crogers271
crogers271
About
- Username
- crogers271
- Joined
- Visits
- 8,432
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Rickprado said:
Hi! Hope everyone is doing fine.
Probably this will be my most dislike post but i would like to propose some discussion around things that affects the balance of the game very heavily and why they should be reworked if we want a healthier game, consider the anti-tunnel changes will be implemented some day.
Toolboxes: this need a rework as soon as possible. It is a very strong item with no real downside besides having a finite amount of charges. With built to last and other gen perks its possible to complete more than one gen in less than 70 seconds.
My suggestion is that toolboxes shouldn't increase the repair speed but to protect from regression. So, if you used a toolboxes in a gen it would receive 50% regression for an amount of time or charges if the killer damages the gen. Toolboxes would still be an useful item but not as op as they are.
Syringes: althought medkits are fine now, syringes are still very strong. They consume the medkit but dont require charges, heal as fast as a normal medkit speed and can be combined with perks such as botany. My suggestion is that they require at least 24 charges to work and have a fixed 33% healing speed. It still would be a very useful item without giving ultra fast heals or an absurd amount of medkit efficiency.
Shoulder the Burden: This perks really missed its point entirely. It looks like it was designed as perk to save teammates from hard tunneling but its most used by Swfs trying too hard to win. It works better against non-tunneling player which is a non sense. Also, because of how strong Vigil is right now this perk has no real downside.
It should only work if the killer hooked the same person twice in a row, with no downsides beside the scream and the hook status change. It would really works against tunneling killlers and wouldn't harm players which are spreading hooks.
Vigil: it counters too much status effrctes without having a downside. Change it to be a exhaustion reduction perk, to be a negative status protection (without protecting from exhaustion) or change its activation condition.
Reasssurance: Thats a hard one. It can be used very healthy to counter proxy camping but it can also be used give extra time for saves when the killer is not really camping and survivor want to greed on gens. My suggestion would be to increase it activation range and instead of the current 30s of stopped hook timer a 50s of 50% slower hook timer. This would still harm proxy camping without giving free time to Swfs who abuse this perk.
Ghoul: shouldn't give deepwound unless he is bitting an injured person. Deepwound counter so much stuff and give slowdown to and already strong killer.
I believe there is many more stuff to discuss but thats what i wanted to say right now. Hope we can have a healthy discussion on this topic.
See you guys!!
Toolboxes - I'm surprised they haven't been reworked. After Medkits got reworked so they were all similar in design/power, I thought the same would happen with toolboxes.
With built to last and other gen perks its possible to complete more than one gen in less than 70 seconds.That's kind of the point though? That a survivor can go for a gen rush build at the risk of getting tunneled or slugged or not good in chase or not able to heal, etc.
Shoulder the Burden:
It should only work if the killer hooked the same person twice in a row, with no downsides beside the scream and the hook status change. It would really works against tunneling killlers and wouldn't harm players which are spreading hooks.I'm really against this style of perk design where we try to hard counter play styles via perk selection. It just leads to winning or losing the game in the lobby screen.
It's like Potential Energy and old three genning. Killer 3 genning and have this perk? You win. Not 3 genning? Dead perk. It is too much all or nothing on a single perk.
Shoulder the Burden is good without being overwhelming against a hard tunneler because of the exposed risk, while at the same time still potentially having some use against a non-tunneler. Perks having general uses like that is better than all or nothing designs.
Vigil: It's broken, I don't know why they've made it so strong.
Reassurance:
It can be used very healthy to counter proxy camping but it can also be used give extra time for saves when the killer is not really camping and survivor want to greed on gens.…
This would still harm proxy camping without giving free time to Swfs who abuse this perk.What is healthy? What is abuse? Kind of like Shoulder the Burden I think having perks that only work in one specific scenario are bad designs. If the killer is not around and survivors are just leaving the survivor on hook with Reassurance, that doesn't seem like a great play. Not only does a survivor have to run over, pop it, and run back to their gen, they could have unhooked the survivor and both been on gens (not to mention the risk of potentially giving the killer a snowball path to victory).
-
No thoughts on Ghoul. On syringes I'd totally rework addons if I could, but that's outside the realm of the game's direction.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4016947#Comment_4016947
Ah, that weird ‘draw’ thing that nobody knows what to make of to this day.
Although I was moreso referring to any game with a DC not being tracked as far as stats go. They’ve been pretty consistent in their communication about that at least.Even if I think it’s weird.
Personally, I still think they should’ve been way more careful with the abandon mechanic. It’s opened up a whole can of worms of what is or isn’t an ‘unwinnable’ match, and the way it’s been implemented is far too broad for what it was supposed to address: extended slugging. But they can’t go back now, ‘cause players have already gotten used to being able to dip the moment they go down.
I still wonder whether the Finisher Mori wasn’t a better solution, since it also removes the awkward ‘clean-up’ phase for the killer.
I still wonder whether the Finisher Mori wasn’t a better solution, since it also removes the awkward ‘clean-up’ phase for the killer.With how they've handled abandons, for all we know BHVR would have made it so the finisher mori treated every player who wasn't the one Moried being treated as a draw.
-
When looking at any cultural difference issues its always tempting to take your own culture as the base. To us the DCing is not that unusual, its amazing that it is so rare in some places like Japan.
A few points to start:
1: I don't know to what degree NA is different than Europe. This seems to be a general issue in the non-Asian regions.
2: Different people report and experience different levels of DCing. I played 14 games as killer yesterday and I don't think I had a DC in at all that time. But I was playing super casual, if I play someone like Legion and playing hard the DCs go up.
3: You're going to get different answers from different people.
All that said I'll start with my view of the complex answer:
In English (not sure if carries to other languages) we have the aphorism: take your ball and go home. The saying describes, and generally mocks, the tendency of some people if things aren't going their way to just quit the activity. And while the extreme form of it gets made fun of, it also generally fits with our normal cultural paradigm: if a person isn't enjoying something, they shouldn't be doing it.
On top of that, we also have more of an acceptance of gloating over victories. So killers keeping survivors stuck in game various types of BM (Bad Manners) are more likely to occur.
This leads to two things coming together: there is less pressure on a survivor to stick out an experience they aren't enjoying, with the knowledge if they do the killer might gloat over their victory keeping them stuck and making it even worse. (same issue goes to the killer side).
Now, the simpler explanation:
Why do people who DC in Japan? It's probably the same reason here, its just such people are more common.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
Not to defend this, but wasn’t this known already?
They were suppossed to have changed it in patch 8.7.2:
Changed the match outcome for the following scenario to count as a loss for the Survivor (was a draw):Survivor abandons the match while all remaining Survivors are in the Dying state.
-
The way BHVR has approached abandons has been so confusing and illogical. Pro or con on the idea, no one was arguing that abandons should be anything but a loss. The back and forth on this from BHVR has been so silly for a simple topic - if you abandon, its the same as a death.
@Nazzzak said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4016935#Comment_4016935
Yes, this was a topic of discussion that happened shortly after the site opened. We know from the devs that hatch is considered null and doesn't affect official escape rates, yet it counts in personal ones. Whether that was intentional or not hasn't been confirmed, but abandons obviously are a whole different story.
We know from the devs that hatch is considered null and doesn't affect official escape ratesDo we? I know it doesn't count as MMR, but I didn't think they ever clarified whether the escape rate stats they release count hatch or not, but maybe I missed it.
-
@Kopania said:
Have the same problem from around 2 hours. I'm trying to fix this.
There's nothing for you to fix. Amazon Web Services is down, took out a lot of things, though they look to be coming back up now (hopefully)
-
@random1543 said:
adding here but seems to be a global issue no dbd related, other apps such as RING cameras are also down
Amazon Web Services is down and they host a lot of stuff worldwide.
-
I think its a combination of factors
1: The data was excluding low scoring games. I'm not sure exactly what their line is here, but the worst soloq experiences might be excluded from the data set.
2: SWFs aren't automatically strong. A group of friends playing together is going to be hampered if one of them is much weaker than the others.
3: It showing MMR actually working. If a group of players are a skill of 5 of 10, and they become a 6 of 10 when playing together, eventually MMR will match them at the 6 level, balancing it out. It only is at the extreme this would get out of whack.
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4016144#Comment_4016144
And it’s how it's supposed to work, but it doesn't mean they deserve handholding and turn of their mistakes as punishment for killer if they decide to capitalize it.
What is handholding though? Are hook states being visible to killers now handholding? I personally think it is because you can be more braindead and keep track of nothing, yet everyone has been fairly silent about it. Is basekit BT handholding or are we just used to it now and think it's fine? Because basekit DS would be similar. It would be a simple and small semi-solution, and not an unbeatable one, because you can still catch the person again if you want to commit to them, and they still have to manage the skill check. Even as is, four people running it doesn't keep a killer from winning, it just extends chases.
Tunnelling is about capitalising mistakes. Solo Q just tends to make mistakes more and they are less forgiving.
This is a view I don't agree with, the concept of mistakes and how to take advantage of them. For one, it's hard for survivors to know what a mistake even is until they have a lot of hours because the game doesn't tell them anything. But if I'm on hook and a random unhooks me in the killer's face and now I'm getting tunneled, it wasn't my mistake, but I'm going to pay for it. When I play killer I recognize that a team is four individuals that might not be in sync and that they probably aren't talking. That's why I try not to punish the wrong people. The person who did the unhook learns nothing because soloq is selfish and they probably don't care much that they set someone else up to die. They probably won't even realize it was their fault. And there doesn't even need to be a mistake. A Ghoul could be engaged in a chase on the other side of the map and then dead stop after hearing an unhook to hurl himself over for the tunnel.
