crogers271
crogers271
About
- Username
- crogers271
- Joined
- Visits
- 8,432
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3947398#Comment_3947398
Nope, clearly it's not acceptable. The system may have been put in too soon and needs adjustment. Timing was bad as well. An update like this is better placed with mid-chapter patches.
The difference is I want a working system while others don't want it at all.
The difference is I want a working system while others don't want it at all.What they are trying is basically undoable.
If you design a mechanic into a game, but only want it used in a certain way, policing it via some sort of auto detection will almost inevitably cause problems. You can do extreme examples like 'blocking a survivor in a corner' because those are rare enough that a human can review the footage, but an auto detect system will either be too sensitive and pick up false positives or too loose that it can be easily avoided.
The way to deal with it is just to disallow the behavior you don't want. No self unhook attempts for the first five minutes of the game would have been a simple solution and then they could have worked on some type of extreme hiding scenario.
-
Whenever a game changes, some people will dislike it. That's fine, they are free to post their opinion and others can discuss it.
Right now the issue is that people are having the change hit in situations that they were never supposed to and getting warning messages about it. If the anti-tunnel is a system that wrongly marks anti-tunnel and punishes killer by taking away ranks and possible DC penalties, then sure we can compare them.
If its a system that some people like and some people don't, then we'll need to discuss the pros and cons of it on its own.
-
@GeneralV said:
Greetings, friends of the Fog! I hope this discussion finds you doing well.
By now most of us have already seen that the Go Next Prevention mechanic was killswitched after the disaster that it caused when players got punished even if they did nothing wrong.
But I think that raises the question as to why such mechanic was added in the first place. And the answer may be obvious at first: the "Go Next" epidemic and the sheer amount of games where players decide to suicide on hook.
The answer is correct, sure, but I would like to propose a deeper discussion:
What was the origin of the "Go Next" epidemic? Why did such thing ever existed in the first place, and how did it reach a level so severe that changes were made to fundamental aspects of the game?
And if I were to share my own answer, I would say it was caused by a gradual deterioration of the survivor role. Because let's think for a second about the year I started playing DBD: 2018. Back then the game simply didn't have DC penalties, one could DC as much as they wanted to, with the only punishment being rank-related (the loss of a pip, if memory serves me right). And yet, people didn't disconnect like crazy every single game.
It happened sometimes, of course, especially with OG Legion, but I wouldn't call it an epidemic of its own.
However, back then there was more to the survivor role than there currently is. They still had proper resources, they didn't have to worry about waves and waves of gen-related killer perks, stealth was still a viable playstyle, killers weren't as oppressive, and the list goes on.
But we all know that changed in more recent times. Survivors lost most of what they had available to them, and nothing was really given. They die more often, their objectives are harder to do (due to perks), and generally speaking they have a worse experience. It is a lack of everything, and it seems to me that was the primary reason for the massive increase of hook suicides.
Let me know what you think, please share your thoughts, any feedback is welcome!
Why do you think the "Go Next" epidemic existed?
Giving my answers here before reading others thoughts. There's a lot of factors, some out of BHVR's control, some they could potentially change.
1: Rage quitting - an inevitable part of games
2: The pointlessness of many games - by game design, its really hard for survivors to come back. You are at your strongest early, if that advantage is lost, the game is pointless. Many players rush to this idea way too quickly, but the core concept is true.
3: Getting 'stuck' in the game - An expansion of the pointlessness issue. I remember I was playing survivor, one survivor was dead, I was hooked on the second stage, and we still had three gens to go. I really felt like I should just go next, but I stuck it out, got rescued. Another survivor was killed, and then I got slugged for the 4k. I did the "right" thing sticking around, and the reward was even more time being stuck in the game.
There's a huge incentive to get out of the game before it gets really bad.
4: The every survivor for themselves nature. Back before the AFC feature, I remember watching basement Bubba set up with Kindred. If the survivor just stuck it out, the other three could escape, but if you're playing believing that only your escape matters then its kind of pointless.
I think first person to be hooked is an example of this. Your chance to escape goes way down as the first hook, so why not go next? You're probably just going to get tunneled anyway.
5: Wrong killer - For every killer there is some survivor that doesn't want to play them. It's perfectly understandable if you give people an out and they are put in a situation where they can leave without penalty they're going to take it.
6: Everyone else is doing it - If other people are going to quit at the slightest inconvenience, why can't I type of attitude. Especially given the point about getting trapped in the game, better to get out of a bad game as quickly as possible because that's how everyone behaves.
-
@Nazzzak said:
I said yesterday that I'm really surprised they chose to roll all this out on this particular chapter release. Their biggest chapter release to date.
@IronKnight55 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3946192#Comment_3946192
I don't understand why they thought adding this mechanic during one of the most anticipated chapter releases was a good idea. Unsurprisingly, it backfired, as anyone with at least one brain cell could see this was not a good decision.
A guess on my part: their retention numbers of new players lately has been horrible / they've identified a couple of massive flaws in the games from their data on why people aren't sticking around.
With the influx of players coming in they knew they needed to address it. However, they seem to have been overconfident in their solution. BHVR frequently tries to 'Rube Goldberg' their fixes and avoid the straightforward solutions.
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3945345#Comment_3945345
So you admit they are what governs the game. So a contract exists.
Your issue is how they govern. You see, that's two different things.
You could kick me out of your house even if you invited me into it. Comparing it to a contract though sounds silly.
-
@subdl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3944533#Comment_3944533
You keep emphasizing the reasons why the abandon feature was implemented.
But perhaps it’s time to confront the actual outcome it has produced in today’s endgame matches.Yes, the feature may have been added with good intentions—to protect survivors from prolonged slugging.
But what has it really led to?Now, when survivors lose, they can instantly vanish—leaving behind an empty mess—while the killer is left to either clean up the bots or abandon the very match they just won.
Meanwhile, when the killer loses, nothing has changed. They still have to endure a humiliating, miserable two-minute wait, forced to watch as survivors dance, flash their lights, and bask in the full glory of victory.
Mercy for killers? A surrender option?
Don’t be absurd—that would diminish the survivors’ sense of triumph!
Is that truly a better outcome for the overall game experience?You seem to be saying: “Yes, it’s a double standard. But it’s hard to fix—anyway, slugged survivors are at least more deserving of pity than killers left to endure the humiliation of being treated like losers. So really, the current mechanic isn’t that bad. Just stop complaining and deal with it.”
But if that’s not your view, then please be clear: What do you think about this experiential asymmetry?
Are you genuinely okay with things staying this way?What do you think about this experiential asymmetry?The whole game is asymmetrical. That's an awful place to approach it from. Is it good, or is it bad?
Even if both experiences are equally bad (which again, they aren't, even if they are both bad), fixing one does not make the other any worse than it was before.
Are you genuinely okay with things staying this way?There's lots of things I'm not okay with. Some I understand are almost impossible to fix, some I understand are that different players want different things on, and a few I think BHVR is wrong on.
I think BHVR should do more to confronting bad manners and games that devolve into pointless gameplay. There are a few simple ideas I wish they would do, but I understand their are more complexities with most issues.
I have no problem with the concept of killers being able to abandon, just like I have no problem with many concepts in the game such as reducing gen rush or broader anti-tunnel, but talking about a concept is much different than talking about an implementation.
If they put a killer option in to abandon when the survivors are right at the exit line I'd be fine with it. I don't think it would have any overall impact, which gets to why it would be time on BHVR's part that wouldn't merit anything, but I'd be absolutely fine with it going in.
If they want to expand on the entire idea of the abandon concept, sure, I'd probably support it as well, but that would be a substantial shift from their current view of the game.
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3944533#Comment_3944533
I believe we just see that from 2 points of view. But now I understand yours
Basekit-speaking, it is true that survivors cannot do a lot, except wandering around, recovering for a few survival points, and maybe go to a hatch spot, hoping that when everyone else will bleed out, they will have time to get into (taking in account the hatch effectively spawns here). While the killer can still move, break pallets, windows, and maybe take a hit or even a down, or even more a kill. He is still somehow actor of the game.
And the reason why a 4-minutes bleed-out is boring is that basekit-speaking, you cannot recover from it, while you can always act in a 2-minutes tea-bagging.
But speaking about behavior, both remains toxic. You cannot say it is sane to slug people, and you cannot neither say that tea-bagging is sane. Today, tea-bagging is used to thank other players, to draw attention, but mostly to taunt the killer. And taunting someone who just lose is all but competitive-friendly.
They are not the same, true. But both need to be acted on.
They are not the same, true. But both need to be acted on.Except then each issue needs to be talked about on its own.
People don't like to be stuck in pointless games, but we all realize that it is inevitable in any multiplayer game there will be moments were it is inevitable. How long do people have to wait, how frequently does it occur, how much of a wait is it, and what other ramifications might fixing it have on the game?
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3943551#Comment_3943551
So you consider that tea-bagging at the exit gates is not pointless. I am curious to hear your point of view, about how spamming the crouch button adds anything to the game, except triggering the killer.
I am curious to hear how triggering the killer improves the game. Self-satisfaction of survivors ? The same that killers plaid about watching the mori animation ?
This is just a strawman. Not a single thing you say here is actually responding to what I actually wrote.
@subdl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3943551#Comment_3943551
When survivors are subjected to inhumane treatment—like being slugged—they are, of course, granted the full right to leave the match instantly.
The devs’ stance: “Oh, how sad. Don’t worry. Let’s make sure you don’t waste any more of your time. You can even skip the killer’s execution scene—it’s not worth sitting through, after all.”
But when it comes to the mental strain placed on killers, the response is simply: “Addressing it would take effort—so let’s not. Just leave it as is. Who cares?”
The devs’ stance: “Stop whining. You still have ‘agency’—you can move, can’t you? So either chase the survivors out yourself, or stare at a wall for two minutes. Your choice.”Because this is an asymmetrical game, viewpoints like mine—those that highlight this blatant double standard—are dismissed by so many “reasonable” players like you as nothing more than foolish and meaningless comparisons.
So, is that a fair reflection of what you mean to say?
So, is that a fair reflection of what you mean to say?Sigh. I really should just say this is absurd and tell you to actually respond to what I wrote, but I'll try again.
4 minutes with nothing to do is greater than 2 minutes with something to do.
The inability to end the BMing (slugged) is worse than being able to end the BMing (push them out).
All survivors down, hooked, or dead is a much clearer line to draw than the survivors at the exit gate. With the exit gate BHVR would have to draw a line on how far that survivors could just stand slightly farther away from.
Fixing one thing is better than not fixing anything.
Its an asym, so its a game of double standards. I wish I had 40 types of survivors so I could jump on and complain about how only 3 of them are actually worth playing.
To sum up:
If your argument is reliant upon a double standard, you need to engage with the double standard. The fact that people don't agree with you doesn't mean they are saying you are foolish and meaningless, they are saying they disagree and stating their reasons (in this case all of the clear differences between the two). State your reasons in response if you wish to continue the discussion.
If your argument is that the devs are not dedicating the effort to solving your problems, and others respond with the difficulties of those problems, again, they aren't calling you foolish and meaningless. They are disagreeing, stating their reasons, and if you have disagreements you can respond to them if you wish.
Or you could just put things that were never said in quotes. Nothing will move forward, nothing will be discussed, but strawman are always an easy argument to win.
-
Supernatural? That seems to fall into the horror adjacent category you are trying to avoid.
-
@Leon_van_Straken said:
Hey there,
ofcourse it´s a niche situation but aren´t comeback storys supposed to be niche and not the norm?
Even without the 4% there are more things that could happen.
I could have Deliverance or slippery meat.
And to be clear i don´t say remove the abandon, but eventually give it like a group vote or 10 second timer?
ofcourse it´s a niche situation but aren´t comeback storys supposed to be niche and not the norm?They sound great as stories, but when you've been in the situation many times and you see improvement in these scenarios well under 1% of the time, you just want to move on.
