crogers271
crogers271
About
- Username
- crogers271
- Joined
- Visits
- 8,432
- Last Active
Comments
-
@DNet89 said:
This is my solution
Self Unhooking during 1st Stage is 70 seconds and Survivors will now get 5 attempts to unhook themselves. (Was 3)
A failed Self-Unhook attempt will then cause a 5 second cooldown. 4 attempts will be a total of 20 seconds. The 5th will put you into 2nd stage so it will not need this cooldown. This way the Survivor is guaranteed to stay on the 1st stage for at least 20 seconds instead of like 5 seconds
Failed attempts penalise the Survivor by reducing the Hook Stage duration by -10 seconds each,(Was -20 with 3 attempts and Hooks were 60 seconds), thus allowing for a maximum of 5 attempts. (Was 3)
(5*10=50+20=70)
At first, I thought this was a bad idea, but reading through it a few times I'm coming around on it.
I don't think increasing the amount of unhook attempts is necessary. That runs into problems that you'd have to rebalance things like Slippery Meat and Luck. Just keep the 3 unhooks, but make it a 10 second timer in between.
1st unhook: instant, timer to 50 seconds
2nd unhook: 10 real seconds past, timer to 20 seconds
3rd unhook: 20 real seconds past since hook, timer to 0 and start stage 2.
It would be better than the current situation, that's for sure.
@Rugalraim said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3787555#Comment_3787555
So at the end, nothing changed? As I said, they are going to give up regardless. They made the choice already and they'll stick to it. This won't discourage giving up.
Of course it would. Even if it reduced instances of giving up by a small number it would still be a game improvement, but I suspect it would be a sizable amount of people. The wait town would reduce the rage quit, it would give survivors time to save, being killers know that if they proxy camp they'll be there a minimum of 20 seconds would reduce that, and when people are unhooked they generally play the game.
People can disconnect at will. Why don't they? The penalty. You'll never stop it entirely, but there's a reason people prefer hook suiciding over dcing.
-
It depends what you mean by skill.
There's macro skill. Making decisions about when to take chase, where to take chase, and which perks give the most value.
There's micro skill. Hitting powers as a killer, timing loops as a survivor, those types of things.
Then there's mind games and 50/50s where we get into the game of trying to make educated guesses about what the opposition is going to do.
I don't think any of those have changed, except maybe 50/50 situations becoming a little less common, but in my experience players aren't giving up anymore than they used (it is, and has been, a problem). Windows and Lithe aren't new and have always been really common perks, so I'm not sure why you highlight those.
-
@GonnaBlameTheMovies said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3785278#Comment_3785278
Finally, Dev confirmation that winning in DBD doesn't matter as much as ANYONE thinks that it should and that MMR is not a prize to be gained or won. It confirms a lot of what I have been thinking for a while. Thank you Mandy.
Now please deincentivize sweating to win by fixing the emblems/pips, and please encourage playing with more varied perks and playstyles. Maybe one of these modes could even become a casual queue where if you really want to pip it's easy, but if you want the challenge the base game is there?
Finally, Dev confirmation that winning in DBD doesn't matter as much as ANYONE thinks that it should and that MMR is not a prize to be gained or won. It confirms a lot of what I have been thinking for a while. Thank you Mandy.I think they've been pretty clear on that. That's one of the reasons they hide MMR.
Now please deincentivize sweating to win by fixing the emblems/pips, and please encourage playing with more varied perks and playstyles. Maybe one of these modes could even become a casual queue where if you really want to pip it's easy, but if you want the challenge the base game is there?People are sweating to win, because they like to win. Every time casual queue gets brought up though it has the problem of, why wouldn't Killers who want to dominate just go to that one?
-
I think the problem is that lots of players just like the base game. Things like Lights Out and My Little Oni are neat things that might be fun for a couple of games, but that's about it.
But I'd start with cutting the pool of killers down.
-
@baharuto48 said:
There should not be a disconnect penalty for survivors. Bots take over. The game goes on. The bot might be more fun for the killer or more helpful to the survivors.
Also, serious question. Is it okay to let go on second hook? Usually I watch to see if someone is coming for the rescue. If not, I just let go. No one was coming.
Sometimes the killer player face/proxy camps and I get the unhook myself ability. I won't use it if the killer just stands in front of me and hits me on hook.
And if the killer player is afk or goofing around, I don't escape. I'm not raising my MMR for that. Usually, if the killer player is afk I just go stand next to the killer and wait.
Anybody ever been body blocked into a corner by a killer player?
DC penalty is needed, but if they aren't ever going to 'fix' survivors suiciding on first hook, I'd take no DC penalties on hook over that.
Letting go on 2nd hook? It depends.
Is the game completely and absolutely lost? One survivor already dead, four gens left to go, another slugged? Yeah, go ahead and move on. Likewise, go ahead and give hatch if its down to 2. Basically, no reason to stick around a lost game, just don't rush to presume the game is lost.
Also, survivors have plenty of time to get to the hook. There's been quite a few times I've saved/been saved in the last few seconds when I thought there was no chance of getting to the hook. Especially if the killer is proxy camping, the right survivor play is to wait till the last second for the unhook. So if you get hooked and no one is coming, do not panic, that's completely normal. Rushing unhooks is, generally speaking, a bad strategy.
If you get the unhook self ability, wait until the last second to use it if the killer is standing right there, but you should use it (unless insta kill Myers). You have time after the unhook to make it to a loop and at least have a chance.
Take the free AFK outs. You'd rather be at higher MMR as a survivor, especially if you are soloq. The lower MMRs are just a slaughter.
I've never been blocked in by a killer, but I did have a game once where survivors blocked me in, but I do try to avoid corners.
-
As others have said, play how you want, it really depends on the killer, but the amount of time most good survivors can get out of a strong loop if you don't have something like bamboozle is going to exceed what you can gain from gen regression.
-
Skull Merchant.
-
@IWantCandys said:
Who of you knows this strange feeling?
I played DBD very actively for a while, but in the last 2 years or so I've taken more and longer breaks.
Now I'm at a point where I've been wanting to play for days, but then I think about the unfun playstyles like tunneling, slugging and camping, and I immediately lose the desire to start the game.
Note: This is NOT an Us vs Them post !!!!