You don't need to be a fantastic player to avoid or try to counterplay stuff like tunnelling.
A survivor has to be good at looping and pathing to outdo a tunneler, so that's skill and knowledge. The RNG also matters there, in regards to hook and tile placement.
The issue is also that one mistake from one survivor can blow a match, even though they're one quarter of a whole. Yet as killer, when I'm 100% of a role, I make endless mistakes and I can still win. Even beyond tunneling, I can get no hooks and get a 4k in end game. That has never felt fair to me, even when I'm the one doing the winning. Much of this game has to do not with skill or mistakes, but luck--mostly it's good luck for killers and bad luck for survivors.
I'm tired of saying this but I don't think the patch should have gone through as it was. They should have started with some smaller aspect, like the 90s recovery, and went from there. The dead ptb is just that: dead. New ideas need discussing.
Do you like it or not, but their showcases have more validity for consideration because they at least try to manage balancing in custom while ordinary matches can’t do this more cleanly.
As I said above and I've said many times, I will never be convinced that the game should be balanced around how its upper 5% perform and everyone else should just accept that.
“But I can play without it”
And I can play with it as a survivor. Wow. So who is right?
My point is not that some survivors can't play around tunneling, it's that many killers have openly said they can't win without it even though they could if they tried. It's a refusal to grow and change. Some people have crutched on tunneling so hard that they can't fathom learning to live without it. It's holding them back from any sort of true skill.
I think you are correct on handholding and mistakes.
Handholding: I remember when I first started playing the game how surprised I was by all the info the killer got. Gens, hooks, doors, while the survivor didn't get any of it.
And the killer should get all that info. BHVR could design the game with the expectation that killers will memorize hook locations during the match. They could nerf all aspects of survivors to balance it out as well.
Except, it wouldn't be a very fun game. The question shouldn't be about handholding, because there are all sorts of examples on things the game makes easier than it has to, but whether the result leads to a better game.
Mistakes: Making a mistake should harm the side that makes it, but there has to be a sense of having an appropriate level of penalty per mistake.
An example would be something like Huntress missing a Hatchet. A mistake, absolutely that should increase the survivors chance of winning. Should she then be stunned for 20 seconds? No, that would be very silly. Just because something is a mistake doesn't mean a side deserves to lose a match for it.
And that's why I liked a lot of concepts if not necessarily the full execution of the PTB - losing a survivor early would still be punishing survivor mistakes, but not completely game deciding.
As I said above and I've said many times, I will never be convinced that the game should be balanced around how its upper 5% perform and everyone else should just accept that.The funny thing is that its not even 5%. We're talking like a fraction of 1% who are playing under a totally different rules structure that gives benefits to both the survivors and the killers that don't exist in the public version.
-
@Nazzzak said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4016102#Comment_4016102
Re Skull Merchant, this came up last time we got stats and the devs confirmed they could differentiate the kills that happened because someone let go on hook
I think it might be that only really good killer players are playing Skull Merchant. Kind of like a challenge mode.
-
@Raccoon said:
47 more posts to 300.
We missed the countdown to 400.
-
@ImWinston said:
- I've been following Japanese DBD content creators for a long time. Here are the differences I've noticed in the Japanese way of playing:
- Killers generally have a slightly lower skill level than the European level (I play on European servers)
- Killers have a lower tendency to "hard tunnel"
- Survivors are extremely "autonomous" during the game and seek help from others as little as possible (in fact "self-care" is one of the most used perks in Japan)
- Survivors, before the generators are complete, are very unaltruistic. So you'll rarely see saves with flashlights or Sabo builds, or even just bodyblocks. However, once the generators are complete (unlike on European servers), they are super altruistic and will even attempt the most difficult and risky saves.
Edit: I don't want to offend or praise anyone with my observations, they are simply general considerations on the way to play.
However, once the generators are complete (unlike on European servers), they are super altruistic and will even attempt the most difficult and risky saves.Is that how the Europe servers go? That's interesting. Survivors can be suicidality altruistic on the US servers, trying to get unhooks that are virtually impossible.
I watched a bunch of Asian streamers a few years back. Then I was surprised by how un-altruistic things seemed after gens were completed, with survivors sometimes leaving immediately after opening the door despite others still being in the trial, which rarely happens in the US. Maybe things have changed in those years or maybe my watching of multiple Asian streamers was the difference instead of just Japan.
-
@ranbuta said:
I am Japanese. Thank you for your interest. If you have any other translation assistance needs or questions about the Japanese play environment, I can answer them. (However, I'm not very good at English, so I'm using DeepL translation.)
The Killer usage rates for parks ranked 6th or lower are as follows:Japan
6. Deadlock
7. Corrupt Intervention
8. Lethal Pursuer
9. NOED
10. Brutal StrengthWorldwide
6. Bamboozle
7. Barbecue & Chilli
8. deadlock
9. Corrupt Intervention
10. NOEDThank you, very much appreciated.
-
@Rokku_Rorru said:
Do the worldwide statistics include the Japan results? I imagine the earlier results they showed included Japan surely
It'd probably be better to show escape rates per region, rather than comparing it to "the world"I don't think they include the answer. I'm also not sure it would be statistically significant whether the numbers from Japan where included in the world beyond potentially which direction the number rounds.
I've always been interested in comparing various regions. This was cool to see and I'd like it if they actually broke it down around the world.
-
Interesting data.
4 persons are pretty much the exact same, but trios and duos especially are more common in the rest of the world.
And even though 4 randoms is more common, they still have an escape rate that is higher. Not shocking given the differing metas.
It does look the world kill rate has dropped a few points since last they gave us data.
For those who are interested, there's a full page of info if you want to do some translations (edit: I went ahead and did a post on it myself because there was quite a bit)
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015879#Comment_4015879
I can’t quote out personal messages, so go to reread this again in DM, mr “quote me”.
And you decide to send me a screenshot in which I remark to you that the anti-tunnel changes aren't driven by balancing concerns.
THAT is your proof for me saying 'I don't care about balance'?
Why I should listen person who bring emotional regards of anti tunnel PTB
Because like it or not, the reason people want anti-tunnel in the game is because of sentiment.
under the post about balancing considerations
Your post scrapped the entire concept. That's not 'balancing considerations', that's rejecting the entirety of the PTB. And with your suggestion increasing the likelihood of tunnelling, it's also rejecting the reason people want anti-tunnel. You're just off in your own world and refuse to let anyone tell you that your idea wouldn't work.
Then cheaply trying to argue with this balancing, and when I asked you about proofs of your “this incentives is good enough” “nothing was actually problematic”,
Wow, neither of those were things I ever actually said, again. It's almost like you're strawmanning. Like you're fighting out some, I don't know, grudge, maybe?
Listen. If people despise concept from the start, it doesn’t mean they didn’t try PTB and can’t provide feedback.
The problem is that you disqualify your own feedback. You have already declared that your feedback will -always- be negative because you are fundamentally opposed to the idea of 'anti-anything'.
That is the problem. Your feedback will always come from a position of wanting this patch to fail. Same with CoffeeCrashing. That taints your feedback and in many cases makes it unworkable.
You want to talk about balance, let me illustrate the point this way: Even if the changes were balanced in such a way that we saw an across-the-board bump in kill rates, you would still be opposed to them on the basis that it rejects tunnelling. You will always oversell the drawbacks and undersell the advantages because you want that PTB to fail.
For example, you claimed the incentives weren't impactful, which is pretty unreasonable to try and argue when one of the top 10 most picked killer perks was basekitted in its entirety, on top of two more benefits. That is impactful. You are not going to convince anyone that, in the current state of the game, it doesn't make a difference to have Pop Goes The Weasel equipped rather than an empty slot. Everyone swears by that perk, and they have good reason to. You can't then claim that getting that entire perk for free and opening up an extra perk slot isn't 'impactful'.
Your desire to see this patch fail has you calling Pop Goes the Weasel, a perk many killers say they feel forced to run, 'not impactful'.
That is the way your resentment towards the very concept of anti-tunnel is tainting your feedback.
So how exactly is anyone supposed to take that kind of feedback seriously?
And that was the majority of the feedback, because the idea of a repair speed boost for low hook count kill was also derided as being 'too strong' before the percentage was even shown.
People that fielded these kinds of arguments want the patch to fail, so why would their feedback not work towards that goal?
Do you really expect people being able to dispute with you in normal way when the initial ground of discussion is that low?
Do you not realise that you have that exact problem? You reject the premise of anti-tunnel and then expect everyone to agree with that in any ensuing discussion.
When talking about how to reduce tunnelling, the feedback of someone who does not want tunnelling to be reduced in any way, shape, or form, is not going to be meaningful. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. You can argue about whether tunnelling should be reduced, but you can do that in a separate thread. Not in any discussion (or PTB, for that matter) that is focused on making anti-tunnel work.
you claimed the incentives weren't impactful, which is pretty unreasonable to try and argue when one of the top 10 most picked killer perks was basekitted in its entirety, on top of two more benefits. That is impactful. You are not going to convince anyone that, in the current state of the game, it doesn't make a difference to have Pop Goes The Weasel equipped rather than an empty slot. Everyone swears by that perk, and they have good reason to. You can't then claim that getting that entire perk for free and opening up an extra perk slot isn't 'impactful'.Of all the takes that have come out of PTBs, the idea that the killer incentives didn't have an impact, was certainly one of them (I'm tempted to say the wildest, but we've had some doozies).
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015683#Comment_4015683
Waiting would have included a cost, because the amount of negative feedback was reaching critical mass. The early revert announcement absolutely was damage control.
So we're on marketing now?
