crogers271
crogers271
About
- Username
- crogers271
- Joined
- Visits
- 8,432
- Last Active
Comments
-
Kind of circular, but its not bannable because its an in game mechanic.
The real question is why its an in game mechanic at all. Just disable self unhooks on the first two attempts and the game would improve (obligatory 'slippery meat/deliverance exempted' that needs to be said every time this comes up).
-
@TerraEsram said:
So... After being disgusted with playing survivor role (for a lot of reason) and only playing killer, I give a new try to play survivor aaaaaand...
How explain what happen for my first match...I got a Blight, who kill two other survivor pretty quickly (nothing anormal) and after some looping, I got down, and he let me on the ground (slugging) for the last survivor
But! He don't attack him, just sticking him really hard or motioning him to go in my direction (nothing anomrla again, a gentle killer can happen, and become nice sometimes) but, each times, the other survivor heal me, he was humping him in the face and hit me immediatly when I got healed
And that for several minutes, the times I bleed out, I try sometimes to avoid his hit and running where I can (that's not simple where you are at a dead zone) and each times, it was the same scenario who happen
Being greeted like that when you got disgusted by some behavior from other survivor or killer... Are a little "harch"?
It's when this kind of thing happen, i'm ok for the dev to add some button for bleed out instantly... and, can someone say to me if this kind of "action" is "normal"? Like, it's ok with the guideline of the game? Or I can report him?
Like, it's ok with the guideline of the game? Or I can report him?If you have a recording of the game, probably. Killers and survivors can't work together against other survivors. It's also against the rules to hold a player in the game for an indefinite period of time.
-
This is one of my favorite topics when it comes up. Before I joined the forums my thinking was 'obviously survivor makes you feel like you're going to have a heart attack, and killer is sit back and relax time': I've always found it interesting that people split radically on what role they find stressful.
@catslayer said:
the title says it all.
for more context, i'm a survivor main, but mainly only because of this reason: i'm scared to ######### up as a killer more than as a survivor...why? most of the time, it's those bully-swfs that make me feel like this the most. the feeling of disappointment after losing is just...real. how do i stop feeling like this? don't get me wrong, i actually enjoy playing the role of a killer but it's always the survivors that "scare" me most of the time.
i'm scared to ######### up as a killer more than as a survivor...why?I'm the opposite on this. One of the reasons I find survivor more stressful is the team aspect.
Basically, in a game if I fail myself it's not great, but I can live with it, but if I let my team down I'm devastated.
most of the time, it's those bully-swfs that make me feel like this the most. the feeling of disappointment after losing is just...real. how do i stop feeling like this?I don't know what you mean by bully-swfs. Usually when I hear the word bully squad its the groups that aren't even playing to win, just trying to hold the killer in the game via flashlights, stuns, etc.
On the other hand, SWFs who are trying to complete their objectives as quickly as possible, I think it is helpful to adjust your expectation on what a win is there. If I'm playing a group that seems way better than me and in communication, I try to see if I can get a 1k as a goal. On the other hand, if I'm playing against 4 solos, I'll generally view a 3k as a draw on whether I did well or not in the game.
@radiantHero23 said:
Killer is not meant for having that much fun in terms of playing a chill game. It's a stress and time management simulator.
Therefore survivor is actually the calmer role to play.
Funnily enough, the role of the victim of more chill that the "power" role of the murderous fiend.
Killer is not meant for having that much fun in terms of playing a chill game. It's a stress and time management simulator.I find over the course of the match that the tensions reverse. At the start killer can be stressful when you have to get an idea of the map and make some quick decisions on where to go, and you have the pressure that if you screw up the first chase the end result will look very embarrassing. As a survivor, you are basically just looking for a gen at the start, though until I hear a terror radius part of me is always worried there's a ghostface around a corner.
On the other hand, a couple of minutes into the game the killer should be in a much more comfortable position. I generally know how good the survivors are, have less areas to defend, the survivors are now having to use time to heal, unhook, etc. On survivor it gets really tense, I don't know for sure what my teammates are doing, unless I'm running windows I have now idea what pallets exist, and having to get off a gen to protect a death hook teammate can make or break the game.
Finally, as it gets toward the end, survivor always faces the possibility of an escape turning into a death. Those games where you get taken down right at the end are one of the hardest experiences in gaming.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3543593#Comment_3543593
There was the PTB with basekit Unbreakable and a mori finish if you down all 4 ppl. That never got integrated.
I believe BHVR's stance though is that was never meant to go live at the time: it was a test of an idea they'd like to implement, but the plan was not for it to go from PTB to the full game.
-
@xEa said:
Since everybody including many former DBD content creaters are now playing TCM, an old game i played for thousends of hours a few years ago came back to my mind:
The (often not so) good old DbD.
2 years is a long time to fix things, so i thought i give it another chance. After 3 days of trying it out, my conclusion is pretty straight forward.
First the good:
-- Bloodweb is now more confortable and you earn more bloodpoints.
-- Nurse and Spirit seems to be tuned down a little bit, especially the addons. Still 4King with them every single game tho, besides beeing extremly rusty.
-- Some perks like Hex: Ruin oder Deadhard are now more fair.
Now to the bad:
-- The new maps look all aweful. Maybe its just personal taste tho. Those strange colors are a big turn off for me.
-- Way to much fog. I know, Horror game and so, but i personally and probably most others wont get scared by that game anyway, besides beeing in an intense chase.
-- Most maps got reworked and are now absurdly killer sided. Even less pallets then before (i counted 6-8 in custom games, more 50/50 then before, lack of playable loops, more deadzones. Strange choice.
-- Instead of reworking the extremly boring main object, they added another 10 Sekunds to it. Really? Thats the best these developers came up in 2 years?
-- Beside massiv survivor nerfs (less distance after hit, maps favour clearly killer, longer healing time, longer gen repair time) killer became by design even more oppresive. This might be a bit early to judge, but some new killers like the alien can do everything at once. Teleport, ignoring pallets/windows, beeing stealthy and still 115%? Seriously who came up with that?
-- Something is wrong with fast vaults. Is this a bug or intentional?
Overall, it feels like the devs are aiming for a 70% killrate for whatever reason. Stats show that 60% rate is already reality and those were apparently before some majore survivor nerfs. Why?
I will abandon survivor for a bit and see how killer is going but so far i feel i will also jump on TCM hype train and see how this plays.
Thanks for reading.
-- Way to much fog. I know, Horror game and so, but i personally and probably most others wont get scared by that game anyway, besides beeing in an intense chase.I don't know what you mean by this. Maps seem pretty clear unless offerings are brought.
-- Something is wrong with fast vaults. Is this a bug or intentional?They "fixed" fast vaults to make the animations more in line with what was supposed to be happening and for a short while fast vaults actually felt fast (maybe about a month ago). However, that created a bug were male characters vaults were getting superior distance. Thus they reverted the fix so they could try and fix the new issue, but that created even more of a break were now fast vaults aren't working.
That's my understanding, bug.
Overall, it feels like the devs are aiming for a 70% killrate for whatever reason. Stats show that 60% rate is already reality and those were apparently before some majore survivor nerfs. Why?The goal is supposed to be a 60% kill rate, though for many survivors it feels like a 40% escape rate is a great day. Their logic, which in my opinion is pretty solid on this, is to achieve a 50/50 split, the data needs to actually be 60% for killers, because with four survivors there is a much greater chance of one of them throwing the match (example: afk) then there are matches thrown by the killer.
I will abandon survivor for a bit and see how killer is going but so far i feel i will also jump on TCM hype train and see how this plays.I haven't played TCM, doesn't seem for me, and have no idea on the game's merits, but right now the steam player counts have TCM just short of 6,000 players, while DbD is a little under 42,000; though maybe gamepass is really helping out TCM.
This might be a bit early to judge, but some new killers like the alien can do everything at once. Teleport, ignoring pallets/windows, beeing stealthy and still 115%? Seriously who came up with that?I don't think a meta has developed yet on how to play against alien. Some survs think the turrets are a waste of time, others that keeping alien knocked out of his power makes him incredibly weak.
-
People act like the anti-camp mechanic will be automatic. You could still use insidious around the hook, there's just going to be a limit on how long you can stay there.
But you can also use Insidious with aura reading perks like BBQ, if you see the direction a survivor is running you can wait to ambush them.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3542132#Comment_3542132
Hypotheticals can be fun but when using them as examples of motivation in choice tests for social isolation, context matters. Trust me I do that for a living.
In DBD loss of agency is part of the game, it should expected.
The fact that loss of agency is built into the game means that taking advantage of loss of agency is part of the game. So if a player doesn't find loss of agency fun then DBD may not be the game for them because loss of agency is the very goal of one side.
Slug, hook, dead all represent loss of agency.
Killers don't tend to lose agency so again if loss of agency is the problem then killer is the role that should be played.
Capitalizing on the mechanic of loss of agency as the game expects is not inherently being a jerk.
This is where your child example falls apart because it requires the child to have complete understanding of the social construct of the scenario and children often lacking that will make the decision that best benefits them in the moment.
So Jimmy will take the ice cream and win but that doesn't make him a jerk, because he was offered a loaded choice to begin with. This why I don't do hypotheticals with real world contexts for in game events, the rationale for the answer doesn't stack up outside of the most rudimentary desire to make a point. Making it a weak way to illustrate the point.
Can player's leverage the lack of agency that DBD provides to achieve victory? In the context of DBD yes they can.
Should they? sure if they want to, because the mechanics of the game and achievements are built around that concept.
"If I was playing a board game with people and I intentionally slowed it down, I'd be a jerk", Really even if the goal of one side was to stall the game, is every killer who runs a gen slow down build a jerk? Healing slowdown build are jerks?
The whole process of the killer game is stalling for time, guess that means anyone who plays killer is just a jerk by your given example. Again CONTEXT.
So back to the topic there is a strong way to stall the game right now, and it's too strong. Using it is a very good idea if you want to stall things and have as much time as possible to achieve your goals.
