Comments

• @oecrophy said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3979986#Comment_3979986

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3979986#Comment_3979986

  Based on what though? Are we discussing game design, as in what would be the best elements for the game, or we discussing desires to win all the time?

  What I really want to say is: It’s not about wanting to win all the time. But I want to keep the chance to WIN — even against efficient groups. (forgot to quote u my last post)

  And it doesn’t even have to be the really good SWFs. Even average players squeeze every bit of efficiency out of the round. Everyone gets it: it’s about maximizing efficiency wins — survivors included.

  If you think the stuff killers have is too strong from a design perspective, what about the efficiency tools survivors have?

  And no… this isn’t me whining about “gen speed being broken” or anything. But that’s only because I also have my strong tools for applying pressure.

  I'm going to do my best to condense points that are getting really long.

  -Flashies

  I never said they are too strong or what your opinion on them is. Its an example of something that once upon a time was too strong, got nerfed, but is still part of a game and that some players, not all, think should get more nerfed, but that doesn't mean they would be completely removed.

  -The portion you quote in German

  Y, but just because a tactic is too strong against a lot of groups, what about the groups that actually need those tactics to even have a chance?

  DbD is a situational game that I'll get into a bit more later.

  And he’s not even talking about weakening those tactics — he wants them completely gone from the game.

  That is not how I read what he has posted at all but I'll leave that part to @Firellius and you.

  Or isn’t it about time for way better matchmaking, buffs for solo queue, and debuffs for SWF?

  -Matchmaking: No one knows the numbers for certain, but I suspect at the higher levels there just aren't enough 4 person callout SWFs to match up against the top level killers (given all the difficulties of forming a SWF in comparison to the killer role). Basically, I don't think you can fix the game by fixing matchmaking because the top level (and bottom level for that matter) is so incredibly tilted that the 4v1 nature breaks down for match ups.

  -Soloq/SWFs: it opens up another can of worms because SWFs are of radically different strengths and this is one of the firmest things BHVR has said they'll never do.

  There's a number of buffs I think they could give to help out soloq that they've been reluctant to do. Some I understand why, even if I disagree (i.e. argument that seeing perks would lead to toxicity) and others that I think they are foolish not to do (example being showing a survivor who can self unhook in a different color making things like deliverance viable in soloq).

  What I really want to say is: It’s not about wanting to win all the time. But I want to keep the chance to WIN — even against efficient groups. (forgot to quote u my last post)

  This gets more into broader game theory and what they are designed to do.

  We have games like Chess where when a player loses there can be very clear: you did this, it was a mistake, here is what you should have done. On the opposite end of the spectrum we have card games, at the extreme end speed no limit hold 'em. Which plays are correct or not is incredibly subjective and, frequently, you can make the absolute right statistical play and still lose.

  Both games are games of skill though they have different levels of randomness. Some people like both, others have strong preference for one design over the other. Some like the clarity of chess, others find it stale, while card games can offer everyone a chance and high variability with every game, while others dislike the randomness and lack of clear 'what is the right play'.

  Everything BHVR has ever said about what they want from DbD puts it more toward the high random elements of game design theory. This doesn't mean the game lacks skill, but just like card games you need to play a bunch of times to see who the better player is. Personally, I think that makes the game far more entertaining, but understand that its a spectrum of design and everyone has their preference.

  If you think the stuff killers have is too strong from a design perspective, what about the efficiency tools survivors have?

  As I said in an earlier post, stuff gets nerfed all the time. People disagree about what is deserving of a nerf, but that things will be nerfed/buffed/changed is inevitable.

  Like you listed Buckle Up as something to take away from survivors and, well, okay, that's quite a take as I'd sacrifice Buckle Up for anti-tunnel without hesitation. Me I'd start with toolboxes and syringes probably as things that seem overpowered for survivors.

  in My problem with the 60% kill rate target Comment by crogers271 August 9, 2025

• @nakedcat said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3938724#Comment_3938724

  I see this quote about kill rates being impacted but I wonder if the devs have ever said “if the escape rates are (negatively) impacted we will make balance changes to bring them up accordingly”

  I believe they want the general kill rate at 60% but that would also mean they want survivors escaping generally 40% of the time too right? Or are they fine with the escape rate going down but not the kill rate? I’m asking someone more tuned in to this place and these devs than I am

  Or are they fine with the escape rate going down but not the kill rate? I’m asking someone more tuned in to this place and these devs than I am

  There was a stream maybe half a year ago (I might be way off on the time) where they talked about being okay with kill rates up to 65%.

  They have also said its not the only balance or gameplay element they look at.

  It certainly feels like there have been more posts assuring killers not to worry that if the numbers dip they'll rush to adjust than they do for survivors, but that might just be because we're in the midst of QoL changes directed more at survivors. There was a post/reddit discussion from a former dev where he talked about the idea that making sure killers stay in the game is more important than survivors (I'm generalizing a long post and there is reason behind it even if I think it has some flaws in the logic).

  in Killers camping hooks Comment by crogers271 August 8, 2025

• I thought this thread had run its course, especially because we are so far away from what the OP started with, but then it pops back up to the top of the forum.

  @oecrophy said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3979277#Comment_3979277

  quick clarification to the quoted stuff :The quote wasn’t about smaller, isolated mistakes that a killer can quickly recover from by repositioning early and not committing to costly plays.

  Of course, in those 'I play super bad, make tons of mistakes' situations, get mindgamed, messed op to many loops, lost to many messing up my ability on top multiple times, yup I should lose 100% if the survivor team is decent — no question.

  I’m alone in my role. It’s on me. Survivors have it harder at that point. -

  not collapsing as a group and avoiding snowballing. They need to stay organized and focused — simply because they have to coordinate a bit.

  I only gotta keep only myself organized and focused.

  You explain, pretty well, how a single mistake can doom the survivors while the killer can get into a mistake and still reposition and recover.

  On survivor side, it’s not just one mistake. It’s a chain reaction of fails.

  One down is just one down, one hook just one hook.

  more stuff need to happen that a single hook snowballs into a real 'snowball moment

  It’s only when chaos breaks out and new mistakes escalate —unsafe unhooks, poor pathing around hooks, too-early unhooks when I’m clearly proxy camping, neglecting gens too soon, too many people rushing the unhook, no sense of when or how to trade if necassary —

  Compare this to one of your comments from the first page of this thread

  I want to play super bad, make tons of dumb mistakes, feed the killer early, misplay everything so that the killer even gets the chanceto snowball...

  ...but I still expect built-in comeback mechanics to save me from the consequences.

  Free of charge, handed out generously by BHVR.

  This was an exaggeration of a person's desire for a comeback mechanic into an over the top take on what they were asking.

  It doesn't create a lot of goodwill for reading your takes later in the thread.

  like I said, y. If you want to flip my comment to my side:

  as the killer, I should just as much lose if I play super bad, make tons of mistakes, and mess everything up. Sure. I don’t expect any comeback mechanics from BHVR if I fail to apply early pressure. I’m not asking for gens to suddenly slow down just because I’m struggling. I don’t expect to get a free Lightborn because some flashy safe denied my first hook even though three gens are already done. Or that my first hook in that situation gets automatically locked from sabotage attempts by survivors just because it’s the first hook and gens are already progressing. I’m not asking for comeback mechanics on the flip side. No.

  Back to the concept though, why is it good game design? Even if we say the killer should win more than they lose, which is its own argument, why should one side be so heavily penalized by a mistake while the other has opportunities to recover?

  y but you are playin a 4 vs 1. no 1vs1 . Thats it.

  The killer has to be the power role in this battle.

  A lost 50/50 for the killer just means repositioning, but for the survivor it’s an immediate costy hit. - 1 health stealth.

  Survivor mistakes have to be costly — not just to punish the individual who messed up, but to put real pressure on the entire team. That’s how asymmetry works. One player slipping up creates ripple effects, forcing the team into chaos and bad decisions.

  If survivor errors only hurt the player who made them, the rest of the team could just carry on, and the whole 4v1 tension falls apart. The killer’s strength lies in exploiting those chain reactions, breaking the team’s coordination.

  So making survivor mistakes costly isn’t about punishing one guy — it’s about maintaining that fragile, high-stakes dynamic where the killer’s pressure forces survivors to constantly adapt or crumble.

  In asymmetrical games like this, the killer needs more tolerance than the survivors. If killer mistakes were punished as harshly as survivor mistakes, the game would lose its balance: the killer wouldn’t be able to apply enough pressure, and the 4v1 dynamic would collapse. Asymmetry means uneven roles, and the killer needs to be the “power role” as a solo player—not just putting pressure on one person, but exerting control over the entire team.

  The goomba fallacy got brought up in the forum recently and being we're doing fallacies I'll throw that in. Lots of people have ideas on how to improve the survivor role, if you want to lump them all together then yes, it would probably make an unfair game. But not all of them are going to be done and no one is suggesting that all of them be done.

  Something like anti-slug could be too powerful, it probably won't be, but we won't know for certain until we actually see the design or, at a minimum, are discussing a specific suggestion.

  I know. It’s not about treating all suggestions as one big package — I’ve pushed back against individual ideas too.
  (And yeah, it’s just my opinion, other people can see it differently.)

  Everyone has different ideas and proposals. Some people will like one, others won’t. I’ve made suggestions myself — ones that don’t directly punish the killer.
  Not every suggestion has to be “anti-” something.

  And y, I’ll p keep pushing back against these “anti-killer” suggestions.

  Unless one comes along that genuinely convinces me — then sure, I’m open.

  But too many of them aim to strip away pressure tools, one by one.
  They slowly chip away at what makes the killer feel like a threat — until you’re just some presence on the map, not the danger you’re supposed to be.

  In my view, the killer should be the power role.

  I should just as much lose if I play super bad, make tons of mistakes, and mess everything up. Sure. I don’t expect any comeback mechanics from BHVR if I fail to apply early pressure. I’m not asking for gens to suddenly slow down just because I’m struggling. I don’t expect to get a free Lightborn because some flashy safe denied my first hook

  This just seems to be jumping to extremes.

  Gens have slowed down. 10 seconds were added to them because they were going too fast and killers were struggling.

  Lots of killer players will talk about flashlight saves being too easy. I don't presume they want them eliminated entirely and the suggestions they make about certain perks / playstyles can be discussed on the merits of those suggestions.

  And if a flashlight save stunned the killer for ten seconds we could all, hopefully, agree its too egregious and wouldn't be fun (call back to the insta blind days which were changed as they should have been).

  It's about trying to find the right spot for game elements.

  Everyone has different ideas and proposals. Some people will like one, others won’t. I’ve made suggestions myself — ones that don’t directly punish the killer.

  Based on what though? Are we discussing game design, as in what would be the best elements for the game, or we discussing desires to win all the time?

  Because when I look through the next few posts I see comments from you such as:

  it’s not my job as the killer to spot every little mistake survivors make and just slide through. Survivors don’t do that either — they bring everything they’ve got. And thats totally fine. It’s a PvP game.

  At no point do I see @Firellius getting into a discussion of a 'killer rulebook' or anything like that. He's discussing the merits of game design and pointing out how certain tactics are too strong and in need of a nerf (at no point do I see them say an elimination, but a nerf).

  Things get nerfed all the time. We can go to extremes like infinites and 3 genning, but also Dead Hard, MFT, FTP+BU, etc. Some things get nerfed, brought back, nerfed, and then brought (viability of self healing). Tunneling is due for a nerf, I'm fairly doubtful we'll get anything substantial, and given that its an elimination style game I'm uncertain what practically they can do, but its definitely one of the major issues that exists within the game.

  in My problem with the 60% kill rate target Comment by crogers271 August 8, 2025

• @hermitkermit said:

  I really don’t understand why the community couldn’t get some time to adjust and learn counterplay for awhile before adjustments were made. Hasn’t that been the insistence with every killer release? I don’t understand why these items are held to a different standard.

  I think what happened is that there was so much outrage at things that were bugged coming out of 9.1 that this issue just kind of piggy backed with all of the other complaints. Given BHVR, rightly, went into 'we screwed up' mode I think it led to an over reaction this.

  in So much for a “fog” vial Comment by crogers271 August 8, 2025

• @oecrophy said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3979103#Comment_3979103

  Ok.. i understand what u mean, but:

  Just to clarify one thing up front:
  The "perfect survivor team" scenario wasn’t something I brought in to support my argument or strengthen my own position. That example was introduced by someone else — not me — when they mentioned (multiple times) the top 1% teams like Team Eternal.

  My response wasn’t meant to say “see, this proves my point,” but actually the opposite: I was trying to take that whole idea off the table. My point was that this kind of perfection doesn’t exist, and that we shouldn’t base balance discussions around it. It’s not a realistic standard — and I was hoping to move away from that kind of framing, not use it for leverage.

  Now how the argument starts to drift

  That's exactly why I feel misunderstood at that point… because that was never MY argument. I never brought that up — someone else did. I was just responding to it, and more in a way where I was kinda distancing myself from it rather than agreeing with it.

  You're saying you are okay with something happening that never will. Every player regardless of role will make mistakes. The idea that the killer is capitalizing on survivor mistakes is also a bit iffy, if the survivors take the killer on a long chase is it because the survivor was good or did the killer made a mistake?

  And then we get to the Bailey, the more controversial position arguing against something.

  Ok. From that point on, I’m with you. That was a statement I made — that one’s on me. But of course the killer does not only react to survivor mistakes. That’s nah..

  The example you're giving also needs some nuance. If a survivor keeps me in a long loop, that's usually on me — in most cases.

  1. I failed to recognize dangerous RNG early enough from a distance and committed to something that’s now costing me hard.
  2. I took a loop I know how to play properly, but messed it up. That’s on me. Misplayed — my bad.
  3. I couldn’t see that right next to the loop I thought I could win, there’s an OP jungle gym into another OP jungle gym chain. I couldn’t have known. Not my bad, just bad RNG — unlucky. Nothing I can do, just gotta deal with it. Costy again.

  /Same way survivors sometimes just have to accept they spawned into a dead zone. Nothing they can do either. It’s just one of those ‘unlucky’ situations

  so um…

  1. If my macro at that point sucks — that’s on me.
  2. Still on me.
  3. You *!xs!!"xsxs! game... better maps and RNG fix when?

  And this is where that point really comes into play.:

  The idea that the killer is capitalizing on survivor mistakes is also a bit iffy,

  ...I never said: ONLY. But the moment survivors make mistakes, I, as killer, benefit from that — a lot.
  Look: the moment I misjudge something, like taking a chase that ends up being too costly, or making mistakes during that chase... for me, that just means: reposition and move on.
  Sure, if I don’t recognize it early enough and stay in that situation too long, the next mistake kicks in. And stacking too many of those — that’s how you lose the match.
  But if I do catch it early, then as killer, it just means: reposition and try again.

  The moment when a survivor makes a mistake that leads to a down, I can capitalize on that way more than survivors can on my mistakes.

