dugman
dugman
About
- Username
- dugman
- Joined
- Visits
- 4,706
- Last Active
Comments
-
A Supernatural DLC pack with Sam and Dean Winchester as survivors. (And a Demon as the killer. Maybe the Bunker as the map?)
-
Honestly the game is pretty great overall, if it weren’t I wouldn’t have played as long as I have.
I think my least favorite things in the game are:
- Nurse is my least favorite killer. Blink stuns are an incredibly annoying mechanic. Staring at my feet literally 1/3 of the match, yeah THAT’LL be fun (not).
- After-game rude players in chat. People who when they win have to call you trash and insult you, and if they lose complain that you didn’t play fair or used broken perks, etc. (Assuming those types of people even stuck around and didn’t ragequit on the first down.) That’s not a problem with the game itself per se, just a problem with people on the internet in general that’s prevalent in competitive multiplayer games with open chat.
-
@Dustin said:
It was already impossible to get a flashlight blind if a killer had Lightborn before now the only difference is they see your aura for several seconds now. It's just a placebo effect honestly you weren't getting a save unless the killer let you with the previous version.
Lightborn is fine and if people think the change put it over the top likely they played bad anyway or never played against lightborn before to realize it's a non issue.
Just a minor aside, the aura lasts 10 seconds which is a pretty long time for an aura. I find it’s actually most useful when they try and blind you while you break a pallet, because you can see their aura for 10 seconds there’s pretty much zero chance they’re be able to mindgame you while they run away if there’s something else nearby to hide behind.
-
@SquirrelKnight said:
Its a circular argument.
Swf isnt broken and carries no advantage over soloplay, you cant tell who is solo or swf, no we wont turn it off because you wouldnt play with swf. You wouldnt play with swf because they have advantages but they dont have advantages.
The real problem is that SWF groups are by far the most toxic part of the game., 3swfs bekng the worst because they harm the solo experience as well not just the killers
That’s a strawman, the devs never said swf players don’t have an advantage. In fact they’ve explicitly said they recognize the balance challenges involved with swf.
I don’t remember them talking specifically about an opt out option to not play against swf but my guess is they don’t want to split the playerbase if they can avoid it.
-
I sometimes do Lightborn plus Enduring plus maybe Agitation and Brutal just to get hilarious free hits on people trying to blind me at pallets or when I’m carrying someone. 😄 It’s not even that the perk is as good as other perks, it’s not, and flashlights are actually pretty ineffective overall in general even without Lightborn. It’s just a funny gimmick to occasionally scare people who try to blind you.
-
@Justalittlepeeck said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1687580#Comment_1687580
>If a dev states that something is NOT cheating, it is NOT cheating no matter how you want to color it.
I already explained, that if they said "it was cheating" and could do nothing about it (and they can't) it would be a pretty sad thing to see. It's just easier for them to say that sharing information that gives unfair advantage isn't cheating, because they don't have to waste resources trying to fight what they can't defeat. That is why I call voice comms "legal cheating" since that's what it is - cheating allowed by developers.
You keep saying they want to be able to do away with comms but can’t, but they literally play with comms themselves because they think it’s fun to do. It has nothing to do with it being “cheating they can’t enforce”, they fully expect and use comms to be in the game. They simply have unresolved balance issues between people who choose to use comms and people who don’t and, as they’ve said, they don’t want to force people to play the game in a manner the player doesn’t like. They’re not going to force players who like comms to not use them and they’re not going to force players who don’t like being on comms to listen to people who do use them.
-
@Momentosis said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1687923#Comment_1687923
In the system but not the game.
Imagine using voice comms in Among Us to tell others who the killer is. Oh, it's not in the game but it's on my system so it's not cheating!
Except that in Among Us the game and the devs explicitly ask you not to talk except in the meetings, it’s deliberately put in the printed rules of the game. So if you do then you’re breaking the rules, aka cheating. But in DbD the devs have explicitly said multiple times that using comms isn’t cheating, isn’t bannable and they even use comms themselves when they play. So in DbD using comms is perfectly acceptable. There’s a very detailed dev response to this question from Q&A 5 above.