It is not inherently malicious, but if you immediately classify anyone who tries it as a jerk out to ruin your fun, because in a different real world context it would be seen as jerk behaviour, then basically everyone is a jerk and your conclusion is as flawed as your assumptions.
The fact that loss of agency is built into the game means that taking advantage of loss of agency is part of the game. So if a player doesn't find loss of agency fun then DBD may not be the game for them because loss of agency is the very goal of one side.You're conflating two different points in a piece to make a strawman. I said that people in a game still have agency even if the designer creates a broken concept. I didn't say loss of agency as a game mechanic is inherently bad, that's an argument you've made up.
This is where your child example falls apart because it requires the child to have complete understanding of the social construct of the scenario and children often lacking that will make the decision that best benefits them in the moment.That's what makes this worse. The vast majority of players are, I presume, at least tweens. Young children can be forgiven for not understanding the feelings of others, but its not something we should accept from everyone else.
This why I don't do hypotheticals with real world contexts for in game events, the rationale for the answer doesn't stack up outside of the most rudimentary desire to make a pointOkay, we'll avoid hypotheticals.
It is well known that the 3 gen defense strat is easy for the skull merchant and creates a boring unfun game for the survivors. In this case the OP even discusses that, but says he enjoys it as a killer.
How is it morally okay to engage in activity that you know others will despise?
This is completely different from other elements in DbD. As a game with winners and losers players should understand sometime they'll be on the losing side. All players also have their own personal dislikes which may pop up in a game, but again that is a normal aspect of a game that people have different preferences. The issue here is choosing a killer and playstyle that you know the other side will actively dislike.
"If I was playing a board game with people and I intentionally slowed it down, I'd be a jerk", Really even if the goal of one side was to stall the game, is every killer who runs a gen slow down build a jerk? Healing slowdown build are jerks?The whole process of the killer game is stalling for time, guess that means anyone who plays killer is just a jerk by your given example. Again CONTEXT.You're arguing to absurdity - you are saying that because any killer can slow the game down for seconds to minutes, a killer that can completely hold the game for an hour is the same thing.
You say CONTEXT, but you continually misrepresent it.
It is not inherently malicious, but if you immediately classify anyone who tries it as a jerk out to ruin your fun, because in a different real world context it would be seen as jerk behaviour, then basically everyone is a jerk and your conclusion is as flawed as your assumptions.Multiplayer video games are played by real human beings. I make no assumptions about the underlying causes that lead a person to their actions, but I do feel fine judging the actions itself.
And the conclusion is this and really not even engaged by you: if a person, whether killer or survivor, engages in a behavior that they believe others will actively ruin other's enjoyment, that is jerkish behavior.
-
Name: I'm the Killer Now
For: Survivor
Description: Activates if two survivors are dead and the other survivor has been in the dying state for at least 30 seconds. Use the active ability button on the downed survivor. You kill them and please the Entity - you are the Killer now and the Killer becomes a random survivor. There is a 30 second delay before hatch opens.
(okay, not a serious suggestion, but I thought it would be a hilarious possibility to counter 4k slugging).
-
I suspect if they make her the most fun, balanced, killer in the game for both sides, it will still take me months to get rid of the sour feeling every time I see a Skully.
But here's hoping for an improvement.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3541540#Comment_3541540
Ah you are also resting on your assumptions.
I've never said its not a bad design and I've never had a go at anyone who had a logical take on "this is bad and why"
But its a legit game strategy and people are going to play it if they can. So until it gets patched out we should expect to face it and try and find ways to beat it.
Now does that make the people who play it terrible people in reality? No it doesn't.
But folks like you are hell bent on labeling the motivation of such players as purely malicious and out to ruin the fun.
Taking this moralistic stance and then using it to justify attacking each other online over something as trivial as a game.
That's incredibly unpleasant and breeds the kind of player toxicity that DBD is known for.
Stop assuming a player's motivation is some form of purposeful malicious attack on your fun. Such assumptions are clouding your judgement and likely making you more reactionary over a game.
If you don't agree with this assessment of your post, then lets highlight the fact that you've assumed my motivation here, that I'm complacent about bad design, I'm not but I know the difference between attacking game design and attacking other players for no good reason.
Ask yourself which are you doing?
But its a legit game strategy and people are going to play it if they can. So until it gets patched out we should expect to face it and try and find ways to beat it.People have been using playgrounds, so I'll go with kids as an example.
If a group of children have P.E. class and the gym teacher lays out the game and everyone is excited to play it, but he then adds on a rule, "If Jimmy says 'I win', the game immediately ends, he gets ice cream, and everyone else has to do homework."
If Jimmy says 'I win', he's a jerk.
If he manages to not say that, he's an honorable lad.
Sure, the main mistake here is on the teacher who even put such an absurd situation into the game, but that doesn't mean those playing the game have lost agency.
Now does that make the people who play it terrible people in reality? No it doesn't.Taking this moralistic stance and then using it to justify attacking each other online over something as trivial as a game.If I was playing a board game with people and I intentionally slowed it down, I'd be a jerk.
If I checked out my groceries' really slow even though there's a line, I'd be a jerk.
If in any 'real world' situation I behaved in a manner that I could reasonably expect would make others miserable and unhappy, I'd be a jerk.
What makes a video game different? You might not be able to see them, but those are very really people also playing.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3540247#Comment_3540247
I mean, do I really have to explain why talking about things that aren't the hatch or relevant to it is unrelated to the hatch? It should be obvious. I did say multiple times when they were talking about perks that we're talking about base kit. If I was questioned or felt like it was not obvious I would/can explain. So if you want to bring up anything you feel like was not explained well enough or wasn't obvious why I believed it was a strawman please do.
I don't believe I'm looking for an unachievable perfect solution to the point it would fall under that category. I don't even believe there is a perfect solution. I'm also trying to use things already in the game just repurposed to keep it more feasible. But saying hatch as it is now is the best possible solution I do disagree with (obviously). Which is why I'm suggesting improvements when prompted or I feel is necessary.
Fun is subjective, so I try to avoid using it as an argument point. It would be less fun for some, more for others. The game would be less fun for those who want to have privileges over others I suppose. But more for those who want a balanced game. Amongst others on both sides, obviously we can't think of every possible person.
In regards to "fun" and my opinion on that matter, no, I don't have fun playing for hatch on either side. I'd much rather just die and move on as survivor, I'd much rather just get my kill and move on as killer. I know others who feel the same. Hatch can drag the game on, it does not exclusively make the game shorter. Survivors waiting for the 3rd to die, killers bleeding out to try and circumvent it, having to find hatch, close it, have gates power up, look for the survivor, wait for them to open a gate, ect. However, it's better than having survivors hold the game hostage for up to an hour. That doesn't mean there isn't a better solution or we shouldn't suggest one.
If you disagree with the scenario given purpose another to even it out. It's not just about the survivors fun, the killer matters too. I only suggested the aura reading because you put forth ending the game quickly. If that's your main concern, there's better ways to end the game quickly and just let everyone "go next". So I'm not 100% on what you want to take priority in regards to the system.
If I understand correctly, you're saying the game should end once one side wins past the point where it's not longer reasonable. If that's the case, then wouldn't something like an instant sacrifice EGC style also solve that issue? The game won't drag on, it can't be held hostage any more than it could currently, there's no undeserved robbed or w.e. anything going on. Isn't that an even faster solution.
Maybe it doesn't need to replace the hatch completely or be a new system if that's too extreme. Maybe once the killer closes the hatch then the survivor get sacrificed. That would at least be better than having a 2nd and 3rd chance to get out and the match would be over sooner. hatch is the last chance and both sides get either a kill or escape for finding it.
I'm open minded but IIRC as far as I have read in my back and forths, no one has suggested any alternatives or solutions besides myself.
I mean, do I really have to explain why talking about things that aren't the hatch or relevant to it is unrelated to the hatch? It should be obvious.In this case yes, because the problem is, as people have pointed out, its an asymmetrical game. It's not "fair". Why does this issue in particular need to be fair?
Fun is subjective, so I try to avoid using it as an argument point.Yes, its subjective, but its the ultimate goal of the game is fun. It's perfectly fine not to find something fun, while also realizing that others do find it fun. Example: I loath the way add-ons and the bloodweb work in this game and would rip it out and rebuild it from scratch if I could, but I also realize that is not an opinion that is shared by most players or that my desire for the game is what the developers are going for. I understand BHVR's reasons and, while its not the choice I would make, live with it.
If you think you have a more fun solution to hatch mechanic, go ahead and explain why. I'm explaining why I think it would be considerably less fun.
In regards to "fun" and my opinion on that matter, no, I don't have fun playing for hatch on either side. I'd much rather just die and move on as survivor, I'd much rather just get my kill and move on as killer. I know others who feel the same. Hatch can drag the game on, it does not exclusively make the game shorter.It's possible you would enjoy your solution, but I don't think most people would. I think one of the things that makes DbD so appealing is that it is better than any other multiplayer game I've ever played at climatic moments. A good story goes through a narrative arc with building tension, its highest moment should come right towards the end. In many other games I've played, having the game decided right at the end with two sides fighting to the bitter end is extremely rare. It's much more common in DbD.
That's why I think ideas like the game just ending wouldn't actually improve the fun. The game needs a tense conclusion. You're not going to get that every game by any means, but that's what you are going for. Hatch allows something to play for at the end, or something to strive for in the middle, that keeps the tension going.
Survivors waiting for the 3rd to die, killers bleeding out to try and circumvent it, having to find hatch, close it, have gates power up, look for the survivor, wait for them to open a gate, ect.I think all of these could be addressed with hatch. Speeding up the bleed out timers is an obvious one, requiring some level of gen interaction before AFK crows is another, but both could keep the hatch.
As for the others, it's not thrilling, but I don't find it nearly as bad as you do. It has at least some mind game elements and creates a feeling of needing to rush.
That doesn't mean there isn't a better solution or we shouldn't suggest one.You can suggest all the solutions you want, but you need to explain why fairness is paramount as a reason for needing a new method and whether your solution would deal with others proposed problems.
