crogers271
crogers271
About
- Username
- crogers271
- Joined
- Visits
- 8,432
- Last Active
Comments
-
@StalkingYou said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3832242#Comment_3832242
I get that; they are equally good as I am. I want the matches to be a test of skill. However when going against teams like that it doesn't feel like a test of skill because most if not all matches are determined by them running busted items/perks/map offerings. I know the killer can do that too but unless you are playing some very select killers then your tools will never match the strength of theirs.
I get what you are saying, but your complaint seems to be about the game itself. To use an example:
I know the killer can do that too but unless you are playing some very select killers then your tools will never match the strength of theirs.Let's look at very select killers. Those killers still exist even if you're a soloq survivor and in that case you are incredibly over matched.
This isn't just SWFs, its the game. Most games have a very clear balancing: there is a win objective and various strategies to accomplish that objective. DbD doesn't even have a win objectives, people can play for multiple goals (bloodpoints, pips, as a survivor if you care if the other survivors escape or not). Then you have things like addons - top level addons are meant to be broken. Addons / items are not designed to be balanced, different ones (higher levels) are clearly stronger than others.
Throw on that killers are designed so that there are beginner and end game type killers.
DbD is designed much more as an experience that emphasizes gameplay variety over a design to compare skill levels. MMR is the clean up mechanism that exist to try and keep it under control.
It's understandable to dislike/hate that. It's why I didn't get into the game until a few years ago because a lot of older design elements I think were considerably worse (though they definitely have their fans). But just calling out one elements seems to be missing the forest for the trees.
-
@StalkingYou said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3832242#Comment_3832242
I get that; they are equally good as I am. I want the matches to be a test of skill. However when going against teams like that it doesn't feel like a test of skill because most if not all matches are determined by them running busted items/perks/map offerings. I know the killer can do that too but unless you are playing some very select killers then your tools will never match the strength of theirs.
I get what you are saying, but your complaint seems to be about the game itself. To use an example:
I know the killer can do that too but unless you are playing some very select killers then your tools will never match the strength of theirs.Let's look at very select killers. Those killers still exist even if you're a soloq survivor and in that case you are incredibly over matched.
This isn't just SWFs, its the game. Most games have a very clear balancing: there is a win objective and various strategies to accomplish that objective. DbD doesn't even have a win objectives, people can play for multiple goals (bloodpoints, pips, as a survivor if you care if the other survivors escape or not). Then you have things like addons - top level addons are meant to be broken. Addons / items are not designed to be balanced, different ones (higher levels) are clearly stronger than others.
Throw on that killers are designed so that there are beginner and end game type killers.
DbD is designed much more as an experience that emphasizes gameplay variety over a design to compare skill levels. MMR is the clean up mechanism that exist to try and keep it under control.
It's understandable to dislike/hate that. It's why I didn't get into the game until a few years ago because a lot of older design elements I think were considerably worse (though they definitely have their fans). But just calling out one elements seems to be missing the forest for the trees.
-
Posts like this are so incredibly counterproductive.
I wish BHVR would make game changes to make tunneling less effective. But the idea that people should be required to play in certain ways, even though the game allows those styles of play, are counterproductive.
If something in the game is too strong / broken / unfun, reserve your complaints for BHVR.
-
@UndeddJester said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3830903#Comment_3830903
Oh yeah, I absolutely understand your point, and it's completely valid… but this disparity is basically my argument… I didn't really wrap it up to a point, and left it to hang so my bad, but to try and clear that up:
- If you balance the game so that soloQ can win 50% of the time vs. the killer, then you put the Killer at a significant disadvantage vs. an organised SWF, and a slight disadvantage vs. a normal SWF.
- If you balance the game so that the killer can win 50% of the time vs. an organised SWF, then you put the survivors at a significant disadvantage for soloQ, and a slight disadvantage for a normal SWF.
- If you go halfway in the middle, and you balance so the killer can with 50% vs. an normal SWF, then the killer has a slight disadvantage vs. organised SWF, and soloQ has a slight disadvantage vs. killer.
However the problem of what I'm describing in these 3 scenarios is we're assuming the killer is playing optimally each time… and this is where we get into philosophical and subjective terms and what is best for the game. A truly balanced game would be that the most optimal way to play both sides would result in an equal chance to win… this is by definition balanced… Note: I'm deliberately avoiding individual killer strengths, since this muddies everything.
However as you correctly point out, this is not the average game experience in DBD; it is an asym, so the respective sides have very different set of skills. Both need to perform respectively well in chase, but the survivors need teamwork/coordination and map/tile awareness skills, and the killer needs greater predication/time management and objective/area control skills.
I don't think anyone would disagree is much harder for a survivor team to coordinate and bring their full strength to bear compared to the killer… one player can completely snowball the game out of the survivors hands, and it is why we have such a difference in killer being easier to learn to begin with. Thus the way it goes is we have to deliberately gimp the killer somewhat to allow survivors a reasonable chance at success despite them not playing optimally, and what we need to debate, is how far should the killer fall so that everyone is relatively happy?
After all, if at the very top end of play the killer is defaulted to being weaker than the survivor, where the only way to win is if survivors make mistakes…. what incentive is there to play killer? We could ask this same question for survivor the other way… but the incentive for survivor is that, if you play well enough with no mistakes, you should win.
Option 1 is simply not tenable, we can't have a game where the killer is so much weaker than the survivor team that 2 good players with a disorganised pair of yahoos can realistically go even. What incentive is there to play killer is you're at such a significant disadvantage where you playing at a consistent level can be beaten by mix of performances from soloQ. If SWF didn't exist, this would be perfect… but unfortunately SWF must exist, so this is off the table.
Option 2 is the one where both sides are played optimally and both sides have an even chance to win…. but as you point out, most players can't play optimally on survivor side, so killers win the game most of the time… and SoloQ gets very much buried more often than not… This is also not good.
Option 3 is where I believe the game currently sits, and is where it kinda must sit… and it depends how much value you think a SWF team has. Based on the stats from yesteryear, a SWF swings the game by about 9% kill rate. (Escape rates of 39%, 40%, 43% and 48% for solo, 2, 3 and 4 man teams respectively if my memory serves).
The questions at the end of all of this is:
- How often should an organised 4 man SWF team beat the killer? 50%? 55%? 60%?
- How often should a good solo player beat the killer? 40%? 45%? 50%?
- Should we be doing more to limit the SWF advantage?
- Is it even possible to limit that advantage, and how much by? (I think so, but it'll never go completely)
My argument isn't necessarily that I disagree with SoloQ having it tough… it's more how do you not make it tough with SWF making the chaos of solo Q not a thing?
Taking this in reverse order.
The questions at the end of all of this is:How often should an organised 4 man SWF team beat the killer? 50%? 55%? 60%?How often should a good solo player beat the killer? 40%? 45%? 50%?Should we be doing more to limit the SWF advantage?Is it even possible to limit that advantage, and how much by? (I think so, but it'll never go completely)
To answer these I think we need to look at the way the game is played. This isn't a 'balance around average', but what type of people are actually playing the game.
Like I always play soloq or killer. On a purely personal level I'd like them to ignore SWFs entirely, but that's not realistic. If you told me that the majority of players were in 4 man SWFs, I'd say that's what you design the game around.
So the first answer to your question: you do the least amount of harm possible. If four man SWFs are rare, then you treat them like they are rare. This is kind of the survivor side of the 'stopping nerfing all the killer perks because they're broken on Nurse' argument.
The second: encourage players to view the end game result based on who they matched against (being the game has no official win conditions). 4 person SWFs should be looking at anything less than a 4e as a loss, a 3e maybe being their draw level.
The third: on limiting SWF advantages. Sadly I think that ship has sailed. When SWF was introduced way back, that was probably the only opportunity the game had to actually limit SWFs. But if we're just discussing hypothetically, I'd limit SWFs to no perk more than twice and that they must each have a different item type. Give that a few months and then reevaluate.
After all, if at the very top end of play the killer is defaulted to being weaker than the survivor, where the only way to win is if survivors make mistakes…. what incentive is there to play killer?I guess I'd say that to get to this level you've probably put in 1000s, maybe over 10,000, hours and if at the point you just move on that's a pretty good result for a video game.
