crogers271
crogers271
About
- Username
- crogers271
- Joined
- Visits
- 8,432
- Last Active
Comments
-
@WolfePhD said:
It makes me sad to see my favorite game falling apart. Would it really impact revenue to publish 3 chapters a year instead of 4? The effort put into the events for the entire year is the equivalent of a chapter in my book.
Would it really impact revenue to publish 3 chapters a year instead of 4?It would almost certainly have a substantial impact. Live service games rely upon a fairly constant stream of changes and variety to keep player base engagement.
-
@Spare_Them_Mori_Me said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3878740#Comment_3878740
And each survivor could do this to a totem, so there could be four boons up with all the powers for 5 perk slots?
I'd assume it would work like normal boons, and if you set one up, then someone else sets on up, yours disappears. It would require actual team planning to be really effective. Sounds like boon whack a mole in solo'Q lol
If having a max of one boon deployed was what was meant, that could work better. The survivors trade off the rare potential of having two boons set up for ease in getting boons going.
Though it feels like boons would become an absolute 'must have' where survivors should be using the comms to communicate what boon perks they have in soloq.
Survivors undoing each other boons would be my big worry. If this just leads to 'boon fights' as two survivors just keep reblessing the boons it would be an overall nerf.
-
So if I understand the idea:
Could each survivor bring 1 boon perk (with one survivor bringing two), and then when a totem is blessed it gets all five boons?
And each survivor could do this to a totem, so there could be four boons up with all the powers for 5 perk slots?
I really think boons should be buffed, but that seems to create a problem.
Now if we're talking 2v8 and they introduce a boon class and that class provides the ability for other players to do boons, I think that could work really well.
-
Sounds like a fun idea, but:
1: Technical aspect, there are lots of perks with charges and time. If I snap a picture of someone with off the record, I have to be hook, hit, and use the perk in 60 seconds for it to have any value. If I get a perk with charges do I get it with the charges they have, or whatever the perk would have started with?
2: I hate to be the guy (I really do because I hate when this is used as an argument for everything), but I feel like there are probably SWFs out there that this would be insanely strong on. Passing around shoulder the burden, being able to pass the anti-tunnel build to the person actually being tunneled, etc.
3: In soloq this feels like throwing. I imagine a week of soloq disaster as survivors just run around copying builds and not doing objectives.
I feel like a 'chaos plus' mode where perks change during the course of the match would be a better idea for mid match craziness.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3877436#Comment_3877436
I don't envy the devs here. The result of the match is typically determined by the efforts of the whole of the survivor side (the 4). So it might be 'fairer' to look at the end result when looking at MMR, opposed to simply looking at 'did you die?' Heroic sacrifices are a non-factor regarding MMR, for example, even though it may very well have allowed the other three to escape. Conversely, it'd also be brutally unfair if the rest of the survivors get screwed over by a teammate actively sabotaging the match.
But the devs also emphasise that teamwork is not obligatory. 'Survive together… or not,' or something akin to that. So then you have to look at the individual survivor's 'performance', and the only truly consistent measure of that is whether they escaped or not.
So… what do we do? What do we want, even? I don't think we, as in the community at large, are ever going to be able to agree on that.
PS.: I vaguely recall Emblems also slightly contributed towards your MMR rating. No idea if that's actually true, and I'm also way too bad with numbers to make any accurate statement regarding their influence.
I don't envy the devs here.But the devsalsoemphasise that teamwork is not obligatory. 'Survive together… or not,' or something akin to that. So then youhaveto look at the individual survivor's 'performance', and the only truly consistent measure of that is whether they escaped or not.So… what do we do? What do we want, even? I don't think we, as in the community at large, are ever going to be able to agree on that.So this is generally kind of how I feel. The devs have a difficult situation that they have made more difficult for themselves.
On the other hand, and the thread discussing Almo's post made me think a lot more about this, DbD is an extremly successful game surrounded by a litany of failed asymms. DbD wants the players to value multiple things on the survivor side, personal escape as well as team escape. It does this through a mish mash of various points and rewards that, somehow, actually get people to generally play the way the devs would want - a mix of personal desires along with altruism.
So are we ever going to agree? Probably not, which is probably what BHVR wants for the game, different players valuing different things.
Basically; people having different values is a feature, not a bug.
-
@GentlemanFridge said:
I think it's partially a result of trying to arbitrarily define a 'tie', as well as the MMR system. To me, a 'tie' implies a stalemate. Both parties have exhausted all of their options and cannot progress the game/match, or achieved the exact same result. It's impossible for either party to win, or to lose, so it's a tie.
(forgive the train-of-thought style, i am "thinking out loud", so to speak)
With DbD, it's much trickier to define a tie, because of the opposing objectives. It's impossible for both parties to run out of options at the same time (aside from bugs), so you'd have to look at both parties achieving the same result. What would that even mean in the context of DbD? The survivors are trying to complete the gens and get out through the gates. If at least 2 survivors escape, that means they did just that. So, by all means, the killer failed their objective. Moreover, there's no obvious killer equivalent of only getting 3 gens done. Maybe you could argue it's the amount of hooks they got. But some players don't care about how many hooks they got, as long as they score kills, so that can't be our definitive answer.
In the case of a 2k, the killer completed their half of their objective, but failed the other half. But then, did the survivor fail half of their objective? I wouldn't say so, since they still got all gens done and at least one gate open. Still, it's the closest we can get to both parties achieving the same result. But then, it can hardly be called the 'same result', since it's still fundamentally opposed.
So do we then look at individual survivors? Again, in the case of a 2k, did the survivors win two times, and lose two times? I believe Patrick Harris was talking about this on a dev stream some time ago when he explained the MMR system. His answer was to not actually define a tie. They went with the killer winning/losing twice, and the 'win/loss' counting for each individual survivor. This is ultimately what the MMR system is based on, and what a good amount of players have adopted as their own metric, which had previously never been defined. But it's still weird, 'cause this system implies that both the killer and survivors can 'win', to a degree. How can a game with fundamentally opposed sides see both parties as a partial winner?
Ultimately, I think, it's determined by what you actually play the game for. If you only care for kills, you have the simplest metric possible. Do you only care for hooks? That gets much more abstract and personal. Do you only care for some good chases? I don't even know if you can define that with any kind of metric.
But it's still weird, 'cause this system implies that both the killer and survivors can 'win', to a degree. How can a game with fundamentally opposed sides see both parties as a partial winner?So the thread has gotten me thinking about this a bit.
Have you ever seen one person play multiple others in chess at the same time? Like one person playing 4 chess games simultaneously. A DbD trial is kind of like that, 4 individual games happening at once.
In the chess example, how does the person playing others rate their performance if they win 2 games and lose 2 games? And if you are on the other side, how do you rate your performance if you win your game, but the other 3 lose? You won, yes, but the person you were playing was severely handicapped.
