crogers271
crogers271
About
- Username
- crogers271
- Joined
- Visits
- 8,432
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Raptorrotas said:
Why is everyone treating survivors as a monolith capable of having a draw?
Nothing in the game treats them as a full fledged team, the sole escapee doesnt lose because 3 die and the sole dead guy doesnt win when the other 3 escape.
A 2k isnt a draw, its 2 survivors winning and the other 3 players in the trial losing.
IIdentity V atleast gives % bonus points for 3+ escapes as something to mark its survivors as a team.
Why is everyone treating survivors as a monolith capable of having a draw?Because its generally how people play the game. Otherwise when gates where open people would just leave, instead survivors generally go for rescues.
Nothing in the game treats them as a full fledged team, the sole escapee doesnt lose because 3 die and the sole dead guy doesnt win when the other 3 escape.Something doesn't have to be a 'full fledged' team to still have team elements. DbD is a game not just of winning and losing, but degrees of victory.
A 2k isnt a draw, its 2 survivors winning and the other 3 players in the trial losing.Even if you treat it as 4 1v1s, that 2 survivors winning, 2 survivors losing, and one killer who won twice and lost twice.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3795176#Comment_3795176
In the MLB, the home team scores 4.6 runs per game on average to the away team's 4.1. The home team has a win rate of 53% to the away team's 47%.
Following your logic, the game of baseball favors the away team, because the results are slightly better for the home team.
Man, I was about to do a dive into Premier League soccer to compare goal averages vs results and you saved me the trouble.
-
@ArthurVeloso said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3795113#Comment_3795113
Players from these servers have a completely different strategic approach in matches. They don’t rely on altruism as much people from American servers do. Therefore, it is a form of survival in such niche environment.
Sure, but talking about changes that BHVR should make has to consider those regions as well. Buffing self care might have a minimal impact on American/European servers, but would have a massive impact on the Asian servers.
-
I'll mention the thing BHVR has to consider that I'm surprised no one has brought up:
Self-care in the Asian region is considered an S tier perk. Low MMR, high MMR, soloq, SWF, it's considered one the absolute best survivor perks in the game.
-
@mizark3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3794557#Comment_3794557
Yeah, when the Killer is more of an uncoordinated bot the Survivors can also be uncoordinated bots and escape. When it is an even match, it should average out to 60/40.
Also the below section also applies to you.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3794629#Comment_3794629
60% Kill rate isn't 60% winrate, but it is the argument most favorable to a generic Killer facing position. I did the math, and the average numbers are much worse for Survivor (as a team). Survivor winrate is 22%, Draw rate is 28%, and Killer winrate is 50%. Now if you are generous and hand out Draws 50-50, each get a 14% boost for 36% Surv, 64% Killer, still worse than 40/60 respectively. If you instead discard Draws, you get ~30% Surv ~70% Killer*. So that means Survivor winrate is significantly worse than 40%.
That's why I use the generous estimate of 60% killrate = 60% winrate, because the truth is far more dire for Survivors.
* Its closer to 31/69, but I prefer to avoid 'nice' comments.
I did the math, and the average numbers are much worse for Survivor(as a team).I think you're reaching the right conclusion, I'm just not sure I understand how your math gets there.
So the things that have been covered that we I'm pretty sure we agree on: a 60% kill range can be anywhere from a 3k/4k (win) rate of anywhere between 20% and 80% because there are many permutations on how you get there.
Were I think you are making a mistake, though I might be misreading it, is you can't just average out the permutations to get there. That creates the same flaw as just taking the 2.4 kills per match and trying to base common results on an overall average/mean. Some permutations are more likely than others.
As I said a few times in the thread you linked, by itself a 60% kill rate doesn't give us enough data to determine what the win rate is. We'd need to look at an actual data set, the best we have is Nightlight which usually gives a 60% kill rate at a 50 to 55% win rate (usually higher end), 30 to 35% survivor win rate (more lower end) and 10 to 15% draw rate (usually lower end).
-
@Arbmos1998 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3794681#Comment_3794681
Notice how I said "In my Experience"
BHVR can show all the data they want, which we know they love to picky and selective with anyways so I usually take it with a grain of salt and disregard it, Nurse low kill/pick rate? We better buff her then because the data said so. We know Nurse is strong but the data says otherwise so where the buffs at?
It's also not victim blaming if once again they are causing certain playstyles through their own choices, again my experience. I'll always try to win every match I play but at the same time Im not the one running all the meta stuff to give myself an advantage before the match even begins.BHVR can show all the data they want, which we know they love to picky and selective with anyways so I usually take it with a grain of salt and disregard it, Nurse low kill/pick rate? We better buff her then because the data said so. We know Nurse is strong but the data says otherwise so where the buffs at?When has BHVR ever actually said anything like this? Every time I've ever seen a post from one of the devs its been very clear and reasonable, data is useful, but its not the end of the story. They seem to understand that Nurse is strong, but difficult to play, so her numbers make sense.
There's a giant amount of space between 'mindlessly follow the first numbers you get' and 'throw out all data'.
@Arbmos1998 said:
Personal Experience
I'm someone who for the most part likes to use a variety of killers, perks, addons to try and be as unique, different and interesting as possible to play and go against but if there is one thing I am noticing it's that survivors I go against immediately assume I am a "baby killer" right off the bat trying gimmick "Tik Tok" stuff which does work against the less experienced players. For example I'll down someone and "Fake" picking them up with say Pig I'll crouch as If I am doing the pick up animation and what a surprise a survivor comes rushing in to flashlight save but because I haven't fell for it I get a hit off. But then for some reason they try to do it a 2nd time thus creates a start up slug through their own misplay. If a killer isn't falling for your strategy back off. I don't want to slug but you force it.
Where Does this Lead? DC
I can't tell you how common this is becoming, it's almost as if these people are trying to farm clips against really bad killers but then when it doesn't work against an experienced one they give up and go next. What does this then usually lead to? I stream DBD so usually these people will come into my stream and instead of them admitting they played badly they take it out on me and project harddd or they leave a salty comment on my steam profile making me out to be the bad person.
"Slugging, Tunneling at 4 gens boringgggg Killlerrrr"
The amount of gens shown doesn't tell us the whole picture, it could be 4 gens remain yet 3 of them are between 75-85% complete.
Next issue - Current Gen Speed:
As we know killer gen regression is becoming less and less to the point of where players are looking into the likes of Dying Light as their gen defense and gen regression kicks at base are laughable, 1/4th of a solo survivor regression. In my matches I'm seeing the likes of Brand New Part, Green Tool Boxes, Deva Vu, Prove Thyself, Resilence, Hyperfocus etc becoming insanely common. It's strange how BHVR are not keen on killers stacking their perks to combo yet for some reason survivor can just stack multiple gen perks?
What does this now create? Usually players who are really bad in chase yet can slam M1 on gens because their perks and addons allow it. This is potentially why a lot of peoples solo queue games are miserable I swear the skill level of survivor is just getting lower and lower because they don't need to try as much to get winning results.
I don't know about you but when I see gens fly stupid quick to the point of you genuinely think it's cheating I immediately feel I need to change up my playstyle to combat against them as I know full well If I switch my brain off and just do random chases I'll lose. Quick gens are forcing "Tunneling, Camping, Proxy Camping, Slugging" which I know full well the majority of the survivor playerbase despise going against. When gens are chill and more normal It allows me to go for more chases and make the gameplay loop more interesting, 4-5 min games do not.
Map Offerings:
I see Eyrie, disregard any intention I had on playing nice that match. In my experience people picking the likes of this map know It is strong and try to use it to their advantage. I am not saying they can't or shouldn't use it I'm just saying don't expect me to play nice against you after picking a map what heavily favours you. Any other scenario I will attempt to go for fun chases but again I am conditioned to change up my playstyle to have a chance at winning.
Forced MMR: Which We Can't Even See
This to me is boring, I'm not a fan at all with every match feeling like I am trying out for some Comp Team, sure I could just lose 50 matches in a row but the issue here is I am eventually going to end up back where I am now (wherever that is) because at the lower end the game is simply too easy and I wouldn't find it interesting straight up stomping new - mid players but at the same time I don't really want to go against potential Comp Teams every game. I have a feeling It's high because of the type of plays, strategies, cockiness I see, weak players wouldn't act this way and It is quite common player profiles I see has things like "Winner of X Tournament, 2nd in X Tournament" etc I am pretty sure these players wouldn't be on the lower end of MMR. I miss 2018 DBD where matchmaking had a bit more randomness to it.
So players, something to take from this. Not every killer you are against is out to get you on a personal level If they just happen to tunnel, camp, slug etc. Sure you are going to come across the 1/30 killer who is just determined to slug all 4 because "lolololol" but survivors has a lot of tools given to combat this, no killer should be able to slug you all without the survivors making multiple misplays. Read the match, think about why the killer had to play a certain way, are gens flying? Are they struggling in chase and barely get one person in less than a minute? Are your teammates bm'ing? Are your teammates trying blind plays and not backing off which leads to slugs? Are they wanting to win the match just as much as you do?I immediately feel I need to change up my playstyle to combat against them as I know full well If I switch my brain off and just do random chases I'll lose.I should hope that if a player switches their brain off they lose.
-
@NarkoTri1er said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3794435#Comment_3794435
You're jumping into the middle of a conversation and starting off with an easily disproved assumption.
These aren't my games, these are the finals of the comp Spring Invitational.
how aren't u familiar with how Eternal stomps tournaments in general both killer/survivor wise?
Don't have any idea what this has to do with what I'm posting there.
BHVR has said that excluding off hours, the MMR matches people up of the same level pretty reliably. If you're going to approach the discussion with the idea of 'BHVR's just making it up', I don't know what we have to go off of.
It also goes against what a lot of 'high MMR killer mains' post in this forum about hitting cracked survivors one after the other.
please tell me what exactly is reliable in matches when people massively get matched with complete newbies or people way above their skill level? How is it possible that i get consistently 4k in my matches, yet i get matched against at least 1 surv in enemy team that doesn't know how to hug objects in chase for example?
Except that's not true. Survivors can run many of the perks that killers say are lose-lose situations. Forcing something like a decisive strike via a locker grab is a whole part of comp strategy.
And again you're not paying attention to what else was said in the thread. I'm comparing the so called survivor crutch perks with what the killer has and wondering why we're just calling ones sides perks crutches.
On the lose-lose: this is called tradeoffs. Both sides have to weigh the risk / reward of what to do in the game and make an educated guess on what they think will yield the best outcome. As I said in an earlier post, the argument seems to be that killer's should have straightforward right and wrong decisions, but that's not what the game is for either side.
crutches on both sides turn matches into easy wins at low skill levels, while getting exponentionally more difficult to win using those at high skill levels.
Regarding tradeoffs, no, you can't call it that way. Please tell me how is e.g. slugging a Plot Twist + DS survivor any more beneficial than eating up the DS?
how aren't u familiar with how Eternal stomps tournaments in general both killer/survivor wise?This is going to be a difficult discussion if you don't check basic facts. Let me run through the assumptions you've gotten wrong.
First, you assumed they were my games. They weren't, which was explicitly stated.
Second, you now say Eternal stomps tournaments. Eternal didn't make the grand finals. The finals was X9 vs Elysium.
Third, the grand finals weren't a stomp, but its showing that matches of the best of the best, which the prior person insisted causes killers to struggle, is not true.
How is it possible that i get consistently 4k in my matches, yet i get matched against at least 1 surv in enemy team that doesn't know how to hug objects in chase for example?Because the game is killer sided. That's the whole thread.
Also really depends on time of day that you play and region.
Regarding tradeoffs, no, you can't call it that way. Please tell me how is e.g. slugging a Plot Twist + DS survivor any more beneficial than eating up the DS?That's actually a great example of killers not wanting to make choices and how they view everything from just their perspective.
You can take the 4 second stun, but then chase that survivor, you can just let him pick himself back up, giving you more time to pressure gens / get another survivor, or depending on the time you can potentially wait out the DS timer.
What's the right call depends on numerous factors. If the survivors don't have a lot of gens done, take the DS, if they do, probably pressure gens, but it's a decision that you have to make on the spot and there are lot of variables that factor into it.
It's worth pointing out the survivor also had to make a trade off. He gave up being on gens and/or getting healed to preserve his plot twist and potentially risks being tunneled out of the game.
-
People are seeing Potential Energy?
-
@NarkoTri1er said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3794405#Comment_3794405
12 games, though I only put in 11 of the game results, that's on me, left out one 4k because I missed it when the video wasn't lined up right.
Want to start here because I think this gives a lot of insight into how skewed your perception is. The killer won more than the survivors. How in the world can the killer be struggling? Struggle implies a great challenge, a disadvantage, like killers are lucky to even get a few hooks. But they're doing fine and winning more than the survivors. Like how much does the killer have to smash survivors into the ground to not be struggling?
did you take a deeper look at what made you win and what made survivors lose or you just went by plain "i won, they lost" logic? If the latter is the case, i can already see your experience rather not worth of consideration.
Yeah, as like a factually obvious metric. The killers kill, 3k+ more than 1k or less, they 4k more than 0k, etc. All of that shows the game is killer sided.
Counter to some of your points:
-Killers can also throw
-Killers frequently don't run proper meta, and if they don't its more impactful
-Bad RNG half the time? That means they get good RNG half the time. Seems like it balances out.
-If a killer is that rare that survivors barely see them, its going to have minimal statistical impact.
ohh, so yeah, result of pubs with matchmaking being basically nonexistent mean game is killer sided, what an absolutely fantastic logic! If just every killer that does a 4k actually analyzes their game instead of just looking over how the match ended, it would be fantastic.
