crogers271
crogers271
About
- Username
- crogers271
- Joined
- Visits
- 8,432
- Last Active
Comments
-
@OrangeBear said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3621518#Comment_3621518
Mobile gaming in general is very popular because it's very accessible.
So many people have phones they appeal to nearly everyone because of how versatile they are
Gaming PCs and Consoles are a commitment that only gamers would make
This.
There likely isn't much crossover in terms of people who actively play both mobile and regular. However, lots of people play games on mobile that have never even touched a console or PC game.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3621507#Comment_3621507
The clutter issue as you put it would just be the same amount as Sadako. TVs are generally in the same area as generators, and they dont self destruct when the generator finishes. As for coding... ALL killers have some unique coding. Having part of Freddy's unique coding to show finished gens as purple shouldn't be that weird.
Clutter: It would be more. That amount of teleport locations would always be up. It's very rare other than the very start of the match for Sadako to have all of her TVs up.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3620608#Comment_3620608
They've already shown that they can change the gen displays. You have perks that change the aura colors and the event does this too. I don't see why they couldn't pick an unused color.
It's not a color issue. Talking about killer displays, all killers have the same display in that the code shows them unfinished gens. All killers have access to the same perks, so the code doesn't need to change the display whether it is a Xeno or a Bubba, so a perk like surveillance acts the same on both of them.
If Freddy had access to finished gens, then there would be need to be unique code for Freddy.
Additionally it would likely be a clutter issue for many players. Even if the ability existed most of the time the killer would want to teleport to the unfinished gens. I can imagine a situation where I want to teleport across map in a hurry and I have to waste time moving around to get the teleport past a finished gen that is in the middle.
Add to this when he was coded the idea of teleporting was new. Things like Sadako adding in her own teleport to device was probably influenced by what they learned from Freddy. When/if they rework him they may think of a better/different way to approach it.
You asked why it is the way it is, that's my guess, some combination of the above. I highly doubt its just because BHVR hates Freddy.
-
@Mushwin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3621458#Comment_3621458
I believe it's a partner, I am just unsure why efforts from BHVR themselves aren't pushing this to be on all platforms, all they do for mobile? I mean what is it about such that makes it more better etc then other based consoles or computer etc? I am just wondering?
Licensing agreements between the mobile version and standard game are two separate things. Devs have talked about trying to get the licenses for the cosmetics for the base game, but they don't inherently have a right to them.
As a guess, I suspect the gacha system brings in a ton of money, allowing NetEase to spend more on licensed cosmetics and art development.
-
Its bad game design.
In a good game design once the game is 'decided' it should speed up. In a capture the flag style game if its a mismatch its going to be over quickly, in control point the one team will easily control the match because they hold the target. Games only get drawn out when they are close (which is how it should because those are the interesting games).
Generally, DbD follows this. If there is a mismatch between survivors and killer one way or the other it won't be a long game (beyond intentional BMing which is a different issue in any game). Slugging for the 4k and hiding for 4 minutes are logical plays based on the game design if the player cares enough about the outcome, but it results in incredibly boring situations where the game asks the players to either accept boredom or one side to play in a less than non-optimal way.
A simple solution would be to radically speed up the bleed out timer of the downed survivor in this situation.
When video games become a slog something is wrong with the design.
-
Anti-facecamp has worked great. I could see an argument that the timer should be a little shorter than it is, but overall the feature has been solid.
Hook camp Bubba is dead, I used to have days where I'd run into him multiple times.
Proxy camping is still a thing, but far more feasible to get the unhook now, even if its a trade. Much easier to pop a reassurance.
The basekit BT gives the survivor time to get to a loop. It doesn't prevent tunneling, but at least allows them to play the game.
-
Isn't that kind of the point? Some killers should be easier or harder to see. I find it harder to track him at loops or when he is approaching a gen, but that just feels like the way it should be.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3619256#Comment_3619256
At this point, I'm not sure if youre just trolling. You keep asking me to define a DBD draw, and I keep telling you there is literally no situation in dbd where no one wins or loses...hence me saying there's literally no way to draw.
I keep going back to the survivor team as an example to show how flawed the idea is to consider them a single whole team. I'm talking about your point of view that the survivors win or lose together, so a 2k is a draw. It doesn't work.
if the killer gets a 2k, he didnt draw because who is he drawing against? A draw requires an opposing team to also draw with. There are 5 teams hes competing against. Who did he equally neither win or lose against? When I say survivor team, im saying based on your point of view, that they are a team and in turn in or lose together. Reality check - they dont. You say half their team wins and the other half loses. I'm saying that doesn't make sense. Teams win/draw/lose together. You're saying if half their team wins, then it's a draw with the killer. However, BHVR already stated that every survivor who escapes wins. You can't have both at the same time. You can't have winners on one team and no winners on the other and claim its a draw. With a draw, NO one wins or loses. Im just pointing out how flawed the concept is that survivors are a team and can draw but still have winners.
It's not 1 team vs another team. It's 1 team vs 4 teams. Should it be that way? I personally don't think so - I think the survivors should be considered a team and win or lose together, but BHVR disagrees. Regardless that I feel it should be 1 killer vs a survivor team, that's simply not how they designed it, so I can't just pretend that my preferred way is reality. The devs make the call on what the reality is. When all is said and done, drawing isn't possible with how BHVR sets it up.
Again, though, MMR adjustments are entirely separate discussion. MMR adjustments typically don't care about who wins or loses - they are merely designed to try to make future matches more balanced. For example, a chess rating of 1600 might not even lose ranking if he loses to a grandmaster, and a grandmaster might not even gain ranking if he wins vs a 1600. MMR in games don't simply take wins and losses as their rating system. That's why a 2k is considered mmr neutral. It wasn't enough to go up or down in MMR regardless of the killer not winning. Mostly a flawed MMR style, but that's what we have. Some people suggest it should be based off of hook states instead of kills.
I hate to bump threads when I've been away for a couple days, but I saw the word trolling and needed to address it.
At this point, I'm not sure if youre just trolling. You keep asking me to define a DBD draw, and I keep telling you there is literally no situation in dbd where no one wins or loses...hence me saying there's literally no way to draw.Let me clear about this: I have never asked you this question. I take the suggestion of trolling seriously and went back and reread my posts to see if I mistyped something: I never asked this.
I have asked you repeatedly how you define a condition that is neither a win or a loss.
You get pedantic that a draw has to be true for both sides, e.g. requires teams. I disagree. The essence of draw is neither win or loss, not that it has to be true for both sides (because in most games the only way for a draw to occur is if its true for both sides, however this game is asymmetrical).
That is why I've stressed if you have a better word for neither won nor lost we can go to it.
if the killer gets a 2k, he didnt draw because who is he drawing against?Then did he win? Did he lose? If so, why?
It sounds like he won twice and lost twice, which sounds like a draw.
-
@KidDope25 said:
Otz made a suggestion years ago but he’s seem to have forgotten that suggestion. I remember it to make her like Oni somewhat. Starts out normal movement speed like 115 killers but can’t blink and has to acquire something like blood to charge up her blinks. Then once she enters normal Nurse mode she can blink like normal but is back to default Nurse speed. And then eventually she runs out. Therefor basekit Nurse is still there but dialed back so she’s not able to literally 4k slug at 5 gens every match.
That's a pretty good idea and I think I've seen a couple of people approach it from a similar angle. Basically, some way that nurse's power is temporary and her speed is buffed when the power is not available (@ohheyitsbobcat Spasmodic Breath argument also gets there).
@xEa said:
Is the Nurse OP? Yes
Is the Nurse unfun to play against? Most certainly, yes.
Should she get nerfed? No, i dont think so.
You might think i am kidding, but i am not. Let me explain why she is fine:
Playing killer can be sometimes very stressful, and apparently loosing as killer (i somewhat agree as a 50/50 player overall) is more impactful for some people then loosing as it is as survivor. Because of that, some killer mains (not all, i dont mean you!) are extremly whiny and ask for ridiculous buffs even in times like these, where basicaly every killer can stomp survivor without much effort.
But because we have Nurse, they can simply jump on her after a rough game, get an easy 4K and be happy again. She is also for those who want the game on easy mode constantly.
If we nerf Nurse and maybe also Blight, weak players will floot the social medias even more complaining about how unfair killer is. We have experienced what happend in the past when killer where crying about stuff: They got what they wanted. Now they are sitting on 60% killrate with insane winstreaks and are still often unhappy.
I rather would face Nurse in 1 out of 5 games instead of nerfing her and getting flooded with crying killer players who "can not win" with a normal killer that has no cheating ability.
Maybe you think that is a silly argument, but think deeper and imagine this situation in your mind. I think it is very possible that exactly that will happen. Like i said, the time proves my point.
