dezzmont
dezzmont
About
- Username
- dezzmont
- Joined
- Visits
- 967
- Last Active
Comments
-
Pig shouldn't scream as part of her ambush attack.
Trickster's knives shouldn't have recoil, and the bloom should be toned down, and his ult shouldn't have a timing window. That or he should be base movespeed with a bit less ammo with knives requiring some survivor commitment to heal, one of the two.
Myers overall needs a rework. It is nice that his gimmick is different than Ghost's in that he is a stalker killer who gets long term value rather than short, but in my opinion he should just be innately base movement speed and unlock benefits (reduced TR, faster speed in chase, and eventually instadown) on the survivors he stalks independently, rather than the current status quo where one survivor who has had almost no interaction with him is punished when another tries to closely loop him while crouching behind objects rather than getting distance to nuke his stalk rate.
Clown should have (slow) passive bottle regen so if you are in an extended series of interactions you will get another bottle or two back, to further cement the fact he is meant to be an 'uptime' ranged character.
Port rage over from VHS (Basically if the killer lands X amount of hits without anyone going down, next hit is an instadown) so that killer is actually rewarded for pressuring SWFs who refuse to ever commit to an objective unless your actively in a chase.
-
@Pulsar said:
If NOED isn't that good, let's re-design it and make it better.
Sure, I always had ideas on this.
NOED is in an abstract way a good perk to exist. It is a Blue Turtle Shell, a mechanic that forces one side to not get too far ahead, which is important in a game where specifically survivors pulling too far ahead too fast is very boring for everyone involved (This isn't to say killers should be stronger mind, it is just that killer stomps are better from a raw 'is this remotely interesting gameplay' than survivor stomps). If your really thrashing, you might want to slow down to handle bones to avoid getting NOED'd. It also forces you to treat the killer like a threat even in EGC, which is currently a huge problem for EGC: By default it is a massive anti-climax because its a point in the game the survivors have a truly ridiculous level of advantage over the killer, and NOED changes that.
The flaw with the design is that its way too all or nothing in multiple ways. In most cases, the killer doesn't have NOED, so the best choice is almost always to not play as if they had it. When they do have it the punishment for not respecting it is titanic. On top of this, trying to counter NOED by doing bones is a double edged sword because if you don't get every bone you kinda make the problem worse.
So: The desired behavior of NOED is to:
A: Make the EGC more dynamic and more of a climax to the game rather than a limp teabag fest unless the killer can camp out another kill.
and
B: Encourage the survivor to actually do side objectives, and reward them for every bit of time they spend on bones rather than gens.
So instead of a binary instadown vs non-instadown effect, I would propose that NOED interact with a new base kit mechanic: Haste and attack cooldown for each unlit totem at the end of the trial.
By making this hypothetical mechanic basekit, it creates a scenario where you always are rewarded for being a bone build: If no one does bones, EVERY game the killer will be very spooky at the EGC. So your not 'caught out' when you fail to work against NOED, you just chose to be risky. NOED could pump your attack cooldown to the point where you are basically oldschool machinegun able to double hit without cooldown at 5 totems left so it still is a pseudo-instadown, and each totem removes some of that cooldown so it gradually goes from 'killer basically instadowns' to 'killer is like someone with 16 STBFL stacks and thus the hit boost is only good for getting immediately to a defensive structure' to 'killer is normal or slightly above average.'
NOED's main 'sin' is that EGC is a total joke without it, so the main way to make it fair is to make it so EGC is a proper climax to the game: A mixed blessing because the survivors are about to escape but now the killer is much more dangerous to help compensate. If you don't feel like you are immortal by default in EGC, the killer 'subverting' that is no longer a massive 'feels bad' problem.
This also has some ancilary benefits: Small maps are easier for killer to patrol gates on, but also are easier to find bones on, while large maps are both very survivor sided in general and have supremely weak EGCs. With more distance between bones and a harder time finding them, combined with a haste boost to help gate patrol, it 'normalizes' map size a bit more and makes it have less of an impact on which side the map favors.
-
@Cameragosha said:
It strange she still weak after buff.
The buff didn't affect the problem part of her power.
It is totally fine to have a 'ticking clock' mechanic that forces you to do something with the threat of a punishment that is unlikely to ever happen. But the buff of making buildup faster with a tape doesn't address that you never ever have to care about the buildup in the first place to make you go DO a tape. So it didn't affect the reason why the mechanic fails as a ticking clock.
-
The entire concept of a perk, on its own, giving you a good chance to escape via wiggle is really dumb.
Wiggling, as a mechanic, is not intended to be a chance to get free of the killer. It is intended to prevent every hook from being a basement hook.
(New) Sabo and Breakout are good examples of 'wiggle tech' perks because they are conditional, require setup, and have strong killer counterplay. Anything that lets a survivor have even a remotely good chance of wiggling free on its own is way overtuned, because by the time your down and wiggling you already lost multiple major gameplay interactions and the game should be DELIBERATELY depowering you: You being carried is the loss state of survivors and trying to empower survivors in that state is terrible game design.
A consistent problem with DBD's design is maximizing survivor empowerment in all gamestates. But in reality, in any good game, there should be gamestates you are disempowered in.
It would be like having a killer perk that, after a survivor totally escapes you in a chase and get clear, lets you teleport them to you if you manage to vault a window. It is utterly ridiculous.
-
The things you would give killers should just be fixes to problems 'universal SWF' would cause.
For example, one thing SWF can easily do that most randos can't is coordinate gen tapping to 'overpower' a M1 killer at many locations by constantly repairing faster than the killer can chase anyone. With hypothetical pinging or in game voice coms, that would become too common an issue that goes from 'an annoying thing that can happen if you play pig or trapper sometimes' to 'you literally can't play this killer because they auto-lose games on most outdoor realms.'
The fix to that would probably be more base regression, or some sort of 'enrage' mechanic that punishes survivors for being too 'overt' and utilizing things like the injury speedboost to put the killer in a situation they literally can't make any sort of play without losing the game. But it would be a very 'focused' nerf.
A big reason a lot of DBD's balance is super out of whack is a lot of its buffs and nerfs over its history have been very unfocused. The only good fix they made to a core mechanic problem IMO was probably Bloodlust (yes, really!) because it has almost no effect on normal gameplay and hyper-targets infinites and very specific level geometries that can get wonky, and serves as a 'combo scaling' element for survivors trying to extend a chase without ever using any sort of resource.
The big thing is probably 'hit and run and using injuries to slow the survivors becomes so anemic the killer has no interactive way to slow the survivors or put them in a situation they risk anything, because coordinated survivors can pretty easily reset when needed and ignore injuries otherwise' which likely would need some specific fix that rewards the killer/punishes survivors in a more long term way for landing hits than just an injury state: Enrage ala VHS, building some sort of 'out of chase bloodlust,' some sort of innate mapwide gen slowdown for winning chases that prevents 3 survivors from being able to maintain 100% gen uptime, or making survivors who repeatedly eat hits lose more and more of their post hit speedboost over a game would all serve to help make injury states less easily exploited a teamwide resource.
-
For another anecdote, I quit over hackers making it legitimately unsafe to play the game as killer, though I had been playing less and less over time.
-
@KayTwoAyy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2724155#Comment_2724155
DBD's average player count and peak player count (on Steam) are both higher than the beginning of the year. So unless the console base has dropped off significantly (which I doubt), I don't think the issue is people leaving. I'd be hard pressed to believe the -5,202 Gain from October into November is exclusively Killer mains.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/IC5DZ6NKJQOT/image.png
As for the topic...
Camping works. I 4k more frequently whilst camping than I do while "playing nice." I'm sure the people playing killer in OP's games want to win more than they want to provide an enjoyable experience for all involved.
The gains and losses don't need to be exclusively killer/survivor to seriously affect queue times, because one killer player has the same 'lobby weight' as 4 survivor players.
BDB has a small enough player base that even slightly lopsided gains or exits can seriously affect queue times. We already have pretty good info that we have had a killer shortage for a pretty damn long time (killer queues were always shorter), which means further shocks to the killer playerbase can have even worse outcomes.
The June-July patches where we see the huge spike of incoming players was related to the RE chapter, which brought a massive amount of attention from survival horror players far more likely to play survivor. The player dieoff from that was an unusually high seasonal spike about a month after boons were introduced, which means it probably wasn't just RE players leaving (after all we saw most of the dropoff there in August, though only about half the influx left then before a spike of people trying the new survivor), but a reaction to that patch.
In the period of a month 10% of the userbase bailed on the game. If even half of those were killers, that would be VERY bad for queue times, as even assuming we HAD a 1:4 ratio of killer to survivors (meaning we had 10,000 killers and 40,000 survivors, which is very unlikely to be honest) that would result in a dieoff of about 25% of the killer population while only 5% of the survivor population left.
And, again, it is extremely unlikely we had a 1:5 ratio. In fact, that would be undesirable for queue math (this is a very mathy engineering thing but basically you don't want 1 killer for every 5 survivors because survivors are more monetizable and you don't actually improve wait times that much compared to say... 1 killer to 8, because of how rolling exits from the game work, having half as many killers as you need doesn't lead to double wait times as long as your close), but it matters a lot for sudden shocks because that results in things that resemble service disruptions (which is why you can get up to 1000% increases in wait times despite the population overall not dropping that severely most likely).