And to be clear i don´t say remove the abandon, but eventually give it like a group vote or 10 second timer?How would those have improved the situation? The others still vote to leave and all a 10 second timer does is extend things 10 seconds. The chance that something has happened in those 10 seconds that will actually alter the course of the match is incredibly unlikely.
-
@subdl said:
The core issue isn’t “slugging vs teabagging.”
It’s the fundamental unfairness in the endgame experience:When survivors lose, they get to go-next instantly—leaving behind empty husks controlled by AI.
But when killers win, they’re forced either to clean up the mess survivors left behind… or to abandon their victory entirely.In contrast, when survivors win, they’re granted by devs the full right to enjoy their victory with endless teabagging dances and flashlight clicks, all from the safety of the exit gate, until they’re ceremoniously escorted out by the killer they just defeated.
Personally, I find this whole ritual hard to stomach. But apparently, some players manage to find joy in such pathetic loser routines—wandering around aimlessly, breaking leftover pallets, or politely seeing survivors off—all in the name of so-called “player agency.”
That very term—“agency”—has been weaponized by some survivor-aligned players to justify what is clearly a broken and deeply unsatisfying gameplay imbalance.I’d genuinely like to hear the developers’ current thoughts on this dull and demoralizing endgame experience for killers.
Unless, of course, they rarely play killer themselves and have simply never had to feel it firsthand—in which case, their continued tolerance of this design would at least be somewhat understandable.But apparently, some players manage to find joy in such pathetic loser routines—wandering around aimlessly, breaking leftover pallets, or politely seeing survivors off—all in the name of so-called “player agency.”@[Deleted User] said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3943372#Comment_3943372
Also I believe we have a core point that does not make sense.
"Abandon" is a feature made originally to offer an exit door to a match the killer decided to prolong unnecessarily, and that was extended later as a way to "fasten things when things are over".
BUT
Everyone refuses to admit that tea-bagging survivors at the exit gates, waiting for the killer to push them out like 5-years-old children is also a waste of time.
In the name of "fastening things", you should act on both.
4 minutes of bleed-out slugging is annoying because the killer could just hook all of you to fasten the game.
2 minutes of tea-bagging at the exit gates is annoying because the survivors could just exit to fasten the game.
So yeah, the difference is that when survivors are slugged, things are truly over (which is not true, because many meta builds include Unbreakable), and when survivors are at the exit gates, killer still has a chance to get one more kill. But the game experience remains the same. A survivor coming back from a 4k is a low-probability event just like getting 1 more kill.
Everyone refuses to admit that tea-bagging survivors at the exit gates, waiting for the killer to push them out like 5-years-old children is also a waste of time.Just because two things have some similarities doesn't mean they are the same. Just because two things are a problem, doesn't mean they are both a problem to the same degree.
No one is saying they love the gameplay of going around and breaking pallets. No one is saying they love to see off the teabagging survivors.
But those are things that exist. When comparing the level of the problem they need to be recognized. Being slugged was not just longer, it was far more pointless. Implementing a killer abandon is much trickier about where to draw the line
Its why the comparison comes off as silly to so many people. It's an asym, the sides are different, and trying to draw direct comparisons frequently won't work.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3943488#Comment_3943488
You did not answer my question. If you dont provide any information, it would have been better if you would have just not written anything. There is no possibility to have any discussion if you write basically nothing except for cryptic nonsense.
The Devs need to be specific about everything ever, but forum posters can be incredibly vague about anything to want to imply the Devs are nefarious.
@CleanseThis said:
This is the equivalent of saying crime is down when telling the public but at the same time not releasing the data showing lack of prosecuting and conviction rates. The devils in the details.
Probably because the numbers don't get much engagement outside of a small section of the community, releasing broader numbers would likely cause more confusion, and they're happy with the current amount of engagement the occasional stats posts get.
-
@100PercentBPMain said:
I think the injury part is a cool aesthetic for David's gameplay, I just wish thr Broken only applied once injured. I'd love to leverage that singular health state without revealing my build plans off the bat.
for example, no Mither makes killers suspect chase build, gen build, or basement build
It would also be a big help for Chaos Shuffle were getting the No Mither is a clear target for the killer.
-
@Defnotmeghead said:
Apply the same penalty survivors get when working on the same gen(which is -0.15 charges per additional survivor, its why 2 people on 1 gen finish it in 53 seconds rather than 45).
1 person doing a solo gen, 80 seconds per generator.
2 people doing solo gens, ~94 seconds per generator(longer than it currently takes).
3 people doing solo gens, 115 seconds per generator.
And since its a debuff, it will stack quite heavily against things like Commodius Toolbox, speed addons and speed perks.
Just as a quick comparison, 3 survivors right now with a Commodius Toolbox+Socket Swivel+Wire Spool on a standard 90 second generator gives you 71 seconds before 3 generators are gone at the same time. (44/1.8=24.5 seconds of use of the toolbox, but 44 charges gone from the generator. So the generator takes 46+24.5=70.5 seconds, not taking any great skill checks into consideration)
Adding the penalty on 80 second generators, and 3 survivors with the same toolbox would take 86 seconds before 3 gens are gone at the same time.
1.8*0.7=1.26 44/1.26=35 seconds of use of the toolbox to implement 44 charges. 36/0.7=51 seconds. 51+35=86 second generators.
Same math with 70 second gens would lead to 72 second generators(basically the same as its now), but without toolboxes it would take 100 seconds for those who are curious. Problems with 70 seconds is that you would need to buff gen slowdown a lot to the point that it becomes impossible to balance.
And for those who are like "why not implement this on 90 second gens?" is simply because you would basically need to buff all generator progress perks for survivors to the point that it becomes impossible to balance.
The main reason, is because realistically the biggest issue with generators is parallel progress. Slowing down generators while being progressed together as basekit would be a really nice point. The optimal strategy for generator completion for survivor would be to have 2 survivors on 1 gen while 1 survivor works on another gen, rather than all of them splitting up on 3 seperate gens or having them all sit on 1 gen.
It would require putting gens back to 80 seconds, but the long term benefit is that generator completion overall will be slower.We don't know what anti-tunnel changes are coming so I can only really discuss based on the game we do know:
My biggest concern is that there seems to be no reason not to tunnel. The main thing stopping tunneling is survivors pressuring gens where the killer needs to leave the hook else all the gens getting finished. The only reason survivors have to not to do gens is killer pressure. Even if they all bring something like Inner Healing that will only take up so much time, then they are back on gens, which are now overall slower.
I also feel it creates an issue with 3 gens remaining. Right now splitting pressure is a good idea, slower progress, but spread out the killer. This seems like it would make splitting gens in this scenario an awful idea and we'd have more incentive for a pile on gens approach, which I think when its the most dominant strategy is not great for game play.
And I hate to be the 'but SWFs' point of view, but having a dedicated gen rusher, a dedicated chase target, etc. would be the clear strategy, while right now there are arguments between focused and balanced approaches.
-
It would buff perks like Inner Healing and Boons, which is nice.
I kind of like the idea, but I'm not sure it actually benefits the game.
-
@Raptorrotas said:
I wonder how killers being able who to chase or killing survivors tactically/ efficiently became such a controversial topic.
its not even a tool given to them but a strategy...
In contrast looping became encouraged tho.
We no longer have infinites, lots of strong loops get weakened.
Whether something is too strong gets brought up on both sides.
-
@Rapid99 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942865#Comment_3942865
Except how do you reach balance in a game where one side is on their own and has a flat winrate of 50%, whilst the other side has 4 different people who in theory are a team but can all win or lose seperately?
I don't think it's physically possible unless I'm missing something.
Whether the game can be balanced, or should be balanced, and if so how, is a different topic. I know that some of the people here who are agreeing with me on the 'math' discussion disagree with me on some balance or game design elements.
The math that a 60% kill rate is needed because it results in a balanced experience for both sides is wrong. Not even making statements about whether its a good goal or a bad goal, its just factually wrong.
-
@iloveandhatethisgame said:
can I get a dev to speak on this?
Post in bug reports. They rarely directly comment on bugs here unless they are game breaking.
-
@subdl said:
Many killer players probably see a “win” as getting 3 or more kills in a match—that is, eliminating the majority of the survivors.
If that’s the case, isn’t it reasonable to assume that the developers aim for an overall kill rate of around 60%, in order to maintain a perceived 50% win rate for killers?
Reasonable to assume? Sure, until you see what they've actually said about it.
They've had ample opportunity to say they shoot for that kill rate to get a win rate, however, and far more importantly:
If the goals of the devs was a 50% 3k+ win rate, why would they even have a kill rate goal?
If your metric is win rates, you don't need a kill rate goal, you just need a goal for win rates.
It's a reasonable starting presumption, but not when you look at their comments, the data, and how if they wanted to balance around win rates they would never get into discussions of kill rates in the first place.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942664#Comment_3942664
Can we use that logic for survivors too? If someone complains that something is unfair for solo q, can we say "what if you were in a SWF"?
You can if you want, though they are radically different things, but I'll give you a survivor example at the end.
DbD is built around the idea that certain perks, strategies, etc. are situational. Healing builds can be really strong, but survivors have no idea if they are going to hit a Plague or tunneling killer who make it impossible to actually heal. To discuss the strength of the design and whether its unbalanced you have to consider all the possibilities and their likelihoods.
The survivor example is saying that aura builds are too strong presuming that killers will never hit a survivor running perks to counter aura read.
-
@MissiCiv said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942446#Comment_3942446
If your solution is “just throw in random characters and call it content,” then yes you’ve already run out of meaningful ideas.
You can slap 10 imaginary cousins onto Bubba, or conjure up nameless demons from the void but that’s not expansion. That’s filler. That’s the difference between building a rich, evolving universe… and duct-taping extensions onto something never designed to grow in the first place.
And as for the whole “we already have DBD at home” argument? Come on.
By that logic:- Why did Riot make League of Legends when Dota already existed?
- Why did they make Valorant when CS:GO was already kind of a tactical shooter?
- Why did Pro Evolution Soccer even tryed when FIFA dominated the football scene?
- Why did we get Apex Legends, Warzone, or Fortnite when PUBG already "defined" the Battle Royale genre?
Because all of these games share the same core gameplay loop, the same foundational logic, the same mechanics and design philosophy they just reimagined it within their own unique universe.
They didn’t need to reinvent the genre just refine it, evolve it, and present it with a different voice. And that’s the point: competition doesn’t mean creating something completely different it means taking what works, understanding its strengths and flaws, and offering a version that might speak to people in a new, better way.So this isn’t about swapping names or making cosmetic changes.
It’s about taking a proven formula and evolving it, giving it new life with smarter design, better balance, deeper mechanics, and a fresh identity.it’s not about renaming perks or swapping generators for computers.
It’s about taking a formula that works and pushing it further refining it, elevating it, giving players different choices.Competition breeds innovation. And innovation is what keeps games and players alive.
And that’s the point: competition doesn’t mean creating something completely different it means taking what works, understanding its strengths and flaws, and offering a version that might speak to people in a new, better way.I too would leave DbD if someone made a superior version of DbD.
It's just not easy to do that. For all of the successes that come, masses of games try to take the spot and fail.
It's also worth pointing out, the games you cite didn't replace the originals. The original games still exist and get quite a lot of players (varying between your citations). As @LordGlint mentions these games offered things that were different. Some players appreciated those differences, some didn't.
So far everyone who has to remove DbD's flaws and improve on its strengths has failed. Which shouldn't be a surprise being we (the playerbase) intensely disagree on what the strengths and flaws are.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942566#Comment_3942566
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942570#Comment_3942570
It still can be a guessing game of where the 4 survivors are, and if a low mobility killer guesses wrong, the first generator might be fully repaired before the killer gets there. This is especially true if a SWF decides to all bring toolboxes, because they know they'll spawn together, and can get a "free generator" at the beginning of the game.
