crogers271
crogers271
About
- Username
- crogers271
- Joined
- Visits
- 8,432
- Last Active
Comments
-
Through some replies, it's seems as though there is no "definition" of gen-rushing as everyone has their own "defition" of it, which seems like it shouldn't even be a real term since there isn't a definition for it.Ask ten people what the definition for words like 'conservative' or 'liberal' are and you might get ten different answers. It's a normal thing about language not really connected to DbD, the more a word applies to a concept the less firm of a definition it is going to have.
It's why in discussions, especially text based internet ones, people need to be clear in what they are referencing or else conversation can derailed as people actually discuss different things.
-
Modifications of ideas can still be pretty fresh. Deathslinger, Huntress, Unknown, and Trickster all work off a ranged mechanic, but they all play pretty differently.
No creative idea is ever truly unique, they are modifications of ideas that have already existed. When these threads come up people usually have no problem throwing down a dozen different ideas or so. I think the engine will run into limitations before people run out of ideas.
-
@Smoe said:
So far, there's only been two satisfaction surveys that have included questions about which licenses we wanted to see added to the game, one being from 2021 & the other from 2023, both of these surveys listed IPs such as Tomb Raider, D&D & Castlevania at least once or on both of them, as well as most of the IPs previously added like Alan Wake, Alien, Hellraiser & Ring.
(2021) [Couldn't find an image, so had to do with text.]
Movies/TV
- Alien
- Candyman
- Carrie
- Friday the 13th
- Hellraiser
- IT
- Ju-On: The Grudge
- Kingdom
- Lovecraft Country
- One Missed Call
- Potergeist
- Predator
- Prometheus
- Rambo
- Scooby Doo
- Supernatural
- Sweet Home
- The Babadook
- The Exorcist
- The Fly
- The Mummy
- The Ring
- The Shining
- The Thing
- The Walking Dead
- Train to Busan
Anime
- Ajin: Demi-Human
- Attack on Titan
- Death Note
- Demon Slayer
- Fullmetal Alchemist
- Hellsing
- Jujutsu Kaisen
- Koutetsujou no Kabaneri
- Parasyte
- PSYCHO-PASS
- Tokyo Ghoul
Video Games
- Alan Wake
- BioShock
- Castlevania
- Control
- Dead Space
- Devil May Cry
- Doom
- Final Fantasy
- Five Nights at Freddy's
- Half-Life
- Metal Gear Solid
- Persona
- Portal
- Resident Evil
- The Evil Within
- The Last of Us
- Tomb Raider
- Until Dawn
Comics
- Basketful of Heads
- Gideon Falls
- Hellblazer
- Hellboy
- Spawn
- The Wake
(2023)
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/I452ZSCMA18T/trc40qc0k09b1.png
The fact that non-horror IPs were listed on these surveys as far back as almost half a decade ago now is pretty telling that BHVR had never intended on keeping DBD purely horror only, which while i find it disappointing myself, there's nothing we can do about it at this point.
So if you want a good indicator of which IPs that are most likely for BHVR to add into the game at some point in the future should they get the oppotunity, look no further than to what you see listed above.
The fact that non-horror IPs were listed on these surveys as far back as almost half a decade ago now is pretty telling that BHVR had never intended on keeping DBD purely horror onlyThey asked the community. It's not some nefarious plot, more that many people were cool with the game having a much broader thematic framework than it started with. Some people might not like it, but they must have gotten enough positive responses to go down that road.
@HexHuntressThighs said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3751451#Comment_3751451
Leon is never unarmed, Jill uses grenade launchers, Chris punches a bolder the size of a house into a volcano, Carlos is always strapped up. All of these resident evil characters are way more impressive than Lara Croft and would easily be able to escape the trial if anyone could. Leon literally scaled a 75 foot tall giant and proceeded to rip a parasite out of the giants back with a knife and his hands.
If people are fine with resident evil then they have to be fine with Lara Croft.
If people are fine with resident evil then they have to be fine with Lara Croft.This is kind of where I'm at. I'll throw in Bill from Left for Dead as well. You're fighting zombies, but nothing about the game is horror. You're mowing down hundreds/thousands of enemies - it's an adrenaline rush of a game, nothing scary about it.
-
Surprised that a lot of people seem to have been motivated by DbD to pick something up.
I thought I'd be unique on that. Playing against an Alien one day reminded me I wanted to give Alien: Dark Descent a go, which I then purchased.
-
I usually go the zero perk route, but then generally play all out. Sometimes I hit teams that make that a bad decision, but it makes the average game far more competitive and enjoyable.
I think people overestimate how finicky MMR is. If you have 100s or 1000s of games, a good/bad run of 10 games is not going to move the needle that much.
-
Pros
-It's necessary for it to be an elimination game. Survivor wouldn't be as intense if the prospect of elimination wasn't on the table.
Cons
-When pulled off successfully, its a boring game. If the killer gets a quick tunnel out the game just becomes a slog.
-When attempted and failed, its a boring game. The survivors crank gens while one is in chase and then take their 3e.
-MMR boosting, which a lot of others have mentioned. Not only will many 4 person SWFs be expecting it, but even skilled soloq survivors can counter it by just staying on gens and not rushing the unhook.
