crogers271
crogers271
About
- Username
- crogers271
- Joined
- Visits
- 8,432
- Last Active
Comments
-
I should hope it is difficult to play against strong survivors. The idea of a game being difficult when matched with a strong opponent is fine. When the game rises to the level of completely impossible, we have a different story and I think that far more frequently happens to survivors.
its only 1 person vs 4.survivors have each other to rely on but the killer is all alone, and have to be ur own allyIt's 1 stronger person vs 4 frequently uncoordinated people. Outside of a small subset of the player base, having one side's strength spread out among more players is a weakness, not a strength.
-
@radiantHero23 said:
A hot topic for almost all of dbd history. Map offerings have always been a topic of discussion in this community.
Some deem them unfair, others put the shame on unbalanced maps in general.
Recently I seen a lot of people rooting for a removal of map offerings.
I personally am for a removal as well, because the give a huge and, in my opinion, unfair advantage in a trail to the played that used it.
Myers at this point has to be changed up and his one funny, spooky playstyle (something that in this day and age isn't even valued that much anymore) should not be restricted to map offerings. He desperately needs help but not through map offerings.
What are your experiences and opinion? I'm curious how the communities perception has changed.
I personally am for a removal as well, because the give a huge and, in my opinion, unfair advantage in a trail to the played that used it.I kind of feel this way about a lot of things in DbD. Offerings like the Oaks (hook spread) and pouches (luck) have always felt weird to me (same with many Iri addons, BMP, etc.) - the impact might not be as huge as a map, but its the general concept. Its like the game is offering you a built in difficulty slider, which is a very weird thing to have in a multiplayer game.
If the game was being redesigned I'd either chuck or rework map offerings along with a lot of other things, but at this point I don't know if they feasibly could. The grind is built around the blood web and it needs things to fill it.
-
Last word to my knowledge is November outside the survey:
@Peanits said:
There is unfortunately nothing for us to announce at the moment. It hasn't yet been possible due to circumstances beyond our control. We hear you, though, and the topic of cross progression isn't dead by any means. We would still love to make this happen if we're ever able to.
-
@okaayletsgoo said:
Because one hatchet injures you and has unlimited range. Deathslinger has 15m range and trickster requires multiple hits to injure you. Her windup time was reduced, her movement speed while holding was increased and they gave her some haste add-ons when landing a hatchet. She's good and especially sinister on a seasoned player.
All of this
Plus
Deathslinger hits don't instantly damage
If deathslinger can not connect on a melee hit on an injured survivor (dropped pallet, body block), he can't down the survivor.
Trickster hits can be recovered
-
@Yharwick said:
It's been said on past dev streams they view the game as a 1v1v1v1v1 with MMR supporting this only caring about escapes and nothing regarding altruism. How ever BHVR just released a series of ads calling it a 4v1 in the title.
https://youtu.be/zpqYWx3Cubc?si=eWsNQoCbV4LD_T83
Isn't this mixed messaging? Why draw people in calling it a 4v1 when you don't view it that way and don calculate people's MMR that way? It's not a huge deal but it does feel disingenuous to me given what we know the devs have said previously.
I think the point most people miss is that the devs don't think there is one right way to view the game. Want to play it as a solo survivor? Go ahead. Want to play as a team? Go ahead. They have MMR, BP, and pips that all have various rewards built into them.
As a killer you are definitely facing 4 survivors. How the survivors view each other isn't really relevant to how the killer views them.
-
I've only ever been around for the MMR system. Whenever I hear about the rank system it sounds so much worse, but I didn't actually play under it.
For one thing, the implementation of MMR in DBD is indeed quite deceiving. As Otzdarva explains, at no point is it ever explained to new players, that grades have no impact on matchmaking.I don't think players being unaware of MMR is a big issue. The majority of players, I'd guess the vast majority, will never look at forums/reddit/etc. They have the game, they play the game, and that's it. They might not even be aware there is a matchmaking system.
Which also doesn't work all that great, considering that we know it only takes kills and escapes + match time into account.I don't think this is true. The goal is to get the situation where players have roughly balanced matches. If you want to play a weaker build, over time that will get you to even matches with the weaker build, if you take a stronger build you'll get the same result.
Who is to say the killer played better than the survivors or vice versa?How important is it to know though?
As a game DbD has tons of random elements and the element to snowball quickly. A single game is not really an indicator of who was the better side.
My question to you is; can and should this situation (deceiving players into thinking they're way better or worse than they actually are) be improved? How would you go about it and why do you think it would be an improvement overall?I think if people actually saw their MMR they would sweat much harder.
-
@fulltonon said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3693054#Comment_3693054
Because everything not intended is a bug.
Simple as that, there is no such things as "unintended feature", that's an exploit.
I'm not seeing the connection between 'not intended' and 'bug'.
Do you think BHVR mapped out every possible game strategy that they were cool with? How people would run loops? When killers would slug? What the line between a perk like Boil Over being fair and being too strong was?
That would be silly. BHVR tests things to make sure something isn't too broken, and refines it over time, but that doesn't mean they are telling people how to play the game.
-
@fulltonon said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3692570#Comment_3692570
It's not different, if developer didn't intended to make survivors unhookable by healing and survivors abuse it, it's an exploit.
Healing is a "healing" and not "guaranteed escape action" after all.
Intended - not sure why it matters, the game is filled with things that weren't intended. The whole concept of games is figuring out what you can do with the resources you have.
Abuse - Exploiting bugs to become unreachable or to stick another player in a position they could not escape was abuse. Heal teach is the survivors using a resource they've managed to have access to at the end of the game (health states) to aid another survivor in escaping. Same thing with body blocking or if there was a pallet still usable near the exit gate.
-
Since AFC I've rarely seen Bubba. It used to be a slog to face him, but now the gameplay is pretty enjoyable.
-
The key word in Mandy's post is 'bug'.
With Blight - his rushes should be causing collision, but they aren't, that's a bug.
Heal tech - when survivors heal a downed survivor, the down survivor cannot be picked up. That is intended. How survivors might use this perhaps was not expected, but that's a different thing.
Crouch tech to change the collision is probably closer to a bug, not sure what BHVR's thoughts on that. CJ Tech can be seen as an exploit, but is probably rare enough that the fix of adding an additional button would be seen as more harm than good.
-
@Marioneo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3691486#Comment_3691486
i disagree cause that is limiting builds a killer can run a full hex build with 10x stronger effects the way its balanced is it can be destroyed boons need the same treatment and shattered hope should be basekit
That's hexes, they are very different than boons.
