crogers271
crogers271
About
- Username
- crogers271
- Joined
- Visits
- 8,432
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3614308#Comment_3614308
... what? Where the hell have you take that from? The MMR system is literally a counter, it goes up or down depending on your win/loses. It has nothing to do with how you get that win or loses. Seriously, dare to explain how you deciding to "use random perks and play around" makes a game with a ranked system based on skill a party game?.
And I think the term "party game" in gaming is pretty clear: A multiplayer game, usually with simple controls and low skill ceiling, to be played for the sake of it to have fun, normally with friends. Basically, the same concept as a table top game, but being a video game.
A high skill competitive PvP game, by nature, is not a party game.The moment you need a minimum game sense and you are faced against strangers in matches according to your rank there is no possibility for playing it as a party game unless you play with friends in private lobbies. Simple as that.
Seriously, dare to explain how you deciding to "use random perks and play around" makes a game with a ranked system based on skill a party game?.Sure. The game has powerful perks and sweat addons that will make you stronger. This will lead to you escaping/killing more. This will result in you playing against 'harder' competition, most likely those who are using similar build types. There will be outliers, either people so good at the game that they are at the higher level, or so bad they are at a lower level. But the average player in the average game will be matched up with players using a similar playstyle.
But you can also look to what the Devs have said (first half is the most relevant):
@Peanits said:
Everyone will reach a point where you plateau while playing the way you would typically play. This point will vary person to person: Some people are absolute legends and will climb really high without much effort, others will cap out fairly low (and that's okay!). This is exactly how MMR systems work. The game is trying to find a spot where your playstyle, whatever it may be, will work about half the time.
That said, if you try to play in a way that'll make you win more often, your rating will increase and you will get tougher matches, eventually plateauing again where your new strategy only works about half the time. The harder you try, the tougher your opponents will be. If you feel like you need to tunnel after tunneling to win, it's more than likely due to the fact that you've climbed above your comfort zone.
To be very clear, if you're hyper focused on winning more often than not, you will have to try (and try hard at that). The game will not try to give you easy wins. Winning consistently means the other side is losing consistently, and that means the matchmaking system isn't working.
Trying to boil the game down to an equation doesn't really work. In your example, you haven't factored in the time survivors spent saving their teammates. This is by far the most important factor in the game: Pressure. If you have one survivor on a hook, another in a chase, and a third going for a save, that leaves only one survivor left free to work on generators. This is also something you sacrifice by tunneling one survivor; the other three have nothing to do but generators since you aren't giving them a reason not to, so your generators will fly by. There's way too many factors to stick a number on it without grossly oversimplifying it.
All that aside, I really wouldn't assume you're at high MMR (not just you, OP, but anyone). The actual distribution of people across all MMRs is like a bell curve. There's a lot of people in the middle and very few at either extreme (high or low). The vast majority of people will fall somewhere around the middle. While I don't doubt that some folks here truly are playing in the high MMR range, the amount of people there are so low that it's a really bold claim to make when you can't even see your rating.
Over enough plays, the math will average out your games to reflect your playstyle against people who match that playstyle.
And I think the term "party game" in gaming is pretty clear: A multiplayer game, usually with simple controls and low skill ceiling, to be played for the sake of it to have fun, normally with friends. Basically, the same concept as a table top game, but being a video game.I don't think that's what people mean at all. A party game has skill and competition, but emphasizes fun elements over balance. Not every map/killer has to be balanced, instead they should add variety and fun to the game. People don't want anything that is too broken, but the fact that the game has a ton of random elements is not a detraction, but something that makes it appealing.
You brought up tabletop games. Take Settlers of Catan, its a competitive game, has random elements, and can easily be played by a family every couple of months, but lots of people play it in more intense competitive tournament settings.
I don't like the term party game because any game can be a party game or a competitive game depending upon how you approach it.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3613957#Comment_3613957
Can I ask, why do you say that this game doesn't have a win condition?
It pretty clearly does, at least in the broad shape. It isn't ambiguous for survivor: your win condition is escaping. For killer it's a little more vague, in that the game itself doesn't make it particularly clear if a 3K counts or if it has to be a 4K, but the broad shape of the win condition is pretty clearly sacrificing survivors.
I genuinely don't understand how someone can come to the conclusion any game that isn't a pure sandbox doesn't have a win condition. Could you elaborate a bit?
As survivor, you can play a team based game if you want. Even if you escape and the others don't, its a loss. You can even say if its a 1k its a win, even if you die.
You could also evaluate your performance on the overall point score or any other metric that you wish. BHVR supports that based on comments I've seen, though I've always found the games lack of clear win conditions very strange.
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3613843#Comment_3613843
Funny that you don't see the contradiction in saying "It is a party game" continued with "Escape/kills highten your MMR".
This is a competitive PVP game with a ranked system, only that for some reason (a big part of the community that like you still want to believe it is a party game, if I had to bet) they hide our rank from us even if showing it would solve many things. In fact, it is so competitive that it doesn't even have an unranked "for fun" queue when other games made with E-Sports in mind have it.
I think is time for you people to realize that the only way to play this game as "a party game" is playing with other 4 people in a custom match, and for BHVR to show us our MMRs.
Funny that you don't see the contradiction in saying "It is a party game" continued with "Escape/kills highten your MMR".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.
Also 'party game' is a term that lacks clarity. It means different things to different people.
-
Either your teammates are doing a great job distracting the killer or your times are off.