And this is before you also factor in the fact that it is likely a specific SEGMENT of the population that left those months, of killers facing survivors utilizing degenerate strategies that place them at high MMR getting burnt out, which makes the population even smaller and thus even more vulnerable to sudden shocks.
We don't know the EXACT numbers here, but there is a lot of evidence that, in fact, killers ARE leaving the game in noticeable numbers.
-
The Steam NFT ban doesn't have 'loopholes' because it is entirely a self enforced standard by the platform done in order to avoid negative brand perception or to achieve certain real world goals/
The question is not 'Is DBD technically a crypto game now?' Because it isn't, and it doesn't meet Steam's stated definition of a game that is on the blockchain.
The real question is 'What is the cost-benefit analysis Valve running in regards to NFTs and their relationships with gamedevs, their competition, the consumerbase, the law, and their morals?' If Steam is doing this to avoid directly being linked to money laundering via NFTs, for example, they probably wouldn't care about this that much, while if it is a moral stance and they are trying to kill NFT games as an industry they would want to take a hard line. And if it is a PR move it depends on how agitated people visibly get about DBD getting in bed with NFTs. A ban is probably unlikely for many reasons (for one this was clearly in the works for a long time and it would negatively affect Steam's relationships with other businesses to boot them off the platform and essentially destroy them for not seeing an announcement coming months in advance), but maybe they are talking to BHVR about not doing this again or something, or maybe they don't care, or maybe they are gunna drop the hammer despite it not technically violating their policy.
Who knows? B2B stuff and licensing deals is always individual agreement, and it is hard to say with any certainty how it will play out. Dead By Daylight is steam's 11th most popular game though so nuking it from the shop would be extreme, especially when they are obviously courting Epic Games if they need to jump ship.
As for the statement 'DBD isn't profiting from the NFT' well... that is naïve to the extreme. Even if DBD isn't being directly handed NFT stuff, they are in a partnership where they are promoting an NFT. There is clearly some sort of exchange going on where they have decided they will benefit in some way from linking this brand to an NFT, even if it isn't a direct exchange of money and they don't actually get rewarded at all based on how well this NFT does.
-
2k is such a weird benchmark to aim for. I get that as an average, and it sounds reasonable, but from a killer perspective 2k games are usually outliers that aren't very fun or interesting because it usually comes about due to survivors throwing at the end rather than you killing 2 people before gates are open.
In my opinion, the average game should have 1 or 3 kills, with 4 and 0 being extremely rare due to good rubber banding mechanics. 2 would be fine if the game systems were different, but its just such a wacky number to reach via organic play and usually comes about because survivors are a bit too cocky during the end game collapse where they get a stupidly comical amount of power and safety.
As for MMR having inconsistent results, its because its a misaligned algorithm: It is trying to optimize something that humans do not value, and as a result it is creating inconsistent nonsense where your MMR doesn't mean anything. You can optimize it as much as you want, but because the goal doesn't align with player goals it isn't going to result in anything good.
Now if it was counting average escape count of a survivor's teammates, or average rate of reaching EGC vs stopping the survivors from reaching EGC, it might work better, because that is probably the most commonly shared victory condition of the playerbase on both sides (forgetting how badly this devalues 'final boss' perks) and good players will generally optimize for that goal as an instrumental goal no matter what their core goal in the game is, so tracking it is more likely going to find killers who are good at stopping survivors from doing their goals (And are thus stronger players) and vice versa. As a bonus this would also cause MMR to care about supportive play, which is why almost every good MMR system cares way more about team performance rather than individual even in solo queues: it lets MMR 'see' that your preforming well even if your contributions are not easily measured metrics: You would vastly prefer to let someone get carried once in a while if they 'feed' in a bad game because you can see overall their team loses more games on average when they are on it, than let the supportive player who ensures their entire team is successful despite biffing it constantly forcing the win de-rank even though their teams tend to have absurd winrates.
But because people generally don't care about surviving and strong survivors often valuing trying to force 'total victory' rather than just taking the personal win once EGC hits, you get this weird effect where MMR doesn't actually reflect any meaningful value about you in regards to how likely it is for you to be able to loop the killer for 3000 years or effectively do objectives in a way that shuts down killers.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think an accurate MMR system would be good either: DBD is most interesting when there is a weak link on the team in over their head to give some tension to the game because optimal play on both sides leads to boring games, and the game is desperately in need of a core overhaul to modernize it. But the reason MMR doesn't seem to work is really obvious to anyone who understands how optimization algorithms work: you can't just toss one together and train it on a specific goal if the specific goal is really dumb and doesn't reflect what people care about, and then use that data to train it further to be more accurate. That just creates a system that gets better and better at maximizing a certain value that has no useful real world effect, rather than a system that is better at doing what you want it to do over time.
-
This entire debate is very silly, because it tries to apply moral weight to playing a competitive (and I know calling DBD competitive is a meme, but I am not talking about MLG esports competitive, I am talking about how it is a group activity where one's success comes at the expense of someone else's, a flipping game of UNO is competitive) game with pretty extreme consequences for misplays.
The Killer's goal is to efficiently remove the ability of survivors to do gens so they can kill them. That is it. Any action that does not accomplish this goal is, large or small, throwing. You can say tunneling doesn't require skill or isn't fun, but because the killer is obligated to force the survivors into using their time inefficiently, it is inherently selfish to demand the killer doesn't do it. It doesn't matter that its a bad time for you, it is a bad time to get flashbanged and lose your auto-sniper in Counter Strike, doesn't mean your opponent is obligated to avoid doing so because it hurts your feelings.
Likewise, the survivor's goal is to efficiently complete gens and deny the killer the ability to pressure them. This is why the entire concept of 'genrush' is sorta a meme: The survivors not only don't have objectives other than gens, trying to do gens while you can't stop them is entirely what they are trying to do as a team. To continue the Counter Strike example, acting like survivors shouldn't slam the gens if you are over-commited to chasing someone and you aren't applying pressure overall is very silly and is akin to asking the enemy team to throw a bunch of rounds for you when your losing in counter-strike so you can get more chances to beat them.
The problem with DBD is optimal strategies tend to involve denying any sort of interaction that the other side values, more than 'your a dick if you do X.' It is a competitive game your playing with strangers, its literally a prisoner's dilemma scenario, and with MMR if you try to play nice you WILL get rocked. The killer legitimately doesn't have time to give the survivors every chance to save their teammates and keep playing. Even ignoring the power of forcing a 3v1, you need to maintain pressure and the only way to do that is to be near where survivors are going to be, and you KNOW survivors are going to try to go for the rescue to avoid the 3v1.
Camping and tunneling are deeply part of DBD's DNA. It was literally a dev goal during the beta for hook rescues to generally be a bad idea unless the killer was known to be far away, the killer was intended to use the survivor as bait and basically to have overwhelming power to stop unhooks, with the reward for a successful unhook being huge and hooks sorta low key being balanced from a time efficiency standpoint for the killer around being a 1-2 hook kill. The entire hook interaction decision matrix comically favors defensive play from the killer as a result: it literally disables the solo killer longer than the time it takes for one survivor to rescue one incapacitated player to hook someone, and the hook only rewards you compared to a slug if it gets a kill. You were never intended to consistently get rescued, but once SWF was added the rapid elimination of 'classic DBD' became understandably unappealing: It was NBD to just re-queue solo after dying hook 1, but in SWF you really can't do that and sitting through an entire match after first hook sucked, so they continually nerfed hooks and camping (often creating slug metas by accident when they over-nerfed defensive play, like when BT was first introduced and killers literally couldn't stop the sloppiest hook rescues on the planet).
Fixing this requires a lot of dedicated effort, and frankly a lot of the things that could fix it were put into perks. It would also require a lot of things survivors don't like, for example making it harder to actually rescue people if the killer is defending the hook (ex: removing fake unhooks, which directly encourage more camping despite seeming like a camping nerf). A huge problem with DBD's design is basically any time a major game balance issue comes up that could use a basekit rework, its made into a perk of some sort. Also, to be very frank, most survivors are outright terrible at rescues and basically leave their rescuee victims to die. Like it is kind of funny that this was such a problem the dev diaries basically stopped because people kept complaining about it when in reality most killers do not hard camp and it actually comes down to people just expecting the killer to let the rescue happen no matter how unsubtle you are about it and expecting them to just leave the victim alone while you hide, as well as people's instinct to do 'instarescues' which are a terrible idea and should earn you a slap to the head because you didn't have the good sense to maximize the full minute you get to do a rescue for both damaging the killer via gens and ensuring the unhooked victim has the best chance to escape.
It is also critical to remember something: As a killer, chases are kinda boring. The epitome of fun for a survivor for a killer is mostly rote because mindgames don't work at high end and it mostly just comes down to you forcing the hit (which is why the BL removal test was such a disaster). For killers, most of the fun is in a greater meta-strategy of time management and controlling and predicting survivor behavior, and catching a survivor with their pants down near a hook because you saw into their mind and predicted the exact angle and timing of a rescue is probably one of the highest points of killer play. Trying to force killers to give up that strategic element of gameplay to just engage in more chases with you is never going to work and will result in this game going the way of Evolve, because its shutting down the main interesting thing about killer gameplay.
