crogers271
crogers271
About
- Username
- crogers271
- Joined
- Visits
- 8,432
- Last Active
Comments
-
@OPXtreme_ttv said:
Personally, I find the lack of consistency in pubs to be super boring, and thus i resort to playing comp DBD, since its more balanced.
What I'm wondering is, will a gamemode with balance restrictions ever be released? Im talking Various Banning and Restriction features (Killer Bans, Item/add ons/perk restrictions), removed base features (anti camp meter) and forced offerings
Rewards could be given for playing the mode too. Seasonal rewards for achieving a certain rank, like unqiue cosmetics, more shards and bp.
It takes too long to individually balance all the almost 40 killers, over 200+ perks, items and add ons, so why not have a mode where these are essentially predetermined to compensate to make the game as fair as possible?
Quite a few reasons for no.
1: It already exists, people have organized it, it would be a waste of BHVR's time to put something in a small group of people do on their own.
2: Even if BHVR did it, unlikely that most people would like their rulesets (the Community Cups being an example of this), meaning they'd stay to their own leagues, making the time spent a waste.
3: DbD isn't designed to be balanced on a trial by trial basis. It would antithetical to the rest of the game to go in that direction.
4: Any decision they made for the comp mode would make everything else feel weird. If something is getting banned in comp by the devs, why is it allowed in non-comp?
5: Giving rewards would be doubling down on the bad idea. It would really look like this niche community is being catered to. Also potentially leading to lots of people playing comp just for the reward, and either hating the experience or just making it feel like the normal game.
6: DbD is a game that is constantly evolving and changing, this would add to the dev time by making all decisions also need to factor in the comp mindset.
-
@UndeddJester said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3923500#Comment_3923500
This is definitely my experience.
I've introduced a number of players to this game, and when playing with them the quality of my killer opponents takes a very noticeable dip (I also suddenly start seeing people going for adepts which is fun)...
However even in my own MMR, the number of players I see on Survivor who make quite frankly baffling decisions is astounding to me. Even if I can loop these lower MMR killers for minutes at a time, a single bad teammate play can so easily get me killed... and Solo Q can make some absolutely unbelievable howlers that can snowball the game out of control outright...
I've never seen a killer throw a game so hard in a instant... I've seen minor errors where they compound to a pretty sizable loss, but never seen one complete game losing mistake to the same level survivors can... I chalk this up to the nature of an asym, but it really is unbelievable how hard a single player can mess up the whole team from a dominating to near no hope situation.
However even in my own MMR, the number of players I see on Survivor who make quite frankly baffling decisions is astounding to meI've never seen a killer throw a game so hard in a instantI think these are good points and I've had two games recently that illustrate this.
In one, we were facing a Chucky. One survivor is hooked, he gets in a chase with another survivor, but then drops chase and switches targets (I was on a gen and had Kindred). The first survivor just kept running, every time he would come back I could see when he would hit the terror radius and retreat.
He should have been going for the save, instead he ended up eventually doing a corner gen. Did he think the Chucky was still on him? That the other survivor was going for the save? Or that I was doing a gen close to the hook? Any of those are possibilities I don't know whether the mistake was because of bad play, lack of experience, or just guessing wrong on what was happening.
Second game and on killer mistakes. Playing a Huntress who wasn't very good, missed the vast majority of her hatchets. Also played a poor game, really stuck to trying to defend a 3 gen from the start even though she didn't have a gen defense build.
But even with all of that, at one point she had a survivor on hook, and I was on a gen and she hits me with a hatchet, I retreat and run into an injured survivor who was coming toward that gen, and instead of splitting up we both ran in the same direction and ended up in the corner. If she pursues us there despite many mistakes, us sticking ourselves in the wrong area probably loses us the game.
Fortunately, she went back to protect her gens and we were able to heal up. In the end game chat she said we were a 4 person gen rushing SWF, which was absurd based both on our builds and how we played.
Perception is really a huge part of the game. It will never happen, but it would be fascinating if the replay option existed to rewatch the match from others perspectives.
-
@Orvarihusklumpen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3921246#Comment_3921246
- Tunneling weak links in a team is going to be a thing of the past with the new Duty Of Care perk and new buffed Babysitter. 2. With the new Abandon feature, there is literally no way for a survivor to lose MMR unless they get tunneled out at the beginning of a match thereby making it damn near impossible to get to low MMR. 3. They literally showed the MMR numbers or atleast the highest and the lowest MMR on their latest stats update. 4.Choy literally explained the reasons why people would think adding visible MMR would increase Toxicity starting at 2:54. My own reasons why they hid it in the first place is because they know if they would show visible MMR people would know that it's flawed and possible by design, to push bad survivors up to good killers inflating the killrates. Choy is literally the only content creator in this DBD content scene that has a voice in this matter and has actually spoken up about this, that's why i am bringing him up.
My own reasons why they hid it in the first place is because they know if they would show visible MMR people would know that it's flawed and possible by design, to push bad survivors up to good killers inflating the killrates.Wait, so they're lying about MMR to push up kill rates?
If you believe they are just willing to lie why wouldn't they just lie about kill rates and cut out a step?
-
On low MMR (and starting MMR), I've always thought its pretty hard to be bad at the killer role to match the level that survivors can be bad at their role. Especially with the M1 killers, if the survivors are running into walls or otherwise not looping 'properly', literally you just have to follow scratch marks and walk them down. It doesn't have as many complexities if the survivors aren't creating issues first.
I know when I was starting most my escapes where due to killers just not playing or letting everyone go.
-
Agree with @Brokenbones
SWF doesn't need info perks
Even if they did, there are already plenty of info perks they could use that would work a lot better than getting off a gen and jumping in and out of a locker every 20 seconds (which would notify the killer of their location), or burning an exhaustion perk just to activate it.
-
@Neaxolotl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3923075#Comment_3923075
Well that's strange, my coins haven't been expired since forever, perhaps it has to do with acquiring it through battlepass or something
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3923035#Comment_3923035
Maybe, but this game will grants expiration date regardless of acquisition method
Well that's strange, my coins haven't been expired since forever, perhaps it has to do with acquiring it through battlepass or somethingSo if I'm reading the law correctly (which goes off a translation, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm just skimming):
Japan's Payment Services Act is meant to regulate financial transactions and prepaid services (putting money into one thing then to use it for another thing). Numerous exceptions apply, such as bus passes, but Virtual Currencies are specifically named as subject to the act.
Now the idea is to protect consumers (though like laws in lots of countries it might accomplish the opposite). The law also has provisions that if the business ceases operations, they need to refund customers for existing virtual currency, though I suspect that is harder in practice than in reality. (compared to most countries where a company could shut down immediately and you'd be left with a lawsuit over fraud)
Its not that the law mandates virtual currencies expire at six months, however if the currency lasted longer than that it would make BHVR and their customers subject to a lot of reporting requirements that neither likely wants to deal with.
As for your cells, if you never paid for it, it's not an issue. As I said its not about all virtual currency, just those that have been paid for.
-
Doing some quick googling I see this is true for Helldivers and Bethesda games as well, so it definitely seems to be true. I also see people on Apex forums complaining about expiring currency in the Japan region, but I've never played the game so I don't know more about that.
Seems that if the currency exceeds six months Japan's taxing authorities need to be involved, so companies avoid that by having the currency expire (which seems to be the goal of the legislation).
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3923056#Comment_3923056
But when you use SB or Lithe or BL, you're generally not looping, you're using the speed boost to make distance. You're breaking away from the loop.
Okay, then Dramaturgy.
Most people use their exhaustion perk to create distance. I certainly do. Some use it to get to a strong loop or to stay in the strong loop. That's where it could see some use.
I guess if you were doing the distance play with exhaustion, say Sprint Burst away from the gen when the TR gets closer, the aura would be helpful to tell you the optimal path to take.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3922780#Comment_3922780
Do you?
Because generally, when someone pops Sprint Burst, Lithe, or Balanced Landing, they're in chase, and have a decent idea of where the killer is.
have a decent idea of where the killer is.Sure, though Rapid Response gives you a precise idea on where the killer is, which could be helpful to see what direction they are pursuing from at a loop. It could be helpful in a looping build, but that's probably about it.
-
@jamally093 said:
Now I get making perks isn't easy but it feels very underwhelming I found that survivor perks go like this first is usually bad or just really meh like empthany on Claudette. Second is usually decent not good but hey it's decent like Urban Evasion but the third perk is the kicker your DS and Adrenaline. Basically you prestige because it unlocked the next perk getting you closer to that really good/at most really decent perk. Rapid response...2 seconds of aura reading then exhaustion 20 seconds sure but still exhaustion. Fogwise gives 6 seconds if you hit a great skill check and Alert 5 seconds as long as the killer damages something. Now if you wanted to keep the whole aura reading when leaving a locker go for it but like 2 seconds is pretty short even for the exhaustion stat maybe give it like 10 seconds of aura reading just if your not doing the adapt Rapid Response is not really useful I won't lie No Mither and maybe This is not happening give a bit of a better effect and TINH sucks. But 2 seconds of info if it's not a stealth killer is kinda bad.
I don't think the perk is that strong, but lots of people are missing what the perk does.
It gives aura reading on exhaustion. Any exhaustion, Sprint Burst, Lithe, etc. The locker leaving thing is there but not the main use. It's a short time, but you get it in a situation where you are likely to really need it.
