crogers271
crogers271
About
- Username
- crogers271
- Joined
- Visits
- 8,432
- Last Active
Comments
-
5v5 was one of the modes I was most interested in as well.
In case nobody was aware, way back before the first iterations of game modes, the survey had asked what we wanted, which is why we got 2v8, chaos shuffle and lights out.So I think 2v8 and chaos shuffle were already locked in barring a massive negative result from the survey. I think the survey was more for general interest in futures modes. I do remember at the time thinking, and I believe BHVR saying, that these modes were just the start, I never would have guessed we'd still be cycling through them (especially with one being basically dead).
The only other question I'd have is how teams would interact with each other, if at all. Would they be physically in the map, having to weigh wasting resources to sabotage the other team or would they be more along the lines of ghosting, where you can see where the enemy team is but can't interact in a meaningful way. Maybe even score based on resources used compared to the other team?From what I recall of their explanation (which was brief) - it was going to be a game of gen control (which I suspect would have meant the match would have a timer). So if team A is on a gen for 15 seconds, that's their gen unless team B can be on it for 15 seconds as well. I think they also said survivors could ping opponents for their killer. So everyone would be on the same map fighting over the same gens, but, at least from what they said it would have been a very different game.
What I thought it was going to be, and would still like, and this king of goes with what @cogsturning brought up, is if you took a map like Dead Dawg, mirrored it, and connected them. Both teams start on one map and attack the other, goal is to get the most of your team 'out'. So survivors are primarily attackers, killers primarily defenders, but also have options for killers to defend against the other killer if he crosses over and options for survivors to fall back to defend by undoing progress / tagging enemies.
-
@Hopi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4115667#Comment_4115667
You can expect a killer to play 'fair' (as in, don't tunnel, slug, camp), but you cannot go into end-game chat if they did it anyway (for whatever reason) and berate them for it. You cannot demand from the killer that they should have played 'fair'. If they choose to tunnel, slug or camp, then that's well within their right. The game allows it after all.
You can also expect Survivors to not behave toxic towards the killer by using Head-on, flashbangs, t-bagging constantly, but you cannot demand that they won't. You cannot go into end-game chat and demand that they won't do it again. The game allows it, so they are well within their right to do it.
And in my particular case, you can expect a killer player not to play as a certain character (in my case, Judgment), because some players consider her to be OP, but you cannot demand it.
I got berated multiple times in end-game chat for my playstyle (random-aura build) and that I only won because was I was playing a 'broken' killer and that they would have won if it was any other killer. Survivor-players do not get to demand from killer-players which killer they play, or how they play. They do not get to demand that I play anything other than Judgment.
It sounds more like your issue is not expectations vs demands, but don't be rude in end game chat.
-
@Mandy said:
aahhhh the forum has received an update…thanks for letting me know that changed as well, I'll go and see what I can do to re-adjust it.
While you're looking at the forum update changes, the edit tag also doesn't seem to appear on posts anymore.
-
@Hopi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4115575#Comment_4115575
Why is it not a entitlement/unwritten rule to expect people not to suicide?
Because players can play the game anyway the want, within the confines of what the game allows. Anyone, including myself, can have (and most certainly has) certain expectations about other players, that is absolutely true. But you cannot have guarantees from anyone.
So if a survivor decides to kills themself on hook (and by that I mean when it's early in the game, they're on their first hook and they brought a perk/offering that allows for a chance to self unhook), there's nothing anyone can do to dissuade them of doing so, because the game allows it.
It's an absolute ######### move towards your team, because you're basically abandoning your team early on, but they can still do it if they choose to.
For every trial, I have only one expectation (not a demand) for the other players and that is that they want to play the match through until the end (why would you queue otherwise?) and that they do their best, regardless of how much that is. But I'm certainly not allowed to actually demand all of that, or anything else. From any player.
And that's the point I'm trying to make here: When playing Dead by Daylight, or any multiplayer PvP game for that matter, you cannot demand any behaviors, results, or outcomes from the others players.
Expectations, sure. But demands, no. Absolutely not.
And I started this whole topic because survivor players that I've encountered in the last 10 days while playing Judgment demanded certain behaviors from me. Certain outcomes. And if I choose not to provide those, that's totally fine, because every player can play the game how they want, within the confines of what the game allows.
And on a side-note: There is a difference between sabotaging your own team for selfish reasons at the start of the trial, and bringing certain perks or using a certain playstyle. And although both are allowed, if you have to complain, I'd probably complain about the former.
Expectations, sure. But demands, no. Absolutely not.What's your line between an expectation and a demand?
-
Quoting from two different replies:
But it's not as if there are unwritten rules that dictate that players should or should not play a certain way. That's the argument I'm trying to make.and
No player, survivor or killer, should throw a tantrum because they don't like we way things are going.Why is it not a entitlement/unwritten rule to expect people not to suicide?
BHVR has a an 'anti-go' next system, if a player doesn't trigger it, what's the problem?
If we're using BHVR has our arbiter, they've said multiple times that people can play the game, broadly, how they want. Want to play for pips? Hide for hatch? Never touch a gen? As long as they fit within the broad rules BHVR has laid out, aren't you asking for your own 'unwritten' rule on how people behave?
-
@tjt85 said:
Most of the ones I really hated got changes (Franklin's, Knock Out and Sloppy Butcher), so there aren't really many left in isolation that I hate anymore. Just the ones that are a middle finger to SoloQ like Hex: The Third Seal and No Quarter. I guess the ones that buff SWF would be annoying too if I ever saw them in my Killer games (things like We're Gonna Live Forever, Background Player and Shoulder The Burden), but I don't really.
I don't usually see any of these perks in most of my games, so I can't say if they desperately need changes.
I also kinda hate Hex perks in general, just because of their inconsistency and the play styles and perk combos that revolve around defending them. And also because I feel like I have the worst luck with them since they tend to stay up all game if I'm playing Survivor or get cleansed immediately whenever I'm playing Killer. I wonder if Killer players would trade being able to see their hex totems for much better hidden spawn locations.
This is basically how I was going to answer the question. So I'm just going to go with what tjt85 said.
-
@Carth said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4114709#Comment_4114709
If it was the furthest 2 statues, then just like PH. Caging/exiling 90% of the time would be a bad play to do. Any regular PH players do not cage on demand for that exact reason just like no Judgement player exiles 2+ players simulteanously for the exact same reason. It's killing your own pressure and macro play.
Zealous is not worth: exile → 2 seconds later unhook. Just like for PH, caging when you are not in a great position is a misplay because most of the time it's just a free unhook for the survivor team
Pyramidhead there though sounds like a good mechanic. Players should be faced with decisions of 'do I use this or not?' Just 'use this, always' seems like a bad design.
-
specifically how frustrating it is that matches can fly by in literally 4 minutes.1: Killers can also end the matches really quickly. I'm not sure why you are just focused on the survivor possibility. People have proposed comeback/slowdown mechanics on both sides before that would prevent the extreme speedruns.
2: I think this is an intentional design decision by BHVR. While they've nerfed a lot of things on the survivor side, gen rush isn't getting touched, its actually been enhanced with new perks over the past few years. So you're proposing a change for something that the player base (or at least BHVR's perception of the players) doesn't really want changed.
The Core Loop Stays the Same:Survivors do gens exactly like normal. However, even if all 5 gens are slammed out in 4 minutes, the gates are locked until the clock hits the 10-minute mark.The Endurance Test:If survivors finish gens early, their reward is that their objective is done. The rest of the match becomes a pure endurance test—looping, hiding, and outsmarting the killer until time runs out.
