crogers271
crogers271
About
- Username
- crogers271
- Joined
- Visits
- 8,432
- Last Active
Comments
-
Its a shame most of those perks are extremely niche and have very short timers or ridiculous activation requirements or are able to be removed (Hexes).Now if there was a perk that was like: "When survivors complete a gen for 60 seconds they are all exposed, deactivates when a survivor is downed" then maybe you'd be able to compare that.You're now trying to compare both the style of the perk as well as its meta usefulness.
I could just as easily say survivors should have perks that reward them for doing their objective, like Pain Resonance. So when the survivor completes a gen, they get a benefit. You could point to something like Dark Sense, but then I say no, I want it to be just as strong with the exact same conditions. I want there to be a highlighted gen on the map that if I complete I get a 15% bonus to the next most progressed gen.
Both ideas are silly. It's an asym, meaning that two sides perks will differ both in design and overall usefulness.
-
Being this has gotten a bit into people who haven't posted in a while.
They weren't the most frequent commenter, but I miss @zarr - it helped to have someone who made my comments look short by comparison.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4053147#Comment_4053147
That isn't even remotely close to DS.
This is either satire or a fundamental misunderstanding of the game.
I don't know, could you imagine if there was a perk, perhaps more than one, or even killer powers, that let a killer cut through survivor health states. The survivor EXPerience wOuld be Substantially alterED.
-
There becomes an issue on differing MMRs. The skill ceiling / skill floor differs by killer (and in comparison to survivor), so it depends whether you are talking once someone is really experienced with the game, or including from the time they first start playing a killer.
The it also depends whether you mean balanced in every trial, or across many. Some killers are really impacted by certain survivor perks, probably the clearest example being Twins and WGLF. So in the hands of a capable of player, Twins is probably above the 'balanced' point, but if the survivors have the right perks is going to be well under.
I've usually given the answer of Wesker, I don't feel like moving away from that. I feel that a lot of killers are basically at this level, some maybe marginal more or less, but not a huge difference - then you have like 5 to 7 that are clearly ahead of that, and about the same number, maybe slightly more, that are clearly below.
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4052806#Comment_4052806
In this post you are appealing to knowledge that BHVR has that we don't (allllll the data).
I wasnt appealing to BHVR as an authority, I was pointing out that they’ve consistently aimed for 60/40 for years, which explains why they consider that their intended balance target.
If you're going to believe BHVR must be right on these decisions because they have the data we don't, then their decision not to nerf perks and/or SWF must also be because they have all the data
I never argued bhvr must be right because they have data. I said they have stuck with 60/40 for years, which is why they consider that number balanced. Not that all their decisions are correct.
to have a discussion, you don't get to be selective about that.
I wasnt being selective, you reframed my comment about why they chose 60/40 into an appeal to authority so you could argue I must accept all their balance decisions, which wasnt my position.
you are using these posts for them to say they are happy with the numbers.
I asked where they said they were happy with all the numbers after you claimed they were. That wasnt a random question, it was a direct response to what you said.
there needs to be a logical flow from your evidence to your conclusions and there isn't.
There is, the quote was supporting evidence for my point about sfw gen speeds. You treated the quote like it was the argument instead of the point it was supporting.
this depends on what you mean by the word balance.
The word isnt being used generically here, it’s being used in the dev quote where they say the 60% killer KR “falls in line with our intended Killer balance.” Changing the definition outside of that context doesn’t change what they meant in that statement.
if you don't, if you're not arguing that we should trust BHVR, then the whole point is irrelevant.
My point doesnt depend on trusting bhvr at all. It comes from how gen speed multipliers interact with coordination in actual games. The quote was context, not the basis of the argument.
gen rush seems the least unique. Compared to other mechanics, it seems to be one of the least improved by adding coordination.
Your looking at it wrong. Gen speed multipliers really benefit from coordination because survivors can stack efficiently, avoid wasted time, and turn the same chase time into more gen progress than youd get in a solo queue. Thats why its the bigger factor
I wasnt appealing to BHVR as an authority, I was pointing out that they’ve consistently aimed for 60/40 for years, which explains why they consider that their intended balance target.I never argued bhvr must be right because they have data. I said they have stuck with 60/40 for years, which is why they consider that number balanced. Not that all their decisions are correct.I wasnt being selective, you reframed my comment about why they chose 60/40 into an appeal to authority so you could argue I must accept all their balance decisions, which wasnt my position.Three points, and I'll provide the quotes again:
The devs themselves have said that they aim for a 60/40 for balance on both sides. This is what they said. Theyve aimed for 60/40 for YEARS these are the people who have alllllll the data, and they've been sticking to their guns for YEARS. Im pretty sure theirs a GOOD reason why they are saying 60/40 is balanced after reviewing ALLLLLL their data for YEARS.What in the F*** are survivors doing to pull almost 10% past the intended escape %??? the swfs in high lobbies are popping gens like popcorn. No way in the world should you be able to pop a gen in 24-26 seconds with 2 people AND have coms1: No one disagrees or is unaware that BHVR has a target of 60% KR. The way you are arguing it is self-fulfilling, whatever BHVR says is the balance target, is balance.
2: To say you're just pointing out the numbers is not backed up by how you worded this. Let me focus in -
Im pretty sure theirs a GOOD reason why they are saying 60/40 is balanced after reviewing ALLLLLL their data for YEARS.You even put good in all caps. This is clearly worded not as just a factual reiteration, but arguing that they have info we don't leading them to the correct decision
3: Okay, for sake of argument, let's say all of the was just to establish the 60/40. Then the following sentence has no backing -
What in the F*** are survivors doing to pull almost 10% past the intended escape %???So if everything you said in the prior paragraph was just saying 'hey, these are the numbers BHVR is going for', then this next sentence just happens to be there and it has no support. Intended escape within this sentence only has some meaning or purpose if it is connect to the prior paragraph's argument. Basically, without arguing that BHVR's 'intended' is good (or GOOD), then its just irrelevant.
Let's go to the argument that we're just establishing context, which takes us to the territory that high MMR SWFs perform better, which brings me to:
There is, the quote was supporting evidence for my point about sfw gen speeds. You treated the quote like itwasthe argument instead of the point it was supporting.Except it doesn't.
First, there's no connection at all. I could just as easily say - high MMR SWFs escape more, because they use Sprint Burst, Vigil and shift W gameplay. Or high MMR SWFs escape more, showing how powerful deliverance is. Or high MMR SWFs escape more, showing how powerful coordinated healing is. You're attaching your conclusion to an independent fact, that's not evidence.
Second, coordinated high MMR SWFs (a subset of a subset of the player base) have always escaped more. Through various metas they've always had the advantage, because they have access to things (coms, ensuring they don't have a weak member, pre-planned strategy, etc) that others don't.
—When this data came out, given all the advantages they have, what was surprising wasn't that they escaped more, but even with all of those advantages they still weren't even reaching 50%
The word isnt being used generically here, it’s being used in the dev quote where they say the 60% killer KR “falls in line with our intended Killer balance.” Changing the definition outside of that context doesn’t change what they meant in that statement.They have a balance target. A goal they are going for. No one disagrees. Calling it just 'balance' without being BHVR's intended balance though is not accurate (see above on how the way you are using it is self-fulfilling).
Your looking at it wrong. Gen speed multipliers really benefit from coordination because survivors can stack efficiently, avoid wasted time, and turn the same chase time into more gen progress than youd get in a solo queue. Thats why its the bigger factorI'm following the @FerrousFacade argument and I agree with him that I feel you're argument is changing on this issue as well, but I'll do my best to respond to this point.
What about gen speed multipliers are unique?
If survivors coordinate heals faster, they get back on gens more quickly.
If survivors bring perks for longer chases, it gives others times to be on gens.
If survivors know their teammates has deliverance, it gives them more times on gens.
Having gen focused perks still has the exact same weaknesses in a SWF than it does in soloq - you don't have any advantages if you get targeted by the killer or you need to heal/unhook someone.
So what can the gen focused build do in a SWF that they couldn't in a soloq? I guess they could crack a 3 gen right from the start, and that would be valuable. Though even without a full gen perk loadout they could still do that more easily than a soloq. And you could team up on the final gen more easily, but that's not too hard to coordinate in soloq, but it would be easier. The way DbD math works is that pairing up on gens is usually inferior to spreading out.
Could some of the perks be too strong? I guess, toolboxes currently seem the strongest item, and no one is arguing gen perks are bad. But what we have for evidence on full builds beyond a 'ask any':
1: SWFs I've seen trying escape streaks have not engaged in it, maybe there is one out there I'm unaware of
2: The community cup I mentioned with unrestricted survivors; increasing gen speed through items and perks was definitely part of the strategies, but not overwhelming (outside of toolboxes), and not nearly as important as anti-tunnel or exhaustion.
3: Even in this case we're limiting the argument to a small fraction of the player base, and its questionable how relevant that should be for a discussion of the overall game (or overall averages, to go back to a BHVR quote).
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4052568#Comment_4052568
points require evidence, reasons why they should be believed. If the evidence falls, so does the argument
Reinterpreting the quote doesn't make the evidence fall. It just moves away from what it actually says
I think you are the one doing the reinterpretation and dropping context
The quote says the 60% killer KR “falls in line with our intended Killer balance.” That part isnt ambiguous.
many perks (maybe even all of them) work better with coordination… so yes, gen rush would be better in the hands of a SWF, but so would everything.
My point isnt that coordination makes everything better. It’s that gen speed multipliers scale unusually well with coordination compared to other mechanics, which is why gens feel especially fast in swfs.
the only thing I can think of is the happy/unhappy argument
Thats exactly what I meant. I never claimed they were unhappy with survivor ER, but you kept asking me to defend that.
which, as I said above, if you don't think they were unhappy, the line of questioning toward me made no sense.
That question came after you said they were happy with all the stats. I was asking where they actually said that.
Reinterpreting the quote doesn't make the evidence fall.So there is an evidence argument and an argument about quotes.
Let's deal with the evidence argument first.
You say the following:
The devs themselves have said that they aim for a 60/40 for balance on both sides. This is what they said. Theyve aimed for 60/40 for YEARS these are the people who have alllllll the data, and they've been sticking to their guns for YEARS. Im pretty sure theirs a GOOD reason why they are saying 60/40 is balanced after reviewing ALLLLLL their data for YEARS.What in the F*** are survivors doing to pull almost 10% past the intended escape %??? the swfs in high lobbies are popping gens like popcorn. No way in the world should you be able to pop a gen in 24-26 seconds with 2 people AND have coms.In this post you are appealing to knowledge that BHVR has that we don't (allllll the data).
I respond -
This goes both ways.If you're going to believe BHVR must be right on these decisions because they have the data we don't, then their decision not to nerf perks and/or SWF must also be because they have all the data.They also never have said that the 60/40 is a rate that applies to every single scenario, but an overall target, and its not their only game balancing metric.Basically, if you're going to appeal to what BHVR must know, that must remain consistent. Nothing I said above is incorrect and the quotes you'll later provided about overall averages back me up.
