Skip to content
Avatar

crogers271

crogers271

About

Username
crogers271
Joined
Visits
8,432
Last Active

Comments

  • I always find it interesting how these discussions go and everything that gets glossed over:

    If the survivors make it to endgame

    AND the survivor being hooked isn't death hook

    AND the survivors are all alive and healed up

    AND the killers doesn't have an end game build

    AND the survivors get the gate 99ed/open

    AND the hooked survivor is close enough to the gate to get out

    AND the killer isn't one who can tear through a group of survivors and/or catch up to the unhooked survivor or the first one who got injured going for the unhook

    then yes, the odds are in the survivors favor that they are going to get the 4 out. But how silly would it be if they had all of those advantages and still the 4e was unlikely?

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

  • 1: Teleport is always a good ability.

    2: Given the elimination nature, even a single survivor screwing up can swing the game heavily in her favor.

    3: Even if survivors play it well, she's still getting slow down as they do the side objective.

    4: Going with the above, she gets lots of info on where survivors are located.

    5: If she tunnels, the ability to phase through body blocks is pretty powerful.

    You can't mess her up like you could a Nurse or Blight (high skill floor) while also having more room for growth than some of the other lower tier killers (decent skill ceiling).

    in Why does Sadako have such a high killrate? Comment by crogers271

  • @GameDesignNerd said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063369#Comment_4063369

    I think even i could do that, and I haven't even started learning Unreal Engine yet in school

    That's because its not a coding challenge, but a design challenge.

    @Valuetown covered this pretty well - you're looking at lots of nuanced decisions. What's the right play between sticking a gen and giving up an easy down or leaving early? Staying on a gen or getting a save? How many pallets dropped per second in chase? A short chase but you pulled the killer away, or a long chase but it was around the most progressed gen?

    The thing that has made DbD last so long is that the right decision is extremely subjective and that multiple factors are needed to be taken into account to determine the right call. And what is or is not the right call is reflected in the overall game outcome already.

    Then how do you do all that for both the survivors and killers so that MMR goes up and down in equal amounts?

    And in the long run (which is what MMR needs), how different are these going to look from the out the door escape rate? Even if we assume that BHVR balances these perfectly (which even if this wasn't BHVR, would be a major ask), would there even be a long term difference? If you are good at the game, even if occasionally you lose MMR in a game you played well, that is largely statistically insignificant. Then you have other concerns about developer time investment, players gamifying the system, having to keep up with changing metas, etc. And even on top of all that, it does nothing to address whether players are 'sweating' more or less than normal.

    Probably the only real issues are whether MMR should be based on an individual or team result, or how hatch should be treated (it's MMR neutral, not a gain, btw).

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

  • Survive, absolutely. Thrive? Probably not.

    in Could this game survive without anymore IP's? Comment by crogers271

  • I used to really enjoy doing the tombs. I liked the idea of slowly unlocking the lore, it gave a deeper sense of purpose to what was going on.

    Since the change though I haven't cared as much.

    in 100% Tomb Challenge Completion Comment by crogers271

  • As survivor, first time I ever found hatch I ran up to it and just expected to automatically jump in, ended up getting me killed.

    in What goofy mistakes did you make when you were brand new to the game? Comment by crogers271

  • I was wondering if we would ever go back to them rather than just showing the top 5 killers.

    1: I highly doubt you'd ever get an answer that wasn't 'maybe' or 'we're thinking about this'.

    2: I don't think they will, at least anytime soon. My guess is their point of view is that stat releases drive engagement and sprinkling them out every now and then works better as a marketing move.

    If BHVR wanted to, they could have this info available to players at all points. They don't, because the occasional releases create more of an "event".

    in Old kill/pick rate charts Comment by crogers271

  • @Shinkiro said:

    How about we stop stripping killer of everything? If important game state information is bad and "lame" lets ditch the survivor HUD then! Seems only fair. Why should one side get more and more info and the other get less and less?

    If killer knows when the unhook happens, survivor HUD should be upgraded so they know exactly which gens other survivors are working on. Seems only fair.

    That's the problem with the 'seems only fair' arguments in an asym, we can endlessly go around on things one side has that the other doesn't, because that's the whole concept of the design.

    in Please remove the unhook notification Comment by crogers271

  • @Z0mbiv0r said:

    Hi there. I stopped playing DbD quite a long time ago since I found it enfuriating, but recently I re-installed it again, and while I haven't played yet I have been reading these forums again, and so I see the game is facing the same issues it has always suffered from (efficiency in playing, toxicity, lack of secondary goals) so I thought of a little something that I think it might be a little help in 'solving' some of them. But I would like honest insight from seasoned players.

    First and foremost I'd like to address the lack of secondary goals, and while what I thought of isn't actually a goal per se, I do think it might offer a little reward to try and entice players to explore the maps a bit. And what I thought of was the addition of some well hidden, eerie chests (a random amount per map, maybe 3 or 4) which would reward players with something the likes of iri add-ons (not applicable in trial, but it would go straight to the character add-on pool), a random amount of BP (ranging from, say, 5000 to 30000) and, what is most important to this point, and also highly unlikely, a very rare chance to find some low amount of iri shards (say, 5 to 20).

    Now addressing the 'efficiency' in playing the game for each side. How about adding some levers to the maps (the number depending on the size of each map) which would 'activate' the gens. So whenever a gen is completed, the levers pop and survivors are unable to work on gens until one of the levers is activated (no regression applied, simply the inability to work on them).

    This would be paired with a stronger anti camping and tunnelling measures I'm still working on, and a new addition for the killer. An 'entity gauge'. So for each survivor being hooked, advancing a stage or sacrificed, the gauge increases. Whenever the gauge is full, the entity stops working and needs to be reactivated by making an offering in the basement. Now, this would create a complication if, say, the killer decides to guard the basement and hooks several survivors there. So maybe if there are at least 2 survivors in the basement at any given time, the offering would need to be done on a different, random spot.

    So, if you've read this far, please share your opinion and I would appreciate if you try to be respectful. No need to be rude. Thanks anyway, to those of you who stay here after this, and any insight provided will be interesting and valuable.

    Eerie chests - @zonkednb mentions this, but it really throws off concepts of how the game gets balanced. If some survivors groups do all the chests, and others just focus on the objectives, you have two very differing standards to balance the killer around (same with killers - you also have an issue of people preferring speedy killers to get chests)

    Efficiency/Levers - Conceptually, fine, but the problem with most 'secondary objectives' is that my adding layers of complexity to the survivors completing their objective, you create a larger gap between SWFs and soloq. SWFs could coordinate one group on the gens while already having someone running to the levers, something soloq would likely struggle with.

    Entity Gauge - Hard to balance the idea around differing killers speeds/teleport (Dredge jumps up the tier rankings). Having a set location instead of a set type of event is going to create larger balance issues.

    Also playstyle wise, probably not very fun. You did X, now you have to do Y before the match continues.

    in Thoughts on this suggestion? (Secondary goals, efficiency playing and random rewards) Comment by crogers271

  • @Abbzy said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4061877#Comment_4061877

    Love how they name but majority of streamers and other content creators that are pretty good because they play the game for living 24/7 (not as average joe who has to get up in morning to work and has kids and other chores to take care of) and they mostly still post only their good games where their build worked or they won and like once a year some show how some their games from that year didnt went as we thought like spookyloops or hens do this and you can see there are still teams that can wipe them pretty casualy (meaning mostly when they have some valid build on that killer not like hens where he had as demo only two perks that werent that great and no addons against full meta stuffed team that played super well because if this case vast majority will loose).

    Love how they name but majority of streamers and other content creators that are pretty good because they play the game for living 24/7

    Thread title 'I've never seen an actual skilled killer main say that killer is easy."

    People proceed to name skilled killers that say just that.

    not as average joe who has to get up in morning to work and has kids and other chores to take care of

    Are we talking about the 'average joe' killer vs 'average joe' survivors, or vs non-average survivors?

    Because if the server matches a casual, average against extremely experienced and sweaty, it's not going to go well for casual/average. That's true for killers and survivors, I mean that would be true for any online game.

     spookyloops or hens do this and you can see there are still teams that can wipe them pretty casualy 

    And skilled 4 man SWFs also sometimes get destroyed.

    in I've never seen an actual skilled killer main say that killer is easy Comment by crogers271

  • @MagixD said:

    Knightlight is an extreme example and like one of the top players in the world. The streamers I mentioned are good but not top of the world good. You can't use the very high end of the spectrum for measuring things. Knightlight says killer is easy, so bhvr doesnt need to listen to the rest of the killer population on gen speeds and survivors being hyper efficient and survivor perks combos that break the game? I'm pretty sure even Otz gets worked up in this killer games and he has 14k hours.

    You can't use the very high end of the spectrum for measuring things. 

    New player says killer is easy - low MMR, doesn't count.

    Very experienced player says killer is easy - too high of MMR, doesn't count.

    This is one of the reasons people don't bother with the 'show videos' argument. If it doesn't show what people think it should, you'll get dismissed for being either too low or too high.

    I'm pretty sure even Otz gets worked up in this killer games and he has 14k hours.

    The guy who has multiple videos of 50 kill streaks? Like he has a 50 win streak from the Dredge a month ago.

    Though I do think this goes to one of the differences in the mindsets. Usually when people are saying they can win without slugging and tunneling, they aren't shooting to win every game, because they understand that is a silly standard.

    @MagixD said:

    A common sentiment I see alot is "I get 4ks without tunneling and slugging and camping, killer is easy" and you check their post history and they mainly post survivor main takes, and some of them even admit like a week ago "i barely play killer but…". Anyway some of the people that have said they get 4ks without tunneling/slugging/camping are streamers. Perfect! Now I can get some video proof of this person in action and maybe I can learn something from this person, right? After all the best way to get better is to watch better players and see what they do (this applies to literally every video game). So I go to their twitch and check their vods and see how they play killer.

    These "killer mains" are playing on default FOV, no hiding their red stain, not looping tiles correctly, barely hitting with their m2 power, getting pallet stun at every pallet, falling for window fakes, and even getting spun.

    Can someone explain this to me? These "killer mains" are apparently really good and the rest of us need to get better at killer since we tunnel/camp/slug, but the way they play, they play like they just installed the game.

    These "killer mains" are playing on default FOV, no hiding their red stain, not looping tiles correctly, barely hitting with their m2 power, getting pallet stun at every pallet, falling for window fakes, and even getting spun.

    Can someone explain this to me? 

    It's really hard to explain things that are so vague without any specifics on who - but possibly because you aren't prioritizing the right things. That having a good understanding of game sense, where to go, which chases to take (macro skills) are far more important, but less obvious, in overall outcome compared to what you mention here (micro skills).

    in I've never seen an actual skilled killer main say that killer is easy Comment by crogers271

  • I'm going back a couple of years, but we had some long threads on this that it will be easier for me to link to. For my answers I didn't worry about engine feasibility or even if it would be good, just unique possibilities.

    @crogers271 said:

    There was a post on this 3 weeks ago if you want to read through people's ideas: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3637876

    I'll just copy my post from back then with a few minor changes:

    A killer who could disguise themselves as a survivor, but the difference between soloq and SWF would be even more enormous than normal.

    Maybe a killer who isn't even on the map at all, but instead just summons different creatures to attack the survivors. That might be a bit too much like Evil Dead: The Game though.

    A stealth sniper. Very slow moving until he tags a survivor from range and goes in for the kill, but also he has to retreat if he gets spotted before a successful shot.

    A stealth infector who can dart survivors with a poison they can spread to others / causes hindrance, but they don't know they have it until it actually afflicts them (so it has a meter like the plague before injuring, during this time survivor can spread it, but they don't actually know they have it if they didn't spot the killer).

    A jumper/rampager, like existed in Deathgarden, who can vault across the map. Would require that certain maps never occur if selected.

    Someone who could alter the map, changing the way loops look and the position of windows, but I don't think the engine could handle it. Would probably be a good design for Freddy.

    A killer who can teleport the survivors closer to him instead of teleporting to the survivors. The way I see this is that maps would be divided up into sections and the killer could target a section and teleport all survivors there to his section, being able to stop gen progress and not having to chase them, but if chooses the wrong section he's wasted time.

    A killer who randomly shifts between other killers in the game (out of control Shang Tsung). Killers whose powers need to build / be set would probably need to be excluded (Oni, Trapper), but you could have a killer shift between the various stealth, ranged, anti-loop killers.

    A weapons master killer who has weapons spawn around the map that he can gather to gain more powers, but survivors can also interact with the weapons to deny them to the killer.

    A killer who can move the gens around the map (move them to spots they could have spawned in, or switch completed and non completed gens). This would be a bad design, but it would be unique.

    A killer that can fly and has an aerial attack, but is incredibly weak when he is on land. Like a jumper would require that only certain maps be in his rotation.

    An arena based killer who can draw survivors into a maze/arena where they face off. Killer could get quicker downs this way, but if the survivor escapes its wasted time.

    A killer who is unable to kick / regress gens, but instead when he 'kicks' a gen he charges his power (the closer the gen is to finished, the more power he gains). He then goes into an overdrive mode like Oni when fully charged where he can rush around the map (or deploy projectiles, some type of charged up power).

    A killer with no power, but he gets 8 perk slots.

    A killer who has to trigger his traps. Like a combination of Hag and Skull Merchant, imagine an electric net on the ground, but it doesn't auto trigger, the killer has to actually set it off, but it instantly deals damage and hindered.

    Some of those are bad, but I tried to jot down any possibility that crossed my mind.

    in What kind of killer playstyles are we still yet to see? Comment by crogers271

  • @OnryosTapeRentals said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4061286#Comment_4061286

    I don't think I've ever seen a serious suggestion for anti-tunnel that actually aimed to "eradicate" tunneling

    Sorry but this is just intellectually dishonest. The goalposts for anti-X changes shift further every single time the developers do anything to address any pain point in this game. Camping has been basically removed as a viable strategy outside of a select few Killers or in endgame and yet Survivors still complain about it endlessly.

    You personally might not want to see them completely eradicated, but most of the casual audience these changes are geared towards do and they won't stop complaining about these things unless they're literally impossible.

    Sorry but this is just intellectually dishonest. 

    No, I think it's accurate and your take is intellectually dishonest, but saying that doesn't get us anywhere.

    The goalposts for anti-X changes shift further every single time the developers do anything to address any pain point in this game. Camping has been basically removed as a viable strategy outside of a select few Killers or in endgame and yet

    Here's the conceptual problem - people will always complain.

    I could turn this right around on a killer example. Despite everything that has been done to weaken loops over the years (perks, map design, bloodlust, window blocks) killers still complain about loops being too strong.

    And maybe they're right. Saying 'look how much has been done' isn't relevant, what matters is if doing something more/else would be better or worse.

    People aren't a hive mind. If 10 survivors had a problem with old camping, and 3 of them thought the camping changes were perfect, and 7 thought they good but more could be done, of course 7 of those people are still going to complain, but that doesn't change the overall improvement.

    Survivors still complain about it endlessly.

    I don't think that's accurate. Especially when we look at the complaints.

    It used to be 'remove this entirely'. Now people complain about how long the timer is, the radius, or whether killer powers should be active around hook. That's progress, people are going to continue to discuss how to refine a system to improve it.

    Which, to be clear, this is what we should want to happen. People should constantly discuss (i.e. complain) about how things could be made better. That's why we have a discussion forum and go back and forth on these things over the years.

    You personally might not want to see them completely eradicated, but most of the casual audience these changes are geared towards do and they won't stop complaining about these things unless they're literally impossible.

    Taking your statement basically boils down to a slippery slope extremist fallacy. Each complaint and issue has to be looked at on its own merits. The fact that some people will still complain after a change and that some people will have bad ideas are completely normal things.

    in People min/maxing this game ruined it for me Comment by crogers271

  • @Valuetown said:

    I primarily play killer during this mode, and here are a few lessons learned from this iteration that I think should be implemented based on my ~100+ hours from this 2v8 gameplay experience:

    • Remove 2 of Nemesis' zombies, increase zombie respawn time, reduce zombie walking speed, remove the ability for killers to see zombies - currently nemesis is too oppressive, and I find matches quite boring when I am queued with a Nemesis player because of the free slowdown his zombies provide.
    • Remove the ability for instadown/dash killers to use shadow - Completely unfair for survivors, I feel bad when I play Billy with shadow or Wesker with shadow
    • Remove Oni until blood orbs despawn after 90 seconds or his power time is cut in half - there is no reason Oni should have unlimited access to blood orbs. This isn't like 1v4 where he is fairly weak until he gets his power, as he has another teammate to help. Oni is the most oppressive killer in this mode currently.
    • Remove the third dashes from Wesker and Dracula - two are more than enough from my experience
    • Fix Chucky's buggy animations - half the time he looks like he is either t-posing during attacks or is flying around the map
    • Increase exhaustion to 60 seconds - sprint burst is off cooldown way too frequently
    • Reduce pallet density - this just goes without saying
    • Actually have an accurate time estimate within reason for queue times - 22 minutes estimate should not mean 5 minutes of real life time

    These are just a few things from the most recent 2v8 experience that I think can be improved. Please let me know what you all think, thanks. 👍️

    Nemesis - I think something has to be done to weaken the zombies, though this seems a little too much.

    Shadow - I don't think BHVR would ever consider this, but otherwise yes.

    Oni - I think they should reevaluate how his power triggers because, like you said, its not 1v4.

    Wesker/Dracula - I think the 3 dashes are fine.

    Chucky - Sure

    Exhaustion - Personally, I think Escapist is overrated and the only thing that gives it value is the frequent sprint bursts.

    Pallet Density - I guess it depends which pallets we're talking about as a lot of pallets do very little to slow the killer. If we lost fillers, sure.

    in Lessons for next 2v8 from a 2v8 Killer Main Comment by crogers271

  • @OnryosTapeRentals said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4061250#Comment_4061250

    Because of this, developers should strive to make the boring stuff not as powerful to make an interesting game. This is something that most games seem to get, but DbD weirdly leans into.

    Because it's not possible. It's just something inherent to the 1v4 nature of the game.

    There is one Killer whose strength lies in having better stats than the individual Survivors (primarily movement speed in DbD's case). And there are four Survivors who are individually weak but (collectively) have the ability to be in multiple places at once, meaing they have a greater ability to pressure the map and greater combined efficiency on objectives than the Killer does.

    So if the Survivors' biggest strength is their numbers, it follows that the best thing a Killer can do to increase their odds of winning is to thin out the Survivors' numbers quickly. Reduce their ability to pressure multiple areas of the map at once by taking someone out, and the match swings in your favour because you've mitigated the main advantage they have over you.

    It's the logical conclusion of a game with asymmetrical team numbers, and has been the go-to strategy of players who want to win in every asymm that I've ever played. DbD is unique though in that players here view it as a great injustice rather than the strategy that makes the most sense mathematically for their opponent.

    It doesn't matter how many carrots or sticks they add, tunneling will always be the most effective way to play Killer so long as:

    • Survivors outnumber the Killers.
    • Survivors are individually weaker than the Killer.

    To eradicate tunneling, you'd need to fundamentally change the dynamics of the game to an extent that it couldn't really be considered the same game anymore. If Survivors no longer outnumber the Killers, then it isn't an asymm. And if Survivors are equally as strong as the Killer, then it isn't a horror game. There's only so many planks of wood you can replace on a boat before you have a new boat entirely.

    I used to find tunneling very offensive. I complained about it quite a lot here on the forums. But my mindset shifted when I realised there's no way to solve it without drastically upsetting the balance or core mechanics of the game, as we saw with several previous attempts at anti-tunneling mechanics. At that point, DbD would no longer be the game I fell in love with an sunk 6000 hours into so nowadays I accept it and come prepared to counter it. I've since had a lot more fun on Survivor as a result.