-
I think one of the core problems with boons is that the survivor can run multiple boon perks combined. This creates an awful scenario for balancing. There is no way you can balance the idea of something like Dark Theory being strong enough to run on its own at the same time as balancing it to be run with three other abilities.
If I was looking at reworking it: I'd limit survivors to a single boon perk if they run one and balance perks around that. This could also mean each boon could have more variables - a weak effect might have a larger area or a quicker set up, for example.
-
It's an elimination game, I don't think you can change that element and still retain the DbD experience. Having a bunch of shared hook states would make the game less intense, but I'm not sure that's what people want.
As mentioned, you'd also need slower gens to compensate this, again reducing the excitement of the game.
@kit_mason said:
Would it solve it at all? Surely this system would just force the weak link to participate in every chase and the strongest player to be disallowed from playing the game? All that changes is the amount of times the weak link can let your team down.
All that changes is the amount of times the weak link can let your team down.I just said why I think it will be a problem, but I don't think this would be an issue. Even if someone is awful at chase, there is almost no scenario where them getting into 9 bad chases is inferior to 3 bad chases and then out of the game.
-
@HEX_DEAD_BY_AI said:
Apart from camping, which is easier to penalize, we also need punishments for players who consistently engage in tunneling. There are two styles of tunneling that I've encountered:
- The killer may or may not camp, but they always target the first survivor, relentlessly forcing them to die by any means, before proceeding to play normally with the remaining three survivors. This tactic is aimed at tipping the trial in their favor. They exclusively focus on the first survivor.
- The killer may or may not camp, but they systematically tunnel survivors one by one until the trial concludes.
Some of the most trashiest tunneling tactics I've encountered include:
- Wraith: He goes into stealth mode and lurks in a corner (the dirtiest form of camping) until a survivor attempts a rescue, then suddenly appears to resume tunneling the rescued survivor. Alternatively, he may ignore a survivor he's currently chasing just to stealth and target that unhooked one again.
- Pig: Similar to Wraith, she crouches and hides near the hook, waiting to do her rushing and resume tunneling.
- GhostFace and Shape: Relying on the ability to hide or a small terror radius to execute tunneling.
- Hag: She sets traps near hooks to facilitate easy tunneling.
- Chucky: He uses the Insidious perk, hiding near the hook to resume tunneling.
- Unknown: Leaving a hallucination near the hook to make tunneling easier.
- Clown: Almost as bad as camping, he searches around the hook until a survivor attempts a rescue, then throws his bottle at the hook and resumes tunneling.
- Trickster and Deathslinger: Similar to Clown, but using their gun and knives.
- All other killers who can quickly close the distance (such as Blight and Spirit) to swiftly reach the hook and resume tunneling.
Encountering these tactics often makes matches feel exhausting, frustrating, and ultimately a waste of time.
Have any of you experienced this in The Fog?
Surely, there must be some mechanism for punishing this tunneling, right?
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/W0S5SAW5ODES/the-trashiest-tunneling-killer.jpg
Punish might be a bad choice of words, but made more difficult, yeah.
You list a lot of killers all with the ability to either return to the hook or hide around it (at least hiding fits the game design of those killers). I think it creates two game problems:
1: A couple of minutes into the game, maybe less than that, the survivors have to make a call on what they think the killer is doing. If they think the killer is setting up a tunnel, they need to stay on gens, maybe rush in and pop reassurance if they have it. But if a single one of the 3 uncoordinated survivors makes the wrong call and moves in too early, well the game is pretty much over already. I wouldn't even mind that if we didn't have such a long game ahead.
2: Even if the survivors make the right call, the player on the hook has the thrilling time of just sitting there. The right play requires the person on the hook to not suicide out of boredom.
How to fix it: this becomes a tough issue and there will be those who point out 'what about killers having to deal with SWFs?''. I doubt BHVR would even consider it, but the unhooked survivor entering in a ghost mode where they can't be hit and can't body block I'd be interested in seeing tested.
-
@Blueberry said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3690009#Comment_3690009
1: Is it common at high MMR? Yes. To lesser extents than the extreme listed above, but generally abuse of anti tunnel perks for their unintended purpose, yes.
2: Is it unbalanced? Yes.
3: Is it abusive? Yes.
"The first argument, is it common, requires a few things. First, we'd
need to have a definition of common. Some people this might be one out
of ten games, of rothers it could be every other game. Then we'd need a
standard for what exactly we are discussing - is it the full DH / OTR /
BU / DS build, or if a person is using a portion of that build does it
also count. "I referenced this already in another post here, it's probably every 5 games or so. Time also has a massive impact on this though. during the day for my time zone, quite rarer, like once every 10 games. Prime time at night though where almost every match is a sweat fest? Every few games. So it can very significantly by time.
"Beyond definitions though, you'd probably need a data set. Over the last
50 games I encountered X Y number of times. That's boring, and not
everyone will believe it, but it makes things clearer."So that I do have. I play way, way more than the average person. I'm getting these numbers from about 300+ matches a week.
"On the second argument, is it unbalanced, discussing personal MMR is not
critical to it, we need to discuss what else survivors might do. For
the sake of argument, let's say the above build is very common. What if
it wasn't? Would survivors be running heal builds to trade off body
blocks? Gen rush? Sabo squad? If a survivor dedicates an entire build to
something it should get value, to consider the value we'd need to look
at what else a high MMR survivor could do."Discussing personal mmr is completely critical to this. This happens significantly more at higher mmr. A person at lower mmr probably never sees this, hence why they don't even see it as a problem. Yes, if they weren't running they above build they would be running other perks and yes, obviously you have to get value from perks. The issue isn't value from perks, it's whether they are too strong and simultaneously abusable for more than there intended purpose. Would those alternate perks they'd run instead be too strong? No. Would they be abusable? No. We already are looking at what else a high mmr survivor can do, that has nothing to do with the point being made here.
"The third argument, which is the meat of your original post, really has
nothing to do with high MMR and that discussion was a distraction from
the issue. This is an ethical discussion on player behavior and the
intent of perks. "It has everything to do with high mmr and is not a distraction, that's not understanding the issue. This abuse doesn't happen in lower mmr groups.The point is brought up to explain why others never see this happen and don't see it as an issue. It's also brought up because in higher mmr matches every second counts. Why is that relevant? Because you see people that don't play at higher mmr post things like, "just eat the DS", "just eat the UB". These responses make sense at low mmr where the time of the matches isn't pin point and you can waste time like that. This is not an ethical discussion on player behavior whatsoever. It is a discussion on intent of perks. Intent of perks and use of said perks is the entire point of this discussion.