-
@mizark3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3742009#Comment_3742009
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3742763#Comment_3742763
I mean to oversimplify there are 2 MMR brackets, Lower (bottom 75%), and Top (upper 25%). That means that when someone is bragging they are 'Top MMR' everyone knows they are a joke (since in all likelihood everyone here with more than 100 posts has the hours alone to constitute 'Top MMR'). That also means that the majority of the playerbase (which isn't on the forums) has a very different experience than what the rest of us are used to.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3742013#Comment_3742013
The problem with summaries is the points of bias. If I like the idea in a video, I might gloss over the more foolish aspects of a suggestion, and focus on the good. At the same time if I think the OP or the video maker is a dumb-dumb, then I'll paint the arguments in as bad a light as possible. In this case, the video is 8 minutes long, which means if you watch it in 2x speed (like you really should for all Youtube content nowadays), it will only take you 4 minutes. I think 5 minutes is the line where someone can take the time to actually watch the video if you want to comment on the topic, otherwise the comment will be ill-informed. Just don't comment (and find another thread) if 4 minutes is too much of your time to become informed enough to make a comment.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3743302#Comment_3743302
2- I would argue this would be an improvement over the current state of the game. There was an older Scott joke video that describes this exact issue. (Spoiler the best build for every Killer currently is the same build.) This would merely change that each Killer has their own best build, so instead of 1 build (Pop+PR+GE+Deadlock) across all 30+ Killers, we might have 3 builds (Low/Medium/High Gen kick efficiency) across the same 30+ Killers. Even though it would still be 1 build per Killer, there would be enough of a playstyle difference between the 3 builds to feel like 3 different experiences. Not only that, but it would allow for greater Killer variety as well (instead of only the top 5 Killers in 90% of your matches).
4- I would notice significantly if I didn't have the same repeated Killers in every match over and over and over and over and over again. That is one of the major causes of burnout, is repetitive games.
2: While I get the argument, one of the defenses of a meta is it gives something to play around. The killer has strong perks, but survivors can bring perks to try and counter those. If you bring a counter to a meta perk and the killer doesn't have it, at least you know they were likely playing a weaker perk. If you brought a meta counter, but just drew the wrong killer, that would suck.
4: But I don't think people would adjust who they play. If Trapper got a buff of 2.0% to kicks his win rate would go up a few points when you take the impact of millions of games. But each person's individual experience would be highly unlikely to notice that small difference. So you create a whole new thing to balance around without really impacting the individual experience.
-
This thread was fun.
-
Conceptually, this seems like a good idea, but it creates a lot of potential issues.
1: Killer tiers - while there is agreement on the top and bottom of the scale, there is massive disagreement around the middle. Especially when factor in not just MMR, but the different regions.
2: Creates static killer meta. If we make the base kit really high to buff Trapper, then you create a meta where every Trapper runs gen kick perks to add on to that.
3: Some killers never kick. Nerfing some of the top killers gen kicks wouldn't matter, because using that time to kick is already kind of a waste when you could be chasing instead.
4: Easy to argue about, hard to notice. Slight nerfs / buffs are the things players love to argue about, and while they have effects overt the millions of DbD games that are played every week, most players wouldn't really notice. So no one is actually enjoying the game more, but the balance team is spending a lot of time on it.
-
I think lots of people, including me, have trouble with the inherent unbalanced nature of the game. It's not designed to be fair.
As an example: if you imagine everyone is on a scale of 1 to 10 on skill levels, imagine a player of skill level 4. They could probably play on level 5 if they joined a SWF with other 4s, probably get to a 6 if they all brought top level add-ons (same exists for killers). For many, this seems wrong. BHVR though works on the idea this is okay and MMR will clean it up because from a game balance stand point it doesn't matter if the game has a killer of skill level 6 hitting 4 skill level 6 survivors or 4 survivors boosting their level with add-ons and SWFs.
I think MMR works better than most. In my soloq survivor games I noticed I tend to either get matched with excellent killers running no add-ons, or killers who aren't so good running the best possible builds.
-
DbD is a horror themed game with an elimination metric, both of those necessitate a speedy level of play.
Most games should be getting to 0-1 gens if the matchup is actually balanced. If the killer is consistently winning with more gens then that, it probably can't even be called competitive (rare exceptions might apply). The game isn't meant to proceed like a Team Deathmatch FPS where in a balanced match both teams kill counts should go up at roughly the same pace. In DbD the survivors have a much easier time with their objective at the start, far more difficult as the game progresses.
@EmpireCity830 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3738127#Comment_3738127
My point here was worded a bit wrong looking back at it. I meant that in terms of fun/enjoyment of the match just cause I got a 3 or 4k doesn't mean that the match was fun. (Kill rate doesn't really matter) Every game today (it feels like) is just a race to the finish. Survivors do nothing but sit on gens all day and killers have to do some tunneling/slugging etc. to keep up. It makes the match for both sides not as fun. I hate getting tunneled off hook when I barley had a chance to play the game, do gens, save people, occasionally have a good chase. For killer having 2 -3 hooks by the time 3 gens are done is really annoying cause now ur stressed out trying to generate pressure with only 2 gens to work with.
If this happened every now and then it would be fine but the fact that it is nearly every game for both sides makes the fun of a match not as fun as it was years ago. It makes perks really annoying too since everyone has to run the same stuff to keep up pace. I wish I could run some more silly perks or try new interesting builds but the pace of the game makes that impossible.
For killer having 2 -3 hooks by the time 3 gens are done is really annoying cause now ur stressed out trying to generate pressure with only 2 gens to work with.But what would your ideal game be? 2 gens and 3 hooks might be a fine situation depending on a number of factors.
-
I think it would cause more problems then it would help.
I think they need to put a few more things in the HUD / map display. Example - if someone has deliverance active (or Wicked in basement) and is on the hook, give their aura a different color. That way if they are proxy camped they can stay on hook and everyone else stay on gens.
-
@Iron_Cutlass said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3738010#Comment_3738010
"Party games have a lot of randomness"
Are Rogue-likes suddenly now considered Party Games? No, they are their own game genre but do have elements that less skill expression provide the most benefit, like in Risk of Rain 2 or Slay the Spire.
Are FPS Games suddenly Party Games for having a random map pool and a wide variety of weapons and players? No, definitely not, and a lot of them have SBMM to try and put players of equal skill level against one another.
Are Card Games suddenly Party Games because your starting hand is random and your opponents and their deck different every time? No, in fact Card Games are often really competitive, just look at Pokemon or YuGiOh.
