dezzmont
dezzmont
About
- Username
- dezzmont
- Joined
- Visits
- 967
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Ivaldi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2027783#Comment_2027783
Because there's literally no situation where you would chase after a survivor in a straight line for 40 seconds.. If you do find yourself in this situation, then you need to rethink your strategy. You shouldn't be chasing a survivor that you can see from a mile away and expecting to catch up to them. And It's absolutely mind boggling that killers find a reason to complain about everything. It's like you just want survivors to be able to walk everywhere.
If you hit a survivor, and they run straight, you literally have to chase them 40 seconds.
Or if they are at 12 meters and sprint burst. The entire point 'W meta' is a problem is because people are imagining massive distances when they think of 40 second straight line chases. The reason that seems silly is because in most scenarios the killer's relatively small speed advantage is amplified by EXTREMELY COMPLEX MATH (Ex: If your running at an angle from the killer, at their most optimal angle they are effectively moving 7 meters per-second).
Most of the killer's distance gains are from cutoffs, mindgames where you stop for a second and suddenly they gain a full 4.6 meters on you rather than just .6, or other survivor mistakes. If the survivor is literally just running away, you can't do this, and suddenly the speed difference doesn't really matter and you have to sink a bonkers amount of time into the chase.
Like lets say two survivors are doing a gen and move to 10 meters in seperate directions before you make LOS contact. It is now literally impossible for you to close out a chase with either survivor without losing that gen as long as the map is one conductive to holding W, which is kinda absurd if you really think about it. And, as a bonus, after the killer closes in you can abort into a loop to try to extend the time more. While even on good maps there are plenty of times just not taking a chase makes sense, on many right now things are so open that the killer just can't take a chase ever and win without mobility, survivors just not being on gens if not in a chase, or someone deciding to try to loop before the killer closes distance. Because this play has zero interaction and can be done flawlessly with no skill required vs a large portion of the cast, it just turns out the killer doesn't have enough time to try to win any chases and not lose the game overall, which is a major problem.
Again, not that its BAD that survivors can run away. The solution here is almost certainly NOT 'Nerf W.' This is a bigger issue with map design, and the inherent rewards for chases and gen defense for M1 killers. This is why L T walls are so much stronger than most other gyms, and why Midwich and Lampkin are such awful maps: They are very linear with extremely large obstacles that essentially combine the benefits of looping AND W meta. It is a very subtle, nerdy problem that A: I wish streamers didn't highlight because its now ALL you see in redranks, and B: Because it obviously SOUNDS really stupid and most people articulate it poorly so something that is actually game design 101 "Lets evaluate white room mathematical non-interactive matchups stuff" sounds like ridiculous 'NERF SURVIVORS SO THEY CAN'T EVEN WALK AWAY FROM ME" stuff.
The white-room super crunchy math stuff always seems silly, but ends up being really easy to cause massive problems in your games, which is why patch notes often do things like talk about fractional changes in seconds for things. Time relationships are ESPECIALLY prone to creating wacked out results, and this is a doubled over time relationship between gens and movement speed.
-
Yep. DCs should pay out 25% of your points for any 'interactive' categories. So Chaser, devout, and brutality for killer, and Benevolent for survivor. Heck, there is an argument to be made for chaser as well because it reduces your effective hook states to take risk across your team before a critical mass snowball.
It is downright bonkers that the ranking system punishes you for someone deciding to just bail. Yes, the ranking system is broken, but this is a way its broken in a really obvious 'how the heck did they miss this' way, and not a subtle way like say... hook suicides being a problem because it means even a 'fair' killer who isn't camping but is otherwise playing perfectly can be spontaneously denied Devout.
-
It literally has no interaction or counterplay which is kinda the issue.
It is also very map dependent. Its less a complaint that 'survivors run away wah' and stuff like 'this map has too much open space for the survivor to go straight away from me, meaning it takes about half a gen before we can even start interacting.'
Loops if your bad as a killer are annoying, but for good killers this is where you actually can earn quick downs. The reason some maps work and others are bad is based on if there are places that force the survivor to turn and not just utilize the fact you only gain .6 meters distance on them a second. That .6 is a lot inside a loop, but its not outside of it at all, which creates this weird issue because its like... actually mathematically impossible for some killers to win on some maps with infinite linear distance, like Midwich.
Like obviously it sound stupid if you reduce it down to 'survivors are running away and that bad.'
But its actually a lot more of a subtle mathy problem about the minimum chase time a survivor can force on some maps vs how gen time works that makes chases inevitably longer than gen times even without using any looping at all, at least vs any killer without a ranged attack or superior mobility, which renders a lot of the cast useless.
This also makes it a hard problem to solve in a not stupid way too, cuz, as people rightfully point out despite the fact it isn't actually anyone's argument, you... want survivors to be able to run away and not instantly go down if the killer stumbles upon them, so they can get to a loop. And increasing gen times would suck too. Its a more tricky problem that probably requires a very nuanced solution and some map redesigns to encourage it to go back to being a cat and mouse 'try to break LOS, try to use obstacles to artifically increase the distance between you and the killer' rather than a fairly boring and nerdy 'Well if I try to do literally anything to lose this chase the killer can move at a 90 degree angle to cut me off and thus gain 1.5 meters on me per second compared to the .6 they gain normally, meaning I move an effective .9 meters faster than I otherwise would if I just hold W."
Like its good that that works for a BIIIIIT but it shouldn't get you a crushing victory in your chase if your team is all on gens. 40 seconds of chase time is considered a VERY good chase, and yet if you hold W that is literally the minimum for some killers.
-
@dummer33344 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2028520#Comment_2028520
What did they do for anti camping? I keep hearing about it but I can't piece it together, lol
Internally they tested pausing or even just slowing the timer based on killer proximity.
Of course the obvious problem is the killer is the purely reactive player in the camp scenario, and the survivors can be in more than one place while the killer can't, so 'spending' a survivor to paralyze the killer at the hook is super worth it for coordinated teams.
They just found that survivors used it to, again, ironically force the killer into staying on the hook, or giving up on using the hook at all. Because, again, camping is a problem of a lack of value in not doing it, both because getting whammied on an instant rescue is such a crippling tempo loss and because most of the cast really can't get a lot of value off a hook without a guaranteed immediate chase, and while camping doesn't force that and can be countered survivors like to interact with the killer and will seek that out.
On live there is a lot of back and fourth stuff. Old BT was absurd (It gave the rescuer the BT effect so they would require 3 hits to down if healthy from full, it was nutso and made it actually more likely for the killer to tunnel the rescued party off hook because of this, again, running theme of 'unintended side effects make the problem worse'), they introduced BBQ which was a massive incentive for mobile killers to not camp that largely worked. Laurie came along and made the idea of hooking so bad that we had a nurse fueld slug meta for a while. And DH was added a while before as kiiinda an anti-camp perk but mostly a fun 'shoot the moon' mechanic.
Then we got a few things. They got a bit more bold. A big one was Make Your Choice. Its good, but IMO it tries a bit too hard to prevent the killer from being 'allowed' to camp with it. IMO shortening the distance so it works on small patrols, or giving a 5 seconds aura read, would help killers use it more confidently without making it too much stronger, but it already is a very good perk so I wouldn't say its needed it just doesn't do as much lifting as it might otherwise to get killers to feel good about leaving hook.
Starstruck does a LOT to encourage survivors to chill on rescues, especially combined with infectious fright, and basically forces survivors to back off for a few moments or risk their next chase being very short. This is the strongest defensive anti-rescue perk, which means also anti-camp perk that the killer just happens to use, but depends on high mobility killers who can very quickly win chases, or environments that allow skilled non-mobile killers to win chases quickly through good play, which is a more substantial problem with the game and map design.
-
The concept of a killer second chance perk is hard because killers and survivors have severe goal asymitry. People often talk about NOED as one but it REALLY isn't.
You can't make one that is 1:1 (A killer second chance perk probably wouldn't be once per game) but it would be something like "Every 120 seconds, after dropping a chase, aura read the survivor you were chasing for 5 seconds."
It is still... not 1:1, but its a similar idea, a 'do-over' of one of the core dynamics of how you win/lose chases in a way that sorta forces the other side to win the chase all over again. This isn't a well designed perk, but to be fair neither is current DS.
It, funnily enough, would be both way more powerful and way more fair though.
-
@Sunbreaker7 said:
I have said this once and I say it again. The easiest way to punish Killers for camping hooks is to set an invisible timer that makes the hook survivor timer pause any time a killer spends more than X amount of time near the hook. Once the pause timer activates, it will remain active for X amount of time even if the killer steps out of the hook radius. Pretty much a free "Camaraderie". Also, if you want to make it even more punishing, grant the survivor a free Borrowed time and/or Adrenaline/sprint burst after X amount of time if the Killer still remains near the hook. Want even more punishment? Heck, give the survivor who goes for the unhook invincibility, meaning he can not be interrupted when unhooking.
Again, they tested this.
It turns out, any solution to camping can't be more punishing because it BREAKS THE GAME. Suddenly it isn't worth it to hook at all. Its literally already harder to get downed people up than hooked people off hooks, and their internal tests of this EXACT MECHANIC resulted in killers literally being unable to kill people and stuff like one survivor just staring at the killer from 10 meters away so that the killer knew if they engaged in a chase, someone else insta-rescues, and if they defend, they get the camping penalty and auto-lose. No, making it disabled if your in a chase doesn't work. No, putting a detection radius for survivors doesn't work unless its so wide as to defeat the system. It just doesn't work.
The killer NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO CAMP. Its just... so integral to how DBD works. It CANNOT be removed. It cannot be made 'wrong' even if the survivors are actually trying to rescue. There need to be gamestates where camping is 'correct' for DBD to make sense, its just so integral to the killer-survivor relationship, and trying to make this not true always breaks the meta and turns it into a slug meta, or leads to stuff like the killer strike of 2017, where the game legit almost died because of nonsense like this.
Game design is not as simple as applying a negative incentive to everything players complain about. Most survivors who complain about camping are full of garbage as much as killers who complain about gen rush because the actual interaction with camping is... quite good and healthy gameplay and emphasizes some of the best parts of DBD: risk reward, mindgames, the dual pull of long term pressure vs eliminating objectives for both sides, yomi. Its actually REALLY COOL STUFF if you like game design and it boggles my mind how much people hate it. Like, yeah, I get it, getting eliminated sucks and feeling powerless sucks, but so many way worse mechanics also do this in other games and their communities accept them as part of the experience.
Also, any solution that is 'your victim takes more time to die/pauses the timer' kinda misses the fact that killers ALREADY AUTO LOSE THE GAME if they camp and the opposing team just doesn't feed it. So we already know that this sorta threat doesn't work because the reason killers camp isn't to eliminate that player to slow down gens, its to goad another chase to try to snowball, which is exactly what you see high level killers do: they never camp unless they know a rescue is coming and then use that rescue to snowball. They don't give a diddly about the guy on the hook and their hook state, they assume the rescue will happen already because survivors are already so bonkers strong at hook rescues. Which, again, is why slugs are low key like... better at disabling survivors.
-
@DWolfAlpha said:
I think if the killer is near enough to the hook without being in a chase for a certain amount of time, the hook timer pauses. Every survivor should have 3-5 seconds of endurance when unhooked regardless of terror radius. I think gen speeds are fine, though. If you're getting gen rushed, it's because you aren't giving the survivors anything else to do. If no one in injured, hooked, or down, they can do gens or look for bones.