  For me, overcommitting or misjudging a chase usually just means repositioning and trying again.

  on the other side: for survivors, one bad read or a mistimed vault can already mean a hook state, pressure on the team, and a major shift in momentum. It’s not just “reset and move on” — it’s a whole new problem, cuz.. that turns into a team-wide problem now.

  The moment this point is reached, it gets super costy now — that’s when the killer really starts to maximize profit from the situation. If they capitalize on it.

  That’s what I meant by the killer capitalizing on survivor mistakes. Many groups give you plenty of those opportunities, and every mistake after that — bad pathing, unsafe unhooks, whatever — just adds to the survivors’ problems and costs them dearly.

  A mistake by one of the 25% usually drags the whole team down and often causes a bunch of new mistakes on the survivors’ side. And suddenly, the whole team isn’t playing at 100% anymore

  At that point, I as killer get the unfair leverage to put not just one, but the whole team under pressure

  Survivor mistakes are exactly what you need. That’s how you win.

  That’s why I’m not a big fan of these ‘stats’ or making balance decisions based on them as long we dont see a better mmr. Because one mistake from survivors often leads to so many more mistakes that can quickly crumble the whole game for the survivor team. And most of those are totally avoidable in many cases.

  But that’s exactly how it goes in a lot of matches.

  Thing is, DBD has a huge playerbase that doesn’t see it as a real PvP game, more like a chill, casual ‘after-work’ thing — a few skill checks here and there, some fun with friends on voice chat. Because of that, survivors end up stacking a snowball of mistakes… and yeah, they often get mad when they run into a killer who’s actually serious, playing properly, and punishing every little opening they give

  kill rates are high cuz of this ..

  Huh? Different? There’s been a bunch of stuff thrown around in this thread that I’ve already argued against (even quoted some of it a few comments back). Some say survivors need more buffs and a shift to a 50/50 meta, others want more comeback mechanics, and then there’s the usual “slugging, camping, tunneling are the real evil bad problem” ...
  So yea, I’ve pushed back on a lot of these points already. Not sure what exactly you’re referring to though—care to clarify?

  https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/5BG23MEEHXFB/32323.jpg

  or do you mean my general point where I cautiously voiced some criticism (about things coming with phase 2), while the discussion — which somehow almost always pops up in a bunch of different topics — suggested that tunneling is actually the root problem? Also, are you talking about my last disussion with Croger?

  So y, which changes do you mean exactly? The ones that are pretty much guaranteed to come from BHVR, or the “fictional” (out-of-some-post-here) suggestions I’ve been trying to argue spezific against from a killer perspective?

  I was trying to take that whole idea off the table

  Okay then, I'll move onto the rest of the post.

  Survivor mistakes are exactly what you need. That’s how you win.

  For the sake of space I'll quote that part, but I'm referring to what leads up to it.

  You explain, pretty well, how a single mistake can doom the survivors while the killer can get into a mistake and still reposition and recover.

  Why is that a good game design?

  Compare this to one of your comments from the first page of this thread

  I want to play super bad, make tons of dumb mistakes, feed the killer early, misplay everything so that the killer even gets the chanceto snowball...

  ...but I still expect built-in comeback mechanics to save me from the consequences.

  Free of charge, handed out generously by BHVR.

  This was an exaggeration of a person's desire for a comeback mechanic into an over the top take on what they were asking.

  It doesn't create a lot of goodwill for reading your takes later in the thread.

  Back to the concept though, why is it good game design? Even if we say the killer should win more than they lose, which is its own argument, why should one side be so heavily penalized by a mistake while the other has opportunities to recover?

  So y, which changes do you mean exactly?

  Which ever ones you want to talk about.

  The goomba fallacy got brought up in the forum recently and being we're doing fallacies I'll throw that in. Lots of people have ideas on how to improve the survivor role, if you want to lump them all together then yes, it would probably make an unfair game. But not all of them are going to be done and no one is suggesting that all of them be done.

  Something like anti-slug could be too powerful, it probably won't be, but we won't know for certain until we actually see the design or, at a minimum, are discussing a specific suggestion.

  in My problem with the 60% kill rate target Comment by crogers271 August 7, 2025

• It really depends how you want to support the team. You've got a 'protect others from being tunneled' and it looks good.

  I like to run wiretap. I'll 'charge' it off the start doing a gen, then I'll move to a central gen or one at a strong looping location and apply it. Helps out a lot and it gives you something to watch while doing gens.

  in What’s a fun support build for survivor? Comment by crogers271 August 7, 2025

• @oecrophy said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3978674#Comment_3978674

  https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/F4MXJZSHDT0G/545455.jpg

  So how its a motte-and-bailey fallacy:

  You're motte, you're easily defended position is this:

  But yup, I’ll say it too: It’s physically impossible to win if the survivor team plays perfectly. Zero mistakes. But… nobody does that. No one. Not even Team Eternal, since you brought them up as an example. Too much happens in a single match, and people are human. Humans make mistakes.

  This is easily defendable because it gets into what is perfect play and what are mistakes. As you bring up, this never happens. It's a hypothetical framework. Now we could get into whether it is correct or not, but its an academic question.

  Now how the argument starts to drift

  And that’s exactly where killer have their chance — they have stronger tools to capitalize on mistakes.I’m totally fine admitting that if a survivor team plays 100%perfect, , I’ve got no shot.

  You're saying you are okay with something happening that never will. Every player regardless of role will make mistakes. The idea that the killer is capitalizing on survivor mistakes is also a bit iffy, if the survivors take the killer on a long chase is it because the survivor was good or did the killer made a mistake?

  And then we get to the Bailey, the more controversial position arguing against something.

  If these upcoming changes really go through — where killers can’t tunnel, camp, or slug effectively anymore, and they don’t get anything in return — then killers will be powerless.And we’ll be forced to just sit there and watch even "mediocre, average teams" escape. Maybe hope for 1–2 kills at best.

  What changes? You're arguing against something that hasn't been specified. @Firellius points this out on the anti-camp being anti-face camp. The changes BHVR have made have had only minor impacts on the killer role and instead stopped the most extreme of certain elements. 3 genning is still a part of killer strategy, camping is still part of killer strategy, there's no reason to think that these changes are going to make it so killers "can't" do things like tunnel or slug.

  On top of that, you're jumping over so many possibilities from the motte to the bailey of making it impossible to win. The changes could be anywhere from no impact, to killers just as strong just need to adjust playstyle, to slightly harder, to generally harder, to much harder, etc.

  You go from impossibility (beating a perfect team) to impossibility (beating even average teams)., but the starting place doesn't actually back up the conclusion.

  in My problem with the 60% kill rate target Comment by crogers271 August 7, 2025

• @Firellius said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3978136#Comment_3978136

  .. just wanna say first: as a survivor, I always look at myself first before blaming teammates. And at the overall situation.

  Yup, it’s easy to just blame the team or the killer, but I know that a lot of it often comes down to me — like overextending loops, being greedy, the classic “one more loop” or “I can definitely make that pallet” stuff. So yea, lots of sloppy plays on my end sometimes.

  Now apply that to killer.

  hh— uhm... big um,
  Why does it always turn into a “you just suck, just get good” thing the second you lose as killer and say there was nothing you could do?

  Like, ye— as killer I’m apparently supposed to play at 100% perfection at all times.
  Never miss a shot, hit validation always flawless, can’t lose a single 50/50, gotta win every mindgame...

  But you don't. You're happy to demand better from your survivor gameplay, but NOT from your killer gameplay. So you instead resort to the argument that you -cannot- win, even though you obviously can.

  Meanwhile… how many “I misplayed but got bailed out by X” mechanics do survivors have again on their side?

  One.

  The hatch.

  Everything else has nothing to do with 'misplays'. Getting tunneled, camped or slugged are not things that are in the survivor's control, and therefor they cannot be their 'misplays'. They are things that the killer unilaterally decides.

  And no, going down is not a 'misplay' either. You are not supposed to hold chase indefinitely. That's why infinites were removed, why Bloodlust is still here.

  But with all the stuff that’s being asked for lately —
  more 50/50 balance, more comeback mechanics, more of this, more of that…
  and then throw in anti-slug, anti-tunnel, and whatever else is coming…

  Like, how?

  Except 50/50 balance, comeback mechanisms and 'more of this, more of that' aren't on the menu.

  The devs blatantly came out and stated that they balance the game to make survivors lose more and this is, what, the second thread in YEARS, and it's not even arguing for 50/50!

  The only thing people have been asking for is anti-camp, anti-tunnel, anti-slug, to limit the way in which the killer can just bar people from gameplay and ruin the game for everyone else. Survivors have been losing for ages, and the only complaint is about HOW they lose, not THAT they lose.

  Are killers just supposed to stand there and watch every halfway decent group that understands the game escape… and just be okay with that?

  It's a motte-and-bailey.

  First you try to take the more reasonable position that the game is unwinnable when survivors play absolutely immaculately. But then you try to swap out the 'immaculate survivor team' for a 'halfway decent group'.

  And that's where your argument becomes fallacious, because while the top 1% of swiffers can be argued to be unbalanced, possibly even 'unbeatable', you can't make the same argument for 'halfway decent groups', since the vast majority of them get routinely stomped. We -know- survivors, across the board, are losing the majority of their matches. Even the high MMR 4-man swiffers of nightmares do not average an escape rate over 50%.

  But you don't need them to, because you set up the perfect DBD gods in a hypothetical 4-man team of doom and then go on to suggest that Bucko & Pals with 300 hours between them are exactly as problematic.

  It's a motte-and-bailey. Flipper between two different positions and pretend they're the same.

  The 'halfway decent group' is not a problem for a competent killer.

  Huh? I never said killers got nothing. They’ve received plenty of buffs — and many of them were important to actually bring the game into a more balanced state.
  You're taking things out of context here.

  What I did say is that with things like anti-slug, anti-tunnel, etc. coming, killers are getting nothing to compensate.
  Not that they’ve never received anything in the past. (Same goes for survivors, by the way.)

  That's still a terrible argument, because the entirety of the past couple of years, that massive care package IS the compensation for the upcoming changes.

  Prior to 6.1, it was generally considered acceptable to buff killers in exchange for getting rid of tunnelling, camping and slugging. Then 6.1 rolled around, we got the killer buff part, and we never got the compensatory anti-tunnel, anti-camp, anti-slug that was supposed to come with it. We got slap-on-the-wrist basekit BT and a NERF, of all things, to what was at the time the ONLY anti-tunnel.

  The entire washing list of killer buffs were supposed to be balanced out by anti-slug, anti-tunnel, anti-camp, but those changes were delayed. Now we're finally (potentially) getting the compensation that survivors were supposed to get.

  It's like two kids both being promised a present, kid A gets theirs a week early, and then when kid B finally gets theirs, kid A throws a tantrum that B got something and 'they never did!'

  You're the one ripping things out of context. You can't argue that these changes are being made against a blank slate and just ignore multiple years of shifting the balance further in favour of killers, just so you can demand extra goodies when survivors finally get parity.

  And I responded that it’s not about feeling uncomfortable — it’s about the fact that even with all the balance changes that favored killers, we still can’t create a situation where upcoming changes or calls for “more 50/50 balance” don’t end up pushing the game back into a state where, as killer, you just can’t do anything again.

  That is proven by literally nothing, and all data and statistics point in the opposite direction. What you're talking about is forum killer dogma. It's a story with nothing to back it up, and no one is allowed to question it.

  Yup... so what do we even have today? Scourge Hook? You need hooks for that. Only top killers get those quickly and consistently. Good teams don’t give them to you that for free. (Sure, in weak lobbies you’ll get Scourge value after Scourge value while they keep feeding you...)

  Aside from the fact that all of that stuff is all -after- 6.1 and thus part of the upward trend of regression, you're also constantly talking your way around the basekit gen regression buffs.

  This is not stuff that's tied to perks, this is stuff you benefit from no matter what killer you play and no matter what perks you bring.

  Yes, it's not as game-breakingly overpowered as CoBRuption was, but it's still undeniably much, much stronger than anything pre-6.1.

  Y, on this journey, a lot of casuals have either quit or gotten way better. It’s a good thing because survivors now actually have to improve their gameplay—no more easy rounds. Makes it harder for killers, but the game’s more balanced and skill-based overall.

  That means the game didn't get harder at all, you're just not left with any survivors at your own skill level because they all got 'balanced' out of the game.

  And … about Option B — how exactly are killers supposed to win when matches are already super close, and then all these changes people want (anti-camp, anti-slug, more comeback mechanics, 50/50 balance) get added? I’m genuinely curious.

  By improving.

  Or, potentially, by going up against survivors of their own skill level again once they return to the game.

  Either way, you may have to deal with losing the occasional match. But at least it won't be as bad as the devs saying you -should- lose the majority of your matches, and people on the forums then telling you that you should lose -even more-.

  It's a motte-and-bailey.

  A correct callout of the motte-and-bailey fallacy? Wonders will never cease.

  in My problem with the 60% kill rate target Comment by crogers271 August 6, 2025

• @Firellius said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3977489#Comment_3977489

  With most killers, you’ll just be standing there watching this team win — nothing you can do about it.

  Precisely what I'm talking about.

  If you lose as survivor, there's three other survivors you can blame, before you have to resort to blaming the game, or yourself.

  As killer, if you lose, you can blame yourself, or do exactly this: Just insist there was nothing you could've done about it, and it's the game's fault.

  That's caused this particular argument to take shape where a bunch of forum killers are insistent it is physically impossible to win, with none of them having the skill to back such a claim up. And it's really tiresome to see this argument regurgitated over and over and just drilled in like dogma.

  It's Option B: Blame the game. And then demand it gets validated.

  That tactic just isn’t the most efficient.

  So why did it cop so many nerfs, then?

  But I was talking about good, efficient groups

  Yes, I know, that's the only thing you guys ever talk about. The 'literally unbeatables', the top 0.01%, the Team Eternals. Screw the rest of the game, let it all burn down, but If I, as a dead-average killer player, have to lose one match? That's awful, and survivors should lose more to compensate.

  survivor basekit used to be way stronger

  No it didn't! Yeah, they had faster gens, but they also lacked a lot of protection that they have now. Swivel hooks, +10 second hang time, basekit BT, gen kick limit. Survivor basekit didn't use to be 'way' stronger at all, they've sidegraded more than downgraded.

  Killers got way, way more powerful with a series of deliberate basekit buffs and nerfs to survivors.

  But all of that, the entirety of this text:

  Smaller maps are usually an advantage for survivors in the base kit — good teamwork can really hit hard there, good teamplay, nice blodyblocks.. which is also needed given the amount of pallets we have today.

  And y.., back then survivors in the base kit were way stronger if they were good and used everything on the map right. But you gotta remember how unbalanced that was...