Finally, there is just the core fact that both side's objectives directly are based around minimizing the other player's ability to interact or play the game, and to minimize the effects of their actions to an extreme degree. This isn't super uncommon in gaming (Think most shooters where dying takes you out of the round!), but in DBD its really bad because your consistently able to do this successfully, and if you fail to do this you generally lose pretty much then and there, especially as a killer. I am not going to say killer is weaker, because it isn't, but it is definitely the role you have to have less 'chill' in because if you give up an inch of power you basically are screwed vs people who know what they are doing.
While I am not sure VHS is going to be successful, a lot of the ideas in it are clearly a direct attempt to itterate on some of DBD's design (ex: Enrage dumpstering W meta so if you just constantly challenge killer at objectives and refuse to respect them you die, the survivor objective literally requiring killer interaction, killer hits locking down all survivor tools so you can't just swarm the killer and disrespect them, side objectives that serve to close out the game if one side turtles, a focus on slugging rather than player elimination as the victory condition which DBD often defaults too anyway, and a much greater willingness to let survivors take quick hits and force them into deadzones, ect.). I would not be shocked if DBD starts to implement some of these things (enrage and the concept of the hit blocking all M1 actions especially may solve a LOT of DBD's problems regarding survivors just chronically disrespecting the killer), but I also am willing to bet most of these will become perks rather than the sorely needed updates to basekits that default to encouraging interaction.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2553898#Comment_2553898
WE are having a conversation, and between US there is an expectation claims are backed up
Yes, that's what I'm saying, that @MongolPSR needs to back up their claim, thank you for agreeing.
Cool! Sorry for being confused on the context! Text chat is a bad format in some ways because its easy for things to mutate and side convos to spread off!
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2553876#Comment_2553876
Burden of proof is a concept of law, not of PR.
Burden of proof is a concept of debate/discussion, which we're having now. If I make a claim, it's on me to provide proof, not for the other person to go looking for it.
Yeah that is nice and all but that is philosophy, and communications is a science. You can talk about how discussions and public discourse SHOULD be all you want, but communications is the study of how it actually plays out, and the go to smart play in these situations is to deliberately take on the burden of providing accurate information about your brand and its activities, because failing to do that causes anxiety among your consumer base and rumors to spread, mutate, and grow.
BHVR isn't in the debate club. WE are having a conversation, and between US there is an expectation claims are backed up, but that isn't the same as saying 'BHVR should behave like rational actors and perfect logicians' which literally my entire field as well as over a hundred years of psychological research says isn't true. You got a bad case of 'too online' and are looking this purely as an internal community debate rather than a practical concern for a company that employs 600 people which should be (assuming this rumor is untrue) treating this like an attack on their brand by a bad actor and not something to hit snooze on.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2553822#Comment_2553822
Is he? I'm inclined to agree with Orion here. If a claim is being made of X thing being true, it is on the person making the claim to provide the source. That is how burden of proof goes.
Perception is reality - Lee Atwater
Burden of proof is a concept of law, not of PR.
In PR the standard is 'messaging control' or just 'messaging.' You don't want the discussion and debate to even be possible, because it is way better for everyone to just agree on the reality of the situation, because there is no outside enforcement of the rules of evidence, it is literally a court of public opinion. Even if it is total nonsense, if it is total nonsense you let people believe that is going to affect your bottom dollar as much as if it was true. Heck, even if most people don't believe it, it still can have very negative ramifications down the line, because it becomes easy to toss into a gish galop style pool of complaints and sins your 'company made' that people are going to be less inclined to check if there is a future crisis.
Like I am willing to bet some controversy sometime down the line someone will say 'Remember when BHVR an NFT scam group defraud a bunch of people including Pinhead's VA" and people's half memory of these events combined with the current context of whatever is going on would make them believe its true.
The fact that the VA is now involved is a sign that, if this is fake, its gone far enough that BHVR really would want to step in to control the conversation. Heck, even if it was real generally this would be a situation where you move up an announcement to take control over the conversation, though again that choice may not be in BHVR's hands if it involves agreements with other brands.
-
Mods should say something
Mods would, in most org structures, not be in the know enough to confirm or deny this, nor would they have the ability to say yes/no.
This would fall to someone like a social media/marketing/PR, coordinator, manager, specialist, ect. Someone trusted to basically write official communications for BHVR and to know about major partnerships because they helped plan press releases and media assets for them, which isn't that high up mind but isn't "The CEO needs to take this phonecall as their kids cry about their Disneyland Vacation being ruined" tier.
Gotta also say, feel real bad for them and other 'Customer Service' tier communicators in situations like this, because when there is ambiguous communication that is causing anxiety in the community, it gets dumped on their lap both in terms of the work that needs to be done, and often times in perception of the community, because they are the most readily accessible identifiable individuals. I have worked with groups that have basically grinded away at moderator tier employees making them bear the brunt of radio silence in crisis situations and it was not pleasant. So goodspeed to all of them, hopefully people realize they are not part of PR or Marketing decisions.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2553732#Comment_2553732
I'm not saying nobody will believe this, I'm saying nobody with 1 u of common sense should believe it, since there's a demonstrably false claim right there: that the Chatterer will only be available via the Box of BS.
It'd be like me claiming I work for BHVR and then saying "BHVR" stands for "Bear Hugs [are] Very Rad". It's nonsensical.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2553740#Comment_2553740
My bank had some problems with scammers claiming to be them to get people to give them their info. However, they didn't send out emails until work hours, because that's the norm in my country. They also expected people to have some common sense (which most of them did) and realize that the bank has never communicated with us via text, making it an obvious scam.
I'll chalk this up to cultural differences.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2553742#Comment_2553742
I don't think it's a bad sign, I think it's a sign that it's the weekend. I also think a lot of people are intentionally claiming the sky is falling because they want BHVR to look bad.
Lets start from the bottom and work our way up.
I don't think its a bad sign, I think its a sign that its the weekend.
PR doesn't take weekends off for the same reason hospitals staff up extra on the weekend: It is the time ######### is most likely to go down. If no one on the social media team is about during their prime time where things are most likely to develop, that is a sign of mismanagement.
Bank scams
Banking fraud is a huge thing and banks spend a ton of money on marketing and PR to combat it because it costs them a lot of money. Like it is a huge thing, you don't just trust people to 'see through scams.' Any time you log into your account you see a message telling you not to ever give anyone your password, for example.
Impersonating employees
Again, a huge thing that companies spend a lot of effort to combat. This VERY SITE has automated systems in place to prevent you from claiming to be BHVR and making it clear who is and isn't representing the company because even a few people believing it can rapidly mutate out.
They trust people use their judgement to see its fake
This is the most hillarious 'Armchair PR expert' take I have seen all year. It basically is saying the entire concept of PR is fake. No, sorry, message control is a thing and you in fact should not trust your customers to 'figure things out.' Even if they do it creates analysis fatigue that makes them just not want to engage with you, and the reality is in most situations it remains this negative point of controversy and anticipation that causes rumors to start in an an information vaccum because you couldn't be assed to say 'We aren't doing NFTs' on twitter.
Don't get me wrong, I also suspect its fake, but everything you described is pretty much the opposite of best practices, and in many cases (ex: Banking scam emails) it is literally not true.
People deliberately misinforming your consumer base to the point it is front page news on all sites associated with your brand for 24 hours and is starting to pick up play on serious news sites isn't a 'Oh whatever' situation. Yes, it is likely not true but it is still really bad buzz that creates negative brand perception. If I may get especially esoteric and into the weeks of the field of PR, even if people don't believe it in the end, the fact they could believe it creates a mental association with your brand you want to avoid because it causes negative emotional responses in people when they evoke your product mentally. Or, in layman's terms: People are more likely to be less happy when they think about DBD in the future without knowing why, even if they don't believe it in the end, because the human brain is weird. And this is assuming most people won't believe it, which is a BIG gamble when the cost is as simple as tweeting 'lol no.'
Saying 'BHVR is reasonable doing nothing here" is the equivalent of saying it is reasonable to hear a doctor say 'Well it is a moderately deep cut but it only has a 10% chance of infection and you won't bleed out, so lets not waste the time or effort to disinfect it and bandage it up." Or to for a hospital to have no doctors because its the weekend and no one ever gets hurt on the weekend.
Suffice to say, no, it is not normal for a company of 600 to say nothing in this situation, even on the weekend. It likely won't bring BHVR down (But, lets be very clear, BHVR is in a precarious situation, if you follow DBD news, the community, and its competitors and it would actually not surprise be if DBD falls apart over something like an NFT scandal) but it isn't something you want looming in your past adding fuel to a fire. Because...
I also think a lot of people are claiming the sky is falling because they intentionally want BHVR to look bad
When your community is rooting for your brand to fail, you have already lost. The very fact this is definitely an element of why this rumor spread so much is significant, and is part of why I said that BHVR has a long history of being very bad at PR. The situation has devolved to the point where even if this wasn't true people indeed would push it as true, and to get out of that hole requires consistent excellence in PR.
If BHVR had good PR practices, this rumor would never have been relevant, but they don't, so now they have to treat every smear and scandal as a threat, because their current priority is (or should be) repairing their reputation.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2553719#Comment_2553719
Weekend=Not working hours
It's not normal to work for a company outside of working hours.