Now, there are differences of course. DbD is actually designed for a 1v4, whereas the chess example above the 'one' is either considerably more skilled or just imposing a challenge on themselves. But that's how MMR works. The 'trial' isn't the game, there are four individual games, just as the chess example is 4 individual games happening at the same time and how you rate the overall performance is up to you.
Things would obviously be clearer if MMR was team based on the survivor side, but BHVR has designed the MMR to be like the chess example. But MMR is invisible, so whether we worry about it or not is totally up to the player.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3876597#Comment_3876597
To comment on the idea of multiple people having differing ideas, how would you control for some people just flat out being wrong?
Take an example for another game that has an extremely clear win condition, something like Overwatch. If two people had differing ideas for what the win condition is on say, a payload map… one of them would just be wrong, and them being wrong wouldn't be evidence of Overwatch not having a win condition.
In that instance, we could clearly see that one person is wrong, but what's different between DBD and that game? What does Overwatch have to make its win condition clear, and that DBD lacks?
Payload is a good thing to use as a comparison, though I've never played Overwatch I'll go off payload modes I've played in other games.
Payload, especially with ranked, gives each side a turn to push. The win condition is not to push the payload to the end, that's the objective, the win condition is to do so better than the other team does. That win condition cannot be applied to DbD because its asymmetrical, both sides aren't doing the same objectives, there's not as clear of a line where one side outperforms the other.
Which is a huge difference between 'winning' and 'having objectives'.
Additionally, its how the game is laid out. Imagine if a game had payload, but when entering the player choose to play attacker or defender and each side had unique characters. Further, let's say pushing the payload to the end was a relatively rare feat, and that the game creators assigned varying MMR totals based on how many checkpoints where past. At that point players would begin to ask 'how far do I have to push the payload for it to be considered a win'.
To comment on the idea of multiple people having differing ideas, how would you control for some people just flat out being wrong?Community, creators, singular goal.
1: Community - if like 95% of the people were playing the game toward a certain goal, and the other 5% where doing something different, easy to say they are outside the norm. But when they split into a variety of groups and desires, you don't have a win condition.
2: Creators - If they literally say 'this is a win, this is not a win' sure helps, but BHVR has explicitly avoided doing that.
3: Singular goal - If the game has a goal that only one side can achieve. Comp has this, win objectives are clear, which team outperforms the other along stated metrics. Payload - who pushed the payload farther or faster. Team Deathmatch - who killed more of the other team.
-
@jesterkind said:
I want to make it clear what I'm asking here, so bear with me.
I see this notion pop up a lot, that there's no win condition for DBD so players have to come up with their own. I cannot understand this position, personally, because the win conditions are so obvious to me (with slight ambiguity that does exist) that I can't see how anyone could think the game doesn't have one.
I'm not here to argue whether or not what I see as the win condition is correct, though. I want to know why people think it's not clear. Is there something missing from the game that would define the win condition for you? If so, what is it? If not, what led you to your position about there not being a win condition?
I hope it's clear, I don't mean to shame or lambast anyone here. This is a post made very much in good faith to try and understand the opposing position in this discussion.
Well I've talked about this with you in another thread, but I'll try to lay it out in more detail.
1: The fact that people disagree about it kind of proves the point. Even if I say I have a win condition, and someone else has a different one, that shows there isn't a clear win condition.
I played a lot more of Deathgarden before I got into DbD, and the lack of clarity was even more confusing there. How many scavengers (survivors) needed to be killed for a killer win? Did it matter if they just hid until the timer ran out?
Basically if the win condition is super clear to you, and the win condition is super clear to someone else, but the two of you have different win conditions, well than the game doesn't have a win condition.
2: DbD is unique in degree of victory. Most types games you either win or lose (second place is just the first loser for example). Winning by a lot might make a statement, and is sometimes used as a tie breaker, but the win is the absolute most important thing.
The only thing I know of that I can compare DbD to is a board game called Diplomacy. In the standard version there are 7 players who are eliminated over the course of the game and the ultimate goal is to be the last player. However, most games don't actually result in a single remaining player, it usually results in a stalemate, a common one being where one player gets strong, but two players ally to match him in strength and the game cannot progress (quite literally the game deadlocks). In that case all three remaining players 'win', but they don't win as if one player had won the game entirely.
So in this game the conditions are clear - don't get eliminated, and eliminate everyone else. But what about all of the middle case scenarios that can arise? If you play over many games how do evaluate your performance? And how much risk/value do you put on trying to achieve a last player standing goal at the risk of being eliminated?
3: MMR confuses the issue more on the killer side. The killer has five possible outcomes (0k, 1k, 2k, 3k, 3k+hatch, 4k). 4k, 1k, 1k and 3k, 3k, 0k have the same overall MMR result even if a player might feel very differently about those mixes of games. The community definition would be a win and 2 losses vs 2 wins and a loss, but the MMR cares that the one win was a large win and the losses were small losses.
Win a lot and win a little are more statistically significant than the difference is in other games.
4: Win condition, singular, is different than win conditions, plural. We're back to degrees here. If there is more than one thing I consider a win condition, and I accomplish some, but not all of them, then we have an unclear thing.
5: On survivor side the way people play the game can not be boiled down to a single win condition. Survivors, who have a guaranteed escape will risk it to go back for a hook, but they also won't blindly run into a suicidal situation.
If the win condition was escape, nothing else, then the other survivor is pointless. If the win condition was total escapes at all costs, then survivors should try to rescue no matter the almost certain death (as happens in comp sometimes).
What we have though is not a win condition, but different things of value, your own escape and the escape of other survivors. Different players value them in different ways. This is a departure from most games, where players differ on strategy (how do I accomplish X objective), but here players differ on strategy and goal (how do I accomplish my objectives, and how much value do I attach to X and Y).
-
My conspiracy theory - DbD isn't a game, its a psychological experiment testing how we all behave. Tell a group of people (survivors), that the only thing that matters is their personal survival, but don't tell them that the only way they can accomplish this is by working together. See how the playerbase evolves. Do they inherently develop comradery and empathy for their fellow players? Do they sacrifice for each other? Does antagonism develop between the survivor and killer communities?
Also with things like sweatiness. We'll put obviously broken things into the game and see whether the community just self-policies the behavior.
And of course, don't give either side a win condition and see if they just create one on their own.
That's the conspiracy: we're all test subjects and the paper they were going to write got delayed because the game became very popular.
-
I'll keep it to the 3 big things I think should happen that aren't total game overhauls
1: When a survivor can get off the hook because of deliverance, wicked, or anti-camp, their aura should be displayed in a different color (or otherwise clearly indicated). This would make these very important perks usable in soloq.
-giving more information to survivors on what perks are being used by other survivors would be a generally good idea, but I think the above would be by far the most impactful.
2: There needs to be a fix for survivors going next so quickly. If the first hooked survivor tries to kobe right away it ruins the game. I think the game would be fine if no unhook attempts could be attempted in the first 3 minutes (barring a guaranteed escape), but there are lots of suggestions out there for possible solutions.