And it will actually be more difficult to find survivors early on, because they are starting in less places. Having the survivors spawn separately, makes it much easier for the killer to find a survivor early, because the killer has 4 separate chances to find a survivor.
Yes, placing the survivor together means they can't immediate repair 4 separate generators. But if it means the 1st generator might pop before the first chase, then that's not good either. It's also not good if it means all 4 survivors just hide until the killer patrols by, then bursts down the first generator while the killer continues a full loop of the generators.
The 'if' is pretty critical to the discussion.
Survivors grouping up early is almost always bad for them. What if its not a slow killer? What if the killer had lethal? What if the gen was hard to protect in the first place?
When evaluating the strength of a 'what if' strategy you also have to evaluate the 'what if not' because the people committing to such a strategy have to deal with both.
I'd much rather as killer deal with one gen being done and all the survivors grouped up than in a chase while the other 3 are spread out working on gens.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
Actually, tell you what, allow me to give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say we go with your point of view. The devs rejected any notion of using any kind of game design philosophies, statistics, probabilities, or anything of the sort. Instead, they just got together and went, "Mannn, let's like…..just do 60%…that sounds cool enough…". Okay, Now we have them picking 60% entirely because it feels "good". Either way you go, whether they actually put game design to use to come up with 60%, or they just pulled it out of a hat "just because", it still results with them going with 60%.
However, there's some cold hard facts that cannot be argued.
Fact: There are up to 4 kills possible
Fact: a 0k is a 0% kill rate for the match
Fact: a 1k is a 25% kill rate for the match
Fact: a 2k is a 50% kill rate for the match
Fact: a 3k is a 75% kill rate for the match
Fact: a 4k is a 100% kill rate for the match
Fact: The game is designed around 4 individual survivors each with their own win condition. Survivors do not all win, lose, or tie together.
Fact: Averaging takes many matches into consideration. That's why you can have a decimal average kill rate - it's not a reflection of a single match but the average across multiple matches. You claim you're a math teacher, so I assume you at least know the basics of averaging in mathematics.
Fact: A 50% kill rate is only a 2k, not enough to have a majority.
Fact: A 75% kill rate is a 3k, enough to have a majority
Fact: A 62.5% kill rate is the middle point (ie a 2.5 average kill rate).
Fact: A 62.5% kill rate, ie a 2.5 kill rate, means on average across multiple matches, the killer would get a majority of the kills ~50% of the time. A 60% kill rate is slightly less, a 2.4 kill rate which still means getting a majority of the kills ~50% of the time
So, it doesn't matter why the devs picked a 60% kill rate, whether because of "feelings" as you say or because they actually put in some actual effort into their game design as I've pointed out, what matters is with a 60% kill rate, on average, that puts killers at getting a majority of the kills ~50% of the time - in other words, a 50% win rate.
Now sure, "wins" are subjective. You can make up whaateeever win condition you want. You win because it's a night map, hurray! That's quite the win condition you picked out for yourself. However, that doesn't change the facts as laid out above.
You can try to argue against the facts all you what, but dem be the facts. BHVR put some real effort into coming up with that 60% kill rate, and it comes out to a nicely balanced around ~50% win rate for the player who is alone who faces multiple opponents. With the facts in mind, what we need to focus on is dealing with killers over performing (over that 60%), or under performing (under that 60%). We also need to focus on what's objectively bad behavior that breaks this balance such as tunneling someone straight from the beginning of the match - that turns the match into a 1v3 for the whole match, not a 1v4, so the balance breaks. As I had suggested, if the match is effectively a 1v3 from the get-go (as in, from the beginning - NOT a 1v3 situation mid to late game), I feel survivors should get a buff for the remainder of the match to re-balance the match as a 1v3.
The devs rejected any notion of using any kind of game design philosophies, statistics, probabilities, or anything of the sort.No one is saying that. BHVR clearly had design philosophies and general goals and we even have posts about them wanting to feel like the game is killer sided, but not impossible
Fact: There are up to 4 kills possibleFact: 40+40+40+40 = 160, so survivors have a 160% chance to win.
Fact: Washington, D.C is the capital of the United States.
Fact: The Philadelphia Eagles won this years Superbowl.
You are misunderstanding the difference between something being a fact and whether it actually applies to the discussion. The facts I'm listing are as relevant to the idea as what you are discussing.
Fact: The game is designed around 4 individual survivors each with their own win condition. Survivors do not all win, lose, or tie together.Subjective, not a fact.
The win condition you focus on here is MMR. If so, the killer win condition is clear. A kill is a win, as the devs were quoted saying earlier, if so kill rate = win rate.
Fact: Averaging takes many matches into consideration. That's why you can have a decimal average kill rate - it's not a reflection of a single match but the average across multiple matches. You claim you're a math teacher, so I assume you at least know the basics of averaging in mathematics.You should have listened to the math teacher. There is a difference between something being the average of all the results, and whether that result is actually common or not.
Example: If 6 kids take a test, there are two 100s, two 90s, and two kids didn't bother and got 0s, the average is ~63%, despite none of the kids being anywhere near a 63.
Some results in DbD are not equally represent (2ks, mainly) and you don't account for that.
Fact: A 62.5% kill rate, ie a 2.5 kill rate, means on average across multiple matches, the killer would get a majority of the kills ~50% of the time. A 60% kill rate is slightly less, a 2.4 kill rate which still means getting a majority of the kills ~50% of the timeAgain, literally, factually, untrue. You can't keep trying to force an extremely basic views off mathematics onto a complex real world.
Theories and hypothesis are great, but if the real world data disagrees, your theory is wrong (I'm paraphrasing Richard Feynman here). We have data in the form of Nightlight whose distribution shows your idea cannot be true.
I feel survivors should get a buff for the remainder of the match to re-balance the match as a 1v3.It's funny because this is an idea that would radically change the distribution of game outcomes and you are basically stating it without realizing it.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942215#Comment_3942215
I mean you actually do make a very fair point - it is indeed subjective. For some people, getting a survivor jumpscared is their idea of "winning" and they have no intention on getting kills. However, balancing around the idea that anyone can just make up a win scenario would he impossible to balance. We need SOME standard of what a win is, so most of us take what is generally accepted in almost every game in existence - majority wins. Whether football, basketball, call of duty, hello kitty island adventure, or whatever, it always come down to who has the majority is deemed the winner. There are always 2 exceptions to this. The case of 1 v 1 and the case of 1 v 2. 1 v 1 obviously is binary - to win you must get 1 out of 1 "points". For a 1 v 2, it's usually requiring to get all points over the other 2 opponents. So for 1 v 1, majority is simply winning. For 1 v 2, majority is considered getting all points. Beyond that, majority is easy to determine. For survivor. They have a single opponent. So it's binary for them - they escape and win or they dont and they lose. For killer, they have 4 opponents, so majority is 3+. There is no survivor team, they never win or lose together. Ties are not a thing outside of a server DC. Yes, there's even a dev quote for that, too.
So yes, winning is subjective. But for balance, we need a standard, so we may as well take the golden standard for almost every game in existence.
As for the rest of yall, im opting to go with the hard facts with the math to back it up vs yall's take that its about the "feelings" of other people's state of lind in matches, that the devs just rolled a d100 abd got 60% arbitrarily because it "feels good", and trying to build a house on such unstable grounds where even a basic amount of consideration can dismantle the idea such as thinking kill rates = win rate. Considering the vastly different mindsets between us, i dont think we will ever come to an agreement. Im sticking to the statistics and math that matches up with how the game is designed. Yall can do whatever. Yall are grasping at conflicting dev statements vs each other. I could easily grab a quote from a dev stating the game is 4 individual 1 v 1 matches and survivors aren't a team which also means ties are impossible. We can grab quotes for whatever we want - there's certainty a variety of them all stating different things. Instead of grasping at straws, I merely provided the math behind how the game is designed. Try all you want, the numbers all work and reflect the 60% decision.
However, I'd very much like your opinion on why you disagree with my thought that survivors should get buffs to gen speeds if a survivor is eliminated at the very beginning of the match effectively turning it into a 1v3 from the start. Why do you disagree with this so much? Im not saying it's THE answer, but based on the math, survivors should have a higher chance to win on a 1 v 3 since its easier for the killer to win the majority out of it. I feel a killer tunneling someone straight out of the gate invalidates a 1 v 4 match just as much as someone who gives up on hook to go next straight out of the gate. Why are you against the idea of helping the survivors in these cases? Perhaps you'd rather just make it impossible for the killer to actually perform the tunnel? That only solves half the problem - what about when survivoes "go next" right off the bat?
We need SOME standard of what a win is, so most of us take what is generally accepted in almost every game in existence - majority wins. Whether football, basketball, call of duty, hello kitty island adventure, or whatever, it always come down to who has the majority is deemed the winner.All of those are examples of symmetrical games. They are the vast majority of games, but DbD is not like the vast majority of games.
In the vast majority of games if four people are playing vs a shared opponent, they are a team, but you seem insistent that the survivors are not. You are selective in which devs statements you take to be absolute truth (when they've been very clear, people have wide latitude to determine wins for themselves).
As for the rest of yall, im opting to go with the hard facts with the math to back it upExcept you're not. There is a mountain of evidence (data) on one side of you that you are ignoring, another mountain of evidence on your other side (logical explanations) and you are holding to your framework about averages that don't apply to this game.
And this is absolutely presuming we're going off your argument for what a win constitutes. The most killer sided way it can be looked at and it still results in a killer win rate exceeding the survivor rate. Most of us aren't even discussing how you're wrong on that, we're just pointing out the math problems.
Im sticking to the statistics and math that matches up with how the game is designed. Yall can do whatever. Yall are grasping at conflicting dev statements vs each other.How can you talk about game design while also talk about conflicting dev statements? You're contradicting yourself almost immediately.
I could easily grab a quote from a dev stating the game is 4 individual 1 v 1 matches and survivors aren't a team which also means ties are impossible.It also means wins and losses outside the 1v1 are impossible. That's something you avoid as well. We, the community, refer to wins/losses/draws of the overall trial results, the devs don't (and as the quotes provided from Peanits show, they try to avoid that language).
People can and do interpret the results differently. But going off MMR, which the devs intentionally keep hidden, kill rate and win rate are the exact same thing if you what you care about is game design.
We can grab quotes for whatever we want - there's certainty a variety of them all stating different things.Then prove it. Because so far you've shown quotes of devs saying the exact same thing and treating it as if they are the opposite.
I'm sure there are some variations in statements over the years, but frequently this is due to either
A: game changes
B: taking the quotes out of context.
However, I'd very much like your opinion on why you disagree with my thought that survivors should get buffs to gen speeds if a survivor is eliminated at the very beginning of the match effectively turning it into a 1v3 from the start. Why do you disagree with this so much?It's a totally different discussions and I'm sure everyone disagreeing with you would break different ways on such an issue. We aren't a hive mind of us vs you, I have no idea what other people's idea would be on such a concept or how it would be implemented just because they agree with me here.
-
@Moonras2 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942210#Comment_3942210
Yes, tyvm, that was it. I found it and edited my post above. Hard to keep up with lol. I would like to have some newer statements sometime from someone. They probably still hold true today but being able to provide something recent would be nice.
There's supposed to be an MMR update coming, so hopefully that will come with clarity.
Mandy though recently reiterated that wins are subjective.