-
I also wish tomes stayed. The new system is efficient, but it really doesn't have any feeling to it. It's just like every other game, and misses the unique feel of DbD.
Like I'm completing challenges in the background and not even thinking about them. Feels pointless.
All lore being unlocked also feels wrong. I don't want to go and read 22 pages of lore. But occasionally unlocking lore and reading it, sure.
-
@camping_site said:
new survivor perks are just bad. In no way getting exhaustion and revealing your location due to fast exit from locker is worth 2 sec of killer aura.
haste effect for other teammates could have some niche value, but restriction to being healthy is too much, could be some cooldown. And that healing boost is easly just worse than bottany or we’ll make it.In no way getting exhaustion and revealing your location due to fast exit from locker is worth 2 sec of killer aura.It happens anytime you get exhausted. The idea is to pair it with another exhaustion perk and potentially Eyes of Belmont to give you aura read after your exhaustion so you can see which way the killer is going.
I don't think its worth it, but that's the idea, not the locker exit.
Do No Harm is an alternative approach to a healing perk. It's not better than the main healing perks, but it has its upsides.
Duty of Care is extremely situational. I expect it will be one of the many survivor perks that gets talked about as being OP, but then rarely gets seen in actual games.
-
@XDgamer018 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3922254#Comment_3922254
the do no harm increases that even further
I'm factoring Do No Harm In
We'll Make It (100%) + Do No Harm (100%) + Boon Circle of Healing (100%) + Botany (50%) + Empathic (30%) + Leader (25%) = 3.17 second heal.
All of the above with Resurgence = 0.95 second heal
We'll Make It + Botany and healing someone with Resurgence (an example of a build that has existed for awhile) = 1.92 second heal
Throw Do No Harm into the above = 1.37 second heal
Stacking healing perks saves extremely small amounts of time and is rarely worth it and Do No Harm doesn't change that aspect of the game. It also doesn't account for the weird second or two that usually happens before the heal actually starts.
-
@XDgamer018 said:
we might need a healing speed cap now. someone got unhooked and just got insta healed…. and there was nothing i as an m1 killer could do about it
That's almost certainly Resurgence.
Without Resurgence the fasted heal with every possible buff (which is extremely unlikely) is about 3 seconds.
With Resurgence a heal with no buffs takes 4.8 seconds, add in We'll Make It and its 2.4 seconds.
-
I think 2 is a bad idea. A game should never punish players for something that the designers themselves put in (though it looks like we might be getting something like this).
I think eliminating hook escapes is the right approach. I don't think it needs to go that far. My current thinking is that hook escapes should be impossible for the first 50 seconds (or something like that), barring a perk or EGC. You still have the game element, but take away the possibility of the first survivor on hook just completely throwing the game.
But it shouldn't just be a pain free way to disconnect.
To idea in the thread
I do think more can be done to improve the survivor experience. I think abandon is the right direction to speed up matches were there is no chance, sadly BHVR has really confused the issue with their communication. I also think more anti-tunnel/anti-slug would both prevent killers jumping out to an undefeatable position way too quickly and remove the less enjoyable elements of the game.
On the idea that you can't make people play. As an absolute, sure, but you can always move people in a direction. It's why DC penalties work, they don't totally prevent the behavior, but they do make it less common.
-
@Massquwatt said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3921874#Comment_3921874
I'm all for incentivizing people to keep playing during the match but realistically if somebody dies before 3 gens are done what can you even do? Automatically end the game for everyone? Physically prevent anyone from dying before that point? It's a bit silly. Sometimes you're gonna get a quick match where you're dunked on, other times it'll be a long drawn out slog. It's kind of the nature of short nature of matches.
Sometimes you're gonna get a quick match where you're dunked on, other times it'll be a long drawn out slog. It's kind of the nature of short nature of matches.My problem is that's its not quick.
If a survivor is quickly eliminated, whether through tunneling, survivor misreads, going next, what have you, the other three have little realistic chance of escaping. But if those survivors play it out, unhooking, healing, looping, the match can still last a long time.
All games have the possibility of mismatches. Most game styles, whether it be Team Deathmatch, Capture Point, Cart Push, by the time it becomes clear that the teams are imbalanced, well the game is probably most of the way over. Unless the survivors just give up (which is generally against the rules), the game can take awhile.
This is one of the reason I think survivors sometimes go next, so they don't have the risk of getting "stuck" in the game which is all too easy.
-
@LockerLurk said:
My issue with all you just said, Ampersand, is that despite fundamentals it takes TIME to learn new Killers' powers. Shouldn't it be the case you have kinda less difficult Survivors while learning a new Killer's power? Why set them at the same level or roughly about the same level as your most successful Killer? I agree once the fundamentals are learned you ought to be out of the Kiddie Pool, but every Killer also plays differently and some powers can be more difficult to master. Why start a Killer you never played at the same level as one you play frequently? They aren't the same.
I also do not care about smurfing, I think it's an overexaggerated issue. As long as there's a hard cap you can't go below after you're out of. That's frankly all the game needs to prevent smurfing, IMHO.
Ampersand might give a different response, but I'll give it a go:
1: Fairness: It also takes the survivors time to learn how to counter the killer's power. Probably more important for the killer, but there is a survivor side as well.
2: Practicality: When a new killer comes out lots of people play it messing with the queue times. If all players started at a lower MMR it would mess up the queues even more (you now have the killers fighting for even a smaller slice of the player pool). Additionally, some portion of the player pool would feel like no one is playing the new killer and others that everyone is playing the new killer.
3: Impact: What would happen is that the new killer would start at a lower MMR? Well they would dominate the players they are against because of their grasp of the fundamentals. This would give them time to learn the powers and as they hit the higher MMRs they are now hitting survivors who have no experience against the killer, so they continue to win. Then they either hit MMR well above them and/or the survivors do get the experience, and then suddenly they start losing a lot. It would create an undesirable whiplash effect and opinions would be all over the place.
New killers coming out is always going to be messy and cause some game issue for a few days/weeks. The way they do it is probably the best way to minimize those problems.
-
AFC does its job, I'm glad I never see the killers just standing right by hook anymore.
The timer could be a little shorter and/or the area a little wider, but radical changes are not needed.
-
As others are saying, plenty of content. Especially if they weren't trying to do survivors/killers in each chapter.
@TragicSolitude said:
The RE universe is huge. There are a lot of games, a lot of characters and locations and enemies. There's multiple DbD chapters' worth of content. But...
The first RE chapter release saw a huge, huge spike in the number of people playing this game. Possibly the largest spike the game's ever seen (I can't remember).
The second RE chapter release didn't even come close to that.
I don't think the amount of content in RE comes into play, here. I think we got a second RE chapter only because the first one did unprecedentedly well. It's unlikely the performance of the second chapter justifies a third.
There's tons of incentive for more skins, though. The right Jill, Ada, and Rebecca skins would probably print money.
I don't think the amount of content in RE comes into play, here. I think we got a second RE chapter only because the first one did unprecedentedly well. It's unlikely the performance of the second chapter justifies a third.True, though the first chapter released while player numbers were already on the upswing, and the second chapter seemed to come out amidst a pretty heavy downswing.
I do think this is generally right and any future chapters wouldn't have access to nearly as many iconic elements as they included in the first two.
-
@francesinhalover said:
1
They didn't show LOW MMR escapes. NOT even average MMR escapes.
They didn't show the lowest picked killers, neither the lowest winrates for killer.
What was shown was carefully selected and id like the whole thing. Because for me, it's impossible to believe the escape rate is 40% when me and the people i know lose 10-20 games and win maybe 2.
2
Not only that, i was on a lose streak atm. I lost 8 games in a row and they gave me a p100 nurse that cleaned the whole team in seconds and than i got a huntress (last game) She again was cleaning the team, but our nea looped her for the whole game without being downed once and after that the huntress called her a cheater.
So Because i lost a alot the game gave me a pro nea to carry us? Is that it?
Shouldn't i and the rest of the team stay/drop to low mmr so we learn how to play better? vs killers at our lvl?
Why is MMR affected by escapes, when i can just do gens whole games and zero chases? or hide whole game and escape? Or have a friendly killer? Why isn't mmr affected by several things and why are my queues 10-20 secs?
MAKE ME WAIT 1 MIN IN QUEUE AND GIVE ME A BETTER GAME if you are going to keep the awfull matchmaker.
And this also makes me wonder, why those 69% blights arent getting nerfed. Why does blight even have 4.6 speed?
3
But now i'm wondering. Is this all intentional? So average killers destroys teams after losing some games and keep playing the game? Is this why maps are full of trash near walls, so when i hug walls i get stuck on random stuff?
Than there's the whole A pro legion, clown etc picks wesker for the first time and the first games he gets baby survivors… like why? Why are killers mmrs separate and start at zero? or am i wrong here?
They didn't show LOW MMR escapes. NOT even average MMR escapes.They didn't show the lowest picked killers, neither the lowest winrates for killerLow MMR would be tough to base data on, especially if we're talking about bottom, because at a certain point you have people actively trying not to win.
As for what they didn't show, BHVR tends to dribble out the stats. It kind of sucks but its a marketing gimmick.
Why is MMR affected by escapes, when i can just do gens whole games and zero chases? or hide whole game and escape? Or have a friendly killer?Barring a recent Dev comment about the MMR algorithm that might have been a mistake or an insight, having a singular goal for the MMR number is kind of necessary for a zero sum approach. It all balances out anyway in the long run.
why are my queues 10-20 secs?MAKE ME WAIT 1 MIN IN QUEUE AND GIVE ME A BETTER GAME if you are going to keep the awfull matchmaker.While forum commenters generally ask for this, their general surveys / earlier approach said people wanted games right away. I feel like with where killer queues are at the moment more accurate matchmaking would make those considerably longer.