You respond:
also i never said they were right about all there decisions because they have all the data. I said I'm pretty sure theirs a good reason they decide to balance the game around 60/40, since they have for years that doesn't mean they cant make a bad decision.So what you are doing here is antithetical to a good discussion. Of course BHVR can make bad decisions, you're highly unlikely to find someone who disagrees with that notion here - but arguing that the decisions you like must be supported by data we don't have is a dishonest framing, it's creating a different standard for what you argue vs your opponents.
Which is what I said here in my next response to you:
To have a discussion, you don't get to be selective about that. If you're going to argue that BHVR reached a decision based on data or their experience than that has to apply to discussion of all game elements, not just the ones where you happen to agree with them.All of this remains true on the evidence front. Which immediately leads to the happy/unhappy issue.
I'll go to my quote:
I'm not pretending to know what goes inside BHVR's heads. You are using these posts for them to say they are happy with the numbers. At no point do they make an exception to that statement.You will respond:
This is why i asked you where did they say they were happy with all of the numbers? You couldn't quote it because it wasn't there so you move the goal post and ask me….The issue here goes back to your original quotes about BHVR and all the data.
This is where the happy/unhappy argument comes from. If something is justified because BHVR says they are happy with it (60/40) because they have all the data, then that all the data point remains true for other arguments and there must be evidence that they are unhappy with the 48.3 for the argument to have any meaning. Your conclusion of 48.3 having any meaning in connection to BHVR is only backed up if they have a problem with it. It's your argument (to be clear: to rely on what data BHVR must have), not mine, thus the shifting the goal posts argument is on you because you aren't backing your own position anymore.
To put another way, there needs to be a logical flow from your evidence to your conclusions and there isn't.
However, if you aren't relying on BHVR to be evidence, then the whole issue is moot anyway which is why I say you concede the argument.
-
Now, onto the quotes and redefining words.
You first use the word balance in the section I quote above - as a single word, not part of the quote. Later you will argue about people trying to redefine words, but balance can mean different things.
So for example balance can be used to mean - a situation in which two opposing forces have or are given the same power (Cambridge).
Under this definition, BHVR is clearly out of balance, they have a 60/40 split. Think of this like scales, typically we expect them to be even, but in this case they are not.
Now balance can also be defined as: to bring into harmony or proportion (Merriam Webster)
Not under this definition, BHVR could be in balance, because we introduce the concept of proportion. Again to use scales, one side could be weighted to be heavier if there is a reason for the scales to be offset (note the use of offset, we don't presume scales are balanced offset, we say it). However, to use balance in this way, you need to clarify that (and if you want to go further, balance can has lots of subtle differences in meaning if you want to dive into dictionaries)
@Firellius, myself and I reiterate this point - Firellius has more on the topic but I'll focus on my quotes -
They never say '60% is a balanced rate'. It's relatively balanced (not absurdly broken like a 70 to 80 would be, while still keeping the killer a 'force to be reckoned with') and its their intended balance - not a normal balance metric, but what they go for.You respond to me:
Balance is subjective, 60/40 to the dev team is balanced. It was literally word for word stated.To which I respond:
This depends on what you mean by the word balance. Many people, most I think, use it in a non-subjective wayBalance can also be used with attached conditions, such as BHVR does, but that does not mean the game is balanced in the sense of being 'even'.Here I'm trying to see it from your point of view. You could be using the proportional definition, but like I say above, I don't think that's the way people generally use it (i.e. its an objective word, not subjective, but you're using it in the less common way of being subjective).
But also, as I said, no one disagrees that BHVR has a 60% KR (you mention this in your last reply, no one ever disagreed with this that I can find). Many disagree with the numbers they've set or that it's balanced in an even sense (i.e. why we get phrases like 'relatively even'), but everyone knows that's the target for BHVR. This goes back though to whether you want to tie your argument to BHVR's standards or not. If you don't, if you're not arguing that we should trust BHVR, then the whole point is irrelevant.
Anyway, that's my run through, with quotes, of what progressed. I think things break down entirely after your 'I fixed it' post where I believe your changing of the quote from Firellius is extremely dishonest and bad for the discussion.
-
My point isnt that coordination makes everything better. It’s that gen speed multipliers scale unusually well with coordination compared to other mechanics, which is why gens feel especially fast in swfs.I don't want to just repeat what @FerrousFacade is saying, but of all the strategies that SWFs can employ, gen rush seems the least unique. Compared to other mechanics, it seems to be one of the least improved by adding coordination.
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4052503#Comment_4052503
It's the overall discussion you've engaged in and I brought it up in my first response to you. Everything harkens back to either that or what gets used from BHVR as evidence.
You focused on the evidence I used instead of the point I was making, reinterpreted what the devs actually said in the quote, and then asked me to defend positions I never claimed.
That’s why the discussion kept going in circles
But you're not engaging in the full spectrum of the argument (something @FerrousFacade mentions in their last reply). There's a clear tradeoff between gen speed and survivability (exhaustion, anti-tunnel, second chance). As a game mechanic it makes a lot of sense to have players make those tradeoffs. Are any of the perks too strong? Maybe, though I think not by much. Toolboxes probably are, though part of the issue there is the mess survivor items have been in for awhile now.
I hear you on tradeoffs, but my point was that gen speed multipliers are especially strong when SWFs have coordination via comms. That combo is what makes gen speeds feel too fast. I’m not saying perks or items don’t factor in, but the SWF coordination is key to what I’m saying
You focused on the evidence I used instead of the point I was makingGood for me then.
Points require evidence, reasons why they should be believed. If the evidence falls, so does the argument.
reinterpreted what the devs actually said in the quote1: I think you are the one doing the reinterpretation and dropping context, I think some others explained it better than I did.
2: I don't think you connected with what people disagreed with you over.
then asked me to defend positions I never claimed.The only thing I can think of is the happy/unhappy argument, which, as I said above, if you don't think they were unhappy, the line of questioning toward me made no sense.
I’m not saying perks or items don’t factor in, but the SWF coordination is key to what I’m sayingI feel like you need an element of uniqueness. Many perks (maybe even all of them) work better with coordination. From something simple like having a dedicated unhooker with healing builds, to pallet saves, to sabo, to body blocks - coordination is always going to have the advantage. So yes, gen rush would be better in the hands of a SWF, but so would everything.
-
@UnicornMedal said:
In my personal opinion, what we've been seeing lately is what has been hinted at for a long time now—Survivors have been nerfed consistently in very bizarre and unusual ways for so long now that they've started to adapt (again). Gens are flying, without any sort of gen rushing meta, because they know how to prioritize them. Even solo trials are less susceptible to 3-gens than they used to be, in my experience.
Parallel to that, we have Killers doing the same old thing as aggressively as ever. Instead of trying to improve their own gameplay, they're doubling down on micro play and being rewarded for it (again). It could never be that maybe they should improve as well. Of course not. The answer must be to punish Survivor again for merely learning how to navigate things even if they still lose in the end.
My feedback is sort of useless at this point, in all honesty. I wanted BHVR to lock in with their 2025 claims but as we all knew what was going to happen deep down, they dropped the ball. Again, my opinion, but I feel like that was the biggest middle finger they could have ever given the players and it dashes any hope I ever could have had about them trying to improve the game. And that's putting my feelings on the matter lightly.
Strong agree on this and people were warning it was going to happen.
As much as we get 'if you don't want killers to tunnel, give them something else to do' (which I think most people who wanted anti-tunnel agreed with), the survivor comparison gets dropped. Self heal with CoH, BU+FTP, bugged flashbangs, when survivors aren't doing this, they are doing gens (and to be clear, some things should be nerfed/bugs fixed, but as they were survivors did gens)
I think the best example is OTR and the old 80 second timer. We got lots of arguments about bodyblock, which people, rightly, pointed out meant a lot of time off generators. Now its nerfed, so survivors can't even make the mistake in how they use it anymore, they just do a gen.
Survivors have lost a lot of the more interesting risk/reward gameplay, it seems because the discussions that only focused on the rewards won out and everyone seems to be unhappy with the outcome.
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4052465#Comment_4052465
You've just argued it so poorly you're hurting your own side.
Me and you haven't been discussing about gen speeds, its been a cycle of you repeating things you didnt like the answer to. You can always add to the topic if that's how you feel.
I think there are some gen rush options that survivors have that probably should be nerfed.
This has honestly been the foundation of everything i have said. Not to move the goal post but iv been saying this from the start, even in other post. I may have given slight exaggerated build depictions but it was just to convey a point that gen multipliers need to be looked at. Theirs not just only 1 gen rushing build.
Me and you haven't been discussing about gen speeds,It's the overall discussion you've engaged in and I brought it up in my first response to you. Everything harkens back to either that or what gets used from BHVR as evidence.
But, if you don't think that's the discussion what is the reality I'm denying in relation to your "you get some type of discomfort when reality clashes with what you believe/want to."
its been a cycle of you repeating things you didnt like the answer to.Again, it shouldn't be hard for you to quote what you think I'm evading (or at a minimum, say it).
Not to move the goal post but iv been saying this from the start, even in other post.But you're not engaging in the full spectrum of the argument (something @FerrousFacade mentions in their last reply). There's a clear tradeoff between gen speed and survivability (exhaustion, anti-tunnel, second chance). As a game mechanic it makes a lot of sense to have players make those tradeoffs. Are any of the perks too strong? Maybe, though I think not by much. Toolboxes probably are, though part of the issue there is the mess survivor items have been in for awhile now.
-
I think the reason the 'not fun' get a lot of attention is that pretty much everyone else is pretty fun.
I guess if I was picking favorites Billy is pretty exciting to play against.
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4052378#Comment_4052378
If you notice almost all of this post is you repeating yourself from pages ago lol. You've been trying to brick wall the discussion between me and you for a while now.
If you bring up a source as an appeal to authority, like BHVR, you don't get to use them selectively. Either you commit to the point of view that they must have data we don't, or you throw it out entirely (as a hint: generally it's better to throw it out entirely, especially with BHVR). Otherwise it feels like you don't have the ability to defend your own stance and so you are cherrypicking what you use.
This is something you said pages ago, to which i responded and you deflected. So now after derailing from your own deflecting, your saying this again after its context has drifted. ( which is why it makes no sense. )
When you ask people questions during a disagreement, there has to be some relevance to the questions, or you are obviously rage baiting. As an example, you want me to prove BHVR is happy with something despite the fact that you are unwilling to take a stance that they are unhappy. This makes you seem afraid to actually engage with discussion.
Iv already addressed this pages ago. It didn't change, when ever you build the courage to be in a situation that feels like your point fell apart and not deflect. You can always go back and actually quote one of my response post to this.
Looking at the bigger picture here, it looks like you get some type of discomfort when reality clashes with what you believe/want to. So instead of you updating that belief you reject the evidence. This is why you just deflect, repeat, deflect, repeat.
I'm just not going to entertain it.
If you notice almost all of this post is you repeating yourself from pages ago lol.This is something you said pages ago,Iv already addressed this pages agoThen it should be relatively easy to quote it. Then either I can address it, or I can point to the post where I responded.
Looking at the bigger picture here, it looks like you get some type of discomfort when reality clashes with what you believe/want to.You don't even know what I believe.
I think there are some gen rush options that survivors have that probably should be nerfed. You've just argued it so poorly you're hurting your own side.