The only issue with comms is it brings balance issues compared to playing without them which haven’t been fully addressed. But the game having a balance problem doesn’t mean that that they didn’t fully intend or expect people to play on comms, they did, and it doesn’t make comms “cheating”.
-
@Justalittlepeeck said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1687568#Comment_1687568
It certainly looks like it is not one of the important tasks, since how little was done to aid the problem since they directly admitted it exists.
I have no idea what priority they have given rebalancing for swfs since 2018. It could be that the solutions they tried didn’t work well for some reason internally, or maybe their own statistics are showing less of a disparity than we anecdotally experience, or maybe it’s just a complex problem balancing for swfs, or maybe they aren’t considering it heavily enough. It could be some combination if any or all of those factors.
Personally I think the best philosophy is one mentioned in this thread and in their Q&A - buff solo survivors so they have similar information to what swfs get on comms and then balance the overall gen speeds around that. So for instance give all survivors Kindred as a base ability so everybody knows where all the other survivors are more often but then tweak the gen speeds to make them a little slower to compensate. You’d be giving solo groups more of a boost than swfs that way without hopefully making life any harder on the killers.
-
@Chechia said:
To all the people who are saying that SWF isn't cheating: just remember how the game is designed. There is no voice chat on purpose. The game is designed to have a surprise effect and an uncertainty that gives the killer an advantage because he is playing against 4 other individuals. And tbh that makes the game very interesting. I really enjoy these moments when all solo queue teammates are knowing what to do and it feels like playing in a SWF, eventhough that isn't the case.
Two people on comms are already game changing and can be a pain in the ass.
The game itself is not balanced and designed for SWF and will probably never be. So it is actually cheating in a way, eventhough it is an implemented feature.
I personally don't mind playing against a SWF and I honestly don't need to know if I verse them. The only thing I would wish for is some sort of slowdown and a limitation to certain perks. That would actually make it more fair and interesting for both sides. A good SWF will win 99% of the time and that can't be fun. No wonder some of these groups are going out of their ways and trying to bully killers because escaping alone isn't satisfying anymore.
I already posted above a very detailed dev reply where they specifically said “we always intended swfs to be in the game from the beginning and that they would play on comms and we would never consider being on comms to be cheating.”
-
@Justalittlepeeck said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1686985#Comment_1686985
Well, in the end current game has no communication between survivors and even though it provides certain tools to share info, they are nowhere as powerful as voice comms. Moreover, current game is balanced around survivors NOT having comms, take a look at Trapper or Hag for example.
Again, I agree there are balance issues between swf and solos. The only thing I’m disagreeing with is this myth that the devs didn’t intend to put swf in the game and didn’t anticipate swfs using comms. They clearly did, they just probably still have more work to do balancing them.
-
@DaKnight said:
No corrupt, no discordance on a low mobility killer. You should expect ridiculously fast games not running either of those perks.
Three gens done in the first 60 seconds is only possible if three survivors are all on separate gens at the start of the match while the fourth is being chased. Discordance wouldn’t even have triggered at the start of this match.
-
Definitely want to see more context on those numbers, they don’t make much sense without knowing how they’re counting disconnects and so on,
For example, lets assume for a moment that there are two types of games:
A) Everybody plays out the game normally
B) At least one survivor ragequits on their first down
The survival rate for A is gong to be significantly higher than the survival rate of B.
Lets say p is the probability of a match being of type A and q is the probability of a match being of type B. And lets say that in type A matches the average survival rate is 0.5 and the survival rate in B is 0.1. (In B there’s still a decent chance of the last survivor getting hatch so it’s not going to be zero.)
Then the net survival rate will be 0.5p + 0.1q. But notice that for this to be about 12% q has to be nearly 100% of the matches, i.e. someone ragequits literally almost every match. Which simply isn’t the case - there are a lot of quitters but it’s not 95% of games.
In fact to get a 12% result above you have to assume something like a survival rate in A of only 20%. As in on average, if everybody plays out the entire game, only 1 in 5 survivors escape, along with about 80% of games having at least one ragequit. But that would mean not only do the great majority of games have a ragequit but also that, even if every plays the game out entirely, over half the games have no escapes at all! Which is clearly nonsense, even if you think killers have the edge they aren’t getting 4 kills half the time and 3 kills most of the rest of the time.