    There's conversations to be had about the accessibility of tools Survivors have to counter tunneling. I.e. giving solo queue better ability to communicate with a callout system. Or not restricting anti-tunneling perks behind paywalls. But unless they do something truly drastic, tunneling itself is here to stay and players should either accept it as a possibility when they launch the game, or move onto a singleplayer game where they can curate their own experience.

    So I'm going to jump to the middle of what you type because I think it cuts to the heart of the issue and is frequently how these discussions go off the rails:

    To eradicate tunneling,

    I don't think I've ever seen a serious suggestion for anti-tunnel that actually aimed to "eradicate" tunneling, though frequently the counter arguments act like that is the goal. So much of what you type would be true if that was actually was what was getting argued, but its not.

    To go back to the quote about players optimizing, the goal isn't to rip something out of the game because its been optimized to the point of being boring. It's to find a way to adjust it to make the game work in a better fashion, usually by 'deoptimizing' a strategy so that more game approaches are equally viable.

    Take camping. The killer just standing in front of the hook was boring and in the case of someone like Bubba really bad game design. That doesn't mean we need to go to the extreme opposite and make every hook rescue completely safe, instead they adjusted it to allow more gameplay (the radius around the hook) while still keeping the ability of the killer to pursue the survivors (it not applying when a survivor is near).

    Or take infinites. They didn't 'eradicate' looping, because looping is fun, but just finding the best spot and sticking there is optimized, boring gameplay. So they hit it with three things, map redesigns, bloodlust, and window blocking. Anti-loop didn't need to remove looping, just take out the extremes.

    But my mindset shifted when I realised there's no way to solve it without drastically upsetting the balance or core mechanics of the game, as we saw with several previous attempts at anti-tunneling mechanics. 

    I mean if you take BHVR's 'what if we blew up the entire game' approach as the only way game design can happen, sure.

    Just about everyone agreed that their initial approach was way over the top. But does this mean there's 'no way to solve it'? There's plenty of approaches. Something like hiding unhooks or buffing survivors in the 3v1 while slowing down survivors in the 4v1 easily could have kept the game feel, it's just an issue of finding the right numbers. It wouldn't have suddenly made DbD a perfect game, but that's not the goal. It's not to eradicate something, it's not to seek a perfect game, but to find something that is commonly boring and improve it.

    At that point, DbD would no longer be the game I fell in love with an sunk 6000 hours into so nowadays I accept it and come prepared to counter it. I've since had a lot more fun on Survivor as a result.

    I never had a problem with old DH when survivors had it from the beginning of the game. Do the head nod thing, make a choice about whether to swing through it near pallets, remember which survivors have it, etc.

    I also liked survivor more pre-HUD upgrades. I enjoyed the feeling of not knowing what was going on around me.

    On both of those though, I recognize that my personal feelings weren't reflective of either the community's thoughts or what would be needed to grow a game. Which is all to say if you don't have a problem with tunneling, great, but we could do that for any issue now or that has ever been in the game of finding someone who preferred it that way.

    in People min/maxing this game ruined it for me Comment by crogers271

  • @OnryosTapeRentals said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4061201#Comment_4061201

    Such is the nature of PvP games. If you don't like it, then play singleplayer games. There's no PvP game in existence that is immune to this and I don't know why people expect DbD to be any different.

    1: It also applies to single player games. Perhaps more so.

    2: The concept of the quote is - 'this is how players will behave, devs should design a game based around it'. Basically if a strategy is effective, but boring, players will still pursue it (@GentlemanFridge 's example of tunneling, but we can throw in four BNPs as well).

    Because of this, developers should strive to make the boring stuff not as powerful to make an interesting game. This is something that most games seem to get, but DbD weirdly leans into.

    in People min/maxing this game ruined it for me Comment by crogers271

  • @Leon_van_Straken said:

    Hello everyone,

    as some of you may know I am back from my DBD break and the game is much more fun after some chill time.

    After all that I still got a question and I don´t want this to be an us vs them so please be honest in this discussion.

    My problem is the following.

    We all know that tunneling is the most unfun thing in this game so tunneling should be "punished" am I right? I think we can all agree in this. But as it seems are Killers who spread hooks in 2v8 the ones which are punished more strictly.

    What do I mean?

    • If the Killer gets 3 hooks this could mean that 3 Survivors got a hookstate each or that one Survivor is already dead. In both scenarios the gens get the same amount of gen speed but the Survivors numbers are different. So tunneling is sadly the better way here.

    But now I get to the point which is the more problematic in my opinion and these are the abilitys which are unlocked after the first hook stage is archived.

    What do I mean?

    • If I decide to not tunnel I have till hookstate sixteen, eight stronger Survivors to deal with than Killers which go for elimanation every 3 hooks.

    So I am a bit buffled. Shouldn´t this be the other way around?

    Shouldn´t the Survivors which are tunneld out get more help than the ones which are more safe?

    Maybe I am missing something but thats the moment I ask you for your help.

    Staggering the catch up mechanic so that a third hook gives a lot more benefit than the first hook would be a much better catch up mechanic.

    Maybe I am missing something but thats the moment I ask you for your help.

    I suspect BHVR's intent was simplicity and what's generally true, as well as keeping the purpose of an elimination style game.

    Simplicity - A flat rate per hook is either to balance than calculating around either a different rate per hook or just how much each elimination should be worth.

    Generally True - Most games probably play out the way they want with an elimination coming after decent number of hook states have been obtained, so 3 hooks and someone out and everyone 2 hooked are both rare enough that, for them, its not something they focus on.

    Elimination Style Game - This is probably the most controversial of the concepts. But DbD is an elimination game, getting eliminated should be something that a side tries to avoid. While this would of course depend on the numbers, I think a situation where a survivor on death hook could just not worry about the killer (because of how much of a gen boost it would give) would take a lot of the excitement out of the game.

    That's my guess though on BHVR's approach.

    in The double punishment in 2v8 for fair play? Comment by crogers271

  • New proposal - the killer doesn't know when the survivor abandons.

    That way you can always imagine the human is at the screen if you want.

    in Can we get a change to how the finishing mori works please Comment by crogers271

  • RPD is a lot different than the other 2v8 maps. Survivors must spread out to the other wing early, which requires navigating the central lobby. Killers have the potential to comeback if they end up trapping all the survivors on one side of the map and then cages start spawning with no one to release them.

    On the other hand, the upstairs/downstairs sections give a lot more ground to cover and survivors have clear directions to shift W to that are still pretty strong.

    I think the idea of connecting the back sections would probably help out the map a bit, but it has its pros and cons for both sides.

    in 2v8 RPD is still too small. Comment by crogers271

  • Most of the S tier killers are hard to pick up, so killers like Nurse and Blight get their kill rates dragged down by the players who are struggling to get even a 1k.

    Freddy is pretty straightforward, so his skill floor is relatively high to start. Teleport is also a powerful ability that's going to get value in pretty much any match.

    Basically, high kill rate because consistently good in the hands of many outweighs overwhelmingly powerful but in the hands of only a few in terms of average number.

    in Why does Freddy have such a high kill rate? Comment by crogers271

  • I have two.

    Spreading out has already been covered, but I think that's a big one. I think there are different reasons for spreading out in 2v8 compared to 1v4 - as teaming up on gens is a much better strategy in 2v8. With how cage spawns work you want survivors all around the map, lest the danger of someone spawning in a corner and none of the other seven realizing no one is nearby.

    My other is probably people not playing around their hook states. If multiple survivors are on death hook really annoying to see an unhooked survivor repairing a corner gen. Death hook survivors should play cautious, while those who are fresh should attack the riskier gens.

    in What are some of the biggest missplays you see a lot by your team mate sin 2v8? Comment by crogers271

  • @AmpersandUnderscore said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4057650#Comment_4057650

    Weird to mention sabo squads since that's not what almost everyone is complaining about with slugging. Might as well include people lurking with a flashlight in that case. Both of those are generally considered "reasonable reasons to leave someone on the ground for a short period" while you go chase the other person. Neither is a reason to leave someone intentionally slugged for 4 minutes to bleed out.

    The other two, though, are self-fulfilling prophecies.

    If you hard tunnel one person and leave the other 3 alone, they will do gens. Survivors respond to things the killer does or brings to the match, and do gens by default. But if I reword your complaint to "you know what, if you want to do gens I'm going to leave you alone and let you do gens" doesn't sound nearly as victimizing as you'd like.

    Camping because of "swarming the hook" can also be self fulfilling. If you stand around the hook long enough you actually get both "gen rushing" and eventually someone will have to try and unhook "swarm the hook".

    Both of those are generally considered "reasonable reasons to leave someone on the ground for a short period" while you go chase the other person.

    It's like the old 'here's all the reasons tunneling should be addressed when a killer goes from it for the very beginning'.

    That usually gets immediate response of 'but what if the survivors run in front of me' which doesn't address the issue at all.

    People love their red herrings.

    @cogsturning said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4057646#Comment_4057646

    lol interesting that you disregard something when it goes against your argument.

    I'm disregarding it because you love bringing up stuff that has nothing to do with the topic. "Don't like getting tunneled? Well, I don't like it when survivors wear red. Guess we all have to deal with these torally equal things that absolutely align though." You constantly compare anything that exists in the game to any other random thing in the game when they're not at all equivalent or even related.

    Maybe the killer is using a different account, they could have more hours than everyone but the hours shown would say only few hundred

    I am a cross progression player so I understand it perfectly well. I'm taking about obvious cases, like a killer who whiffs constantly, misses their M2s, can't mind game, doesn't know what gens to patrol, but still brainlessly tunnels because some YTer told them to. You're also assuming the bad 3k hour player is playing what they main. They could be playing killer with 200 hours while the other 2.8k is in survivor.

    The game is clearly designed around tunneling or it would be made reportable like griefing is, it would be hard nerfed and stopped dead

    Something existing and something being part of a design aren't the same thing. If anything, the game has adjusted to tunneling because it has to, because tunneling is skewing the numbers and likely keeping low tier killers in the dumps to maintain the 60%. If everyone stopped tunneling and BHVR saw the real numbers, instead of them being obscured by cheese, they could get to the real issues.

    But no, I'm sure they put all that work into those ptbs just for funsies. Let's just pretend they didn't actively try to stop tunneling but chickened out in the end. That never happened, since it doesn't fit your by-design narrative.

    You only won because you had a good map" or "you only won because of your perks"

    It's true though. I win a good deal of my killer matches because of these things. The game gives one side or the other stuff for free, or it's luck, with what perks you chose versus you're opponenet, or it's putting on Lightborn because you saw three flashlights in the lobby. Much of this game is chance-based amongst average players.

    These are all poor excuses people come out with to justify a loss while not taking responsibility for their own actions, decisions and skill.

    Yeah, taking responsibility for your actions instead of blaming teammates and opponenets is certainly a popular take in the community, present company included.

    You really should stop with that argument because your made up rules have no say in what is playing properly and what isnt.

    I really do love how you keep saying this as if you and I are the only people in the forum and there isn't a steady stream of posters saying the exact same things, very often to you. There's been a million arguments about this same stuff for years but no, they're my rules.

    Something existing and something being part of a design aren't the same thing. If anything, the game has adjusted to tunneling because it has to, because tunneling is skewing the numbers and likely keeping low tier killers in the dumps to maintain the 60%

    I think its kind of like infinites. At one point they weren't a huge issue ('infinites take skill'), then more and more players took advantage of an easily abusable mechanic, and eventually, probably long after they should have, BHVR addressed it.

    in This game is flawed Comment by crogers271

  • I think they should get rid of killer classes and just have something like you mention about addons. Give each killer a few of their own unique builds instead of overall classes - but this is probably something they needed to do awhile ago, keeps getting more difficult as they add more killers.

    @100PercentBPMain said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4057310#Comment_4057310

    he's right though. why would I play 2v8 survivor when ST released? we don't know if vecna 2 will disappear like vecna 1, so I have no real desire to play when I'm feeling 1v4 FOMO

    2v8 also doesn't have any of my favourite killers. why would I want to face killers I despise (Wraith, Oni, trapper) when I could play 1v4 and face wholesome Springtrap who is always a barrel of laughs?

    Because that's a personal issue, not about game health. The problem with 2v8 isn't people not playing it, its the difference in where people want to play.

    If you don't want to play killer in 2v8 or 2v8 at all, that's fine, but its not reflective of the BHVR is facing that @Philscooper brings up.

    in Next 2v8 should focusing on more killers and classes, and reworking old mechanics Comment by crogers271

  • Part 2 because of character limits

    And when you say “that’s a core design philosophy issue,” you’re actually conceding the structure of the argument — you’re just moving it to a broader category.

    Have been since we've been on this topic. Literally repeated this argument in multiple posts when I've compared how the same scaling happens with other types of perks.

    Also, pointing out that situational perks can be strong in SWF doesn’t counter this. Yes, coordination amplifies those too. The difference is:

    • Event perks scale with event frequency.
    • Repair bonuses scale with total active repair time.
    • Generator completion is the win condition.

    So if coordination primarily increases sustained repair uptime, then the perks that scale with uptime naturally convert coordination into objective progress more consistently.

    Consistently does not equal better.

    The differences you cite aren't actually math that back up your argument, they're presumptions which have no relevance without numbers.

    The thing you are leaving out of your scenarios is value. Just because an event is frequent doesn't make it better if the value it actually gives is still much less than an infrequent event with a large value.

    That’s the argument. Not “predictable = better.” Not “minor > major.”Scaling interaction.

    You say that, but you literally just made that argument again. See consistently above. You keep having to add these words that you say don't mean better, but without them your argument falls apart.

    You keep saying “show cumulative value.

    That’s exactly what sustained uptime is.

    Let's look at my actual quote - Rate x value x frequency = overall value compared to the same scenario for soloq.

    You need a comparison for this to have relevance. If used more = better is not something anyone has ever argued against.

    If coordination increases total simultaneous repair time across four survivors, then percentage bonuses applied to that time naturally generate more total progress.

    Event perks scale with moments.Repair bonuses scale with uptime.

    Coordination increases uptime more consistently than it increases rare trigger events. .

    Consistently does not equal better. Overall value is what mattters.

    Rate is part of total value.

    Total value = value per second × total seconds applied.You can’t say “rate doesn’t matter” while asking about overall impact — rate directly determines accumulation over time.

    Lol, this is the second time you've misquoted this same thing

    Let's look at my full quote - rate doesn't matter without factoring in the overall value achieved.

    Rate is ONE OF the factors that determines overall value achieved. That word "without" is incredibly important. I literally gave you an equation that I've quoted again in this response.

    Just because something has a high rate has no relevance without the other factors.

    Small per-second gains across four coordinated survivors for an entire match can absolutely outscale large but rare effects. That’s just how scaling works.

    Just going to quote myself again to show how I've already said that:

    "On the last thing you type there - "total impact can be larger even if each individual gain is smaller."

    Sure, no one disagrees with that in concept.

    Demonstrating it with the perks/items that exist in game, in comparison to soloq, in comparison to what else SWFs could run is the issue."

    If you want to argue the magnitude is small, argue it.

    I have, multiple times. You literally quote me doing one of those arguments right after this, and you haven't made a response to my requests for how much value you actually think survivors are getting out of their gen perks in a soloq in comparison to a SWF.

    But dismissing rate entirely while asking for total value doesn’t make sense.

    Good thing I didn't dismiss rate entirely.

    You’re still comparing isolated perk value instead of team-wide uptime scaling.

    Gen multipliers apply to every second of coordinated repair across multiple survivors. That compounds all match long.

    DS giving +50 seconds once every five games isn’t the same type of scaling as four survivors converting coordinated uptime into objective progress every second they’re repairing.

    This isn’t “consistent = better.”It’s that sustained uptime × percentage scaling accumulates continuously, not situationally.

    Sustained does not equal better. That's just you putting in a new word for consistent.

    More survivors doesn't equal better, it just enhances the trade off discussion. If one survivors gets an extra five seconds over equivalent soloq on a gen with Deja Vu, that's 0.3 charges. If all four survivors do this, that's 1.2 charges, but that's a trade off of all four survivors trading off for an additional perk.

    If you think the cumulative gain is small, quantify it.

    What do you think I've been doing every time I've laid out these scenarios? Why do you think I ask you for what you think the numbers are?

    But treating single-event spikes and continuous team-wide scaling as equivalent math isn’t accurate.

    Presuming just because they are a team that they don't face the same risks on trade off value of perks isn't accurate. Do they have an advantage on it do to preplanning? Sure, but that's not unique to gen perks/items.

    You keep reducing it to “direct ≠ better” like that’s the whole argument.

    The distinction isn’t preference — it’s accumulation.

    You literally say I keep talking about cumulative value earlier and now you are agreeing its what matters. Not sure what the point of everything else you said was if you're just going to agree with me, but, great, end result.

    Opportunity-based perks require events.Repair multipliers convert every second of coordinated uptime into objective progress.

    Events happen.

    That’s not about liking “predictable value.”It’s about sustained team-wide scaling versus conditional spikes.

    Sustained does not equal better. There's a killer, he's going to do things, having counters to what he does is very important.

    If you think the cumulative impact is negligible, show that.

    So I love the continued demands I show something, which I've actually dived into multiple times, despite you not showing it, despite it being your argument. If you want to go back to arguing something like Full Circuit sure, but when I or @FerrousFacade tried to focus on those arguments you said that wasn't the point of the discussion

    Anecdotes don’t disprove scaling.

    “Yes, I’ve seen solo gens fly” just shows efficiency exists — not that coordination + uptime scaling doesn’t amplify multipliers.

    “Why aren’t more SWFs running it?” isn’t a rebuttal either. Meta choice depends on trade-offs, killer pool, map, comp rules, etc. Something not being universally spammed doesn’t mean the scaling interaction doesn’t exist.

    And saying “we can’t always tell who’s SWF” doesn’t negate the mechanism, it just limits perfect observation. The math of uptime × percentage bonus doesn’t stop working because group labels aren’t visible.

    So this whole part here sounds great, until you actually look at what part of your post I'm replying to - "which is why their cumulative impact becomes more visible when comparing equally skilled coordinated teams to solo play"

    You're making an anecdotal argument, I'm responding in kind, though I'm backing it up with both personal experience and high MMR examples.

    The claim is about compounding. Repair-speed multipliers apply to the win condition every second survivors are repairing. Coordination increases how many total seconds that happens simultaneously across the team. That’s where the cumulative difference comes from.

    Yes, everything scales with coordination.

    Glad you're back to agreeing with me that everything scales with coordination, not sure why you spend so long posting about the scaling mechanic for something you are going to agree with.

    The distinction is that some effects scale through event frequency (chases, unhooks, anti-tunnel), while repair multipliers scale through sustained uptime on the objective itself. One is conditional on specific triggers. The other compounds every second the team maintains pressure.

    So I was about to say compounds does not equal better, which is true, but even better, that's not what compounds means.

    Gen perks add a straight linear line of benefit. Each additional second on a gen equal the amount of extra charges from the gen perks/items being used. Compounding would be something like Deja Vu growing in value with each use.

    Saying “show the numbers” is fair — but dismissing the scaling logic entirely because we haven’t attached a spreadsheet yet doesn’t make the mechanism disappear.

    No one is dismissing the scaling logic that you are now falling back to. It's uniqueness to the perks/items you have chosen in addition to its relevance to the difference between SWF/soloq at the upper end is the issue.

    And we don't need a spreadsheet. Roughly how much value do you think a coordinated SWF would extract from these gen perks in comparison to an equally skilled soloq? As I've said, if you start laying out actual figures, you need to lay out some truly absurd scenarios to make these perks seem significant.

