crogers271
crogers271
About
- Username
- crogers271
- Joined
- Visits
- 8,432
- Last Active
Comments
-
@jedimaster505 said:
It's basically a small discord clique's opinion of what Dead by Daylight should be. I watched the finals and read over their rules/balance list and it's a completely different game that is greatly watered down in complexity. They have so many silly rules and a massive list of banned add-ons and perks and perk combinations, such that it plays completely different.
You can't really generalize the strats of compies to normal Dead by Daylight, as so many counter strats would simply shut down comp strats completely if used without all the restrictions to both survivor and killer. Then there's the fact that the survivors know exactly what killer they're going to face and on which map, that's a huge gamechanger that simplifies the game greatly. Many maps aren't even considered. Kobes and chest opening not allowed. Every perk allowed only once…okay, we're not playing Dead by Daylight at this point, we're playing Dead by Deduction. It would be like removing half the piece types from a chess board and calling it competitive chess.
"§21 Survivor – Additional Rules / Gameplay…
(2) Survivors are not allowed to open chests. An open chest is the completed progress bar, and the chest opening in-game. Penalty: Black Card + Forfeit of the set (§23)"Funny example…in DBD League you are prohibited from opening chests. You've probably heard the rumor "you should never open chests, it's a waste of time". But this is just a remnant echo of compie gameplay, where you get a BLACK CARD for opening a chest. Oh noooo…you might get a nice item, boo hoo hoo. If opening chests is so detrimental to your team, then why are they BANNED in DBD League? Because opening chests IS a strategic choice that can benefit your team in official DBD in certain situations, especially with some perk builds. It sometimes IS worth your time to open chests, depending on the context. But if you simply apply Dead by Deduction strats 1:1 to Dead by Daylight, you would conclude that opening chests is some forbidden fruit that should never be done or your entire team will crumble to pieces due to wasted time.
Yet I've seen so many players point to DBD League comp matches to support their balance argument with respect to normal Dead by Daylight, as to why killer/survivor should or shouldn't be nerfed, as to whether the game is killer or survivor-sided. It just doesn't apply. If you modify one variable of the game, the entire system changes, and DBD League has modified an enormous number of variables.
Also looking at the skill level of the players….yes, they're strong players, obviously not beginners. But by no means are they "the best" players in Dead by Daylight as the commentators state. They're heavily benefiting from guaranteed 3rd party comms, preparation for a specific killer on a limited set of maps, and a massive set of gameplay restrictions. I regularly queue against killers and with survivors in Solo Q that, skill-wise, perform just as well as and even sometimes better than the players I see in DBD League. The same players that perform well against a killer in a DBD League tourney would get destroyed in Solo Q without the help of their SWF and the limits placed on killers, limited maps, limited add-ons, and knowing in advance which killer they're facing. If you don't believe me, just watch some of the compies' solo Q streams, and you see them lose frequently just like the majority of solo Q survivors do in normal Dead by Daylight.
Thus, the "comp" scene has somewhat turned into a glorified circle jerk of clout chasing in highly modified game modes. It says very little about where you rank in normal Dead by Daylight compared to other players. In fact, many seasoned solo Q vets could outperform "the best" compie players, because solo Q pub match vets are constantly going up against the very OP strats, items and add-ons that DBD League forbids. It just so happens that if you're constantly going against the most difficult and oppressive strategies in DBD, you become a better player for it. But a compie that is routinely sheltered by custom matches with heavy restrictions and SWF comms may look good in a tournament setting, but in all likelihood would get demolished in normal DBD without all these crutches.
Otzdarva actually made a video on this a while back which showed that some random pub killers were totally able to keep up with the level of play of these "pro" compie killers, except it turned out that the pub killers' strategies were far more original. This is because in the DBD League community they all tend to copy each others play style on both killer and survivor. Whereas a pub killer that isn't involved in that community, invents his own unorthodox style of gameplay that is just as oppressive, but not widely known. But since so many casuals simply copy and follow the DBD League playstyles in normal DBD, what you tend to see is a very stale and easily countered meta with the same copy carbon gen slow-down builds, for instance. Not because running 4 gen slow-downs is "the best", but because many killers search online what "the best" killers use and find a compie killer using 4 gen slow downs, and copy that playstyle 1:1. Meanwhile, there are many unorthodox builds and alternative playstyles killers/survivors could have great success with if they just took the time to experiment for themselves in official DBD.
So my conclusion is this…you can't really extrapolate the outcomes in DBD League to the balance of official Dead by Daylight. They're two very different games with DBD League being greatly simplified, which leads to a lot of repetitive and frankly boring, streamlined playstyles. Yes, you can pick up some tips and tricks from decent players, but that's about it. If you ever get challenged to a "1 v 1" in end-game chat by a compie, rest assured it is nothing more than an ego flex. They want to drag you into their turf with their specialized set of rules and restrictions that they practice with 24/7 in the hopes they win the grand prize in DBD League and get declared as "the best" DBD player within their Discord clique. But if you 1 v 1 them, you're not playing Dead by Daylight anymore, you're playing Dead by Deduction. If you personally prefer playing Dead by Deduction, then there's nothing wrong with that. But please…let's not mix apples and oranges when arguing how the official game is or should be balanced.
completely different game that is greatly watered down in complexity.It's a completely different game, that's absolutely true.
It's watered down in terms of randomness and possibilities which is a little different than complexity.
If opening chests is so detrimental to your team, then why are they BANNED in DBD League?What they're going for is a game that takes out the vast majority of the random elements that DbD is built around.
I think the randomness and variability is one of the things that makes DbD fun, but I get that they're trying to do their own thing.
Yet I've seen so many players point to DBD League comp matches to support their balance argument with respect to normal Dead by DaylightPeople should not do this.
They also frequently misidentify what actually happens and instead go off what they've heard and not what is true, but that's a different discussion.
But by no means are they "the best" players in Dead by Daylight as the commentators state.This is probably true, though it's kind of hard to quantify. Killer, if we limited it to one killer, can be a little clearer, but if you were trying to determine the best survivor player in the world you'd need a very large sample to account for all the randomness that occurs.
This is because in the DBD League community they all tend to copy each others play style on both killer and survivor.This isn't that unusual for leagues of any types where certain strategies will go in and out of vogue with a few people leading trends and innovating and the others following along.
They're two very different games with DBD League being greatly simplified, which leads to a lot of repetitive and frankly boring, streamlined playstyles.I'm a big fan of DbDLeague and have watched pretty much the entire season. You are right that its a different thing and people should not compare them for multiple reasons.
I think it can still be discussed in terms of the overall game if people understand all of limitations that they have in place, which unfortunately is frequently missing from discussions.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3970297#Comment_3970297
Isn't this essentially ONLY used by people trying to sell accounts? I feel like banning would be the way to go since it would remove their product they're trying to sell.
Sidenote... wouldn't it ALSO be a good idea to clean out all the accounts created during the free weekends that have never once logged in? Obviously the account that was created 5 years ago with no hours played isn't an actual user and is just a backup for when a hacker gets their account banned.
I suspect they don't have the legal right to just cancel accounts for non-use.
In the End User License Agreement (EULA) they specify lots of reasons they can cancel an account, but there is nothing I see that amounts to 'failure to use the account can result in termination'. Even if a person has never used the account they still "own" a limited use license that BHVR can't take away without a violation of terms of service or a condition they've already laid out.
They could try modifying the EULA, but the EULA includes a 30 day provision for changes where everyone could just log onto their accounts once to get around it.