RNG and randomness does not automatically make it a Party Game. DBD does have RNG, but it still has a large amount of room for skill expression to show, BHVR even tried to implement Skill Based Matchmaking in an attempt to keep experienced players away from new players, which shows that skill expression at least means something.
In DBD, throw a brand new player at someone with thousands of hours, they will lose, there is no arguing. In a Party Game (like Mario Party), throw a brand new player at someone with thousands of hours, the brand new player can still probably win through luck.
Are Rogue-likes suddenly now considered Party Games?So the problem is that you are trying to create absolute definitions for what are general terms. Even though I'm about to not follow my own advice, arguments about the definition of phrases, instead of trying to figure out what the person is trying to communicate, are generally unproductive.
Rogue-like though is a good example of a term that has taken on such a broad meaning that it gets slapped on just about any game that has any sort of random element.
Are FPS Games suddenly Party Games for having a random map pool and a wide variety of weapons and players?Totally different thing. First of all variety isn't even part of the discussion and the random map pool isn't related to the randomness we are discussing (giving one side a substantial advantage or not).
Also, as an example of how arguments can be turned around, is DbD suddenly an FPS because it has a couple of killers with first person ranged shooting? No, obviously not.
Are Card Games suddenly Party Games because your starting hand is random and your opponents and their deck different every time?Yeah? I almost talked about card games in my first post because they are kind of the classic party game. I mean more in the sense of things like Hearts or Poker than Magic: The Gathering, though I wouldn't exclude CCGs from Party Games either.
Poker I think is a great example of a party game. The fact that it is intense and has a lot of skill, doesn't change the fact that it is a game with a lot of randomness that is also something that people casually play with their friends (frequently as part of an actual party).
No, in fact Card Games are often really competitive, just look at Pokemon or YuGiOh.I don't think the competitiveness of the game has a lot to do with it. Other people have talked about how intense one of your examples, Mario Party, can get. Any type of competitive activity can have varying levels of intensity. You can play basketball with your friends, or establish a league with prizes.
RNG and randomness does not automatically make it a Party Game.I'm not saying it does. I'm pointing out an element I associate with Party Games.
BHVR even tried to implement Skill Based Matchmaking in an attempt to keep experienced players away from new players, which shows that skill expression at least means something.I'm going to steal someone else's argument (I don't remember who, or I'd credit them): if a group of people met up to play basketball, and they took time to sort the teams to create an even game, does that mean its no longer casual or just playing for fun? No, that's just the general thing people do in games to try and have even match ups. It's not related to the intensity that is brought to the activity.
In a Party Game (like Mario Party)So let me get back to my original point: DbD was never like this. It was not designed to be like Mario Party, its extremely different. So obviously the people who used the phrase 'Party Game' when describing DbD meant something different than you think the term means.
-
The problem without the gen kick limit is that it froze the game. Survivors would stand away from gens, killers would patrol the gens, and neither would approach because both had infinite resources.
Limiting both sides creates a similar problem. Now you have one side that's out of heals, so they don't want to approach, while the killer with gen kicks left stay by their gens.
One side needs to have the pressure on them to progress the game. Conceptually, this used to be on survivors because of the time limit, but that was really bad for game health. The most straightforward way to address this was limiting gen kicks to keep killers from an entirely defensive playstyle.
-
@Iron_Cutlass said:
A "Party Game", in more modern definitions, is used to refer to a multiplayer (online or in-person) game that normally consisting of a series of short minigames, that can easily be played within a social setting.
When I think of a Party Game, I usually think of Jackbox Games or Mario Party, games that rely on social interaction to provide a fun and unique experience, which Jackbox provides, or a series of minigames that provide variety and draw in the players attention, like Mario Party.
But I often see "Dead by Daylight is a Party Game, it shouldnt be taken seriously", and which I ask, is it really a Party Game?
In Public Matches, Dead by Daylight is not a super serious competitive game. There is no Ranked/Unranked queue, just a single queue. Official Tournaments funded by BHVR are not really done anymore either, so most of the competitive aspects come from the community-made events that generally come from a lot of passion and love for the game.
But just because it's not super competitive does not automatically umbrella it as a Party Game either, which is what a lot of people dont understand (in my opinion). Dead by Daylight is, at least by definition, not a Party Game. And even if it were, people would not throw such a fit about winning/losing or how other people play a game. Clearly there is some competitive aspect to drive people into such a direction.
So where does this leave us?
Well, somewhere in the middle. DBD is not a Party Game, but it's not a super serious competitive game either, it's within a middle area between the two in which aspects of either can co-exist and should co-exist without either being deemed as problematic.
If you want to play hyper casually and dont care about winning or losing, you should be able to do that without any issues. Likewise, if you want to play hyper competitive and do care about winning or losing, you should be able to do that without any issues. The game enables both as valid ways to play the game, but neither side should act as if their way of playing actively dictates how the other should play.
A "Party Game", in more modern definitions, is used to refer to a multiplayer (online or in-person) game that normally consisting of a series of short minigames, that can easily be played within a social setting.When I think of a Party Game, I usually think of Jackbox Games or Mario PartyIf we're talking argument by definition, then DbD has never met the definition. Like not even in the vicinity, which means people using the term probably mean something else by it.
To me, party games have a lot of randomness. They can still have a lot of skill elements, but everyone can have a shot in a party game. That's what I think the definition more goes towards. Due to perk setups / map draws one side can have a huge advantage over the other.
But that's okay. The variety and randomness are part of the fun.
-
On its on? No. If you're using a perk/playstyle that's going to be kicking gens anyway (Nowhere to Hide), it can be okay.
-
Quite a few reasons I think its wrong for DbD.
1: Why would they nerf Vecna so soon and with a relatively minor change? He's still very much in the period where new players are buying him, especially with the anniversary coming up. If the idea was to sell an overpowered killer and then nerf, the nerf would happen in a few months. The only reason to nerf now would be their numbers saying there is a substantial balance concern.
