as this is their way of addressing a specific group of people, but when you understand the concepts within political commentary, you can probably see why this can be a point of concern.
Naturally, someone may develop a preference for playing a particular side of the game due to how they perceive the game or what they feel comfortable learning, playing as, or controlling. Based on what side you may play as more, you’re more inclined to generalize or group together player types by their behavior the longer you grow familiar with similarities in players. However, this comes at the cost of over-generalization and assumption superseding the context of someone’s statement, which can ultimately devalue their personal experience and reasoning. If you do this enough times, you’re challenging the health of conversations and the ability to make clear what is exactly an issue and what isn’t.
This brings me two questions: what is the true validity of most arguments that are made in the community when such biases exist? How can you have a productive conversation and steer something in a healthier direction when discussions become gridlocked by subjectivity? These same questions exist in politics, which is what makes it really intriguing to read.
The reason why I propose these same questions is because of the overarching factor of experience and bias. Dead by daylight, despite is simplicity, is a very complex game. Much like the human experience, you are dealing with a multitude of factors that can influence how someone thinks, behaves, and destroys and builds. Even though this game features obvious variables in its balance like perks, the influence of data, map design, etc., at its core you are exposed to the behavior of humans due to it being a PVP-centric game. You have to spend an exorbitant amount of time understanding player behavior in this game to be able to leverage any of the tools the game offers you, whether its objective focused or interaction focused. I personally believe this makes up a majority of the friction that comes with playing this game: players truly not understanding players and the reasoning behind a decision. If there’s a misunderstanding, it is generally due to an assumption or lack of information to draw an effective conclusion.
The ultimate reality, to me, is that you will never truly 100% know why someone does something, so you are forced to guess based on how much time and information you collected about the people you play against. And yet so many of our arguments are based off of the premise of what we assume to know, and appear to advocate for reinforcement of a foundation that is very shaky. There is a lot of “no, you’re wrong” and less problem-solving to find a middle ground among the community. This brings me to take issue with both videos and posts like these.
Not necessarily because of what is being said, but the reinforcement of what is being said as if it is factual and that an entire group of people wholeheartedly believes. It’s like saying “all people that like the color blue are sad and all people that like red are angry all the time. Red is scary because anger is volatile, therefore the people that like the color blue are the best to be around because red-likers are more likely to be violent, and that everything should be put in place to limit red-likers to keep us safe as much as possible while taking care of the sad blue-likers”.
You never question where the association came from, why someone who likes red may even be angry in the first place, or even question why blue-likers are sad and supposedly require protection. Not once are you encouraged to think about why things are the way they are and what can be done to improve the situation as much as possible. Instead, you develop vitriol through confirmation bias as you begin to pay more attention to things that “prove” the argument that was made. It’s even worse when you encounter individuals who don’t want to learn, merely laugh at it and distance themselves from it, are close-minded, or cast it aside as a non-issue rather than considering the implications. If you put monetary or collective incentive behind this, either as a content creator or as a community-acknowledged ‘leader’, this escalates confirmation bias further. This is what people start to identify as an “echo chamber”. If you read comments or responses to videos and forum posts, you may see what I’m referring to.
Both sides, killer and survivor, inexperience and experienced, do this, and I think it heavily devalues our ability to communicate as people.
Is this a big deal? Not really in the context of DBD itself alone. It is a game at the end of the day. But it is concerning when rhetoric begins to sound awfully close to what we already deal with in today’s age as a society and how we talk about things. Video games, however, tend to be very good at showing what someone’s thought processes and perception of life may be like behind the screen.
Before this post ends up exceeding some character count by accident, I’m going to cut it short here. Let me know what you think. And please don’t use this post as an excuse to ACTUALLY get political. The reference to political commentary was more of a framework to my point.
what is the true validity of most arguments that are made in the community when such biases exist? How can you have a productive conversation and steer something in a healthier direction when discussions become gridlocked by subjectivity?It's interesting because there have been a few posts I've started typing recently then deleted because I feel like we're all just going through the same circular arguments.
Conceptually, there are ways a healthy discussion should occur (if we're talking about posts discussing possible changes):
Generally the person starting the discussion lays out a few things - what they want to happen (ex: nerf Vigil), why they want it to happen (ex: it results in boring shift W gameplay), and then why they think it will work (ex: Vigil boosts Sprint Burst, resulting in more survivors bringing the perk, and that nerfing it will decrease this association).
The starter may also add on examples or anticipate possible counter arguments.
People who disagree may come at it from many points of view. They may disagree with the concept (ex: maybe they think shift W is not as boring), they may disagree with the solution (ex: actually SWFs and precalls are the problem and always have been), they may highlight another issue (ex: with other styles of play being nerfed, survivors have fallen back on what they have left), they might discuss a game benefit the original poster is not weighing (ex: Vigil + Dramaturgy results in more exciting games), or they might agree but offer an alternative solution (ex: nerf Sprint Burst). They might also do multiple of those things.
If the disagreement is over a fundamental issue, such as what the players are looking for in the game, they are unlikely to reach a consensus. But that should be fine, we all want different things in games.
But if the posters agree on the fundamentals (this is boring), then they should be able to have a more productive discussion on what ought to happen and the implications of the possible changes. I don't think bias per se is the limiting factor, as much as that we all have limited information compared to what BHVR has available to them, but even with that I think rational discussions can happen.
Or you can just say the other person isn't high MMR.
-
@THE_Crazy_Hyena said:
As the title suggests, how would the game balance have turned out if perks scaled based on team size for survivor, or relative strength as a killer?
So let's say that you take a perk like Sprint Burst, and subtract 5% Haste for each survivor in your party (if the party size is 3 or more) and a 10% increase if you play solo, or make Pain Res only regress a gen by 15% for a killer like Blight or Ghoul, and 30% for a weaker killer like Trapper or Pig.Either way, a small decrease in strength for 3 or 4-man SWF's, a slight buff for soloQ and a way to even the playing field among the killers.