So without more context on how these totals were generated there’s no telling what they mean. They even contradict the roughly 25-30% survival rates in the “worst case” graph among all survivors at all ranks from last November. And it would be a massive red flag for the devs if their overall survival rates weren’t closer to 50-60% .
I’ll be really curious to see if a dev comments on these numbers at some point, it would be really interesting to know how they’re pulled.
-
@DCash said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1685785#Comment_1685785
If it was an intended feature then we would have in game comms.. the fact is from day one this game was designed so the survivors could not communicate. This is common knowledge. But then discord became popular and the devs had to go with the flow or lose customers. No one thinks playing with your friends is cheating, but communicating over comms is a clear advantage that is undeniable.
P.S. Here's the exact Q&A session where McLean and Stefan talk specifically about whether or not swfs with comms were intended from the beginning. Short answer is yes, they were, but that game mode was put off initially to implement Kill Your Friends first at release. Question is at 9:05 in the video.
https://youtu.be/gTpZSllfMmw?t=546Dead by Daylight | Q&A session #5 – October 26th, 2018
9:05
Q: Is using voice communication an intended game mechanic? As in, was it designed and balanced for this game in regards to solo survivors and killers?
Mclean: That reminds me of a neat anecdote. Because I often hear that survive with friends was not intended and was only added in response to player complaints and player demands. And I was there at the time, and also I think I our game director talked about this last time he was on stream. The thing is that the kill your friends mode and survive with friends mode were always intended. It’s just that at the time we only had time to do one of these modes before release, and we chose kill your frends.
I’ve seen that myth out there quite often, so no – from the very beginning we intended to let people play with their friends.
That being said, however, this is a game where we try and have this core atmosphere, this sense of isolation, there’s no spoken dialog in the game, it’s very lonely and quiet, except for the pounding drums when you’re about to die. And that’s all intentional, it really builds up the feeling of the game. But realistically this is a game in 2018 now, we’re not going to tell people you can’t talk to your friends while you play the video game. … We can’t stop people from communicating. (To Stefan) So you’ve often talked about your desire to try and lessen the gap a bit by giving more information that a coordinated group could have to solo players. Now we don’t have a lot of details what that looks like in the future, we’ve talked about lots of crazy ideas.
For instance it used to be that if you weren’t the killer or the obsession that you didn’t know who the obsession was. Now you do and you can get some interesting information like the little entity arms wiggling when the obsession is being chased. That’s information that a survive with friends group could have easily given each other but now solo players are able to see that. I would love to see some more subtle things like that and maybe perhaps some bigger ones in the future. Nothing to announce on that end.
But to bring it back to the comms – was the game balanced for it originally? I don’t know if I would say it was or wasn’t really?
Stefan: I think if you look at how much the game has grown over the last two years and how much we’ve learned about our playerbase and learned about how our game plays and how mechanics play out, I think it’s an adjustment period that we need to do regardless of anything else. Comms we knew were never going to be shut down, we just didn’t want to have it forced on players, that was one of the biggest mantras.
McLean: So if somebody didn’t want to hear voices we didn’t want you to fire up the game and hear someone’s voice in your ear. …
I would say it does affect our game design now where we’re not going to put any designs that hinge on some survivors knowing something while other survivors don’t. And now when we work on other mechanics we always have to ask ourselves “how is this going to work for a solo group versus how’s this going to work for a coordinated group. So that’s always a question we have to ask ourselves now. We do keep this in mind these days. Even if it’s not the “intended way to play”, we just have to acknowledge that that’s how some people do.
-
@DCash said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1685785#Comment_1685785
If it was an intended feature then we would have in game comms.. the fact is from day one this game was designed so the survivors could not communicate. This is common knowledge. But then discord became popular and the devs had to go with the flow or lose customers. No one thinks playing with your friends is cheating, but communicating over comms is a clear advantage that is undeniable.