Playing killer can be sometimes very stressful, and apparently loosing as killer (i somewhat agree as a 50/50 player overall) is more impactful for some people then loosing as it is as survivor. Because of that, some killer mains (not all, i dont mean you!) are extremly whiny and ask for ridiculous buffs even in times like these, where basicaly every killer can stomp survivor without much effort.I find this very funny. I like the idea of keeping Nurse around just as a counter to complaints - 'Go play nurse!'
-
I haven't seen anything different, but the situation you describe isn't that unusual. Sometimes even with the 100% a match can take 1 to 2 minutes even if they normally only take like 15 seconds, I've seen this with both killer and survivor. You probably just hit a bad run of luck on the matchmaking.
-
Yeah, I still see it run. Not a lot, and I'm always surprised when someone unhooks me with it, but it has a lot of uses.
As others have said
-helps others, not yourself
-tunneling killers can detect OTR, while they can't BT, so they'll count to 11 then swing, but you'll still get the speedboost, meaning you've delayed the tunnel
It has some downsides. No use if the killer isn't tunneling or if the unhook has OTR or DH its unnecessary. But when it pops up in games I am surprised how much value it can get.
-
I haven't noticed any changes. Western US player, survivor 100% most of the day, killer bonus in the evening/night.
-
My guess at a serious answer that isn't just that BHVR hates Freddy, is that it likely has to do with how the gen display is coded. All killers are able to see all uncompleted gens. Potentially Freddy's power plays off the display that already exists, while Sadako and Xeno add new things to the map.
So if Freddy could teleport to any generator they would need to write a 'how to display gens' code for just Freddy with a different type of outline for completed gens.
If I'm in anyway right about the above, then they would have considered creating a different display mechanic to show completed gens for just one killer as either too confusing/frustrating for players, not worth the time, or outright impossible.
I can see the potential that it would be confusing/frustrating leading to complaints (which also means it might not be just a code issue). While I'd love to be able to teleport to any gen, I'd be really annoyed if I selected the wrong one at a critical time.
-
@Peanits said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3610499#Comment_3610499
It's not so much that it's impossible to do something like this, but rather that this wouldn't fix the problem, just shift it. If someone has decided that they absolutely do not care to continue the match, there is nothing we can do to change that. No amount of penalties or preventative measures will suddenly make them want to keep playing. Even if we prevent them from trying to unhook themselves, nothing stops them from then running directly to the Killer to get downed and rehooked as quickly as possible, or from whipping out their phone and watching some videos as they wait for the match to finish. Either way, the end result is the same. You've still got a teammate who isn't doing anything, only now the other Survivors might accidentally waste time saving them and the Killer has an easy way to activate whatever hook-based perks they may be running.
In reality, people letting themselves die on the hook is not the problem, it's a symptom of the problem. Fixing a symptom doesn't make the issue go away, it just resurfaces in a different way (e.g. going AFK, running at the Killer, etc.). The real problem is they don't feel the need to finish the match.
That doesn't mean it's impossible, though. There are likely some creative ways to discourage abandoning a match, but it's not as simple as disabling the ability to unhook yourself.
Thank you very much for the reply.
The thing that has confused me since I started playing (~18 months) is why there is one form of getting out of the game (disconnecting) that is penalized for ruining the game and another form of getting out (hook suicides) that is not penalized, but still ruins the game if done early. I'd think that if the belief was that it was truly impossible to fix, neither would be penalized. But if DC penalties are believed to have an impact there is no reason to think that impact can only apply to DCing directly.
Like I get you can't stop it completely, DC penalties don't but they definitely decrease it. Reducing it would be a wonderful step and/or finding a way to at least put a bot in.
As for the impossible comment, I was going off this interchange from the AMA
Q: My question is - do you have any plans to combat survivors killing themselves on first hook deliberately? This is currenly (and has always been) a big issue in solo queue and seems to be happening more and more frequently.The bots taking over disconnected players, whilst not perfect, was a welcome change but players would rather dodge the DC penalty and just kill themselves on hook which voids the bot system completely. I understand that the DC penalty is necessary also - it's a hard situation to tackle..A: I wish I had more to say on this topic but... no we don't have any plans for this. We hear your concern and recognize the frustrations, but we really just don't have any reasonable solutions here. Sad but true. -Mike -
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3619172#Comment_3619172
Aye, that's what I was referring to. I couldn't remember if they actually implemented it or not. A solid good change.
Back to draw, I already told you that with how dbd is, there is no draw situation. You ask me to define how a draw is in dbd, and I keep telling you there is no situation where draw would be called. A killer needs 3 kills or more to win. That's his win condition. A survivor needs to personally escape that's their win condition. There is no situation where a killer has killed a survivor and that survivor escaped, or where a killer did not kill someone and that survivor did not escape. The devs have stated on numerous occasions its not a traditional 1 person vs 1 team of # which is where I think you're getting confused. BHVR treats DBD very differently than the usual asymmetrical games. In this one, every player is their own "team". As one the designers once said, it's every man for himself. To win, you get a 3k+ or you escape. That's it. A draw between teams is those teams neither winning or losing which is literally not even possible in dbd. The only thing close to a draw would be a draw between the killer and a survivor if they hatched, but that's if you don't count hatch as a true escape.
If you completely disregard what the designers say and make up your own rule that all the survivors are on the same team and win or lose together, then sure, your made up concept of how the game works could say 2k is a draw. You're welcome to imagine the game however you like. In the end though, the designers say it's not that way, so until they decide to change the game over to a standard asymmetrical game of 2 teams, the reality is that this game essentially is a game of 5 teams...one player per team. 4 of those teams are encouraged to work together against 1 team to increase their odds, but at the end of the day, it's every man for himself. The survivors do NOT currently win or lose together.
Why don't the devs just make it team vs team? Why encourage everyone man for himself? I'm thinking they know how unstoppable a team purely working together is with dbd (thats also why tournaments have rules where survivors are limited in what they can use to make it more fair), so they throw in different things to encourage some selfish plays. The devs say not every swf is a seal 6 squad. They focus on the chaos factor that on average, the survivors are not entirely playing together. They get their own challenges (and some of those challenges actually work against optimal play!), and you have situations where you're frustrated with that claudette cleansing totems instead of helping with your gen. You're going to have that survivor who leaves to get their own win and leave you to die on hook. I think the devs are banking on the individual survivors not necessarily going for pure teamwork and to do their own thing. They acknowledge organized swfs can be rough, but they balance around the chaos factor of each survivor doing their own thing at the end of the day. That's why they aren't nerfing optimized SWFs, they are balancing on the expectation that this game is a 1 vs 1-1-1-1.
Back to draw, I already told you that with how dbd is, there is no draw situation. You ask me to define how a draw is in dbd, and I keep telling you there is no situation where draw would be called.No, I'm asking you to define a condition where someone neither won or lost.
You stress the individual survivor nature so let's throw everything else out but that. If each survivor is in a 1 on 1 vs the killer win or lose and the killer kills 2 and 2 escape, that's two wins and two losses.
That's a draw.
The devs have stated on numerous occasions its not a traditional 1 person vs 1 team of # which is where I think you're getting confused. BHVR treats DBD very differently than the usual asymmetrical games. In this one, every player is their own "team". As one the designers once said, it's every man for himself.This is where you keep changing your argument by popping back to the survivors.
If every survivor is there own "team" and the killer kills (wins) against two and losses (escapes) against two, that's a draw.
To win, you get a 3k+ or you escape. That's it.To win you need a 3k+. Fine.
To win you need to escape. Technically you need to escape to increase MMR, which is different than winning, but we'll go with it.
You then conclude that a 2k is a loss. That makes no sense. A 1k is a loss.
A draw between teams is those teams neither winning or losing which is literally not even possible in dbd.This is where you get pedantic. When we are defining the word draw in relation to winning and losing the general style of competition is symmetrical. The key to use of the word is neither won or lost, which is a draw. In a symmetrical competition the only way this can be achieved is via equal results. This however is an asymmetrical competition so there are varying ways to get there.
Again back to definitions, if you neither won or lost, how would you define it? I'd use the word draw.
The only thing close to a draw would be a draw between the killer and a survivor if they hatched, but that's if you don't count hatch as a true escape.Hatch escape is a null result if we're talking MMR which is related to a draw but its own kind of thing.
If you completely disregard what the designers say and make up your own rule that all the survivors are on the same team and win or lose together, then sure, your made up concept of how the game works could say 2k is a draw.You are over focusing on some dev statements and ignoring others. Part of the reason devs don't have a clear win condition is they want people to play however they want.
But let's throw all that out and just focus on mechanics. As killer you can have a match where your MMR neither increases or decreases. That's a draw.