-
@Kupega said:
The one thing I want them to test more than anything is bringing the gen repair bonus and penalties from 2v8 into the regular game. 3 gens pop before a single hook? Gen 4 will be extremely slow now. 2 teammates dead before one gen is halfway? no worries, the survivor is suddenly the greatest mechanic ever seen.
Some perks would need to be adjusted such as Pentimento and maybe Gift of Pain/Weeping Wounds, and some gen speed perks and maybe toolboxes. The idea is far more complex than I'm presenting it and there is probably much that I'm overlooking in regards to it, but I think it's worth a consideration at least
I agree on the 2v8 ideas and catch up mechanics being tested. I feel like if they knew how the game would turn out, they would have been basekit from the beginning, but its going to be hard to convince people of such a change.
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4052124#Comment_4052124
I cant stop you from trying to change the english language, do as you wish.
As for the rest of this post, its just once again you deflecting because you refuse to face the wall you keep running into that YOU created for yourself. You wouldn't be in this situation if you didn't spent your last 4-5 post deflecting.
So to cut through the deflection - you are the one who brought up BHVR KR's numbers, high MMR, and alllllll their data (I'm keeping the 7 Ls that you used in the original) and you've spent two pages avoiding what you said. You can either defend it, or admit you made a mistake.
like what are you even responding to you deflect so much your just completely out of context in every post now lmao.
This is classic deflection technique you are engaged in
Why are you talking like a anime character? lol
You wouldn't be in this situation if you didn't spent your last 4-5 post deflecting.You're so incredibly bad at logical discussion, let me try and help you out. I know it can seem difficult at first, but you might have an actual point somewhere in there and it doesn't help your cause to construct your arguments so badly. Seriously, this could be so much better.
1: If you bring up a source as an appeal to authority, like BHVR, you don't get to use them selectively. Either you commit to the point of view that they must have data we don't, or you throw it out entirely (as a hint: generally it's better to throw it out entirely, especially with BHVR). Otherwise it feels like you don't have the ability to defend your own stance and so you are cherrypicking what you use.
2: When you ask people questions during a disagreement, there has to be some relevance to the questions, or you are obviously rage baiting. As an example, you want me to prove BHVR is happy with something despite the fact that you are unwilling to take a stance that they are unhappy. This makes you seem afraid to actually engage with discussion.
3: The person who brings up a point has the burden to show the relevance to the discussion. You brought up the 48.3 and BHVR's stance, your argument, the burden is on you to prove the relevance to your point. If you're trying to pick apart people's responses instead of defending your original points it clearly shows you are aware you can't defend them.
4: If you're going to argue an issue subjectively, you need to explain why something is creating a certain feel. For example, if the speed of the game feels too fast, explain why. Now, like all subjective arguments, it becomes more of a survey, because everyone has different opinions on feel, but at least that creates a point for discussion. As an example, one of the best arguments against the prior version of DH was how dumb it felt to run around constantly playing the head nodding game or how when survivors argue against tunneling they do so about how and why it breaks the enjoyability of the game.
5: If you're going to try and use evidence, saying something like 'ask any' is such a weak argument. It creates the impression of being engaged in group think and that you aren't used to having your ideas challenged. Especially if you think the issue is that overwhelming it shouldn't be hard to point to a stream of 10 games with the issue occurring again and again.
As a suggestion - DbDLeague ran a tournament recently where the survivors were unrestricted. Some gen focused builds were used, and toolboxes were the most taken item. Now this is going to also hurt your argument, because again remember you can't partially use a source, some of the perks you are complaining about saw very little use.
It also won't help you with @cogsturning because he, like many, doesn't consider the 0.001% percent of the playerbase relevant, but at least it would give you a starting point.
6: If you think people are getting the context wrong, you need to explain why, usually with detail. Just saying 'read' is always going to look like you know you've lost the argument but don't want to admit it. Also obviously bouncing back and forth between context and defining single words makes you seem obviously evasive.
7: To have a discussion, you have to respond to the points others make, not the points you want them to make. If you just want to state your opinion and be done with it, go ahead, but its not much of a discussion.
8: If you tell someone you are not going to respond, you have to mean it. Otherwise it seems like tactic to try and get the other person to stop disproving what you say.
9: You're allowed to admit something was a bad argument or phrased poorly and move on.
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051944#Comment_4051944
Turning your statements into little segments to run from context nicce.
That one post on here asking why some people are on this forum really does hit home now Lol
You didn't even respond to my post. What was even the point in quoting it?
Everyone makes typos but not many try to change the meaning of words to be right and ignore context just for the sake of arguing lol
Turning your statements into little segments to run from context nicce.You don't actually explain the context I'm missing. Like most of your arguments, you stay vague and evasive.
This is classic deflection technique you are engaged in. When you quote BHVR, and people explain the meaning of the entire sentence, you start defining individual words and avoiding the context argument. When people break things into parts, you act like they are avoiding the larger context. You never engage the actual discussion, you try to work your way around it.
So to cut through the deflection - you are the one who brought up BHVR KR's numbers, high MMR, and alllllll their data (I'm keeping the 7 Ls that you used in the original) and you've spent two pages avoiding what you said. You can either defend it, or admit you made a mistake.
-
@ShanoaLegendaryPlz said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051756#Comment_4051756
I didnt even say anything about mmr or doubted anything. Im genuinely confused lol
I'll give it a shot on what they might have meant.
If the MMR system does what it is supposed to, the whole issue is moot. If you play a C tier killer eventually you should get to a place where your KR is 60%. If you play an A tier killer, eventually you should get to a place where your KR is 60%. The killers would be in different spots of the MMR, but those numbers are secret so the player wouldn't know. Unless a player is on the edges of MMR, everyone should end up feeling like they ended in the same spot
That's conceptually what should happen, though I don't think anyone feels like that is what happens.
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051818#Comment_4051818
At no point do they say they are unhappy with the 48.3 or its outside that there norm. In fact, you are relying on that post for BHVR saying they are overall happy with the numbers. Much like the quotes, you are only using part of it.
Your clearly saying here they are happy with both the KR and ER here. When they never said anything about the way they felt about the 48.3.
I wouldn't worry to much about reading anything if i were you but more the English language, because it seems like you think you can just make words mean what you want them to and completely ignore context.
I know
readingall the words in a quote is not your strong suit, so I'll help you out.Ironic. Lol
I wouldn't worry to much about reading anything if i were you but more the English language"but more the English language"
I hate to bust on typos because everyone makes them, but its kind of funny when you are accusing someone of not comprehending English.
Your clearly saying here they are happy with both the KR and ER here.Your should be You are or You're
Anyway, I'll quote you - "Lmao no, that doesn't indicate that."
Let's break down the quote
>At no point do they say they are unhappy
This is true.
>you are relying on that post
you, not me
>Much like the quotes, you are only using part of it.
still true.
-
@Abbzy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051853#Comment_4051853
Cant denny that gens can be done fast without gen perks if 4 survviors spread out at the start we are looking on 2-3 gens in 100 seconds time window unless killer has great mobility or game sence and finds them first and starts to get fast downs in short time window.
For your killers skill issue who was the killer? Like you can loop m1 killer or killer with no chase power for very long time like over minute and bloodlast only kicks in on second stage if and thats 30 seconds and level 3 is 45 seconds for just one m1 hit so not all things are skill issu just if they are matched against m1 killer who has same experience or around same you cant expect him to have same downs in same time as the someone with around same experience (to survviors) with better killer like blight or springtrap which can end chases fast if they are good or even burn through pallets faster tahn the m1 killer like the blight can.
Cant denny that gens can be done fast without gen perks if 4 survviors spread out at the start we are looking on 2-3 gens in 100 seconds time window unless killer has great mobility or game sence and finds them first and starts to get fast downs in short time window.If things go well for the survivors, the survivors benefits. If things go well for the killer, the killer benefits.
I don't see the problem in that part.
The early game of DbD is extremely important, with the first chase usually having far more importance than latter chases, but again that's true for both sides. If the first chase is quick, massive killer benefit, if the first chase is long, massive survivor benefit. Subjectively, that may be a game design flaw, but its true for everyone.
-
I don't have a problem with the concept, but agree with @tjt85 that a simpler solution is just throwing it in as a daily for some people.
Though I think a larger issue is random chance. With as many killers as there are, its going to take a lot of play to get a reflection of the overall numbers. Usually when topics like this come someone might say 'I haven't seen an Artist in a month' and someone else will have 'I hit two in my last five games'.
There's a few common killers, a few that are very rare, but the giant middle seems distributed pretty evenly.
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051665#Comment_4051665
You then ask - "
Where did they say they were happy about the difference in group sizes in high elo or it fell in line with their balance?" (sidenote - this question pretty clearly indicates you think they are unhappy with it, it doesn't make sense to ask someone for proof of a stance you agree with)Lmao no, that doesn't indicate that.
+
you said
In fact, you are relying on that post for BHVR saying they are overall happy with the numbers.
This is the part you left out. YOU said they were happy about the ER which is why I questioned you where? I didnt ask you randomly like your trying to frame. Go back and read.
They only specifically said they were happy about the KR. I never once, brought up them being unhappy or happy about the ER, you did first. When I never said it in the first place.
YOU said they were happy about the ER which is why I questioned you where? I didnt ask you randomly like your trying to frame. Go back and read.I know reading all the words in a quote is not your strong suit, so I'll help you out.
—In fact, you are relying on that post for BHVR saying they are overall happy with the numbers.—
You does not mean me, it means you.
Lmao no, that doesn't indicate that.So you're repeatedly demanding me prove that BHVR has a stance that you think they have?
As I said, if you believe BHVR doesn't have a problem with the high MMR disparity, everything you used to back up your argument falls apart, so happy to have convinced you.
-
@FerrousFacade said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051533#Comment_4051533
As I said, it wasn't perfect and I expected changes, you keep ignoring me saying that and won't take anything less than me agreeing with you in full. These systems would have been good for the game and you will never convince me otherwise. I agree these changes would have effected the kill rate and then BHVR would have made other changes until it returned to the 60% overall they shoot for. 48 for four man swf in high MMR (still 40 for just four man but that doesn't support you so you ignore it), a fraction of a fraction of the playerbase. I don't disagree with favoring the killer side but if the game swings too heavily in favor of killers the game dies as well and right now it favors killers much more than survivors unless you are literally a comp four man.
I agree these changes would have effected the kill rate and then BHVR would have made other changes until it returned to the 60% overall they shoot for.I think you're correct here. If numbers had dropped, BHVR has numerous options to keep them in line, from changing the numbers associated with the anti-tunnel (on either side), to pallet spawns, to map sizes, to buffing killers, to perk adjustments, etc.
This is presuming it even made it out of the PTB without adjustments, which basically everyone agreed where necessary.
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051661#Comment_4051661
Except I'm not inventing what they didn't say. They literally never said those things.
lmao what?
glad to have convinced you.
Not sure wth your talking about but i guess im glad you do.
Except I'm not inventing what they didn't say. They literally never said those things.lmao what?It's a relatively easy concept, based upon your one sided demands for evidence.
It's been a mildly long discussion, so I'll walk you through it.