To be upfront, that sounds really boring. One of the most hated times from killers is just the survivors hiding out, slowly walking around rocks. For the survivors - if you had four survivors, one of them gets in chase, the other three just stand around doing nothing.
And 'nothing to do' seems like a pretty bad idea for a video game.
The Hatch/Early Ends Stay Untouched:If a killer dominates and wipes out a team in 5 minutes, the match ends immediately. No waiting around. If 3 survivors die early, the timer shuts off, the Hatch spawns, and it plays out exactly like the current live game.
As mentioned above, I don't understand why one is fine and worth preserving and the other has to be made impossible. Without having to worry about slowdown the chance of killers just stomping survivors goes up rather substantially.
Endgame Perks:Perks like NOED, Blood Warden, or Remember Me would automatically light up during the final 3-4 minutes of the match or right at the 0:00 mark, ensuring endgame builds don't lose their value.
and
Killers can finally drop Pop or Pain Res and run fun chase or info builds because they know they have guaranteed time to play.This just seems like massive killer buffs. The strongest survivor build is practically useless, killer's are now stronger by not having to worry about gen protection, and killers are guaranteed that they can run an end game build and when it would trigger (automatic noed? guaranteed Blood Warden?)
An have been playing for years an this was something I realized an dont know if it was talked about.There's people who have discussed it quite a bit. Either from just nixing some of the stronger gen run options to a larger 'slowdown / comeback mechanic idea'. There tends to be three problems
1: Some people like the faster paced trials
2: Some people like variability. Maybe one trial will be six minutes, the next fourteen, the one after than nine. It gives each trial a different feel while a standard time would become repetitive.
3: Lots of people seem to hate enforced mechanics. Players want to engage in actions that advance their objective. Just 'wait it out' isn't very engaging (see version 2 of BHVR's Deathgarden for a good example)
-
Topic: it's impossible to actually stop it from happening, BHVR has said repeatedly they are okay with it if not outright supportive, a hypothetical about what the game would be like with no communication is cool to think about and all, but its not possible that would ever be implemented.
@Aven_Fallen said:
2026 and people still think that Voice Chat is cheating.
Even IF the Devs would do something that things like Discord or Teamspeak are detected and people would not use it, what do you think will happen? All the casual SWFs will just quit. They want to play and chat with their friends, BHVR would make that impossible, so they would have no reason to play DBD.
Meanwhile, sweaty SWFs would keep playing, because they would go out of their way to have communication (e.g. using their phones). Great Job, you now really only have sweaty SWFs and also killed a large portion of the playerbase.
Let alone that Consoles have built-in voicechat, which BHVR would not be able to do anything about.
EDIT:
Let alone that all of your Discussions are about Discord and they start back in 2022 (!!). At some point, you really need to stop and accept that you are wrong.https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/349370/swf-and-discord
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/361871/3nd-party-softwares
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/362852/unfair-play
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/365805/behaviour-allows-cheat-in-game
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/381375/do-you-think-discord-swf-unfair
Maybe just a few more posts will change people's minds.
Meanwhile, sweaty SWFs would keep playing, because they would go out of their way to have communication (e.g. using their phones).Ah, back to the 90s/2000s for gaming.
-
@Elan said:
If you get matched with people of your level every game then yes, it may be survivor sided in mid mmr too. But fact that many people bring newer players and those always magnet the killers attention they mostly end up being the reason you lost. One bad survivor and game over.
But fact that many people bring newer players and those always magnet the killers attention they mostly end up being the reason you lost. One bad survivor and game over.This is true, but its much bigger than just one new player. Survivors are only as strong as their weakest link and, even if there was a great matchmaker, it's very likely there will be a weak link. Not just will one survivor inevitably be the 'weakest' of the group, but factor in things like every survivor having killers they are better or worse against or that someone might just be having a bad game and playing well below their level.
And that's the game. Survivors are only as strong as their weakest link, but for the purpose of talking about which sided the game is, the chance of four survivors being equally strong (again, even if there was a perfect matchmaker) is extremely low, so we shouldn't base game discussions around that extreme outlier.
-
I'm not exactly sure what you mean.
If by random we mean that it could be as strange as the main building appearing along a side wall or right in the middle, that's both likely technically difficult as well as way too impactful.
If by random we mean choosing from a few different possible setups, that just seems like we are bringing back multiple map versions. There's only so many configurations you could have of a many main buildings, so you'd pretty quickly get 'Badham, Main building type C' or something. That seems to go against the idea of map bloat.
Overall, unless I misunderstand the idea, it doesn't seem feasible without it being way too impactful on the overall match depending on how the spawn occurs, or returning to just having multiple versions of each map.
-
@BloodBehemoth said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4114310#Comment_4114310
No, that would be according to every comp-level tournament where they ban a TON of survivor perks and tactics and killers still don't stand a chance.
In addition to what @FerrousFacade said:
1: The biggest restriction on killer is that they don't just get to play Nurse every trial. Yes, if survivors bring the best possible builds, and the killer doesn't, that would be a mismatch. But it shouldn't be surprise that an S tier survivor loadout would destroy a C tier killer setup.
2: Survivors (in most comp leagues) know the killer they are going to play on. If pub games let survivors know the killer they were going to face (and let them change their build) escape rates would skyrocket.
3: Killers do really well. I haven't watched season XI of DbDLeague, but looking back to the Winter Circuit tournament, going into the Grand Final they average 2.88 kills per game (72% KR) and 43.62% of the games ended in a 4k (these stats are visible at the beginning of the video for the Grand Final).
-
@Your_Dad_Playing_DbD said:
Everyone is going to have a different view of this based on their personal experience. If you’re consistently doing that well in your killer games, then yeah you’re going to think the game is very killer-sided. By the way, kudos to you for doing that well as a low-tier killer. Also kudos to you for backing up your opinion with your actual stats - a lot of people who claim the game is survivor/killer-sided never do that.
BHVR has to balance the game based on the full population stats and not just loud individual voices. The 60% target kill rate seems to be the sweet spot where killer and survivors queues are the most balanced. I remember super long survivor queue times during peak evening hours when the killer rates were lower. Now the wait to play survivor in the evenings is much more reasonable. I did notice that killer queue times were much longer than normal during the recent new killer releases and special events, but in the past few days the killer queue times seem to be back to normal as well.The 60% target kill rate seems to be the sweet spot where killer and survivors queues are the most balanced.Saying the game needs to be killer-sided to make a better game / keep reasonable queues / maintain the theme / etc. is one thing, just as long as its not the starting point on whether the game is killer or survivor sided.
-
@cogsturning said:
I like that no matter how many nerfs survivor gets the game will eternally be survivor-sided to some people. Multiple survivor meta perks got the hammer and the 5s BT cut has made tunneling go back to being super easy. They could make it so survivors can only walk for 10s after getting off a gen and this crew will just be like, "You just have to prewalk to a pallet skill issue" while continuing to cite an invisible number they make assumptions about as defense.
That's a good a point and an evergreen thing. 'Broken' perks gets blamed for survivors being too strong, sometimes those perks are annihilated, and the talking point doesn't change.
To contrast that with killers, no one disagrees that Skull Merchant is down in the basement. If a killer gets nerfed, survivors don't seem to dispute that quite as much.
-
@radiantHero23 said:
Does mmr take loadout into account now?