@Mandy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920098#Comment_3920098
I will say what we've always said about MMR which is: play your game without worrying about a hidden number which is purely there for matchmaking purposes.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942194#Comment_3942194
They also make statements saying the opposite. BHVR conflict each other all the time which is why I posted actual evidence and numbers to back up my statements. Those can't be argued. However, I appreciate you took the time to try pulling one side of these. I'll see if I can dig up where they say the complete opposite. The most recent one is the following, but it's on a different topic, but you can see they obviously are posting competent different facts.
One dev says:
"No report is actioned without solid evidence - so video evidence (screenshots are not evidence and are not used) is pretty much a necessity. If players are talking about chat harassment, we do have all the chat logs checked. Nobody is banned without good reason - and even when you receive the "report is actioned" response, that means the report has been reviewed, not that someone has been banned."
This clearly says that getting the report feedback popup merely means the report was looked at and not that a ban was handed out.
However, another dev said
"When you receive report feedback, it's simply to let you know that action was taken against a player you reported. It does not mean that your report specifically was what led to the ban. For example, if the same person had said something hateful in another match, they may have been banned for that instead, but you'd still receive the feedback popup. This way, nobody who reported that person is left in the dark just because they weren't the first to report them."
This is completely opposite to the other dev statement. Essentially, devs post their opinions here on the forums and arent necessarily posting official reports/statements and do have the wrong idea at times. I tried getting clarification about the above conflict, but they didn't want to post an official answer - just their opinion. Thats why it's good for us to run the numbers to verify which ones are correct. As for Nightlight, careful depending on it - those are self reported numbers only which can show skewed data. For example, someone might just report their wins only, or just their losses. Its also for the few people who bother to self report and misses out on the majority of DBD matches. It can be helpful, but it may not reflect reality.
Some of the dev statements also dont make sense. I believe it was peanits that referred to killers having a bigger chance to win overall in dbd because they can win up to 4 times a match while survivors can only win once. It could have been a different dev - i dont recall. I believe this was in reference to talking about the game being 4 individual 1 v 1 matches and not being a team vs team game. However, this clearly doesn't really match up to realityon counting killer wins considering the killer needs a 3k+ to win.
So considering the amount of conflicting information the devs post, I took a fresh set of eyes approach and built the numbers from the ground up, and what do you know, it matches up with BHVR's numbers nearly perfectly just being off by 2.5% which is I assume was to give survivors some wiggle room. That beats conflicting opinions any day. Now we have a solid foundation that matches BHVR's actual numbers in use, and we can understand their mindset on how they came up with those numbers.
They also make statements saying the opposite.I'll get into how this is wrong, but I'm not sure how you can say your comments about the game are based on dev intent when you are saying that is impossible to determine.
This is completely opposite to the other dev statement.Both of those statements from the devs agree with each other. They are discussing slightly different things, but there is no disagreement.
The first says they want solid evidence, and then adds that chats are logged. It ends saying that 'action taken' might not be a ban, just confirms it was reviewed.
The second says the same thing, it just adds that you might not have submitted the necessary evidence, but someone else did.
However, this clearly doesn't really match up to realityon counting killer wins considering the killer needs a 3k+ to win.This is wrong, but in this case at least its an error a lot of people commit because they are trying to force an asym design into a more standardized format.
If you play 5 games and kill 12 survivors, you won 12 times. How the trials break down is irrelevant. In BHVR's MMR system for the killer there is no such thing as a trial win. It doesn't matter, only the 1v1 results matter, the killer is just engaged in 4 of them at a time.
-
@Moonras2 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942204#Comment_3942204
Sorry to double post I forgot I quit using chrome lol. Here ya go.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3623454#Comment_3623454
And here is one about mmr. I seem to be missing one.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3662493#Comment_3662493
Edit: here is the missing one.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3591335#Comment_3591335
This might be the one you are missing. It's actually has a number of useful comments from Peanits. https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3591335#Comment_3591335
@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.
-
@Moonras2 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942041#Comment_3942041
Personally I don't play much anymore or really care about the math aspects but I just wanted to post this for everyone. It is old at this point and I acknowledge that things can change that we may not know or have information on.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/433-developer-update-stats
"We try to keep Killers near a 60% kill rate on average to keep matches relatively even and support the horror theme of the game, where the Killer is a force to be reckoned with and the survival is not guaranteed."
— Peanits
And with that I also want to post something from another old post of mine. I no longer have the links to the original post bookmarked but I could probably search through my old post and find links.
I just wanted to post these here. They are all from 2 different forums post and one of the statistics post.
"We don't make decisions solely based on kill rates. Kill rates only show us where a problem might be, they don't tell us whether or not there is a problem or what that problem is. We spend a lot of time gathering feedback and watching gameplay before committing to changing something."
-- Peanits
"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.)"
-- Peanits
"For example, a 50% kill rate would mean they kill two Survivors per match on average. We try to keep Killers near a 60% kill rate on average to keep matches relatively even and support the horror theme of the game, where the Killer is a force to be reckoned with and the survival is not guaranteed."
-- Peanits
Edit: the first post and last post seem to be the same after I read through so that can be found on the link provided if the link is still active.
You are a hero. I remember those posts, but finding them is always difficult.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941690#Comment_3941690
I provided an example that shows how flawed the idea is that kill rate is equal to win rate. You're response is that win rates doesn't matter anyway? Come on, man.
You're telling me you believe that someone with a 50% kill rate wins half of their matches in average. If someone is only getting a 2k every match on average, they arent winning half their matches even with variants like occasional 0ks or 4ks. Someone with a 25% kill rate isn't winning a quarter of the time. Conversely, Someone with a 90% kill rate is winning every game on average, even someone with a 75% kill rate is.
The only difference between someone with a 75% kill rate and a 100% kill rate on average is that one on average kills 3 survivors and the other on average kills all 4 survivors. However, both on average are winning all (100%) of their matches. No matter how you view it, the idea that kill rate is win rate doesnt hold any water. Putting it to any real tests or thoughts reveals the holes in the idea.
I'll just keep trying on the math talk.
Someone with a 25% kill rate isn't winning a quarter of the time.This is an extreme scenario so let me respond with an extreme killer hypothetical.
Imagine there was a killer like a Super Infinite Tombstone Myers. He's even worse out of power than current Myers (i.e. slower), but once he fills his power not only can he insta kill survivors, he can kill them in lockers, he moves at 150%, and gets aura read.
What would a 25% kill rate look like for such a killer on your win rate? Probably close to 25%. Most games the survivors finish the gens and leave before he can fill his power, but when he does, its almost always a 4k. You'd still have a few games in the middle scenarios (1/2/3 ks), but they would be underrepresented (representations is something you don't get to in your scenarios) compared to the others.
The only difference between someone with a 75% kill rateLet's say BHVR takes the same killer above and buffs how quickly the stalk fills but otherwise they are unchanged. They jump to a 75% KR. What's the win rate? About 75% because we still have the same killer designs, either the survivors complete the gens and get a 0k, or the killer fills stalk and they get a 4k.
-
While this is an extreme example, Infinite Tombstone is a good example of why your math doesn't work. His games are going to heavily swing to one or the other side of the equation.
-
Putting it to any real tests or thoughts reveals the holes in the idea.Except you aren't putting it to any real tests. You aren't examining existing data or actually walking through possible scenarios. You will say 'on average' without actually examining why that might be wrong
Here is another way to look at it because I'm going to keep trying.
Imagine another asym came out. It's a totally different game than DbD, except it is a 4v1 elimination game with a 60% kill rate and survivors win if they escape on an individual level and killers win if they kill 3 or more survivors (so same as you are discussing).
You are saying that from the 60% KR we can derive what that games win rate would be. I, and others, are saying that you have no idea what the win rate is without having more information about how the game is designed.
That is why we can't talk 'math' without talking about the game itself. The design can not just be ignored, its critical to the outcome. The design, and all the data we have about it, shows the snowball nature of DbD and that the killers win rate at 60% (and even a fair deal less) greatly exceeds the survivor win rates even under the most killer sided possible view of the game as we can get.
-
@NarkoTri1er said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941607#Comment_3941607
comp scene is separate from pubs and is played in customs yeah, but nah, they don't really shackle survivors as most killers average 6 hooks at most even with strict rules and hard restrictions on survivors.
Not to mention that some of the most obnoxious survivor perks like OTR, Reassurance and Babysitter are generally banned across all killers + it's strictly forbidden for teams to have more than one of the same perk. Addons are strictly limited to green ones too, meaning stuff like Syringes and BNPs are strictly forbidden to use, same on killer side with some exceptions (e.g. Billy is allowed to use iri engravings because majority of his green addons are terrible)
comp scene is separate from pubs and is played in customs yeah, but nah, they don't really shackle survivors as most killers average 6 hooks at most even with strict rules and hard restrictions on survivorsYou're the one who told me where DbDLeague posts their stats.
They posted stats on the 9th. The absolute lowest is Unknown at 6.5, then there is a jump to Houndmaster and Slinger at 7.42 and Slinger at 7.5, but after that all the killers are in the 8, 9, 10, and even 11 (Blight, 11.3) range. The total average is 9.04 on hooks which really looks like they've over nerfed survivors.
Not to mention that some of the most obnoxious survivor perks like OTR, Reassurance and Babysitter are generally banned across all killers + it's strictly forbidden for teams to have more than one of the same perk. Addons are strictly limited to green ones too, meaning stuff like Syringes and BNPs are strictly forbidden to use, same on killer side with some exceptions (e.g. Billy is allowed to use iri engravings because majority of his green addons are terrible)Sure, but the thing most people don't mention is that the survivors know who the killer is going to be. That's a massive advantage that never exists in pubs. On top of knowing the map, the survivors can craft a strategy ahead of the game which gives them a substantial advantage.
Its why you see things like No Mither against Hillbilly. That would never happen in a pub.
There are lots of perks / strategies on the survivor side that are strong against certain killers. DBDLeague eliminates the natural balancing mechanism of never knowing the killer that exists in pubs, so they have to make additional changes.
It's why other leagues / tournaments (Asian / Community Cup) didn't/don't need to have anywhere near the same level of restrictions (they have/had some on both sides, but not as much as DBDLeague) because the survivors didn't know the killer they were going to get matched with (usually they played that each round there was a pool of killers to choose from).
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942041#Comment_3942041
Considering most of your comments goes way off topic or is just completely ignoring facts already laid out by BHVR themselves, I'll skip over those parts.
What parts were off-topic or ignoring BHVR's facts? 'Cause I don't see it and this feels like a cop-out.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942047#Comment_3942047
Crogers' law holding strong, I see.
Crogers' law holding strong, I see.😀
If that ends up being my only contribution to the forum that is remembered, I'll happily take it.
-
@Pit_Bull_Love said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941959#Comment_3941959
I don't know where people come up with the idea that only survivors are nerfed in comp games. It depends on the tournament, but nurse is almost always banned, sometimes blight, slugging is usually banned until end game, so are some killer perks, and I'm sure other things I'm not even thinking of. Survivors typically can't duplicate perks, no duplicate items (unless found in match), and certain perks may be banned as well. Sounds like both sides have equal nerfs in place.
Actually the biggest thing people tend to forget about comp and how it is different: survivors know who the killer is going to be (if we're talking DbDLeague). That is a massive boost to the survivors. Like If I always knew which killer I was hitting I'd expect a substantial jump in my escape rate.
I'd also argue knowing for certain the map helps survivors a little more than killers, but that's not on the level of the massive helping hand survivors get by knowing who they are going to face.
-
@subdl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941987#Comment_3941987
It is absolutely valid for players to feel personal discomfort toward tactics such as camping, tunneling, leaving survivors slugged, or engaging in hook-based mind games. These emotional responses are entirely natural, and everyone has the right to express them freely on this forum.
However, feeling discomfort is one thing—using that discomfort as a justification to insult, deny, or try to restrict someone else’s playstyle is a completely different matter.
For example, if a killer player were to say to a survivor, “Stop playing with friends. A good survivor should be able to escape without using SWF,” most people would find that petty and ridiculous.