75% of the gens by yourself is a little over 5 and a half minutes, that's almost four full gens by yourself. Even if you are hitting great skill checks and have brought a gen rush build, the time running between gens balances that out. If you have that much time on gens by yourself, plus the other things you talk about, then the other survivors must be keeping the killer really busy.
It's possible, I've had games where I've done four of the gens, but in the those games the other survivors were great at keeping the killer's attention.
-
@MigrantTheGreat said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/400839/idea-for-solving-3-gen
"When there's one gen remaining, generators can no longer regress passively"Stopped reading at that sentence because
- That's technically nerfing and punishing killer for doing one of their objectives
- Maps are part of the issue, and I say this because of maps like Mother's Dwelling, Sufforcation Pit, Azarov's Resting Place (Map not the realm).
Maps such as the ones I mentioned can indirectly force a killer into 3 gens because what's the point in hooking someone on one side of the map just to walk back to the other side and have all gens pop on that side of the map? At the point the killer genuinely has no reason to be on that side of the map.
Scanning over everything else you said, it looks you wanna completely butcher regression and if you do that than the game will become unplayable and possibly boring/frustrating for both sides since tunneling is the answer for regression in its current state.
Stopped reading at that sentence becauseI think my favorite thing on the forum is the replies that go:
I stopped reading
Now
Please read my post.
@blackfoxx_x said:
A lot of people bring up gen placement and map design, but I think there's a way to address it without changing maps. When there's one gen remaining, generators can no longer regress passively. The killer can still kick generators and get the 2.5% regression, but beyond that generators won't regress on their own (Hex Ruin would be the exception). This would nerf Call of Brine and Overcharge, as the increased passive gen regression wouldn't be in effect at this point in the match. Since they were originally nerfed because of 3 gens, they could probably be buffed back to where they were or close to it.
Jolt/Surge, Eruption and PGtW would probably need some form of nerf as well. Surge and Eruption could have a short cooldown (maybe 20-30 seconds). For PGtW, maybe make it so it no longer activates after hooking a survivor for the 3rd time/death hook (reduces uses from 12 to 8). At one gen remaining, there would probably be at least one or multiple survivors on death hook, so PGtW would get less opportunity to be used in 3 gen scenarios.
These changes should be fairly easily to implement. Some of the typical 3-gen builds/perks could then be buffed to help with slowdown early-mid game since they will lose their passive regression effect when only 1 gen is remaining (Call of Brine, Overcharge, Oppression).
This wouldn't make much of a difference in the current gameplay. The passive slowdown is not a huge issue on the 3 gen, survivors should be able to get back to the gens pretty quickly as the killer still has to patrol the other gens.
For the perk ideas, that would kill way too much of the killer's ability to get some type of pressure. Last gen complaints are the opposite side of killer complaints: killers complain that the first gens pop way too fast, while survivors that the last gen is way too slow. At the outliers both statements have some truth to them, but as general game design its not an issue, things should go well for the survivors early and tilt over the course of the game. The last gen should be difficult (not borderline impossible, which is what it was with chess merchant and the old Overbrine, but difficult).
If, and its a big if as they've already been weakened quite a bit, the gen perks where going to decrease in values, it should be based on survivors left in the trial. The might mean survivors still have a chance in a 3 v 1 against a 3 gen.
-
The Entity wants the killer to 'play the game'. The entity sent in the killer to hunt. It feeds off the pain and thrills of the match. It doesn't actually want or not want the survivors sacrificed, it wants the game. AFC is the entity saying 'I don't like how you do this'.
In ways, its like blocking windows after too many vaults. The entity says to the survivor 'I'm bored, go do something else.'
-
I've always thought that the biggest problem was the number of people who've pulled off killer win streaks, not the streaks themselves. If it was just a player or two then the 'oh yeah, they are the best player', but it is a feat that lots of players have pulled off. Compare that to the survivor streaks and you are looking at some of the absolute best survivors.
The second issue though is the killer's who've pulled it off with major handicaps.
Streaks in competitive events should be extremely rare. Magnus Carlsen streak of wins in chess as some say the best player in history is 42 with draws not ending the streak. Taking a quick look at major competitive sports the highest streaks are usually in the 20s, and that are for some sports with over a hundred years of play. If you are being matched against competition that is even relatively on your level, a winning streak in the hundreds should be impossible.
It is an inherent problem/inevitability with the game design. Each of us, hypothetically, could become as good as a top tier comp killer. To become equivalent to a comp tier survivor we'd have to get as good and then find three other people on the same level.
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/400736/killer-winstreaks
Here's a question for you.
Is it a problem with someone does it as a survivor team as well? You know the same kinds of teams that otz plays with when he plays with hens and ayrun and they do these "hardcore survivor" challenges? And they go on big win streaks?
You know the same kinds of teams that otz plays with when he plays with hens and ayrun and they do these "hardcore survivor" challenges? And they go on big win streaks?That's not what the hardcore series was/is. They start fresh survivors, so they are at low MMR and they talk about how much harder the games get later on as MMR improves. Second the goal is not a win streak, but to get to Iri 1 before all of there available survivors die off, wins and losses are irrelevant.
They also failed the most recent attempt.
-
@MikaelaWantsYourBoon said:
Just curious about everyone's opinion on that.
No heal meta mostly means survivors are ignoring even objectives like healing and doing gens even if they are injured.
Do you think this meta is bad or good for game?
If I understand the topic, you're asking if the current meta is an overall fun design, not whether the way people are playing it is good strategy or not.
Generally, yes. While I don't mind the the occasional 'long' game (15 to 20 minutes), generally I find the 7 to 10 minutes games much more enjoyable. Healing isn't totally worthless (though totems are usually not worth it, and forget about chests) and I feel that the rush mentality more fits the action thriller theme the game has kind of evolved into.