In the end though, the designers say it's not that way, so until they decide to change the game over to a standard asymmetrical game of 2 teams, the reality is that this game essentially is a game of 5 teams...one player per team.You're making a big mistake here. Outside the change in 6.4 that makes team play more valuable, the survivors are not opponents. They do not have to view each other as allies, but they are not opponents. If I die I cannot gain MMR, if I escape I cannot lose MMR.
So you can view the survivors as four different teams from their perspective. But that is irrelevant to the killer's perspective. His MMR change is impacted by the overall performance against the four survivors.
The killer can have a result where he neither gains or loses MMR. That's a draw.
Why don't the devs just make it team vs team? Why encourage everyone man for himself? I'm thinking they know how unstoppable a team purely working together is with dbd (thats also why tournaments have rules where survivors are limited in what they can use to make it more fair), so they throw in different things to encourage some selfish plays.You're reading way too much into the idea of when devs have said survivors can be out for themselves. Devs are trying to recreate horror movies where the people who go on a selfish route usually, but not always, die because of it. They are emulating a theme.
Also, they've avoided creating clear win conditions because the game isn't designed with a traditional competitive condition in mind. You can argue that if the word draw doesn't apply to DbD, neither does win or loss. They very much want to appeal to groups of people who want different things from the game.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
@crogers271 I'm going to hope you're being sarcastic when you say one side not winning and the other side getting a partial win is even remotely considered even/draw. If not, I'd suggest you looking up the definition of a draw. You tease that considering definitions of a word in a topic about that word is silly, but if we sre going to discuss something, definitions are critical. We can't just make up words, lol. Otherwise I could just say when I say killer "wins", it means he gets 0 kills. Discussions fall apart if what we are talking about isn't defined. If we are talking about draws, then we need to be considering what draw actually means.
What you say about asymetric is true...and that's the point I've been hammering is. Drawing simply doesn't fit in this kind of asymmetrical game where there are no actual teams and instead (per the devs own statements) it is based on a 1 vs 4 individual players game with their own win/loss condition.
This is further reinforced in the post match screen. There is no survivors win or survivors lose statement. If 3 or 4 escape, it doesn't say survivors win. If 2 escape, does not say draw game. If 0 or 1 escape, it does not say survivors lose. It's either YOU escaped or YOU were sacrificed. It also lists each individual survivor and if they met their win condition or not. That's because, once again, this isn't designed as a team vs team game. The only thing the game cares about is each individual's personal win condition. Although MMR don't necessarily tie in historically with win conditions in gaming, even MMR in DBD only looks like each individual player. You alone can get sacrificed and the other 3 survivors all escape and you will go down in MMR. While the MMR statement is incredibly weak on my part since MMR, I am merely pointing out that everything in DBD is at an individual player basis.
Now, if you're saying that you say is how it SHOULD be, then I entirely agree with you. I think dbd SHOULD be a standard killer vs survivor asymmetrical game. The survivors would win and lose together. If a survivor ends up getting sacrificed but the other 3 escape, then the survivors would all win together...even the person sacrificed. I feel this would make more sense, AND it would actually allow draws where the killer only got 2 kills. I feel this is how people assume the game is or at least feels that's how it should be. HOWEVER, the designers disagree with that assessment and have clearly said that it is a 1 killer vs 4 individuals game. That's just the way it is. That being said, the devs a year or two ago did mention that they want survivors who get sacrificed but their teammates get away to get some sort of bonus or something, so perhaps the designers are considering moving away from the current system and moving to a two team system. We will just have to see. I think it would ouod be a good move, as it would promote survivors to work together more instead of an every man for himself mentality.
I'm going to hope you're being sarcastic when you say one side not winning and the other side getting a partial win is even remotely considered even/draw. If not, I'd suggest you looking up the definition of a draw.The key phrase there is partial win. You switch back and forth between considering the survivors a side and saying they are each on their own.
If you're using the stance that each survivor is on their own then a 3k is still partial win and a 1k is still a partial loss by your argument.
If you're using the argument that the survivors are "a side" then a draw is definitely possible.
You tease that considering definitions of a word in a topic about that word is silly, but if we sre going to discuss something, definitions are critical. We can't just make up words, lol.No one is making up words. You're imposing an absurdly strict interpretation.
I'm going to say this multiple times over this post: but if you have a better word for neither won nor lost, let's hear it. Because I run it through thesaurus and dictionaries and I keep seeing draw pop up.
You tease that considering definitions of a word in a topic about that word is silly, but if we sre going to discuss something, definitions are critical.Definitions are short general statements about how a word is used. There is no precise science behind what a word means, the definition is merely a simplified statement of general nature of word usage (which is why definitions change over time). Being most competitive situations are symmetrical the fact that the definition might include a word like team is not actually key to what the meaning of the word is.
That said I see nothing in the definition of draw that excludes it from this usage.
Drawing simply doesn't fit in this kind of asymmetrical game where there are no actual teams and instead (per the devs own statements) it is based on a 1 vs 4 individual players game with their own win/loss condition.Then provide a more accurate word to any of the above situations if draw doesn't fit.
If a killer gets two wins and two losses how do you define it?
If the killer neither won or lost how do you define it?
There is no survivors win or survivors lose statement.That's because, once again, this isn't designed as a team vs team game.The game allows people to play it under different conditions, independently or as a team (this isn't even getting into the idea that each person can view the end results independently).
But no matter how you view the survivors, it is the killer vs the survivors. The killer can get two and lose two. That's a draw. The survivor screen is irrelevant to the killer game, the killer screen never says win or loss in any type of result but that doesn't mean us using the words win or loss is somehow wrong.
If two sports teams played each other four times and the results were two wins and two losses we'd call the overall result a draw even though none of the games were individually a draw.
That being said, the devs a year or two ago did mention that they want survivors who get sacrificed but their teammates get away to get some sort of bonus or somethingThat's been in the game since 6.4 -
@Peanits said:
We actually just posted a blogpost that covers the basics (and some of the upcoming changes):
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/353291/news-upcoming-matchmaking-improvements
More specifically, when you're just starting out- including playing one of the roles for the first time- the game has no idea where you should be. The matchmaking system has a "confidence level" to represent how sure your rating is what it needs to be. When you first start playing a new role, it's low, and as a result your rating will adjust much faster than normal (your wins raise your rating more, your losses lower it more). Over time, the matchmaking system gets a better understanding of where you should be and the confidence level starts to increase and your rating adjusts less after each match.
It's possible you won a few matches and your rating increased quickly, but it should adjust to a place where you're averaging 2 kills per match pretty soon.
Key portion:
Starting with 6.4.0, Survivors ratings will be based both on individual & team performance. Whether you gain or lose rating will still be determined by whether or not you escape, but how much your rating is adjusted will be affected by how many Survivors escape the trial.For each teammate that escapes:You gain more rating if you escape.You lose less rating if you die.For each teammate that dies:You gain less rating if you escape.You lose more rating if you die.
For example, if you die but every other Survivor escapes, your rating will hardly drop at all. In other words, keep your team alive for best results! With this change, we aim to put a bit more emphasis on teamplay without removing the lone wolf playstyle. -
No.
In the event that they nerf his addons and Blight is still crazy dominant they can revisit it. Take one thing at a time.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3618918#Comment_3618918
Not sure how many times someone has to point out that drawing is only a thing if both sides neither win or lose. Considering that each player gets their own win condition, drawing is not a thing in dbd. They do count a 2k as mmr neutral, however. As mentioned countless times before, mmr adjustments aren't the same as winning or losing. You can go down in mmr in games when winning, as can you go up in mmr even if you lose. BHVR also understands this, as the same concept can apply to pipping. You can get a 3k and still depip, for example.
I know that pesky definition of drawing requiring both sides to neither win or lose bugs you to all end, but that's literally what a draw is. A flat 62.5% kill rate means the killer on average wins half their matches, as that is 2.5 kills per match. That means one match would be under 3k (killer did not win), and the next would be a 3k (killer wins) as the .5 + .5 carries over when averaging matches for one extra kill. Anything below 62.5% would mean on average the killer is below a 50% win rate, and anything above 62.5% would mean on average the killer is above a 50% win rate. Even if you decides to throw the definition of a draw out the window, it's still the killer not winning, and if the killer got only 2 kills and would "draw" (keep in mind we are using your made up custom definition of a draw in this example), you still have that pesky fact that two of survivors (or half the survior team if you want to look at it that way) won. Not much of a draw if the killer entirely doesn't win and the survivor team half wins, now is it? Exactly. That's why there can't be a situation where neither team wins or loses. Every match, SOMEONE is winning. If someone is winning, then there isn't a draw situation.