In BHVR's posts, that you provided, they say they are happy with the kill rates. These same posts also link the 48.3 kill rate.
You then ask - "Where did they say they were happy about the difference in group sizes in high elo or it fell in line with their balance?" (sidenote - this question pretty clearly indicates you think they are unhappy with it, it doesn't make sense to ask someone for proof of a stance you agree with)
I say - "Where did they say they weren't?"
I also say - "I'm not pretending to know what goes inside BHVR's heads."
You're demanding I prove something, but what your demanding I prove isn't my argument. I'm trying to show that your statements are unfounded. We have no absolute knowledge of their view of the 48.3 because they never directly say anything on it. Though I'd say there is pretty heavy evidence from their posts about a focus on overall averages and that they've had plenty of opportunities to address the high MMR SWF disparity, but passed on saying anything, that it doesn't actually fall outside their balance targets.
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051608#Comment_4051608
lol ok lets wrap this up.
At no point do they say they are unhappy with the 48.3 or its outside that there norm
You’re responding to a claim I never made. I pointed out that the devs explicitly said killer KR is in line with their intended balance. I didn’t say they were unhappy with survivor ER. I’m pointing out what they did say, not inventing what they didn’t.
You made this statement and now your trying to make me defend it when i never said it.
This is a perfect analogy of what your doing
Chef: "The burger patty came out exactly how we want it. This matches our intended recipe."
Me : "He specifically said the patty is how he wants it. He didn’t say that about the fries."
You: "Where did he say the fries are bad? Show me"
When i never said he said the fries were bad lol
This is obvious rage bait.
I’m pointing out what theydidsay, not inventing what they didn’t.Except I'm not inventing what they didn't say. They literally never said those things.
Chef: "The burger patty came out exactly how we want it. This matches our intended recipe."Me : "He specifically said the patty is how he wants it. He didn’t say that about the fries."You: "Where did he say the fries are bad? Show me"This has been a somewhat hilarious turn around. Anyway, here's what you said that I first replied to:
"Theyve aimed for 60/40 for YEARS these are the people who have alllllll the data, and they've been sticking to their guns for YEARS. Im pretty sure theirs a GOOD reason why they are saying 60/40 is balanced after reviewing ALLLLLL their data for YEARS.What in the F*** are survivors doing to pull almost 10% past the intended escape %??? the swfs in high lobbies are popping gens like popcorn. No way in the world should you be able to pop a gen in 24-26 seconds with 2 people AND have coms."Anyway, if you now want to act like there isn't a problem, great. If you want to pretend like you didn't base your argument around BHVR's KR, well that's silly based on what you said. Either way, glad to have convinced you.
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051360#Comment_4051360
Alot of this post is just deflecting and you changing your original points to find a "gotcha". Are you even trying to debate your own personal point or are you just trying to win a argument, because the more you respond I'm struggling to make sense of it.
You did make me chuckle though when you pointed out that I responded to myself to respond to you lol that was just human error ill go back and fix it.
I'm not pretending to know what goes inside BHVR's heads. You are using these posts for them to say they are happy with the numbers. At no point do they make an exception to that statement.
In the post on the stats page, they talked about the killers separately based off what was being shown in the data. again.
"Looking at the bigger picture, there was an average kill rate of 60% across all MMR, while that average kill rate increased to 63% for high MMR. (
This largely falls in line with our intended Killer balance.)"They specifically said killers, nobody is picking and choosing this is what the devs said. I'm just using the basic understanding of the English language.
You asked me where they said they were happy with the numbers, I'm asking you where they said they weren't.
I asked you because you said that they stated they were happy with all the numbers, this came straight from your mouth…
At no point do they say they are unhappy with the 48.3 or its outside that there norm. (In fact, you are relying on that post for BHVR saying they are overall happy with the numbers).
This is why i asked you where did they say they were happy with all of the numbers? You couldn't quote it because it wasn't there so you move the goal post and ask me….
Where did they say they weren't?
So you assume something they never said, then when i ask you to quote it your response is asking me where they didn't say it? LOL what? What's even more confusing is this part
At no point do they say they are unhappy with the 48.3 or its outside that there norm.
I never said that they said they were unhappy with the 48.3 on that page, if i did please quote it. Or are you just gonna deflect this to?
None of that makes sense.
more deflecting lol.
you're backing up my argument that they aren't unhappy about the numbers. Now you're just quibbling about possible whys.
I Never said they said they were unhappy about them on that stats page, quote it or you can just deflect this to if you want, but Regarding your "argument".
In fact, you are relying on that post for BHVR saying they are overall happy with the numbers.
If that was your argument why did you say this?
2: Even in relying on BHVR, you're ignoring key words they've said. 'Relatively', 'intended', 'average', while substituting different words into those quotes - you then accuse others of having trouble understanding English.
I mean not to be rude, but it does come down to the basic understanding of the English language. "Our intended killer balance"
Lets have a quick English lesson really quick. Google says the definition of intended - "something happened exactly as it was planned, designed, or meant to, aligning with the original purpose or goal". So with that said what does "Intended killer balance" mean? lol
Alot of this post is just deflecting and you changing your original points to find a "gotcha"What do you think my original point is?
This is why i asked you where did they say they were happy with all of the numbers? You couldn't quote it because it wasn't there so you move the goal post and ask me….Evidence demands go both ways, you don't get to demand one side of the argument. They said they were happy with the numbers, they never made an exception to that statement.
Which is the overall point. You're relying on BHVR standards for your arguments, the burden is on you to provide the evidence. What about the 48.3% rate is outside their intended targets given that they say, in the quotes you provide, that they are looking at an average?
I never said that they said they were unhappy with the 48.3 on that page, if i did please quote it. Or are you just gonna deflect this to?You're evading the argument (or being deflective if you prefer). I never said, that you said, they were unhappy, that's trying to shift the argument by demanding I provide evidence of something I never stated. Basically you are trying to set this up that I have to prove something while you don't have to take any side at all.
What you did ask was - "Where did they say they were happy about the difference in group sizes in high elo or it fell in line with their balance?"
Demanding that one side prove they are happy about something requires an equal burden that the other side to show they are unhappy. Arguing that only one side has to provide evidence is actual deflection from a lack of evidence.
The whole premise of your argument though relies on the presumption of the 60/40 split as laid out by BHVR, throw that out and you have no argument.
more deflecting lol.No, that paragraph you wrote that I quoted was just gibberish.
So with that said what does "Intended killer balance" mean? lolThe numbers that they go for. No one has ever denied that. They have an overall target of 60%. You're trying to distract with arguments over things no one disagrees about to avoid the actual substantive issues.
This is one of the other issues with your argument - you don't seem to really have a grasp over what people are even disagreeing with you over.
-
It depends on the killer and the buff.
Take Wraith. He's a monster against new survivors. Buff him and the new survivor experience will be even worse.
It's also a question of what addons are meant to accomplish. Are they meant to make up for killer weaknesses (i.e. balance being based around a killer running addons), should they be minor boosts, or game defining impacts? That's not breaking the game balance wise, but it depends on what concept people want (and I think BHVR leans more towards addons being meant to be required boosts).
It would depend on the specifics and the goal.
-
@BlackRabies said:
If you want anti tunneling and anti slugging in the game to punish killers for playing their role then there better be something to punish survivors for "gen rushing".
We could do something like putting slow downs on teaming up on a single objective (multiple survivors on a gen)
We could make it so the survivors have to spread out (can't just focus on one gen)
We could make it so accomplishing part of their objective makes the next stage harder (each gen completed giving the killer less gens to defend vs an elimination making the killer side easier)
We could even put unnecessary objective for the survivors, and give them strategic reasons to do them or not (say 7 gens but require 5 to be done, and make them decide whether better to spread out or focus)
Basically - we do that already. Punishing the survivors for doing their objectives, giving them pros and cons to various approaches, is already baked into the game.
-
On the topic of which role is more stressful
I've always found it an interesting topic, especially because of certainty people have over their feeling and disbelief from others.
Personally, I'm on the survivor is more stressful take, win or lose killer doesn't seem to have nearly the nerve racking nature.
Reasons I have / I've seen over the years
Team nature vs solo:
As a solo, I want to win, but if I don't, live and learn. On a team, if I let my team down, that's devastating.
Uncertainty
As a killer I see the gens, the hooks, right from the start. Survivor, all of those are uncertain (including even what killer). In soloq I never know for certain what the other survivors are doing.
Who to blame?
I see lots of blames on bad teammates. Like 'why would I stress if the team is playing bad'? I instead focus on what I could have done better.
Gamesense
I've never found the killer gamesense particularly taxing on tracking the 4 survivors, especially compared to guessing at what the other survivors might be doing. Making a call on something like 'do I go for the save, or stay on this gen', seem much more difficult and taxing than the killer calls.
Never feeling safe
As killer there comes a point where its like 'I've got this in the bag'. The end game is rarely tense. As survivor, playing both for my escape and others, there is always the possibility of being caught or losing another survivor.
Expectation of winning
Does the 60% KR and fact that the killer should win make it more or less stressful. To me, less. If I play 5 games and lose 1, draw 1, and win 3, I don't focus on the 1 loss. On survivor escaping a match feels like an accomplishment, which makes it getting taken away late very stress inducing.
4v1 or 1 stronger
I think there being 4 survivors creates an impression of strength that I don't get. As killer I'm faster, I have a power, I have the advantage in every 1v1. The fact that there are 3 other survivors doing gens doesn't detract from the advantage there (see gamesense feelings)
Control of the flow
As killer, if survivor is headed for a strong loop, I can just drop to another one. The killer controls what happens. As survivor the best I can do to interfere with the killer is try and body block, I can't force them into a chase.
Basically - everyone is different and gets different feelings from the roles.
-
@Seeayzee said:
Are we ever going to get anti slug and anti tunneling? They are still a big issue and its odd that those proposed changes were scrapped all together instead of being tweaked.
Well the topic went in a different direction, but no, we're probably not. I find it hard to believe that they spent time designing new UI elements, changes to custom games, perk overhauls, and there were like 'haha, nope' - but that's BHVR.
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051252#Comment_4051252
huh?
Didn't you just say this in your last post?
At no point do they say they are unhappy with the 48.3 or its outside that there norm. In fact, you are relying on that post for BHVR saying they are overall happy with the numbers.
Your saying here that they were happy with the survivor numbers in that post, i told you and proved to you they didnt now your asking me..?
Where did they say they weren't?
They're clearly looking at overall average numbers. They even bolded it. They have ample opportunity to say something like 'we're considering ways to address the SWF disparity', but they don't, they say the numbers fall in line with their balance targets.
I dont think you really read what they said, they were specifically talking about the killers KR overall and in high mmr. It says right there "killer balance" lmao.
You right, they did bolden it, They mentioned the overall KR of killers and the KR of killers in high mmr. Which they both said falls within their balance for killers. They didn't just mention the overall KR of killers they commented on both global and high elo numbers. read.
They have ample opportunity to say something like 'we're considering ways to address the SWF disparity', but they don't, they say the numbers fall in line with their balance targets.
Lol quote to me in that post where they said the survivors ER data all fell within their intended balance? They said that about killer.