It's by no means perfect. Back in the healing meta, I felt that as survivors if we had a CoH we still might have a chance after a tunnel, now if someone gets tunneled its a race to get the remaining gens done immediately (better be down to 1 or 2 left). As a killer, if the survivors bring four green toolboxes its kind of ridiculous.
Overall I'd like the games to take about the length they have now, though giving survivors a reason to do things other than gens would be nice.
-
As others have said, losing a gen or two on the first chase is perfectly normal and doesn't mean the match is in anyway lost.
As a survivor, if the killer has someone on the hook before we even have a single gen done, we've almost certainly lost.
-
Disconnecting.
Hackers have opened up the game's code, if there was a 3rd way it would be known.
-
The difference not being noted is that Nemy's infection makes him stronger.
The infections are only similar in the name, they are all unique game mechanics. Plague's is also meant to represent a disease so it is thematically appropriate.
-
More
Billy
Bubba
Demo
Huntress
Pinhead
-
Less
Spirit
Plague
Wraith
Nurse
-
@bornagain234 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3609888#Comment_3609888
That is mind blowing. On their website, its 1300 now.
Just to give you an idea of how many employees that is.
Bungie (destiny, halo )- 1100
Santa monic (God of war ) - 400
Naughty dog ( TLOU, Uncharted ) - 400+
From software ( elden ring, souls ) - 400
Neverrealm ( mortal kombat ) - 250
guerilla games ( horizon ) - 400
Yes its a live service game, but man thats a huge amount of employees. Their overhead must be insane. Lets underestimate and say every employee earns $20,000 a year. Thats $26 million a year just for wages, let alone licence costs, development costs, etc.
Crazy.
It's easy to not notice that there are lots of other games they work on, and I'm not just talking about the ones they design. On their website they have a list of fairly major titles they've partnered on. I have no idea what exactly they did, but its a lot of games beyond just the ones they publicly associated with.
-
Generally agree. I don't think the gen regression perks are bad, but they don't strike me quite as critical as others do. The survivors need to spend ~450 seconds on generators (likely less with toolboxes, perks, great skill checks) - regressing gens is one way to stop that, but if you keep the survivors off gens you accomplish the same goal in a different fashion.
When a killer is running pain res and pop there's also the issue of whether you can get to the hook/gen in time. As a survivor its always interesting to be watching the HUD, finish a gen, see a survivor get hooked, and then have a gen with very little progress get hit.
-
Not all games are for everyone. I don't get why people like Fortnight and Minecraft.
If you got between 20 and 30 hours in, well that seems like quite a bit of playtime.
There's no matchmaking penalty for going AFK.
-
Reduce the self unhook chance to compensate (something like 0.1%, to lazy to calculate it),I was curious about the math. If I understand DbD's numbers the roughly necessary equivalent would be 0.272% (so 0.3%) chance to have the same likelihood of success if that was allowed.
-
Probably some form of BBQ. In this hypothetical, because the killer now knows that every survivor has a 100% chance to see which way the killer goes, showing distant auras would be balance.
Though I think if they were to put basekit kindred in the game, the way to have it work would be for it not to turn on for 30 seconds or something like that. Not sure what you'd balance against that.
-
As killer, I don't even really pay attention to the lobby that much. Even when I do notice a high prestige I usually forget who it was during the game (presuming they all aren't high prestige).
However, I can imagine that its possible some killers would target the top prestige as kind of a proving point to show off, but also imagine they avoid the top prestige to take out the weaker players first.
-
@CountOfTheFog said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3611819#Comment_3611819
I do have the NES game. What a Diamond 💎 in the rough 👏
There was a weekend a friend of mine brought that and the NES Friday the 13th game over. Scary as a 9 year old, but interesting to look back at the images.
-
@CountOfTheFog said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/400500/being-freddy-fan-in-2023
I'm a huge Freddy fan as well as a Freddy main.
With regards to film and television, it's better to let the NoES series rest in peace.
Robert Englund is the only person who can do Freddy and he has stated numerous times that he is too old now.
I would love Robert Englund Freddy skins (Original and Wes Craven's New Nightmare) and I have no doubt Englund would do the voice acting.
Warner Bros. Never allows the Freddy we all love in video games. Hell, even years ago when they put him in Mortal Kombat, it was the remake Freddy that we have in DBD.
Warner Bros. Never allows the Freddy we all love in video games. Hell, even years ago when they put him in Mortal Kombat, it was the remake Freddy that we have in DBD.We got two Nightmare on Elm Street games in 1989. Just bust out your Commodore 64 or NES and have a go.
-
@DrDucky said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3611197#Comment_3611197
I am just thinking though, how would a bot work? Say a guy attempts on hook and then lets go, would the bot just spawn on hook and have their hook timer reset?
Disable hook escapes (maybe entire game, maybe first two hooks, maybe first 3 minutes), give the player an option on hook to leave the game either with a reduced or zero penalty, replace with bot.
-
Creating a hack that allows Bubba to hit a survivor even though they are in the locker, that sounds unlikely. I think that would have to create a hit box on the server where none exists. That seems unlikely when speed hacks exist, are easier to hide, and more powerful.
I mean its possible, there've been some incredible/awful hackers out there, but it doesn't sound like the craziest latency thing I've ever heard.
-
I was going to ask this, but then I realized I could do it myself. I was curious how many streaks you went on as that seems to be my experience, I'll hit a bunch of games were the survivors get crushed, then hit a streak of games where everything feels fine. After doing the streaks I checked a couple of other things.