The game devs stated themselves that this is a 1 player vs many individual players design. It's a 1 vs (1-1-1-1) design. Not a 1 v 4. Each survivor gets their own person win condition. That means winning or losing is very binary. You win, or you don't. You 3k+/escape, or you don't. The closest thing you could argue a draw would be is if a survivor finds hatch. Maybe you could argue the killer and that survivor had a draw. The killer didn't kill, and the survivor didn't "really" escape, but that's still arguable.
Not sure how many times someone has to point out that drawing is only a thing if both sides neither win or lose.People can point it out as many times as they want, it doesn't make it true.
DbD is asymmetrical game. Trying to apply a symmetrical standard to the word draw doesn't make sense.
Considering that each player gets their own win condition, drawing is not a thing in dbd.DbD as a whole doesn't even have win or loss conditions. They have conditions that raise or lower MMR.
"The player neither won nor lost the game" - I'd define that as a draw. If you'd like to use a different word, go ahead, but its pedantically silly to get caught up in whether or not draw meets that definition.
Not much of a draw if the killer entirely doesn't win and the survivor team half wins, now is it?That's a draw.
The game devs stated themselves that this is a 1 player vs many individual players design. It's a 1 vs (1-1-1-1) design. Not a 1 v 4.You're confusing symmetrical and asymmetrical. If you want to take the above statement as accurate (which I don't think is true, the Devs have said players can view it as a 1v1v1etc, not that they have to), that its only true for survivors. For the killer it is still 1 v 4 meaning even using MMR as the condition the killer can achieve a draw result, neither win nor loss.
-
Even if the survivors escape against a camping Bubba, everyone loses.
I've been in soloq games where we've done exactly as the OP suggested. It makes the Eruption meta look fun and engaging by comparison.
As others have pointed out, there's also lots of things that can go wrong.
1: Perk setup
2: Survivor on hook gives up (reasonable choice)
3: Any survivor goes to check the hook
-
Having it regain tokens from doing gens would make it quite a bit stronger against some killers.
Hook rescues would not be a good idea.
People hiding all game is its own problem. If BHVR can code in something to detect killers going for the 3 gen from the start, they really should do something like that for survivors hiding the whole game.
-
Unless they add the ability for perks to be mutually exclusive, where you can't run certain perks in combination, having multiple viable slowdown perks is not a good way forward.
-
Left side of the screen above the names now.
-
I'm surprised CI is so popular given that it is RNG dependent. Sometimes survivors spawn right in the middle of it, but sometimes as survivor I'll see a really close gen that is open and just jump on that.
-
Circle of Healing.
Then exponential.
Then shadow step.
Then dark theory.
I generally expect if a boon goes up its going to be CoH.
-
To start with my own perspective: I played DbD shortly after it first came out, didn't care for it, loved Deathgarden: Bloodharvest, gave DbD another look, didn't care for it, came back after patch 6.1 and have been playing it pretty constantly ever since.
So I don't miss old DbD because it wasn't a game I was interested in.
But I don't think the situation is okay for players like me, who loved those old maps.Conceptually I have no problem. If there were separate game setups and everyone plays what they like, what's the problem?
The issues become: would splitting the playerbase have an impact, would splitting the devs time be worth it, and could things be kept separate. By the last one, we might end up with players wanted perks buffed or nerfed because they were too strong/weak in the version that they played.
The question is are there enough players like you to justify those dangers? I have no answer to that, BHVR might from the surveys they do.
I do think, in the long run, there is a problem with treating DbD as a horror game as compared to a thriller. The ability to create fear runs off a lot quicker than the ability to create tension.
-
Getting caught up in the weeds of the definition of party game is where these discussions tend to go. DbD obviously is not a short game with a variety of mini-games so when people say DbD is a party game, they obviously mean something else.
I'll agree with @Xernoton
I want the game to be 'fair' but still random enough to allow for stupid and funny plays, that sometimes just might work.I don't want anything too broken, but I don't need it to be perfectly fair. That some maps favor the killer or survivor is fine, I'll take variety over repetition. The very nature of the game is towards casual play, the survivors have no idea who the killer is going to be and are just making guesses on what perks to bring.
I think the Devs should focus on 'fun' over 'balance', though as mentioned above any thing too broken impacts fun. I think the best argument that killers had against Dead Hard before the last nerf wasn't that it was unbalanced, but that it wasn't fun running behind a survivor trying to bait out a DH. That's why I'd like them to look at leaving the survivors to bleed out for four minutes, 3 genning, tunneling, and 4 mega toolbox gen rush. Whether some of those are balanced or not aren't as important as they just aren't a very fun game.
Overall, I think the game is in a pretty good place, though I might be biased because I'm coming off a good string of games. Just had one where a survivor used Boon: Exponential against a Huntress on Dead Dawg. Three times we were able to pick ourselves back up. We all died, but it was the type of interesting and unique experience of randomness that if I play for another 1000 hours I probably won't encounter any game like that combination again.
-
@HerInfernalMajesty said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3618391#Comment_3618391
I appreciate your comment. I really do. My line of thinking is that if kill rates were to be 50% that means on average 2 Survivors escape per match. Technically this is a draw (by community standards). Because of this then half the time, the Killer draws at best? I think that’s why the 60% kill rate is the sweet spot for this since a 3K is considered a Killer win.
But this gets into the territory of “why is a 2K considered a draw?”
The community though really only considers that a win because that is how the game plays out in its current form. You could balance the game around different concepts. You could design it, and improve MMR/bloodpoints based on a survivor win if a single survivor escapes, or you could design the same above based if a single survivor dies then the killer gains MMR/bloodpoints, and the only difference between a 1k and a 4k is the degree.
To me the big issue with the game is not escapes/kills per se, but how the game plays up to that point. As a survivor: it doesn't feel fun if we don't even manage to get four gens done, likewise it doesn't feel very fun if we escape with say less than 2 hooks (as a soloq though the latter is much, much rarer).
The game works best when things are close. If the survivors get 4ked but managed to finish 4 gens and get good progress on the last one, usually a great game. If the survivors 4e, but the killer had multiple survivors on death hook, usually a great game.
-
Failed? No.
Substantially improve the game? Also no.
They're a minor strategy element to some maps. As killer you can break them early weakening some loops, but also giving the survivors more time when they are all on gens. Or you can leave them up and potentially give the survivor a stronger loop until you are weakened in a chase by needing to break them.
-
@Chaosrider said:
The thing is: the devs dont do what is needed, they do what they like to. And that is the sad fact. Also it doesnt matter if majority or not. Devs need to do what the game needs. From all the changes made last year, maybe a handful is what was kinda needed. Devs could easily make themself popular among the commnuity by doing what is needed, but they just do their thing (that is no good).
I don't think it is likely that a company can be a build a successful game with a seven year life span by not doing what is needed. I have plenty of disagreements with design decisions BHVR has made, but you can't stumble into making a successful video game.
-
@HerInfernalMajesty said:
There has been a lot of discussion surrounding the role of Killer and whether or not it should or shouldn’t be the power role. On one hand you have these supposed Killer win streaks that frustrate people. On the other hand this game is a Killer power fantasy so a Killer bias is absolutely to be expected.
Therein lies the conundrum. How much power should the Killer have? Should the Killer be a threat, but not enough of a threat to lock one or more Survivors out of a game? Should the game go to a scoreboard type of game without eliminations? Wouldn’t that destroy what the game is about?
What about when Survivors are the power role? It does happen; is this an allowable prejudice? If the Killer is stronger then surely the Survivors should enjoy the spoils of their victory, sore winning and all.
However, the difficult truth is that Killers do not want Survivors to escape, and Survivors do not want Killers to kill. In a game that contains a Killer bias should it instead be a Survivor power fantasy with a Survivor bias? After all, (I say this sarcastically) why put the fun of one person above the fun of four?
The Survivors if playing correctly can beat the Killer. There exists a pathway to victory. This tells me that ultimately teamwork itself is the power role. The problem is that it is difficult to manifest the discipline required to achieve this teamwork. Impatience, selfishness, lack of awareness etc. get in the way of Survivor victory.
If the Killer bias of 60% kill rate were to go away, say down to 50% or lower, would DBD still be DBD? Personally I am of the mind that no it will not be. In my opinion the reward feedback loop of this game thrives on difficult escapes. There is an element of challenge in escape since it does not come easy. It keeps players coming back for more. When escape is achieved it feels highly rewarding. If escaping became easier I believe this whole game would unravel and deteriorate.
I get it, losing doesn’t feel good. When you as a Survivor know that you are better than the Killer as an individual it feels awful to lose to someone you know is below you in skill. It feels awful leveraging all of your skill for your team only for them to let you down and get you killed. But again, that is the nature of this asymmetrical team game. Anything different than this would change the game so drastically that it would be unrecognizable.