2: Why are some of strongest perks / killers related to free (shards) content? If this was true all of the licensed characters would have clearly superior perks making them necessary buys. You might have a few things free (Dead Hard / Nurse) to fight off PtW accusations, but we've had things like Made for This last a really long time.
3: MMR balances most of this out. Even if a killer is overpowered, that means you'll win more than your overall skill level, until you hit players where the game is even again. Then if the nerf happens, you're going to suffer for awhile.
4: If you think MMR doesn't work, who would want an overpowered character? Games get boring really quickly.
5: It's an asymmetrical game, it must maintain some level of balance to keep a player base. Introducing a strong thing to one side might lead to a portion of the player base on the other side quitting. Sales of cosmetics and future DLC require maintaining a player base.
-
1: Designing a game and being good at a game are different things.
2: On the killer side, why would they have to go in with intentionally weak builds?
3: What if they actually won? Would people on the forum suddenly come out and be like 'our bad, guess all our concerns were wrong?'
Lots, but not all, of BHVR play the game according to past forum posts. But even if 5 people were playing it as a job, I'm not sure how their input would be any more insightful then the consultants / public feedback they receive.
-
@fussy said:
I just need to talk it out, because this thing has been on my mind for a month now because of how dumb it is.
"… conditions to activate it aren’t very difficult". I understand that devs needed some sore reason to describe this Pop nerf, but this is such a spit in the face. Saying this about one of the most demanding on activation perks is just a mockery of killers or complete misunderstanding of their own game. And I just want to compare it to some things on survivor side, which I see every game, because, once again, win some time, like many other things, allowed only for survivors and arrow turns exclusively in only one direction, when it comes to balance discussions.
So to activate Pop killer needs:- Find chase
- Win chase
- Hook survivor (and it's a challenge now in some matches, thanks to sabo buff)
- Find a gen, which at least has 50% of progress to win ~15-20s on average
And that without keeping in mind that you should pray that gen won't be poped into your face; that you will find a chase before using it and need to decide to lose perk value or ignore chase; that you simply won't have time to go check all gens after hook unless you are high mobility killer in most matches on majority of maps.
So let's compare this insanely easy to activate perk to things that require a crazy amount of work to buy time on survivor side:
Syringe: Press M2+Space to win 24-32 seconds.
Toolboxes: Bring item to win 10-20 sec. Add BNP to win even more.
Exhaustions: Do usual chase to buy 15-20 sec on average to it. (Easily can win a lot more)
Bring Medkit + Syringe + Exhaustion and it's already 1 gen time value during the match. It's one survivor value.
So don't forget folks: killer bringing 4 slowdowns = overpowered.
Survivors bring over 300sec of time savers/wasters = balanced and allowed.
I don't complain about slowdown nerf, since I don't play and sweat to win in most cases anyway, so slowdown is just a tool for me, with which I get more chases. I complain about devs allow themselves to make statements that are so far from reality and no doubt extremely biased. I complain about community's hypocrisy (what is understandable, because survivors are majority), that extremes should always be banned/nerfed on one side, but they can safely exist on the other for long years.
Thanks. Just needed to say it.Been awhile since I saw one of these posts.
"…conditions to activate it aren’t very difficult". I understand that devs needed some sore reason to describe this Pop nerf, but this is such a spit in the face.Difficult here in the sense that is just something that happens during normal gameplay. Most powerful perks have some type of limitation on them.
On your examples:
Syringe and toolbox are items, not perks. They run out. Like killer addons bringing better ones makes the game easier. I have problems with that, but its another discussion.
Exhaustion: Game is basically balanced around the idea of survivors having one.
Saying this about one of the most demanding on activation perks is just a mockery of killers or complete misunderstanding of their own game.Here's the thing I don't get, if Pop is so hard to get value out of, what's the concern? If Pop is an overrated perk then the killers aren't losing that much by it going away. But we're in this weird grey zone were Pop has massive draw backs where killers can rarely get value out of it, but also killers will be in massive trouble if this perk gets nerfed.
-
Like many powerful perks, you take the risk it might get no value. It's like unbreakable, some games it gets no use, but when it gets value, it gets a lot of value.
-
Lots of people have thrown out why not let the survivors see or block the killer.
I've got one I'd like: let me see the level of addons the killer is running. I don't need the specific ones, just the levels. That way I can get out of lobbies if I think the killer has an unfair advantage.
-
@Alexlotlz said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3736337#Comment_3736337
How does that show an issue. Im comparing because people are complaining about Mage Hand when all these other things exist that result in the same thing Mage Hand accomplishes.
Because people don't complain in a vacuum. If Vecna had no other powers but a 38 second cooldown Mage Hand, people might complain about how boring it is, but they wouldn't need to complain about the killer balance.
Vecna seems really strong - I would have been fine with BHVR waiting a few more days to make a decision, but their data must be showing a clear problem if they are addressing it already. The Mage Hand guaranteed hits are the most obvious problem he has, compared to PTB where mage hand was only useful if you could time it right.
-
Comparing any power and being like 'it's not much different from nurse' already shows an issue.
On the other killers you mention, you have to qualify a number of them. Like it can happen with Trickster if the laceration meter is high enough. Other killers only have the power for a temporary amount of time. Vecna has the mage hand, plus his other powers.
It's not that hitting through pallets is something that never ever should happen, that's a strawman, it's that Vecna in the PTB was too weak, now it looks like they made him a bit too strong.
-
Had two players leave when I hit my first Sadako teleport the other day, they had been running no mither / power struggle builds.
-
I'd rather addons were pro/cons instead of a game difficulty slider (for both survivor and killer).
-
Agitation is the better of these two (getting to hook faster is pretty valuable), unless you have survivors that run boil over, then iron grasp is much better to have.