  But killers also had strong basekits.. like the pre-nerf Spirit (or prayer beads (but we dont have to talk about the addons, basekit was much much MUCH stronger too), Huntress with multiple one-shot hatchets, insta-saw Billy, the old Nurse... even Trapper was way more favored on the old maps with the old grass.

  edit: but yes.

  survivor basekit used to be way stronger — so strong that the game felt more like a 1v1 in chase rather than a 4v1, where the killer actually needs strong advantages, downs, and hooks to create pressure on the whole team.

  I mean.. survivors were just super boosted in the old days. A lot of groups simply didn’t understand that, and instead enjoyed other aspects of the game — they played more stealthy and never fully used their potential or all the tools they had available.

  so idk.

  Should we really be using some of that wildly unbalanced stuff from th past as an argument for today’s issues in the game?

  The moment we are lookin in the past:

  I mean, back in 2016 I could literally see straight through shack — it was so full of holes that you always knew if and when the killer turned around. With some old builds I could fully heal before the killer even finished wiping their weapon. With the old Brand New Parts, we could pop 4 gens in 30 seconds and then all escape through hatch as a 4-man 1-2 minutes in match.

  A lot of stuff back then was super broken. Unfair. Totally unbalanced. And it got removed for exactly that reason.

  Then MMR came along, and they finally the devs realized how broken their game actually was. (the loops, the tiles, the maps) With update 6.1, the necessary balance changes finally began.

  but… beside this: DBD had a completely different pace back then i n most of the matches — different playstyles, different tactics. You really can’t compare it all that easily.

  It’s never that simple to look at things from just one side or to idealize one side over the other.

  Nostalgia is nice, I feel it often too.
  But idealizing the past is dangerous.

  Is all a distraction from how wrong you are to claim that killers got 'nothing'. You can't say 'Killers got nothing', and then when I point out a washing list of improvements made to killers, retort with 'remember when survivor was strong?'

  Also

  Nostalgia is nice, I feel it often too.But idealizing the past is dangerous.

  You were the one that tossed in CoBruption meta to claim that killers' gen regression hadn't improved.

  And since 6.1, survivors have seriously improved — because they had to after all the killer buffs.

  Did they, or did the fodder just quit?

  Because what I started to suspect after killers got buff after buff after buff, only to turn around and become MORE insistent that the game is unwinnable, is that the game didn't actually get harder…

  There's just fewer weak opponents left. The party petes were starting to quit. So killers go up against better opponents.

  And do the killers then adapt to better opponents by, themselves, improving their gameplay?

  Or…

  With most killers, you’ll just be standing there watching this team win — nothing you can do about it.

  Did they pick Option B?

  If you lose as survivor, there's three other survivors you can blame, before you have to resort to blaming the game, or yourself.

  As killer, if you lose, you can blame yourself, or do exactly this: Just insist there was nothing you could've done about it, and it's the game's fault.

  Yep. It's general human nature to try and shift blame away from oneself, and DbD's nature of not knowing for sure what is going on in the rest of trial makes that very easy.

  I have a lot of respect for the CCs who when they lose are actually willing to look at their matches and be like 'here's where I messed up'.

  Because its pretty rare to see people say

  1: I lost, but really I made mistakes.

  2: I lost, but I made a couple of wrongs guesses on 50/50s. I thought they were going to be working on gen A, but they were actually working on gen B (the survivor equivalent would be making a wrong call on what you think another survivor is doing, but then just blaming them for making the bad play).

  3: I lost, but both sides played really well. Sometimes you win close games, sometimes you lose them.

  When some combination of those 3 probably account for a lot of game losses compared to 'broken game' or 'incompetent teammates'.

  in My problem with the 60% kill rate target Comment by crogers271 August 6, 2025

• @taktak1 said:

  Hello just wanted to start a thought that i have. I myself am killer main.

  So why killers should allways give hatch has 2 reasons.

  1.) It makes other player happy and enjoy the game more

  2.) It ######### up the statistics.

  BHVR is trying to balance the game on 60% killrate of killers.

  So for example you have 1000 games. In 600 of them the killer kills all 4 survivors. in 400 games all survivor escape. That means you have 2400kills from 4000 kills possible

  So BHVR sees that killer has a 60% winrate and says "this is very balanced and i want it like this". But if you allways give hatch on this 600 games where you basicly could kill em all you dont have a killrate of 60% anymore.

  Your killrate goes down to 1800kills of 4000kills possible this means that killer only have a killrate of 45%. BHVR thinks "Well this killrate is way to low" and buffs killer until the killrate of 60% is back. That means in the end killers are way stronger as the statistics show.

  What do you think about this? Should killer give the hatch? Or rather not to make the game more balanced?

  Conceptually, giving hatch does mess with the stats, though its worth pointing out the 60% kill rate is a general goal and if the frequency of hatch escapes changed they might change their view as well.

  Your killrate goes down to 1800kills of 4000kills possible this means that killer only have a killrate of 45%. BHVR thinks "Well this killrate is way to low" and buffs killer until the killrate of 60% is back.

  There are two issues with the percentage argument.

  1: The amount of times this will happen, which has already happened. Let's say about 40% of your games are 4ks. Now let's say in half of them the survivor is going to get the hatch anyway. So that means 20% of the total games you get 1 more kill. You're turning the 60% win rate into 55%. Its messing with the stats, but not quite to the level you predict.

  2: If you believe MMR works, this would balance itself out. Instead of 60 MMR increases and 40 MMR decreases, you get 55 MMR increases, 35 MMR decreases, and 5 draws (actually more hatches than that factoring in the ones that would have inevitably happened). Thus your MMR doesn't go as high, giving you slightly easier opponents, keeping your kill rate (roughly) at the target.

  in Why killers allways should (not) give hatch! Comment by crogers271 August 6, 2025

• You can have a chill match whenever you want. Throw on your chill build, put on some music, and play the game.

  What you don't get is the right to play chill and still have the same success rate as if you were try harding. That's true for both sides.

  in Swf viewer Comment by crogers271 August 6, 2025

• @CompetitifDBD said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3978290#Comment_3978290

  Killers haven't been the 'host' in quite some time.

  The problem is this can happen even when you are the killer, and thus its cause is still unknown.

  And this is one of the reasons the report system needs evidence. Don't report people just because there is a possibility someone in the lobby might be cheating, it doesn't actually achieve anything and just clogs up the system.

  Because theres a "possibility" is exactly why I and many others report people. Even content creators report people if they look sus, thats completely normal. As for the evidence, the devs are capable of watching games back, we aren't unfortunately, but when watching the other players POV, that is often what confirms the suspicions of the reporting player. If they aren't cheating, they won't get banned. Simple as that. People have been doing this since the dawn of time.

  Also I don't think BHVR bans anyone for using a VPN

  VPNing is not allowed as of BHVR's TOS. Its also illegal to VPN to play/access certain things in banned regions, but thats not relevant. Point being, its bannable, and theres no need or excuse to be doing it if your completely capable of playing the game in your own region. Ik some people try playing with a vpn to force worse ping on themselves to practice. Some competitive players do this, despite it being quite unfun to play against for the players who actually belong in that server.

  The problem is this can happen even when you are the killer, and thus its cause is still unknown.

  The killer is treated exactly the same as the survivor. They don't 'host' the server or have any more influence on the server than the survivors do. It was different in 2019.

  As for the evidence, the devs are capable of watching games back,

  That's just not true. It's not even possible.

  Somewhere between half a million to a million games of DbD get played every day The storage capacity that would be needed to hold onto games would be absolutely massive. That's not even getting into the massive human resources that would be needed to review all of these games. They ask for people to send in recordings of their games to report cheaters for a reason.

  The chat logs are recorded, which is why things like slurs in end game chat can be reported without video evidence.

  VPNing is not allowed as of BHVR's TOS.

  I've read the EULA a few times, where's it at? I might have missed it in the legalese but I don't see anything about this. VPNing is impacting your Internet connection, its not modifying the game and BHVR EULA only refers to things that impact the game files (one of the reasons BHVR gave for not penalizing the use of shaders). I know content creators have openly used VPNs in the past to make it more difficulty for hackers to target them and there was never a mention about it being bannable.

  in Fix, Your, SORVORS!!! Comment by crogers271 August 6, 2025

• @CompetitifDBD said:

  In all seriousness though, why is it possible for me, an NA-East player, to end up on West or even EU? Why does this happen even when im the killer (host)? This happens quite often and its really annoying to not only play against 100+ms as a survivor, but to also be 100+ms in general. Please, fix your servers BHVR. Thank you.

  Killers haven't been the 'host' in quite some time.

  Why people sometimes get bumped to other servers is something that has been going on for awhile and to the best of my knowledge no one knows the exact reason why, but probably related to one server being overloaded.

  @CompetitifDBD said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3978265#Comment_3978265

  Idk What causes it, i kinda just assume its some survivor or killer who is potentially VPNing, which btw is considered cheating/exploiting the server to your advantage. But what i wanna know is how this is impacting the entire lobby, all 5 players getting their ping cooked up cus one person has to cheat? I always report all other players when it happens, just in case one of them actually is VPNing.

  But what i wanna know is how this is impacting the entire lobby, all 5 players getting their ping cooked up cus one person has to cheat

  One person VPNing won't impact the pings of everyone else. If everyone in the server has a bad ping then for some reason everyone has been shifted to a different server (I've seen it happen to streamers though never experienced it myself)

  I always report all other players when it happens, just in case one of them actually is VPNing.

  And this is one of the reasons the report system needs evidence. Don't report people just because there is a possibility someone in the lobby might be cheating, it doesn't actually achieve anything and just clogs up the system.

  Also I don't think BHVR bans anyone for using a VPN.

  in Fix, Your, SORVORS!!! Comment by crogers271 August 5, 2025

• @AhoyWolf said:

  What happened? Was all the talk about "Operation Health" just a marketing push to ride the Five Nights at Freddy's wave and pull in as many new players as possible? Because right now, the game is in awful state. Why are some patches delayed for polish, while this easily one of the worst updates we've had was pushed out as-is?

  Clown is an unbalanced mess. He might be fun to play as, but he became completely braindead and clearly needs more adjustment.

  Streetwise allows for infinite item charges due to a bug, yet it wasn't kill-switched because it's supposedly "not gamebreaking" enough. That's a very odd standard to apply selectively when there were less broken perks that were still kill-switched anyways.

  Since the update dropped, I haven't gotten the "new" map once, which suggests the special queue talk was bogus. From what I've seen, the map looks rushed, more effort clearly went into the lobby than the map itself. The communication around it was a mess, some devs said it was never meant to be a map, others said it always was. Judging by the quality, it seems obvious it wasn't supposed to be one.

  We all love Jim, but seriously, how was that even left in the game? No testing caught it?

  There are also a lot of long-standing promises that still haven't been fulfilled. For instance, Houndmaster's Knotted Rope is still unusable. Old players might also remember that Survivors were promised new healing and totem-cleansing animations during the animation update, which we never got. This kind of stuff keeps piling up.

  The new Survivor perks are either absurdly good or completely useless. Why keep adding new perks if most of them end up ignored? Wouldn't it make more sense to update the ones nobody uses instead of bloating the game with more unbalanced filler? Then again, it feels like that's being saved for mid-chapter patches just to stretch out content. Let's be real, 90% of the perk changes could've been done in one go if you really committed. Adjusting Desperate Measures from 14% to 20% shouldn't take literal years.

  I genuinely love this game, but the current state is frustrating enough that I needed to get this off my chest.

  Was all the talk about "Operation Health" just a marketing push to ride the Five Nights at Freddy's wave and pull in as many new players as possible?

  I really feel that this is something the community talked themselves into was happening. BHVR never wanted to do an operation health, they called it quality of life initiative, which was actually meant to add a bunch of new stuff.

  We all love Jim, but seriously, how was that even left in the game? No testing caught it?

  This makes me a lot more mad than it seems to it does others.

  The fact that there is just a random object in the loading screen is a marker of the overall quality of the release. They seem to be trying to turn it into a win/distraction via cute names when it makes them look shockingly inept.

  If things were going great and there was a random beam we were naming I could see it, but now isn't the time for that.

  Why keep adding new perks if most of them end up ignored?

  Unfortunately I think this is just baked into the game that we get new perks every few months.

  Adjusting Desperate Measures from 14% to 20% shouldn't take literal years.

  I think this partially intentional. Slow walking changes like this keeps things 'fresh' and allows them a lot of low hanging fruit to throw into releases.

  in From operation health to ignoring feedback and needing another operation health on top Comment by crogers271 August 5, 2025

• @AmpersandUnderscore said:

  Streetwise does not meet the kill switch criteria.

  This kill switch system has been so inconsistently used since it's inception, and they have never clarified what this criteria is.

  Whatever counts as "criteria" is apparently highly subjective and surely must involve an element of RNG like "drawing exactly and only the ace of spades from this deck of cards".

  There are much worse bugs right now that no one is asking me about that affect this a lot worse.

  So what? Kill switch all of them then.

  Is there some kind of limit to these things that prevents their use? Does using this feature require 10 pounds of moon rocks or something that we aren't able to easily replace and are highly valuable or something?

  no one should have been told about the kill switch.

  I'm not sure how they think they could ever use this without people knowing or at least understanding that this exists.

  Call it whatever you want: "disabled feature", "temporarily unavailable", or "kill switch", at some point they'd "effectively remove something from available play" and people would ask them to do it again for something else that isn't working.

  This is either semantics, or they think we're just idiots that literally have no object permanence. Nurse? Wow, a new killer and it's not even a new chapter! We've never seen this before today!

  Does using this feature require 10 pounds of moon rocks or something that we aren't able to easily replace and are highly valuable or something?

  DbD once had a surplus of moon rocks, but then they put Nick Cage in the game and their stockpiles have yet to recover from his demanded payment.

  This is the thing I'm wondering about. What has to be done to activate the kill switch? Like when people ask for patches to come quicker, there's actually an answer (that they need to go to consoles for testing a few days before being released). What makes a kill switch a nuclear option? It's broken, badly, turn it off.

  Call it whatever you want: "disabled feature", "temporarily unavailable", or "kill switch", at some point they'd "effectively remove something from available play" and people would ask them to do it again for something else that isn't working.

  This is either semantics, or they think we're just idiots that literally have no object permanence. Nurse? Wow, a new killer and it's not even a new chapter! We've never seen this before today!

  I like to imagine they just try and 1984 us.

  Perk disappears

  "What happened to Streetwise?"

  "There is not, nor has there ever been a perk known as Streetwise."

  Perk comes back.

  "Hey, Streetwise is back."

  "Streetwise is, and always has been, part of the game."

  in About the Response to Streetwise Comment by crogers271 August 5, 2025

• @Ragna_Rock said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3976734#Comment_3976734

  20 seconds is the longest time for a surv to make it to a gen in a mid level match with competent survs most will find the next in about 10 second due to predictable spawn locations. But hey lets redo the math then with more favourable times in mind then. so just -50 secs off the total for 5 gen runs bring s the time down to 8:20 m/sec meaning you would need to down in 40 secs instead. As for killer hooking 10x8=80secs still a lot of time wasted.