You keep trying to find some way to show that the decision that BHVR made was correct based on some element that only they and they alone know. Some of those have been disproven but you just move onto the next without any recognition of your prior framing being incorrect.
I had a longer post in mind, but being we keep shifting arguments I'll just stay with a BHVR quote from farther back on how they should heave approached this:
Ultimately, nobody can say for sure how people are going to feel about something until it's actually out there. Not even us. We would much rather test things and get feedback than be too scared to touch anything and constantly wonder, "What if?"@Peanits said:
I respect the theory, but I assure you there's nowhere near as much scheming going on as you might think. I would love nothing more than to announce some changes and celebrate with people as they say, "Wow, this is perfect!" from the get-go. Obviously that's easier said than done with an asym game, but we try our best.
In reality, we just aren't afraid to try bold things. The PTB exists for a reason. We can try these things out and see how people feel. If it's not popular; that's fine, we can change it before it goes live. We've gotten a lot better at this as time has gone on. There's a lot more knobs and switches we can fiddle with behind the scenes to make these changes a lot quicker than before, making it less risky to try. Basically, be bold, but be receptive.
Ultimately, nobody can say for sure how people are going to feel about something until it's actually out there. Not even us. We would much rather test things and get feedback than be too scared to touch anything and constantly wonder, "What if?"
BHVR will now always be in the position of What If. They tried a bold thing, but didn't give it the time to get the feedback they needed, and now they are in the position of 'What If'.
-
@Shroompy said:
At least for things like map changes/new maps, character and perk changes, and new mechanics. We know they can change/modify a character and maps on 2 different gamemodes thanks to 2v8.
Having the entire playerbase be able to test out changes like these rather than just Steam players would help a tone with feedback and you can even add BP incentives to encourage people to test out these changes.
@tes mentioned this above, but I'm pretty sure BHVR has said it would require the game to be twice as large because they are different engine versions. I have to make a new download for the PTB if I want to play it on Steam.
There's also the issue that they need to certify their updates with the consoles in a way that they don't with Steam, which means the update would need to go in awhile before the PTB, meaning the version players are testing might have substantial differences.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015662#Comment_4015662
Ok. How let's try a new scenario. Let's say the PTB was extended so that it lasted 2 weeks, so BHVR could gather extra data. If BHVR announced the phase 2 revert after 2 weeks of PTB data collection, would would have supported it as a valid decision?
If BHVR announced the phase 2 revert after 2 weeks of PTB data collection, would would have supported it as a valid decision?It would have certainly been a more informed decision.
There's no such thing as a valid decision. There's no number, no yes/no, that you can look at to determine the direction of the game. All game design decisions are subjective actions that try to anticipate the shifting desires of a large player base. Given this difficulty designers should strive to gather as much meaningful feedback as possible, especially given their goal of coming back to this idea.
On a personal level I may or may not agree with the decision they make, just as every individual player will have differing levels of feelings toward every decision BHVR makes.
But for their stated purpose of gathering feedback, and with how they announced the not going forward, they missed the opportunity to get feedback from more players and see how opinion stood after more testing - and it would have cost them absolutely nothing.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015626#Comment_4015626
If BHVR announced the phase 2 revert, a full week after the PTB closed, would you have considered it to be a valid decision? Or would you have demanded the phase 2 changes go live, so that more people could test them?
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015628#Comment_4015628
That speech should be directed to both sides of the game.
People are complaining that killer nerfs got reverted due to killer complaints, but also think it's fine when survivor nerfs get reverted due to survivor complaints.
If BHVR announced the phase 2 revert, a full week after the PTB closed, would you have considered it to be a valid decision? Or would you have demanded the phase 2 changes go live, so that more people could test them?So is this the new argument now?
In this case its actually a repeat. We did this two days ago. I gave you four possible ways running the PTB longer would have benefited BHVR from getting more info and the community as a whole.
You then got into the representative sample nonsense, which led to you arguing about the data BHVR has, which led to me quoting BHVR, and now you've circled back.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015525#Comment_4015525
That is basically saying…
The feedback is more important than the actual PTB data, which means that when players create feedback, even though they didn't actually play on the PTB, that is completely valid.
It also means that changes can be made based on PTB feedback, even though the entire PTB hasn't happened, because the goal isn't to collect as much PTB data as possible.
So is this what is being moved onto?
All of your arguments about data that BHVR had were wrong. I explained why logically it was impossible and I even showed you BHVR saying the same thing despite your claim that the player base would remember something like that forever.
Now you are discussing feedback. For two pages I've been highlighting how BHVR harmed themselves by not giving the PTB more time to gather feedback.
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015618#Comment_4015618
Ok, let’s discuss what actually is happening here. There was a massive massive amount of negative feedback about the PTB, and BHVR reacted to that feedback.
And now we have a group of people that want all of that feedback to be ignored, and want PTB feedback to be declared as invalid for major balance decisions.
The actual compromise is for major changes to be tested in PTBs that are completely separate from patch releases. And BHVR would very clearly tell us these PTBs are only for feedback gathering, and there is zero guarantee that anything on these PTBs will ever reach live.
Having major changes on PTBs, that are connected to patch releases, is an issue for both sides of the game. Because one side will be in a panic to try to get the changes cancelled before they reach live, and that other side will be entitled and feel like the changes should happen just because they existed on a PTB.
And now we have a group of people that want all of that feedback to be ignored, and want PTB feedback to be declared as invalid for major balance decisions.No one is saying that.
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015525#Comment_4015525
Oh interesting, so the data is useless. It actually is just crying and screaming from a select few that make things happen.
Pretty much.
BHVR has never pretended the PTB was an excellent means of testing changes (so the assertions in this thread from some have been rather surprising). It has significant, and obvious, limitations and is meant to serve a few key purposes, but not an overall reflection of the change. Those problems are unavoidable, especially given how tight BHVR keeps their release schedule. With the anti-tunnel PTB I think they compounded the already existing problems with how they approached it.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015515#Comment_4015515
It's also absurd to suggest that the PTB could function, if it wasn't considered a representative sample.
If BHVR ever said the PTB wasn't a representative sample, then the players would remember that forever, and would constantly complain about PTB-to-live changes not being valid, because the PTB wasn't representative enough.
Your viewpoint isn't realistic. The PTB has always been considered representative enough to make game decisions, and it doesn't matter if you like it or not.
If BHVR ever said the PTB wasn't a representative sample, then the players would remember that forever, and would constantly complain about PTB-to-live changes not being valid, because the PTB wasn't representative enough.@Peanits said:
To be very clear, PTB data is pretty much a non-factor. PTB data is incredibly unreliable since ranked matchmaking is disabled and everyone is still getting a feel for the changes/new content. We do not use PTB data to make decisions, we prefer to use feedback.
It's also incredibly difficult to pinpoint why someone let themselves die on the PTB. It's equally likely that they just wanted to face the new Killer and wanted to move on to the next match.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015507#Comment_4015507
Was the PTB turned off immediately after the revert announcement?
Because I thought the PTB was still available after that, and BHVR was still gathering data and info for the rest of the PTB?
Coming off the mistakes on the sample being representative, its absurd to suggest that you can get meaningful data about an idea after telling people that it isn't going to happen.
-
It would be helpful, but I worry there are two things that might make it not happen:
1: I'm not sure the playerbase is large enough to support two successful games. While lots of people play DbD, the numbers are nothing like the successful hero shooters get. This means a competitor might just supplant DbD, and then that game would have the problem of no competition.
2: The hero shooter genre is pretty well defined. Overwatch, Marvel Rivals, Paladins, even failures like Concord all rely on a similar game design. Asyms tend to be very different from each other, so even if there was another successful asym, it might not be competing with BHVR for the same playerbase.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015482#Comment_4015482
Why do you think console killers would be more likely to accept the phase 2 changes, than the Steam killers? Why do you think the console killers would handle the phase 2 changes, better then the Steam killers?
What exactly was your thought process? That if the PTB changes went live, a bunch of console survivor players would have given the changes a thumbs up, and that would have convinced BHVR to keep the changes?
Why do you think console killers would be more likely to accept the phase 2 changes, than the Steam killers?Why do you ignore that consoles were only one part of the player base not sampled and that a PTB, especially in its first few days, is overwhelmingly sampling from a very small, not representative, group of the player base?
I specifically pointed out this error on the post you are replying to and you still just keep talking about it like I made a huge argument about console killers.
Why do you think the console killers would handle the phase 2 changes, better then the Steam killers?Because I've never agreed the Steam feedback was nearly as bad you make it out to be. I'm primarily pointing out that your definition of representative is factually wrong (and not just for consoles, far more for the self selective nature especially given the limited time frame).
That if the PTB changes went live, a bunch of console survivor players would have given the changes a thumbs up, and that would have convinced BHVR to keep the changes?You are the one who seems to keep insisting that the only options were 'don't do it' or 'do it exactly as it was on the PTB'.
Here are the broad possibilities from continuing to run the PTB
1: People play it more, realize the knee jerk reactions where wrong, and then it goes live with minimal changes
2: People play it more, identify what the clear pain points are, and those get adjusted post PTB.
3: People play it more, identify things that absolutely cannot work, and BHVR now has more feedback for the change they are going to make.
4: People play it more, more people agree it can't work, and the idea gets canned entirely instead of still being planned to come back
BHVR's stance is that this idea is coming back. Now unless they aren't just outright lying to us, not gathering as much info and feedback as possible, especially from the players who don't have time to test things the moment they come out, was a massive error on BHVR's part.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015239#Comment_4015239
The representative sample was fine. Again, people don't need to actually play on the PTB to make an opinion, and many of the console players mind up their minds when they watched their favorite streamer, or read about the changes on their favorite social media choice. People like to take about “proof” or “testing things out themselves”, but the reality is most people don’t care about that. Most people are going off of vibes and feelings, and they decided how they felt about the PTB regardless if they played it themselves.