The devs target kill rate is an example of the game being killer sided. It's a design decision and a different discussion.
Also, when BHVR has given us the top level MMR data, it doesn't show killers falling off in high MMR in any noticeable degree. Even the 4 person SWF at the top level still leans killer.
Back to going in order:
high MMR? The one where players at 1600 MMR points aka. soft cap can be matched with players at 2200 (hard cap) because yeah, they are all treated as if they have same skill level? High MMR is something that dies the very moment it was decided to prioritize faster lobbies instead of accurate ones.
Why are killer perks crutch perks and the banned survivor perks aren't cheese perks?
you also have "crutch" perks on survivor side, while majority of banned survivor perks are relate to removing killer agency and leading killer into lose-lose situations where whatever they do, it leads them into losing.
Except they have these. NOED and Rancor allowed on some killers, not to mention just standing in front of the hook.
because both of those are literally just a source of endgame pressure meant to secure 1k at most :)
And endgame camping is literally legit everywhere.
What's your point in any of this? Earlier you were saying that when we look at comp we need to look at what they remove as evidence of the game's balance, now those bans are just cheese and silly things.
Also, way underestimating the adaptability for DbD. What's the map, where are the gens, what should I focus on, which killer am I facing, trying to figure out the perks in play. All of those are things comp either cuts out completely or substantially removes.
seems like you are (intentionally) missing the point of actual RNG aspect in the game. Best example: kobes (which are banned in comp DbD btw)
Well unless I missed something big in the options page, they can't ban killers as a factual matter.
The argument is simple: in the normal game survivors don't know which killer they are going to face. It's not that they don't need to know how but:
A: earlier talking about which side needs more skill, the survivors need to be prepared for 37 different killers. That seems like a pretty big skill accomplishment.
B: the survivors have to build their perks not knowing what they are going to face. They need to prepare for 37 possibilities, in comp they only need to prepare for one.
out of those 37 killers, roughly 90% have a simple kind of counter, it's really not nuclear physics. Only few of them have more complex and unique kind of counters (Nurse: cutting LoS, playing in unpredictable ways, Oni: denying first hit, forcing him out of power etc.)
Your argument makes it sound like you want the killer to have simple, easy to play, always right moves. I hooked the survivor in the 3 gen, I win. I'm going for the tunnel out, I win. What you're calling mistakes are things that survivors have resources and elements to fight back against. The killer needs to counter those. Both sides need to make their decisions based on a lack of information.
We could basically throw everything the killer can do in here as an example as well. Like at the extreme end I could be like why does the killer have perks to reduce gen progress, he messed up by letting the survivor work on it. Then you have the more obvious things, end game perks, Devour Hope, spirit fury+hubris, etc.
But having those perks and playing into them isn't a mistake, they are choices on how to play the game, and then the survivors have to respond, just like killers have to respond to what survivors do.
no, killers shouldn't "have it easier", but we also shouldn't have a decently balanced game achievable only in comp tournaments.
Gen regression perks are literally main source of pressure, aside of specific killers' powers. But there are also perks on killer side that are such a cheese that they just shouldn't exist (Deadlock, Endfury etc.)
did you take a deeper look at what made you win and what made survivors lose or you just went by plain "i won, they lost" logic? If the latter is the case, i can already see your experience rather not worth of consideration.You're jumping into the middle of a conversation and starting off with an easily disproved assumption. These aren't my games, these are the finals of the comp Spring Invitational.
ohh, so yeah, result of pubs with matchmaking being basically nonexistent mean game is killer sided, what an absolutely fantastic logic!Don't have any idea what this has to do with what I'm posting there.
BHVR has said that excluding off hours, the MMR matches people up of the same level pretty reliably. If you're going to approach the discussion with the idea of 'BHVR's just making it up', I don't know what we have to go off of.
It also goes against what a lot of 'high MMR killer mains' post in this forum about hitting cracked survivors one after the other.
you also have "crutch" perks on survivor side, while majority of banned survivor perks are relate to removing killer agency and leading killer into lose-lose situations where whatever they do, it leads them into losing.Except that's not true. Survivors can run many of the perks that killers say are lose-lose situations. Forcing something like a decisive strike via a locker grab is a whole part of comp strategy.
And again you're not paying attention to what else was said in the thread. I'm comparing the so called survivor crutch perks with what the killer has and wondering why we're just calling ones sides perks crutches.
On the lose-lose: this is called tradeoffs. Both sides have to weigh the risk / reward of what to do in the game and make an educated guess on what they think will yield the best outcome. As I said in an earlier post, the argument seems to be that killer's should have straightforward right and wrong decisions, but that's not what the game is for either side.
seems like you are (intentionally) missing the point of actual RNG aspect in the game. Best example: kobes (which are banned in comp DbD btw)I understand why comp makes the changes they do. I've watched a ton of it. It's not reflective of the game that other people play because of all the changes they make.
out of those 37 killers, roughly 90% have a simple kind of counter, it's really not nuclear physics. Only few of them have more complex and unique kind of counters (Nurse: cutting LoS, playing in unpredictable ways, Oni: denying first hit, forcing him out of power etc.)If you want to argue that, go ahead. The other person I was responding to was saying that the rarer killers are a reason that the killer win rate is inflated.
But being we're on the subject, even if that's not difficult, it's harder than the killer who only have to worry about survivor perks, never killer powers.
-
@Toystory3Monkey said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3794194#Comment_3794194
You're just ignoring though all the bans that killers have
Looking at the DbD league ruleset from the Spring Invitational, the bans on the killer perks seem just as powerful as the ones on survivor.
We can address and compare those bans. I assure you most of them have way different nature than survivor bans.
Killer bans are aimed at crutch perks or cheesy perks. A lot of aura reading, perks like PWYF that outright allow to remove skill from chases by rushing down ppl with 15% haste. And of course, aforementioned kill cheese mechanics that dont necessarily allow to get good results, but almost guarantee you'll get a kill or two. Grim/DMS/Deadlock and with no AFC system you'll get the most exciting and skillful gameplay of killer facecamping survivor for free with no counterplay to it.
I dont think this should count as an argument towards the game being killer sided. Again, as I've previously established, we aim to ignore bypassing normal gameplay & objective through cheesing game mechanics on killer's end. Nobody plays like that, nobody enjoys playing like that and nobody should play like that to have to win.
I'll go back to my poker example. If you take a game that has a huge level of randomness and you pull that randomness out, you don't prove anything about the game, because you've made a different game.
We're not talking skill levels, we're talking multiple core elements of the game.
DbD isnt poker and poker isnt DbD.
None of the RNG factors we are considering are the major contributors to the balance due to them not tilting the scales to the other side in any meaningful away apart from the aforementioned cheesing kills example.
And, as I've said, if you think that killers should have to play like that to always stand a chance at winning, you're very wrong.
You say that comp makes it so survivors know what the killer is or that they can choose which one to face. So survivors in pubs dont know / cant ban the killer? Are you trying to argue that the fact that survivor can be ignorant to how to deal with a certain killer makes the game killer sided? Is that your argument here?
What do you base these statements on? You just make these claims without any evidence.
Let's take your assertion of struggle and look to the Spring Invitational, which I think is the last major Western tournament to be held. There were 12 games between Elysium and X9. The end game results: 4 4ks, 1 3k, 2 2ks, 2 1k, and 2 0k. That doesn't seem like the killers were struggling.
And not related to anything, but I just realized they basically hit BHVR's 60% kill rate perfectly.
So, killers had 10 games and lost 5 of them by our definitions and you argue killers aren't struggling? Are you sure you have provided the data you wanted to? Or maybe you wanted to say 4k4 as in 4 gens 4 kills instead of 4 games where killer got 4 kills. Though even if I look at provided data like that I still have 3 games out of 5 being 2 kills or less which is even worse. Top tier killers, literally the best known players in the world, facing best known survivors and still not managing to achieve our established win con in half of the matches.
Earlier you said everything makes Killer's life easier in comp. The thing is, I'm willing to point out things in comp that favor the killer, like always having maps that generally benefit them (some of the S tier killers don't play on their best map), but you're ignoring the things that favor the survivor, like knowing exactly who the killer is or that knowing the map also allows them to make plans on how to counterplay the killer.
Because these things don't make much difference unlike being restricted from using resources and options the game provides. As I've said earlier, survivors DONT HAVE to adapt to any killer they face if they can take 4x4 second chance perks with 4 top tier items. That is the thing you keep failing to understand.
Survivors are allowed to know the killer beforehand alongside map because the game is being individually balanced for each killer. If that was not the case, survivors would be running UNIVERSAL VERSATILE meta that works well enough against ANY killer. Look at the stuff Eternal ran in their streaks.
The only thing survivors truly cannot prepare for is killer deciding to cheese kills on them by taking stuff like tombstone. Then yeah, truly, they might get caught so off guard, they might not win. Though it still would merely depend on what they'd define as winning because Eternal got 2 outs vs that myers and counted that as a draw. That was definitely the kind of games we should be lookin at in the context of such discussions.
So to show the game is not survivor sided, we have to eliminate entire elements of the game that killers have access to.
Also are there any 'not normal' things we should be throwing out on the survivor side?
A very disingenuous way of rewording what I said.
Again, DbD played normally, where both sides play the game and try to complete objective without cheesing it, is survivor sided. That DbD where you chase people and use your braincells is not worth considering because any skill is thrown out of the window. People are exploiting cheesy mechanics to get cheap participation awards shouldnt be considered in balance / design discussion other than examples of things that are wrong with the game.
I mean if that's your definition, the game is very killer sided. If we throw out everything in the middle, 4ks way outnumber 4es.
So you're comparing the extremes without considering the data in the middle that is just as important because that suits your narrative. Who said that only complete wins/losses matter? Who defined that? You? That's a big hypocrisy here.
Based on what? BHVR's stats don't make it look like that, Nightlight doesn't, win streaks don't. There are multiple sources of data which show the game to be killer sided, I'm asking what supports the idea that that is not true?
So let me get this straight. In a game where it's super easy for the whole team to throw, where survivors are so lost they dont know even basic counterplay to half of the killers they encounter given they're more rare than not, where they have no comms, cant be bothered to run proper meta half of the time, get bad rng half of the time, etc,etc killers only score 57% average killrate (according to nightlight) and you actually think the game is killer sided?
In that particular stat, killers LOSE ALL GENS in 48% of the matches.
ALMOST HALF OF THE GAMES. RESULT IN GENS BEING DONE AND 2 OUTS. 2% LESS THAN HALF. OF. THE. GAMES.
and im being ULTRA generous here because not all 3ks (18.69%) & 4ks (32.93%) are done before gens are completed. It's not uncommon for the killer to get 2k by the time last gen pops or just get a lucky snowball in the endgame.
you cant unironically say the game is not survivor sided with these stats given. all that while devs claim to balance for 60% killrate (which still would mean the game being survivor sided at any high level, but nonetheless).
sure you can change your shoes and claim nightlight isn't a reliable source, but then please provide a better one. oh wait, official stats are no better and provide functionally the same info. even full solo qs, poor lost children in the dark forest still have generous chances to complete all gens and escape.
also, streaks don't count, im tired of having to repeat the reasoning to you. You failed to prove my logic being incorrect, you just said nuh-uh and moved on.
I've asked this before, what specifically do you mean? I can think of some possibilities, but I don't want to guess.
So deep into the conversation and you don't know the answer? Deli, unbreakable, decisive, babysitter, camaradiery, otr, meta reset perks, sub meta reset perks, exhaustion perks for lower tiers (oh yeah, they do count, especially when we're talking about killer like ghostface), the list goes and on and on and varies slightly depending on the ruleset and particular killer.
Honestly, I dont think I want to continue this conversation. I'm getting a progressively growing impression you are arguing for the sake of arguing since you misinterpret what I'm saying, ignore previously established or agreed upon points and generally make it move in circles and that's very tiring. Was fun while it lasted, I dont consider it worth the effort anymore.
Feel free to think what you want to think, I said enough of what needed to be said on that subject. If that's not enough to convince you and it clearly isnt, then nothing will, so good luck with dropping arbitrary "you dont have anything more to say" petty last word and have a good day.
I'm going go a little out of order in my response because I think some of the things said later are more important.
So, killers had 10 games and lost 5 of them by our definitions and you argue killers aren't struggling? Are you sure you have provided the data you wanted to?12 games, though I only put in 11 of the game results, that's on me, left out one 4k because I missed it when the video wasn't lined up right.
Want to start here because I think this gives a lot of insight into how skewed your perception is. The killer won more than the survivors. How in the world can the killer be struggling? Struggle implies a great challenge, a disadvantage, like killers are lucky to even get a few hooks. But they're doing fine and winning more than the survivors. Like how much does the killer have to smash survivors into the ground to not be struggling?
So let me get this straight. In a game where it's super easy for the whole team to throw, where survivors are so lost they dont know even basic counterplay to half of the killers they encounter given they're more rare than not, where they have no comms, cant be bothered to run proper meta half of the time, get bad rng half of the time, etc,etc killers only score 57% average killrate (according to nightlight) and you actually think the game is killer sided?Yeah, as like a factually obvious metric. The killers kill, 3k+ more than 1k or less, they 4k more than 0k, etc. All of that shows the game is killer sided.
Counter to some of your points:
-Killers can also throw
-Killers frequently don't run proper meta, and if they don't its more impactful
-Bad RNG half the time? That means they get good RNG half the time. Seems like it balances out.
-If a killer is that rare that survivors barely see them, its going to have minimal statistical impact.
you cant unironically say the game is not survivor sided with these stats given. all that while devs claim to balance for 60% killrate (which still would mean the game being survivor sided at any high level, but nonetheless).The devs target kill rate is an example of the game being killer sided. It's a design decision and a different discussion.