This isn't even getting into legal issues that might exist within individual countries or whether Epic would need to be involved in the decision as the distributor of the accounts.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3969997#Comment_3969997
I never said they're not allowed to have an opinion, just that acting on it would be both detrimental and contradictory to the game around it. I've been going into detail about it because that type of linear thinking is why the game keeps introducing more problems with every "fix." I don't mean anything against them personally, just emphasizing that its a dangerous idea that many games both fall victim to and realize the importance of avoiding. The impact is far too high to even entertain the idea of just ignoring it and trying to warp it into a feature for specific killers. That type of thinking is already a pox on this game's discourse on both sides.
It just seems to be a tangent from the point about whether and when a feature would be good for the game or not to a broader discussion on game design theory.
I say this aware of the irony that I've gone off on tangents many times on this forum.
As an example, the idea of keeping it in for one killer and removing it for others is probably impossible just because its the same code and either they fix it for one, or not fix it at all, because unique coding per killer would probably not be worth the time. That's almost certainly true from a coding perspective, but I feel like it would be a different discussion.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3969578#Comment_3969578
If something unintended happens, but it makes the game better, keep it.People made this argument for keeping hug tech, especially since it was a skill cap anomaly that was in the game for years, even after being publicly acknowledged. In the end, it was behavior's decision to remove it because it was an unintended consequence of how the affected dash powers worked vs how they were supposed to work. Crouch tech relies on hit and hurt boxes not lining up due to verticality paired with survivors' ability to shrink their hurtbox (yes I know collision is done by cylinders and cones, using colloquial nomenclature) on demand. It is quite literally pressing a button under specific circumstances to make the killers power do nothing instead of registering a valid hit. You cannot claim one has more merit than the other unless you are weighing the importance of one side over the other. They go hand in hand.
My stance, again, is about game design: You can't selectively choose to ignore bugs that can have impacts as strong as hits not registering when they're supposed to while simultaneously removing ones that require setup and specifically affect the upper skill ceiling concerning the exact same power. They already claimed crouch tech was fixed, until people very quickly found out it was only fixed sometimes. This is, again, very specifically about the two halves of the "power malfunctioning" part of the issue, and especially about the inconsistency in design showing a very clear bias, and I hate giving that camp fuel but if they actually fixed it when they said they were going to (or when they did) then this conversation wouldn't even be happening.
That doesn't sound asinine at all. What's the relevance of the result being on accident?Crouch tech still working is "supposed" to be an accident, or they flat out lied about it to the community. The relevance is that most sane people agree that SWF shouldn't be directly punished just for being SWF, even though using comms gives a very clear advantage that the game was not designed around (lack of information.) In my hypothetical, if there was a bug that only hindered SWF players who are using comms, that would be the same type of "balance by bugs" approach if it were purposely ignored. Not only would it be unfair to anyone who plays with comms and doesn't take advantage of them, it would be purposely leaving in a bug that only affects players who have what would be considered an advantage: The point pairs with the nurse one that followed it, that purposely leaving bugs as some type of haphazard balance karma is a terrible idea no matter who it applies to.
I specified I'm not talking about X bug vs Y bug in unrelated instances. There is nothing to compare about the individual trees. I'm talking about one group of powers, you could even narrow it down to just blight for conversation's sake, and it shows a contradiction in both design and direction. If entirely unintentional, it then shows a split in either competence or effort, as they already claimed it to be fixed and haven't readdressed it yet. And worst of all if its entirely deliberate and they just honestly feel that survivors complaining about hug tech landing hits while completely ignoring killers who earn valid hits just not getting them because of a combination of elevation issues and pressing a single button for a few frames, it directly becomes an issue of inconsistent design and/or direction. Again, they just need(ed) to handle it better if they want to even appear impartial. Literally all they had to do was not lock the vertical axis on the camera so killers could at least react to it. As a simple throwaway idea, they could have even adjusted the cone so that it would have less range when looking down, giving a mindgame between the killer and survivor on whether they were going to attempt the tech to dodge or not. Don't pick the specifics of that idea apart too much because its off the cuff, but the point is they chose to handle it in both a lazy and contradictory way.
Edit: I hope the person who immediately downvoted realizes I'm not even defending hug tech, but that might be asking a lot.
People made this argument for keeping hug tech, especially since it was a skill cap anomaly that was in the game foryears, even after being publicly acknowledged. In the end, it was behavior's decision to remove it because it was an unintended consequence of how the affected dash powers worked vs how they were supposed to work.This seems to be a different argument than what @PetTheDoggo is talking about.
1: He's giving his personal opinion about how BHVR should behave in their decision making and then explaining the why on this situation
2: You're arguing that BHVR needs to follow precedent they've established about the issue with bugs.
Even if the second is true, it doesn't preclude a discussion about what a more ideal policy would be or whether a bug would be good or not if instead of being a bug it was actually a feature.
-I had a much longer post at first in reply, but figured I'd try to simplify it down.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3969017#Comment_3969017
You're purposely missing the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter how strong or weak a character in a game is, if you fix their skill ceiling because of the ability to specifically cause the power to malfunction, you can't purposely leave in a malfunction as some type of spiteful "balancing" measure. You're trying to focus on the specifics of the two while ignoring the massive design contradiction. This isn't even about "any" tech vs "any" other. Exploits/bugs/techs/whatever all have varying levels of impact and importance. This is about two separate bugs involving the exact same power, as well as other similar powers from other killers, so there needs to be consistency in how it is approached from a design standpoint. Not doing so is the type of favoritism that leads people to call the game X sided every chance they get.
If there was a bug that only affected SWFs on comms, it would be absolutely asinine to not address it and act like its some kind of balancing feature. Hell, just look at any of the many bug fixes nurse has had over the game's life, and try to tell yourself that keeping all of her fatigue and dead blink bugs should have stayed as balancing measures.
You're purposely missing the forest for the trees.I don't know, @PetTheDoggo seems to be distinguishing why the trees are different pretty clearly.
so there needs to be consistency in how it is approached from a design standpoint.The consistency seems to be:
If something unintended happens, but it makes the game better, keep it.
If something unintended happens, and it makes the game worse, remove it.
If there was a bug that only affected SWFs on comms, it would be absolutely asinine to not address it and act like its some kind of balancing feature.That doesn't sound asinine at all. What's the relevance of the result being on accident?
-
I have a feeling we aren't going to know until it comes in a PTB form (whenever that is), but possibilities
1: Time slugged
2: Amount of survivors slugged
3: Amount of times slugged
4: Killer camping the slug (basically like AFC)
5: Time up before being slugged again
6: Some combination of the above.
Then there is the issue of what they do about it, which also has a wide number of possibilities.
-
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3968450#Comment_3968450
And IMHO, until someone becomes good at that new Killer, this MMR rubberbanding shouldn't exist. Every Killer should have its own MMR that doesn't affect the others, it's stupid you can't get weaker Survivors to learn on when you've never played a given Killer. It's not fun to be slapped around and you won't know what you do right or wrong if all you do is lose, you'll just get frustrated and go back to your mains.
Frankly the MMR bracket needs widening on both sides, it's too narrow. It also needs a reset since we'll be getting new MMR criteria soon anyway.
it's stupid you can't get weaker Survivors to learn on when you've never played a given KillerIt seems silly that survivors could get a killer player who has far game experience then them.
The other issue, is that if this was true, it would take days/weeks for new killers to start appearing at the higher MMR brackets. Then the killer would have a substantial leg up for awhile as they had a lot of experience the survivors didn't. This would even out over time, but you'd have inflated kill rates early on and we've seen how problematic it can be for the game if a killer comes in with a negative to play against reputation.
It also needs a reset since we'll be getting new MMR criteria soon anyway.I guess this really depends on what the new MMR is. If its totally different than a reset will almost certainly have to happen, if its mostly the same though it doesn't really call for it.