They tried pausing the timer in internal tests. They found it lead to such absurdly toxic behavior they resolved to not try to nerf camping anymore. Any attempt they made just made the killer entirely helpless and raised the question 'why have hooks at all?'
Again, SUPER NOT INTUITIVELY, camping is GENERALLY a problem of the killer feeling like they are too weak, that they need to defend this at all cost because the survivors will come to unhook right away, and because chase times to gen times are out of wack, and attempts to punish defensive play either just encourage it more, because you need to work harder to preserve gains you made, or just break the game utterly. There is a reason post BT launch back when it was even stronger than it is now that we were in an all slug meta.
So, once again, Starstruck coming out right now is very much not an accident. It is exactly the kind of perk that seems like its playing into camping but actually helps it a lot: killers knowing that if some jerkwad rushes to rescue the second they down someone they will get a super easy chase if they go for it rather than stay by the hook is exactly how you ACTUALLY disincentivize camping. Its way too much a problem of 'basically no reward for leaving to do anything more than proxy camping' in most scenarios.
Another good way to make camping less of a problem might be to make it so survivors literally can't unhook for 15 seconds, to give camping similar value to slugging, as right now a big problem with hooks is that you actually get survivors off gens for a shorter time than slugging. You want killers to slug if they are IMMEDIATELY going to start another chase, not because it is more time efficient and needed to snowball at all even if you do it on a survivor in the middle of nowhere and know for a fact that everyone else is on a single gen all the way across the map.
-
@Slickstyles said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2028456#Comment_2028456
The Game map and Midwich still exists :D
The game has some charm for both sides, even if it isn't interactive traditionally.
Midwich is like Hardonfield but NOBODY is having fun, not the survivors nor killer. It says something about you if you think that is better or worse, though I don't know what.
And yeah, BHVR really should do emergency disables and hotfixes. They won't though, because disabling content puts you on a fairly strict clock to fix it. That is part of why they SHOULD do it, and do that to content more often (ex: Emergency disabling of OoO while they were fixing it, emergency disabling keys while they don't have a fix to go along with moris), because it would encourage good development habits to have a real 'cost' to being slow on fixes instead of doing more 'interesting' content, but they won't.
-
The issue is that these words are used to describe very complicated and vastly different behaviors which are often DESIRED game elements.
Ex: The killer SHOULD try to stop people from unhooking if they think it will be high value to defend. The survivors SHOULD push gens through if the killer isn't pressuring them, ect.
Its just that specific interactions don't always feel great. Sometimes these are 'necessary' to get the good elements, and removing them is worse than the cure (Ex: Camping basically... can't get any weaker right now without the game breaking, there is a VERY GOOD REASON the next killer is coming with a strong 'anti-fast rescue' perk), and sometimes the problem is entirely elsewhere (Ex: 'Genrushing' isn't really a thing. Its more that it is legitimately not realistic for the killer to invest a lot of time doing in depth interactions with survivors right now because of how the math of chases works, it has very little to do with survivor behavior outside of maybe right now a lot of maps are "W Maps" that make this WAY worse).
Its the classic game design problem: your players are very good at SPOTTING problems with your game, way way WAY better than you. They are not good at finding solutions, or articulating the problem well, because they often don't understand it fully. They can easily see an interaction isn't fun, but they often can't see why it is happening that way and actually suggest things that 'play into' the problem and make them worse.
This is especially because the solutions needed are often unintuitive (ex: To make camping and deliberately eliminating players ASAP less attractive you actually need to give the killer MORE power to defend so they are less anxious to do so and don't feel an incoming attack on the hook is going to be instant and guaranteed. Again, VERY good reason Star Struck is getting added).
-
You joke but I have noticed that on Game as Pig, while chases can be very hard, they also enter the 'loop phase' faster and thus its much easier for me to beat survivors who are being very agro on gens. I think the pallet density might be much, but it also emphasizes a lot of aspects of DBD I like, which is trying to cut people off, do fade-aways, and break LOS as either side to get an advantage.
Like the problem with W meta is that it IS in part a map design problem. Sure, most killers don't like getting looped, but if your clever you can beat most loops, and the ones you can't are highly 'local' and thus not everyone can always get to them.
The problem is more on maps with a lot of space to run and then tightly clustered strong loop spots easily reachable anywhere on the map. So in terms of W meta, if your a strong looper, game is fine. Its stuff like Midwitch, some Estates maps with very dense ruin formations like multiple L T walls in a row all across the map meaning you can freely just W max distance and then enter a mega strong chain loop, Lampkin, or Badham where you can just zoom off and eat at minimum the time it takes for a survivor to do a gen before the killer even is allowed to try to hit you.
Heck, Game even solves a problem with W meta that is generally map universal, which is 'double gen assaults' where two people tag team a gen, run in opposite directions, and basically will guarantee the gen is lost if the killer commits to a chase, creating a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. There legitimately isn't enough space to do this, meaning while two people attacking a gen at the same time is strong, it is very possible to win chases in a timeframe that doesn't auto lose you the gen.
-
To be clear, I think holding W is a design flaw of dbd, NOT survivors being toxic.
And, unlike DS, most of the time it leads to desired behaviors. The issue is in specific cases like dual survivor assaults on gens, and very open maps with strong gyms that make survivors mathematically impossible to beat with M1 killers.
Mainly its that on most maps W based gameplay denies the killer the ability to even attempt gen pressure any time 2 survivors are repairing and know how to abuse W. On maps with more cutoff points or chokepoints the killer can come from its not as critical.
-
People saying the poll is worthless because the community it was polled from are negative upset me as a researcher who literally does survey based statistical analysis.
Like no one did any ######### One Way ANOVAs here, crunch those numbers on linear regression? Do you know if the P value of the correlation between Tru3's fans and negativity is >.05? Did you search for correlations between negative perceptions of Trickster and other chapter releases? No? Then you can't say 'Its meaningless because of a sampling issue.'
Like that isn't how you handle sample bias you nerds! You still keep the data because its actually useful to know that a particular segment of the population is inclined to think a certain way and you want to compare it to the general population!
And with 19k votes, which is about half the daily peak of DBD you can actually say with pretty high confidence that, despite it being fully possible that there is sample bias here threatening validity here, or your ability to apply the findings broadly, even if it is just 50% of Tru3 Talent's fans who hate this killer, this is still a pretty statistically significant portion of the community that doesn't like this killer. We can expect around maybe 100k, maybe 150k people to be active DBD players. So 73% of the poll of someone who's viewerbase who are active enough to respond making up around anywhere from 20% to 13% of DBD's general population responding with a negative view of the killer is, while not guaranteed to be significant, it almost certainly is worth taking seriously because while its possible for this to be an aberration it is... very unlikely. Like I wouldn't put this in a paper to publish but if anyone said 'lets not look into this further' or 'there is clearly nothing here' because they think Tru3's fanbase is I would uh... think quite a bit less of them as a researcher both because that is like... not how you do Quantitative research, and because its actually such a risk to viability that it is considered a breach of research integrity to refuse to look into such obviously telling data to prove it is irrelevant.
Like this is the statistical analysis equivalent of being ratio'd. When the pattern is so overt with such a large portion of your population to the point it would be statistically significant even if this particular population over-represented a view two or even three times over (even 33% of this population reporting back negative would be very interesting, if not a slam dunk and it would definitely need a more broad survey because it may indeed skew overly negative due to sample bias) you know some stuff is up.
Like lets say Tru3's crew is twice as negative as the general population. This is pretty rare to be that intense, but it can happen. We would still probably expect over a 50% negative reaction to Trickster (the people who voted 0-25% wouldn't be assumed to be positive, just less negative, so your still weighted very heavily towards negative). Its a less INTENSE animosity, but there is still almost certainly going to be a statistical relationship unless Tru3's fanbase is freakishly non-representative.
And these are numbers that should worry a developer. Especially considering the lukewarm reaction to Twins. More than half your playerbase is not hype for your major content update and will have gone around half a year with nothing to be excited for. That is HUGE. That is something you move heaven and earth to fix because if your game isn't growing, its dying.
I would not be surprised to see an emergency Trickster fix occur, or for some other dramatic, visible movement to occur in a month's time to try to shake up the game well outside their original stated timeline for mid chapter tweaks and fixes, because this could be the second major content update where the initial 'update spike 'dies off fast, and DBD HEAVILY depends on those to maintain playerbase.
-
Ruin exposes a problem where killers just... are not rewarded for defending gens or doing chases.
The undying nerf is a huge reason W meta is back: If your tag teaming a gen and running in opposite directions, not even trying to loop, the killer literally can't down either of you without losing the gen.
So I don't think ruin should be hexless, I think killers should get better gen defense effects in basekit: Mini ruin and something like the gen being blocked for a very short time after kicking it (But unlocked if you kick another) both make a lot of sense.
The trick is gen times shouldn't go up, and you don't want tri-gens to be impossible (Though I think Tri-gens are more a map issue), but you also don't want survivors just forcing gens through the killer actively defending it. If the killer is saying 'no, not this gen' the survivors just... shouldn't be allowed to do it, because for the killer to have the tools to actually stop that would result in chases basically being instant.
Basically the problem is way less 'ruin is a hex' and more 'the core issue is that unless a killer can literally skip chases they actually just can't win if the survivors run to waste time rather than survive." It is a more subtle problem because, as others point out, make base regression too strong and suddenly people don't feel good about hook rescues and other actually desired behaviors. The issue is a very specific one.
-
Wraith is up there. He is entirely a victim of circumstance, and in the old lore it was said that he was so inhuman and weird looking because The Entity had to torture him and warp him around to get him to kill. Pretty much everything about his lore tells us he was not just a nice guy, but an actively good, hopeful guy who had that hope destroyed. No court on the planet would convict him, so him being a survivor makes sense.
Before The Trickster was revealed I would say Kate to killer, because the cast is overwhelmingly lopsided in horror archetype towards 'problematic disfigured provincial person most likely with an axe and some sort of weapon to mangle you' when the landscape of horror is so much wider and the cast is lacking the 'completely normal person who fits perfectly into what society thinks a respectable powerful trustworthy person looks like but is actually a narcissistic psychopath' killers. The Patrick Batemen archetype, if you will. Kate being a loved, seemingly girl next store celebrity with a super dark 'personal life' would have been a great angle to plug this hole while doing something real with it: there is something uniquely terrifying seeing someone you would say is 'platonically trustworthy' looking running at you with blood splattered on their face and a manic look in their eye.
As of now? Maybe Jake? He is sorta a isolationist survivalist and while mechanically it might be hard to make him feel different from trapper that is also sorta a thing we don't have right now.
-
I think the key change is the knives need a smaller spread.
This was literally the exact problem guns had in Deathgarden: Hitting a running target with a massive cone feels awful and it does not matter if you think you need it for 'balance' purposes: it doesn't actually balance the gun if your game is about mobile fights, it just removes skill in a super visible way.
If you NEED too, lower the damage per-knife, but make them more accurate (And I don't this change is necessary either unless the laceration meter doesn't tick down at ALL). Bloom and bullet deviation only make sense for certain kinds of games where you want to reward burst fire, holding positions, ect. If you want to prevent Trickster snipes (And I don't think you actually do...) you can add a little boom, you don't need it to be so big that if your standing in the middle of the exit gates 5 steps back you can hit the pillars.