Your longest streak of dying: 4
Your longest streak of escapes: 9
Your longest streak of team losses: 4
Your longest streak of team wins: 5
Times your team won but you died (eg 1k and you were the one dead): 4
Your average rank: 2.66 (with 1.00 being 1 in all 100 matches and 2.50 being a hypothetically perfectly average score)
-I'm a little surprised your escapes are above the average, but point wise the score's have you being a slightly below average teammate.
Apologies if I made any errors, did counting and math while tired.
Question: What time of day did you roughly play during or was it varied?
Thanks for the data, is always interesting to see.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3611306#Comment_3611306
Balanced Landing is pretty rare when it comes to Exhaustion-Perks, giving that it has only very specific spots where it can be used.
But if 3 of them had it and sent me to The Game (one of the Maps which can have excellent use of Balanced Landing), I thought they would play together.
That I can see, but if I'm reading your earlier post correctly, wasn't it the player who didn't have balanced landing who used that map offering?
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
The chance that you run into a SWF which is the reason why you lost (aka a VERY good group of people) is really, really low. Most of the time you will probably have made a few mistakes, which cause you to lose the game.
Also, 4man SWFs (which is probably what most people refer to) are rare. You will run in a lot of 2man-SWFs I would guess.
And as others have said, a lot of it is perception. E.g. I got send to The Game by some Survivors two days ago. I was pretty convinced that they are a 4 man-SWF because 3 of them had Balanced Landing. Turns out, the person who send me to the Map AND played the strongest (they were the one person who escaped after I closed the Hatch) were Solo, the other might have been in an SWF.
But during the whole game I was pretty sure that I play against a 4 man-SWF.
I was pretty convinced that they are a 4 man-SWF because 3 of them had Balanced Landing.I don't see the connection. I've been in plenty of games as a solo were I ended up running the same perks as other people. 3 balanced landings doesn't seem that weird.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3611280#Comment_3611280
The Aura is not shown. I played against a few Killers who were using Plaything and not Pentimento, which was odd to me, until I read here that the Aura is bugged.
Because usually I play against Killers who use Plaything AND Pentimento, so "only Plaything" was quite surprising.
I thought that was just a playstation bug?
I usually run plaything on its own, but I'll stop if its bugged for everyone.
-
@DrDucky said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3610999#Comment_3610999
Again all of this just boils down to, you cannot stop people from leaving. If you do punish a self sacrifice, then people will just afk (I have saved people trying to self sacrifice and they have just stood there). Because people who truly do not want to play that match are not suddenly going to continue after you stop their suicide attempt.
Making it so that you get punished or something, or you cannot self sacrifice early is an attempt at a solution, but people will then just wait and then let go on the hook.
My main point is the reason why BHVR have not done this is because ultimately there is no suggestion which prevents the problem entirely, only one which at most discourages it and you cannot account for context.
My main point is the reason why BHVR have not done this is because ultimately there is no suggestion which prevents the problem entirely, only one which at most discourages it and you cannot account for context.Why is preventing the problem entirely relevant? That's a ridiculous standard. Disconnect penalties don't stop disconnects entirely, but that doesn't mean they don't have an effect. If something can help alleviate a problem, that's a good thing.
Yes, you can't literally make a player play a game if they absolutely don't want to. But you definitely can put in design elements to encourage playing or discourage leaving.
This isn't even getting into the proposed solutions to replace a survivor with a bot.
-
@Krazzik said:
A very interesting question in the survey may shed light on why Cross Progression is taking so long.
I don't have a screenshot but the question was basically:
"Would you be open to Cross Progression if you could only carry over characters you bought ingame, rather than through DLC"
It seems that character unlocks through DLC may be much harder to carry over, perhaps there are legal problems with the DLC being tied to that platform's company and so they can't allow the unlocks to be transferred to another platform.
This would mean you would have to purchase the individual characters with Auric Cells or Iri Shards for them to be available on other platforms.
It seems that character unlocks through DLC may be much harder to carry over, perhaps there are legal problems with the DLC being tied to that platform's company and so they can't allow the unlocks to be transferred to another platform.When you purchase something from BHVR, the service provider (Sony, Steam, etc.) get a cut of that because they bear the cost of being the host. It makes sense that Sony wouldn't be crazy about having to bear the hosting costs while Steam is getting the money (as an example).
Some companies have better relations with others. If the Fortnight lawsuit is anything to go off, Sony is the major sticking point and asks for enormous fees for cross progression.
-
@TBHartley said:
Since it's confirmed the devs are doing it... what would actually be the best combos for such a mode? I mostly mean killer but if you have Survivor ideas, please say them!
The only thing I'm gonna assume here is that you cant use two of the same killer since Survivors are skins where killers actually have unique powers, and that maaaaybe you can take Survivors to hooking without carrying? And that it's similar to how pyramid head sends Survivors off in cages? Idk the survey was very vague on that part wasn't it? But yeah what do you guys think?
Since it's confirmed the devs are doing itDid I miss something? I thought this was just one of a number of possibilities on an idea that might not even happen. If it does happen right now its looking more likely for mobile.
-
I mean a big part of it is just perception. Things always feel harder given the side you are on. That's just human nature.
Finishing gens quickly is more just an issue of whether the survivors are dedicated to doing gens. Sometimes in soloq I'll see all my teammates jump on gens, sometimes they run around doing nothing.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3611085#Comment_3611085
How about if the survivors make a bad play they all die instantly?
There is no scenario where that happens. But bad plays and good plays have their consequences.
