crogers271
crogers271
About
- Username
- crogers271
- Joined
- Visits
- 8,432
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Yggleif said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3871652#Comment_3871652
Thank you for not actually reading my post I appreciate it. I understand how endurance works I'm saying when survivors are stacking endurance and multiple survivors are taking hits for the survivor being chased multiple times per game that's rather problematic because there isn't a ton a lot of killers that can do anything about it.
That's not stacking though. Stacking is something like gen regression where the killer can run multiple perks, each occurring on top of each other..
Mettle of Man can stack on top of an endurance perk would be another example. Healing perks can also stack, its just ineffective.
You seem to be complaining about either the amount of options survivors have and/or that those options can be used to protect a teammate.
Neither of which I think is a problem, though if you are talking about vibe and feeling that's a taste issue. I think survivors trying to protect each other shows the difference between horror movies where the victims survive, and those in which they don't.
-
It's funny, something like Brutal Strength gets suggested as perks that killers can run, because those small amounts time saved really add up, the suggestion usually gets mocked.
But the idea that the killer might be stunned for 1 additional second in a match is unbearable.
Decisive Strike is a decent perk that is situationally powerful with a lot of drawbacks. At 5 seconds it would be slightly better.
-
@HerInfernalMajesty said:
With the advent of the Bloodmoon rapidly approaching I wanted to ask you all: How would you improve the Bloodweb? Are you satisfied with it as-is? Are certain items too rare or common? Is the Bloodweb too expensive or cheap? Does it take too long to spend Bloodpoints?
I’m a reasonably patient woman. Even then spending Bloodpoints feels too slow. My most requested Bloodweb improvement would be for the ability to auto spend all Bloodpoints allowing for the most expensive items to be prioritized.
How about you? Do you feel satisfied with the Bloodweb? If you could how would you change it? What would you change?
It depends how hypothetical we're talking. Because I'd like to revamp items and addons entirely, and would probably remake the concept of the bloodweb as well.
More realistically:
The ability to select auto and just have it go in the background from level to level
The ability to prioritize certain things on the bloodweb.
-
It's something that is a part of the game and the problematic aspects should be an easy fix, but BHVR hasn't done it.
There are lots of times slugging is the necessary or right call. Don't have time to hook, don't have a hook to make it to, in risk of a pallet/flashlight save, see another survivors - all are perfectly fine reasons to slug and if the killer couldn't the game really wouldn't be able to happen.
There are three problems that have arisen
Blatant BMing - just leaving the survivors to bleed out instead of picking them up and hooking them. Survivors can't DC and are trapped in the game. I am continually stunned that BHVR hasn't done anything about this. The easy fix would be to rapidly speed up bleedout times or allow survivors a surrender option if all survivors are dead or have been on the ground for 30 seconds.
Slug for the 4k - it's reasonable why killers do this, if boring. The fix here is the same as blatant BMing
Never hook strategy - something that has grown more common recently. It undermines the core flow of the game and with the use of knockout is a soloq killer and ignored by SWFs. Knockout should be changed and the above options would solve most of the worst aspect of this.
-
@MechWarrior3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3871060#Comment_3871060
1 bot isn't going to hurt if it helps queue times drastically. I think its an excellent decision.
There's a huge difference between being angry at a human player, and angry at code. If another survivor doesn't heal me and prioritizes gens, I know a human being is making that decision. It's part of the game that different people have different priorities and will make different decisions.
Being angry at the bot is being angry at the game itself.
And if they make the bots too strong, then killers will (rightfully) be mad about that.
-
From the post
Simply sign up for our newsletter by January 13and that'll get you on the list to receive your stats when they become available later this month.I made the same mistake as you two, the key phrase is: when they become available later this month
I don't think anyone knows when later this month means.
-
@joeyspeehole said:
Given the increase in slugging and the ongoing debate about whether to nerf survivors or killers, I believe the solution lies in how MMR is rewarded. If a player isn't getting many hooks, they should be placed in a lower skill bracket.
I have suggested in the past to award more points for hooks, but the response was that killers are more interested in eliminating all survivors and don't care about points. I've seen many people on this forum express frustration with the current MMR system, saying they often get matched with players of different skill levels. Behavior should classify slugging as a low-skill tactic. This way, it wouldn't be a debate about whether it's a legitimate strategy or cheating-it's simply low skill.I have suggested in the past to award more points for hooks, but the response was that killers are more interested in eliminating all survivors and don't care about points.Sorry, but the response here is the same, even worse. Players care more about winning than they do points, and they care more about points than they do MMR (which is an invisible number). Many killers would happily stay below the soft cap winning all of their games and tunneling/slugging the survivors.
If anything, it would be an incentive to play in exactly the way you don't want them to.
Behavior should classify slugging as a low-skill tactic.You can't run a game via trying to shame people for a tactic that you put in the game. If something shouldn't be in the game, either because it ruins the experience or the balance, then it shouldn't be in the game.
-
I thought Grim was going to be too strong when it was introduced, but its fine. Strong, but not overpowered. If the killer is using grim and spreading pressure, use those down times to heal.
If everyone is healed, stealth it out.
-
Double post
-
@Goblin_BHVR said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3871056#Comment_3871056
When queue times in any event get particularly long, we have the ability now to add a bot to the lobby to help ease those queue times
Wow, I thought people were petrified over nothing. I was thinking 'no way will BHVR ever actually do this in the game outside the PTB' . I was wrong on that, this is an awful thing to have.
I also think this will backfire. Throw bots in on the survivor side to ease queue times, more survivors will then play killer (or just not play) - necessitating more bots as survivors.
-
The potential that a game would never really have a satisfying end, it would always be a surrender. Running for the exit gate? Killer just surrenders. Killer going for Mori? Survivor surrender.
And of course there would be 'any bad start, surrender'.
Chess has an etiquette around this were there are times that it is considered impolite to surrender, while others it is encouraged to not waste time. As @PetTheDoggo mentions, you would need some sort of trigger. I doubt BHVR wants to spend the time figuring out where all those trigger points could be (unfortunately).
-
@Nazzzak said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3869889#Comment_3869889
I imagine you're talking about two completely different groups of people there. The people who find Vecna too complex likely don't go anywhere near fighting games.
I think this is a really good point. Different players groups and also people expecting different things from their games.
It would be like: "I don't know why killers complain about the que time for 2v8, a formal Japanese tea ceremony can last 4 hours and a cricket match can take days."
-
@Iron_Cutlass said:
Part of this is just a mini-rant that is not aimed at a particular person but moreso how discussions end up devolving on the DBD Forums that makes it incredibly frustrating to discuss anything.
Let's create a hypothetical scenario that breaks down exactly what I have an issue with…
- 1.) Person A has an issue with an ingame mechanic or perk. This issue has persisted for a long time and has created impacted the game in a negative way.
This is fine. Person A is just giving their opinion on a subject that should be addressed.
- 2.) Person B sees that Person A is struggling with something. Rather than proposing a way of handling the issue or fixing the issue, Person B stats how their side has an issue as well that should be addressed.
This is mostly fine.
Multiple things that are similar can be handled in the same thread, but it is important to note that there are times and places for posting stuff like this, so it isnt always the best idea to do this.
- 3.) Person B proposes that Person A's issue cannot be fixed until Person B's issue is fixed, or vice versa.
- 3.) Person B proposes the idea that Person A's issue must persist because it wouldnt be fair for Person B to still suffer from their issue, or vice versa.
This is unproductive discussion that gets us nowhere. No one's issues are solved, and solely exists out of spite.
Both things can be an issue, and both things can be addressed, the order at which they are addressed does not matter since both are issues.
- 4.) Person B proposes that Person A's issue is "balanced" out by Person B's issue, or vice versa.
This only serves to defend both problematic things being in the game instead of finding ways to tackle the issue.
