fogdonkey
fogdonkey
About
- Username
- fogdonkey
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,857
- Last Active
Comments
-
Decide for yourself
-
I don't really care, but I think the trickster should look a bit more creepy, there should be something uncanny.
-
Well I am sure that there exists a multiplier that would make you play a killer... 2x? 5x? 10x? :D
And if not you, then maybe someone else will switch. It is enough if every 5th person switches to killer.
-
@IronWill said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1993601#Comment_1993601
I am gonna ask this seriously: do you lack some kind of reading comprehension?
If there was too many survivors, the matchmaking should have ZERO problem putting me together with other red rank survivors.
Instead of immediately accusing me, try to think more about it why it could be this way...
What if there are mainly brown/yellow/green survivors and mainly purple/red killers? If the matchmaking would put you in a full red team what would happen to the brown/yellow/green survivors? Give a full brown/yellow/green team to a purple or red killer? By doing rainbow teams maybe it is doing the best it can for all survivors.
-
Sometimes during the day (evening/night in my case) there are too many survivors and not enough killers. So the queue times are high and it is not easy for the matchmaking system. How to solve this? I am not sure. Go play killer... oh you don't want to? Then don't complain about the long queue and not so ideal matchmaking.
-
I guess everyone is stealing cars and is a gang member because of GTA.
-
@EvilJoshy said:
If the killer killed 3 survivors before the gens were completed AND found the hatch before you. Maybe, now just maybe, you don't deserve to escape at that point?
Good question, that's why I created this topic.
-
Someone reported a bug: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/232157/no-way-out-activation
-
You know you can open the exit gate with the killer?
So if they finish the last gen, just open the exit gate and go AFK for two minutes. Done.
-
So people are complaining about chat filter, because they want to see all the rude words... but they can't handle bullying in the game?
... Ok I am exaggerating, probably they are probably two separate group of people
-
@[Deleted User] said:
Issue with that theory is that experience/decision-making is such a huge factor in how well a killer does. I often 4k with Huntress on the rare occassions I play her, yet I rarely land a hatchet.
It is not a ranking for killer. Each killer player will have their own ranking for each killer.
-
@DaFireSquirtle said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/232031/not-every-killer-needs-to-be-strong
This would be god awful. Basically if your too good as a survivor your never gonna go against a variety of killers. As it stands at least in a day I see a variety of killers. Just spirits, the odd nurse and maybe hag sounds garbage. Not to mention if someone gets good at a weak killer they're eventually gonna get to facing those amazing survivors so the problem would just happen their. Weak killers shouldn't exist. End of story. Survivors grow and get better. They eventually start facing strong killers but start off facing weak ones. That's how it should be. Limiting killers you can verse is extremely dumb.
You would go LESS against weak killers. You would face weak killers only if the player is very skilled with it. But I would not say that you would face only nurse or spirit if you are a good survivor. Maybe only the top 1% of survivors could be affected by less killer variability, but if it would happen the system can be fine tuned to enable greater ranking differences in those high rankings.
If somebody gets good at weak killer then they should go against good survivors. What's your problem with that? There should be always a challenge. And if the system sees that you can't handle good survivors it will lower your ranking for that killer and you will face a bit weaker survivors.
Btw I am just amazed how negative some people are, refusing proposals immediately as dumb, coming up with exaggerated or unrealistic counterarguments. No wonder BHVR does not discuss anything with the community.
-
@DaFireSquirtle said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/232031/not-every-killer-needs-to-be-strong
This would be god awful. Basically if your too good as a survivor your never gonna go against a variety of killers. As it stands at least in a day I see a variety of killers. Just spirits, the odd nurse and maybe hag sounds garbage. Not to mention if someone gets good at a weak killer they're eventually gonna get to facing those amazing survivors so the problem would just happen their. Weak killers shouldn't exist. End of story. Survivors grow and get better. They eventually start facing strong killers but start off facing weak ones. That's how it should be. Limiting killers you can verse is extremely dumb.
You would go LESS against weak killers. You would face weak killers only if the player is very skilled with it. But I would not say that you would face only nurse or spirit if you are a good survivor. Maybe only the top 1% of survivors could be affected by less killer variability, but if it would happen the system can be fine tuned to enable greater ranking differences in those high rankings.