    If your position is that the total compounded gain from coordinated uptime + multipliers is negligible compared to other perks, then that’s the comparison to argue.

    That argument has been made multiple times. It's actually more detailed than that, because your argument is specifically about SWF vs soloq.

    I've posted multiple times about how the difference between gen perks on soloq and SWFs would be relatively minor, especially compared to other game perks that SWFs can far more easily extract more coordinated value from.

    But reducing it to “small frequent vs big rare” misses the structural difference: one compounds directly into objective completion every second, the other doesn’t.

    Consistent does not equal better. Direct does not equal better. You keep saying that's not your argument, but you keep making it.

    in Damn playing a low tier killer is Horrible right now. Comment by crogers271

  • @top500spiderman said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4057080#Comment_4057080

    Let me highlight a line that I think encapsulate the issues:

    “Predictable” wasn’t being used to mean “automatically better,” it was used to explain how the value scales.

    Then why did you say predictable instead of actually demonstrating the numbers?

    You say continuous - I point out it doesn't mean better, just continuous, you say you weren't arguing that, then you go right back to it.

    You say predictable - I point out it doesn't mean better, just predictable, you say you weren't arguing that and go right back to it.

    As we'll see in your post, you really struggle to explain how these are better without just using these words as if they mean better (I'm going to hit this point a lot here)

    You keep treating this like the claim is “continuous = better,” when the actual point is about what coordination scales.

    Coordination increases sustained repair uptime, and percentage repair bonuses convert that uptime directly into objective progress. That’s a mechanical relationship, not a vocabulary argument.

    “Numbers matter” determines how big the effect is, not whether the scaling exists.

    The counter is also incredibly simple.

    There's nothing about this that is unique to gen perks. You will say you agree with that, but you never address how the gen perks are actually superior without falling back to the continuous argument.

    Your saying it’s not unique because “everything scales with coordination,” but that ignores what it scales into.

    Repair-speed bonuses scale directly into objective completion. Most other perks scale into opportunity.

    That difference is the entire point, and dismissing it as “continuous argument again” doesn’t refute it.

    Or potentially its because you keep refusing to engage with the counter arguments and keep repeating a mechanic.

    To look at scaling you need multiple elements - such as how much and what are the other possibilities?

    Your framing this as if repeating the mechanic means it’s unproven. It just means your counter hasn’t broken it.

    And “we need numbers” isn’t a rebuttal, it’s just saying you don’t like the implication of the scaling relationship.

    The mechanism is simple:
    More coordinated repair time → more seconds benefiting from percentage bonuses → more total objective progress.

    If that relationship is wrong, show where it breaks. Otherwise we’re just circling.

    It being the win condition is completely irrelevant. All the gen speed in the world won't matter if survivors are constantly being downed/eliminated (for multiple possible reasons that perks could help with)

    This is like arguing in American football teams should always throw the ball because you gain more yards that way or in basketball always go for threes because that's more points - that's silly, its a simple explanation, but just because something is simple doesn't mean its right especially when you have lots of mechanics involved.

    Calling the win condition “irrelevant” in a discussion about scaling objective completion is wild.

    And sports analogies don’t replace math.
    The claim isn’t “simple = correct.”
    It’s that the scaling relationship is structurally straightforward, whether you like the implication or not.

    We're right back to direct does not equal better.

    Correct. Direct does not automatically equal better.

    But direct does mean the effect applies to the win condition immediately and continuously.

    That matters when we’re discussing scaling under coordination.

    You’re acting like “not inherently better” means “irrelevant.” It doesn’t.

    Extra steps does not equal worse.

    Also correct.

    But extra steps introduce additional failure points and variability.

    Heals, anti-tunnel, and chase perks depend on:

    • Killer behavior
    • Hook states
    • Map position
    • Timing windows

    Repair speed bonuses depend on:

    • Survivors being on gens

    One is event-gated. The other is uptime-gated.

    Those are not structurally identical.

    If an indirect action yields a greater return than a direct action, then its better.

    Sure, if it yields a greater return.

    But that’s a numerical question, not a structural one.

    The structural point is this:

    • Conditional perks spike in isolated moments.
    • Percentage repair bonuses apply to every second of coordinated uptime.

    In coordinated high-MMR environments where uptime is already maximized, continuous scaling becomes more reliable and compounding.

    That doesn’t mean “always better.”
    It means “more sensitive to uptime increases.”

    The relevance is the outcome - continuous, predictable, direct, etc are neither inherently better or worse.

    Right, but you keep pretending the argument is about adjectives.

    It’s not.

    It’s about how value accumulates over time under coordination.

    If coordination increases total simultaneous repair uptime across four survivors, percentage bonuses extract more total value from that uptime.

    That’s not wordplay.
    That’s how scaling works.

    If you want to argue the magnitude is small, argue magnitude.

    But pretending the scaling relationship itself doesn’t matter because “direct isn’t automatically better” just sidesteps the actual point.

    Except you're distinguishing a mechanic that isn't separate.

    The more time a survivor spends on gens, the more use they'll get out of gen perks.

    The more times they heal, the more value they'll get out of heal perks.

    The more they are in chase, the more value they'll get out of chase perks.

    SWFs can hypothetically maximize the efficiency of all of these better than a soloq could via coordination. When you say describing a mechanic accurately again you're saying a part no one disagrees with, more time using perk = more value, you might as well keep repeating there's 4 survivors to 1 killer.

    You’re repeating “everything scales with use” like that ends the discussion.

    Yes, more time doing X = more value from X. No one disputes that.

    The distinction is what that value converts into.

    • Heal perks convert into survivability.
    • Chase perks convert into time.
    • Anti-tunnel converts into safety.
    • Repair bonuses convert directly into generator completion — the win condition.

    That’s the difference.

    Saying “the more time on gens, the more value you get” isn’t refuting the argument — it’s restating it.

    The point isn’t that gen perks are the only things that scale.
    It’s that when coordination increases sustained simultaneous repair uptime across multiple survivors, percentage repair bonuses apply to every second of that uptime and convert it straight into objective progress.

    Other perks can create time.
    Repair bonuses turn time into progress at a higher rate.

    That’s not “4 survivors vs 1 killer.”
    That’s explaining why certain scaling interacts more directly with the win condition.

    If you want to argue that indirect scaling produces more total objective progress in high MMR SWFs than uptime-based repair scaling does, then show that.

    But just saying “everything scales” doesn’t actually engage with the distinction being made.

    You say nobody argued otherwise, then go right into that argument.

    Immediately, repeatedly, continuous, do not equal better.

    You're saying you do not say these words mean better, but than immediately use them again as the justification for the argument.

    That's the repetition I mentioned.

    You’re still acting like I’m arguing “continuous = automatically better.”

    I’m not.

    I’m saying continuous repair bonuses scale directly with sustained uptime, and sustained uptime is exactly what coordination increases.

    That’s not a word game, that’s a mechanical relationship.

    “Immediately” and “repeatedly” aren’t being used as value judgments. They describe how the effect applies:

    • Conditional perks require a trigger.
    • Repair bonuses apply every second survivors are repairing.

    Whether that produces more total objective progress depends on how much uptime coordination creates, which is the actual debate.

    You keep reframing it as if I’m saying “continuous therefore superior,” when the claim is:

    Coordination increases sustained repair uptime →
    Repair multipliers apply to every second of that uptime →
    More total objective progress is extracted from the same multiplier.

    If you think that interaction doesn’t meaningfully contribute to the high MMR gap, argue that.

    But reducing it to “you said continuous again” isn’t engaging with the scaling argument, it’s sidestepping

    Very different ways - no one disagrees with that. It's a core concept of DbD's perk design which I've mentioned, situational perks with really strong effects, or easy to access perks with minor effects. That's not a SWF vs soloq issue. Now if you start talking about some of the situational perks, you can see a lot of much strong SWF possibilities over soloq.

    You’re reframing this as “situational vs minor effects,” when that’s not the distinction being made.

    The distinction is how value scales.

    Continuous repair bonuses scale with uptime.
    Uptime is exactly what coordination increases.

    That means coordinated teams extract more total value from the same percentage bonus than equally skilled solo teams.

    That’s not about “minor vs major.” It’s about scaling mechanics.

    And when you say “that’s a core design philosophy issue,” you’re actually conceding the structure of the argument — you’re just moving it to a broader category.

    Also, pointing out that situational perks can be strong in SWF doesn’t counter this. Yes, coordination amplifies those too. The difference is:

    • Event perks scale with event frequency.
    • Repair bonuses scale with total active repair time.
    • Generator completion is the win condition.

    So if coordination primarily increases sustained repair uptime, then the perks that scale with uptime naturally convert coordination into objective progress more consistently.

    That’s the argument. Not “predictable = better.” Not “minor > major.”
    Scaling interaction.

    And instead of doing that we're right back to

    Consistently does not equal better

    Continuous does not equal better

    Direct does not equal better

    Cumulative value from coordination over time does actually mean better, but you actually have to show the cumulative value, not just rely on all the other words.

    Additionally, you'd need to show SWFs getting more value out of something like Deja Vu over many matches compared to something like DS in comparison to what an equally skilled soloq could manage with those perks to actually demonstrate your point.

    You keep saying “show cumulative value.

    That’s exactly what sustained uptime is.

    If coordination increases total simultaneous repair time across four survivors, then percentage bonuses applied to that time naturally generate more total progress.

    Event perks scale with moments.
    Repair bonuses scale with uptime.

    Coordination increases uptime more consistently than it increases rare trigger events. .

    Let's look at my quote - rate doesn't matter without factoring in the overall value achieved.

    That should answer everything you type here. Rate, direct, continuous, predictable, etc. don't matter - what matters is the end result.

    On the last thing you type there - "total impact can be larger even if each individual gain is smaller."

    Sure, no one disagrees with that in concept.

    Demonstrating it with the perks/items that exist in game, in comparison to soloq, in comparison to what else SWFs could run is the issue.

    Rate is part of total value.

    Total value = value per second × total seconds applied.
    You can’t say “rate doesn’t matter” while asking about overall impact — rate directly determines accumulation over time.

    Small per-second gains across four coordinated survivors for an entire match can absolutely outscale large but rare effects. That’s just how scaling works.

    If you want to argue the magnitude is small, argue it.

    But dismissing rate entirely while asking for total value doesn’t make sense.

    Varies does not equal worse.

    Consistently does not equal better.

    If through coordination, a SWF gets an extra ~5 seconds out of their gen perks than they would have compared to soloq every trial, and if coordination nets them an extra 50 seconds out of using DS once every five trial compared to soloq, well on raw numbers DS wins (then we get into strategic applications of these issues which adds another layer to the discussion - because the mechanics in DbD for what is better/worse aren't actually simple)

    You’re still comparing isolated perk value instead of team-wide uptime scaling.

    Gen multipliers apply to every second of coordinated repair across multiple survivors. That compounds all match long.

    DS giving +50 seconds once every five games isn’t the same type of scaling as four survivors converting coordinated uptime into objective progress every second they’re repairing.

    This isn’t “consistent = better.”
    It’s that sustained uptime × percentage scaling accumulates continuously, not situationally.

    If you think the cumulative gain is small, quantify it.

    But treating single-event spikes and continuous team-wide scaling as equivalent math isn’t accurate.

    So I'd just be repeating myself here as this is the same things. Directly does not equal better.

    If you have a preference for predictable values whose value are more consistent, that's great. No one says you can't. But that doesn't make it objectively better.

    You keep reducing it to “direct ≠ better” like that’s the whole argument.

    The distinction isn’t preference — it’s accumulation.

    Opportunity-based perks require events.
    Repair multipliers convert every second of coordinated uptime into objective progress.

    That’s not about liking “predictable value.”
    It’s about sustained team-wide scaling versus conditional spikes.

    If you think the cumulative impact is negligible, show that.
    But pretending both scale the same way just sidesteps the mechanism.

    So this is difficult to prove/disprove because who is soloq and who is SWF is never known unless you are in the SWF or its streamers.

    I've been in soloq games where the killer accused us of gen rush despite being soloq. One or two good chases, a team of decent survivors, the gens are going to fly. I've watched SWFs become incredibly inefficient when the things don't go their way.

    But if this was the absolute best strategy, we're right back to why aren't more SWFs running it, especially in things like no limit comp matches. Or we can look to Japan were the survivors have higher escape rates and are considered far more efficent, yet they have the self heal meta were sometimes all the survivors are burning multiple perk slots on healing builds.

    At some point there should be something demonstrating this mechanic especially given the self evident nature you seem to think it has.

    Anecdotes don’t disprove scaling.

    “Yes, I’ve seen solo gens fly” just shows efficiency exists — not that coordination + uptime scaling doesn’t amplify multipliers.

    “Why aren’t more SWFs running it?” isn’t a rebuttal either. Meta choice depends on trade-offs, killer pool, map, comp rules, etc. Something not being universally spammed doesn’t mean the scaling interaction doesn’t exist.

    And saying “we can’t always tell who’s SWF” doesn’t negate the mechanism, it just limits perfect observation. The math of uptime × percentage bonus doesn’t stop working because group labels aren’t visible.

    Your reframing this as “continuous = better,” when that’s not the claim.

    The claim is about compounding. Repair-speed multipliers apply to the win condition every second survivors are repairing. Coordination increases how many total seconds that happens simultaneously across the team. That’s where the cumulative difference comes from.

    Yes, everything scales with coordination. The distinction is that some effects scale through event frequency (chases, unhooks, anti-tunnel), while repair multipliers scale through sustained uptime on the objective itself. One is conditional on specific triggers. The other compounds every second the team maintains pressure.

    Saying “show the numbers” is fair — but dismissing the scaling logic entirely because we haven’t attached a spreadsheet yet doesn’t make the mechanism disappear.

    If your position is that the total compounded gain from coordinated uptime + multipliers is negligible compared to other perks, then that’s the comparison to argue.

    But reducing it to “small frequent vs big rare” misses the structural difference: one compounds directly into objective completion every second, the other doesn’t.

    There's a character count limit, never hit that before, this will be two posts.

    We're going backwards, you keep trying to build an argument, I knock down what you bring up, and you fall back to base level mechanics as if that's the argument.

    Your big issue in this post is scaling. You've fallen back to that arguing like I somehow think it doesn't exist, despite using quotes from me that actually talk about the scaling effects.

    But just for frame of reference I said earlier - Everything scales with coordination.

    And then you agreed! You said - Yup, everything improves with coordination, but not everything converts coordination into objective completion at the same rate.

    I then went on to talk about objective completion rate relevance, which you barely touch in this post. Instead, you try to act like a mechanic is under argument that is not. We're not going in circles, you keep falling backwards out of anything that is a meaningful argument.

    Anyway onto the post.

    You keep treating this like the claim is “continuous = better,” when the actual point is about what coordination scales.

    Coordination increases sustained repair uptime, and percentage repair bonuses convert that uptime directly into objective progress. That’s a mechanical relationship, not a vocabulary argument.

    “Numbers matter” determines how big the effect is, not whether the scaling exists.

    I keep treating the argument that continuous = better because that keeps being your argument.

    Scaling isn't magical. It's math.

    Your saying it’s not unique because “everything scales with coordination,” but that ignores what it scales into.

    Repair-speed bonuses scale directly into objective completion. Most other perks scale into opportunity.

    That difference is the entire point, and dismissing it as “continuous argument again” doesn’t refute it.

    What refutes it, which I've said, is that its irrelevant on its own. As I'll repeat myself throughout the post, rate is only one component of overall value.

    Anyway, you quote me saying 'everything scales with coordination', this is the top of your post, that's going to answer a lot of your question.

    Your framing this as if repeating the mechanic means it’s unproven. It just means your counter hasn’t broken it.

    No, its been pretty thoroughly destroyed, you just keep coming back to it and I keep trying.

    And “we need numbers” isn’t a rebuttal, it’s just saying you don’t like the implication of the scaling relationship.

    Continuing to say 'scaling relationship' without addressing the numbers means you don't actually have a response to show how this is actually advantageous. You're falling back to mechanics as if that's somehow the disagreement.

    The mechanism is simple:More coordinated repair time → more seconds benefiting from percentage bonuses → more total objective progress.

    If that relationship is wrong, show where it breaks. Otherwise we’re just circling.

    Because you're stating a fact, not making an argument. Like I said, you might as well keep repeating 4 survivors, 1 killer as if that's an argument without discussing the entire game.

    Using a perk more gets more value out of it. Everyone knows that. That's not related to SWF or soloq at all and is true for multiple perks in the game.

    Calling the win condition “irrelevant” in a discussion about scaling objective completion is wild.

    And sports analogies don’t replace math.The claim isn’t “simple = correct.”It’s that the scaling relationship is structurally straightforward, whether you like the implication or not..

    Saying something is wild isn't proof, it's not even an argument. Survivors have to do multiple things in a match, you basically agree to them later in your post when talking about high MMR tradeoffs.

    As for the analogy, if you don't have a response I've gotten used to it. I've tried math, I've tried scenarios, I thought I'd give analogies a try. Hopefully at some point you engage with something.

    Correct. Direct does not automatically equal better.

    But direct does mean the effect applies to the win condition immediately and continuously.

    That matters when we’re discussing scaling under coordination.

    You’re acting like “not inherently better” means “irrelevant.” It doesn’t.

    So you say correct, then automatically try to argue the opposite.

    As for "acting like" - this is why I like to quote you, in full. You say I argue adjectives, but that's because I want to give the person an actual chance to defend what they said (what they are 'acting like'). Despite your use of quote around 'irrelevant', every time I've used it I've attached it to other numbers or overall value. Having a single number in a math equation, especially one that is multiplication, is irrelevant without the other factors.

    Also correct.

    But extra steps introduce additional failure points and variability.

    Heals, anti-tunnel, and chase perks depend on:

    • Killer behavior
    • Hook states
    • Map position
    • Timing windows

    Repair speed bonuses depend on:

    • Survivors being on gens

    One is event-gated. The other is uptime-gated.

    Again, you say correct, then try to argue the opposite.

    Simple does not equal better.

    Those are not structurally identical.

    Not only have I never said they are structurally identical, I literally went into major vs minor benefits that you've referenced in this post. The relevant factors is the overall value and strategic implications that can be gained from perks/items in multiple matches.

    Sure, if it yields a greater return.

    But that’s a numerical question, not a structural one.

    The structural point is this:

    • Conditional perks spike in isolated moments.
    • Percentage repair bonuses apply to every second of coordinated uptime.

    In coordinated high-MMR environments where uptime is already maximized, continuous scaling becomes more reliable and compounding.

    That doesn’t mean “always better.”It means “more sensitive to uptime increases.”

    Is saying sure, then arguing against what you said the theme of this post?

    My quote was - If an indirect action yields a greater return than a direct action, then its better.

    "More sensitive to uptime increases" does not make it worse. All that means is that it doesn't happen as frequently. As I've said, at some point you need to provide some numbers.

    Right, but you keep pretending the argument is about adjectives.

    It’s not.

    It’s about how value accumulates over time under coordination.

    If coordination increases total simultaneous repair uptime across four survivors, percentage bonuses extract more total value from that uptime.

    That’s not wordplay.That’s how scaling works.

    If you want to actually argue math, give some numbers on what you think the difference is. I've brought that up on a few occassions.

    If you want to argue the magnitude is small, argue magnitude.

    But pretending the scaling relationship itself doesn’t matter because “direct isn’t automatically better” just sidesteps the actual point.

    No one has ever argued scaling doesn't matter. You literally quote me in this post talking about the differences of minor vs major events. You proceed to do that right now:

    You’re reframing this as “situational vs minor effects,” when that’s not the distinction being made.