If there is a hook trade, a survivor walks away while another is hooked. There isn't as much risk here as there would be with grabs, and survivors seem to be rushing the hook more often.
That just doesn't sit right with me. The killer shouldn't lose a hook state on a scenario where the survivors made a mistake. If the killer made the mistake, then it is okay. Or if the survivors made a good play.
There is no scenario where that happens. But bad plays and good plays have their consequences.That's the point. Things have consequences, but those have to balanced. Doing an unhook at the right time is still vastly superior to a hook trade.
There isn't as much risk here as there would be with grabs, and survivors seem to be rushing the hook more often.There was too much risk with grabs, too much randomness based on ping, and the mechanic felt silly as a survivor just stood there staring at a killer.
Also if we're going off perception, I'd say hook rushing is slightly less than it used to be. Hook rushes now lead to tunnels, unhooks used to happen quickly before the killer could set up the camp to see everything.
That just doesn't sit right with me.You're entitled to like or dislike anything you want as a game element - but based on BHVR's comments/decision for change a majority of players found the mechanic boring.
The killer shouldn't lose a hook state on a scenario where the survivors made a mistake.So we're back to 'if they make a mistake, why don't they all die?' Why should this mistake be so costly? A hook grab was devastating, anytime the killer has two survivors hooked they are in a massively advantageous position.
Additionally, it wasn't an action that required any skill on the killers part. This isn't like a gen grab were a killer can pull it off via stealth. The only times it happened were when:
1: The survivor did not know the mechanic existed
2: The survivor lost the silly unhook guessing game
3: Ping craziness
4: Survivor trying to get out of the game / didn't care anymore
And again, they don't lose a hook state, especially if the survivors are rushing the hook. They are still giving the killer two free hits and another hook state.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3610675#Comment_3610675
This is a piece of the dev update for hook grabs.
We’ve all been in that situation before. A Survivor runs toward their hooked friend, but the Killer is nearby, so you both play a thrilling game of unhook-chicken. The Survivor attempts to trick the Killer into swinging so they don’t get grabbed, meanwhile the Killer tries to predict when the Survivor may commit to the unhook to grab them and prevent the save. Beyond this scenario leading to some very awkward gameplay, this also makes it possible for a facecamping Killer to potentially defend the hooked Survivor and put a second Survivor into the dying state while they’re at it.
They use the terms thrilling game play when talking about "unhook-chicken", but then mention how this is used by facecampers.
They use the terms thrilling game play when talking about "unhook-chicken", but then mention how this is used by facecampers.The thrilling here is sarcasm. Unhook chicken was one of the silliest things in the game regardless of whether it was used by campers or not.
One of the best arguments for changing dead hard was it felt stupid for the killer to run behind a survivor trying to bait out the dead hard. Something being 'not fun' or ruins immersion are the strongest arguments. Same goes for unhook grabs, just standing there trying to get a swing was such a ridiculous game.
And unless BHVR has AFC work even when survivors are close, it doesn't change anything. Killer proxy camps and chases in behind and we're back to the pointless guessing game.
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3610781#Comment_3610781
Someone actually posted a link earlier of a 2 minute video with 2 back to back. You think THOSE grabs were unfair?
Yeah, incredibly unfair.
At this point of the game the killer has two survivors in the basement. The survivors only real strategy at this point is a desperate charge attack. Even without the hook grabs, the killer would have still been incredibly advantageous position.
I'll also say though that the video isn't really accurate, the survivors seem to be trying to get out of the game. Which is understandable as two basement hooks with 3 gens to go mean game over.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3610918#Comment_3610918
It is not always proxy-camp. Sometimes survivors rush the hook, we all have seen it happen. Not to mention all those times people unhook you during the chase because they think it is a good idea.
The killer doesn't deserve a setback, no matter how minor, because the adversary played poorly.
The killer doesn't deserve a setback, no matter how minor, because the adversary played poorly.How about if the survivors make a bad play they all die instantly?
Mistakes should have variable costs. Hook trades mean survivors lose a hook state and the killer gets two hits that would have taken considerably longer to do in chase. To say that its a set back is crazy. It's not as strong as it once was, but the killer gets a free down.
Hook grabs were way too powerful, especially given they were ping dependent. They never should have existed in the first place.
-
@DrDucky said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3610499#Comment_3610499
If people dont want to play then they will not play. This solution sounds good in theory, but people will then just afk after the unhook and leave it until the killer comes back to finish them off (which most killers to be fair will) it just simply cannot be fixed if people do not want to play.
If people dont want to play then they will not play.This always gets brought up but there a couple of problems with it.
1: The game already has a built in penalty to discourage disconnects. It makes no sense to say 'if you leave the game X way, you get punished because it ruins the game for everyone else, but leave it Y way even though it still ruins the game, no punishment.' If the disconnect system works, either by discouraging disconnects or lessening the amount of times players who do it are in the game, there is no reason to believe that it won't work for hooks.
2: Based on my experience, I don't think its true that they won't play. Sure, sometimes they'll just AFK or go to get the killer, but lots of times when I see a survivor trying to hook suicide early get rescued, they go back to playing the game.
3: Even if BHVR is absolutely convinced that they need to allow an out system on the hook, they could just ban hook suicides early in the game but allow disconnects with no penalty and put a bot into its place.
This is an issue that massively impacts the game and they should at least try something. I could understand the difficulty before we had bots, but now that they are in it seems a relatively easy thing to address if they still want to allow an out for players without it impacting everyone else.
-
@TeleportingTurkey said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3609043#Comment_3609043
like I said, I don't think they just decided against singularity update because they suddenly changed their minds.