These are the DBD discussions that I really, really hate.
They basically devolved into a Side VS Side, Us VS Them discussion over multiple things that can co-exist as issues, and it often feels like I am talking to a brick wall with how unproductive the discussion is.
I'm sorry, I don't know how to respond until you say whether the game is massively killer sided or survivor sided.
Now that I've made that mandatory joke:
Threads definitely have a problem that things go off the rails, but it can be hard to discuss things in a vacuum. There are so many different variables in DbD that one proposed change can have disagreements about it from a wide variety of rationales. This can quickly make threads explode.
There's also a lot of us vs them, that' a huge part of it, where any change that might possibly hurt your side is wrong.
-
Trying to distract the killer seems perfectly okay with me. Unless you were just vaulting back and forth over the same pallet if you're actually moving around the map making noises that seems like you are still trying to advance the objective by taking the killer's attention.
Not sure how powerful it will be in the long run, kind of curious.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3869440#Comment_3869440
no they are not inverse. Like pulsar states, your always going to do better than average states like with his legion example. All i am saying is that you do not need accept the average statistics as only kill-rate. you can get better and outperform whatever the stats say.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3869433#Comment_3869433
tru3 states that dbd is in the most survivor sided state that it has ever been. He's been playing the game since beta dbd.
All i am saying is that you do not need accept the average statistics as only kill-rate. you can get better and outperform whatever the stats say.But that's true of every game, video or otherwise. Some people outperform the numbers. It's a basic fact about how averages work. I don't know how you take that and have it mean anything about game design.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3869373#Comment_3869373
the thing is. my escape rate on survivor does not correlate to these numbers. i escape way more than these numbers show. most of the killers that aren't the tiptop killer player are free escapes. only the very good killers pose any threat and even when killer is threat, it's not guaranteed loss.
And how do you do on killer? Are the numbers the inverse of what they are of your survivor rating? Do they match BHVR's projections of a 60% kill rate when you play killer?
-
I do wish BHVR would reduce / remove the first stage unhook. If they truly think that players would quit DbD without the ability to leave, let players DC on hook with no penalty, but I think just removing the ability to self unhook in the first 3 minutes would solve a lot of games.
That said, I think there are a number of issues that contribute to the problem.
1: Importance of the early game - a quick down from the killer basically seals the game. A single player who went AFK and got downed is such a huge swing. Now the early game is also very important for the killer, but the killer probably gains something from the early game if they don't get a quick down (such as elimination of pallets).
2: Slugging epidemic - as a survivor there have definitely been games I regretted getting saved, only to later be slugged while the killer search the map for the 4k. While I try to stick games out as much as possible, I definitely understand the feeling of survivors who want to get out before the game becomes impossible to move forward and risk being slugged while the killer searches the map.
3: 1v1 nature - BHVR sometimes encourages, as do many players, the idea that each survivor is playing just for themselves. So even if the game is still winnable for the other survivors, it might not be winnable for the person who is on hook. If a person has internalized BHVR's message that the only thing which matter is whether they escape or not, the hook suicide is much more logical.
-
Yes, survivors standing in the exit gate is annoying and BM.
It's comparable to slugging, but there are reasons its not quite as bad.
1: Killer has a way to end it that also rewards BP
2: Time it can last is different
3: Survivors could just wait farther away from the gate if there was a push out mechanic.
4: While many solutions have been proposed for slugging for the 4k or forced bleedouts to BM (the easiest being a quickened bleedout / give up option), solutions to survivors standing in the exit gate are harder to come by. Example: I have never tbagged a killer, but I've been in situations standing in the exit gate, waiting to body block for a survivor, and the other survivors where just in the other gate waiting for me. Until all alive survivors are in the exit gate area, there's lots of reasons to remain in the exit gate that aren't BM.
For the solutions the OP offered:
1: Alucard's Shield - If every killer had some way to make the exit gates more interesting, I'd be all for it, but just basekit would be a pretty big buff. I'd definitely take it though but it would probably need to come with some larger balance changes.
2: Block the gates - this moves the goal post on the line the survivor need to be at. You also have a situation where the killer is going to catch the survivor by the gate, so the survivor stops farther away from the gate so that they can get hit and run to the gate without it blocking. You probably get way more BM there and still the same time waste.
3: Killer can end the game - I'd be fine with this. Something like 'if the gens have been powered and the killer stands still for 20 seconds, all the remaining survivors auto escape'. However, I don't think BHVR would ever do something like this as they always want the game to come to a conclusion with either an escape or a death.
Many people would also be annoyed because it makes archives harder.
-
@WholesomeNebula said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3867910#Comment_3867910
At any point. And I actually thought it seemed high. 13% is kind of a lot of matches to be guaranteed losses due to quitters. That means at least 1 in 10 matches is a total waste. And that is tracked throughout the entire match. I follow every match to the end, even if I die early, for the sake of tracking escapes/kills/DCs/etc. I do not track when those quits happen, but most are usually at 5 gens, but not all. For example, last night someone quit after getting downed at 2 hooks with all gens complete. Then a random got a flashlight save and the bot survived lol.
I guess what I'm asking is do you count it if the game is already or probably lost? Like one dead, three gens to do, no progress, and the guy on hook goes next? Because if you count those as well this feels well below what I see.
Side note: you've started confusing the number of games it happened in (13) with the percent (11.6%) in your posts since the original (or your data has updated since the original)
-
I run it sometimes, the bigger issue is how close is the basement and, after going to the basement, how close will the next gen be? The time running all that way can really eat away at the benefits.
-
@Zakon05 said:
Even trying to play devil's advocate as hard as I can to think of a way to rationalize this, I can't think of a good reason why they can't remove the skins and refund the cells.
This is simply indefensible.
My best guesses on the devil's advocate:
1: They don't want to give any ground on a no refund policy. None of us actually own what we buy, we have virtual copies until one day the servers close, and they don't want to create a legal argument for future refund possibilities.
But this seems like such an extreme situation that it doesn't make sense.
2: There's some detail that isn't revealed related to the country / region / BHVR / license etc that makes a refund impossible from a legal standpoint.
Except if that was true, I would think they would explicitly say 'we can give so and so a refund because of this legal reason'.
There's a possibility they don't want to cast the blame on another party they are still trying to work through, but that seems like an incredibly slim guess.
3: The purchaser tried to avoid the region lock with a VPN or something like that.
Again, I'd expect BHVR to just tell us that if it was true.
-
@OnryosTapeRentals said:
Are we serious…
The DbD forums are never beating the killer bias allegations.
Heavens forbid survivors are able to use their map knowledge in a chase.
In a sense I get it, but its mostly wrong.
Why its kind of right: video games are perfectly predictable (i.e. everyone runs at the same speed, all the time, no differences), one of the reason they make bad sport and problematic comp scene. If as a survivor you have a perfect understanding of the killer speed and your distance to the pallet, there's no mind game, the killer has no choice but to chase you until you drop it.
The problems though with changing it
1: What is or is not a check spot depends on the killer. Make everything high walls, ranged killers have a problem. A check spot that works against wraith might not work against alien.
2: Check spots of some type are inevitable. You literally can't get rid of them. There will always be a - If I stand at X spot when killer is at Y spot I will make it to Z window - as long as there's no variability that will always happen (and Western comp doesn't like variability).
3: It really underestimates how much checking is done by survivors at all MMR brackets. True, at lower brackets they aren't as good at using them, but the killers aren't at good at running the loops either, and people definitely try.
4: It takes a lot of skill expression out of the game. It just makes everything into one big 50/50.
5: Even when I watch comp players try to demonstrate this, sometimes they mess it up. A presumption that one side is going to play perfectly is a silly balance metric.
6: Guaranteed check spots really only exist with perfect ping, which is something that can really only be guaranteed in a comp setting. This is why check spots lose a lot of there strength in comp when there is any match that exists between different regions.