"My opinion is tunneling will always be a part of the game as long as it
has an elimination format and survivors will have perks to try and
counter it. I see nothing wrong of trying to use those perks in an
offensive way because it comes with trade offs (time not spent on gens
for example). Is the trade off balanced? Well, that goes back to the
second issue."Tunneling will always be a part of the game, but that's not the discussion being made here. The discussion here is abuse of perks. You're conflating two things that are not the same. Anti tunneling perks are good. Abusing those anti tunnel perks for their unintended purpose is not. Saying they have a trade off is a pointless statement as the tradeoff is always in their favor, hence why they do it. If it wasn't worth the trade off they wouldn't do it.
"This does mean that survivors have to accept that killers might tunnel. I
think that leads to boring games, but its a core part of the game
design."This has nothing to do with this topic at all. My topic has nothing to do with tunneling. My topic is abuse of anti tunnel perks for their unintended purpose. Those are not the same topics.
After all this tangent none of this had anything to do with my question to you. The question was, hypothetically if it was a high mmr only explainable issue that wouldn't make sense to someone not at high mmr and I couldn't use "high mmr" as a rational, what is an example response I could give instead to convince them? Since you don't like my high mmr response.
You never actually answered this question.
Discussing personal mmr is completely critical to this. This happens significantly more at higher mmr. A person at lower mmr probably never sees this, hence why they don't even see it as a problem.I don't know about that. I've been playing the game for about two years, so a lot less than you, but I feel like I was hitting coordinated body blockers within the first couple months. I'm sure frequency is an issue, but I don't think anyone thinks it never happens.
Yes, if they weren't running they above build they would be running other perks and yes,obviouslyyou have to get value from perks. The issue isn't value from perks, it's whether they are too strong and simultaneously abusable for more than there intended purpose.Ok, why is it too strong? If the unhooked body blocks with this build how much of your time does it eat up in comparison to them just jumping on a gen? Or the all the other possibilities that could happen.
I'm not even saying you're wrong. But if you say something will be too strong with good survivors, if others respond 'can't just good survivors do A instead' or 'why don't you do Z?' you need to explain the difference, which probably will require multiple back and forths and never be resolved in just a couple of posts. The moment someone though throws out the other person must not be high MMR it makes it look like they can't actually defend their position.
It haseverythingto do with high mmr and is not a distraction, that's not understanding the issue. This abuse doesn't happen in lower mmr groups. The point is brought up to explain why others never see this happen and don't see it as an issue. It's also brought up because in higher mmr matches every second counts.But every second should count in high MMR. That what makes high levels of any type of game different - a single mistake will be more costly because the chance of the other side making a mistake is radically lower. That can be DbD or soccer.
This is where I normally run into issues when I see people fall back to 'its high MMR, survivors are super efficient'. I don't doubt the super efficiency, but what about this particular thing is so much more efficient than all of the other tactics they could deploy?
This isnotan ethical discussion on player behavior whatsoever. Itisa discussion on intent of perks. Intent of perks and use of said perks is the entire point of this discussion.Tunneling will always be a part of the game, but that's not the discussion being made here. The discussion here is abuse of perks. You're conflating two things that are not the same. Anti tunneling perks are good. Abusing those anti tunnel perks for their unintended purpose is not.It really sounds like you are having an ethical discussion, you're using the word abuse and talking about how people should play the game.
The question was, hypothetically if it was a high mmr only explainable issue that wouldn't make sense to someone not at high mmr and I couldn't use "high mmr" as a rational, what is an example response I could give instead to convince them? Since you don't like my high mmr response.You neveractuallyanswered this question.That's because I don't think there is a clear answer and my point was more about invoking high MMR to discuss game balance and design.
But if you really wanted to do it: record a bunch of games and/or link to a streamer with a bunch of games that you think demonstrate the uniqueness of the issue.
-
@Archael said:
And for clarification
60% killrates means that killer have 4k in 1 of 5 matches, and 4 are draws with 2 kills.
This also means that in those 4 "draw" matches, 2 survivors won do each survivor wins 2 trials (1st, 2nd / 2nd, 3rd / 3rd, 4th / 4th, 1st).
So 60% killrates is 1 4k for killer, and 2 wins for each pair of survivors for every 5 matches.
If my math is wrong (it may be, i hanvt slept two nights already) pls tell me
A 60% kill rate could mean those numbers, but they could mean a lot of other numbers. It could mean 6 4ks and 4 4es.
4 ks are the most common game result. Nightlight's kill rate data is overall a little lower than BHVR's, but even there 4ks are about a 1 out of 3 games.
-
@Blueberry said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3689639#Comment_3689639
I get your point, but let's do a hypothetical to see the problem with this.
Let's say that we can't just argue, well I'm at high mmr and your not so you don't know. However let's pretend that said person is at high mmr and the things he's saying are true. How would he prove it to the other person that isn't at high mmr?
He couldn't.
The principle of that person at high mmr's said problems are based on the experiences of what goes on there. If someone else doesn't experience those things they aren't going to agree with them. There's nothing you could say to change their minds. That's my point.
So while yes I understand me saying high mmr could be just used as a blanket dismissive point it's because if they don't play there then there's nothing you could say to them. There's no other way you could prove your points. At that point you're essentially playing two completely different games.
Unless you of course have a hypothetical example of an answer a high mmr person could give to sway their mind that I haven't thought of.
Unless you of course have a hypothetical example of an answer a high mmr person could give to sway their mind that I haven't thought of.Well this needs to be broken into a few different parts because there are multiple arguments going on that are getting put together.
1: Is it common at high MMR?
2: Is it unbalanced?
3: Is it abusive?
The first argument, is it common, requires a few things. First, we'd need to have a definition of common. Some people this might be one out of ten games, of rothers it could be every other game. Then we'd need a standard for what exactly we are discussing - is it the full DH / OTR / BU / DS build, or if a person is using a portion of that build does it also count.
Beyond definitions though, you'd probably need a data set. Over the last 50 games I encountered X Y number of times. That's boring, and not everyone will believe it, but it makes things clearer.