Why are killers mmrs separate and start at zero? or am i wrong here?Killer MMRs are separate so that if someone mains a killer they can still switch to other killers they only play occasionally.
However, there is a general killer MMR that people have. If they didn't every time a new killer was released it would take a few days before high MMR survivors even began to see the killer in their matches.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920494#Comment_3920494
Kill rate doesnt mean win rate. Lets say the killer only ever got a single kill, ever, after thousands of matches. His kill rate would be 25%. That doesn't mean he wins 1 out of 4 matches on average. In fact his win rate would be 0% in this example.
My point to clarify that kill rate isn't win rate. They are two very different things. Many people see 60% kill rate means killers win a majority of the time. The reality is a 60% kill rate means roughly getting at least a 3k half of the time (it's actually slightly under that, as a 62.5% kill rate is an even 50%).
This is a game of a killer facing 4 individual opponents each with their own win condition. If there was 1 v 1, then we clearly would want a 50/50 win chance for both sides. However, the killer has 4 opponents, while the other opponents only have 1. This means those 4 must have a lower win rate to be fair. The math comes out to, if we look at the game as intended, each survivor would need a 38.5% escape rate in order for the killer to win 50% of the time (averaged). If we rejected BHVRs design and saw the game as survivors all winning/tying/losing together as a team (ie no individual wins/losses) and that at least 3 survivors must escape to count as a win, then each survivor would need a ~44% escape rate for the survivor team and killer team to have an equal winning chance (this takes ties into consideration which would be a 2k).
In your first paragraph you point out, correctly, that a 25% kill rate might be a 0% 'win' rate. We don't know for sure what it would be without knowing the game breakdowns.
Then in the next paragraph you bring up the incorrect 62.5% kill rate argument, totally ignoring the point you made in the first paragraph about what the win rate might actually be.
It's extremely selective and the paragraphs are right next to each other. You can't guess at 'win' rates without getting into presumptions on how the game outcomes break down.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920609#Comment_3920609
If a killer decides they want to do a "slugging challenge", and decides their win condition is to let every survivor bleed out on the ground, then according to you, that is 100% acceptable, because this player put their own value on different issues and risk what they have for the possibility of more.
If a survivor decides they want to do a "final girl challenge", and decides their win condition is to hide the entire match, and just watch all their teammates die, so they can be the final survivor that is alive, then according to you, that is 100% acceptable, because this player put their own value on different issues and risk what they have for the possibility of more.
then according to youI've said in every post this isn't how I would do it.
I understand why they did it the way they did, there is a logic behind it, some people enjoy it, and it is likely one of the reasons it takes so long for the game to become stale..
But again, and I don't know how I can be clearer about this, it's not the way I would do it.
If a killer decides they want to do a "slugging challenge", and decides their win condition is to let every survivor bleed out on the groundIt's absolutely okay according to BHVR.
decides their win condition is to hide the entire matchNow we get into something BHVR has made a statement on that this is against the rules. People must engage in the trial and hiding out the entire time is a violation.
However, to give a hypothetical, if two survivors were hooked, one survivor was dead, and gens spread out: remaining survivor has an option, save the hooked survivors and have a decent chance at finishing the gens, or let the survivors die and have a high chance of getting hatch, BHVR says both options are absolutely okay and valid ways to play the game and which one is a 'win' is totally up to the survivor.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920588#Comment_3920588
I’d argue those people are holding back this game. The whole “everyone can be a winner” mentality isn’t good for the game. We could literally have a game of 5 players, where all 5 players honestly believed they won the game. How is that reasonable?
I'm sidetracking the thread from its intended goal of all of us yell at BHVR and its poor community managers (edit: I mean poor as in long suffering not poor as in bad), but to go into game design theory:
Most games (video, sports, board, etc.) employ a simple binary win/loss, with the occasional draw. The goal of players is to figure out the best ways to achieve victory.
However, this design can be argued to be simplistic and not really capturing the full range of what people enjoy / strive toward. Take a horror movie as an example being that's DbD's basis. A 'survivor' in such movies usually has three goals
-survive
-help others survive
-destroy the monster
The third one is totally off the table (they tried it in Deathgarden), so we're left with the first two. Let's imagine survivors had a clear win condition and it being 3+ escape. Well if 3 are at the gates they just leave, if 2 are there, 1 is dead, 1 on hook, then a rush at the hook no matter the risk and if two are already dead, well what's the point of playing?
On the other hand if the win condition is survivor escape = win for them, the others don't matter, well then being altruistic in the end game doesn't serve any purpose.
Having a singular win condition would be clearer, but I think a lot a less interesting. Having multiple 'win' conditions means players have to put their own value on different issues and risk what they have for the possibility of more
There are a couple of ways a game could approach it and BHVR dips their toes into all of them. You could tell players that the degree of victory is important, so a major victory is more valuable then a minor victory (the board game Diplomacy is a good example of this). You can give them something else to play for, such as bloodpoints and pips, so you have a goal of 'winning' the trial, but you also have a goal of accumulating blood points (which used to be a much bigger motivator). Or you can say that there is no pure win condition, just different goals.
As I said, its not how I would do it, but people look for different things in games.
-
@Prometheus1092 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920562#Comment_3920562
Well I'm calling it now, if the abandon remains as is then be prepared for a lot of a matches where survivors are avoiding gens and hardly any chases occure. Already some people have seen a rise in whole matches of non engaging gameplay where survivors hide and the killer is wandering around for 10min then losing after 10min.
I would like to point out no one needs to abandon to tank MMR. They just need to lose...killer lets survivors win and survivors let killer kill them to tank MMR.
Well I'm calling it nowWhat would happen is pretty obvious
If 10 minute abandon equal killer loss - killers will be less likely to take it and survivors more likely to hide
If 10 minute abandon equals killer win - killers will be more likely to try and hold a 3 gen as an alternative win strategy
Both of those are just normal human behavior.
It's only if the abandon equals draw or the abandon equals ???? that how people will behave is a little uncertain.
I would like to point out no one needs to abandon to tank MMR. They just need to lose...killer lets survivors win and survivors let killer kill them to tank MMR.Except in this situation the killer still gets to play the game and feel like they win. It would be very boring and take a long time to just load into matches and intentionally lose.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920559#Comment_3920559
This is why I can never get my real life friends to play this game. Every PvP game I play with real life friends, has a very clear VICTORY or 1ST PLACE message when we've won the game. People that like clearly defined win conditions aren't going to want to play this game.
People that like clearly defined win conditions aren't going to want to play this game.I guess the obvious counter argument is that people who don't like clearly defined win conditions wouldn't want to play if they changed it. You can't possibly please both groups absolutely.
Like I said, it isn't how I would have done it, but seems to be the design a lot of asymmetrical games go for.
-
@Prometheus1092 said:
I do believe I said this would happen... I said killers wouldn't throw a match they are winning. last 2 survivors hide for 10min then killer has a choice of taking a loss with abandon or remain in the match for a chance to win eventually...even if it takes up to an hour. Looks like many killers won't abandon due to it being a loss which is exactly what I said would happen.
Of course some killers won't abandon. It could be treated as a win and some killers wouldn't abandon. But we have no idea on frequency.
I have no plans to change abandoning matches when the prompt appears if the survivors are hiding out.
I think a far greater worry is that people abandon intentionally to tank their MMR, even if that is not what abandon results in that is currently the impression.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3920104#Comment_3920104
Also, you say I shouldn't care about a hidden number…. but what else am I supposed to care about instead? BHVR still refuses to give us a post-game VICTORY or DEFEAT message, that tells us which side won the game overall.
For example, if the killer gets a 3k, did they get an overall VICTORY? If so, then why do we get a vague "Ruthless Killer" message? Am I not supposed to care about whether or not I actually won the game overall?
Am I not supposed to care about whether or not I actually won the game overall?That's basically correct. From BHVR's point of view you can as much win a trial of DbD as you can win the Sims. You have various goals and the value you attach to those goals is up to you.
Now its not how I would design a game, but it is a way that a game can be designed. Deathgarden was even more confusing so I think it's a design that BHVR likes.
The mistake on BHVR's part in this post / earlier in the forums was ever mentioning the word 'loss' at all and now they seem stuck.
-
@HOMOGRIMOIRE said:
I wanna start by saying I've been playing DbD since 2021, around the time nemesis released. I've grown to love this game a lot. I first got into dbd because of the lore, and its still something i care about a lot. So, i do wanna say that i am looking forward to all the lore being unlocked from the get-go. Making the lore more accessible is the right choice, and will help make players grow connected to our characters and the overarching lore of DbD.
That being said, onto the title of this discussion, I'm not looking forward to the upcoming changes to the rarities and the change from the tome-challenge system to the quest system.
Starting with the rarity changes, let me start with an anecdote. I'm still not even used to the current cosmetic selection menu. The old one was simple and easy to use and displayed everything I'd need to see. The new one still feels too unwieldy and difficult to use for me. It feels almost hidden, and some what difficult to navigate at times compared to the old cosmetic menu, but thats besides the point. The point is that like the cosmetic menu change, the changes to the rarities are gonna mess with a lot of people. Honestly, the current rarity system is fine, the colors are fine. Theres some inconsistency between the type of cosmetics in the ultra rare and legendary categories, but that is perfectly fixable within the current system. The new colors are only going to confuse a lot of the current playerbase once they go through.If we could toggle between the old and new rarity system, that would be nice.