So it depends on whether you think you'll need to counter boil over or not.
-
It's going to be great when everyone on this forum is confused because the Asian region keeps getting perks temp banned that we never use.
More seriously, I'm all for it, but would probably be very confusing to new players.
-
Deranking - I suspect this almost never happens. I'm sure some people have tried it, but that's likely more to farm shards.
Smurfing - People do start new accounts, but outside streamers its a rare thing. Like maybe someone who put 1000s of hours into the game will be willing to start from the beginning again to kind of relive the experience, but I doubt a normal person would ever do that more than once. Streamers do it for challenges (hardcore survivor), but there they are putting conditions to make it harder.
I could imagine a streamer wanting to do this to give themselves easier competition while keeping it secret, but I think Scott had a video on easy it would be to spot this from the audience.
-
@mizark3 said:
Ehh it would be fine to reveal SWF status if we also make it so that backing out of a lobby as Killer counts as 1/2 a leave for the DC queue penalty (and Survivor as 1/4), with backout penalties being applied when you reach the next full number. Killers lobby dodging are already ruining the matchmaking, and you are matchmade against the team you are SUPPOSED to go against, whether it be solos, double duos, or a 4-man.
The MMR is also already taking their dedicated 4-man advantages into account since they would have the higher escape rate. That means that SWFs are actually weaker than their equal MMR soloq counterparts, since the comms gave a fake MMR boost. (Eg. 1800 MMR soloq, or 1600MMR SWF + 200 comms bonus.) That means your chases as Killer are actually easier when going against SWFs.
The MMR is also already taking their dedicated 4-man advantages into account since they would have the higher escape rate.I think a lot of people miss out on this point. Yes, being a SWF will make them better than solo, so they'll win more, but the MMR will even that out by who they match against.
There's a minor problem if a group occasionally gets together to SWF, in which case MMR wouldn't catch up with their individual games, but it's probably a pretty rare thing to run into.
-
@ratcoffee said:
DS:
- 5 second stun
- Only can be used once per trial
- Only active for a limited time that you can keep track of
- Activates as an "anti tunnel"
- Rewards not doing gens
Blast Mine:
- 5 second stun
- Can be used unlimited times per trial as long as there are gens to work on
- Active for a limited time, but you have no clue when it could be active
- Activates as an "anti kick"
- Rewards doing gens
I see so many complaints that "I don't tunnel but a 5 second stun for DS is too much" but where are all the complaints about Blast Mine? If people are truly not tunneling, it would activate far more often than DS, even if people are trying to use DS aggressively. Why complain about the anti-tunnel perk DS being used "aggressively" and not Blast Mine, which can give a similar stun duration with multiple uses, while also encouraging gameplay that progresses the survivor goal moreso than DS?
I've wondered about this too. Some of the answers here really make it sound like DS is just more annoying.
-
For those bringing up questions about how many employees work on DbD, as of November they said it was 300:
Source:
On what games they make, BHVR seems to work on lots of projects that are not 'theirs'. On their website they list having worked on games such as Mortal Kombat, multiple Gear Games, Rainbow Six: Extraction, Dirt, Farcry 5, etc.
Source:
On the issue, layoffs suck. Companies hire employees to make good products (e.g. make money), they let employees go when they don't think they are necessary to the direction the company is going (e.g. they lose money). Sometimes they make the right call, sometimes they screw it up. I'm not in any position to speculate on that part of it.
-
@Iron_Cutlass said:
I understand WHY this perk exists, but at the same time, Im questioning why this perk is even still in the game.
I could run Shattered Hope for over 100 matches in normal DBD and get literally no value from it. In fact, the only time I ever got ANY value from this perk was during Chaos Shuffle… the gamemode where people CANNOT control what perks they even get.
So why exactly is this perk bad?
Well, wasting 1 of your 4 perks to counter a 1 perk that 1 Survivor brings inherently bad, even when Boons were in their prime, I never saw ANYONE run this perk since the costs outweigh the benefits massively. It's the same reason why Lightborn is such a bad perk. But in 2024, nobody runs Boons, meaning Shattered Hope's ONLY niche is something that NOBODY uses.
I ran it occassionally back when CoH was so powerful and common. It wasn't great, but I found it could be useful.
Right now, yeah its pretty pointless. I guess if the slugging meta becomes as big as some killers believe, which might lead to an exponential meta, it could regain some value? But that's a lot of unlikely if scenarios.
-
The other 3 have helped me out a tonBasically, there you go. Unlike other killers, Vecna has four powers. If he had a strong ranged attack on top of three other abilities, he'd be way too strong.
-
DbD games should in general be in the 7 to 10 minute range. Two main reasons
1: The game relies on tension. That heart pounding excitement is best achieved when things go fast.
2: Elimination games are hard to balance around longer playstyles.
-
The tension as survivor. When a DbD game actually matches up well, there's nothing else like it. The rush of feeling like the game might actually result in an escape, and the danger that it could still be taken away, is amazing.
-
I think if it was permanent it wouldn't work out, but if they brought it back every couple of months I think that would be ideal.
-
No, gens should stay were they are.
Toolboxes could do with a look. I really thought after medkits were standardized toolboxes would get the same treatment, but surprisingly they have not been.
There's also a problem with 4 mega toolboxes on the survivors, but there isn't any real way to address this without BHVR making game concept changes that I really don't think they want to.
@Crazewtboy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3731353#Comment_3731353
I agree with this 100 percent. As long as survivors know how to read the HUD, you could play with minimal mistakes as killer and still lose due to gen speeds.
I think the early game collapse would be a good idea, but I also feel like having a mandatory second objective could work as well. Not exactly sure what it could be though
As long as survivors know how to read the HUD, you could play with minimal mistakes as killer and still lose due to gen speeds.Four points about killer mistakes in the game:
1: It's frequently impossible to know if you made a mistake or not. If you run by a survivor hiding how would you ever know? When I've watched streamers review their matches inevitably there are things that get missed, and very few people are going to record and review their matches.