While that might sound flippant, I think it is easy to overestimate getting to this mastery level would take. Not only would you put 1000s of hours into the game, but given the variance that is built into the game, you'd need to spend a lot of time at that top level before it became truly noticeable.
Or to look at it another way, would it be any more fun if a player was at the optimal level, and they were matched against optimal players, and the result always evened out to a draw? The moment we begin to talk about hypothetical optimal levels of play we're really leaving the realm of game design.
After all, if at the very top end of play the killer is defaulted to being weaker than the survivor, where the only way to win is if survivors make mistakes…. what incentive is there to play killer?What incentive is there to ever play a video game?
If you're going just off balance and wins, its taking a lot out of video games. Like there are reason we're playing Dead by Daylight and not Call of Duty or Overwatch or Concord or The Sims. Games theme, mechanics, and experience are all meant to be fun. Balance is a part of that, but not the only part.
Thus the way it goes is we have to deliberately gimp the killer somewhat to allow survivors a reasonable chance at success despite them not playing optimally, and what we need to debate, is how far should the killer fall so that everyone is relatively happy?Everyone is relatively happy is the key question, but its really hard to debate beyond guess work.
Happiness is the most important and most subjective element. It's why so many video games fail because trying to find the correct spot for multiple game elements to appeal to a large enough audience is an incredibly difficult task.
We're also hampered by how realistic this discussion is based on. Like if we are talking redesigning DbD there are lot of things I'd do differently (and I suspect the devs probably would to), but in a more realistic sense we have to deal with the game we have now.
But if I was to boil it down to a simplified answer:
-pick whatever kill rate / win rate / end result you think the game should be balanced around (my personal is 57.5% kill rate). Treat all MMR as equal, the number should not sway more than 7.5% in either direction along MMR (and to be clear, a rate of 50% or 65% is not good, more like barely acceptable and needs looked at, but anything outside would be an emergency).
—possible exception: BHVR has designed certain killers as 'starter' or 'end game'. While I don't like that design, if it exists, those killers should be judged off the MMR bracket they are designed for.
-run the kill rate numbers without and with SWF (and break it by SWF groups)
-If the total kill rate is less than 5% difference between those two, its not statistically significant enough to worry about (in this way we're measuring not just the advantage but the overall impact).
If I had that number I could give an opinion on how big of a problem I think it is. From there you could also look at individual perk breakdowns, like if something is really bumping up the SWF survival rate and not impacting soloq (Deliverance being a likely example). But again hard to talk about without the numbers.
-
I'll jump in on this because I'm being left to bleed out in the void.
@UndeddJester said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3830664#Comment_3830664
It's kinda the point of balance though is it not?
If both teams are played to their max potential, where both sides take the best tools available to them, then they should tie, but it's still widely accepted that at max potential DBD is still a survivor sided game... the old SWF > Killer > SoloQ.
So this leaves us with a quandry... how "bad" should survivors be allowed to be in order to still consider the game fair?
Fundamentally SWF has to exist for DBD to thrive by being able to play with your friends, but because it exists, the game has to be balanced so that the killer can compete with an organised SWF does it not?
The only way you could make it fairer for SoloQ is if you literally made DBD a true soloQ at base.
Maybe if a ranked mode banned SWF the game could be balanced around that. Course we can't do that, cause that would mean SWFs would dominate casual games, so what killer in their right mind plays casual?
If both teams are played to their max potential, where both sides take the best tools available to them, then they should tieYou can't balance a game that has as many differences between the sides as DbD. Just look at your sentence that I'm quoting "both teams". Except the killer isn't a team. Even if we limit this discussion to just 4 person SWFs, communication, group strategy, teamwork, those are skill elements that a killer, by design, never has to deal with. So either survivors are rewarded for having good teamwork, or the game is balanced around the presumption they will have good teamwork, in which case survivors have to excel at a skill the killer doesn't just to have a chance.
So in balance you have to look at how realistic it is to achieve those things. How likely/easy is it for the killer to be 'great' compared to the survivors to be 'great'.
The real, and only way, you could ever create balance is the way comp does, gives both sides a turn on each side. That's how sports does it, both sides get opportunities to play offense and defense. But DbD is like a basketball game where one side never gets the ball and only plays defense and then we try and make up rules for a what a win for them would be.
Fundamentally SWF has to exist for DBD to thrive by being able to play with your friends, but because it exists, the game has to be balanced so that the killer can compete with an organised SWF does it not?But this can just be turned on its head:
Fundamentally, soloq has to exist for DbD tto thrive by being able to play when your friends aren't on / don't play this game / you just want to play alone. But, because it exists, the game has to be balances so that soloq can compete with an elite killer, does it not?
-
My general strategy:
If I'm running a toolbox I'm either running Deja Vu so I try and break the 3 gen. I usually wait until about the halfway point of the progress meter then try and rush the second half of the gen progress. This minimizes the concern about 'wasting' the toolbox.
This varies a lot though on factors - if I'm using Built to Last, if a teammate has streetwise, the killer type, etc.
-
@zarr said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3825019#Comment_3825019
Killrates are just such a tired topic where many of the same misconceptions regarding them are repeated most of any time they're brought up, I don't feel all too enthused to get into it. : - p BHVR sharing more detailed stats or even dumping their raw data for the community even just once would certainly re-enliven some of that enthusiasm, though!
It definitely comes apart at the fringes, and that's the experience that is most relevant to me and likely therefore what I am most concerned with. But the issues should be hard to ignore for any developer of a popular PVP game, as the winrates and streaks and the ease with which they are achieved risk boring your experienced and skilled players and frustrating anyone they go up against. The tournament scene is full of players that grew tired and bored of what pub DbD has to offer, and there are many more players of course that instead of finding their way into that scene simply stopped playing or playing nearly as much.
While BHVR is surely concerned with that issue to some extent (otherwise they wouldn't have worked to implement MMR to begin with, lax as they have gradually decided for it to become), I do think they see that these extremes at the upper spectrum constitute such a small percentage of the playerbase that they don't really care. Although they may neglect that precisely because it's such a relatively small portion, making things more exclusive and strict for those players and balancing for that realm wouldn't affect all that many players all that much. And they neglect that there's constantly new people entering into that range where they are barely challenged in pubs anymore, and so even though the "active" pool of such players at any time may be relatively small, there's a stream of players this affects and that as a result may play less. I for one would welcome a separate "competitive"/"ranked" queue with much stricter matchmaking and even distinct balance adjustments. Most popular PVP games have them these days. But creating more nuanced upper MMR brackets and having the matchmaker actually match people among those more exclusive pools more frequently would probably suffice, along with some general balance changes for the most egregious of offenders.
Rarity as a balancing mechanism for add-ons might yet linger in their approach to them, and for that I would likewise say that it probably even make sense from a "global average" perspective and through most of the MMR range, but breaks down at the edge of the spectrum where you have someone like Numinous using LoPro and getting 1300+ wins in a row (although in this case, to my surprise, they did actually nerf LoPro despite it not being a popularly used add-on yet a highly problematic outlier - I suspect this might've had to do with their consultants).
Rarity as a balancing mechanism for add-ons might yet linger in their approach to them, and for that I would likewise say that it probably even make sense from a "global average" perspective and through most of the MMR range, but breaks down at the edge of the spectrum where you have someone like Numinous using LoPro and getting 1300+ wins in a row (although in this case, to my surprise, they did actually nerf LoPro despite it not being a popularly used add-on yet a highly problematic outlier - I suspect this might've had to do with their consultants).This is true, but not what I was talking about. I mean like the rarity level of the addons (Iri, Purple, etc.).
Take old BNPs. I don't believe there is anyway anyone thought they were 'balanced' to autocomplete a gen. The 'balancing' factor was that they were rare. So maybe one in five or one in ten games you have this big, massive advantage.