    The distinction is how value scales.

    Continuous repair bonuses scale with uptime.Uptime is exactly what coordination increases.

    That means coordinated teams extract more total value from the same percentage bonus than equally skilled solo teams.

    That’s not about “minor vs major.” It’s about scaling mechanics.

    That's still scaling mechanics, just minor vs major. In one case the team is increasing how frequently they gain a minor benefit, in the other case they are increasing how frequently they get a major benefit. You need all the numbers to discuss it.

    in Damn playing a low tier killer is Horrible right now. Comment by crogers271

  • @top500spiderman said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4056776#Comment_4056776

    Where?

    All my early post were about Gen potential in swfs and still are.

    Here's my full quote - "more like the 40th time, but at least we're getting to the point that the first posts at least weren't clear, which is progress."

    All you're changing in your response is clear to explicit - clear was more accurate.

    …? lol

    Yup, and the connection has already been explained. - No, the connection has been repeated, but never defended or explained in terms of responses.

    If I said Doctor was an S Tier killers exist and my evidence amounted to

    -S Tier killers exist

    -Doctor can blast multiple survivors off of gens, and gens are the ultimate objective

    -Therefore Doctor is S Tier

    If I just kept repeating that second line and not dealing with the actual numbers and counter scenarios everyone else proposes, that's not an explanation, its repetition without answers.

    You’re calling it “repetition” because you keep asking for an explanation that’s already been spelled out, then pretending it wasn’t.

    The mechanism isn’t complicated: coordination increases total simultaneous repair uptime, and percentage repair bonuses scale directly with how many total seconds survivors are repairing. More coordinated repair time = more value extracted from the same multiplier.

    That’s not “Doctor is S-tier because gens exist.”
    It’s basic scaling logic. If you keep hearing the same explanation, it’s not because it hasn’t been given — it’s because you keep arguing around it instead of engaging with it.

    This scaling exists for all coordination. There is nothing unique about gen perks/items.

    The complex part is very important (and why oversimplification is dangerous) because its needed to back up your argument that its the gen perks/items which are causing the difference. Without the complex part you are just saying that the more efficient the survivors are, the more value they get - that's just a true statement regardless of builds or SWF/soloq.

    Yes, scaling exists for all coordination, that’s obvious. The point isn’t that gen perks are the only thing that scale, it’s that generator progress is the win condition, and percentage repair bonuses apply directly to that objective every second survivors are repairing.

    Other coordinated advantages (heals, anti-tunnel, chase perks, etc.) are indirect, they eventually translate into gen time if things go well. Repair bonuses skip that extra step and convert uptime straight into objective progress. That’s the distinction.

    And I’m not claiming “perks alone cause the entire difference.” The point is that coordination increases repair uptime, and repair-speed multipliers amplify the value extracted from that increased uptime, meaning the same coordinated time produces more objective completion than it otherwise would.

    So yes, the “complex part” is measuring how large that effect is, but acknowledging that the interaction exists and directly compounds coordinated uptime isn’t oversimplification, it’s just describing the mechanic accurately.

    Much less predictable - So what?

    Again - a major effect that occurs every four games might be much more worthwhile than a minor effect that occurs every game.

    We're back to words matter - predictable does not equal better.

    You keep using words like predictable or continuous in place of showing that this is actually better.

    “Predictable” wasn’t being used to mean “automatically better,” it was used to explain how the value scales.

    Conditional perks can have big moments, but their value depends on specific events, nobody argued otherwise. The difference is that continuous effects apply every second survivors are performing the objective, so any coordination advantage that increases total repair uptime is converted into objective progress immediately and repeatedly, rather than depending on specific events happening first.

    So the point isn’t “predictable = better.”
    The point is that continuous effects scale directly with uptime, while conditional effects scale with event frequency, which means coordination affects their value extraction in very different ways.

    One scales frequently at a small value, one scales infrequently at a massive value.

    Without specific numbers either one of those could be preferable.

    That scenario exists for both soloq and SWF, that part isn't unique. Coordination can increase the value, but that remains true for both.

    without numbers, either can be preferable per activation. Thats not the disagreement.

    The difference is repair speed bonuses scale with total coordinated repair uptime across the entire match, while large conditional effects scale only with how often their trigger conditions occur. Coordination increases the value of both, but it raises repair uptime far more consistently than it raises rare trigger events, which is why percentage repair bonuses extract more cumulative value from coordination over time.

    So the claim isn’t that conditional perks can’t be strong, it’s that continuous objective-speed effects compound coordination more reliably, which is why their impact becomes more noticeable in highly coordinated teams even when the same perks exist in solo play.

    This is like frequency. The rate doesn't matter without factoring in the overall value achieved.

    Rate matters because rate determines how much value accumulates over the match.
    A large but rare effect can be strong per activation, but continuous objective speed effects convert every extra second of coordinated uptime into progress, so their total impact can be larger even if each individual gain is smaller.

    Option A - gives survivors more time on gens

    Option B - survivors get more out of their time on gens

    Without looking at the numbers of the value actually derived, neither of those is better or worse. Both scenarios increase the value that is drawn out of gens. There's still nothing unique about gen perks and still a lot of reasons they have less of an impact for SWFs.

    They both increase gen value, the distinction is how the value scales with coordination.

    “More time on gens” depends on events happening (injuries, chases, rescues), so the amount of extra time varies match to match.
    “More value per second on gens” applies every second survivors are repairing, so when coordination increases sustained simultaneous repair uptime, that bonus compounds continuously across the team.

    So the claim isn’t that gen perks are magically unique, it’s that objective speed multipliers scale more consistently with coordinated uptime, which is why their cumulative impact becomes more noticeable in highly coordinated groups.

     - That's how scaling works for everything. At the extreme, upper end SWFs will be a little more efficient. You try to argue that the gen perks are better from this efficiency because they are more frequent (continuous, rate, etc.), but as pointed out above it's not how frequently something occurs which is relevant, but what's the actual value derived and then (for this discussion) compared to what an equally skilled soloq would get.

    scaling exists for everythingt he distinction is where the scaling applies.

    Many coordinated benefits only create the opportunity to gain gen time and depend on events occurring. Repair speed multipliers apply directly to the objective every second survivors are repairing, so when coordinated teams maintain higher simultaneous repair uptime, the same efficiency difference is converted into more total objective progress, not just more opportunities.

    the point isnt that frequency alone decides value, it’s that objective-speed multipliers convert coordination into match progress more directly, which is why their cumulative impact becomes more visible when comparing equally skilled coordinated teams to solo play.

    Not really. Again, a high skilled soloq will be slightly less efficient than a coordinated SWF, but we're looking at small differences for gen perks (but large differences for some other perks).

    As for things that aren't perks - this is even a smaller difference. If a survivor brings a toolbox and built to last, again the SWF will help, but if a highly skilled survivor is using a gen rush build, they're going to gen rush.

    To summarize all this

    Frequent, continuous, rate, etc. aren't inherently better. To determine what's better the total derived value needs to be looked at.

    The more efficient survivors are, the better. At the extreme upper end, coordinated SWFs will be more efficient than the equivalent soloq, but that efficiency is shown in all elements of the game.

    For comparisons of what you propose, you need some standard for how much you think coordinated SWFs are gaining over an equally skilled soloq. That could then be compared to other possible builds. I think gen perks/items provide one of the smallest levels of benefit on the SWF to soloq comparison.

    All of that then has to be discussed in how trials actually occur, which brings up issues like trade offs, differing killers, etc.

    yea, efficiency improves everything that’s not the revelation you think it is. The point isn’t that gen perks are the only thing affected by coordination, it’s that they’re the one category that converts that efficiency directly into win condition progress every single second.

    Heals, saves, information, anti-tunnel, all of those eventually translate into gen time if things go well. Repair-speed multipliers don’t need a “maybe later” step, they’re already sitting on the objective bar, turning every extra second of coordinated uptime into progress immediately.

    So when you say “we’re looking at small differences,” you’re treating those seconds like they happen once. They don’t. They happen simultaneously across multiple survivors for the entire match, which is exactly why the cumulative effect shows up at the coordination ceiling.

    Nobody is arguing that coordination doesn’t help everything. That’s obvious. The point, the one you keep circling around is that objective speed multipliers are the place where that efficiency compounds continuously, not occasionally. Calling that “one of the smallest benefits” without accounting for how many total seconds those bonuses are active is just hand waving the scaling away instead of actually addressing it.

    Let me highlight a line that I think encapsulate the issues:

    “Predictable” wasn’t being used to mean “automatically better,” it was used to explain how the value scales.

    Then why did you say predictable instead of actually demonstrating the numbers?

    You say continuous - I point out it doesn't mean better, just continuous, you say you weren't arguing that, then you go right back to it.

    You say predictable - I point out it doesn't mean better, just predictable, you say you weren't arguing that and go right back to it.

    As we'll see in your post, you really struggle to explain how these are better without just using these words as if they mean better (I'm going to hit this point a lot here)

    The mechanism isn’t complicated: coordination increases total simultaneous repair uptime, and percentage repair bonuses scale directly with how many total seconds survivors are repairing. More coordinated repair time = more value extracted from the same multiplier.

    The counter is also incredibly simple.

    There's nothing about this that is unique to gen perks. You will say you agree with that, but you never address how the gen perks are actually superior without falling back to the continuous argument.

    It’s basic scaling logic. If you keep hearing the same explanation, it’s not because it hasn’t been given — it’s because you keep arguing around it instead of engaging with it.

    Or potentially its because you keep refusing to engage with the counter arguments and keep repeating a mechanic.

    To look at scaling you need multiple elements - such as how much and what are the other possibilities?

    Yes, scaling exists for all coordination, that’s obvious. The point isn’t that gen perks are the only thing that scale, it’s that generator progress is the win condition, and percentage repair bonuses apply directly to that objective every second survivors are repairing.

    It being the win condition is completely irrelevant. All the gen speed in the world won't matter if survivors are constantly being downed/eliminated (for multiple possible reasons that perks could help with)

    This is like arguing in American football teams should always throw the ball because you gain more yards that way or in basketball always go for threes because that's more points - that's silly, its a simple explanation, but just because something is simple doesn't mean its right especially when you have lots of mechanics involved.

    Other coordinated advantages (heals, anti-tunnel, chase perks, etc.) are indirect, they eventually translate into gen time if things go well. Repair bonuses skip that extra step and convert uptime straight into objective progress. That’s the distinction.

    We're right back to direct does not equal better.

    Extra steps does not equal worse.

    If an indirect action yields a greater return than a direct action, then its better. The relevance is the outcome - continuous, predictable, direct, etc are neither inherently better or worse.

    And I’m not claiming “perks alone cause the entire difference.” The point is that coordination increases repair uptime, and repair-speed multipliers amplify the value extracted from that increased uptime, meaning the same coordinated time produces more objective completion than it otherwise would.

    So yes, the “complex part” is measuring how large that effect is, but acknowledging that the interaction exists and directly compounds coordinated uptime isn’t oversimplification, it’s just describing the mechanic accurately.

    Except you're distinguishing a mechanic that isn't separate.

    The more time a survivor spends on gens, the more use they'll get out of gen perks.

    The more times they heal, the more value they'll get out of heal perks.

    The more they are in chase, the more value they'll get out of chase perks.

    SWFs can hypothetically maximize the efficiency of all of these better than a soloq could via coordination. When you say describing a mechanic accurately again you're saying a part no one disagrees with, more time using perk = more value, you might as well keep repeating there's 4 survivors to 1 killer.

    Conditional perks can have big moments, but their value depends on specific events, nobody argued otherwise. The difference is that continuous effects apply every second survivors are performing the objective, so any coordination advantage that increases total repair uptime is converted into objective progress immediately and repeatedly, rather than depending on specific events happening first.

    You say nobody argued otherwise, then go right into that argument.

    Immediately, repeatedly, continuous, do not equal better.

    You're saying you do not say these words mean better, but than immediately use them again as the justification for the argument.

    That's the repetition I mentioned.

    So the point isn’t “predictable = better.”

    The point is that continuous effects scale directly with uptime, while conditional effects scale with event frequency, which means coordination affects their value extraction in very different ways.

    Very different ways - no one disagrees with that. It's a core concept of DbD's perk design which I've mentioned, situational perks with really strong effects, or easy to access perks with minor effects. That's not a SWF vs soloq issue. Now if you start talking about some of the situational perks, you can see a lot of much strong SWF possibilities over soloq.

    without numbers, either can be preferable per activation. Thats not the disagreement.

    Either can be preferable? Okay, great, we're at the point that we actually have to compare perks. Let's see where we go from here.

    The difference is repair speed bonuses scale with total coordinated repair uptime across the entire match, while large conditional effects scale only with how often their trigger conditions occur. Coordination increases the value of both, but it raises repair uptime far more consistently than it raises rare trigger events, which is why percentage repair bonuses extract more cumulative value from coordination over time.

    So the claim isn’t that conditional perks can’t be strong, it’s that continuous objective-speed effects compound coordination more reliably, which is why their impact becomes more noticeable in highly coordinated teams even when the same perks exist in solo play.

    And instead of doing that we're right back to

    Consistently does not equal better

    Continuous does not equal better

    Direct does not equal better

    Cumulative value from coordination over time does actually mean better, but you actually have to show the cumulative value, not just rely on all the other words.

    Additionally, you'd need to show SWFs getting more value out of something like Deja Vu over many matches compared to something like DS in comparison to what an equally skilled soloq could manage with those perks to actually demonstrate your point.

    This is like frequency. The rate doesn't matter without factoring in the overall value achieved.

    Rate matters because rate determines how much value accumulates over the match.
    A large but rare effect can be strong per activation, but continuous objective speed effects convert every extra second of coordinated uptime into progress, so their total impact can be larger even if each individual gain is smaller.

    Let's look at my quote - rate doesn't matter without factoring in the overall value achieved.

    That should answer everything you type here. Rate, direct, continuous, predictable, etc. don't matter - what matters is the end result.

    On the last thing you type there - "total impact can be larger even if each individual gain is smaller."

    Sure, no one disagrees with that in concept.

    Demonstrating it with the perks/items that exist in game, in comparison to soloq, in comparison to what else SWFs could run is the issue.

    They both increase gen value, the distinction is how the value scales with coordination.

    “More time on gens” depends on events happening (injuries, chases, rescues), so the amount of extra time varies match to match.
    “More value per second on gens” applies every second survivors are repairing, so when coordination increases sustained simultaneous repair uptime, that bonus compounds continuously across the team.

    So the claim isn’t that gen perks are magically unique, it’s that objective speed multipliers scale more consistently with coordinated uptime, which is why their cumulative impact becomes more noticeable in highly coordinated groups.

    Varies does not equal worse.

    Consistently does not equal better.

    If through coordination, a SWF gets an extra ~5 seconds out of their gen perks than they would have compared to soloq every trial, and if coordination nets them an extra 50 seconds out of using DS once every five trial compared to soloq, well on raw numbers DS wins (then we get into strategic applications of these issues which adds another layer to the discussion - because the mechanics in DbD for what is better/worse aren't actually simple)

    scaling exists for everythingt he distinction is where the scaling applies.

    Many coordinated benefits only create the opportunity to gain gen time and depend on events occurring. Repair speed multipliers apply directly to the objective every second survivors are repairing, so when coordinated teams maintain higher simultaneous repair uptime, the same efficiency difference is converted into more total objective progress, not just more opportunities.

    the point isnt that frequency alone decides value, it’s that objective-speed multipliers convert coordination into match progress more directly,

    So I'd just be repeating myself here as this is the same things. Directly does not equal better.

    If you have a preference for predictable values whose value are more consistent, that's great. No one says you can't. But that doesn't make it objectively better.

    which is why their cumulative impact becomes more visible when comparing equally skilled coordinated teams to solo pla

    So this is difficult to prove/disprove because who is soloq and who is SWF is never known unless you are in the SWF or its streamers.

    I've been in soloq games where the killer accused us of gen rush despite being soloq. One or two good chases, a team of decent survivors, the gens are going to fly. I've watched SWFs become incredibly inefficient when the things don't go their way.

    But if this was the absolute best strategy, we're right back to why aren't more SWFs running it, especially in things like no limit comp matches. Or we can look to Japan were the survivors have higher escape rates and are considered far more efficent, yet they have the self heal meta were sometimes all the survivors are burning multiple perk slots on healing builds.

    At some point there should be something demonstrating this mechanic especially given the self evident nature you seem to think it has.

    yea, efficiency improves everything that’s not the revelation you think it is. The point isn’t that gen perks are the only thing affected by coordination, it’s that they’re the one category that converts that efficiency directly into win condition progress every single second.

    The revelation should be 'that doesn't matter'.

    You're right back to arguing that continuous equals better. Without getting into numbers on overall value achieved, the distinction is irrelevant.

    Heals, saves, information, anti-tunnel, all of those eventually translate into gen time if things go well. Repair-speed multipliers don’t need a “maybe later” step, they’re already sitting on the objective bar, turning every extra second of coordinated uptime into progress immediately.

    We're back to trade-offs.

    The problem with the 'maybe later' scenario is what do the survivors do if that situation arises and they aren't prepared for it? This is back to the idea as well that with how you define things, gen perks are also conditional. If a survivor needs anti-tunnel, and doesn't have anti-tunnel, that maybe later becomes extremely important.

    And many of these things, such as heals, unhooks, chases, happen in the vast majority of DbD matches.

    So when you say “we’re looking at small differences,” you’re treating those seconds like they happen once. They don’t. They happen simultaneously across multiple survivors for the entire match, which is exactly why the cumulative effect shows up at the coordination ceiling.

    Literally doesn't reflect anything I've typed. You even quoted me above connected rate to overall impact.

    Rate x value x frequency = overall value compared to the same scenario for soloq.

    Nobody is arguing that coordination doesn’t help everything. That’s obvious. The point, the one you keep circling around is that objective speed multipliers are the place where that efficiency compounds continuously, not occasionally. Calling that “one of the smallest benefits” without accounting for how many total seconds those bonuses are active is just hand waving the scaling away instead of actually addressing it.

    Continuously does not equal better.

    Again, if the argument is not you are saying these things are better, you need to stop relying them as a substitute for better.

    Presuming small benefits over multiple seconds outweigh less frequent large benefits is pretending in an argument instead of making it.

    Again, I've laid out multiple examples (as have others) of what SWFs might actually achieve with these perks. You have not. How many extras seconds of repair time do think a coordinated SWF is gaining on average over an equally skilled soloq? If you actually have a starting point on numbers and how many perks you thinks a SWF should be/are dedicating as gen perks, that actually gives you points for comparison. If you actually look at real number possibilities, you have to imagine some truly extreme scenarios to make these gen perks/items seem to have anything more than a minor impact in comparison to soloq.

    in Damn playing a low tier killer is Horrible right now. Comment by crogers271

  • Presuming you are on the same server as your friend, could just be differing MMRs. While MMR is much looser, they say it still exists, so maybe he's at a killer MMR where more killers are needed.

    in is there a way to somehow make your que time shorter for 2v8 Comment by crogers271

  • @top500spiderman said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4056519#Comment_4056519

    It was present early - where?

    In the same place the mechanic has been the entire time, coordination increases simultaneous repair uptime, which means more total seconds where multiple survivors are repairing at once. Thats the variable percentage repair bonuses scale from.

    percentage repair bonuses scale with that uptime - as gets brought up throughout this post, why is that relevant compared to any other type of coordination?