I can only speak from the survivor perspective because that's the role I play most of the time and prefer to play. I'm sure there are also Killer players who know the same or similar feelings as I've described, for other reasons (swf, tbagging, flashlights and so on), who are also welcome to talk about their feelings.
My question is: What should I do? Do you have any tips for me on how I can stop caring about these unfun things as mentioned above? I wish I just didn't care and could think "Okay, the match was unfun, go next".
But unfortunately most matches are unfun with the same unfun playstyles over and over again. I only play solo, which is even more frustrating because you not only have the killer as an opponent but often your team too.
Searching for people to play SWF with is not an option either, I'm introverted and on many days I don't feel like talking at all.I found 2vs8 quite relaxing, it was chaotic but tunneling and camping were hardly there and when one or two survivor disconnected or were eliminated early you still had the feeling you had a chance. I know, many people missed the perks but for me it was great that there were no clear meta. But even though I really feel the need to play, thoughts of the sweaty 1v4 mode keep me from doing so.
I know I asked for tips, but I doubt there are any good tips for my weird problem. Maybe I just want to know if there are other people who feel the same way and hear what they do in this situation.
It's not really that unique of a problem. I have lots of games that I used to love and every now and then I load them up, but the magic is gone. Maybe I'll play for a little bit, but it's hard/impossible to recapture those feelings once they're gone.
-
I'll start with a qualification of my answer: in most games win and loss are simple statements. Whether you win by one point or fifty, you won.
DbD is different. Both sides have a goal to accomplish and you can accomplish varying degrees of that goal. A 3k is a win for the killer, but not as much of a win as a 4k.
Survivor is a little more nuanced. A killer has a clear objective, kill the survivors. Survivor has the question of whether they care about the other survivors or not.
For me, personally, surviving is my priority objective. Getting other survivors out is a bonus objective. So an absolute win feels like a 4e. As a soloq survivor, finishing the gate and getting any survivors out feels at least like a partial win.
Edit to add: In terms of how many games do survivors have a 3e+, I'd guess it's around 35% if averaged across the killers.
-
One of the best pieces of advice I got when I started playing DbD, and one of the meanest things I can say about the game, is that its more fun if you have a backup form of entertainment.
I'm not BHVR, but it would annoy me greatly that people were like 'hey, you want to enjoy the gripping horror thriller? be prepared for the boredom with a backup youtube video!' It's just the antithesis of what they seem to be shooting for.
Both sides have instances of this, but 4k slugging is the worst offender both on the time it takes and that it seems like such a simple fix.
-
Lots of people are talking about things from when they were younger, I'm the same. I'd really enjoy a Buffy the Vampire Slayer chapter. I'd have the same problem I do with Resident Evil, confusion about why some characters are running away, but it would still hit those nostalgia vibes really hard.
@Huge_Bush said:
Scary Movie Chapter where we get both Brenda and Cindy as playable characters. They both get unique voice lines that Killers and teammates hear. I’d even like Brenda to have some screaming and whining while she is in chase.
The odds are low but I’d also like a Power Rangers chapter so I can be a kid again. Lemme be Tommy as either the Green or White Ranger. I’d prefer Rita as the Killer but I’ll settle for Lord Zedd since he looks more monstrous.
As far as Scooby Doo, I’d rather it be a Cosmetic bundle rather than a chapter. I want a perfect replica of Velma’s outfit for Claudette including the hair she has in the pic you posted. Victor should finally get his first cosmetic of a Scrappy Doo onesie costume.
Scary Movie would be really cool. After Cage showed comedic characters could work, I think they'd both be fun and fit the theme. Lots of jokes I can think that the characters would make though wouldn't fit the game despite the rating.
-
Anti-face camp.
-
@caipt said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783999#Comment_3783999
im not seeing how that disproves my point. if your definition of balanced is the killer losing/tying more matches than they win I dont know what to tell you.
What in my post looked like I was trying to disprove what you said?
-
@Ricardo170373 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783978#Comment_3783978
Because i love this game, but the Soloq matches are unplayable, and i try 2 or 3 matches and after this i move to killer, and playing killer my experience is competitive too, agaisnt to strong squads and survivors players, but still better to play than SoloQ.
Killer - fine to play today, usually hard, but its OK
SWF = better way to play by far, funny and strong, if u have friends to play.
SoloQ = boring and miserable.SoloQ is miserable today and this is not motive to me stop play the game, but we shoudnt be hypocrites, because all know how boring is play as soloq today, everytime u have DC, giving up on the hook, terrible teammates in general agaisnt a championship tunneler crazy killer.
because all know how boring is play as soloq todayThen don't play soloq. It's the only way I've ever played survivor and while there are changes I'd make if I could, lots of people really enjoy it.
@caipt said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783894#Comment_3783894
No, a 50% WIN rate would be fair and balanced. a 50% KILL rate does not accomplish this.
Usually we take a couple of weeks before we do a math thread again.
-
@RickSanchez said:
i think you guys are missing the point, if you win against a deathslinger or spirit, you didnt do anything, the deathslinger just misses, its just a game of guesses
A game of guesses sums up DbD pretty well.
-
The main reason DS should deactivate in end game:
Do you really want it to become normal that killers stand over survivors for 60 seconds waiting out a possible DS?
OTR would be fine, but OTR seems pretty good as it is, making it stronger doesn't seem necessary.
Beyond that, there's nothing inherently wrong in an asym that the killer gets something that the other side doesn't. It's easier for a killer to get a kill in end game, that's not too different than hatch. Both are mechanics to keep players involved in the game.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783542#Comment_3783542
No, we're outside of math and just talking about how words are used in English.
The guy doesn't even know what a rule of 3 is, and even when having the dictionary definition written on top of an example still doesn't understand what an average means. Keep pretending to fight basic math while making language-ambiguity fallacies.
I will only say this:
and refusal to even engage on the concept data sets
Me two doritos earlier explaining to you how data sets are crucial for individual killer balancing, but not before having an average balance target because of the asymmetrical nature of DbD:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783421#Comment_3783421
So, even if "uneven data sets" can help identify if an individual killer needs balancing, it doesn't work in terms of overall balancing and will not help balance killers against survivors.
[…]
When we reach that point, now we can use the kill distribution of each killer to balance those that are overperforming or underperforming until we get a balanced average […] But we can only do that once we have reached that target 60% killrate, and that is just what BHVR did.