-
@ChuckingWong said:
Well theres the night.
Was fun!https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3967865#Comment_3967865
I saw the chat thank you!
I even had a couple squads early on. One flashlight sable squad that was out to get me as well. Took care of em ♥
Think I had a squad though on RPD and they just were on it. The guys on RPD were hyper aware they were having none of the stealth techniques and unique pathing I was making.
They outplayed me massively :D.
Was fun though!
I have been assimilated into the SM gang though I like this killer. ♥♥♥https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/54O7JGHK7XDG/image.png
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/F0X3PICN3MXL/image.png
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/FYNOXN9QEPM3/image.png
KR for the night (30 kills): 75%
WR for the night: 90%
Fun merchant!
Complete 10 match vod
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2518187040
Sable squad/RPD gang vod beating me
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2518276119Sable squad/RPD gang vod beating meI didn't read the description closely enough. I was watching the Sable squad match and the whole time I was like 'how does he lose this?!'
Then I realized there were two trials 😋
-
The 4v1 issue kind of makes a casual mode impossible.
In team style games (say 5v5) throwing randoms together works because its true for both sides. In DbD, survivors are frequently only as strong as their weakest link.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3967467#Comment_3967467
Ragequitters should be handled the same way as hackers, because both groups of people are breaking game rules.
In both scenarios, there is no perfect solution. But the correct plan of action, is to keep trying, and keep improving on the detection algorithms.
According to your attitude, BHVR shouldn't try to punish hackers, because hackers are going to turn to anything else that lets them hack.
Ragequitters should be handled the same way as hackers, because both groups of people are breaking game rules.That's like saying parking violations and arson should be handled the same because they are both against the law.
Different situations require different levels of priority and different levels of punishment.
In both scenarios, there is no perfect solution. But the correct plan of action, is to keep trying, and keep improving on the detection algorithms.Algorithms aren't great at detecting intent. Hackers are using external programs and/or manipulating code, ragequitters you are trying to decipher why a person played the way they did. How much time is it worth for BHVR, instead of fixing bugs, balance issues, new gameplay additions, etc. to try and solve a potentially unsolvable issue that risks false positive and catching innocent players?
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3966983#Comment_3966983
Everyone would be better off if the Go Next mechanic would properly detect anyone that ragequits, and gives them a DC penalty.
If someone is throwing the match, they are clearly breaking game rules, and should be punished with a DC penalty. The solution should be "the Go Next system needs to do better".
Everyone would be better off if the Go Next mechanic would properly detect anyone that ragequits, and gives them a DC penalty.In a perfect world, sure. But actually trying to implement a system like that is almost impossible. Make it to loose and you'll get false positives (see AFK crows), make it too stringent and it will be easily avoidable and just cause unnecessary worry in the community. Designing a system to detect intent is probably impossible.
-
I suspect that BHVR probably has dozens, if not hundreds, of perk ideas just sitting around. A contest would lead to accusations of theft ('I submitted an idea just like that!') which would be a huge problem.
-
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3965956#Comment_3965956
But these aren't new players saying this. It's long term Killer Mains like Otzdarva and MintSkull. It's even brought in Survivor mains, long term ones, like Scott Jund and Ayrun.
And they are all saying Killer seems to be harder, or Survivor seems to be easier. Now, they don't all agree it IS harder for Killer/easier for Surv, but they are all saying it FEELS that way. If these big names are saying it, then what does that feel like for Average Joe Deebeedee?
What is the explanation for this when BIG NAME creators well out of the softcap or beginner MMR are saying this?
1: Scott isn't a survivor main, he's a killer main. He had a video out saying the opposite of this, that he hasn't been seeing any harder games. He had another video that said this might change with the upcoming patch if it goes through with the changes as listed.
2: You're missing the explanation for the survivor side. There are a lot more killer players who don't have thousands of hours yet. Some of them have likely managed to get up above the softcap while survivors are lagging behind (given that killers can gain more MMR per match than survivors).
I've noticed a lot of killers, both in playing and watching streamers, who don't seem nearly as cracked as they were a few months ago. This isn't a surprise given the influx of players around the killer role.
-
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3965384#Comment_3965384
The problem with this theory is it's not just Killer Mains making videos about this. It's people who play both sides, and people who also play majority Survivor commenting on it. They're all saying the game has gotten tougher for Killers and Escapes are easier for Survivors. Some of these are people who have been in the community since 2016 and are well respected.
The other issue is, a SWF is not just a four stack. If you include 2 and 3 stacks, yes, odds are you're probably encountering someone SWFing with one or more friends about 70% of the time.
They're all saying the game has gotten tougher for Killers and Escapes are easier for Survivors.But there's an alternative explanation to the survivor and killer experience. There are lots of new players (by the standards of the community) who are playing killer. They've probably worked themselves out of the beginner MMRs but aren't nearly as strong as the other killers in the broader, higher MMR ranges.
-
I feel like if players engage in one BP event (such as this one), or just play 2v8 for awhile (where no items get consumed), they will be so far ahead of the item curve that they'll practically never run out of the "good stuff".
I think anyone who isn't just starting off not running the best possible items is doing it as a choice, not because they have run out. It does seem like we're seeing a trend where survivors are just more willing to actually use the items.
-
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3964629#Comment_3964629
Realistically BHVR will probably eventually add this once we get Killer bots, and like it or lump it all the naysayers will just have to deal with it.
And it still will not ruin their games.
And itstillwill not ruin their games.Ruin the game is kind of a high bar. There's lots of things they could do that would be objectively bad that I don't think would ruin the game.
I imagine you are correct that if the killer bots were in BHVR would likely do it, but that is a hurdle they haven't crossed yet.
-
@TimberGoingDown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3964539#Comment_3964539
Lol. It's the point that makes the most sense. Far more often than not, the game is over once the gates are open. Survivors generally don't open the gates until they know that they are getting out.
@TimberGoingDown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3964580#Comment_3964580
If you take a hit against Iri Huntress, that means she has no hatchets to use against the person she's tunneling. Which means she has to go reload, or try to tunnel someone while only being a 4.4 killer. Which gives the other survivor time to gain a lot of distance and/or disappear entirely.
99/100 games, the game is lost once those exit gates open, barring an endgame perk. You just like rubbing it in killer's faces when you win, and you don't like the idea of not being able to do that.
Far more often than not, the game is over once the gates are open.99/100 games, the game is lost once those exit gates open, barring an endgame perkI think 99/100 is an extreme exaggeration. I've played a bunch of games today and can think of two where we got the exit gates open and the trial was still very much going on.
Situations where the survivors open the gate and then go for a save or times when one or more survivors get pushed out while the other survivors are still inside aren't at all unusual.
But even if it was 1%, I can think of lots of scenarios in the game where there is 99% chance the game is lost. And maybe an abandon option would be helpful in those scenarios, but all 4 survivors dead, hooked, or slugged is way below 1%.
-
@LockerLurk said:
Here's the big question nobody is asking: Who would it be hurting to simply let this be a thing? And I have never gotten a good answer for it.
Survivors? Well, no. They're getting the win regardless. They can always get their exit gate thing against someone who wants to play to the end if they so choose, or those challenges could simply be removed.
Killers? Well, no. They're getting to leave if they feel the other side is being a sore winner and will simply not take their W without trying to humiliate them or get their attention and push them out. And if you don't wanna do it, you don't have to do it. It's optional, like the abandon for Survivors is optional. You don't like it? Don't use it.
The experience? Well, no. Game's over, experience is over, what more fun is there to have? There's already an unspoken rule to not go to the gates in the Killer community for a reason - the experience isn't good. Chasing people out doesn't necessarily feel good to do just because you can do it.