On the second argument, is it unbalanced, discussing personal MMR is not critical to it, we need to discuss what else survivors might do. For the sake of argument, let's say the above build is very common. What if it wasn't? Would survivors be running heal builds to trade off body blocks? Gen rush? Sabo squad? If a survivor dedicates an entire build to something it should get value, to consider the value we'd need to look at what else a high MMR survivor could do.
The third argument, which is the meat of your original post, really has nothing to do with high MMR and that discussion was a distraction from the issue. This is an ethical discussion on player behavior and the intent of perks.
My opinion is tunneling will always be a part of the game as long as it has an elimination format and survivors will have perks to try and counter it. I see nothing wrong of trying to use those perks in an offensive way because it comes with trade offs (time not spent on gens for example). Is the trade off balanced? Well, that goes back to the second issue.
This does mean that survivors have to accept that killers might tunnel. I think that leads to boring games, but its a core part of the game design.
-
@Blueberry said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3689609#Comment_3689609
That is a fair point. However I'd also argue that over 10k+ hours gives me a ridiculously large sample size of data to judge most games by that is quite out of the norm compared to most anyone else making a statement like that. I'd also like to point out that I never said it was reflective of everyone else's. All I pointed out was what is being run perk wise in high mmr games and how the survivors play there.
However I'd also argue that over 10k+ hours gives me a ridiculously large sample size of data to judge most games by that is quite out of the norm compared to most anyone else making a statement like that.But at that point you aren't having a discussion. A discussion requires some standard that might make you change your view. If everyone who says 'here is why I think you are wrong' you dismiss for having a different hour level, what exactly do you want people to respond with?
Take the example WolfyWood gave of this means they aren't using gen rush perks. I see killer who say they are super MMR and a gazillion hours saying those are the key problem (deja + commodious + hyper focus). Which 10k+ hour killer am I supposed to believe? On the other hand if we have a logical discussion of how games play without a reliance on just personal experience we at least create the possibility of taking a step toward a conclusion.
Edit: Nebula beat me to this.
-
@MechWarrior3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3689319#Comment_3689319
that’s understandable completely, but you think Freddy has a low Kilreigh? He’s at almost 60%. 😅
I reread my post a few times and I think I see where there is a misunderstanding. I wrote:
>Freddy's kill rate is the same reason that Nurse's kill rate is low
This isn't to imply that Freddy's kill rate is low. The thread already establishes that his kill rate is high so I didn't think it needed to be repeated. Still, I should have written: "Freddy's kill rate (63%) is high for the same reason that Nurse's kill rate (55%) is low."
Both Freddy and Nurse's kill rates confuse people who think the rates should be reversed. I think the reason why is the same: many players end up wasting time trying to succeed with their power when an M1 (on a normal speed killer) would be quicker.
-
Lots of good answers in here, but I think its actually a different reason.
Freddy's kill rate is the same reason that Nurse's kill rate is low, difficulty of playing the killer. Many killers try to use their power when they should just M1. While a cracked Blight can rush and down all the survivors within minutes of match start, there are Blights out there failing to connect their rushes. Huntress can hit cross map hatchets, but also some end up wasting time throwing hatchets into walls.
Many killers end up wasting time trying to use their power when going for an M1 would be more than sufficient. Freddy is an M1 killer with one pretty weak power that is quick to deploy and a second power that is simple, easy to use, and allows you to cover the map. His skill ceiling is not super high, but its also not that hard to play him.
Basically: his design means players can't screw the game up for themselves.
-
Broadly, stronger killers are going to benefit from perks regardless of what they are.
On the idea of linking perks to the area they activate - I wouldn't really have any problem with that. It would be a pretty big nerf to many killers and perks, but it would make then more easy to balance.
-
Going to agree with most people here. Crouch tech is a thing against multiple killers and looks silly when you suddenly dodge a billy chainsaw because you are on stairs. "Pluto" seems fine, even based on the video, the first blight rush cannot hit, if the blight rushes too close to survivors and they counter this, that seems fine.
-
I've been in games where a survivor pulling a DS has allowed us time to finish the gens. The thing is, rarely does it actually save the person being targeted. Sometimes OTR will discourage a tunnel because you have a second go of it, but no reason not to chase the DS user.
To use it you've got to both have a team mindset and already be really good with survivor.
-
@CountOfTheFog said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3686156#Comment_3686156
I've been playing since Monday night when I bought the DLC, no sleep, just breaks for food and shower.
I haven't played a single match on the new map. Could there be an issue with my account or something?
I find this incredibly bizarre. Offerings for Ichorous Loam just send me to Garden of Joy as well
I was considering filling out a support ticket but wanted your thoughts if possible.
I seem to be going to an incredibly narrow handful of maps unless an offering is made
I have yet to play on the map as well, I've played a bunch of games, and I'm on PC. I highly doubt its anything strange, just random chance.
-
I just played against Skull Merchant and Unknown in back to back games.
Not a chance the Unknown is the new Skull Merchant. One of those games was actually fun.
-
@WolfyWood said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3686044#Comment_3686044
Yeah but internal testing can only show so much.
I feel as though some of their decisions are a result of not actively playing the live game.
I dont think they should be forced to play during their free time but definitely during work hours.
Of course this is all speculation on my end, so they very well could already be doing so. It just doesn't feel like it based on their recent choices.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3686094#Comment_3686094
There a few issues with the author analogy, mainly that authors absolutely do read their own books during the editing process, and also books are not similar to live service pvp games at all.
Dbd is not a pve game. One can have all the stats from internal testing but knowing how real people interact with what you put out, and playing with others in an authentic environment is very important.
There a few issues with the author analogy, mainly that authors absolutely do read their own books during the editing process, and also books are not similar to live service pvp games at all.The equivalent to editing is all that in house testing that they do.
Books and live service pvp might be very different for us the players, but they share a lot of similarities for the those who make them. It's a creative endeavor, with long hours spent pouring over minor details, to create a product that its creator will never experience in the same way as those who consume it.
Dbd is not a pve game. One can have all the stats from internal testing but knowing how real people interact with what you put out, and playing with others in an authentic environment is very important.The question though is how much you want them to play the game on live servers? I imagine most of the devs play at least occasionally on live servers, but if they were adding the hours of even a casual player on top of working on the game there would be very little time for anything else.
A bigger problem is that we potentially get the devs to actually behave the way some players accuse them of being, i.e. either killer or survivor mains. You could take a group of thousand hour players and ask them what direction the game should go and get a lot of different answers. If the devs were actually factoring their plays into decision making we might have balance decisions come in that were based much more on their experience instead of the community.