I think a common misunderstanding about BHVR's approach is they don't care if every match is balanced (unlike other games), but whether a player has had a balanced experience over ten (or even a hundred) matches. Maybe some times you get the map and perk setup that gives you a huge advantages, maybe some times it swings the other way. I think they might even be okay with the unbalanced nature as it leads to more game variety.
As a game design, parts of it I like, parts of it I loathe. But back to the addons - I think what lingers is the idea / necessity given the blood web/grind that some addons are just better. By the way BHVR has designed the game Iri addons are meant to be broken (which has become silly as people have giant stockpiles of them). So going back to your original post on the data BHVR has, I don't think if they see these addons over performing that they would actually see it as a problem unless there was a massive difference.
Then we run into additional issues that would make it hard to spot in the data, such as MMR cleaning it up for a good portion of the player base and many players self selecting not to run overly broken builds even when it is incredibly evident how powerful they are.
-
If existing MMR didn't heavily influence others killers, any time a new killer came out low MMR survivors would get massacred and high MMR would wonder why no one is playing the new killer.
-
@zarr said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3824716#Comment_3824716
On top of this, there is also the issue that they exclusively use survivor-reported data for killrate stats, so there is both the bias of the kind of matches survivor players are more likely to be reporting, as well as that of the kind of players that would more likely be reporting on the site to begin with, skewing significantly toward more experienced players (given that they are interested in tracking their performance, aware of the site, and go through the trouble of submitting), that would also be more likely to play SWF than just any random average player. So you have stats that depict results from survivor players on the more experienced side, with a likely correlating overrepresentation of SWF, against random killers. Far from a random sample.
Given all that, it's honestly surprising how close they tend to get to BHVR's stats. But there are still notable differences. It's unfortunate that we can't look at nightlight's stats in much more detail either, it would be interesting to see the rates of all reports combined, to filter by killer-reported, by SWF, killer by map, killer by perk(s), killer by add-on(s), look at disconnect rates, at how many 3/4k matches had one survivor player score significantly lower than the rest of their group, and so on.
For the larger topic of killrates, it's definitely lame that they are only releasing any once in a blue moon. While I don't think too much will have changed since last time, there are some killers that would be interesting to see after their changes. Getting "high MMR" stats again would also be neat, as well as killrates on the respective maps and most commonly used perks, also for separate MMR brackets. At least we have recently gotten one new statistical insight: Contrary to common claims, people killing themselves on hook is far from a relevant factor in the killrates, as even for Skull Merchant it barely made a difference.
More than look at global average killrates however, I would hope BHVR at least internally actually make use of their ability to look at stats in much more detail, such as killers (and their add-ons) that are most represented in the "players with 70-80+% killrate" pool, or survivor players (and their perks) that manage comparable escape rates, to identify some of the most problematic killers/add-ons and perks stacked in SWF. It unfortunately doesn't appear they really do however, as most of their balance changes seem aimed at making killers coalesce around that 60% global average target, not really addressing blatant issues that anyone experienced at the game would be familiar with (in both directions: some killers having things that are problematically strong, others weak, despite not having concerningly low or high global average rates). They seemingly don't even put too much stock in "high MMR" stats, and that bracket is also still much too broad to see some of the most egregious, extreme issues, that enable players to dominate and win most if not all of the time. Granted, the primary issue is obviously the matchmaking that creates these much too broad player pools, but that if anything only makes it all the more compelling to address extreme outlier issues, as things are already easy enough in the vast majority of matches as a good killer player or a good survivor player in an SWF group with other good survivor players. The respective problematic killer characters/add-ons and stacked survivor perks enable these players then to have ridiculous winrates, basically never losing. Those things are simply not needed. You can win the vast majority of your killer matches as perkless Legion if you are good enough at the game - you don't need Nurse with good add-ons, she can get nerfed; and you can win the vast majority of your survivor matches if you are good enough and in a good-enough SWF - you don't need to be able to stack 4 BNP, 4 SB, 4 DS, and whatnot.
Zarr, your post fit on my computer screen without me having to scroll, I'm worried you've taken ill :).
I would hope BHVR at least internally actually make use of their ability to look at stats in much more detail, such as killers (and their add-ons) that are most represented in the "players with 70-80+% killrate" pool, or survivor players (and their perks) that manage comparable escape rates, to identify some of the most problematic killers/add-ons and perks stacked in SWF. It unfortunately doesn't appear they really do however, as most of their balance changes seem aimed at making killers coalesce around that 60% global average target, not really addressing blatant issues that anyone experienced at the game would be familiar withI think part of the issue here is that BHVR approaches balance issues in a way that seems (and potentially is) counter intuitive. I think BHVR heavily relies on the idea of MMR balancing things out. If a player wants to sweat and bring the best possible things it turns them from say a 7 out of 10 into an 8 out of 10 player, well if MMR works then its going to balance out though they'll need to keep running those things or face a harsh losing streak.
The above could possibly even be defended on the idea that it creates gameplay variety. I know in my matches as survivor if I'm easily looping the killer, I'm expecting to see double iris at end game. If the survivors are getting slaughtered, it's usually a couple of junk addons.
On the other hand, it doesn't feel right, and it breaks down at the edges of the spectrum.
On top of that, the addon system was originally designed with 'rarity' as a limiting factor. So something could be broken, but this was 'balanced' by it being rare (I have always loathed this design element). I think vestiges of this idea still linger in the design philosophy
-
@feechima said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3823796#Comment_3823796
I'm curious how does the community enforce rules besides complaining about playstyles?
Basically: if people think one side isn't playing the game the way it should be played, they make the game miserable.
This can be killers just leaving survivors on the ground to slowly bleed out at the end game (and then picking them up at the last moment), or survivors just hiding to hold the killer in the game as long as possible.
The other method is just refusing to play. It doesn't feel that good to 'win' if the other side just blatantly goes AFK.
-
We've had changes on both sides. Now if something has moved a few percentage points I think that is statistically significant given the sample size, though BHVR doesn't seem to worry about things like that too much.
But if Mandy says that the data is pretty much the same, then the data is probably pretty much the same.
-
@NarkoTri1er said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3820235#Comment_3820235
This is literally describing why distortion exists at all, because the only "base kit" aura blocking is to be in a locker. And, well, nearly everything killers can do has at least one perk that reveals auras now, so you'd have to spend the entire match in a locker to counter them.
repeat after me. Auras ONLY make it easier for killer to find a survivor, they don't auto-win chases. Basic gameplay counters to aura reading perks are good chase knowledge and knowledge, while there are NO basic gameplay counters to flashbang being thrown right below you.
Some aura reading perks deserve to be nerfed (NTH, Weave and Predator, people aren't even complaining about NTH enough) and magically only aura perks people keep using the "Distortion was the only counter" argument for are literally the perks that sould burn through the tokens anyways, meaning people defending Distortion don't even have idea what they are talking about, they just want to defend their refusal to improve in terms of chases and refusal to interact with the killer at all.
Adding on to what @ratcoffee said
Auras ONLY make it easier for killer to find a survivor, they don't auto-win chases.And flashbangs don't auto win the game or stop the killer from resuming the chase.
Basic gameplay counters to aura reading perks are good chase knowledge and knowledge, while there are NO basic gameplay counters to flashbang being thrown right below you.And there are plenty of gameplay counters to flashbang even if we throw Lightborn out of the discussion. I don't see how saying that killers should get better at spotting survivors or predicting where they are setting up a flashbang save is somehow less basic gameplay than asking survivors to be good at chase even when the killer has a jump on them with aura read.
Some aura reading perks deserve to be nerfedIf we want to discuss that certain perks are too strong, that's fine. We could even talk about how certain perks might not be fun (good gameplay to be more formal).
