Skip to content
Avatar

crogers271

crogers271

About

Username
crogers271
Joined
Visits
8,432
Last Active

Comments

  • @Lorelei_Albrecht_TTV said:

    I say this because people will genuinely throw games following the killer around trying to use stuff like head on or champion of light. You can call it out as a survivor in a lobby tell these people not to throw but they are so hungry for clips for their tik toks. Saddest part is when the killers know what these people are up to it doesn't even work. Like if you plot twist by every pallet it's kinda obvious you're up to something. These mechanics don't add anything to the game and they make the new player experience on killer miserable because the match will take ages because if it's a four stack they legitimately won't touch gens until they get bored or the killer DC's whichever happens sooner. Also it inflates kill rates artificially which to BHVR means either this killer is doing well on average we don't need to do anything with them or this killer is doing too well we need to nerf them. It's bad all around for the health of the game.

    There's also certain types of squads certain killers can't deal with for example a Sadako can't face a no mither sabo squad because she simply can not get downs fast enough to deal with them unless they over extend. Otherwise you will be held hostage unable to do anything for at least ten minutes but, maybe more if they decide they're having too much "fun".

    In fact there's streamers who's whole thing is bullying new killers it's dumb if you ask me.

    Most of the fight back mechanics are generally losing strategies, however:

    These mechanics don't add anything to the game 

    Without these mechanics the game would probably be dead. If it was just chase one survivors, the other three heal and do gens, it would be extremely boring. There needs to be other possibilities for both sides to keep the game engaging.

    they make the new player experience on killer miserable because the match will take ages because if it's a four stack they legitimately won't touch gens until they get bored or the killer DC's whichever happens sooner

    The people who keep their MMR low to bully new players its own problem. It also wouldn't change the teams, instead of saboing they'd all just bring looping builds until the killer quit.

    There's also certain types of squads certain killers can't deal with for example a Sadako can't face a no mither sabo squad because she simply can not get downs fast enough to deal with them unless they over extend.

    This is its own issue in DbD - if the survivors bring just the right build against just the right killer they are going to have a substantial advantage (the same applies in reverse, if they bring the wrong builds against the wrong killer they will be at a substantial disadvantage).

    in The "Fight Back" Mechanics Are Bad For The Game Comment by crogers271

  • @ShanoaLegendaryPlz said:

    Im not sure how many people visit the forums regularly. But posts ive made or comments ive made usualy only end up with 1 up or downvote from the op of a discussion or the topic I chose for mine. Have probably never seen more than 10 down or up votes so i don't see how theyd be usefull for data when there's barely any of the community clicking the buttons.

    Even the polls section usualy gets like 1-8 people maximum to participate depending on the topic, and then it gets burried and abandoned.

    Considering its a game played by thousands, its odd how few people interact here.

    A lot more than thousands actually. There is something like 750k trials played per day.

    in Question about the forums Comment by crogers271

  • @dbd900bach said:

    The build I'm talking about is healing slowdown with the Doctor. Distressing, Coulrophobia, Unnerving Presence, and No Quarter.

    Survivors don't heal in front of the killer, so I don't really know how my build is affecting the survivors. Is it doing nothing, something or is it making the game actually a lot more difficult? To to be clear, I won the game, though there wasn't constant skill check failures either, and the survivors knew how to abuse RPD's layout. So they weren't bad or new survivors.

    What is the experience like going against this build? And by extension figure out if its worth it to keep running or is it just a gimmick that fails 1 out of 5 games?

    Distressing, Coulrophobia

    There can be a pretty impactful combo to go against, though its a little map dependent / survivor builds. If there are either corners the survivors can move to, or if they have the right builds (Resurgence), they can minimize the impact.

    Unnerving Presence, and No Quarter

    I find Sloppy Butcher much more annoying in this scenario than either of these. Slow heals from Coulrophobia are annoying, but if a heal is failed and you can resume it, then its not that big a deal. Losing progress is the real devastating effect.

    in Did my build do anything? Comment by crogers271

  • @coldflame said:

    assumptions we make for our discussion:

    -we don't bring specific perks to enable counter sabo. the expectation that the killer brings a specific perk every single game is not reasonable.

    -we do not play a killer that has power that reduces the effectiveness of sabo. for obvious reasons, this is immaterial to the balance of sabotaging

    -the survivors do not make any errors in play. this is immaterial to the balance of the mechanic.

    sabotaging a hook takes 1.625 seconds. picking up a survivor takes 3 seconds. the survivors have a 1.4~ second time advantage when it comes to reaching the hook. the survivors are faster than the killer during this race. there are 3 survivors and one killer. the survivor has decent input on where they end up going down, and can mostly freely pick a deadzone to go down in.

    theres only really two possible responses:

    -slug. bhvr have explicitly made it clear that they dont want slugging to be a playstyle and attempted to mitigate it with balance and perk changes. there are several perks that hard counter slugging, which will be used by a survivor team using sabo. slugging being the only realistic counter also just makes bringing a single sabo toolbox effectively end the game as soon as the last generator powered as the killer can no longer prevent a downed survivor escaping by hooking them

    -exhaust the sabos. the survivor get over a dozen sabotages, and even after those are exhausted they can still sabotage slightly slower. there is no plausible scenario where the survivors can run out of sabotages before gens are done

    it's been a very long time since bhvr has actually discussed the mechanic and its intended role in the game. it's in a very unhealthy place where it demands large amounts of communication and use of finite bloodweb resources by the survivor team but offers no interaction or counterplay for the killer when executed correctly, so pretty exclusively serves the role of being used by already advantaged premades.

    -we don't bring specific perks to enable counter sabo. the expectation that the killer brings a specific perk every single game is not reasonable.

    -we do not play a killer that has power that reduces the effectiveness of sabo. for obvious reasons, this is immaterial to the balance of sabotaging

    -the survivors do not make any errors in play. this is immaterial to the balance of the mechanic.

    The first two are reasonable, the third isn't - if we discuss things with no errors lots of game discussions would be different (example: Huntress would jump up tier lists if errors in play are not part of the discussion).

    -slug. bhvr have explicitly made it clear that they dont want slugging to be a playstyle

    @jesterkind touched on this, but I'll add that we're discussing the game that exists right now, which means go ahead and slug.

    there are several perks that hard counter slugging, which will be used by a survivor team using sabo.

    And you know they have these perks, you know they are off gens to sabo, you have more time than you would against a different game.

    slugging being the only realistic counter also just makes bringing a single sabo toolbox effectively

    If there's a single toolbox, the survivors are going to have to constantly drag you to a corner, anywhere else in the map you can change directions.

    offers no interaction or counterplay for the killer when executed correctly, so pretty exclusively serves the role of being used by already advantaged premades.

    Sure there's counterplay, especially once they do it a single time. The survivors are going to have to get in position for the sabos. They are going to try and lead the chase in certain directions. This gives you a few options, find the person lurking for sabos, try and zone the runner away from the direction they are going so you have multiple hooks, or switch target to those on gens.

    in what is the counter to sabo actually supposed to be? Comment by crogers271

  • Yes, I think they are intentional. They seem to not want values to get to absurd places (self heal in a coulrophobia), so it has nothing to do with how (based on how BHVR has approached this). They might not have thought of these possibilities, but it does seem to be their end goal.

    in Diminishing Returns also includes effects from the opposing sides. is it in intentional? Comment by crogers271

  • @Alphensmith said:

    I'm dumbfounded Dead Space, Siren and F.E.A.R. haven't collabed with Dead by Daylight.

    My guesses are F.E.A.R. and Siren aren't popular and Dead Space I guess it's difficult to negotiate with EA? I don't know.

    But those 3 games gave me life long mental scars and probably ruined me in some ways as a kid lmao.

    Shout-out to Parasite Eve, …Iru!, Kuon, Clock Tower, Dino Crisis and Nightmare Creatures can't forget those.

    I think F.E.A.R is owned by either Activision or Warner Bros now (depending on whether Vivendi or Monolith ended up with the IP), Siren is Sony (and not a game I expected to hear mentioned), and as you mentioned Dead Space EA.

    Basically all big players and I don't think Activision and Sony would even take the phone call for what BHVR might be willing to offer to license the first two.

    in Do you think Dead Space, Siren and F.E.A.R. fit in Dead by Daylight? Comment by crogers271

  • @cogsturning said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4070495#Comment_4070495

    I started as killer and stayed that way for awhile, and really didn't realize how rough survivor was until I switched. It's so disadvantaged and so info-heavy, there's so much more to learn than killer, where with killer, you can have a single killer down in a couple hundred hours.

    I will say, DS is trash against a lot of killers. The stun needs to be longer. I sometimes get people who bait me with it, so I oblige and, currently playing as Henry, if I'm in World Breaker, they're still within vine range and get sniped the moment I recover. It's not powerful enough against ranged or high mobility killers. If any perks need a buff, it's anti-tunnel. Those should make tunneling damn near impossible if we can't get anything basekit.

    I also give out "mercy hatch" all the time, if survivior doesn't DC. Trying to make someone elses experience a little better, sometimes we all need that.

    This is a big thing that's frustrating me in the game. I'm giving hatch every time I play, but not because I thought the person did well and deserves an out or just to be nice. I'm doing it because the matches are stomps. I've regularly had 2 or 3 DCs in my matches lately because of how lopsided they are. I'm being backed into moral corners every session. The game is forcing me to feel bad for my opponent, which is not the feeling I'm looking for. Then I come here and see killers cry about 15s Endurance or, God forbid, the horror that is tbagging, and it's just so embarrassing for the killer role. They want more and more, and I feel pretty confident most are above the 60% KR goal.

    If any perks need a buff, it's anti-tunnel. Those should make tunneling damn near impossible if we can't get anything basekit.

    I find it funny that what we got out of anti-tunnel PTB was a buff to the basekit BT that no one was asking for and a nerf to Off the Record.

    But yeah, if its not going to be a basekit thing, if we're going to play 'win if you guess the right perk', those perks should win.

    @cogsturning said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4070495#Comment_4070495

    I started as killer and stayed that way for awhile, and really didn't realize how rough survivor was until I switched. It's so disadvantaged and so info-heavy, there's so much more to learn than killer, where with killer, you can have a single killer down in a couple hundred hours.

    I will say, DS is trash against a lot of killers. The stun needs to be longer. I sometimes get people who bait me with it, so I oblige and, currently playing as Henry, if I'm in World Breaker, they're still within vine range and get sniped the moment I recover. It's not powerful enough against ranged or high mobility killers. If any perks need a buff, it's anti-tunnel. Those should make tunneling damn near impossible if we can't get anything basekit.

    I also give out "mercy hatch" all the time, if survivior doesn't DC. Trying to make someone elses experience a little better, sometimes we all need that.

    This is a big thing that's frustrating me in the game. I'm giving hatch every time I play, but not because I thought the person did well and deserves an out or just to be nice. I'm doing it because the matches are stomps. I've regularly had 2 or 3 DCs in my matches lately because of how lopsided they are. I'm being backed into moral corners every session. The game is forcing me to feel bad for my opponent, which is not the feeling I'm looking for. Then I come here and see killers cry about 15s Endurance or, God forbid, the horror that is tbagging, and it's just so embarrassing for the killer role. They want more and more, and I feel pretty confident most are above the 60% KR goal.

    I'm giving hatch every time I play, but not because I thought the person did well and deserves an out or just to be nice. I'm doing it because the matches are stomps.

    I'm surprised players have the patience to slug for the 4k. When I'm in that position as killer I'm begging for the game to end as quickly as possible.

    in 9.6.0 Patch Notes Preview Comment by crogers271

  • I'll go through the list you mentioned

    Nurse: I've never found her an issue in 2v8, the map sizes really balance her out better. I almost never see her despite playing a lot of 2v8.

    Blight: Same issue in 2v8 as 1v4, though not as extreme. Blight is fun, he's just too strong. I disagree that people don't like playing Blight, its more circumstantial than that.

    Spirit: Well I hate going against spirit in 1v4 and 2v8, but not sure of the overall view.

    Oni: The issue with Oni is just that his power needs more adjustment for 2v8 so its not constant in use.

    So Blight - Oni, just need some tweaks. Nurse I guess I'd need more info. Spirit I have a personal dislike of so not a fair judge.

    in 2V8 Killer Criteria Comment by crogers271

  • @AlwaysInAGoodShape said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4069715#Comment_4069715

    "Putting the formula in place creates another potential error point where the game design could get something wrong"

    The beautiful thing about this system is, even if you believe a certain value is better off a hard stop, this system is still superior, because this system is both capable of acting like a direct hard stop, as well as a gradual fall off. Making it more versatile and only needing 1 solution to multiple problems. All a hard stop system would do is you needing multiple systems if another problem was better solved through a gradual fall off.
    This system solved all those issues with 1 small-code solution.

    "You're substantially boosting the latter perk design which has a number of balance effects. In turn you are saying a side can have more without sacrificing, while BHVR is taking the approach that any type of stacking will come with penalties."

    Correct, the currently proposed diminishing returns effect does serve a different philosophy; it unnecessarily harms build variety and attacks stacking perks, that don't have to form any issue, and have decided to do so for no reason. They are attacking a problem that don't exist. The only problem with stacking perks is the ability to reach problematic values. Their current solution doesn't solve that. It randomly bullies people who run Botany with Empathic Connection, who have a mere 80% total healing speed and punches them in the face to reduce it to 65%. It makes 0 sense. And this problem doesn't have to exist, because we already have the solution in the post above.

    "but treating Hyperfocus and Toolboxes as different percentages means the same problem still exists"

    Like I said, random perks and items, like toolboxes, perks that give gen speed as well as hyperfocus not interacting much with neither my solution, nor the dev's solution proves my point. It's unrelated to this topic of stacking values, and simply a separate balancing issue. An issue for sure, I agree. But irrelevant to this topic of stacking values within the same category, which is what the diminishing returns update method targets.
    A solution to such an issue, for example maximum overall global gen speeds is solved with ideas that are completely unrelated to how to deal with stacking values. And I do have covered topics addressing maximum gen-rush speeds, but like I said, it's simply a separate balancing issue and it's not relevant to the discussion of stacking values within the same category, neither would such topics have much to do with how we should handle stacking values within the same category.

    You're presuming a level of perfection in the design that you can't guarantee will be achieved. You're adding more complexity and variability into the design that advantages a side which has coordination.

    I'm not assuming perfection. I'm just assuming normal balance. Like I said, saying that survivors bumping into each other would be an issue with Expertise assumes that the lower tiers are improperly balanced and the first tier isn't. There's simply 0 reason to assume that it would be.

    Players don't like this. They want to know how systems work, even when its 'well, this probably won't happen'.

    The system is super transparent and easily understood;
    Your vaulting speed starts diminishing beyond 20% and can't go beyond 40%. The more beyond 20% you go, what you receive back starts reducing exponentially. (And quite perfectly exponentially for a fact, by a square root amount)
    This type of scaling is actually a super common practice in many games, and nowhere is it hated. The formula we use here, fun fact, is inspired by how League of Legends calculates armour % damage reduction. One of the most successful and beloved e-sports games in the world.

    The issues though remain -
    A: Determining the values for lots of issues will be difficult - you look to vaults and heals at an extreme edge, what would be a problematic level of gen progression? Do we base it on all four survivors or an individual? How do we factor in limited use progression of things like toolboxes vs. constants like Deja Vu? Do things like Great Skill Checks and Hyperfocus come into the equation at all?

    This is plainly false. I've shown the issues that were solved. We no longer randomly bully people who run Botany + Empathic Connection for no reason whatsoever. Plus we make it impossible to reach problematic values, yet make any perk always contribute to more power.

    You also once again bring up gen progression as a whole through any mechanic. Once again, that is a separate issue, that's not related to stacking values within the same category. For example, the current reduction to doing gens is one of the ways that tackles that, but it's unrelated to the current issue and mechanic being discussed. Hell, we could even have a multiplier that lowers gen speed when multiple survivors work on a generator at the same time. All cool ideas, interesting to overall game balance, yet completely irrelevant to this post and the system proposed by the devs to deal with stacking values within the same category. When we discuss bloodlust and implement an alteration, we don't complain it about not slowing down gens enough as well or trying to solve every other balancing issue in the game; They're simply separate topics

    The only part that would be relevant to this post is perk like Deja Vu, Resilience stacking (not hyperfocus), and yes, there easily could be a diminishing return value for it. Assuming 450 total gen time, any speed above 20% would nearly scrape off an entire generator if the whole team ran it, so I'd set diminishing, starting at 15%, never reaching beyond 20%. Imagine you had 21% gen speed, the calculator would reduce it back to 17.72727272%

    B: BHVR wants something different than what you do.