By the same logic, when survivors say things like “Tunneling is what bad killers do” or “Camping is immoral,” and attempt to shame others into avoiding those tactics, they are not promoting fairness—they are imposing their personal values under the guise of “morality,” and attacking legitimate strategic decisions in a condescending and childish manner.
Indeed, in this very thread, several survivor-centric posters have been engaging with those who disagree through disparaging generalizations and dishonest rhetoric, actively degrading the quality of discussion.
What’s even worse is that, rather than simply saying, “That tactic is too strong and I find it frustrating to deal with,” which would at least be honest, they resort to statements like:
“Good killers don’t need to do that.”
“Multi-hook is stronger. If you can’t win that way, you’re just bad.”
These kinds of deceitful claims are not only used to mask their own lack of skill, but also to instill false guilt and an undeserved sense of inferiority in killer players who are genuinely working hard to succeed through thoughtful strategy.
However, feeling discomfort is one thing—using that discomfort as a justification to insult, deny, or try to restrict someone else’s playstyle is a completely different matter.Agree with you until we get to 'restrict someone else's playstyle'. Talking about what should be allowed in the game is really the point of a discussion forum.
As for trying to persuade killers to play in a certain way, as I've said, that's more of a BHVR issue, but its not that unique. We could go back to the days of infinites and BMPs that could complete gens in a single go when killers were absolutely justified in saving survivors should not play in a certain way.
For example, if a killer player were to say to a survivor, “Stop playing with friends. A good survivor should be able to escape without using SWF,” most people would find that petty and ridiculous.People frequently call SWFs cheaters. I basically expect at this point if I'm playing soloq and we trounce the killer him to throw out a 'you need to be a SWF to win' accusation.
What’s even worse is that, rather than simply saying, “That tactic is too strong and I find it frustrating to deal with,” which would at least be honest, they resort to statements like:“Good killers don’t need to do that.”I feel this is missing the chain of discussion on the killer side. People are claiming things like tunneling are a necessity. How do you respond to that without pointing out players with more skill who demonstrate that its not true?
Like Hens came up earlier in the thread. At 12k hours he is a lot better than many players. But you can also watch him (or other Content Creators) do non-tunnel challenges (or other handicaps) and still win the majority of their games (sometimes even the vast majority). It makes the idea that something is a necessity to win at high MMR either hyperbolic or a reflection that the killer player isn't on the skill level they think they are. It would undoubtedly be harder for most players, but that's just a reflection that those people potentially being at the same MMR level of Hens is a mistake.
“Multi-hook is stronger. If you can’t win that way, you’re just bad.”I might have missed it, but I don't think anyone said it as bluntly as that. Multi hooking can be strong, sure, multi hooking can be situationally stronger than tunneling, yep, but just a blanket claim that is stronger I don't think occurred.
These kinds of deceitful claims are not only used to mask their own lack of skill,It's funny being you're talking about people trying to shame others, you go to this.
On the accuracy, its an extreme presumption. I've seen some of the commenters on here stream their killer gameplay and know of at least one other who dabbled in the comp scene.
But I think talking about commenters possible skills is not really as relevant when we all have access to streamers with 100s or 1000s of hours of live gameplay.
instill false guilt and an undeserved sense of inferiority in killer players who are genuinely working hard to succeed through thoughtful strategy.When running Buckle Up + FTP, survivors had to consider whether it was worth it to get off the gens and get in position for a save, and if so where to hide, or pressure gens and hope the survivor can last in chase longer.
It was gameplay that required survivors to make a strategic decision. Didn't stop it not just from being nerfed, but completely removed.
When survivors ran Circle of Healing and it offered self healing, survivors had to choose between giving up on their gens to frequently move across the map to heal, to find another survivor for a quicker heal, or to keep on the gens instead of letting them regress.
It was gameplay that required survivors to make a strategic decision. Didn't stop killers from complaining about it and, again, not just being nerfed, but the self heal being completely removed from the game.
And all of those were things that killers absolutely tried to shame survivors over doing. And we still have it from everything like Shoulder the Burden, Off the Record, Background Player, gen rushing (which sometimes means literally just doing gens), SWFs, or sometimes just any type of body blocking. It's not anywhere close to as one sided as your portray.
At the moment the forums are more about the killer side of things because of the upcoming changes that are going to occur.
-
@subdl said:
While browsing the forum, I found it particularly interesting that, although both sides—killers and survivors—may have their complaints, the direction of those complaints is fundamentally different.
Killers tend to express frustration with structural issues such as matchmaking or game balance. They rarely demand that survivors play a certain way or criticize their tactics wholesale.
Survivor mains, on the other hand, often direct their anger toward killers’ in-game behavior—strategic choices or playstyles that are entirely within the rules and meant to win the game.
This reveals something quite telling: that some survivors seem more focused on limiting killers’ options in the name of morality than on improving their own skill. In other words, they’re not asking for fairness—they’re asking for handicaps and babysitting.
They’re essentially saying:
“I don’t want to try harder, so I’d like you to go easier on me,”
wrapped in the convenient packaging of “fair play.”Camping, tunneling, slugging, and hook control are all legitimate tactics based on judgment and risk management. There is nothing shameful about them.
Those who insist otherwise—calling them “toxic,” “dishonorable,” or “cheap”—have likely abandoned not just competitive killer play, but also any serious effort as survivors themselves.
To all killer players out there:
Don’t be brainwashed by survivor hypocrisy disguised as morality.
Trust your tactical decisions, and play with confidence.And to all who claim you can get a 4K by playing “MORALLY” as killer —
Then by all means, play that way yourself.
But don’t tell other killer players how they should play.Killers tend to express frustration with structural issues such as matchmaking or game balance. They rarely demand that survivors play a certain way or criticize their tactics wholesale.Something that gets brought up is that a lot of killer issues have been fixed. Killers complained frequently about things like Buckle Up+MFT, unhookable builds, and old DH on how it made the game feel.
Survivor mains, on the other hand, often direct their anger toward killers’ in-game behavior—strategic choices or playstyles that are entirely within the rules and meant to win the game.The biggest mistake BHVR ever made in my opinion was expecting the community to kind of police itself and hope MMR could clean things up.
I don't blame killers for how they play, it's a BHVR issue. Thankfully, BHVR is finally addressing some of these points.
-
Comparing your arguments from a more survivor player perspective:
Killers are upset that they occasionally lose. Survivors have accepted losing, but they'd at least like the game to be enjoyable.
Those who insist otherwise—calling them “toxic,” “dishonorable,” or “cheap”—have likely abandoned not just competitive killer play, but also any serious effort as survivors themselves.There are so many survivor tactics that get labeled as this, everything from sabo builds, to flashlight saves, to background player, to lots of builds that have been patched out at killer request. I've seen plenty of killer posts before the abandon system on how they would intentionally bleed out players for doing any of the above.
The whole concept of SWF gets called cheating all the time despite BHVR saying it is absolutely okay.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941862#Comment_3941862
You can't just ignore math and game balance.
I'm not. You are, by making base assumptions that your "model" isn't capturing. That's what I've been trying to explain.
Clear and coherent evidence, and "Nooo, ignore the evidence!" just isn't going to cut it.
Your method here is anything except coherent. So I'll just outline why it's incorrect.
There's a reason BHVR shoots for a 60% kill rate, and…now I hope you're sitting down for this, it's because of math. :O
I hope you're sitting down for this, the 60% kill rate is not because "it's balanced", it's because they "wanted the killer to feel more powerful to capture a horror feeling" and specifically not because 60% is "balanced" gameplay. They've intentionally, deliberately, and knowingly skewed the game balance in the killer's favor. And not because of balance, literally because they felt like it.
Anyway, here is the statistics of balance.
This is an awful lot of numbers that have literally nothing to do with Dead by Daylight in any way.
So, since I expect you to learn nothing and keep repeating this drivel, as a Math teacher, I'll go through why this is completely, objectively useless information when discussing the game so that the rest of the class can maybe understand why I'm pushing back on this.
At minimum, there are a lot more variables to consider, and even then I wouldn't look at it as a "probability" of escaping. These percentages are supposed to be descriptive of actual data, not predictive of how a random match with human players will actually play out.
Asymmetric PvP isn't Probablility
Let's look at your assumptions: Survivors all have a 50% chance to escape, each.
So, at minimum, we're ignoring every factor that would impact this. Not every survivor on the team is going to be of the same skill level, and I highly suspect that the matchmaker deliberately puts a "weak link" and a "slightly stronger link" on the team to bias the match toward more kills. Even if the matchmaker isn't going that far, it's a pretty huge stretch to think that there is never a weak link on the team. It's a pvp game, and the bare minimum here would be a skill comparison, even in a naively bare bones statistical analysis.
This also doesn't bring any of the actual PvP, or human elements, or even RNG into consideration. The biggest one being how do these players play? Because, and I already brought this up, let's take the example that the killer is playing to hard tunnel the first person out of the game. (You know, how people are arguing on these forums, and in this very thread that every match must be played, every time, period).
So if the killer just hard camps and tunnels the first player they see, what is the chance that player is going to escape? Honestly, there's still too many factors to really give an accurate number, but given that it's simply a race to get 3 hooks vs finishing 5 gens, and this is the meta, it's a lot more than 50% of the time.
In fact, if we use the limited data from Nightlight, and acknowledge that this is somewhat curated data from community-provided sources, and is nowhere near enough of a sample size to make a definitive statement about the entire DbD population, we get this (as of today):
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/807Q2JC2Q6UV/dbd-kill-rates-2025-06-13-png.png
So, if anything, the "chance" of the first survivor dying isn't "50%", it's not even close. There's about a 23.6% chance of them escaping, and the rest of the time they die (76.4%). That's about as far from a "coin flip" as you can get.
Where are the Gens (Other variables)?
I'm really curious where you think that match time, or even simply "gens" factors into this. Especially since the biggest complaint is that "killers don't have enough time" (Gens go too fast).
Since that's missing from your analysis completely… The most common interpretation, given how the game works, would either be:
- Each of these assumes 5 gens.
- Each of these assumes n+1 gens (one more gen than the number of survivors).
Both of these interpretations fall apart when you look at the chart. You can't honestly tell me that in a 1v1 scenario that the survivor is finishing either 2 or 5 gens 50% of the time. That doesn't hold up to any scrutiny whatsoever. In fact, the 1v1 survivor doesn't have anywhere close to a 50% chance here, it's not a matter of if they die, but when. (More on the 1v1 scenario later)
And if you fix the number of gens to 5, then somehow you're saying the killer is still going to win a 1v10 more than half the time. That doesn't seem right either, even at a passing glance.
This method isn't even passing the "sniff" test at this point.
In fact, this graph can be expanded as far as you like, and will never have the killer winning less than half the time. So apparently, you've also "proven" that a 1v20 game is "balanced". Think about that one for a minute, and you might start to understand why I take issue with this "analysis".
(As I said before, this is because you're working backwards from the assumption "it's balanced" and trying to make the data fit that… so at every level of this your data is showing that it's physically impossible for the killer to win less than half the time, which is certainly a choice. This is even displayed in one of your graphs…).
Snowballing and Independence
So the biggest flaw in your method here is the prevalence of snowballing. Tunneling is the biggest factor, and the reason that I say that these are not "independent" variables. Because once you get one survivor out, if there is enough time in the match (i.e. gens remaining) you basically automatically can win the remaining 1v3. That's the gamble that people take all the time with tunneling.
And that isn't captured in your data whatsoever. You are blindly assuming that every survivor has the same chance to escape, and that doesn't match with anything in the game, or any of the data we have available.
Because the killer isn't simply killing one survivor, then has an even chance to kill the next one. Snowballing is a core part of DbD emergent gameplay for the killer.