SWFs -the issue here is that SWFs can be really be varied. You can have four friends playing together, where a weak player brings down the stronger members, or a comp squad that has try outs to make sure they get the best players.
Also doing this off of perks would be extremely complicated vs. say an increase in gen times.
The issue is also, conceptually, addressed by MMR depending on how much you believe MMR works.
Killers - I'll repeat that it would be extremely difficult given the amount of perks when you could make much easier changes.
I'll also add that if BHVR actually thought some killers were too strong or too weak they could just make changes to the killer.
There's an added difficulty that perk strength really varies by killer. Lengthening Lethal Pursuer for Trapper really doesn't matter because he's probably grabbing traps at the start anyway, but something like Hexes can be stronger for a Trapper than they are for a more powerful killer like Wesker. You create the possibility that a killer put in the 'low tier' bracket actually becomes 'high tier' because of the perk change.
-
@FerrousFacade said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4040460#Comment_4040460
Hens "experiment" is proof of absolutely nothing (and did you watch the video? someone DCs in literally his second match). Its an incredibly small sample size and we don't know if these were played consecutively, or at different times, or on different days. A proper experiment would also release all footage, not the cherry picked portions he chose to show us.
Interesting that he chose to only play survivor where he doesn't actually get to see how the other survivors play much. Why not play killer where he can better gauge the skill level of every survivor in a match? Oh right, because he would stomp all over them and that wouldn't support the narrative he is clearly trying to push. It was just another video of a survivor going on long chases against opponents that they are better than and that don't drop chase, or put another way, he faced a bunch of unskilled killers.
People simultaneously claim that killers on the Asian servers tunnel less and that they tunnel more. No one has proof of anything, they just make claims with no evidence.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4040473#Comment_4040473
Just because MMR treats it that way for survivors doesn't mean it makes sense. The vast majority of players consider a 0-1k as survivor win, 2k as a draw, and 3k+ an a killer win. The point is that a killer can get a 50% kill rate by getting as many 3 or 4k matches as they get 0 or 1k matches, 2k is not a common outcome in this game.
A few things I'll add on Hens and the videos he did for survivor vs killer -
1: Some people are really good at the game, it's not a surprise that their KR and ER are going to be higher than the average.
2: Hens videos to maximize escape rates (1 in Korea, 2 in EU to my knowledge) are done with him trying to make the best possible builds and playing to maximize the group success.
Meanwhile, on the killer side, he has vids like 'M1 Trapper only' and still getting a high KR.
To me that was always telling - to make a good survivor video, play to the best of your ability, to make a good killer video throw some crazy challenge on top of it.
3: Absolutely wish he had done killer games as well.
-
@FerrousFacade said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4040145#Comment_4040145
This is a sentiment based solely on feels with no stats to back it up.
At low MMR, the game is very killer sided
And yet I see just as many people also claim that killer is rough when starting out.
At high mmr, the game is very survivor sided.
High mmr four mans have an escape rate just below 50%, sounds balanced ever so slightly in favor of the killer to me and those are the teams many consider to be literally unbeatable. Lower skill killers lose to these teams but think they are better at killer than they actually are.
Doublethink seems to pervade every aspect of the game from the killer perspective. Survivors are bad but also unbeatable. Tunneling only works against low mmr survivors but is also required to beat good survivor teams. The game is survivor sided, yet killers win more than they lose. It can't be both. You can't balance a game off feels.
Doublethink seems to pervade every aspect of the game from the killer perspectiveI think this is very true. You can be a D tier killer hitting a gen rushing SWF group, or you can be a soloq player running D tier perks hitting a sweaty Nurse.
It's not unique to one side. Whether good design or not, the game allows sweatiness (a difficulty slider in my opinion) on both sides - but whole discussions get derailed as if the killer side of it is unique.
Survivors are bad but also unbeatable.This is one of my favorites.
Tunneling only works against low mmr survivors but is also required to beat good survivor teams.Yeah, we really got into a lot of Kettle Logic with the anti-tunnel arguments.
Lower skill killers lose to these teams but think they are better at killer than they actually are.One thing I'll add to this - everyone should run into games where the opponents felt unbeatable (regardless of side). Whatever your MMR there should be matches where you hit people better than you, or you missed something without realizing it, or you just lost a lot of 50/50s. That is true for both survivors and killers, but it seems to primarily be a killer argument that no one can understand the caliber of opponents they are hitting - when that is one of the most normal feelings in any type of PvP game.
-
Once upon a time, they had ideas for lots more mods, things like a 5v5. The failure of the QoL has really put a damper on the traditional 1v4 for me, and I'd really like them to invest in more ideas like that to give variety to the game.
-
@UnicornMedal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4040014#Comment_4040014
It's the psychological aspect I've been trying to figure out as well. Bagging is almost always held in the same regard as mechanics that actively prevent players from even playing the game at all and at times treated as if it warrants more attention.
I think there's a difference in why people think the abandon mechanic exists.
Does it exist for when gameplay is no longer possible?
Or does it exist as a mercy rule when one side cannot advance its position (i.e. achieve a 'win') anymore?
The survivor standards (especially everyone slugged/dead) meet both criteria - you're no longer doing anything and you likely can't advance your position (and if you can, you don't have to abandon).
The killer being able to abandon when the survivors are just hiding out meets the former, but not the latter. They obviously could still find and kill the survivors, but there is no actual gameplay happening.
The killer with the survivors in the exit gate meet the latter, but not the former. They still can still engage the survivors, but there's really no chance of actually winning (this is kind of equivalent to a survivor playing out chases after the match is effectively over - they have no chance of winning, but they are still engaged in gameplay).
