crogers271
crogers271
About
- Username
- crogers271
- Joined
- Visits
- 8,432
- Last Active
Comments
-
It can be hard to answer because a straight buff without some reworking of the addons can be difficult to discuss. Like buffing Myers is an easy answer, but buffing Myers and leaving tombstone untouched would be different thing.
-
@joel84 said:
I think, as a modifier, this is a successful gaming experience that can still be improved and expanded. However, I can't imagine that a permanent 2v8 mode would make sense. You can already see that in the Q for the normal games. I think the player base would split up too much and it would generally lead to longer waiting times in the lobby.
What do you think about this?
I think there are a few reasons it won't become permanent that don't really get brought up.
1: We're still going to be getting new game modes. That means if this mode was permanent when a new game mode came out we'd have three different pools being drawn from.
2: People talk about numbers at the high point, but it's more important where the game is at the low points. At 3 AM on the less played servers what does the player base look like when split between two different games?
3: I don't see the killer/survivor disparity easing. Killers are enjoying the teamwork aspect, survivors who enjoy the mode talk about its chaotic, quick, and feels different. The reasons are perfectly valid, but things being fun because its just being a change or chaotic don't tend to last as long.
Normal DbD already has more killers than it needs during most hours of the day, 2v8 exacerbates the issue.
And I don't think a 400% BP bonus is viable in the long run.
4: We're still going to get new killers and survivors. BHVR already has massive problems designing things that are balanced and don't break the game, doing that for two different modes would be a much harder ask.
I suspect the mode will be frequently reoccurring, but there seem to be a lot of problems with making it permanent that still need to be worked out.
-
@Jim_Tonic said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3768909#Comment_3768909
I will also break something down to you.
Against skull merchant, just hypotheticly speaking because we dont have good enough data (killrates DO NOT tell anything at all) most people give up.
So if 8 out of 10 survivors just ragequit or give up and let themselves get hooked, skull merchant has an astronomicly high killrate but that doesnt show anything how well or bad she performs in an actual match. People that jump towards killrates are just using it for their own narrative but in reality its just that, a number that tells how many people got killed, it doesnt show how good or bad a match went in general.
Thats why the MMR is a total failure, an asymettrical game is far more nuanced than Escape vs. Sacrifice.
Also going by Nightlight stats does not even take every player into account lol.I think you're committing a common mistake with large data sets. Just because one portion of the data set might have a reason that is not the obvious one, does not mean that is true for all portions of the data.
Why is Skull Merchant have such a high kill rate? Is she that strong? No, people tend to quit against her.
Why is Doctor so low? Is he that weak? No, probably because he's used to farm Iri shards on Asian servers.
Why does self-care look like a meta perk despite many players never seeing it? Again, Asia, where it's viewed as meta.
You need a reason to back up why the data should not be taken at the most straightforward explanation. @Kaitsja breaks down the numbers a little bit, but you would need an unreasonable level of throwing to actually impact the numbers. A few percent? Possible, but unlikely more than that.
-
Rushing the decision would not be wise. If they announced it was permanent, and then player counts took a huge drop over the next week, they'd be stuck in a bad position. They should see a the player base reacts over the remainder of the run time.
-
@UndeddJester said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3768413#Comment_3768413
Pointless is probably the wrong word, I suppose what I'm more driving at is, do you honestly feel its even possible to get a proper grasp on the state of balance in this mode within 2 weeks?
I've already seen numerous statements that sound pretty concrete in relation to balance... but I personally feel I'd need a couple of months at least with it before I feel like I could be objective on anything about this mode balance-wise...
I think we're still in the state of discussing the broader aspects of the mode. Is the game mode generally working and enjoyable? And there are things we have no way of knowing, like if BHVR might have more survivor classes that they add to the game.
I think of balance discussion more as fine tuning, say change something from 15% to 10%. We're more meta than that at the moment.
-
@plattenpanzer said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3768133#Comment_3768133
Then it's the type of games that I never play for a very good reason. I don't support this evil practice.
Advertising = evil ?
-
Tomorrow will tell us a lot more on whether people stick around or just popped back in to give it a try.
If we're just guessing: I'd say we will revert to the numbers that we've generally had over the next two weeks, probably be a bit higher for a few months, but we're not going to see a long term doubling of the player base. I don't think there's a chance that the numbers remain in the 60k+ range.
-
Spend on characters, or shards in the shrine if a licensed character.
-
@Laluzi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3765853#Comment_3765853
I do think the Trapper's behavior is suspicious. But it's pretty hard for the killer and the survivor to communicate - much more than it is for two survivors to communicate. If you were to show me two survivors doing the same thing, I'd automatically assume they were SWF despite any denials because there's a built-in explanation. It's much less likely for two unaffiliated griefers to appear in the same match. And when you consider the situation, a game where the killer lost hard, it's not hard for me to believe the killer went AFK the moment gens got done, where any survivor blocking the gates at that point in the game is doing it to troll their teammates.
Why would Trapper go AFK in that spot? Could be teaming to lock down the game. It's sus. But it's not inexplicable in the way that the Dwight doing it is. It could also be a last-ditch fit of pique, some ineffectual 'I lost' revenge to annoy any nearby survivors into going to the other gate. Could be he wanted survivors to see he was AFK and far away so that they wouldn't waste time teabagging at the gates. Or Trapper might have been going to trap the gate before going 'screw this' and giving up. It's why I'm curious what happened to the Dwight. If the Trapper ignored the Dwight and the Dwight continued to block the exit, they were definitely teaming - if the Trapper attacked the Dwight, that suggests they weren't affiliated.
It's the timing that makes this tricky. If the Trapper blocked the gate after Dwight did, I'd have no hesitation calling it teaming. Not only is the second player the one who is guaranteeing the trial can't end, but Dwight has no motive to go AFK at this point while Trapper does. But if players are truly AFK, they don't know what anyone else is doing in the trial thereafter. OP says Trapper appeared actually AFK while Dwight was present while bodyblocking. So if we take this order of events at face value, unless they were communicating offsite, Trapper couldn't know what Dwight was doing and that's why I think punishing him without more proof is dicey.