Why would they say there considering ways to address swfs when we dont know if they even know how? We see the killers they release and keep strong and its pretty obvious how they try to handle it.
You quoted yourself to respond to me.
Your saying here that they were happy with the survivor numbers in that postI'm not pretending to know what goes inside BHVR's heads. You are using these posts for them to say they are happy with the numbers. At no point do they make an exception to that statement.
i told you and proved to you they didnt now your asking me..?All you've proved is an ability to ignore words that don't fit your conclusions.
You asked me where they said they were happy with the numbers, I'm asking you where they said they weren't. Your own evidence disproves your arguments - they said the numbers fell within their intended targets for overall averages, at no point did they make any exceptions to that statement.
You right, they did bolden it, They mentioned the overall KR of killers and the KR of killers in high mmr. Which they both said falls within their balance for killers. They didn't just mention the overall KR of killers they commented on both global and high elo numbers. read.None of that makes sense.
Why would they say there considering ways to address swfs when we dont know if they even know how?You're backing up my argument that they aren't unhappy about the numbers. Now you're just quibbling about possible whys.
-
Let me sum up the problems with your argument
1: You're trying to supersede the argument about KR by relying upon BHVR's statements about where they want the intended KR to be. If you are going to use them as your evidence as being the standard we all need to use to guide us, you don't get to be selective.
2: Even in relying on BHVR, you're ignoring key words they've said. 'Relatively', 'intended', 'average', while substituting different words into those quotes - you then accuse others of having trouble understanding English.
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.
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051238#Comment_4051238
I just fixed it to make it say what they actually said, not some made up crap to rage bait.
Of course, there’s more to a Trial than just Killers. Let’s take a look at how Survivors have fared!
Overall escape rates tended to be quite close across MMR brackets, with all MMR seeing a 41% escape rate and high MMR landing at 42%. Digging into specific party sizes is where the results differed.
Unsurprisingly, coordinated groups playing at high MMR performed best, resulting in the highest escape rate. Interestingly, however, solo queue players in the wider MMR bracket proved to be particularly hardy, falling above the overall escape rate.
But with that, we’ll see you again in July to share the next 3 months of Killer and Survivor stats.
Until next time…
Where did they say they were happy about the difference in group sizes in high elo or it fell in line with their balance?
All they said was they weren't surprised that 4 mans in high mmr performed better because even they know good players + teamwork = strong asf. They never said they were happy about the differences.
They specifically said that killers KR being at 63% in high mmr largely falls within there killer balance. Is that a surprise when they said 60% is what they strive for?
Where did they say they were happy about the difference in group sizes in high elo or it fell in line with their balance?Where did they say they weren't?
Here's the quote, bolding is in the original.
"Looking at the bigger picture, there was an average kill rate of 60% across all MMR, while that average kill rate increased to 63% for high MMR. This largely falls in line with our intended Killer balance."
They're clearly looking at overall average numbers. They even bolded it. They have ample opportunity to say something like 'we're considering ways to address the SWF disparity', but they don't, they say the numbers fall in line with their balance targets.
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051208#Comment_4051208
This isn't them saying it's balanced, it's saying that it's at the point where they want it to be. A point they previously clarified as 'relatively even', where the killer is a real threat and survival is not guaranteed.
This is what they think is balanced, it's saying that it's at the point where they want it to be. A point they previously clarified as 'balanced', where the killer is a real threat and survival is not guaranteed.
I fixed it for you.
This is weird rage bait, "Our intended killer balance" there calling the point which is 60% for killer to be balanced, LITTERALLY. What you think is balanced in a video game doesn't matter its subjective.
what agenda are you trying to push on here to be in such denial over the english language?
I guess your rage bait was pretty good because I fell for it lol
Ifixed it for you.You changed quoted words from relatively even to balanced. That's not fixing, that's a different meaning.
"Our intended killer balance"Other thing I'll point out - when they give the following quote
"We try to keep Killers near a 60% kill rate on average to keep matches relatively even and support the horror theme of the game, where the Killer is a force to be reckoned with and the survival is not guaranteed."
it comes from the same place that they give the image with 48.3% escape rate.
At no point do they say they are unhappy with the 48.3 or its outside that there norm. In fact, you are relying on that post for BHVR saying they are overall happy with the numbers. Much like the quotes, you are only using part of it.
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051041#Comment_4051041
If you're going to believe BHVR must be right on these decisions because they have the data we don't, then their decision not to nerf perks and/or SWF must also be because they have all the data.
them nerfing perks and swfs directly is clearly not their approach to address them. They release killers like vecna instead, also i never said they were right about all there decisions because they have all the data. I said I'm pretty sure theirs a good reason they decide to balance the game around 60/40, since they have for years that doesn't mean they cant make a bad decision.
They also never have said that the 60/40 is a rate that applies to every single scenario, but an overall target, and its not their only game balancing metric.
they said that killers having 60% kr across all MMR largely falls within their "killer balance" so 40% should be applied to all MMRs and group sizes.
They never say '60% is a balanced rate'. It's relatively balanced (not absurdly broken like a 70 to 80 would be, while still keeping the killer a 'force to be reckoned with') and its their intended balance - not a normal balance metric, but what they go for.
Balance is subjective, 60/40 to the dev team is balanced. It was literally word for word stated.
Looking at the bigger picture, there was an average kill rate of 60% across all MMR... This largely falls in line with ourintended Killer balanceThis is literally stating 60% kill rate across all mmrs is what they deem the killer role to be balanced.
We try to keep Killers near a60% kill rateon average to keep matches relatively even and support the horror theme of the game, where the Killer is a force to be reckoned with and the survival is not guaranteed.There's no point in being delusional about words this is literally stating 60% KR is intended for in other words "close to equal but not identical" games. Which is why they said 60% largely falls within there intended "killer balance"
You're framing it in the best possible scenario for the survivors and worst for the killer. The survivor has no exhaustion to help escape, no anti-tunnel, no healing to help recover, etc. That's the thing about all out builds (on either side, really), under a perfect scenario they seem extremely powerful, but if another scenario occurs they can become very weak, very fast.
Which is why these builds are broken in the hands of SWFs, having coms, changes the game. Communication in Dbd against a killer opens up so many doors and opportunities.
It's possible that build is broken. BHVR has the data and would know for certain, but there's lots of reasons why the build might not succeed.
The reasons for it working and not working well, is not balanced.
They release killers like vecna instead, also i never said they were right about all there decisions because they have all the data.To have a discussion, you don't get to be selective about that. If you're going to argue that BHVR reached a decision based on data or their experience than that has to apply to discussion of all game elements, not just the ones where you happen to agree with them.
they said that killers having 60% kr across all MMR largely falls within their "killer balance" so 40% should be applied to all MMRs and group sizes.Those last two words 'group sizes' are something you just tacked on. You can believe that, I don't think its feasible, but its not something BHVR has ever said.
Balance is subjective, 60/40 to the dev team is balanced. It was literally word for word stated.This depends on what you mean by the word balance. Many people, most I think, use it in a non-subjective way
Balance can also be used with attached conditions, such as BHVR does, but that does not mean the game is balanced in the sense of being 'even'.
There's no point in being delusional about words this is literally stating 60% KR is intendedIt's not news to anyone that 60% KR is what they go for.
Which is why these builds are broken in the hands of SWFs, having coms, changes the game. Communication in Dbd against a killer opens up so many doors and opportunities.SWFs having the possibility of being stronger is again not news to anyone.
Whether they were coordinating quick heals, deliverance plays, pick ups, background player, sabo, etc. all of those are going to be stronger in the hands of a high MMR SWF with good coordination. It doesn't however address any of the points about the downsides of going all out on gen rush in comparison to the alternatives.
-
@Abbzy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4051028#Comment_4051028
Because blight is very popular from survivors too he is very deffended killer which is pretty strange because I saw and even disscused with some mainly survivor players that blight is busted beyond and they still were chill about him compare to killers like springtrap which got more hate.
Dam I even saw some people that post heavy survivor sided posts to deffend blights hug tech which I find super strange but blight has big cult and he is very liked and deffended by not only his mains but by like half of the survivor player base which I find ridicilus but its truth.
I believe he has even huge fun base in devs lines because of how long he held his busted addons and hug tech for long time like two years and has one of highest kill rates in top mmr and is one of strongest killers (by comp players strongest, they consider him to be even stronger than nurse and thats just now when blight is arguably on his lowest he ever been and still he beats nurse), you will find on average more hate towards the bubba from survivors than to blight even when he is just ghoul on roids and cheap drogs.
Because blight is very popular from survivors too he is very deffended killer which is pretty strange because I saw and even disscused with some mainly survivor players that blight is busted beyond and they still were chill about him compare to killers like springtrap which got more hate.It's almost like the survivors care more about fun gameplay than they do just winning. I know that probably comes up as an impossibility to many.
The thing about Blight - is he too strong? Yes, but he's also enjoyable to face. That's the difference from something like Nurse, who is too strong and not particularly engaging to play against. Balance is important of course, but not nearly as much as having an engaging killer design.
-
I think when a survivor on hook can unhook themselves (Deliverance / Wicked), their aura should be a different color (or other method of showing). I think that would easily and quickly narrow the soloq/SWF gap on the power of those perks.
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4050933#Comment_4050933
Its funny how your response to 2 survivors popping a gen in 20 seconds. is a sheet that further proves whos doing it.
The devs themselves have said that they aim for a 60/40 for balance on both sides. This is what they said. Theyve aimed for 60/40 for YEARS these are the people who have alllllll the data, and they've been sticking to their guns for YEARS. Im pretty sure theirs a GOOD reason why they are saying 60/40 is balanced after reviewing ALLLLLL their data for YEARS.
What in the F*** are survivors doing to pull almost 10% past the intended escape %??? the swfs in high lobbies are popping gens like popcorn. No way in the world should you be able to pop a gen in 24-26 seconds with 2 people AND have coms.
Skull merchant has the highest kill rate record EVER which was like 70% when she was BROKEN ASF and they nerfed her to the ground. Anytime a killers target % rises as high as SWFs are right now they get nerfed to the ground, because behavior has said countless times 60/40 is balanced.
Well SWFs are 8% above the targeted balance. According to the devs, 60/40 is balanced so 60/50 is not balanced.
Popping a gen as fast as 4 mans can shouldn't be possible it just shouldn't.
The devs themselves have said that they aim for a 60/40 for balance on both sides. This is what they said. Theyve aimed for 60/40 for YEARS these are the people who have alllllll the data, and they've been sticking to their guns for YEARS. Im pretty sure theirs a GOOD reason why they are saying 60/40 is balanced after reviewing ALLLLLL their data for YEARS.This goes both ways.
If you're going to believe BHVR must be right on these decisions because they have the data we don't, then their decision not to nerf perks and/or SWF must also be because they have all the data.
They also never have said that the 60/40 is a rate that applies to every single scenario, but an overall target, and its not their only game balancing metric.
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4050966#Comment_4050966
this is a quote straight for a developer
"We try to keep Killers near a 60% kill rate on average to keep matches relatively even and support the horror theme of the game, where the Killer is a force to be reckoned with and the survival is not guaranteed."
"Looking at the bigger picture, there was an average kill rate of 60% across all MMR... This largely falls in line with our intended Killer balance."