So like I said dude, whatever makes you happy.
The guy doesn't even know what a rule of 3 is, and even when having the dictionary definition written on top of an example still doesn't understand what an average means.I put two different definitions to show that the word average can mean different things. Mathematically it can be the mean, median, or mode, though it is generally the mean when people talk about it. I'm just asking you to choose one and stick to it.
Rule of 3: There are more variables than you are accounting for which is why you don't have enough data. But being you think you can use that to solve this does explain some things.
but not before having an average balance target because of the asymmetrical nature of DbD:Who said they shouldn't have a balance target? It's simply that a 60% target is not necessary to achieve the 40% winrate you emphasized earlier and that is not the outcome it has in the game right now.
So like I said dude, whatever makes you happy.You've also said multiple times that you're done with the thread. I'm not, I think you're wrong, and the more this discussion goes the more things you seem to be wrong on, and I'm still trying to get you to either explain why you are correct, and if you are I'll happily admit you are correct, or for you to see the error in your reasoning.
But why you're here:
Multiple killers have the exact same kill rates, do you think that means they have the same winrates?
-
The survivor seems really uncertain of what the killer wants. There's no rule against unhooking even if it just leads to immediate tunneling.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783459#Comment_3783459
In that scenario you have a kill rate of 50% and a winrate of 50%. More specifically you have a winrate of 50%, a loss rate of 50%, and a draw rate of 0%.
By the definition you posted:
"Average, math, is defined as: An average is the result that you get when you add two or more numbers together and divide the total by the number of numbers you added together."
So, let's do the math (with a total of 10 matches for simplicity reasons):
- 10 matches = 40 survivors
- 5 matches ended in 3K.
- 5 matches ended in 1K.
- 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 20 survivors killed in total.
- 20 survivors killed in total / 10 matches = 2 survivors killer per match on average.
- Now, using rule of 3: If 2 survivors where killed per match on average, and according to the win conditions a 2K is a draw, then killers draw their matches on average.
Conclusion: Yes, we have a winrate of 50%, a loss rate of 50%, and a draw rate of 0%. Which, in short, means a draw rate of 100% on average.
Unless you know the probability of the five different game outcomes (not even getting into hatch), you can't mathematically determine the kill rate percentage you need to determine what would create a winrate parity
Can't I?
- Survivors win condition: Not get killed. Ergo, a 60% killrate on average means 40% of survivors win their games on average.
- Killer win condition: Get a 3K. Ergo, if a 60% killrate on average means 2.4 survivors killed per match on average, killers are doing mostly 2K, drawing those matches, while doing 3K 40% of the time approx. Therefore, they win 40% of their games on average.
Now, let's try with higher kill rates:
- Survivors win condition: Not get killed. Ergo, a 75% killrate on average means 30% of survivors win their games on average.
- Killer win condition: Get a 3K. Ergo, if a 75% killrate on average means 3 survivors killed per match on average, killers are doing 3K 100% of the time. Therefore, they win 100% of their games on average.
That won't do it. Let's try lower:
- Survivors win condition: Not get killed. Ergo, a 50% killrate on average means 50% of survivors win their games on average.
- Killer win condition: Get a 3K. Ergo, if a 50% killrate on average means 2 survivors killed per match on average, killers are doing 2K 100% of the time. Ergo, they win 0% of their games on average, as they draw 100% of their matches on average.
Well, look at that. It looks like the only average kill rate that allows for average win rate parity is 60%. And I invite you to try to do it with any other kill rate you want.
Is it clear now? Or shall we keep going with the fallacies and mental gymnastics? Not that I'm going to really keep with this, because at this point, there is definitely nothing else to explain. So, consider anything else you post answered with the BHVR go-to response: Whatever makes you happy.
If 2 survivors where killed per match on average, and according to the win conditions a 2K is a draw, then killers draw their matches on average.No, we're outside of math and just talking about how words are used in English. That's a .500 win rate, an even split, etc. This is a game that has draws, saying that the result is a draw on average implies that most games result in a 2k.
Can't I?You can't, and your examples are bad math.
Survivors win condition: Not get killed. Ergo, a 60% killrate on average means 40% of survivors win their games on average.Killer win condition: Get a 3K. Ergo, if a 60% killrate on average means 2.4 survivors killed per match on average, killers are doing mostly 2K, drawing those matches, while doing 3K 40% of the time approx. Therefore, they win 40% of their games on average.
The second part remains incorrect because you refuse to engage with the idea of an uneven data set. 2k is the least common outcome in DbD.
This carries through to your other examples:
Survivors win condition: Not get killed. Ergo, a 75% killrate on average means 30% of survivors win their games on average.Killer win condition: Get a 3K. Ergo, if a 75% killrate on average means 3 survivors killed per match on average, killers are doing 3K 100% of the time. Therefore, they win 100% of their games on average.
What does the phrase 100% of the time mean? It means always.
You seem to understand how the killrate is derived. The average is 75%, meaning there is a mix of game results that over many games result in an average of 3 killed in this hypothetical. You then turn around and use a totally different definition for what winrate would be.
In this hypothetical and the framework for wins, we'd take every game played, how many where 3k or greater, and then we'd have the average.
You could say the most common result would be a killer win, which is already true
Survivors win condition: Not get killed. Ergo, a 50% killrate on average means 50% of survivors win their games on average.Killer win condition: Get a 3K. Ergo, if a 50% killrate on average means 2 survivors killed per match on average, killers are doing 2K 100% of the time. Ergo, they win 0% of their games on average, as they draw 100% of their matches on average.
Again, that's not what an average means. If we keep with your simple math, on average they win 50% of their matches that are not draws (i.e. the average winrate is 50%). More realistically, we'd need more information as you could have a radically different winrate from a 50% killrate.
Is it clear now? Or shall we keep going with the fallacies and mental gymnastics?It's clear that you are committing multiple mistakes. This starts with an incorrect definition of what average can mean and a misunderstanding and refusal to even engage on the concept data sets.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783459#Comment_3783459
oh yeah i'm not trying to argue with you, i'm trying to back up what you're saying with extra evidence - kill rate and win rate only have the tiniest corrolation
as far as Bathusalen goes, i've found he's overconfident in his knowledge on a lot of topics. he's aware of the process of calculating an average, but utterly unfamiliar with how to apply the concept of averages to anything. if I told him the standard deviation for kill rate across games was 38.3%, that is to say, +- 1.53 kills per game, i doubt he would know what to do with that information.