It's also fine to realize what you want from the game is not what the game is going for.
It's not just about the survivors fun, the killer matters too. I only suggested the aura reading because you put forth ending the game quickly. If that's your main concern, there's better ways to end the game quickly and just let everyone "go next".Yes, killer fun matters. I think killers, in the long run, would get less enjoyment out of things like free aura reading, basekit blood warden, etc. Hatch is a pretty random element, but its better than just having the game totally decided and still having to play it out (which is an opinion, but I think that's what most people would decide if they actually played both versions).
So I'm not 100% on what you want to take priority in regards to the system.Overall enjoyment of all players. Given the nature of the game there will inevitably be some moments or positions that are considerably unfun for both sides. While those should be minimized, any alternatives must be overall improvements.
Example: Getting camped sucks, but if it was totally impossible for the killer to be near the hook the game would overall be considerably worse off.
If I understand correctly, you're saying the game should end once one side wins past the point where it's not longer reasonable.Somewhat. What I'm saying is a well designed game will, generally, appear competitive for the majority of the game. Let me use some symmetrical games as examples and why they deal with unbalanced situations better.
In a Team Deathmatch gameplay: the kill counter should be set at a point where, by the time it becomes obvious that the team's are unbalanced, the game is pretty much over.
In a Control Point style game: if one team dominates, they are going to totally control the objective, leading to a very quick game.
In both of the above examples if the sides are unbalanced the very nature of the game will result in a quick game. It's not perfect, brutally unbalanced sides will still suck, but the design makes the best of a bad situation.
DbD is an outright failure on that front. Given its stealth and elimination format, its possible the killer can be in a winning position very quickly, but the game not being close to being finished. The hatch is a solution to that problem, though it doesn't address all of the possible issues.
If that's the case, then wouldn't something like an instant sacrifice EGC style also solve that issue?Generally, no. Even if true, I think BHVR would worry it would feel like a farce. Horror requires tension, its what makes DbD appealing, the game just ending because a survivor got sacrificed on the other side of the map probably wouldn't feel satisfying for most players.
That said if we had to change hatch mechanic I'd take instant end game under a variety of conditions to speed things up.
Also, and you avoid this unless I missed a comment, in BHVR's mind the game is 1v1v1v1v1 - I take it you disagree with that idea, but if so we're looking at a larger overhaul then just hatch.
I'm open minded but IIRC as far as I have read in my back and forths, no one has suggested any alternatives or solutions besides myself.That's because most of us either don't seem to have a problem with hatch or don't see a superior alternative. You really seem to have an issue with the fairness, you cite it multiple times as a reason in and of itself, and it just doesn't really bother me given the game's asymmetrical nature.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3540161#Comment_3540161
Losing the argument? They either made up points and pretended I said them, straw manned, whataboutismed, ad hominemed, completely ignored points they cant counter, or didn't even understand the game. I didn't continue reading because that line made it extra clear that I was wasting my time with someone either heavily biased or just clueless but doesn't see it.
Not wanting to waste more of my time shouldn't be something wild. They probably think the same things I'm saying about me tbf, so in the long run it'd be saving both of our time.
If they say something reasonable as a response I'll go back and read the rest. But given how they've been reacting thus far I doubt it.
Losing the argument? They either made up points and pretended I said them, straw manned, whataboutismed, ad hominemed, completely ignored points they cant counter, or didn't even understand the game.I don't agree with every argument in this thread, but you way over deploy strawman, especially because you don't explain why..
I was wasting my time with someone either heavily biased or just clueless but doesn't see it.Yet you took the time to respond. If you are going to respond to an argument, saying you didn't read it is silly. If you think its that much of a waste of your time, don't engage.
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3540155#Comment_3540155
Ok so like I keep saying and like I've been saying since the beginning, give the killer an equivalent or replace it. Doesn't have to be removed and that's it.
Explaining why something exist that is unfair, does not change the fact that it is. If you want to keep it around, the other option is to bring the other side up.
Alternatively just replace hatch with something like aura reading on the survivor to speed it up the death process then. If your only concern is speeding it up as that would remove the "robbery" or undeserved RNG escape aspect, or w.e. you want to call it. You don't need to hand out a get out of jail card. Start the EGC for good measure.
Then both sides only have 1 chance to get their objective done. They lost and that's that.
Ok so like I keep saying and like I've been saying since the beginning, give the killer an equivalent or replace it. Doesn't have to be removed and that's it.You like fallacies: this is the Nirvana fallacy. You are looking for a perfect solution. It's possible the hatch is the best solution that can be achieved.
Even we grant every complaint you have about hatch, we run into these two things:
Not having the hatch would make the game considerably less fun.
Giving the killer an equivalent "power" would make the game considerably less fun.
I might have missed a proposed solution, but I saw base kit blood warden after 3 survivors escape. Would you really be interested in playing a game like this as either the killer or last survivor (not even counting how easily SWFs would deal with this)? I have no interest in playing either scenario.
Alternatively just replace hatch with something like aura reading on the survivor to speed it up the death process then. If your only concern is speeding it up as that would remove the "robbery" or undeserved RNG escape aspect, or w.e. you want to call it.Again, how is that a fun game? The killer has a massive advantage and the survivor is doomed. Why are we even playing the game at that point?
Games require both sides to have some chance of victory. If one side can no longer realistically achieve victory, the game should end (either by design or a mercy rule). There can be a little bit of downtime as one side finalizes the victory: example carrying the survivor to the hook, but otherwise once the chance to progress is gone the game should be over.
The hatch mechanic keeps the idea that there is something to play for. That is absolutely needed.
It's possible there is a superior solution to the hatch mechanic, but I've never heard one that doesn't have even more problems.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3540148#Comment_3540148
I stopped at "most of the time benefits the killer". There is absolutely no scenario where hatch would be better for the killer than it not existing. It literally only ever gives an escape where there would otherwise be none. The killer never benefits.
I stopped at "most of the time benefits the killer".I don't know if there is a phrase that makes it sound more like you are losing an argument then starting off a response by admitting you didn't read a post.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3540131#Comment_3540131
In what way?
Current hatch can only ever give a 1E where it otherwise would not have happened. It only ever benefits the survivor.
Making it equal and also have a chance to give the killer a 1K would even it out no? At the very least it would be a lot more fair than it just not benefitting one side at all.
Making it equal and also have a chance to give the killer a 1K would even it out no? At the very least it would be a lot more fair than it just not benefitting one side at all.Earlier in the thread you say:
It's only purpose is to give the survivor a chance to get out for essentially free, just because the killer won before they could, because otherwise they would potentially hold the game hostage by hiding forever.So I think everyone agrees on why hatch exists. If it didn't, survivors might just hide for extended periods of time and no one wants that.
What game element requires the killer to have something like that? How in the world would such a design make the game more fun? Hatch exists because the game is practically over and we need to speed up the ending. Any element on the killer side would simply slow the game down when the core of the game is already done.
-
@MikaelaWantsYourBoon said:
Your thoughts?
For me:
Wesker, Spirit, Huntress, Hag, Demo, Xeno, Plague, Artist, Oni, Pinhead and Dredge are fine killers. They are decent killers.
I'd put Nemmy and Pyramid here as well but even they are strong killers, they need some better add-ons.
Sadako, Ghostface, Wraith and Legion are decent m1 killers but maps kinda hurts them. So i don't think these killers have strength problems, maps are issue for them
I don't have enough experience playing all of the killers to weigh in from that side, but as a soloq survivor main I'll think about what it feels like when I first see the killer we're facing.
We're in trouble: Nurse, Blight, Spirit - I find spirit the hardest killer to face, but my directional hearing is not that good.
We're in good shape: Billy, Freddy, Doctor, Pig, Ghostface
Add to the good shape Myers if he isn't tombstone.
Of that list, Billy and Freddy seem to be at the bottom.
We should all disconnect: Skull Merchant
Some killers feel balanced in soloq, but I know really struggle against SWFs, Trapper, Legion. Outside those killers though I find the others to be roughly balanced.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3538479#Comment_3538479
It's an asymmetrical pvp, 'team' is a fundamental part of playing survivor.
That doesn't mean solo survivors can't cooperate. Part of doing well as survivor is having the game sense to play your part for the good of the team. I've had solo survivor games that were more highly coordinated than most of my SWF games because everyone put their head in the game and made the plays necessary to help each other out. It's not just SWF that can provide this, experience as a solo survivor can too.
Yes there are certain plays that only SWF can do, like identifying and tracking a stealth killer. But solo can make up for this in other ways, providing everyone goes into the game with the mindset of a team player.
Yes there are certain plays that only SWF can do, like identifying and tracking a stealth killer. But solo can make up for this in other ways, providing everyone goes into the game with the mindset of a team player.But we're not talking about a stealth killer or even high level SWFs. We're talking about camping. Against the most inexperienced SWF in the world they can communicate 'the killer is standing over behind the tree, stay on gens'. On the other hand, a soloq runs right into it unless you happen to speak the same flailing arms code as the person on the hook (and assuming hook stage 1).
Part of doing well as survivor is having the game sense to play your part for the good of the team.Again this is totally different. With the survivor HUD, I can see who is on gen, who's on death hook, etc. I can play my part without voice coms. Sure, it would be easier if I could tell someone I'll take a hit from them and where to run, but I can still manage it without comms.
Basically: soloq can do the same things SWF can in those situations, though SWFs make it far more efficient.
Camping is not the same: its the easiest communication in the world as a SWF, difficult, if not impossible, as a soloq.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3537473#Comment_3537473
Riiiight. So even more things that SWF can use to abuse these mechanics.
Better solution? Make camping and tunneling IMPOSSIBLE. Not discouraged, or encourage not doing. Just make it flat out IMPOSSIBLE.
The best solution is to balance the game around chases and hooks instead of kills, the following would basically solve everything.
- All survivors now have a shared pool for the 1st hook state
- The 2nd and 3rd hook states are personal.
- Survivors don't go to second stage until all the shared hook states are removed.