Just because it wasn't included originally doesn't mean the devs didn't change their mind. It's not as if they "accidentally" added swfs to the game and they clearly fully expected swf members to probably mostly be on comms. Heck, the devs themselves use comms on their streams and comms are built in to the console version of the game as well.
Do comms present a balance challenge? Sure. But that doesn't make them "unintentional", it's not like they said "oops! Looks like swfs are in the game now!"
-
@Callmehandsome said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1685785#Comment_1685785
It's not intender feature. Like 4 years ago in their early streams they brought SWF up when survivors started review bombing the game. Before they quickly added SWF they said that they would need to do "balance changes because 4 survivors on coms would be extremely unfair for the killer" or something along these lines. No balance changes were done.
It’s clearly intentional. It’s not like they “accidentally” added swfs and said “Oops, we never realized swfs would play on comms”. Of course they knew players would use comms in a swf, the devs even do it themselves!
Just because the game initially launched without swf support doesn’t mean they didn’t either change their mind on wanting to include it in the game and/or had planned all along for swfs to probably be added after launch but simply wanted to get the game out the door while it was in development.
And just because there are balance issues with swfs doesn’t mean the devs weren’t aware swfs would play on comms, it just means they didn’t fully consider how some aspects of play would be impacted by comms. Making a bad balance choice doesn’t make the choice unintentional.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1685840#Comment_1685840
I am pretty sure you can find tons of Threads in this forum why this is a bad idea.
Frankly I think the only reason comms aren’t in the game already is simply because Behaviour probably feels it’s a project that wouldn’t be worth the developmental resources to prioritize it since there already exist so many good third party apps like Discord that do the job just as well as an ingame feature would. Why allocate programming resources to implementing something a lot of people can just do on their own without too much difficulty?
-
@NekoGamerX said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1685828#Comment_1685828
I don't think they had consider that talking in a swf group brake the game so much now they know and they don't know how to fix it because they can't with out putting voice communication in game or give the same info to solo as swf group has and buff killers after.
On this I can agree, I think that certain parts of the game are a bit broken (looking at you, Object of Obsession!) with swfs in the game and the devs probably didn’t fully consider those specific things in a swf environment. And I think the way the current rank system matches up groups that include swfs isn’t putting enough weight on the advantage of being in a swf (I suspect it’s just taking a simple average of player ranks when it should instead be increasing the effective rank for swf members for matchmaking purposes, that’s just a guess though,) So yeah, there’s definitely some balance areas that could stand improvement and they either haven’t come up with a good solution yet or their internal data is telling them that the disparities aren’t large enough to warrant making it a high development priority.
So while swfs on comms are an intentional part of the game, there are balance consequences of that design decision that it would be nice if the devs eventually more fully address.
-
I mean some survivors are entitled wussies, what else is there to say? I’ve had people disconnect when I down them with Clown and Demogorgon. I mean seriously, it’s not like I’m the best player in the game or anything, just giving up on the first down is kind of sad.
-
I wouldn’t have an issue with Wraith being completely invisible, it would certainly help with his issue where when he faces a swf they can just alert each other on comms when they see him moving around. And he still wouldn’t be as good as Spirit in a chase since he can’t uncloak instantly to attack like she can.
I don’t know that his buff is “needed” per se, I actually think Wraith is a perfectly passable killer. But I also don’t think making him invisible while moving would make him overpowered or broken.
-
Sorry do you mean streamsniping, as in you know a streamer that is in a swf and try and be in the queue when they play so you can be against them on stream?
If that’s the question then the answer is that streamsniping is explicitly listed as not being a bannable action. Whether it’s “sportsmanlike” is debatable.
-
@NekoGamerX said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1685785#Comment_1685785
it is intentional feature but talking with each other on skype discord or any other comm thing isn't intentional.
B.S. There is literally no way that the devs didn’t consider the possibility that players in a groups wouldn’t be talking to each other on comms when they implemented the feature. Talking to each other is the single most obvious reason that friends want to play with each other online. Hell, the devs talk to each other on comms themselves on their own streams!
This notion that just because the game doesn’t have built in voice communication that the devs somehow didn’t take Discord, etc, into consideration when they designed swfs is nonsense.