    Because generator repair is the match ending objective, and repair bonuses apply directly to the time spent performing that objective. Many other coordination benefits (heals, rescues, protections, etc.) are indirect, they may eventually translate into gen time, but repair bonuses convert coordinated repair uptime into objective progress immediately and continuously.

    the first posts at least weren’t clear

    Clarifying wording later doesn’t mean the mechanic suddenly appeared later, it just means the explanation became more explicit as the discussion kept circling around phrasing instead of the mechanic being discussed

    People are very aware that gen perks exist. That's not an example, that's a factual statement, much like someone just listing killers. The fact that something exists doesn't show a connection, an argument is you demonstrating that connection.

    Yup, and the connection has already been explained. The point isn’t just that perks exist, it’s that coordinated teams maintain higher simultaneous repair uptime, and percentage-based repair bonuses scale directly with that uptime. That’s the link being argued, coordination increases active repair time, and the bonuses gain more total value from it.

    What do your examples accomplish? How do they further your argument? Again, gen perks exist, that's not an example unless you can demonstrate that the perk has some broken effect for SWFs over soloq.

    They show that the perk doesn’t need to be broken.
    When coordinated teams maintain higher simultaneous repair uptime, percentage based repair bonuses are active for more total seconds, which converts into more total objective progress from the same perk. Thats the connection the examples were pointing to.

    The math is actually very simple: percentage repair bonuses increase progress per second of repair time. If coordinated teams spend more total seconds repairing simultaneously, those bonuses apply for more seconds. More seconds × the same percentage bonus = more total progress. Not exactly advanced calculus.

    Your calling it oversimplifying, but the relationship itself really is simple, percentage repair bonuses scale with total active repair time. The complex part is measuring how much coordinated teams increase that uptime, not wether the scaling exists.

    And that’s the key point, even if the per perk gain looks small in isolation, uptime differences apply across multiple survivors simultaneously over the entire match, which is why the accumulated value shows up much more clearly at high coordination levels than in equally skilled solo play.

    We're back to the idea that words are important. Conditional does not mean worse. It just means conditional. Continuous does not mean better, it just means continuous.

    The reason you are saying it doesn't make sense is you are treating the perks as if they give you the same raw level of value (and thus frequency could be used to determine value). As has been repeated, that's not true and conditional perks tend to have massive values. Out of four matches, DS may only get value in one match, but that value might be an extra 15 to 45 seconds of chase time. Deja Vu might get value in all four matches, but it might might net ~5 seconds a match.

    Both those perks would benefit from coordination. If anything, DS would benefit far more because all survivors would know it exists so they wouldn't have to waste time with body blocks allowing them to extract far more time from it.

    By that note, if we're going to the extremes you seem to be, even gen perks are conditional. They are conditional depending on a survivor not being otherwise occupied (chased, downed, on hook) to be on gens.

    The point isn’t that “continuous = better,” it’s that continuous effects scale directly with uptime, while conditional effects scale with event frequency, which is much less predictable.

    A perk like DS can swing a single moment massively, but it doesn’t apply value every second of the match. Repair speed bonuses do, every additional second of coordinated repair time converts immediately into additional objective progress.

    So yes, both are conditional in the broadest sense, but they scale very differently, one depends on specific events happening, the other depends on how efficiently survivors maintain repair uptime, thats is exactly what coordination increases.

    Everything scales with coordination.

    If survivors coordinate their heals better with healing perks, they get more value out of them. If they coordinate chases, they get more value. If they coordinate anti-tunnel, they get a lot more value.

    Yup, everything improves with coordination, but not everything converts coordination into objective completion at the same rate.

    Heals, anti-tunnel, or chase perks increase opportunity to do gens.
    Repair-speed bonuses increase the rate of generator completion itself.

    That difference is why repair speed scaling matters, when coordination increases sustained repair uptime across multiple survivors, percentage repair bonuses apply to every second of that increased uptime, turning coordination directly into faster objective progress rather than indirectly enabling it.

    Percents aren't magic or unique to gens.

    If coordination allows a survivor to get an extra 5 seconds on gens, and they have deja, that's 0.3 charges.

    If coordination allows a survivor to use a We'll Make It one more time than they would have in soloq, that's 8 seconds per survivor, which is both a lot more in pure time and has the strategic value of getting healed quicker. You seem to be arguing that even if a gen perk gave a 1% bonus it would be broken for SWFs, when that should be, at least, obviously absurd.

    That's why you need a math answer that looks at total value extracted and frequency of occurrence in comparison to an equally skilled soloq, because the simplicity of what you are laying out collapses really quickly when looking at actual game scenarios.

    Thats the whole point, the comparison variable is total coordinated repair time.

    When a percentage bonus is applied across more total seconds of simultaneous repair, it naturally produces more total objective progress than when its applied across less repair uptime. There’s nothing “mystical” about that, it’s just how scaling works.

    And to be clear, the argument was never that “any percentage bonus is automatically broken.”
    The point is that percentage based repair bonuses scale directly with coordinated uptime, which means coordinated swfs extract more total value from the same multipliers than equally skilled solo teams.
    That scaling effect, not the existence of the bonuses themselves.

    If that's all we're talking about, we're looking at really small levels of improvement compared to an equally skilled soloq. The benefits gained are going to be incredibly minor from gen perks over a soloq, especially when compared to what else SWFs could be using that soloq would struggle with.

    Small per second gains don’t remain small when four survivors apply them across an entire match. Coordinated uptime turns the same percentage bonuses into more total objective progress. Also gen multipliers aren't just limited to perks.

    In the same place the mechanic has been the entire time, coordination increases simultaneous repair uptime, which means more total seconds where multiple survivors are repairing at once. 

    Where?

    We've gone from pretending away to pretending in. Which takes us to:

    the first posts at least weren’t clear

    Clarifying wording later doesn’t mean the mechanic suddenly appeared later, it just means the explanation became more explicit as the discussion kept circling around phrasing instead of the mechanic being discussed

    Here's my full quote - "more like the 40th time, but at least we're getting to the point that the first posts at least weren't clear, which is progress."

    All you're changing in your response is clear to explicit - clear was more accurate.

    Yup, and the connection has already been explained. The point isn’t just that perks exist, it’s that coordinated teams maintain higher simultaneous repair uptime, and percentage-based repair bonuses scale directly with that uptime. That’s the link being argued, coordination increases active repair time, and the bonuses gain more total value from it.

    Yup, and the connection has already been explained. - No, the connection has been repeated, but never defended or explained in terms of responses.

    If I said Doctor was an S Tier killers exist and my evidence amounted to

    -S Tier killers exist

    -Doctor can blast multiple survivors off of gens, and gens are the ultimate objective

    -Therefore Doctor is S Tier

    If I just kept repeating that second line and not dealing with the actual numbers and counter scenarios everyone else proposes, that's not an explanation, its repetition without answers.

    Your calling it oversimplifying, but the relationship itself really is simple, percentage repair bonuses scale with total active repair time. The complex part is measuring how much coordinated teams increase that uptime, not wether the scaling exists.

    This scaling exists for all coordination. There is nothing unique about gen perks/items.

    The complex part is very important (and why oversimplification is dangerous) because its needed to back up your argument that its the gen perks/items which are causing the difference. Without the complex part you are just saying that the more efficient the survivors are, the more value they get - that's just a true statement regardless of builds or SWF/soloq.

    The point isn’t that “continuous = better,” it’s that continuous effects scale directly with uptime, while conditional effects scale with event frequency, which is much less predictable.

    Much less predictable - So what?

    Again - a major effect that occurs every four games might be much more worthwhile than a minor effect that occurs every game.

    We're back to words matter - predictable does not equal better.

    You keep using words like predictable or continuous in place of showing that this is actually better.

    A perk like DS can swing a single moment massively, but it doesn’t apply value every second of the match. Repair speed bonuses do, every additional second of coordinated repair time converts immediately into additional objective progress.

    So yes, both are conditional in the broadest sense, but they scale very differently, one depends on specific events happening, the other depends on how efficiently survivors maintain repair uptime, thats is exactly what coordination increases.

    One scales frequently at a small value, one scales infrequently at a massive value.

    Without specific numbers either one of those could be preferable.

    That scenario exists for both soloq and SWF, that part isn't unique. Coordination can increase the value, but that remains true for both.

    Yup, everything improves with coordination, but not everything converts coordination into objective completion at the same rate.

    This is like frequency. The rate doesn't matter without factoring in the overall value achieved.

    Heals, anti-tunnel, or chase perks increase opportunity to do gens.
    Repair-speed bonuses increase the rate of generator completion itself.

    That difference is why repair speed scaling matters, when coordination increases sustained repair uptime across multiple survivors, percentage repair bonuses apply to every second of that increased uptime, turning coordination directly into faster objective progress rather than indirectly enabling it.

    Option A - gives survivors more time on gens

    Option B - survivors get more out of their time on gens

    Without looking at the numbers of the value actually derived, neither of those is better or worse. Both scenarios increase the value that is drawn out of gens. There's still nothing unique about gen perks and still a lot of reasons they have less of an impact for SWFs.

    Thats the whole point, the comparison variable is total coordinated repair time.

    When a percentage bonus is applied across more total seconds of simultaneous repair, it naturally produces more total objective progress than when its applied across less repair uptime. There’s nothing “mystical” about that, it’s just how scaling works.

    And to be clear, the argument was never that “any percentage bonus is automatically broken.”
    The point is that percentage based repair bonuses scale directly with coordinated uptime, which means coordinated swfs extract more total value from the same multipliers than equally skilled solo teams.
    That scaling effect, not the existence of the bonuses themselves.

    That's how scaling works - That's how scaling works for everything. At the extreme, upper end SWFs will be a little more efficient. You try to argue that the gen perks are better from this efficiency because they are more frequent (continuous, rate, etc.), but as pointed out above it's not how frequently something occurs which is relevant, but what's the actual value derived and then (for this discussion) compared to what an equally skilled soloq would get.

    Small per second gains don’t remain small when four survivors apply them across an entire match. Coordinated uptime turns the same percentage bonuses into more total objective progress. Also gen multipliers aren't just limited to perks.

    Not really. Again, a high skilled soloq will be slightly less efficient than a coordinated SWF, but we're looking at small differences for gen perks (but large differences for some other perks).

    As for things that aren't perks - this is even a smaller difference. If a survivor brings a toolbox and built to last, again the SWF will help, but if a highly skilled survivor is using a gen rush build, they're going to gen rush.

    To summarize all this

    Frequent, continuous, rate, etc. aren't inherently better. To determine what's better the total derived value needs to be looked at.

    The more efficient survivors are, the better. At the extreme upper end, coordinated SWFs will be more efficient than the equivalent soloq, but that efficiency is shown in all elements of the game.

    For comparisons of what you propose, you need some standard for how much you think coordinated SWFs are gaining over an equally skilled soloq. That could then be compared to other possible builds. I think gen perks/items provide one of the smallest levels of benefit on the SWF to soloq comparison.

    All of that then has to be discussed in how trials actually occur, which brings up issues like trade offs, differing killers, etc.

    in Damn playing a low tier killer is Horrible right now. Comment by crogers271

  • @cogsturning said:

    I'm curious what everyone's preferred class is, and why.

    In half my matches, I'm the only GuIde, and the class feels really under-appreciated. Not only can I summon players to key gens but I can stick my blastmine on a nearby gen to either summon more people to that one or to keep an eye on it to get a read on killer location when they kick it. Or I can wiretap a middle one with minimal progress that the killers are unlikely to bother kicking. I've had a number of matches where all the gens left are on one side except one and I can get the survivors to help me with that last, isolated gen. It's more macro to me than something like Medic or Escapist.

     I've had a number of matches where all the gens left are on one side except one and I can get the survivors to help me with that last, isolated gen

    I've had a number of trials were we're all throwing ourselves at the gens on one side, trying to spread them out, the killers intensely defending, and then after many minutes of doing this, finally the Guide is like 'hey guys, over here!'.

    in Favorite survivor class in 2v8 Comment by crogers271

  • Medic is my most frequent played, also probably my strongest. Having someone dedicated to getting survivors unhooked and healed up is very beneficial.

    Scout is probably the most fun, in part because of how unique it is, trying to spot killers for the team and rebuilding pallets.

    in Favorite survivor class in 2v8 Comment by crogers271

  • @top500spiderman said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4056251#Comment_4056251

    Okay, where was the thesis present early? Because you're asking people to wade through a lot of other nonsense to try and dig out what you meant.

    It was present early, coordination increases repair uptime, and percentage repair bonuses scale with that uptime. Reexplaining the same point later doesnt mean it suddenly appeared there, it just means it was spelled out more clearly the second time.

    You're confusing the argument with the conclusion. Examples, evidence, reasons, etc. establish why a conclusion should be believed

    The examples were the reasoning. They showed coordination → more simultaneous repair uptime → more total repair time benefiting from percentage bonuses. Thats not confusing argument and conclusion, thats literally how arguments work.

    Here’s an example of pretending away.

    Nothing is being “pretended away.” Whats happening is that examples are being treated like they were the entire thesis, and then the clarification is being treated like a contradiction. That only works if you ignore what the examples were illustrating in the first place.

    Your argument isn't making math sense.

    The math is actually very simple: percentage repair bonuses increase progress per second of repair time. If coordinated teams spend more total seconds repairing simultaneously, those bonuses apply for more seconds. More seconds × the same percentage bonus = more total progress. Not exactly advanced calculus.

    Increasing the speed at any point of the equation can net the same result. There's nothing unique about the final element

    Except the “final element” is a continuous objective that applies every second survivors are repairing. Earlier steps like heals or chase duration are conditional. Treating conditional boosts and continuous uptime scaling as identical is the part that doesnt make sense here.

    Otherwise this is just back to the same issue - some perks provide small, easy to gain value, others have situational but large value.

    Right, and the point being made isnt that gen perks are magically stronger in isolation, but that percentage based repair bonuses scale directly with sustained repair uptime. When coordination increases that uptime, the total value extracted from those bonuses increases too. Pretty straightforward interaction.

    As a logical argument, it fails without a math explanation that can then be compared to other possibilities.

    The comparison variable is total coordinated repair time. Apply a percentage bonus to a larger amount of repair time and you get proportionally more total progress. That’s the math being referenced, not a hidden spreadsheet somewhere.

    if we're not discussing the potential SWF benefit of finding gens, what mechanic do you think SWFs are able to use that gives them more coordinated repair uptime?

    Communication and coordination reduce overlap, improve splitting, and minimize downtime between repairs, which keeps multiple survivors repairing simultaneously more consistently. That’s the mechanism, not some mysterious hidden tech, just coordinated efficiency being applied to a continuous objective.

    It was present early, coordination increases repair uptime, and percentage repair bonuses scale with that uptime. Reexplaining the same point later doesnt mean it suddenly appeared there, it just means it was spelled out more clearly the second time.

    It was present early - where?

    Coordination increases repair uptime - I'll get to this at the end

    percentage repair bonuses scale with that uptime - as gets brought up throughout this post, why is that relevant compared to any other type of coordination?

    it just means it was spelled out more clearly the second time - more like the 40th time, but at least we're getting to the point that the first posts at least weren't clear, which is progress.

    The examples were the reasoning. They showed coordination → more simultaneous repair uptime → more total repair time benefiting from percentage bonuses. Thats not confusing argument and conclusion, thats literally how arguments work.

    People are very aware that gen perks exist. That's not an example, that's a factual statement, much like someone just listing killers. The fact that something exists doesn't show a connection, an argument is you demonstrating that connection.

    Nothing is being “pretended away.” Whats happening is that examples are being treated like they were the entire thesis, and then the clarification is being treated like a contradiction. That only works if you ignore what the examples were illustrating in the first place.

    What do your examples accomplish? How do they further your argument? Again, gen perks exist, that's not an example unless you can demonstrate that the perk has some broken effect for SWFs over soloq.

    The math is actually very simple: percentage repair bonuses increase progress per second of repair time. If coordinated teams spend more total seconds repairing simultaneously, those bonuses apply for more seconds. More seconds × the same percentage bonus = more total progress. Not exactly advanced calculus.

    It's not advanced because you are overly simplifying a complex scenario into a base level equation.

    And even if we take it just as this simple, you still need to determine how many seconds a coordinated SWF would achieve on gens over a similarly skilled soloq, then determine the value gained from gen perks. You get some incredibly small values without going for truly extreme scenarios - and then we're right back to trade offs.

    Except the “final element” is a continuous objective that applies every second survivors are repairing. Earlier steps like heals or chase duration are conditional. Treating conditional boosts and continuous uptime scaling as identical is the part that doesnt make sense here.

    We're back to the idea that words are important. Conditional does not mean worse. It just means conditional. Continuous does not mean better, it just means continuous.

    The reason you are saying it doesn't make sense is you are treating the perks as if they give you the same raw level of value (and thus frequency could be used to determine value). As has been repeated, that's not true and conditional perks tend to have massive values. Out of four matches, DS may only get value in one match, but that value might be an extra 15 to 45 seconds of chase time. Deja Vu might get value in all four matches, but it might might net ~5 seconds a match.

    Both those perks would benefit from coordination. If anything, DS would benefit far more because all survivors would know it exists so they wouldn't have to waste time with body blocks allowing them to extract far more time from it.

    By that note, if we're going to the extremes you seem to be, even gen perks are conditional. They are conditional depending on a survivor not being otherwise occupied (chased, downed, on hook) to be on gens.

    Right, and the point being made isnt that gen perks are magically stronger in isolation, but that percentage based repair bonuses scale directly with sustained repair uptime. When coordination increases that uptime, the total value extracted from those bonuses increases too. Pretty straightforward interaction.

    Everything scales with coordination.

    If survivors coordinate their heals better with healing perks, they get more value out of them. If they coordinate chases, they get more value. If they coordinate anti-tunnel, they get a lot more value.

    See above that conditional does not mean worse. This continues with:

    The comparison variable is total coordinated repair time. Apply a percentage bonus to a larger amount of repair time and you get proportionally more total progress. That’s the math being referenced, not a hidden spreadsheet somewhere.

    Percents aren't magic or unique to gens.

    If coordination allows a survivor to get an extra 5 seconds on gens, and they have deja, that's 0.3 charges.

    If coordination allows a survivor to use a We'll Make It one more time than they would have in soloq, that's 8 seconds per survivor, which is both a lot more in pure time and has the strategic value of getting healed quicker. You seem to be arguing that even if a gen perk gave a 1% bonus it would be broken for SWFs, when that should be, at least, obviously absurd.

    That's why you need a math answer that looks at total value extracted and frequency of occurrence in comparison to an equally skilled soloq, because the simplicity of what you are laying out collapses really quickly when looking at actual game scenarios.

    Communication and coordination reduce overlap, improve splitting, and minimize downtime between repairs, which keeps multiple survivors repairing simultaneously more consistently. That’s the mechanism, not some mysterious hidden tech, just coordinated efficiency being applied to a continuous objective.

    If that's all we're talking about, we're looking at really small levels of improvement compared to an equally skilled soloq. The benefits gained are going to be incredibly minor from gen perks over a soloq, especially when compared to what else SWFs could be using that soloq would struggle with.

    in Damn playing a low tier killer is Horrible right now. Comment by crogers271

  • It would probably be more of a nerf, the time taken to draw out the path would be much better served just playing as Nemi. The strength of zombies comes from the passive ability to just harass survivors and distract them.

    The roar ability is a neat idea. Given zombie speeds I don't know how frequently it would actually make a difference, especially when we getting into weighting the roar over the zombie already having a target, but a neat idea.

    in Should Nemesis be able to control his zombies? Comment by crogers271

  • @top500spiderman said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4056042#Comment_4056042

    A thesis should come early in a point. Especially with disagreement from multiple parties, going multiple pages into a thread before saying what you mean is silly.