If not, then what "tier" the killer, your playing as, should not make a difference, right?
The only thing I could see being the case is you playing more lower tier killers, resulting in you getting better at playing them, resulting in you winning more as lower tier killers, resulting in your mmr on these killers being higher than on higher tier killers that you play less often.
(that was an atrocious sentence. I'm sorry)
The only thing I could see being the case is you playing more lower tier killers,It's one of those without gameplay and a large sample size kind of hard to say anything definitively, but could just be the same level of survivor strength, but against a strong killer they feel weak, against a weak killer they feel strong.
-
@Smoe said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4113892#Comment_4113892
Going off of wikipedia specifically, there's not nearly as much work for hire jobs that they've done after DBD was released, compared to before.
It still is their safety net in case their own games don't do well, however they're not nearly as reliant on it compared to before.
My only issue with the wikipedia list is that there are games on BHVR's site that don't appear anywhere on wiki, so I'm not sure how each list got put together. A lot of more recent games that BHVR says they were part of our missing from wikipedia. Maybe there's just a difference in terminology.
however they're not nearly as reliant on it compared to before.That part I think is absolutely true.
-
As Smoe mentioned, this is something BHVR does. You can see a list of 'partner' games on their website. There's everything from Mortal Kombat, to Civilization 7, to Farcry 5 - a whole bunch of different styles of game.
Does it increase the chance of licensing? No idea.
@Smoe said:
It's just a work for hire job bhvr did, something they almost exclusively did back in the day, and still does every now and then these days.
Same way that games like Until Dawn, The Quarry and The Casting of Frank Stone are all work for hire jobs done by Supermassive games.
It's just a work for hire job bhvr did, something they almost exclusively did back in the day, and still does every now and then these days.To my understanding it's not just an every now and then thing, but still a pretty huge part of their business model. Though they don't release public info that frequently so I might have missed something.
-
It more should be its own perk/condition, like Finesse. But if exhaustion could be recovered by running, that would be a bad idea, and takes out way too much of gameplay revolved around managing exhaustion mechanics.
Now I'd actually have exhaustion recover at like 1% while running because I think 99ing an exhaustion perk is more cheesy than skill, but that's a separate topic.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
Yeah, it all makes no sense. Either Vigil should apply to multiple status effects or it should only apply to Exhaustion, but with a bigger value (even more than 40%). IMO Exhaustion does not even matter that much, considering that it does not go down while running and it rarely happens that Killers abandon a chase.
But first nerfing it and then slapping another Double-Nerf on it… I really dont understand it. I get their reasoning that they dont want to have to keep Vigil in mind whenever they want to do something with Status Effects. I think this is reasonable, even tho I dont think that they will do the other aspect which comes with it and status effects have a lower duration (because if they made them longer to not have them be too weak against Vigil and then they remove Vigil, there is no justification to make them longer).
However, Vigil will be worse than on Release, since 20% on a few status effects (including Exhaustion) was better than 30% on just Exhaustion. (And obviously they buffed the Range, but I dont really count that since people bring Vigil mainly for themselves)
But first nerfing it and then slapping another Double-Nerf on it… I really dont understand it.It's really hard to look at what they're doing and have BHVR come off favorably.
Either it is was so overpowered and broken, thus necessitating the massive nerf, that they massively dropped the ball by not touching it for so long.
Or it wasn't that overpowered, in which case the level of nerf that it took just seems non-sensical.
It doesn't help that the given reasoning - that it interferes with too many other game elements, makes sense for part of the nerf, but doesn't in anyway explain why the other part was also nerfed.
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4113339#Comment_4113339
What an absurd statement. This role bias mentality is what taints the feedback and ruins the game. If you're good at killer you should be put with good survivors and both sides should be able to win. Why would anyone become good at survivor and play the role if they're destined to Iose against a killer that put in the same amount of time and effort?
It reminds me of the line I was once heard - many killers think they are so good at the game that they'll only believe its balanced when they go 50/50 with the best team in the world.
-
The fowl perks and items that survivors can use to generally make this game unplayable is why swf are hated among the killer communityThis doesn't really have anything to do with tunneling, which SWFs have the easiest time countering. Also its not really unique to one side, sweatiness goes both ways and either is integral to the game or one of its biggest shortcomings, depending on your point of view.
Also, @GentlemanFridge the above quoted sentence immediately made me think of you.
Using strong toolboxes to make it impossible for killer to hook, especially when the killer deserves the hook from playing well.Why does the killer deserve the hook? Survivors don't deserve a gen just because they got a lot of progress on it and then hit with a regression.
It's also really difficult to make it 'impossible to hook'. More difficult, sure, but if hooking was always guaranteed and there was no possible interactivity, that would be pretty boring.
Using perks likePower Struggleto make it impossible for killers to pick up from a pallet.What does that have to do with tunneling? If a SWF is running this they can use it whether the killer is tunneling or not. And like the above post, if pickups where always safe less interactivity would make for a boring game.
One game a chill team and the next is a fully meta (Powerful perks) swf. Killers simply can't take a chanceAnd survivors don't know whether they'll be hitting a chill killer or a sweaty Nurse.
One more thing to consider before hating the way killers play, in a 4 man swf it is basically 16 perks vs 4 perks.Things can't be compared in isolation. Make gens take 30 seconds and survivors would dominate with zero perks, make them take three minutes and the killer wouldn't need any.
-
As @pidgeon mentioned, its no secret why people tunnel anymore than why they gen rush. It's a highly effective strategy while also being incredibly straightforward, but its not very healthy for the game.
-
@ForTheEntity said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4113180#Comment_4113180
At no point did he call the Survivor Rulebook equal to the Killer Rulebook or that tunneling was equal to gen rushing.
There is no false equivalence in the post that he made on August 5th. Let it rest.
They literally says both have no meaning, I just quoted it.
Here is the quote on tunneling/gen rush:
You can't tell me not to tunnel just as I can't tell you not to gen rush.There is no false equivalence in the post that he made on August 5thThe discussion was going well before that, I can't go back and quote every post all the time. My response comes after quite a few back and forths, for example from July 29th post that started this chain of the thread -
No more genrushing, if you finish a generator before the killer has at least 2 hooks, stop and let them get those 2 hooks. It's only fair. 2 hooks per generator. Those are the new rules, and in return we promise not to tunnel.Proposing a bad rule as justification for why another rule shouldn't exist is a false equivalence (because the substance isn't that rules shouldn't exist, but the merit of the rule). The underlying fallacy became more evident over the discussion.
Let it rest.I'm not the one who revives the thread after a its been dormant for awhile. If a thread hasn't been touched in a day I let it go, but otherwise when someone responds to me if I have something to add, I do. It's a discussion forum after all.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4113259#Comment_4113259
Distortion was nerfed purely becouse people using it were ratting and barely interacting with both their teammates and killer players.
A few problems with that theory.
- 'Ratting' was not the complaint that got Distortion into the crosshairs. The initial pushback against the perk was specifically about its ability to thwart some of the new, powercrept aura perks killers had. For the longest time, BBQ & Chili used to be the primary source of aura reading for killers, with the perk itself specifically being designed to give the killer direction, but not give them a free chase. Nowhere To Hide blew that off its hinges and just gave killers immediate access to chases, on demand. Floods of Rage and Weave Attunement similarly gave killers direct access to chase, rather than just direction. Distortion levelled the playing field back to what it was prior to the intel power-creep, and thus garnered backlash.