3: A fix for slugging for the 4k and slugging builds. Knockout should be totally reworked and blindness perks reconsidered. If all survivors but one are down, they should have rapidly increased bleedout and/or a give up option. Sitting around on the ground isn't fun, and killers trying to get that 4k are a good example of players maximizing the fun out of games.
General suggestion: I've heard in a stream the desired kill rate is 60% to 65% percent. I think a goal of 55% to 60% is a much better target.
-
@Langweilig said:
And how much do they take into account when changing things?
And is suggesting new things even worth your time, when it will most likely never get added (even no good ideas)?
I've been fortunate enough to have the devs respond to a few of my posts, usually in the feedback section
The main thing is to polite and understanding. 'BHVR fix your stupid game!' is unlikely to get any engagement from them. Likewise, they'll probably have reasons for why your idea can't be implemented and/or won't work. It's possible that you'll disagree with that, but they have a very broad community to be concerned with.
-
I see lots of people talking about different asymms and arguing over high MMR.
I've only played DbD and Deathgarden really, but looking at the Steam charts for these games (Evolve version 1 I couldn't track down), lot of these games saw extremely quick player count drops.
VHS went from 6k to 2.5k in a month, and was in the hundreds within three months.
Level Zero Extraction went from 2.6k to 500 within a month.
Evolve Stage 2 went from 51k to 13.8k in a month, and was within the hundreds within six months.
TCM, which has done much better than other asymms, went from 17k to 4k within 2 months, and then was in the low thousands/high hundreds after that.
It is normal for games to drop off, but the reason I cite how quick these games went is saying the problem was high MMR doesn't make sense. You aren't losing 90%+ of the player base within a month because of high MMR issues. For more likely explanations are:
A: the game just isn't that fun (or just fun for a short while)
B: mastering the game was quick enough that everyone got to the high MMR level really quickly, which is a bigger problem than balance issues
For comparison, DbD kept a player count of 10k+ its first few months (before Myers was ever introduced), only seeing relatively minor month to month changes. It kept that player count for years, before seeing sustained jumps in 2018 and another in 2020 (when people seem to agree the game was significantly survivor sided).
Looking at the data, it sure seems like those games just weren't as fun or enjoyable for players in the long run as DbD is.
-
You miss the true purpose of MMR coming into conversations: if one day MMR is publicly revealed it has the potential to be hilarious.
@Aven_Fallen said:
Agree. Especially because those players dont know their MMR. E.g. I face Otz from time to time, but this does not mean that my MMR is as high as his. It just means that I went over the Soft Cap, but I can still be miles under his MMR.
Let alone that people who claim to be high MMR lose games all the time (according to them). This does not add up. Plus, it is unlikely that they are on a special Server with only good players, while others experience random Matchmaking.
And this is what happens - it is random Matchmaking. MMR basically only separates new players from experienced players, I think the vast majority is above the Soft Cap and therefore in one big pool of players. That BHVR also prioritizes queue times over Matchmaking-Fairness adds to this. You can get a strong Killer/Survivors in one game and in the next game the other side plays like they dont know if they are playing DBD or Minecraft.
I think the vast majority is above the Soft Cap and therefore in one big pool of players.I think 'vast majority' really depends on on what we define as the player base. Having seen the amount of hours many people put into this game from the stat emails, it would be surprising if they weren't high up.
But I think there are lots of players, the type who don't go to forums, who play the game once or twice a week, or maybe intensely a couple weeks out of the year when events come around and notifications pop up.
Everyone who puts 100s of hours into the game tends to associate with each other. Those players should be at the top just from the experience they have, but I suspect there is a very large pool of casual, occasional players.
-
Like @GentlemanFridge my longest was also against a Knight on Dead Dawg Saloon, though fortunately he did not have the corner gen setup.
Soloq, took us around 40 minutes to finally break the 3 gen. I was really happy to have pulled it off, but also said if I was ever in that situation again, I was going to uninstall until they fixed 3 genning (which, eventually, they did).
-
Two weeks seems to be a good length, with the option to extend it an extra week if the player count for that modifier is high. I think that gives BHVR time to work on the mod before the next version, gives us time to play it, but doesn't overstay its welcome.
If they ever get 2v8 to a place where they are aren't making radical overhauls to it between releases, that might become the indefinite exception.
-
@Almo said:
I wrote this over on Reddit about asymmetic horror games and how they relate to DBD.
It's funny that there is a much longer thread going on where someone copied the post, compared to this one that you made.
Anyway, thank you for posting your thoughts. I do wish it was more about asymms in general instead of what felt like VHS vs DBD, but I really appreciated reading it.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3875241#Comment_3875241
CoconutRTS said that Deathgarden failed because it was too easy for the hunter to eliminate one of the scavengers early & no reason not to do it, and he played Deathgarden before ever touching DBD. I trust his judgement, especially since I see him as someone who favors the killer side but is generally able to come up with balanced takes despite that.
My takeaways from that are that BHVR need to do a better job of both incentivizing spreading pressure and making tunneling less feasible.
As someone who really liked Deathgarden, played a lot of it at a time that I didn't think DbD was even a good game, let me say that is true, though Deathgarden had a lot of problems.
Hunters were overpowered as a balance issue, but worse it just felt like there was nothing you could do. Hunters could jump, stun, headshot in such quick order and there wasn't really any counterplay. Which is a huge pity, because before Hunters mastered everything BHVR gave them the game was an incredibly fun mix of chases, hiding, and decision making.
-
It's interesting how many people here seem to have played a lot of VHS, especially given how small its player base was.
I haven't played VHS, though I watched some games, and I wished this post dealt with more games out there.
@TwinsMain2004 said:
He posted this to reddit a little while ago so im just gonna copy and paste it here if the mods dont mind as i think he says some interesting things about the killer role is horror asyms
Disclaimer: after 6 fun years of working on DBD with an amazing team, I've moved on to another studio to work on something new. These opinions are mine, and not those of Behaviour Interactive.
First, it's extremely hard to set up an asymmetric game of any kind that works. From a game design perspective, you're not able to assume that any rule fair to one side is fair to the other. Worse, asym horror games tend to put multiple players against 1. There are a whole host of reasons this is difficult to get right, but that's a huge topic better left to another discussion.
With regard to games that set out to compete with DBD, they often start by saying "we're gonna fix X which is a deep problem with DBD". Why not learn from the competition, right? Well, sometimes it then turns out that X is something that makes DBD work.
I was a VHS (Video Horror Society) early adopter, and a Superfan (large DLC purchase); I'll use this one as an example. Much of the discussion of how this game works comes from my 110 hours spent with the game as well as discussions with my Twitch audience.
VHS failed in large part because the Monster couldn't tunnel or camp. It seems clear to me from the design that they looked at DBD and figured that the biggest thing its players hate is tunneling and camping, so they eliminated those tactics.
But that meant the Monster ended up fighting 4 Teens most of the match, and there was no way to deal with a particularly difficult Teen. You'd finally kill one, and then they'd get the book of the dead and you're at 4 again. It was miserable to play Monster, so few did. I am a DBD Killer main, and I even gave up playing Monster because it was so miserable to play. I'd rather wait in a 15-minute Teen queue and play something else in the meantime than deal with that.