PR does not get days off. I mean they do, obviously, but if a fire starts you are expected to be available to make a tweet and have a few phone calls even on your vacation.
No well run company has literally no one on hand to handle something like this. At the very least you have someone checking up on your brand every so often on your vacation weekend to ensure that nothing bad is happening who can call top level decision makers.
BHVR isn't some small indy early access company. 600 people work there. Your flagship product having a huge negative rumor start over the weekend that could have extremely bad fallout is not something you just blow off for your island vacation as the a social media manager. You can afford to take 5 minutes out of your day drinking pina coladas to log into twitter and say "This is not happening."
I am not saying 'they shoulda been on this at 2 AM if this broke, but its been 24 hours and, again, this is already starting to hit the news because its such a charged topic. SOMEONE should have said SOMETHING and it is a bad sign no one did.
As a PR professional, you put out fires. Fires don't take the weekend off, so while you get days off, you need to be ready to respond if some bullshit hits some tabloid and it starts to actually get play in the public consciousness, which this NFT stuff did (especially because it can be perceived in a lot of negative ways for BHVR even if it ISN'T true!).
If I was at all involved in BHVR's choices on this, it would be the no-brainer choice to release a tweet or reddit post saying something to the effect of 'We aren't doing this and don't believe in this kind of monetization, we loooove you." It is PR 101 stuff: People are worried you are doing something you have literally no intention of doing?
The cost-benefit of deconfirming it is clear: Say nothing, rumors spread and customer anxiety skyrockets. Deconfirm it? LITERALLY FREE positive brand perception. Saying "No this isn't happening" during a weekend is not something that would be hard for a mid level nobody to do without even consulting anyone on one of their check ins during the weekend.
-
@MongolPSR said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2553719#Comment_2553719
can I just say the fact that you have a masters in communications is freaking amazing. I tried it I really did and just noped out and switched to just media production and content creation. The whole PR side of things is a basilisk I can not fathom so props to you for a masters in it.
Thanks. It helps that I focused way more on the systems side of things, like algorithmic exploitation, data analysis, things like that.
@Orion said:
- It's the weekend.
- Companies are not liable for people falling for scams. Even ethically speaking, do you think it's reasonable to expect anyone to scour the Internet and constantly dispel false claims like this?
- The claim is just obviously fake and I have no idea how anyone could read that and believe it.
- We, regular players, can just as easily spread the word and help each other out.
It is 10000000000000% the job of anyone working on pushing an organization's message to quell scams and rumors that may lead to negative brand perception. It is probably the most important function of any outward facing member of an organization to ensure this. You can summarize the entire field of PR and marketing as 'Make sure people are thinking of you in a positive manner that makes them want to support you' and a rumor that you are a Captain Planet Villain certainly is up there in terms of things you should be worried about.
It is literally an entire subfield of communications to deal with this nonsense, crisis communications, and this situation in 2 days of silence already has developed to the point it is starting to see news play with people uncritically reporting on it. Sure, you may not personally be the demographic for Yahoo news, but we are past the point where you can say 'no one is going to believe this.'
-
Masters in Communications here, with a concentration in professional communications here:
The fact they aren't saying something is a really bad sign. Yes, even though it is a holiday weekend. De-confirming something like this could be done in a twitter post, it wouldn't require a top level choice, this is what you would be paying your day to day content/social media manager to handle and they would need to be in the know of if there were any major brand deals lined up. Content Managers are 'on call' on holidays in the sense they should be checking in every so often to ensure they don't need to put out a fire like this. So the fact they aren't de-confirming it is troubling, because if it isn't true the choice to say 'We aren't doing this' to something generating a ton of negative buzz in your community should take 5 seconds to make.
It either points to serious dysfunction in their leadership structure, where they can't even do the basic "we are not doing this and it goes against our values" post to judo flip this PR snafu into a way to build positive brand perception, or it being real so they CAN'T deconfirm it and either they aren't allowed to say 'yeah we are doing it' due to responsibilities to their partners, or because they are trying to backpedal because they realized their fans are not about making computers do sudoku so hard it makes the planet uninhabitable in 10 years so they can create artificial scarcity of basic gameplay functions.
-
They will almost certainly never ever ever nerf nurse.
She is not exactly fun to go against, but she is extremely fair as a killer in the sense the level of dedication and skill to get her to where she is means that even the more salty survivors admit she 'deserves' it. Nerfing her despite the fact she only wins if she is objectively a master of her craft would be admitting they don't want good killers to be able to win, and the game is not intended to allow killer skill to shine. It would probably result in a 2017 style killer strike.
Blight probably won't be nerfed either because being 'very strong' doesn't mean 'no-counterplay.' They only nerfed Billy, low key, because they had another killer at the level of him in the form of Blight, so I suspect he will only get nerfed if another Blight comes around.
Spirit isn't very loved by killers or survivors both, but I could see that happening.
Most of the community agreed that old billy without Instasaw was where killers 'should' be power wise, so I would honestly rather see them buff a LOT of killers incrementally, than nerf anyone. The reason killer balance is so out of whack in DBD is they basically refuse to do incremental buffs or nerfs, and instead do full reworks, so the feedback rate on any given balance change is comically low, like over a year.
-
Deliverance activating DS is good, because DS as it is now serves as a limit on how much value the killer can get out of quickly re-chasing someone who just got hooked, and how many hook states they can rapidly get on one person, without removing costs for sloppy unhooks.
Wasting deliverance early in your first hook phase is a big misplay, and will generally cost the entire survivor team a lot. Deliverance is really good because it allows you to rescue yourself while your team is free to keep on gens, and if you just let the killer slug you, you actually end up in a worse spot overall, even if you have something like Unbreakable it just eats up so much gen time to pull this nonsense if the killer is too smart to fall for it, and worse you might be wasting unbreakable for a dumb combo that doesn't eat up any of the killer's time or stop their progress as opposed to when it is ideally used to clutch a rescue from the ground while the killer is trying to snowball out your entire team.
I get why it is annoying, but it is a 'fair' combo because it is so easy to punish ridiculously hard, and if someone is using deliverance correctly you should never notice they have DS anyway.
-
Slugs are so powerful because hooks are so weak right now.
A hook requires extra time investment and risk to carry someone to a hook, and allows another survivor to instantly heal that health state.
Slugging forces that survivor to stay fully injured for longer, doesn't take up your time, and if someone rescues 'early' eats up more of their time.
This is one of the reasons devs won't further nerf camping. Any time you nerf the killer's ability to gain value off a hook, you force a slug meta more and more. Hooking is just not rewarding except for the purposes of either baiting people (Which is a viable strategy but which gets you a LOT of abuse for 'proxying' or 'patroling' or whatever) or actually closing out the game, and as long as you can do basically literally anything else but hook in that moment, you generally shouldn't hook unless you expect a quick rescue no matter what (in which case, yeah just take the hook state from em).
This isn't like... a terrible problem for game balance yet, but it means hook rescues are as strong as they can be (ex: Old old borrowed time where it protected the unhooker, a super minor buff to BT, was way too much and basically forced a slug meta because even if you had everyone injured rescues were still trivial)/
-
I think the problem with SBMM is DBD is like... paradoxically a highly competitive game, and not at all suited to competitive gameplay.
On the competitive end, it has a lot of stuff in it you see in games that develop high end competitive scenes. For example, tons of Yomi exchanges, like camping, fakeouts, ect. In general, the better player will win individual exchanges, and DBD has a lot of skill testing elements. Furthermore, DBD is set up so that, until you are in a dominant position, you kinda need to go all out because slacking at any point before the game is won is going to lose you the game.
On the flip flop though, game balance is trash at the moment with a super wide gulf between killer preformance. The balancing philosophy for killers, and the overall design philosophy for them, is kinda consistently bad and does not prioritize things a competitive community would care about (ex: pretty much everything about Trickster, for survivors the fact he removes a traditional skill from survivors without replacing with something else makes him awful to play against from a competitive perspective, and from a killer perspective the fact his knives don't go where you aim them makes him too random and swingy to really be interesting to invest in mastering. You can be the best Trickster in the world and you will not hit a ton of really important knife hits just because the game told you that you couldn't), and the devs really don't seem to really understand the underlying 'theory' of DBD in just so many ways, like map design (Ex: There is an upper limit on how big maps can be. How narrow. How many strong elements are near each other. Pallet density and deadzone distributions for a good map. The fact larger map=/=needs more pallets, ect.), and so many game feel elements are frustrating and remove player control.
Like if DBD wanted to be a game people took seriously, you would need to do a lot (especially on killer end) to make the act of 'sweating' less terrible. Comp players will peruse mastery in games with legitimately difficult systems (Tekken's everything, Melee's move system) but if you make the high end just not feel good it won't happen. Killer has too many animation locks, the asymmetry of downtime is too big, optimal play is often really boring, ect. The game also heavily lacks 'bounding' mechanics, and the fact some people think removing the very few we have (Bloodlust) would make the game better shows that a lot of people don't even understand why they are there (I can't think of a comp game that does not have a hard coded system that isn't just anti-infinite, or which doesn't have community rules to cap output. But a cap on expected gains from an interaction. Bloodlust forcing a hit at a non-infinite is the equivalent of combo scaling in a lot of ways).