-
I'll give the other point of view on this even if I'll be the clear minority in the thread.
My first exposure to DbD (other than one brief game not long after it came out) was Deathgarden and its connection to the DbD community. I loved that game, but one of the clear problems that emerged was the difference between those who migrated over from the DbD community and those who were new. One of the huge dividing lines was the DbD players saying that the goal was to maximize points, while new players seemed focused on winning the game (the main issue was that the killer equivalent could kill the survivor equivalent after one down, but if they killed them after multiple downs they got more points).
I hated that design element and still do. If there is a strategy or perk that makes one side too powerful/game unfun, it should be removed/changed. I think a lot of problems with the game go back to the idea that players could be either sweating or playing for blood points, which creates massive problems in balancing the game and anger at players if they play 'the wrong way'.
To me a game should not have to bribe you to play in the "right way".
-
As @AbsolutGrndZer0 said, its very unusual for developers to actively play their games. It would be liking asking an author if they read their own books for fun.
Many has mentioned that she plays the game.
@xltechno said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3686044#Comment_3686044
I can't help but wish they would do more work, but perhaps bhvr's culture is very lax.
They are reportedly one of the best game dev companies to work in the sense that they don't expect their employees to work 80 hour weeks and actually let them have holidays off.
-
@menacing_goose said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3685862#Comment_3685862
I’m not saying you specifically but many people in the dbd community label adren as a crutch perk
The community doesn't really have agreed definitions on anything. Maybe you'll get someone who comes in and is like 'yes, I called adren a crutch, here's my reasons why, and here are my thoughts on the other perks', but that would require quite a bit of setup.
-
Don't really pay attention to end game chat if its negative. Some people are trolls and are just trying to get under your skin - I doubt they even think they were tunneled, they are just trying to upset you.
I've always thought of tunneling as the idea of going after the first survivor you find until they are eliminated, basically ignoring everything else. However people use the definition in extremely different ways, making any discussions about tunneling virtually impossible.
-
@GeneralSkien said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3684907#Comment_3684907
A factor that is somewhat forgotten is enjoyment. It’s not fun to watch a survivor you spent so long to down get instantly picked back up with zero counter play, it’s demoralizing and and it incredibly unfun.
the deal with flashlights, pallet saves, and hell even flashbangs all require good positioning, and timing. And they all have counterplay to it, MFT + Buckle up doesn’t, it undoes all effort in a chase, and puts you in a lose lose situation.
no matter who you chase they get advantage, thanks to the endurance to reposition to a significantly safer tile, undoing all work put in
A factor that is somewhat forgotten is enjoyment. It’s not fun to watch a survivor you spent so long to down get instantly picked back up with zero counter play, it’s demoralizing and and it incredibly unfun.Sure, it's just a totally different topic than balance discussions. What is or is not fun is the most important element of the game, but its also the most subjective.
-
@Iron_Cutlass said:
I just wanted to address a lot of the claims that try to defend For The People and Buckle Up since I personally feel like they fail to actually address the issues and weaknesses of the perk combo.
At times it feels more like people are intentionally beating around the bush to keep a busted perk combo in the game as opposed to addressing issues in balance that exist, and this is an issue that persists for both sides (Eruption, Dead Hard, etc. etc.).
”Just don’t slug.”
I really hate For The People + Buckle Up, and anytime I bring it up, I always get the response of “just don’t slug.” Ah yes, let me just not slug… even though Im recovering from hitting a Basic/Special Attack.
I have committed the awful crime of leaving a Survivor on the floor (against my will) for 0.02 seconds and got punished for it… therefore it is fair and balanced and Im just bad at the game and so and so forth.
“It only works in SWFs since you cannot easily track your teammates in SoloQ.”
There is this magically thing called “Aura Reading”. You can easily just bring a key that tracks teammates, or bring perks like Bond or Empathy.
Yes, I know this will require more investment into it but both perks are really good information perks to begin with and can help your team in many situations. There is a reason why I almost always run Bond in SoloQ, the information alone is insanely valuable.
“It requires two perk slots.”
Okay and?
Perks are typically stronger if they have synergies with one another, in fact we see busted perk combos on both sides, so realistically the amount of perks being used is not as important as the end result.
”Hit the Healthy Survivor instead of the Injured Survivor.”
This theoretically puts the Killer into a lose/lose situation.
- Hit the Healthy Survivor, both make distance, you lose a down.
- Hit the Injured Survivor, the Healthy Survivor will just pick them up and they both get Endurance.
These type of lose/lose situations are why Decisive Strike got nerfed in Patch 6.1.0 to be disabled during EGC.
None of this is to create an “Us VS Them” of course.
Both sides to have busted stuff. Ive already made posts before about the current Killer meta in the past. I realistically feel as if both should be addressed.
As a person who would like BU+FTP to go at this point because it usually hurts the survivors more than helps, but thinks the complaints about it are overblown, let's look at the points:
”Just don’t slug.”I've never seen this used as a defense, but I'm sure some people say it. They would be wrong.
“It only works in SWFs since you cannot easily track your teammates in SoloQ.”Kind of the opposite of this. BU+FTP is really the only option you can use outside of SWF. SWFs can organize pallet saves, going down away from walls, etc. If you are soloq this is the only reliable option you have. Take it away and the difference between SWFs and soloq is even more drastic.
“It requires two perk slots.”If you take this as the only argument, sure, its not a good one. But its not meant to say because two perks slots are used it can be anything, but because its two perk slots it should be stronger than something one perk slot can do.
”Hit the Healthy Survivor instead of the Injured Survivor.”This theoretically puts the Killer into a lose/lose situation.Hit the Healthy Survivor, both make distance, you lose a down.Hit the Injured Survivor, the Healthy Survivor will just pick them up and they both get Endurance.
These type of lose/lose situations are why Decisive Strike got nerfed in Patch 6.1.0 to be disabled during EGC.Under this logic all situations are lose / lose. Do I go after one survivor while others do gens? Do I hook the downed survivor and let others heal?
What you are calling lose / lose are trade offs and that is the basis of the killer role.
-
Reasons why BU+FTP is not a problem
1 - It takes a survivor off of gens. You get 33% slowdown.
2 - The trade offs the survivors do for it are inferior to other methods they have (pallet saves / flashlight / flashbang / sabo) - its easier to do, but more costly.