If somebody gets good at weak killer then they should go against good survivors. What's your problem with that? There should be always a challenge. And if the system sees that you can't handle good survivors it will lower your ranking for that killer and you will face a bit weaker survivors.
Btw I am just amazed how negative some people are, refusing proposals immediately as dumb, coming up with exaggerated or unrealistic counterarguments. No wonder BHVR does not discuss anything with the community.
-
@Seiko300 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1991466#Comment_1991466
I forgot to mention that you can do this as well yeah, but in my experience that's more for your own comfort than for any actual advantage or benefit. Typically if you're caught at the exit gates, it's because you had really bad luck / RNG and the killer could make quick trips back and forth between both gates. Meaning you won't really be anywhere near opening the gate completely to begin with.
Either you're able to open the gate completely with even a few seconds to spare because it takes so long for the killer to make the back and forth trip, or you're caught well before you can open the gate in the first place. Rarely have I been caught down to the wire where those extra 1.2 or 0.6 seconds (or whatever it is you gain opening the exit gate and then letting it go before the red light starts blinking) would have actually mattered. It's usually either one or the other.
Although it certainly can't work against you, so long as you're able to do this safely without being seen and you don't mess it up by accidentally holding the gate lever down too long and the red light starts glowing it's not a bad thing. Then again, if either of these two things happen, it's basically game over which is why I usually don't do it myself, purely because it's not really worth the risk imo.
I think it can save you up to 1/6th of the time, which is 3.33 secs, and let's say just 3 secs to be on the safe side. 3 seconds is a lot and often can mean the difference between escaping or being killed.
-
Since it should not confuse anyone, it should be removed.
I think the main issue is that the axis of rotation and the hitbox are at the back of the body. Since the torso is leaning forward, it is actually outside of the torso. So if you aim for the survivors upper body you will actually miss if they move a bit to the other side.
-
@prettygoodsofar said:
I disagree. Survivors are equally powerful to each other. Killers should be also. Creating weak killers encourages trolling, and Bullying.
Yes, because survivors are just different skins and audio.
Killers have different powers, so it is hard to make them equal. What I am saying is that is not going to be a problem with mmr and good matchmaking.
-
@Dizzy1096 said:
This is the design philosophy of the developers too. “You don’t need to win or get any hooks to have fun, just let the survivors tbag you at every pallet for 3 minutes then tbag you at the end and tell you to die of (insert disease) and if they all had a good time then everyones a winner!”
I guess you just read the title.
-
@Buckoben said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1991834#Comment_1991834
This is a pipe dream.
MMR for BHVR has already been a complicated mess.
Now add a subjective tier list to that.
(Remember guys clown had hidden potential pre-buff that was never found)
There is no subjective tier list fed into the system. There is only an automatic rating calculated for the given player and killer, based on the previous games of that player with the given killer. As a consequence it is not necessary that all killers are equally powerful.
-
@Raptorrotas said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1991571#Comment_1991571
But strong is viable.
-----
Dbd killers suffer from there being ~ 5 tiers of killer strenght, and many people being more interested in nerfing the top than buffing the bottom.
----
I laugh at the argument of getting bored facing the same (strong) killers all the time. If the others werent as bad, they'd be played more often lol.
Close the killer tier gap by buffing the bottom.
We have 5 tiers, but all the killers are viable in proper hands.
With my suggestion these tiers would not be very important anymore. Good survivors would get and E tier killer only if the killer player is a pro. And as a consequence, since there aren't that many pro players, good survivors would get an E tier killer less often, but when they get it, it would be a challenge, regardless of the tier.
-
@Zozzy said:
why would anyone play a killer that gets stomped every match? there is a reason we don't see plague or billy.