    The thesis was present early, coordination increases repair uptime, and repair speed multipliers scale with that uptime. Rephrasing it later didn’t create a new claim, it clarified the same one.

    When laying out examples, you should tie them to the thesis, not imply the examples are the entire argument.

    They were tied to the thesis, examples showed how multiplier scaling behaves under coordination. Treating examples as the thesis is the misread, not the argument itself. This is your word argument all over again.

    You laid out examples anticipating what would be said a week later? Sure seems like it would be easier to just make your point then and save the time.

    The point was made then, examples were supporting evidence illustrating the interaction, not a replacement for the claim.

    Examples are a type of evidence that are tied to a thesis. So are High MMR SWFs creating a problem with Full Circuit?

    The claim was never “Full Circuit creates the problem,” but that coordination increases uptime and multipliers amplify the value extracted from that uptime regardless of the specific perk.

    Here’s an example of pretending away.

    Restating the same mechanic repeatedly isnt “pretending away”; it’s keeping the discussion on the actual interaction being debated.

    Coordinated aura call outs read to more time in chase = more time on gens

    Correct, which increases total repair uptime, the exact variable that percentage repair bonuses scale with.

    Better coordinated heals lead to faster heals = more time on gens

    Again correct, and that increased repair time is precisely where multiplier scaling produces additional objective progress.

    Better coordinated use of anti-tunnel = more time on gens

    Same principle: coordination raises sustained uptime, which increases the total value gained from percentage based repair bonuses.

    You also love to say multiplier without ever getting into the math. It ipso facto that the perks are broken in the hands of SWFs. What perk(s) are we talking about and how much extra charges do you think a SWF is actually getting in comparison to soloq?

    The argument does not depend on a specific perk being “broken”; it concerns the scaling interaction itself, more coordinated repair time means more seconds benefiting from any percentage-based repair modifier, increasing total progress extracted from the same match time.

    Okay, so you were really wrong when you said early - ‘Gen potential is the real issue, lower it. Nobody should be popping a gen by themselves in 30 sum seconds.’

    That statement addressed baseline generator speed concerns, the current discussion explains why coordination plus multipliers amplifies generator completion speed beyond baseline.

    How are the survivors coordinating repair time in a way that is so substantially different from soloq that these perks become the problem?

    Coordination reduces overlap, downtime, and idle movement, producing higher sustained simultaneous repair uptime, which directly increases the total value extracted from percentage based repair bonuses.

    Its not hard for soloq to get on gens, especially if we limit this discussion to high MMR.

    Access to generators isnt the distinction, sustained simultaneous repair uptime across multiple survivors is.

    If coordination allows longer chases, or faster heals, or keeping a survivor in the match - all of those improve the survivor's chance of escaping. There's nothing unique about the ‘percentage bonuses’

    Those effects increase repair uptime, percentage repair bonuses uniquely scale with the total amount of time survivors are actively repairing, which is why the interaction matters.

    Okay, how much?

    Across four survivors, small uptime gains applied continuously over an entire match accumulate into meaningful additional generator progress because the bonuses apply every second survivors are repairing.

    Those events happen. We're right back to this being a normal part of DbD - some perks provide small but easy to access benefits, other perks provide powerful, but situational benefits.

    Generator repair is a continuous action rather than an event based one, which is exactly why uptime scaling percentage bonuses accumulate more consistently over time.

    Higher, lower, or the same? What's your answer?

    Higher, because coordination already increases repair uptime, and percentage repair bonuses increase the amount of progress gained during that increased uptime.

    And at some point this should be backed up by evidence of some sort.

    The evidence is the mechanical interaction itself- percentage based repair bonuses scale directly with the amount of time survivors are actively repairing, and coordination increases that repair time.

    No, getting on gens is easy. Of all the things coordination helps with, this is one of the least improved.

    Finding generators is not the improvement being discussed, sustained coordinated repair uptime, how long multiple survivors remain repairing simultaneously without downtime, is.

    The thesis was present early, coordination increases repair uptime, and repair speed multipliers scale with that uptime. Rephrasing it later didn’t create a new claim, it clarified the same one.

    Okay, where was the thesis present early? Because you're asking people to wade through a lot of other nonsense to try and dig out what you meant.

    They were tied to the thesis, examples showed how multiplier scaling behaves under coordination. Treating examples as the thesis is the misread, not the argument itself. This is your word argument all over again.

    The point was made then, examples were supporting evidence illustrating the interaction, not a replacement for the claim.

    The claim was never “Full Circuit creates the problem,” but that coordination increases uptime and multipliers amplify the value extracted from that uptime regardless of the specific perk.

    You're confusing the argument with the conclusion. Examples, evidence, reasons, etc. establish why a conclusion should be believed, just continually repeating a conclusion and moving away from your examples is not consistent or backing the thesis. If you talk about how fast a single survivor can get a gen done and then drop that, that's not consistent argument, even if your conclusion doesn't change.

    Restating the same mechanic repeatedly isnt “pretending away”; it’s keeping the discussion on the actual interaction being debated.

    That's not a debate.

    If I made a post that said something like

    You fail to realize just how broken S tier killers is right now

    If you run

    • Doctor
    • Nurse
    • Blight
    • Ghoul
    • Hillbilly

    the game can start and the can have a survivor down in 20 seconds lmao And dont forget what lethal pursuer does…

    If you aren't a high MMR survivor or only play killer you don't understand how much its just these killers.

    Like its literally a joke what Killers are capable of.

    And people responded with things like - Hillbilly and Ghoul are borderline S tier, getting downs in that rate of time is possible but rare, lethal pursuer comes with tradeoffs, other high MMR players aren't reporting seeing just these killers, and what in the world is Doctor doing in this discussion?

    And pages later I'm like 'I've been consistent in my argument that S Tier killers are very strong'.

    It's pretending away the examples and confidence of the original style to fall back on a point that isn't a debate, basically everyone agrees exists (i.e. S tier killers are a thing). At this point nothing meaningful is being said.

    Your first few posts were actually arguments. They were wrong, but they were. You've been falling back to something that's just a statement that everyone knows - yes, at the high end coordinated SWFs are a bit stronger than soloq.

    Correct, which increases total repair uptime, the exact variable that percentage repair bonuses scale with.

    Again correct, and that increased repair time is precisely where multiplier scaling produces additional objective progress.

    Same principle: coordination raises sustained uptime, which increases the total value gained from percentage based repair bonuses.

    Your argument isn't making math sense.

    If you have a situation of something like

    Survivor goes for rescue → survivors heal → survivors go back to gens

    Increasing the speed at any point of the equation can net the same result. There's nothing unique about the final element, and a lot of strategic reasons the first two are actually more important (such as a killer coming back and interrupting the process because of having gen repair perks instead of heal perks).

    The argument does not depend on a specific perk being “broken”; it concerns the scaling interaction itself, more coordinated repair time means more seconds benefiting from any percentage-based repair modifier, increasing total progress extracted from the same match time.

    Of course it depends on a perk being broken. This is why bringing up things like Full Circuit was very strange.

    Okay, how much?

    Across four survivors, small uptime gains applied continuously over an entire match accumulate into meaningful additional generator progress because the bonuses apply every second survivors are repairing.

    How much?

    Otherwise this is just back to the same issue - some perks provide small, easy to gain value, others have situational but large value. You just seem to be saying the former is inherently more valuable which needs a math distinction to be meaningful.

    Generator repair is a continuous action rather than an event based one, which is exactly why uptime scaling percentage bonuses accumulate more consistently over time.

    Words are important. Consistent does not mean better.

    If you had a four lap race, and the choice of a small benefit for three laps, or a large benefit for 1 lap, neither is better without specific numbers. If you had a small benefit for all the laps, or a large benefit only when it rains, again without numbers on how large the benefits are or frequency it means nothing.

    And at some point this should be backed up by evidence of some sort.

    The evidence is the mechanical interaction itself- percentage based repair bonuses scale directly with the amount of time survivors are actively repairing, and coordination increases that repair time.

    1: This goes back on the points of all the high MMR SWFs doing it.

    2: As a logical argument, it fails without a math explanation that can then be compared to other possibilities. Unless the charges gained from the additional time on gens are greater than the value of other possible perks, then the conclusion is wrong (and that doesn't even get into SWF/soloq still needing to be distinguished or whether its actually a problem)

    Finding generators is not the improvement being discussed, sustained coordinated repair uptime, how long multiple survivors remain repairing simultaneously without downtime, is.

    If we're not discussing the potential SWF benefit of finding gens, what mechanic do you think SWFs are able to use that gives them more coordinated repair uptime than an equivalently skilled soloq and how do gen perks/items factor into that?

    in Damn playing a low tier killer is Horrible right now. Comment by crogers271

  • @top500spiderman said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4055727#Comment_4055727

    So I guess the answer on whether you can defend any of your first four posts is no then?

    Those posts used builds as examples, not the thesis. Showing where the discussion started doesnt refute the mechanic being discussed.

    It is when you repeatedly tell others to 'read lol' and then try to pretend you didn't write the things you did.

    Nothing is being “pretended away.” The same mechanism described earlier is the one being discussed now, only clarified more directly.

    Your two sentences here say different things. Did you clarify your claim, or did you evolve?

    Clarified. The mechanism hasnt changed, coordination increases repair uptime and repair speed multipliers scale with that uptime.

    Also, if it takes that long to clarify what you are saying, it is horrible writing.

    Or it means the discussion spent pages debating wording rather than the mechanic itself.

    You're back to direct interaction as if the direct is relevant.

    Direct interaction is relevant because generator repair is the objective that determines match completion, and repair bonuses apply directly to that objective.

    Simultaneous repair - minimally, finding gens is not really a problem for a high MMR soloq.

    Finding gens is not the interaction being discussed, sustained simultaneous repair uptime is.

    Reduces wasted survivor time - again, sure, minimal effect but its there.

    Small efficiency gains applied continuously across multiple survivors accumulate significantly when percentage bonuses apply to all of that repair time.

    Repair speed multipliers - no more relevant than anything else in the game.

    They are more relevant to generator completion because they apply directly to repair time. More coordinated repair uptime means more total seconds benefiting from the multiplier.

    Stacking those multipliers - again, no more relevant than anything else and opens up the same dangers of trade offs.

    Stacking matters because percentage bonuses scale with uptime. Higher sustained uptime produces more total objective progress from the same multiplier.

    Okay, how?

    Because percentage based bonuses increase progress per second of repair time, and coordination increases the amount of time survivors are actively repairing simultaneously.

    Let's say a survivor is running hyperfocus + built to last + a toolbox. Whether they are in soloq or SWF, they are going to move to a gen, and do it. They are going to get the value out of those perks in either situation.

    Single survivor perk value is not the interaction being discussed. The scaling effect occurs at the team level, where multiple survivors maintaining coordinated repair uptime increases the total value extracted from percentage bonuses.

    Now, can I imagine situations where the SWF might help here? Sure its possible, but this build is very easy to get the same amount of value out of in a soloq. If this build is too strong, its too strong in both scenarios.

    The claim isnt that solo cannot gain value, but that coordinated teams maintain higher sustained simultaneous repair uptime, increasing the total progress produced from the same bonuses.

    We've already discussed trade offs - the more gen perks a survivor brings the less ability they will have to do other things. That remains true whether soloq or SWF, so the SWF with the gen perks is taking the same risks.

    The trade off is the same, but the return on the perk differs when repair uptime is higher, because percentage bonuses generate more total progress from increased coordinated repair time.

    As for the scaling - let's take something like deja vu. So let's say via call outs a survivor is on gens for three extra seconds than they would be in an equivalent soloq - the perk itself is netting 0.18 charges. Minimal benefit, sure, but again, we're right back to trade offs. What would they have gotten from any other perk that coordination also would have benefitted from?

    Short isolated moments of value do not represent match long uptime. Small bonuses applied continuously across multiple coordinated survivors accumulate into substantially more total objective progress.

    If we talk about perks like deliverance, reassurance, aura reading, we're seeing a much greater discrepancy in what SWF and soloq can do with them.

    Those mechanics are event dependent, whereas generator repair is continuous, allowing uptime-scaling bonuses to convert coordinated time into objective completion more directly.

    Hypothetical - let's say BHVR removes every gen increase perk and item in the game, how large is the gap between SWF and soloq? I suspect it wouldn't move much, but would likely be a higher gap.

    Removing bonuses doesnt eliminate the coordination advantage, it only removes the multiplier that amplifies the efficiency coordination already creates.

    I mentioned this to @FerrousFacade , but frequently good is confused with SWFs. Gens fly? Must be a SWF.

    The claim isnt that every fast match equals a SWF, but that coordinated teams convert available repair time into progress more efficiently, increasing the likelihood of faster generator completion under the same conditions.

    The common strategy for survivors, SWF or soloq, is to spread out and get on gens. Eventually one survivor will get in a chase and the other survivors will keep doing gens. What is going to determine how fast those gens go is how long that chase is. If the gens are flying this has nothing to it being a SWF - it has to do with what the build is and how long the chase is going.

    Chase duration determines the available time window, but coordination determines how efficiently the remaining survivors convert that window into repair progress, and repair speed bonuses increase the progress gained per second of that coordinated uptime.

    Those posts used builds as examples, not the thesis.

    1: A thesis should come early in a point. Especially with disagreement from multiple parties, going multiple pages into a thread before saying what you mean is silly.

    2: When laying out examples, you should tie them to the thesis, not imply the examples are the entire argument.

    3: You laid out examples anticipating what would be said a week later? Sure seems like it would be easier to just make your point then and save the time.

    4: Examples are a type of evidence that are tied to a thesis. So are High MMR SWFs creating a problem with Full Circuit?

    Nothing is being “pretended away.”

    Sure it is, I'll even get to an example right away:

    Or it means the discussion spent pages debating wording rather than the mechanic itself.

    Here's an example of pretending away.

    1: You haven't actually debated this in a long time. A debate would be either you saying 'yes, I said that, here is why' or 'yes, I said that, it was incorrect'. Instead you don't debate the issue, but you do bring it up whenever possible to deflect from other weaknesses in your points.

    2: You've had arguments with multiple people. You go pages with others before you get around to 'what I actually mean is' which just seems to be a massively toned down version of what you were once saying. Putting the blame on the discussion between us is pretending everything else didn't occur as a deflection from the issue.

    They are more relevant to generator completion because they apply directly to repair time. More coordinated repair uptime means more total seconds benefiting from the multiplier.

    Coordinated aura call outs read to more time in chase = more time on gens.

    Better coordinated heals lead to faster heals = more time on gens

    Better coordinated use of anti-tunnel = more time on gens

    You also love to say multiplier without ever getting into the math. It ipso facto that the perks are broken in the hands of SWFs. What perk(s) are we talking about and how much extra charges do you think a SWF is actually getting in comparison to soloq?

    Single survivor perk value is not the interaction being discussed. The scaling effect occurs at the team level, where multiple survivors maintaining coordinated repair uptime increases the total value extracted from percentage bonuses.

    Okay, so you were really wrong when you said early - "Gen potential is the real issue, lower it. Nobody should be popping a gen by themselves in 30 sum seconds."

    How are the survivors coordinating repair time in a way that is so substantially different from soloq that these perks become the problem?

    Its not hard for soloq to get on gens, especially if we limit this discussion to high MMR.

    The trade off is the same, but the return on the perk differs when repair uptime is higher, because percentage bonuses generate more total progress from increased coordinated repair time.

    No. This is universal.

    If coordination allows longer chases, or faster heals, or keeping a survivor in the match - all of those improve the survivor's chance of escaping. There's nothing unique about the 'percentage bonuses' and a lot of reasons why they don't actually matter nearly as much.

    As for the scaling - let's take something like deja vu. So let's say via call outs a survivor is on gens for three extra seconds than they would be in an equivalent soloq - the perk itself is netting 0.18 charges. Minimal benefit, sure, but again, we're right back to trade offs. What would they have gotten from any other perk that coordination also would have benefitted from?

    Short isolated moments of value do not represent match long uptime. Small bonuses applied continuously across multiple coordinated survivors accumulate into substantially more total objective progress.

    Okay, how much?

    Let's say over an entire match across all 4 survivors there was a total of 30 seconds where they got on gens more quickly than they would have in an equivalent soloq.

    That's 30 charges they get from the better coordination

    Even if every one of those survivors who saved time had deja vu, that's 1.8 charges.

    The coordination is always going to outweigh the percentage bonuses and then we're right back to trade offs.

    Those mechanics are event dependent, whereas generator repair is continuous, allowing uptime-scaling bonuses to convert coordinated time into objective completion more directly.

    So what?

    Those events happen. We're right back to this being a normal part of DbD - some perks provide small but easy to access benefits, other perks provide powerful, but situational benefits.

    If Deja Vu was run in 10 matches and Decisive Strike was run in 10 matches, there would be more matches were Deja Vu got value, but the matches DS got value it far more likely had an impact on the outcome.

    Hypothetical - let's say BHVR removes every gen increase perk and item in the game, how large is the gap between SWF and soloq? I suspect it wouldn't move much, but would likely be a higher gap.

    Removing bonuses doesnt eliminate the coordination advantage, it only removes the multiplier that amplifies the efficiency coordination already creates.

    Higher, lower, or the same? What's your answer?

    Because at the extreme end of MMR, coordinated SWFs have an advantage. You're now repeating something that's been agreed on for pages and I don't think anyone ever disagreed with outside of scope or relevance (and to what degree its coordination vs a few other factors). You're the one who has been talking about the perks being a problem, so if they didn't exist at all, what would happen?

    I mentioned this to @FerrousFacade , but frequently good is confused with SWFs. Gens fly? Must be a SWF.

    The claim isnt that every fast match equals a SWF, but that coordinated teams convert available repair time into progress more efficiently, increasing the likelihood of faster generator completion under the same conditions.

    And at some point this should be backed up by evidence of some sort. I've linked to the unrestricted comp series, others have talked about SWF on streaks not using any of these elements, what do you have to back your argument?

    Chase duration determines the available time window, but coordination determines how efficiently the remaining survivors convert that window into repair progress, and repair speed bonuses increase the progress gained per second of that coordinated uptime.

    "coordination determines how efficiently the remaining survivors convert that window into repair progress"

    No, getting on gens is easy. Of all the things coordination helps with, this is one of the least improved.

    in Damn playing a low tier killer is Horrible right now. Comment by crogers271

  • @NeverSolus said:

    In theory, couldn't this problem be rectified by instituting a pre-made queue and a standard queue? The ranked idea tanked leaving us with MMR so I suspect the idea will see some recalcitrance, but the balancing of DbD does seem to be complicated by the large gap between SoloQ versus Comp SWF. Can't buff or nerf one without buffing or nerfing the other.

    As a result then, why not just split those two queues apart? The queue times will tank temporarily, but the balance issues will either come out in the wash, or they will provide further data for analyzation.

    In theory, couldn't this problem be rectified by instituting a pre-made queue and a standard queue? The ranked idea tanked leaving us with MMR so I suspect the idea will see some recalcitrance, but the balancing of DbD does seem to be complicated by the large gap between SoloQ versus Comp SWF. 

    It depends whether you are talking about making separate queues for SWF or just Comp SWF.

    Comp SWF

    1: It's such a small portion of the player base it would probably be a waste of BHVR's resources.

    2: They already have a means to address it - they could just tighten the uppers ends of high MMR.

    All SWFs

    1: The overall SWFs aren't a problem. According to the last batch of stats, their ER was 2% higher than all other groups. This is probably MMR actually working, but there are a number other possibilities/contributing factors.

    2: For whatever the merits of offsetting the benefits of SWF with either a penalty or its own queue, BHVR isn't going to do it.