The lose lose framework is just wrong though. It requires taking just the killer's perspective and just hyper focusing in on a narrow band within the total scope of the game while ignoring survivor observations of when similar situations happens to them.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3819662#Comment_3819662
there's build going right now for we're gonna live forever.
it is botany knowledge+We're gonna live forever+Leader+Empathic connection with purple med kit with 2 charge add-on.
the jist is that you can stack 255% healing speed for total of +500% healing speed to heal survivors off the floor. with med-kit it is over 600%. you heal survivors off floor in around 6 seconds. it is only slightly slower then killer attack cooldown.
it is 4 man swf thing though. all 4 survivor have to equip leader, botany, wglf, empathic. some player are calling it the new buckle up+ftp.
it is pretty uncounterable for m1 killers. you literally need stbfl to recover quicker on basic attacks to stop survivor from healing survivors on the floor and with so many healing perk stacked, it doesn't take long for survivor to fully heal since they have permanent we'll make it for atrustic healing between the perks. they're healing in 8 seconds if left unchecked. Other options are being Instant down killer or inflicting broken through forced penance perk
it is 4 man swf thing though. all 4 survivor have to equip leader, botany, wglf, empathic. some player are calling it the new buckle up+ftp.The fact that it takes 16 perk slots instead of two puts them on a totally different level.
Seems more like a meme creator content thing than a viable strategy. Given ping and other game issues rarely does the heal on the downed survivor start the instant of the down. Not to mention the whole build is ruined against many killers and a few perks.
-
I'm not going to using useless Lightborn.So this is just infity saveDoesn't really sound like Lightborn is useless if it allows you to instantly counter the thing that you are saying give infinite saves.
I get complaining about the idea of having to use perks to counter playstyles, but it sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it to. You want perks that give you guaranteed value while not having to take perks to counter survivor playstyles.
But if survivors are setting up for BGP saves, that means they aren't pressuring gens, so you have time to slug and try and find the survivor running BGP and target him.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3819659#Comment_3819659
Usually when people say "lose-lose" they mean "a scenario where everyone involved is forced into a result that is bad for them personally"
When you say "lose-lose" do you mean "uncounterable," as in no matter what you do you will "lose" because you fail to counter the perk? Neither of those perks are uncounterable either.
Lose-lose seems to be growing in popularity as a term. It really seems to mean that on occasion the killer might be put in a spot where they have to make a difficult decision (the horror!). It requires a complete focus on that single moment in the game and ignoring all of the trade offs that take place. Namely:
1: That two survivors are nearby, 1 for a flashbang, 1 for a WGLF, instead of pressuring gens.
2: That the survivors took these perks to do this action, instead of taking other perks to do something like doing gens faster.
3: That either the survivors burned multiple perks on flashbang/wglf, or the killer just happened to get unlucky on who they were chasing.
4: That the killer doesn't realize what they are doing and now targets the flashbang survivor or spreads pressure or otherwise tries to prevent the situation from being able to occur.
5: That the survivors actually position themselves correctly for all of this without the killer ever noticing the set up.
6: That the killer doesn't have a perk or power that allows them to hard counter the situation.
But yeah, if you ignore all of that, how is a killer supposed to win?
-
@HexAvadaKedavra said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3819024#Comment_3819024
But none of what you said disproves the fact that multi hooking (the way the game SHOULD be played and the healthiest way) is completely and absolutely the worst way to play as killer as there are zero incentives to do it outside of very few perks which even then, it's still not enough.
There are no basekit benefits to multi hooking, while slugging and tunneling have all the benefits in the world.
But none of what you said disproves the fact that multi hooking (the way the game SHOULD be played and the healthiest wayIt's an elimination game. Eliminations, and the threat of eliminations, is always going to be the strongest strategy. You can't change that without remaking the entire game.
-
@Bookern said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3819028#Comment_3819028
the value is so once in a blue moon that it does not matter
That's how things that are really strong work. Power = rarity. It's a gimmick perk at the moment, true, but you'd need to radically rework it to make it a usable, but not broken, perk.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
Are you sure you want to play a pvp game? I feel like there are plenty of pve games you could enjoy where your opponent has no agency or control over the outcome.
I've been thinking the same thing a lot recently that people want a single player game were they always know what the right decision is.
@Bookern said:
BloodWarden is currently the worst endgame perk and i believe its time for it to get BUFFED! The easy braindead counter every Survivor has ingrained into their brain is to 99% Gates and 100% it after a Killer hooks to prevent.
So my idea for a buff is when the last gen pops BW can be activated and stored until a Door is opened or 100% that way Survivors will have to open the doors and wait it out instead off hard countering it. It can also just be countered if the killer doesn't gets a hook during the endgame.
Blood Warden is one of those perks were you usually don't get value, but when you do, that value is massive. You're giving even more value without the risk.
-
@HexAvadaKedavra said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3818908#Comment_3818908
That's tunneling. That isn't multi hooking. There is no reason to multi hook.
And it's this thing called "time". It takes time to hook and do that, as opposed to creating pressure through just… slugging. Not to mention if you hook, you're now giving survivors access to insane perks.
Not to mention if you hook, you're now giving survivors access to insane perks.And if you don't hook, you face the risk of unbreakable or wglf allowing the survivors to recover with even less pressure than a hook would have had.
It's a pretty basic way the game works: if the meta changes from killers hooking to slugging, survivors will change their perks from hook benefit perks to slug benefit perks.
Which is how BHVR wants the game to work. The game never would have had the lifespan its had if the correct decision to make was always the same.
-
Wasn't it Hens who made a video of him winning something like 7 out of 10 games playing just M1 trapper? He won 5 out of 6 here, doesn't seem broken compared to how powerful a killer can generally be.
-
Survivors win / lose as a team. I'd support it, but it would be a different game. It would go against multiple elements of the design philosophy. I could see it going really poorly in the long run, but as a player I'd be willing to take that risk, not sure I would if I was in BHVR's shoes.
I think the bigger change here is not the team based element, but BHVR actually giving firm win conditions.
MMR would be an obvious change, but I highly doubt most players think about MMR (which is what BHVR wants) given its hidden.
Survivors gain points as a team. I don't think that's necessary. Having individual scores is still a good thing in team games just for some end game comparison. Probably give bloodpoints for escapes to the team, and maybe some BP if a player just hangs on a hook while everyone else gets gens done.
Pips? Eh, whatever. I tend to forget the pip system exists until I get a BP drop.
Looking through your list of cons:
If you escaped and your team died - you lost the match, you maybe even get depip\lowered your MMR.This goes with the idea of changing the game philosophy. We accept it in other team games that you might have the best game of your life, but you still lose.
It does create the possibility that people just to give up towards the end of the match (anti-climatic and bad game design). There's potentially no point in playing for hatch on the survivor side or trying to secure a 1k on the killer with a clear win condition. That said, the game is designed around not just the idea of win/draw/loss, but degree of win/draw/loss actually mattering. I think the community plays that way, even if doesn't seem to be understood in comments.
If you died early - you will need to spectate the match until very end to receive more points. (If you leave from the lobby - you will get what your team earned at the very moment).I don't think this is necessary. No reason that a player can't leave a match with the BP they have and the difference is delivered to them later. I wish DbD had the ability to go back and look at like the last ten games played, so adding something like that would be a general boost.
If this was necessary, it would outright kill the idea.
This system not only encourages team-play, but afk playstyle as well. (It will be inevitable, obviously)Despite the obviously, I don't see how.
You can end-up in a "MMR wall". (Constant unexperienced teammates will never give you a chance to get the pip\MMR increase)If so, it shows a game problem that already is true. Survivors can't advance in MMR on their own. If low MMR survivors where just stuck (and actually going backwards) and low MMR killers going up, that would show a game issue that needs to be fixed.
Your survivor matches are going to be HIGHLY dependent on the teammates you've got. (The worst one, probably)That's currently true and the nature of how any team based game works.
-
Peanits mentioned about this on the forums as well.
I think this is likely a money issue for the license holders, more than an artistic or brand integrity. They own the license, BHVR's license does not permit them to use the character beyond the 1v4 situation, thus they want more money to expand the rights of the license. I'm, somewhat, hopeful that BHVR negotiated things like 2v8 in as a default when they worked out the license with more recent killers.
-
I don't think there are any certain element, as much as the overall match. Basically, deep into the match both sides should feel like the had a chance. If the killer wins with only two gens finished, or the survivors get without even a survivor on death hook, it's not very fun.
A good game should get at least four gens done, but at that point the survivors should also be feeling a lot of pressure that they don't have much time to actually finish that final gen.