The fact is many Killers simply do not want to go to the gates for the same reason many Survivors don't want to wait on the ground in a slug for a 4k. It's boring. Having to force Survs out is boring. It may not be the same exact thing or same exact line, but it's a boring bit of formality when you know you're not going to succeed, in both cases the game is OVER for the side who is in the situation outlined - Survs running out the gate, Killer hunting the last friend while you're on the ground. In both cases it's needless extra time wasted. That's why people want abandon when everyone's in the gate so badly, because people want to move on to the next round without having to waste time when they're just going to leave anyway.
Look, it's like this - it's just not likely unless you run certain perks or certain Killers you're going to catch anyone at the gate. It's more likely you will lose them. It's also really boring to have to run around spamming your power or breaking pallets because Survivors choose to wait until the last second to leave. For a large number of Killer players, once the Survs are in the gates it's basically over, they're gonna leave, unless you have some sort of weird clutch endgame play that happens once in a blue moon ready.
So, this being a thing - allowing abandon after a minute or so of the gates being open, let's say - doesn't harm Survs, doesn't harm Killers, and doesn't harm the experience. So I ask again, to the people who for some baffling reason do not want the ability for those who want it to choose to forfeit when a game feels lost, who would it be hurting to simply let this be a thing?
Here's the big question nobody is asking: Who would it be hurting to simply let this be a thing? And I have never gotten a good answer for it.It depends: are we talking about a how we would design the game if we could, or are we talking about BHVR's reasons for the abandon and why they held off for so long?
If we're just leaving BHVR out of it and imagining that we can just put things into the game, well then we're talking about the merits of a surrender option. Different people have different feelings on this. There's lots of scenarios where people would surrender if they could, not just open exit gates.
Me, I'd be fine with it, but lots of people feel differently.
If we're comparing it to BHVR's stance, they seem to want abandon's to be limited to extreme circumstances. Maybe because they think expanding it would impact kill rates, maybe their customer research and data shows the 4 minute bleed out timer is much worse and more frequent than the 2 minute EGC, maybe the time it would take to get bots coded for all of the killers would be substantial and they don't think its worth the investment.
If we're talking about hurting, BHVR has to actually code and implement things which takes time, they have metrics they design the game around, and have to balance between a diverse array of players with different desires for the game.
-
@TimberGoingDown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3964491#Comment_3964491
If all four survivors are in the exit gates, and the killer isn't playing a specific couple of characters/addons/perks, then it is literally impossible for them to do anything other than get tbagged. So we shouldn't design around "what if perks/addons" and design around the fact that in the VAST majority of cases, once those gates are opened, the game is over.
I mentioned this in another reply, but to repeat
If all four survivors are in the exit gates,once those gates are opened, the game is over.These are very different scenarios. Even if we say all 4 survivors in the exit gate should allow the killer to abandon, that doesn't connect to the idea that the trigger point should be the gate opening.
-
@Rudjohns said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3964371#Comment_3964371
Sure, but before, was it really worth doing it? Were people actually having fun?
Now it's much "easier". Some maps are ridiculous with the gens spawn
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3964365#Comment_3964365
Far more difficult with the gen blocking. It is nothing like it was.
Kind of feel like arguing whether killer is the easiest it has ever been, or the second easiest it has ever been, or off chance on the third easiest, is missing the forest for the trees.
-
@Brimp said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3964466#Comment_3964466
Yeah but just because all the survivors are slugged doesnt mean the games over for them. See where I'm getting at? You can still try to play the game but survivor just give up because they don't want to try. But if god forbid a killer wants to abandon once the gates are open is suddenly seen as a taboo.
The abandon feature was good at the start but then people started developing double standards.See where I'm getting at?You're treating one situation which is incredibly, astronomically unlikely with something that is not unusual and saying because there is a chance is both that makes them the same. The chance of survivors coming back from everyone slugged/hooked/dead is miniscule. The chance of killers getting a kill after the gates have been powered is relatively common.
There is a massive gulf in probabilities, agency, time frame, and ability to implement.
You can still try to play the game but survivor just give up because they don't want to tryTry what?
There is nothing to be done. Everyone is down, hooked, or dead.
But if god forbid a killer wants to abandon once the gates are open is suddenly seen as a taboo.The thing I think most people get angry about in these discussions is the treating the scenarios as the same. They're not. Should the abandon option be expanded? Maybe, that's a different discussion, but the situation of everyone being slugged is unique from the gates being opened.
-
@Brimp said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3964438#Comment_3964438
They are still the same. If you think that a killer shouldn't be able to abandon once gates are open then all I can say is this is also supporting bullying the killer by just sitting in gates and bagging.
Throughout this thread we jump between 'killer should be able to abandon when the doors are open' and 'survivors in gate bagging'.
Except they are very different things. Just because the gates are open does not mean all the survivors are there and are safe. Survivors in the gate bagging probably are safe, but as discussed, survivors could just move slightly and now BHVR has to decide on where to draw the line for 'safe' and 'game is still going on'.
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3964438#Comment_3964438
The system that was put in place assumes your premise without knowing it to be true. If survivors did have agency to get back up that isn't taken into account. Because of that, you cannot take into account what the killer could do when faced with similar situation where the game can be over with doors open.
Also, it's not when they are powered but opened. Not asking for the button to appear after 5 gens are done but for the means to escape are available.
If survivors did have agency to get back up that isn't taken into account.Out of curiosity
If BHVR changed it so that if any survivor had unbreakable or another perk that can get them up, the abandon option wouldn't appear, would you change your opinion? Because otherwise this feels like a red herring.
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3964375#Comment_3964375
I haven't read the last person who brought that up to see how reasonable it was, but the time wasted in these instances are not minor. When you walk up to an empty gate do you think the survivor is hiding or that they're at the other gate? It doesn't become reasonable to think they are hiding until you visit and check both gates. Then you have to waste more time searching the areas around both gates. Maybe you get lucky just for them to exit before you can catch up.
This is usually done with a four out. Where the killer wasn't able to kill anyone and the survivors feels safe, especially a M1 killer with no means to insta down.
But why should the killer have to go through that? Why can't they have the opportunity to just throw up their hands and concede?
They can keep a bot killer in their place who can then chase survivors out. Same thing, right?
Where the killer wasn't able to kill anyone and the survivors feels safe, especially a M1 killer with no means to insta down.But why should the killer have to go through that? Why can't they have the opportunity to just throw up their hands and concede?Are we talking about a purely hypothetical situation where we can just put it into the game, or are we discussing the ramifications BHVR would likely be worried about with implementing such a system?
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3964292#Comment_3964292
When the doors are open, the likely hood of a survivor hiding anywhere but the hatch or in the open door just to tick off the killer is practically nil. None of us have seen it and we been here since 2017.
What you on? I see this all time. Usually in pairs so they can tank a hit if found.
I'm going to go with @Rulebreaker on this.
Hiding, when the doors are open just to waste the killers time, I can't recall having ever seen.
I've seen people hide until they have another survivor get to them so they can make it to the doors safely, I've seen them hide until they know where the killer is, I've seen them hide waiting for other survivors to leave so they can get hatch, I've seen them move around the map stealthily doing totems or chests for BP.
But just hiding in the map to waste the killer's time, when the doors are open, and thus creating the risk of getting killed, I can't recall. Not in my matches or any streamer. I'm sure it has happened somewhere, but it seems strange that some people are saying this is a common occurrence and others have never encountered it.
-
Here's the differences:
1: Killer can force survivors out, survivors lack the ability to do anything.