7: It would take all the theme out of the game. Follow this logic far enough and we end up with the same three or four loops repeated endlessly. Balanced, and the game would die after a few months.
8: It takes out the meta game aspect which is a huge portion of the killer's skill expression. Shack is supposed to be really strong and the killer is supposed to weight he time they'll spend going there to get a down vs. their other risks. This eliminates that taking out the meta game aspect of playing killer.
9: Remove the visual element of check spots and the players with great headphones and hearing get even stronger.
-
@notacamper said:
Now idk about you but when this survivor is able to predict my moves and even my mindgames while the rest of the team gen rushes like no tommarrow and somehow gets them done in record time(seriously 4 gens done in under 1mins, idk about you but i'm gonna suspect cheating is at play.
And before you rush in to call me a butthurt loser, i checked their perks, items and addons. The survivor i was chasing had no way to predict my movement like they did and the rest of the gen rushing team either had no perk to speed up gen progression or no toolbox, in fact ONE of them had a toolbox no other did. Mathmatically, its impossible to get 4 gens done in under 1min. two?; sure with perks+toolboxes and 2 survivors on each gen but 4? no, not possible.
And lastly, NO I did not record this because if I had to record every single match I played on a daily basis my HD would be filled to the brim within a week and I have far more important things to use my HD space for.
Your welcome to assume what you like but just know anyone who believes cheaters don't exist in DBD or that the odds of encountering one are extremely low OR that they only target streamers is being willing ignorant to the reality where cheaters are a major problem in DBD for streamer and non-streamer alike.
Subtle cheaters plague at least 30% of the playerbase at this point while another 10% are more obvious about it and target streamers for attention. That's 40% of our player pop who is subtle or blatantly cheating.
Where did I get these numbers? Lets just say that while I don't use these tools myself, i frequent the forums where people use them a dev's cheattool's consensus in dec of 2024 was at 9,537 people either using their cheattool or using someone else's.
That's 9,537 of 25k daily players who cheat while that may seem like a small number, IT'S NOT and should not be taken lightly.
That's 9,537 of 25k daily players who cheat while that may seem like a small number, IT'S NOT and should not be taken lightly.Where do you get the idea that only 25k people play this game daily? It is orders of magnitude larger than that.
-
@WholesomeNebula said:
For people who track their own statistics and are primarily solo survivor players, what is your escape/sacrifice ratio? If you track total match stats, I would also be interested to see what the average survivor escape rate is (the team as a whole) vs your personal solo stats. Has BHVR recently released survival stats broken down by solo vs SWF?
For me personally, of the last 645 matches I've tracked in solo queue, the average team escape rate is 55.44%. My personal escape rate as a solo survivor 45% out of those same 645 matches. So a 10% drop from the average. I am interested if my experience is similar to others, as I was surprised the average escape rate was so high. Not surprised my own escape rate is so much lower.
Unrelated but I also started tracking how often survivors give up (DC or end themselves on hook). Of the last 112 matches, its happened 13 times (11.6% of matches). Of those, 9 of them were hooks, 4 were DCs.Has BHVR recently released survival stats broken down by solo vs SWF?Not too long ago, there was a post saying that the numbers hadn't changed that much since the last time they released stats.
That said, BHVR tends to think of things like 5% and less as not a big deal, while I'd think of a 5% shift as massive given the amount of games played, so I'm not certain.
Unrelated but I also started tracking how often survivors give up (DC or end themselves on hook). Of the last 112 matches, its happened 13 times (11.6% of matches). Of those, 9 of them were hooks, 4 were DCs.Is there some qualifier on this because it seems shockingly low. Are we just talking at the beginning of the game or at any point?
-
@StalkingYou said:
its so funny, whenever killers ask for basekit features to counter gen rushing they are told that it is a skill issue, nothing is needed, and that you need to stop complaining about the survivors doing their objective because what else are they supposed to do.
compare that to when a survivor player asks for their 7th basekit meta perk to counter tunneling/camping, always met with praise because tunneling/camping is evil and if you do it youre trash… even though its the exact same thing as gen rushing. just people doing their objective.
asking for things for killer side is like jumping through hoops, while if you ask for something on survivor side its implemented within a year.
so yes, it would be great to have one small thing compared to the mountain of ######### the survivors have received to make it more and more difficult for the killer to do their objective.Killers have multiple tactics. Tunnel, slug, spread pressure, defend gens, create deadzone, etc. That doesn't even get into what each individual killer might be able to do.
Survivors have one thing to do. Gens. There's no real other way to open the doors. If one survivor is running the killer, what else do they have to do?
Because the other thing survivors can do are things like flashbang saves, and killers complain about that all the time.
Survivors used to set up circles of healing as something else to do, but that got nerfed.
-
@Grigerbest said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3867571#Comment_3867571
Dude, it sounds like a blatant discrimination. It's like China doesn't have the privilege to play as a Dracula, which is so hard to believe.
I don't know. It's actually hard to believe.
Doing some quick googling I'm not sure any Castlevania games, not just DbD, are legally available in China.
You do realize that the Chinese government doesn't allow lots of video games to be released and slow walks others? Like Elden Ring, Roblox, Fortnie, are all banned in China.
-
@dbd900bach said:
I've seen a few people mention or talk about killer abilities being made too complex, the highlighted reasoning often being that there's too many killers, some with rather confusing abilities that make them very frustrating to play against. This makes the game rather difficult for newer players and by extension solo q.
I saw this being especially talked about when it came to Pinheads box mechanic which wreaks havoc on players unfamiliar with its function. Plague and Legion are also brought up as they go against traditional game mechanics with the right strategy being to not heal or not cleanse.
However, the primary issue with these arguments against these mechanics is that more experienced players feel like their experience is being ruined because other players don't know how something works.
I do think Dbd can be better when it comes to helping players better understand the game and it's characters, but whatever happened to needing to learn and practice? I know its different for the survivor side, but does the game really need to be changed to accomadate a willingness to not learn or practice? Its not a huge debate of course, or issue but I remembered a discussion from awhile back and wanted to see if that same mindset is still present.
Part of the problem is that a lot of the 'complex' mechanics have different levels of complexity for each side and some of them turn the game into more of a single player game.
Take Pinhead's box. As Pinhead there is nothing you have to do for it - its just there and you get free value if survivors don't know how to play against it (which in soloq is always going to at least be a little issue of uncertainty for who is going). There is a complexity for one side, nothing for the other (though at higher levels the Pinhead can begin to suss out where the box is, meaning he can actually improve to a degree with the survivors).
Or take Xeno's turrets (they've come up a bit recently). If the survivors don't know what they are doing, the turrets are actually going to waste them time, but if the survivors do know and coordinate setup the Xeno can't really do anything about it.
In these scenarios the complexity is not shared equally by both sides. It's a burden put on the survivors by the chosen killer which, if the survivors know how to overcome, give them the advantage against the killer. The secondary objectives and their spawns just are, there's no way a Xeno player can ever learn how to improve turret spawns are anything like that.
One side (survivors, generally) has the burden to overcome, which is frustrating, and when they do overcome the other side (killers, generally) feel powerless, which is also frustrating.
On top of this, the burden is continually growing for new players.
On the other hand, take Pinhead's chains. They aren't complex, but both sides are involved. Killer tries to hit with them, survivor tries to dodge. It's a mind game that gives both sides agency.
-
I thought this was obvious based on the details they released. When they said the explosion occurred after 1.5 seconds I thought that was pretty clear it meant the pallet drop had an impact.
-
@MechWarrior3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3866563#Comment_3866563
Unless I'm missing something, this seems way overboard. Can't be seen at all? Awake survivors can't really do anything at all.
Why would you need to? He cant attack you unless you are in the dream world.