-
@MaddieMage said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3817692#Comment_3817692
The issue is that only benefits the killer. I don’t agree with infinite unbreakable at all but this also is not a fair option. Because then killers will just 4 man slug everyone knowing the survivors will force bleed out to get out of the match, killer gets their 4K. That takes zero effort, skill and artificially inflates MMR and kill rates
I don't see how. If the survivor had the option to insta die after being slugged for 60 seconds, the only games its going to come into play is when the killer is downing people so quickly that they can't actually engage in gameplay. The killer was already going to win that game, this just speeds it up. It's nothing compared to the 'just die on first hook mechanic' which BHVR seems insistent on keeping in the game.
-
Whenever a killer encounters an organized group (called SWF) there is almost no way of winning because of all pallets, saves and OP survivor perks (DS, Off the Record, Dead Hard etc.).SWFs are stronger, that's undoubtedly true, but its a gross exaggeration to say unbeatable.
There is only one easy tactic of winning a game against SWF - tunneling, which is considered toxic and unfun.This might be part of the problem of finding SWFs unbeatable. The group that has the easiest time dealing with a tunnel is a four man SWF. They can have a dedicated reassurance user, communicate that the killer is still near the hook, set up body blocks, etc. Two of those overpowered perks you mentioned can also be run by every member of a SWF to counter tunneling (or run by just one and the others hide until you have your tunnel target).
After the game comes another abomination cause endgame chat is a place used for killer harassment and sending them worst wishes there can be.I usually don't engage in endgame chat beyond a 'gg', but if it causes you that many problems, turn it off.
That is no longer true cause of almost constant bonus for survivors from +50% to +150%.Soon there may not be enough killers for the game to work and what come then?The fact that the bonus is constantly on survivors shows that the game is not at any risk of losing killers.
I would like both sides of the game to have fun, but as purely factual matter, every single killer main could quit the game tomorrow and the game would still survive. They could just offer a BP bonus on killer and you'd have enough survivors switch over to do that and tomes they had never bothered with that the game would be fine.
If you're not having fun in your preferred role, I feel that. But the idea that the community is anywhere close to having a killer shortage just isn't true.
-
@brokedownpalace said:
Had a killer stand on the hatch for 15 minutes while I went around and did gens. Before I finished the last gen they closed the hatch and then patrolled the gates. I stayed out of sight because if you’re gonna waste my ******* time I’m gonna waste yours and not given you a free mori.
Bhvr needs to cut the **** and implement a surrender option.
Would have been hilarious if you found a key in a chest and got out via hatch anyway.
It's always struck me how strange it is that BHVR seems to have designed mutually assured destruction into the game. Want to slug for the 4k? Survivor just hides it out creating a boring experience. Bring an overpowered sweaty build? Survivors kobe on hook, leading to a boring experience.
They seem like they are easy things to fix, but they get left in the game.
-
@justadreampallet said:
I’ll start
Gens are fun to be on, it makes the game a bit scary when you don’t know where the killer is. It makes the game better and gives it pacing.
Stealth isn’t a bad play style, I take stealth and run a support build while others take chase, I sit back and heal, do gens and when I get them, boon totems. I’m there to help the others and I will take chase when the team needs it.
Both sides are fair, well mostly. I play at a lower level but I still think it’s relatively fair, all killers have the opportunity to get a 4k and all survivors have the chance to escape, however I understand the anti hook teams are unfair to killer and gen regress blight is unfair to survivors but for the most part it’s alright
You don’t need meta perks to have a good build, as long as you have a style that works for you it’s the best one.
Slinger is one of the best killers, he has the ability to pull survivors toward his, they escape they go to deep wound they get hit they take damage either way, and he can shoot through small holes, he isn’t as good as blight or nurse but he’s better then people give him credit for.
Jeff is the best survivor (he’s hot)Gens are fun to be on, it makes the game a bit scary when you don’t know where the killer is.Agreed, though I'd more broadly say 'you don't have to be in chase to have fun as a survivor'. Not knowing where the killer is or how well a chase is going on with someone else is exciting.
Stealth isn’t a bad play styleAgreed, it's a key part of the game and there are many ways to do it and still be very helpful for the team.
Both sides are fair, well mostly.In the sense that both sides can be broken, yes, if the players want to play that way.
In the sense that game has fun for both sides, yes.
You don’t need meta perks to have a good build, as long as you have a style that works for you it’s the best one.Agreed, there are lots of valid builds.
-
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3815524#Comment_3815524
That isn't the problem. Even if you get rid of "going-nexts" on hook, people will just stop playing the game altogether. The game needs to be fun.
My logic is allowing both sides to be fun simultaneously to facilitate people wanting to play instead of giving up. Since, after all, it's a game and that's the entire point of it existing. To be fun for the end user.
Even if you get rid of "going-nexts" on hook, people will just stop playing the game altogether.As a person who thinks they should get rid of the hook suicides and doing so would improve the game, I'll admit this is a concern. BHVR does have to worry if it would just lead to people quitting the game and moving on and, while its easy for players to say 'we didn't them anyway', BHVR as a company does.
That said, I think they are ways to work around it as it causes severe problems. There's no way they can ever make a game that people won't want to quit in some circumstances, and they need a mechanic that makes it not so penalizing to teammates. Even if they tried something like 'you can dc on hook for no dc penalty, but you gain no BP or Pips, hook suicides are prohibited during the first 4 minutes of the game' I think it would be a massive game improvement.
-
I've been seeing it as 150% on survivor mostly, though in fairness I haven't been playing in the evenings which is when I would usually see killer bonuses (US West).
Haven't noticed anything different in que times. Survivor is quick, which the odd occasional slow time to load in, killer long.
-
I think the concept of Skull Merchant is flawed, so I think the killer will always be a problem.
Part of her original design seemed to be the idea of getting info from the drones with the handheld radar. But aura perks accomplish that more effectively and many survivors don't even engage in stealth, so you have one whole segment of her power that isn't really necessary.
Then there are the issues that her drones are really unfun to go against. I'll quote @UndeadJester 's post:
I still really want them to go all in and make her a bonified trap killer. Trap killers are immensly satisfying when pulled off, even if they aremt the strongest, and we haven't had one since Hag, which is absurd when you think about it.The question here is: satisfying for who? Trapper starts fun with newer survivors because they are never certain if a trap is in a bush or over a window. Singularity is fun because the counterplay element is quick while still requiring investment and you still have meaningful chases and dodges. Hag brings a jump scare element and the nature of her power means she can't shut down sections of the map like skull merchant can.
I get the idea of why a trap killer might be fun to play, but to go against? Even if its balanced, its not exactly fun to stare at a line of drones set up and do hit and runs on the trap wall to try and shut it down.
Back to OP
I think BHVR has said they'll never totally remake a killer again (i.e. give them a totally different power). While I think that makes sense, even if I'm not thrilled by it, because of it I think SM will always have some core problems. You're right on the amount of time they've had to spend on her, but I don't think this is a killer that could be fixed with just more time, but if in the early planning stages someone had just said 'no, this isn't going to work' the game would be in a healthier spot today.
-
@IIITweedleIII said:
Some of you never been through the days of OG HALO, and it shows. 😝
Killer can't tbag the same way as Survivor. But it's the same essence. But as Survivor say "take your humps and move on".
Some of you never been through the days of OG HALO, and it shows. 😝Hey, remember open racism, sexism, and homophobia? I remember. Not sure why that should make you want to prevent things from improving.
Killer can't tbag the same way as Survivor. But it's the same essence. But as Survivor say "take your humps and move on".Three things:
1: Many survivors thinks tbagging is stupid, dumb, and offensive. Your lumping everyone together is incorrect.
2: The killer can push survivors out of the gate. Still not cool on the part of the survivors, but the killer has easier recourse.
3: The ability to address it would be much more difficult. Crouching is part of the game, and crouching up and down is also used by the survivors to communicate. There are numerous solutions to bleeding out the survivor, if anyone can think of a practical way to actually stop tbagging without impacting other game elements I'm sure it would get lots of support.
-
Plague.