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/433-developer-update-stats
They out right said its for balance.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4050968#Comment_4050968
I actually want the opposite, i want gen multipliers capped. And bloated killers NERFED. That literally does the opposite of affecting solo Q because solo Q players arent gen rushing abusing multipliers with coms. That actually helps solo Q,.
Outrageously smaller is a heavy exaggeration, is it less swfs then solos and duos in high mmr yes most likely.
If your solo Qing in high mmr your a good player, it makes no sense to call someone solo Qing in high mmr a bad player (i know u didnt say that). Swfs arent OP because the players in them are just, SOOO much better then solo Qers.
Their better because its 4 good players that have prepped, are coordinated and on coms. That changes everything. That's a unmatched level of gen rushing and a new a unmatched level of awareness. Which is why there a fat 8% above solo Qers.
48% is almost 10% above there targeted %, you cant really compare it to the Top killers when there stats are bloating off stomping non Swfs.
And four great players should beat most people. That's just logical. I'd never expect to stand a chance against a comp team. They
shouldwin.So a killer playing in high mmr should just feel helpless against a swf and just accept the fact hes gonna lose and theirs nothing he can do about it? Does that not go against the entire point of this game? Lmao, so nerf the bloated killers that are the only ones that stand a chance against a Swf in high mmr because there over performing against Solo Qers, but dont touch swf because 4 good players in a group are suppose to win? lmao
The quote shows @Firellius points
"relatively even"
"horror themed"
"intended killer balance"
They never say '60% is a balanced rate'. It's relatively balanced (not absurdly broken like a 70 to 80 would be, while still keeping the killer a 'force to be reckoned with') and its their intended balance - not a normal balance metric, but what they go for.
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4050926#Comment_4050926
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.
You're framing it in the best possible scenario for the survivors and worst for the killer. The survivor has no exhaustion to help escape, no anti-tunnel, no healing to help recover, etc. That's the thing about all out builds (on either side, really), under a perfect scenario they seem extremely powerful, but if another scenario occurs they can become very weak, very fast.
It's possible that build is broken. BHVR has the data and would know for certain, but there's lots of reasons why the build might not succeed.
It's possible its bad game design. If so, its a larger issue with the game.
-
@UnicornMedal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4050781#Comment_4050781
It's something you can't quantify. If you make giving up or DCing wrong across the board, you end up with harsh penalties for situations where maybe the power went out or maybe you get a string of hackers (which are becoming more common). Even if it prevents pettiness, it starts to affect everyone eventually in a game this unstable. Alternatively, you get a system like the Abandon system we've gotten instead which spares your time in some scenarios but it doesn't prevent many of the reasons players DC or the source of their fatigue.
Essentially you have to let it happen for the health of the game, but improve things so players are less prone to do it. When morale boosts enough, players will adapt.
When morale boosts enough, players will adapt.Or, how about 'the beatings will continue until morale improves?'
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4050570#Comment_4050570
This might be the most pedantic response I've ever seen, but here: no, I'm pretty sure you've never said the words "you're an idiot" at least not on these forums.
But what you do tend to say, in almost every conversation you can wedge yourself into is roughly this:
"Tunneling is a skill issue, you just have to hide." "The killer can't tunnel what they can't find"
And since "hiding" is literally the first thing a new survivor will do, this is incredibly condescending and patronizing from you at best.
Did you use the exact word "idiot"? No. But treating literally everyone who isn't you as though they're complete morons for not "figuring out" what would otherwise be the simplest thing in the game is doing exactly that.
It's just that most people have an ounce of empathy or consideration for other players and are seeking to win as a team and not just "screw you. I got mine".
We've tried hiding, it isn't consistent. It certainly isn't consistent once you've been found. And I have never seen an entire 4 man escape without even a single person being found once. It doesn't work on large scale, which is what nearly everyone tries to tell you about it.
And your response, nearly every time, is to treat us like we're the idiots.
This might be the most pedantic response I've ever seen, but here: no, I'm pretty sure you've never said the words "you're an idiot" at least not on these forums.This one is pretty much that.
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4041605#Comment_4041605
its pvp the entire concept is player v player….not coop. dbd is rated 17+ so if young kids are playing it thats not on me. i think in uk there are certain platforms that actually require the player to hold an adult account before they can play the game. im proud of winning yes. If people dont care they lost then it makes every complaint about not being able to win void because why complain they cant win if they dont care?
like i said i play to win, i make sure im not the one tunneled out first. If there is one thing i can rely on in dbd its the mindless sometimes idiotic things people can and will do in matches that will result in their death. unhooking too soon, giving up, making too many mistakes, their loss is my gain. i view anything in life the same way. work hard, win, enjoy the satisfaction of my hard work paying off.
-
@Trex_Crazy said:
So since the basekit endurance from unhooks was added I've noticed that I actually end up "tunneling" more often. Since we've got it survivors are very eager to get the save on a hooked survivor to the extent that often I won't even have enough time to walk away from the hook before someone saves them. This is further compounded by the fact that you can't grab survivors off the hook save anymore. It's a common occurrence either I'll hook someone and they're immediately going to save or I'll be chasing someone and because of the aforementioned changes they figure theyll just go for the save while they're at it. So theyll get to the hook and save them. Now at this point they've gotten the save and both survivors are up, the saved survivor now runs into me/inbetween me and the survivor to take a free hit. At which point endueance or no youve gotten in front of me, youve got my attention, I guess I'll just chase you then. Or they got the save and the saver is down. Now I could just hook the saver, and depending on how the game is going I might, or I can have more pressure by chasing the unhooked survivor. Now when it first came out I was initially against base kit endurance but honestly I think its great for killer. A survivor with a hook state is going to willingly run into me and take a free debuff that makes it harder for them to see? Of course I'm going to chase you after that youve just gimped your self willingly.
So since the basekit endurance from unhooks was added I've noticedThat was three and a half years ago. It's strange to draw a comparison between such events given the scale of game changes that have happened like it just occurred a month ago.
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4050386#Comment_4050386
Survivors know these "issues" are in the game. If they are not happy with it then maybe dont play? By qing up for the match knowing these tactics have not been addressed to their liking says they accept the terms. No one is forcing people to play a game they dont like.
This argument would apply to every change that has been made in the game's history.
There's a big difference between encouraging DCing and saying 'here are the reasons that cause frustrations leading to people DCing'
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4050400#Comment_4050400
pretty much, i mean lots dont agree with the devs decisions on a lot of things from balance to escape rates to them choosing not to add comms to the devs decision to scrap the PTB changes altogether. if we are going on the devs decisions and what the devs want then 40% escape rate is all good, survivors are hitting that target on average so its all good.
if we are going on the devs decisions and what the devs want then 40% escape rate is all good, survivors are hitting that target on average so its all good.Presumes balance is the be all, end all, of game design (we aren't limited to BHVR's factors, but they've said there are multiple other things they look at besides just the 60/40 split).
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4050265#Comment_4050265
And as i have already said, its simple math. its an elimination game and sooner 1 gets eliminated the better. Making it so 3 v 1 is effectively stronger than it is now which would encourage killers to not tunnel is punishing killers for doing their job which is kill. Another complaint that killers voiced during the PTB. No different to killers getting permanent haste increase whenever a gen is done, it would punish survivors for doing their objective.
The game is not 1 sided if the killer tunnels, its only 1 sided if the killer tunnels a weak looper because the will get eliminated fast. But a strong looper that hold chase long enough for multiple gens to be completed is actually a benefit to the survivors. It also doesnt mean all other killer tactics are foolish by comparison, we see various tactics such as slugging, hit and run, camping, stealth. Not everyone tunnels and not everyone wins when they do tunnel. If survivors learnt to counter as i have then they would understand its not an issue….therefore its not the tactic thats the issue, its the survivors.
And as i have already said, its simple math.Not even close. You might as well argue because the killer moves faster they will never lose. You're just stripping away every variable or element from the discussion.
Making it so 3 v 1 is effectively stronger than it is now which would encourage killers to not tunnel is punishing killers for doing their job which is kill.I see we're straying into a new argument here - the whole 'don't punish killers for doing their jobs' nonsense.
Okay, remove things like the teaming up on gen penalty. In fact, let survivors just do the same gen repeatedly. Why are we punishing survivors for doing their job?
That would be stupid. The survivors and killers both have an objective and creating pros and cons to differing strategies is very normal game design.
It does show though that, despite your earlier claims, a good example of how some killers were never even willing to consider compromise on this. At least most of them though were more upfront about not wanting it all and not doing this whole 'survivors won't compromise'.
The game is not 1 sided if the killer tunnels, its only 1 sided if the killer tunnels a weak looper because the will get eliminated fast.As you like to say, this proves my point.
It's bad game design for both the survivors and killer if a 4v1 game is so heavily decided by a single one of the players, especially when those decisions are so heavily impacted by chance on who the killer runs into first and what perks the survivor brought into the match.
It also doesnt mean all other killer tactics are foolish by comparison, we see various tactics such as slugging, hit and run, camping, stealth.Again, proves the point of the what the anti-tunnel was setting out to do and goes back on your own argument (we've gone from simple math to plenty of viable strategies).
Getting a survivor out of the game is the best thing that can happen to the killer. You have to start adding on conditions and circumstances to make it less viable. Which is what the anti-tunnel did.
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4049708#Comment_4049708
yes it was the suggestion, the concept of giving a meaningless reward that does not actually benefit the killer and does not stop survivors rushing gens has always been the suggestion why the anti tunnel failed. This backed up by the amount of killers saying gen fly too fast.
Weakening the incentives to tunnel will never work. Thats not a theory or speculation, thats based on fact that as long as tunneling remains a viable option i myself will not stop tunneling so it makes sense that other killers might feel the same. The PTB punished killers for tunneling and essentially did remove it as a viable strat…it was no longer a winning strat. Result is what we have seen, failed PTB and killers saying they will quit.
People didnt say basekit bbq could be easily countered with lockers, they said it was pointless with low tier killers. Great we know the survivors location is on the other side of the map….how do we get there when killers like trapper have such little mobility where killers like blight can zoom over to them in an instant? It made S tiers stronger and made low tiers weaker by giving them a meaningless "buff". There is a reason why low tier low mobility killers dont use the perk bbq often compared to killers like blight and billy. This was tested and proven and people voiced their own individual experience playing the PTB…but you would argue "pft thats anecdotal and personal experience, no need to take that into account".
As far as enjoyment goes, people bring it on themselves to not enjoy the game. They refuse to use anti tunnel perks, they refuse to learn any other way of playing, they refuse to help themselves then say its unfun because the killer tunneled. killers could do that too…refuse to tunnel, refuse to bring chase perks, refuse to use S tier killers, refuse to help themselves then say "the game is unfun because survivors loop and pre run". No, people need to take reasonability and ownership of their own fun and stop expecting others to make the game fun for them. i enjoy the game as killer and survivor, that clearly shows the game can be enjoyable for both sides.