- Remove the 4% mechanic
- Rework luck/slippery meat
- Deliverance can stay
- Rebalance the gen speed to chase time ratio, preferably by reducing chase time, not increasing gen time.
But, that is too much work. A better, actual solution to facecamping that doesn't hurt killers normally playing? Just make the damn hook work like PH cage. The survivor teleports to a different hook if the killer is within say, 16 meters for some number of seconds and not in a chase, then remove the whole "hooks permanently breaking" mechanic, so that you can always send them properly to a hook furthest from the killer.
On the shared hook states: s a survivor main, this overall feels like a massive survivor buff.
I guess it comes down to how you rebalance the chase ratios, but I think that is dangerous. If chases were noticeably quicker than they are now, I don't think they'd actually be any fun.
On the idea of all teleporting survivors to different hooks: I think the main reason BHVR wouldn't do this is that it would seem 'silly' and break the theme. Also worry that killers could intentionally abuse this, 99 the hook teleport meter, wait until the survivors are on their way, and then teleport the survivor out.
@radiantHero23 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3537496#Comment_3537496
Camping was intended when the game was designed. It's also not broken in any way or form. The only exception are basement/lockdown Trapper, basement hag and a bubba with a tent ready at hand. If you truly think that camping is the "solve all" solution for all the killers problems, I really want you to play killer and try it yourself. If you as the survivor are on the hook until you die, it's not the fault of the game and not of the killer. It's the fault of the team that they didn't handle the situation well enough.
It's the fault of the team that they didn't handle the situation well enough.Therein lies the core of the problem. Any game element that needs a 'team' is going to favor SWFs far over soloq. That's one of the key complaints against killers camping around hooks: SWFs can deal with it easily and soloq can be destroyed by it (not as much as they used to though because of the HUD).
-
Just reporting I have the issue as well: works on RPD, no where else.
-
@Lobos said:
It also helps to constantly report all his content on whatever platform he posts to. Don't watch it, just keep reporting it. After the platform gets so many reports about the hacking and hate speech/harassment they will shut down the videos/streams.
Honestly it's just sad that person gets any views at all. Granted most of them probably come from bots anyway. Imagine being so lonely and desperate for attention that you would make such "content".
It also helps to constantly report all his content on whatever platform he posts to.Everyone should do this. It's very hard to stop a truly dedicated hacker, but you can try take away their platforms.
-
@Renzun said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3535831#Comment_3535831
First, thank you! I am genuinely grateful to have a conversation as opposed to a finger pointing session. I am pleased to admit that I was nodding along with many of your statements.
A number of reasons, most of them linked to the difference between an asymmetrical and symmetrical game.This made me feel a little silly. I was comparing DbD to games I have experience with: League of Legends, DotA 2, HotS, SMITE, Overwatch, Call of Duty, etc... I agree with your assessment, asymmetrical games are not directly comparable to those games. My inner math geek would love to read the numbers and statistics to better understand what is really going on.
SWFs don't really have a counter.Which is why I feel that clarity is key to helping players understand what they are about to encounter. Comms make a lot of perks, designed for the solo player, redundant. Bond, Empathy, Situational Awareness, etc... become unnecessary in that setting. Is communicating that to the killer taboo? On killer, I can tolerate a duo or two in my lobby but would prefer not to face against a 3+ SwF stack. Comms are too powerful to overcome unless I'm playing a top tier killer (which I do not enjoy doing).
4: What would you do about the top tier killers? Ranked would risk becoming staleI wouldn't touch top tier killers. They have their place. I would modify / tune the numbers at the bottom of the ladder. Instead of lowering the ceiling, I would raise the floor.
While I think its possible that ranked mode could actually work for itself, casual mode would see no improvement/get worse.My main game for the past few years has been Overwatch. Being honest, quickplay is a circus and competitive is marginally better. The primary difference: if you rage at someone in Quick Play, you get laughed at; if you rage in Ranked, you better have the stats to back up your comparison.
To maintain game health, I feel MMR should be tracked but kept separate from 'Ranked' queue. I think casual would stabilize at a lower overall MMR than competitive and be a judgement safe environment for players to test and try new things. As it stands now, unless grouped in a SwF, I stick to safe standards as to not upset randos on my team. Maybe they're trying to win, maybe they don't care. I'm not trying to risk assuming playing with the latter.
Forums lack the nuance of the spoken word where we can emphasize what we want the audience to focus on.This is a fact. I didn't have as much appreciation for critical reading, thinking and analysis before writing this post. I am a changed man now. Upgrade complete!
I think BHVR's theory is that they need to keep the game evolving and shaking up how it's played (the meta).I think shaking up the meta is a great in general. Personally, I think Valve's approach to DotA2 is the pinnacle of this practice. Most numbers don't get touched, some get tweaked, few get adjusted, less get overhauled, least get reworked. My concern is that there isn't enough 'tweaking' (small adjustments) and this is going to continue to snowball. Where things could have been slightly tuned in the past, now they're needing an adjustment. Down the road, they're going to need an overhaul. And so forth.
I prefer to feel that I'm getting in front of issues as opposed to reacting to them. That's a me thing. Hence why I wrote about my playgroup's feelings towards DbD, to share awareness as to why certain accounts may not be returned to.
not a lot of games make it to seven years.Which is why I am making the effort to explain the thoughts and feelings of folks that are no longer interested in the current state of the game.
Cheers to [hopefully] seven more years.
First, thank you! I am genuinely grateful to have a conversation as opposed to a finger pointing session.This post got pushed over to the feedback and suggestions subforum. Less people see it, but the threads tend to have less spiral to them.
Is communicating that to the killer taboo?BHVR has a theory on it that they've communicated multiple times.
Basically: they don't want to disclose SWF before a game starts, because it will lead to killers dodging lobbies.
They don't want to disclose it after the game because they think it will lead to more toxicity.
They don't want to ban SWFs or penalize them because its a large portion of the player base.
I understand 1 and 3, but would personally like 2.
-
Forgive me if I am interpreting this wrong but, this comment leads me to think that you believe the separation of competitive and casual gameplay is a waste of resources. If you would explain why that separation exists in other games, I would be grateful.A number of reasons, most of them linked to the difference between an asymmetrical and symmetrical game.
1: Ranked modes usually rely on smaller map pools, bans, rule changes, etc. Map pools don't work as well because map strength is really killer dependent, bans would be a huge problem because of uneven sides, etc. BHVR's emphasis has not ever been perfect balance.
2: There are two layers to playing hard in DbD. The normal, like any game, is just the player being more focused. However, addons offerings also allow a player to bump up their power - while all games have meta/weak builds, the idea that you have a pool of limited items to make yourself more powerful is not as common. Would you ban higher tier addons from casual play? Which, if so, why even have them exist in the first place.
3: SWFs don't really have a counter. In other games, if the other team is using voice chat, you can also voice chat with your teammates. So if ranked mode became the SWF mode, killers would need to get a buff. Except the problem, and BHVR's believe from past posts, is that if create separate SWF pools with harder rule sets it will drive away that player base.
4: What would you do about the top tier killers? Ranked would risk becoming stale if
If one night you want to take the game seriously and another night you want to crack a drink and screw around, there is no separation despite completely different moodsWhile I think its possible that ranked mode could actually work for itself, casual mode would see no improvement/get worse.
In a 5 v 5 game the intensity I put into a match is averaged out by the other players. A killer 100% controls the intensity of his entire side and bully squads aren't looking for competitive matches.
When a detail of a larger point is focused on, I feel my time is wasted. Forums are for strangers to have global conversations, not nitpick the specifics of a sentence.Forums lack the nuance of the spoken word where we can emphasize what we want the audience to focus on. Miscommunications are normal, especially in a scenario where it is perceived that the first example doesn't actually back up the point. Writing a paragraph on how you've been misunderstood is likely to just turn off any potential reader.
Is this an acceptable practice?It's a strange practice that multiple people have commented on.
I think BHVR's theory is that they need to keep the game evolving and shaking up how it's played (the meta).
To use D&D as an example, the DbD is not the rule set, DbD is the campaign. You wouldn't keep giving your players the same campaign over and over, you'd give them variety over time. I suspect BHVR has a similar idea and that perk shake ups need to happen to keep the game from getting stale.
Lots of people don't like it, my only post ban ever was on that issue, but not a lot of games make it to seven years.
-
@Renzun said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3535089#Comment_3535089
I am confused by your responses. Allow me to cover what you've said and better explain my position:
1) The point of creating a non-ranked format is to preemptively shut down toxicity. Since there would be no rank on the line (no stakes, ante, or payout) the stress would be nominal and any post-match flame / rage would be, again preemptively, unwelcome. Should this still be confusing, look at most other games played widely: most separate competitive from casual play.
2) I feel that you are missing the point I made in the first sentence of my paragraph. If you are unfamiliar with my formatting: the first sentence of each paragraph indicates "the point". After the declarative sentence, I wrote supportive statements to help emphasize my points and examples to supplement the point. There exist MORE examples than the ones I have presented; as stated in my 3rd paragraph (not point), I was trying to be concise and direct in my approach as to not was others' time.
Also, as a trapper enjoyer, I don't have the time or ability to go out of my way to 'Pop' generators properly anymore. The meta has sped up considerably since the days of Clown. The paragraph was about how I feel "powercreep" is influencing gameplay in an unhealthy way. This is an opinion that me (and the members of my playgroup) have verbally expressed to one another. It has been my experience as killer to have two or three generators activate during my first hook / chase.
3) I made this point to emphasize that killers, despite knowing WHO they are going against, do not have any methods to interpret HOW the survivors are going to play; whereas survivors, upon discovering the killer, ought to have a playstyle ready to handle and minimize the killers' effectiveness of the game. Granted, the killer can see items! As a counterpoint, I have witnessed entire teams swap characters (with items) at the last possible second. Games where teams "character swap" late are usually one-sided sweat-fests. Also, from a 'skin' standpoint character models are NOT the same. David is much bigger than Meg. If anything, you've made me realize that optimal gameplay would require picking the quietest, smallest figured characters. Thanks!