2: The ability to draw a line when the game is over. All survivors downed, hooked, or dead the chances of any escapes at that point is incredibly small. Killers don't have a similar line, kills can still be achieved quite readily after the gates are powered or open.
The only point that the game is truly over is when all remaining survivors are at the open gate, but wherever BHVR draws the line survivors could BM slightly farther away from that. This would lead to BHVR spending time implementing a change that would have no impact because those who want to BM still can.
3: The game doesn't change for the killer. If the game did not tell the killer the survivors had abandoned, they would rarely know the difference, while a player killer vs. bot killer is very different.
4: BHVR has yet to put in bot killers for all the killers (to my understanding), so the match would just end. This would prevent survivors from finishing quests/tomes or getting the extra BP if they care about that like a killer can.
5: The survivors can end up in their situation through no BM. A killer who has one dead, finds a survivor, downs them, sees another, chases and downs them, and then spots the 3rd chases and downs them, is not BMing, its normal, even if this example would be rare (I was just in a situation like this though so its on my mind), gameplay. But the first two downed survivors could be waiting around doing nothing. No one has done anything wrong here, but its the type of pointless thing games should address.
BHVR resisted an abandon option for a long time and only put it in place when the match is truly, absolutely over. Maybe they should rethink and expand on possibilities for both sides, but right now the two scenarios are very, very different.
-
I'll go with Potential Energy when it released. I think it was the worst example of DbD trying to fix gameplay issues with perks.
If the killer is going for a full 3 gen lock down and you brought the perk, great, survivors win.
If you didn't? Sorry, tough break.
-
@MDRSan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3963504#Comment_3963504
That might be a useful anti-tunneling mechanic though. It would encourage spreading the hook states around since if the killer tries to tunnel someone out, the survivors might let them and get a buff because of it. You could have something in place where it only triggers if each hook state was reached because of a separate hooking - that way no one could argue it’s efficient to just leave someone on hook to die.
You could have something in place where it only triggers if each hook state was reached because of a separate hooking - that way no one could argue it’s efficient to just leave someone on hook to die.That would help on situation 2 if they were to go to that extreme.
But it leaves the issue that the survivors have no reason to protect that survivor once unhooked and the killer has every reason to leave them slugged.
It also doesn't deal with scenario 1 about how Killer progress doesn't feel like anything. I hate the term lose/lose, but I think it would apply here. Spread pressure, getting multiple survivors on death hook, and the survivors will get a ton of gen progress . Eliminate a survivor, and the survivors will get a ton of gen progress by the time needed to do them dropping significantly.
It just looks like we'd either need to reimagine the game as actually a 1v1v1v1v1, or the killer would need massive buffs. Because if the catch up mechanic is so extreme that 2 survivors could come back from there being 3 gens left to go we have a radically different game.
Personally, I think the mercy option is the best of the ideas proposed. If it gets down to 2 survivors and there is less than 350 charges on all the gens, the killer just wins. It wouldn't be a satisfying conclusion, but as a bonus it would prevent survivors who try to hide from the start and are just playing for hatch.
-
@Virtualguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3962936#Comment_3962936
Except there's a really easy fix. Just drastically lower the time needed to fix a gen when survivors die. I won't risk fixing three 90 second gens because that's dumb but would I risk fixing three thirty second gens? Heck yeah I would.
The problem with that, the survivors now have much less incentive to save someone on death hook. Gens before friends actually becomes a powerful strategy. This leads to two problems
1: A sense for the killer that their progress means nothing. Don't eliminate a survivor, you have to face 4 of them, eliminate a survivor and the remaining ones do gens faster.
2: Now instead of feeling pointless being alive, it now feels pointless when you are on hook and know people are not coming for you. Especially given the current anti-go next, you still have survivors being stuck, just in a different position.
-
1: Anything that gets said in an end game chat shouldn't be used as example of real arguments. Tunneling, gen rushing, SWFing, etc. will get claimed by the losing side despite evidence because there are lots of people who just like to troll in the end game chat.
2: A survivor just refusing to play is its own situation. Its not tunneling. The match is kind of finished right there and different players respond to it in different ways.
3: Even beyond that, you went and chased others, so its not tunneling.
-
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3962961#Comment_3962961
You can call it mixing issues but all I did was repeat what the Dev's design intent is. Whether or not it's accurate to the game is on them.
The Devs want 60/40. They do not want it to be "balanced" so that Killers always 2k and Survivors always 2 out. So, they didn't design it that way.
The Devs want 60/40. They do not want it to be "balancedAgreed. It's unbalanced. That's their intent. OP is arguing that they have the wrong intent (subjective argument) and that those who are arguing it is balanced are wrong (factual argument).
so that Killers always 2k and Survivors always 2 out.Even if the game was a 50% KR we'd still likely be seeing far more of a mix of 4ks and 0ks than 2ks.
-
@Yippiekiyah said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3962908#Comment_3962908
I could agree with this but surely killers should have catch up mechanics too, i regularly lose 4 gens and i have like 1 or 2 hooks. At that point the game is lost.
Yes and no.
Yes: The killer can fall behind. I wouldn't be opposed to the concept up catch up mechanics there, but there are three differences.
1: The inherent catch up mechanic the killer has is less gens to defend. Now depending on how much they have been split (and the killer type, pallets left on the map, etc), this can mean with 4 gens done and 1 or 2 hooks the match still might be somewhat even (no good pallets, survivor hooked in the center of a 3 gen), or an easy end for the survivors (gen spread out, killer who doesn't have good map speed).
Broadly speaking though, a killer already has much more capability to come back from being way behind already than the survivors do .
2: Killers can still get a 1k. Some players don't care about this, but in BHVR's metrics a 1k is a better result than a 0k, and getting kills is always possible with a killer basically until the very end of the game.
Survivors version of this is hatch, but the 2 player situation creates a 'what do we do now?' type of scenario.
3: The time scale. Barring blatant BMing, survivors can finish the gens and leave. With the two survivors left their logical course of actions, if they are trying to maximize escaping is hiding, and hoping the other survivor is caught. Even if they put in place more anti-hiding mechanics, the survivors goal (again presuming they are trying to maximize their chances at the goal and not violating the rule about ratting out the other survivor) is to do just enough to not trigger the anti-hide mechanic.
This is a problem somewhat unique to DbD's elimination format. Mismatches happen in all games. In something like a Team Deathmatch or Control Point, by the time its clear its a mismatch, the game is probably getting close to over, because mismatches inherently result in quicker games. A mismatch in the killer's favor, without any BMing whatsoever and players just trying to maximize their chance at the game's objective, can still really draw the match out.
-
@LockerLurk said:
The Devs have stated that 60/40 is what they want because if everyone is exactly equal in strength, one person mathematically cannot handle four others, "lil bro" (extremely condescending tone with these words in the title by the way). The game, like it or not, is designed as a survival horror game where teaming up is the strongest thing Survivors can do. Teamwork is meant to counterbalance Killers and get you those wins. Not Survivors being equally strong.
This is for EVERYONE'S benefit, not the Killer's, it's especially for the Survivor's benefit actually. So lets do that, let's look at this in terms of how a 1v4 60/40 split actually benefits Survivors, so you can see the reasoning.
Not all scales have their fulcrum in the center. Overwatch is a game that has scales like this. Bit some have it off to one side, because the other side gets more, which is the issue with DBD. Because that is how an asymmetric game is designed.
The Killer is intended to always be stronger, BHVR designed it like that on purpose, because this game is a survival horror game whether it feels like one to us jaded long term players or not. The Devs consider it survival horror, and design it like one. But survival horror is inherently biased against the one trying to survive, in other words it has that off center fulcrum. This is to ramp up tension and make the player feel a sense of risk, so they might be scared or feel that adrenaline rush of winning.