Here's a visual representation of how wrong your analysis is. When you make incorrect assumptions, like assuming every survivor has the same chance of survival (regardless of any other factors), you get the blue line in this graph. When you look at the only data we have available to us (the Nightlight overall data above) you get the red line.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/DQLTDZD1ENZC/kill-distribution-png.png
No one. Ever. Should look at this and say that your approximation here is accurately representing even the limited data we do have. These are not the same model, and whatever you are actually modeling in blue here does not in any way describe or model what happens in game.
Mismatching Kill Rate and "Win" Rate
Look at your own data. The very first point is wrong. You readily admit and know that BHVR aims for a 60% kill rate. So why would this not appear in your chart. In fact, you brag about the fact that your chart "shows" a 61.5% win rate for the killer… but that is not the kill rate.
At every level of your analysis this fails to capture anything that we already have available to us as actual game data. One big example would be, if we know the kill rate is 60%, so why would you think that a 1v1 situation has a 50% chance ever? Even if we go with the incorrect analysis, we should be capturing that a 1v1 is a 60% kill rate. And a second of consideration, as I mentioned earlier, would show that a 1v1 has basically a 100% kill rate, since the survivor will eventually lose and cannot do gens.
But let's look at your 1v4 "data": a 61.56% win rate for killer. so 61.56% of the time the game is either a 3k or 4k, which is literally the information you present here.
So, on the extreme end, if every single "winning game" is exactly a 3k and every "non-winning" game is a 0k (the worst case scenario for the killer that matches your data), then you get a 46.17% kill rate. On the other extreme end, if we assume maximum lethality, in a world where every win is a 4k and every loss is a 2k (the best case scenario for the killer matching your data), then the kill rate is 80.78%. The reality would be somewhere in between, and this is a major, major reason why you can't simply extrapolate "win rate" from knowing the actual data of "kill rate" that we are given.
Before I made my post I was checking to see if you replied because I had a feeling you'd go longer.
Looks like we posted at the same time.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941851#Comment_3941851
You can't just ignore math and game balance. Clear and coherent evidence, and "Nooo, ignore the evidence!" just isn't going to cut it.
There's a reason BHVR shoots for a 60% kill rate, and…now I hope you're sitting down for this, it's because of math. :O
Theirs is slightly off of an exact hit of 62.5% to make room for various variables which imho is acceptable. I'd say +-3% is a good range.
Anyway, here is the statistics of balance. The team with single player is what we shoot for on a 50% win rate when they have to face multiple opponents. In other words, a 50% win rate for a killer would be balanced, a 50% win rate for each member of the team with multiple opponents would effectively crush the single player. That's why in game design, you balance around the lowest common denominator - in this case, the killer. Here comes the scary math, look out!
Here is the baseline statistics ranging from if the Survivors had a single member all the way up to 10, just for fun. You'll notice something quite interesting.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/I54MAYXVE3Q3/image.png
It might be hard to spot, so here it is in another form (the number on top of each dot shows how many kills are required to kill the majority of the survivors):
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/Q27KBI5HQ3D0/image.png
This is for the killer to have a 50% chance to win. The Per-Point win % for killer is kill rate. The survivor Per-Point is escape rate.
You'll notice that the more survivors there are, the closer to a 50% win rate the survivors should get. This seems backwards, and I made the same incorrect assumption that it seems backwards previously before diving in deeper. The key here is, the number of survivors changes the required amount of kills that is needed to get a majority. For example, in our 1 v 4, the killers needs a 75%+ kill rate (a 3K+) to win. However, let's say it was 1 v 1,000. The killer would only need to kill 501 survivors to get a majority for a win. This leaves roughly 50% of the survivors who lost, but 50% of the survivors who won! That's because the more survivors there are (with one exception I'm about to cover), the EASIER the killer can earn a majority. You'll notice a lot of up and down on the chart, but that's because of the number of kills required to win. For example, with 4 survivors, the killer needs 3 kills…but with 5 survivors, he still only needs 3 kills - but he has more people to go after which means him getting victory is easier - this means that with 5 survivors, with it being easier for the killer, the survivors would need their chance to win to go up. This is a repeating pattern. The more survivors there are, the target majority requirement changes. On the first case where the kill count needed has less survivors in the game, survivors need a lower chance, but on the second case where the same kill count is needed but survivors are in a larger number, they need a higher chance to win since the killer will have an easier time getting that required kill count.
Now to clarify, this is all around balancing the killer around a kill rate giving them a ~50% chance to win (which is what the 60% kill rate roughly achieves, though 62.5% would be a perfect 50%). Essentially, the devs got to the 62.5% number, but reduced it down to 60% to give survivors some breathing room. Let's just stick to BHVR's 60%. The problem is when killers have a kill rate above that 60%, it becomes very problematic for survivors. These cases absolutely should be addressed. On the flipside, when the killer has under a 60% kill rate, then it's very problematic for the killer which also should be addressed.
At the end of the day, BHVR pretty much nailed their 60% kill requirement if we're giving survivors wiggle room. The problem about just boosting survivor escape rates individually is that it will drop 60% kill rate killers below the 50% win rate balance. Inherently, in an asymmetric game, the individual player who has multiple "allies" must have a lower personal win rate than the player who is completely alone and facing off against multiple opponents all against him. That's the nature of asymmetric games. Buffing those individual win rates of people with allies would make it unfair for the player who is entirely alone. If you're on the side who have allies, you have the numbers, and in turn, you'd need to deal with a lower personal win chance than the player who is entirely alone with no allies who have multiple opponents.
Now, all that being said, this is a top level look at this. One could say, once a killer eliminates a survivor, his per point chance to kill a survivor should change since now he has less opponents. That's a fair statement! However, in order to accomplish this, the match would need to dynamically change once a player is eliminated. BHVR actually attempted this in the recent 2v8 mode where generator repair speeds would increase or decrease dynamically depending on how well or poor the killers were doing. That's a completely different discussion, but I'd be fascinated with that discussion. It makes me wonder if BHVR is testing the possibility of dynamically changing repair speeds depending on how well the killer is performing on standard matches…perhaps a response to tunneling? One counter-argument one might say is that it is punishing a player for doing their objective, or doing it too well. Also a valid argument, but nonetheless, BHVR clearly has this on their mind.
Interestingly enough, all players would have an individual similar win chance if BHVR went with an odd number of survivors.
Edit - clarified the chart titles.
The problem is this is wrong. You talk about people ignoring math, but I haven't seen you respond to the many people who are directly pointing out your mistakes.
Let me give a simplified example of what is happening: If you had 4 apples in one box, and 3 apples in a second box, and you asked me how many apples there were and I answered 12. You say no, it's seven, and then I say you are disagreeing with math because 4 * 3 = 12 and if you don't get that, you don't get math.
The answer is of course 4 times 3 is 12, but the above is not a multiplication problem, its an addition problem. I could post long detailed explanations of multiplication, I could consult experts who say 4 times 3 is 12, I could throw up AI answers, but it doesn't matter. The correct answer is 4+3=7, not because 4 * 3 = 12 is mathematically wrong, its because its the wrong math for that problem.
Percentage discussions are much more complicated than multiplication vs addition, but its the same issue. You are going into long explanations of the formula you are using, but it doesn't matter. People aren't saying you are making a calculation error, they are saying you are using the wrong process.
There are two things primarily (and some more minor issues) you aren't touching on even if we go off your argument for what should be survivor and killer wins:
1: How can you get an answer for what the win rate is off the kill rate is without knowing the specific breakdown of the five possible game results (which ignores hatch issues which a whole other discussion)?
2: Why is it that Nightlight data, despite having killers in the KR range we are discussing, over large sample sizes, is no where near the win rate for what you say the math says should be happening?
-
@DefiantEnd said:
Absolutely! There is more
Interviewer brings up The Grudge and Dragon Ball Z as possible collabs, Mathieu doesn’t respond to him directly but acknowledges them as possibilities through gestures.
-Mathieu confirms that during a license negotiation the first things they do is establish limits with the license holders (such as what a character can or can’t do) and also talk about the basic actions a killer or survivor must be able to do inside the game (being taken by The Entity, repairing gens or vaulting windows).
-Mathieu puts Chucky and Sadako as a great examples of this, having to be very creative in the actions they do, but staying true to their character. He highlights Chucky’s picking up animation and Sadako not being able to touch anyone or anything.
-Mathieu also says they don’t like doing exact replicas of the licenses they get. He uses an analogy comparing The Entity to a nightmare, where anything can appear, but in convoluted ways. He says he used this method with the SH licensors and that’s why we got Cheryl and Pyramid Head together.
-Mathieu says adding Robert Englund’s Freddy as a skin is very difficult and a nightmare due to the licensing it has to be done. He also says getting 2 companies to work together is very difficult.
-Mathieu says some of the licenses they have other versions of their characters which are owned by the same company that collabed with BHVR, meaning we could see other versions of those characters join the game.
-Mathieu says that bringing Mr. Scratch to DBD is ENTIRELY possible.
-Mathieu confirms that if is possible to bring Pinhead back into the game THEY’LL DO IT.
-He also says outfits from mobile can come to the core game (as seen with a few we already have).
-Mathieu says the door to games played with 1st POV (such as BATIM) was never closed and can definitely happen if people want these kind of ips.
-Mathieu says that any character they’d consider cool to add, has a chance of getting in DBD.
-Mathieu confirms that ips created by one single person or indie games are completely possible to add to DBD.
-Mathieu says that survivors don’t need to be strictly horror, but they have to be relatable people that can get beaten by the killers. He says they tend not to do “pure hero” characters like Dutch from Predator, since they want people that have weaknesses and strengths and can endure insurmountable trials, not be heroes.
-Mathieu also says that when creating OG survivors, they want to make them relatable, with a complex backstory and human (in behaviour, not race). He says they should be the typical people you see on the street or around a corner.
-He puts Ash Williams as a great example of this, someone who is heroic at times, but has to suffer a lot and overcome many challenges to win.
-He says a character that will possibly not come to DBD is John McClane from Die Hard but sets him as a good example of what kind of survivors they want.
-Mathieu regards Doom Guy as another example of what would be a bad survivor. He also says Geralt from Witcher is a bit at the limit of that line. However, Mathieu considers Geralt as someone who has faced many horrors during his life and had to push through them like survs do.
-Mathieu says the voice actors for each character are a conscious decision made by the team, setting Orela’s VA as an example. He also excludes old characters due to their limited budget back then.
-Mathieu says they like to go for VA who are extremely competent, but perhaps not so well known among the public.
-Mathieu completely deconfirms The Teacher as a killer, he said the icons found in the file were an inside joke among devs at that time and if you take the first letter of the name of each icon it spells “Get good”.
-Mathieu says we WILL learn more about characters like Vigo and The Observer, but he says they probably won’t ever come as actual characters to the game.
-Mathieu says there’s a comic book series in the works. He also admits the movie is still in the works.
-Mathieu also says they’ll use more mediums to tell the story of DBD.
-Mathieu CONFIRMS The Entity is ALL POWERFUL in his own realm, meaning it can do whatever it pleases. Interviewer mentions Vecna as a powerful being inside the realm and Mathieu said that once you’re inside the realm, The Entity can do whatever it want with you.
-He says if The Entity was to be taken out of its realm then it perhaps wouldn’t be as strong, but as long as you’re inside the realm, no matter who you are, you’re in his mercy.
-He also says that The Entity can warp anything (time, reality, physics), can do whatever it wants and is an incomprehensible being.
-He also says that they’ve established that The Entity’s intention can never be understood. Mathieu says that they’ll probably never explain what The Entity truly is or what it desires and if they do they’ll make sure to add more questions to the formula.