SBMM isn't trying, obviously, to grow a comp scene, but you need to understand this is why DBD is generally considered more fun by people who are good at it when there is varied skill distribution. Sometimes your on top, and sometimes your on bottom, but if every game is a sweatfest the game can get really old and tiring. DBD would undoubtedly be a better game if it could be better balanced so you don't need some sap in every game being the weak link that allows the game to actually open up past strong loops and W holding by introducing the main secondary objective of DBD that actually makes the game interesting, but it requires a lot of changes the devs don't seem to be exploring, and you absolutely don't need the 'data' of SBMM to realize the game needs serious changes at the top end, and to at least start making those changes.
Like yeah, SBMM is a great concept but if you can't see how badly some killers are behind and 'need the data' there is no reason to expect your metrics for what SBMM will track are going to be good, and its clear you don't value what most of your community values. This meme that only people who want stomps don't want SBMM is compelling but it isn't true, trust me I would LOVE it to see less players in red ranks just feeding me hooks not even giving me time to get out of Devour Hope range, or fewer red rank 'policy facecampers' throwing matches on the first gen. But the very basic boundaries of the game's design aren't even well established by its creators (and in fact they have been very vocally against the entire concept of balancing in the past, so this is extra suspect) so there is a lot of reason to expect it to go wrong.
-
Flashy clicks are survivors trying to communicate with you to try to get power over your mental state.
Which is in most scenarios giving you free information you can use against them, which gives you WAY more power over their mental state if you can bait them into worthlessly following you hoping for you to full commit.
While BM and disrespect can get 'too much' (end game collapse is needlessly toxic right now and adding a REAL concede mechanic would be nice, hatch fakeouts or slugging tben hooking on last kill and other ways of wasting real life time for no reason likewise adds nothing to the game) mindgames are really critical to DBD.
If you really are in the killer zone clickspam should make you smile.
-
This doesn't look like hitbox issues, but latency correction, based on the list you provided. The game has a weird sorta 'rollback' effect for survivors where if you get hit when you should but your a bit behind you will end up getting a weird smackaroo a few seconds after a vault or whatever.
Its usually easy to notice that it is fair and you weren't actually at a distance to be clear if you really pay attention, but it can be annoying as heck either way.
-
@Volfawott said:
It's a pretty balanced mechanic when you think about it.
It's essentially something that prevents people from going into dead zones and making it practically impossible for the killer take them to a hook
But it's also not so quick then it could be easily cheesed the regression of your wiggle bar is actually quite slow which means that you have to be practically left almost Bleeding Out for it to have an impact anyway
It doesn't work well for this because you can never gain carry distance as a killer by dropping, and TBH hook destruction on sacrifice probably needs to go away to really fix the deadzone issue, or certain hooks need to be 'eternal.'
Wiggle exists to make sure not every hook is basement or inside the trigen and it really shouldn't be a serious strategy to cheese wiggles, basically any time it is close to viable the game suffers, with the exception of anti-slug techs, because slugging is meant to be high risk high reward and the cost to a longer disable on the survivor is less control over them and less stability.
If you instantly go to carry a survivor and try to reach the closest hook, you really need to be able to reach it or the game becomes somewhat nonsensical.
-
I sometimes do it as killer to try to influence other survivors if I suspect I am against a SWF.
It can get them to play more recklessly or go for a dumb rescue they otherwise wouldn't, and one of the only downsides of SWF is the emotional attachment survivors have towards each other, so exploiting that helps even the playing field.
-
The issue is that NOED's instant down exists for a specific reason: To allow tension to exist in the end game stage, where otherwise its too easy for survivors to just 'disrespect' the killer without consequence. Normally disrespecting the threat of another in a game should be something that occurs because of reads and you believing they won't punish, but in DBD the killer CAN'T punish endgame, which makes the end of a trial limp for the survivors and really annoying for the killer. NOED is, in many ways, a smart design because if a game is a blowout for one side you want the end to still have tension, and the idea that a killer who does poorly should just get teabagged during the end game collapse is as bad a design as saying survivors don't 'earn' the hatch: It may literally be true but it is still there to ensure both sides keep trying the entire time. But the hatch is free, NOED is not.
NOED's instant down is specifically a problem because its so rare and isn't actually part of the endgame experience, despite it being required for endgame to HAVE an experience in most cases. Survivors don't feel obligated to cleanse totems because 99% of the time it just makes the loss more likely, so NOED coming from nowhere seems 'cheap.' Like the killer didn't 'earn it' despite there being many contexts the survivors can't casually be in front of the killer without the killer having to 'earn it.' Those contexts (ex: Grabs, injured medium vaults, open area chainsaws) are more fair to survivors because they can expect them, but NOED never telegraphs itself and isn't common like BBQ (Another untelegraphed perk which is far more common and thus more played around, with a lower play around cost too) so its just a surprise whammy.
There are a lot of ways to make NOED healthier that probably involve buffing killer endgame but making NOED less of a rude surprise. But survivors really shouldn't feel safe tanking a hit from the killer just because its mathematically impossible for him to stop them despite them being cross map from the gate, so any NOED fix needs to address that without totally locking down the survivor's ability to do basic things like open gates and escape if they are relatively close.
My personal thoughts is killers should get a default 'uncleansed totem' buff of some sort that makes them fearsomely strong if you literally refuse to cleanse totems, and NOED should instead buff that mechanic, rather than NOED itself just suddenly transforming the endgame into something with any amount of tension by itself. One idea might be to re-introduce 'classic machinegun' to the game, like if there are no totems cleansed your effectively over max STBFL, and with NOED the killer attack basically lacks a cooldown and thus is effectively an instant down, but every totem clensed slows this, so your still rewarded for finding 3, but the killer is still significantly more threatening end game unless you took the time to cleanse all 5 totems (And thus the game lasted longer and ideally the killer had more time to deplete resources to make endgame spookier).
-
@PanicSquid said:
I'd say the percentage is probably similar to the percentage of people who are LGBTQIA+.
(I apologize in advance if I missed any letters or if I got some out of order.)
The main rule I recommend to folks is that it is best to get at least to Q and if you drop the T that is full out sus and instantly is going to put a lot of people on edge because LGB is a dogwhistle for anti-trans hate groups.
When I am writing I tend to use lgbtq+. It is sorta an unhappy accident that A gets left out there because asexual errasure is a huge issue, but ending on Q for brevity's sake is a good spot to do so for a few reasons.
-
I think a lot of his problems come from his add-on design.
Only like 3 of his 20 add-ons affect Nemesis and their interactions with survivors directly. One of them (the tongue) basically does nothing because most of his addons are crazy undertuned.
About half of his add-ons are trying to turn the zombies into some sort of threat, which doesn't work, and the other half are interacting with how vaccines work, which the survivors have total control over and which Nemesis can't capitalize on.
I think his basekit is fine. It more comes down to that it isn't good enough to be worth having a PH or Nurse style addon design where they basically don't matter.
-
The big problem with Nemesis IMO isn't his basekit. He gets free detection, faster breaks, and can be very scary late game if you get infections. He does about as much as you could expect a killer's power to do.
The problem is most of his addons are functionally worthless because they are trying to make the zombies into some sort of threat when that is very much not what they are for, and most of the rest are such minor benefits they borderline aren't worth taking because the numbers are so comically undertuned, like a 12 second expose or a 15 second undetectable on a killer without inherent movespeed.
Noticably, only three really interact with what Nemesis is going to be doing 99% of the time: Infecting survivors to try to get downs, and of those only two (Marvin's Blood and N-EA parisite) actually have helpful tuning (And Marvin's blood is questionable as well). Most of the rest of the addons relate entirely to the aftermath of interactions with Nemesis, which naturally dramatically weaken their power because it means Nemesis doesn't control when these things happen, survivors do.
And, of course, his irris are REALLY bad.
If you compare Nemisis to MOST killers without addons, they are pretty above average: I would take addonless Nemi over say... Pig, Trapper, Ghostface, even maybe Wraith, its just most killers are actively helped by their addons, and its sorta been a modern problem of DBD where killer addons aren't doing as much (Trickster, Twins, and Executioner all have pretty 'nothingburger' addons for the most part as well). This isn't a huge problem for PH because his base power is really strong and his addons still give him statistical benefits, but it is huge for Nemesis that almost all of his addons don't do anything because his basekit is way more clearly a basekit that has room to build off of rather than the 'whole deal.'
So if I wanted to help Nemi out, I would just do a total addon rework that puts way more focus on the actual interactions with the survivors rather than literally 16 of his 20 addons doing nothing for Nemesis themselves. Go the Doctor Route, add on secondary effects to his addons that interact with zombies or vaccines, but add effects like "Reduce Tentacle Deployment time when chasing an uninfected survivor" that help him get started, effects that create windows for Nemesis to create value like "When a survivor uses a vaccine, double the reach of your next tentacle strike," at least good effects that interact with infection like Hindered or Blind.
There is a LOT of space for interesting Nemisis addons that involve things that actually help the killer: Infecting injured uninfected survivors getting some sort of bonus, conditional changes to chargeup, reach, or cooldown times, and for Iris there are way more interesting concepts like 'Survivors infect each other like Plague.'