2: Lots of things that impact the final aren't mistakes, but a guessing game. Sometimes the survivors just get lucky and it feels impossible for the killer. It happens for survivors as well.
3: Given that they have to work as a group, survivors should make more mistakes because there are more things they can screw up. Even with a SWF on comms there's a lot more survivors can screw up given their lack of information compared to the killer.
4: When mistakes happen is far more important than how many. A quick early game chase is a huge advantage for the killer, while having it happen later in the game (when the gens might already be spread out / progressed and pain res no longer in play) has less of an impact.
-
@HEX_DEAD_BY_AI said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3730878#Comment_3730878
If you meet the guy Ghostface in the case of my photo, you'll see that combo is a very big problem. I don't know if SWF can handle it, but as a soloq, it is unbeatable. Starting with Lethal Pursuer, one by one we fell very quickly because he would find us before we could find where our teammates were lying, no time to make the gens fly.
Imo, slugging is not a big problem, exposed basekit + revealing-aura perks are still fine. The problem is 'KNOCK OUT', it makes sense.
The issue is more likely the chase times. You've got an indoor map with tight rooms which are really the only ones ghostface is good on. If he can down you quickly knockout is going to hurt, but it would hurt a SWF as well. But if someone gets a good chase (or on some maps just a long sprint), the survivors will have plenty of time to find each other and heal up which the killer will have made no progress from hooks.
In my experience as a pure soloq survivor, knock out is annoying because it just slows down what was going to happen. Games we lost, we would have lost anyway if the killer hooked us, and games we won we would have won anyway. It's an annoying perk to be sure, but even if someone on the team doesn't have the right build it's not unbeatable if the matchup is otherwise even.
-
I thought the question was going to be whether it would be worth gens at 120 seconds and the killer gets no perks. Like if there was a perk that took 4 slots that added 30 seconds to every gen, it would probably be run for those who want to win (fun being a different question). 30 seconds and still get perks, yeah that would be a massive improvement. As many have mentioned lots of killer builds involve 1 gen regression perk, it would be a massive buff.
-
@squbax said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3730031#Comment_3730031
Being disingenous with your argument, look how I do the same you are doing.
Maniatic self revived phsycotic sorcerer
Vs
Billionare who kills because of brazillian manga
Billionare who kills because of brazillian mangaI feel like there is a portion of my brain dedicated to blocking out how bad her lore is, because every time I come across it I'm like 'no, that can't be true.'
-
@For_The_People said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3730169#Comment_3730169
Sorry I may have been confusing with my wording lol ( I have that habit)
I’d like survival tips from killer mains! As I believe some things are learnt behaviours from those who play both sides or coming in as a killer main - what things do you do that make your survivor play (or approach) better - things that a one-dimensional player like myself won’t know as I don’t play killer.I probably won’t ever play killer as I just cannot enjoy first person view which I find disorienting and uncomfortable (´•ω•｀)
I'm not a killer main, but when I do play it does remind me of their perspective. Once a survivor is injured I feel like it is borderline impossible to lose them, but before that unconventional plays can work really well. It can be hard to track healthy survivors when they break line of sight, especially of they take unexpected paths and break up their scratch marks. I try to apply this to when I play survivor and look for good opportunities to leave the loop.
-
1: First in the genre helps. Part of the appeal of DbD is the diversity, all the different maps, killers, perk combos, etc. It would be next to impossible to launch a fresh game that matched that. Also compared to shooters, fighting games, sports, etc. its not big enough to support multiple players.
2: Being supported by licenses, but not constrained by them. TCM is a Texas Chainsaw game. There's not really any way you could ever put Freddy or Alien in it. But the DbD concept allows you to pull from multiple styles of horror (or horror adjacent) and represent the characters enough to feel distinct.
3: Asyms are hard to develop. Trying to figure the balance points are really difficult in comparison to something like a 5v5 FPS.
4: The live service model means people don't want to leave to go to another live service model. People have built up cosmetics, characters, etc. This creates an attachment to the game.
5: An enjoyable gameplay loop that doesn't get old. There is enough randomness in the game to keep people coming back.
6: Taking a long time to master. TCM was out for maybe days before people had idealized routes mapped out for both sides and you had games ended in a minute or two. The meta strategies took awhile to develop and you still get people saying it takes thousands of hours to get really good at the game.
7: Having time to develop the elimination format. The three hook stages per character feels tense, but also is not as boring as an instant kill (like Deathgarden had for most of its run). Trying to figure out where to try the line to make the survivor experience feel like death is imminent, while not having that be the actual reality which leads to boring games, is a fine line to walk.
8: Changing up the meta. DbD is not meant to ever be a perfectly balanced game, its meant to change and evolve over time. I think people miss how important this has been in keeping the game alive as it goes through different eras of dominant meta styles.
9: It's enjoyable to watch on twitch, youtube, etc. I've never cared for esports, but I just watched the full 24 hour spring invitational. Twitch streamers who try to leave DbD complain about how its the only game people seem to want to watch. Because it is has this larger audience base that keeps the game going by having an avenue to bring in fresh players.
@GentlemanFridge said:
F13 - too slow on content updates, limited freedom of what that content could be, and got hard screwed by the license dispute. The fact that Jason was killable also turned the very premise on its head, making him the victim to be sought out and killed.
VHS - arguably had the best run of them all. To its credit, it was fairly simple to understand, and had every opportunity to be something unique. But the dev team was too small, there was no community management at all. The devs created an echo chamber of “positive rewinders” which stifled any and all negative feedback.The closed beta lasted WAY too long, meaning that once it did come out, the playerbase was already too good at the game for any new players to come aboard smoothly. Maps weren’t randomised in any way, meaning that every map played the same way. Monster was too weak…
Last Year: Not sure what really “killed” this one, insofar as I don’t remember anything specific. It never really saw any traction, I suppose.