4) Speaking plainly, ultimate survivor success (i.e. winning) comes when you walk out of the powered gate or escape through the hatch. So, why are survivors rewarded more by unhooking / getting chased? With respect to other survivors, it has been my recent experience that players would rather forgo powering generators to unhook others. Personally, I would rather have my team progress the gamestate (i.e. hold M1 on the generators) than rescue me on hook. Creating pressure (i.e. forcing the killer to stray away from the hook to prevent loss) is, in my mind, the superior tactic to enable safe unhooks. Yet, in the majority of games this month it has become obvious that generators do not interest players AND the reward for progressing the gamestate is ONLY 1/4th of the score. I'm curious, in a competitive setting why does winning / progressing the gamestate mean so little? My answer to that question: because the scoring system doesn't prioritize progression. If one were to truly analyze the scoring system, doing generators would be the "side objective" relative to saving / helping others. You get more bloodpoints.
I would rather have the opportunity to "win".
Again, these are just my opinions. I am here to shed light on what I have experienced both solo and in SwF lobbies. If these words have ANY effect on DbD, I would be happily surprised.
Edit: As for my username, I was making a statement because I was surprised how long ago I must've made this account. It caused me to smile :)
The point of creating a non-ranked format is to preemptively shut down toxicity.I really doubt it would do anything to touch toxicity. I actually think you'd get the exact opposite result.
The problem with ranked mode is that with how DbD is laid out in terms of add-ons, killer powers, SWFs, etc. people are frequently looking for stomps, not even games. Bully squads aren't looking to face an even killer, they are looking for a killer to bully.
So I think you'd have players join unranked mode, only to get bullied, and then be upset because that's not how that mode is "supposed" to be played.
I feel that you are missing the point I made in the first sentence of my paragraphIt probably isn't your intention, but this whole paragraph makes you sound like a massive jerk. An entire paragraph explaining a paragraph, especially when you use the word 'concise', doesn't really work. Just say Pain Res was an example of a larger overall point and move to other examples.
On powercreep - we've also lost unlimited DH, self-heal COH, incapacitation eruptions, Overbrine, etc. Perks get argued about constantly on which ones are overpowered, I don't think its anything new.
I made this point to emphasize that killers, despite knowing WHO they are going against, do not have any methods to interpret HOW the survivors are going to playThat's not at all how the original post reads.
This would be a totally different game. Which I think might be Texas Chainsaw Massacre (I haven't played it, but I believe you know which characters the other side is using and they always have the same power).
If anything, you've made me realize that optimal gameplay would require picking the quietest, smallest figured characters.Some characters also hide better. They are supposed to balance out the noise characters make at some point, but no idea what the progress on that is.
With respect to other survivors, it has been my recent experience that players would rather forgo powering generators to unhook others. Personally, I would rather have my team progress the gamestate (i.e. hold M1 on the generators) than rescue me on hook.Whether to rescue or do gens is situational, but I think it is generally agreed that a lot of survivors tend to rush the rescue more than they need to. I don't think it has anything to do with BP, more of a belief that its the right play/fear that things will go really poorly if they don't.
And yes, many people point out that survivors avoid gens. That's usually a 'boring' issue, not a BP one.
I would rather run "S.H.: Pain Res" over "Pop". Yes, "Pop" CAN be used more often per game at the cost of time and defense. In my opinion, the downsides of "Pop" do not match the guaranteed upside of "S.H.:P.R.".I don't run either as a killer, but as a survivor I'd rather face PR than Pop, though they are pretty close in strength.
You are reading "constructive" and "inspiring" as complaining?Definition of complaint (according to google): a statement that a situation is unsatisfactory or unacceptable.
So yeah, you're making complaints. Nothing wrong with that.
-
@NaeMarianna said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3533752#Comment_3533752
cause it doesn’t feel like mmr exist
People have different experiences with whether MMR works depending on your region, time of day, and how long you've been playing. I generally find it works okay for me as a soloq survivor, as a killer I can feel which of my killers is at higher MMR.
-
@Alice_pbg said:
title.
We have several weapons in this game... knives, swords, bone saw, axe, throwing knives, cane, sickle, whatever freddy's glove classifies as, chainsaw, hunting knife, a very sharp tail, projectile vomit, objects like a ruler used as a knife, hammers, kanabo, tentacle, chef's knife, straight up just hands, harpoon gun...
but what weapon would you like to see in the game?
there's 2 that I always wanted. a pickaxe and a scythe.
a pickaxe is cool. And a miner for a killer is a somewhat unique visual (gas mask trapper is my favorite skin on him... shame it doesn't come with a pickaxe)
and a scythe is the weapon of lady death herself. the reaper of souls... it's way too good of a visual to not have a killer use one.
I know we kinda do have scythes for singularity and dredge. if we squint a bit... or a lot.
does not really work for hux... at least for me.
but... it does work for dredge. since much like death, she is also just a concept. not an actual being, just a manifestation of a force of nature of some kind. (obligatory "Dredge is so ######### cool" moment)
still, I want a proper scythe. We can give it to a potential scarecrow killer for example.
tl dr: I think a pickaxe and scythe are cool weapons and should be in the game. what about you?
a pickaxe is cool. And a miner for a killer is a somewhat unique visual (gas mask trapper is my favorite skin on him... shame it doesn't come with a pickaxe)Sounds like My Bloody Valentine
-
@I_CAME said:
I personally don't care if the killer does this to me. I just alt tab out and do something else while I wait. I think a lot of killer mains have this mental image of survivors sitting at their desk with furrowed eyebrows and angrily pounding their fists on the keyboard. Maybe some people are like this but it doesn't apply to me personally. I'm completely chill during the whole thing.
Basically this for me as well.
If I go AFK, I'm almost certainly actually away from my keyboard. I'll go do something else. If you're trying to punish me by keeping me in the game, you're basically punishing yourself.
As a killer, if someone is trying to throw the match I'll eliminate them, probably try to two hook everyone else, then let them go.
-
It's not like players were randomly assigned lots on what video games they play. People chose to play DbD. If a more toxic community has been attracted to DbD, its because of the game.
While I think the toxicity arg gets overblown at times, there are elements that contribute to it that can be unique to DbD:
Us vs Them
'Add ons' difficulty slider
SWF vs soloq expectations
Offerings, help everyone with bloodpoints or help yourself
The game's elimination nature
A chat filter that seems designed to make it look like people are swearing at each other
Leaving how to play the game up to the community (hard tunneling, camping, 3 genning, etc).
The ability to be vindictive: tbagging at exit gates, leaving a survivor to bleed out, bully squads
-
@ProfessorDunwich said:
Figured that would be the payoff for going against 4 people at once. Killer does not feel strong. It’s a frantic task with no breathing room or breaks. Feels far from being an unstoppable killer, especially when the game is so open to mocking the Killer.
Feels far from being an unstoppable killer,I don't even know how you'd make a game where one side felt unstoppable and it still be a competitive game.
I generally find killer really powerful, sometimes to the point of being boring.
-
@fussy said:
After some reaction on Xeno from people who only plays one side i feel like i need to show some math to them.
You guys want to:
- Killers don't camp and tunnel
- Don't 3 gen, and other strategies where u need to put some effort to deal with
- Pressure whole map
- Can't slowdown the match with perks too much
- You should be able to counter killer in every aspect of his power and be able to loop him as long as a pallets exist
And this is while:
- 2 or 3 gens done with a 1 hook is a common situation on a high mmr
- game without slowdown / regress last 5-6 minutes even against mediocre survivors, if you are not on top killers (and play without any mistakes)
And that's why any good player understands perfectly well that one long chase (more than 1 minute is enough) it's literally the difference between losing and winning in a lot of matches.
And while all the "dirty" tactics are being removed from the game, literally as you wished, guess which aspect of the game the pressure that was created by these tactics and helped the killers win will go to?
Let me help you: on the chase.
The killer simply has no right not to be oppressive in the chase and not to be at least slightly better than the m1 killer in map control in the current state of game. Otherwise, it is not an actual killer for this game.
Also, while survivors talk about killer being too strong, i met blight main who thinks that killer is weak.
Point that survivors look at but don't seeOkay, if we're just ranting, here's the point that gets missed that the forum seems to be filled with.
Survivor mains make up hundreds of thousands of players. They are not a collective, they are individuals. Each person will have their own distinct complaints about the game and the direction they want it to go to, this does not mean that every survivor main agrees on what should be changed about the game.
After some reaction on Xeno from people who only plays one side i feel like i need to show some math to them.I was looking forward to math but don't see any.
You guys want to:Camp: Some level of camping is inevitably part of the game. But yes, being able to just stick a person on the hook and stand there has lots of problems.
Tunnel: I'd like it to be harder to hard tunnel someone out, but again its going to be an aspect of the game barring massive design shifts.
3 Gen: After overbrine got nerfed, this isn't too bad. Playing attack/defend doesn't really feel like a game of DbD though.
Can't slowdown the match with perks too much- the use of "too" is doing a lot of work here. It's like saying killers don't want perks that allow survivors to speed up the gen 'too' much. It should be obvious there is a line were any perk becomes "too" strong. I think Overbrine crossed that line, they overcorrected in my opinion.You should be able to counter killer in every aspect of his power and be able to loop him as long as a pallets exist- I don't even get this, counterplay should exist, right?And that's why any good player understands perfectly well that one long chase (more than 1 minute is enough) it's literally the difference between losing and winning in a lot of matches.It's a chase game. If a survivor is able to sufficiently distract a killer for long enough, they win. I'm not sure what else you want to be the difference maker.
-
I've been playing for a year and never DCed. Pretty sure next time I hit Skully I will.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3531154#Comment_3531154
That's not random chance, the players use their skill to do it or the other team fails to defend against it. That doesn't mean it is "RNG"
Sure it is. Hail Marys are basically pure random chance. Some players have a little better chance at it then others, but its a jump ball, sometimes you get it, usually you don't.