Like… if I'm AFK in a doorway, a survivor walks in the room, and another survivor comes up in the room's other doorway and traps that person in, who's responsible for the bodyblocking? Is it both players, even though one is absent and just happened to be there? Or is it just the one that's trying to take advantage of the situation?
"Behaved in a manner that allowed the rules to be broken" is the part that makes me nervous. That's too low a burden of proof to enforce. Again, in my example where I thought survivors were farming but they were griefing, I was behaving in a manner that allowed the rules to be broken. It was not possible for the survivors to kill their teammates without the killer's participation. But that didn't make me a willing participant.
Another more recent example of this is a game where a Cheryl was dying on first hook. I always feel bad when I see this, so I went over and stood next to her so she could escape. Lady was pissed at her teammates and started throwing pallets, trying to point teammates out to me, teabagging anyone I hooked (not with her participation, mind, I just walked away when she got involved.) Eventually I had to stop playing that match because there was no way to continue fairly. Again, as killer, I was not engaging in intended gameplay and it was my actions that allowed the griefing to happen. But I don't actually think I did anything wrong, or that I should be held accountable for it.
Like… if I'm AFK in a doorway, a survivor walks in the room, and another survivor comes up in the room's other doorway and traps that person in, who's responsible for the bodyblocking? Is it both players, even though one is absent and just happened to be there? Or is it just the one that'stryingto take advantage of the situation?If it's my call, it's both people.
Players are responsible for their actions. Why go AFK in a doorway? There are situations where players have to go AFK, or just want to, but why a doorway? The entire map is a place that you can go AFK that won't impede other players.
Even if we presume that this is enough of emergency that a player needed to jump out of their chair to attend to it:
-the chance the player would be standing in a doorway at that point is incredibly low
-the chance that door creates a possible trap is low
-the chance someone comes into check on that is low
-the chance someone else follows up and then blocks the other door is also really low
It just basically impossible to have this happen without the person making a decision that played a part in it.
Again, as killer, I was not engaging in intended gameplay and it was my actions that allowed the griefing to happen.The difference here is your original action is continuing the game and you can now kill the Cheryl at anytime you want. Going AFK in a doorway is always impeding the progress of the game, or in the original example, blocking off the exit gate switch. Someone else's action, maybe unknown to the original actor, made it worse, but the original action was itself wrong.
-
@Laluzi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3765793#Comment_3765793
I guess where I'm concerned about this is that the killer potentially had no way of knowing that the survivor was blocking the other gate. If they went in front of a gate and then walked away from the computer - unless the Trapper knows the Dwight and they had communication outside of the match (which is possible if they're on the same platform and the Trapper messaged Dwight), the Trapper wouldn't know that the game was actually being held hostage.
Because I don't think standing in front of the gate, when the other gate is not blocked, would be rulebreaking behavior. But that's potentially the situation the Trapper thinks he's in.
I don't want to defend the outcome. The Dwight is clearly a troll and the Trapper is Schrodinger's Troll, because it is suspicious that the Trapper chose the switch of all places to go AFK. I'm just concerned about the implications when the killer is not actually party to the abuse because the odds of them communicating with the survivors is not high.
Like, before killers were able to unhook survivors on their own via the anti-camp, I've on several occasions had survivors I thought were memeing but turned out to be a 3-man SWF trolling a solo. They'd ask to go farm unhooks, everyone's sitting at the hook, I'd hook the player I didn't know wasn't affiliated with the other survivors, and then the other three would spend two minutes teabagging them instead of rescuing while I futilely swing at the hook and then start smacking them once it's clear they're not going to help. From the solo survivor's perspective, I'm complicit in griefing, but that really wasn't my intent.
I do think we need players to lose collision when they have AFK crows though. It can't be weaponized in most cases of normal gameplay due to the high time cost, and it fixes all bodyblock situations. The only tactical play we're losing from this is a killer bodyblocking a survivor to death while the endgame collapse is on, and is that really valuable gameplay to preserve?
And to the OP, because I'm curious - did you see what happened to the Dwight when the Trapper came back? Did the Trapper ignore him? Was he still blocking the gate or did he flee?
I guess where I'm concerned about this is that the killer potentially had no way of knowing that the survivor was blocking the other gate. If they went in front of a gate and then walked away from the computerBut why walk in front of the gate? If the killer wanted to go AFK, why waste the time to block a gate?
Even if we take the most generous interpretation possible, the Trapper behaved in a manner that allowed the rules to be broken.
There aren't that many rules in the game, each player has a responsibility not to break them.
If two survivors where blocking the exit gates, each could claim that they had no idea the other was doing it. The relevant question is, why were they blocking the exit gates at all?
-
@MaTtRoSiTy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3763622#Comment_3763622
Never said anything about it being perfect, I implied it was completely redundant and wont fix anything.
Have you never saved someone from a hook suicide and watched them go back to playing the game? I've seen it many times. Yes, sometimes those people AFK or run to the killer (which, even when that happens, is still better for the other survivors), but frequently they go back to playing the game.
To say it won't fix anything is to presume that all people behave in the exact same way.
-
Plague. Not a balance thing, but really dislike the 'I guess I'm going to lose a health state for doing the objective.' Also taking the question of to heal or not out of the game means no reason to do anything but focus on gens even more.
-
@Rudjohns said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3763619#Comment_3763619
Its possible to keep the kobe mechanic and removing suicides as well
I thought it was pretty self explanatory. Basically make it impossible for survivors to suicide on hook, but still keep the "kobe" mechanic intact, thats allWhat is the second timer for in your scenario?