-
@AvisDeene said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1685785#Comment_1685785
If it was an intended feature of the game, the Devs should balance the game around Survivors having comms. Why haven’t they done that yet?
Because balancing a game is hard and sometimes they screw it up. Just because they make a balance mistake doesn’t mean they didn’t intend it to be a feature of the game.
-
Red Moris. If the devs didn’t want me to use them they wouldn’t be in half my bloodwebs.
-
Swf isn’t cheating. Even the devs play in swfs in their streams, it’s clearly an intentional feature of the game that they expect a lot of people will play with their friends on comms.
-
Why do survivors seem to insist on making me want to think NOED is a powerful perk I should be running? It’s not better than Haunted Ground, stop trying to make me think I should run NOED instead by telling me how good you think it is! 😄
-
Seems like a “cut my nose to spite my face” deals. Killing yourself early because you are mad at your teammates is just denying yourself the opportunity for additional bloodpoints or even possibly a turnaround and win if you get rescued in stage 2. You’re hurting your own score and rank and currency more than you’re hurting your teammates to be honest.
-
On the flip side is there an argument that maybe exhaustion perks like Dead Hard and Sprint Burst, etc, are too powerful and that’s why they’re so popular? If fewer survivors used exhaustion perks in the first place then using an add-on to cancel them would make those add-ons less effective as well.
Personally I’m for anything that encourages a wider diversity of loadouts to help avoid a meta becoming stale. If anti-exhaustion add-ons encourage survivors to think outside the meta box and start using no exhaustion perk in their build then that’s probably a good thing.
-
The vast, vast majority of disconnects are ragequitters. Imagine one of those people losing a match and knowing they can just disconnect to avoid losing anything.
-
If you don't want to slug too long then slug them and look for the hatch for a bit. If you can find the hatch then hook the third person and immediately run to the hatch and close it. (Obviously I'm assuming you never see the fourth survivor in the meantime.)
Even better, when you get down to two survivors start looking for the hatch right away, that way you'll know exactly where to go when you down someone.
-
Oni's Minotaur is the coolest killer skin I think. 😄
Sock Puppet Ash is my favorite survivor outfit.
-
Regarding slugging, if you are aiming to either get 3- or 4- kills or are aiming to get a higher endgame score than all the survivors then slugging actually makes sense strategically because if you can manage to down all living survivors simultaneously then, while you won’t get quite as high a score since you had fewer hooks, the survivors scores will tend to be even lower because they died that much more quickly.
Personally I don’t bother slugging to that extent, it’s not as much fun for me as hooking people, and like you said my currency bonus at the end is lower to boot, but I will often slug a survivor to chase a second survivor so I can spread the pressure. Simply hooking right away after a down isn’t always the correct play.
-
Odd how all he disconnects I see happen to be right after I down a survivor or grab them from a locker. It must be crashing their game. 🤷♂️ ... (not)
-
NOED is essentially just an endgame version of Haunted Grounds or Devour Hope. It gets you one or maybe two downs if it triggers at all in the last minute or two of play. Haunted Grounds pretty consistently gets you at least one or sometimes two downs when it triggers and it gets you the down early in the match to help build momentum which makes the down more valuable. Devour Hope is riskier because it could be destroyed before it builds up but once it does charge up it can completely snowball a match quickly.
In fact Haunted Grounds is probably the best of the three in the current environment of survivors going out of their way to cleanse all the totems. I frequently run it now and get downs from it nearly every time simply because nobody ignores hexes at this point. And yet I never get complaints from survivors about Haunted Grounds, but on the rare occasion I’ve used NOED it’s a salt mine. I think it’s just because the survivors you down with NOED think they “deserved to escape” since the gens were done so get really frustrated when they don’t. Again, though, getting the downs earlier is actually more likely to lead to a 3-4 kill result than getting them when the gens are already done.
So no, NOED doesn’t need a nerf, it’s fine.
-
@ExcelSword said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1682842#Comment_1682842
I understand perfectly well that most survivors don't try to immediately escape. I was simply highlighting the fact that the odds of a survivor escaping and affecting your match as a killer is significantly higher then people realise. I already stated that the likely scenario for people to attempt this is when a game is pretty much unwinnable due to a killer managing to kill at least one or two survivors early, increasing the likelihood that at least one of the two remaining survivors will attempt to kobe.