In no world is 4 v 1 better for the killer compared to 3 v 1, thats simple math and no amount number adjustment would change that because if there are 3 strong loopers and 1 weak looper then that 1 weak looper will go out fast. Anything that meant it punishes the killer for eliminating a player which is the goal of the killer and you get killer revolt as we saw. Survivors were open to discussion to what benefits the killer received and only seemed ok with anything that didnt mean they would suffer any sort of meaningful nerf. Not only that but the survivors were never open to the concept of nerfing gen speeds which is my point. It makes no sense for survivors to try and bargain when they have nothing to bargain with which is exactly what happened.
Survivor - "we want you to stop tunneling"
killer - "ok make it profitable to not take out someone asap"
survivor - "we will give you these pointless buffs that makes no difference whatsoever and you can be punished for tunneling"
killer - "not a chance"
survivor - "just stop tunneling, its not fun"
killer - "ok, nerf gens speeds so we can spread hooks"
survivor - Not a chance, gens are boring"
killer - "fair enough get tunneled"
See how survivors are not the ones in a position to be bargaining when killers have openly said what it will take for survivors to get what they want?
in no world is 4 v 1 better for the killer compared to 3 v 1, thats simple math and no amount number adjustment would change that because if there are 3 strong loopers and 1 weak looper then that 1 weak looper will go out fast.This is what I mean about you continually going to strawman arguments.
Here's what I actually said
"The issue was always tunneling being a possibility, except the 3v1 being made stronger if it happened, in return for unique hook benefits that made the 4v1 easier for the killer"
You just made up a different argument that was easier for you to respond to. Yes, eliminating a survivor will always be strong. The goal was to make it so that it was not so overwhelmingly strong that all other killer tactics were relatively foolish in comparison and that the game was not so completely one sided if a tunnel did occur.
-
@THE_Crazy_Hyena said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4049091#Comment_4049091
Isn't there restrictions for killers as well? Certain perks are not allowed on certain killers and so on. That sort of thing
That's true as well. Lots of perks that comp (by which people usually mean DbDLeague) ban aren't necessarily even good, but they want to take randomness and certain game elements out that they don't consider skillful.
However, I think there is one huge advantageous survivors are given that everyone seems to forget:
They know who the killer is going to be. If I always knew which killer I was going to face in public matches, my ER would probably have a huge jump (ex: Spirit - Iron Will).
I think also knowing the map helps the survivors out more than the killer, and the way they do the win conditions make the survivor results more favorable than what most people are shooting for.
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4049614#Comment_4049614
exactly, unique hook benefits…. doesnt help the killer hook to get the benefits and they didnt stop gens flying. An exaggeration of what actually was offered was basically this: "if the killer makes separate hooks, they get rewarded by getting an instant win". Survivors knowing that the killer will struggle to hook everyone 4 times and will get all gens done in that timeframe were like "sure, im good with that" because they knew what was offered was not addressing the issue and would not stop gens flying. Its an exaggeration but its pretty much what it boils down to. Sounds like a good deal but the truth and reality was that removing tunneling when gens still fly didnt work, so much so that killers actually threatened to stop playing.
Reliance on anecdotes and personal experience is all anyone has to go on. Simply put, i provide my arguments not based on theory or what i see from streamers or imaginary scenarios, or even stats that are wll known to be incorrect… i argue based on facts of my own matches as a regular player with nothing special. As survivor i have no issues with tunneling killers because of how i play. As killer i have no issues with gen speeds because how i play. Logic says its not an issue if the problem can be solved with a simple change in playstyle.
It just proves my point though, survivors want but not willing to give. One day maybe survivors will learn to counter these issues by actually changing from the one playstyle they only know how to use. Facts remain, tunneling has always been part of the game and 2 failed PTB suggest its likely to stay part of the game. Even with number tweaks, as long as tunneling remains a viable option people will tunnel. tweak the numbers so its no longer viable and killers quit. lose lose situation, maybe its time to change tact and try a PTB with increased gen times and see how that goes? i would love to see who complains more, survivors over the gen speeds or killers over the anti-tunneling. My money is on survivors.
Survivors knowing that the killer will struggle to hook everyone 4 timesThat was never the suggestion. That's just making something up, which leads us to:
Sounds like a good deal but the truth and reality was that removing tunneling when gens still fly didnt work, so much so that killers actually threatened to stop playing.Tunneling was never going to be removed. What was discussed was weakening the incentives to do it, while giving benefits to other styles of play.
Reliance on anecdotes and personal experience is all anyone has to go on.If that was true then discussion would be impossible and pointless. Game design ideas can be discussed in a reasonable and logical fashion.
Example: during the anti-tunnel discussions, one of the unique hook benefits was the basekit BBQ. Some killers argued this would be useless as it survivors would just jump in lockers. Except, logically, that's untrue - if survivors jump in lockers, they aren't on gens, giving the exact type of slowdown that was being requested.
Logic says its not an issue if the problem can be solved with a simple change in playstyle.You're confusing both anecdotes and evidence as well as balance and enjoyability concerns. As many, many survivors have explained, tunneling leads to a bad game experience even if the survivors win. If you enjoy it, great, but that's not a metric for game design.
You're also very single minded on the adaptability - people need to adapt to your preferred style, but the idea of you adapting to a change in game design is out of the question.
Even with number tweaks, as long as tunneling remains a viable option people will tunnel.Again, strawman. You're now trying to mix in a discussion of ethics of tunneling into a discussion of game design elements.
It's also setting up a false comparison - tunneling somehow being entirely nuked out of the game in return for some minute killer buffs. The issue was always tunneling being a possibility, except the 3v1 being made stronger if it happened, in return for unique hook benefits that made the 4v1 easier for the killer. And plenty of survivors were open to discussions on what those benefits / trade offs should be to keep the game balanced.
-
as long as I'm paired with 3 other competent Survivor players in Solo QI find it much easier to win a basketball game when everyone else on my team is good as well.
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4049118#Comment_4049118
you cant offer something meaningless and say there we go offered you something. if thats the case then slightly nerf tunneling but not enough to make any difference and survivors would be ok with it? not likely.
Both sides were not getting anything meaningful…meaningful being the word to use here. Lots were saying when the PTB failed that number tweaks isnr enough, gens still fly.
you say people have explained logically but they havnt, they have explained because they cant counter it. logically it would best for people to adapt like i have.
i noticed when people have no valid argument they often say "strawman" as a means to say "ye i cant argue against it but i wont say that sooooo…… strawman"
you cant offer something meaningless and say there we go offered you something.They were offering three types of unique hook benefits.
if thats the case then slightly nerf tunneling but not enough to make any difference and survivors would be ok with it? not likely.Balance issue - if they had made the unique hook gen kick benefit 100% of course I'd complain about it, but that doesn't mean the concept itself was wrong, just the numbers.
Many killers had concerns about the number of hooks that counted for anti-tunnel or the extent of the penalty. That's fine, as I already said I think everyone was in agreement that the numbers would need tweaks.
However, even before we got any numbers or suggestions on what would happen, there was a lot of killers who were outright opposed to any sort of anti-tunnel.
i noticed when people have no valid argument they often say "strawman" as a means to say "ye i cant argue against it but i wont say that sooooo…… strawman"You can't argue against a strawman because its not a real argument - its one person trying to dictate what the other person's argument is while avoiding their actual argument because they don't have a counter.
In this case you're trying to cover up your reliance on anecdotes by making up a person on the other side who might be relying on anecdotes, except at no point have I made that my argument, thus a strawman.
-
I'm always up for the possibility of minor changes to things, but it seems fine. The killer is not meant to match the survivors in slow down to gen speed, just as the survivors are not meant to match the killer in chase speeds. Both have the advantage at their objective, otherwise the game would grind to a halt.
The killer also doesn't have to invest time into the gen after it is kicked. From a practical design point, passive gains have to be weaker than active gains.
@100PercentBPMain said:
id settle for a tiny Call of Brian buff, or at the very least allow us to kick gens for 0% regression
I took support buffing calling out the Brians.
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4049210#Comment_4049210
What is it that you'd like people to do about it? Quit the game because of a bad analogy or unfavorable game adjustments?
I have a strict 'three bad analogies and you're out rule'.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4049071#Comment_4049071
did i say i lost a couple of matches? no….i said i lost match after match, this went on for months
This does more to indicate it's just confirmation bias hard at work. You omit your wins to focus on the losses. Unless you actually did lose that badly, which would be pretty embarrassing, considering the killrates never notably shifted, meaning no one else was having this issue.
Again, though, you just focus on the fact that you lost and then try to pin it on one specific factor while ignoring all others. You putting on a losing spree spanning months is not evidence of gen speeds being too high, because there's another constant in all your matches: You.
If someone spends 50 consecutive matches standing still and doing nothing, they'll also 'lose match after match', but you can hardly blame gen speeds for that.
So why are you certain it's gen speeds?
Using your same argument of losing to justify tunneling not gen speeds…. Survivors losing to tunneling is what makes them hate it.
Wrong. People hate tunnelling even if the killer loses, because it makes for really boring gameplay. One person gets to do nothing but chase, the other three get to do nothing but M1 on a gen.
If survivors cared so much about their winrates, they'd revolt against the 40% escape rate benchmark, but they don't.
While BHVR stats show most people are not in SWF it does not reflect my matches as killer where its rare i got solo players.
And how would you know that, precisely? Because it's a pretty bold claim to make in a game that does not show swiffers.
Also, again, confirmation bias. You could go for three, four matches against solos in a row and when you get your second swiffer of the evening: 'See? Back to back swiffers!'
Wrong. People hate tunnelling even if the killer loses, because it makes for really boring gameplay. One person gets to do nothing but chase, the other three get to do nothing but M1 on a gen.If survivors cared so much about their winrates, they'd revolt against the 40% escape rate benchmark, but they don't.That's very well put. Survivors were totally willing to accept BHVR's promise that if anti-tunnel lowered kill rates they'd boost killers.
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4048952#Comment_4048952
This proves my point. The boosts killers got for spreading hooks did not effect gen speeds which is why killers did not agree to it. It wasnt the numbers that needed adjusting it was the gens that needed adjusting. The compromise is simple, nerf tunneling then gens need to be nerfed too. give and take. And as the ones that have the issue with tunneling i would have thought it would be the survivors willing to compromise but its not, they seem to want tunneling nerfed and have no meaningful nerfs themselves which is why the killers have said they would quit if something like that went through. Maybe if they did a PTB to test it, nerf gens and nerf tunneling. curious who would have the issue with that. im willing to bet survivors would have a big issue because they hate doing gens so they dont want to spend even longer doing them.
If individual experience is anecdotal then same can be said for anyone saying they cant counter tunneling. "just your experience, others have countered it or killers would be getting 100% kill rate". it works both ways, you cant dismiss a killer saying they are losing match after match and not dismiss a survivor saying they lose match after match. If we going an stats and not individual players matces then BHVR actually posted stats that survivors are on average escaping 40% which is what the devs aimed for. so there is no issue with tunneling, anyone struggling with it is just their personal experience.
This proves my point. The boosts killers got for spreading hooks did not effect gen speeds which is why killers did not agree to it.Backwards reasoning. You're saying that killers refusal to even consider changes is the fault of survivors.
The compromise is simple, nerf tunneling then gens need to be nerfed too. give and take.Literally what the anti-tunnel was. Both sides where getting something, with the numbers up for discussion. And there was no outcry from the killers 'hey, this is great, but let's just change the gen speeds instead' - that's just a fiction you've created.