FIRST HOOK-Survivors have 2 different timers. 1st timer is 60 seconds and its the normal hook phase timer. 2nd timer is also 60 seconds and goes down along the first-Each survivor has 3 4% attempts of self unhook. These attempts only decrease the 2nd timer, exactly how it works at the current state, however it doesnt change the 1st timer.-Even if all 3 self-unhooks attempts are unsuccessful, they still remain at the first hook phase until someone saves them or the 60 seconds timer pass -
@bjorksnas said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3763812#Comment_3763812
Yeah and if they do then its just negligence after an update to see swfs in lobbies its not like they wouldn't know the update happened if every match lobby and endscreen suddenly has a new indicator grouping it together or read patch notes saying it, at that point its their loss.
at that point its their loss.But we're right back to the difference between being a player and a game developer. As a player you can say how you want players to behave, but the developer has to deal with how they will behave.
A Sid Meier quote I like on this: "Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game."
The killers who really care about winning are going to lobby dodge. The ones that don't care won't. In the long run, pretty much everyone ends up unhappy.
-
@PreorderBonus said:
They can't simply balance the game around a lower kill rate (like 50 or 55%) because escaping isn't everything for the survivor side. Yes, it's the end result, but it doesn't account for what happens during the game.
For example, a survivor might run the killer for five gens, but just as they're about to escape, the killer hooks someone else and activates Blood Warden, causing the original survivor to be caught too. Does that mean this survivor lost? I don't think so.
Or if a killer faces a 4-man SWF that bullies them throughout the game and they can't get a single down, then they get one hook at the end and the SWF decides to have fun and swarm the hook, getting everyone killed. Would that SWF consider it a loss, knowing they could have had a 3-man escape but chose to have fun instead? Probably not.
These and many other scenarios are ignored when only looking at kills or escapes. We know that BHVR can track chase time, vaults, pallet drops, hits, etc., so it's clear they aren't balancing the game solely based on kill rates but by considering everything. Also, it's worth noting that people who post in these forums are more likely to be those who had bad games rather than good ones.
Or if a killer faces a 4-man SWF that bullies them throughout the game and they can't get a single down, then they get one hook at the end and the SWF decides to have fun and swarm the hook, getting everyone killed. Would that SWF consider it a loss, knowing they could have had a 3-man escape but chose to have fun instead? Probably not.This always comes up, but its statistically irrelevant. There is something like a million games played every day. The above could happen, the killer can let survivors go, the killer can go afk from the beginning, etc. Those roughly balance out and even if you could track every single one of those you'd probably one push the rates 1 to 2% in either direction.
-
@bjorksnas said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3763781#Comment_3763781
…………..
?
??
….?
?
what
learning is too much to ask of players
you have to baby proof something for it to be a good design?
idk what this stance here is trying to take but it is 100% an effective strategy to let people shoot themselves in the foot, whether for their loss or for their benefit, or even both and is 100% a part of effective design
learning is too much to ask of playersChanging behaviors isn't going to happen. Some people are going to log into killer and go grab a snack, alt tab, etc. That's inevitable and how they want the game to be.
If others are dodging SWFs, these are the players that will hit the SWFs. In the long run this will lead to unfun games for SWFs and the killers. This potentially leads to both groups quitting the game.
It's easy as a player to say 'we don't need those players', but as a game developer you can't do that.
-
@bjorksnas said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3763768#Comment_3763768
Then they either learn to pay attention or feel confident enough to not need to pay attention
People need to learn and change their behaviors is not an effective game development strategy.
-
@Scooter08 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3763207#Comment_3763207
Ah…
So, let's say I want Xeno to have Blight's Dragon Grip or Pig's "Make your Choice". I would have to play them and level them up? Or would I just have to have them unlocked and then pour bloodpoints into them from playing Xeno or other killers?
You just have to put the blood points in, you never have to actually play the character. I think it costs around a million blood points to go from 0 to to 50 and the prestige.
-
Two things I didn't see mentioned:
1: You can also unlock perks from the Shrine of Secrets. This is a list of 4 perks that changes every week. If you don't want to buy the licesnsed characters, this is how you get their perks. Never waste shards though buying a perk you already have unlocked or for a character you plan to unlock.
2: Characters go on deep discount around the anniversary (just happened) and Halloween, around 50% off (less for newer characters). If you are in the game for the long run and don't want to just buy the character packs, its worth it to wait for these .
This presumes BHVR doesn't change how they function in the future, no guarantee this will happen, just how things have worked in the past.
-
@bjorksnas said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3763690#Comment_3763690
So teams of players would on average get better prepared and stronger killers?
This is a downside?
Probably not what would happen. Far more likely they'd get the killers who just don't care or even bother to look at the lobby screen.
-
Interesting way to look at it. Those long streaks of losing can be really harsh.
-
@MaTtRoSiTy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3763450#Comment_3763450
Sure… you can do that. But people STILL will not want to play the match. You don't have to say it, this is simply the way it is. It may make it more inconvenient but the end result will be the same.
" I never claimed this will 100% work for every ragequitter that has ever existed" - it wont work for anyone who truly wants out of the match. Why do you people not understand this lol?!
" I never claimed this will 100% work for every ragequitter that has ever existed" - it wont work for anyone who truly wants out of the match. Why do you people not understand this lol?!Why don't people understand that to improve something doesn't require it to become perfect?
-
@Rudjohns said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3763240#Comment_3763240
Why remove? So another nerf to survivor, no chances to come back at all
The why is obvious, its all over this thread. An early failed kobe totally ruins the game for all involved parties. If the first survivor chased rage quits via the kobe mechanism the game is basically finished.
We don't even have to get rid of late game kobes, that's not what people are complaining about.
@Rudjohns said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3763251#Comment_3763251
No, it needs to stay
I already brought a solution a few posts back
I already brought a solution a few posts backSomeone else is already engaged with you on this, but your solution doesn't make sense. Not saying it wouldn't work, I'm saying the way you've explained it doesn't actually explain what happens.
-
@Rudjohns said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3763237#Comment_3763237
Like I said before, the "kobe" needs to stay
Why? Especially if we limit this to early game, why do they need to be there?