1.53 is interesting.
On the data, I would not have guessed the 1k and 3k rates would be so close, that's neat.
Hey, wasn't this thread about Trapper or something and you were asking for community thoughts?
I don't think its too surprising. If you play all out/ruthless and are good with the killer, you are going to win most of your matches. Trapper especially can snowball, and if anything goes his way early in the game and you're willing to camp you can set up a pretty devastating scenario.
I'd be curious over a 100 matches what his worst results were. Like were there games where he only got one or two hooks because he couldn't get the snowball rolling or he hit a SWF that counter played him from the start.
It's not as eye opening as the no power trapper challenges Hens and others did a while back.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783273#Comment_3783273
you can absolutely have a kill rate below 50% and a win rate above it. 60% of games ending in a 3k, and the remaining 40% ending in a 4 out - ends up being a 60% win rate, but only a 45% kill rate.
I'm not sure if you're backing up what I'm saying or misreading what I said because I think we agree (sorry, being extra careful in this thread at the moment).
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783299#Comment_3783299
The problem is that every average is made up of many numbers.
No, again, the problem is that you don't know what an average is. Let's take 10 players in 10 matches, 5 of them do only 3Ks, the other 5 only 1Ks. The average kills per match is 2 survivors killed per match, which is a 50% kill rate per match on average, which again, means that killers draw their matches on average.
That's it. Anything else is product of your imagination.
You ignored all the math and did none yourself, and are jumping hoops of logic to suit your narrative even when faced with hard evidence to the contrary.
Funny, because that's what you guys are doing. Either because lack of knowledge, or simply because like you said doesn't fit your narrative.
And I'm done. At this point, you either understand it, or you simply not want to.
No, again, the problem is that you don't know what an average is. Let's take 10 players in 10 matches, 5 of them do only 3Ks, the other 5 only 1Ks. The average kills per match is 2 survivors killed per match, which is a 50% kill rate per match on average, which again, means that killers draw their matches on average.In that scenario you have a kill rate of 50% and a winrate of 50%. More specifically you have a winrate of 50%, a loss rate of 50%, and a draw rate of 0%.
Also I don't know what would actually be the problem with that hypothetical scenario.
You could also have a scenario of: 2 4ks, 3 3ks, 1 2k, 1 1k, and 3 0 ks (one of many random possibilities). That's still a kill rate of 50%, but you now have a winrate of 50%, a loss rate of 40%, and a draw rate of 10%. Unless you know the probability of the five different game outcomes (not even getting into hatch), you can't mathematically determine the kill rate percentage you need to determine what would create a winrate parity (not that a winrate parity is even necessary, but if that was your goal that's what you'd need).
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783273#Comment_3783273
In your most recent post you are using the phrase 'on average' to mean the most common result […] The concept of a winrate calls for a percentage, not a general statement
No, I'm using 'on average' because we are talking about averages. Averages that can be translated to other kind of averages, like a percentage win rate:
- 60% killrate on average = 2.4 survivors killed per match on average.
- A killer win is 3K, so 2.4 survivors killed per match on average = killers win 40% of the time approx on average.
Or:
- 50% killrate on average = 2 survivors killed per match on average.
- A killer doing a 2K is a draw, so 2 survivors killed per match on average = killers draw 100% of their game on average, or in other words, wins 0% of their games on average.
This is why saying things like 0% winrate are so non-sensical
It makes sense, but you either, again, don't understand what an average means, or you are simply refusing to accept what basic math and logic say. Simple as that.
Beyond that, a 60% killrate is not needed to ensure parity. That's still wrong. Technically speaking, you could have a kill rate below 50% and still have a winrate above 50% based on game design
The next phrase…
(that's not true of DbD, but I'm back to pointing out the importance of uneven data sets).
Now, let's forget you contradicted yourself for a moment, and please explain to me how you pretend to balance a game like DbD while granting everyone an equal chance of winning with just "uneven data sets" (which I'm going to guess are "kills distribution" in this case) when:
- The win conditions for both sides are completely asymmetrical.
- You can't directly compare skill levels of both sides, as they require completely different sets of skills and game sense.
- One side is a team of 4 players that can have different skill levels.
- That side is not even considered a team per win conditions, and each individual player in it will win or lose individually.
- You have 5 possible match outcomes, which define the wins or losses of 5 different players.
The answer is simple: You don't, you can't. Starting with not even having a reference to what would be a "balanced point". Because yes, if a killer is doing a lot of 3/4Ks we could assume he is "overperforming", but what would be the point it should be then? What combination of "Ks" in the kill distribution will make him "balanced"? How would you even guarantee that among all the players that use that killer the kill distribution will be even? Etc.
So, even if "uneven data sets" can help identify if an individual killer needs balancing, it doesn't work in terms of overall balancing and will not help balance killers against survivors. That's why then we look at our win conditions, we notice that the common denominator is "kills", so we use an average kill rate as the target balancing point. And look at that, it even provides a "sweet spot" that allows us to guarantee an equal chance of winning for both sides (60%, 2.4 survivors killed per match on average, 40% win rate on average) without even having to worry about skill levels, side, character used, or anything else.
When we reach that point, now we can use the kill distribution of each killer to balance those that are overperforming or underperforming until we get a balanced average (as again, multiple players with different skill levels will play the same characters, so part of the playerbase will get less than 60% kill rate, while the other will get more, or some will make more 3/4Ks, while others will make less. That's what an average means, by the way).
So, there you go. At this point, if you don't understand it, it's on you.
No, I'm using 'on average' because we are talking aboutaverages.Average, math, is defined as: An average is the result that you get when you add two or more numbers together and divide the total by the number of numbers you added together.
On average is defined as: If you say that something is true on average, you mean that it is generally true.
Collins dictionary for definitions.
Which do you mean because there is a giant difference between them (the difference between the mean and the mode)?