The point of my post was to try to show that the odds of any survivor escaping is significantly higher than it appears to our human brains, simply due to how math works.
I get what you’re saying, I’m just pointing out that the 11% figure only applies when a survivor actually tries to escape up to three times from a hook. For instance your second example of having the third survivor on a hook while chasing the fourth survivor and the third survivor trying to escape is actually not that common because the third survivor is often also on their second or third hook by that point. And even if you then catch the fourth survivor they will only get the opportunity to escape if you have already hooked them earlier in the match. So yes, if you just happen to be in that situation where both the third and fourth survivor can escape and hook them both in turn and they both opt to actually try up to three times then one of them will escape about 21% of the time. But when you ask what percentage of your games this situation occurs it will actually be a fairly small proportion (1/8 or less?) and of those a survivor only pulls themself off roughly 1/5 times. Thus you’re looking at this happening once every 40 games or so if that 1/8 guess is about right?
Of course I understand your point is that people see 4% and just think “it never happens” without thinking it through. But that ideal 11% probability of escape for a survivor or 21% of one escape for two survivors are a bit misleading since the situations where a survivor is immediately spending all their escape attempts are a minority of games so you wouldn’t see them in anything close to 11% or 21% of your total games.
-
@ZaKzan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1683174#Comment_1683174
Revenues are higher due to the fact that the price of entry is much lower, and the costs accrue over time due to licenses with microsoft and sony and on top of that having to pay a monthly subscription in order to play online in the first place. It's far easier to spend $500 to get an all in one package.
Not many pc players move to consoles because there's no point. If you like playing with controllers you just buy a USB controller for the computer. Computers offer more customization and better graphics. My analogy is spot on. Not many people can afford ferraris in the first place, so more people will be driving fords, but of those that can afford a ferrari, they're not going to go for a model T. My analogy is spot on because you said that PC players would go to console, when that is not the case. More people can drop $500 on a console than they can $1500 on a PC. More people can drop $20,000 on a ford than they can $100,000 on a ferrari. Of the people that can afford a ferrari, they're not going to prefer a ford. Phones are even cheaper and they are much more versatile and are essentially computers you can carry in your pocket.
I never said players "move from PC to console", I said "there are more console gamers than PC gamers". And if there's a general trend of a larger portion of people playing games on console then PC then the relative proportion of new players entering DbD will also likely be pushed toward being relatively more console than PC. It has nothing to do with existing players switching platforms but it's about what platform are new players using that come to the game.
And that's where your analogy is flawed. I never talked about people "downgrading their cars", I talked about how "more people buy affordable cars than luxury ones."
-
@AnotherJacob said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1683056#Comment_1683056
Also next gen consoles on next month maybe increase the downtrend.
DbD has already announced it is having a promotion with its updated graphics patches on both PS 5 and the new Xbox. That might actually increase the playerbase on those consoles.
-
@ZaKzan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1683049#Comment_1683049
If you look at the game long term, they have not increased their numbers dramatically. The most dramatic increase was during the covid months. Other than that, they started 4 years ago with 11,000 average players and averaged about 23,000 before covid. It's clear that they've reached their peak players this year. Since there's a current downtrend and there's no news of anything really happening for a while, we can assume the trend to continue. Keep in mind they've also released a major DLC during this time as well and that didn't even save it.
No one is going from PC to console. Just like no one is going from ferrari's to model Ts
Generally speaking console game revenue slightly outpaces PC games. Mobile games beat both by a factor of two to one, over half of game revenue is in the mobile market. So your "ferrari to model T" analogy is heavily flawed. It's more like gamers slightly gravitate toward Honda Accords over Lexus because the Honda is more affordable and still gets the job done.