3 - You get a free injury, if you manage to body block or otherwise catch one of those two survivors quickly, you've made time.
4 - Multiple perk slots to use effectively, especially if they throw bond into the mix.
The trade off on the survivor side, what the perk slots could otherwise be doing plus the time away from gens, justifies a strong effect.
-
@StibbityStabbity said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3683760#Comment_3683760
The issue is that Killers need to be designed and balanced in a bit of a vacuum. If you balance them around "possible bonuses" of any kind, you might gimp them when those bonuses aren't in play. Conversely, if they are balanced around strong opponents, you might over power them. Therefor, Killers likely NEED to be designed and balanced around the concept of playing on completely even terms, and without perks to muddy up the perception of how balanced they are. I will be the first to admit this has problems, but with how DbD is currently designed, it's the best way to do it.
Therefor, Killers likely NEED to be designed and balanced around the concept of playing on completely even terms, and without perks to muddy up the perception of how balanced they are. I will be the first to admit this has problems, but with how DbD is currently designed, it's the best way to do it.I get what you are saying, but its just not how the game plays out. The game tries to not just balance off skill expression, which is all most games have to worry about, but that every player has their own difficulty slider in terms of addons they bring.
This used to be somewhat balanced when the grind was harder and having Iri addons took a little bit of investment. This has morphed into most players though somewhat handicapping themselves - this is killers running less meta addons or playing by a rulebook of some kind (same on the survivor side, just less stark).
It's probably the design element I least like about the game, but without changing it I don't see how you could balance the game around hypothetical state, instead they need to balance around the game the way people are actually playing it (which is its own nightmare given the meta has evolved very differently in different regions).
-
@ratcoffee said:
I've been told many times on this forum that in ideal balance, killers will never get less than 2 kills a game. I'd love to see other people's feedback on that.
There are only two ways I could think of that such a design could make sense:
1: Make 4ks also almost impossible in any game. In such a game the design would be a true 1v1v1v1v1 where the survivors actively worked against each other.
2: Make the survivors a true team with a clear win condition. Then you could balance the game off whatever metric you wanted. You could give the killer a 75% win rate, but give the survivors the win if a single survivor escaped.
The first one would be a totally different game, I don't think the second would work for an elimination format.
-
@Ayodam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3683973#Comment_3683973
I think Nightlight perceives matches as 4v1–even though it’s been confirmed (I think by Peanits? Or maybe Mandy, or even Cote on stream) trials are evaluated as 1v1v1v1v1–which is probably why the kill rate and win rate, per Nightlight, differ. Since the two are tethered the kill rate should be what the win rate is.
even though it’s been confirmed (I think by Peanits? Or maybe Mandy, or even Cote on stream) trials are evaluated as 1v1v1v1v1–which is probably why the kill rate and win rate, per Nightlight, differ. Since the two are tethered the kill rate should be what the win rate is.I feel like there has been a lot of confusion on this lately.
BHVR doesn't have a win rate for the game. It's a concept the community created and when the devs talk about it they are usually reflecting that same community creation. The game gives you multiple metrics to evaluate your performance - blood points, pips, kill/escape, etc. What you want to be your win condition is largely up to you, though the community has created a standardized metrics - 1k or less loss, 2k draw, 3k or better win. If we're only using MMR as our metric, kill rate and win rate are the exact same thing.
The 1v1v1 nature has two purposes - survivors don't have to be a team, they are allowed to played completely independent if they so wish. You can't issue a report for someone being a bad teammate. But that doesn't mean survivors who play as a team are somehow playing wrong - altruism points are a thing. If you want to play the game where you are out for yourself, BHVR is cool with it, and if you think it is appropriate to sacrifice yourself for the others, BHVR is also cool with it.
As an aside: the lack of win conditions was even more stark is their other asymmetrical game Deathgarden - lacking win conditions seems to be a design philosophy of theirs.
MMR necessitated some type of win condition, thus the escape/kill metric. But even there survivors have a team element - whether you gain or lose MMR is dependent on if you escape/die, but the amount you gain / lose is influenced by the result of the other survivors. So from an MMR stand point the game is not team focused, but team influenced.
-
@StibbityStabbity said:
In your opinion, how many kills should Killers be balanced around, and why?
This should assume that the Killer and Survivors are equally skilled, so this should NOT make odd assumptions about one side being overly skilled against an opposing side that is new to the game. Also, this should NOT factor in perks vs perks. This should be vanilla vs vanilla. A baseline. Lower kills per match would balance them towards being weaker, higher kills toward stronger. SoloQ and SWF should not be factored into this.
I ask this because I have seen some comments here and there that suggest the playerbase actually has wildly different expectations of how strong Killers should be. Some seem to feel that Killers (overall and not specifically) have too many setbacks to be effective, while others seem to feel that Killers are too easy and should have to be challenged more for kills.
Also, it's worth discussing the idea of how many kills should be seen as "default" when a player is playing normally against an equally skilled opposing side. Should the challenge for Killer be to get a single kill at all, or to kill the entire opposing side?
Edit: Assuming this thread gets enough feedback, I might keep a tally so everyone can see the current "score".
I don't mind the 60% rate that much. I get the idea of making survivor escapes more challenging to be more worthwhile. As a player who prefers survivor, I doubt I'd enjoy it as much if I was escaping every other game.
I also don't think the 60% rate is anywhere close to the biggest problem the game has - the presence / ease of certain playstyles on both can really undermine the game.
But if it was up to me to shoot for a percentage, the 60 rate feels a little too high. I'd like it pushed down closer to 55 and see how that feels.
This should be vanilla vs vanilla. A baseline. Lower kills per match would balance them towards being weaker, higher kills toward stronger. SoloQ and SWF should not be factored into this.I just don't think this is possible though. One of the game issues is that it is much easier for the killer to go at 100% of their potential (best perks, top addons, complete focus on the game) then survivors. To be at 100% survivors have to get four people together, experience as a team, and each of them has to be playing at their best. To try and balance kill rates around a world in which killers and survivors of perfectly equal skill always matched each other would be impossible - but if it was possible, 50% kill rate would be the appropriate answer.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3683542#Comment_3683542
And then you would claim I go against low-MMR-Survivors.
I already know how struggling Killer Mains argue, I dont need to hop on a 4K-Streak with a weak Killer to not advance in this argument in the slightest.
Killer mains do more to convince me in threads like this that there is a massive balance problem in this game than survivors.