As the OP above responded above, I think he is talking about a world where Freddy, while completely invisible, can attack the survivors. If we're going back to discussing a world where awake survivors can't be attacked that really needs to be cleared up in the OP.
@xCakeStick said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3866563#Comment_3866563
- The survivors fall asleep based on the distance of how close Freddy is, and they will always have the lullaby present giving them some sign of indication where he is close which will get louder, this more relates to my comment on all chases will take place in the Dream World regardless.
- It doesn't matter if it's risky, most survivors won't care and will take the alarm clock to exit the Dream World and Freddy can't take them back in the Dream World for an additional 90 seconds, due to the Patch 7.4.0 nerf of survivors not entering the Dream World from a Freddy attack If used an alarm clock. At higher skill levels people will find ways of doing this just to make him an M1 killer for a chase.
- The healing skill check does not have unlimited range like a Bear Trap or Generator does. It's only limited to 64 meters on all maps, survivor can easily know this and walk out of that distance and miss all the skill checks they want and heal without Freddy being able to teleport nearby, unless they do so by a generator and killer instinct shows them. And most survivors towards the mid and higher levels of game don't really care about the notifications it give.
1: This just seems like noob stomper mode. You can still detect him, its just much harder.
2: Whether something is risky or not, when its worth it or not, is really the core of game decisions.
3: So the survivors have to waste time to get out of the distance? Again, Freddy is getting value there. Survivors have a choice to make, do distance to heal, risk healing at the moment, go for an alarm clock, or ignore the heal. Those seems like good gameplay elements that we have no reason to narrow down.
-
@xCakeStick said:
In short, it's great Freddy is finally receiving some changes to placed in line with other killers which is great, hopefully some of these new additions which should've been part of his kit years ago will make feel bit more polished and better when trying to add that map pressure. Now, this is from what I've read from the Developer update, I haven't tested him yet, and will most likely change my opinions once I have. But making him similar to former glory is great. Now this has a lot of words to it as I've gone fully into the Developer update.
What I like about the changes, from reading the Dev update:The change of adding the Dream Snares and Dream Pallets of two abilities which you can switch wouldn't of been that special without the buffs that came following later on, as Dream Pallets in the game now are not good and can easily be removed without consequence, this is good, I like this change. Although, this change should've been base kit years ago, and not locked behind add on. Which I'd imagine they will receive changes according to this new change. The only thing which was good base kit as of this current version of Freddy was Dream Snares, as they are more viable in chases as a sort of slow down with the correct placement, and It's very good and interesting to see a change has happened to this as well. Making them move forward as well is good with the unique interactions, make them even better for Chases. Even if you're awake it actually does something now, which is great as the Patch 4.7.0 nerfs made these harder to use. And the explosion of the Dream Pallets sound great in context with what we can read, but the Developers have not spoken of the counterplay involved, if the counterplay is significant, this is useless. But either way, they wouldn't down a survivor that would be to strong.
I like now have survivors who are awake interacting with Freddy's abilities place them into Sleep quicker, this is an absolute great change. When you nerfed him in Patch 4.7.0 by making Survivors even harder to get into the Dream World, it made Freddy hard to play as, due to Survivors having so much protection with nothing to counter it, It made an essential M1 Killer with no Dream World counterplay, and adding it based on Freddy's attacks was brutal, and unnecessary. I hope the Developers comment on this more.
Seeing survivors healing based on Killer instincts and being able to teleport them is a good change. Although, with the recent nerf of the red paint brush add on this makes it easier for survivors to escape the Dream World making this not as good in my opinion as these only really work if they're in the Dream World, and if you can fail a skill check you're out of the dream world therefore no information, this will only be suitable for lower skilled lobbies when people don't know of the counterplay, but more experienced players will be always evading the Dream World, especially with this new recent buff of the Clocks with the Patch 4.7.0 nerf. Although, you've spoken on adding more to this in the future, which us the players remain hopeful on.
The ability of teleporting to completed, blocked generators and at the end game is another great feature. Should've been in base kit though years ago unfortunately when suggested years ago it were ignored by the Developers as usual. And the ability to teleport to healing survivors in the dream world sounds good in retrospect, but my previous point explains more on why I think this isn't a really great change. But this power now works in end game scenarios which is fantastic.
What I dislike about the changes, from reading the Dev update.
The ability to no longer cancel teleportation is not the right direction of Freddy, we would rather keep the 45 seconds than having it be decreased to 30 seconds with no cancellation. This ability was a great mind game to Freddy, and was able to be used to pressure gens to gain more time without having to commit fully, and having this change is not good. I disagree with this change, and hope the Developers revert this back before this reaches live servers.
I dislike the fact you've directly nerfed the red paint brush add on by making it work similarly to old Freddy when he first released. We need that condition by not making survivors wake up from a skill check in order to keep the Dream World a consistent place for survivors to get more value out of it, and out of our abilities. And also get value out of the new feature of seeing survivors instinct when healing. Now, with this being changed survivors can pretty much always evade the Dream World again. This is like when Self Care was meta in 2017 and all survivors did was being healing themselves and fail skill checks to stop Freddy to being able to attack them again. This should be considered more before live release, as you can already use another add on to reveal the survivors with killer instincts, so I don't like the new changes. Same with being the black box, the change is quite even more worse than what it was considered the fact survivors can escape Dream World easier.
I'm not too sure on the new changes with being allowed to wake up at every single clock, considering you can just fail a skill check now. I'd rather it work the same with how it does as then the Survivor has to waste more time to find their designated clock rather than just using any clock generated on the map. But the cooldown with the clocks is a good feature. I would make it also so Survivors cannot use the Alarm Clocks if they're in the terror radius of Freddy, if we're going to continue with this change.
What I would do with Freddy even further following these changes, and I really do hope the Developers or the Community Manager sees this so I can see their take on this.
Freddy's original issues with his power after his first rework in 2019 relied more into his add ons at the time, those being his slow down add ons which affected the generators which stacked up to nearly 12% if combined with the right perks around this time. This at the time was a solo queue stomper, and got changed eventually, to the point where all his add ons except for two now suck, and aren't worth even using. And people redeeming his as not overpowered, but now boring and fun for both sides, especially after the Path 4.7.0 nerfs which happened to his add ons and power itself. And furthermore, there is nothing to master with Freddy, he is simple to understand and simple to play, that if you've kept in mind of pressuring your generators correctly. Only skill Freddy had was teleporting in chase to cut off a survivor.
My suggestions:
I would wish the Developers make it so you can't see Freddy at all unless you fall asleep and are in the Dream World, and make this process more faster gradually than having the clock feature already in the game. And following this change, perhaps they enter the Dream World quicker depending on close they are to Freddy. And making it harder to detect Freddy if you're awake, to encourage the Stealth aspect of it, and allow the Lullaby to gradually kick in.
I'd make the alarm clocks only to be used if you're not in the terror radius of the Freddy. This is to prevent survivors escaping the Dream World mid chase with the recent buff to the alarm clocks, and making all chases happen in the Dream World regardless, so Freddy get's value out of this. And yes, I would keep the lullaby for when you're not in the Dream World, but at least some what a terror radius in the Dream World to help new players get less confused with how the lullaby works.
I would also keep the teleportation as it is, as that involves some skill with either faking it or committing to it, keeping that mind game element. And maintaining that lore of Freddy, as in the movies he is teleporting around, showing up.
Following his recent buffs and changes to his Dream Snares and Dream Pallets I have nothing to suggest on this anymore, I feel like these changes are good enough to the Killer to be used better than they previously. Before, I've thought of more objects like fake breakable doors as such, but these changes are fine now.
Freddy has a lot of potential, but unfortunately he's always been in the low tier categories due to the Developers mistake, and listening to less experience players and nerfing him passed what needs to be done. I hope you enjoyed reading my take on this, and you can either agree or disagree, but please leave your thoughts below.