BHVR's standard seems to be the first argument - when does gameplay end, not when is the match effectively decided, which is why I think the hypocrisy arguments don't work.
-
@jmwjmw27 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4039633#Comment_4039633
I don’t know about you, but I’d rather play optimally and try to win than play suboptimally expecting to lose because I can make an excuse when I do.
But that doesn't really address the issue that @Defnotmeghead is bringing up.
If a high MMR survivor ran a lot of D tier perks for fun, they already aren't playing optimatlly.
It would be like a survivor using D tier perks than ratting the whole game and saying 'well I have to, look at the perks I'm running'.
The fact that some killers are weaker than they should be, just as some survivor perks are weaker than they should be, isn't a reason to prevent healthy game changes.
-
A few things are unknown and create potential math issues:
Average kill rate of a killer - is this the overall kill rate, or the kill rate when all the killer kill rates are averaged
Hatch escapes - I'm not sure if BHVR has ever clarified if hatch escapes are counted or discarded in the data set (is it a null value). The first data set might not count them while the second data set does
Low scoring matches - the earlier data set excludes low scoring matches, though the exact mechanics are unspecified (for example AFK killers are reportedly a huge problem in some areas, not excluding those would drop the kill rate). We also have the issue that when BHVR releases kill rates they usually exclude some things, like DCs, while the latter look to just be a complete picture. BHVR doesn't seem to be making any exclusions in their numbers, potentially the reason they aren't giving us kill rate numbers and just totals.
2024 - The earlier data set goes back into 2024, while the newer set only looks at 2025
How did the average kill rate go down by 5%? Was this the actual reason why the pallet density changes got nerfed in November 2025?Mathematically I doubt this is possible. Not only is there only a single month of data compared to 10, but the summer months had a lot more players. The game wouldn't just have to be tilted to survivors, it would have had to have been overwhelming to get a number to move that far.
Are the pallet changes going to be monitored and changed, until the average kill rate goes back up to at least 60%?They always do that, but they also talk about the kill rate number as a general target, not an absolute. We don't know for certain which matches BHVR actually considers into their kill rate equations, or what other factors they look into.
Edit to add: Also looking at the new numbers, it's not specified whether that is just the 4v1 matches or everything, including events and mods. You're looking at about 855k trials (what's with BHVR forgetting their terminology and calling things matches?) played a day - given their past statements about total playrates, I think the new numbers are not just the "pure" 4v1 that things are balanced off of.
-
There a number of problems with trying to introduce a ranked mode into DbD.
1: Time - usually people want some adjustments made to rank mode, this adds another thing for BHVR to spend time on and balance.
2: Asym nature - compared to other games, where the best can hit the best, DbD is inherently split into two groups. The best Nurse player can never face the second best Nurse player for example. So you're trying to rank unequal things, which is what the current MMR system already does.
3: Waiting - the thing that makes MMR not work normally is the rush to match people up. If you were willing to give MMR more time, you wouldn't need a separate ranked queue (it also would always take a long time to match the upper ends in DbD - which is better served by the structures that already exist).
4: Queue splitting - The game needs a roughly 80/20 split. If the ranked mode pulls more killers than survivors, you've unbalanced the queues for both sides.
Onto the OPs post
@ChronicSkink51 said:
I wanted to share an idea I’ve been thinking about for a while. This isn’t a pitch or anything I expect compensation for — just a suggestion from a long‑time player who loves the game and wants to see it become healthier for everyone.
Right now, DBD tries to serve two very different groups with one system: players who want relaxed, experimental, or challenge‑focused matches, and players who want high‑intent, competitive matches. Because both groups are mixed together, we get a lot of issues: burnout, smurfing, mixed‑intent lobbies, inconsistent match quality, difficulty experimenting with killers, SWF and solo queue being impossible to analyse separately, and returning players being punished by high MMR.
Here’s a system that could address all of these problems at once.
- Two Game Modes: Casual and Competitive (Optional)
Casual Mode
• Uses the old rank system
• MMR cannot drop
• MMR barely increases
• MMR is not used for matchmaking
• Fully mixed playerbase
• No pressure or punishment
• Ideal for challenges, memes, learning killers, or playing with friendsCasual mode becomes the “play how you want” environment. It’s also the place where players can unlock or re‑unlock competitive mode by performing consistently over time.
Competitive Mode (Optional)
• Unlocks only after reaching a certain MMR threshold in casual
• Locks again if you fall below that threshold
• Uses a 10‑tier ranked ladder instead of the old 20
• Competitive MMR resets monthly
• Visible ranks
• BP multipliers
• Leaderboards
• High‑intent matchmaking
• Anti‑troll penalties
• One‑time cosmetic rewards for reaching Rank 1 as killer and survivorCompetitive mode becomes a true ranked environment — but only for players who choose to be there.
2. Monthly Competitive MMR Reset
Players don’t play the same amount every month. If someone takes a break, they shouldn’t return to sweaty, high‑MMR lobbies. A monthly reset lets players ease back into the game instead of being punished for taking time off. It also creates natural seasons, fresh starts, and better tournament cycles.
3. Killer‑Specific MMR Weighting
Not all killers have the same power ceiling. A system that treats Nurse and Trapper identically will always feel unfair. Competitive mode could use killer‑specific MMR weighting based on average kill rate, killer difficulty, and performance at high ranks. This means S‑tier killers gain and lose more MMR, mid‑tier killers gain and lose moderate amounts, and low‑tier killers gain and lose less. This encourages killer diversity and makes progression fair across the roster.
4. SWF and Solo Queue MMR Analysed Separately
Competitive mode finally gives Behaviour clean data. SWF groups could have their own MMR curve, faster MMR increases, and group‑based MMR. Solo queue gets its own MMR, more accurate matchmaking, and better balance data. Killers get fairer matchmaking and separate performance data against SWF and solo. This is the first time SWF and solo could be balanced properly.