If individual experience is anecdotal then same can be said for anyone saying they cant counter tunnelingIf that's all it is, then of course its an anecdote.
But you're again being evasive and not engaging with the point: "People have explained, logically, many times, why tunneling creates a bad game without relying solely upon individual experiences."
it works both ways, you cant dismiss a killer saying they are losing match after match and not dismiss a survivor saying they lose match after matchStrawman argument. There are many possibilities that could be the case for either of those scenarios.
Everyone has complaints, that does not mean everyone's complaints are equally applicable to the broader community and/or reasonable.
-
@Vampwire said:
So here's what i think, dbd is basically 10 years old now. It needs an end of life plan. Because honestly I find it to be a lot like TF2 where it has such a dedicated and loyal community that years after the final update there will still be a good chunk of active players.
How I imagine this working is the "Custom Match" option allows for it. You can go in, modify values and such for powers or items. You can play on community made maps. But I think more than that is the issue of burn out and "toxicity". I think servers where things are either more lax or competitive would give a space for players who want different things. You just don't earn bloodpoints in the matches so people still play the default game. But, for those who wanna goof around we could say "Go to ____" and those who wanna try hard and prove themselves can go to a server for that. If they would that is lol.
Basically I think the inclusion of community servers, as well as community made content such as maps or power modifiers would give a longevity and breath of fresh air for the game. I know the main argument against this is splitting ques, which is fair i have no rebuttal. Stuff like this is how you get games to last for a lifetime though. And while I doubt Dbd can last a lifetime, due to the amount of licenses it has and what not, it's still worth trying.
I'm full of criticisms of BHVR lately, but:
They just had their biggest year ever. They averaged 7k more players in December than they did a year ago (there 2nd best December of all time).
As much as I wish they weren't doing well because it might lead to meaningful improvements, in terms of player counts that game is extremely healthy. And according to reports (or maybe what has even been said in streams) their plans go out a couple years into the future.
-
@Senaxu said:
Hi everyone,
I’m writing this as someone who’s played since 2018 and has roughly 5k hours in DBD. I play both sides fairly evenly (Killer and Survivor), which is why I’m trying to keep this feedback practical and balanced. The goal isn’t to “buff my side”… it’s to reduce the biggest friction points that make matches feel worse for everyone, and to make the game more consistent, fair, and fun.
Below are the changes I believe would have the highest impact:
1) Match integrity: meaningful anti-cheat steps (starting with the basics)
Cheating… especially subtle cheating… currently feels too low-risk and too hard to address. When cheating slips through, balance discussions become pointless because the match outcome wasn’t “real” in the first place.
What I’d like to see:
- Server-side sanity checks for impossible states as a first step (teleports, extreme speed/action values, impossible generator progress spikes, etc.). This alone would reduce a lot of blatant cases.
- A stronger path for subtle cheats (short speed bursts, quick wallhack toggles, etc.) that don’t require players to provide perfect video evidence every time.
- A lightweight replay / match review system (even if limited) would help with reporting, verification, and trust.
This should be the top priority because it improves every single other system by making matches reliable again.
2) Solo Queue vs SWF: close the information gap without forcing voice chat
The gap between SoloQ and coordinated SWF is still huge, mostly because SWF gets constant information “for free” via comms. If SoloQ had better baseline info tools, BHVR could balance around a more consistent survivor experience.
Proposal A: Basekit “Kindred-like” team awareness
Not necessarily full detailed auras, but some reliable way for survivors to understand team positioning and intent:- A rough aura / glow / outline of teammates (or a simplified indicator) to show approximate location.
- It doesn’t need to be perfect… it just needs to reduce the “nobody knows what anyone is doing” problem.
Proposal B: A small communication wheel (ping system)
A limited set of clear, non-toxic, non-spammy messages that cover the most important coordination points, for example:- “I’m going for the unhook”
- “Killer near me / I’m in chase (stealth killer)”
- “Going for a gen”
- “Hex/Totem here”
- “Reset/heal”
Keep it simple, with a cooldown and a small, clean HUD indicator.
Why not voice chat?
Voice chat with randoms creates language barriers, conflict, and pressure. Many players want to play Solo while still having basic information. A wheel/ping system solves that without the downsides.Important follow-up: balance should move with the new baseline
If SoloQ gets brought closer to SWF in terms of information, BHVR should also be willing to re-balance around that new baseline. That includes revisiting perks/add-ons whose main value comes from “SoloQ blindness” (for example, info-denial effects like Hex: The Third Seal, which applies Blindness and suppresses aura reading). Otherwise, we risk “fixing” SoloQ on paper, only to reintroduce the same gap through mechanics that SWF can often compensate for via comms. Once the information baseline is healthier, killer tuning and perk balance can be adjusted more fairly and more consistently.
3) Matchmaking/MMR: reduce extreme mismatches and reward actual contribution
MMR currently feels inconsistent in practice: you still see wildly mixed experience levels in the same match. Newer killers(<200h) getting highly coordinated teams(3k hours each), or experienced killers getting brand-new survivors, creates matches that teach nothing and feel awful.
Also, an “escape = good / die = bad” model (if that’s still the primary driver) doesn’t reflect reality:
- A survivor who holds a strong chase for minutes and dies can be the reason the team wins.
- A survivor who hides all match and escapes can gain rating despite contributing little.
Suggestion: add a contribution component (Activity/Impact score)
Outcome should still matter, but MMR should also reflect meaningful actions, like:- Chase impact (time in chase, how efficiently the killer is occupied)
- Generator progress and teamwork contributions
- Unhooks, heals, protection plays, clutch saves
- Objective plays (clearing key totems, creating pressure at the right time)
The goal is not to “gamify” everything… it’s to prevent the system from rewarding passive play while punishing the players who actually did the heavy lifting.
4) Game pacing: generator speed stacking needs a hard look
Generator repair speed stacking can create matches that end absurdly fast when multiple bonuses line up. In an asymmetrical game where the first chase already heavily influences tempo, extreme gen speed can leave killers with no realistic counterplay.
Suggestion: introduce diminishing returns / a hard cap on repair speed stacking
- Perks and other bonuses shouldn’t multiply into “gens fly instantly” territory.
- A cap (or diminishing returns after a threshold) keeps pacing stable without deleting repair perks from the game.
This is about match health: longer doesn’t always mean better, but too fast makes matches feel meaningless.
5) Pre-lobby & endgame visibility: stop lobby shopping, keep accountability
Right now, killers can often “shop” lobbies based on visible profiles/hours, which leads to:
- Dodging anything that looks difficult
- Targeting the obvious weak link from the start (“this player has 50 hours… my tunnel out”)
Proposal: hide identifying profile info in the pre-lobby
- Keep visible: survivor portraits, items, platform icon (basic transparency)
- Hide: player names, profile links/hours/obvious “experience” signals until the match ends
After the match: show names normally Endgame should show full names so players can report properly and matches aren’t effectively anonymous. Players can still use platform privacy settings if they want their profile hidden… but the in-game identity should be clear at endscreen.
This reduces unfair pre-game advantages and lowers the incentive to lobby dodge or pre-select targets.
6) Consistency: anti-tunnel tools should function against top chase killers
Example: Decisive Strike is meant to be an anti-tunnel tool. But against certain S-tier chase powers (e.g., very high mobility/instant gap-closing), DS often doesn’t buy enough distance to matter.
Suggestion: short power lockout after DS (and potentially similar stuns), palett breaks
If DS triggers, consider briefly disabling the killer’s chase power activation for a short moment so the survivor actually gains a chance to reset position. Some killer powers already interact with short lockouts in other contexts; applying a consistent logic here would help DS do its job across the roster.If certain temporary modes should be exceptions, that can be tuned… but the core idea is: DS shouldn’t become “basically useless” depending on the killer.
7) Anti-tunnel incentives: reward hook spreading instead of hard tunneling
Tunneling is still one of the most effective low-risk, high-reward strategies: turn a 4v1 into a 3v1 as early as possible. Even if anti-tunnel perks exist, the meta pressure pushes survivors into running them constantly, reducing build variety.
Instead of only adding more punishment systems, I’d love to see killers incentivized to play in a healthier way.
Idea: reward hook spread (with strong anti-abuse rules)
Examples of reward directions:- A small, controlled regression/slowdown reward for hooking different survivors before re-hooking the same person
- A short, time-limited pressure bonus for “fair rotation” (designed so it can’t be exploited via intentional slugging cycles)
- Anything that makes “playing for 12 hooks / good pressure” feel like a competitive option rather than self-handicapping
The exact implementation needs careful anti-abuse measures, but the goal is clear: make healthier killer playstyles more rewarding, and reduce how often matches revolve around “tunnel one person out ASAP.”
Closing
These are the main areas I’d love to see addressed:
- Anti-cheat & integrity
- Solo Queue info parity
- MMR/match quality
- Pre-lobby fairness + endgame accountability
- Generator speed stacking / pacing
- Consistency for anti-tunnel tools vs top-tier chase powers
- Incentivizing hook spread to reduce tunneling
I’d genuinely like to hear other perspectives (especially from people who play both sides). If you disagree with any point, I’m open to alternatives… but I’d love to keep the discussion focused on what makes matches healthier and more fun for everyone.
Thanks for reading.
1: Anti-cheat
I don't think anyone disagrees.
2: Soloq vs SWF
I'm in favor of a com wheel, but I think people overestimate the communication part of SWF in comparison to playing with the same people all the time (learning each others strategies), being able to exclude a clearly weak player if you're an upper level SWF, and being able to call out unique elements that a com wheel would have difficulty doing (example: saying it looks like a killer has a devour build and the totem needs to be found).
3: MMR
I am so incredibly down on BHVR that I hate to defend them, but here goes. I think BHVR is correct on their argument (with a few exceptions) and any other system would be overly complex and open to 'gamifying' to use your word on what you want to avoid.
The situation that you (and others) lay out is statistically insignificant. MMR systems only work with a large data base, that there is the occasional game here or there that are outliers doesn't impact the overall numbers. Especially on the weak player side: a survivor who is not contributing is not going to have a good escape out the door rate in comparison to a very good looper over a large sample size.
The two exceptions to this, both minor:
A person who takes the role of being chased will probably underperform someone who focuses on gens, though both are contributing.
A person who is willing to rat the moment things start to look like the survivor can't win will do a little better.
Both of the above, and the entire issue, though could be solved far more easily than what you lay out - base the MMR gain and loss on the overall survivor result.
4: Gen pacing
This is two issues
1: How fast is a good game? I prefer DbD where matches are generally more of a sprint than a marathon, I think it lends itself more to the tension of the genre, but have no guess on overall community feelings.
2: Balance. If the gen rush builds are unbalanced, then nerf them. I suspect the extremes are, though BHVR would know for certain.
5: Pre-lobby
I've never looked at a person's profile, but sure.
6: DS disable
I think the community broadly supports this idea, but BHVR is against it unfortunately.
7: Incentives
I'm all for incentives, but they have to come with 'punishments' (or more accurately, nerfs). It can't be 'now killers have two basekit broken strategies'.