So to counteract the offcenter fulcrum, because one Survivor versus one Killer is a curbstomp, the Devs gave you, the player, a benefit the Killer doesn't - three other players of your same role. And when played correctly, four Survivors of equal skill to the Killer is in fact the same strength as one Killer, a 50/50 balance even though the killrate is 60/40. In other words, if you constantly team up with three others well enough, you equal together one Killer and probably win/lose as much as one Killer in reality. When you don't or there is a significant downswing in communication, the Killer wins.
The scales are balanced. One Killer weight is as heavy on their light side as four Survivors on their heavier side. The weight is the same. Because that's how an asymmetric game is balanced.
This is mixing together different issues.
The Devs consider it survival horror, and design it like one.You're saying the game should be unbalanced. It's a subjective opinion, one I agree with though I'll quibble over where the line gets drawn, but its opinion while the fact remains 60/40 is unbalanced.
So to counteract the offcenter fulcrum, because one Survivor versus one Killer is a curbstomp, the Devs gave you, the player, a benefit the Killer doesn't - three other players of your same role. And when played correctly, four Survivors of equal skill to the Killer is in fact the same strength as one Killer, a 50/50 balance even though the killrate is 60/40.But this is something totally different.
If the target KR was 50%, the killer would still be stronger than survivors in a 1v1. Even if the target KR was 25%, killers would still be stronger in a 1v1. I'm not even sure if I've ever seen anyone seriously disagree with that idea.
Survivors getting their strength from numbers is an obvious point that would still be absolutely the same if the KR was 50%. But it has nothing to do with the idea of where to draw the kill rate line.
-
It's probably one of the biggest issues in DbD and its potentially unfixable.
Because survivors are allowed, and even encouraged, to play for themselves, the logical thing to do in this scenario is hide and hope the other is caught first. Except that is really boring and draws out the game. You could potentially allow an abandon mechanic or something like that in this situation, but there are players who don't enjoy that as well (BHVR also made a couple of unforced errors on that issue as well).
-
Just one thing? That's tough and I'll try not repeating an answer.
Add/remove (change): the entire concept of rarities for items/addons on both survivor and killer. No need for levels of addons that indirectly justify broken stuff because they are rare to get. The goal instead is all addons are just balanced on their overall performance.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
Mathmatically, if every survivor had a 50% chance to win (escape, and remember the game is 1 vs 4 individual survivors each with their own win condition) the killer would only get a win (majority of available kills) roughly 32% of the time.
Math isnt for everyone, so do a simple test. Take a coin. It has a 50% chance to be tails (a win) and a 50% chance to be heads (a loss). Now flip it 4 times. It won't be very often you get 3 or 4 tails...and not remotely close to 50% of the time.
Math isnt for everyoneThe forum math discussions have made that pretty clear.
You can't take a coin flip scenario which has two possibilities with equal probability and compare it to a game of DbD with five possible outcomes (not even counting hatch as unique) with different chances of occurring. A 50% kill rate would probably be a 3+ kr of around 40%, but we can't know that for sure without knowing how they would actually balance the game to get to 50%.
You have to deal with how they get there, the most clear example is if they just increased the final survivors chances of escaping you wouldn't alter the win rate at all. You don't deal with those differences in a coin flip example.
Nor can you compare unalike things, if you want to treat the survivor side as a 1v1 against the killer, then you need to treat it the same way with the killer against the survivors, i.e. kill rate equals win rate.
Edit to add: Just to stress how much the math framing is off.
Even if BHVR was able to get a 50% percent kill rate where each survivor had a 50% chance in every trial regardless of the performance of the others, and even if we took the assumption that survivors were being taken individually and killers were being taken by the result of all of four 1v1s, it would in fact be perfectly balanced. The survivors win 50%, the killer wins 31.25%, but the survivors lose 50% while the killer would only lose 31.25%. You have balance because the killer difference in wins and losses is equal because they have a different possible outcome.
So even if this was how the game worked, the argument would still be wrong.
-
@Moonras2 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3961948#Comment_3961948
Ill be honest, I hadn't even thought about the swf argument. That would be a killing blow for solo queue.
The devs have never said it, but I have wondered if that's why they don't seem too worried about the high mmr 4 mans having a higher escape rate. At least not yet. Because they have figured out a way to balance it there, while trying to keep the rest still playable. It has its ups and downs but they still seem to be working on things that may help lower tier killers as well as solo queue survivors.
The devs have never said it, but I have wondered if that's why they don't seem too worried about the high mmr 4 mans having a higher escape rate.I've always presumed this to be the case. It would be very strange for an organization have a goal, to hit that goal in everything they are measuring, but one extreme outlier is a bit off, and then for them to risk breaking everything else to try and fix that small outlier.
It has its ups and downs but they still seem to be working on things that may help lower tier killersKillers are in kind of the same situation as the above. Take Sadako, if you raised her to be at 60% in high MMR, she'd so thoroughly devastate low and mid MMR that not a single Sadako would be left there who wasn't intentionally throwing. If Nurse was brought down on high MMR, she would be so awful on low and mid MMR that no one new might ever give her a chance.
Balance issues are a balancing act. If you have a goal of 60% kill rate (presuming for the moment that's true), the idea that you'll be able to hit 60% for new killers, experienced killers, against soloq, and against coordinated SWFs is not realistic. I'm amazed BHVR comes as close as they do. The main issue, the balancing act, is not let any of the area get too far out of whack to the point that it falls apart.
-
@jedimaster505 said:
This is for all the players—*cough cough* killer mains, who ignorantly believe that the 60:40 kill to escape ratio is "balanced" gameplay and that it should stay this way because killer is "supposed to win". This delusion is a confusion about what the word "balance" means, which is essentially the equal and right distribution of something.
Imagine you have a scale which weighs gold coins. You put 60 coins in the left plate, and 40 coins in the right plate. The scale is going to fall down on the left and raise up on the right because the scale is clearly imbalanced. Imbalance is poor balance and what we want is good balance for a video game to be fun. This fact is not controversial, not even for Dead by Daylight.
Equality is good balance because it makes for the most fair ratio of challenge to reward, which produces a flow state for every player involved. The flow state is the unity of opposites which is the pure bliss that makes any game worth playing. A game with too little challenge is boring, while a game with too much challenge is frustrating, and if this imbalance is severe enough, players will simply quit the game. It is no coincidence that the suicide on hook and DC rates were so high for survivors before the go-next prevention was implemented. This was merely a symptom of how heavily killer-sided the game has become.
In the game's current state you basically fall asleep while playing killer on auto-pilot as the game hands you one free and easy 3-4K after another with no effort required. Whereas on survivor side you have to actually apply your intelligence to even stand a chance of escaping against clearly overpowered killers with broken mechanics.
So it is imperative that the devs severely nerf tunneling, proxy camping and slugging across the board on all killers as these are low skill cheese tactics that offer way too much reward with little to no challenge, which means the killer never has to learn anything to be good at their role. A game which does not teach anything to the player has far less value than a game which educates the players, and this should include both survivors and killers, not only survivors like in the game's current state.
This global killer nerf will bring all killers' average kill rates down to an equal and fair 50% so that all players can enjoy the game as much as possible. This is objectively the optimal possible balance for the game. If you think a 60% kill rate is "good balance" then you are simply biased in favor of killer and giving that role too much importance. The devs could even do a live experiment where they nerf killers down to 40% average kill rate for a year so that they can see how it feels to be on the wrong side of objectively poor game balance. Then once they learn their lesson, they will all believe that 50% is the objectively optimal balance for Dead by Daylight and that the heavy nerfs to killer role across the board that raise average escape rates up to 50% are well-deserved.