Also, your scenario doesn't even work. Even if there was a lot of console players that wanted to "wait and see", the Steam players that already decided to boycott killer, still would have boycotted killer on launch day, which still would have caused a financial disaster. And the Steam players did have the weekend to test the changes because the PTB was still up, so if they really wanted to, they could have tried the changes and then posted their feelings online, on whether or not they agreed with the revert decision.
And if the PTB changes went live, I literally would have boycotted playing killer. I wouldn’t have cared how the console players felt about the changes, and I would have refused to “try to adapt” to it. And many other people would have done the same. “Try to adapt” only works if people are willing to still play as killer.
You're also ignoring the fact that BHVR has access to way more stats then we do, and actually knows the average kill rate for this PTB, and the average kill rates for the other PTBs. I’m still claiming the kill rates were extremely low on this PTB, enough to be a problem. And no, I don’t need to prove this. If you honestly think the kill rates were around the same, then you obviously weren’t watching various streamers try the PTB, to see how they handled the changes. And really, watching a lot of other people play the PTB can be more important than trying the changes yourself, because it’s showing how different people, with different playstyles, are handling the changes.
The representative sample was fine. Again, people don't need to actually play on the PTB to make an opinion, and many of the console players mind up their minds when they watched their favorite streamer, or read about the changes on their favorite social media choice.In my last post I said you went from saying they had a representative sample to saying that it didn't matter.
In the first paragraph of the reply that's what you say again, you just use more words.
Also, your scenario doesn't even work. Even if there was a lot of console players that wanted to "wait and see"On consoles you leave out the second part of my reply:
is heavily weighted towards the players who play the game the most.The PTB is sampling only a small section of the player base. It's not even close to representative. That's not an opinion issue, you're just wrong.
And if the PTB changes went live, I literally would have boycotted playing killer. I wouldn’t have cared how the console players felt about the changes, and I would have refused to “try to adapt” to it. And many other people would have done the same.Any change will make some players stop playing the game. That's an inevitable part of change. Many people are boycotting survivor until the changes come through, neither group though is statistically significant.
If we were using the forums as our sample right now, then you would be in the substantial minority. People who disagree tend to be the loudest, that's why when they stopped the changes the forums erupted on the other side.
You're also ignoring the fact that BHVR has access to way more stats then we do, and actually knows the average kill rate for this PTB, and the average kill rates for the other PTBs.As I said earlier, if you're going to take this stance, then BHVR must always be correct because BHVR always has more data than us.
If you honestly think the kill rates were around the same, then you obviously weren’t watching various streamers try the PTB, to see how they handled the changes.I think you're confusing me with others, but a number of points on this:
1: The pallet change at the same time
2: Players intentionally trying to either trigger the system and play with it or avoiding it at all costs
3: That the anti-tunnel changes were meant to hit many of these players
4: In terms of data we don't have, we don't have the kill rates or know if they might be elevated over where BHVR wants them
5: That the PTB could have been adjusted before release
6: That killers could have been adjusted post release if kill rates drops
7: And of course, adapting to the change (a good example would be the time it took for old, old dead hard to go from meta, to unused, back to meta)
-
I don't think its necessary to slot it into a single category. It's a game with a lot of randomness where every trial is its own unique experience: whether you want to approach it with a 'neat, cool' mindset or 'maximize everything!' is really up to the player.
@ArkInk said:
Nobody really knows. It was designed to emulate a playable horror movie, and has changed priorities so much over the years it's kinda impossible to call it a wholly casually game. Still, it's also insane to categorize it as a comp title imo.
There is and always has been such a massive difference in the power dynamic depending on the killer, map, perks, addons, etc. that regardless of you or your opponents skill level, your chances of winning the match can change wildly before it even starts.
That makes it very different from a game like Chess where there's always an even playing field before the match starts, and even unlike a more modern example like Overwatch where the maps tend to be more neutral and the characters are swapped on the fly to encourage adaptability. A DBD match is stuck with it's imbalance and it's up to the side handed the short end of the stick to beat the odds. This happens in pretty much every asym game and I'd wager it's why they don't tend to get taken seriously competitively most of the time.
On the other side of the token though, who on earth analyzes a casual game to this level? Tier lists, strategy guides, patch notes, concept pitches. There exists hundreds of thousands of hours analyzing DBD because every second in a high level DBD match matters. You can't say that about Mario Party.
A DBD match is stuck with it's imbalance and it's up to the side handed the short end of the stick to beat the odds. This happens in pretty much every asym game and I'd wager it's why they don't tend to get taken seriously competitively most of the time.That's a pretty accurate description.
I tend to think of DbD as like a card game instead of a game like chess. Card games still have a lot of skill, but also huge amounts of randomness that players have to deal with in game. Sometimes you get great cards, sometimes really bad cards, but its about making the best of the hands you get. In DbD sometimes you get a map / setup that favors you, sometimes its a really hard situation, but the key is in trying to make the best of what you have.
-
@CorvidXCVIII said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014919#Comment_4014919
Yeah, of course I meant the only downside of it if properly implemented, otherwise every discussion about changes would be pointless because "it's BHVR, they'll break something else".
Valid point re. how much of an impact a change like this would actually have. Maybe it would make survivors just leave sooner because they know the killer could abandon, maybe it would lead to more cocky survivors getting killed because they had to 99 to BM instead of wait in almost absolute safety or, in the same vein, it would change the discussion and shift the goalposts to "killer should be able to abandon when the gates are powered" and so on.
As I said in my last comment, the more I think about abandons in general, the less I like them but the floodgates have opened and discussions like these aren't going to go away.
Yeah, of course I meant the only downside of it if properly implemented, otherwise every discussion about changes would be pointless because "it's BHVR, they'll break something else".Its not just bugs, though those are a worry, but any additions will always take time to put into the game. That's time that can't be spent on other issues. When topics like these come up its not just an issue of 'what would be the downside' but 'is there enough upside to justify doing it?'
As I said in my last comment, the more I think about abandons in general, the less I like them but the floodgates have opened and discussions like these aren't going to go away.Maybe, but whether people will keep bringing something up in a discussion forum or not doesn't seem to be that huge of an issue.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015118#Comment_4015118
When people say "force survivors to play matches they don't want to play", they are usually claiming that the ragequitting penalties "force" survivors to play matches they don't want to play. That implies they don't think the ragequitting penalties should exist, because they think survivors should be allowed to ragequit without penalties, if they don't want to play a game.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015129#Comment_4015129
Do you ever have proof of your conspiracy theories? What is your proof that the game would have been fine if the phase 2 changes went live? What is your proof that BHVR didn't have a really good reason to revert the phase 2 changes?
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4015120#Comment_4015120
There was so much backlash from the PTB, that it literally doesn't matter if the console players tested it themselves. Most people don't even want to bother with the PTB, and instead they would rather watch their favorite streamer play the PTB, or just read about the changes on their favorite social media choice.
Yes, a lot of people made up their minds about the PTB, even though they never played the PTB. That's how this game works.
So you've gone from saying that BHVR had a representative sample, to after being shown how that was wrong, now arguing that a representative sample doesn't matter.
I'm not going to follow you down the rabbit hole of constantly changing arguments.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014913#Comment_4014913
Survivors refused to adapt to the AFK crows, and instead insisted they should be able to play exactly like they’ve always played, which caused the AFK crows to be nerfed into uselessness.
And I don’t remember seeing you complaining that the survivors should have “adapted” to the AFK crows, and I don’t remember seeing you complaining that the AFK crows wait longer before determining if any nerfs should happen.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014916#Comment_4014916
They had time to gather data. It’s called a representative sample. You should have learned that concept in school.
BHVR had enough data to know the new chapter would have been a complete disaster if the phase 2 changes went live. Many killers would have boycotted, and the chapter sales would have tanked into the ground.
The phase 2 changes were toxic to the game, because many people would have just stopped playing killer for reals. And we know this is an actual possible scenario, because it literally happened when MMR went live, back when matchmaking was very overtuned. A lot of players just stopped playing killer, and the survivor queue times were absolutely awful.
They had time to gather data. It’s called a representative sample. You should have learned that concept in school.You must really know you're losing this argument if you are turning to insults.
1: If we're talking stats, more data, a larger sample size, is always better. Accidentally or intentionally going for a low sample size is a good way to get a bad data set.
2: A representative sample would actually need to be reflective of the the entire population set being tested. The PTB is never that as it only tests one group (Steam players) and is heavily weighted towards the players who play the game the most. In this case it was even more extreme as they didn't even get to the weekend.
Just because you can possibly test a large group based on a small sample does not mean a small sample is inherently representative of the large sample.
3: None of your argument deals with the point of adjustment. That's not even a stats argument and you are misapplying concepts.
Your argument is also inherently self defeating. If you're saying that after a few days BHVR had enough data to know they where making the right change, than basically any change they've ever made must be correct because they've always that level of data.
-
@CorvidXCVIII said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014884#Comment_4014884
>Because the "likelihood of losing" is very different, and in some cases highly subjective.
Absolutely. Sometimes a killer can pull off a comeback, sometimes survivors can too but it requires either teamwork or a perk being in play but that's also sidestepping the point.
>There have been posts about this before, with people unironically asking for "killer would be able to abandon if a gen is completed before a hook". Or just simply "the killer should be able to dc without penalty at any time for any reason"
Oh I don't doubt it, but I haven't made those points, I wouldn't because that's too far in the opposite direction re. what is or isn't fair game for abandoning.