Also, when BHVR has given us the top level MMR data, it doesn't show killers falling off in high MMR in any noticeable degree. Even the 4 person SWF at the top level still leans killer.
Back to going in order:
Killer bans are aimed at crutch perks or cheesy perks. A lot of aura reading, perks like PWYF that outright allow to remove skill from chases by rushing down ppl with 15% haste.Why are killer perks crutch perks and the banned survivor perks aren't cheese perks?
And of course, aforementioned kill cheese mechanics that dont necessarily allow to get good results, but almost guarantee you'll get a kill or two.Except they have these. NOED and Rancor allowed on some killers, not to mention just standing in front of the hook.
DbD isnt poker and poker isnt DbD.None of the RNG factors we are considering are the major contributors to the balance due to them not tilting the scales to the other side in any meaningful away apart from the aforementioned cheesing kills example.What's your point in any of this? Earlier you were saying that when we look at comp we need to look at what they remove as evidence of the game's balance, now those bans are just cheese and silly things.
Also, way underestimating the adaptability for DbD. What's the map, where are the gens, what should I focus on, which killer am I facing, trying to figure out the perks in play. All of those are things comp either cuts out completely or substantially removes.
And, as I've said, if you think that killers should have to play like that to always stand a chance at winning, you're very wrong.It just shows that you have to remove things from the game to make your argument. We are evaluating whether the game is killer sided or not. Not the game that you want killers to be playing.
You say that comp makes it so survivors know what the killer is or that they can choose which one to face. So survivors in pubs dont know / cant ban the killer? Are you trying to argue that the fact that survivor can be ignorant to how to deal with a certain killer makes the game killer sided? Is that your argument here?Well unless I missed something big in the options page, they can't ban killers as a factual matter.
The argument is simple: in the normal game survivors don't know which killer they are going to face. It's not that they don't need to know how but:
A: earlier talking about which side needs more skill, the survivors need to be prepared for 37 different killers. That seems like a pretty big skill accomplishment.
B: the survivors have to build their perks not knowing what they are going to face. They need to prepare for 37 possibilities, in comp they only need to prepare for one.
So deep into the conversation and you don't know the answer? Deli, unbreakable, decisive, babysitter, camaradiery, otr, meta reset perks, sub meta reset perks, exhaustion perks for lower tiers (oh yeah, they do count, especially when we're talking about killer like ghostface), the list goes and on and on and varies slightly depending on the ruleset and particular killer.Because I don't understand what makes these perks unique. This is in response to you saying:
Survivors are given resources that allow to recover from the mistakes the killer is supposed to capitalize on.Your argument makes it sound like you want the killer to have simple, easy to play, always right moves. I hooked the survivor in the 3 gen, I win. I'm going for the tunnel out, I win. What you're calling mistakes are things that survivors have resources and elements to fight back against. The killer needs to counter those. Both sides need to make their decisions based on a lack of information.
We could basically throw everything the killer can do in here as an example as well. Like at the extreme end I could be like why does the killer have perks to reduce gen progress, he messed up by letting the survivor work on it. Then you have the more obvious things, end game perks, Devour Hope, spirit fury+hubris, etc.
But having those perks and playing into them isn't a mistake, they are choices on how to play the game, and then the survivors have to respond, just like killers have to respond to what survivors do.
Honestly, I dont think I want to continue this conversation. I'm getting a progressively growing impression you are arguing for the sake of arguing since you misinterpret what I'm saying, ignore previously established or agreed upon points and generally make it move in circles and that's very tiring. Was fun while it lasted, I dont consider it worth the effort anymore.Fair enough, I think basically the same of what you've done with a lot of goal post moving and trying to evade the points instead of responding to them. I'll point out I went and found evidence, said when I agreed with you, and tried to keep it on the subject of which part of the game is killer sided (though the last one strayed at points).
-
@Toystory3Monkey said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3794161#Comment_3794161
My argument is that comp is radically different from a non-comp game, here are all the ways:
-Survivors know the killer they are facing
-Teams can ban killers they don't want to face
-Both sides know the map
-Always 4 person SWF which at the upper levels have things like try outs to make it.
-Perk and addon bans on both sides
-Perks limited to a single instance on the survivor (obviously) side
-Playing for hooks and gens
-The games are, usually, played sequentially. That means the first killer generally takes safer strategies. Hooking and camping out the first survivor means getting at least five to seven hooks is close to guaranteed. The second game killer strategies will vary wildly based on what they are trying to accomplish. If the survivors need to only do a few gens, camping and tunneling go out the window because the killer needs to spread a ton of pressure.
-More recently, AFC ignored
Great, you acknowledge the difference, but you don't acknowledge WHY some of these differences are a thing which is what I'm talking about.
Why are some perks and addons banned? Why are same perks banned? Why is AFC (the most prominent example of them literally patching out a strategy) ignored?
That's what Im talking about. The reason why survivors are not allowed to use pretty much all meta or mildly meta perks or resort to using a system specifically created to patch certain playstyles in competitive is because if survivors were allowed to play with all that, pretty much all killers would be unable to even get close to winning the game due to how many resources and second chances survivors would be allowed to use.
You're also insisting on survivors knowing the killer / being in 4 man being a major factor in dismissing the example yet it's the factor that determines this example being valid in the first place as, as I said multiple times, that removes a huge element of skill issue in the contest, ensuring that there's no such situation where survivors simply deal with the killer they have no idea how to properly play against.
The WHOLE balance talk must be based on the assumption that skill difference & lack of it is not in the picture. Comp dbd does that the best it possibly could be.
The differences between asian/western comp scenes are also irrelevant to my point because both scenes feature the aforementioned qualities determining their validity as an evidence to my thesis.
Dealing with RNG is a skill.Being able to adapt to situations on the fly is a key component of the game. Its also not unique to this game by any means, lots of games (both video and other) have high variability between plays and expect that players who win over time will be the ones who can best adapt to the situation they were given.
The only reason comp needs to reduce these elements is because they play a small number of games. If comp played seasons (which would not be practical for different reasons), you could allow a lot more random elements into the game and they would balance out over time. This is another reason comp is not similar to normal gameplay.
Not with the kind of RNG you're talking about. Comp sets essentially one of the worst RNG scenario for survivors in terms of map / killer balance, since survivors are not only not allowed to use universally strong meta perks unless it's the best killers in question, but they're also forced to play on the best or one of the best maps for the killer.
Both sides still have to adapt to RNG - tile spawn RNG which is a huge variable on most maps played and which can affect the outcomes to a degree, even though that would be irrelevant should player imposed limitations on survivors be lifted.
If anyone that's allowed to not have to adapt to RNG, it's the killer. Everything in comp dbd makes KILLER'S life easier and yet people still struggle on that level simply because how powerful still survivors are. Killer is given almost best case scenario map for them. For instance Singularity plays almost exclusively wreckers yard / DDS - arguably the best & strongest maps. Ghostface always plays on lery. Dredge gets midwich. I can't recall a single killer that's forced to play on their BAD map. Best case scenario for your point - killers are not given THE BEST map possible (haddonfield) and instead play on more balanced azarov/mac. Yet that still leaves 40+ maps that are going to be a detriment to the killer should they get selected.
You say survivors have to adapt to RNG in pubs and not in comp, yet if we were to add that RNG back, it would always favour survivors. They would have access to best perks possible from the start, they would have incredibly high chance to get a map that doesn't favour the killer as much as it could be.
So, again, competitive DbD doesn't remove any RNG that would be making a difference that disproves my thesis. It puts survivors into worst possible scenario where they have nothing to rely on but their own skill, while untying killer hands completely. Comp dbd is definitely a different game because it lacks all the second chances and emergency mechanics that exist to carry bad teams and ensure great teams are unwinnable unless they run into kill cheese.
If you want to say that you didn't mean most that's fine. That was just an inquiry on my part.
But being we're on the subject, I'm trying to find what portion of the game you are looking to for how its sided. Because if we take the absolute best record on both sides, the killer blows away survivors. If we take the game as a whole, the answer seems to be that survivors are bad and shouldn't be counted.
I'm just trying to find out where the range is you think we should be looking to gauge the game off of.
None streaks are evidence of the game being either sided due to the conditions players set and how the game itself determines win conditions and what tools it provides players to achieve it. Survivor streaks in particular are a pain because killers have access to some options to cheese kills with no effort, yet these options do not indicate the overall state of the killer side or of the normal gameplay.
Generally agree that win is not clearly defined, though I think that is different than not being defined at all, but this argument is totally different than everything else you say. You're saying here that the question is moot. Do you believe the game is killer sided, survivor sided, neither, or the question has no possible answer? Because if its what you're saying here, I'm not sure why you are even typing all of the other paragraphs.
MMR system defines win for killer as getting 3 kills, while the win for the survivor (a single one) would be an escape through exit gates. That, as far as my understanding goes, implies that players from both sides can win in the exact same match. Which is why I personally dismiss 3k+exit gate streaks as complete wins due to survivors being successful in completing their objectives in regards of using survivor streaks as evidence. Hatch, obviously, does not count due to it being evident as a cheap escape mechanic that ignores the main objective.
If we go off by that definition of win con which is what I personally believe to be the only correct way of defining it: do not allow any survivors to complete their objective of escaping through the exit gates after completing five generators; then the game is survivor sided due to the fact it's less likely for the killer playing normal way (AKA not resorting to cheesy strategies like tombstone myers, rancor roulette) to accomplish that goal in more or less equal skill conditions & performing with a reasonable degree of mistakes on both sides.
We can count hatch as either draw or loss for the survivors, depending on what criteria from MMR system we use (it's defined as a draw, yet results in MMR loss) but either way it's not related to survivors' success in completing the objective and only works as a motivation to keep playing, therefore can be dismissed in this context.
So the range we should be looking at is the normal intended gameplay where both sides' goals is to complete their objective and / or prevent the other side from doing that which results into both sides being unable to win at the same time under any circumstances. None of the survivors win if none of them escape through exit gates, killer does not win if any of the survivors escape through exit gates.
In that case, killers past certain point are unable to properly compete or stand a fighting chance because survivors simply possess too much agency and resources to consistently beat the killer. That by it self is fine, however the problem arises with how it's achieved or compensated for the killers. Survivors are given resources that allow to recover from the mistakes the killer is supposed to capitalize on. Even though punishing those mistakes is recognised as unhealthy and undesired gameplay, killers are unable to match survivor gen speeds without resorting to such strategies unless severely outmatching them which is simply not possible at a pretty realistic point.
On the issue of knowledge they should have: I can say the exact same about your examples. If you hook a survivor who you or have reason to believe unhooked someone, and no one seems to be coming for the rescue, and you continue to camp, and then they use deliverance, yeah you should have known that.
Nah, you don't get it. The thing with deli is that you have ALREADY lost by the time the trade happens. If survivor dives and trades, it doesn't matter what you do if they have deli. You either pursue the unhooked survivor (risking DS/OTR/BS) to get them to 2nd or you hook deli and leave / stay with them, it doesnt matter because at this point your otherwise correct play of defending hook in a 3 gen was completely negated by the perk simply existing. The only conceivable way this is preventable is if you play one of those problematic killers that can down the deli trader before they reach the hook.
And it's pretty much like that for a lot of plays you've mentioned. It's not a mistake, it's a valid play for survivors.
All examples are going to be bad because the game is asymmetrical and never going to line up perfectly. if we want to just throw out possible extreme examples we could talk about survivors trying to guess whether a Myers has tombstone or not. This is more equivalent to the camping on a deliverance player. You could make the safer play and give up some ground presuming he does (like a survivor jumping in a locker and losing chase time), or make a higher risk wager and camp on it hoping he doesn't (like a survivor taking a longer chase).
We cant get exact examples but we can see when the difference between them is too drastic to ignore. You are comparing an extreme risk and extreme reward play/decision that is completely counterable by the other side if they play meta with something that poses no extremes due to its mostly uncounterable nature and therefore not resulting into a grand shift in match dynamic.
Great, you acknowledge the difference, but you don't acknowledge WHY some of these differences are a thing which is what I'm talking about.This is a funny sentence because literally from the beginning I've been arguing they are substantially different. That was the origin of why I responded to you.
The reason why survivors are not allowed to use pretty much all meta or mildly meta perks or resort to using a system specifically created to patch certain playstyles in competitive is because if survivors were allowed to play with all that, pretty much all killers would be unable to even get close to winning the game due to how many resources and second chances survivors would be allowed to use.You're just ignoring though all the bans that killers have. Looking at the DbD league ruleset from the Spring Invitational, the bans on the killer perks seem just as powerful as the ones on survivor.
The WHOLE balance talk must be based on the assumption that skill difference & lack of it is not in the picture. Comp dbd does that the best it possibly could be.I'll go back to my poker example. If you take a game that has a huge level of randomness and you pull that randomness out, you don't prove anything about the game, because you've made a different game.
We're not talking skill levels, we're talking multiple core elements of the game.
Everything in comp dbd makes KILLER'S life easier and yet people still struggle on that level simply because how powerful still survivors are.What do you base these statements on? You just make these claims without any evidence.
Let's take your assertion of struggle and look to the Spring Invitational, which I think is the last major Western tournament to be held. There were 12 games between Elysium and X9. The end game results: 4 4ks, 1 3k, 2 2ks, 2 1k, and 2 0k. That doesn't seem like the killers were struggling.
And not related to anything, but I just realized they basically hit BHVR's 60% kill rate perfectly.