I don't get what it is with BHVR and wanting automatic weapons to have bloom the size of my fist, but it reminds me of Poacher's comical LMG bloom.
-
@KingFrost said:
This is a terrible idea. Imaging having Ash P3 Level 50, but having to use Mettle of Man, Flip Flop or Buckle Up. You'd never see another Pig. No more snoot to boop. Seriously, her perks are garbage. The only slightly viable perk would be Make Your Choice, and even that's kinda iffy.
Surveillance is also a good perk that sees mid level meta play at red ranks due to how important gen defense is and how you almost always need to run a regression perk on her anyway, be it ruin, pop, or oppression.
But yeah it would be completely dreadful especially for killers. Imagine trying to play trapper! Or demo!
-
I think there was some desire in the past by BHVR to make survivor choice matter more, but I honestly am not a fan, especially as the game gets kinda... weird if everyone ends up forced to run the same few survivors (Meg and Laurie, most likely) to be competitive, as it already becomes really hard to track gamestate with duplicates.
It also would massively devalue the investments into other survivors. Like, a lot of people like ace and invest a lot into him even though they don't use a single one of his perks. Same with Dwight. The survivors have a cultural identity, even if not a mechanical one, and suddenly being forced to run an Ace perk would stink.
The ship has LONG sailed to make survivors anything more than cosmetic. And frankly, it also would hurt BHVR's bottom line if survivors weren't mostly cosmetic.
-
@YourNightmare said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2021744#Comment_2021744
Unless that DH is buggy and doesn't use the hit validation server feature :).
I suspect that was the problem when they broke DH when they introduced new animations myself. THAT could create a scenario where DH 'fires' and you still get hit. The problem with hit reg was that the reality of what survivors were seeing was completely out of line with the server, so you got scenarios like 'you were hit a full 2 seconds after vaulting and running' and 'DH does nothing.'
For DH to not fire AND you still get hit requires your own client to not 'think' you got it off though.
-
@Rizer said:
Because when he first released, people couldn't wrap their head around a killer they couldn't see... and the dev's knew this would be an issue... this game was unlike anything ever created in gaming history... so at the time of it's release it was Hillbilly, Trapper and Wraith... that was it...
And you'd be surprised how OP people thought Wraith was... He was one of the top end killers when the game first released because he had no terror radius when cloaked and people had a hard time seeing him... also when the game first released, killers were terrifying... like this game was heart attack inducing.
It took about 6 months before players started to understand how it all worked and yeah, he basically got neutered after that...
The flashlight thing was a way to give survivors confidence that they could fight back against him at the time... I mean it's a very archaic weakness at this point and honestly, I haven't seen a player flashlight burn a Wraith in years... I dunno know why you're complaining about it because no one ever really does it any more... also, the perk light born prevents all of this and makes killers 100% immune to flashlight burn / blind... if you play Wraith and are so afraid of flashlights, use light born... simple fix.
Hey there, beta player here. This is a really innacurate summary of how people viewed Wraith.
He was understood to be terrible the second he was released by any survivor or killer who knew the game. People complained about them on steam threads a lot but they got 'ratiod' pretty hard by everyone jumping in saying 'just use your eyes you numbskull' and while those top level threads were common (You would generally see like 2-3 on the front page of the steam forums at any given time) that was mostly because people were very eager to tell people 'his power is basically worthless' causing artificial engagement.
It really didn't take 6 months for people to 'get' he was weak, people knew already, especially because this was a time legit infinites were in the game and Wraith was the only killer with no anti-infinite tool so he just... auto-lost matches on game launch that went to Coldwind Farms, which had 3 infinite jungle gyms. Oh, and this was a version of DBD where Sprint Burst was on a 20 second cooldown, which ticked down while running. So.... yeahhhh....
Lightburn NEVER made sense in any iteration of DBD, it always was this mystifying thing, along with Trapper Trap Disarm+Map tracking where the devs were experimenting with the idea of giving survivors very specific 'hate' tools for killers. As we know, that was never necessary, which is why Billy was utterly dominant for so long.
Honestly there still is some hate in the game. Trapper's traps really need to be untrackable for example and have no interaction with any survivor perk. And lightburn still makes absolutely no sense, just like it didn't at the game's launch.
-
If Victor ignored I-frames then you woulda gone on exhaustion.
Victor's interaction with DH is interesting (His 'active frames' last long than your i-frames and if your both moving in the same direction he overlaps your hitbox longer than DH in most cases), but in this case the answer is simple, and, unfortunately, a biiit harsh to say:
You badly mistimed DH vs him, because for what your describing to happen, not only does Victor's player need to 'tell' the server that they hit you before you inputted the DH, but the server then needs to tell your system you were down before you hit the DH button.
So he just... got a clean hit on you. From what I recall Vic's hitbox is a bit 'smeared' out in front of him specifically to make it so he isn't unusable from a survivor just wiggling left to right which may be what caught you out. This is super common in games, the hitbox is basically saying 'ok in this moment its dead on so even if they move from here on out we are counting it as a hit because Victor can basically turn to 'grab you' mid air or something, and we don't want victor to miss by pixels ever on a good shot.'
Remember, vs Victor, always dead hard to the sides or towards him, never away!
-
My policy is if I think I have 'two survivors on the same hook' (I see scratch marks, someone followed me, I see them physically there and they are hiding like I don't despite clearly looking at them... ect) I will play defensively and try to immediately snowball an extra hook off it, and if I have 'three survivors on the same hook' I out and out camp.
This is because of the math of gens.
1 survivor on the hook with 3 repairing means they do 4.5 gens, not counting skill checks, and I just would lose.
2 survivors 'on the same hook' means 3 gens are done by the end of that hook state. Still... really not great because even if I immediately hook that second survivor without a chase that is the game. So I will EXPLOIT the fact that second survivor is stupid, and do something like let them unhook and down them before chasing the first. This is how killers start snowballing: The first survivor is hurt and running and easy to take out. The second is on a hook and thus needs a THIRD to come rescue them, which means if I am good enough I may win the game just then and there, and if not I still only got one person on a gen at the time which is what the killer NEEDS in order to win, as I drop below '1 gen per-minute' and thus can actually like... try to win the game.
If 3 survivors are on the hook... well... the lone survivor gets 1.5 gens done while the other two watch the guy die on the hook. Then convert into a chase, another 1.5 gens get done (if that) and its a 2v1 at 2 gens left. Killers win those.
Also if the survivors are extra saucy or are giving me 'SWF' vibes, and I sense them being radically over-altruistic to the point they will come to me if they think I am camping, I will camp. This is a very weird behavior, but a highly exploitable one: some teams will stick to gens if they know a lone person can do an easy rescue but will rush all 3 free survivors on over to the hook if they see I am camping and maybe give the survivor a lil lovetap. It is... EXTREMELY stupid to do this because it literally removes all the downsides of camping, but some people just get so outrageously offended that your camping they can't help themselves.
---------------------
At no point does the emotions of the person on the hook come into my consideration. Why? Because I am a person too damnit. This isn't a 'Oh one person isn't having fun how dare you?' situation. It is a 'Are you willing to throw the game and thus your enjoyment of the game in order to let this person pretend to play DBD more but in reality they aren't because you aren't even really trying?' consideration.
The person who got hooked earned the hook. If someone sandbagged them very clearly I will try to get the sandbagger, but at the end of the day I am not trading the game for someone's feelings, especially because that feeds into the negative behavior that is causing me this dillema in the first place. Pretending I have an obligation to the hooked survivor doesn't 'solve' the problem of other people forcing me to camp to win because if I just give up the unhook I lose at the ranks I play at, it makes it worse because now survivors EXPECT the instant unhook. It behooves me, and future early hooked survivors, to 'train' survivors to not do this and punish them as HARD AS POSSIBLE for trying this nonsense.
Because that camp math? Of how many survivors are/aren't doing gens? It applies to chases too. If I just 'give up' the benefit of the hook (And its an INTENDED benefit, I will get into that), I need to do a chase that will last at least 1 minute. 2 If the survivor just holds W. And, oh look, that is exactly how long it takes for a survivor to lose a hook state camped. Except mid chase I can only pressure one survivor. So I am losing 4.5 gens a second if I try to win individual chases, one after another, without ever pressuring more than one survivor at a time (which REQUIRES defensive play to do), or eliminating a survivor.
This is why the hooks exist, and the devs said they aren't going to nerf camping more. "Camping" is just defensive killer play, securing their objectives. Its an INTENTIONAL FUNCTION of the game, and in the beta dev diaries they talk about how unhooking is low key meant to not be a very good idea and to be something very reckless and selfless. Obviously, the game evolves. This makes less sense now that gen speeds are reduced, now that its harder to ditch chases because the absolute difference in speed between you and the killer is higher. Now that moonlight offerings are gone.
But the hooks? They are still hooks. If the killer was never intended to stop you from unhooking, never intended to turn the fact they won a chase into a snowballing advantage... the hooks... wouldn't exist?
They are like... a visual metaphor yeah? They are a hook. Your on the hook for a mistake. A squirming little worm. Bait. The killer is not just ALLOWED to defend you to get more kills, but encouraged to do so based on how many survivors are agressing you. Pretending the killer is oh so unfair and oh so unkind for doing so is a disgusting warping of the entire game of DBD and pretending that the killer is your babysitter rather than opponent, and denies their humanity by demanding they basically LET YOU WIN so you can 'keep playing.'
Imagine that scenario in any other game. "Hey don't just kill me because I peeked a corner in CS:GO without flashing and knew you had an AWP, I want to keep playing and your stopping me from playing meanie." "Hey, why did you kill all my workers in Starcraft despite the fact I was endlessly teching as protos with no defenses and you were zerg? That is mean, I want to keep playing, how rude!" "Way to corner me and then kill me because I refused to block or parry in this fighting game. I want to keep playing!"
You would be laughed out of that community as a a Scrub. Not the 'general insult' sense. The classic sense, as defined in this link: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub
A scrub is someone who makes up rules about how a game should be played 'fairly' in defiance of the systems created by the actual design, in order to avoid having to come to terms with the fact they aren't very good. Most communities treat these people like jokes, because its obviously ludicrous to cater to them and pretend they have a point. No, its not fun to get zerg rushed but guess what? If early aggression in Star Craft wasn't allowed the only viable race would be protos for carrier rushes and the game would be FLIPPIN STUPID. Same with DBD: without camping allowed at ALL, without ANY tunneling, without ANY slugging, the killer... just literally lacks the tools to win unless the survivors graciously let them?
Watch Scott. Watch Otz. Watch any streamer with a ton of killer hours. They don't 'policy camp' but they will literally say out loud whenever that an unhook happens why they knew it was coming and why they were ok with it, and they absolutely defend the hook when they know its being assaulted. The best players in the world of DBD camp. You are not 'too good' to camp.
------------
As for 'what do you do to stop a camper then hmmm?' the answer is 'do gens, silly.'
The camper is only camping for an expected reward, and they generally stop if you like... don't give it to them?
As a survivor, you have the power to rocket that camper up to tan ranks while ensuring your entire squad pips, and ending the game fast so you don't have to play with a dweeb who 'policy camps' for no reason. No, that game isn't great, but it wouldn't be in the first place if the killer did that, so just end the game swiftly, get your bloodpoints fast, and move on to the next lobby.