    Either option

    Why would a killer choose to play in that queue? You need to start talking about rewards or publicly displayed ranks, which some people want, but does open up a bunch of new problems to deal with.

    in Damn playing a low tier killer is Horrible right now. Comment by crogers271

  • @top500spiderman said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4055439#Comment_4055439

    I'll give you this, you're great at pretending that a totally different discussion happened than what actually occurred.

    No, what’s happening is that your treating the examples used early in the thread as if they were the entire argument, while ignoring the mechanic those examples were illustrating. Showing where the discussion started is not the same as showing what the argument was.

    You respond by quoting something that you said approximately 40 to 45 posts into the thread.

    Because later posts clarified the claim more precisely. Arguments evolve as their refined, quoting the clarification doesnt change what the argument is, it explains it more directly.

    You say its was never the focus, I show you when it was your focus in detail.

    Your showing that builds were discussed, not that builds were the core claim. The claim has consistently been about coordination + repair-speed multipliers interacting, not “gen builds alone are the issue.”

    You’ve either conceded or changed your argument

    Neither. The claim has stayed the same-
    coordination increases repair uptime and efficiency, and repair speed multipliers amplify that coordinated efficiency, converting the same survivor time into faster objective completion.

    You are still failing to provide any reason that it is true

    The reason is mechanical-

    • coordination increases simultaneous repair uptime
    • coordination reduces wasted survivor time
    • repair speed multipliers apply directly to that increased uptime
    • stacking those multipliers therefore accelerates total objective completion

    Thats a direct interaction between uptime efficiency and repair multipliers, not a rhetorical claim.

    Take every gen perk and item out of the game, highly coordinated SWFs would still be stronger than soloq.

    Which is why gen rushing is stronger with swfs. Adding repair-speed multipliers on top of coordinated uptime naturally scales the effect further.

    If anything, gen increase perks and items have less of an advantage for SWFs than they do a comparatively skilled soloq

    That would only be true if repair speed bonuses did not scale with increased uptime and splitting efficiency, but they do, because percentage based repair bonuses apply directly to the amount of time survivors are actively repairing. More coordinated repair time means more value extracted from those bonuses.

    Otherwise its just a guess at which arguments you actually mean

    The argument has been consistent.
    coordination increases generator efficiency, and repair-speed multipliers amplify that coordinated efficiency, which is why generators can feel disproportionately fast in coordinated high MMR SWFs.

    The disagreement isn’t about whether coordination helps we both agree it does.
    The disagreement is wether stacking repair speed multipliers on coordinated uptime meaningfully amplifies that advantage, which is the mechanical point still being discussed.

    It's funny, as much as you keep saying you're going to give up on this, you keep responding despite avoiding what you say you want to discuss.

    Im discussing the mechanics. Your still digging through wording and old posts like theres a hidden ‘gotcha’ treasure chest in there instead of addressing the actual interaction

    So I guess the answer on whether you can defend any of your first four posts is no then?

    Showing where the discussion started is not the same as showing what the argument was.

    It is when you repeatedly tell others to 'read lol' and then try to pretend you didn't write the things you did.

    Because later posts clarified the claim more precisely. Arguments evolve as their refined, quoting the clarification doesnt change what the argument is, it explains it more directly.

    Your two sentences here say different things. Did you clarify your claim, or did you evolve?

    Also, if it takes that long to clarify what you are saying, it is horrible writing.

    The reason is mechanical-

    • coordination increases simultaneous repair uptime
    • coordination reduces wasted survivor time
    • repair speed multipliers apply directly to that increased uptime
    • stacking those multipliers therefore accelerates total objective completion

    Thats a direct interaction between uptime efficiency and repair multipliers, not a rhetorical claim.

    You're back to direct interaction as if the direct is relevant.

    Let's go through these

    Simultaneous repair - minimally, finding gens is not really a problem for a high MMR soloq.

    Reduces wasted survivor time - again, sure, minimal effect but its there.

    Repair speed multipliers - no more relevant than anything else in the game. Survivors being able to coordinate heals, chases, protections, etc. are still going to be stronger in a SWF than a soloq (and for some of these, not a minimal change)

    Stacking those multipliers - again, no more relevant than anything else and opens up the same dangers of trade offs.

    That would only be true if repair speed bonuses did not scale with increased uptime and splitting efficiency, but they do, because percentage based repair bonuses apply directly to the amount of time survivors are actively repairing. More coordinated repair time means more value extracted from those bonuses.

    Okay, how?

    Let's say a survivor is running hyperfocus + built to last + a toolbox. Whether they are in soloq or SWF, they are going to move to a gen, and do it. They are going to get the value out of those perks in either situation.

    Now, can I imagine situations where the SWF might help here? Sure its possible, but this build is very easy to get the same amount of value out of in a soloq. If this build is too strong, its too strong in both scenarios.

    Then we get into what else could be run, so onto:

    If anything, gen increase perks and items have less of an advantage for SWFs than they do a comparatively skilled soloq

    That would only be true if repair speed bonuses did not scale with increased uptime and splitting efficiency, but they do, because percentage based repair bonuses apply directly to the amount of time survivors are actively repairing. More coordinated repair time means more value extracted from those bonuses.

    We've already discussed trade offs - the more gen perks a survivor brings the less ability they will have to do other things. That remains true whether soloq or SWF, so the SWF with the gen perks is taking the same risks.

    As for the scaling - let's take something like deja vu. So let's say via call outs a survivor is on gens for three extra seconds than they would be in an equivalent soloq - the perk itself is netting 0.18 charges. Minimal benefit, sure, but again, we're right back to trade offs. What would they have gotten from any other perk that coordination also would have benefitted from?

    If we talk about perks like deliverance, reassurance, aura reading, we're seeing a much greater discrepancy in what SWF and soloq can do with them.

    Hypothetical - let's say BHVR removes every gen increase perk and item in the game, how large is the gap between SWF and soloq? I suspect it wouldn't move much, but would likely be a higher gap.

    The argument has been consistent.coordination increases generator efficiency, and repair-speed multipliers amplify that coordinated efficiency, which is why generators can feel disproportionately fast in coordinated high MMR SWFs.

    I mentioned this to @FerrousFacade, but frequently good is confused with SWFs. Gens fly? Must be a SWF.

    The common strategy for survivors, SWF or soloq, is to spread out and get on gens. Eventually one survivor will get in a chase and the other survivors will keep doing gens. What is going to determine how fast those gens go is how long that chase is. If the gens are flying this has nothing to it being a SWF - it has to do with what the build is and how long the chase is going.

    in Damn playing a low tier killer is Horrible right now. Comment by crogers271

  • @XsashagreyX said:

    Almost every dbd player agrees on one thing, the game is unbalanced and it's getting worse every chapter they add. What do you think the core problems are, and how would you balance the game so that both side is fair and fun to play?

    What do you think the core problems are, and how would you balance the game so that both side is fair and fun to play?

    I've always felt that the problem begins with addons and the game's grind and everything kind of spirals from there. By creating tiers of items it creates a strange balance mechanic - if one side sweats more in what they bring, they are going to have the advantage.

    in How would you make Dbd more balanced? Comment by crogers271

  • @top500spiderman said:

    Yes, read carefully you just proved it again this was said pages ago.

    Im not saying swfs are strong because they specifically can stack full gen builds or pop 24 second gens. That example was just one way to show how gen speed multipliers can be taken advantage of when players are coordinated in swfs. It was just supporting evidence, not the core of what I am saying.

    Your back peddling. Unless your just fishing for an argument i suggest you go back and read to refresh your memory, because il probably just keep debunking every attempt again with a quote.

    Coordination already increases generator repair uptime and efficiency, and when repair speed multipliers stack on top of that coordinated uptime, they convert the same total survivor time into faster objective completion. Iv been saying this for pages now.

    I'll give you this, you're great at pretending that a totally different discussion happened than what actually occurred.

    You say: never was the focus you just didnt take my advice on reading carefully you were to focused on your 'word argument' lol.

    I respond by quoting the first posts you made and how they focused on exactly that.

    You respond by quoting something that you said approximately 40 to 45 posts into the thread.

    Your back peddling.

    You say its was never the focus, I show you when it was your focus in detail. That's not back peddling, that's showing what occurred.

    Are you willing to defend a single one of the first four posts you made?

    Unless your just fishing for an argument i suggest you go back and read to refresh your memory

    It's funny, as much as you keep saying you're going to give up on this, you keep responding despite avoiding what you say you want to discuss.

    As for refreshing memory - as both I and @FerrousFacade said you've either conceded or changed your argument. If you want to admit those posts were wrong and focus on something new, fine, but you can't make ad hominem attacks on others reading abilities while gaslighting that you never said the things that you did.

    Coordination already increases generator repair uptime and efficiency, and when repair speed multipliers stack on top of that coordinated uptime, they convert the same total survivor time into faster objective completion. Iv been saying this for pages now.

    And you are still failing to provide any reason that its true. Yes, you've been saying it for awhile, and for awhile I've been telling you that you have nothing to back it.

    I don't have to go 40 posts deep, here is what I said in my 6th post when I outlined the problems with your argument:

    3: Even past all of that, at no point have you proven or shown your original argument about the gen speed perks being the issue and not a coordinated SWF in general just being stronger.

    Take every gen perk and item out of the game, highly coordinated SWFs would be still stronger than soloq. If anything, gen increase perks and items have less of an advantage for SWFs than they do a comparatively skilled soloq compared to other possible builds. This is again something that has been said for pages.

    As for what you've said for pages - if you want to point out where you're actual argument begins and that we should ignore everything you said before that, great. Otherwise its just a guess at which arguments you actually mean.

    in Damn playing a low tier killer is Horrible right now. Comment by crogers271

  • @top500spiderman said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4055024#Comment_4055024

    If that's what you're arguing:

    'My point is that in coordinated SWFs, gens move very fast even off completely normal chases because of how gen multipliers and comms stack efficiency.'

    This has been said multiple times for the last 4 pages

    such as the focus on all out gen rush builds.

    never was the focus you just didnt take my advice on reading carefully you were to focused on your 'word argument' lol.

    Theirs no point in continuing in all honestly, uv already agreed with my point much like @FerrousFacade you just disagree with how much. And thats fine.

    We can let the devs decide how much gen efficiency in SWFs have a impact in the 40/48 difference, since everyone complains about the same thing against them which is gen speeds im pretty sure they know its significant. Both of you agreeing with the advantage in gen efficiency is a great step in the right direction. They can filter out any biased when it comes to "how much".

    'My point is that in coordinated SWFs, gens move very fast even off completely normal chases because of how gen multipliers and comms stack efficiency.'

    This has been said multiple times for the last 4 pages

    And you have never backed up how gen multipliers have anything to do with that.

    At the high end, coordinated SWFs escape more. You have never shown that gen multipliers have anything to do with that.

    such as the focus on all out gen rush builds.

    never was the focus you just didnt take my advice on reading carefully you were to focused on your 'word argument' lol.

    Never was the focus?

    Here's your first post (and I'll quote in entirety):

    There not doing gens to counter it there doing gens because that's the objective, they dont know what killer there gonna face, there builds and toolboxes are in their hands before they know anything. Dont matter who you play your gonna get gen rushed. If they wanna win there gonna do gens fast.

    You can play high mobility killers all you want. If there gen rushing, you better get consistent 25 second downs. If your spreading hooks you better get consistent 10 second downs, and that's with really good killers. If your playing killers with bad mobility you might as well go grab you a toolbox and help them.

    Gen potential is the real issue, lower it. Nobody should be popping a gen by themselves in 30 sum seconds.

    Highlights - "Dont matter who you play your gonna get gen rushed"

    "Gen potential is the real issue, lower it. Nobody should be popping a gen by themselves in 30 sum seconds."

    Second post

    Camping and tunneling doesn't = to a single survivor popping a gen in 30 sum seconds.

    If a survivor is popping gens like that you better do what ever tf you can or that's your as*, and most of the time its still your as*

    Highlight - "Camping and tunneling doesn't = to a single survivor popping a gen in 30 sum seconds."

    Third post

    You fail to realize just how broken gen rushing is right now

    If you run

    • Full circuit
    • Hyperfocus
    • Built To Last
    • Deja Vu
    • Toolbox

    And your team mate runs prove thyself with a toolbox aswell

    the game can start and they can hop on a gen and pop it in 20 seconds lmao And dont forget what built to last does…

    Like its literally a joke what SWFs are capable of. Alot of you survivors who only solo Q and dont really play killer like that have no idea wth really goes on.

    Btw i never said what you quoted.

    Highlight - "You fail to realize just how broken gen rushing is right now"

    (For the record, being accuracy in quotes has been such a huge part of this, saying you never said what he quoted, @cogsturning was quoting what he had originally responded to)

    Fourth Post

    It doesnt matter how fast you personally get gens done if someone is running

    Full circuit
    Hyperfocus
    Built To Last
    Deja Vu
    Toolbox
    with prove thyself + toolbox…The generator gets done approximately 24-26 seconds realistically. That's INSANE.

    I'm talking about SWFs here im not talking about a global escape rate from a unofficial site. Unless you can go find me some official data on that.

    Highlights - "Full circuit
    Hyperfocus
    Built To Last
    Deja Vu
    Toolbox
    with prove thyself + toolbox…The generator gets done approximately 24-26 seconds realistically. That's INSANE.
    I'm talking about SWFs here im not talking about a global escape rate from a unofficial site"

    -

    As much as you tell others to read, you don't back up your own writing.

    in Damn playing a low tier killer is Horrible right now. Comment by crogers271

  • @top500spiderman said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4054655#Comment_4054655

    Faster objective completion - this conclusion is not achieved unless you can show how the multipliers accomplish this.

    I feel like your post is mostly just agreeing with me so il just respond to this. Multipliers are a boost to the already boosted nature of a Swf. It doesnt directly accomplish anything which was my point.

    At the extreme upper end, SWFs are, and always have, going to out perform an equally skilled soloq by a little bit (edit to add: the biggest uncertainty is over how big that difference is).

    If that's what you're arguing:

    1: Most of your early posts don't make sense given that conclusion, such as the focus on all out gen rush builds.

    2: Everyone knows that.

    in Damn playing a low tier killer is Horrible right now. Comment by crogers271

  • @top500spiderman said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4053879#Comment_4053879

    why did you use good reason, why did you say all the data, why did you emphasize those words?

    Because that sentence explained why BHVR keeps a target, not the mechanic being argued. Grammar analysis isn’t a gameplay rebuttal.

    at a certain point, you either need to answer it, or admit you made a mistake.

    I answered it repeatedly, it was context. Nothing about the mechanic depends on how bold a word was lol.

    your doing far more to try and shift the argument away from what you claim is the argument than I am.

    Were currently debating adjectives instead of generator efficiency, that kind of answers itself.

    gen perks have the same benefit here - you do gens a little faster, but the tradeoff is that you lack the ability to do something else.”

    Thats a perk-slot tradeoff, not a coordination argument. Coordination still increases uptime and reduces wasted repair time regardless of which perk is equipped.

    again, you're saying things everyone already knows. But this is true for SWF and soloq.

    The difference being how reliably those efficiencies occur. Coordination changes consistency, not the perk description.

    how are directly and consistently relevant?

    Because “getting back to gens faster” (heals, saves, chases) is indirect throughput, while repair efficiency affects the rate of objective accumulation itself. One is a return path, the other is the finish line.

    directly - if perks heal quicker, make longer chases, etc. they either get survivors back on gens more quickly or let them stay on gens.

    Exactly — back on gens. Thats indirect. Repair efficiency changes how fast the gen itself moves once your there.

    consistently - some perks provide consistent value in every match (Deja Vu), some provide occasional but large value (unbreakable). This is true for both soloq and SWF, if anything the latter type of perks are far easier to get value from in a SWF

    If value is “far easier to get… in a SWF,” then coordination is already affecting how reliably that value converts into match progress, even if the perk description itself is identical.

    a rebuttal to what? You've basically given up on everything that seemed to be an argument as just context.

    The argument never changed-
    coordination → higher repair uptime → multipliers stacking on that uptime → faster objective completion.

    Everything else has mostly been a long side quest about wording — entertaining, but it still hasnt repaired a single generator.

    Because that sentence explained why BHVR keeps a target, not the mechanic being argued. Grammar analysis isn’t a gameplay rebuttal.

    Wait, are we back to using BHVR as a source to back the argument? We all know that BHVR has a target, but you are now using them to describe why (which goes back to GOOD).

    I answered it repeatedly, it was context. Nothing about the mechanic depends on how bold a word was lol.

    This is a lot like your other arguments. You express a conclusion, and instead of backing the argument to the conclusion, you just keep repeating the conclusion.

    @FerrousFacade was able to say one of his statements went overboard and moved on. It happens.

    your doing far more to try and shift the argument away from what you claim is the argument than I am.

    Were currently debating adjectives instead of generator efficiency, that kind of answers itself.

    I don't know how what you type here is supposed to answer the idea that you are doing more attempts to shift away from the debate than I am.

    Thats a perk-slot tradeoff, not a coordination argument. Coordination still increases uptime and reduces wasted repair time regardless of which perk is equipped.

    The perk slot tradeoff remains a consistent issue a survivor would face whether SWF or soloq. If you're saying that isn't the issue, okay, great, onto the next thing.

    The difference being how reliably those efficiencies occur. Coordination changes consistency, not the perk description.

    Coordination provides an advantage, sure, that's been covered. How much of an advantage, or how much this should impact discussion of the game is also relevant, but sure, an advantage.

    Because “getting back to gens faster” (heals, saves, chases) is indirect throughput, while repair efficiency affects the rate of objective accumulation itself. One is a return path, the other is the finish line.

    Exactly — back on gens. Thats indirect. Repair efficiency changes how fast the gen itself moves once your there.

    You're bolding things that have no purpose. Both things help a side get to the finish line. There are multiple gameplay elements and strategies that survivors can employ to finish the gens and escape. Of everything that a coordinated SWF can do that soloq cannot, the gen repair efficiency bonuses seem a minimal issue.

    consistently - some perks provide consistent value in every match (Deja Vu), some provide occasional but large value (unbreakable). This is true for both soloq and SWF, if anything the latter type of perks are far easier to get value from in a SWF

    If value is “far easier to get… in a SWF,” then coordination is already affecting how reliably that value converts into match progress, even if the perk description itself is identical.

    Let's look at my quote - If anything the latter type of perks are far easier to get value from in a SWF. Which brings us right back to what I just said about this being perhaps the least unique thing on SWF/Soloq differences.

    a rebuttal to what? You've basically given up on everything that seemed to be an argument as just context.

    The argument never changed-coordination → higher repair uptime → multipliers stacking on that uptime → faster objective completion.

    Coordination - at the extreme upper end, sure. Having a slight advantage at the upper end I think accounts for an 8% swing (and as I said earlier, the shocking things about the 8% is not that it exists, but its not higher given all the things that hypothetically a SWF has over soloq).

    Higher repair uptime - we're talking efficiency on gens. Sure, again, coordinating saves, killer position, etc. and using perks to advance those goals, will all ensure survivors can stay on gens longer or get back quicker.

    Multiplier stacking on that unique uptime - this argument has never made sense. The ability to be slightly more efficient in all aspects of the game all have an impact on improving the gens more quickly. As explained, if anything, this is one of the least unique things SWFs have over soloq.

    Faster objective completion - this conclusion is not achieved unless you can show how the multipliers accomplish this.

    in Damn playing a low tier killer is Horrible right now. Comment by crogers271

  • @FerrousFacade said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4053806#Comment_4053806

    Agree to disagree on the rest but you not playing solo queue isn't a personal attack. If you don't solo queue you are lacking skills a good solo will have and are therefore underestimating them and the entire baseline for your beliefs about gen speeds. You don't understand where comms would help them most.