The difficulty in killing one Teen early also made its 25-minute matches feel very samey the whole way. DBD matches have phases: 4 Survivors, 3 Survivors, do we try to finish gens or hatch jockey, hatch hunt. That results in large shifts in play style over the course of one match. There are issues with some of these stages, but that they are present adds variety to each match.
There was also the ping system, another response to something DBD is perceived to be lacking. It hurt the atmosphere and made it much more gamey. Also, it meant Teens had a much easier time learning to coordinate against the Monster.
Then there were the Journeys; these were sets of challenges for players to do to earn stuff. Nice in principle. But some of these encouraged VERY bad behavior on the part of the Teens. Imagine you're losing as Monster; the Teens have one more Sigil of the four to take to win. Instead, they keep chain stunning you with the other attack types in order to fulfill their Journey requirements. They're encouraged not to win, but to bully the Monster for their unlocks. We can't fault the players... they're just behaving in the ways that the systems encourage.
But part of this issue steams from another thing they wanted to fix from DBD: "We want more interaction between the Killer and Survivors, and we'd like to be able to hinder the Killer more than we can in DBD." One reason DBD works is that the Survivors try to do gens to open the gates, and the Killer tries to stop them. It's never about stopping the Killer, but delaying them until you can get the gates open and escape. In VHS the Teens want to kill the Monster and the Monster wants to kill the Teens. I would argue that the goal structure being set up like this means DBD can give the most important thing to the players: the sense of an unstoppable Killer. When I boot into a game as a Killer, I don't want to be afraid there might be a Survivor lurking around any corner with a weapon. I want to go in and watch them scatter like rabbits when I come near.
This brings up what's called "ludonarrative dissonance". When you see VHS or DBD advertised, you are being sold "80s movie monster runs around murdering civilians". What you get in DBD is largely that. In VHS, it's considerably harder to kill individual Teens, and so you're not getting what you were sold. You may have a difficult time actually completing kills in DBD as it's difficult to learn to play. But that's a totally different feeling than what you get in VHS where so many systems and rules are set up to make it systemically difficult to kill a Teen.
It's easy to give reasons like "DBD has the licenses", "it has more content", or "it's already established" as reasons for competitors' failures. Or that "they didn't market it right", or "their early access was not done well". VHS shipped with 3 monsters, 6 teens, and 3 maps. Over the course of their one-year early access, they released 2 new Monsters, 1 Teen, and 2 Maps. They tweaked a lot of things, and listened to player feedback. It was very impressive for such a small team.
But my experience as someone who was on the DBD team for 6 years and having played VHS and Evil Dead quite a lot is that these competitors just aren't as much fun.
Like it or not, despite its flaws, DBD is a brilliant game that's just fun to play and competitors have to beat that part to survive. Focusing on DBD's flaws and fixing those first is the wrong way to go about it.
I'm never happy when my fellow game developers slave away on a game for years (VHS was in the works for 5 years) and then fail and lose their jobs. They worked hard, they cared about their game, and it's clear they put everything they had into it. The studio behind VHS unfortunately appears to be gone now, and that's a shame.
First, it's extremely hard to set up an asymmetric game of any kind that works.I think this is absolutely true and asymms add on layers of complexity to the already complex process of developing a successful video game. I also think its really important to bring up when people say 'but in other games'. Assyms are very unique.
Well, sometimes it then turns out that X is something that makes DBD work.This is true, though generally true about entertainment in general. Sometimes the things that are disliked are actually necessary to give value to other things.
What exactly are they though is an incredibly tough question.
VHS failed in large part because the Monster couldn't tunnel or camp.I complain about tunneling and camping, but I can see this being true. Its all about degrees. No basekit BT strikes me as absurd and pointless, but so does the idea of survivors coming off the hook as untouchable ghosts. In an elimination game the right balance needs to be struck between 'totally safe' and 'no chance'.
That said, from the times I watched VHS, monster (and the game as a whole) just seemed dull and not related to balance at all.
This brings up what's called "ludonarrative dissonance".Massive problem with Deathgarden actually, though in a different way.
There was also the ping system, another response to something DBD is perceived to be lacking. It hurt the atmosphere and made it much more gamey.I think this point gets missed out on the forums a lot. A game has to have fun, theme, etc. That will die off eventually, but you need that element to actually make the game worth playing to the point that the feeling fades away.
One reason DBD works is that the Survivors try to do gens to open the gates, and the Killer tries to stop them.I think this is a really good point (though one Deathgarden also failed on this in its first version), that actually misses the true mark.
Both sides in DbD have differing goals, and have numerous ways that they can try and accomplish those. Killer can defend gens, spread pressure, tunnel, snowball, etc. This is true for survivors as well, they can gen rush, they can slow play and heal up, but they can also harass the killer (looping builds, flashlights, body blocks, etc) to slow down his objective.
Having this variety of possible ways to accomplish the same goal I think is one of the reasons DbD has had such a long life. Survivors should never be able to 'beat' the killer, but that doesn't mean they need to 'scatter like rabbits' to make the game appealing. And it would be a bad way to approach a game design because fear is a feeling that quickly disappears in video games, so you can't count on it if you want the game to have a long life.
But my experience as someone who was on the DBD team for 6 years and having played VHS and Evil Dead quite a lot is that these competitors just aren't as much fun.Like it or not, despite its flaws, DBD is a brilliant game that's justfunto play and competitors have to beatthatpart to survive. Focusing on DBD's flaws and fixing those first is the wrong way to go about it.Probably the best part of this, and also the part that is easiest to miss. It's hard to define why DbD is fun, but it is hitting the right mix for a lot of players.
-
I haven't had any issues with the times.
The issue when queues are long is not really how many people, that's only a factor if its a very small amount, but the proportion per role.
-
@Ayodam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3874427#Comment_3874427
Killers are indeed slugging in Chaos Shuffle. There’s no respite there.
Yeah, it happens, but its a different beast.
Slugging for bleedout is always annoying and its own problem.
Slugging without knockout, especially a full knockout build, is annoying and makes for a boring game.
Slugging with a full knockout build makes me want to uninstall the game.
-
@LockerLurk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3874361#Comment_3874361
I guess now I am just scared: what will be the next thing people complain about after Slugging is handled, what is the next "bridge too far", insurmountable problem for Survivors after slugging is handled? Will Killers I like get nerfed because the Survivors hate some minor niggle of their play? Will maps be worsened because now Killers don't have as much ability to pressure by downing people this way? That learned behavior of blaming the other side won't go away once ingrained. And we have had 8 years to ingrain it.
That learned behavior of blaming the other side won't go away once ingrained.I kind of get this, but its also just what the game is.
It would be like saying killer complaints have been ingrained and that's why we:
-don't have old, old deadhard
-don't have old mft
-don't have old circle of healing
-don't have the ftp+buckle up combo
-don't have the unhookable builds
-don't have old deadhard
It's not just the nature of games for things to change, it is explicitly what live service games seek to do - keep an ever evolving game environment. They listen to what players say they are having a problem with, they look at their data, and they make changes.