As for the challenge-tome system change, I am a fan of finally being able to select multiple challenges to progress through and complete in the same trial. Unfortunately, thats where my praise ends. The quests page is lackluster, and devoid of the aesthetic and vibes of the tome and challenge. It feels generic. "Quests" sounds generic. Just about any game can have quests and it'll sound like it fits. So, quests works fine for DbD, but not as well as Challenges and the Tomes and Rituals. Challenge implies hardship, a perfect fit for the nature of the game. Quests has a too positive connotation. It sounds like youll be given a reward from a belevolent benefacor once its completed. it doesn't suit DbD's tone. Aesthetically, it suffers similarly. It lacks the charm of the tome's commected nodes that also resemble a web, like the bloodweb. I could understand perhaps wanting to move away from the observer, his tower, and the auris, and their aesthetic, but the quest system as it is now looks like a downgrade. I'd rather wait for a much more fleshed out looking challenge system that fits DbD's aesthetic, even if it means waiting on being able to select multiple challenges at once.
All that being said, I hope the DbD team doesn't sacrifice it's current aesthetic for something "simpler" when the current systems aren't even difficult to navigate or use at all. Slow, perhaps, but not difficult or confusing. I also hope the team keeps in mind it's current long-term players when changing and designing new systems and continues to breath life into this wholly unique game that we all love. 🥰
No opinion on the first right now, but agree on the second. I much prefer the way tomes currently work.
-
@Shuyo said:
"While we ultimately plan on retiring The Compendium, we still want those older challenges to stick around for a while."
Don't you dare :'''(
I set out to complete all the books, don't you dare just take that away.
The new Quest system is generic enough to keep players from actually being invested.Don't take away the tomes, they were the most brilliant idea of how to implement quests in an interesting way.
Everything else is kind of overshadowing it, but I agree with you. The tomes were a nice background challenge to complete things and slowly unlock the lore if a player cared about it.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
Im assuming the whole win/loss/draw is just a misnomer for MMR adjustments. Actual wins/loses have zero ties to MMR adjustments with how MMR systems work - MMR systems don't care about wins or loses, they only care about making future matches more fair. Thats why some games can even have wins count as MMR neutral and such. However, in DBD, they just happen to count a non hatch win as positive, but a hatch win as neutral despite still winning.
Long story short, I believe this whole conversation can be cleared up if they explain that by winning/losing/drawing, they don't mean it's a literal win/loss/draw but merely how the MMR will adjust.
That essentially means if all survivors are slugged and they disconnect, the killer won, but it treats the match as MMR neutral, so they say it's a draw when what they really mean is that it's MMR neutral.
That essentially means if all survivors are slugged and they disconnect, the killer won, but it treats the match as MMR neutral, so they say it's a draw when what they really mean is that it's MMR neutral.Maybe, but this seems to be the opposite of what Mandy said earlier in the thread.
-
@Breadn111 said:
I've been getting a lot of people giving up at the very start of the match, no matter what killer I play, what build I use, or how nice I am. It ruins the match for myself and their teammates, so in retaliation, I usually keep slugging them so they have to stay in the match.
Would you consider this a toxic thing to do? Should I instead hook them and let everyone go next quicker?
It's just kind of a waste of your time and anyone who wasn't throwing, but I don't think its toxic.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
I'll be honest, this feels really counter to almost every discussion from the devs about the game.
I may have missed it elsewhere but the only time I've ever seen talk of a "draw" is for MMR purposes (hatch is an MMR draw). And the devs always, always stick to talking about either kills or escapes.
So now framing the surrender feature as win/loss/draw feels counter to every other balance discussion we've ever had. The community generally talks about winning/losing, but the devs avoid taking about win conditions.
So is that changing? Is there an official "win" now? Or is this just in terms of MMR, in which case why tell us at all? The whole point of this system being invisible is partially to prevent people from manipulating it for easier games, so even saying "if you surrender in these circumstances, you can turn a match into a draw or loss, even if you hard won the game.
I think this is right, I don't know why they are approaching their communication on this issue like this at all.
A good sign of the problem: based on the thread title the big reveal was supposed to be about haste/hinder. Barely anyone is discussing that because we're all confused about the Abandon system.
-
@ThatRyanB said:
There's been a lot of great points brought up about Abandon outcomes here, particularly with folks discussing the impact of draws vs. losses. We're actively monitoring this feedback (as well as the more granular questions folks have raised, as they help to highlight where this feedback is coming from) and bringing it back to the team.
It shouldn't be so hard / complicated.
If survivors abandon the match they lose and the killer wins. I play more survivor than I do killer and I don't want a draw. I lost, its fine, I just want to move on.
The only tricky issue is the the no gen's getting touched, but many people have proposed solutions to that.
Edit to add: Let me try to simplify what I think it should be / potentially what it is
If the survivor abandons the match, it is treated as if the survivor died in that moment (which seems to be true for everything on your chart)
If the killer abandons the match, it is treated as if the match ended and all remaining bots died except that the killer doesn't get the BP for sacrificing them
In the above you now escape all the difficulties and confusion over win/loss/draw.
Again, no gens being finished needs more clarity
-
@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.
Except we all seem to be even more confused now than before this post that was meant to clarify things.
If it's not related to MMR, what does BHVR mean by win / loss / draw? Because in the past BHVR avoided using those terms unless they related to MMR, so I don't think we have any idea what is meant by them.
The abandon game is a great idea that many people have been clamoring for for a long time; I don't understand why these layers of complexity are being added to what should be a simple design.
-
@Mondhirsch said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3919904#Comment_3919904
I don't think you have any rights to claim when you got the game FOR FREE.
Unless there was something in the terms of service, of course you do. Just because something was given as a promotional offer does not mean it wasn't given.
I bought DbD on sale, some people paid full price, some people got it for free, but we all have the same license.
@I_Cant_Loop said:
It would be great if we could get an explanation from the devs on this one. Deactivating any unused free accounts from that Epic giveaway a long time ago seems like a very common-sense solution. Why hasn’t this been done yet? Is it because there’s no way to do it because of the complications of dealing with Epic, or is it possible but BHVR is simply choosing not to do it? If it’s the former, then we can’t blame current decision-makers for it now and unfortunately we have to live with this decision to give away free accounts that in hindsight was a terrible one. If it’s the latter, then whatever BHVR says about “taking cheating seriously” is meaningless.
I'm surprised people are entertaining this as if its an idea that's even remotely possible.
This also wouldn't be an explanation from a Dev, this would be an explanation from BHVR's lawyers, and I doubt they are on the forums. At best you would have this relayed by a community manager.
The EULA that people agree to gives them a license to use the game. Within that license are a lot of conditions where the license may be revoked (19 specified ones, plus a few general, plus what happens if the game shuts down), but 'failure to use the product' is not one of those conditions.
And even if there was a condition, there's also the issue of whether the EULA would be enforceable over such an issue (just because you agree to something in a contract does not mean its binding if the laws of the country disagree) and BHVR would be potentially facing lawsuits from any country in the world over the issue.
This is on top of damaging their reputation with Epic Games who likely wouldn't take kindly to the idea of a company back tracking on an agreement to give the product away.
-
@Mondhirsch said:
As we know most cheaters have an unlimited number of sock accounts thanks to the epic giveaway.
BHVR should lock every EPIC Account that were giving out for free so the users have to buy the base game to re-unlock the game. As compensation for the honest players which got the game for free and which now had to buy the game BHVR should give them Auric Cells in value of the price they had to pay to re-unlock the game.
- So cheaters will lose the ability to get new accounts for free
- honest players will get their money back in form of Auric CellsDon't know if this is possible or even legal but that would help alot against the cheater problem.
Don't know if this is possible or even legal but that would help alot against the cheater problem.The fact that BHVR almost certainly doesn't have the legal right to do this kind of trumps everything else.
-
@VibranToucan said:
I wish we had more details on the MMR numbers. Like what exactly is 1800 MMR and above? Is it the top 1%? The top 5%? The top 20%? The top 50%?
They answered this on reddit (which despite this being the official forum, reddit seems to get more attention, but there are a lot more people there) - it's the top 10%.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3919551#Comment_3919551
3: Where the need for fixes is based on players (this has been mentioned a few times in the thread). This isn't about being the majority per se, but the game needs an 80/20 split in its player base. Based on incentives, and most recently queue times, the survivor side has been struggling to find those players.and as I said, this is flawed logic because you do not have to lock into one side. In fact, players should be encouraged to play both sides, idealistically (but not practically, of course) an even amount. Each match needs a 4:1 ratio, but players stagnating to one role over the other is both unhealthy and a big part of why tribalism is so rampant in the community. If you are making changes specifically to entice one side or the other, you constantly have to go back and forth making the "lesser" role still desirable enough to play. This was witnessed leading up to the big 6.1 shakeup, as killers before that were leaving due to the state of the game. I'm not saying that survivors don't have issues that make the role unappealing, far from it. But as someone who specifically rarely plays killer due to multiple issues I have with how the role is handled, my perspective is a bit different on that one.