The point is if a player is in a situation in which they feel they have absolutely lost the game and the only thing left is either bleeding out, watching an animation or in the case being discussed, watching other people walk out the door, is there really any harm in conceding?
The only issue I can actually see coming from this is whether or not it counts as an escape for the survivor.
The only issue I can actually see coming from this is whether or not it counts as an escape for the survivor.Things don't go into a game without work.
If we could snap our fingers and just make it happen, sure. But anything that goes in needs to be coded, tested, and, especially knowing BHVR, opens up a huge possibility for bugs.
So how much good does it do to add an abandon system where the survivors could easily circumvent it if they want to BM and the killer currently has a way to minimize the problem? To me, if I actually knew how long it would take for BHVR to code, if it was anything more than an extremely minimal amount of time I'd think it would just be a waste.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014892#Comment_4014892
The point is people keep bringing up the fact that the changes were reverted so early, as if that actually mattered.
I’m claiming that it wouldn’t have mattered if the changes got reverted after a few PTB days, or if the changes got reverted one month after they had gone live, that the same people still would have complained about it, and the same people would have said it’s unfair.
I’m claiming that it wouldn’t have mattered if the changes got reverted after a few PTB days, or if the changes got reverted one month after they had gone live, that the same people still would have complained about it, and the same people would have said it’s unfair.The thing you miss is that even in that extreme scenario, they might still be correct (though the 'same people' is overall a strawman)
As an example: BHVR has moved on from the days of dark atmospheres and stealth gameplay. Some people on here think they were wrong. It's impossible to know for certain what would have happened if they hadn't changed their mindsets as its a counterfactual argument.
As another example: you frequently complain about them heavily reverting the AFK crows mechanic. The fact that they reverted a substantial portion of it by itself doesn't make you right or wrong in what you wanted changed or whether the first approach was best for the game.
But if they had kept going with the PTB here's some things that would have happened:
1: People would have had more time try out different playstyles to see how much impact the changes had
2: BHVR would have gotten more feedback to make a decision on how to modify their approach
3: If it had conclusively proven a failure to the whole community, like happened with the first try of anti-slug / auto mori, then we wouldn't be wasting time on this topic and could move onto others
4: If it has conclusively proven to actually work, we could have implemented it, then we wouldn't wasting time on this topic and could move onto others.
BHVR went for a big change, they invested a lot of time into the idea, walking it back so quickly before they were able to gather necessary data is a foolish waste of time.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014841#Comment_4014841
Actual real question. If BHVR released the entire phase 2 PTB to the live servers, then 4 weeks later realized it was a complete disaster, and completely reverted the entire phase 2, would you have been happy?
Would you have said "well, BHVR really gave phase 2 enough time for people to properly test it, and properly give feedback, and the fact that it's getting completely reverted after 4 weeks of being live, is proof that phase 2 had major problems and deserved to be completely reverted"???????
If BHVR has released the entire phase 2 to live servers, and after 4 weeks people adjusted to it and realized it was a fantastic game update, would you have been happy?
Your 'real question' has a silly premise - if you could know the future result of something with certainty and that it would fail, than obviously you wouldn't take the same course of action. But we don't know the future, and people rarely have a uniform opinion over whether something is good or bad for the game, which means you can't draw such simple absolute scenarios.
-
@THE_Crazy_Hyena said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014626#Comment_4014626
The last time survivor complaints hit critical mass, was when the healing times got massively increased. And if you remember correctly, BHVR ended up reverting the healing times for altruistic healing.
That was in Patch 6.7.2 - Only self-healing got affected by the changes, not altruistic healing. And looping back to the discussion from yesterday, you are once again derailing the topic.
You can just observe the 6000+ hour streamers, that usually just stomp over the vast majority of their PTB games, that were having severely reduced kill rates.
You know that new stuff takes some games to adjust to, right?
No one is going to be instantly proficient on a new killer, or a completely reworked one.Like seriously, of course the kill rates are going to go way down. The incentives were absolutely terrible. Do you really think nerfed BBQ, that was easily dodged, and often showed 0 survivors, was really going to help killers spread hooks?
I on my hand had zero issues with the incentives. Granted the BBQ effect could have lasted a tad longer, but the added gen-regression worked so well.
For reals, do you think killers camp, tunnel, and slug because they are hateful and spiteful towards survivors, or do you think they do these things because they are at severe game disadvantages if they avoid doing these things?
Like killer players always tell us survivor players. "Why don't you just adapt?"
Apply more pressure, and force the survivors off of the gens, instead of trying to chase down someone you know you are going to waste a lot of precious time with.
And do you think that we survivor players split up on gens because we want to gen-rush, or do you think we do this becuase we would be at a severe disadvantage if we grouped up on gens instead?
In short: If you want to keep on tunneling, we will answer with gen-splitting.Am I stuck in an alternate universe? Does anyone really REALLY think that the phase 2 changes wouldn't have severely lowered the kill rates, if it went live as it was?
Initially, it would have lowered the kill rates, because some killer players has artificially inflated their kill rates, thanks to how easy tunneling someone out really is.
But if killers were starting to really struggle, then those hardest affected would have received compensating buffs to be brought closer to the target percentage.
And the system could have been tweaked accordingly through the bug-fix patches.Why difference does it really make that it was a few days? You still would have whined and complained if they waited 3 weeks. And if the changes went live, and were reverted shortly afterwards, you would have extra triple whined and complained about that.
Why are you pretending that you would have been fine and accepting of the patch revert, if BHVR took longer before the announcement?
Well, for starters, the patch would have reached out to many more players, which would provide even more useful data, and valuable insight into how it should be properly balanced.
You know that new stuff takes some games to adjust to, right?No one is going to be instantly proficient on a new killer, or a completely reworked one.I do think this is a big point where BHVR really messed up by cancelling the PTB so quickly. It didn't give people time to adjust their playstyles or, for people who never tunneled, to be more successful as the new meta fit within their playstyle more naturally.
And it was just a misunderstanding of the extreme ends of the spectrum (the streamers with huge hour counts) and how much they would impact the overall numbers if they could no longer go on substantial win streaks.
It also was hampered by trying to do all of the pallet changes at the same time. I feel like if the choice had been anti-tunnel system or more pallets lots of killers would have taken the anti-tunnel.
-
I've always been a play intensely for a week or two, take a break, then play intensely again type of player, primarily around events. I also tend to wait for promised updates, right now I'm waiting for the anti-tunnel, until then it will be occasional killer and the events.
-
@chatgiraffe said:
Here's a scenario for you guys. Its the endgame collapse. The timer is ticking down. The last survivor(s) waiting at the very edge of the exit gate to Tbag. Why am I, The Killer, not allowed to Abandon the game in this situation?
It needs to be VERY clear that this is 100% just a BM/EGO thing for all survivors that do this. They will abandon the game the split second the last survivor hits the ground under the pretense of "oh well I just want to get to my next match faster" but this urgency to get out is nowhere to be seen when they're the ones winning.
BHVR has already implemented a feature where getting slugged too much in a match lets survivors ragequit, so we've obviously gone past the point of "erm! abandoning is only for when you cant do anything!!! you can still do stuff in EGC as the killer just try harder!!!" and is basically just "okay this match might be making you mad so here your BHVR-sanctioned gonext"
Bonus points if you can come up with an explanation that doesn't involve "I want the killer to force me to leave so they can see my tbagging"1: BHVR hasn't implemented bots for all the killers, so it just ends the match.
2: It's much harder to determine where to draw the line. You mention the survivors sitting on the edge of the exit gate. If they spend time to code that and survivors move a few meters back, its just a waste of coding time that doesn't accomplish anything and introduces more possible bugs.
I'm all for giving the killer the abandon option in this scenario, but it requires killer bots being able to take over and being able to come up with a circumstance that both delineates the game being over and wouldn't be easily circumvented or its just a waste of time.
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014254#Comment_4014254
I think this term gets thrown about far too liberally. I don't consider aggressive playing to be bullying. They're just confident, coordinated, and capable. I dont approach survivor like that but good for them.
And I think it's as you say, many killers want survivors to scatter in terror from them, not just defiantly stare at them.
My only issue with them is the ones who don't even try and win and are happy to intentionally stay at low MMR to bully new killers, but this is likely an incredibly rare occurrence.
This is the only thing I consider a bully squad. They're going for weak, new killers who don't understand how to deal with sabos, pallet saves, or flashlights. It's not bullying unless your victim is weaker than you.
I probably do come across these teams sometimes and they're simply so ineffectual that I don't even notice. Running Lightborn (and currently Weave and, sometimes, Forced Hesitation) makes these plays not just useless but detrimental, because I see them behind the rock with the Weave and the Hesitation slows them down for me to hit them.
I don't consider aggressive playing to be bullying.This is the only thing I consider a bully squad. They're going for weak, new killers who don't understand how to deal with sabos, pallet saves, or flashlights. It's not bullying unless your victim is weaker than you.Agree, though as I say on things like tunneling terminology is always going to be vague.
I probably do come across these teams sometimes and they're simply so ineffectual that I don't even notice. Running Lightborn (and currently Weave and, sometimes, Forced Hesitation) makes these plays not just useless but detrimental, because I see them behind the rock with the Weave and the Hesitation slows them down for me to hit them.It's interesting given that a frequent argument against tunneling is 'just run anti-tunnel' when there are so many varieties of ways that make bully squads not work. Even without perks certain killers will shut it down really quickly.
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014324#Comment_4014324
Yup, I'm similar. I played the game for about two years before I touched killer for the first time, mostly because of the anxiety.
But I enjoy it now mostly because I can at least mostly have some input about how fun the match is for everyone. I generally don't sweat, although if the survivors are going for a more serious game I'll step it up and give it my best.