Let's take something else from football, fumbles. A running back will fumble on average once every 120 times they touch the ball. Maybe that fumble occurs in the Superbowl, maybe it occurs in an average game.
And football coaches constantly talk about percentiles (how likely we were to succeed). Even if you put the percentiles in your favor, sometimes you still lose.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3527832#Comment_3527832
So, let me get this straight.
A side winning a game due to RNG, is fun for the side winning, but the side that is losing, should just suck it up and say "good job?".
That is hella biased.
How about we just have the superbowl team that loses, play a guess the number game, and if they guess the number right, they automatically win regardless of how badly they played.
How about we just have the superbowl team that loses, play a guess the number game, and if they guess the number right, they automatically win regardless of how badly they played.You mean like a hail merry or a 60+ yard field goal?
The hail merry is actually a great example. The losing team gets to chuck the ball down the field in an extremely low chance play that's really just random chance. No coach would try such a play unless it was desperation (end of the game) or low risk (end of a half). It's not a testament of skill, its just a jump ball that gives the losing team a chance to win the game at the very end.
But a game of football would be a lot more boring if that didn't exist.
4% is actually really similar. It only has any meaning if its been a competitive game (if you escape the hook and there are still 3 gens to do it doesn't really mean anything) and it gives a chance for the losing side to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
I actually think American football shows why RNG makes games fun and entertaining.
-
@BlueRose said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3529636#Comment_3529636
What I don't get is why so many of you ppl care so much that we are mad and want to voice our opinions. Why are you trying to keep us as consumers doing what is our right and that is complaining about the pricing of something that is trying to sold to us? I think none of us are dumb here, we know if we don't like the value of something we don't have to buy it. For me, I hate the bundle and don't think the skin that is in the bundle is worth the extra $2 since I am mostly a killer main who only plays Survivor an hour a day. The skin btw is awful and wish it was the Grid Xeno skin instead. Either way, I decided to just get the killer for $5 even tho I wanted Rapley but I'm not spending $10. That said it is still my right and others' right to complain about this sudden change of pricing logic even if doesnt do anything. How about this I throw your logic right back at you, If you don't like us complaining then stop looking at this thread. No one is forcing you to look at our complaints right? Like no one forcing us to buy the bundle.
At the end of the day, we are just mad that an option a lot of us like to get two characters for a slightly lower price is gone now, and are forced to pay $10 for both characters (saving nothing) or pay a higher price for a bundle that has a skin we may not even want. The consumer-friendly way they could have done was simply add two versions of the bundle to the store(a 6.99 bundle with just the charas and an 11.99 bundle with the skin(even tho is ugly as sin))
What I don't get is why so many of you ppl care so much that we are mad and want to voice our opinions.Because its so silly. No one likes higher prices.
-
@Brokenbones said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3529653#Comment_3529653
1) The title is how it looks with the methodolgy they're using, I'm sorry if you're not a fan of my choice of metaphor.
2) "it doesn't accomplish anything" neither does you replying to it, then. So by your own logic, you're wasting your own time and should stop, surely. (Personally I don't think it's a waste of time, it's nice to discuss stuff)
3) That's the thing tho, I wanna support the devs of DBD but I don't wanna support their greedy corporate overlords who are responsible for decison making like this and other recent ones
2: My chances of persuading people that posts like this are silly, while low, are much higher than forum posts being the thing that impacts BHVR business decisions.
3: We're back to greedy corporate overlords. They want to make money, you don't want to pay it. Nothing wrong with that, but they aren't separate entities.
-
@Brokenbones said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3529636#Comment_3529636
Alright got a counter question for you.
Why shouldn't people be vocal about not liking it? What is so wrong about it?
1: your thread is about them pulling the wool over people's eyes. That's just silly.
2: its kind of like announcements 'I'm leaving DbD forever!' it doesn't really accomplish anything. Stats are what matter.
3: With extremely rare exceptions, no consumer wants to pay more for a product. You're stating the obvious.
Don't make it sound like a conspiracy or a moral issue and its just kind of a personal view about whether you value the product or not. Which isn't much of a thread, but you can post it.
-
@Brokenbones said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3529627#Comment_3529627
The issue isn't just the price being put up tho, hell I even said I would be okay if the overall price was put up
The issue is their methodology. How they've raised the price.
To quote an earlier post, it's not like they went "Here is the alien DLC, it's this price" It's "Here is the Alien Chapter bundle! It has the chapter and a cosmetic you may or may not want, which means we are charging more for it" and if you want to pay the 'cheaper' or 'original' price for the chapter, you MUST buy auric cells and in so doing - you are still paying more.
All of this could've been avoided if they just gave steam users the option to buy it standalone
"Here is the Alien Chapter bundle! It has the chapter and a cosmetic you may or may not want, which means we are charging more for it" and if you want to pay the 'cheaper' or 'original' price for the chapter, you MUST buy auric cells and in so doing - you are still paying more.Under this logic I should have the right to buy a killer or survivor without the package. That option, to the best of my knowledge, has never existed.
They are packaging goods and charging for it. Nothing about it is secret, everything you get is disclosed as is the price. Maybe they felt that they had to raise the price for some reason outside their control (license/inflation) and thought throwing an additional product in with it would be a better deal. Maybe they just want to make more money.
Maybe they went crazy and typed random numbers into the price.
We all get back to the same issue:
If its cost is not worth the value to you, don't buy it.
If you don't like the model of how the game monetization works, don't play it. There are a plethora of alternatives.
-
@flotaku said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3528150#Comment_3528150
What is wrong with you? No really.
No on is saying that they are forced to buy the DLC, but it's important to have discourse around things like this. Idk why you want to tell others that they shouldn't share their opinion.
If you are happy to pay more for the DLC that's cool. But don#t tell others "oh just don't buy it then". If a dev studio makes a consumer unfriendly decision, that should be called out.
Are we entitled to a dev blog? Of course not. But we are entitled to state our opinion on changes to the game. And the BHVR could have circumvented this in different ways. Either by explaining that due to an increase in cost, the DLC will be more expensive, without doing something like only offering it bundled with a skin that a lot of people don't want.
There simply is no good reason to defend this.
No on is saying that they are forced to buy the DLC, but it's important to have discourse around things like this. Idk why you want to tell others that they shouldn't share their opinion.What discourse?
That's my serious question after this whole thread.
Companies want to make money. They do this by offering consumers a product for a price. As consumers we want the product, but don't want to pay. Eventually a company either finds a price that enough people are willing to pay that the company turns a profit, or the company goes out of business.
This entire forum could be filled with posts complaining about the price, but it will mean nothing if its selling. Likewise, not a single person could being talking about the issue, but if the product isn't selling they have a problem.
Maybe BHVR has additional costs, maybe its licensing fees, maybe they just want to make more money. It doesn't really matter.
There simply is no good reason to defend this.Defend what? The right of a company to set their own prices and consumers to either pay it or not?
-
Overloaded on Xeno in my games.
-
@Thusly_Boned said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3528066#Comment_3528066
This is true, but the BHVR isn't entitled to the consumer just quietly accepting it. Nor are they entitled to perpetually growing profit margins. Drawing attention to pricing changes and discussion about them (including conjecture/questioning about motivations), as well as advocating for organized pushback is totally acceptable in forums like these.
So in a very real way, BHVR does need our approval, it's only that approval is expressed in the form of purchasing.
More than acceptable, in fact. They can raise their prices, and the consumer can reject the changes by abstaining from purchase, and by encouraging others to do so, if they feel they are unfair. This is how the market should work.
Additionally, this is how unjustified pricing changes get pushed off on people, and the fond hope of the company is that they will be quietly accepted.
And make no mistake, while inflation is a thing, a whole lot of what we have seen over the past few years is more collective price gouging/collusion that natural inflation. We had a pandemic supply chain crisis that actually passed pretty quickly, but many unscrupulous companies decided hey could just keep on going with unjustified price increases. Even for companies that were totally immune to supply chain/pandemic labor issues. This has long since graduated from conspiracy theory to a fact acknowledged by most economists.
They just count on you to quietly accept burgeoning prices and chalk it up to whatever the narrative of the day happens to be. Always question these things.
People can just roll with these changes if that's their prerogative, but we shouldn't try to quiet/suppress those who want to point out problems with them.
So in a very real way, BHVR does need our approval, it's only that approval is expressed in the form of purchasing.Everyone agrees on this. If you don't want it, don't buy it.
They can raise their prices, and the consumer can reject the changes by abstaining from purchase, and by encouraging others to do so, if they feel they are unfair. This is how the market should work.It's the encouraging others to do so that is silly and waste of time. Everyone can see the numbers and make a decision on whether it is valuable to them or not.
And make no mistake, while inflation is a thing, a whole lot of what we have seen over the past few years is more collective price gouging/collusion that natural inflation. We had a pandemic supply chain crisis that actually passed pretty quickly, but many unscrupulous companies decided hey could just keep on going with unjustified price increases.Is BHVR part of this or did you just want to go on a rant.
People can just roll with these changes if that's their prerogative, but we shouldn't try to quiet/suppress those who want to point out problems with them.No one is suppressing anything, BHVR is allowing this discussion on their own forum, we're just pointing out that its a very silly discussion. Look at the price of the product, if its not worth the value to you, don't buy it.
-
@not_requested49 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3525479#Comment_3525479
People want to delete suiciding on hook and yet they also want to add another way to
Duality of man
Because the timing is the issue, not the suiciding.
First, second, or probably third person hooked shouldn't have the option to suicide outside deliverance. It ruins the game outside very rare slippery meat/luck builds.
Suiciding later though and its probably just because the game is over. No one should want a system that keeps people in the game once its no longer competitive. Once the game is decided mechanics that speed up the end of the game should be encouraged.
@Blueberry said:
"They'res only 2 survivors left and one of them are slugged for the 4k."
No. If you don't like this remove hatch.
"Its honestly not fun being slugged for the 4k because really, it's just the Killer being greedy."
You mean greedy like the survivor that's just hiding for hatch and waiting for the other guy to die?