- 'Ratting' was not a Distortion problem. The only thing Distortion changed about ratting is, specifically, that it allowed people to stay hidden while doing gens, healing, cleansing hexes and whatever else. Without Distortion, hiding is only possible via lockers, which does force non-interaction.
- The nerf to Distortion was not aimed at 'Ratting', but instead at the original complaint about forcing killers to look for survivors with their own eyes again. If ratting had been the issue, Distortion's recharge could've been tied to conspicuous actions like gen repair, healing, unhooking and hex-cleansing. But it wasn't, it was tied to chases.
Two things I'll add onto these solid points
1: The distortion nerf happened well before the update to crows. It was extremely easy to reset the Crow the timer, meaning there was next to no need for distortion.
2: Even if a rat was going to use distortion, one token is more than enough for an emergency. In the old system the rat was going to avoid any in progress gen, be in a locker for BBQ, not engage with an any element that could reveal there aura. Even 1 token is enough of an emergency backup if a player's intent was truly just to rat. It's the player who is actually engaged in the game who has reason to need the more tokens.
-
@MDRSan said:
No need to change Judgement really. This could be fixed by having survivor perks activate on gaining a hook state rather than being hooked. (I don’t want to hear about Shoulder as something that would break that. If someone wants to give themselves a hook state just to activate Dead Hard or Decisive Strike - fine, who cares?)
Killer perks aren’t as big of a deal comparatively since they can always choose to hook vs. exile/cage if they want to activate associated effects. Scourge hooks would still need to be scourge hooks - there’s not really anything that can be done about that.
Um, everyone's trying to have good rage fight and you're just coming in here with some common sense proposals?
-
@AbsolutGrndZer0 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4111729#Comment_4111729
Never said all rules were wrong, which is why your analogies were and still are bad. But, unless BHVR makes it a rule, the survivor rulebook nor the killer rulebook have any meaning. Is tunneling wrong? Nope. Is it something many survivor players find unfair? Yes. But it is not wrong and it's not against the rules. Robbing banks, that's against the law. Tunneling is not.
Never said all rules were wrong, which is why your analogies were and still are bad.I'll just quote you: "The Survivor Rulebook has no meaning, the Killer Rulebook has no meaning. Play how you want. You can't tell me not to tunnel just as I can't tell you not to gen rush. It's all absurd."
Note - It's all absurd.
I then went and explained why that was a false equivalence. You misunderstand that the examples were an explanation of what a false equivalence is. I'm explaining the logical error you are making and giving you two examples of what that logical error would look like in other scenarios.
But it is not wrong and it's not against the rules. Robbing banks, that's against the law.If robbing banks was not against the law, would it be okay?
-
@Arcturus said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4112522#Comment_4112522
Honestly I still think that for survivors it should count the amount of escapes rather than just if you escaped. I'm not sure but the new system still sounds like if you run the killer for 5 gens then die and the rest of your team gets out you might still lose MMR because all you did was chase and nothing else and you didn't escape. Hopefully however the MMR is calculated it accounts for that but I have no idea
I've said it on a couple of things, but I feel that BHVR frequently tries to reinvent the wheel instead of taking the obvious choice - in this case just factoring in the other survivors.
BHVR really, really doesn't want to officially say survivors are a team. Sure, to have success they have to play as a team, most survivors play it as a team game, they allow SWFs which explicitly act as a team, and their new MMR system rewards actions that ultimately benefit the whole group, but they want keep the idea that each survivor is 'independent'.
All of that would be more easily accomplished and understood by just factoring survivors in as a group without the complexity. They could even maintain 50% is determined solely by the individual results, 50% by the others if they still want it to be individual focused.
Hopefully however the MMR is calculated it accounts for that but I have no ideaAs a hypothetical, it would also depend on what the killer does, but I really doubt the ability of the computer to determine skill on that precise of a level.
-
@KingOfGhost said:
Here is a stronger version that responds directly while keeping the discussion focused on accessibility and balance.
So, in other words, should we exclude players from experiencing a Killer they like simply because they were born with physical limitations? Should we just tell them, “We don’t need to make the game more accessible for you. Just don’t play that Killer and move on”?
I don’t think that should be the answer. If reasonable accessibility options can let more players enjoy a Killer without giving them an unfair gameplay advantage, then those options should be considered.
I understand the argument that the Killer player chooses which Killer they play, while Survivors cannot choose which Killer they face. But I don’t think that means Killer-specific accessibility needs should automatically be considered less important.
Choosing a Killer does not remove the accessibility problem. If someone really enjoys Spirit, for example, but cannot properly use audio cues because of a hearing impairment, telling them to simply play another Killer is not really an accessibility solution. The point of accessibility is to reduce unnecessary barriers so more people can experience the same content.
That also does not mean Spirit should receive perfect visual tracking or anything that gives additional information. A visual audio system could be designed to represent roughly the same information a hearing player already receives, while keeping the same uncertainty and limitations.
And I agree that general Killer accessibility should probably be the priority where possible. Things such as visual sound cues, camera shake reduction, better input options, clearer power UI, contrast settings, FoV options, and customizable visual indicators could benefit many Killers rather than only one.
The FoV option and aura/scratch-mark customization are good examples of progress. I’m not saying Killer players have received nothing. I’m saying there are still areas where accessibility could be expanded.
The mobile visual-audio system is also exactly the kind of feature I think would be worth testing on the main game. It does not necessarily need to be copied directly. Put a version in the Beta tab, test how accurate it is, determine whether it gives too much information, adjust the range and directionality, and collect feedback from both disabled players and the wider playerbase.
That is what the Beta tab seems perfect for.
The goal shouldn’t be to make a Killer easier to play. It should be to make sure a player is struggling because of the Killer’s intended gameplay difficulty, not because important information is only available through a physical ability they may not have.
Your argument would probably be better than what the AI cooked up as like a lot of AI its pablum without any real depth.
This long post amounts to - 'I want something better, but also not unfair.'
So would everyone. That's a goal, not a process, and doesn't deal with the difficulties of actually doing it.
The issue is that a game (any game that's not 100% chance) needs to have some form of mechanic or skill. Inevitably some human people will have an advantage or disadvantage at that activity. DbD is a game that relies on visual cues, audio cues, quick decision making, reflexes, etc. You can argue any of those should have more or less emphasis in the game, ultimately that's going to advantage some people and disadvantage others.
-
@MorelClaudette said:
I simply don't understand why they never explain MMR in more detail.
Now would be the perfect opportunity to do so.
I get it that they won't show a number or something to prevent bullying each others ranks (high MMR = no lifer/unemployed, low MMR = noob, no skill). They also do not need to explain what algorithms or whatever they use.
But some examples would help with understanding the actual system.
Just simple things like
- "If you play killer and get 1 kill, but 9 hooks → MMR stays the same (you would have needed 2 kills for a MMR increase)"
- "If you play survivor and get 3 out of 4 iridiscent emblems but die in the end → MMR increase".
That would help a lot of people to get the basic idea.
So I really would like the system to be laid out, but:
Just simple things like"If you play killer and get 1 kill, but 9 hooks → MMR stays the same (you would have needed 2 kills for a MMR increase)""If you play survivor and get 3 out of 4 iridiscent emblems but die in the end → MMR increase".
That would help a lot of people to get the basic idea.It's not like that as at the end of the match each individual survivor is compared to the killer (and then their current MMRs are compared to each other). So even if you do a bunch of activities that gain points, whether that results in a net gain or not isn't known until compared to the other side.