-
Not reportable and absolutely shocking that it is still allowed in the game.
I think BHVR gets a lot of unfair criticism, but this is something they could fix and choose not to. A simple 'if the survivor has been incapacitated for 60 or more seconds and at least one other survivor is dead, self-sacrifice appears as an option'.
You could even take the button out of it: if at least one survivor is dead and a survivor gets three crows, they are auto sacrificed.
It especially annoys me because one of the arguments for keeping first hook kobes in is that they don't want to force people to remain in a game they don't want to. We go from 'even though the game might only be a few minutes old, we can't be expected to force a player to stay in the game' to 'as long as they don't keep you in until server times out, it's just part of the game'.
That all of the above is a huge annoyance, easily fixable, and many people have said it strikes them as sexual assault and makes them deeply uncomfortable, it just stuns me that it remains in the game.
-
@Sandt1985 said:
Should the game be balanced around 4 individual survivors who MIGHT work together against the killer but mostly do their own thing, or should the game be balanced around the idea of a team of 4 against the one killer?
Please understand, there is no middle ground here. It’s one or the other. The two styles of play are, by definition, diametrically opposed to each other.As soon as that question is answered with a majority opinion swinging in one direction or the other, then we can start talking about survivor buffs. Because frankly, survivors can’t get any meaningful buffs until it’s decided how the survivor gameplay needs to be balanced.
Should the game be balanced around 4 individual survivors who MIGHT work together against the killer but mostly do their own thing, or should the game be balanced around the idea of a team of 4 against the one killer?
Please understand, there is no middle ground here. It’s one or the other. The two styles of play are, by definition, diametrically opposed to each other.That's not how you balance games.
But if we're just treating this as a pure hypothetical where those are the only two options? Unless the amount of 4 person teams radically increased you'd have to do the 4 individual survivors.
-
If I ran into myself:
"Hey, you remember that game you tried and hated? It's still around. You end up absolutely loving, and occasionally hating, it."
-
@Xernoton said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3811518#Comment_3811518
I specifically mentioned that if the base regression was nerfed it would need to come with compensatory nerfs on instant regression. So I'm not sure where that would lead to powercreep.
And can we stop with this "Killers cry as soon as they don't 4k every match!" nonsensense? Sure, you have a bunch of entitled players on both sides but this is not about that. It's about a base value that is simply too low to be of much use and perks that are bad because they affect this number. I even said, that I'm not really sold on the idea to buff base regression, so posting this as a response to me is misplaced at best.
Ruin isn't what does the work on these killers you mentioned. There are a bunch of other perks they could use that would provide them with more value and it's not all meta perks. The effect of Ruin is good in theory but falls short in practice. Passive regression sounds great but when you think about how much time Ruin actually provides, you quickly come to the conclusion that you could use douzens of other perks and get more value. Especially without the instant 5% regression on kicks and the risk of it being eliminated right at the start of the match, which is not very rare.
Side objectives would in theory be the best way to get around the whole slowdown problem but on one hand we know that the devs are not very fond of that idea and on the other hand this would always come as nerf to solo queue players too. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "more ways to win and lose". That will never happen simply because the game is designed around the idea of killers trying to kill survivors and survivors trying to escape. There is no room for an alternative win condition here, is there?
I'm not quite sure what this has to do with chase times either. Especially when we consider that it's instant regression perks like Pop, Pain Res, Surge and Eruption that benefit from short chases because you can use them more frequently, while CoB, Overcharge and Ruin only work over time and have no clause that they activate / deactivate with chases / hooks / downs. Obviously these perks will be better, if the killer can keep their chases short because then the killer already puts so much pressure on the survivors, that they have trouble dealing with that alone and cannot really take care of the killer's perks but that is true for about 95% of all perks in this game.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3811526#Comment_3811526
Regression will always be meta. The question is what regression perks will be used. Right now it's a small selection that also synergise pretty well, which might get a bit better, if we mix it up a little.
I also didn't say anything about a net buff. Please read the third to last section of my post again.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3811535#Comment_3811535
I agree that some of these numbers are just completely arbitrary but it is true that the base regression speed is very low. The direct comparison between instant regression and base regression is what made this video interesting enough for me to start a discussion around it.
I agree that some of these numbers are just completely arbitrary but it is true that the base regression speed is very low. The direct comparison between instant regression and base regression is what made this video interesting enough for me to start a discussion around it.Everything is arbitrary. The issue with the video is that you can't approach game mechanics on any sort of comparison metric in something like DbD, everything has to be evaluated with the game as a whole.
Killers are not meant to be able to stop gen progress entirely, just like survivors can't hold off the killer indefinitely by healing. Both sides can slow down the other side's objective, but only slow it down
So how much gen regression is too much and what would be too little?
Well, what's the objective. In a game that incorporates strategy elements you don't want the choices to be things that should always be done or never be done. You want the player to be faced with a decision, is it worth my time/resources to do the following?
Gens seem to be in a pretty good place with that right now. They also incorporate an interesting decision for survivors on whether stopping the regressing gen or doing some other action (healing, hook rescue) is the right call.
-
@Massquwatt said:
Bloodlust is pretty fine as is and serves its purpose.
Bloodlust 1 exists to help give you a leg up when a chase drags on.
Bloodlust 2 exists if you're committing to a losing chase.
Bloodlust 3 exists if you've already lost the chase.
I think it's the mindset that people need to understand, if a killer if getting to Bloodlust 3 to down you then you've already won the chase. It isn't about outrunning the killer, it's about how much time you buy your team and in that scenario you've bought your team A LOT of time. Also, given that a lot of killers these days rely on their powers to help in chase it's very rare that you'll see anything like BL2 or BL3 so you don't need to worry about that.
I think it's the mindset that people need to understand, if a killer if getting to Bloodlust 3 to down you then you've alreadywonthe chase.I don't want the bloodlust system to change for very different reasons than what are being discussed, but I feel like there would be howls of outrage if a mechanic was introduced where if a killer got multiple downs in quick succession, all survivors got an boost where they did gens and healing quicker. There's be a ton of 'why am I being penalized for playing well?' posts even when it was pointed out 'you're already winning'.
Actually, we kind of dealt with that during the 8 gen kick change already.
-
@Xernoton said:
https://youtu.be/g1lsSyVLBpg?si=pKR8INweNZeyW476
I got recommended this video on YouTube and although none of the information in that video was new to me, it does put things into perspective when you do such a side by side comparison between instant regression and regression over time.
A lot of these numbers are arbitrarily high because in a normal match your goal won't be trying to regress a gen fully but only to buy yourself time. So you don't really care that it takes 342 seconds to regress 90 charges or 327 seconds with CoB. You'll only care that CoB buys you 3.75 seconds if you can keep it active for the entire duration, which is basically nothing. This is the actual value of CoB as is. It's a much better info perk than it is a gen regression perk. You could take away the extra regression and it would barely count as a nerf.
Overcharge was butchered as well and I'd argue that against decent survivors, Overcharge is actually worse than nothing. You mostly won't get to keep a gen regressing for 20, which is what Overcharge needs in order for it to be as effective as no perk at all since the "difficult" skill check does pretty much nothing.
That is also the reason why I think Ruin isn't worth a perk slot. Yes, technically it does save you the time to kick a gen but on the other hand it takes 4.5c / 0.25c/s = 18 seconds to make up for that lost instant regression. Even if we factor in the time it takes to catch up to a survivor after you kick a gen, that doesn't make it much better. You won't need 18 seconds to close that gap, especially not on stronger killers. The most value you'll get out of it is, if a survivor goes looking for the totem and destroys it. But then you lose that perk for the remainder of the match.
A way for all 3 of these perks to become stronger is to increase the base regression speed. This would overall be a net buff to killers that is arguably not necessary, so it would need to come with nerfs to the better regression perks like Pain Res, Surge etc. This might sound good on paper but it does bear another issue.
Solo queue survivors cannot coordinate for someone else to take over their gen and stop it from regressing while SWFs can and do. That is less than ideal. For that reason and also the fact that different killers are better at keeping survivors away from gens than others I think, we should move away from regression over time and focus on instant regression.