-
@Rudjohns said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3763149#Comment_3763149
What people dont want is the removal of the "kobe" attempts. These need to stay
Most of people demanding suicides to be impossible in DBD are the same that also ask perks such as Slippery Meat and the luck mechanic (Up The Ante) to be reworked
Usually when I see a 'most people' style post I expect the next claim to be pointing out something hypocritical.
Remove hook suicide, rework slippery meat, and the luck mechanic? Yeah, why not? The latter two things could use being reworked anyway.
-
@legiondoctor said:
Insult to injury- when you pick up a survivor, you can now destroy pallets, walls and gens. Doing so will pause the wiggle timer by 3 seconds
Invocation: Golden rule: when finishing the invocation, all survivors get permanent 25/40/50% speed boost to healing
*“I may end up looking like you, but I’ll never be like you. Golden Rule, mοthеrfuckеr.”* - lucy
Ghoulish: when ever the killer uses their power, you see their aura for 3/4/5 seconds. This has a cooldown of 30 seconds.
*"I may not know much, but I do know a bidding war when I see one.”* - the ghoul
Broken toys: when your item ran out of charges, use the button prompt to refill it whenever you have an add on to that item. Whatever add on you have will give more charges base on its rarity. But you will lose those add ons.
Brown: 10/20/25%
Yellow: 30/35/40%
Green:45/50/55%
Purple:60/65/70%
Iredecent: 80/90/100%
*If we're gonna die, we should have some fun first.*-clementine
Animalistic instinct: when you break a pallet, all survivors in your terror radius suffer from oblivious for 40 seconds
My off the cuff takes
Insult to Injury: That would be okayish, but not a huge amount of value. There are definitely times I've wanted to kick a gen while carrying a survivor, but
Golden Rule: I don't know the direction they want to go with invocations and whether just boosting the survivors is on the table - this also falls into okay. You could set up a circle of healing in much less time/risk for a stronger impact and are only giving up map coverage.
Ghoulish: Killer power is way too variable for this. For some killers you'd see them constantly, others it could be pretty rare. Don't like this one.
Broken Toys: That seems way too strong. When an item is depleted the addons are worthless, getting recharges would make incredibly powerful medkits and toolboxes.
Animalistic Instinct: That sounds fine.
-
@sinkra said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3760088#Comment_3760088
That's the thing, I shouldn't have to handicap myself to give the other side a chance. I want to be able to go all out with max effort trying to win each game and it still be challenging, just like every other pvp game.
Max effort is fine, but the game is designed with difficulty sliders for both sides (which makes it very different than other games). If you want more of a challenge take weaker builds. You'll still have quite an advantage, but giving yourself an ideal build as killer will give you a massive edge.
-
@korrok said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3760070#Comment_3760070
What do you mean they can't? Don't they have the last word over their game?
I suspect its much more an issue that it would take way too much time/impossible to verify.
-
@ExcelSword said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3758908#Comment_3758908
Really? I've taken a break from the forums a while ago, but last time I hung around here I thought the opinion was "You can't force people to play the game".
That was in regards to giving up on hook, where people act like making your team lose should be acceptable because they aren't having fun.
I mean sure, technically they are right. But there are plenty of other pvp games that have penalties for people who afk/throw/troll/give up, so I dmthink its fair that DBD should be similar.
You'll get more disagreement on the issue of hook suicides, but the threads complaining about DC bans are pretty one sided.
-
Problems
1: Bringing back bots I don't think works very well, also confuses the MMR system.
2: Leads to a survivor just hiding out
3: Lessons the impact of eliminations
4: Creates scenarios where survivors hang around hoping to get resurrected, don't, and then enjoy the game less
5: It becomes a single perk that radically alters the game. If seconds after I get my 10th hook as a killer in a game where I haven't tunneled, 3 survivors are eliminated, there is 1 gen left - I probably feel like it's been a pretty good game for both sides. If suddenly three survivors spring back to life I don't think I'd feel it was fair.
6: It extends the game when the game should be ending. If in the above situation 3 gens are left the killer is clearly winning, if the survivors come back all its doing is extending a game that is already decided.
Example: In sports, it's really exciting to go to overtime when the teams are tied. It wouldn't be very fun though if one side was losing and suddenly X amount of minutes were added to the clock.
-
@HamsterEnjoyer said:
so 2v8 is coming soon which ofc I’m excited about but I need to know, are you only able to play the 8 survivors that are there or can you play any survivor but just with different classes?
I seriously need to know this because if I can’t play ANY of my favorite survivors I’m fr just gonna not bother even touching survivor for the duration of the 2v8 until you add in at least Yun-Jin 😭and if no license survivors are available then…
They went out of their way to say that the killer pool was going to be limited, but they didn't say the same thing about survivors. While possible, it would strike me as weird if they didn't lump them together. Their communication hasn't always been the best, but it would be weird if they came out and said 'oh, when we said killers, we meant killers and survivors'.
Also given that survivors are all the same no reason there's no practical reason to limit the survivor pool.
-
I do like the idea of a 4 person SWF reversing the stereotype, they load in holding four flashlights to try and bait either weave attunement/lightborn/ and/or franklins, and then switch to nothing at the last second.
But its a worthwhile trade for the killer. If the killer had a perk 'survivors get no items', it would probably be a pretty common perk.
-
I always like these posts because they seem to be one of the rare unifying forum principles.
If you DC, it ruins the game for the other 4 participants.
-
@SweetbutaPsycho said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3758154#Comment_3758154
I mean I just dont see how this would ever be possible. As this forum and many endgame chats clearly show, the DBD community is a very emitionally loaded one with both sided being of the opinion that a lot of things especially on their side goes wrong which then in turn leads to many ppl suiciding or dcing cause they are fed up.
People DC maybe because they had a bad match before this one, they dont like the map, they get the same map 4 times in a row, their map offering gets neutralised, the killer runs lethal and finds them instantly, they get teabagged, they get clicked at, they get sandbagged by a teammate, their teammate blocks them with a palette, survivor gets palette saved, they get hooked in the basement, etc. etc.... you could probaly continue this list far longer.