-
@Zozzy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2018804#Comment_2018804
This doesn't stop the problem. Every hag i have faced does the same thing. catch survivor, hook survivor, trap at feet, trap at immediate pallets and then proxy camp. Make sure to make visual contact with the hooked survivor every 10 seconds to check for someone crouching to the hook.
It is the most boring gameplay in the game as a solo survivor (legit boring, not deathslinger, pyramid head Can't loop for days so nerf plz boring) and it is horrible not being able to do anything about the traps beyond a swf organising to pop them constantly.
This is a problem with the hag (and all killers, especially killers that are more 'modern') being balanced around SWF out of necessity.
Some killers have 'Solo protection' like Ghostface, but most don't. This is because if we balance around your, and let me be frank because coddling this isn't going to help any, bad solo gamelplay, the game becomes utterly unplayable vs a coordianted team.
Hag, and all killers, need to threaten a SWF, or else killers just won't play them and their mains quit. Q times and Matchmaking show this is an existential problem to the game. You think your not having fun now? Wait till you can't get into a match at all.
So what is the problem here? Simple, lack of coordination. Mainly your not doing a good enough job of persuading the killer to leave, or the killer is anticipating your psychology and knows you are going to get upset if they do this and trigger the trap.
That is, in fact, a form of fun. This is how setup characters work across gaming, from fighting games to mobas: Some players like being able to out-think their opponents, and part of out-thinking is conditioning.
So how do you beat this in a fun way? Simple, enjoy being flexible. Enjoy what a diverse roster gives you. Have fun in adaptation. Part of the fun of 'oldschool' DBD before SWF was even added and trapper could trap the god damn unhook spot (yeah, you had to be in a specific spot to unhook and trapper could block it!) was adapting to your team, figuring out who to trust, who was worth risking your neck for, who to save.
Vs hag, adapt. Sit on gens. Don't feed her traps. THREATEN her. Menace her. By proximity camping basement Hag is saying "I am giving you control over the game and I think you will all be too stupid and emotional to punish me. Please prove me right." So prove her wrong. Mentally, going into a game vs hag, find the basement, avoid it, utilize the fact she is TERRIBLE vs loops that she didn't setup, ruin her setups, and most critically: DON'T GO FOR EARLY RESCUES.
This is true vs any killer, early rescues are a terrible idea. You got a minute per-hook state and that is a resource. If your unhooking early, your doing the killer a FAVOR by not utilizing the gen pressure you get. So pressure gens. If the hag camps for 30 seconds, and suddenly 3 gens pop, she has two options: Lose or get off that camp. Most (not all, lets be clear people DO 'policy camp,' but most) killers will back down. Accept your very willing to end the game, because you CAN end the game in 2 minutes.
And then, confirm a chase. Wait till someone is injured. THEN go rescue. Don't just wait for her to wander off, wait for her to be busy.
Suddenly, the game is interactive again. In fact, its more interactive than before because your no longer just rescuing to rescue because you feel obligated, because 'its the thing to do.' Your making choices. Your interacting with the killer's mental state. Your being the most dangerous thing in DBD: a survivor with half a brain. Don't expect unhooks as a 'right.' As a 'matter of course.' That is selfish and stupid and the game should not cater to terrible survivors who don't forcibly take the W from the killer.
If your not doing what it takes to win because you don't want too? Fine. Then LOSE! Get wrecked! More fun for me, because while your feeding that hag I am doing a gen to trigger the hatch and finding it, having an actual cat and mouse game with the killer while your whining about how you aren't getting an unhook vs a character who's sole power is 'I am crazy strong defensively.' Because, to me, counterplay is fun. Interactions are fun. You are claiming Hag is uninteractive, but that isn't true. You just are refusing to correctly interact with her. Your demanding to remove interaction, to make it so you can just rescue because you want too.
You do not DESERVE the fun, if you can't do what it takes to seize it.
-
I think undying proved that killers need more regression base kit and mechanics that punish "W meta" where the survivor doesn't even try to loop you, they just exploit the fact you literally don't have time to chase them off generators if they just run in a straight line.
More of a reward for getting survivors off gens, and especially more rewards for winning chases, are low key necessary for killers. Undying was too strong, but there is a reason people were running it and why the killer population actually was making gains when it was around: The mechanics of defending gens kinda sucks in the current meta and killers like having literally ANY 'slack time.'
I would say that the problem is more that killers are too heavily pressured by a duo constantly tapping the gen up and that they don't really have a good tool for getting 2v1'd, which is a problem when there are 4 survivors. Something like "The last gen you kick is blocked for X period of time" being added to basekit probably is a better fix to the core issue of 'gen times' (because its not an issue of gen times REALLY, its the killer can't pressure survivors correctly without a ranged power or other way to negate the 2 minute chase time minimum) than a 2-5% regression, which in reality won't do much. The killer should be MUCH stronger at defending objectives than they are, if survivors refuse to 'back off' they should lose.
Survivors should be more focused on overall map pressure and be more forced to track the killer than just 'push through' their attempts to defend. In any scenario, if the killer plays well and is being defensive, and the survivors are being agressive, the killer should 'default' to winning, survivors shouldn't be able to 'outplay' defensive killer play, because it perverts the expected relationship of killer as the defensive/power role. Killer should expect to lose if the survivors goad them into being too aggressive (Ex: Baiting a long chase without trying to get pressure off gens) or if the killer defends the wrong objective (ex: Camping when the survivors are pressuring gens, or vice versa, trying to pressure gens while the survivors go for a rescue), and shouldn't, likewise, be able to 'out play' that. Survivors have really heavily established 'advantaged gamestates,' scenarios where they have the power to outplay. Killer doesn't have a ton of outplay potential, outside of specific killers, which is the more deep rooted problem with the game: Thought needs to be put into scenarios where the survivors 'deserve' to lose no matter how well they are at the technical aspects of the game. Survivors kinda... default to winning most exchanges at high end play which isn't healthy.
It shouldn't be possible to be 'good enough' to force a gen down the killer is camping without them having any potential to hurt you. The killer should, if they respond correctly in that scenario, win no matter how good you are because your doing the thing survivors aren't 'meant' to be doing.
-
Myers has a few core problems that make a rework feel more necessary than a buff.
Problem is... that Ghostface is kinda a reworked Myers?
The core issue with Myers:
EW1 can't be returned too, and EW2 is only stealth with specific addons, meaning he isn't really a stealth killer.
EW1 is so utterly crippling that you can't use it like a resource like they intended, but also its necessary to the flow of the killer in some ways.
EW3 heavily punishes survivors with bad teammates. Bad teammates are bad and always hurt your survival odds, but EW3 more directly does it by Myers being able to 99% stalk a bad player and then use that aggressively on a good one.
The solution would be to make going stealth Myers more base kit, and making the cost of being stalked more personal... which is exactly what Ghostface does. So there needs to be SOME element of Myers permanently powering up based on individual survivor mistakes, so he feels different than Ghosty, but maybe incorporate the more modern elements of Ghostface.
For example, maybe let him drop into EW1 on a cooldown, and pop out after stalking someone for a few seconds with a Pig like delay to the TR, with that stalk not negatively affecting their ability to drink EW3 from people.
Maybe make EW3 have passive gain so he can't 99% it as much, maybe make him even faster in it so he basically is unloopable, and maybe make it so survivors both hold more 'stalk juice,' make EW3 last a bit shorter default, refresh timer on a hit ala Legion, and make him get it faster. So its still able to snowball, but the point is you use it to murderize the group your stalking and maybe look for one more.
Basically try to retain the interesting concepts of Myers and emphasize them more. Stalking is MEANT to be a punishment for mindlessly looping rather than dropping chase, but it doesn't have enough teeth to justify itself as anything but a snowball tool, so make letting Myers get T3 on you mid chase a nightmare scenario while blocking the 'My dumbass teammates fed the Myers and I got punished for it..." angle. And make it so jumpscare Myers is still weaker than a regular killer but now an eternal concern. Play with how Myers messes with the TR with addons! Make T2 a smaller radius than even now (but not dead Rabbit small) and make a new addon that causes their TR to be global for a few seconds after entering EW1, for example.
Get weird with it. When they launched Myers was a super refreshing and fun killer with a lot of different ways to use his kit that got 'bullied out' by the W meta where you just refuse to interact with the killer ever. So force more interaction into the base kit that makes it so you can't just trivially W away. Right now if he goes EW3 you just run off for distance rather than loops, so make it so he can essentially sprint you down in EW3 for 10 seconds!
-
Hag is intentionally a very territorial killer with low snowball potential in her kit but high snowball potential strategically.
If the survivors refuse to play into hag, she really struggles. Hag used to be worse, she actually got buffed to where she is now and still depends pretty heavily on survivor misplays.
I think the discussion around Hag warps into a greater problem in DBD: Survivors frame every situation as them having fun or not, them being in control or not.
Now, in a meta sense, the survivor should have control, but situation to situation they ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT. If the survivor was allowed to have control, to always be able to outplay regardless of the situation, that just means the game is ridiculously survivor sided and the survivor never has to care about misplays because they can always play out of any misplay they get into.
Different gamestates are meant to be different levels of good or bad. Looping at a god pallet or shack is meant to be a stronger position than being chased to an unsafe pallet, which is still better than a deadzone, which is still better than being cornered somewhere.
But different gamestates should be better or worse matchup wise as well: again, hag is TERRITORIAL. Ergo, part of your decision making process needs to be territory based. The killer in general is meant to win defensive engagements if they are smart but have some outplay potential. Defensive killers like hag or trapper are meant to be able to lock down an area.
"But being trapped in the basement isn't fun!" Duh it ain't. That is because you entered a loss condition you dumb dumb. Those aren't meant to be fun. It also isn't fun for all 4 people to have traps on their head vs pig so they can endlessly slug and camp the boxes, or to be in the absolute open vs a Nurse, Deathslinger, or Huntress. It is not the job of the designers to give you fun 24/7. It is their job to make the game overall fun, and part of that is sometimes creating loss states where the fun stops, so you can have fun avoiding those loss states.
And, more critically, the entire point of having a roster is that the loss states are diverse, to help keep the game fresh. If you were able to play basement the same as vs any killer then... what is the point of having a bunch of characters? If the survivors can just endlessly run tiles the same way they always do without even having to think about it? Far more interesting to be aware its Hag or Trapper and thus looping near basement is now EXTRA DANGEROUS.
So vs Hag? Find the basement and avoid FINISHING your loops near it (Its so trivial to do this, honestly W meta is so strong and is a hard counter to hag). Constantly ping traps on purpose when you know she is busy. Push gens vs her if she refuses to leave the basement area. Get basement gens done as a priority over finishing your current gen if you know she is in a chase. Actually outplay the killer.
Changes to hag would be possible to make basemenet hag not as much of a thing, but because Hag's ENTIRE KIT revolves around defensive play, removing this would kill her without very serious changes to her base kit. For example, being unable to trap near hooks but if she teleports to a trap her movement speed becomes ridiculously high until she drops chase, so she actually is a threat on the map in general, or making her a normal movespeed killer, both of which still threaten to make basement builds really strong and just make her way more powerful.