4: Don't give false hope. A common killer complaint is against SWFs. If BHVR has, and they probably have, decided that they aren't ever going to change the way SWFs work (i.e. no restriction) because there data shows it would lose far more players than they would gain (among other possible reasons), then putting it on a survey just creates community anger from one group hoping for a change and another angry that it's being considered.Thats all well and good, but most survivor complaints are about things like gutting high tier killers, treating every killer as if they are as strong as nurse and blight, being beholden by the shared agency of their teammates, "not having fun", and so on. Meanwhile there are plenty of legitimate issues on the killer side that continue to get ignored, which is my point. You can't use extreme complaints on one side to remove validity in their reasonable concerns, but it seems to happen to one role a lot more than the other. This is why I always talk about how dangerous hyperbole is in feedback.
This gets back into the Overbrine meta when the idea seemed to be by making tunneling less necessary killers would tunnel less, but it didn't yield that result. It shouldn't be a surprise. Players want to win. I think one of the biggest mistakes BHVR ever made in their design was creating a game that players were expected to play in a nice way.And I've always said that you need equal parts carrot and stick. Just carrot, and people will keep abusing what they can to make things easier on themselves. Just stick, and they will move on to whatever else they can find, creating a new problem in its place. You need to both incentivize good behavior while disincentivizing bad behavior. If you do just one or the other, you can't use it as an example of why particular improvements or nerfs can never work. People want to win, AND people want to have fun. Design changes around BOTH and you will have more healthy gameplay.
The level of organized effort it would take to move BHVR's numbers on player counts would be fairly massive. You bring up complaining, but I think the far more likely answer, backed up by the queue times, is player counts.Which is incomplete data. Player counts (especially role specific ones) say absolutely nothing about people who would like to play one role, but feel forced to play another. It comes up constantly in topics where survivors mains complain about how they 4k with no effort every single game, they always say they WANT to play survivor but feel like it is far too weak by comparison, and they do occasionally play killer but find it boring how effortlessly they apparently win every single match. Hyperbole aside, the takeaway is that they very clearly prefer one role but find it unplayable by comparison, which is a driving force behind their frustration. This is why these considerations are important to gather from both sides, because we have no idea where player counts and role interest actually stand relative to one another. Its a nearly impossible metric to measure in terms of raw data. Again, statistics without context are just numbers.
If players are quitting that's a problem that a company has to address.Exactly. My point has always been that killers quitting is just as important as survivors quitting, especially in a game where anyone can play either role at any time. If someone is a 50/50 player but stops playing because they find half the game unplayable, then they are both 0.5 survivor and 0.5 killer being taken out of the pool, shrinking the user base ever so slightly. Your focus is specifically on maintaining the optimal ratio, not actual player retention.
Making game changes takes a long time, by the time something gets to a survey they likely have mock ups of possible ideas and directions they could go. You don't want a survey that brings something up, get feedback that its a huge problem, and then tell players its going to be another year.Which is exactly why killer players feel ignored by how things like the taking a break question are worded. There are current issues that can stop people from playing the killer role. They are being de-prioritized, and not even acknowledged, in a survey that is asking about player satisfaction. That is telling them that their concerns don't matter for the foreseeable future, and in a game where killers like freddy got hung out to dry for years and things like hug tech went ignored for years as well, thats not a good impression to give off. People want to know their concerns are at least being considered, whether or not there are actually plans to address them in the near future. Also some things like adjusting audio balancing can be done in a hotfix, they don't require the amount of manpower that things like reworks do.
Additionally, lots of killer complaints have been addressed without going to a survey.This is kinda irrelevant, as many survivor complaints have also been addressed without surveys. Were there even any killer issue focused surveys, or just the vague tester/forum out (which is also up to 4 times as saturated by survivors per match?) My point, once again, is about parity. I get the feeling we're not going to see eye to eye on this, but it was worth a shot.
and as I said, this is flawed logic because you do not have to lock into one side. In fact, players should beencouragedto play both sides, idealistically (but not practically, of course) an even amount.Two points:
1: You're reading too literally into the idea of survivors quitting. Whether this is people who only play survivor quitting, or those playing killer/survivor switching to killer more, or those who play killer mostly/survivor occasionally switching to killer only, you have survivors quitting.
2: As much a company might want people to behave a certain way, there are only so many ways to encourage it. If the killer role (or survivor) is completely unappealing, than a player is never going to, or extremely rarely, touch it. How many players are like this we have no idea (this will be a theme I come back to about us not having the data).
If you are making changes specifically to entice one side or the other, you constantly have to go back and forth making the "lesser" role still desirable enough to play. This was witnessed leading up to the big 6.1 shakeup, as killers before that were leaving due to the state of the game. I'm not saying that survivors don't have issues that make the role unappealing, far from it.I think this is a misconception of how live service games work. Being in constant flux is good (its a feature, not a bug). There is not a state of perfect stasis that the game is going toward. You deal with the most pressing problems. That likely creates some new problems, then you deal with those, and so on.
Thats all well and good, but most survivor complaints are about things like gutting high tier killers, treating every killer as if they are as strong as nurse and blight, being beholden by the shared agency of their teammates, "not having fun", and so on.And those issues weren't on the survey anymore than there were questions about killer issues. Part of this is a design decision on BHVR's part to be fine with killer tiers (many disagree), part of it is that balance issues about killers aren't a great topic for a survey.
Meanwhile there are plenty of legitimate issues on the killer side that continue to get ignored, which is my point. You can't use extreme complaints on one side to remove validity in their reasonable concerns, but it seems to happen to one role a lot more than the other.'Legitimate' is generally a perspective issue, unless we're discussing things like bugs/hacks.
I'd say there are plenty of complaints on the survivor side still not being addressed. Again, it's a survey, not an open response, which is what things like this forum is for.
I'm not sure how extreme complaints ties in. If anything a survey is moving away from extreme complaints and trying to get a better overall feel of the entire community.
Which is incomplete data. Player counts (especially role specific ones) say absolutely nothing about people who would like to play one role, but feel forced to play another. It comes up constantly in topics where survivors mains complain about how they 4k with no effort every single game, they always say they WANT to play survivor but feel like it is far too weak by comparison, and they do occasionally play killer but find it boring how effortlessly they apparently win every single match. Hyperbole aside, the takeaway is that they very clearly prefer one role but find it unplayable by comparison, which is a driving force behind their frustration. This is why these considerations are important to gather fromboth sides,because we have no idea where player counts and role interest actually stand relative to one another. Its a nearly impossible metric to measure in terms of raw data. Again, statistics without context are just numbers.I think this too extreme in the interpretation.
Text is a hard mode to convey intent, but this comes off as if you think this is THE survey to end all surveys and that BHVR will throw out all other feedback and opinions from everything else and just go off this. They have other sources of feedback and we'll get another survey with some new issues in just a few months.
And I've always said that you need equal parts carrot and stick. Just carrot, and people will keep abusing what they can to make things easier on themselves.Sure, but we have no idea what they are going to do as of yet.
Exactly. My point has always been that killers quitting is just as important as survivors quitting, especially in a game where anyone can play either role at any time. If someone is a 50/50 player but stops playing because they find half the game unplayable, then they are both 0.5 survivor and 0.5 killer being taken out of the pool, shrinking the user base ever so slightly.Again, we have no data so we don't know if players who primarily play killer are reducing the amount they play. Hypothetically if both killers, survivors, and players who play both equally were all quitting/reducing their level of play, than it would be a dumb way to form a survey, but I find that unlikely to be true
Your focus is specifically on maintaining the optimal ratio, not actual player retention.On the optimal ratio - this is directly tied to maintaining players. No one likes waiting around in queues. If you have a 30/70 split eventually this will become 20/80. BHVR's best case scenario is attracting new players/bringing players back to the survivor role, their next best case is killers moving to the survivor role, the worst case is killers also reducing their play because the queues being too long.
We see this in 2v8. It's been massively successful on the player numbers, but because of the lopsided ratio it also causes players to quit the game because the queues are too long and they don't want to play the other role. This means long term if that problem is not resolved it is potentially damaging to the game despite the initial increase (any time a player 'takes a break' there's a good chance they never come back, which was another type of question on this survey if I recall).
My point, once again, is about parity.And my point is that if you have a survey, you need to be focused. There's far more to the game than just survivors and killers. Survivors can be solo or SWF, they have different playstyles (before we even get into the different metas in different regions), and different levels of experience face much different issues. On the killer side you have the same thing on experience, but then you throw in that you have 38 killers, each of which have different issues and challenges within the game.
No survey is going to get to all of that. You need to focus on a few issues.
-
I enjoyed it. Was it the best event? No, but it added an interesting mechanic. I'm in no rush for it to come back into the game, but do hope it makes a return at some point.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3919133#Comment_3919133
And why can't this apply to killers? The majority being one role in each match does not mean the majority is the same ratio in the overall playerbase, since most people play both roles at least somewhat. Surveys like the one in question completely ignore the issues an entire side of the game might be experiencing, while addressing ones that actively make their position both weaker and compounds existing issues without even asking about, let alone addressing them. Its a lopsided focus on multiple bipartisan issues, with promises like Mandy's not meaning much when you don't even bothering to ask the other side. If there were questions like "as killer, do you feel the need to use these strategies regularly?" or "If given a choice, would you rather not use these strategies?" they would be doing proper diligence on collecting proper opinions and perspectives.