5. A Healthier Experience for Everyone
This system would reduce burnout, reduce smurfing, fix mixed‑intent lobbies, make experimentation safe, make returning to the game easier, improve match quality, support tournaments, give players meaningful goals, and provide Behaviour with clean balance data. And because competitive mode is optional, no one is forced into a playstyle they don’t enjoy.
Closing Thoughts
This is just a community suggestion — something I’d love to see explored because I think it could genuinely improve the experience for both casual and competitive players. I’m sharing it in good faith, and I’m open to feedback or discussion from other players and the dev team.
Thanks for reading.
Right now, DBD tries to serve two very different groups with one system: players who want relaxed, experimental, or challenge‑focused matches, and players who want high‑intent, competitive matchesI'd argue that most players want something in the middle (i.e. a third group). Players who want to play seriously, but aren't worried about memorizing every map or having to bring meta into every game. Splitting into two groups actually leaves these people out, which, as I said, is my guess for being the majority of players.
Casual mode becomes the “play how you want” environment.DbD needs MMR because a weak survivor brings down the team far more than a strong one can uplift them. You're creating a mode where killers would have a tremendous advantage and, being this would be the mode all new players would start in, it would not be very desirable.
A game that is something like a 5v5 doesn't have this concern as much because if you just randomly assign players you have a decent shot of getting a balance randomly, it doesn't work that way for DbD.
Players don’t play the same amount every month. If someone takes a break, they shouldn’t return to sweaty, high‑MMR lobbies.They also don't lose all their skills just because they took a break and showing up and dominating lobbies below there skill is the same issue, just in a different direction.
Killer‑Specific MMR WeightingA number of concerns with this
1: If we can't trust BHVR to balance each killer, how are they going to implement this system?
2: You create unsatisfactory experiences for the survivors - oh, we hit a Trapper, we're going to win but the game doesn't actually mean anything.
You could do the same thing on the survivor side, where they could run off meta perks but then have a loss count for less. But you're now adding in player selected handicaps which allows people to game the system.
SWF and Solo Queue MMR Analysed SeparatelyCompetitive mode finally gives Behaviour clean data.I don't know why you think they currently lack this.
SWF groups could have their own MMR curve, faster MMR increases, and group‑based MMR.If a group plays together, consistently, they already have this.
If a group does not play together consistently, the above change wouldn't do anything.
This system would reduce burnout, reduce smurfing, fix mixed‑intent lobbies, make experimentation safe, make returning to the game easier, improve match quality, support tournaments, give players meaningful goals, and provide Behaviour with clean balance dataBurnout - don't see how.
Smurfing - well, in the sense that you have an approved smurfing queue I guess it does.
Mixed intent - no, you still have this very much in both queues, there's lots of gradations on how seriously people treat the game.
Experimentation - you're presuming that the casual queue won't care about winning at all. People would still get angry at each other.
Returning easier - that's always going to be a difficult issue.
Match Quality - Arguable on the ranked queue, but worse for the casual queue.
Tournaments - that's a different thing
Goals - Yes, but its arguable whether this is something a game should have. You're now catering to one section of the player base at the expense of others.
Data - they have this, people just don't like the way they use it.
-
People tend to make way too much out of the differences. We're talking about broad, general terms - not ironclad classifications.
As an example, once upon a time I took Mario Kart extremely seriously. Usually when this topic comes up there will be a commenter discussing 'my house had to make rules to stop fights from breaking out during Mario Party' or similar post.
Take something like basketball - people can play it goofing off with their friends not keeping score, or they can form leagues with organized teams tracking wins/losses (and you have lots of ground in between, such as pick up games). The level of seriousness is mostly down to how the players treat it.
-
@tes said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4038906#Comment_4038906
You keep pulling out scenarios where the killer is multiple mistakes deep into a bad situation and then going 'how can the killer benefit from this, hm!?' without taking a step back and realising that if the killer hadn't committed to their prior mistakes, they wouldn't be in the situation they're in.No, I don’t. I said “you can” benefit from using DS beyond tunneling scenario. I asked about killer benefiting because you literally claimed this yourself.
Here is your quote, literally.
In every subsequent attempt by a survivor to use DS offensively, it has resulted in a win for me
And thats why I asked to prove this claim by action, because basing opinion on such statements requires evidences.I also didn’t toss 1vs 1. Just another proof you talking with yourself and imaginative arguments, skipping whole content of discussion. Are you really eager to step on same rake? I asked about prove of play within team. There are no way you can showcase DS value in 1vs1 or through theoretical speech, which was my main point.
Because this is no first time you refuse provide any evidences of your play, so your “I play…” “it resulted x for me”, is already sound as hollow statement for me.
And thats why I asked to prove this claim by action, because basing opinion on such statements requires evidences.That one is pretty obvious - any survivor trying to use it offensively isn't on a gen.
-
@terumisan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4037838#Comment_4037838
people would still say it's unfair for killers its not a wording problem it's people understanding what effects it will have on the game
The OP is literally talking about the concept of 'punishment' being a bad idea, not overall game impacts.
That's a framework issue (or wording if you prefer).
-
@hermitkermit said:
I think the frame of mind and language you’re using matters a lot here. Seeing any form of anti-tunnel as a “punishment for playing optimally” is probably why the concept feels so hard to accept. But if we look at the game as a whole, we can see that this exact idea already exists everywhere else, and for good reason. Tunneling is held to different standards
For the sake of your argument, I’ll use that same framing “punishment for playing optimally” to explain my point.