That is the tricky bit here, you can't so trivially remove the reason a power is good without having to brute force a new reason in. The entire point of being able to teleport to traps as opposed to being able to win chases conventionally is to defend areas. If you really go out of your way to do it you probably break the killer (traps vanishing in a like 20 meter area around an active hook, for example, would still not 100% stop basement camping, but would absolutely DESTROY hag's viability).
Far better to, if you want to do something like this, first try to buff hag so she is less dependent on this, and if you see emergent hag gameplay that isn't basement/defense focused, slowly remove those elements. One mistake casual designers do is try to do 'legitimate' sidegrades, rather than thinking of them as 'mixed buff' or 'mixed nerf.' Your always going to go up or down, and you need to be realistic about what direction you need to go. Hag, if anything, needs a buff, so if you were to do a basement removal sidegrade you would need to be comfortable giving her SERIOUSLY STRONG tools, rather than a nerf sidegrade which is more akin to 'throwing a bone to try to encourage a different playstyle.' Like 'Can't hook near basement but gets more lunge distance on appearing for 5 seconds :3" is a cruddy sidegrade nerf pretending to be evenhanded because its so obvious the capability mismatch. Because defensive snowballing is a game winning condition for Hag, anything you give her needs to be 'win condition' tier. Like, again, Hag is just at a decaying 5.2 movespeed after coming out of trap is the 'tier' of utility pushed into the kit to make up for no hook traps we are talking about: You just GET HIT if you trigger a trap, no ifs, ands, or buts.
Which, you know, also would not be fun because no slow movespeed killer power should be 'fun' to be affected by, as they are LOSS CONDITIONS, but its a different kind of not fun. Ultimately trying to imagine a fun way to lose is hard and usually creates a meme build. The only way this was done well was IMO DH, which is fun for both sides and if you cry about losing to DH your a twat). Otherwise you need to accept any way the Hag wins isn't going to be fun for the survivors anymore than hitting a trap isn't fun or just losing two chases quickly isn't fun. We can recognize basement hag isn't really fun in the general sense, but you design the power to be fun in a GENERAL sense, not in the specific 'oww it hit me!' sense.
-
I play exclusively solo.
It is survivor sided. Its just SWF have an easier time doing the tricks that 'break' the game. Most of the things that severely imbalance the game (ex: Staying split up and just constantly refusing to do chases outside of safezones, playing real agro at gens, ect) anyone can do without communication.
Like the game isn't survivor sided cuz survivors can say 'He is going to your gen.' Its cuz even if you 'get the drop' on a survivor at a gen if they back off and stare at you 10 meters from the gen and 10 meters from a pallet they are basically invincible unless against specific killers. Survivors are EXTREMELY safe on most maps and you legitimately do not have time to win chases vs them.
Again it isn't like SWF isn't an advantage. A SWF will almost always play like this while solos have to all be good. If a bad survivor game exists its 9 out of 10 times a solo fiesta of people not playing 'mathy.' But its SO EASY to play 'mathy' as a solo and just lock the game down without even talking pre-game.
There is just a core problem with chase times and gen times. It isn't gen times are too fast per-say. Its just that its trivial to completely deny the killer tempo and stall because killers aren't rewarded ANY tempo for winning chases really, and it takes about 2 minutes to get a down if the survivor just holds W. Survivors lose games doing stuff like wasting their speed boosts and letting the killer cut them off, but if you basically refuse to even play DBD it is literally impossible for most killers to get 2 downs before the game ends. The killer just... doesn't catch survivors that fast running literally in a straight line.
-
DBD lacks even the most basic player behavior tools that most games have which makes it trully one of the most shockingly toxic communities I have ever seen.
Like you see a lot of adult temper tantrums and truly horrific behavior with people not just being dicks, but doing their best to try to break other people emotionally. It got so bad that when streaming for friend tonight he got depressed just seeing endgame chat where someone was melting down spamming racial and homophobic slurs and the word "fat" over and over after they lost.
The community is freakishly abusive and awful. People saying DBD is better than league need to realizr league BANS people for chat.
-
Almost every killer has very overwhelming counter options available that would make this kinda OP. I think the info advantage of the killer seeing items helps offset the trial control advantages survivors get via having 4 offerings (which is why I think survivor builds should lock at 20 while killers lock at 10, so item swaps don't work) and why killers should be able to switch in lobby.
Seeing certain killers breaks them (Though the fact perks exist to BTFO trapper is bad design) and seeing killers would make maps ridiculous. There is even subtle stuff like anticipating killer builds to counter em.
-
"Survivor Sided" vs "Killer Sided" is an oversimplification that conceals a lot of nuance here. You need to define your terms.
Overall, gameplay wise its survivor sided. Killers need to try WAY harder than survivors, and if both sides are 'good' the survivors should generally win.
Low end the game is mechanically very killer sided. This helps maintain the killer base: new killers tend to win and have lots of fun and very slowly encounter strong survivors so they get very attached to the game over time and don't realize the environment is changing around them. It is deliberately habbit forming in an interesting way giving killers surges of dopamine hits early and then basically cutting them off.
Top end. gameplay wise its killer sided. If both sides are only making tiny mistakes the killer probably wins. However if both sides make say... 2 big mistakes a game, the killer loses. The killer will probably win if they play near perfectly, but anything less isn't enough.
"Platonic" end gameplay is killer sided with top tier killers, and survivor sided without, and it will be a blowout every time. A very skilled nurse or Freddy or spirit can lock things down, unlike most other killers where the survivors will win handily if the skill level is equal and both sides aren't making big mistakes. This is why they get so much hate, because NO killer is actually interactive once you get good, its just these killers are uninteractive and WIN because mindgames are super weak right now on most maps. Chases are pretty rote and the way gen time works and the amount of resources on a map allow survivors to just endlessly back off gens and go instantly back to them the second you look like you drop the chase, and mathematically if they do this they will never lose unless a killer can end chases in less than 30 seconds or have innate stall so strong that it nearly doubles gen time.
"Emotionally" its survivor sided. So many mechanics exist solely for the purpose of frustrating the killer, and killer gameplay is 'higher stakes' in most ways. Like yes, survivors can get camped and eliminated, but mistakes the killer make are more devistating, and they are more frequently exposed to sudden mega-negative reversal of fortunes like flashlight saves, pallet saves, or godloops that they can't interact with. The game REALLY doesn't give a ######### about the EMOTIONAL experience of a killer (and actively snubs it, like EGC is by design maximally infuriating to the killer while stopping the literal infinite game length if the killer doesn't chase people out problem) and coddles the survivor emotional experience pretty hard as much as it can. The devs basically only refuse to remove things that are very emotionally negative for survivors if it threatens to kill the game (ex: They literally can't nerf camping anymore without the game breaking, and trust me they nerfed it a LOT from when the game launched and 1 hook was the assumed default), and likewise will do their best to resist changes that are emotionally good for killer unless its required or the killer population is dropping and they want a sacrificial lamb to lure some back.
Development wise its survivor sided. I talked about this elsewhere, but survivors are the 'money' population, killers are infastructure. Survivors are more social and thus recruit other survivors and keep them in the game's microtransaction ecosystem, and care more about their character appearance because they are third person (fun fact, did you know Fortnite is a 3rd person game for this reason?) and because they are social, thus having more reason to buy stuff as well. You can tell this instantly by looking at the in game shop, and you will notice popular survivor characters have many times over more cosmetics than popular killers. Or heck, before the in game shop and all cosmetics were seperate DLC? Only survivors got any.
Socially its survivor sided. The survivor community outnumbers killers by a LOT because of the active bias towards them development wise, and because survivors have a reason to be social and recruit and connect. Thus, they tend to be the more 'organized' community. Its why Survivors can influence BHVR by review bombing, while killers generally can't coordinate: The killer strike was a freak event created by truly, nakedly abusive game conditions the devs refused to solve. This is also why there is, again, no feature to ban toxic community members like basically any other videogame, which is telling tbh.
Economically its survivor sided. See, again, the massive incentive to bias towards survivors in terms of cosmetics. Survivors have BHVR by the wallet, which is why the game is the way it is.
So, overall, its survivor sided, but there is juuuust enough there so that A: killers don't leave, and B: the devs can point to being evenhanded when... just nakedly they are NOT.
-
Victor counters head hard by design.
Dead Hard isn't a 'parry' so much as a temporary removal of your hurtbox: if an attack 'misses' you in deadhard but has enough frames to last through it it still hurts you. For this to not function that way they would have to do something bonkers like make it so you have a 'reverse hurtbox' where if an attack hits it the attack loses its hitbox, sorta like a fighting game parry where even if an attack is active longer than the parry your still fine after the parry ends.
So Victor is still 'missing' during Dead Hard, they just happen to have some of the most active frames of any attack so the timing on DH is really hard to avoid it.
Obviously that would be very convoluted nonsense and would affect a LOT more than Victor, such as Pig's charge and lead to a LOT of unintentional wackyness like bodyblocking for someone else with it to 'absorb' a hatchet or PH spike.
In addition to the 'DH at an angle' advice, one method to help you vs Victor is to DH INTO the leap. Your moving 'past' him with it and him moving away minimizes the frames their hitbox is in contact with your hurtbox.
-
The funniest thing about this thread necromancy (This was made in NOVEMBER) is that the bloodlust test conclusively has proven: No, bloodlust is necessary to the game, both on maps that still have TONS of infinites and pseudo infinites without BL1, and just because an 'upper end chase limit' is actually a good concept and without it the game kinda sucks with too wide a skill gap.
MOST competitive games have 'anti infinite/pseudo infinite' mechanics. Even in scenarios where they are not strictly necessary you don't want people getting completely trashed and having something that says 'enough is enough, end the chase either way, stop with this nonsense' is NOT a 'reduction in game skill.' If you can loop really well but have no idea how to break chases even for 10 seconds, then... you still PROBABLY win but can't get LITERALLY INFINITE time vs a lesser skilled killer.
-
@getuy45u4iu said:
Some survivors don't realize that teabagging is toxic, they are not self-conscious. I asked them sometimes if they teabag to offend me, they said they don't. I'm not trying to justify them, but to me it is easier to cope with someone's toxicity when I understand that those people do not have intention to offend me.
Of course, there're many cases when malicious intent from survivors is obvious, and new killer players suffer from this a lot. I think the best option in this case is to learn playing killer better to be able to punish them in game. It is expected to see more experienced opponents, so you need to be patient. When you gain more experience, you'll learn some ways to deal with bodyblocking, flashlights, excessive altruism, etc. Don't be afraid to take strongest perks and addons to have better chances, but make sure you read and understood how they work. Also, if you're on Steam, consider checking their profiles in lobby. If they have much more hours than you or are a 3-4 man SWF, consider dodging, since quite likely you'll have hard time in this game.
If you feel insecure after a game, it's better to avoid any post game communication and hide the chat. I believe there should be an option to disable post game chat completely in settings, I don't understand why the devs won't consider it.
- I don't understand why the devs won't consider it.
Same reason EGC is in the game, they don't have even a basic automated report system, and why swivel hook is in the game but swivel grab isn't:
Again, part of the 'value' of DBD from a survivor perspective is they let you be... comically cruel to people. That is, again, part of the point, and its just a deeply ingrained part of survivor culture at this point to be absolutely ######### to killers post game for any reason you can make up.
It might not be stated as such internally, but that is a consistent design direction of DBD: "Maintain ways for people to be toxic, a huge portion of our userbase is toxic, recontextualize it as just goofyness."