    They don't want to do something different than what I want to do. They want to solve problematic stacking values. Though not only within the same category, but in concept more abroad too. However, that second part they haven't achieved with the current diminishing returns mechanic, and within the same category, they've created unnecessarily harmful sideconcequences of a bad system that doesn't accurately achieve what it's set out to do, which is stopping problematic stacked values (The Botany Empathic Connection example).

    C: For the examples you cite, a hard cap more easily deals with the issue

    My system is literally a hard cap + a gradual slider. It's not more complex than that, though it is more versatile, and for that, it is better. Especially because this versatility avoids more unintended harmful side-concequences, where certain perks just stop completely adding value. My system fixes that issue by allowing any perk to infinitely contribute, however, diminishingly so.

    A pure flat cap, at say 100% speed of whatever would have the side concequences of:
    Perk 1: gives 80% speed
    Perk 2: gives 50% speed + effect 1
    Perk 3: gives 20% speed + effect 2

    Assume a player either wants to run perk 1 and 2, or else perk 1 or 3, in which perk 3 has lesser healing speed due to the second effect being stronger.
    A purely flat cap would randomly break and destroy the balancing between the perk 2 and 3's effect. Since player 1 could only have perk 1 and 2 for 100% speed with a weaker effect, or perk 1 and 3 for 100% speed and a stronger effect, removing any reason to ever pick perk 1 and 2.
    My system would solve this perfectly, and prevent the random breaking caused by a purely flat cap, allowing perk 2 to still contribute more to healing while preventing problematic values, which is why it's the superior system.

    The beautiful thing about this system is, even if you believe a certain value is better off a hard stop, this system is still superior, because this system is both capable of acting like a direct hard stop, as well as a gradual fall off. 

    But why do you need a gradual fall off?

    Let's take healing - let's say 600% allows the survivors to heal before the killer can finish the wipe animation and we'll even set aside the idea of ping.

    Why do you need to reduce the speed at any point before 599% (or if taking ping into account, something like 575% to make sure it doesn't occur)? That's the problem point, anything before that isn't a problem.

    The only problem with stacking perks is the ability to reach problematic values. Their current solution doesn't solve that.

    Okay, you and BHVR have different goals (I'll get to this more later). That's fine. Their solution also 'solves' the problematic values, it just does other things you don't like.

    Basically then I'm back to if the issue is that something becomes problematic at X point, and everything up to X is not an issue, what's the relevance of a gradual fall off?

    The system is super transparent and easily understood;

    Your vaulting speed starts diminishing beyond 20% and can't go beyond 40%. The more beyond 20% you go, what you receive back starts reducing exponentially. (And quite perfectly exponentially for a fact, by a square root amount)

    Saying something is easily understood and then getting to square root I don't think is accurate.

    LoL is a very different game design than DbD, especially given BHVR's stance about simplifying things like perk design.

    This is plainly false. I've shown the issues that were solved.

    To be blunt: no, you haven't. It addresses what you consider the issue, but still faces the same problem that any sort of declining returns has - where do they start and how much?

    Once again, that is a separate issue, that's not related to stacking values within the same category. For example, the current reduction to doing gens is one of the ways that tackles that, but it's unrelated to the current issue and mechanic being discussed. Hell, we could even have a multiplier that lowers gen speed when multiple survivors work on a generator at the same time. All cool ideas, interesting to overall game balance, yet completely irrelevant to this post and the system proposed by the devs to deal with stacking values within the same category. When we discuss bloodlust and implement an alteration, we don't complain it about not slowing down gens enough as well or trying to solve every other balancing issue in the game; They're simply separate topics

    There's a difference between bloodlust and what you're talking about -

    If the problem is that survivors can finish gens too quickly, and the solution in place doesn't actually change that, it just limits build diversity, then the solution has accomplished nothing.

    Bloodlust (subjectively) improved the idea of killers being caught in chases for too long or having to deal with to powerful of loops. It improved a game element. That there are other issues is a different topic, but the thing that bloodlust set out to fix it did.

    Assuming 450 total gen time, any speed above 20% would nearly scrape off an entire generator if the whole team ran it, so I'd set diminishing, starting at 15%, never reaching beyond 20%. Imagine you had 21% gen speed, the calculator would reduce it back to 17.72727272%

    So in this hypothetical world, Overzealous is just automatically nerfed after cleansing a hex totem down to 17.7%.

    That does serve as a good example though of things in the game that the formula can't address. Let's say a survivor brings Overzealous and Resilience - they take the time to find a totem and they elect to stay injured. They've made trade offs for the gen speed they have, but the formula can't tell the difference between perks that just give a flat benefit and perks that require time investment / risks somewhere else (neither does BHVR's, but I don't think either idea would work). We're just suddenly saying this combination, which is in no way good, gets a nerf.

    You're starting the math at the 450 and 20%, but DbD's nature is that perks are rarely just flat values, but have costs and trade offs associated with them and thus the considerations and math needs to start earlier.

    They don't want to do something different than what I want to do. They want to solve problematic stacking values.

    Based on the stream, they seemed more interested in clamping down on specialized builds meant to do a single thing. The idea of Hope+MFT is also in there, but I don't think that's their only goal.

    It's not more complex than that, though it is more versatile, and for that, it is better. Especially because this versatility avoids more unintended harmful side-concequences, where certain perks just stop completely adding value. My system fixes that issue by allowing any perk to infinitely contribute, however, diminishingly so

    There seems to be a back and forth on problematic values.

    If a problematic value is known, we don't need versatility.

    If a problematic value is not known, any solution has the issue of negatively impacting the game by choosing the wrong value.

    As for infinitely contribute - this is like BHVR giving 4th and 5th effects values of 12.5% and 5% - in the scheme of the game values that are meaningless. A hard stop is at least forthright about where the issue is.

    A pure flat cap, at say 100% speed of whatever would have the side concequences of:

    to

    My system would solve this perfectly, and prevent the random breaking caused by a purely flat cap, allowing perk 2 to still contribute more to healing while preventing problematic values, which is why it's the superior system.

    Part of the issue of where you say the system solves it perfectly is where you put the values.

    Why would a value of 100% be a problem? If it is really that simple to achieve problematic values, then we might as well do BHVR's idea. But if problematic values are very hard / borderline impossible to achieve (i.e. healing before a killer finishes a weapon wipe), then all you need is a hard stop.

    Which I guess gets to what you think the issue with DbD is. Are problematic values easily and frequently achieved, or are they rare things like a hypothetical healing speed or vaults that we have to go back to 2019 for? The specific examples you give rely on extremes, but the hypotheticals you create make extremely common situations - that's two very different ways of thinking about what is a problem.

    I think its at worst a very rare thing, thus both solutions create more problems than they solve.

    @AlwaysInAGoodShape said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4069719#Comment_4069719

    I don't see why you assume that comment is a response to you. I never quoted you in it, so it doesn't require me to look back at any of your responses.

    General principles of a discussion forum is that posts made after the initial post, unless stating otherwise, are responding to the ongoing discussion. As I'm the only one involved in the discussion, it thus looks like a response to me, otherwise its just kind of randomness.

    in Diminishing Returns & New Perk Keywords Comment by crogers271

  • @AlwaysInAGoodShape said:

    This is how easy it would be to implement it programmatically:

    https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/ESCMDN7FN5VC/image.png

    And once implemented, this is how easily it can be used:

    https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/BXKS2IYS7DK8/image.png

    In here, we're simply setting vaulting speed diminishing start at 20%, and setting the maximum amount at 40.
    Then we can just run the real value the player has, which in this example is 21 and get the slightly diminished outcome (since 21 is slightly higher than 20)

    (Assuming we're working with a multiplier, we'd want to set it to 1.2 and 1.4 instead of 20 and 40 in the real code of course, but for understanding purposes we use the % representation)

    You posted while I was typing my first response

    The difficulty of game design elements on this is not coding. I don't think I ever implied it was. So I'd urge you to look back to my original response on where the problems actually occur because if that's what you think the takeaway was, we need to clarify that first, because otherwise this is just becoming a non-sequitur.

    in Diminishing Returns & New Perk Keywords Comment by crogers271

  • @AlwaysInAGoodShape said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4069661#Comment_4069661

    "1. I don't anyone could really agree on where that line is and I don't think BHVR has any idea either"

    I personally think the answers are quite easy. Let's take healing. Though healing already has a built in diminishing return, where the first 100% healing speed saves you 8 seconds of healing and another 440% healing on top of that would merely save 5 extra seconds, there is a genuine issue, where a heal might end up faster than the killer can m1 consecutively. The time that takes (which I guesstime to be around 2 seconds) would be C. And some extra leverage could be added to be B.

    For vaulting speed, which in the past would include leader, giving 25%. The developers have clearly decided that 25% + resilience 9% + Spine chill 6% was too fast of a vault, which would be 40%. 25% itself was fine, and we see with Lara's perk that 20% is fine too. That means the right answer for C would probably be around 30%, which is a fine place to start, while starting diminishming at 20%. etc.

    "2: Given that perks can come with multiple effects, putting a formula like this in also really changes the balance equation. Imagine you had two perks that granted a 100% bonus and no special effect, and two perks that granted 50% bonus and aura read. Under your idea the latter perks suffer no penalty"

    Correct, such perks would suffer no penalty, and that is in fact something we should celebrate. The fact that they suffer no penalty, if we have set correct B and C values, means they never reach problematic values. Where as if you'd have 2 stronger perks, and they would start to diminish, that means that we have determined, in balancing B and C that at that tipping point lever, they have received disproportionate levels of power as a result of that stacking, which is why those perks will be fine, even if their values have some level of diminishment.
    So this is in fact great overall. The only time where it wouldn't be great is where you'd have to assume we picked the wrong values for B and C, but that's an easy numbers change, taking less than 2 minutes.

    "3: There's not enough perks or slots to justify it. "

    There absolutely are. Though I agree that there are no healing perk combos currently that I would warrant needing to receive diminishing nerfs, due to my disagreement with stacking healing being a problem (unless reaching tipping point levels), we have already exceeded this when it comes to vaulting speed, back in 2019. And it also effected nerfs to unrelenting stacking with other perks, that too could've benefited from this mechanic. So this system is in fact needed, and would permanently solve all forms of problematic stacking values (within the same category)

    "4: … both BHVR's approach and yours don't address the idea that there could be a problematic outcome that can be achieved by multiple avenues… The problem still exists"

    Simple disagreement. "General balancing issues" will still exist, but problematic stacking values will no longer exist. It's simply a different category of balancing issues that exists, which is completely unrelated to this current issue. This current issue in fact is completely fixed by this system, so that is a misconception. The problematic stacking value issue doesn't claim to solve all balancing issues in the game, but solves this particular one perfectly and indefinitely, due to our ability to determine through b and c exactly where we consider diminishing returns to be necessary, as well as allowing us to strictly define what the exact problematic value is that should never be allowed to by reached.

    "It's not so much that the perks are strong because they are run in tandem"

    It is very much so, as well, that when perks are ran in tandem that they cause many issues. The amounts of damage that big shoulder the burden, reassurance teams can do is completely throw off any balance in this game, which is also what ended the current highest Blight Winstreak with a 4 man out.

    "And if BHVR wanted to limit SWFs from running multiple copies of a perk, they could do that by just preventing it from happening."
    "This just seems to be setting up SWFs to ensure they can easily get the max value out of their perks while soloq runs into each other."

    Like I said, preventing letting survivors pick duplicate perks is unnecessarily restrictive and reducing freedom, and assumes that keywords like Expertise are improperly balanced. If they are properly balanced, it won't be an issue that multiple survivors have it or "bump into each other", because the perks should provide extra value due to multiple survivors stacking it, which is why they were given the expertise keyword to begin with, exactly because of that disproportional stacking power nature. So it'd would indeed by the superior option for balancing, rather than unnecessarily restricting duplicate perks

    "For the sake of argument though, let's just say BHVR isn't worried about if the system is to complex to scare off players."
    I understand why, upon viewing the post originally, due to it covering it in so much detail that anyone could use it to directly implement it, that the mechanic might look intimidating. However, to the player, none of this complexity has to be visible. What is visible to them is rather intuitive:

    Each value (like healing speed / vaulting speed, etc.) has a value at which it starts giving diminishing returns and a value it can never go beyond. That's literally all they need to understand.
    In communication to players, let's say we want to communicate how vaulting speed diminishing returns work;

    Vaulting speed: starts giving diminishing returns beyond 20% bonus speed and never exceeding 30%. Boom. Easy, intuitive, and fool proof, preventing problematic values from ever being reached.

    Even the development of this system is rather easy.
    1 function that let's you determine where diminishing returns should start (which determines b)
    1 function let let's you set where diminishing returns can't exceed (which determines c)
    1 function that checks a particular stacked value whether it's bigger or smaller than b - 10. If it's smaller, just keep the value as is. If it's not, use our diminshing formula with our b and c.

    That's all there is to it. Both easy for players to understand and easy for the Devs to work with. Once the functions are implemented, all the devs have to do for every potential problematic value is defining where diminishing should start, and what it shouldn't be allowed to exceed, and they solve the problem forever

    For example (just guestimated values btw):
    Healing speed: Start diminishing at 400%, don't exceed 500%
    Vaulting speed: Start diminishing at 20%, never exceed 30%
    Lunge recovery Speed: Start diminishing at 50%, never exceed 100%
    etc.

    And the issue is gone forever

    I personally think the answers are quite easy. Let's take healing.

    Hypothetically with healing - presume there was the possibility of a point where healing exceeds a breakpoint of being able to heal faster than a killer can hit (which would be something like a 570% healing bonus though it gets tricky with the fact that heals rarely start right away) - you don't need the formula for declining returns, you just need a hard stop.

    Vaulting is the same thing - if you got to a point where a certain percentage was just too much a hard cap is far clearer for players to understand.

    Putting the formula in place creates another potential error point where the game design could get something wrong, when if you have a clear 'this should never exceed X' dealing with just that issue is the better approach.

    Correct, such perks would suffer no penalty, and that is in fact something we should celebrate. The fact that they suffer no penalty, if we have set correct B and C values, means they never reach problematic values.

    That's not the issue, its game balance and goals

    Right now perks are balanced around a few different concepts, but one of them is strong effect and nothing vs weak effect with something else.

    You're substantially boosting the latter perk design which has a number of balance effects. In turn you are saying a side can have more without sacrificing, while BHVR is taking the approach that any type of stacking will come with penalties. It's not the 'problematic' issue, the principle of the design seems to disincentive stacking. Your design and theirs have different goals.

    Simple disagreement. "General balancing issues" will still exist, but problematic stacking values will no longer exist.

    This part you're responding to is not a 'general balancing issue' so the response is off.

    You need to identify what the core of something being problematic is first. For gen progression the concept might be that too much of it makes the game too quick. However if the designed method, yours or BHVR, only identifies one way of solving the issue, you haven't fixed the problem (in this case for example reducing combining perks like Deja Vu and Resilience together, but treating Hyperfocus and Toolboxes as different percentages means the same problem still exists)

    It is very much so, as well, that when perks are ran in tandem that they cause many issues. The amounts of damage that big shoulder the burden, reassurance teams can do is completely throw off any balance in this game, which is also what ended the current highest Blight Winstreak with a 4 man out.

    You're changing the argument structure. You cited comp, I responded based on comp, and now you're going to something else.

    If you want to restructure the point okay, but let's be clear about that first.

    If they are properly balanced, it won't be an issue that multiple survivors have it or "bump into each other"

    You're presuming a level of perfection in the design that you can't guarantee will be achieved. You're adding more complexity and variability into the design that advantages a side which has coordination. If we can just skip everything to 'properly balanced' there's lots of gameplay additions that would be easy to put in.

    In this case I find it very difficult to believe that expertise as a concept wouldn't be a massive advantage to a SWF who could make the decisions on whether or not running multiple copies of the perk maximizes value.

    However, to the player, none of this complexity has to be visible. 

    Players don't like this. They want to know how systems work, even when its 'well, this probably won't happen'.

    Even the development of this system is rather easy.

    Outlining a math solution is easy.

    Coding it probably is not too hard.

    The issues though remain -

    A: Determining the values for lots of issues will be difficult - you look to vaults and heals at an extreme edge, what would be a problematic level of gen progression? Do we base it on all four survivors or an individual? How do we factor in limited use progression of things like toolboxes vs. constants like Deja Vu? Do things like Great Skill Checks and Hyperfocus come into the equation at all?

    B: BHVR wants something different than what you do.

    C: For the examples you cite, a hard cap more easily deals with the issue

    in Diminishing Returns & New Perk Keywords Comment by crogers271

  • @MarbleThrone said:

    https://www.ign.com/articles/dead-by-daylight-devs-say-matchmaking-rework-is-a-re-imagination-of-how-the-game-is-played

    Or, that is what BHVR is quoted as having said in this recent IGN interview.

    If that is the case, then why do we have:
    - Basekit BT off hook
    - A gen kick limit
    - Anticamp

    As clearly these are ways to prevent or de-incentivize a certain playstyle, right?