Looping is a perfect example. It doesn’t need a perk to exist, just like tunneling doesn’t. Yet looping has built-in restrictions or “punishments for playing optimally” already. things like windows blocking after repeated use, bloodlust, and pallets that can be broken, permanently weakening a loop. If I’m vaulting a window really well and the only reason the killer hits me is because it is blocked, then in your logic that’s a punishment for playing optimally, for being too good. If I’m running a killer really well but he gets major bloodlust and gets a hit, then that’s a punishment for playing optimally, for being too good. But we need those kind of “punishments for playing optimally” in order for a much more balanced game. Looping well is playing optimally but it is still “punished” without any kind of perk required for a killer.
Though we do have them of course. We have anti-loop killers and perks, just like we have anti-tunnel perks. But the existence of counter perks/killers never replaced the “punishments” on looping. Looping isn’t left without “punishments” just because anti-loop options exist.
Tunneling, on the other hand, is.
Tunneling is a strong optimal way to play, but it’s treated differently from other strong, optimal ways to play in the game.
Imagine if looping had no built-in counters or “punishments for optimal play” at all, and windows never blocked, pallets couldn’t be broken, bloodlust didn’t exist, and killers were expected to be fine with it because anti-loop perks and anti-loop killers exist. I think people would be quick to call out the imbalance, and people would push back immediately.
The logic seems to be that anti-loop/killer options don’t replace the need for built-in limits/punishments for playing optimally when looping, but anti-tunnel options do replace the need for built-in limits/punishment for playing optimally when tunneling. That inconsistency is the issue. And it’s why I advocate for tunneling to be balanced the same way other mechanics/strats in this game already (and rightfully) are.
Balance does not mean punishment. And if you really want to look at it through that lens, then one role is already punished for the sake of balance for playing optimally.
I think the frame of mind and language you’re using matters a lot here. Seeing any form of anti-tunnel as a “punishment for playing optimally” is probably why the concept feels so hard to accept.I wonder how differently everything would have gone if instead of calling it anti-tunnel they had done something like:
Survivor Buff: Upon a survivors death, they gain a 25% gen speed bonus.
Killer Buff: Getting to 6 hook states before a death will negate the survivor bonus.
That's a simplified example but as you point out I think people really latched onto something that is a pretty normal thing (weirdly I think if they just made the 25% gen speed bonus happen regardless of hook states and then focused on unique hook benefits, it would have gone over better).
-
@YaBoi0215 said:
This is coming from someone who plays 90% survivor because Killer is far to stressful to play.
Since the last 2 PTBs with the failure that was anti-tunnel I keep seeing people say we need some form of it and it always deals with punishing Killers for playing optimally. I don't understand how this can be seen as a good solution to the "problem" of tunneling. Punishing a person for playing the game optimally is not how you properly fix these issues. Imagine this, you're playing Survivor and you pop 3 gens before the killer gets a second hook. The fix this issue you now get a 20% generator speed debuff for playing the game too good. Wouldn't you feel some type of way? How would that be fair at all for the person playing the game good?
I have a personal solution for tunneling that would actually incentives killers to get unique hooks. Make Pain Res base kit. I know, this sounds crazy, but hear me out. Make Pain Res base kit and make it do less percent damage, something around 10-12% for all the unique hooks a killer gets in a match. This would active incentive a killer to go for unique hooks while still leaving tunneling open if it's a need strategy. Now killers would have a choice to make. Do they tunnel the person off hook and waste time with base kit BT, DH, DS, OTR etc. with the risk of multiple gens popping, or do they go for the unhooker and get their Pain Res to slowdown the game a little bit. Most of the time you would pick the Pain Res over the risk of 2 or 3 gens popping and losing with only one kill.
I think this would honestly be a much better way to incentive killers to go for unique hooks and stop tunneling. Rewarding them for playing the game in the way that is more fun for the survivors whilst not punishing them for using a strategy if it's needed in a game that's going fast. Gen Speeds are a problem and that's the reason for tunneling. Most of the games I play 2 or 3 gens pop in the first 2-3 minutes of the match while only 1 person having being hooked.
I know this will probably get downvoted and people will say I'm dumb but this is my opinion. Punishing someone for playing the game optimally doesn't make any logical sense. Yeah, it may not be the fun way to play the game but it's for sure the correct and optimal way to play the game. Rewarding someone for doing something you want them to do will always be much more effective then punishing them. I mean we are already punish killers for tunneling with the base kit BT and all the anti-tunnel perks yet it does nothing to stop them. Rewarding people would be much more beneficial to curbing the amount of tunneling going on in the game.
Imagine this, you're playing Survivor and you pop 3 gens before the killer gets a second hook. The fix this issue you now get a 20% generator speed debuff for playing the game too good1: Imagine the game had windows you could infinitely loop and the optimal strategy was to draw the killer to them. A reasonable solution would be to 'punish' the survivor by blocking the window.
2: Survivors can't just do the same gens again and again, the amount of gens they have to work on narrows, making it easier for the killer to defend. Their objective gets harder as they complete it.
3: In your scenario the survivors have just played well. If they are genrushing, well, people constantly suggest nerfs to genrushing perks and items. The difference is anti-tunnel discussions are talking about a particular strategy being too strong, while examples like this are just things going well for one side.
People really normalized the use of 'punish', when things like this happen all the time - things that are too strong get tuned down. Punishing certain strategies or making the objective harder as you progress it are already things the game does.
Make Pain Res base kit.They made Pop basekit in the PTB with unique hooks. Buffs and nerfs have to come hand in hand.
Rewarding them for playing the game in the way that is more fun for the survivors whilst not punishing them for using a strategy if it's needed in a game that's going fast.I've been thinking about how much 'needed' has come up as a defense.
What if survivors 'needed' to use OTR to bodyblock? What if survivors 'needed' DH for distance? What if survivors 'needed' to use CoH to self heal?
Everything that has ever been nerfed was 'needed' in some circumstance on both sides.