This isn't the first time there has been a lopsided survey, and I continue to maintain that BHVR have consistently been terrible at addressing issues that affect both sides in an any way that takes the considerations of both roles into their solutions. They just focus on the most immediate thing thats being complained about, and work their solution around how to appease the complainers. And since an issue like slugging or tunneling affects up to 4 people negatively each time they're employed, there will be more complainers just by sheer volume. This is especially dangerous because said complainers either ignore or try to invalidate anything about the situation from the other side, downvotes coming back are like a perfect metric for the way people dogpile arguments instead of actually considering how each situation affects both sides.
I don't believe BHVR is inherently biased toward either role, but I absolutely think there are people who make important decisions about the game's health that are missing important perspectives on why the game plays out like it does, and why we get the metas we do. Limiting your approach just gives you more cleanup later, and considering how long some very important killer bugs take to get fixed, that type of "we'll get to it later" focus feels especially crappy for one role, let alone when there are satisfaction surveys that completely ignore that side's perspective on a matter. If the argument is "killers would just complain they need to do it regardless of whether they actually do" why would this not apply to people who complain about sensible applications of things like slugging or tunneling?
To kind of continue with the example: if a survey asked killers how they felt about survivors pre-running or stealth game play, those would be opinions about enjoyment. Now I don't think any survivor particularly enjoys pre-running, so getting an idea of the level of dislike killer's have for it would make sense, though there would still be balance issues to discuss. Something like stealth would be difficult because some killers dislike it, but many survivors really enjoy it, so you now have contrasting desires.This is exactly what I mean. Are these questions on the survey? Is there pre-balance "does this bother you" opinion gathering like there is for the issues that currently plague survivor? They constantly make changes with things like audio and don't even acknowledge them, then ignore feedback until people stop bothering. They only care because there are a massive number of people in the community who get their way through boycotting and complaining, and killers have straight up been sent to the graveyard of unsuitability instead of having nuance in addressing people's issues with them. They just continue to reward that bad behavior, and it feels awful to see this stuff if you're trying to play a killer who is not only already in bad shape, but will be hurt even worse when these complaints get addressed. I am all for finding a solution to LCD issues, but it needs to be a solution that incorporates the concerns, methodology, and insights of BOTH sides.
As a last point, I have to again ask concerning this quote:
The things in the survey aren't even about survivors wanting to win, its about not losing in a way that is miserable. That's very different than balance issues.Why is this not allowed to apply to killers? Its not whataboutism when the developers are clearly favoring only a portion of their userbase when collecting feedback.
And why can't this apply to killers? The majority being one role in each match does not mean the majority is the same ratio in the overall playerbase, since most people play both roles at least somewhat.Sure they could. A few reasons on probably why not
1: Surveys need to have some sort of limit or people won't do them. As is, they are probably longer than they should be.
2: BHVR likely has ideas about changes they want to do or areas they are already looking at based on other feedback and internal testing and they are fine tuning those.
3: Where the need for fixes is based on players (this has been mentioned a few times in the thread). This isn't about being the majority per se, but the game needs an 80/20 split in its player base. Based on incentives, and most recently queue times, the survivor side has been struggling to find those players.
4: Don't give false hope. A common killer complaint is against SWFs. If BHVR has, and they probably have, decided that they aren't ever going to change the way SWFs work (i.e. no restriction) because there data shows it would lose far more players than they would gain (among other possible reasons), then putting it on a survey just creates community anger from one group hoping for a change and another angry that it's being considered.
If there were questions like "as killer, do you feel the need to use these strategies regularly?" or "If given a choice, would you rathernotuse these strategies?" they would be doing proper diligence on collecting proper opinions and perspectives.This gets back into the Overbrine meta when the idea seemed to be by making tunneling less necessary killers would tunnel less, but it didn't yield that result. It shouldn't be a surprise. Players want to win. I think one of the biggest mistakes BHVR ever made in their design was creating a game that players were expected to play in a nice way.
They only care because there are a massive number of people in the community who get their way through boycotting and complaining,The level of organized effort it would take to move BHVR's numbers on player counts would be fairly massive. You bring up complaining, but I think the far more likely answer, backed up by the queue times, is player counts.
If players are quitting that's a problem that a company has to address.
They just focus on the most immediate thing thats being complained about, and work their solution around how to appease the complainers.I've been complaining about slugging basically from the moment I got onto the forums. It's not a new issue by any means.
But surveys are meant to address things that are current. Making game changes takes a long time, by the time something gets to a survey they likely have mock ups of possible ideas and directions they could go. You don't want a survey that brings something up, get feedback that its a huge problem, and then tell players its going to be another year.
Why is this not allowed to apply to killers? Its not whataboutism when the developers are clearly favoring only a portion of their userbase when collecting feedback.I've mentioned it a few times, but if that is the portion of your playerbase that they are losing, it is critical for the game's survival to examine why.
Additionally, lots of killer complaints have been addressed without going to a survey. Hook respawns after elimination, making the 'unhookable' builds much harder to pull off, flashbangs, FTP+Buckle Up, and then we can go back further to things like Dead Hard. Lots of these weren't primarily balance issues, an unhookable had a clear counter but it kind of sucked to play against, they were enjoyment issues. Given the smaller role size they might be using other methods (forums, testers), to primarily get their killer feedback.
-
@Aeiga said:
Considering the question, it is of no surprise that I’m someone who mains Vecna. I have plenty of hours into him and he is the first killer I committed to reaching prestige 100. But I have been having less fun with him simply because there is a way to invalidate 1/4 of his power almost 100% and I think one of his spells should be more effective.
Many players would tell you Vecna’s strongest spell is mage hand but if you played him for a long time you would find out that’s actually incorrect when you consider a way to invalidate. Mage hand is the spell a survivor can invalidate which makes his strongest spell Flight of The Damned. Yes, that means the easiest spell to dodge is his strongest. (It’s actually a little funny.)
I will explain some counters to Vecna’s mage hand before going over the “invalidation counter” (I just call it that).
The first is pre dropping from a distance. Vecna will never have enough time to reach you around a pallet if you pre drop from a good distance even when he picks it up with mage hand unless he has a haste or hinder perk to make up for it.
The second is quite literally hold W, sometimes a Vecna will anticipate a pallet drop and use mage hand at the wrong time which will give you time to make it around the loop and drop it if you have the magical item that gives you haste when mage hand is used you can play around pallets more risky because it increases your chances of making it around the loop but if the Vecna knows you have it they will also be more likely to disrespect pallets and anticipate the action.
The third counter is running as if you have the intention of going around a loop, then doubling back to drop it on Vecna. That is the most risky play with the highest payoff because two things could happen as a result, the Vecna tries to move back, using mage hand only to get stunned and waste it, or you simply just stun him but now you’re playing around a loop with an advantage since the pallet is already down and there is distance between the survivor and the killer.
Now, for the fourth counter no one happens to be talking about that i simply named the “invalidation counter”. I gave the counter this name because there is NOTHING (emphasis on nothing), a Vecna can do once a survivor does it and the counter allows them to be safe on every pallet. The counter is, when a survivor drops a pallet no matter the distance between them and the killer, when Vecna uses mage hand all the survivor has to do is step between the pallet, effectively blocking Vecna from passing through. You’d think, “They’d just get hit so that’s pointless.” But that isn’t the case. Vecna has a recovery time where he slows down a bit after using a spell but he also cannot swing during the recovery. That’s why when a survivor blocks the pallet as it’s lifted by mage hand, the hand doesn’t linger enough for Vecna to swing in time and Vecna’s recovery is too long to get a hit.
I will repeat that a survivor can do this on every pallet. That’s why if a survivor drops or multiple are aware of this they can invalidate a fourth of your abilities and all you have is one other chase spell that is easy to dodge but still has some value if used right such as spawning it on a survivor, correctly zoning with it, or casting it on elevation.
There’s a way to fix this “invalidation counter” which is simply to allow the mage hand pallet lift to linger for a second and to give Vecna the option to swing during his recovery time.
I have not been playing Vecna and instead moved to playing other killers but I been hoping that counter would get fixed with every patch but I finally decided to start talking about it here after putting up with it for so long because the counter punishes you for making the right decision and you suffer a 40 second cooldown and possibly a stun as a result if you try to hope that the survivor somehow messed up blocking the pallet which I should note that the chances of them messing it up is next to zero.
The other only slight problem I have with Vecna is that I feel that his Flight of The Damned spreads out too fast when you cast it and I think the spread should happen later and slower but Flight of The Damned isn’t the main topic so that’s all I have to say.
I really do hope this sparks a discussion or a dev can confirm there is a fix on the way for this “invalidation counter” because I would love to get back into playing Vecna consistently again.
The first two you list come with downsides. Hold W Vecna can fly towards and pre dropping weakens the value of the loop. You aren't using Mage Hand, but you are still getting plenty of value out of it.
The third is an issue of counterplay. Survivors should have counterplay of some sort and this guessing game/risk is fine.
The fourth I haven't seen but I don't see Vecna frequently, I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned by a streamer, but if true should be fixed.
-
@Ryuhi said:
@crogers271 regarding your comment about why ask about the killer perspective and relating it to the playerbase as a whole, sorry it didn't quote for some reason. Must be tired.
You're absolutely right, but it is still an insight that the devs should be trying to understand. The question "Why do you run infinites?" for example could be answered as either "because I want to not get caught" or it could be "because all of the tiles in that half of the map spawned garbage." Sometimes its not so much about the low hanging fruit obvious answer as it is how and why you got there. I make this distinction because its not uncommon for killers who don't default to the LCD strategies to have to adapt to them. That kind of vital context speaks about bigger issues further up the cause and effect chain. Actually to further emphasize, the "Why do you destroy all the hooks?" question could have answers ranging from saving teammates over comms to just trying to grind out counter-productive challenges. A lot of issues in the game have ripple effects, so its always important to get as close to the start of the ripple and start there.