I would wish the Developers make it so you can't see Freddy at all unless you fall asleepUnless I'm missing something, this seems way overboard. Can't be seen at all? Awake survivors can't really do anything at all.
I'd make the alarm clocks only to be used if you're not in the terror radius of the Freddy.Seems unnecessary. Stopping to use something is risky to do with a killer nearby. Also removes risk taking and decision making on the survivor part lowering the ability to actually engage in counterplay.
I would also keep the teleportation as it is, as that involves some skill with either faking it or committing to it, keeping that mind game elementI love faking teleports, using a generator in front of a chased survivor and making them guess which way I'm from. I hope they revert this change.
and if you can fail a skill check you're out of the dream world therefore no information, this will only be suitable for lower skilled lobbies when people don't know of the counterplay, but more experienced players will be always evading the Dream WorldHere's the thing about giving survivors secondary objectives: you can't have them and then expect to still have the advantage if they actually successfully engage in those objectives. Failing skill checks are costly and give their own notifications.
This is like when Self Care was meta in 2017 and all survivors did was being healing themselves and fail skill checks to stop Freddy to being able to attack them again.If an asleep survivor engages in healing, hoping to just fail the skill check to wake up, they risk the Freddy teleporting to them totally destroying the heal (and potentially a quick down). Seems very different.
-
Twins also wasn't liked by the few Twin mains that are out there.
I'm sure lots of numbers will get tweaked, that's the point of the PTB and feedback. But the general concept? Effects on awake survivors, more teleporting ability, switching between snares and pallets - no, those have been asked for for a long time.
-
There are plenty of killers who aren't just those 3. You have stealth killers, ranged killers, trap killers, teleporting killers. Then you have killers who have to chase, but if they do can get a quick down.
If the problem is closing the distance on survivors you have plenty of killers who can do that and/or make it more painful for the survivors when in chase.
-
@UndeddJester just beat me to it, but in the movies the survivors are not immune to Freddy in the awake state.
Also, all licensed killers suffer from the fact that this is the Entity twisting them to fit within the Entities realm for its entertainment.
-
@Breadkiller said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3866450#Comment_3866450
Right now got a chat say "GG EZ" "I hope your mom dies in a fire"
It really ruins my mood playing this game.
Everyone's region is different. No one uses the chat when I play for anything.
This is also out of game things which is a totally different discussion than what your original post was about. Both sides can engage in BM in the after game chat, there are just four survivors so much higher chance they can do it.
-
@Breadkiller said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3866440#Comment_3866440
I thought it was common sense by now when these perks are brought or mentioned, this would happen 99.999998% of the time.
I actually just played a game against players running head on and flashbangs yesterday. Fun game. They tried to bait me into chase a few times to draw me away from gens or injured survivors. Nothing about it would I have considered bullying.
-
@Breadkiller said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3866421#Comment_3866421
So tbagging, all running to corner and breaking hooks, baiting, taunting, flashlight clicking isnt bullying to you? Remember they use breakout it takes ages for hooks to respawn.
Those are bullying, of varying degrees, but not a single thing you just listed was mentioned in your original post.
-
@Breadkiller said:
What about survivors who all bring no mither, breakdown, boon expontential, made for this, we're gonna live forever, unbreakable or soul guard with saboteur toolboxes to make it impossible to hook?
Or head on, flashbangs, background player, etc?
What about survivors who do nothing but rush the gens with toolboxes and BNP, extend chases with bs perks?
Why is it that survivors always want their fun but killers shouldn't have fun? Why do you survivors keep saying that? Why should we care about your fun?
Why should we care about your fun?You can play however you want within the rules, but when it comes to game design BHVR has to care about all of their players.
Some of the things you list have been addressed (unhookable survivors by placing more hooks), while survivors are still waiting for a 'why do I have to be slugged for four minutes and then picked up and carried around if the killer wants to'.
You also seem to be complaining about what if the survivors have a coordinated strategy - if they try to prevent hooks its bullying, but if they also ignore hooks and gen rush its also bullying?
There's a difference between something being too strong / unbalanced and something being bullying. Back before they put in more hooks I would agree that there were survivors who were running perks just to make themselves unhookable with no intent to win the game, but trying to prevent hooks is a strategy with pros and cons that the killer can respond to.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3866016#Comment_3866016
Why do you only gain MMR after you have killed the majority of the team? Why? Why in the European football / soccer leagues you gain 1 point for a draw when what is important is to beat the other team? Why? Why in the ELO system used in chess they do a mathematics equation to determine the new ranking of a player if what counts is if someone won, lost, or tied with his opponent? WHY!?
Because that's how that ranking system works. Period. That's it. Doesn't change the fact that for you to gain or lose ranking, you have to beat or lose against the rival, independent of how the ranking system works or the final amount of ranking granted. That's why your "why" question was completely irrelevant.
But hey, you want to say that a killer in DbD has 5 possible outcomes instead of 3? Fine! A killer can "lose more", lose, draw, win or "win more". Doesn't change the fact that less than 1K is a loss, 2K is a draw, and more than that is a win. So no, the kill rate is not equal to the win rate no matter how many fallacies or mental gymnastics you people want to do.
There, crystal clear. Whoever doesn't understand by now is because he doesn't want to.
Why in the European football / soccer leagues you gain 1 point for a draw when what is important is to beat the other team?and
But hey, you want to say that a killer in DbD has 5 possible outcomes instead of 3? Fine! A killer can "lose more", lose, draw, win or "win more".I feel like these are the right examples, but the totally wrong conclusion.
In European football if a team won 4 out of 10 games, how well are they doing? The answer is, you don't know until you know how many of the other 6 games were draws/losses. 4 wins and 6 losses the team is below the middle, 4 wins and 6 draws the team is probably 2 to 5 points behind first.
But DbD is even more complex than that. It would like like if in the above standings 'win more' granted 5 points and 'lose more' resulted in -2 points. Now to know how well the 4 and 10 team is doing, you need to not only know how many of the other 6 were draws, but how many of wins were 'win mores' and how many of the loses were 'lose more'.
The total amount of 'wins' and 'win mores' is irrelevant because you need to consider each of those 5 factors (actually six or more when you throw in hatch).
Which is exactly what MMR does which is why it is a horrible thing to base your argument off for win rates because with MMR kill rate = win rate (though again, actually slightly higher because of hatch).
-
@radiantHero23 said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8-GsBPnWjo&t=328s
Following the "survivor quitting - epidemic"- video, I found this take, which I honestly agree with. The content creator talks about multiple aspects and offers constructive criticism.
Their suggestions honestly seem very reasonable and got me thinking about a possible solution to not just quitting, but to tunneling, this being buffing the 3v1 for survivors.
3v1 at a certain amount of gens is what makes survivor games hopeless and supports the quitter mentality.
Therefore, the 3v1 could be looked at to both disincetivise tunneling and incentivising the 1v4. Obviously the solution is not as simple because of a multitude of other factors, however, this idea could serve as a great starting point to actually find a base that can be worked upon.
What are your thoughts on this. Not just my take, but the video. If you have the time, please take the time and watch it.
PS.: love the Layton - music.The vid creator compares the video to some other games. A normal and valid approach. The problem is we also have to stop and think why are we all playing DbD instead of Marvel Rivals, Overwatch, etc? DbD offers something unique compared to those other games and in attempts to improve DbD we need to be wary of ruining the things that make it unique.
At its core, DbD is an elimination game where survivors are asked to value both their own escape and the escape of others as different goals. This creates some inherent problems that emerge in the game design, but its perhaps an inevitable result of what makes the game good.
As @edgarpoop points out, one of my main problems with the 3v1 isn't that its unbalanced, is that if the 3 survivors are good the game can still take a really long time and feel pointless on both sides.
I think that's a huge difference between DbD and most other games I've played. With other games by the time it becomes clear that one side has won, the game is usually almost over. You might as well play it out. I think this is one of the reasons that people tend to quit DbD more, a feeling of 'get me out of this before it becomes awful'.