@YaBoi0215 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4037777#Comment_4037777
I completely agree with you. I don't honestly know what could be done to make tunneling not such an effective strategy without one side getting heavily hindered or buffed in the process. A big reason that I see for meaningful change coming to the game about this is the strongest killers in the game, name Nurse, Blight, and Ghoul. The problem comes that if you add a way for lower tier killers to be more optimal to play and not be so weak this in turn makes the top tier killers completely game breaking and unwinnable to go against. I see ways that Ghoul and Blight could be nerfed to be better but Nurse to me is the main problem. The only solutions I see if either a complete rework of her or just the acknowledge that from her conception she was bad for the game and you just have to deal with it. I would love to find someway to make the game more balanced but with these killers, specifically Nurse, it gets so tricky to do it.
I don't honestly know what could be done to make tunneling not such an effective strategy without one side getting heavily hindered or buffed in the process.Well 9.2 tried to give boosts to killers in other areas to accomplish just that.
@Classic_Rando said:
Survivors’ only objective is to do gens and escape; killers’ only objective is to kill survivors. Nobody should be punished on either side for playing the way they want within the rules.
Tunneling doesn’t even work well against good survivors most of the time as you waste way too much time trying to chase and hook a single survivor three times.Nobody should be punished on either side for playing the way they want within the rules.No one is getting a DC penalty or anything like that. This is why I hate how 'punish' gets thrown around. The ideas proposed by BHVR took something that was a big advantage for the killer (eliminating a survivor) and made it a smaller advantage, while still giving the killer a way to neutralize that change and buffs to spreading hooks.
Tunneling doesn’t even work well against good survivors most of the time as you waste way too much time trying to chase and hook a single survivor three times.We've had a huge disconnect in the negative feedback for the anti-tunnel ideas: either tunneling is absolutely essential at high MMR and thus it can't go through, or tunneling never works anyway.
If its the latter, its still a good reason to nerf it, because having a powerful, easy, obvious strategy for new killers that dominates new survivors likely causes people to leave the game.
-
@Leon_van_Straken said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4037765#Comment_4037765
Thats my point. I want a discussion with points from both sides.
I know that tunneling is a big problem and I think it should be nerfed or hard tunneling should be made completly unreliable.
But as I said one side said "Getting 6 hooks mean 2 survivors on death hook and one at one hook" Killing now with the sixth hook while 3 survivors got chased in this game isn´t really tunneling. So go down to death on 4 hooks. which means only 1 survivor got tunneld out with the "typical unhook trade which can happen"
As to nurse. Yeah nerf her. There is no reason why she should be that powerful. And as I said no the conter argument shouldn´t be "I like her that strong"
I know that tunneling is a big problem and I think it should be nerfed or hard tunneling should be made completly unreliable.But this seems to be leaning into what @hermitkermit says:
If someone doesn’t consider something a problem, then it doesn’t matter what solutionYou are saying that hard tunneling is a problem, while BHVR's approach in 9.2 PTB was a much broader definition of what they were looking at being a problem (i.e. what they considered tunneling).
So to you the solution looks bad, but that's primarily because they are trying to address something you don't consider a problem. If all they wanted to do was address hard tunneling, there would be easier ways (but they don't seem to want to take out hard tunneling as an option).
This leads to a disconnect in the initial discussion because people think they are talking about the same thing, but there is actually a pretty big difference in what they are trying to accomplish.
-
@Leon_van_Straken said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4037651#Comment_4037651
One thing I will never understand about this take is the following.
One side brings up valid points which can be discussed about and the other sides counter argument is "You just won´t have my side buffed"
There is no conter argument just trying to insult the other side.
In this example: Hey guys these things could be abused in this or that way can we talk abuot it? (adjust the numbers to 4 hooks) Answer: No we don´t want to get tunneld or slugged and you should be punished and we swear we won´t abuse it.
This is no discussion this is just demanding without seeing the other side which was trying to negotiate with arguments.
Than BHVR comes with it sledgehammer and destroys every step further and people claim Killers cried about this great update.
Just give me a reason why it should be 6 hooks
One side brings up valid points which can be discussed about and the other sides counter argument is "You just won´t have my side buffed"There is no conter argument just trying to insult the other side.But that's always true. It's not even limited to DbD. Whenever a change or idea is proposed, amidst the discussion there will be people who are angry/ranting.
Hey guys these things could be abused in this or that way can we talk abuot it? (adjust the numbers to 4 hooks)Abuse is one of those words that people have been throwing around like it ends the argument. The level of hooks is more about how extreme the anti-tunnel should be, but its also directly related to how many boosts the killers should get for unique hooks (basically, if the number of hooks dropped, so should the unique hook benefits).
This is no discussion this is just demanding without seeing the other side which was trying to negotiate with arguments.If we're going to do a broad 'this is how sides behaved', the forum was filled with people/killers opposed to the 9.2 PTB even before it was released.
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4037344#Comment_4037344
I think they were between a rock and a hard place with releasing too much at once. If they released pallets one patch, Elusive another patch, self-recovery another, a decent anti-camp another, they would have had endless crying along the lines of, "Every patch is survivor-side BHVR hates killers!!1!" for like a whole year. But releasing them as a bundle gave the same results, with added, "the game will die!" videos. It feels like there's no winning approach.
I think they were between a rock and a hard place with releasing too much at onceThing is, they put themselves there.
They are the ones who decided what would be in the QoL initiative. If this was too much, and it probably was, it was on them for not knowing their limits.
I know I've said this in other threads, but if they started with what they ended with things would have been quicker and better. No self unhook to go next, 5 extra seconds off the hook protection, the basics of the abandon system, all of that could have been knocked out relatively quickly, some of it is just changing a variable. Instead they worked backwards to those goals which seems the worst way to approach it.
Overpromised and underdelivered is an understatement to what the QoL is/was.