And while I think BHVR's execution of changes has had problems, I think they are correct in prioritizing fun as one of the key issues. Old DH were you had to always presume survivors had it and do fake swings wasn't fun and ruined the game flow, old circle of healing drew out matches, having an unhookable survivor was silly.
It's happened plenty of times to things on both sides.
-
Glad we have Chaos Shuffle at the moment to avoid it.
Kind of echoing what others have said, but slugging changes were likely coming. All this is doing is potentially speeding up the changes and making them more extreme.
-
Thanks for posting this, I would have missed the updated stats message otherwise. I can now rest assured that I'm the Sadako main I always believed I was.
-
@GalacticGrass said:
Let's say a generator is added to the basement of each map. This generator is worth 2 completed generators once complete. How does this effect the core gameplay?
What strategies would present themselves if this were implemented? What downsides are there?
'A gen is added' - if by this you mean there are now 8 gens on the map, it would be a massive boost to the survivors.
If you mean one of the 7 gens always spawns in basement - having it be worth two, the killer has to three gen. He has to defend this gen and the area around it. It would be far too easy for survivors to bring prove / toolboxes and just wait for the killer to get too far away from the gen and go down and smash it out.
It would also require massive reworking of maps because where basement spawns is very different to get to depending on the map.
Invocations would also be more pointless than they already are.
@GalacticGrass said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3874156#Comment_3874156
I do like the idea of some form of objective with a high risk high reward being implemented into dead by daylight. Currently we have invocations, which are perks that provide decent reward with a decent risk attached to it. Possibly making the generator in the basement have some pretty high negatives to counter-act the reward of 2 completions, like auto regression or 1.5x the amount of charges. It'd make perks like Specialist and Scavenger have a little more niche to their name.
I do like the idea of some form of objective with a high risk high reward being implemented into dead by daylight.You could add something like a golden generator into the game. Every game one gen is golden. Completing it counts as a regular completion, but it conveys some type of benefit (not as major as what you suggest). You probably don't want it to be basement, because basement already serves a number of purposes, instead having it be one of the more central gens. It would probably be necessary to also have it take some more time to complete, how much depends on the level of benefits we are talking.
This could impose a type of 'I know, he knows, that I know, he knows' type of game where the killer knows that the survivors want that gen, but the survivors know the killer wants to defend it, so both sides have reasons to go there or not.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3874164#Comment_3874164
There's so many posts on these forums that just come off as whining and the killer is just denying everyone fun. WHY DO YOU HATE FUN YOU VILE KILLER!!! -grabs pitchfork- When discussing why people felt the need to kill themselves against SM, I'd get ppl saying I shouldn't have picked a killer that ppl hate, but... People hate EVERY SINGLE KILLER it seems... I saw a complaint against Bubba for daring to try to down ppl with his saw rather than M1ing. What's the fun way I can try to win that's gonna result in ppl dying and saying "That was EXACTLY the kind of match I come here for. I had so much fun."
You kind of have to go into those threads and ask people what they mean there.
As others have said, different people have complaints about different things. It's kind of hard to respond to a nebulous statement that is referring to multiple posters. If I did, we'd probably be talking about two different things.
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3874100#Comment_3874100
Found it...
https://youtu.be/wmyh6gVq_qA?si=ZKxEPqSgtzqqqJhE
BESIDES the constant commentary of gen defense perks, this was kind of a crazy match with regard to gen speed. It kinda draws attention to just how drastically gen speed can be affected by perks. I honestly doubt any specific gameplay could've changed this match's outcome. If Xeno COULDVE been able to match this speed with hooks... wouldn't that just show Xeno needs a nerf? What was the play here? You could argue he wasted like 10ish seconds at the start getting his power, but thats about it.
I'd like to see what perks the survivors were running to get a better idea on the strategy, but:
Major issue: why does he just stay by main? He's playing away from the generators into one of the stronger survivor sections of the map. Of course those gens are going to get done.
Other issues
-He's running unbound / dark arrogance / superior anatomy / bamboozle. I've seen Alien's run window perks before, which seems strange to me because windows aren't as huge a threat to the Alien as they are to other killers, but this is just overkill.
—Despite having ways to block windows, he takes time at the start of the match to destroy the door next to the window while survivors should be on the other side of the map doing gens (he's just allowing the side that is easier to defend to be picked apart).
*If you aren't going to use corrupt, you can't play the match the same way you would have with corrupt to prove that corrupt is needed.
-During the entire match he really is only ever in the area of 2 gens, one of which he is actively saying he can't defend.
—So basically - 'hey guys, this is the weakest area of the map, watch as I try and defend it to prove that I needed gen defense perks'
1:30 - he wastes time walking around the upstairs to destroy another door.
-He misidentifies what the guy on hook does, thinking he is trying to kill himself, but that guy then makes the death saves in the second stage. He's going against a squad that is trying to gen rush and is willing to take the 4% chance.
-1:50 - "possibly a balanced player" it should have been obvious that some exhaustion perk was in use when he dropped off and the survivor was no where in sight. He doesn't kick the gen, he doesn't pursue the survivor, he doesn't even think about that there is probably a second survivor in the area, he goes back towards main where the gen is already done (and if the survivor had looped better wouldn't have been caught)
-2:35 - the survivors aren't doing any type of looping, but they don't need to, they're just pulling him away from gens.I honestly doubt any specific gameplay could've changed this match's outcome.He should have gone to a different section off the start.
Even if not running gen defense, this was a weak build ('meme build' he calls it).
He should have seen that the survivors were spending no time setting up turrets, they were just smashing gens. This means three things:
1: He needed to identify an area of the map that he wanted to play around.2: He should have been trying set up some kind of snowball.
3: That this is unlucky, you bring an anti-loop build and the survivor bring genrush you are in trouble, but that's the nature of the game on both sides, sometimes you guess right/wrong on the build.
He's not really pursuing any strategies. Never slug, no defense of either the hook or gens, taking chases that he shouldn't to bad areas.
A killer, with a weak build, playing on the bad side of the map, while talking with his chat - it shouldn't be a surprise if he lost to a survivor team that had the right strategy. -
@Roco45 said:
The issue is SWF, it's not an issue with Surv in general or even Killer. SWF is ruining the game for everyone else.
The problem with this, and Pulsar pointed this out, lots of what survivors are complaining about and is getting discussed in this thread, are soloq stomping strategies. Slugging and face camping are relatively easily to deal with for a 4 person SWF.
-
@TwinsMain2004 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3873827#Comment_3873827
kill rate is not win rate
I forgot the exact metric but you can win like 3 times as killer then get a draw like 7 times in a row and it'd be a 60% kill rate
dont quote me on the stats as i forgot the but its basically this
A 60% kill rate could hypothetical result in as low as a 20% win rate, but there are three key problems with this point
1: A 60% kill rate could also hypothetically lead to an 80% win rate.