The question "Why do you run infinites?" for example could be answered as either "because I want to not get caught" or it could be "because all of the tiles in that half of the map spawned garbage."Except those are two different things. The first is a motivation, the second is why the player thinks they have that motivation.
The first is the kind of thing that can be surveyed. What are you enjoying, what aren't you enjoying, etc. They survey maker can get a gist of general ideas/problems from the community and then put the main issues into a survey that a larger portion of the player base can answer. In this scenario you are looking for what the majority opinion is on the enjoyment of game mechanics.
The second is an issue that would be best resolved by a short answer response (that realistically there is no way it would get read in a mass survey). Game design issues like that usually get left to things like testers and forums, such as this one. Instead of majority opinion you are now looking for the 'best' design which is going to be far more subjective and require a lot of weighing different priorities.
To kind of continue with the example: if a survey asked killers how they felt about survivors pre-running or stealth game play, those would be opinions about enjoyment. Now I don't think any survivor particularly enjoys pre-running, so getting an idea of the level of dislike killer's have for it would make sense, though there would still be balance issues to discuss. Something like stealth would be difficult because some killers dislike it, but many survivors really enjoy it, so you now have contrasting desires.
I presume no killer 'likes' to slug just to torment the survivors, and if they do, that's actually more of a reason to change it.
I make this distinction because its not uncommon for killers whodon'tdefault to the LCD strategies to have toadaptto them. That kind of vital context speaks about bigger issues further up the cause and effect chain.Three points
1: Again this is something they have data on / community feedback. People's opinion of why things are happening in games, especially one like DbD were so much is obscured and their are heavy bias issues, pales in comparison to a data sample.
2: We don't even know what the changes will be. When we got the three gen changes it came with small buffs (that I would say meant a net overall killer buff though I think both sets of changes were good).
3: As Mandy mentioned, they can always make additional adjustments. Let's say the high MMR escape rate goes from 40 to 45%. That would be a significant jump, but its not the end of the world. The things in the survey aren't even about survivors wanting to win, its about not losing in a way that is miserable. That's very different than balance issues.
Actually to further emphasize, the "Why do you destroy all the hooks?" question could have answers ranging from saving teammates over comms to just trying to grind out counter-productive challenges.Except things like challenges they actually have the data on. It's their game, if they want to look up how many people were doing a challenge when engaging in certain actions, they can. A survey would be silly in that circumstance because they would have access to raw numbers.
@crogers271regarding your comment about why ask about the killer perspective and relating it to the playerbase as a whole, sorry it didn't quote for some reason. Must be tired.There seems to be a forum bug. If you quote reply to someone, then go to quote reply someone else, the second reply won't get the quote unless you refresh the page.
-
I don't think more gens, but at less time would be a significant change and would probably require reworking some maps.
Different gens as part of the normal game? No. Explore the idea more as a mode? Sure.
-
@Jacknalls_Paw said:
"Surrendering in the following conditions does not incur a Disconnection Penalty, but will not count as a completed trial". <This is what is stated in the patch notes>.
With the introduction of the quit function, it is possible to save a lot of time during matches, skipping the very tedious part of the mori/slug/hook etc. when you are at the end of the game.
However in the HUD when a survivor abandons there is no difference compared to when they disconnect in the middle of the game ("bot" appears in both cases) and this also happens during the tally screen.
I hope that the game does not get confused and is able to distinguish between the two cases because this could lead to imbalance on the escape rate / kill rate calculation, as we know that when a survivor disconnects, the result of the game is not counted, while in the case of abandonment the game is supposed to be already won by the killer.
This obviously also concerns the killer, if all 4 survivors are bots, and killer abandons right after, how is the game counted? Someone said the game counts a loss for the killer…
I have heard conflicting answers even from Dev Managers on this forum and would like to understand.I have heard conflicting answers even from Dev Managers on this forum and would like to understand.I think this is where we all are.
As you said, the option allows people to skip the tedious portions of many trials. That's a great improvement and shocking that BHVR has taken so long. It also seems really simple to deal with:
Survivors slugged and leave - win for killer, loss for survivor, what ends up happening to the bot is irrelevant
Survivors all bot, killer leaves - being step 1 would have happened, just go off that
The idea of survivors hiding out would need a few more layers, but not much.
I do hope they continue with the idea and there are few more tedious areas where they can expand it, but primarily they need two different words. One to indicate you can leave but its a loss, one to indicate you can leave but its a win.
-
We're going round is circle but on the dip
DbD experienced an unusual summer in 2021. You can't just quote the image from that period without looking at their overall history. Three of its best months are in the summer of 2021, July, August, and June are the first, third, and fifth best months in DbDs history. However the 2nd, 4th, and 5th through I think 13th best months are all post SBMM.
Or look at this way: there have been 10 months post SBMM where DbD cracked 40k players, it happened 7 times before that.
And given you are talking about licenses, these best months are because of the licenses DbD was getting through that period. You can't credit the licenses for the games success at some points and ignore it at others for why there was a player drop off (people coming off the anniversary high / Resident Evil release)
If SBMM was a problem, then the numbers for late 2021/early 2022 should be worse than late 2020/early 2021, but the post SBMM numbers are generally better or roughly the same.
-
@Orvarihusklumpen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3918174#Comment_3918174
- It's a assymetrical multiplayer game with licenses and they have no competition. It's literally a monopoly at this point. That's the biggest reason they been able to retain their audience because if there were no licensed chapter, this game would have died a long time ago. 2. i don't think anyone in the DBD community were positive about the SBMM test's when they were first introduced much less when they dropped MMR into the game, Otz, one of the biggest content creators for this game made 3 videos about this when they first dropped SBMM. Scott jund has made numerous videos about it, most recently in a video titled Top Ten Worst Decisions in Dead by Daylight History where SBMM was at number 1, Dowsey left the game partially due to SBMM and Tatariu as well.
It's a assymetrical multiplayer game with licenses and they have no competition. It's literally a monopoly at this point. That's the biggest reason they been able to retain their audience because if there were no licensed chapter, this game would have died a long time ago.This is a common argument. Do people really put thousands of hours into a game because it has a certain license? Lots of games are licensed properties, it doesn't mean they succeed, much yet get 9 years.
i don't think anyone in the DBD community were positive about the SBMM test's when they were first introduced much less when they dropped MMR into the game, Otz, one of the biggest content creators for this game made 3 videos about this when they first dropped SBMM. Scott jund has made numerous videos about it, most recently in a video titled Top Ten Worst Decisions in Dead by Daylight History where SBMM was at number 1, Dowsey left the game partially due to SBMM and Tatariu as well.Now you're just changing arguments. DbD's player's count is healthy, there's no evidence that the introduction of SBMM had any noticeable impact on that. Those are just what the numbers indicate, whether certain people like it or not is a different issue.
-
@Orvarihusklumpen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3918008#Comment_3918008
Licenses makes people come back to game if there were no licensed content in this game and the game would have died a long time ago. A huge chunk of the playerbase left when SBMM was implemented in the game.
New content is critical to the game, its a live service game after all, and a big license can draw lots of players, but there's nothing about SBMM that seems to have affected the numbers. DbD got a jump in March 2020 into the 30k average player count and since then they've been between 30 and 40k since. You have a few outlier months in 2021 spurred by Resident Evil, and January 2024 where they dip slightly below, but looking at the data:
1: There is no evidence the game is in trouble, player counts are solid
2: There is no evidence SBMM had any noticeable positive or negative impact on player counts.
-
@UndeddJester said:
So while I was away we got a preview of Skull Merchant's rework... and not just the new direction, but the community reaction/feedback left me rather unsettled and deeply saddened.
The joy of a Set Up Killer
For those who don't know, I am a Pig main... I love setting up my RBTs, watching the RBT timers carefully to identify the possible patterns, and then (good chases willing), orchestrating scenarios where I put players into positions with difficult decisions to make around that RBT timer. I want to stress, it's not a case of trying to force a head pop (at least not often), it's more about using the threat of the head pop to predict survivor movement and squeeze the survivor team at the right time. Obviously this is harder to do against good survivors, and sometimes this backfires hard in your face... but this is where my enjoyment of the killer comes from.
Other killers I enjoy playing are Trapper, Myers, Hag, Sadako, and at one point Artist. The thing I tend to like about all of these killers is the set up, followed by the pay off. Maintaining a Web of traps in clever odd little places and then catching someone off guard is very enjoyable to me, and I really like Trapper and Hag for it. With Hag specifically I ban myself from trapping hooks, because maintaining my web is the part of her game I really enjoy.
For both Myers and Sadako, both are very much slowly building your power and paying attention to the map state to find the right moment to press your strength. Their strength manifests differently, but the point is slowly accumulating your threat and then finding the right moment to strike and hopefully put the survivor team in a very difficult to manage situation.
Artist is a bit of an outlier for me, but she also has elements of this setup/payoff to a degree, mostly where you can try to line up a double hit on someone at distance with a staggered crow combo, and then try to get the hit, maneuvering to cut them off from where they'll likely run. I also like the shotgun combo, where you hit a single crow then try to predict where the survivor will go before they can clear it to shotgun a hit. The two stage nature of Artists hits appeals to me.
https://c.tenor.com/9qn_nI927TYAAAAC/tenor.gif
The thing with all of these killers is I don't really care if I'm not the strongest killer in the game... I just enjoy trying to make a plan work and catching people out/off guard.