As for the solutions offered in the video
1: Comeback Mechanic - Probably a good idea, except really hard to get into the game at this point in time. I think the concept makes 2v8 much healthier, though there it still needs some work.
The problem is that it goes against the core nature of an elimination game so any type of comeback mechanic would need to be carefully balanced.
2: Tech perks - too many killers for this to work out. I think it also underestimates how angry survivors would feel about burning a perk slot just for a killer they find unfun. I think he also oversimplifies why people find certain killers unfun. Everyone has different reasons and trying to account for all of them is impossible.
3: Endorsements - too easy to manipulate, too little feedback to the player.
-
I think the best solution at this point is to just prevent the first survivor hooked from kobe unless they have a perk. If BHVR is truly concerned that this would lead to players quitting the game or otherwise refusing to play, let players DC on hook without a stacking penalty.
-
@beater15 said:
I haven't realized what a widespread problem this is until Otz released a video earlier today on Xenomorph. He recently came out with a tier list ranking Xeno about mid tier which apparently was "controversial", many people thinking Xeno is in a higher tier or better than it actually is.
Here lies the problem and this is a great example, because these people have never faced a top MMR survivor team that's able to properly counter Xenomorph. They never played against teams that place turrets in the most inconvenient spots (for the killer), survivors who know the map inside and out, survivors that know how to dodge the tail attack despite how "uncounterable" some people say it is. If you've played Xeno against a really good coordinated team you know what I mean, and you know Xeno is definitely not "top tier" like people claim it to be.
Most people haven't reached the hard cap on MMR, but this type of misinformation is spread and accepted in this "bubble" of thinking within the community. And don't get me started on the whole "MMR is a myth" topic, it's been datamined and there are clear soft/hard caps, most people might get to the "gold tier" of ranks but don't reach the absolute max MMR where you face the real sweaty teams.
To put this all bluntly, most people's opinions don't matter in terms of balancing the game because they've never faced the best, and they don't know this because they think they're playing against the best players. Maybe it's an issue with MMR and the whole matchmaking system too, but at least MMR should be shown to people for an ego check (for lack of better words).
He recently came out with a tier list ranking Xeno about mid tier which apparently was "controversial", many people thinking Xeno is in a higher tier or better than it actually is.Tier lists being controversial isn't exactly new. It comes up all the time with even players having tens of thousands of hours disagreeing about certain killers (especially when we start discussing C to A ranks).
Specifically in this video, the 'controversy' that Otz cites at the beginning with the posts he put on screen aren't calling Xeno S tier by any means, but disagree with some of the killers Otz has above Xeno.
It's also strange because if the match he showed, where he got a 3k, against a stacked survivor team, is evidence of a strong survivor team / weak killer, that speaks volumes about the game.
Here lies the problem and this is a great example, because these people have never faced a top MMR survivor team that's able to properly counter Xenomorph.Never is such a strong statement. How many games are we discussing? 10, 50, 100?
To put this all bluntly, most people's opinions don't matter in terms of balancing the game because they've never faced the bestIs Otz the best Alien player in the world?
What's our dividing line for whose opinions are worthwhile and whose are not?
Maybe it's an issue with MMR and the whole matchmaking system too, but at least MMR should be shown to people for an ego check (for lack of better words).The one reason I would like MMR to be shown is I think it show to people the randomness that exists in the game. As killer, when the survivors get a good result its easy to assume they were high MMR, and if they a get bad result low MMR, but I really expect what would be shown is how much variance exists in the game. I think people would be surprised that they are hitting similar MMR ratings but getting wildly different results.
-
@PetTheDoggo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3866008#Comment_3866008
The amount he gains from winning a match is incredibly small.
Yeah, but any killer equal to that is way beyond soft cap, so doesn't matter.
Not really, because every time you lose makes up for those wins.
Yeah, but 60% kill rate means you gain more than lose.
Also how many games killer mains lose? Sure, I don't expect occasional killer players to be near softcap, but players who actually focus on them? I would guess majority is above soft cap.
I might be misunderstanding what you are asking / talking about, but here goes.
Yeah, but 60% kill rate means you gain more than lose.Not once things have settled.
If you had an evenly matched survivor and killer, the killer wins 3 out of every 5 games. However the 2 games the survivor wins in this scenario are worth the equivalent of the 3 games the killer wins.
So to use some made up numbers, let's presume an MMR win is 5 if the players were just starting off (same MMR). The killer and the survivor split into their 60 / 40 win percentage with the killer going up and the survivor going down. Pretty quickly, the MMR will slightly expect the killer to win, so they start awarding the killer player 4 MMR for a win, and when the survivor wins he gets 6. Over the course of 5 games both players would have gained, and lost, 12 points. Neither has moved, despite the killer winning more.
Now until things have settled (i.e. not a lot of games played), play fluctuates a lot, but once numbers have settled the fact that one player wins more than the other is accounted by how MMRs award points.
Sure, I don't expect occasional killer players to be near softcap, but players who actually focus on them? I would guess majority is above soft cap.You would expect people who focus on a game to be better at the game. I don't see why that would be unique for the killer side.
-
@PetTheDoggo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3865991#Comment_3865991
Doesn't have to be flat, but basically every 3k should increase your MMR to some extent, right?
So at that point it's simply about number of games and with 60% kill rates your MMR is going to increase slowly, but many killer mains get higher kill rates than that. So 5% seems simply too low to me.
Not really, because every time you lose makes up for those wins.
If you gain 5, then gain 5, then lose 10, you haven't moved.
In an MMR system if 2 players played each for eternity, and their skills never changed, their MMRs would remain constant after the first 100 games or so (probably way less), even if one of the players won considerably more than the other. Because when the better player won they would get less points that would be counteracted by when the worse player won.
It's like how Magnus Carlsen has been a 2800+ rated chess player for 15 to 16 years (I don't think he's dropped below in that time) at this point despite winning far more than he loses. The amount he gains from winning a match is incredibly small.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3865573#Comment_3865573
Alright, let's use your logic here: You are playing a match where you need to complete 4 minigames. If you don't complete any minigame, you have to pay 20 dollars. If you only complete 1 minigame, you have to pay 10. If you complete 2 minigames, you don't have to pay anything but don't earn anything either. If you complete 3 minigames, you earn 10 dollars, and completing all minigames, you earn 20 dollars.
You play the match and only complete 1 minigame. Now, have you won the match? Did you "gain 10 dollars" by completing that single minigame, or have you lost and now have to pay 10 dollars? Which of course is better than having to pay 20, but still, you have to pay.
And again, you can look at it however you want. Won't change the previously stated facts.
And if you played the game a 100 times, 400 minigames, and ended up plus $600, did you win or lose? It doesn't matter what the induvial result of each set of four mini-games was, what matters is the amount of money you are holding at the end.
Which is how MMR works. It doesn't matter how you break up the minigames or what the result of each set of four was. In the long run, the only thing that matter is the total result. The killer played against 400 survivors and killed 240 of them, how exactly it broke down is irrelevant to the system.
Now you as a player might care more about the results of those individual sets of four than you do the overall whole. Which is fine, but MMR doesn't, so trying to use it to justify a win rate discussion doesn't make sense. As others have said, if you're going off MMR, win rate = kill rate (actually, win rate > kill rate assuming at least some hatch escapes).
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3865469#Comment_3865469
I don't see how it's a reasonable interpretation for the game to have specific single goals for each side, and positive or negative feedback based on whether each player reached that goal, but then conclude that goal isn't the win condition. It just seems a little arbitrary to me.
If you escape, you reached your goal, you get the positive message, you get more points, things like Adept challenges use that as their goal so it counts for that, the MMR system designed to track wins and losses counts it as a win, and generally speaking you successfully leveraged or avoided every system and mechanic in the game that is designed to aid or hamper your ability to reach that goal.