2: In a 20% win rate hypothetical, the killer has a 0% loss rate, which somehow gets overlooked whenever it gets mentioned.
3: Nightlight data gives us a pretty general indication of where a 60% kill rate ends up on the win rate scale - A 52 to 55% win rate, a draw rate of 11 to 15% and a loss rate of 31 to 35%.
A 60% kill rate almost certainly results in the killer winning considerably more games than they lose, and likely winning more games than they lose and draw.
-
@Iron_Cutlass said:
So I was playing Chaos Shuffle and the Killer (Huntress) burns a Damaged Photo (Offering) to send us to Mount Ormond. They were using the Wooden Fox add-on to be perma-Undetectable for most of the game.
The entire game they do nothing by protect a 3-Gen set-up near the Main Building and the Generator spread is so tight that you practically dont have time to get any repair progress unless you are willing to dodge Hatchets. 2 of the Generators are located in Deadzones as well, so working on them in insanely risky.
One of our teammates realizes that they are protecting the 3-Gen set-up, runs into the Killer intentionally, gets hooked, and gives up on hook. So we are forced to deal with a 3v1 against a 3-Gen Huntress.
This Huntress, btw, would not dedicate to any form of chase, they would drop chase to go and check on the Generators and 95% of their time was spent on a balcony overseeing all the Generators and would only occasionally jump off to pressure a Generator if it got above 20% progress.
THIS GAME LASTED 30-MINUTES BEFORE ANOTHER SURVIVOR WAS KILLED.
And it was the result of a teammate giving up, pushing us into a 2v1, an easily winnable position from the Huntress, they can just dedicate to a chase and be fine, and guess what… she STILL wont leave the 3-Gen set-up.
At this point, I was considering on just running into the Huntress because this game had been a massive waste of time since it is abundantly clear that the Huntress does not care about actually chasing or downing Survivor and just wants to guard the 3-Gen for as long as possible.
Keep in mind as well that the other Survivor was not repairing Generators, they were too afraid to enter the 3-Gen. I was the only Survivor actively pushing the Objective forwards and trying to progress the game, but because it is my progress versus the Huntress's regression, I cant really make any meaningful progress. I do have Deja Vu to get an extra repair bonus but it is meaningless.
Eventually, around the 40-minute mark, they actually dedicate to a chase and down my teammate.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/ZFWIA3VU8LWT/screenshot-from-2025-01-19-11-55-52.png
THEY ARE NOW SLUGGING MY TEAMMATE TO GET A 4K. THEY ARE STILL PROTECTING THE 3-GEN. AND IT IS 40-MINUTES INTO A GAME.
Screenshot was taken because I had to take a really round-a-bout way to pick them up, which means going the opposite direction from the Generator I was repairing. Since they are perma-Undetectable from Wooden Fox, the most information youll get is the Haze instead of the Heart Beat.
The Killer did eventually kill all of us, but the game lasted 40-50 minutes, but it easily could have been shorter had the Huntress left the 3-Gen to dedicate to chases.
Would this be considered "taking the game hostage"?
No, it isn't. I definitely would not want to be in this game though.
Killers can't be reported for exploiting BHVR's bad map design, anymore than survivors could be for making themselves unhookable.
I disagree with @PetTheDoggo on who can be reported, this got covered back in the Chess Merchant days. Survivors aren't obligated to rush into a defended 3 gen, just like the killer is not required to leave it. I'd post the comment from then, but this forum feels impossible to search.
-
@king_ab said:
They want killers to play in a certain way that benefits the survivors but not the other way around. How much are you willing to sacrifice before you end up 30 minutes in survivor queue because you cannot deal with killers doing certain ways that makes you cringe or DC? Player agency is being reduced over the years. Killers already aren't allowed to facecamp, to tunnel, to 3-gen because of 8x anti-gen regression, to breathe so much into your direction, and I'm pretty sure that soon Slugging will be forbidden as well with UB basekit added in a future patch.
I am certain that at some point of this game's lifetime will become so one directional that no killer is willing to play thus I end up not playing survivor anymore because of the queue times.
This is like arguing that removing infinites took away player agency.
Both sides need agency and exercising that agency should require relatively equal levels of skill.
That was the problem with face camping. The killer could just stand there and all of the work was on the survivors to pull off the rescue.
You can still camp if you want, you just have to put a little more thought into it.
That was the problem with 3 genning. Killers could lock down an area against anything but a top level SWF and just run around kicking gens.
You can still use a 3 gen as part of your killer strategy, you just have to put a little more thought into it.
And its not true to just say this is on killers only. Not only do we have old examples like infinites, but we can look to more current examples like: FTP+Buckle Up, MFT, dead hard twice.
In all those cases the survivors could still engage in the same mechanic, they can still rescue downed survivors, they can still loop, they can still use exhaustion mechanics. It's just not as easy as it once was.
-
@I_CAME said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3873506#Comment_3873506
I just think it's weird to introduce a competitive matchmaking system and not tell people where they stand. Are they afraid people will call out how bad the system is when they see routinely see 10k hour streamers getting matched with low MMR survivors? Are they afraid people will use MMR to talk down to others? As if people aren't already doing that constantly. Everyone on this forum is super duper high MMR and only plays against comp players.
I just think it's weird to introduce a competitive matchmaking system and not tell people where they stand.I'm going to use someone else's example, I don't remember who.
Imagine twenty people got together to play basketball. None of them know each other. A 21st person knows all of them and matches them up to try and keep even matches.
That's MMR. It's trying to create even match ups without stressing people about where they stand in the rankings. It's still casual, we're just trying to make sure the games are generally even.
-
@WolfePhD said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3873542#Comment_3873542
I guess I am looking at the bigger picture. What is currently happening between Choy and BHVR is a live communication event. BHVR has already set the rules ("No public MMR.") and Choy found a way to circumvent that. This is a reflection of the relationship between the player base and the developers. Choy found a metaphorical gun and pointed it at BHVR the first chance he got. No matter how BHVR responds to this situation, things have already escalated. Not to hostility per se, but I don't think happy people playing a happy game made by happy people would act like this. This is described in Choy's video where he acknowledges what he is doing isn't cool, but is justified because BHVR fired a whole bunch of people … and should have known they needed resources on standby for when the community wanted more control over the rulebook? To me, this is a power struggle. There is severe concern that the community is going to look for similar patterns to communicate with the developers moving forward. The reason I labeled this thread Armageddon is because this whole situation reflects a turning point in the community culture.
I don't remember a time in the past where the community intentionally gave developers … more work … to get something. Any resources spent working on frivolous privacy requests is less resources working on a full chapter, bug fixes, new cosmetics, etc.
I am not a lawyer, and I am not going to study and become one to fully understand the nuance behind global privacy laws. Deep in my gut, I know that most laws are written with built-in protections to avoid being exploited beyond the original intention. At the same time, there is an inherent right granted by the law — and two attempts per year for a massive audience is still a LOT of work that just magically appeared out of thin air because an upset player with an agenda isn't happy with the current state of the game. If there is an inherent time limit to GDPR requests, and if BHVR isn't able to keep up—I believe they would be fined accordingly. Part of me wonders if that was Choy's true intention — to clog the system with requests so the developers have to act or "pay" a cost.