Should the Killer feel like the power role? Should the Survivor feel like the power role? If there should be no power role what would that look like? 50% escape rate? Would increasing escape rates cheapen the joy of escaping? Can this game survive if escaping felt blasé?
PS: This isn’t even getting into the idea of retaining the horror theme of the Killer being the main threat, which some individuals believe can be sustained even if Killers were to lose their 60% kill rate. Again I personally do not believe it can.
On the other hand this game is a Killer power fantasy so a Killer bias is absolutely to be expected.The game is a killer power fantasy? Maybe its a wording choice, but this seems strange. Do people really want to play the killers from horror movies?
To me, and fundamentally because the game requires more of them, the game is about the tension and thrill of trying to escape a killer. That means the killer has to be dangerous enough that it feels meaningful to escape, but not so dangerous that it feels pointless to play the game.
Should the Killer be a threat, but not enough of a threat to lock one or more Survivors out of a game?It's impossible to create a game where skill mismatches never happen or players always feel they have agency. However, it is a flawed game design that the killer can pick a survivor and that player has no agency, especially if they/the other survivors didn't guess right on the perks. I do not know if there is a realistic way to fix it at this point.
Should the game go to a scoreboard type of game without eliminations? Wouldn’t that destroy what the game is about?No, and yes it would destroy the game immediately.
What about when Survivors are the power role? It does happen; is this an allowable prejudice?At this point I don't know what you mean by power role. Times when the survivor are in control and clear favorite? As I said earlier, skill mismatches are inevitable.
The Survivors if playing correctly can beat the Killer. There exists a pathway to victory. This tells me that ultimately teamwork itself is the power role.I'm not seeing the logic here. Switch killer and survivor there and the sentence still makes sense.
The problem is that it is difficult to manifest the discipline required to achieve this teamwork. Impatience, selfishness, lack of awareness etc. get in the way of Survivor victory.That's the design of the game where it pits altruism against induvial gains, which is also a big element of horror movies.
If escaping became easier I believe this whole game would unravel and deteriorate.It depends on how a much issue. If killer were 90% or 10% would the game be fun? No, pretty much everyone would agree on that. If there were 55%? 50%? 45%? 65%? It's more a line drawing question. If they were a little lower I think it would be healthy, but don't consider it a huge problem.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3616895#Comment_3616895
Sloppy doesn't, but the other two do.
Franklin's is a perk that you only use if the survivors are all bringing items, particularly toolboxes. If you use this perk without knowing whether or not there were items in the lobby, you will risk wasting a perk slot. And a killer wasting a perk slot has bigger consequences than survivors not bringing any items.
It is good that you see the point with Lightborn, because this one is a must. Again, you have to know if flashlights are going to be there so you can prepare for it. The fact that it can completely neutralize flashlights, as it should because they are very annoying, isn't enough of a reason for you to bring it without know if you actually need it.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3616915#Comment_3616915
You are allowed to disagree, obviously. We all have our own opinions.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3616916#Comment_3616916
Nah, I disagree mate.
Imo, there are no cons. I don't see a reason to remove it.
Franklin's is a perk that you only use if the survivors are all bringing items, particularly toolboxes. If you use this perk without knowing whether or not there were items in the lobby, you will risk wasting a perk slot. And a killer wasting a perk slot has bigger consequences than survivors not bringing any items.But you take franklin's to make survivors lose their items. If the survivors have handicapped themselves by not bringing items, you've only wasted a perk slot in the sense that you could have more of an advantage over them. It's not like the survivors have some strategy or benefit to playing without items, so being it is a handicap on their part, there is no unfair disadvantage to the killer.
It is good that you see the point with Lightborn, because this one is a must. Again, you have to know if flashlights are going to be there so you can prepare for it. The fact that it can completely neutralize flashlights, as it should because they are very annoying, isn't enough of a reason for you to bring it without know if you actually need it.I wouldn't say its a must, just I understand why there's more of an argument for it. If you didn't know what items survivors were bringing, the prospect of there being a flashlight is still really high. Given that a successful flashlight save can change the game, lightborn's value is so immense that it makes sense that taking it doesn't always return value.
And the killer already has perks that might have no value. Things like Mindbreaker are totally dependent upon what perks the survivors have / how they play, so you have no way of knowing in any single game whether it will be useless or totally swing the game in your favor.
-
Pallets/windows are not infinite protection. Huntress, deathslinger, trickster, artist, nurse, plague, nemesis, pyramid head can all get you after pallet/window, no reason Xeno shouldn't be able to. She's a mid range killer, needing to be farther away from her before pallets/windows are safe is her main power.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615915#Comment_3615915
Nah, the lobby has to be there for last-second adjustments.
Franklin's Demise, Lightborn and Sloppy Butcher are perks that can potentially be added / removed from a killer's build depending on what they see before the trial starts.
That is important. It can't just disappear.
I don't think any of those perks need the lobby screen.
Franklin's: If the the other team chooses to not bring any items and you waste a perk slot, well the survivors still don't have any items.
Sloppy: This perk is strong regardless of what the survivors run.
Lightborn: This might be the only one I can see as a thing, but being it totally neutralizes the ability of flashlights it doesn't seem like a crazy trade off.
-
@CorvusCorax86 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3616809#Comment_3616809
This could not be more wrong. Just had a match with Clown where I could hook only 2 survivors. The team was genrushing and probably cheated as a Steve suddenly appeared behind me. There is a huge number SWFs out there at the moment.
It's not really a convincing argument if they were using cheats.
-
Dodging pain res would be too strong and incredibly frustrating for the killer. I could see an option for the user to turn it off, but don't think it would make a huge difference.
-
@Zaydin said:
I've been sitting here for ages trying to find the right way to word all this so that it doesn't come across as whiny or anything like that to explain something that has plagued me about DbD for ages: It quite literally makes me feel physically miserable.
I don't expect to win every match but going against a SWF is one of the most stressful things I experience in gaming. All the pressure is on you as the Killer and a coordinated SWF is a nightmare to deal with and they just make me want to quit the game and not play due to the stress it puts me under.
I do not think survivor mains realize just how insanely stressful being the Killer is, especially when you are going against a full four man SWF that are communicating over voice comms. Those matches make me physically anxious and stressed out. That is the primary reason I hate playing against SWFs: How can I enjoy the game when it is stressing me out and affecting me physically?
Now you may ask "How can a game stress you out that much?". The answer is simple: I suffer from both a major depressive disorder and a generalized anxiety disorder and thus I have a hard time disassociating from things that I logically know shouldn't be stressing me out and making me anxious but still do. Furthermore, when I am in a match that isn't stressful and I don't feel like I'm struggling to do anything, I can have a ton of fun and the stress isn't really well. Even if a few survivors escape, if I had fun it was still a blast.
There I times I have to wonder if BHVR themselves know how stressful they have made things for Killers at high tier play due to the prevalence of SWFs and how so many Killers simply are not viable at high MMR play.
I do not enjoy playing against Seal Team Six as they get generator after generator done and I struggle to get hooks or win chases because they are somehow god tier loopers and body blockers. Games are first and foremost are supposed to be fun and playing against a SWF is not fun. There's a reason I keep hoping to either see how many survivors in the lobby are part of a premade or for playing against SWFs to be a matchmaking choice I can opt out of as a Killer.
I suffer from both a major depressive disorder and a generalized anxiety disorder and thus I have a hard time disassociating from things that I logically know shouldn't be stressing me out and making me anxious but still do.Are you capable of playing any type of multiplayer vs. style game? I understand the difficulty of anxiety, but I'm not sure what makes DbD unique. It's a multiplayer game meaning that roughly half the time you should be losing, inevitably some of those times it will be a devastating loss.
I do not think survivor mains realize just how insanely stressful being the Killer is, especially when you are going against a full four man SWF that are communicating over voice commsEveryone is different on this. I'll play killer against a 4 person P100 group and have a great time, as survivor it feels like my heart is going to explode even when we're running the killer in circles. Most people find one of the roles really stressful, but people disagree on which.
I do not enjoy playing against Seal Team Six as they get generator after generator done and I struggle to get hooks or win chases because they are somehow god tier loopers and body blockers. Games are first and foremost are supposed to be fun and playing against a SWF is not fun. There's a reason I keep hoping to either see how many survivors in the lobby are part of a premade or for playing against SWFs to be a matchmaking choice I can opt out of as a Killer.I don't get a lot of fun being matched against a Nurse or Blight who have four survivors on the ground bleeding out before half a gen is even finished. I don't enjoy being in a soloq where we bring zero items and the killer runs double Iri. It's the nature of any multiplayer game that sometimes you are going to get crushed and DbD's design allows a mix of sweaty options (parts of which I'd change if I could, but its a both sides issue).
-
@daffyd said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615820#Comment_3615820
Most of what I'll say has already been covered, but I'll try and address the responses.