It makes sense, but you either, again, don't understand what an average means, or you are simply refusing to accept what basic math and logic say.I'm doing my best to be polite, but please consider for a moment, that multiple people are on here telling you that your 'basic' math is wrong, and no one is backing you up saying 'hey, I think I get what Batusalen is…'
Look at this rationally: we're not trolling you. We think you're wrong. Multiple people have laid out the actual math on how.
Now, let's forget you contradicted yourself for a moment,I'm not, I'm pointing out a hypothetical math scenario to try and help you understand where your mistake is. You're selectively quoting.
pretend to balance a game like DbD while granting everyone an equal chance of winning with just "uneven data sets" (which I'm going to guess are "kills distribution" in this case) when:None of this is relevant to the discussion. You can say that a 60% is good for any number of possible reasons. But the idea that it is a mathematical necessity for either parity in win rates or an MMR system is provably wrong.
So, even if "uneven data sets" can help identify if an individual killer needs balancing, it doesn't work in terms of overall balancing and will not help balance killers against survivors.So I don't think you get what an uneven data set is. Its not something anyone is arguing the game should or should not have, its a fact that its what the game does have.
As you are saying, you are doing basic math when you need to be doing slightly complicated math.
-
Most of the things you mention aren't things that are new. Console vs PC controller hasn't changed, the 60% KR has been around for quite awhile. Nothing wrong with complaining about them, but those things haven't changed in the last year.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783122#Comment_3783122
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783154#Comment_3783154
Well, I thought you were all trolling, but apparently you were totally serious…
Like, how hard is it to understand that if the average killrate is 2K, and as 2K is a draw, then on average killers will never win, as they draw? I mean, seriously. You guys are seriously not getting that...
Fascinating.
Like, how hard is it to understand that if the average killrate is 2K, and a 2K is a draw, thenon averagekillers never win, as they draw? I mean, seriously. You guys are seriously not getting that...Because that's not what you've been arguing/stating. To go back to one of your earlier posts:
Why? Because of how the MMR works, only a 3K or more is a win for the killer, and survivors only need to escape themselves to win. Ergo, a 60% kill rate means a 40% win rateon average(I repeat:ON AVERAGEand I can't emphasize it more)In your most recent post you are using the phrase 'on average' to mean the most common result, but in the earlier you are using average to calculate a percentage (i.e. a mean). The concept of a winrate calls for a percentage, not a general statement. This is why saying things like 0% winrate are so non-sensical.
Beyond that, a 60% killrate is not needed to ensure parity. That's still wrong. Technically speaking, you could have a kill rate below 50% and still have a winrate above 50% based on game design (that's not true of DbD, but I'm back to pointing out the importance of uneven data sets).
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783118#Comment_3783118
Median wouldn't work either, because if there's any winrate above 0%, the median could not be 0%. Runs into the same issue, effectively.
It could if you create a data set that just compromises three variables win/loss/draw. You could get a median result that is not 'win' and then mistakenly call that an average of 0% winrate.
But I'm just wildly guessing at possible logic at this point.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783107#Comment_3783107
I think the point of miscommunication here miiiight be something like, when they say "average winrate of 0%" what they mean is that the average outcome isn't a win?
That statement would kinda make more sense based on what they're saying overall, like, the difference between killers never winning and the average outcome being a draw or a loss but wins still happening here and there.
I'm not good enough with numbers to know if that's anything on its own merits, but it does seem like what they're saying.
I think the point of miscommunication here miiiight be something like, when they say "average winrate of 0%" what they mean is that the averageoutcomeisn't a win?It's possible that he's saying average to refer to the 'median' (the mid point of a group of numbers) instead of the 'mean' (the average of the number). Except I don't know why the median would be relevant to the discussion.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783098#Comment_3783098
Dude, a 2K
on averagemeans that killers have a 0% win rate
on averagebecause there will be people that do more than that 2K and people that do less.
Can you get a negative winrate?
I'm trying to figure out where he's going with this. Like I get the misunderstanding between average and uneven data sets, but this? I'm wondering if there has been some massive communication at some point because saying a killer has an average winrate of 0% is nonsensical.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783023#Comment_3783023
Then explain. Multiple people in the thread are laying out why you are incorrect and you're just saying 'you don't get what an average' means.
Because every single one of you proved that you don't know what "on average" means. Not only that, you don't even have a grasp of why dealing with averages is needed in this game and not "real kills distribution" for overall balancing.
So, what do I have to explain? Why you don't need any more data than what has already been mentioned to make an average?
I don't care if win rates are equal or not. That's a game design decision. I'm saying your 'math' doesn't make sense.
What doesn't make sense is this response to what you are quoting. But again, the kill distribution doesn't have anything to do with the average kill rate, or better said, the kill distribution doesn't contradict the math and logic behind the killrate in any way. That's what you people still don't understand, and that's why you keep using it as an argument to try and fight math itself.
The relatively even is why not make it 70% for an uber horror theme. Your missing both the word relatively and the second portion of the sentence.
And talking about not making sense. But the reason to not make it 70% is that then it won't be "relatively even", it would be killer sided. It is so hard to understand?
So, what do I have to explain?It's a discussion forum. You're refusing to discuss.
But the reason to not make it 70% is that then it won't be "relatively even", it would be killer sided.That's what I said.
They want the game to be both horror themed, with the killer feeling strong, but still be relatively even so it's a competitive experience. You do that by being 'relatively' even.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782857#Comment_3782857
So when you say 'mathematically speaking' you don't have enough data to arrive at a mathematical conclusion.
And what more data do you need to calculate that a 60% killrate on average means 2.4 survivors killed per match on average? Because the only thing you are proving here is that you also don't know what an average means.
The funny thing for me is that you are, again, trying to fight math with "how to get equal win rates in reality" without realizing first that any other killrate would make it mathematically impossible to achieve equality because of how MMR win conditions work (more than 60% killrate, survivors would always lose more on average, less than that, and killers would lose more on average). Second, that you have precisely pointed out the part where I said:
[…] as in reality, getting to an equal 40/40% winrate is more complicated than simply getting to that killrate
But again, keep trying to fight basic math, it will never get old!