  The whole point of that argument was to point out that the killer wastes a lot of time on things they have to do while only one guy on a gen the whole game leads to a short match that's why killer often have to tunnel slug and camp in order to increase the pressure on the survs.

  There are four survs in the trial all should be doing something healing, unhooking or doing gens in a normal match there should always be one guy on a gen if not then that team is doing horrible and the killer is doing really well.

  Ok assuming that spawning next to the survs as killer is common (Its not) how is the killer going to know that? The most likely thing to happen is the killer is going to check farther areas expecting normal spawns while the real spawn was not too far away that is why killers run lethal to prevent that RNG at the start then its main effect is off for the rest of the game.

  No they are not comparable a window vault is not comparable to a down. The killer has to invest a chunk of time into getting that down. Yes a down is an outplay?! What are you talking about? The killer made a correct decision at a loop and got a hit, twice that is an outplay. Also yes getting hooks is winning? It advances your objective of killing the survs like how lasting long in chase is also winning vaulting a window is nothing lasting longer is the goal. And yes the killer has to be stronger in the 1v1 as if they are on a similar level there would be no killer players left and bloodlust exists due to bad loop design giving a lot of time for very little effort.

  Dead Hard when used correctly is used when the killer has to swing to guarantee the effect which you got for losing to give a 3rd health state and people who use decisive to its full extent try to use it aggressively (despite it not being its intended purpose) as a DS strike can gut all killer pressure.

  Resilience like perks e.g. "This is not happening" are fine but resilience itself is meta for just having a more powerful effect.

  Devour hope is countered by paying attention to totem if you just ignore totems then you get punished for it, the most common outcome for the totem is get one with the exposed everyone drops what there doing to go get (assuming soloq otherwise SWF would just have one guy) the totem clensed and now the killer has no perk for the rest off the game is a high risk high reward perk meanwhile inbreakable just requires you to lose and the killer has no way to tell if you have it, not equal at all.

  The part talking about after huntress is confusing and looks like an AI made it as it goes back to unbreakable when that part was talking about some killers require the surv to take more into account like larry and his cams or wesker and his sprays, you cant just hold W against a ranged killer in exchange they have no mobility so are easier to loop.

  So you think that is the surv goes down in a bad spot for the killer then the surv just gets to run away? That seriously does not sound like an unfair situation? Chase someone for a minute they go down on a pallet and because one dingus is hovering around and you need to chase them away the downed surv just gets up for free!? And you honestly think that's healthy?

  Ok then if RNG is a factor you take into a account then dramaturgy is not fine as you can get a commodious with a BNP for doing nothing even tho you can also get exposed for it but at the same time be given another speed boost on top of it this is RNG but the fact you are more likely to get a massive positive for pressing E. Then Hex's you can have someone spawn next to it and now you have no perk for the rest of the game, fair? Do you see how mainly balancing around the part you cant control much if at all is a problem.

  Anyway the main balance points I want to get across is that right now killer agency is at its worst as it is too easy to heal (6 sec heals) and too easy to do gens (can be done in half the time solo) and lasing long in a chase has neve been easier due to perks which makes killer feel unrewarding (I mean look at the reaction to fog vials). These days it feels like as killer your going against just perks not people.

  But hey lets redo the math then with more favourable times in mind then

  In the last post you said I wasn't addressing the gen math. I then gave you a list of variables that I could think of that you are not taking into account that makes your math an issue. You just avoid those.

  that the killer wastes a lot of time on things they have to do

  Lots of things in the game have to be done. You're just calling some of those things a 'waste'.

   Yes a down is an outplay?! What are you talking about? The killer made a correct decision at a loop and got a hit, twice that is an outplay. 

  If a survivor lures the killer to shack, makes three uses of the window, and then draws the killer to the corner and is downed, having eaten up a lot of time, the survivor outplayed the killer.

  Killers have numerous advantages in chase. Downs are expected, not outplays. You need to consider multiple variables to consider who got the better of a chase.

  To make a comparison to sports, take American football. The offense is going gain yards. It would be silly to say a 2 yard rush was an outplay by the offense even though their goal is moving the ball down the field and the defenses goal is to stop them. What they've done isn't an outplay, its expected. To see who is getting the better of every play you'd need to take into account the state of the game (like multiple factors have to be weighed in DbD).

  And yes the killer has to be stronger in the 1v1 as if they are on a similar level 

  Of course the killer needs to be stronger.

  The game is an asym, each sides has its own sets of advantages. I could complain that killers get to see all of the gens as a basekit bonus while the survivors need to find them. Except the game wouldn't work if killers didn't have these basekit advantages. Each side has their own things that benefit them, its just silly to call out one side.

  Ok assuming that spawning next to the survs as killer is common (Its not) how is the killer going to know that?

  Are you arguing that killers should just know survivor spawn locations by default? Like they shouldn't have to run lethal pursuer because this should just be something they get (to use your words, for 'free')?

  meanwhile inbreakable just requires you to lose and the killer has no way to tell if you have it, not equal at all.

  Why didn't the killer just pick up the unbreakable survivor when they downed them?

  Dead Hard when used correctly is used when the killer has to swing to guarantee the effect which you got for losing to give a 3rd health state and people who use decisive to its full extent try to use it aggressively (despite it not being its intended purpose) as a DS strike can gut all killer pressure.

  You're earlier claim was about how limited use perks only exist on the killer side. Now you're just talking about general things related to the perks.

  The part talking about after huntress is confusing and looks like an AI made it as it goes back to unbreakable when that part was talking about some killers require the surv to take more into account 

  Let's focus on 'take more into account'.

  Of course survivors have to take more into account. You have the killers power, along with perks (you mention hubris but also coup, window vaulting perks, perks that give the killer more haste, aura read perks, etc.) that survivors have to think about during the loop.

  Its the same for killers. Unbreakable is a possibility that killers have to consider,

  So you think that is the surv goes down in a bad spot for the killer then the surv just gets to run away? That seriously does not sound like an unfair situation? Chase someone for a minute they go down on a pallet and because one dingus is hovering around and you need to chase them away the downed surv just gets up for free!? And you honestly think that's healthy?

  Absolutely. Its no more unfair then the killer who gets a survivor in the center of a 3 gen.

  First the chase time. If the survivor had a minute of chase they already did quite well, but more broadly it goes to how you structure your examples. Maybe the chase lasted a minute, maybe it lasted 10 seconds. Unbreakable is a possibility and either and we can't just go to one extreme or the other.

  The 'dingus' other survivor. What did this survivor give up to get in position? They aren't on gens or doing anything else. They risk having gotten caught while the killer was chasing, being too far from the pallet, or the survivor not falling on the pallet (its easy to fall on a pallet, less easy to maximize chase time and get downed on the pallet). They risked quite a bit and still have to 'outplay' (I dislike that word on either side, but we're using it a lot) the killer.

  The survivors get to work together. Like its a key part of their skill expression in the game. Showing how they have to set this up makes it clear that its not free.

  Perk being free. As mentioned, no perk is free, we have to consider what else the survivor might have had. Yes, this effect can be massively powerful, but it can also be an unused perk slot if the survivor is never the one in position to get value out of it. Both sides have situational perks that are very strong but might not come up, and then they have perks with practically guaranteed value but don't do as much.

  Ok then if RNG is a factor you take into a account then dramaturgy is not fine as you can get a commodious with a BNP for doing nothing even tho you can also get exposed for it but at the same time be given another speed boost on top of it this is RNG but the fact you are more likely to get a massive positive for pressing E. Then Hex's you can have someone spawn next to it and now you have no perk for the rest of the game, fair? 

  Yes, you have to take all of that into account. This is really what I've been saying the whole time, you are narrowing the game down way to much. When evaluating the strength of perks (and other game elements) you have to consider the value they can achieve across multiple plays, different killers/survivors, different strategies, different maps, RNG inherent within the perk, etc.

  It gets even more complex than that but I'm trying to keep this somewhat focused.

  Do you see how mainly balancing around the part you cant control much if at all is a problem.

  No, its not.

  DbD is guessing game where both sides are faced with uncertainties about what the other side has. Weighing probabilities of what the other side might be attempting is a key component of the game's skill curve.

  in Operation health? What about operation balance? Comment by crogers271 August 4, 2025

• @Ragna_Rock said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3976624#Comment_3976624

  First when I was talking about the gen math that was under the assumption that they were being inefficient it does not always take 20 sec to run to a gen sometimes it can take a little as 5 but you only have a problem with this math when it calculated for killer hooks?

  I was taking equal inefficiently on both sides into account realistically a lot of survs carry a gen perk and don't take more than 10 sec to get to the next gen especially if they are more competent. (Also love how you leave out the gen math)

  Killers have powers because they are alone its a 4v1 the killer needs powers in order to have a leg up if the killers didn't have powers all you would need to do is run loops tightly and always win, if killer was just trapper with no traps no one would play, killer would be awful and surv would be boring.

  And if you are going to talk about killer power balance the only real problems are Nurse, blight, ghoul and even then against a strong team sometimes they are the only ones who can compete at a high level there is a reason the comp player like blight the most as he requires skill to use at high level and can compete with high level teams.

  Also the reason you barely see weaker killers as the meta changes it forces killers to adapt and chose what is best to deal with it naturally selecting out weaker killers. Like what about ghostface, trapper, skullmerchant, trickster the list goes on. Weaker killers don't really have a place in the current meta and its unfair to say "just play ghoul" if you want balance you would think about their place in the game as well.

  People are running Corrupt and lethal as a patch to the bad spawn logic (Again going un mentioned). Your comparison to finesse is so dishonest how the hell is dedication time to downing someone comparable to running to a vault and pressing a button? Dead hard and decisive only need to be one time use as the effects of both are game changing with dead hard massively increasing chase times and therefor more time for the rest to do gens and decisive can just end the game for the killer on the spot by destroying all pressure.

  Perks like resilience are a good example but are few and far between.

  Devour hope and unbreakable are not comparable DH requires the killer to be winning and going out of their way to not tunnel for best effect and if the totem is found early its a perk gone for the rest of the game high risk high reward but what is the risk of going down then having a free second chance? The killer out played them so why should that be waved away and it is losing the perk gives you a powerful effect for losing or are you going to say the killer downing you in chase not losing?

  And the hole point of the perk rant was that power should not be given for free so readily without trade off if the effects are that powerful. Also if you get hit with a hatchet you didn't out loop them did you? You cant be serious with that example if you go against huntress you need to expect a throw if you try and hold W they are not an M1 killer? Your example made no sense.

  But the logic of "If you just imagine if everything goes right/wrong for one side" What if the killer bring perks that end up being useless because they figured it out quick, totem being destroyed in 10 sec of the game starting, pre-dropping to avoid SP/Enduring, hiding in a locker after a hook to avoid a bbq read? It goes both ways and wow one killer in the entire 40 killer roster. Oh and to use you plague example what if the plague goes gainst a toolbox team all running an injured build? Using RNG as an example for balance is not great as yes RNG is a factor but is uncontrollable without drastic change and even then a little RNG is good it prevents the game going stale and predictable.

  First when I was talking about the gen math that was under the assumption that they were being inefficient it does not always take 20 sec to run to a gen sometimes it can take a little as 5 but you only have a problem with this math when it calculated for killer hooks?

  Both sides can argue lopsided scenarios, but looking at this one:

  20 seconds isn't out there. Survivors should be splitting up. Just going from one gen to the next immediate gen is an easy way to give a killer a favorable end game. Likewise there are things that can reasonably slow down survivors getting to gens: such as having to find them or waiting for the killer/the chase to move away from the gen.

  On the other hand, the 8x15 is the absolute worst case scenario, far more of a hypothetical than anything that would actually happen.

  I was taking equal inefficiently on both sides into account realistically a lot of survs carry a gen perk and don't take more than 10 sec to get to the next gen especially if they are more competent.

  This links to what you posted at the end of what your earlier post: yes, survivors can narrow down the time to get to gens, but what do they give up for it? Healing others, self-heal, anti-tunnel, chase, anti-tunnel for a teammate, anti-slug, info perks? They can't be everything.

  (Also love how you leave out the gen math)

  There are so many variables that are unaccounted for that I'll barely be able to scratch the surface, but here goes.

  Killers off the bat are at a disadvantage at the start no going into perks yet each gen if done by just one surv is 90 seconds/charges(1 charge at base efficiency is equal to one second) and giving about 20 secs to get to the other gen (which could be shorter but for the sake of argument I will assume a medium time) so if just one surv is doing gens all game it takes about 9min 10secs (9:10) which means you need to win each chase in about 45seconds every time in order to keep up the pressure assuming the surv is of an avarge skill level and there is not a ton of pallets in one area (Like the Game map).

  This presumes:

  Killer doesn't tunnel. Killer not just doesn't tunnel, but 8 hooks and still lets survivors keep pressure on gens. Killer never catches survivors in a situation where he can damage multiple in close succession. Killer never creates a scenario where all survivors have to be off gens (example: injuring a survivor going in for the unhook and then camping, second example: survivor hook in a 3 gen). Killer doesn't slug. Killer never gets any regression on gens (we seem to be leaving out perks of the discussion on both sides, but this means the killer doesn't even kick a gen). Survivors never have to switch a gen (i.e. the survivor just completes 5 gens and the others never need to be touched).

  45 chase time can also be cut down by killers with insta down, anti-loop, ability to sneak up, etc. Sure, there are circumstances where that average time can be lengthened, but also lots of circumstances where it could be much shorter.

  Killers have powers because they are alone its a 4v1 the killer needs powers in order to have a leg up if the killers didn't have powers all you would need to do is run loops tightly and always win, if killer was just trapper with no traps no one would play, killer would be awful and surv would be boring.

  I never said killers shouldn't have powers. But perks are all survivors have to give themselves any type of uniqueness. You can't compare survivor and killer perks because they are meant to do radically different things.

  People are running Corrupt and lethal as a patch to the bad spawn logic (Again going un mentioned).

  In the current game, I've literally spawned right next to survivors. If we want to talk about the current issues with spawn logic the brokenness goes both ways.

  Also bad spawn logic is subjective. It would be like saying survivors are running deja only because of bad map design that makes breaking three gens absolutely critical. Are we discussing the game, or a hypothetical of what we want the game to be? Because in the game right now two of the most common killer perks give value for free and provide quite a bit of benefit, which goes against your earlier argument.

  Your comparison to finesse is so dishonest how the hell is dedication time to downing someone comparable to running to a vault and pressing a button?

  Because both are normal gameplay.