"balanced" gameplay and that it should stay this way because killer is "supposed to win"To be fair, these are different arguments made by different people.
The first is a blatantly incorrect position because of a bad math concept about what 60% means when there are multiple variables to consider.
The second is a subjective take that a game does not need to be balanced and can be more fun in fact by being unbalanced.
I've spent quite a lot of time arguing against the first and how people are wrong.
The second is a subjective stance on what people find fun. I think there is merit to the idea of creating more of a challenge for one side so that escaping feels rewarding (though to me that makes the other side less fun). Personally, I think 60% is too high, especially because a 60% target means some killers will tick up above that, which makes a lot of matches feel pointless.
@Moonras2 is correct that if they went for a general 50/50, you'd have an explosion at the top level, just like killers who want 4 person SWFs brought down from 48% to 40% don't see how that would decimate everyone else.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3961308#Comment_3961308
A reasonable time is “never”, because when killers asked for an abandon button when the exits gates were open, the vast majority of people told killers “the game wasn’t over yet”, so killers shouldn’t get the abandon button.
The exact same situation happens here. If killers can be forced to sit through the entire ECG when survivors purposely hide in random parts of the map, then the slugged survivors should be forced to sit through their entire slug bar.
the vast majority of people told killers “the game wasn’t over yet”, so killers shouldn’t get the abandon button.That's because its true. People provided examples and reasons on how the EGC situation was very different both in terms of agency that exists as well as probability that one side can still achieve its objective (escape or kill).
If killers can be forced to sit through the entire ECG when survivors purposely hide in random parts of the mapSo we've gone from abandon at end game chaos to a specific condition that can occur during EGC. This is pretty similar to the discussion going on where you draw the line. So far BHVR has decided to only focus on a situation where the chance of a comeback is extremely slim (all survivors dead, hooked, or downed) and they are struggling to implement a system that draws the line between detecting survivors who are intentionally hiding to draw out the game and those who are engaging in normal gameplay for a game that involves and encourages hiding.
-
@bleep275 said:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/9M6L77VMZEJK/toxchuntress2-jpg.jpg
So this has been my DBD experience for the past few days, too bad the anti-slug only works if everyone is down. This is generally my experience with most huntresses and is why I absolutely loath going against them.
This huntress slugged me and sat on me until i bled out. She slugged me earlier in the match too because i took the down for the person they were hard tunneling. By that i mean this huntress had eyes and intent only for the hooked and unhooked people.
of course they were console so i couldn't ask why. My best guess is that I kept saving and taking hits for the people they were HARDCORE tunneling and camping juuuust far enough away to bypass the face camp meter.
But this is the definition of toxic. There is no reasonable excuse for this behavior when i had done nothing toxic or BM, i did two gens and some saves. No t-bagging. no flashlight clicks. I did nothing to get their attention. Just minded my business.
What are yalls opinion on a killer watching a survivor bleed out for the full 4 minutes? should it be reportable and eventually lead to a temp ban? Is it griefing?Note: Why do I have the names and perks blocked? (i know this will be brought up)
- To protect the identity of the other survivors.
- I know if I have my perks visible and they see ANY perk they dislike, even if its something like "corrective action", the conversation will devolve into "we can be toxic cuz perks".
- But your skin!!!! I think its funny and i like to do goofy stuff like shine my flashlight on the hands of survivors repairing generators so they can see. Or use my flashlight to light my way through dredges darkness. This outfit is a pretty clear indicator of "this guy is goofy". I plan to pair it with the speedo on release.
What are yalls opinion on a killer watching a survivor bleed out for the full 4 minutes? should it be reportable and eventually lead to a temp ban? Is it griefing?Griefing? Yes, absolutely.
A ban? No. I think bans or penalties of any kind should only be given for things like hacking or intentionally, repeatedly, and substantially sabotaging the team as a survivor.
Everything else is on BHVR to fix how the game works. A couple of others have mentioned, there is no reason the survivor shouldn't be able to abandon in this scenario. The killer won, great, let's all move on. The only issue really should be in determining the exact metrics for when it appears.
-
As others have mentioned, they really seem to want to make chests a thing.
Run to chest, open it, if its a medkit or toolbox, use it up, take back key, repeat at next chest.
Except doing the action you were going to do anyway (heal or gen) without the detour is still more time efficient and you're not at the mercy of a RNG.
I also think there's the possibility that BHVR is trying to create a playstyle/build like 'item giver' who runs around unlocking and rummaging chests and then leaving those items for the other survivors to use. Except that again seems extremely inefficient instead of just doing gens.
Its a very strange direction given how they talked about what they wanted to have happen.
-
@TheArbiter said:
What makes this even weirder is the license holders would've had to approve the design, so they either thought it was yellow or just didn't care, both of which are odd if you are the license holder
It's possible they designed the lime green version, but everyone agreed it didn't look right.
TCM has a much different color scheme than DbD and scenes are a lot more cluttered (as is generally normal when comparing a movie to a video game). Possible everyone agreed that Bubba running around within a dark setting and nothing else to offset the color made the green just look really silly.
Or they just went with the idea that because the version many people saw it looked yellow, thus canonically it was yellow, and the 4k version looks like it didn't come out until 2023.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3960290#Comment_3960290
Still not sure you're understanding. You don't use them to drop on the killer to stun them in a chase. There's no baiting involved. As an injured survivor, you run to a pallet, then you stand there. Either the killer downs you, or he leaves you. Either way, you win. Once you're downed, they can't grab you with your buddy nearby. If they dare, they get stunned. If they run after your buddy, you simply get up (with the new perk), or you power struggle if they come back to get you. If the killer is silly and does pick you up, they get stunned, you escape. Now you can come back and rebuild the pallet. Rinse and repeat. If they dare pick you up, either your friend pallet saves, you power struggle, or you use the new perk and get away. If the pallet is destroyed, then you can just create another fragile pallet.
The whole downside to fragile pallets is that they are destroyed once dropped. You can entirely disregard this downside if you instead use it to go down at instead of trying to use it in a chase where (as you mentioned) baiting is necessary. Skip that entirely - simply go down at the pallet. Now you can't be picked up without the killer getting stunned. At the moment, the game is balanced around the idea that while you can guarantee yourself safety at any pallet by going down at it, it permanently uses that pallet resource, and as the match progresses, less and less pallets are available. However, now, you can just keep recreating them. You DO NOT drop them in chase. You instead just go down at them. The entire downside to fragile pallets are non-existent if you use them in that manner.
There's no baiting involved. As an injured survivor, you run to a pallet, then you stand there.At the moment, the game is balanced around the idea that while you can guarantee yourself safety at any pallet by going down at it, it permanently uses that pallet resource, and as the match progresses, less and less pallets are availablePallets aren't that rare. If your only concern is finding a pallet to use for a save then you don't need to use a good pallet, you can use the weakest pallet on the map.
With the current condition of 2 searches a survivor needs to dedicate a lot of time, and potentially a good portion of their build, to add something in that you need to then dedicate more time to be near to create the possibility of a stun so the killer doesn't just autopick.
This is on top of if the survivor doesn't reach the pallet, or just goes down on it right away, you've lost out on even more time.
-
Apocalyptic Ingenuity reminds me of Invocations. A neat idea for a perk that BHVR seems really concerned is going to be way too strong, so they overload with conditions. This could have been build time and long cooldown and been absolutely fine.
Come and Get Me: Meme perk for trying to hide others and bait chase.
Toughen Up: I originally thought the perk was awful, now I'm kind of on the idea its okay, but not very strong. I guess its use is after saving a survivor from being picked up, you increase the chance of them getting away.