How's that not winning? The entire framework the game has for providing any kind of feedback is designed to support this outcome, as is every mechanic designed to favour your side. By contrast, there's absolutely zero framework in the game at all to support the notion of a team win condition or a team win/loss outcome.
I think people tend to conflate the game's strict mechanical win condition with player incentives and goals, but the two don't necessarily have to be the same thing and can even conflict sometimes. Take your example of someone hooked when the gates are open- what are you risking when you go to save them? You're risking losing, because you might get sacrificed too. If you just want to secure your own win for whatever reason, it would be a bad play to go back and save that other survivor… but a lot of players find it more fun to risk that win to gain a better score or meet a more satisfying condition than just seeing the victory screen.
Things do get a bit messier with killer- survivors have a hard binary, win or lose, escape or die, but killers do have some grey area. Logically it's obvious that the killer's win condition is related to killing, for the same reasons that apply to survivors, but exactly how many kills you need in order to win is murkier and not something the game has as much feedback for. The general community consensus there is one I agree with, but there is more need for a community consensus there compared to survivors.
Still, though, we can see another instance where a player's incentive and individual goals may not line up when looking at the killer role, too. I know I've had a lot of matches where I feel satisfied with just one kill even though it's pretty obviously a loss, because it was a hard fought match with plenty of close plays and interaction. I lost, by most reasonable interpretations of the game's structures and feedback, but I don't mind that I lost. That doesn't mean the game's win condition is unclear because I was satisfied, though.
It just seems a little arbitrary to me.Of course its arbitrary. That's kind of the point.
Everything in a game is an arbitrary creation of its maker, points, goals, etc. Usually that creator also sets a win condition. BHVR has not, they've instead given a variety of goals for players to accomplish and allowed each player to put their own valuation on their own goals.
The fact that this discussion happens, and keeps happening on different forums, kind of proves the point. In most games the discussion would be silly. The team that won got more kills, held the point, pushed the payload, etc.
Now if you went into any of those games and had a discussion on 'what is considered a good performance', things would get a lot more subjective. BHVR has taken the win condition and mixed it in with the good performance discussion.
If you escape, you reached your goal, you get the positive message, you get more points, things like Adept challenges use that as their goal so it counts for that, the MMR system designed to track wins and losses counts it as a win, and generally speaking you successfully leveraged or avoided every system and mechanic in the game that is designed to aid or hamper your ability to reach that goal.The problem with this metric is you also gets 'positive messages' for lots of other things, such as rescues. The one thing that only tracks escapes/kills is completely hidden from the player (which I think is very relevant if we're going to creator intent).
You're riskinglosing,because you might get sacrificed too. If you just want to secure your own win for whatever reason, itwouldbe a bad play to go back and save that other survivor… but a lot of players find it more fun to risk that win to gain a better score or meet a more satisfying condition thanjustseeing the victory screen.You're risking getting sacrificed, which is clearly bad, but whether escaping or not on its own would be a win is up to the player.
And if many players are playing for a 'more satisfying condition', that makes it a part of winning. Take say a control point game, if a winning team on the verge of victory abandoned the point to get more kills we would think of it is as gloating, showing off, etc. In the vast majority of the cases it carries little risk and is seen as BM that is only done in rare circumstance where one sides dominates the other.
In DbD survivors going back for that last rescue is an expected part of the game (though not required, because, again, arbitrary by design).
Things do get a bit messier with killer- survivors have a hard binary, win or lose, escape or die, but killers do have some grey area. Logically it's obvious that the killer's win condition isrelatedto killing, for the same reasons that apply to survivors, but exactly how many kills you need in order to win is murkier and not something the game has as much feedback for. The general community consensus there is one I agree with, but thereismore need for a community consensus there compared to survivors.So I think this is the reverse. The killer condition is pretty clear, we're only discussing the degree they need to perform it. Whether survivors should view the fate of the other survivors as part of their evaluation of the match is entirely left up to the player.
I know I've had a lot of matches where I feel satisfied with just one kill even though it's pretty obviously a loss, because it was a hard fought match with plenty of close plays and interaction. I lost, by most reasonable interpretations of the game's structures and feedback, but I don'tmindthat I lost. That doesn't mean the game's win condition is unclearbecauseI was satisfied, though.That's just a totally different thing and it applies not just to this game, but all games. I've lost plenty of video games, sports, etc. where my team lost while I was happy with my individual performance, and times were my team won and I was disappointed with my performance. But never once did I have any reason to question whether the result was a win or a loss.
Sorry about the delay in reply.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3865237#Comment_3865237
I'm not basing my position on win condition on the MMR system, that's backwards. The MMR system was implemented in line with the game's already existing win conditions.
I find it interesting (and, admittedly, mildly annoying) that people presume there's no win condition for this game, because to me it seems obvious that there is. They're online matches that end when one side meets their goal, and everything in the game is geared towards those sides meeting their goals. I don't see how you could interpret that any way but those goals being the win condition.
I'd be tempted to say it's because the game doesn't say "You Win" or "You Lose" when those goals are met/not met, but that seems pretty arbitrary, I don't want to assume that's the opposing position, it feels bad faith somehow.
This game does have the potential for degrees of victory in line with its win conditions, too - your bloodpoints, emblem scores, and exact kills on killer can make the difference between a narrow victory and a crushing one, if you're inclined to interpret it that way. The game does have win conditions, though, it's impossible for it to not.
I find it interesting (and, admittedly, mildly annoying) that people presume there's no win condition for this game, because to me it seems obvious that there is. They're online matches that end when one side meets their goal, and everything in the game is geared towards those sides meeting their goals. I don't see how you could interpret that any way but those goals being the win condition.The game has goals, that's a little different than a win condition. A win condition is an singular overall outcome, win, lose, or draw. Multiple factors might determine that, but its either true, not true, or a draw.
If the gates are open and a survivor is on hook and you are at the gate, if escaping was the sole win condition, than going back to save the survivor would be a bad play. However, both things in the game are goals that a survivor in that situation weighs risking one against the other.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3865222#Comment_3865222
Alright, I'll take another crack at explaining myself and if we can't see eye to eye, I'm amenable to bowing out- though to be clear, I just said that killers are doing fine.
This game is asymmetrical, and its win conditions reflect that. One survivor escaping is that one survivor winning, but if the other three survivors die, the killer won too.
There is no "team" win condition for survivor. There's also no "team" win condition for killer, it just seems that way because the killer "team" is one player.
It's definitely fair to want a team win condition for survivor because it'd make a few things quite a bit easier to talk about and potentially even to balance, but there's no framework to support that in the game that we currently have. The game only has feedback for individual win conditions, because that's how it was initially built, that's how its basic systems have operated since day one.
I do think it's relevant to this conversation because it should affect how we interpret things like the kill rate and the overall survivor escape rate, but like I said, I'm nowhere near good enough with numbers to figure out what that says about the game's overall balance numerically.
There is no "team" win condition for survivor. There's also no "team" win condition for killer, it just seems that way because the killer "team" is one player.There's no win condition at all. There are outcomes that increase or decrease your MMR, but if we're narrowing it down to that, kill rate = win rate.
Most games (whether video or traditional sports) have a win / loss / draw mechanic. Whether you win a game of basketball by 1 or 30, you still won. And most leagues treat that win as the most important thing, with degree of victory being just a tie breaker.
DbD is different, the totality of the outcome is important. A 3k/3k/3k/2k/0k and a 4k/4k/1k/1k/1k are basically the same. Both outcomes have a 55% kill rate (we're presuming no hatch here for simplicity). Now a play might prefer outcome 1 because they feel like they won 3 and only lost once, while the second they won twice and lost three times, but that's just a feeling.