-
I think one interesting thing to think about with NOED is that if it was basekit no one would care.
NOED is a pain point specifically because it is a surprise that dramatically changes your mid match objectives. If you went into EVERY game knowing you need to totem hunt it wouldn't be as bad. It is a weird uncanny valley style balance issue where buffing it would really nerf it.
Not saying NOED needs to be basekit, but if dull totems were always an end game consideration I suspect NOED would actually be stealth nerfed.
-
Deadlock is super interesting as a slowdown perk.
It full well might be a tournament meta perk. But the interesting thing is the perk scales with how good the survivors are, and functions super differently than most slowdown perks.
Mainly, it 'normalizes' gen repair time, meaning it creates a more consistent window between repaired gens, but it can't actually do anything more than that: if you weren't already competing more than one gen every 45 seconds, it won't slow your team down nearly as much as say... Ruin or Pop, because it doesn't regress gens.
This means its going to be more impactful the better the enemy team is, and less impactful the worse they are, unlike say... Ruin where if your opponents are good it barely matters and if they are bad it is overwhelmingly strong.
The effect isn't that scary in terms of killer tempo when paired with corrupt. Yes, with corrupt it will result in 4 out of 6 gens being locked... for 20 seconds, at which point it goes back to 3 out of 6. This does mean there is a 20 second window where the killer has a smaller area to search if the survivors want to say on gens, but the impact there (in terms of the combo) is pretty low: It requires the killer to not be in chase for example. So with CI it is basically just... force adding 20 seconds to the game, which is worse than Old Ruin, or getting the killer their (ideally second) chase faster some of the time if the survivors stick to gens, which is still not a huge impact.
It just shuts down double pops is all and force adds 20 seconds (if that actually, it is technically possible to still double pop vs this just by having more than one gen within a few seconds of popping, so you can't brainlessly use this to hard camp even, as most camping scenarios either have just one person repairing still meaning this doesn't matter, or all 3 are meaning you only stop 1 gen from popping for 20 seconds, another 2 pop, and you will still lose by the end of the timer) to each pop if they would take less than 20. So... yeah... important in a tournament/SWF context, pretty trash in most others.
-
Netflix is almost certainly doing this because they want exclusivity for their own Stranger Things game.
I don't think it is going to work out great, gaming storefronts that aren't very agro in recruiting third party (ex: Epic) tend to fail, so they are shooting themselves in the foot that way (Doubly so if they start trying to stream games which is a neat conceptual technology that is in search of a market that likely does not exist), but that is more because its very likely whatever game streaming service they set up is going to hemorrhage the money invested in it with little return, not because of them cutting out DBD, which probably was a very minor revenue stream to them that they only really did during that phase where they were licensing out stranger things to EVERYBODY.
-
@NMCKE said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2441205#Comment_2441205
I'd doubt that, you can easily get caught first and even if you stealth it out, someone is going to be the first victim. The killer will find someone, stealth doesn't prevent tunneling and with the introduction of Lethal Pursuer, doesn't look good for the survivors.
Once you're in a chase, it doesn't matter how good you are when the killer is supposedly 400% stronger than you. In other words, if the killer wants you dead, you're going to die. The best you can do is drag the chase out for as long as possible, and when you get hooked, hang for the entire duration to buy your team time to get out.
Again, if you are consistently getting caught first, that is a you problem.
Because, no, you won't 'easily' get caught first if you are playing correctly. You are right to note the killer WILL down if they commit to a chase long enough, which is why you take the effort to not be first chase, but taking that effort works very well. If you don't think it does, that means you aren't good enough at playing subtle (not stealth, you don't gotta hide in the corner immersed claudette style, but subtle) yet.
-
@meatisadelicacy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2441063#Comment_2441063
You don't actually know what bullying means if you think survivors clicking flashlights is bullying.
Re-read the post sweetie, it is very clear I am not talking about flashlights in this context.
-
@NMCKE said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2440636#Comment_2440636
There's only so much you can do through, I saw that this one person was about to die if they were hooked again. Me being nearby, took two protection hits, the first one injuring me and the second one putting me into the dying state. The carried survivor wiggled free, but the killer didn't want to pick me up and take the free hook I literally just gave them. Therefore, it's not the survivor's fault for something that the killer choices, can't make a horse drink water.
By the way, my definition of tunneling is where the killer gives one survivor attention. They don't attempt to harm other survivors, they are only interested in getting one survivor out of the game ASAP. Some killers have their own way of tunneling while others will be relentless about it. However, it's not against the rules, just don't be upset if you get a negative reaction because from the start, you felt the need to ruin that survivor's experience. I'm not talking about strategic tunneling, I'm talking about whoever you first find — you made sure they didn't play the game. Don't get butt hurt if they are aggravated because I'd be too, especially if this has been a common occurrence for me.
If you are commonly getting tunneled it means you are doing something wrong. Again, the number one skill a player can develop while learning is gamesense to not be the first person hooked.
A lot of survivors 'ruin' their learning period by trying to master sick chases like the streamers first thing, when in reality understanding gameflow and how to appropriately do things like rescue, gen pressure, heal, and avoid killer attention are far more fundamental skills.
It is like trying to learn how to do a sick combo in a fighting game rather than learning the basics of positioning, mixups, ect. Not being first chase consistently gives you MUCH more power over how the game goes, gives you more power to punish tunneling, and will result in you climbing out of ranks where people 'policy camp' faster.
-
@Sonzaishinai said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2441177#Comment_2441177
That's exactly what I'm saying
Why aren't people doing this? The fact that it's not happening is the whole reason i made this post
Because survivors convinced themselves it isn't their job to apply counterplay to an intended killer strategy, and were successful enough at convincing some killers that they shouldn't have to do so that it sometimes even works.
As a solo player, just always play to hatch and ensure you aren't the first one being chased most games, and you can climb and get to ranks where survivors usually have a bit more of a clue. And even if they can't safe rescue they tend to be better at not overtly hook farming you.
-
Generally it is, in fact, the survivor's fault if the killer tunnels yes. Both on a game by game level (most killers won't camp/tunnel if you maintain self control and go for late rescues, which is what you SHOULD do because it maximizes the damage camping causes to the killer's tempo) and on a meta-level (survivors feed tunnelers so often that the killers learn its a good strategy).
It is so easy to not feed a tunneler, just do the following:
Spend 30 seconds repairing a gen, healing, ect., without A: Showing scratchmarks near the hook, or B: Being seen by the hook.
If the killer starts a chase with someone else in that time, check on the hook, if they are not near it, rescue. If they are, pop gens.
Repeat, basically tell the killer 'if you stay there we WILL end the game on you.' Some killers rarely will maintain the camp but moooooost will try to chase you once they realize you don't take the bait. Each hook state is a full minute, use them and don't be afraid to let someone go for multiple hook states if the killer really refuses to leave.
Meanwhile, if you do any of the following, congrats, you fed the tunneler and are part of the problem: Try to bait a chase near the hook, stay down near the hook, stare at the killer 30 meters away from the hook doing nothing, rapidly fast vault telling the killer "I am not doing gens and am getting mad at you."
Basically do everything in your power to make the killer aware a rescue isn't going to be attempted if they stay there. Because killers don't camp to 'block rescues.' They try to (mostly) do it for tempo reasons, and if you strongly impress upon them that THIS game, camping is tempo negative, they tend to stop. If they refuse to, just end the game early and start a better one. It is legitimately a better experience to die first hook and for the killer to lose over it than to get farmed by your teammates desperately trying to save you at the cost of the killer getting a 4k.
The hook is intended to make you make bad choices and over-value altruism over survival. But if you can reverse the 'time crunch' back onto the killer, you can very easily land rescues basically every time. You should almost never be making unsafe rescues as a personal policy.
-
@ZaroktheImmortal said:
Also if you want a real second chance perk just like NOED it literally allows the killer who hasn't stopped the gens to get one hit downs
NOED is a very different second chance perk than the survivor ones.
It is paradoxically weaker, better designed, and less fair. It is intended to be a 'blue shell' style mechanic that keeps the game interesting even when the survivors win by a lot, but it isn't common enough to work. Ironically, if it was run WAY more it would be a more fair perk because then totem hunting would just be a standard thing survivors do, sorta like how most good survivors play around BBQ. Like making it basekit (not that it should be) would nerf the perk in a round about way because you would go into every game planning to deal with NOED, which is trivial.
Definitely needs a redesign to become more like modern BT or DS, but it was way healthier than old BT or DS because it has actual counterplay and was designed to do, you know, a good and interesting thing for the game.
@ZaroktheImmortal said:
This game rewards killer for playing like trash. Camping and tunneling? Oh yes that's fine according to the game.
That is because they are fine and part of good DBD gameplay if the survivors are playing badly. Get good and don't clearly try to rescue in the killer's face next time bud. You are acting like the killer is expected to run to a corner and count to 30 after hooking someone when the entire point of the hook's design is to create a new objective on the map that is heavily killer sided that survivors will want to attack irrationally at their own expense. Proper rescue play is super solved at this point and it is downright pathetic how many survivors refuse to learn it and just say 'WOW WAY TO CAMP' because they couldn't maintain the self control to count to 30 without showing any scratches near the hook to force the killer to leave.