But I think the biggest thing for me is that I don't get bent out of shape by losing a match. Maybe it's because of all the time I spent dying on survivor, or I just look at it differently: if the match gameplay is fun, I don't really care about the final scoreboard.
That whole "don't mind losing occasionally" is something that varies by person, and everyone gets fatigued by losing streaks, but some people do seem to get set off completely by one game out of dozens of wins.
I think for some people it's ego, some it's, like you said, over committing to the role. There are, thankfully few, but unfortunately more than zero, players who confuse "playing as your favorite emotionless psychopath" with "playing like your favorite emotionless psychopath".
And, still others, who take the power role too far and consider themselves to be in control of the devs also, which is where the "nice game, be a shame if anything happened to it" mentality seems to come from on here.
That whole "don't mind losing occasionally" is something that varies by person, and everyone gets fatigued by losing streaks, but some people do seem to get set off completely by one game out of dozens of wins.Or, more hilariously, the posts which are 'the game is survivor sided, look the survivors almost won!'
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014117#Comment_4014117
No, it's not a problem because killers don't care.
This is true for me. I couldn't care less about bully squads and I dont know who really does. Honestly, I wish I'd land one, but MMR doesn't seem to feed them to me anymore. I can't remember the last time I saw one. Bully squads are a noob problem.
But tunneling, I do care about. I see it every time I play survivor. It's more common, effects players throughout MMR levels, and is harder to deal with.
I couldn't care less about bully squads and I dont know who really does. Honestly, I wish I'd land one, but MMR doesn't seem to feed them to me anymore.I had one a little bit back (first game on killer in a while actually). Three survivors with flashlights, head on or background player, flashbangs, slow leaving lockers, etc. while the 4th did the gens.
It was fine. I get that some people feel like it breaks the 'immersion' of the killer role as survivors don't just run away, but in terms of game mechanics it has more elements to the gameplay.
I also 4ked with Sadako because only one person on gens gave me time to push until they made a mistake. Probably should have been just a 2k, but they went all out on a 4e.
Bully squads are a noob problem.My only issue with them is the ones who don't even try and win and are happy to intentionally stay at low MMR to bully new killers, but this is likely an incredibly rare occurrence.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4014097#Comment_4014097
And this is exactly what I’m talking about. If killers complain about bully squads, they get told it’s not a real problem.
And if killers complain about gen rushing, they get told it’s not a real problem.
The main theme is killer problems “aren’t real”, and BHVR shouldn’t spend time fixing them, and instead, all the time and effort should be spent on making the survivor experience better.
The forum is not made up of killers and survivors.
Whatever opinion you post, someone will disagree with it. That's normal. An individual disagrees with you.
People complain about tunneling. Someone will disagree and say its not a problem.
People complain about gen speeds. Someone will disagree and say its not a problem.
People complain about Nurse. Someone will disagree and say she's not a problem.
People about SWFs. Someone will disagree and say they aren't a problem.
That's how a discussion forum should work. Different people have different views that are usually pretty nuanced and people can't just be split into two camps. It just creates a strawman fallacy and no real discussion.
-
@Cassiopeiae said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4013722#Comment_4013722
I'm not sure, I'm not even sure if kills count the same as sacrifices. I only know abandon counts as a draw/hatch for the survivor in the situation you mentioned.
I thought that was supposed to have been chanegd in 8.7.2.
-
@UndeddJester said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4013027#Comment_4013027
An example of number 1 is stealth. Some people want a lot of stealth, some want little to none and instead a chase focused game. Neither desire is right or wrong, they are just different games.
That's reasonable, I suppose thats the crux of my personal philosophy for DBD lies. With 40 different killers in the game, you'd expect 40 different sets of strengths and weakness, and thus playstyles that require different approaches... the main point of my contention with the anti-tunnel changes is, what do we want killer design to look like? Do we want killers with unique strengths and abilities, like we used to have for old DBD? Or do we want every killer to have the same cookie cutter template like modern DBD? To take you're next point:
That's kind of where we are with anti-tunnel. Make it impossible (relatively easy to brute force in)? Make it harder (relatively easy again, just more basekit off of hook)? Make it a possibility, but less attractive (hard and seemingly what BHVR was trying to do)? If players disagree on that getting to the implementation question is going to mean they are talking past each other.
I think you're spot on, but I think there is still an issue with killer strength skewing the conversation, because for an m1 killer, those punishments are so harsh, they to me sit in the "Make it impossible" band for m1 killers. It's much more palletable as a "make it a possibility, but less attractive" if you're a top tier killer like Kaneki, Krasue, Blight, Wesker, Spirit, etc... However you can't afford penalties like that as a lower tier killer, where you often have to just take whatever you can get. If I get a player off hook be the one to trigger my trap and their unhooker doesn't come back to help them for me to m1... what do I do here? This isn't a strength issue... it's a concept issue. It's especially a problem when Survivor's can force your hand, such as getting unhooked and hovering near your totem or a nearly complete centeal gen, or sabotaging a hook, or baiting a Decisive Strike... I have to leave and let them do what they want off hook, or I have to eat a penalty... this again is conceptually a problem.
What I'm more arguing about it, is how do you impose such a hard set of rules, without placing a severe restriction on the designs of your killers? The answer is, you can't... Tunneling should not be the optimal strategy irrespective of the killer you play, that's an idea I can get behind... however in the same breathe, trying to impose such a hard set of rules to make it basically impossible to do regardles of context, inevitably is going to be incompatible with killers that deviate away from the enforced playstyle that the strongest killers are having those rules imposed for... m1 killers get stuffed by these changes even when not tunneling.
1: Balance is not the be all, end all, though it is really important. //...
2: BHVR's 60% KR doesn't add a lot of wiggle room on the overpowered side. //...
3: Hypothetically, they could address this by giving lower MMR monsters stronger high level addons than they do other killers. //...
I have no issue with your points here, they are all sound, however they do all feed back into my points above...
Even without the tunnel changes in place, you ask anyone what a killer needs for modern DBD, and the answer every time is they need mobility to keep up with the pace of the game... and thus becomes EVEN MORE important if severe tunnel penalties is a thing. This need to have this cookie cutter killer set of baseline abilities is already a problem now, and it's why every killer released over the last year all have some baked in mobility ability... can you imagine how much worse this issue gets if the afformentioned tunnel changes came in?
I play Pig, Trapper, Hag, Bubba, and there are a myriad of other off meta killers like Sadako, Pinhead, Skull Merchant 2.0, Artist, etc, that I enjoy because they offer something different to the fast paced norm of modern DBD, a more tactile element of the game that faster and stronger and killers don't have to pay attention to as much. I want to stress, I don't tunnel or camp (unless I have literally no other sensible options), and I often take lumps for doing so, but that's the area of the game I find the most interesting, where I gave to pay attention to what is going on in the trial.
I have wondered for a while if its fine to have weaker killers that dont scale vs. good survivors, as lowbies need to have killers to face too, and having killers deliberatey weak/strong to combat in particular hemispheres seems not.necessaroly a bad thing....
However the big concern I have though, is these killers often already have an uphill battle, even if you go balls to the wall meta and hard tunnelling... but when not tunneling, it's quite challenging handling the stark weaknesses these killers have... and it's why I ask the question above, how do you buff these killers in this new world order? They are fundamentally incompatible trying to play a game ruleset optimised for Blight, Kaneki, Spirit, Wraith, Wesker, etc... you would either have to make them all faster, or you would have to make them all very obnoxious, otherwise it's just pointless trying to play them... why put any time into a trying to fit a square peg in a round hole?
So instead of such a hard ruleset... I felt a more conservative approach that isn't such a hard ball slap is a better approach... because I honestly can't see how satisfying the condition of making a killer fun and fair can happen, when you're trying to insert changes that force a "fair Blight chase gameplay style", on a killer like Pig, without making Pig not Pig anymore... it just can't work that I can see…
Do we want killers with unique strengths and abilities, like we used to have for old DBD? Or do we want every killer to have the same cookie cutter template like modern DBD?We is always tough to get at, but I'd opt for more uniqueness, though I think that poses a lot of concerns.
1: One of the killer strengths, though less relevant to those of us who are involved with DbD in one form or another every day, is just survivors being uncertain of their powers. Twins is so rare that when I hear the telltale noises my brain takes a moment to remember what I'm facing.
For a wide range of the playerbase, this gives the killers an advantage where survivors lose critical time early going 'okay, I'm facing X, I should be doing Y'.
At a certain point though you get to a level where survivors have mapped out plans for every possible killer. Designing the game only around this extreme would be disastous for reasons we've both mentioned. So BHVR/we have a choice, unique killers with the idea that not all of them will hold up, or stay to a few proven categories (i.e. the quickly becoming hated 'dash slop') that can be more consistently balanced across all MMRs.
2: A related point is that some killer are what I think of as puzzle or gimmick killers. That being there is something about their playstyle that survivors need to figure out. Xeno is a good example - once the survivors figure out how to use the turrets they are going to have a pretty big advantage. I think that is inevitable to a degree, If after the survivors figured out the killer's gimmick the game was then a 50/50, it would be so incredibly lopsided before that as to break down.
Pig has been mentioned so let's look at her. Deploying a head trap poses roughly an equal challenge whether it is deployed by an average player or the best Pig in the world. There's a few minor differences, but largely this game element in the survivors hands. They control how well its played around, i.e. the pros and cons on getting it off or just focusing on gens. I think that's just a part of asyms, some game elements will take one sides skill far more into account than the other.