-
Lack of commitment and fear of risk taking from BHVR is my feeling on the issue.
9.2 tried to do too many things (and felt sabotaged by being tried at the same time as a pallet increase). That meant just about everyone had something they didn't like about it. Instead of taking the constructive feedback they were receiving and making adjustments they seem to have thrown all of their work and development away.
-
@grumpelfox said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035480#Comment_4035480
so youve never played killer . have you ever seen a gen so close to being done and just having to let them take it cause you the game says "oh no mister volunteer, mean killer . you cant do that , you have to make sure the survivors are having fun and just let them have it . " has that ever happened to you , cause it sure as hell has happened to me .
Sure, its happened, though its incredibly rare. I've also won games because of the enhanced gen kick, the lack of gen tapping, and that the game will say 'oh no, mister volunteer mean survivor, you can't vault that window anymore to make sure the killer is having fun'.
Which is fine, there's nothing wrong with a resource having a limitation.
-
Are we bringing back gen tapping and lowering the base kick back to 2.5%?
The kick limit has made the game a lot better (as has removing gen tapping). It gives a relatively easy resource for the killer to manage while disincentivizing some of the least interesting forms of gameplay.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035337#Comment_4035337
Out of curiosity, since we agree on things like the load bearing structure of the killer role, what alternatives do you think would be fair to cut down on the varying degrees of hopelessness for killers in situations where they would want to abandon?
that said:
The fairness issue is that BHVR's approach is agency - how much can the player do at this point in the game. The killer agency is still relatively high in these situations compared to the survivor equivalents.That heavily depends on the situation. There can absolutely be plenty of dead man walking scenarios for killer, they just tend to get ignored due to a misplaced attribution of agency. Recycling my previous comparison, do you believe losing players in TF2 have agency during the endgame cooldown? They could always try to do things like dance around and goof off with the winners, but that usually gets ended pretty quickly followed up by kill screen taunts. They're kinda eerily similar the more I think about it.
I just really want to know how people define agency. I've seen it defined a few different ways, but I've always attributed it to
An individual's ability to impact the outcome of the game they are playing in a meaningful way,which usually focuses on progress toward their objective and/or a positive resolution. Having a "lose sooner" out (which both smacking out at the gate and abandon fit, to various degrees) respects the player's time more than without, but it doesn't do anything for their actual agency. They still can't do anything meaningful to improve their outcome, just mundane distractions like breaking pallets or cleansing totems, when they'd much rather be in a potentially more reasonable game state (aka next match.)https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035343#Comment_4035343
If you stay outside of the exit gate and not the finish line the Killer has a chance.Selectively. There are easily situations where the survivor can be quite far from the gate at all and still not be able to be downed and picked up before they would reach it. The distance potential relies heavily on the game around it, via perks/addons/bodyblocks/instadowns/heal tech/endurance/exhaustion perks/killer/etc. Some killers can punish people inside the gates themselves if they don't position right, 3 allies heal teching can allow someone to crawl a lot farther than you'd think, a bodyblock congo line and a well placed dead hard can cover a good deal of distance and a lot of blade wipes. Nurse can literally be waiting in the exit gate as you open it, etc. Exit gate safety isn't really a static distance, so its important for any attempts to address it to recognize and account for that variation as fairly as possible.
But yeah, things like survivors falling out of the exit gate during the blade wipe are checkmates in all but the most extreme scenarios, like a gate already blocked before they get hit, or the survivor giving up their position for some reason.
what alternatives do you think would be fair to cut down on the varying degrees of hopelessness for killers in situations where they would want to abandon?So this is always a tricky question because it gets into what I would do vs what would be an equivalent for the killer based on what the survivors have.
My opinion - I don't have a huge problem with surrenders (if they are marked as loses and not BHVR's weird process), and actively support them in a game with a design like DbD. I think a surrender option that is way too early can destroy a game, but if the killer had the option to abandon when the survivors where in the gate I'd have no problem with it.
Fairness - I think the survivors being in the exit gate would be equivalent to the survivors on the ground, but I don't know if it would be worth BHVR's time to code if the end result is a survivor just sits outside the exit gate with sprint burst and the whole system becomes moot.
I just really want to know how people define agency. I've seen it defined a few different ways, but I've always attributed it to An individual's ability to impact the outcome of the game they are playing in a meaningful way,That's a good definition, meaningful can of course be a little subjective, but any definition will have that.
I suppose someone could define it more in terms of what you as the player can do. So a slugged survivor can't actually engage with much, while a killer can still do all the killer things even as the survivors stand in the exit gate.
I should add: agency is the not primary reason I support the abandon system, though I get caught up in that argument based on the 'if BHVR did X for Y then they need to do X for Z' points. Mine is that once a game has become pointless, i.e. the chance that one side or the other can come back is astronomically slim, then unless the ending of the game is almost immediate after that, people should be able to end it.
@Leon_van_Straken said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035337#Comment_4035337
But that is kinda my point. If you stay outside of the exit gate and not the finish line the Killer has a chance.
I give you an examples:
Killer has noed and hits you at the exit gate line. You drop out. But if you are out of the gate even before the gate and the Killer hits you than the game is going on. Thats what I ment in my posts by saying the Survivor needs to screw up.
That's a fair point. Though it would be weird/funny if killers ended up getting nerfed because tbagging survivors were so frequent they increased the kill rate.
-
Of all the threads that discussed the abandon issue, why did this one get necroed?
@Leon_van_Straken said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035314#Comment_4035314
The Killers didn´t ask for a abbandon when all gens are finished or the gates are opend.
They ask for an abbandon when the Survivors are all at the exit gate so that they don´t get the walk of shame.
If all 4 Survivors are standing at the finish line there is nearly 0% chance that the Killer (if the survivors don´t screw up) can do something else than hitting them out while they tbag or click their flashlights.