You say survivors have to adapt to RNG in pubs and not in comp, yet if we were to add that RNG back, it would always favour survivors. They would have access to best perks possible from the start, they would have incredibly high chance to get a map that doesn't favour the killer as much as it could be.Earlier you said everything makes Killer's life easier in comp. The thing is, I'm willing to point out things in comp that favor the killer, like always having maps that generally benefit them (some of the S tier killers don't play on their best map), but you're ignoring the things that favor the survivor, like knowing exactly who the killer is or that knowing the map also allows them to make plans on how to counterplay the killer.
then the game is survivor sided due to the fact it's less likely for the killer playing normal way (AKA not resorting to cheesy strategies like tombstone myers, rancor roulette)So to show the game is not survivor sided, we have to eliminate entire elements of the game that killers have access to.
Also are there any 'not normal' things we should be throwing out on the survivor side?
We can count hatch as either draw or loss for the survivors, depending on what criteria from MMR system we use (it's defined as a draw, yet results in MMR loss)Unless something has changed, hatch is MMR neutral.
None of the survivors win if none of them escape through exit gates, killer does not win if any of the survivors escape through exit gates.I mean if that's your definition, the game is very killer sided. If we throw out everything in the middle, 4ks way outnumber 4es.
In that case, killers past certain point are unable to properly compete or stand a fighting chance because survivors simply possess too much agency and resources to consistently beat the killer.Based on what? BHVR's stats don't make it look like that, Nightlight doesn't, win streaks don't. There are multiple sources of data which show the game to be killer sided, I'm asking what supports the idea that that is not true?
Survivors are given resources that allow to recover from the mistakes the killer is supposed to capitalize on.I've asked this before, what specifically do you mean? I can think of some possibilities, but I don't want to guess.
it doesnt matter because at this point your otherwise correct play of defending hook in a 3 gen was completely negated by the perk simply existing.Then it wasn't the correct play. Though if you're defending a hook in a 3 gen, you've still maintained the 3 gen, so the idea that the game is completely lost seems an exaggeration.
Then we have examples on the killer side: NOED, Devour Hope, etc. where the correct play changes based off trying to guess what perks the killer is running.
And it's pretty much like that for a lot of plays you've mentioned. It's not a mistake, it's a valid play for survivors.Of course its a valid play for survivors. That's the game, trying to make guesses about what the other side is doing. Sometimes you don't, regardless of the role you are playing.
-
@Toystory3Monkey said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3794140#Comment_3794140
That's not even close to what I suggest. You leave out all of the points I made about the difference.
Comp is like a game of poker where every player is guaranteed to get cards from one of ten possible combinations. It still might be a game of skill, but its not a reflection of what poker actually is.
This doesn't even get into what comp scene we base it off, with different leagues having different rules and the Asian comp scene having different metas on what they think is actually strong in the game.
You've failed to establish your point then. Because from what Im seeing you're essentially suggesting that we shouldnt consider top tier performance of survivors (though why do we consider top tier killers either even though they're the ones doing those ridiculous winstreaks) because these are 1) rare 2) excluding rng elements that mostly boil down to a possibility of survivors running same perks / off meta build or playing on a map that will favour survivors more than maps usually do in comp (as maps are usually picked to favour the killer or at least not make them unplayable & vulnerable to lack of mobility cheese).
That is irrelevant to the subject because these are the factors that boil down to rng throwing the skill out of the window or survivors not being prepared to face the killer they go against due to them not having enough experience against that killer.
Okay, so its not most, its that one.
Oh yeah, just "that one streak" that people believing the game is killer sided run with like it's a definitive proof of god existing they brought to an atheist convention.
Either way I've addressed most other killer streaks and their relation to survivor streaks.
Only if you presume the game doesn't have draws as a possibility.
Which most people think it does. If survivors and killers, both doing a win streak, hit each other, they both could lose it at the same time. It would be as easy for killers to say a 2k should be a win because they broke the survivors streak.
I presume that this game has no definitive win, loss or draw condition and it's a wide spectrum that people randomly point finger at to determine what is a win con to them. Therefore rendering streaking entirely subjective unless your goal is 4k / 4 out which is obviously not entirely skill dependant for obvious reasons and that, however, only further makes streaks meaningless in my eyes. Not even counting poor matchmaking for both sides alongside lack of proper competitive mindset. Streaks are not indicative of the game's state on either side.
I'm considering both. I'm just not throwing out the floor.
You are since you dismiss the examples of the skill ceiling and base your argumentation on the cases where survivors dont have knowledge they should have, dont avoid things they should always be able to avoid due to one-sided nature of prevention of these things, dont play with a correct mindset and so on.
How? As I talked about and gave examples killers only have to match the survivor skill on game elements. What exactly does the killer do that needs to exceed survivor gameplay?
Which side depends on the other side's mistakes more than they rely on their own skilled plays? Killers do.
In chases, a lot of killers (even the ones with antiloop powers) are forced to rely on survivor's mistakes and can only attempt to make plays that ultimately depend on survivor making mistake in dealing with them to result in a hit. Any hits that solely depend on killer's personal skill are not enough by themselves to let killer win the chase due to how long it would take to get an opportunity for these hits, assuming survivor is doing their one-sided part of the chase right. Again, a spectrum, but the general rule is like that. Survivors always have some kind of consistent counterplay that delays the killer from getting an opportunity to use their ability and / or they are the ones whose decision defines whether or not killer wins the chase. (And winning the chase doesnt mean simply downing the survivor, it means downing the survivor fast enough to not lose the game).
There's very few exceptions to that and they're what bottlenecks killer balance and are universally considered overpowered and problematic by the community 👩⚕️.
I had a longer response here, but later you say that survivors are punished more for making mistakes
We're talking about different skill expressions here even though they're from the same game sense field. In one example that you brought up killers receive bigger punishment, in the other, survivors do due to having more agency in avoiding that mistake or refusing to utilize options to cover up for the mistake.
The side that has more agency than the other is the one that receives bigger punishment for the mistake, that's how it usually goes. Survivors, naturally, have way more agency as a team than killers by themselves do, which leads to them having way more control in chases or in overall match. Which, again, is another example of the game being survivor sided.
But survivors are having to do the same
You chalk this up to people making basic mistakes, but its only a mistake because you are giving them extra levels of knowledge that they don't have. Each side is trying to make guesses at what the other side is doing, a wrong guess can look like an idiotic play, but it is very different than a mistake.
In this particular example killer making an incorrect call and going for riskier play means losing the game right on the spot.
Survivor however will have the game still going regardless of whether or not they make a correct call on killer staying / not staying and pop'ing the gen.
These are bad examples because the required play and consequences of the decisions are incomparable. One is an example of an extreme play with high risk and the other is an example of a mundane game sense decision that people are allowed to fail reasonable amount of time on both sides.
Survivor can make a bad guess and have their 99 gen popped but that's just + roughly 20 more seconds on the gen which while painful is not something they cant recover from.
It would be more fair to compare that to killer losing a 50/50 in chase because that's something that killer can generally allow themselves to happen multiple times throughout the game. It's not something where they have enough agency to suffer extreme consequences.
You've failed to establish your point then.I don't think you've established your point either, but I'll go back to the beginning. Here is your original statement:
Comp isnt entirely different. The main obvious difference in comp is that it has player enforced balancing and matchmaking which results into a genuine competitive environment.My argument is that comp is radically different from a non-comp game, here are all the ways:
-Survivors know the killer they are facing
-Teams can ban killers they don't want to face
-Both sides know the map
-Always 4 person SWF which at the upper levels have things like try outs to make it.
-Perk and addon bans on both sides
-Perks limited to a single instance on the survivor (obviously) side
-Playing for hooks and gens
-The games are, usually, played sequentially. That means the first killer generally takes safer strategies. Hooking and camping out the first survivor means getting at least five to seven hooks is close to guaranteed. The second game killer strategies will vary wildly based on what they are trying to accomplish. If the survivors need to only do a few gens, camping and tunneling go out the window because the killer needs to spread a ton of pressure.
-More recently, AFC ignored
That seems like a substantially different experience than the non-comp game. I'm not even talking about MMR levels, it's just a fundamentally different game.
All the above is based off Western comp games. If we say that comp is somehow reflective, we also have to address why the Asian region plays under a different ruleset and which one is more reflective of the game.
That is irrelevant to the subject because these are the factors that boil down to rng throwing the skill out of the window or survivors not being prepared to face the killer they go against due to them not having enough experience against that killer.Dealing with RNG is a skill.
Being able to adapt to situations on the fly is a key component of the game. Its also not unique to this game by any means, lots of games (both video and other) have high variability between plays and expect that players who win over time will be the ones who can best adapt to the situation they were given.
The only reason comp needs to reduce these elements is because they play a small number of games. If comp played seasons (which would not be practical for different reasons), you could allow a lot more random elements into the game and they would balance out over time. This is another reason comp is not similar to normal gameplay.
Oh yeah, just "that one streak" that people believing the game is killer sided run with like it's a definitive proof of god existing they brought to an atheist convention.Here's what you originally said:
In my opinion, since most killer streaks (including the aforementioned blight streak) follow "no exit gate escape after 5th gen" logic, then survivor streaks should to.Here's what I replied:
Where does the most come from? Maybe its true, but the killer streaks I come across seem to be the standard kill 3 survivors.If you want to say that you didn't mean most that's fine. That was just an inquiry on my part.
But being we're on the subject, I'm trying to find what portion of the game you are looking to for how its sided. Because if we take the absolute best record on both sides, the killer blows away survivors. If we take the game as a whole, the answer seems to be that survivors are bad and shouldn't be counted.
I'm just trying to find out where the range is you think we should be looking to gauge the game off of.
I presume that this game has no definitive win, loss or draw condition and it's a wide spectrum that people randomly point finger at to determine what is a win con to them.Generally agree that win is not clearly defined, though I think that is different than not being defined at all, but this argument is totally different than everything else you say. You're saying here that the question is moot. Do you believe the game is killer sided, survivor sided, neither, or the question has no possible answer? Because if its what you're saying here, I'm not sure why you are even typing all of the other paragraphs.
You are since you dismiss the examples of the skill ceiling and base your argumentation on the cases where survivors dont have knowledge they should have, dont avoid things they should always be able to avoid due to one-sided nature of prevention of these things, dont play with a correct mindset and so on.The topic of the thread is 'the game'.
On the issue of knowledge they should have: I can say the exact same about your examples. If you hook a survivor who you or have reason to believe unhooked someone, and no one seems to be coming for the rescue, and you continue to camp, and then they use deliverance, yeah you should have known that.
You're just putting a lower burden on the killer players for when they do make a mistake or get outplayed.
Which side depends on the other side's mistakes more than they rely on their own skilled plays? Killers do.I agree, but that sounds like evidence that the game is killer sided. It actually seems to agree with what I said about the skill expression on both sides, killers have to match what the survivors do, survivors have to outplay.
The side that has more agency than the other is the one that receives bigger punishment for the mistake, that's how it usually goes.I agree, but this seems to go against what you said earlier:
You also equal having knowledge of your surrounding with not requiring skill which isnt really true as killer's skill is in applying that information correctly which has much higher punishment to it if it's not done right.-
These are bad examples because the required play and consequences of the decisions are incomparable. One is an example of an extreme play with high risk and the other is an example of a mundane game sense decision that people are allowed to fail reasonable amount of time on both sides.All examples are going to be bad because the game is asymmetrical and never going to line up perfectly. if we want to just throw out possible extreme examples we could talk about survivors trying to guess whether a Myers has tombstone or not. This is more equivalent to the camping on a deliverance player. You could make the safer play and give up some ground presuming he does (like a survivor jumping in a locker and losing chase time), or make a higher risk wager and camp on it hoping he doesn't (like a survivor taking a longer chase).
-
@Toystory3Monkey said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3794123#Comment_3794123
I watch a good deal of comp and there is a lot different. Survivors always know which killers they are going to face, both sides know the map they are going to play on, they play for hooks, not kills. They try to minimize the randomness of a game that is designed to have a lot of randomness.
This isn't even getting into SWFs. Not only are they four person SWFs, already rare, but these are players who have come together because they are good players, not just a group of friends.
Comp players are excellent players, no doubt, but there are so many elements of the game they don't even engage with it feels strange to argue that it can be somehow reflective of the state of the game.
They dont engage with random elements of the game and focus to get good at actual skill dependant interactions. Again, that not only doesn't invalidate it from being evidence, but makes it work better as such.
i dont think it's fair to consider severe lack of basic skill as a balancing factor as you suggest.
Where does the most come from? Maybe its true, but the killer streaks I come across seem to be the standard kill 3 survivors.
Momo7 blight streak, the one that the other guy brought up as evidence to something, is using "no exit gate escape after gens are done" wincon. I mean, we can use just 3k wincon, then survivors JUST have to get 2 kills to win. Still very much possible with all the stuff survivors have access to. Maybe not consistently against S tier killers because they offer enough agency to the killer to match survivor meta & skillful performance.
Though again, there's nothing concrete here. The issue with streaks for survivors is that the game is incapable of defining proper win con. Its' the game that took "both sides can win simultaneously" approach which leads to the insanity.
I'd say this is the reverse.
Killers only need to match the survivor skill. If a survivor doesn't know how to hug a loop, neither does the killer. If the survivor doesn't have the game sense to break the 3 gen, the killer doesn't need the game sense to protect it. The killer, by design, always has the advantage in the 1 on 1, so they only have to match the survivor skill and they'll win the chase.
Effort part, maybe.
Skill, no. The game is pretty straightforward for killer. You see the gens, you see the hooks, you see the scratch marks. The killer has important decisions to make, that's true, but that's most of their game. The skill floor is relatively high As a I mentioned above, the burden is on the survivors to learn skills before the killers need the counters.