>... you're still in the same place of not being any clearer on how to balance the game.
One could also argue a positive point that it creates new friends and becomes more fun which I must admit not many are doing which is odd but perhaps from being in solo queue. This only has positives regarding balance.
>1: BHVR doesn't want the racism/sexism it would lead to. You say other companies have voice chat and they deal with the hate speech. Cool, BHVR would rather never have it happen in the first place.
We live in a world where people may get offended, simply mute and move on or don't mute and communicate further. The idea that speech should be policed is a very odd, there will always be differences with people.
>2: BHVR doesn't believe that 4 person SWFs running clock call outs are common enough that they need that much attention.
Some survivors will use communications better than others, some survivors have more skill than others... not sure what your point is. We are talking about balance and fairness in a game.
>3: Language issues, DbD is played worldwide and on some servers people speak different languages. Having players set a language preference would slow down matchmaking times/accuracy, which they likely view as more important.
We have all heard this before, it is all a mix match but this is matchmaking which is still being tweaked to this day not a problem.
>4: It would ruin the theme of the game. The game's concept is about survivors being on their own/not knowing what's going on. That's changed over time, but it hasn't changed completely. BHVR doesn't care about creating a perfectly balanced game. They'll emphasize theme and fun over absolute balance.
Opinon which is healthy but fun is obtained through the game being fair do you not agree?
>5: Giving comms to a group of randoms would frequently be a mess even if everyone was trying. Comp teams have the comms down to the bare minimum to communicate messages, that wouldn't be replicated just throwing comms on for everyone. I don't want to hear someone talking about what gen they are starting and miss the sound of Ghostface nearby.
People adapt and improve, with communications the positives can outweigh the negatives. Of course the voice comms chat level can be increased/decreased.
I'll start at the bottom of your comments.
Opinon which is healthy but fun is obtained through the game being fair do you not agree?No, at least not absolutely. Yes, I don't want anything in the game that is too broken, but fun outweighs balance. I'd rather have an assortment of maps that add variability to the game, even if some of those maps tilt one way or the other.
I have zero interest playing the games with comms. If they were introduced I'd play a lot less. Is it a little annoying when playing killer that sometimes all 4 survivors have an advantage? Yes, but I wouldn't trade that for a comm based survivor experience.
One could also argue a positive point that it creates new friends and becomes more fun which I must admit not many are doing which is odd but perhaps from being in solo queue. This only has positives regarding balance.One could argue, but I don't think its even close to true true.
We live in a world where people may get offended, simply mute and move on or don't mute and communicate further. The idea that speech should be policed is a very odd, there will always be differences with people.BHVR is saying they don't want players to have to deal with certain content. Having seen some chats in other games, I appreciate it. If you don't that's fine.
Some survivors will use communications better than others, some survivors have more skill than others... not sure what your point is. We are talking about balance and fairness in a game.Balance means how the game is designed. It goes SWF>Killer>Soloq - adding comms won't actually change that. Soloq would still be at the weakest level, meaning efforts to balance the game won't really change.
We have all heard this before, it is all a mix match but this is matchmaking which is still being tweaked to this day not a problem.I have no idea what you mean.
-
Old SM was an absolute mess. New SM isn't my favorite, but is fine to face.
She's still something of a defensive killer, but she can't lock down 3 gens anywhere near the way she used to. Just played a SM who tried to set up a 3 gen. It took a few minutes for us to break, which is about the same as most other killers who try to 3 gen. This is no where near the old 30 minute to an hour games of trying to crack a chess merchant.
-
Most of what I'll say has already been covered, but I'll try and address the responses.
To start, I'll say there is a big problem with the people who say introduce voice chat and use it to balance. These people then also say that if anyone has a problem with it, they can turn it off. The issue here is if you introduce a system, lots of players turn it off/can't use it, you're still in the same place of not being any clearer on how to balance the game.
1: BHVR doesn't want the racism/sexism it would lead to. You say other companies have voice chat and they deal with the hate speech. Cool, BHVR would rather never have it happen in the first place.
2: BHVR doesn't believe that 4 person SWFs running clock call outs are common enough that they need that much attention.
3: Language issues, DbD is played worldwide and on some servers people speak different languages. Having players set a language preference would slow down matchmaking times/accuracy, which they likely view as more important.
4: It would ruin the theme of the game. The game's concept is about survivors being on their own/not knowing what's going on. That's changed over time, but it hasn't changed completely. BHVR doesn't care about creating a perfectly balanced game. They'll emphasize theme and fun over absolute balance.
5: Giving comms to a group of randoms would frequently be a mess even if everyone was trying. Comp teams have the comms down to the bare minimum to communicate messages, that wouldn't be replicated just throwing comms on for everyone. I don't want to hear someone talking about what gen they are starting and miss the sound of Ghostface nearby.
-
@Archol123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615396#Comment_3615396
That is like saying we could make a better game but we don't want to because you won't stop playing it anyway... It is not even like some changes would diminish its popularity, like additional game modes or basic functionality, so it is either limitations of the engine or its design/code
I mean the Witcher books are also fairly successfull so I guess they will eventually attract players to the game or even new games may be created.
If DBD is basically that big the state of the game is quite embarassing... Imagine taking years for basic options and still missing some when you have a fairly big game that is out for that long and what not... I will never get how that is a thing. This game has options missing that games had in 2005...
If DBD is basically that big the state of the game is quite embarassing... Imagine taking years for basic options and still missing some when you have a fairly big game that is out for that long and what not... I will never get how that is a thing. This game has options missing that games had in 2005...So there are two ways to look at this:
1: The charitable view - DbD has a diverse player base with lots of different interests. What might be an obvious improvement or change to you or I matters very little/would be disliked by others. BHVR thus needs to move very slowly with their changes to try and account for all of the different interests.
Related to that, many us might underestimate the difficulty of coding for multiple platforms, which some other large multiplayer games (i.e. Dota) don't have to worry about. (also bad initial coding because the expectation was never that the game would turn into what it did).
2: The less charitable view - The release schedule is intentional as a live service game. BHVR isn't looking to make an ideal game, but ever changing/evolving game. If they just "fixed" everything, many of us would probably play it for a few months and then move onto something different. But continually having changes every couple of months keeps the player base coming back.
I mean the Witcher books are also fairly successfull so I guess they will eventually attract players to the game or even new games may be created.The Witcher is a good example of how DbD is different. Between 2007 and 2015 three games were released and combined have sold over 75 million copies (https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/29/23741471/the-witcher-cd-projekt-red-cdpr-gaming-franchises). So DbD has probably sold more copies then any single Witcher game over roughly as many years, but they've sold less overall copies (and they definitely have not made as much revenue off of the sales). It's why comparing live service games is difficult with traditional games because they have completely different release models.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615191#Comment_3615191
To avoid repeating myself, which would let you keep repeating yourself, I'm going to avoid your mental gymnastics about already established points that you are not really answering to and just answer to this:
I was merely replying to your point about people adding win conditions to make a "party game" competitive, which is what lots of people have done with DbD.
No, they didn't, it is the game who defined those win conditions.
For the rest, I refer to you to the other post I just made and also recommend you read and learn a little about game design theory, because obviously you people doesn't even know what differentiates a casual /party game from a "hardcore" / high skill ceiling one:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615291#Comment_3615291
For the rest, I refer to you to the other post I just made and also recommend you read and learn a little about game design theory, because obviously you people doesn't even know what differentiates a casual /party game from a "hardcore" / high skill ceiling one:On game design theory: earlier I posted a comment from a Dev.
I'll also avoid repeating myself, you call mental gymnastics, I'll say you aren't addressing the actual points, and just address your latest arguments. Your definition on skill ceilings as the difference between casual and serious games doesn't make sense. People can get insanely good at charades or Pictionary, but they are still casual games. A child can play chess relatively easily, but that doesn't mean it isn't a serious game. Those elements are true of all games that aren't random luck.
DbD isn't that hard to get into. The thing that makes it difficult is so much of the player base is experienced that its really hard to have a matchup of new players.
DbD is a casual game, that can easily be treated as a competitive / serious game, because of its focus on theme and very heavy inclusion of random elements. The competitive DbD scene has to make numerous changes to the game to have fair matches.
-
@Archol123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615371#Comment_3615371
I mean they gifted the game away for free, so I would guess everyone basically owns it twice who has it on pc anyway, me included.
It would however be nice to know how many of those accounts were basically for free... I guess they just count everyone in regardless of how long they have been inactive for, but even then, if consider this in comparison to the most sold games out there... This is just way too much, it would make it one of the most sold games ever if this is true.
So basically they want to say that this game is basically dunno top 5-6 of best selling video games? When we go after raw numbers?
https://www.gamespot.com/gallery/top-10-best-selling-video-games-of-all-time/2900-4814/
I find that hardly believable...