How do you want to separate these people that DC cause of personal preference or cause they personally dont like killer, map, gameplay from those who actually DC because they think they get rolled to hard or the killer/ survivors are too strong? You cant exactly send them a survey on why they dced especially since dcing is oficially not approved by the devs.
If you include data like this it would get things nerfed that are totally fine. For example I still remember the time after wesker came out. Most people agreed that he was fun and balanced but he was so overused that people started complaining in this forum and dcing on mass just cause they didnt want to play against him anymore. Following your logic this would get wesker nerfed even though he was perfectly fine and it was just personal preference that people found the matches boring and dced cause of that.
I
If you include data like this it would get things nerfed that are totally fine.This is solved though by sample size. BHVR has access to all the games played in a day, so things like 'got the same map four times in a row' is a very rare thing. It's statistically insignificant across the hundreds of thousands of games that get played per day if there are few dozen with that as the DC reason.
-
With the survivor class system, lack of hooks making hook spread and luck impacts irrelevant, and that perks aren't a thing, I imagine we don't have offerings at all. My guess is that the selections screen will be either choosing your killer or your survivor class and that's it.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3757914#Comment_3757914
Why do people keep insisting that removing the 4% is going to do anything at all?
If someone doesn't want to play the game, they can't be forced into playing. Instead of hook suicide, they will stand afk, point at a hook, follow the killer, throw every pallet on the map, make noise notifications incessantly, or just sit on a gen and miss every skill check.
Removing ways to speed up hook stages is just treating a symptom. It doesn't actually solve anything, because the core reasons people want out are still there.
The only way to fix it is to look at why people want out. Are some of those reasons petty or trivial? Yeah, you can't fix all of them. But let's at least look at why the game is no longer fun, or worth playing for a lot more people than it used to be.
Maybe it's not worth getting 5k BP for a ton of people to the first one found in a lot of games. Increasing BP gains is a completely harmless and non game balancing way that could have an impact, without nerfing anything at all.
If someone doesn't want to play the game, they can't be forced into playing. Instead of hook suicide, they will stand afk, point at a hook, follow the killer, throw every pallet on the map, make noise notifications incessantly, or just sit on a gen and miss every skill check.Then why don't they disconnect?
Well, because there are disconnect penalties which discourage people from disconnecting.
You can absolutely encourage players to engage in the game via removing certain elements.
Also, I don't think people behave in the manner you list in even a majority of cases. When I see people going for hook suicides get rescued, sometimes they do what you list, but lots of times they just go about playing the game. Even if they take on a suicidal approach with the killer, that's still better for the other survivors than them just being out of the game.
Not to mention lots of people who talk about this want a bot to take over if the player want out so badly; in that case we wouldn't have any of the problems you listed.
Removing ways to speed up hook stages is just treating a symptom.But treating symptoms is an improvement. Even if all we were able to only decrease hook suicides by 25%, we'd have a substantially better game.
The only way to fix it is to look atwhypeople want out. Are some of those reasons petty or trivial? Yeah, you can't fix all of them. But let's at least look at why the game is no longer fun, or worth playing for a lot more people than it used to be.A huge reason is people just rage quitting, especially when we talk about first hook suicides which is the problem people are trying to address. If people didn't have such an easy out that has been baked into their playstyles it wouldn't ever come up.
-
I think there are two meaningful improvements that could make to soloq outside of voice chat which I don't think the soloq community wants.
1: Resolve hook suicides like they did DCs.
2: Make some more perks obvious. Like highlight survivors who have an active deliverance in a different color so others not to know to go for a rescue.
I'd like them to show perks entirely, but I think they believe that would do more harm than good.
A voice command wheel is another possibility (example: 'I'm going for the rescue'), but I don't think I've ever seen them discuss that.
-
@danielmaster87 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3757385#Comment_3757385
Yeah, because if you do the math, which Tru3 has done, you'd come to the realization that you can draw like 80% of your matches, and that's technically 60% kill rate. Ideal results, not.
1: Is anyone saying that they are drawing 80% of their matches? You can also get a hypothetical win rate of 80% off a 60% kill rate.
2: Even if you had an 80% draw rate, that means the other 20% would all be 4ks. So in this scenario the killer has a 0% loss rate.
-
Nurse: seems like a lose/lose scenario. It takes a number of games to get good with her, where you are going to be dominated, but once you are really good with her the game becomes easy.
Plague: I don't like versing her, so I won't make any other survivor endure that.
-
@sinkra said:
'll just drop the science right away so you get the idea. Killer is obviously overpowered. Overall, survivors only survive 40-43 percent, and killers kill 57-60 percent. Of course this is bad game balance that should be fixed, but the problem is much, much worse than the stats show. Let me explain...
The devs have admitted on numerous occasions that the DC matches are excluded from the kill-rate statistics. This is actually very misleading advertising strategy which artificially inflates survival rates heavily.
Survivors DC on a frequent basis, so this will have a huge impact on survival rates. But why do they DC? Survivors primarily DC because they will most likely lose the match, because the killer is winning, because killer is so overpowered. Most players, including survivors, will finish a match if there is a good chance of winning. This is just human nature.
This is also the same reason most survivors will suicide on hook - they do so when the probability of winning is slim. So most suicides on hook would be legitimate losses for the survivor team regardless, and do not actually inflate kill rate statistics. The amount of suicide-on-hook matches that would end in survivor's favor is very, very small. Since losing 1 survivor creates a snowball effect, most of the matches where that 1 survivor has slim chance of escaping, are also matches where the entire team would have a bad outcome, and the killer would "win" with a 3-4k.
Only a tiny minority of survivor DC's and suicide-on-hooks happen when the survivor/survivors actually has/have a good chance of winning the match. Why? Because most players want to finish games they believe they can win and won't DC or suicide-on-hook.
So what this means is that the game devs are leaving out a massive number of legitimate survivor losses from the statistics, which is actually inflating survival rates dramatically and deflating kill rates immensely. This means kill rates are actually much higher than the public stats above indicate. Of course the devs don't want you to figure this out, because it would spark outrage and protests from the survivor main player base. Of course, I see right through their ploy.