    As clearly these are ways to prevent or de-incentivize a certain playstyle, right?

    You can't design or balance a game without in some way encouraging certain play styles.

    If you want to camp, you can camp. It's just not as advantageous as it once was.

    What is most likely to achieve a "win" is different than what they are saying about right or wrong ways to play.

    in There is no wrong way to play Dead by Daylight Comment by crogers271

  • @AlwaysInAGoodShape said:

    I am of the opinion that when it comes to stacking effects, in most cases we're actually pretty fine. Though there are definitely "problematic values" that can be reached. There might also be perk effects, that we have no problem on being strong in a build, or even stacking, but we don't want it to be as strong when the entire team runs it.

    This post is dedicated to solving all such problems

    DIMINISHING RETURNS:
    Diminishing returns should be solved through Asymptotes. The mathematical formula that always allows values to increase, but never reach a certain number. For example, we could determine that any healing speed up to 200% is completely fine, and after that, we'd want it to start diminishing and never reach beyond 300%. That way, we could safely design any survivor perk with high healing speed without them ever clashing with each other or being able to create game breaking problems

    The way we can achieve that is through the following formula:

    https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/74BVC78AE5WE/image.png

    b: controls when we want values to start diminishing (starting exactly at b - 10)
    c: controls the curvature at which it diminishes (how quickly it diminishes)
    x: represents the value that we potentially want to diminish. For example total healing speed

    b + (c ^ 0.5) - 10 = the value that you should never be able to reach
    b - 10 = is where this formula intersects with f(x)

    To get b and c you want. Use these 2 formulas:
    Replace x with the number where diminishing returns should start: x + 10 = b
    Replace x with the number that should never be allowed to be reached: (x - b + 10) ^ 2 = c
    Now you have b and c that you can use in the main formula

    So how does this work?
    The blue line represents the original value, without diminishing returns. We'd want the blue line to transition to the red line where they intersect. So how do we achieve that?

    https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/3FXZQO1I68NT/image.png

    Basically, every potentially problematic value uses this formula with custom b and c. So for example total healing speed, which we call x. As long as x is smaller than b - 10, we just use f(x) (the blue line), but whenever x is larger than b - 10, we use the outcome of our formula (the red line)

    The IF statement that checks whether x is bigger than b - 10 is shown in the image above. By default, we follow the blue line, which has no diminishing returns. After the IF condition is hit (x is bigger than b - 10), we follow the red line instead, where values start diminishing, approaching but never reaching b + (c ^ 0.5) - 10

    Feel free to play around with it and test values for b and c yourself at:
    Desmos | Graphing Calculator

    https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/1SIMDS9OWHG6/image.png

    For a quick demonstration video, you can also check this out:

    https://youtu.be/hH9rn0ERn7g?si=dhIh6rKpqTqgU2T3&t=244

    But enough for diminishing returns. Let's head to the next issue:

    DIPLICATE PERKS:
    Another problem we can solve is when certain perks are fine by itself but start becoming problematic when multiple survivors start running it.

    Spaces like comp DBD have kind of already solved it by only allowing unique perks across the entire survivor team, meaning so survive can run a perk another survivor has. However, we can solve it in a more fun and public lobby friendly way by building on top of the already very nice addition to the game; perk description update

    With certain effects having a beautiful custom name, like elusive, or personal, we can quickly communicate certain styles of effects. That's why we can add 2 more:

    - Exclusive: Effect can only be triggered by the first survivor that triggers it. This for example, could be an effect that applies to Shoulder The Burden, where theoretically, multiple people can select that perk, but only 1 person can trigger the Exclusive part of the effect. (The perk could also have non exclusive effects as well). This means there's still value in multiple people picking this perk, like shoulder, where if the person with Shoulder gets hooked, another person with Shoulder could trigger the effect

    - Expertise: Effect becomes stronger for each survivor that DOESN'T have the perk. In some cases, you might want to give the effect to everybody, but reduce the effect based on how many people run it. For example on an imaginary perk, Mega Boon:

    https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/HSU6IGYUX9V1/image.png

    Mega Boon
    Your boons burn with purple fire instead of Blue. You can see the aura of dull totems withing 36 meters. Expertise: Increase the range of your boon totem by 100/50/20/5 %

    This expertise perk would for example allow there to be 1 mega boon, but would prevent abuse from letting a full team cover the entire map too easily

    SUMMARY:
    If DBD used the Asymptote diminishing return method, we could perfectly solve problematic values forever, and with the brand new 2 keywords introduces, we could add an entire new paradigm in healthy perk design within the team setting without having to resort to restrictive rules like the ones comp DBD uses, creating an overall healthier game!

    You spent a lot of time on explaining the math, but I think there are a couple of issues with this before the math.

    For the sake of argument though, let's just say BHVR isn't worried about if the system is to complex to scare off players.

    For example, we could determine that any healing speed up to 200% is completely fine, and after that, we'd want it to start diminishing and never reach beyond 300%

    If we, or BHVR, actually were able to establish a line in the sand where a number goes from fine to problematic then it would actually be pretty easy to solve through a number of mechanisms. However:

    1: I don't anyone could really agree on where that line is and I don't think BHVR has any idea either. Its relatively hard to determine, and part of the reason its not just built into the game, because the trade offs associated with taking more of a perk slot come with increased risks.

    2: Given that perks can come with multiple effects, putting a formula like this in also really changes the balance equation. Imagine you had two perks that granted a 100% bonus and no special effect, and two perks that granted 50% bonus and aura read. Under your idea the latter perks suffer no penalty, making them now the superior option. BHVR's idea punishes both approaches (which if the goal is to penalize specialized builds its a great idea, they say it isn't, I don't think it should be, but its the result they are currently going to get)

    3: There's not enough perks or slots to justify it. If a survivor had 20 perk slots and the perks did a lot of minor things and people realized there was a broken 'hey, here's how you stack the following to make yourself uncatchable', then I could see it. But outside maybe Hope+MFT I don't really see how it exists on the survivor side (I think the idea that healing is even being discussed is wrong), and such a broad based approach isn't necessary if we're only looking at a couple of perk combos (edit: that could be addressed in much more direct ways).

    4: More than one way to skin a cat - both BHVR's approach and yours don't address the idea that there could be a problematic outcome that can be achieved by multiple avenues. Let's say we think gen regression is problematic - we input a line on how much regression can be applied before returns decrease. Instead of taking all regression perks, the killer mixes it up with gen blocking, burst regression, and the max regular regression they can get value out of. The problem still exists, but all that's happened is adding additional coding and complexity while also decreasing build diversity.

    Spaces like comp DBD have kind of already solved it by only allowing unique perks across the entire survivor team, meaning so survive can run a perk another survivor has. 

    It's not so much that the perks are strong because they are run in tandem, its that certain perks are viewed in comp as the absolutely strongest perks and so little reason not to run them. Preventing that is a balance and enjoyability factor to create more varied games.

    Exclusive: Effect can only be triggered by the first survivor that triggers it.

    Perks like Shoulder already have a built in limiting factor - it can end up a dead slot. If everyone brings Shoulder yeah someone is probably getting value out of it, but it was a commitment of a lot of resources to ensure that. You don't need an exclusive effect when there is already a detriment to overloading it.

    And if BHVR wanted to limit SWFs from running multiple copies of a perk, they could do that by just preventing it from happening. Whatever the merits of the idea, they don't want to, but if they did the solution would be pretty simple.

    Expertise: Effect becomes stronger for each survivor that DOESN'T have the perk.

    This just seems to be setting up SWFs to ensure they can easily get the max value out of their perks while soloq runs into each other.

    in Diminishing Returns & New Perk Keywords Comment by crogers271

  • @ArcT said:

    Killers have been able to do all this for years. No items? Can take off Franklins. Four flashlights. Lightborn. 4 matching Aces, dodge.

    If it hasn't been a problem for killers to do this, then it's not a problem for survivors.

    Or better yet, prevent both sides from seeing anything about the other, which would help curb sniping as well.

    If it hasn't been a problem for killers to do this, then it's not a problem for survivors.

    I feel like I've spent a fair portion of time on the forum telling killer players because its an asym just because something works for survivors, it doesn't mean the same thing would work for killers. Its true in the other direction as well: just because something exists for killers does not mean it has to exist for survivors.

    The game is designed around the idea that the killer can know what survivors are bringing item wise and prepare their strategy for that - survivors have to much more adapt in the game to an unknown killer.

    Switching that would, long term, probably lead to lots of survivor nerfs to adapt to the new change.

    Or better yet, prevent both sides from seeing anything about the other, which would help curb sniping as well.

    That would be possible, and the benefits of taking out dodging and sniping probably outweigh the rare survivor strategy sessions and killers being able to see items, but its a different discussion.

    in Ya'll do realize survivors could create their build off knowing killer in the lobby? Comment by crogers271

  • @Rogue11 said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4069298#Comment_4069298

    This also results in wild differences in value between similar perks. Like autodidact would presumably be way more valuable with another healing perks because it adds flat heal progress instead of increasing speed. But like why should autodidact be the default choice to combo with another healing perk instead of 2 speed increase perks?

    You're correct. I've tried to keep this to just healing, but in this case its a problem that will exist for the way they approach the other regressions as well.

    On Healing - while its not a huge thing to me, probably the most complained about is Resurgence and a single heal perk. This won't do anything about that.

    Or if we look to gen progression. Resilience and Deja Vu will weaken each other, but Deja and Fast Track, or Deja and Hyperfocus+Stakeout will be unchanged (and there are similar examples on the gen regression side). If we presume for the sake of argument that BHVR is correct and these things need addressed, its a horrible way to approach it as survivors/killers can still do it, they just have less build diversity to accomplish the same goal.

    in Healing and Diminishing Returns in BHVR's Own Words Comment by crogers271

  • @Rokku_Rorru said:

    So, are the new values going to replace how this works or is it going to be stacked on top of this making running multiple healing perks absoloutley awful

    Diminishing returns on top of diminishing returns is what I think will be the end result, which means a lot of math for no tangible difference.

    To use the example they used in the stream: Botany Knowledge and Desperate Measures at 60%.

    Right now, that would turn a 16 second heal into a ~7.62 heal.

    After the change it would be a ~8.65 second heal.

    Botany on its own would be ~10.67 and Desperate Measures would be a flat ten.

    Right now, taking the second healing perk they use as an example would save all of 2.5 to 3 seconds. After their change, it will save 1.5 to 2 seconds.

    Taking the second healing perk was never some broken thing. Is the change of a second a huge deal? No, but they're really overcomplicating something for very little gain when they said they wanted to avoid overcomplicating things.

    And if we start throwing in even more healing perks it gets even sillier.

    We'll Make It, Botany, Desperate Measures, and let's throw a Circle of Healing In -

    We'll Make It would be an 8 second heal. Burning three more perk slots would take that down to 3.9 seconds.

    What would it be with the new system (just for anyone doing the math I think that's 16/((1+1+(1*0.5)+(0.6*.25)+(0.5*0.125))

    Or

    5.89 seconds.

    All of that to adjust the end result by two seconds. I look forward to explaining it to confused new players.

    in Healing and Diminishing Returns in BHVR's Own Words Comment by crogers271

  • I started cautiously pessimistic and am just going more and more pessimistic.

    By BHVR's own stance, this didn't work with Haste and Hindered stacking. That should have been the easiest one to do. Somehow its going to get better by doing more things at the same time?

    Healing - this is silly. The way DbD math works is that healing inherently becomes less beneficial with each perk, something BHVR has said.

    Repair Speed - I guess we need to know how. If it doesn't apply to toolboxes, what's the point? Is running Resilience and Deja going to be nerfed if run together? Would that even be noticeable?

    Gen Regression - Kind of the same on needing to know how, but will Pop and Pain Res somehow nerf each other if they are in the build.

    -

    I rarely say this, but yeah, likely a killer nerf unless there is something on the repair speed side they aren't telling us. Survivors will now basically be forced into having diversified builds and killers can't stack their meta thing?

    As @cogsturning has said, really weird for them to be doing this coming off anti-tunnel where they said they don't want to force playstyles on people. They need to make up their mind on that.

    in Diminishing Returns will Fail Comment by crogers271

  • @NeverSolus said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4068494#Comment_4068494

    There was nothing hypothetical about the numbers I was presenting, save for the 1/10th at the end. Those numbers are not hypothetical, they are the direct math. I think what you mean is that using the numbers to shape a hypothetical argument isn't super useful, though, and I'll agree there. It is, however, better than just bickering and throwing things at one another verbally. If numbers reflecting the actual values of X do not make for better discussion, then I fear I don't understand the purpose of conversation.

    As pointed out the values are not X and X is final, because this is an asymm with a large number of variables. The numbers are nothing but springboards for conversation and adjustment. If discussion cannot take place around the actual values of X against Y, then every step further from that point is a step further from the actual situation. This isn't a stab at you at all Cog, I appreciate your bounce back on it. You also said something critical.

    "If "unhealthy" means that killers will tunnel more, I just don't believe that. You can't be sure when this perk is in play, or who is using it. Anyone who blames the perk for their actions was already tunneling. It's toolboxes, it's healing builds, it's flashlights, it's sabos, it's healing under hook. FT is just this week's excuse. If "unhealthy" means unfair, well, that's a whole topic, cause this game isn't fair."

    You're right in what you present here - tunneling will happen anyway as the game is unfair anyway. My use of the word 'unhealthy' was indicative of things that encourage or foster tunneling. It doesn't matter if tunneling already exists, I'd like to avoid adding more driving force behind more. Tunneling and slugging are aberrant tactics, and until such a time as a correction for them is isolated, encouraging them does not seem wise to me. Partially because I hate tunneling nd slugging when I play killer, and find it gets in the way of my enjoyment - so there is bias there.

    I also agree that good players use chase extenders, and FT isn't a huge problem - but I do think it contributes towards one. Permanent progression on stages by gradient is (roughly) comparable more directly to permanent injury states however. There's a reason killers do not have access to such things. But seeing things moving into the permanent progress stages direction is concerning because of the carry-on it can create.

    Just because FT isn't meta now and we seldom see it in matches now, doesn't mean it won't/can't be. Guns weren't a problem to warfare until they were, by example.

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4068553#Comment_4068553

    Forgive me if I become somewhat more erratic in discussion, as I wasn't prepared for the Eiffel tower. That being said:


    "Tunneling exists. There was an opportunity to reevaluate how much of a concept it should have in the game, but that's been nixed. Thus when discussing the strength of perks we need to talk about them under how the game can happen - which means if you take gen perks and get tunneled, you are in trouble."

    If you'd like to approach the discussion and math that way I don't mind at all. It is perhaps a bit more honest to simply discuss tunneling as a thing that is in the game rather than discuss it as if it's some fictional thing that could happen.


    "Very few things in an asym like DbD can be compared directly because the two sides are unique.

    Survivors still have the exit gate and, as Cogs mentioned, progress into additional gens isn't relevant.

    Also how the killer progresses their objective is very different. A hook is of much higher value if it creates an elimination.

    Both sides have ways to regress the other sides objectives (heals, kicks, etc.), both have ways to counter the regression, both sides have risks to their options, and trying to go through all the possibilities would quickly get out of hand.

    Trying to create a math argument isn't going to work.

    It's why 'does this perk make a healthier game' a far a better discussion.    "


    Saying 'a math argument isn't going to work' is tantamount to saying 'math cannot express this situation' which I find questionable. Yes, the game is asym and yes that does mean objectives are handled differently. The survivors have to open the gate, yes. The survivors have to unhook, heal, etc etc - this isn't to say the killer does not have their own litany of things to do in order to be successful. However the numbers can still inform an argument.

    For instance, action economy favors the survivors and we see that in the highest end play - for every one killer the survivors get 4 actions. 4 distinct moving regions of objectives, pressure, and capability. Coupled with communication four will seldom fail to beat one. I do not have a problem with this, to be clear. The problem becomes how much value action economy should express. Do you balance for a 4:1? Absolutely not, that would create a tense, high-stakes situation where the killer always aims for 4k. 2:1 seems around where BHVR aims and that seems sensible. Numbers judge these goals. BHVR Has numbers they use and reflect upon, as you yourself point out.

    To say math cannot be present for the conversation when math is present before it and math is present after it is dismissive and frankly dishonest, don't you think? I don't think you're trying to be dishonest in earnest, but when the balancing starts with math, and ends with a math outcome, why are we pretending the middle is a black box? I don't think anyone here is under the impression BHVR doesn't use math in perk creation or kit balancing. At least, I hope no one thinks that.

    'Why does this perk make a healthier game' is a fine discussion, but it will be a muddy and blurry one without comparisons and math. I don't find arguing back and forth in emotional bids, flurries up downvotes and us vs them positioning useful. Though, admittedly, that's more most discussions on this topic than your or cogs.