-
@tippy2k2 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2009328#Comment_2009328
...after playing this game for a year (I started playing when I created my account here, February of 2019) and finally twoish weeks ago had enough, this is so painfully accurate that it physically makes me squirm just a little bit to see it said out loud.
A simple VOTE UP wasn't enough, you deserve some extra kudos for that post.
It helps that I am basically aiming for a doctorate in 'Anti-human design' so I have a better vocabulary for it and thus can notice elements of it easier.
Also, to be extra clear because I left this out:
It is highly unlikely a lot of this is deliberately, maliciously planned by BHVR. No one chooses to be a supervillain who cackles saying "That .5% of our playerbase that is vulnerable to intrusive thoughts of worthlessness and shame are an acceptable cost to keeping our poor stupid killers around while catering to survivors."
This sorta thing happens because of economic incentives, its a gradual slide. Part of why DBD survived while other asymetric games don't is because it happened quite a bit by bit, as an accident, rather than launching as a killer bully sim and never getting a stable killer main population. I mean back in DA DAY of the the beta, Trapper could outright trap the only unhook spot, it was a lot more 'even' in ways to be a jerk and survivors had to be a bit more spooked (Until they discovered some infinites, whoops!).
Things 'slid' here, they didn't start here, and people didn't choose to be here. They just made choices that over time resulted in this being the economic model for the game. Little, innocent things like "Well having that final run out is fun and the game suddenly ending because the killer gave up would be anti-climactic' which are true but also conceal something darker behind these choices.
The people at BHVR seem like nice people, and I am super glad this kinda outfit that made a game they are clearly passionate about found massive success, its very rare and in some ways we are lucky this 'indy' game is one of the most popular games on steam, period.
Its just that the space for 'human friendly' design is vastly, VASTLY smaller than designs that are anti-human. And if your going along blind just following what makes you succesful without an overarching 'top down' view your going to end up in a toxic space because maximization tends to be the way to do that.
DBD sorta was shaped by an evolutionary algorithm that tries to maximize paying customers in the ecosystem without completely burning out killers, which results in trying to maximize survivor count at pretty much any cost to the killer play experience that doesn't cause them to quit to the point that survivors can't find games, and maximization algorithms pretty much INEVITABLY create deeply troubling and anti-human designs.
-
@ElliePirhana said:
Hi, I'm relatively new to the game and already I'm really struggling with mental health issues whenever I decide to pick up the game for a few matches.
I'm honestly just looking for someone who can provide some of the ways you guys have been able to cope with the toxicity in the game? (Body blocking, flashlight stunning, tea bagging, etc) A few games I can take and let me be clear I don't mind losing but the bullying and harassment is really getting to me.
I mostly play killer, namely Bubba/Lestherface/Cannibal but a few others as well. I feel like especially recently the cruelty among survivor players has spiked significantly and I don't know what to do... I do my best to be calm and not let it get to me but it's really affecting my sanity and causing me to become severely depressed and in some cases causing me to self harm (Something I haven't done since years and years ago). I honestly am just looking to improve and play with people but I can't take much more of the unnecessary cruelty...
Hello! I am currently in a master's program (But got a doctorate lined up) for communications with a focus on systematized exploitative systems. DBD, as a game I both enjoy and am familiar with, is frequently something I look at. I also sometimes struggle with mental health issues and copulsive behavior myself, and 'deconstructing' why something makes me feel bad but I still want to play it helps me 'escape' those things, or understand how I can feel less bad.
I hope by explaining this in very meticulous detail I can help you out, because its literally what I want to do with my life.
--------------------------------------
Let me say right off the bat, DBD's dev cycle and core gameplay loop is VERY toxic in a way that I worry will affect vulnerable people, but in a different way than other exploitative or toxic developments do. It isn't like Fortnite where your getting kids to cyberbully each other and attach a lot of prestige to overpriced artificially limited skins that affects real world interactions and causing them to plunder their parent's cards for V-bucks, instead it solves the asymmetry problem in gaming in an amazingly cruel way.
See, most asymmetric competitive videogames don't work out because it sets the dev up for failure: it splits the player base, one side is more social than the other and is the 'many' and thus is economically attractive, the other is the 'power role' and is solo and thus isn't as economically lucrative but is the unique hook to draw people in to play it. Most games fail because its just not very fun to get clobbered by someone not playing by the same rules as you at all. Like most historical competitive asymmetric games have you ultimately playing the same game in the end, like Starcraft or League is 'fair' because everyone is playing by similar rules and just has different quirks, but heavily asymmetric games tend to fail because either the many doesn't stick around and the game can't grow, or the few don't stick around and the many can't find games and are forced to play the less fun role and thus don't stay.
DBD 'solves' this by doing a few things to condition you to develop an attachment to it in a way that can become very unhealthy. For example? They let the killer absolutely dominate at low low low ranks. This causes your first few killer games to be easy and feel great, before you gradually get lowered down in ranks and find harder and harder players prevents you from instantly realizing the game's design isn't at all about feeling like a powerful killer but instead creating a situation where you gotta bust your ass to get anything as a killer while systems are designed to make playing survivor feel fun, easy, and powerful, and to derive pleasure and enjoyment from essentially cyberbullying someone else (which the devs pretty actively lean into as a selling feature of the game). Survivors don't REALLY want competitive DBD, they want an Ochido (An old member of the streaming community who was FAMOUSLY TOXIC and basically helped sell the game as 'be mean and frustrate someone to no end' as a selling feature) simulator, which causes them to recruit 3 friends to play, who then go on to recruit more friends, and so on. As a bonus, because survivors are more social, they tend to care more about cosmetics, meaning they are more monetizable twice over.
This is why at high ranks survivors outnumber killers by ridiculous margins. At some points in time survivor Qs hit 30 minutes, while killer was at 5 seconds. This meant for every 4 survivors finding a lobby 360 killers found one at that rank, which is uhh... huge, as it means at high ranks at those timeslots there are around 1500 times more survivors than killers. This sounds real bad but as long as the Qs aren't so long survivors quit this is ideal, the devs financially want to stuff as many survivors into the game per-killer as possible. Again, killers are infastructure, survivors are your actual userbase buying content.
The devs work REALLY hard to maintain this dynamic. End Game Collapse is a good example. DBD had a problem where it was a bit 'too much' for survivors to bully the killer by forcing them to run each of them out of the gate one at a time over 4 seperate 2 minute long minimum chases back when the survivors had infinite time to leave. Killers wanted a surrender button, a way to elegantly end a match when it was clear they were getting trashed. However, instead of implementing this relatively simple system, the devs delayed for quite a while in solving this problem because part of the selling feature to the most financially important segment of the playerbase was teabagging at the gate and gloating about your win, forcing the killer to participate in their own loss.
So instead of adding this surrender button, they gave themselves a lot more work creating the end game collapse, which by design didn't let the killer end the game ellegantly even if they used the 'just ######### end it' option: even after opening a gate you had 2 minutes of survivors being able to run around and gloat, because, again, abusive behavior is a key selling feature.
You won't notice this unless your trained to look or you get thrust down in ranks too fast, or if your vulnerable to it and the experience makes you feel so awful its harmful. This is why mid tier killers stick it out: the good games give juuuust enough of a dopamine hit to make them want to stay even though most games stink. Bad survivors stay because the social aspect helps them endure and losing as a solo survivor hurts way less because you just get booted out of the game and find a new one right quick. The game is... fun for killer if your a real ace, but then because the survivor community is deliberately toxic you get verbally abused for using any strategy that works well in this game. Oh, and bonus points for BHVR not using even the most basic 'anti-toxicity' chat filters or automated bans like is industry standard by now, its wild the game has a more toxic community than Dota, almost as if berating the killer at the end of the game is a feature, weird.
Unlike other methods of exploitatively manipulating the psychology of your playerbase, your not targeting vulnerable people. Fortnite WANTS kids who are uniquely anxious about their social status among their peers and prestige to FREAK OUT and buy 600 dollars worth of V-bucks. But DBD doesn't want you to freak out, your just an 'accident' caused by the pressure cooker being a bit too high for you, and your baseline mental state not being ideal. So its... better in that way I guess? Still scummy and gross.
-----------------------
At the end of the day, its a game. Any transient fun you get from the fun parts offsets the low parts of the game, sure, that is how gamestates and gameplay loops work. But that clearly isn't happening for you.
While I enjoy DBD because I play solo survivor so the fun for me there is challenge rather than being a dick with my friends, and am a good enough killer that the toxic elements don't really work on me, I would never recommend this game to anyone. I don't know if it would affect them like its affecting you.
If you find the joy of striving to be better worthwhile and enjoyable in of itself, of losing itself to be fun, recontextualize the ######### elements as challenges to overcome. If your in a mental state where severe downswings in your control over the game is fine, and you smile when you see someone being a cocky dick and just strive to make THEM look like an idiot so you can humiliate them in turn and flip the script, killer on DBD is fun (Sometimes I pretend to be a bad nurse before going nutso with Devour hope, for example~), and its a worthwhile game.
But if a bad turn of events in DBD is so upsetting (and, again, its DESIGNED TO BE MAXIMALLY UPSETTING to be bodyblocked, or flashlight saved, or whatever. Part of the point is the survivors know how AWFUL it feels as a killer even though they indeed are 'supposed' to do it and its 'fair' and there are ways to avoid it) that your just feeling miserable most games, don't keep playing to chase the good games.
That is a skinnerbox. That is addictive behavior. Recognize that your trying to chase a high and that your hurting yourself to do it, and walk away.
PS: To be clear, I don't think every survivor is toxic, and I don't think its 'toxic' to use the tools you are given, even if they are designed to be as infuriating as possible. But pretending DBD is not economically built on being complete ######### to each other is self-delusion. Both sides have stuff to be upset about in the game's design, but holy crap lets not pretend the Devs aren't doing things to encourage you to be mean to people.
-
@spiritsLeftball said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2008548#Comment_2008548
I don’t think this a fair comparison, I’ll tell you why.
A- rarely do I see keys being brought in.
B- an attentive killer can counter this by taking in franklyns- which I’ve done every time I saw a key pre match.
C- strategically tunnel and remove the key player.
D- there is no other direct counter play to iri heads, other than what you would normally do against huntress.
A: Keys are in about 20% of my games as a red ranker. WAY more than Iri, I haven't SEEN a huntress, forget an Iri huntress, in ages.
B: Key swaps at lobbies are a thing to block this. Also franklins is a really bad counter to keys cuz either you camp it and lose or just pick it up.
C: Other people can pick up the key. Eliminating a player quickly vs a key is BAD.
D: Dodge the hatchet lol. Like there is no counter to keys, you just... lose because the way the ranking system works you auto lose if you don't get a very specific type of 3k at least and keys deny that from being a realistic possibility without a ridiculously lucky snowball.
Iri hatchets at least let you win if your good vs huntress anyway, but good killers struggle to win against keys to the point even Otz doing his 50 win series gave up on counting games with keys as losses because they are so insanely unfair in terms of how you actually win the game.
This isn't me saying "iri hatchets are good." But at least you quickly get eliminated and into the next game. Keys have the double whammy of A: Having basically no counterplay besides such a vast skill difference the game would be a blowout no matter what, like Iris and B: Forcing you to play out a full length game knowing you probably lose because you get robbed of 4 hooks just because you killed one player because gens are fast enough you get to 'hatch numbers' if you kill anyone.