I want to believe that, but from my experience that just means they postponed it. Hopefully, for at least 3-4 years.
I suspect that BHVR has a list of potential changes for every killer in the game. I'd actually be surprised if they didn't have multiple rough sketches with each killer of directions they could go. Probably different people of the design/balance team have different ideas.
I imagine one of the components of the update window is that it means, 'okay everyone, lets actually talk over these ideas and narrow down possibilities'.
Given its a live service game and BHVR's design philosophy of changing things, every killer will eventually roll through the update window. Like you, I'm in no hurry for Singularity, I don't play him but enjoy going against him as survivor and he adds a unique gameplay experience.
-
Variations of this idea get proposed pretty regularly. Unfortunately, BHVR just thinks its an impossible fix. I have no idea why as I've never seen them give a reason why this would be a problem.
-
@pizzavessel15 said:
think about it. bhvr is adding more and more stuff that just PROMOTES THE SURVIVOR TO GET UNHOOKED INFRONT OF THE KILLER. basekit bt made it so you dont have to worry about the killer moving out of the area before unhooking, and even then the survivor almost always just tries to get infront of the killer with bt. removing hook grabs made it so the survivors can run up and guarantee the unhook. not to mention theres now anti face camp. bhvr is adding things that just promote the survivor unhooking near the killer. that plus alot of killers now have a ridiculous amount of safe guards, gens fly, more and more survivors are becoming toxic etc. these are the reasons tunneling have dramatically increased. killers are doing everything possible to win because survivors are making it feel as bad as possible to loose or the killer youre playing as feels so bad to play.
I'll start by saying that its possible any change to the game has unintended consequences.
However, we also had an era where killers had multiple powerful gen slowdown perks and we still had tunneling.
basekit bt made it so you dont have to worry about the killer moving out of the area before unhooking, and even then the survivor almost always just tries to get infront of the killer with bt.removing hook grabs made it so the survivors can run up and guarantee the unhook.Almost always seems an exaggeration and if survivors are unhooking right in front of the killer, knocking them back down makes perfect sense. But I rarely sees such rushed play were the survivors just unhook immediately, and usually when they do they have a plan.
not to mention theres now anti face camp.I don't see the connection unless you mean that now killers have to tunnel out a target instead of just standing in front of their hook, which is not perfect but an improvement.
survivors are becoming toxic etc. these are the reasons tunneling have dramatically increased.Both of those seem about the same.
-
5 v 5 - sounds interesting. An actually balanced game with clear win conditions. Theme wise it would be very different, kind of like capture the flag.
Tag could be good, would need a bit more info on how they'd lay it out.
VIP - would need a ton more info on how they would balance this. This almost seems like a SWF only mode.
Bumrush - Removing the hook system entirely sounds interesting. Don't even care about the other changes in the mode, I'd be interested in how DBD would play out with just no hooks.
2v8 -this is the one closest to current DbD, but I don't know how they'd balance 1v4 and 2v8. The other systems above would be substantially different games, I feel like this one would heavily favor one side or the other. Also, I'm trying to imagine the 8 person SWFs.
-
Dark mode - not interested, but I understand there are a lot of people who like the idea.
Giants - uh, no.
Among Us - It could be good, but there are other games that do this.
-
As survivor, in the few games were the killer camped way too close, I've seen the survivor escape. I think the nerfed it a little too much with the 7 second delay after the PTB without adjusting the overall time, but I've definitely seen it work when the killer went back and forth near the hook too many times. The main issue is if another survivor is also just hanging around.
-
I never feel safe as survivor (always soloq), feel relaxed as killer even in games when I lose.
This topic comes up pretty frequently, everyone is different on which role feels the most engaging/intense.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3610216#Comment_3610216
You keep giving me examples of maps and Killer that came out in a previous decade.
I think that says everything people need to know.
This game is balanced around lack of information for both sides. And SWF breaks that significantly.I know I'm bumping back a couple of posts in the discussion, but I wanted to add on to this.
When we look at some of the innovative changes that have happened in the past (i.e. Nurse) people generally didn't like them.
People like the gameplay loop. Changes to that are met with hostility. Look at the proposed auto-pickup mechanic.
That's why I think they are spending their time on smaller scale changes, like the anti-face camp mechanic (which I think they did an excellent job with). If people like the general gameplay, don't radically change it, just try and address the issues that exist within that loop without breaking it.
@pseudechis said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3610287#Comment_3610287
Now this is a discussion.
You make a very good point about Freddy and that would definitely be a big shake up for some interesting changes, but you are talking big rework there that has to also interact with the plethora of perks. Not that I wouldn't want to see it. I think more realistic changes would be kinda like Myers, where there are a few different versions of him depending on what addons are being run rather than big mechanics overhauls these days. I wish more killers worked that way.
I think its more likely that 30 killers and 240 something perks will only slow the timetable down. It was far more reasonable to expect rapid change with 12 killers but at this point a killer's power has to interact with all 240+ perks. I'm not making excuses for BHVR's slow timetable, just willing to accept its probably not gonna move at the extent I want it to either.
I'm always cautious with ideas like "boring" etc as reasons for change, because its so subjective to quantify whether something is boring. That's what player satisfaction surveys are for. But if the majority are doing as I hypothesize, which is just bemoan anything that differs to far from the mould, all we are going to get is what fits in the mould and that kills innovation more so than prolonged lifespan.
I get what you mean about MFT etc but conceptually MFT and perks like it are a simple change to attenuate the mechanic, bolstering solo que with more information has much wider impact on the game and I'm sure how to do it properly is a much more blue sky debate with differing opinions.