    "NOED gives the killer haste and instant downs when the survivors complete their objective.

    Batteries included also does what you are discussing."

    NOED conditionally triggers and has counter play, it's not what I'm talking about. Batteries has conditional triggering as well. What I said was a permanent 1% haste with the insinuation of it stacking. Neither batteries nor NOED do that. For good reason.


    "Let's say there was a killer perk that survivors had to 99 gens to play around.

    The perk would still be getting a lot of value because 99ing gens creates more risk for the survivors that they can be regressed either by kicks or perks. Survivors have to change up their strategy in response to the perk.

    The argument that killers need to 'engage' in tunneling because of fast track is saying killers have to do the thing that was already their best strategy."


    There already is a killer perk that does that, and you cited it. Batteries. And players can and do 99 gens and take that risk to avoid creating haste zones with it - though granted I only tend to see this from SWF's which makes it a rough example. And I agree it creates value in the 99'ing.

    And yes, the best strategy for killers in situations like those presented, mathematically, is to tunnel. It's not against the rules, but is crude and unkind to do. That is rather the point. I'm not saying FT creates tunneling, I'm saying it further encourages it in a clime where we are trying to discourage it. If we're fine with encouraging it, then my position falls apart. If people are just accepting and encouraging tunneling then I can't do anything but throw my hands up.


    "People are acting like fast track instantly finishes a gen. If that was what it did, sure. But killers have plenty of perks that speed up their objective, from faster movement speed to exposed effects."

    This is the only thing you said that I actually find rude. It has nothing to do with the quoted portion of my statement, and immediately bandies off talking about how people act as if I am not the direct inference. You can just say you think it's how I'm acting - it would be more productive. We're both adults.

    But if you feel so inclined - give me the killer perks. Tell me which killer perks create permanent, uncounterable objective progression. Which killer uncounterable perk creates permanent hook states. If your argument is that the math isn't that clear because asym, that's fine, but then you don't have an example that isn't apples to oranges. Exposed is a status that has multiple counter plays and is limited in duration. Speed ups are duration based and adjusted by percentage.

    Which killer perks gives permanent, uncounterable objective progression in the same way FT does?


    "Rancor lets a killer bypass not just the injury states, but bypass the objective progress and go from no hooks to a death based on the survivors completing their objectives."

    Rancor is an excellent example! But it is not the Rule of 8.

    Rancor gives the survivor benefits as well, repeatedly, and hallmarks its presence as many killer actions do, giving survivors heads up to counterplay. Additionally it doesn't have objective altering power until the EGC, like NOED. I will say it does inflict permanent exposed, but that's after the survivors have completed their objectives.

    This is not uncounterable, and this is permanent from a much later stage in the game than FT. If Rancor triggered earlier, say at gen 3 or 4, it would be comparable. My point isn't that it would be balanced - my point is precisely that it would not be balanced.

    To say math cannot be present for the conversation when math is present before it and math is present after it is dismissive and frankly dishonest, don't you think? 

    No.

    Or, more accurately, if you wanted to discuss the full range of math the length of the discussion would dwarf what we have so far.

    DbD is a game of variables where the right answer is frequently dependent upon numerous factors (as a side note: its why tunneling/gen rush are so hated because they take out large elements of this uniqueness). Its why the game has managed to survive for as long as it has.

    So even before we get to comparison basis, on the survivor side we have to look at other possibilities and opportunity costs.

    Other possibilities have been covered, so looking into opportunity costs. To determine the perks value we would need to look at what else a survivor might get. What did they give up to take Fast Track? Let's say they gave up Sprint Burst which would have led to them extending their chases by a combined 40 seconds across the match. Better or worse? Or something like Botany Knowledge, which could be nothing more than a time saver on heals, or that time saved could be the difference between getting a heal in before a killer comes back to target the injured survivor.

    This can go on and on as we start throwing in the full range of perks, different killers and builds that they may have, and then the overall strategy for how the survivors and killer approach the game.

    Survivors are going to get value out of the perk, they should, but how much value are they going to get on a balance discussion would need to be compared to other perks. DbD has a general design philosophy - perks fall on a range from low, consistent value (BK, Deja) to perks that give massive value, but are situational and might not come up (anti-tunnel, Reassurance). Fast Track probably falls more towards the consistent side, but is a little stronger than those perks when it comes into play because if the survivor is tunneled they get no value out of it.

    The scenario discussion is also just academic at this point. BHVR has the data on how the perk is actually performing - the conclusion already exists we just don't have access to it. (which answers your next lines: I don't think you're trying to be dishonest in earnest, but when the balancing starts with math, and ends with a math outcome, why are we pretending the middle is a black box? I don't think anyone here is under the impression BHVR doesn't use math in perk creation or kit balancing. At least, I hope no one thinks that.)

    -

    NOED conditionally triggers and has counter play, it's not what I'm talking about. Batteries has conditional triggering as well. 

    Why aren't they what you are talking about?

    Fast Track also has conditional triggering. Its more frequent and easier to access than NOED, but not nearly as significant as NOED. You can't separate the 'frequency' and 'power' arguments to accurately evaluate the perk.

    I'm saying it further encourages it in a clime where we are trying to discourageit. If we're fine with encouragingit, then my position falls apart. If people are just accepting and encouraging tunneling then I can't do anything but throw my hands up.

    If 'we' is BHVR - I see no evidence that this is in anyway their philosophy. They seem pretty clearly to be leaving it up to the players on whether they want to play in a certain way,

    If 'we' is the community - it will lead to tunneling has been said about so many things its lost meaning.

    A perk is inconsequential to just the base kit values of not removing someone (e.g. the fact that an alive survivor is still doing gens/healing etc). If they have Fast Track and the killer spreads hooks, sure they are getting value from the perk, but the value they will get from just doing gens is going to exceed that.

    Or put another way, the only way to ultimately counter any survivor perk is by removing them from the game.

    This is the only thing you said that I actually find rude. 

    Other than lumping your argument with how others have done it, I don't see how. It certainly wasn't my intention.

    But when we get to - Which killer perks gives permanent, uncounterable objective progression in the same way FT does?

    Show me the survivor equivalent to a Huntress hatch.

    Show me the equivalent to Corrupt Intervention - start of game, gen based, immediate value, that survivors can't do anything about.

    We're right back to asym territory. The survivors and killers are different. Their perks do different things because killers have powers, survivors have teammates, and they both have different objectives and playstyles.

    I and others have already shown you similar perks that exist on the killer side. Having a discussion that you stipulate around these exact specifics, all of them but nothing more, is overly limiting when the discussion should either or both be about:

    -Balance in terms of overall value

    -Game design based on enjoyability for all players

    Additionally it doesn't have objective altering power until the EGC, like NOED. I will say it does inflict permanent exposed, but that's after the survivors have completed their objectives.

    This is not uncounterable, and this is permanent from a much later stage in the game than FT. If Rancor triggered earlier, say at gen 3 or 4, it would be comparable

    The fact that it triggers late isn't relevant. To win, survivors MUST get to that stage of the game. If it doesn't happen that's because the killer already won.

    It would be like arguing that the survivors might not get value out of FT because maybe the killer won't ever get a hook. Which, yeah, could happen, but doesn't seem really the focus. But if its going to be, let's have it be the focus on both sides.

    This kind of goes back to the math discussion - it needs to be taken in overall context of the game. Once you focus too much on numbers comparison and lose actual game context the numbers lose their relevancy.

    Then when we get to counterable, not if we look at the overall perk. Every time the survivors complete a gen, they will scream and give a loud notification. In turn, the obsession gains something, but from the perspective of the other three survivors they don't.

    As for end game counterability, only to the extent of 'you need to avoid the killer'. Which means the survivor is frequently taken out of normal end game activities. So even when countering the perk, the killer is still getting value by the survivor having to alter up their play.

    And in terms of adjusting their play, killers can adjust their play to Fast Track in the same way they adjust their play to any gen rush, though whether Fast Track has a significant enough effect to warrant it is another question.

    We can go back and forth with this on all the perks. Very few, if any, perks, are going to line up to have an exact copy and many of them can't be 'countered' as in avoiding the value entirely. The ultimate 'counter' to any perk on either side is overall outplaying the opponents.

    in Why was fast tracked not changed? Comment by crogers271

  • @NeverSolus said:

    I'm not sure I understand a prevailing sentiment I'm seeing displayed here. On one hand, people are saying 'since it requires being hooked its not that strong', but then equally in turn are suggesting tunneling is bad. It's not that bad, it's just being hooked, right?

    End of the day this is mission objective versus mission objective, isn't it?

    Killer needs to complete 12 mission objectives (hook states) to 4K.
    Survivor needs to complete 5 gens to 4E.

    Fast track is 6% perm progress per hook. That's 1.2% of total gen time, per hook completed with no counter-play if a single person runs it. This means that each time the killer attains 1 hook (8.3% of their objective), the survivors are rewarded with 1.2% of an objective with zero possible counter-play, per instance of perk in play. This means that if four individuals run fast track, they gain (1.2*3) 3.6% total objective per hook. Outlandish or not, this is possible but not likely.

    This means if a full hook spread (the desirable killer behavior) is performed, the killer will have completed 33.2% of their total objective. The survivors will get a 'free' 14.4% completion. They are getting 43% of the end output of the killers effort. If the killer plays the way you want them to play, the survivors in this scenario get nearly half the benefit the killer does for the killer playing as you'd like. This could be fixed largely by making fast-track a one-per-match kind of perk, or have a match wide limit on 'permanent progress' on a generator.

    The problem remains however that even with one perk in play, a survivor is gaining 1.2% of an objective for free, for every 8.3% the killer completes. In absolutely no world of logic is getting 1/8th of your oppositions efforts as a benefit sensible, even with one instance of the perk in play. No one would approve a killer getting 1% permanent haste for each generator completed, by example. This would just lead to people 99'ing gens - just as fast track leads to tunneling.

    The only counter-play of Fast Track is undesirable behavior. Whether it's a problem now or not is not relevant in the discussion, as we are putting yet another piece on the table to contribute to the potential of a future snowball. We know a boon that offers permanent completion is on the horizon, and BNP already exists. Whether these tools are being used at large or not is not relevant to whether or not the current state of the perk is healthy. Unhealthy is unhealthy.

    To the counter point, if we are expected to see this kind of balance philosophy applied in the future, I'd expect to start seeing similar ratios on the killer. That is to say, killers getting perks that allow killers to gain 1/8th the 'total output' of survivors as a benefit towards their total objective. That would equate into a perk that says something along the lines of 'When the fourth generator is completed, assign a hook state to a random survivor in the match.' Let's call this perk 'Rule of 8.'

    This would be the equivalent of the killer gaining 8.3% of their objectives, in exchange of the survivors completing 80% of theirs, roughly equal to the 1/8 ratio from fast track.

    Rule of 8 will never be instituted. Everyone present knows this perk will not be instituted. Survivors would loathe this perk, and killers who would want it don't deserve to have it. At face value it's awful, and most killers would downplay it the exact same way that survivors downplay Fast Track, but it amounts to same math. And that math is a free hook on 4th gen, in a gen rushing meta. This perk would see use, even if it cannot be stacked the way fast track can, meaning it is still categorically inferior to Fast Track.

    So if we see this design philosophy continuing, I'd imagine we're going to see something like the Rule of 8 instituted. It would be balanced, mathematically, fair, and even weaker than Fast Track is. That seems reasonable, doesn't it?



    TL-DR; No. No it does not. It's not reasonable and neither is Fast-Track. It sets a very unhealthy precedence for future perks, add-ons, tools, and kits. No one should gain 1/8th of their oppositions efforts just from a single perk selection. It's madness.



    @cogsturning points out a few issues already, but I'm going to jump on some others.

    On one hand, people are saying 'since it requires being hooked its not that strong', but then equally in turn are suggesting tunneling is bad. It's not that bad, it's just being hooked, right?

    Tunneling exists. There was an opportunity to reevaluate how much of a concept it should have in the game, but that's been nixed. Thus when discussing the strength of perks we need to talk about them under how the game can happen - which means if you take gen perks and get tunneled, you are in trouble.

    End of the day this is mission objective versus mission objective, isn't it?

    No.

    Very few things in an asym like DbD can be compared directly because the two sides are unique.

    Survivors still have the exit gate and, as Cogs mentioned, progress into additional gens isn't relevant.

    Also how the killer progresses their objective is very different. A hook is of much higher value if it creates an elimination.

    Both sides have ways to regress the other sides objectives (heals, kicks, etc.), both have ways to counter the regression, both sides have risks to their options, and trying to go through all the possibilities would quickly get out of hand.

    Trying to create a math argument isn't going to work.

    It's why 'does this perk make a healthier game' a far a better discussion.

    In absolutely no world of logic is getting 1/8th of your oppositions efforts as a benefit sensible, even with one instance of the perk in play. No one would approve a killer getting 1% permanent haste for each generator completed, by example.

    NOED gives the killer haste and instant downs when the survivors complete their objective.

    Batteries included also does what you are discussing.

    This would just lead to people 99'ing gens - just as fast track leads to tunneling.

    Let's say there was a killer perk that survivors had to 99 gens to play around.

    The perk would still be getting a lot of value because 99ing gens creates more risk for the survivors that they can be regressed either by kicks or perks. Survivors have to change up their strategy in response to the perk.

    The argument that killers need to 'engage' in tunneling because of fast track is saying killers have to do the thing that was already their best strategy.

    That would equate into a perk that says something along the lines of 'When the fourth generator is completed, assign a hook state to a random survivor in the match.' Let's call this perk 'Rule of 8.'

    People are acting like fast track instantly finishes a gen. If that was what it did, sure. But killers have plenty of perks that speed up their objective, from faster movement speed to exposed effects.

    Rule of 8 will never be instituted. Everyone present knows this perk will not be instituted. Survivors would loathe this perk, and killers who would want it don't deserve to have it. At face value it's awful, and most killers would downplay it the exact same way that survivors downplay Fast Track, but it amounts to same math. And that math is a free hook on 4th gen, in a gen rushing meta. This perk would see use, even if it cannot be stacked the way fast track can, meaning it is still categorically inferior to Fast Track.

    Rancor lets a killer bypass not just the injury states, but bypass the objective progress and go from no hooks to a death based on the survivors completing their objectives.

    The types of perks people think would never make it in on the killer side already exist.

    in Why was fast tracked not changed? Comment by crogers271

  • @supersonic853 said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4068325#Comment_4068325

    I mean it is a extreme like any case is pointed out. Its a very good player. With a very good killer. With the best build and tactics available. And a shoddy mmr system. He makes up like what 0.001 percent of the actual player base. But doubt most people could even get above 100 with the same stuff.

    But doubt most people could even get above 100 with the same stuff.

    I think this is a bigger problem than Momo.

    If the number you come with for 'most' people is 100, something is seriously wrong. Most players in games would celebrate a win streak of 10, with a 100 being inconceivable. But the perceptions are so skewed on DbD that a killer win streak of 10 wouldn't even be worth mentioning.

    in Momo winstreak lost at 1992 Comment by crogers271

  • For survivors: Show Abandon button if there are 2 or less survivors alive, and both of them are either in dying or hooked state. Also, one minute must pass in this situation, to give the killer a chance to finish the match naturally.

    The killer can finish the match naturally if the survivors abandon. If they are hooked or slugged there is very little difference between whether its a human or a bot.

    If its pointless to stay around after a minute, it was probably pointless up to that point as well. When the match is done let people get on with whatever they want to do next.

    For killers: Show Abandon button when end game collapse has started and no survivor is in the hooked or dying state, and they have still not left after one minute. This protects killers from being stuck in games where survivors stick around after they've "won".

    I'd be fine with this, but I'm pro letting the killer abandon in EGC without any timer, so long as BHVR gets bots in to replace them.

    When a player opens the menu and clicks "leave" or "quit" while in a match (or presses alt+F4), gray out the confirmation button for 5 to 10 seconds (with a countdown) and show a message informing the player about the consequences of leaving a match.

    I'm fine with the message, but with how buggy DbD is I don't want to get into the territory of overriding the shutdown commands.

    in Leavers are too common now - and the game seems to actively encourage leaver behavior. Comment by crogers271

  • @Abbzy said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4067080#Comment_4067080

    THats lot of trauma you have there, first for you one side may look to do it more but everyone has different experience. How many posts about something killer has been here tunneling, no stronger unhook features nobody will play, ghoul being op (now he is kinda ok because his vault doesnt damage and you can vault through and theres nothing he can do so a-tier but not that strong as before) or The First (henry) being new nurse (which is kinda true if bot with wallhacks and aimbot played him thing is his power doesnt work like that but rquires prediction and thats something bots in DBD cant have that good as player) and many other posts from one side about other.

    Gens are problematic thing and perks that make them do survivor faster arent so strong for a reason the thing is fast track makes them faster when killer plays like he should (or many would like to) and thats going for chaises and hooking survivors which is stupid desing if you ask me thats like killer had perk that adds 10% of progress on last gen for each gen survivor make simular desing.