RE: Resistance: Arguably the most unique take on the genre, and it had a lot of potential. But there was barely any dev support after Nikolai was added. I don’t think Capcom had any real plans for it to begin with. IIRC, there were also a lot of cheaters.
Evil Dead: Lack of dev support, and even less marketing. ED never breached containment, so to speak. After Baal, there didn’t seem to be any plans for new content either.
TCM: Not dead yet, to its credit. They went the route of making original characters, which is already a massive up over their previous game, F13. I personally think this one is hampered by how clunky it can feel to play, which is mostly due to the healthbar system a lot of these games use. It’s not hit = damaged, it’s wail on the character model until down. There were also a lot of ways to stun and incapacitate family members, which you really cannot have in the phase of the game’s life were you most desperately need the game to feel smooth for both sides.
Deathgarden: Too little to the main gameplay loop. I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I just thought it looked a bit boring?
Deathgarden: Too little to the main gameplay loop. I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I just thought it looked a bit boring?The visuals didn't match the game. The game was much more action oriented and felt like a sprint. Scavs had parkor and could run up walls, slide through tunnels, all while bullets were flying around them and Hunters could jump across the map while firing off explosives and shock blasts (the game even had the terminator robot). However, the graphics and design stuck more to the DbD style with hunters stalking the other side, leading to a massive disconnect.
-
@Unimatrix00 said:
Is the
https://deadbydaylight.fandom.com/wiki/Dead_by_Daylight_Wiki
not good enough for people as a guide to the game? I mean, it is basically the offical copendium for the game, no?Compendium and guides are very different things.
Imagine you are a new player and you open that up. Where do you start? It lists what is in the game, but not really anything to start playing.
As the OP said, it also wouldn't be very fun. Hit a killer, get demolished by them, open the wiki, check how they work, back to the game, new killer, open the wiki…repeat that again and again. It's not really fun and trying to read it all ahead of time wouldn't make much sense.
-
The PTB version was too strong. It required only four great skill checks and there was no penalty (but you could only get it once).
@ImWinston said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3729336#Comment_3729336
- the problem is that everything is linked to the RNG of skill checks, you don't decide when to reload the toolbox..... if you have nothing to do (as happened in my game) you are punished and that's it. Not the best game design ever🤣
if you have nothing to do (as happened in my game) you are punished and that's it. Not the best game design everThat's kind of what the DbD game design is - randomness is a huge element of what happens. Sometimes it works out for you, sometimes it doesn't.
-
@VampireHimbo said:
Do they believe the person, now on death hook usually at 5 gens, is gonna play normally?
Because the actual result ends up in a person afk, or throwing all pallets in the map, or running to your gen and failing skillchecks on purpose.
The cherry on cake is when the person saving someone from killing themselves on hook is IMMEDIATELY downed, and they proceed to kill themselves on hook. Like, you won't let others do it but you immediately do it yourself? The CREAM on the cherry on top is when the killer downs you after you tried killing yourself on hook, and proceeds to slug you the full 5 minutes out of spite you didn't want to play against their Nurse or something
Because the actual result ends up in a person afk, or throwing all pallets in the map, or running to your gen and failing skillchecks on purpose.This is what I always hear, and maybe its a region thing, but it's not something I see. Usually when I save someone trying to kill themselves on the hook, they resume playing the game. Not always, but most of the time.
-
The biggest failure of this game on the purely technical side in my opinion is the lack of communication. There's so much information that new players will have to learn and its hidden behind menus or just not at all.Yeah, this is something experienced players forget. Coming into the game at this point as survivor there are so many possible killers to learn to face. Experienced players are around when each killer is introduced and learn them well during that time.
People broadly agree the game needs more and better tutorials. The concept I think is that once upon a time everyone was getting the joy of not being sure what was going on and it was part of the game's appeal. Those days are long since past. To the best of my knowledge an updated tutorial isn't on their radar, I have no idea why.
The other big issue is just how toxic this community is towards newer players. From post game chat, to Twitter, to reddit, to twitch, to youtube, to here. There seems to be this general concensus that if you can't loop a killer for an entire gen your opinion doesn't matter. People mostly talk about the game in terms of what the best players do. And if you aren't that your perspective is dismissed.I fortunately never had a big problem with post game chat, but otherwise yeah. I only have a couple of years in the game and I try to hold onto my new player memories, but a large part of the community does seem to think that people who want to play the game need to approach it like its homework.
And this will be what kills the game off in my opinion. The stagnation and rot from an unwelcoming experience that keeps new players from coming back for more.This is probably more likely then most 'here is what will kill DbD suggestions'. The game has been unwelcoming though for awhile and it hasn't died yet. I honestly have no idea how it keeps attracting new players, I'm surprised I or anyone makes it past the first few hours, but somehow it does.
-
@Marc_go_solo said:
I don't see the problem with this. It comes across as a playtester role, which many games already have. It makes sense overall.
At no point has there been anything saying that these people are solely consulted for changes, and Fog Whisperers and regular folk like ourselves also have avenues to give feedback that has evidence to show it was listened to. Fog Whisperers were always primarily advertisers with benefits, but their feedback also would have been considered.
In terms of feedback, if anything the only issue I have is PTBs is solely for PC. Of course I'm sure there's a logistical reason for this, but it's a shame console players aren't involved. At least changes are made after the full release, based on future feedback.
Of course I'm sure there's a logistical reason for this, but it's a shame console players aren't involved. At least changes are made after the full release, based on future feedback.Steam has a built in beta function for games on its platforms. This is why PTB is not on PC, it's on Steam, not Epic.
-
@Peanits said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3728541#Comment_3728541
Referrals can definitely help, but we also take notes when we see players who regularly give constructive feedback and keep their discussions civil. Many of the earliest members were chosen this way, most of which have never streamed.