"Theres no reason to do so other than BP and bragging rights, youve already won if you hook the survivor and get a 3k"
You should feel just as strongly then about the 4th guy hiding. The killer already won, so he should just come out and give himself to the killer to move the game on faster. Why is it the killers fault for the game dragging out when BOTH sides have the option to end it whenever they want. That's a double standard.
The source of the problem is not the killer dragging the game out, it's why the game's getting drug out, which is hatch. If hatch didn't exist the games would end faster, so how about we remove that because then they wouldn't slug anymore at end game? Yeah no one wants that because the killers not entitled to the last kill but the survivor is definitely entitled to their escape. Totally makes sense.
Yeah no one wants that because the killers not entitled to the last kill but the survivor is definitely entitled to their escape. Totally makes sense.No one wants the survivor to get a free escape, but you need a mechanic that keeps the game interesting. Otherwise the game should just end outright when it gets to two survivors and there are still gens left to be done (which BHVR wouldn't do for good reasons because it would be a very boring way to end a horror game).
-
@Sava18 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3526597#Comment_3526597
I'm going to direct you to my reply to coffeecrashing but are you seriously trying to say vc is relevant to killer? It's both the benefit and detriment of the killer role that it's only one person. Again, when the devs and people are talking about swf it's pretty much always implied they are talking. The first benefit of a swf is the guarantee of a player who is good or trying even, the second is people talking. Even if you add a VC most people in this game(they are terrible) won't use it in the first place and even then won't use it well. The players who would use it well already are in discord, there is no issue adding this feature.
"In Overwatch, both sides are likely to be using the voice chat to equal levels. If, on average, only 1 or 2 people on your team use voice, then likely only 1 or 2 use it on the other team as well. To a synchronous game you can really add whatever type of mechanic you want without impacting the balance because both sides have access to it."
Yeah, no. There are many games that are hard stomps because one team doesn't talk and the other has 4 people calling out.
I'm going to direct you to my reply to coffeecrashing but are you seriously trying to say vc is relevant to killer? It's both the benefit and detriment of the killer role that it's only one person.You're stating, but also missing, the point.
Adding a feature to a game like DbD inevitably impacts one side over the other. You could have Overwatch with everyone on both teams communicating, or no one communicating, and as long as it remains, generally, the same on both sides you maintain balance.
Yeah, no. There are many games that are hard stomps because one team doesn't talk and the other has 4 people calling out.I'll use your own words here:
SIr, I play overwatch at gm1 and 3/5 games people have themselves set to not join the voice chat.If on, average, the same amount of people on both sides use a feature it is, on average, balanced. Sure, you will have games outside the average, where one team heavily uses chat and the other doesn't that stand out, but balance worries about the general game.
You're the one saying Overwatch games generally don't have people joining voice, that's your claim, not mine. I'm just pointing out that is a synch game that balances out because it will usually, though not always, be roughly the same on both sides.
-
@adam1233467 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3526592#Comment_3526592
8,500 hours and you are devotion 5?
It's because skull merchant matches last 5 hours long and you only played 10 matches so far, makes sense
It's because skull merchant matches last 5 hours long and you only played 10 matches so far, makes senseOne of the best lines I've ever seen on the forum.
@pandorayr said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3526587#Comment_3526587
Dodging is fine and choose with who I want to play.
Main killer skull merchant chess (no chase) around 8,500hrs 99% kill rate games, in my streamings I won almost all my games thanks to my skill and intelligence.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/AKV8X25M53VF/7a5f2ce86b37a619b611e6f81cdcca65.jpg
By the way the MMR doesn't work or it's a joke bruh
Main killer skull merchant chess (no chase) around 8,500hrs 99% kill rate games, in my streamings I won almost all my games thanks to my skill and intelligence.You had me going for awhile that you were serious there, but you went too far on this statement. Good troll thread attempt.
-
@Sava18 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3525975#Comment_3525975
SIr, I play overwatch at gm1 and 3/5 games people have themselves set to not join the voice chat.
You are blowing this out of proportion.
Although I doubt 4/5 games would have more than 1 person join vc in dbd.
Your putting yourself at a disadvantage technically but lose nothing from the current state.
-Sincerely someone who would not join voice chat in this awful player base.
SIr, I play overwatch at gm1 and 3/5 games people have themselves set to not join the voice chat.But that's the difference between Overwatch and DbD.
In Overwatch, both sides are likely to be using the voice chat to equal levels. If, on average, only 1 or 2 people on your team use voice, then likely only 1 or 2 use it on the other team as well. To a synchronous game you can really add whatever type of mechanic you want without impacting the balance because both sides have access to it.
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3526150#Comment_3526150
Then when people say “solo queue is terrible do something”- something which crops up daily on this forum, Reddit, Twitter etc- what are they hoping the devs can actually do? I constantly see “buff solo, then buff killer so things can be balanced to SWF level”. Again, how exactly is solo meant to be buffed anymore than it has since the implementation of the HUD? Some more base-kit perks perhaps? Eliminating all killer tactics that are deemed “unfun”? Aside from that, there is nothing that can be done.
If we accept SWF with communication is the ultimate easy mode for this game, then we have to accept as a consequence that BOTH killer and solo queue will suffer. Like I said, I’m not even saying you personally or anyone else should be forced to use voice chat, but based on the responses in this thread the only reason to not have it is because of the community. And that’s just kind of sad.
It’s also incredibly naive to just outright say that “this game doesn’t have voice-chat”. Because whilst it does not have official built in voice chat, an awful lot of people are using communication and gaining a massive advantage from it. Actual acknowledgement of this from the devs would be nice. Instead someone will probably come along and say the usual nonsense of “most SWF’s are just friends chilling and having fun! It’s not really an advantage”. Which everyone knows is total BS.
Hiding who is in a party, not having comms whilst letting people have comms, not showing MMR- All of this at this point in the game is just silly now.
Then when people say “solo queue is terrible do something”-A couple of others have mentioned this, but you are attributing a lot to communication. A SWF knows each other. They can design their builds together and decide whether they want to bring their best gear or not. They know who their best looper is and, generally, will be more willing to sacrifice themselves for each other because they care about the team victory.
In many ways, its not the communication that makes a SWF strong, especially because a group of randoms wouldn't have the level of call out and codes that a top SWF does. That doesn't mean a SWF isn't powerful, or that communication doesn't help, just that its not the main thing.
The thing that makes soloq horrible is that one fourth of your team might just not play. I'm not even adding the possibility of being bad, that's subjective, but actively not playing. AFK, hook suicide, doing archives, etc.
something which crops up daily on this forum, Reddit, Twitter etc- what are they hoping the devs can actually do?Make tunneling the first hooked target harder
Make camping harder (currently planned)
Remove early game hook suicides
Penalize lobby dodging
based on the responses in this thread the only reason to not have it is because of the community. And that’s just kind of sad.I've never played with voice comms, but I imagine it wouldn't be nearly as fun. I don't even like having SWFs on my team because I feel it throws off the nature of the game.
It’s also incredibly naive to just outright say that “this game doesn’t have voice-chat”. Because whilst it does not have official built in voice chat, an awful lot of people are using communication and gaining a massive advantage from it.Define an awful lot. I suspect the majority of games have no survivors on voice comms.
Hiding who is in a party, not having comms whilst letting people have comms, not showing MMR-I think parties should be disclosed post game, but Peanits has given pretty solid answers in the past why that and MMR are hidden.
-
@mca240 said:
Generator rushing, overpowered premades, map imbalance, tunnelling and camping. These are the core problems that make it so games turn unfun and are not won by skill but exploit. It should be your priority to fix these over anything else so this game finally becomes balanced and fair. Surely, after 7 years you must have a timeline?
Surely, after 7 years you must have a timeline?If I'm the devs, this line always creates a problem. Many people say they need to radically change their game. However, they've had an extremely successful 7 years which is rare in the video game industry. If I was in their shoes, I'd be very hesitant to enact any type of substantial change, even if I as a player have a few I'd want.
Gen rushAs long as the game is survivor escape, the goal of survivors will be to do it as quickly as possible.
Map imbalanceVery different killers and a desire for variability make map imbalance an inevitability. Everyone agrees about map imbalance, but people disagree about how. This is something they address, but its not going to ever have a perfect solution.
TunnelingAs long as it is an elimination game, tunneling will be the strongest tactic. I think they could make the off the hook speed boost longer, especially for early hooked survivors, but its always going to be part of the game.
CampingI believe the roadmap for this is fall.
@Nos37 said:
Core issues are too deep in spaghetti to be changed.
Wait a few more years for Dead by Daylight 2...
- Built-in limitations for queueing as a group
- Built-in information for playing solo
- Map offerings now prevent the Entity from choosing that realm
- Downed survivors are taken by the Entity and placed on a random hook unknown to the killer, while the killer immediately gets back to patrolling and chasing (no slugging, no camping, but also no flashlight saves, no sabotage)
- If the killer is near the hook, the unhooked survivor is dropped into a random spot in the map (no tunnel-off-hook)
- Hooking different survivors reduces repair speeds (spreading hooks rewarded)
- Hooking the same survivor twice in a row resets the repair speed penalty back to 0 (tunneling punished)
- All endurance effects are disabled after all the generators have been completed (to give the killer a chance in endgame)
- All killer powers are disabled (and movespeed set to 115%) when there is only 1 remaining survivor (to give the last survivor a chance in endgame)
Thing is, if we're talking DbD 2, we need to throw out all our presumptions about what that game would be. Who knows if they'd even keep the hook/generator mechanic or go for a different idea.
@Tsulan said:
My solution would be:
- regular official Tournaments. Balance around the outcome to see how busted some perk/addon combinations are.
- reverse the gen slowdown perk nerfs. A killer who is busy running around kicking gens, is a killer who doesn´t stand in front of the hook.
- double the time a survivor can stay on the hook. Less incentives to admire survivor cosmetics from close up as killer.
- introduce a different health state for freshly unhooked survivors. 5 times endurance stacking was OP. But OtR should give a different health state than the basekit BT.