    Tricksters delusion everyone has his opinion but from my experience on both sides and what I seen I stick more closer to Otzs opinion about this map (theres vid so if you interested go and watch it I wont write it here why I do thats different topic), you say weak yes some are weak but you cant disagree that map is prerun heaven they are weak some pallets but in combination with windows they create very strong W play and thanks to that maps los breakers 4,4 m/s killers are done there unless you are spirit.

    Fog vials Idk I havent seen them but if they stayed as they were in ptb than I get they are kinda ok but I cant say for sure now in this moment.

    Other things dont need comment its just same sauce about crypost which is like 95% of this forum and you just focus here only on one side of the coin (as in your first post).

    Pop is ok now if you have problem with gen loosing on kick 13,5 seconds because killer have to go and get down than successfuly hook and go to that gen and kick it than I dont know what you want from killer. Gen regression has been nerfed a lot through years more than gen increase speed perks and game is build around them since 2017 from point hag came into the game so if thats your problem maybe you should look back and ask devs what will they do about it.

    Another thing is sometimes some effects that are minor alone can stack with other perks and if many people run them they can have huge impact on game like 4 survivors doing 4 gens each in 40 seconds which isnt good for the game thats why people hustle now around it like is soloq its nothing problematic until sume swf comes and unlocks some gen rush potencial thats unwanted, so some time is needed and devs claim to monitore it for this purpose (I hope they will monitore it with same passion as twitter posts about merchant before they butchered her, but for sake of us all I hope they wont make such drastick change as came from that dev twitter monitoring).

    edit: for context I havent tried fast track and I havent seen anyone try it so after I watch this I will make my picture on it

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_HfxcvlDZE

    you can dislike it but I take in account who has what perks and who (in skill level) runs them or plays what killer etc. so I dont think like "hens gen in 34 seconds with this build now everyone can do it" or " hens hit almost every shot with the first my got thats new nurse" like everyone could do that every time.

    edit: for context I havent tried fast track and I havent seen anyone try it so after I watch this I will make my picture on it

    The problem with the video is that none of the games shown actually back up the conclusion.

    First trial: killer only got two hooks, value of Fast Track would have been exceeded by lots of perks.

    Second Trial: killer gets a 2k

    Third trial: killer gets two hooks on survivors who aren't Hens, value of Fast Track would have been exceeded by lots of perks

    Fourth trial: killers get two hooks on survivors, Hens doesn't even get to use 3 of his Fast Track stacks, value would have been exceeded by lots of perks

    Fifth trial: another killer gets two hooks on survivors game

    Sixth trial: shows off a Twins bug

    Seventh trial: killers gets three hooks this game and seems to have just tunneled someone out. If the idea is that the perk punishes killers not tunneling this one is a bad example.

    Basically - the value is coming from hyperfocus, built to last, stakeout, and the toolbox. Fast Track could have been equal or exceeded by multiple other perks.

    in Gen Progression Stacking is A Problem Comment by crogers271

  • @WalterBlack said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4066897#Comment_4066897

    It depends on a number of factors, but you can imagine the people running StB aren't the "scaredy cat" / "I can't chase" type survivors. Or, at least, I'm facing people with StB who are actually semi-competent. If a killer invests in 'future pressure' by focusing or downright tunneling someone out of the game, a well-timed StB can turn a 'potential something' into nothing.

    I'm having a hard time articulating my ideas today for some reason, so I'm sorry if this comes out as gibberish. You understand the gist of what I mean, I hope.

    You understand the gist of what I mean, I hope.

    I'll my best.

    It depends on a number of factors, but you can imagine the people running StB aren't the "scaredy cat" / "I can't chase" type survivors.

    Let's go to the other end of the spectrum and a survivor who is likely always the best looper on their team. So here the idea could be 'killer tunnels me, I'm fine, killer tunnels someone else I can save them, and if killer switches to me, good'.

    And sure, that could be a lot of value, but there's still issues.

    First, if its soloq, impossible to make sure you are the one who gets the save. And if in a high skill SWF, there might not be a bad looper, so if the killer tunnels anyone its not a huge issue.

    Then if we compare to other 'help another survivor being tunneled' style perks (soloq or SWF), we can get value without the risks/extremes that StB has.

    Reassurance doesn't have the same max benefit, but can still be used effectively if the survivor has one or two hooks on them.

    A perk like babysitter gets consistent value throughout the match without the associated risks. Its not going to have the extreme upside against say a tunneling Nurse or Blight, but has far more consistent value.

    Basically - if the idea is that a survivor wants to bring a perk to help someone else being tunneled, they have options. StB probably has the most hypothetical upside, but lots of other perks can get value far more frequently.

    in Surprised I don't see StB more often Comment by crogers271

  • @AbsolutGrndZer0 said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4066917#Comment_4066917

    Some killers will always tunnel because winning is all they care about, some killers play in a more balanced manner because they are more interested in a fun match.

    Yes, and now we are getting punished for it. That is the problem that I and many others have with the new Fast Track. Why is that so hard to understand? Being punished by the new Fast Track (no matter how many times it shows up) is the opposite of a fun match.

    Also why is is it that its okay for a survivor to "want to win" meaning escape, but it's not okay for a killer to "want to win" which means kill? Why do survivors get to play to win but killers are not allowed to?

    Yes, and now we are getting punished for it. That is the problem that I and many others have with the new Fast Track. Why is that so hard to understand?

    This is true for any perk in the game. Fast track isn't different, the math is just more obvious.

    If a survivor chase perk gets buffed/new perk introduced that increases the average chase time by 5 seconds, and the killer elects to not tunnel and ends up doing 8 chases before an elimination instead of 3, the buff to the chase perk has given the survivors 25 seconds of extra time, which could be 75 seconds of gen progress.

    Or another example, a buff to any gen perk is a 'punishment' for not tunneling, because the longer the survivors are in play, the more they can get out of the perk.

    Fast Track is more straightforward, we don't have to get into averages or potential, but that doesn't mean those concepts don't apply. It's why a lot of people are pointing out how the perk is weaker than the alternatives, because its easier to access but not by any means stronger.

    Basically, anytime a player (on either side) plays in a non-optimal way, any boost to the other side will just be more exacerbated for the non-optimal way of play (and sadly the strategy element of DbD has been tending in the 'obvious' direction).

    Also why is is it that its okay for a survivor to "want to win" meaning escape, but it's not okay for a killer to "want to win" which means kill? Why do survivors get to play to win but killers are not allowed to?

    There's two different ways people in the community approach this.

    1: Players should play fair. Most people who I've seen argue this make it a both sides issue. Killers shouldn't engage in broken stuff and SWFs shouldn't stack broken builds either (i.e. play with something like comp rules on the survivor side).

    The differences is that for ~85-90% of the survivor player base they have an inherent factor that limits their ability to engage in optimal play, some element of soloq. It doesn't make the issue of 'fair play' different, it just makes it a more frequent and easier to abuse thing on the killer side.

    2: Designing around 'good intentions' shouldn't even be part of the discussion. So trying to 'encourage' killers to not tunnel is a bad way to do game development (or survivors to not gen rush). People should play to win, designers should make a game that is healthy for both sides based around players trying to win.

    Fast Track would seem to fall into this argument, except the concept shouldn't be killers playing 'nice' by not tunneling. It should just be one of the pros/cons of possible play styles.

    I'm more in this camp, but the argument went out the window with the utter death of the anti-tunnel approach they had.

    in Fast Track, what were you thinking with this perk? Comment by crogers271

  • @AbsolutGrndZer0 said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4066567#Comment_4066567

    Yea, I don't get how survivors defend this with how much they complain about tunneling. A tunneling killer is much less likely to have a problem with this perk. So you want killers to tunnel, or you want killers to play by the survivor rulebook and spread out hooks? It's not rocket science.

    It's actually pretty simple.

    Killers say they'll tunnel over everything. Perk improves chases? Sorry, I don't have time for multiple chases, I need to tunnel. Gens faster? Sorry, don't have time, need to tunnel. Faster heals? Sorry, can't give the survivors time to heal.

    Anti-tunneling is getting boosted? Can't have that, killer outcry.

    Basically, the argument lost all value a long time ago. Absolutely any improvement to survivors is an excuse to tunnel, and when killers get boosted we don't see decreases in tunneling. Some killers will always tunnel because winning is all they care about, some killers play in a more balanced manner because they are more interested in a fun match.

    That part is the same for survivors. So among the 'elite' levels survivors will rush gens, killers will try to tunnel as quickly as possible, and I'm sure everyone will have fun.

    in Fast Track, what were you thinking with this perk? Comment by crogers271

  • @cogsturning said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4066815#Comment_4066815

    I didn't say killer has zero issues. I said it's fine, in that it's the power role with all the tools and comeback potential. I have no personal issues with either how my matches personally play out, or with the role as a global whole. That doesn't mean I don't think there aren't specific issues. There are bugs, obviously. Dredge is a good example of a few things. I made numerous bug reports about Dredge before they moved the bug report system. Some of them were really bad, like chases not registering during Nightfall until landing a hit, bots having no white glow, and permanent teleport whooshing sound bugs.Thing is, I still won all those matches. These things are just annoying. I'd also love to see Dredge's locker RNG fixed. Sadako and Springtrap get their teleports placed fairly close to important areas. Dredge is just pure RNG. The locks on the lockers are also probably in need of a nerf. BUT I have an 80% KR on Dredge, so I can't personally feel I need anything. Right now I'm playing Henry exclusively. He has a view bugs, mostly visual, but one where the M2 simply wont release and your stuck holding vines until it cancels. It doesn't ruin matches though, so I'm just not very concerned. Even with bugs, killers can still win more than they lose. That says a lot about the role.

    As for the so-called low tiers, I go against p100 Trappers and Pigs and they win their matches because they've taken the time to become good at the characters. Part of the problem is that people win too much too fast with a killer they haven't mastered, then they get stomped by decent teams and blame the game. The matchmaking and the sudden shifts to better opponents are more the issues than anything.

    But there are more bad survivors and killers playing than there are good survivors and players

    This is part of the issue though. If 80% of the playerbase is bad, and bad vs bad usually equals killler win, then survivors have little recourse in most matches. What I want is that recourse. I'm probably not as rainbows and sunshine as people might think. Aggressive plays get aggressive reactions. If opponents creep around me for saves, everyone will end up on the ground. I'm just not hard tunneling at 5gens or slugging people for lengthy periods just because. If I leave someone on the ground for 45s-1m I think they should be able to get back up. Camping hooks shouldn't exist, nor should popping your power the moment someone is unhooked and chewing right through their Endurance. Games should be engaging for more than just the killer.

    Do you not see how using the one match you lost as an example of sturggling is a problem? Will a comp team beat me? Absolutely, as they should. They're taking things way more seriously than me. It's fine to lose to good opponenets. The problem I consistently find is that survivors have to be much better as a whole than the killer. I can't tell you how many horribly low skill Ghouls I've lost to, yet I've never lost a killer match to a team of potatoes. Even if just one person on your survivor team is bad, if the killer identifies that, you're often screwed. Survivor is at the mercy of matchmaking, the killer's personality, their teammates, and being weaker. The agency is very low. With killer, it's mostly just matchmaking, and you can still beat people better than you as the power role.

    I don't think I've said I have a very easy time as killer. I do fine, my KR is above the goal number, many matches are easy, yeah, but it's also the more stressful role. I do think it is technically easier, in that you can learn just one killer and some info about survivor meta perks and do well. Survivors is way, way more info heavy. Winning chases takes more skill. Tile knowledge and pathing are pretty much required info. You have to learn killer perks and powers, and how to identify and counter them.

    As for FT, I'm paying pretty close attention in my matches. Out of 4 survivor matches last night, 2 matches had it. In one, everyone died but me. The other was a 4out but the killer only had 2 hooks by the time the gens were done, so they lost becuase they were bad, not because of FT. Out of 16 killer matches, 4 people had it. I 4ked in all 4. If I'm going by my own experience, as people should, this is a non-issue in an average gameplay scenario. I very quickly realized it was a wasted perk slot in my on soloq matches and I put Deja Vu back on instead. The FT perk design isn't great, but neither are a lot of others on both sides, and so far I've seen zero value from this perk in play.

    What I am seeing is a huge uptick in Hyperfocus/Stakeout, often one or two per match. I'm still winning those matches too so again, unconcerned. But with so many killers playing coldly and being dicks while BHVR does nothing, I don't blame them at all for wanting to hurry things along.

    If 80% of the playerbase is bad, and bad vs bad usually equals killler win, then survivors have little recourse in most matches.

    Do you not see how using the one match you lost as an example of sturggling is a problem? Will a comp team beat me? Absolutely, as they should. 

    I like these parts.

    For all of us who aren't one of the top comp squads in the world, from someone's point of view you are in the 'bad at the game' category.

    The problem I consistently find is that survivors have to be much better as a whole than the killer. 

    In addition to your reasons, killers are also really benefited by the snowball potential. Even in comp matches, it happens where survivors will make a mistake on their positioning in a winning match and then two quick downs and suddenly everything has changed.

    Killer mistakes can be more clearly measured in time.

    in Fast track is unfair and bad design Comment by crogers271

  • @WalterBlack said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4066856#Comment_4066856

    That's why you change your playstyle according to what you run. It's very easy to coordinate if you're playing with other people; I don't think it's fair to say StB needs to be in the "ideal situation" to be strong.

    Sure you can, but you're still facing tradeoffs that make the perk not as powerful as it seems at first.

    You now have a survivor who is playing more cautiously, potentially using other perks to stay out of chase, instead of on a gen, meaning they're sacrificing gen time, except if they were on gens with gen perks they might have finished before the survivors ever got in the situation to need StB.

    And that survivor still faces the possibility of being down quickly after they use it and are now at two hooks.

    Could it be a net positive? Sure, absolutely, but there's still the downsides that come with it.

    in Surprised I don't see StB more often Comment by crogers271

  • @WalterBlack said:

    (Edit for clarification: StB = Shoulder the Burden)

    This perk, if used correctly, can shatter a large part of the pressure Killers put on Survivors by taking away a quick road to a kill. Since hooking… doesn't do very much, turning a 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 into a 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 can be absolutely devastating.

    Do you guys see this perk often? Feel any change when someone triggers it?

    Since hooking… doesn't do very much, turning a 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 into a 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 can be absolutely devastating.

    Lots of perks look strong if you craft the right situation, but a perk's strength needs to be based on all situations.

    In the above scenario, if the survivor with 2 hooks has StB, it's a dead perk slot, the 1 hook survivor has very few reasons to use it. And even if the StB survivor is at 0 hooks, if they use it and then are downed by the killer quickly, then they are right at 2 hooks as well. They have the advantage of starting a fresh hang time, which is valuable but not overwhelming.

    So if you're able to use the perk in the ideal situation it is extremely strong, but DbD has a lot of perks like that - powerful, but situational, and lots of players prefer the perks that give them more consistent value.

    in Surprised I don't see StB more often Comment by crogers271

  • @AmpersandUnderscore said:

    this game has been eating away at my mental health and I just can't for now

    Sorry to hear this. Taking a break is a healthy choice and you can always choose to come back at a later time. No game is worth your mental health.

    It just seems like the devs care more about making a buck

    I definitely agree with this, and I think there's another issue that largely gets overlooked about this game: there is no actual design philosophy of DbD.

    What I mean there is that the devs don't appear to have any cohesive direction that guides the game design internally.

    BHVR never seems to ask the question "how do we want our game to be played" and balance or design around that. BHVR appears to ask "how do our players want to continue paying us for this game we have".

    Something like path of exile (grinding gear games) puts a ton of effort into game design. They have such a clear idea of how they want their game to look that they put out "development manifestos" which are huge, lengthy explanations of most every detail of a game mechanic or system to explain why they did it the way they did, and why they steered clear of doing it any another way. And while I don't always agree with their choice, I at least can understand where they are coming from and see that they have thought through every detail and nuance.

    BHVR does not do this. There is, from the outside, zero direction for the game - aside from "do what makes money". That's the only thing that makes sense with what we see regularly here.

    Because what happens when you have a consistent game direction and design is that the community isn't creating it for you. The loudest voices can't just scream and shut down months of development work because you should be able to address those concerns with "this is how we want you to play the game, so it's fun and fair, and these changes support that desire and design".

    I don't believe BHVR has ever done this. They don't know how people "should" be playing the game, because the design is apparently "do whatever makes money". They have no answer to "what does the ideal match of DbD play out like". DbD is more of a creative sandbox for "do whatever you want as long as you're buying things". And you can see this in other games they've done (specifically death garden and meet your maker) where they do the exact same thing, just haven't lucked into a fun gameplay loop.