There is no hard-set rule. As long as someone shows that they have the expertise we need, they could be invited (when spaces are available).
Do you try and represent the different regions in the consultant team? Like Asia, South America, etc? Curious how you are getting takes from those regions were the game is played a lot differently.
-
@lachenstars said:
So I just wanted to make a post in support of the Fog Whisperers after hearing how SpookyLoopz has explained his perspective on publicly announcing a 'new' group of game testers with more influence on game balance changes. As a member of several Fog Whisperer communities, I was under the impression that they could voice their honest opinions about the game to the Devs and would be taken seriously. Obviously, they have their own internal testing team (Spooky and some others have mentioned that this consultation group has been around for years) and the Devs seem to place a great weight on statistics (most of which we don't have access to) when making balance changes. We have seen many good ideas from the community discussed by the Fog Whisperers, and occasionally it appears that these ideas are listened to, but frequently many changes have baffled the community as well as the Fog Whisperers, some of whom appear frustrated. They have been put in an unenviable position to appear partly responsible for terribly thought-out changes like the Twins rework and trying to be a good public face for BHVR.
I do not know all the details, and I think it's possible 2 separate groups could work fine. OhTofu is the only Fog Whisperer I know that I believe is part of this 'new' Consultation Crew, but there could be others. But it should be made clear why there are 2 groups and what their roles are. Why publicly announce that there is a group of community members that the Devs will listen to, when the Fog Whisperer program already exists? The Fog Whisperers are mainly good PR for BHVR. Their focus has always been to make good content for the game, and the Devs give them things like in game money to show off new skins and codes that they can share with their community. Maybe I've been mistaken thinking that the Fog Whisperer program carried significant weight as representatives of the community's opinions. But I think that I'm not alone in thinking that the Devs would consider Fog Whisperer feedback more seriously than the average forum poster like me.
I don't believe that Fog Whisperers have been given any insight into changes coming to any PTB ahead of time, as they are just as surprised as the rest of the community when something like nerfing Billy or "nerfing" Blight add-ons is announced. I don't recall ANYONE saying they thought Huntress needed all the buffs she got on the PTB, and if they had to come the Fog Whisperers before that PTB went live, I'm certain Spooky and others would have told them exactly what they said when they tested the buffs on the PTB. Spooky stated during comments on his quitting the Fog Whisperer program that he came to terms long ago with the fact that the Fog Whisperers aren't really looked to for input on game changes. The Fog Whisperer program is essentially just marketing. And that's okay.
However, by announcing a "new" Consultant Crew program, BHVR is publicly undermining the Fog Whisperer's credibility. This says to the community, "hey, HERE'S a group that we'll ACTUALLY listen to for input! You, the community are being represented by THESE people." And in a vacuum, that's a great move. There needs to be a group the Devs can reliably listen to that has their finger on the pulse of community opinions. And this program has supposedly been around for years. But why not include the Fog Whisperers? BHVR is implicitly underlining the fact that they haven't been taking the Fog Whisperers very seriously, when many make very valid points and helpful suggestions. Hopefully more Fog Whisperers can be part of this "new" consultation program if they want to be. Perhaps some would rather simply focus on creating the best content they can for their viewers. But I understand why Spooky decided to resign from the Fog Whisperer program in light of how this public announcement of a Consultant Crew looks.
When you stop and think about it, this announcement is BHVR shooting themselves in the foot.
- This program has already existed for years. Did BHVR think that fact wouldn't come to light? Saying this is a new program is disingenuous.
- Knowing now that they had a group giving feedback, how effective do we think this group was, given the plethora of very poor reworks that made it through testing to the PTB stage, where the community including Fog Whisperers pointed out things that anyone that actively plays DBD would notice as problematic?
- So this group was either ignored or didn't have the good feedback that many Fog Whisperers had.
The Fog Whisperers worked hard to be good brand ambassadors, putting out the fires that the Devs created which might have been avoidable had they consulted the Fog Whisperers. The private group of consultants they had didn't prevent some egregious changes making it to the PTB. I believe Otz has stated his disappointment with the Devs not taking his suggestions seriously and has stopped making many videos about balance changes. I'm sure the Devs did listen to some of what was suggested, and of course not everything the Fog Whisperers want is necessarily good or feasible to implement, but when someone like Otz is dissuaded, it speaks volumes. Everyone is passionate about this game we love, and not everyone agrees with the direction that is best for the health and growth of the game and its community. At the end of the day, the Devs have the final say; it is their game.
This move to publicly name a new group, that is basically not new, as representatives of the community for feedback regarding balance changes appears to be an attempt to placate the community that sometimes wonders if the Devs play their own game. Will this now public group be any more effective at showing the Devs that certain ideas are bad - saving time and manpower on changes that are instantly rejected by the community - before they reach the PTB stage? Though I believe that the Fog Whisperers I interact with are smart, passionate, and have integrity, I feel sorry for them because this move undermines all of that.
So I just wanted to make a post in support of the Fog Whisperers after hearing how SpookyLoopz has explained his perspective on publicly announcing a 'new' group of game testers with more influence on game balance changesWas this on a live stream or something? Because I went looking for the video and couldn't find one.
-
@AbsolutGrndZer0 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3728146#Comment_3728146
Let his flesh not be torn
Let his blood leave no stain
Though they beat him
Let him feel no pain
Let his bones never break
And however they try
To destroy him
Let him never die
Let him never dieIt's 2030, DbD is still alive, DbD the Musical is coming out, every character has their own song, and people returning to the game are extremely confused.
@VampireHimbo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3728150#Comment_3728150
That's understandable. I hope you have fun in the future shilling Twilight Sparkles from My Little Pony and her anti tunneling perks.
I get a pony and anti-tunnel? I mean I'd give Survivor: Pile of Dirt a close look if it came with more anti-tunnel.