With my proposal weaker killers would be matched up usually with slightly less skilled survivors (of course also depends on the killer player skill). So it would make those weaker killers able to kill/hook again.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1991638#Comment_1991638
A good matchmaking is when all the players are enjoying the game, because they probably have +- equal skill.
fundamental flaw with that: people who like to just "win"/pubstomp. that's part of the reason why smurfs and throwers become rampant in SR/MMR-based games. MMR/SR too high? no problem, just create an alt, throw a few games, then go to town.
also that reasoning goes against the idea of the thread? i seriously doubt that a good player facing "medium" survivors because the character is too weak to beat competent teams will continue to play said character, either out of boredom or frustration that their skill ceiling is too low. same kind of logic for bad players who want to get good. why waste time learning a weak killer if you'll never face good survivors even if you get good?
this is all under the assumption that MMR will even end up being decent in the first place.
Smurfing would be a problem even if all killers are equally powerful. So it is unrelated to this discussion.
Yeah, then maybe a weaker killer is going to be less popular for skillful players. But I think it is not a big problem, there are many powerful killers to choose from. And there are many not that skilled players who would like the killer.
And I am not saying that there should be some totally trash killers. I am saying that some power difference is not a problem.
-
@ALostPuppy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1991648#Comment_1991648
That's not my point though. You can do well with every killer at red ranks, yeah, but why would I play the weak killers like Legion and Myers that aren't nearly as fun as killers like Blight, Demo, Deathslinger etc, killers that have options and have stronger powers that let me do more with them? I'm not talking about how viable a killer is or how matchmaking will work, I'm literally asking what's the point of playing bad killers when they're not as fun as the strong ones?
I think that this comes down to personal preference. You like powerful killers, I am sure that many people will like the other killers as well for other reasons. Yes, probably there will be more popular killers, but that would be always the case.
My point is that regardless of how powerful killer you play, you will be able to achieve the same results thanks to the correct matchmaking.
-
@Alphasoul05 said:
...Yes they do? It's a 1v4 horror game, you should be afraid of a killer because they're strong or capable of things, not because they're weak or only fun because you're a survivor who likes easy wins and it's fun for you. "Fun" only gets you so far before you start getting annoyed of being curbstomped every game so you never play them again.
If you play weaker killer you would get less skilled survivors, so they would be scared.
-
@ALostPuppy said:
Sure, but fun killers are usually the strongest killers. I'd rather a killer be good than bad, I'm sure literally everyone would agree with that statement.
If you are matched up with suitably skilled survivors, every killer would feel the same strength. For strong killer you would get more skilled survivors, so you would not be able to kill/hook them so easily.
-
@Zarathos said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1991570#Comment_1991570
This is a longstanding issue. It creates a vicious cycle of newer killers dropping the role because of these awful experiances. I can't count the number of times I asked my friends why dont you play more killer? Who usually respond with the statement I don't play killler because I keep getting player who are way more experienced then I am.
This is not some exceptional circumstance the regularity at which this occurs is awful. Why introduce an mmr system when whats needed most right now is a less steeper learning curve or better ways to teach newer killer players important fundamentals?
This post is not about if MMR is needed, but why killer strength is not so important if MMR is used. So I don't want to steer the discussion this way.
I agree with what you say that killers need to be able to learn the skill, but I think it does not interfere with also having an MMR.
Also note that MMR and good matchmaking is not the same thing. A good matchmaking is when all the players are enjoying the game, because they probably have +- equal skill. However just for MMR purposes matching up a noob with a pro is also possible: Simply if the pro wins the rating won't really change, because it was expected that the pro wins. But I guess a match like that would not be enjoyable, so it would be a bad matchmaking.
These bad matchmakings happen when there are not enough killers or survivors to choose from. But for the MMR system it doesn't matter, it will still calculate the scores correctly.
-
@Zarathos said:
In theroy works but ultimatly dbd is gonna match you with the team that has been stuck in queue for 15 minutes because someone has to play with the group of experianced survivours.
I dont think that element of matchmaking is going to change and unfortunately this is very common judging from all the yellow/green killers I'm hitting with my group and no there often usually incapable of performing well.
Yeah, of course matchmaking works good only if there is enough killer and survivor players to choose from. If there is an imbalance in the number of players, then matchmaking can't do good matching, because there is just simply not enough players to choose from.
-
What I am saying is:
It is not necessary to make every killer the same strength.
The automatic MMR system would classify the killers + players and match up suitable survivors.