-
So I'm all for unique killers, but I recognize that some designs are inevitably going to trap certain killers in the weaker tiers. I'm okay with that (though I'll get back to the way it can be dealt with a little later), but I don't know about the overall community.
Even without the tunnel changes in place, you ask anyone what a killer needs for modern DBD, and the answer every time is they need mobility to keep up with the pace of the game...Part of my disagreements with the response to the anti-tunnel changes, is that any change is always going to hit the weakest killers the hardest. New strong survivor perk, more pallets, base kit mechanics, etc. Even when we get pro-killer sided changes, say smaller maps, those will benefit the stronger killers more than the weaker killers.
And as a live service game BHVR will keep making changes, so its always going to be an issue.
I felt a more conservative approach that isn't such a hard ball slap is a better approach... because I honestly can't see how satisfying the condition of making a killer fun and fair can happen, when you're trying to insert changes that force a "fair Blight chase gameplay style", on a killer like Pig, without making Pig not Pig anymore... it just can't work that I can see…As I mentioned earlier, I think BHVR would have been better off doing this piecemeal, starting small and if they get the results they want, stopping, but that's not their nature.
I also wish we knew what BHVR's 'panic' point was on kill rate targets. We all know 60% is the number that gets mentioned a lot, but at what point below that do they panic. 55%, 50%, 40%? Because if the changes were made and some killers dropped a few percent I'd be fine, but think anything approaching a 10% drop would need quick overhauls.
Complaints are frequent about BHVR's pace of changes, but unfortunately we don't get data from them more frequently, so none of us can be sure how 'broken' something might be.
I do think the unique hook benefits offers a way forward for BHVR dealing with weaker killers without automatically destabilizing lower MMR. People have proposed in the past killers like Pig just getting a strong gen kick or slightly higher basekit move speed, which I think would just make them way too strong in lower MMRs. I think stronger unique hook benefits offer more skill expression that won't immediately capitalized on by newer players, while giving more experienced players a strategy element to utilize.
-
@Pulsar said:
I've been playing since 2018, and I've seen patterns come and go in DBD. This video, while long, sums up my thoughts pretty well.
Doomer? Perhaps, but it ultimately says what I've been thinking for a long time. Eventually, DBD will collapse under its own weight and I see no way forward besides a DBD 2, as it is clear BHVR intends to further monetize the game instead of fixing issues.
Towards the end he says: 'It's their fault they are not more successful."
The game is in its 10th year where they just hit a new peak. There are players who have put over 10k hours into the game. They retain a healthy relationship with their license partners. They've been able to keep 100s of people employed on this game. At a minimum, they have a few years left.
And they've made a lot of money in the process.
There's lots of things about the game I think could be better, but even if DbD collapsed tomorrow it would still be an amazingly successful video game. That's not a 'fault', the vast majority of games would gladly have anything approaching DbD's success.
I think the tone really undercuts his points. The issues he discusses have always been there and people still play the game.
He seems to misunderstand the player count figures that they represent players playing at any one time. It's not new players coming in and then quickly leaving, its a cycle of players playing more when new content drops that keeps them engaged.
When he talks about other games they've made his background image confuses games they released and games they were partners on (their primary business model). And I'm not aware of any evidence that Meet Your Maker was a failure. It definetly wasn't a wild success, but that's a different thing than a failure.
He also argues they should take more risks, while also arguing that they done too many changes (and ignores risks they've taken with games like Deathgarden and Meet Your Maker).
I don't know where he got some of the ending arguments about a DbD 2. The main reason they don't have to make DbD 2 is lots of people are playing DbD 1.
Yeah, DbD will die at some point. It might be under the weight of new content. But the new content is a huge part of the reason that the game has a healthy player count. For all my disagreements with them, saying that things have been a failure is just wrong.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4012906#Comment_4012906
Because phase 1 focused on problematic survivor behavior and phase 2 focused on problematic killer behavior.
The whole point is that problematic survivor and killer behaviors should be treated equally. They are either both supposed to be handled extremely gently, or both handled extremely aggressively.
Because phase 1 focused on problematic survivor behavior and phase 2 focused on problematic killer behavior.Maybe because they saw the survivor issues as needing larger changes than the killer changes because there was larger need on the survivor side, thus necessitating more time.
The whole point is that problematic survivor and killer behaviors should be treated equally.But its a point you're making that you want to be true without any reasoning on why it should be true. It's an asym with radically different sides who have had differing levels of QoL treatment over the years. There's no reason to presume that both sides are in a position of equal need.
-
@UndeddJester said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4012656#Comment_4012656
Thanks man
Cheers the response man, I greatly appreciate the effort that went in to it, with well thought out and well put together points and arguments. It's a refreshing change compared to how discussion over that PTB have usually gone.
You do raise a good point about reimagining the game, and in amongst all the smoke, I am absolutely not against reducing the effectiveness of tunneling. As much as I bang on about this PTB, I do agree that the tunnel situation is certainly not elegant… what my issue has always been is the ham fisted approaches to achieving the amti tunnel goal, and this idea that these changes should have gone through because stopping tunneling is more important than any of the issues around it.
How to buff m1s?
What I would have expected given the, to me, obvious issues with these changes as highlighted above, is we as a community would keeps the bits that were sensible (like elusive), discuss the issues and come with alternative and better solutions for the bits that were obnoxious, introduce the risk/reward you're talking about but avoid sledgehammering m1 killers into the ground with little more than token buffs that don't synergise with those weaker killers.
As already said by others in this thread, buffing lower tier killers isn't really possible, because they become oppressive at lower levels. This is a major issue, people have cited Trapper, but while he is a good example, a far better example is Pig, whom I main... and what terrifies me most is how these killers get buffed in this new world order.
Pig ultimately is a killer who has to take whatever she can get. You are constantly having to reevaluate your situation to try and figure out the best way to squeeze Survivors, and when she gets the chance, she is very good at doing so... this is what makes her incredibly good against weaker survivors, she needs a couple of Survivor mistakes to get her snowball going, but once she has it she can be deadly, and low skill Survivors give her those opportunities...
As a result she has enjoyed a high kill rate because of it, despite the fact that she is a C, some people argue D tier killer. My big concern is, if you take away her ability to capitalise on those survivor mistakes, she has to be buffed, substatially... but what do buffs to help Pig look like? Can she even get any because she does and probably still will enjoy that high kill rate at low MMR? Anyone who puts time into Pig inevitably hits the Pig wall, where you start going against Survivors who are competent and know what they are doing... and your games get exponentially harder.
I'm a killer who started out alway going for 8 hooks and could do consistently on Pig without tunneling, slugging or camping... I would punish obvious misplays, but generally I was very fair... Then eventually I switched to 6 hooks then kill, I had to because I was regularly starting to throw games trying to 8 hook, finishing with 2, 1 or sometimes even 0ks regularly... and nowadays I often have to kill on my 5th hook because the game is just running away from me, I just take too long to down, even if I'm playing my mind games well... and often even then, I'm still quite often losing the game or snatching a win on the bleeding edge.
I'm still not tunneling and not slugging, but it just keeps getting harder and harder to even get my RBT pressure going... and I do get the odd 0k from time to time... With the tunnel changes proposed, I saw no way you can buff Pig that doesn't make her oppressive at low level and bully fodder at high level, that also doesn't butcher her identity beyond recognition.
An alternative suggestion
A suggestion I've been spitballing in my head for a while regarding anti-tunnel is some kind of Despair/Hope mechanic (sadly I don't have a better word than hope, and it's taken already, but to present the idea)... Something like:
- Despair: Whenever a survivor is unhooked they suffer a stacking 20% Conspicuous Action penalty for 120s.
- Hope: Every Survivor who has a 1/2/3 hook stages left over another Survivor gains a 0/10/20% Conspicuous Action bonus.
This needs fleshing out, but this rewards killers who spread hooks by inflicting multiple repair and heal penalties across the Survivor team, slowing their speeds overall, while also decentivising tunneling because the tunnel target has a penalty you aren't benefitting from, and you risk giving the rest of the team a boost to repairs if you continue to tunnel.
Combined with the elusive change, that is a thematically satisfying, far more reasonable set of changes to build around... but conversations never made it this far, as slamming m1 killers in the dirt was seen as completely fine... it reminded me of the Skull Merchant conversations, where if you didn't blindly support the popular narrative (no matter how unreasonable it was), you were public enemy number 1... and the way things looked, we just couldn't get Survivors and Killers on the same page to even attempt to hash out a more reasonable answer. 🥺
What I would have expected given the, to me, obvious issues with these changes as highlighted above, is we as a community would keeps the bits that were sensible (like elusive),Part of the problem when discussing this is that there are two discussions that happen (three, if we involve BHVR):
1: What is the goal?
2: What is the best way to implement that?
(number 3 would be how hard would it be to implement, which only BHVR knows for sure).
An example of number 1 is stealth. Some people want a lot of stealth, some want little to none and instead a chase focused game. Neither desire is right or wrong, they are just different games.
That's kind of where we are with anti-tunnel. Make it impossible (relatively easy to brute force in)? Make it harder (relatively easy again, just more basekit off of hook)? Make it a possibility, but less attractive (hard and seemingly what BHVR was trying to do)? If players disagree on that getting to the implementation question is going to mean they are talking past each other.
None of those are right or wrong, they're just different directions the game could go.
As already said by others in this thread, buffing lower tier killers isn't really possible, because they become oppressive at lower levels.Ture, though I'll also add on three points
1: Balance is not the be all, end all, though it is really important. Imagine a killer was fun and enjoyable for 95% of the playerbase, but kind of broke down for the remaining 5%. Now more specifics would be needed to give a true answer, but I think overall that would be an okay position.