    They cater hard to community outcry because they have no idea what the game should be, but they know what people will continue to pay for.

    What I mean there is that the devs don't appear to have any cohesive direction that guides the game design internally.

    BHVR never seems to ask the question "how do we want our game to be played" and balance or design around that. BHVR appears to ask "how do our players want to continue paying us for this game we have".

    That does seem to be the state we're in.

    Devs should have a philosophy for the game that is then tempered by the reality of what the player base is looking for on how it gets implemented. But the philosophy seems to be way too far at the back now (or just amounts to - cram every license and outfit into a game, any game).

    @AmpersandUnderscore said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4066794#Comment_4066794

    The notorious update 6.1 is a good example

    I actually believe that the 6.1 patch was when BHVR stopped doing this, coincidentally.

    Because prior to 6.1, the community mindset was "gens weren't worth kicking", and the game was pushed toward killers constantly being in chase. So much so that even the 3s animation was considered a waste of time. Not to say that things like camping and tunneling didn't exist, but it was at least lesser.

    And all of the meta perks at the time had chase as a core component: ruin, undying, tinkerer, lethal, BBQ, and I'm sure I'm forgetting one or two. These all pushed killers in the direction of "leave hook alone and go push survivors off gens", which I personally think was far more fun (for everyone), much healthier gameplay, and inherently slowed the game because juggling survivors kept them off gens.

    All of that disappeared in 6.1, and BHVR "listened" to the community and just nerfed the meta to shake things up. Lopped of the top of the most used perks and just tossed random changes in to fill in the gaps.

    I sincerely doubt that anyone actually designed the gen kick and 3 gen metas. Or if they did, they should be fired. Because simply asking the base level question of "what should gameplay look like" would give you the answer: probably not fighting for complete control over the objective at the expense of player interaction.

    And the fact that it took a year to fix it also indicates that they had nothing to look to for "how should the game look", because the answer should've been "anything except that". If they had an idea of how gameplay should look, it wouldn't take a year to realign with that game direction.

    Genuinely, I think that patch (largely) was the start of the community dictating have direction to BHVR. BHVR did make changes, but it definitely was not a good change for the game, at least not gameplay wise. It might've been profitable, apparently.

    And, that's not to say everything was bad in that patch: removing DH for distance, Conspicuous actions, and base kit BT were desperately needed and healthy changes. But the community to this day still thinks of the game as controlling gens first, instead of player interaction, and I think that was absolutely for the worse.

    I sincerely doubt that anyone actually designed the gen kick and 3 gen metas.

    It's interesting to think about.

    Every game company probably has moments were they did something and got a totally different result than they anticipated.

    But I'd love to compare how frequently BHVR has encountered 'oh, that's not how we expected that to go at all' compared to other companies.

    in I uninstalled DBD Comment by crogers271

  • @TheMruczek said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4066718#Comment_4066718

    Killer power diversity justifices bad perks? So Stbfl got nerfed cause Nurse exist? Unbound was good then they nerfed it. Too strong on Nurse? Both good chase perks btw which lower tiers use more. So this arguement isn't even consistant with how devs balance the game. We haven't seen a good exposed perk in a while despite the Nurse nerf and no, Friends till the end is not good.

    "Some killers have add-ons that allow them to be played in unique ways". Not every killer has one, you don't have an infinite amount of add-ons and not every single one of these are improvements over the base-kit power. This isn't 2020. We don't have Huntress with 3 Iri hatchetes or Alch ring Blight that can win with one hand and closed eyes (that's a good thing btw just saying).

    Via perks that you can share with every survivor. Putting that aside i don't know why would you change this? If you give survivors even small individual additional boost like vaulting 3% or cleanising 10% faster then you are going to just see the ones with the best effects, and i do not think we need less diversity in DbD.

    What side effect? If a perk is overtuned it means that the perks simply needs a nerf, killer diversity has nothing to do with it. The only side effect is that strong killers make use out of perks better than lower tiers.

    If perk is broken on a stealth killer then it will be probably unfair for the rest and deserves a nerf. Even if you create one that only buffs stealth killers, then maybe it should stay considering it affects such mediocre killer archetype, depending ofc on how good it is.

    Obviously some perks cannot be designed becouse they would work too well on S tier and yet you can just nerf them like they did to Nurse to prevent her from using Starstruck and Awakened Awareness. Still no buff to either despite that.

    It all depends. If you want to goof around or play interesting builds then Killers have bigger pool of interesting perks and builds. If you want to win, Survivors have bigger pool of good and stronger perks.

    Killer power diversity justifices bad perks?

    Here's what I'm responding to: Killer perk diversity is underwhelming compared to survivor

    Why bad perks exist is different topic and one that its pretty easy to look at both sides on, especially if you want to just go perk by perk.

    So Stbfl got nerfed cause Nurse exist? Unbound was good then they nerfed it. Too strong on Nurse?

    Good thing I explained it as a general issue and gave more examples outside Nurse.

    "Some killers have add-ons that allow them to be played in unique ways". Not every killer has one,

    That's why I said 'some' and not 'all'.

    not every single one of these are improvements over the base-kit power.

    Do you want diversity, or do you want the most powerful thing every time? Because at a certain point saying 'I want a wide variety of unique killers, them to have a wide variety of perks they can use, and them to have addons to play them in unique ways - and for all of them to be equally strong' eventually becomes unrealistic.

    Via perks that you can share with every survivor. Putting that aside i don't know why would you change this? If you give survivors even small individual additional boost like vaulting 3% or cleanising 10% faster then you are going to just see the ones with the best effects, and i do not think we need less diversity in DbD.

    You wouldn't. It's an asym. Both sides are going to be unique.

    It all depends. If you want to goof around or play interesting builds then Killers have bigger pool of interesting perks and builds. If you want to win, Survivors have bigger pool of good and stronger perks.

    And again, killers have a pool of good and stronger base kit killers to choose from. Every survivor is the same. It's much easier to design and balance something when you are only looking at one set of variables and not 42 and ever increasing.

    in Fast track is unfair and bad design Comment by crogers271

  • @cogsturning said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4066682#Comment_4066682

    I can't have favorable maps and bad players every match, nor can I be low MMR if I consistently win, since it would logically go up. Gen regress is so common now that survivors don't even expect my aura, anti-sabo, and/or undetectable builds.

    And sure, I get potatoes. I also get great teams. I feel like everybody gets a random mixture because proper matchmaking is indeed nonexistent.

    Personally I love the idea that BHVR secretly adores everything you have to say about the game and is giving you the super secret easy MMR treatment.

    in Fast track is unfair and bad design Comment by crogers271

  • @grilledmackerel said:

    It's ridiculous seeing nothing being done about them after how many years? There are so many killers who deserve a list of buffs namely Ghostface, Trapper and Skull Merchant. There are more killers out there who also need buffs but right now, these 3 aformentioned killers are top priority.

    Why do they remain as they are? It shouldn't take ages for you to make drastic improvements to their power. These killers need HELP!

    What's worse is that nobody seem to care or at all despite the majority of survivors wanting killer variety? Then this should be the step to the right direction except we remain in a still stand of bringing this discussion to the devs because they refuse to do anything about it or give no answer. It feels negligent.

    Why do they remain as they are? It shouldn't take ages for you to make drastic improvements to their power. These killers need HELP!

    Trapper: He's the intro killer, easy to play and pick up to help new players get into the game. If he was strong he would massacre new players.

    Ghostface: He's difficult because his power is very strong on the right map and against soloq. A straight buff would make him too powerful in these situations, so a larger rework would need to be imagined to balance him out more evenly, but people like GF general design so that is unlikely.

    Skullmerchant: Because her design was way too hated by a substantial portion of the playerbase, and rework ideas have largely been disliked as well, so she remains in the state she is in.

    What's worse is that nobody seem to care or at all despite the majority of survivors wanting killer variety?

    Mostly people don't want to just see the same two to four killers that make up S Tier. There's a whole lot of killers in the A/B tier that people are quite happy to face. The problem isn't the few killers at the bottom, its the few killers at the top.

    in I'm sick and tired of weak killers staying weak, and nobody gives a damn Comment by crogers271

  • @TheMruczek said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4066640#Comment_4066640

    Am i supposed to run no quarter or dark arrogance? Maybe nerfed franklin's demise or sloppy or Stbfl? AGAIN, just becouse smth is used a lot/ a little it does not have to reflect its strength.

    Killer perk diversity is underwhelming compared to survivor and they don't have freedom to run silly perks, unless one wants a 5min game.

    So we are just going to ignore pain res being nerfed like 3 times? Or corrupt going away when a survivor is downed? Etc etc. Turn back the clock is the newest one we had in years and it isn't a gotcha moment that you think it is. Every single one, except it and surge, got nerfed. You could argue that stacking them is problematic on high tiers making them harder to balance.

    I am not against gen speed perks existing, putting aside how fast track screws over the killers that spread hooks, it is too good and i see no argument in favour of survivors actually needing such a strong one just becouse Blight and Nurse exist.

    Gen regression perks were and still are a band aid fix to stop games from being over in 5min, like BT was a band-aid to protect your unhooked teammates. Game itself isn't balanced around the killer not running these perks.

    Killer perk diversity is underwhelming compared to survivor and they don't have freedom to run silly perks, unless one wants a 5min game.

    This is because killers have killer diversity.

    Killers get to choose from 42 killers, and while they exist in groups, you have quite a few unique options to play with. In addition to this, some killers have addons that allow them to be played in unique and distinct ways.

    Survivors are just different skins. Survivors major way to define themselves is via perks, with items being a lesser impact as outside flashlight/fog vials they are mostly duplicating perks that already exist.

    A side effect of killer diversity is that if a unique perk idea is broken on any killer, then its a broken perk design. So if its broken on stealth killers or trap killers its broken, or, more frequently, a perk design can't work because Nurse exists.

    So the killer players loses out on one aspect of diversity in setting up their character, but ultimately have far more options on what to play than a survivor.

    in Fast track is unfair and bad design Comment by crogers271

  • @Aven_Fallen said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4066431#Comment_4066431

    This is what I haven't been getting about the discussions. If they weren't running Fast Track, what else would the survivor have been running? Even if we just leave it to gen rushing perks, I can see scenarios were Fast Track could outperform alternatives, but also lots of scenarios were it doesn't.

    Probably another Perk where people would complain. My Build with Fast Track was Fast Track, Hyperfocus, Stake Out, Built to Last and a Commodious Toolbox with good Add Ons. And there were Gens which I finished fast. But other games where I am very sure that my regular Build (Resilience, Deliverance, DS, Dejavu) would have been more helpful. E.g. I got tunneled in a game, but I could have unhooked myself with Deliverance and I would have had DS. And while this would have only bought a bit of time, it would have been more useful than me not being able to be on a Gen (let alone that me being tunneled did not create any Stacks for me anyway). Another time I was simply two-hooked and I would have had Deli ready to avoid that.

    There was one instance where Fast Track MIGHT have been clearly the better choice, it was a Gen which was heavily guarded by the Killer and it helped to put in Fast Track Stacks bit by bit to slow down the regression. But we only finished the Gen because the Killer left it at some point, which might also have been due to the LImit on Regression Events.

    I guess overall it evens out or is slightly worse to use Fast Track. And I also think that the perceipton of Killer Players is warped, because people who lost game before the Buff are still losing games, but are now claiming it is due to Fast Track.

    My Build with Fast Track was Fast Track, Hyperfocus, Stake Out, Built to Last and a Commodious Toolbox with good Add Ons. And there were Gens which I finished fast. But other games where I am very sure that my regular Build (Resilience, Deliverance, DS, Dejavu) would have been more helpful.

    I'm trying to run through the possibilities on value because I think what you list gives a good way to look at the possible perk value (in other words, I get a bit rambly).

    Let's start by imagining that you could only run this build, but had to drop one perk. Which would it be? Fast Track clearly seems to weakest choice on value given.

    So comparing the opportunity cost compared to other gen perks:

    Deja Vu: I expect in most matches Fast Track would give more raw value, but Deja's ability to see the gens is very useful. The fact that it gets value right from the beginning also means it is more useful in breaking an early game three gen.

    Prove Thyself: Probably worse than Fast Track, though again has the possibility to do an early gen quickly or the last gen when the killer is in strong defense mode and the survivors naturally group up.

    Resilience: Really depends how comfortable you are with being injured, but if the survivor is comfortable looping injured, this perk gives the slightly quicker benefits to multiple things and might outperform Fast Track on raw value against anything but the killer really spreading hooks to the other survivors.

    Bardic Inspiration: Obviously benefited if playing in a team and the rolls that come out, but looking at usually 1 to 2% per skill check seems to outshine Fast Track, especially given the benefit can be shared. The setup time is an issue, that depends on play style though.

    Invocation: Yeah, no.

    So I think Fast Track is fitting with a lot of DbD perks, it gives you slightly more raw value, but you lose a lot of versatility (i.e. We'll Make It to Botany Knowledge).

    Of course, I'm not mentioning the unregressable nature of the perk. I don't think that's a huge issue with gen rushing builds, which is where most complaints seem to think it will occur. The idea of gen rushing is to get the gen done before the killer can interrupt it, and gen rushing as a SWF is to finish before the killer starts racking up hooks, both negating the value of Fast Track.

    Then of course there's the value that could be gotten from an exhaustion perk, anti-tunnel, etc. all of which have far more potential than Fast Track.

    Could it have more value in different build? Say a diverse build with a mix of everything? Well if bringing a toolbox, Built to Last seems to outperform it, resilience and bardic have the same issues. In a build like this the unregressable nature might be more useful, but the trade offs still seem pretty clear.

    I guess overall it evens out or is slightly worse to use Fast Track. 

    Yeah, I think that's accurate. Usable, sure. But, struggling to see broken.

    in Fast Track, what were you thinking with this perk? Comment by crogers271

  • @AbsolutGrndZer0 said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4066420#Comment_4066420

    The new DBD Creator Program. It means they are sponsored by BHVR. Point is, he's a big streamer who has many hours of showing how abused this can be.

    But that's the problem with the us vs. them mentality this game has.. no amount of proof by the other side will convince any of us… and BHVR a lot of the time it seems just listens to the biggest voices… Is tunneling and slugging a terrible epidemic that happens every single game? Yes if you ask a survivor main, no if you ask a killer main.

    Point is, he's a big streamer who has many hours of showing how abused this can be.

    You're allowed to say who it is. We can't insult Content Creators (or anyone for that matter) according to forum rules, but we can certainly discuss their videos.

    Otherwise it's just 'I heard from someone I trust more than anyone here', and there's not much you can do with that on a discussion forum.

    @Aven_Fallen said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4066424#Comment_4066424

    Yeah, and because he is such a streamer his opinion is obviously far more valueable than any other opinion. Classic.

    But even IF I would be willing to record my gameplay (I wont), you are basically asking me to fail. And if I show that Fast Track was not as valuable as your godlike Streamer is claiming, you will simply say that I threw on purpose.

    And fun fact - I even said that Gens can get done quickly. But I just said that it was overall not better than me with my regular build. But dont worry, if you complain enough, BHVR does another kneejerk reaction and nerfs the Perk into the ground. And the best thing is that most Survivors dont even care about Fast Track, since it is not as good as you or godlike Streamers want to claim it is.

    But I just said that it was overall not better than me with my regular build.

    This is what I haven't been getting about the discussions. If they weren't running Fast Track, what else would the survivor have been running? Even if we just leave it to gen rushing perks, I can see scenarios were Fast Track could outperform alternatives, but also lots of scenarios were it doesn't.

    in Fast Track, what were you thinking with this perk? Comment by crogers271

  • @Leon_van_Straken said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4065386#Comment_4065386

    Ofcourse do such perks change the number of people tunneling, I didn´t say its the reason why people tunnel.

    But a healthy way for this perk would be that you get the tokens by the amount of Survivors sacrificed not for each hook. So you had a comeback against tunneling Killers and not against Killers which give you a "good" or "fair" game.

    If we keep punishing Killers for spreading hooks with faster gen speeds and reward them for tunneling, tunneling won´t disappear.

    The downvotes in this thread are so random. People get downvoted by saying that a perk which encourages tunneling shouldn't give Killer the reason to do so.

    While they Claim in the next sentence that the perk is not strong at all. If this perk is no problem as the survivors claim then there shouldn't be a problem to change this perk to be anti tunnel than anti hook spreading as Killers ask for.

    You Guys are wild from time to time...

    But a healthy way for this perk would be that you get the tokens by the amount of Survivors sacrificed not for each hook. So you had a comeback against tunneling Killers and not against Killers which give you a "good" or "fair" game.

    While a possible direction, it creates its own issues.

    To balance out the impact of an elimination, Fast Track would have to give quite a lot of value, so you could have situations were the survivors all run the perk, the killer gets their first elimination, and then multiple gens pop. Cries of 'why am I being punished for doing my objective' would increase substantially.