I wouldn't argue with you about the answers being lackluster for future roadmaps but they were really only lackluster with respect to higher concept changes like "how do we improve solo player experience". That really isn't directly comparable to the more simple "is MFT haste too fast?" I personally don't think a lot of the proposals for solo queue are very good, in fact I can see a lot more negatives associated with them than positives usually.
Knowing perk load out for one, the elitist nature of online gaming would have people denigrating each other and lobby dodging over loadouts long before it lead to any QOL improvements and the new UI is already ugly and cluttered. So I don't blame them for being non-committal and dragging their feet on that one.
I agree that DBD risks becoming a victim of its own success, in fact it has already to some extent, given the rather "samey" nature of more recent releases. Although chucky is a lot of fun so its not all bad and I don't think its the doom herald just yet.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3610279#Comment_3610279
Well its a forum so the best way to ensure even disparaging assessments aren't taken down is to be constructive at the very least.
Knowing perk load out for one, the elitist nature of online gaming would have people denigrating each other and lobby dodging over loadouts long before it lead to any QOL improvements and the new UI is already ugly and cluttered. So I don't blame them for being non-committal and dragging their feet on that one.So that's a really good point and one I hadn't thought of for why not to display perk loadouts. I could see people dodging adepts, new players, meme loadouts, etc.
The one possible exception, is that it doesn't just have to be a hypothetical discussion. It already exists in DbD mobile - what happens in that game and is there any reason to think people would treat the core game differently (maybe they are different, I don't play any type of mobile game but I could see an argument that its a different player base in how they act).
-
@maybelawliet said:
I get that it's a legendary skin and all but $20 for a skin cosmetic? She costs more than the dlc itself. I could unlock so many characters with $20 and get new perks and possibly buy cosmetics for other characters. I love Silent Hill 2, along with Maria. I'll still buy the skin even though it will make me go broke. I just don't get it.
There are two theories on this I think, a positive and negative
1: By making a lot of their money on cosmetics, BHVR is allowed to offer the actual gameplay to most people while making the money off of those who have money to spare / are considerably more into the game. In this view its a great way to fund the game because the biggest spenders are those who play it the most / have extra money to spend.
2: By making a lot of their money on cosmetics, BHVR is tapping into people's addictive tendencies. While most people will buy zero or just a few cosmetics, the game is funded by those who have a psychological need to be completionists. Entry costs to the game are low to maximize the player pool who they can potentially snag. In this view its an awful/immoral way to fund the game because we all (both BHVR and players) are being funded by those with an addiction.
I like to think its the first, but the second issue is definitely a portion of it.
-
@CountOfTheFog said:
I've been up for 24 hours playing. I had to play all last week for the double xp. Can't stop now, I'll fall behind on the event Tome. Oh , double bloodpoints? I need to grind this next week too...ect, ect.
See what I mean?
Like, I have a serious fomo problem. Does anyone find they'd love to take a break but they have fomo and just get burnt out.
I hate this feeling. 😒
I'm not looking for sympathy, just want the community response to this. Do you say enough is enough or grind on?
Thanks for reading.
I don't want to give mental health advice to someone I don't personally know, but you might want to consider talking to someone.
Burnout is the first problem with this, but its not the only concern. Eventually you will move on from DBD and if you don't have a healthy relationship with the game you're going to look back with disappointment/depression and wonder why you wasted so much of your life on it.
For me this would be Diablo II in the early 2000s. Playing it was fun, especially with friends, but when I think back to the time I spent trying to grind out items for no specific purpose, well, I regret not spending more time on all of the other things life has to offer.
Like I said, I don't know you, but what you lay out doesn't sound healthy.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3608839#Comment_3608839
Information is literally THE problem, and the devs are wrong. This game is heavily balanced around lack of information, for both sides as well. Take a look at the survivor perks some time, there are 131 survivor perks currently.
These perks are completely information based (all their power is information), in that they give information to the survivor/team:
- Aftercare
- Alert
- Better Together
- Bond
- Clairvoyance
- Counterforce
- Dark Sense
- Deja Vu
- Detective's Hunch
- Empathy
- Fogwise
- Inner Focus
- Kindred
- Left Behind
- Object of Obsession
- Open Handed
- Premonition
- Rookie Spirit
- Scene Partner
- Small Game
- Spine Chill
- Troubleshooter
- Visionary
- Windows of Opportunity
- Wire tap
These perks are at least partially based on giving you or your team information, in that, some component gives your team information:
- Babysitter
- Blast Mine
- Blood Pact
- Boon: Circle of Healing
- Boon: Dark Theory
- Boon: Exponential
- Boon: Shadow Step
- Buckle Up
- Fixated
- Lucky Star
- No One Left Behind
- Power Struggle
- Repressed Alliance
- Saboteur
- Wake Up
And look at all the perks that around suppressing information from the killer:
- Bite the Bullet
- Boil Over
- Calm Spirit
- Corrective Action
- Cut loose
- Dance with me
- Deception
- Distortion
- Diversion
- Iron Will
- Light Footed
- Lightweight
- Low Profile
- Lucky break
- Off the Record
- Parental Guidance
- Poised
- Quick and Quiet
- Red Herring
- Self-Preservation
- Sole Survivor
- Teamwork: Collective Stealth
- Technician
- Tenacity
So that means that we have:
- 25 perks only give information (15.5%)
- 15 perks partially give information (10%)
- 24 perks suppress information (15%)
- 40 perks at least partially are about information (25%)
- 64 perks are about information in some way (40%)
This means that SWF by definition, get around 25 perks for free. And many of the things that SWF can do, are not actually perk related. For example, someone can call out where trapper traps are, or when the killer changes direction to chase someone, or knowing relatively where the killer is.