    If you don't solo queue you are lacking skills a good solo will have and are therefore underestimating them and the entire baseline for your beliefs about gen speeds. 

    I think this is a good point. There seems to be a frequent confusion between good players and players in a SWF. SWFs can be good, they can be bad, that's a different thing.

    But if we limited the discussion to just really good players, would they be better in a SWF? Sure, though how much would be an open question. Would gen perks be improved compared to other elements? That seems like one of the least significant changes.

    in Damn playing a low tier killer is Horrible right now. Comment by crogers271

  • @top500spiderman said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4053788#Comment_4053788

    If the discussion has really reached the point where were litigating how many L’s were in “all,” that kind of proves what Iv been saying your treating presentation and wording like it changes the mechanic. It doesnt lol.

    BHVR-60/40 was context for why the topic exists, not the foundation of the claim. You keep dragging it back in as if arguing context disproves the gameplay point then acting like im the one derailing things.

    Highly coordinated SWFs at high MMR do better. No one disagrees.

    Correct… That’s the starting point, not the finish line.

    Coordination helps with gen efficiency, through faster healing, the ability to use certain perks more effectively (deliverance), the ability to pre-run, knowing each others strengths and weaknesses, etc.

    Also correct. And heres where you keep doing the same move, you list a set of coordination benefits (many of them conditional), then jump to-

    Gen perks and items have nothing unique about that and, if anything, less of a difference between soloq and SWFs.

    Thats where the inconsistency is.

    Your acknowledging that coordinated teams get more repair uptime, less overlap, better splitting, and more total progress from the same amount of time, and then declaring gen speed “not unique” as if the label cancels the effect you just agreed exists.

    And when that gets pointed out, the discussion shifts to quote lawyering (whether something was “this” vs “that,” punctuation, emphasis, etc.) as if that changes the substance of what was conceded. Thats not a rebuttal, its an escape hatch.

    Heres the actual distinction being discussed-

    • heals / saves / perk value = event-dependent (injuries, hooks, triggers, killer decisions)
    • gen progress = continuous objective accumulation whenever survivors are not being actively denied time

    So yes, coordination improves everything, but not everything converts coordinated time into match-ending objective progress as directly and consistently as generators do, especially when repair multipliers stack on top of coordinated uptime.

    This silly word argument has already been addressed multiple times, so Im not going to keep responding to the same semantic point. If theres a mechanical rebuttal to the coordination → efficiency → objective-progress interaction, thats worth discussing. Otherwise, at some point the ego has to be dropped so the conversation can actually move forward instead of looping back to phrasing again. So il no longer entertain it.

    If the discussion has really reached the point where were litigating how many L’s were in “all,” that kind of proves what Iv been saying your treating presentation and wording like it changes the mechanic. It doesnt lol.

    I explained why the discussion was important in the last post.

    Why did you use good reason, why did you say all the data, why did you emphasize those words?

    At a certain point, you either need to answer it, or admit you made a mistake. If it's so unimportant to everything else, admitting the mistake doesn't seem to be a big issue (your argument about ego at the end).

    Also correct. And heres where you keep doing the same move, you list a set of coordination benefits (many of them conditional), then jump to-

    Gen perks and items have nothing unique about that and, if anything, less of a difference between soloq and SWFs.

    Thats where the inconsistency is.

    Okay, let's see how you explain it -

    Your acknowledging that coordinated teams get more repair uptime, less overlap, better splitting, and more total progress from the same amount of time, and then declaring gen speed “not unique” as if the label cancels the effect you just agreed exists.

    Alright, now would be the time where I think you'll explain how they are unique.

    And when that gets pointed out, the discussion shifts to quote lawyering

    You're doing far more to try and shift the argument away from what you claim is the argument than I am.

    Heres the actual distinction being discussed-

    • heals / saves / perk value = event-dependent (injuries, hooks, triggers, killer decisions)
    • gen progress = continuous objective accumulation whenever survivors are not being actively denied time

    Again, you're saying things everyone already knows. But this is true for SWF and soloq. Gen perks have the same benefit here - you do gens a little faster, but the tradeoff is that you lack the ability to do something else.

    So yes, coordination improves everything, but not everything converts coordinated time into match-ending objective progress as directly and consistently as generators do

    How are directly and consistently relevant?

    Directly - if perks heal quicker, make longer chases, etc. they either get survivors back on gens more quickly or let them stay on gens. This is true for both soloq and SWF.

    Consistently - some perks provide consistent value in every match (Deja Vu), some provide occasional but large value (unbreakable). This is true for both soloq and SWF, if anything the latter type of perks are far easier to get value from in a SWF.

     If theres a mechanical rebuttal to the coordination → efficiency → objective-progress interaction, thats worth discussing.

    A rebuttal to what? You've basically given up on everything that seemed to be an argument as just context.

    in Damn playing a low tier killer is Horrible right now. Comment by crogers271

  • @top500spiderman said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4053540#Comment_4053540

    Let me respond to your post in the same structure your using, because the “Word argument / Actual argument” split is basically the entire problem here, at this point its starting to feel less like two arguments and more like one argument plus a very determined distraction.

    1) “Word argument” (caps, emphasis, definitions, 60/40, what you think I implied)
    This is still not the argument. Its you treating context like it was the claim, then arguing the context as if disproving it would somehow make the mechanic disappear.

    Iv already clarified this multiple times, BHVR/60/40 was background, not authority. Bringing it back every reply doesnt counter the mechanic, it just resets the conversation to the same semantic loop again. And when you say “if you don’t think you were debating wording,” your basically pointing at the existence of words in the thread and concluding that wording must therefore be the topic. Thats not how arguments work.

    2) Actual claim (the part you keep restating and then denying)
    You said-

    “There’s nothing unique about gen speed.”

    But you also said:

    “This is all true.”

    —about coordination leading to better splitting, less overlap, higher repair uptime, and more total gen progress from the same chase time.

    Thats a contradiction...

    If “this is all true,” then coordination is clearly converting the same amount of survivor time into more objective completion. Denying that gen progress scales meaningfully with coordination while acknowledging the efficiency that produces it is basically writing out the answer and then pretending the last line doesnt count.

    3) Why this keeps repeating (the pattern)
    This is the loop:

    • Mechanics get explained
    • You acknowledge them (“this is all true”)
    • You deny what they imply (“nothing unique”)
    • Then the reply jumps back to wording/definitions/60-40 again like a reset button got pressed

    Thats why I said “read carefully.” Because at this point there are only two possibilities- either what’s being written isnt actually being followed, or the same points are being acknowledged and then dismissed anyway just to keep the side argument going, which starts to look more like trolling than genuine disagreement. Either way, the mechanic itself hasnt changed, coordination is being described as producing more objective progress, and then the conclusion of that description is being treated as if it somehow doesnt apply.

    So Il keep it simple for ya

    If the position is “coordination helps survivors,” we agree.

    If the position is that coordination does not significantly accelerate gen completion, especially once repair multipliers stack on top of coordinated efficiency, then that’s what needs to be argued mechanically instead of another round of phrasing debates.
    Because so far its mostly been, agree with the efficiency, then argue that acknowledging what it implies doesnt count.

    Bringing it back every reply doesnt counter the mechanic, it just resets the conversation to the same semantic loop again. And when you say “if you don’t think you were debating wording,” your basically pointing at the existence of words in the thread and concluding that wording must therefore be the topic. Thats not how arguments work.

    Arguments rely on both people having a sense that the other person is discussing honestly.

    There's been a pattern of your argument drifting, you changing others argument, and you accusing others of not understanding. If a person is not willing to explain why they said something a certain way, and instead tries to deflect from it, they aren't having an honest discussion.

    Why was it a GOOD reason if it was just context? Why was allllll the data important, if it was just context?

    If that's not your position, then it shouldn't be that hard to say you made a mistake.

    This issue of misquoting then comes up immediately in what you say next.

    You said-

    “There’s nothing unique about gen speed.”

    But you also said:

    “This is all true.”

    —about coordination leading to better splitting, less overlap, higher repair uptime, and more total gen progress from the same chase time.

    Thats a contradiction...

    I notice you typed out my statement instead of copy pasting it. I said That's all true - not 'this is all true', now that is a pretty minor change, but it led me to spot a bigger change - you put a period in as if I ended my sentence. Let's see what was in my quote after the period that you went and inserted.

    That's all true with or without gen perks / items

    Every thing that a soloq can do, a high MMR coordinated SWF can do just a little bit better (sometimes, like sabo and deliverance, a lot better). Even if we took players of the exact same skill; communication, planning, and playing together is always going to make them a little better. Healing, gens, body blocking, are all going to be improved by the benefits a highly coordinated SWF gets. Whatever build you gave the groups, all gen perks, no gen perks, no perks at all, the coordinated SWF would perform a little better than a soloq of the same skill with it because of their advantages.

    There's nothing unique about gen perks or items over everything else.

    This is the loop:

    • Mechanics get explained
    • You acknowledge them (“this is all true”)
    • You deny what they imply (“nothing unique”)
    profit.jpg

    When I deny what you say they imply, and then I say why your implication is wrong, that's the argument. You keep failing at that second step. At some point you have to actually try and turn 'context' into an argument.

    Highly coordinated SWFs at high MMR do better. No one disagrees. You need to demonstrate why its your issue 'gen speed multipliers' instead of all of the other factors everyone else has mentioned that accounts for that difference (and we're not even to the point of whether your solution would actually improve it)

    If the position is “coordination helps survivors,” we agree.

    Not a single person in this thread has ever disagreed with that idea. People have disagreed on scope, and on relevance, but no one disagrees with the fact that those things can be an advantage.

    If the position is that coordination does not significantly accelerate gen completion, especially once repair multipliers stack on top of coordinated efficiency, then that’s what needs to be argued mechanically instead of another round of phrasing debates.

    Coordination helps with gen efficiency, through faster healing, the ability to use certain perks more effectively (deliverance), the ability to pre-run, knowing each others strengths and weaknesses, etc.

    Gen perks and items have nothing unique about that and, if anything, less of a difference between soloq and SWFs.

    Because so far its mostly been, agree with the efficiency, then argue that acknowledging what it implies doesnt count.

    Again, you have to explain how what you think it implies is true because I and others have explained how its not.

    Additionally, the last five posts, not including this one, I've talked about this issue despite your claim that I keep trying to turn it in into a semantic debate, I've separated the two points pretty clearly.

    in Damn playing a low tier killer is Horrible right now. Comment by crogers271

  • Possible? Sure

    Good, well there's a lot of questions that would need to come up.

    What casual queue would end up being is uncertain, I feel like it would just be basically the same, except people would be angrier about people playing certain ways in the casual mode.

    As for ranked mode, that gets trickier.

    How would they handle win conditions on the survivor side? Because if they keep it like MMR, escape is all that matters, then there is going to be a lot of ratting and anger if a survivor runs the killer for a long chase, but then gets abandoned on hook (because survivors would never have a reason to save).

    Then you also have the issue of SWFs, because quite possibly the top four survivors in the rankings would all be the same 'team'.

    You'd of course need to prevent lobby dodging, which takes out the idea of the killer seeing survivor items (not a huge change)

    On the killer side, is it one killer ranking, or a ranking for each individual killer (i.e. someone isn't the best killer, but they are the best Demogorgon). If its the former, well ranked mode will just be a couple of the killers and die out relatively quickly. If its the latter, well match ups become difficult, does the number one ranked trapper match the best survivors, or the MMR equivalent (which circles back to the issue of whether we change the win condition for ratings). I feel like the top survivors are just going to see a few killers repeatedly which might drive them back to the casual queue, destroying the purpose of the mode.

    Also on separate killers, being we're all split up on different servers, and then split between ranked and casual, and then split between all the killers, what exactly would it mean if someone is the number 4 Trickster in South America. How much competition would there be for certain killer spots?

    in Is a ranked mode possible? Comment by crogers271

  • I have an unusual path to DbD. I played it a few times when it released, looked into it a few years later, and both times wasn't interested. I then got into it again when VLDL was doing to comedy sketch on it, watched some play, and thought it looked pretty enjoyable with how things had changed.

    So before I got into playing, I was familiar with the general community so found the forums really early. I even did posts chronicling my takes at certain hour points.

    I was never a constant DbD player. Play it a lot for a few weeks, take a month off to play something else, repeat. The failures of the QoL initiative really put a damper on my desires to play the game and those gaps are getting larger.

    in With how many hours in DBD did you discover this forum? Comment by crogers271

  • @top500spiderman said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4053174#Comment_4053174

    Your still treating the bhvr quotes like they were the foundation of my argument, when they never were.

    They were context.

    My actual point from the very first post has always been this

    Gen speed multipliers scale unusually well with coordination, and that interaction is what makes gens feel especially fast in high mmr swfs.

    That point doesnt depend on-

    • trusting BHVR
    • what they consider “intended balance”
    • wether 60/40 is good or bad
    • wether they are happy or unhappy with escape rates

    That entire section of the discussion only happened because you reframed my comment about why BHVR uses 60/40 into an appeal to authority, and then built an argument around that reframing. From there we spent pages debating word usage instead of the mechanic I was talking about.

    You keep saying there’s “no connection,” but there is, just not the one your trying to force.

    The connection is this (read carefully lol)

    bhvrs own data shows coordinated high MMR groups consistently outperform averages.

    My point is explaining why that happens from a gameplay perspective.

    Not because “swfs are better at everything,” but because gen speed specifically benefits from coordination in a way that other mechanics dont scale as hard with it.

    you listed examples like-

    • faster heals
    • longer chases
    • better unhooks
    • better use of Deliverance
    • etc.

    Those all help. But their indirect.

    Gen speed is direct.

    It converts coordination into raw objective progress with almost no waste-

    • less idle time
    • fewer duplicated actions
    • better gen spreading
    • better timing of pressure vs repair
    • turning the same chase time into more total gen progress than solo queue can

    Thats the part iv been calling out since the start.

    Not that gen perks are broken in isolation.
    Not that bhvr is wrong.
    Not that swfs are unfair.

    Just that-

    Gen speed multipliers interact with coordination more efficiently than most other survivor mechanics, which is why gens feel disproportionately fast in high mmr swfs.

    Everything else about quotes, definitions of “balance,” happy/unhappy, and bhvr's intent came from you trying to turn my context into the core of the argument.

    If you want to discuss wether gen speed actually scales that way with coordination, we can. That’s the real discussion.

    But if were still debating dictionary definitions and whether I “appealed to BHVR authority,” then we’re not actually talking about the game anymore.

    And that was never what I was trying to do.

    Your still treating the bhvr quotes like they were the foundation of my argument, when they never were.

    They were context.

    I split these up pretty clearly in the last post, but let's try a different approach.

    Word argument

    If you were just trying to establish context:

    Why did you put GOOD in all caps before reason? Why did you put so many Ls in all before data?

    The above writing makes no sense just to establish context. It's an attempt to establish evidence. Context isn't 'good', it's context. You don't need to say the have 'allllll' the data to establish context.

    You just say BHVR has a 60/40 KR, which again, everyone knows.

    Telling others to 'read' while trying to alter the meaning of that paragraph, or refusing to say 'I messed that up', undercuts the idea of anything else being an honest discussion.

    Gen Speed

    The connection is this (read carefully lol)

    bhvrs own data shows coordinated high MMR groups consistently outperform averages.

    Read carefully

    Everyone knows and no one disagrees. High MMR coordinated SWFs have always outperformed every other group.

    Those all help. But their indirect.

    Gen speed is direct.

    So what?

    Gen speed is direct in soloq.

    Again, if anything, the gen speed perks have less of an improvement on SWFs than they do soloq. Hyperfocus / deja vu really don't depend on it, prove definitely is, but is generally seen as a middling perk. Full circuit is basically a beginner perk outside of trying to set a record for fastest escape streaks.

    -I also see in a reply after this you say to @FerrousFacade you aren't talking full gen builds, except that is something you brought up. Again, this feels like you are either changing your point or just really bad at communicating your thoughts.

    Like everything, coordinated SWF will be better, but there's nothing unique about gen speed.

    It converts coordination into raw objective progress with almost no waste-

    • less idle time
    • fewer duplicated actions
    • better gen spreading
    • better timing of pressure vs repair
    • turning the same chase time into more total gen progress than solo queue can

    That's all true with or without gen perks / items

    Everything else about quotes, definitions of “balance,” happy/unhappy, and bhvr's intent came from you trying to turn my context into the core of the argument.

    If you don't think you were debating these things, even before I got in the argument, I don't think its an accurate take.

    But as I've said from pretty early on, take those quotes, definitions, etc. out and you don't have an argument. There's no evidence or logical argument that you've provided connecting high MMR SWFs to what you say is the problem, and quite a bit provided by others showing the opposite.

    in Damn playing a low tier killer is Horrible right now. Comment by crogers271

  • 16 perks in 1 game against 4 killer perks that always come with a downside, and on top of that 4 items and 8 addons that can heavily impact the game.

    Nothing in an asym can be compared directly. Make gens take 20 seconds and you could give the survivors 0 perks and it would be survivor sided, make gens take 3 minutes and giving each survivor two more perks wouldn't make up for it. Everything gets factored in, map sizes, types of loops, what and how many pallets spawn, etc.

    My idea is to give the killer a 5th perk out of a select pool of perks that stays on as long as there are 4 survivors alive in the game. 

    The idea about making the killer stronger in the 4v1 gets brought up a lot. I'm fine with it, actively encourage it even, as long as we boost survivors in the 3v1.

    2nd would be to take survivor addons out of the bloodweb and make it to where you can't bring addons into the trial.

    Practically speaking, it would never happen, because the game relies on the grind which needs clutter.

    Survivors should only be able to bring base items into the trial and upgrade them during the trial through various actions. 

    An interesting idea, but you're basically making a completely different game at this point which would require reimagining items, perks, and the whole game flow.

    The killer is often times left hoping to create enough pressure in order to stop survivors from ending the game fast, and most of the times the only way to do that is by forcing the killer to slug or tunnel

    Sorry, but the ideas would ultimately be hated by killers because they would strengthen SWFs. The more variables you introduce into the game, the more valuable coordination is going to be. You'd have a massive disparity between soloq and SWFs.

    in Survivor gameplay and item rework Comment by crogers271

  • I like the SMT series, and while there are lots of things that would fit, I don't think anything stands out or defines the series, say the same way Leon or Wesker stand out about Resident Evil or Pyramid Head from Silent Hill. That is what I think would make it harder for BHVR to pitch a SMT chapter (unless we're just talking cosmetics).

    in Shin Megami Tensei: The Pros, Cons and Challenges Comment by crogers271

  • @cogsturning said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4053204#Comment_4053204

    What do you think "second chance" means exactly? If you hooked someone, your first effort was successful. No second chance needed. The only perk that comes close to removing a hook state—which would be equal to getting one for free—is StB, and it doesn't remove it, just shifts its location. It's also super risky. So okay, you can have your free-hook perk, but it's one time use and, after using it, you spend the next two minutes stunned. You'll get to feel like the NPC you want the survivors to be as gens pop around you and they stand in front of you and tbag.

    What do you think "second chance" means exactly? 

    I've always hated the emphasis on 'second chance' as a category for perks. As if extending a chase via DS is different than extending it via Lithe, or getting quickly healed, or having teammates running gen perks necessitating the chase not be as long, etc. All of those are balance questions by individual perks, but second chance is worded as if there is something unique about the perk that makes it unfair.

    in Addressing the Current Meta – Balancing Tunneling and Aura-Reading Power Comment by crogers271
1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 70
Avatar