Look at the standard: 20 4ks in a row - the fact that this is even an expectation by certain players shows the problems. Like if you took the challenge and only got 15 4ks that would somehow prove killers were actually balanced?
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3682495#Comment_3682495
You might want to reread their comments. They specifically say that's related to MMR adjustments alone. We already all know that MMR adjustments are not related to win or loss conditions. It only exists to try to make future matches more fair. That's why in many games you can go down in mmr on a win and up in mmr on a loss. It doesn't care about win or lose, it cares about adjustmenting future matches for more fair play. You'll note that the devs specifically say in regardingto MMR they treat a 2k as MMR neutral or a draw. It's not enough to move the needle for adjusting the MMR. That's entirely unrelated to a win or a loss. You literally cannot have a draw in a 1 v 1 in DBD. A survivor either escapes or they do not. There is no situation at all where neither the killer wins nor the survivor wins (unless you count the server crashing, ha). It's four distinct 1 v 1 situations. It's dumb, but that's how it's designed. They need to change it to team vs team so survivors all win or lose together, imho. If they did, then we would have draws with a 2k AND survivors would be encouraged to work together since they win or lose together instead of every man for himself. The every man for himself doesn't come from me, either. The devs have stated that's the design on multiple occasions and even on live streams. I think that's the wrong approach, though.
They need to change it to team vs team so survivors all win or lose together, imho.Let's start here. I'm not discussing what the game design ought to be. I'm saying if we take your statements about what the game design is, the conclusions you reach aren't logical. It's like the argument that the kill rate should be 62.5% for a 50% win rate, its not that you've done a calculation wrong, the premise that you used to structure the equation is flawed.
It's four distinct 1 v 1 situations.For the sake of argument, I'll treat this as absolutely true. The match is 4 1 v 1s. If so, having any win condition for the match overall doesn't make sense. Saying a 2k is a win/loss/draw is irrelevant. You won twice and lost twice. 3k is not a "win", its 3 wins and a loss.
And if we do treat the game like 4 distinct 1 v 1s we know precisely what the win rate was as of the last data set: 58.5% as the overall average. Because if a kill is a win, and killers kill 58.5% of the time, that's their win rate. Meanwhile survivor win rate is 41.5%, Whether that is good game design or not is a totally different question, but if its 4 1 v 1s, that's the win rate.
You can't argue from the perspective that its four separate games for one part of the argument, and then switch and treat the match like a single game.
You might want to reread their comments. They specifically say that's related to MMR adjustments alone.Because MMR is the only metric they ever gave.
-
@Mechanix82 said:
First off why does the killer have so much info at the lobby screen. Surv have none. Surv have to find everything out in game. That the way it should be for both sides. Killers should not be able to switch to light born because they see flashlights in the lobby. Secondly I had three games back to back where I was tunneled for 5 gens not saying I shouldn't of need I was running an obnoxious build that deserves it. Not a slight against the killer but I'm on hook struggle no one else has been hooked and I get left twice and a screwed up 3 MAN SAVE on the last how as P30 plus survivors can't make a clean save with 3 people. Or understand that if you just trade that gives 2 more muns for us to heal and come get you. Please learn the main aspects of the game
That the way it should be for both sides. Killers should not be able to switch to light born because they see flashlights in the lobby.That's generally the idea. If survivors overload on a certain item killer can respond. I don't think it is a critical element of the game, but that part makes sense.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3682293#Comment_3682293
Pretty sure I explained this to you already, but riddle me this: What are the kill and winrates across the following three matches?
Match 1: 0K
Match 2: 3K
Match 3: 3K
I admire your dedication to trying to explain this.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3682317#Comment_3682317
The game is 1 vs many. It's not 1 team vs another team. The devs already have pointed this out numerous times. Every survivor has their own win condition. You can't draw on a 1 v 1 in this game. A survivor either escapes or they don't. It's a 1 v 1x4 game by design. A draw only occurs when neither side wins or loses which isn't possible in dbd.
The killer failing to win on average is absolutely not "balanced". You are confusing kill ratea and win rates. If on average killers only get 2k, then on average they are failing to win their matches. That's an incredibly weak position in an asymmetrical game with a power role.
I'm aware that a 2k is considered MMR neutral (or a draw if you want to use that word), but MMR adjustments are entirely separate from wins or losses. MMR only cares about trying to make future games more fair. Some games MMR will drop even if you win, or might go up even if you lose. An experienced player might not gain ranking if beating a new player, and a new player might not drop in ranking for getting beat by an experienced player. Ranking adjustments are rarely strictly tied to simply winning or losing, and that is also how it works in DBD. It uses strict kill count definitions to go up or down. A 2k isn't enough to warrant any movement on the adjustments, so it's MMR neutral even if the killer lost. MMR adjustments are not a reward for winning or a penalty for losing, they disregard the match result and only cares to adjust future matches for fairer play.
The devs already have pointed this out numerous times. Every survivor has their own win condition.If you're going to focus on the devs, the devs also use the word draw to describe a 2k. The following comment is about how to treat a 2k.
@Peanits said:
I can be that official source. Generally speaking, it's a draw. Your rating might go up or down a little depending on the ratings of the people you killed vs. the people who escaped, but it's likely not going to budge very much either way.
Full thread link: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/2912408
Hyper focusing on the the same result between two sides for the definition of draw neglects that this is an asymmetrical game.
If you want to get technical on that point, the game has zero win conditions. There are escapes, deaths, points, pips, etc. The mere fact we are calling something a win or a loss means we are outside of what the game provides to us.
You can just as easily call a 2k a win under the logic of why it would be a loss.
Also, saying that the survivors are not a team and that's the devs stance is not correct. The devs have left such things up to the players. Being I'm going through dev posts, here's a recent example where Peanits refers to the survivors as a team
@Peanits said:
No, it is not. You were doing something well within the rules that has a purpose to you and your team. Nothing about that is toxic.
What that person said after the match is toxic, however, and I hope you sent in a report for that.
Thread here: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3625891
Basically
If you want to use MMR, 2k is a draw for the killer, or if you prefer, an even result
If you want to throw out MMR, there's no objective standard for calling anything in the game a win, loss, or draw - but the community has very broadly set guidelines for the killer role, 3+ kills a win, 1 or less kills a loss, 2 kill neither of the above (insert your preferred word)
-
We'll see, from a business perspective I don't think it would make sense. The anniversary attracts players back to the game as is. Licenses also bring players back to the game. Spreading those things out likely results in the best player base retention (compared to having one super event which then sees a drop off).