Soloq survivors have to play the game with multiple mysteries hanging over their head. They have to guess at their teammates strategies and respond on the fly with extremely little information.
Even if we go to SWFs, it adds a whole new skill category to the game, communication. That can give them an edge, but if we're just talking about skill its something that has to be practiced and developed over time.
On the skill front, the killer has to improve their game sense and mechanics. Survivors have to improve those as well, while also learning to predict what the other survivors are doing and/or communication.
See, that's the fundamental difference in our mindsets.
You consider skill floor and I consider skill ceiling.
If we talk about skill floor, game is killer sided because killer doesnt have to even think about a response to anything survivor isn't attempting to do. On contrary, when survivor has enough knowledge and skill to apply all accessible options, the killer needs to put much greater skill input to deal with that. And that starts being problematic when killer's aforementioned skill inputs are being cancelled by mechanics that exist to artificially level survivors with the killer. The game is getting survivor sided even earlier than they near the ceiling due to that factor.
You also equal having knowledge of your surrounding with not requiring skill which isnt really true as killer's skill is in applying that information correctly which has much higher punishment to it if it's not done right.
Someone here said something how killers are ignoring the skill and effort survivors have to put into winning and it's a bit disingenuous to say that when killer skill&effort is diminished if not more, then no less as evident by your reply in particular for instance.
I never understand this point. Survivors seem to make one mistake and its game over. Get hooked in the 3 gen, hooked in basement, screw up a chase, caught stealthing, screw up a flashlight save, one mistake and pressure swings around immediately to the killer's side.
The issue with your understanding is that such mistakes are usually very avoidable and killer can be easily punished for trying to punish these mistakes if they dont make a correct call based on the information they don't have access to.
If I hook a person in a 3 gen and try to camp them, I can easily get hit by reassurance or/and deli trade and then lose the game to taking a gamble and getting outperked.
If I hook a person in basement and try to play around it, same will happen except I'll also expose myself to losing 3-4 gen and ending up in a terrible position for 3v1.
If I try to punish a flashlight save, I might lose a slugged person to them having a perk or just waste time and not get necessary value.
Of course, that's usually not the case, because average survivor player will more likely throw the game by expecting the killer to be nice and let them have the unhook/save/etc which will only further worsen their position, but Im going to assume we are not considering cases of people making basic mistakes / not being successful at their one-sided skill input that they must be consistent with because in that case I'll start asking for nurse buffs.
Despite that it's true that survivors are the role that hinges the most on not making mistakes or having them punished which is how they win. The game, especially without player imposed limitations to make it fair. And if they do make those mistakes, it's only a matter of how many of them they can cover up with perks which is pretty much what defines the skill difference in favour of killer that would still not matter. Which is what, again, should lead to a natural conclusion of the game being survivor sided.
And god forbid survivors are ever so slightly better. Killer is not winning the game even closely because they arent getting any chases fast enough. Their best hope is cheesing kills through party game mechanics.
As the game that still allows to win despite being worse than your opponent to a particular degree favours that side.
Good thing most people in this game actually don't care that much about winning and just don't want the other side to act like douches when they win or lose.
They dont engage with random elements of the game and focus to get good at actual skill dependant interactions. Again, that not only doesn't invalidate it from being evidence, but makes it work better as such.i dont think it's fair to consider severe lack of basic skill as a balancing factor as you suggest.That's not even close to what I suggest. You leave out all of the points I made about the difference.
Comp is like a game of poker where every player is guaranteed to get cards from one of ten possible combinations. It still might be a game of skill, but its not a reflection of what poker actually is.
This doesn't even get into what comp scene we base it off, with different leagues having different rules and the Asian comp scene having different metas on what they think is actually strong in the game.
Momo7 blight streak, the one that the other guy brought up as evidence to something, is using "no exit gate escape after gens are done" wincon.Okay, so its not most, its that one.
I mean, we can use just 3k wincon, then survivors JUST have to get 2 kills to win.Only if you presume the game doesn't have draws as a possibility.
Which most people think it does. If survivors and killers, both doing a win streak, hit each other, they both could lose it at the same time. It would be as easy for killers to say a 2k should be a win because they broke the survivors streak.
You consider skill floor and I consider skill ceiling.I'm considering both. I'm just not throwing out the floor.
On contrary, when survivor has enough knowledge and skill to apply all accessible options, the killer needs to put much greater skill input to deal with that.How? As I talked about and gave examples killers only have to match the survivor skill on game elements. What exactly does the killer do that needs to exceed survivor gameplay?
And that starts being problematic when killer's aforementioned skill inputs are being cancelled by mechanics that exist to artificially level survivors with the killer.Such as?
You also equal having knowledge of your surrounding with not requiring skill which isnt really true as killer's skill is in applying that information correctly which has much higher punishment to it if it's not done right.I had a longer response here, but later you say that survivors are punished more for making mistakes (
Despite that it's true that survivors are the role that hinges the most on not making mistakes or having them punished which is how they win.)So I 'm not sure what the overall point is.If I hook a person in a 3 gen and try to camp them, I can easily get hit by reassurance or/and deli trade and then lose the game to taking a gamble and getting outperked.If I hook a person in basement and try to play around it, same will happen except I'll also expose myself to losing 3-4 gen and ending up in a terrible position for 3v1.If I try to punish a flashlight save, I might lose a slugged person to them having a perk or just waste time and not get necessary value.Of course, that's usually not the case, because average survivor player will more likely throw the game by expecting the killer to be nice and let them have the unhook/save/etc which will only further worsen their position, but Im going to assume we are not considering cases of people making basic mistakes / not being successful at their one-sided skill input that they must be consistent with because in that case I'll start asking for nurse buffs.Quoting a lot, because I think this is the important part.
I'll start by saying, yes, the killer has to make important decisions. That's true. I just don't see how its different than survivors. More frequent (edit for clarity: on a 1 killer to 1 survivor basis)? Probably, but that's a different thing. This goes back to something that was talked about earlier in the forums, when killers win they attribute it to survivors being bad.
If you set up a defensive zone you get hit by a reassurance / deliverance / etc., you lost the guessing game. If they don't have it, or you make the decision not to play defensive because you think they have it, congratulations, you won the guessing game.
But survivors are having to do the same
You chalk this up to people making basic mistakes, but its only a mistake because you are giving them extra levels of knowledge that they don't have. Each side is trying to make guesses at what the other side is doing, a wrong guess can look like an idiotic play, but it is very different than a mistake.
-
@Toystory3Monkey said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3794103#Comment_3794103
>Ignoring the fact that comp is a completely different beast entirely and even in your statement you include exceptions, there is no secret gameplay that the drooling masses can't grasp, it just boils down to coordination and intent.
Comp isnt entirely different. The main obvious difference in comp is that it has player enforced balancing and matchmaking which results into a genuine competitive environment. That doesnt disqualify it from being an evidence to the power disbalance in the game and, on contrary, makes it as the fundamental proof of lots of balancing and design issues this game has.
There's a reason why even comp players trying to winstreak can't even break 400 mark while we just had a Blight streak end in a draw due to player error despite playing against a comp team with no restrictions after +2500 games.
The reason why comp survivors dont get streaks is because they set unrealistic wincon for themselves since the base game really struggles to define what is a win condition for the survivors.
In my opinion, since most killer streaks (including the aforementioned blight streak) follow "no exit gate escape after 5th gen" logic, then survivor streaks should to. However surv streakers believe they only win if they get at least 3 out which is pretty much the same as expecting to 4k3-5 all games in your killer streak. Or just expecting to 4k every game (including hatch).
It doesnt help that gathering a team for a streak is more difficult task than having one player decide to choose violence.
If the killer player is good and plays with the intent to win, they will destroy most opponents due to the fact that killer only has to pass a single skill check (no pun intended,) survivors have to pass four which is way harder to pull off.
You dont take into account the difficulty and quantity of the "skillchecks" killers has to pass. Killer needs to make great plays to beat survivor's mediocre plays. Extraordinary plays to beat good plays. Killers dont have downtime like survivors do and they constantly have to make crucial decisions throughout the game, while survivors have noticeable periods between being forced to make different choice.
The only part of the game where it's not the case is the chase where most killers have the dynamic shift (most noticeably antiloop m2 killers who flip it and start requiring survivor to make way better plays to beat mediocre performance).
That's obviously depends on every killer, but you get the idea. Most killers have to put way more skill and effort to win the game than survivors do. That alone proves the game is survivor sided.
And don't get me wrong, Im not saying it shouldn't be ultimately survivor sided. That's simply fair for the 1v4 game to lean towards the "4" side, however what is not fair is how this is achieved. That is achieved through artificial mechanics that ensure that survivor team is allowed to make a scarily generous amount of mistakes against the killer for as long as the skill gap between them can still be measured.
You cant unironically say that the game is killer sided when survivors are to win or at least break even against killer players with ten times more experience on a particular killer than the survivors have combined.
Comp isnt entirely different. The main obvious difference in comp is that it has player enforced balancing and matchmaking which results into a genuine competitive environment.I watch a good deal of comp and there is a lot different. Survivors always know which killers they are going to face, both sides know the map they are going to play on, they play for hooks, not kills. They try to minimize the randomness of a game that is designed to have a lot of randomness.
This isn't even getting into SWFs. Not only are they four person SWFs, already rare, but these are players who have come together because they are good players, not just a group of friends.
Comp players are excellent players, no doubt, but there are so many elements of the game they don't even engage with it feels strange to argue that it can be somehow reflective of the state of the game.
In my opinion, since most killer streaks (including the aforementioned blight streak) follow "no exit gate escape after 5th gen" logic, then survivor streaks should to.Where does the most come from? Maybe its true, but the killer streaks I come across seem to be the standard kill 3 survivors.
However surv streakers believe they only win if they get at least 3 out which is pretty much the same as expecting to 4k3-5 all games in your killer streak.This really sounds like admitting the game is killer sided. You're just saying the survivors should radically adjust their expectations. Because if a 3e is on the same difficulty as a killer 4king before 3 gens are done, the game has a serious balance issue.
Killer needs to make great plays to beat survivor's mediocre plays. Extraordinary plays to beat good plays.I'd say this is the reverse.
Killers only need to match the survivor skill. If a survivor doesn't know how to hug a loop, neither does the killer. If the survivor doesn't have the game sense to break the 3 gen, the killer doesn't need the game sense to protect it. The killer, by design, always has the advantage in the 1 on 1, so they only have to match the survivor skill and they'll win the chase.
Most killers have to put way more skill and effort to win the game than survivors do. That alone proves the game is survivor sided.Effort part, maybe.
Skill, no. The game is pretty straightforward for killer. You see the gens, you see the hooks, you see the scratch marks. The killer has important decisions to make, that's true, but that's most of their game. The skill floor is relatively high As a I mentioned above, the burden is on the survivors to learn skills before the killers need the counters.
Soloq survivors have to play the game with multiple mysteries hanging over their head. They have to guess at their teammates strategies and respond on the fly with extremely little information.
Even if we go to SWFs, it adds a whole new skill category to the game, communication. That can give them an edge, but if we're just talking about skill its something that has to be practiced and developed over time.
On the skill front, the killer has to improve their game sense and mechanics. Survivors have to improve those as well, while also learning to predict what the other survivors are doing and/or communication.
That is achieved through artificial mechanics that ensure that survivor team is allowed to make a scarily generous amount of mistakes against the killer for as long as the skill gap between them can still be measured.I never understand this point. Survivors seem to make one mistake and its game over. Get hooked in the 3 gen, hooked in basement, screw up a chase, caught stealthing, screw up a flashlight save, one mistake and pressure swings around immediately to the killer's side.
-
@HerInfernalMajesty said:
I read what everyone wrote and you all have good points.
For me the only reason I feel like it has to be this way is because gens will always be a better option given the choice. I feel that tying side objectives to the main objective is the only way. It still has the potential to be slow down, and the bonus can be tweaked to where it still technically would have been better to sit on a gen, but at least this way you’re still advancing the main objective.
Yes I can see how it could be a straight buff but I can also see how it would leave other players feeling good about your teammates’ choice to do side objectives.
This is no way a rebuttal to any of the counterpoints mentioned, just some general musings. I appreciate everyone’s input.
I feel that tying side objectives to the main objective is the only way.You're probably correct on this as a concept, but I think it might just be too difficult to work into the game design (especiall a game 8 years in with perks, maps, and offerings that might need to be reworked). Most games I can think of that have meaningful side objectives are longer style strategy games. DbD is a fast elimination asymmetrical game, side objectives are always going to be problematic.
Meaningful side objectives also give another advantage to SWFs. Whether you are soloq or SWF, the goal is the gens. You know it, the killer knows it. SWFs could enter games with either a side objective or main objective focused strategy, while it would just cause more confusion between SWFs.
It's not that I don't want it to happen if it was possible, I just think there are more possible problems that could emerge than things it would improve.
-
It's not that great of a perk in normal games. If the killer tunnels, unless you seek out the killer there's a 75% chance it will be someone else. OtR still provides value post conspicuous action. If you're high MMR the chance that you'll hit a killer who can catch you pretty quickly after a 4 second stun is pretty high. Other survivors might also run in and take body blocks for you, not knowing about your DS.
The only reason I think it gets used as much as it does is because of its prevalence among top SWFs/comps who have much more ability to use it in a match.
-
On totems: I think they are in a good place. They are anywhere between irrelevant and critically important based on the builds that are brought. I think that is a good element to have something that matters sometimes and can be ignored others.
Chests: BHVR, as frequently happens, seems to be trying to fix the issue via perks. That rarely goes well and I imagine chests still won't be touched that much.