I personally find injured survivors really easy to track via sound so it doesn't seem that useful to me, but maybe the scratch marks / blood pools will make a difference.
-
Conviction: Interesting perk idea. I don't think its strong, but it does have a neat use.
Last Stand: Once a match you can stun a killer through a window. Okay, cool.
Throw Down: Like Toughen Up, requires a teammate to have this and work together for the save. The 10 seconds of endurance only seems relevant if you're hitting a Nurse or Blight. But being the injured survivors should be running away as fast as they can while the killer is stunned, the aura read is nice but doesn't seem like a huge deal.
-
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3960438#Comment_3960438
That's the issue, who is going to play Killer like that when you could chase, or be aggressive, or do anything more fun?
And of the Killers that do excel in patience and holding still for a bit, they don't need it. Ghostface doesn't need Insidious, Myers doesn't need Insidious, Pig doesn't need Insidous.On the more fun: that's pretty subjective, some killers really seem to enjoy the jump scare.
On who could use it? Bubba most likely.
I could also see killers who have a more standard chase build using Insidious to catch survivors off guard, kind of like combining balanced landing and deadhard.
With a 133 killer perks it isn't surprising that some of them fall into a limited or off meta role.
-
My definition is basically yours. First survivor hooked, target them until they are eliminated. I don't know if I would use the words 'ignoring all other objectives', probably 'prioritizing the tunnel above all else', but that's not much of a difference.
So: tunneling, the act of heavily prioritizing the elimination of a survivor above all other objectives from the start of the trial
Example usage: The Wesker ran right past the David and the 99ed gen because he was trying to tunnel out the Kate to get it to a 3v1 as quickly as possible.
Prefer playing survivor.
Not sure if the thread was inspired by the definitional arguments I got into in a different thread. I worry that the forum doesn't give you nearly a large enough sample size, but I wish you luck.
-
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3959269#Comment_3959269
I see your point but like… a 2 second buff is nothing. Insidious needs a better rework than this. There's still no reason to stand in one spot as a Killer, who is going to use this perk? Myers? Trapper? I guess you can use it at corners around tiles but why?
Either with an insta down killer or a killer with something like Dragon's Grip. Move a little away from the area you think they are going to be coming to (hook/gen), hide and wait, then ambush.
Its an all or nothing type of strategy. If the survivor just decide to do something else you are way behind, but if you guess right you get a really quick down.
-
@ChuckingWong said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3960406#Comment_3960406
You are just back seat gaming at that point. And then offering nothing up in return. What ifs… and you should have… is not constructive gameplay critique. Especially when its offered one sided and then nothing in the return sense.
Wheres your gameplay? Wheres "the gameplay that I see so I generally think OP is correct" Anything?
You cant have it both ways.
Like you want to tell me my video, first the survivors are playing wrong. Even though I disagree, which is why they had all alive and 1 gen left. And they were trying to play into several correct tiles that would waste my time. Yui esspecially all round.
But then you want to use 1 gen left and 4 alive as confirmation that I am playing wrong too.
You cant have it both ways.
Noone plays perfect, you included.
I too have watched many players who play the game better than me. Their matches dont have the Ops mindset in the slightest. And they make mistakes, or what I think mistakes are as well.
If we want to delve into tournaments and what not. Sure Ill take what OP says as true. But noone here is a tournament level player. And thats not a gamemode anyone here is referring to.
We are talking standard pub matches. Everyone here, me, you, reinami, whomever is playing.You are just back seat gaming at that point.That's an interesting way to put it.
It reminds me a lot of sports fans who talk about their team after a loss:
1: They did X (example: ran the ball too much) instead of Y (passed the ball). We know they lost, so obviously what they tried didn't work. But the original decision makers (i.e. coaches/players), have to make those decisions knowing that all possibilities might fail and they are trying to choose which one has the highest potential for success.
2: In both DbD and sports we have the benefit of more information/hindsight/time to think. In this case the killer perspective, so its easier to say 'here's what the survivor should have done', because we can literally see what the killer is doing while the survivors didn't have that info.
It's like Invictus losing their win streak. I, or anyone, can sit down and see things they should have done differently in that match. But obviously they aren't a bad team.
-
which was said in a somewhat accusatory wayIt's text. There is no tone. Disagreeing with someone or pointing out a larger issue is not an accusation.
You outlined an issue with the game. I unlike a few other posters, agree its an issue, but say that there isn't much that can be done. Pointing out an issue without a solution is not much of a discussion.
These were examples of things that can be done with minimal effort by the devs that would potentially solve these problems.And I explained why I don't think those ideas would work (or, more specifically, how they might work to solve this issue, but create larger, even worse issues).
I was simply responding the message of "what can you even do" as if to say "there is nothing that can be done" and i was simply wanting to prove that statement wrong, as there are plenty of things that can be done.Things that can be done and things that work are very different.
Game design changes are complex and will usually involve a lot of pro and con discussions. A solution to any sort of game issue with no negative repercussions is extremely unlikely. If you want to get into those issues, great. As an example @Scarlett1111 does this by disagreeing with my concept of what makes survivor enjoyable, and I respond to them with my reasonings.
And if you don't want to, okay, but as I said in my first reply the idea of the first chase being very important is pretty well established, then we're just having a discussion quibbling over the differences between really important vs really, really important.
-
No, its a nerf. Losing a medkit with a syringe, for example, is a pretty substantial outcome. And if the item doesn't have any value, the survivors aren't going to go back for it.
And unless the item gets dropped really out of the way, the survivor can just pick it up on the way to a gen.
Is it still usable? Yeah, it still has value, I don't think its dead, but let's not overstate things. We don't need to repeat the MFT silliness just on the other side when people where arguing a nerf was a secret buff.
-
@Scarlett1111 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3959238#Comment_3959238
Yeah I'm sorry but no. The "fun" in survivor isn't that you are nearly dead at any time, the fun in survivor is goofing off with friends because you are never expected to win. You are expected to die more often than escape, that's innately how the game is made. Once you know that you realize that there is no fun in "barely escaping" or doing anything meaningful in the game as survivor, majority of 4 mans in any games I am seeing aren't even going for escapes anymore, they exclusively care about bullying the killer, because you get nothing out of escaping except a little MMR and some extra BP, normally not even worth your time because of how cheesy some mechanics can be and how long games can be drawn out just innately. Once people start to realize that escaping is pointless and people stop even trying for it then there can be better changes made to the game, because current balance is absolutely abysmal.
Other than that I agree with all of your points!The "fun" in survivor isn't that you are nearly dead at any time, the fun in survivor is goofing off with friends because you are never expected to win.Everyone gets different things out of games and like any statement about what makes DbD appealing to its player base any answer would be at best an educated guess, but:
1: I see tension, heart pounding, and excitement frequently cited by people as reasons they are into, or at least got into, the game. If I didn't so deeply care about trying to escape as survivor I'd likely gradually forget about DbD.
2: If it was truly about friends then soloq would barely exist instead of being a huge portion of the players.
3: I always have trouble linking the idea of 'goofing off' and a game where people put thousands of hours into over their life. Games I've played that were just silly fun with friends usually get a few hours, maybe a couple dozen. It just seems weird to say something like, 'Yeah, its a silly game that I've put four thousand hours into."
majority of 4 mans in any games I am seeing aren't even going for escapes anymore, they exclusively care about bullying the killerI haven't seen a bully squad in quite awhile, mostly ran into them when I was a new player, but they seem to be more common in certain regions.
Once people start to realize that escaping is pointless and people stop even trying for it then there can be better changes made to the game, because current balance is absolutely abysmal.All games are pointless and winning or losing only have as much meaning as the players attach to them.