-
Gen repair speeds themselves aren't a problem, but it is more a problem of normalization and varying map strength.
Like, on your average map, gen speed is totally fine, the killer has enough power to defend their gens on those maps, if you accept your not going to defend them all and plan ahead for what 4-5 gens you are really going to dig in to defend (trying to start with a tri-gen is a bad idea on most maps).
The issue is when the maps are too big for you to effectively start a chase early, or the map just has bad gen spreads, or the map has an extremely dense safe zone. Old Ormond was a good example of this with its comical pallet density, as is current Midwitch for any killer without vertical mobility.
The real trick is to understand chase breakpoints and to take them when you think you have gotten the most value from that chase in the least amount of time. For example, if a survivor throws an extremely strong pallet near your nest, it is probably enough value to just break that and go back to check the gens you care about, because that will make the next chase that starts in that area SIGNIFICANTLY harder for the survivors. While it never feels good to break off a chase without a down, it is often the correct choice because your chase set up future downs IF you ensure specific generators don't then pop rendering that specific deadzone irrelevant.
This is why a lot of high level killers don't use ruin but instead use pop (or oppression+Surveilance). Ruin is really strong if you are a high mobility killer and it doesn't get cleansed, but in reality you don't care about the time investment of pop that much compared to having control over which specific gens don't get completed, and while ruin is 'global' you often don't care about the entire map but just specific halves of it (ex: On Grim Pantry you are USUALLY defending Shack Side and whatever goes down near main building sorta doesn't matter, so the fact ruin 'helps' those gens if you show up there isn't as relevant as noticing shack gen is 50% and just nuking that progress). Oppression has the side benefit of giving you information for your next chase specifically in the context of your planned defensive area.
-
I actually think they did a good job of removing all the second chance nonsense, but survivors still play like total trash. It is just they also are very effective at bullying killers into allowing them to play like trash through discourse about things like tunneling or camping:
If a SURVIVOR takes every advantage they are offered via misplay, the response is 'what are you expecting, them just letting you hit them?' Which is very accurate and true. But if a KILLER takes every advantage offered by misplay, they are a badguy 'preventing people from playing the game.'
Despite, you know... DBD being a game with player elimination and which deliberately includes a lot of mechanics that are intended to reward the killer by preventing survivors from playing the game for a bit if they make a mistake. Like it is most of killer gameplay to keep as few people playing the game at any one time as possible. So once you realize you are, in fact, intended to be mean as a killer and do as much as you can to keep survivors off balance, the game becomes like... actually fun, and you start to learn a lot more about how the killer-survivor dynamic actually works and what the survivors can REALLY do to mess with you, rather than bashing your head over and over again against binary mechanical power that is just saying 'no' to you.
-
@Kira4Evr said:
I think it should be either 65% or 70% of the normal healing speed. Why did they even nerf it from 80%? Was it too strong?
It was comically broken. Killers landing hits basically didn't take time from the survivors at all, and it was possible with a good medkit to suddenly self heal mid chase multiple times.
Healing is meant to either be a timesink for one survivor, inconvenience two, use a precious resource, or have a very limited window to be fast. Self care can NEVER be 'good' because the concept of a lone survivor efficiently healing whenever they want breaks DBD.
-
@Patrick1088 said:
I think Boon Totems will have this functionality:
-survivor has to find and convert a totem to a boon totem
-by doing this, it activates the effect until one of the following occurs; 1. Set duration timer (i.e. 4.6 movement speed for next 3 minutes) 2. Killer breaks totem or 3. Another survivor converts the boon totem to their own boon totem.
-once a boon totem is broken or converted the original user can be modified. I'd they get downed.
This will be the decisions that survivors have to make that will affect Mori interactions. Do you bring a risky perk for great effects at the potential of being killed, or do you convert your teammates boon totem at their expense?
I think the battle over totems will make an interesting play that could slow down the game more. This will engage bones on both sides while addressing NOED
"4.6 movement speed for the next 3 minutes."
If they did that it would be reverted faster than old MoM. It would make games pretty much auto wins for survivors the second they found the boon. To put that in perspective on the absurd level of impact that would have, imagine if there was a hex that set the killer speed to 7. The killer just literally couldn't play the game for 3 minutes or until they found the totem.
The killer just doesn't have time for side objectives, so boon effects are going to have to be either something that gets disabled in pursuit of the main objective (ex: A reward for downing the obsession, which would FINALLY make the obsession role actually a risky one like the design originally included), or be extremely minor in impact and just something that the killer sometimes gets to disable if they get lucky and find it. Altering something as core as movement speeds couldn't be the effect, forget about something as core as the fundamental relationship of 'killers move faster than survivors.'
-
Healing is intended to be a timesink for survivors. Altering it too heavily ruins killer gameplay, and we have seen this be the case time and time again, which is why stuff like syptic and strong medkits ALSO had to be nerfed to provide either less total healing, provide less rapid healing, or both.
A big problem with self care pre-nerf was that, while conceptually it was about self sufficiency at the cost of a longer heal time, in reality it shortened the total time spent healing rather than repairing once you factored it allows you to cut the 'survivor manpower' to heal in half. It is hard to directly compare effects because the game is asymetric, but imagine it almost like if Pop worked on completed gens and set them back to 99% while regressing: If a survivor was on the gen ready to re-finish it you could technically beat that effect but it would turn the game into a complete pain in the ass slog as the killer would too easily reset progress that was meant to be 'sticky.' Damage isn't as sticky as a completed gen, but it is meant to be pretty sticky.
It is still a good perk that allows you to save an item slot (which is more valuable than a perk) while still getting the ability to self recover in specific situations, or to extend the longevity of extremely potent medkits. You shouldn't want to self care LITERALLY ALL THE TIME but it is really clear there are scenarios self care is great (ex: An injured flashlight user who won't be able to safely rescue and doesn't want to take 1/2 of the other survivors off a gen when someone is being chased).
In a way it is a 'perfect' survivor perk in that it gives you a new extremely strong capability that fundamentally changes the game for you, but it isn't so strong you want to do it all the time, and it doesn't totally dumpster what the killer is doing (unlike old self care the killer is still getting a lot of value out of the hit they made against you, it just is easier for you now to avoid being injured at a bad time where it will lose the entire team the game so it isn't touching the 'average' value of damage like old self care, but is putting a 'cap' on the value of a hit instead) and it 'loses' to killer perks (A killer perk should generally 'overpower' a survivor perk, like how Sloppy 'beats' self care, because the killer has only 4 perk slots as opposed to the survivor's 16).
It really doesn't need to be changed at all. Fast healing can exist in DBD but it needs to be highly conditional, such as "We'll make it" and "Inner Strength" which both allow extremely rapid recovery from damage states but only a limited number of times per game and with much stricter timing windows or conditions than 'whenever you feel like it.' It isn't an accident that both of these perks resemble Pop quite a bit, because burst healing is about as strong as burst gen regression.
-
DBD is in an awkward position where it is undeniably a hardcore competitive game (No real rubber banding, extreme snowballing for both sides, both sides can take extreme advantage of misplays on the other team's side, and optimal play often not being intuitive and based on systems knowledge), but it isn't really... a well designed competitive game.
So in a hardcore competitive game you can't 'take it easy' on an opponent unless you have some sort of read that tells you it's 'safe' to do so. In this context, camping when you expect a fast hook rescue is like grabbing when you expect your opponent can't tech throws in a fighting game and is just non-stop blocking: it is actually both the highest skill play you can make AND you HAVE to make that play.
This is why most killers don't want SBMM in the game: Killer is forced to sweat twice as hard as survivors for a LOT of reasons (no downtime, for example, if the killer wants to take a moment to breath they just lose, while the survivors can relax and re-orientate while healing, or on a gen, or any number of things), and the killer is punished MUCH harder for small mistakes (A survivor mishandling a chase looses a hook state, a killer mishandling one chase loses the game as 3 gens pop), which means that in 'close' games the killer has no real room to be anything but the biggest sweatlord.
And that isn't a condemnation or saying camping is 'low skill.' In fact, it is important to understand that most of the skill of DBD for a killer has very little to do with chases and is more a time management game. Running in a circle around a loop waiting for you to throw a pallet kinda ######### sucks and is bad gameplay, but trying to evaluate things like deadzones or optimal pressure on a slugged target is actually fun for the killer because they get to think and apply skill and out-manuver you. Same with camping, there is actually a way to 'optimally camp' and camping counterplay. So even outside SBMM it is actually kinda fun and skillful for a killer to camp or slug if they know it will screw you up, it is their JOB to screw you up and the tools they have that let them make CHOICES to screw you up involve being mean to you, as is the case in most competitive games.
So camping is sorta an inevitability mechanically, and even if systems were introduced to make it less attractive (ex: Tying gen repair to hook states so the killer wasn't in a position where they absolutely HAVE to kill a survivor ASAP to have a chance vs a good survivor team, which they MUST assume you are until proven otherwise), the game gets worse for the killer if you force them to just loop in chases all the time. It isn't that survivors shouldn't loop, but you should be aware that, at least at strong loops for most killers, it is exactly as exciting to be in that situation as to be sitting on a hook staring at Bubba camping you, and most killers will minimize that time via long term strategies like slugging and camping to force more and more survivors out of strong areas into weaker ones.