So, no, exactly the same. We can talk about if X should be in the game, but complaining that people use X tool and that they shouldn't because 'honor' or whatever is dumb and a non-solution because it forces people to walk this imaginary line that conveniently always happens to be juuuuust on the border of what someone thinks they can win consistently against.
Tom Scott has a great quote that I think applies here: People always draw the line of ethical behavior to juuuuust contain what the most extreme examples of what they do and exclude everything else. That is natural and normal, but it means holding other people to your own standards when they have no obligations towards you is unrealistic and silly: of course you think Iris are unfair and keys are if your getting blown out by iris having a bad time but rarely win a game with a key because you take one only once in a while. You might have different feelings about them when you go into a game where a SWF brings in 3 BNPs and a key to force you into a 'kill one person and the hatch spawns' situation if you dare to win even one chase.
Structurally systematized solutions: If the devs put it in the game, use it and don't complain others do. If you think its unfair, complain to them (But also be aware there is often a good reason for stuff existing and sometimes you do deserve to just get trashed by a strategy).
I personally don't find Iri enjoyable to use. I don't find it fun to play against. But I don't think someone is being 'unfair' if they use it anymore than I think someone is being 'unfair' if they camp, or use a flashlight to blind the killer during an animation lock for a carry, or go for the hatch 2v1, or all sorts of things that are frustrating behaviors that are important to how the game functions. If we actually cared about making the game never unpleasant people wouldn't flashlight blind or pallet rescue, insta unhook, place traps in grass, use Pig's power AT ALL, ect. That isn't a realistic standard to play by and no one ACTUALLY plays by 'playing honorably.' They just use it as a weapon to bludgeon behavior they don't personally like.
-
@Xzan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2008548#Comment_2008548
Well if they bring a key, they want to have a quick game. With Iri Heads you are just making it a bit quicker.
Well its more everyone knows they are going to be nerfed, and (rightfully) no side feels obligated to hold back to ensure the other side has fun, that should be structurally enforced rather than some bullshit imagined code of conduct, so people are burning through them.
Blame devs for not taking care of either of these things in a timely manner, but the logic is exactly the same. Both brutally change the win/loss condition for the game in a huge way for the other side in a manner that is extremely not fun and is unhealthy, but its part of the game and its a massive prisoner's dillema situation: You can't know if someone is gunna 'play nice' to you, so you gotta always assume both sides are going 100%.
This is actually more fun anyway when the game is in a good spot, and not everything in the game should feel nice and cuddly, but sometimes the tools you have are too strong and game warping. Being camped feels bad, but camping being allowed underpins the experience in a way the devs repeatedly tried to unpick and failed to do so because its just... too core to DBD. Keys and Iris are different because the alter the timing relationship of the entire match in a way with little real counterplay. So they are 'unfair' but its insane to say 'how dare you use this thing?' and the reluctance of dev's to disable them as they rework them or provide short term solutions (ex: Keys only work for yourself and can't be saved by any means, Iris require a minimum distance to work) is the real problem here, not the behavior of your fellow players.
We are all slaves to the systems we are born into, and all that.
-
Huntresses use Iri heads for the same reason survivors are rushing through their keys at the moment.
-
EGC was designed to fix the 'Survivors refuse to leave the game until the killer chases them out individually one at a time over 8 minutes' problem while still being maximally disempowering and frustrating for the killer.
So if you somehow go down during this moment where honestly it was designed as a victory lap for you, tough titties.
And "oh no poor widdle me having to sit there" is such a bad argument. 1: your missing a single minute of gameplay, 2: you could just suicide and probably still pip and still have all your buds escape. Camping mid match is annoying but necessary to the way dbd is deisgned to allow, but at least I KINDA get the salt, despite it not being very educated salt.
Camping EGC isn't even annoying, its like one of the only ways EGC holds any tension or excitement. Like how much do you have to deliberately ignore the humanity of the killer player to whine about them here?
-
I agree this scenario isn't fun for anyone, but its the fault of the system making it so killers DO need to really sweat about one more hit for malice, one more won chase for chaser, and ideally one more hook and sacrifice for devout. The killer margins for the emblems are actually pretty stupidly razor thin. EX: If that person going for hatch never was hooked you basically can't get gold devout even if you hooked everyone else lots of times, and if anyone DCs you HAVE to be a huge ######### to everyone else and farm them.
Fixing this problem probably involves recontextualizing hatch escapes in the game's score as almost as good as a chase, down, hook. Like making it count for a hook for devout and injure for malice but making a no escape scenario give an extra phantom hook so killers still try for the hatch as a nice bonus.
-
What is especially funny about this is that the Devs read this suggestion on stream and made fun of it.
"I dunno about you but I like having perks" I believe is what was said.
-
Franklins and then another survivor steals the key so they can't get it back with Wards or Black Rings~
-
Meg definitely would be the protagonist of one of the more modern deconstructive horror films. Stuff like "Your Next." In an Ensemble cast with more than one surviving lady she also will have a good chance. Otherwise probably not unless they play up the fact she is kinda a tomboyish everygirl that is still feminine.
Claudette has the most final girl energy in my opinion for a classic horror movie scenario. She is smart, kinda nerdy, kinda has a girl next door vibe, and is established to be empathetic. Its hard to imagine a movie that outright kills Claudette off that lets ANYONE live.
Feng has a bit too much cockiness for her to be a classic final girl and isn't really able to pull a Ripley, but in a story where multiple characters survive she could totally make it. She also is kinda a tongue in cheek joke character. Might make it in a more self aware B-movie plot, which is kinda what she is trying to evoke.
Yui either dies early or lives. No inbetween. She is the most likely to pull a Ripley and end up going on to make a franchise of it as well. Nea has a similar energy but could make it to the middle and then biff it depending on how they frame her past. As someone else said if the story focuses on her history she has really good protagonist energy.
Kate depends heavily on context. She is, however, peak not final girl energy along with Feng in my opinion, unless the story was like... about specifically her and her fame and the killer was some crazed fan or something. That said that is only in the context of the ENTIRE CAST. If you pair it down or imagine her among a 'generic' horror cast she is really heavily a final girl. Its just in the context of DBD's cast she is the obvious kill no matter what.
Elodie probably isn't the final girl because she is in a more ensemble based movie but she DEFINITELY makes it, especially because she is established to be really clever and tricky.
Yun-Jin depends on the 'morality' the movie is trying to espouse. If the movie is trying to say the world is tough she definitely lives after indirectly causing someone else to die because she wants to live more. If its a more classic slasher flick she gets someone killed then dies herself. If its somewhere in the middle it can go either way. Characters like Yun are actually some of the least predictable because there is a tension between "she is clever and thus earns life" and "She is ruthless and thus earns death." She might, for example, not be the final girl but instead be the one who gets out of the situation entirely midway through but in a way that abandons the other, but ensures help will come.
-
@C3Tooth said:
What rank are you?
Rank doesnt matter. I had a game where I almost done a Gen, then doctor chased me. Got hooked
Another survivor unhook me, tried to heal but doctor was coming, the team mate tanking a hit, then doctor on me again, until I got 2nd hook. The samething happened again until I got 3rd hook. 3 chases was long enough for other 3 survivor finish all Gens. Then they all escape. I feel good for them.
My build was Lithe, Fixate, Urban, Tenacity
I had 15k BP, killer had 19k. All my team mates had around 25-29k.
Was it fun for me when from the start to the last hook, I died in only 4 hits? No
So let me get this straight.
The teammate tried to unhook in front of the killer without BT, a killer famous for having good detection and the ability to really stick to survivors, and farmed you off the hook and your mad at the DOCTOR?
Be mad at your teammate. There is no rush to get someone off the hook, you have a full 60 seconds before the hook state advances and the longer you wait the more your punishing the killer for patrolling. Only go for an early unhook if you confirm the killer is actually gone (vs doctor, for example, its a good bet he is a bit distracted if you hear another survivor scream).
What was the doctor supposed to do? Again, close his eyes and pretend to not see you? Just taking the hit isn't enough you need to bait a full chase and keep them off the other dude. If the doctor just got a nice little tap on your buddy's butt while they were unhooking and then your buddy vanished as you started to run, then yeah the doc is gunna go for you.
That sounds like a super fair gameplay interaction: Your buddy messed up the unhook and you got wrecked. To that I say... GOOD.
Now if we want to change up the game so the killer has a super innate tempo lead from hooking so they aren't encouraged to eliminate players efficiently, basically changing it from being efficient to eliminate players to being efficient to spread the pain, we could do that.
But any time the idea gets floated survivors don't like it. We are talking like 'Each time your hooked lose 33% repair speed" to actually create a scenario where the killer isn't massively encouraged to get a survivor out of the game.
The killer isn't there to show you a good time. They aren't your babysitter. They aren't there to give you a puppet show and read you a bedtime story. But more importantly, it isn't the game designer's job to ensure you never have a negative experience in the game. Actually quite the opposite. The entire gameplay loop of the game, again, involves the killer being, if not a source of fear (No one is afraid in DBD), a source of tension. Tension REQUIRES an anticipated negative result: If you didn't give a ######### the game WOULD NOT BE GOOD.
Its an asymetric competitive game, that means for the game to work sometimes ######### has to suck for you sometimes. Sometimes you need to lose, get trashed, or be in an unfun situation, to give context to the entire experience.
This is basic ludology: Gamestates need to matter and be distinct from each other, and each side needs gamestates where they are more or less in control than the other. It isn't 'being a dick' to put you into a gamestate where you lack control, and recontextualizing 'I lost a major interaction and am now in a deeply disadvantaged gamestate where my opponent WILL win unless something exceptional happens' as 'This is unfair and unfun because I want to play the game' is ridiculous, its like crying that your booted from the round of Apex legends cuz your team got wiped or that your out of the round in counterstrike because you charged an AWP with a handgun and now you gotta sit there not playing and you have less money now too so its harder in the future.
"Your in a bad spot and probably will lose" isn't just standard in games. Its literally necessary for a game to make sense as a game. If any point of survivor play gave you as much control over your own fate as any other, it would mean good survivor play doesn't matter, which is EXACTLY how Deathgarden worked, and that game died because it was really boring for all sides because gamestate didn't matter.
BHVR did an amazingly expensive test run of a 'no camp' system in the form of a massive game that they paid licensing fees towards WB for and it flopped so crazy hard. You do not want this.
-
@Anniehere said:
In my opinion if the killer is face camping and survivors doing gens to leave, this is not an actual solution for the problem. because the player on the hook is not having fun and got their time wasted.
Tunneling is something else and maybe forgivable but still annoying.
I faced only one killer today that felt pity for tunneling me after second hook.
If DBD are thinking about changes then we may see them in a few months or more.
Its a bad case of the cure being worse than the disease though.
Face camping 'self corrects' at least rank wise: it isn't gunna happen and seriously affect matches outside gutter ranks or you being so odious the killer decides to throw the match for ya (like say... bringing a key). So you generally have control over it not happening by just... playing well consistently.
Meanwhile the devs have talked about further anti-camping stuff and said flat out they aren't ever going to do it because it breaks the game too much if the killer is even a little bit punished for defending the hook outside of tempo loss, because an insta-unhook is the worst case scenario for the killer. So even stuff like 'It doesn't trigger in a chase' doesn't work cuz someone can just sit near the hook hiding and punish you even if you know they are there just because you can't chase them quickly.