I think you're misreading what the devs have said. They want the killers to have a higher kill rate because they want killers to feel strong and win more
Then explain to me, again, how having a 60% killrate would "keep matches relatively even" in comparison with a 50% killrate, according to the devs own words? Because I think it is pretty clear taking in count the phrasing:
"[…] a 50% kill rate would mean they kill two Survivors per match on average" ⇒ "We try to keep Killers near a 60% kill rate on average to keep matches relatively even"
Ergo, a 60% means more survivors killed per match on average (2.4 to be exact), which means killers now win as much as survivors, which makes "matches relatively even". It's not rocket science, it's basic math.
Either way, you didn't explain why that second part is relevant to the 60% killrate and the math behind it, so I'm going to keep it out of the underline.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782867#Comment_3782867
So the first part that you underlined is to say 'hey it needs to be close', and the second part is saying 'but it does need to be favored for Killer'.
But that's the thing, if you do the math and see what they are saying, 60% killrate it is not only pretty close, it is in fact the only killrate that allows for an equal winrate mathematically speaking (as again, getting to an equal 40/40% winrate is more complicated than simply having the killrate at 60%, but it can't be achieved without it being 60%).
But hey, if you want to focus on that second part that they probably said because they would never talk about MMR or win conditions directly, I will apply to you the BHVR go-to answer: Whatever makes you happy.
And what more data do you need to calculate that a 60% killrateon averagemeans 2.4 survivors killed per matchon average? Because the only thing you are proving here is that you also don't know what an average means.Then explain. Multiple people in the thread are laying out why you are incorrect and you're just saying 'you don't get what an average' means.
The funny thing for me is that you are, again, trying to fight math with "how to get equal win rates in reality"I don't care if win rates are equal or not. That's a game design decision. I'm saying your 'math' doesn't make sense.
Then explain to me, again, how having a 60% killrate would "keep matches relatively even" in comparison with a 50% killrate, according to the devs own words?The relatively even is why not make it 70% for an uber horror theme. Your missing both the word relatively and the second portion of the sentence.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782825#Comment_3782825
There's literally a post from Peanits copied in this thread saying they don't talk about 'win rates' because wins are subjective. Direct dev statement outweighs community wiki.
And I already explained the reason why he said that: Because the MMR win conditions don't translate to in-game mechanics or rewards (escaping through hatch is a draw for survivors in MMR terms, but in-game it counts exactly as an exit-gate escape, with the exact same rewards).
Ergo, you can consider a win whatever you want in-game, but we were talking about the MMR system, and the MMR system has its own hard-coded win conditions, which are those described in the wiki, which are the same ones they disclosed in the day in a stream where they presented the MMR system but updated through official statements and data mining.
I'm trying to avoid the math discussion because that's been done to death, but you're not underlining the portion of the sentence about maintaining the horror theme of the game.
If you explain to me why that is relevant to the part confirming the math for the 60% killrate, I will update the picture with it included in the underline, as that is the only reason I didn't do it.
If you explain to me why that is relevant to the part confirming the math for the 60% killrate, I will update the picture with it included in the underline, as that is the only reason I didn't do it.Sure, I'm a glutton for punishment so I'll dive into the math argument. Let me go back a few posts of yours
So, if we do the math, lead to an average of 2.4 survivors killed, meaning thatON AVERAGEandMATHEMATICALLY SPEAKING(as in reality, getting to an equal 40/40% winrate is more complicated than simply getting to that killrate) survivors "win" 40% of their matches on average and killers 40% of theirsYour math is wrong because you are setting up the wrong problem. Your 'on average' argument presumes an even distribution of game outcomes, which isn't true. The game is skewed to the extremes, 4ks and 0ks, with 2ks being less common and 4ks being by far the most common result. So you can't have a presumption that you need a 60% kill rate because 20% of the games are going to be draws, its the extreme results that are more common, so to get a 60% kill rate you need more 4ks.
As has been pointed out in other threads, you can get to a 60% kill rate with radically different win rates (as high as 80% and as low as 20%. There's no 'average' that is relevant to the discussion here, we have to look at real world data for what the results of the games tend to be.
So when you say 'mathematically speaking' you don't have enough data to arrive at a mathematical conclusion.
Put a different way, the average kill rate is very different than the average game outcome.
While it varies from killer to killer based on how snowbally they are, I'd put a 60% killer rate at around 45% to 55% win rate for killers, 10 to 15% draw rate, and the rest losses.
I think you're misreading what the devs have said. They want the killers to have a higher kill rate because they want killers to feel strong and win more (correctly, in my opinion, because they value theme/fun over balance - they also have other reasons not directly related here).
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782690#Comment_3782690
The "community created" wiki is supported by BHVR and is a compilation of official sources and data mining the game. So, it is probably the most accurate data about DbD that you will find.
There's literally a post from Peanits copied in this thread saying they don't talk about 'win rates' because wins are subjective. Direct dev statement outweighs community wiki.
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782776#Comment_3782776
You still don't know what "on average" means, obviously. Even after all the times it has been explained to you. Thankfully, BHVR does, and look at that! They say the exact same thing I had been saying all along:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/A0DK0QCF5TCB/mathdontlie.jpg
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/433
I will keep correcting you so long as you keep spreading this misinformation.
And you will keep being wrong and trying to fight math without even understanding it.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782778#Comment_3782778
Read above.
I'm trying to avoid the math discussion because that's been done to death, but you're not underlining the portion of the sentence about maintaining the horror theme of the game.
-
Incoming? Those have been pretty standard perks for awhile.
-
Did he let the Claudette escape or was he unable to stop the Claudette because of hacks?
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782643#Comment_3782643
That's for the survivors, as the survivors win condition is individual, meaning that if you escape but your 3 teammates die, you have won and they have lost. Devs explained it as being "1/1/1/1v1" in the day.
However, for the killer, this is not the case. For the killer it is still a 1v4 and just as explained in the wiki, a loss is 0K or 1K, a draw is 2K, and a win is 3K or 4K.
https://deadbydaylight.fandom.com/wiki/Skill-Based_Matchmaking_Rating#General_Ratings
Taking this into account, in the case you described: Two survivors won, two lost, and the killer draw in terms of MMR.
But you're prioritizing a community created wiki above things that the devs have actually said.
You can view a 2k as a draw. You can also view it as the equivalent of a sports team that went 2 and 2 over 4 four games. None of the results were a draw, but they have an even .500 record.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782555#Comment_3782555
If I have to guess, he is saying that in Quote 1 because the MMR win conditions don't show in-game at all, and most of the community don't want the game to become "competitive" (even if it already is by design) as they consider it a "party game". So, their go-to answer in this cases is "whatever makes you happy".