-Mathieu confirms it is NOT impossible that we may see the characters from Project T (cancelled DBD spinoff) as survivors
-Mathieu says adding Robert Englund’s Freddy as a skin is very difficult and a nightmare due to the licensing it has to be done. He also says getting 2 companies to work together is very difficult.And a 'nightmare'.
I see what happened there.
-
@LemonMan said:
This is such a ridiculous take.
Everyone knows that the power hierarchy of this game goes SWF > Killer > SoloQ
And even if a Killer player was good enough to handle most SWFs, they can't do so without tunneling. Haven't you watched any proper pro matches? The ONLY hope a Killer has at high level is to camp and tunnel. And even for lower levels where Survivors aren't as good, if you have 8/12 hooks BEFORE anyone is killed, you will lose (unless you're an S tier Killer, which is a small portion of the roster).
No Trapper, no Cenobite, no Demogorgon, no Pyramid head will survive 8/12 hooks before the first kill (I'm exaggerating, of course some will survive).
The game has to have an incentive for Killers not to tunnel. Having 1 person out at 5-6 hooks is a very crucial part of playing Killer, and I personally don't even tunnel or count hook stages.
We talk about Killers tunneling, okay. Punish the tunnelers. What about Survivors that abuse anti-tunnel perks towards non-tunneling Killers? I'm tired of being body blocked by the OTR / DS / DH / UB guy. I don't want to tunnel, but holy ######### you guys LOVE to abuse your "defensive" perks.
A Killer should be rewarded for not tunneling people. I should get some sort of value from hooking separate Survivors. Until that happens, tunneling won't stop. Why would anyone intentionally shoot themselves in the foot?
Haven't you watched any proper pro matches? The ONLY hope a Killer has at high level is to camp and tunnel.Comp DbD (mainly DBDLeague) gives numerous advantages to the survivors, but severely restricts them on their use of anti-tunnel perks.
if you have 8/12 hooks BEFORE anyone is killedThere is a massive gulf between arguing for 12 hooks and tunneling a survivor out on the first 3.
unless you're an S tier Killer, which is a small portion of the roster4 person SWFs running meta builds are a very small portion of the survivor player base, but people seem quite happy to base the discussion of the entire game around them.
Why would anyone intentionally shoot themselves in the foot?That's a fair enough point. Play how you want. That's why people are usually arguing that BHVR should make changes to tunneling, not just rely on killer goodwill.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941455#Comment_3941455
This isn't some weird or usual math, it's literally basic math.
It's not basic math, it's a complete abstraction of something that… Well, I don't know what it is, but it absolutely isn't DBD.
A 60% kill rate means on average over thousands of matches, the killer would get a 3k+ sliiiiightly under every other match
No, it doesn't. Not by a long shot. That is an obscene oversimplification that completely divorces your 'maths' from reality.
In fact, if you check a real dataset, like Nightlight, you'll see that it doesn't adhere to your 'maths': You claim 60% KR means they get a 3K+ slightly less than every other match.
Well, Freddy's on 60.8% KR, and his 3K+ rate is roughly 55%. In other words, he get's a 3K+ slightly MORE than every other match. So if your math is correct, how is this happening?
That is realized to be flawed pretty quick with this example. If kill rate is win rate, then let's put it to the test. In this example, let's just say the killer plays 1000 matches and only ever gets a single kill. That puts him at a 25% kill rate on average. According to you, he wins 25% of the time, or 1 out of 4 matches. Please explain how the killer, with a 25% kill rate over 1,000 matches who gets a single kill every time somehow won 250 of those matches?
It's pretty ironic that you set this challenge to him but fail to respond to mine.
And if you're going to accuse Nightlight of being a statistical anomaly, this one's gonna be even more ironic.
Now of course a killer will not kill the exact same number of kills every match, but in math, the model would work in every example situation, and im providing an example that points out the failure in logic to claim the kill rate is the win rate.
Like how your model asserts that a 50% KR killer can never, under any circumstances, ever win a single match?
And if you're going to accuse Nightlight of being a statistical anomaly, this one's gonna be even more ironic.To add on to this:
There's lots of plausible reasons why Nightlight might be off (Higher MMRs, English centric, PC over console representation), but they all fall when talking about distribution.
To discount the Nightlight distribution would mean that the Nightlight data set is reporting lower killer rates than BHVR's data, but somehow those players are somehow managing to report higher kill rates than people are saying must occur. It requires an absolutely impossible scenario to be true.
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941316#Comment_3941316
This isn't some weird or usual math, it's literally basic math. A 60% kill rate means on average over thousands of matches, the killer would get a 3k+ sliiiiightly under every other match which comes down to roughly 50% of the time. 62.5% would be on average 2.5 kills per match.
According to your "math", kill rate is win rate. That is realized to be flawed pretty quick with this example. If kill rate is win rate, then let's put it to the test. In this example, let's just say the killer plays 1000 matches and only ever gets a single kill. That puts him at a 25% kill rate on average. According to you, he wins 25% of the time, or 1 out of 4 matches. Please explain how the killer, with a 25% kill rate over 1,000 matches who gets a single kill every time somehow won 250 of those matches? Its incredibly clear that kill rate does not equal win rate. Now of course a killer will not kill the exact same number of kills every match, but in math, the model would work in every example situation, and im providing an example that points out the failure in logic to claim the kill rate is the win rate.
This isn't some weird or usual math, it's literally basic math. A 60% kill rate means on average over thousands of matches, the killer would get a 3k+ sliiiiightly under every other match which comes down to roughly 50% of the time. 62.5% would be on average 2.5 kills per match.It's the wrong math, the complexity doesn't matter. You're confusing that when people discuss stats they say things will normalize over a large sample size. For example if you flip heads three times in a row that will be irrelevant if you flip it another 100 times.
But if the coin is weighted in favor of heads, the bigger your data set, the more the discrepancy will be obvious. In DbD the outcomes don't have the same probability, we have both logic and data to back that up, which is why your basic math doesn't work out.
-
@subdl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940994#Comment_3940994
The logic that “ambiguous win conditions justify any kind of ending” simply doesn’t hold up. If anything, the lack of clear definition makes it all the more important to carefully design how victory is felt. From that perspective, the current implementation—where the winner is left to clean up alone, or else press an “Abandon” button—feels inexcusably careless.
Sure, the system that lets survivors go next immediately after being downed does a fine job of erasing the sting of defeat.
But on the other side, killers who down all survivors — a clear objective win — are left alone in the match, robbed of the most essential part: the subjective experience of victory. For me and many others, the issue isn’t simply about “winning” — it’s about the absence of feeling like you won.
Perhaps that’s not a problem for you. It is for me.And as you pointed out, DBD is entering its ninth year. This is no longer a game in experimental stages. Which is precisely why it’s disheartening, as a killer main, to see such a fundamental flaw in the competitive design introduced at this point in the game’s life.
“Please handle the cleanup yourself.”
“Your opponents have already gone next.”
If this bizarre outcome of the ‘Abandon’ system was unintended, then it speaks to a failure of foresight. But if the developers understood this dynamic and still saw no issue, it suggests they’ve already written off those who care about competitive integrity, as if we’re just inconvenient noise best ignored.
Perhaps players like you—who can adapt to such a system without resistance—are exactly the kind of ideal customers the developers had in mind.
As for me, I suppose I was never meant to belong on that side.
The logic that “ambiguous win conditions justify any kind of ending” simply doesn’t hold up.Doesn't hold up based on what?
BHVR gives guidelines through pips / BP on ways that they want players to behave. Where people want to draw the line between a win and a loss is up to them, though there are standards of 'good' and 'bad' outcomes broadly speaking. I have my own issues with the system at points, but it creates lots of interesting moments.
An example of this would be when gates are opened (or 99ed) and 3 survivors are up and 1 is on the hook. If 3 survivors leaving was a win for the survivors, then they would just leave, taking out a whole key part of the game. Likewise if a 0k and 1k were both a loss then the killer would have an easier choice on whether to secure or a 1k or push for a better result.
Matches in DbD are about degrees of success, not a binary line that is a win / loss. Survivors will usually value their own escape as well as the escape of the team. If they just simplified it down it would take out lots of elements that make DbD unique.
the subjective experience of victory. For me and many others, the issue isn’t simply about “winning” — it’s about the absence of feeling like you won.Perhaps that’s not a problem for you. It is for me.Sure, subjective experiences are just that, subjective. What I find fun is no more or less important than what you find fun. BHVR has to make decisions on game design based on all the players they have and all the players they are trying to reach.
I used not to like DbD. They changed it up to a point I liked it. They might change it one day to a point I don't like it again. That's just the way things are.
Perhaps players like you—who can adapt to such a system without resistance—are exactly the kind of ideal customers the developers had in mind.I've been hoping for such a system since I first got into playing the game. People have been pleading for something just like the abandon system. We asked BHVR for it repeatedly. I don't mind the fact I lost, I just don't want to be stuck in a game that is pointless.
I hope they expand on the system. It would be great, though more complicated, if they could do something similar for killers.
-
@smurf said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941050#Comment_3941050
Yeah, that's what I remember too.
I think the abandon option is great for the game's health overall since once the match is essentially done, it provides a way to cut short or avoid some of the most annoying/obnoxious things that happen in the game. In that context, I support the killer being able to abandon once all survivors are in an open unblocked gate.
Having said that, I also think the MMR impact needs to be tweaked. It sounds like a lot of people see the MMR result as a defining feature of their match. I don't share that opinion, but it's probably healthier for those that do if the MMR result could more accurately reflect the result of the match.
Also, if abandon is a draw for survivors, there's an obvious exploit: I could bring Plot Twist and try to use it to abandon any time I think I'd lose to avoid my MMR going down.
Also, if abandon is a draw for survivors, there's an obvious exploit: I could bring Plot Twist and try to use it to abandon any time I think I'd lose to avoid my MMR going down.Plot Twist doesn't trigger the abandon mechanic. I've never tested it, but that was mentioned when the feature was released.
Also, if abandon is a draw for survivors, there's an obvious exploitThey are very clear that abandoning is a loss for survivors (edit: after the last patch, before that incredibly confusing). I don't know how they could do a loss for survivors and anything but a win for killers.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940811#Comment_3940811
Bruh, kill rate isn't win rate, lol. To put it into perspective, a 75+% kill rate is required to win a match (a 0k is 0%, a 1k is 25%, a 2k is 50%, a 3k is 75%, and a 4k is 100%). A 60% kill rate is on average killing 2.49 survivors a match which means a 60% kill rate equates to getting at least 3 kills slightly under 50% of the time. A 2.5k average would be a 62.5% kill rate which would equate to an even 50% chance to get a win.
To again get into the math discussion: The various outcomes are not evenly distributed. The extremes are the most common occurrence in DbD. This means that if you are seeing more 4ks and 0ks then the other results, and you have a kill rate of 60%, you are going to need the 4ks (the wins) to outweigh the 0ks/1ks (the losses).
-
@subdl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940402#Comment_3940402
I understand and respect the view that each player interprets the game through their own values and judges whether a match was good or bad accordingly.
However, since DBD is a PvP game in which real human players confront each other with opposing objectives, it’s entirely natural that many players — especially killers, who are outnumbered and bear sole responsibility for the outcome — seek a clear sense of victory and defeat.
From that perspective, it’s not unreasonable to expect that the moment of victory should be accompanied by an appropriate and satisfying conclusion. When that is missing, it’s only natural for players to feel discomfort or dissatisfaction.
My frustration with the current system doesn’t stem merely from the inconvenience of having to deal with bots. Rather, it comes from the emotional disconnection — the sense that the fulfillment of victory is suddenly cut off.
After carefully making decisions under pressure and finally achieving a 4K, you’re told, “The players you were facing have already moved on to their next match. Please handle the rest against AI.”
That moment of triumph is rendered hollow.