  The killer will get downs in anything but a massive mismatch. Between faster speed, powers, window blocks, limited pallets, and blood lust, there are many advantages that make certain it will happen. Survivors will rarely escape a good killer, the goal is to make the chase take a good amount of time (you use the phrase outplay, a down isn't outplaying a survivor, who outplayed who is a question of a number of variables but the most pertinent one being the time taken).

  You will get hooks, so its crazy to compare it to winning, just like saying getting to a vault location for Finesse is winning.

  Dead hard and decisive only need to be one time use as the effects of both are game changing with dead hard massively increasing chase times

  So we agree that the one time use thing is not unique.

  DH can also be baited, decisive can be played around in multiple ways (or literally just powered through if tunneling). In anything but an absolute stomp the killer will get downs and the hook perks will come into play.

  Perks like resilience are a good example but are few and far between.

  Are we talking meta perks, or all perks? Because if we're on all perks we can talk about things like No Mither or the Invocations which are basically penalties to the survivors. Killers have weak perks, but I can't think of one that actually makes the game harder for them.

  Devour hope and unbreakable are not comparable DH requires the killer to be winning 

  It requires 2 unhooks to get an effect, 3 unhooks to get a really strong effect. 3 hooks is not winning in most DbD trials, especially if those hooks were spread out, which is usually how devour players play it. All indications can make it look like survivors are winning a trial and suddenly DH turns it around.

  The killer out played them so why should that be waved away and it is losing the perk gives you a powerful effect for losing or are you going to say the killer downing you in chase not losing

  If the killer downed the survivor in a place where it either would take too much time to pick them up or they are baited away by another survivor, then the killer didn't outplay them.

  Perks are resources. You might as well say a killer outplayed a survivor, except the survivor had a pallet to drop. The killer is faster than the survivors and has a power, survivors have resources (pallets, perks) to fight back.

   that power should not be given for free so readily without trade off if the effects are that powerful

  That's true, and DbD has been a balance war its entire existence.

  Also if you get hit with a hatchet you didn't out loop them did you? You cant be serious with that example if you go against huntress you need to expect a throw if you try and hold W they are not an M1 killer? Your example made no sense.

  And when you go against survivors you need to expect that they can do things as well, just like survivors can't expect that all killers are only M1. If you downed the survivor but let them get back up, you didn't outplay them, did you? They are the ones who got what they wanted.

  Unbreakable doesn't give anything for free. After all, the killer can just pick them up. The survivor(s) have to put the killer in a situation where picking up doesn't make sense. They need to earn it. Nothing is free about it.

  What if the killer bring perks that end up being useless because they figured it out quick, totem being destroyed in 10 sec of the game starting, pre-dropping to avoid SP/Enduring, hiding in a locker after a hook to avoid a bbq read? It goes both ways and wow one killer in the entire 40 killer roster. Oh and to use you plague example what if the plague goes gainst a toolbox team all running an injured build? 

  Sure, that's all true. Though there are more examples than Plague when we expand it out, Plague has the benefit of just being the clearest example.

  Using RNG as an example for balance is not great as yes RNG is a factor but is uncontrollable without drastic change and even then a little RNG is good it prevents the game going stale and predictable.

  RNG is a huge part of the game and it needs to be discussed with balance. Both sides, though I'd say it is little more on survivors, have perks that can be incredibly effective against some situations, useless in others, and they have no way to know until they enter the match. That's a core part of DbD's design.

  in Operation health? What about operation balance? Comment by crogers271 August 4, 2025

• @tes said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3976697#Comment_3976697

  How killer can turn off conviction?
  
  Again. Even devs against comparing hexes with other perks. That’s pointless. If u turn off hex, u turn off it forever. U can’t turn off conviction forever being killer.
  

  To be honest, I don’t want to discuss it anymore, because comparing RGN hex with non RGN convictions just pointless. Better bring something else to pretend conviction isn’t gream breaking

  How killer can turn off conviction?

  Without soul guard, you could just hit him again. With soul guard, you can wait it out.

  The absolute worst case with something like NOED for the killer is that the survivors spend time cleansing it. If the survivors spending time to counter NOED is effective counterplay, the killer having to spend time to counter the effects of conviction is also counterplay.

  This is what I've been saying about fair comparisons.

  Better bring something else to pretend conviction isn’t gream breaking

  It's funny you bring up something else because I was thinking about that.

  If the survivor was injured a single DH, survivor escapes this situation. A 99ed sprint burst, survivor escapes this situation. The gates are open, the survivor is close, the chance that the survivor should be able to escape right here should be high and other possibilities don't require dedicating your entire build to them.

  in oni cant pick up conviction + ub faster than attack anim + power loss anim Comment by crogers271 August 4, 2025

• @tes said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3976686#Comment_3976686

  Again.
  
  Can NOED be broken? Can some potential situation happens so NOED will be useless? How often u see situations where person down right to the NOED so rescue is impossible? How many conditionals have to gather up together so survivor will be in situation “I can’t do anything “?
  

  I play survivor myself. NOED is a huge luck/unlucky perk. The main answer, counter-play exist. U can turn off NOED. U can’t turn off conviction or soul guard.
  
  U try to compare hex ruin that rely havily on random generation with build with strict conditions and zero counterplay from other side. Nothing about time frames, u just want to to portray fantasy as reality.

  U can’t turn off conviction or soul guard.

  Of course you can.

  NOED isn't just an on off switch. Survivors have to find it and, even if it spawns right in front of them, spend time to disable it. Likewise, killers can wait out soul guard.

  All I'm looking for is equality in comparisons. If you want to talk about the time that survivors can use to disable NOED as part of their counterplay, you have to give the same amount of time on the other side for counterplay (killer waiting out soulguard).

  How many conditionals have to gather up together so survivor will be in situation “I can’t do anything “?

  A lot less than 'open doors, against a killer dropping out of power, with my power ready to go, and close enough that I can run to the gates.'

  U try to compare hex ruin that rely havily on random generation with build with strict conditions and zero counterplay from other side. Nothing about time frames, u just want to to portray fantasy as reality.

  I have no idea what this is about.

  Edit: You edited your post, mine is based off the original.

  in oni cant pick up conviction + ub faster than attack anim + power loss anim Comment by crogers271 August 4, 2025

• I'm trying to imagine the conversation between BHVR and the platforms (Steam, Epic, PS5, etc) if they started banning players.

  Them: We've got lots of players complaining they've been banned over exploiting a bug.

  BHVR: Yes.

  Them: How'd the bug get there?

  BHVR: From a patch we released.

  Them: Couldn't you have disabled the issue?

  BHVR: Oh, yes, at any time.

  Them: Where could players have learned about this bug?

  BHVR: Maybe our twitter, or our forums, or on reddit were our devs are active, or the content creators some of whom we have working relationships with.

  Them: …okay, we need to have a talk.

  Basically, BHVR made the bug, BHVR hasn't disabled the bug, BHVR definitely is aware of the bug, it would be absurd to jump to a ban when all of that is in the open.

  in Why won't Devs Ban Bug abusers? Comment by crogers271 August 4, 2025

• @tes said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3976682#Comment_3976682

  What exactly do you mean by different time frames? Current NOED isn’t that broken and no sense in comparing it to new perk

  In the video with the OP we're starting at the point they are downing the survivor, a similar time frame would be comparing NOED as they swing on the survivor.

  The killer for example might have been able to down the survivor in a different position (or many other possibilities listed in prior posts). The obvious reaction to a conviction getting up is to down them again, potentially waiting out the soul guard. In this scenario, given the proximity of the gates, that's impossible, but a similar comparison would be NOED downing a death hook survivor right below the hook and the survivor saying 'what was I supposed to do in this situation?'. Without knowing what led up to the situation its impossible to answer.

  in oni cant pick up conviction + ub faster than attack anim + power loss anim Comment by crogers271 August 4, 2025

• @tes said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3975834#Comment_3975834

  NOED can be broken before killer down someone, or u can break it before someone hooked.
  

  It’s hugely depends by random generation, but u CAN counter it.

  The video on OP? No counter available.
  Unlike NOED, luck and circumstances won't help you deprive a person of an entire conviction build, while the only condition they need is to heal someone for one health state. The only thing to counter conviction it’s on survivors burden, if he didn’t heal someone. Other side don’t have any tools to counter it.
  

  NOED now is the most situational bs that helps limited amount of time, consist high risk high reward. Literally no reason to somehow compare it to new perk

  NOED can be broken before killer down someone, or u can break it before someone hooked.
It’s hugely depends by random generation, but u CAN counter it.

  The video on OP? No counter available.

  You're giving two entirely different time frames for comparisons.

  in oni cant pick up conviction + ub faster than attack anim + power loss anim Comment by crogers271 August 4, 2025

• @SpringMyTrap said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3976603#Comment_3976603

  But the moment we agree its not binary, and the moment we see that kills are the same as MMR increases, then the 3k+/win rate goes out the window as a topic of discussion based on the game's metrics or conclude what the percentage of 3k+ games might be.

  No, because there's still a clear distinction and ratio between wins/losses, the quality criteria that distinguishes the 0-1ks and 3-4ks doesnt take away from either being killer loss/win/draw. getting 0k/4k is hard because the game is made in such ways that make getting a pity kill / pity escape way easier, therefore the quality of such wins/losses is higher.

  if you tend to win more and better, your mmr will be higher than if you tend to draw/lose as much as you win. same goes for quality of the wins/losses. yeah it's unnecessarily complex but it doesnt take away from the general tendency.

  1: They used to matchmake off of emblems and quite a few people would like them to go back to it. Back then everyone was able to 'win' within the trial at the same time. This didn't stop people from coming up with their own standards of win or loss.

  yeah, thanks, I know, MMR system does the same thing - survivors can still win at the same time as killer.

  3: I don't know what you mean by 'player's final performance'. BHVR has been clear that MMR is meant to roughly match people up of equal skill. Its not there to give precise definitions of win and loss. Single trials have little impact on your overall MMR score, its a long term matchmaking tool.

  just like any other similar MMR system? your skill level is derived from a big sample of matches, the more, the better.

  4: If you take this as you're only standard to use, a whole segment of the game breaks down when survivors have the gates powered and could just leave, but they go back for a rescue. If MMR was the only thing defining a win or a loss this whole stage of the game makes no sense.

  To my understanding its because lots of people ran the BBQ bloodpoint meta and didn't like the idea that they got 6-8 hooks and spread them out, which is what they were going for, but then got a negative message. Playing for blood points and emblems was a much more significant part of the game.

  because the game is self contradictory in many ways this one included. objectively, there's no reason to play for rescue, people just do that because it's fun and rewarding.

  that's an overarching issue with the game's core design - the game really struggles with making a win condition clear with its own reward systems and the way the game works and devs refuse to communicate that clearly as well, opting to settle for a flawed metric of killer success - killrate.

  as you examplified before, 60% killrate can mean killer decently winning 8/10 games and miserably losing 2/10 or having a bunch of 4ks with more draws and losses.

  So I usually don't bring this up because we don't have concrete numbers on hatch escapes and it makes the killer position that 60% KR is somehow balanced even more absurd.

  in this context it doesnt matter because killer wins regardless of the hatch. it's just an example of how "wins" dont and shouldnt correlate with "kills" as killers can choose to settle on 3ks and get twice as less MMR than they normally would.

  that's another general issue - skill disparity between players in the matchmaking, often due to counterproductive playstyles - killers choosing to let survivors escape through hatch cuz they dont feel like sweating for it, survivors throwing the game by trying to help the teammate get an out when they by all means should just leave and win.

  yeah, thanks, I know, MMR system does the same thing - survivors can still win at the same time as killer.

  Not the same thing. I said "everyone". Every survivor and the killer used to be able to "win" in a trial going off their matchmaking system at the time. In the current 1v1 MMR system, that's not possible.

  It just goes to show BHVR's history of not wanting firm win conditions.

  just like any other similar MMR system? your skill level is derived from a big sample of matches, the more, the better.

  Except most MMR systems are a more clear binary than DbD is.

  objectively, there's no reason to play for rescue, people just do that because it's fun and rewarding.

  How dare people do something that is fun and rewarding.

  There's an MMR system. BHVR says people don't have to treat it as the win system if they don't want. People who play the game don't treat it like its the win system. It would be silly to say there is a singular standard of wins when neither the devs or the player base act like there is.

  in Operation health? What about operation balance? Comment by crogers271 August 4, 2025

• @Raccoon said:

  https://youtu.be/oy9MwlJmcyw

  There are certainly a few silly scenarios with the perk, but I don't know if they will nerf it.

  Conviction builds are pretty fun, though, when you're the one using them.

  Playing against them is another story :(

  I think it needs something added to its activation conditions, personally, though I don't know what…

  I do like that he discusses how certain perks like StB are theoretically strong but that has never really been actualized.

  I do wish when he posted things like this he included how many games they played and how well they did, then compared it to how well they would do if they were just playing normally. Hens and Otz are good players, its not surprising if they win with Conviction, but it wouldn't be a surprise if they were winning with generic builds either.

  I do think it will be nerfed. The self heal just seems like it shouldn't be part of the perk. I currently don't think it would be outrageous to raise it to 35%, that would take away some of the more extreme cases while not impacting its power as a general anti-slug perk.

  in Do you think Conviction is going to get nerfed (Otz video warning!!!)? Comment by crogers271 August 4, 2025

• @Ragna_Rock said:

  Right so off the bat I just want to set some ground work when it comes to balance.

  Killers off the bat are at a disadvantage at the start no going into perks yet each gen if done by just one surv is 90 seconds/charges(1 charge at base efficiency is equal to one second) and giving about 20 secs to get to the other gen (which could be shorter but for the sake of argument I will assume a medium time) so if just one surv is doing gens all game it takes about 9min 10secs (9:10) which means you need to win each chase in about 45seconds every time in order to keep up the pressure assuming the surv is of an avarge skill level and there is not a ton of pallets in one area (Like the Game map).

  Even then there are 4 survs if you are chasing one the other three going to be doing something and most of the time if its not unhooking and healing its going to be doing gens meaning if the killer loses pressure even just once it can end in a loss for them this is the real reason why perks like decisive are have been so hated as just being hit with it once can mean a loss as it stuns the killer at the most critical moment removing all pressure(This is just an easy example of how lost pressure means everything).

  DBD at is core is very heavily snowball like with the main tempo of each game being who can keep up the pressure for the most of it.

  And assuming that the killer is in constant chase as there are a lot of things that can take up time just hooking a surv takes about 10-15 which means if you took the time of every (usable) hook state 8x15= 120secs just spent taking someone to hook giving free time to do gens or reset.

  Worse even is the spawn logic that can place survs in horrible positions for the killer with them in the middle of the map and the survs being put right next to a gen giving what can be 20-60 seconds of free progress on gens giving the survs a massive head start when they are already at their strongest.

  _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  Now I want to go on to perks.