As for the estimates that would make the whole thing really sad, because with the game basically being this big there is no excuse for the slow changes to basically everything... I basically gave them an easier time thinking the game was rather niche and not as big as other titles, but hell no if this is true there is no excuse for that bad performance and slow changes to major issues.
I don't know how steam counts players, but I basically assumed it to be total numbers and not as of this second?
Even then, the unique player count is not really the thing we need to look at but the currently active ones, so we can say whether or not there should be enough players in the game.
DbD has a few things going for it on sales numbers. It's always been a very cheap base game, is on a lot of platforms, world popularity, and has a 7 year run.
Cheap: Many players have more than one copy, this isn't just Epic (though that's part of it), there are a fair number of players who've bought it on console/switch and PC. It's a relatively cheap game compared to many other popular games.
7 Years: This separates it from a lot of games. Take the Witcher 3 from that list of games, it's highest concurrent player count ever was 100k (a little less than the highest ever count for DbD), but it only had two windows of popularity (release and the Netflix show). People who are getting into gaming now (i.e. kids) aren't really likely to pick up the Witcher 3, and a few years from now will be even less likely, but DbD keeps attracting new players because of its ongoing nature.
World: Not many games have had as much international appeal as DbD. It's heavily played in North America, Europe, and Asia.
So basically they want to say that this game is basically dunno top 5-6 of best selling video games? When we go after raw numbers?Player counts look comparable to Red Dead Redemption 2, both games are available on multiple platforms, and DbD has had a longer run, though given the differences in base price likely wildly different revenue returns.
As for the estimates that would make the whole thing really sad, because with the game basically being this big there is no excuse for the slow changes to basically everything... I basically gave them an easier time thinking the game was rather niche and not as big as other titles, but hell no if this is true there is no excuse for that bad performance and slow changes to major issues.People do have this misconception about DbD as being a small time player. I got into DbD relatively late, about 18 months ago, and every other gamer I knew had already played DbD (quite a few only a couple of times and then never again).
Even when talking with non-gamers its not unusual to run into people who have heard about the game.
As for the pace of changes, that annoys me, especially the bugs. On the game change issue, I do from a financial standpoint understand their reason for slow rolling changes, given that they are currently doing amazingly well and it makes sense to not mess with that.
It's also unknown how many people actually buy cosmetics, so estimating their revenue would be incredibly difficult.
But there's a reason multiple other companies have tried to imitate DbD's model.
I don't know how steam counts players, but I basically assumed it to be total numbers and not as of this second?I don't know if they track every second, but you can see how the player count changes in the game hour by hour.
-
@Archol123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3615181#Comment_3615181
Where did you even get that number from my man? 65 million is massive, I don't think it is even close to that... Unless there have been 64 million bot accounts when the game was free on epic...
Mobile is a completely different game, so no that does not count.
There is no way this game has a million different players per day and matchmaking is this God awful... Dota 2 has like 6-7 different players a month, which is still massive and somehow the matchmaking works properly.
I'd really like a source because otherwise this is just random number guessing.
The 65 million - https://www.polygon.com/23978649/dead-by-daylight-player-count-2023
Also, there's currently a bloodpoint code celebrating when they hit 60 million players from back in November.
The article says more than 60 million, the original commenter either has more info than me or rounded up.
From that article: the game had 12 million players by 2019, that's two years before it was free on Epic or ever on mobile.
For current player counts you aren't going to find any data that says it absolutely, because outside Steam no platform releases their data. https://activeplayer.io/dead-by-daylight/ lists it at half a million to seven hundred thousand per day excluding mobile, I don't know their methodology, but the site tries to estimate lots of games.
That number would make sense. Throughout the week the player count at any single time varies between 25k and 40k on just Steam. Those players are rotating over the course of day with many people logging in to just play one or two games.
As an example using very rough math: let's say every player on Steam plays DbD for 8 hours straight and they have an average active player count of 35k over the day. That would still mean a 105k unique players from Steam alone. And very few people are playing this game 8 hours a day, or even 2 hours day, so the number is a good deal higher than that.
Then you can factor in all of the other platforms. Even if you exclude the mobile count, lots of players on playstation, xbox, epic and switch.
-
@CountOfTheFog said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614945#Comment_3614945
Thanks for the tips! I'll try to loop better although it is my greatest weakness. I'm embarrassingly awful at it, with or without pallets.
Maybe we could flip the BP award?
Like, isn't it more bold not to drop?
Just a thought. Also, there are challenges that say things like "Drop 6 pallets while being chased" so I kind of thought it was a good move.
Blood points aren't really reflective of best actions, more along the lines of 'look, I'm playing the game'. Especially on survivor side, sometimes the best thing you can do for your team is just hammer gens, which by itself doesn't get you as many bloodpoints.
When to drop pallets is tricky with no right answer. Comp players tend to drop pallets almost instantly, but that's because killers at that level are so dangerous they are hard to play around and the comp survivor knows his team is focused on gens.
Some survivors believe that pallets, especially god pallets, should be saved for the end so survivors on death hook can have some protection. Others think early game drops are best because this means the other three survivors can focus on getting as many gens done as possible (also against Oni dropping pallets early too keep him from getting his power).
In terms of lingo, a weak pallet is the opposite of a god pallet (a strong pallet would be one the killer probably will need to break, but isn't absolute). Weak pallets offer almost no protection when dropped and really only have value if you can pull of a stun, which is frequently difficult as they are easy for the killer to play around. The weakest pallet in the game is the below one on RPD:
Dropping the pallet doesn't slow down the killer at all and getting a stun is incredibly difficult as the loop you are playing around (the desk and chair) are very small.
The Game has lots of God pallets. There are two right outside basement, if the survivor drops them the killer has to break them or the survivor should be able to loop the killer forever. Some people say this makes the Game an incredible survivor map, others though disagree and say that the lack of strong windows is much bigger weakness than having really strong pallets.
I'd say there are a couple tiers of pallet play:
1: Just drop the pallet
2: Run around the loop as many times as possible before the killer catches you, then drop the pallet
3: Mind game the pallets, act like you are going to drop it so the killer slows down to not get stunned (this is sometimes called greeding a pallet), then keep running for another loop or two before you actually drop it.
4: After all of that, get back to a level where you just drop the pallet
-
Killers being disabled (kill switched) is not very common and usually quick, but as others have mentioned, its the holidays and BHVR actually let's their employees have time off.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614802#Comment_3614802
If you want to play DbD casually and just enjoy, you can. If you want to play it extremely competitively, you can. The MMR will put you into brackets related to how you play and, broadly, match you against similar player types.
You mean like any skill based ranking system in the world, again? Because guess what? If you play it casually, you would lose (something that you should not mind if you play the game "just for fun" anyways), so you are going to have a low MMR, ergo you are going to be paired with other people that have a low MMR. Even your mind gymnastics contradicts your point!
Things like this don't matter mathematically. If you are player who is some combination of skilled/sweaty you will escape/kill more. [...]
That part was about the MMR system "taking in count your skill" and what the dev said. It has nothing to do with the game being or not being a party game as it will not be a party game even if it would count everything you do in the match to rank you with a system like ELO (a system that would be so much better for a game like DbD that the current MMR, by the way, even if way more complex).
The way you play will impact where you end up in the MMR. Play it casually, expect to get more players who are also casual.
Again, yeah, that's what an skill rated based system is for. Still don't know how this makes the game a party game and not a competitive PvP game, specially when this kind of system are used in high skill ceiling competitive games to avoid the top people crushing on the low skill newcomers. If it was a party game with a low skill ceiling it would not need such a system.
Not sure where you are going for a definition as I see no formal definition of the phrase 'party game'. [...]
So, basically you find things like this, which directly contradicts you and proves me right:
"Party video games are commonly designed as a collection of simple minigames, designed to be intuitive and easy to control, and allow for competition between many players. Some, like the Mario Party series and Sonic Shuffle, are played on simulated game boards."
And your response is making excuses and more mental gymnastics to justify it not being an acceptable definition? Dude...
I see a video game definition of games consisting of short mini-games, which DbD has never been anywhere close to being.
You know why? Because DbD never was a party video game. Shocking, I know.
DbD has no win condition.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614830#Comment_3614830
It has, you are wrong. Also, even if it didn't, I don't know how that would mean anything. I mean, many party games have win and lose conditions, so according to your logic this makes any game that has one not a party game?...
Even your mind gymnastics contradicts your point!Let's try and walk through this again.