Public stats have kill rates at about 60 against solo Q. But if we adjust for the excluded DC's it is almost certainly closer to a 70-80 percent kill rate. This means killers are massively overpowered. It is already common knowledge at this point that DBD is killer-sided, but it is important to realize that it is far more killer-sided than the devs and killer mains have the courage to admit.
Why won't they admit it? Well, killer mains want to win, so they very naturally welcome balance changes in their favor. They also want to feel good about winning, so they will post hoc rationalize that their win is not because killer role is OP, but because they are just so good at DBD and the survivor mains are just so bad. This is called motivated reasoning, which prevents most killer mains from objectively assessing the actual fairness of the gameplay since it favors their preferred role. This is of course not their fault, it is just human nature.
But the far more interesting question is, why are the game developers hiding the real survival rates, that are far lower than the 40-43 percent above, and closer to a measly 20-30 percent? The answer is very simple: money. Dead by Daylight is first and foremost a business, and the developers have already shown they are willing to implement a pay-to-win model by locking so many essential meta perks behind a pay wall. Of course, for good PR they will give you the opportunity to grind your way to these perks just so they can technically claim it isn't pay-to-win, but they know damn well the average player doesn't have time for this. So the incentive to simply pay up for the competitive advantage in a game with skill-based matchmaking is enormous. You see, it is all part of their carefully crafted marketing scheme orchestrated by top executives.
Now, the game being so heavily killer-sided makes perfect sense. It is the killer mains that make the devs the most money. Why? Because killer DLC is far more appealing and interesting than survivor DLC. If you buy survivor DLC, all you get is a boring cosmetic change and unlock a few unique perks that you either don't care for or can grind for if a perk is really good. But if you buy killer DLC, you get this overpowered bad-ass new monster with unique abilities that make the actual gameplay itself fresh and interesting again, while allowing you to win more without needing much skill at all. This is basically a pay-to-win model, with some very shady and dishonest advertising PR to pretend that it is not.
So how do we fix this problem? Unfortunately it cannot be fixed. As a business, the devs primary motivation will always be money. They have to make a living after all, so they can eat at fancy restaurants, go on fancy vacations, and get intoxicated at fun parties while poor survivors are suffering miserably in solo Q. The killers' primary motivation will always be winning and so the devs will always give killer mains a ridiculously unfair advantage to keep them fat and satisfied and buying more DLC for more easy wins. It's a vicious cycle that goes on endlessly until the game itself is dead. I'd love to end this on a positive note but this is a horror game after all. So this story does not have a happy ending, well, not unless you're a killer main or a DBD dev of course.
But the far more interesting question is, why are the game developers hiding the real survival rates, that are far lower than the 40-43 percent above, and closer to a measly 20-30 percent? The answer is very simple:money.I wasn't expecting this to take a conspiracy turn.
A small percentage of the community ever actually bothers to look at the stats, most people just play the game. So intentionally releasing stats in a way that makes them the most appealing will only impact a small portion of the player base.
Additionally, if they were going to lie, why not just say 50/50 or like 48/52 and move on.
The devs want the game to be killer sided. They've said it numerous times. We can discuss whether that's the right decision or not of course, but doesn't help to make it about more than just a discussion on game theory.
But if we adjust for the excluded DC's it is almost certainly closer to a 70-80 percent kill rate.So we have a 60% kill rate in the status quo. What would happen if everyone played out every match to the best of their abilities.
This means: no one would ever DC, yes, this would increase the kill rate.
It also means: survivors would never suicide on hook (or otherwise give up). When this happens yes many times the game probably would have been a 4k anyway, but there are definitely scenarios when survivors suicide in situations where one or two could still escape.
It also means: killers would never go AFK because the chance of a win is impossible, meaning they could turn 4e into 3es potentially.
So we have two situations where the kill rate is being deflated because of people giving up, one situation where it is being increased. I think the kill rate would probably be higher if we had everyone playing to the best of their ability, but 70 to 80% is too much.
This is calledmotivated reasoning, which prevents most killer mains from objectively assessing the actual fairness of the gameplay since it favors their preferred role.I'll agree with this paragraph in general, but just because a person has bias to reach a certain conclusion does not mean their conclusion is inherently wrong.
The same logic can be applied to your argument that you are stressing all of the negatives of the survivor side because you have a motivation for that argument to be true.
Dead by Daylight is first and foremost a business, and the developers have already shown they are willing to implement a pay-to-win model by locking so many essential meta perks behind a pay wall.So I don't think DbD is a pay to win. It's a pay to have options, yes, but the starting characters, not to mention the ones that can be pretty quickly unlocked, give plenty of meta game winning possible builds. You don't need to come even close to unlocking all the characters to have a chance at the game.
It is the killer mains that make the devs the most money. Why? Because killer DLC is far more appealing and interesting than survivor DLC.I don't think this is true.
One, I don't think killer DLC inherently sells better, it kind of depends on what we are comparing. With how many Nick Cages I see, that seems to have done really well.
Second, there's just not enough money in the DLCs. The DnD expansion costs $7 on steam right now. The base game costs $20 (ignoring the fact that it is frequently on sale). Simply put, there is not enough money to sustain their operations off one time base game purchases and a DLC that only a portion of their player base buys every few months for under $10.
They need people to buy cosmetics. For that they need people to be playing the game, and the game inherently needs more survivors than killers. To go back to Nick Cage, people didn't buy him for his meta perks. They bought him because they wanted to play Nick Cage. That's a far bigger motivator for people, they buy characters or outfits because they want to have them.
They have to make a living after all, so they can eat at fancy restaurants, go on fancy vacations, and get intoxicated at fun parties while poor survivors are suffering miserably in solo Q.There is a much simpler explanation to this.
BHVR thinks more people enjoy the game when the survivor role is hard.
That's it. Yeah, money and making the best game possible is still the motivation, but the answer here is pretty simple: they think this is the best game design (at least at the moment, they also believe in a constantly evolving meta).