  Most perks on the killer side requires them to be winning in order to get full value or it is a one time use, then its off for the rest of the game. For example the most META perk Pain Resonance has 4 token that each take off 20c on the most progressed gen that 20c= 20secs (25 if you want to be 100% specific due to screaming) remember it can take up to 15 secs just hooking and PR requires a scourge hook that usually spawn in bad spots and cant always be taken advantage off and if you say that the time it takes to hook is not a big deal your wrong there is a reason that people who know they will die go out of their way to die in far out spots (Comp corner anyone?). Remember the killer has to win their chase to get this and deal with hook times.

  Then on the other hand surv perk desing philosophy is bad real BAD most of the strongest perks do not require anything to activate or activate when LOSING. In current terms take vigil a perk that makes it so exhaustion perks (most of which are activated for doing nothing as well) are up more often despite being the most powerful surv perks already and on top of that is kills any de-buff build that the killer may want to bring going from 30-20 seconds of exposed to around 18-12 seconds in no time at all to try and get value and then their is windows of opportunity a perk that allows you to take all RNG out the game by knowing before hand if a pallet is there or not as well as plan your looping for FREE if we want to talk about balance in a game why should these perks give so much for nothing no down side at all?

  And that is not even the worst of it as a lot of the strongest perks in the game reward you for losing take unbreakable or Boon: Exponential perks that allow you a second chance after the killer out played you and probably invested time into getting you down so why should you be able to wave that away for free? This is just one example but there are a lot of perks that do this. And if your response to this is "But what about hubris?" to an extent I do agree (Like a token system for either hooking or winning chases by dowing) but the power equivalency is just not there as it is not easy to pull of against a competent surv unless you have a pallet shred build to try and get the full value out of it while unbreakable just requires you to lose and be on the ground for a bit and can ruin killer pressure.

  ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  Now for the surv items/killer add-on most of the worst add-ons for killer have been nurfed to the ground and are a far cry from what they used to be (mostly just instadown stuff) now they are stuff related to gimmicks that are niche or insta down with heavy nurf with them (huntress having only one hatchet or clown having one bottle).

  Meanwhile for surv items have far more power in most situations. Medkits allowing for a selfheal or two means only one person needs to do the healing action while the other can do gens reducing pressure on the survs and increasing pressure on gens. Then toolboxes can save so much time for example a commodious tool box (blue) on its own no add-ons results in a 35.5% faster completion rate cutting about 35 seconds of time and remember survs can bring 4 of these things and on top of that bring gen progression perks to make it even faster which can lead to games that go as fast as 3-5 mins.

  ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  Oh and about kill rates I know the devs state that 60% is the intended goal but I just want to say that using only data without asking why is worse than no data at all as most people know that killers like onryo and nurse have kill rate that do not reflect actual performance. Nurse has one of if not the lowest kill rates in the game but does that mean she is bad? Not at all as she is actually the strongest but take Onryo has one of the highest kill rates but if you play the game to a competent mid level you would know she is one of the weaker killers in the game? So why the bloated/deflated numbers then, player learning curve people who play nurse have to adapt to he weird play style like no other killer while with onryo survs have to adapt to her instakill power and newer players who probably don't even know the fundamentals of looping yet as the tutorial is bad now have to deal with a power mechanic they have never seen before massively inflating her kill rate beyond what it would be if it was only competent survs going against her.

  Also while on the topic the kill rates for each SWF number solo/duo/trio/squad has the same apply, people play in swf more than you think but are not all doing clock call outs to there team most of the time its people who just want to have fun with their friends so it being below 50% is not what you think it is.

  _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  So at the end of it all its lead to a meta where people can do a gen solo in about 45 seconds heal in about 6, just say no to death with second chance perks and last way longer than naturally with chase perks that have no downsides. All this has lead to the killers only really having two options play the most powerful killers or camp and tunnel harder and harder which then causes survs to complain about it with the devs responding with base kit buffs to survs that only further make the problem worse.

  And we have seen how this road end with people leaving the game, killers left on mass due to second chance perks being too obnoxious and MFT making M1 killers miserable to play until the devs caved and did the 6.1 patch and the same seems to be coming back again and may lead to the same situation.

  With the main reason people quit is the lack of agency on the killer side, hit someone they heal 6 secs later, down someone they just get up on their own, you regress a gen and its still fixed 30 seconds later it can just feel like a lose/lose situation where no matter what it means nothing which when all pressure is on you alone can feel worse and if the game is not fulfilling why play? I have seen people who play killer say that even before playing they feel anxious before playing and I don't blame them the feeling of anxiety is just not felt or no where near as bad on surv as the pressure is split between 4 people.

  (TLDR no, read it all of it.)

  (Oh and if your wondering why this is so long its so I can just link it in future)

   lot of things that can take up time just hooking a surv takes about 10-15 which means if you took the time of every (usable) hook state 8x15= 120secs just spent taking someone to hook giving free time to do gens or reset.

  It takes 16 seconds to wiggle off, if you're presuming that the killer is averaging 15 seconds a hook that's absurd.

  Usually when math likes this gets brought up, it presumes the most possible efficiency for one side, and the worst possible circumstance for the other.

  Yes, if the survivors play very efficiently, and the killer plays very inefficiently, the survivors are likely to win. The fact that if one side plays better than the other, or just has more random chance on their side, they are more likely to win is true for every game and tells us nothing about balance in DbD.

  Now I want to go on to perks.

  Killers have powers, which survivors don't. Perks are meant to do radically different things for both sides. Perks are what survivors use to build their 'character', the killer has 40 options for starting builds before modifying them with perks and addons.

  Most perks on the killer side requires them to be winning in order to get full value or it is a one time use

  The game does have win harder perks, that's true. However, looking at the top ten killer perks on Nightlight, Lethal Pursuer, Corrupt Intervention, Nowhere to Hide, and Bamboozle either have no or very simple requirement.

  As for the hooking perks, the killer is going to get hooks unless its an absolute, massive stomp. It would be like saying Finesse is a perk survivors can only use when 'winning' because they are winning if they managed to make it to a vault.

  As for one time use, Dead Hard and Decisive Strike have the same, if not more extreme limitations. Survivors also have perks like resilience that require them to play in a more dangerous style to get the reward.

  And that is not even the worst of it as a lot of the strongest perks in the game reward you for losing take unbreakable or Boon: Exponential perks that allow you a second chance after the killer out played you and probably invested time into getting you down so why should you be able to wave that away for free? 

  Because you brought the perk to do just that. It's not free. Survivors, just like the killer, get a few choices that allow them to circumvent the normal rules. If well deployed, on either side, they can make a big difference.

  It's also not losing to make effective use of what you have. A killer who doesn't tunnel, but has Devour Hope, isn't losing by spreading out the hooks. A survivor who baits a killer into chase because they know they have anti-tunnel isn't losing, they are deploying what they have effectively.

  This would be like arguing that its unfair a Huntress can still throw a hatchet at a survivor after the survivor out looped them. No, that's the killer power, it has to be taken into consideration before deciding if one side outplayed the other or not. If the survivors set up an exponential away from the gens, and they manage to draw the killer over there, the survivors didn't lose, they executed a strategy.

  So at the end of it all its lead to a meta where people can do a gen solo in about 45 seconds heal in about 6, just say no to death with second chance perks and last way longer than naturally with chase perks that have no downsides

  Except they can't do all this at the same time. Take a fast heal build, hit a plague or an insta down killer, or you are the one tunneled, you've got a useless build. Take an anti-tunnel or chase build, well what if the killer goes after the healer and now the survivor has nothing to help them?

  As I said at the beginning, if you imagine everything goes right for one side and wrong for the other, its very easy to make your case. However, its not reflective of the actual game and thus doesn't actually tell us anything.

  in Operation health? What about operation balance? Comment by crogers271 August 4, 2025

• @SpringMyTrap said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3976387#Comment_3976387

  If you play ten trials and kill 24 survivors (60%), it doesn't matter whether that was six 4ks and four 0ks, eight 3ks and two 0ks, or three 4ks, three 2ks, or four 1ks - you get the same MMR.

  this is more a showcase of how valueable are 4ks and how devastating are 0ks compared to 3ks and 1ks because you lose/gain way more mmr for (in)complete kill/out counts. its -4/-2/0/+2/+4 when each kill is either a plus or minus point.

  that just means winning and losing isnt binary.

  my bad for dumbing it down but the general point still stands. gain towards mmr = win, loss towards mmr = loss, no progress = draw.

  "I can clarify a bit. I'm not sure where the 60% kill rate = 50% win rate bit comes from, but I don't recall it being said by us. We don't tend to talk about "win rates" because a win is still somewhat subjective. Some people count a pip as a win, others if they get 3 kills, some even consider only 4 kills as a win. 

  If we're talking about solely kills, kill rate and win rate are equal."

  great quote. firstly they do say they never themselves said that killrate equates to winrate in this proportion, that's true, they never claimed that, that's just something you derive from using existing data including the official one.

  secondly, they say "win is still somewhat subjective". pay attention to this, they're saying in a very polite manner that they are not going to officially define a win con. Same rationale as to why they are not going to reveal MMR altogether despite them using it as their way of balancing matches and determining player's final performance.

  obviously you can cling on this with all your might and go in full denial that if they never said it outloud then it doesnt count and win can be anything up to my sinister's 4 injury wincon and that killers are entitled for acting like this wincon is not enough. but let's be real, if this particular metric (mmr system's definition of win) did not matter or mattered as much as others, then it either wouldnt be used for matchmaking or matchmaking wouldve been done based on stages, bloodpoints, emblems or whatever other metric devs imply people should care about.

  i think it's pretty apparent that devs are very afraid of making killer and survivor players upset about losing. they change the language inside the game from "entity's displeased" to "entity hungers" (i wonder why this change was so warranted, did killers lose this much at that point?), they avoid showing MMR at all costs and so on. So just because they're afraid of saying something outloud in order not to upset the community or give bullies ammo, doesnt mean it's not the case.

  finally look at the way they worded it. "If we are talking solely about kills". We arent and we shouldnt. Even by your own examples, killer is not losing MMR because killer loses less than he wins.

  also, draw is not a unique possibility, yet survivors also have it - hatch escape. they can lose the match from game design standpoint - fail main objective and still avoid losing MMR by getting through hatch. the stats dont showcase hatch escape % but lets just assume its about 1/3rds of the recorded 3ks.

  in most killer games at least one survivor is going to win or at least draw.

  that just means winning and losing isnt binary.

  But the moment we agree its not binary, and the moment we see that kills are the same as MMR increases, then the 3k+/win rate goes out the window as a topic of discussion based on the game's metrics or conclude what the percentage of 3k+ games might be.

  firstly they do say they never themselves said that killrate equates to winrate in this proportion, that's true, they never claimed that, that's just something you derive from using existing data including the official one.

  No, they are saying that if you want to use MMR, its kill rate to win rate. If you don't, and they are absolutely fine with you not, then things are up in the air. For the purposes of MMR they needed a 'win' and a 'loss' stat, they went with kills on a 1 to 1 basis with some modifications thrown in for SWF (I don't think anyone knows the exact percentages), then it gets into all the normal MMR stuff.

   they're saying in a very polite manner that they are not going to officially define a win con. Same rationale as to why they are not going to reveal MMR altogether despite them using it as their way of balancing matches and determining player's final performance.

  if this particular metric (mmr system's definition of win) did not matter or mattered as much as others, then it either wouldnt be used for matchmaking or matchmaking wouldve been done based on stages, bloodpoints, emblems or whatever other metric devs imply people should care about

  1: They used to matchmake off of emblems and quite a few people would like them to go back to it. Back then everyone was able to 'win' within the trial at the same time. This didn't stop people from coming up with their own standards of win or loss.

  2: BHVR has a history of pursuing vague win conditions as part of their design philosophy. If you did not play Deathgarden, it was even less clear on what the win con was.

  3: I don't know what you mean by 'player's final performance'. BHVR has been clear that MMR is meant to roughly match people up of equal skill. Its not there to give precise definitions of win and loss. Single trials have little impact on your overall MMR score, its a long term matchmaking tool.

  4: If you take this as you're only standard to use, a whole segment of the game breaks down when survivors have the gates powered and could just leave, but they go back for a rescue. If MMR was the only thing defining a win or a loss this whole stage of the game makes no sense.

  they change the language inside the game from "entity's displeased" to "entity hungers" (i wonder why this change was so warranted, did killers lose this much at that point?)

  To my understanding its because lots of people ran the BBQ bloodpoint meta and didn't like the idea that they got 6-8 hooks and spread them out, which is what they were going for, but then got a negative message. Playing for blood points and emblems was a much more significant part of the game.

  also, draw is not a unique possibility, yet survivors also have it - hatch escape.

  So I usually don't bring this up because we don't have concrete numbers on hatch escapes and it makes the killer position that 60% KR is somehow balanced even more absurd.

  Because if we want to talk hatches, the 40% escape is not 40% survivor wins and killer loses, some of those are draws. So we know the killer is increasing MMR against 60% of the survivors he faces, but of the remaining 40% not all of those are even losses. If a killer is frequently giving hatch instead of pursuing the 4k, its probably their kill rate could double escapes that count as MMR losses.

  in Operation health? What about operation balance? Comment by crogers271 August 4, 2025

• @SpringMyTrap said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3976259#Comment_3976259

  it doesnt matter, the sample is big enough to extrapolate general tendency.

  "my personal definition of win" is an official definition of the win in the only system that directly specifies a win, loss and a draw while everything else is using the most sterile and PC language possible just to avoid making people feel bad that they lost.

  it doesnt matter, the sample is big enough to extrapolate general tendency.

  If a sample is drawn from a non-representative source, the size of the sample is irrelevant.

   is an official definition of the win in the only system that directly specifies a win, loss and a draw

  If you want to say MMR is your standard for wins than kill rate = win rate.

  If you play ten trials and kill 24 survivors (60%), it doesn't matter whether that was six 4ks and four 0ks, eight 3ks and two 0ks, or three 4ks, three 2ks, or four 1ks - you get the same MMR.

  Here's a dev talking about it with my highlighting

  "I can clarify a bit. I'm not sure where the 60% kill rate = 50% win rate bit comes from, but I don't recall it being said by us. We don't tend to talk about "win rates" because a win is still somewhat subjective. Some people count a pip as a win, others if they get 3 kills, some even consider only 4 kills as a win. If we're talking about solely kills, kill rate and win rate are equal.

  Thread here:

  @Peanits said:

  I can clarify a bit. I'm not sure where the 60% kill rate = 50% win rate bit comes from, but I don't recall it being said by us. We don't tend to talk about "win rates" because a win is still somewhat subjective. Some people count a pip as a win, others if they get 3 kills, some even consider only 4 kills as a win. If we're talking about solely kills, kill rate and win rate are equal. The kill rate is an average, not a guarantee. You might kill 4 survivors one match and 0 the next, but that'll still average out to 50%. (When you average out thousands of matches, that killer's actual kill rate becomes much more accurate.)