This is described in Choy's video where he acknowledges what he is doing isn't cool, but is justified because BHVR fired a whole bunch of people … and should have known they needed resources on standby for when the community wanted more control over the rulebook?Companies hire, and lay off, people as businesses grow, contract, and markets change. Looking at the numbers BHVR has increased their employee total by about 700 people over the last five years or so, do they get credit for that?
Also, most of BHVR's employees don't work on DbD (I want to say last time they released numbers its like 20%). BHVR is, and was before DbD, a developer that got hired by other companies to help out on game development. They've been partner developers on games like Mortal Kombat, Gears of War, Farcry, Borderlands, Tony Hawk Pro Skater, and a bunch of others.
The video game industry boomed during the pandemic, in the years that followed multiple companies needed to reduce production.
I don't remember a time in the past where the community intentionally gave developers … more work … to get something.Nah, this has happened before. 'I encourage everyone to slug until they fix X' - 'trap Y killer in the game until they fix it', those things have gone around. It's not even unique to this game that a small portion of the community tries to intentionally manipulate the data.
It usually doesn't work. The percentage of players that actually follow streamers/forums is a fraction of the overall game community.
Any resources spent working on frivolous privacy requests is less resources working on a full chapter, bug fixes, new cosmetics, etc.A tiny drop in the pot. 'We're sorry, support tickets are being processed more slowly due to unforeseen demand' or just hiring a couple of temps to deal with the influx of tickets for a few weeks until it stops.
-
Sometimes you just get unlucky on map draws. When the theater map came out I went about a month before I saw it.
-
@WolfePhD said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3873431#Comment_3873431
9.2 You will not have to pay to exercise your legal rights above. However, we may charge a reasonable fee if your request is clearly unfounded, repetitive or excessive. Alternatively, we could refuse to comply with your request in these circumstances.
They could recoup the cost by charging MMR fees if they can argue it is repetitive for the users who used the boilerplate template—at the cost of their reputation.They could recoup the cost by charging MMR fees if they can argue it is repetitive for the users who used the boilerplate template—at the cost of their reputation.Do you really think the company whose game has been riddled with bugs for its entire existence, uses a live service model frequently accused of profiting off FOMO, has sold perks/killers that then got nerfed later, has had people complain about their allowance of abusive actions within their game, and just partnered with FNAF which many players saw as a betrayal of their values, would suffer reputational damage because they requested a fee to fulfill a request?
Edit: I wrote that whole list and forgot the recent issue regarding the Junji Ito skins with some people accusing BHVR of scamming some customers. The point being BHVR's reputation has gone through far worse than the idea of a fee.
-
1: It's not going to cost BHVR a lot of money. Hire a couple of interns to field the requests if necessary. It's an annoyance.
2: They might be rewriting their privacy policy. At the moment I can't access it.
2A: Arguably MMR isn't part of 'your' data anyway. That's a record keeping on their end.
3: The data isn't really understandable. As the streamer seems to be confused on why Pig is his highest rated killer.
4: The Streamer actually explains why BHVR wants this data hidden - 'people will need to show their MMR receipts'. That's not going to help because it will just lead to discounting people who aren't high MMR and if a person does show high MMR and people don't like their opinions, they'll be accused of photoshopping the MMR.
4A: This would also lead to people sweating to max out their MMR. Now, in the long run, I'm not sure I have a problem with this, because I think it would require BHVR to fix a lot of things that are broken with their game, but it might make fundamental changes necessary.
5: Him having to use Chat GPT to calculate proportions makes me sad.
-
The soloq destroyer perks. Knock Out at the top of the list for both being very strong against soloq, generally useless against SWF, and boring.
Beyond that, there are perks I have balance issues with the numbers they have, but can't think of another one that I think makes the game worse like Knock Out does. A couple that are close calls
Devour can be annoying because its an all or nothing type of perk, but that can make the game interesting.
Franklin's sucks when you bring an item, but I definitely understand why it exists. Paired with weave attunement its annoying to run items to a deadzone.
Mecriless Storm, its a noob stomper that becomes pointless later
Nowhere to Hide feels like a broken concept when I run it as killer and like it bypasses an important part of the game.
On the survivor side: probably flashbang, but that's more of a close call. Maybe the Teamwork perks because they are pretty clearly SWF focused, but they aren't strong enough to really care about.
So - Knock Out at the top which I'd gladly pull out of the game if I could. A few others that are close calls, but that I have no desire to eliminate. And then past that lots of stuff that I think could do with some number changes, but the concept is good.
-
Freddy. He might not have much else, but gen teleporting is a strong power to have.
-
As a few others said, if we're talking "rework", no one but Skull Merchant. Maybe Chucky, but really I don't know why they made the last set of changes instead of some minor number tweaks.
-
@danielmaster87 said:
I want to see it too. I'd like to see someone make an argument against it, just like they can't against the low BP cap.
The BP cap is meant to make players engage in the grind. It's dumb, but the type of thing live service games like to throw in.
The MMR is relatively straight forward, pretty much every argument about game balance and design would have demands that someone post their MMR. This would lead to people sweating a lot more, which is meant to be an option but not the way the game is designed, so that they could brag about their MMR. It would also frequently lead to people accusing others of lying about their MMR.
-
34% escape rate and 7.5 hooks per game. Those numbers sound right to me.
The hours make me think 2v8 isn't counted at all, and maybe not chaos, because I played a lot of those.
Went to my gmail promotions folder for those who might have trouble locating it.
@halcyondays93 said:
I received my stats earlier today, but I doubt they're entirely accurate.
My email said my most played survivor was Felix. I used to main him for maybe my first year, so this would've been true back in 2022, but I definitely only played as him in a handful of matches over the past couple years. I'd assume Jeff would've been my most played survivor in 2024, due to him still having hundreds of anniversary offerings I've slowly been working my way through. Maybe Gabriel instead, but it DEFINITELY wasn't Felix.
Same for me. It said Claudette and I don't think I've played Claudette in 2024. She was the survivor I mained when I started the game and I played a lot with her, but in 2024 I switched up my survivors constantly, but never touched Claudette (maybe if I had a daily or archive, but not sure if that even happened).
It listed Wraith as the killer I played the most and I also think that's wrong. That the killer I played a ton of when I started the game, but at least I have played him in 2024.
-
You can't really talk about abnormalities without mentioning COVID in 2020.
2024 also should mention 2v8.
-
@ReverseVelocity said:
The DBD yearly stats are rolling out, and I think it'd be cool to have a thread where we all share our individual stats!
Here's mine:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/6VECLD2Q5GMD/image.png
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/QMU2ABZAJ7ZU/image.png
Some interesting notes:
The hours played seems to only take into account actual match time, not time spent in lobbies. Compared to my recap, SteamDB says I have ~600 hours of game time this year. That's over half my time in queues and menus!