@ForTheEntity said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4112402#Comment_4112402
The point is: people who want to manipulate their MMR will find a way to MMR within the constraints they are given.
If people think they can limit their MMR by constraining their kills then we get games where people get 8 hooks and zero kills (providing the survivors unhook) and those are rather sporting games.
If people think they can limit their MMR by limiting their time in chase, hooks and kills well where does that leave us? Killers that limit their time in chase, hooks and kills? What kind of killer does that resemble now?
If people think they can limit their MMR by limiting their time in chase, hooks and kills well where does that leave us? Killers that limit their time in chase, hooks and kills? What kind of killer does that resemble now?Hypothetically, it requires the killer to not even play the match if enough factors are taken into account. Given how boring that would be, and how frequently the player would have to engage in it, its unlikely that many players would actually do it. While the current 8 hook, then let them go, would be an easy way to get around (though not one I find to be particularly worrisome).
@ForTheEntity said:
Before it was based on kills but now it's based on …what?
For those that want to raise their MMR, it's a great change. No matter what you do if you're trying your MMR will go up …or what?
I just want to understand.
I was never one to take up nasty strategies like tunneling or slugging from the start of a match. I like going for my 8 hooks before I start killing people and if they brought cake I might let them go… but even then I might end up at higher MMR even though I'm not getting kills?
I get it, I have enough hour that I shouldn't be part of the newb-welcoming squad, a role I was happy to play, but now I might just suffer no matter what I do?
If someone wants to keep their MMR lower that it should be it used to be killers could get 8 hooks and giver the survivors a sporting round… but what do they do now? Play a li bit and AFK?
Disclaimer: Not encouraging anything. Just want to know how the system works.
Before it was based on kills but now it's based on …what?For those that want to raise their MMR, it's a great change. No matter what you do if you're trying your MMR will go up …or what?I just want to understand.Survivors are graded on an individual basis. Other actions in the game, which generally (generally being an important word here) correspond to the emblem system, award points during the match. Escapes and deaths are still the preeminent point getter. Those points are compared with the other side at the end of the trial and the side with more points gains MMR (with killer vs survivor being 4 comparisons). How much you gain/lose is
1: I suspect determined by the level of difference (I'm not sure if they said this precisely)
2: Modifies by comparing starting MMRs
Beyond that, there are no plans to divulge what the actual specifics/number break downs are (based on another thread).
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4112147#Comment_4112147
Slippery Meat is the perfect pick for that, it's thematic and also a universal perk so everyone has access to it.
The unhook notification does have legitimate use, so tying this effect to a perk is more reasonable imo
The unhook notification does have legitimate use, so tying this effect to a perk is more reasonable imoBy legitimate I'm guessing you mean the info the killer gets. I've always thought that's way too powerful for something to just be free basekit (not that you would use this phrase I think, but in the community parlance, very hand holdy basekit).
The problem I think with going the perk direction is how easily it would pair with something like Resurgence to take lots of the risks out of healing under hook. That's why I think a basekit hide of the unhook notification would make implementing a trade off much easier - something like mangled/broken off hook to also make healing under hook under the protection less easy.
-
@cammoking123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4111726#Comment_4111726
We do. It's called balance. In what world is two seconds of haste worth 40 seconds of exhaustion?
BHVR isn't really interested in balancing certain perks as much as nuking them. They've done it in the past and will almost certainly do it again in the future. That was the fate of SB.
-
@HoodedWildKard said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4111590#Comment_4111590
Ah wondered how long before the "git gud" would pop up. Problem with that is the skill requirement gap between the roles. Killer has a much lower skill requirement than survivor. Like a massive one. I have about 1600 hours, and as killer I often absolutely slam survivor in teams with 5-6k+ hours each, and I never enter a game and hard tunnel from the start. Conversley I have survivor games where killers with 100-300 hours get 4ks because they hard tunnel and either remove a player from the game extremely early or turn altruistic plays into snowballs to gain a bunch of pressure. It takes control of the game very early and a toddler could do it.
To "git gud" as a survivor in chase takes hundreds if not thousands of hours. Killer is much easier to pick up, even without relying on hard tunneling right off the bat, you'll regularly see killers with less than a third of the play time of their survivor opponents absolutely clap them. So by your mentality anyone who hasn't played the game for literal solid months of their lives just deserves to lose any game where a killer simply plays the cheap easy tactic.
Hard tunneling requires bare minimal competence at the game, whilst countering hard tunneling effectively requires an insane amount of hours gameplay, knowledge and reflexes that a good 70-80% of the playerbase simply doesn't possess. Just look at your example, you list genrushing and bully squads as the survivor equivalent to hard tunneling. But they are much easier to counter, there's a plethora of regression perks and bully squad tactics are much more likely to backfire and practically throw the game for survivors than secure a win. Dedicated anti tunnel perks are not great in number and on the whole are extremely weak, the only one that really works well is DS, and that is a one shot and gone. Most other anti tunnel perks like OTR etc are completely countered by simply proxying the hook and hitting the surv straight off hook and hounding them down. To effectively counter a hard tunnel you need either the tunneling target to astronomically outskill the killer and string 3 chases (2 at a major disadvantage) for 5 gens, and/or players who can pull altruistic plays without getting downed, which really means the killer needs to have the intelligence and tactical acumen of a concrete paving slab.
The only time hard tunneling hurts the killer is when the skill gap between them and the survivors is huge. It's a cheap, skilless tactic that is extremely difficult to counter, and more importantly isn't really fun for anyone involved. You remember that people are supposed to play games to have fun right? Winning by the quickest, most efficient and hard to counter playstyle is the mentality that causes people to cheat. And imo players who constantly hard tunnel are only one step up from cheaters, only because that kind of play legitimately exists due to the quirk of dbd being an asymmetric pvp game. Now with the offhook endurance actually being reduced this tactic only gets stronger.
Ah wondered how long before the "git gud" would pop up. Problem with that is the skill requirement gap between the roles.This is a good point that you explain well, but there is something that often comes to my mind about it. We all own the same game. Its not like one group of humans was assigned survivors and another killers, though that does seem to be how people treat it. I think the logical explanation for why 'survivors' seem bad in comparison to 'killers' is that just the killer role is easier (which is also how they maintain a 60% KR).
-
@AbsolutGrndZer0 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4106929#Comment_4106929
A strawman can also be making an illogtcal comparison to shift the goalposts. Robbing a bank is in no way a reasonable comparison to tunneling, and therefore THAT is why your argument is a strawman.
I'm really surprised to see the thread revived after 11 days, especially without it being anything related to the topic.
Anyway, fallacies aren't just buzz words, they have meanings.
Strawman - someone argues against a position that the other person doesn't have
Moving the goalposts (not sure where this came from) - changing the demands for what evidence is needed to prove a point. Example: show me a game - okay, that doesn't count, show me five games - those don't count, show me 20 games.
I'm not doing either of those. I'm (twice, you keep ignoring the second comparison along with the general explanation) comparing your reasoning to other, clearly wrong (edit: just for clarity, being this is your focus of posts, the example is meant to be an obviously extreme scenario to demonstrate the fallacy you are committing), situations to demonstrate why its incorrect (a false equivalence). You don't have an answer for that so you seem to just be deflecting.