Because yes, they have never stated that "60% killrate = 50% winrate" (which is wrong) or why exactly they want the killrate to be 60% as far as I know, but what they have in fact stated in the past is that it is their target killrate. So, if we do the math, lead to an average of 2.4 survivors killed, meaning that ON AVERAGE and MATHEMATICALLY SPEAKING (as in reality, getting to an equal 40/40% winrate is more complicated than simply getting to that killrate) survivors "win" 40% of their matches on average and killers 40% of theirs (technically, as if I have to guess again, one of the reasons they don't talk about winrates is that their win conditions are, to put it lightly, flawed and don't translate to in-game rewards) per MMR win conditions. Conditions that they also disclosed in the day while explaining the MMR system, and are documented in the wiki (Skill-Based Matchmaking Rating).
But hey, if you don't agree… whatever makes you happy.
per MMR win conditionsBut if you're defining win/loss only off MMR gain/loss, then the trial isn't one game, it's four matches. 2 kills and 2 escapes isn't a 'draw', its two wins and two losses.
If want to define win/loss by MMR increase/decrease, kill rate and win rate are identical.
-
On a personal level, I'd be thrilled with a game solely based around soloq because that's all I play as survivor.
Realistically, that's never going to happen. The only chance it ever could have happened to treat SWF and soloq differently was when SWF was introduced. maybe then it could have been done without player anger, there's no chance at this point.
BHVR also isn't seeking a perfectly balanced game. As it is, you can do things like run double Iri, use map offerings, etc. if you really want to. If they aren't concerned with such things, people playing together doesn't seem to be that big of a leap.
MMR could be tighter, but that has limits on what it can do.
-
Oda Nobunaga was very much a real person. While some games don't mind messing around with historical people, I think DbD is trying to avoid that.
-
@caipt said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3780714#Comment_3780714
In the anniversary livestream it was stated to be a basekit yellow mori.
Yeah, I see that, but the way people talk about it is like there is something more to it.
@MaddieMage said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3780721#Comment_3780721
Yeah definitely not a fan of this. I don’t even understand the point of adding a basket yellow mori. Did they say what the thought process was?
Not sure on BHVR's reason, but the end of a game in a 4k is kind of boring. You want a game to end on a dramatic note, and picking up a survivor and then walking to a hook is a pretty boring last thirty seconds of a game.
-
@Toystory3Monkey said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3780691#Comment_3780691
I heard that this version of finisher mori supposedly would not make mori perks / offerings obsolete and will just be a basekit cypress mori equivalent.
so my main concern is that there would be more encouragement to slug for 4k which I dont find fun on either side
Do we have any official word from BHVR on what the plan is? I know it is something they are still working on it, maybe I missed a firm statement, but we seem to be having a lot of conjecture when we aren't certain what the next try will look like.
-
@I_mean_yeah said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3780004#Comment_3780004
But I didn't suggest making massive changes to the live game, just making massive changes to the PTB and then adding what feels good and polished enough
Yeah the game is popular, yeah people play it, but it gets pretty boring pretty quick, as there's barely anything new being added to the game.
Adjusting a few seconds or a few % on some perks, or adding niche perks that nobody will ever use, and even if they use, they will only get value once every couple of games doesn't do anything to the game.
You can basically take a 3-5 month pause from the game, come back, and everything will be mostly the same
Yeah the game is popular, yeah people play it, but it gets pretty boring pretty quick, as there's barely anything new being added to the game.DbD is far from a new game. If it got boring pretty quick for all of its players, it would have died many years ago.
Lots of people like the gameplay loop as it is. So much so that thousands of hours of playtime is pretty normal. On top of that, the different portions of the player base want to pull the game in radically different directions. If they introduced a large scale change in the PTB, player feedback would be all over the place, so you wouldn't have much evidence on whether it is a generally good change or not.
-
@I_mean_yeah said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3780002#Comment_3780002
So what? That doesn't mean they should stop trying, that was a pretty nice idea on paper, if it didn't work it didn't work, on to the next one
But they are still working on it, they're just making it a smaller and smaller concept.
More broadly speaking, the game is popular, people like it, it has a good size playerbase. You don't come in and make massive changes to something that is working, you make incremental adjustments.
-
The last time they tried a major change it was the basekit unbreakable/mori. It didn't go well.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3779932#Comment_3779932
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je3AQGuG2C8
Hens did a video where he tried to ask a question: "Is the average solo survivor match really that bad?". He averaged around a 65% escape rate across 50 matches. It cannot be that killers have average 60% kill-rate and survivor is able to achieve 65% escape-rate. The statistics must be including mostly new players or average players making making mistakes in-game. My personal experience also does not support such poor escape-rate since I was definitely escaping way more then 39%. I also use similar build to hens while playing soloq with same ideas discussed in the video which I found very surprising.
I cannot base killer strengths on new players/average survivors. I have to base killer strengths on decent survivor soloq survivors and SWF. if you play a killer well, your likely to be matched with these players on average which is what your view of average balance looks like. I never based balance on empirical kill-rate stats. I base my thoughts on balance based off empirical situations in dbd that are likely to happen in the average match. If my ideas are correct, then then stats should validate what is already happening. I see stats as more of confirmation to behaviour, not an empirical tool to balance itself. In this case, they don't so they are not a good determining factor.
@mizark covered most of this, especially the part about certain games being excluded, but you're also missing that Otz had the 40% escape rate over a much larger sample size.
-
Doesn't League of Legends have a surrender system? I think I've heard other LoL players complain about how it in comparison to rage quitting.
There's a difference between rage quitting and surrendering. I think everyone is opposed to rage quitting, but whether the game should have surrender options or not, and when, and if, it's okay for a survivor to 'go next', there is some disagreement on. Not sure how or if you are separating them in your stats.
It is a problem and while I have lots of disagreements with the devs, this seems like one of the simplest things that can be fixed.
Early rage quits have been less common for me lately, but I don't track it and don't have a huge sample size. When I used to watch Asian twitch streamers I was really surprised how rare DCs/rage quits were on those servers in comparison to mine (US West).