I escaped ~44% of all my matches, which is pretty decent I think! I play a lot of solo and considering the average survival rate is 40%, I think I'm doing a pretty good job so far.
In my killer matches, I got ~8 hooks per game (I think it was like 7.8 something). Killer has always been my better role in all my time playing so this doesn't surprise me too much, but I'm still impressed x3
My estimations of being a 40/60 Survivor/Killer main are pretty much bang on too, with a ~37/63% ratio between the roles.
What did your year in DBD look like?
Don't have mine yet.
The hours played seems to only take into account actual match time, not time spent in lobbies.I wonder if it is only taking into account the main game, and not special modes.
-
Old DH - I never had a problem with this perk as a killer, but I understand how many people hated the fake out game and found it immersion breaking. Benefit is that with the new DH your chance rate of pulling it off goes way up because killer isn't expecting it.
Old MFT - I didn't have a huge problem with the perk, but it was really strong. It needed to be changed. It could be slightly stronger.
Killer perks
I'm going to say the same thing I say when killers argue 'but just bring X perk!' The game shouldn't be designed around the idea of perks winning or losing the game. Perks should give small advantages which, if used correctly, might be the difference maker, but are not an absolute necessity.
Buffing both DH and MFT would create a scenario where the killer had to run one of the exhaustion causing perks, and I don't think that would be healthy.
-
I have not. BP bonus for survivors has either been low or non-existent.
-
In an attempt to gather statistics, we encountered a bug. All players MMRs have been set to a random number. We are offering 3000 BP as compensation.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3871725#Comment_3871725
I most likely have more hours on Killer alone than you in total. :) So you can assume all you like. Funny that you are now doing the same I have done before… ^^
And no, sorry. The person I quoted is someone who is saying all the time how hard it is to play. So either they are not as good as they think they are OR they are on a special Server where only very strong Players are playing. You can guess which is more likely. :^)
special Server where only very strong Players are playing.DbD is such a strange community, the worse you say you do at killer, the better people seem to think you must be.
I'd believe the idea that there is some super powerful MMR I haven't reached yet and/or just isn't my region, but every time I watch a major streamer with giant kill rates, their survivors look pretty much like what I see as killer. Sometimes they are really good, usually not, and the killer players have to put handicaps / challenges on themselves to make the game interesting.
-
@dbd900bach said:
So Dead by Daylight has dabbled a little in having crossovers with popular anime. This of course came in the form of Attack on Titan with several skins for killer and survivor, and the recent Junji Ito horror Manga collab.
With the additions mainly being skins, there is no bad collaboration so long as the skins remain tied to horror anime/manga, yet I can still see arguments made for shows like Bleach or Jujistu Kaisen with their creepy designs.
The main question revolves around if an anime collaboration should lead to a full chapter. The obvious answer is it depends on the anime but it can go a bit deeper than that. Anime is its own culture and style. While it has become much more mainstream and accepted, there is still a stigma given the cultural differences between east and west with the obvious worry of Behavior choosing an anime ill suited to the horror that is Dead by Daylight.
Trickster is a good example. While he was well accepted by Korean players, other players questioned how he fitted in the game with his bright aesthetic. A killer popstar doesn't scream horror, but to others it is an extreme rarity in their culture that captured their attention.
I'm hopeful to hear everyone's takes.
A killer popstar doesn't scream horrorI think some people have too narrow a view of the horror genre. Wanting DbD to an 80s slasher horror themed game is fine, but horror is a much broader genre than that.
I don't follow anime as closely as I once did, but there are lots of horror and horror-adjacent animes.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
Two hatches should open after 60 seconds in that scenario. The killer is free to be greedy, but they risk letting 2 escape if they do.
That's a really good idea.
@Dadeordye said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3871662#Comment_3871662
I also want to know why pursuing a 4K seems wrong these days…
Because the way many do it goes against what the game was designed to be and creates a boring scenario.
That's why the game design needs to be updated. It's happened plenty of times before, EGC, hatch existence, hatch standoffs hook respawns, etc.
-
@sizzlingmario4 said:
I can think of one reason why perhaps they don't want random addons and it's because some addons on certain killers can completely change the way a killer is played and/or are only beneficial with other addons/specific loadouts. For example, Scratched Mirror on an outdoor map, or Scarred Hand (Hag addon that gives collision to phantasms and takes away teleports) without Waterlogged Shoe (the addon that makes her 4.73m/s and makes Scarred Hand actually good) would feel awful if you were forced into that and would probably be less fun in the long run, like I would just avoid playing those killers in chaos shuffle if that was the case. It wouldn't be as big of a deal if survivor items/addons were random, but it wouldn't be fair to force that on one side and not the other. There's not really anything like that on the survivor side except No Mither, which imo should not be in Chaos Shuffle at all, but that's a topic for another discussion. But I don't think it would really be as fun if items/addons were completely disabled either.
As for offerings, I feel like this again just comes down to map offerings needing to be removed and not much else. There's no real issue with being able to choose any other offering especially if you just want to bring bloodpoint offerings.
I can think of one reason why perhaps they don't want random addons and it's because some addons on certain killers can completely change the way a killer is played and/or are only beneficial with other addons/specific loadouts.That would make sense, but:
1: No Mither exists and can still be randomly drawn, its not just a weak perk, it outright hurts the team
2: They could just disable those addons
-
@lililensio said:
Played against a streamer(killer) as a surv, 2v1 situation and im playing for hatch, after a while the streamer gets ask "yo the other surv is my friend, can you kill the other (me) surv and let him live?" and turns out they were friends and well, i get screwed because of an arbitrary streamer bias towards his chat, what an incredible and fair experience
If he teamed with the other survivor, then yes. So like if someone in the chat told the streamer where to find you in return for the other survivor being allowed to escape, that would be teaming.
If it was just bias? Eh, that's always tough. Killers can choose to kill, or not, that part isn't a violation. Being asked in chat isn't something normally that comes up so not really certain, but I doubt they'd penalize for that.
-
Where I agree:
Solution 1 - I think that would be an improvement.
Solution 2 - also think that's a good idea. I'd add that just being left on the hook while survivors pound gens should be shared more as a team reward.
Solution 3 - I don't think this would actually change anything about players giving up, but I just think it would be neat.
Where I kind of agree
Complaints 1 and 2 - As a player that's easy to say, but not much that a company can do about it. I highly doubt we're ever going to get an in game pop up encouraging players to leave the game.
Where I disagree
MMR - I know its a frequent complaint, but in the long run the problem isn't how MMR is awarded. The games where you get really amazing chases, but die, are going to be lost in the long term data.
A win condition is really the only way you can do MMR. It needs to go up and down in the same increments.
Now MMR maybe should be team based for the survivors (though that's a level of change I don't think BHVR wants to make), and matchmaking maybe should be stricter, but basing it off the win condition is pretty necessary (I also think an MMR system of some type is necessary for this game).