Anyway, the issue remains pretty simple - Just because some 'rules' that people try to create are wrong, doesn't mean all 'rules' are wrong
-
Is there any reason you guys can think of that these timers must be the same duration?I guess there's a little worry that it would be more confusing for new players 'you have A for 10, B for 5 after that, and then C for another 5'.
That said, yeah, I think splitting up the off hook protections so they have different times would be a good idea.
-
@Piruluk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4111092#Comment_4111092
I think this new system might be even worse, maybe now even if you did a bare minimum and didnt escape, you still wont lose mmr and easily gain. Why is this a problem?
Because according to new mmr everybody outside of the absolute worst will be "high mmr". Either you gain easily, or you dont lose mmr easily, same thing.
I dont even understand why people care about the invisible mmr, so the system kill or escape was good enough.
The problem was always that streamers hated when had to wait games for say 10 minutes to get according players to skill level, so mmr ignored completely, just so the top few percent get instant or fast matchmaking, and then there is dodging, which destroys matchmaking anyway.
So what will the be impact?
None. Or getting worse.
I think this new system might be even worse, maybe now even if you did a bare minimum and didnt escape, you still wont lose mmr and easily gain. Why is this a problem?That I don't think is correct. MMR still works off one side up, one side down, and (I think on this part) a 1 to 1 survivor to killer comparison. So if the survivor goes up 10, the killer goes down 10. The issue is whether what they have is actually anymore reflective of skill than what existed.
I dont even understand why people care about the invisible mmr, so the system kill or escape was good enough.This is true. I wouldn't even be making this post if BHVR had never promoted they were doing it, built up hype around it, and had a livestream about it. It's made players expect something better, but we aren't actually going to learn how it works, and things will still probably feel the same. If it had been an off handed change - "hey, we're tweaking MMR to incorporate some additional factors into the rating at the end of the match, we think this will yield a slight improvement" - I wouldn't care. But they've made players expect something that I think will leave them sorely disappointed.
@lovlor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4111093#Comment_4111093
But I don't think queue time is a valid reason to matchmake weak players with strong players. This is very unfair for the weak and can cause high frustration. I personally play mostly swf only and 4k hours now. There are matches (not rare) that I see how the killer do the first chase and knows this is a free 4out. I can even watch tiktok while I'm doing gen I don't even need to pay attention. BTW survivor queue time is almost instant at night, meaning there are many killers in the queue at the same time for their system to choose. However this still happens often. Imagine the lobby for killers when they have minutes queue time and they are given very few options when they finish their queue. They will be given very possibly weak players as they are the majority(That's my understanding of queue, might be wrong)
But I don't think queue time is a valid reason to matchmake weak players with strong players.I don't think any of us do, but BHVR seems to disagree.
-
@Mandy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4110996#Comment_4110996
there's no plans to give the exact maths, no current plans at least. I can't speak about future as that could change, but for right now its not even in discussion.
Thank you, I appreciate it. I think its better for the community that everyone knows that for discussions going forward.
@Piruluk said:
Hm very good points, that means you will get bad MMR if you dont farm points from now on?
As discussed above, we won't know the exact breakdowns. Potentially? It really depends on how they weigh things because its NOT the emblem system where both sides could go up.
People have already voiced the worry about slugging killers and gen rushing survivors staying at lower MMRs. As I mentioned above, on the survivor side I think doing a lot of different things okay will be given more MMR than doing one thing really well, but whether that is an appreciable difference is impossible to say if things run in the background. That does create the potential there will be really amazing chase survivors (as an example) who never do anything but chase who stay at lower MMR than they would under the current system.
On the killer side it feels like a tunneling /end game build could get a lot of 3/4ks, but also not pick up much under the Gatekeeper/Malicious 'emblems'. Again without weighs impossible to know the degree of impacts.
There's going to be a lot of wait and see, which will be followed by many, many guesses.
-
@Mandy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4110918#Comment_4110918
I agree for your final point there, players will still blame MMR - that's an unfortunate fact that happens in pretty much all games. There's no system that's perfect and its especially hard in an asymetrical game.
Kills and Escapes will still matter, its just that now they're not the only thing - it should address other things in a match, and I think that's been a lot of what players have said over the last few years. There are definitely big parts of that which do make sense - kills and escapes are one of the main constants in the game - so I don't think we're disagreeing here.
The game has changed a lot from what it was a few years ago, as have the players. We recognised that we could improve the system on how we calculate players MMR and we've worked to do that. Its been running in the background for a while as a kind of test (not impacting games, not used for matchmaking etc) and the data is looking good on it so far. It might need tweaking when its Live, we'll be keeping a close eye on it and making any adjustments as necessary.
I have a feeling this is something that can't be answered, but: will we the players, even if we don't know our own MMRs, actually know how the MMR breaks down (weighs) the various activities. Or will the exact specifics be a mystery, just that its more than escapes/deaths?
-
@AliceNull said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4110923#Comment_4110923
Does the team have any intent to modify the stat tracker page to include team escape rate or any information from the new 'tally' MMR system, now that performance is team based rather than individual on the survivor side? Assuming I've even understood that correctly, I may have gotten that wrong.
I think many of us would love to see team escape rate.
Its not a team based MMR, though some would prefer that as well. Doing more things, such as rescues and heals, will count toward the points earned, but whether those players escape or not I don't 'think' has any impact.
-
@Mandy said:
I think what you need to do is separate out MMR and Matchmaking - both of those things are not the same.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/HK2003M4FQ8O/image.png
These things are examples of what is covered with Matchmaking - except perhaps varying levels of sweatiness which falls into a different category on its own tbf.
With kills and escapes, only those were the outcome for the current MMR which was missing a massive part of the game, hence we looked at the system overall and looked at what were the important factors in the game.
The point of it keeping hidden is ultimately the number is meaningless to the vast majority of players, who play the game casually and do not care if they're high MMR or medium MMR (there's only a very small portion of players in that high mmr bracket after all). We don't want players to only focus on MMR and play in a way to maximise it, as its a number that's used for matchmaking only.
I think what you need to do is separate out MMR and Matchmaking - both of those things are not the same.I believe that's what I was doing, saying things other than MMR are the potential core issues.
And while they're different under the hood, the end result to the player is the same. If one of those is the best designed system in the world, and the other is broken, the end result doesn't work (and players have no way to know what went wrong).
If the problem is something else, fiddling with MMR is just window dressing to the problems.
With kills and escapes, only those were the outcome for the current MMR which was missing a massive part of the game, hence we looked at the system overall and looked at what were the important factors in the game.Just for clarity, is BHVR walking back the logic that was done for the old system? That the reasons given for why just tracking the end result (hockey analogy) are no longer believed to be true?
Because I'm one of those who thought it made a lot of sense and have defended it, but if it was wrong, I'll take the loss if BHVR's evidence says it wasn't working.
The point of it keeping hidden is ultimately the number is meaningless to the vast majority of players, who play the game casually and do not care if they're high MMR or medium MMR (there's only a very small portion of players in that high mmr bracket after all). We don't want players to only focus on MMR and play in a way to maximise it, as its a number that's used for matchmaking only.1: Are we going to learn the exact impacts of various MMR factors, or will those be a secret? Like what percent comes down to the escape/death?
2: I understand why MMR is not publicly shown, I don't even disagree, but its still the same issue that when a match up doesn't feel right people will blame MMR. The new system isn't going to fix that.
-
@Dokta_Carter said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4109978#Comment_4109978
Hmm if we are going by the old emblem system honestly probably not.