What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you think base regression should be changed?
I normally like Ardetha vids, but the logic in this one was awful.
It takes 16 seconds to heal a survivor, it only takes 2.7 seconds for a killer to wipe their blade, therefore survivor healing speeds should be much faster.
Same logic as what he employed in this video.
-
There's a lot of things that could factor into this. No gens might be done, but you could be in a place where three gens are close to being finished (and even the possibility of one close to being done). I played a match the other day where the Dracula kept chasing us off of gens and we all just kept starting new ones. By the time he got to three hooks I don't think we had finished a gen yet, but we were over 50% on 5 gens.
As a general note, yeah if the killer has three hooks that quickly, you're probably going to lose. Who knows though, maybe one of the survivors is an excellent looper and just got unlucky in a chase so far.
-
@Prometheus1092 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3810087#Comment_3810087
Fair enough, I still think it's part of the game, the game that people choose to play. Killers role is to kill, in order to do that the survivor gets incapacitated on a hook (or ground). That's what survivors are getting into when they play the game and it seems like they don't like it when that happens. Otherwise it would be 2 hits and dead.
From a survivor perspective: the game vacillates between 'oh my god, this is the most exciting game ever' to 'wow, this is crazy boring and dumb'. Having some boring elements is inevitable (its inevitable in any game), the question is to what degree can those elements be reduced without sacrificing the overall excitement of the game.
To use FPSs as an example. Over the last few decades companies have tried lots of different respawn timers, anywhere from 'instant' to 'never'. Too quick and the death doesn't feel meaningful, too long and people get bored and quit. Players need some sort of penalty to make the death meaningful and give them a moment to reset, but too long and they get bored quickly.
With DbD, getting downed and hooked for thirtyish seconds, no problem for most people. They're still thinking about the last chase, scanning the map, getting prepared to go back into the game. But once that time is past people quickly become upset. A minute feels too long for many people, and two minutes you're wondering why you aren't just playing something else (a similar example is survivors refusing to leave and how annoying that feels).
There's lots of variables and every player is different, but that's generally what happens. Everyone has an amount of time they are cool with being out of the action, but once they are past that point the game loses its objective of being fun.
@Nazzzak said:
Did they say it was to combat camping and tunnelling? All I remember is they felt it was necessary after increasing gen times by 10s a couple of years ago and observing the results of that
They are kind of tied together. Because the survivors now have more time before the survivor is sacrificed, camping is less advantageous.
They definitely mentioned camping, from the Developer update:
For the most part this was a positive change, though it had the side effect of making camping more effective: Focusing on repairs was the best way the other Survivors could counter camping, but with repairs taking longer, the Survivors aren’t able to get as much done before the hooked Survivor is sacrificed.
To combat this, we are increasing the duration of each hook phase to 70 seconds. -
@Prometheus1092 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3810057#Comment_3810057
So why is it so many complaints about slugging but no where near as many complaints about being stuck on the hook? It's like the hook timer is acceptable but slug timer is toxic and an outrage.
Lots of people complain about camping and how boring it is. It feels like all the time.
Slugging complaints get mixed together with slugging for bleed outs, slugging for the 4k, and slugging as a tactical maneuver. Each of those have their own complaints and reasons but it seems like killer mains group of them together.
-
@Prometheus1092 said:
Its interesting that most survivors don't mind waiting an extra 10 seconds on hook where they literally can't do anything but they have an issue with being slugged where they can crawl around at least. More often than not the slug rarely bleeds out because the killer slugs everyone then goes round hooking them.
Personally what works for me is hard tunnel a survivor out asap (yes at 5 gens) that gives time to wait out the hook timer when others do gens. Then go for slugging for last 3 (situational). Last 2 always gets slugged anyway to prevent hatch escape especially with noed. I justify noed with the speed at which gens pop... Gets me 3/4k very regularly. If survivors don't spend the time going for totems throughout the match they can pay the price at the end. I'm guessing that's the lame way of playing the OP mentioned but killers tend to adapt and it's often to a play style survivors are not happy with.
Its interesting that most survivors don't mind waiting an extra 10 seconds on hook where they literally can't do anything but they have an issue with being slugged where they can crawl around at least.Well, that's because its not true.
No one likes sitting on the hook, whether that is 60 or 70 seconds. Increasing the hook timer was meant to make it less advantageous for killers to proxy camp, thus making it more likely for them to move away, thus making it more likely for a survivor to get the rescue and the hooked survivor to get back in the game.
I've never seen any survivor say, or BHVR's reasoning being, that the increase timer was designed so people could actually spend more time on the hook.
More often than not the slug rarely bleeds out because the killer slugs everyone then goes round hooking them.It's not a great defense of how slugging currently works to argue: well its so likely the killer is going to win anyway that he'll have plenty of timer to get to the survivor.
-
Gates aren't meant to be something the killer should be able to control without perks. The gens were the main objective, the gates are more of a last minor hurdle for the survivors.
-
@adsads123123123123 said:
Interestingly, many of the killers typically ranked high on tier lists have average or below average win rates. For example, Billy, Nurse, Chucky, and Artist are near the average. Oni, Wesker, Spirit, Pyramid Head, and Huntress are below average.
Killer
Win rate
Kill rate
Difference
Win rate ranking
Kill rate ranking
Difference
Skull Merchant
64.1%
69.0%
-4.9%
1
1
0
Plague
61.2%
64.8%
-3.6%
2
4
2
Blight
60.6%
65.1%
-4.5%
3
2
-1
Nightmare
59.0%
60.6%
-1.6%
4
8
4
Onryō
58.4%
63.4%
-5.0%
5
6
1
Twins
58.3%
64.8%
-6.5%
6
3
-3
Lich
58.2%
64.0%
-5.8%
7
5
-2
Dredge
57.0%
62.2%
-5.2%
8
7
-1
Unknown
54.9%
60.4%
-5.5%
9
9
0
Cenobite
54.2%
58.3%
-4.1%
10
15
5
Wraith
53.7%
58.8%
-5.1%
11
13
2
Doctor
53.5%
59.7%
-6.3%
12
11
-1
Pig
53.0%
58.0%
-5.0%
13
16
3
Dark Lord
52.3%
58.9%
-6.6%
14
12
-2
Nurse
52.3%
57.8%
-5.5%
15
17
2
Hillbilly
52.1%
60.3%
-8.2%
16
10
-6
Cannibal
51.8%
58.5%
-6.7%
17
14
-3
Singularity
51.7%
57.8%
-6.0%
18
18
0
Good Guy
51.5%
56.9%
-5.4%
19
23
4
Overall Average
51.4%
57.7%
-6.3%
20
19
-1
Artist
50.9%
56.2%
-5.3%
21
26
5
Nemesis
50.8%
57.3%
-6.5%
22
21
-1
Shape
50.0%
57.5%
-7.5%
24
20
-4
Oni
50.0%
56.9%
-6.9%
23
24
1
Trickster
49.8%
57.3%
-7.5%
25
22
-3
Demogorgon
49.7%
54.7%
-5.0%
26
30
4
Xenomorph
48.9%
54.5%
-5.5%
27
31
4
Mastermind
48.8%
56.5%
-7.7%
28
25
-3
Legion
48.5%
54.1%
-5.5%
29
33
4
Hag
48.1%
54.8%
-6.7%
30
29
-1
Spirit
48.0%
55.1%
-7.1%
31
27
-4
Executioner
47.8%
54.8%
-7.1%
32
28
-4
Knight
47.2%
54.0%
-6.9%
33
34
1
Huntress
46.7%
53.4%
-6.7%
34
37
3
Deathslinger
46.6%
53.5%
-6.9%
35
36
1
Clown
46.4%
54.0%
-7.6%
36
35
-1
Trapper
45.8%
54.3%
-8.5%
37
32
-5
Ghost Face
42.9%
50.5%
-7.6%
38
38
0
3-4k is considered a win.
Interestingly, many of the killers typically ranked high on tier lists have average or below average win rates.It's because these killers have powers that can be mastered, but also screwed up. It's like how Wraith starts off feeling like a broken S+ tier unstoppable killer for new players, but he really drops off the more play people have.