This game is balanced around lack of information for both sides. And SWF breaks that significantly.
The primary thing we're talking about is the display of information before the match starts / during the loading screen.
I'd like the feature. I just don't think it would make a huge difference to soloq
Information is literally THE problem, and the devs are wrong.Here's the dev statement -
our current stance is that lack of information is not the crux of the problem, but rather that friends work together by nature and solo survivors don'tInformation means very little if teams don't actually work together.
This game is balanced around lack of information for both sides. And SWF breaks that significantly.SWFs are stronger, obviously, but your perk list gets a bit silly.
-
@radiantHero23 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3609936#Comment_3609936
Interesting. I'm curious if others also use beginner perks for a longer time, because they provide essential value that goes beyond the obvious.
I imagine the aura readings ones would be the hardest to get away from. If you play with one from the start it just feels like a base game mechanic and suddenly missing it feels strange.
-
Neither of the below are true any longer, but for the first six months that I played the game they very much were:
For a long time I was stuck on empathy. The first character I played was Claudette and I was so used to having empathy that it was really hard to move away from because I'd just grown accustomed to the auras.
On killer, probably Bloodhound. Again this is a perk that I stuck with because of early game play, but I find those extra seconds that blood trails stay visible make it incredibly easy to find injured survivors.
-
@MikaelaWantsYourBoon said:
People told me i am overacting when i said SB and Lithe are next lol.
I think its the speed of the turn around that surprises me the most. Like I knew we'd eventually get there, but MFT's corpse isn't even cold yet.
-
Wraith, Plague, Clown
None of them are overpowered, just don't really enjoy the games against them.
-
There's a few things I'd say in BHVR's defense about their game design.
1: Everyone else who has tried asymmetrical horror has done pretty poorly. The idea of an asymmetrical game is very tough to make into a playable mechanic. DbD, for all of its complaints, has had an amazing run. It's understandable that they want to be cautious with a formula that, in terms of player counts, is working.
2: Everyone, including me, has their list of 'obviously the game would be better with this change'. Except while those changes are obvious to the person posting them, the forum is in constant disagreement about the direction the game should go. Close to any change that BHVR makes is going to be met with dislike.
3: People's experience with the game is very different. Again going off the forum, it would be easy to think people were talking about multiple different games. And not just the killer v survivor experience, but the ways games normally play out seem to be radically different.
4: People's expectations about what they want the game to be are different. Being we have Otz in the video, I'll compare it to his posts about Coup. He talked about how survivors would hate it because they could think they played something perfectly, but, surprise, the killer has Coup. While I understand why some people might like a game with perfect predictability, I love the randomness and variability. BHVR has designed the game to appeal to a large audience of different expectations, we all want them to pull in our direction but they are looking at the whole group.
5: Objectively, some regions are different. Asian servers looking at self-care as an S tier perk while America and Europe view it as weak to the point of harming the team make the idea of how to move the game forward very difficult.
6: The game really wasn't designed for the lifespan it has. While ultimately that blame can be put on BHVR, they are stuck with spaghetti code and design elements that changing now would either be prohibitively costly or risk losing a portion of the player base.
7: The amount of changes they do has to take into consideration all of the different platforms they are on. The capabilities of a PC and a Nintendo Switch are very different.
-
I will agree that they don't seem interested in innovation. I suspect they are overall happy with the place the game is right now, they think they've already tapped the market of people who are interested in the game, and any radical overhaul on a 7 year old game would be unlikely to attract the increased attention/funds such a design would need. They have a large following playing the game and keeping the course with new killers/survivors every few months for the next several years that the game will continue to be successful.
As well, the last time they tried a radical game change was the universal self pickup mechanic. That was clearly an idea meant to move the game forward and deal with lots of the downsides that currently exist. Given how poorly the results went its not surprising they haven't tried any other major change like that and have been working on things like anti-face camp.
-
I am surprised they ever do events like this. So many of the problems BHVR has gotten into is someone talking off the cuff instead of prepared statements.
-
@FFirebrandd said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3608901#Comment_3608901
You and I have very different views on the game apparently. I personally don't find it exciting to have to be on high alert because I'm on death hook. That just means I'm really close to not being allowed to engage in the game anymore. That's not fun, that's not exciting... it's just lame and boring. Maybe it's different for solo queue survivors because they can just go next, but if you die early and you're in a swf... well... congrats. You get to just sit there and not play the game you signed up to play.
So... in my opinion, getting rid of that would be 100% worth it. Your point of balance needing to change some if they did that is almost certainly accurate, but again... I think that we'd end up with a much better game at the end of it, so it'd be worth it.
I'll agree we have different views, to me the game is designed around the idea of each survivor on their own. While I think the idea of DBD being 1v1v1v1v1 has never been true, the idea that each survivor is on their own is a central concept of the game design. Overall play has to do with the idea that a death hook survivor will be more cautious in how they behave and that the survivors overall don't see each other as a team.
Things like ghost would go in a different direction making the survivors a clear team. It might be a better game, but it would be a very different game requiring adjustments to the concept of the game design. 7 years in that would be very hard to do.
-
If you want to leave the game you can, but it seems silly to do it based off an announcement of broad areas.
You still have the following before any changes occur:
1: The actual description of the change
2: The PTB test run of the change
3: Any changes made before it is implemented live.
I'd wait until it got a little closer to step 3 before I started quitting the game.