Which is the same on the survivor side, feelings of winning or losing. Personally, I'll take a 3e where I die over a 1e where its just me, though the ultimate goal is to both escape and help others to escape.
Basically: if we want to make it just MMR, then its the same for both sides and kill rate equal win rate / loss rate. If we want something broader than that, then we need to talk about perceptions on both sides.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3864983#Comment_3864983
- Survivor A is hooked
- Survivor B uses the perk on Survivor A
- Survivor B is hooked
- Survivor C uses the perk on Survivor B
The above scenario is basically saying "don't chase survivor A, but don't chase survivor B either". If survivors want to protect one survivor from being tunneled, that that is ok, but we shouldn't have a "let's simultaneously protect 2 or 3 survivors from being tunneled" situation.
Daisy chaining this perk, is basically saying that unless the killer is literally using their first 4 hooks on 4 different survivors, then they are tunneling. That is way too overboard for a definition of tunneling.
Between the point that survivor A and B is hooked, what are you as the killer doing?
How have you not started a chase with survivor C or D?
And why did survivor B use the perk to make themselves a quick down on the first unhook?
And how does the killer never manage to start a chase with any survivor other than the unhooker until the survivors have had a chance to daisy chain the perk?
Because right now it sounds like the survivors in this example are running a complex plan to counter proxy camping/tunneling instead of bringing a single Reassurance.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3864888#Comment_3864888
If I'm purposely doing strategies for the intention of winning the game, that is 100% acceptable. I tunnel because it helps me win, and that is acceptable.
What is not fine, is when people do things with the intention of making other players miserable. Yes, there is a big difference here.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3864920#Comment_3864920
My argument is the perk isn't anti-tunnel, because when SWFs bring multiple copies of this perk, tunneling and not tunneling needs to the same outcome (the hook states being spread out). The killer isn't better off if they avoid tunneling, with the only exception of quickly throwing someone else on a hook and then immediately going right back to the tunnel.
My argument is the perk shouldn't be allowed to daisy chain, which means that if a survivor uses the perk on someone else, then they should be ineligible on having someone use the perk on them. If this change was made, then a killer would actually be better off targeting a survivor that used this perk, instead of continuing to tunnel the same survivor over and over.
My argument is the perk isn't anti-tunnel, because when SWFs bring multiple copies of this perk, tunneling and not tunneling needs to the same outcome (the hook states being spread out).There's a lot of problems with this.
1: All anti-tunnel perks can get value whether the killer tunnels or not. Just because a perk has a primary purpose doesn't mean that needs to be the only time it comes up. Babysitter can help a survivor get away from a tunneling killer, but it can also be generally helpful.
Another example would be how Unbreakable and We're Going to Live Forever can help out against a killer who is dedicated slugging, but they can also be situationally useful.
StB is best if you have a hard tunneling killer. You still might get value out of it against a non-hard tunneling killer, but that's basically true of all perks.
You brought up earlier the idea of a perk that stuns the killer for 60 seconds if they tunnel - hypothetically that's the level of power a perk would need if it could only truly be used in one instance, but it would also be a horribly designed guessing game perk.
2: StB carries a fair amount of risk for the use it gives. If the survivor brings it and they are tunneled, no use. If the killer wasn't tunneling but is spreading hooks and gets an exposed down the perk helped the killer. Even against a hard tunneling killer, the exposed might negate the ability to body block.
3: Same outcome tunnel or not. The daisy chain argument doesn't make sense in a non-tunnel scenario, like every time you've laid out a scenario multiple people have pointed out how it doesn't make sense and I'm really trying to understand it. If you tunnel the perk counters it, which is its purpose along with a lot of other perks, and if you don't tunnel you're spreading hooks around anyway. Like as killer are you just standing at the hook downing people after they come in for the rescue, hooking them, and then just standing there?
The best I can come up with for a non-tunnel situation where you have 2 hooks, 1 hook, 1 hook, and 0 hooks, and the final survivor is the one who saves the first person, but that's not daisy chaining, still falls on the perks intended purpose, other non-tunnel perks could still be used in this scenario, and we really need to know how the final survivor changed up their playstyle to accommodate the perk.
If this change was made, then a killer would actually be better off targeting a survivor that used this perk, instead of continuing to tunnel the same survivor over and over.But why shouldn't survivors be able to fight against killers desire to tunnel? This change would basically make the one survivor the target of 'please tunnel me' in this set up.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3864864#Comment_3864864
If StB didn't exist, I would be trying to hook the same survivor 3 times in a row. This scenario is showing that the perk doesn't really discourage tunneling, because tunneling and not tunneling leads to the same outcome.
At the moment I'm just trying to follow what your argument is. You started off in this thread talking about killers not intentionally tunneling, and now you seem to be throwing away your own example to focus on the hard tunnel.
StB is an anti-tunnel perk. It's one of many in the game. Compared to the tools that already exist, it seems pretty weak. Reassurance could just keep a survivor on the hook, babysitter allows the survivor to get away, etc. And those perks don't require the user to stay under death hook, give an exposed, or require more than one survivor to run them.
The one time StB seems to shine is a killer who absolutely commits to the hard tunnel, which is exactly what the perk is designed to counter, so I don't see the problem.
-
@tjt85 said:
...What would their build be? I guess this question will only really apply to Killers that were once human (pretty hard to imagine a Xeno popping gens).
Since the Entity's realm is canonically a multiverse, I think it's probably only a matter of time before we see one of BHVR's original Killers enter the fog as a Survivor. Would most likely be one of the "just a guy" Killers, since I would guess that most of their mains spend the greatest amount of Auric cells on cosmetics and would jump at the chance to survive playing as their favourite Killer.
But until that happens, I recently came up with one for The Legion. So here is my bootleg "But we have Legion at home..." Survivor build. I chose Meg because she has a few cosmetic items that look like something Legion might wear (as well as an all important mask and a past predilection for teenage vandalism). Nea has a punky style and would probably work just as well for similar reasons.
The build is:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/DFB3820JSBDA/legionsurvivorbuild.jpg
Resilience, a good general purpose perk chosen mostly for the extra vaulting speed. Also increases gen repair speed while injured, which mirrors Legion's game delay nicely. But Finesse would also be a decent perk choice for vaulting, if you perfer that.
Inner Focus. Since Legion's power is an info power, then the build needs an info perk and this one fits the bill perfectly. Partly because it allows you to track Survivor scratch marks just like a Killer (ironically something Legion cannot do while in power), but also because it reveals the Killer's aura any time another Survivor loses a health state, mimicking the Killer instinct aspect of Feral Frenzy. This is currently a totally slept on perk imho. Since it got a recent buff it's well worth running, although I rarely ever see it. Empathy might be a good alternative if you don't have this perk.
Sprint Burst. Because you're a Legion and you've gotta go fast. Smash Hit would be a good drop in replacement, since with Vigil it has nearly the same cooldown as Feral Frenzy with the Scratched Ruler add-on (and a name with a musical connection just like their mixtapes).
Vigil. This perk lets you recharge your "power gauge" a little bit faster.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/D0Q5O1UK0B5Q/legionsurvivorbuild2.jpg
Played a fun game with this build against a chill Oni. I was able to get the gate open just in the nick of time thanks to Resilience. And I could see him coming to my gate with Inner Focus as he chased after the Dwight, which made for a tense ending to the trial. Played a few more games that didn't go so well, but I honestly still think it's a pretty decent build and I definitely plan on running it again.
What Killer as a Survivor builds can you come up with? (You can even invent their perks if you like).
pretty hard to imagine a Xeno popping gensThe clear Xeno build would be -
Alert - always knows what is going on
Decisive Strike - just when you thinks its dead, its not
Dance With Me - Ability to scamper away
Head On - Pops out when you least expect it.
Xeno brings a map to reflect their senses.
Possible changes include light footed or distortion to represent the stealth ability.