I don't mind the idea of chests giving some gen progress, but it seems more complex than needed. Increasing the quality of items that come out of chests, giving them quicker opening times, would seem to be more straightforward solutions.
-
It sounds interesting at first, but lots of problems emerge immediately. All of the exhaustion perks would make them run into each other. Basekit distortion for everyone overrides all the basekit aura reading. Every killer has penti, but also every survivor has counterforce, overzealous, and inner strength (okay, that last one sounds kind of crazy fun).
The idea of giving each side a group of basekit perks as a game mode I could see being pretty fun. Everything is too far.
-
Simply put, it doesn't feel that good to win a game you were supposed to win in the first place. It's not the players themselves, its just a defense mechanism we have as humans.
This is enhanced by the 4v1 nature. It creates a trick where it seems like the killer player is overcoming the odds and thus winning is a great accomplishment. To have that turned around and be like 'no, you were always the favorite to win' is pretty deflating.
@hermitkermit said:
I commented something very similar on another post but, I remain consistent.
From what I've seen in forums and discussions, many killer mains believe that the issue is that killers aren't good but that survivors are just bad. I don't agree with this perspective, especially when all available statistics show that killers are performing well, regardless of where they rank on fan-made tier lists or if they're primarily M1 killers. The majority of survivors are statistically losing more than they're winning, and dismissing low escape rates as simply due to most survivors being "bad" overlooks the fact that the survivor role is intentionally challenging. It's like criticizing someone for dying in Dark Souls or Elden Ring—it misses the point of the challenge.
Another common belief is that because SWF exists, the game will always be survivor-sided. But the same argument could be made about Nurse. Using a small minority of the game, like SWF, to justify or demand changes is flawed for the same reason it would be wrong to use Nurse as a benchmark for balance. Both can create unfair situations, but they represent a minority of the player base.
From what I've seen in forums and discussions, many killer mains believe that the issue is that killers aren'tgoodbut that survivors are justbadI agree with this and its one of my pet peeves on the forum. I'd add this is usually accompanied by that when the killer loses it not because the survivors were better, but because the game/map was broken. It's strange that's its so hard to say: 'I'm good at the game, but sometimes I meet people who beat me'.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3791898#Comment_3791898
I didn't say anything about a win rate. I said it would take a 62.5% kill rate for killers to get a 3k in half their matches. You're not understanding the basics here, so I'll explain the basics. a 1k is a 25% kill rate in a match. A 2k is a 50% kill rate. A 3k is a 75% kill rate. a 4k is a 100% kill rate. The exact halfway point (on average across several matches) between a 2K (50%) and a 3K (75%) is 12.5% (50% + 25% is 75%, so splitting the 25% down the middle is 12.5%). That means the halfway point in kills between a 2K and a 3K is 62.5%. With a 62.5%, you're kill rate is in the middle of the road between a 2K and a 3K on average. Now, "winning" is completely subjective in DBD (which is why BHVR refuses to define it), but the majority of the community accepts that a 3K+ is considered a killer win. In reality, each match is 4 different 1 v 1 situations and there is no survivor team (weird, I know, but that's the design). If on average you're only getting a 1K (your 37.5% number) every match + the additional 12.5% average carry overs, then you're clearly not winning half the matches like your saying unless you're defining a single kill as a killer "win" (which TECHINCALLY is true, since the killer wins 1 out of 4 for the match and the game is made into 4 different "games" per match). However, while I see that's what you're claiming here (and technically you're correct), most of the community doesn't see killers getting 1 or 2 kills as being a win.
Long story short, your "side of the argument" comes down to the grounds that a single kill is considered a killer "win" (and a killer can win 4 times in a single match with a 4k) - but that reasoning is very convoluted and easily confuses the greater balance of things. A killer that can only get 1K every match shouldn't be considered as having a 100% win rate when you consider the whole picture of there actually being 4 survivors he's facing. It's better we all accept the more common view that a 3K+ is a win.
@Firellius gets into this in more detail, but we just did math thread a few weeks ago and I'm going to try a simpler approach than him.
You're not understanding the basics here, so I'll explain the basicsThe problem is, you're too basic. Of the five possible results, not all of them have an equal probability of occurring given game design. 2k is the rarest outcome (roughly 1 in 10 instead of 1 in 5) because they require a less common set of circumstances.
This isn't like rolling a die where given enough time everything has an equal chance of occurring, game design has to be considered. So if you look at all the possible permutations that could give you a sixty percent kill rate, you can't just pick the one in the middle as the outcome. Each permutation has an equal chance of being true until you look at how the game actually plays out.
-
@ShadyC said:
It's how I've known it from all other games, and it's what Google will tell you as well.
Googling sandbagging video games definition the first one that pops up is smashpedia and says the act of playing poorly on purpose. Not sure how that differs from how this community uses it.
It also looks like the way we use sandbagging in the game goes all the way back to 2016.
-
@GeneralSkien said:
To give this question more thought, what if the Devs full balance the game, they change, buff, nerf, and or rework every killer to which the majority of players are fine with it, they fully balance every killer, along with every perk to be useful, and at the same time balanced. I don't want answers like "This will never happen" I would rather like ideas to what the game would do in the future.
And after this they'll do something easier and relaxing like bringing about world peace.
So majority of players is an impossible standard. Like getting a majority of players to agree to something in a synchronous game is pretty difficult as it is.
It's also not what BHVR overall wants. The game isn't designed to be balanced in two different ways. First: BHVR is fine with the idea that certain killers are good for starting players, but other killers are meant for top level play. Second: they seem to like the idea of an ever evolving meta.
But to your final question: BHVR lays off a lot of their team and we just get cosmetics. It's okay though, because they're now on vacation working on world peace.
-
@Spare_Them_Mori_Me said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3792902#Comment_3792902
I mean, literally at work, can't youtube. Dont wanna wait. Will wait if needed. Now, back to waiting!
I decided to give it a look.
First 8 videos on that search
Video 1: Survivor playing soloq, compilation of times a killer DC
Video 2: Another soloq compilation.
Video 3: This is a duo with 3 matches. First one a DC, second one the player gets killers, third is a 2e where the uploader gets killed again.
Video 4: Another soloq compilation.
Video 5: Soloq compilation, this time specifically using a perk setup to counter gen kicking. Of the 3 games, in only 1 does a killer DC and in one video its a 4k.
Video 6: This is a killer player highlighting times survivors DCed.
Video 7: From 2 years ago, looks like a soloq compilation.
Video 8: Again a soloq compilation, 3 matches, only one does the killer DC, and in one of them the killer 4ks.
Lots of these videos are pretty dated, but I think Youtube spits out different results based on your algorithem. Limiting the search to the last month, it again looks like its basically soloq videos, but lots of these have views only in the double digits.
So it does not seem like a popular title to draw in views, many of these videos are streamer compilations that might be over a long period of time were the survivor is playing normally and the killer rage quits, and in some of them its just a title that applies to only one of the matches.
Edit: I should add I don't doubt these exist, bully squads are definitely a thing, but doesn't seem to be very common.
-
@ShadyC said:
… I know what it means to the DBD community.
What I'm saying is that "sandbagging" is already a term that means something else.
And BODY BLOCKING is already a term that means blocking other players with unit collision. There was already a term for this, but the community ignored that, and then grabbed a DIFFERENT term that had a DIFFERENT meaning, and made it mean… what body blocking means.
Sandbagging, in everything else, is to intentionally perform worse than you're capable of, typically with the purpose of evening the playing field so that all parties can have fun. (But not always for that purpose, that's just the most common reason.)
Sandbagging, in everything else, is to intentionally perform worse than you're capable of, typically with the purpose of evening the playing field so that all parties can have fun. (But not always for that purpose, that's just the most common reason.)Do you have a source for this is what it means everywhere else, or do you mean this is how you've encountered it? Because it seems to have a lot of different usages. Some quick googling shows it being used in sailing, climbing, poker, golf with different meanings and it can as well be used as an expression to sabotage or undermine something.
-
Sandbagging has a bunch of different meanings depending on the context/sport/game that is being referred to. Looking through some dictionaries, undermining the other survivors seems a definition that has been in use for some time.
-
@ays12151 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3792657#Comment_3792657
Some Killers without strong perks can be too opressive on "low levels". I wouldn't take it as an argument that some Killers would be too strong with 50% Corrupt Base Kit. At low levels they won't even do much at the start of the Trial. Balancing a game around the beginners is horrible idea. It's good to add some features that would help them learning the game, but do not balance the whole thing around them.
Survivor Gameplay Improvements - these changes would make SWF-s even more powerful and it would eliminate skill such as good communication. If you get SoloQ closer to SWF (not close, but at least closer) it will make game much easier to balance. My suggested changes are simply like that : In SoloQ you see which Pallets are dropped by your Teamamtes, so you know where are deadzones and added Kindred base kit to make Unhooks plays easier due to lack of communication.
Shadowborn - what's a point of using Shadowborn now though? My suggest would give a choice for Killers. Do I want to use Shadowborn and try to make Flashlight as my own weapon or I just want to counter the Flashlight with Lightborn. Survivors nowadays have many resources to counter 30 seconds Exposed, trust. Additonally, not every Killer would make a huge value from Exposed Status, because it simply better to use special attacks sometimes.
Balancing a game around the beginners is horrible idea. It's good to add some features that would help them learning the game, but do not balance the whole thing around them.Didn't say balance game around them, but you also can't ignore them. Designing the game around any single bracket of players is a bad idea.
If you get SoloQ closer to SWF (not close, but at least closer) it will make game much easier to balance.True, but what are you willing to give up from a design perspective? I like the way the soloq game is designed. I don't want to know where the other survivors are, I want some mystery about what is going on. I think the devs believe that also makes for an overall more enjoyable game experience. Balance isn't everything.
-
@zarr said:
Any second a survivor spends on hook is good for the killer, unless they are looking to camp and tunnel that survivor.
If the killer is not camping and if they aren't going to tunnel the unhooked survivor, it would always be objectively optimal to unhook as soon as possible. Any second that survivor spends on hook is wasted time they could be spending contributing to the round in countless ways instead. It's only if the killer is camping and tunnelling that this changes, because then the survivor's hook time also wastes time of the killer, and even if they aren't hardcamping they will periodically be returning to hook so as to be there once the survivor gets unhooked for the tunnel. So the longer you can delay the unhooks in those cases, the more of the killer's time you waste, the longer you can delay that survivor being taken out of the round and the killer's focus shifting to other things. The more likely you can also make it that the killer will grow antsy and venture out to pressure other survivors and the unhook then happening without the killer right around the hook, potentially losing the unhooked survivor or at least giving them a headstart, time to heal, hide, or such.
If you aren't camping or tunnelling, survivors leaving others on hooks for longer periods of time is actually beneficial for you. You will build more pressure on the survivors that can actually contribute to the round, have a survivor less to worry about that is not contributing, and the survivors can actually end up losing due to "greeding" unhooks, getting snowballed.
Now, camping and tunnelling is often necessary to win against strong survivor teams, at least on the relatively less strong killers. But if you're a competent killer player, around 90% of groups you'll meet won't constitute a "strong team", and you won't have big issues winning regardless, not even having to camp or tunnel to begin with. That goes up to 99+% if you're a really good killer player. And for the rest, well, it's not like the up to 16% more hook time makes things all the more challenging, particularly given that this only comes into play if the survivors actually only unhook past the 60 seconds.
I think overall this is a slight change to make camping and tunnelling a little less attractive, but it won't have too much of an impact on most matches. That it makes the anti-facecamp mechanic a little more relevant is not a bad thing, because unless the killer is literally facecamping, that mechanic is irrelevant. You can stand a certain distance away from the hook to prevent it from triggering while still being able to intercept unhook attempts, if another survivor is around the hook it pauses altogether (ridiculously enough even if that survivor is slugged), and other survivors don't see the progress bar so they can't know whether it would be better not to be around the hook or whether they need to get the unhook.
A little thought experiment: Imagine if they simply removed hook timers completely. I'm not saying this would be a good change - much as it may often feel bad, I think camping and the urgency and risks and dangers and snowball potential it yields are integral to the gameplay experience, the excitement, the frustration, the relief, all of that gets people hooked emotionally on the game. But still, if we imagine a scenario where hook timers are removed, survivors would certainly not leave people on hook indefinitely. But camping as we know it would stop existing. Maybe something to try in a modifier.
I saw there was going to be a Zarr post and I thought how much can he type on 'leaving survivors on hook bad unless camped'.
@zarr said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3792550#Comment_3792550
not only unless they are looking to camp and tunnel that survivor, but also in majority of other cases, especially when killer knows how to strategize around hooks.
I don't know what you mean by "strategize around hooks", but "camping" should capture all of that. There's periodic, patrol and proxi-camping, too.
But yes, survivors spending time on hook is good for a killer that is not looking to camp or tunnel or "strategize around hooks".
going for an unhook asap is the most predictable thing and ab easy call for killer to return to hook so that they can get another hook. Unhooked survivor is also not even safe to do gens if they are unhooked too soon, because in that case, they will be easy prey.
I had gazzilions situations where survivor unhooked another one asap, i returned to patrol a gen near the hook and boom, unhooked survivor repairing it, getting downed and hooked again. Think a bit about why anti-tunneling perks, the most powerful survivor perks, get deactivated prematurely if you start repairing a gen.