    It also gives the survivors less incentive to protect each other, which probably goes against what would lead to a good game.

    It also wouldn't in anyway reward spreading hooks. The killer still has to get eliminations, so if the killer spreads hooks all that does is give the survivors more time at full strength, then they still get the value of Fast Track.

    While they Claim in the next sentence that the perk is not strong at all. If this perk is no problem as the survivors claim then there shouldn't be a problem to change this perk to be anti tunnel than anti hook spreading as Killers ask for.

    BHVR shouldn't give into fear mongering unless they have evidence its actually a problem. Use this as the standard and we'll only be left with meta perks and trash perks.

    in Fast Track, what were you thinking with this perk? Comment by crogers271

  • @Leon_van_Straken said:

    Hello everyone,

    as you may know I got some time on the Survivor side of DbD and since the last weekend I tested "fast track" quiet a lot when the following topic popped up in my head.

    With nearly 5000 hours on DbD hitting great Skillcheks is kinda a musclememory for me and 9 out of 10 skill checks are great.

    Don´t get me wrong pushing a gen faster than it should have been cause 5 Skillchecks in a row showed up is always satisfying and I understand that you have normaly the risk to go for the great skillcheck but could fail it and lose gen progress.

    But to be fair, isn´t this kinda unfair for newer Survivors? Why should I as experienced Survivor get faster gens than someone who hasn´t sold his time to DbD?

    Important: Don´t understand me wrong, I don´t want Skillchecks nerfed but I thought if it would be more fair for all if the Skillchecks would always give 0.5% progress if they appear and a great Skillcheck should only give more BPs, so that the outcome won´t be tilted to the veteran Survivors.

    But to be fair, isn´t this kinda unfair for newer Survivors? Why should I as experienced Survivor get faster gens than someone who hasn´t sold his time to DbD?

    This is true of any game with depth, as players get more experience they'll learn new ways to plays and improve their mechanical skills to overall be better at the game.

    DbD, being an asym, is unusual in that the survivor and killer have differing skill floor/ceilings on how players progress. That's definitely a concern, but there''s lots of a elements to it.

    in Should great Skillchecks have an impact? Comment by crogers271

  • @[Deleted User] said:

    As survivor i can abandon when the killer is wasting my time after all hope of escaping is gone. So why when all the survivors are standing in exit is there not a killer abandon feature? This is a clear double standard and there is viable reason that is isn't here yet.

    I think there are quite a few good reasons why killers should have abandon options, but the 'double standard' argument never makes sense. It's an asym, the game is all double standards because both sides have completely unique circumstances.

    As for the no viable reason on the exit gates, there is a very good one:

    If the survivors aren't trolling, they are going to leave, and the option changes nothing

    If the survivors are trolling, they are going to stand right outside the exit gate, and the option changes nothing

    It's asking for time to be put into something that wouldn't have a meaningful change

    in Abandon feature for killers Comment by crogers271

  • @Lorelei_Albrecht_TTV said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4065371#Comment_4065371

    So... Thoughts on coms, blight and nurse nerfs, a better tutorial, what're your thoughts on the stuff that I asked for that would probably make the new player experience better on average?

    Coms - It's incredibly subjective about what people want the game to be. Personally, I wouldn't like them and feel like they would ruin the game feel.

    I also think people overestimate how much impact it would have on the balance differences. Some people wouldn't use coms, some regions coms would be less effective because many different languages would be spoke on the same server, and they wouldn't deal with the other issues that tend to make SWFs stronger at the high end than soloq.

    Blight/Nurse - You don't really go into how, generally I think S Tiers should be brought down, but without specifics not much to comment on.

    Better tutorial - I guess it depends on how because there's a lot in the game that would be way too onerous to try and cover in a tutorial.

    Bots to play against - I don't think bots really capture the feel of playing against real people. I'm not opposed to the concept of more bots, but I don't think it would have a meaningful impact.

    in BHVR, Survivors, And The Double Standard That Killer Players Face. Comment by crogers271

  • @Lorelei_Albrecht_TTV said:

    It's no secret that survivor players and killer players are held to a different standard in the DbD community and I honestly wonder why. From the constant additions of gen speed perks, to BHVR deciding hooks are a safe zone for survivors for some reason, to the expectations for survivor players vs killer players, and to the response players get when they complain about toxicity there's much I wanna discuss on this post.

    With that outta the way I wanna say I get it you're probably tired of the half baked ideas posted on here coming from people who clearly care more about winning than balance I'm not here to do that so let's have a good discussion :3

    It's no secret that toxicity is rampant in this community and all that. I will preface this with the fact that yes I know that it comes from survivor and killer players. However the only times I've had someone come onto my stream or in my steam profile to spew hate and vitriol is mostly from survivor players.

    It does happen from killer players from time to time but, ninety percent of the time when someone goes outta their way to be hateful outside the game mind you it is from a survivor. I know this is totally a me thing but since I have the trans pride charm on hooks and my fem survivors its accelerated. I would be lying if I didn't admit I have had killers go outta their way to tunnel me in the past. But, you know what I see more often?

    Survivors coming into my chat to try to spam slurs (They get auto banned because I knew that was a possibility. Have had to private my steam profile because it was fairly common to have things like -rep is a pedophile on my profile and quite frankly I got tired of having to clean up my profile because some sorry ######### went outta their way to harass me outside of game.

    I get it the common argument is don't put ttv in your name, private your profile, or close the endgame chat. I have endgame chat open because I wanna say ggs and honestly this issue is at least partially on bhvr because I do report the people who grief, tell me to die, and try to spam slurs and rarely see action take especially when the user went off site to do it.

    You mean to tell me BHVR knows how much I sniff Sable while chasing her but, is somehow oblivious to the harassment that comes from playing this game. It's not gamer banter to call people pedophiles people, like trans people are unjustly getting targeted because of the rhetoric.

    Like honestly take Tekken 8 for example most people who came into my profile came in to compliment my skill as Lilli and even the salts were way more tame just calling me a sweat lol. The absolute vitriol people have for killer players is confusing and I wish it felt like BHVR was doing more to combat this.

    Now let's talk game design. With the most recent patch with the new Fast Track it's clear that BHVR is just going to double down on decisions that tanked and killed other asyms as it punishes killers for doing it's objective. Which begs the question do they want people hooking or not? Like the new fast track punishes you for spreading hooks it can proc up to six times and the progression bonus is unable to be regressed. Like it's bad perk design I'm sure if Pain Res was changed where the damage is unable to be undone for one of the seven gens the change wouldn't make it to live hell it probably wouldn't make it off the drawing board lol.

    To top it off it seems that paradoxically BHVR wants hooks \[THE ENTITY's PROPERTY mind you\] a safe zone for survivors if the Trickster changes and Henry are anything to go by. Like one hand I get it the killer shouldn't be able to lick the toes of the hooked person but! They should be able to defend the hook in order to secure a kill or hook state it's strategy. A lot of the more questionable choices from the balancing team likely come from two things Blight existing and a win more learn less mentality that has developed in the community of people that only play survivor. I think

    Blight should be gutted now how to do that without him completely losing his identity. Honestly I'm unsure maybe he should suffer his full cooldown regardless of how many charges he used same for nurse I guess. Like maps getting bigger, more full of pallets, and gen progression perks getting more and more over tuned are all because blight kind of ignores how this game is designed in the first place.

    Now lets talk the win more learn less mentality. There's a reason you see most lobbies in high mmr running Stakeout Hyperfocus and I'm Sure Fast Track will be added and then it's just Sprint burst, Dramaturgy, Dead Hard or Lithe (their choice) and a tool box with a brand new part. This build is extremely oppressive for anyone who isn't Blight or Nurse.

    Now let's talk the anti tunnel stuff. I only ever see people use it aggressively and honestly that's not what it's for. Supposedly BHVR knows what goes on in matches and can see people using their basekit BT in order to do things like block doors or take a hit for the unhooker and genuinely I think aggressive plays like this should forfeit the protection.

    You clearly wanna be tunneled by staying near the killer granted a system like that would have to be adjusted so things wouldn't unjustly punish people who aren't doing that but, my whole point is you shouldn't be able to use the system designed to protect you from being chased immediately off hook to antagonize and interrupt the killer. It's either what I propose or remove collision again saves used to require two team members and coordination I'd like the game to go back to that.

    Controversial I know but I think members of the team role should have to function as a team in order to win. And I think there's merit to BHVR biting the bullet and just adding coms to the game. It'd make balancing easier because they wouldn't have to split teams in order to try to balance for swfs and solos they could just balance around the fact that the team role has coms and can communicate. And as such the survivors should be able to see each other's perk and item loadouts as well!

    Now let's talk the double standard in the community it's genuinely confusing somethings are only bad when they happen to survivors but, are good when they happen to killers. The game got more frustrating because a perk released over tuned? It's super bad when it happens to survivors nerfs are coming super fast! When it happens to killers? We're either told to get good or play around it which we do while conversely any mistake a bad survivor player can make are generally smoothed over by the game's design.

    How about hackers? When a rage hacking killer ruins a game for a group of survivors they're rightfully called out by the entire lobby. Rage hacking survivors though?

    I know it isn't all survivors but it's scarily common for some survivor mains try to justify why the killer deserved to have their game ruined including but not limited to (tunneling {definition depends on the survivor player in the moment} camping, killing them, hooking, not "letting them do gens"). It's just weird how much vitriol there is.

    How about streamers who's shtick is ruining new player's games? The killer streamer tends to be rightfully called out. Where as the survivor streamers tend to be treated like they're doing a service by their chats.

    When it's true for both bullying new or bad players could make them drop the game and if you want this community to grow and honestly because I know this a thing I go outta my way to try to make the match fun if i get the inkling that

    I'm facing baby killers and survivors. Also when you complain about people holding you hostage in endgame it's always met with well you can push them out you can still move around just alt tab ect ect.

    All of which could also be used as an argument against survivors having the ability to surrender when slugged.

    The only condition where a killer can leave is nothing being touched for ten minutes and I think we should add that if everyone is in the exit gate and no one is on death hook the killer should be able to abandon as well.

    The situation may be winnable in some capacity but you can dc if you get 4 man slugged even if everyone in your lobby is running anti slug so that isn't much of an excuse lol.

    I love this game and am really passionate about this game and would love to see it get better. One last thing the tutorial really needs revamped.

    They need to explain all status effects and all that AND show you how to equip perks and how to use the blood web. And also there should also be a way for survivors to queue up in a custom against a bot killer so they can learn each killer.

    Furthermore there should be a secret bot queue that killers and survivors are thrust into and will stay in until they get a 4 man out or a 4 k situation. Give players time to learn the game before being thrown to the wolves.

    Okay, I'll give this a go.

    It does happen from killer players from time to time but, ninety percent of the time when someone goes outta their way to be hateful outside the game mind you it is from a survivor.

    If you play the exact same amount of killer as you do survivor, you are seeing four times as many survivors as you do killers (actually more if you count the other survivors in the lobby when you are a survivor, if you played an equal amount of survivor and killer 87.5% of the other players you encounter would be survivors.). Statistically it being mostly survivors reflect the fact that you will see mostly survivors.

    Otherwise, the game has a lot of toxicity that many people wish BHVR would do more about.

    With the most recent patch with the new Fast Track it's clear that BHVR is just going to double down on decisions that tanked and killed other asyms as it punishes killers for doing it's objective.

    There are plenty of perks on the killer side that activate based on survivors completing their objective, not to mention basekit things like Bloodlust and Window Blocking that are meant to assist the killer if the survivor is doing too well in chase.

    Comeback perks and mechanics have been with DbD on both sides for a long time. Personally, I'll think they make for a generally healthier game than win more perks, but both have their place.

    Like it's bad perk design I'm sure if Pain Res was changed where the damage is unable to be undone for one of the seven gens the change wouldn't make it to live hell it probably wouldn't make it off the drawing board lol.

    Because how would that even work? The survivors just couldn't complete the gen ever? Yes, obviously that would be a bad perk design.

    On the other hand, slowing down how long it takes survivors to complete a gen, again, we already have perks that actually do that.

    They should be able to defend the hook in order to secure a kill or hook state it's strategy.

    Using infinites was a strategy.

    BU+FTP was a strategy.

    Heal builds to self heal in chase was a strategy.

    Skull Merchant going for time out wins was a strategy.

    Just because something is a strategy doesn't mean its balanced or good gameplay.

    Now lets talk the win more learn less mentality. There's a reason you see most lobbies in high mmr running Stakeout Hyperfocus and I'm Sure Fast Track will be added and then it's just Sprint burst, Dramaturgy, Dead Hard or Lithe (their choice) and a tool box with a brand new part. This build is extremely oppressive for anyone who isn't Blight or Nurse.

    It's extremely oppressive to face Blight or Nurse without one of those builds.

    This isn't a single sided issue. Both sides have various choices that have a range of strengths (S Tier to D Tier), and if the other side 'sweats' more than you, yeah, they are going to be in better shape.

    Now let's talk the anti tunnel stuff. I only ever see people use it aggressively and honestly that's not what it's for.

    What its for is a tricky argument. I don't think BHVR ever intended tunneling to become as predominant as it is, and they clearly didn't think 3 genning or camping were how they actually wanted the game to go, but that didn't stop killers from complaining that BHVR was taking something from them.

    For someone to use something like the basekit BT that means the killer has to be right on the tail of the unhooker. If they run to find you, just wait out the BT. If you think they have DS, leave them slugged.

    The game got more frustrating because a perk released over tuned? It's super bad when it happens to survivors nerfs are coming super fast! When it happens to killers? We're either told to get good or play around it which we do while conversely any mistake a bad survivor player can make are generally smoothed over by the game's design.

    If they were on even a short vacation a survivor could have missed the original release of fog vials entirely. That's how quick BHVR jumped in to change it.

    Again, its something we can play both sides on. Some things stick around broken for a long time, some get addressed instantly.

    Also when you complain about people holding you hostage in endgame it's always met with well you can push them out you can still move around just alt tab ect ect.

    All of which could also be used as an argument against survivors having the ability to surrender when slugged.

    I'm open to the idea of more abandon options for killers, but this literally isn't true for survivors. The killer can push the survivors out, the survivors can't do that.

    Whatever the abandon options should be, as a pure factual matter there are differences on what each role can do in the end game scenarios.

    in BHVR, Survivors, And The Double Standard That Killer Players Face. Comment by crogers271

  • @CrypticGirl said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4064925#Comment_4064925

    Yeah, there is no fairness in this game, is there? Either that, or the people who claim to want fairness actually don't. Does anyone even know what "fairness" is in this game?

    I think 'fairness' is a bad way to approach the game, especially given the obvious fact that the game is structured on a 60/40 split and isn't even designed around being 'fair'

    A better approach is why something is or is not enjoyable, why it leads to good or bad games. As an example, neither Blight or Nurse are really that 'fair' for the survivors given their strength levels, but Nurse gets a lot more complaints because she's a lot less fun to go against and breaks elements of the game. Outlining why something specifically doesn't work is a lot more clear.

    And 15s endurance definitely can for the killer feel like 'well, what do I do now, this is pointless?' Except:

    1: People have pointed out lots of things that the killer could still be doing

    2: At the extreme, its inevitable. A survivor saying something like 'I'm on death hook, downed under a hook, and no one is around, what do I do?', well, you die. That's kind of the scenario here - survivors are all healthy and/or have endurance and are at the exit gate? Okay, gg.

    in 15s Endurance in the endgame is very stupid. Comment by crogers271

  • @CrypticGirl said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4064750#Comment_4064750

    On one hand, it's a valid point, but the OP's complaint is specifically about the endgame. Would Jay_K's idea be acceptable if it only applied in endgame?

    A big problem is people trying to approach the argument from the concept of 'fairness'.

    Take the idea that it would be fair for survivors to get 15 seconds of endurance if there are only two remaining.

    Except turning a situation where one survivor is alive and one on hook into both escaping is extremely unlikely. At best, the survivor coming in for a rescue is going to trade. Or, in other words, if you boil the game down just to just this single scenario, it's unfair, far more unfair than the 4 survivors alive for the killer scenario.

    But if survivors suggested that if there were only two survivors alive the game should make an 8m zone around the hook that the killer couldn't enter to create a 'fair' scenario for both sides, killers would rightly jump all over the idea.