-
A fair portion of the roster feels 'fine' to me, with probably 3 to 5 outliers that are too strong or too weak. Some people have said Wesker and I think that's a good answer.
-
@Grigerbest said:
I don't know what is going on today, but today I wanted to do killer challenges and have some fun chases…
But as soon as I load up - there are 1-2 survivor players instantly leaving the match, it happening so often today, I know the reason why are they leaving, and I felt like… Let's have a "final" conversation on that part…
I'm not going to create anymore similar threads about it personally, and this is my message to this topic:
Dear survivor players - if you q-ed up to a match - be ready to face ANY killer from the whole cast of characters. Do not expect to face only killers that YOU like.
Leaving from a match as soon as you heard a hatchet, or saw a xeno's stations or etc - Is just bad, spineless, low and embarrassing towards your fellow teammates.
If you play as a survivor - first and foremost - you are a team player. Put your ego and preferences aside and think about other 3 or 2 players in your team and how your bad action is going to affect other players experience. If you don't care about other players in your team - don't play as a survivor, it's not for you.
Have some moral principles and basic respect to other players, not only other survivors, but also the killer. I'm playing both sides, I also have killers that I hate to face, but you will never find me DC as soon as I saw them, nor you'll find me DC if the match is going wrong. I have respect to other players and I want everyone in my team have a good time and I want to be useful to my team - this is why I play survivors regularly.
The mentality like this (DC first seconds of the match) - hurting the game. Hurting the experience, and creating a negative impression in new players about the game.
Pay some respect to other people that you play with. If you can't, don't want to, or don't care - don't play in a team, play as a killer alone.
Much love to all of you guys, sorry if I was a bit harsh, and have a beautiful day\evening. ❤❤❤
Have some moral principles and basic respect to other players, not only other survivors, but also the killer.You're going up against human nature. You're asking people to maintain an activity they don't think is going to be fun because of people they do not know and will never meet.
It's just not a realistic way to solve a problem. Especially because forum posts are a fraction of the community.
@Grigerbest said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3808747#Comment_3808747
2m players? I don't believe it.
Look - right now DBD has 50k on steam - that's accurate number. Even if PS, Xbox, Epic games or other platforms have 70-100% more players than PC steam - it will not go up to 2m.
Just no shot. Very hard to believe, I think the numbers on the link are waaay off. It doesn't even feel in game - my q-times should be rocket-fast 24\7 if there are 2m players on average.
Look - right now DBD has 50k on steam - that's accurate number. Even if PS, Xbox, Epic games or other platforms have 70-100% more players than PC steam - it will not go up to 2m.Those 50k players are not the same 50k players the entire day, it's people coming in and out of the game. That's probably in the range of 150 to 200k over the course of a day on Steam.
And that's not counting the players on Epic. BHVR has said I think that PC is one third of the player base. So take the Steam numbers, add Epic, multiply by 3.
And then for active players, you'd have to remember that people come in and out of the game. Lots of people only play a couple days a week. Active players don't mean 'currently playing the game' it means people who still playing it at least every now and then.
DbD has a gigantic player base. It's spread out around the world, but its massive.
-
I'd be curious about this, but I doubt we're going to learn anything about internal operations from a forum post, though things like that do seem to come out in more informal settings sometimes.
If I had to guess, I'd say what they are trying to address that the ending of games where the killer wins feel underwhelming. If its a game where the survivors win frequently the chase to the gates is tense and exciting with the game being engaging until the end. For killer wins, its seeking out hiding survivors and either a pointless chase or a survivor just standing there surrendering. Neither really feels that enjoyable for most players and killer wins end with a boring pick up and carry to hook.
In concept, switching to moris as an end game only event makes the killer win have something significant and interesting happen at the end.
Now I don't actually think it will work, or at least it won't do much in that direction. But that's the problem I'd say they are trying to address.
-
@mysticalCat said:
We need this to be bannable. I wish dbd had the option like Fortnite to record previous matches(idk maybe you all do) but this tunneling and slugging has gotten out of hand. And no I’m not going to run anti tunnel build. Shouldn’t have to. The game is just not playable as a survivor. Tunneled out at 5 gens slugged at 5 gens, it’s so gross. You can definitely tell the kiddos are on this game. Also that’s another point to mention. You should probably add some verification to prove that the players are 18+. I loved this game but now, idk anymore. Literally there was a streamer (not mentioning them) that had a title on their stream as slugging in chaos mode. And literally bled everyone out. At 5 gens…. Dbd / behaviour / devs please make the QOL adjustments for us solo enjoyers. It’s just not fun anymore…..
BHVR already has the data that tells them when and how much tunneling happens and how much slugging happens. It's not a 'we don't have that', they've been clear its part of the game.
If BHVR's mindset changed on that, they could easily make it so slugging and/or tunneling just weren't possible.
-
@mizark3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3806970#Comment_3806970
Yeah, needing all 4 Survivors to be as sweaty as the Killer means the Killer is always going to come out on top in normal cases. Since 4-SWF is only ~5% of matches, that makes the chances all the lower.
I'm not fully sold on stricter matchmaking. I think maybe looser matchmaking is better. During the climb of MMR, seen in the 'all MMR' stats, everything larger plays out as we'd hope. I think this is because we get more 1-sided stomps, so Survivor is actually getting more chances to win. When it is stricter, everyone is sweating for just one more kill/escape. The only 'evidence' I have for my opinion here is old Emblem based matchmaking. I personally preferred that, and it also encouraged everyone to 'play the game' in every facet. It was much more loose, because sometimes Iri matchmaking was against Purples (we'll just assume a free win), sometimes Iri was against fellow Iri's, but they were goofing off, and sometimes Iri was against fellow Iri's calling clocks.
I disagree on the directional balance shift for SWF/soloq, but agree on adjusting Killers on the extremes. I wouldn't go as far as to add voice comms in-game, but I do think info should be freely shared and Blindness buffed to cover up the Survivor HUD as well as auras (other than Health states and Hook states always being visible). I hate the Chaos, because it almost always means something bad. For Killer balance, I think we currently have S→D tier, and basically the top 5 are S and the bottom 5 are D. I would love to see no S or D tier, having the range be from A to C instead (if we use current power levels). Just occasionally buff the bottom 5 a tier or two, and nerf the top 5 a tier or two. This may just be me, but Horror can never exist with multiplayer. Even playing RE:Revelations 2 in co-op, all illusions of fear are shattered when you have a buddy by your side, or an opponent calling you slurs lol.
I know this might be utterly crazy, but that dead Survivor bug that caused multiple gens to pop might not be bad to basekit in some fashion. I would say if the Survivor died at 6 hooks or fewer, then their death causes gens to count as an extra one. I normally play to 2-hook everyone before killing them, so even if at least 1 rat hides, the death hook for the other 3 are at hook 7. This would naturally punish tunneling early, and if someone is tunneled late, it was largely because they ratted earlier in the match.
I do agree with the invulnerability alternative post-hook, as long as there is no collision off-hook (to prevent intentionally bodyblocking, either Killer to basement, or Survivor to protect fellow Survs).
Yeah, needing all 4 Survivors to be as sweaty as the Killer means the Killer is always going to come out on top in normal cases. Since 4-SWF is only ~5% of matches, that makes the chances all the lower.I think the 5% is actually deceptively higher than it is.
Most SWFs are groups of friends playing together. They are likely going to have difference in ability within the game, even if they've been pulled up to high MMR. They're playing together because they're friends.
A comp team has things like tryouts and tries to assemble the best 4 person (sometimes 5 person) team possible. Players are evaluated on their ability, not because of a prior social connection.
The chance of hitting a team like that in pub is vanishingly small. Not only are there not that many of them in the world, most of them practice just playing other comp teams. This is also why, while I think stricter matchmaking would be nice, I doubt it would solve the problem as there just aren't that many top teams to match against the players going all out on killer.
-
I try not to take anything said in end game chat seriously. I'd say it is as just as likely they were just trying to troll you as they actually believed you were cheating.