It's possible you don't enjoy that. I'm not the biggest fan of it either. Which is fine, but we don't need to jump through loops to try and explain why the game is the way it is.
-
It's not that popular a perk, but usually when I see it its because of the 10 second endurance from heals to try and bait the killer into a hit.
-
On topic, the examples listed, I think accomplish the opposite. Toxicity takes away from the games edge, it doesn't add to it.
That edge you talk about only is achieved when the game is moving along, both sides racing to accomplish their objectives. I find DbD incredibly intense, especially when I'm in situations where I'm on death hook and there is one gen to go, escape is a possibility, but far from guaranteed. The fact that as a survivor you can lose at the very end makes it incredibly exciting.
Toxic behaviors are just boring. If I hit a killer that is just bleeding people out (not slugging for a strategic purpose, but in such a dominant position he can bleed everyone out), its boring. The other side of this is survivors either just waiting by the exit gates to tbag or bully squads not even trying to do gens. Neither situation is exciting, its just dull.
The toxic behaviors almost made me quit the game when I first started until I saw the piece of advice to have something else to do when playing DbD. It's one of the worst criticisms I have of DbD, that the game is much more fun if you have another game, something to read, etc. ready to go in case you get put in a situation where the excitement disappears and you're trapped in a pointless, dull situation.
-
@Prometheus1092 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3755772#Comment_3755772
I don't think it should be balanced, I'm a game like this it should be harder for survivors to escape than it is for a killer to get kills. That's what adds the fear element to survivors.i feel it takes something away from the game when survivors are on par with the killer due to being balanced, literally no fear in circling them and toying with them. Unfortunately survivors don't seem to want that sort of game where its a risk to goad the killer into chasing them, the ones that do end up playing TCM
Unfortunately survivors don't seem to want that sort of gameThat's the relevant part. It doesn't matter if something conceptually is fun, if a significant portion of the player base doesn't want to engage with one side, you don't have a viable mode.
@Prometheus1092 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3755804#Comment_3755804
There is a big difference between being slightly in favour of the killer (as it should be because he's a killer) than being massively killer sided. TCM has 3 killers and they have openly said they wanted it to be slightly killer sided. They seem to be doing just fine that way. The problem is that many DBD survivors seem hugely self entitled and want to be on par with the killer. Each to their own but when a killer gets looped whole match it's not fun for the killer. The whole concept has become a joke, can't imagine people running around Myers in the movies. Playing a game these days has definitely become a joke. The centre around looping has caused the killers that are not anti loopers to be redundant, no one used them. That's why I'm hoping the 2 killers mode will get rid of the loopfest and make the games fun again
TCM has 3 killers and they have openly said they wanted it to be slightly killer sided. They seem to be doing just fine that way.It's managed to survive, but they aren't exactly thriving.
That's why I'm hoping the 2 killers mode will get rid of the loopfest and make the games fun againWithout looping there's very little for survivors to do. Whether killers should be stronger or not is a different question, if they can put an individual survivor into an impossible situation, even if the overall game is still balanced, people aren't going to enjoy it.
If I'm running a jungle gym and I'm being chased by the killer, that can be scary and exciting. If I'm running a jungle gym and one killer just blocks the window while the other killer chases me, that's not exciting, that's boring.
-
Yeah, I see this as well. It can absolutely throw the game because sometimes the reason things have been going so well is that every pallet on the map has been burned and now there is very little protection and not that many gens for the killer to defend.
-
2v8 will likely be a substantial gameplay change. So much of the game design is based around 1 killer that adding a 2nd will likely create new strategies and game problems that are very hard to predict. Slow walking it makes perfect sense.
The last thing 2v8 fans should want is a full release that is awful and everyone gives up on it after a couple of days and BHVR removes the idea of making it a long term thing.
-
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3754291#Comment_3754291
Through some replies to some other comments I definitely see the rabbit hole you're describing. The discussion went from, "This is what I think it means" to "It doesn't need a definition" to "It's in the perception of the victim". And in my head I'm like, but we've already done this before. Tunneling is the killer equivalent of gen rushing, but yet there is a very clear understanding of what tunneling is and what it isn't. It is difficult for me to understand why one has the ability to be defined and the other doesn't.
Someone before said I was thinking like a lawyer instead of a person playing a game haha. But it's just so strange for me to adopt a concept in which a term that is used to essentially accuse other people of doing something unfun/unfair is allowed to be decided based on whoever may feel that way no matter the circumstances.
Like if an officer pulled me over for breaking a law, and when I asked him what the law is and why he had the right to pull me over he explains that his personal definition of the law meant I did something illegal, so he can pull me over for it. I'm breaking the law in his perspective.
I do tend to overthink and my mind can complicate things, but this concept feels incredibly strange to me and frankly, only solidifies my thoughts that people just throw gen-rushing out anytime they're unhappy with the state of the game, and shouldn't be taken too seriously. But it's just a silly game at the end of the day so, I really should just accept that the majority of the community doesn't feel the need to take it seriously then I shouldn't either. It's like it's not even a real term at this point lol.
It is difficult for me to understand why one has the ability to be defined and the other doesn't.I think I've already covered that I don't think tunneling has as clear an agreed definition as you do, but I'll agree it is clearer, but that's helped by having an easy to define standard. If the killer just looks at one survivor and no others until that survivor is eliminated, tunneling. The problem for gen rush definitions is that while there are lots of other ways a killer can play, if you aren't doing gens as a survivor there's really not much else to do. Even if you brought boons/inner healing, that's going to be a slight diversion from gens.
So you have a very muddy grey area on where survivors are gen rushing.
Like if an officer pulled me over for breaking a law, and when I asked him what the law is and why he had the right to pull me over he explains that his personal definition of the law meant I did something illegal, so he can pull me over for it. I'm breaking the law inhisperspective.This is kind of true though. So we have laws that have clear cut definitions, such as speeding, but also more subjective definitions, such as reckless driving. When does driving go from just being bad to reckless? (in my state defined as the "willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property"). Exact lines are a judgement call. That's the way many laws work where its up to a police officer, prosecutor, judge, and jury all to take steps to try and draw a line on where a law is defined.