You are describing tunnelling. Yes, like I said, if the killer will tunnel the unhooked survivor, unhooking asap is regularly not a good thing, because then you give up on all of the time and attention the killer spends hovering around or returning to hook with the intention to be there once the survivor is unhooked. And like I had also mentioned, even if the killer is not hovering or returning to hook, not unhooking asap can be good because then you give the killer time to venture out and be otherwise occupied, giving the unhooked survivor time to hide, heal, have a headstart. But again, if you would be able to know for sure the killer is not going to tunnel, unhooking asap (without trading the second the hook happens, of course) would always be optimal for survivors. The more time survivors spend not on hook, the better for survivors. Camping and tunnelling are the only things that change this frankly obvious fact.
ohh, it's very beneficial, especially when hooked survivor has Deli active and ready for usage combined with anti-tunneling perks, but NOT for the actual countreing of tunneling.
I'm not sure how this is relevant, but if the survivor on hook has Deli, them not using it despite the killer not camping or tunnelling and staying on hook for no reason is a waste of time. The only thing that changes this is, again, the idea that the killer might return to hook to camp or tunnel at some point, therefore holding your Deli to waste more of their time.
not really, camping and tunneling are far more situational in high skill matches than they are in average pub ones, because survivors know how to easily counterplay both of those.
No, the difference is that in your average pub match you don't need to camp and tunnel to win, but you would of course usually win even more easily and decisively if you were to camp and tunnel. In high-level matches, camping and tunnelling become much more important because apart from on a select few killers, you cannot consistently build enough pressure and end chases fast enough to win with all 4 survivors standing, and need to take a survivor out of the match as quickly as possible to turn the tides.
Only beneficial and low risk way to tunnel in high elo is if you actually manage to get a very quick down after match starts. But that doesn't really happen often, and puts tunneling at a very high risk spot to practise.
While it's generally true that you want a quick down (not necessarily "very quick") to be comfortable with committing to a tunnel (or camp) against strong survivors, it isn't like it cannot work if you don't get an early down. A thousand different things still factor into that. But more importantly, "high elo" is the issue here: in this game's matchmaking system, there exists no high elo or regular high-skill matches, there is a low MMR cap and lax matchmaker and so even if you are on a winning streak of hundreds of matches, the survivors you face can and will most of the time still be fairly bad to mediocre players with a fraction of your hours, experience, and skill.
Proxy-camping is only beneficial if you are able to get a beneficial hook that overlooks a 3 gen or another similar strategic zone, other than that, camping is a free card for losing the match.
I disagree, the purpose of the camp often can simply be to take that survivor out of the match, creating a 3v1 scenario the killer can control much better and dominate. Or have survivors contest the hook and lose time, health states and lives in the process. But I won't go into a discussion about whether camping is a good strategy or not or when it is: if you don't even think camping is all that great a strategy, the increase in hook time should be even less concerning for you, since again, that only benefits the survivors if the killer camps.
this change will do nothing against your very average pub camper, people will still suicide on hooks and grief. Quite soon, we will see people begging for further nerfs for camping again.
It won't change much about camping and tunnelling in pubs because most pub players won't make use of the extra seconds, but it does give clever and especially coordinated survivors some more leverage against those strats by delaying unhooks a little longer, and can have a deterring effect on some killer players to not even attempt to play around hooks quite as much anymore given that survivors could leave someone on hook for a total 20 seconds longer and concentrate on gens.
This will only have impact in truly high skill gameplay, and not some minor impact, but an extreme one.
The impact will definitely be felt much more in high skill-matches (read: tournaments), but they can and do make their own rules, such as negating self-unhooks. And killer vs. survivor balance doesn't even matter in tournaments because both teams play both sides. Also, again, the reason why it will be felt more is because killers in tournament DbD usually camp and tunnel to get a survivor out as quickly as possible, so the 20 extra seconds will regularly matter.
the worst possible balance decision around hooks ever.
While that's certainly not the worst possible thing they could do to hook gameplay and while it is debatable how bad it would be or whether it could even be good, and apart from the fact that I had already mentioned that I also don't think essentially removing camping from the game would be a good decision, I only brought this up to make it obvious that leaving other survivors on hook just because you can is not beneficial, be that an indefinite amount of time or 69-139 seconds. For survivors, it is clearly beneficial to have survivors on the playing field contributing to the round at any possible second and not sitting on hooks. This only changes because of the existence of camping and tunnelling.
I only brought this up to make it obvious that leaving other survivors on hook just because you can is not beneficialI think it's a solid hypothetical point even if it was not understood. If hook timers didn't exist, survivors would still need to unhook survivors.
-
Survivors see auras: I could see the idea if a survivor is within the range showing auras, but the pallet drop doesn't seem right. This is conceptual game dev idea though about whether soloq should have a unique feel or not.
Basekit Corrupt for Certain Killers: So this is somewhat similar to a Jund idea of giving different killers different gen kick speeds as a way of slightly buffing the weaker killers.
The problem is which killers are meta varies based on region and MMR. A basekit corrupt would make many killers incredibly oppressive at lower levels.
Perks
Shadowborn: This is pretty close to 'if a survivor blinds you, the survivor is downed'. I could see a smaller buff to the haste, or a change to an exposed effect, but combined seem way too strong.
-
@hygcat said:
Recommendations have been in favor of Wraith, but I tried The Pig. It seems very simple for a beginner, you can't be detected while crouched, and it makes for some great ambushes. The Unforeseen perk has been very useful, when it triggers i'm walking around, and when it ends, I crouch.
So why is it played less? Is it bad in higher ranks?
Stealth killers struggle at higher ranks because:
A) stealth really stops bothering survivors after awhile
B) larger / more open maps they struggle on
C) SWFs can call out your location (and even soloq get a pretty good game sense at were you probably are)
My main recommendation though would be if you're having fun playing a killer, play that killer.
-
What do you want them to fix? That is against the rules.
-
@NarkoTri1er said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3791785#Comment_3791785
because hooked survivor will become dead weight when unhooked unless they have anti-tunneling perks they can use aggressively or can get to a safe tile for extended chase. Having unhooked survivor hop on a gen is wrong move in many occasions because killer will literally look for a chase around gens and we will have a case where that same survivor will be hooked again.
Returning to the 'I am not going to explain my point, just gonna call you bad if you don't agree with it' argumentation. This does not help your case.
i have literally explained my point multiple times, but it doesn't reach you by the looks.
So is defending the hook something that's really important on high MMR, or is it something that survivors can easily counter on high MMR? Pick something.
first, let's exclude imaginary high MMR because it acts like it doesn't exist in this game. And defending hook + applying pressure to survivors over hooks has become next to impossible against actually competent teams running perks like Deli, Wicked, Reassurance and similar. NOT in the way you think they are using it.
Now you're telling me you have never experienced gameplay at high skill level. You should watch Otz sometimes and see how his game sense kicks in. It's not a 50/50 when he plays, because he makes deductions about where survivors would reasonably go.
Plus, you have a plethora of aura-reading perks at your disposal.
that works extremely well until you come up to survivors that are actually aware you will try to predict where they will go and won't be as predictable as again, your average team. Again, these survivors are rare to come by in pubs because of catastrophically bad matchmaking.
Again, this is not showing, in any way, how survivors use hooks to pressure the killer, at all. You're getting OFF the hook here. Those extra 10 seconds don't help your team here, UNLESS the killer is camping the hook.
well, looks like there really is no point in trying to explain why the change is extremely impactful on actual high skill levels anymore, i'll end up talking to a wall again. Have a nice day.
because hooked survivor will become dead weight when unhooked unless they have anti-tunneling perks they can use aggressively or can get to a safe tile for extended chaseBut we're right back to its not the hook that pressures the killers, it's that the killer wants to camp or tunnel the survivor out, which is exactly the type of gameplay this is meant to reduce.
A survivor literally cannot be more dead weight than they are when hooked. They can do absolutely nothing to advance the survivors primary objective, they can't heal, they can't distract the killer, etc. The only difference between a hooked survivor and a dead one is the hooked survivor has the perspective of being useful again. A hooked survivor only impacts the game if
A) the killer chooses to focus on that hook, which the 10 second change is meant to address
or
B) the survivors rescue the hooked player/he rescues himself.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3790838#Comment_3790838
- Killers are only overpowered with very inexperienced survivors - ie low MMR. They start becoming a joke the higher the MMR is to the point where at high MMR, you can only realistically play a handful of killers. Heck, one of the most experienced survivors in the world did a video series of him playing ONLY solo queue and had a 60% win rate (win = 3 survivors escaping).
- I'm assuming you're just trying to bait a response on this one, so I'm not going to bother answering. Good know you think the top competitive killers at the tournament levels in the game are "bad killers" because they'll also slug when needed.
- Wiggling isn't useless. People wiggle out all the time - it's designed for other survivors assisting in that process via perks (ie breakout), by taking hits, or sabo'ing a nearby hook so the killer can't make it to another hook. It's NOT designed as a guaranteed get out of jail free card if there's no survivors nearby to assist. Long story short, it's not for YOU, it's for other survivors to take advantage of it. Considering you think killers are overpowered, that would likely put you into the lower MMR bracket, so I suppose the wiggling concept hasn't been made apparent to you yet. Get some more experience playing and you'll start to understand the value of wiggling.
- See point 2.
Heck, one of the most experienced survivors in the world did a video series of him playing ONLY solo queue and had a 60% win rate (win = 3 survivors escaping).So there's a factual mistake here that I've seen a few people make: by win rate he means how many survivors escaped each match. So it's a 60% escape rate of survivors in the match(actually 65.5% at the end of his 50 games), not 60% 3+. You can go to 24:58 in the video (The Ultimate Soloq Experiment) for an example of how he's doing the math.
Two other things about that video:
1: He's excluding games where a survivor quits early. BHVR's 60% rate is built in with the presumption that sometimes survivors rage quit early. He doesn't seem to have any similar rule if killers don't play / let survivors go,. I don't know the extent of this because I can't find the original videos.
2: This all ignores the much larger sample size from Otzdarva, which Hens referenced earlier, of having a rate of ~40% across 262 matches.
-
Unfortunately, there's not much you can do. If one survivor makes a big mistake, unless the killer plays super nice or way overcommits, survivors are going to lose.
-
@NarkoTri1er said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3791684#Comment_3791684
This did not get nerfed at all. 10 extra seconds on hook does not change this in any way, shape, or form.
tell me you've never truly experienced gameplay at high skill level without telling me so.
Mostly achieved through a method called 'camping', which this change aims to address.
camping is extremely situational and useless if survivors actually have at least a bit of game knowledge.
And that's tunnelling.
and that's called unhooking a survivor too early, giving killer the full value of tunneling or just trading.
If you have one survivor on hook and 3 on gens, you, as the killer, are wasting your own time. Survivors aren't doing anything to you, you are wasting your own time.
again, i have idea where to look for other survivors, and that puts me at 50/50 chance of actually finding other survivor reliably enough and getting another hook, next.
Did you? Or did you just jump to a wild conclusion that fits your bias and then ran with it, while now trying to brush off any further examination of your statement by calling it an easy conclusion?
Again, if being on the hook is such a power move for survivors, why would they equip a perk that gets them off the hook?
Deli is the most powerful tool when used in anti-tunneling builds, where you greed your hook stage to the last 1-2s, completely nullifying killer's hook pressure, after which you unhook yourself and either force killer's attention for another 2+ mins if you are good at chases and DS positioning or try to act as a mere waste of killer's time while again, 2 of your teammates spend time on gens completely reliably knowing killer is having full attention on something that isn't gen they are repairing.
tell me you've never truly experienced gameplay at high skill level without telling me so.Tell me you've lost the argument without telling me so.
The question @Firellius is asking is relatively simple: why would survivors leave a survivor on the hook if the killer is not camping? Let's imagine the best survivors in the world, we don't even have to talk about average survivor matches, let's get elite survivors in there. Why do they not want to get the unhook?
-
@I_CAME said:
Nothing has changed in terms of how people play. Killer mains are just being dramatic when they say it has caused more slugging. Killers slugged before the change and they still do. No difference at all. It's a bad attempt to get the change reversed because it made the easiest playstyle (camping) more difficult.
Killer mains are just being dramatic when they say it has caused more slugging.This is my view.
When we had AFC proposed we had lots of posts saying this would trigger constantly, the how was never clear.
When we had 8 gen kick limit we had posts saying this would would be abused by survivors, the how was never clear.
When people somehow argued the MFT nerf was a buff, the how was never clear.
What's good for those arguing against the change compared to the past: the fearmongering on those old changes were quickly disproven when the game went live. AFC and 8 gen never kicked in other than the scenarios they were supposed to, MFT dropped in usage. But now Killers, who can't see what survivors are doing, can justify everything based off this change.
-
@Ayodam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3791174#Comment_3791174
Right. I don’t understand what’s controversial about your data. I’d love to see games from the people challenging it since they seem to be so adept at survivor. Maybe they’re escaping as often as they think you (ought) to be. But I know their evidence won’t ever come.
I think there's developed such an expectation of what the game is supposed to be. Like if I came on the forum and posted 'look at my 10 game win streak as killer!', the general reaction would just be a shrug. A ten game win streak as a solo player in most other things, well it wouldn't make you the best at the game by any means, but it would still be a pretty impressive accomplishment.
-
@TheSubstitute said:
So what does this all mean?
That means a few things. This is all extrapolated from my experience but I can only speak to my experience. Just as a reminder pre 6.1 Dead Hard was rightfully nerfed from the abomination it was because it gave a 15 to 20% escape rate bonus at certain MMRs. The Killers in my data had an over 30% win rate bonus because of tunneling. Tunneling is more of a crutch and worse for the game than pre 6.1 Dead Hard was. You cannot seriously argue for tunneling to be a part of the game while you argued against abominations like pre 6.1 Dead Hard and Circle of Healing without being a hypocrite.