But there is also evidence of you potentially keeping current MMR
Old Emblem system up to like Red(irric) rank is rather loose, but it still required some spread of effort(between chase, gens, and other stuff)
I'm not sure where people got the idea that this was going back to the emblem system. Not only do we have Mandy saying its not in another thread, I think the livestream and images made it more clear they were making minor adjustments to the current system instead of a larger overhaul.
-
There's likely lots of factors that impact design / balance changes. If only a small number are playing, but they really enjoy her, then that's probably fine. With so many killers in the game its unlikely that anything that doesn't already have IP appeal is going to remain heavily played for that long.
-
@killerroleisOP said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4110230#Comment_4110230
…"do anything else to another user that is unwanted…"
This line is so vague that it could be used to justify banning anyone just cause they feel like it, lol.
Portions like that aren't meant to be read in the absence of the rest of the sentence structure, it goes with the earlier examples and the following clarification. It just prevents someone from going 'I wasn't harassing them, I was antagonizing them, and you didn't technically list that.'
-
A golden age is unlikely because people want different things from DbD. It might enter a period where you are most happy with it, just as there are people who think DbD was best right before 6.1, or right after the end of the gen kick meta, etc.
-
@Your_Dad_Playing_DbD said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4109933#Comment_4109933
Something to think about: would it make sense to weight the individual performance more for people who are in solo queue vs those who are in SWF? This would 1) make it more rewarding for solo queue players who do very well individually but don’t escape because of random bad teammates, 2) reduce solo queue players from getting boosted too much by escape luck, and 3) reduce SWF getting boosted too much because of their comms advantage making it easier to gen rush and win quick matches with few chases
Maybe something like individual performance is 2/3 of MMR score for solo players and scales down to only 1/3 of MMR score for 4-man SWF, and 2-3 SWF are something in between.
3) reduce SWF getting boosted too much because of their comms advantage making it easier to gen rush and win quick matches with few chasesIs there a reason why we wouldn't want to boost SWFs? If they're gen rushing and beating up on weak killers and then get matched up with better killers, good.
-
@Dokta_Carter said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4109911#Comment_4109911
.... Yes?
Evading a killer is more skillful then just escaping by doing the bare minimum and escaping?
Do we have any evidence or reason to suspect that running the killer all game and dying still won't be a loss of MMR?
The examples they gave still have a survivor that does a bunch of different stuff. The hypothetical run for 5 gens and die still could be an MMR loss.
@tjt85 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4109900#Comment_4109900
You've perfectly summed up my concerns as well. It's a good direction to make your actions in a trial have greater weight in calculating MMR, but I hope that kills and escapes are still the most important deciding factor when it comes to sorting us all into MMR bands.
I worry that it will be possible to play just about well enough to get trapped into an MMR bracket where you never escape or get any kills, yet your match-making rank never goes down. So you'd be stuck in a bracket that you don't really belong in. And as you point out, it won't accurately place Killers that are slugging the entire team to win their trials.
That said, in practice I don't think the new system will feel any different to the old one. It will still pull in players of all skill levels just to fill a lobby so the queue times stay reasonable (just like it does at the moment).
That said, in practice I don't think the new system will feel any different to the old one.This is what I suspect as well.
-
@GroovieAshes said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4109893#Comment_4109893
I was trying to convey the idea that many good Survivor Perks have been nerfed going way back.
I know some Killer Perks have also suffered but seems like Survivor has been getting the brunt of it lately.
Not having much fun in the game lately. Time for a long break.
See you fellas on the flip side.
I was trying to convey the idea that many good Survivor Perks have been nerfed going way back.Don't worry, I think the vast majority of us got that.
Best of luck in what game you take up next.
@DodoSwarm said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4109903#Comment_4109903
that's not at all on the same scale as what Vigil does and you know that it isn't. People running Vigil still are effected by the clown, just a little less so, its not "infinite clown protection". same goes for freddy. there are TONS of killer perks that from the outset greatly inconvenience survivors, if we are removing vigil then lets start removing those ones too. Lightborn removes a valuable part of survivor gameplay, take it out. Corrupt Intervention Needlessly Stalls the beginning of the game, take it out. Thanataphobia is causing other players to be slower because of the mistakes of someone else who couldn't loop well enough, take it out.
I am not actually trying to say that these perks should be taken out of the game though, what I am doing is pointing out that if perks ARENT effecting the other team then why are we running them? you run corrupt and pain res because you WANT survivors gen progress to slow down, so survivors run Vigil because they WANT the killers debuffs to last for less time, that's how PvP scenarios are supposed to work. You can absolutely still play the game as any killer who has any power that causes any debuff, you can play it perfectly fine. you are still faster than survivors, you are still able to LEAVE CHASE and go chase someone without Vigil if you find yourself struggling with it. this is not a viable case to remove a perk with a unique functionality.I am not actually trying to say that these perks should be taken out of the game though, what I am doing is pointing out that if perks ARENT effecting the other team then why are we running them?Best perk image?
Seriously though, its a good point. Perks are meant to have an effect and too frequently an 'an effect' is itself treated as broken.
-
@Thusly_Boned said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4109623#Comment_4109623
Yeah, a "win" as a surv is much more subjective. I for one would feel much better about making great plays that allowed 2-3 of my teammates to escape than putzing around and slinking out while my teammates died. It's not at all uncommon for the worst surv on a team to be the only one who gets out.
But other people have different ideas about this, and that's the point. Too hard to settle on one surv wincon.
Which is why I think that while not perfect, emblems/scoring is the best way to settle surv MMR. You can be bad but escape consistently if you play a certain way. It's not so easy to be bad and consistently rack up high scores.Which is why I think that while not perfect, emblems/scoring is the best way to settle surv MMR. You can be bad but escape consistently if you play a certain way. It's not so easy to be bad and consistently rack up high scores.The problem with this, unless BHVR changes its stance on MMR being public, is that it doesn't really change anything about people playing.
At best I can see it changing who makes it into upper MMR, but unless matchmaking is also made stricter that seems unlikely, and also potentially just entrenches 'low MMR hell'.
I think the easier way they could have gone with MMR on the survivor side is just always make it group based.
-
@Your_Dad_Playing_DbD said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4109401#Comment_4109401
Maybe I’m wrong, but I feel like it’s pretty universally accepted that a win is escaping as survivor (with all gens done and gate open) or 3-4K as killer. Now keep in mind that “win” doesn’t necessarily translate to “skill”, which BHVR still doesn’t seem to understand. You can do nothing all match as survivor and still escape because the rest of your team was really good or you can 3-4K as killer with very little skill if the survivor team is just messing around or not very good.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I feel like it’s pretty universally accepted that a win is escaping as survivor (with all gens done and gate open) or 3-4K as killer.The first part is not universally accepted as all. Plenty of players would happily take a 3e where they died over a 1e where they were the only one to escape.
Now keep in mind that “win” doesn’t necessarily translate to “skill”, which BHVR still doesn’t seem to understand.This is a common misunderstanding of BHVR's argument.
In the long run, which is what MMR cares about, the exceptions wash out. Across a 100 or a 1000 games will people escape matches they shouldn't and die in ones they should? Absolutely. It's just not statistically relevant and generally applies equally to all players.
-
@ForTheEntity said:
The first paragraph doesn't really respond to anything. Something being a mix of wins and losses goes hand in hand with the idea of both sides having a chance to win. If anything, tunneling works against that rationale as a killer who tunnels takes it out of the hands of most of the survivors and puts it solely in the hands of the tunneled target.