- introduce another secondary objective for survivors. Like gas cans that have to be collected and refilled in order to power a gen. Parts that are required for the repair. Make this part of the game more interesting instead of just holding m1.
- remove the instant death if a survivor fails the struggle phase skill checks. Even better, make it a mini game that rewards additional bloodpoints for succeeding in the case of a prolonged basement show with Bubba.
- remove last second switching. Survivors should log their build at least 30 seconds before the timer runs out. Or even better, take the build from the pre lobby screen. No more wasting the full 60 seconds.
- buff the basekit/addons of the lower tier killers. Build up on their unique playstyles and allow for different playstyles based on addons. Like Myers or Hag. So we see more variety across the board and don´t have 50 shades of Wesker.
TournamentsGiven the variability in region and playstyles (SWF vs soloq), this would be a really hard thing to give preference to.
Gen slowdownI didn't think the total nerf of the perks was really needed, but with the existence of SM and Knight these have to be out of the game. Also, never really prevented the other game problems.
Hook timerI'd take it, but would worry it wouldn't put enough pressure on survivors to actually get an unhook.
Different health stateProbably too complicated a mechanic to address tunneling.
Secondary objectiveIt might be more interesting, but you're also adding more randomness/map knowledge into the game. Finding generators can already be annoying on certain maps, add in the prospect of having to search for a gas can and the game very well might come down to whether the survivors guessed right or not on where to look first.
I'd try it, I think this could work, but I also think it creates a lot more problems than most people anticipate.
Instant DeathKeeping people in the game longer than they want to be is unlikely to be a workable solution. I think they should just make it easier for people who are on a hook to leave, but be replaced with a bot instead of dead.
Last second switchingAgreed on this, silly that its in the game.
-
Agree on the idea that being slugged in a 2 survivor left scenario sucks, but basekit unbreakable doesn't really address that. The killer could still keep you in the game to farm downs, try and hunt the hiding survivor, etc if they really want to.
Better solution is something that speeds up bleed out timers to speed up/suicide if put in that situation as others have mentioned.
-
US West - its mostly a survivor bonus, though the cage patch did allow me to play a lot of killer at 100% for awhile.
On the bonuses, I don't think anyone has mentioned it, but your MMR is supposed to also play into the calculations (two people in the same region could get different bonuses because their MMR needs different things), though exactly how has never been disclosed to my knowledge.
-
I was very close losing.I'm very sorry you almost lost.
That said, an idea of a perk that activates based on hooks is not a bad idea, but I don't think it would work out. It would need a powerful effect, like Devour Hope, to justify building up hooks on multiple survivors. Something just like an instadown on a bodyblocker wouldn't be worth it, that's extremely situational.
-
@TheSaltySaloon said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3522965#Comment_3522965
“you just followed the survivor and pressed space”
That’s basically the gameplay for every basic M1 killer lmao.
I shouldn’t have to pick another killer to have a fighting chance at winning, that’s the point I was making all along. So no, idc about your examples of “”X”” player running a specific build sweating his ass off to pull a victory.
none of you here are going to convince me that the number of pallets aren’t a problem and that survivors running to safe pallet next to safe pallet pressing R1 is some skilled mindgame when killers have only 2 options.
chase or break chase.
keep chasing the survivor and waste precious time or break chase and waste precious time.
That’s basically the gameplay for every basic M1 killer lmao.Only if you play them that way. Every killer in the game has a power.
I shouldn’t have to pick another killer to have a fighting chance at winning, that’s the point I was making all along. So no, idc about your examples of “”X”” player running a specific build sweating his ass off to pull a victory.People have pointed out ways you could improve the following
Pathing
Effective use of your power
When not to break pallets
Mind games you could try
Chases that you shouldn't have broken off vs others you over committed to
Better perk load outs
As for addons, you don't have to bring them if you don't want to, but you are increasing the difficulty for yourself.
none of you here are going to convince me that the number of pallets aren’t a problem and that survivors running to safe pallet next to safe pallet pressing R1 is some skilled mindgame when killers have only 2 options.Then why post on a public forum? People have been very constructive in their feedback to you, offering multiple avenues for improvement, but if you're just looking for affirmations that's it's the game's problem you're going to need a lot more evidence.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3522551#Comment_3522551
I will continue to ask them as long as people who have the answers i suspect continue to contradict themselves. But at this point i don't think you will answer them, so i'll say what i suspect your answers will be (perhaps i'll be wrong)
- Do you think this game is balanced at the highest level play without requiring rules that limit perks, or addons/items or other kinds of point systems, but simply a kills vs escapes standpoint?
- The answer to this one doesn't matter as much, but it sets the framing, usually people answer that it is not, but that it is fixed by those rules i mentioned
- Do you think this game should be balanced around top level players, or average skilled players?
- For some inexplicable reason, this is the only multiplayer game i have ever played where people think the answer is average players
- Do you think nurse needs a nerf?
- Most people say yes to this.
- Do you think 1k win streaks are fine?
- Most people say no to this
- Do you think this game is a "party game"?
- The answer to this is usually dependent on where you ask it, on these forums people usually say yes.
But now we get to the point of this. There is a simple calculation here:
Here are the statistics that were last given to us on kill rates. The devs balance around a 60% kill rate. You can argue it should be 50%, or that its not fair, or w/e. That is an issue you need to take up with the devs. The point is, a 60% kill rate is desirable based on how the game is supposed to be balanced:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/2QSB2XPWBRPN/image.png
If you believe that this game should be balanced around "Average players" and not "top players" then you MUST by definition believe that nurse needs massive buffs. The best part about this, is that this chart actually shows BEFORE nurse was recently nerfed.
Now, most people would agree that nurse is probably a problem. I myself am a nurse main, and thinks that by the end of all this, she needs to be fixed, but personally, i don't think it should happen until she is no longer the only viable killer at top level play.
Occasionally, when i ask this question, someone actually doubles down and thinks nurse is fine because of this, and that nurse probably needs to be made easier to play. I commend those people for consistency, but i obviously heavily disagree.
So, my point in asking you those questions was simple.
- If you believe that this game should be balanced around "average" players, then you MUST by definition think that nurse needs buffs
- If you believe that this game should be balanced around "top" players, then you MUST by definition, think that survivors as a whole need some serious nerfs, or killers as a whole need some serious buffs. Just watch any comp game where the killer isn't nurse blight or spirit, and they don't have a ton of rules and restrictions to balance out the survivors.
And if you try to hold some combination of these beliefs (I.E., you think nurse is fine but survivors need nerfs, or that nurse needs nerfs but we should balance around average players) than you are biased.
I will continue to ask them as long as people who have the answers i suspect continue to contradict themselves.I've answered them in the past, the problem is that you see a contradiction in other people's thinking when it usually isn't. You might disagree, but that's different.
I'll give it a go again anyway.
Do you think this game is balanced at the highest level play without requiring rules that limit perks, or addons/items or other kinds of point systems, but simply a kills vs escapes standpoint?I think BHVR tries to balance for a wide array of players at the same time, which I generally think is a mistake, but they are the ones with a successful game, not me
Do you think this game should be balanced around top level players, or average skilled players?I think the game should be balanced around soloq. That's different than top level. SWFs aren't inherently higher skilled, they are basically playing a different game than soloq.
I'd put penalties on SWFs (no duplicate perks/items for starters), potentially inform killers they are playing a SWF, and put penalties on lobby dodging. That's not going to happen, but its what I'd do.
Do you think nurse needs a nerf?Again, if it was totally up to me, I'd probably try to rework her just because of how outside the normal game mechanics she is. That's not going to happen.
Overall, she probably doesn't need a nerf. If I really got into it maybe there is a way that could nerf her at the highest levels without hitting lower levels, but I'm not sure that could happen.
If you believe that this game should be balanced around "Average players" and not "top players" then you MUST by definition believe that nurse needs massive buffs.This is were you think people contradict themselves and you're wrong, its not a contradiction. You are conflating multiple concepts into one idea.
The game has some killers that take more time to learn than others. That's not balance, that's a totally different game design issue.
Secondly, you are conflating general statements with absolutes. If someone says 'average' players that doesn't mean High and Low MMR need to be totally ignored when they have unique issues, but that average is just the general place BHVR should give their focus.
You can emphasize the MUST multiple times, but you are incorrect on the contradiction. A person may or may not be influenced with bias, but that's just a guess on their motivations for having a nuanced view.
Do you think this game is a "party game"?Any game can be a party game. Otherwise not sure what you mean.
Do you think 1k win streaks are fine?I'm less bothered by the 1k win streak than all of the streamers who have pulled off 50 win streaks. I think in a game win streaks should be extremely rare, showing someone is of the absolute highest skill level that they really don't even have an MMR match.
- Do you think this game is balanced at the highest level play without requiring rules that limit perks, or addons/items or other kinds of point systems, but simply a kills vs escapes standpoint?
-
As others have said, there was a number of plays that could have been done differently. I thought you way over respected the pallets and this led to you going wide on corners and you defaulted to breaking some you didn't need to.
There were also a couple of points were if things had been slightly more in your favor you would have gotten a down and really changed the game. That's how DbD works, sometimes you're just a little bit behind and it looks like a blow out.
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3522490#Comment_3522490
Few questions for you.
- Do you think this game is balanced at the highest level play without requiring rules that limit perks, or addons/items or other kinds of point systems, but simply a kills vs escapes standpoint?
- Do you think this game should be balanced around top level players, or average skilled players?
- Do you think nurse needs a nerf?
- Do you think 1k win streaks are fine?
- Do you think this game is a "party game"?
How many months have we been doing these questions?
-
@Nos37 said:
With hook-grabs removed, is there any reason survivors should be able to cancel the unhook action?
Being unable to cancel the action would prevent the unhook spam.
Hypothetically, I could see a scenario where a survivor goes for a save, sees something like an insidious Bubba come running, and needs those extra moments to get away.
But generally speaking, yeah, there isn't much of a case for it still being in.