Second of all, the matchmaking data BHVR has is flawed and corrupted by the effectiveness of tunneling and camping. An Elo system was never designed to handle an asymmetrical situation and was designed so that symmetrical players could gain or lose based on their wins or losses on an equal playing field. The Elo system based on Kills/Escapes does not work for solo queue survivors because each individual Survivor cannot carry their entire group unless there’s hundreds to over a thousand points higher in MMR. The game needs to be designed so that Killer is stronger than any individual survivor and, ideally, as strong as 4 survivors of equal skill. If there is a tactic that is easily available to one side that increases the odds so much that disrupts the data. BHVR is measuring by kill rates and not separating anything by tunneling. This is unfair to solo queue.
Third of all, this data hammers in to a point that I didn’t realize before that there’s not really a point to playing solo queue as BHVR is making the exact same mistake VHS did with Monster. With Monster, VHS would aggregate data and was completely fine with Monsters of certain skill levels to lose miserably nearly every single game while they went on the horrendous learning curve. People stopped playing because, well, why would you play a game when the odds were so much against you? If a Killer decides to tunnel out a survivor or proxy camp they would win in over 90% of games. Why would anyone, apart from being a masochist, want to play a game for entertainment when they have less than a 10% chance of winning. That’s not human nature. To make it worse you need your teammates to improve for Elo to accurately reflect your skill as a survivor. That's not happening with solos since tunneling is disproportionately effective and reduces escape rates resulting in an MMR loss and being placed with lower MMR teammates.
Fourth, basing game decisions on games that include tunneling is unfair to Killers who don’t tunnel or camp. If tunneling provides such a huge and undeserved advantage then basing balance decisions off of kill rates means your data is either corrupt if you don’t want to encourage tunneling and camping or flawed as it’s not accurately reflecting the kill rate if you don’t’ separate games without tunneling and camping.
The Elo system based on Kills/Escapes does not work for solo queue survivors because each individual Survivor cannot carry their entire group unless there’s hundreds to over a thousand points higher in MMR.I agree its a problem, but I think you're misdiagnosing it. Individual survivors can never carry by game design. Against soloq the most effective strategy is finding the weakest link and getting them out of the game.
And this is something that MMR can't really address, even if we presume it otherwise works. MMR can't tell what each individual survivors weaknesses are. Like I'm okay against Blight, but I suck against Clown, even though I know Blight is a stronger killer than Clown. If the killer finds that weak link, its basically game over for the survivors.
I think that part is fundamental problem with any 1v4 style elimination game without substantial redesign. Most games weak players can be balanced by the chance of having a particularly strong player or the other team having a weak player as well, it doesn't work that way in DbD.
Fourth, basing game decisions on games that include tunneling is unfair to Killers who don’t tunnel or camp.Not really unfair, if you don't camp or tunnel and that means you hang out at mid MMR, congratulations.
@TheSubstitute said:
So what can be done?
In my opinion there are a few things. First of all, BHVR could introduce cages similar to how they were in 2v8 and have multiple potential spawn locations. You can’t tunnel or camp very well if you don’t know where the survivors are. If there are Killers trying to learn the spawn locations just change the cage so the timer stops when a Killer enters the area while the cage resets or refreshes if it’s done multiple times.
Another way would be to introduce a repair speed bonus each time a Survivor is killed perhaps before a certain number of hooks. If somebody wants to tunnel someone out to sway the game in their favour use repair speeds to even the odds. If BHVR wants to be really kind they could pair it with basekit Corrupt Intervention or a repair speed debuff while all survivors are alive in order to deal with the common Killer complaint of how fast gens can go in the first chase.
It would be possible to, if you can’t code tunneling out of the system, to just multiply MMR gains if a Survivor dies before the fifth or sixth hook. Change the MMR formula so that the Killer gets, I don’t know, quintuple the MMR gains, if a Survivor dies early so that the tunnelers can play against the comp players. It’s pretty obvious that solo queue is in an abysmal condition and the majority of the player base needs help.
Or another possibility would be just to scrap MMR and go back to Emblems. Emblems actively punished camping and tunneling and I think that’s one of the reasons why there was less camping and tunneling. The games will not be as well matched in all of the cases where there isn’t tunneling and camping but there’s enough tunneling and camping right now the games aren’t that well matched already if you’re solo queue. The data without tunneling and camping implies that Killers that aren’t camping and tunneling don’t need any nerfs; if anything they might need a small buff here and there if the goal is a 40% escape rate. It’s the tunnelers and campers that are driving the kill rates to higher than what is desired and their doing so leads to changes that negatively affect Killers that don’t tunnel or camp.
I may encounter gaslighting over this post or people attempting to distort things instead of arguing in good faith. That’s fine; I didn’t realize how much of an effect tunneling had until I did this. If you feel that tunneling and camping is not that much of a concern, doesn’t affect things that much, etc then I have to say I posted the data and provided links to videos of 175 Survivor games to illustrate my point. Feel free to do the same. It’ll take awhile but I’ll wait. If you agree with my point please feel free to mention that BHVR should aggressively tackle this issue. Instead of dealing with items such as the abandoned Last Survivor Standing to address 4K slugs which don’t happen very much I would think the priority should be to address something in a substantial fashion that has such a huge impact on the experience of a entire group of players. When there were pre 6.1 bully squads using Dead Hard to make Killers miserable I argued that no player or group of players should ever be a points pinata in a video game. The same argument holds true for Survivors as well.
Another way would be to introduce a repair speed bonus each time a Survivor is killed perhaps before a certain number of hooks.I think the problem with this is that it would be impossible to find the perfect number to balance it. If its too high, survivors don't even try and save their teammates, if its too low killers tunnel anyway and perhaps justify it more with 'you get that repair speed increase'.
I had an idea once, but it's probably too complicated to work. Basically, take survivors gen repair speed and set it to 0.75 of what it is right now (this would also deal with early gen rush complaints). Every time a survivor is hooked (not advances a stage, hooked), all other survivors increase by .25. However, each time a survivor is hooked they reset to 0.75.
Numbers are just rough ideas, and I think it would add too much complexity, but it would slow down early gen rushes and also help against tunneling.
It would be possible to, if you can’t code tunneling out of the system, to just multiply MMR gains if a Survivor dies before the fifth or sixth hook.I don't think this would work because I think a problem with the game is there are a lot more good killers than there are 4 good survivors ready to match them. Given the killer strategies are pretty straightforward and you don't have to worry about guessing at what your teammates are doing, it shouldn't take long for a killer to get decent at the game. On top of that the system needs to find 4 survivors for every 1 killer.
If you agree with my point please feel free to mention that BHVR should aggressively tackle this issue.I agree with you, I've just become more fatalistic over the last couple of years when I was more ready to suggest giant game overhauls. Unlike most games, DbD seems to exist more off player created rules. Like I've always found it weird that I don't run double Iri and an offering to help me every match, but I don't because that would be sweaty (if I was redesigning DbD, the addons system is where I'd start). The game was designed around concepts like this (and if you played Deathgarden it was even more extreme there, so its a design they like), where BHVR creates more of a sandbox and lets the community decide how to play.
Being that different metas and playstyles have developed in different regions makes this all much harder.
But, being I've typed this long: remove hook suicide attempts on the first two hooks, this would decrease the urge to rush to rescue the hooked survivor so they don't rage quit and make the 10 second hit off hook endurance a different endurance proc than things like Off the Record and DH. Wouldn't fix it, but that would be helpful.
-
If somehow I needed to:
I'd give the killer something like the conspicuous mechanic. Keep the AFC system, but also create another system that if the killer doesn't get in a chase, kick a gen, break a wall, or get far away from the hook, then that would also kick in as unhook gain.
I don't think its needed however.
-
@ratcoffee said:
i typically play whatever role has the BP bonus, and that tends to be survivor during the day and killer at night. i have a job where i wake up just after midnight & get out at noon, and this usually gives me time to play during daytime hours. however, because of seasonal changes in my work schedule i'm playing at the nighttime more often and i've noticed that the past few days the bonus for survivors has persisted into the night, at least for my region (gmt-5, north america east)
if the player imbalance is so bad that there are not enough survivors to fill games even at peak survivor hours, i seriously fear for the future of this game. this is just a preliminary analysis so i certainly hope people keep playing both roles and i get chances to be on either side to a balanced degree, but a first investigation being this one-sided is at the very least unideal for the future of the game
As a US West player, this is pretty much my experience. I some time play late at night / early morning and I've never seen anything but survivor bonus.
This has been true for me since the bonus was introduced, it's pretty much always survivor. Sometimes in the evening its killer, but that usually doesn't last long.
-
10: All
9: Killers
8: are
7: equally
6: valuable
5: and
4: build
3: game
2: depth.
1: Skull Merchant.
Sorry, someone had to make the joke.
-
Not really, the presteige never really means anything. I've run into my share of P100 killers that weren't particularly good.
Also, the point could just be the opposite of what you are arguing. Because all survivors are the same, you have plenty of reason to bounce between survivors for variety. If there is one killer you main, no reason to put the BP anywhere else.
-
@まうっす said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3789473#Comment_3789473
Please take a moment to think about why murderers use knockouts in their fights.If you don't like being knocked out, we recommend using VC to form a SWF. The killer is constantly forced to fight against the SWF's unreasonableness.At least for some people, Knockout makes playing the killer fun.
That doesn't make any sense.
1: If you don't like knock out, join a SWF.
2: Killers use knockout to counter SWF's strength.
If the problem is SWFs, knockout doesn't do anything about it. That's the point of what people are saying, its a slaughter soloq perk.
-
@Farenzyhawk said:
why no kill switch?
Kill switch are for things that break the game.
-
@WolfyWood said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3789443#Comment_3789443
I don't think Bloodlust should get removed entirely, I just think it should be a lot more rare tbh. You have so many killers starting chases with playing for bloodlust.
Okay, but that doesn't sound like removing BL 1 as the step. Either increasing the time it takes to gain or reducing the speed boost.
-
@WolfyWood said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3789371#Comment_3789371
I feel like if there are maps that are great for killers and there are maps that are great for survivors then that's a good balance? I feel as though if every map was the same power level it would get boring fast.
My point is that there's not really any god loops and most maps are not bad for killer anymore, nor are there things like unlimited dead-hards, etc. Which were all justifications for Bloodlust getting buffed.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3789381#Comment_3789381
Hitting greats used to grant more wiggle progress.
My point is that there's not really any god loops and most maps are not bad for killer anymore, nor are there things like unlimited dead-hards, etc. Which were all justifications for Bloodlust getting buffed.When has bloodlust 1 been buffed? Maybe its not on the wiki, but looking at the wiki every change has been a nerf to bloodlust 1 and/or only impacted bl 2 / 3.
Generally, bloodlust seems like a central mechanic of the game at this point (in my opinion, a good one). I could see the argument for it getting a minor nerf, but doing away with it would be pretty big change.
Hitting greats used to grant more wiggle progress.I wouldn't call that the old system, the old system was the key mashing one.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3789383#Comment_3789383
According to the stats killers hit bloodlust tier one in over 70% of games
Source?
I also doubt that there's any way to discern if bloodlust is needed by map design or if the killer is playing in ways that bloodlust is more common simply from one stat.
For examples: Is this just killers respecting pallets too much unnecessarily? Or is this just a case of things like skull merchant drops a drone at every pallet and the only gameplay is to hold w, which basically forces bloodlust?
My guess is this stats post.
From my reading that is 56%, the numbers aren't additive.
Which is actually less than I would have guessed as to count you only need BL1 to trigger for a brief instant one time in a game to count.
-
Probably for the same reason that whenever they buff or nerf something there isn't always a corresponding change. They thought proxy camping was too strong and not a playstyle that made for a healthy game, so they weakened it.
Anti-face camp is such a rare trigger that I'd be surprised if it made any overall impact. If it gives time to survivors to trigger the AFC because of a killer proxy camping or continually checking the hook, good.
-
@Toystory3Monkey said:
Im glad I stopped using the brightness filter a while ago.
It made the game easier on my eyes but I just felt I shouldnt get used to it.
I hoping they resolve the issue tho, the game is well past the point where visibility should be a balancing factor.
I hoping they resolve the issue tho, the game is well past the point where visibility should be a balancing factor.Serious question: how do you have a game where stealth is a major component without visibility being a balancing factor?
-
Toxic list:
Definitely toxic - Just letting survivors bleed out for no reason. That's when all the survivors are down and you just let them bleed out. Equivalent to the survivors just standing at the exit gate tbagging, but worse because survivors have no possible way to speed it up.
Kind of toxic - Slugging for the 4k. Can be toxic because it just becomes a game of who is most willing to endure boredom. It's pretty easy as survivor to hide out the bleed out against the majority of killers and the downed survivor has no recourse.
Not toxic - Leaving a slug because you are going after another survivor or need to get to a gen is part of the game. This can lead to situations that aren't very fun, such as in the clip where Hens I presume had to just go around and pick up the survivors, but that's a game design issue and is on BHVR, not the players.
-
@DNet89 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3787611#Comment_3787611
Well I thought about making the 4% go up to 5% and have an Idea for a reworked Slippery Meat.
•Increases Luck by 3/4/5% while Hooked. (Was 2/3/4%)(10% Chance in total)
•If any Survivor is hooked on the same hook, they have a 100% chance to unhook themselves. Causes the Broken Status Effect for 100/80/60 seconds after unhooking yourself.
•The Aura of the Hook is revealed in yellow to all Survivors.
(Removed the 3 additional Self-Unhook attempts)
Okay, but why?
If the main purpose of the idea is 'put a delay in between unhook attempts' why increase the number of unhook attempts instead of increase the possible timer? You're just adding complexity when it isn't needed (or at least I don't see why that part would be a benefit).