I'm all for both sides having a chance to win which is one of the reasons I really want them to address tunneling.
The 'every match' is difficult given the extreme randomness of match ups that exist in DbD, which is a deeper topic than this thread.
Well sometimes tunneling is a comeback mechanic for killers, so it's a nuanced problem, making tunneling a very hard problem to address. Hence the massive grey area I mentioned earlier.
There's a reason keeping new survivors around has been difficult, and tunneling is one of the primary reasons.
This isn't anything new. DbD has always had a player retention problem. New players join with new licenses and leave when the novelty and/or cakes run out. Who's to say tunneling is more to blame now than any of the other multitude of problems this game has.
I'm not really sure what we're discussing here anymore.
I'm not really sure what we're discussing here anymore.Whether dealing with tunneling is somehow a nuanced issue or not. The arguments put forward that its tricky don't hold up, its no more tricky than anything else in game design (which, by its nature, isn't easy, but that's true of every game element).
1: The idea that tunneling is 'necessary' for some killers or situations is true for every change that's ever been made on both sides. A longer DS could easily be justified if we just talk about S Tier killers, the old gen kick era can be justified if we limit the discussion to D tier killers, etc.
2: The concept of a comeback mechanic brings up 'what's the comeback mechanic for survivors' other than just 'play better'. If the killer has it, why not survivors? If the answer is both sides should have it, okay, let's go back to the gen boost for three survivors from a year ago (which is also anti-tunnel in its own way because an anti-tunnel would frequently be a comeback mechanic). If the answer is 'the killer should have this and not the survivors because the killer should be stronger', then sure, that's a subjective opinion on game design and each person would have a different take, but as long as we're up front about it.
3: The concept of solve by perks then brings up the idea of why is this a focus on the survivor side, but not the killer. We could treat the sides the same and say playing a weaker killer is like playing with off meta perks, you're doing it for fun / a challenge.
4: The idea on where to draw the line is the same thing any balancing discussion has. At what point is Pain Res too strong/too weak, when is DH too strong or too weak, etc. One of the problems with the anti-tunnel discussions last year is many people treated it as a 'if I trigger this, I lose the game' instead of treating it like any other balancing discussion.
Basically, there's nothing unique about tunneling.
If you don't think it leads to bad games, then that a difference of opinion on what makes a 'fun' game, no different than disagreements on whether survivors who go for sabo and flashlight saves in abundance make for a better or worse game.
If it leads to bad games, its a problem and should be fixed. There's no reason that its any different than any other problem or improvement the game has done before, but people try to 'logic' the argument as if its somehow unique.
-
@ForTheEntity said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4109487#Comment_4109487
Just because "the killer experience should be a mix of wins and losses" doesn't mean they should be put into entirely hopeless matches. It is a game and in any given match each side should have at least some chance to win. Every match. One side should not be in an entirely hopeless match for the other side's entertainment. A lot of players would go looking for other games to play if they keep getting hopeless matches.
Strong anti-tunneling tools are already available to survivors like basekit BT, DS, OTR and Shoulder the Burden, etc.
The first paragraph doesn't really respond to anything. Something being a mix of wins and losses goes hand in hand with the idea of both sides having a chance to win. If anything, tunneling works against that rationale as a killer who tunnels takes it out of the hands of most of the survivors and puts it solely in the hands of the tunneled target.
I'm all for both sides having a chance to win which is one of the reasons I really want them to address tunneling.
The 'every match' is difficult given the extreme randomness of match ups that exist in DbD, which is a deeper topic than this thread.
Alotof players would go looking for other games to play if they keep getting hopeless matches.Yeah, that's what has happened. There's a reason keeping new survivors around has been difficult, and tunneling is one of the primary reasons.
Strong anti-tunneling tools are already available to survivors like basekit BT, DS, OTR and Shoulder the Burden, etc.Let me go back to something you said earlier -
Regardless of your opinion DS is not just an anti-tunnel perk and has been weaponized in the past and continues to be weaponized, especially against newer players or the weaker killers on the rosterNote the use of 'weaker' killers.
I don't understand why on the survivor side, the expectation is that they need to run the right things, and if they don't, tough, but the killer sided discussion is based around worst case scenarios like weaker killer.
The perk solution also has two fundamental problems
1: Some perks have little effect on certain killers (DS against Blight/Nurse), going against your argument of have a chance every match as the survivors have no knowledge or control over what killer they face.
2: The perks rely on a massive element of chance. StB is useless if you are tunneled, DS and OTR useless if someone else is tunneled. The perk solution relies not just on survivors bring these perks (and I'm not more in favor of survivors having to just run one or two builds than I am every killer having to play just Blight or Nurse), but also ending up being the right target/not target.
-
@ForTheEntity said:
@Firellius
That's kinda the exact problem I'm pointing at. You're not engaging with the concept, you're ruling it out based on a state where it isn't implemented.You still have yet to put anything forward that could be defined as a concept. So what am I not engaging with?
Do you want to delete Endurance and buff DS? Endurance has been proven to be a necessary mechanic ever since Borrowed Time was introduced. So if there was no Endurance for someone recently unhooked but basekit DS (I'm assuming DS has to be basekit as removing basekit BT without compensation would just be a huge survivor nerf) then the correct play for the killer is to always slug them and the go for the rescuer, which would just be massive free pressure because another survivor has to get off their gen to come pick them up. In what currently is the trade scenario where the killer hits the survivor before and after they unhook would turn into something worse than a trade scenario where the correct play for the killer would be to slug the unhooker, down the recently unhooked, leave them slugged and put the rescuer on the hook. Then unless they have enormous pressure and many killers would proxy camp in this position. Just eating the DS stun becomes a really unappealing option since you want it to 5+ seconds.
I don't see any way that this would be an improvement to the game. It would lead to more slugging and camping.
Or do you have something in your head that you have yet to post that would make this "concept" even remotely tenable?
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4109454#Comment_4109454
My point is that there is no way for the game to define when tunneling is bad and should be punished or restricted and when its necessary. Comp is just an easy extreme example.
Take 2 lobbies:
- Baby Dwight, Mag, Claudette and Jake with no items.
- 4 SoloQ survivors you've played before, know they are good all with items.
In case 1 clearly tunneling from the start is bad and in case 2 tunneling from the start might be necessary, especially if you're not on your best killer with a less than ideal map.
How is the game supposed to be able to tell the difference?
If it was a a simple black and white issue like 3+ gens tunneling bad & <3 gens left tunneling acceptable then it would be coded into the game. But instead it's all just a huge murky, undefinable (and therefore uncodeable) grey zone.
In case 1 clearly tunneling from the start is bad and in case 2 tunneling from the start might be necessary, especially if you're not on your best killer with a less than ideal map.Any time a discussion like this comes up, necessary starts getting used. What people mean by necessary is 'to win'. Except that's a bad way to approach it because the killer experience should be a mix of wins and losses.
When we look at your example lobbies, multiple game elements could apply. I could argue infinites never should have been taken out because the lobby might be baby soloq. Except that would be a bad standard. The focus should be on an overall healthier game and the community recognizes it for discussing other game elements, but tunneling seems to be an exception.
How is the game supposed to be able to tell the difference?It doesn't need to. Stronger anti-tunnel perks, the anti-tunnel update idea from last year, either of those would work. My preference would be revisiting the way they approached anti-tunnel, which had some good ideas but BHVR, like they frequently do, went way, way overboard.