Can you imagine how demoralizing that feels?To make matters worse, if you find the cleanup bothersome, you’re prompted to press a button labeled “Abandon.”
This feels absurd. It’s as if, after winning a chess match, you’re told, “Your opponent has already left. Please either put away the pieces yourself or abandon the match entirely.”
In a real match, both the winner and loser remain present and conclude the game with a handshake.The idea of the loser vanishing while the winner silently packs up the board — that’s not a proper competitive experience. It lacks closure, dignity, and respect for the match that just took place.
This kind of structure causes significant stress for killer players in particular.Of course, I don’t deny that everyone interprets the game differently.
But at the same time, I believe many players would agree that a well-designed competitive game must provide an ending that properly reflects the outcome.In the current state of DBD, survivors — the losing side — move on without witnessing the conclusion, while the killer — the victor — is left behind to do cleanup alone.
That kind of ending is fundamentally broken.
And the fact that the developers failed to anticipate or design around this leaves me deeply disappointed.I understand and respect the view that each player interprets the game through their own values and judges whether a match was good or bad accordingly.However, since DBD is a PvP game in which real human players confront each other with opposing objectives, it’s entirely natural that many players — especially killers, who are outnumbered and bear sole responsibility for the outcome — seek a clear sense of victory and defeat.Two points:
1: A game cannot both have firm win conditions, and also let everyone have their own standards. For better or worse, BHVR chose the latter path.
2: The game is going on its 9th year. This isn't a game currently in beta development. These things are pretty thoroughly baked into the design at this point and they've had a lot of success with their model.
My frustration with the current system doesn’t stem merely from the inconvenience of having to deal with bots. Rather, it comes from the emotional disconnection — the sense that the fulfillment of victory is suddenly cut off.After carefully making decisions under pressure and finally achieving a 4K, you’re told, “The players you were facing have already moved on to their next match. Please handle the rest against AI.”
That moment of triumph is rendered hollow.
Can you imagine how demoralizing that feels?We're on perception issues, but
1: It's demoralizing for survivors to just sit on the ground waiting for clean up. Same for a killer when the survivors refuse to leave. Just because we can fix one more easily than the other doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
2: I am surprised by saying things like hard fought about the last down.
When the killer wins the game is almost always over well before the last chase. Frequently the last one or two chases aren't really relevant. Usually I spend the last minute or three as killer just hoping the game can speed up in some way (even if the survivors were really good).
The idea of the loser vanishing while the winner silently packs up the board — that’s not a proper competitive experience. It lacks closure, dignity, and respect for the match that just took place.It's strange that chess keeps coming up being its a game where its very normal to end in one side conceding the game.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940125#Comment_3940125
I already posted the math in a previous comment in a recent thread in the feedback section about kill rates. You're welcome to look it up. I already backed mine with the math breakdown. I know you have a deep distain of math, but math indeed exists. For 1 vs 4 individual players who all only have one shared opponent, for it to be fair (50% chance to win) for the solo killer who has to face 4 opponents while the other 4 only have to face one, each individual survivors player needs a 38.5% chance to win. If it was 1 v 1, both need 50%, if it was 1 v 2, then obviously the 2 players need a reduced chance. 4 brings it to 38.5%. There is obviously no ties in this situation, as who exactly is the killer tying against? He has 4 individual opponents, and those opponents are not a team - it's 4 distinct 1 v 1s per BHVR's statements. Survivors CAN work together, but they dont have to. Thats also why there are solo only perks. However, if you utterly reject BHVRs game design and make up your own rules and play make believe that this is instead a team game where survivors all win/tie/lose together as a team regardless of individual player outcome, then ties MUST be considered in the balance for both sides. This comes out to survivors needing a 44.2% escape rate for both the killer and survivor team to having equal chances at winning (while still respecting ties, of course).
I know you don't like math, but if you want it, just search my comment history. Im not going to keep reposting it.
As for your 1 v 1 v 1 v 1 v 1 comment where killer "obviously" wins more than survivors, you may have forgotten this is an asymmetrical game. The killer has to win at least 3 of those 1 v 1s for a win. A survivor merely needs to escape. Both types of players have entirely different win conditions. Otherwise, you're claiming killers can win up to 4 times a match which, come on, you can't take yourself seriously making that claim. The killer gets a 3k+ for his win. He doesn't win 4 times a match. Killer win condition is very different from survivors, so making such a claim makes me doubt if you're actually taking this discussion seriously.
The problem is your math is wrong because your underlying presumptions are wrong.
Here is the most simple of explanations:
Imagine BHVR made a change to game design when two survivors where left alive when the killer downed one the Mori animation would immediately start. Let's even go more extreme and say 3 hatches popped open while the animation was occurring.
Well what would happen to escape rates? They would increase.
What would happen to win rates? Absolutely nothing.
To put it in more of an equation form. If you believe KR * X = WR, if you can modify the KR without impacting the WR, then the equation doesn't work, which means it doesn't make mathematical sense.
You are grouping outcomes together (3k and 4k as a win, 0k, 1k as a loss). However without knowing how frequent the breakdowns are between these outcomes, you can't derive a win rate statistic from the kill rate statistic.
Our really only breakdown on how the games might come out is Nightlight. Their history shows killrates of around 60% to equate to a win rate of around 52% to 54%. That means killers are winning 12 to 14% more frequently than survivors. Even if we consider all 2ks as killer losses, and all hatch escapes as a survivor win, which is the absolutely most killer favorable (biased) way we can look at the data, the killer still exceeds survivor wins by a significant margin on a 40% escape rate.
-
@smurf said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940424#Comment_3940424
That's crazy! I never saw the second of those two messages. I'm going to look up the second one. Thank you :D
That thread was discussing the abandon feature in the case of a 3 gen.
The last patch clarified that survivors abandoning counted as a loss for them. If the killer abandoning in that situation also made it a loss I'm not sure how any MMR system could handle it.
The posts from Mandy there and the next thread that was meant to clarify things complicated MMR discussions quite a bit.
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940200#Comment_3940200
The end result of this will be players changing how they play. If the mentality becomes, you win when the other player gives up, that will become the goal. During the PTB where they changed the mori system to end the match as soon as all four are down. Well that will become the norm.
Because what does it matter if the survivor is a person or a bot, right? Getting survivors to abandon will be the win.
It feels like this is a different argument, but okay:
The end result of this will be players changing how they play. If the mentality becomes, you win when the other player gives up, that will become the goal. During the PTB where they changed the mori system to end the match as soon as all four are down. Well that will become the norm.So what has changed?
In the game before the abandon system a killer can try to down all the survivors either as a challenge to themselves or because they see slugging as a superior tactic. It is usually not tried because no hooks at all is a considerably harder strategy. However once they down everyone that's it, game is over, with or without the abandon, the chance of a comeback in that scenario is incredibly minuscule especially if the killer just let's everyone bleed out.
With the abandon system, the killer can try the same strategy. It has exactly the same level of challenge as its always had. Except if the killer pulls it off, the survivors don't have to wait around for the killer to come and pick each of them up or to bleed out. And once they abandon if the killer doesn't want to do boring clean up, they can leave as well.
And the killer won. I have no problem with that at all. Good for them.
Because what does it matter if the survivor is a person or a bot, right? Getting survivors to abandon will be the win.Except this isn't like the 10 minute no gens completed that people were treating as a win that created a new strategy. The ability to slug the survivors hasn't changed in difficulty.
Which is what keeps coming up with these scenarios. Nothing has changed about the difficulty, there aren't any new strategies, the only thing that's changes is the ability of people to get out of a pointless match more quickly.
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940000#Comment_3940000
In my scenario the pieces are thrown about because the player left with other player having to clean up.
But lets just take your scenario for a second and say the other player just left without destroying the board. Are you then asking the remaining player to make their move? To what end does that accomplish? The game at that point is over. To make a move is pointless because you are no longer playing a game you are performing a chore.
The remaining player can do whatever they want. They can play it out, they can leave, its absolutely their preference.
To what end does that accomplish? The game at that point is over.The game has always been over at this point. The abandon system changed nothing about it. That's why I mentioned something like mate in 3. You could have a human being in the other seat, the best chess playing computer in the world, or an empty chair, and the result will be absolutely the same.
To make a move is pointless because you are no longer playing a game you are performing a chore.The killer has always been performing a chore at this point. Nothing about that has changed. The quicker we can get past something pointless like that, the better.
-
@FreddysMain said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939955#Comment_3939955
No, it was the same around other areas. Everyone else was fine. It was very odd, never had this at all. I have the video on my Twitter. Sadly it wouldn’t let me post the video. https://x.com/redemption1895/status/1931772933506011419?s=46&t=Ug5eb6KF_9i-N9LNuBT5Vg
It looks like a speed hack, but its tough to say for certain. A survivor jumping ahead can be caused by lag and running around an object can seem strange because of the hit boxes.
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939896#Comment_3939896
Only if the game ends right there but it does not. The killer has two choices. Hook the bots or abandon the match as well. So pick up the pieces or leave the table too.
But the pieces are still right there, on the board, totally unchanged. In this scenario the person playing chess can still play out the same exact moves as they would have if they desire to do so.
Nothing the survivors have done have inconvenienced or slowed down the killer in anyway. If the killer wants to play it out its going to take the same amount of time as if they survivors stayed in the game. If the killer doesn't want to stay, they now get the added benefit of leaving the match more quickly. The only thing that has changed is the awareness that there is no human on the other end watching the screen.
-
@subdl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939719#Comment_3939719
Sure, everyone knows the killer can press the Abandon button.
Let’s break that down.
The killer fights through the entire match, downs the final survivor after a hard-fought chase.
In that exact moment — the moment of triumph — the survivors immediately exit the match and go nexr.And what is left for the killer?
• Clean up the soulless shells of bot survivors left behind.
• press the “Abandon” button — in a match they just won.These are not satisfying conclusions to a winning match.
They are just hollow routines that offer no sense of victory experience.So yes, the killer can abandon —
but if the only choices after victory are “bot cleanup” or “forfeit,”
then we must ask:What kind of game experience the devs want to design in this context?
And what is left for the killer?• Clean up the soulless shells of bot survivors left behind.I think this is the difference between how a lot of people are approaching it.
The killer is ALWAYS cleaning up at the end. It doesn't matter if its a human or a bot. The survivor has as much agency in their actions at this point if its a human or a bot. If the survivor player is watching the screen, or gets up and walks away from the computer, or lets a bot take over, all are the same game playing out.
Its why I compare it to spiking the ball. When you got the last survivor down the trial is over. Throwing the survivors on the hook has never been any type of meaningful gameplay.
-
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939813#Comment_3939813
Allow me to give a hypothetical.
You are playing chess in a puble match setting. When it's clear you will win the other player flips the board and walks away. You technically won and are able to go onto the next match. You pick up the pieces and play the next person. They too flip the board when it's clear they will lose.
Now for how long would you continue to play?
Who is the person flipping the table in DbD? This sound more like someone who said mate in 3 and the other player conceded (though with the added detail that the mate in 3 wasn't necessarily a few quick moves).
@subdl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939844#Comment_3939844
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3939850#Comment_3939850
I’m genuinely curious — given your perspective, how would you feel about offering killers the ability to abandon the match after the gates are powered, just as survivors can now go next immediately once they’re all downed?
And please — I’d be especially interested in hearing your thoughts beyond the usual “killers still have agency” argument. I’m asking specifically about fairness in match closure.
You can't just discount the 'killers have agency' argument because its true. All the survivors being down is not equivalent to the gates being opened. Its an asym, things don't always have a direct comparison between the sides.
If there was an equivalent scenario, absolutely. Like if they did it so all remaining survivors were in the exit gate that would probably be about the closest to the all survivors downed scenario.
-
I don't think Springtrap's perk is going to help at all. I think that the moment people see the regressing gate, they'll just leave.