If a killer is weak (i.e. only a few players can get 4kills, many hooks, etc.) then most likely that killer will appear for bad survivors, because only a few players can play the killer good. Of course a player who is a pro with that weak killer would play against good survivors.
If a killer is strong (i.e. many players can get 4 kills, many hooks, etc) then most likely this killer will appear only for good survivors who know how to fight good against the killer.
-
@Phasmamain said:
Even if a killer is weak good killer fundamentals will carry you against even good solos
That's why not just the killer strength is taken into account, but the player skill as well. But still you would get most likely a bit weaker survivors compared to if you choose a strong killer.
-
@Seiko300 said:
This is the most consistent and secure way I've found to actually escape from the endgame collapse when you're by yourself. You head to the nearest exit gate and then crouch around the corner of it and you wait. Once you hear the terror radius get loud (signal he's close) and then recede again (that he's done with his check and going back to the other gate) that's your cue to go straight to open the exit gate. Without hesitation, you need all the time you can get so moving quickly at the first opportunity is the key. Most killers won't check either gate especially thoroughly, and they're really looking for whichever gate begins to glow first, once they find whichever gate is glowing they will stay and look because they know you are or at least were nearby, likely you won't have time to run all the way to the other exit gate so they won't bother to even try going back to the other when you've already got progress on this particular gate.
AKA - opening the gate for a few seconds and then hiding again is a HORRIBLE Idea. It's the worst thing you can do because you're giving away your position, and which gate you're at.
As soon as the killer leaves, you're essentially banking on the distance to walk from the gate you're at, to the other, and back, or more specifically the distance to walk from one gate to the other until the other is visible and back again. If you're RNG is good, the killer won't be back in time to catch you off the gate, you're chances are even better if you're at full health and you can take a hit buying you a few extra precious seconds of time while the killer wipes off their weapon.
If you had bad rng and the gates are close to each other, or so close that they can even both be seen from a single spot, you're kinda screwed either way.
Not a horrible idea, in fact a very good idea if you pull it just before the first red light starts to glow. It saves you a few seconds which is enough to open the exit gate when the killer leaves to check the other gate.
-
@TheMadCat said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1986903#Comment_1986903
It's in 30 minutes from now? I'm UTC+1 if I'm not wrong. I'm always lost with time zones.
yes
-
@H_Blocks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1985608#Comment_1985608
I have to say. It is f*cking annoying when a survivor vaults 10000 times a window. It is a noisy noise. I am not saying that this idea is good. Just saying it annoys me. :)
That's the price you pay for having a survivor not doing gens. Survivor not doing gens is pretty good for the killer.
-
Other methods:
- Just learn to accept that sometimes things don't go your way.
- Don't go into the match with high expectations, be prepared that maybe they will wipe the floor with you.
-
@Yords said:
Very simple, but not a good one. It could be abused by survivors looping near the hooked survivor. Against an inexperienced killer, it would probably take longer to catch a good survivor. This would also make the survivor on the hook have a very boring experience.
Also, imagine BUBBA camping if this was a thing. It is already unfun as hell, but now you have a paused timer? Imagine being on the hook in the basement against an insidious bubba for 6 minutes.
Survivor looping around the hook means that the killer is in a chase, so the hook progress is not stopped.
Bubba can camp even currently, but with my suggestion the gens would be all done and bubba would get at most that single kill. Yes, it could be boring for that single survivor, but same boring for the killer, and killer even would not get a lot of bloodpoints... So I think it would be very painful for the killer as well and therefore they would not camp.
-
@NoOneKnowsNova said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1983974#Comment_1983974
One survivor would keep the killer near the hooked survivor while the other two did gens, wasting the killers time up until A: all the gens were completed. B: The survivor wasting the killers time got downed. C: The hooked survivor got unhooked, if it be by the killer giving up or the survivor making an unsafe save.
Although it would be harder with the chase requirement, it wouldn't be impossible to waste the killers time if you know what to do.
That's why I added the "not in a chase" requirement. How could they abuse this? By breaking somehow the chases, how is it possible?
-
@NoOneKnowsNova said:
Survivors would abuse this most likely, there was something extremely similar tested a while back and it was completely abused.
Do you remember what was the abuse?