    Basically: "fairness" can't be discussed without taking the entire game into account.

    in 15s Endurance in the endgame is very stupid. Comment by crogers271

  • @GhostRider1518 said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4064584#Comment_4064584

    You talk about reading with comprehension, yet you yourself don’t read with comprehension. I never wrote anywhere that Word FORCES this kind of formatting. Microsoft Word does not force line breaks or wide spacing in posts. But that doesn’t mean I can’t do it in Word. I can, and that’s exactly what I did. For the sake of readability. So, once again, just read the whole thing carefully. Microsoft Word doesn’t force line breaks and wide spacing in posts, but I did it that way. I did it, not Word on its own. What don’t you understand? As for the discussion and suggestions: I wrote a post pointing out the MMR issue. You shared your thoughts and ideas. I wrote my proposal. I never claimed it was perfect or that it should be implemented immediately. Some people acted as if programming didn’t exist, math didn’t exist, and data collection didn’t exist. I presented a proposal that isn’t perfect, but at least takes data into account. Data that is already being collected. The example of how it works with emblems, active perks after a specific action, and block points is just an example of the fact that this data is being collected. Just an example. And neither the example itself nor my proposal was a call to “just throw all of this in right now and that’s it.” You wrote about BHVR’s mistakes with the previous emblem-based system. I agreed with that. It’s just that in my proposal, I never wanted to go back to that idea. It was just an example to show that this data is being collected. What’s the harm in linking this data to 2 or 3 features? And there’s no need to go back to the old, broken emblem-based system. Not only did you completely fail to understand this, but you’re also accusing me of AI. It’s been explained in Word; this thread and the discussion about AI are over. Let’s go back to the beginning of the post. And how do you expect to have a serious discussion based on substantive arguments when you’re all screaming “AI!!!” like children here just because someone has a different opinion? All right, if that's the case, maybe you could also include the answers to my questions? Let me just copy the whole thing—there’s no point in rewriting the same thing from scratch. Just so you don’t think, “If he’s copying, it must be AI!” 😀:
    Let's try this another way... It seems to me that this whole recent discussion is pointless, because no matter what I do, it's always wrong—it'll always be “ChatGPT!!!”, “You're giving me downvotes!”, “You're typing/responding too fast!”. So let's try a different approach. What do you think BHVR should do about this? Raise the soft cap? Do nothing? Is it bad? Is it good? What should I do about it? Should I suffer through a pathetic 10-minute match, being treated like a punching bag by a team of noobs and tryhards? Should I DC as soon as I figure out what kind of team this is?Go to a corner of the map, stand facing the wall, and go AFK until they finish the generators and leave? Or just stop playing? (After all, the “golden advice” is “if you don’t like it, don’t play and don’t criticize”—but what about freedom of speech?). I'm looking forward to your suggestions and solutions. And honestly, after these discussions, I'm hoping for something wise, serious, logical, and sensible—not like that “golden advice.”

    You talk about reading with comprehension, yet you yourself don’t read with comprehension. I never wrote anywhere that Word FORCES this kind of formatting. Microsoft Word does not force line breaks or wide spacing in posts. But that doesn’t mean I can’t do it in Word. I can, and that’s exactly what I did. For the sake of readability. So, once again, just read the whole thing carefully. Microsoft Word doesn’t force line breaks and wide spacing in posts, but I did it that way. I did it, not Word on its own. What don’t you understand?

    What you don't understand is that you're arguing about something that never happened, which looks really bad when you complain about others not reading carefully.

    Here's my original post dealing with the Microsoft Word issue, it was all of half of the sentence that you continue to expand upon instead of focusing on the discussion you claim to want to have:

    "Reading through the thread I don't particularly care about the AI issue, though saying Microsoft Word is a really strange defense because since when does Word force bulletpoints and large spacing into posts,"

    at no point do I say you are claiming that Microsoft Word forces this. That's why its a "really strange defense" - you're using something as a justification that doesn't actually answer the accusation. I then gave you a point by point breakdown of the explanation in my next post just to be extremely clear.

    I wrote my proposal. I never claimed it was perfect or that it should be implemented immediately. 

    This is just a distraction from the issue.

    You had an idea. People pointed out the problems with the idea.

    You wrote about BHVR’s mistakes with the previous emblem-based system.

    No, that was @Valuetown whose post I thought you were misinterpreting/avoiding. I probably agree with them, but in a thread where 'reading compression' is going to be brought up so much, its important to keep these different discussions clear.

    What’s the harm in linking this data to 2 or 3 features?

    The harm is that it could end up being an even worse system that what currently exists and that there are alternative ideas that have been proposed in this thread that would work much better.

    And how do you expect to have a serious discussion based on substantive arguments when you’re all screaming “AI!!!”

    To cover things I've already mentioned

    1: Far from 'everyone' screaming AI, that didn't get brought up until deep into the thread.

    2: In your discussion with @Valuetown they kept the arguments separate. If you wanted to focus on the technical discussion you could have.

    3: My earlier point about how you are the one pulling the issues away from the substance. You keep making it more and more a part of your posts, not others.

    Let's try this another way... It seems to me that this whole recent discussion is pointless, because no matter what I do, it's always wrong—it'll always be “ChatGPT!!!”, “You're giving me downvotes!”, “You're typing/responding too fast!”

    Yes, people are going to disagree with you and they are going to disagree with you for a variety of different reasons. That's normal.

    So let's try a different approach. What do you think BHVR should do about this? Raise the soft cap? Do nothing? Is it bad? Is it good? 

    Change how they do backfills.

    MMR for survivors should be based on the result of all four survivors, not individual results (subjective change for the role of the survivors)

    A lot of things, like how long big the brackets are or how long they give the matchmaker, are all possibilities that I'd need more data on.

    If it was up to me entirely I'd also make fundamental changes to how much sweatiness impacts the game along with the over importance of the early game for both sides to minimize other things that can cause the game to feel like a mismatch, but we're now getting into more radical changes that also get into even more subjective concepts about what an 'ideal' DbD would be.

    But I would absolutely keep the MMR gains/losses based on end match result.

    Should I suffer through a pathetic 10-minute match, being treated like a punching bag by a team of noobs and tryhards?

    I think you're the first one who introduced the Nirvana Fallacy.

    You're going to have bad matches. This is a combination of that any matchmaker will be imperfect and that sometimes everything will go against you and for the opponents. That's an inevitable part of multiplayer gaming.

    in The math behind DbD's MMR is just a single "if" statement (900h vs 11,000h lobby analysis Comment by crogers271

  • @albertoplus said:

    I want to assume that people saying that if the survivors were alive after 5 gens pop then that means the killer did badly and they dont deserve the "pity kill" are also the same people who would agree to remove hatch entirely and the gates powering up after it is closed (they should only power up with all gens completed).

    The hatch and the doors powering up with gens still uncompleted gives survivors the oportunity of a pity escape. If all the survivors but one were dead before the 5 gens got completed that means the survivors did badly and they dont deserve their pity escape at all.

    If you want to escape, keep playing and try as hard as you can to complete the last gens, open the gate and escape.

    There are many differences between hatch and the end game being discussed, a few that have already been covered, but to add onto those

    -Hatch exists to make up for a flawed structure in the game format. It exists for killers as much as survivors, because very few players want the hour long scenarios.

    -Hatch isn't guaranteed and no one is saying the final survivor should always get it. No one is saying killers can't get kills in end game, @cogsturning has talked about this at length. The argument is over how easy it is should be for the killer.

    -BHVR put in a unique MMR category for hatch escapes, a draw. That doesn't exist for end game kills, they count just the same.

    in 15s Endurance in the endgame is very stupid. Comment by crogers271

  • @GhostRider1518 said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4064262#Comment_4064262

    Microsoft Word doesn't enforce line breaks and wide spacing in posts. Who told you that? Did I write something like that? No? Then please don't accuse me of something I didn't write, and please read carefully. I set up that formatting in Word for YOUR convenience, but no, that's not it. Another thing is that you’re yet another person who sees the discussion but doesn’t read it carefully, yet really wants to chime in. This is JUST A SUGGESTION. I listed what the system collects, what YOU CAN do, BUT DON’T HAVE TO do. I gave my suggestion. And what did I get? People nitpicking the text formatting, nitpicking the spacing, nitpicking when I respond, and nitpicking that this is my first and only post. Well, a very mature, substantive, and technical discussion...

    Microsoft Word doesn't enforce line breaks and wide spacing in posts. Who told you that? Did I write something like that? No? Then please don't accuse me of something I didn't write, and please read carefully.

    Oh, wow, that's a take.

    Let me break the point down.

    -AI loves to break things up into bullet points (frequently equally sized in terms of text) and put large spaces in between them.

    -You have posts that look exactly like that

    -People accuse you of using AI

    -You defend yourself by saying you use Microsoft Word

    -I point out that doesn't make sense because Microsoft Word doesn't do those things

    -You respond with the above that just misses everything.

    @Valuetown already covered a lot of this really early after the point was brought up. They even did their best to do two different posts to separate the issues, you're the one who merged the discussions.

    @Valuetown said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063684#Comment_4063684

    @UnicornToots is talking about you creating a numbered list for a singular item like LLMs, or using spacing and newlines identical to LLMs, or using em dashes like LLMs, or creating "section headings" as titles for your points like LLMs.

    I set up that formatting in Word for YOUR convenience, but no, that's not it. 

    Then the Microsoft Word argument makes no sense. If like that formatting, that should have been your explanation, not that Word somehow did it, because bullet points aren't some unique Word feature.

    Another thing is that you’re yet another person who sees the discussion but doesn’t read it carefully, yet really wants to chime in. This is JUST A SUGGESTION. 

    Sigh, and people are pointing out why the suggestion (all caps or not) doesn't work. That's what makes it a discussion. Ideally if you believe in it you should be wanting as many people to 'chime in' as possible.

    People nitpicking the text formatting, nitpicking the spacing, nitpicking when I respond, and nitpicking that this is my first and only post. Well, a very mature, substantive, and technical discussion...

    In large part because you've wanted to focus on the other things instead of the substance.

    For the nitpicking - the first page of this thread was an actual discussion, the second page broke down, the what you call nitpicking didn't even really come up to the third page.

    You can't say you want a mature, substantive, and technical discussion, and the moment people point out the problems you go 'It's just a suggestion!'. Mature, substantive, and technical discussions require getting into the substantive and technical details, being mature about it means not yelling and accepting the possibility that your idea might not be correct and welcoming responses that look at potential problems.

    in The math behind DbD's MMR is just a single "if" statement (900h vs 11,000h lobby analysis Comment by crogers271

  • @GhostRider1518 said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4064029#Comment_4064029

    Just make up your minds already: do you think I’m writing with AI or not? First you say I’m using ChatGPT or some other AI, but when I explained that it’s just Word’s formatting, suddenly “no one accuses me of using AI” anymore. Please make up your minds. I’ve already explained why I format this way (using Word) and why my replies are so long—read it if you want.

    If your last resort in defending your arguments against mathematical facts is to accuse me of being an AI or using AI—because the text formatting annoys you—then we’ve officially reached the end of this technical discussion. What? Did ChatGPT write that too? “Yes, I confirm it, I was that ChatGPT. And yes, 2+2=5." 😁

    You state: "Data is neither incorrect or correct... data is just data."
    In the field of computer science, there is a fundamental concept known as GIGO, or "Garbage In, Garbage Out." If you use a defective thermometer to measure a room, the "data" exists, but it is invalid for the purpose for which it is being used. The 1/0 escape metric is a defective thermometer. It tries to measure a player's individual mechanical skill with a team-based binary outcome. The "data" collected is invalid because it is corrupted with variables outside the player's control. A bell curve constructed from invalid "data" is useless for competitive matchmaking.

    By admitting that the system I am referencing "was already in the game for 5+ years," you've essentially destroyed your entire case.

    You are confusing a static progression ladder with a dynamic mathematical matchmaking rating system, such as Elo or MMR. The static system was flawed because it used hard-coded "brackets" and forced unnatural gameplay on players to obtain Iridescent badges. I am not asking for the return of Ranks 1 through 20. I am asking you to recognize that the games own data, its ability to correlate multiple variables and weigh them based on context, already exists in the engine BHVR chose to ignore all that rich data and take the lowest math possible: win/loss (1/0) when implementing their hidden SBMM.

    If your next response is going to be another digging into how I formatted this and whether I am human, I will concede your entire argument on the 1/0 system.

    And this is my only thread on this forum, because only now have I had the time, the motivation, and the boredom of playing against people who are clearly better than me. Don’t you think a bot or AI would be more likely to spam posts and comments? By the way, if this is my first post, so what? Can’t I post if I haven’t written anything since the forum started? How am I supposed to start posting on the forum if I could never write a single post because I haven’t written anything before? It’s a vicious circle, illogical, and physically impossible. Unless you have a time machine. But I would really ask you to stay on topic, because arguments like “I'm writing this for you,” “you don't have any other posts,” have absolutely no connection to this specific thread and aren't relevant to the topic. So, since “the big forum boss is letting me post,” even though this is my first and only post on this forum, should I just pack up and run?

    Reading through the thread I don't particularly care about the AI issue, though saying Microsoft Word is a really strange defense because since when does Word force bulletpoints and large spacing into posts, but its when you say you want a technical discussion and then make posts like this:

    By admitting that the system I am referencing "was already in the game for 5+ years," you've essentially destroyed your entire case.

    You are confusing a static progression ladder with a dynamic mathematical matchmaking rating system, such as Elo or MMR. The static system was flawed because it used hard-coded "brackets" and forced unnatural gameplay on players to obtain Iridescent badges. I am not asking for the return of Ranks 1 through 20.

    The first sentence acts like a gotcha on @Valuetown, but then two sentences later you admit it was flawed and then say you don't want that system.

    You're trying to strawman the argument by making it seem like people are arguing that these things could not be coded, when what people have been pointing out is that they can not be realistically coded in a way that could more accurately determine skill than the current system. If what you want is a discussion instead of doing a gotcha, if you think that system was bad you should have agreed it was, then moved onto how it could have been better.

    I am asking you to recognize that the games own data, its ability to correlate multiple variables and weigh them based on context, already exists in the engine BHVR chose to ignore all that rich data and take the lowest math possible: win/loss (1/0) when implementing their hidden SBMM.

    And people have been asking how do you practically do that in a meaningful way given all of the nuance and subjectivity in decision making within the game? If you have a better system, great, let's run through it, but so far you seem to want to imagine there could be a better system and don't like that people are pointing out the realistic flaws that such a system encounters.

    in The math behind DbD's MMR is just a single "if" statement (900h vs 11,000h lobby analysis Comment by crogers271

  • I still don't think Buffy the Vampire Slayer would fit.

    I still want it.

    in Whats the most outlandish IP you want in DBD? Comment by crogers271

  • @terumisan said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063362#Comment_4063362

    so in the endgame where theee are no gens for the killer to patrol and the gates are usually on two different sides of the map what are they supposed to do when they secure a hook?

    since anti camp gives free deliverance bt off hook is a free health state + a speed boost if they leave the hook to check a gate it's a free escape for the survivors who can save and bodyblock or alternatively the unhooked takes the hit then gets bodyblocked

    as someone who's trying to relearn ghostface what can i do in endgame?

    Anti-camp doesn't apply in end game.

    as someone who's trying to relearn ghostface what can i do in endgame?

    As Ghostface, probably try and find a spot to get stalk on the survivors as they come in to get a down.

    in 15s Endurance in the endgame is very stupid. Comment by crogers271

  • @[Deleted User] said:

    I came back to DBD after a long break and they needed my deerstalker. Why? This hurts my Oni load out and just makes slugging last long so I can't hook quickly. This is a really rough change does anyone know why and when they did this?

    This is a really rough change does anyone know why and when they did this?

    Not sure this got answered

    The when was 9.2 when there was the attempt at what they called Quality of Life but was a pretty radical game overhaul.

    The why - as a guess, a lot of perks were up for changes given how much they were considering overhauling the game. There were a few perks that they seemingly forgot to change back.

    That's a guess though, I don't remember them specifically addressing the why with this perk.

    in Deerstalker dead. Comment by crogers271

  • The math is the wrong setup though because of the presumptions that go into it (worst case scenario for killer, best case scenario for survivor)

    @Spirit_IsTheBest mentioned all of this which wasn't really responded to.

    -There's objects that could be between the survivor and killer. It's not just slightly dodging around an obstacle, there can be buildings or walls in the way.

    -They also bring up the issue of why is the presumption that the killer is starting at hook, behind the survivor? If the killer knows the situation is so disadvantageous, why are they at the hook? Why not be trying to body block the survivors path to the gate?

    -In terms of application, it also doesn't deal with their point about how the game got there. If the survivor goes down near the gate and everyone is healthy to rescue, they're winning. It shouldn't be surprising at all that its easier for the survivors to accomplish their goal the more things have gone their way in the game to that point.

    -They also bring up the idea that every killer in this situation is M1 with no perks or powers that quickly change this equation.

    I'll add to all the above, there's no reason the killer has to be targeting the survivor off the hook, the other survivors are still fair game.

    And none of this deals with the response to @Dinadin who seems to be discussing endgame more broadly than just this single scenario in a vacuum.

    15 seconds is stronger than 10 seconds, but the presented math isn't back up by what is actually present in the game.

    in 15s Endurance in the endgame is very stupid. Comment by crogers271
1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 70
Avatar