  Certain things may influence it, like you've mentioned, but it's a bit too nebulous to speculate on. There are also things that survivors may do to inflate that kill rate, like giving the killer a pity kill after a rough match, giving up when the hatch is closed, and so on. They would cancel each other out to some degree, but exactly how much influence each has is impossible to identify. These would have to be incredibly common to have a significant influence on the total kill rates.

  @Pulsar said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3976337#Comment_3976337

  Think it's been brought up multiple times. Just can't remember who typed an essay showing the math

  Well, its generalizing probabilities without taking game design into account which is a combination of a logic error and a math error.

  The extremes are relatively easy to draw. Let's say a killer played a 100 matches and faced 400 survivors. For a 60% kill rate they need to kill 240 survivors. For the sake of simplicity I'll go with the nomenclature of a 3k+ being a 'win'.

  The high end of the spectrum: 80% win rate via 80 3ks and 20 0ks.

  The low end of the spectrum: 20% win rate via 20 4ks and 80 2ks.

  Both of those result in the same kill rate with vastly different win rates.

  Obviously, those are extremes and not what actually happens in game. So what does happen in game? Where does the game actually fall within those ranges? No one knows for certain and believing it can be concluded decisively via math is huge mistake. To actually derive a win rate from the kill rate you'd need more data on how common the different outcomes are. For example, from logic and data its reasonable to conclude that 2ks are a pretty rare result, to make up that offset 3ks and 4ks have to be increased, but how much is uncertain.

  Nightlight has a lot of problems, as I mentioned in this post already, but they are one of our few sources of data. Going off their historical data win rate tends to be 5 to 8 points lower than the kill rate (it varies by killer).

  And on top of all the mistakes that get made, even the most general assumptions on the killer side, it frequently gets limited to comparing win rates, while the killer would have a far lower loss rate than survivors because within this framework the killer has the unique possibility of a draw.

  in Operation health? What about operation balance? Comment by crogers271 August 3, 2025

• @xGodSendDeath said:

  The matchmaking in this game is just abysmal. How is it possible in a functioning MMR system that my team of clueless bad full solo players is going against One Pump Willie's Pyramid Head on stream? 4k at 5 gens 2 minutes into the match with the 2nd person going down and rage quitting immediately.

  While when I play killer, I consistently get 7k+ hour survivors that are either in SWFs or just skilled solos and I'm lucky if I scrape a 2k. I'll get a match where the survivors are average and I get a 4k maybe once every 6 games

  You actually seem to be saying that BHVR has an amazing MMR system, it's just in a conspiracy to target you with the worst possible experience.

  in My problem with the 60% kill rate target Comment by crogers271 August 3, 2025

• @Coffeecrashing said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3975808#Comment_3975808

  You don't think that's a problem?

  You think survivors are going to be fine, if their team as a whole loses a lot more games?

  You think survivors are going to be fine, if their team as a whole loses a lot more games?

  It's a subjective thing and we're guessing at the opinions of millions of people spread out around the world, but looking at some of the basic issues:

  1: The win/loss is not a universal thing. I like to escape, I like to get my team to escape too. I value a 4e more than I do a 3e even if they are both called a 'win'. I don't think many players value the win/loss/draw groupings on the survivor as much as some people on the forums.

  2: I think people would gladly take a better overall game than trading some wins for draws. The game is at its worst when its lopsided on either side. If, and its a massive if, they could balance that out it would be an improvement.

  3: As I mentioned earlier, I think it's impossible to fix within DbD given the game design. Dropping the kill rate down by itself wouldn't change the game's nature, just the frequencies of where the lopsided events occur. And then even if it could be done, the way it would be done might be worse. But supposing that somehow it could just happen and the balance of games shifted away from the extremes, yes, I think survivors would overall enjoy it much more.

  I also don't think the numbers would be that extreme, you'd just have to pull from both sides in equal measure which would quickly boost the middle. Not to mention this is whether the idea of a 60% KR is the right call, which is a different subjective subject.

  in My problem with the 60% kill rate target Comment by crogers271 August 3, 2025

• @Coffeecrashing said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3975731#Comment_3975731

  You realize that if there are more 2k to 3k games, but the same kill rate, that the survivor team as a whole needs to lose more games, right?

  Because the survivor team as a whole, wins on a 0k to 1k. So if the game is supposed to have less of those games, then it needs to have less games where the survivor team wins as a whole.

  That's basically what the OP is suggesting, other than that he would also change the target kill rate.

  in My problem with the 60% kill rate target Comment by crogers271 August 2, 2025

• @UnicornMedal said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3975442#Comment_3975442

  I think more than anything it boils down to players not trusting BHVR. After how inconsistent things have been, it's more than easy to assume none of it is genuine.

  I just find it interesting how the mistrust goes in wildly different directions.

  Don't trust BHVR, MMR is a lie and doesn't exist at all.

  Don't trust BHVR, MMR is far more intricate and accurate than they let on and they subtly manipulate you via the trials they put you in.

  in This game doesn't have SBMM Comment by crogers271 August 2, 2025

• I think this is generally true about the game. It's elimination/snowball nature make it so lots of games can feel like they ended long before the game actually concluded.

  I don't think there is a realistic way that this could actually be changed without such a massive overhaul that DbD doesn't even look like DbD anymore. It is one of my hopes for 2v8 because as you said I think it is better in that lots of games feel like they are more in the middle instead of the extreme.

  in My problem with the 60% kill rate target Comment by crogers271 August 2, 2025

• I think a trust threshold way overcomplicates things.

  If I enjoy the game, I play it. If I don't, I stop. Some people seem to have developed a level of addiction to the game, but that's a deeper issue than trust. I think most of the player base is in a similar boat to me.

  I've always had nothing but pleasant interactions with the devs, but I don't play the game because I like the devs, I play it because I enjoy the game and if I stop enjoying the game, I'll stop playing even if the devs are awesome people (sorry to any devs out there). They've, generally in my opinion, improved the game since I first started playing, with a few decisions along the way that I thought were very wrong, and one or two that surprised me in how well they worked.

  in The Trust Threshold Comment by crogers271 August 2, 2025

• @oecrophy said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3975442#Comment_3975442

  Huh? The system isn’t complex. It’s already been datamined and exploited by cheaters. Until recently, you could even request your own MMR data through workarounds and decode the response if you were willing to put in the time to figure out your actual MMR

  But that's not what the OP is talking about here. Yes, it has MMR, but they are claiming it has engagement based matchmaking, which would be a much more complex system, and somehow been hidden from everyone.

  in This game doesn't have SBMM Comment by crogers271 August 2, 2025

• I'm going to say what I said last time this came up.

  I love that our community is comprised of some people who think BHVR is so bad at coding that they are incapable of addressing simple bugs, and others who believe they are such masters of coding that they can put in a more complex, intricate system that has avoided the notice of hackers and 10k+ hour players for many years.

  in This game doesn't have SBMM Comment by crogers271 August 2, 2025

• @AmpersandUnderscore said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3975181#Comment_3975181

  So, I'm not sure where this tantrum comes from, but...

  This scenario takes exactly 4 perks to run: unbreakable for the speed, conviction for speed and pickup, tenacity so you can't just grab them at your feet and drop it off power that way, and soul guard for the endurance.

  Without any single one of those perks, this wouldn't work.

  On top of that, the exit gates have to be either already opened or 99'd, as well as immediately available on the map. And if this was literally any killer other than oni, the killer could probably blade wipe and still be able to pick up before conviction comes up.

  Literally the stars had to align for this to be possible. This isn't going to be a meta by a long shot.

  And the other things to consider here too, is that this is at a pretty steep cost. The survivor has zero anti tunnel, no anti camping, no gen rush. This build does not function at all if they're the first one found, and they down themselves automatically if it isn't end game.

  This is basically like someone posting an orbital strike from the huntress and saying it needs nerfed because they managed to get lucky and make their long shot strategy pay off once.

  I can even add on to this of other ways this could have gone wrong.

  On top of that, the exit gates have to be either already opened or 99'd, as well as immediately available on the map. And if this was literally any killer other than oni, the killer could probably blade wipe and still be able to pick up before conviction comes up.

  If the killer sees the quick jump up and anticipates soul guard they might be able to get in front and body block, meaning the distance the survivor needs to be from the gate is even more narrow.

  This build does not function at all if they're the first one found, and they down themselves automatically if it isn't end game.

  It also does nothing if the killer ignores them and tunnels someone else. Or if its a killer that is impossible to heal against or just generally unwise to waste time healing against. Or the opposite side if its soloq and other survivors have dedicated healing builds/their own medkits and they get the heals in first.

  I don't really have an opinion on the strength of Conviction yet, but if a survivor commits 4 perks to one particular situation, and that situation happens, they absolutely need to get value out of it or else it would be completely pointless and everybody would just fall back to gen rush.

  in oni cant pick up conviction + ub faster than attack anim + power loss anim Comment by crogers271 August 2, 2025

• It's a unique game. The experience of playing survivor is unlike any other game I've ever played.

  It's also the only game I've ever found watching other people play to be actually entertaining so content creators really keep me invested.

  I also have no problem walking away when the game gets broken by a patch or I'm just kind of burned out. So I don't hate play, if I think something has been messed up in the game enough I just play something else until they improve the game.

  in Why do you keep playing Dead by Daylight if you're unhappy with it? Comment by crogers271 August 1, 2025

• @Coffeecrashing said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3974640#Comment_3974640

  Just to set expectations here. I'm not publicly discussing anything that might allow people to figure out how to bypass the Go Next system.

  So any public discussions about how the AI ragequitting detection algorithm might work, isn't happening.

  1: You're not a dev. No one is going to be like 'hey, I saw this poster on the forums talking about his ideas on how it should work, now I know everything!'

  2: Not discussing the possibilities on how a system could work means there is no underlying argument. There is nothing to weigh or evaluate. You might as well type 'I want them to make the game better, but I'm not going to get into how'. Without a 'how', there's nothing to discuss.

  3: If BHVR was to not give the specifics on how it actually worked, then new players would have no idea why they triggered it if they just made a mistake.

  4: It also sets an unreasonable standard for them to get data on false positives, The vast majority of people don't record their games, so, as happened in this thread, when the community manager comes in asking for more details the poster just has to throw out random guesses on what it might have been.

  in Being penalized for getting tunneled Comment by crogers271 August 1, 2025

• @Coffeecrashing said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3974586#Comment_3974586

  Go Next is separated into two parts. Part 1 is the self unhook removal and the 20 match DC queue. Part 2 is the AI ragequit detection.

  BHVR absolutely can use data, to determine how well Part 1 did, and how well Part 2 is doing. It's not that difficult.

  This seems like a non-sequitur from everything I was posting, but I'll dive in on two points:

  Part 1 is the self unhook removal and the 20 match DC queue. Part 2 is the AI ragequit detection.

  If they truly wanted these to be separate they needed to give part 1 a lot more time. BHVR will usually give things months, sometimes years, even when they are pretty obviously broken saying they are collecting data. They're trying to do all of this at once which is compounding a mistake onto a massive mistake.

  It's not that difficult.

  It's extremely difficult.

  Collecting data on a nuanced system has all of the difficulties, if not more, of putting a nuanced system in place. What data point are you going to look at to see that this actually working? How do you determine whether people are rage quitting more or less based on just code? They can do surveys, but right now the straw poll that is the community seems extremely negative on the implementation.

  If you had the data of a million games before the system and the data of a million games after the system what data would you look for to see if it was actually working?

  in Being penalized for getting tunneled Comment by crogers271 August 1, 2025

• @Coffeecrashing said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3973921#Comment_3973921

  Let's be super honest here. Some of the people claimed it was impossible to fix ragequitting, because they are a ragequitter, and don't want BHVR to patch the loopholes they use to ragequit.

  That is the actual problem here. There are people that would lie and exaggerate about the Go Next system, because they want it gone, because they want to ragequit without getting the DC penalties.

  That is why every claim against the Go Next system needs to be reviewed. Yes, there might be real problems with the Go Next system, but we need a more accurate estimation of this. For example, is it failing at a rate of 1 in 100,000 or at a rate of 1 in 1,000?

  The most helpful thing, would be for people to record their matches, and submit the videos to BHVR if they feel the Go Next system is working incorrectly. If the Go Next system is failing often, then it should be really easy to get recorded video evidence of it failing, right?

  Let's be super honest here. Some of the people claimed it was impossible to fix ragequitting, because they are a ragequitter, and don't want BHVR to patch the loopholes they use to ragequit.

  That is the actual problem here. There are people that would lie and exaggerate about the Go Next system, because they want it gone, because they want to ragequit without getting the DC penalties.

  There are three problems here.

  1: A statement is either true or false. Attacking people's motivations for the statement is avoiding the issue.

  2: Even if some people are doing it because of bias, not all people are doing it out of bias. Which again means its trying to avoid the issue via guilt by association.

  3: Even if those aren't true, bias goes both ways. Some people have such a desire to get rage quitting removed from the game that they are potentially blinded to the negative impacts the system will have.

  That is why every claim against the Go Next system needs to be reviewed. Yes, there might be real problems with the Go Next system, but we need a more accurate estimation of this. For example, is it failing at a rate of 1 in 100,000 or at a rate of 1 in 1,000?

  Actually, you need four things.

  1: How frequently does it fail?

  2: How frequently does it work?

  3: How much time and resources is this taking from BHVR?

  4: How much is it actually stopping rage quitting?

  What evidence is there that its actually catching rage quitters? Even if you have a low failure rate, if you aren't actually stopping the behavior its an awful change that ate up tons of resources and introduces potential for new bugs.

  in Being penalized for getting tunneled Comment by crogers271 July 31, 2025

• @Coffeecrashing said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3973715#Comment_3973715

  Because people on these forums kept telling us that if BHVR removed self-unhooks, that survivors would find other ways to bypass the DC penalties.

  When people said, and explained why, something was impossible, BHVR should not have taken that as a challenge (edit to add: without having figured out a way to fix those things people said would be the problems, because that's what has happened so far).

  in Being penalized for getting tunneled Comment by crogers271 July 31, 2025

• @HuskyDogLover said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3973051#Comment_3973051

  It can work, but it needs to be cleverly sophisticated. Instead of checking against match length, it needs to check against multiple different points of data.
  - Did the survivor stand still after chase started?
  - Did the survivor throw pallets while not near or in chase with the killer?
  - Did the survivor run directly at the killer on purpose for X seconds and then take an injury?
  - Did the survivor attempt to run away after being injured?
  - Did the survivor run directly to a hook during chase and then stop moving?
  - Did the survivor fail multiple skill checks while on hook while there was more than one other survivor alive?
  - Did the survivor contribute nothing for an extended period of time?
  - Did the survivor spam certain actions, like jumping over a window or pallet for an extended period of time?
  - Did the survivor run to and jump inside of a locker during chase and there was no reason to do so? Examples of reason to do so:

  • Tombstone Myers
  • Has decisive strike
  • Has head on
  • Killer was within 5 meters (trying to bait/avoid a swing)
  • Killer was Bubba swinging chainsaw
  • Killer was Billy in chainsaw sprint.
  • Killer was Nurse and blinking.
  • Killer was Blight during sprint.