-
@SocialDistomancy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1983420#Comment_1983420
you make it sound like you're talking about how community service and donating your valuable time at the dead by daylight soup kitchen could make dbd great again. I just had to lul. If something isn't fun, it becomes work, so if they're not gonna be paying me to do it I won't do it unless they offer something else to incentivize me that appeals to me and feels worth the exchange. When queue length is too long I play something else entirely, if they want faster queues they can play another game or work at the dbd soup kitchen themselves but I am not obliged.
As I said it would be enough if every FIFTH person would switch to killer. If you hate to play killer then you don't have to switch.
Playing other game also shortens the queue times, but not as good as playing killer.
-
Or another idea I had was to give some Bloodpoint multiplier when there aren't enough killers, e.g. 1.25x. Maybe that would attract more people to play killer and as an effect shorten the wait times.
-
@NeonFlowerPower said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1983377#Comment_1983377
Not true, before crossplay the queue times at night for PC players were only 3-4 minutes which wasn't bad at all. The problem is how incredibly boring it is to deal with these same perks every single killer match. I am perfectly fine with DS and I love object of obsession. But to see Dead Hard or Sprint Burst almost every single match whether the survivor is good or bad is painfully boring to deal with after your second killer match.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1983391#Comment_1983391
I played killer for 3-4 hours before this match. I only played to do dailies/farm stats for the DBD leaderboards. It is incredibly boring as you win almost every match because every survivor is a complete bot and every single match has at least one dead hard user and one sprint burst user. It is incredibly boring to play.
Ok, you played killer, so that's good, you did your part. The problem is that we need more people like you.
Or maybe the matchmaking could treat people who play both roles with higher priority as a reward.
-
Play killer if queue times for survivors are long. It would be enough if every fifth person would switch to killer...
-
Yeah, sometimes I just want to turn off cross play because you can chat only on PC.
Note: chat also works on Stadia.
-
I think the problem is that the number of killers and survivors changes during the day. If there are too many survivors you would need to wait a very long time to get a suitable ranked killer, so then the matchmaking assigns you a less suitable (more skilled) killer.
Note that this is probably possible with mmr enabled as well. Since the killer is expected to win you will lose only little from your rating.
Solution: play killer when there is a lot more survivors than killers.
-
Yeah, it would be hard to implement to rewind everything. And probably would introduce so many bugs like never so far.
-
It would rewind time only by a few seconds, so maybe it could bring back a fully repaired gen only to 95% if immediately rewinded when the gen is finished. If the killer is far away it will not help.
-
Mainly for killers: The HUD (mainly on the left side) covers quite a large part of the screen, and could make it more difficult to notice hiding survivors. This HUD is basically giving you a lower FOV (field of view). So I think the HUD should move completely to the bottom of the screen, or move to the top, but leave the sides empty.
-
Also I think 4.5.1 was not that bad, you could get used to it, 4.5.2 is worse IMO. The original was the best however.
-
Mainly for killers: The HUD (mainly on the left side) covers quite a large part of the screen, and could make it more difficult to notice hiding survivors. This HUD is basically giving you a lower FOV (field of view). So I think the HUD should move completely to the bottom of the screen, or move to the top, but leave the sides empty.
-
@chadbeastofprey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1968038#Comment_1968038
It made it feel and LOOK like you were going slower. The keyword here is LOOK. Did you play against a huntress with these movements?? It was insanely difficult, if not impossible, to dodge her hatchets because your character model would not appear to move as quickly as before.
Maybe it shouldn't be that easy, just by wiggling your body left and right.
-
I also liked the movement in 4.5.0 or 4.5.1, it looked good, was realistic and smooth, and still could loop the killer like before.
The movement 4.5.2 update looks bad, sudden fast movements and direction changes, survivor bodies swinging left and right...
-
There was a bug in a map which allowed survivors to run up on rocks, but I (killer) couldn't reach them. This swf was always running up on that rock, and healed up there.
-
@Kellie said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1949022#Comment_1949022
How am I not a good survivor for wanting to pull a cheeky trick on the killer?
Then the question is if there should be such cheeky tricks like 360. You say yes, I say no. My reasoning is that 360 is unrealistic movement pattern, that's why it shouldn't be there.