-
I have said this before and will say it again.
EGC was designed to allow the survivors as much power in wasting the killer's time as possible and BMing as hard as possible. They went OUT OF THEIR WAY to design it that way, rather than allowing the killer a simple 'concede' button which would be an easier implementation.
The raw reality of it is DBD allowed a huge portion of its userbase to become toxic and that means there is a financial incentive to bias the game towards that behavior. That is why, for example, they invested in a terrible chat filter that doesn't work, rather than actually implementing any sort of real report system that reviews player behavior and punishes it: If 40% of your userbase is shouting vulgarities post-game (And I have in fact started a spreadsheet to track this), are you really going to rush to ban them?
-
It depends HEAVILY on the context.
Generally, however, it doesn't feel like a tie to get a 2 or a 1k. While that is the 'middle result' in theory, in practice killer is a very snowbally role and if you are only getting 1-2k it is because you nailed a kill in the finale which doesn't really 'count' and is meant to be 'higher lethality' than normal. If the game was close and you got a lot of hooks and just happened to not hook the same people too often it feels good, but usually the games that result in a 1-2k game are exactly as frustrating as the games where you get a 3-4k: Nothing comes together, the map is littered with strong tiles, or you are a killer who can't counter W meta very well.
Think about it: If the killer gets that 1 or 2 kills early that killer is probably getting a 3-4k. You are only getting a 1-2k if the majority of your game was non-productive. That is why I think the devs are making a mistake calling it the 'average result.' It is probably more accurate to say you want most games to be a 1-2k on a loss, or a 3k on a win, with 0k and 4k being rare because maps shouldn't be so strong the survivors can hold enough resources to avoid ever getting hooked late when rescues are near impossible, and hatch should favor the final survivor.
It is one of those weird unintuitive things where something that seems like a reasonable midpoint isn't just because of how games flow and play out in DBD.
Overall this focus on balance via 'how many kills the killer gets' kinda misses the point of why killer satisfaction is often so low though. Kills matter way less than killers feeling like their time is productive and they have good choices to make mid match. Kill count matters WAY less than how much 'rote' effort the killer has to put into a chase which is only fun for the survivor. If a killer is frequently getting downs and hooks without having to loop for a full 10 seconds around a stupid 4 foot long desk but they 0k that is probably a much better experience and far more satisfying than a safe pallet bonanza where the killer 4ks after spending 10 long arduous minutes breaking every pallet on the map without any chance to hit anyone before 4king at 1 gen because the survivors have no more resources left.
-
@Exerath1992 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2377891#Comment_2377891
I agree with this mindset. If anything, I want to give survivors SOMETHING so they stop complaining about face camping.
And, if I'm being honest, im a killer main because I find solo survivor unfun due to lack of agency, which is way worse when a killer camps. So if I had a tad more hope while camped, I may play it more
Camping complaints were also less of an issue when SWF didn't exist, because being eliminated had far less cost.
Of course there is also the problem of Q times, and survivor queues being very long, but I guarentee you destroying core mechanic of killers as having the absolute power to shut down any action done in their face by a survivor not attempting to evade them will not help with your problems of dying being frustrating even in solo-Q now because it takes a long time to get a match and your disappointed it lasted only 3 minutes because you don't know how to not be first chase and aren't good enough at looping to make being the first chase fun.
Its a common issue in game design where attempted fixes to behavior caused by core systems through tertiary systems lead to unintended consequences that encourage things more. For example, during the old BT days, camping was WORSE because you HAD to be within 5 meters to get the grab to get anything off the hook. So either you facecamped or you tried to go for a 12 hook game. Ironically, strong anti-camping tools just make killers want to camp HARDER. And if the tool is too strong it just creates a slug meta (because slugging low key is more powerful a tool in DBD in terms of delaying survivors and making them expend more effort on rescues than hooks) like we had in 2017 where it was slug nurse as far as the eye could see.
The changes needed to support removing camping as a viable defensive strategy in killers in scenarios where you are actually going for the unhook and thus justify the camping behavior would need to be so pervasive that DBD would not resemble itself anymore. Like... it was literally a core design philosophy of Deathgarden to remove camping and swift player elimination as a key strategy for the killer... and Deathgarden SUCKED for this because it removes all tension from the game to allow survivors to treat hook states as a known, secure resource. The game was super braindead because the runners in that game had no reason to fear interaction with the hunter and it was boring for them, while hunter was frustrating because smart play was actively punished.
-
@Marigoria said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2376207#Comment_2376207
Ok, but it still makes the survivors who did just almost depip or even depip because they couldnt get chase or altruism. And what about the person on the hook? depiping and getting 5k BP doesnt seem like a "counter" imo.
I am more talking about forcing the killer to do other things, not just YOU doing other things.
People imagine the killer just sitting on the person at hook no matter what, but that is fairly rare. Most killers are camping because something indicated to them your not on gens (ex: You all were visible when they got the down, and thus have a VERY good reason to expect someone is waiting near the hook).
If you leave and do gens, it isn't just denying the killer the ability to down you. It makes it far more likely you can actually unhook the survivor.
It is IMPERATIVE you spread out as survivors and not let the killer pressure more than one survivor at a time. Good killers understand pressuring a lone survivor the whole game is a guaranteed loss and won't do it. If the killer REFUSES to leave hook, force them to depip and get your safety pip. You remain in your rank (save the guy who got nabbed early, but that is only 1/4th your group if your a group or doesn't affect YOU if your solo) and they derank, meaning the problem 'self corrects.'
...As long as your not consistently getting caught first that is. If you are, that means your not really... good enough to have an opinion about what the killer is doing. Not in a 'get good' scrub way, but in the sense that if you are consistently losing chases early to be the first down (because in this hypothetical the killer is going to 'policy camp' the first person and thus you will only get hook camped if your the worst survivor in the lobby) you actually deserve to depip, because your not at your correct rank and your peers are out preforming you.
Frankly this is a problem that doesn't really exist at the 15s or below, which is super trivial to reach because killers at rank 20-15 are total potatos and you could loop them for 5 gens easily to get a pip even if they DO camp you with basic loop knowledge. Once you get to the 15s killers almost always are camping because you are forcing them to be territorial, or they will back down very quick if they try to 'force camp.'
The way DBD's game design works makes it so the correct response to a camp literally can't be you trying to unhook and getting the unhook. The entire gameplay loop is "Killer denies area and applies pressure locally, survivors cannot apply pressure near the killer but have global presence to pressure killer any time they are not near them." The ENTIRE interaction between survivors and killers requires the killer to be able to deny you the ability to do any objective they are defending. It has to work that way. It may not be fun to be camped out, but it also isn't fun to say... get unga-bunga'd and taken from 100 to 0 by E-Hondo in Street fighter because you got corner combo'd.
Games aren't about making literally ever scenario and interaction fun and empowering for you, that doesn't work. Games need high and low points and different gamestates which require different responses and have different sides holding different amounts of power, or else the game doesn't function. There need to be situations where if you enter them you almost certainly lose, or can't accomplish specific things no matter how good you are: You shouldn't win a long range 1v1 vs an AWPer with dualies in counter-strike unless the AWPer is so low skill they literally can't play the game. You can be the best Counter-Strike player and you can and SHOULD lose in that matchup for different weapons and their advantages to mean something.
Likewise, in DBD, the fact the killer can block rescues is important to the overall loop of the game. There was a time where camping legitimately didn't work due to the absurd strength of old BT that made it essentially impossible for the killer to get any value off hook, combined with the strength of vacuum pallets meaning camping out a kill is as good as just starting a new chase because the value of that initial hit was so low. Survivors quit the game because of how ######### boring it was. The killer being able to punish you for being near them recklessly is literally the only tension in the game. Do not argue for its removal or the game will die.
And, again, it is really trivial to counter it. Killer streamers don't camp unless the survivors clearly are intent on feeding the camper, and survivor streamers basically don't get camped out unless they piss the killer off so much they are willing to throw the game over it. It is clearly possible to defeat camping via skill, and is so easy that it is defacto assumed in 'high level play' you will not be camping unless given a good reason to do so otherwise. So there really is no need to address it besides this idea that it isn't fun to be camped, which is... kinda true but its also not fun for the entire game to fall apart and die so lets take the lesser of two evils and accept that every gameplay loop has low points where you get wrecked and just need to take it like an adult.
-
@Dito175 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2370546#Comment_2370546
Why people hold Myers to such a high standard? The movies only depicted him as an immortal guy, survivors can briefly stop him with a pallet and the entity is a God, it would just traps him in a room until he starts obeying again.
Because there is a bunch of background lore that basically makes him an all powerful force of evil. Like he is apparently this avatar of Evil Incarnate, rather than just a superpowered serial killer.
No, it doesn't really show up on screen and it isn't really important to his 'mythos.' So it isn't really 'diegetically true' in the story as we see it.
But it was important enough to the license holder that Myers was the first killer the Entity politely invited, rather than 'ate.' Even Freddy didn't get that treatment. Despite the fact he is a guy with a knife 'on screen' in the 'background' he is far more powerful than that. An interesting writing choice, but one that needs to be recognized when talking about his interaction with DBD lore which is 'respecting' that.