-
People for some reason think the 3rd hook state is more important than the others. The goal is to maximize the amount of time in chase. It doesn't matter if the chases go 45, 45, 75, or 75, 45, 45.
If anything, extending the first chase is probably the most valuable because that is when 3 other survivors should be on gen.
Using shack pallet before the window is a waste, but the hook stages don't matter.
-
As killer: if someone kills themselves on hook early, I'll two hook the others and then let them go if they continued to try and play.
As survivor: If the killer has killed two survivors and slugs the third, I don't stealth it out. I'll do something to call attention to myself if he wants the 4k. Do my part for the survivor on the ground so they don't have to lay there for 4 minutes.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3681836#Comment_3681836
Solid set of perks. Personally I would have gone with Lithe/SB instead of Background Player for that build since they have more overall utility, but if it works for you i can't criticize too hard, and my build uses BGP too.
Been going into games a lot with this build lately:
-Empathy to track injured friends
-Background player, to run into position to use...
-Saboteur, to prevent the killer from hooking the survivor
-Break Out, to run alongside and help the survivor wiggle off before the killer finds a new hook
Been working for me even in solos and I feel I'm getting better at predicting killer and teammate decisions. This has me at around 50% escape rate compared to the average of 40%. preventing hook states is strong
I'd run bond instead of empathy. I used to be a huge empathy user, but generally found with a sabo style build if they are outside the bond range I can't help them and bond gives me info on other survivors. But yeah, sounds like a solid sabo build.
I change my builds up pretty frequently (though probably stay within about 20 or so perks), but the last build I used was:
Off the record, fixated, sprint burst, quick and quiet (I was doing a hide within killer radius archive) with a medkit, bandages, and a styptic.
Don't track escape rates (but they've been good during the event), but last two games:
Died vs a Dredge in 2e - this game should have been a 4e, we were hitting gens well, and I managed to run the dredge while the others set up Weaving Spiders. We were down to 2 gens left with only one hook when the spiders player got hooked. I was on a gen, one survivor in chase, and the other free, and he did nothing for the whole first hook stage. I ran across the map for the save after the chaser went down, no idea if that other player just went afk or something. I died after the gens were complete going for a save and the others survivors left.
Given Hatch vs Myers with all gens done - Infinite T3 Myers. Good game, the sprint burst helped early to get away from his stalk, and I used quick and quiet a few times to make vaults later and stealth away with fixated. Finished the final gen right as the last survivor other than me was sacrificed. Myers caught me before I could get anywhere and gave hatch.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3682139#Comment_3682139
That would be awful. That would mean the killers on average win all of their matches. The middle ground between not winning and winning is 62.5%. The devs want it to be 60% which means winning roughly half their matches with an occasional extra loss in there. At the moment, a lot of killers are actually in the low to mid 50 percenttile on kills...way underperforming.
Unless playing on PC has radically changed his viewpoint, he's being very sarcastic.
The 62.5% is only true if you presume an equal distribution of game end conditions (0k, 1k, 2k, 3k, 4k).
More importantly, the thread is about discussing whether the devs kill rate design is actually good.
Additionally, you say 'a lot of killers are actually in the low to mid 50'. That's incorrect. A single killer is in the low 50s, Doctor, and the most likely explanation I've heard for this is his use to farm shards.
-
Trying to get value out of MfT requires a number of steps:
1: Run most of your build around it - dead hard, styptic, decisive strike, another exhaustion perk, and probably adrenaline.
2: Go out of your ways to get the killer attention
3: Be good enough in chase that the 3% will make a difference
4: Hope the killer is bad enough that they don't either bait out the endurance or just go for someone else
5: The rest of your team stays gen focused while you do all of this
If all of the above is true, then yeah you can get a small portion of the value MfT used to be able to yield. But usually when I encounter it I feel like someone is trying to show that it can be used instead of just running resilience.
-
Stealth is an important part of the game, and an element I enjoy (the tension of hiding somewhere, the killer running towards you, worried you've been spotted, and then the killer moving on is very rewarding), but it does need to be balanced. Given how powerful it can be needing some perk slots seems reasonable. I dislike the guessing game between distortion/calm spirit on perk load outs at the moment, but certainly don't have a problem with the idea of needing a perk slot to block off killer perks.
I think scratch marks should stay right as they are. Running should come with a penalty.
Chases should be very hard to escape and most strategies to escape them carry quite a bit of risk. Early in a chase you can try walking to drop your scratch marks, use quick and quiet to jump in a locker, etc. but all of these carry a risk that if the killer realizes what happened the chase has actually been shortened considerably, which is as it should be because if you do lose a killer entirely the survivors have gained a substantial amount of time.
-
Surprised it could result in a ban. I thought this would fall under old SM rules that the SM doesn't have to leave her 3 gen, but survivors don't have to enter it either.
I do agree with @KateMain86 that the burden is more on the killer here. The survivor has an an incredibly small chance to advance the game by forcing the locker pick via a wiggle, there is no way the killer can advance the game without opening the locker.
-
@faeri said:
I started feeling like I’m burnt out by this game couple days ago. I got over a thousand hours in the past year and I spent a good amount of money, own all dlcs and a good bunch of cosmetics. (I’m not kidding, I went overboard and prob spent at least 1k between battle pass rift, characters, skins etc).
So I feel bad for the fact this game stresses me so much I feel burnt out. Whenever I get on, I do one or two matches and want to quit and it’s been like this for the past week. Should I just take a break?
I feel like I’m getting out against sweats, the only matches I do either me or my teammates get tunneled and often the rest slugged.
I wish there was a way to make it less stressing, by having voice chat or disabling mmr.
What can I do?
Taking a break is pretty normal. I really enjoy the game, but that doesn't mean there aren't weeks every now and then where I don't touch it.
If you think having voice chat would make it less stressful, there are reddit and discord places to find groups.
@WolfyWood said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/408781/burnt-out-by-the-game
Best to take a break, I'm in a similar boat to you, 2.5k+ hrs in the span of one year, tons of money spent but the game feels really boring atm, doesn't help that old DBD looked like so much fun. I wish someone would make a private server of pre 6.1 DBD I'd play the hell out of that honestly.
I wish someone would make a private server of pre 6.1 DBD I'd play the hell out of that honestly.That exists, but it looks like it takes quite a bit to setup so I'm not sure its worth it.