-
@RenoPro said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3779045#Comment_3779045
You fail to see my point, maybe is my english idk.
You're point is clear, I generally agree with you, but it's a conversation that has come up on the forums a lot.
-
@Tamo said:
I've made a few posts in the forums lately & I've brought up this particular topic a little & have made a post in the past. I'm quite active on dbd at the moment. Tonight's session has seen two killers who are expert tunnelers, a Freddy & a Nemesis.
Here's where this topic already gets people mad, "entitled survivor" hates "playstyle" & the "only option" for killers. I'm not trying to get a rise, this isn't bait (usual conclusion people come to onk their own).
I play my portion of both sides, of course play survivor more I'll be honest, that said I'm not ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE AMAZE BALLS at either, I have my moments with each. That said, both are still relative, you can have silly survivor teammates or troll teammates. Survivor also seems to be full of teammates quitting, either on first hook (maybe a bad session) or because a killer is tunneling most notably.
The arguments are always "get good" & "it's only a game" or as already mentioned "it's a playstyle" & "it's our only option as killers" again we're not talking about SWF being too OP we're talking about solo q or just no comms teams against killers that tunnel people out from the start. I've seen loads about it recently, many great points as well, here's my take (not that anyone asked).
Camping has been given counters & can be countered if the team was smart enough anyway, strong perks are strong perks, how you use them & how annoying they may be is the state of the meta the combos/synergy & even who's using them, while we could argue the state of survivor perks that's not the issue. Both sides have their priority perks as it were. Slug-ing is annoying but is completely on the killer to get to to pay off for them, it's tough to go against but much like camping it is relatively counterable. Tunneling however is the major & greatest issue in dbd. Both as an in game threat & an actual player base threat.
I say it a lot but getting tunneled back to back to back is infuriating & isn't a case of get better at the game, "suck less" & isn't a case of "find your own fun in dbd then" you paid to play a game & spend most of your time not playing & in the lobby. That's not fun & will make plenty wish for a refund if they're new. That's where the biggest issue lies, the new players will be joining dbd at the worst state of it. Tunneling from every killer every game, no chance at escape & could just keep happening. The player base already in the game is leaving & quitting due to these & other issues, new players won't even want to bother. It's a shame it really is & is something over all that needs addressing, I thought maybe it'd be an idea to make an in game penalty to BP for immediately downing & hooking a survivor you just did. But maybe there's a better actual way of preventing it entirely, granted I don't know what & don't know if that's healthy but that's because I see both sides. I get why you need to sometimes, not right out the gate, start of the game there's no need. If the game isn't going the way you need for the win, at that point of course I get it. At the end of the day survivors are the players the killer goes after, if we destroy the player base & make it impossible for survivors & keep causing them to just not play & tunnel them out game after game eventually you could say we'd lose the only reason the killers are able to play. Yes okay bots exist now but a full lobby of bots, really? The survivors not being there means there's no game to play realistically.
I honestly don't know what else I can say. It's just genuinely the most damaging problem to dbd as a whole I fear. Good luck in the fog everyone.
I'm going to try and boil down the post to a couple of points.
I say it a lot but getting tunneled back to back to back is infuriating & isn't a case of get better at the game, "suck less" & isn't a case of "find your own fun in dbd then" you paid to play a game & spend most of your time not playing & in the lobby.This can definitely be frustrating. It's easy to go on a bad run as a survivor where you can play multiple games and it feel outright impossible.
In a sense, that's the game. Survivor is hard, but it feels great to escape. That's the appeal to me. It can be incredibly frustrating, but actually pulling off a successful escape is an unmatched feeling.
That's where the biggest issue lies, the new players will be joining dbd at the worst state of it.It's not really the worst. People frequently say 'tunneling is worse than its ever been!' but I don't think that's true, its a pretty common complaint.
I thought maybe it'd be an idea to make an in game penalty to BP for immediately downing & hooking a survivor you just did.BP wouldn't work, it's not really that much of a motivator for many players.
There's lots of possible solutions. I think the one that gets talk about the most recently is the unhooked survivor having an incorporeal state for awhile that disappears if they do a conspicuous action. This would help the survivor by preventing tunneling, but also not allow the survivors to just body block the killer.
Something like that might work, but the concept of it seems a little silly to me.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3779029#Comment_3779029
The best part is that it is not even a good strat… Bloodwarden with Tombstone? What?
Yeah, I'm trying to figure this out as well. You spend the entire game not popping Tombstone, so you're trying to get downs as an absolute basic m1 killer, that means the no way out and remember me have very little value.
Then to get some value out of bloodwarden you need to down a survivor, open a gate, hook the survivor, with the other survivors either not leaving before the hook (because its a Myers and incredibly obvious) or stealthing out the blood warden.
Like it's not just a toxic strategy, its one that should only work on the absolute most beginning of survivors.
-
@Neaxolotl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3778880#Comment_3778880
That's not a rare argument either
It's not, but it's a pretty big component of where the game is at. If we tried to solve every issue of perks = counterplay we might not have much of a game left.
We can discuss any particular instance on why it may or may not go too far, but it needs to be done in context of what the game is about.
-
Yes and no, but no does not mean they are opponents.
DbD is very different than other games. The game does not have a clear "win" condition (compared to say team kill, capture the flag, etc). The game has escapes and kills, bloodpoints and pips, wins are a metric we as the community made up. If as a survivor you want to value getting the other three survivors out, or trying to pip, or maximizing BP, BHVR is cool with all of that as objectives.
Basically, DbD is a little bit of a sandbox in that we the playerbase determine what we want out of it. This does make BHVR's job difficult where the different regions have different playstyles and objectives.
One correction though on Ayodam's post, unless its been changed, the performance of other survivors does impact the MMR gain or loss that a survivor has. So if we're going off the in game metrics there are reasons to see the survivors as teammates, even if they are not as important as the individual.
Like stated above, Trials are technically a 1v1v1v1v1.So people, even BHVR, are wrong on this as a statement given the game design. Survivors are not each other's opponents. Even if you say as a survivor we're not a team, that doesn't mean we are in opposition. I have no incentive to make survivor another lose. I might have no incentive to help them win, but that's different than being their opponent.
-
I'd say 10 is the minimum they should be shooting for. Variety is a key aspect of DbD and 2v8 is sorely lacking it.