I really should just accept that the majority of the community doesn't feel the need to take it seriously then I shouldn't either. It's like it's not even a real term at this point lol.It's worth pointing out that the community isn't really a unified group. Even if we all agreed here to a definition of what is and isn't gen rushing, would the reddit community, steam, twitter, tik tok, non-English speaking groups, etc. have the same definition? Words and phrases naturally drift in terms of what they mean (the fact that DbD keeps changing doesn't help) as each group uses it in slightly different ways.
-
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752726#Comment_3752726
Hm, perhaps it’s just the word “rush” that feels out of place? Rush implies urgency, like it’s done hastily. If you have nothing else to do but the gen because the killer is occupied, I don’t feel like it’s “rushing” unless again you have a build/team dedicated to doing nothing but gens. But if someone is in chase and doing well and 3 people are on 3 separate gens and it pops, it feels very disingenuous to say they’re all “rushing” when they’re just doing the objective. Is the solution to just do totems or chests? I mean I don’t think there’s a term for when a killer gets multiple hooks or downs quickly. They’re not “rushing” in my opinion, it’s the only objective they have and they’re doing well. I’ve never been in a game in which the killer was expected or has gone out of their way to just stop hooking because only 1 gen got done and everyone’s on dead hook. That’s not expected of killer players.
It feels like people are saying that if gens get done at which a pace the killer doesn’t like, it is considered gen-rushing, regardless if they have a certain build, items, perks. With this mentality it would mean if gens get completed before x amount of hooks, they’re gen-rushing, even with no items and perkless. I’m sure that isn’t the case, which is why I was hoping people would be able to give a definitive answer.But honestly the replies seem to be “the killer decides if it’s gen rushing or not” lol
Thanks for taking the time to reply though!I mean I don’t think there’s a term for when a killer gets multiple hooks or downs quickly.Snowball.
I've seen it used in comp commentary and discussing killer strategies. An example would be: 'the killer is keeping the survivors injured and trying to set up a snowball' or 'Legions strength comes from his ability to snowball.'
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752991#Comment_3752991
Oh! You know, you're 100% right. I believe I understand where you're coming from now. I do think it's accusatory, as in my experience and based on what I've seen in games and forum discussions, gen-rushing is considered "bad" or "toxic."
I view gen-rushing similarly to tunneling. Despite neither being against the rules and both being accepted as valid playstyles, they are both generally acknowledged to be very unfun and can feel unfair. This is why I feel a strong definition of what gen-rushing is is important, because it carries negative connotations. If a term is going to be used negatively, it's important to know what it truly means.
I can see how if you or others don't view it as negative, just like tunneling, then you wouldn't feel the need for a strict definition. However, the term gen-rushing, like tunneling, was created because these behaviors were prevalent and disliked. Both terms explain the choices of another player in a way that is typically intended to be negative, even if it's stated as a fact.
This is kind of a dumb example but it may clear up what I mean: Someone may be "fat," but calling them "fat," while accurate, is usually not said without negative intention. Similarly, calling someone a tunneler or a gen-rusher is typically negative, even if factually accurate.
Therefore, I believe it is important to be able to define these terms clearly. I understand now though, that you don't personally believe it needs to be defined.
This is why I feel a strong definition of what gen-rushing is is important, because it carries negative connotations. If a term is going to be used negatively, it's important to know what it truly means.So you're getting into the difference between denotations and connotations. Rarely do words/phrases have a strict denotation that clarifies both something being bad and a clear line about what it is and isn't. Definitions are bland and technical, its how we use the words that give them the connotation and feeling.
Lexicology is kind of a rabbit hole for discussions.
-
@CountOfTheFog said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3753262#Comment_3753262
I literally thought we weren't allowed to tag moderators myself. I'm glad I read this thread. Thank you for the clarification.
Yeah, that's how I had always interpreted it as well. I was reading the word developer way too broadly.
@joel84 said:
She has a normal moderator function like other developers or moderators. Do you know how many times I've seen people here in the forum tagging Peanuts and other BHVR employees - and nothing happened. Nothing at all.
Is it really just because some users here on the forum have developer status?
I feel like I'm being treated unfairly and I can't even defend myself against it.Do you know how many times I've seen people here in the forum tagging Peanuts and other BHVR employeesMy understanding of the forum rules is you can tag a dev in a thread if they've already been involved in it (forum rules "tagging Developers in threads that they've not been involved in"). So if Peanits has already posted in the thread you can tag him with follow up questions, but you can't just tag devs from the start.
-
Meta? No. It'll probably get a few more people to run it, but I think a slight uptick is all that will happen.
-
@Dwight_Fairfield said:
I sincerely hope they don't waste time answering questions about cosmetics, and lore and other fluff topics like that.
I hope they prioritize the meaty questions about balance changes, killer updates and reworks etc.
One of the problems with these AMAs is if they had a set plan for something significant like that, why wouldn't they just announce it?
That's why we get a bunch of maybes and we're thinking about it in their answers. The fluff questions actually make sense, its the type of stuff they normally wouldn't have in roadmaps or update posts that they actually have a chance to talk about here.
-
@hermitkermit said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3752499#Comment_3752499
I understand what you mean, but it doesn't quite feel the same when the counterpart, tunneling, has a very clear cut definition. I think replies to the post somewhat prove my point, that nobody really knows what "gen-rushing" is, because in today's game it simply doesn't exist like it did at the time in which the term was originally coined. The comments confirmed my concern that everyone just says "gen-rushing " even when it isn't.
Well tunneling gets used a bit more which helps, but also tunneling discussions get derailed as well. Some people define it as three straight hooks on the first survivor, while others will jump into such discussions and say going for 12 hooks is impossible. Some draw a line and refer to the straight '3 hooks' as hard tunneling.