I kind of feel like this with Ghost Face. He's got a unique power, is fun, and provides a good atmosphere for the majority of players. Does he suffer against SWFs? Absolutely. Would it be worth risking his unique feel to balance him out in those other scenarios? Not to me, though its a subjective call.
2: BHVR's 60% KR doesn't add a lot of wiggle room on the overpowered side. If they get up to 70% at low MMR well, especially when Hatch is factored in, they're winning the vast majority of their games and won't be in low MMR for very long, potentially matching them against players they aren't ready for.
3: Hypothetically, they could address this by giving lower MMR monsters stronger high level addons than they do other killers. Now I hate the way addons work on both sides with a fiery passion, but BHVR could just make the statement - 'If you are playing the following killers, we expect you will need to run the highest level addons to remain competitive at high MMR'. It would be far from perfect, but would generally address the issues.
I'm still not tunneling and not slugging, but it just keeps getting harder and harder to even get my RBT pressure going...This is where I think BHVR really messed up with their messaging.
One of the benefits of the anti-tunnel they proposed is eliminating the idea of a 'rulebook'. Want to get a survivor out early (either as a strategy or an opportunity)? Sure, here's the cost you pay. There's no need to say 'I try to spread out hooks to be more fair', because both possibilities are still a fair game each with their own pros and cons.
but conversations never made it this far, as slamming m1 killers in the dirt was seen as completely fine...I think we needed a lot more testing to see how it actually shook out. Worrying that mechanics or perks are going to break the game in a way that never comes to fruition is a classic forum past time. I wish BHVR had been more informative about what specifically they didn't think was working, or if it was truly just a game feel issue, but keeping players in the dark is BHVR's own hobby.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4012637#Comment_4012637
Nope. We're comparing phase 1 with phase 2.
The phase 1 anti-hiding mechanic is very easily bypassed by survivors, and excessive hiding is still very much in the game. There are also still a lot of survivors that Go Next, and the system punishes innocent survivors so rarely that it takes over two months just to get one video of it occurring.
That is how the phase 2 changes should go. Killers should be able to easily camp/tunnel/slug, while bypassing the phase 2 mechanics. And camp/tunnel/slug should very much still be in the game, with the phase 2 changes punishing innocent killers so rarely that it takes over two months just to get one video of it occurring.
Nope. We're comparing phase 1 with phase 2.Why?
You're just making up rules without a logical explanation for why it would lead to the best possible game.
It would make as much sense for me to say that because the killer issues came first, survivors are owed interest on our delayed boosts and thus must be considerably stronger, for the sake of consistency.
It doesn't even get into the idea that the survivor QoL is coming with compensation for the killers. I think it would be silly to give survivors compensation for the AFK mechanics or all the survivors starting together, but being that's your argument you should be saying that first we need to give them compensation for those changes on top of the anti-tunnel.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4012656#Comment_4012656
I don't think so, though I certainly think there are easier approaches. They should probably get rid of the idea of gens blocking and tie the speed boost to number of hooks
Oh, I like that! Severe at 3 hooks, strong at 4, modest at 5, and weak or gone at 6?
Broadly, yes. I hate to guess at numbers because, as I believe you also said during the PTB discussion, the numbers are tied to how strong the killer unique boosts are, but it could be a fast dropping scale (50/40/25/5/0) or it could be a linear scale (dropping the same percent for each additional hook). The former would be more anti-tunnel, the latter easier to explain.
-
@UndeddJester said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4012635#Comment_4012635
Fair enough, though I remain unconvinced, cause we're still asking all killers to play the same way, a playstyle that fundamentally benefits a particular archetype far more than others, and imposes a set of restrictions that savvy survivors can exploit to insane degrees.
I won't go off again explaining all the various reasons in depth why I hate the conception of these suggestions, I've discussed it till blue in the face in many threads already.
The simplest way of explaining my position is I like elegance and subtlety in game design. I like rules to be simple and make intuitive sense... there is a lot of complexity in DBD, but the basic rules of the game are quite simple. This whole system is none of these things, it takes a relatively simple premise and starts slapping asterisks on it, with rules that are contradictory to the original premise and makes the killer objective unclear.
It stops killers playing in this unfun manner, sure, but even for killers who are not playing in an unfun manner, it creates weird scenarios where the killer can't capitalise on Survivor mistakes because the game arbitrarily punishes them to do so... and this reality makes Survivor just as unstimulating for me.
I have a game here that demonstrates my point well. Main important portion of it starts about 2 minutes in
https://youtu.be/iS44qKOdbWY?si=Zw6bg_uFVpRjnfKh
This game, is not what I would define as tunneling, the Xenomorph did not sprint immediately back to hook with the clear intention to tunnel me, and I have Wicked to prove it. I even have Empathic Connection and Kindred, so there is no SoloQ excuse, Survivors know where the killer is and where I am at all phases here. What happened here is the Survivor team (including me) made a number of mistakes that kept bringing the killer to me and set me up to die very quickly, mistakes that I cannot blame the Xenomorph for capitalising upon. For them to ignore me, it would have been very nice of them, but also it's not the point of the game.
This new system as proposed would remove all of the mistakes that we made here, and I dunno man... that's a level of hand holding that I don't want.
The simplest way of explaining my position is I like elegance and subtlety in game design. I like rules to be simple and make intuitive sense... there is a lot of complexity in DBD, but the basic rules of the game are quite simple.Sure, let me expand on that bit to make sure we're on the same page.
To me a really good game frequently gives the player a few choices with easy to understand risk/rewards, but also have lots of subtle complexity that make the "correct" decision never obvious. DbD generally does this really well. Do I pre-run and create distance, but risk losing gen progress if the killer doesn't show up, or stay on the gen to maximize progress while risking a shorter chase? Do I pursue the injured survivor away from the gens to get a down and risk losing gens, or do I let them go and potentially heal while I protect the area? Scenarios like these are common and one of the things that makes DbD great is that when people come to ask for advice and lay out a hypothetical, the answer is usually 'it depends'.
Which brings me to tunneling and 1 of the 2 reasons I think something needs to be done. It's simple, but not elegant. Tunneling is the "optimal strategy" to use a phrase that's been floating around. A good game should not have an optimal strategy that is just the default presumption on how to play the majority of the time.
This whole system is none of these things, it takes a relatively simple premise and starts slapping asterisks on it, with rules that are contradictory to the original premise and makes the killer objective unclear.So let's talk about BHVR's proposed solution.
I'll start by not wanting to rehash my own version of something I've said a bunch, which is that BHVR too frequently tries to reinvent the wheel instead of taking the obvious approach. If it was me, I'd probably have just done the 'delay unhook notification' and see how that works for a few months and then make additional changes to either side as needed. But in fairness to BHVR, and I've been pretty negatively lately, if they didn't take the "swing for the fences" approach they probably never would have even tried to design a 4v1 asym horror game.
But anyway looking at the proposed idea and to what degree it adds asterisk on to things:
Since it has come out I haven't liked the use of 'rule' or 'punishment' even as BHVR has adopted some of that language. As I said above, I think games are about risk/rewards: trade offs. A killer can still tunnel, but its not the optimal strategy that should always be pursued any longer. If you get a survivor out too quickly they do gens faster, or you can risk spreading pressure to deny this benefit, but give them more time with four survivors alive.
And yes, it creates a situation where a killer could not be tunneling, but then get in a position where an elimination is the best course of action but the survivors get a boost. But I don't think the goal of this change was just anti-tunnel (if it was I'm tempted to take back my earlier complimentary statement to BHVR), but a larger reimagining of the game. I think too many people approached the PtB on the idea of 'okay, this should never trigger because its a rule' to looking at it as just another game element to consider.
Is that concept ruining the simplicity? I don't think so, though I certainly think there are easier approaches. They should probably get rid of the idea of gens blocking and tie the speed boost to number of hooks (i.e. not a threshold, killing a survivor on 3 hooks gives the survivors a larger boost than killing one on 5 hooks). If they want to stay with the idea I think that keeps it simple, more hooks, more risk, but less boost.
-
@TheGoon224 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4012542#Comment_4012542
I have hope now let’s just hope they don’t give him a dash
Traps will now be jump pads that allow the trapper to go flying after survivors.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4012597#Comment_4012597
TD;LR: Survivors are just crouch walking in a small area, and using things like chests, dull totems, or killer interactions like disarming a Trapper trap, to hide for 10+ minutes.
Problem 1: AFK point gain is 25% if the survivor is moving at all, which includes crouch walking back and forth in a small area. It takes 8.5 minutes of being AFK, for a survivor to get their first crow, if they are just crouch walking in a small area.
Problem 2: Opening a chest, or cleansing/blessing a dull totem, aren't important enough to fully reset AFK points (and they currently fully reset AFK points). Cleansing/blessing a hex totem, absolutely should be worth a full AFK point reset, because there is an actual need for survivors to remove hexes.
Problem 3: Some killer interactions aren't high-priority enough to be worth a full reset of AFK points (and they currently fully reset AFK points). It's ok if high-priority killer interactions fully reset AFK points, like searching a Pig box, or solving a Pinhead puzzle. But disarming a Trapper trap, or looking through Springtrap's cameras, really isn't important enough to be worth a full AFK point reset. All the killer interactions should be reviewed, to determine how many AFK points each interaction should remove.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4012582#Comment_4012582
Do you honestly think the phase 2 changes had the equivalent impact to the game as anti gen tap?
Do you honestly think the phase 2 changes had the equivalent impact to the game as anti gen tap?If your issue is fair treatment/consistency, you can't just ignore times in the past when BHVR made changes that focused on killer. You don't get to have your way and then when BHVR finally says its time to pay attention to survivor demand that things be 50/50 from here on out.