Your original quote (to someone who was not me):
Funny that you don't see the contradiction in saying "It is a party game" continued with "Escape/kills highten your MMR".My original reply
There isn't. MMR is meant to match players of similar playstyle against each other, not just skill. If you min/max your role, expect to run into other people who do the same, if you bring kind of random perks and just play around you're supposed to get the same from others.That's still true. The MMR system accomplishes its goal. If you want to treat it as a fun, casual game you can, if you want to be ultra competitive, you can.
Let's go through some other things.
We talk about the definition of party games. I state
I see a wikipedia article with no sources for the phraseYou then quote the same wikipedia article for evidence.
You then say
And your response is making excuses and more mental gymnastics to justify it not being an acceptable definition? Dude...That's not what I said. I never said it wasn't an acceptable definition. I said that's not what other people meant when they said the phrase 'party game'. You have to address a person's point based on what they are talking about, you can't just substitute your own definition and change their argument.
Words, especially phrases, rarely have one single absolute definition. That's more true on a forum like this with users from around the world.
It has, you are wrong.It very much does not. I wish it did, but the devs have discussed the idea of wanting each player to have their own view of what they consider a win or loss.
Also, even if it didn't, I don't know how that would mean anything. I mean, many party games have win and lose conditions, so according to your logic this makes any game that has one not a party game?...I'm trying to move away from the term party game because it confuses the entire argument. Party games is a vague term that can mean different things because even if it means 'games generally played at parties', that going to shift from individual to induvial.
I was merely replying to your point about people adding win conditions to make a "party game" competitive, which is what lots of people have done with DbD.
-
@Archol123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614871#Comment_3614871
Where did you get this ridiculouly high player count for DBD? xD I cannot immagine more than 100k players for DBD on all platforms combined.
I think 65 million is the total number of new accounts that have ever played the game.
Talking about player count varies depending upon what you mean. It could be the peak number of players who play the game at a single time, but more likely it is the number of people who play the game at least once a month.
I'd say it is way over a 100k. There's 31k people on steam playing the game right now as I post this, Steam is only one of the ways to play the game on the computer, you have multiple console versions which I think have more players overall (I'm not really sure what the preferred method of playing DbD is within Asia, which has a substantial player base).
It also depends on whether you count mobile players as part of DbD or its own separate game.
I see sites that estimate a million different people play DbD per day, that seems like a reasonable number to me.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614667#Comment_3614667
Sure. [...]
Dude, you are describing exactly how a ranked system works to argue that the game is not ranked.
The same with the dev description. What he says there is every single game with a skill based ranked system in existence, so doesn't matter how many mental gymnastics do you want to add on top of it, you are only proving me right.
In fact, you can argue that precisely the main problem of the MMR system in DbD is that it doesn't take into account skill at all, as it only count win or loses. So, doesn't matter if you had looped the killer for 5 minutes, repaired 4 gens by yourself or if you had left every survivor at last hook during the match, if you end up losing is -20 MMR rating for you.
I don't think that's what people mean at all. [...]
Well, they are wrong. A party game, by definition, is what I described.
And true, every party game can be a played as a competitive game if you set additional rules on top of it, in fact Tetris is played competitively even today, also Monopoly. The key point here is what you said about Settles of Catan: "can easily be played by a family".
Again, a party game is a game with low skill ceiling and easy entry point designed to be played mainly with friends just for the fun of it. You can't put your non-gaming mother to play DbD online against strangers and expect her to do good or be able to compete at the game, even if you tell her exactly how to play. That's the difference.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614673#Comment_3614673
First, from the Wiki, which base it's articles in patch notes, devs talks and data mining the game:
Skill Brackets
Players of ranked Trials in Dead by Daylight are sorted into so-called "Skill Brackets", depending on their MMR:
- Players with 650 points are newcomers and put into the "Testing Skill Bracket".
- Players with 900 to 1,000 points are in the "Bottom Skill Bracket".
- Players with 1,600+ points are in the "Top Skill Bracket".
- This bracket is the widest, as it encompasses all Players with MMR scores up to the maximum of 3,000 points.
- Players with 2,000 to 2,200 points tend to be professional Dead by Daylight Players, such as streamers and content creators, due to how frequently they play.
- Players with 2,400 to 2,500 points are the most proficient Dead by Daylight Players.
Caps
- Players with 2,100 points reach the "Soft Cap" of the MMR system.
- Reaching this cap will significantly reduce gains towards their MMR.
- Players with 3,000 points reach the "Hard Cap" of the MMR system.
- Reaching this cap will suspend any further gains towards their MMR.
https://deadbydaylight.fandom.com/wiki/Skill-Based_Matchmaking_Rating
So, at minimum, we have 3 hard coded skill brackets right now with people above 2000 being considered the "top":
- 0 - 900
- 900 - 1600
- 1600 - 3000
Second, even if the game didn't have any "rank bracket" the point still maintains, as again, in any game with a SMM system the bracket only represent a certain part of your "rank number" (usually with some cool name like "Platinum", "Emperor", etc.). The difference comes in how the game uses that number to do matchmaking. In the case of DbD, when you have hit a rating of 1600 it would try to match you against people with the closest rating to yours, ergo, if you have 2500 rating it would try to find someone with also 2500 rating.
So, just as I said: "You win or lose games and if you keep winning you get to higher ranks, facing players of your same rank, until you reach max rank because if it was infinite it won't be a rank, it would be just a number", brackets or not.
Dude, you are describing exactly how a ranked system works to argue that the game is not ranked.That doesn't sound like anything I said.
Here's your original sentence that I first commented on
Funny that you don't see the contradiction in saying "It is a party game" continued with "Escape/kills highten your MMR".If you want to play DbD casually and just enjoy, you can. If you want to play it extremely competitively, you can. The MMR will put you into brackets related to how you play and, broadly, match you against similar player types. (generally speaking, with the system breaking down more outside peak hours)
The mistake, which most people make, is also related to a comment of yours
So, doesn't matter if you had looped the killer for 5 minutes, repaired 4 gens by yourself or if you had left every survivor at last hook during the match, if you end up losing is -20 MMR rating for you.Things like this don't matter mathematically. If you are player who is some combination of skilled/sweaty you will escape/kill more. Any individual game will have variance, but it will not impact the overall MMR in a meaningful way. Put simply, if you have enough data about outcomes, you don't need to know how the outcomes were arrived at for sorting players.
The way you play will impact where you end up in the MMR. Play it casually, expect to get more players who are also casual.
Well, they are wrong. A party game, by definition, is what I described.Not sure where you are going for a definition as I see no formal definition of the phrase 'party game'. I see a British definition of 'games played at a party' which is axiomatic. I see a wikipedia article with no sources for the phrase. I see a video game definition of games consisting of short mini-games, which DbD has never been anywhere close to being.
And true, every party game can be a played as a competitive game if you set additional rules on top of it, in fact Tetris is playedDbD has no win condition. Every person talking about wins and losses is literally doing what you describe here, taking a party game and putting additional win conditions on it to make it not a party game.
-
It's worth pointing out that the other game modes are currently a survey question, they are no where on the roadmaps as of yet.
As for your idea: If we're talking of basically doing a new game, I could see it working, but I think it would be too difficult to have as just a variation of the current system. It would switch around the gameplay loop a lot with survivors constantly on the move which would make things like aura reading much more valuable to the killer.
What I'd Like: I like the idea of 5 v 5 even though I don't think it fits the theme it is by default a balanced game between sides because of equal access. When I first read the description it sound like a Capture the Flag type gameplay where each side has one side of the map to defend, while they have another side to attack. It sounds like 5v5 will actually be all on one map with some form of fight for gen control. I'd be interested in a clear cut sides where each side has half of the map to defend (and if I was talking crazy because I don't think the system would support it, two maps joined together to create a symmetrical division).
-
It depends what you mean by perfect. Even before we get to 50/50 in chases, there are lots of decisions that are made without knowledge. As killer at the start of the game or off the hook you are faced with very simple decisions like 'left or right' to determine the direction you go. One of those choices is almost certainly better than the other, but sometimes its just a pure guess, though often its an educated guess on what players are probably doing, but at best you have probably.
Then there are 50/50s in chase where both sides are just making a guess at the other player's move. There's a psychology to that, but no way to say what the perfect play is.
Generally though, the survivors have an edge over anything but an S tier killer without mistakes. DbD is a chase game (tag) with perfect predictability. If the survivor plays it perfectly he would know whether he could beat the killer to a window or pallet with 100% certainty. Unlike humans playing tag, where every person runs at slight variations, the computer models move at perfectly predictable speeds, so if the survivor player is able to instantly (perfectly) calculate the distance between himself and the killer and the distance to a pallet, he'll know exactly which one to go to.
On the other hand, its far more likely for the killer to play in this hypothetical perfect. The killer has the chase roll, if the survivor makes a mistake on the distance the killer capitalizes easily, and with four survivors, even communicating on comms, there are just more people to make mistakes.