The Skull Merchant 2.0
Fun fact, I started playing DBD upon the launch of Skull Merchant... I don't remember the old days of DBD, but I do have a keen interest in DBD history and have read/watched hundreds of hours of content, guides and wiki information discussing the evolution of the game, old killer powers, changes and mechanics, etc.
I really liked Skull 2.0, yes I know she could be played in the lame poop drone at tile and make survivor leave style, but that wasn't what I liked about her. I liked the mechanic of dodging scanlines, combined with the idea of setting up drones to lock off paths and makes tiles unsafe once I pushed the survivor into my web.
I defended this killer a lot, because with this style 2.0 Skull Merchant could be played like a bonfied trap killer, an archetype not used since Hag.... Hag for christ sake! The drop trap at tile and push survivor away playstyle did suck to play as well as play against, I might do it at a REALLY strong tile, but I much preferred setting up drones and pushing survivors into them. Quite honestly if you just said "make it takes 2 seconds to set up a drone where SM can't move", I'd have still been happy.
I've got quite a firm idea what I want Skull Merchant to be, I've discussed her at length, and wpuld quite happily suggest it... however...
Skull Merchant Proposed Rework and the Community Reaction
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/441096/design-preview-the-skull-merchant
I'm not dumb, nor think I'm right and everyone else is wrong... I understand why BHVR took this route and I understand why people like this shift of design focus...
Broadly speaking I'd split killers up in the following categories: -
- Dash/Speed Steroid Killers
- Projectile Killers
- Teleport/Map Presense Killers
- Anti Loop/Zoning Killers
- Instadown Killers
- Stealth Killers
- Slowdown Killers
- Trap Killers
Some killers cross multiple categories, but generally speaking this can be uses to reflect vast majority of killer powers.
To my mind, dash/projectile killers achieve effectively the same thing in regards to their gameplay... they subvert loops by using speedy thing to land hits that would normally not be possible at base for the killer, mitigated by how well they aim and time their abilities. We have an abundance of these types of killers, particularly in more recent releases.
With Skull Merchants rework, it looks a lot like a dash/projectile killer. Fundamentally these remote controlled drones are likely to operate like Victor, or Engineers Fang Pinhead, or Snug, or remote Wesker/Hillbilly.
Meanwhile killers with slowdown and traps are not at all common. The need to "set up", or take time away from chases, combined with their low mechanical ability to force hits, tends to make these killers inherently weaker than their mechanically demanding dash and projectile counterparts...
I think the real shame and big concern for Skull Merchant is instead of her being modelled for a player type that doesn't have so many options to pick from... we instead throw her into the pool of killers where there are plenty of those style killers already...
It disappoints me immensely that no one ever wanted to talk about how SM 2.0 could be fixed, no one entertained the idea of trying to make this trap like killer work (despite numerous attempts to get the discussion going)... but once she's being made into yet another dash/projectile killer, every claps like seals knowing full well there is no reason to pick her over anyone else on the roster.
Similar Treatment to other Set Up Killers
All this is to say, the community reaction to Skull Merchant has made me realise that we'll likely never see another trap/set up style killer... The community doesn't want them on either side.
They refused to talk about Skull Merchant until she got made a dash/projectile killer, no one would talk about how to make her a fair and interesting set up killer.
They tried to gut Pig RBTs and push her ambush to be discount Chucky, because heaven forbid a killer doesn't have strong anti-loop or map mobility as their main strength.
Good luck getting a discussion going aboit Hag... The only posts about Hag is only about how shes a problem, only wanting to nerf her hook camping or make it stronger cause that's all that's "viable". There's never a discussion on making her web/setup better as a prominent part of her gameplay.
Trapper people just want Trappers Sack basekit so they can create an impenetrable 3 gen or a hard basement cheese from minute one. No need to plan, or think, brute force him into viability to create the most mundane gameplay loop possible.
I'm not insulting anyone... but there are times it feels like Killers are just being homogenised into some variation of Blight of Huntress, and everything else is just a problem to be fixed, or more often, swept under the rug and ignored.
I guess the one overwhelming thing missing from your post is:
How does it feel to play against?
Because I enjoy playing trap killers, I like a lot of things you talk about, but as a survivor? In the worst case scenarios its a combination of both being broken and boring.
Let's look at some of the other killer's you mentioned:
Other killers I enjoy playing are Trapper, Myers, Hag, Sadako, and at one point Artist. The thing I tend to like about all of these killers is the set up, followed by the pay off.Sadako and Artist (and Pig) - the strategy game here is a 1v1. This is markedly different than SM where the ability to take down her drones was much easier for a coordinated team than soloq. With Sadako/Pig I primarily have to worry about my own timer/condemn, I don't have to time my actions off the other survivors. Is it easier if working in a team? I bet, but all things SWF are.
Trapper/Hag - Jump scares are fun. Yeah the feeling fades after a lot of play, but that feeling as new/mid player when running through grass or jumping over an unknown vault is very exciting and worrying you're about to hit a trap.
The least enjoyable version of Trapper to go against is basement. As a survivor you basically know where the traps will be, you know the Trapper will be guarding the area so there's no surprise, and its much easier for a SWF to make a decision between 'just do gens' or 'go for group rescue'.
SM has none of the jump scare fun. The Drone's are just there. There's no tension or excitement on the survivor side, it's just a game of attack/defend, nothing that really approaches a thriller/horror genre.
Myers - I remember my first game against an infinite tombstone Myers and thinking afterward 'so when we spot him, we just try to run around corners, if we get gens done in time we win, if not he wins, while we play peak-a-boo', again games like that are not very engaging.
I think the real shame and big concern for Skull Merchant is instead of her being modelled for a player type that doesn't have so many options to pick from... we instead throw her into the pool of killers where there are plenty of those style killers already...Well the other options just work better. You don't have the overwhelming SWF/soloq disparity in playstyle and strength (Stealth would be the closest), you have a much more predictable game pacing and experience, you don't have situations where the game deadlocks because the killer has completed the setup and the survivors realize its suicide to attack, and you have more engagement from the survivors. Trap killers can work, but they face a lot of potential problems.
-
@Orvarihusklumpen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3917505#Comment_3917505
Well obviously but BHVR has made it clear these last 2-3 years with all the basekit buffs they have given the survivors that they favor 1 side and literally forcing killers to play in a specific way by nerfing certain playstyles i;e Anti-camp mechanic, Shoulder The Burden, basekit BT and the upcoming changes to slugging. New players are not going to stay in DBD once they see how bad the balance is and how "unfun" certain strategies are. they are going to play for a few hours and then leave. It's not a sustainable business model especially in assymetrical multiplayer game that doesn't have that big of an audience and considering that the devs have tried to balance this game for 3-4 years now ever since SBMM was introduced but still having core issues but instead of fixing those issues they put out band-aid fixes in form of perks. It is a party game at his heart and that's what it started out as and was the intention and majority of people see it as that. Make it fun, let killers have their busted #########, let survivors have their busted #########, Release OP perks on both sides and the numbers will grow, the players that previously left will come back. The more BHVR tries to balance this game, the more people leave. The game isn't enjoyable for newcomer, they keep balancing the game around newcomers and then when balance changes comes for them to (hopefully make them stay) but it's never enough because nothing is fun anymore. The devs are partially at fault, look at every single update they release and you both sides of the commmunity just hating each other. Each update survivors hate killers more and more and vice versa. Pentimento was bad for solo queue survivors,not against teams (not just 4-man SWF's by the way) and it was killer dependant. MFT was bad for the simple fact that you were messing with movement speed, a core component of the game. The latter had more of an impact across the board unless you were an A or S-tier killer. Yeah the player count looks absolutely fine…anyway back to earth, back to reality
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/YDAHTHK80OQ9/bhvr-palyercount.png
It's not a sustainable business model especially in assymetrical multiplayerThe game is approaching its 9th anniversary. You're saying something that has been sustainable far longer than most video games is somehow unsustainable.
The more BHVR tries to balance this game, the more people leave.Yeah the player count looks absolutely fine…anyway back to earth, back to realityYour image seems to be highlighting December, sure let's go off that, it tends to be a down month.
2024: 31.3k
2023: 31.2k
2022: 32.6k
2021: 44.6k
2020: 35.6k
2019: 23.1k
2018: 19.7k
2017: 13.6k
2016: 17.0k
That's a pretty good growth program through its first 5 years with a spike and then level off after the Covid boom.
And the 2024 December player drop is coming off three growth months for DBD, November/October/September saw pretty sizable player growth from the prior year. All data makes DbD player numbers look to be in a very healthy position, that's the reality.
-
@DeBecker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3917618#Comment_3917618
Why asking someone that only wants to win why they just rely on the cheapest methods? Its obvious. Cause its easy. Killer mains are mostly people who want easy games with sure wins. Those are entirely biased and have no neutral feedback to give. So no point in asking them.
I think this is basically right, but its just more about players and instead of mains. A similar survey in the past might have been:
Why do you run infinites?
Why do you destroy all the hooks?
Why did you bring BNPs and auto complete gens?
Players want to win games on both sides. Why they are running certain tactics seems pretty obvious and would be silly to have on a survey.