PC Gaming continues to be one of the most popular forms of video gaming despite increasingly impressive competition from both the console market and mobile gaming platforms. The PC Hardware industry alone is set to be worth $70 Billion by 2023, showing that many are still heavily invested in having the best possible hardware in their PC builds for gaming. And, when it comes to PC gaming, Steam is still the platform of choice for consumers as it still sits comfortably in the top spot when it comes to video game sellers, bringing in $4.3 Billion in 2017 alone. Sources: VGA24/7, DFCint, NewZoo, SteamAlso I never said their increases are "dramatic", I said they're consistent year over year increases. And like you said, they had 11k 4 years ago and have almost quadrupled that number currently.
Moreover what makes you think "nothing is happening for a while"? They do a new chapter and new killer every quarter so we'll see a new one in about a month and a half. (Not to mention the big graphics overhaul they're doing plus the promotion they're doing on PS 5.) So no, I don't think you can assume anything about the "downward trend", assuming there even is a downward trend to make an assumption about.
-
@ZaKzan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1682878#Comment_1682878
Yeah, they do make some gains, but the majority of players that start playing the game end up quitting not too long after. Like I said, the recent uptick was due to covid, many games saw huge increases during this time. Considering that the last 3 months have been in the negative, that's not a good sign.
The recent lost of 6.3k players marks their single largest loss of monthly players ever. The previous top was around 3.8k. This is also the second time in DBD's entire history where it lost players consecutively for 3+ months. The previous loss of 4 months in a row nearly killed the game when it was new.
I would expect the largest numerical loss would occur when the game is at about highest number of players. The more players there are the greater that leave when there's a dip a month or two after a DLC release. The dips haven't outweighed the overall gains though year over year. So even though a large number of players always leave after about a month or two following a DLC release enough continue to play to keep the net number of players slowly increasing as a long term trend.
Not to mention the Steam charts only reflect PC players, we have no idea from this how many people play on console. It's quite possible for example that players in general are migrating from PC to console and whatever trend we see in Steam charts is not accurately reflecting the overall game population trend because of the console portion of the base. And because of crossplay it's the combined playerbase over all platforms that matters in terms of things like queue times, not specifically players on Steam.
-
@ZaKzan said:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/BVOAUQ7D6T1P/untitled43534.jpg
This game has a player retention problem. The players that the game gained during covid are finally starting to leave. When you see thousands of players coming in and then leaving, it is indicative of a game that doesn't keep player attention. This game gets insufferable at high levels of play for both sides and the devs do nothing to help this. The current market strategy for the game is to get people to buy the game, buy a few dlcs, buy some cosmetics, then leave. It's amazing that such a poorly designed game got as popular as it did in the first place, but it seems BHVR isn't up to the task to create and maintain a lasting game.
Even in the snapshot you posted the game has increased its population 50% over the last year and a half. And when you look at the full chart you can see clear peaks at every new DLC release (which also correspond to sales) followed by regression but an overall upward trend year over year.
-
@Ryan489x said:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/VZ8VGDXGIKLQ/harassment.jpg
Well I was just told to go kill myself, The team played dirty and I countered, was lucky to get 2 of them. and as the game ended I was hit with this. Just wanted to add it here didn't feel like starting a whole new topic just for this.
that's the worst I've ever gotten. I wish there was a way to report people for death threats. Is there zero accountability for conduct?
Yes I know it's just a game and I'll let it go don't worry but just WOW.
You can report them ingame or also report them on the official website using the report page. To report them ingame just click on the thumbs up/down icon next to their name on the endgame score screen, select the icon in the popup screen for harassment (it looks like a speech bubble 🗯) and type in the complaint.
-
Queue times are identical so far, I’ve seen no change at all. My queues are consistently about 30 seconds.
And nobody is “begging” jackasses who ragequit to play with them. If they want to play other games that’s great, good riddance!
-
On a tangent you could hypothetically use add-ons or tweak Clown’s gas to simulate Fear toxin, making intoxicated survivors panic and move somewhat erratically or see hallucinations.
-
@csandman1977 said:
Venom. He would be the spider killer people want.
Carnage would be more of the serial killer type over Venom. But yeah, either one. 😄
-
In the current meta of survivors intentionally cleansing totems quickly I prefer Pop to Ruin. The Undying plus Ruin combo is obviously a good way to extend Ruin’s life span but that’s also two perk slots to get essentially a slightly longer lasting Ruin perk. Pop isn’t quite as good as Ruin when Ruin stays up a long time but it’s still a good perk for slowdown. (And it can synergize with a couple of other perks that trigger on kicking gens which is fun.)