  Finally, every action that the system deems as being a "throwing the game" action, it gives them throw points. If you get too many throw points, then you get flagged for suspicions behavior and you would see the warning. If it keeps happening, then they get a DC penalty. Throw Points could also be reduced by, getting chased and doing gens (by playing the game normally).
  
  Using a system like this would ensure that survivors who are quickly tunneled out by the killer would more than likely not get flagged for suspicious behavior as they wouldn't have done enough actions to trigger getting flagged. You'd have to carefully balance the throw points to make this work though.
  
  I'm not sure how it currently works, but if it's only checking how long the survivor stayed alive… that's not going to work.

  There's a few problems with this

  1: Lots of coding and checks. This eats up resources and creates the problem for things to go wrong.

  2: Penalizing people for playing "bad". Example: the idea of running into the killer after an unhook. New players do this accidently because they haven't learned yet to keep track of the killer when they're out of sight (and with stealth killers it can happen to anyone), so you are risking penalizing people for just not being good at the game yet.

  3: Many of these things have reasons that they are done under certain circumstances. Take the example of vaulting multiple times, this can be done on a loop when a killer is near, so now you need another check for the distance of the killer to the survivor. Or doing nothing for an extended period of time, hiding out Corrupt is a strategy people attempt, and in soloq I've been in games where we're all just running around trying to find each other to heal.

  Or your example you listed about jumping in a locker. You try to list reasons a player might do this, but miss that jumping in a locker if you think the killer is going to slug is the right tactic because now they have to grab you and drop you, taking more time (even if they are more than 5 meters away, because what if you don't have another locker to loop to).

  Or not running away after an injury. What if I'm intentionally trying to take chase, or at a strong loop, or body blocking for someone being tunneled?

  Even if you manage to somehow solve all of that, you still have two more problems.

  1: Easily avoidable. In trying to only catch people doing this for certain, you make it so that these things could be avoided. Take running to a hook, what if they run around the hook? You certainly just can't penalize people for being downed near a hook, they're all over the place, so what if the survivor just runs around the hook, or stops slightly outside where ever the detection zone is?

  2: Needing to accumulate throw points before a penalty destroys the system. Other than bot accounts, which are mainly on killer auto-swinging, its unlikely players who throw do it every game. They throw if they don't like the killer, the map, a bad start, etc, but frequently they are playing the trial out. So throw points are going to accumulate very slowly.

  Its not worth it to spend a ton of time on this system, that would create potential for new problems, to occasionally give a bad actor a slight DC penalty.

  Basically - sophisticated systems sound better in theory then they work in practice. DbD is a complex game where which action is correct is incredibly situational, so trying to write code to evaluate that is nigh on impossible (and that's on top of new players who might just do many of these things by accident). Either you end up with a system that is too strict, in which case innocent parties are caught up in it, or its too lenient, in which case it has almost no point and took a lot of time.

  in Being penalized for getting tunneled Comment by crogers271 July 31, 2025

• @ThatRyanB said:

  Speaking more broadly to the "just remove the system" comments, I can understand where feelings like this come from. It doesn't feel great to be in a situation where you receive a warning, especially if you haven't done anything to warrant this.

  For that reason, if this is happening for some players, I want to help get to the bottom of it so we can understand a) what's happening and b) why it's happening. That way, the team can make informed decisions on how to how to handle this. But in order to do that, we need evidence.

  My job here is to advocate for the wants and needs of the community, so if I'm asking questions about what you encountered, it's often because I want to share those experiences with the team to back up the things you're passionate about. It's rarely as simple as saying "players don't like this", but with detailed feedback, positive changes can often be explored.

  My job here is to advocate for the wants and needs of the community

  I do appreciate that, but I'd like to point out, there's a random pole in loading screens and meanwhile BHVR is trying to code a system to detect player intent.

  It really creates the impression that priorities are severely misaligned. With how many issues there have been with this patch it seems really strange that a generally hated idea was given a second go at the same time.

  in Being penalized for getting tunneled Comment by crogers271 July 31, 2025

• @maipace said:

  I would like to change the content of the PTB.

  Currently, we run the PTB once, gather feedback, and then release the game. Instead, I would like to run the PTB for a week, gather feedback, make corrections based on that feedback, run the PTB for another week, gather feedback again, make corrections based on that feedback, and then run the PTB a third time.

  By doing so, we can determine whether the feedback gathered from the PTB was correct, whether the game is balanced, whether bugs have been fixed, and so on. I think this approach has many advantages.

  The current PTB, which pretends to collect feedback but releases without making proper revisions, has no value.

  So I suggested something like this once and actually got responses from devs. If you'd like to see the thread is here.

  @TieBreaker said:

  I'm honestly disappointed that the health chapter has so far brought almost no stability to the game. It feels like business as usual, with each patch continuing to break the game. Bug fixing doesn't mean all that much, if each update keeps adding new ones, or resurrecting bugs that were previously patched out.

  It's indeed disappointing, but the thrust of the changes doesn't seem to be fixing bugs, but fixing game design issues, which seems ripe for introducing even more bugs.

  in I Take It Back, Maybe *Some* Doomposting Was Justified. Comment by crogers271 July 31, 2025

• @Aven_Fallen said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3973047#Comment_3973047

  Agreed. I would rather have some people who want to go next and run up to the Killer constantly be unpunished than having people who get tunneled out being punished.

  Personally I think the removal of Unhook attempts was already good enough and made it significantly better.

  Personally I think the removal of Unhook attempts was already good enough and made it significantly better.

  I agree and wish they at least gave it a go to see how well it solved the problem before moving onto other possibilities.

  I believe it was a few years ago during an AMA that someone asked about getting rid of self unhooks to go next and BHVR said something about maybe in a year or so. And everyone was like 'why can't you just disable it right away?'

  I do think this is one of the more frequent mistakes BHVR falls into, over complicating issues and trying massive overhauls instead of incremental changes. There seemed wide spread agreement on the idea that self unhook attempts should be gotten rid of, people mostly disagreed on whether they should be gotten rid of entirely, or just for the first few minutes or first few hooks (and everyone agreed this didn't apply to things like Deliverance).

  Instead, they introduced a complex system that they probably spent a lot of time developing/coding that they very well might end up throwing away, when they could have removed self unhooks to go next in a fraction of the time and, if they still had issues after that, they could then focus on those points without being distracted by the unhook issue.

  in Go next prevention is back on!!! Comment by crogers271 July 30, 2025

• @tes said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3972576#Comment_3972576

  
  I don't see the point in speculating on mathematics when everyone has the opportunity to track their personal statistics, and there killrate clearly considers due to how many kills you have. Hatch no matter. Maybe for mmr system, but not for av stats people actually care and thinking of.

  Because the principle of game design of dbd where it’s 4 vs 1 basically means u can provide the best result only with enough info and being in sfw.

  U can try to “balance” this game around solo, but that’s being frankly impossible. After huge period of time A LOT meta perks from killers was nerfed,; anti tunnel, anti camp, anti gen was added, a lot of killers without mobility are extremely weak now. For last few years the only nerfed survivor perk is like completely broken made for this or dh and few others. Less anyway, and the game doesn’t provide any “anti-mechanics” for doing objectives.
  

  It still doesn’t help to killrate however. Moreover, continue focusing “we need to do this against x group” just encourage this group to use extremely unfun methods to win. Because against even mid team, games doesn’t provide ability to use fun way to win. If your opponent plays fine, u knows what he is capable of. A lot of players on killer will unlike to give survivors breath by such reason. Because of anxiety of giving them too much, and later u’ll be punished by complete lose, again and again.
  
  The only who doesn’t care on killer simply doesn’t main killer. Same with killers who don’t care of being tunneled 10 times in a row while playing survivors.

  I’m pretty sure majority of players don’t like tunneling/slug, but anyway they’ll continue to use it because falsy attempt of improving balance by nerfing “op” side literally provides u no options. And u can’t remove this tactic. Because for devs it means the need to nerf survivors twice at least for making killer be able kill at least one guy. U can try to nerf it, but u’ll always have unbalanced nurse or ghoul that don’t actually care about otr or whatever u have.
  

  And even if u’ll try, u are never able to balance this nurse. As well as winrate for both sides.

  When u play as survivor, u blame killer in tunneling or teammate in sandbagging. When u play as killer, u usually blame yourself if u aren’t salty of course. Because everyone telling “your role is so ez”. It’s so ez, but u lost. Such a shame, huh. But explains why killers more concerned and focused on sweaty playstyle and trying to abuse everything for being sure they won’t blame themselves of being unable to carry easy role

  People claiming about need to decrease killrate instead of trying to buff solos by info and focus in survivors itself, thats phenomenal. These keeps for years and clearly, doesn’t help. I just wish people for focusing on killers winning less and trying actually to think how balance survivor so they can feel fine without affecting other side. Otherwise, it’s just another rotation in dbd history where first suffered killers, than survs, than killers again and it’ll be endless cycle full of toxicity to each other

  I don't see the point in speculating on mathematics when everyone has the opportunity to track their personal statistics, and there killrate clearly considers due to how many kills you have. Hatch no matter. Maybe for mmr system, but not for av stats people actually care and thinking of.

  If you don't see the point in speculating, that's fine, but I don't know why you got in a math discussion via the post I responded to.

  Lots of people care extremely deeply about the MMR system and base their entire presumptions of win/loss around it. If you don't, great, but there's not a consensus on how to view the game, which is likely just how BHVR wants it.

  Everything else in the post feels like a non-sequitur that's about other game issues.

  in Killer queues are on average 5+ minutes right now and Survivor incentive is only +50%? Comment by crogers271 July 29, 2025

• @tes said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3971453#Comment_3971453

  Just to contribute to discussion…

  Everyone I think knows, that escape/kill rate considers different

  For survivor “win” considerate as escape. No matter how many teammates left with you. This rule is always applied for streaks and widely considerate as it is. Exclusion, maybe, when u play in full stack sfw (and everyone knows it is rare)

  For killer win condition for considering as streak is 3 or 4.

  But what for killrate and escape rate? Well, it is slightly different, cause for escape rate counts only personal escape, for kill rate 1 of 4 “points” for each survivor.

  If we are taking “ideal” escape rate as 50% it basically means u won 5 games out of 10.

  As killer? Well… here is example of 60% (that according to night light only few killers consistently achieved on both mmr level) :

  1 out of 4

  3 out of 4

  2 out of 4

  2 out of 4

  3 out of 4

  2 out of 4 

  4 out of 4

  4 out of 4 

  1 out of 4

  2 out of 4 

  That’s 60%, but if considering “win condition” defined by bloggers and majority, because we like to refer how many killers able to do huge win streaks it is only 4 wins out of 10. So… win rate like 40%????

  Of course, assymetrycal games doesn't mean to one side being overpowered. But the issue of this game is literally 1 vs 4. It’s simply impossible to balance it out. In this game usually either 4 escapes or 4 dying. Win conditions also kind of obscure. Is it really possible to balance escape rate and kill rate for 50/50 if they have completely different conditions for counting by official stats?

  There's a few issues here.

  That’s 60%, but if considering “win condition” defined by bloggers and majority, because we like to refer how many killers able to do huge win streaks

  But that's not how BHVR tracks the game. It's a whole different discussion on whether they should. BHVR in game metrics of MMR are pretty clear, from the killer perspective, kill = win, escape = loss, hatch = no contest/draw.

  In terms of game philosophy, BHVR is again pretty clear via not being clear 'you can consider a win whatever you want to'.

  I'd also disagree that there is a clear majority. Back during the slugging vs non-slugging experiment those who participated considered only a 4k a win, anything else a loss, and in terms of streaks for survivors that I'd say is far more associated with SWFs then individual players.

  Finally if killers weren't so frequently able to do huge win streaks I don't see how that would be a problem.

  So… win rate like 40%????

  But they also have draws. In the scenario you created the killer has only 40%, but they only lost 20%, while, if we take the assumption of survivors basing their wins only on individual performance, they lost 60% of the time.

  What the 3k+ rate to a 60% rate is is uncertain, our best source of data is Nightlight though it has many problems, but based off them a 60% KR likely results in a 3k+ rate of 52 to 55% depending on the killer.

  in Killer queues are on average 5+ minutes right now and Survivor incentive is only +50%? Comment by crogers271 July 29, 2025

• @RpTheHotrod said:

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3971912#Comment_3971912

  We can't ignore math because it's inconvenient. It's the hard truth, and ignoring that is unproductive.

  That being said, in a fair game, you are absolutely correct - we would be looking at a roughly 43% escape rate, and I STRONGLY encourage the devs to at LEAST experiment with leaving behind the notion of balancing the game around 4 individual survivors each with their own win condition and instead shift it to a survivor team (who all wins/ties/loses together) vs the killer. That would actually allow for ties, and in turn bring up the balanced escape rate to ~43%. Until then, the balance is a mess and not a fair game.

  We can't ignore math because it's inconvenient. It's the hard truth, and ignoring that is unproductive.

  But you're not doing math that actually applies to the situation. That's the problem, you're ignoring the actual substance of the issue (in this case, the game) which makes it extremely unproductive. @AmpersandUnderscore explains it here, again, and you just don't address it.

  in Killer queues are on average 5+ minutes right now and Survivor incentive is only +50%? Comment by crogers271 July 29, 2025

• I always like that our community has both the view that BHVR lacks the competence to fix simple bugs and they are also such coding geniuses that there is a secret matchmaking system that knows everyone's precise skill and lines people up accordingly to keep engaged.

  This just sounds like randomness. Streaks will happen in random systems. As for the blowouts, that's just the nature of DbD broadly, but also games in general.

  in Does DBD have Engagement-Based Matchmaking or am I crazy? Comment by crogers271 July 28, 2025

• @Good_Pancake said:

  3-6% of matches were against a 4 man SWF. This data, even though it's quite old, is still relevant to this day since the average party size doesn't change by a massive amount over the years.

  https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/61114/community-community-data-requests

  Please spark some debates in here

  Please spark some debates in here

  As Ryuhi mentioned, there really isn't anything to debate.

  If you're in the mood for just speculation though:

  That's probably about the number, maybe a bit higher. Most people don't plan out their gaming, its not like the pencil in on the calendar 'DbD, 6PM, with Ashley, Dave, and Matt'. People jump on, make a decision about what they want to play, maybe invite some friends who are also on, and then play video games. Even groups who have organized nights you have issues with people being unable to make it or competition from other games.

  in Average party size 2019 (what do you think?) Comment by crogers271 July 28, 2025