So I ask again and maybe you can give me an simple answer. What are survivors losing except to bm the Killer when the Killer has the option to close the trial when these conditions are in play?
The Survivors escape except they screw up or the game ends and the survivors escape. So why are Survivors acting like it would be unfair if the Killer won´t need to see them escape?
For the record, I'm pro giving the killer a surrender option, but
1: Right now, the game would just end, so it depends on whether its a hypothetical world where BHVR has fixed that issue.
2: Is the issue fairness (i.e., the survivors have this, so the killer should), or is it jus something that should exist (a good idea)?
The fairness issue is that BHVR's approach is agency - how much can the player do at this point in the game. The killer agency is still relatively high in these situations compared to the survivor equivalents.
The is it just a good idea - the difficulty is where to draw the line. Make it standing in the exit gates, survivors just stand slightly outside the exit gates. It's very easy to draw a line for the survivors where they are highly unlikely to advance their position (everyone slugged for example), then it is for the killer (as many people have said in the comments, many kills are obtained after gates opened). So you create the situation where BHVR puts a lot of work into coding an additional abandon option, only for survivors who are interested in bullying the killer to easily sidestep it.
-
@jmwjmw27 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035142#Comment_4035142
No, not using the conspicuous action system. If you used that, then they could follow the killer to do a flashlight save, pallet save, etc which is not a conspicuous action. Only the actions I listed above. Because then the "tunneled" survivor can sit on the objective and force the killer to look for other survivors to chase, or lose the game.
That said, I don't think allowing an unhooked survivor to sit on a gen immune is a good change, but it would kill tunneling which is what the OP asked.
But why are you imagining a change that only does some of the things and not others?
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4034905#Comment_4034905
There's an obvious problem with that. It encourages tunneling! You can get free hook states on hard survivors by bullying the same survivor over and over?
It would depend on how many shared hook states there are (I think shared hook states are a bad idea due to balancing concerns and game feel, but on this issue I don't see the problem). Let's say there were '3' shared hook states, its still a better outcome for survivors if the same survivor gets hooked three times in a row and now every survivors is at what would be the equivalent of '1' hook state, then for that survivor to be eliminated.
-
As a few others have mentioned, this idea has been around for awhile.
It's the most absolute, straightforward way to "fix" the problem.
Except despite calling their changes 'anti-tunnel' BHVR seems really determined to keep tunneling a part of the game (causing confusion among the players). They really seem to think removing the possibility of tunneling entirely would be an awful direction, thus we get the weird state survivors were in during the 9.2 PTB so tunneling is a lot harder, but still possible.
Thus while ghost survivors could work pretty easily to end tunneling, it doesn't seem to be BHVR's goal.
-
Literally as is from the 9.2 PTB? Well, once they got some data from the live games, they would have made some adjustments in the 9.3 because I think one of the things people agreed on was that there was way too much trying to be done and the lines they picked were too extreme and some adjustments needed to happen (instead of the entire system being destroyed).
The forums would be like the inverse of what they do now, with lots of killers instead of survivors saying they uninstalled, but the live servers still seeing relatively similar player counts.
Would the game be on a healthier path? Yes.
-
@Lothlorien said:
So I was thinking. What enjoyment do people get from bullying the killers?
I'm talking full on perks and playstyle just for the purpose of bullying.
Most of the time they lose the game anyway, because they're chasing around the killer instead of doing gens.
Also how is it fun to spend your game running after the killer and just crouching or flashlighting or saboing hooks? Not to mention waiting in lockers while your discord friend leads the killer into the loop.
It used to annoy me, now I'm genuinely curious, why?
The little rude gestures I can understand, people get caught up in the moment, but intentionally doing this?
It's like people forget both side of the match has human beings in it…
Can anyone shed any light, or am I overthinking it? lol
Can anyone shed any light, or am I overthinking it? lolBest guess?
You spend a lot of time getting beat around by the killer. Eventually you get good enough that you can escape against most killers, but that loses its enjoyment. So you come up with a new game, a sign that you have overtaken the power role, and you can make it so they can't do anything.
Its kind of like how some killers would leave survivors slugged if they pulled off a flashlight save (to bleedout before the abandon system). It's a (petty) attempt to reassert control and revenge for past experiences.
-
I wonder to what extent FNAF meant a 'new start' from BHVR's perspective or how many of the new players are still around. 900 shards would still be a nice bonus to a player who started over the summer.
Or maybe they've just gotten incredibly stingy.
-
@Leon_van_Straken said:
Hot take by me.
The pink one was okay if no other effects could speed it up.
But to be ultra rare like some people claim it to be it shouldn´t be in every game. Something beeing always avaiable is not ultra rare it is… common…
This is a problem with the new Bloodweb and If you got a prestige 100 Survivor. I can farm these addons and use it all the time if I wanted to and to be fair why shouldn´t I? Thats why I think to claim it is okay to be strong because it is rare is not a good point for this argument.
On the other side the purple addon could bring you into a lose lose situation as the Killer if the survivor had a vault close by.
This is a problem with the new Bloodweb and If you got a prestige 100 Survivor.It's a little more extreme then this, given how common special event modes are. I play a lot of 2v8 and I have characters at prestige 9 that I don't think I've ever played sitting on a lot of stuff.
Thats why I think to claim it is okay to be strong because it is rare is not a good point for this argument.Unfortunately, its kind of baked into the game design. I've always loathed how addons are designed, but its part of the grindy nature of the game that occasionally you get these rare, more powerful things. I highly doubt that will ever change unfortunately.
I can farm these addons and use it all the time if I wanted to and to be fair why shouldn´t I?You can if you want, but its kind of like why shouldn't a Killer just play Nurse every match? Well, it gets boring and doesn't feel fair (for many people). Again, I strongly dislike it, but DbD seems to be designed around that idea.