-
@ExcelSword said:
A lot of confirmation bias in this thread, as well as lack of understanding on how probability works.
People look at the "4%" and decide that is basically an impossible chance to escape. But its not. If a survivor tries to escape off the hook they get 3 chances, so the actual odds are calculated as:
1 - (0.96^3) = 11.5% rounded up, where 96% is the chance that a survivor does NOT unhook themselves. 11.5% still sounds really low to our human brains, but its actually around the same as 1 out of 9 chances, which is low but not unreasonably so. If I play around 20 games as killer and the last survivor tries to escape the hook, I could expect around 2-3 times they will actually succeed.
There is also the fact that this chance is only for ONE survivor escaping. But as a killer you face 4 survivors who can all attempt to kobe in a match, Now its unrealistic to assume that all survivors will try to pull themselves off the hook every game, so lets examine one of the more likely scenarios that at least one survivor would attempt this:
2 survivors are dead, 1 is on their first hook and the final one is getting chased. the hooked survivor attempts to escape and the last survivor might do the same if they get caught:
1 - (0.885^2) = 21.7%. That's the chance at least one of those survivors will escape the hook, around the same as 1 out 5, a little bit higher. So if I play say 40 games as a killer and end up in this situation where I'm about to win and get a 4K, I could expect at least around 8 - 9 times one survivor unhooks themselves and might get escape alive.
I think I've made my point pretty clear. Yes its annoying to lose a survivor due to what seems like pure luck, but keep in mind that you are more likely to encounter survivors attempting a kobe as a Killer in general, simply because there are more of them that can attempt it. The game isn't rigged, that's just how the laws of math work in our world.
One small flaw in your analysis is that every failure immediately reduces the hook timer and many players intentionally don’t attempt an escape to maximize their time in phase 1 to allow allies more opportunity for a rescue. You can’t attempt to escape three times in a row unless you do it relatively quickly after being hooked, if you wait and try to escape you’ll only get one or two chances before being knocked to stage 2 if you fail.
So the only survivors that actually potentially use all three chances to escape are the ones that either know their allies aren’t coming for a rescue (because they already escaped or died for instance) or that simply don’t care if they fail or, occasionally, because they have a perk or something that boosts their escape chances. Otherwise the most common scenario is the survivor doesn’t try to escape until possibly the end of stage 1 and only does it once.
-
@lazerlight said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1682198#Comment_1682198
I know you did not come in here to argue about how Mither is pronounced............
I didn’t come in to argue at all.
-
@thefallenloser said:
Additional change, which I think would be fairly warranted:
You begin the trial healthy. After recovering yourself from the dying state or taking three protection hits you become broken for the remainder of the trial.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1682038#Comment_1682038
I believe that it can actually be pronounced either way.
Hmm, I checked a few dictionaries and the pronunciation keys are all with the long i sound. Who knows though?
Anyway in case anybody's curious
mither meaning: 1. to complain: 2. to annoy someone, for example by asking questions or asking for something: 3…. Learn more.What is the definition of mither? What is the meaning of mither? How do you use mither in a sentence? What are synonyms for mither? -
(Minor thing but from the subject line I think you might be pronouncing the word wrong, Mither is pronounced with a long i as in "Miser" or "Wider".)
-
@lowiq said:
DC Penalties don't fix the core issue as to why people are DCing in the first place.
The core issue why people ragequit is sore losing. The penalty isn't intended to "fix" that, it's intended to make it so players who consistently do it aren't playing as often.
-
@GayDwight said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1681210#Comment_1681210
This too may or may not be, depending on the survivors to a greater extent, I think. This is not an answer to my question anyway and a little help in the form of one extra trap is needed for this killer and will not upset the balance.
To be clear I wouldn't be against Trapper getting a small buff, he's probably one of the weaker killers overall. Not "trash" but not great either. To answer your question though the devs have given no indication they're changing him any time soon.