I do agree that "Policy Facecamp" is a problem... but its a problem in the same way that say... DPS Moria is a problem in Overwatch... like yeah its not ideal but doing stuff to punish the character for sometimes fighting or using DPS ball rather than heal ball kinda... breaks the character and the healer role because she actually DOES need to fight quite often.
If we are looking for clear problems with easy solutions that do nothing but make DBD worse we got a lot of places to start before the relatively rare and contained issue that is facecamping.
@fr0sty1223 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2007028#Comment_2007028
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2007013#Comment_2007013
We want camping to be ######### gone. Just played 3 more games and in 2 of the I was face camped the second I got downed and deranked because of it. Camping needs to go it is toxic and uninteractive.
What rank are you?
-
@EvanSnowWolf said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/233548/hard-tunneling-and-camping-is-way-to-common
Well, they try to make perks like BBQ & Chili but then Survivors call for that sort of thing to get nerfed, too. So I don't know what Survivors want at this point.
Survivors are a classic example 'you think you want that but you don't.'
If survivors had their way, camping would be impossible, there would be no player elimination, and survivors would share hook states so that they couldn't be tunneled. Oh and they would have even more tools to mess with the killer.
They made that game, it was called Deathgarden, and not only was it miserable for the hunters, survivors got really bored really fast because, as it turns out, reducing the variance of consiquences from being hooked from 'lose 1 of 3 hook states' to 'lose the game from your team' to just 'lose 1 of 3 hook states' made the game really flat because every match felt exactly the same and chases lost all tension.
DBD NEEDS losing chases as survivors to not feel good in order for the REST of the game to have tension. DBD is, ultimately, a pretty boring game when you just look at the core mechanics: Hold M1 on a gen, run in a circle around these objects. It only is fun in the context that failing to say... anticipate and track the killer while holding M1 is really bad, or getting the chance to hold M1 for a long time is really rare because the killer has enough map pressure, or when running in circles even a LITTLE bit wrong may end the game then and there because of a snowball. Without that tension the game... isn't even a game, which is why "M1 simulator" was such a common complaint and survivors wanted fancier objectives back when vacuum pallets were added and survivors basically COULDN'T lose chases.
This isn't to say survivors should be helpless or feel powerless: They are survivors, not victims. Its just DBD is made a better game when you need to seize survival from the killer by any means necessary rather than being allowed to assume minimum consequences for any action.
-
@TheArbiter said:
In my experience if a killer starts to facecamp, that person dies and the others finish the gens and leave. The killer has to willingly throw the match when facecamping. Tunneling and slugging is a whole different ballpark however
Good eye on facecamping.
If a killer is tunneling its because the team isn't bothering to protect a weakened survivor. Bodyblock, be a juicier target, deliberately mislead the scratchmarks. A big problem with survivors crying tunneling is they will rescue the hook and then immediately hide and unless the person they saved has iron will they CAN'T hide, so the killer checks the hook and hears a dude crying and its over. This is why part of good solo play is trying to ensure your not the first victim: In SWF you can know all your buds know how to properly do hook rescues and not accidently farm you. In Solo you only know your own skills so you naturally need to play a little more immersed so if someone goes down you can do a rescue that ACTUALLY takes heat off them.
If you refuse to take heat off the injured survivor... what is the killer gunna do? Close their eyes and pretend they didn't see or hear them despite them being trivial to down again?
Slugging occurs when the killer is worried about tempo. It is a normal and healthy part of the game that allows the killer to trade kill progress for tempo, and it only happens 'too much' when the killer doesn't feel like hooks are worth it unless they already won the game defacto. The killer has no obligation to drop all pressure on the map to hook you, its a VITAL part of the game they can just leave you there and thus make it take longer for your team to get you back on gens at the expense of not extending hook state. You.... kinda have to slug as a killer at the higher end, its just such a basic part of their toolkit because doing the wrong thing with a downed survivor is throwing the game.
You will not win DBD as a killer, even vs a bad team, winning a chase vs a healthy survivor, hooking right away, letting the rescue happen, letting them heal, and hooking a different survivor over and over so that everyone gets all 3 hooks and no one dies until everyone is on second hook. That just isn't going to happen, and while being slugged isn't fun, its completely fair. Fairness matters WAY MORE than fun, because not every gamestate CAN be fun for every player: some need to be inherently negative, and losing a chase is meant to be inherently negative and result in the survivor taking a breather for a minute. Its a key part of the emotional experience and, ironically, is a big part of why survivor is more chill in general (You get these 'low points' that happen to serve double duty as breathers... save for second hook stage, which sucks and really needs to lose the spacebar mashing).
-
The idea of 'Hook Corruption' as base kit: Survivors lose X% of gen speed (33% makes sense, maybe 25%, or maybe more for first hook, less for second hook to prevent endgame scenarios where everyone is crawling to finish a gen) per hook state lost.
This does a lot of good things: It rewards killers for hooking via a tempo win no matter what, so they feel less compelled to slug. It slows down the game overall without slowing initial gen speeds. It doesn't help the killer at all if they camp, as the survivors they aren't hooking are repairing just as fast, and it discourages tunneling, as eliminating a survivor on final hook is still technically better than hooking a fresh survivor, but not by much at all so if the fresh survivor gives a free hit its almost always work taking it on them.
Basically it solves the entire problem of the hook dynamic for killer in that right now hooking survivors is CRAZY UNREWARDING unless your already super ahead or think it will get you more tempo via you being able to get a chase off that hook state (AKA, at LEAST patrolling it), and gives a more mechanical reward for excellent play that isn't 'constantly drive survivors off gens without actually advancing the game until you do it like 16 times' which, while totally doable as a good killer, is kinda... unfulfilling and very frustrating and non-intuitive.
Ultimately the camping/tunnel problem won't ever get better without some sort of buff to killer tempo that makes player elimination not the ultimate goal for gaining control of the timing of the match, as the only way to ensure gen speeds slow down is basically get someone out of the game, which is why killers focus on that so amazingly hard. Until killers have other ways to slow gen speeds that are more interactive, its still gunna be tunnel, slug, camp all day every day to snowball, get the critical tempo shift, and win matches. It also would add tension to getting hooked again, which the game sorely needs. Survivor is always mega boring if you don't give a ######### about your first two hooks.
-
They tried this in Deathgarden.
It was, in short, a horrible horrible system that basically gaurenteed, along with a few other choices, that the game died.
See, it sounds neat, but the problem is that hooks as a shared resource remove all the tension from the snowball potential of killers. It turns out that while getting camped, tunneled, or whatever doesn't feel good IN THE MOMENT it actually is really really REALLY important to the overal experience of DBD, and removing it makes the game kinda braindead and removes most tactical consideration from the game.
Either a good survivor can carry and the game is just boring cuz the survivors always escape, or they can't so one anchor causes you to just flippin die.
You actually kinda want things in the game like 'the weak link gets eliminated' or 'the killer focuses weaker/stronger targets depending on how threatened they feel' because that creates like... an emotional arc and a relationship between the killer and individual survivors. Without that you get really lame interactions where the killer just constantly picks on the weakest player, and never has to feel threatened by the strong ones, and strong players feel unduly punished by weak ones.
The real problem with hooking and tunneling is something the devs talked about earlier when they discuss why they aren't going to nerf camping anymore: Killers NEED TO SNOWBALL. They NEED IT. They need to reach a point in the game where they hit critical mass and are disproportionately threatening the survivors.
Slugging and camping are SYMPTOMATIC of killers not having enough general pressure and not feeling rewarded enough by taking more dynamic playstyles. Fighting these is without addressing the fundemental lack of reward for killers results in killers just slugging or tunneling HARDER. If a killer doesn't think they will be rewarded with a player elimination on a realistic timeframe and that the rescue is too likely to come fast, they won't hook because slugs remove someone from gens longer.
So, paradoxically, if you want killers to camp less and slug less... you need to make hooks safer, easier to defend even if your not next to them, and generally HARDER to unhook people from. This is why camping was really rare pre BT-DS and pre swivelhook: The trapper could literally trap the unhook spot meaning they got a giant warning the unhook was happening, and the survivor who was injured would be easy to win a chase vs again, so they could roam anywhere on the map and not lose too much tempo to an unhook. As more and more unhook tools were added this became less and less true, and 'slug metas' develop any time unhooking is too strong.
So, you want less camping? Give the killer a tempo based perk that rewards them for letting you unhook. Or even better? Add it to basekit. We have 'anti-camp' rewards right now in the form of Devour Hope, BBQ (Which also is well designed because it tells you when defending the hook is a good idea), and Make your Choice, and none of them address the core problem with hooks, which is they are generally a major tempo loss. Something as simple as 'If a survivor is unhooked outside your TR, all survivors repair slower for X seconds' would do a LOT to make killers less dependent on converting any hook or down into two and would make winning lots of chases rather than playing very defensively around downed and hooked survivors a lot more valid a playstyle for killers that aren't able to insta-win chases like Nurse or Spirit.
-
No, because the devs can't go a patch without needling killers and reminding them that they are second class citizens who only have the barest quality of life updates given to them like scraps of bread to a starving orphan juuuuust enough to keep the population alive.
Survivors are the user-base, they buy the skins and recruit new players. Killers are infastructure, they are non-social and thus don't recruit new people and create more sales, and can't even see their own skins and so only the most diehard buy em.
Ergo, anything the devs can do that will make the survivors feel better and not drive off killer players will be done. A hook counter would allow more tactical killer play (but, as others noted, not hard tunneling because a hard tunnel can't be stopped anyway) which would result in survivors getting eliminated more. Despite player elimination being a key element of the game and vital to how it flows survivors hate it, so making it harder for killers to eliminate in a chaotic game is prioritized over that QOL, and likewise making it easier for uncoordinated survivors to keep track of who needs to make the sacrifice play and eat a hook is a goal.
-
@ColonelManny said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1998017#Comment_1998017
They really need to consider just adding one more generator for the survivors. If they have no plans to do anything yet, why not test out something like this in the PTB and see people's reactions and see if the killer problem is sort of solved.
Because the devs only do experiments and quick tweaks for survivor buffs. NEVER for survivor nerfs.
This isn't even like a salt thing. The way they communicate towards survivors vs killers makes it really clear that while they want a game that is mechanically balanced (because if killers didn't have any potential the game would collapse like it did during the killer strike) they care way more about the feelings and concerns of one side over the other.
The bloodlust test and the mori surprise change come to mind, but this is a thing they have a looooong history of and it was a huge reason why there was a killer strike back in 2017. Killers aren't imagining things when they notice they are not being treated fairly, though they often over-generalize or catastrophize outcomes. But either way DBD has... an actively super toxic design cycle where they hype minor killer changes to make killers think the game will become more fun before heaping surprise nerfs on them over a long period of time as a sort of bait and switch.
It is such a thing its talked about outside the DBD community. I have written papers about how DBD exploits anchoring effects to basically monetize cyberbullying in a fun, new, and different way than season passes and exclusive Fortnite skins. Its... not great.
And its complicated because if DBD DOES do hotfixes to critical issues or experiments they get slapped for it, because the survivor playerbase, by my rough napkin math, outnumbers killers some odd 30:1, and have actively learned they can bully the devs via stuff like review bombs. So the devs are currently in a hostage situation with their own playerbase.